Minneapolis Star Tribune
Fax: 612-673-4359
August 27, 2003
COMMENTARY
Dear Editor:
I think the Ten Commandments should be allowed to be on display in that Alabama Judicial Building.
And I say this even though I am sympathetic to a philosophy (Objectivism) and a psychology (Biocentric Psychology) that make me an atheist as a consequent as well as a staunch defender of separation of church and state.
But I think we should allow it only in that one Government/Judicial building and none other. If we allowed it to be in other Government buildings then it would be too much and it would give the slippery slope advocates a good reason to keep them (the Ten Commandments) out of just one Government Building.
Here is what it would mean to us if we’d allow the Ten Commandments to be publicly displayed: we could get a consensus –via open dialogue and debate—as to how they should really be worded so that they weren’t open to so much interpretation. For example, there has been more than one fundamentalist Christian who has committed murder in the name of God. It would appear that the 6th commandment: Thou shalt not kill, is not as easy to comprehend as we think at first glance and so my point about our need to openly debate them is easily made.
Also, as an ex-Christian I’ve always wanted an opportunity to rewrite the Bible because I think it has way too many errors in it. In fact I think it has so many errors that it should really be replaced by something else, something better, something that has more correct statements --about human beings and how they should act-- rather than more incorrect statements. (We can disagree about a lot of things but not that something should have more correct than incorrect, especially when that something is taken as the bible.)
However, ultimately, that is a different issue.
For now we can use the 10 commandments as posted in our Government Judicial Building in Alabama as the thing we are all going to debate and vote on –in order to get that most cherished of things that Democracies cherish: a consensus-- and then we can change them as we are want to do in a democratic society.
Since in such a democratic society it will only take 51 out of a hundred people --or rather 51 per hundred-- to get the 10 Commandments redone, I want to address the rest of this article to those other 50 people so that they will vote for my recommended changes.
Dear 50:
In brief form, here is the essence of the Ten Commandments posted in that Alabama Judicial Building:
1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me
2. Do not make a likeness of any existent and worship it (it’s only acceptable to
worship the non-existent)
3. Don’t swear
4. Remember the Seventh day and keep it holy, that is, rest up one full day after
six days of working hard like
the Lord did when he created the universe (ignore
and disown your thoughts about why an all powerful being
would need rest)
5. Honor your father and mother (even if they don’t deserve it)
6. Thou shalt not kill.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
10. Don’t be jealous of your neighbor and/or his stuff.
Now, if you are an overly generous person you would rank all of the above --on a truth scale from 1 to 10, where 10 is the whole truth, nothing but the truth and 1 isn’t, you’d rank the 10 commandments-- a 5 by giving a half (truth) point to each.
If, on the other hand, you are an ex-religionist you might only give them a 2: 1 each for, not killing and not stealing.
But if you are me you’d give it only a 1 (at the absolute best and even though I’m sure a professional Objectivist could prove me wrong and say the absolute best should be a zero, I’ll stick with the 1): half point each for not killing and not stealing, the rest are zeros.
And since one out of ten is not good enough, it is time to rewrite them.
Unless of course, in the first commandment, by god you mean reason, then: thou shalt have no other substitutes for reason –e.g., faith, emotions, evasions—is worth 1 point.
And for two if you mean: putting materialism so far ahead of spiritualism that it has the effect of killing spiritualism, well, if this is what you mean, well then I suppose 1 here too is OK. But then we have to rewrite it to mean this rather than what it does mean if we leave it stand as written. Perhaps it could be rewritten to say: don’t worship concretes but rather worship your ability to deal with concretes in abstract forms, that is, worship your capacity to reason and conceptualize, not the things they operate on.
As to Three: don’t swear, if here you mean don’t use swear words to substitute for your mental laziness in generating proper concepts and/or their proper definitions then 1 point here too is OK with me and for you other 50 people I think it should be OK with you too.
As to C4 (not the kind used by the Religion of Islam that tells its kids they should honor their parents who encourage them to become suicide-homicide bombers, but C as in Commandment 4 as in Number 4) this is probably only a zero regardless of any meaning you give to it.
Other than I suppose if it is trying to say: all work and zero play is bad for you, well, if this then I suppose you can give it a 1 too.
5 (and we must get briefer and hurry up here least we use up our op-ed allotment of words and our readers patience), if by this you mean: acknowledge your parents gift of life that they did in fact give you and honor them only if they deserve it (that is, if they don’t turn around and take the gift away by morally sanctioning your suicide), then give a 1 here too. If not, then not.
6 and 8 have already been covered but you can give another half point each if by kill, you differentiate between murder and self-defense with the former forbidden and the later –if and when called for—mandatory. And if by steal you accept that property is something, plus you also mean it [no stealing] to apply to concepts too, so that, well, if both of these then another 2 points (2 total, not 2 in addition to the two half points we gave earlier).
As to Seven with its: thou shalt not commit adultery, if you mean thou shouldn’t skulk and sneak around with other sex partners when the one you are with takes it on good reason to assume you are not; just as you –by mutual agreement at the beginning-- take it on good reason that your partner isn’t so skulking and sneaking either. But notice, if this were the meaning (which it isn’t, but which it should be) then it logically follows: it is OK to have sex with another as long as you do it openly and forthrightly so that your spouse and/or partner can make the anybody-can-see-it choice (or not, as the case might be if your spouse or partner’s self-esteem is too low ) to leave you in the dust as they move onward and upward to better non-skulking, non-sneaking around couple relationships. So, if this, then this can get a 1 too.
But if not, then not.
Next to lastly: number nine. If you mean don’t lie as in don’t fake reality then this can be a 1 too.
And finally, ten: don’t be jealous. Since this is anti-human nature it is a zero unless by it you mean use your feelings of jealousy and envy to do a double take on the things you profess to not value. Maybe in actuality you do value them and your jealousy and envy feelings are just clues to this fact of your actual values, then, OK give a full 1 count here too.
Which is to say: If you are an Objectivist and/or Objectivist sympathizer and a Biocentric psychology sympathizer (that is, a BiO Spiritualist) then rate yourself a big fat juicy ten here for being able to think on your own.
The end.
Good job.
Sincerely yours,
Gary Deering
My address
my phone number, myemail@myISP
Comments