Ryan Walters, conservative Oklahoma State Superintendent, recently wrote on his Facebook page:
“The words ‘separation of church and state’ do not appear in our Constitution, and it is outrageous that the Oklahoma Supreme Court misunderstood key cases involving the First Amendment and sanctioned discrimination against Christians based solely on their faith.”
Once again, a precisely incorrect interpretation of what the founders intended with the following words from the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
Recall my analogy from a previous post:
“Imagine the First Amendment as a color palette, with the Establishment Clause painted in the color blue and the Free Exercise Clause in the color red. Individually, these clauses represent important aspects of religious freedom. However, when these "colors" are blended together, they create a new hue: the concept of separation of church and state likened to the color purple. Thus, while the phrase "separation of church and state" may not be explicitly stated in the Constitution, it emerges naturally from the combination of these two clauses. Just as mixing blue and red creates purple, the amalgamation of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause gives rise to the principle that government should neither establish a religion nor interfere with the free exercise of religion, effectively creating a separation between matters of state and matters of faith.”
I get that this is somewhat complex but think it through — the two clauses are not independent standalone notions. Walters goes right to the Free Exercise Clause, ignores the Establishment Clause, then believes that’s all there is to it. This is common flawed interpretation of the intent and true meaning of the two clauses, which were designed to be taken together. Their combined purpose is to ensure that the government neither imposes nor restricts religious practices, thus maintaining a balanced separation of church and state. Practice whatever religion you want to, but do so in the privacy of your home or houses of worship — but NOT in public schools.
And lest we forget, Thomas Jefferson famously wrote:
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."
And now the state of Oklahoma is veering towards theocracy, which other states will copy and emulate, until it gets smacked-down by truly neutral and non-partisan US Supreme Court.
But there's more!
Recently Louisiana became the first state in the nation to require the display of the Ten Commandments in all public schools and colleges that receive public funding. This move comes as Governor Jeff Landry (R) signed into law a bill authored by Dodie Horton (R), a lawmaker whose legislative efforts have sparked debates about the role of religion in public education. As I've previously written on this blog, outside a course on comparative religions and/or philosophy, religion has no place in public schools — this isn't an opinion, it's supposed to be the law of the land.
What are the Ten Commandments?
If you don't know, here they are, diminutively stated:
- Worship only one God.
- Do not worship idols.
- Respect God's name.
- Keep the Sabbath day holy.
- Honor your parents.
- Do not murder.
- Do not commit adultery.
- Do not steal.
- Do not lie.
- Do not covet what others have.
Horton said the commandments are the "basis of all laws in Louisiana" and I'm sure posting this on school walls will undoubtedly tame those wicked school children. It should be noted that only three (or maybe four) of these have anything to do with something we've codified into our laws. Also note that adultery is not illegal in the United States. While it used to be considered a criminal offense in some states, laws against adultery have been gradually repealed or invalidated (did I miss an update from god, or aren't divine laws absolute?). In general, it's not illegal to lie in the United States, but we do recognize perjury in the legal sense. Most people lie on average at least once or twice a day.
Article I, Section 8 of the Louisiana State Constitution prohibits the establishment of an official religion and the enactment of laws that require citizens to support any religion. Additionally, the same section prohibits the use of public funds to support sectarian or nonpublic schools. Given the religious nature of the Ten Commandments and Horton's role as the bill's author, questions have arisen regarding the legislation's potential violation of the constitutional principle of the separation of church and state. Critics argue that the intent behind the new law may be religiously motivated, pointing to Horton's social media accounts that frequently emphasize the importance of Christianity. This raises concerns that the legislation could be seen as endorsing a specific religious belief, thus potentially violating the Louisiana State Constitution. As Louisiana moves forward with implementing this law, it is likely to face scrutiny and legal challenges that will test the boundaries of religious expression in public institutions. Like in Kitzmiller v. Dover, Louisiana's taxpayers will likely foot the legal bills.
Divine or Borrowed?
So, are the Ten Comments unique? Were they first? Not at all. Before the Ten Commandments, ancient legal codes like the Code of Hammurabi (c. 1754 BCE) addressed theft and murder. These codes, including the laws of ancient Mesopotamia, recognized theft and murder as serious offenses, prescribing penalties that ranged from fines to death. Proclaimed by the Babylonian king Hammurabi during his reign from 1792 to 1750 B.C., it stands as one of the earliest and most comprehensive written legal codes. Hammurabi's rule saw the expansion of Babylon along the Euphrates River, uniting southern Mesopotamia. It consists of 282 rules, established standards for commercial interactions and prescribed fines and punishments to ensure justice. Inscribed onto a massive, finger-shaped black stone stele, the code was looted by invaders and later rediscovered in 1901.
The Code of Hammurabi is not generally considered to be divinely inspired in the same sense as religious texts like the Bible or the Quran. Instead, it's seen as a set of laws and regulations created by Hammurabi, the king of Babylon, to govern his society. While Hammurabi claimed that the laws were given to him by the Babylonian god Shamash, scholars believe that they were likely the product of human legal and societal development.
The worship of Shamash was part of the polytheistic religious beliefs of ancient Mesopotamia, where multiple gods and goddesses were worshipped. Shamash was one of many deities in the Mesopotamian pantheon, each associated with different aspects of life and nature. The people of Mesopotamia believed in a complex and diverse spiritual world, with each deity having specific powers and responsibilities. Shamash was revered as the sun god and the god of justice, but he was just one of many gods worshipped by the ancient Mesopotamians.
While it may be the case that English Common Law, and then US Law, used the Ten Commandments as inspiration, none of this is an original Judeo-Christian notion. You cannot call it the same god, as these are clearly different religions. So, you might escape punishment from other human beings for breaking a code or law, but to increase their efficacy, a supernatural entity will ultimately punish you should you manage to escape Earthly justice. Are you seeing a pattern here yet?
Secular Arguments for Ethics
Stealing is considered unethical in secular ethical frameworks due to its violation of fundamental principles of fairness, respect for others, and social cohesion — this is completely understood on its own merits without any religious framework. From a secular perspective, individuals have inherent rights to own and control their possessions, and stealing infringes upon these rights. Moreover, stealing undermines trust within society, which is essential for cooperation and social order. In a secular context, where there is no appeal to divine authority, ethical guidelines are based on the well-being of individuals and society as a whole. Stealing is seen as detrimental to both, as it prioritizes selfish gain over the common good and promotes a mentality that is incompatible with a harmonious and cooperative society.
The question of what is more moral — abstaining from stealing because of secular ethical principles or because of the fear of divine punishment — raises fundamental questions about the nature of morality and ethical motivation.
From a secular perspective, refraining from stealing out of a recognition of the rights and well-being of others, and a desire to contribute positively to society, can be seen as more inherently moral. This approach emphasizes personal responsibility, empathy, and a commitment to ethical principles that are independent of religious beliefs. On the other hand, refraining from stealing because of a fear of divine punishment may be seen as a form of external motivation that relies on obedience to religious doctrine rather than a genuine internal moral compass. While this motivation can lead to the same behavior, it may not necessarily reflect a deeper understanding or commitment to ethical principles.
Ultimately, the morality of an action may depend on the intentions and reasoning behind it. Acting ethically out of a genuine concern for others and a desire to uphold ethical principles is often considered more moral than acting out of fear of punishment, whether divine or secular. From an evolutionary perspective, humans are social beings whose survival and success depend on cooperation and trust within groups. Behaviors like murder, lying, and stealing can undermine these essential social bonds, making them disadvantageous from a survival standpoint.
Related thoughts from the late Christopher Hitchens:
I've taken the best advice I can on how long Homo sapiens has been on the planet. Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, many others, and many discrepant views from theirs, reckon it's not more than 250,000 years, a quarter of a million years. It's not less, either. I think it's roughly accepted, I think. 100,000 is the lowest I've heard. For 100,000 years Homo sapiens was born, usually, well not usually, very often dying in the process or killing its mother in the process; life expectancy probably not much more than 20, 25 years, dying probably of the teeth very agonizingly, nearer to the brain as they are, or of hunger or of micro-organisms that they didn't know existed or of events such as volcanic or tsunami or earthquake types that would have been wholly terrifying and mysterious as well as some turf wars over women, land, property, food, other matters. You can fill in — imagine it for yourself what the first few tens of thousands of years were like. And we like to think learning a little bit in the process and certainly having gods all the way, worshipping bears fairly early on, I can sort of see why; sometimes worshipping other human beings, this and that and the other thing, but exponentially perhaps improving, though in some areas of the world very nearly completely dying out, and a bitter struggle all along.
Call it 100,000 years.
According to the Christian faith, heaven watches this with folded arms for 98,000 years and then decides it's time to intervene and the best way of doing that would be a human sacrifice in primitive Palestine, where the news would take so long to spread that it still hasn't penetrated very large parts of the world and that would be our redemption of human species.
Now I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, that that is, what I've just said, which you must believe to believe the Christian revelation, is not possible to believe, as well as not decent to believe. Why is it not possible? Because a virgin birth is more likely than that. A resurrection is more likely than that and because if it was true, it would have two further implications: It would have to mean that the designer of this plan was unbelievably lazy and inept or unbelievably callous and cruel and indifferent and capricious, and that is the case with every argument for design and every argument for revelation and intervention that has ever been made.
But it's now conclusively so because of the superior knowledge that we've won for ourselves by an endless struggle to assert our reason, our science, our humanity, our extension of knowledge against the priests, against the rabbis, against the mullahs who have always wanted us to consider ourselves as made from dust or from a clot of blood, according to the Koran, or as the Jews are supposed to pray every morning, at least not female or gentile. And here's my final point, because I think it's coming to it. The final insult that religion delivers to us, the final poison it injects into our system: It appeals both to our meanness, our self-centeredness and our solipsism and to our masochism. In other words, it's sadomasochistic.
* * *
Naturally, the argument Hitchens offered doesn't work well if you believe Earth is only 6,000 years old.
Leave churches to preach to their congregations, schools to educate, and parents to raise their children to become responsible empathic adults. Perhaps this is asking for too much. While Louisiana's new law could be framed in a secular context as a historical document, it at least violates, in spirit, the separation of church and state that our country's founders intended. While the folks on the political right are generally quite enthusiastic about laws codified in the US Constitution, they don't seem to mind spitting all over the 1st Amendment.
Lastly, as previously stated, Dodie Horton's bill (HB71) mandates posting the Ten Commandments.
Wait a second ... the bill she authored mandates?
Let's look for guidance from the Holy Book itself ...
1 Timothy 2:12
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."
Oh, dear!