10 Commandments of #AtheismPlus

Since we've been in the mood for proposing new rules for the new movement, I've come up with my own list. It's not intended to be serious, unless you really want some of these rules implemented, in which case we can discuss that one seriously. Maybe.

1. Thou Shalt Have No Gods. Only the lords and ladies of Blog’s Highest Spheres are worthy of worship.
   
2. Thou shalt not question the values nor the priesthood of #AtheismPlus, nor retweeth those who do.
   
3. Thou shall not bring false jewellery as an offering, nor wear it upon thy bosom; neither shall thou grabbeth the ass.
   
4. Thou shall honour thy FtB and thy Skepchick, with one tenth of all thine page-views and mouse-clicks.
   
5. Thou shalt not creep, nor shall thou do that which seemeth creepy unto others.
   
6. Thou shalt not fail to stick the flounce.
   
7. Thou shalt purge the subhuman sewer dwellers, douche-bags, privilege-defenders and misogynists from amongst the congregation.
   
8. Thou shalt check thy privilege. If thou contends with one less privileged than thyself, thou shall yield the field posthaste.
   
9. Thou shalt always feed the trolls. Everything they say and do is perfectly serious and probably meant as a personal threat.
   
10. Kneel before P-Zod. Failing that, at least bow before Blag Hag.

Religious Endorsement versus Religious Liberty

Respecting recent government attempts to endorse Mosaic Law and Christian theology, there are three interrelated questions here and it is easy enough to get them confused. The first is a question of ethics, the second a question of state constitutional law, the third a question of federal constitutional law.

As to the question of ethics, I’ve always thought it hypocritical and indicative of shallow ethical thinking for anyone to claim that official government endorsement of their own religious views is perfectly ethical and should not be seen as a violation of anyone’s right to equal treatment under the law, even though they would think it obviously immoral for the government to erect a massive monument to any other religion. Imagine the hue and cry from the Christians if the government erected a massive homage stone mandating worship of Krishna, Buddha, or Allah (or even Jehovah, if monument indicated any Messiah other than their own). I’ve no doubt, also, that the consistent failure among Christians to see this as an obvious violation of the Golden Rule is little more than self-deception, the fruits of an unexamined life. Those that say they would be content living in a theocracy not of their own making are suffering from a failure of imagination, at best.

As to the question of state law, it is essentially where to draw the line between free expression of private faith and the government creating policies which have the effect of endorsing an official religion. In Oklahoma, that line could not be any clearer, as a matter of state constitutional law. Since both Commandments monuments would clearly and unequivocally make indirect use of “public money or property . . . for the use, benefit, or support of [a] system of religion” there is really very little to argue about here.

As to the federal question, one must look to the interpretations which the federal courts have put upon the Bill of Rights and the 14^th Amendment. I’ve no time to go into detail right now, but suffice to say that the 10^th Circuit issued a fine opinion in this case, and I’ll be surprised if SCOTUS grants cert (unless of course a sister circuit has by then created a split between the circuits).

In summary, Oklahoma’s monuments to ancient Hebrew religious dicta fail all three tests: the Golden Rule, the Oklahoma Constitution, and the Federal Constitution. It is time for the government (at every level) to move on to solving problems instead of creating them by introducing religious divisions into the discourse.

Pietistic historical revisionism

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-state-capitol-to-display-ten-commandments/article/3370730

Rep. Mike Ritze says “We get our laws from the Ten Commandments.  Many of our laws date back to English law, which dates back to Roman law, which comes from Mosaic law.”  One must suppose that the Romans were a wholly lawless people until they took the time and effort to conquer Palestine and assimilate its culture and legal traditions.  Alternatively, as in the history books I’ve read, the Romans were able to conquer Palestine precisely because they had developed a structured and highly organized society on their own, drawing upon divine inspiration from a mythical pantheon and countless local deities, but never from the monotheism of the ancient near east. 

Is it possible to trace even one law from the Mosiac or Levitical codes directly into Roman law?  I put this challenge to the theocrats.  Go forth and rewrite history.

 

 

The Texas Ten

I’ve been thinking a lot (and writing a bit) about the Ten Commandments as of late, ever since the legislature of the State of Oklahoma has seen fit to follow the example of Texas and install a monumental homage to Mosaic ethics and Hebraic religion on the Capitol grounds.  My first objection to this plan is straightforward and obvious, Oklahomans should know better than to follow the example of Texans.  Given that this is a controversy over Biblical passages, here is one which might be considered on point: “I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiff-necked people.”  Stiff-necked, indeed.  Texans are almost as arrogant as New Yorkers, even more hypocritical, and vastly more self-righteous.  It is little wonder that the Bush/Rove political machine first arose from the fragrant muck that is the Texas socio-political milieu.  

Seriously, though, it would be a huge mistake for Oklahoma to blindly follow where the Texas has trail-blazed in this matter.  I’ve no problem whatsoever with the state telling me that it is unethical and criminal to commit murder or theft or perjury.  Indeed, it seems perfectly self-evident that any peaceful and well-ordered society must have laws against such things.  That said, every other command set on this stone is either theocratic, outdated, or else better left to individual conscience.  The commandments against apostasy, idolatry, and blasphemy run directly against the values embodied in the First Amendment, and the proscription against graven images is (ironically enough) violated no less than three times on the Texas monument itself.  One wonders whether the engraver paused when inscribing the second commandment to ponder the eagle and flag that he had already set in stone.  One also wonders whether he was working on a Saturday, given our society’s approach to all things sabbatarian.  It should be clear to the thoughtful and well-informed observer that only three or four of these commandments carry weight in our own society, and thus this monument (no doubt unintentionally) conveys the message that divinely ordained laws dictated by God Himself may be blithely disregarded in our modern cultural and political context.  Without a theologian on hand to explicate the fine-grained distinctions between the various covenants and dispensations, this message is difficult to put in its proper Christian context.  Presumably it would be breaching the wall of separation to assign a chaplain to this task, but I’d not put it past the Oklahoma legislature at this point.

Even more disturbing than the obvious irrelevance of most of these commands outside of the context of an ancient tribal theocracy, though, is the unmistakable endorsement of Old Testament ethics which a reasonable observer cannot help but infer from a monument such as this one.  Guess what the punishment is for breaking most of these commandments — go ahead, guess.  Now guess again, but try to think of something harsher than your first guess.   (Hint: It may help if you watch a few videos of execution by stoning).