[IMC-Editorial] Op-Ed: The Ten Commandments vs. America

[The Ayn Rand Institute]

Dear Editor, 

Please consider this Op-Ed submission from the Ayn Rand Institute.

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS VS. AMERICA

By Harry Binswanger

In all the discussion about displaying the Ten Commandments in the Alabama courthouse, 
has anyone asked the fundamental question: what are the Ten Commandments? What is their 
philosophic meaning and what kind of society do they imply?

Religious conservatives claim that the Ten Commandments supplied the moral grounding for 
the establishment of America. But is that even possible? Let's put aside the historical 
question of what sources the Founding Fathers, mostly Deists, drew upon. The deeper 
question is: can a nation of freedom, individualism and the pursuit of happiness be 
based on the Ten Commandments?

Let's look at the commandments. The wording differs among the Catholic, Protestant and 
Hebrew versions, but the content is the same.

The first commandment is: "I am the Lord thy God."

As first, it is the fundamental. It's point is the assertion that the individual is not 
an independent being with a right to live his own life but the vassal of an invisible 
Lord. It says, in effect, "I own you; you must obey me."

Could America be based on this? Is such a servile idea even consistent with what America 
represents: the land of the free, independent, sovereign individual who exists for his 
own sake? The question is rhetorical.

The second commandment is an elaboration of the above, with material about not serving 
any other god and not worshipping "graven images" (idols). The Hebrew and Protestant 
versions threaten heretics with reprisals against their descendants--inherited sin--
"visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth 
generation . . ."

This primitive conception of law and morality flatly contradicts American values. 
Inherited guilt is an impossible and degrading concept. How can you be guilty for 
something you didn't do? In philosophic terms, it represents the doctrine of 
determinism, the idea that your choices count for nothing, that factors beyond your 
control govern your "destiny." This is the denial of free will and therefore of self-
responsibility.

The nation of the self-made man cannot be squared with the ugly notion that you are to 
be punished for the "sin" of your great-grandfather.

The numbering differs among the various versions, but the next two or three commandments 
proscribe taking the Lord's name "in vain" and spending a special day, the Sabbath, in 
propitiating Him.

In sum, the first set of commandments order you to bow, fawn, grovel and obey. This is 
impossible to reconcile with the American concept of a self-reliant, self-owning 
individual.

The middle commandment, "Honor thy father and mother," is manifestly unjust. Justice 
demands that you honor those who deserve honor, who have earned it by their choices and 
actions. Your particular father and mother may or may not deserve your honor--that is 
for you to judge on the basis of how they have treated you and of a rational evaluation 
of their moral character.

To demand that Stalin's daughter honor Stalin is not only obscene, but also demonstrates 
the demand for mindlessness implicit in the first set of commandments. You are commanded 
not to think or judge, but to jettison your reason and simply obey.

The second set of commandments are unobjectionable but are common to virtually every 
organized society--the commandments against murder, theft, perjury and the like. But 
what *is* objectionable is the notion that there is no rational, earthly basis for 
refraining from criminal behavior, that it is only the not-to-be-questioned decree of a 
supernatural Punisher that makes acts like theft and murder wrong.

The basic philosophy of the Ten Commandments is the polar opposite of the philosophy 
underlying the American ideal of a free society. Freedom requires:

-- a metaphysics of the natural, not the supernatural; of free will, not determinism; of 
the primary reality of the individual, not the tribe or the family;

-- an epistemology of individual thought, applying strict logic, based on individual 
perception of reality, not obedience and dogma;

-- an ethics of rational self-interest, to achieve chosen values, for the purpose of 
individual happiness on this earth, not fearful, dutiful appeasement of "a jealous God" 
who issues "commandments."

Rather than the Ten Commandments, the actual grounding for American values is that 
captured by Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged:

"If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man's only moral commandment 
is: Thou shalt think. But a 'moral commandment' is a contradiction in terms. The moral 
is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the 
rational, and reason accepts no commandments."
______________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Harry Binswanger, author of The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts, is a 
member of the board of directors of the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) and teaches philosophy 
at ARI's Objectivist Graduate Center.  The Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn 
Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. Send comments to 
reaction at aynrand.org

Copyright © 2003 Ayn Rand® Institute

If you plan to use this Op-Ed, please send an email to
media at aynrand.org with your publication's name and the expected date of publication. 
Thank you,

David Holcberg
Media Department, Ayn Rand Institute 
2121 Alton Parkway Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92606
Phone: (949) 222-6550 ext. 226
E-mail: media at aynrand.org

If you wish to have your email REMOVED from this list, please hit
reply and type REMOVE in the subject line. Thank you.