Stiff Right Jab: Putting the Ten Commandments In Context

Steve Farrell
August 08, 2002

Ever since the controversial 9th Circuit Court of appeals rendered its controversial ban on the pledge of allegiance, followed by a temporary stay upon that ban (prompted by public outrage), the hate God, hate American heritage lobby has turned up the heat on finishing the job of kicking God out of America.

An example: This past week, a self proclaimed "believer" lawyer, declared in a legal commentary at Findlaw.com that the hanging of the ten commandments in a public place is unconstitutional.

And how´s that? Those who believe the commandments are the foundation of our laws are misguided, she says, and by way of proof, she contends that a number of the commandments are purely "personal."

She started off with this believing concession: "To be sure, the principles expressed in the last six commandments--honor thy mother and father, don't steal, don't kill, don't covet, don't commit adultery, and don't lie--can be found in many laws in the United States."

But, she continued: "The first four commandments, though, contain directives that no government official in this land of religious liberty may say or endorse on behalf of the government."

The first four commandments which are, by her decree, taboo, are the "personal" ones, she spoke of. And well, the liberal rule of thumb is: if something is "personal," no one, or no thing connected to government (a broad sweep) can speak of it, or endorse it, unless that "personal" issue is gay rights, abortion, etc., then by all means, speak on!

This is legal scholarship, and Christian apologetics at its best, isn´t it?

I´m not convinced. If the lawyer "believed," she might have attempted to put the ten commandments in the context that they were found, starting with the stage setting preface to the Ten Commandments:

"I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage."

It doesn´t take a law school professor to predict that what was to follow dealt not merely with religion, but with freedom. Think about it. The Israelites had been delivered from a land where the Pharaoh (the state) was worshipped; and as a result, by the word of one man: their religion, their Sabbath, their children, their wives, their aged, their integrity, their property, and their lives were valued as dross - and things were getting worse!

The Lord stepped in and freed them, becoming the ‘Author of [their] Liberty,´ and as such, declared for all time and all men, ten laws, ten minimal standards, which, if obeyed, keep individuals and nations free.

So let´s ask the lawyer this: Had Pharaoh given due regard to these ten commandments, these pre-existing laws which range from protecting man´s right to life, conscience, and property; to protecting the sanctity of the family; to granting unto man one day of rest in seven; to insisting that all men are bound to keep solemn oaths, even the oath of a previous Pharaoh that Israel might dwell tax free and unmolested in Goshen; and had he codified these into law, and permitted the free teaching of the same in the schools of Egypt, and in its government councils; and had the public virtue generally honored these principles; would there have been a slavery for Israel to escape from, or a need for a deliver such as Moses?

The believing lawyer knows the answer, or ought to.

The Israelites had been secured in their rights for four hundred years, but a new Pharaoh had come to town, who knew not Joseph and his God (remembering it was God through Joseph who had freed Egypt from the effects of a coming famine, and made her more powerful), and in the interest of self-glory and power and jealousy overthrew the four hundred year old law which protected Israel in her liberty.

The first attack on the established law came with legalized baby killing, wherein midwives were ordered to slay Israelitish baby boys upon delivery. The new moral paradigm: population control in the interest of national security. Outlawed: the right to life, and the rights of parents to preside in the home.

This is what happens when man, or the state, or secularism is worshipped in the place of God. Look to communism. Look at the results.

This is the real issue. A new moral order of state worshippers seeks to overthrow the order of God worshippers. Their strategy: permit public speech on personal issues which defend their cause; outlaw public speech on personal issues which defeat their cause. It´s that simple.

Contact Steve at stiffrightjabsf@aol.com