MY RESPONSE TO HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR ALAN DERSHOWITZ'S CONDEMNATION OF
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS:
IN DEFENSE OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing American About The Ten Commandments
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Dershowitz
September 19, 2003
During the debate over removing a 2-ton monument featuring the Ten
Commandments from the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court, it has been
repeatedly asserted that "
Most Americans are unaware of what is included in the nearly 300 words that make up the Ten Commandments as set out in Exodus and Deuteronomy and translated in the King James (and other) versions of the Bible. They know only the Cliff's Notes version: "Thou shalt not kill" (or "murder," depending on which translation one accepts); "Thou shalt not commit adultery," which, in its time applied only to married women, not married men, who were free to have sex with unmarried women; and "Thou shalt not steal" or "bear false witness."
In theory at least, all civilized societies recognize those ancient
principles, which aren't original to Mosaic law. They are based on earlier
laws, such as the Code of Hammurabi and the Code of Lipit-Ishtar. Can it be
said then that the
The complete text of the Ten Commandments, regardless of the translation, is much more controversial. It includes God's assertion that he is "a jealous God" and his threat to visit "the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation" - that is, to punish children, grandchildren and even great-grandchildren for the sins of their ancestors.
Can anything be more un-American?
Nor does the
The full text of the commandments seems to accept slavery, given that in the original Hebrew it condemns coveting your neighbor's "slave" - usually mistranslated as "servant" or "manservant." Moreover, coveting is as American as apple pie. Our entire market system encourages us to covet our neighbor's wealth.
The commandments also provide for a day of rest for "thy slave." And speaking of a day of rest, the commandments are unambiguous about which day is mandated, as well as the reason for it:
It is the "seventh day" -- Saturday -- because God "rested the seventh day." It is not Sunday, the day selected centuries later by Christians because it is the day on which Jesus was resurrected. That choice was rejected by Jews and Seventh-day Adventists, while Muslims selected Friday as their day of rest.
Finally, there is the prohibition of "graven images" -- a phrase
that seems to describe the large monument in
So what is so American about the Ten Commandments? Nothing, I submit.
The rules we accept actually precede the Ten Commandments and are accepted
by all civilized nations. The remaining provisions -- which call for punishing
children for the sins of parents, acknowledge slavery, mark Saturday as the
exclusive day of rest and were read as exempting married men from the
prohibition against adultery -- the
Not only do the Ten Commandments not belong in public courthouses or classrooms, they do not even belong -- at least without some amendments and explanatory footnotes -- in the hearts and minds of contemporary Americans.
Alan Dershowitz is a law professor at
Copyright 2003,
Subject: Aseret HaDevarim (The Ten Utterances)
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 11:32:59 -0400
From: mark rosenblit <markrosenblit@comcast.net>
To: alder@law.harvard.edu
Professor Dershowitz:
I met you after a lecture at the
I applaud you for your eloquent support of
-- Mark Rosenblit
Subject: In Defense Of The Ten Commandments
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 22:55:46 -0400
From: mark rosenblit <markrosenblit@comcast.net>
To: Hartford Courant <letters@courant.com>
The Ten Commandments, as declared by the God of Israel in Ex. 20:2-14 and as
recounted, with slight modifications, by Moses in Deut. 5:6-18, were originally
bestowed upon the nomadic Jewish people some 3,300 years ago to govern their
prospective behavior, especially but not exclusively, in the
In support of his screed that the Decalogue is deserving of our repugnance rather than our reverence, Dershowitz charges, inter alia, that the Decalogue is unclear whether all killing or only murder is prohibited, that it condones slavery, that it winks at male licentiousness, and that it lauds intergenerational collective punishment.
Variant translations notwithstanding, "Lo Tirtzach", the words employed in the Decalogue, precisely mean "Do not murder", while "Lo Taharog" would mean "Do not kill". Moreover, the Torah elsewhere makes it clear that under the proper circumstances -- such as participating in a just war or punishing a murderer (see Deut. 20:10-18 and Gen. 9:5-6) -- taking a human life is, not only permissible, but obligatory.
Although the Decalogue prohibits coveting that which one's neighbor enjoys,
including wife, servants and animals, this hardly constitutes a condonation of
the horrific type of servitude that later came to define the American
institution of slavery. A biblical Jew might indeed acquire a slave, but, as
the Torah elsewhere declares, a Jewish master would be put to death if he
murdered his gentile slave (see Ex. 21:20-21); a Jewish slave was to be freed,
depending upon his status, at either the next Sabbatical Year (see Deut.
15:12-15) or the next Jubilee Year (see Lev. 25:39-43). Moreover, a gentile slave who managed to
escape to the
Hypocritically, while Dershowitz argues for rejecting the Decalogue because it acquiesced to the regulated existence of a nondenominational form of slavery 3,300 years ago, he has never exhibited any similar compulsion to repudiate the United States Constitution because it acquiesced to the unregulated existence of a much more virulent racially-based form of slavery only 200 years ago (see U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 2, Par. 3; Art. I, Sec. 9, Par. 1; and Art. IV, Sec. 2, Par. 3).
Dershowitz ridicules the Decalogue's prohibition of adultery, claiming that it hypocritically permitted adultery by "married men who were free to have sex with unmarried women". This claim is as disingenuous as it is inaccurate. Since polygamy was then a societal norm, a Jewish man was permitted to have more than one wife. Accordingly, the free sex of which Dershowitz complains was actually that between a husband and his (additional) wife.
Dershowitz also misconstrues the Decalogue's declaration that the God of Israel will visit "the iniquity of fathers upon children unto the third and fourth generations of them that hate Me" (Ex. 20:5). This is indeed a declaration of intergenerational collective punishment but not in the way that Dershowitz presumes, namely, that an innocent offspring will be punished for the individual sin of his ancestor. On the contrary, as the Torah elsewhere declares, "Fathers shall not be put to death because of sons, and sons shall not be put to death because of fathers; a man should be put to death for his own sin." (Deut. 24:16). Rather, the Decalogue speaks of a society whose leadership and acolytes have perpetuated such Evil that their entire nation becomes collectively liable for punishment. Nazi Germany and the justified fire-bombing of its civilian population centers comes to mind.
Finally, Dershowitz insists that, anyway, the precepts of the Decalogue are derived from -- and, consequently, the American ethos is actually based upon -- earlier pagan codes, such as the Code of Hammurabi. That legal code is indeed remarkable (although often draconian), regulating many aspects of the business, marriage, adoption, inheritance, and judicial systems of 18th Century BCE Babylon. Yet, as that code's self-adulatory prologue makes clear, its legitimizing source was not the Ruler of commoner and monarch alike but rather a megalomaniacal despot -- Hammurabi -- who believed that he had been chosen by his gods to rule the Earth. And, as that code's maledictory epilogue makes clear, the narcissistic and paranoid Hammurabi greatly feared that his successor might alter or even abrogate his code.
The Decalogue is of a different character. Its overriding message is that
every human being, from the most downtrodden soul to the most powerful king (or
enlightened elected leader), is subject to a higher transcendent law which
cannot be altered or abrogated. It is a message which resonated well with the
authors of
© Mark Rosenblit
[Note: Professor Dershowitz has not yet replied to my riposte. If and when he does, I will post his reply. -- Mark Rosenblit]
Note: The Ancient World viewed national traditions such as holding indebted persons and captured enemies in slavery and raping women captured in War, not as a moral failing, but rather as the lawful result of justified behavior. Similarly, a husband’s tendency to exercise favoritism among his several wives, although obviously destructive to family harmony, was nonetheless viewed by the Ancient World as his rightful patriarchal prerogative. The God of Israel recognized the fact that the nations of Antiquity, including the nascent Jewish people, were definitively influenced by these as well as the other societal norms of their Time. Accordingly, God knew that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the Jewish people of 3,300 years ago to accept the fact that these universally-accepted traditions and tendencies were, in fact, manifestations of Evil.
Consequently, in order to successfully wean the Jewish people from such ingrained practices, God decided that it was better to regulate these practices rather than to prohibit them outright. Due to such Divine regulation, the Jewish people would be persuaded to gradually modify their collective and individual behaviors, with the result that, over several generations, such evil practices -- although deemed normative by the surrounding nations -- would cease among the Jewish people. And, eventually, the remainder of Humanity would also accept the moral imperatives declared by God in the Torah.
The Torah commands: "When you go out to battle against your enemies, and HaShem your God delivers them into your hand and you take them away captive, and see among the captives a woman of beautiful form, and you desire [to have sexual intercourse with] her, then you may take her for yourself as a wife. [However, first,] you shall bring her to the midst of your house, and she shall shave her head and grow her nails. She shall remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and she shall mourn her father and her mother for a full month; and afterwards you may come to her and be her husband, and she shall be for you a wife. [However,] it shall be that if [after all of the foregoing] you no longer desire her, then you must let her go wherever she wishes; and you shall certainly not sell her for money; you shall not mistreat her, because you have afflicted her.” (Deut. 21:10:14)
As the preceding Commandment reveals, instead of instructing the Jewish soldier of 3,300 years ago that he could neither make a slave of nor rape his female captive -- prohibitions which that ancient soldier would never have comprehended -- the God of Israel fashioned a series of steps which would gradually dissipate that soldier’s domineering condescension and lust, and would thereby permit him, no longer being so influenced by his passions, to choose between: (1) elevating his captive to spousal status, and (2) freeing her unconditionally.
The Torah commands: "If a man has two wives -- the one loved and the other unloved -- and both the loved one and the unloved one bear to him sons, and if the firstborn son is of the unloved one, then it shall be on the day that he causes his sons to inherit whatever will be his, he cannot bestow the inheritance rights of the firstborn upon the son of the loved one in the face of the son of the unloved one, [who is] the [actual] firstborn. Rather, he must acknowledge the [actual] firstborn, the son of the unloved one, by giving him the double portion in all that is found with him, for he is the beginning of his strength; to him is the right of the firstborn.” (Deut. 21:15-17)
As the preceding Commandment reveals, instead of instructing the Jewish husband of 3,300 years ago that he must eschew favoritism and thereby love and treat all of his wives equally -- an edict concerning that ancient husband’s emotional disposition which would have been virtually unenforceable -- the God of Israel declared that such man’s firstborn son’s inheritance rights would not be adversely affected by the fact that the child’s mother happened to be the disfavored wife. In this way, the husband who had emotionally or physically mistreated a woman because he did not love her as much as he loved another woman as a wife, might nonetheless gradually come to treat her with the love and respect that she deserved because she was the mother of his firstborn son -- “the beginning of his strength”.
The God of Israel can hardly be charged with Immorality because, in bestowing His Laws upon the Jewish people of 3,300 years ago, He took into account their existing state of moral and social development. On the contrary, by the genius of these Laws, God laid the foundation for the Jewish people and the larger World to abandon Evil and embrace Goodness.
© Mark Rosenblit