Expert: Vincent M. Wales - 9/30/2008

Question
QUESTION: My question is do you think that the ten commandments should be the law? Why are some people against this, seeing as how a lot of the laws already mimic the ten commandments(i.e. thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal) and few people would dispute that other things like adultery for example are immoral and harmful to society. Also, polls have shown that the majority of Americans consider themselves Christian. Since we live in a democracy, shouldn't the majority get to decide what our laws should be? Thanks.

Helen

ANSWER: Hello, Helen.

I'm going to answer your last question first, if you don't mind.  Truth is, we do not live in a democracy.  We live in a democratic republic.  There's a difference.  But even if we did live in a pure democracy, I would still disagree: the majority should NOT get to decide what our laws are.  Not without some sensible checks and balances.  The majority, as history has shown, has often held heinous beliefs.  Slavery, for example.  Or the idea that women shouldn't be allowed to vote.  Just to name a couple.

There are MANY things that are harmful to society that are not illegal, nor should they be.  As for "immoral," that's a very subjective term.  What one person finds immoral, another won't.  And vice versa.  

It's interesting that you say our laws mimic the commandments.  I don't really see that.  Sure, some of the things the commandments forbid are also against American law... but they're also against the laws of other societies, many of which predate the commandments themselves.  

So let's look at the commandments, shall we?  The first four (having no other gods, not worshiping graven images, not taking the lord's name in vain, and keeping the Sabbath day holy) have absolutely nothing relevant to society as a whole.  They are all very specific religious edicts.  As such, they have no place in American law.

Commandment number five (honoring one's parents) sounds nice... but obviously is one that can't hold true in all cases.  What if your father's a convicted rapist?  Still think you should honor him?

Commandment six... against murder... now that one makes sense.  And every culture I've ever heard of agrees.  Clearly, not a Judeo-Christian invention, so the fact that your bible contains it isn't terribly impressive.

Number seven - adultery.  Well, I guess it all depends on how one defines the term, huh?  By some definitions (including, I think, the definition in place when the bible was written), a widow was not permitted to remarry, as that would be adultery, also.  But even if we held to modern definitions of the term... I see no reason for it to be against the law.

Number eight - stealing.  A fairly good one... of course, one does need some wiggle room for extenuating circumstances.  And it's already on the books.

Number nine - bearing false witness.  So... how are we defining that?  "Lying"?  That would be a ridiculous law, impossible to enforce.  

And ten... coveting... hey, c'mon.  That's what American society is pretty much built on, isn't it?  

All this being said, I'd have to ask you:  why WOULD you want these to be the law?

Frankly, the commandments do not impress me.  Anyone with half a brain could write ten "commandments" more applicable to society as a whole that would make a lot more sense than these.

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Hello. I hope you will not mind a follow-up. First of all, would you mind explaining in a nutshell what the difference between a democracy and a democratic republic is? I am not clear on that.

The truth is that if it is not the majority deciding what our laws should be, it would be the minority imposing their will on the majority. How would that be fair? People say that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and that's true. But in the end, the opinion of one group must prevail over another. For example,. everyone is entitled to their own opinion on abortion. Yet abortion is legal, so the pro-choice possition has won out. How are we supossed to decide on these issues, when peoples opinions are so vastly different? That is what I don't understand. If we can not reach a consensus, then what?

And as far as adultery goes, marriage IS a legal contract that comes with certain rights and responsibilities. How can one say that it is none of the government or societys business, when the government does sanction marriage, and there are certain rights and responsibilities that go along with it? There should be some consequence for breaking a contract as sacred as marriage. However, I guess it would be hard to enforce such a law. The government would have to infringe on the privacy of its citizens in order to do so I guess.

You do have a point about the ten commandments. I never thought of it that way, but I suppose it would be unconstitutional for the government to enforce them, since we do have separation of church and state. Then again, the majority of people are christians in America right?

I am not trying to argue, just interested in learning about the other point of view. I am a devout Christian myself, so I guess I'm a little biased in that regard. The main thing is I don't know how we are supossed to define right from wrong when no one can agree. The government is responsible for making laws though, and there are a lot of laws that some people may disagree with. So in those cases isn't the only option to go with what the majority wants? What is the point of electing people if we do not allow them to do their job? Thanks.

Sincerely,

Helen

Answer
Hello again, Helen.  No, I certainly do not mind a follow-up.

Okay, first... democracy vs. democratic republic.  A pure democracy, as you know, would be a straightaway "majority rules" situation.  There are a lot of people who espouse such a system, but it's a very dangerous way to do things.  Ever heard the term "mob mentality"?  

See, individuals can be very intelligent, thoughtful folks.  But groups tend not to be.  For some reason, groupthink tends to favor the lowest common denominator, and can be easily swayed by propaganda.  Joseph Goebbels was Hitler's minister of propaganda, and he said, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."  Just something to think about... but the Nazi regime was pretty good at this.

At any rate, our founders (somewhat wisely) decided that, rather than put every decision to every voter (and remember that back then it was only land-owning males who were allowed to vote), we'd have a democratic republic... i.e., a "representative" democracy.  That's why we have the House and the Senate.  We elect these guys and gals to vote for us, allegedly.  In principle, the Congress-critters are supposed to represent the will of their constituents.  But let's be honest... when's the last time your representative called you up and asked your opinion on an issue?

So that's the difference.  In some sense, it's still "majority rules," but it's a majority of a minority, if you want to look at it truthfully.  Not a true democracy at all.

Then again... I'm glad of that.  As I said above, "mob mentality" would be a disastrous thing in our nation, and we've certainly had cases of it.  Because the majority can, and often does, make bad decisions.  So, our country has three branches of government: Legislative (the aforementioned Congress), Executive (the clowns who live in the White House), and the Judicial (the courts).  No one branch is superior to another.  The executive branch can veto legislation.  Congress can override vetoes.  And the courts can overturn laws that are unconstitutional.

You raise a very, very good point:  How ARE we to decide on issues when opinions can be so wildly different?  Clearly, with 280 million people in this country, we can never be unanimous or even close to it.  So yeah... it's a bitch.  Some (like me) would argue that this is why we shouldn't allow any society to grow this large.  But that doesn't help, once it's already happened.

It's all a big crapshoot, isn't it?  Especially in this age when politics is actually a career for people, rather than (as it used to  be) a volunteer position held by people who wanted to make society better.  

Yes, everyone's entitled to their opinion, but opinion should be tempered with reason.  And that doesn't happen a lot in our society, and this is especially true when peoples' religious beliefs influence their thoughts.

Take the subject of gay marriage.  There's absolutely no sensible reason that gays should not have this right.  The only ones who oppose it are doing so on religious grounds, which are irrelevant.  And yet, here in California, there will be a proposition on the November ballot that, if passed, would take that right away from the state's gay constituency.  Majority rule?  No... that would be mob mentality.  Pointless.  Bigoted.  Shallow.  Just like we expect from mobs.

Marriage IS a legal contract, as you say.  But if you look at what things are being contracted, fidelity isn't one of them.  So no... adultery should not even be looked upon as the breaking of a contract.  The state's only real role in marriage, anyway, is that of recordkeeper.

I'm a little disturbed by your question of how to define right and wrong.  Helen, that's not what this is about.  Right and wrong are moral judgements, not legal ones.  And moral judgements are not things the government should even try to legislate.  You can't legislate morality, first of all, but there are certainly people out there who want to see it done.  Gay marriage.  Abortion.  These are laws people want to pass on moral grounds, not legal ones.  And that's dangerous territory in which to tread.

If I may, I'd like to recommend a book to you.  Selfishly, it's a book I wrote.  It's fiction, but based very much on the sorts of things we've been discussing, here.  You can check it out at http://onenationundergod.info.

Hope this has helped.