The Ten Commandments - What You REALLY Should Know

Dennis Prager

On 1 December 2014, Prager University published a video online with Dennis Prager arguing that the Ten Commandments are the best basis for a democratic, just and civilised society.  Although the video is somewhat dated, I came across it recently and given it contains more strawmen than the auditions for The Wizard of Oz, thought that it needed addressing.  In this article I refute the claims of Dennis Prager, and point out where he is not actually only wrong, but self-contradictory.

"No document in world history so changed the world for the better as did the Ten Commandments."

Well, that is questionable right away.  I would strongly argue that the Geneva Convention certainly made the world a better place, and if countries would only adhere to it, then the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights is certainly an excellent basis for a civilised society.

But what does Dennis Prager mean by the "Ten Commandments"?  Which version?  There have in fact historically been eight versions of the Ten Commandments, which today can be shortened down to three.  And the version which Dennis Prager refers to, the Decalogue, were not the ones which the Bible tells us Moses brought down from the mountain on stone tablets.

Neither were there only ten commandments.  The Book of Exodus and the Book of Leviticus in fact gives hundreds of commandments which made up Judaistic Law.

But the Decalogue which Dennis Prager refers to is that of 'Reformed' Christians which follow John Calvin's "Institutes of the Christian Religion", which follows the Orthodox Septuagint, and which is found in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer.  That alone actually sets the Protestant Ten Commandments at odds to those followed by Roman Catholics, as laid down by Augustine.

The Decalogue to which Dennis Prager is referring can be summarised thus:

1:  Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

2:  Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.

3:  Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

4:  Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

5:  Honour thy father and thy mother.

6:  Thou shalt not kill.

7:  Thou shalt not commit adultery.

8:  Thou shalt not steal.

9:  Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

10: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, wife, servants, animals, or possessions.

We can see from the Decalogue that he first four commandments are little more than self-advertisement for the god of Judeo/Christian/Islamic (Muslims also follow the ten commandments) culture.

"Western civilization -- the civilization that developed universal human rights, created women's equality, ended slavery, created parliamentary democracy among other unique achievements -- would not have developed without them."

It is laughable to even entertain the idea that Judeo-Christian culture developed any of these ideas, for they are completely opposed to them.

Universal human rights were held back by Judeo-Christian ideas for millennia, and there are many conservative Christians to this day who stand against them; Prager University not being the least of these.  Can conservative Christians, particularly those in the USA, truly state that they support the prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment of prisoners or suspects?  Are against slavery or forced labour?  The right to a fair trial and no punishment without law (Guantanamo Bay, anyone)?  The right to privacy?  Freedom of religion, thought and conscience (this means all religions and none - NOT just Christianity)?  The right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression?  The right to healthcare?  The right to education?  The right to free elections and the enfranchisement of all eligible?

One only need look to both sides of the North Atlantic to see that in less than a year, both the USA and the UK have voted very much against most if not all of these things.

It is also worth noting that the Ten Commandments which Dennis Prager refers to makes absolutely no mention of any of the above basic human rights.

But then, neither does the Decalogue make any mention of women's equality, and Judeo-Christian tradition not only never "created" equality for women.  It stood firmly in the way of it for thousands of years.  Read your Bible. Women are supposed to be subservient to their menfolk.  This was Eve's punishment for leading Adam astray by eating of the Tree of Knowledge and feeding it to Adam; "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." (Genesis 3:16).  Likewise, according to the Bible, women are not supposed to have authority; "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.  But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.  For Adam was first formed, then Eve." (1 Timothy 11-13).

There is no mention of the Ten Commandments of slavery, but there is plenty of mention of it throughout the Bible, including rules of how to treat your slaves, including that you may beat them, but not kill them. Yes, it was Christians, particularly the Methodists, who ended slavery in the west, and so it should have been.  For it was Christians, hiding behind the Biblical rules on keeping slaves, who introduced it to first Europe and later the Americas in the first place.

I absolutely baulk at any idea that Judeo-Christian belief or tradition created parliamentary democracy, when history not only does not bear that out, but actually shows that religious rule has been anything but democratic.  Here in Scotland alone, my ancestors lived first under 500 years of Romanist theocracy, followed by around 300 years of Protestant theocracy.  Indeed, it was not until the Enlightenment and after, when law and parliamentary ideas became increasingly secular that democracy began to emerge.

And of course, in the USA the US Constitution was firmly based on a wall between church and state.  This was done deliberately because so many settlers had fled to the Americas to escape religious persecution, and it is enshrined at the very start of the Constitution, in the First Amendment;

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."  Whether Dennis Prager likes it or not, the USA was founded as - and remains - the largest secular nation in the world.

But the word 'democracy' does not appear in the US Constitution, nor in the US Declaration of Independence, and certainly not in the Ten Commandments.  The simple fact is that the western democracies are not based upon the Bible, but are actually based very much on the ideas of ancient Greece.  Just as the laws which back these democracies up are based not in Biblical law, but rather are formed on the basis of Roman Law.

"As you will see when each of the Ten Commandments is explained, these commandments are as relevant today as when they were given over 3,000 years ago."

Yes, they are; not at all relevant, just as they were not relevant to most of the world 3000 years ago.  Dennis Prager may wish to reflect that 3000 years ago only a tiny tribe of humanity had heard of the Ten Commandments.  Most of humanity had not, yet cultures across the globe had formed civilisations, even before the supposed date of the Commandments, which followed the same basic rules.  Who then slipped them the rule book?

"In fact, they're` so relevant that the Ten Commandments are all that is necessary to make a good world, a world free of tyranny and cruelty."

Well, that's rubbish.  The Ten Commandments, as well as other parts of Judeo-Christian rule, have all too often led to tyranny and cruelty. This is not just my opinion, it is a historical fact.

"Imagine for a moment a world in which there was no murder or theft. In such a world, there would no need for armies, or police, or weapons. Men and women and children could walk anywhere, at any time of day or night, without any fear of being killed or robbed."

This is farcical.  Up to 1945 western Europe had been the tinder keg of the world, where more wars had been fought and more atrocities were committed than anywhere else on the face of the planet.  The armies involved in these acts were of countries which were ostensibly Christian, had Christian-based laws, all too often they used Christianity as the basis for their acts, and opposing armies would both claim that they had God on their side.  So Prager's claims of no need for armies falls down on that basis immediately.

As to the police, every modern police force on the face of the planet can be traced back to the Metropolitan Police; the force which Robert Peel set up to patrol London in 1829.  At that time England was still very much a Christian country.  The very idea of anyone not attending church on a Sunday was unheard of, and anyone who dared to be an atheist was vilified and persecuted. Blasphemy and Witchcraft remained on the statute books of English Law, wives could not divorce their husbands, and 'sinners' could still be publicly humiliated in churches or in the stocks.  So based on Prager's words, how come in this vehemently Christian culture, London needed a police force?  The answer is simple; because crime was rife in London, in England, and across the UK in the early 19th century.  Much of the crime came out of sheer desperation of the poor, other acts did not.  For instance, there being no gun laws then, there were many more shootings in London in the 19th century than there are today.  But of all the criminals arrested, the overwhelming majority had one thing in common; most were Bible-believing Christians.

"Imagine further a world in which no one coveted what belonged to their neighbour."

This one really amuses me, to come from Dennis Prager.  I am actually content with small and have never been one for wanting a whole load of material goods.  Sure, I would like to have much more money than I have, but that is mainly a survival instinct, backed up by how more money would enable me to do the things I cannot do.  Yet in today's capitalist western world, people like me are looked down upon as strange, and dare I say "losers".  We are daily bombarded with images and messages of the latest crappy tinny gadget which you must have; the bigger car; owning your home; the 'better' job; the 'beautiful' partner. We are told we need to have these things to be a 'success', and if you don't aim for them you are castigated as lazy, a communist, and a failure.  In fact, it is covetousness which drives capitalism, and without people wanting and aiming for material gain, the entire capitalist system would collapse. And who backs up and champions the capitalist system of the developed western democracies?  Conservative Christians, that's who, with one of the most vocal champions of such being - Prager University.

"a world in which children honoured their mother and father and the family unit thrived"

Most children should indeed honour and respect their parents.  But there is a caveat here; respect is a two-way street.  You only get respect if you give it, and that applies to parents respecting their children, as much as children respecting parents.  How is a child who is beaten up by their parents supposed to respect them?  The child who is sexually molested by a parent?  The child who is told they are no good and will never amount to anything?  When a child is abused, whether that abuse be physical, sexual, or psychological in form, the parent who dishes out that abuse deserves absolutely NO abuse.  Yet in Prager's imaginary world, all children would have to always respect their parents, no matter what.

Meanwhile, let's see what Jesus had to say about honouring your parents;

"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.  And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."  (Matthew 10:35-37)

Hmm.  Not much honour or respect there, is there?

"a world in which people obeyed the injunction not to lie."

Actually, the Ten Commandments does not say do not lie, but not to bear false witness against your neighbour. That is not the same thing.  If my neighbour were accused of something and I said he did it, I'd be guilty of bearing false witness.  Sure, I'd be telling a lie, but it's not really the same thing.

But the fact is we all lie and cannot help but do so, because it is an intrinsic part of the human condition.  Ricky Gervais actually illustrated this beautifully in his movie The Invention of Lying, which is based in a society in which everyone always told the truth, and one man develops the ability to lie.  In the world Gervais pictured there were no novels, no plays, no outlandish advertising claims ("Pepsi: For when they don't have Coke"); no tact or diplomacy, no flirting, no romance, very little art, no blockbuster movies, all TV was news and documentaries (on some of the most banal subjects, such as "The History of the Fork"). And what else is missing from this society?  Religion.  That is until the hero of the story, to comfort his dying mother, tells her on her deathbed that she will live on in a magical place where all the loved ones that went before her will be and she will be with them for all eternity.  The entire movie is a funny, moving, thought-provoking, and very, very true.  

Needless to say, many conservative Christians intensely dislike The Invention of Lying, and some have tried to pick holes in the plot, pointing out where certain things, such as the casino scene, would not exist in a world without lies.  But if they feel any sense of victory over their minor point scoring, it is truly a Phyrric one.  I have no doubt that Ricky Gervais never intended it to happen, but the fact is that the holes in the plot themselves serve a purpose; they illustrate just how impossible a life without lies would in fact be.  The simple truth about lies is that we need them, we thrive on them, we love our lies.  The more you think about it, the more you realise that human life without lies would be nigh on impossible; a life which few if any of us could actually survive in.

"The recipe for a good world is all there -- in these ten sublime commandments."

No, that is the recipe for an impossible world; a world in which mankind could not actually live, and nor would we want to.  Not even Dennis Prager if he were truthful to himself (that's one of the worst forms of lying, Dennis).

"But there is a catch. The Ten Commandments are predicated on the belief that they were given by an Authority higher than any man, any king, or any government. That's why the sentence preceding the Ten Commandments asserts the following: "God spoke all these words."

Right.  So how do we know the Ten Commandments are true?  Because they are the word of God.  How do we know they are the word of God?  Because it says so in the Bible.  Reasoning so circular that it is flying around in ever-decreasing circles, before eventually disappearing up it's own fundamental orifice.

"You see, if the Ten Commandments, as great as they are, were given by any human authority, then any person could say: "Who is this man Moses, who is this king or queen; who is this government to tell me how I should behave? Okay, so why is God indispensable to the Ten Commandments?  Because, to put it as directly as possible, if it isn't God who declares murder wrong, murder isn't wrong."

But if you look at morality objectively, instead of subjectively as Dennis Prager does, then you realise that contrary to what he thinks, there is no such thing as absolute morality.  And he's right; there is actually no absolute which says that murder is wrong.  Or theft, or violence, or lying.  Dennis Prager makes the mistaken assumption that morality is absolute when in fact it is no such thing; morality is a man made construct, learned from bitter experience that a society can only function if there are rules which benefit every individual within that society. The vast majority of us do not kill, steal, or cheat because we would not like it done to us.  It is a basic survival instinct, but more than that it comes from human empathy.  We may be a shitty species but deep down we feel compassion for those who suffer.  This is where the Golden Rule sprang from; do unto others as you would have them do to you.  And no, Christian, you cannot claim that, because it has occurred in many cultures, some of them predating Judeo-Christian belief.

"Yes, this strikes many people today as incomprehensible, even absurd. Many of you are thinking, "Is this guy saying you can't be a good person if you don't believe in God?"

No, I do not believe that.  But by his very arguments, Dennis Prager does show himself to be judgemental of others, and the Bible has plenty to say about that.

"Let me respond as clearly as possible: I am not saying that. Of course there are good people who don't believe in God, just as there are bad people who do."

And this is where Dennis Prager and I agree, and by the same token, there are both really nice people and utter shitbags who are atheists.  Trust me, I've encountered good and bad among both theists and atheists.

"And many of you are also thinking, "I believe murder is wrong. I don't need God to tell me."  Now that response is only half true. I have no doubt that if you're an atheist and you say you believe murder is wrong, you believe murder is wrong. But, forgive me, you do need God to tell you. We all need God to tell us. You see, even if you figured out murder is wrong on your own, without God and the Ten Commandments, how do you know it's wrong? Not believe it's wrong, I mean know it's wrong? The fact is that you can't. Because without God, right and wrong are just personal beliefs. Personal opinions."

Except that Prager is completely wrong here.  That's all morality really is; personal beliefs and opinion.  And more than that, morality is fluid; it changes over time and between cultures.  As I said before, it was Christians who introduced slavery to Europe and the Americas, and Christians who abolished it.  Why?  Because their perception of what was moral and right changed.  Not too long ago a man could beat his wife for her own moral good, children were chastised at home and in schools for the same reason.  Up to as recently as the 1970s, living memory for many of us, it was impossible for a husband to rape his wife, as he was considered to merely be taking his 'conjugal rights'.  We look back on these and many other things as examples of a barbaric past, but the fact is that they were solidly based in Biblical theology.  But morality evolved, it moved on, it changed.  Even today, many churches still seek to persecute LGBTI people, particularly gay men, while others are becoming much more accepting of sexual and gender diversity.  Morality is just opinion - get used to it.

"I think shoplifting is okay, you don't."

It is not a matter that shoplifting is okay, or what we think of that, but rather of the circumstances behind it.  If someone who is poor steals food to feed themselves, or more importantly, their children, it is neither right nor wrong; necessity has driven them to it.  Those who do so do not want to steal, just as most of us do not.  In some cases shoplifting is an outward expression of psychological problems; like the person who makes a half-hearted suicide attempt, it is a cry for help.  Then of course there are those who shoplift to get the material possessions which the capitalist society says they must have, or they are a loser; the selfsame capitalist system which I have already pointed out that Prager University are so very fond of championing.

Dennis Prager would do well to reflect that Scotland's only women's prison, Cornton Vale, is full of poor women who should not be there, but who were imprisoned for non-payment of fines; fines which most were given for shoplifting.  It is not as simple as what is good and bad, right and wrong, black or white.

"Unless there is a God, all morality is just opinion and belief. And virtually every atheist philosopher has acknowledged this."

Indeed they have not.  In fact, if you read the likes of Richard Dawkings, Sam Harris, Seth Andrews, and the late, great Christopher Hitchens, as well as many other atheist 'philosophers', you will find that they completely refute any such notion and instead assert that morality is objective and only opinion. And you will notice that I have managed to name four such philosophers, while Dennis Prager makes a sweeping claim about "virtually every atheist philosopher", whilst offering no names.  Do you know what that is called?  Bearing false witness - lying.

"Another problem with the view that you don't need God to believe that murder is wrong, is that a lot of people haven't shared your view. And you don't have to go back very far in history to prove this. In the twentieth century millions of people in Communist societies and under Nazism killed about one hundred million people -- and that doesn't count a single soldier killed in war."

Groannnn!  Here we go.  Godwin's Law states that the longer any Internet debate goes on, the more likely Hitler and/or the Nazis will be mentioned.  Dennis Prager does not even wait for a debate, but jumps straight in there, and gets his facts completely wrong in doing so.

Look, I don't believe that Adolf Hitler was at all serious about his Christianity.  But he was no atheist either.  And while Hitler may not have been a serious Christian, there were many around him who most certainly were.  Meanwhile, every single German soldier serving the Nazis, without one single exception, wore a belt with "Gott Mit Uns" (God is with us) embossed on it.  Recall what I said above about armies on opposing sides both believing they had God on their side?

There were many high-ranking Nazis who were indeed serious Christians, who believed that they were doing the world a favour in getting rid of the Jews; the "Christ killers" (a bizarre notion in itself, as Christianity needed Jesus to be sacrificed).  And of course, it was nothing new either.  It never ceases to amuse me how those who speak of persecution of the Jews by the Nazis and the Soviet Union, always seem to fail to mention the anti-semitism which had preceded and led to it.  No mention of the pogroms of Jews in Russia and Poland which had gone on for hundreds of years, under which millions suffered.  And Dennis Prager may wish to reflect that as well as Jews being murdered by the Nazis, so were many other groups - including socialist, communists, and yes, atheists.

And yes, Stalin was a madman, who killed many more than the Nazis did, but then he had much longer to do so.  But he did not do so to push atheism, but rather as a result of his insanity.  Even those closest to Stalin were not safe from him as he became increasingly mentally unhinged.  In China, those who died in the Great Leap Forward similarly were not slain as a result of or to spread atheism, but rather because Mao attempted to bring China from the dark ages to a modern nation and breakneck speed, with no regard for who may suffer under that.  And in Cambodia, Pol Pot tried to institute an agrarian society, under which teaching was banned, and many of the academics targeted by him were in fact atheists.

"So, don't get too confident about people's ability to figure out right from wrong without a Higher Authority."

I do not.  But that "Higher Authority" comes from laws instituted by a democratically-elected government, which society agrees to, not some silent, invisible sky pixie.

"It's all too easy to be swayed by a government or a demagogue or an ideology or to rationalise that the wrong you are doing isn't really wrong."

True. And it is also all to easy to be swayed of the same by a religion, which is in fact an ideology under an imaginary demagogue which the followers call "God".

In 1824 the Scottish writer James Hogg wrote The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner. He had the work published anonymously because of its controversial storyline.  The work follows the life of the Calvinist antihero, Robert, who believes himself to be so 'elect of God' that he can do no wrong, including and up to murder.  This may only be a novel, and a fine one well worth reading, but there have been countless such cases of theists (I don't just single out Christians here) who have thought their faith made them immune from doing any wrong, because they were 'saved'.  From minor wrongdoings - such as lying - right up to and including the abuse of children, and even murder, there have been many who have indeed based their defence on being 'saved' or by claiming "God told me to do it".  How many Muslims are in prison because they believed they were "doing God's bidding" (again, the Qur'an also contains the Ten Commandments, and Islam worships the selfsame god as Judaism and Christianity)?

Now, that does not for one moment suggest or accuse that all theists think like this.  It does however point out the very real dangers behind the sort of thinking that you can only know right from wrong with God.  It also clearly illustrates why morality is not an absolute but rather merely opinion which evolves through time and between cultures.

"And even if you do figure out what is right and wrong, God is still necessary. People who know the difference between right and wrong do the wrong thing all the time. You know why? Because they can. They can because they think no one is watching. But if you recognise that God is the source of moral law, you believe that He is always watching."

If that is the case, what is Dennis Prager basing his 'morality' upon?  Nothing more than the fear of punishment.  As human beings I actually believe that we are better than that.  When most of us do a kindness for another, we do so because it helps and cheers the other person, and seeing them makes us happy; human beings are like that, we thrive on each others happiness. Sometimes we will even do a kind thing if it leaves us empty-handed or sad to do so.  I have been there in letting a partner go whom I loved dearly.  It tore my heart in two, it was the hardest thing I have ever done, but I did it because I love her, and I want nothing but her happiness, even if that meant sacrificing my own happiness.  Indeed, which of us would not lay down our life itself for those we love?  Even the Bible says that there is no greater love than that.

We do kind acts because it is the right thing to do, not for fear of eternal retribution if we do not.  Indeed, I would suggest that if you do a kindness purely to earn Brownie points with your god, that is not morality at all.  It is wholly self-seeking and as such that is not merely immoral, it is amoral.

"So, even if you're an atheist, you would want people to live by the moral laws of the Ten Commandments."

No, as an atheist I want people to live by the mores which my society has adopted through experience and human empathy for the social good of all.

"And even an atheist has to admit that the more people who believe God gave them -- and therefore they are not just opinion -- the better the world would be."

No, I would and do immediately question such logic, because as I have clearly shown above, the Ten Commandments are not a fair, just, or civilised basis for any society, and no argument ad populum would ever convince me that they were.

"In 3,000 years no one has ever come up with a better system than the God-based Ten Commandments for making a better world. And no one ever will."

Except that we have.  For there can be few developed - or developing or underdeveloped - countries where laws, penal systems, or governments are actually based upon the Ten Commandments.

The Ten Commandments are and can only ever be a basis for a theocracy, ruled over by those who claim to be able to interpret the 'Gods will'.  It is those very countries who have moved away from that sort of thinking and towards a more secular basis which are the most developed and have made the greatest advances for the general good of all in society, and who offer most to the rest of the world.

It is those countries stuck in the theocratic mindset which remain the most barbaric.

****

The original Prager University video and transcript can be viewed here:

The Ten Commandments - What You Should Know