Transcribed by https://otter.ai
Today is Saturday, June 22. And this is William Michael of the Classical Liberal Arts Academy.
This week, it was announced that efforts are being made to require that the 10 commandments be displayed in schools down in Louisiana. And as soon as this news begins to spread the secular media responds, criticizing it and and asking how this is not a violation of the Constitution. And so if you go on the major news networks, you’ll find the different hosts, questioning representatives from Louisiana questioning politicians, even citizens from Louisiana and asking, how would this not be a violation of the Constitution? Because we’re supposed to have freedom of religion, freedom from religion as far as state imposed religion? So how can we how can we install or display the 10 commandments in schools by government mandate, and not violate the constitution not violate the rights of the American people? Now that seems like a reasonable question. It seems like a good question to ask how is this not a violation of the Constitution? And so the secular news networks will will get these politicians on the show for interview to ask them these questions. And they’ll ask them, How is this not a violation of American rights, freedom from religion, freedom of religion, and so on? The biggest problem that this promotion of the 10 commandments has is that the politicians who are brought onto the news networks really have no clue how to explain why this could be a good thing. The politicians really have no idea how to explain the value of the 10 commandments to a secular nation of people, or at least the people of the state of Louisiana. And the stuff that the politicians say on these shows, makes the situation seem even more ridiculous. And they’re almost laughed at by the hosts who are asking them questions because their responses are just so dumb. And so what I’d like to do is take some time here, I’d like to take some time to talk through the 10 commandments and explain why it might actually be of interest to the general population, for the 10 commandments to be displayed and taught in schools, why it might actually serve the common good, and to articulate it in a way that I think will make it appear reasonable and understandable and really ask, what would the alternative be? What would the alternative be to these 10 commands? And why would anyone understanding the 10 commands in something of a historical and philosophical context? Why would they not want these commandments taught and displayed in public schools? So let’s go through the 10 commandments, and think about what they actually say what they don’t say, and how they can benefit, not just Christians, but all Americans, and why they should be displayed and taught in all schools, including public schools.
So let’s go ahead and take a walk through now I’ve got a list of the 10 commandments as they’re listed in the Catholic Church. And there’s a difference between how the 10 commandments are divided in Catholic sources and how they’re divided in non Catholic Christian sources. So as I go through these, realize that the numbering might not match up exactly, if you’re a Protestant, and you’ve got a list of the 10 commandments, they might not match up. That’s a that’s a disagreement that’s existed for centuries, between Catholics and non Catholics, but it’s really insignificant. So let’s just go through the 10 commandments and talk about them a bit. And like I said, see why it would be reasonable for us to promote the 10 commandments in even public schools. So let’s take a look.
The first commandment reads, I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have strange gods before me. Now why in the world would we ever want this to be promoted in public schools in a country whose constant tution protects the citizens from the establishment of religion. It says, I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have strange gods before me, seems like an obvious violation of the Constitution. But let’s think about it philosophically. Let’s think about it from a utilitarian perspective, is this useful? Is this command beneficial to the American people? Is it good for the common good? I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have strange gods before me. Now, when we use this word, God, the first thing we have to ask is, what does this word even mean? What does this name God mean? And when we go back through the history of philosophy, we see that the idea of God from a philosophical perspective, the idea of God is that beyond which nothing better can be imagined, that beyond which nothing greater, nothing better, can be imagined. That’s a philosophical understanding of this name, God, God is that beyond which nothing better can be imagined. And this first commandment says that this perfect being this beyond which nothing greater can be imagined. This is the only Lord, this is God, that beyond which nothing greater can be imagined. And it’s for us to discuss what exactly it is beyond which nothing greater could be imagined. That’s a discussion we should be having in. In America, we should be talking about what is it beyond which nothing greater can be imagined? And if one person proposes one idea, we should ask, Is that really a candidate for the name of that which nothing, or that beyond which nothing greater can be imagined? Or can we imagine something greater than that, and to commit to say, the only thing that we should call God is that beyond which nothing greater can be imagined. And so the first commandment says, We should only recognize as God, that which that beyond which nothing greater can be imagined, and you shall have no other gods, other than this God, so be other than that, beyond which nothing greater can be imagined. Nothing shall be called or served as God. I think that’s a very fair claim. I think that would be a very good command for all students to learn and all schools to discuss. I think that would be a very good discussion, I think that would be a very good rule for everyone’s life, I think that would serve the common good. And what I what I would like to ask is, what would the alternative be? If you say, I don’t want this commandment taught in the school or displayed in the school? Why not? What would the alternative be? Would you like for people to have Gods to fear and serve gods which would be inferior to that? Beyond which nothing greater could be imagined? Would you like for people to live terrified of some kind of demons or false notions of God that just put people into terror and cause them to live? making all kinds of crazy decisions because they’re afraid of some irrational, crazy, violent God just suddenly, you know, killing them or destroying people? No, we wouldn’t want that on anyone. We wouldn’t want false religion in anyone’s mind, terrorizing or tormenting anyone, we would want everyone free from all false gods from all inferior notions of gods, to fear and love and serve only that beyond which nothing more perfect, could be imagined. Nothing better, nothing greater, nothing more powerful, nothing wiser, nothing more enduring, could be imagined. It seems like that would be a good rule for the public, a good law, that we not we not promote any religion, where we fear or serve anything that we call God which is actually not that beyond which anything greater can be or nothing greater can be imagined. So that’s number one. I think it makes sense. And again, I asked what’s the alternative? What what what would the the other rule be? Would you contradict that and say we should promote the the worship of, of demonstrably inferior spiritual beings with all kinds of philosophical flaws? Or should we acknowledge that only that beyond which nothing greater can be imagined, should be named, or worshipped or served as God? What’s the alternative? That’s my challenge.
The second commandment says, Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord, thy God in vain. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. Now, this commandment with the first already established says that this this being that is named God, beyond which nothing greater can be imagined, should not be spoken lightly of that is that we should restrain our language. We should restrain our language and not speak carelessly or irreverently about that being beyond which nothing greater can be imagined this, this word, God, this name, God should be held separate and revered as the name for that being beyond which nothing greater can be imagined. I think that’s a good rule for life. I think that’s a good rule for society. I think that’s a good law. We should hold this name God as separate as holy as sacred, and not use it irreverently or disrespectfully. It shouldn’t be the subject of comedians jokes, it shouldn’t be the subject of silly movies that are that are just seeking to make money or, or to get some laughs, we shouldn’t be using that which is sacred that which is most excellent. For some inferior end, we should respect that which is greatest of all, and we should give it a name. And we should revere that name, we should have some restriction on our language. And this is a reasonable restriction. We should not use the name that is given to that being beyond which nothing greater can be imagined in a disrespectful or careless or irreverent way. I think that’s a good rule for for all human beings, for all American people. And my challenge, again, is what would the alternative be to hold nothing as sacred, to have no sense that there are higher ends in life to pursue and that some things should be treated and regarded as as sacred or worthy of respect. That’s the alternative. So we want to promote a culture where nothing is revered, even that beyond which nothing greater could be imagined. Even that is a subject for our mockery, and ridicule and disrespect. Who would want to make that argument? Probably a person who is going to be involved in all kinds of criminal activity, no good person, it’s certainly not in the interest of the common good to disrespect everything. And so this second commandment, you shall not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain understanding what we mean, by God. That commandment is reasonable, and I think good for all human beings, a great law. Now, just because some people disagree doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be considered a good source of law. There are people who disagree with all the laws, there are people who disagree with the speed limit, there are people who disagree that you’re not allowed to kill people, there are people who disagree on whether we should be allowed to have guns or not have guns or what kind of guns or whether we should use drugs or whether we should be able to have sexual relations with children or animals, there are people who disagree with with all the laws. So just because there’s disagreement doesn’t mean that the law isn’t good and wise, and desirable. And I don’t understand who could possibly object to this idea that the name given to that beyond which nothing greater can be imagined, should be protected as something worthy of respect. So that’s the second commandment.
The third commandment says, keep the Sabbath day holy. Keep the Sabbath day, holy. And what does this really command this commandment to keep the Sabbath day holy? No, no, it doesn’t get specific. It doesn’t say that you should go to a Christian church on a Sunday or that you should go to a Jewish synagogue on a Saturday. It doesn’t say that. It says that we should keep the Sabbath day holy and what is the Sabbath day? The Sabbath day is a is a day where we’re commanded to rest from temporal pursuits. The Sabbath commandment commands us to rest. From temporal pursuits, it tells us to give servants or give workers a day of rest, to not pursue material ends 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. And just mercifully chase after material profits or temporal benefits, but to take time to rest from those things, to give attention to higher ends in our lives. And not many people in America believe that the pursuit of wealth and the pursuit of material profit is the chief end of man, there are very few people who would say any such thing. So it’s not an unpopular idea to take a break from temporal or material pursuits and to allow other people to take a break from those pursuits. So when we think about the commandment to keep the Sabbath day holy, we’re saying, Should we agree in America that there will be a day where we will not work, and men will not be allowed to work. Because when, when certain people desire to, quote unquote, work, what that really means is make other people work. So for the business owner, he’s not going to be the one out in the field on Sunday, you know, cleaning the crops or or doing the roofing work or cutting the grass, he’s not going to be doing that his business is going to be open on Sunday. But other men who are dependent on that work for their employment, they’re going to be made to go and work on Sunday, we’re saying that we would like to tell that boss that he shouldn’t, he should set a day apart, where he’s not going to work. And he’s not going to have his business open, so that his workers can have a day of rest, they can have a day where they can enjoy time with their families, they can pursue higher ends in their own lives. And they’re not just driven to work seven days a week or face unemployment. Now, in our country, we have national holidays, we have bank holidays, we have days where work is closed, and we recognize the value of those days. Because it’s just good to have some time off. Because there are other things to pursue in life, there are higher needs of human beings, there’s higher goals of human society than just hoarding material goods and working to gather material goods. We understand that and we can see that that’s commonly understood by the existence of national holidays, when works generally closed for the day. Now all the third commandment is saying is that we should have a day that we agree on where all of us take that day off, not once a year, not once in a month, but every seven days, once a week, there should be a day, called the Sabbath day, where we rest from all material, all temporal pursuits, and everyone is free to devote that entire day to higher things in life. Who will object to that? What’s the alternative? Is the alternative that everyone be forced to work 24/7 Or face poverty? Is that a preferable circumstance to live in? Or would it be a good idea to have a Sabbath day where we can all agree to take a day off from temporal and material pursuits, to rest and not only not only rest ourselves, but allow everyone else to rest? What’s the alternative to that? That’s a good law. It should be promoted in American society. That’s the third commandment.
The fourth commandment, Honor thy father and thy mother, Honor thy father, and thy mother. Who’s going to object to that command as a rule that every child every every American person should honor his father and his mother as the source of his life of her life. Who’s going to argue that Honoring Your Parents is not a good rule for life that children in schools shouldn’t be taught to honor their father and their mother, that they shouldn’t be taught to love, respect and obey their parents that they shouldn’t be taught to care for their parents to help their parents. To be obedient to those who you know by similitude are like Parents like teachers and elected government officials, law enforcement officers and so on. Do we really think that it’s good to teach children not to honor their fathers and mothers, who would object to this commandment? Of course, Americans should be taught to honor their father and their mother. So the fourth commandment can’t possibly be objected to.
The fifth commandment, Thou shalt not kill. Well, that’s already a law in America. Thou shalt not kill we it’s already illegal to murder. Thou shalt not kill challenges is to ask what exactly does it mean to kill? We obviously have this problem of abortion, and we look at abortion. And we asked, you know, what should we do with respect to abortion? Well, the commandment Thou shalt not kill says that killing certain members of our society should never be considered a means to some end, you shall not kill. I think that’s a fair rule to establish. in American society. I think that’s a fair rule to display in American schools and teach to American children. The lives of other people should never be considered something that you can dispose of, for your own benefit. You shall not kill, what’s the alternative, you shall kill? Who would who would argue for the alternative, that that we should not teach American children in schools that they should not kill? What’s the alternative? To teach them that America gives them the freedom to kill? No, that obviously is not believed by American people, Thou shalt not kill. The fifth commandment is a perfectly reasonable human rule for life. And again, the challenge is to explain what the alternative would be.
Number six, Thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not commit adultery. Now when we, when we look at modern society, and we see you know, the fruits of what’s called the sexual revolution, revolution, and we see that there’s fewer and fewer people being married, there’s more and more promiscuous sex, there’s more and more use of contraception. There’s more and more abortion largely owed to the consequences of, of sex outside of marriage. When we look at society, most people generally agree that immoral sexual behavior is bad. promiscuous sexual behavior is bad. I don’t know if there are any physicians or nurses in America who wouldn’t say that promiscuous sexual activity is unhealthy and unsafe. Moreover, the effect of adulterous relationships with children being born out of wedlock children being born into homes where there’s no father, or there are children born from multiple fathers and all kinds of a mess domestically, no one would say that those situations are good. Now, we can all understand and say, Well, look, you know, people are living in bad circumstances, many people were raised with no parents, no fathers, many people were were left to themselves. Many people are abused and exploited and taken advantage of and, and so their sexual lives may not even be their choice there. They may be stuck in these circumstances. That may all be true, but we’re talking about what children should be taught in school. Should we teach children? Thou shalt not commit adultery? Should we teach children the ideal of marriage and family life of fidelity of raising children? Or should we what teach the alternative that you shall commit adultery that it’s, it’s perfectly fine for you to commit adultery for you to have no regard for marriage or family order, but to freely participate in sexual activities with no concern for the consequences? Will anyone say that that’s what should actually be encouraged among students in schools, that there’s no need to avoid adultery? Again, we can recognize the millions of people living in bad circumstances and it may be true in many different ways that these things aren’t are not entirely their fault that they have inherited circumstances that are difficult for them to understand. Anything other than or to get out of entirely. But we’re talking about teaching children here. And whether or not the sixth commandment, Thou shalt not commit adultery, should be displayed in schools and taught to children. I don’t know how anyone would make an argument that that the opposite should be taught or that it just simply shouldn’t be mentioned at all, we should just allow these, these bad circumstances to reproduce endlessly. And for all of these evils to just perpetuate, so that we don’t have to offend anyone by saying, you know, you should not commit adultery. It has all kinds of bad consequences. The sixth commandment would do everyone good. If it were displayed and taught in schools, You shall not commit adultery, it’s really a command to respect sexual relations, the consequences of sexual relations and the importance of good family life. I don’t know anyone who would deny these things, except, of course, crazy people, right? People who love the chaos and disorder and destruction. Those people wouldn’t like this. But do we really want those people representing the American public and deciding what our laws should be? Those people don’t represent the American public, You shall not commit adultery, we all know that.
The seventh commandment, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not steal. Is that something we don’t want children to be taught? Do we not want children to look up at the wall in school and see, Thou shalt not steal written on the wall. Of course, we want children to be taught not to steal now, again, in in this generation, this crazy generation, stealing has has almost taken upon itself, the appearance of some kind of, of social justice, we watch stores being plundered and looted. And it’s explained away, like, hey, these people have no option. These people, these people are desperate, they’re in terrible circumstances, they’re poor. They’re they have great needs, they have no means of obtaining the things that they need or desire. And many of them live in the presence of great wealth and, and there’s a great gulf between the rich and the poor, and the quality of life that these people are able to enjoy. And they’re just provoked to this behavior. And you know what that may be partially true, that may be true. But we’re talking about teaching children, and not just the children of the poor, we’re also teaching the children of the wealthy because many of the injustices that are committed by wealthy people are themselves a form of stealing, taking from others against their will. So Thou shalt not steal as a command to all Americans, that they should not take what belongs to other people, but have respect for the property and rights of others, that they should pay their debts that they should pay just wages to employees and so on. That’s what it means Thou shalt not steal. How does that not serve the common good? How does that not represent the will of the American people the American people want people to steal? Of course not. There’s nothing wrong with the Seventh Commandment being displayed and taught in schools. And again, the challenge is, what would the alternative be to not teach that to children, or teach the opposite? Obviously, no one believes any such thing.
Down to the eighth commandment, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. Seems pretty obvious that that’s a good command. You shall not falsely accuse your neighbor. You shall not speak falsely about your neighbor, but you should speak the truth. You should respect the reputation of others you should not see. You know, litigation, making false accusations and trying to take advantage of people in court before the law you should not see that as a means for your own enrichment. But that you should respect your neighbor and only speak the truth about him. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. I don’t know anyone who would argue that the opposite of that should be taught that it’s perfectly okay to bear false witness against your neighbor. There’s no one who believes that. And while we might not say that we should teach the opposite, should we just not I mentioned that should we not teach children because remember, this is about what’s displayed in schools and taught in schools, should we not teach children, that they should not bear false witness against their neighbor, of course, we should teach this to children. Of course, this should be displayed in schools, and this should be on the lips of teachers. And this should be discussed by students and parents, you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. The Eighth Commandment obviously should be in schools.
The ninth commandment, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife. Now here, we come to these last two commandments, which have to do with desires. And we could say, whoa, whoa, whoa, this is getting a little crazy here. Are we really going to make commandments that relate to people’s desires? Well, there’s a reason to talk about what we should not desire, because there are many people who desire evil things, but don’t have the opportunity or the power to do what they desire. Now, should they be allowed to just live with those desires to allow those desires to just grow and grow and grow and say, Oh, well, you know, I can’t do this anyway. So it’s okay for me to to, to desire it, and to think about it and to, to lust after it and so on. No, the desire itself is evil. And it will destroy a person morally and interiorly. They should learn that, that you not only should you not commit evil things, but you should not desire them. So the question again, is, is this a rule that should be put on the wall of a school and taught to children is, it’s something that children should constantly have their attention directed to, to help them live a happy life, You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife. The idea of coveting means desiring, and again, many people desire evil things that they don’t have the power to possess. And this is a command that says, Look, you need to keep your own heart, you need to examine yourself and check your own desires. Because just because you can’t do it today, or don’t have the means to do it today, doesn’t mean you won’t have the means tomorrow. And we should be working to keep our hearts and thoughts pure and desire the good of our neighbor, if it’s if it’s bad to commit adultery, in the act, well, then it must also be bad, to desire to commit adultery in the heart. So it would be perfectly good if we agree that we should not commit adultery, that we also should teach children not to covet their neighbor’s wives not to desire adulterous behavior, and you see how this brings us into all kinds of modern issues like problems with with pornography and and all kinds of sexually immoral music and film. Is it okay to say, well, well, it’s just a song. It’s just a movie. It’s just this or that. It’s just comedy. It’s just funny. It’s not just comedy. It’s not an appropriate subject for music, or for a film or for a story because it’s intrinsically evil. And it shouldn’t be something that artists are producing and promoting. It shouldn’t be something that musicians are capitalizing on or that filmmakers are taking advantage of. It should be something that’s universally discouraged, not only in Act, but also in desire. And so children should be taught to keep their hearts to keep their minds pure, and to not desire things that are forbidden. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife. Now again, what is the alternative? We should teach children that they should desire to commit adultery? We should tell them that it’s okay to desire to commit adultery as long as they’re not actually capable of doing it anyway. Is that what we should teach them that it’s okay to harbor in our hearts and desire? Things that would be immoral or illegal for us to actually carry out? Who would make that argument crazy people would make that argument evil people would make that argument or should we just not mention this at all? And just leave children to themselves with respect to their desires and thoughts? No, it’s perfectly good in a school where children are being taught, and where teachers and parents are collaborating to help lead these children to happiness, to teach them to keep their hearts and In thoughts, pure, You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.
The same thing for the 10th commandment, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods Now why does this commandment matter so much? Why is it important to teach people, all people, all children, that you shall not covet your neighbor’s goods, because most people think of stealing as taking from someone in an illegal way to take from some one in an illegal way. So for example, if, if this is your car, legally, your name is on the title, for me to take it from you, and attempt to keep it is to steal. And we’ve already talked about the commandment, Thou shalt not steal, that it would be wrong to take what belongs to someone else. But that’s illegal. And and if we take something that belongs to someone else, they can call the police, the police can search it out, we can get arrested end up in prison. So we understand why you should not steal why parents and teachers should be teaching children not to steal, because it could destroy their lives. But this goes even further, and says not only should you not steal, but you should not desire that which belongs to your neighbor. And the reason why this is important is because it’s possible. In America, especially, it’s possible to take what belongs from other people without breaking any laws. We can legislate theft, we can tax people into poverty, we can have politicians, offering things in exchange for votes that are immoral, where those people are coveting their neighbor’s rightful possessions and are using the democratic political system to legislate ridiculous taxation, that is really just legally stealing from other people. No one’s breaking any laws, technically speaking, but they’re doing harm to their fellow citizens, they’re doing harm to their neighbor, and they’re being taught that it’s perfectly okay because it’s illegal. The command You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods teaches us to love our neighbor, to not see our neighbors and goods as something available to us for our own benefit, but to respect our neighbors goods, You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods, you should not envy your neighbor. When your neighbor prospers. Your neighbor has success. Your neighbor lives responsibly, studies hard, works hard, lives carefully, you know, saves his money, makes good investments, does good things has good things, you should look at that person and be happy for him, you should desire the happiness of your neighbor, not just your own happiness at the expense of your neighbor. And so you should be taught as a child to not covet your neighbor’s goods and to be warned that if you’re sitting there, thinking about how you would like to get what your neighbor has, that that desire is itself evil. Because you’re not respecting your neighbor, you should respect the rights and property of others. You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods now what now? What’s the alternative? Those who would object to this? What’s the alternative? Should children taught that? It’s it’s perfectly alright to covet their neighbor’s goods? Should people be taught that it’s perfectly alright to take what belongs to someone else? As long as you do it? By means of legislation or within the boundaries of the laws? Does anyone believe that that’s what should be taught to children to look at their neighbors as sources of their own desires? Should we intentionally raise a class of politicians that understands that they can plunder other people so long as they do it? By passing laws that allow them to take their neighbor’s goods without being criminal activity? No, we should teach children You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods you should protect your neighbor’s property. I don’t think anyone would be willing to teach the opposite but But what should we do? Should we just not mention it? Should we leave children to themselves to sit and plot and scheme how they can get other people’s goods and and not have that desire or those thoughts checked? By a rule? By a command? No, we should teach children that they should not covet their neighbor’s goods but that they should respect act, their neighbors possessions that they should seek to promote their neighbor’s happiness and seek their own happiness, only by means that protect their neighbor’s happiness as well. That’s the golden rule to do to others, what you would have them do to you.
So, that brings us to the, to the end of the 10 commandments. Now, as we went through them, again, we’re talking about schools, we’re talking about teaching children and preparing future adults. So it doesn’t make much sense to make excuses for the way things are. History is a record of what has been, or what is, that’s irrelevant in education, because in education, we’re trying to control and influence what could be or what should be. And so we shouldn’t be talking about what is we should be talking about what should be, and God helping us what could be, we’re talking not about what circumstances these children live in, or what circumstances these children are, or are all born in. But what should we teach them so that we can help them to enter into new circumstances, to enjoy lives, where things are the way that they should be, not just the way that they happen to be. And when we look at the 10 commandments, we find 10 rules that really no one can say, violate the common good. In fact, every single one of them, defends and promotes the common good, every single one of these commandments, protect every single person in society. Every one of these commandments, prohibits exploitation prohibits any kind of abuse or mistreatment of other people. And not just physically, but also spiritually, intellectually, and so on.
Now, I understand that some will object to the first two commandments. And they’ll use an argument that we’re free from any establishment of religion by the American government. But again, if we understand those first two commandments, in a philosophical way, and understand that by the name God, we’re naming that beyond which nothing greater can be imagined. And we’re working to make sure that no human beings become subject to any suppose it’s spiritual being any taught idea of what God might be. That is anything less than that, beyond which nothing greater can be imagined. How is that not promoting the common good, even the atheist can accept this idea that we should not worship anything other than that, beyond which nothing greater can be imagined? Now, the atheist can argue and say, Well, I don’t believe that any such thing exists. We may sit around and imagine it. But I don’t believe any such thing exists. Any such being exists. I’m an atheist, or we could be an agnostic and say, Look, I don’t believe it’s possible for us to know with certainty, anything about such a being, both of those positions are fine. But neither of those positions says that this still isn’t a good rule to teach the children that if you are going to worship any being, if you are going to promote any religious, being any any any idea of God, it must be that beyond which nothing greater can be imagined. I don’t think an atheist can object to that rule. I don’t think an agnostic can object to that rule. In fact, I think what most atheists and agnostics object to is exactly what this first commandment is trying to prevent, which is the promotion of false irrational religion that actually leads people away from the path to happiness. So even if one does not believe that such a being exists, one is an atheist. This command is still a good command. An atheist should support this command and say, Look, I personally don’t believe that such a being exists. But I do believe that children should be taught to never accept anything in the name of God that isn’t or wouldn’t be. A being beyond which nothing greater could be imagined or could exist. I think The atheist and the agnostic would both if they understood the command, in a philosophical sense, they would understand the value of teaching that to children, it would be a means of preventing, destructive, harmful, false religion.
And the second commandment as well, some may say, Well, who are you to restrict my speech? Well, we don’t believe that strict that speech should be completely unrestricted. No one believes that. We understand what the freedom of speech means. It means the freedom to discuss things, the freedom to raise objections, the freedom to argue the freedom to disagree, the freedom to protest when we think that something is being done, that’s oppressive. But it doesn’t mean that there should be no respect for anything, especially respect for a name given to that which we all acknowledge or agree to think about, as that beyond which nothing greater can be imagined. If we were to impose a restriction on speech, would it be unreasonable for that to be the restriction? Or would that be something we can all look at and say, hey, you know what, I think it’s good for us to have some boundary. And I think, to agree to keep one name sacred. For the sake of all of us, to be able to speak respectfully, and at least reserve one name as something sacred. I don’t think that’s asking too much. I don’t think it’s asking too much for the comedian, or the filmmaker or the musician to find another subject. I think we can agree to have some mutual respect for the notion of that, beyond which nothing greater can be imagined.
So if we look through the 10 commandments, yes, sure. You can have some some radical fundamentalist right wing, political zealot Christian, trying to impose these commands on society because he wants to turn the government into some sort of military power that enforces his idea of, of Christian morality, or that rewards him for practicing his Christian religion. But that’s really not what these commandments in and of themselves, teach us. And again, the secular news media can can bring politicians onto their shows and ask them why these commands should be posted in public schools and taught to children. And those politicians can give ridiculously ignorant and stupid answers. But there are reasons why the 10 commandments could and should be displayed in schools why they could and should be taught in even public schools, even by atheists, even by agnostics. And it’s because when they’re understood, in a philosophical sense, as a tool that we can use to promote the common good, and to promote the happiness of every single American person. There is no alternative. And as we went through them, I asked, what’s the alternative? There’s no alternative? And so what are we actually fighting against here? Are we fighting against a perfectly good instrument for promoting human happiness and protecting the common good? And if so, why are we doing that? Just so that we can fight with some right wing politician? I think for the secular media, that’s that’s what they’re doing. They’re opposed to this because they will get the most obnoxious politician on the show, ask them the questions, just set them up, knowing they’re going to say ridiculous nonsense that gets everybody upset and say, you see how ridiculous this is. But the truth is, this is not ridiculous.
This is actually reasonable. This is perfectly American, perfectly constitutional, because remember, the end of the Constitution is to promote the happiness, right? To promote the right to life, liberty and happiness among the American people. And what in these 10 commandments doesn’t do that how it can anything, as I’ve explained in these 10 commandments be said to be contrary to the end for which the Constitution was established. So anyway, I hope that thinking through these things from a philosophical and political perspective, not allowing them to be hijacked by some crazy political groups that that you know, present themselves under the banner of Christianity, but you know, have have no connection to to Christianity as a as a system of religion historically or philosophically. If we think about that, and carefully, philosophically reasonably, we can see that there’s there’s actually a lot of reason to consider the 10 commandments to be something that’s posted and taught to children in schools that it’s perfectly constitutional, and good for all Americans something that all Americans can look at and say, Yeah, I would like for all children to learn these 10 commands anyway.
If, if you have any thoughts on this, if you disagree with anything I said, or if you’d like to propose some alternatives, as I asked for each of the 10 commandments, I’d love for you to share your thoughts. But I wanted to talk about this because I think that there are some helpful things that can be said and should be said, and I wanted to hop in here and say them. So I hope that’s helpful. I’d love to hear what you have to say about this. Think about this, because this is what we should be talking about in American society, we should be talking about controversial things like this, we should be reasoning about them, we should be talking about the notion of God and what it means to even be God what what the name God means to establish definitions, and then be able to use those terms intelligently and consistently, to talk about things like laws and constitutional rights. So I hope that’s helpful.
Again, my name is William Michael, I’m the headmaster of the classical liberal arts academy. If you’re interested in classical Catholic education, or a studies of philosophy, or you know, you hear me talk about things and you say, you know, this is interesting. I’d like to dig more into this, you’re free to do so. Join us in the classical liberal arts academy for philosophical studies, classical liberal arts studies. Even though I’m a Catholic, and our program identifies as Catholics, the classical liberal arts and and philosophical sciences existed before Catholicism was even established in history, and they’re open to all men there are inheritance as human beings. So you’re welcome to join us to study and if you’d like to learn more just get in touch. You can reach me by email, write to mail@classicalliberalarts.com or visit the website at classicalliberalarts.com.
God bless,
Mr. William C. Michael, O.P.
Headmaster
Classical Liberal Arts Academy
Enjoy this article? Take a moment and share it with friends.
