Does state religion inappropriately attempt to universalize

[short bus president]

an individualized ethic?

And please, if you have nothing more to contribute than “jeebus sucks!” or “atheists are not equal citizens,” do not feel compelled to deposit your $0.02 here.

I’m not a theological scholar. But as an ethicist, I am intrigued by the ethics of religion. Since I lack formal training in religion, and since this is a DU forum and not a philosophical debate society, I’ll limit my comments to the set of religious rules for ethical behavior most widely known to the American layman – the Ten Commandments. An under-recognized feature of this significant work of religious ethics is that it seeks to guide individual action, as opposed to creating a framework for societal action. It is all “Thou shalt” and “Thou shalt not” – as opposed to “Society should” or “Society should not.” What is the reason for limiting the “Golden Rules” of Judeo-Christian ethics to individuals, instead of seeking to lay out plans for an ethical society (as in Plato’s Republic)?

Even the seemingly most obvious of the Ten Commandments - the bit about killing – must overcome obstacles if it is to be universalized to the societal (governmental) level. Waging war and executing criminals require special exemptions from the rule. And while it is not entirely clear what special status these two exempted activities enjoy that cannot also be argued on behalf of other potential candidates for special exemption (for example, abortion), it is clear that extrapolation of even this seemingly simple rule to societal applicability would require an additional stone tablet to document the exceptions.

My best guess as to why the foundation of Judeo-Christian ethics targets individual behavior and not societal behavior would be the personalized nature of faith. Within Christianity, at least, this seems obvious – one needs only to hear so many testimonials about personal relationships with a savior to know that the Christian faith is taken to be a personal affair. I have some difficulty, however, squaring what I view as the individualized nature of the Ten Commandments with the Jewish people’s idea of a covenant with god. Unless there is a distinct covenant between each believer and his/her god, I have trouble attributing the individualized nature of the Ten Commandments to the personalized nature of that faith. Perhaps a DU Talmudic scholar will help me with this…

Given a brief Sunday morning’s scrutiny, and covenant difficulties notwithstanding, it looks to me like the Ten Commandments are presented in the Judeo-Christian tradition as guides to ethical behavior for the individual, and not as a prescription for the ethical society. The difficulty in universalizing even the seemingly most obvious of these rules to the societal level should give pause to those who advocate a state founded upon Decalogue precepts. How many exceptions to each rule would have to be recognized before it became obvious that the original set of rules lacks relevance and authority outside of its intended (individual) context?

[Mari333]

1. there are 3 versions of the 10 Cs

the Catholic, the Jewish, and the Protestant.
so its a toss up as to which one you are referring to.
Since the US is based on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the 10Cs seem to be in direct Violation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in many ways. Ergo, they are in violation of what the USA is founded upon.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/carrier2.html

http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/ten_comandments.htm

[short bus president]

2. What are the differences

in the three versions of the Decalogue? Do the two with which I'm apparently not familiar speak to the individual or to the collective?

[Mari333]

6. Here ya go

http://www.uctaa.org/Essays/reflections/commandments/versions.html

[short bus president]

9. thank you for the link

very interesting table. But it still appears to me that all 3 interpretations speak to the individual. The common "honoring father and mother" part, for instance, seems clearly to be a rule for individuals, not for collectives.

[XanaDUer]

3. One of my favorite places on the WWW

http://www.ffrf.org/

freedom from religion foundation.

[carpetbagger]

4. Christianity, or at least as preached by Jesus, was societal.

He was crucified as a rebel, not stoned as a sinner. Sure, cynics usually teach by example and by individual exhortations, but they're preaching against a society at large.

Holiness, brokerage, and ownership in the Roman Empire are hard to see clearly, but an appropriate comparison would be (with thanks to Marcus Borg for telling me this one) of a scene in 1950's Alabama, where some guy started holding picnics every Sunday afternoon in the town park, inviting both blacks and whites, as well as disgraced people in the town's eyes, and saying "God's realm doesn't look like your realm, it looks like this."

Americans, since the fading out of the social gospel movement, say around the late 1940's, have jumped on the bandwagon of personal salvation. While I'm not interested in getting into an argument about the truth or falsehood of "John 3:16 Christianity", I truly believe that it is not the truest representation of the stuff that Jesus talked about. The world of Desmond Tutu comes much closer to God's realm than the world of Billy Graham.

[short bus president]

5. Do you have examples of Jesus' teachings

that are clearly aimed at whole societies and not at individuals within the flock? Every ethical precept I can think of attributed to the biblical Jesus speaks to the individual. From all the "thou shalts and shalt nots" through the stuff about "rendering unto Caesar," the teachings seem to tell individuals, not whole societies, how to act. But like I said, I'm not overly familiar with the teachings of the biblical Jesus. Maybe you could point out a passage or two where societal action and not individual action is the target of the message?

<edited for spelling>

[karlschneider]

7. What about

"Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall he comforted. Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for My sake"

Matthew 5:3-11

[short bus president]

10. What about that passage

indicates to you that it means whole societies should be this way, and not individuals? It seems odd to me to speak of whole societies "hungering and thirsting after righteousness," or being "pure in heart."

[maha]

8. Stealth Question?

What do you mean by "state religion"? We don't have a "state religion" in the United States.

"Given a brief Sunday morning’s scrutiny, and covenant difficulties notwithstanding, it looks to me like the Ten Commandments are presented in the Judeo-Christian tradition as guides to ethical behavior for the individual, and not as a prescription for the ethical society."

They are guides to the individual walking a particular spiritual path.

Note that the first four commandments (in most versions) involve worship and recognition of a god. This is way outside the realm of "ethics."

Even as a purely ethical guide, the ToCs are very, very limited. It says "don't bear false witness," for example. Does that cover all fibbing? Does "adultery" cover date rape?

Here's another model:

1. Refraining from killing living beings

2. Refraining from taking what is not given

3. Refraining from sexual misconduct

4. Refraining from false speech

5. Refraining from intoxicating drugs or drink

The above is a loose translation of the Five Grave Precepts of Buddhism, but nobody would know if you didn't tell 'em. Buddhism presents these as precautions to the individual, but if you wanted a quickie list of ethics to present to society in general, these are much better than the ToCs and don't require pledging a belief in anybody's God.

[short bus president]

11. Interesting

the last 3 of those clearly speak to individual, not societal, behavior. I imagine these 5 precepts would have a tough time undergoing extrapolation to the whole-society level, as well.

[maha]

13. Confucianism

Buddhism is all about individual effort, not imposing itself on others.

However, I think you are working with a false dichotomy, that something is either all collective or all individual. For example, Confucianism teaches that every member of society looks to his own ethical behavior, and then all of society will be ethical. See, for example, The Great Learning

http://uweb.superlink.net/~fsu/daxue.html

Confucianism is undemocratic in nature, however, so note that I am not advocating a Confucian system.

[aquart]

12. Lotta ten dollar words there.

Religion used to be inseparable from tribe and nation and economy and the well-being of the people. It was all one. The leader kept the people safe from harm by performing the correct rituals, following the right taboos, always, always with the goal that those he led would be safe, healthy, well-fed, and hopefully joyous in their lot.

If the people were stricken by plague, famine, or any other sort of catastrophe injurious to their well-being, the leader was obviously out of favor with the forces of the universe, The Powers That Be, and needed to be replaced. Usually this was done by killing him. Reading his entrails would then give important signs for the future.

Why wouldn't you have faith in such a system? There was total accountability.

We don't have that anymore. Maybe because it didn't always work. Maybe because leaders decided that to get one mythical being to die in their place for all time and all failures was a much better business plan. All the ethics of religion today are simply another way of trying to achieve the goal without remembering the goal: the well-being of the people. All the laws of the nation are the same thing. The goal is no longer the well-being of the people. (I'm damned if I know what it is.) And there are certainly no longer any consequences to failing to achieve such a goal.

A state religion now is merely a way of suppressing dissent with the current misguided systems. "You'll get pie in the sky when you die. Now be quiet and accept your lot in life and praise God who will reward you for your obedience."

There is no accountability for any religious or political leadership. Look at the Catholic Church which won't let gays marry consenting adults but will let them molest defenseless children. Look at George Bush who has never once done a single even tiny little thing FOR the American people. All his loyalty is to multinational anti-democratic corporations with no loyalty to the American people, values, or constitution.

Surely, when religion began, the death and economic chaos and environmental pollution brought by George, so vividly harmful to this people, would have had certain sure consequences. But George is comfortable in his belief that God has sent him to tell us what to do, no matter how it harms us. And why shouldn't he be? Nothing will ever harm HIM.

But that's just us. Maybe George's faith-based egomaniacal view of Christianity is just an historical aberration. Are the people of any nation with a state religion thriving?

Our current ethics are bandaids for wounds we don't understand. Religious or any other ethics: what's the goal of them? You nitpick and argue over thou shalt not kill while millions die slowly in numbed despair.

In which case, what is the point of individual ethics? What is the goal of them? To ensure a seat at the right hand of God? Or to ensure the well-being of the people? When I and television were young, I saw a tv interview in black and white. Some people where standing with an old man and an interviewer and an interpreter. The people were Jews who had been hidden by the old man, a Polish farmer, during the war. The interviewer asked, thru the interpreter, why the old man had risked his life to help strangers. The old man replied, thru the interpreter, "I had to. I'm a Catholic."

Throw away all your big words and your commandmants and all the rest. That old man got it right. With torture and death on every side, with centuries of bigotry throughout his nation, he still got it right. The first three words were everything. The last ones could have been anything: "I had to. I'm a Rastafarian." "I had to. I'm a Protestant." "I had to. I'm a Muslim." "I had to. I'm a Republican."

We are all in this together. Believing that one group can thrive only by ensuring the misery of another group is the way of the Holocaust, and so many other evils practiced today.

Religion has never really had a problem with killing. The commandment in question was only against murder, for one thing. And justifiable homicides were given shelter cities to flee to. The iffy question gets back to what ensures the well-being of the people.

And what do we do with leadership that doesn't consider that an issue.