Gregg Easterbrook has an odd proposal to solve the various Ten Commandment lawsuits. He claims that there would be no Constitutional issue if Christians were willing to compromise and focus on the six commandments that Mr. Easterbrook believes Jesus valued most. However, Mr. Easterbrook apparently misunderstands the essence of the passage that he uses to illustrate his point.
Yet there is an alternative to the Ten Commandments--namely, the Six Commandments, enunciated by Jesus himself. And the Six Commandments could hang in any public facility without jeopardizing the separation of church and state.In the Gospel of Matthew, a man asks Jesus what a person must do to enter heaven. He answers: "Keep the commandments." The man inquires: "Which ones?" Here is how the biblical account continues: "And Jesus said, 'You shall not murder; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness. Honor your father and mother. Also, you shall love your neighbor as yourself.'"
Debating what laws are more important than others was a long-standing exercise of the rabbinical tradition in which Jesus was educated. But in these verses, which have a parallel retelling in the Gospel of Mark, Christ is not merely offering an opinion about law. Something wholly remarkable happens--Jesus edits the commandments.
Quickly now, which commandments did he leave out? "You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourselves an idol. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God. Remember the Sabbath Day, and keep it holy." These are the commandments having to do with formal religious observance--from today's perspective, the ones that clash with the Establishment Clause. Jesus' Six Commandments make no mention of God or faith. They could be posted on public property without constitutional entanglements.
Mr. Easterbrook very conveniently decides not to include the entirity of the account to which he is referring, which can be found here:
Matthew 19:16-22Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.”
“Which ones?” the man inquired.
Jesus replied, “ ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’”
“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
It should be obvious that Jesus wasn't dismissing the first four commandments; rather, he mentioned the latter six to the man first in order to set him up to face what was really hindering the man's spiritual journey. The questioning man apparently did very well obeying the commandments that instructed him in his relationships with his fellow men, but when Jesus told him to sell his goods and follow the questioner could not. Why? Because he was very rich and he had made his wealth into an idol. The rich young ruler was right with men, but he was not right with God, and when Jesus pointed this out to him he left, sad. The man knew what he had to do to fix his relationship with God, and yet he refused because of his idolatry -- which is, of course, a violation of the First and Second Commandments.
Mr. Easterbrook appears to have constructed a false God for himself, as well. Jesus did, in fact, de-emphasize the formalities of worship (particularly the forms with which the ancient Jews were familiar), but he certainly never condoned idolatry and blasphemy (remember when he cleansed the temple?). To suggest otherwise is, itself, blasphemous.
Actually, Jesus went further than Easterbrook suggests... he trimmed ten commandments down to two;
1] Love God
2] Love your neighbor
With this context (which Easterbrook ignores) it is plainly evident that Jesus gave the first four commandments greater weight than the last six.
And don't think that these 6 commandments wouldn't create controversy.
Let's see, adultery? Some people see it as a right.
Murder... I think NARAL and NOW might have a problem with that one.
Honor your parents? I think those running public schools might not be keen on that.
Anyway, Easterbrook should know that a little quoting from the Bible is a dangerous thing. The Gospels are not long, but they're chockfull of some very uncomfortable lessons, straight from Jesus's own mouth.
meep: The administrations of public schools are often not the ones you should be blaming. Parents and community members elect the school board, which has all the local control over the school district.
It's been my experience, though, that many parents aren't really involved in their child's education. If they're not going to get involved, they have no basis for complaining about the school they send their child(ren) to.
Mark: You're right about many parents not caring. It's unfortunate. However, I'm not sure local school boards really have as much control as you say, at least not in California. My mom is on our local school board, and they don't even control the majority of their budget, the state does.
Local school boards have significant influence in areas other than the budget. They often examine and either approve or disapprove curriculum initiatives and projects. They also direct the superintendent in his/her efforts to make sure teachers continually improve their teaching methods and practices.
Aside from the problems that unions present to public schools, there's another great source of difficulty: the students themselves. A lot of money and effort is spent on programs designed to get bad kids to succeed. I'm not talking about those with physical or mental disabilities... I'm talking about the kids who either don't want to learn or are resistant to authority... or both.
It's no secret that private schools often have generally higher scores on standardized tests (not that standardized tests are the be-all-end-all of education) than public schools... especially public schools in high crime, high poverty communities. The basic reason? Admission requirements. Private schools don't have to admit every student. Public schools, on the other hand, generally cannot refuse a student or, "leave children behind".. in the parlance of the No Child Left Behind initiative.
It's a matter of philosophical opinion, I suppose. Does society have a duty to educate EVERY child and get them to behave like law-abiding citizens.. regardless of whether or not that child really wants to learn and behave? I don't really have a strong opinion either way on it. I do believe that money spent on a child up-front that keeps him/her out of jail later on in life is money well-spent... but I also believe that kids who don't want to learn or behave probably won't until life teaches them those lessons the hard way.
The solution, I think, regardless of which side of that philosophical opinion you come down on, is stricter rules in public schools. When kids misbehave, they should be punished... not coddled. In nature, if you don't do what you have to do, you'll either be hurt or die. I don't think we have to go that far in schools, but I do think we need to make it clear what the consequences are for various actions... and stick by them. A part of this solution is the parent factor. Parents have to take responsibility for raising their kids.. not hand it off to the public school like a hot potato. Instead of letting TV and the Internet raise their kids, the parents should do it.
Generally speaking, I'm in favor of harsher punishments on parents for the misbehavior of their children. As long as they don't feel pain for the kid's antics, and can place the responsibility of raising him on government employees who have no choice, they have no incentive to take a hand in things.
Until we get the parents to discipline and raise their own kids, the rest of the system is doomed to failure.