Very droll, and a typical example of a badly-researched opinion piece.

Let's first look at some historical context.

The first written code was Hammurabi's, in modern-day Iraq less than 4000 years ago. The "ten commandments" are very obviously based on Hammurabi's law. Even the Bible claims that the ancestors of the Israelites hailed from northern Mesopotamia.

Northern Mesopitamia was already a rich civilisation at the time, with city states with tens of thousands of inhabitants. You can get a rough idea of what it looks like here:

http://gallery.me.com/ajbrehm#100028&bgcolor=black&view=grid

(Shows pictures of the 8000-year old Citadel of Arbil in northern Iraq.)

The first third of the Hebrew Bible recounts legends that were already known at the same as Sumerian, Akkadian, and Aramaean legends and the Hebrew used, allegedly, by Moses was clearly a Kanaanite language with Aramaic influences (which would confirm Biblica claims of Israelite decend from migrants from northern Mesopotamia into Kanaan 4000 years ago).

But let's look at specific points about the "ten" commandments.

Apart from obvious translation issues (like translating a word for "murder" as "kill") the author also makes the common mistake of limiting the commandments to 10 and then using the number as an argument. In fact there is no reason to count to 10 and ignore the rest of the laws given. In fact there are 613 commandments and the entire Torah ("law" in Hebrew) is indeed the foundation of Jewish law and the oldest law book which still has legal value today.

But even the author's specific remarks about specific commandments (of the first 10 of such) I find wanting.

The author says:

There is some confusion here regarding "religious language". In Biblical Hebrew no distinction is made between religious and secular and the Hebrew word for "religion" is the same word as for "rule" ("dath"). Religious IS law. And it is possible to follow a religion without believing in a god or angels or anything.

The commandment the author refers to instructs Israelites to observe the Shabbat (weekend) and to allow "slaves" to observe the shabbat too. Far from approving of slavery as such, the commandment merely demands that one's employees must also be granted the day off. The Hebrew word used, "3abd" ("3" is an Ayin) means any type of servant, owned or free, and derives from the same root as the verb "li3abod" which means "to work, labour, have a job". ("3abd" is the same 3abd as in the name "Abdullah" = "servant of Allah".)

And, ironically, that particular rule was indeed a new idea. Not only did it introduce the idea of a day off every week, but it went as far as making it mandatoray for employers to allow their employees to have the day off as well. The author rejects the commandment as ridiculous and unsuitable for "political endorsement by a free republic", but I find that it is probably the most modern concept among the "10" commandments and certainly more modern than the later Greek laws the author cites as allegedly more appropriate laws to respect.

Incidentally, the Hebrew word for "freedom" ("heruth") derives from the root for "engrave". In Hebrew "freedom" is the result of having laws, which was also a new concept and is the foundation of today's understanding of a constitution. The USA have a constitution to guarantee freedom, not to limit it. Israelite law was understood in the same way, hence there is only one word for "freedom" and "constitution" (which is pretty much the same as "engraved").

The author goes on to make fun of the first commandment:

The first commandment is of course the one that commands Israelites to worship no nother gods or idols before G-d.

It is perhaps difficult to see the wisdom of the commandment if one never lived in a society in which the commandment wasn't followed.

Can a society prevail without following the commandment? Do we know of any societies that worshipped idols and can we say that they prevailed?

The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany come to mind. Saddam's Iraq is another example. North Korea and its state-enforced worship of its "benevolent leader". Failing societies have a tendency to direct worship at their leaders, a tendency Moses and the Torah explicitly forbade for Israelites.

A typical American citizen find the idea of worshipping a politial leader laughable, the idea of gigantic posters and statues of the current leader everywhere scary, and he reserves the right to resist, to rebel against a government that takes away all his rights. So deepling ingrained is opposition to violating the first commandment in the American psyche that some people do not even realise any more which rule they are actually following.

(This law is actually Biblically older than the commandments. It is already one of Noah's laws for all mankind and not specific to Isarelites. And it is the most important principle taught by Jewish law.)

Further the author:

If the author worked in an office, he would know the often-recited mantra of the office worker: "Thank G-d it's Friday". We have the seventh day of the week off, and since Christianity also the first, a privilege people did not have before Moses' law introduced the concept of a weekend as we know it. Yet he feels that "Moses did nothing for us".

Solon's commandments might be more profound (although Greek society with its pedophilia and slavery unlimited by any laws makes me doubt it), but it is Moses' law that shaped our society.

The author is basically arguing that we should follow laws from a society that had slavery over the laws of a society that had rules against keeping slaves forever, and he thinks that the slavery issue is a good argument for doing so. I disagree. Solon's law was made for a society that supported slavery and doesn't address slavery at all, whereas Moses' law was made for a society that was once enslaved and addresses slavery and limits what one may do with and to slaves.

I also feel that "Do good things." is not an excellent law, especially when it comes to us from a society that considered pedophilia a good thing.

And the author ends his argument with a clever statement he probably thought was his own idea:

Did the religious people who upheld Jewish law never think of such a witty remark? Did they not notice how obvious it was?

They did.

In fact, the Talmud tells the story of Rabbi Hillel who, when asked to explain the entire Torah while standing on one foot, said:

"What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour: that is the whole Torah while the rest is commentary; go and learn it."

he doesnt realize that the commandment means that nothing else is worth your willing unforced submission.!!!! by this commandment alone ... God guarantees human's freedom from everything .... He, God, is the only one who have a say in what they should or should not do. .... is there anything in any constitution anywhere that achieves that kind of freedom???

The US Constitution limits my freedom in doing many things that God allows me to do .... ( and amazingly ... God also says that I MUST follow the laws of my country if it does not contradict His orders .... is there a better Being to have as the only one who have a say in what you say or do????!!!)

but you have to be understand that to know what it means ...

Yes.

Unfortunately it is often the case that those that criticise religion don't really waste much time learning about religion.

In the case of the article the author obviously felt that he had to criticise religion for what he perceives to be superstition and didn't realise that he was picking examples where the religion in question actually commands people not to be superstitious.

The command against idol-worship is first and foremost a commandment against superstition.

I prefer The 8 I Really Rather You Didn'ts.

~Zoo

Leauki, thanks for the counter.

Jesus said to Nicodemus, that except a man be born again, he shall not see the Kingdom of God.  The Spirit of God unless He indwells the human heart does indeed take on the form of the law, for it is written that He convicts the world of sin, righteousness and judgment. Until one is pardoned by the shed blood of Messiah, one is under condemnation and the law even in it's simplist form is no more than a noose around ones neck, that cannot grant one life. Infact it produces death, so that once taught this we will hurry to the Saviour for relief from condemnation and that libery which Christ spoke of. For whom the Son sets free is free indeed.

Yeah, that sounds complicated.

I prefer Rabbi Hillel's quote.

Yes, truth often is. 

The rabbi Hillel was as blind as the rich young ruler who obeyed all the commands relative to his relationship with his neighbour, but he failed to love God. Loving God is not easy, for it requires that some supernatural event take place that equips us for such a massive task.  Jesus expressed this when he said that Nicodemus, who was a Jew and a master of Israel, should have known about such a thing; which Jesus eventually summarized in four words, 'born of the Spirit'.

No. I found truth is usually very simple and not complicated at all.