Immoral Commands

I believe there are moral absolutes, that there is good and evil, that man can determine what “the good” is through reason with proper respect for individual rights. A moral code must begin with man’s absolute right to his life and liberty.

I live on Earth. My life is my responsibility. A proper moral code recognizes this reality. The dead and the gods have no need for moral codes. Neither do slaves nor subjects. A man who is not free to choose cannot be held responsible for his choices. Without choice there is no morality.

I accept no “commanded morality,” no moral code claiming to be of divine origin. A free man cannot accept a commanded code of ethics. My unalienable right to liberty guarantees [if nothing else] at least my freedom to think for myself.

Liberty, of course, does not mean that I am free to do whatever I want. I can’t kill or steal from people if I am a rational, moral man. How do I know this? The thinking goes like this: Because I recognize each man’s unalienable right to his life, I will not kill. To do so would be to deny that I have a right to my own life.

I can arrive at a couple of the same truths presented on the stone tablets, but only by means of reason. Unlike the flawed, Judeo-Christian commandments, however, I know that there is one instance where, not only am I not forbidden, but I am required to kill: To protect and defend my life and my freedom. To protect that which I cherish most, my top-tier values, I may have to kill. Why didn’t Moses [or God!] include this one, crucial exception to the rule?

Thou shalt not kill, except when some mindless, Bin Laden is trying to destroy you, your liberty, and your loved ones.

Who am I to edit God?

The religionists believe the Commandments are the word of an omniscient, all mighty God. The laws of an omniscient, all mighty God must be as perfect as their author. If God’s laws are not perfect, then God is not perfect. These laws—even the ones that sound pretty good, like Honor your mother and father—are flawed. Sure, I honor my parents: I was fortunate enough to have good ones. But, what about that 12-year-old girl being raped by her despicable father? According to the ancient God, she must honor him. No American, however religious, would ever argue that this little girl should honor her father. They would argue that God never intended for us to honor disgraceful parents, that there are exceptions to the rules.

Now, the entire meaning of the divine commandments is rendered wholly subjective. People are left to pick and choose which commands apply to them and to what extent. This subjectivity within, between, and among every faith ever invented by man is one of the principal causes for every bloodbath in the name of God through history. By what standard are individuals to define which commands apply to them and to what extent? God offers no answers. Irrational men turn to clubs, spears, guns, and Boeing 767s, each certain his interpretation of God’s revelation is the true faith.

Objective law is not subject to such disputes: Objective law is arrived at by means of reason, not divine revelation. Objective law begins with the recognition that each man owns his life and his freedom.

So, why are there no exceptions written on the stone tablets? They are flawed. God erred? How do religionists explain these errors? They don’t. They ignore all inconsistencies when it comes to their faith.

I can explain the errors. A man, Moses, who lived over three thousand years ago, when the world’s word for philosophy was “religion,” wrote The Ten Commandments. Moses’ laws may have been acceptable to ancient people living in the shadow of authoritarian governments, but they are not acceptable to a free man with his brain intact.