next »

[rowan1]

Uh, the LDS Church doesn't own Coke or Pepsi.  They never have. 

For the person that identified him/herself as Mormon, I'm surprised you believe this.  It's one of the more common urban myths surrounding the Church.

Now, you want to see people freak out over a candidate's religion?  Just wait until Tom Cruise runs for Governor of California. 

Sorry, not clear - they do not own it, however they own a great deal of stock in Pepsi, have since the 70's.  They used to own a controling margin. 

BTW - not a Mormon, just related to many many many

[rowan1]

OK - I am now going to eat some crow - Jonesy is absolutly right, they church does not in fact own a either Coke or Pepsi, or controling interest. My bad for perpetuating a common myth.

The joke about Spencer sure was a popular one amongst my Moromon relatives for a long time though.

Rowan - with a mouth full of feathers!

[oldadjunct]

This seems to me the definitive statement on the subject, and the problem:


LYNCHBURG, VA. -- “I always cringe when I hear people talk about throwing away the vote when they vote their conscience,” Mike Huckabee told reporters today. “That’s what voting is – voting is voting with your conscience, it’s voting with your convictions.”

Earlier, he spoke at Thomas Road Baptist Church, the pulpit of the late Dr. Jerry Falwell. Lacing together the relationship between religion and state, he delivered a short speech about how moral clarity decreases the need for more government and more law.

“Frankly, we really don’t need a lot of law if we are people of morality,” he said to the congregation of over 7,000. “There are only ten basic laws that we need. If you think about it, the Ten Commandments cover it all.”

“The reason law gets more complicated is because we try to figure out clever ways around those ten,” he said to applause.

Huckabee cautioned that a lack of moral clarity would result in “paying for more and more government to overwhelm us with direction when our own personal freedom and conscience does not.”

“And that’s why I stand here today, not to make a political statement but to make one I hope you will hear," he said. "That what happens in this church every Sunday, what is spoken from this pulpit every week, what comes forth from the word of God is not a disconnected message from whether or not we will continue to be a free and great nation because the day our nation quits listening to God and the day we no longer have moral clarity, is the day that we will have to have increasing levels of government and law to restrain us because then our own consciences will not. ” [emphasis added]

Is there any ambiguity here that Huckabee's morality and governing principles are quite specifically doctrinal?

[husqvarna]

oldadjunct,

Could you explain more on why this is the "definitive" statement on the subject of society and religion, or why you see it as a problem?  I think it's a quite normal opinion to say that a society's bureaucracy and legal structure expands rapidly in relation to that society's inability to collaboratively govern itself as a public.  Frankly, Huckabee mentions the ten commandments and church, but he's not making a strong argument here for "doctrinal" governing principles (I think I know what you mean here, but it may also be helpful to discuss what is meant by "doctrinal"), at least as I read it.

Why not bold the text where he says, "I stand here today, not to make a political statement but to make one I hope you will hear"?  Huckabee is speaking about individual consciences at a gathering that is not a political organization.  And his argument is specifically that government involvement in our lives increases as "listening to God" and "moral clarity" decrease. 

He's not saying anything about making governing principles "doctrinal", he's saying the exact opposite!  He's speaking for "personal freedom and conscience" and against "more government and more law". 

That's how I read him.  I'm not exactly sure what you mean in your commentary because you don't elaborate too much, but from what I think you mean, I don't know where you get that from the text.  You seem to make the connection between Huckabee making utterances about religion and morality as an important part of societal wellbeing and then assume that he's talking about governing, when that's exactly what he's opposing.

[john_proctor]

This seems to me the definitive statement on the subject, and the problem:


LYNCHBURG, VA. -- “I always cringe when I hear people talk about throwing away the vote when they vote their conscience,” Mike Huckabee told reporters today. “That’s what voting is – voting is voting with your conscience, it’s voting with your convictions.”

Earlier, he spoke at Thomas Road Baptist Church, the pulpit of the late Dr. Jerry Falwell. Lacing together the relationship between religion and state, he delivered a short speech about how moral clarity decreases the need for more government and more law.

“Frankly, we really don’t need a lot of law if we are people of morality,” he said to the congregation of over 7,000. “There are only ten basic laws that we need. If you think about it, the Ten Commandments cover it all.”

“The reason law gets more complicated is because we try to figure out clever ways around those ten,” he said to applause.

Huckabee cautioned that a lack of moral clarity would result in “paying for more and more government to overwhelm us with direction when our own personal freedom and conscience does not.”

“And that’s why I stand here today, not to make a political statement but to make one I hope you will hear," he said. "That what happens in this church every Sunday, what is spoken from this pulpit every week, what comes forth from the word of God is not a disconnected message from whether or not we will continue to be a free and great nation because the day our nation quits listening to God and the day we no longer have moral clarity, is the day that we will have to have increasing levels of government and law to restrain us because then our own consciences will not. ” [emphasis added]

Is there any ambiguity here that Huckabee's morality and governing principles are quite specifically doctrinal?

This is the kinda thing that really chafes my arse.  There is a particular form of Christian identity expressed in modern American life that insists on the Ten Commandments as basis of all US LEGAL practice and articulates a sense of identity "based on the Bible" but demonstrate, in the articulation, that the advocate is astonishingly ignorant of the very Biblical text they cite as their own ruling authority.  

Bare with me a moment for a longish prelude to my post's point.

Just for starters (I'll leave aside questions of composition, origins, translation and other complexities around the reading of these portions of scripture):

The presentation of the Ten Commandments occurs in Exodus 20 - 34.  In the story, Moses goes up on Mt. Sinai to hear God's word.  God gives moses a set of stone tablets with 10 instructions (ch. 20).  The words "ten commandments" do not occur in the chapter.  While Moses is getting some additional instructions about civil organization, holidays, and the construction and maintenance of a holy place for God (chs. 21-31) the people below create an idol of a calf out of gold.  God gets mad, sends Moses back down.  Moses gets angry, rebukes the people, smashes the tablets, and begins kicking butts and taking names.  He returns to the mountain, calms down God, and recarves the commandments (ch. 34 - the actual phrase "ten commandments" occurs only in 34:28).  

Here's the thing, though: the list of ten in 20:1-17 and 34:10-28 don't match.  Indeed, they're amazingly different.  (Scholars suggest this is possibly two different traditions that have been harmonized).  If one wanted, comparing the list to the one found in Deuteronomy presents even more complexity.  I stick with Exodus simply to illustrate an unforgivable level of ignorance (can't you read just 10 chapters more and attend to the details of a story most protestant Christians know well?)

The first group is the more traditionally known (among Protestant Christians).  It includes: 1. You shall have no other Gods; 2. You shall not make any image or likeness of anything on heaven or on earth; 3. don't take God's name in vain (probably an injunction against false oaths); 4. keep Sabbath; 5. honor one's parents (failure at which, btw, is a capital crime); 6. do not murder ("kill" is too generic); 7. no adultery (again, a capital crime.  "Adultery" in the Hebrew Bible, however, is defined as sex with someone else's wife.  A married man can have sex with whomever he chooses, provided she's not married to someone else); 8. Do not steal; 9. do not bear false witness (perhaps generically "do not lie," more likely, do not purjer oneself); 10. Do not covet.

In Exodus 34, the list is: 1. make no covenants with the inhabitants of the land (presumably, non Jews) but smash their altars; 2. don't worship any other gods; 3. don't make images of gods; 4. Observe Passover; 5. observe Sabbath; 6. observe the "Feast of Weeks" (a harvest festival); 7. Males are to appear before God 3 times a year; 8. No blood offered at the sacrifice; 9.  Bring first fruits of your harvest to God; 10. Do not boil a calf in its mother's milk.  These are called, explicitly, the "ten commandments" (34:28).  The phrase doesn't appear in Exodus 20 at all.

So: problem one: which list of ten (remember, in the biblical text, it's all one story).  If the latter, is that the basis for anything other than Jewish cultic law?  If the former, is there a problem that these aren't even CALLED the ten commandments?

Problem two: even if one takes the list of Exodus 20, let's look at it more closely.  Commandment one means that no one in the country could be anything but Jewish or Christian (at most liberal, perhaps Moslem); commandment two says no images of any kind are allowed; commandment 3 - if taken as the more liberal reading of contract law - might be a legal issue (fraud).  Otherwise, it's subject to people trying to figure out how to criminalize certain uses of God's name as "vain;" commandment 4 is ignored by Christians.  Even applying it to Sunday would mean that NO nonessential businesses (including communications - radio, TV, etc.) could be open for business one day a week (notice how many Christians go OUT TO EAT after Sunday worship).  Commandment 5 is no basis of law (though a generally humane and grateful act).  Commandment 6 is a clean hit; murder is against the law.  Same with commandments 8 and 9 (stealing and perjury).  Strictly, commandment 7 is often against the law (most states have laws saying adultery is criminal), though it's not enforced as a criminal act.  Enforcing commandment 10 would be the death knell for a capitalist economy; I can't think of any more flagrant violation.

So, to sum, 3 commandments apply to us law.  2 sorta do (adultery and fraud).  5 are Jewish specific (4 of those are ignored by Christians) and enforcing them is expressly FORBIDDEN by the constitution (inhibiting free expression of religion).  So, taking the 10 as a whole, only about half, perhaps even as little as a third, of the list apply to civil law.  More are expressly forebidden by US law than are endorsed.

Is that justification for a claim that these are the foundation of our culture and legal system?  Let's not forget, too, the problems of which freakin list IS the ten commandments in the first place?

Where all that not enough, when Jesus is asked (Luke 10:25f) what the "root of the Law" is (in other words, the basis for living before God), there is NO reference to the ten commandments.  Instead, there is a conflation of Deut. 6 and Leveticus 19 (love God; treat one's neighbor as oneself).  You only get a partial list in Jesus remarks of Matthew 19:16-25 (though, note, he also recommends one sell all one's possessions, give all the money to the poor, and devote one's life to God.  Mike?)

I don't give a rip about someone's religious belief when considering them for high office.

What I can't abide, however, is someone who demonstrates that they make decisions based on NOTHING but rhetoric.  

Huckabee CLAIMS that he bases his beliefs on the "Bible alone."  Yet he demonstrates a stunning level of ignorance about the actual contents of the Bible.  Further, his display is clearly not rooted in any biblical text but is clearly rooted in popular sentiments among his base audience.

In other words, he just decides to believe what the group tells him to.

He's unfit for the presidency.  Frankly, such displays such an amazing lack of intellectual integrity (to claim so strongly that the Bible is one's guide but to clearly display NO EFFORT to really control it's contents or reflect on their meanings).  It is the most base, horrid, and indefensible character humanly possible.  It is EXACTLY the same character found in fundamentalist terrorists.

[magistra]

Amen, Brother John.

It's always bothered me that the when "The Ten Commandments" are thrown out, it's always, specifically, the Protestant Commandments, not the Catholic or Hebrew versions meant.  That right there is a problem; I'm thinking specifically of the "hang them on the courthouse" debate.

The real roots of our legal system are English Common Law and, further back, Roman Law.  So we should have the Twelve Tables put up at least as much as the 10 Commandments.

Question -- I was taught that the 9th and 10th commandments against "coveting" meant, specifically, "do not desire and take", not just "do not desire", i.e. it's about stealing more than jealousy.  Anyone ever heard of this tradition?  What's in the Hebrew?

[oldadjunct]

So: problem one: which list of ten (remember, in the biblical text, it's all one story).  If the latter, is that the basis for anything other than Jewish cultic law?  If the former, is there a problem that these aren't even CALLED the ten commandments?

Problem two: even if one takes the list of Exodus 20, let's look at it more closely.  Commandment one means that no one in the country could be anything but Jewish or Christian (at most liberal, perhaps Moslem); commandment two says no images of any kind are allowed; commandment 3 - if taken as the more liberal reading of contract law - might be a legal issue (fraud).  Otherwise, it's subject to people trying to figure out how to criminalize certain uses of God's name as "vain;" commandment 4 is ignored by Christians.  Even applying it to Sunday would mean that NO nonessential businesses (including communications - radio, TV, etc.) could be open for business one day a week (notice how many Christians go OUT TO EAT after Sunday worship).  Commandment 5 is no basis of law (though a generally humane and grateful act).  Commandment 6 is a clean hit; murder is against the law.  Same with commandments 8 and 9 (stealing and perjury).  Strictly, commandment 7 is often against the law (most states have laws saying adultery is criminal), though it's not enforced as a criminal act.  Enforcing commandment 10 would be the death knell for a capitalist economy; I can't think of any more flagrant violation.

So, to sum, 3 commandments apply to us law.  2 sorta do (adultery and fraud).  5 are Jewish specific (4 of those are ignored by Christians) and enforcing them is expressly FORBIDDEN by the constitution (inhibiting free expression of religion).  So, taking the 10 as a whole, only about half, perhaps even as little as a third, of the list apply to civil law.  More are expressly forebidden by US law than are endorsed.

Is that justification for a claim that these are the foundation of our culture and legal system?  Let's not forget, too, the problems of which freakin list IS the ten commandments in the first place?

Thanks, JP, you lay this out with more authority, detail and clarity than I could have.  But, I didn't go into that detail since in general I thought it was self-evident.  Clearly I was wrong on that count.

Hvernon, I chose not to emphasize the one word "not" in favor of all the other words that directly contradicted that one word.

[john_proctor]

oldadjunct: I would very much disagree that it's common knowledge.  I think that's actually the main point.  People claim the "Bible" is the source of their ethics and the authority for their lives and they clearly don't read it, let alone have control of its contents.

Their loyalty is to rhetoric.  What really makes it chafe my arse, though, is that they: a. become overwhelmingly dogmatic (often aggressive, judgmental and demeaning of others); b. insist they're only working with the Bible.  The net result is astonishing hubris, dogmatism, and, frankly, stupidity.  They are so ignorant they don't realize the extent of their ignorance.  I actually have lain awake wondering why such arguments are compelling, what it means about Americans that they hear claims like this and don't do the remarkably easy task of checking them.  For some reason, religious views are "off the table" for fact-checking.

True, many are able to quote key passages, but their control of the entire book is appalling.

Anecdotal evidence, true, but I've taught in both the New York area and in the Bible Belt.  I teach biblical studies and history of Judaism and Christianity.  I've never encountered a religious community as fundamentally ignorant of it's own text, history and theology (but also, as fundamentally dogmatic) as evangelical Christians.

I challenge them in class constantly.  They resist, but I'm insistent.  Frankly, if you attempt to refute me with the claim, as a believer, that "the Bible alone" is your basis for faith, you better damn well know its contents at least as well as I do.

Evangelicals, sadly, aren't unique here.  I've met more than a few Presbyterians who've never cracked their own Confession of Faith. (not to pick on Presby's.  I just make one example.  Trust me, I could go on to others).

Magistra: I think you're right.  Given the general cultural context of the "Ten Commandments" in recent times, I think that hv's reading strains the context of Huckabee's remarks (particularly given some of his previous statements).

As to your question regarding "covet," without getting into the Hebrew, one could, indeed, do some fancy-shmancy lexical and theological footwork to soften the injunction.  This is far less valid, however, than the clearly ambivalent readings of the words "kill/murder" and taking God's name "in vain."

One might also appeal to a long history of Jewish and Christian interpretation identifying ch. 20 as the ten commandments (though, one also has to face the fact that the text never makes such a claim).

In other words, one could justify the argument in many ways.  All of them, however, require reliance on something other than the "Bible alone." 

[husqvarna]

JP,

Why don't you mention Deut. 5?  This is the decalogue account that I usually see compared to the Ex. 20 account in the literature, and they are much more similar.  Could you give me a few citations to chase after concerning the Ex. 20/34 relationship?

On Huckabee's point in this speech, I agree that it doesn't sound like Huckabee.  It seems much too libertarian for his position.  But that doesn't change the fact that the speech itself doesn't seem to be saying what oldadjunct found it to be saying.  My point, oldadjunct, is that the one bolded word I suggested simply doesn't contradict his other words.  His other actions and statements as a candidate, perhaps, but we're talking about this speech.  You still, to my mind, haven't explained why this speech is a definitive statement of any sort.  That he is referencing religious law, and doing so without getting into the nuances of textual criticism, doesn't change the matter of how he juxtaposes the ten commandments or personal morality with the law, which grows and intrudes on personal morality as personal morality doesn't do its job... I'd still like to hear an explanation on this.  And what does it matter if he calls them the "Ten Commandments"?!  You seem to emphasize that they were not originally called this, JP, but you ignore the fact that Huckabee is not a Jew living thousands of years ago, he's a 21st century Christian who has been informed by his own tradition of textual reception.  That these laws weren't originally numbered one through ten and labeled "TEN COMMANDMENTS" doesn't mean that it's not legitimate to refer to them as such now, or to treat them as a finished product.  Because, as a canon and throughout the canon's reception, this simply is a finished product of sorts.

And I am not convinced by JP that all of his textual problems are really very problematic... again, I think that the Deuteronomy passage is more relevant to the discussion than Ex. 34... Ex.34 mentions going back for a covenant and rewriting tablets and this does raise questions, but its cultic material is also similar to the laws given between it and the original account in ch. 20.  The laws given by God in the pentateuch are much broader than the ten commandments, and in trying to sort out exactly what the ten commandments are, I think a later mention and specific reading of the commandments should hold some weight.  Now, Deut. 10 does seem to be referring to something more like Ex. 34.  Certainly the legal tradition presented in ch.34 shouldn't be dismissed.  But it can be separated from what we would consider the ten commandments, and seems to be separated by Moses in Deut. 5, when he reads the decalogue again.  (I may be wrong on some of these details... I'm no Old Testament scholar and it's been a while since I've taken a grad class in either Hebrew or Old Testament.)

As to JP's question of whether even the Ex. 20 account is "foundation for our culture or legal tradition", I think you're putting up a straw man.  The Roman legal system and British Common Law, mentioned by magistra (with whom I'm in agreement on this) would also look quite foreign to anything acceptable for our current tradition.  That doesn't mean that they aren't important for the tradition at a foundational level. 

Also, on Jesus' reference to love of God and neighbor, it's interesting to note that in Luke's version that you cite, it's the lawyer who tells Jesus this and Jesus who confirms it.  So obviously this understanding is not foreign to the Jewish take on the law.  In Matthew and Mark you have Jesus giving the reference to the love of God and neighbor (and, importantly, its connection to the other laws in Matthew).  But, in Mark you have the scribe saying that Jesus is correct and comparing this principle to "all burnt offerings and sacrifices".  This seems to put the two "Great Commandments" not in opposition to the "ten commandments" of Ex. 20 and Deut. 5, but rather to the cultic laws of the pentateuch.   

[odessa]

JP,

Thank you so very much for the post about "The Commandments."  I've never seen nor heard such a clear discussion about the disconnect between text and "rhetoric" as it pertains to this issue.  I wish I knew your real name so that I could properly credit you when I use this information in discussions with people.  For that matter, I wish I knew your real name and institutional affiliation so that I could figure out a way to enroll in one of your courses.  (This is not a new desire on my part.  I read a lot of your posts and envy your students their opportunity to learn from someone like you.  I hope some of them appreciate the experience.  End of blatant fangirl moment.)

Evangelicals, sadly, aren't unique here.  I've met more than a few Presbyterians who've never cracked their own Confession of Faith. (not to pick on Presby's.  I just make one example.  Trust me, I could go on to others).

I'm going to confess my ignorance of religious doctrines.  What would some of the other examples be?

Off to look-up the Confession of Faith, because while I'm not a Presbyterian, I am now curious.

Hmm.  Just saw hvernon's post on preview.  Will need to dive into this one too.  This is why I love the forums.

O.

[john_proctor]

Sorry, hv, but there are abundant examples of evangelicals arguing that the ten commandments are the foundation for moral law and legal practice.  For just three (the first three among three hundred plus hits from a google search) see http://www.morallaw.org/, http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/27/ten.commandments/, and http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/ten_commandments.htm (which refer to the Montgomery Alabama courthouse case).

It is most certainly not a straw man argument.

And I'm not talking about nuances of textual criticism (i.e. the contents of the "original" text or the origins of it).  I'm simply pointing out the content of the text.  In other words, there is no more sophisticated "critical" move being made here more than, well, reading.

I'm not sure how much more citation you need regarding Exodus 20 and 34.  I give book, chapter and verse for goodness sake.  Just read them; I'm not doing anything but quoting and summarizing.

The correspondence of Deuteronomy 10 to 34 only makes my point even more dramatic.

Bringing in Deuteronomy 5 doesn't help at all.  I omitted Deuteronomy because the overwhelming view of scholarship since Wellhausen is that this document wasn't written until ca. 6th century BCE (well after the establish monarchy, the divided monarchy, and even the capture of the northern provinces by Assyria).

Most evangelicals are ignorant of that scholarship.  Many - if not most - would reject it.  So, for the moment, let's let it go and just deal with the text.

I chose Exodus 20-34 because it is the primary presentation of the story of God giving the words.

Exodus 34:28 calls the previous list the "ten commandments."  In Hebrew, the word for "commandment" is debar (word, saying, deed, thing).  The Greek translation of the 3d century BCE translates this "Decalogue" (Greek combination of the word "ten" and logos or "word, saying"). 

The expression doesn't appear at all in Exodus 20 OR 34.  The reference to "ten" does not appear at all in Deuteronomy.  Only Exodus 34:28 has the classic "Decalogue" expression.  To get "ten commandments" one must conflate the "ten" of Exodus 34 with the "commandment" of Deuteronomy 5 (and ignore the problem that neither word occurs in Exodus 20).

In Deuteronomy 5:1 Moses (as the story frames it, speaking to the Israelites just before they begin to enter and conquer the land of Canaan) reminds the people of the "ordinances" of the Lord (the Hebrew word here is for "command" specifically).  But it's also different.

To begin, verse 2 says the covenant was initiated at Horeb, not Sinai.  Commandment one is the same, but commandment two has changed the wording.  It's not just "any graven image," but specifically idolatry AND it conflates the "jealous God" language of Exodus 34 with the language of Exodus 20.  Next, the following two commandments contain theological explanations that seem integral to the commandment.

Though this does correspond more generally with Exodus 20, it has problems, as well.

None of this addresses the basic differences between the lists. 

Nor the fact that, as a list, they have nothing to do with US Law.

Nor the fact that Jesus, when asked for the basis of Jewish Law (arguably, the basis of Moral Law) concedes that it is "love God; Love your neighbor" (blending Deut. 6 and Lev. 19).

To argue that the ten commandments are the basis of civil law, moral law, or even Christian faith is, I assert, to demonstrate an amazing ignorance of the actual content of the Bible.

[john_proctor]

BTW, the observation that Huckabee is not an ancient Jew is, indeed, very accurate.  As is the presentation that he is drawing from the traditions of a particular Christian denomination and a long history of Christian theology and tradition.

That sorta takes any assertions that he might be using the "bible alone" for his beliefs and cuts them off at the knees though, doesn't it?

[john_proctor]

Exodus 34:28 calls the previous list the "ten commandments."  In Hebrew, the word for "commandment" is debar (word, saying, deed, thing).  The Greek translation of the 3d century BCE translates this "Decalogue" (Greek combination of the word "ten" and logos or "word, saying"). 

Check that: it should read "... Exodus 34:28 . . . the word normally translated as 'commandment' in English is the Hebrew word debar..."

For the record, it's worth noting that Deuteronomy 10, refering to the account of Exodus 34 where Moses recarves the instructions, also uses "ten commandments" (Gk. "decalogue") though doesn't list them.

It's very fair to ask if biblical text doesn't suggest that this latter series of instructions are the actual "tne commandments" which sit alongside a second list of ten-ish "ordinances" which are recorded in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 (and called by popular, modern audiences, incorrectly as the "ten commandments").

My point here is not so much to refute one's belief that these are important guidelines for life (though, as we've boiled them down, Christians pretty much just want the 1 God, don't murder, don't lie, don't commit adultery, don't steal bits.  Frankly, do these arise in any way that is exclusive or propriety from the Bible?  I mean, damn, do we not find the same or similar in a HUGE array of human religions?  Even in Kantian "Catagorical Imperatives" or Singer-esque Utilitarianism?  If so, in what way could one say that the Bible is somehow exclusively priveledged as  "foundational" for them?).

My point is to demonstrate how complex biblical text is and how much raw energy needs to go into making any sense whatsoever out of it.  Further, to suggest how a complex document can readily produce equally complex histories and varieties of interpretation.

To deny as much, as Huckabee does, reveals an appeal to rhetoric, not text.  It is to deliberately obfuscate the real complexity of the content of this book and the way it has been read.  This obfuscation is done deliberately to draw in outsiders or to present the illusion of an "open and shut" case. 

[husqvarna]

Sorry, hv, but there are abundant examples of evangelicals arguing that the ten commandments are the foundation for moral law and legal practice.  For just three (the first three among three hundred plus hits from a google search) see http://www.morallaw.org/, http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/27/ten.commandments/, and http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/ten_commandments.htm (which refer to the Montgomery Alabama courthouse case).

It is most certainly not a straw man argument.

Sorry for what?  I'm not arguing that anyone isn't saying this.  The straw man argument is that you can't say it's not a foundation for our culture or legal system just because we don't have laws about Sabbath regulations or the like.

I'm not sure how much more citation you need regarding Exodus 20 and 34.  I give book, chapter and verse for goodness sake.  Just read them; I'm not doing anything but quoting and summarizing.

I recognize that this is what you're doing, and I wasn't disputing that.  I was curious about the literature on this, the same way you provide reference to the literature on Deut. 5 in your post.  I understand that there's something to be said for the relationship of the texts.  I was just curious about how much OT scholars do say about this relationship.  I presented you with book, chapter (though not verse!) for the Deuteronomy passages, and you presented the scholarly literature (rather basically) to explain why you don't think it's relevant.  I'm not as learned in OT studies so I don't have any reference to the literature on the Ex. 20/34 connection, but I would be interested in knowing how OT scholars talk about Ex. 34 as a decalogue tradition.

The correspondence of Deuteronomy 10 to 34 only makes my point even more dramatic.

Bringing in Deuteronomy 5 doesn't help at all.  I omitted Deuteronomy because the overwhelming view of scholarship since Wellhausen is that this document wasn't written until ca. 6th century BCE (well after the establish monarchy, the divided monarchy, and even the capture of the northern provinces by Assyria).

Most evangelicals are ignorant of that scholarship.  Many - if not most - would reject it.  So, for the moment, let's let it go and just deal with the text.

If you omit Deut. on this count for ch. 5, then don't cite ch. 10 as making your point even more "dramatic".  But what does it matter if Deuteronomy was a later document (I'll grant this because I don't know the scholarship)?  Are we talking about God's actual giving of the law here, or the Jewish (and later) reception of this law in their tradition(s)?  What is pertinent for the discussion?  Both, surely.  

Exodus 34:28 calls the previous list the "ten commandments."  In Hebrew, the word for "commandment" is debar (word, saying, deed, thing).  The Greek translation of the 3d century BCE translates this "Decalogue" (Greek combination of the word "ten" and logos or "word, saying"). 

The expression doesn't appear at all in Exodus 20 OR 34.  The reference to "ten" does not appear at all in Deuteronomy.  Only Exodus 34:28 has the classic "Decalogue" expression.  To get "ten commandments" one must conflate the "ten" of Exodus 34 with the "commandment" of Deuteronomy 5 (and ignore the problem that neither word occurs in Exodus 20).

In Deuteronomy 5:1 Moses (as the story frames it, speaking to the Israelites just before they begin to enter and conquer the land of Canaan) reminds the people of the "ordinances" of the Lord (the Hebrew word here is for "command" specifically).  But it's also different.

I'm still completely confused as to why it matters whether we call this the ten commandments, the decalogue, ordinances, etc.  This moral and legal tradition begins in the event that Exodus records.  It's not limited to these textual accounts, however.  That various parts of the covenant were conflated does not mean that this conflation is illegitimate.  The historical fact of this conflation doesn't present us with any prescriptive word about that fact.  

To begin, verse 2 says the covenant was initiated at Horeb, not Sinai.  Commandment one is the same, but commandment two has changed the wording.  It's not just "any graven image," but specifically idolatry AND it conflates the "jealous God" language of Exodus 34 with the language of Exodus 20.  Next, the following two commandments contain theological explanations that seem integral to the commandment.

Though this does correspond more generally with Exodus 20, it has problems, as well.

Right.  Do you think I was saying anything to the contrary?

Nor the fact that, as a list, they have nothing to do with US Law.

Nor the fact that Jesus, when asked for the basis of Jewish Law (arguably, the basis of Moral Law) concedes that it is "love God; Love your neighbor" (blending Deut. 6 and Lev. 19).

To argue that the ten commandments are the basis of civil law, moral law, or even Christian faith is, I assert, to demonstrate an amazing ignorance of the actual content of the Bible.

I'll just give some bullets for these comments, as responding quote for quote would get more confusing.

-The statements of Jesus were very well received by the Jewish scribes in all accounts.  In one account it was the scribe who made the statement.  That the two "great commandments" are the basis for all the rest certainly puts them before the ten commandments or the cultic laws of the covenant.  It doesn't mean that the ten commandments suddenly cease to be foundational in any important sense.

-Huckabee certainly takes a one sided view here by mentioning the ten commandments exclusively.  But how can we talk about Roman law as any sort of basis, for instance, without taking into account that it was revived by the Church in its canon law and only through this transmission was it foundational?  

-to assert that they have nothing to do with US law is just as ignorant as an assertion that the ten commandments "cover it all".  Both assertions paint with a rather broad brush that ignores either the legal importance of the ten commandments or the legal importance of other legal traditions.

[husqvarna]

BTW, the observation that Huckabee is not an ancient Jew is, indeed, very accurate.  As is the presentation that he is drawing from the traditions of a particular Christian denomination and a long history of Christian theology and tradition.

That sorta takes any assertions that he might be using the "bible alone" for his beliefs and cuts them off at the knees though, doesn't it?

Yes.  And the same point at the end of your last post is well taken. 

But given all of these shortcomings, I'm still confused about oldadjunct's initial assessment of Huckabee's speech.  I think he's misinterpreting Huckabee's purpose here based upon Huckabee's actions elsewhere.  I'd be curious to hear how oldadjunct or others reads this speech as demonstrating anything in particular about injecting doctrine into principles of government.

And I'm logging off so I won't respond immediately, but I do look forward to continuing the conversation!