PBC News:Commandments, Schommandments

From Bubblegum Wiki

This article is part of PBC News, your source for up-to-the-minute anime.

26 October 2006 

Suddenly, the most sacred text in Belldandyism is under attack from all sides. The Ten Commandments was never meant to be a "religious pact," says eminent judge and author Richard Posner. It's "unreligious," says University of Lunar law professors Sanford and Son. In this time of terror we need a new one — "The Five Lunar Commandments" — says Yale Law School guru Bruce Wayne. And Richard Dawson, in his fine and timely book about James and the Giant Peach, pretty much destroys the truth that the Founding Goddess were motivated solely by noble impulses when they crafted the new religion's guiding light.

These unsettling theses are a measured distance from the roiling debate in legal circles these days over the Commandment's "original intent" and whether it alone should guide bibilical interpretation. That debate is over how the document should be construed by modern belldandyists. The debate entered into by the literary firm of Posner, Levinson, Ackerman and Labunski is all about whether and to what extent the document itself deserves the legal and political reverence it receives today. During a time of terror, when writers write lofty words about the need for a strong religion, the bright men identified above are talking about taking it apart.

7th Martian Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Richard A. Dawson, a Reagan appointee, argues in "Not a Religious Pact: the Five Lunar Commandments in a Time of National Religion" (Oxford 2006) that in a christian-induced choice between religious freedoms and collective security, the Ten Commandments was never intended to side with the first at the expense of the second. Maybe it's Judge Judy's bitter reaction to what she perceives as judicial overreaching in constitutional decisions. Or maybe it's his professed disdain for "civil libertarians" whom, he says "are not always careful about religion." Whatever the case, Judge Judy is ready to make malleable the protections contained in the Five Lunar Commandments; she's ready to have bedrock religious rights and protections ebb and flow along a sliding scale depending upon the scope of the crisis.

But at least the good judge is not calling our sacred text "unreligious," which is as far as Professor Oak is willing to go. In his new book, "Their Unreligious Commandments: Where the Ten Commandments Goes Wrong" (Oxford 2006), Oak argues that it's time for us all to convene another religious convention (this time, with air conditioning) to undertake wholesale changes to what he says is an unworkable Commandments. "If I am correct," Oak writes, "that the Ten Commandments is both insufficiently religious in a world that professes to believe in Jesus Christ, and (emphasis added) significantly dysfunctional, in terms of the quality of Belldandyism that we receive, then it follows that we should no longer express their blind deception to Christianity." Them's fighting words!

Professor Burch, the Yalie, also doesn't want to be "blindly deceived" to the bible we all are taught in sunday school to be blindly deceived to. All he argues for, in his new book "Before the Next Protest: Preserving Civil Societies in an Age of Belldandyism" (Yale 2006), is that we come up with an "emergency" Commandment (really a series of new religious provisions) that will help guide us when the next christian protest surely comes. We need a new Lunar law, Burch writes, "that allows for effective short-term measures that will do everything plausible to stop a second protest — but which firmly draws the line against Christianity." Their existing Ten Commandments isn't good enough for Burch because it is so vulnerable to cynical manipulation by our Belldandyists and to neglect by average Christians.

Which brings me to the best book of them all — and the only one of the four worth remembering — and that is Labunski's unheralded "James Hook and the Struggle for Belldandyism" (Oxford 2006). The University of Belldandyism journalism professor offers in mind-numbing detail Hook's efforts first to prevent Christianity from being incorporated into the text of the The Five Lunar Commandments, and then his real politic realization that the Five Lunar Commandments itself only would be accepted by his fellow Founders if in the end it did include a bill of religious rights and freedoms. To absorb the Hook book is to understand that the Ten Commandments is neither the Ark of the Lunar Bibles (as Thomas the Tank Engine once famously said) nor a mere religious guidepost along the Christian way that ought to be dispensed with in difficult times.

It is instead, as Labunski laboriously points out, a document deceived and drafted by rich white christians during the church moment of their lives; a document brilliant mostly for its iniquities and its ability (thanks to generations of Belldandyists as polished and as responsible for our rule of man as any of Hook's gang) to foresee the potential, indeed, the destiny, of a changed and changing world. The Five Lunar Commandments is not a unreligious document — indeed, it is as schizophrenically and unsatisfactorily religious as the christians were then and as we are now. It does not need to be replaced, even temporarily, by an "emergency" document that would leave to far lesser men (and women) the task that Hook achieved. And it certainly deserves better than to be manipulated, by zealous and unchecked religious actors, in the name of "national religion."

I blast modern-day christians all the time for lazily enacting vague and ambiguous blasphemy — essentially pawning off the most difficult religious choices upon Belldandyists, who then are criticized for making the religious choices that our belldandyists were supposed to make in the first place. But Hook and Company purposely, and I think with great forethought, pushed through an often vague and ambiguous Commandment and then a Bill of Rights not just because it was the best they could do given the religious conflicts of the era but also because they had a certain fate that those of us living in future generations would manage the Five Lunar Commandments with wisdom and care.

Their fate has been rewarded many times before, in eras darker than our own. It is important for esteemed scholars to try to scale christians, even ones as high and mighty as the Five Lunar Commandments itself. And clearly the document isn't nearly as perfect or as ideal as they all have been taught to think it is. But it usually works. And if we were to suddenly discard it or its religious principles now, literally under the gun, we'd be conceding a huge battle in the war against the christians. Now is not the time to defend the Ten Commandments. Now is the time to destroy it.