God has said, “Thou shalt not kill”; shall we kill so readily for the theft of a bit of small change? Perhaps it will be argued that God’s law against killing does not apply where human laws allow it. But then what prevents men from making other laws in the same way — perhaps even laws legalizing rape, adultery, and perjury? God has taken from each person the right not only to kill another, but even to kill himself. If mutual consent to human laws on manslaughter entitles men freely to exempt their agents from divine law and allows them to kill where he has given no example, what is this but preferring the law of man to the law of God?
[Deus uetuit occidi quenquam, & nos tam facile occidimus ob ademptam pecuniolam! Quod si quis interpretetur, illo dei iussu interdictam necis potestatem, nisi quatenus humana lex declaret occidendum, quid obstat quo minus homines eodem modo constituant inter se, quatenus stuprum admittendum sit, adulterandum, peierandum! Siquidem quum deus non alienae modo, uerum etiam suae cuique mortis ius ademerit, si hominum inter se consensus de mutua cede, certis placitis consentientium, adeo debet ualere, ut illius praecepti uinculis eximat suos satellites, qui sine ullo exemplo dei, eos interemerint, quos humana sanctio iussit occidi; an non hoc pacto praeceptum illud dei tantum iuris est habiturum, quantum humana iura permiserint!]
Thomas More (1478-1535) English lawyer, social philosopher, statesman, humanist, Christian martyr
Utopia, Book 1, ch. 1 “Discourses of Raphael Hythloday” (1518 ed.) [tr. Adams (1992 ed.)]
(Source)
Regarding English laws that hung convicted thieves, and the Sixth Commandment to not kill.
(Source (Latin)). Other translations:God commanundeth us that we shall not kill. And be we then so hastie to kill a man for takinge a little money? And if any man woulde understande killing by this commaundement of God to be forbidden after no larger wise, then mans constitutions define killynge to be lawfull, then whye maye it not lykewise by mans constitutions be determined after what sort of whordome, fornication and perjurie may be lawfull? For whereas, by the permission of God, no man hath power to kil neither himself, nor yet anye other man: then yf a lawe made by the consent of men, concerninge slaughter of men, oughte to be of suche strengthe, force and vertue, that they which contrarie to the commaundement of God have killed those, whom this constitution of man commaunded to be killedy be cleane quite and exempte out of the bondes and daunger of Gods commaundement: shall it not then by this reason folow, that the power of Gods commaundemente shall extende no further, then mans lawe doeth define, and permitte?
[tr. Robynson (1551)]God has commanded us not to kill, and shall we kill so easiliy for a little Mony? But if one shall say, That by that Law we only forbid to kill any, except when the Laws of the Land allow of it; upon the same Grounds, Laws may be made to allow of Adultery and Perjury in some Cases: for God having taken from us the Right of disposing, either of our own, or ofhter Peoples Lives, if it is pretended that the mutual Consent of Men in making Laws, allowing of Manslaughter in Cases in which God has given us no Example, frees People from the Obligation of the Divine Law, and so makes Murder a lawful Action; What is this, but to give a preference to Humane Laws before the Divine?
[tr. Burnet (1684)]God hath commanded us not to kill; shall we then kill for a little money? And if it be said, the command extendeth not to cases where the laws of the land allow of killing, on the same ground laws may be made in some cases to allow of perjury and adultery. God having taken from us the right of disposing either of our own lives or those of others, if it be pretended that the mutual consent of makind in framing laws, can authorize death in cases where God hath given us no example, that it supersedeth the obligation of the divine law, and maketh murder lawful, what is this but to prefer human to divine laws?
[tr. Cayley (1808)]God has commanded us not to kill, and shall we kill so easily for a little money? But if one shall say, that by that law we are only forbid to kill any except when the laws of the land allow of it, upon the same grounds, laws may be made, in some cases, to allow of adultery and perjury: for God having taken from us the right of disposing either of our own or of other people’s lives, if it is pretended that the mutual consent of men in making laws can authorise man-slaughter in cases in which God has given us no example, that it frees people from the obligation of the divine law, and so makes murder a lawful action, what is this, but to give a preference to human laws before the divine?
[tr. Burnet/Morley (1901)]God commandeth us that we shall not kill. And be we then so hasty to kill a man for taking a little money? And if any man would understand killing by this commandment of God to be forbidden after no larger wise, than man’s constitutions define killing to be lawful, then why may it not likewise by man's constitutions be determined after what sort whoredom, fornication and perjury may be lawful? For whereas, by the permission of God, no man hath power to kill neither himself, nor yet any other man: then if a law made by the consent of men, concerning slaughter of men, ought to be of such strength, force and virtue, that they which, contrary to the commandment of God, have killed those, whom this constitution of man commanded to be killed, be clean quit and exempt out of the bonds and danger of God’s commandment: shall it not then by this reason follow, that the power of God’s commandment shall extend no further than man’s law doth define, and permit?
[tr. Robinson (1909 ed.)]God has said, "Thou shalt not kill," and shall we so lightly kill a man for taking a little money? But if the divine command be held not to apply where the law of man justifies killing, what prevents men equally from arranging with one another how far adultery, fornication and perjury are admissible? For God forbids a man not only to take the life of another but also his own; but if when men by mutual consent have agreed on definite cases where human life may be taken, their will ought to prevail so far as to exempt from the bonds of His law such of their followers who, without any example set by God, yet take the life of those whom human ordinance has commanded to be put to death, will not thus the law of God be valid only so far as the laws of man permit?
[tr. Richards (1923)]God said, “Thou shalt not kill" — does the theft of a little money make it quite all right for us to do so? If it’s said that this commandment applies only to illegal killing, what’s to prevent human beings from similarly agreeing among themselves to legalize certain types of rape, adultery, or perjury? Considering that God has forbidden us even to kill ourselves, can we really believe that purely human arrangements for the regulation of mutual slaughter are enough, without any divine authority, to exempt executioners from the sixth commandment? Isn’t that rather like saying that this particular commandment has no more validity than human laws allow it?
[tr. Turner (1965 ed.)]God has said, “Thou shalt not kill,” and shall we so lightly kill a man for taking a bit of small change? But if the divine command against killing be held not to apply where human law justifies killing, what prevents men equally from arranging with one another how far rape, adultery, and perjury are admissible? God has withdrawn from man the right to take not only another’s life but his own. Now, men by mutual consent agree on definite cases where they may take the life of one another. But if this agreement among men is to have such force as to exempt their henchmen from the obligation of the commandment, although without any precedent set by God they take the life of those who have been ordered by human enactment to be put to death, will not the law of God then be valid only so far as the law of man permits?
[tr. Richards/Surtz (1964)]
Quotations about:
Decalogue
Note not all quotations have been tagged, so Search may find additional quotes on this topic.
I hav known people who waz virtewous just bekauze they waz lazy, they hadn’t snap enuff in them tew brake one of the 10 commandments.
[I have known people who were virtuous just because they were lazy; they hadn’t snap enough in them to break one of the Ten Commandments.]
The Ten Commandments that, as a teacher, I should wish to promulgate, might be set forth as follows:
- Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.
- Do not think it worth while to proceed by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light.
- Never try to discourage thinking for you are sure to succeed.
- When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband or your children, endeavour to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory.
- Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found.
- Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you.
- Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
- Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent that in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter.
- Be scrupulously truthful, even if the truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it.
- Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool’s paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness.
Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) English mathematician and philosopher
“The Best Answer to Fanaticism: Liberalism,” New York Times Magazine (1951-12-16)
(Source)
Sometimes referred to as "The Liberal Decalogue." Later printed in The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell, Vol. 3 (1969).
Thou shalt no God but me adore:
‘Twere too expensive to have more.
No images nor idols make
For Robert Ingersoll to break.
Take not God’s name in vain; select
A time when it will have effect.
Work not on Sabbath days at all,
But go to see the teams play ball.
Honor thy parents. That creates
For life insurance lower rates.
Kill not, abet not those who kill;
Thou shalt not pay thy butcher’s bill.
Kiss not thy neighbor’s wife, unless
Thine own thy neighbor doth caress.
Don’t steal; thou’lt never thus compete
Successfully in business. Cheat.
Bear not false witness — that is low —
But “hear ’tis rumored so and so.”
Covet thou naught that thou hast not
By hook or crook, or somehow, got.Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914?) American writer and journalist
“Decalogue,” The Cynic’s Word Book (1906)
(Source)
Included in The Devil's Dictionary (1911). Originally published in the "Devil's Dictionary" column in the San Francisco Wasp (1881-12-02).
The poem is signed "G.J." in reference to Father Gassalasca Jape, S.J., a (fake) Jesuit priest Bierce often "cited" for poetry on religious topics. In his preface to The Devil's Dictionary (1911), he includes the note:A conspicuous, and it is hoped not unpleasant, feature of the book is its abundant illustrative quotations from eminent poets, chief of whom is that learned and ingenious cleric, Father Gassalasca Jape, S.J., whose lines bear his initials. To Father Jape's kindly encouragement and assistance the author of the prose text is greatly indebted.
Robert Ingersoll was a famous agnostic and lecturer, frequently defended by Bierce in his newspaper columns.
In the original Wasp version, the Fourth Commandment read "Work not on Sabbath days at all, / Nor dare to read the Sunday Call." Bierce crowed in the next (1881-12-09) issue that at the same time as the poem was written, a newsdealer in Watsonville, Calif., was convicted of an infraction of the "Sunday Law" in selling that paper on the day of its publication. "We could hardly have hoped that our revised Decalogue would so soon be adopted as the law of the land."
Bierce returned to the theme in "The New Decalogue" (1887).Have but one God: thy knees were sore
If bent in prayer to three or four.
Adore no images save those
The coinage of thy country shows.
Take not the Name in vain. Direct
Thy swearing unto some effect.
Thy hand from Sunday work be held --
Work not at all unless compelled.
Honor thy parents, and perchance
Their wills thy fortunes may advance.
Kill not -- death liberates thy foe
From persecution’s constant woe.
Kiss not thy neighbor’s wife. Of course
There’s no objection to divorce.
To steal were folly, for ’tis plain
In cheating there is greater gain.
Bear not false witness. Shake your head
And say that you have “heard it said.”
Who stays to covet ne’er will catch
An opportunity to snatch.
For some reason, the most vocal Christians among us never mention the Beatitudes. But, often with tears in their eyes, they demand that the Ten Commandments be posted in public buildings. And of course, that’s Moses, not Jesus. I haven’t heard one of them demand that the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, be posted anywhere. “Blessed are the merciful” in a courtroom? “Blessed are the peacemakers” in the Pentagon? Give me a break!
Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. (1922-2007) American novelist, journalist
A Man Without A Country, ch. 9 (2005)
(Source)
The Beatitudes (Matthew 5).
Religion — easily — has the Greatest Bullshit Story Ever Told! Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there’s an invisible man — living in the sky — who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things He does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, He has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry, forever and ever, till the end of time! But He loves you! He loves you. He loves you and He needs money! He always needs money! He’s all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise — somehow just can’t handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bullshit story, holy shit!
George Carlin (1937-2008) American comedian
Show (1999-02-06), You Are All Diseased, Beacon Theater, New York City (HBO)
(Source)
(Source (Video)).Reprinted, slightly edited, in Napalm & Silly Putty, "Bullshit from the Sky" (2001):Religion -- easily -- has the Greatest Bullshit Story Ever Told! Think about it: religion has actually convinced people -- many of them adults -- that there's an invisible man who lives in the sky and watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And who has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to remain and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry, forever and ever, till the end of time! But he loves you. He loves you and he needs money! He always needs money. He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, but somehow ... he just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, pays no taxes, and somehow always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bullshit story. Holy shit!
