Does state religion inappropriately attempt to universalize

[short bus president]

an individualized ethic?

And please, if you have nothing more to contribute than “jeebus sucks!” or “atheists are not equal citizens,” do not feel compelled to deposit your $0.02 here.

I’m not a theological scholar. But as an ethicist, I am intrigued by the ethics of religion. Since I lack formal training in religion, and since this is a DU forum and not a philosophical debate society, I’ll limit my comments to the set of religious rules for ethical behavior most widely known to the American layman – the Ten Commandments. An under-recognized feature of this significant work of religious ethics is that it seeks to guide individual action, as opposed to creating a framework for societal action. It is all “Thou shalt” and “Thou shalt not” – as opposed to “Society should” or “Society should not.” What is the reason for limiting the “Golden Rules” of Judeo-Christian ethics to individuals, instead of seeking to lay out plans for an ethical society (as in Plato’s Republic)?

Even the seemingly most obvious of the Ten Commandments - the bit about killing – must overcome obstacles if it is to be universalized to the societal (governmental) level. Waging war and executing criminals require special exemptions from the rule. And while it is not entirely clear what special status these two exempted activities enjoy that cannot also be argued on behalf of other potential candidates for special exemption (for example, abortion), it is clear that extrapolation of even this seemingly simple rule to societal applicability would require an additional stone tablet to document the exceptions.

My best guess as to why the foundation of Judeo-Christian ethics targets individual behavior and not societal behavior would be the personalized nature of faith. Within Christianity, at least, this seems obvious – one needs only to hear so many testimonials about personal relationships with a savior to know that the Christian faith is taken to be a personal affair. I have some difficulty, however, squaring what I view as the individualized nature of the Ten Commandments with the Jewish people’s idea of a covenant with god. Unless there is a distinct covenant between each believer and his/her god, I have trouble attributing the individualized nature of the Ten Commandments to the personalized nature of that faith. Perhaps a DU Talmudic scholar will help me with this…

Given a brief Sunday morning’s scrutiny, and covenant difficulties notwithstanding, it looks to me like the Ten Commandments are presented in the Judeo-Christian tradition as guides to ethical behavior for the individual, and not as a prescription for the ethical society. The difficulty in universalizing even the seemingly most obvious of these rules to the societal level should give pause to those who advocate a state founded upon Decalogue precepts. How many exceptions to each rule would have to be recognized before it became obvious that the original set of rules lacks relevance and authority outside of its intended (individual) context?