Dr. Silverman States Reasons for Opposing Ten Commandments in Public Schools

Dr.Joseph Silverman, Rabbi Emeritus of Temple Emanu-El, in a statement issued to the “Jewish Daily Bulletin” yesterday, made clear his attitude concerning the proposal to read the Ten Commandments in the New York public schools.

The opinions expressed by Dr. Silverman at the meeting of the New York Board of Education several days ago caused a heated discussion. He objects to the proposal for the following reasons:

1) The Decalogue is an ethical and theological document. In it religion and ethics are inseparably bound together. The Decalogue obtains its sanction from revelation. It is the law of God. To teach this document (reading is teaching) as a matter of routine duty in the public schools would be teaching religion both directly and indirectly and therefore the proposition is in violation of the federal and state constitutions.

2) The Decalogue is an epitome of Judaism, the first commandment declaring that Jews shall have only Jehovah as God, the one indivisible God, and none besides Him. I claim that this is a contradiction of Christianity and if by some technical interpretation it can be proven to be consistent with Christianity then we would by means of the Decalogue be teaching both Judaism and Christianity in the schools, which certainly would be a violation of federal and state laws.

3) The second commandment is opposed to the worship of images, etc. The Catholic religion has omitted this commandment from its Decalogue and hence a Catholic teacher in the public schools would be in duty bound to teach or read the ten commandments from a different text than the Jewish or Protestant teachers would use. What would the Atheist teacher do? He would probably omit all reterences to the Deity or mumble them in an inaudible manner.

4) The second commandment speaks of a jealous God that visits retribution upon innocent offspring for sins of parents, especially sins of Atheism and idolatry. Imagine teaching children such an ideal God without the justifiable Jewish explanations. The third commandment against taking God’s Name in vain is also inexplicable without proper comment.

5) The fourth commandment inculcates the sanctity of the Sabbath. Which Sabbath. Saturday or Sunday? The Decalogue certainly meant the seventh day. Would the teacher be at liberty to satisfy Jews and Seventh. Day Adventists or cater to Christian doctrines as he wished. Or. could the teacher omit such parts of the Decalogue as he did not approve.

“Besides, the reason given in Exodus XX for the fourth Commandment is that in six days God made heaven and earth and rested on the seventh day. If the Decalogue is accepted as part of the Curriculum then the Board of Education has committed itself to this literal interpretation of the six days of creation and hence this will be made a basis by the fundamentalists for taking evolution out of the schools.

6) Will the teacher be permitted to read the seventh commandment to children without comment and leave it to the children to find their own explanations from any source that is handy? What an ethical fiasco would then result!

7) Can you teach the commandments against killing, stealing, lying or coveting (especially a nelghbor’s wife) without comment? That kind of teaching would make these commandments ridiculous in the minds of children. What up-to-date child would not ask why coveting a neighbor’s husband is not forbidden in the tenth commandment?. And would the teacher be debarred from explaining and would the child be satisfied without an explanation?

8) There are moreover two versions of the Decalogue in the Bible; one in Exodus XX and another in Deuteronomy V. They differ in some vital points. Not to explain these dif. ferences would east a doubt upon the validity of the commandments and to comment satisfactorily would lead the teacher into a discussion involving the whole subject of theology, revelation and biblical criticism. Thus the school would become practically a theological seminary.

9) Even if Jews, Catholics, and some Protestants could agree to force the Decalogue into the school curriculum. would this be just ? Would it be truly a religious ac: against the non-agreeing Religionists, against Atheists, Free Thinkers, Christian Scientists, Theosophists, Buddhists. Mormons, etc? Or have we come to that pass in this country when the minority has no longer legal rights which the majority must respect?

10) This country is celebrating its one hundred and fiftieth year of constitutional government based on the separation of church and state. This experiment has been a success. Why try again a theocratical government when i: has been proven a failure a thousand times ? Let me recall to my Christian friends the words of Jesus: “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.”

“In modern phrase let church and state fulfill their missions without interfering with one another. Would the church tolerate secular or antireligious interference in its own technical domain? Certainly not, and it would have the protection or the law. Therefore, let the church keep its hands off the secular domain of the public schools, the Palladium of our Liberties. The religious as well as the non-religious are in the public schools under the protection of the federal and state constitutions.

“Any attempt to introduce the Decalogue into the curriculum of the public schools would in itself be a violation of the letter and spirit of that Code. Can the Church or any part of it undertake to break the Ten Commandments in an effort to foist religion upon the Public School System? Dare religion violate religion for the sake of religion?”