At Counterpunch I found Carl Estabrook's article "The Subversive Commandments" in which he attempts to re-orient our thinking about the Ten Commandments and their place in government buildings. He concludes

The Ten Commandments in their proper historical context commend atheism in regard to the religion of the gods and anarchism in respect to the laws of the kings. Arising from a revolutionary people, they support the overthrow of authoritarian structures in the name of human community. That sounds pretty good to me.

That sounds good to me, too. But here "proper historical context" is no more that "context of origin." Estabrook also says

Conservatives defend the postings in Kentucky and Texas on the grounds that the Ten Commandments "formed the foundation of American legal tradition." Liberals on the other hand insist that the posting is an "establishment of religion," contrary to the first amendment to the Constitution. In fact, both are wrong: the Ten Commandments in their historical setting are a revolutionary manifesto, dedicated to the overthrow of traditional authority and religion.

The "historical setting" for understanding what's at stake today includes much more than what we find in the interesting story about original intent. It's the wider perspective, including recent american history and the role of the commandments in contemporary religious thinking, that we must acknowledge. The wider and proper "historical setting" includes ways in which the meaning and value of the Commandments have evolved, and particularly the role they play in debate today. That debate today concerns the relationship between government and religion.

Symbols and their meanings aren't static. What matters is not what those symbols once meant, but how they are used in the conversation you're having at the moment.

CounterPunch

TrackBack