Rating: 
Summary: Review of Schlessinger & Vogel, _The Ten Commandments_
Review: Review of Schlessinger & Vogel, _The Ten Commandments_Before her conversion in 1998 to Modern Orthodoxy (that is my guess as to her variety of Judaism) Laura Schlessinger struck me as what Plato or Aristotle, or the sages of China, India, and the Tanach, would sound like if they were somehow forced to speak in the fragile moral accents of late 20th-century America, addressing not men of power and influence but "ordinary people" -- what Ortega y Gasset called "mass man." Now she is interested in the source. This collaboration with R. Stewart Vogel is a very nice popularization of some very profound ideas. Without a source of moral authority other than the opinions of men, there appears to be no way to refute the Glauconian argument from Plato: the best way of life is to do as you please, but maintain the appearance of morality. (But why maintain the appearance? Because -- and this is the essence of the moral issue -- morality is what we expect from _other_ people. Even the most arrogant moral relativist will complain loudly when other people are unjust to _him_.) Consider the problem of the source of moral authority. We want a set of normative principles of the form "one ought to do X" which are absolutely binding and beyond question. Where can such principles (ignoring for the moment what their content might be) possibly come from? It is quite clear they are not self-evident: no deontic statements are self-evident, even if they say things we would all agree with at all times. Well, perhaps they come from God; that is, of course, the ontogeny of the whole idea. But what if we have rejected God? It is clear that if we reject God as the unjudged Judge, we must replace him with some human source. Unfortunately, despite a century or so of post-Enlightenment thought, followed by the century of profound disillusionment we have just concluded, followed by the present age which, though awash in technological marvels, seems to have inherited every social pathology in history, it is not at all clear that any alternatives really work. This may be because they are unreasonable. Consider two. Descriptivism: A legal system is simply a fact. One looks to see what principles are in fact being obeyed. But (a) this does not really give us statements of the form "one ought to do X" but merely describes behavior; it has no normative content. Also (b) there will be many such patterns of behavior, and one will be as good as another, since none is transcendent. Descriptivism validates all systems equally, thus cannot validate any as binding on all. But, as we are fond of saying, "none are above the law." Personalism: Everyone creates his own code of behavior. But then who or what validates the rules for _interaction_ when there is a clash between one person's system of rules and another's? The system would work only if accompanied by out-and-out solipsism, but of course there is hardly any point to having a legal system for a community of solipsists. This system very quickly becomes "might makes right" -- the strongest wins. If to this scheme we add the notion of majority rule, we merely have another kind of might. And still no normative content. Personalism reminds me of a Catholic joke: Why do moderns object to the idea that one man is infallible, when they themselves hold that everybody is infallible? (Well, _I_ thought it was funny.) So there are reasons to take seriously the idea of a moral authority that is above nature. (For a more detailed but still non-technical discussion see for example Arthur Allen Leff, "Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural Law" in _The Duke Law Journal_, Number 6, December 1979, by which some of the above was influenced.) Given that we do take it seriously, what do we do next? The idea of a vast menu of theistic moral codes in the world to choose from is a vast illusion. One can very easily find ways to "spiritualities" that make no demands on us whatever. Though most of them are non-theistic, they all remind me of the Roman lares -- household gods that sit on your mantle, approve whatever you do, and bring good luck and a sense of comfort. Sad to say, there are nominal Christians and Jews who also "believe in" such convenient gods. (Schlessinger & Vogel's book goes into that incidentally.) What we call "The Ten Commandments" are one of several arrangements of the material of Exodus xx.1-17. The Jewish arrangement used by Schlessinger and Vogel is different from the most familiar Christian one. This, and certain other aspects of the differences between Judaism and Christianity, occasionally make themselves felt in this book, as they do in every ecumenical book. But to quote a talmudic poet, If the cedars have caught fire, what hope is there for the moss on the wall? Now the question of content mentioned above: there is apparently a wide-spread ignorance of the fact that throughout the long history of the Jewish and the Christian faiths, the Ten Commandments have been interpreted, amplified and extended. This was done in the Tanach itself, and later by the Rabbis in Rabbinical Judaism, and it was done in historical Christianity, i.e. Roman Catholicism and the Eastern Churches. As a result, to give an example, 111 pages are devoted to the Decalogue in the current Catholic Catechism. Schlessinger & Vogel consciously follow in that practice. And since this is after all Dr. Laura we have here, there are plenty of real-life cases up for discussion! This is a good book, though not one intended to be logically organized or scholarly. There are useful insights in abundance. Our own consciousness is already in a sense supernatural; we ought to be at home with the concept. This book can help. Ken Miner
Rating: 
Summary: Which commandments are valid?
Review: I wonder if Dr. Laura could explain what happened to the commandments God gave Moses the first time (which he smashed) and the second set of commandments? Except for three, they are all different. Did God change his mind between visits? There is nothing new or unique about the commandments. They existed in other forms and religions before Moses came along. Man is fond of making "Behaviour lists." The Commandments are not bad rules in general, but Dr. Laura's blind faith in scripture (which was inspired by humans) is the sign of a mind that doesn't really study or think for itself.
Rating:
Summary: Couldn't put this down.
Review: Dr. Laura has done another outstanding job! This is one of my favorite books of hers. Also recommend "How Could You Do That?!" This book is great and I would recommend it to people of all or no faiths - not just those from a Judeo-Christian background. She brings in real-life examples to the Ten Commandments. This is a book that I am sure I will read and refer to again and again.
Rating: 
Summary: not scholarly but useful
Review: I've never listened to her show; it's not on the stations that we can actually tune in here. In fact, pretty much all I know about Dr. Laura is that within days of the publication of this book she was all over the Web buck naked, because an old flame sold some photos of her, and right now the Gay Lobby is raising unholy hell with Paramount because they don't think she should have her own TV show. Seems the good doctor has the temerity to refer to homosexuality as aberrant behavior and that's raised some hackles. But based on that little bit of info, I figured the book might at least be entertaining. It is. Schlessinger and her rabbi coauthor have not set out to rewrite the Ten Commandments. Nor are they trying to author some weighty scholarly tome. Instead, what we have here is a book that reflects the strengths and weaknesses that you would expect of a conservative talk radio host. It is a chatty, opinionated, somewhat shallow, but topical and democratic (with a small d) survey of how the Mosaic commandments pertain to modern life. Here is how they render the commandments and how they interpret them: 1. I am the Lord, your God, who has taken you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery Acceptance of God as the ultimate author of morality and leaning of life. 2. You shall not recognize the gods of others in My presence Beware of idolatry. Attaining money, power, stimulation, professional success, and accumulating possessions, while legitimate pursuits, are not the ultimate purpose of life. 3. You shall not take the Name of the Lord, your God, in vain How we acknowledge or deny God and godliness through our words and deeds. 4. Remember the Sabbath day to sanctify it Recognize the value of time by refocusing on the most important elements of life; family, obligations to others, prayer, kindness, justice, and decency. 5. Honor your Father and your Mother The obligation to parents reinforces the concepts of treating others responsibly in spite of sentiment or situation. 6. You shall not murder Each human being is the essence of uniqueness, yet equally created in God's image. Not only can a life by physically taken, but demoralization and humiliation can kill our souls. 7. You shall not commit adultery Sexual relations are made special and holy through a covenantal marriage. The honoring of commitments provides the family stability necessary for individual growth and health, community peace, and societal welfare. 8. You shall not steal Respecting the property and reputation of others provides mutual safety, peace, and prosperity. 9. You shall not bear false witness against your fellow While we should keep far from falsehoods, knowing when information could or should be shared can make the differences between destroying and helping others. 10. You shall not covet Desire for the possessions of others destroys relationships and leads us to violate the other Commandments. Now one of the things that makes the Commandments themselves so remarkable is the degree to which they remain universal and timely thousands of years after Moses came down from Mt. Sinai with them. But who hasn't looked askance at a few of the ten? A couple of them just seem too parochial. But the authors' section on idolatry--one of those concerns that does not on its face seem to be too immediate--is a particularly good example of what makes the book useful. We all tend to think of the second commandment as an outdated injunction against golden calves and the like. But they breath life back into it by reading it as simply an admonition to keep the relationship with God and a God centered morality at the forefront of our lives, rather than the pursuit of wealth or fame or physical sensation. At the point where any of these pursuits becomes the be all and end all of one's existence, they partake of the nature of a new religion. Cast in this fresh perspective, what seems at first glance to be an antiquated call for monotheism (we are all monotheists now), becomes a timely call for keeping our priorities straight. Likewise, the section on keeping the Sabbath day reminds us that the importance of the day is less that it be formulaically dedicated to God than that it be an opportunity for us to step back from the hectic rush of daily life and focus on the things that are truly important--foremost among them are faith and family. Regardless of whether folks are any longer willing to admit it, our culture is by and large derived from this decalogue, from the various subsequent covenants with God and from the Gospels. Any book that reminds us of that fundamental fact, and restores some vigor to the foundational laws of Western Civilization, is worthwhile. This is not the place to look if you want some scholarly dissertation on the Commandments, but it is a perfectly acceptable look at why they remain important to our lives and to the continued health of our society. GRADE: C+
Rating:
Summary: Who is she kidding?
Review: For a doctor Dr. Laura does not know much about life. She preaches about being good and following the ten commandments, but she bends them to fit her own needs. Its really hard getting along with your parents. I have too. But Dr. Laura can't get along with her Mom, so she just bends that one enough to where She doesn't have to follow it but she pretends that its ok for her. That is a terrible example. She thinks she doesn't have to get along with her Mom, and she won't even talk to her...for something like ten years now. She says in her book that .... the commandment doesn't say you have to "love you parents". If she had bothered to read the New Testament she would have read about a great Jewish man named Jesus who when asked, ... which of the commandments is the greatest.... He answered.... I give you a NEW commandment..... THAT YOU LOVE ONE ANOTHER. Dr. Laura needs to learn something about love and soon because she is only kidding herself.
Rating: 
Summary: You can't rebut good advice.
Review: I don't generally agree with everything Dr. Laura says, particularly on the subject of homosexuality. Yet it is a shame she has been vilified by the media considering she has other, more important things to offer. This book is probably her best, most useful and least controversial. She and Rabbi Stuart Vogel make clear the value of the Ten Commandments in a thorough and thoroughly readable book. Occasionally it wanders, but not nearly to the extent of her other books. This is probably because its structure is set, taken directly from the Bible. There is nothing in it to offend, and much to provoke thought. For example, I never likened slander with murder but the point is extremely well-made. If you want to improve society and future generations, have your kids read it. It certainly couldn't hurt.
Rating:
Summary: The Book of Laura
Review: Any work on ethics and morality must answer three questions: 1. What is the right thing to do? 2. Why should I do this? 3. How do I know this to be true? The second question is where most moralists stumble and Laura Schlessinger is no exception. However, her answer to this question may possibly be the worst answer ever given. What is the right thing to do? Schlessinger's answer to this question is simple: Follow the Ten Commandments. Devoting a chapter to each commandment Dr Laura and her co-author (Rabbi Stewart Vogel) draw on Jewish traditions to explain individual applications of God's laws. Why should I do this? When explaining why one should follow these rules Dr Laura becomes ambiguous telling readers on one hand to follow these rules because of the good consequences and on the other hand because "God said so!" In one passage however, Schlessinger makes clear which of these is the true reason. One of her listeners, a teacher named Debby, talks about a discussion she had with an elementary school student of hers about why it is wrong to steal. The student gave many practical reasons including a sophisticated argument about the lack of trust that would result if theft became commonplace. Debby told him that he missed the important point "The reason I don't steal is simply one: BECAUSE GOD SAID NOT TO. End of reason." (Page 236) She should have said "End of reasoning" because the phrase "God Said Not to" is not a reason, but a veiled threat of punishment by an omnipotent deity. One obeys the Ten Commandments because not doing so will anger God and what sane person would anger an all-powerful all-knowing being? Schlessinger's theory of right and wrong is based upon authority, the ultimate authority of God. Disappointed by the fallibility of earthly authorities Schlessinger sought an "objective" authority and, for personal reasons explained in the book, was drawn to Judaism. Her argument for accepting the authority of a deity is essentially this: As children, we all hated being told by our parents that we had to do something because they "said so". Just as children cannot understand the reasons a parent has neither can adults understand God's reasons. In other words, do this because it is simply too deep for you to understand. While not original, Schlessinger's answer is, nevertheless, the worst ever given. Schlessinger ignores the fact that children grow up and acquire the capability of understanding their parents' reasons, but adults can never achieve an understanding of God. We are condemned to remain children, forever incapable of appreciating the mysterious ways of God. Since God's wishes cannot be known directly (He has been rather uncommunicative for the last two millennia) we are to mindlessly follow the traditions of the past and remain blissfully oblivious to the real world consequences of our actions because "God Said So". Western civilization has tried this before, the result was known as the Dark Ages. Schlessinger cannot grasp that morality is a science and that in science, there are no authorities. There are facts and reasoning but in each case you have to look at the facts and decide if the reasoning is correct. You have to understand, first hand, why something is true. You do not look for some "authority" to hand you ready made rules that you can follow blindly. Facts are independent of "authorities". How do I know this to be true? Schlessinger's answer - You don't and can't. You must accept these commandments on faith. The alternative is to live one's life by one's own subjective feelings. Schlessinger rightfully abhors those who want to "listen to their hearts", "follow their gut feelings", "get in touch with their inner child" and other subjective nonsense. Her solution to the problem of human subjectivity is to follow the "objective" laws of God. And how does she know these laws to be objective? Dr Laura justifies her eternal, unchanging principles on the grounds that she FEELS that they are true! Schlessinger says "Through some inexplicable emotion, I had always felt a Jewish connection..." (Page xxi) "Feeling God's involvement in our own daily lives..." (Page 16) and quoting a listener "...He can only be heard in the quiet of the heart." (Page 17). Rabbi Vogel agrees "...I can see and feel His presence in the creation..." She makes numerous other references to feelings about God but does she have facts or reason on her side? No, and she does not want reason as an ally because reason is inadequate. "Human logic and rational thought or nature's laws do not fully provide that framework in a universally just way" (page 18). Pretending to be the subjectivists' worst enemy Schlessinger actually lends credence to their arguments by sharing the same moral roots - feelings. Lacking any concept of objective reasoning or logic Schlessinger refers to human attempts to understand the universe as "rationalizations". Here she retains the worst of her pop-psychology past by attributing unconscious motives to anyone who argues logically. For Dr Laura, people have a dual nature, part spiritual and part animal. When people deny the validity of God's commandments they are merely "rationalizing" their animalistic drives. The denial of reason permits Schlessinger to state "Judaism has always rejected all the caste and race ideologies of the ancient world..." despite the fact that the Old Testament permitted slavery and commanded different treatment for Jewish and gentile slaves. A Jewish priest must be descended from Aaron and strict bloodlines must be followed. Jewishness itself, is passed through the mother's line. To pretend that Judaism is a kind of predecessor to the 14th Amendment is an extraordinary feat of intellectual evasion made possible by ignoring reality and simply "feeling" that it is true. As a guide to morality this book is worthless. For true believers who seek to assuage their doubts it may help.
Rating:
Summary: The Significance of Laura's Law in Our Everyday Lives
Review: Your editorial reviewer describes Laura as a "Syndicated radio psychologist." Well, two out of three ain't bad. Laura is not a psychologist. She has a Ph.D. in physiology (not psychology) and at one time (but no longer) was in private practice as an MFCC (Marriage Family and Children Counselor); this is a Masters Degree. Laura's MFCC license in California is no longer current. This is important, because your reviewer's error is understandable. Since Laura gives advice, and uses the "Dr." title, listeners assume that she must have the appropriate credentials. She does not, and she does little to correct the errors (recently a listener called her a psychologist and she did not correct her). This is a direct violation of the Commandment not to bear false witness, and with this simple illustration we can see how ironic it is for Laura Schlessinger to be giving us her opinion of the Decalogue. She really has broken every one of them. The oddest disparity in the book was her spending four and half pages equating gossip with murder, but only three paragraphs on her own personal sin, hypocrisy, two of which minimized its importance. This is not a book about the Ten Commandments, this is a book where Laura can beat up on her audience and feel superior to then, while ignoring her own failures. A woman who hasn't spoken to her mother in fifteen years should not be lecturing us on how to honor our parents. A woman who calls the First Lady "The Wicked Witch of the East" should not complain about today's youth disparaging authority figures. The woman is a complete and utter hypocrite. And please change your review above; she is NOT a psychologist.
Rating:
Summary: The 10C's on the dissecting table
Review: Dr. Schlessinger and Rabbi Vogel have organized their book in the most straightforward fashion imaginable. The 319 pages of text are doled out at the rate of one chapter per commandment, in numerical order. The back cover contains a handy condensed list which shows, at a glance, how the commandments divide into two natural groups. The first group, 1 through 4, contains doctrinal commands bearing directly on religious practices and traditions. The second group, 5 through 10, consists of social interaction rules which are not intrinsically religious at all, but rather address behavioral issues very familiar to anyone who has reached adulthood in the company of other humans. It has always seemed to me that the doctrinal commandments (I'm your God; don't worship any other gods; don't blaspheme; keep the Sabbath) offer next-to-zero practical guidance for solving moral problems. Hence I was especially curious to see how Dr. Schlessinger and Rabbi Vogel would treat the initial four commandments in their effort to relate them to everyday life. One answer is, "thoroughly" -- roughly 44,000 words of commentary for 190 words of commandment. The result literally defies summary, but I'll try. C1). The authors characterize the First Commandment as a challenge to take relationships with God seriously, as a means for laying down the authority of one God, and as a reminder that proper interaction with God is covenantal, not casual. Five supporting points are made by stating reservations that a person might have in accepting doctrinal-command obligations, then giving a rejoinder or counter-argument in parentheses. The first is "Abdication of personal freedom (but not so - you always retain free will)." Fair enough. The fifth is "Acquiescence of intellect to ancient mysticism (but imagining one's own intellect as the ultimate possible intelligence and power is supreme arrogance)." Oops. Note that the rejoinder spuriously attempts to limit the possible responses to two. In truth the reader does NOT have to choose between a) acquiescing to mysticism or b) appointing himself Master of the Universe. It is entirely possible to reject mysticism and remain one's humble self. In fact, I and many others do it regularly. In the end, the First Commandment remains about as simple as it sounds: I'm the main man; I rescued you from Egypt; take it or leave it. C2). In the opening pages of the C2 (false idols) chapter, the authors quote from Exodus 34:6,7, describing God as one "...Who cleanses -- but does not cleanse completely, recalling the iniquity of parents upon children and grandchildren...". In my Bible, a similar threat of generational pass-through punishment for idolatry is included in the wording of C2 itself (Exodus 20:5,6). If there is any moral point on which every resident of Earth could intellectually and instinctively agree, it would be that each child is rightfully born innocent. What, then, should we think of an authority figure who takes vengeance by deliberately subverting that eminently just and fair principle? According to Dr. Schlessinger and Rabbi Vogel, C2 is taken so seriously in Judaism that breaking it, i.e. engaging in idolatry, is a sin one must be willing to die to avoid. They go on to define idolatry as everything from full-blown, golden-calf idol worship down to common foibles such as superstitions, Princess Diana fixations, egocentrism, bowing to feelings, selfish pursuit of happiness, and love of things or style. If you would, then, rather die than break C2, you'll be very careful or very short-lived. Having twice absorbed all 39 pages of C2 elucidation, I can pretty confidently reduce it to this: God is really, really touchy about competition. C3) and C4). My reading of the C3 (blasphemy) chapter led to an interesting discovery. Back on page 33 of the C2 chapter, the authors had pointed to mass killings in Russia, the Third Reich, China and Cambodia as "blatant testimonials to godless chaos and cruelty," the implication being that if people who are not religious do bad things, it must be BECAUSE they are not religious. A little additional thinking would have helped the authors realize that lack of Judeo-Christian religiosity may, or may not, account for a given instance of bad behavior. I wondered why the alternative cases where bad things are done by religious people, such as Northern Ireland, the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, etc., were omitted. A partial answer came when I reached page 93, at the end of the C3 chapter. Sure enough, the Crusaders were condemned for "raping and murdering with the sign of the cross embroidered on their chests and banners," but as blasphemers, not as religious criminals! That, I had to concede, was ingenious. Evidently the reasoning goes as follows: No evil can be done by religious people, because if you're evil, you're not really religious. So the Crusaders can be passed off as blasphemers who were merely masquerading as murderous religious zealots. It is a perfectly circular bit of Catch-22 logic that Yossarian, the Abyssinian bombardier, would have loved. The fullsome C4 chapter says, six ways to Saturday, that the Sabbath or day of rest is enhancing and uplifting, provided it is dedicated to spiritually acceptable activities. A list of suggestions is provided to clarify what is acceptable. Coincidentally, there are 10 of them. Having learned many things about the four doctrinal commandments, I was nevertheless left with the depressingly tautological conclusion that they can be inspiring, but only if you are religious to begin with, or become religious while studying them. The remainder of the book, covering the social interaction commandments 5 through 10, deals with common-sense moral rules that can help anyone, religious or not. But they consist of isolated cases rather than embodying a general principle that covers all situations. I can't write much more and stay within the Amazon word limit, so suffice it to say that I'm coming to believe the moral-guidance value of the 10 C's is rather overrated, and the power of the golden rule is definitely underrated.
Rating:
Summary: I wish I could go lower than a 1 star.
Review: to bad Dr.Laura doesn't really know how to live,If there was a good honest person to write this book it might of turned out differently,,she bad mouths everyone's beliefs and says everythings wrong unless it's her way.I think she seriously tried to alter the commandments so she could look like a better person,She's a hater and this is a horrible book.!DON'T WASTE YOUR MONEY!
| 
