The Sixth Commandment and PC - a basic Jewish and a Catholic perspective   Jack Kemp and Timothy Birdnow, Birdnow website Editor-in-Chief http://www.tbirdnow.mee.nu/ We would like to address a biblical verse for a much needed clarification: how the Sixth Commandment (or Fifth, for Catholics) is translated. This piece is an outgrowth of Jack's initial observation and complaint, yet due to his limited religious training, he will address this issue largely from the Hebrew linguistic perspective based on his acquired 5,000 word vocabulary in that language while living in Israel. Timothy will address this from an informed understanding of his Catholic faith. Jack's Perspective One of the oldest pieces of political correctness, still spun today, is the King James Bible translation of sixth of the Ten Commandments as “Thou Shalt Not Kill.” In fact, the correct translation of the passage is “Thou Shalt Not Murder.” The Illustrated Jerusalem Bible Hebrew-English, on page 166, has for the Sixth Commandment, in Exodus 20:13, “Lo Tirsach” (imperative case: “No Kill”, Hebrew using fewer words to express thoughts than does English). This is from the verb “hirtzach,∝ to murder infinitive) gr “rotzech” (1st-3rd person singular), although the English translation of this Old Testiment is "Thou Shalt Not Kill." But that wasn't accurate because "thou shall not kill" would be "Lo Harog" (harog=kill, 1st and 3rd person singular in Hebrew. If you go to the Judaica 101 website http://www.jewfaq.ovg/10.htm , it states the Sixth Commandment as Thou Shall Not Murder. The Signet Hebrew/English English/Hebrew Dictionary also documents that the Sixth Commandment is linguistically connected for the verb for murder (p.213), not killing (p. 182). So why am I making this big to-do? Because so many left wing churches and synagogues – and many of the mainstream ones - wag their fingers at anyone who mortally fights to protect their home from criminals or their country from terrorists. Even uniformed soldiers in a just war are criticized as being morally wrong because this could lead to killing, which King James and his translators have run into a way of demonizing assertive self-defense. Self-defense is legal under both English Common Law and Judaism – and I suspect Christian Law (otherwise it would not be English Common Law). The Politically Correct – and the Islamists – make full use of this brainwashing by religious pacifists. And we have the following from Christian Homesite.com. http://www.christianhomesite.com/cherryvale/text/10command6.html “The sixth of the ten commandments reads, Thou shall not kill. The New International Version translates it, Thou shall not murder. This is more accurate because the Hebrew word so translated does not refer to killing in general but to malicious and unlawful killing.” Then we have this from Biblestudy.org , another Christian website: http://www.biblestudy.org/question/what-does-thou-shall-not-kill-mean.html Q. I am studying the 10 commandments. Please explain the Sixth commandment “thou shall not kill.” A. The commandment “thou shall not kill” (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17), is better understood to mean “you shall not murder,” most modern translations of the Bible rendered it this way. According to the Bible not all killing, the taking of a life, is murder. Murder is the unlawfully taking of human life. The command not to murder applies to human beings, not to killing animals or plant life for food. God gave animals to mankind for his use (Genesis 1:26-30; 9:1-4). But, this does not mean that humans have the right mistreat animals and the environment (Genesis 2:15; Deuteronomy 22:6-7; 25:4; Proverbs 12:10). Under the Old Covenant God allowed the Israelites to kill other humans under very special circumstances such as punishment for certain sins, for example, murder (Exodus 21:12-14, Leviticus 24:17, 21) and adultery (Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22-24). God also allowed the Israelites to engage in warfare and even gave them instructions about waging war (Deuteronomy 20:1-20). God also recognized that humans might accidentally kill each other, and he made provisions for this (Numbers 35:9-34; Deuteronomy 19:1-13). END OF QUOTE Timothy's Perspective John Paul II, in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae, reaffirms Catholic doctrine on this matter: "There are in fact situations in which values proposed by God's Law seem to involve a genuine paradox. This happens for example in the case of legitimate defence, in which the right to protect one's own life and the duty not to harm someone else's life are difficult to reconcile in practice. Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defence. The demanding commandment of love of neighbour, set forth in the Old Testament and confirmed by Jesus, itself presupposes love of oneself as the basis of comparison: "You shall love your neighbour as yourself " (Mk 12:31). Consequently, no one can renounce the right to self-defence out of lack of love for life or for self. This can only be done in virtue of a heroic love which deepens and transfigures the love of self into a radical self-offering, according to the spirit of the Gospel Beatitudes (cf. Mt 5:38-40). The sublime example of this self-offering is the Lord Jesus himself. Moreover, "legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life, the common good of the family or of the State".44 Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason. 45" http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/__PP.HTM Catholics are supposed to be zealous for life, but not to the detriment of their own lives or for society. And while John Paul II disdains capital punishment, he does say that it may be used in order to protect society when absolutely necessary. Therein is the rub; one could not morally argue for the execution of persons for crimes against property, but the execution of, say, a Khalid Sheik Muhammed can be warranted, to make it clear that mass murderers will die. This reaffirms Catholic teaching on Just War, too. According to paragraph 2309 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time: the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; there must be serious prospects of success; the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition." These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "Just War" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good." Jesus acknowledged the legitimate use of force; "let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one" (Luke 22:36). John the Baptist affirmed that Roman soldiers could remain so employed; "14Then some soldiers asked him, "And what should we do?" He replied, "Don't extort money and don't accuse people falsely—be content with your pay."' and Paul observes that the state; "does not bear the sword in vain" but is "God's servant for your good" (Rom. 13:4). Concluding Remarks: There it is. Another guilt trip phrasing held over our heads by pacifist religious "leaders" in need of a better translation - begats a better translation and explanation.