As I wrote in the last entry (What makes a principle?) the kind of principles I am looking for have to be difficult, typically because they are competing with an urge to do otherwise. What Jesus shows is not just difficult, but the most extreme difficulty. In the face of our will to survive, he is forgiving. Beyond a martyr agreeing to be fed to the lions, beyond an ascetic trusting god and not reacting to a violent attack, beyond sacrificing one's life for one's brethren, beyond the beyond. In its idealism, one might call this the highest form of classical morality.

But what about from the perspective of post-conventional morality? What about our investigation to find principles that align with our particular understanding of the universe? Enter here the bane of my contemplations for the last month: the Sermon on the Mount.

The Sermon on the Mount reads as a collection of many orthodox and moral teachings of a living, preaching Jesus. The sermon in its entirety is very dense, and contains more material than I could cover in a single entry. As I see it, Matthew Chapters 5,6,7 constitute the sermon.

If you have never read these chapters, I HIGHLY suggest that you do. The amount of popular sayings contained within them (like light of the world, salt of the earth, wolf in sheep�s clothing, plank in the eye, do unto others, turn the other cheek, ye of little faith, judge not lest ye be judged) is quite impressive. Moreover, with respect to moral-social-legal considerations, Western culture is substantially informed by what is written there. Correctly, or incorrectly, the Sermon on the Mount is one of our culture�s primary texts.

Relative to the Ten Commandments, the sermon is complex. It isn't just a set of prescriptive rules, but Jesus giving a commentary on moral norms and pushing them further towards a �perfected� state. He does not just warn people, as an Old Testament prophet would do, that they were on the wrong path and would incur the anger of god. Jesus included in his commentary what the perfected path is. To quote the end of the sermon, "When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law."

The orthodox portions of the sermon would be the beatitudes (blessed are...), statements that believers are the salt of the earth and the light of the world, proclamation that Jesus has come to fulfill the law of the Prophets, follow the least of God's commands, Be perfect like your heavenly father, acts of righteousness done for men will not impress your father in heaven, pray in secret, fast in secret, the Lord's Prayer, do not worry - trust god, do not give dogs what is sacred, ask and it will be given, enter through the narrow gate, watch for false prophets, and put Jesus' words into practice.

I'm not really interested the orthodox portions. These are promises to believers from Jesus or the Father. They are meaningless in my universe. I COULD review some of them on the level of a prescriptive rule, dispense with Jesus' reasoning, and them ponder if and why they are worthy within my context, but there are more accessible teachings in the sermon I will spend my time on. I may return one day to mine for more. Like I said - the sermon is one of our primary moral cultural documents.

The remaining verses are Matthew 5:21-4,27-43, 6:19-21 and 7:1-9,5-12,17-20. I will comment on the passages from Matthew 5 in this entry (Part 1) and Matthew 6/7 in my next entry (Part 2).

** ** **
Part 1

"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell. Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift." (Matt 5: 21-24),

Here we see Jesus' commenting on �thou shall not murder�. Jesus is saying that there is punishment for murder - and the same punishment will be levied to those who are angry with their brothers. We are told to not be concerned with religious ritual and devotion if our brother is mad with us; it is a higher priority to be reconciled with your brother. I can see the importance of this command from a practical perspective - family conflict is very emotional and can be destructive to everyone involved including individuals/families in the larger community.

But this command is not valuable to our inquiry. In the same way that "honor thy father and mother" is valuable as a rule for making a society work more than a moral rule, this is more functional than principle. I think it depends on what your brother has done to make you angry. To make anger equivalent to murder in severity I think is really ill considered and irrational. Given one overall message of the sermon - that ALL of God's commands matter equally, the least is the most, the most is the least - this equivalence of murder and brother-anger is a good illustration of how deeply this equivalence holds. But this is simply not a valid consideration in the atheist universe. Context matters! The problems of classical morality are their dishonest, unrealistic inflexibility and disregard for context. Our principles shall not disregard reality so.

"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.� But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell."

Like the previous passage, Jesus here is taking a commandment and commenting on it. �Do not commit adultery� is changed to the more inclusive �do not think lustful sexual thoughts�. The cost of indulging in lustful thoughts is also identified as nothing less than hell. Jesus then petitions people to do away with these thoughts, despite lust's innate nature. In other words, the metaphor of cutting off your hand (an appendage you were created and born with) is to be extended to your lust (a drive you were created and born with). Though your lust may have uses, if it will drag you into hell, Jesus says do away with it. Here, once again, we see the message of taking ALL of god's commands seriously. In this case, taking it seriously in every range of infraction, from action to intent, to thought before even intent has taken place.

And herein lies my problem with it. Once again, there is no consideration of context. And moreover, we are being told to do away with an impulse that we have a valid use for. To devote oneself to the eradication of the expression of a purely destructive urge that is nonetheless innate is admirable. In a way, these are the principles we are looking for in our greater inquiry. But to attempt to eradicate not only the expression but also inner stirrings of a sometimes destructive sometimes important urge is ridiculous. Regulating expression is possible, but thoughts are something else entirely. That is a path of self-hatred and mental illness. One needs all the tools of thought and imagination to explore and express one's humanity. As for adultery specifically, it makes total sense to not indulge in it. I would go so far as to raise that one to a principle - we must take our impact on the emotional state of other people seriously. We must be empathetic enough to not betray their trust in us or in others. As for lust, once again, no regulation of thoughts makes any sense.

"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery." (Matt 5: 27-31)

In this commentary, Jesus is further pushing the importance of god's commands. Adultery includes even more than simply having sex with a married person. It includes formerly married women too. This is more of a social rule that makes marriage lifelong. It has no moral value I can see.

"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one." (Matt 5:33-35)

And now we hit material that I think is very useful. What is being said here is an ordinance to not swear beyond your own capabilities. Though the powers Jesus is talking about are not ones I find meaningful, the idea to express your intentions within your own limited context, without dishonestly pretending to have capabilities beyond, is an important one. Moreover, an 'oath' implies words spoken and intended - not necessarily done. It is a worthy principle I think to let one's oaths speak to one's intentions within an honest comprehension of one's own abilities, and ALSO to do what one swears to. Perform reasonable intentions. Committing oneself to an impossible or near impossible performance of virtue is setting oneself up for failure and a waste of energy.

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Matt 5: 38-42)

Oh how long I have waited to comment on this. This is really the most problematic commentary that Jesus gives. Why? Because it is so close to being relevant in my universe. Because it is ALMOST worth of being a principle, yet it perishes under its own idealism.

Jesus here is reworking the 'eye for an eye' law entirely. Towards a command so completely strange, so against any drive we have, and yet so pure in its intention, it really is completely spiritual. This is taking the expression of a destructive (and completely useful for survival) urge we have and transforming it into a beautiful peaceful expression. To turn the other cheek, if put into place by everyone, would make the world a better place. This command is on the controllable plane of how we act towards each other, so is reasonably within our ability. The only problem is, practically, the minute one person violates it, the better world falls apart. As it has been said, as soon as your neighbor has an army, you need one too.

It could be argued that this should be put in place anyways. By turning the other cheek ones does briefly perform a CATEGORICALLY better reality. But this is only brief. And it places one's survival in jeopardy. And there the practice dies. As an expression of how we want to be treated, and the kind of goodness within us, it can't work.

As you may be able to tell, I am a fan of turning the other cheek, not unlike my love of communism, as a practical impossibility. But I also think we can do SOMETHING with it. There is an opposing urge with each of us - dignity, or self-importance - which does need to be expressed for us to be mentally healthy. But I think after self-importance is felt and owned, one can let go of it somewhat. I think as we mature personally, we can spot the difference between an enemy who is trying to rob us of our dignity to an enemy who is more ignorantly transgressing. For an ignorant transgression, I think it is a worthy performance to turn the other cheek, recognizing and preparing that it may turn into something more exploitative. Like performing being more than one's possessions, one can perform being more than one's self-importance.

The difference between exploitation and transgression, I think, is hard to define. If it threatens your survival physically, I think that crosses the line to exploitation. If it humiliates or denigrates you at a base level, that crosses the line. But if it just wounds your pride, let it go. If it just rude or ignorant, let it go. If it damages only your possessions, let it go. I think as one becomes more able to let go of one's self importance, one is more able to perform this principle.

"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?� (Matt 5: 43-47)

Here Jesus is extending loving thy neighbor towards enemies too. He is extending the concept of neighbor to include everyone. I mistakenly discussed this during my review of the Ten Commandments - what I wrote should have been put here. Love your enemy is a performance of respect (not oppression, not exploitation) for other beings on this planet. Loving a stranger is pretty extreme - but treating them as a full member of your society, or your community, and grating them equal dignity and voice and ability is an excellent principle worthy of devotion.

The caveat that applies to turning the other cheek does not apply here. You can love your enemies even when killing them. You can respect them as humans with the same limitations and humanness as yourself. You can respect the experiences and impulses that brought them to the action of exploiting you even when defending yourself. On both an intellectual level and in practice, you can treat an enemy well or with inhuman disregard. Loving your enemy does not necessarily mean they are no longer your enemy, though it probably will make it harder for them to remain an enemy in the face of your love.

�Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matt 5: 48)

To finish this section of Matthew 5, Jesus commands to �be perfect�. I think from what I�ve already written, you can see how this sums up everything that is wrong with the Sermon. The standard of perfection is what is dishonest and wrong about classical morality, period.