In their original context, were the Ten Commandments written as an abjuration against authoritarian religion, rather than an endorsement of it?

The text begins with the presentation of a liberator, styled YHWH (a form of the Hebrew verb "to be"), "who brought you out of the house of slavery." YHWH is not a god in the sense of the surrounding society. Gods guarantee authority, and YHWH destroys it: "You shall have no gods." Idolatry is the greatest sin in Judaism, Christianity and Islam because it means bowing down before symbols of oppression. Even an image of YHWH is forbidden -- the only image of YHWH is humanity (Genesis 1:26). To "misuse" the name of YHWH is not a matter of saying "goddamn": it is to use the name to wield numinous power, as was done with the names of the gods -- that is to say, it is to practice religion. The Ten Commandments forbid religion (Exodus 20: 1-7).

The commandment about the sabbath has nothing to do with going to church. On that day, "You shall not do any work": it is a commandment against the idolatry of work. The revolutionary Israelites were slaves, valued only for their work. "We are people, but you have forgotten it." The next commandment is similar. "Honor your parents" has nothing to do with obedience: it means not to discard people just because they are too old to work.

The rest of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:8-17) are a picture of the society that was being rejected, a society that claimed the power of life and death ("You shall not kill"). The commandment against adultery is not primarily about sex (the Hebrew bible isn't very interested in sex) and the commandment against stealing is not about property -- they're against stealing people. Biblical scholars have recognized for many years that these commandments are condemnations of the powerful who invaded households to steal concubines and slaves.

The article goes on to describe how the modern view of the Ten Commandments as supporting authoritarian constructs is actually a relatively recent invention of the past few centuries. Though it is certainly an interesting and agreeable interpretation, I don't altogether buy into the idea that the ancient Israelites were all about egalitarian ideals. Look at how oppressive many of their other laws (also recorded in the Bible) were. It does, however, show how easily a "sacred text" can be "spun" to mean a variety of views, sometimes in direct opposition of one another.