Portions of this article appears as comments on the Quazen site.
“Godly Standards? Like What?”
Allow me to address a few of the fallacies here. First, removing someone else's political or religious statements from government issued publications, including currency, or from government owned spaces, like courthouses or public parks, is not "promoting an agenda," it is preventing others from promoting one. Neutrality is not an agenda any more than a blank piece of paper is a treatise. I have no idea what is meant by the term “godly standards,” because everyone seems to have their own interpretation of what that means, but our government shouldn't be trying to follow them in any case. A democracy should be following human standards, but not the tyranny of the majority - that is, while the majority should be protected from harm, the majority shouldn't infringe the rights of the minority. This, I know, is an ideal, but one worth striving for.
Second, no atheist that I know of (and I know more than a few, including several members of the Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia, quite likely involved in the actions Andy comments on) thinks that putting any religious statement anywhere will have much effect on coercing people to believe or attend church. However, it might well convince people to pretend to believe, or have a chilling effect on free expression. I know for a fact this happens; I know many closeted atheists who dare not express their true feelings about religion for fear of losing their jobs or being ostracized by their friends and even family. Nothing creates intolerance more than fervent religious belief.
Our government should not have a partisan political or religious agenda, period. The implication that our legal system is based on a particular religious viewpoint clearly suggests that those not sharing that viewpoint will not be treated fairly, something no rational person would desire, since that would obviously increase disrespect for our legal system - and, given our state of criminality, perhaps already has - though since the vast majority of those in jail, a far greater percentage than the general population, consider themselves Christians when they arrive, I don't know that fear of discrimination has caused atheists to become criminals, though looking forward to favored treatment might have encouraged Christians to break the law. That could be an entire article.
The Ten Commandments - Which Version?
Whenever we talk about posting the Ten Commandments, we need to note that there are at least three versions of them, with significant differences, not just different numbering. The original Jewish version, the Catholic version, and the Protestant version are different, and posting any one of the three clearly implies giving preferential treatment to that sect's viewpoint - again, not something our government should be doing. But for this response, I'm going to stick with the version Andy tried to justify. He first tries to claim that most of them, after his first four, aren't essentially religious in nature. One can hardly argue that, since the humans that created them were concerned with the same things other humans are - but let's also note that the definition of “steal” or “kill/murder” varies considerably in our society. For example, I consider the tax exempt status of churches (while still making use of government services like other businesses) a form of legalized theft, and George W's war as murder - but again, that's another article.)
So we're back to the first four. In this version, the First Commandment is: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Definitely religious, and, regardless of what it said to the Jews of the time (there was no Israel back then), the message now is clearly that one should give priority to the biblical god above all others. Sorry, I don't buy that this isn't sectarian religious coercion when it appears to be coming from or endorsed by our government.
He then addresses "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." This is one that doesn't appear in the Catholic version, as obviously they'd have a problem with it, but is also clearly a religious statement. Andy keeps referring to the original intent, but that has no bearing on its meaning today; if I were a Catholic and saw this posted on the side of a government building, I would clearly not feel comfortable bringing my case against those who vandalized my JC or Mary statue.
Number three, "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain," is blatantly religious and again implies the government will be infringing on the free speech rights of those of us who find the concept ludicrous - as indeed has been tried.
Finally, there is "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.” Ironically, this one has caused all manner of problems for nonbelievers, since the lawbooks of our country are filled with laws restricting otherwise legal activities on whatever day the local religion decides is the sabbath. For example - and I'm a nondrinker, but this still annoys me), in most locales it is literally impossible to purchase alcoholic beverages on Sunday, in some cases just in the morning but in others all day! Things are improving, but in many areas all stores were required to close on Sunday, or at least Sunday morning.
So the 10 C's are simply not appropriate for government sanction.
Educational Abuse
From this Andy segues into the creationism debate. He mistakenly includes creationism as a science, but it has been proven, many times, that creationism (and its offspring, the oxymoronically-titled “intelligent design”) is not science, but religion masquerading as science. How can one tell? Simple: Science takes nothing on faith. Any claim of science is repeatedly tested and subject to re-examination or revision if the facts warrant it. Science follows the rules of logic, where every step is clearly explained. Creationism attempts to find flaws in evolutionary theory (and, ironically, the validity of evolutionary theory is undoubtedly strengthened by these attempts) and jumps from “this is wrong” (which it usually is not, it's usually just a lack of scientific knowledge on the part of the creationists) to “god did it.” Those who are unabashedly ceertain of the existence of that which they cannot prove are, well, simply insane. (See this.)
