[Beestie]

The ten commandments (or 15 if you believe Mel Brooks) are not Christian. They pre-date Jesus by a considerable span of time and are referenced in varying degrees by Christians, Jews and Muslims alike and so could not possibly offend any member of the big three religions.

I could argue that they couldn't offend any member of any non-big-three religion since the god speaking the commandments would simply be the god they worship.

I could also argue that they couldn't offend a member of a multithiestic religion since even Christianity has multiple versions of its god. And Christianity has obviously conjured up some tortured theological workaround to accommodate the "worship" of the virgin Mary thereby setting a precedent for a multi-deity bonanza.

I could further argue that the commandments couldn't even offend an atheist since only the first commandment deals with god himself. Since atheists do not believe in god they are not technically violating the first edict (the first commandment is actually a statement and two commandments) since they don't worship or idolize something in place of god. In addition, there is no law on the books referencing the first commandment nor does the first commandment instruct anyone, atheists or otherwise, to do anything they aren't already doing (either worshiping the god they think wrote the commandments or not worshiping some other god or idol in its place). So everyone is safe so far.

The second commandment requires upholding the Sabbath. Since no one really knows what the hell that means, I think its safe to say that no one should be intimidated or offended by that edict. Anyway, courthouses are closed on Sunday so the odds that anyone reading it at the courthouse might have occasion to wonder if the mere act of reading it violates it are zero. Offended party count: zero.

The third commandment (not using the Lord's name in vein), like the first and second is personal and whether or not one has violated it is difficult to determine and is well outside the court's jurisdiction. Atheists are incapable of violating the third commandment since the mere act of denouncing god implicitly requires them to acknowledge he exists. So any atheist who denounces god has inadvertently denounced his own atheism and is now a defacto non-atheist. Which faith he now belongs to is a matter of some debate. True atheists understand this and have no problem with commandment three.

Commandment 4, honor your parents, is just plain good advice. Anyone want to step up and claim it offends them? I didn't think so.

Commandments 5-8 prohibit murder, theft, perjury and adultery. Three of those are codified into law and one is a basis for civil action. So there is good reason to have those posted. Unless, of course, someone wants to make the argument that having laws that parallel the commandments, in fact, violates the mandatory separation of church and state and therefore, constitutes prima fascia grounds to have those laws stricken from the books. Anyone want to sign up for that? Anyone? Bueller?

The last two commandments prohibit envy. Anyone offended by that is probably themselves offensive.

I'll conclude by saying that I'm not trying to be condescending or arrogant or anything other than reasoned. I just fail to see what the BFP (big freaking problem) is with posting the commandments in a courthouse and scoff at the idea that they violate either someone's freedom of religion or someone's sense of entitlement to freedom from religion.

And for those who are just dead set against it, logic be damned, I'll leave you with this thought: if the judge even references them you can get the case against you dismissed so, ironically, they might even come to your defense someday. Imagine that: the ten commandments as a Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card. Now that is offensive.