We've got bigger fish to fry

I wouldn't normally weigh in on the subject of the Ten Commandments being displayed on government buildings and in any case it seems that it's all over, with the supreme court saying it's ok "because they pay tribute to America's religious and legal history". That's fine by me, but I should point out that it would have been fine by me either way. The reason I'm saying something now is that with all the heated words from both sides I haven't seen anyone mentioning the point of view I lean toward: that the whole thing was a waste of time and taxpayers' money.

The main argument against allowing the displays is all about the separation of church and state - something that I agree with heartily. The danger, apparently, is that displaying the commandments is tantamount to an endorsement by the legal system. To me it's plainly obvious that there is no danger.

Consider: normal, well-adjusted people know that it's wrong to steal or commit murder. We don't need a book or a stone tablet to tell us that. It's also wrong to commit rape or molest children - but I don't see a commandment forbidding either. As for "no other god before me", that's just plain silly in a country that is not exclusively christian.

What about coveting? For one thing the way it's worded provides more than a hint that the writers considered wives as no more than the property of their husbands. In any case I covet all the time - for example, I often see a Chrysler Crossfire and a new Thunderbird in the office parking lot, and I can't go near them without my brain's Coveting Lobe firing up. I think the people who wrote "thou shalt not covet" down thousands of years ago must have thought it was a brilliant way to control the believers - make a sin of something that is totally intangible, unprovable and universally practised, then you can tell everyone they're all miserable sinners and must be saved.

The point is that unless the courts decide to make coveting a crime, with death by stoning as the penalty, I don't think we need to worry too much about what gets displayed on government buildings. As such, arguing about whether or not to allow the displays on the outside of government property is about as important as arguing what kind of wallpaper is right for the inside.

If we want to talk about separation of church and state, consider this statement:

I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

This is the oath of office that US senators have to swear. Note that the part I've italicized is not optional (the oath the president takes is different and doesn't officially include the "So help me God" part, although it's customary to add that in practice).

Now perhaps this is just as pointless as the "commandments on buildings" argument, but it seems to me that the nature of the oath makes it impossible for someone to be a senator unless they believe in the christian god, and in principle that it is equally impossible for someone to be president unless that person is a christian.

So much for separation of church and state, then.