a) Your list is different from Moore's list.
As I have read the explanation elsewhere, the reason for the routine substition is well stated here:
I am familiar with the argument that "kill" is an incorrect, though extremely widespread, translation. But that was not my question. Moore's monument says "kill." You are asking for objections to what he installed. Apparently you have your own objection to that word. If you are going to demand people respond to Moore's monument, you should quote it accurately, and not reword it the way you wish it were. That's just plain honesty.
B) Moore's mounument has a list which is not directly derived from any published Bible. In addition, he uses a Protestant numbering, rather than the Catholic numbering.
Is that your primary objection? It would seem the original text would have to dictate the terminology, not Catholic or Protestant versions. Which is closer to the original text?
The uses of Catholic vs. Protestant version is not my primary objection, but it is a clear case of supporting one sect over another. If the Protestant version is closer to the text does that mean that Catholics are wrong? Is this monument intended to instruct Catholics in the errors in their religion? If I were a Catholic I might find that rather offensive.
The other half of the objection is that Moore has written his own version of the Decalogue. What's the reason for that? Maybe he thought he could improve upon the word of God. Maybe he thought God was too wordy and had to be edited down. Whichever, it seems extremely arrogant.
C) The prohibition on graven images is being violated by Moore's own monument and by vast numbers of sculptures and other images.
The ten commandments graven in stone are not a "graven image" any more than the original set of ten commandments, written in stone, were a "graven image." God himself ordained the statuary of the Tabernacle, including detailed instructions as to how to fashion the cherubim. Graven image is understood to mean any object designed so as to be an object of worship. A complete reading of the Bible can indicate no other conclusion.
Here is the version from the King James Bible.
4 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.Note that there is a full stop (a period) between the sentence that says "make no graven images" and the one which says "do not bow down to them." Those are two separate thoughts.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
For hundreds of years the Jews regarded it as an absolute prohibition on making depictions. Since then more liberal scholars have interpreted it to mean "make no idols." It is still a point of contention between Christian sects. Catholics bow down to crucifixes. Orthodox venerate icons. It is not a settled issue in theology. You yourself admit that a complete reading of the Bible was necessary for you to arrive at your own interpretation.
D)"THOU SHALT NOT HAVE ANY OTHER GODS BEFORE ME" America has freedom of religion.
At some point you have to reconcile yourself to the fact that the founders would have found that eventuality distasteful and even ruinous in the extreme. Despite their denominational differences, Bibles were considered indispensable tools in civilizing the Indian nations. Look at the language itself: "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion" Were Hindus, animists, agnostics or atheists reflected among those "establishments?" No. Was there a 1st Church of the Deist on the list? No. The consensus was Judeo-Christian in the extreme and most of the founders viewed Democracy as downright dangerous without that consensus.
Not a single Founding Father was a "Judeo-Christian." The majority of signers of the Constitution were Anglicans. By your logic does that mean we should all be Anglicans (Episcopalians)? The Constitution does not qualify freedom of religion. It is absolute. The fact that some of its authors worshipped in one way or another is entirely beside the point.
Equally absolute is the Old Testament commandment to the Jews:
2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.That comandment is still operative on observant Jews. It is not operative on citizens of the United States of America.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
E) No response.
F) No response.