The so called second half of the standard is the only thing that makes sense. However, when you attempt to apply the second half by itself without Moore's posistion the monument by itself could simply be history or art. It loses its apparent religious sigificance. I would then agree that if a jury of peers decided it was religious based on their own standards of the day then that could be a reasonable basis but the one that has been put forth here can only result in bizarre consquences.
So to you the Ten Commandments is not an article of religious significance? Is this a common belief in the churches these days? If it has no religious significance, why are people so agitated about its removal? After all, it's just an artifact of history, right? Presumably, some other historical artifact will replace it - plenty of those to choose from. I've always been fond of the portrait of Washington crossing the Delaware myself. Maybe that ordinary historical artifact can replace this other ordinary historical artifact. Seems kind of funny that people get so upset over plain old art or history...