I beg your pardon?
Wouold you care to explain what you wrote here?
I was referring to the fact that part of the first commandment (the graven image prohibition) is in the Catholic Church deemed acceptable, as stated in catechisms:
2130 Nevertheless, already in the Old Testament, God ordained or permitted the making of images that pointed symbolically toward salvation by the incarnate Word: so it was with the bronze serpent, the ark of the covenant, and the cherubim.
2131 Basing itself on the mystery of the incarnate Word, the seventh ecumenical council at Nicaea (787) justified against the iconoclasts the veneration of icons - of Christ, but also of the Mother of God, the angels, and all the saints. By becoming incarnate, the Son of God introduced a new "economy" of images.
2132 The Christian (Catholic) veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype," and "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it." The honor paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone:
Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.
So. I was referring, to the best of my ability, to the fact that there are religious traditions or denominations which might not find the prohibition of images agreeable; thus the posting of that commandment in a place where the law of the land is ruled upon might make it seem that the government was favoring one religious tradition over another. Have I misspoken?