LetterRip�s anti-10 Com link concludes:
>The solution is not posting a piece of paper on classroom walls. The solution lies in actively teaching children to recognize the impact of their actions upon other, and to differentiate between negative and positive impacts. Teach them ethics and morality from an early age. Don't give them rules, teach them to think.

This sounds OK, but I don't recall feeling oppressed as an agnostic in any way by the 10 Cs--if God doesn�t exist, the relevant phrases just aren't applicable. So what? How is it much worse or different than Santa Claus? I did and do believe giving was good.

And what about the many folks who do not think very well? I�m pretty sure society is better when teachers are focused more on behavior than beliefs; if some belief supports a certain good behavior, fine. But it seems one of the problems in many gov�t schools today is that the teachers are failing to get the students to learn to read, much less think � while that�s a different problem, it�s not clear they are unrelated. Still, before judging any moral code, there needs to be some agreement on what is morality.

Starting with Morality: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
The term �morality� can be used either
1. descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,
a. some other group, such as a religion, or
b. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
How morality is defined plays a crucial, although often unacknowledged, role in formulating ethical theories. To take �morality� to refer to an actually existing code of conduct is quite likely to lead to some form of relativism. Among those who use �morality� normatively, different specifications of the conditions under which all rational persons would put forward a code of conduct result in different kinds of moral theories. To claim that �morality� in the normative sense does not have any referent, that is, to claim that there is no code of conduct that, under any plausible specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons, results in moral skepticism.
----

I think there�s a bit of going back and forth between descriptive and normative. And actually I think it�s OK, I�ll do it too, but somebody should point out that it�s being done.

For those without God, it becomes 1b and 2 above: what�s accepted by the individual; and what society �should� do.

The LetterRip critiques of the first 4 Cs, especially, seem excessively negative, even if you don't believe in a J/C God. Consider these ratings, without God:
Taking at least one day off each week, when the standard is already two, seems pretty easy to say, yeah, people should usually take at least one day off; two or three are prolly even better. 9/10 (not sure which day is Sabbath). LR and the UCTAA guy almost certainly follow that behavior, and think society should.

Swearing, w/o God � as the �Reflector� notes, if this means being against all swearing, there is quite a lot to it. Well, I notice him using no curse words; similarly LR avoids them. Why? It seems sort of rude/ immoral to use them. Both �God D*mn� and �Sh*t� are frequently heard, but they�re not nice. So you avoid swearing, but don�t want to give the 3rd credit for saying you should avoid it? Is that really fair rating?

Since polite address is a good surrogate for polite respect of others, it�s actually quite an important one, too. Note the NYC idea of cleaning up graffiti and being tough on the little crimes, as leading to a reduction of bigger crimes. If you think avoidance of swearing is good for you, at least 4/5; if it�s good for others, another 4/5 = 8/10.

Now the 2nd, not bow down to graven idols, is pretty full of J/C God stuff to be ignored, but the relevant part is as I write, one should not bow down to idols and worship them. I don�t do this, I don�t think you do, I guess you�d think none should � although if they do, it�s mostly their affair. Depicting God, in painting or statue, seems clearly forbidden, and I disagree with this proscription. For today, I claim the worship as more important than the image making; and agnostics all follow the non-worship code, automatically. 4/10.

On to the 1st: no other gods before me. For non-believers, the Judeo-Christian �god� is primarily the 10 Cs, and general J/C behavior. In this view it is an exhortation to obey the J/C morality above all others. The more moral you think the other 9 are, the higher the score. Its value could then be the normalized value of the other 9; eg 31/90 = 3.4 or 54/90 = 6 or 44/90 = 4.9 or 77/90 = 8.55 (hint)

Finally, the 10th, no covetous thinking. Immoral thoughts, not action. The Reflector�s argument that everybody does it, some, seems mostly true but actually increases the value of this as a moral guide. Happier people do less of this � and maybe poorer people often do less, since they have accepted (too much?) their own non-advancement. Similarly, while one can�t control all thoughts, one can develop the habit of being thankful and appreciative of what one has; and practice thinking such thoughts when unbidden covetous thinking starts�and such practice is pretty good. But my way of reducing covetousness is not what�s written. Since such thoughts are very often the first, non-reasonable steps towards immoral actions, consciously choosing to avoid thinking them is clearly somewhat good.

Oh yeah, there is the huge pride aspect of the critique � why have rules if �everybody� is going to sin? Consider words from the link:
> The only reason for this particular commandment is to make it impossible to follow the rules. It makes everyone sinners regardless how blamelessly they pass their lives.

The clear, prideful desire to have some rules that can followed so as to get an �A�, 100%, number 1, top of the heap. But two of the most moral post WW II people, Gandhi and Mother Teresa, were both very humble, very non-covetous. The reason for the 10th, and the result when it is followed, is more morality.

(And this doesn�t even touch on destructive envy, the terrible desire for bad things to happen to your more fortunate neighbor. Adjusting envy to be competitive duplication and admiration, rather than destructive, has been a wonderful, though under-discussed American cultural feature.) So, thought covetousness 9/10.

My score: x, 4, 8, 9; 7, 10, 10, 10, 10; 9 = 77/90; + 8.6 = 86 / 100
(kind of interesting how LR�s 99.9% goes to 9, not 10)
And that�s why as an agnostic I like Christian �morality� � even without the Christian God.
But I do believe in �Good� vs �Evil�, and as I go to Catholic Church with my kids, I�m worshiping the Good I believe in �as if it is God�. Because I�m not sure it�s not.