A measure before the Idaho Senate would have authorized a display of historical documents in the state Capitol, including the Ten Commandments, but Senate leadership killed it out of concern for potential constitutional problems involved in the plans to finance the monument.

The Salt Lake Tribune reports:

I want to err on the broad side of maintaining that separation" of church and state, said Assistant Republican Floor Leader Joe Stegner of Lewiston. "This comes too close." ... Rabbi Daniel Fink objected on grounds that there are multiple versions of the Ten Commandments depending on religion and picking one would essentially be an endorsement of that religion by the state. He called Sweet's bill an "opportunistic front for theocrats to include the Ten Commandments." Defeat of the monument came despite the endorsement of public displays of the Ten Commandments from the state's all-Republican congressional delegation and Gov. Dirk Kempthorne.

It's nice to see someone pointing out the fact that there are multiple versions of the Ten Commandments and that choosing any one version expresses a preference for one religion over others. People want the Ten Commandments displayed on public property rather than church property because they want the government to endorse their religious views - that's the only reason, and that's precisely the reason why it isn't permissible.

Read More:

• Secularism 101
• Separation of Church and State 101
• Ten Commandments