Well, the Supreme Court has heard arguments in two Ten Commandments cases and now we have to wait for them to render a decision - probably a split decision, I think, in which one will be upheld and the other struck down. Comments from the justices during the oral arguments reveals something about their thinking.

The Nashua Telegraph reports:

“If an atheist walks by, he can avert his eyes,” Justice Anthony Kennedy said in a courtroom filled with spectators, many of whom could be seen glancing at the court’s frieze of Moses carrying the tablets. Banning the Texas display might “show hostility to religion,” he said.

If he had said that a Jew walking by could avert his eyes from a giant crucifix serving as a monument to Christ, would that have been OK? I suspect he would have be excoriated in the press, but that's because bigotry towards Jews isn't acceptable while bigotry towards atheists is. Yes, Justice Anthony Kennedy appears to be a bigot where atheists are concerned.

And why would prohibiting the government from showing favoritism towards one religion by endorsing their scriptures in a monument qualify as a form of hostility towards religion? How is treating all religion equally a form of hostility? That's simply incoherent. It's the type of argument that we've grown used to hearing from Rehnquist, but I suppose that his absence has inspired Kennedy to play a fool on the court.

“It’s a profoundly religious message, but it’s a profoundly religious message believed in by a vast majority of the American people,” Scalia said.

Scalia is more honest than most of the monuments' defenders. He recognizes that a monument to the Ten Commandments is religious. As such, the government shouldn't be permitted to endorse or promote it in this manner — the fact that so many people in America believe in this religious message is utterly irrelevant. Unfortunately, I suspect that Scalia will vote in favor of the monuments, which will demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that he favors government endorsement and promotion of religious messages — messages that are derived from specific interpretations of specific religious scriptures.

As I said, I suspect a split decision: they will uphold the Texas case because that monument has bee around since 1961 but they will strike down the Kentucky case because that is so recent. Upholding the Texas monument will mean that most monuments around the country will be able to remain and thus the Supreme Court will placate the Christian Right.

They will also effectively establish a statute of limitations on the First Amendment's separation of church and state: if a government entity can get away with violating the Constitution by endorsing or promoting religion for a long enough period of time, then they will be able to get away with continuing to do so indefinitely for "historical" reasons. I wonder how many other amendments in the Bill of Rights will acquire such limitations under the rule of the Christian Right?

Read More:

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