the magpies have come!

Here is a painfully weak argument for why the Ten Commandments shouldn't be displayed by state governments. It's full of conclusory statements that never really address the issue at hand. ("when the government displays the Ten Commandments, the unconstitutional endorsement of a particular religion is patently obvious").

Part of her argument centers around the notion that the Ten Commandments are not all of one kind:

Were the President to give a speech (which he, of course, would not) that reminded Americans to obey the first four commandments--there shall be only one God, there shall be no graven images, keep holy the Lord's day, and do not take the Lord's name in vain--there would be a huge uprising in opposition. Those are not messages this government may say, and thank God for that.

However, the issue is not about the government endorsing these values. Rather, the argument on the other side is that the government is merely respecting our history as a nation. These principles--indeed, especially the first four commandments that Marci Hamilton raves against--are precisely the values that our Founding Fathers held near and dear. She is never able to escape the fact that the Ten Commandments necessarily constitute a historical document, regardless of their religious value.

She also makes this ridiculous statement:

First, the most reviled minority in America is characterized neither by race nor sex nor religion, but rather by a lack of religious belief. When nonbelievers challenge government-backed religious messages, they are typically treated with contempt and often face threats and harassment as well.

Wow. Apparently, this woman isn't in touch with contemporary culture. If nonbelievers are not the majority nowadays, they are pretty close to it. Science has taken over the function of religion in today's society. People's notions of Truth no longer lie in a naked man on a cross. They lie in an electron microscope. Wake up.

Finally, she argues that the Ten Commandments have not lost their religious connotation:

The second argument that has muddied the waters for courts is the claim, recently repeated over and over, that the Ten Commandments can be displayed by the government, because they have lost their religious connotation. According to this argument, the Commandments are nothing but legal history.

No one has ever claimed that they have lost their religious connotation. The Ten Commandments are still a very religious symbol. However, they are also a historical symbol. Insofar as they are relevant to our nation's history, they should also be fit for display by the state.

Indeed, yesterday I was at the University of Texas at Austin, a public university. I noticed that their law library was decorated with lots of Native American symbolism, much of which was no doubt religious. However, no one in their right mind would suggest that the State of Texas is promoting or establishing any Native American religions. The function of the displays are clearly only for historical purposes, even though they still remain very religious symbols. Anyone with an inkling of Texas history knows why such displays are appropriate.

Likewise, anyone with an inkling of United States history should know why displaying the Ten Commandments in a state building should not be construed as anything more than respect for history.