A Stitch in Haste

As I understand it — and it can be very difficult to understand — the Supreme Court's current thinking regarding religious displays on government property, and particularly displays of the Ten Commandments in courthouses, goes something like this:

As part of a comprehensive tribute to "important historical symbols and figures," the Ten Commandments are a permissible display. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a Decalogue in a courthouse; it is not, without more, a violation of the First Amendment. Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005).

However, if a Ten Commandments display has undue prominence, which includes the case of a large Decalogue displayed by itself, then that constitutes an endorsement of a particular religious viewpoint and therefore violates the Establishment Clause. McCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844 (2005).

Armed with that, let's pay a visit to Dixie County, Florida:


Is a six-ton chunk of granite, alone and smack dab in the middle of the courthouse entrance, a display of "undue prominence"?

Only if you have your eyes open, an IQ over 80, and no ulterior motive.

Two additional, interrelated hasty stitches:

1. Only four of the Ten Commandments — which, incidentally, are part of Jewish and (arguably) not Christian beliefs — are in any way related to modern legal doctrines or concepts. So why are militant Christians so obsessed with getting them into the courthouse?

2. By the same token, how come you never see any militant Christians offering to erect six-ton granite monuments to the Golden Rule? Could it be because it's a bit too libertarian for militant Christians? Stated differently, why do "Christian conservatives" spend so much more time being "conservative" than being "Christian"?

(Via How Appealing.)