The Pendragon's Hall

The court system strikes again, issuing two contradictory opinions on the Ten Commandments. The High Court, in 5-4 twin rulings, said the display of the Ten Commandments at a courthouse in Kentucky violated the "separation of church and state" but a monument of them at a courthouse in Texas did not. The Court called for deciding these things on a casy by case basis. I suspect the reason they didn't rule the same is that a uniform ruling would have settled the question once and for all, and I think the justices are beginning to enjoy listening to these cases, but that's neither here nor there. They claim the cases are different--I don't see how. Both are state property, and the Texas display seems a lot more in-your-face, being a stone monument, than the Kentucky displays. They claim, however, that the two Kentucky displays violate the separation of church and state. For the last time (well, probably not the last but you know what I mean), there is no constitutional separation of church and state and for people who can read the "legalese" of a court ruling, the Supreme Court doesn't even try to pretend there is, referring instead to the establishment clause. The establishment clause reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." No mention of separation of church and state in there. And in both these cases, guess what? Congress made no law. The Texas display was contributed by a private organization and the Kentucky displays were placed by the county government. It had nothing to do with Congress. And it should have nothing to do with the Supreme Court either. The Constitution only forbids the "establishment" or preference to a religion to the US Congress and neither to state nor local governments, nor certainly to private groups. But don't expect to hear that from the establishment. They'd just as soon you not read the Constitution too.