Likewise you could say that religion is a good thing and so more (state supported) religion is better, no matter what other rights are trampled in the process. Again, the Bill of Rights stands against that line of reasoning.
Whoa, whoa, please, not everything is about individual rights! You rejected the word "tyranny" but there must be some word for what the federal government would be oppressively doing if it hampers a lower government entity such as a state so that it (the lower entity) cannot do what it needs to do?
Do you disbelieve in any state sovereignty, only national? It is not metaphysically possible for the federal government to oppress a state?
The first nine amendments to the Constitution are all about individual rights. It is the duty of every level of government to ensure that they are not violated.
The Tenth Amendment affects the role of States in areas not otherwise prohibited. This is an area of the law I am not as familiar with. However, this particular case involves the actions of one individual. His institution, the Supreme Court of Alabama, has overridden his action, so there is no state vs. federal issue. If the legislature and governor passed a law mandating Decalogue monuments in courthouses, that would be a different matter.
Speaking generally, the Federal government could certainly act tyrannically towards its citizens, almost everyone of whom is also a citizen of a state or district. I'm not sure how it could act tyrannically towards a state government, other than declaring war. Let's not turn this into a Civil War thread.