Replies

Interesting, but not particularly significant. We're talking about now. The Alabama judge is displaying the actual text of a particular religion's fundamental laws in a central position of his state's highest court. SCOTUS displays a large number of figures who have been involved in law, and no actual text of the laws themselves. About half of the figures are allegorical, and of the rest only a very small percentage are religiously oriented. The emphasis is on law, not religion.

They are not comparable; neither one justifies the other. If the Alabama judge wanted to put up a display honoring the various sources, both historical and religious, of the development of the rule of law in the U.S., I would have no objection whatsoever even if the full text of the 10 Commandments was included. But to put up a single display of one religion's laws, including laws that would be a violation of the Constitution to enact (Commandment 1, for example), has a purely religious purpose that at least appears to me to be intended to put the power of the state towards favoring a particular religion.

Given the nature of the situation (it's a state court) and the nature of the First Amendment ("Congress shall pass no law ..."), I'm no longer sure as to whether or not this is a violation of the First Amendment. But I do think it's the wrong thing to do. This is the state favoring a particular religion, and that's wrong. If the Judge managed to convince the state/city/private party/whatever to sell him some land downtown across from the courthouse or next door to it, he could build this monument, a statue of Jesus, a cross, a Nativity scene, and speakers playing (at a legal volume) his favorite hymns, and I'd defend his right to do so. But he has no right to do this kind of thing on public property in his position as a Judge.

And the Supreme Court seems to agree. It only takes 4 Justices to agree to grant certarori (sp? sorry), so this thing is at least a 6-3 loser before argument, maybe worse.