In wake of Supreme Court decision, 'clear defense needed of church-state wall' (Des Moines Register)

The following analysis is from: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090227/OPINION03/902270335/1110

EXCERPT:

Considering the U.S. Supreme Court's contentious struggles over free speech and religion, it was a surprise to say the least to see Wednesday's ruling unanimously endorsing a government installation of the Ten Commandments in a city park.

While this ruling will likely have limited impact, it raises troubling questions about how dedicated this court – particularly the younger justices, who will be shaping it for decades to come – will be to maintaining the proverbial wall separating church and state.

. . .
Reading between the lines of this collection of opinions, it appears the justices worried that a decision upholding the Summum position would have the ultimate effect of forcing government bodies across the country to take down public monuments. That's a fair concern. It's one thing to say that all points of view should be heard in a public park; it's another to say those views should be expressed in permanent monuments.

Whereas there is nearly an infinite amount of time and space for speeches and placards in the public square, there's only so much room for slabs of granite. That was reasonable in this case, perhaps, but eventually the court must be more clear that government can't use those slabs of granite to endorse one religion over others.

Read the full article at
Reading between the lines of this collection of opinions, it appears the justices worried that a decision upholding the Summum position would have the ultimate effect of forcing government bodies across the country to take down public monuments. That's a fair concern. It's one thing to say that all points of view should be heard in a public park; it's another to say those views should be expressed in permanent monuments.

Whereas there is nearly an infinite amount of time and space for speeches and placards in the public square, there's only so much room for slabs of granite. That was reasonable in this case, perhaps, but eventually the court must be more clear that government can't use those slabs of granite to endorse one religion over others.