Seriously? "Heheh"?
If you actually do think about this all the time and you can't wait until someone tries it, then you have bigger problems than the ten commandments being posted on a courthouse lawn...
Oh, please. Why the petty insults? I suppose I was exaggerating by saying I think about this "all the time," but I do spend a good amount of time musing about the role of government and ways to interpret the Constitution. Here's the way I see it:
Are public school teachers and judges considered private citizens while on the job, or are they considered agents of the government? If we reject incorporation (to avoid opening up that can of worms), let's just limit the scope to federal judges and public school teachers (partially paid by federal funds, thanks to our wonderful Department of Education :-/) for now...
Now, if a federal judge is acting as a private citizen erecting a monument to the Ten Commandments in his workplace (courthouse lawn), he is fully entitled to do so under his First Amendment rights, just like an office worker can hang a cross in his or her office. However, if the federal judge is acting as an agent of the federal government, erecting the Ten Commandments could potentially be construed as the state giving preference to one religion over another (or lack of religion), hence it would be a step toward establishing a state religion. By my own understanding of the Constitution, the state (and agents of the state) are prohibited from such actions.*
Hence, in my view, the people of America can look upon displays of religion on government property by government officials in one of two legitimate ways:
1.) They're individuals, and it's their right under the First Amendment.
2.) They're agents of government. Since the government cannot establish a state religion under the First Amendment, neither can it give preference to one religion over another (or none), and so government officials cannot erect religious monuments on government property or indoctrinate children with their own beliefs.
Evangelical Christians always seem to favor the first interpretation, but this is rarely out of actual principle (here I betray my cynicism
): Rather, it's typically out of an opportunistic desire to imbue everything with a splash of Jesus or even to establish a Christian nation. A lot of people really do just
want theocracy, though they probably would be horrified to admit it, even to themselves. Now, I find it darkly amusing to imagine a judge erected monuments to Satan under, ironically, the same arguments that evangelical Christians use to defend monuments to the Ten Commandments. Unless I'm very mistaken, I imagine such a move would be followed by public hysteria and angry calls to action by evangelical Christians. They'd be even MORE upset to hear that little Johnny's science teacher started class with a prayer like, "We pray for peace on earth, candy for all the children, and for the demonic hordes from the depths of hell to overrun the pearly gates of heaven." It would really be a fantastic test to see who really believes on principle that judges and teachers (agents of the state) should be able to freely express religion on government property, and who just wants Christianity to get preferential treatment by government. I'd be willing to bet almost anything that we'd end up with a lot more of the latter than the former. Therefore, it's fun to think about.
Personally, I don't actually care which way we look at this, as long as the same principle is applied consistently. However, I'm very cynical about whether most Christians understand what they're actually supporting. As long as Judge Jones is allowed to put a statue of rastafarians smoking ganja or Tom Cruise saving the world from Xenu on the courthouse lawn, I have no problem with Judge Smith erecting stone tablets with the Ten Commandments...but I have a feeling that a lot of people will call foul if the religion expressed is not a form of Christianity.
*Ron Paul probably disagrees with this, but he has also said that the Constitution is replete with references to God, which is untrue. In addition, he has stated something to the effect that our nation was founded largely as a Christian nation where other faiths would be tolerated and the right to religious freedom left unabridged. However, as many of us know, the Founders were mainly deists (based on "first cause" - i.e. they could not find a logical way around the existence of a creator), not Christians, and some have expressly stated that the United States was not based in any way on Christianity. Basically, I feel like this is somewhat of a rare blind spot for Paul...that said, my disagreement with him on this is completely trivial in light of his overall fairness, extreme prejudice against government intrusion in personal lives, etc. In other words, I disagree with Ron Paul here, but I consider the disagreement "largely academic."
