Supremes: Decalogue Okay, Sorta, Kinda, Maybe

The Supreme Court proved again that it is time for a change when it issued two rulings today on public displays of the 10 Commandments that are almost contradictory (not quite) and it is questionable whether they reverse or endorse past decisions on the same subject. In other words, they pretty much said "I dunno" and let it go at that.

But framed copies in two Kentucky courthouses went too far in endorsing religion, the court held. Those courthouse displays are unconstitutional, the justices said, because their religious content is overemphasized.
In contrast, a 6-foot-granite monument on the grounds of the Texas Capitol -- one of 17 historical displays on the 22-acre lot -- was determined to be a legitimate tribute to the nation's legal and religious history.
"Of course, the Ten Commandments are religious -- they were so viewed at their inception and so remain. The monument therefore has religious significance," Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the majority in the case involving the display outside the state capitol of Texas.
"Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment clause," he said.

So essentially religious displays are okay... so long as they are not *TOO* religious. Who decides what "too religious" means? Why, the Courts, of course! After all, we don't want to have a tricky thing like giving a clear ruling that the Legislature can then pass laws to enforce or an ammendment to overturn.

Sigh. Am I just having a bad day? Or are these pair of decisions actually worse than no decision?