One of the most ironic things about religion is its capacity to make men and women either a lot more humble or a lot more arrogant. In dealing with a government, of course, it's the arrogation of power and the infliction of damage upon the innocent with which we should be concerned. If religion made men consistently more humble, more decent, more mature, all of us would have far less reason to fear it as a mode or tool of governance.
If religion were simply applied civics, if the values of religion were the same as the the values of the local civic federation, we could worry less about religion taking over the government.
Would that it were so. Some don't want to mimic the civic federation, but to absorb it into a "Christian Republic."
Millions of our countrymen want the "American religious outsiders" - atheists, agnostics, "heretics," Jews and, even today, Roman Catholics - shoved out and kept out of American civic life. They want the government to remind the religious outsiders that they are in the minority, and their values and concerns are not ones that the government will ever need to respect. They want all taxpayers to support the public schools to teach their children how to pray "the Christian [sic] way." They want the ("Christian" English translation of) the Decalogue, the so-called "Ten Commandments, posted by the government in the halls of government to remind the outsiders that they are outsiders and, probably, to facilitate the "Christian" takeover of the government. Separation of church and state is said to be "bull" and so is your sense that your citizenship is equal to that of a "Christian."
When I use the word "Christian" in quotes here, I am referring to that subset of the Christian world that a) is the religious heir to the relatively recently deceased and exceptionally violent Jean Cauvin (the last Frenchman revered in the American South), b) was then and is now aggressive in its use of the state to enforce its religious worldview and c) uses the term "Christian" to describe only itself, ignoring 60-65+% of the world's Christians who are NOT Protestant.
How do you know that this is about power? Two simple reasons. First, government is power, period. In the words attributed (not confirmed) to George Washington. "Government is not reason. It is not eloquence — it is force." What "Christians" cannot achieve through lawful means - a "Christian" republic - they are attempting to create by brute force.
The Ten Commandments are not our civil law and have never been. Every society prohibits theft and murder; every society that has marriage imposes some sanction for adultery at least against adulterous wives and often against adulterous husbands; every society that has judicial process requires truthful testimony from witnesses. These principles against homicide, theft, adultery and perjury are not distinguishing features of the Judaeo-Christian tradition; they are indeed features, but not distinguishing ones. Neither is honoring one's mother or father; Japanese Shinto and other East Asian traditions extend that principle to household shrines for many of one's ancestors. The commandments against "coveting" - defined variously by different Jewish and Christian traditions - are perhaps more unique. How exactly "Christians" want filial piety or "coveting" to be proclaimed as the civil law of the land, or enforced in a courthouse, is not clear to me.
But the real reason that some "Christians" want the Ten Commandments posted is not the commandments that relate to their neighbors, but rather those that deal with God. To quote the New Revised Standard Version, Exodus 20:2-11:
2 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; 3you shall have no other gods before me.
4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, 6 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation* of those who love me and keep my commandments.
7 You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.
8 Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. 9For six days you shall labour and do all your work. 10But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. 11For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it.
This translation should not be considered an endorsement by me of any particular translation, but is typical of Protestant translations of the Hebrew text. What's ironic is that the Jewish tradition does not consider the Sabbath binding upon non-Jews, but it is not the Jewish community that is pressing this political effort in any event. I digress.
What the "Christians" want is for coerced taxpayers to fund the promotion of this theological message to coerced visitors on government property, to the absolute exclusion of any competing message. The more honest among them will admit this. They want people in the courthouses to feel that if they are not "Christians" they are not truly citizens - a conceit both to their arrogance and to the lust for power.
The other fact confirming that this is about power is that you do not see a meaningful effort to put the "Ten Commandments" up elsewhere. Do you see an effort by Christian businessmen in the South to put the Ten Commandments up in stores? Have the Gideons gone into the "Ten Commandments placard" business for every convenience store, tire shop and roadhouse in the South? No. Why? Because customers have freedom of choice there, unlike at the courthouse when they get ticketed or subpoenaed or need to renew their business license or file for a zoning variance. Now it would not surprise me if the Religious Right started doing that, just to weaken this argument or for its own sake.
The argument that posting the Ten Commandments in, say, Wal-Mart might constitute discrimination in public accommodations is a red herring. Not only is the placement of a religious artifact in a non-government place of public accommodation not discriminatory under Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (unlike public facilities where both coerced tax money and coerced visitors are major issues), but it is less radically illegal for Wal-Mart to discriminate on that basis than for the courthouse to do so. The former would be (in a factually proper case) the violation of a statute; the latter constitutes an Establishment Clause violation by the government itself. The "Christians" upset about the courthouse cannot credibly be "shocked, shocked, I say" at the prospect of legal action for putting the Ten Commandments up in a department store.
Some would say that it's making much ado about nothing. But if the government put up a sign in the courthouses saying "Lunatic Atheist, you have few or no rights that a Christian is obliged to respect" or "Jews, take note that you are going to Hell" or "Praying to Mary is idolatry and you will go to Hell for it" - core theological Christian beliefs for millions of U.S. Christians - the outrage would be clearer. But the purpose and effect, if not the tone, of posting those messages and posting the Ten Commandments is the same: government is in the religion business and the religion you choose better be ours, or else.