An Appearance of Godliness
Perhaps, one way to understand the outcomes of the cases and how divisiveness relates to it is look at how the politicians are benefiting from the religious displays. The Kentucky display struck down as unconstitutional was only recently erected and was done, not only to send a particular religious message but to do in a very public manner. Yet, in a democratic system of governance, elected officials rarely do anything publicly unless they can get credit for it at the ballot box. Thus, in the Kentucky case we have local officials using religion to score points with the voters.

On the other hand, the Texas case, ruled constutitional, relates to a Ten Commandments' display erected 40 years ago. Elected officials today are not getting political points with the voters for having it erected. Even forty years ago, they didn't get much credit since the religious attitudes in Texas were much more uniform than they are now.

It seems to me that the Supreme Court is saying that politicians should not be having the government do open displays of religion in order for them to get credit for them with the people. Hmm, that happens to sound a lot like this principle from the Sermon on the Mount:

Matt 6:1 Beware of practicing your piety before others in order to be seen by them; for then you have no reward from your Father in heaven.

What sends a more powerful message about the role of religion in our legal system: erecting a display of the Ten Commandments claiming that it is the basis of our laws (when only three of the commandments are still illegal) or striking such a display down as unconstitutional by applying a principle straight out of the Sermon on the Mount?

[via Hypotyposeis]