There is definitely a tension in the first amendment between the Establishment clause (Congress can't favor one religion over another one) and the Free Exercise clause (Congress can't keep us from observing our religion).

As for the Ten Commandments cases, I think the issue there is that Congress is chosing to recognize and celebrate the Judeo-Christian values but not the values of other faiths.

I personally think the old monuments should stay because they are historical (and not intended as a present-day governmental endorsement of religion) but that new 10 commandment monuments should not be allowed because they do violate the establishment clause.

Either that or the same public facilities would have to allow other messages in the same place... granite monuments of Hindu deities, statutes of Buddha, inscriptions of scriptures from the Koran. If the government allows the 10 commandments but the scriptures or symbols of other religions then it is favoring one religion over another and this is unconstitutional.

I think the court should always try to err on the side of liberty rather than restriction.

At some point you have to make a choice, by that, I mean values can't be completely separate from society.

Let's say that one faith says 'gay is wrong' and another says 'gay is right'

You can't have both.

So suppose someone says you are favoring christianity by the 'gay is wrong'

Do you have to accept ''both'', which is impossible?

Laws ultimately boil down to getting society to do what we consider 'right'. The very word 'rights' is rooted in what IS right.

I would say government should probably not restrict public displays of monuments, but I don't think a Buddhist monument should be given 'equal place' with a Christian monument. Why? Because the society reflects Christian values and is strongly based and made up of Christian people. Shouldn't government of the people, by the people, and for the people, be a reflection of the people AND the values they hold?

I am not saying the Buddhist monument should be in a back bathroom, but what I am saying is that the idea that all ideas should be given an equal standing simply because they are ideas goes against logic. Ideas gain credibility as they are received by people and retransmitted.

So is the question, ''should the state be for religion or against religion?'' Hopefully neither, as it is the society's place to regulate the degree to which religion is a part of life.

Is the question, ''should the state be for Christianity or against Christianity?'' Same answer, one would hope. We cannot ask people to somehow split themselves into a secular and a religious part. Yet we ask the state to accomplish this feat.

The Constitution asks our national government to thread the fine needle of being neither for nor against religious liberty. A monument does not speak in itself. It merely stands. Its words are meaningless without people who live by the words. Are we threatened by blocks of stone or by people who live lives that are about oppression?

I hope the Supreme Court in its imperfect wisdom decides to err on the side of religious liberty and teach the nation through its decisions that we have to love our brothers and sisters, and stand for the most Christ-like of values, which is to love our neighbor as Christ loved us.