Okay, back to something a little more relevant: Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore and the Ten Commandments monument. Christianity Today is the place to go for an excellent full index of media coverage. It's amazing that James Dobson and Richard Land are disagreeing on the point of whether to obey the federal court injunction to remove the monument -- they agree on virtually every other issue. But I have to side with Land's arguments: the rule of law demands that the monument be removed. Moore can resign rather than carry out the court order, but he can't disobey it as a public official. What is incredibly helpful is the issue that Moore's stand has highlighted plainly: there is no way for the government, any government, to completely expunge all religious speech from public view, without embracing Humanism as its state-sponsored religion. The state cannot be neutral. It either acknowledges God as the source of legal authority, or it enthrones Man as the highest authority. What's the line from that old Rush song? "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." The First Amendment cannot be interpreted to mean that acknowledgement of God by public figures and institutions is proscribed. Instead the First Amendment prevents the government from requiring fidelity to any one religious organization or set of doctrine, and simply acknowledging the Bible as the foundation of law in America doesn't do that.