The Supreme Court today heard arguments in a pair of cases challenging the display of the Ten Commandments on public land in Kentucky and Texas. I will be very surprised if the monuments are allowed to stay. The Court for years has been moving toward removing religion from public life.

The interesting thing that struck me, was The New York Times editorial on the subject. No, I'm not surprised at the Times' opposition to the Ten Commandments display, rather the way the editorial writer has chosen to characterize it.

Adding the national anthem to the Kentucky displays or pointing to other statues in the distance in Texas cannot undo the displays' clear motivation: tying the legal system to Protestantism. [emphasis added]

Protestantism, huh? Maybe I'm wrong, but I recall that it was the Jews who first got those Commandments. I think the Catholic Church still uses them too. I don't think Muslims would find anything to oppose in them either.

The Times scaremongering reeks of a slander. Can anyone imagine the Times running that sentence with "Protestantism" changed to "Judaism"?