Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion

Gov. Mitch Daniels wants a monument of the Ten Commandments to return to the grounds outside of the Statehouse. A monument stood near the building for 30 years, but was removed in 1991 due to constant vandalism. A federal judge blocked replacement of the monument in 2000, stating that it could be seen as an endorsement of religion. \nSince the monument would not only include the Ten Commandments, but also the Bill of Rights and the preamble to the Indiana Constitution, the Ten Commandments are not being represented as a religious display, but only as part of the Western legal tradition that shaped current United States law. The IDS is therefore not opposed to representing the Ten Commandments on public land in this way.\nIt should be noted that in front of the Supreme Court stands a statue of Themis, the Greek goddess of justice. This does not represent an endorsement of the pagan ancient Greek religion, but only represents the ideals embodied by that figure. And no one has called for removal of that statue. Since the Ten Commandments would be treated in a similar way in the proposed monument, it is only fair not to ban them based simply on their religious association.\nWe cannot stress enough, however, the importance of limiting the Ten Commandments to their legal and historical value in the monument. There are plenty of religious ramifications to this, which should be treaded around with care. For example, there are two versions of the Ten Commandments -- a Catholic and a Protestant version (the former from Deuteronomy and the latter from Exodus in the Bible) -- which should be displayed, and how would offending the other group be avoided? Also, if another religious group is insistent on displaying their sacred laws as a legal code, then the state should give its consideration equal weight as the Ten Commandments.\nFreedom of religion is not freedom from religion, and banning a document of legal and historical value from a monument simply because of its religious association seems an endorsement of atheism as a state religion. The ground between historical representation and religious endorsement should be clearly outlined and never crossed.