Justice Antonin Scalia saw a different problem in the court's precedents, noting that they effectively force governments to adopt nonreligious pretexts for what should be unabashed religious displays.
The Commandments, he told Chemerinsky, are "a symbol that government authority comes from God, and that's appropriate." When Chemerinsky objected that "it is a profoundly religious message," Scalia responded: "It is a profoundly religious message, but it's shared by the vast majority of the people. . . . It seems to me the minority has to be tolerant of the majority's view."
Scalia has turned separation of church and state on its head. The first amendment was designed to assure equal rights and tolerance for the minority faiths.
There is little doubt in my mind that the majority would be highly offended if the symbols of minority faiths were place prominently on public property. For anecdotal evidence, read the reaction of the Southern Baptist State Convention Executive to the Interfaith Day of Prayer and Reflection that I organized on the steps of the Oklahoma state capitol last year.
If SCOTUS permits posting ten commandment monuments on public property it will create a public forum for all religions. People of all faiths and people of no faith have the right to express themselves in a public forum. If atheists and people of minority faiths and their symbols are excluded from such participation, then they are in fact second-class citizens with lesser rights than the majority and we will in fact have officially established a majoritarian religion.
Majorities can change. Force your faith on people long enough and, sooner or later, a majority will reject it.
People who are genuinely concerned about the credibility of the majority faith ought to be the strongest proponents of keeping church and state separate. They are also going to have to start becoming more vocal and visible with their support for the First Amendment.