Thou Shalt Split Hairs: "But this is a merely prudential, not a constitutional consideration. On Monday the justices churned out 140 pages of opinions and dissents about the Texas and Kentucky displays. Here is a one-sentence opinion that should suffice in such cases: 'Because the display on public grounds does not do what the establishment clause was written to prevent -- does not impose a state-sponsored creed or significantly advantage or disadvantage one sect or sects -- the display is constitutional.'"
Mr. Will, in an act of almost obnoxious obstinancy, has missed the point. He is suffering from the same difficulty that plagues all majority members. When you are a member of the majority, you don't see that the majority viewpoint is, in fact, advantaged by the presentation of its religion in the public square.
And really, the larger point is that there is no civic purpose served by the presentation of these religious materials in public buildings. Here is a new one-sentence opinion that should suffice in such cases: "Because no civic purpose is served by the presentation of the utterly irrelevant religious perspective of any group, regardless of size, it is probably unconstitutional, but more importantly, a waste of tax-payer time and tax-payer money.