My best attempt at transcribing Ian Wrisley's thought provoking editorial:
Dorothy Sayers called it a great mistake to present Christianity as something charming and popular. Maybe that’s my problem with this whole Ten Commandments controversy. People who want the Commandments on government property are forced to argue the commandments belong there precisely because they are not religious. They talk about the Commandments as a cultural, legal, and historical document. This line of thinking might keep God in the Pledge of Allegiance, but only as an impotent artifact of history, not the Lord of history. It’s a hollow victory.
When a government adopts religious symbolism it ought to scare the bejeezus out of religious people. Why? Because governments can’t be trusted with metaphysics, that’s why. When I was in 8th grade, our principal said the Lord’s Prayer over the loudspeaker everyday. In his mouth it was just another means to control unruly adolescents. Communion with God lost out. When governments co-opt religious symbols, they aren’t giving legitimacy to religion, they’re using religion to prop up their own legitimacy. What’s most confusing to me is that the people clamoring for religious symbols on government property are my fellow Evangelicals.
It was after all a group of Baptists who needed Thomas Jefferson’s reassurance that the government would keep out of religion. His response to them gives us that great phrase, “A wall of separation between Church and State.” The Baptists (and the rest of us) were protected from the encroaching hand of government. 200 years later, Evangelicals are asking the government to encroach.
Blasphemy is a word we Evangelicals don’t use much anymore. It means to make secular that which is sacred. Posting the Ten Commandments on government property is a case study in blasphemy. As a Christian, I find The Commandments too sacred to be possessed by any government. If anything, the faithful belong to The Commandments, but that’s another conversation.