Saturday night, August 16: I was sitting in my living room nibbling on potato chips and waiting for a friend to pick me up. I turned on the news only to see footage of a rally in Alabama to save the Ten Commandments monument sitting in the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Courthouse. For those of you doing more productive things over the summer, I'll fill you in briefly. There was a statue featuring the Ten Commandments in front of the Alabama Supreme Court building. Last November, a federal court ruled, "Roy S. Moore, Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by placing a Ten Commandments monument in the rotunda of the Alabama State Judicial Building."

Now this seemed reasonable enough, seeing how an image of the stone tablets bearing the Ten Commandments is a clear endorsement of a particular religious tradition. Yet, interestingly enough, Judge Moore - backed by an enthusiastic following of religious fundamentalists - protested the court order and held rallies in front of the court house to save the Ten Commandments monument from the tyranny of the national government and their efforts to prosecute God-fearing Americans.

As I watched one of the support rallies on television, I couldn't help but feel frustrated that people who advocate the public endorsement of Christianity were generating so much support. I was also embarrassed because many of these fundamentalists claim to speak on behalf of all religious Americans, a group I consider myself part of - or, at least would like to. Controversies like this one, however, give religion in America a bad name - and I find this personally offensive.

Alan Keyes, one of the foremost supporters of saving the Ten Commandments monument from those who wish to impose, "a regime of atheism at every level of our public life," spoke as though the government was limiting his right to practice religion by prohibiting its public, official establishment.

"To the end of driving prayer from our public schools! To the end of banishing the acknowledgment of God from festivals and our games and all our gatherings as a people!" Keyes cried out to cheering supporters (who, I might add, replied with "Amen"). For those of you unaware, prayer in school and the acknowledgement of God at public festivals and games are not rights granted by the First Amendment.

The First Amendment protects the right of every individual to worship in the manner he or she deems fit. But this does not apply to public institutions, such as a state supreme court. As a public institution, it must not be able to show favor to one religious tradition over another. This does not seem like such a difficult reading of the Constitution.

Keyes wants to argue, however, that the prohibition against establishing religion applies only to Congress. During one of his speeches, he made a point of reading the First Amendment obnoxiously slowly, emphasizing CONGRESS shall make no law, CONGRESS shall make no law. Individual states may in fact endorse religion. "There might be states in which they require a religious test or oath of office. There might be states in which they have established churches, where subventions are given to schools, and so forth, to teach the Bible," Keyes said. With all due respect to Keyes' brilliant Constitutional analysis, it has long been accepted that Section One of 14th Ammendment extends the Establishment Clause to individual states, as well to the federal government.

But this is hardly the point. What is scary about this is how seriously Keyes, Moore and their supporters believe that their beliefs ought to be imposed on the public, if not by the federal government, than by individual states.

At a rally on August 21, Judge Moore said, "The people of this state elected me as Chief Justice to uphold our Constitution, which establishes our justice system on the invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God. To do my duty, I must acknowledge God. That's what this case is about."

That was not what the case was about. If he just wanted to acknowledge God as the root of our justice system he would have had, "In God we trust," or something to that effect etched above the doorway. The question of whether or not the mere acknowledgement of God by a public institution is itself constitutional is not of concern here. This monument of the Ten Commandments is clearly much more than an acknowledgement of God, it is an endorsement of one particular religion.

This distinction is crucial - it's not about God or God's role in public life. It is about turning this country into a Christian theocracy, one step at a time. Anybody who truly cares about the freedom to both practice religion and ignore it must be disturbed by the direction of this line of reasoning. Alan Keyes was not kidding when he suggested the establishment of religious tests as pre-requisites for holding public office.

But in order that we can all sleep better tonight, I should tell you that U.S. District Court Judge Myron Thompson dismissed a lawsuit which claimed that removing the monument was a public endorsement of atheism. Luckily there are still some remnants of sanity left in our justice system.