Despite Ted Rall's eloquent essay against non-credentialed bad guy bloggers, here's another critique of journalistic technique. UPI's Michael Kirkland, writing about the Supreme Court case on the Ten Commandments, reduces the debate to a simple binary opposition:

On one side are those who say government has a role in promoting morality; on the other are those who say any government interference or promotion of religion is unconstitutional.

This not only cheapens the debate but misleads readers. The picture painted is that of bible-thumping statists slyly infusing impressional children with Christian values by putting things on walls in courthouses, and constitutionally-minded rationalists protecting the interests of all.

There are also those who don't care. You can print the whole of Manu's Code on the courthouse wall--in Sanskrit--for all this atheist cares. But at least the Ten Commandments is a part of the Western heritage. I wouldn't be surprised to find Manu's Code cropping up around Indian courthouses either (that would be defended as cultural preservation no doubt).

I still fail to see how displaying religious images or text can be construed as congress making a 'law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' What has the Bill of Rights to do with questions like these?

It's a non-issue pushed by those who would abuse the Constitution for political purposes, but the usual sort of reporting makes it the latest battleground in the culture war.