High Court hairsplitting and state religion

George Will notes in his column following the 2 recent SCOTUS decisions to allow an outside ten commandments monument but to disallow an inside a courthouse 10 commandments display that even with Jefferson's 'watery deism' the early American government promoted quite a bit of religion without knowing it was "establishing" a religion, against the 1st amendment: " So why is today's court preoccupied with the supposed problem of mere displays of the Commandments? Because beginning about 25 years ago the court evidently decided that the Establishment Clause's historical context, and the Framers' intentions regarding it, are irrelevant." Will notes that famous liberal but realist Daniel Patrick Moynihan remarked at the growing list of result oriented establishment clause cases from the Supreme Court, if a local government should not provide books to religious schools, but could provide maps, what about atlases, or books with maps?" Will notes Nebraska's previous encounter with god-0-phobes when Ernie chambers took his case against the Legislature's hiring a chaplainto the Supreme Court: "The three-pronged test (secular purpose, neutral as to religion, unnecessarily entangling between govt and religion, Lemon v Kurtzman 403 US 602 1971) produced a comic moment when the court, flinching from forbidding the Nebraska Legislature to have a chaplain, implicitly said that the good cleric did not advance religion. 463 U.S. 783 Marsh v. Chambers . The Nebraska chaplain had solved part of the problem by omitting Jesus Christ from his prayers. Enough already.