Dissent wrong to support Ten Commandments

I read Ashley Keen's dissent to the staff editorial ("Commandments a vital document," Nov. 5) concerning this settlement concerning the posting of the Ten Commandments in Washington County's Courthouse, and found a couple points to be interestingly disturbing.\nShe states that "we cannot alter history." This is true. However, we do not have to "proudly display" every detail. Our Founding Fathers not only believed that slavery should be legal; some of them profited greatly from it. Should we find a way to "proudly display" this fact along with these other documents because it provides "an example of the basis on which our Founding Fathers established the laws of this nation?" The argument for displaying the Ten Commandments because of the historical influence seems vaguely reminiscent of the argument that was used to fly the Confederate flag above the South Carolina state capitol.\nShe also states that "it is not being posted as a religious text." I find this to be ludicrous. If I walked into a building and saw the words "I am the Lord thy God," I would have a very difficult time believing that these words were posted only for historical purposes and not to espouse the current administration's beliefs. To deny the religious nature of the Ten Commandments is to do them a grave injustice while deluding oneself at the same time.\nIt's an additional curious fact that I have yet to hear this argument from someone who is not a Christian. This makes it appear that those arguing for the posting are not doing so based on any logical foundation as much as they are revealing their implicit religious bias. I believe it is time for them to recognize this fact and see that to post the Ten Commandments in a government institution is to create an implicit establishment of religion.