In West Chester, Pa., the other day, the wall of separation between church and state became a toxic barrier dividing antagonists determined to press their points of view at the expense of mutual understanding and common sense. The sorry occasion was the court-ordered covering of a plaque listing the Ten Commandments on the facade of the Chester County courthouse.
Even for those who believe (as this newspaper does) that a constitutional separation better serves both religion and the state, the covering of the 82-year-old plaque seemed almost a Taliban-like step, not on the same scale as destroying Buddhist statues perhaps but evidence of a kindred intolerance.
For their part, the authorities in Chester County didn't have a choice. U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell ordered the plaque removed in March after ruling in favor of an atheist group, which had brought suit claiming that the Ten Commandments on the courthouse wall amounted to a constitutionally impermissible establishment of religion.
The judge allowed that the plaque, which has a Protestant version of the Commandments, could be covered while the case is being appealed. So when the county workers came out to cover the words that had not given any noticeable offense for four decades, they were greeted by 100 protesters who booed and chanted "You can't cover the truth." Four people were detained by sheriff's deputies.
Who gains? At first blush, not those who insist that America is a Judeo-Christian country and honor the Prince of Peace with a vehemence that is blind to the sensitivity of others. Such people would do better to appreciate that the wall of separation is friend, not foe, of religious faith. Church attendance is far higher in the United States than it is where the dead hand of government approval rests on a particular faith, as it does in England.
But, actually, members of the Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia do not prosper from this outcome either.
Whatever satisfaction the plaintiffs might take from being no longer publicly "offended," they should now know that they have given grist to the mills of every fundamentalist preacher and reactionary talk show host in the nation. It seems manna doesn't just come from heaven; atheists with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union are also happy to provide it.
This is a sad and unfortunate situation, the byproduct of a society increasingly unable to make sensible distinctions, caught up in asserting rights but heedless of civic responsibilities, blind to the fact that real tolerance needs courtesy and wisdom to animate it.
To be sure, this is perilous territory for courts to venture into -- the legal equivalent of counting angels on the head of a pin. The issues surrounding the display of the Ten Commandments echo the arguments raised over creches on public property. But at least creches can be displayed elsewhere to good effect (as has been done on a private site in Pittsburgh). The provocative covering and possible removal of the commandments in West Chester may be legal but the empty space in the wall will only bear silent witness to inflexibility.
A similar case brought by plaintiffs seeking the removal of a plaque put up in 1918 on the side of the Allegheny County Courthouse is unresolved and may turn on what happens in West Chester. The Post-Gazette has been sympathetic to the county's argument that this is a historical artifact, not to be sensibly viewed in the same light as any modern-day attempt to erect a similar monument.
The Supreme Court should provide some clarity. Last year (and not for the first time), the court refused to review a ban on displaying the Ten Commandments on government property.
For the moment, confusion reigns. As evident in West Chester, so does bitterness.
E-mail this story 
