"Accommodating" Religion

Ten Commandments Get Some Support at U.S. High Court
Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Antonin Scalia spoke in favor of keeping the Texas monument on the Capitol grounds. "If an atheist walks by, he can avert his eyes," Kennedy said. Saying the government can't accommodate religion is "hypocritical and it's asking religious people to surrender their beliefs," he said.

Is it necessary for purposes of "accommodating religion" to allow the prominent placement on government property of a monument the only purpose of which is to display a religious text?

Disallowing such a monument would hardly constitute the non-accommodation of religion, as similar monuments would still be permitted on private property, church property, and the like. Non-accommodation of religion would be characterized by laws that prohibited, for example, the wearing of a ten-commandments button by those walking on the Texas Capitol grounds.

The permanent, in-your-face monument goes far beyond accommodation. It is clearly an endorsement; why else would it have been placed there?

Religious people needn't surrender their beliefs as a result of their government's declination actively to promote their religion.