Intentions in the Ten Commandments Case

First, is the appropriate test in the TC case the Lemon test? (Even though it isn't legislation that we're talking about.) If so, isn't it an open-and-shut case?

Does anyone really think that anyone who advocates the installation of the TC in courtrooms has a secular purpose? They say they do, of course, pointing to the obviously ridiculous story about the TC representing law as such, or providing some kind of source or foundation of our laws. But saying so doesn't make it so, and it must be painfully obvious to everyone that this is a ruse.

This kind of dishonesty really burns me up. Reminds me of people who claim to have religious reasons for smoking weed. Now, there is no doubt in my mind that marijuana should be legal, and that marijuana prohibition is immoral. But that doesn't mean it's o.k. to lie about your reasons in order to promote your goals. If you want to smoke weed because you like it, then be up-front about your reasons...but don't fabricate First Amendment problems that don't really exist. Same for TC advocates. Don't lie and claim that you have a secular purpose--be honest about your intentions and let the case be decided on those grounds.

At any rate, there is no reason for us to worry about whether we should allow the TC to be posted for secular reasons when no one has or ever will advocate this for such reasons. The reasons are clearly and indisputably religious.

If the Lemon test or something like it is the appropriate test, then the case is open-and-shut on other grounds as well, since posting the TC in courtrooms would clearly have the effect of advancing religion.

So I conclude that either the Lemon test is not the relevant test, or this is an open-and-shut case.

Anybody know which it is?