Ten Commandment Cases

The Ten Commandment cases seem to me to address the line between acknowledgment of our past and state sponsorship of religion. Generally, displaying the Ten Commandments on government lands is an impermissible intrusion of religion (especially the first 4 commandments), but I think there is another issue involved beyond simply religion.

Essentially, I can accept keeping references that are historical and monuments that were placed before the incorporation of the bill of rights, maybe even ones from the fifties in reaction to "godless" communism, but I don't think new monuments should be allowed (like Judge Moore). I think there is a danger in erasing historic monuments and references that let us understand our past. I think the justices will continue to rule using a historical standard.

The ten Commandment question reall y is not that hard to decide, but how about another case? Could public buildings sport the following quote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

While from the Declaration of Independence, would the selection of just this section be an impermissible acknowledgement of a Creator, and therefore religion?

I know a lot of people will point out that "Creator" is less specific than "God," but it certainly indicates a being that controls or creates. Certainly Newdow would object.

p.s. Sorry for the long delay in posting, but I had technical difficulties and work that interfered.