Yes! or rather No! that is to say no, you can't not have non-historical displays that are not non-artistic representations of the Ten Commandment on governmental property that is not judicial or not non-state-house in nature because it is not the case that such non-historical and/or not non artistic displays don't not violate the "establishment" clause of the constitution! Is that clear? Don't worry, even the esteemed Supreme Court of our land appears rather confused on the issue. It really isn't that difficult a question. Is the display of the Ten Commandments on government property an endorsement by the government of some religion or religious tradition? If the answer is "yes," then such a display violates the First Amendment. If the answer is "no," then such a display does not violate it. I don't think I can quite comprehend how someone could argue effectively that the answer is "no," but I can understand that there are still lots of people out there who say the answer is "no" regardless of logic or reason. But still, it's a yes or no question. Can it be "yes" sometimes and "no" sometimes? I don't think so. But apparently the Supreme Court does - and thus has clearly stated this week that each case needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Whatever.