The Ten Commandments

The Supreme Court will, in the not too distant future, hear two cases about displaying The Ten Commandments in government buildings. Those who argue againts displaying The Commandments contend that they are a religious symbol, and thus violate the establishment clause. Those who argue for leaving the displays say, yes, they are religious, but that they also are a symbol of the rule of law, albeit religious law.
To this, those opposing the displays reply, they do represent law, but in America we believe in a law that arises from the consent of the people, from the ground up. The Ten Commandments however, they say, come from God, from above down, therefore The Commandments do not serve as as a symbol for the laws that rule our country.
Those in favor of displaying the Ten Commandments counter by recalling the founding fathers' belief in "unalienable rights." If all rights arise from the government, then the government can also take those rights away. "Unalienable rights" were, therefore, those rights given from "on high" that could never be taken away.
What do I think? The Commandments should stay. I don't favor the government 'establishing religion,' for instance; I don't think a picture of Jesus would be appropriate in a courthouse. However there are two reasons The Ten Commandments are different. First, they do represent law, and the rule of law. Second, they do not advocate one religion, or church. Muslims, Christians and Jews alike, all have religious ties to the Ten Commandments (albeit with slightly different wording).
Some would say that they do at least advocate a belief in God, or more of a streach, monotheism. But is this what was meant by 'establishing religion'? Since the Supreme Court's own courtroom has a picture of Moses holding the Ten Commandments, it doesn't appear that this is what the founders had in mind.