If the national media elite spent any time on Maddox's testimony in this lawsuit, they would not be inaccurately describing her as a Catholic. When asked about the Ten Commandments obstacle in the court building, Maddox said, "My perception is that since I don't subscribe to those beliefs, myself and my clients may not get a fair shake." When asked in court about her reaction to the monument, Maddox said "My first reaction was that I'm embarrassed to be a lawyer in Alabama. I just think that religion is very personal and private, and to thrust it onto the public is almost profane." The public display of religion is profane. Some Catholic.

The monument has made Maddox feel so uncomfortable, she declared in court, that she said she avoids being anywhere near it, if possible. She claimed she has spent more than $2,000 on Internet legal services and her own law books because she no longer likes to use the state law library in the judicial building. She was apparently very disturbed by a lady praying at the monument. This is not the tough-as-nails, death-defying heroine being sold to us by Eleanor Clift. This is apparently a parasol-bearing sensitive flower who avoids whole buildings where someone might be -- gasp -- praying.

From the comfort of their own cocoons, where almost no one goes to church on Sunday, secular liberal reporters cannot see that the real exotic oddballs in this story to most Americans are hypersensitive Melinda Maddox and her fellow plaintiffs.

It's not just some ill-defined set of "fundamentalists" who revere the Ten Commandments. It's millions-- no, billions worldwide -- Christians, Jews and Muslims, honoring the spirit of simple moral teachings from the Book of Exodus. They don't all agree on the debating points of defying court orders and trucking in monuments at midnight. But they can all agree that a plaintiff who would cross the street and spend thousands of dollars to avoid the prospect of a believer lost in prayer is a deeply silly human being.