... there is no right for any one group to have their religious symbols posted in public places.
I understand that perfectly. Here are my rebuttals to that position.
1. Judge Moore is not a group he is one person who, as Chief Justice, had the lawful sole authority to choose what to display in the JD Building Rotunda. No single or multiple groups or individuals have the right, privilege or legal sanction to intrude on the Chief Justice's decision. Nor does the Federal Court.
His choice couldn't violate an existing law such as decency laws or safety laws but the fact is the monument violated no existing law. That's, not coincidentally, why no law was cited in any of the rulings on the matter.
2. The people of Alabama have a right, by law, to elect their Chief Justice. Judge Moore was well known as the "Ten Commandments Judge" when they elected him because he had been unsuccessfully challenged twice before for displaying the Decalogue in his courtroom. The whole of the people of Alabama made their choice based on this knowledge.
3. The Decalogue is not a symbol of one religion alone if it is a symbol at all. It is a set of temporal laws held in esteem by three major religions; Jewish, Christian and Muslim. More than that they are, as Judge Myron Thompson himself said, undeniably the source of much of western civil law today. He did not rule for their removal on the basis of their religious symbology and himself asserted that there was nothing wrong with publicly displaying the Decalogue on government property. The problem was clearly that the person who ordered their display actually believed in their divine origin and said so. More precisely Roy Moore said that God was the ultimate authority over men. What a radical thought! Is there some other way to view the concept of "our Creator?"
4. Every citizen has a right to assume the authority of any public office or trust that he/she has earned the privilege of holding and met the lawful requirements thereof irregardless of religious views or religious non-views.
Article. VI., Clause 3;The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
This clause confirms that no religious test is required but it does require that the officer or trustee be bound by Oath or Affirmation. Who is that Oath or Affirmation given to? God. That is not a contradiction. A test would be to demand proof of one's belief (which cannot really be proven) or to specify what religion or sect of a religion the Oath is given through. None is ever specified.
What is especially significant to Judge Moore in this clause is what the Oath binds one to do. Support the Constitution. What is the Constitution founded upon? The Declaration of Independence. What does the DoI found its authority upon?
The Declaration of Independence: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, ...
Establishes the source of men's Rights; the authority they are founded upon...
--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --
Establishes the source of government's "just power."
--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, ...
Recalls the source of government authority and the source of man's authority to give it.
For those who are willing to read and understand what Judge Moore has said he has stated clearly that the only thing he is doing is recognizing just what I have pointed out above. God is the authority upon which the authority of the Constitution (and thereby the government through men) is founded. He has called it his duty to do so and since he has sworn an Oath to support the Constitution is seems only appropriate to support it by restating its foundational basis. He cites the Alabama Constitution as basing its authority in God's authority too. Even if it didn't do so specifically (and it does) how could any State be a member of the Union of the United States without being under the authority of the U.S. Constitution which derives its authority from God?
You may choose to read more into what Judge Moore has said and done than this but that does not make it so. He has done nothing more than reaffirm his Oath of Office and nothing different than the court that removed him from office which was to open with a prayer to God. As the lawful chooser of Rotunda decorations he chose his favorite set of laws by his favorite lawmaker and included several Founding Father quotes. This is nothing different than another affirmation of the source of Man's Rights. The basis of Constitutional authority as stated by design, by the Founders, in the DoI.
"I fervently invoke the aid of that Almighty Ruler of the Universe in whose hands are the destinies of nations."
James Knox Polk (1795-1849) eleventh President of the United States, expressed these words in his inaugural address in 1845.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...
The extent of "separation of church and state" in the Constitution is no more than those words from the 1st Amendment. Apart from the third clause of Article Six, which requires an Oath of Office and prohibits a religious test to hold office, there is nothing more than that. Nothing at all.
No right of equal religious representation or support. No prohibition of speech or religious expression by government officers or trustees. No prohibition of spoken or monetary support of any established religion. (Any religious group or congregation with an ounce of sense would avoid gov. money like the plague IMNHO)
Just; "no law respecting an establishment of religion."
That phrase is important to understand. Although a law might be made by Congress to fund a particular establishment of religion it would not be a law "respecting an establishment." 'Respecting' means 'concerning.' To meet that criteria the law in question would have to make some demand or alteration on the established order of the religion. Unless the religion in question itself had a proscription against outside help or government help such a law would not effect its establishment.