[jimt]

Moore won his case about having the Ten Commandments in his courtroom.

Because it made him famous, he decided to go it one better - his rock.

Had he coordinated it with the other supreme court justices, he'd have had support. But the real problem was his own mouth.

Telling people his monument was "from God" and that others were not clearly meant he was the arbiter for the Almighty. Stating that his judicial authority came from God meant he, in his secular position, was acting on behalf of God. Stating that God's law was superior to man's law raised valid questions about what law he'd try to enforce. Stating that the Alabama constitution required him to recognize God (which is a flat out falsehood) raused similar questions.

By saying all these things he used his state office to advance a particular religion.

That's wrong. It's wrong if Roy does it, and it's wrong if anybody else does it as well.

The "useful idiots" are the ones who can't see the difference between Roy boy's self aggrandizement and legitimate public religious displays.

[Qwinn]

"Stating that the Alabama constitution required him to recognize God (which is a flat out falsehood) raused similar questions."

How is this a falsehood?

The Alabama Constitution specifically invokes "the favor and guidance of Almighty God". It doesn't get much more blatant than that. Now, if you want to argue that that doesn't mean he's -required- to do so, have a field day! But it's a strawman. The text of the Constitution makes it pretty obvious that he is, at the -very- least, PERMITTED to invoke "the favor and guidance of Almighty God".

Frankly, my interpretation of his saying it was "required" was not that it was "required" on the face of it, but that it was required because it was under deliberate attack. His oath "requires" him to defend the Constitution, and that part of the Constitution that gives him PERMISSION to invoke God was under attack. He is therefore -required- to defend it. That's the context I saw that part of his statement in.

Fair warning: I'm Agnostic. This isn't about religion to me, it's about what the government has the power to do, and it does -not- have the power to smack down religious expression EVEN WITHIN ITSELF. I have a strong libertarian streak, and it is THAT part of me that absolutely rejects the current interpretation of the Establishment clause. Your brand of libertarianism is as polluted as that of liberals - you pick and choose what in the plain meaning of the Constitution to enforce, and reword the rest to your liking in order to sate your anti-religious bias.

I'm with Ann all the way on this.

Qwinn