That is absurd. To follow that thought to its logical, should Congress make a law that encourages murder, theft, perjury (which would then not be murder, theft or perjury)...we should then obey those laws? Or perhaps there's a moral law that takes precedence over "man's" law?
Huh? This isn't a case of a controversial statute. The US Constitution forbids the establishment of religion. A judge has determined that the presence of this statue violates the Constitution. At this point, Moore has two options: he can appeal, or he can comply with the Judge's order. What he cannot do, is simply defy it, for that not only spits in the face of numerous statutes and the Article II of the Constitution, but runs against the very foundation of ordered liberty.
Or perhaps there's a moral law that takes precedence over "man's" law?
If Moore has a problem with the Constitution, there are ways he can change it to suit his views:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress.