That's a mangled interpretation. The direct (abbreviated) quote: this monument will serve to remind the appellate courts and judges [...] of the truth stated in the preamble of the Alabama Constitution, that in order to establish justice, we must invoke "the favor and guidance of Almighty God."
You do not want to see the prejudice because the prejudice is slanted your way.
It is incumbent upon you to show evidence that those who invoke Judeo-Christianity moral foundations pre-judge. Why would it be slanted "my way"? Are you concluding that were I to stand before Judge Moore, my apparent, uh, non-Muslim-ness, would help me get the decision my way? Not at all proven.
By the way, in removing the monument, no one's rights under the First Amendment, not even Judge Moore's, are violated...unless you equate the existence of that monument as being central to your ability of worshipping God. Do you?
Not everything is about First Amendment rights. Here is another direct quote from Moore's dedication speech ... by the authority vested in the Chief Justice as the authorized representative under the lease of this building in which you stand, I'm pleased to present this monument depicting the moral foundation of our law and hereby authorize it to be placed in the rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building.
He did it as authorized representative, not as a private citizen. The question is under what law is the order made to remove it? If your answer is "establishment clause" please back it up.
No it's not, it is however incumbent upon Moore to honor his sworn duty to uphold the rule of impartiality expected of magistrates, and to openly show a lack of respect for the beliefs of at least a portion of the people of Alabama who may turn to him for impartial Judgement.
"Pleased to present"?
If he were truly "pleased to present", why did he feel it necessary to carry out the entire process in secrecy?
You are being led by the nose by a politician who has figured out that he canb turn you into automatons by the simple mention of God.