[inquest]

It's a discretionary act on his part. He's not required to decorate the rotunda at all, but once he does, it cannot be exclusive to his particular viewpoint in matters of religion. If he had chosen to decorate the rotunda in a secular manner, he could have done so in whatever manner he sees fit without ever implicating the establishment clause, which has been the source of his troubles from the beginning - nothing in the First Amendment prevents Judge Moore from using his office to stake out a position on secular issues, after all. Indeed, his job requires him to do exactly that. But once religion becomes the subject, the establishment clause comes into play, and Judge Moore has less of a free hand than he might otherwise wish for, by virtue of the fact that he's an agent of the state.

This is starting to get away from the question I asked at #1071: "Is it truly one of the 'privileges' of citizens to put whatever religious decoration they want in their courthouses & other government buildings?" You began to address it, but now you're moving away from it again. The argument you gave me in the paragraph above can only be completed by saying how it affects the liberties of the individual. As I said earlier, prohibiting all people from putting up religious displays is just as unacceptable as prohibiting some people. You appeared to agree with me, I think.

So how does it more adversely affect the liberties of the individual when Moore puts up the Decalogue while excluding other displays, vs. him putting up nothing while excluding other displays? The individual citizens are just as restricted either way.

[general_re]

Back again ;)

As I said earlier, prohibiting all people from putting up religious displays is just as unacceptable as prohibiting some people. You appeared to agree with me, I think.

I do, but the problem is that not all state property is available or appropriate for use as a public forum. As I type this, I'm sitting about 45 minutes away from the Pentagon, which, in a very real sense, belongs to me, as well as all the other citizens of the United States. This does not mean, however, that the Department of Defense must honor my request to engage in free-speech activities on the grounds of the Pentagon - its primary function is as the civil and military headquarters of the armed forces of the United States, not as a forum for everyone's soapbox, including mine.

And so it is with the courthouse - the primary function of the Supreme Court of Alabama is to administer the laws of the state of Alabama and the United States, not as a free-speech zone where citizens may gather to express their views in an open and public forum. However, when the chief administrator of that facility turns it into a forum for expressing his religious views, then he has brought the First Amendment into play, and it cannot remain a forum exclusively devoted to one single point of view, particularly since that point of view has no real bearing on the day-to-day function of the court. Judge Moore, by his actions, has created what must now be a public forum, although I think that it can reasonably be returned to its original sole purpose without causing undue harm to anyone.