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.
I don't know about this. The legal doctrine about "bringing the First Amendment in to play" where it wasn't previously, seems a bit counterintuitive to me. Also, the views he's espousing aren't merely "his"; they represent views of a large majority of Alabama's population. And it's far from a foregone conclusion that they have "no real bearing on the day-to-day function of the court." I believe there's ample historical evidence to show that Christian morality - particularly Protestant Christian morality - was the starting point which Alabama's founders regarded as the moral basis for their laws, in which case I'd think his monument would be highly relevant to the court's job.
But all that aside, I'll simply have to ask you if you think Moore is violating the establishment clause, or the free-exercise clause, since judging from your statement above, it seems like it can go either way. If the former, then we can just continue along the other line of argument regarding that clause whereof my most recent post was #1126. If the latter, then I would have to consider it self-evident that the free-exercise clause, by itself, is no less important or forceful than the free-speech clause. In such a case, secular speech cannot be treated any differently than religious speech.