[inquest]

*exasperated sigh*....Yes, I'm the patient one, don't worry.

So you claim that state establishment of religion involves coercion. How you put it earlier, that Moore's court becomes some kind of 1st amendment zone while the monument is in place. The more I contemplate that argument, the more esoteric it comes across. Just to bring the matter back into the normal laws of physics, when the people of Alabama went to bed on the night the monument was about to be installed, they enjoyed a certain sphere of religious liberty. By all indications, they enjoyed the same sphere of liberty when they woke up the next morning. What privileges were they able to exercise beforehand that they weren't able to exercise afterwards? That's what's necessary to establish "coercion". Absent a logical answer to that question, the case can not be made that Moore violated the 14th amendment.

[general_re]

When the people of Alabama went to sleep last night, they had exactly the same rights and privileges as Roy Moore. When they woke up, they discovered that he had carved out an extra privilege for himself, by virtue of his office, that he was unwilling to extend to anyone else. Why should the minions of the state be able to use their positions to enable them to enjoy personal freedoms that mere citizens cannot, particularly when those personal freedoms are not at all necessary to the job for which they have been entrusted? What else should we permit Moore to do that the rest of us cannot? A nice dacha on the Black Sea, perhaps?