[atlaw]

Just curious. Which "rule of law" are you referring to? This catch phrase is bandied about without much consideration. Do you suppose Mr. Pryor and the Alabama justices are somehow unaware of the "rule of law" you so cryptically refer to?

I suspect you will go off on the 1st Amendment and the currently convenient interpretation permitting the injection of religion into government. This profound desire to inject religion into government, however, has an inevitable and reciprocal conseqence - government meddling in religion. Frankly, I do not understand the reason for tempting this eventuality. I prefer a government as small and non-intrusive as possible, and the best way to assure that government does not become the arbiter of my religious expression is to distance my religious expression from the government. "Seperation of Church and state" may not be directly expressed in the Constitution, but it is a fortuitous interpretation that I find welcome and preferable to the alternative.

[GrandEagle]

best way to assure that government does not become the arbiter of my religious expression is to distance my religious expression from the government.
The Constitution does not tell the government which side to take on establishment of religion. It does tell the Federal government that it can have NO opinion at all. This has the effect of preventing a Federal State Religion but it also prevents the Federal government from un-establishing religion too. Several of the states had established religions at the time of the signing of the Constitution and some even well into the 1800's. The Federal Government was forbidden by the Constitution to even open it's mouth on the topic. These states were also governed in many cases by those who helped write the Constitution. Surely they would know what it said.

[Ginosko]

"Which "rule of law" are you referring to?

The U.S. Constitution

""Seperation of Church and state" may not be directly expressed in the Constitution, but it is a fortuitous interpretation that I find welcome and preferable to the alternative."

Your fortuitous interpretation represents an abandonment of the rule of law and endangers the civil rights of our people.

"Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and of the amendment to it … the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship," Joseph Story, U.S. Supreme Court

[Happy2BMe]

"This profound desire to inject religion into government, however, has an inevitable and reciprocal conseqence - government meddling in religion."

May I please ask you again . . What written law has Judge Moore violated?