Of course, as long as he can separate his religion from his prosecution of justice.
Moore has failed to do that, according to the judicial ethics committee, and I agree. I think Thompson's ruling to have the memorial removed was the dilemma Moore wanted, since he appears to enjoy public controversy. But once he failed to follow it, he crossed over the line into letting his personal beliefs interfere with his judicial practices.
What some Christian fundamentalists want to do is link keeping the commandments in the courthouse to religious expression, religious practice, and a religious basis for law. All three have finally been dismissed in this case. The first two were not an issue (a Judge shouldn't need to impose his personal, religious expressions using public property if they are found to be offensive to his constituency) and the third one is a violation of the exclusion clause in the first amendment.
But we will continue hearing cries of religious oppression, when it's that very oppression the courts are seeking to avoid. If a justice can't keep his Judeo-Christian, personal convictions out of his procedings, he is violating nonbelievers' and non-Christian/Jewish believers' civil rights. This is very different from a mere expression of religious beliefs!
I have no problems with the commandments being anywhere in any government setting. What I do reject is the argument Moore makes that they are all 10 the basis of my nation's laws. I would hope that Christians would try to understand how non-Christians feel about that.
Pryor is setting a good example of this so far. It's ironic to see him criticized for following the laws he is sworn to execute, but I am not surprised.
It will be interesting to see how this whole case has affected Pryor's chances for appointment to the 11th circuit court.