[general_re]

That's why there's two possibilities to the thing. One is that if an act is intended to advance a particular religion, it is impermissible. And the other is that if it has the effect of advancing a particular set of beliefs to the exclusion of others, it is impermissible. So if it's obvious that the thing has the practical effect of advancing some particular religious beliefs, then you don't have to get into questions of motive.

If, for instance, Judge Moore had said "only Christian lawyers will be allowed to argue in front of this court, and not all Christian lawyers, but only Southern Baptist lawyers will be allowed in" - well, you really don't have to get into motives for that. The obvious effect of such a thing is to promote a particular denomination over and above all others - while you could reasonably infer that this was his intent, it really doesn't matter if he intended it that way or not, since that's the practical effect.

[VRWC_minion]

One is that if an act is intended to advance a particular religion, it is impermissible

So, if he lies about his intent then the monument would be OK ? Thats a nonsensical conclusion.