[Looking for Diogenes]

If Judge Moore's religion (Christianity) demands that he spread the Word of God (and it does), then the issuance of a legal order which deigns to prevent him this religious right is both unconstitutional and out of order in the extreme.

OK, if you're interested in debating this point, I'll jump in.

Placing a state in a publicly owned building is not a religious right. Judge Moore is free to place such a statue in his home or private office. As a private citizen his freedoms are guarantted by the Constitution. But when he acts as a government official he loses his right to do whatever he feels like. He becomes an agent of the state and his actions are bound by the Constitution.

This is the same for other clauses of the same amendment. Judge Moore, acting privately as a parent, is free to tell his children that they may not criticize the government. But he may not in his official capacity as a judical officer order those same people not to criticize the government.

[Gargantua]

"He becomes an agent of the state and his actions are bound by the Constitution."

Fine. So tell me where in our Constitution Judge Moore is prohibited from paying with his own money to put a statue in front of his courthouse.

The only religious prohibition outlined in our Constitution says that Congress shall pass no law regarding any religion, nor shall Congress pass any law prohibiting the free exercise of any religion.

Again, where in our Constitution is Judge Moore prohibited from paying with his own money to put a statue in front of his courthouse? Take your time.