if you read carefully what Roy Moore says, it will be clear that he is doing a convoluted part rhetorical, part legal, part religious spin to support his position.

"We must acknowledge God in the public sector because the state constitution explicitly requires us to do so. The Alabama Constitution specifically invokes "the favor and guidance of Almighty God" as the basis for our laws and justice system. As the chief justice of the state's supreme court I am entrusted with the sacred duty to uphold the state's constitution. I have taken an oath before God and man to do such, and I will not waver from that commitment."

" No judge has the authority to impose his will on the people of a state, and no judge has the constitutional authority to forbid public officials from acknowledging the same God specifically mentioned in the charter documents of our nation, the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. "

He is claiming that that the constitution requires him/us to "acknowlege" God..etc..etc..and that stopping him breaks the law!

One presumes that if he found himself in a country whose constitution had said merely "you all be nice to each other, hear?" that his postion would be otherwise...hmmm?

Is "right" dependant on who gets there first and gets their choice of words put into a document? And if so, can a 'majority' change those words later and amend "right"?

Look back at that word "acknowlege" which Judge Moore uses constantly! It is a key to the whole issue. If I don't believe in a god, how can I "acknowlege" one? "Acknowleging" presumes that one accepts the existence and authority of what one is "acknowleging". The whole POINT of separation of church & state is that different people "acknowlege" different dieties or manifestions of dieties (or none at all) and that the only fair way to operate is to allow all, but officially support no specific one!

Naturally, this does not set well with those who have a serious emotional committment to ONE version of truth!...And they flatly do not care what arguments or pressure or twists of logic it takes to get their set of rules in place.

Once more..

"Freedom OF religion must imply freedom FROM religion for those who disagree"