But, doesn't everyone take an oath upon The Bible prior to testifying in the courthouse?
Taking an oath on the Bible is not mandatory or essential to testifying. You can choose to affirm instead. Not even the President's Oath of Office requires them to swear on a Bible, although all of them have done so far.
Since he didn't make a law, he was exercising his right as a citizen to freely exercise his religion.
That is not an accurate view of the issue.
The citizens of Alabama have no right to commandeer public property to exercise their religion. Simply put, if Judge Moore, as a private citizen, has a right to place a 5,000-pound monument specific to his religion in the public courthouse rotunda, then every citizen of Alabama has a right to do the same. The Buddhists can bring in a 5,000-pound Buddha, the Muslims a 5,000-pound copy of the Koran, and so on.
Fact is that while every citizen of Alabama has the right to erect such a monument on their own property, and exercise their religion privately, none of them have a right to walk into the courthouse and claim the rotunda unilaterally for such a monument. It would be misappropriation of public property for a private purpose, namely the exercising of one's religion.
Judge Moore was acting in his function as the Chief Justice. As such, he used his office to advance his religion, thereby implying that the judiciary of the State of Alabama
officially favors Christianity above all other faiths. Now, the good Justice has a right to his religious beliefs, but he has absolutely no right promoting his faith with public resources.
Judge Morre and his supporters have repeatedly stated publically that we were founded as a Christian nation, and that the purpose of the Decalogue in that courthouse was "to bring the nation closer to God again". It had nothing to do with private exercise of religion. it has always been about a public declaration of religious preference. "Alabama, and this courthouse, are meant to be Christian." How is that not pushing one faith above all others?
Personally, I recognize the historical place of the Ten Commandments, but I find it absurd to claim that "our laws derived from Biblical law". Our Bill of Rights is in most cases diametrically opposed to the Decalogue. Half the Decalogue deals with instructions for the worship of a specific god, and only the second half deals with inter-human relationships. Most of the "secular" commandments of the Decalogue are not unique to Christianity. The Code of Hammurabi, for example, lists many of the same "thou shalt nots", and predates the Decalogue by a millennium or so.
The Decalogue is a ten-point list of "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots", half of which are in direct conflict with the Constitution. The other half are general principles of human interaction that were codified long before Christianity. It is most definitely not the basis for our current law, and the only reason Judge Moore wants it in that rotunda is to pay homage to his specific deity. The whole point is that he has no right to use either his office or the courthouse for his private worship, and he doesn't have the right to speak for all Alabamans.
You're exaggerating the case beyond the scope of the argument - perhaps because you have no real argument! Moore has not said "God's will" overrides secular law, and until they start jailing people for making graven images and adultery, you'd do best to stick to the facts.
He has claimed many times, on TV, that the Federal judge himself is "in contempt of God's law". It seems like he thinks that God's word overrides the Federal jurisprudence. He disobeys the secular law that he has sworn to uphold. We have a government of laws, not men. Of you get an order from a federal judge who outranks you, you comply. If you disagree, seek redress in court, like the people in your state have to do. Where would the judge end up if people in his courtroom disobeyed his orders and said to him, "You're in contempt of my God's law?"
Look: he snuck the monument into the courthouse at night. He knew damn well that it was brazen and legally questionable, and he knew damn well that it would generate controversy and give him an opportunity to grandstand. He only did it because he wanted to curry favor with both his deity and his constituents. He wanted to publically martyr himself and "take one for the Lord", and I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that the guy will run for Alabama governor within the next two election cycles.
