Roy Moore cross-examined for acknowledging God

A Chief Justice with imaginary friends?? How did this maniac get the post in the first place?
At least common sense prevailed in the end!

oh - & BTW everyone: let's remember that Jefferson's suggestion of "a wall of separation between church & state" -
was was a remark on the need to protect religious institutions from a steamrolling govt. - not the public or govt. from "scary" christians...

poolerboy - you make a good point; but a judge's personal conviction (one based on his judeo-christian beliefs), which he brings to bear on decisions in the public arena, is NOT a violation of anything in the constitution. You can disagree with him, vehemently, about his heart-felt convictions - but you cannot condemn him for being unconstitutional.

where in the first amendment of the constitution does it say you must acknowledge of god?  roy moore is a fucking idiot

Everyone is allowed to hold their own faith, but no public servant should be allowed to use their faith in an official capacity.

A lot of these self - righteous types think they should be allowed to have their own theocracies. Separation of church & State doesn't exist for these ding - bats.

Shorter Moore, "The US and it's constitution? Ha! Fuck 'em and their law!"

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Judge Moore isn't pushing congress to pass any laws to prop up christianity, cappastrano. He can believe what he wants, when he wants - in this country we HAVE that freedom. To fire him for his beliefs - is what can be challenged as unconstitutioal.

He wasn't fired for his beliefs. He was removed for his refusal to obey a judicial order, an order to cease his unconstitutional endorsement of religion in his official capacity.

aurora, you would be correct if it were not for the precedent set fourth by the Supreme Court in how the First Amendment's scope was established in the 20th century (Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village Schoold District v. Grumet) which held that which further expands its restriction to include non-promotion of religion at the state level.