Judge Roy Moore of Alabama has just been used by the left as a secular test case. The separation of church and state seems an obsession to liberals, but how far will they go to remove all traces of Christianity from public buildings?

What bothers many is a perception of courts imposing a liberal agenda without constitutional basis. Separating church and state was designed to avoid a government sponsored church, such as the Church Of England.

Now it is misunderstood as the total ban of religious people and scripture from public life.

No one is arguing that Judge Moore is required to display the Ten Commandments. If this were the case, separation zealots would have a solid argument. If this simple list is now deemed a violation and a threat, how can those in court still be asked to swear truth on a Bible?

The trend away from religious instruction coincides with a new acceptance of deviant behavior. This was brutally demonstrated at Columbine High School where thugs could wear black trench coats and give Hitler salutes in the hallways unchallenged because it was their "lifestyle." Conversely, open prayer in those same halls would result in suspension. "Mein Kampf" is accepted, the Ten Commandments rejected. What is wrong with this picture?

The Bill of Rights also applies to followers of Jesus. They see a mean-spirited campaign to remove their influence using the same constitution Christian founding fathers wrote. Why now? With so much happening in the world, one would think secular atheists had better things to do, but remember, this is an election year. Liberals specialize in poking the beehive of the religious right, producing loud organized response. This reaction is then used to rally their leftist troops, conditioned to fear moral outspokenness. A public outcry from Jerry Fallwell is worth millions to democrat coffers.

Now for the flip-side of this argument. Moore's defiant reaction is wrong. Citizens can choose to ignore laws and suffer the consequences, but a chief justice of a State Supreme Court must uphold legal decisions regardless of personal opinions. Ironically, the oath Moore swore on a Bible demands dispassionate obedience to secular rule. It is confusing enough when average people pick and choose which laws to follow, but it is very dangerous for judges to follow this practice. Imagine the chaos if all judges selectively chose which laws to ignore.

The tradition of judicial review is as old as "Marbury vs. Madison." If Moore decides to follow his conscience, he proves to be a thoughtful Christian, but a lousy judge.

The Ten Commandments is a superb list of moral conduct. In some form, it is recognized by all major religions, so displaying it won't undermine our legal system. On the other hand, renegade judges will. This is one case where both sides are wrong.