I'm trying to figure out whether I admire former judge Roy Moore for standing up
for his beliefs. I happen to agree with the Alabama Circuit Court that he's
entirely wrong. I'm not qualified to judge on the issue of whether the US
Constitution overrides the state one, of course; they're been arguing various
permutations of that one for about 212 years and it won't be completely settled
any time soon. However, I see no connection between his right (and duty, according
to his interpretation of the Alabama oath of office) to uphold his belief in his
God and the necessity to impose his particular version of that God on other
people. I'm glad they decided to remove him from office.
Still, in
some ways it's good to see someone stand up for a wrongheaded belief even if it
causes him personal damage. I think the key for me is the degree of
wrongheadededness and the degree to which it has been controlled by the workigns
of the law. I wouldn't particularly admire him if he'd won and I wouldn't even
think of admiring him if he'd said his beliefs required him to kill unbelievers,
for instance.