Moore has a right to display the Ten Commandments in his home and his automobile or even to have them tattooed on his back. But human rights groups are saying he does not have the right to display them in his courtroom.

You may argue with that view, but you have to put the controversy in the proper context.

We all know the Ten Commandments are the moral code for Jews and Christians. But they are not the moral code for Hindus, Muslims or Buddhists. If I were a member of any of those faiths, I would be very nervous about walking into Judge Moore's courtroom.

Moore does not have the right to impose his personal moral code; he does have the duty to impose the moral codes espoused in our government's laws.

The American Bar Association, notes the American Jewish Congress, has quite a bit to say about a judge's conduct.

First, the ABA says, "A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary."

Further, the ABA explains that conduct is not permitted if it creates "in reasonable minds a perception that the judge's ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with impartiality is impaired."

So, would "reasonable minds" think Moore was impartial and not prejudiced against people of certain religions?

Moore was quoted by the American Jewish Congress as having said his "duty under the Constitution is to acknowledge the Judeo-Christian God, not the gods of other faiths. We are not a nation founded upon the Hindu god or Buddha."

We should be outraged that one of our judges in this pluralistic society would say something like that. It's almost like saying that people of the Hindu or Buddhist faiths don't have the same rights as Christians and Jews. That kind of statement cannot be allowed in this country, especially if spoken by a judge.

When are we going to realize that our nation is populated by people with a wide spectrum of religions and that every one of them is entitled to operate freely under the laws of the land?

The tragedy that happened near San Diego with the Heaven's Gate religion has disgusted all of us. But as bizarre as the religion was, its followers still had the right to operate in the United States. As long as they followed the laws, they had full status as a U.S. religion. Further, Moore has a duty to look upon a group like that as a benign religious community, unless its members break laws in the pursuit of their truth.

The American Bar Association says, "A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice." Further, "in the performance of judicial duties (a judge should not) by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, including bias based on religion."

The American Jewish Congress also points out that the Alabama Supreme Court has ruled that "judges must both be, and appear to be, impartial and free of bias and prejudice."

The irony of this is that many Christians - Alabamans, one would assume - are supporting Moore. Apparently, they are picketing government buildings to express their sentiments. The thing they don't seem to understand is that the same laws that seek to protect Hindus and Muslims also protect them. They operate freely because this nation has concluded that all religions must be allowed to worship without governmental interference.

If Judge Moore were a Muslim and displayed the Muslim moral code in his courtroom, you can bet conservative Christians would be up in arms, demanding his removal and denouncing him as a bigot. But it has long been a principle of human nature that we only complain when our own ox is being gored.

Let us open our hearts to all religions.

Clark D. MorphewApril 26, 1997