Skip to comments.Court of Appeals: Constitution "does not demand a wall of separation between church and state."
Posted on 12/21/2005 1:12:17 PM PST by AFA-Michigan
Values group hails unanimous decision Tuesday
CINCINNATI -- In an astounding return to judicial interpretation of the actual text of the United States Constitution, a unanimous panel of the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Tuesday issued an historic decision declaring that "the First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state."
In upholding a Kentucky county's right to display the Ten Commandments, the panel called the American Civil Liberties Union's repeated claims to the contrary "extra-constitutional" and "tiresome."
See Cincinnat Enquirer at: http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051221/NEWS01/512210356/1056
See U.S. Court of Appeals decision, page 13: http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0477p-06.pdf
"Patriotic Americans should observe a day of prayer and thanksgiving for this stunning and historic reversal of half a century of misinformation and judicial distortion of the document that protects our religious freedoms," said Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan.
"We are particularly excited that such an historic, factual, and truth-based decision is now a controlling precedent for the federal Court of Appeals that rules on all Michigan cases," Glenn said.
6th Circuit Judge Richard Suhrheinrich wrote in the unanimous decision: "The ACLU makes repeated reference to the 'separation of church and state.' This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state. Our nation's history is replete with governmental acknowledgment and in some cases, accommodation of religion."
The words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the U.S. Constitution, though according to polls, a majority of Americans have been misled to believe that they do, Glenn said.
For background information, see:
# # #
Wow. Somebody can read the Constitution.
This story will really be worth something-- 40 years ago.
Too many kids have grown up with this nonsense in their heads, pummeled all day by the ACLU whackos. It's like the border fence. I mean, I'm in Southern California, and believe me- a fence does nothing. There are so many people from Mexico here, it doesn't matter if more get halted. It's too late.
Atheism: The only religion truly endorsed by the US government. :)
This decision comes at a very useful time if it goes up to the Supreme Court. Maybe if Alito is sitting there when it is heard, Roberts and the other conservatives can kick out that Wall of Separation cr*p for good.
All the Constitution says is that "there shall be no establishment of religion." That's very different from a wall of separation. And if Jefferson used that phrase in a letter, so what? As Scalia says, you don't go by someone's eccentric private opinion when you interpret the words, you go by what the words meant to an average, educated person at the time they were written.
And at the time it was written, established meant exactly that--that there should be no official, established national church like the Church of England.
That Klansman, and supreme court justice, Hugo Black must be rolling over in his grave.
The church and state arguments were based on the situation in England at the time of the Federal convention. The state had created its own church and the church had seats in Parliament. There should not be that kind of tie between church and state, but the separation need not be a wall of infinite thickness and height.
Looks like the court administered the Baseball Bat of Truth (TM) to the ACLU's head. That's gonna leave a mark.
WHOA! I looked multiple times to make sure this wasn't a humor thread. This is hard to believe.
This makes this Christmas particularly merry. Woohoo!
I haven't seen this decision in the NY Times yet. Does that mean it never happened?
Cicero, I have half a hunch that the addition of Roberts and the possible addition of Alito to the SC had some psychological influence on the members of the Court of Appeals in this decision.
Judges don't like to be overruled or their decisions overturned. Now that we have a pretty good chance for a conservative Supreme Court, we may see a goodly number of conservative courts and judges throughout the country begin to come out of the shadows. Every judge in the U.S. of A. is not a liberal. We may be seeing the start of a more courageous trend with this unanimous (yikes!) decision.
Common sense breaking out all over!