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!
Later "Hooray" Pingout.
Wow, it is like reading a Supreme Court decision before FDR packed the courts.
I'm shocked! I had to look to see if it was Scrappleface!
Another win for common sense!!
Jefferson himself did a lot of things that would violate the wall doctrine, so it is clear he himself didn't belive in it.
It just was an illustration of religious freedom in a letter, nothing more.
You think so? Ain't much 'harder' than stupidity and invincible ignorance.
Looks like somebody finally took the time to read our founders writings on what was their intent, because they were very clear.
An even better decision would be for the courts to demand that the ACLU reimburse the taxpayers for all the money they burned up in this lawsuit. A rare victory over the religion police!
Even a brief glance at what MADISON HIMSELF said the amendment meant (located in the Annals of Congress) clearly show it was only intended to stop the govt. from prohibiting the freedom of religion and establishing a state religion or giving an unseemly amount of support to one denomination.
It did not even mean that Christianity could not be supported by the govt., for it has been in our history up until the 20th century and supported by courts in that process.
There is a reason the Blaine Amendment failed.
So this will be appealed to SDCOTUS, who will deny cert. Yippee..BTW..who are these jusdges?..Can we get their bios?
Today we heard the court tell the ACLU to"Stuff It!""ACLU Christmas"
Exactly. The ACLU's frivolous and damaging lawsuits must be hammered back down into the muck they came from. And the judgment should always levy court costs on the ACLU.
These parasites thrive in the pocketbook. Time to starve them!
Odd...the Dover decision throwing out ID was all over the news yesterday, but this is the first I've heard of this unanimous decision debunking the non-existant d"separation of church and state." I guess CNN doesn't deem this to be noteworthy since it actually follows the Constitution. The two decisions certainly seem to contradict one another.
And even further, it is my understanding that the main purpose for prohibiting a national religion was so as to not interfere with the official religions of each of the states.
No it doesn't. Real it ALL
Thank the Lord, our whole judicial system has not yet lost it.
A mass mailing to teachers to stop using this phrase as part of the United States Constitution would be helpful or just a letter to the NEA, AFT, and AAUP might suffice.
An establishment of religion is a church,synagogue. In otherwords, the government will not interfere with the inner workings of the church. The government runs the country, the church runs the church. That is the definition of separation of church and state, which was connonized by the church way back in 1243 or thereabouts.
The rest, "free exercise thereof" and onward, seems clear to me.
From the article: A unanimous panel of the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Tuesday issued an historic decision declaring that
I wonder if most all aclu members are now on suicide watch...?
This is the best Christmas present YET!
Thank the Lord, but this is going to stir things up.
Of course I suspect it won't get any press.
Yahoo listed the news of the PA judge ruling ID in public schools is illegal because the proponents are religiously motivated. Yahoo kept the article listed for more than a day. I have not seen any mention of this case on Yahoo though.
"Cuber" sounds like just the perfect nation for them...
Good call by the judge about the "separation of church and state" issue. My blood boils every time I hear that phrase because I know that most Americans ASSUME it is in the Constitution. It is mentioned in the Federalist Papers and some personal writings of the founding fathers, but NOT the Constitution.
Just . . . WOW!
I have. That's all it says anywhere that comes anywhere close to saying that religion should be suppressed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.