Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Federal Court Rejects “Separation of Church and State”
Family Policy Network ^ | 12/20/05 | FPN News

Posted on 12/28/2005 10:51:54 PM PST by TheAverageGuy

Informing Christians and confronting the culture
on the important moral issues of the day

Federal Court Rejects “Separation of Church and State”Conservative group leaders hail unanimous decision Tuesday


News Contacts:
Gary Glenn, President - AFA of Michigan: (989) 835-7978
Joe Glover, President - Family Policy Network: (202) 470-5095, extension 456
Ron Shank, Director - FPN of Tennessee: (615) 866-5242, extension 2
Mat Staver, President and General Counsel - Liberty Counsel: (407) 875-2100

6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals: “The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state.”

(CINCINNATI - 12/20/05) — 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 has 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.”

The defense attorney in the case and conservative leaders in two states affected by the decision are hailing it as historic. American Family Association of Michigan president Gary Glenn said, “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.”

“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: http://www.answers.com/topic/separation-of-church-and-state-in-the-united-states

Mathew D. Staver, President and General Counsel of Liberty Counsel, hailed today's decision as a great victory. Staver stated, "Today's decision begins to turn the tide against the ACLU, which has been on a search and destroy mission to remove all vestiges of our religious history from public view." Staver added, "Whether the ACLU likes it or not, history is crystal clear that each one of the Ten Commandments played an important role in the founding of our system of law and government. Federal courts are beginning to rightfully reject extreme notions of 'separation of church and state.' It's about time that courts begin interpreting the Constitution consistent with its original purpose. With the changing of personnel at the U.S. Supreme Court, the trend toward a more historical approach to the First Amendment is well underway."

Staver concluded, "This case should be used as a model for other counties wishing to display religious documents and symbols, including the Ten Commandments. It's absurd to think that displaying the Ten Commandments is unconstitutional. The Ten Commandments is a universally recognized symbol of law. Our laws, and our notions of right and wrong, have been shaped by the Decalogue."

One conservative leader is already calling for his state's legislature to use the ruling as the basis for a new state law. Family Policy Network of Tennessee director Ron Shank said, "The 6th Circuit's decision isn't just an opinion, it's federal law in Tennessee. Now that the 6th Circuit has declared the "wall" doesn't exist, we plan to call for legislation placing the Ten Commandments in courthouses throughout the state. "


RELATED INFORMATION:

See Cincinnat Enquirer: [click here...]

See page 13 of full Court of Appeals decision:[click here...]




TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: Kentucky; US: Michigan; US: Ohio; US: Tennessee
KEYWORDS: churchandstate; freedomofreligion; moralabsolutes; religiousfreedom; ruling; separation; seperation; tencommandments
FINALLY!!! - - Oh, if only this decision would be appealed to the Supreme Court. Then maybe we'd see this mythological "wall" fall once and for all. As of now, this decision is only binding in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee.

4 down, 46 to go!!!

1 posted on 12/28/2005 10:51:57 PM PST by TheAverageGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TheAverageGuy

An ide alightbulb just appeared over my head...Get a conservative to appeal it, so the outcome will become national.


2 posted on 12/28/2005 10:54:38 PM PST by HHKrepublican_2 (OP Spread the Truth....http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1535158/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheAverageGuy

Good news. The ACLU strawdog arguments are truly tiresome and not constitutional.


3 posted on 12/28/2005 11:00:56 PM PST by Grampa Dave (Link to Great TV ad re rat traitors and their words re Iraq: http://www.gop.com/Media/120905.wmv)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheAverageGuy
we plan to call for legislation placing the Ten Commandments in courthouses throughout the state

Why stop with just the courthouses? Why not also place the 10 Commandments in just about every public place: public libraries, public schools, firehouses, municipal buildings, county nursing homes, football stadiums, etc. Seriously.

If "the wall" doesn't exist, why assume that placement will be limited to courthouses? Also, if "the wall" doesn't exist, why should the placement of religious codes, or representations of religious codes, be restricted to just the 10 Commandments? Not to be crude about it, but other, non-Judeo-Christian religions will be interested in such prime product placement.

Who will get to make such decisions? Or will the "product placement" be put out to bid?

4 posted on 12/28/2005 11:13:49 PM PST by mumps
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheAverageGuy
"Oh, if only this decision would be appealed to the Supreme Court. Then maybe we'd see this mythological "wall" fall once and for all."

I doubt you would see it "fall". The S.C. would most likely rule narrowly, meaning just to the specifics of what ever case they were hearing and would uphold the Lemon test. Just a prediction.
5 posted on 12/28/2005 11:36:53 PM PST by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheAverageGuy

ping


6 posted on 12/28/2005 11:39:30 PM PST by trailboss800
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mumps
"Why stop with just the courthouses? Why not also place the 10 Commandments in just about every public place: public libraries, public schools, firehouses, municipal buildings, county nursing homes, football stadiums, etc. Seriously."

Because the court applied the Lemon test and determined that this posting was legal because "..the Mercer County display lacks a religious purpose and further conclude that it does not endorse religion.". If other posting are placed in a manner that is deemed to "endorse religion" as opposed to the context of history (as this case was) then it would still fail the lemon test and be barred.
7 posted on 12/28/2005 11:44:34 PM PST by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TheAverageGuy

Later read/pingout.


8 posted on 12/28/2005 11:44:40 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheAverageGuy

Excellent news.


9 posted on 12/28/2005 11:45:06 PM PST by Falconspeed (Keep your fears to yourself, but share your courage with others. Robert Louis Stevenson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheAverageGuy

"Tear down this wall!"


10 posted on 12/28/2005 11:48:42 PM PST by Tall_Texan (Santa Claus is an illegal alien.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mumps
Why not put them out to bid? Go for it, doesn't bother me.

You folks get all wrapped around the axle about silly stuff, and always fail to recognize that painting blue mud in your bellytbutton is a survival skill.

Well, have at it.

11 posted on 12/28/2005 11:53:17 PM PST by patton ("Hard Drive Cemetary" - forthcoming best seller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tall_Texan

right on tt. right on.


12 posted on 12/29/2005 12:55:30 AM PST by Recovering_Democrat (I am SO glad to no longer be associated with the party of Dependence on Government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TheAverageGuy

I believe that there is a wonderful legal argument to made that the original intent of the 'establishment clause' was to actally codify the First Commandment.

After all, if the government establishes a religion, the government would be assuming the role of God.


13 posted on 12/29/2005 1:16:40 AM PST by rwilson99 (South Park (R)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheAverageGuy

Thank You Lord, this is an answer to millions of prayers. Please continue to add states to the list who recognize this truth. The implications are huge. It's about time this Christian nation get it's head screwed on straight. Please work in the hearts and minds of those who have the authority and power to right this terrible wrong perpetrated by the ACLU and others. Amen


14 posted on 12/29/2005 1:20:13 AM PST by Frwy (It takes a child to raze a village. (author unknown))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HHKrepublican_2
Be careful what you wish for, the SCOTUS already destroyed the first amendment with the campaign finance reform jewel that Bush didn't veto.
15 posted on 12/29/2005 1:48:06 AM PST by liliesgrandpa (The Republican Party simply can't do anything without that critical 100-seat Senate majority.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HHKrepublican_2

You devilish fiend...


16 posted on 12/29/2005 2:36:44 AM PST by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: patton

Well, I like the spirit of your response, but I'm not sure what it means.


17 posted on 12/29/2005 1:50:59 PM PST by mumps
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ndt
If other posting are placed in a manner that is deemed to "endorse religion" as opposed to the context of history (as this case was) then it would still fail the lemon test and be barred.

So basically, somebody could put up the 10 Commandments or the Crucifix, or a portrait of Mohammed Ali (the Islamic hero, not the boxer), claiming some sort of "historical context." Aggrieved parties litigate, and the ensuing dispute goes to court. Well, it will keep the lawyers busy.

18 posted on 12/29/2005 1:59:33 PM PST by mumps
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: mumps
"So basically, somebody could put up the 10 Commandments or the Crucifix, or a portrait of Mohammed Ali (the Islamic hero, not the boxer), claiming some sort of "historical context.""

Basically yes. But being overzealous with it would backfire IMHO. The Lemon Test does not ban displays of religious items, but the display of those items must pass the test.

  1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
  2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
  3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.
The recent case about ID being taught in science class also applied the test. This case was a good example of why I say that being overzealous would back fire. I believe that a strong case could be made that ID could legitimately be covered in classes such as philosophy, world religions or current events. The overzealous attempt to push it into science however backfired with the result of a solid ruling that now specifically bars it.
19 posted on 12/29/2005 3:42:21 PM PST by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ndt

The war is not over. Nothing's permanent. ID is much more scientific (if that means factual, actual, true) than Darwin's atheistic (and illogical) musings. We must continue to flail at the wall. With the 6th Court ruling, there is a crack in it--howbeit, tiny--nevertheless, a precious tiny crack. PRECEDENCE has been set. Future cases CAN (oh I pray WILL) widen the crack. Here's a pitch for the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF): doing a great job helping to break down the wall. I contribute to it regularly.


20 posted on 12/29/2005 6:44:32 PM PST by dimmer-rats stealvotes (Catching onto the FOX Fonies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: dimmer-rats stealvotes
"We must continue to flail at the wall."

Option B is to actually understand the law and the reasoning behind it and try to get something done, but if flailing is all you want to do, then flail away my friend.

"With the 6th Court ruling, there is a crack in it--howbeit, tiny--nevertheless, a precious tiny crack."

It is not a crack. The 6th relied on the Lemon Test from Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), they have no option but to adhere to it because it came from a superior court. The 6th has no power to overturn a Supreme Court decision.

"PRECEDENCE has been set." Yes it has, by Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)

The only thing that will remove the Lemon Test is if it is overturned by SCOTUS or a constitutional amendment is passed.
21 posted on 12/29/2005 6:57:43 PM PST by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ndt

NDT wrote:

Why stop with just the courthouses? Why not also place the 10 Commandments in just about every public place: public libraries, public schools, firehouses, municipal buildings, county nursing homes, football stadiums, etc. Seriously.

My comment is:

Lets not advocate the government placing the 10 Commandments in just about every public place. I don’t care for the idea of some government stooge giving me religious advice. A man cannot serve two masters and I acknowledge God and God alone as the authority in religious matters.

F. Slice


22 posted on 01/09/2006 10:53:03 AM PST by FredFlash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: FredFlash; mumps
"Lets not advocate the government placing the 10 Commandments in just about every public place."

Actually I didn't write that, that was a quote from mumps I was commenting too.
23 posted on 01/09/2006 4:53:09 PM PST by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: TheAverageGuy

Religion is wholly exempt from Civil Society's cognizance.


24 posted on 01/10/2006 8:03:58 PM PST by FredFlash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HHKrepublican_2

Religion is wholly exempt from Civil Society's cognizance.


25 posted on 01/10/2006 8:04:20 PM PST by FredFlash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave

The Counterfeit Christian's straw man arguments are truly tiresome and not constitutional, especially the "No National Religion" hogwash.


26 posted on 01/10/2006 8:09:11 PM PST by FredFlash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FredFlash

"Counterfeit Christian's" are causing problems in most of our churches today.


27 posted on 01/11/2006 6:55:57 AM PST by Grampa Dave (The NY Slimes has been committing treason and sedition for decades.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
Counterfeit Christian = One who acknowledges government authority over his duties to the Creator

There is a young boy in a Texas public school who refuses to acknowledge the authority of the government to recommend that he has a duty to affirm a belief in "one Nation under God."

When the teacher leads the Pledge, he refuses to leave the room.

Instead, he turns his back on the teacher and raises his fist in silent protest to make it clear he does not acknowledge her authority over his religion.
The school Principle threatened to punish him but the School District Attorney said that was not a good idea because the boy was just expressing his religious belief that no man can serve two masters and God forbids us to give to Cesar what belongs to God.
28 posted on 01/11/2006 7:28:48 AM PST by FredFlash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: TheAverageGuy

"Let us leave prayer to be prompted by the devotion of the heart, and not the bidding of the State." Source is: Representative Gulian Verplanck of New York on the floor of the U. S. House of Representatives in 1832 objecting to the idea of Congress asking President Andrew Jackson to issue a Religious Proclamation recommending prayer and fasting.

The House took the advice and refused to ask the President to recommend prayer and fasting. Of course, Jackson had previously made it publicly known that any member of Congress that brought him such a foolish request would get his sorry butt kicked back to the Temple of Satan where the idea sprang from.


29 posted on 01/13/2006 9:14:23 AM PST by FredFlash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson