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:
# # #
This is HUGH. It has knocked the liberals on their arses. Bwahahahahahahahaha.
Shortly before the outbreak of the Revolutionary War, an evangelical Baptist preacher named "Swearing Jack" Waller attempted to lead a prayer meeting without a license from the colonial government of Virginia. Because he was violating Virginia's religion laws, "Swearing Jack" was jerked off his platform by sheriff's men who proceeded to beat his head against the ground. The sheriff then lashed him 20 times with a horsewhip.
At this time, the Church of England (also known as the Anglican Church) was the established religion of Virginia. This meant that the Anglican Church was the only officially recognized church in the colony. Virginia taxpayers supported this church through a religion tax. Only Anglican clergymen could lawfully conduct marriages. Non-Anglicans had to get permission (a license) from the colonial government to preach.
Although the Anglican Church was the sole established church in all five Southern colonies, other protestant Christian churches became established in the towns of the Northern colonies of New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire. Each town chose by majority vote one Protestant church to be supported by taxpayers. In these colonies, one church usually predominated. For example, in Massachusetts almost all towns selected the Congregational Church since the majority of people living in the colony belonged to that faith.
Thus, on the eve of the Revolutionary War, nine of the 13 colonies supported official religions with public taxes. Moreover, in these colonies, the government dictated "correct" religious belief and methods of worship. Religious dissenters, like "Swearing Jack," were discriminated against, disqualified from holding public office, exiled, fined, jailed, beaten, mutilated, and sometimes even executed. Only Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware did not have a system linking church and state. After the Revolution, leaders like Jefferson and Madison worked to ensure freedom of religion for all citizens of the new nation.
Take a look at ACLU.org--they don't even MENTION this case. HAHAHA!
Par. 8 The appeals court said the ACLU was relying on a false understanding of that clause.
Par. 9 "This extraconstitutional construct has grown tiresome," Suhrheinrich wrote. "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."
Paragraphs 8 & 9 from the full article posted in the Lexington Herald-Leader
Thanks for posting the link!
Good one! I can't stop laughing when I saw this.
"This can't possibly be true! The ACLU takes a loss on a "separation of church and state" case?"
The only thing that would make it better would be for the court to order the ACLU to pay KY's attorney fees. (They'd probably appeal it -- sarcasm intended.)
I knew right away that they weren't talking about the 9th Circus.
I wish some court would get even bolder and point out that the intent of the "establishment clause" portion of the First Amendment was only that Congress shall not ever establish a "national" church, i.e., the equivalent of the "Church of England."
The term "established" church had a very specific meaning in those times.
I thought for a second this was Scrappleface.
Should another place on the Supreme Court need filling, 6th Circuit Judge Richard Suhrheinrich would have my vote on this alone.
"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. "
Finally, someone with some common sense!!!
sanity.... what sweet sanity
A miracle at Christmas time. What a season! Angels dance tonight.
To my American brothers & sisters
As I was going to say my prayers
I saw a wall that wasn't there.
It wasn't there again today,
I wish that wall would go away.
(and now it has!)
Great early Christmas present eh?
If you are looking for a tagline that quote would be great.