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.
Minor quibble: Congress didn't write the Constitution.
bookmark for link
This is something all Christians, everywhere, should be in vigilant prayer about.
This is truly astounding and wonderful news. A nice Christmas present for us all.
Oh wow... I really hope the ACLU does appeal it to the SCOTUS. What are the odds they won't though, thinking they may not get the decision they want?
Thank GOD! LOL!
Wonderful! Thank God someone with Common Sense is whacking the ACLU right in the cojones!
Keep praying for the SCOTUS to uphold the Constitution, and not the Soviet Constitution!
One of the major purposes of a true education is moral instruction. Anything less is child abuse.
FINALLY... A COURT GOT THIS RIGHT!
It was in the Soviet Constitution??? I will have to look that up--I had no idea it was there. Thanks for the information. This could be very helpful when speaking to certain people in my neighborhood.
ACLU=Acknowledged Communistic Losers' Union.
LJ. somewhat off topic for moral ping list or the HA pinglist but good news for all.
Not off topic at; top dead center!
Will ping it out later.
Bump for later read!
well, looks like the ACLU walked into the wrong courtroom this time...
Whoa. Judges actually learning how to read. The Libs must be really spinning today!
"I really wish the ACLU would be declared a terrorist group and all of their lawyers sent to one of our nonexistent prisons..."
Hopefully you are including the one who sits on the USSC...
This loss will make the ACLU show their true colors more strongly. See tagline.
Don't ever forget -- judges (and most politicians) are the spawn of lawyers.
This is a big deal. A really big deal.
I love it. Merry Christmas to you and yours.
Fantastic news. Thank you!
And why is it so hard to believe?
Unfortunately, lawyers are a dime a dozen (despite the outrageous fees they charge). This is especially true for Leftist lawyers, who appear in droves fully formed from the womb.
Indeed. Jefferson was in France when the Constitution was written, so even in his own day he was hardly an expert on it. Then, despite all his utterings about small government, he was the first president to massively expand the powers of the federal government beyond what the Constitution provided. He also allowed the federal courts to grab far more power than the Constitution gave them, and we've been paying the price ever since.
Trust me. This one will go up to the Supreme Court. It has to, because now there are very different judicial interpretations of the establishment clause in use in different areas of the country. Once it gets to the Supreme Court, everyone who pays any attention to real news in this country will hear about it.