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:
http://www.answers.com/topic/separation-of-church-and-state-in-the-united-states
# # #
Ping!
Ever wonder why the ACLU has become so powerful? It all started with the Civil Rights Attorneys Fee Awards Act, passed by a Democrat Congress in 1976. This outrageous law allows judges to award legal fees to private lawyers who sue the government and win. The result has been a flood of Christian-hatng lawsuits contrived by the scum of the legal profession in federal court.
For thirty years leftwing lawyers, judges, the media and the Democrat party have engaged in a shameful silent conspiracy to destroy traditional values with bogus First Amendment lawsuits to remove Ten Commandments images, Christmas creches and Christmas carols, and taking God out of the Pledge of Allegiance. Then there are literally thousands of sham environmental and civil rights cases, as well as race and sex discrimination cases which have amounted to nothing but ACLU makework launched by itself.
We need to insist our Congressmen repeal 42 U.S.C. §1988, the outrageous law that has made the ACLU rich by making war on our culture.
Re. Photo of Bible with Stars & Stripes cover. Is there really such a cover made for Bibles?
"Flying pigs coming soon to a neighborhood near you!!!"
_______________________________________________________
I certainly hope you have a good legal team - the A(ging) C(ommunist) L(eftover) U(nion) will be filing suit shortly - your racist, discriminatory comment about the vertically ambulatory swine will not be tolerated - what about the long-jumping bovine creatures and color-coordination-deficient pachyderms, hmmm??
Yep. I've posted the article several times here. It's Article 52 of the Constitution of the USSR:
Article 52. Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited. In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church.
Maybe now they can start working on that "wall of separation" between Liberals and facts.
Let him spin.
"Let us leave prayer to be prompted by the devotion of the heart, and not the bidding of the State."
Source of Information: 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.
Please show me some evidence that Jefferson believed that laws punishing Sabbath breaking were not violations of the Constitution.
Let us leave prayer to be prompted by the devotion of the heart, and not the bidding of the State.*
* Source of Information: 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 complied with Verplanck's 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 originated.
"An establishment of religion" is an establishment of what ever you decide the word "religion" means.
The word "religion" was used during the founding era to convey many different ideas may very well have included a church,synagogue, established official Federally sanctioned religion or the C of E.
However, in the context of a fundamental legal safeguard for the "rights of conscience" the word "religion" often meant "the duty we owe to the Creator." Some examples are the "freedom of conscience" amendments to the U. S. Constitution recommended by the Virginia and North Carolina Ratification Conventions.
My rules of strict interpretation require me to search for the meaning of "religion" first in the text of the amendment, second in the understanding of the men who ratified it and third in the legislative history of its framing. The Virginia and North Carolina recommendations are found in the legislative history and I judge then to provided the best definition of the word.
In 1878, the Supreme Court apparently believed that there was no other possible meaning for the word "religion" in the First Amendment other than "the duty we owe to the Creator. I believe that was a reasonable view warranted by legal and moral principles.
Wherefore:
CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DUTY WE OWE TO GOD, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE OF THE DUTY WE OWE THE CREATOR.
It is true that Jefferson believed Congress could not regulate individual state religious affairs. Jefferson held that the U. S. Government had no authority whatsoever over religion or the duty owed the Creator. The federal government could neither protect nor infringe on the right of conscience.
However, Jefferson held that the underlying reason for the U. S. Government to have no authority over the duty owed the Creator was to prevent one man from infringing on another man's obligation to obey his conscience. The Satan worshipers in New England, on the other hand, held that the the underlying reason was to protect a State's authority to pretend to be God and tell a man what God wanted him to do.
Needless to say - it was Jefferson's view that prevailed.
CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DUTY WE OWE TO GOD, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE OF THE DUTY WE OWE THE CREATOR.
Um.....Jefferson INTRODUCED THE SABBATH BILL with Madison and did not attempt later to remove it when the First Amendment was passed.
You are seriously misinformed if you think I rely on the crap David Barton throws about.
Half of the stuff he says is just made up.
I suggest you take a look at the Library of Congress' exhibit on religion in American history. That is where I got my info on divine services being held in the Capitol building.
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.