Court of Appeals: Constitution "does not demand a wall of separation between church and state."

American Family Association of Michigan ^ | December 21, 2005 | American Family Association of Michigan

[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

# # #

[FredFlash]

The States were not perfectly free, at the time of the founding, to have established religions. The people in ten of the States would have found any fool what suggested a legal establishment of religion and tossed his miserable butt into the American Religious Liberty Hall of Shame alongside that Patrick Henry.

The people of seven States had already stripped their governments, both “on paper” and in real life, of authority to establish religion. Georgia, Maryland and North Carolina had some meaningless “only on paper” religious authority. The authority did not derive from the consent of the people (it came from the old colonial charters) and was therefore never exercised by any of the three States.

In summary, in 1789, ten of the thirteen States had placed the demonic notion of government religion on a fast track back to little horn. Ten States claimed no religious authority they were interested in preserving and would not have been motivated, in the area of religion, by the desire to preserve a State's Right.

[FredFlash]

You wrote:

The majority of states maintained taxpayer-supported churches long after ratification of the Constitution.

I write:

Three States is not a majority. The ten states that established a policy of no government authority over religion and the new states that were founded on a separation of church and state were the majority. That is why James Madison was a hero and Oliver Ellsworth was despised.

[FredFlash]

That is funny! But no one is that dumb!

[Irontank]

The States were not perfectly free, at the time of the founding, to have established religions

Regardless of whether or not any state had an established religion...all would have been free under the First Amendment to the US Constitution to do so. Whether or not state constitutions or state laws provided otherwise is something else. In New England, Congregational Churches received public support into the 19th century in, at least, NH, Connecticut and Massachusetts.

[FredFlash]

In 1875, Americans had turned their back on Jehovah and acknowledged the Government as their religious authority.

The day the people did not rise up against the stamping of "In God We Trust" on the money (in the 1860's) was the day our Christian Nation become one of Satan Worshipers.

No President had issued a religious proclamation for fifty years when a demon name Lincoln issued one in 1862. In 1832 President Andrew Jackson went over to Capitol Hill and told Henry Clay that if Congress passed a resolution asking him to issue religious advice, Clay was going back to Kentucky in pine box with a military honor guard.

[Irontank]

You appear to be correct about taxpayer support of churches...I stand corrected...there were just 3 at the time the 1st Amendment was ratified.

[MissouriConservative]

bump for later enjoyment

[FredFlash]

You wrote:

Regardless of whether or not any state had an established religion...all would have been free under the First Amendment to the US Constitution to do so.

I write:

That would have been a reasonable interpretation but not the only reasonable one. The Jeffersonians often argued that the First Amendment applied against the states. There are legal decisions where a State Court applied the Madison Doctrine to a state question. That was an application of the religion clauses against a state.

However, I concede that the First Amendment did not apply against the States.

[FredFlash]

You wrote:

In New England, Congregational Churches received public support into the 19th century in, at least, NH, Connecticut and Massachusetts.

I wrote:

In Massachusetts and NH, the religion supported by the coerced contributions was the Protestant sect that the majority of the local voters wanted. In the case of Connecticut, I concede your point argueno.

[FredFlash]

I found out the hard way not to trust any ones interpretations or characterizations of historical facts. Interpretations can vary but facts is facts.

My current policy is to never rely on evidence, no matter how much it comports with my personal view, until I examine the evidence in its context and am convinced of its authenticity.

For example, I decided to investigate Chief Justice Berger's 1983 claim that the First U. S. Congress adopted the policy of selecting a chaplain to open each session with prayer.

I examined the evidence Berger cited and found that the claim is false. Two Chaplain's to the First Congress were selected in 1789, but not to open each session with prayer.

The official records of the First U. S. Congress on line at the Library of Congress at the link below, contain no mention whatsoever of daily prayers. Not one of the 171 daily sessions of the House and Senate of the First Congress was opened with prayers according to the records.

The official records contain no mention of a resolution ordering daily prayers. Nothing happens in Congress without a resolution.

The official records contain no mention of the Chaplains being assigned the duty of daily prayers.

The official records contain no mention of the Chaplains being assigned routine daily, weekly or monthly duties. During the two years of the First Congress, the Chaplains were assigned just one day of work.

The Chaplains were the lowest paid of all the Federal employees on the "Civil List." of 1793 used for the budget in the appropriations bill.

In 1793, The President was budgeted to be paid $25,000 a year, the Speaker of House $2,190 a year, the Senate Assistant Engrossing clerk $365 a year, a Chaplain to Congress $250 a year.

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/

[bert]

They should have waited a few days. This will merely enrage the left

[FredFlash]

Ok, cite me your evidence. If it is Julian Boyd, forget it. I have already been down that dead end.

---

LET US LEAVE PRAYER TO BE PROMPTED BY THE DEVOTION OF THE HEART, AND NOT THE BIDDING OF THE STATE

[FredFlash]

Is this what you are referring to my friend?

Jefferson at Church in the Capitol

In his diary, Manasseh Cutler (1742-1823), a Federalist Congressman from Massachusetts and Congregational minister, notes that on Sunday, January 3, 1802, John Leland preached a sermon on the text "Behold a greater than Solomon is here. Jef[ferso]n was present." Thomas Jefferson attended this church service in Congress, just two days after issuing the Danbury Baptist letter. Leland, a celebrated Baptist minister, had moved from Orange County, Virginia, and was serving a congregation in Cheshire, Massachusetts, from which he had delivered to Jefferson a gift of a "mammoth cheese," weighing 1235 pounds.

Journal entry, January 3, 1802
Manasseh Cutler
Charles Deering McCormick Library of Special Collections, Northwestern University Library (164)

[rwfromkansas]

correct. I do not want to imply that Jefferson was there every week or something.

But, it should be obvious that having church in a govt. building would be against a strict separation doctrine.

[FredFlash]

You wrote:

It should be obvious that having church in a government building would be against a strict separation doctrine.

I write;

I thought we were talking about a room in a government building being used to hold a service, not converting the building into a permanent church and whose doctrine are you talking about?

[rwfromkansas]

Man, you aren't very smart, are you.

The strict separation doctrine as believed by most people alive today.

The strict separation doctrine is not in accordance with what the founders wanted. They had no problem with government entanglement in religious matters.

[FredFlash]

If the First U. S. Congress had no problem with government entanglement in religious matters then why did it forbid prayer or divine services in the House and Senate Chambers; and don't make any claims about Chaplains to the First Congress and daily opening prayers until you have some actual evidence from the official records of Congress; and not just the propaganda hogwash that an idiot named Justice Warren Berger wrote in his moronic 1983 Opinion.

[rwfromkansas]

Look, I can tell we aren't going to agree. You run right past Madison's own explanation of the First Amendment in the Annals of Congress so you can have your own view that it was intended to prohibit all sorts of religious expression. I understand you hate Christians. Good day.

[FredFlash]

Please point out what particular part of Madison's explanation of a proposed amendment that I am guilty of running past; but first I beg you to examine the entire sum of his explanation in proper context; because David Barton, D. James Kennedy and other Satan Worshipers always leave out Madison's statement that the purpose of the proposal was to prohibit "LAWS OF SUCH A NATURE AS MIGHT INFRINGE THE RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE."

Do you know what Madison's concept of the right of conscience was?

Presented below is the entire speech that I believe you are referring.

MR. MADISON said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforced the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience. Whether the words are necessary or not, he did not mean to say, but they had been required by some of the state conventions, who seemed to entertain an opinion, that under the clause of the Constitution, which gave power to Congress to make all laws necessary and proper to carry into execution the constitution, and the laws made under it, enabled them TO MAKE LAWS OF SUCH A NATURE AS MIGHT INFRINGE THE RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE, and establish a national religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended, and he thought it as well expressed as the nature of the language would admit.

[FredFlash]

You confound hostility for government authority over religion with distaste for Christians.

Those who rely on government advice in matters of religion have no claim whatsoever to the title "Christian."

That great honor is reserved for those who acknowledge the exclusive authority of Christ over their duties to the great and glorious Being who is the beneficent Author of all that is good.

No man can serve two masters. If you believe in "One Nation Under God" or even consider it, upon the advice or urging of the government - you reject the authority of Christ.

************************************************************

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 proposal that Congress ask President Andrew Jackson to issue a Religious Proclamation recommending prayer and fasting because of the Asiatic Scourge.

The House chose to follow Verplanck's wise advice and refused to ask the President to recommend prayer and fasting. 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 must have originated. Andy Jackson believed in the Total Separation of Religion and Government and for staying true to the pure, sacred, just and truly Christian principle of no civil authority over out duties to God, even in the face of the Scourge, he is hereby nominated to the American Religious Liberty Hall of Fame.