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
# # #
Hallelujah!
AMEN! AMEN!
AWESOME 6TH!
From the original post: "Our nation's history is replete with governmental acknowledgment and in some cases, accommodation of religion."
From Cicero: "And at the time it was written, established meant exactly that--that there should be no official, established national church like the Church of England."
It went far beyond accomodation of religion. The emphasis should be on the word *national,* found in your post. A number of states had established state religions at the time of ratification, and continued to keep those official state religions for many decades after the ratification of the Constitution. This alone makes it clear that the only thing that the states intended when they ratified the Constitution was that there be no *national* religion.
It was understood that the states were perfectly free to have established religions, but that the federal government could not override the individual established religion of a given state, or require one of a state that chose to have no state religion.
The idea of a religionless society or a "wall of separation" was of course the individual idea of a very few back then, and was not what was ratified.
Did anyone see this in their local newspaper? I didn't.
Is this from "The Onion"?? This can't possibly be true! The ACLU takes a loss on a "separation of church and state" case? Must be a sign of the Apocalypse!
It was in the Soviet Constitution. Many militant secularists of today a few decades ago were Communist sympathizers and as such they picked this idea from the wrong constitution. Since they never paid close attention to the American one, no wonder they got confused.
Exactly. I was questioned several times about that post, and in the end wrote pretty much what you did. The Constitution is entirely neutral about what the states decide to do about religion. Several of them, notably Massachusetts, had what amounted to rule by church elders. Massacusetts had more blue laws than any other state, and they were still around until the late 1950s, when they began repealing them.
If you didn't like it, you could move to Connecticut or Rhode Island like Anne Hutchinson.
And the thought that you couldn't teach religion, the Bible, and morality in the schools would have been inconceivable until some time around the middle of the twentieth century. One of the major purposes of education was to teach kids the moral rules. Now all you are allowed to tell them is, "Be nice. Don't be judgmental. Tolerate everything."
Thanks for reminding everyone, it was in Article 52 of the Soviet constitution.
http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/r100000_.html
Ever notice how the ACLU and its minions quietly gloss over the fact that Jefferson wrote something else, and not the Constitution?
Fascinating. All the more disturbing as the leftwing moonbat of SCOTUS cherry pick from international judicial thinking rather than our own Constitution and its historicity.
praise the Lord for some judicial common sense for a change
This is Legit?
I'd like to comment further, I will later, but right now I'm in shock.
Good shock. But shock. And that doesn't happen often to me.
Hell, the Russians even abandoned the Soviet constitution!
Why didn't the use the term "national religion" instead of the naked and general term "religion"?
Because that might give someone the idea that we had a National centralized government rather than a federation of states.
Representative Benjamin Huntington then expressed the view that the Committee's language might "be taken in such latitude as to be extremely hurtful to the cause of religion. He understood the amendment to mean what had been expressed by the gentleman from Virginia; but others might find it convenient to put another construction upon it." Huntington, from Connecticut, was concerned that in the New England States, where state-established religions were the rule rather than the exception, the federal courts might not be able to entertain claims based upon an obligation under the bylaws of a religious organization to contribute to the support of a minister or the building of a place of worship. He hoped that "the amendment would be made in such a way as to secure the rights of conscience, and a free exercise of the rights of religion, but not to patronize those who professed no religion at all." Id., at 730-731.Madison responded that the insertion of the word "national" before the word "religion" in the Committee version should satisfy the minds of those who had criticized the language. "He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform. He thought that if the word 'national' was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent." Id., at 731. Representative Samuel Livermore expressed himself as dissatisfied with Madison's proposed amendment, and thought it would be better if the Committee language were altered to read that "Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience." Ibid.
Representative Gerry spoke in opposition to the use of the word "national" because of strong feelings expressed during the ratification debates that a federal government, not a national government, was created by the Constitution. Madison thereby withdrew his proposal but insisted that his reference to a "national religion" only referred to a national establishment and did not mean that the Government was a national one. - Justice Rehnquist's Dissent in WALLACE V. JAFFREE (1985)
Does this mean that the ACLU will now acknowledge that Secular Humanism is a religion, and that the government must now accommodate Secular Humanism just like it has Christianity?
I can see the argument now..."The US Government has accommodated Christianity for the last 200 years, and this is unfair. It must now accommodate Secular Humanism for the next 200 years--it's OUR turn now!"
Of course, this means the ACLU would have to reverse all of its prior positions, but since when has that proven to be a problem for them?
Holy Batman!
bump
UUN REEAL. I was starting to doubt I would ever hear this from a federal court again. Bout peed my pants when I read it.
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.