Posted on 12/23/2005 9:34:12 AM PST by wgeorge2001
6th Circuit rejects separation of church and state December 21, 2005 Values group hails unanimous decision Tuesday
6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals: The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state.
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 countys right to display the Ten Commandments, the panel called the American Civil Liberties Unions repeated claims to the contrary extra-constitutional and tiresome.
See Cincinnat Enquirer.
See page 13 of full Court of Appeals decision.
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 nations 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
Here is the total sixth circuit.
http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/usca_06_frm?OpenFrameSet
Lively, Pierce (1972-present)
Engel, Albert Joseph (1973-present)
Keith, Damon Jerome (1977-present)
Merritt, Gilbert Stroud Jr. (1977-present)
Brown, Bailey (1979-1997)
Kennedy, Cornelia Groefsema (1979-present)
Martin, Boyce Ficklen Jr. (1979-present)
Jones, Nathaniel Raphael (1979-2002)
Contie, Leroy John Jr. (1982-2001)
Krupansky, Robert B. (1982-2004)
Wellford, Harry Walker (1982-present)
Milburn, Herbert Theodore (1984-present)
Guy, Ralph B. Jr. (1985-present)
Nelson, David Aldrich (1985-present)
Ryan, James Leo (1985-present)
Boggs, Danny Julian (1986-present)
Norris, Alan Eugene (1986-present)
Suhrheinrich, Richard Fred (1990-present)
Siler, Eugene Edward Jr. (1991-present)
Batchelder, Alice Moore (1991-present)
Daughtrey, Martha Craig (1993-present)
Moore, Karen Nelson (1995-present)
Cole, R[ansey] Guy Jr. (1995-present)
Clay, Eric L. (1997-present)
Gilman, Ronald Lee (1997-present)
Gibbons, Julia Smith (2002-present)
Rogers, John M. (2002-present)
Sutton, Jeffrey S. (2003-present)
Cook, Deborah L. (2003-present)
Griffin, Richard Allen (2005-present)
McKeague, David William (2005-present)
Neilson, Susan Bieke (2005-present)
No exaggeration.
I hope the ACLU appeals this to the Supreme Court, so we can get this RULING DONE!!! The "seperation of church and state" never existed, and the courts created mayhem by inventing it for that aethiest woman in her suit.
"Tear down this Wall!"
Has nothing to do with intelligence. Its about their political views.
Regardless of whether you or I could make a air tight case for any legal holding, idiots like Barry Lynn are never going to agree if it disrupts their world view.
Wonder when it gets there, the SC will even hear this case. Hope it's decided the ruling was correct and will not even take this case up. Please CJ Roberts unless it'd be better to rule in the same manner as the 6th Circuit Ct.
They're absolutely right. But that decision won't last ten minutes.
If this got to the Supremes and they upheld this ruling, could you *imagine* the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the Left? It would be worse than Kerry losing for them.
No, this will be overturned. Mark my words.
I hope you're wrong.
I do too.
Bump...
Find another batch of these folks and send them out west to replace the 9th Circus.
Thank you for the map. I wish that the whole country was under the constitutional 6th circuit court of appeals.
I doubt it; the Supreme Court has always punted on these separation of church and state cases. If they do take it up and rule for the left, they would ammend the constitution and I doubt they would. I hope Alito gets confirmed soon and this case is decided once for all and all the media and left wing propaganda be blown apart. It would sure be good for the schools.
Merry Christmas.
bump
Unbelieveable that judges would actually read the constitution which says, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." Clearly government cannot reach into the religious life of citizens, but citizens are not to be obstructed in any way from dictating to government in accord with their religious beliefs. This separation of church and state nonsense comes from a sound bite from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson when he was president to shine on a Baptist minister. Jefferson was minister to France at the time of the constitutional convention and played no part, so for his statement to be a precedent is unbelievable. The source of his comment would have been his 1786 involvement in writing the Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty, which should also be read as a one way screen that in no way prevents citizens from compelling government on religious matters. May the Lord be praised!
some good news for a change
Deus volt.
Let's hope this is the BEGINNING and the END of institutionalized atheism in contemporary America.
I address the claim that:
The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state. Our nations history is replete with governmental acknowledgment and in some cases, accommodation of religion.
My comment is:
The separation between church and state is the non-existence of government authority over religion or our duty to the Creator. When you show me where the Constitution grants the government authority over religion, I will concede that there is no separation between church and state in the Nobel Charter.
1slice@comcast.ner
Religious freedom is not about distinguishing acknowledging religion from advocating religion. If the test to determine what is permissible is whether the law or other official act acknowledges God, then a death warrant ordering the exceution of an individual for his religion would meet the test just as long as it contained an acknowledgement of God.
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.