Posted on 12/20/2005 2:01:25 PM PST by churchillbuff
Body Slam!
Excellent!
Wow...I wonder what Judge Moore is thinking today?
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/newopn.pl?puid=0
Thankfully someone is using their noggin.....Merry Christmas to all!
The ACLJ won one? Yikes, guess I will have to take them seriously now. Great news!
Is this new? I thought this happened in Jan 2003.
The appeal court ruling came out today. Maybe you're thinking of the trial court decision, from which the ACLU appealed.
A clear blow for restoring freedom in America!
For my take on the ACLU: Leftwing Word Games & Religious Freedom.
William Flax
" Our Nations history is replete with governmental acknowledgment and in some cases, accommodation of religion. See, e.g., Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983) (upholding legislative prayer); McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961) (upholding Sunday closing laws); see also Lynch, 465 U.S. at 674 (There is an unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life from at least 1789.); Capitol Square, 243 F.3d at 293-99 (describing historical examples of governmental involvement with religion). After all, [w]e are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. Zorach, 343 U.S. at 313. Thus, state recognition of religion that falls short of endorsement is constitutionally permissible.
"Second, the ACLU focuses on the religiousness of the Ten Commandments. No reasonable person would dispute their sectarian nature, but they also have a secular nature that the ACLU does not address. That they are religious merely begs the question whether this display is religious; it does not answer it. [T]he Establishment Clause inquiry cannot be distilled into a fixed, per se rule. Pinette, 515 U.S. at 778 (OConnor J., concurring); see Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 597-98 (1992). Although treating the subject matter categorically would make our review eminently simpler, we are called upon to examine Mercer Countys actions in light of context. Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause. Van Orden, 125 S. Ct. at 2863 (plurality opinion). Moreover, [f]ocus exclusively on the religious component of any activity would inevitably lead to its invalidation under the Establishment Clause. Lynch, 465 U.S. at 680. The Constitution requires an analysis beyond the four-corners of the Ten Commandments. In short, proving that the Ten Commandments themselves are religious does not prove an Establishment Clause violation.
"Third, the ACLU erroneouslythough perhaps intentionallyequates recognition with endorsement. To endorse is necessarily to recognize, but the converse does not follow. Cf. Mercer County, 219 F. Supp. 2d at 789 (Endorsement of religion is a normative concept; whereas acknowledgment of religion is not necessarily a value-laden concept.). Because nothing in the display, its history, or its implementation supports the notion that Mercer County has selectively endorsed the sectarian elements of the first four Commandments, we fail to see why the reasonable person would interpret the presence of the Ten Commandments as part of the larger Foundations display as a governmental endorsement of religion. We will not presume endorsement from the mere display of the Ten Commandments. If the reasonable observer perceived all government references to the Deity as endorsements, then many of our Nations cherished traditions would be unconstitutional, including the Declaration of Independence and the national motto. Fortunately, the reasonable person is not a hyper-sensitive plaintiff. See Washegesic ex rel. Pensinger v. Bloomingdale Pub. Sch., 33 F.3d 679, 684 (6th Cir. 1994) (Guy, J., concurring) (describing the eggshell plaintiff as unknown to the Establishment Clause). Instead, he appreciates the role religion has played in our governmental institutions, and finds it historically appropriate and traditionally acceptable for a state to include religious influences, even in the form of sacred texts, in honoring American legal traditions."
Give it up for Sanity!
ping for later
Amen and it's about time a judge slaps the aclu-nuts upside their big stinking leftwing heads.
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.