Judge: ACLU not 'reasonable Court whacks civil-liberties group, OKs Ten Commandments display

World Net Daily ^ | December 20, 2005

[churchillbuff]

A U.S. appeals court today upheld the decision of a lower court in allowing the inclusion of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse display, hammering the American Civil Liberties Union and declaring, "The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state."

Attorneys from the American Center for Law and Justice successfully argued the case on behalf of Mercer County, Ky., and a display of historical documents placed in the county courthouse. The panel voted 3-0 to reject the ACLU's contention the display violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

The county display the ACLU sued over included the Ten Commandments, the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Charta, the Star Spangled Banner, the National Motto, the Preamble to the Kentucky Constitution, the Bill of Rights to the U. S. Constitution and a picture of Lady Justice.

Writing for the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Richard Suhrheinrich said the ACLU's "repeated reference 'to the separation of church and state' ... has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state."

Suhrheinrich wrote: "The ACLU, an organization whose mission is 'to ensure that ... the government [is kept] out of the religion business,' does not embody the reasonable person."

The court said a reasonable observer of Mercer County's display 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 traditions."

Francis J. Manion, Counsel for the ACLJ, argued the case before both the 6th Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.

"This is a big victory for the people of Mercer County and Kentucky generally," said Manion in a statement. "For too long they have been lectured like children by those in the ACLU and elsewhere who claim to know what the people's Constitution really means. What the Sixth Circuit has said is that the people have a better grasp on the real meaning of the Constitution; the Court recognizes that the Constitution does not require that we strip the public square of all vestiges of our religious heritage and traditions."

[RonPaulLives]

BLUEGRASS PING

[Capagrl]

Judge Richard Suhrheinrich said the ACLU's "repeated reference 'to the separation of church and state' ... has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state."

MY NEW HERO!! You go, Judge Suhrheinrich! If only more people would bother READING the First Amendment to realize that no matter how many times the phrase "separation of church and state" is repeated does not make it magically appear nor does it make it true.

[skinkinthegrass]

:D Yee-Haa!!!

[wallcrawlr]

Good news story.
The court said a reasonable observer of Mercer County's display 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 traditions."

"For too long they have been lectured like children by those in the ACLU and elsewhere who claim to know what the people's Constitution really means.

Sound familiar??

Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info

[Crusher138]

...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

Why do the ACLU and the "separation of church and state" nut jobs always forget this part?

[skinkinthegrass]

If the reasonable observer perceived all government references to the Deity as endorsements, then many of our Nation’s cherished traditions would be unconstitutional, including the Declaration of Independence and the national motto.

Thanks, for the thread/posts. Wonderfull News.
...the statement above, really settles it..."the nut of the arugment".

[RunningWolf]

"For too long they have been lectured like children by those in the ACLU and elsewhere who claim to know what the people's Constitution really means.

Sounds familiar yes. The elsewhere is hiding under the rock of corrupt academia, shape shifting scientists, and secular liberalism right here on the Free Republic.

They come in the name of evo but say very little for evo and attack everything else.

Wolf

[Awgie]

Bortz is a bore. A bottom-feeder among talk radio talent. One dimensional, dull, witless. I can't listen to the guy, even when he is agreeing with me. I am embarrassed that he does agree with me.

[Kenton]

Writing for the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Richard Suhrheinrich said the ACLU's "repeated reference 'to the separation of church and state' ... has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state."

Just wow. It's about time.

[narby]

Interesting a PA judge rules that God is not allowed in science class and a couple of states away another judge rules that at least His commandments are allowed to be placed in a courthouse.

The school board in Dover Pa fraudulently claimed that ID was a scientific alternative to evolution. They actually committed perjury on the stand, lying about their intentions in adopting the ID policy. The judge used precedents in place that do not allow teaching religion in public schools.

In the 10 commandments case, the challenge was directly at the "separation of church and state" issue, and no attempt was made to lie and claim it was something else. The Supreme Court has gone off the deep end on church/state rulings over the last 60 years, and we need to remove some of that.

I note that there is no real disagreement with the ruling in the posts. That should tell those who think there is some cabal of atheists roaming FR attacking Christians in the crevo threads. I don't think any of us that oppose ID, also oppose religious life. We just want truth in science classes.

[Just mythoughts]

"We just want truth in science classes."

Man ruling where God belongs and doesn't belong is quite the example for what you call 'truth'. You really think that the Heavenly Father is planning on following the judgment of man? Vanity of vanities, "What profit hath a man of ALL his labour which he taketh under the sun?"????

Christ did have a bit to say about those that sit in the seat of Moses the lawgiver, historically speaking. But hey things are progressing right along just as is Written they would, on both sides of the debate of HOW man got here on this planet.

[BuglerTex]

This is an opinion from a well respected jursit, who is also a full time faculty member of the Cooley Law School in Lansing. This is an unusual thing; he is the only such person in Michigan. A Federal Appeals Court Judge who is at the same time a Law Professor at a highly ranked law school. This man is a dreadnought. We can have confidence that his position is strong as well as right.

Like the author of Hebrews...case closed.

The law school is proud to have him:

http://www.cooley.edu/newsevents/suhrheinrich.htm

[wallcrawlr]

Thanks for that background.

[SunkenCiv]

"The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state."

And you know what we call that?

What we've been waiting for, that's what we call that.

[with no apologies to M.A., from whom I just adapted that]

[Convert from ECUSA]

"The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state."

'Bout high damn time some judge said this!

[george wythe]

Writing for the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Richard Suhrheinrich said the ACLU's "repeated reference 'to the separation of church and state' ... has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state."

Excellent sound bite.

I myself have grown tiresome of the ACLU's mantras.

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed. Thanks for the ping!

[narby]

Man ruling where God belongs and doesn't belong is quite the example for what you call 'truth'.

The "truth" isn't in the ruling. The "truth" is that evolution is real, and is how man came to be. Now you can read that into your Bible if you want, as the Catholics have done, and have no conflict between reality and your faith. Or, you can decide to ignore the reality of evolution and believe a fairy tale as written in Genesis.

But if some fundamentalist Christians continue to push for religion in science class, the fight will escalate, and I guarantee Christianity will lose. Again. Just like every other time they take on science.

And the whole great exercise will be a huge waste of time, money, and political capital while babies continue to be aborted, and cultural waste continues.

The only people who will gain out of this are the Democrats, whom I'm sure are salivating over this mess conservatives have gotten themselves into.

[Paperdoll]

Yes, the Lord still answers prayer, so stay on your knees.
We thank You, dear Lord God, for the blessing of Your vigilant Eternal Being. Laus Deo!

[Just mythoughts]

You hold fast to your truth. There is so soft landing for those who denigrate Christ. Christ is the key that makes evolution a leaky theory. Genesis does not disagree with the evidence displayed throughout this earth. This earth was not created at the same time as man in the flesh, and Genesis does not tell us when this earth or the heavens were created.

The base of evolution is the denial of Christ, I do not care what religion puts their blessing upon the TOE. I do not believe what I believe because it is the majority or because it is what is popular or cost efficient. History tells that the majority has never ever been on the side of RIGHT/TRUTH.