Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

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

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

# # #


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: Kentucky; US: Michigan
KEYWORDS: 10commandments; 1alcucasedown; 1stamendment; 6thcircuit; aclu; afa; amendment; church; commandments; constitution; establishmentclause; firstamendment; kentucky; mdm; moralabsolutes; nohtmlintitle; prayer; proudmilitant; religiousfreedom; ruling; separation; state; tencommandments
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 321-332 next last
To: rwfromkansas
You left out the part of Madison's explanation about prohibiting infringement of the rights of conscience. If the idea of a man acknowledging his duty to obey the conscience God gave him is that abhorrent to you - then you must worship at the Church of Satan.
261 posted on 01/16/2006 12:48:50 PM PST by FredFlash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: jwh_Denver
Is there any government authority over religion in the Constitution?
262 posted on 01/16/2006 12:55:12 PM PST by FredFlash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Even if the Department of Religious Advice did attempted to establish religious doctrine, but did not use coercion, it would be permissible under your no coercion test - right?
263 posted on 01/16/2006 12:59:03 PM PST by FredFlash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: FredFlash

Read the Reynolds (1878) case. Religious opinion is virutally unlimited, but not practice.


264 posted on 01/16/2006 1:01:41 PM PST by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
A mandate carries a punishment for disobeying it, right? So the government can suggest, encourage, facilitate, urge or direct as long as no punishment is involved.
265 posted on 01/16/2006 1:04:33 PM PST by FredFlash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: AFA-Michigan

Wow! They put one right back to the anti-American ACLU! Love it.


266 posted on 01/16/2006 1:05:55 PM PST by BamaAndy (Heart & Iron--the story of America through an ordinary family. ISBN: 1-4137-5397-3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AFA-Michigan

Wow! They put one right back to the anti-American ACLU! Love it.


267 posted on 01/16/2006 1:07:14 PM PST by BamaAndy (Heart & Iron--the story of America through an ordinary family. ISBN: 1-4137-5397-3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FredFlash
Even if the Department of Religious Advice did attempted to establish religious doctrine, but did not use coercion, it would be permissible under your no coercion test - right?

It fails the basic test of Congress trying to establish a religion, it does not fail the coercion test. Congress has no right to pass any laws that effect the establishment of religion.

268 posted on 01/16/2006 1:09:03 PM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: FredFlash

In response to the simple factual statement "The words 'separation of church and state' do not appear in the U.S. Constitution"...

Flash impresses all with the raw force of his intellect. No excuse me, his raw ability to engage in ad hominem attack.

He labels that simple, indisputable statement of fact regarding the Constitution "dimwitted" and "pathetic" and its author (that's me) "a sucker"...

Flash is obviously struggling with some deep-seated, apparently very emotional issues that go beyond a logical, rational, and truthful discussion on this topic.

Flash observes that just as "separation of church and state" is found nowhere in our Constitution, neither is "separation of Satan and state." This enlightenment is both correct and irrelevant.

But gotta admit I'm still not clear, Flash. Since you characterized my statement of indisputable fact as "dimwitted" and "pathetic," are you disputing the truth of the statement? Do you purport to show us that those words do appear in the Constitution?


269 posted on 01/16/2006 1:09:09 PM PST by AFA-Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

What about the Cop who stops you for a traffic offense and suggests that you recite an affirmation of a belief in no infant baptism? He is part of the government and you can just say no if you don't care for the advice. So this practice is ok, right?


270 posted on 01/16/2006 1:09:36 PM PST by FredFlash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: FredFlash
A mandate carries a punishment for disobeying it, right? So the government can suggest, encourage, facilitate, urge or direct as long as no punishment is involved.

Not at the legislative level. Executive proclaclamations, for instance, do not violate any rule.

271 posted on 01/16/2006 1:13:06 PM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: FredFlash
What about the Cop who stops you for a traffic offense and suggests that you recite an affirmation of a belief in no infant baptism?

While I appreciate this excercize of the obsurdity, could you please stick a little more to reality? The act of pulling someone over is coercive, so it seems irrelevant.

272 posted on 01/16/2006 1:27:50 PM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: Irontank
I only figure it out recently. I ain't that smart. I was misinformed for years.
273 posted on 01/16/2006 1:29:12 PM PST by FredFlash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: Irontank
Yep - it was Madison 10 to Ellsworth 3 on the scoreboard - I was a surprised to find that ten of states, in 1789, were 99% of the way to separation - meaning no legal Establishments of religion, no religious test and no civil disabilities - There were religious tests on the books but they were just ignored - In some state's only Protestants or Christians were guaranteed equal protection on paper but there is no case of any non Christian being denied protection - Some state courts decided cases as if the religion causes applied to the states and were the law of the land - From 1789 to the Civil War is where you find Strict Separation - It all changed with Lincoln's Proclamation and "In God We Trust" on the money.
274 posted on 01/16/2006 1:45:21 PM PST by FredFlash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

You should have examined the evidence when you were there. You will be disappointed.


275 posted on 01/16/2006 1:47:04 PM PST by FredFlash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

show me evidence that Jefferson INTRODUCED THE SABBATH BILL with Madison and did not attempt later to remove it when the First Amendment was passed.


276 posted on 01/16/2006 1:48:29 PM PST by FredFlash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: fanfan

We can only hope!


277 posted on 01/16/2006 1:51:30 PM PST by litehaus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

What if it was the clerk at tax office?


278 posted on 01/16/2006 2:07:34 PM PST by FredFlash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Where did President Richard Nixon get the moral authority to give me religious advice?
279 posted on 01/16/2006 2:09:50 PM PST by FredFlash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: AFA-Michigan

Show me where the authority to establish an Air Force is found in the Constitution?


280 posted on 01/16/2006 2:12:22 PM PST by FredFlash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 321-332 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson