Today we heard the court tell the ACLU to"Stuff It!""ACLU Christmas"
Posted on 12/21/2005 1:12:17 PM PST by AFA-Michigan
Later "Hooray" Pingout.
Wow, it is like reading a Supreme Court decision before FDR packed the courts.
Reason!
PING!
I'm shocked! I had to look to see if it was Scrappleface!
Another win for common sense!!
Jefferson himself did a lot of things that would violate the wall doctrine, so it is clear he himself didn't belive in it.
Merry CHRISTmas!
It just was an illustration of religious freedom in a letter, nothing more.
You think so? Ain't much 'harder' than stupidity and invincible ignorance.
Looks like somebody finally took the time to read our founders writings on what was their intent, because they were very clear.
An even better decision would be for the courts to demand that the ACLU reimburse the taxpayers for all the money they burned up in this lawsuit. A rare victory over the religion police!
Even a brief glance at what MADISON HIMSELF said the amendment meant (located in the Annals of Congress) clearly show it was only intended to stop the govt. from prohibiting the freedom of religion and establishing a state religion or giving an unseemly amount of support to one denomination.
It did not even mean that Christianity could not be supported by the govt., for it has been in our history up until the 20th century and supported by courts in that process.
There is a reason the Blaine Amendment failed.
So this will be appealed to SDCOTUS, who will deny cert. Yippee..BTW..who are these jusdges?..Can we get their bios?
Today we heard the court tell the ACLU to"Stuff It!""ACLU Christmas"
Exactly. The ACLU's frivolous and damaging lawsuits must be hammered back down into the muck they came from. And the judgment should always levy court costs on the ACLU.
These parasites thrive in the pocketbook. Time to starve them!
Odd...the Dover decision throwing out ID was all over the news yesterday, but this is the first I've heard of this unanimous decision debunking the non-existant d"separation of church and state." I guess CNN doesn't deem this to be noteworthy since it actually follows the Constitution. The two decisions certainly seem to contradict one another.
And even further, it is my understanding that the main purpose for prohibiting a national religion was so as to not interfere with the official religions of each of the states.
No it doesn't. Real it ALL
Thank the Lord, our whole judicial system has not yet lost 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.