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

[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

# # #

[FredFlash]

What about Presidential Religious Proclamations?

[Always Right]

What law does not allow religious prayer or speeches at events such as a graduation?

The ACLU has been successful in some districts at threatening to sue and censuring out any mention of God/Jesus at graduations. I know in Indiana, the local ICLU is constantly looking at schools and sending out threatening letters. And they are usually able to get large legal fees paid because of the way federal law is written.

[Always Right]

What about Presidential Religious Proclamations?

What about them? Is there any coercion or any punishment what so ever?

[Always Right]

What about the Pledge and posting of Commandments?

Posting of the 10 Commandments poses no problem. No coercion, no punishment. The pledge is more borderline. There should not be any requirement to participlate. It needs to be voluntary or 'under God' should be removed.

[FredFlash]

What if a Proclamation recommended no infant baptism?

[FredFlash]

Would it be permissible to establish a U. S. Department of Religious Advice whose mission is to study and evaluate religion and issue non mandatory religious advice?

[FredFlash]

Can the Vice-President or the Secretary of State issue religious recommendations? What about the Assistant Secretary of State?

[FredFlash]

What happens if the President recommends speaking in tongues but the Governor of Texas advises against it?

[FredFlash]

What about prayer at graduation that is brought about, prompted, originated or instigated by the government? Is that sort of thing permissible?

[FredFlash]

Gary Glenn informs us that:


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.


I inform Mr. Glenn that:


That has got to be one of the all-time most dimwitted arguments ever advanced in the public debate over the meaning of the First Amendment and the right of conscience. It accomplishes nothing but to reveal that the advocate is a sucker for ridiculous lines of reasoning. Using the same silly logic that underlies this pathetic argument, I could conclusively prove that the founders intended “One Nation Under Satan” and that the purpose of the federal government is to propagate sin by stamping “In Satan We Trust” on the money supply. If you disagree - then show me the Separation of Satan and State in the Constitution?

[FredFlash]

Gary Glenn informs us that:


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.


I inform Mr. Glenn that:


That has got to be one of the all-time most dimwitted arguments ever advanced in the public debate over the meaning of the First Amendment and the right of conscience. It accomplishes nothing but to reveal that the advocate is a sucker for ridiculous lines of reasoning. Using the same silly logic that underlies this pathetic argument, I could conclusively prove that the founders intended “One Nation Under Satan” and that the purpose of the federal government is to propagate sin by stamping “In Satan We Trust” on the money supply. If you disagree - then show me the Separation of Satan and State in the Constitution?

[FredFlash]

AFA-Michigan wrote:

And at the time it was written, established meant exactly that--that there should be no official, established national church like the Church of England.

Flash says:

The words national, church and England are not even found in the First Amendment - so where did you get them to put in the religion clauses?

[Always Right]

What happens if the President recommends speaking in tongues but the Governor of Texas advises against it?

Sounds good, but who cares? Unless there is government coercion to actually speak in tongues or not speak in tongues, it is just the recommendation of one man. They have freedom to say whatever they wish. If the people don't like hearing it, they can vote them out.

[Always Right]

What about prayer at graduation that is brought about, prompted, originated or instigated by the government? Is that sort of thing permissible?

If the government mandates it, it is not. If the government simply protects the right of someone to say a prayer, then it is permissible.

[Always Right]

Would it be permissible to establish a U. S. Department of Religious Advice whose mission is to study and evaluate religion and issue non mandatory religious advice?

You are getting beyond ridiculous. Allowing religious speech is Constitutional. Trying to establish religious doctrine is not.

[FredFlash]

Cicero wrote that:

If Jefferson used that phrase in a letter, so what? As Scalia says, you don't go by someone's eccentric private opinion when you interpret the words.

Flash says:

The hogwash about Separation of Church and State coming from Jefferson's letter is to deceive the gullible. The definition of the word "religion" (which determines 99% of the meaning of the religion clauses) was adopted in 1878 by the Supreme Court and was obtained from a petition written by James Madison in 1785.

The 1878 Court also found the fundamental principle of the religion clauses in the same petition. The principle is that, "The duty that we owe to the Creator is not within the cognizance of civil government."

Two other basic principles were derived in 1878. Both were borrowed from a law passed in 1786 by the Virginia General Assembly that had been introduced by James Madison. The only thing Thomas Jefferson has ever contributed to the Doctrine of Separation is the name of it. The basic legal substance - the basic definitions, rules and principles - were contributed by James Madison.

The meaning of Jefferson's letter is of litte significance except as a secondary confirming authority to bolster the primary authorities. The Reynolds Court even said that the letter fell short of authoritative. I betcha David Barton didn't tell ya that part of the story.

[jwh_Denver]

If you disagree - then show me the Separation of Satan and State in the Constitution?

That's the point. It's not in the Constitution.

[FredFlash]

Whale wrote:

The church and state arguments were based on the situation in England at the time of the Federal convention.

James Madison writes:

Read my Memorial and Remonstrance if you what to know what the arguments were for no government authority over religion.

[FredFlash]

What did Jefferson do after ratification that violated the doctrine; and don't bring up the subject of Indian Treaties because if that is the key you lose 387 to 1.

[ChildOfThe60s]

The MSM reminds me of a horse when something happens they don't like. I've seen horses in a field put their head below the level of long grass when they didn't want you to see them. They figured if they couldn't see you, you couldn't see them. Quite funny actually. That's the MSN, they figure if they don't report it then A) You won't find out about it, & B) Since you won't know about, it didn't really happen

Of course 25 years ago, that was practically the reality of it. Which is to say, reality truly was what the MSM perceived it to be & thus made it so.