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
# # #
Read the Reynolds (1878) case. Religious opinion is virutally unlimited, but not practice.
Wow! They put one right back to the anti-American ACLU! Love it.
Wow! They put one right back to the anti-American ACLU! Love it.
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.
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?
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?
Not at the legislative level. Executive proclaclamations, for instance, do not violate any rule.
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.
You should have examined the evidence when you were there. You will be disappointed.
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.
We can only hope!
What if it was the clerk at tax office?
Show me where the authority to establish an Air Force is found in the Constitution?
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.