1st Amendment 'doesn't create church-state wall of separation'

[Desertdog]

1st Amendment 'doesn't create church-state wall of separation'
Court whacks civil-liberties group, OKs Ten Commandments display


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the American Center for Law and Justice successfully argued the case on behalf of Mercer County, Ky., and a display of historical documents placed in the county courthouse.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 Carta, 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," Manion said. "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 6th 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."

 

[boofus]

A move from the ACLU's own playbook:

If the 2nd Amendment is a collective right of the people, then the same people mentioned in the 1st must also mean the collective people.

The separation of church and state is a collective right! Only if the entire collective population agrees with it can it be exercised, so until then religion is allowed in government buildings.

 

[Camp David]

Judge Richard Suhrheinrich said the ACLU's "repeated reference 'to the separation of church and state' ... has grown tiresome.

Once more for dramatic effect:

"Judge Richard Suhrheinrich said the ACLU's "repeated reference 'to the separation of church and state' ... has grown tiresome."

Absolutely! A judge after my own heart!

 

[yonderway]

Score one for the good guys.

Hey, ACLU:

 

[BigG]

Sounds like a good decision to me. These legal people take theoretical constructs like "wall of separation" and act as if they are real. All the Constitution says is "Congress shall make no law in regard to establishment of a religion," IIRC.

There was a decision reported today that Intelligent Design cannot be taught in a science classroom but Evolution can. Neither one is scientific; they are both theories that will probably never be proved. They should just tell public skool children "There are two schools of thought on where we came from. Some say we were created by a higher power while others say we evolved from lower life forms. Neither one has been proven."

 

[taliv]

excellent. he should be the next supreme court nominee

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

I like it. I'm sure the ACLU will appeal, but I do like that judge.

He told them plainly to shut up. That is a good sign.

 

[Technosavant]

A move from the ACLU's own playbook:

If the 2nd Amendment is a collective right of the people, then the same people mentioned in the 1st must also mean the collective people.

The separation of church and state is a collective right! Only if the entire collective population agrees with it can it be exercised, so until then religion is allowed in government buildings.

I'll do you one better. If the "people" is trully collective, then the freedom of speech is granted collectively to the people, not to individuals. The government may say whatever it wants, for it is an extension of the people. The people, being individually untrustworthy, must be consistently censored.

Note: this is not against the current or any other administration; just an idea of where we are headed if we let "the people" mean anything other than the people themselves, individually.

 

[Mnemesyne]

If we are supposed to have freedom of religion...then why does the ACLU get it's bottoms in a bunch every time someone says a prayer, displays the Ten Commandments etc....Even if you take the Christian/Jewish aspect out of the Ten Commandments...they are still wonderful rules to live by (if you're not religious then omit the ones dealing with God)....Just my 2c....


Glad to see someones fighting back against the ACLU.....I just hope they don't give up....


Mneme

 

[Camp David]

then why does the ACLU get it's bottoms in a bunch every time someone says a prayer, displays the Ten Commandments etc...

Because the ACLU are evil?

By the way, the ACLU Christmas Warning System=>

 

[dolanp]

There was a decision reported today that Intelligent Design cannot be taught in a science classroom but Evolution can. Neither one is scientific; they are both theories that will probably never be proved. They should just tell public skool children "There are two schools of thought on where we came from. Some say we were created by a higher power while others say we evolved from lower life forms. Neither one has been proven."

Evolution is based on science, creationism is nothing but religion and ID is a junk science attempt to rebrand creationism. There is plenty of evidence to support evolution, and it has been observed. ID and creationism are based only on faith and should never be taught in a public school.

Not that we need to get into that debate here. Sometimes the ACLU gets it right though.

 

[buzz_knox]

Evolution is based on science, creationism is nothing but religion and ID is a junk science attempt to rebrand creationism. There is plenty of evidence to support evolution, and it has been observed. ID and creationism are based only on faith and should never be taught in a public school.

Not that we need to get into that debate here. Sometimes the ACLU gets it right though.

Natural selection and microadaptation have been observed. Macroadaptation leading to speciation (the central tenet of evolution) has not been observed. That's why evolution remains a theory and not a natural law.

 

[pax]

Not that we need to get into that debate here.

Darn right we don't.

This thread will stay open as long as it discusses the civil-liberties aspect of this ruling. The very instant it strays off into proselytizing or bashing your religion of choice, it will be closed.

See http://www.thehighroad.org/code-of-conduct.html for more information.

pax

 

[MrTuffPaws]

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."

Hmmm, I must not be reasonable then.

Anyway, I think the important part here is:

The county display the ACLU sued over included the Ten Commandments, the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta, 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.

If the display only had the 10 commandments, then the suit would have had merit, the same as if it only had the 5 pillars or some other religious text.

This is similar to the carved mural in the one of the government buildings in DC. While the 10 commandments is shown in the mural, it is also displayed with other documents of historical significance. Simple put, as long as the display is inclusive to all, and not exclusive to any, then it is good to go.

 

[MrTuffPaws]

Natural selection and microadaptation have been observed. Macroadaptation leading to speciation (the central tenet of evolution) has not been observed. That's why evolution remains a theory and not a natural law.

Please keep up to date on your rhetoric

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4

 

[Carl N. Brown]

The First Amendment (paraphrased) does not allow the government
to establish a state religion and does not allow the government to
infringe on the free exercise of religion. The phrase "wall of
seperation is not in the first amendment but in a SCOTUS ruling.

The doctrine of a strict wall of seperation carried to its illogical
extreme actual does infringe on the free exercise of religion, and
some (but not all) of the "wall of seperation" promoters are hostile
to any exercise of religion.

 

[pax]

And that'll do it.

Closed.

pax