Federal Court Rejects “Separation of Church and State”
Conservative group leaders hail unanimous decision Tuesday
News Contacts:
Gary Glenn, President – AFA of Michigan: (989) 835-7978
Joe Glover, President – Family Policy Network: (202) 470-5095, extension 456
Ron Shank, Director – FPN of Tennessee: (615) 866-5242, extension 2
Mat Staver, President and General Counsel – Liberty Counsel: (407) 875-2100
6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals: “The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state.”
(CINCINNATI – 12/20/05) — 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 has 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.”
The defense attorney in the case and conservative leaders in two states affected by the decision are hailing it as historic. American Family Association of Michigan president Gary Glenn said, “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.”
“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
Mathew D. Staver, President and General Counsel of Liberty Counsel, hailed today’s decision as a great victory. Staver stated, “Today’s decision begins to turn the tide against the ACLU, which has been on a search and destroy mission to remove all vestiges of our religious history from public view.” Staver added, “Whether the ACLU likes it or not, history is crystal clear that each one of the Ten Commandments played an important role in the founding of our system of law and government. Federal courts are beginning to rightfully reject extreme notions of ’separation of church and state.’ It’s about time that courts begin interpreting the Constitution consistent with its original purpose. With the changing of personnel at the U.S. Supreme Court, the trend toward a more historical approach to the First Amendment is well underway.”
Staver concluded, “This case should be used as a model for other counties wishing to display religious documents and symbols, including the Ten Commandments. It’s absurd to think that displaying the Ten Commandments is unconstitutional. The Ten Commandments is a universally recognized symbol of law. Our laws, and our notions of right and wrong, have been shaped by the Decalogue.”
One conservative leader is already calling for his state’s legislature to use the ruling as the basis for a new state law. Family Policy Network of Tennessee director Ron Shank said, “The 6th Circuit’s decision isn’t just an opinion, it’s federal law in Tennessee. Now that the 6th Circuit has declared the “wall” doesn’t exist, we plan to call for legislation placing the Ten Commandments in courthouses throughout the state. “
RELATED INFORMATION:
See Cincinnat Enquirer: [click here…]
See page 13 of full Court of Appeals decision:[click here…]