Judge Says ACLU Is Unreasonable
Posted on December 29, 2005
A recent decision by a federal court of appeals has set the stage for yet another Supreme Court showdown over public displays of the Ten Commandments.
On December 20, a three-judge panel from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati upheld a public display of the Ten Commandments in a Kentucky courthouse.
This especially floored the ACLU because they had won two previous attempts at getting the Ten Commandments removed from the walls of two other Kentucky court houses.
The judges in the Mercer County case said there was no such evidence of a religious purpose in Mercer County. They noted that the Ten Commandments display was no more prominent than displays of nearby copies of the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and the “Star-Spangled Banner.”
The opinion was particularly harsh on the American Civil Liberties Union, calling its arguments “tiresome” and claiming it does not represent a “reasonable person.”
He scores! Judge Richard Suhrheinrich expressed the sentiment of most of America when he called the arguments of the ACLU “tiresome”. Another smack in the face for the ACLU came when Judge Suhrheinrich basically said the ACLU doesn’t represent a “reasonable person” in their arguments.
But then, when do they represent a “reasonable person”?
Both Chief Justice John Roberts and yet-to-be-appointed Justice Samuel Alito are believed sympathetic to the legal argument behind the Mercer County decision.
Alito was best known for his decisions regarding the separation of church and state prior to his nomination for the Supreme Court.
In fifteen years as an appellate judge, Alito consistently held that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment does not prohibit government acknowledgment of religion.
Just like I’ve always said, the United States Constitution does not describe a “separation of church and state” anywhere in the document and never has. Maybe some day liberals will wake up from their euphoric love dream and join us back in reality.
Cross-posted at: Daddyhoo.com
Source: NewsMax
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, Activist Judges, Church And State, News
Trackback URL
Comments
6 Responses to “Judge Says ACLU Is Unreasonable”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
You call it a “euphoric love dream”–I call it something far less complimentary…
Have you thought about organizing a hostile takeover of the ACLU? Have conservative by the droves join the organization, then drive the current leadership out of town?
You are correct, “the United States Constitution does not describe a ’separation of church and state’ anywhere in the document and never has.”
I’m sure you already know that that phrase originally came from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists.
Now, I could just give you all of my nicely prepared arguments about our Founders’ intent with regard to religion and the First Amendment, but you’ve likely heard all that stuff more times than you can count (I know I have).
No, what I have today are questions, because I really don’t understand what all the fuss is about with regard to the secularization of our government.
Why do some Christians seem to need for the United States government to acknowledge Christianity while other Christians, either fully or partly, appear to share the ACLU’s position with regard to the government acknowledging them, while other Christians act as if they do not really care one way or the other?
I understand that America was founded, at least partly, upon Christian philosophy, which I personally believe provides a fairly solid foundation for a free society as well as guidance to help us to live peacefully in freedom.
For instance, if we heed the wisdom in Matthew, Chapter 7, we are inspired to learn and practice the awesome amount of tolerance we must manifest to live peacefully in freedom — even in a society so widely diverse as ours.
But why do we need for the government to acknowledge that?
From my understanding of our Founders intentions, this supposed “separation between church and state,” even if the phrase itself is not officially documented, was intended mainly to keep the government from interfering with religious expression so that the people could worship as they saw fit according to their individual beliefs.
How then is it advantageous to society for the government to acknowledge any specific religion other than to protect and defend the right of the people to practice that religion?
How is the right to practice the Christian religion violated if the 10 Holy Commandments are sometimes — it is my understanding that the decisions in these court cases have mainly hinged upon the ages of the displays (the older ones were allowed to stay, but the newer ones were ordered removed) — not allowed to be posted in government buildings, such as courthouses?
How is our right to religious expression impeded if the government is not allowed to show favoritism toward the majority religion (70% of Americans self-identify as Christian) and must acknowledge all other faiths as well as atheism and agnosticism (the other 30% of Americans), as equally valid in the eyes of the state?
I am truly curious about this because it seems to me that understanding other viewpoints is more important — not to mention more intellectually productive and rewarding — than making vain attempts to change them.
BTW, an unrelated question. Are there two Jays here or just one?
I shall try to humbly answer your questions, Margaret.
You make the same arguement many have made, only in a nicer manner. There is just one flaw. The seperation you are referring to is meant for the Federal government not to meddle in the State’s Church’s! Yes, Thomas Jefferson was referring to the fact that his Church in VA would not tell the people of CT what or how to believe.
We do not desire acknowledgement. We demand not to be censored. Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are our constitutional rights, also. We are not to be kicked out of the public arena of ideas.
If this were the case, I dare say, there would be no government upon which you and I could discuss such issues!
It was the Christians, not the apathetic, who declared our independence. It was the Christians, not the bigots and racists, who fought for the rights for ALL men, including slaves, to be FREE. This comes from the very essense of Christianity: Virtue.
Our Founders’ were very firm in their belief and wisdom that a republic (we do not live in a democracy) needs to be in the hands of virtuos people. This does not exclude the athiest, for there is a ‘no religous test’ in place for their protection.
I thought you may appreciate two quotes from our Founders.”[A] good moral character is the first essential in a man, and that the habits contracted at your age are generally indelible, and your conduct here may stamp your character through life. It is therefore highly important that you should endeavor not only to be learned but virtuous.” –George Washington (letter to Steptoe Washington, 5 December 1790), Reference: Maxims of George Washington, Schroeder, ed. (143)
“How many observe Christ’s birth-day! How few, His precepts! O! ’tis easier to keep Holidays than Commandments.” –Benjamin Franklin (Poor Richards Almanack, 1743), Reference: Poor Richard: The Almanacks, for the Years, 1733-1758, Intro by Van Wyck Brooks (111)Many people claim that Benjamin Franklin did not care one way or the other about religion. Do his words express this view? I think not.
There are two Jays. Have a wonderful new year.
Thanks for that Rosemary! Yes, there are two Jays for the price of one.
Jay Adkins
That George Washington quote is one of my favorites. And I do love a good discussion of virtue and what makes us virtuous (or not).
Indeed, if we are to live in freedom we had better have a good moral character and be learned as well as virtuous because our government is not vested with the authority to provide us with those things.
Even if it can be contrived that the government has such a constitutional authority, it does not have the ability to exercise it because we’re all sinners and the government is made up of our fellow sinners.
It is for this very reason that our Founders were so firm in the belief that we must be a virtuous people — or at least strive to be as virtuous as we can within the limitations of our mortal flesh.
Since the government hasn’t the authority or the ability to make us into a virtuous people, we the people must get our moral inspiration from our “higher authorities,” which are quite a diverse lot in America.
Even among the 70% of Americans who self-identify as Christians, there are so many different interpretations of the Scriptures that what constitutes Christian morality is relative to the sort of Christianity to which one subscribes.
I do believe that that was the reasoning behind ensuring that the federal government could never have the authority to meddle in the business of churches in the states (or anyplace else, if one interprets the First Amendment as being without bias toward any particular faith).
Now, you wrote the “c” word, which is like a trigger to us libertarians (please note the small “l”) who despise any and all forms of government censorship.
I have heard of Christians being censored, but I can never find any actual examples of it other than the sort of self-editing that often takes place in the business world (such as retailers saying “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas” because they believe that embracing diversity will help to increase their profits) and government entities on all levels ceasing to show favoritism toward Christianity (such as calling their decorated evergreens “Holiday Trees” instead of “Christmas Trees”).
I understand that some people believe that the removal of the 10 Holy Commandments from a courthouse or other government building is a form of censorship. But I do not see how that is censorship unless the government also prohibited displays of the Decalogue on private property as well as public.
I have also had a hard time finding examples of Christians being denied their right to freedom of speech and assembly.
I understand how some people believe that Christians are oppressed because public school teachers and other officials are not allowed to lead students in any sort of prayer, Christian or not.
But I do not see how this prevents Christians from assembling and praying elsewhere (contrary to popular belief, public school students are allowed to pray in school, they just cannot be lead in prayer by a teacher or other school official)
I also do not see how Christians have been kicked out of the public arena of ideas, but I do acknowledge that the modern public arena has been populated by many many new ideas with which older ideas must compete.
I will not deny that Christians have been oppressed. It is entirely possible. Over the last 50 years or so, there have been many radical paradigm shifts with regard to the public role of religion as it applies to government and these changes happened at a rate that has likely left many people confused and struggling to adjust.
Tyranny and oppression are often imposed slowly and subtly over time and many people do not even notice until it is too late.
FWIW, I feel like that old pendulum is currently swinging in a direction that is disadvantageous to Christianity.
There have been many instances of people trying so hard to be inclusive and respectful of diversity that they forget to include Christianity and respect it as part of our diversity.
But, according to the article to which these comments are attached, the checks and balances that are supposed to prevent the pendulum from swinging too far in one direction or the other seem to be working.
I have noted that when the ACLU goes too far, as it has in the case of older 10 Commandments displays that have historic value, it loses.
I speak out against tyranny and oppression whenever and wherever I see it. Sometimes that makes me “liberal” (I support gay rights 100%) and sometimes that makes me “conservative” (I support our Second Amendment 100%), but I believe that freedom is neither a liberal nor a conservative notion.
I agree that something must be done — sooner rather than later — to help stem the tide toward the marginalization of Christianity (it hasn’t really happened yet, but it could) which does appear to be a real threat in theory, even if there are currently only a few isolated incidents of it in actual practice.
Margaret, with all due respect, (and thank you for being so respectful in your disagreements) Christianity has been under attack in many ways, chiefly in the public school system. You have already acknowledged yourself some of the ways this has happened, but there are much more. It goes beyond simply not letting teachers pray with their students. Removing the Pledge Of Allegiance from some schools for example. Btw, as to your statement that about prayer in school, it is a blanket statement you make that students are allowed to pray in public school. Some schools may allow it, but others don’t. Another would be that many public schools deny students to bring their Bible, which is a major practice of their faith. A previous entry on this very website (you may have to dig) had an incident of of a school being sued because a student did an altar call during graduation. There have even been attacks on the practice of military chaplains who pray at required assemblies.
As a Christian, I am angered by these types of things because the Constitution as you have pointed out does not demand the kind of separation of church and state that the left would like to impose. The Constitution does not prohibit the endorsment of religion; it only prohibits making it into law. No one was forced to acknowledge Jesus at the graduation ceremony in question, troops were not forced to acknowledge Jesus when the Chaplain prayed at their assemblies. Students who read their Bible on their lunch break are not forcing Christianity on anyone else. The only way for the law to be truly broken with the establishment clause is if the government would write Christianity or any other religion into law. Nothing our country has done to this point has done that. Thomas Jefferson spent government dollars converting Indians to Christianity, and as someone who helped establish the Constitution he had a firm grasp on its intent and meaning.
Christianity is certainly in danger of being totally kicked out of the public arena of ideas. Not all of this has to do with the legislature mind you, simply social liberalism in itself. However, the nomination of Alito for example has liberals screaming already because they are aware of his faith, and that his faith plays a major role in his idealogy. The fact that liberals think faith should not dictate how someone decides issues is ridiculous. Whether someone is a Christian or an atheist, their decision making is based on what they believe to be right and wrong. That is faith in a nutshell. We heard John Kerry in the last Presidential election say during a debate with Bush that “Faith without works is dead.” Quoting Scripture, Kerry claimed to be a Christian just like Bush, yet attacked him on the basis that his faith had no works. Ten minutes later in the same debate he stated that abortion was wrong, according to his faith, but that he had no right to let that effect his decision. It seems to me that he should read that verse again and look in the mirror.
I apologize for that seemingly unrelated rant, but I point it out to say that this attack on Christianity is soley political. Liberalism is based on all the ideas that Bible is against, and instead of attacking conservatism, they attack Christians. They have lost the political battle time and again, and now are on the biggest fishing expedition in history to make Christianity all but illegal, save for praying privatley in our closets. Take away Christianity and watch the conservative movement fold like a bad poker hand. (I realize not all conservatives are Christians.)But even the Congress pray collectively to the Christian God before each meeting. They have for 200 years or more.
The bottom line is that the ACLU is a machine that will not stop until America is not America anymore. I understand liberals want change. But our Constitution, as we have already established, is based on Biblical principles. When those principles are taken away, America will cease to be America. We have already seen the “progress” of the progressive movement. Crime rates have sky-rocketed since the 60’s. So has drug use among teens, teen pregnancy, abortions, and the like. This is how liberals define progress, and it all started when the left shifted the gears of the country away from the Christian principles our country was founded on, toward a more individualistic idealogy that tolerates everything and everyone EXCEPT Christianity. The proof is in the pudding when it comes to the anti-Christian movement. I don’t think any intellectually honest person can say that politically and legally there have been drastic misinterpretations of the Constitution as it pertains to religion as well.