A three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit Court issed their ruling in a case about the public display of the Ten Commandments brought by a citizen who was assisted by the ACLU.
Long story short, the ACLU lost, 3-0.
In the written opinion, Judge Richard Suhrheinrich made a point to call the ACLU and their arguments “tiresome� and that they in no way represent “a reasonable person�.
Of course, the ACLU’s followers are criticizing the judge for ‘speaking disparagingly’ of the ACLU and calling the language he used ‘inappropriate’ and ‘wrong headed’.
Please click on the link in the article and take a look at the ‘display’ of the Ten Commandments. It is a framed print on a wall with other framed print. It isn’t on a large sculpture, it isn’t painted on a wall all by itself, hell, it probably isn’t even 11×17.
Which reminds me of an Letter to the Editor I saw in the newspaper The Seattle Times:
I don’t get it. If I’m offended by black people, I’m a racist. If I’m offended by gays, I’m a homophobe. If I think of women as less than equals, then I’m a sexist, but if I’m offended by a Judeo/Christian celebration, then I’m exercising my “First Amendment” rights? How does that work?
John Hession
Redmond, WA
Exactly where do the liberals keep their tolerance at? I have my ideas on that topic, but it’s probably better if keep them to myself in this town.
Decision link found at Drumwaster’s
I notice they used a wide angle lens when taking the picture, so it would make the framed document seem larger….