If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Courier-Journal)   Kentucky Supreme Court rules that the state can continue giving official credit to "Almighty God" for homeland security   (courier-journal.com) divider line 152
    More: Asinine, Kentucky Supreme Court, Almighty God, Kentucky, supreme court ruling, emergency operations center, American Atheists, state legislators, Edwin Kagin  
•       •       •

6123 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Aug 2012 at 11:06 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



152 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-20 11:46:40 PM  

Old enough to know better: Another reason I'm glad I live in Washington state.


Fark you, I'm trying to get there....
 
2012-08-20 11:47:21 PM  
profile.ak.fbcdn.net 

I believe

/in meatballs
 
2012-08-20 11:47:40 PM  

Biff Spiffy: First amendment prohibits government establishing, endorsing, or impeding a religion. Which religion is established, endorsed, or impeded by this?


The ones that have a 'God' vs the ones that don't.
 
2012-08-20 11:52:39 PM  

thunderbird8804: Biff Spiffy: I'm aware there are folks who find solace in meditation and mantras.

Also there are folks who toss virgins into volcanoes to assure a good harvest (or fruitfulness, or whatever).

This seems to me like the former more than the latter. What's the problem exactly?

The problem is that it's unconstitutional, I would think someone with even half a brain in their head would pick up on that. As for the narrower point of why this violation should be given any attention, it's because any violation of the first amendment that is allowed to continue sets a precedent that undermines the whole project of our secular democracy. The separation of church and state exists as a concept because, given the opportunity, the religious will use the power of the state to further their own religion, and to oppress and destroy people of other religions and denominations, and nonbelievers. What Nofun said above "Honestly, I don't see how going on a crusade against every public reference to "God" is going help us form a more perfect union or prevent religious bigotry (in fact I think it only deepens the divide)." is as erroneous a statement as a person can make. If you make that concession to the religious it won't be the last, you'll have to make another, and some more, and while the concessions will never end, the religious bigotry and then bloodshed will start in earnest.


See, that's where my problem lies. USA isn't a secular democracy any more than it's a religious democracy. It's a representative democracy. If the people you represent are religious, then by golly they'd like to see a little religion in their legislation.

/Not the same as a state religion
 
2012-08-20 11:56:05 PM  
All praise due to Allah
 
2012-08-20 11:56:33 PM  

Walker: This is why Kentucky can't have nice things!


^THIS^

If our "communist-wealth" can give money to some idiot to fund his Noah's Ark theme park, but can not provide any funds to reopen an existing amusement park (Kentucky Kingdom)...something is terribly wrong in Kentucky.

/nepotism and cronyism runs rampant in KY
//the State Fair Board is a bunch of self-serving farkers
///Kentucky Kingdom is turning into one sad fiasco
 
2012-08-20 11:56:54 PM  

fusillade762: So he was just asleep on 9/11?


No plane hit Kentucky on 9/11. Someone might say that is because there were no good targets in Kentucky, but it much more likely Kentucky was protected by almighty God.
 
2012-08-21 12:02:18 AM  

limeyfellow: fusillade762: So he was just asleep on 9/11?

No plane hit Kentucky on 9/11. Someone might say that is because there were no good targets in Kentucky, but it much more likely Kentucky was protected by almighty God.


That's where God keeps all his gold, so OF COURSE he's going to protect it.
 
2012-08-21 12:02:59 AM  

fusillade762: So he was just asleep on 9/11?


Nah, he got his ass kicked by Allah on that day. But he's won a lot of rematches in the meanwhile.
 
2012-08-21 12:05:50 AM  
Yes, the only one who can protect you is the Almighty God. Now stop insulting his Holiness by allowing the man to trespass unto His domain. Stop this affront to the Lord; disband the TSA.
 
2012-08-21 12:07:22 AM  

Biff Spiffy: See, that's where my problem lies. USA isn't a secular democracy any more than it's a religious democracy. It's a representative democracy. If the people you represent are religious, then by golly they'd like to see a little religion in their legislation.

/Not the same as a state religion


The law of the US is secular, its government is secular, as you point out there's no state religion, the US is a secular democracy no matter what the thoughts of the electorate, and if they don't find that agreeable they can seek to amend the constitution so there is no guarantee of a separation of church and state, and then they and their loved ones can try to survive the consequences of their stupidity. Also, I should give an answer to the two questions you posed while I'm here:

Biff Spiffy: Some questions:
1. First amendment is federal, doesn't prohibit a state or local government from expressing a view.
2. First amendment prohibits government establishing, endorsing, or impeding a religion. Which religion is established, endorsed, or impeded by this?


1. 14th amendment
2. Lemon test
 
2012-08-21 12:08:47 AM  

RoLleRKoaSTeR: Walker: This is why Kentucky can't have nice things!

^THIS^

If our "communist-wealth" can give money to some idiot to fund his Noah's Ark theme park, but can not provide any funds to reopen an existing amusement park (Kentucky Kingdom)...something is terribly wrong in Kentucky.

/nepotism and cronyism runs rampant in KY
//the State Fair Board is a bunch of self-serving farkers
///Kentucky Kingdom is turning into one sad fiasco


At least Mammoth Cave is awesome. That's the only good spot in this dumb state.
 
2012-08-21 12:10:08 AM  
If they're going to give credit to Almighty God for homeland security, shouldn't the church and not the taxpayers be footing the bill for it?
 
2012-08-21 12:10:24 AM  

Gyrfalcon: iron_city_ap: Jesus will melt your farking goddamn face if you deny him.

I thought that was Barbarella.


I thought it was the music of Y&T.
 
2012-08-21 12:14:23 AM  
sigh.
 
2012-08-21 12:15:31 AM  
I like the "Almighty" part. It's like they're sucking up. It's not good enough for them to just say "God did it", They're like a bunch of fanatical brown nosers.
 
2012-08-21 12:18:49 AM  
Very unconstitutional, Kentucky.

What's worse, if they get away with a stunt like this, it could open the door to sharia down the road.

Thanks a lot, Kentucky.
 
2012-08-21 12:20:46 AM  

Nofun: Who cares, honestly. Yes, it's unconstitutional, no it wouldn't hold up in the US Supreme Court, but who cares. The belief in a supreme being was something a lot of people found solace in in the wake of 9/11. I'm not sure how publicizing "dependence on Almighty God" in agency training and educational materials interferes with freedom of worship.


Except it's not freedom of worship. It's freedom of religion. More specifically, the right to practice any religion...or none. It's the "or none" that gets most of these laws.
 
2012-08-21 12:23:59 AM  
I am not opposed to this act because 'so what.'

I can see how this flunks the Lemon Test, but missing the 14th amendment connection. Is there any deprivation in the act?
 
2012-08-21 12:26:27 AM  

Gyrfalcon: kronicfeld: ArkAngel: The state is not addressing one church over another

So you open with a complete misunderstanding of establishment clause jurisprudence, and it just devolves from there.

There are several steps that must be met to create an Establishment Clause challenge.

1. There must be state action.
2. The government must show they do not violate the "Lemon" test:
i. The action must have a secular purpose
ii. The action must not have a primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting practice of any religion; or the practice of religion over non-religion
iii. There must be no "excessive entanglement" between the government and religion.
3. If any prong is violated, there is an Establishment Clause issue.

It's hard to see how claiming they are "dependent upon Almighty God" for continued security has any effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion, since they are not tying RECEIPT of security (such as police response) to belief in a god. And so far there seems to be no entanglement that would rise to the level of "excessive"; for instance, they don't seem to be requiring all EMS responders to submit to baptism. Without the actual "agency materials" it's hard to know if such materials lack a secular purpose, for instance if they say "In case of a terrorist attack respond to your nearest house of worship" then that might not be a secular purpose.

So far, this doesn't meet "Lemon" test scrutiny; but by not ruling, the Supreme Court has left them enough rope to hang themselves if they so choose.


One important part of II that almost everyone leaves out, I added back in. Again, the rights of the non-religious are just as valid as the rights of each religion. And to many atheists, "excessive entanglements" are any entanglements at all...but here, they can just say what people here are saying: If you can only rely on God, why do we need everyone else?
 
2012-08-21 12:27:24 AM  
I'm all for separation of church and state, and I am typically wary when GOP (God's Own Party) derpers try to legislate Christianity....but this just seems like a symbolic gesture to appease a few constituents. It's mild to moderate vote whoring but I've seen much, much worse in that regard

/meh
 
2012-08-21 12:31:34 AM  
Perhaps it should have been worded Almighty Allah.
 
2012-08-21 12:34:18 AM  
Well, I mean, it worked out great for PBR Street Gang, right?
 
2012-08-21 12:43:14 AM  
This could be a good thing. In fact, I say we should disband TSA and put God in charge of airport security. I'm sure he will smite any guilty parties with lightning bolts, and I can enjoy my flight molestation free.
 
2012-08-21 12:46:43 AM  
This clearly advances monotheistic religions with an omnipotent god over both monotheistic religions with a non-omnipotent god and polytheistic religions.
 
2012-08-21 12:57:38 AM  

SquiggsIN: Aussie_As: fusillade762: So he was just asleep on 9/11?

Nah, he got his ass kicked by Allah on that day. But he's won a lot of rematches in the meanwhile.

Of course the Christian God and Allah are one in the same (according to those who believe in the moronic fairytale that is religion).


Yeah, but try telling them that in Kentucky and see how far you get. These are the sorts of clowns who would suggest that Sikhs are responsible for 9/11.
 
2012-08-21 12:57:38 AM  

PeregrineBF: This clearly advances monotheistic religions with an omnipotent god over both monotheistic religions with a non-omnipotent god and polytheistic religions.


Exactly. It really is unconstitutional.
 
2012-08-21 01:01:09 AM  

PeregrineBF: This clearly advances monotheistic religions with an omnipotent god over both monotheistic religions with a non-omnipotent god and polytheistic religions.


Well done sir/ma'am. As I read it, you've highlighted the 14th amendment issue in a single, very intelligent sentence.
 
2012-08-21 01:03:09 AM  

Nofun: RIs this law really that oppressive that it's worth the legal brouhaha? Maybe to some people it is. Honestly, I don't see how going on a crusade against every public reference to "God" is going help us form a more perfect union or prevent religious bigotry (in fact I think it only deepens the divide). I'd rather pick a more worthy battle like Same-Sex Marriage where someones civil liberties are actually being threatened.


Before McCarthy, we were "one nation, indivisible".
Some jackholes decided we needed to be a nation divided by God, which is roughly when the anti-science fundies started crawling out of the woodwork.

God isn't responsible for any aspect of our government.

We are.
 
2012-08-21 01:06:20 AM  
If you love God, why would you want Him to take the blame for homeland security?
 
2012-08-21 01:11:59 AM  

ArcadianRefugee: Biff Spiffy: First amendment prohibits government establishing, endorsing, or impeding a religion. Which religion is established, endorsed, or impeded by this?

The ones that have a 'God' vs the ones that don't.


This. I don't know why this is lost on people.

Many religions have "God," so yes, it's not showing preference among those religions, but it is showing preference for those religions over religions that do not have this "God" as well as religions that have no gods, atheists, agnostics.
 
2012-08-21 01:12:17 AM  

Meatybrain: If you love God, why would you want Him to take the blame for homeland security?


Amen.

If this were a politician saying "By the grace of God..." or even an appointed bureaucrat saying something along those lines I wouldn't object. But mandating in law that the "executive director... publicize "dependence on Almighty God" in agency training and educational materials and through a plaque at the entrance to its emergency operations center"???? What the hell is that?

Yeah, that's a violation of the constitution.
 
2012-08-21 01:27:32 AM  

austerity101: ArcadianRefugee:
...Many religions have "God," so yes, it's not showing preference among those religions, but it is showing preference for those religions over religions that do not have this "God" as well as religions that have no gods, atheists, agnostics.


No. (A). Your comment is fairly offensive to adherents of religions with multiple gods, of which there are many. (B). Are you seriously saying that American Christians accept that 'Allah' is the same as their 'God' (or 'Almighty God' if you're in Kentucky)? Yeah, good luck with making that claim in public. And (C). Whatever your courts have previously ruled, atheism is NOT a religion. It's like saying not playing baseball is a sport, or not collecting stamps is a hobby. It is a very simple failure of logic. It is a blight on your legal system that a court has ruled otherwise.
 
2012-08-21 01:30:49 AM  

Biff Spiffy: LordJiro: Biff Spiffy: I'm aware there are folks who find solace in meditation and mantras.

Also there are folks who toss virgins into volcanoes to assure a good harvest (or fruitfulness, or whatever).

This seems to me like the former more than the latter. What's the problem exactly?

Because of a little thing called the First Amendment. The government isn't supposed to endorse any one religion.

Some questions:
1. First amendment is federal, doesn't prohibit a state or local government from expressing a view.
2. First amendment prohibits government establishing, endorsing, or impeding a religion. Which religion is established, endorsed, or impeded by this?


Any Monotheist religion is endorsed.

PolyTheists and Atheists are now excluded from your little guberment club.

fark that and fark "in god we trust" on our money.

Willfully ignorant most people are.
 
2012-08-21 01:31:51 AM  

Aussie_As: austerity101: ArcadianRefugee:
...Many religions have "God," so yes, it's not showing preference among those religions, but it is showing preference for those religions over religions that do not have this "God" as well as religions that have no gods, atheists, agnostics.

No. (A). Your comment is fairly offensive to adherents of religions with multiple gods, of which there are many. (B). Are you seriously saying that American Christians accept that 'Allah' is the same as their 'God' (or 'Almighty God' if you're in Kentucky)? Yeah, good luck with making that claim in public. And (C). Whatever your courts have previously ruled, atheism is NOT a religion. It's like saying not playing baseball is a sport, or not collecting stamps is a hobby. It is a very simple failure of logic. It is a blight on your legal system that a court has ruled otherwise.


I think you completely misread my post.

I'm saying that invoking "God" shows preference for religions that have this "God" over other religions that don't have this "God" (who might have many gods, or who might have none), as well as showing preference over atheism and agnostics.

Does that make more sense? Because I'm looking at your response and I'm just scratching my head.
 
2012-08-21 01:36:10 AM  
God in charge of creating intelligent life.
 
2012-08-21 01:39:14 AM  
So how many virgins do they sacrifice if God is Angry and spreads anthrax in Kentucky?
 
2012-08-21 01:47:28 AM  

Ambivalence: So how many virgins do they sacrifice if God is Angry and spreads anthrax in Kentucky?


I'm pretty sure they don't have those there.
 
2012-08-21 01:49:56 AM  

austerity101: Aussie_As: austerity101: ArcadianRefugee:
...Many religions have "God," so yes, it's not showing preference among those religions, but it is showing preference for those religions over religions that do not have this "God" as well as religions that have no gods, atheists, agnostics.

No. (A). Your comment is fairly offensive to adherents of religions with multiple gods, of which there are many. (B). Are you seriously saying that American Christians accept that 'Allah' is the same as their 'God' (or 'Almighty God' if you're in Kentucky)? Yeah, good luck with making that claim in public. And (C). Whatever your courts have previously ruled, atheism is NOT a religion. It's like saying not playing baseball is a sport, or not collecting stamps is a hobby. It is a very simple failure of logic. It is a blight on your legal system that a court has ruled otherwise.

I think you completely misread my post.

I'm saying that invoking "God" shows preference for religions that have this "God" over other religions that don't have this "God" (who might have many gods, or who might have none), as well as showing preference over atheism and agnostics.

Does that make more sense? Because I'm looking at your response and I'm just scratching my head.


I probably mis-read your earlier post then. Now that I look at it, you've separated religions with no gods from atheists, but when I read it the first time I thought you were including them together (damn commas - we use them to both separate and include together different entities). But I still think you're being generous to the legislature which came up with this. They're about being all pro-Christian (or, at a push, pro-Judeo-Christian) and very definitely anti-Muslim, despite Muslims worshipping the same god as Christians.
 
2012-08-21 01:50:30 AM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: Yeah, not seeing this as violating rights, any more than "In God we trust" violates rights.


Funnily enough, "In God We Trust" printed on money most certainly violates the Commandment against using the Lord's name in vain.
But you'll always see the same people arguing in favor of plastering both everywhere they can.
 
2012-08-21 02:01:48 AM  

Aussie_As: But I still think you're being generous to the legislature which came up with this. They're about being all pro-Christian (or, at a push, pro-Judeo-Christian) and very definitely anti-Muslim, despite Muslims worshipping the same god as Christians.


Oh, absolutely. I wasn't in anyway addressing their actual motives, which are blatant. I was just addressing the whole "We can talk about God because that's not showing preference for one religion" hogwash.
 
2012-08-21 02:01:48 AM  

ArkAngel: saying every piece of money in the country advances religion because it has "In God We Trust" on it


Yes, because it does advance a religion.
Now they will say, "well it doesn't say which god, so it's not advancing a particular religion," but we know that's bullshiat because we know what religion and god they're vaguely talking about. Regardless, it's still embracing a monotheistic god, and excluding polytheistic or atheistic religions, as well as atheism.
No US goverment entity has any business talking about gods, goddesses, demigods, demons, or farking unicorns.
 
2012-08-21 02:07:23 AM  

ReverendJasen: No US goverment entity has any business talking about gods, goddesses, demigods, demons, or farking unicorns.


Although I do wish the President would sometimes say, "Goddammit, you farking redneck teabagger freaks are ruining this country!
 
2012-08-21 02:08:11 AM  
I'd just like to put this here for people to enlighten themselves with.

Link

/just because the Supreme Court says so, it doesn't make it constitutional.
//Supreme Court Justices can be morons too.
///slashyslashyslashy
 
2012-08-21 02:11:05 AM  
blogsensebybarb.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-08-21 02:16:06 AM  

ArkAngel: Dinki: But in a 2-1 decision, the Court of Appeals reversed that decision and upheld the law, saying it "merely pays lip service to a commonly held belief in the puissance (power) of God" and does not advance religion.

You know what is really sad? they actually believe that.

The state is not addressing one church over another, nor is it giving money to any religious group or spending it on religious purposes. While at times I think the belief of separation of church and state is argued far too vehemently on either side of the equation, here I think the judges made the right call. If they had ruled against it, it'd be akin to saying every piece of money in the country advances religion because it has "In God We Trust" on it or that a school choir singing Christmas carols advances religion because they mention Jesus.


You're aaaaaaalmost there... one more push and you'll be the proud parent of a baby logic!
 
2012-08-21 02:27:38 AM  

Nofun: Who cares, honestly. Yes, it's unconstitutional, no it wouldn't hold up in the US Supreme Court, but who cares. The belief in a supreme being was something a lot of people found solace in in the wake of 9/11. I'm not sure how publicizing "dependence on Almighty God" in agency training and educational materials interferes with freedom of worship. Yes, I do understand that it is unconstitutional, but is it really that oppressive that you can't ignore it?


Inside, who knows? Outside though,,, Citizens of industrialized nations find it absolutely irresponsible of US agencies to cite God instead of their own competence. it is a wonderful get-out-of-responsibility-scott-free clause. There is a fear that as long as US voters are convinced God protects them (or doesn't), they will hold their own institutions, or themselves, to a basically incompetent standard.
 
2012-08-21 02:29:30 AM  
Ya know, I love Kentucky. I was last there after the 2008 election to meet my grandpa for the first time ( i was adopted ) , and, aside from all the right wing vote for me signs, in front of churches mind you- it was a beautiful place . I saw more wild turkeys in 20 minutes than i had the rest of my life.
And I was thinking "this could be a nice place to live, only 2 hours from Nashville, a nice lake, etc"
Sigh.

This will end up going to the ScotUs.
 
2012-08-21 02:31:51 AM  

Irving Maimway: Kentucky also gives aid and comfort to the Creation Museum.

God help me, I want to go, but I can't bear to give those dickwads any money.


I used to live in Kentucky. Then I moved to San Diego. Both have a creation museum, but Kentucky creation museum = LULZ! while California creation museum doesn't make a good punchline.
 
2012-08-21 02:32:31 AM  

ArkAngel: Dinki: But in a 2-1 decision, the Court of Appeals reversed that decision and upheld the law, saying it "merely pays lip service to a commonly held belief in the puissance (power) of God" and does not advance religion.

You know what is really sad? they actually believe that.

The state is not addressing one church over another, nor is it giving money to any religious group or spending it on religious purposes. While at times I think the belief of separation of church and state is argued far too vehemently on either side of the equation, here I think the judges made the right call. If they had ruled against it, it'd be akin to saying every piece of money in the country advances religion because it has "In God We Trust" on it or that a school choir singing Christmas carols advances religion because they mention Jesus.


That's funny, how many of the 2500+ deities that humans have believed in supposedly answer to the name "God"?

YHWH? Nope. Allah? Nope. Thor? Nope. Jupiter? Nope. etc.

It's clear which 'god' they mean, and it's clear that they are addressing one church over another. If not why don't they attribute 'a higher power' like AA does? At least AA pretends they aren't all about the Christian God.
 
Displayed 50 of 152 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report