Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Asinine, Kentucky Supreme Court, Almighty God, Kentucky, supreme court ruling, emergency operations center, American Atheists, state legislators, Edwin Kagin  
•       •       •

6134 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Aug 2012 at 11:06 PM (3 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 07:48:58 PM  
So he was just asleep on 9/11?
 
2012-08-20 07:49:58 PM  
The stupid... it burns...
 
2012-08-20 07:57:29 PM  

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


God works in mysterious ways.

Horrible, malicious, disgusting ways.
 
2012-08-20 08:01:52 PM  
Meh. Kentucky is all kinds of farked up. Creation museum, getting butthurt because evolution is actually testable subject matter, and now this. Who is actually surprised by this news?
 
2012-08-20 08:03:43 PM  

clancifer: The stupid... it burns...


i232.photobucket.com
 
2012-08-20 08:07:25 PM  

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


www.chronicle.su

 
2012-08-20 08:08:40 PM  

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


Depends on who you ask...


Just derp all around here, though:
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? Just because America is founded on the ideas of separation of church and state and freedom of worship, doesn't necessarily mean we should remove all references to religion or "God" from our society. It just means we can't go about interfering with other people's civil liberties.

The judges who overturned the original ruling and who refuse to hear the case are just pandering for votes too. This is clearly unconstitutional.
 
2012-08-20 08:34:26 PM  
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.
 
2012-08-20 08:43:49 PM  
This is why Kentucky can't have nice things!
 
2012-08-20 08:47:53 PM  

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.
 
2012-08-20 08:54:00 PM  

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.
 
2012-08-20 08:58:35 PM  
Responsible for Homeland Security, eh? Including the TSA? Damn - I always said that "God" character was a dick.
 
2012-08-20 09:04:20 PM  

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

Depends on who you ask...


Just derp all around here, though:
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? Just because America is founded on the ideas of separation of church and state and freedom of worship, doesn't necessarily mean we should remove all references to religion or "God" from our society. It just means we can't go about interfering with other people's civil liberties.

The judges who overturned the original ruling and who refuse to hear the case are just pandering for votes too. This is clearly unconstitutional.



I have a hard time caring on most of these things, but all you just said was "I know they're farking with you unlawfully, but how come you don't let them?"
 
2012-08-20 09:04:25 PM  
So I'm guessing if they trust in this God so much, their Department of Homeland Security is nothing but a room with an alter and no other staff (except maybe someone to clean the room with the alter)? I mean, if you have humans working for your Department of Homeland Security, it means you don't actually trust your Almighty God to keep you safe, right? So, which is it?
 
2012-08-20 09:04:56 PM  

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.


Just because something is against the law doesn't mean it's also unethical. Yeah, this will get overturned in the US Supreme Court eventually, but honestly I don't see how it's doing anyone any harm. The Constitution provides for separation of church and state, and freedom of religious worship; however, I'm not sure the founding fathers intended for the state to exile and remove all references to "God."

What gets me here is that there are better issues to spend these legal resources on. Trying to ban evolution in the classroom, yeah that's worth fighting. Outlawing same-sex marriage, that's also worth fighting. The state wants to credit "Almighty God" in part for homeland security, meh, who cares.
 
2012-08-20 09:12:45 PM  

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

Depends on who you ask...


Just derp all around here, though:
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? Just because America is founded on the ideas of separation of church and state and freedom of worship, doesn't necessarily mean we should remove all references to religion or "God" from our society. It just means we can't go about interfering with other people's civil liberties.

The judges who overturned the original ruling and who refuse to hear the case are just pandering for votes too. This is clearly unconstitutional.


I have a hard time caring on most of these things, but all you just said was "I know they're farking with you unlawfully, but how come you don't let them?"


Nah, I'm just trying to say there are bigger fish to fry here. Is 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.
 
2012-08-20 09:29:02 PM  
Have the made "mighty mighy pleazin pappy's corn squeezinz" the Official State Stain yet? 
 
If not, I would like to officially state my outrage for the record.
 
2012-08-20 09:42:16 PM  

WorldCitizen: So I'm guessing if they trust in this God so much, their Department of Homeland Security is nothing but a room with an alter and no other staff (except maybe someone to clean the room with the alter)? I mean, if you have humans working for your Department of Homeland Security, it means you don't actually trust your Almighty God to keep you safe, right? So, which is it?


By that logic, we don't need a military either

/surely god wants world peace, too, so what's to be worried about?
 
2012-08-20 09:57:03 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: surely god wants world peace, too, so what's to be worried about?


Are we talking about the same god here? The Old Testament guy went all BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD for several books.
 
2012-08-20 09:57:45 PM  

Nofun: Nah, I'm just trying to say there are bigger fish to fry here. Is 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.


I wouldn't waste my time on it, either, but if it bothers somebody and you agree it's not constitutional, then it seems whoever doesn't like this has every right to try to make sure that the constitution is enforced. I doubt it's sapping much energy from some other cause.
 
2012-08-20 10:00:38 PM  

miss diminutive: MaudlinMutantMollusk: surely god wants world peace, too, so what's to be worried about?

Are we talking about the same god here? The Old Testament guy went all BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD for several books.


Sorry... I never know which one they're referring to

/It's hard to tell a benevolent god from a vengeful god without a program
//they need numbers on the back of their robes or something
 
2012-08-20 10:03:58 PM  
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.
 
2012-08-20 10:06:23 PM  
Empty words absent of faith. If they are REALLY putting their faith in God, I think any money they spend on homeland (state?) security should be refunded to the taxpayers of Kentucky, and they should disarm all of their cops, fire all of their investigators, and remove all of their cameras, locks, and security devices. Let go and Let God, right?
 
2012-08-20 10:34:28 PM  
The first was a 2002 "legislative finding" saying the "safety and security of the commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God."

So, when do they do away with law enforcement officials? Just curious to see how "reliance on Almighty God" for safety and security is going to work out in the long run...
 
2012-08-20 11:01:15 PM  

Nofun: 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.

Just because something is against the law doesn't mean it's also unethical. Yeah, this will get overturned in the US Supreme Court eventually, but honestly I don't see how it's doing anyone any harm. The Constitution provides for separation of church and state, and freedom of religious worship; however, I'm not sure the founding fathers intended for the state to exile and remove all references to "God."

What gets me here is that there are better issues to spend these legal resources on. Trying to ban evolution in the classroom, yeah that's worth fighting. Outlawing same-sex marriage, that's also worth fighting. The state wants to credit "Almighty God" in part for homeland security, meh, who cares.


Pretty sure some of those who lost loved ones would take offense at the suggestion God was present.
 
2012-08-20 11:09:19 PM  
Jesus will melt your farking goddamn face if you deny him.
 
2012-08-20 11:09:49 PM  
Obviously, Kentucky is fine with moving all military from their state and they're going to fire all police, right.
 
2012-08-20 11:12:16 PM  

ArkAngel:

The state is not addressing one church over another, nor is it giving money to any religious group or spending it on religious purposes.

It is, but is maintaining plausible deniability.. even though the judges and everyone else know what is really meant.

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


And they would be right, it should never have been added to the money and should be removed.
 
2012-08-20 11:13:06 PM  
As a lifelong Kentuckian, I must say that apart from a few areas (Louisville metro mainly), I would not shed 1 tear if this whole farking state got destroyed.

/as long as my family and friends got out ok
 
2012-08-20 11:14:24 PM  
Pretty sure it is my homeland safety rock I keep under my pillow, but the rest of you rubes can believe whatever you want.
 
2012-08-20 11:16:08 PM  
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?
 
2012-08-20 11:16:30 PM  
Something bad happens to Democrats/atheists/non-Christians: Punishing them for their heathen ways.
Something bad happens to Christian Conservatives: Testing their faith.
 
2012-08-20 11:17:03 PM  

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
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.
 
2012-08-20 11:20:24 PM  

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.
 
2012-08-20 11:21:40 PM  

iaazathot: Pretty sure it is my homeland safety rock I keep under my pillow, but the rest of you rubes can believe whatever you want.


1.bp.blogspot.com

Would like to buy your rock.
 
2012-08-20 11:23:26 PM  
So does this mean we can stop pouring $billions down the gaping maw of the security-industrial state?
 
2012-08-20 11:23:44 PM  
Hasn't God withdrawn his protection because of teh ghey?

img820.imageshack.us
 
2012-08-20 11:24:30 PM  

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.


I think they only recognize Commandments in Kentuckeh.
 
2012-08-20 11:26:07 PM  

spqr_ca: The first was a 2002 "legislative finding" saying the "safety and security of the commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God."

So, when do they do away with law enforcement officials? Just curious to see how "reliance on Almighty God" for safety and security is going to work out in the long run...


It's just as effective as the TSA's enhanced security procedures, and equally Constitutional. Don't you feel safer, Citizen?
 
2012-08-20 11:27:49 PM  
i usually feel people should leave the religious folks alone and let them do their thing. this time no. if you are truly and seriously going to give credit for uberland security to Almighty God you should damn well be able to trot him out to the podium for pictures and an interview.

Mark 12:17 (NIV): Then Jesus said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." And they were amazed at him.

If you think God wants credit for your uberland security nonsense you are more farked up than a big pile of people who are farked up on religion and those hating religion all piled in one. Stop blaming God for doo-doo as well as giving God props for everything you approve of. Morans.
 
2012-08-20 11:28:55 PM  

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

Depends on who you ask...


Just derp all around here, though:
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? Just because America is founded on the ideas of separation of church and state and freedom of worship, doesn't necessarily mean we should remove all references to religion or "God" from our society. It just means we can't go about interfering with other people's civil liberties.

The judges who overturned the original ruling and who refuse to hear the case are just pandering for votes too. This is clearly unconstitutional.


I have a hard time caring on most of these things, but all you just said was "I know they're farking with you unlawfully, but how come you don't let them?"

Nah, I'm just trying to say there are bigger fish to fry here. Is 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.


Yeah I would go with pick your battles. And that this would be a low priority. There is this cross in La Jolla, CA on Mt. Soledad that people have been fighting over since 1989 and it is still going on. 23 years spent fighting over one cross. Link Link
 
2012-08-20 11:29:44 PM  

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


I thought that was Barbarella.
 
2012-08-20 11:34:59 PM  
Sigh....I hate cold weather and love what my country was supposed to stand for, but this crap is just getting out of hand and pushing me to move to Canada.
 
2012-08-20 11:39:57 PM  
So... God gets credit for protecting us...from Himself?
 
2012-08-20 11:40:34 PM  
I have GOT to get out of the farking state. Why is it so difficult to move to Washington? I don't even want to make it to Seattle, I will settle with Olympia, or Tacoma....
 
2012-08-20 11:42:24 PM  

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?
 
2012-08-20 11:43:26 PM  

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
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.


Yeah, not seeing this as violating rights, any more than "In God we trust" violates rights.
 
2012-08-20 11:45:34 PM  

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.
 
2012-08-20 11:45:50 PM  
Another reason I'm glad I live in Washington state.
 
2012-08-20 11:45:54 PM  
The funny things is the other farkers are trying to kill us for almighty 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