Wow, surely you don't need to be an atheist to think that's stupid, right? surely even if religious people agree with their "finding", they should be pretty furious that their government wasted time on that.

Then again, they're now wasting the Supreme Court's time to get it repealed. I'd say the best solution is to just never again vote for the idiots responsible, but don't go out of your way to undo it.

I'm ok with it, if we can have one modification; citizens can sue churches and all Christians living in the state any time anyone in the US is hurt by terrorism on US soil. Or at least on Tennessee soil.

A 2002 "legislative finding" said the "safety and security of the commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God."

Sounds like they're just covering their asses. "Hey, that terrorist attack in our state wasn't our fault! Not enough people believed in God!"

tom baker's scarf: so do the people of KY just figure is Sept 11th one of the those days God takes off every year for a little Me time and figures he'll just deal with whatever happened afterwards? If that's what's happening it's fine with me but could the Pope ask God to maybe have someone cover homeland security on his days off? Maybe He and JC can schedule their vacations so that someone is always in charge?

No. The legislators were showing the bible-thumpers back in their districts how pious thay were, thus ensuring future votes. Demonstrating to the world that Kentucky makes Arkansas look like Mensa-topia was just a side-effect.

I'm still trying to decide if the biggest concentration of derp in the state is the Creation Museum, or Frankfort when the legislature is in session.

Farking Canuck: How incompetent do you have to be to base your defense plans on magic??

Meatybrain: Farking Canuck: How incompetent do you have to be to base your defense plans on magic??

[media.giantbomb.com image 300x425]

=)
If magic actually existed, it would be quite reasonable to use it in official defense plans.

I May Be Crazy But...: Apparently that's difficult, but it's probably from old Teutonic if I can read right. And god is an English word - the German word is Gott. (Also, gott is swedish for "plenty", I believe)

But I'm talking about it as a proper noun, not as a word. So while plenty of religions call their god by a name which translates to "god" in English, that's not what they call it. English speaking Christians call their god "God", which was the name used in the law.

An Englishman is just a German who has forgotten that his grandmother was Welsh.

Bah! God doesn't get involved in national defense. He's too busy helping folks win the lottery, beat cancer, and making sure your favorite sports team wins

HindiDiscoMonster: I May Be Crazy But...: HindiDiscoMonster: Which God do we sue btw?

Start with the one whose adherents call their god "God". 

/No translating into other languages allowed.
//Oh hell, I think I just took a position on having a national language.

Well, that should cover them all... after all, aren't all Gods simply "God" to the worshiper of that God?

/really have to stop smoking incense

For monotheistic religions, maybe... But, I can't see that working very well for polytheistic ones... "Which god are you giving that offering to?" "Oh, you know, God!" "But, which one?" "God!"

I May Be Crazy But...: piperTom: Since the phrase in question is without effect, no one can have standing to sue.

/atheist, but occasionally sane

It certainly does have effect, though who can have standing to sue is still a possible issue.

"A 2006 act creating the state's Office of Homeland Security required its executive director to publicize "dependence on Almighty God" in agency training and educational materials and through a plaque at the entrance to its emergency operations center."

These are legally significant facts. For the plaque on the door compare the monument to the ten commandments in the Alabama state supreme court. 'Bama just relected Roy Moore, who as Chief Justice defied federal court orders to cover or remove the monument, to its supreme court.

**** STOP READING HERE TO AVOID WHITE KNIGHTING OF AA ***

For those who knee-jerk hate lawsuits and figure this is a waste of resources, remember this is a nonprofit suing the government. Only through litigation against encroachment can the constitutional prohibition against the establishment of a religion by the state be upheld. Yes, plaques and obscure legislative pronouncements could be ignored, but the establishment clause is there for a good reason. It protects not only atheists but also all other religious minorities. Also, we know that atheists are deemed less trustworthy than just about any other group you can think of in national polls. Does that make sense?

//and don't say it's because the atheists do shiat like this or I'll be forced to wave my tiny fist

Farking Canuck: How incompetent do you have to be to base your defense plans on magic??

Let's be honest, our defence plans are based on theirs, which isn't all that reassuring...It's kind of like being stuck behind somebody in the slow lane of the highway of life.