Gottesdiener writes: "In Kentucky, a homeland security law requires the state's Homeland Security Officers to acknowledge the security provided by the Almighty God - or risk 12 months in prison."
Kentucky State Rep. Tom Riner authored legislation inserting god into the homeland security department. (photo: Fox News)
A Year in Jail for Not Believing in God?
24 November 12
In Kentucky, a homeland security law requires the state's Homeland Security Officers to acknowledge the security provided by the Almighty God-or risk 12 months in prison.
n Kentucky, a homeland security law requires the state's citizens to acknowledge the security provided by the Almighty God-or risk 12 months in prison. The law and its sponsor, state representative Tom Riner, have been the subject of controversy since the law first surfaced in 2006, yet the Kentucky state Supreme Court has refused to review its constitutionality, despite clearly violating the First Amendment's separation of church and state.
"This is one of the most egregiously and breathtakingly unconstitutional actions by a state legislature that I've ever seen," said Edwin Kagin, the legal director of American Atheists', a national organization focused defending the civil rights of atheists. American Atheists' launched a lawsuit against the law in 2008, which won at the Circuit Court level, but was then overturned by the state Court of Appeals.
The law states, "The safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God as set forth in the public speeches and proclamations of American Presidents, including Abraham Lincoln's historic March 30, 1863, presidential proclamation urging Americans to pray and fast during one of the most dangerous hours in American history, and the text of President John F. Kennedy's November 22, 1963, national security speech which concluded: "For as was written long ago: 'Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.'"
The law requires that plaques celebrating the power of the Almighty God be installed outside the state Homeland Security building-and carries a criminal penalty of up to 12 months in jail if one fails to comply. The plaque's inscription begins with the assertion, "The safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God." Tom Riner, a Baptist minister and the long-time Democratic state representative, sponsored the law.
"The church-state divide is not a line I see," Riner told The New York Times shortly after the law was first challenged in court. "What I do see is an attempt to separate America from its history of perceiving itself as a nation under God."
A practicing Baptist minister, Riner is solely devoted to his faith-even when that directly conflicts with his job as state representative. He has often been at the center of unconstitutional and expensive controversies throughout his 26 years in office. In the last ten years, for example, the state has spent more than $160,000 in string of losing court cases against the American Civil Liberties Union over the state's decision to display the Ten Commandments in public buildings, legislation that Riner sponsored.
Although the Kentucky courts have yet to strike down the law, some judges have been explicit about its unconstitutionality.
"Kentucky's law is a legislative finding, avowed as factual, that the Commonwealth is not safe absent reliance on Almighty God. Further, (the law) places a duty upon the executive director to publicize the assertion while stressing to the public that dependence upon Almighty God is vital, or necessary, in assuring the safety of the commonwealth," wrote Judge Ann O'Malley Shake in Court of Appeals' dissenting opinion.
This rational was in the minority, however, as the Court of Appeals reversed the lower courts' decision that the law was unconstitutional.
Last week, American Atheists submitted a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court to review the law.
Riner, meanwhile, continues to abuse the state representative's office, turning it into a pulpit for his God-fearing message.
"The safety and security of the state cannot be achieved apart from recognizing our dependence upon God," Riner recently told Fox News.
"We believe dependence on God is essential. ... What the founding fathers stated and what every president has stated, is their reliance and recognition of Almighty God, that's what we're doing," he said.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 23 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
|
23 May 2013
|
 24 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 23 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Educated people leave the state and get jobs. The illiterate ones come back because its embarrassing to admit you can't read and write when you are an adult. Hard to get good job also.
The "Creation" museum in Petersburg, in NW KY, features animatronic dinosaurs, all saddled and ready for riding by the mannikin (a.k.a. "graven image") dwellers of the garden of Eden.
They're actually building a "replica" of "Noah's Ark."
The bookstore features hundreds of DVDs and children's books with hilarious arguments that evolution is a satanic plot.
Best for my visit, on a Sunday, (a.k.a., the "Lord's Day") was the cafeteria, which featured such Biblically (Leviticus) banned foods as shrimp cocktail and pork chops.
And that is either a well chosen photograph or the guy is an unabashed weirdo! (or both)
When they finish, I say " I have two questions for you. The first: what is it about your religion that makes it different from and better than his (tilting my head toward an imaginary neighbor) religion?"
They invariably acknowledge that other religions have merit, but lengthily argue that theirs is the one true path to salvation.
I patiently wait, then as they finish their discourse, I solemnly acknowledge their presentation, then say "This brings me to my second question: what is it about your religion that makes it different from and better than his religion?"
Mute departure...
I get a mute departure, too. ;)
Hmmm... what if , instead of The Book under their arms, they show up with a Yellow Rubber Duckie?
It is the reverse persecution that folks I know always whine about relative to christians being persecuted.
Talibaggers!
This is because when Democrats raise funds, they can't nearly match the billionaires that contribute to the Republicans, and local and state elections have money poured into them from out of state; then these same Republicthugs get to gerrymander.
Well for one thing: My goodness! I guess some people's kids just do not understand the word "SEPARATION".
Actually, they understand it quite well. They just refuse to believe it applies to government and religion, since after all God personally dictated the Constitution to establish America as a Christian nation.
Riner doesn't believe in the separation of church and hate.
Nowhere in the US Constitution is the word God, Lord, or Almighty mentioned. Also, many of the signatories were
atheist.
Each day, I thank my lucky stars that I left the US.
I much prefer living in a more progressive liberal
and compassionate non-waring country!
Well, Yakpsyche does have a "right" to "voice" his opinion in this venue: Reader Supported News commentary. BUT you are correct. Lulie, he, nor anyone, has the right to "foist" a "mythology" on ANYONE else.
No legal construct can be made in this regard because the U.S. Constitution calls for the freedom of religion, which presupposes the freedom to NOT believe in a religion, and thus, to not believe in a "god" that is founded in any particular religion. So NO law, technically, can be made based on religion that invokes a "god" as the "almighty authority," particularly simply because past presidents or other governmental officials have asked for this "god's" blessing.
To do so in this context, as Kentucky and Riner are, and consistently have been doing, continues to negate the rights of people who choose to NOT believe in a "god" and that is out-and-out unconstitutional!
To call for the jailing of people who do NOT believe in the "almighty authority" of any "god," however defined, robs a person of her/his freedom under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
This is a no brainer...ahem. ..pun intended, as the seemingly brain-dead Kentucky and Riner STILL continue misusing their powers to define people's right to choose.
N.
Well, Yakpsyche does have a "right" to "voice" his opinion in this venue: Reader Supported News commentary. BUT you are correct. Lulie, he, nor anyone, has the right to "foist" a "mythology" on ANYONE else.
No legal construct in this regard can be made in the U.S. democracy because the U.S. Constitution calls for the freedom of religion, which presupposes the freedom to NOT believe in a religion, and thus, to not believe in a "god" that is founded in any particular religion. So NO law, technically, can be made based on religion that invokes a "god" as the "almighty authority," particularly simply because past presidents or other governmental officials have asked for this "god's" blessing.
To do so in this context, as Kentucky and Riner are, and consistently have been doing, continues to negate the rights of people who choose to NOT believe in a "god" and that is out-and-out unconstitutional!
To call for the jailing of people who do NOT believe in the "almighty authority" of any "god," however defined, robs a person of her/his freedom under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
This is a no brainer...ahem. ..pun intended, as the seemingly brain-dead Kentucky and Riner STILL continue misusing their powers to define people's right to choose.
N.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
And, the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Could it be any more clear? Religion is the bludgeon of oligarchs and tyrants.
The supreme court has taken upon itself the powers of congress rather then law. If a majority want to exercise their right to have any religions symbol of any kind anywhere in their community, prohibiting that is a violation of their rights under the first amendment since no law was passed by congress to prohibit that. We need tolerance for the beliefs of others rather than rules which give minorities a weapon against majorities who they do not agree with and a supreme court which decides the one case in front of it without making that into a law for everyone else.
Article VI, not an amendment but part of the original Constitution, is one of my favorites.
What sort of ignorance are you pushing?
So saeth #abaconw48026. But one of the major jobs of the Supreme Court of the U.S, (SCOTUS) is to do exactly what he(?) says it should not do.
Once in a while, SCOTUS violates this principle, as in Bush v. Gore, when it explicitly said the decision does not apply to any other case!!! NOTE: why was this statement needed if all decisions were to apply only to the precise case under review?
Not to strike fear in your hearts, but, if some state, I'm driving through, determines amphibians are Our dieties, I may be forced to kiss a frog's ass and pay a tadpole tax just to get out of town.
Well stated!
Religion is used to manipulate and control the masses.
Critical thinking people do not require patriarchal dogma
to follow.
Governments use religion to control the masses! The US is only one example!
It's disturbing for me to hear Presidents end speeches with "God Bless América"', what, is Charles Darwin chopped Liver? And, who are we to tell God which Countries to bless? Can You imagine aliens explaining in simple terms that their is no God. Many people Will need therapy and hugs.
He is a nobody who makes national news with this agenda. The NYT reported that he has cost the state $500k by wasting the government's time defending similar legislation.
I first noticed him when I opened an anti-gay survey that came from his office, prior to that, I didn't even know he represented me in the state legislature. He runs unopposed in most elections.
It's very confusing, I think he remains in office because the local media ignores him and most voters don't care, they just vote 'Democrat' at election time. Had I not received that flier and then noticed this issue that gets national coverage, I might do the same.
on the other hand, there is a "silver lining": if protection of the realm comes from god, then events like 9-11 and hurricane sandy must also be god's punishment on us (like god helping nebuchadnezzer punish the jews). if it's god's punishment, there's no reason to hunt down al-qaeda or worry about global warming. When things go wrong, we just have to follow a few simple rules that have been used for millennia:
1) pray, & sacrifice a few animals & dissidents,
2) if everything still isn't hunky dory, repeat step 1 until it is, using force if necessary.
Of course, in these times, you don't!
Whatever god may be,it certainly doesn't play favorites.
Gods are important in systems of power and class domination. If one class can convince another that their subservience is ordained by some all powerful deity, it makes their oppression that much easier. Notice that many of these Christian wing-nuts are also strong believers in corporate control of the economy and state intervention to run interference for the corporations. They love militarism especially if it can be framed in the context of defending US interests from attack. And since a god is on "our" side, the people in the way of "our" imperial prerogatives must be against "our" god, too. It should be obvious to all that "our god" intended for "us" to have access to any and all resources, labor, markets, land, etc., that suits "us". And also notice that the "our" and "us" refers only to the elite 1% with which purveyors of gods like to align themselves.
It's not possible to know what a god is, but it's abundantly apparent how gods are used. Gods serve power.
did god create man or did nab create god?
That's the main problem.
My favorite bugaboo.
The Treaty of Tripoli, ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1797. Article 11 states: “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...”
Even our founding fathers recognized the injustice of this. In James Madison Remonstrance of 1785, he stated ""that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence."
Even people of faith recognize God permits people to believe, or not believe. "Belief" cannot be coerced....only conformity can, and then only through severe intimidation. Is that a Godly act?
In all their efforts they completely lose sight of the magnitude of who and what they are "protecting" -- and how free he (she?) made us all, asking only that we respect and love and care for one another -- which they are determined NOT to do.
Well, maybe this asshole doesn't see the frigging line, but our Constitution sees it. But folks, this is what we get when we elect fools, no matter which party.
I am Christian. Any of the following quotations may or may not reflect my personal beliefs. I present them here as a refutation of Riner's claim.
JAMES MADISON:
"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." -1803 letter objecting to use of government land for churches
"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." - "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785
(to be continued)
"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole cartloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity."
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved-- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" -letter to Thomas Jefferson
". . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."
(to be continued)
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the Common Law." -letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, 1814
"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear. - letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 10, 1787
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN:
"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
"I wish it (Christianity) were more productive of good works ... I mean real good works ... not holy-day keeping, sermon-hearing ... or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments despised by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity." - Works, Vol. VII, p. 75
(to be continued)
"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst."
"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."
"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
This is just a small sample. If you're curious about more of The Founding Fathers' views of religion, here's a good place to start: http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html
A similar quote seems appropriate: "Of all the mind viruses religion is the worst."
Many learned people of the day (the 18th Century) regularly referred to God, but often in a generic, general sense, almost as one would use the term "nature". Some of The Founders may well have been Christian or maybe were religious in some other way. Many were Deists. Some were agnostic or simply atheists.
A Google search will turn up many results of presidents and others extolling the virtues of their faiths in God, especially if that's what one wants to find, but a more diligent search reveals a more nuanced picture of The Founders' various views on religion.
I emphasize that as a Christian, I have no problem with any of this. No true Christian has anything to fear from the truth.
This article inspired me to do some further research, and I was disappointed (but not surprised) to discover that in several U.S. states atheists are banned from holding public office according to their state's (unconstitution al!) constitution. Parenthetically , not to affirm the existence of a personal deity, which cannot be proven (despite Thomas Aquinas & Co.) does not equal denying the existence of a personal deity--which cannot be proven either.
Somewhere in the distance, but approaching.... I hear a banjo. And it's not playing church music.
oh, and it is also found in the Treaty of Tripoli signed in 1897 by President Adams & ratified by the Senate.
after full equal rights for all, this is the next battle to be fought; these people are just now using skirmishes; they will turn to crusades in every true sense of the word; they will be the ones to destroy this country!
"When Fascism comes to American it will carrying a Cross wrapped in the flag."
People like this guy are bible nazis.
They try to use their holy book to beat religion into your head.
poor hosts, but it accepts Lot's sexual rental of and his incest with his daughters. That god also demands that one tribe cozies up to another tribe and fools them into having their warriors circumcised to be pleasing in the sight of God--then, tra la, on the third day after the surgery when all the guys are too sore to move, god's tribe kills them all. How's that for a bedside manner?
As for the New Testament, read Russell's WHY I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN. The younger god of the New Testament has some serious problems, too.
Well, one hopes that we have moved on a bit since then.
But not all states seemingly.
Perhaps not so many " thumbs down " to your comment if you'd but cited an example or two. Dates, quotes, sources...
People here acknowledge a reasoned argument... please try again.
This is the only reference to religion in the body of the Constitution and it's a clear statement of what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they established the national government. (Personal opinions about religion, expressed in letters and journals, etc., were just personal opinions. Pay attention to what's in the Constitution.)
I assume that Kentucky is using Federal money for its Homeland Security programs. Go into the Federal courts
to discuss the matter.
But does the DHS protect us from Christian religious fanatics..?
Apparently Not.
I haven't read every post in detail, so if someone else mentioned this, I apologize. Otherwise, am I alone in noticing the irony of the statute's explicit reference to the text of JFK's planned speech of November 22, 1963, the day he was murdered? Don't you think maybe a benificent god would have spared him another day or two, if for no other reason than to spread the message?
Blaming Dog is standard procedure for those people. See Robertson's recent explanation for why he got Her prediction so wrong.
In the 21st century, we still have a Medeivel relic like Tom Riner. Do I sense the slow, slippery, slide of regression into an "American" theocracy?" In due time are we going to see words like heretic and inquisition used routinely/insti tutionally in U.S. society (sarcasim)?
Religion is mechanism for and means of controlling and fleecing a population. I think that is about as good a definition as I can come up with.
I will accept a different one as soon as I am shown a credible image of god's parents and the school god attended to learn how to create a universe.
Who is this WE? Does their cumulative IQ add up to 100?
Most of us like our religion or lack of it to be private.
Doesn't that sound like some other places we know? Let's work on the problem and not dis the people and places. I know, some of it is funny, maybe the only way to face such dire circumstances is with humor. But, enough with the pettiness.
And if the issue here isn't an example of pettiness by an elected official...?
It has to be propped up by the majesty of the State.
Mailing Address
1143 E Broadway
Louisville KY 40204
Frankfort Address(es)
702 Capitol Ave
Annex Room 457C
Frankfort KY 40601
Phone Number(s)
Home: (502) 584-3639
Annex: (502) 564-8100 Ext. 606
Email Address(es)
Annex: Tom.Riner@lrc.ky.gov
Mail to USCIRF Dr Lantos a woman who is moving faster having replaced the fool Lenard Leo recently.
United States Commission on International Religious Freedom
732 N. Capitol Street, N.W., Suite A714
Washington, D.C. 20401
Phone: (202) 523-3240
Fax: (202) 523-5020
Email: communications@uscirf.gov
Come for the Tea Party.
Stay for the bourbon...
"If ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise."
Apparently, many, if not most people in Kentucky have learned to NOT rock the boat. Don't make waves. Don't draw attention to oneself, as one might then be criticized, shunned, or ostracized. Perhaps it's never occurred to these people that going along with the crowd, in this case, is not be a good thing.
Of course, Riner is both a minister, and a state official. To some, I suppose that gives the man some authority, and these people may have learned to accept his "natural" white supremacy.
I don't know what these people are paying attention to, but it is NOT rational thinking. It may not be thinking at all, but just mindless, socialized responding.
As Theodore White put it, "To go against the dominant thinking of your friends, of most of the people you see every day, is perhaps the most difficult act of heroism you can perform."
To allow this to continue to happen, Kentucky does not appear to supporting the existence and acts of everyday heroes; it's more like everyday chumps.
Riner is both the symptom of a problem, and a consequence of the same problem, the problem being the irrational fear of standing up to irrational authority.
HELLOOOO... the whole idea of our constitution is majority rule with respect for minority rights. The whole idea is to NOT have simple majority rule. Yes, in this sense, it IS about rule by the minority. This was a lesson our "brainiac" former California governator had to learn by publicly humiliating himself shortly after his election. What minority rights? Well, for starts, the right not to be required to take a religious test or oath. Just like it says right there in the constitution.
....way back, the Supreme Court said they recognized the Bible as "The word of God".
Translate the word "of." Does this mean the Word "By" God, or does it mean the Word "About" God?" I'll accept the latter, but not the former.
I always felt the better way to say it was if something really exists,
Faith is not required.
God bless South Africa :-)
Religion = The search for reward.
Confronting this luncacy need not be with rancor but merely intelligence but it is our duty as citizens and even more true for those of faith to expose the inherent evil in holding these ridiculous beliefs.
I've heard it said that nothing is ever lost. Perhaps somewhere down the road, the conflict your daughter's words created will, at some point, resolve itself by allowing this child to make up her own mind, instead of having it made up for her by (more than likely) her parents or relatives.
The bottom line for adults is that we must support the idea of kids eventually learning to think for themselves, rather than supporting kids thinking for the adults.
As has been mentioned, it is a very small person on the inside who has to force or coerce other people to believe as he or she does, just so he or she can feel better about themself.
Of course he doesn't live in Kentucky any more. He's been in South Florida for 35 years and loves it here.
Sounds like too much government to me.
For the atheist who get distracted that loyalty is to be pledged to a mythical God -- is it any better that blind loyalty is pledged to the state and the dictator in control of it?
If they are allowed to do this in one state then other states will follow . This has to be unconstitutiona l sense this jerk by making this law is mixing church and state matters which is most certainly unconstitutiona l.
Obama needs to step up to the plate with these jerks and set them straight on Constitutional Law .
If they want to be part of the Union they must abide by our laws set down in Our Constitution ,not the one they made up in their foolish heads !
How can they be so ignorant as to raise children lying to them about evolution ?
Sadly this group of right wing christian's are a disgrace to the human race in so many ways !
In order to lie, one has to know what the truth is.
These benighted souls don't have a clue what the truth is.
Ergo, when they tell their kids that they'll go to heaven if they pray or accept Jesus as their personal savior, or whatever unprovable rubbish they chose to pass on to their progeny, they'd not lying. They probably even mean well.
This statement is patently false. Creationists who don't understand evolution tell lies about it all the time. Republicans in Congress who don't understand economics tell lies about Social Security and Medicaid. Where there's a political or religious agenda, the truth seems to lose its importance if it stands in the way of a grab for power. Willfully ignoring the truth does not excuse lying.
RSS feed for comments to this post