Contact
Subscribe


God Will Forgive Kentucky For Taking His Name In Vain

Aug 27, 2009
By .
Law

Demonstrating His generosity and love, God did not smite the State of Kentucky with a terrorist attack today, even though a judge has ordered that references to the almighty in the law creating Kentucky's Department of Homeland Security be stricken:

Franklin Circuit Judge Thomas Wingate said in Wednesday's decision that references to a dependence on "Almighty God" in the law that created the Kentucky Office of Homeland Security is akin to establishing a religion, which the government is prohibited from doing in the U.S. and Kentucky constitutions. Ten Kentucky residents and a national atheist group sued to have the reference stricken.

"It is breathtakingly unconstitutional," said Edwin Kagin, national legal director for American Atheists Inc. in Union, "and Judge Wingate goes to great detail as to why it is."

The judge wrote in the 18-page ruling: "The statute pronounces very plainly that current citizens of the Commonwealth cannot be safe, neither now, nor in the future, without the aid of Almighty God. Even assuming that most of this nation's citizens have historically depended upon God, by choice, for their protection, this does not give the General Assembly the right to force citizens to do so now."

Earlier reactions from around the blogosphere to Kentucky's "God of Homeland Security law" may be found here and here.  My own view is that, to the extent that God protects us all from evil men, He does not need a special prayer, or a special dedication from a government bureaucracy.  Despite prayers to the contrary, God did not protect early Christians from the fury of the Northmen.  They protected themselves.

Of course the law's sponsor, Democrat Tom Riner of Louisville, disagrees that his bill has anything to do with religion:

Riner said he planned to ask Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway to seek a reconsideration of the order. Conway has 10 days to do that, and 30 days to appeal.

"They make the argument … that it has to do with a religion," Riner said, "and promoting a religion. God is not a religion. God is God."

The terrorists who menace Kentucky no doubt would agree.  The Northmen could not be reached for comment.

Last 5 posts by Patrick Non-White

5 Comments
Tags

5 Comments

  1. Ken  •  Aug 27, 2009 @9:36 am

    Curiously, at the church camp where I just spent a week, both our pastor and the evening speaker (a new professor at Fuller Theological Seminary) discussed and critiqued the human penchant, oft seen in American politics, for the favor-our-group-please prayer.

  2. Legally UnBound  •  Aug 27, 2009 @12:44 pm

    This event is proof positive that a "culture war" over religion is ongoing (sorry to use O'Reilly). This language is meaningless in the statute. It has no affirmative or negative implications. It only references that a "God" exists. So, the fact that this turned into a lawsuit wherein the judge wasted 18 pages of paper is 'insane in the membrane'. It just doesn't matter either way.

    All I have to say to groups like the Atheists (on other issues its the Christians, etc., same sh–, different group) that waste resources for cultural objectives just to 'make a point' is that you gotta chill. Why you gotta be that way? You guys are like the kid in elementary school who so enjoyed running around telling everyone that there is no Santa Claus. That was such a downer & it really didn't change a thing, except to the believers. I still got presents @ Christ-mas. So, who cares.

    Now listen, you really can't argue with the fact that "Almighty God" has left Kentucky, & its lack of strategical targets, alone from terroists, can you? So, why can't they give him (the general masculine 'him') a harmless 'shout out' in legislation? I mean, if there is no God, the 'non-being' doesn't care if there is a meaningless notation in some Kentucky legislation & if there is a God, maybe he will go easy on Kentucky for being so kind in their reference to his omnipotence and charity. Can you blame him? It is kind of a nice thing to do.

  3. Patrick  •  Aug 27, 2009 @1:33 pm

    Oh agreed there's a cultural war going on LU, but not everyone on the other side is an atheist or an agnostic.

    If the statute had attributed Kentucky's good fortune to "Bob" Dobbs, I'd have defended it.

    Some people on the other side take this sort of thing extremely seriously because it isn't their version of God that's being praised. Others because they view it as a slippery slope. And still others because they believe it's very important that government not be involved in the religion business at all.

    And on the Christian side, a Seventh Day Adventist, or a Jehovah's Witness, and some Baptists would tell you that a statute like this is positively blasphemous, because it assumes God lowers himself to worrying about trivia, such as the security of buildings in Frankfort, Louisville, and Lexington, rather than the salvation of human souls. That God can be bribed through prayer to concern Himself with worldly matters.

    I imagine a number of Christians find that notion offensive.

  4. Old Geezer  •  Aug 27, 2009 @3:56 pm

    I think we know right where you stand L.U., but let me ask for clarification. If some slimey politician managed to sneak through language that said, "The Commonwealth of Kentucky depends upon the works of the Devil to protect itself…" I guess you would think it a waste of 18 pieces of paper to get that overturned as well. Right? What about Buddha? Which of these references would not incite your "insane in the brain" objection to being overturned? I know. In your smug self-righteousness, you can't imagine anyone being offended by something you hold so dear.

  5. Legally UnBound  •  Aug 28, 2009 @10:23 am

    I didn't mean to say that it is a war & only atheists were on the other side. I think 'sides' are in constant flux. There may even be 5 main sides, and 50 minor sides. Who knows?

    Old Geezer-
    Here is your clarification. You don't know where I stand when you state: "In your smug self-righteousness, you can’t imagine anyone being offended by something you hold so dear." On either side, I'm saying it doesn't matter. I don't care if it says “The Commonwealth of Kentucky depends upon the works of the Kunta Kinte to protect itself…”. I'm only pointing out the ridiculousness, in my opinion (which is evidently self-righteous because the topic is religion), that the 'culture war' is fought in this way & on this issue. If a lot of people think that the devil, the boogieman or Casper the Ghost had a hand in protecting Kentucky, who gives a rat's ass. I think that some people just wanna be the Santa-buster for the sake of controversy.

    Oh, I believe you misquoted me. I said, ‘insane in the membrane’, citing the famous legal authority, Cypress Hill.