"Un-American" law: "dependence upon Almighty God is vital"

The National Atheist Party Condemns Kentucky Law as Un-American

According to the new law, "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.”

The court found that the law was in violation of Kentucky’s constitution.

Views: 430

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

If "dependence on almighty god" is so all-fired important, a statement to that effect would be in the most important document the United States has: its Constitution.  The Constitution has no such statement, and yet the country built on said Constitution remains strong.  Why?

The answer is left as an exercise for the student.

Remains strong and vulnerable to attacks of the spirit world. Perhaps an amendment that defines penalty for violation of separation of church and state issue. 

Joan, there is a considerable monetary penalty for violating the separation of church and state.

When school districts violate this separation and lose in court, they usually have to pay their own lawyers and both the lawyers and court costs of the organizations who successfully sued. The amounts are often more than 100,000 dollars.

If you want details in a recent case, you'll probably find them if you google these words: Dover schools evolution.

The costs are high enough, and painful enough, that religious groups have asked Congress to repeal the law that requires losers to pay. So far, they have failed.

Would also like a law or two about telling lies in news sources without having to print a retraction and pay a hefty fine and spend some time sitting on a concrete bed. 

You DO want to put Faux Noise out of business, don't you?  Not that I blame you, of course!  [GRIN!!!]

I agree that Fux Noise is the lowest possible scum. And, just the other day, a British judge stated that regulations need to be put into place to rein them in in Great Britain. However, I have to agree with David Cameron that if regulations are established  regarding an independent press, there is a slippery slope that you're stepping on. The consequences of which may not be very desirable.

As to KY, I do have a question. Where was their magic sky spirit when the nuclear processing plant in Mayfield (West KY, near me) finally admitted they contaminated their workers, and the surrounding community, with plutonium dust? This, after they swore and be damned there was no plutonium at the place. 

Pat, I don't see it that way, although I do agree there is a right to freedom of expression, saying one likes or doesn't like someone or something. But to tell a bald faced lie, as if it were truth and news is criminal! There has to be a line across which no one can cross. I would also like to see "Opinion" to designate it from "Fact". 

You give a perfect example of what needs to be confronted with the plutonium dust. Whether it is government lies, propaganda, or stupidity, individuals and systems need to be held accountable for misinforming people, especially when health issues are concerned. 

Was there much public protest when the facts came out? 

Much public protest? Unfortunately, not really. More shock than anything else. Similar to when the nuclear power plants near Joliet, IL, admitted they had dumped radioactive tritium in the water supply. A lot of people were upset, but not much of anything done about it. Slight correction. It was the gaseous diffusion plant near Paducah, KY. My mistake.

As to the first point, about limits on the press, I have my serious reservations. Yes, the press prints lies. And, not just Faux Noise. However, when we start regulating what they can, and cannot say, I can't say that it passes the "tummy test." That troubling knot in your gut when you know something is not right. I think the best anti-septic for dissemblers is free speech, and the ability of others to call them out on their lies. Take it away from Murdoch,and you take it away from those with whom you agree.  Free speech and a free press were not established for popular speech, but rather unpopular speech

i just had an email exchange with a friend who stated that every word of the constitution is divinely inspired.  i asked why no mention of god or jesus and he replied with a copied and pasted paragraph from what i can only assume is an apologetic site.  here:

Blackstone, Locke, Burke, Madison, Jefferson and other influential writers of the 18th century understood that for self-government to work, all people must submit to the "Rule of Law" and that law is not a creation of man but rather, a revelation of God. Without such a philosophical assumption, there will be no consistency or predictability in the law and it will work to the ultimate demise of man's happiness. A "Law of Men" is one where the powers-that-be can change the law on a whim. In that case, outcomes are not predictable and justice will seldom (if ever) be served. Whether originating in a legislative body, a judge, or a monarch, the law must reflect the Character and Nature of God or it will be arbitrary, unenforceable, and ultimately, despised and ignored.



i had no response.  how could i?

I guess amnesia takes hold of religious people, or they never read the holy books. Those books are just about as cruel and sadistic as I can imagine, and to follow them as examples is to turn individuals into filicidal, matricidal, patricidal, families. All that talk about love, when the stories include abandonment, domination, exploitation, racist and sexist values.

No thank you very much!  

Hitchins said it best: 

Great quote from Hitchens.

"The character and nature of god," eh?  [sigh]

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully..."
-- Richard Dawkins

When the "law" of a god includes rampant ignorance (proscriptions on pork and shellfish), never mind misogyny and homophobia, when it treats almost ANY transgression as worthy of death and when the prescribed mechanisms of execution are so barbaric as to be beyond modern-day consideration ... in short, when man's judgment can be more lenient, more willing to consider details, situations, and nuances, in short, more humane while at the same time, finding at least general consensus among those governed, WHY Should The "Law of God" Have ANY STANDING?


© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service