A Year in Jail for Not Believing in God

[Green Balls]

In 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 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 Year in Jail for Not Believing in God? How Kentucky is Persecuting Atheists

Wow, I can't believe this crap is still happening.

 

[CalGun]

that ok it was 1983 before Virginia allowed single men to own a sheep.

 

[johnny_rebson]

...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/relig...ends-atheists-jail-not-acknowledging-god.html

 

[Paul Austin]

that ok it was 1983 before Virginia allowed single men to own a sheep.

Im still not comfortable with it, when I was a young guy we had to make do with a heifer.

I guess thats the entitlement culture for you though.

 

[spanky]

Im still not comfortable with it, when I was a young guy we had to make do with a heifer.

I guess thats the entitlement culture for you though.

Look soon for the fedguv to provide a sheep to young single male Kentuckians who cannot afford one of their own.

 

[UtahBill]

Look soon for the fedguv to provide a sheep to young single male Kentuckians who cannot afford one of their own.

it should be up to the states to provide farm animals to lonely young men, the feds are too ignorant of local animal "husbandry" needs.

 

[notquiteright]

Sad to see the last desperate gasps of the religious right... Jerry Falwell must be smiling from Hell

 

[Grizzly Adams]

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.

Am I the only one who has no idea what this actually means? I read the story and I still don't know who is subject to this law.

 

[Grim17]

Sad to see the last desperate gasps of the religious right... Jerry Falwell must be smiling from Hell

Well, the guy who sponsored the bill was a Democrat... But any who...

First, I don't think a general reference to God on a plaque is wrong, as long as it ties to the nation or states history. But this case goes far beyond a mere reference, and I don't agree with Rep. Riner or the state for legally requiring such an inscription. It's borderline indoctrination if you ask me and in this day and age for the state to require such a blatantly religious message on any plaque or public declaration, is just plain wrong. Now if Rep. Riner were to have proposed that inscription, and others would have proposed inscriptions that were "God" free, and/or non indoctrinational (not sure such a word exists), then they allowed residents of the state to vote on the inscription they preferred, I wouldn't have a problem with that inscription if that was the people's choice... But for members of the elected government to create such a message and mandate it's use by law, that's just wrong.

The only other thing I will say is, although I think it's wrong and it should be overturned, I do not believe it to be unconstitutional. The establishment clause "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" forbids the government from establishing an official, state religion, and prohibits the government from favoring one particular religion over another. That was what the founders intended, and although many will claim that the establishment clause also prohibits the government from preferring religion over non-religion, that is not supported by any public documents, or contained in the writings of anyone close to, or involved in the drafting of the Constitution. Just the fact that the word "God" is contained in most declarations made by government officials from the time, and a church was built for congress in the capitol building, makes that very clear. Now if the inscription would have said "Jesus Christ" on it, that would have violated the constitution in my opinion.

 

[Deuce]

Well, the guy who sponsored the bill was a Democrat... But any who...

First, I don't think a general reference to God on a plaque is wrong, as long as it ties to the nation or states history. But this case goes far beyond a mere reference, and I don't agree with Rep. Riner or the state for legally requiring such an inscription. It's borderline indoctrination if you ask me and in this day and age for the state to require such a blatantly religious message on any plaque or public declaration, is just plain wrong. Now if Rep. Riner were to have proposed that inscription, and others would have proposed inscriptions that were "God" free, and/or non indoctrinational (not sure such a word exists), then they allowed residents of the state to vote on the inscription they preferred, I wouldn't have a problem with that inscription if that was the people's choice... But for members of the elected government to create such a message and mandate it's use by law, that's just wrong.

The only other thing I will say is, although I think it's wrong and it should be overturned, I do not believe it to be unconstitutional. The establishment clause "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" forbids the government from establishing an official, state religion, and prohibits the government from favoring one particular religion over another. That was what the founders intended, and although many will claim that the establishment clause also prohibits the government from preferring religion over non-religion, that is not supported by any public documents, or contained in the writings of anyone close to, or involved in the drafting of the Constitution. Just the fact that the word "God" is contained in most declarations made by government officials from the time, and a church was built for congress in the capitol building, makes that very clear. Now if the inscription would have said "Jesus Christ" on it, that would have violated the constitution in my opinion.

It's obvious that the lawmakers are referring to a singular, omnipotent deity as described in Abrahamic religion. When your argument for something not violating the constitution requires looking for loopholes, it's a weak argument.

I like how you basically retconned out "separation of church and state."

Counterpoint: The 1st Amendment doesn't preclude banning Christianity from America. It's not prohibiting the free exercise of Christianity, it's just moving free exercise of Christianity to other countries!

 

[Grim17]

It's obvious that the lawmakers are referring to a singular, omnipotent deity as described in Abrahamic religion.

The word "God" refers to religion, but does not denote any one religion.

Sorry if that chaps your ass.

When your argument for something not violating the constitution requires looking for loopholes, it's a weak argument.

Is the plaque and it's inscription constitute the government establishing a state religion?
A: No

Does the inscription on that plaque denote any one particular religion?
A: No, so is not a case of the government favoring any one religion.

There is nothing unconstitutional about it, so no loopholes required.

I like how you basically retconned out "separation of church and state."

The Constitution and it's meaning simply is, what it is... Interpreting it doesn't require a college degree, just common sense. It a rather simple formula:

"written words in the constitution" + "intent of those who wrote them" = "The meaning of the US Constitution"

 

[Surtr]

Wow, I can't believe this crap is still happening.

Good, because it isn't. Riner doesn't have the authority to enforce what a Federal institution will and will not put on their plaques.