NationStates Jolt Archive

All I can really say to this is, Wha... bu...?

Ky. law requires Homeland Security to credit God

Friday, November 28, 2008

(11-28) 13:17 PST Lexington, Ky. (AP) --

A lawmaker says the state's Homeland Security office should be crediting God with keeping the state safe.

State Rep. Tom Riner, a Southern Baptist minister who was instrumental in establishing that requirement in 2006, disapproves of the fact that Homeland Security doesn't currently mention God in its mission statement or on its Web site.

The law passed under former Gov. Ernie Fletcher, who prominently credited God in annual reports to state leaders. But Gov. Steve Beshear's administration didn't credit God in its 2008 Homeland Security report issued last month.

"We certainly expect it to be there, of course," Riner, D-Louisville, told the Lexington Herald-Leader.

The law that organized the Homeland Security office first lists Homeland Security's duty to recognize that government itself can't secure the state without God, even before mentioning other duties, which include distributing millions of dollars in federal grants and analyzing possible threats.

The religious language was tucked into a floor amendment by Riner and passed the General Assembly overwhelmingly. It lists the office's initial duty as "stressing the dependence on Almighty God as being vital to the security of the Commonwealth."

Included in the law is a requirement that the office must post a plaque at the entrance to the state Emergency Operations Center with an 88-word statement that begins, "The safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God."

Thomas Preston, Gov. Beshear's Homeland Security chief, said he is not interested in stepping into a religious debate.

"I will not try to supplant almighty God," Preston said. "All I do is try to obey the dictates of the Kentucky General Assembly. I really don't know what their motivation was for this. They obviously felt strongly about it."

Riner said crediting God with helping ensure the state's safety is appropriate.

"This is recognition that government alone cannot guarantee the perfect safety of the people of Kentucky," Riner said. "Government itself, apart from God, cannot close the security gap. The job is too big for government."

But state Sen. Kathy Stein, D-Lexington, a frequent critic of mixing religion and government, said requiring the department to credit God takes away from Homeland Security's mission.

"It's very sad to me that we do this sort of thing," Stein said. "It takes away from the seriousness of the public discussion over security, and it clearly hurts the credibility of this office if it's supposed to be depending on God, first and foremost."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/11/28/national/a131718S95.DTL&tsp=1

I'm pretty sure this is violating SOMETHING or another. Or is it? Is this the same as what Congress and state legislatures do when they issue proclamations about the subject?

Ready, set, start yelling!

Damn Fundies and their... Fundie... ways....

I'm sure this violates just about every law regarding Separation of C&S, but since when has that stopped the far right?

It violates the separation of church and state. Might as well post the ten commandments in schools.

The fact that it was a rider on an amendment says a lot also. I wonder what the amendment was... probably something really important that no one in their right mind would vote against.

It'd be ironic if Kentucky got bombed within the week, I wonder what the fundies would say... (I wish no harm on Kentucky btw, I don't even think there's much there to blow up in the name of terror)

It'd be ironic if Kentucky got bombed within the week, I wonder what the fundies would say... (I wish no harm on Kentucky btw, I don't even think there's much there to blow up in the name of terror)

God is punishing them for not thanking Him earlier.

This is not only a violation of the separation of church and state (and hence blatantly unconstitutional) its also a violation of people's individual religious freedoms. This needs to be shot down, immediately...

Granted this is on a state level so the State Constitution may not guarantee either of those. If it don't, it should be changed.

Their version of God seems very insecure and high maintenance to me.

This is not only a violation of the separation of church and state (and hence blatantly unconstitutional) its also a violation of people's individual religious freedoms. This needs to be shot down, immediately...

Granted this is on a state level so the State Constitution may not guarantee either of those. If it don't, it should be changed.

14th Amendment.

Sigh.... fundies. The best thing that ever hapened to pointless ranting. Next their going to be claiming gravity doesn't exist. Wait a second.......

Dear... God.... (No pun intended)

This is not only a violation of the separation of church and state (and hence blatantly unconstitutional) its also a violation of people's individual religious freedoms. This needs to be shot down, immediately...

Granted this is on a state level so the State Constitution may not guarantee either of those. If it don't, it should be changed.

See the shitty part is it's a rider on an amendment, I don't know how they'd go about clearing that too easily.

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law"-Thomas Jefferson.

Mr. Jefferson, you have LIED to me.

Morons, the lot of them. Luckily, time is on our side, for they tend to be older and they will soon die.

Morons, the lot of them. Luckily, time is on our side, for they tend to be older and they will soon die.

Not really. Their breeding teenagers from a early age to believe in their teachings like we believe in gravtiy and how jumping in water gets you wet.

Right about now, I don't care any more.

I know I've often made a big deal about separation of church and state, but... whatever. I'd actually support law to remove separation from church and state completely, and make the US an officially Christian nation.

So if there is a successful terrorist attack God also gets the credit? Did got hate the WTC and Mumbai?

Not really. Their breeding teenagers from a early age to believe in their teachings like we believe in gravtiy and how jumping in water gets you wet.

Less than WE are getting in...

I'd actually support law to remove separation from church and state completely, and make the US an officially Christian nation.

I'm assuming you're joking, because you're too smart to want people hanged or burnt at stakes.

Right about now, I don't care any more.

I know I've often made a big deal about separation of church and state, but... whatever. I'd actually support law to remove separation from church and state completely, and make the US an officially Christian nation.

Erm... May I enquire as to why?

Right about now, I don't care any more.

I know I've often made a big deal about separation of church and state, but... whatever. I'd actually support law to remove separation from church and state completely, and make the US an officially Christian nation.

Thats defeatisc talk!

*Rants about a bunch of past heros whoo never gave up for whatever cause they believed in *

After all give them wacky Christians One Inch and they try to take Canada!**



** Stolen from somebody sig about Poland

God lets us kill each other, if he exists, yet he'll protect ONE state? Bullshit, that is.

I'm assuming you're joking, because you're too smart to want people hanged or burnt at stakes.

The UK is an officially Christian nation, and doesn't have all that many hangings and stake-burnings, as a rule.

Erm... May I enquire as to why?

The UK is an officially Christian nation. It is tolerant of foreign religion, it has very minor incidence of fundamentalist bullshit, and - in general - people are not so insecure about their god that they need to constantly emblazon little pep-talks about him on every available surface.

I've come to think that the enforced separation of church and state in the US is doing more harm than good. It's holding the nation back in terms of social and technological process.

The UK is an officially Christian nation. It is tolerant of foreign religion, it has very minor incidence of fundamentalist bullshit, and - in general - people are not so insecure about their god that they need to constantly emblazon little pep-talks about him on every available surface.

I've come to think that the enforced separation of church and state in the US is doing more harm than good. It's holding the nation back in terms of social and technological process.

But don't you think the fundies will use that as a excause to crack down on other groups they don't like?

The UK is an officially Christian nation, and doesn't have all that many hangings and stake-burnings, as a rule.

Not only you seem to assume that the US is as mature, you also seem to forget the counter-examples.

But don't you think the fundies will use that as a excause to crack down on other groups they don't like?

I do, at least.

Fundies need to have their faces under our boot, not be given "freebies" in the hopes of shutting them up.

It violates the separation of church and state. Might as well post the ten commandments in schools.

The fact that it was a rider on an amendment says a lot also. I wonder what the amendment was... probably something really important that no one in their right mind would vote against.

It'd be ironic if Kentucky got bombed within the week, I wonder what the fundies would say... (I wish no harm on Kentucky btw, I don't even think there's much there to blow up in the name of terror)

Fort Knox

That is the stupidest thing I've heard since ... since ... some damn thing I've forgotten because it was so stupid!

If the state's Homeland Security fucks up, they're going to blame God.
Atheists can be targetted as a threat to the State, since they "don't support Homeland Security."

I've come to think that the enforced separation of church and state in the US is doing more harm than good. It's holding the nation back in terms of social and technological process.

You mean technological progress like suspending stem cell research? Or social progress like eliminating rights of homosexuals? Time to go back and rethink your position.

You mean technological progress like suspending stem cell research? Or social progress like eliminating rights of homosexuals? Time to go back and rethink your position.

Those are both arguments for my position.

Fort Knox

That's my kind of terrorist! Turn all that gold back into nuggets and spray it all over. Economy would boom! It's called a "gold rush." :p

But don't you think the fundies will use that as a excause to crack down on other groups they don't like?

Do you hear the rhetoric they use for calls for secularism? 'War on Christmas?' This is a war?

Did you watch Steven Colbert's christmas special? Most of it was pretty funny, irreverent, tongue-in-cheek - but I did notice several direct attacks on secularism, and especially atheists. One song had people calling for separation, being shot, or blown up, with the tag line 'it's the thought that counts'.

There's no point trying reason. You can't reason with it.

There's no point trying reason. You can't reason with it.

Still not following you.

Something like "let them write the laws and then we'll have a revolution" perhaps?

Fundies need to have their faces under our boot
Let's not, ok?

Those are both arguments for my position.

Ok then im confused. The reason stem cell research is being barred is because we arnt doing a good enough job of seperation of Church and State. One could in fact argue that the last 8 years has been the most religious administration in a long long time to the point that science has been put back a decade in some of its research. The politicization of the Science fields in the last administration was bordering on criminal. Or am i misreading your position and you are against life saving medical research?

Did you watch Steven Colbert's christmas special? Most of it was pretty funny, irreverent, tongue-in-cheek - but I did notice several direct attacks on secularism, and especially atheists. One song had people calling for separation, being shot, or blown up, with the tag line 'it's the thought that counts'.

For those unaware of it, Colbert was a Sunday school teacher and can cite scripture from memory.

Let's not, ok?

Quite frankly, after the tripe they tried, is the reaction so surprising, though?

Those are both arguments for my position.

How so?

This is but one example of why I believe the U.S. to beyond redemption. There's really nothing that can be done against combining C&S in the U.S. If the government tries to properly secularize the state, and people will interpret it as religious persecution, a government attack on the personal lives of citizens.

Ok then im confused. The reason stem cell research is being barred is because we arnt doing a good enough job of seperation of Church and State. One could in fact argue that the last 8 years has been the most religious administration in a long long time to the point that science has been put back a decade in some of its research. The politicization of the Science fields in the last administration was bordering on criminal. Or am i misreading your position and you are against life saving medical research?

The reason stem-cell research has been demonised, is because there is a strong feeling that 'separation of church and state' is an attack. Every issue is a beach-head. Abortion is a religion issue. Stemcells are a religion issue. School science lessons are a religion issue.

Fine. Fuck it. Ignore the separation. Let them 'win'. Once they don't feel the need to carry war against every social and scientific progression on every front, maybe we'll see some actual movement.

Fine. Fuck it. Ignore the separation. Let them 'win'. Once they don't feel the need to carry war against every social and scientific progression on every front, maybe we'll see some actual movement.

Or they might feel validated, empowered, actually BECOME empowered, and eventually manage to turn the US into Gilead from The Handmaid's Tale due to that sense of empowerment and entitlement. Has that occurred to you?

So, GnI, give them government like it's a little toy they couldn't possibly hurt anyone with. And get on with "social and scientific progress" ... in our secret bunker.

You're making as much sense as that flying lizard of the KKK (interestingly, also from Ky) who supported Obama for President because it would bring about the great white uprising. I.e., not much sense at all.

Did you watch Steven Colbert's christmas special? Most of it was pretty funny, irreverent, tongue-in-cheek - but I did notice several direct attacks on secularism, and especially atheists. One song had people calling for separation, being shot, or blown up, with the tag line 'it's the thought that counts'.
Those exhortations to violence were ironic, if you couldn't tell that then there is no hope for you.
The final song (about there being worse things to believe in) was probably the only straight bit of the entire show, and even it wasn't fundamentalist (including the couplet "Believe in the judgment, believe in Jihad/Believe in a thousand variations on a dark and spiteful god;" a direct shot at organized religions).

Or they might feel validated, empowered, actually BECOME empowered, and eventually manage to turn the US into Gilead from The Handmaid's Tale due to that sense of empowerment and entitlement. Has that occurred to you?

You think that's different to the direction we are heading?

You think that's different to the direction we are heading?

Point taken. Although why make it easier?

You think that's different to the direction we are heading?

They'll die off. We just need to resist long enough.

So, GnI, give them government like it's a little toy they couldn't possibly hurt anyone with. And get on with "social and scientific progress" ... in our secret bunker.


No, not really.

I'm not sure I can explain why - again, the example of the UK - you can take a culture, take the whole religion-is-taken-as-read concept, and end up with greater tolerance... of race, religion, gender, etc. You can take the structure, and end up with a culture that is more progressive.

It's already a war. Apparently.

Those exhortations to violence were ironic, if you couldn't tell that then there is no hope for you.


No, they were supposed to be funny. That's not the same thing.

The joke was there, if you're a christian.


The final song (about there being worse things to believe in) was probably the only straight bit of the entire show, and even it wasn't fundamentalist (including the couplet "Believe in the judgment, believe in Jihad/Believe in a thousand variations on a dark and spiteful god;" a direct shot at organized religions).

"You don't believe and you're sad, we do, and we're glad". Something like that. Saw it once. Yes - it had the tongue in cheek you expect, but it wasn't aimed against all organised religion, as you imply. Even the part you quote treats Christianity as a special case.

The UK is an officially Christian nation. It is tolerant of foreign religion, it has very minor incidence of fundamentalist bullshit, and - in general - people are not so insecure about their god that they need to constantly emblazon little pep-talks about him on every available surface.
Have you been paying attention to Britain? At all?

Have you been paying attention to Britain? At all?

Was there a point to this comment?

Was there a point to this comment?

That they're doing all that stuff in Britain.

No, they were supposed to be funny. That's not the same thing.

The joke was there, if you're a christian.
Every year, Colbert makes fun of conservatives who obsess about the War on Christmas, and he frequently does so by taking the metaphor to ridiculous extremes or making it literal, as in that song.
"You don't believe and you're sad, we do, and we're glad". Something like that. Saw it once. Yes - it had the tongue in cheek you expect, but it wasn't aimed against all organised religion, as you imply. Even the part you quote treats Christianity as a special case.
The part I quoted referenced Islam directly, and then made reference to fundamentalists in general who believe in a vengeful god. The song itself could be seen as somewhat pro-Christian, but it also draws a direct connection between belief in Christ and belief in Santa Claus, which is somewhat subversive.

Yeah, I really don't think that a vast Xanatos Gambit involving giving the religious the power to keep things the way their holy books says it should be so that eventually they'll decide they've won and stop trying to fight back when we want to change things for the better would actually work. A whole lot of people take their religion very seriously in America. They'd notice if people started giving rights back to women, and gays, and non-christians.

No, not really.

I'm not sure I can explain why - again, the example of the UK - you can take a culture, take the whole religion-is-taken-as-read concept, and end up with greater tolerance... of race, religion, gender, etc. You can take the structure, and end up with a culture that is more progressive.

It's already a war. Apparently.

xians in the UK are NOT the same as the evangelist fucktard scum that we're infected with in the US

Um...GnI... Have you forgotten that the "officially Christian and totally problem free" (hehe) UK were the ones who kicked the Puritans and other extremist Christian wackos the hell out of Britain -- and guess where they all moved to?

Yeah, considering who we are dealing with in the US, I don't think we should follow the UK's example, seeing as how we have no distant frontier colonies to ship our bible-humpers off to.

And considering that the ones you fobbed off on poor, unsuspecting North America were the same ones who fueled civil war and a good chunk of years of brutal violence in your own country a few centuries ago, yeah, uh, I don't think we're going to give them any official connection to government whatsoever.

But thanks for your... input.

Let's not, ok?

Definitely. Do you know how hard it is to wipe fundie off one's boots?

Definitely. Do you know how hard it is to wipe fundie off one's boots?

Oh? Sorry, I didn't know.

In re the OP, it's all very simple to me:

If God is really responsible for the security of Kentucky, then Kentucky should refund to the federal government every dollar of post-9/11 security preparedness money it has gotten on the grounds that it doesn't need it, while less godly states probably do. Since Kentucky is safely in the hands of the deity of somebody in that state, that should clear up Homeland Security's time and resources to take care of places that matter.

Every year, Colbert makes fun of conservatives who obsess about the War on Christmas, and he frequently does so by taking the metaphor to ridiculous extremes or making it literal, as in that song.


Colbert is an Ex-Sunday school teacher. I think of all people he qualifies as being able to safely self parody himself.

Quite frankly, after the tripe they tried, is the reaction so surprising, though?

No, but do you think it makes you better than them?

Oh God -_-

No, but do you think it makes you better than them?

>.>

<.<

Moral high ground SUCKS!

Wait, wait, wait... D-Louisville? WTF?

>.>

<.<

Moral high ground SUCKS!

:tongue:

What I don't understand is why people pay attention to them. I'm a Christian myself and these people piss the shit out of me (probably for different reasons), but why can't people just let them have thier little rant and move on? This guy is a law maker but it isn't as though he is the head of Homeland Sercurity. And being in America he has the right to speak out and tell people his opinion, doesn't mean we have to listen and follow what he says.
EDIT: Missed part of the article, point still stands.

Wait, wait, wait... D-Louisville? WTF?

They come in all shapes and sizes, but if people thought that these people were only belonging to one party was sadly mistaken

Right about now, I don't care any more.

I know I've often made a big deal about separation of church and state, but... whatever. I'd actually support law to remove separation from church and state completely, and make the US an officially Christian nation.

The UK is an officially Christian nation, and doesn't have all that many hangings and stake-burnings, as a rule.

It's very sweet to think that we could live like civilized people like much of the rest of the developed world does. I don't think we can, however. Not that it matters, since we can not have a national religion.

It's very sweet to think that we could live like civilized people like much of the rest of the developed world does. I don't think we can, however. Not that it matters, since we can not have a national religion.

one of the reasons the developed world functions in a civilised manner IS the separation of religion from the state, in some nations there remains a symbolic link.

All anyone has to do is read the history of medieval Europe, the religious wars between Pagan, Christian and Moslem, the theocratic atrocities that rampant fundamentalism caused, the amount the church took fiscally from the economy etc to be dissuaded from merging religion and politics/government. That this is in one of the worlds developed nations just goes to show that humanity never learns.

I realise that this cannot be directly compared to that but it's a potentially slippery slope.

I know I rant against religion at times but I really don't have a problem with any individual choosing to follow a faith, it's when you get there beliefs impinged on the rest of society or someone tries to convert me that I get annoyed.

The reason stem-cell research has been demonised, is because there is a strong feeling that 'separation of church and state' is an attack. Every issue is a beach-head. Abortion is a religion issue. Stemcells are a religion issue. School science lessons are a religion issue.

Fine. Fuck it. Ignore the separation. Let them 'win'. Once they don't feel the need to carry war against every social and scientific progression on every front, maybe we'll see some actual movement.

The movement we'd be seeing is movement backwards. I do not believe that they would be satisfied with 1 small victory (which is something they believe to be true already). They would see it as carte blanche push harder.

The reason stem-cell research has been demonised, is because there is a strong feeling that 'separation of church and state' is an attack. Every issue is a beach-head. Abortion is a religion issue. Stemcells are a religion issue. School science lessons are a religion issue.

Fine. Fuck it. Ignore the separation. Let them 'win'. Once they don't feel the need to carry war against every social and scientific progression on every front, maybe we'll see some actual movement.

The movement we'd be seeing is movement backwards. I do not believe that they would be satisfied with 1 small victory (which is something they believe to be true already). They would see it as carte blanche push harder.
I agree. I'm surprised at GnI's argument, because it seems fundamentally uninformed about what the issue really is, and he has lived in the "belly of the beast" long enough that I would have expected him to know better.

It's not about abortion or stem cells or science classes or any of these so-called "beach-heads." It's about power, plain and simple. It's about a group of people who, at a very basic level, do not believe that people are equal. They believe themselves to be superior, and they believe that society should be arranged to reflect that because they tell themselves that's what their god -- who saved them and not us, after all -- wants it. It is not enough for them to have the upper hand. They MUST oppress others because how can you PROVE you are superior, if no one else is inferior? How can you can know you are saved, if the unsaved are not visibly suffering?

This is the same mindset that, a century and a half ago, defended slavery on the grounds that their god had made the black man inferior to the white man. Just being "superior" wasn't good enough. They had to prove it to themselves. It's the same mindset that, after slavery was stamped out, defended racial segregation on the same grounds.

No, just being given the paper hat of "official religion of the clubhouse" is not going to satisfy these people. They want everyone to know it by making it nearly impossible for any subject to not be religious, by making it hard, if not impossible, for anyone who is not of their religion to get a good job or buy a house, etc., like it was in the US up until the 1960s, and like it was even in his much vaunted UK, back in good Queen Bess's day. Give them "official" recognition of any kind, and dark times will follow for all other religions, for gays, and for non-whites, eventually. It'll be the bad old days all over again.

14th Amendment.

But it seems pretty clear that the Constitution of the United States only applies to the federal government. Every State also has its own constitution that is usually modeled after the Federal one, but there is no guarantee. The Kentucky Stat Constitution may not guarantee a separation of church and state, meaning that on a State and Local level of Government, there is no guarantee.

Ready, set, start yelling!ToT Article XI.
This also fails the Supreme Court's "Lemon test". Very badly.

But it seems pretty clear that the Constitution of the United States only applies to the federal government. Every State also has its own constitution that is usually modeled after the Federal one, but there is no guarantee. The Kentucky Stat Constitution may not guarantee a separation of church and state, meaning that on a State and Local level of Government, there is no guarantee.Everson v. Board of Education. (Lawyers out there, let me know if there are any newer cases on this.)
Everson was also the first case to hold the Establishment Clause applicable to the state legislatures as well as Congress, based upon the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Problem solved. It applies to state legislature as well.

Everson v. Board of Education. (Lawyers out there, let me know if there are any newer cases on this.)
Problem solved. It applies to state legislature as well.

Well then, Kentucky cannot pass that law. The Supreme Court should be hearing about this soon.

Why would God 'protect' a nation that starts kicking and screaming at the very mention of his name? :rolleyes:

Why would God 'protect' a nation that has started kicking and screaming at the very mention of his name?Because he's a cool guy?

Just a quick question. As I read it, all the Constitution says is that the government will not establish a national religion. It doesn't say anything about displaying religious articles or religious beliefe. It doesn't say that prayers are to be banned - it just says the state cannot mandate a religion and you cannot be forced to follow a specific religion. Nowhere does it say anything about freedom from religion. And nowhere does it say that individual states can't establish a religion. If I missed something, please point it out to me, as I could really use it in an ongoing "discussion" I'm having with my son.

Eh...I doubt he's involved in any way.

Quite frankly, after the tripe they tried, is the reaction so surprising, though?
Perhaps not, but it is very disappointing. The thing is I've lived and worked with fundamentalists. Most of them are decent folks who try to live a good life and whom, yeah, I have disagreements with about religion and some things that they think religion should apply towards where I don't, but those disagreements have usually been more among the lines of friendly arguments. Most fundamentalists are like that, even among them the radicals are a minority (If a larger one than Christians as a whole) and I don't see where they should be oppressed or harmed in any way.

Hell, even the radicals do not deserve that, no one does. It's the same logic that leads to concluding that torture is ok if the other person did something bad too. Well, no, it's not ok. It never is ok. Two wrongs do not make a right and all that good stuff.

Just a quick question. As I read it, all the Constitution says is that the government will not establish a national religion. It doesn't say anything about displaying religious articles or religious beliefe. It doesn't say that prayers are to be banned - it just says the state cannot mandate a religion and you cannot be forced to follow a specific religion. Nowhere does it say anything about freedom from religion. And nowhere does it say that individual states can't establish a religion. If I missed something, please point it out to me, as I could really use it in an ongoing "discussion" I'm having with my son.Wrong on the underlined part. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by the Congress or the preference of one religion over another, or religion over non-religion.
Says Wiki. ^

Just a quick question. As I read it, all the Constitution says is that the government will not establish a national religion. It doesn't say anything about displaying religious articles or religious beliefe. It doesn't say that prayers are to be banned - it just says the state cannot mandate a religion and you cannot be forced to follow a specific religion. Nowhere does it say anything about freedom from religion. And nowhere does it say that individual states can't establish a religion. If I missed something, please point it out to me, as I could really use it in an ongoing "discussion" I'm having with my son.
From what I understand of the case law (And I'm sure Neo and TCT will swiftly and sarcastically correct me if I'm wrong), the whole bit hinges on the idea of what establish means. The idea being that establishing a religion does not mean just building a church and telling people to go to it, but means any government backing of ANY religion to where the appearance seems to be that the government is favoring this religion over all others (Which also falls under the freedom of religion). Nowadays that usually translates out into using tax monies as that is the government's main power. So in displaying, say, the 10 commandments, the government is holding Christianity (depending on which ones) above others because it is not displaying other religious texts. The intent also matters because if it is meant as a cultural display (Say the 10 commandments with other legal texts to show the evolution of our legal system) that is fine, if it was done with obvious religious intent (The 10 commandments is the basis of our legal system because it comes from God) then that is NOT ok.

Finally though, the 14th amendment did apply all Constitutional rights to the individual states so... no, states cannot establish a religion either.

Wrong on the underlined part. Says Wiki. ^

Ok, below is the exact text of the First Amendment. The relevent section is underlined. I don't see anything about freedom from religion. It just says you can follow whatever religion you choose. It seems a bit of a leap from "you can practice whatever religion you please" to "you have the right to prevent others from publicly practicing their religion if it offends you."

“ 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. ”

Ok, below is the exact text of the First Amendment. The relevent section is underlined. I don't see anything about freedom from religion. It just says you can follow whatever religion you choose. It seems a bit of a leap from "you can practice whatever religion you please" to "you have the right to prevent others from publicly practicing their religion if it offends you."

“ 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. ”
Ah! Now I see what you're getting at. There is nothing that says you cannot publicly practice your religion. Groups do it all the time, the government and governmental personnel who are on the clock as it were cannot do so. The government is forbidden from giving money, materials, or time to religion because doing so would elevate it over others. It cannot advocate a religion for that reason as well as it could be construed that if you want to find favor with the government or official, you should go to that church.

It seems a bit of a leap from "you can practice whatever religion you please" to "you have the right to prevent others from publicly practicing their religion if it offends you.". ...You can publicly practice it. If that's what you're getting at.

...You can publicly practice it. If that's what you're getting at.

So, people can put Nativity scenes in a public park, so long as it's understood that others can put menorahs, or pagan symbols out, and atheists and agnostics, can ignore these scenes and symbols if they wish. Stores, being privately owned, can play Christmas music if they wish and if Jews, Muslims, atheists and agnostics are offended, they don't need to shop there. (Maybe I should just move this to another thread and risk re-opening the annual acrimonious controversy).

So, people can put Nativity scenes in a public park, so long as it's understood that others can put menorahs, or pagan symbols out, and atheists and agnostics, can ignore these scenes and symbols if they wish. Stores, being privately owned, can play Christmas music if they wish and if Jews, Muslims, atheists and agnostics are offended, they don't need to shop there. (Maybe I should just move this to another thread and risk re-opening the annual acrimonious controversy).
Yes, a private group can put up a nativity scene if equal access is granted and yes, a private store can play Christmas music all it wants. It's just that a government entity cannot.

Do you hear the rhetoric they use for calls for secularism? 'War on Christmas?' This is a war?

Did you watch Steven Colbert's christmas special? Most of it was pretty funny, irreverent, tongue-in-cheek - but I did notice several direct attacks on secularism, and especially atheists. One song had people calling for separation, being shot, or blown up, with the tag line 'it's the thought that counts'.

There's no point trying reason. You can't reason with it.

No, they were supposed to be funny. That's not the same thing.

The joke was there, if you're a christian.



"You don't believe and you're sad, we do, and we're glad". Something like that. Saw it once. Yes - it had the tongue in cheek you expect, but it wasn't aimed against all organised religion, as you imply. Even the part you quote treats Christianity as a special case.

It's like you missed the point entirely. Yes, the joke was there. But it wasn't meant for the Religious Right. Not in the slightest.

So, people can put Nativity scenes in a public park, so long as it's understood that others can put menorahs, or pagan symbols out, and atheists and agnostics, can ignore these scenes and symbols if they wish. Stores, being privately owned, can play Christmas music if they wish and if Jews, Muslims, atheists and agnostics are offended, they don't need to shop there. (Maybe I should just move this to another thread and risk re-opening the annual acrimonious controversy).NERVUN was much more eloquent in his reply than I would have been. See the below.

Yes, a private group can put up a nativity scene if equal access is granted and yes, a private store can play Christmas music all it wants. It's just that a government entity cannot.

But it seems pretty clear that the Constitution of the United States only applies to the federal government. Every State also has its own constitution that is usually modeled after the Federal one, but there is no guarantee. The Kentucky Stat Constitution may not guarantee a separation of church and state, meaning that on a State and Local level of Government, there is no guarantee.

There doesn't need to be a guarantee under the state Constitution--there is a guarantee under the federal one. There is only a conflict if the state Constitution specifically provides for a relationship between the church and the state. If it did, multiple lawsuits would be filed, and eventually, the state Constitution would have to be amended to be.... Constitutional.

So, people can put Nativity scenes in a public park, so long as it's understood that others can put menorahs, or pagan symbols out, and atheists and agnostics, can ignore these scenes and symbols if they wish. Stores, being privately owned, can play Christmas music if they wish and if Jews, Muslims, atheists and agnostics are offended, they don't need to shop there. (Maybe I should just move this to another thread and risk re-opening the annual acrimonious controversy).

Precisely. It's why school prayer is illegal, even if students can opt out--it promotes religion (and specifically religions that use prayer). That does not mean students cannot pray in school. Hell, during our Thanksgiving feast one of my students asked me if we could pray before eating. I told her that she could absolutely say a quiet prayer to herself if she wanted. She did. No one's rights were infringed upon.

Perhaps not, but it is very disappointing. The thing is I've lived and worked with fundamentalists. Most of them are decent folks who try to live a good life and whom, yeah, I have disagreements with about religion and some things that they think religion should apply towards where I don't, but those disagreements have usually been more among the lines of friendly arguments. Most fundamentalists are like that, even among them the radicals are a minority (If a larger one than Christians as a whole) and I don't see where they should be oppressed or harmed in any way.

Hell, even the radicals do not deserve that, no one does. It's the same logic that leads to concluding that torture is ok if the other person did something bad too. Well, no, it's not ok. It never is ok. Two wrongs do not make a right and all that good stuff.

I certainly agree that we must not oppress people and all that, I would strongly disagree that most fundamentalists are decent folks. It might be that they're nicer to fellow Christians, so you wouldn't see their mean sides come out, but my experience is that, to any people who they consider "inferior" or somehow less than human-- that is, non-Christians, or those who do not live up to their moral standards-- to such people, they tend to be right assholes. You know, what with the "Oh my God! You're not Christian?! You're going to burn in hell, you God damn Godless Bastard/Faggot/<insert slur of choice here>." type things as soon as they find out about your supposed deficiency.

I mean, like I said, you wouldn't necessarily see such things, because with you, it's just somebody who they happen to disagree with on certain issues, but most fundies believe that atheists (and usually non-Christian religious folks) are inherently bad people, that without (the Christian) God telling us what to do, we're likely to all be child rapists and murderers and the like. Hell, it might even just be that Georgia fundies are worse than in other places, but... *shrugs*

Anyway, on topic: yeah, this is ridiculous, but what do you expect from such people? All they want is to take, if necessary by force, as much as they can for their religion, and they will never stop until they can use the government to force everybody to live by their standards and follow their beliefs.

But it seems pretty clear that the Constitution of the United States only applies to the federal government. Every State also has its own constitution that is usually modeled after the Federal one, but there is no guarantee. The Kentucky Stat Constitution may not guarantee a separation of church and state, meaning that on a State and Local level of Government, there is no guarantee.

No, the 14th Amendment forces the states to adhere to (most of) the Bill of Rights as well. State constitutions may add additional civil rights (many do) but they must adhere to the baseline set forth in the US Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)

edit:

Not that it matters because I think the first line of Article 1, Section 5 of the Kentucky Constitution is fairly clear.

No preference shall ever be given by law to any religious sect, society or denomination; nor to any particular creed, mode of worship or system of ecclesiastical polity; nor shall any person be compelled to attend any place of worship, to contribute to the erection or maintenance of any such place, or to the salary or support of any minister of religion; nor shall any man be compelled to send his child to any school to which he may be conscientiously opposed; and the civil rights, privileges or capacities of no person shall be taken away, or in anywise diminished or enlarged, on account of his belief or disbelief of any religious tenet, dogma or teaching. No human authority shall, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.

Perhaps not, but it is very disappointing. The thing is I've lived and worked with fundamentalists. Most of them are decent folks who try to live a good life and whom, yeah, I have disagreements with about religion and some things that they think religion should apply towards where I don't, but those disagreements have usually been more among the lines of friendly arguments. Most fundamentalists are like that, even among them the radicals are a minority (If a larger one than Christians as a whole) and I don't see where they should be oppressed or harmed in any way.

Hell, even the radicals do not deserve that, no one does. It's the same logic that leads to concluding that torture is ok if the other person did something bad too. Well, no, it's not ok. It never is ok. Two wrongs do not make a right and all that good stuff.

As someone that belongs to a non-mainstream religion, and as someone that feels that, if they could, they would make America into a Christian version of pre-2001 Afghanistan, including murder of non-Christians, I do think my "disagreements" would be a tad different, and involve my right to live as a non-Christian.

But I guess I'm just pissed off at them. -_-

I certainly agree that we must not oppress people and all that, I would strongly disagree that most fundamentalists are decent folks. It might be that they're nicer to fellow Christians, so you wouldn't see their mean sides come out, but my experience is that, to any people who they consider "inferior" or somehow less than human-- that is, non-Christians, or those who do not live up to their moral standards-- to such people, they tend to be right assholes. You know, what with the "Oh my God! You're not Christian?! You're going to burn in hell, you God damn Godless Bastard/Faggot/<insert slur of choice here>." type things as soon as they find out about your supposed deficiency.

I mean, like I said, you wouldn't necessarily see such things, because with you, it's just somebody who they happen to disagree with on certain issues, but most fundies believe that atheists (and usually non-Christian religious folks) are inherently bad people, that without (the Christian) God telling us what to do, we're likely to all be child rapists and murderers and the like. Hell, it might even just be that Georgia fundies are worse than in other places, but... *shrugs*
How odd then that my wife, in her five years in the United States never once had the same issue, and she was more than willing to tell folks that she is Buddhist.

And yes, there are parts of rural Nevada that I'd be willing to match up with Georgia any time.

As someone that belongs to a non-mainstream religion, and as someone that feels that, if they could, they would make America into a Christian version of pre-2001 Afghanistan, including murder of non-Christians, I do think my "disagreements" would be a tad different, and involve my right to live as a non-Christian.

But I guess I'm just pissed off at them. -_-
*sighs* Heikoku, I live in a nation where my religion is not mainstream either and had a very long history of getting you killed. I also live in a country that still has a very big problem with xenophobia (Recent survey found 52% of Japanese worried about an increase of foreign tourism would lead to more crime. At least this is better than it was 20 years ago when the number was in the 70's) and people in high places who would willingly turn Japan back to the militant period of the 20s and 30s, if not all the way back to the Edo era when Japan was closed off to westerners.

But even then, they do not deserve to be oppressed nor my anger. Just my pity and vigilance.

Ah! Now I see what you're getting at. There is nothing that says you cannot publicly practice your religion. Groups do it all the time, the government and governmental personnel who are on the clock as it were cannot do so. The government is forbidden from giving money, materials, or time to religion because doing so would elevate it over others. It cannot advocate a religion for that reason as well as it could be construed that if you want to find favor with the government or official, you should go to that church.
Precisely.

It is possible for the government to get close to that line, however -- being allowed to give tax funds to religious organizations that conduct NON-RELIGIOUS work and ONLY for that work, but I find there is way too much hair-splitting going on to suit me, precisely because of people who put their allegiance to their church (or their religious campaign donors) ahead of their oath to uphold the Constitution. "Faith-based initiatives" -- in a pig's ass.

Yes, a private group can put up a nativity scene if equal access is granted and yes, a private store can play Christmas music all it wants. It's just that a government entity cannot.
Or the government can put up religious symbols, but must do so for every religion at the same time, which is prohibitively inconvenient.

They tend to ignore that, though, if they think no one will notice. See again "faith-based initiatives" via which not one single tax dollar has been granted to any non-Christian "initiative" for no other reason than that George Bush calls himself an evangelical.

*sighs* Heikoku, I live in a nation where my religion is not mainstream either and had a very long history of getting you killed. I also live in a country that still has a very big problem with xenophobia (Recent survey found 52% of Japanese worried about an increase of foreign tourism would lead to more crime. At least this is better than it was 20 years ago when the number was in the 70's) and people in high places who would willingly turn Japan back to the militant period of the 20s and 30s, if not all the way back to the Edo era when Japan was closed off to westerners.

But even then, they do not deserve to be oppressed nor my anger. Just my pity and vigilance.

*Sighs* Okay, okay. I was just speaking from frustration...

How odd then that my wife, in her five years in the United States never once had the same issue, and she was more than willing to tell folks that she is Buddhist.


Which must mean there is no one religiously intolerant like PC descibed in the US!


Thats odd. Because in my 21 years here, Ive met plenty and heard a lot of what PC described. And since I became an atheist roughly 5 years ago, much of it was directed at me.

All I can really say to this is, Wha... bu...?


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/11/28/national/a131718S95.DTL&tsp=1

I'm pretty sure this is violating SOMETHING or another. Or is it? Is this the same as what Congress and state legislatures do when they issue proclamations about the subject?

Ready, set, start yelling!
Fucking whackos.

How odd then that my wife, in her five years in the United States never once had the same issue, and she was more than willing to tell folks that she is Buddhist.

And yes, there are parts of rural Nevada that I'd be willing to match up with Georgia any time.
\/ This \/
Which must mean there is no one religiously intolerant like PC descibed in the US!


Thats odd. Because in my 21 years here, Ive met plenty and heard a lot of what PC described. And since I became an atheist roughly 5 years ago, much of it was directed at me.

I live in NYS and have dealt with situations like PC described as well, granted not that often, but it has happened to me.

The UK is an officially Christian nation. It is tolerant of foreign religion, it has very minor incidence of fundamentalist bullshit, and - in general - people are not so insecure about their god that they need to constantly emblazon little pep-talks about him on every available surface.

I've come to think that the enforced separation of church and state in the US is doing more harm than good. It's holding the nation back in terms of social and technological process.

Yes but in the UK God answers to the crown not a TV Evangelist.

Which must mean there is no one religiously intolerant like PC descibed in the US!


Thats odd. Because in my 21 years here, Ive met plenty and heard a lot of what PC described. And since I became an atheist roughly 5 years ago, much of it was directed at me.

\/ This \/


I live in NYS and have dealt with situations like PC described as well, granted not that often, but it has happened to me.
Wow... so in other words since YOU guys have had SOME situations, PC's statement that MOST fundamentalists are assholes MUST be true?

You guys never took stats, did you? :rolleyes:

Wow... so in other words since YOU guys have had SOME situations, PC's statement that MOST fundamentalists are assholes MUST be true?

You guys never took stats, did you? :rolleyes:

Ooooh good try. My point is, you wife's limited experiance does not negate a statement. He said "most" not "all". Besides, there is stronge evidence supporting the "fundies suck" side. Listen to their leaders talk. One doesnt become a leader by spouting things your choir disagrees with.

Youre eagerness to defend fundamentalists, whatever your motives are, doesnt change the fact that your wife's limited experiance proves nothing.

Wow... so in other words since YOU guys have had SOME situations, PC's statement that MOST fundamentalists are assholes MUST be true?

You guys never took stats, did you? :rolleyes:

My experience is that all fundies are assholes who are not willing to acknowledge that not everyone worships their god or let people live in peace with their personal religious choices.

My experience is that all fundies are assholes who are not willing to acknowledge that not everyone worships their god or let people live in peace with their personal religious choices.

Same here, with very few exceptions. Of course, I still qualified my statement with "most" because I recognize that I have not encountered every fundie.

A complete violation of separation of church and state, and a total disrespect to the non-religious and non-Christians and the fundies wonder why we're so disgusted with them?

Ooooh good try. My point is, you wife's limited experiance does not negate a statement. He said "most" not "all". Besides, there is stronge evidence supporting the "fundies suck" side. Listen to their leaders talk. One doesnt become a leader by spouting things your choir disagrees with.

Youre eagerness to defend fundamentalists, whatever your motives are, doesnt change the fact that your wife's limited experiance proves nothing.
Or it could be that her experience does indeed put dampeners on his statement. And no, your evidence does not lead to fundies suck, nor do the numbers. But I wonder just how long PC's experience is? My wife is 38 and unlike PC, you can see quite clearly that she does not fit the bill of a typical American.

As for the leadership side of things, then I MUST assume that for the past 8 years Americans suck because well, hell, look at our leader. Guess you suck then, huh?

My experience is that all fundies are assholes who are not willing to acknowledge that not everyone worships their god or let people live in peace with their personal religious choices.
Really? All of them? Wow, you must have one hell of a time living in the US then. Given that, well, according to the Barna Group* (As referenced from religious tolerance.org) the born-again crowd which composes the majority of fundamentalists is about 41% of the total Christian population. Given that the Christian population is about 71% of the total US population, that would mean that 7 out of the 10 people you meet each day are Christians. Of them, 3 would be considered born again and according to you, they are all assholes. So do you REALLY have three out of 10 people you come into contact with each day ranting at you about your beliefs? REALLY? And how many people do you come into contact with? 10? 20? More? So tell me, do you ask them to take a number? Form a line? Or do they have to just phone ahead for a time slot?

*http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=84
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm

Same here, with very few exceptions. Of course, I still qualified my statement with "most" because I recognize that I have not encountered every fundie.
You know, all three of you remind me strongly of my grandfather who rants and raves about the ragheads coming in to his town and how they all are lazy, thieves, etc. and goes on and on and on about it until someone asks him about his next door neighbor at which case he concedes that, ok, HE is ok, but everyone else...

There's a word for that, starts with a b.

Or it could be that her experience does indeed put dampeners on his statement. And no, your evidence does not lead to fundies suck, nor do the numbers. But I wonder just how long PC's experience is? My wife is 38 and unlike PC, you can see quite clearly that she does not fit the bill of a typical American.

Oh, right. Its invalid because you say so.


As for the leadership side of things, then I MUST assume that for the past 8 years Americans suck because well, hell, look at our leader. Guess you suck then, huh?

Wow, are you this pathetic that you cant see the difference here? With the fundie leaders you can go to a different church and stop sending them money, which destroys their authority. Such tactics are not available to use against a president.

When people keep listening to someone, keep considering him an authority on the subjet, and keep sending him monitary donations, that kind of shows a level of support for their messeges.

But, you know, youre right. Your Japanese wife who lived here 5 years knows better than all of us who grew up here.:rolleyes:


Really? All of them? Wow, you must have one hell of a time living in the US then. Given that, well, according to the Barna Group* (As referenced from religious tolerance.org) the born-again crowd which composes the majority of fundamentalists is about 41% of the total Christian population. Given that the Christian population is about 71% of the total US population, that would mean that 7 out of the 10 people you meet each day are Christians. Of them, 3 would be considered born again and according to you, they are all assholes. So do you REALLY have three out of 10 people you come into contact with each day ranting at you about your beliefs? REALLY? And how many people do you come into contact with? 10? 20? More? So tell me, do you ask them to take a number? Form a line? Or do they have to just phone ahead for a time slot?

What the fuck? Since when does born again = fundamentalist?

You know, all three of you remind me strongly of my grandfather who rants and raves about the ragheads coming in to his town and how they all are lazy, thieves, etc. and goes on and on and on about it until someone asks him about his next door neighbor at which case he concedes that, ok, HE is ok, but everyone else...

There's a word for that, starts with a b.

You remind me of a few things as well.

EDIT: Oh, by the way, saying we find people who push their religion on us and treat us as inferio because we dont have an imagenry friend to be obnoxious and douschy isnt bigotry.

Its bigotry if we seek to deny them their right to believe what they do. God do people on NSG not fucking know what that word means anymore? Its not a catch all for "someone I disagree with".

Right about now, I don't care any more.

I know I've often made a big deal about separation of church and state, but... whatever. I'd actually support law to remove separation from church and state completely, and make the US an officially Christian nation.

Are you crazy, or just stupid? I'm having trouble seeing other option here.

Personally, I think it's just amazing that there are politicians who would support such nonsense.

If those who proposed this measure where in a western European legislature, they would be laughed out of office.

But it seems pretty clear that the Constitution of the United States only applies to the federal government. Every State also has its own constitution that is usually modeled after the Federal one, but there is no guarantee. The Kentucky Stat Constitution may not guarantee a separation of church and state, meaning that on a State and Local level of Government, there is no guarantee.

Just a quick question. As I read it, all the Constitution says is that the government will not establish a national religion. It doesn't say anything about displaying religious articles or religious beliefe. It doesn't say that prayers are to be banned - it just says the state cannot mandate a religion and you cannot be forced to follow a specific religion. Nowhere does it say anything about freedom from religion. And nowhere does it say that individual states can't establish a religion. If I missed something, please point it out to me, as I could really use it in an ongoing "discussion" I'm having with my son.

From what I understand of the case law (And I'm sure Neo and TCT will swiftly and sarcastically correct me if I'm wrong), the whole bit hinges on the idea of what establish means. The idea being that establishing a religion does not mean just building a church and telling people to go to it, but means any government backing of ANY religion to where the appearance seems to be that the government is favoring this religion over all others (Which also falls under the freedom of religion). Nowadays that usually translates out into using tax monies as that is the government's main power. So in displaying, say, the 10 commandments, the government is holding Christianity (depending on which ones) above others because it is not displaying other religious texts. The intent also matters because if it is meant as a cultural display (Say the 10 commandments with other legal texts to show the evolution of our legal system) that is fine, if it was done with obvious religious intent (The 10 commandments is the basis of our legal system because it comes from God) then that is NOT ok.

Finally though, the 14th amendment did apply all Constitutional rights to the individual states so... no, states cannot establish a religion either.

Ok, below is the exact text of the First Amendment. The relevent section is underlined. I don't see anything about freedom from religion. It just says you can follow whatever religion you choose. It seems a bit of a leap from "you can practice whatever religion you please" to "you have the right to prevent others from publicly practicing their religion if it offends you."

“ 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. ”

Well, it appears that others have already done an excellent job of answering the legal questions regarding the First Amendment in this thread. Nonetheless, I'll throw out some of my usual heavy-handed SCOTUS quotes. :wink:

1. On the issue of the First Amendment applying to the states, it has been explained that Bill of Rights applies to the states pursuant to incorporation under the 14th Amendment. See, e.g., link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)), link (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/conlaw/incorp.htm). The First Amendment Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause have long been held to apply to the states through incorporation. See, e.g., Cantwell v. Connecticut (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=310&page=296), 310 U.S. 296 (1940) (free exercise); Everson v. Board of Education (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=330&page=1), 330 U.S. 1 (1947) (establishment). From time to time a stray conservative like Justice Thomas has made noises that the Establishment Clause shouldn't be incorporated, but even those objections seem to recognize the issue has been decided emphatically the other way. See, e.g., Van Orden v. Perry (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-1500#concurrence2), 545 U.S. 677, ___ -___ (2005) (Thomas, J., concurring).

2. NERVUN has done an excellent job of explaining what the Establishment Clause means. I would only point further to Everson v. Board of Education (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=330&invol=1#16), 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947):

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

Now, if there are any remaining questions concerning specific issues like prayer in school, public displays of religious items, etc., I can go into more detail.

3. Lest anyone think that the above is some recent (1947:confused:) invention of a liberal Supreme Court, in 1878, the US Supreme Court explained in Reynolds v. United States (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/98/145.html ), 98 US 145 (1878), the history of the First Amendment and the involvement of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. The Court then said (emphasis added):

Accordingly, at the first session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (8 id. 113), took occasion to say: 'Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions,-I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.' Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured.

Further, although the particular phrase from Jefferson's letter of a "wall of separation of Church and State" is commonly cited, the concept and the language of separation of Church and State was commonly used by other Founding Fathers. James Madison, in particularly, repeatedly referred to and advocated a "perfect separation" of Church and State. Here are just a few examples (emphasis added):

"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State" (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history" (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together" (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. (Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).

4. The question of what private entities such as shopping malls or stores choose to do regarding Holiday music, season's greetings, etc., has nothing to do with the separation of Church and State -- except in the very vague sense that the value of religious pluralism is recognized by the greed of capitalism.

Really? All of them? Wow, you must have one hell of a time living in the US then. Given that, well, according to the Barna Group* (As referenced from religious tolerance.org) the born-again crowd which composes the majority of fundamentalists is about 41% of the total Christian population. Given that the Christian population is about 71% of the total US population, that would mean that 7 out of the 10 people you meet each day are Christians. Of them, 3 would be considered born again and according to you, they are all assholes. So do you REALLY have three out of 10 people you come into contact with each day ranting at you about your beliefs? REALLY? And how many people do you come into contact with? 10? 20? More? So tell me, do you ask them to take a number? Form a line? Or do they have to just phone ahead for a time slot?

Yes, all of the people that I have encountered who I know to be fundies are assholes. Mind you, I do not get into religious discussions with everyone I meet, so it is entirely possible that there are fundies that I have gotten along with, I also feel it is important to point out the fact that I neither wear a sign proclaiming the fact that I am an atheist, nor is it the first thing I mention to people. In fact I do not mention it at all unless the topic of discussion happens to turn to religion.


Edit: I have never made it a secret that I dislike people telling me I should live my life a certain way because their imaginary friend says so, so why should my expressing my dislike of them again be any surprise now?

Pricisely this is why I stay clear off of religion threads and I try not to touch them, not even with a 40 foot pole. *scurries away*

Pricisely this is why I stay clear off of religion threads and I try not to touch them, not even with a 40 foot pole. *scurries away*

* lassos La bonita señorita and drags her back in to watch the show*

Ooooh good try. My point is, you wife's limited experiance does not negate a statement. He said "most" not "all". Besides, there is stronge evidence supporting the "fundies suck" side. Listen to their leaders talk. One doesnt become a leader by spouting things your choir disagrees with.

Youre eagerness to defend fundamentalists, whatever your motives are, doesnt change the fact that your wife's limited experiance proves nothing.

For the record, I come from a family and church that--while there are some significant differences from fundie culture, it can still be seen from my house, metaphorically speaking. And from my experience, while there are some people like that, it has been by far the overwhelming minority of the people I've met.

And I go to private fucking mostly-Protestant school.

god deserves credit for being mostly harmless. which is more then can be said for advocates of church states and state churches.

god deserves credit for being mostly harmless. which is more then can be said for advocates of church states and state churches.

You know, Cameroi, you are one of the wisest posters here.

Since the DHS is an unconstitutional department to begin with, there is no separation of church and state issue here. :rolleyes:

Since the DHS is an unconstitutional department to begin with, there is no separation of church and state issue here. :P

How so?

How so?Exactly what I was wondering.

Exactly what I was wondering.

Me too.

Hstorically, the US was an assembly of colonies of religious dissidents-the reason the Feds kept out of such things was largely because of the disparate views. I believe the Tenth Amendment allows Kentucky to do this.
There is no "Separation of Church and State" is US legal code-while Jefferson pleaded such to explain to his constituency WHY he didn't advocate their religious beliefs during his terms in Congress, this policy never made it's way into the books, though the courts have ruled differently-a faulty ruling, but it is the current law of the land.
Other than court rulings-which may or may not have been mistaken-the separation of Church and State is not a US legal principle-the state of Utah, for example, could pass a law requiring office-holders to be members of the Church of Latter-Day Saints, and the courts would have to comply.
Bear in mind, the Declaration of Independance does not credit rights of citizenry to the government, such as it was, but rather, "We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights"

Apparently my :P was ignored or not noticed, so i replaced it with the rolleyes smiley. Hopefully that helps point out that it was sarcasm. Anyway, the DHS is admittedly more constitutional than most government agencies, as national security is a commonly recognized constitutional power of the national government. Although some of the actions taken by DHS agents are questionable, if not outright illegal.

Hstorically, the US was an assembly of colonies of religious dissidents-the reason the Feds kept out of such things was largely because of the disparate views. I believe the Tenth Amendment allows Kentucky to do this.
There is no "Separation of Church and State" is US legal code-while Jefferson pleaded such to explain to his constituency WHY he didn't advocate their religious beliefs during his terms in Congress, this policy never made it's way into the books, though the courts have ruled differently-a faulty ruling, but it is the current law of the land.
Other than court rulings-which may or may not have been mistaken-the separation of Church and State is not a US legal principle-the state of Utah, for example, could pass a law requiring office-holders to be members of the Church of Latter-Day Saints, and the courts would have to comply.
Bear in mind, the Declaration of Independance does not credit rights of citizenry to the government, such as it was, but rather, "We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights"
Christ, this entire post was refuted before it was even made.

Hstorically, the US was an assembly of colonies of religious dissidents-the reason the Feds kept out of such things was largely because of the disparate views. I believe the Tenth Amendment allows Kentucky to do this.

Only if you ignore both the history of the United States and the enactment of the 14th Amendment (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/).

There is no "Separation of Church and State" is US legal code-while Jefferson pleaded such to explain to his constituency WHY he didn't advocate their religious beliefs during his terms in Congress, this policy never made it's way into the books, though the courts have ruled differently-a faulty ruling, but it is the current law of the land.

Um. Got anything other than declarative statements to back this up? I laid out part of the case to the contrary here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14258864&postcount=108). As I noted "separation of Church and State" was not just a phrase used by Jefferson in that one letter, but was a constant theme to the Founders.

The First Amendment -- both the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause -- did "ma[k]e its way into the books." Why do you interpret them as meaningless?

EDIT: I also find it amusing that a well-established principle of law that has been repeatedly re-affirmed in scores of cases since 1878 is dismissed as if it was merely a single "faulty ruling."

Other than court rulings-which may or may not have been mistaken-the separation of Church and State is not a US legal principle-the state of Utah, for example, could pass a law requiring office-holders to be members of the Church of Latter-Day Saints, and the courts would have to comply.

Let's see, setting aside the First and Fourteenth Amendments, you would still run into Article VI (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article06/), Clause 3 (emphasis added):

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.

Bear in mind, the Declaration of Independance does not credit rights of citizenry to the government, such as it was, but rather, "We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights"

And this is relevant how? To what?

Hstorically, the US was an assembly of colonies of religious dissidents-the reason the Feds kept out of such things was largely because of the disparate views. I believe the Tenth Amendment allows Kentucky to do this.
There is no "Separation of Church and State" is US legal code-while Jefferson pleaded such to explain to his constituency WHY he didn't advocate their religious beliefs during his terms in Congress, this policy never made it's way into the books, though the courts have ruled differently-a faulty ruling, but it is the current law of the land.
Other than court rulings-which may or may not have been mistaken-the separation of Church and State is not a US legal principle-the state of Utah, for example, could pass a law requiring office-holders to be members of the Church of Latter-Day Saints, and the courts would have to comply.
Bear in mind, the Declaration of Independance does not credit rights of citizenry to the government, such as it was, but rather, "We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights"Did you skip the lesson on the first and fourteenth amendments? o_0;

You know, I was going to write out a nice long post showing your very laughable mistakes, but then I remembered whom I was talking to and how much you just love your straw man of Christianity of Borg marching in lockstep, believing the same things, and all acting the same and realized that it would be about as pointless as pointing out mistakes to Andaras was.

I did want to comment on this though:

EDIT: Oh, by the way, saying we find people who push their religion on us and treat us as inferio because we dont have an imagenry friend to be obnoxious and douschy isnt bigotry.

Its bigotry if we seek to deny them their right to believe what they do. God do people on NSG not fucking know what that word means anymore? Its not a catch all for "someone I disagree with".

Yes, I do know what the word means. Try this:
2. A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.
Let me see here, views one's opinion in religion as absolutely right, oh yes. We've gotten that from you any number of times. Oh, and views opinions that differer from his as being unreasonable or wicked. Yes, that fits too. But finally, I would like to remind you of this, stating you disagree with someone's actions is not bigotry. Saying that you disagree with someone's belief is not. Stating that a particular person is an asshole or sucks also is not bigotry.

Claiming that a whole group is due to their religious creed now, yes, that IS bigotry. It is no different from stating that all Muslims are terrorist, all Jews obsessed with wealth, or all Atheists are amoral baby killers.

*snip irrelevent strawman/personal attack*


Let me see here, views one's opinion in religion as absolutely right, oh yes. We've gotten that from you any number of times.

Christians believe that too. In fact, almost every religion does. So that bits irrelevent.


Oh, and views opinions that differer from his as being unreasonable or wicked. Yes, that fits too.

Wicked? Not inherantly. Depends on if theyre willing to admit some parts of the Bible are wrong (slavery, sexual slavery, genocide, murder of non-virgin women etc). Unreasonable? Yep. But again, a lot of religions tend to view other religion and beliefs as unreasonable.


You are painting me with a brush that applies to yourself too. Youre funny.

It should also be noted that your definition of bigotry is exactly what fundamentalists believe. Fundamentalists belive in the literal, whole bible and everything in it as the truth. The bible says it is the only correct source, and that all other beliefs are wicked and false. So, you just made an arguement that fundies are bigots for me.


But finally, I would like to remind you of this, stating you disagree with someone's actions is not bigotry. Saying that you disagree with someone's belief is not. Stating that a particular person is an asshole or sucks also is not bigotry.

At least you have the sense to acknowledge that much.

Claiming that a whole group is due to their religious creed now, yes, that IS bigotry. It is no different from stating that all Muslims are terrorist, all Jews obsessed with wealth, or all Atheists are amoral baby killers.

Were did I say it was due to religious creed? Fundies tend to be assholes. Is it because their fundies? Not neccissarily. I understand causality enough to know that.

Its more likely that fundamentalism is more attractive to some personalities. Not that fundamentalism makes you an asshole.

But your (feeble and failing) attempts to paint me as a Christian raping, baby eating boogeyman are adorable.

Just admit it. Youve got no more legs to stand on when it comes to an actual arguement, theyve all been defeated. So now your resorting to screaming "BIGOT!!!!" and making this personal. I expected better from you. Oh well.

obviously. He also hates gays (sent aids) the homeless (gives them disease) the uneducated (cycle of poverty) New Orleans (tornado), capatalism (financial crisis) republicans (sent them both bushes) and almost everything else you can name

Jusy wondering where is the line between him and the devil?

All I can really say to this is, Wha... bu...?


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/11/28/national/a131718S95.DTL&tsp=1

I'm pretty sure this is violating SOMETHING or another. Or is it? Is this the same as what Congress and state legislatures do when they issue proclamations about the subject?

Ready, set, start yelling!

lol, america gets funnier and funnier when this kind of shit happens

Hstorically, the US was an assembly of colonies of religious dissidents

Only New England.

-the reason the Feds kept out of such things was largely because of the disparate views.

That too, but also for the reasons modern supporters of separation of church and state do.

I believe the Tenth Amendment allows Kentucky to do this.

The Tenth Amendment does nearly nothing. It certainly doesn't allow states to ignore the First Amendment.


There is no "Separation of Church and State" is US legal code-while Jefferson pleaded such to explain to his constituency WHY he didn't advocate their religious beliefs during his terms in Congress, this policy never made it's way into the books, though the courts have ruled differently-a faulty ruling, but it is the current law of the land.

Excuse me?

First words of the first amendment:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."


Other than court rulings-which may or may not have been mistaken-the separation of Church and State is not a US legal principle-the state of Utah, for example, could pass a law requiring office-holders to be members of the Church of Latter-Day Saints, and the courts would have to comply.

No, they could not. Again, First Amendment.

This idea has been struck down in court way too many times to count.


Bear in mind, the Declaration of Independance does not credit rights of citizenry to the government, such as it was, but rather, "We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights"
The Declaration of Independence has no legal bearing whatsoever.

And I'd like to remind you that the guy who wrote it (Jefferson) also said " The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter"


EDIT: Y'know, I don't know why I bother feeding the trolls.

<snip>

The Declaration of Independence has no legal bearing whatsoever.

And I'd like to remind you that the guy who wrote it (Jefferson) also said " The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter"


EDIT: Y'know, I don't know why I bother feeding the trolls.
It's 'cause they're so cute and they beg so much, but yeah, table scraps are bad for them.

My favorite Jefferson escapade was when he decided he wanted to rewrite the Bible and edit out all the magic bits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

That man had a great deal of self-confidence. I approve most heartily. :D

Hahaha...Its a Moot point around here......MS threw out Separation of C&S they day they applied for statehood...

As an update:

Atheists want God out of Ky. homeland security
By ROGER ALFORD, Associated Press Writer Roger Alford, Associated Press Writer Tue Dec 2, 3:56 pm ET

FRANKFORT, Ky. – A group of atheists filed a lawsuit Tuesday seeking to remove part of a state anti-terrorism law that requires Kentucky's Office of Homeland Security to acknowledge it can't keep the state safe without God's help.

American Atheists Inc. sued in state court over a 2002 law that stresses God's role in Kentucky's homeland security alongside the military, police agencies and health departments.

Of particular concern is a 2006 clause requiring the Office of Homeland Security to post a plaque that says the safety and security of the state "cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon almighty God" and to stress that fact through training and educational materials.

The plaque, posted at the Kentucky Emergency Operations Center in Frankfort, includes the Bible verse: "Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain."

"It is one of the most egregiously and breathtakingly unconstitutional actions by a state legislature that I've ever seen," said Edwin F. Kagin, national legal director of Parsippany, N.J.-based American Atheists Inc. The group claims the law violates both the state and U.S. constitutions.

But Democratic state Rep. Tom Riner, a Baptist minister from Louisville, said he considers it vitally important to acknowledge God's role in protecting Kentucky and the nation.

"No government by itself can guarantee perfect security," Riner said. "There will always be this opposition to the acknowledgment of divine providence, but this is a foundational understanding of what America is."

Kentucky has been at the center of a series of legal battles involving religious issues in recent years, most involving displays of the Ten Commandments in public buildings. One case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in 2005 that such displays inside courthouses in two counties were unconstitutional.

Kentucky isn't the only state dealing with religious issues, but Ed Buckner, president of American Atheists, said it's alone in officially enlisting God in homeland security.

"I'm not aware of any other state or commonwealth that is attempting to dump their clear responsibility for protecting their citizens onto God or any other mythological creature," Buckner said.

State Rep. David Floyd, R-Bardstown, said the preamble to the Kentucky constitution references a people "grateful to almighty God," so he said he sees no constitutional violation in enlisting God in the state's homeland security efforts.

"God help us if we don't," he said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081202/ap_on_re_us/heavenly_security

Thank *ahem* God. Hopefully they'll be successful.

As an update:


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081202/ap_on_re_us/heavenly_security

Thank *ahem* God. Hopefully they'll be successful.

Good.

As an update:


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081202/ap_on_re_us/heavenly_security

Thank *ahem* God. Hopefully they'll be successful.

They won't be, most likely.

Your typical American is too bigoted to give a damn about the religious freedom anybody who does not share their religion, particularly if they have no religion at all. And Kentucky isn't exactly a bastion of tolerance, even by America's standards. If the courts overturn it, they'll just go the route of Prop 8 and amend their state's constitution.

Of course, I could be wrong. There was a point when I thought my presidential candidate would probably not even get nominated, much less elected president, because Americans could never choose to elect an extremely intelligent person to high office. (That would be elitism!) So, hopefully I'm wrong again.