Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Persecution of Atheists in Kentucky

unconstitutional persecution of atheists stupidity

  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#16    Viviana98

Viviana98

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 795 posts
  • Joined:03 Jul 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 30 November 2012 - 07:10 AM

Wow another brilliant law! Good job Kentucky :clap:


#17    Sir Wearer of Hats

Sir Wearer of Hats

    Is not a number!

  • Member
  • 9,669 posts
  • Joined:08 Nov 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Queensland, Australia.

Posted 30 November 2012 - 07:49 AM

View PostDarkwind, on 30 November 2012 - 12:56 AM, said:

I could see them hulling me off to jail after I say "Which god do y'all mean."  It really sets a bad prescient. The fools don't really get it either until it is to late.
I'm Catholic and I'll happily be in the cell next to you.


#18    Jinxdom

Jinxdom

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 720 posts
  • Joined:06 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:East Coast

  • Education...has produced a vast population able to read but unable to distinguish what is worth reading.
    -- G.M. Trevelyan

Posted 30 November 2012 - 08:01 AM

"We believe dependence on God is essential. ... What the founding fathers stated and what every president has stated, is their reliance and recognition of Almighty God, that's what we're doing," he said.

Idiot missed the whole God giving free-will bit....Which is what the founding fathers meant. Free-will means choice.... eliminating choice is sort of going against his God's will. Not only did he botch the bible he botched the idea of freedom and botched law making.  Rules like this make me want to break out the tar and feathering.

Edited by Jinxdom, 30 November 2012 - 08:02 AM.


#19    Biff Wellington

Biff Wellington

    Poltergeist

  • Banned
  • 2,865 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 30 November 2012 - 08:29 AM

Yeah it's quite the opposite of what the founding fathers said. Yes they did build a government based off of the fact that most people were Christians at that time but they also stated that an individual is free to make their own religious beliefs. This would also include Atheism. It may not be a religion per se, but it is a religious ideal.


#20    eight bits

eight bits

    ...

  • Member
  • 6,052 posts
  • Joined:24 May 2007

Posted 30 November 2012 - 12:12 PM

DW

Quote

I could see them hulling me off to jail after I say "Which god do y'all mean."  It really sets a bad prescient. The fools don't really get it either until it is to late.

I had occasion recently to review the Kentucky statute in question. It is available here, note that it is several chapters on succesive web pages of which this is the first:

http://www.lrc.ky.go...A00/CHAPTER.HTM

Use the "next chapter" link below the Table of Contents to get to 39B, 39C, etc.

Credit other posters, in other discussions, on other sites for some of the teasing the citations:

The legislative finding about God: 39A 285
The penalty section for 39A: 39A 990
The responsibility of the executive to post: 39G 010 see especially 2 a
The penalty section for 39G: there is no penalty section for that chapter

For a look at the sign itself:

http://blogs.courier...od-in-the-dock/

There actually is no penalty for not acknowledging the role of God. It is not possible in law to "violate" a legislative finding. Similarly, there is no criminal liability for not displaying the sign. (Which is, on information and belief, see the last link above, a letter-sized piece of paper, housed in a picture frame which is apparently screwed into the wall - a "permanent fixture")

Persecution fantasies are common in all religions. The web has panderers to such fantasies, just as it has panderers to other kinds of fantasies. In your religion, no offense meant, there is Wild Hunt. In atheism, there is alternet.

Spreading BS about fake threats to liberty distracts attention and resources needed for the constant vigilance required to counter authentic threats. Alternet does as much good for religious liberty as a porn site does for romance.

Edited by eight bits, 30 November 2012 - 12:14 PM.

Posted Image

#21    GreenmansGod

GreenmansGod

    Bio-Electric sentient being.

  • Member
  • 9,384 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Hurricane State

  • May the laughter ye give today return to thee 3 fold.

Posted 30 November 2012 - 12:38 PM

What they are saying is in effect is they know the mind of their god.  Still a bad prescient and it opens the door for a lot of abuse.

"The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible." Salman Rushdie

#22    eight bits

eight bits

    ...

  • Member
  • 6,052 posts
  • Joined:24 May 2007

Posted 30 November 2012 - 05:01 PM

Quote

What they are saying is in effect is they know the mind of their god.

Well, a politician claiming to know the mind of his God isn't anything unusual. They usually find a more artful way of expressing it, and are more discreet about parading it where voters who might have other gods, or none at all, would gather.

BTW, we might as well quote what the sign says:

Quote

39A.285 Legislative findings.
The General Assembly hereby finds that:

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.' "

My guess is that a federal court will order the sign taken down. I don't see that the court has the authority to disallow a legislative finding, but of course the court may disagree. Assuming the finding is not disturbed, then the state can publicize it as part of its legislative history and statutes.

The sign, however, singles out this text, and so impermissibly promotes a specific religious view. The history lesson is unpersuasive as evidence of a secular purpose, and there is no secular purpose in posting this finding instead of, for example, the statute in its entirety, or the chapter concerning the agency and its activities.

By the "Two Santa Clauses sanitize one Baby Jesus" principle, not showcasing the essay about God in isolation might have carried the day. Maybe a GI Joe action figure would have done the trick. If they had skipped the specific theological proposition ("Almighty"), then they might have won on the "God is just a homey name for everything that is greater than ourselves" principle.

They will lose, I think, according to the "Don't whizz on my leg and tell me it's raining" principle.

As noted in an earlier post, there is no exposure to criminal liability for disagreeing with the finding, so there is nothing about it for the federal court to remedy, regardless of what it does about the finding.

Posted Image

#23    Beckys_Mom

Beckys_Mom

    Sarcastic Muppet..!

  • Member
  • 51,193 posts
  • Joined:01 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Ireland

  • "I hate pretentious people. I mean, what is the point in applying exorbitantly extensive vocabulary, it is just straightforwardly unnecessary".

Posted 30 November 2012 - 05:13 PM

I wonder if these mad people will be one day pushing out their own version of Sharia Law ?


Lock you up for not believing... What is next?

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 30 November 2012 - 05:14 PM.

Posted ImageRAW Berris... Dare you enter?

If there's a heaven...I hope to hell I get there !

#24    Sherapy

Sherapy

    Sheri loves Sean loves Sheri...

  • Member
  • 21,735 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:At the Beach-- San Pedro, California

  • "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" (Freud )

Posted 30 November 2012 - 09:04 PM

View Posteight bits, on 30 November 2012 - 05:01 PM, said:

Well, a politician claiming to know the mind of his God isn't anything unusual. They usually find a more artful way of expressing it, and are more discreet about parading it where voters who might have other gods, or none at all, would gather.

BTW, we might as well quote what the sign says:



My guess is that a federal court will order the sign taken down. I don't see that the court has the authority to disallow a legislative finding, but of course the court may disagree. Assuming the finding is not disturbed, then the state can publicize it as part of its legislative history and statutes.

The sign, however, singles out this text, and so impermissibly promotes a specific religious view. The history lesson is unpersuasive as evidence of a secular purpose, and there is no secular purpose in posting this finding instead of, for example, the statute in its entirety, or the chapter concerning the agency and its activities.

By the "Two Santa Clauses sanitize one Baby Jesus" principle, not showcasing the essay about God in isolation might have carried the day. Maybe a GI Joe action figure would have done the trick. If they had skipped the specific theological proposition ("Almighty"), then they might have won on the "God is just a homey name for everything that is greater than ourselves" principle.

They will lose, I think, according to the "Don't whizz on my leg and tell me it's raining" principle.


As noted in an earlier post, there is no exposure to criminal liability for disagreeing with the finding, so there is nothing about it for the federal court to remedy, regardless of what it does about the finding.
8ty,
This post is one hilarious take on the subject;  the  part in bold cracked me up. LOL--literally!

Nice to read your posts, ( I just have to say it, keep my critics happy) Oh, Happy Holidays to you and yours! :santa:




#25    Bling

Bling

    Psychic Spy

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,384 posts
  • Joined:25 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 30 November 2012 - 09:19 PM

Excuse me while I pick up my jaw  :(


#26    Mr Walker

Mr Walker

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,873 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Australia

  • Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.

Posted 01 December 2012 - 10:16 AM

View PostAlienated Being, on 30 November 2012 - 01:22 AM, said:

I would rather have a bullet placed in to my skull than being forced to believe a fictitious being.
No one can force you to believe any such thing. Are you saying you would rather be shot than lie and say you believed when you didnt?

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world..

Be cheerful.

Strive to be happy.

#27    Mr Walker

Mr Walker

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,873 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Australia

  • Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.

Posted 01 December 2012 - 10:26 AM

Does american money still have "In god we trust" printed on it? If so it is hard to understand the consternation in putting a similarly worded plaque outside buildings devoted to america's security. There is no single more powerful force for american power and security than its monetary system. I wonder what would happen if someone made,  and passed off as legitimate, coins etc without that slogan on them. More than a years gaol, i suspect.

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world..

Be cheerful.

Strive to be happy.

#28    eight bits

eight bits

    ...

  • Member
  • 6,052 posts
  • Joined:24 May 2007

Posted 01 December 2012 - 11:23 AM

Sheri

Thank you for the kind words. Glad you liked it.

Happy Solstice to you and yours as well.

Mr Walker

Quote

Does american money still have "In god we trust" printed on it?

Yes.

Quote

If so it is hard to understand the consternation in putting a similarly worded plaque outside buildings devoted to america's security.

Without stipulating that the wording is "similar," Congress, and Congress alone, has the black-letter Constitutional authority to coin money (of the kind which bears the motto). Congress, then, gets to say what the money looks like. For any court to intrude on the specifically granted authority of another branch of government would provoke a Constituional crisis. It would be a Constitutional crisis.

Reviewing how some Kentucky state bureaucrat decorates his office presents no such Constitutional problem. But even if the coins said "In Almighty God we trust," no court would touch it.

Quote

I wonder what would happen if someone made,  and passed off as legitimate, coins etc without that slogan on them. More than a years gaol, i suspect.

Oddly, there is no law against the making. In fact, people make simulated coins all the time, for museum displays and so on. There are standards for making them discernably (though not necessarily visibly) different from the genuine article. Omitting the motto would probably suffice (for a recent enough coin, of course, and except for the St Gaudens coins which didn't have the motto - which did, in fact, cause the legislative branch to assert its powers against the executive branch, as well they might have.)

The passing off of anything other than legal tender as legal tender is a crime, period. However, there is no law against barter. Presumably the point of your hypothetical bit of political theater is to promote some lesson, so subterfuge wouldn't be an element. If I knowing accept your quarter-substitute at face value, then that's none of the law's concern.

Don't take any wooden nickels, Mr Walker.

Posted Image

#29    Mr Walker

Mr Walker

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,873 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Australia

  • Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.

Posted 01 December 2012 - 12:20 PM

View Posteight bits, on 01 December 2012 - 11:23 AM, said:

Sheri

Thank you for the kind words. Glad you liked it.

Happy Solstice to you and yours as well.

Mr Walker



Yes.



Without stipulating that the wording is "similar," Congress, and Congress alone, has the black-letter Constitutional authority to coin money (of the kind which bears the motto). Congress, then, gets to say what the money looks like. For any court to intrude on the specifically granted authority of another branch of government would provoke a Constituional crisis. It would be a Constitutional crisis.

Reviewing how some Kentucky state bureaucrat decorates his office presents no such Constitutional problem. But even if the coins said "In Almighty God we trust," no court would touch it.



Oddly, there is no law against the making. In fact, people make simulated coins all the time, for museum displays and so on. There are standards for making them discernably (though not necessarily visibly) different from the genuine article. Omitting the motto would probably suffice (for a recent enough coin, of course, and except for the St Gaudens coins which didn't have the motto - which did, in fact, cause the legislative branch to assert its powers against the executive branch, as well they might have.)

The passing off of anything other than legal tender as legal tender is a crime, period. However, there is no law against barter. Presumably the point of your hypothetical bit of political theater is to promote some lesson, so subterfuge wouldn't be an element. If I knowing accept your quarter-substitute at face value, then that's none of the law's concern.

Don't take any wooden nickels, Mr Walker.
I wont. We dont have nickels and dimes in oz, so no point any way.

yes I appreciate that the counterfeiting of legitimate money is the crime. My point was, perhaps, how a system like the american one lends itself to silly inconsistencies, which may be only glaringly obvious to an outsider. A dollar coin or note can have "In god we trust" on it, in fact must have to be real but a govt building designed to underpin the security of the state ( just as money does) can not. Of course at the moment the plaques are still constitutional until ruled against but the whole scenario tends to ridicule the nature of the governance of america in regard to trying to separate what is state and what is faith.

While the courts will probably do a competent job of sorting it out, they should never have to in the first place. There should be room for religious belief within the state itslef and its apparatus  just as there is in a country like Australia. Australia has almost identical words in its constitution regarding the separation of religion and state, but none of the hassles or division that occurs in America. Rather than divide state from religion we include all beliefs (and non beliefs) into our laws and governance. As i believe the original american constitution was designed to do. It was designed to prevent a state religion but not  (if that was the people's wish) a religious state  or a state which embraced religious faiths. it was NOT designed to protectnon believers from religion or belief. That concept was probably not even thoguht of at the time the constitution was written althiugh ir did arise a little later i the french revolution and in the constitution pf the first repuiblic.

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world..

Be cheerful.

Strive to be happy.

#30    eight bits

eight bits

    ...

  • Member
  • 6,052 posts
  • Joined:24 May 2007

Posted 01 December 2012 - 01:23 PM

Quote

My point was, perhaps, how a system like the american one lends itself to silly inconsistencies, which may be only glaringly obvious to an outsider.

Or, demosntrates a reasonable adherence to the rule of law which might be misunderstood by an outsider who, perhaps, fields a sketchy knowledge of our law.

Many things are possible, Mr Walker.

We seem to have a disagreement about the facts in the Kentucky. The sign in question does not say "In God we trust." I doubt a court would order that a sign bearing the motto of the United States be removed from a government building.

Quote

Of course at the moment the plaques are still constitutional until ruled against

Not in United States law. If something is unconstitutional, then it is unconstitutional back to its inception, or the adoption of the constitutional provision it violates, whichever is later.


The provision in question is the Fourteenth Amendment, which was adopted long after the French Revolution. The First Amendment was drafted only with respect to the federal government. When the rights in question were extended to state activities, after the Civil War, a whole new range of possible disputes was created.

Kentucky could indeed have jailed atheists for their impiety before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment (except for provisions in its own constitution, maybe). It certainly could have posted the sign that actually concerns us here (we know that because the complaint has already been through the Kentucky courts).

The law allows all the religious expression you could want, Mr Walker, including access to the public square. You just can't send me the bill, or use a building that taxes built for the permanent display of a doctrinal tract.

Edited by eight bits, 01 December 2012 - 01:26 PM.

Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users