Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Supersquatch

Persecution of Atheists in Kentucky

43 posts in this topic

In Kentucky, a homeland security law requires the state’s citizens to acknowledge the security provided by the Almighty God--or risk 12 months in prison.

The law and its sponsor, state representative Tom Riner, have been the subject of controversy since the law first surfaced in 2006, yet the Kentucky state Supreme Court has refused to review its constitutionality, despite clearly violating the First Amendment’s separation of church and state.

http://www.alternet....cuting-atheists

I personally find this to be the biggest injustice towards any certain group of people after the Patriot Act and SB 1070 in Arizona.

Edited by Taylor Reints
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my god....

(no pun intended)

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.alternet....cuting-atheists

I personally find this to be the biggest injustice towards any certain group of people after the Patriot Act and SB 1070 in Arizona.

Where is the ACLU? This is like a wet dream for them. I'm a BAPTIST and I BELIEVE that ultimate security is provided by almighty God but would go to jail rather than be forced into such a thing. On the principle that in the future it could easily be a pledge to support Islam that was being forced on me or my family.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the 21st century that is truly mind-boggling and shocking.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is truly a medieval approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
disgusted_baby.jpg
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What charge would they imprison you on?

Failure to believe in something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not being reported by the mainstream press...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.", Abraham Lincoln

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.", Abraham Lincoln

'Shyeah, but he was only talking about proper, God-fearing men, amirite fellas?' -Kentucky politician

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would rather have a bullet placed in to my skull than being forced to believe a fictitious being.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not being reported by the mainstream press...

It does seem a bit suspect. If true it is outrageous.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gotta fill all those private prisons somehow. yeee haw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a toolbag.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow another brilliant law! Good job Kentucky :clap:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DW

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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:

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me while I pick up my jaw :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.