God No Longer Protecting Kentucky
Kentucky State Rep. Tom Riner (pictured) inserted wording into a piece of legislation last year that emphasized God’s role in protecting the state. (h/t Right Wing Watch)
Specifically, Homeland Security is ordered to publicize God’s benevolent protection in its reports, and it 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.”
State Rep. Tom Riner, a Southern Baptist minister, tucked the God provision into Homeland Security legislation as a floor amendment that lawmakers overwhelmingly approved two years ago.
Now, sad to say, a judge has struck down this law, ruling it to be unconstitutional.
Franklin Circuit Judge Thomas Wingate ruled that the law violated the First Amendment’s protection against the establishment of a state religion.
[...]
“Even assuming that most of this nation’s citizens have historically depended upon God by choice for their protection, this does not give the General Assembly the right to force citizens to do so now,” Wingate wrote.
“This is the very reason the Establishment Clause was created: to protect the minority from the oppression of the majority,” he wrote. “The commonwealth’s history does not exclude God from the statutes, but it had never permitted the General Assembly to demand that its citizens depend on Almighty God.”
[...]
Riner said Wednesday that he is unhappy with the judge’s ruling. The way he wrote the law, he said, it did not mandate that Kentuckians depend on God for their safety, it simply acknowledged that government without God cannot protect its citizens.
Well, now that the ungrateful bastards who run Kentucky won’t acknowledge the Almighty, will this be the site of the next Katrina?
Not another one? Damn, then Kentucky send the bones of Daniel Boone back to be buried next to his parents… Good man, he would roll in his grave if he knew…
August 27th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Should teach the conservatives a good lesson: they need to first outlaw the courts, before they set such laws;
What’s the point of making laws that the courts will strike down anyway?
Makes me more and more ashamed of my fellow conservatives, most obvious thing to first tie the hands of the courts before making such law, makes me doubt their commitment to conservatism.
Celticwitch Reply:
August 27th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Yeah, nasty neo-cons, I want the bones of Daniel Boone back, he is ours He was born in Pennsylvania. I used to live about five miles away from his homestead…. Bad Kentuckians.
jasperjava Reply:
August 27th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Karthik, the word “conservative” no longer means what it used to mean. Respect for the Constitution, fiscal responsibility, a moral, decent approach to society, all that has gone out the window. “Conservative” now simply means narrow-minded, ignorant, bigoted, fearful, selfish, greedy, sadistic, and cruel.
karthiks030977 Reply:
August 27th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
““Conservative” now simply means narrow-minded, ignorant, bigoted, fearful, selfish, greedy, sadistic, and cruel”
I dont disagree with any of that; Just that selfishness and greed, I dont see as negative or undesirable qualities; Nor do I believe conservatives have a monopoly on those 2 qualities.
pierre Reply:
August 27th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Another characteristic of conservative is:
Amphibian
Rocky the Liberal Rottweiler Reply:
August 27th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
“What’s the point of making laws that the courts will strike down anyway?”
The point is Riner shows all the religious zealots in his state what a great “christian” he is, and he gets to blame the eternal boogie man, the judiciary, which his brain-dead constituency is all too eager to blame.
deeznuts Reply:
August 27th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Rocky wins this thread.
EricG Reply:
August 27th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
” they need to first outlaw the courts, before they set such laws; ”
At least you can see what fascists these modern neo-cons are. They would need to remove the entire judicial branch of government in order to pervert the laws into their state-supposed religious views.
August 27th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
why are people so stupid??? this guy should be voted out for being a nimrod.
Celticwitch Reply:
August 27th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Helloooo Guido, haven’t talked to you in a while. You are correct, I like the name nimrod… What’s up doc.
Sarah Reply:
August 28th, 2009 at 11:12 am
You said it, Guido.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
August 28th, 2009 at 11:58 am
yeah, I’ve been out of it the last week or so, not a lot of time to spend online.
Um Cara Reply:
August 28th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Well, you were missed! Glad yer back.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
August 28th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Obrigado….
My nephew just got back from Brazil (Riberao Preto)…now I have someone to practice my Portuguese with.
Um Cara Reply:
August 28th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Legal, mas podemos praticar Português sempre que quiser, cara.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
August 28th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Nao gosto de usar otros linguas em message boards. mas obrigado pela oferta
my biggest problem is that I’ve had to use too much spanish at work. I can barely speak english as it is, now I’m muddling my spanish and portuguese…so now I speak a weird form of spanglishese.
Um Cara Reply:
August 28th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Spent last week in Colombia, and learned that my Portanol is even worse than my Portuguese. I could understand them, but could barely make myself understood.
I wouldn’t mind spending a couple years living in Colombia, and learning proper Spanish (as a side note, Colombians are big snobs about their Spanish, and consider theirs and Spain’s the only ‘proper’ Spanish).
August 27th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
“The safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God.”
Since the inception of the country our leaders have felt that it has been Divine Providence that has allowed America to succeed.
crh3e Reply:
August 27th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Thinking God is on our side is an idea as old as the Old Testament. That idea didn’t quite work out did it? You see no nation on this earth can be so perfect as to please God. Now since we learned that from the Bible can we please move on?
August 27th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
State Rep. Tom Riner, D-Louisville
Hmm…crazy Democrats…
–
“pervert the laws into their state-supposed religious views.”
There is absolutely NOTHING in the Constitution that forbids establishment of a state (meaning the states, Kentucky, etc.) religion. Furthermore, the argument of separation of church and state is even weaker than at the national level. Unless there is something in the Kentucky Constitution that forbids it, which I’m assuming “First Amendment” refers to the US Constitution, there’s nothing wrong with this.
Even further…mentioning “Almighty God” does not prevent an establishment or obstruct any other person’s religious freedoms. If it were “Catholic is cool” or “Baptist is best” or “Anglican is awesome” then I could see the point. But the Founders did not intend for God to be divorced from public life. That’s just not true. Through the 1st Amendment they did put in a provision that, again, is anti-majoritarian. Protects the little folks. But not being allowed to mention or even incorporate God? That was not original intent. But, hey, you could really boil that down to lib vs. con.
–
“narrow-minded, ignorant, bigoted, fearful, selfish, greedy, sadistic, and cruel.”
And you sure do have an open, non-bigoted mind about conservatives! Very generous, too!
Daddio Reply:
August 28th, 2009 at 8:38 am
State Rep. Riner is a Democrat? I should have realized that by Alan’s intentional omission of the big D after his name. I am surprised he even posted this story.
Southern Girl Lib Reply:
August 28th, 2009 at 9:55 am
I thought it was against the Baptist’s religion to be a Democrat. I mean duh, aren’t all Dems going to he*l?
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
August 28th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Is he Southern Baptist? I think regular Baptists can be Dems…but Southern Baptists get kicked out if their name starts with a D.
Sarah Reply:
August 28th, 2009 at 11:16 am
Flap, you do have a point. Alan might have been a little tricky in ommitting this dude’s party affiliation. But I’m glad Alan posted it– I applaud him for trouncing stupidity of this ilk whether it’s D or R.
As for state’s rights, the states DO have to follow the U.S. constitution.
Drk H Reply:
August 28th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Sarah – The states do have to follow the constition, but as rightly pointed out above. The constitution leaves this to the states rights catagory. Several of the original states had state religions at the time of the constitution. These prevailed for several years. Jefferson was against them, but at no time did he pronounce them as unconstitional. So apparently they belived this to be a states right. Secondly, they also never said a generic mention of god was not allowed. Our goverment, constitution, currency all mention god in them, and was never deemed to be state sponsored religion
Sarah Reply:
August 28th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Be that as it may…
“The safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God”
is a far cry from
“In God We Trust.”
flap Reply:
August 29th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
“is a far cry from”
You think so? What is “trust in God”? I think it’s very similar.
August 28th, 2009 at 8:25 am
“The safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God.”
Where, pray tell, does one get the idea that this sentence “demands” that it’s citizens depend on Almighty God?
Where does this sentence say that the state of Kentucky is mandating a state run religion?
TDro319 Reply:
August 28th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
“The safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God.”
That’s a great idea! They can give their stimulus money to California and depend on God to provide for the state of Kentucky.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
August 28th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
screw Kentucky…I hate the Derby…and I hate the Wildcats…
August 28th, 2009 at 8:32 am
The problem with this guy is he is making a big bold move of crossing the line between church and state. when you are trying to pass a law saying that official statements from the government have to recognize Religious dogma and sentiments, you’ve violated the very spirit of the first amendment.
Sarah Reply:
August 28th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Well said.
August 28th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
“…reliance upon Almighty God.”
If you’re religious, you already know it, and if you ain’t, you don’t believe it.
So what’s the point?
It’s another monument in the courthouse.
It’s the southern Baptists saying the government belongs to them and them alone, and if you ain’t one of them you should get the hell out.
August 28th, 2009 at 12:22 pm