Judge orders 'Almighty God' in Kentucky Unconstitutional

You drinking again shotgnner870?

Wow, how very Christian of you, jubal....... I know Jesus Christ -- who was assassinated a lonnnggggggg time ago -- would be SO immensely proud of you and your peaceful ways.

@EthicalVegan... WTF are you talking about? Did I say I was a Christian. NO. I am a Golden Ruler.

What is it about my statement that you find violent?

Why should I care what you think?

You say to learn the difference between atheists and agnostics, but you seem to be implying that atheists believe in nothing or "don't believe in anything"... not believing in god doesn't mean you don't believe in anything.

@annaleenoir, one simple reason. Because people who do believe have a mandate to convert everyone who doesn't believe. The "true believers" make it their business to be all up in every body else's business.

Thank you for being possibly the only person on Current with a brain. Your response is the best one yet.

a teacher is allowed to wear Jesus jewelry, Please check out the ACLJ website. Also the evolution theroy is taught and Darwins theroy is taught, in a diverse nation why is the Creation theroy taught, the education system is to give kids freewill to think and accept what makes sense to them. All equal time. The Bible is also one of the oldest history books, including geogrophy, roman, greek, hebrew, cultures. what they wore what they ate, ect. why wouldnt anyone use this resource. Fear of an organized religion?

The problem is the "Creation theory" isn't really a well put together argument with things like credibility or evidence. It also begs too many questions in the classroom- like which creator is doing the creating. Because there isn't a lot of modern or accepted science in creationism, it shouldn't be taught in science class IMO.

Christmas is to Christianity like Tacos is to Mexico or Pizza is to Italy.

Christmas is celebrated by many people who aren't Christian so much so that Christians cannot claim that it is exclusive to Christianity. Christmas trees were long time pagan symbols before they were ever Christian.

Tacos have become an American creation completely and radically different from the original Taco the Mexicans invented. Crunch tacos shells filled with ground beef, lettuce, tomatoes and cheese, these are American. You won't find them in Mexico.

Pizza is another American creation that is not like anything resembling pizza in Italy.

So my point it this. Lets stop treating Christmas as though it were exclusively a Christian holiday and let people have their Christmas Trees and decorations, that is the part of Christmas least Christian. Now if they wanted to put up a Nativity scene, then that would be a violation of the separation.

Good analogy Jubal,

Kind of begs the question, when do items from Christmas become part of the national fabric? Not necessarily as a part of government, but icons that the vast majority associate with. Like the Nativity scene, a Christmas tree, or a big star?

Not in court rooms, city hall, or in state or city office buildings, do they need decorations anyway? But in the lawn of a fire station, or a school, especially if they have icons of other religions too, a Menorah, or crescent moon?

After I posted this last night it came to me, Santa Claus is another good example of Christmas not being Christian.

Right again Jubal, but I've read instances, sorry I can't site, where certain public institutions, city hall and school comes to mind, discourage use of Santa Clause, because it is associated with Christmas, which is associated with Christ.
I think isolated instances like this are what triggers so many Christians to react if not over react, to any threat to the mere mention of God in government business. Same could be said for the other side in being sensitive or over sensitive to the mention of God. Not saying one or the other is wrong, just the way I see it.

You are incorrect by ass-uming that marriage is a "faith based" tradition.

What if I was to tell you that being homosexual was a religious faith based idea and that gay marriage was being offered by the "church of being gay"? You would probably give birth to two cows and one chicken in reaction to this assertion.

Well I belong to a religion that says that being a homosexual and getting married to a homosexual partner is ordained by God. Who are you to say that your "faith based" marriage is any more valid than mine?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marry

The definition you are referencing is just one of many.

6. to combine, connect, or join so as to make more efficient, attractive, or profitable: The latest cameras marry automatic and manual features. A recent merger marries two of the nation's largest corporations.
7. Nautical.
a. to lay together (the unlaid strands of two ropes) to be spliced.
b. to seize (two ropes) together end to end for use as a single line.
c. to seize (parallel ropes) together at intervals.
8. to cause (food, liquor, etc.) to blend with other ingredients: to marry malt whiskey with grain whiskey.

I'm going to assume that you're talking about gay marriage.

There's a small tribe in the Amazon that has marriage as well; a man and a wife get together and are intended to stay together in order to raise children. I'm sure they weren't influenced by the Old Testament. But they also accept gay marriage. If a woman has manly characteristics, then she is permitted to marry a woman. The wife has sex with a man in order to get pregnant (for they don't exaclty have the population to adopt), but the man has no say in the life of that child. The manly woman and her wife raise the child in total normalcy along with the rest of the village and it is viewed no differently than heterosexual marriage.

Not every definition of marriage is the same, or stays the same. Believe it or not, things change and the world isn't about to crumble when they do.

I am always facinated about learning about cultures {Government} thank-you for that, and yes I believe you are right they have not be influnced by the Book, and I respect and can not will not dispute their customs, but here, on our soil, I have the right and faith based duty to express my beliefs. And you still have not, or any one else, answered my ? on why the invasion, instead of respect and peaceful resolution.

"why the invasion"

There isn't any invasion going on. People are being peaceful; gays aren't flipping over cars and burning things down because they aren't allowed to marry. Resolution is happening in the way of bills being passed so that the minority will be able to participate in a wonderful thing.

May I ask you what it matters to you if gays get married? You don't have to attend their weddings, go to their baby showers, and you can even shield your children from theirs. It literally doesn't change your life whatsoever.

If marriage is a faith-based institution and only that, then why are atheists allowed to get married? By your logic, a huge number of people that are already married shouldn't be and should have that right revoked.

And doesn't that say something about marriage? That if atheists (people without religion) are willing to go through a ceremony and spend the rest of their lives with someone that marriage is above faith? Marriage today doesn't mean what it did thousands of years ago.

Because marriage in America is a contract between two people. Government is not supposed to interfere in legal contracts. DOMA is such an interference.

Marriage is not in principle a religious institution. It is a contract that used to establish the ownership of a woman by a man, but in America today, it establishes property rights and a million other rights that are "taken for granted". Excluding same sex couples from these rights based on Religious ideology, is unconstitutional.

Now IMHO, all marriages in the United State should be declared CIVIL UNIONS. If people want marriage, go to your church, your temple, or your synagogue and get them to officiate over your marriage, but when it comes to the Government of the United States of America and the governments of individual states; all fifty of them - all CIVIL UNIONS. Equality is what our constitution guarantees, its in the Declaration of Independence.

When you say "good American's", what do you mean by that? Just because someone supports having 'In God We Trust' on their money they're considered a 'Bad American'?

I was not imply that people that want anything are bad anything.

However, in my view those that stand up to defend the constitution are good Americans.

Just as those that stand up to defend first amendment rights and second amendments rights.

It really isn't that complicated. You cannot defend just the parts of the constitution you like and disregard the parts you do not like.

Good comment slarabee, great Norse mythology reference.

smug self righteousness?
read this over if you have the time unclecharlie
http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9553.htm
christians have no monopoly on compassion or caring

@unclecharlie - I think that's a bit too generalizing to say that no atheists have ever opened up anything beneficial to a community. I'm a Christian myself, and I know that people outside of Christianity are quite capable of helping their communities as well. However, I think that maybe your comment is directed moreso toward the extremists, who do nothing but attempt to remove God from this nation every chance they get. Just like extremist 'Christians', the high level of intolerance and hate on both extreme sides usually detracts from anything positive ever being created.

Considering that rational thought is entirely destroyed by an overabundance of emotion . . . well, I'll listen to someone else.

Im proud to be an American, where I know Im free, and Id gladly stand up and Bless and honor and PRAY for our Freedom fighters. now Get back here the enemy is here, threating to take our peace and solice. GOD BLESS YOU !

What a load of bull shit. Just because you are weak and superstitious does not mean every one else is.

Good luck with your prayers and chants, hope Krishna brings you a merry Xmas soldier boy.

You exaggerate concerning Gandhi!!!! Read his entire body of works! This is untrue!
Gandhi may have alluded to the fact that the race their were indeed very backward compared to other peoples of color who lived there

I'll be sure to bring this point up at the weekly meeting of the AVRA next week. In case you're not familiar, that's the Association of Villainous Religious Americans. We sit in a room and smoke cigars and concoct ways to keep atheists down.

lol

to the contrary, it is an erosion of our Liberty.

Humanism is a plague upon the earth. It has good intentions and horrific results.

Haha, thanx. And I celebrate destruction and chaos! Someone's gotta do it, right? And I'm sure it'll make things easier when all these silly rulers blow each other to bits claiming it's what's best for us.

The Pledge of Allegiance

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in August 1892 by the socialist minister Francis Bellamy (1855-1931). It was originally published in The Youth's Companion on September 8, 1892. Bellamy had hoped that the pledge would be used by citizens in any country.

In its original form it read:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In 1923, the words, "the Flag of the United States of America" were added. At this time it read:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In 1954, in response to the Communist threat of the times, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words "under God," creating the 31-word pledge we say today. Bellamy's daughter objected to this alteration. Today it reads:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Section 4 of the Flag Code states:

The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.", should be rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should remove any non-religious headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute."

Found this on ushistory.org

Meant for all nations in support of their governments. Not governments in support of their Gods.

So it changed with the times... What's wrong with that...?

Nothing is wrong with that, but why can't it change for the times again? Frankly I liked it better in it's original form- shorter and more to the point!

Are you still relishing it?

i remember the pledge too.. i pledge allegence to the flag and too the republic for which it stands...one nation, (under god) with liberty and justice for all. under god was added to the pledge in 1956 .. in god we trust was added to the dollar in 1957 .. seems efforts of groups like AA are simply working to get things back like the forefathers envisioned or intended
i shudder to think what this country would be like if the dreams of pat robertson, jerry farwell, gw bush, sara palin??? !!!etc etc etc became reality in our government and i feel better knowing groups working to maintain the seperation of the church and the state

"i remember the pledge too.. i pledge allegence to the flag and too the republic for which it stands...one nation, (under god) with liberty and justice for all. under god was added to the pledge in 1956 .. in god we trust was added to the dollar in 1957 .. seems efforts of groups like AA are simply working to get things back like the forefathers envisioned or intended
i shudder to think what this country would be like if the dreams of pat robertson, jerry farwell, gw bush, sara palin??? !!!etc etc etc became reality in our government and i feel better knowing groups working to maintain the seperation of the church and the state"

___________________________________________
That does not make any sense? You say you remember as far back as 1956, yet you write as if you were some rebellious teenager. Your body has aged (not like wine), yet your mind has never outgrown the beatnik/hippie era of the late 50s/60s and you are trapped in a time warp. I would have thought that at your age, a person like you would have gained some wisdom.

I always liked the "for witches stands " part . ;)

"I guess the spiritual people of this world will forever remain ignorant and small minded... " Are you implying this is something I said or a mentality I promote?

Thank you K14. I respect atheists I know and they respect me. We know what discussions to stay away from and come together on the common language we speak, which is science. Yes, science is a language. Language was not only invented to communicate, but it serves as a way of thinking, a philosophy. I do not discount it but am not limited by it either. My goal is to be fluent in various schools of thought. This makes one better equipped to deal with the world and its various philosophies.

spam

haha...cleverness...

Can someone say anything without a mandatory jingoist comment from a conservative? It's borderline Nazi.

We have freedoms in America because people like the AA make sure assholes like these guys in Kentucky don't get away with shit like this.

@Saladin - How does the removal of "God" from a few lines of text in a law add or subtract from any freedoms that you have today? Do you feel more "free" after seeing this? Is there something you can do today that you couldn't do before this ruling was handed out? Just trying to figure out how this ruling relates to freedoms in America...

@bluesoldier - It's upholding a freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution - "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, non-religion over religion, or religion over non-religion."

This would be an example of ensuring that there is not a preference of religion over non-religion.

You know this is really a fine line, In God We Trust on our money, doesn't bother me, but "dependence on Almighty God as being vital to the security of the Commonwealth" sounds a little over the top.

Sure pulling it out or leaving it in won't really make a difference to the "security of the Commonwealth", but what if it'd been a group of Muslims or Buddhists wanting to either replace or add their belief system to the wording? Would the Christians be as willing to add that?

I think it's better to leave God at home or the church/temple/mosque where ever, but not so much at the court house or the Capitol.

I also think most groups especially atheist's are a little over sensitive to even the mention of the word God, for something they don't believe in, they sure act afraid of him/her/it.

"I also think most groups especially atheist's are a little over sensitive to even the mention of the word God, for something they don't believe in, they sure act afraid of him/her/it."

I think what atheists fear is our constitutional rights being overridden by the fact that the majority of people believe in god. There is no reason to promote god or any kind of religious/spiritual beliefs within the government system; in fact, it's a clear violation of our first amendment rights and an example of institutionalized discrimination.

@ Delia - Simply removing religion from government doesn't mean that theres any more of an effect than if it were still there. Decisions today are made by those in power. Those in power are elected by the people. So basically, your freedoms are dictated moreso by the those in power than by whether or not God is written into a law somewhere. So basically, if someone doesn't want God in their government, they should elect people to power whom they feel believe the same way. Otherwise, erasing God from the law will be about as effective as scrubbing a tumor with soap.

As an atheist myself I can tell you that we are not "afraid" of the word "God" so much as the some of the radicals that follow him and act like the rest of us are supposed to.

And as for "electing people", us in the minority have very little say. Anyone of anything but Christian affiliation is quickly wiped out. Our best option is just being complacent and apathetic about being unable to act on our opinions or leave. I believe two quotes can sum this up best

"Majority rule don't work in mental institutions." -NoFX

"I like you Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." -Gandhi

Treva, you last Ghandi quote is so true. I am familiar with that story.

You have people like BHO calling themselves Christians, when their actions report the opposite. I prefer to use the first century term called the way.

@Trev - Well, all I'm saying is that people can erase and pencil in whatever or whoever they wish to, but it won't change the thoughts and actions of the people who are in power. I'm a Christian myself, and I'm seeing more and more stories related to people removing Christ from everything. Christianity is being pushed to the sidelines, and that saddens me, but it shows that people who believe in something other than my religion (and people who believe in nothing at all) are gaining ground. And trust me, I dislike the crazies just as much as you do. There are some true extremists out there that I want to have no association with that sadly call their selves Christians. They do horrible things that aren't condoned by the Bible or common sense. However, you have to understand that for most Christians, the mission is simply to get others to become Christians as well. There's a cause that we believe in and we want more people to join, but no one has to, its just an offer...

"So basically, if someone doesn't want God in their government, they should elect people to power whom they feel believe the same way. Otherwise, erasing God from the law will be about as effective as scrubbing a tumor with soap."

I agree. It's unfortunate that there is only one openly atheistic member of our government system. This is due to many factors; discrimination against atheists in politics being one of many.

However, arguing that we shouldn't change unjust laws or unconstitutional wording doesn't make any sense to me. Obviously people are going to believe and act the way they want- that doesn't mean our laws and words should not represent an accurate portrayal of our society and rights.

@Delia - I believe that's where the true battle lies; because the law can only represent one of those two at a time. Either our society, or our rights. When it comes to religion, the society side of it would be represented by the majority, which would be the Christians, whereas our rights would be represented by a mixture of people who want the Establishment clause honored in every law. When it comes to this specific story, I don't see the need for what that law was proclaiming, but I'm glad that these things are being handled on a case-by-case basis instead of all at once, because I feel that there are times when God should be involved with the government. Not ALL the time, but sometimes.

"because I feel that there are times when God should be involved with the government. Not ALL the time, but sometimes."

Like when? Just curious.

Well, things like currency and the pledge of allegiance. I know a lot of people don't like having God in the pledge, but I think he should stay a part of it and those who don't want to acknowledge him just shouldn't say his name. (And the majority of my classmates back in high school last year didn't even say the pledge at all.) Also, use of the bible for swearing in people, court cases, etc. Nothing too extreme like in this story, just things that I think help in a society which has a majority of Christians.

I don't say even the pledge myself, so the "under God" part makes no difference to me. It's just a piece of land ruled by rich guys. I'm not pledging my allegiance to an over glorified dirt patch. If I did, I'd just say somethin else. Like under the Sun. You know, somethin catchy.

Well put Bluesoldier.. I don't know where the mere mention of the word god on money or a pledge is the same as promotion of a religion. Acknowledging a higher power is not the same as saying "you can only hold office or recieve government benefits if you belong to A, B, or C religion.
To me that would be "establishing a relegion", or having a national Cardinal or minister.

And based on court rulings like this one it seems the minority is well considered in this country by the courts and the constitution. I think that was the way the founders intended it to work. No?

I have to disagree- I think having god on our money and in our national pledges is clearly favoring religion over non-religion. Now, we can make the argument that god doesn't need to be a religious idea- there are plenty of people who believe in god but don't like to be labeled as religious- but it doesn't change the fact that you are clearly showing favor of belief over non-belief.

I am sick of the Government cow towing to religious fanatics who want to have "one nation under God" or "in God We Trust" dominating our money, our politics, and our health care. Most of the people who use religion in politics are using it for the votes and because it portrays them as having "family values" to the Religious morons who can't see past the word Atheist to see loving and caring people there. However, it is utterly disingenuous and a fraud for them to wrap themselves in a blanket of Religion while they vote to deny rights to groups like homosexuals, transgendered people, Atheists, and anybody else who doesn't believe in Jesus Christ.

The lines of separation between Church and State were blurred dramatically by the last administration. I hope that future people who get involved in politics will have the guts to stand up and be counted among the millions who don't believe in the Judeo/Christian/Muslim God of War.

"@Saladin - How does the removal of "God" from a few lines of text in a law add or subtract from any freedoms that you have today? Do you feel more "free" after seeing this? Is there something you can do today that you couldn't do before this ruling was handed out? Just trying to figure out how this ruling relates to freedoms in America..."

EXACTLY! which brings up the point that if this mentioning of God added nothing to the bill then why have it there? If it adds nothing to have it on money, then why put it there?
It is put there to add preference towards religion and that is unconstitutional.

ii386, Jubal above, asks 'why most people can't see beyond the word 'atheist' to see a loving caring person?' What is a loving and caring person? If someone demonstrated tolerance for the differences of others, could one be considered caring and loving? Or is the 'loving' only in the interests of the individual?

That was FUNNY!

People do crazy things for whatever it is that they believe in, not just God. Things such as Love, Family, Respect, all drive people to do immoral things. Imagine going into a bad part of town and being shot at, and the shooting is justified because the person with the gun believes in street respect, and they feel you disrespected them.
Scary...

And please don't put christians in the same boat as terrorists...that's rather extreme.

Radical Evangelical Christians are Terrorists! What planet do you live on?