Kentucky elected a baptist minister to their House and he sneaks in an amendment mandating that a state agency acknowledge God in it’s official duties.
From the Lexington News: (h/t Ed Brayton)
The 2006 law organizing the state Office of Homeland Security lists its initial duty as “stressing the dependence on Almighty God as being vital to the security of the Commonwealth.”
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.”
Forget a religious test for candidates, now we have religious tests for actual policy. So much for ‘it can’t happen here’. Hopefully this will get fixed one way or another. Problem is, while it’s getting fixed someone will no doubt pay a political price for fixing it. Apparently this wasn’t done as some kind of stunt but is an actual policy point for the guy who put in the amendment.
There is no reference to God in Homeland Security’s current mission statement or on its Web site, which displeases Riner.
“We certainly expect it to be there, of course,” Riner said.”
Even previous administrations took it for a serious policy point:
Under previous Gov. Ernie Fletcher, a lay Baptist preacher, Homeland Security interpreted the law at face value, prominently crediting God in its annual reports to state leaders and posting the required plaque.
Does someone have to sue or can a judge fix this outright, ruling that it violates the Establishment Clause? Are the judges who could do so appointed or elected?
…the Preamble of the Kentucky Constitution states:
<
p>”We, the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy, and invoking the continuance of these blessings, do ordain and establish this Constitution.”
<
p>It does also say this about religious freedom:
<
p>”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.”
<
p>As for mode of selection, they are elected:
<
p>”Justices of the Supreme Court and judges of the Court of Appeals, Circuit and District Court shall be elected from their respective districts or circuits on a nonpartisan basis as provided by law.”
<
p>The federal constitution only prohibits establishing a religion or prohibiting free exercise, neither of which this seems to do. Generally speaking judges cannot initiate cases, but only act when a plaintiff with standing brings a case. I think this is a dumb law on the merits, but it probably has the same constitutional status as putting “In God We Trust” on our currency. Ultimately I think this is harmless for practical purposes although if they decide to simply rely on prayer to protect them rather than actually inplementing security measures that would be another story.
… previous federal SC interpretations for a few reasons.
<
p>
<
p>This set of criteria that Breyer is talking about that makes the Van Owen case permissible is clearly not at work in the case of the Department. The Department isn’t ordered by the legislation to ‘reflect’ or contemplate a ‘historic’ way the Department has acted for decades (it’s a recently passed law). They are actively directed to ascribe to God his protective powers. The directive isn’t to allow some monument but directs the legislation to beaurocratically ensconce a relationship with God. They are directed to do everything short of thanking him.
<
p>I think this will fail on constitutional grounds as this is the most active act of religiosity I’ve seen committed to modern legislation.
the prominence of the plaque and the references to God are certainly more like the McCreary than the TX case. But does a reference to God in general establish any one religion over another? Does the fact that the reference is to “Almighty God” associate the reference with a particular religion?
<
p>And to answer your other question, a federal judge can only rule on a case or controversy, so there would have to be a lawsuit. But federal courts have relaxed the standing requirement in establishment clause cases, so any citizen of Kentucky could bring suit.
… I think that the fact that it is (at the least) an endorsement of monotheism over non-monotheism is enough of a problem by itself. After all, that question is purely theological in nature and should therefore be a question upon which the state should offer no opinion. It certainly violates the Lemon test in that it has the purpose of advancing religion and it’s primary effect is advancing religion. There certainly is no secular purpose to the law. That by itself is enough.
we’ll know why. In all seriousness, since one of the main reasons for anti-US terrorism is a belief that we are the Great Satan and an offense to God, then this is really a prudent defense against terrorism, possibly the only defense that has any chance of working over the long term, and at zero cost and inconvenience or loss of liberties. What is the problem with it? If you don’t believe in God, it is meaningless, it doesn’t impose any burden on you whatsoever.
…that terrorists will think that since we acknowledge God everything will be OK. After all, the vast majority of us DO acknowledge the same God of Abraham as they claim to, whether you call Him Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, or Father, but they don’t (and sadly many Christians don’t) acknowledge that He is the same God.
I don’t see terrorism ever ending as long as we try to officially ignore God and spread this secularism along with our culture everywhere we can. I do think that terrorists are less inclined to strike truly respectful God fearing states and people than overtly secular God-denying targets. If Kentucky removes that phrase, it makes them a target just for doing that.
<
p>Yes, many people of many religions fail to recognize that all religions worship the same God, not just “many Christians”. Saying “many Christians” is a gratuitous swipe at Christians in general. But yes, it’s all the same God, whether you call it “Spaghetti Monster” or “Vishnu” or “Bob”, as long as you are referring to an “Almighty” being or power. The word “God” is used in English to refer to that, which is why it doesn’t say “Vishnu”. (Apparently Mr Lynne is one of those Christians that thinks they’re all different Gods. No, they’re different languages, but there can only be one Almighty God)
… is that it is sometimes difficult to know when you are being serious. Don’t get me wrong, your snark is often of the finest vintage… but…
<
p>
<
p>Perhaps true, but are you advocating that we cease to ignore God, or are you advocating that we placate terrorists? I’m not sure which…
<
p>
<
p>I doubt it. See Sunni v Shia for an explicit example of mutual hatred and killing alongside explicit worship of the same God… Knowing it’s the same deity hasn’t stopped them from killing each other.
<
p>It isn’t placating terrorists, when we are talking about reducing the underlying motivations of people that become terrorists, and not talking about giving in to hostage negotiations or something like that, which is placating terrorists and shouldn’t be done. And I’m advocating that we should cease to ignore God for our own benefit, and also to stop people from becoming terrorists.
<
p>I doubt it. See Sunni v Shia for an explicit example
<
p>Good point, but I think that’s different, not that I understand what they are fighting about. I’m not saying that merely having the same God means we won’t find things to fight about. But I do happen to know that one of the things motivating people to want to destroy us is that we are perceived as pushing secularism and a commercial materialistic unreligious lifestyle on them.
Many is not quantifiable so I don’t think it’s too general a swipe, especially since I am one of those Christians who does understand.
<
p>I think you go too far in saying they are ALL the same, however. I understand the concept of higher power being generic enough to embrace all belief systems, but for the purpose of this discussion I am refering to the one God worshipped by Abraham and is specifically linked in the respective traditions to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
all have the same Abraham. The God they say he talked to is the God of all religions, even the ones that don’t know nothing about Abraham. That’s what Dylan means by the “revisited” in Highway 61 Revisited. All the stanzas are about the same metaphorical Highway where God does what is to be done, and Abraham is only mentioned in one of them.
<
p>
I am simply citing the traditions of the religions themselves as provided for in their respective Scriptures, the authority of which I’ll take over (Bob?) Dylan any day.
Highway 61 runs the length of the Mississippi and passes through Bob Dylan’s hometown. Every interview and interpretation I’ve seen has dealt with it as a reference to various blues songs (especially “Highway 61”) and his childhood in Hibbing, MN.
<
p>Mr. Howard is the only person I’ve ever heard interpret the song to mean there is only one god.
is about – well, never mind.
<
p>Hey, if you can’t interpret a Dylan song however you want to, it must not be a Dylan song. Whenever I hear “Abraham” I think of that song (that’s how I know about Abraham having to kill his son, like the Stones taught me the Prodigal Son story). I don’t seriously think Dylan meant it to mean anything about one God, but I do think he is pointing out that Abraham’s story is just one of the crazy arbitrary things that God continually causes to happen, and Highway 61 is the metaphor for God’s omnipotence, or maybe the world’s cruelty and senselessness. I didn’t know about the original song, which I agree explains the “Revisted” a little better to me, but looking at the lyrics now, it was a pretty literal “I’m lonely and always on the road” song, and Dylan turned into that mystical universal deep significance that only he can seem to convey.
<
p>Hey, huh, that comment wasn’t worthless! I learned something from you! God is sometimes completely unpredictable!
Who cares? I think their theology is deeply flawed ultra-protestant malarkey. You don’t like God, and I don’t like God being made up to be something He isn’t.
<
p>However, I could care less if it’s “fixed” or not, mostly because it doesn’t make one bit of difference either way. Don’t like it? Well, don’t live in Kentucky. I’m not going to live in NYC and complain about all the damned Yankees fans.
… is my government taking a position on God. It fails a pretty basic ‘shoe on the other foot test’. We wouldn’t want a law requiring a government agency to give thanks to Vishnu, now would we?
They could give thanks to The Flying Spaghetti Monster for all I care, because that means about as much as asking God to block stinger missiles shot off by some disgruntled Tusken Raiders.
<
p>If they do their job correctly regardless of any of this, then who cares about the plaque?
… is design to protect speech, even if you don’t care. The establishment clause should be the same way… because frankly it doesn’t matter if you don’t care. Endorsement is impermissible on it’s face, even if you agree or don’t care for the endorsement.
if one makes the argument that atheism is a religion in of itself. Would hyper-secularism violate that clause as well?
Atheism as I understand it is the belief that there is no God or gods. By saying that there should be no reference to God in the Homeland Security mission statement, does that mean that the government should specifically acknowledge the non-existence of God? It seems to keep it value neutral — government takes no stand for any particular religion, for religion in general, or against any particular religion or religion in general. So, my preliminary answer is that no, this has nothing to do with atheism.
In addition this is a new tangent.
In what way is atheism a religion? You might as well argue that failing to believe that space aliens exist is a religion.
“Atheism is a religion the way that bald is a hair color.”
There is a difference, of course, between the sardonic adherents to the Flying Spaghetti Monster and, say, radical Hindus who have perpetrated anti-Muslim atrocities. Given the right (wrong?) context, you might lose your equanimity about shrines to Vishnu.
As an ardent yet realistic Catholic, you’ll be hard pressed to convince me that any religion on this planet has more blood on it’s hands than Christianity.
<
p>But who am I kidding? I’m Generation O. I’m all about the here and now. Bring on the radical Hindus!
… the Flying Spaghetti Monster adherents were to suddenly ban all ingestion of meatballs and spaghetti?
<
p>I would care. Spaghetti and meatballs is yummy.
<
p>It’s not that far a walk from the mandate to ‘give thanks’** to other mandates that are more intrusive.
<
p>** and, can you truly ‘give thanks’ under coercion…?