Anti-terror law requires God be acknowledged »
Posted By Radiofreeeuropa 11 months, 2 weeks ago in ReligionThe 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."
Read Full Story at kentucky.com »
1623 Views Share Story 47 Comments Report
Submitted By:
Radiofreeeuropa
All progress comes from unreasonable people.
Rats live on no evil star!
Wasilla: All I saw...
Sorry, just palindroming around with terrorists.
Are you still ...
Who Also Submitted:
Other Related Articles:
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 132 of 149 Comments (view all)
-
97%
Radiofreeeuropa11 months, 2 weeks ago
-
ellsworth-tooheyComment removed: Hard Banned14 Replies
-
-
-
-
lovemorgulComment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
100%
Beau789011 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"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.' "
Reply
Then...why does Almighty God need the Office of Homeland Security? -
24%
Georgia5011 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FRE,
Reply
Really. A complete shocker to anyone who knows nothing of our founding forefathers.
For those of us who are familiar with the dependence on a living, sovereign God openly declared by every president in every conflict this nation has ever faced, this is neither news or remarkable.-
95%
Dionys11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"A complete shocker to anyone who knows nothing of our founding forefathers."
Reply
They specifically left out most of the 'God' language that was extremely common at the time they wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They specifically included the anti-Establishment clause.
What's surprising is that someone who claims to know history would claim that specifically putting in the 'God' language that is so very UNcommon today is in any way similar to the founding fathers specifically leaving OUT the God language that was so common in contracts during their time. -
100%
flyonthewallzz11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/KRS/039A00/210.PDF
Reply
39A.210 Qualifications and oath of persons connected with disaster and emergency
response organizations.
“And I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present
Constitution, I, being a citizen of this state, have not fought a duel with deadly
weapons within this state, nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to
fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge,
nor aided or assisted any person thus offended, so help me God."
Founding fathers? Funny it seems Alexander Hamilton could not work for Kentucky Homeland Security. But BlackWater can? -
94%
Radiofreeeuropa11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sorry Georgia, you must be referring to alternative revisionist history.
Reply
Most of the founders were in fact deists and many were Freemasons (if you want to understand their use of words). Of course there were some who wanted to throw religion into the new nations founding doctrine, but they were soundly defeated.
Benjamin Franklin had this to say to those proposing religion should be part of the constitution-
‘When a Religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and when it cannot support itself. . so that its Professors are oblig’d to call for the help of the Civil Power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one"
From "Reasons and Arguments in the Constitution"
by Mark A. Noll
(Dr. Noll is professor of history at Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois.)
Jefferson thoughts are well known. As he put it to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802, there was to be "a wail of separation between Church and State" (V:96). He also felt that debate over the famous Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom in 1785 formed the essential background to the First Amendment, and that the Virginia Statute was consciously written to guarantee full participation in public life on equal terms by "the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination" (V:85)
James Madison, the individual closest to the document, offered an interpretation much like Jefferson’s. On the basis of the First Amendment, as well as the general principles of the Constitution, he opposed public payment for chaplains in Congress and the military, spoke out against national proclamations of days of prayer and while president vetoed congressional efforts to incorporate churches in the District of Columbia (fullest statement, V: 103-105) At the same time, Madison frequently opined that it was appropriate for private citizens to support chaplains and various kinds of semiorganized public religion through voluntary contributions if they wished (V: 104,105).
It is somewhat insulting to burden the propeller community with non facts that most 6th graders are versed enough to refute. -
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive
-
100%
memestryker11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
One's belief is private, and what one or all presidents believe has nothing to do with any other citizen, since we each have an individual right to believe--or not.
Reply
If you choose to believe in and depend on "a living, sovereign God", it's your right, but you have no right to inflict it on others or to insert it into government.
-
-
100%
flyonthewallzz11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/KRS/039G00/010.PDF
Reply
Sorry Radio: I admit that I did not believe the story at first.
I had to do a little trust but verify.
For folks that think I pulled the .pdf out of the ether it can be found here, it is the first link.
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/KRS/039G00/CHAPTER.HTM-
100%
flyonthewallzz11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/KRS/039A00/285.PDF
Reply
39A.285 Legislative findings.
“The General Assembly hereby finds that:
(1) No government by itself can guarantee perfect security from acts of war or
terrorism.
(2) The security and well-being of the public depend not just on government, but rest in
large measure upon individual citizens of the Commonwealth and their level of
understanding, preparation, and vigilance.
(3) 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.' "
Just some other stuff I thought was interesting. The first link talks about a plaque.
-
-
100%
jordan1111 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
They're using tax dollars, given them by 'homeland' security for religious propagtion? (Is that the word I need?) As they receive $1.51 back for every dollar they pay in to our national system, then I guess it would be safe for me to assume that MY tax dollars are among those paying for this? Gee, what can I say, without being 'banned?'
Reply -
-
100%
flyonthewallzz11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.fedspending.org/faads/chart_agency.php
Reply
Sorry this is tangential and has me totally confused.
Either FedSpending is making a huge mistake here, or Homeland security is spending more money than Social Security or DOD or HSS.
It is saying that Homeland security spent more than $700 billion bucks in 2006.
I am pretty sure their budget was more like $57 billion.
Maybe I am reading it wrong?
How could flood insurance cost so much?-
100%
flyonthewallzz11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.fedspending.org/faads/faads.php?datype=...
Reply
Assistance from Social Security Administration
(FY 2006)
Federal dollars: $593,859,820,682
The amount for this search is 24.2% of total Federal dollars for the fiscal year. -
100%
flyonthewallzz11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.fedspending.org/faads/faads.php?datype=...
Reply
Assistance from Dept. of Health and Human Services
(FY 2006)
Federal dollars: $644,110,588,391
The amount for this search is 26.3% of total Federal dollars for the fiscal year. -
100%
flyonthewallzz11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.fedspending.org/faads/faads.php?datype=...
Reply
Assistance from Dept. of Homeland Security
(FY 2006)
$729,907,419,330
The amount for this search is 29.8% of total Federal dollars for the fiscal year.
-
-
-
-
100%
david_nwpa11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I should think that Kentucky is not alone in its work with God to protect the homeland. I wonder how many other states mention God in their laws about this very topic. It would seem that a separation of church and state lawsuit would not fly with this case as the government is not endorsing a specific religion.
Reply-
100%
david_nwpa11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
For my left-wing brethern, please do not misconstrue my words here. All I am suggesting is that I suspect other states are just like Kentucky. Rather than singling out one state, we should be checking the laws of all the states to see how entrenched this whole "God protect us" message is. I cringe at the thought of tax dollars being used to support religious-biased programs.
Reply
-
-
ellsworth-tooheyComment removed: Hard Banned18 Replies
-
92%
Radiofreeeuropa11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Propensity to see government to be a secular institution is well founded. The intent here seems to be to insert a deity into the defense of the nation, it is an offense to force freethinkers,Buddhists,non-theists,and secularists to fund such nonsense.
Reply
God lives...in underground silos.-
91%
Radiofreeeuropa11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Looking at the massive spending on protecting roller rinks and empty fields in Kentucky from brainwashed religious fanatics setting their shoe on fire, I would be fine with this if I and others who believe government is a secular institution were given our money back so we at least weren't forced to fund this obvious chicanery.
Reply
If this kind of thing suits you, pay for it yourself. -
-
-
92%
LumFan11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And to think that they spent federal tax money on a plaque acknowledging that God is in the front line of Kentucky's homeland defense.
Reply
I'm not blaming the bureaucrats for this (they were doing as told by the law). I blame the Kentucky legislature for this monumental waste of time, money, and space. -
93%
Radiofreeeuropa11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Look, people are guaranteed the right to decapitate chickens, speak in tongues, be duped by flim flam faith healers, kiss snakes, and incant whatever gibberish they like. That's a good thing, to each their own. However it is to be done on YOUR time, and at YOUR expense, on YOUR property. Your plaque is obstructing me from conducting my business in this public building.
Reply
Homeland Security has become simply a colossal waste of tax dollars. A bottomless pit of pork and wanking.
I insist that the flying spaghetti monster be acknowledged as the most important aspect of defense, it's image should be placed before the entrance of the Pentagon and on the presidential seal. And Kentucky must speak Swahili and wear their underwear on the outside.
Wasteful BS. Nothing more.
Demand better.-
100%
flyonthewallzz11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your know Radio: The flying spaghetti monster argument does not work with me.
Reply
The following is about as close to the words that would describe my brand of Theism that words could possibly define. I do think that attaching any kind of words at all diminishes it by factors of millions.
"Concerning the nature of God, Aquinas felt the best approach, commonly called the via negativa, is to consider what God is not. This led him to propose five statements about the divine qualities:[20]
1. God is simple, without composition of parts, such as body and soul, or matter and form.
2. God is perfect, lacking nothing. That is, God is distinguished from other beings on account of God's complete actuality.
3. God is infinite. That is, God is not finite in the ways that created beings are physically, intellectually, and emotionally limited. This infinity is to be distinguished from infinity of size and infinity of number.
4. God is immutable, incapable of change on the levels of God's essence and character.
5. God is one, without diversification within God's self. The unity of God is such that God's essence is the same as God's existence. In Aquinas's words, "in itself the proposition 'God exists' is necessarily true, for in it subject and predicate are the same."
In this approach, he is following, among others, the Jewish philosopher Maimonides"
I don’t think there is any thing in those words that would stop me from thinking logically or to reject science or empirical thought.
I don’t think the flying spaghetti monster would fit that criterion.
But hey opinions are like whatever, everybody’s got one. Except I think “opinion” is too weak of a word. -
-
-
100%
Poulenc11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And here we are at the Great Divide (or one of the several great divides): those "of faith" who see the promulgation of their belief as a necessary/entirely reasonable way of expressing/confirming it, and those who feel that never-mind-who's-deity deity should be kept on a reasonably short leash.
Reply
Of course state govs shouldn't pimp for anyone's faith. To do so...well, here we have yet another example of unwarranted presumption. -
-
91%
Radiofreeeuropa11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The "terrorists" are as best I can see fanatically devoted religious people. So, bear with me on this, we fight religious fanaticism with religious fanaticism.
Reply
Kind of like "fighting fire with fire".
But realize the truth is in the end fighting fire with fire only makes a bigger fire.
Water is more effective. -
SandmonsterComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
-
-
-
100%
Radiofreeeuropa11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The thoughtful religionists of the past understood that they had more to lose from mixing religion and government than they had to gain, today our "thinkers" have not gleaned the danger to themselves. Keep religion out of government and government will stay out of religion.
Reply
Any variation leads to an end the dominionist types are likely not going to be pleased about.
-
-
100%
ConsAreNonGrata11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Which "God" are they referring to? Yep, there's the problem, they ain't referring to Zeus for one thing.
Reply
And since Christians are so big on not bearing false witness, we really need to put some notices in The Bible. For instance, Jesus's birth scene needs to be precede by the notice - "Dramatization - may not have happened."
That seems more fitting in a book where one of the chief tenets is NOT TO LIE. -
-
-
67%
RickyDawkins11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Atheism is NOT a "belief." Atheism is derived from the Greek, atheos, and means simply "away from the belief in a god or gods." Atheists do not "believe," and it is incorrect to assume that the belief in a supernatural entity or entities is, somehow, equivalent to the "non-belief" in those same beings. It isn't.
Reply
Most people rarely study or investigate their own religious beliefs, assuming they have any. If they are born in a predominately Christian, or Muslim, or Hindu, or Jewish culture, they will probably reflect the religious beliefs of that society.
Nearly every dictionary will define religion as "belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshipped as the creator and ruler of the universe. The definition of all other terms linked to religion employ much the same language -- church, monastery, priest. They are all part of a religious-language universe or "game" that has little to do with Atheism.
There cannot be an Atheist "Church", or an Atheist "priest" anymore than there could be an Atheist "god."
http://www.atheists.org/faqs/atheism.html#not.reli...
-
-
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.