Comments for 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 »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 149
-
97%
Radiofreeeuropa11 months, 2 weeks ago
-
ellsworth-tooheyComment removed: Hard Banned14 Replies
-
-
jaernComment removed: Spam
-
-
-
100%
ETproductions11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
They have a long way to go with that spam filter. I wasn't aware you could spam someone with a single word. Perhaps if the engineers working on the algorithm relied more on Almighty God and laid off the programming for a time, the algorithm would miraculously fix itself.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
29%
Pecossam11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, Endoscopy, they do indeed rant and misunderstand the "Establishment of Religion" phrase in the first amendment. What the Founders were addressing at that time was the Church of England with its book of "Common Prayer" (a STATE RELIGION), NOT the doing away with any PUBLIC invocation of the Creator, as witnessed by many of their speeches AND PUBLIC proclamations. The atheists need to get over the fact that we are indeed (or at least WERE at our founding as a NATION) a Judeo-Christian CULTURE!
Reply
A perusal of our common law at that time will demonstrate this FACT. The Ten Commandments are the FOUNDATION of our Country's laws, as they are of England's, whose colonists founded this GREAT COUNTRY, their revisionist attempts upon our history in the schools and universities not withstanding.
"The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'."-
0%
truthfirst11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The proper translation of Psalm 14:1 is: "The fool has said in his heart, 'No God'." If you notice in the text that the words "There is" are in italics. Meaning that they were not in the original text. The fool is not saying there is no God, but that they don't want a God. They don't want a God who is ruling over them, and that they are accountable too.
Reply -
100%
Radiofreeeuropa11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Reverse it, what if the homeland security demanded god was renounced?
Reply
How irate you would be. Keep the government and the religions separate.
And crack a history book once in a while, (not the revisionist hoodoo you have been duped about.)-
100%
Radiofreeeuropa11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'll keep my government out of your religion if you keep your religion out of my government, otherwise prepare to pay taxes on every dollar and property owned by a church. We could sure use the tax money. And just for fun let's have a state sanctioned religion! ****the constitution! Bring back some witchburnings and the inquisition. What a bunch of pinheads.
Reply
-
-
100%
smithichie11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Ten Commandments are the Foundation of our laws?
Reply
Either you are not familiar with the Ten Commandments or you are not familar with America's laws.
What law is there against working on the Sabbath?
Laws against coveting neigbors goods? Heck it's what our economy is built on.
Our prisons couldn't handle making adultery illegal, not to mention we would lose nearly all our politicians.
Honoring parents is one thing, but to make it a law?
No godly images? How many churches have images of Jesus, better alert the authorities.
No taking the name of God in vain? Is that why people got so upset over Rev.Wright saying goddamn America? What charges did he face?
Which brings us to murder and stealing. Rules against killing and stealing are not exclusive to Judeo-Christian society, in fact they are elements found in ALL societies.
Oh, it's a fool who thinks their heart does anything more than pump blood.-
100%
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
'heart' is just an expression...the bible also says the seat of the emotions are the bowels...at least they are on me-whenever I have to do something hard or go thru something emotional, my gut is where I feel it
Reply
I know I know, its a fool who thinks that their bowels do anything more than s****ing
''Rules against killing and stealing are not exclusive to Judeo-Christian society, in fact they are elements found in ALL societies.''
even the Elks Club and the mafia?
true, even the mafia frowns on killing members of their own society-without going thru the proper channels, of course.
any society, even the mafia, must keep peace among its members somehow if they want to remain cohesive
anybody who reads the old books of the bible knows, like the mafia, those Ten Commandments were only for the Israelites
Thou Shalt Not Kill
instead of a 'you understood' statement, like '[you] Go get the papers, the papers' its like a 'yours' understood statement, but it goes at the end, like this
Thou Shalt Not Kill [yours]
all Amorites, Hittites, Hivites, Jebusites, Ai-ites, etc -'theirs' in other words, need not apply, as the conquest of Canaan showed-
0%
truthfirst11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Ten Commandments were not just for the Israelites, but for all of mankind. The purpose of the Ten Commandments is to reveal sin in our lives so that we realize that we have no hope of salvation apart from Jesus Christ. Notice what the Apostle Paul says in Romans 7:7: "What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “Do not covet." John MacArthur writes: "Apart from the law, we would have no way of accurately judging our sinfulness. Only God’s law reveals His divine standard of righteousness and thereby enables us to see how far short of His righteousness we are and how helpless we are to attain it by our own efforts." Look at The Sermon on the Mount. Its central theme is that God demands perfect righteousness. So, take the time to read both the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount. Examine your life according to both of them and you will see that you fall short of what God's Holiness requires to get into Heaven. Then turn to Jesus Christ and call out to Him for help.
Reply
-
-
-
-
100%
memestryker11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Endoscopy, I can't believe you would say this. We all have rights guaranteed by the first amendment, and our founders clearly thought such behavior is anti-American. It also protects you from being bullied by Hindus, Muslims, Fundamentalist LDS, Maoists, etc. Why would you think it's OK to bully nontheists or any other group with a belief system?
Reply
-
-
-
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.-
-
17%
Georgia5011 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My bad, RFE...I thought perhaps you read your own article.
Reply
But since you're into the founding forefathers, and since I know the context of YOUR article is STATE law, find us one single law or federal constitutional provision written by our founding forefathers that proscribed the states from acknowledging the Living God. Everyone here already knows their position on FEDERAL law.
You're welcome. Next time, don't play hooky so much. And please don't tell me you can't distinguish between state and federal law. If you do, I'll have to make fun of you.-
-
100%
Radiofreeeuropa11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Don't take my word for it regarding the FACT that the founding fathers were primarily Deists . Here is a link to William and Mary's religious studies professor for over 40 years words on the matter.
Reply
http://web.wm.edu/news/archive/index.php?id=6083
I'll take his word over yours and endoscoper!
-
-
-
-
100%
Radiofreeeuropa11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wrong.
Reply
How about these fine quotes?
Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."
--Ben Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, 1758
"Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects."
--James Madison, letter to William Bradford, January 1774
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect."
--James Madison, letter to William Bradford, April 1, 1774
". . . no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."
—Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."
--Thomas Jefferson, letter, 1787
"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see, but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity, though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequences, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and observed, especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any peculiar marks of his displeasure."
--Benjamin Franklin, letter to Ezra Stiles, March 9, 1790
"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
--Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, 1794
"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church."
--Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, 1794
"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon than the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind."
--Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, 1794
"The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?"
--John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 20, 1815
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
--Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."
--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Alexander von Humboldt, 1813
"Man is fed with fables through life, and leaves it in the belief he knows something of what has been passing, when in truth he has known nothing but what has passed under his own eye." —Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Cooper, 1823-
100%
Radiofreeeuropa11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved—the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" - John Adams
Reply
The founding fathers were a combination of Christians, Atheists, Agnostics, and Deists. The first amendment was added to separate the state from religion and to allow religious freedom because many of the founders were, indeed, non-Christians. The largest Christian denomination was Anglican. After long debate, it became clear to the framers of the amendments that separation of church and state was the most desirable route. In fact, such founding fathers as Patrick Henry, a catholic, were in favor of the 1st amendment. The bottom line is that, because of their intent, the US is a secular state, not a Christian (or any other religion) state.
The Declaration of Independence gives us important insight into the opinions of the Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the power of the government is derived from the governed. Up until that time, it was claimed that kings ruled nations by the authority of God. The Declaration was a radical departure from the idea of divine authority.
he 1796 treaty with Tripoli states that the United States was "in no sense founded on the Christian religion" (see below). This was not an idle statement, meant to satisfy Muslims-- they believed it and meant it. This treaty was written under the presidency of George Washington and signed under the presidency of John Adams.
See for yourself, of course your ideas are more valid than Washington and Adams, right?
http://freethought.mbdojo.com/titleXI.jpg
Consider this: IF indeed the members of the First Continental Congress were all bible-believing, "God-fearing" men, would there ever have been a revolution at all?
"For rebellion as is the sin of witchcraft." 1 Samuel, 15:23
The founders knew best.-
100%
Radiofreeeuropa11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You see, we would refer to this line of reasoning as Deism.
Reply
The Constitution and it's Bill Of Rights owe more to the Age Of Enlightenment than to the Bible, the Book of Mormon or The Koran.
Sorry but it is simple truth.
I'd be willing to bet had Darwin been published in the times of Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Franklin etc, they would have identified themselves as atheists rather than deists.
Of course Paine was in fact an atheist.-
100%
Radiofreeeuropa11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Would they have initiated a rebellion if indeed they thought it was equal to witchcraft (a crime punishable by death)? But that's only the tip of the iceberg. The New Testament gives clear instructions to Christians on how to behave when ruled under a monarchy, as were the Founders.
Reply
1 Peter 2:13: "For the Lord's sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right."
Paul wrote in Romans 13:1: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resist authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."
The Founders clearly did not heed what was written in the bible. If they were in fact "good" Christians, there would never have been an American Revolution. Compare the above passages with the Declaration of Independence:
"...when a long train of abuses and usurpations... evinces a design to reduce the people under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security..."
Anyone who can think for themselves can see that the Founders were not Christians.
-
-
-
0%
Endoscopy11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Gee you made my point for me with your big rant. 4 out of how many? like I said the overwhelming number of them were Christians. I knew about these but you left out all the others that were Christians. Why do you reject what history has taught us about the beginnings of our country going back to the first settlements. Several of the first settlements were created by people in the Reformed view of the Bible. The Dutch in NY were Reformed. The Pilgrims were a variation of that as well as Puritans. Then Presbyterians from Scotland again another variation. Also groups that were different like the Quakers and Catholics then later others. Almost all people were Christian. I know you can't stand it but it is a fact. Going up until the 60's the vast majority of people in this country were Christian. The vast majority of Presidents were Christian including the incumbent and elect. Our constitution was debated and written by a very large majority of Christians.
Reply
Why do you try and tell what is not factual? Maybe your avatar tells us. No head.
-
-
-
-
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-
-
-
67%
Radiofreeeuropa11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
They have had Freemasonry and deist imagery far longer.
Reply
In God we trust ,since only 1957, added by buffoons who thought it antagonized the soviets cold war wise. God is on my side...yeah sure.
He bets on football games too. Sure nuff. -
-
-
-
-
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%
flyonthewallzz11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think they are including the spending of Bureaus that where absorbed by DHS.
Reply
The numbers for SS and HHS show up in the outlays budget from the White House.
The numbers for DHS do not.
I do not know if it is a mistake, or considered "Emergency" or supplemental spending.
If I filter the budget for Agency Name DHS there is spending that goes back to the first records shown (1962).
The outlays table pegs spending at these numbers FY2006:
DHS = $69 Billion
HHS = $614.3 Billion
SS = $585.7 Billion
If I filter the list for Account names that contain the word "Flood" I get about $19 billion FY2006.
Going back to 1962 this spending never topped $1 billion except for 2005 when it hit $1.8 billion.
I some times wonder if they are making this stuff up.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
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-
100%
Daylight11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
david_nwpa
Reply
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.
God protects those who protects themselves. God has already created natural laws to protect his creations but man in his greed destroys everything and then denies God. -
-
-
-
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%
Radiofreeeuropa11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thomas was a bit of a mystic, a seeker. I take no issue with Thomas. Unfortunately Thomas or even Francis of Assisi are not the thinkers of metaphysical thoughts adapted, acknowledged, or even contemplated by most (or at least the more vocal) religious factions. But that is not really the issue, frankly as you pointed out this writ makes law of acknowledging a god. This is not a mere flowery reference to a creator which could be nature, or whatever one perceives; which I have no objection to obviously. This clearly subjugates the role of government to be involved in worship of a deity, not to mention being a complete waste of tax money. I of course was being sarcastic about FSM, but where are you on the underwear and Swahili?
Reply
(chuckles and snickers).
We must at min. see this slope as a slippery one.-
100%
flyonthewallzz11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It goes a bit further than acknowledgment of God.
Reply
It Places God as a servant to man.
No problem with the Swahili or the underwhere.
What are you eating under there?
I just never thought to much of the flying spaghetti monster.
Sorry: I just don't believe in him.
-
-
67%
Daylight11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
flyonthewallzz
Reply
Your know Radio: The flying spaghetti monster argument does not work with me.
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]
Atheists and Evolutionists will not satisfied with anything or any sign of God, they foolishly argue that God should speak to them or show them miracles but there are plenty of miracles happening everyday, like babies are born but they don't consider that as a miracle because it happens everyday.
Allah (God) the one and only, Allah (God) the eternal absolute, He begetteth not, nor is he begotten, and there is none like unto him.
And said: Do they not travel through the land, so that their hearts (and minds) may thus learn wisdom and their ears may thus learn to hear? Truly it is not their eyes that are blind, but their hearts which are in their breasts. -
-
-
-
-
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.-
-
-
100%
memestryker11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Atheists aren't fanatical about there being no God. They are quite concerned that creeping theocracy is undermining the government set up by founders who had attempted to prevent theocracy from gaining ground.
Reply
Our founders had seen what happens when theocracy gains a stranglehold on government, and they sought to avoid it. So atheists are more aligned with the original intent of the founders.
Notice that theists continue to try to limit the power of the first amendment and to undercut it at the state and local levels.
-
-
-
-
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...-
100%
Radiofreeeuropa11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am pretty sure those posting pro -religion (specifically their own ) comments regarding state sponsored religion no more believe in Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, Ares, Hermes, Hephaestus, Aphrodite, Athena, Apollo, Artemis,Vulcan, Bacchus, Abnoba, Holler, Idun, Enki, Ishtar, etc. etc., than I do.
Reply
They claim that atheism is a religion.
Only if their own unbelief of Apollo, Artemis,Vulcan, Bacchus, Abnoba, Holler, Idun, Enki, and Ishtar is also a religion. (it isn't)
Anyway If the law required that first and foremost the state requires the acknowledgment of Enki. I wonder if they would have no problem with that? As they demand EXACTLY the same thing of others.-
100%
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm not gonna argue the point, but I always see the 'Atheism is not a belief' angle as a kind of rhetorical nicety or convenience aimed at avoiding further points in the rhetorical flank of Atheism that could be opened up.
Reply
its really kind of silly to me...as well as slightly dishonest
no we don't BELIEVE anything, we've reached no conclusion, we just think about a subject and, fighting every natural impulse of the mind and nature, the one that abhors a vacuum, we just leave that space blank
yeah, right, and I got some swampland on a bridge I'll sellya
I've had these arguments on here before and find them not very interesting. That plus the redefinition of Atheism to resemble what agnosticism used to be kind of sours the exchange for me
brings to mind the Rush lyric 'If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice' for some reason
a belief is a choice, a choice to accept OR reject something. the only alternative is to make no choice, reach no conclusion...you gonna tell me Atheists haven't reached a conclusion and made a choice about God?
puhhhh-leeeeeease
not belief is belief, because belief is defined by choice and one chooses not to believe. It's perhaps the terms involved that confuse people
this whole Atheism is not a belief thing is just to close off a rhetorical alley in Atheist/Theist thoroughfare
I have a real good idea what that is...has to do with lack of data
good post as always BTW
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
Radiofreeeuropa11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why do you need to have your god written into law?
Reply
A religion that needs the state to propagate it is probably a bad one.
Clearly the way this is worded, if you don't agree you are a threat to the security of the US.
I don't object to someone saying they believe in a god, gods, or various sundry luminous netherbeings, that is their prerogative. Keep it out of government. Keep it out of laws. -
100%
memestryker11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is not the time of year to disavow the existence of Santa Claus. Please wait until December 26 to make such assertions. I do have solid evidence that Santa exists--my stocking over the fireplace has been filled every year of my life on the night of December 24th that I can remember, and the cookies are always gone.
Reply
And I also have pretty strong evidence for the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy. I have found no evidence for a deity, however.
-
-
100%
memestryker11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What do you have against an evolving universe where people historically used metaphors (such as totems, gods, and goddesses) to make sense of a complex world? If you have any questions, please take the time to study science, then post a comment.
Reply
-
-
90%
Dave5911 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So I guess If'n I ain't a upright Christ belivin individual then I'm a terrorist.
Reply
They can stick that trash where the doesn't shine. Talk about frigging idiots.
For one I am pretty tired of this Christian thing. Just this morning a whole heard of Christmas shoppers knocked down a door and ran over a 34 year old man at a Wal-Mart in New York. No one even stopped to help him. That man is dead tonight. I just love the "Christian Ethic". Seems likes it okay to run down and kill a man for 20% off, but if we don't believe in GAWD then we must be terrorists.
My opinion is there are a whole lot of people out there who are cruel and ignorant and using GAWD and JAYSUS and THE BIBUL to cover it up. Pardon me for being a little bit harsh but I have listened to much of this for years and I do not believe the stuff.
Try thinking for yourself and believing in yourself. Try helping other people. That's what humans should and can do. That is so much better than believing in a mythical being no one living in this world has seen. -
100%
LABELDUDE11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Unfortunately, over most of my 65 years, the State of Kentucky has been seen as a corral filled with low intelligence folks unaware that the ass end of their bib-overalls has been long torn out with no underware in sight. GOD will indeed save these believers from yet another form of religious sub-himans; only these have bombs. BUT WAIT! Why would they attack Kentucky?! The two groups do have a lot in common. Allah Akbar! God Save Kentucky!
Reply -
-
-
88%
Tcaros11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
McCain won Kentucky by 61%. That should tell you something.
Reply
The first thing the new administration should do is figure ways to disband the department of homeland security. It is a paranoid reaction to a problem that has been around since the beginning of time; the need to feel safe. -
100%
CORVIDIVS11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
THE NOTION WOULD BE EASY... to accept that the 911 attackers screamed allah akbar moments before the consummation of their trajectory. So Indeed, 'who's god?'...
Reply
...and as has been stressed by other posters on prop, the germans of the 40's milieu were fond of got mit uns...
loading ...
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.