Tweet
In 2006, Kentucky State Rep Tom Riner (D-Louisville), a Southern Baptist minister, quietly slipped language into a bill regarding Kentucky’s Homeland Security Office crediting “Almighty God” with Kentucky’s security. Three years later, a Federal Circuit Court judge has determined that this Godly language is unconstitutional.
For the past three years, officers of Kentucky’s Office of Homeland Security have been required to credit “Almighty God” in their official reports, and to serve below a plaque with the same message at their Emergency Operations Center in Frankfort, KY.
According to the required language, “the safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God”.
One would think that having God's protection would obviate the need for an Office of Homeland Security to defend a state from a handful of Muslim terrorists. Perhaps Kentuckians are lacking in faith?
Franklin Circuit Court Judge Thomas Wingate didn’t ask such philosophical questions in issuing his ruling. Instead, he commented:
Riner, pastor at Christ is King Baptist Church in Louisville, plans to appeal. He comments:
I would also like to ask Mr. Riner to demonstrate how each founder and/or framer of the Constitution believed that there were “real benefits” to acknowledging Almighty God, and explain why it is that they chose not to include Him in their Constitution. He can do this through research into the writings of these fine gentlemen.
Wouldn’t you like to know the answers to these questions? Imagine how many atheists would be permanently silenced!
Edwin Kagin, legal director of American Atheists, doesn’t much care. He crows,
Does Edwin live in Backward Land, where up is down and left is right?
For the past three years, officers of Kentucky’s Office of Homeland Security have been required to credit “Almighty God” in their official reports, and to serve below a plaque with the same message at their Emergency Operations Center in Frankfort, KY.
According to the required language, “the safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God”.
One would think that having God's protection would obviate the need for an Office of Homeland Security to defend a state from a handful of Muslim terrorists. Perhaps Kentuckians are lacking in faith?
Franklin Circuit Court Judge Thomas Wingate didn’t ask such philosophical questions in issuing his ruling. Instead, he commented:
The statute pronounces very plainly that current citizens of the Commonwealth cannot be safe, neither now, nor in the future, without the aid of Almighty God. Even assuming that most of this nation’s citizens have historically depended upon God, by choice, for their protection, this does not give the General Assembly the right to force citizens to do so now.
In his 18-page order to strike the “Almighty God” references, Wingate pointed out that there were two “Godly” amendments to the 2006 bill creating the Kentucky Office of Homeland Security, a somewhat delayed response to the 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.One required that training materials include information that the General Assembly stressed a “dependence on Almighty God as being vital to the security of the Commonwealth.” The other required a plaque to be placed at the entrance to the state’s Emergency Operations Center in Frankfort that said, in part, “the safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God.”
Wingate noted in the order that there are 32 references to God or Almighty God in state statutes and the state constitution.
But the reference in the homeland security law “places an affirmative duty to rely on Almighty God for the protection of the Commonwealth,” Wingate wrote. “This makes the statute exceptional among thousands of others, and therefore, unconstitutional.”
Wingate continues,Wingate noted in the order that there are 32 references to God or Almighty God in state statutes and the state constitution.
But the reference in the homeland security law “places an affirmative duty to rely on Almighty God for the protection of the Commonwealth,” Wingate wrote. “This makes the statute exceptional among thousands of others, and therefore, unconstitutional.”
It is clear that the purpose underlying the display of the plaque and the contents of Office of Homeland Security training materials is not to celebrate the historical reasons for our great nation’s survival in the face of terror and war. Its purpose is to declare publicly that the official position of the Commonwealth of Kentucky is that an Almighty God exists and that the function of that God is to protect us from our enemies.
Consequently, a reading of the statute’s plain language makes that clear. Effectively, the General Assembly has created an official government position on God.
The recitation of the beliefs of past Presidents does not mask the clear purpose of the statutes.
Full text of the statute may be found here.Consequently, a reading of the statute’s plain language makes that clear. Effectively, the General Assembly has created an official government position on God.
The recitation of the beliefs of past Presidents does not mask the clear purpose of the statutes.
Riner, pastor at Christ is King Baptist Church in Louisville, plans to appeal. He comments:
They make the argument … that it has to do with a religion, and promoting a religion. God is not a religion. God is God.
This is no small matter, the understanding that God is real. There are real benefits to acknowledging Him. There was not a single founder or framer of the Constitution who didn’t believe that.
I believe Mr. Riner, rather than speaking in generalities, should demonstrate the concrete benefits to acknowledging “Almighty God”. Such benefits must, of course, accrue directly from said “Almighty God”, not from the concurrence of other humans with the belief. This would help silence those obnoxious atheists.This is no small matter, the understanding that God is real. There are real benefits to acknowledging Him. There was not a single founder or framer of the Constitution who didn’t believe that.
I would also like to ask Mr. Riner to demonstrate how each founder and/or framer of the Constitution believed that there were “real benefits” to acknowledging Almighty God, and explain why it is that they chose not to include Him in their Constitution. He can do this through research into the writings of these fine gentlemen.
Wouldn’t you like to know the answers to these questions? Imagine how many atheists would be permanently silenced!
Edwin Kagin, legal director of American Atheists, doesn’t much care. He crows,
The plaintiffs, and all citizens of Kentucky, are more safe as a result of this thoughtful ruling by Judge Wingate. Threats to our security from within are even more frightening than threats from without. Those who seek to attack our freedoms by imposing their religion upon us have been pushed back a bit by this ruling. The Wall of Separation between government and religion continues to hold. I think Thomas Jefferson would have been pleased.
How exactly are they "more safe", now that they have rejected the protection of Almighty God?Does Edwin live in Backward Land, where up is down and left is right?
Comment