Wow, surely you don't need to be an atheist to think that's stupid, right? surely even if religious people agree with their "finding", they should be pretty furious that their government wasted time on that.

Then again, they're now wasting the Supreme Court's time to get it repealed. I'd say the best solution is to just never again vote for the idiots responsible, but don't go out of your way to undo it.

I'm ok with it, if we can have one modification; citizens can sue churches and all Christians living in the state any time anyone in the US is hurt by terrorism on US soil. Or at least on Tennessee soil.

Suing a church for an act of G*d? Excellent. Checkmate in one.

This is yet another reason I've signed the petition to allow Louisville to secede from Kentucky.

A 2002 "legislative finding" said the "safety and security of the commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God."

Sounds like they're just covering their asses. "Hey, that terrorist attack in our state wasn't our fault! Not enough people believed in God!"

Kentucky, where "We don't came from no monkey."

While this thing might have flown in the 1700's when the country was getting off the ground, there is no call for putting anything that resembles a state enforcement of religion into a law in the 21^st C.

Well, God's probably doing a better job of securing the homeland than the TSA.

/0 terrorists caught and counting

Stop wasting tax payer money on this worthless witch hunt.

The Irresponsible Captain: Kentucky, where "We don't came from no monkey."

While this thing might have flown in the 1700's when the country was getting off the ground, there is no call for putting anything that resembles a state enforcement of religion into a law in the 21st C.

In the 1700s, which was (aside from all the dysentery) probably more high brow than our current era, they would have called it Providence. "We trust our security to Providence".

so do the people of KY just figure is Sept 11th one of the those days God takes off every year for a little Me time and figures he'll just deal with whatever happened afterwards? If that's what's happening it's fine with me but could the Pope ask God to maybe have someone cover homeland security on his days off? Maybe He and JC can schedule their vacations so that someone is always in charge?

On one hand, "required its executive director to publicize "dependence on Almighty God" in agency training and educational materials" doesn't exactly seem like a throwaway reference like using in the year of our Lord xxx or a meaningless resolution proclaiming Thanksgiving or whatnot.

On the other hand, I'm guessing there must be a similar "require X agency to do Y" in the 1950s law putting "In God We Trust" on US currency. And the courts have mostly gone along with that nonsense.

Thisbymaster: Stop wasting tax payer money on this worthless witch hunt.

Needs "ironic" tag.

Okay, so:

(1) If God is providing security, then why do I have to take my shoes off at the airport? Are you implying that God can do everything except stop shoe bombs?

(2) If God is providing security, then why do bad things keep happening? Because if bad things keep happening more or less as statistics would dictate, then how is that different from God not being there at all?

(3) If there is a God and if it cares at all about our puny human concerns, I'd be very surprised if it thought the lip service with no substance was a good thing. I would think the best way to "praise God" would be to be kind to your fellow man and look out for the least of us (as at least one God said in one holy book).

Even if Jehovah witness, bet he never testify.

Satanic_Hamster: I'm ok with it, if we can have one modification; citizens can sue churches and all Christians living in the state any time anyone in the US is hurt by terrorism on US soil. Or at least on Tennessee soil.

Church ≠ God



Which God do we sue btw?

Valiente: Thisbymaster: Stop wasting tax payer money on this worthless witch hunt.

Needs "ironic" tag.

What Witch Hunt may look like...

Citizens represented by the group American Atheists are asking

As someone who is atheist and not particularly forgiving of or respectful to people that suffer the schizophrenic delusion that an embodiment of nature is continually staring over their shoulder while they masturbate and judging them... I have to admit that "American Atheists" is still something I consider a signal for derp incoming, like "Daily Kos" or "Cato Institute".

BitwiseShift: Suing a church for an act of G*d? Excellent. Checkmate in one.

Sam Gunn, is that you?

On the down side, it's pretty clearly saying that the state of Tennessee endorses Christianity.

On the plus side, now we know that the legislators think their cops and all are incompetent and can't do anything right, and the entire population of Tennessee is so stupid that there's no hope of fixing that. Because otherwise, there'd be a chance of catching the bad guy without God coming down personally and saying "Here he is, y'all!"

Jim_Callahan: Citizens represented by the group American Atheists are asking

As someone who is atheist and not particularly forgiving of or respectful to people that suffer the schizophrenic delusion that an embodiment of nature is continually staring over their shoulder while they masturbate and judging them... I have to admit that "American Atheists" is still something I consider a signal for derp incoming, like "Daily Kos" or "Cato Institute".

BitwiseShift: Suing a church for an act of G*d? Excellent. Checkmate in one.

Sam Gunn, is that you?

I think you missed a few... :)

Satanic_Hamster: I'm ok with it, if we can have one modification; citizens can sue churches and all Christians living in the state any time anyone in the US is hurt by terrorism on US soil. Or at least on Tennessee soil.

Why limit it to acts of terrorism, why not all acts of god? Tornado takes your doublewide, sue. Flood sweeps away Fido, SUE. Earthquake destroys your town, SUE!!!

/Suing, it's the American way

HindiDiscoMonster: Which God do we sue btw?

Start with the one whose adherents call their god "God". 

/No translating into other languages allowed.
//Oh hell, I think I just took a position on having a national language.

I May Be Crazy But...: HindiDiscoMonster: Which God do we sue btw?

Start with the one whose adherents call their god "God". 

/No translating into other languages allowed.
//Oh hell, I think I just took a position on having a national language.

You mean the Germans? And why on Earth would we have German as our national language?

/"God" is a German word and you quite clearly said no translating allowed.

HindiDiscoMonster: Valiente: Thisbymaster: Stop wasting tax payer money on this worthless witch hunt.

Needs "ironic" tag.

What Witch Hunt may look like...
[media.nerdblerp.com image 304x447]

I suspect the graphic design budget for that flick was a tuna sandwich.

I May Be Crazy But...: HindiDiscoMonster: Which God do we sue btw?

Start with the one whose adherents call their god "God". 

/No translating into other languages allowed.
//Oh hell, I think I just took a position on having a national language.

Well, that should cover them all... after all, aren't all Gods simply "God" to the worshiper of that God?

/really have to stop smoking incense

Valiente: HindiDiscoMonster: Valiente: Thisbymaster: Stop wasting tax payer money on this worthless witch hunt.

Needs "ironic" tag.

What Witch Hunt may look like...
[media.nerdblerp.com image 304x447]

I suspect the graphic design budget for that flick was a tuna sandwich.

Probably... the first movie was better anyway...

Can we just remove IRC section 501(c)(3) (exemption from federal income tax) from the tax code, and finally treat Religion like any other NGO?

Baelz: Can we just remove IRC section 501(c)(3) (exemption from federal income tax) from the tax code, and finally treat Religion like any other NGO?

No, because the Federal Reserve is a Eleemosynary Trust and that would remove their non-tax status.

How incompetent do you have to be to base your defense plans on magic??

tom baker's scarf: so do the people of KY just figure is Sept 11th one of the those days God takes off every year for a little Me time and figures he'll just deal with whatever happened afterwards? If that's what's happening it's fine with me but could the Pope ask God to maybe have someone cover homeland security on his days off? Maybe He and JC can schedule their vacations so that someone is always in charge?

No. The legislators were showing the bible-thumpers back in their districts how pious thay were, thus ensuring future votes. Demonstrating to the world that Kentucky makes Arkansas look like Mensa-topia was just a side-effect.

I'm still trying to decide if the biggest concentration of derp in the state is the Creation Museum, or Frankfort when the legislature is in session.

Farking Canuck: How incompetent do you have to be to base your defense plans on magic??

untaken_name: I May Be Crazy But...: HindiDiscoMonster: Which God do we sue btw?

Start with the one whose adherents call their god "God". 

/No translating into other languages allowed.
//Oh hell, I think I just took a position on having a national language.

You mean the Germans? And why on Earth would we have German as our national language?

/"God" is a German word and you quite clearly said no translating allowed.

Apparently that's difficult, but it's probably from old Teutonic if I can read right. And god is an English word - the German word is Gott. (Also, gott is swedish for "plenty", I believe)

But I'm talking about it as a proper noun, not as a word. So while plenty of religions call their god by a name which translates to "god" in English, that's not what they call it. English speaking Christians call their god "God", which was the name used in the law.

Meatybrain: Farking Canuck: How incompetent do you have to be to base your defense plans on magic??

[media.giantbomb.com image 300x425]

=)
If magic actually existed, it would be quite reasonable to use it in official defense plans.

I May Be Crazy But...: Apparently that's difficult, but it's probably from old Teutonic if I can read right. And god is an English word - the German word is Gott. (Also, gott is swedish for "plenty", I believe)

But I'm talking about it as a proper noun, not as a word. So while plenty of religions call their god by a name which translates to "god" in English, that's not what they call it. English speaking Christians call their god "God", which was the name used in the law.

An Englishman is just a German who has forgotten that his grandmother was Welsh.

BitwiseShift: Suing a church for an act of G*d? Excellent. Checkmate in one.

Well, here you go...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0268437/ - About a movie called "The Man Who Sued God."

Since the phrase in question is without effect, no one can have standing to sue.

/atheist, but occasionally sane

piperTom: Since the phrase in question is without effect, no one can have standing to sue.

/atheist, but occasionally sane

It certainly does have effect, though who can have standing to sue is still a possible issue.

"A 2006 act creating the state's Office of Homeland Security required its executive director to publicize "dependence on Almighty God" in agency training and educational materials and through a plaque at the entrance to its emergency operations center."

Bah! God doesn't get involved in national defense. He's too busy helping folks win the lottery, beat cancer, and making sure your favorite sports team wins

HindiDiscoMonster: I May Be Crazy But...: HindiDiscoMonster: Which God do we sue btw?

Start with the one whose adherents call their god "God". 

/No translating into other languages allowed.
//Oh hell, I think I just took a position on having a national language.

Well, that should cover them all... after all, aren't all Gods simply "God" to the worshiper of that God?

/really have to stop smoking incense

For monotheistic religions, maybe... But, I can't see that working very well for polytheistic ones... "Which god are you giving that offering to?" "Oh, you know, God!" "But, which one?" "God!"

eynonmcwanker: The Irresponsible Captain: Kentucky, where "We don't came from no monkey."

While this thing might have flown in the 1700's when the country was getting off the ground, there is no call for putting anything that resembles a state enforcement of religion into a law in the 21st C.

In the 1700s, which was (aside from all the dysentery) probably more high brow than our current era, they would have called it Providence. "We trust our security to Providence".

Security from Providence? How about a 58-foot-long two-ton termite? That should scare them A-rabs off!


Nibbles Woodaway

Meatybrain: Farking Canuck: How incompetent do you have to be to base your defense plans on magic??

You just need the right spells

"Panderous Maximus" followed by "Donateis Dinaros ToMeish Alakazam"

\granted those two-parters are a bit trickier.

I May Be Crazy But...: piperTom: Since the phrase in question is without effect, no one can have standing to sue.

/atheist, but occasionally sane

It certainly does have effect, though who can have standing to sue is still a possible issue.

"A 2006 act creating the state's Office of Homeland Security required its executive director to publicize "dependence on Almighty God" in agency training and educational materials and through a plaque at the entrance to its emergency operations center."

These are legally significant facts. For the plaque on the door compare the monument to the ten commandments in the Alabama state supreme court. 'Bama just relected Roy Moore, who as Chief Justice defied federal court orders to cover or remove the monument, to its supreme court.

**** STOP READING HERE TO AVOID WHITE KNIGHTING OF AA ***

For those who knee-jerk hate lawsuits and figure this is a waste of resources, remember this is a nonprofit suing the government. Only through litigation against encroachment can the constitutional prohibition against the establishment of a religion by the state be upheld. Yes, plaques and obscure legislative pronouncements could be ignored, but the establishment clause is there for a good reason. It protects not only atheists but also all other religious minorities. Also, we know that atheists are deemed less trustworthy than just about any other group you can think of in national polls. Does that make sense?

//and don't say it's because the atheists do shiat like this or I'll be forced to wave my tiny fist

HindiDiscoMonster: Church ≠ God


Which God do we sue btw?


All 2,850 of them.

Farking Canuck: How incompetent do you have to be to base your defense plans on magic??

Let's be honest, our defence plans are based on theirs, which isn't all that reassuring...It's kind of like being stuck behind somebody in the slow lane of the highway of life.