Ky. atheists want God out of homeland security

[Danmel]

Source: MSNBC Website

FRANKFORT, Kentucky - A group of atheists filed a lawsuit Tuesday seeking to remove part of a state anti-terrorism law that requires Kentucky's Office of Homeland Security to acknowledge it can't keep the state safe without God's help.

American Atheists Inc. sued in state court over a 2002 law that stresses God's role in Kentucky's homeland security alongside the military, police agencies and health departments.

Of particular concern is a 2006 clause requiring the Office of Homeland Security to post a plaque that says the safety and security of the state "cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon almighty God" and to stress that fact through training and educational materials.



Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28029857/

---

If they can't be protected without God, why does God allow the things they need protecting from to happen?


Reminds me of the Simpsons episode when Springfield is hit byt he tornado and the sign on the church reads "We welcome God's Victims"

[rpannier]

1. Bad Idea...

I hear God handles all the typing and filing at the office and is the only one who knows which donuts everyone likes.

[ixion]

2. and ixion wants Homeland Security disbanded and God sent back to church

no longer to be mentioned in the context of the state.

[fasttense]

3. I guess separation of church and state, was just another theory for the

Christians to ignore.

[awoke_in_2003]

12. Being christian...

means never have to question or think for yourself.

[superconnected]

30. I'm always stunned by how intolerant athiests are - insutling others relgions and all religions

as a whole etc.

It used to not be that way. I knew atheists who could handle others beliefs. Of course now as a group they're as intolerant of others beliefs as any ugly religion that attacks and insults everyone who doesn't think like them.

I should qualify that - not all atheists are intolerant. Some still can handle others beliefs. Unfortunately we see the ones who can't too often on DU. They start by insulting others religions and using blanket statements on all religious people. Then they claim that it's okay for them to do it because some religious people did it. Sorry, it isn't okay for either side and ignorance and intolerance should be called out and called exactly what it is no matter whose doing it.

[Pastiche423]

31. Have you been in an alternate world for the thirty years?

The xians believe that they not only own this country, but that our country was built on their beliefs.

It's long past time for the non-believers to speak up.

[superconnected]

32. But not speak up with blanket statements on all religions or all Christians

unless you want to be as narrow minded and ignorant as the intolerant people you're protesting against.

Intolerance of others beliefs is ugly whether it's the fred phelps group, an extreme rw church or an atheist. When someone makes blanket statements, they start becoming like the phelps group and not someone who actually can think for themself.

When someone says Christians cannot think for themselves, they may as well have said all blacks are car thieves. It's just as ignorant.

[Pastiche423]

36. Let me guess...

you're a xtrian?

[superconnected]

42. No a Buddhist.

Not believing in blanket statements attacking a religion is not a cornerstone of xians. It's something intelligent people do who can also tolerate other people believing what they want.

Fascinating the people here.. like you. I've never seen so much ignorance and intolance of others beliefs. I'd expect this shit from the fred phelps group.

Welcome to my ignore list. I don't want to read intolerance of others beliefs on a dem site. An atheist doing it is just as bad as a religious extremist doing it. Intolerance of others beliefs is ugly no matter which side of the fence it stands on.

[Pastiche423]

44. What blanket statement?

The only intolerance I've seen here is from the religious. I've spent 54 years being tolerant of others religious beliefs. In those 54 years my non-beliefs have not been. And now I've had it!

When someone wants to mess w/separation of church and state, I will speak out!

[superconnected]

45. I agree completely about church and state separation.

What I'm talking about is the poster that said all Christians are stupid. Blanket statements like that bug me. It's intolerant. I don't care if people are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Atheists, etc. What gets me is when one group makes blanket statements about another.

[Pastiche423]

48. If it was another poster that called xtrians stupid

then why are you bitching at me?

[Zhade]

38. WOAH. Hold the fuck up.

"But not speak up with blanket statements on all religions"

Sorry to break it to you, but religions are NOT off-limits when it comes to criticism. Nor is it intolerance to attack BELIEFS.

And your analogy is laughable. Ethnicity is an inborn trait. Religion is chosen.

[superconnected]

41. So you support calling all members of a religion stupid.

You're defending that kind of blanket statement. What good is an atheist if they can't tolerate other's beliefs just like a religious extremist not being able to?

Okay, you finally made my ignore list. I don't tolerate blanket statements of intolerance. I find it hard to believe that anyone but and ignorant bigot would.

[Zhade]

53. No, I defend calling every religion stupid. We are not required to tolerate beliefs.

We are expected to tolerate people's RIGHT TO BELIEVE, but we are in no way obligated to respect any belief whatsoever.

[Fumesucker]

33. Look at what we are commenting on...

A law which specifically includes religion in a state function.

Non fundie Christians should have screamed about that as loudly as anyone, there are far more of them than there are atheists, but they leave it to the atheists to protect their own religious freedoms.

Of course atheists are upset about this, and you should be too if you really gave a flip about true religious freedom.

[superconnected]

34. I agree the law shouldn't be there. I don't agree that all Christians cannot think for themselves.

Perhaps you should look at the comment I was responding to.

[Fumesucker]

37. Explain why mainstream Christians did not complain about this law.

That's why you're getting the comments you were responding to, mainstream Christians let an obviously unconstitutional law stand with no complaint.

What else are atheists supposed to think other than that Christians are stupid, that you don't even notice the unconstitutional nature of this law?

[superconnected]

40. Atheists who call all mainstream chrsitians stupid are the real idiots.

It's the main stream Christians protesting this that will get it turned over. There aren't enough atheists to pass anything. Your blanket statements show your ignorance.

Extreme rw Christians may be very against gay marriage but there's no reason to believe more than at most, half, of all main line Christians are. If you don't have the support of the Christians you wouldn't have a movement worth mentioning because it would be impossibly outnumbered. As it stands it's marginal and can swing either way. A whole lot of Christians are supporting the rights for Gays to marry. And a whole lot of people of other religions are supporting it too.

[ldf]

47. maybe you should take back your religion...

THEN you can complain about us idiot atheists who have the gall to call the "mainstream" (so-called) christians on their unwillingness to address the intolerance and outright hatred of their own, alleged, brothers' and sisters' beliefs.

who the hell is fomenting all this crap? ASK them. every one of them will immediately start quoting scriptures from some book of a "god".

the groups of "christians" who are tolerant and have a willingness to live and let live are miniscule in comparison to the great masses of "christians" who listen to the hate preached from the pulpits of their churches, and go straight out and practice it. because it is the GOSPEL! and the noises they make to combat the intolerance are no more than half hearted, to put it kindly.

the bible, itself, tells you it is nothing more than an parable. the tenet of its story is based on " in the beginning", and "at the end of time". after all, the very first verse says "IN THE BEGINNING"...

what was in the beginning? void. nothing.

in otherwords, "in the beginning" of time, and "at the end" of time. creation and judgement.

it is like the age old riddle of if a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?

of course it does.

same thing with time....

just because there may be no sentient being in existence to look at their watch to see time passing, does that mean time is not passing?

of course not. and whatever the natural process of the universe, it is just that, a natural, recurring process that happens over and over again.

there WAS no beginning of time (which invalidates the concept of creation), and time never ends (which invalidates the concept of judgement).

that pretty much negates it all, doesn't it?

all that hellfire and brimstone crap to convince us (primarily, or so they would have us believe), to treat each other with dignity and respect, and secondly, but MORE importantly, to be open to fear and easily manipulated and controlled by those who created the "god" concept to start with. you should also admit that it was ALL written by men, and they ALL relegate women to the status of chattel. nothing more than property, under their control, to submissively do as they are told.

(think about that. all that is needed from the man is one, singular sperm. the woman provides the egg, the womb. once the child is born, the sustenance for living, growing. the woman is THE controlling, shaping force in every child's life. yet they are subservient, second class pieces of property that were traded in arranged marriages for business purposes. WHAT is wrong with that picture???)

well, we sure as hell don't treat each other with dignity and respect, and the huge majority of us have drank the whole pitcher of koolaid, as far as being open to manipulation and control.

i, lucklily, can wrap my brain around the fact that time, and space, are infinite. i DON'T need a bunch of mumbo jumbo to try to address those concepts. and i have no problem justifying treating others in a way that i would like to be treated.

meanwhile, my very existence seems to be open to discussion by the very masses of believers who are eager to marginalize me, discriminate against me, treat me as a second class citizen (some would KILL me, if they knew they could get away with it), accuse me of CHOOSING to live a "lifestyle" that, for whatever warped reason, does not fit the tenets of some "divine" writers of the will of some vicious, vindictive, hateful god.

pardon me if YOUR CHOSEN lifestyle is an affront to everything i believe in, stand for, and will fight against.

you feel singled out?

well, boo fucking hoo.

and, for your information, i was raised in the church. i was baptized (READ the bible, REAL baptism = emersion, not that half-assed "sprinkling" that passes as baptism in so many versions 2.0 of christianity). it was our way of life, and i was involved until i was 18. it was the social order of the country life i was raised in.

but once i was able to think on my own, it didn't take a whole lot of soul searching, and questioning of the contradictions in the bible, for me to realize the farce that it is.

many christians are good people. but many of those same good people would turn on me in a second.

when good and noble people stand by and allow hate, prejudice, and intolerance to permeate our lives, and WANT IT CODIFIED INTO THE LAW OF THE LAND, they are neither good, nor noble.

if you take offense at that, so be it.

get over it.

[superconnected]

52. You apparently missed I'm a Buddhist. Either way, it appears your real point is to attack Christians

and to believe others don't have a right to believe what they want - I call that intolerance. Sad.

[Threedifferentones]

59. They have a right to believe

But think about it. If someone insisted to you the Earth is flat, seriously, you'd be thinking they're an idiot even if you are too polite to say it. Everyone has a right to believe what they want, but, if you harp on and on about something obviously false, people have the right to tell you to STFU.

If some sort of god exists humans have never conceived of it or known it. All our powers of science and reason, limited though they may be, insist this is true. Hence anyone who talks about a god is lying or delusional.

You have a right to be delusional, so long as you don't hurt anyone. Lord knows if being crazy were a crime they'd probably have locked me up at the age of eight.

But, what is really more offensive? Pointing out that something is obviously false and that anyone who believes it is wrong, or insisting that something which is not true be respected by the public?

Of course it is hyperbole to say that all christians do not think for themselves. But the fact is that most I have encountered gained every religious perspective they have from some asshole, ie some sort of priest, whose interpretations are beyond dispute. Moreover a good many of them are manipulated by these interpretations in to supporting evil social policies. Thus, if you respect aggressive debating styles, the hyperbole is justified. Unthinking Christians are fucking up my country and however much anyone wishes Christianity was mostly a force for good, right here, right now it ain't.

Something which is based on lies and causes more ill than good obviously needs to go. Organized religion served its purpose but would now best be regarded as a topic of historical study. Keep religion personal, there is no abstract, or speakable, truth to be found in it, which is so frustrating since people just love to talk about it.

[Fumesucker]

49. Nowhere in the article does it mention mainstream Christians suing to change this law..

Only the atheists are mentioned.

Which leads me to believe that the atheists are the ones suing to change the law.

Not mainstream Christians.

[Zhade]

54. I dispute your bullshit claim. Prop H8 passed, remember.

NT!

[awoke_in_2003]

46. You know,

if this law said "we can not protect this country without the mercy of Buddha" the xtians would be going stark raving bonkers.

[TommyO]

50. Thank you for doing exactly what you claim atheists are doing.

[RainDog]

51. what you read here is the frustration

non-believers are a huge voting bloc in this nation who get systematically shat upon by pols who pander to the religious right.

when you hear someone make a comment about christians, in my view, at least, the ire is directed toward fundies and, frankly, they deserve it. they do not deserve tolerance because of their direct attack on our nation.

they deserve others ire for dumbing down our entire national conversation. that's simply a fact. we are a laughing stock to other western democracies because the fundie idiots, yes, idiots, get facetime and consideration of their mumbo jumbo in our school systems and in our political life.

they spout doctrines that codify hatred and second-class citizenship of women and homosexuals. that deserves scorn in the same way that Islamic fundies deserve scorn, or Hindu fundies... just because they're homegrown doesn't make them any less of a danger to this nation.

we have theocrats in political office who openly shit on our constitutional protections, who claim we are a "christian nation" when our nation stated explicitly, in the Treaty of Tripoli, that we are not.

maybe you should look at who started this fight and go after them. atheists have simply had enough and internet forae are outlets for that frustration.

it is incredible that assholes around this nation continue to try to force their religion into our govt. It has to stop and if that means christians get called names... well boo-hoo. they declared war on reason and it's time to fight back.

christians who aren't fundies should put their focus on the assholes who are giving their religion a bad name.

I do not support tolerance for fundies because I think they are a danger to our society if they are allowed to hold political office and force their doctrine on the rest of us.

[Burma Jones]

4. What protects Kentucky is that there's nothing there worth attacking

well, maybe the Derby......And everyone knows Jesus loved going to the track.....

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. I always try to get in line behind him at the betting window...

[Bake]

21. Fort Knox.

That alone makes the Louisville area a major target.

Bake
Former Louisvillian

[martymar64]

27. Louisville is also where the zombie outbreak happened

in Return of the Living Dead. There is no greater threat to security than a bunch of damned zombies running around.

[Bake]

28. Where was Homeland Security when THAT happened?!?

It was probably Oxmoor Mall ...

Bake

[rpannier]

29. True and since Kentucky Homeland Security has placed God's blessings upon the Commonwealth

not a Zombie has been seen walking the streets.

edited for spelling

[boobooday]

5. Wahhh!

Logic has forsaken these people! The God of the talking snake will save them!

[riverdale]

6. Ky. atheists want God out of homeland security

Source: MSNBC

FRANKFORT, Kentucky - A group of atheists filed a lawsuit Tuesday seeking to remove part of a state anti-terrorism law that requires Kentucky's Office of Homeland Security to acknowledge it can't keep the state safe without God's help.

American Atheists Inc. sued in state court over a 2002 law that stresses God's role in Kentucky's homeland security alongside the military, police agencies and health departments.

Of particular concern is a 2006 clause requiring the Office of Homeland Security to post a plaque that says the safety and security of the state "cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon almighty God" and to stress that fact through training and educational materials.

Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28029857/

[crim son]

7. I'm afraid I agree.

God is notoriously unreliable when it comes to picking sides in wartime. I wouldn't want to rely on Him/Her/It for such a vital function.

[moggie]

8. Call God as a witness

Ask him to explain to the court how essential he is to the state's protection. If he won't turn up in court, how can he be trusted with homeland security?

[Roland99]

15. Wasn't there a case recently in national news where someone wanted God called to the stand?

[pipi_k]

17. Yeah...I've forgotten what it was about

Unfortunately, God was busy doing other things that day and never showed up.

[prostock69]

9. Awesome!!!!

I'm sorry, you have to be a special kind of stupid to believe that God has a role in keeping your state safe. You want to know what is TRULY wrong with America? This is a shining example.

[pattmarty]

10. NOW you see what happens in a practical way when.........

...........you have intermarriages within the family structure.

[theblasmo]

11. Rapture Ready

They believe God is necessary to aid in disaster preparedness, yet all these people want The Rapture to occur so the end of the world will be nigh. Get it? They WANT the world to end, so they don't worry about stuff such as the environment, alternate energy, etc. My in-laws are actually not worried about the oil crisis for this very reason.

[pipi_k]

16. This may sound cruel, but

why don't they save a lot of time and aggravation by sending themselves to Kingdom Come?

Especially since they don't give a rat's ass about the environment and such...there are those of us who DO care and DO want our kids and grandkids to be able to have clean air and water, etc.


Hell, they could get hold of a few nukes, buy themselves an island, and blow themselves to smithereens for all I care.


:nuke:

[NoodleyAppendage]

19. Excellent Logic. It Heaven is a better place then Earth, then it follows that suicide is preferable

I like the nuke idea.

J

[pipi_k]

23. Me too...especially if

they're all at, or near, ground zero.

Wouldn't want any of the poor bastards to suffer before they're floated up into the sky.

[NoodleyAppendage]

39. But, suffering is part of their religion. Hell, they worship a guy being tortured. n/t

J

[pipi_k]

14. There's a proverb...

Russian?

Whatever...

It goes, "Pray to god, but continue to row towards the shore".



Which just emphasizes for me the total non-logic (IMO) of people who say that this or that is "God's Will" but they continue to pray.

What the hell for????

If everything is "God's Will" anyway, what's prayer except something to do while they're waiting for God to do whatever he's going to do...they actually think that when God answers their prayers, it's because of their prayers, but when God doesn't answer their prayers, Oh well...it's "His Will".


:wtf:


Oh yeah...and there's something very creepy about a god who plays as many dirty tricks as their god seems to... :scared:

[AlbertCat]

20. It goes, "Pray to god, but continue to row towards the shore".

How about the ol' "God helps those who help themselves" (obviously misinterpreted by super rich mega-church owners)

Or as the Koran says "Trust in god, but tie your camel."

[pipi_k]

24. Amazing, isn't it

People who claim to have total faith in God, but they're not willing to turn absolutely everything over to his "Wisdom".


Probably not a good analogy, but to me it's like a wife saying, "I trust my husband 100%....but I go through his wallet each night when he's sleeping".

[AlbertCat]

18. "cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon almighty God"

Allah?


or
Brahma?
Shiva? (Ooooo...not the "destroyer")
I know! Vishnu! He's the "Preserver"...or is he already employed by the Food Industry?

Maybe an almighty god that's not so busy right now, like Zeus or Baal.

[pipi_k]

25. Oh hell, things are worse than we thought!!!!!

There are actually unemployed gods????


This economy really does suck!

[superconnected]

35. Now that is funny.

[No Elephants]

22. There's a difference between a Christian, who can believe firmly in

strict separation of church and state and a Neo Theo, who insists upon a theocracy. The folks who interfered with KY Homeland Security are Neo Theos. Whether they are also truly Christian, I cannot say. Not every Christian is a Neo Theo.

[doodadem]

26. I'm from Louisville originally

We're not all in-bred imbeciles, so don't lump us all under that category please.

As someone else said--Ft. Knox alone makes the state a prime target.

[yellowdogintexas]

43. throw in Ft Campbell, home of the 101st Airborne and you have a second reason.

Attacking Ft Knox isn't just an Ian Fleming fantasy.

[Sex Pistol]

55. Oh no...the hair splitters strike again.

[Zhade]

57. It's not splitting hairs. It's a fucking government endorsement of religion.

Read the Constitution sometime.

[Sex Pistol]

58. Oh, I have read the Constitution; and I have read the Federalist Papers

which provide the background for understanding the TRUE meaning of that great document. However, it appears that you have not. For in this matter "Congress has made no law respecting an establishment of religion;" however, you appear to support "prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

[askeptic]

61. You are WAY offbase

Please explain just HOW stopping the government from proclaiming that GOD must be relied on (and implying that those who don't are NOT good or reliable citizens) is keeping YOU or anyone else from practicing your religion?

The thing that is not acceptable is for the STATE to practice YOUR religion.

[leftofthedial]

56. an atheist in Kentucky?

isn't that about as likely as a dentist in Alabama?

[anonymous171]

60. I hope they win.