Comment by John Phillips on November 23, 2012 at 3:58am

Wow, I've heard of blue laws before but never any this extreme. Is this actually enforced? Do they actually arrest atheists on the presumption that they're a threat to others? Don't they know that atheists make up less than one half of one percent of our nations inmates? Who the fuck are they kidding? Religious wackos are the real threat to society. 

Comment by SteveInCO on November 23, 2012 at 7:41am

Don't they know that atheists make up less than one half of one percent of our nations inmates?

Clearly this is some sort of affirmative action to give us a chance to make up for this deficit. Given that atheists (including those who won't use the word to describe themselves) make up about 5 percent of the population according to the latest Pew poll (that's the same one that identified 19 percent as non-religious).  Thus they need to throw us in jail in disproportionate numbers until we reach 5 percent of the prison population; we wouldn't want to be denied the opportunity to do as well as the rest of the population.

Comment by Hank Hell on November 23, 2012 at 8:01am

They should kick them out of the union, Kentucky is not good enough to be part of America.

Comment by Kris K on November 23, 2012 at 10:00am

Well I have a few things to say here:

I read the law and unless I missed something, it says you'll be imprisoned for not putting a plaque saying your security rests with "Almighty God" - not for a personal disbelief in god. It's still a despicable and outrageous law but there is a difference.

The appeals court overturned the first decision on the grounds of it just being a mention of a generic god - which is not endorcing any specific religion. I think what the atheist group prosecuting should do is say that this law was written as a direct response to the Muslim terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001 and so the law is in fact a state endorcement of the "Almighty God" of Christianity over Allah. And that any rewording of the law to reconcile that is irrelevant because we already know the intent of the law - to recognize this as one nation under the Christian god (two birds with one stone?)

And finally, the homeland security of Kentucky isn't really putting their faith in God's protection when they increase airport safety and increase security. It's almost as though "Almighty God" isn't enough to protect them - that human protection is more valuable and useful?

Comment by Ron V on November 23, 2012 at 11:22am

I take issue with the "generic" god concept. Although somewhat vague the very designation "god" promotes monotheism over no theism and polytheism. I think this is a bad precedent in legal opinions to simply dismiss the term "god" as not being specific enough to show "establishment." In my opinion, it clearly shows governmental preference of monotheism. I wish some Supreme Court justices would grow some and start seeing this for what it really is.

Comment by Kris K on November 23, 2012 at 12:21pm

@ Ron V I agree completely with that sentiment but while that's the precedent that the courts have set, I say use it. You can fight them on those grounds so why not?

@ blaine leavitt I google news searched "Kentucky law atheist sue" and it was in one of the first four links. Sorry I don't have time today to give you the exact link

Comment by Ron V on November 23, 2012 at 12:41pm

@ Kris - Newdow tried, unsuccessfully. but I think we (all nontheists) should keep trying.

Comment by Marc on November 23, 2012 at 2:34pm

2011 wording 39G-010
http://law.justia.com/codes/kentucky/2011/039g00/39g-010/

And the referenced 39A-285(c)
http://law.justia.com/codes/kentucky/2011/039a00/39a-285/

Comment by Sophie on November 23, 2012 at 3:08pm

hmmmmmm… 

Comment by Dale Headley on November 23, 2012 at 7:27pm

Aside from the question of whether religious people can legally discriminate against the non-religious, there is the even more significant issue of whether or not the Constitution is REALLY the "Law of the Land."  If and when the U.S. Supreme court hears a challenge to this law, its decision will be monumental in terms of whether a state, either through the legislative process, or by popular initiative, has the right to defy the Constitution.  The same issue will come up if the Court hears the Prop 8 case from California.  If a state is allowed to disregard parts of the Constitution they don't like, we might as well go back to the Articles of Confederation.

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page