KY Judge Voids Law That Stressed Reliance on God

What’s surprising is that this was a state court judge, not a federal court one. Usually the state court judges are much more conservative.

“(CN) - Kentucky can’t force citizens to rely on God for protection, a state judge ruled, striking down a portion of a Kentucky security law that refers to “dependence on Almighty God.” A provision of a law created by the Kentucky Office of Homeland Security requires its executive director to “[p]ublicize the findings of the General Assembly stressing the dependence on Almighty God as being vital to the security of the Commonwealth.”

 Franklin Circuit Judge Thomas Wingate ruled Wednesday that the reference to providence violates the constitutional ban on government-backed religion.  "The state pronounces very plainly that current citizens of the Commonwealth cannot be safe, neither now, nor in the future, without the aid of Almighty God," Judge Wingate wrote in his 18-page opinion. 

 "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.  **"The Commonwealth's history does not exclude God from the statutes, but it has never permitted the General Assembly to demand that its citizens depend on Almighty God,"** Wingate added.”

courthousenews.com/2009/08/27/Ky_Lawmakers_Can_t_Demand_Reliance_on_God.htm

I guess God may just withdraw His protection if they don’t want it.

New York needs it.:slight_smile:

God’s protection is slowly leaving this nation, as well as the lives of many of its citizens. This will serve to bring many back to God and down onto their knees. Those not on their knees will be brought down onto their faces or backs. The suffering is coming. I will meet it on my knees, with God’s grace.

What kind of faith would a person really have if it was forced? Why would God have given us free will if He didn’t want us to come to Him willingly?

Believing in God only because the state compels you to is a lie and an insult to God.

That is not what this is about. The state compelled no one to believe, its believing citizens simply ask for protection. Now how could this petition hurt an atheist?

The law mandates a public official publicize reliance on god. It’s believing citizens can do whatever they want.

and they asked for protection which an activist legislating judge decided they cannot.

But the law mandated a public official do it. They could easily have passed a resolution asking for god’s help and nobody would have done anything. Nobody would have cared. But, instead, they wrote a law saying a public official had to do it.

Here’s an article that provides a bit more information.

*"The state Office of Homeland Security was created in response to the Sept. 11 attacks, Wingate said in the order, and two amendments added to the statute creating the office were at issue.

"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.”*

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090827/ap_on_re_us/us_god_reference

That seems fair enough, since God is not a legal person. Therefore, he can be neither cited nor sued nor be a party in any other transaction that is within the competence of the law. Unless of course the standard Christian doctrines about the Supreme Being are considered by Christians to be false. Even then, there are problems in considering God to be subject to the law.

The judge did make a wise and conservative decision, not an activist one that tried to expand the scope of what is proper for the government to do. Substitute the word satan or sacred tree in place of “Almighty God” and see if you don’t understand better why the judge ruled that way. You cannot assume that simply because there might be a majority of Christians now that in the future if something like this comes up it won’t be something you will not want the State telling you to invoke for protection. When one steps over the edge onto a slipperly slope there is no telling where one will end up landing. I don’t need the government telling me in a law what or who to invoke for protection or security even if I agree with the sentiment that they were trying to express.

Amen!

Do you really think that is why the judge ruled that way? I don’t.

The problem with freedom from ‘the establishment of religion’ is that everyone gets that freedom. The legislation, proposed by a Christian pastor who serves in the legislature, is glaringly unconstitutional.

In questions like this I often refer people to Why I’m against pre-game prayers. The writer attended a High School football game in a small town in Hawaii:Coming from a fairly traditional Southern upbringing, I was not at all initially surprised when a voice came over the PA and asked everyone to rise for the invocation. I had been through this same ritual at many other high-school events and thought nothing of it, so to our feet my wife and I stood, bowed our heads, and prepared to partake of the prayer. But to our extreme dismay, the clergyman who took the microphone and began to pray was not a Protestant minister or a Catholic priest, but a Buddhist priest who proceeded to offer up prayers and intonations to god-head figures that our tradition held to be pagan.

rossum

Can you tell us why he made the ruling?

Anyone who wants to can read it:

courthousenews.com/2009/08/27/american%20atheists.pdf

Sure we can read it, but I think Buffalo is hinting at some spcial insight.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.