Atheists sue to take God out of Kentucky terrorism law

[Heracles 417]

i agree with you that it is petty but some of the "god stuff" is really quite disgusting. alabama had a standard tag that had the background of the american flag and it said "god bless america" on it. a standard tag. i'm not about to protest about it and claim it causes me mental anguish but i do find that offensive. i'm obviously not about to go out and try and get it changed either. luckily for me they withdrew that stupid tag.

can you see how that might be offensive?

No I cannot. This country was founded on freedom of religion. It also had and still has a good portion of people who are religious. Be it Christians, Jews, Muslims and so forth. So is it logical to you that we throw this out to cater for the 'minority' who is atheists?

[rocks 494]

I wonder if these people are losing sleep and suffering mental anguish over the fact that our money has "In God We Trust" on it....

sadly it is the motto of the country so that would be a lot harder to these protesters to change. we have an equally stupid motto in english. i think it's easier for people to just not believe it.

[Heracles 417]

I wonder if these people are losing sleep and suffering mental anguish over the fact that our money has "In God We Trust" on it....

They would probably burn it if it wasn't so valuable.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I wonder if these people are losing sleep and suffering mental anguish over the fact that our money has "In God We Trust" on it....

Scott, I think this is an entirely different issue. Does this not cause you any hesitation???

"The requirement to credit God for Kentucky's protection was tucked into 2006 homeland security legislation by state Rep. Tom Riner, D-Louisville, a Southern Baptist minister.

"This is recognition that government alone cannot guarantee the perfect safety of the people of Kentucky," Riner said last week."

[rocks 494]

i agree with you that it is petty but some of the "god stuff" is really quite disgusting. alabama had a standard tag that had the background of the american flag and it said "god bless america" on it. a standard tag. i'm not about to protest about it and claim it causes me mental anguish but i do find that offensive. i'm obviously not about to go out and try and get it changed either. luckily for me they withdrew that stupid tag.

can you see how that might be offensive?

No I cannot. This country was founded on freedom of religion. It also had and still has a good portion of people who are religious. Be it Christians, Jews, Muslims and so forth. So is it logical to you that we throw this out to cater for the 'minority' who is atheists?

eh? there were no other tags for any other religions? also, i don't think atheists were the reason that it got taken away, not many of those in bama.

i mostly found it offensive that it was a standard tag and not one you have to pay for. if i prefer black bears i have to pay for it but if i like god it's free? that is just wrong. in the end the only people who turned out to get those tags were old people who drive dangerously and drug dealers. that might have had something to do with the withdrawal.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There is no question why this country is bankrupt any more. We are suffering the worst financial crisis since the depression yet you have clowns who are wasting time with this #######. What is wrong with these people? Go volunteer at a charity or actually help a fellow American for a change you dumb asses.

It could also be that this is simply business as usual and that perhaps the people who feel that other things are more important are spending too much of their time being scandalised by things like this...

Take out the wording. Throw out the damages. Job done.

[Heracles 417]

I wonder if these people are losing sleep and suffering mental anguish over the fact that our money has "In God We Trust" on it....

Scott, I think this is an entirely different issue. Does this not cause you any hesitation???

"The requirement to credit God for Kentucky's protection was tucked into 2006 homeland security legislation by state Rep. Tom Riner, D-Louisville, a Southern Baptist minister.

"This is recognition that government alone cannot guarantee the perfect safety of the people of Kentucky," Riner said last week."

Well if the majority of his constituents are religious why shouldn't this be there. Oh I forgot this is America where Majority is now a dirty world. We vote people in by means of majority but it basically end there. When it comes to everything else the minority gets to rule the roost. Sounds equitable to me. I better write this 'progressive' concept down and pass it on to Canada and Australia. That is, of an example of how not to run a country. We'll just stick to our celebrating others views and beliefs approach. Seems to have worked well for us.

Maybe I should send you a photo of the huge Christmas tree and decorations outside my counties office, on government land, there.

Edited December 3, 2008 by Aficionado

[one...two...tree 2,762]

For the ones defending the inclusion into law - how would you feel if this Congressman was a Muslim and had inserted the requirement to credit Allah for Kentucky's protection?

[Heracles 417]

For the ones defending the inclusion into law - how would you feel if this Congressman was a Muslim and had inserted the requirement to credit Allah for Kentucky's protection?

Allah is God.

We all pretty much believe in the same God.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

For the ones defending the inclusion into law - how would you feel if this Congressman was a Muslim and had inserted the requirement to credit Allah for Kentucky's protection?

Allah is God.

We all pretty much believe in the same God.

And to those who don't....f##k 'em.

[Sister Fracas 5]

oooh... and a "atheists are idiots" thread to go with the "gay are evil" thread...

it's a banner day here in VJ.

[Heracles 417]

And to those who don't....f##k 'em.

To the contrary, it is atheists who have nothing better to do with their lives than complain about the word God. It's like, get over it. Is that what this pathetic group of people deems as advancing humanity? Last time I checked it meant solidarity and accepting others diverse customs, views and beliefs.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

And to those who don't....f##k 'em.

To the contrary, it is atheists who have nothing better to do with their lives than complain about the word God. It's like, get over it. Is that what this pathetic group of people deems as advancing humanity? Last time I checked it meant solidarity and accepting others diverse customs, views and beliefs.

How can you do that if the government is being forced to take a position that advances a specific set of religious ideology?

That's not about being all-inclusive...

[Sister Fracas 5]

And to those who don't....f##k 'em.

To the contrary, it is atheists who have nothing better to do with their lives than complain about the word God. It's like, get over it. Is that what this pathetic group of people deems as advancing humanity? Last time I checked it meant solidarity and accepting others diverse customs, views and beliefs.

Right, I often see large groups of atheists ranting and protesting about all sorts of issues.

That's a fine bit of acceptance for another's non-belief there BooYah.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

And to those who don't....f##k 'em.

To the contrary, it is atheists who have nothing better to do with their lives than complain about the word God. It's like, get over it. Is that what this pathetic group of people deems as advancing humanity? Last time I checked it meant solidarity and accepting others diverse customs, views and beliefs.

You're being presumptuous. I'm not atheist, but I do see a problem with this legislation.