Aug 272009
 August 27, 2009  Posted by  Court, Laws

Courthouse News posted an interesting court case in Kentucky.  Following 9/11, the Kentucky legislature created the Kentucky Office of Homeland Security. The provisions of the statute required certain statements to be posted publicly,  including a provision to “[p]ublicize the findings of the General Assembly stressing the dependence on Almighty God as being vital to the security of the Commonwealth by including the provisions of KRS 39A.285 in its agency training and educational materials.”

KRS 39A.285 contains a provision that:

(3) The safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance on Almighty God as set forth in the speeches and proclamations of American presidents….

So Kentuckians can’t be safe and secure if they don’t rely on God? What if just some Kentuckians don’t rely on God for their safety and security? Will they be responsible for the state suffering a terrorist attack? Is the state essentially requiring its citizens to rely on God?

The court held that the statute

does not require extensive government entanglement with religion; it does, however, lack a sincere legislative purpose, and it does promote religion. Therefore KRS 39G.010 constitutes government action in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. It is therefore impermissible.

Bottom line: you can’t outsource homeland security to God and tell your citizens they have to rely on your subcontractor. And no, I’m not knocking faith or any religion — just state-sanctioned attempts to impose or promote religion.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.