Is Kentucky for real in this addition to legislation?

"The 2006 law organizing the state Office of Homeland Security lists its initial duty as "stressing the dependence on Almighty God as being vital to the security of the Commonwealth."



There is a very real separation of Church and State; or there was! I see that that concept initiated by our founding fathers is being ignored and trampled over by religious zealots. Do people really want to live under a theocracy that could very easily turn into a government much like the Taliban. Also, a theocracy would just be similar to communism run by religious nuts.Is Kentucky for real in this addition to legislation?As a Kentuckian and a Catholic and I think this statement should not have been part of the law. I think if you're a true believer then you don't need legislation to know/remind you of God. The separation of Church and State is a cornerstone of our Democracy.



I agree with the lawsuit that these statements need to be removed from the law. However, the portion of the lawsuit seeking monetary damages for mental anguish is an illustration of how frivolous lawsuits have become. Additionally, calling those with beliefs fanatics, traitors or fools, may put off Christians who agree with Atheists about keeping Church and State separate.



I believe God cares about us, but He doesn't need legislation to prove it.Is Kentucky for real in this addition to legislation?
It is a symbolic resolution put forth by Republicans, and it has no practical application.



They need to think up ways to fight terrorism, instead of just leaving everything up to "God's will".



God helps them who help themselves.Is Kentucky for real in this addition to legislation?my reading of constitution is that the federal government cannot establish a national religion



and it can be strongly argued that the intent was left to the individual states to act on religion as they individually see fit



i agree that there is little difference between collectivism and any other form of irrational belief such as religion



but i think that the states are free to go socialist, communist, catholic, or Buddhist as they see fit



and the rest of us get to move in or out as we see fit



that way we can tell what is effective government and what is not



i am an orthodox atheistIs Kentucky for real in this addition to legislation?
Is that a Kentucky law only or Federal Law?Is Kentucky for real in this addition to legislation?Your rant is duly noted. Now, let me educate you myself since it appears tax dollars on your education were a waste of money.



As the anti religious take biblical text out of context, so too do they take 'separation of church and state out of its context. The phrase originated with Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1892. The exact phrase was "wall of separation between Church and State," Meaning, as the letter states "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State". So, it would seem that this is still in affect. It has no effect on you, you are not required by any local, state or federal government to attend any particular church nor does any local, state or federal government sponsor any particular church, i.e. The Church of America as opposed to the Church of England.



Jefferson's thoughts on state regulated religions was this "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg". I will add though, the Democrat party does pick my pocket.



Jefferson also believed that the government should be indifferent towards religion, that it (government) not persecute it nor give it special status. He further stated "If anything pass in a religious meeting seditiously and contrary to the public peace, let it be punished in the same manner and no otherwise as it had happened in a fair or market".



Only the anti-religious 'zealots' are the ones overstepping this ideal by their constant pandering to politicians to limit religious (expressly those of the Christian faiths) expression and activity. A Jehovah's Witness coming to your door neither breaks your legs nor does it pick your pocket. A congressional session beginning in prayer neither does either of the afore mentioned things.