A group of atheists filed a lawsuit Tuesday seeking to remove part of a state anti-terrorism law that requires Kentucky's Office of Homeland Security to acknowledge it can't keep the state safe without God's help.
This will be an interesting case and one important not only to the framework but the fabric of future law and life in the United States. It would not surprise me to not only see a united front by Christians behind this issue, but a joining of other theists in the battle of how national and state constitutions are interpreted as either theistic or secular documents... and even moreso whether these documents forbid references to God, or even by their own example provide for the legality of doing so (this being the better and more decisive issue the present case must address). In this light, this case should be seen by theists as a LANDMARK and WATERSHED CASE, and therefore one not to be taken lightly, but one in which FULL support (i.e., prayer, encouragment, finances, mobilization, etc.) is put behind those leading the charge. Beyond this, the example in Kentucky illustrates the good that can come from lawmakers using the wording found in constitutional documents and more broadly applying them to other areas of life and legislation in honoring the divine being. Similar to the methodology of ID propenents, theist supporters of the constitution should see this as the foremost battle, and the question of accompanying Bible verses a separate issue.
It is one of the most egregiously and breathtakingly unconstitutional actions by a state legislature that I've ever seen," said Edwin F. Kagin, national legal director of Parsippany, N.J.-based American Atheists Inc.
While one might question whether the best place to start was by quoting a Bible verse on the plaque, the issue of whether acknowledging "God" is unconstitutional is a separate issue, and one that I believe if properly defended can stand the test. May the officials in Kentucky be encouraged to stay the fight and do so wisely.
"I'm not aware of any other state or commonwealth that is attempting to dump their clear responsibility for protecting their citizens onto God or any other mythological creature," Buckner said.
1. This is no more than the logical fallacy of "an appeal to common practice".
2. It should be noted that every state does have some acknowledgement of the divine in their constitutions.
3. The reference to "mythological" is unproven and requires "burden of proof".