Kentucky gets a little wiser

After the attacks of 9/11, the US Department of Homeland Security was created to supposedly defend America from terrorist attacks. This very broad mandate has created one of the largest departments in the US government, and considering the frequency of terrorism attacks, I would argue that with an annual budget of roughly 52 billion dollars, they are an utterly useless and pointless organization. Of course, try telling that to Americans petrified by the possibility of another terrorist attack.

Even if terrorists were crashing one Boeing 747 a day, it would still be safer to travel by plane than by car, but that doesn’t stop over 40,000 people from dying on the highway every year (compare that to 120 each year who perish in plane crashes. That makes the odds of dying in a plane roughly 0.00003%). Meanwhile, Americans spend billions of dollars chasing ghosts while more pressing issues are being ignored.

I find the whole organization very suspect, especially in light of the fact that the Bush Administration, already heavily entangled in religion, set it up. I always suspected there were religious undertones to the organization, and this latest story out of Kentucky confirmed some of my fears.

It seems as though some disturbing amendments were added to the state office of Homeland Security when it was created, stressing the “dependence on Almighty God as being vital to the security of the Commonwealth”. American Atheists Inc. and 10 Kentuckians (yes, that is what they call themselves) filed a lawsuit to have the reference to God removed, and to my great surprise, they’ve succeeded!

State Rep. Tom Riner (D-Louisville) added the amendments before anyone was really paying attention, and is disappointed by Judge Thomas Wingate’s ruling that the statement violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

I find it particularly funny Riner seems to think “God is not a religion”, and “God is God”. Hey Riner, what the hell is that supposed to mean, anyways? Don’t you think making reference to an invisible and supposedly all powerful sky god constitutes a religion? Just sayin’.

Spread the outrage

Comments (6)

  • avatar

    Lifer

    First you will parish and then you will dye.

  • avatar

    Carla

    OK, new rule: Any new laws proposed by religious types must not be based on or advance religious beliefs or be for the purpose of codifying strictly religious principles or forcing religion on the non-religious.

    Or is that too much to ask for?

  • avatar

    Uncle Roger

    Um, Carla, that’s not a new rule. It’s called the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. As in, the Constitution.

    Too bad these morons, er, I mean, politicians don’t get that.

  • avatar

    Carla

    Well, the establishment clause could use some beefing up then. A lot of these hatemongers trying so hard to make second class citizens out of homosexuals are arguing from religious standpoints.

  • avatar

    Just Some Guy

    Hey lifer, “perish” is what you meant. “Parish” is the other one, the one you like.

Leave a Comment

Scroll to top