“Fanatics, traitors and fools” may be one of the best lines to describe elected officials that we have heard in a long time.

Traitors???? How are they treasonous? What moonbats.
“if we remove the mention of God from all aspects of public life, isn’t that just promoting atheism?”
Exactly. But you see, discrimination is OK in this case because the atheists have all of a sudden come to the brilliant conclusion that you can’t see God, so “obviously” anybody who beleives in him is “crazy” or “dumb” or “dangerous” or something. And of course people like THAT have NO right to free speech.
The fact that geniuses like ISAAC FREAKING NEWTON and BLAISE PASCAL were Christians (even though they couldn’t see God either) has NO bearing, of course.

Isaac Newton was subject to all sorts of superstitions, not just Christian ones. Plus he didn’t believe in demons or Satan so ZZ, Michelle and other Christian wing nuts wouldn’t consider him to be a real Christian anyway. Blaise Pascal is famous only for duping himself with his own ridiculous false dichotomy.
Atheists didn’t just “all of a sudden” come to the conclusion that believers are “crazy” or “dumb” or “dangerous” or something. This knowledge has existed for thousands of years. It’s just that people who expressed this knowledge were immediately persecuted and silenced up until a hundred years ago or so.
“Shrines! Shrines! Surely you don’t believe in the gods. What’s your argument? Where’s your proof?” – Aristophanes (c. 448-385 BCE).

And, Boris shows up with nothing original.
Oh, and BTW, Pascal invented the hydraulic press, the syringe, the adding machine, and the theorem of conic sections, among other wonders. He was one of the foremost mathematicians of the Enlightenment. The metric unit for pressure measurement was dubbed “the Pascal” in his honor.
Oh, but those European metric system officials are such blathering, superstitious wackos.
Oh, and Francis Collins? The guy that decoded the human genome? Christian.
And we still have the inconvenient example of Abraham Lincoln, that statesman of such mediocre ability.
And BTW, No, none of this PROVES God exists, so don’t play that tired card.

The state figures it can’t do anything without a divine being in it’s corner? Lame…and also defies the separation of church and state…something that is rather basic to this country…as much as the RR would like to think otherwise.

No, not having a specifically religious space isn’t promoting atheism. Unless, every time you aren’t talking about God (note, not talking about atheism, simply NOT talking about God) you are doing so also.
Secondly, the point is made that God is NOT the key to our national security. DEPENDENCE on God is said to be. Therefore, everyone who is not dependent on God, is a direct threat to our national security.
THAT is the problem.
Read some of the speeches and sermons made that attributed 9/11 to various lacks of belief, or different beliefs if you are thinking that the leap of that to ‘atheists are responsible for any threat that manages to succeed’.

Let’s suppose we were to remove all references to wizards from public life. That wouldn’t be therefore a measure in support of witches.
I’m fine with individuals making reference to God whenever they wish, as long as they don’t force others to listen to them or expect others to pay for their right to speak. As for the government over all of us, however, I’d prefer no reference to God at all. Partly because all this “in God we trust” trivializes the trust God requires, partly because my God as a Rastafarian is not your
God as a Presbyterian. Let’s let God be God and the state be the state.

I suppose our money still has that slogan printed on it … I’m broke at the moment but if I wasn’t I’d know for sure …
“God” is generic, not a personal name. “God” isn’t linked to any particular religion.
“This is recognition that government alone cannot guarantee the perfect safety of the people of Kentucky,”
I think the guy’s just looking for a Scapegoat when his agency falls short. It’s your typical “act of God” clause to cover his you-know-what.
Therefore, everyone who is not dependent on God, is a direct threat to our national security.
That is an interesting reading, Karen.

If not God, but ‘dependence ON God’ is vital to our security as nation, how do you read it if you were not personally a person who views themselves as ‘dependent on God’?
Perhaps if we were to put ‘Shiva’, or some less generic term (in order that it not apply to you), you could see how it plays out?
It isn’t exactly like the idea that the very presence of those who don’t follow a group’s particular theology is seen as somehow instrumental in making the nation more vulnerable (or actively responsible) to attacks, natural disasters, etc, is all that new. Or unusual.
I believe the idea of some kind of ‘divine protection’ that gets revoked unless.. never was quite sure how the logic goes, since no nation was ever 100 percent ‘righteous folk only’, perhaps if there is a certain ‘tipping point’ percentage of heathens and infidels?

You are difficult to quote in reply, Karen …
I see where your reading comes from … I would just hope it wouldn’t come to that. I hope we wouldn’t become as desperate as all that, to make that blunder.
Anyway, michele may appreciate this: I’m beginning to believe God doesn’t owe me anything.

It has already come to that, more than once. 9/11, every natural disaster has been blamed on not the actions, but the mere existence (I suppose that it is allowed, or that they are or believe what they do) of certain groups within the society.
All /without/ the insertion of a clause that attributes our continued national security directly to the level of religious devotion of its citizenry.

every natural disaster has been blamed on not the actions, but the mere existence of certain groups within the society.
I got you … like a superstitious attitude about those who are different.
I guess people just need to become more aware … as you are helping me do … of their natural inclination towards superstition … (I think superstition is a natural inclination).
And their natural tendency to look first outside themselves for culpability rather than within.

How are we to depend on something that doesn’t exist?

First, I think it is more natural for some than others. But, I think it is (oddly) a sort of byproduct of our pattern seeking tendencies that also led to development of science. Its just.. associating the wrong things.
To touch a hot stove and get a blister, and realize that hot stoves can injure you is not a bad conclusion. To wear a pair of red socks and win the ball game and assume that red socks are ‘lucky’… well, it comes from a similar basis. Just different process and conclusions.
I don’t even think it is necessarily due to being supercilious toward the different. It is.. wanting to have some control over things that happen to you. It is nicer to be able to scapegoat a different group, but that’s just frosting. People are perfectly willing to blame themselves when the alternative is ‘sometimes stuff happens, and it really didn’t have anything to do with what you did. Which means.. it is possible that nothing you do in the future will prevent it from happening again.’
And that.. REALLY scares people.

Karen Brown, I think your argument is a good one. I’d like to add that
we call Earth’s natural satellite the Moon and then refer to the natural satellites of other planets as moons. The case makes a difference since one refers to the concept and the other a particular instance. His usage of the term “Almighty God” pretty much clinches which one he’s talking about and would seem to violate the establishment clause.
Also, I agree that humans see agency in events that are likely the result of impersonal forces. If a meteorite falls on Earth the events which lead to its impact are fairly deterministic and largely set in stone eons before any of us walked the Earth. Some people might try to draw some sort of moral meaning from where it lands and who it kills (if anyone). Others (like me) would simply conclude that things like that are bound to happen and there is no meaning to them.

ZZ, I’m not sure if you’re still reading this thread, but I’d like to ask a question. Is your point that intelligent people can believe in God, or that since past intelligent people believed in God that it is unreasonable not to do so?
If it is the former than I won’t argue with you. If it is the later I’d like to make a counter argument.
Newton and Pascal lived before modern science pushed back the age of the universe, increased its size dramatically, and demonstrated how evolution lead to man’s existence. So their experience isn’t relevant to mine since I have different information available to me. Given the additional information they might have reached different conclusions as well, but we’ll never know.
You also touched on the “friendly” versus “hostile” separations of church and state. Friendly separation seeks to limit interference of one in the other to the benefit of both. While hostile separation seeks to banish religion entirely and can be seen to be promoting atheism by default.
I’m for friendly separation since I think non-believers benefit in an environment promoting tolerance, and I also respect other people’s freedom of conscience.

MH, it’s the former. Like nearly every other arena of human life, reasonable people can disagree.

You need to understand our legal system:
It is impossible for an individual to sue over the constitutionality of a law unless he or she can show damages.
It is impossible for the courts to strike a law unless somebody brings it to suit.
The secular group had to show damages (the pain and suffering), in order to bring it to suit so that the unconstitutional law (and it IS unconstitutional) may be struck down by the courts.
They don’t care about receiving money for their pain and suffering- they care about striking the unconstitutional law down. Unfortunately, one can not sue for “unconstitutionality”- if they could have, they would have.
Do you understand now why they’re suing for their pain and suffering? It’s the only way citizens can enforce the constitution.
This is an important case- not just for secular citizens, but for the right of all citizens to serve as watch dogs to protect the constitution. If this goes through, we’ll probably see more unconstitutional and oppressive laws struck down through the same process (and not just religious ones).