..interesting american law.

[ajspiano]

So, read about this today..

Thought I'd post here since there's been some recent discussion about america being the land of opportunity, and the suggestion that living there frees a citizen from tyranny and oppression. hmmm.

....

Kentucky state law..

Kentucky's law is a legislative finding, avowed as factual, that the Commonwealth is not safe absent reliance on Almighty God. Further, (the law) places a duty upon the executive director to publicize the assertion while stressing to the public that dependence upon Almighty God is vital, or necessary, in assuring the safety of the commonwealth.

Basically, if the office of homeland security fails to publicly express that the states security is dependent on God, the offending office/person can be JAILED for 12 months.

..

So uh..  here's the first ammendment..

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

So, kentucky's state law violates the national constitution..  and their supreme court has blocked alterations to the law and continues to refuse to review the laws constitutionality, despite multiple cases won against it at lower levels.

Glad I don't live there.

https://www.alternet.org/belief/year-jail-not-believing-god-how-kentucky-persecuting-atheists

[clavile]

Taking all that back, where did you find that info?

"Congress" there is referring to the federal government. The Constitution was made to restrain the federal government.

The people who passed that law in Kentucky would be the State government.

[ajspiano]

it isn't something that makes Kentucky a "bad" place to live.

That depends on your perspective..  You are christian. How would you feel if in your state you could be jailed for failing to publicly express your faith in islam?

[ajspiano]

Taking all that back, where did you find that info?

"Congress" there is referring to the federal government. The Constitution was made to restrain the federal government.

The people who passed that law in Kentucky would be the State government.

I see you edited your post..

Obviously the constitution in question is federal and this is a state law.. 

Kentuckys state constitution contains this..

Right of religious freedom.

No preference shall ever be given by law to any religious sect, society or denomination; nor to any particular creed, mode of worship or system of ecclesiastical polity; nor shall any person be compelled to attend any place of worship, to contribute to the erection or maintenance of any such place, or to the salary or support of any minister of religion; nor shall any man be compelled to send his child to any school to which he may be conscientiously opposed; and the civil rights, privileges or capacities of no person shall be taken away, or in anywise diminished or enlarged, on account of his belief or disbelief of any religious tenet, dogma or teaching. No human authority shall, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.

I would interpret that to mean that its at least a conflict to jail someone if they refuse to express a certain religious idea..  It doesn't expressly say that the state government can't make religious legislation though..   which is something I find troubling.

...

As far as where I got this stuff, I posted the article in the OP.. that was linked to me via FB earlier today by a friend - I'm unsure of its validity.. though I doubt its made up, perhaps it just presented in a way that may not paint the whole truth.

The kentucky constitution comes from here (found via google)
https://www.lrc.state.ky.us/legresou/constitu/list1.htm

[j_menz]

Relevant laws are Kentucky Code Title 5 Chapter 39A.285 and Title 5 Chapter 39G.10

Only person who can actually be jailed is the Director of the Kentucky Department of Homeland Security, and that for not displaying the required plaques on the ourside of his buildings.

Kentucky Court of Appeal found it OK, Kentucky Supreme Court refused leave to appeal from that decision. Action has recently been commenced in the US Supreme Court.

Clavile is right that the US Bill of Rifghts is a federal law, but5 it does circumscribe the powers of the States, though I'm no expert in the extent to which that is so or what exceptions may apply.  

My guess is that the US Supreme Court would find it unconstitutional as it's a similar case to the ten commandments outside the courthouse one it heard a while back. Same Kentucky state legislator responsible for that one, too.  He's a Democrat, by the way.

[ajspiano]

Only person who can actually be jailed is the Director of the Kentucky Department of Homeland Security, and that for not displaying the required plaques on the ourside of his buildings.

Yeh I read that just before..  I don't think it makes it much better though, that its limited to a specific person. Since thats still effectively a kind of religious discrimination..

You can't hold this position unless you are christian, or choose to act against your own religious convictions??

Same Kentucky state legislator responsible for that one, too

he appears to have quite a history or crossing the religion/state line..   and declaring that their infact isnt one.

but5 it does circumscribe the powers of the States, though I'm no expert in the extent to which that is so or what exceptions may apply. 

I read that the bill of rights does not apply to the states, but that the majority of states used either it exactly.. or modeled their rights after it..   I was reading from wikipedia though. hmm.

There's some such in the 14th amendment about making most of the bill of rights applicable to the states though..  haven't read fully..

EDIT:
Yeh, due process clause of 14th amendment..
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

^this has been interpreted to allow religious freedom as per the federal bill of rights, there are many precedents it seems.

[j_menz]

You can't hold this position unless you are christian, or choose to act against your own religious convictions??

Arguably, though one could argue that it is analogous of having "In God We Trust" printed on the banknotes - does that preclude atheists from working at the presses?

I read that the bill of rights does not apply to the states, but that the majority of states used either it exactly.. or modeled their rights after it..   I was reading from wikipedia though. hmm.

There's some such in the 14th amendment about making most of the bill of rights applicable to the states though..  haven't read fully..

14th amendment and in relation to this particualr matter the US Supreme Court decisions in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) and  Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940).

[ajspiano]

Arguably, though one could argue that it is analogous of having "In God We Trust" printed on the banknotes - does that preclude atheists from working at the presses?

hahah maybe, I personally would find it a bit annoying if our money declared a trust in god so blatantly like that.

Of course, if an american altered that aspect of their banknotes I don't know that they would be jailed so much as fired..  and I don't think the reason would be about necessarily be about religion, so much as wasting a massive amount of resources with all the dud notes that would get printed until they figured it out and stopped it.

Also, the money has been like that for a long time..  this was a new law passed in 2006.

..

also, "arguably, one could argue" - LOL... sounded pretty funny till I picked up the context of the whole thing..  perhaps still a bit iffy.

[j_menz]

hahah maybe, I personally would find it a bit annoying if our money declared a trust in god so blatantly like that.
...

Also, the money has been like that for a long time..  this was a new law passed in 2006.

It's the official motto of the United States which is the capacity in which it appears on their money (and other "state" places as well.  That came about in 1956.

also, "arguably, one could argue" - LOL... sounded pretty funny till I picked up the context of the whole thing..  perhaps still a bit iffy.

The comma, and the "though", make it perfectly OK. 

[ajspiano]

It's the official motto of the United States which is the capacity in which it appears on their money (and other "state" places as well.  That came about in 1956.

I wonder whether it would be reasonable for me to write over it "in science we trust" without that being considered defacing US currency.

The comma, and the "though", make it perfectly OK. 

I know..  why do you think I left the "though" out in the latter quote..? I was just reading things too fast as usual.

[j_menz]

I wonder whether it would be reasonable for me to write over it "in science we trust" without that being considered defacing US currency.

There was a movement along similar lines:



Don't know if it lead to any prosecutions.

Interestingly, Teddy Roosevelt objected to putting "In God We Trust" on the currency because he thought it to be sacreligious to have God and Mammon so closly linked.

[ajspiano]

There was a movement along similar lines:

I find the idea wonderful.. however, considering the quantity of banknotes in the system.. whoever decided to do it probably didn't think it through as far as whether or not they would have any impact.

[j_menz]

whoever decided to do it probably didn't think it through as far as whether or not they would have any impact.

Nor indeed whether they were correct. The Constitution prohibits the establishment of religion or abridging the free exercise therof. I don't believe (and the US Supreme Court, on somewhat different grounds agrees) that that prohibits the "endorsement of a deity". 

Not sure that any deity worth it's salt would either need or want any such endorsement. But no doubt the present age is a difficult one in which to be a deity, so any vote of support may be welcome.

[ajspiano]

Not sure that any deity worth it's salt would either need or want any such endorsement. But no doubt the present age is a difficult one in which to be a deity, so any vote of support may be welcome.