My name is Tom Riner, and I approve of wiping one's ass with the Constitution
As if we didn’t know that “homeland security” was a complete crock of shit, Kentucky State Rep, Tom Riner (a Democrat) hijacked the Kentucky Office of Homeland Security as a vehicle for promotion of superstition.
Under state law, God is Kentucky’s first line of defense against terrorism. 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.” Specifically, Homeland Security is ordered to publicize God’s benevolent protection in its reports, and it must post a plaque at the entrance to the state Emergency Operations Center with an 88-word statement that begins, “The safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God.”
State Rep. Tom Riner, a Southern Baptist minister, tucked the God provision into Homeland Security legislation as a floor amendment that lawmakers overwhelmingly approved two years ago. As amended, Homeland Security’s religious duties now come before all else, including its distribution of millions of dollars in federal grants and its analysis of possible threats. … There is no reference to God in Homeland Security’s current mission statement or on its Web site, which displeases Riner. “We certainly expect it to be there, of course,” Riner said. (source)
If there was a God, the mere fact that there are enough morons alive that Riner could be voted into office would be proof that God hates the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
Hat Tip to Rogier van Bakel
By Email
By RSS Feed
marcorandazza
Tara Warrington
blevinsj
AGhostInTheSnow
Christopher Harbin
jesschristensen
Tatiana
Bob
jfischer1975
smoconnor
mattcsanchez
tarakirstenk
November 29, 2008 at 12:01 pm |
I’m no Establishment/Free Exercise Clause expert, so please enlighten me on the Constitutionality of such nonsense, even if just by the word “Constitutional” or “Unconstitutional”
November 29, 2008 at 12:14 pm |
Absolutely unconstitutional.
To be constitutional, a statute must have “a secular legislative purpose,” it must have principal effects which neither advance nor inhibit religion, and it must not foster “an excessive government entanglement with religion.” See Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).
November 29, 2008 at 12:54 pm |
It’s been a few years since I’ve looked at the Lemon Test and all that jazz, so chalk it up to laziness. I figured it was likely unconstitutional, thanks a bunch for the confirmation and the quick Lemon recap.
It would seem that the primary problem would be with the first prong, assuming you could make an argument that stating a belief in God doesn’t necessarily advance religion, which leads me to ask whether the statute can’t advance any specific religion, or religion in general?
I wonder if there could be some cockamamie argument that the statement is still a secular legislative purpose because it acknowledges one means of homeland security. I can’t think of any argument that would be anything short of absolutely absurd, but you know how these people are…
November 29, 2008 at 1:46 pm |
[...] if you think that I was hard on them, check this out: As if we didn’t know that “homeland security” was a complete crock [...] Kentucky State Rep, [...]
December 1, 2008 at 12:22 am |
This appears to be a paradox. If God loved Kentucky, could it still be Kentucky?