# KY Tries Ed Run Around Establishment Clause **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 28, 2009, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ky-tries-ed-run-around-establishment-clause/508005 "2009-08-28T06:35:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2009, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ky-tries-ed-run-around-establishment-clause/508005/101 "2009-08-31T23:35:24Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Atheists? Well, yeah, you have a point, but nobody likes them anyway, and atheists almost expect the peasants rubbing blue mud in their belly buttons to ‘accidently’ flick some off on any passing godless heathens. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2009, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ky-tries-ed-run-around-establishment-clause/508005/102 "2009-09-01T00:03:57Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > **magellano1** , putting aside the _stimulating_ debate over which one of us is being a dick (which I’m sure we would be able to reach agreement about after just a few more exchanges of “No U”), is it your opinion that when Christians try to require a plaque to be placed at the entrance to the state’s Emergency Operations Center in Frankfort that says, in part, “the safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God.”, that they are not intending to refer specifically to the Christian god known as God? I’m saying that their _intent_ is immaterial. That as long as the wording is so expansive as to be able to point to monotheism in general, then it is every bit as fine as the God in the DofI or on our currency. The degree to which that in and of itself may or may not be fine is another debate. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2009, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ky-tries-ed-run-around-establishment-clause/508005/103 "2009-09-01T16:03:12Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I’m saying that their _intent_ is immaterial. That as long as the wording is so expansive as to be able to point to monotheism in general, then it is every bit as fine as the God in the DofI or on our currency. > > The degree to which that in and of itself may or may not be fine is another debate. As noted, it’s not that expansive. And it rather clearly is not _quite_ as expansive as the text in the DofI and the currency, because it’s more specific - neither other example includes the word “Almighty”. Now, you might argue that the phrase “Almighty God” has no association with christianity - but I similarly might argue that the phrase “the Good Book” refers to Moby Dick. To me at least, it’s a dubious attempt to inject ambiguity and genericness into a phrase which isn’t going to be read as generic - by _anybody_. Seriously, do you think it can it plausibly be said that any muslim, hindu, wiccan, deist, agnostic, atheist, or _anyone else_ will read the proposed text and think for a single minute that it is _not_ referring to the Christian God? (Keep in mind the context in which it will be found.) If nobody will read it as being ambiguous, then the text has the more specific meaning, simply on the basis of that being the message it is _conveying_. (This is where the intent of the authors is _not_ immaterial; if they really did intend to convey something generic, then they could escape blame for trying to circumvent the constitution by claiming to be misnderstood. They didn’t intend that, though; their message comes across loud and clear.) And on a complete 'nother debate, “ceremonial deism” is stinky poo-poo, in my personal non-justice-of-the-supreme-court opinion. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2009, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ky-tries-ed-run-around-establishment-clause/508005/104 "2009-09-08T20:30:50Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > As noted, it’s not that expansive. And it rather clearly is not _quite_ as expansive as the text in the DofI and the currency, because it’s more specific - neither other example includes the word “Almighty”. Now, you might argue that the phrase “Almighty God” has no association with christianity - but I similarly might argue that the phrase “the Good Book” refers to Moby Dick. To me at least, it’s a dubious attempt to inject ambiguity and genericness into a phrase which isn’t going to be read as generic - by _anybody_. > > Seriously, do you think it can it plausibly be said that any muslim, hindu, wiccan, deist, agnostic, atheist, or _anyone else_ will read the proposed text and think for a single minute that it is _not_ referring to the Christian God? (Keep in mind the context in which it will be found.) If nobody will read it as being ambiguous, then the text has the more specific meaning, simply on the basis of that being the message it is _conveying_. > > (This is where the intent of the authors is _not_ immaterial; if they really did intend to convey something generic, then they could escape blame for trying to circumvent the constitution by claiming to be misnderstood. They didn’t intend that, though; their message comes across loud and clear.) I agree that it will mean the Christian God to most people. I also have no doubt that that is the intent. But both of things have most to do, I’d say, with the dominant numbers of Christians. Heck, they might have _wanted_ to to put “Jesus Christ”. I wouldn’t blame them for _wanting_ it, but it obviously shouldn’t be allowed. So they dialed the language back enough to include all of monotheism. And as long as they did that, again, I think it’s just as kosher as our currency and the DofI. I can see the argument that they should have dialed it back a notch more, but I think it passes as it is. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2009, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ky-tries-ed-run-around-establishment-clause/508005/105 "2009-09-08T20:57:22Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > As noted, it’s not that expansive. And it rather clearly is not _quite_ as expansive as the text in the DofI and the currency, because it’s more specific - neither other example includes the word “Almighty”. Now, you might argue that the phrase “Almighty God” has no association with christianity - but I similarly might argue that the phrase “the Good Book” refers to Moby Dick. Well, it _is_ a Good Book. It’s a good book for pressing the corsage you wore to your senior prom, or for flattening out a dollar bill so you can use it in a vending machine. ETA: also, I understand that if you want to learn anything about nineteenth-century whaling ships, it’s pretty well-researched. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2009, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ky-tries-ed-run-around-establishment-clause/508005/106 "2009-09-08T21:11:42Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > So they dialed the language back enough to include all of monotheism. And as long as they did that, again, I think it’s just as kosher as our currency and the DofI. I can see the argument that they should have dialed it back a notch more, but I think it passes as it is. Well, fortunately, at least one court has disagreed with you so far. Baby steps, I guess. And what’s this about including _ **all** _ of monotheism? That right there excludes polytheists. Too bad, so sad, they don’t get to do that. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2009, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ky-tries-ed-run-around-establishment-clause/508005/107 "2009-09-08T21:15:49Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Well, fortunately, at least one court has disagreed with you so far. Baby steps, I guess. > > And what’s this about including _ **all** _ of monotheism? That right there excludes polytheists. Too bad, so sad, they don’t get to do that. Wow, really? I hadn’t considered that. Either that or you ignored those portions of my posts that addressed it. I wonder which it is. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2009, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ky-tries-ed-run-around-establishment-clause/508005/108 "2009-09-08T21:18:34Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I’m saying that their _intent_ is immaterial. Courts disagree with you, by the way. Intent is very important in Establishment Clause analysis, which is why it is wonderful most of the people trying to impose these ridiculous laws are dumber than a sack of rocks. While they will always try to make it facially neutral, they open themselves up in the legislative history with comments like “of course the moment of silence is meant for prayer, we just cannot call it that” etc etc. Then again, given their intent is arguably to have the laws struck down proving them right that poor Christians are persecuted mercilessly in this country, they may not be quite as dumb as I thought… ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 8:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ky-tries-ed-run-around-establishment-clause/508005/109 "2009-09-09T08:28:54Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > I heard it was Shiva. Shiva tolerates lesser gods, such as J\*\*h and Allah, so it really doesn’t matter, however. Yes, as Vishnu tolerates him. 😉 And Shakti tolerates _him._ 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ky-tries-ed-run-around-establishment-clause/508005/110 "2009-09-09T13:58:16Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I agree that it will mean the Christian God to most people. I also have no doubt that that is the intent. But both of things have most to do, I’d say, with the dominant numbers of Christians. Heck, they might have _wanted_ to to put “Jesus Christ”. I wouldn’t blame them for _wanting_ it, but it obviously shouldn’t be allowed. So they dialed the language back enough to include all of monotheism. And as long as they did that, again, I think it’s just as kosher as our currency and the DofI. I can see the argument that they should have dialed it back a notch more, but I think it passes as it is. Except it DOESN’T pass as is. The state doesn’t have a right to endorse or extort a belief in monotheism. Sorry. Your argument is analogous to saying the state can mandate the recognition of animal spirits as necessary to security as long as they don’t say WHICH animal spirits. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ky-tries-ed-run-around-establishment-clause/508005/111 "2009-09-09T15:48:06Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Except it DOESN’T pass as is. The state doesn’t have a right to endorse or extort a belief in monotheism. Sorry. Your argument is analogous to saying the state can mandate the recognition of animal spirits as necessary to security as long as they don’t say WHICH animal spirits. That’s a different discussion. I’m arguing that the language is effectively as expansive as the mention of God used in the DofI, our currency, etc. You’re arguing that THAT language shouldn’t be allowed. As I’ve pointed out numerous times: two different discussions. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ky-tries-ed-run-around-establishment-clause/508005/112 "2009-09-09T16:32:43Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > So they dialed the language back enough to include all of monotheism. And as long as they did that, again, I think it’s just as kosher as our currency and the DofI. I can see the argument that they should have dialed it back a notch more, but I think it passes as it is. Keeping in mind that I flatly disagree that it is AS kosher as the dollar and the DoI due to the inclusion of the word “Almighty”, other than that little detail we do, in the main, agree. The ceremonial monotheistic worship of the Christain God on the dollar and in the DoI is very nearly as bad as this (give or take that “Almighty” which makes the non-ambiguity even _more_ blatant). Of course, in my non-supreme-court-justice opinion, the dollar and DoI are _also_ blatant examples of the government respecting an establishment of religion, and thus should be dismantled with the same haste that we would slap down an attempt to reinstitute slavery. That isn’t going to happen, obviously, but at least we can avoid the insinuous encroachment of organized religion getting _another_ toe in the door. ---
**Author:** ![flickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7bcc69/32.png) [@flickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flickster)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ky-tries-ed-run-around-establishment-clause/508005/113 "2009-09-09T18:16:57Z")
This thread title continues to make me nervous every time I scan past it in the index. All the jumps out at me is **KY** combined with **End Around Move** ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ky-tries-ed-run-around-establishment-clause/508005/114 "2009-09-09T20:56:55Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Keeping in mind that I flatly disagree that it is AS kosher as the dollar and the DoI due to the inclusion of the word “Almighty”, other than that little detail we do, in the main, agree. The ceremonial monotheistic worship of the Christain God on the dollar and in the DoI is very nearly as bad as this (give or take that “Almighty” which makes the non-ambiguity even _more_ blatant). Thank you for taking the trouble to understand the two different debates. So often people either are either unable or unwilling to. And unfortunately, I think for too many posters, the former is the case. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2009, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ky-tries-ed-run-around-establishment-clause/508005/115 "2009-09-10T01:27:26Z")
[QUOTE=DanBlather’s link] One required that training materials include information that the General Assembly stressed a “dependence on Almighty God as being vital to the security of the Commonwealth.” The other required a plaque to be placed at the entrance to the state’s Emergency Operations Center in Frankfort that said, in part, “the safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God.” [/QUOTE] So why do they need a Department of Homeland Security? Shouldn’t a virtual office with a phone line and a mail drop in a Frankfort strip mall be plenty? The “girl” can screen the calls and forward the important ones to The Big Guy, when she isn’t aswering calls to the other dozen virtual offices. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ky-tries-ed-run-around-establishment-clause/508005.md?page=5)