Legal action from American Atheists, www.atheists.org
November 24, 2011 Leave a comment
Edwin Kagin defends the constitution.
February 26, 2011 1 Comment
Edwin Kagin defends the constitution.
Written by Peter Smith
FRANKFORT, Ky. — According to the lawyers on opposing sides, the decision should be as easy as either affirming what everybody learns in grade school or dismissing a profession of faith in the “Flying Spaghetti Monster.”
But it won’t be easy for the ones who actually have to decide the issue, according to the head of a three-judge panel of the Kentucky Court of Appeals.
The panel heard oral arguments Thursday over whether Kentucky law can mandate that the state declare its reliance upon “Almighty God” for its safety and security.
“The court is struggling with a difficult decision,” Senior Judge Ann O’Malley Shake said Thursday morning after lawyers quoted numerous court precedents that either allow or restrict the expressions of religion in the government sphere.
“The distinctions have been drawn with difficulty over the years, and will be in this case, I’m sure, as well,” Shake said.
At issue are laws passed in 2002 and 2006 — after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
A 2002 “legislative finding” says the “safety and security of the commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God.”
And a 2006 act creating the state Office of Homeland Security requires its executive director to publicize this “dependence on Almighty God” in agency training and educational materials and through a permanent plaque at the entrance to its emergency operations center.
Ten Kentucky residents — one of whom has since died — filed suit in 2008 to challenge the law after it received publicity for the first time.
The appeals panel was hearing an appeal of Franklin Circuit Court Judge Thomas Wingate’s ruling in 2009 that declared the law to have “created an official government position on God,” in violation of the Kentucky and U.S constitutions.
But Special Assistant Attorney General Tad Thomas said there are more than 200 years’ worth of court decisions saying that governments have the right to make references to God in their documents. He cited the national motto, “In God We Trust,” and the Declaration of Independence’s opening words that people “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.”
“We have all heard these words since grade school,” Thomas said. He added that it would be “irrational” to interpret the Kentucky constitution’s section on religious freedom as barring references to God when the current version of the constitution itself contains such a reference.
Shake pointed out that the state’s emergency-management laws, which include the statutes in question, carry a misdemeanor charge for anyone who violates them. She questioned what would happen if an atheist became executive director of the Office of Homeland Security and balked at requirements to post the plaque and annual reports crediting Almighty God.
But Thomas said the law doesn’t require anyone to profess trust in Almighty God — it only reflects the statement of the legislators who passed the Homeland Security laws.
“It does not require the executive director to hold those beliefs,” he said.
He said the Homeland Security director serves at the governor’s pleasure and that it would be up to the governor to deal with a director who refused to credit Almighty God.
But Edwin Kagin, the national legal director for the group American Atheists, said the law’s intent was clear.
“Not religious?” he asked. “They have to be kidding. Of course it’s religious. It is part of a years-long attempt by the religious right in this commonwealth to violate the Constitution of the United States (and of Kentucky). … If it is simply harmless as they say, why are they making such a fuss out of it? Why not take (the plaque) down?”
He said if the law professed reliance on the Flying Spaghetti Monster — a fictional deity recently invented by a group of religious skeptics — “it would be obvious to everyone that this was improper and nonsensical.”
Kagin cited the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision barring displays that include the Ten Commandments in McCreary County, Ky., as allowing courts to consider whether lawmakers’ had religious intentions in passing a law. He said that motivation was clear in a friend-of-the-court brief filed by 96 of the state’s 100 states representatives in support of the belief that the United States is a “Christian nation.” Thirty-five of the 38 state senators signed on to a similar brief.
Thomas cited another Ten Commandments case — in which the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a display in Mercer County, Ky., — as affirming “200 years of U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence that says government has every right to acknowledge the existence of an Almighty.”
Judge Thomas Wine questioned why the law declared faith in one God rather than including various deities. Thomas cited the long history of government documents referring to a single God.
Also serving on the panel was Judge Laurance VanMeter.
Shake said the panel would decide the matter as quickly but as carefully as it could.
Reporter Peter Smith can be reached at (502) 582-4469.
February 4, 2011 Leave a comment
Senior Judge Anne O'Malley Shake, sitting as Special Judge by assignment of the Chief Justice
The Kentucky Court of Appeals has collectively denied the motions of a
Judge Thomas Wine, KY Court of Appeals
variety of Amicus Curiae (Friends of the Court) to present oral arguments in the appeal.
The ACLU is the only Amicus Curiae supporting American Atheists. Amicus Curiae supporting the state include lawyers for 35 state senators, lawyers for 96 state representatives, and the Family Trust Foundation of Kentucky. This ruling means that these parties will not be permitted to present oral arguments.
Judge Laurance VanMeter, KY Court of Appeals
for ethics violations. Moore installed a 5280 pound granite monument to the 10 commandments in the Alabama Supreme Court rotunda. He refused to follow the orders of federal judges to remove the monument. Moore also wrote the original draft of the Constitutional Restoration Act in 2004. This bill would have limited the power of the federal judiciary in religious liberty cases, and it would have required the impeachment and filing of criminal charges against federal judges who
ruled for separation of church and state. Moore’s Foundation for Moral Law hosted the 2010 Alabama Secession Day commemoration, which included many speakers with ties to the League of the South and described as neo-Confederates by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
January 9, 2011 Leave a comment
Kentucky Court of Appeals
On January 8, 2011, American Atheists National Legal Director Edwin Kagin received an order from the Kentucky Court of Appeals setting oral arguments in the Kentucky Homeland Security lawsuit for February 24, 2011, 10:45 AM at Court of Appeals Courtroom, 360 Democrat Drive, Frankfort, KY.
The members of the three judge panel assigned to hear and rule on this case are:
Hon. Ann Shake
Hon. Laurance VanMeter
Hon. Thomas Wine
Plaintiffs are encouraged to be present for the oral arguments.
September 28, 2010 1 Comment
Edwin Kagin, National Legal Council for American Atheists
Edwin Kagin, National Legal Council for American Atheists, has filed a counterstatement in the Kentucky Homeland Security lawsuit. Click on the links below to view the counterstatement.
June 21, 2010 1 Comment
The lawyer for the 35 Kentucky state senators who wrote an Amicus Brief has petitioned that Alabama Supreme Court ex-Justice Roy Moore be permitted to participate in the preparation of briefs and oral arguments in support of the Amici.
Ex-Justice Moore is most famous for installing a 5280 pound monument of the 10 Commandments in the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court on July 31, 2001, only six months after he was elected to the Supreme Court. The monument was ordered removed by the federal courts. It was moved to a side room on August 27, 2003, and removed completely on July 19, 2004.
The Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics held a hearing on Judge Moore on November 12, 2003. Moore proudly proclaimed that he would continue to violate the orders of the federal court. The next day the Canons of Judicial Ethics voted unanimously to remove Moore from office for refusing to follow the orders of the federal courts.
Moore also wrote the original draft of the Constitution Restoration Act, which was first introduced into the U.S. House and Senate in 2004. This bill would have limited the power of the federal judiciary in religious liberty cases, and it would have required the impeachment and filing of criminal charges against federal judges who ruled for separation of church and state.
The Constitution Restoration Act was part of a continuous attempt by Dominionist Christians to turn America into a theocracy, by seeking to limit the power of the federal judiciary in religious liberty cases. This act attempted to “restore” the Constitution, as interpreted by religious extremists. This act also made the false claim that the founding fathers promoted a Christian nation instead of protecting freedom of religious conscience for all Americans.
May 13, 2010 1 Comment
The Family Foundation filed an Amicus Brief. The certificate portion contained the following claim:
Believing that civil government has always been viewed by Americans as an institution ordained by God for the blessing of nations and the protection of individual liberties, including religious liberty, The Family Foundation supports the right of all branches and levels of government to formally acknowledge dependence upon the Creator in the course of their operations. There is no question that this has been a continuing practice of our nation’s elected leaders since the founding of the Republic.
Following this total denial of our nation’s history, you can imagine how bad the rest of the Amicus brief is.
May 13, 2010 2 Comments
Amicus Brief of state representatives and senators are linked below. I have only skimmed them. They basically both claim that the laws do not establish a state religion and therefore do not violate the first amendment. They also claim the plaintiffs do not have standing since we were not really harmed or coerced (ignoring that government officials are coerced). They also want the phrase “fanatics, traitors, or fools” stricken from the records.
Kentucky State Representatives’ Motion to File Amicus Brief
Brief of Amicus Curiae Ninety-Six Kentucky State Representatives
May 13, 2010 Leave a comment
Below are links to an Amicus (friend of the court) brief from the ACLU. I have not read them in detail.
The image processing software led to many typographical errors in the online document that were not present in the original document. Therefore, I have updated the ACLU documents.
April 30, 2010 Leave a comment
The Commonwealth of Kentucky has filed a brief in their appeal of the Kentucky Homeland Security lawsuit. The word brief could be used as both a noun and adjective, since the brief itself was only 9 pages long! Readers of this blog can view this brief by clicking on the link below.
