Kentucky to appeal ruling against Homeland Security

 KENTUCKY TO APPEAL RULING AGAINST HOMELAND SECURITY
                      GOD PROMOTION PLAQUE, PROGRAMS
       KAGIN: "REGRETTABLE" WASTE OF TAXPAYER MONEY
,                           Ready For Supreme Court If Necessary

   The State of Kentucky announced Friday that it would appeal
   a court ruling that struck down legislation requiring the
   Commonwealth's Homeland Security Office to display a religious
   plaque and incorporate "dependence on God" in its training
   programs.

Two statutes, passed in the wake of the September 11, 2001
faith-based terrorist attacks, were challenged by American Atheists
and a cohort of plaintiffs who maintained that they violated
key portions of both the U.S. Constitution and the Kentucky
Constitution's prohibition about establishing religion.

The hastily passed bills mandated that the new department "publicize
the findings of the General Assembly stressing the dependence on
Almighty God as being vital to the security of the Commonwealth."
Another statute called upon the Director of the new office to
promote the religious message, and prominently display the plaque
"at the entrance to the state's Emergency Operations Center..."
The text of the statue declared:

(1) No government by itself can guarantee perfect security from
acts of war or terrorism.

(2) The security and well-being of the public depend not just on
government, but rest in large measure upon individual citizens
of the Commonwealth and their level of understanding, preparation
and vigilance.

(3) The safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved
apart from reliance on Almighty God as set forth in the public
speeches and proclamations of American Presidents, including Abraham
Lincoln's historic March 30, 1863 Proclamation urging Americans to
pray and fast during one of the most dangerous hours of American
history, and the text of President John F. Kennedy's November 22,
1963, national security speech which concluded: "For as was written
long ago: 'Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but
in vain.' "

Edwin Kagin, National Legal Director for American Atheists took
the issue to court.  The Kentucky Attorney General promptly
filed for a motion to dismiss, and disingenuously argued that the
statutes honored god and had little or nothing to do with religion.
On August 26, however Circuit Court Judge Thomas Wingate denied
the Commonwealth's request, and made a summary judgment in favor of
the plaintiffs. Wingate opined that the statutes clearly established
religion, and said that while the legislature had broad authority, in
the case of the two statutes, "the secular purpose has to be genuine,
not a sham and not merely secondary to a religious objective."

Despite the 17-page rebuke of the Commonwealth's arguments,
though, the Attorney General's office decided to appeal at public
expense. Mr. Kagin called the move "regrettable," and told reporters:
"I would not be at all uncomfortable taking the facts of this case
before the U.S. Supreme Court.  I think the statue is so blatantly
unconstitutional that any court would find it unconstitutional."

Shelly Johnson of the state's Attorney General office declared:
"We believe there is a clear distinction in the law between
acknowledgement of religion, which has been permitted for years,
and the establishment of religion, which is prohibited by the
Constitution.  The statute in question merely acknowledges religion
and should have been upheld by the court."

Associated Press writer Roger Alford noted the importance of the
case. "States in the Bible Belt such as Kentucky, cannot afford to
concede this court battle, even when legal grounds are shaky..."

Western Kentucky University political science professor Scott Lasley
concurred, noting the partisan electoral aspects of the case.
He observed that Attorney General Jack Conway is seeking the
Democratic nomination for a U.S. Senate seat in the 2010 race.
"The reality of the situation is that for most attorneys general
that (not challenging the court ruling) would be the end of their
political careers.  It's just the reality of the situation, given
the political environment you're operating in."