If that were true, then every time a Bible was used to swear on in a courtroom, someone would lose their job or possibly get arrested. People don't get to tell leaders they can't say "God bless America" in OFFICIAL speeches to the public just because they don't like the word "god." Congress gets paid by taxpayers too but they can start their sessions with prayer and DO. Whitewashing such things is not the way it works--separation of church and state doesn't mean one's faith can't exist if they have a govt. job or role. If it did, that would be a form of tyranny.

Anyone that has a problem with the word 'God' at all shows more about their own failings that religion, and that WAAAAY too-easily offended tendency is the REAL problem here. If I were trying to get a marriage license and a judge insisted to make a ceremony as godless as possible or even throw in an atheist-promoting statement, I'd just find someone that would do it the way I prefer--there are secular 'celebrants' that are there for the sake of non-religious ceremonies if that's what people want. The LICENSE has to be signed and honored, religious or not, but that doesn't mean a person has to do ceremonies a certain way, as this case was about. Religion is not going to hurt you. The couple were not actually harmed at all either--all they had to do was let the judge conduct the ceremony in the way he normally does rather than them insisting on exact wording. They could have had the ceremony with no problem at all.

So you think the law requires him have his speech sanitized of all references to belief? I'm glad your view isn't prevalent across all of society!!

Actually that's what I've been saying from the get-go .... get govt. out of marriage and leave THAT to the religious/cultural sphere.

__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???

An individual elected official saying "God bless America" is giving his personal position. Not relaying governmental policy.
It's not indicative of governmental position.

The judge in this case is supposed to be officiating a wedding. As such, he cannot be inserting his personal beliefs into an act which is not his personal opinion.

It's like swearing to tell the truth in a court of law.
A bible is present and those who want to swear on it can do so.
But those who do not wish to swear on the bible can choose to take a different oath.
The judge and/or bailiff in the case CANNOT make the person swear on a bible in order to be sworn in.


As your article quoted a letter...

As a government employee, you have a constitutional obligation to remain neutral on religious matters while acting in your official capacity. You have no right to impose your personal religious beliefs on people seeking to be married. Governments in this nation, including the Commonwealth of Kentucky, are secular. They do not have the power to impose religion on citizens.
The bottom line is that by law, there must be a secular option for people seeking to get married. In Trigg County, you are that secular option. The default ceremony offered by your office should be secular and people wishing to add in religion should be able to do so upon request. Not the other way around and certainly not to the exclusion of a secular option.

The marriage ceremony is not about the judge.
But the judge wants to make it about himself...


That's not what jimbo said...

__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

Swearing on a bible is not required as a condition of taking a government position or in a court of law. Taking the oath is. They can say God bless America, but they can't require me to to say it. Neither can a public official insist I follow his religious principles when he and I are conducting official business.

"Anyone that has a problem with the word God at all shows more about their own failings than religion."

This phrase:

I don't have a problem with religion. Utter religious words all you want. Just don't tell me I have to agree with you. I don't consider that a failing. The judge is doing just that. It's his way or the highway.

Whaa??? Anyone that thinks saying God bless America isn't giving a personal position is just grasping at straws--it clearly states a personal position in the context of ATHEISM (which is the issue of the people getting married, remember??). But even then, if you can't understand that one, just take more OBVIOUS examples if you need to. Prayer in congressional sessions. "In GOD WE TRUST." Again, hands on a Bible (a Christian book) in court. These are ALL forms of personal positions when it comes to belief vs. atheism.

Again, if that's an 'obligation', you better clear out many, many other people and cases throughout government and various official proceedings. And that reality throughout govt. and official proceedings goes to show that most people seem to interpret the constitution in not so whitewashing of a manner as that. Frankly, this is a mountain out of a molehill.

it doesn't matter. The people wanting a license don't get to give the guy a script and tell him not to deviate. It doesn't work that way. If he says the word "ain't" but they want a very well-spoken ceremony leader, too bad. He can say any number of words. And an "AWBG™" (Any Word But God) approach is silly too.

I'm sure you want to pretend its something very different because you've always argued with me on that point, but it's actually pretty much the same for all practical purposes to what I've called for (separating them), which if you'd have stopped and actually LISTENED and DIALOGED in our discussions instead of just trying to one-up and just merely trying to win debate, you might have actually realized.

__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???

Nothing about the marriage situation was required either.

__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???

QUO[TE=foundit66;829082]

That's not what jimbo said... [/QUOTE]

"Actually that's what I've been saying from the get-go .... get govt. out of marriage and leave THAT to the religious/cultural sphere."

That's the reverse of what I said.

I have no idea why a religious official has any right to conduct government business.

Joe, the judge refused to conduct the marriage, something that is part of his official duties. UNLESS:

The Athiest couple agreed to his terms. Which included conducting the ceremony under his idea of a wedding ceremony, which was based on his religion.

To somewhat repeat, this my thing about atheist Here.

In answering some of these questions I often try to put myself in the various people's shoes.

And I DO understand a person of conviction NOT wanting someone to toss the word "god" around a ceremony where they don't want it.
But here's the thing, if there's an option to go elsewhere WITHOUT HASSLE. then guess what I'm PROBABLY going to take that route. Especially if the person wanting to toss "god" around is JUST as sincere as i am. I can't fault him for his convictions. And there's ROOM for everyone to get exactly what they want.
boom no problmo.

But to take it further I've asked myself what if I lived in Country with mostly Muslims and wanted to get an "official" state wedding. And the Judge said he wanted to use the name of ALLAH and have Mohammed bless us. Well I would not be comfortable with that. and would make other agreements. BUT should i try to use legal means to Force the Muslim to LEAVE it out. Especially if it's by law (if not by custom) a secular country? No probably not. Is that REALLY what i want to do? Force religion out of ever nook and cranny of legal life. Or do i just want to get married?


Is Christianity harming atheist here?
In a muslim country it Might. But Christianity BIRTHED accommodation and separation of Church and state. But it seems that some atheist are just offended that ANY remnants of faith dare be present in public life. As if that IS harm. But out of the other sides of their mouths they'll say it's completely meaningless.

__________________
.
"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.
The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents."
..James Madison
.
"Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God."
..1 Peter 2:16

The hell it wasn't. Either you did it his way or no go. All the judge had to do was to say I hereby pronounce you man and wife. That'll be fifty dollars please. Instead he said unless you let me marry you in my faith, you're out of luck.

Yep, but there are some atheists that are friendly and agreeable. They're not out to make it a federal case. They just want to get married and go on a honeymoon. "The Friendly Atheist". It seems that a reference of God wouldn't really matter to a legitimate atheist.