Kentucky's Office of Homeland Security continues to be founded on a reliance on God, after a state appeals court panel voted 2-1 that the law in question does not violate the Constitution. The decision overrules a trial judge's ruling that the provision amounts to a governmental endorsement of religion. The Louisville Courier-Journal reports:
Judge Laurance B. VanMeter wrote in his majority opinion that the appeals court disagrees with [Judge] Wingate’s “assertion that the legislation seeks to place an affirmative duty upon the Commonwealth’s citizenry to rely on ‘Almighty God’ for protection of the Commonwealth.”
“The legislation merely pays lip service to a commonly held belief in the puissance (power) of God,” VanMeter said in an opinion joined by Judge Thomas Wine. “The legislation complained of here does not seek to advance religion, nor does it have the effect of advancing religion, but instead seeks to recognize the historical reliance on God for protection.”
How do legislators and supporters of this statutory language feel about a judicial determination that their assertion amounts to mere "lip service?"
