Comments on: Season 2, Episode 36: The FIRST ANNIVERSARY EPISODE, with Professor PZ Myers! http://www.chariotsofiron.com/2009/09/477 A Podcast for Atheists, Skeptics and Secular Humanists Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:48:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: Happy Anniversary Chariots of Iron! http://www.chariotsofiron.com/2009/09/477/comment-page-1#comment-63 Happy Anniversary Chariots of Iron! Wed, 02 Sep 2009 15:29:38 +0000 http://www.chariotsofiron.com/?p=477#comment-63 [...] Download the show here [...] [...] Download the show here [...]

]]> By: Atheist Quote of the Day « Atheist in Hiding http://www.chariotsofiron.com/2009/09/477/comment-page-1#comment-62 Atheist Quote of the Day « Atheist in Hiding Wed, 02 Sep 2009 15:01:15 +0000 http://www.chariotsofiron.com/?p=477#comment-62 [...] on to the Chariots of Iron podcast, a weekly discussion of news of relevance to atheists. The most recent episode has as a guest renowned biology professor and atheist blogger PZ Myers, who had this to say about [...] [...] on to the Chariots of Iron podcast, a weekly discussion of news of relevance to atheists. The most recent episode has as a guest renowned biology professor and atheist blogger PZ Myers, who had this to say about [...]

]]> By: Eli http://www.chariotsofiron.com/2009/09/477/comment-page-1#comment-61 Eli Tue, 01 Sep 2009 20:26:12 +0000 http://www.chariotsofiron.com/?p=477#comment-61 Alex, Thanks for taking the time to tell your story here, interesting to hear about the legal wrangling that has to go on just to protect from the intrusion of religious dogma into our legal system. I would personally like to thank you for aiding this case, I find it somewhat disturbing that when you have such a blatant violation that one would still have to "show harm", "it's unconstitutional" should be enough. Alex,

Thanks for taking the time to tell your story here, interesting to hear about the legal wrangling that has to go on just to protect from the intrusion of religious dogma into our legal system. I would personally like to thank you for aiding this case, I find it somewhat disturbing that when you have such a blatant violation that one would still have to “show harm”, “it’s unconstitutional” should be enough.

]]> By: Alex http://www.chariotsofiron.com/2009/09/477/comment-page-1#comment-60 Alex Tue, 01 Sep 2009 20:05:31 +0000 http://www.chariotsofiron.com/?p=477#comment-60 I'm actually one of the named plaintiffs who brought suit against the Kentucky legislation that shoved god into our department of Homeland Security. I wanted to clarify a couple of the points you brought up in your discussion about it. First of all, the reason it took three years to bring the suit was because nobody noticed that wording was in there for about three years. It was only after one of the local papers published an article on it, that we even knew that the wording was there. Riner kind of snuck it into the bill and the legislators in Kentucky never want to be seen to be anything but good Christians so Riner's additions had very little opposition. Once we found out about it Edwin Kagin immediately started looking for people who were willing to sign on as plaintiffs. What was interesting and kind of crazy to me was that in order to successfully bring the lawsuit we actually had to show mental and/or physical harm from the law. Apparently, it could have been immediately thrown out if we had simply said it was unconstitutional without showing harm. So you had questioned whether a lawsuit actually had to be brought or whether someone could have said this is clearly unconstitutional and stopped it, but not only was it necessary to bring the lawsuit (after all this was part of an actual law passed by the Kentucky legislature) but it was also necessary to show actual harm. Because of this some of the claims of the plaintiffs do end up sounding kind of silly. Things like the law causing headaches, insomnia, and the like were particularly emphasized in the lawsuit just so we could meet the requirement that the law caused harm. I don't think any of us were lying, but I was certainly emphasizing ill effects more than I would have otherwise. I’m actually one of the named plaintiffs who brought suit against the Kentucky legislation that shoved god into our department of Homeland Security. I wanted to clarify a couple of the points you brought up in your discussion about it. First of all, the reason it took three years to bring the suit was because nobody noticed that wording was in there for about three years. It was only after one of the local papers published an article on it, that we even knew that the wording was there. Riner kind of snuck it into the bill and the legislators in Kentucky never want to be seen to be anything but good Christians so Riner’s additions had very little opposition. Once we found out about it Edwin Kagin immediately started looking for people who were willing to sign on as plaintiffs. What was interesting and kind of crazy to me was that in order to successfully bring the lawsuit we actually had to show mental and/or physical harm from the law. Apparently, it could have been immediately thrown out if we had simply said it was unconstitutional without showing harm. So you had questioned whether a lawsuit actually had to be brought or whether someone could have said this is clearly unconstitutional and stopped it, but not only was it necessary to bring the lawsuit (after all this was part of an actual law passed by the Kentucky legislature) but it was also necessary to show actual harm. Because of this some of the claims of the plaintiffs do end up sounding kind of silly. Things like the law causing headaches, insomnia, and the like were particularly emphasized in the lawsuit just so we could meet the requirement that the law caused harm. I don’t think any of us were lying, but I was certainly emphasizing ill effects more than I would have otherwise.

]]>