• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

South Dakota takes first step to become Gilead (from the show HandMaids Tale)

L

Luna1968

Golden Member
umm wow, i would expect this crap in Mississippi or Alabama, but South Dakota? wow.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/26/us/south-dakota-schools-in-god-we-trust/index.html

For the new school year, South Dakota public schools will be required to display the national motto: "In God We Trust."
A bill signed by Gov. Kristi Noem mandates that the words be on display for students to see beginning in the 2019-2020 school year.
The display can be on anything the principal feels is appropriate for their school, like a plaque or student artwork.
Click to expand...
 
Alt nutters are just doing obviously unconstitutional shit so that they can create fake culture war moments, waste everyone's time and money by dragging these losing battles to the SCOTUS. It's called social terrorism and it's fucking ridiculous (Just look back at what the schoolboard in Dover, PA did, trying to force Intelligent Design into the curriculum of real science classes back in...what was that, ~2006?)
 
“Student artwork”, eh?

5141a26d7d63daf3ce844d20d8dd620f.jpg
 
From those who call anyone who suggests Government plays a role within Society, "Statist", comes forced Fealty to the State. Not only should the State not improve the Welfare of the People, but the People should give unquestioned loyalty to all that the State is.
 
This scheme has absolutely nothing to do with taking some kind of faith based stand on one's commitment to Christianity and everything to do with exploiting people's faith in their religion for political gain.

By making law that is obviously unconstitutional and knowing it will be struck down in order to garner support and the votes that go with it, it seems to me those Repub politicians that are seeking to take advantage of this exploitation of religious beliefs are behaving in a manner far worse than those folks who they look down on as heathen unbelievers.
 
"Trust none of us, madam." - Hamlet to Ophelia

It's like saying we're all a bunch of no-count dipshits. Don't expect anything but calumny from any of us (God you can trust, us, not so much).

High tail it out of So. Dakota, if you know what's good for you...
 
Last edited:
tweaker2 said:
This scheme has absolutely nothing to do with taking some kind of faith based stand on one's commitment to Christianity and everything to do with exploiting people's faith in their religion for political gain.

By making law that is obviously unconstitutional and knowing it will be struck down in order to garner support and the votes that go with it, it seems to me those Repub politicians that are seeking to take advantage of this exploitation of religious beliefs are behaving in a manner far worse than those folks who they look down on as heathen unbelievers.
Click to expand...

What should happen is the schools should turn this around and refuse to comply forcing the state into the position of enforcing it and then defending that enforcement.
 
SMOGZINN said:
What should happen is the schools should turn this around and refuse to comply forcing the state into the position of enforcing it and then defending that enforcement.
Click to expand...
Should, but probably won't.
IronWing said:
Glue a quarter to a urinal and call it a day.
Click to expand...
It actually specifies it has to be at least a certain size and must be somewhere prominent (and lists examples of prominent locations).
 
While I don't support them doing this, it's pretty weaksauce shit.

Yes, it MIGHT be declared as unconstitutional...which will cost the taxpayers of SD millions as the state fights to defend it..but...since it's the US Motto and is on US currency and challenges have been struck down by the USSC before...
 
BoomerD said:
While I don't support them doing this, it's pretty weaksauce shit.

Yes, it MIGHT be declared as unconstitutional...which will cost the taxpayers of SD millions as the state fights to defend it..but...since it's the US Motto and is on US currency and challenges have been struck down by the USSC before...
Click to expand...

The thing is even if it is Constitutional, it is also a stupid waste of taxpayer money. They know it will be challenged. They know they will have to spend millions defending it even if they win. What do they get for that use of tax monies? A motto that is already everywhere? Does this sound like good stewardship of taxpayer money?
 
SMOGZINN said:
The thing is even if it is Constitutional, it is also a stupid waste of taxpayer money. They know it will be challenged. They know they will have to spend millions defending it even if they win. What do they get for that use of tax monies? A motto that is already everywhere? Does this sound like good stewardship of taxpayer money?
Click to expand...

I think it's more accurate to say it's a stupid waste of money for opponents to fight it in court since rather anodyne expressions of generic "faith" like this have been found not to be an "establishment of religion" previously (see the recent example of the Maryland giant ugly cross in the roadway.

And some signage saying what's already on our currency is hardly going to be something that creates a "hostile environment" at school or something. It's like the conservatives who freak out at the thought of two gay men kissing in public, as an atheist you'd not going to catch fire just because you see some generic invocation of "God" in a public school. I would have voted against the bill if I were in the SD legislature but pretty much anything is a better use of money than fighting against this in court. Even if you win, so what? You get to not see a sign saying something that does as little to proselytize as saying "God bless you" when someone sneezes?
 
glenn1 said:
I think it's more accurate to say it's a stupid waste of money for opponents to fight it in court since rather anodyne expressions of generic "faith" like this have been found not to be an "establishment of religion" previously (see the recent example of the Maryland giant ugly cross in the roadway.

And some signage saying what's already on our currency is hardly going to be something that creates a "hostile environment" at school or something. It's like the conservatives who freak out at the thought of two gay men kissing in public, as an atheist you'd not going to catch fire just because you see some generic invocation of "God" in a public school. I would have voted against the bill if I were in the SD legislature but pretty much anything is a better use of money than fighting against this in court. Even if you win, so what? You get to not see a sign saying something that does as little to proselytize as saying "God bless you" when someone sneezes?
Click to expand...

You have to remember that challenging this sort of thing is the entire reason that those groups exist. To challenge the intrusion of the church into the workings of the state. It is not a waste of their time or money, because that is exactly why people donate to them. They might lose, but they might win. They certainly have a better win ratio than the states doing this sort of thing.
 
hal2kilo said:
Separation of Church and State, my ass.
Click to expand...

Not a separation of Church and state thing. "Separation of Church and State" was never intended to be government can't contain anything religious. Means that the government can't force you to be a specific religion and punish you for not adopting it.
 
brandonbull said:
Not a separation of Church and state thing. "Separation of Church and State" was never intended to be government can't contain anything religious. Means that the government can't force you to be a specific religion and punish you for not adopting it.
Click to expand...

The first bolded point is exactly why this forcing of specific religion in public schools has always been, and will always be struck down, without question.

You understand that, right?
 
Good to hear South Dakota has already solved all their problems and this is the most pressing issue left to address by their government. Keep calm and fly over.
 
brandonbull said:
Not a separation of Church and state thing. "Separation of Church and State" was never intended to be government can't contain anything religious. Means that the government can't force you to be a specific religion and punish you for not adopting it.
Click to expand...
How would you feel if your school said "In Allah we trust" on the front doors? Would you sue or just ignore it? Do you want to turn the US into the middle East where sunnis and Shiites are still warring about who's God is the one we trust?

glenn1 said:
I think it's more accurate to say it's a stupid waste of money for opponents to fight it in court since rather anodyne expressions of generic "faith" like this have been found not to be an "establishment of religion" previously (see the recent example of the Maryland giant ugly cross in the roadway.

And some signage saying what's already on our currency is hardly going to be something that creates a "hostile environment" at school or something. It's like the conservatives who freak out at the thought of two gay men kissing in public, as an atheist you'd not going to catch fire just because you see some generic invocation of "God" in a public school. I would have voted against the bill if I were in the SD legislature but pretty much anything is a better use of money than fighting against this in court. Even if you win, so what? You get to not see a sign saying something that does as little to proselytize as saying "God bless you" when someone sneezes?
Click to expand...
You have to fight these steps. Rome wasn't built in a day and neither did it fall in a day. If you wait until this sort of thinking is absolutely entrenched it'll be over.
 
Last edited:
Those who feel a need to say "In God We Trust" don't really trust at all or they wouldn't need to announce it for others to hear. To trust in God is to die to the self and who do you know who has done that or even has some idea of what it might mean?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top