Poll of the Day > ALL Public Schools in South Dakota must put IN GOD WE TRUST at EVERY location!!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

When Public School Kids return to the new school year in South Dakota this fall, they will be greeted with a new message covering ALL the walls..and it will it say "IN GOD WE TRUST"!!

Republicans in the state have enacted a new law that will require all 149 schools to prominently display the national motto as those who support the bill did so in hopes it will inspire "patriotism"

They are expected to display the emssage where students will most likely see the national motto including hallways and the BATHROOMS!!

The bill says it must be at least 12 by 12 inches and approved by the principle

Wade Pogany, the executive director of Associated School Boards says public schools have been finding new ways to add the motto stating some have plaques and others have it painted or in a mural

While some have already complied with the law, others have spoken out against it for its religious undertones

The Freedom from Religion Foundation said the state urged members to contact legislators to oppose it

The Madison, a Wisconsin based group said "Our position is that it's a terrible violation of freedom of conscience to inflict a godly message on a captive audience of school children"

South Dakota anticipated the backlash and said they knew it be contessted so that's why they have a DEFEND AND PAY clause where it pays for the cost of defense for public schools under fire but the state will not pay to install the message

Students at Stevens High School suggested an alternative motto that included "Yahweh, Buddha, Allah, science and spirits" but they were rejected as those words were not in the american "motto" that promotes CHRISTIANITY

Would you support a christian fundamentalist society?.

New Banner -







Progressive School -



Governor Plastic Surgery -


---

This is just lies.

Ignore the debate of whether or not god exists, I doubt that they all actually trust god...
---

Dumb.

What better way to make teenagers hate something than shove it down their throats.
---

that's pretty close to unconstitutional, but I guess they're gonna get away with it since it's the "national motto"
---

Good
---

Either those are very tiny bricks or those are a lot bigger than 12 by 12...
---

aDirtyShisno posted...

Either those are very tiny bricks or those are a lot bigger than 12 by 12...

Well it says at least, so it could be over.

E pluribus unum is a cool motto that makes sense.

In God We Trust is a lame motto that makes no sense in a country without a national religion where atheism is on the rise.
---

ew
---

kind9 posted...

E pluribus unum is a cool motto that makes sense.

In God We Trust is a lame motto that makes no sense in a country without a national religion where atheism is on the rise.

E pluribus unum sounds like shit and In God We Trust is great simply for the "All others pay cash." More importantly, it doesn't specify *which* god and "atheism is on the rise" is a hilariously deceptive claim considering how tiny the avowed atheist population is and how relatively flat the growth has been. Of course, the deceptive practices have grown, where atheists try to claim agnostics and anybody who doesn't identify as a particular religion into their ranks which, of course, is not and never will be the same thing as being atheists.
---

E pluribus unum means "out of many, one" and I'd say it's definitely more appropriate than "in fairy tales we trust".

Taily_Po posted...

More importantly, it doesn't specify *which* god

It doesn't even matter which invisible sky daddy it is, but we all know it's the Christian one. I feel like I struck a nerve with the atheism thing so let me just correct myself then and say that religion is on the decline, unless you want to debate the meaning of atheism and the pointlessness of Huxley's agnosticism.
---

kind9 posted...

unless you want to debate the meaning of atheism and the pointlessness of Huxley's agnosticism.

Zeus once spent a 300+ post topic arguing that a driver who committed a hit and run (in which he ran over a lady, then backed over her again before fleeing) wasn't an awful person because that would dilute the gravity of the word "awful" and mean it couldn't reasonably be used to describe people like Hitler. He consistently fixates on how incorrigible it is that people neglect to type "neo-" in modern discussions about Nazis because it might confuse people who don't realize we aren't talking about literal time travellers, ignoring more salient discussion of said Nazis. Of course he wants to debate the meaning of atheism and the pointlessness of Huxley's agnosticism. Ignoring the semantics that are actually worth debating in context is all he has.
---

South Dakota has public schools?
---

Putting these messages in bathrooms is a good way to get poo all over their god.

Also, nothing makes a teenager hate something more than shoving it down their throats. If this is a secret atheist plot to make the next generation hate religion, it's very well done. If this is typical bible belt nonsense (which it is, because these zealots aren't very bright), it will backfire spectacularly.
---

kind9 posted...

E pluribus unum means "out of many, one" and I'd say it's definitely more appropriate than "in fairy tales we trust".

Which still sounds stupid.

kind9 posted...

It doesn't even matter which invisible sky daddy it is,

I know you're not on speaking terms with this invisible sky daddy.

adjl posted...

Zeus once spent a 300+ post topic arguing that a driver who committed a hit and run (in which he ran over a lady, then backed over her again before fleeing) wasn't an awful person because that would dilute the gravity of the word "awful" and mean it couldn't reasonably be used to describe people like Hitler. He consistently fixates on how incorrigible it is that people neglect to type "neo-" in modern discussions about Nazis because it might confuse people who don't realize we aren't talking about literal time travellers, ignoring more salient discussion of said Nazis. Of course he wants to debate the meaning of atheism and the pointlessness of Huxley's agnosticism. Ignoring the semantics that are actually worth debating in context is all he has.

You're conflating incidents. The hit&run was a guy who ran over a Pokemon Go player and whose initial crime was almost certainly an accident. The point of contention was motivations for not doing the right thing afterward and coming forward. You ascribed those motivations to pure evil, I suggested that it could be simple cowardice. Granted, I do lack your tendency towards sweeping hyperbole, which is why I don't throw around the term Nazi simply because I don't like an individual and I'm not sure that I've ever exaggerated the size of a topic that greatly.

As for pretending agnosticism is atheism, it's a flat-out deception and entirely in bad faith. You can't pretend that it's a minor issue in semantics, especially since that bullshit is pretty agenda-driven.
---

Full Throttle posted...

Would you support a christian fundamentalist society?

That's a no fro me.
---

wwinterj25 posted...

Full Throttle posted...

Would you support a christian fundamentalist society?

That's a no fro me.

Yeah, they believe in no sex outside of marriage. That's too much morality for me.
---

Taily_Po posted...

I know you're not on speaking terms with this invisible sky daddy.

Yeah, so?

Taily_Po posted...

As for pretending agnosticism is atheism, it's a flat-out deception and entirely in bad faith. You can't pretend that it's a minor issue in semantics, especially since that bullshit is pretty agenda-driven.

Want to talk about agenda-driven? How about how historically those who didn't believe in God were considered degenerates, heathens, heretics, and were ostracized or executed? That's the mindset of the people who decided that atheism is the outright rejection of God.

So what agenda are you talking about? All those atheist organizations promoting things like secularism, humanism, science and critical thinking?

Agnosticism of Huxley's variety may have a place in certain philosophical discussions, but as it turns out most people aren't philosophers. If I ask a person if they believe in god and they tell me they're agnostic, they didn't answer the question.
---

Taily_Po posted...

I don't throw around the term Nazi simply because I don't like an individual

You don't even throw around the term "Nazi" to describe people wearing swastikas, goose-stepping, and promoting the extermination of Jewish people. Don't go pretending you're on some intellectual high ground here.

Taily_Po posted...

As for pretending agnosticism is atheism, it's a flat-out deception and entirely in bad faith. You can't pretend that it's a minor issue in semantics, especially since that bulls*** is pretty agenda-driven.

Agnosticism definitely is not, however, Christianity, which is the only salient distinction in this context. Well, unless you want to pretend the people in favour of this new law aren't talking about the Christian God, which would just be silly. It's also exactly what you've already done, but I'm willing to overlook that and give you a second chance to be less silly.
---