• Kuvwert@lemm.eeEnglish
    961·
    10 months ago

    I’ve seen this before, but I’ve never been able to verify it as being real.

  • phoenixz@lemmy.caEnglish
    781·
    10 months ago

    Doesn’t that go against separation of church and state, and if this is government pushed, isn’t this a first amendment violation?

      • DarthBueller@lemmy.worldEnglish
        32·
        10 months ago

        Fucking hate this. There is a local public meeting that starts with a prayer to the Evangelical God in Jesus’s name that I’m forced to attend because of my job. I hate being essentially compelled to participate in prayer. The SCOTUS precedent supporting this is 100000000% Christian bias.

        • Patches@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          16·
          10 months ago

          The SCOTUS precedent

          Don’t worry they don’t believe in Precedent anymore. You just need to grease their wheels. I hear it’s cheaper than you think.

          • flerp@lemm.eeEnglish
            5·
            10 months ago

            It’s relatively cheap for their masters, but they won’t buck the leash that got them into their position

        • HikingVet@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
          10·
          10 months ago

          I would start invoicing people for your time until you get a legal cease and desist. Then sue them, just because they accepted responsibility.

          Make it cost them money.

        • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.worldEnglish
          7·
          10 months ago

          You could counter with a Baha’i prayer. They are still an Abrahamic religion, and they have literally hundreds of prayers for practically every topic.

        • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          10 months ago

          And you can’t disrupt the meeting by interrupting the prayer until they kick you out, because then presumably your employer would fire you, I assume? 'Cause if not, you should definitely ruin their motherfucking christofascist bullshit.

      • hglman@lemmy.mlEnglish
        2·
        10 months ago

        The worst part is that for the people making these policies it really isn’t religious, just a thing they can trick followers with.

    • Muffi@programming.devEnglish
      141·
      10 months ago

      Look at the dollar bill. America has never given two shits about the separation of church and state.

      • HikingVet@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
        16·
        10 months ago

        In god we trust was added in the cold war because the old saying may have promoted something other than capitalism

        • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          10 months ago

          No, it was added during the cold war because the commies were seen as godless heathens and the religious assholes in charge seized the opportunity to push their brainwashing on us using “do the opposite of the commies” as an excuse. There was never any legitimate concern about “e pluribus unum.”

          It’s the same story as why they reflexively oppose almost anything proposed by a Democrat today.

    • Majawat@lemm.eeEnglish
      5·
      10 months ago

      The way it was worded basically said that it had to be the national motto, thereby not making it a religious text to bypass the concerns you mentioned.

      • Rev3rze@lemdit.comEnglish
        4·
        10 months ago

        What I don’t understand is how the national motto can be a religious one without breaking the first amendment.

        • Majawat@lemm.eeEnglish
          4·
          10 months ago

          It hasn’t reached the Supreme Court for a decision, but lower courts have basically said that it’s not establing a religion because it’s used in a secular and patriotic fashion. (My interpretation of my understanding of the ruling).

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aronow_v._United_States

          You can blame 1956 Cold War era Congress (red scare) and Eisenhower.

    • Thetimefarm@lemm.eeEnglish
      53·
      10 months ago

      I actually looked into this back when it was originally happening and the rules were fairly strict. It specified background color and wording but it didn’t give a language so this guy did about the best you could given the rules.

      However it would be a shame if someone printed a poster with UV reactive paint that changed to something else over time while it hangs.

  • xantoxis@lemmy.worldEnglish
    47·
    10 months ago

    Apart from this, what if you just donated several hundred posters at once? They all have to be displayed?

    • visak@lemmy.worldEnglish
      143·
      10 months ago

      No. They’re not interested in playing fair or being consistent. They’ll simply warp the rules to fit their outcome and declare these posters noncomplaint. You can’t out-maneuver people who simply cheat.

      The assholes on that side of things are a mixture of those who actually believe and want the US to be a religious state, and those who simply are using religion as a method of control. That second group is happy to see religious conflict because a) it distracts from real problems while they consolidate money and power, 2) they can use the fervor to further solidify their support form that religious base.

      This is absolutely not new and has happened before in history. It’s just sad to see the US going down this path.

      • xantoxis@lemmy.worldEnglish
        81·
        10 months ago

        (I’m going to set aside the fact that your Very Serious reply to my joke post is off-tone, and actually give you a serious answer.)

        If you sent hundreds of posters to a school, you would find some school administrators who were only too happy to have the opportunity to plaster the word “God” on every school wall because they’re warped. I acknowledge that’s a thing, let’s move past it.

        Most school administrators either a) hate this shit, or b) don’t really give a fuck. If you pulled this prank on one of those schools which–and I really want to stress this–are not on board with the stupid law in the vast majority of cases, you are actually handing them a chance to pull a glorious act of malicious compliance. If I were one of them, I would comply with the letter of the law and wallpaper every wall in the school with these things. Give the kids and the parents a chance to see them, and complain. Who are they complaining to? Not you, your hands are tied, you’re just complying with the law. You will explain this very patiently to every single one of them complaining about a school where every surface says “In God we Trust”. You’re on their side, but the school board and your legislators need to hear about this, because hey, we’re on the same team.

        You can even go with them, and testify that your staff had to spend hours putting them up, taking time away from school activities. What are you supposed to do? This hurts the children.

        School administrators don’t make the laws, but they can act in a way that brings the issue to the forefront of everyone’s mind. School administrators can give the parents a good reason to take the fight to someone who can actually do something about it.

        That might not work, in the end. Texas is run by lunatics, after all. But a huge pile of posters might just be the reason you sleep at night knowing you did what you could.

        • visak@lemmy.worldEnglish
          21·
          10 months ago

          The idea of donating alternative posters has already been tried and that particular school board just ignored the issue: https://www.npr.org/2022/08/31/1120239381/texas-in-god-we-trust-arabic-signs-chaz-stevens I’m sure they’d treat a donation of 100s of posters the same way.

          And as I (not a lawyer) read the law it only says that a poster has to be displayed in each building and has to be donated or purchased with donated funds: https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/html/SB00797I.htm so I don’t think you as an administrator would get away with plastering up hundreds of posters around your school, but let’s say you did. The parents will complain to you AND the school board (i.e. your boss). They’ll say you’re making fun of their religion, you’re a communist, etc. Even if they law was unambiguously on your side, they’ll only see what they want to see. You’ll find your chances of promotion to be zero, or you’ll just be managed out. Even if the Board somehow agreed with you, you made a stink.

          I have friends who are teachers and administrators, not in Texas, who have left or been kicked over lesser issues. The rest are looking forward to retirement.

          These bozos passing these laws don’t understand irony. They just want misdirection, conformity, and compliant kids. We just need to directly tell them to fuck off at this point.

          I’m sorry for my continued Very Seriousness.

  • Pratai@lemmy.caEnglish
    271·
    10 months ago

    Very slim chance this actually happened. There no actual photo of the flag, just a digital image that was created. Which means if it was not the creator of the flag, but a third person- they’d have a photo of the flag or in the least- not bothered recreating it in photoshop, but just describing it in enough detail. And if it was the creator that posted this- it wouldn’t be in 3rd person suggesting “someone” did this.

    Additionally, In the rare chance it did happen- it wouldn’t be enforced.

    • beneeney@lemm.eeEnglish
      17·
      10 months ago

      What? You mean someone would just go on the Internet and lie like that?

      • Pratai@lemmy.caEnglish
        4·
        10 months ago

        Based on all the comments here, you’d think anything posted on the internet is accepted as absolute truth. It’s not such a stretch to assume everyone believes this bullshit.

  • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
    25·
    10 months ago

    Selective enforcement is the name of the game. Ken Paxton won’t be using this rule to take over a school district in Bastrop.

    • corvaxL@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      10 months ago

      Well he won’t be doing anything regardless, since he’s currently suspended. Texas law dictates that anyone impeached by the state House (such as Paxton) is suspended from office while they await trial in the Senate.

    • dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.worldEnglish
      132·
      10 months ago

      And there’s tons of other schools who may not reject it. What exactly are you trying to say here with the single word “rejected” and a link?

    • Staccato@lemmy.worldEnglish
      7·
      10 months ago

      The way you present your message, it implies the effort was rejected statewide. That could be misleading some folks.

      It was actually rejected by Carroll ISD, which is the school district covering the disproportionately white and wealthy suburb of Southlake, TX.

      There are 1,021 more ISDs in Texas to go.

  • velovix@hedge.townEnglish
    13·
    10 months ago

    The law requires that schools hang up “In God We Trust” signs, but I don’t believe it requires them to hang up every sign that is donated to them.

  • Trekman10@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    11·
    10 months ago

    I’ve always thought that the upholding of these laws should instead result in quotes and “imagery” from Islam directly…or any non-Christian religion, really.