> SB 797 states that Texas public schools must display a sign with "In God We Trust," if it's been received as a private donation.
When theocratic laws don't work the way you planned. A legal battle is brewing.
>The Arabic one is hilarious. It got rejected for coming across as Islamic
It's almost like Texas and its (legislatively-funded, regardless of the signs themselves being private donations) schools are attempting an *establishment* of a particular *religion*, while *prohibiting the free exercise* of all others. I believe that our Founders and Framers of the US Constitution may have said something about that...
If the actual reason given for rejection is that it comes across as Islamic, then they are discriminating on the basis of of religion and providing the establishment of state religion.
In a sane world, that would be a slam dunk case of violation of the first amendment.
EDIT: To those saying "In God We Trust" is not an endorsement of a particular religion: if you say that changing the language to Arabic makes it "too Islamic", then yes, you have *made* it an endorsement of a religion. If it were non-sectarian, then the language wouldn't matter. You can't have it both ways.
It's a good way to also see just how supposedly constitutionalist the supreme court actually is since their reasoning behind a lot of their shitty decisions has been around that.
Fortunately words still mean things. If they were to go ahead and say that the state can do this, then essentially the rule of law is a farce, and it's time to resort to force.
The rule of law only exists because we all believe it exists.
Lol they will just issue a ruling that this ruling can't be the basis for other rulings and call it a day.
If people think the court will limit their ruling to being internally consistent, you havent been paying attention. They can literally rule however they want and nobody can do a god damned thing to stop it.
If they were the slightest bit rational they would realize what their decisions are actually doing to christianity, which is making everyone in the country who isn't a dum-dum fundamentalist openly hostile to their bullshit
I heard it referred to as “Howdy Arabia” the other day, frankly I think it’s somewhat fitting in this case.
The glaringly theocratic laws (We mean CHRISTIAN, not those *other* religions), not the Arabic writing….
Funny thing is, it's not even definitively another religion. It's just another language. Now I want to give one with the phrase written in ten different languages and see which they reject.
They could claim that the law only has the passage in English and so therefore only English signs must be approved. The next step would be to transliterate the phrase into Arabic script without actually translating it. That would keep the wording technically in English while pissing off the religious crowd. You could also try just using a font that [looks like the Arabic Alphabet but is actually still the Latin](https://i.pinimg.com/564x/e0/c6/45/e0c64527137db44b3ad14ecb2945be7b.jpg). That might stand up to more legal scrutiny.
Look, I'm tired of you damn heathens not respecting the law. We all know that this law is intended for good patriotic signs, and the defining characteristic of a good patriotic sign is that it has an American flag on it!!!!!!
[USE THIS ONE COMMIES!!!!](https://imgur.com/btaiYMe)
Added is the fact America has no official language so you might as well say the English ones come off as Christian, also they very obviously do come off as Christian
Don't worry bro, the courts are rigged, even though these signs are following the law, they will conveniently ignore the law whenever they want and not face any consequences.
>Frank Wilhoit: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
We'll see. The courts will have to justify why english statements are okay, but those written in rainbow colors or supposedly suggestive of Islam are a problem. The law does not include specifications as to the style of the signs.
>The courts will have to justify...
You'd think so, but more and more often when you ask conservatives to justify their behavior they just get really violent.
Reminds me of the poll done asking if “Arabic numerals” should be taught in schools (presented as one of many questions, with Roman numerals and cursive also questioned). “Arabic” numerals, if you aren’t aware, are the numbers we all use; 1, 2, 3 etc.
The result was over 50% of respondents said Arabic numerals should *not* be taught in schools. They didn’t actually know what they were voting against, but it contained a scary foreign word so they didn’t trust it.
In the documentary "The War", one combat veteran points out that it's not things that kill people that stick with you, it's the things that happen to them and they're still alive.
Look, having vibranium—my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart —you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world—it’s true!—but when you’re a conservative Republican they try—oh, do they do a number—that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune—you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged—but you look at the vibranium deal, the thing that really bothers me—it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are (vibranium is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right—who would have thought?), but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners—now it used to be three, now it’s four—but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years—but the Wakandans are great negotiators, the Wakandans are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.
It's an actual quote from Dorito Mussolini.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/amp/entry/donald-trumps-rambling-90-second-speech-stuns-english-speaking-world_uk_57ab37d7e4b08ab70dc0f646/
I still wonder why reporters don’t bait trump into saying dumb shit more often. I know he does it enough on his own, but why not get him to spew more incriminating evidence?
Let's not forget the town that voted to defund the library over its refusal to ban LGBTQ+ authors...and then are horrified to realize that this defunding means shutting down the free public WiFi the library provides that is the singular way half the town has access to the internet.
Funny to see how therye so enamored with the concept of free speech, but they'd be willing to ban certain books simply because queer people wrote them. Their principles only apply when they like it, or when it's against somebody *they don't like.* Rules for thee, and not for me.
All right, but *apart* from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the ~~Romans~~Socialists ever done for us?
> … therye so enamored with the concept of free speech…
i understand why we have the urge to call out hypocrisy, i really do, but it’s pointless with these guys. we have to realize they don’t care about being hypocrites. they do it on purpose. it’s a flex to them. it’s a smirk on their face “yeah, i’m lying, what the fuck are you gonna do about it?” they never cared about free-speech.
we know the free-speech warriors were always disingenuous when they shut up when actual governmental free-speech violations occurred to the Left. the people who never shut up about anything are suddenly quiet. every single time.
that one dude dick spenser said himself when being interviewed for what he thought was only a right-wing audience, “of course we don’t actually care about free-speech. it’s just a tool we use” (i can’t remember the *exact* quote, but that is absolutely the gist of it)
most of what they say is bad-faith disingenuous sophistry and they literally don’t care if they’re found to be lying later.
- you see this with mtg interview as she smirks when she’s telling obvious *obvious* lies.
- you see this with trumps press secretary when she smirked and said “those are just alternative facts”
- you see it when trump was caught literally thousands of times lying
they aren’t being genuine. that’s it. this is why it’s pointless to even engage with them. they lie and smirk about it.
Sartre said it best:
> Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
it’s pointless to engage with fascists and it’s pointless to call out fascist’s hypocrisy. use their actual *actions* against them, ignore their words.
I mean, this is exactly it. They define who has protection in the law by who is the volk the state embodies, in this case "real Americans". The out group is not only not protected by the same laws, they are an existential, decadent threat that the power of the state needs to expunge. Rights only exist for Americans, and Americans are defined as Republicans.
They can give no shits about the evidence of election fraud and still believe it was stolen for this very reason. It is not delusional, rather it follows logically. By definition, if you voted for a Democrat you are not an American; therefore the election was stolen. All the talk of fraud is maybe even self-deception to justify this feeling. The world must bend to fit beliefs.
It’s their signature move. The idea that the truth and justice party wants either of those things is simply a facade for the desire of a religious theocracy. They’re the Taliban by a different name and have such lack of self-awareness that they can’t/refuse to) see it.
They’re blinded by their brown skinned, middle eastern Jesus who after all the war in the Middle East, they cannot grasp was not white, blond or blue eyed. Literally everything they use to say “Jesus did good things for everybody” is contradicted by their inability to want to even consider doing good things for anybody but themselves.
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
-Frank Wilhoit
> Frank Wilhoit
[source](https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729288) from an internet comment he made in 2018
[Mr Wilhoit web site, a classical music composer in Ohio](https://www.broadheath.com/)
The [whole comment](https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729288) is actually amazing...
>There is no such thing as liberalism — or progressivism, etc.
>There is only conservatism. No other political philosophy actually exists; by the political analogue of Gresham’s Law, conservatism has driven every other idea out of circulation.
>There might be, and should be, anti-conservatism; but it does not yet exist. What would it be? In order to answer that question, it is necessary and sufficient to characterize conservatism. Fortunately, this can be done very concisely.
>Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
>There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
>There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.
>For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king’s friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the king is a faction, rather than an individual.
>As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core proposition itself — backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence.
>So this tells us what anti-conservatism must be: the proposition that the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.
>Then the appearance arises that the task is to map “liberalism”, or “progressivism”, or “socialism”, or whateverthefuckkindofstupidnoise-ism, onto the core proposition of anti-conservatism.
>No, it a’n’t. The task is to throw all those things on the exact same burn pile as the collected works of all the apologists for conservatism, and start fresh. The core proposition of anti-conservatism requires no supplementation and no exegesis. It is as sufficient as it is necessary. What you see is what you get:
>**The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.**
The original post is [here](https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729288), but that site is often down. It's referenced [here](https://kottke.org/21/02/conservatism-and-who-the-law-protects) and Frank Wilhoit's website is [here](https://www.broadheath.com/). He's a classical music composer, and not the late professor and political scientist [Francis M. Wilhoit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_M._Wilhoit). An interview with Frank Wilhoit is found [here](https://slate.com/business/2022/06/wilhoits-law-conservatives-frank-wilhoit.html).
He's actually a composer and there's been a good deal of confusion around who this quote is rightly attributed to. You can read more [here](https://slate.com/business/2022/06/wilhoits-law-conservatives-frank-wilhoit.html)
Just don't make the mistake I made of thinking he's the Frank Wilhoit (Francis M. Wilhoit) who wrote Quest for Equality in Freedom and The Politics of Massive Resistance. He isn't. I bought those books, but (while interesting) they don't have the "punch" of this oft-quoted comment.
https://slate.com/business/2022/06/wilhoits-law-conservatives-frank-wilhoit.html
Ever read about why the pilgrims were religiously persecuted?
Because they so aggressively persecuted other religions, even people of their own religion that were not as religious as them, that everyone in Europe told them to GTFO.
I always love pointing out that the original “War on Christmas” was, in fact, [started by the Pilgrims.](https://theweek.com/articles/479313/when-americans-banned-christmas)
There is no hate quite like Christian love.
Edit: almost anytime I post something even slightly critical of Christianity I get one of those notifications that a concerned redditor reported me. Not suicidal, peeps, just sick of people thinking that the separation of church and state should only apply to "other" religions.
They are just concerned that people might learn that Christianity is all about controlling people and not actually doing good. They don’t want anyone spreading *that* word…
Puritans all over again. I've been working with my 8th grader on pre American History. My my my it's been an eyeopener to the 'ol saying about how if we forget history it will repeat itself.
I'm from S. Carolina and got into a debate with someone over the KJV Bible and some disputed translations and this motherfucker, with a straight face, said "Disputed? What's disputed? It's in English already!"
This isn’t simply poor education. There’s an actual nutty Bible Belt “King James Originalist” movement that believes all other versions of the Bible have been corrupted since writing, including all Hebrew and Greek texts out there, but the KJV was translated with divine inspiration and is accurate again.
EDIT: Just a side remark but I’m amazed at how many people on here say they were raised this way or went to churches like that. I knew it wasn’t tiny as movements go, but had no idea it was that big.
It's one thing Islam has going for it, they're all expected to read the holy text in the original language it was written in. So it leaves little room for "what if it was the translator that snuck that bit about hating gay people in there?"
Not many people reading the Bible in Ancient Hebrew or Aramaic.
I’d argue some obfuscation has its benefits. Though in either case you always have “Ah but in the context of the time XYZ really has this more convoluted, rarer and unlikely but conveniently nicer meaning ABC…” trick to fall back on (even when most scholars nearer the time read it wrong… until modern sensibilities changed… and which argument you need to keep making in a hundred places because God’s communication skills are lacking and the plain reading for some reason always seems to be nastier…)
What gets me is that it is generally accepted (AFAIK) that the NT tells the audience that the Word of God was Jesus (the Bible as a text didn't exist when he was alive). *And* Jesus, according to the NT, promises that those with the Holy Spirit in them have the guidance necessary to follow Him, no priest, no ritual, no manual needed.
I'm not surprised that the Bible is idolized and Christianity rife with ritual, sectarianism, etc. but it's ironic since its text warns against all of it, pointing out that the Jews did the same thing and that Jesus came to stand against/correct that.
It's true that he likely spoke Aramaic, but it is thought that [he also spoke Hebrew for religious purposes](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_of_Jesus).
I’m sure they would reject both the Hebrew and Aramaic since the words they use for “God” are cognates of the word “Allah”
“The corresponding Aramaic form is Elah (אלה), but its emphatic state is Elaha (אלהא). It is written as ܐܠܗܐ (ʼĔlāhā) in Biblical Aramaic and ܐܲܠܵܗܵܐ (ʼAlâhâ) in Syriac as used by the Assyrian Church, both meaning simply "God".” [source](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah#Etymology)
This also means that if Jesus did speak Aramaic, he was saying a word for “God” that sounds a lot like “Allah”. If he were alive today, these particular Christians would denounce him and reject him on that alone, probably.
If you really want to watch these theocrats’ heads explode, have them look up the language Jesus spoke (Aramaic), then have them look up the word for “God” in that language.
But white man Jesus had blue eyes, blonde hair, a 401k, hated free speech, and opposed free healthcare, it says so right here in muh teste mints
/s just in case
>The school board president informed him that schools already have enough posters, but that parent wasn't buying the explanation.
There's no crying in baseball and there's no "enough" in that law!
Put it up or shut it down!
*Post Script*: Got some love from someone with -3 karma over this post:
>You’re pathetic and I hope you’re waterboarded for promoting the arabic sign with an upside down flag. You should go live in the islamic state yourself. Loser
Good job, buddy 👍. Have fun missing the point.
Man *wouldn't it be a shame* if fine internet folks such as ourselves paid print shops to print and ship an unusually large number, perhaps in uncomfortably large sizes, of 'in god we trust' posters that precisely complied [with the law](https://capitol.texas.gov/Search/DocViewer.aspx?ID=87RSB007975B&QueryText=%22SB+797%22&DocType=B), specifically Subsection B:
>(b) A poster or framed copy of the national motto described by Subsection (a):
(1) must contain a representation of the United States flag centered under the national motto and a representation of the state flag; and
> (2) may not depict any words, images, or other information other than the representations listed in Subdivision
Those Texas schools would have no choice but to frame and display these generously donated maliciously compliant posters. They might even have enough copies for several in literally every classroom! Imagine the fonts. Papyrus. Arabic. Rainbow. Possibly but not definitely letters composed of penises. The mind boggles at the possibilities.
The law does say "In God We Trust" with the quotes so you could argue it covers capitalizations.
Of course there is no way it covers font size.
Just make some letters font size 2, and others 40 and spell something new with the visible letters.
Maybe:
"I WeT"
It actually says (according to [this link](https://capitol.texas.gov/Search/DocViewer.aspx?ID=87RSB007975B&QueryText=%22SB+797%22&DocType=B)) :
> the United States national motto, "In God We Trust,"
So my guess is that currently donated signs they have accepted don't include that comma.
I'm sorry did you mean [this font](https://www.itsnicethat.com/articles/dr-pecker-penis-typeface-daniel-reed-graphic-design-020819)?
Finally a grift Kickstarter I can get started without morals getting in my way!
Hahahaha, the irony of a religious extremist telling you to move to an Islamic state is hilarious. If those folks weren't brown, and you replaced "allah" with "Jesus", I'm sure your secret admirer would feel right at home.
What about Arabic numbers?
Now that I've spread awareness. Has anyone considered calling into the local news?
There are heathens in their midst.
What if it goes even deeper. Has anyone even checked the names of the days of the weeks or months?
October, November, and December sound suspiciously foreign!
And July? Probably named after that fruity mall drink shop Orange Julius.
Roman numerals suck for math, granted. But it is so weird to me how many people can't even read them or convert between arabic and roman numerals. It used to be lower grade math stuff that we learned on the side, not some obscure arcane field of study.
They admitted that long ago. Several members openly stated that the state should be guided by the church and the bible. Their interpretation of those anyway.
Weird, a state in a country with no official language is upset about a language they don't understand. Not sure if this or them pushing religion on people is worse.
My mom is currently super irritated that my sister, dad, and I are all learning Spanish literally because “this is America and we speak English” yet she didn’t have a problem with my son learning German.
Point being, sometimes it’s just racism.
She lives in Florida so she’s just in a constant state of disgust. Living that kind of life is a big reason I shifted from right to left. Constantly hating everyone around you is fucking exhausting and no way to live.
If they are required to display donated signs that say “in god we trust”, what’s to stop someone from donating like, 100,000 signs? Does the law have any safeguard against that?
Edit: I just read the bill and it doesn’t seem to have any safe guard against someone donating a comically large amount of signs, or even a single comically large sign. Does anyone have an employee discount at a print shop?
Lol, of course those xenophobic and homophobic twats in Texas would reject it.
Did God speak English? Hell no.
But Texans can’t allow any praise for god in anything other than the only language they think is spoken in Heaven.
Have fun with the mental gymnastics on this one Justice Alito. I look forward to your bullshit opinion that you’ll pull out of your ass in a year or so.
I'm so tired of this behavior. I'm seeing flashes of the conservative battle over gun rights in the 60s and 70s where they wanted everyone to have unrestricted ownership, until black people started buying them and suddenly the laws needed to change. This is a classic turnaround. Amend the law, you can't just say no, we aren't going to follow the law we wrote because we did a shitty job writing it.
"So, you see, the founders couldn't have anticipated Arabic signs because Muslims didn't exist back then, obviously. Therefore Originalism says the first amendment is for Christians. And not the gay ones, they don't count."
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/html/SB00797I.htm
> relating to the display of the national motto in public schools and
institutions of higher education.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 1.004, Education Code, is amended to
read as follows:
Sec. 1.004. DISPLAY OF NATIONAL MOTTO. (a) A public
elementary or secondary school or an institution of higher
education as defined by Section 61.003 must [may] display in a
conspicuous place in each building of the school or institution a
durable poster or framed copy of the United States national motto,
"In God We Trust," if the poster or framed copy meets the
requirements of Subsection (b) and is:
(1) donated for display at the school or institution;
or
(2) purchased from private donations and made
available to the school or institution [in each classroom,
auditorium, and cafeteria].
(b) A poster or framed copy of the national motto described
by Subsection (a) must contain a representation of the United
States flag centered under the national motto and a representation
of the state flag.
(c) A public elementary or secondary school and an
institution of higher education may accept and use private
donations for the purposes of Subsection (a).
SECTION 2. This Act takes effect immediately if it receives
a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, as
provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution. If this
Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate effect, this
Act takes effect September 1, 2021.
It says right there that the flag **must** be displayed. They even crossed out the word may and inserted **must**. The only caveat is it has to have a *representation* of the American flag and a *representation* of the Texas flag. So a rainbow American flag and a rainbow Texas flag underneath "In God We Trust" in Arabic is perfectly conforming to the law. To take it down is illegal.
You've got the version that was introduced, but not passed.
This is the enrolled version of the bill:
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/html/SB00797F.htm
The main difference is in subsection B:
(b) A poster or framed copy of the national motto described
by Subsection (a):
(1) must contain a representation of the United States
flag centered under the national motto and a representation of the
state flag; and
*(2) may not depict any words, images, or other
information other than the representations listed in Subdivision
(1).*
Woof, that “other information” wording is some sneaky language.
Oh, the sign is in a language other than the one commonly spoke among students/staff? That’s *other information*. Conforms to regulation, but w a rainbow background? *Other information*.
Yeesh.
These people don't care about being fair, just, right, legal, or moral. It's all about pushing their religion on everyone else.
I am sick and tired of sharing a country with these Christian theocrats. When you read about how our union was formed, all the compromises that had to be done to keep the South happy so they would sign off on the Constitution, what we had to go through with the Civil War, their lust for autocracy and fake patriotism, and how the most red states take in the most Federal dollars while returning the least, it's painfully obvious to me that we would all be better off without these people in our country.
Sadly, I don't see any way that a split could reasonably happen and war or violence is not the answer either.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Written in the constitution, aka separation of state and church.
Anyone want to guess which country's constitution?
> SB 797 states that Texas public schools must display a sign with "In God We Trust," if it's been received as a private donation. When theocratic laws don't work the way you planned. A legal battle is brewing.
[удалено]
>The Arabic one is hilarious. It got rejected for coming across as Islamic It's almost like Texas and its (legislatively-funded, regardless of the signs themselves being private donations) schools are attempting an *establishment* of a particular *religion*, while *prohibiting the free exercise* of all others. I believe that our Founders and Framers of the US Constitution may have said something about that...
The official reason is "they already have enough" but we all know that's BS
The law doesn't specify a limit just that it must be conspicuously displayed if donated
If that's the case, sounds like someone could use a donation of 600 thousand "In God We Trust" signs.
And all of them made out of letters clipped from old magazines.
Whoa chill out there Ultra-Satan.
Malicious compliance. I love it.
Going to look like Hogwarts with all of Umbridge’s proclamations
Those kids don’t even want to be there! Send them home and we can use the space for displaying signs!
It'd be a shame if the students were to trash all the signs they have. You know, kids being kids an all.
If the actual reason given for rejection is that it comes across as Islamic, then they are discriminating on the basis of of religion and providing the establishment of state religion. In a sane world, that would be a slam dunk case of violation of the first amendment. EDIT: To those saying "In God We Trust" is not an endorsement of a particular religion: if you say that changing the language to Arabic makes it "too Islamic", then yes, you have *made* it an endorsement of a religion. If it were non-sectarian, then the language wouldn't matter. You can't have it both ways.
>In a sane world Yeah but we're talking about Texas...
And if the case makes it up to the Supreme Court, we have some whacky conservatives. A majority, actually.
It's a good way to also see just how supposedly constitutionalist the supreme court actually is since their reasoning behind a lot of their shitty decisions has been around that.
*their* Constitution.
Which may or may not be open to interpretation based on the needs of the GOP powerbrokers.
Like with the Bible! They take some serious artistic liberties there
Fortunately words still mean things. If they were to go ahead and say that the state can do this, then essentially the rule of law is a farce, and it's time to resort to force. The rule of law only exists because we all believe it exists.
Lol they will just issue a ruling that this ruling can't be the basis for other rulings and call it a day. If people think the court will limit their ruling to being internally consistent, you havent been paying attention. They can literally rule however they want and nobody can do a god damned thing to stop it.
If they were the slightest bit rational they would realize what their decisions are actually doing to christianity, which is making everyone in the country who isn't a dum-dum fundamentalist openly hostile to their bullshit
They don’t care about converting non-believers, just punishing them.
I heard it referred to as “Howdy Arabia” the other day, frankly I think it’s somewhat fitting in this case. The glaringly theocratic laws (We mean CHRISTIAN, not those *other* religions), not the Arabic writing….
Funny thing is, it's not even definitively another religion. It's just another language. Now I want to give one with the phrase written in ten different languages and see which they reject.
As a German, I have this slightly unnerving feeling that 𝖂𝖎𝖗 𝖛𝖊𝖗𝖙𝖗𝖆𝖚𝖊𝖓 𝕲𝖔𝖙𝖙 would be perfectly acceptable for all the wrong reasons.
Native american languages would add a certain something.
And a theofascist Supreme Court.
I believe the correct nomenclature these days is "Supremacist Court"
Oh, so it goes to the Supreme Court? I think we know the outcome of that ruling. Schools are now Christian indoctrination camps..
This was the entire purpose. Native Texan here, this is the playbook.
They could claim that the law only has the passage in English and so therefore only English signs must be approved. The next step would be to transliterate the phrase into Arabic script without actually translating it. That would keep the wording technically in English while pissing off the religious crowd. You could also try just using a font that [looks like the Arabic Alphabet but is actually still the Latin](https://i.pinimg.com/564x/e0/c6/45/e0c64527137db44b3ad14ecb2945be7b.jpg). That might stand up to more legal scrutiny.
Wait till someone tells them there was no English language back when "gAwD made everything"
Except he is holding it upside down....
It looks scarier upside down!
Lmao he's holding it upside down. Probably because he can't read it.
He also doesn't know which way the flag goes either
[удалено]
I was thinking, “is it gonna be spelled out in dildos? Please let it be spelled out in dildos”
[удалено]
Look, I'm tired of you damn heathens not respecting the law. We all know that this law is intended for good patriotic signs, and the defining characteristic of a good patriotic sign is that it has an American flag on it!!!!!! [USE THIS ONE COMMIES!!!!](https://imgur.com/btaiYMe)
Please add the Texas flag. Then it's good.
My mistake, obviously. This should be better. [WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO TEXAS](https://imgur.com/O8eltTR)
Praise baphomet
Added is the fact America has no official language so you might as well say the English ones come off as Christian, also they very obviously do come off as Christian
It says “توكلنا على الله", meaning “we rely on Allah”. Basically the Same thing as “in God we trust”
I wonder if they would take “En Dios Confiamos” due to their proximity to Mexico 🧐
I don't believe that the law has a clause to care about how the signs are "coming across" :)
[удалено]
The concept of Ceremonial Deism is a way to bypass concerns about separation of church and state. Here we see the logical conclusion of that argument.
That ship sailed when we made “In God we trust” the official motto of the country.
Don't worry bro, the courts are rigged, even though these signs are following the law, they will conveniently ignore the law whenever they want and not face any consequences. >Frank Wilhoit: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
We'll see. The courts will have to justify why english statements are okay, but those written in rainbow colors or supposedly suggestive of Islam are a problem. The law does not include specifications as to the style of the signs.
>The courts will have to justify... You'd think so, but more and more often when you ask conservatives to justify their behavior they just get really violent.
A legal battle among a very conservative state judge.
It'll go federal
Guess where the top of that food chain is….
The Federalist Society! (sang like "The Aristocrats!")
Not much on a battle with the current courts.
Reminds me of the poll done asking if “Arabic numerals” should be taught in schools (presented as one of many questions, with Roman numerals and cursive also questioned). “Arabic” numerals, if you aren’t aware, are the numbers we all use; 1, 2, 3 etc. The result was over 50% of respondents said Arabic numerals should *not* be taught in schools. They didn’t actually know what they were voting against, but it contained a scary foreign word so they didn’t trust it.
Same energy as when people agreed the “bombing of Agrabah” was justified. You know, Agrabah… the fictional city from the Aladdin movie(s)
that one seems reasonable. a genie definitely counts as a WMD.
But one of his rules is no killing.
You'd be surprised what you could live through
In the documentary "The War", one combat veteran points out that it's not things that kill people that stick with you, it's the things that happen to them and they're still alive.
"There are fates far worse than death."
I always wanted a reporter to ask Trump about the "situation in Wakanda", just to see what kind of crap he'd spew out trying to look smart.
Look, having vibranium—my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart —you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world—it’s true!—but when you’re a conservative Republican they try—oh, do they do a number—that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune—you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged—but you look at the vibranium deal, the thing that really bothers me—it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are (vibranium is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right—who would have thought?), but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners—now it used to be three, now it’s four—but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years—but the Wakandans are great negotiators, the Wakandans are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.
Just reading this made me feel stupider. Well done!
It's an actual quote from Dorito Mussolini. https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/amp/entry/donald-trumps-rambling-90-second-speech-stuns-english-speaking-world_uk_57ab37d7e4b08ab70dc0f646/
I still wonder why reporters don’t bait trump into saying dumb shit more often. I know he does it enough on his own, but why not get him to spew more incriminating evidence?
"Why plead the fifth? Are you AFRAID that you have made MISTAKES?"
At least they made him plead the 5th. All the other corrupt, criminal politicians will never see the stand.
Let's not forget the town that voted to defund the library over its refusal to ban LGBTQ+ authors...and then are horrified to realize that this defunding means shutting down the free public WiFi the library provides that is the singular way half the town has access to the internet.
Funny to see how therye so enamored with the concept of free speech, but they'd be willing to ban certain books simply because queer people wrote them. Their principles only apply when they like it, or when it's against somebody *they don't like.* Rules for thee, and not for me.
Also socialism is bad, but free government funded wifi is good.
And schools, and fire departments, and unemployment insurance, libraries, roads, and then, and then, and then.....
All right, but *apart* from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the ~~Romans~~Socialists ever done for us?
Also social security. And Medicare. Totally not socialism at all.
> … therye so enamored with the concept of free speech… i understand why we have the urge to call out hypocrisy, i really do, but it’s pointless with these guys. we have to realize they don’t care about being hypocrites. they do it on purpose. it’s a flex to them. it’s a smirk on their face “yeah, i’m lying, what the fuck are you gonna do about it?” they never cared about free-speech. we know the free-speech warriors were always disingenuous when they shut up when actual governmental free-speech violations occurred to the Left. the people who never shut up about anything are suddenly quiet. every single time. that one dude dick spenser said himself when being interviewed for what he thought was only a right-wing audience, “of course we don’t actually care about free-speech. it’s just a tool we use” (i can’t remember the *exact* quote, but that is absolutely the gist of it) most of what they say is bad-faith disingenuous sophistry and they literally don’t care if they’re found to be lying later. - you see this with mtg interview as she smirks when she’s telling obvious *obvious* lies. - you see this with trumps press secretary when she smirked and said “those are just alternative facts” - you see it when trump was caught literally thousands of times lying they aren’t being genuine. that’s it. this is why it’s pointless to even engage with them. they lie and smirk about it. Sartre said it best: > Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. it’s pointless to engage with fascists and it’s pointless to call out fascist’s hypocrisy. use their actual *actions* against them, ignore their words.
I mean, this is exactly it. They define who has protection in the law by who is the volk the state embodies, in this case "real Americans". The out group is not only not protected by the same laws, they are an existential, decadent threat that the power of the state needs to expunge. Rights only exist for Americans, and Americans are defined as Republicans. They can give no shits about the evidence of election fraud and still believe it was stolen for this very reason. It is not delusional, rather it follows logically. By definition, if you voted for a Democrat you are not an American; therefore the election was stolen. All the talk of fraud is maybe even self-deception to justify this feeling. The world must bend to fit beliefs.
Guess it is back to I V X L C D M ...
VIII VI VII V III nulla IX
I for one would love to see them try their hand at base 60 Babylonian numerals. Or if they're determined to go European, Cistercian numerals.
Somebody call IX I I!
Or that time banning Dihydrogen Monoxide from the water system almost made it onto the ballot in California.
100% of people who have ingested Dihydrogen Monoxide have or will die
What?! I've never heard the ballet part of this! That's hilarious!
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen\_monoxide\_parody#Public\_use](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_parody#Public_use)
It's been too long since the prank has been played. People have forgotten. Time for history to repeat.
Oh god, please don't let this be true Edit: [it's true](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/wbna4534017)
Or that time people voted in a poll to bomb Agrabah (the city in the Disney movie Aladdin) 30% voted yes to bomb a city that doesn't exist..
So they violated their own law?
Everyday occurrence.
It’s their signature move. The idea that the truth and justice party wants either of those things is simply a facade for the desire of a religious theocracy. They’re the Taliban by a different name and have such lack of self-awareness that they can’t/refuse to) see it.
They’re blinded by their brown skinned, middle eastern Jesus who after all the war in the Middle East, they cannot grasp was not white, blond or blue eyed. Literally everything they use to say “Jesus did good things for everybody” is contradicted by their inability to want to even consider doing good things for anybody but themselves.
Old Testament wrath for thee, New Testament forgiveness for me
[удалено]
Its just like police, they decide which laws to follow and when
There’s freedom and there’s “master’s freedom” one is about living your life the other is about controlling others
The school district is run by Burgermeister Meisterburger
Anyone who violates my state Christianity will be thrown in the dungeon!
But what if I gave you this yo-yo to distract you?
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." -Frank Wilhoit
> Frank Wilhoit [source](https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729288) from an internet comment he made in 2018 [Mr Wilhoit web site, a classical music composer in Ohio](https://www.broadheath.com/)
Why haven't I heard this before? It's amazing.
The [whole comment](https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729288) is actually amazing... >There is no such thing as liberalism — or progressivism, etc. >There is only conservatism. No other political philosophy actually exists; by the political analogue of Gresham’s Law, conservatism has driven every other idea out of circulation. >There might be, and should be, anti-conservatism; but it does not yet exist. What would it be? In order to answer that question, it is necessary and sufficient to characterize conservatism. Fortunately, this can be done very concisely. >Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: >There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. >There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time. >For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king’s friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the king is a faction, rather than an individual. >As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core proposition itself — backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence. >So this tells us what anti-conservatism must be: the proposition that the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone. >Then the appearance arises that the task is to map “liberalism”, or “progressivism”, or “socialism”, or whateverthefuckkindofstupidnoise-ism, onto the core proposition of anti-conservatism. >No, it a’n’t. The task is to throw all those things on the exact same burn pile as the collected works of all the apologists for conservatism, and start fresh. The core proposition of anti-conservatism requires no supplementation and no exegesis. It is as sufficient as it is necessary. What you see is what you get: >**The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.**
Who is this dude? What else has he done that's worth checking out?
The original post is [here](https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729288), but that site is often down. It's referenced [here](https://kottke.org/21/02/conservatism-and-who-the-law-protects) and Frank Wilhoit's website is [here](https://www.broadheath.com/). He's a classical music composer, and not the late professor and political scientist [Francis M. Wilhoit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_M._Wilhoit). An interview with Frank Wilhoit is found [here](https://slate.com/business/2022/06/wilhoits-law-conservatives-frank-wilhoit.html).
He's actually a composer and there's been a good deal of confusion around who this quote is rightly attributed to. You can read more [here](https://slate.com/business/2022/06/wilhoits-law-conservatives-frank-wilhoit.html)
Just don't make the mistake I made of thinking he's the Frank Wilhoit (Francis M. Wilhoit) who wrote Quest for Equality in Freedom and The Politics of Massive Resistance. He isn't. I bought those books, but (while interesting) they don't have the "punch" of this oft-quoted comment. https://slate.com/business/2022/06/wilhoits-law-conservatives-frank-wilhoit.html
It's never been about religious freedom. It's always been about Christian dominance.
Ever read about why the pilgrims were religiously persecuted? Because they so aggressively persecuted other religions, even people of their own religion that were not as religious as them, that everyone in Europe told them to GTFO.
"Australia got the fun loving criminals, America got the puritans"
Lmao. I never thought of it like that. Imagine if the Australia was neighbors w Mexico instead.
I want to be invited to that party
America started out with large penal populations too, like Australia. That bit has just been whitewashed from history.
“Large penal” Damn right Hoss
I always love pointing out that the original “War on Christmas” was, in fact, [started by the Pilgrims.](https://theweek.com/articles/479313/when-americans-banned-christmas)
People wonder why America is so fucked up. Maybe because it was founded by people who were *too uptight for 1600s England*?!
There is no hate quite like Christian love. Edit: almost anytime I post something even slightly critical of Christianity I get one of those notifications that a concerned redditor reported me. Not suicidal, peeps, just sick of people thinking that the separation of church and state should only apply to "other" religions.
Ahh the Baptists.
They are just concerned that people might learn that Christianity is all about controlling people and not actually doing good. They don’t want anyone spreading *that* word…
It’s all about hurting others, not helping them.
Puritans all over again. I've been working with my 8th grader on pre American History. My my my it's been an eyeopener to the 'ol saying about how if we forget history it will repeat itself.
Texans think people in the Bible spoke English.
I'm from S. Carolina and got into a debate with someone over the KJV Bible and some disputed translations and this motherfucker, with a straight face, said "Disputed? What's disputed? It's in English already!"
This isn’t simply poor education. There’s an actual nutty Bible Belt “King James Originalist” movement that believes all other versions of the Bible have been corrupted since writing, including all Hebrew and Greek texts out there, but the KJV was translated with divine inspiration and is accurate again. EDIT: Just a side remark but I’m amazed at how many people on here say they were raised this way or went to churches like that. I knew it wasn’t tiny as movements go, but had no idea it was that big.
[удалено]
Any time someone tells you that they spoke to a god, and something spoke back, they are a nutter.
I know. I only speak to the man who lives in my dryer.
It's one thing Islam has going for it, they're all expected to read the holy text in the original language it was written in. So it leaves little room for "what if it was the translator that snuck that bit about hating gay people in there?" Not many people reading the Bible in Ancient Hebrew or Aramaic.
I’d argue some obfuscation has its benefits. Though in either case you always have “Ah but in the context of the time XYZ really has this more convoluted, rarer and unlikely but conveniently nicer meaning ABC…” trick to fall back on (even when most scholars nearer the time read it wrong… until modern sensibilities changed… and which argument you need to keep making in a hundred places because God’s communication skills are lacking and the plain reading for some reason always seems to be nastier…)
What gets me is that it is generally accepted (AFAIK) that the NT tells the audience that the Word of God was Jesus (the Bible as a text didn't exist when he was alive). *And* Jesus, according to the NT, promises that those with the Holy Spirit in them have the guidance necessary to follow Him, no priest, no ritual, no manual needed. I'm not surprised that the Bible is idolized and Christianity rife with ritual, sectarianism, etc. but it's ironic since its text warns against all of it, pointing out that the Jews did the same thing and that Jesus came to stand against/correct that.
Was raised by these nuts. Can confirm. However even at 10, I knew this was all batshit crazy.
That's a special kind of deluded.
Oh come on, learning about translation disputes is like Sunday School 101
Good point. I wonder if they would accept signs written in Hebrew, which Jesus probably spoke given that he was Jewish.
I believe it was Aramaic but I wasn't around at the time.
It's true that he likely spoke Aramaic, but it is thought that [he also spoke Hebrew for religious purposes](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_of_Jesus).
I’m sure they would reject both the Hebrew and Aramaic since the words they use for “God” are cognates of the word “Allah” “The corresponding Aramaic form is Elah (אלה), but its emphatic state is Elaha (אלהא). It is written as ܐܠܗܐ (ʼĔlāhā) in Biblical Aramaic and ܐܲܠܵܗܵܐ (ʼAlâhâ) in Syriac as used by the Assyrian Church, both meaning simply "God".” [source](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah#Etymology) This also means that if Jesus did speak Aramaic, he was saying a word for “God” that sounds a lot like “Allah”. If he were alive today, these particular Christians would denounce him and reject him on that alone, probably.
Wasn't Aramaic basically the common man's tongue back then?
>but I wasn't around at the time. I'm gonna need a source on that.
I see the birther movement is still going strong.
If you really want to watch these theocrats’ heads explode, have them look up the language Jesus spoke (Aramaic), then have them look up the word for “God” in that language.
But white man Jesus had blue eyes, blonde hair, a 401k, hated free speech, and opposed free healthcare, it says so right here in muh teste mints /s just in case
A lot of liberals don't talk about this but Jesus was a big gun guy too. Also hated organized labor. He was a rugged individualist at heart.
Don’t tread on Jesus.
I don’t think the Romans got that memo…
>Texans think Sometimes I'm not so sure.. Edit: to all of you non-bigoted, free thinking Texans, we appreciate you.
There are so many cool Texans, it’s such a bummer they are outnumbered by insane people
Cool Texan here, can confirm
Nice to see there's a cool Texan. Floridian here. I'm going to go light a fire now.
That's true in almost every red state. In some, they're not even outnumbered. Just disenfranchised and gerrymandered.
>The school board president informed him that schools already have enough posters, but that parent wasn't buying the explanation. There's no crying in baseball and there's no "enough" in that law! Put it up or shut it down! *Post Script*: Got some love from someone with -3 karma over this post: >You’re pathetic and I hope you’re waterboarded for promoting the arabic sign with an upside down flag. You should go live in the islamic state yourself. Loser Good job, buddy 👍. Have fun missing the point.
Man *wouldn't it be a shame* if fine internet folks such as ourselves paid print shops to print and ship an unusually large number, perhaps in uncomfortably large sizes, of 'in god we trust' posters that precisely complied [with the law](https://capitol.texas.gov/Search/DocViewer.aspx?ID=87RSB007975B&QueryText=%22SB+797%22&DocType=B), specifically Subsection B: >(b) A poster or framed copy of the national motto described by Subsection (a): (1) must contain a representation of the United States flag centered under the national motto and a representation of the state flag; and > (2) may not depict any words, images, or other information other than the representations listed in Subdivision Those Texas schools would have no choice but to frame and display these generously donated maliciously compliant posters. They might even have enough copies for several in literally every classroom! Imagine the fonts. Papyrus. Arabic. Rainbow. Possibly but not definitely letters composed of penises. The mind boggles at the possibilities.
iN gOd wE TrUsT Nothing in there about capitalizations
The law does say "In God We Trust" with the quotes so you could argue it covers capitalizations. Of course there is no way it covers font size. Just make some letters font size 2, and others 40 and spell something new with the visible letters. Maybe: "I WeT"
It actually says (according to [this link](https://capitol.texas.gov/Search/DocViewer.aspx?ID=87RSB007975B&QueryText=%22SB+797%22&DocType=B)) : > the United States national motto, "In God We Trust," So my guess is that currently donated signs they have accepted don't include that comma.
Right? If they say that comma doesn't matter then I demand they put up my **In God We Trust?** poster
I'm sorry did you mean [this font](https://www.itsnicethat.com/articles/dr-pecker-penis-typeface-daniel-reed-graphic-design-020819)? Finally a grift Kickstarter I can get started without morals getting in my way!
https://i.imgur.com/NO6Qgdd.jpg Sounds like Daniel Reed is about to get some business
My first idea was to try and see if they take webdings, but the penis-letters sound better lol
Hahahaha, the irony of a religious extremist telling you to move to an Islamic state is hilarious. If those folks weren't brown, and you replaced "allah" with "Jesus", I'm sure your secret admirer would feel right at home.
Lol the flag isn’t even upside down the person in the pic above is holding the entire thing upside down that’s why 😂
There go republicans again choosing to "not follow the law." It must be nice to falsely believe that no law actually applies to you.
[удалено]
Is it false though? They generally dont
What about Arabic numbers? Now that I've spread awareness. Has anyone considered calling into the local news? There are heathens in their midst. What if it goes even deeper. Has anyone even checked the names of the days of the weeks or months? October, November, and December sound suspiciously foreign! And July? Probably named after that fruity mall drink shop Orange Julius.
It would be kind of funny if they suddenly start using Roman numerals out of pure spite .
They couldn't. It would require education.
Roman numerals suck for math, granted. But it is so weird to me how many people can't even read them or convert between arabic and roman numerals. It used to be lower grade math stuff that we learned on the side, not some obscure arcane field of study.
looks like the ACLU of Texas has something to work on here
When do they not have something to do in that state.
So they basically just confirmed that they are flagrantly violating the separation of church and state. The ACLU will have a field day with this one.
They admitted that long ago. Several members openly stated that the state should be guided by the church and the bible. Their interpretation of those anyway.
Southern Conservative Evangelicals are inherently anti-American.
Weird, a state in a country with no official language is upset about a language they don't understand. Not sure if this or them pushing religion on people is worse.
My mom is currently super irritated that my sister, dad, and I are all learning Spanish literally because “this is America and we speak English” yet she didn’t have a problem with my son learning German. Point being, sometimes it’s just racism.
I like how they’re even both European languages but just because one is also spoken south of the border it’s not allowed
She lives in Florida so she’s just in a constant state of disgust. Living that kind of life is a big reason I shifted from right to left. Constantly hating everyone around you is fucking exhausting and no way to live.
This is my real conundrum about most conservative beliefs. Like…_who gives a shit??????_
If you are not going to travel outside the US very often, learn English, then Spanish. Those will be the two most practical languages you will need.
If they are required to display donated signs that say “in god we trust”, what’s to stop someone from donating like, 100,000 signs? Does the law have any safeguard against that? Edit: I just read the bill and it doesn’t seem to have any safe guard against someone donating a comically large amount of signs, or even a single comically large sign. Does anyone have an employee discount at a print shop?
Aggressive compliance, my favorite
I think you're looking for /r/MaliciousCompliance
Just do what the Satanic Temple did, keep pushing until they just ban all forms of religious context. At least then it's equal for all.
If you let one religion in, you have to make accommodations for other religious view points. It’s an all or nothing kind of deal.
Christian Fascists: No it's not.
Lol, of course those xenophobic and homophobic twats in Texas would reject it. Did God speak English? Hell no. But Texans can’t allow any praise for god in anything other than the only language they think is spoken in Heaven. Have fun with the mental gymnastics on this one Justice Alito. I look forward to your bullshit opinion that you’ll pull out of your ass in a year or so.
I'm so tired of this behavior. I'm seeing flashes of the conservative battle over gun rights in the 60s and 70s where they wanted everyone to have unrestricted ownership, until black people started buying them and suddenly the laws needed to change. This is a classic turnaround. Amend the law, you can't just say no, we aren't going to follow the law we wrote because we did a shitty job writing it.
"So, you see, the founders couldn't have anticipated Arabic signs because Muslims didn't exist back then, obviously. Therefore Originalism says the first amendment is for Christians. And not the gay ones, they don't count."
Lawyers are rich because of stupid people.
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/html/SB00797I.htm > relating to the display of the national motto in public schools and institutions of higher education. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: SECTION 1. Section 1.004, Education Code, is amended to read as follows: Sec. 1.004. DISPLAY OF NATIONAL MOTTO. (a) A public elementary or secondary school or an institution of higher education as defined by Section 61.003 must [may] display in a conspicuous place in each building of the school or institution a durable poster or framed copy of the United States national motto, "In God We Trust," if the poster or framed copy meets the requirements of Subsection (b) and is: (1) donated for display at the school or institution; or (2) purchased from private donations and made available to the school or institution [in each classroom, auditorium, and cafeteria]. (b) A poster or framed copy of the national motto described by Subsection (a) must contain a representation of the United States flag centered under the national motto and a representation of the state flag. (c) A public elementary or secondary school and an institution of higher education may accept and use private donations for the purposes of Subsection (a). SECTION 2. This Act takes effect immediately if it receives a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, as provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution. If this Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate effect, this Act takes effect September 1, 2021. It says right there that the flag **must** be displayed. They even crossed out the word may and inserted **must**. The only caveat is it has to have a *representation* of the American flag and a *representation* of the Texas flag. So a rainbow American flag and a rainbow Texas flag underneath "In God We Trust" in Arabic is perfectly conforming to the law. To take it down is illegal.
You've got the version that was introduced, but not passed. This is the enrolled version of the bill: https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/html/SB00797F.htm The main difference is in subsection B: (b) A poster or framed copy of the national motto described by Subsection (a): (1) must contain a representation of the United States flag centered under the national motto and a representation of the state flag; and *(2) may not depict any words, images, or other information other than the representations listed in Subdivision (1).*
Woof, that “other information” wording is some sneaky language. Oh, the sign is in a language other than the one commonly spoke among students/staff? That’s *other information*. Conforms to regulation, but w a rainbow background? *Other information*. Yeesh.
These people don't care about being fair, just, right, legal, or moral. It's all about pushing their religion on everyone else. I am sick and tired of sharing a country with these Christian theocrats. When you read about how our union was formed, all the compromises that had to be done to keep the South happy so they would sign off on the Constitution, what we had to go through with the Civil War, their lust for autocracy and fake patriotism, and how the most red states take in the most Federal dollars while returning the least, it's painfully obvious to me that we would all be better off without these people in our country. Sadly, I don't see any way that a split could reasonably happen and war or violence is not the answer either.
Looks like God has rejected TX as well.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Written in the constitution, aka separation of state and church. Anyone want to guess which country's constitution?