Texas School Violates Texas Law By Refusing To Display ‘In God We Trust’ Poster Written In Arabic

from the language-barrier dept

Well, that was quick. We had recently discussed an athiest activist who had planned to have some fun pointing out the veiled nature of a Texas law that requires a school to display any donated poster featuring the phrase “In God We Trust” along with the American and Texas flags. How was the fun to be had? Well, by donating posters that very closely followed the law’s requirements… except to put the phrase “In God We Trust” in Arabic. Should a school or the public freak out over such a poster, well, that would point out the true motivation of the law, which was to promote white, English speaking Christianity rather than an American motto.

It took all of a week or so for this point to get made. A parent in Texas followed along with the plot and donated just such a poster, written in Arabic, which followed the requirements of the law perfectly. The school, based on the pure writing in the law, should be required to put the poster up on school grounds. In a surprise to exactly nobody, however, the school is refusing.

On Monday, a parent in that school district attempted to donate additional “In God We Trust” signs written in Arabic and decorated with rainbow colors. The school board president informed him that schools already have enough posters, but that parent wasn’t buying the explanation.

“It doesn’t say you have to stop at one. That is your decision to stop at one. Why is more God not good?” Srivan Krishna asked at Monday’s school board meeting. “And are you saying you don’t have like one square foot of space in our buildings?”

The parent is completely correct. The law doesn’t make any mention of a provision in which someone can donate a poster, scream “First!” like they were on an internet comments board in 2005, and thereby preclude all other poster-donators from getting in on the game. In fact, one might suspect that, by the letter of the law, enterprising jokesters with enough time and money on their hands could essentially wallpaper over an entire school with these posters if they chose to donate enough of them.

Is that what any of us really want? Not in my camp, no. I don’t want to see any Texas school garishly adorned in posters mentioning God in English, Arabic, or any other language. That type of thing has no place in secular institutions, in my view.

But if we’re going to allow it, then we have to actually allow it in every iteration that follows the law. And though the Arabic poster may violate the jingoistic sensibilities of some folks in Texas education, it certainly doesn’t violate Texas law. In fact, it appears the only one doing that is this Texas school district.

Filed Under: , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Texas School Violates Texas Law By Refusing To Display ‘In God We Trust’ Poster Written In Arabic”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
115 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Well that didn't take long

Imagine that, the second someone uses the law against them suddenly ‘following the very law they put in place to cram their religion into schools’ becomes a no-go…

Given their willingness to blatantly violate the law like this it would be entertaining if someone were to try to donate an ‘acceptable’ poster and then should they be stupid enough to accept it said acceptance could be immediately leaked to the press, making it even more clear that contrary to their claim they’ve got plenty of wall space for posters that the law mandates be accepted and put up… but only when the posters are ones they want to put up.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re:

I’m shocked. Shocked and appalled.

Well, ok, only appalled. Not really surprised that texan biblethumpers would come out as raging hypocrites too lily-livered to own up to the fact that they’re fanatics every bit as bad as those in Iran.

Worse, even. I’m pretty sure Iranian schools need to be welcoming to the Ahl al-kitab under sharia.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Mason Wheeler says:

Troll creates poster that does not say “In God We Trust,” but rather other words in a different language that mean the same thing when translated.

Troll’s poster gets rejected for not following the rules.

Media falls for troll’s transparent publicity stunt, end up looking ridiculous when anyone with half a brain can grasp what actually happened.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: So what's your excuse?

Yes, what happened is that the state passed a law with the attempt to cram a very particular religion into the schools, someone realized that their attempt was sloppy and left some loopholes and exploited that to show everyone watching that the school is only interested in following the law when it suits them.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

their attempt was sloppy and left some loopholes

The .gov link isn’t loading, but archive.org has a copy

A public elementary or secondary school or an institution of higher … 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,”

I don’t know what’s going on with the “may” in square brackets. How’s that supposed to be interpreted?

Anyway, the quotation marks seem to pretty clearly require the exact character sequence, not something that means the same thing. I don’t see any “loophole”, except that any change to the national motto would effectively invalidate the law.

Somebody should’ve started with alternate English wordings like “In God, We Trust” and “We Trust In God”. Accepting those would’ve made it more difficult to argue against foreign-language versions.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

As discussitlive noted below america does not have a legally required language therefore the fact that it’s not in english shouldn’t be an issue since it’s still saying the same thing that the law requires.

For them to claim that it doesn’t count would seem to require the position that the motto is only ‘valid’ when it’s in one particular language, which given the multicultural nature and history of the US would be just a titch absurd and even more exclusionary than the motto already is.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

As discussitlive noted below america does not have a legally required language therefore the fact that it’s not in english shouldn’t be an issue since it’s still saying the same thing that the law requires.

The law defines the motto as a sequence of letters and spaces, not any set of words with a particular meaning. We could just as well say “In the Supreme Being we trust” or “In JHVH we trust”, with the same meaning, but those would not be the motto.

For them to claim that it doesn’t count would seem to require the position that the motto is only ‘valid’ when it’s in one particular language, which given the multicultural nature and history of the US would be just a titch absurd and even more exclusionary than the motto already is.

“Absurd” is our starting position, and I seriously doubt the people pushing this law are proponents of multiculturalism.

Laws sometimes require specific wording. In the USA, the words are usually English, although Latin might make an occasionally appearance. Is there precedent to allow translation? Could a cigarette company print their mandated warnings only in Navajo or Comecrudan? Could a US President-elect take their oath or affirmation of office in Arabic? Would it change things if a certified translator or interpreter were used?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
evilhamsterman (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Except they didn’t reject it for those reasons. They rejected it for the made up reason of “they have enough already”. That implies that they recognize the validity of the sign as complying with the law and normally they’d be required to display it. It’s obvious there is plenty of space for them to display it, so they came up with an excuse. But it’s worse because the excuse isn’t valid itself, because the law makes no exceptions lack of space.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

That implies that they recognize the validity of the sign as complying with the law and normally they’d be required to display it.

Their stated reason is obvious bullshit, but that doesn’t imply they consider the sign valid. Were someone truly out of space, they’d have no need to consider validity at all.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

What do subway signs have to do with it? They don’t have any legally mandated wording I’m aware of.

I’m surprised that American cigarette companies have omitted the English-language warning. It appears to violate the labeling law:

The label statements shall be in English, except that–
(A) in the case of an advertisement that appears in a newspaper, magazine, periodical, or other publication that is not in English, the statements shall appear in the predominant language of the publication; and
(B) in the case of any other advertisement that is not in English, the statements shall appear in the same language as that principally used in the advertisement.

It’s interesting they called that out specifically, despite saying that 1 of the 8 provided warnings must be used, all of which happened to be in English. Maybe they thought that, otherwise, a court might accept a translated wording as meeting the law. But I don’t know whether that’s something that ever happened with a similar law.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:3

The law defines the motto as a sequence of letters and spaces

No, it doesn’t. The law specifically says “United States national motto” and what the motto is, it doesn’t specify anything else or what language must be used which is why laws generally have definitions of relevant terms in an effort to avoid confusion while clearly delineating the limits of what the law pertains to.

Ie, a motto is still a motto regardless of what language is used. If it was otherwise, some laws wouldn’t be enforceable in situations where something was done in another language.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

a motto is still a motto regardless of what language is used

It that your opinion, though, or is there precedent?

The phrase was originally “In God is Our Trust” and was scrached out and changed at the last minute. Is that also the US motto, because it has the same meaning? Translations usually aren’t 100% exact, so if we accept translations, it wouldn’t make much sense to require exact English wording.

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:5

It that your opinion, though, or is there precedent?

Why would there need to be a precedent? You are either trying to convey the meaning of the motto in another language as best you can or you don’t. If the exact wording can’t be replicated you then have to add more context in the translation.

In a sense, your question implies that when you translate something it removes the original meaning. That isn’t translation, that is mistranslation.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6

You are either trying to convey the meaning of the motto in another language as best you can or you don’t.

The question is whether trying to convey the meaning in another language meets the law’s requirement of the sign reading “In God We Trust”. Does putting quotes around it legally mean it must be that exact character sequence, or not?

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:7

Does putting quotes around it legally mean it must be that exact character sequence, or not?

Why should it? It would lead to some pretty absurd situations for some laws if some of the criteria of the law fails when it is applied to another language. Just look at section 47 USC §230 C, it has Good Samaritan put in quotes, if a Spanish website say they “moderado de buena fe” or the like – is the subsection then not applicable any longer?

There are numerous laws and paragraphs that contain quotes, do we really want to adopt the absurd notion that what is quoted has to be verbatim in the exact character sequence for it to be valid?

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8

it has Good Samaritan put in quotes

In a section heading, not in a directive for text that must appear somewhere.

There are numerous laws and paragraphs that contain quotes

Around text required to appear on something? Because if it’s not that, then it isn’t a relevant example.

do we really want to adopt the absurd notion that what is quoted has to be verbatim in the exact character sequence for it to be valid?

It would be far from the most absurd notion that is, in fact, enforceable law in the US. And at any rate I didn’t ask if that’s what we want, I asked if that’s the law.

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:9

In a section heading, not in a directive for text that must appear somewhere.

The relevant directive wasn’t for the text, it was for the motto with an added clarification that they meant “In God We Trust” and not “E pluribus unum”.

Around text required to appear on something? Because if it’s not that, then it isn’t a relevant example.

Unless the law or a regulation specifically says that something must be done in English, using a foreign language to comply with the law is fine.

I asked if that’s the law.

See above.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10

The relevant directive wasn’t for the text

How do you figure?

‘…must 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…’

with an added clarification that they meant “In God We Trust” and not “E pluribus unum”.

“E Pluribus Unum” is not and has never been the US national motto. There would be no reason to distinguish the national motto from that phrase.

Unless the law or a regulation specifically says that something must be done in English, using a foreign language to comply with the law is fine.

According to what? You still haven’t cited any relevant statutes or case law, and neither has anyone else as far as I’ve seen (Techdirt comment notifications are still broken so I may have missed it). Just saying it repeatedly doesn’t make it so.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:11

“E Pluribus Unum” is not and has never been the US national motto. There would be no reason to distinguish the national motto from that phrase.

Although E pluribus unum wasn’t signed into law like the First Amendment violation we currently have was, it was still the official national motto. Or are you trying to argue that the Great Seal of the United States isn’t official?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7

Does putting quotes around it legally mean it must be that exact character sequence, or not?

I imagine no court would enforce the trailing comma (though, really, legislators should know better than to use an ambiguous style like that). Maybe they’d allow alternate capitalization. Otherwise, I’m skeptical that courts would permit alternate wording, though I’m by no means certain.

Companies are sometimes forced to say things they’d rather not say, like that their product could kill you or have serious side-effects. If they could get away with using a translation in the most obscure language they could find a translator for, why wouldn’t they? I suspect they’re already using the smallest font and fastest speech they can. I asked about precedent because I highly doubt it’s the first time something like this has come up.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
discussitlive (profile) says:

Re:

“Troll creates poster that does not say “In God We Trust,”
It does say that.

“but rather other words in a different language that mean the same thing when translated.”
Perhaps it has escaped your notice; The United States does not have a legally required language.

“Given their willingness to blatantly violate the law”
The thinly veiled christian faction? I agree. It’s a blatant violation of law to promote a religion on the tax payer’s property, eg: tax funded public schools.

“Media falls for troll’s transparent publicity stunt,
Which stunt? The one to allow posting religious iconography, or the one pointing out the hypocrisy?

“end up looking ridiculous”
Accurately reporting events is not ridiculous.

“when anyone with half a brain can grasp what actually happened.”
Yes, the question is which half of the brain is involved; The one where fools and idiots were shown to be fools and idiots, or the one that hates being pointed out as being fools and idiots?

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re:

Troll creates poster that does not say “In God We Trust,” but rather other words in a different language that mean the same thing when translated.

A distinction without a meaningful difference. Are you saying that if it said, “En Dios Confiamos”, it would still not be okay? What about “イヌガドウィトルストイ”, which is just “In God We Trust” transliterated into Japanese katakana (not translated)? Why does the language and/or writing system matter? And if those are okay, what makes “نثق في الله” (translation) or “تروست وي قد، جد إن” (transliteration) different?

Troll’s poster gets rejected for not following the rules.

Where in the rules does it say the words have to be in English? Also, that’s not what the school said. It said that they already had one and so didn’t need to accept another. They said nothing about the poster “not following the rules”.

Media falls for troll’s transparent publicity stunt, end up looking ridiculous when anyone with half a brain can grasp what actually happened.

AC fails basic literacy and makes assumptions.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Malicious Compliance, its always fun.

I’m sorry they made the law, and this clearly meets whats written in the law so why are you breaking the law?

Is this the example you want to set for children, that you don’t have to follow the law if you don’t like it?

And we haven’t even touched on how y’all are allowing the camels nose into the tent to bring a specific state approved religion back into the schools… I think there is one of them there SCOTUS rulings about that, but as long as you aren’t using tax payer dollars to fight the lawsuit game on.

And to share the remix of a popular note y’all like to hand out…

Dear LGBT Christians,
If you don’t want to be treated differently for being gay christian, then stop acting like being gay christian somehow makes you special.
You sexual orientation religion is neither an achievement nor a holiday.
You have not accomplished anything simply by being attracted to one sex over another a christian.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Most Protestants disagree with the Catholic idea of transubstantiation.

The bread and wine do not magically become flesh and blood. The bread and wine are symbolic of the sacrifice of Jesus.

The bread and wine are simply symbols. And it’s not even necessary to have bread OR wine. If Christians were that creative, that could be replaced with chips and soda, if they so desire.

Might make the Bible Belt super mad, though, and Clarence Thomas might want to sue me for it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Most Protestants disagree with the Catholic idea of transubstantiation.

If you polled Catholics about whether they’d ever engaged in cannibalism, you’d find they don’t actually agree with it either. Really, most people claiming to be part of a religion don’t agree with most of its supposed teachings, and just cherry-pick whatever they find useful. Maybe they don’t like gay people, so they bring up Leviticus, but ignore the parts forbidding the consumption of shellfish and other “unclean” animals.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

If you polled Catholics about whether they’d ever engaged in cannibalism, you’d find they don’t actually agree with it either.

Anyone who thinks transubstantiation means cannibalism doesn’t understand the doctrine. Not that I agree with it or think it makes much sense, but it isn’t what you’re saying.

mechtheist (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Transubstantiation is like quantum mechanics, no one can understand it, but at least with QM, there is something real underneath that’s useful. But you’re wrong about catholics being cannibals, well, if they’re good catholics and believe their own doctrines, then they would have to conclude they’re cannibals to be intellectually honest and logically coherent. But, it’s hilarious to talk about logically coherent when you’re discussing transubstantiation. The doctrine states pretty directly that the wind and host are the actual flesh and blood of jesus–“the change of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole substance of wine into the substance of the Blood of Christ.” from wiki.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Maybe they don’t like gay people, so they bring up Leviticus, but ignore the parts forbidding the consumption of shellfish and other “unclean” animals.

The big difference here is context.

Islam forbids pork, because back then, people saw pigs wallowing in mud and being fed “rubbish” (read: food waste and other edible waste) and thought pigs were unclean back then, without knowing how to properly cook the meat (which modern science says “cook at a certain temperature to avoid trichonosis”).

Same thing with shellfish, crusteaceans (spoils super fast) and whatnot.

Islam still forbids pork despite knowing that, though. And they still are largely anti-LGBT, in part due to… oh, the Shias (Iran) and Sunnis (Arabs) being tards.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

The big difference here is context.
[…] thought pigs were unclean back then

You’re being somewhat cagey about what you mean by “the big difference” between pork consumption (etc.) and homosexuality. Are you saying gays would be OK if we only knew how to cook them properly? We know as much about safe homosexual sex as we do about safe food handling, so I don’t see a contextual difference there.

Anyway, I’ve yet to hear any religious group officially claim what you’re saying. They generally claim the entire bible is the word of God, and never repudiate or remove any part of it based on scientific advancements.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Are you saying gays would be OK if we only knew how to cook them properly? We know as much about safe homosexual sex as we do about safe food handling, so I don’t see a contextual difference there.

No, I’m saying extremely religious people are assholes. Even if they did not know why things were did as they were back then.

. They generally claim the entire bible is the word of God, and never repudiate or remove any part of it based on scientific advancements.

Because no religious group is gonna start acknowledging Biblical Academia, unless they bought, trained and influenced the academics.

mechtheist (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

No, they most definitely ARE the actual, NOT symbolic, it’s the real flesh and blood of Jesus, that’s the whole point of the doctrine, it’s one of the main things that separate cahtolicism from protestants. Of course, it’s an utterly incoherent concept, try reading any of the explanations and they’re all word salad, not all that different from explanations of the Trinity.

Christenson says:

Is "all others pay cash" kosher/halal under the law?

If you hang around tacky junk shops long enough, you will find little signs with “In God We Trust…all others pay cash”.
Thus the question: Is a poster with the tagline (in your favorite color scheme, font, and language, real or imaginary) kosher (or halal) according to the Texas statute?

What about an image that tends to contradict the bit about “In god we trust”…as in ERCOT letting people freeze to death with the date, or “no need to ensure our gas supplies operate when it’s freezing, per Gov Abbott”.

If there’s any wiggle room like that in the statute, there’s no end of fun to be had with this theme.

Christenson says:

Re: Re: Chapter and Verse please

Looking at the tweet in Techdirt’s first post on the subject, I did not get that the ONLY things on the banner could be the motto itself, the stars and stripes in the lower center, and the Texas flag, but IANAL, I’m only a litigation disaster tourist.

Can you quote the statute and explain? (Also, I didn’t see any prescriptions for when the law is violated, so where, besides the giggling from the press, does this particular violation end up?)

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

There aren’t but the law says MUST put them up when they are donated.
They magically got this passed & a “christian” cell company (who paid a lot of money to get the ‘right’ people on the school board) donated the original signs.

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/html/SB00797I.htm

Thad (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Okay, I came across this; Popehat retweeted a retweet of it.

Tweet by Mike Hixenbaugh of NBC News:

NEW: In the latest turn in the saga over “In God We Trust” posters in Texas schools, an Austin law firm has sent cease and desist notices to four North Texas school districts alleging that the posters donated by Patriot Mobile don’t actually comply with the state law.

(There’s an image of the C&D notice included in the link.)

It appears that Kaplan Law Firm is arguing that the law requires nothing else appear on the poster besides the specified words and images. That’s not consistent with what I saw in the bill TAC linked, but maybe that’s an earlier version than what passed?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

I’m still rooting for signs in Braille…

Braille is a near-direct transcription of letters, not a separate language, so one could easily claim it’s the exact English phrase stated in the law. The school might even be required to provide Braille if someone needed it for accessibility.

But if the school said yes to that, would it prove any interesting point?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

OGquaker says:

Re: The horror, the horror

There’s a fantasy on the left that war-mongers (Biden qualifies) and racist will “See the error of their ways” if presented with enough inhumanity, enough uncivilized prejudices or missing limb prosthetics on children.

Intentional mayhem on “them” or the death of enough of “them” to safeguard my future is one more Religion: a belief without any lived experience* especially satisfying if I get to imagine perpetrating the mayhem myself.

See https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/07/20/record-28-million-ar-15-and-ak-style-rifles-entered-us-circulation-in-2020-gun-group-says/

*There are over 2,000 books in this library here on the world’s religions. Almost all are death cults, selling an after-life… thus the graveyard is in the back, thank you.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

mechtheist (profile) says:

It’s really a pathetic god that seems to require grossly dishonest believers to shill for him. But then, it’s the same god that chose Trump to win the 2020 election and he couldn’t even do that and the aftermath exposed not just dishonesty at a huge scale but mass delusion. And they positively worship, adulate, and adore that inanity of a god!

kallethen says:

I don’t know what’s going on with the “may” in square brackets. How’s that supposed to be interpreted?

If you check out Techdirt’s original story about this, it has an embedded tweet with a copy of the law and the “may” is also struck out. This is done elsewhere in the law, anything in brackets is also struck out. My guess is that the struck out wording was showing what changed from the previous draft of the law.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:2

You mean the founding fathers where many believed in Deism? The very same founding fathers that understood that Christianity in all it’s forms could thrive on it’s own without having laws pertaining to faith and religion written into the constitution?

They believed in a supreme being who created a universe that operates only on natural laws, although largely colored by Christian faith. The only one who prayed for “Providence from God” was Franklin, and he did it once during the Constitutional Convention after 5 weeks when they had failed to make a draft of the Constitution, and almost everyone there thought it was a bit odd coming from him. Just look at the notes from Franklin from that moment: The Convention except three or four Persons, thought Prayers unnecessary!

Lets also quote Jefferson:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

Here’s another from George Washington:
The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion…

The only mention of religion in the Constitution are these two passages:
* 1A: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
* Article VI, Section III: …no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States

Christian revisionism at its finest trying to promulgate the idea that the Founding Fathers prayed to God every day during the Constitutional Convention. Pure bullshit, that what it is.

OGquaker says:

Re: Re: Re:3 English refugees turn secular

The English churches ran on money, the teachings were that god heard only those prayers that were made inside the steeple house, that cost worshipers money. When people rejected that (Henry VIII was a good example), and started meeting on street corners, Parliament outlawed outdoor worship (The Quaker Act of 1662 and the Conventicle Act 1664). Over 12,000 were sent to prison, and Mary Dyer (wife of the Governor of Road Island) and three others were hung on the Boston Commons in 1660.
https://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/penntrial.htm
By the revolution, Americans were fed up with this church crap.

Insurrection Barbie Lulz says:

Re: Re: Re:4

I never knew that! Hanged a governors wife?! They don’t put that in the high school history books. I don’t think I even read it in Howard Zinn either.

Your comment is an informative and sobering reminder of why the first amendment exists. And that, backed by the second–its fairly hard to hang a person who has the right to resist state power with armaments.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

And that, backed by the second–its fairly hard to hang a person who has the right to resist state power with armaments.

And anybody who resists with the help of a lot of other people will have a very bad day. The bit about a well regulated militia is a reminder that an armed individual is a nuisance, but an armed militia can win.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

The religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers are irrelevant unless they made their religious beliefs the law of the land; the First Amendment proves they prioritized secular law over religious law. The United States is not now, nor has ever been, a Christian country in the sense that a given sect of Christianity controls the government and the law. Anyone who tells you otherwise likely wants to break down the wall of separation between church and state⁠—and those people should be rightfully denigrated for trying to force their religious beliefs on everyone else.

Christenson says:

Re: Re: Law doesn't actually say that...

The literal text of the law does not prohibit things besides the motto and the two flags on the poster, so you need to show your work as to why the serious version above with thousands of translations (there’s about 7,000 languages spoken on earth right now) and the history would not be required to be displayed by the law.

IANAL, just a litigation disaster tourist. In god we trust. All others pay cash.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

The literal text of the law does not prohibit things besides the motto and the two flags on the poster

Yes it does.

” 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).”

Christenson says:

Re: Re: Re:3 my kingdom for an edit button...

Turns out there’s multiple versions of the bill linked.
Techdirt got
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/html/SB00797I.htm
whereas if you go look up the education code
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/ED/htm/ED.1.htm
it links to
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/html/SB00797F.HTM
which differs by the final letter of the filename. Note also the effective date is June 16, 2021.

So we are a bit behind on the Texas nuttiness.

Janet Harris says:

Texas law blending church and state with posters is wrong

I am against this unconstitutional attempt at blending church and state. I happen to be a Baptist and attend church and I am a retired public school teacher. I respect all religions and atheists’ beliefs because that is what our constitution says America does. There is no purpose for these posters in our schools. It was predictable that the idiot school board didn’t want the Arabic wording or the rainbow coloring.

Arijirija says:

Re:

Well, I grew up in an Evangelical home, and learnt the long way round that religious feuds are poppycock, and serve only the undertaker. Besides, if I am a follower of one Jesus of Nazareth, maybe I’d better pay attention to what he actually said, rather than some rabid ranter in a pulpit. And he said – agreeing with among others, one early rabbi Hillel – that the important part of life was loving your neighbor as yourself. And massacring neighbors because of something stupid is hardly loving them as yourself, unless (fill in favorite horror scenario, involving Freddy Kreuger or some other such person …)

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Christenson says:

Drafting error...

Checking the bill, which is supposed to be a markup of 1.004, there’s no exclusionary provision mentioned. But then we check the education code, and get:
(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).

So I’m confused, what’s the usual result in a case like this??

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

42 U.S. Code § 2000a - Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation

If a public school sells lunches on the premises, the public school becomes a place of public accommodation under 42 U.S. Code § 2000a – Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation.

In this situation, refusing to hang the Arabic language posters constitutes a serious violation of the prohibition against public accommodation discrimination.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

If a public school sells lunches on the premises, the public school becomes a place of public accommodation under 42 U.S. Code § 2000a…

Gee, you’re dumb! A public school is already a place of public accomodation because it’s a public school and not a private one. How many legal knots are you gonna get yourself tangled up in your attempt at proving the unprovable?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

Re: Re: Anonymous Coward is Too Dumb and Too Ignorant for Words

A public school is not listed among the places of public accommodation in the CRA of 1964 (42 U.S. Code § 2000a).

(b) Establishments affecting interstate commerce or supported in their activities by State action as places of public accommodation; lodgings; facilities principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises; gasoline stations; places of exhibition or entertainment; other covered establishments

Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this subchapter if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:

(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.

Can nitwit Anonymous Clown find “school” anywhere in the text above?

A public school is state-supported, but like a government office building or a courthouse, a public school is not a place of public accommodation.

With respect to ignorance and to stupidity, white racist nitwit Anonymous Coward seems to outdo all TechDirts’s other white racist supporters of discrimination by a social medium platform.

Tony says:

And when we have lost trust in God?

I’ve been an US American all my life. I lived with the god motto just because I accepted it for what it is and it was true for me at one point.

After the overturn of Roe I no longer trust in God. I will always be an American and I love my country and I should have my freedom of non-religion. My non-religion freedom doesn’t want to hear about this stupid fairytale ‘god’

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...