I’m curious about this one. I was amused when it was first done - I think I even donated to the cause, but it’s been awhile and I don’t remember. I don’t know if they ever got any of their signs posted, but I do remember people claiming that the law stated the schools had to post donated signs.
Obviously it’s a great loophole in a stupid law, and should equally cover Hindi, Chinese, or any other scary language. The law, as originally written, did not specify a language.
My question is whether it would similarly apply to a sign in English that read “In Allah we Trust.” Since Allah is literally the Arabic word for “god,” it’s semantically equivalent. If so, the same should hold true for similar words from other languages. You might argue that naming a specific god like Vishnu might not pass muster (although I think an argument could be made), but I think that “In Allah we trust” would be almost as defensible as having the entire text in Arabic.
Working in a rather large school district and eventually getting to point where I have somewhat more understanding and information about the inner workings of public ed, I can tell you exactly what a lot of Texas schools decided to do after that law passed and then people started donating signs: we immediately put up any sign that met the requirements and then threw them all away at the end of that same day. We have better things to worry about than trollish legislation and the trolls who troll the trolls. At the end of every single day, our main questions are “did we keep the children safe and the parents informed,” and “is our children learning?”
Thank you for your genuine curiosity. And if you can, support your local public ed. There are lots of ways to help out that don’t even require spending a dime! Send your kids to public school, volunteer at book fairs, register as a substitute, go to your local town hall and ask hard-hitting questions about transparency and accountability (seriously, ask your local district for the wages of every employee classification, and then go to a town hall meeting and ask why there are so many people working at central office, why people like me who work there away from the children are getting paid more than some teachers, and ask how new positions they keep adding to an already top-heavy district are helping with employee satisfaction and retention), or even run for school board (except that last one is practically an unpaid job).
Thanks very much for this! It’s fantastic advice and I really appreciate it.
My mother was a teacher (and later a union leader) for her entire career, as was my partner’s mother, and as is our best friend. I even taught for a bit (university though - I’m really not a kids kind of person).
Still, I could not begin to imagine the job you folks do. I couldn’t teach in the kind of environments that some states are creating - hence my intentionally snarky but unintentionally insensitive question.
I could certainly do more to support education, though. I live in a fairly well off area with pretty solid public education (my property taxes are about $25k per year and if I’m reading the tables correctly our teachers’ salaries run from about $90k to start (BA + 30 credits) to about $160k (BA + 45 after 12 years)). It’s also a very liberal area - there is a negative probability of a moms for liberty type being elected dog catcher, much less to the school board. I don’t think I’m bringing very much to the table there.
However, I’m going to look into seeing if I can take some of your advice and apply it to other communities in my area. Again, thanks for the eye-opener!
Depending on the school district, you may or may not. Texas has recently started allowing districts to identify themselves as a “District of Innovation,” which means allowing for alternative degrees when hiring specific types of teachers. That being said, substitutes are not teachers and are not subject to the same requirements; same goes for Instructional Assistants (IAs). Both are woefully underpaid servants for the type of work they do.
State Rep. Brad Sherman, a Republican, even released a newsletter saying that the principle of church/state separation didn’t apply to this display because the state was inherently Christian. After all, he claimed, the Iowa Constitution refers to a “Supreme Being.”
According to these opening lines of our Constitution, the foundation for laws and continued blessing and success in Iowa is based on these points:
There is One Supreme God.
Blessings over this state come from the One Supreme God
We must depend upon the One Supreme God if we want to enjoy continued blessings.
It is a tortured and twisted interpretation of law that affords Satan, who is universally understood to be the enemy of God, religious expression equal to God in an institution of government that depends upon God for continued blessings. Such a legal view not only violates the very foundation of our State Constitution, but it offends the God upon whom we depend and undermines our wellbeing.
…
Therefore, based on the laws of God and the Constitution of the State of Iowa, and for the purpose of securing the blessings of God upon our state:
I am calling for our governor to have this blasphemous display removed immediately based on the grounds that it is unconstitutional and *offends God upon whom the State of Iowa depends for blessings.*
I am calling for clarifying legislation to be adopted in accordance with our State Constitution that prohibits satanic displays in our Capitol building and on all state owned property.
I am calling for legislation to be adopted that makes it legal to display the Ten Commandments in our Capitol, in all buildings owned by the state, and in our public schools.
If we want the blessings of God upon our state, we must demonstrate by our laws and actions that we are indeed depending upon Him and that we are opposed to Satan.
deleted by creator
Like sending “In God We Trust” banners written in Arabic to Texas schools. They don’t like getting done unto them as they do unto others.
I’m curious about this one. I was amused when it was first done - I think I even donated to the cause, but it’s been awhile and I don’t remember. I don’t know if they ever got any of their signs posted, but I do remember people claiming that the law stated the schools had to post donated signs.
Obviously it’s a great loophole in a stupid law, and should equally cover Hindi, Chinese, or any other scary language. The law, as originally written, did not specify a language.
My question is whether it would similarly apply to a sign in English that read “In Allah we Trust.” Since Allah is literally the Arabic word for “god,” it’s semantically equivalent. If so, the same should hold true for similar words from other languages. You might argue that naming a specific god like Vishnu might not pass muster (although I think an argument could be made), but I think that “In Allah we trust” would be almost as defensible as having the entire text in Arabic.
Working in a rather large school district and eventually getting to point where I have somewhat more understanding and information about the inner workings of public ed, I can tell you exactly what a lot of Texas schools decided to do after that law passed and then people started donating signs: we immediately put up any sign that met the requirements and then threw them all away at the end of that same day. We have better things to worry about than trollish legislation and the trolls who troll the trolls. At the end of every single day, our main questions are “did we keep the children safe and the parents informed,” and “is our children learning?”
That’s a fantastic answer and thank you.
Thank you for your genuine curiosity. And if you can, support your local public ed. There are lots of ways to help out that don’t even require spending a dime! Send your kids to public school, volunteer at book fairs, register as a substitute, go to your local town hall and ask hard-hitting questions about transparency and accountability (seriously, ask your local district for the wages of every employee classification, and then go to a town hall meeting and ask why there are so many people working at central office, why people like me who work there away from the children are getting paid more than some teachers, and ask how new positions they keep adding to an already top-heavy district are helping with employee satisfaction and retention), or even run for school board (except that last one is practically an unpaid job).
Thanks very much for this! It’s fantastic advice and I really appreciate it.
My mother was a teacher (and later a union leader) for her entire career, as was my partner’s mother, and as is our best friend. I even taught for a bit (university though - I’m really not a kids kind of person).
Still, I could not begin to imagine the job you folks do. I couldn’t teach in the kind of environments that some states are creating - hence my intentionally snarky but unintentionally insensitive question.
I could certainly do more to support education, though. I live in a fairly well off area with pretty solid public education (my property taxes are about $25k per year and if I’m reading the tables correctly our teachers’ salaries run from about $90k to start (BA + 30 credits) to about $160k (BA + 45 after 12 years)). It’s also a very liberal area - there is a negative probability of a moms for liberty type being elected dog catcher, much less to the school board. I don’t think I’m bringing very much to the table there.
However, I’m going to look into seeing if I can take some of your advice and apply it to other communities in my area. Again, thanks for the eye-opener!
Register as a substitute? Do you not require a degree in education to teach where you’re from?
Depending on the school district, you may or may not. Texas has recently started allowing districts to identify themselves as a “District of Innovation,” which means allowing for alternative degrees when hiring specific types of teachers. That being said, substitutes are not teachers and are not subject to the same requirements; same goes for Instructional Assistants (IAs). Both are woefully underpaid servants for the type of work they do.
State Rep. Brad Sherman, a Republican, even released a newsletter saying that the principle of church/state separation didn’t apply to this display because the state was inherently Christian. After all, he claimed, the Iowa Constitution refers to a “Supreme Being.”