South Dakota’s Legislative Decision on Religious Displays in Schools
In Pierre, South Dakota, a legislative committee has taken a significant step by endorsing bills requiring public schools to display and teach the Ten Commandments along with the state motto, “Under God, the People Rule.” These moves have sparked a heated debate across the state, with public education groups and concerned parents voicing substantial opposition.
South Dakota’s motto, “Under God, the People Rule,” reflects a historical sentiment deeply rooted in the state’s identity. Yet, this legislation has drawn criticism for blending religious elements within public educational settings. A similar law was enacted in 2019, mandating the display of the national motto, “In God We Trust,” in state schools.
Sam Nelson Sioux Falls
Amid earnest discourse, Sam Nelson, a parent from Sioux Falls, questioned the educational value of such displays by asking lawmakers, “Why is my daughter in kindergarten having the word ‘adultery’ put on her classroom wall? Why is the word ‘murder’ on her classroom wall? That’s a me thing to talk about, and I’d like you to keep it that way.” His heartfelt plea echoed concerns about introducing young children to complex moral and ethical topics.
Proponents of the bill, such as Sen. John Carley, R-Piedmont, claim that the Ten Commandments have historically influenced American law and culture. Supporters argue that teaching these commandments as historical legal documents reflects their foundational role in shaping the ethical and cultural traditions of Western civilization.
John Carley South Dakota
The proposed bill requires that schools display 8-by-14-inch posters of the Ten Commandments in “easily readable font” alongside a three-part statement explaining their historical significance. Furthermore, these commandments would be integrated into history and civics classes across three education stages: elementary, middle, and high school.
However, this initiative faces objections based on constitutional grounds. The ACLU of South Dakota has raised concerns, stating that “the bill is an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion,” which they contend violates the First Amendment’s establishment clause. Rev. Lauren Stanley, assistant to the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of South Dakota, reinforced this argument by insisting, “These are moral guidelines. This is not a historical legal document.”
Lauren Stanley South Dakota
The bills, having narrowly passed the committee vote of 8-7, now advance to the House floor, awaiting a final decision by Governor Larry Rhoden. The focus remains on whether the legislation will be deemed as advocating for historical education or crossing the line into religious endorsement.
Given the contentious nature of these bills, legal challenges are anticipated if they pass. Samantha Chapman of the ACLU asserted, “If this bill passes, it is so likely to face litigation—not only in federal court, but in our own state courts as well.”
South Dakota’s educational stakeholders like Rob Monson from the South Dakota School Administrators Association worry about the implications, saying, “What I don’t want to tell them is, ‘Texas thinks this is a good idea, so now you have to do it.’ Don’t let Texas tread on our freedom by taking away our local decision-making.”
In a subsequent committee session, the topic of displaying the state motto “Under God, the People Rule” in every classroom was addressed. This bill, sponsored by Rep. Phil Jensen, R-Rapid City, passed with fewer objections. However, Jensen’s subsequent political undertakings, including a failed attempt to defund the Huron School District over bathroom policies, have stoked further controversy around his legislative agenda.
As the South Dakota legislature prepares for the upcoming House vote, the eyes of both the state and the nation remain fixed on the ideological battle unfolding around these bills. The outcomes bear significant implications for educational curricula, religious freedom, and the principle of local governance both within the state and potentially as a larger precedent.