On March 19th the Tennessee House voted on and passed HB2368, otherwise known as the “National Motto in the Classroom Act,”
This bill was introduced by Representative Susan Lynn of District 57.
“I am honored to sponsor passage of The National Motto in the Classroom Act because it will serve as a reminder to our students about the significant role that faith plays in our daily lives,” said Representative Lynn. “I appreciate the support this measure has received from members of the Education Administration & Planning Subcommittee, as well as my Republican colleagues, and I look forward to ensuring the bill’s passage in the weeks ahead.”
But there was apparently a “hostile amendment” on the bill today.
About to run my national motto bill.
A hostile amendment is looming.
— Susan Lynn (@SusanMLynn) March 19, 2018
What was so horrible about this amendment that warranted the label “hostile”?
Amendment No. 1 to HB2368
Signature of Sponsor
AMEND Senate Bill No. 2661 House Bill No. 2368*
by deleting subsection (a) of § 49-6-8402 in the amendatory language of Section 1 and
(a) Beginning in the 2018-2019 school year, an LEA shall require all schools within the
LEA to display the national motto of the United States, “In God We Trust,” and the traditional
national motto of the United States, “E Pluribus Unum,” in a prominent location in each school.
Imagine that, an amendment that would require the posting of another motto is “hostile” to the the current bill.
I have to wonder if Rep. Lynn actually knows the meaning of the word hostile or if she is worried that putting the original motto anywhere near the current motto might raise a few questions about the validity of the one she prefers.
This incident just goes to show that the sponsors of these bills are not about being patriotic or historically accurate. They are only concerned with using the national motto and its current legal status to force religion into school and create Christian indoctrination centers out of our public schools.
The amendment sponsored by Representative Craig Fitzhugh had to be withdrawn because it was not submitted in a timely manner. This could have been a major step in the right direction but failed due a technicality.