I have noticed over the past couple of years the kids painting the plows are getting more clever with how they show their wintry love for Jesus. While they don’t mention the Christian ghost on this plow, they cleverly turn the ‘T’ into a crucifix. I know, pretty cute.

Cute or not, it is still a violation of the separation clause (or better known as the establishment clause). Of course, I know the city’s public works department will just ignore this, because if you remember with the tornado cleanup last year, it seems our public works department is being replaced by church volunteers.

I fully expect to see members of a local Mega-Church this winter shoveling our emergency snow routes so we can use our taxdollars on more useful projects, like $26 million dollar bunker ramps to nowhere.

Praise be to God.

9 Thoughts on “Are the Sioux Falls Public Works ‘Jesus Plows’ part of a bigger plan to turn the department into a religious organization?

  1. "Very Stable Genius" on October 31, 2020 at 4:43 pm said:

    Now, if only in the name of Jesus, if we could only get the city to actually use these plows this winter.

  2. Please provide us the actual constitution information about the “separation clause” you referenced.

    Oh that right, there is no such thing.

  3. The first amendment to the US Constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The two parts, known as the “establishment clause” and the “free exercise clause” respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court’s interpretations of the “separation of church and state” doctrine.[40] Three central concepts were derived from the 1st Amendment which became America’s doctrine for church-state separation: no coercion in religious matters, no expectation to support a religion against one’s will, and religious liberty encompasses all religions. In sum, citizens are free to embrace or reject a faith, and support for religion – financial or physical – must be voluntary, and all religions are equal in the eyes of the law with no special preference or favoritism.

  4. anominous on November 1, 2020 at 9:00 am said:

    I’m expecting to see Qanon references this year.

  5. So the government is forcing you to be a Christian because school kids painted a cross on a snowplow. Got it. I didn’t know the children were forced to paint this symbol on the plow.

    Wait. If I see a snow plow without any religious symbol, is that a proclamation we must be atheist?

    I’m just trying to get a grasp on this forced government messaging you see.

  6. I guess I have never said or think it is forced government messaging. My point is you can’t use taxpayer owned property for that messaging. As I joked above, if the churches in town want to provide snow removal at their expense on the public streets, they can paint whatever imagery they want to on the plows, but they don’t own the plows, and don’t pay for that service.

  7. "Very Stable Genius" on November 1, 2020 at 11:36 am said:

    Jefferson said there should be a” wall between church and state”. The government should never promote religion. The establishment clause allows you the right to practice your religion. It does not give you the right to force your religion on others.

    ( and Woodstock adds: “‘Jefferson’?”…. “Isn’t there a non slave owning fore father, who would be better to quote?”…. “Just sayin”….)

  8. And my point is as long as a plow is provided to all religious schools, the government is establishing no religion. Religious functions can be done on government property as long as it lawful and all symbolism removed when finished.

    Welding a cross on the plow is a no. Kids painting a religious scene and it’s blasted off each year is within reason.

    Person who can’t pick a name. Your line about forcing religion is bullshit. STOP cherry picking only the facts you understand.

    Jefferson’s Letter to Danbury Baptist indeed mentions wall of church and state BUT it is only in reference to he stopping the usual proclamation of national days of religious importance.

    Mr. President

    To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.


    The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

    Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & 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 & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

    I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

    (signed) Thomas Jefferson


  9. "Very Stable Genius" on November 3, 2020 at 3:05 am said:

    The establishment clause does not give you the right to use a governmental means to promote a religion.

    There’s a difference between allowing one to go to a given store and telling everyone that they must or should go to the store that you like, or to do so as a political leader with the help of governmental facilities.

Post Navigation