Atheist student against prayer mural

[lilwriter85]

Having a religious banner like that in a public place tells people who don't share the same ideology that they are not welcome there. It's not just a banner. It is a statement that this is a Christian place. No Jews, atheists, etc need apply.

I am used to my family being a minority in public schools but it makes me really happy when atheists fight the system. There is no state religion in the US, so we should all feel welcome in court houses, schools and other public places.

International schools tend to be a little different. Learning about different cultures is part of the experience. I would send my child to an international schools with the knowledge that they are going to be exposed to a huge number of different viewpoints.

So, to bring up a less obvious question: if a family is against a more secular part of the curriculum should it be taken out? I am thinking specifically about Valentine's Day, St. Patrick's Day and birthdays. No special days are celebrated at my daughter's preschool because JW children will be offended. It's not a huge deal to me, but it seems odd that I cannot send in cupcakes on her birthday when there are no JW children in her class. I guess it sends the same message that JWs are not welcome there, but I wonder if it falls under the same moral principle.

In the town I grew up in, there were several JW families. Most of them homeschooled except for a couple families. One daughter from one of non-homeschooling families was the same age as me. I knew her pretty well. Her family requested that during the holidays that teachers not give her or her siblings certain coloring sheets or assignments like crosswords or anything pertaining to Christmas, Halloween, Valentine's Day etc. The girl and her siblings didn't attend school during holiday parties. The teachers complied with the request about the coloring sheets and crosswords . This girl's parents never thought about school birthday parties, but the girl and her siblings kept the school birthday parties a secret from their parents for a long time. Over the years, there were maybe 4 to 5 times a year when moms of kids would go to the school with birthday cakes. Most kids never had little parties at school mainly because their moms worked and most rode buses.

The girl and her family are no longer JW. I'm connected with the girl on Facebook and she converted to Catholicism before she married her husband. One of her brothers also married a Catholic and converted after he got married. She said two of her younger siblings do not attend any types of religious services and they celebrate holidays now. Her parents attend a Pentecostal church now. I once a looked at an ex JW site and I remember the guy who ran the site mentioned that some JW's are or were ok with their kids going to birthday parties for other people.

[CanadianHippie]

Really? It was really just seen as another part of the cultural exchange that goes on when you are in a school that students from almost every continent and almost as many cultures as there were students. Prejudices come from people not understanding another person. So the more people understand each other's cultures the more likely they are to be respectful of them. We were expected to learn about each other and respect and honor our differences. It was particularly important in cases where religous observances impact day to day life. Like with the Muslim kids during Ramadan. Because it was openly explained no one thought it was weird or teased the older kids who weren't eating at lunch. I think it made good ground-work for some really well-rounded adults.

Edited because I've never once before written "Knot" instead of "not"

I'm curious too. We did that in my non-international school, and I have fond memories of learning about different religions. My parents certainly never had a problem with it either, though they were the sort to take my sister and I do a Sikh temple on their open house day (which I also have fond memories about). It all helped me develop an interest in other religions and cultures.

[WanderingStar]

In the town I grew up in, there were several JW families. Most of them homeschooled except for a couple families. One daughter from one of non-homeschooling families was the same age as me. I knew her pretty well. Her family requested that during the holidays that teachers not give her or her siblings certain coloring sheets or assignments like crosswords or anything pertaining to Christmas, Halloween, Valentine's Day etc. The girl and her siblings didn't attend school during holiday parties. The teachers complied with the request about the coloring sheets and crosswords . This girl's parents never thought about school birthday parties, but the girl and her siblings kept the school birthday parties a secret from their parents for a long time. Over the years, there were maybe 4 to 5 times a year when moms of kids would go to the school with birthday cakes. Most kids never had little parties at school mainly because their moms worked and most rode buses.

The girl and her family are no longer JW. I'm connected with the girl on Facebook and she converted to Catholicism before she married her husband. One of her brothers also married a Catholic and converted after he got married. She said two of her younger siblings do not attend any types of religious services and they celebrate holidays now. Her parents attend a Pentecostal church now. I once a looked at an ex JW site and I remember the guy who ran the site mentioned that some JW's are or were ok with their kids going to birthday parties for other people.

It sounds like this particular family had a very fair way of dealing with practicing their beliefs while allowing the school to celebrate. I had a classmate once that didn't celebrate Halloween. I'm not sure what religion she was, but she never bothered the school to take down any Halloween decorations it had (which weren't many) and any activities we did, she just wouldn't take part in. I'm a bit curious about JW myself. My aunt converted to it several months ago and even though her children are all adults now, I wonder if she would've allowed them birthday parties if she'd converted earlier, if they didn't all convert along with her. It has to be a challenge to find a way to celebrate holidays you've always celebrated without offending your family member that won't celebrate. Either way, I'm glad that the formerly JW family you know tried to be understanding and came to a compromise with the school. Having no holidays just because there are JW students is about as enforcing of culture as forcing participation in Christmas activities. It's a delicate situation but surely there's a balance.

I wish I would've tried harder to challenge my school to be more welcoming of other faiths. I live and grew up in southern Louisiana so the majority of the student body was Protestant and Catholic. I'm Christian but I hated that our school insisted on calling our moment of silence the "prayer", and never really tried to teach about other faiths or explain them. One of my friends was Muslim and while I never saw her again after junior high, I wonder if she began wearing a hijab while in high school or not. I wonder if they would've made her take it off. Just the thought of the possibility of that burns me up. I realize that I'd have a very hard time petitioning the school to accomodate other cultures easier, but come on, Jessica's school is in Rhode Island. I thought they'd be just a little more progressive!

Needless to say I'm hoping that whenever I become a mother I can send my kids to an international school!

[lilwriter85]

It sounds like this particular family had a very fair way of dealing with practicing their beliefs while allowing the school to celebrate. I had a classmate once that didn't celebrate Halloween. I'm not sure what religion she was, but she never bothered the school to take down any Halloween decorations it had (which weren't many) and any activities we did, she just wouldn't take part in. I'm a bit curious about JW myself. My aunt converted to it several months ago and even though her children are all adults now, I wonder if she would've allowed them birthday parties if she'd converted earlier, if they didn't all convert along with her. It has to be a challenge to find a way to celebrate holidays you've always celebrated without offending your family member that won't celebrate. Either way, I'm glad that the formerly JW family you know tried to be understanding and came to a compromise with the school. Having no holidays just because there are JW students is about as enforcing of culture as forcing participation in Christmas activities. It's a delicate situation but surely there's a balance.

I wish I would've tried harder to challenge my school to be more welcoming of other faiths. I live and grew up in southern Louisiana so the majority of the student body was Protestant and Catholic. I'm Christian but I hated that our school insisted on calling our moment of silence the "prayer", and never really tried to teach about other faiths or explain them. One of my friends was Muslim and while I never saw her again after junior high, I wonder if she began wearing a hijab while in high school or not. I wonder if they would've made her take it off. Just the thought of the possibility of that burns me up. I realize that I'd have a very hard time petitioning the school to accomodate other cultures easier, but come on, Jessica's school is in Rhode Island. I thought they'd be just a little more progressive!

Needless to say I'm hoping that whenever I become a mother I can send my kids to an international school!

I think your classmate might have belonged to an Assembly of God church. Some Assembly of God churches do not celebrate Halloween. In my town, there was a non-denominational Christian church that also didn't celebrate Halloween. Your classmate also had a fair compromise with the school.

I think maybe if your aunt had converted when her kids were younger she would likely enforced certain rules. I agree it is probably going to be challenge to celebrate certain holidays or birthdays when some people in the family don't. In college, a former co-worker of mine at a restaurant, had an uncle who converted to JW after marriage to a woman brought up in the religion. She said that during the holidays the rest of the family got together for meals. But her uncle and aunt would met up with some of the relatives for Thanksgiving night or Christmas day to go to the movies. With a JW relative, your probably just won't see them during the actual days of celebration.

[PBrooke]

From the Anti-Defamation League guide on religion in public schools:

As for teaching about holidays in the classroom, I'm ok with it, but care needs to be taken not to single students out. When a teacher asks the only Muslim student in class to explain Ramadan or asks the mother of a Jewish kid to come in and talk about Chanukah, the teacher thinks he's being inclusive. However, this can have the effect of sending a message to students that this one student's religion is SO weird, that not even the teacher can explain it. The teacher should make every effort to teach the lesson himself, and give all students an opportunity to answer questions.

Whoa, this brought a memory back in force.

When I was in the second grade, there was a boy in class whose mother was a 4th grade teacher in the same school. Around the winter holidays, she came into class to talk about Chanukah. It was really basic, appropriate for 7-year-olds; stuff about the menorah, and she brought in little plastic dradles for each of us (which I thought was so cool). Apparently the boy's father was Christian of some sort, and he also celebrated Christmas, which she mentioned in passing. What's funny is that I clearly remember her saying something about him being Jewish and Christian, and there being nothing wrong with that; and then the boy himself piping up and saying, "Well, Grandma says -" and her smoothly cutting him off. I always wondered what his Grandma said. I'll bet it was hilarious.

[Rowan]

I think there's more to this story here though- is the school a heavily religious environment, as shown by the mural? Is the prayer on the mural often mentioned by school officials? Because to me the article just sounds like "lol, atheist gets offended by EVERYTHING, move along."

It is a public school, it doesn't have the right to be a heavily religious environment. Or specifically religious at all.

[TaylorMaid]

It is a public school, it doesn't have the right to be a heavily religious environment. Or specifically religious at all.

This, precisely. And the problem is that the school and its board members were informed that they were breaking the law, and they chose to continue:

Committee member Traficante prefaced his vote by explaining that he was “a person of faithâ€; that as an athletic coach in the school system for 25 years he led students in a prayer “before every single wrestling match or football gameâ€; and as the Cranston Mayor he had invited clergy to all his mayoral events. He explained his belief that the United States was built on the “moral and religious†principles “emulated†in the display, and that it was their “obligation as School Committee members to protect and defend the moral values of our students and that banner helps us to express that[.]â€

http://www.riaclu.org/documents/Plaintifftrialbrief.pdf

That man admitted on public record of breaking the law in multiple instances, and was proud of it.

[Jewess]

If public schools aren't allowed to have religious things like this, why are celebrations of Halloween, Christmas, and Valentines day permitted at all?

What if there was a permanent display of the Declaration of Independence? Would that be allowed or forbidden? The declaration of Independence certainly mentions God twice in it...

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

See here if you don't know it by heart...

[emmiedahl]

Valentines Day is considered a cultural holiday. You exchange cards and make little projects with hearts; no religion there. Halloween and Christmas are not celebrated at my children's school. They celebrate "Harvest" and "Winter Holiday" with no mention of God.

I think, as a historical document, the Declaration of Independence is fine for school study. That is actually part of American history, unlike some felt banner.

[Jewess]

Valentines Day is considered a cultural holiday. You exchange cards and make little projects with hearts; no religion there. Halloween and Christmas are not celebrated at my children's school. They celebrate "Harvest" and "Winter Holiday" with no mention of God.

Do all public schools do that, or only some select ones?

I think, as a historical document, the Declaration of Independence is fine for school study. That is actually part of American history, unlike some felt banner.

What if its not or school study, just a decoration for the school (i.e. a representation of the original in a frame or something) and permanent?

Yea, its part of US history, but that banner is part of that specific school's history.

The separation of church and state in the US is an interesting one, especially since the founding fathers were themselves religious Christians and wrote the declaration as such.

[Guest Anonymous]

The separation of church and state in the US is an interesting one, especially since the founding fathers were themselves religious Christians and wrote the declaration as such.

:?

[Jewess]

:?

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

No? No religious background to the declaration of independence?

I'm not in any way saying I'm against the separation of church and state. I just find it interesting, given the US's history.

[Guest Anonymous]

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

No? No religious background to the declaration of independence?

I'm not in any way saying I'm against the separation of church and state. I just find it interesting, given the US's history.

The side-eye was for the statement that "the founding fathers" were all religious Christians. Thomas Jefferson called himself a "materialist" and compiled a Bible in which he removed all supernatural and/or miraculous happenings. Benjamin Franklin was certainly a Deist. John Adams was a Unitarian who didn't believe in hell. Some others were professing Christians, but it's simplistic and inaccurate to tar them all with the same broad brush you're using.

*ETA: And no, I don't regard the Declaration as being a religious document because it has a couple of throw-away references to God in it. The purpose of it had fuck all to do with religion. The God bits are in there to make it sound better. Do you think that the founding fathers applied what they said about God giving all men rights to their black slaves? Fuck no they didn't. They were about the business of revolution and they wrote a stirring document according to the vernacular and customs of their time.

[emmiedahl]

According to Wikipedia:

Lambert (2003) has examined the religious affiliations and beliefs of the Founders. Of the 55 delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, 49 were Protestants, and three were Roman Catholics (C. Carroll, D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons). Among the Protestant delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 28 were Church of England (or Episcopalian, after the American Revolutionary War was won), eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutherans, two were Dutch Reformed, and two were Methodists.

[Jewess]

They were about the business of revolution and they wrote a stirring document according to the vernacular and customs of their time.

Isn't the pledge thats hanging in that school also written according to the vernacular and customs of the time? Weren't people a bit more tolerant of religious references in schools and court houses then? (Like with 10 commandments in court houses, for example.)

[Guest Anonymous]

Isn't the pledge thats hanging in that school also written according to the vernacular and customs of the time? Weren't people a bit more tolerant of religious references in schools and court houses then? (Like with 10 commandments in court houses, for example.)

According to the evidence presented in this thread, the pledge/banner was written as a "fuck you" to the Abington School District v. Schempp court ruling. Kind of like how the state of Georgia slapped the Confederate battle emblem on their state flag in 1956 as a big racist "fuck you" to the Civil Rights movement. Context matters.

As to the ten commandments in court houses, if you want to classify the tyranny of the majority as tolerance I can't stop you, but obviously I don't agree.

*ETA: Because I always have another thought after I submit - I wonder what the big deal is about whether or not the founding fathers were Christians, anyway. The majority of them were farmers and slave owners who didn't allow women to vote, but we don't think that's worth emulating. In the immortal words of Bob Dylan, the times, they are a changin'. And in the immortal words of Maya Angelou, when you know better, you do better.

**And edited once more because I do know how to spell tyranny.

[Jewess]

I have to say due to the word choice you're using, I'm not sure I'm understanding what you're saying correctly.

I'm saying- at the time when things were done, like when they put 10 commandments in courthouses, or making this banner, were they not doing what was accepted at the time, and not specifically as an F You, lets see how much we an get away with, aka using the "vernacular of the time"?

I'm not a history buff, I'll be honest about that. That was just my uninformed opinion. That these things were just a general way of doing things, and don't specifically have a religious connotation, a religious "you must do things our way and observe our religion" that this court case and others seem to be implying.

[emmiedahl]

One difference (imo) between the Declaration of Independence and this banner is the educational value. In the Declaration, there is immense historical value, as in you cannot be an educated American without knowing about it. The religion is rather beside the point.

The Ten Commandments do not have the same historical value in a courtroom. You can be an educated person, interact sufficiently with the justice system and never reference the Ten Commandments. Ditto for this school. It can offer a quality education without that prayer.

Historically significant and necessary religious references in publically funded areas=okay

Gratuitous mentions of religion in publically funded areas=not okay

[Guest Anonymous]

Maybe we're both confused, because what you're saying now seems to be the complete opposite of what you were saying on page 2.

Here you appear to be arguing that religion is an important aspect of a historical document:

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

No? No religious background to the declaration of independence?

I'm not in any way saying I'm against the separation of church and state. I just find it interesting, given the US's history.

And here you seem to be saying that the religious bit doesn't matter because it was just the way they spoke at the time:

I have to say due to the word choice you're using, I'm not sure I'm understanding what you're saying correctly.

I'm saying- at the time when things were done, like when they put 10 commandments in courthouses, or making this banner, were they not doing what was accepted at the time, and not specifically as an F You, lets see how much we an get away with, aka using the "vernacular of the time"?

I'm not a history buff, I'll be honest about that. That was just my uninformed opinion. That these things were just a general way of doing things, and don't specifically have a religious connotation, a religious "you must do things our way and observe our religion" that this court case and others seem to be implying.

Could you please clarify?

As for your questions to me - the banner hanging in the school vs. the ten commandments in or on a courthouse are two very different issues.

The banner appears to have been hung specifically to flout a particular court ruling. According to the law of the land, it's already been judged as not okay and should be taken down.

If a courthouse was constructed say, a hundred years ago, with the ten commandments carved into the side of it, that's where the tyranny of the majority comes into play. A hundred years ago most people in the U.S. indentified as Christians. Because the majority of people were Christian and most people didn't care if elevating Christianity as superior offended non-Christians, no one questioned or challenged the ten commandments being blazoned all over a government building. If an atheist or a Wiccan had protested, they would probably have been laughed at if not run out of town. It doesn't mean that atheists and Wiccans didn't exist, or that they were super tolerant, it means that they had no voice.

Most people in the U.S. still identify as Christians, but other religions and atheists are now more widely recognized, and some of us Christians aren't so insecure about our faith that we need it to be privileged over everyone else's. We realize that other people have a right to not have our religion and religious symbols imposed upon them.

Does that mean that I think that a courthouse should have the ten commandments chipped off of the side if it's carved in? Well, no, I don't. It's history and it happened and I'm not in favor of defacing architecture or burning books. I realize that's a bit contradictory, but meh. Feelings, I have them. But if it's just a plaque or something, take it down. And don't go making new ones and hanging them up, since we know that it's going to create a hostile environment for some people.

[Lillian]

If it is not a religious school, the banner shouldn't be up. Simple!

[alsio]

Committee member Traficante prefaced his vote by explaining that he was “a person of faithâ€; that as an athletic coach in the school system for 25 years he led students in a prayer “before every single wrestling match or football gameâ€; and as the Cranston Mayor he had invited clergy to all his mayoral events. He explained his belief that the United States was built on the “moral and religious†principles “emulated†in the display, and that it was their “obligation as School Committee members to protect and defend the moral values of our students and that banner helps us to express that.â€

If this attitude is typical for the school and the community, the banner is probably the least of it. Maybe it makes just one nice and concrete thing to protest against.

[Jewess]

Maybe we're both confused, because what you're saying now seems to be the complete opposite of what you were saying on page 2.

Here you appear to be arguing that religion is an important aspect of a historical document:

And here you seem to be saying that the religious bit doesn't matter because it was just the way they spoke at the time:

Could you please clarify?

You're saying "It was how they spoke at the time, it had no religious background." I'm not sure of that, but if you say so, lets go on from there. Was the banner they put up 50 years ago "how they spoke at the time", or was it specifically meant to be offensive and in your face religous? I read only a few links on this thread, maybe not every one, so maybe I missed where it said that it was flouting a court ruling.

As for your questions to me - the banner hanging in the school vs. the ten commandments in or on a courthouse are two very different issues.

The banner appears to have been hung specifically to flout a particular court ruling. According to the law of the land, it's already been judged as not okay and should be taken down.

If a courthouse was constructed say, a hundred years ago, with the ten commandments carved into the side of it, that's where the tyranny of the majority comes into play. A hundred years ago most people in the U.S. indentified as Christians. Because the majority of people were Christian and most people didn't care if elevating Christianity as superior offended non-Christians, no one questioned or challenged the ten commandments being blazoned all over a government building. If an atheist or a Wiccan had protested, they would probably have been laughed at if not run out of town. It doesn't mean that atheists and Wiccans didn't exist, or that they were super tolerant, it means that they had no voice.

Most people in the U.S. still identify as Christians, but other religions and atheists are now more widely recognized, and some of us Christians aren't so insecure about our faith that we need it to be privileged over everyone else's. We realize that other people have a right to not have our religion and religious symbols imposed upon them.

Does that mean that I think that a courthouse should have the ten commandments chipped off of the side if it's carved in? Well, no, I don't. It's history and it happened and I'm not in favor of defacing architecture or burning books. I realize that's a bit contradictory, but meh. Feelings, I have them. But if it's just a plaque or something, take it down. And don't go making new ones and hanging them up, since we know that it's going to create a hostile environment for some people.

Ok, I hear you. What if this banner wasn't a banner but was actually carved into the walls of the building? What then? Would you feel differently if it werent so easily removable?

[Cassandra]

I think the banner should be taken down, and I admire the young woman for her courage.

Agreed! I think she's very brave continuing to voice her opinions even after receiving hate mail.

[Guest Anonymous]

Was the banner they put up 50 years ago "how they spoke at the time", or was it specifically meant to be offensive and in your face religous? I read only a few links on this thread, maybe not every one, so maybe I missed where it said that it was flouting a court ruling.

I think it was specifically meant to be offensive and in your face religious.

Ok, I hear you. What if this banner wasn't a banner but was actually carved into the walls of the building? What then? Would you feel differently if it werent so easily removable?

Because of the context in that particular case I think it should be removed regardless. If it were carved into the wall you could hand me a chisel.

You're saying "It was how they spoke at the time, it had no religious background." I'm not sure of that, but if you say so, lets go on from there.

As far as the Declaration of Independence is concerned, I think that that religion was not the point or driving force of the document. I'm not saying that religion never influenced any of the people involved in its creation.

...........

I maintain that your statements took a turn for the radically opposite from page 2 to page 3.

One page 2, you say that the Christianity of the founding fathers affects the Declaration of Independence, and it has a religious background and significance.

The separation of church and state in the US is an interesting one, especially since the founding fathers were themselves religious Christians and wrote the declaration as such.

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

No? No religious background to the declaration of independence?

On page 3, you say that the banner makers and people who put the ten commandments on courthouses were doing what was accepted at the time, and it didn't have a specifically religious connotation. Do you not agree that this is a contradiction?

I'm saying- at the time when things were done, like when they put 10 commandments in courthouses, or making this banner, were they not doing what was accepted at the time, and not specifically as an F You, lets see how much we an get away with, aka using the "vernacular of the time"?

I'm not a history buff, I'll be honest about that. That was just my uninformed opinion. That these things were just a general way of doing things, and don't specifically have a religious connotation, a religious "you must do things our way and observe our religion" that this court case and others seem to be implying.

[Jewess]

As far as the Declaration of Independence is concerned, I think that that religion was not the point or driving force of the document. I'm not saying that religion never influenced any of the people involved in its creation.

...........

I maintain that your statements took a turn for the radically opposite from page 2 to page 3.

One page 2, you say that the Christianity of the founding fathers affects the Declaration of Independence, and it has a religious background and significance.

Saying that there was a religious background, and saying that people were religious and it influenced when/how they wrote what they did doesn't mean that they wrote it only from a religious perspective, but their religion played a part in what they did, at least in how they did it. If religion played no part, I doubt they would have talked about inalienable rights given by the Creator.

The same way I can do things for a myriad of reasons, but to divorce what I do from the fact that I'm an Orthodox Jew, to say that my being an Orthodox Jew doesn't affect what/how I write and what/how I do things would be kind of silly, even if I'm not purposely saying "I'm doing this specifically because I'm an orthodox Jew".

On page 3, you say that the banner makers and people who put the ten commandments on courthouses were doing what was accepted at the time, and it didn't have a specifically religious connotation. Do you not agree that this is a contradiction?

No, I don't see it as a contradiction, especially since in one place I was talking about the writers of the constitution, and in another I was talking about the school and the courthouses...

And even if people were doing things according to what was accepted at the time, talking in the vernacular of the time, shall we say, that doesn't mean that they weren't influenced by their religion.

Meaning, if someone today would try to enact a law based on what the Bible said, specifically for that reason (no, not specifically referring to tea partiers or Palin type people, but I guess that would fit the bill), it would be more of an "F you, we don't care what you non christians think/feel" than it would have been had they done the same thing 50 or 100 years ago, because what is accepted today and what is accepted then was different. So even if the people who wrote the 10 commandments on the courthouse walls were doing it because they were christians, they weren't trying to be "F you atheists, we don't care how you feel", they were just doing what was accepted at the time, but you can't say the same necessarily if someone today were to do the same.

Am I making any sense?