Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hopefully it’s already been said that the motto is also inscribed in the House and Senate chambers.

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/112th-congress/house-report/47

Does that make it right?

Anonymous wrote:I saw this posted elsewhere, and underneath it referred to a law passed May 10, 2002.

Anonymous wrote:Pray tell- what bastion of all perfection are you moving to? I have lives all over the US and in other countries. Where is it better than Northern Virginia?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t believe in fairy tales but find it incredibly hypocritical when people only complain about Christian influence and no other because they want to be “inclusive”. Alert: inclusive means everyone. It means all the fairy tales. You can’t complain about recognizing Christian holidays and say “winter break” or “ spring break” (instead of Easter or Christmas) but praise FCPS for recognizing Diwali or Yom Kippur. None of these should be acknowledged. Schools should be religion free zones. Don’t even get me started on the cancelling of Halloween parades. What monsters refuse to recognize a holiday involving free candy?

You make a really good point. Now that FCPS recognizes ALL major religious holidays, I guess we can finally start naming them again? Or do I have to skirt around the issue with things and call Diwali an "autumnal light celebration" or something?

They certainly do not recognize ALL major religious holidays. https://pastafarians.org.au/pastafarianism/holidays/

Anonymous wrote:Hopefully it’s already been said that the motto is also inscribed in the House and Senate chambers.

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/112th-congress/house-report/47

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need to learn to be ok with being offended. It’s ok that it was there. It’s not telling you that you have to believe.

No, we don’t. We can point out things that are fundamentally wrong.

It’s not ok that it was there.

You don't have a right not to be offended.

We are a country of free speech and freedom of religion.

I love all the constitutional scholars who have no idea what the constitution actually says.

Yes.

Thos who want to restrict speech, who think the constitution guarantees a right to not have their feelings hurt, and who think the constitution syas anything about separation of church and state" probably need to take some time to actually read the constitution.

They also forget that the whole reason there isn't an establishment of religion at the federal level, is that the various states had different established churches.

Not really. The same guy who wrote the Establishment Clause also wrote the Memorial and Remonstrance

You sure? While most southern states had ended their established churches by 1790, which were mostly Episcopal, New Hampshire kept its establishment until 1817; Connecticut kept its establishment until 1818; and Massachusetts did not abandon its state support for Congregationalism until 1833.

Madison isn't exactly an obscure figure and both works are somewhat famous

And has zero to do with the fact that the states had their own established churches.

It has a lot to do with Virginia not having an established church

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need to learn to be ok with being offended. It’s ok that it was there. It’s not telling you that you have to believe.

No, we don’t. We can point out things that are fundamentally wrong.

It’s not ok that it was there.

You don't have a right not to be offended.

We are a country of free speech and freedom of religion.

I love all the constitutional scholars who have no idea what the constitution actually says.

Yes.

Thos who want to restrict speech, who think the constitution guarantees a right to not have their feelings hurt, and who think the constitution syas anything about separation of church and state" probably need to take some time to actually read the constitution.

They also forget that the whole reason there isn't an establishment of religion at the federal level, is that the various states had different established churches.

Not really. The same guy who wrote the Establishment Clause also wrote the Memorial and Remonstrance

You sure? While most southern states had ended their established churches by 1790, which were mostly Episcopal, New Hampshire kept its establishment until 1817; Connecticut kept its establishment until 1818; and Massachusetts did not abandon its state support for Congregationalism until 1833.

Madison isn't exactly an obscure figure and both works are somewhat famous

And has zero to do with the fact that the states had their own established churches.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need to learn to be ok with being offended. It’s ok that it was there. It’s not telling you that you have to believe.

No, we don’t. We can point out things that are fundamentally wrong.

It’s not ok that it was there.

You don't have a right not to be offended.

We are a country of free speech and freedom of religion.

I love all the constitutional scholars who have no idea what the constitution actually says.

his remonstrance was written in opposition to a bill to establish a church in Virginia based on the same logic as the establishment clause. He won the argument

Yes.

Thos who want to restrict speech, who think the constitution guarantees a right to not have their feelings hurt, and who think the constitution syas anything about separation of church and state" probably need to take some time to actually read the constitution.

They also forget that the whole reason there isn't an establishment of religion at the federal level, is that the various states had different established churches.

Not really. The same guy who wrote the Establishment Clause also wrote the Memorial and Remonstrance

You sure? While most southern states had ended their established churches by 1790, which were mostly Episcopal, New Hampshire kept its establishment until 1817; Connecticut kept its establishment until 1818; and Massachusetts did not abandon its state support for Congregationalism until 1833.

Madison isn't exactly an obscure figure and both works are somewhat famous

And has zero to do with the fact that the states had their own established churches.