Declaration of Independence Banned at Calif School

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A California teacher has been barred by his school from giving students documents from American history that refer to God -- including the Declaration of Independence.

Steven Williams, a fifth-grade teacher at Stevens Creek School in the San Francisco Bay area suburb of Cupertino, sued for discrimination on Monday, claiming he had been singled out for censorship by principal Patricia Vidmar because he is a Christian.

"It's a fact of American history that our founders were religious men, and to hide this fact from young fifth-graders in the name of political correctness is outrageous and shameful," said Williams' attorney, Terry Thompson.

"Williams wants to teach his students the true history of our country," he said. "There is nothing in the Establishment Clause (of the U.S. Constitution) that prohibits a teacher from showing students the Declaration of Independence."

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=6911883

It should read "Teacher stopped from proseltyzing in Classroom". It sounds like to me this "christian" teacher was trying to rewrite history by presenting writings from the founding fathers so he could show that the US is a "christian nation". He was asked to submit his lesson plans and they were stripped of his propaganda attempt and now he's got a lawyer. If you think I'm being wacky just tweak the story a little and imagine a teacher using historical documents as cover for promoting wiccans or muslims or whatever and think about the reaction then.

Of course the DoI has not been banned, but abusing it to put forth your religious constructs has been banned, and I agree. The DoI is about freedom FROM state sponsored religion and shouldn't be used as this guy did.

...not unless you're privy to information beyond the article. The article says that approximately 5-10% of the material he hands out references God or Christianity, which given the volumes that many of the founding fathers wrote on the subject, sounds rather low. How can that be proselytizing?

I mean, I understand being on guard for brainwashing in the classroom, but you can't just excise from history the parts that make you uncomfortable.

"It's a fact of American history that our founders were religious men, and to hide this fact from young fifth-graders in the name of political correctness is outrageous and shameful," said Williams' attorney, Terry Thompson.

"Williams wants to teach his students the true history of our country," he said. "There is nothing in the Establishment Clause (of the U.S. Constitution) that prohibits a teacher from showing students the Declaration of Independence."

The "fact" the founders were religious men only relates to the DoI insofar as they made a conscious effort to keep god OUT of it. The attorney then says "Williams wants to teach his students the true history of our country...", the "true history" or this teachers "christian" version of history?

Like I said, god isn't in these historical documents so there is nothing to excise, there is, however, things that can be "added" when one sets to tell the "true" history about them. THAT'S why its proseltyzing, he's mixing in religious references in with secular documents, NOT to teach about the secular documents but to churchify em up.

the truth. Just so he gives the whole truth, like many of the founding fathers held slaves an unparalleled human rights violation for which they should be crucified in history.

that says there's a history book for children which, in some part, states that blacks 'came over here to America' to 'work' the fields--totally white-outted the fact that they were brought here against their will as slaves with no rights and no redress to the laws of the land and were looked upon as less than human. The school board wasn't going to recall the book but instead would add an addendum in a separate book speaking about the slavery issue.

They are now trying to teach students that there was no such thing as slavery in this country--and that is the blatant truth of this country, but they want to put forward a lie masquerading as truth.

What part of the 1st amendment do you not understand. We must remine open to all point-of-views.

to this country because the government of their native countries were theologies that did not agree with their religious practices.

Regardless, they made it clear that the US was going to be a secular construct. America is a secular state (and, moreover, not a "Christian Nation")

First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

This is an except fron the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, adopted by our Founding Fathers, in Congress.

"As the Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the law, religion or tranquility of Musselmen; and as the states never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mohometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever produce an interruption of harmony existing between the two countries."

Ultimately, who cares if the founders were religious? The US, quite obviously, as a nation state, is not.

-Laelth

Not just any kind of oppression, but the kind of oppression you'd find in theocracies. As long as they're teaching history, why don't we make it mandatory to study England and Holland in the 1700s. It would put EVERYTHING in perspective for everyone.

they were not what most would call "religious". Ben Franklin was very anti-religion, Jefferson disdained the mainstream Bible and organized Christianity. Many of them were Deists, which is a far cry from conventional Christianity.

A liberal asshat, but an asshat none the less. Why are a imposing 21st century values on things written 228 years ago? What a douche this teacher is.

I will be a history/government teacher. I would NEVER do this. It's people like this who get media attention that make us look bad.

where he cut out everything he didn't agree with.

And since Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence where the teacher says that God is identified as the basis for the United States, then he should show them what the author's belief in God was and what his belief in Jesus Christ was.

Bet he won't like that!

Where can I buy a copy?

Available on amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0807077143/qid=1101332586/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/102-2325875-3272945

He compared Greek, Latin, French and English versions of the Bible, took out everything he thought was unreasonable (i.e., the miracles) and produced a Bible for enlightened minds that made Jesus a fully human man, not a God. Interesting read!

<snip> ARTICLE 11. As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. <snip>

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm


The following essay was published in Church & State Magazine (1997).
Joel Barlow And The Treaty With Tripoli
by Robert Boston

<snip> The Treaty of Tripoli was unanimously approved by the Senate on June 10, 1797. <snip>

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/archive/boston_tripoli.html


So when one of the founding fathers was still President, Congress, without any dispute whatsoever, agreed with the statement that the country was "not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion" and incorporated this view into law ...

Sounds like this teacher had an agenda that did need to be addressed and confronted.

My original post was the say that this sounded insane, the "banning of the Dec of Ind" but what is going on is the principle is trying to address the lesson plan not the documents.

Clearly this joker of a teacher has an agenda that does violtate the establishment clause. He isn't just presenting these documents in the course of teaching American history he's trying to teach and promote a belife in god.

I happen to be a "card-carrying" member of the ACLU and a supporter of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.

And even I have to say that this goes way, WAY too far.

Someone make sure that this principal doesn't bring to school any little green pieces of paper that say "In God We Trust."

I can't imagine The ACLU or Americans United saying that we should ban The Declaration of Independence from schools.

This is just WACKY.

Our country was founded on Christian Values.

It was founded by people who VALUED escaping from OTHER Christians.

We owe the Catholic Church a great debt. Without them, nobody would have wanted to leave Europe.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Name one colonist.

... or is the word "Roman" a trick qualifier?

the Huguenots were 'Protestants' by faith, were deemed heretics on the home turf, and emigrated to America to escape the guillotine and general persecution ... many settled in Manakintowne in the Colony of Virginia

just asking

:shrug:

Granted, their case is a little fuzzy. They had been living in the border regions of Germany that were being regularly invaded by France, and though they *claimed* they were victims of Catholic persecution, some sources suggest they merely wanted to get out of a war zone and knew how to appeal to the sensibilities of their fellow Protestants.

These guys were NOT the puritans who showed up in the 1600s.

Some of them were undoubtedly Christians, but this was the Enlightenment and the Church was OBVIOUSLY not their be all and end all.

The others attended church on regular basis.

Franklin and Thomas Paine might have been considered something of "card-carrying" deists, but others, such as Adams, Jefferson, and even Washington, however much they attended church services, were undecided or skeptical on the deity of Christ. Though he made public declarations of his faith in Christ, Washington did not make a single mention of Jesus Christ in his personal diaries. And Jefferson, whose religious views were well known as being highly unorthodox, was even labled an "athiest" and a "satan-worshiper" by Aaron Burr's campaign smear team during the election of 1800.

NT!

I think they understood clearly what they were doing and why they did not want to form a religious or Thecratic goverment!

Here are some quotes:

http://sensiblyeclectic.com/b2evolution/blogs/index.php/2004/11/22/what_the_founding_fathers_had_to_say_abo

I think that Tom Paine's Common Sense would be a good read at this point.

Revisionists are not going to convince intelligent people that you can change the past at will to suit an agenda. There will be opposition.

he said they founded it on Christian Values. Since those were the values they were raised with and used in their everyday lives... it's not such a crazy comment. Most were Christians and they founded a secular nation.

Genocide?
Slavery?

There was a great article here at DU a couple of days ago which talked about how the New England town meeting came out of the Saxon folkmoot.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/11/23_war.html

Christianity adopted a hierarchic structure in its churches very early, with strong lines of top-down authority. This was further reinforced when Christianity made common cause with the Roman Empire. The stamping out of heresies, and the eradication of more independent-minded local churches, like that in Ireland, were as much about reinforcing central authority as about religious doctrine.

Whatever there was in Christian Europe that was democratic and egalitarian came from their pagan past -- and was strongest in those areas that were furthest from Rome and last converted (England, the Netherlands, Scandinavia.)

In America, the democratic strain among the northern colonists was reinforced by democratic elements they encountered in the confederacy of the Iroquois. The historian Francis Jennings has argued for the great importance of this Native American contribution to the founding of the new nation.

So let's all hear it for pagan values -- the source of everything we as Americans hold most dear!

...are any different from the values a moral atheist like myself have.

The problem is that they are not trying to convince intelligent people. They are trying to convince children. And children take what teachers tell them as absolute truth.

When you do it to children it's called "indoctrination". They are trying to do just what the german nazis (to separate them from our own republican nazis) did. Remember the "Nazi Youth"?

the Constitution, Declaration of Indepenace, Preamble....??
Anywhere? Nowhere!
Nowhere does it imply Xtian values. Nowhere!
So dont give us that shit!

Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and Paine at least were not Christians. They were Deists and Unitarians; they believed in God but not the Christian God this country and its government now embraces. Adams rejected the Holy Trinity and Franklin doubted the divinity of Christ to the day he died. Jefferson's Bible has already been discussed.

The values of the framers no doubt found basis in their various religious backgrounds. But to claim this country was founded on "Christian values" is hogwash. This country was founded first and foremost on the values of justice, freedom and liberty. Permitting our government to lead from a single religious viewpoint -- be it Christian, Jewish or whatever -- is a slap in the face to our ancestors, who came here to ESCAPE religious persecution under theocratic rule.

between "bring(ing) to school any little green pieces of paper that say "In God We Trust."" and pulling out a dollar as an introduction to the Masons by discussing the masonic imagery contained therein so you can sing the praises of their religious practices?

One is a personal act, not subject to discussion/action of/by others and the other is a huge deal that spits in the face of Separation of church and State.

Yeah, right.

It sounds like the teach would rather teach Sunday school, except that's not where the heathens are.

Your whole post reaks of Limbaugh. Obviously, you are jumping on an idiot bandwagon without bothering to collect all the facts with respect to this story. Is that an oversight or intentional?

I'd bet real money that there is far more to the story. A principal wouldn't take the extreme action of requiring this activist to submit "all of his lesson plans and supplemental handouts" if there wasn't some backstory going on.

The school didn't comment because of the litigation but now they will have to make some of the circumstances public.

The teacher was looking for this exact headline.

You just said yourself that there is not enough info to draw a conclusion, but then you go and draw one by saying that he was looking for a headline. What's up with that?

:hi:

He is the one the story quotes. But you're right; while this headline serves his side of the story (which is the only one we have), unless I'm misreading the interests he presents to the reporter, he probably would have been content with something like "Christian Persecuted In Godless CA School"

what kind of idiot is this?

these are the kind of people that give liberals a bad name.

This is effing ridiculous!!!! :grr:

"He hands out a lot of material and perhaps 5 to 10 percent refers to God and Christianity because that's what the founders wrote," said Thompson, a lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund, which advocates for religious freedom. "The principal seems to be systematically censoring material that refers to Christianity and it is pure discrimination."

----

You know what?

I think The Alliance Defense Fund told the guy to do it in the first place, just so they'd have this stupid, silly court case to "defend America's Christian roots."

I've always wondered why the very first Amendment to our Constitution nullified all of the first four Commandments, if we were really a "Judeo-Christian" Nation.

It seems we were very anxious to start doing away with those "roots" from the moment we put quill to parchment.

He's on the Board of DIrectors of the "(Right to) Life Legal Defense Foundation" ...

The Mission

To give innocent and helpless human beings of any age, particularly unborn children, a trained and committed defense against the threat of death, and to support their advocates in the nation's courtrooms. LLDF will accomplish its mission and purpose through the law and education.

http://www.lldf.org/board.htm

He's a homophobic activist against gay/lesbian civil rights ...

In Thompson's opinion, same-sex marriages will pave the way for incestuous marriages – he gave the example of a hypothetical mother and daughter who get hitched solely to take advantage of the tax code – and legalized polygamy.

http://www.sfbg.com/38/25/cover_sexreligion.html

Locals file suit against gay unions
By Alison Soltau | Staff Writer
Published on Wednesday, February 25, 2004
URL: http://www.examiner.com/article/index.cfm/i/022504n_suits

Two San Francisco residents have joined a conservative group's battle to stop same-sex marriages, and will today ask the state Supreme Court to order the County Clerk to stop issuing the licenses.

The move allows the conservative lobbies to bring the arguments against same-sex marriages above the Superior Court to the state Supreme Court. Backing the unnamed San Franciscans is the conservative group, the Proposition 22 Legal and Defense Fund, which failed in an earlier Superior Court bid to obtain a stay against the issuing of the marriage licenses.

The pair seeks a stay and preemptory writ against Nancy Alfaro, the clerk who has presided over the issuing of more than 3,000 licenses since Feb. 12.

Prop. 22 attorney Terry Thompson said his group was unhappy that previous Superior Court rulings gave The City the option to either cease issuing the licenses or return on March 29 to explain why they continued to issue them.

"The County Clerk is validating these couples," Thompson said. "Under the law, she has a ministerial duty and no discretion to interpret the law."
<snip>

He's a pond scum parasite.

as the creator of the universe...the word "god" is not mentioned in the declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, or the Constitution..the word christian isnt mentioned in any of them'
The word creator could mean anything..from an alien in Deep Space Nine, to any number of gods and goddesses in the entire pantheon of human mythology...
so if this guy was using the declaration of Independence to assert "his" version of god, he is full of shite.

I double checked and the word god is used in the dec of Ind.

"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."

But you right about this yahoo asserting his version of god.

as a woman, so thats a blessing. =)
Its all in how people attempt to interpret it I guess.

The declaration does not refer to a standalone God, but to "Nature's God", implying that the deity is actually subservient to Nature

a LOT of people are angry that they ARE nature..and their whole concept of what "god" is , is a direct result of their fear of being nature, of dying, of having no control over nature...and they dont...right now, imo, the dominionism god so ardently touted by so many is merely the concept the human mind created out of fear.

It could also mean "the God over Nature".

But this is silly anyway, since this country was not founded on "Christian values" (which are no better or worse than my own values) per the FF's own words.

It depends on what he was using it for, in my opinion. If the teacher wanted to point out that a number of folks back in colonial times were religious, I have no problem with that. It's an established fact, and there's no sense in disputing that. However, if he was piggybacking on that fact to sell his particular religious viewpoint, or to say that there is some sort of equivalency between the religion practiced 250 years ago and what passes for "popular" Christianity today, then the fellow is seriously wrong.

It's too bad, too. There's a wealth of educational opportunity to be found in a discussion of the role of religion in public life. I hasten to add that the teacher should moderate, not guide, such a discussion.

it seems silly to pretend they might have been talking about a space alien when they used the word creator.

The Founders, probably under Jefferson's insistence, deliberately authored the DoI and the Constitution so as to NOT have any connection to evangelical Christianity. We know this because Patrick Henry, a fervently evangelical Christian himself, passionately urged the Constitutional Convention to insert language into the Constitution that would make explicit mentions of "Jesus Christ" and "Christianity".

The Convention delegates politely listened to Henry's speech, then rendered a "thumb's down" verdict.

I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.

I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.

But, lest it should be supposed that I believe in many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them.

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.

from Age of Reason: http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/reason1.htm

Hi Mari333! :hi: I haven't seen you in a while. Everything OK?

I don't have any objections ...

I have a feeling there is more to the story than "banning the Declaration". For instance, does Mr. Williams take the references to God "out of context", i.e., does he teach that the founding fathers were Christians, and that the US is a Christian nation? Perhaps there were many complaints from parents that Mr. Williams is teaching religion instead of history? Just a couple thoughts.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1124041declar1.html

He claims it's a civil rights issue -- but then doesn't seem to explain what civil rights law is violated.

I'm guessing the lawsuit was filed simply for the media coverage that would result and the corresponding propaganda opportunity. The lawyer ought to be disciplined for abuse of process.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

most people don't want this.

a school system goes overboard in trying to interpret a rule or impose a concept they do far more harm than good. How is it that 40 plus years after the Supreme Court ruling, we liberals have not fielded experts to every school system in the country to educate the administrators on how to PROPERLY interpret the court's rulings and develop model administrative policies on how to treat these issues.

Stop pleasuring each other and read the whole story. Geez. Just because the headline is slanted doesn't mean we need to indict ourselves for our beliefs. And I use that word "ourselves" with the utmost of sincerity.

They are banning this guy's lesson plan where he has rewritten a twisted and false version of history about HIS OWN beliefs about the DoI.

Yeah, right.

We should just be moderate and let religion take over the schools.

"we Liberals" BWAHAhahahahaha

It doesn't state anything about a Christian God, it refers to "Nature's God" and it also refers to a creator, but once again there is no reference to Christianity.

Perhaps the teacher should be required to provide the students with all documents, instead of just what he agrees with. Like the Treaty of Tripoli, and he can highlight Article 11 of that treaty, or some of the things that George Washington said in reference to religion.

Perhaps Mr. Williams will inform his classes that there was no Minister present at the bedside of our first President, when he died, or that Washington, though an Episcopalian did not take communion.

It sounds as if this teacher was being selective about the documents that he provided for his students, I think that he should give them
access to both views and let the students make up their own minds.

But I think that all he wants to do is to give them half of the story,
and hope that they don't ask questions.

christian trying to shove his view of "the true history of the country" into the classroom. All teachers are supposed to submit their lesson plans to the principal who is in charge of the education in the school. Move over evolution, now we're getting the christian version of history.

Not Christian. Christians are not supposed to lie (i.e. revise reality).

There must be a reason the principal was monitoring the teacher's lesson plans; perhaps
a few complaints? We don't know the history of this situation.

Were the teacher's lessons balanced?
For example, did he bring attention to the Treaty of Tripoli? Wherein G. Washington wrote:
"As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion..."

excerpted from the article:
Williams asserts in the lawsuit that since May he has been required to submit all of his lesson plans and supplemental handouts to Vidmar for approval, and that the principal will not permit him to use any that contain references to God or Christianity.

Among the materials she has rejected, according to Williams, are excerpts from the Declaration of Independence, George Washington's journal, John Adams' diary, Samuel Adams' "The Rights of the Colonists" and William Penn's "The Frame of Government of Pennsylvania."

"He hands out a lot of material and perhaps 5 to 10 percent refers to God and Christianity because that's what the founders wrote," said Thompson, a lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund, which advocates for religious freedom. "The principal seems to be systematically censoring material that refers to Christianity and it is pure discrimination."

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case of a California atheist who wanted the words "under God" struck from the Pledge of Allegiance as recited by school children. The appeals court in California had found that the phrase amounted to a violation of church and state separation.

I am a teacher and we have to turn them in weekly. Most principals require this. I don't think most check them, though. They just file them.

I was in a Catholic school through 6th grade, so no idea what they teach in public schools for social sciences for those grades below 7.

I'm a product of the NYS public school system otherwise, which was a fine base education - and I can't ever remember any of my teachers - not even high school, whipping out a copy of the DoI for us to study. They taught us everything the document was a reaction to, the acts, the quartering, etc. etc., all the little rebellions and there was an intensive year or two that covered the French & Indian --> Revolutionary wars.

It's the language, stupid. How many 5th graders do you think can wrap their heads around the DoI as it was originally worded? You'd need to spend considerable time in your curriculum explaining what all the complaints were about.

If the guy wants to teach Christianity, he should go teach at a parochial school.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20041124-1309-life-declaration.html

Anyone looked into how newspapers spread memes? I mean, connections and agendas? Why is the San Diego paper using the exactly same article? And why will others revise it or find fresh or more detailed information?

It has nothing to do with memes. The story was carried by Reuters, and Reuters is a wire service. It'll show up in many other papers before too long.

I just hope the CUSD gets in front of this story before it's too late. All we've heard now is the teacher's version, and I'm sure the school has a different story. I'm reminded of the brouhaha over the teacher claiming she was fired for having a picture of President Bush on the wall. The original reporting turned out to be bogus, but plenty of dittoheads never heard the true story.

It's a Reuters article. Same thing as if it was an AP article. They are news wire services that provide much of the content in newspapers.

if you count the number of times that god is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence <Natures God> it is ONE. No jeebus,bible,our father, virgin mary etc... Where do these fucks get off hijacking this and other documents as some kind of divine inspiration? We own these docs in the Blue States i say we take them away from these asswipes and never let them use them again.

school districts in Silicon Valley and an exceptionally large percentage of Asian students. I wonder how many of them feel close to the Christian God?

These are people who claim to base their opposition to sex education in public schools on the notion that parents' rights to inform (indoctrinate) their own children in sexual matters would be violated ... yet don't apparently see similar 'rights' regarding religious indoctrination.

I lived in the Monte Vista section of Cupertino, within a mile of that school, for 11 years between 1983 and 1992. It's an area that has no ethnic majority. The plurality of students in that area are now, in a general sense, Asian - probably most of whom claim Japanese ancestry. I cannot even imagine this teacher meets with the approval of the parents of the children he's teaching - parents who are VERY involved in their children's education. This is an area where the schools have no problem whatsoever getting parents to interact with teachers - quite possibly in the top percentiles of parental involvement in schools. I don't recall any school funding measure that ever failed in that area, where the overwhelming majority of families place education at the highest priority in their children's lives.

The declaration of independence is a very beautiful document. I don't think that these students are really equipped to critically discuss the documents with Steven Williams. Natural law might be a bit to advanced for a 5th grade class. Is this part of the approved 5th grade curriculum?

cause teaching something that's not in the curriculum is a more serious crime than teaching about God - as per NCLB :)

In other words, brainwashing. That's why his instructional materials are being monitored. My kids have had asshat teachers like this, but not until they were older. I don't blame the principal a bit. It's religious indoctrination and very dangerous.

I don't understand how you can make a judgement of this guy by what was written in the article. How do you know that he was trying "religious indoctrination". He does say that he is a orthodox chritian, but that alone doesn't mean he is brainwashing anyone. He could very well be an "asshat" as you describe, there just isn't any evidence to support it.

Yeah, that's got to be it. :eyes: Read the article again. He says he's being censored because of his Christianity. If he's not bringing it into the classroom, how could he be getting censored for it? And why would his work be monitored that closely unless there have been previous problems? Their case is that the founders were Christians. What more do you need to draw a logical conclusion? These people want to turn our schools into religious institutions and our country into a theocracy. What's it going to take for you to get it?

I have read the article and he does say that he is being discriminated against because of his religion, did you think that maybe he is? It doesn't sound ike you ever even gave that a thought. Listen, ther is ot enough info for anyone to make the judgement that he is an asshat or actually being discriminated against.
He could be being censored because the principle is scared that there will be a lawsuit by the ACLU for the being teaching materials in the class that speak of god. Just a thought.

If he isn't bringing religion in the classroom, how in the world would anybody have an opportunity to do anything to him about religion? The religious beliefs of any one founder are open to interpretation if you read everything they wrote. Anybody trying to present this in any different fashion is LYING. So what other reason would the teacher have? Revisionist history to indoctrinate students and turn this country into a theocracy. This doesn't take any wild leaping logic, just some simple observations as to what's happening in this country.

discriminated against for your religion, if nobody knows what your religion is. The school children he teaches and his superiors really have no reason to know what his religion is. He had to have been the one to bring out his religion in the classroom. I never, in all my years of school, knew the religion of ANY of my teachers, and I doubt, unless they were close friends, the teachers knew each others religions either.

I had no idea what religion (if any) my teachers were beyond grade 8.

However, in Grades 1 through eight I was pretty sure of their religion because they were nuns. :D

idiology or principles we would not be having this debate at all.

The fact that it is challenged says something. It is the attempt on the part of Christians to establish or to change the fact based upon perception and religious fairy tales.

They resent it that their Christian religion and thier particular god, was NOT given primary sanction under the Constitution.

Because it was NOT, they have embarked on this challenge which is based upon nothing at all but their religious beliefs.

The founders of this nation,in spite of their being rich landowners from an elite class, recognized the dangers of a theocracy that would affect this country in a negative way.


The Falwells of today's world, are attempting to change the facts of history because to them, they do desire a theocracy without fact or merit at all, except for their desire to make it so. They would as soon change the Constituion as they would promote the killing of sinners who have abortion.

I dont think that a teacher should be professing that God is great or Alah or whatever deity that they worship or don't worship for that matter. i do think that there is a problem gong on here. Now obviously I don't know what is really going on in this paticular school, but I do know what is happening around where I live and I will cite one example that is close to home. My niece who is in third grade had a little writing assignment to write about things that were inportant to her. She of course wrote about her parents and teachers and God. When she got her paper back from the teacher a of the reference to God were crossed out in red ink (not that the color matters). I am not a religious person at all but that doesn't seem right to me. Maybe this is starting to go to far. What do you think?

That sounds like one of them, you know, "exaggerations". I've never heard of such a thing and I have a suspicion if it had really happened, you'd have taken it straight to some Christian lawyer to sue.

You rock! :yourock:

It's a pleasure to read your posts, and I am forced, by the necessity of logic, to agree with you once again.

Cheers! :toast:

-Laelth

Holy shit, that is the most ridiculous thing that I may have ever read in my entire life. You are wrong about me for sure and perhaps about this other guy in the story.

I mean who the hell do you think you are calling me a christian. I've worn a devil shirt in a church. :evilgrin:

Have a Great Thanksgiving.

with those red lines through god so you can post it right here?

cause if not I'd have to say you're full of (*&#%.

trite!

It's not mine to scan. You can think that I'm full of shit all you want, it happened, and thats all there is to it.

-

the seperation of Church and State a little too harshly.

must be those darn liberal media...

would see that there are all sorts of wonderful things about independence, freedom, separation between church and state...

What IS shameful is our current "leaders" thrusting their religious genetalia down our throats without our permission. There is supposed to be a separation between the entities and they have seen fit to pervert it all for their own petty, selfish ideals.

http://bluelemur.com

Declaration Of Independence banned!

The seemingly preposterous headline made major waves on the conservative Drudge Report and Fox News network Wednesday, joining Reuters and the Associated Press, in a misleading story that exhibited serious reportorial negligence, RAW STORY has learned.

The story, which reports that a California teacher has been banned from giving students documents from American history that refer to God, including the Declaration of Independence is in fact a product of right-wing spin.

In fact, Cupertino public school principal Patricia Vidmar banned documents relating to God because the teacher had been forcing students to listen to what some felt was Christian propaganda, a media watchdog site reports. According to the site, the school had told him to stop but he did not comply, at which point the principal required that he submit his lesson plans to her in advance.

<snip>

“The school did not ‘ban the Declaration of Independence’ – that is just a lie,” Editor Dave Johnson, who is a fellow at the Commonweal Institute, wrote. “This story is like when you hear that a man was ‘arrested for praying’ and you find out he was kneeling in the middle of a busy intersection at rush hour and refused to move.”

Thanks rawstory, I came over here looking for some more details and it looks like even DU'rs were ready to swallow this ugly little piece of propaganda. This is why elections are lost to the dirtbags.

"“The school did not ‘ban the Declaration of Independence’ – that is just a lie,” Editor Dave Johnson, who is a fellow at the Commonweal Institute, wrote. “This story is like when you hear that a man was ‘arrested for praying’ and you find out he was kneeling in the middle of a busy intersection at rush hour and refused to move.”"

And then the headline would be "Praying Banned"

I'm a big supporter of separation of church and state. Did you people read the article only a small amount mentions God and they were in the documents themselves. Look our founding fathers mentioned God in their writings, do you want to censor history? As long as it's historical fact I have no problem with it.

http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html
From the article

"He hands out a lot of material and perhaps 5 to 10 percent refers to God and Christianity because that's what the founders wrote," said Thompson, a lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund, which advocates for religious freedom. "The principal seems to be systematically censoring material that refers to Christianity and it is pure discrimination."

I'm updating this because I just read some other things on this subject. Nobody is really sure what this teacher was doing. If it is how he says then he is right and the school is wrong but if there is more to it then meets the eye that would be a different story. I would like to know exactly what this teacher was either teaching or preaching.

Atrios referred to this Blog:

Declaration Of Independence Banned" - It's A Lie!

I don't have much time right now but I want to bring attention to this "news" story Declaration of Independence Banned at Calif School:
A California teacher has been barred by his school from giving students documents from American history that refer to God -- including the Declaration of Independence.

Steven Williams, a fifth-grade teacher at Stevens Creek School in the San Francisco Bay area suburb of Cupertino, sued for discrimination on Monday, claiming he had been singled out for censorship by principal Patricia Vidmar because he is a Christian.
Summary (inferred) - the teacher was forcing his students to listen to and read "Christian Nation" propaganda. The school asked him to stop. The teacher is suing the school with the help of a right-wing "Christian Law" organization, the Alliance Defense Fund. (Also see this.)

The school did not "ban the Declaration of Independence" -- that is just a lie. This story is like when you hear that a man was "arrested for praying" and you find out he was kneeling in the middle of a busy intersection at rush hour and refused to move.

This is the BIG STORY today, on Rush, and Drudge, and the rest of the Usual Suspects. And it is a carefully planned and carefully timed lie.

The story is timed for this afternoon so that it cannot be refuted until Monday.

It is timed to cause fights and hatred at family Thanksgiving dinners across the country.

It is part of a strategy to reinforce a "conventional wisdom" notion that "liberals" are "going too far" with their demands of separation of church and state.

People For the American Way has a web page about the Alliance Defense Fund. From PFAW:
ADF's Founders:

Bill Bright, founder of Campus Crusade for Christ

Larry Burkett, founder of Christian Financial Concepts

Rev. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family

Rev. D. James Kennedy, founder of Coral Ridge Ministries

Marlin Maddoux, President of International Christian Media

Don Wildmon, founder of American Family Association
(And 25+ other ministries)
President and General Counsel: Alan Sears
Date of founding: 1994
Finances: $15,411,093 (2001 budget)
And note this:
ADF defines itself by its ability to strategize and coordinate with lawyers all over the United States.
<. . .>
ADF also defends the right of Christians to 'share the gospel' in workplaces and public schools, claiming that any efforts to curb proselytizing at work and school are anti-Christian.
"Strategize and coordinate." Sounds like what's happening with this story, planted on Rush and Drudge, in time for the holiday. I hope that other bloggers can pick up on this. I suspect many of us are going to miss how important this is -- how big of an effect this is going to have on things we care about. This story is designed as ammunition for family conversations tomorrow.

As I write this, O'Reilly is on the air on FOX saying "Another ruling by an activist judge that puts us all in danger." That's an exact quote. It isn't about this story, but it reinforces it: Yet more "liberals' who are "going too far."

See the forest. See how this stuff works!

Update - I have a more few pre-holiday minutes to spend on this... To be clear about this story, the school said the teacher could not use handouts that included quotes from the Declaration and other documents. A San Mateo Times story (where I live) says,
"She then prevented Williams from giving students several handouts including:
- Excerpts from the Declaration of Independence with references to "God," "Creator," and "Supreme Judge."
And from the Alliance's press release,
Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund filed suit yesterday against the Cupertino Union School District for prohibiting a teacher from providing supplemental handouts to students about American history because the historical documents contain some references to God and religion.
Supplemental handouts, huh? I wonder where he got those from?

That's all this is. The rest is strategic disinformation -- agitprop.

And for the Right's spin on the story -- how's suing for saying "Merry Christmas?"

Update II - Digby's on it too. And the blogosphere is picking it up: Atrios, Daou Report. Now Blue Lemur, Liberal Oasis, Information Clearing House, First Draft, APJ, archy. We might just get the major media involved and beat this lie down before it does too much damage!

Update III Too late. Damage done. Drudge has posted the phone number of the principal of the school.

The word '"inferred" after 'Summary' has been added.

Truest comment, spotted at Blue Lemur: "2 years from now, the right-wingers will still be talking about that story like it was true."
http://seetheforest.blogspot.com/2004_11_01_seetheforest_archive.html#110134337110716232

the guy teaches classes on holidays from other religions and that's OK, but gets smacked for teaching classes about Christian holidays?

It should be all or nothing. Either teaching classes about religious holidays is OK or it isn't. The religion shouldn't make a difference.

because it sounds like you didn't even begin to read the story . . .

that's on Smoking Gun.

and moved to California.

The U.S. Was founded on christian principles need to read.

http://earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html


Most of the founding fathers were not christians or even practicing christians. They were products of the enlightenment and mostly diests.

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

we will lose every election, we need to be attacking those who pervert religion.

The language in the DoI is a member of a genre of texts used to assert the independence of subjects from royalty. Religious imagery was a characteristic of teh genre. Just because Jefferson employed the "Creator" as a rhetorical device, doesn't prove the country was founded on xian principles.

For an excellent treatment of the subject, those of you with acess to University library databases should be able to find:

Title: Rhetorical Ancestry of the Declaration of Independence.
Authors: Lucas, Stephen E.
Source: Rhetoric & Public Affairs; Summer 1998, Vol. 1, Issue 2, p.143

and language of the time to use words like "the almighty", etc--and that to look at it through 21st century lenses is incorrect. We say "bless you" when someone sneezes out of convention, but do we mean it literally, and do only Christians say it?

Wow. This must be the section he wants. I wonder how the majority asian parent population feels about this monkey business. Cupertino isn't exactly bible belt.
------
http://www.constitution.org/bcp/right_col.htm

II. The Rights of the Colonists as Christians.

These may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament.

<420> By the act of the British Parliament, commonly called the Toleration Act, every subject in England, except Papists, &c., was restored to, and re-established in, his natural right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. And, by the charter of this Province, it is granted, ordained, and established (that is, declared as an original right) that there shall be liberty of conscience allowed in the worship of God to all Christians, except Papists, inhabiting, or which shall inhabit or be resident within, such Province or Territory. Magna Charta itself is in substance but a constrained declaration or proclamation and promulgation in the name of the King, Lords, and Commons, of the sense the latter had of their original, inherent, indefeasible natural rights, as also those of free citizens equally perdurable with the other. That great author, that great jurist, and even that court writer, Mr. Justice Blackstone, holds that this recognition was justly obtained of King John, sword in hand. And peradventure it must be one day, sword in hand, again rescued and preserved from total destruction and oblivion.

Cuz that was one of the main "religions" of founders such as Washington.