Declaration of Indepedence banned from Schools?!

flycatcher · Post by **flycatcher** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 10:21 pm

Well this is taking things a little too far. I believe strongly in the seperation of church and state, but this is just ridiculous.

http://www.reuters.com/printerFriendlyP ... ID=6911883

setaside · Post by **setaside** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 10:22 pm

You probably won't find anybody on this board that disagrees with your assumption.

Mr. Fed · Post by **Mr. Fed** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 10:27 pm

Here is the teacher's complaint from the Smoking Gun: here.

Color me a bit suspicious. Read the complaint. My gut tells me that the guy's protests that he is not proselytizing are bogus. Look, particularly, at paragraph 40 of the complaint. We don't know which excerpts of documents he chose to present to the class -- if he was making it a point to choose the religious references, that's something very different than just banning the entire document because it happens to mention God.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 11:57 pm

Mr. Fed wrote:Here is the teacher's complaint from the Smoking Gun: here.

Color me a bit suspicious. Read the complaint. My gut tells me that the guy's protests that he is not proselytizing are bogus. Look, particularly, at paragraph 40 of the complaint. We don't know which excerpts of documents he chose to present to the class -- if he was making it a point to choose the religious references, that's something very different than just banning the entire document because it happens to mention God.

Funny why focus on paragraph and ignore paragraphs 41 (describes his purpose for the documents in paragraph 40), 43 (shows only about 5% of his annual supplemental materials mention God") and 44 (says that he taught about Christian and non-Christian religious holidays for two straight years).

Grifman

Padre · Post by **Padre** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 12:37 am

The Smoking Gun's copy of the complaint is illuminating.

Reading through it, I'd say the principal has been scared into ruthlessly excising all mention of God by a parental complaint (paragraphs 36-37).

Th teacher does seem to want to talk about God a lot in his classes, but I simply don't know enough about the context in which he was teaching to be able tosay whether what he was doing constituted an endorsement, per se.

On the whole though, the case against the teacher seems marginal at best, and those concerned about the seperation of church and state, or keeping religious indoctrination out of public schools, have far more pressing concerns to worry about (see the Creationism in the Classroom thread).

Poleaxe · Post by **Poleaxe** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 12:44 am

Mr. Fed wrote:Here is the teacher's complaint from the Smoking Gun: here.

Color me a bit suspicious. Read the complaint. My gut tells me that the guy's protests that he is not proselytizing are bogus. Look, particularly, at paragraph 40 of the complaint. We don't know which excerpts of documents he chose to present to the class -- if he was making it a point to choose the religious references, that's something very different than just banning the entire document because it happens to mention God.

Say I agree with you. Isn't making the point that many of the founding fathers were devout christians a valid historical presentation? Can he be accused of proselytizing because he makes this point? I would think that the faith of the founding fathers is germaine to any discussion of their intent.

WAW · Post by **WAW** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 1:03 am

Summary - 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.)

This from Steve Gilliard's News Blog .I agree with him this was releashed today so it would have the long weekend to brew till all the facts come out.

Padre · Post by **Padre** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 1:18 am

Erm, the blog guy doesn't seem to source his allegation that the teacher was distributing propaganda at all.

A source would be good. Let's see exactly WHAT was being distributed here, and in what context.

Poleaxe · Post by **Poleaxe** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 1:45 am

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."

Hmmm... the DoI, Washington, John Adams, and Wm. Penn --- propaganda?

WAW · Post by **WAW** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 1:52 am

The lawsuit alleges the school's principal Patricia Vidmar required Williams to submit his lesson plans and the supplemental handouts he planned to use in his classroom for review.

She then prevented Williams from giving students several handouts including:

- Excerpts from the Declaration of Independence with references to ``God,'' ``Creator,'' and ``Supreme Judge

Here's as close to the source as I can come. Once we get a look at the 'supplementals' he's handing out we'll know who should have their panties in a bunch.

Poleaxe · Post by **Poleaxe** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 2:04 am

The state's fifth-grade social studies standards include learning about the religious, economic, social and cultural origins of the United States.

From your link, emphasis mine.

Padre · Post by **Padre** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 2:23 am

Still nothing to justify the propaganda claim, unless the Declaration of Independence is propaganda now.

I'll be interested to see how the principal defends his actions - whether there's something specific about what was writtwen in his handouts, or whether he felt there was just an overall God-heavy bias, or what...

geezer · Post by **geezer** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 2:47 am

Poleaxe wrote:
The state's fifth-grade social studies standards include learning about the religious, economic, social and cultural origins of the United States.

From your link, emphasis mine.

FWIW, if one is being accurate, teaching about the religious background of the nation is far from teaching that the United States was founded as a "Christian Nation."

I'll withhold judgment, because I really have no idea if this person was teaching about the various religious aspects of the society and peoples that created the nation, or if he was selectively pulling passages to create a misleading argument about the intents of the founders.

IMHO, one is perfectly acceptable, whereas the other is just poor scholarship and has no place in the classroom as a simple matter of fact.

Mr. Fed · Post by **Mr. Fed** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 2:00 pm

There's a difference between presenting historical material that includes references to religion and deliberately emphasizing portions of historical material that include references to religion. If he's basically cherry-picking all the religious references and presenting that to the kids, I begin to suspect he has an agenda. But I'm merely suspicious, not convinced; I'd want to see the materials and the context.

dbt1949 · Post by **dbt1949** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 2:14 pm

Gebeker · Post by **Gebeker** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 9:52 am

Mr. Fed wrote:There's a difference between presenting historical material that includes references to religion and deliberately emphasizing portions of historical material that include references to religion. If he's basically cherry-picking all the religious references and presenting that to the kids, I begin to suspect he has an agenda. But I'm merely suspicious, not convinced; I'd want to see the materials and the context.

I agree, that's the right way to look at it.

In my view, the fact that many of our founding fathers were Christians is important and relevant, but it's a terrible idea to go from that to the conclusion that they saw the US as a Christian nation. From what I've read, they were deeply suspicious of allowing government to become a vehicle for promoting a particular religion or denomination (and rightfully so). Someone can deeply hold to a particular set of beliefs without wanting to use government to promote those beliefs, and I think that's a fair description of many of our founding fathers.

Of course, as you know, the question of what consititues "promoting religion" is a tough one. And, that's why it pays to read some of the relevant court opinions before dismissing the modern concept of separation of church and state as the work of "those damn liberals".

Since you're around in this thread, do you have a few good links that explain the basis of the current legal view regarding separation of church and state? I vaguely remember a few links you posted on Gone Gold a long time ago on this subject, and I stupidly failed to bookmark them.

Montag · Post by **Montag** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 8:12 pm

Poleaxe wrote:
The state's fifth-grade social studies standards include learning about the religious, economic, social and cultural origins of the United States.

From your link, emphasis mine.

Even in the most sterile, athesistic view, part of the orginal settling of the nation was to escape religious persecution. This topic should be included, but it certainly is a mess to deal with.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 12:30 pm

Gebeker wrote:In my view, the fact that many of our founding fathers were Christians is important and relevant, but it's a terrible idea to go from that to the conclusion that they saw the US as a Christian nation.

I think you are reading back into the late 18th century the current POV and failing to consider the milieu in which the Founders lived. It is quite apparent that they did NOT want a state church. But it is also pretty obvious that they thought of the US as a "Christian" nation. While there was no religious test for national office, go back and look at the early state constitutions - a number of those did have religious requirements, requiring belief in God, Jesus, the Trinity, etc.

They lived and operated in an almost totally Chrisitian environment/world view. There were no other signficant religions in the colonies - the Jewish population was extremely low, and even Deism of the current day intellectuals was an offshoot of Christianity. The Founders had no idea that 200+ years later there would be millions of Buddhists, Hindus or Muslims living in the US.

That said, I don't think they saw the US as a "Christian" nation by legislation or laws, but because the vast majority of the US population was Christian. One can only guess what they would think today of the many changes in the country since then, religious or otherwise.

Grifman

Tareeq · Post by **Tareeq** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 3:35 pm

Grifman wrote:Grifman

Do you type Grifman at the end of every post? Why not make it a signature file?

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 2:19 pm

Turns out - surprise! - that there was a little more to this story than "Declaration of Independence banned!!!!1!1"

According to Media Matters, the teacher involved had this to say on Hannity & Colmes:

Cupertino, Calif. teacher Stephen J. Williams, who filed a lawsuit challenging Stevens Creek Elementary School's decision to prohibit his supplemental teaching materials -- which related to the importance of Christian faith in American history and included excerpts from the Declaration of Independence -- admitted that his students had "read the Declaration, so that's a little bit of a stretch" to claim that "the Declaration was banned." Williams's comment came during the December 8 edition of FOX News' Hannity & Colmes, which was broadcast live from Cupertino

Of course, Hannity is never one to let pesky facts stand in the way of a good rant:

Nevertheless, Sean Hannity continued to falsely suggest that the school had banned the Declaration because it made reference to God.

Hannity's comments mark the eighth time that the Cupertino case has been falsely reported on FOX News primetime programs; there have also been numerous incorrect reports during FOX News daytime programming, as well as on FOX Broadcasting Network's FOX News Sunday. In fact, as Media Matters for America previously noted, the Declaration of Independence is featured in textbooks used throughout the Cupertino Union School District and is displayed in some buildings.

HANNITY: [T]here seems to be a total and complete intolerance [on the part of liberals] to the foundation of this country and the principles that we hold dear. And the fact of the matter is America was founded by a very deeply religious people. ...The majority of Americans ... don't mind the real Declaration of Independence being used in schools.

[...]

HANNITY: [W]e have gotten to the point where we don't even allow our kids to read real historical documents. ... Can we read in Cupertino? Can we read in Cupertino, to give our kids the Declaration of Independence anymore?

[...]

HANNITY: It's [religion] divisive only if you try and say we can't use a founding document in front of our kids.

SuperHiro · Post by **SuperHiro** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 2:50 pm

Ahhhh yes, Hannity.

Everytime I write an "ASK SUPERHIRO!" he's always on top of the list of potential guest celebrities. There's just so much I can do with a right-wing-kool-aid-drinking self-righteous bloward like him. But the problem would be that the resulting column would be way too mean-spirited. I'll admit it, I would try to provoke the conservatives to anger. Poke poke poke. Haha Sean Hannity likes S&M and is a Furry. He also has father issues and lost his virginity to his cousin... although if we're counting certain acts as "sexual intercourse" then his dog would probably count. Oh god you guys have no idea the article I had planned for Hannity/Santorum/Limbaugh/Savage.

But then I realized that it wouldn't be funny (at least to me). I'm not trying to be funny, I'm trying to be slanderous and mean. The article would become an instrument of hate. I'd become like Ann Coulter. I'd be no better than Hannity himself. So I avoid the politicians I hate all together (except for Tom Delay... the 'theme' I have for him just can't fit anyone else). So I just stick with b-level celebrities and "Where Are They Now?" Candidates.

AttAdude · Post by **AttAdude** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 2:51 pm

I suppose it really depends on how the teacher is presending the material. I mean there is no way you can teach american history with out the Declaration of Independance. To ban this document because of its use of the word god, is to belittle our history. For better or worse, this country was founded in part on god, and so that must be part of the discussion, if one wants to talk about our history as a nation. OF course thats only if the religion part is kept neutral.

Now if the teacher is twisting this around as either a mark for or against god, then im pissed. However its not the document that needs to change or be banned its the teacher.

The Preacher · Post by **The Preacher** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 2:55 pm

Exodor wrote:Of course, Hannity is never one to let pesky facts stand in the way of a good rant:

I'm honestly curious why anyone cares what Hannity says, present company included. He's a mouthpiece that is going to toe the party line. So he stays with the side of the story that fits his agenda? Shocking. Next thing you know, we'll find out that Michael Moore is dogmatic.

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 2:57 pm

The Preacher wrote: I'm honestly curious why anyone cares what Hannity says, present company included. He's a mouthpiece that is going to toe the party line. So he stays with the side of the story that fits his agenda? Shocking. Next thing you know, we'll find out that Michael Moore is dogmatic.

I care because millions of his listeners take his every word as gospel and repeat it as fact.

It's one thing to toe the party line - it's quite another to simply ignore the facts and slant a story in an effort to smear those with whom you disagree.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 4:56 pm

Exodor wrote:
The Preacher wrote: I'm honestly curious why anyone cares what Hannity says, present company included. He's a mouthpiece that is going to toe the party line. So he stays with the side of the story that fits his agenda? Shocking. Next thing you know, we'll find out that Michael Moore is dogmatic.
I care because millions of his listeners take his every word as gospel and repeat it as fact.

It's one thing to toe the party line - it's quite another to simply ignore the facts and slant a story in an effort to smear those with whom you disagree.

Hence the Michael Moore comparison....

Poleaxe · Post by **Poleaxe** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 6:05 pm

noxiousdog wrote:
Exodor wrote:
The Preacher wrote: I'm honestly curious why anyone cares what Hannity says, present company included. He's a mouthpiece that is going to toe the party line. So he stays with the side of the story that fits his agenda? Shocking. Next thing you know, we'll find out that Michael Moore is dogmatic.
I care because millions of his listeners take his every word as gospel and repeat it as fact.

It's one thing to toe the party line - it's quite another to simply ignore the facts and slant a story in an effort to smear those with whom you disagree.
Hence the Michael Moore comparison....

flycatcher · Post by **flycatcher** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 8:36 pm

after hearing all the facts for this story, it appeared the teacher was just slanting historical documents to fit his religious agenda, so not letting him do that is a good thing.

Poleaxe · Post by **Poleaxe** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:24 pm

flycatcher wrote:after hearing all the facts for this story, it appeared the teacher was just slanting historical documents to fit his religious agenda, so not letting him do that is a good thing.

Hannity (who isn't very bright) notwithstanding, I tend to disagree with your conclusion. If the course is designed in part to examine religious motivations as the link above indicates, then shouldn't those motivations actually be examined?

flycatcher · Post by **flycatcher** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:42 am

Poleaxe wrote:
flycatcher wrote:after hearing all the facts for this story, it appeared the teacher was just slanting historical documents to fit his religious agenda, so not letting him do that is a good thing.
Hannity (who isn't very bright) notwithstanding, I tend to disagree with your conclusion. If the course is designed in part to examine religious motivations as the link above indicates, then shouldn't those motivations actually be examined?

Actually all the founding fathers were anti-Christian:

I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.
Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man."

Thomas Jefferson

"[E]ven if God himself had tried to tell us that three was one . . . and one equals three, you and I would never have believed it. We would never fall victims to such lies." - John Adams

The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity." - John Adams

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." - James Madison

The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion." - Thomas Paine

As to Jesus of Nazareth...I think the system of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity."
- Ben Franklin

"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies." - Ben Franklin

The point i'm trying to make is i could make just as strong an arguement that the founding fathers are not Christians, by cutting out phrases and quotes from documents, which seems to be what this guy was doing. If you 're going to study the role faith had with the founding fathers you should read about each of the founding fathers, and read about how each struggled with faith and religion and how the reconciled thier faiths with thier political ideals and with thier life in general.

Poleaxe · Post by **Poleaxe** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:07 am

flycatcher wrote:
The point i'm trying to make is i could make just as strong an arguement that the founding fathers are not Christians, by cutting out phrases and quotes from documents, which seems to be what this guy was doing. If you 're going to study the role faith had with the founding fathers you should read about each of the founding fathers, and read about how each struggled with faith and religion and how the reconciled thier faiths with thier political ideals and with thier life in general.

Sure, but this is fifth grade social studies with limited time and ten year old students. How does he teach that christianity was a significant motivating factor for many of those who were instrumental in forming the country without presenting materials that illustrate? I agree that context is important, yet I have seen nothing that indicates that the materials were out of context.

Also, it should be remembered that our founding fathers are not limited to Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin and they themselves, as well as all the rest, were represenitives of their communities. Our country was not formed by fiat, but by democratic process. It would be foolhardy and dishonest to ignore the very real influence of christianity in the politics of the colonies, especially in the northeast. Heck, some of those who signed the DoI and ratified the constitution were actually ministers.

flycatcher · Post by **flycatcher** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:19 am

Poleaxe wrote:
flycatcher wrote:
The point i'm trying to make is i could make just as strong an arguement that the founding fathers are not Christians, by cutting out phrases and quotes from documents, which seems to be what this guy was doing. If you 're going to study the role faith had with the founding fathers you should read about each of the founding fathers, and read about how each struggled with faith and religion and how the reconciled thier faiths with thier political ideals and with thier life in general.
Sure, but this is fifth grade social studies with limited time and ten year old students. How does he teach that christianity was a significant motivating factor for many of those who were instrumental in forming the country without presenting materials that illustrate? I agree that context is important, yet I have seen nothing that indicates that the materials were out of context.

Also, it should be remembered that our founding fathers are not limited to Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin and they themselves, as well as all the rest, were represenitives of their communities. Our country was not formed by fiat, but by democratic process. It would be foolhardy and dishonest to ignore the very real influence of christianity in the politics of the colonies, especially in the northeast. Heck, some of those who signed the DoI and ratified the constitution were actually ministers.

Well, with 5th graders maybe this topic should be glossed over, and say that this country was founded by people escaping religious persecution. When kids are highschool and they are more capable of understanding it then you should maybe go more in depth about the role religion and faith or lack thereof helped form and shape the laws we have today. True there are other founding fathers, but it was Jefferson with some help from Franklin who wrote the DoI, and Madsion was the major influencing force on how the constitution was worded. Which was why i picked some quotes from them.