So do you care about free speech?
 

http://www.reuters.com/printerFriend...toryID=6911883

I'm surprised no one else seemed to pick up on this. The very documents of our nations founding are being modified or banned to fit PC correctness in schools and no one thought it was worth talking about? Some of you wonder why Christians are feeling threatened in this country, well this is a prime example of why.

This is a prime example of how liberal PCness is out of control. And as you all know this isn't the first time something like this has happened. A story like this breaks every week.

I always thought the seperation of church and state was to protect the citizens from being forced to adhere to a certain religion. Mentioning God and teaching history doesn't force anyone to worship a certain way. Is anyone suprised this came out of a blue state?

Yes, this goes way overboard. I hope the principal gets his/her just dessert. There is nothing wrong with (objectively) studying documents that make reference to god or Christianity in the name of understanding history. I don't like the pledge being recited in public schools, but this is a different matter.

This is a prime example of total distortion.

The DoI was not banned. The teacher was prohibitted from handing out Christian pamphlets that mentioned the DoI.

Direct quotes from a PR from the foundation bringing the lawsuit:
And note, the Alliance Defense Fund is a Fundy organization.

ADF's founders:

- Bill Bright, founder of Campus Crusade for Christ

- Larry Burkett, founder of Christian Financial Concepts

- Radical Reverand James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family

- Radical Reverand 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)

No actually. This is a prime example of how some Christians' manipulation of the media is threatening this country's access to accurate information.

And we're all threatened by it.

didn't read what i wrote, sorry, edited otu

Fortunately, that is not at all what happened.

Manx,

When you read the complaint, which includes a statement of facts from the plaintiff, it's pretty apparent there is more to the story.

For example, by plaintiff's own admission of fact, the principle suggested alternative handouts that also mentioned god in place of the ones he desired to use.

I interpret that to mean her objection wasn't to the specific reference, but something else we aren't yet privvy to because we don't have the response.

He also alleged that the principle confronted him in the beginning of the school year about concerns over him proseletyzing students.

He admits that parents complained about his supplemental handouts.

His final statement of fact is odd, to say the least: "This nation is founded on Judeo-Christian heritage."

Whether that is true or not is not my point, but rather it indicates where he is operating. Namely, it isn't relevant to his complaint, yet he still feels compelled to assert it as the final word of his complaint.

Just think how they would choke on this one....

Smooth -

Nevermind. I misunderstood your post.

You truly have a gift for ignoring posts which effectively refute your point.

Actually Manx, I just tend to ignore your posts. So many liberals, so little time.

That explains why you've shown no ability to learn anything.

Except of course, you're lying.

As seen on a blog somewhere:

How do you think God feels about this?

It'll all be moot when us Liberals ban the bible. Didn't you get the memo? We're in it with the Homosexuals. Vive le France!

My grandfather used to say the worst thing to happen to America was pluralism.

/sarcasm

I don't have a problem with God in politics. Many a great politician had roots in religion, yes, even the Founding Fathers. :rolleyes:

However, our government is supposed to represent all of society not just the part of it that goes to church on Sundays to read the Good Book. Your god is supposed to be accorded equal time not the only seat at the table.

All that being said, this is stupid on a large scale from both sides of the issue. I very seriously doubt the principal was singling him out just because he's a Christian. For that matter, aren't you reaching a bit to play the persecution card in this day and age?

She was doing what folks in her position have to do and that is protect her ass. PC gone awry, indeed. It wouldn't have mattered what decision she was to make about this particular issue. It was bound to cause a stink either way.

I also doubt that Mr. Williams is as innocent as his lawyer is trying to make him out to be. Like smooth pointed out there seems to be much more to this story than has been released. If that's the case isn't a bit early to start taking sides and digging trenches?

Freedom of speech is not the issue.

No one is denying this guys right to be a Christian, or to preach his beliefs.

What they are saying is that it is wrong to abuse his position as a teacher of young children to try and force his religious beliefs on them. It is right that children are protected in this way, and are allowed to find their God in their own way, not undergo religious indoctrination at school.

I cannot make any informed decision regarding this without seeing at least a few of the reference materials in question.

Given the way California operates, it could very well be that the materials are benign.

Given the way some of the Christian right operate, they could very well be proselytizing.

Putting aside the religion and state issue for a moment, that is quite an eloquent passage.

Ustwo, you are so busted.

No kidding. From the San Diego Union:

This would make me feel all warm and snuggly if an atheist hadn't been suing for ten or fifteen years to have a Christian Korean War memorial on city property torn down. He even sued when it was sold to a private group, because it was still visible.

But for those on this board who still despise references to God, I will make a sacrifice. You may mail me all your currency.

All of it is enscribed with "In God We Trust."

Amen.

Without that knowledge, anything said is speculation. Ustwo...since you do in fact care deeply about freedom of expression...Go FOIA the lawsuit, or otherwise find 'em for us.

thanks!

I think God feels quite spunky these days,..y'know with all this celebrity afforded to him,..something like a rockstar. Bet God has his head in the clouds because of it.

I feel so terrible that my first reaction to that was "passive ghazi, one banner at a time".

I need to stop listening to my father,

Yes I have to agree with you on this. If this is just a play of some Christian group, then they need a smacking, but the way things have been going its not the sort of thing you can dismiss easily either.

If this is not simply some play of some Christian group, if I were the Christian group, I would not put out a press release that heavily reinforces the probability that this is nothing but some play of some Christian group.

There are two conflicting statutes at play - the separation of church and state, and the freedom of speech. However, since the separation of church and state's juristiction is more accute, it is defaulted. This is taking place in a public school. The fear is that the teacher is in fact proselytizing. Given that the source is true, (who knows) you cannot blame either side for their opinions because they both have valid points. However, since the right thing to do would be to err on the side of caution, the school wins out. Please, think of the children.

Nah. I could imagine either side, given the limited information we have, believing that they are in fact "erring on the side of caution" and "thinking of the children". If the situation is exactly as the plaintiffs have implied and the references to God were all historical, then this is not even a matter of separation of church and state. I would fail to see how censoring religious aspects of history is good for the students, any more than banning Nietzsche or Sartre.

Manx, you presented a very real possibility of the reverse being true, but that's it. As it's been said, information about the reference materials is needed to make any meaningful conclusion about this case.

It's possible for far-right quasi-fascist Christian groups (if that's what we're talking about here) to do good things.

I presented nothing but the precise words of the organization bringing the lawsuit.

If that comes across as the reverse, that seems very telling to me.

One more reason not to send your children to school. (I'm not religious, btw)

What you did was show that the wording used by the plaintiffs is consistent with an opposing views of the case. Not that it was inconsistent with Ustwo's interpretation of the wording.

Also, do you have a source for your claim that the pamphlets were Christian? That's the crucial point here: what was in the pamphlets? What was the context?

I read the actual complaint.

The portions of my post I stated as factual are contained within the "Statement of Fact" portion of the complaint filed by the plaintiff with the court.

I don't think this has anything to do with the separation of church and state. It's a history lesson - you can't change history just because you don't like the religious beliefs of the people involved.

The Declaration of Independence is a major part of American history and should not be discarded from the curriculum just because it was written by a Christian. Sometimes simple common sense should be employed rather than hand-wringing "political correctness."

Although it sounds as though we haven't heard the full story anyway, so I don't really know why I'm commenting.

This would be more amusing if it weren't true.

Not quite. What I did was show that a headline of "Declaration of Independence banned in Calif School" is not even what the people bringing the lawsuit have claimed in their own PR. And there has been no claim by any party involved that "the very documents of our nations founding are being modified or banned to fit PC correctness in schools", as Ustwo so blithely mentioned.

Is not fact. It's what one side claims to be fact. Again...we really need to see the documents in question and see if they were appropriate for use in schools.

The US History books at my high School and Middle School have 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." In fact it has the entire Declaration of Independence, the constitution, and the document forming the confederation (pre-constatution). I know the high school book is used in as liberal places as MA and as conservative as Texas

Whoops. I stand corrected on that point.

This is such a ploy by the right wingers. It's sick, really. Obviously we aren't able to see all of the relevant information but it appears that this teacher is using excerpts from historical documents to recruit future Christian warriors.

I think there is a whole lot more to the story. Maybe it's the paranoid person in me but the way I see it:

1) Radical Christian groups have two messages to spread: (a) God is Great and (b) Liberals (especially in Ca) are trying to take God away from us.

2) A plan is hatched. Collect and cite historical documents that refer to God and distribute them to kids. Make it contain enough history so that it appears to have historical significance. This will show that these people who are refered to as "founding fathers" were also men of God. Conveniently leave out the facts that although many of them were religious, they also believed in keeping God out of government.

3) Sit back and wait for the schools to take action against it when they see the obvious endorsement of religion masked as history. When the school takes action, you can file a lawsuit and get some columnist to write an article about how the California Liberals are trying to take God away from you. He'll have a catchy slogan like "Declaration of Independence Banned at Calif School"

4) After the story breaks right wing talk show hosts and message board trolls will rant on and on with rhetoric about how the Liberals only talk about free speech. They will gloss over the fact that pamphlets were banned, not the actual documents.

I'm convinced that the goal from the start was to entice the school to ban it so that they could end up in court and make the news. Radical Christians have their smear campaigns working at full steam right now.

They cannot say that because the parties involved can't. However, the media can call it whatever they want. As long as you spin it as the DoI was banned people will believe it.

The article in question buries the fact that it was excerpts from these documents used to persuade young people that were banned, not the documents themselves. It's in the 8th paragraph. In print media that is on the continuing page. Most people read the headline and the first couple of paragraphs. Here is the article again (with comments in italics):

Bingo......

*Standing ovation for kutulu*
If any one does not belive that right wing distortion is at work you should go see what is avaliable at your local schools and librarys or how about gov't run and funded web sites such as The Library of Congress (www.loc.gov). And if you read the Declaration of Independence you will see that they place god after nature and possessed (nature's god) by nature.

Ahh yes, let us bow before the great goddess. May she bless us and keep. Gaia.

how bout just saying: one nation, indivisible. period.
God, Allah, Buddah, Jehovah, Hari Krisna, Hailie Selassie, Lucifer, Elvis......
Just too many names for the kids to remember.

hey pedro, that's the way it was before about 1948 when the nice people of america wanted to differentiate themselves from the godless communists...

listen to porky pig recite the pledge in one of the old cartoons, "one nation, indi..indi...indi...indivisible..."

yeah, What kind of proof is there that all of the founding fathers were strictly christian? I was always under the impression that they were really Deists. If this is true it is even more offensive that the right wing is trying to re-write history to suit their needs.

Some were Deists, some were Christian, most were Masons.

I don't see any distortion of this "Right wing conspiracy to re-write history".

Just about every important figure in American history, held God and what he respented for the country and to the people in the highest regard. They would turn in their graves if they knew the filth that was being spewed by the Christophobes of today.

Don't be such a christaphobaphobe;). I somehow doubt your ability to correctly predict who would turn in their grave over what, maybe that's just the skeptic in me. I myself think that many of the ff's would turn a bit at the idea that we mention god in the pledge of allegiance, and on our money, but that's just me.

I agree completely. If the FF's had had any desire to have this country base its laws on religion, they would have expressly put that into the documents which they wrote to define this country.

The nonsensical claim that the Constitution is based on the principles of Christianity (or any religion or sect of a religion) is to claim that the desire for freedom and a lack of tyranny is specific to Christianity (or any religion or sect of religion). Absurd.

You're right, it's based off of the concepts of justice as passed down by the great philosophy known atheism.

Well, greek orgyists, Native American pagans, and French secularists, to be more precise--but you almost got there with your own humanist reasoning.

The documents which founded this country are agnostic, not atheistic.

The idea that morals can only come from christianity, or even that christianity is the root of morality for all christians is flawed. There are amoral christians, just as there are moral atheists. Being a christian doesn't not mean the same thing as being moral. I would argue that the morality that you seem to attribute solely to christianity has more of a coincidental relationship with christianity than a direct correlation.

Well logic tells you that but every time I get into this conversation with a fundie they tell me that the Bible is the only way to tell that murder is wrong. They somehow forget that every other culture on the planet came to the same conclusion WITHOUT the Bible.

The modern philosophy of justice and morals, stemming from Western Civilization are Christian ideal's. If you think otherwise, you are just willingly ignoring reality, there is no two ways about it.

That having been said, I agree with you Filth. Being Christian doesn't make you moral, it's something you have to work at, and I think ever good and decent Christian realizes this.

And I'm not limiting morality solely to Christianity, just in the context of western civilization.

You are not correct.

I know the ff's were largely christian. My problem, in a nutshell, is that the christianity that people talk about when they talk about america is an idealized, innaccurate snowglobe version of christianity. First of all, christianity is not as simple as the word "christianity" would imply. There are enough different valid christian faiths so as to render the word in this context effectively useless in terms of actually conveying anything meaningful. Is amerca baptist? Fundamentalist? Evangelist? UCC? Unitarian?

Speaking specifically of the founding fathers, there were "28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 unknown, and only 3 deists". (http://www.str.org/free/commentaries...s/faithofo.htm) Which denomination gets the credit? Certainly they were all christian, but given the myriad different conflicting beliefs that all qualify as christian practically the only common bond among all christians is a belief in the existence of a really important guy named jesus. How would the other denominations feel if instead of saying that this country was built on christianity, we were instead taught that this country was built on the ideas of episcopalianism? I guarantee you that all of the squeeky wheel denominations would scream bloody murder, despite the fact that as far as you want to stretch it such curriculum would be historically accurate.

I think one of the main problems i have is based on my suspicion that many of the loudest christian nationers don't want an accurate portrayal of our nation's history, they just want history to validate their religion. The problem with this is that our nation isn't supposed to be a christian nation. It is supposed to be secular. I'm all for the teaching of our history accurately, but christianity is not the focus of our history. There is a problem when teaching the history of our nation becomes an opportunity to proselytize. This country was set up in a way so as to be inclusive of all religion. The only circumstances under which i would support the explicit mention of christianity as a cornerstone of western philosphy would be if they mentioned it in terms of manifest destiny, labor struggles, slavery, and any other shiner on the face of american history as well as in the context of liberty and justice for all. That is to say, if the morals and philosphies of christians were portrayed as they actually are, not as "Christianity is responsible for everything that is good about america".

This country was fostered by cafeteria catholics.

But let me ask you a legitimate question.

Can you in anyway see why "christians" feel attacked? You don't think some of the politcal correctness and trying not to offend people has gone to far?

I'm Christian, and i'm rather unsure of why you're saying that. First of all, there's no mention of the revelations of God made to the Hebrews. That's enough to send my eyes rolling.

Secondly, there's no reference to greek and roman sources.

Lastly, there's no discussion of the way in which Christianity is not contained by or limited by the modern notion of justice. Frankly, the justice of God is rather outside humankind's practice... Therefore, to hold up the religion of Christianity (and i say religion in a pejorative Barth-ian sense of the word) as a source of justice is nothing more than rank idolatry.

I think that christians, in their confrontation with p.c. attitudes, have ironically become overly sensitive themselves. Do you, as a christian, honestly feel threatened by political correctness? You do realize that the vast majority of this country belives in jesus, right? How is christianity threatened in the least bit?

I feel threatened when you have people in the ACLU targetting buildings that are decades old because they have a crosses engraved in the stone work. When the ACLU targets city crests because they have a cross on them. Yes lets physical remove a cross from the city symbol in California, not like the state has strong historical ties to Christian missionaries. I wonder how long until Los Angeles has to change it's name.

http://www.family.org/cforum/citizenmag/departments/a0033069.cfm

I feel threatened when in Public schools it's ok to put up the crescent star for ramadan, the menorah for Hannakuh, but it's somehow offensive to put up a manger scene, if not for the very fact that it solely targets Christianity. This was the case in New York last year, I doubt it has changed.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=36118

God forbid we recite the Pledge which mentions God.

Christianity is getting targetted because it's the majority. The left in this country is doing everything to discredit it and remove it from public, where Christianity has been for centuries without problem.

I think its ridiculous too. However, i'd hypothetically bet large sums of money that for every person who is uncomfortable seeing a cross on public property there is a christian person who thinks seeing a cross on public property is only appropriate because america is god's country. Both perspectives are problematic for what should be obvious reasons.

I still don't know why you're threatened. Christianity still is the majority religion, and if america truly is a christian nation, your god will see to it that it stays that way. btw, i agree that it's a little hypocritical to only exclude christian propoganda from holiday festivities.


[quote/]God forbid we recite the Pledge which mentions God.

Christianity is getting targetted because it's the majority. The left in this country is doing everything to discredit it and remove it from public, where Christianity has been for centuries without problem.[/QUOTE]

It is true that public displays of religion have gone largely unchallenged for a long time, but things are changing. Just like they always have. It's not just the left. There are differences between fiscal conservatives and social conservatives. If you really lack the security in your personal faith to feel threatened by the lawful actions of your countrymen then perhaps you need to go to church more.

In any case, if you really do feel threatened as part of a mainstream religion whose membership is in the hundreds of millions, than can you imagine how threatened you'd feel if you and your fellow worshippers were in the minority?

I'm not threatened or insecure in my beliefs, I respect other people's right to believe what they want. I just honestly think that the first amendment is being wrongfully interpreted and implemented, it's unlawful.

Why should a majority be complecent, to a loud vocal minority, a very very small minority at that?

Again for me, I'm not insecure. You might be surprised that although I am Catholic, I am a poor one. I see and recognize that catholicism and christianity alike have flaws, they always have and always will. But it's an issue of family. I can rip on my family all I want, but if someone outside the family starts causing problems that's when I have issues.

Well, if it is a court doing the interpretation, then it is by definition lawful. To be honest with you, i think the only christians who are bothered by things like this are themselves a loud vocal minority with christianity as a whole. I think the majority of christians consider this either to be unimportant or a complete nonissue.

It's not political correctness anymore. Once Chrisitian ideals become the policy of government, as they have been, it is a form of discrimination against the minority non-Christian populace. It takes a concerted effort to eliminate that influence - a concerted effort that may include the removal of Christian symbolism from government buildings. If you tried to tell me that a Judge's attempts at getting the 10 Commandments installed in a State or Federal building had nothing to do with a Christian influence in the Judicial branch, I wouldn't believe you.

It would only be political "correctness" if there was not actually a problem with the strong display of Christian influence on government policy. Unfortunately, that is not the direction this country is going.

God Bless The ACLU.

I don't respect the bench over in the 9th circuit, the very fact that nearly 3/4's of all of it's decisions are overturned should really bring into question all of these landmark Christian-1st amendment decisions.

if the system is correcting the excesses of the 9th circuit, why are you so concerned?

Like martinguerre said, it also seems to imply that our little system of checks and balances works, which in turn seems to imply that all these "threatened" christians complaining about minority on christian oppression are perhaps making a pillar of salt out of an anthill.

Since you feel so threatened, perhaps you could give me your doomsday scenario for the downfall of christianity due to the lack of its symbolic presence on public property. I'm only half joking. You say you feel threatened, but in order for your fear to be justified, you have to be facing some sort of credible threat. How is the absence publicly funded christian paraphernelia and symbolism threaten you as a christian? After you answer this, tell me how it is that so many christians aren't threatened by such things and what the difference between you and them is.

Well I could go into it, but we fundamentally disagree. You think Christianity has no revelence in the context of our history, nor do you feel that it had any bearing on our foundation. So really there is nothing to discuss.

How is there nothing to dicuss? I think christianity is relevant, just not in terms of morality or criminal justice philosophy. I think you're just saying that because you don't really have any valid reasons to feel that your religion is threatened.

Regarding the 9th circuit, it shows judicial activism, they are no longer interpreting the law they are making policy. It makes me uneasy, even if they do get checked. Just like how so many people here bitch about Bush aka "Hail to the Thief".

Let's try this one last time. Was Christianity offensive and being shoved down people's throats for the last 220 years? Why is there this sudden crusade by the ACLU now? It wasn't even an issue before, I really didn't notice this "fundie" revolution. Do you guys perhaps think that maybe just maybe everything that has happened in politics recently, is the majority of people in America are sick of all of this? Maybe they do feel there is a place for God in society, doesn't mean it has to been it your face. Hell look at the Passion of the Christ, talk about a public backlash at the liberal American element. There is a cultural revolution in America right now, religion and Christianity play a big part in that. If the left succeeds in their attempts to completely remove it from public life, they take a lot of steam out of the engine. I am ranting, it's 10am I just woke up.

Maybe the fundamental issue is change. Why do we have to change? I think we were doing a hell of a lot better before, but then again that is only one fundie's romantic idea of reality.

P.S.

I think the liberal American element likes to piss Christian people off, seriously. If you guys noticed it doesn't take much to get me ranting, and I'm not even that diehard. Christianity makes a nice target because there are so many of us.

Also little comments like this, what's the deal with that. Calling the manger scene "christian propoganda"? The birth of Jesus, not Jesus Christ, is one of the most historically relevant events in the entire history of our pathetic race of human beings. I can really see how it must be offensive to some to take notice of a man whose philosophy was to love your neighbor, care for the poor, and do unto others as you would have them do unto you :rolleyes: .

It's not that historically relevant if you're not a christian. Besides, his birth is much less relevant than who he was. Imagine me claiming that the birth of mohammed or buddha was one of the most historically important occurrences in history. Do you think that would justify the peppering of their respective idols throughout public property? I realize that it is difficult to think objectively when you're working within a framework that often implies that objective thought buys one a ticket to hell, but bear with me. I don't have a problem with who jesus supposedly was. I think if this country were more christian, in the sense of what he actually taught, as opposed to how christians actually behave, we would all be much better off. Unfortunately, many christians seem to forget that the good christian's faith is internal, and is represented by his actions, not the things he decorates the public square with. A close personal relationship isn't one that need be showed off in public.

I'm still waiting to hear how christianity is threatened, too.

Change is constant. I know you think we were doing a lot better before, but i doubt you could come up with a basis for this opinion.

If anything, i think pissing christians off just happens to be a byproduct of people trying to live their lives. Either that or getting pissed off makes the loudest christians feel important. In either case, i think you overstate your position by claiming that christians as a group are pissed off. I think you neglect to mention the silent majority, who seem to be not at all mad by the direction our country is going.

So...any word on what was actually in those pamphlets?

Being that the entire point of the thread hinges on that?

<<<<<< Still waiting to hear how christianity is threatened, or how we were better off with it more in the public sphere, or acknowledgement that it is not and that we were not...

And I'm still waiting on an explaination of how Greek/Roman/Jewish morality pertaining to the modern philosophy of justice and morals gets credited to the christians.



No two ways about it???? um, ok... i'm guessing someone is ignoring reality, alright.

We had the 4th ammendment for our entire history. Mapp vs. Ohio, 1961, finally put teeth in it. That something is novel has no bearing on to if it is good for the country.

I'm probably not the best person to answer for MoJo_PeiPei, but here's my impression of the threat:

Whenever anyone says that the Judeo-Christian principles of this country are under threat, what they are really saying is that Christians want to change things and people are trying to stop them from changing things.

Here's a perfect example. You can clearly see that there is a threat to a new initiative to get the 10 Commandments placed inside courthouses. The threat is so dire that the White House and Justice Dept. are speaking out in support of the this new change. Very likely, the belief that this is a threat to the principles, as opposed to a threat to the new demonstration of the principles, is due to a belief that it was always wrong that the 10 Commandments have not been displayed in courthouses. I.E., this is all just a continuation of the threat that has existed from day one of this country (and the fact that the White House is now on the side of those "threatened" shows the actual power shift that has taken place: the "threatened" have actually been gaining significant power). That this would mean this country, itself, is a threat to the supposed Judeo-Christian principles seems to be lost on those that insist this country is founded on those ideals.

It is therefore my contention that Judeo-Christian principles, as advocated almost exclusively by Christians, are the real threat to this country. They are constantly attempting to force their changes on the entire country. It just so happens that when they are blocked, they whine about being "threatened".