So do you care about free speech? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Ustwo · 11-26-2004, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Declaration of Independence Banned at Calif School
Wed Nov 24, 2004 04:12 PM ET

By Dan Whitcomb

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."

Vidmar could not be reached for comment on the lawsuit, which was filed on Monday in U.S. District Court in San Jose and claims violations of Williams rights to free speech under the First Amendment.

Phyllis Vogel, assistant superintendent for Cupertino Unified School District, said the lawsuit had been forwarded to a staff attorney. She declined to comment further.

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.

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.

stevo · 11-26-2004, 09:53 PM

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?

Moskie · 11-26-2004, 09:55 PM

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.

Manx · 11-26-2004, 10:11 PM

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:

Quote:

School district forbids teacher from providing handouts that reference significant documents in U.S. history because they mention God

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

Documents ... submitted that (were) rejected include excerpts from the Declaration of Independence

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/story/?id=549

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)

Manx · 11-26-2004, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Some of you wonder why Christians are feeling threatened in this country, well this is a prime example of why.

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.

Paq · 11-26-2004, 10:14 PM

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

Manx · 11-26-2004, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paq

to bar any material ever written that contains a reference to god is just...wow

Fortunately, that is not at all what happened.

smooth · 11-26-2004, 10:19 PM

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.

Ustwo · 11-26-2004, 10:26 PM

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

Quote:

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor -- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be -- That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks -- for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation -- for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the tranquility [sic], union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed -- for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted -- for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.
And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions -- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually -- to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed -- to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn [sic] kindness onto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord -- To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease [sic] of science among them and us -- and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York
the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

George Washington

Manx · 11-26-2004, 10:30 PM

Smooth -

Nevermind. I misunderstood your post.

Manx · 11-26-2004, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

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

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

Ustwo · 11-26-2004, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

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.

Manx · 11-26-2004, 10:35 PM

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

Except of course, you're lying.

Manx · 11-26-2004, 10:39 PM

As seen on a blog somewhere:

Quote:

2 years from now, the right-wingers will still be talking about this story like it was true.

Willravel · 11-26-2004, 11:26 PM

How do you think God feels about this?

Nizzle · 11-26-2004, 11:32 PM

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!

guthmund · 11-27-2004, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ustwo

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

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.

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?

Strange Famous · 11-27-2004, 07:41 AM

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.

Lebell · 11-27-2004, 08:13 AM

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.

JJRousseau · 11-27-2004, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

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

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

Ilow · 11-27-2004, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

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)

Ustwo, you are so busted.

sob · 11-27-2004, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

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

No kidding. From the San Diego Union:

Quote:

After protests by Muslim business owners, Ramadan banners are back up on city lampposts in southeastern San Diego.

The signs were pulled last week after a city code enforcement officer ordered them removed because of their "religious" content and expired permit.

The 16 banners were reinstalled Tuesday night after a meeting of officials from the city's Development Services and Neighborhood Code Compliance departments and the City Attorney's Office.

They agreed that "under existing regulations, there are no prohibitions against installing these banners," said Bob Didion, assistant deputy director of development services.

City code-compliance officials said the permit would need to be renewed.

Abdur-Rahim Hameed, who had called for the signs to be reinstalled, saw them yesterday morning as he was driving to work.

"When I looked up and saw the Ramadan banners, I just burst into tears," he said. Last week, Hameed held a news conference to object to their removal.

He said working within the system to get the banners reinstalled bonded Muslims together during the monthlong Ramadan holiday, a time of fasting and prayer.

A city code enforcement officer inspected the 2-by-6-foot banners last week after receiving a complaint. The officer found that they didn't meet city code because of their "religious" subject matter and that a permit had not been issued to display them.

The city asked the Diamond Business Improvement District, which runs the neighborhood's banner program, to immediately remove the banners, and the district complied.

The district's attorney, John Stump, said he believes the permit is still valid, but he and other district officials have agreed to renew it. The green-and-white banners have flown during Ramadan for the past five years.

They feature a half-moon, a star and the words "Ramadan Mubarak," which means blessed Ramadan.

Tony Young, chief of staff for the late Councilman Charles Lewis, sent a staff member to Tuesday's city meeting. "We support those banners staying up because they represent some of the cultural fabric in our community," Young said. "It's something we're very proud of."

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."

martinguerre · 11-27-2004, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

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.

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!

OFKU0 · 11-28-2004, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

How do you think God feels about this?

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.

Connolly · 11-28-2004, 01:20 PM

Quote:

"When I looked up and saw the Ramadan banners, I just burst into tears," he said. Last week, Hameed held a news conference to object to their removal.

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,

Ustwo · 11-28-2004, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

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.

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.

Manx · 11-28-2004, 01:57 PM

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.

Halx · 11-28-2004, 02:16 PM

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.

FoolThemAll · 11-28-2004, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halx

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.

Manx · 11-28-2004, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

Manx, you presented a very real possibility of the reverse being true, but that's it.

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.

Jizz-Fritter · 11-28-2004, 06:51 PM

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

FoolThemAll · 11-28-2004, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

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.

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?

smooth · 11-28-2004, 10:19 PM

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.

DJ Happy · 11-29-2004, 12:10 AM

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.

alansmithee · 11-29-2004, 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nizzle

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!

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

Manx · 11-29-2004, 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

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.

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.

martinguerre · 11-29-2004, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

"Statement of Fact"

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.

miyamotomusashi · 11-29-2004, 08:06 AM

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

FoolThemAll · 11-29-2004, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

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.

Whoops. I stand corrected on that point.

kutulu · 11-29-2004, 10:40 AM

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.

11-26-2004, 09:55 PM	#3 (permalink)
Moskie Pure Chewing Satisfaction Location: can i use bbcode [i]here[/i]?	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. __________________ Greetings and salutations.

11-26-2004, 10:14 PM	#6 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	didn't read what i wrote, sorry, edited otu __________________ Live. Chris Last edited by Paq; 12-08-2004 at 05:58 PM..

11-26-2004, 10:19 PM	#8 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	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. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

11-26-2004, 10:30 PM	#10 (permalink)
Manx Loser	Smooth - Nevermind. I misunderstood your post. Last edited by Manx; 11-26-2004 at 10:38 PM..

11-26-2004, 11:32 PM	#16 (permalink)
Nizzle God-Hating Liberal Location: Silicon Valley, CA	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! __________________ Nizzle

11-26-2004, 09:53 PM	#2 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	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?

11-26-2004, 10:35 PM	#13 (permalink)
Manx Loser	That explains why you've shown no ability to learn anything. Except of course, you're lying.

11-26-2004, 11:26 PM	#15 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	How do you think God feels about this?

11-27-2004, 07:41 AM	#18 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	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. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

11-27-2004, 08:13 AM	#19 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	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. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

11-28-2004, 01:57 PM	#27 (permalink)
Manx Loser	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.

11-28-2004, 02:16 PM	#28 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	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. __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

11-28-2004, 06:51 PM	#31 (permalink)
Jizz-Fritter Crazy Location: Bowling Green, KY	One more reason not to send your children to school. (I'm not religious, btw) __________________ "Principle is okay up to a certain point, but principle doesn't do any good if you lose." Dick Cheney

11-28-2004, 10:19 PM	#33 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	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. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

11-29-2004, 12:10 AM	#34 (permalink)
DJ Happy Psycho	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.

11-29-2004, 08:06 AM	#38 (permalink)
miyamotomusashi Upright Location: MA, USA	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

11-29-2004, 10:40 AM	#40 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	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.