Declaration of Independence Banned at Calif School

Reuters ^ | November 24, 2004 | Dan Whitcomb

[little jeremiah]

Actually, to paraphrase something I said the other day, my cats are more human than "people" like that. At least my cats don't go against their nature. And they're friendly and cute.

[B4Ranch]

Nice, very nice.

[Ciexyz]

I too am waiting for more to come out on this story.

[Carry_Okie]

I keep telling conservatives that, when explaining things to liberals, they MUST show HOW conservative principles work standing on their own; i.e., without citing God's authority, else the liberals have an excuse to turn their condescending secular brains completely off.

It confounds me how so few are capable of constructing such an argument.

[Ichneumon]

They are exactly (and proudly) what their Darwinian beliefs dictate: They are animals.

We are animals. We also happen to be human. We're also primates, mammals, vertebrates, chordates, and eukaryotes.

[Ichneumon]

I keep telling conservatives that, when explaining things to liberals, they MUST show HOW conservative principles work standing on their own; i.e., without citing God's authority, else the liberals have an excuse to turn their condescending secular brains completely off. It confounds me how so few are capable of constructing such an argument.

*applause*.

[Ichneumon]

The teacher may be completely on the up and up, or he could simply be a disgruntled gadfly.

I'm with you, I'm waiting for more details before I go flying off the handle.

[jwalsh07]

I keep telling conservatives that, when explaining things to liberals, they MUST show HOW conservative principles work standing on their own; i.e., without citing God's authority, else the liberals have an excuse to turn their condescending secular brains completely off.

So we amend the DOI to read that "We are endowed by the state with certain alienable rights...."?

[Carry_Okie]

So we amend the DOI to read that "We are endowed by the state with certain alienable rights...."?

There's no need to do that, is there?

[Carry_Okie]

We are animals. We also happen to be human. We're also primates, mammals, vertebrates, chordates, and eukaryotes.

An unimpressive word game. What makes humans human isn't what type of animal our bodies happen to be, else you've bought the legal game that's being steadily and incrementally foisted upon you.

[jwalsh07]

There is if you feel it necessary to remove God from conservatism. If not natural rights granted by the Creator as a starting point, then what?

[Carry_Okie]

There is if you feel it necessary to remove God from conservatism. If not natural rights granted by the Creator as a starting point, then what?

I said no such thing. Why don't you read what I wrote HERE in my letter to the principal of the school about which the article was written?

Further, it is entirely clear that you have no understanding of why unalienable rights, as endowed by a Creator are so important TO YOU. The construct means that government has no legitimate authority or power to violate those rights. It is a concept so important that, if there wasn't a Creator, we'd be best off maintaining whatever pretense necessary that there was. Your disrespect fot that idea not only reveals your lack of education or qualification for your post, but an equal lack of appreciation for the freedoms you enjoy as a citizen.

You will note that I talked about "a Creator" as a logical construct, in essence, a proof that the authority of Natural Law is a practical necessity. I did so without need to cite the authority of a God belonging to any particular church denomination.

In the quote to which you made objection, you apparently hadn't considered its antecedant. I was making the point that when dealing with liberals one can make such arguments to greater effect by use of such logical constructs rather than by making citations to "Almighty God..." per se. It makes them think instead of putting them off with by flogging them with religion.

[Scurvy]

http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=446

11/24/2004
Declaration of Independence ban at public school said bogus: Teacher reportedly forced pupils to listen to Christian dogma
Filed under: General— site admin @ 10:24 pm Email This
Declaration Of Independence banned!

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

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

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

The teacher, Steven Williams, sued for discrimination and is now being represented by a conservative Christian legal group, Alliance Defense Fund.

Alliance Defense Fund boasts of other legal “successes,” including the right of Boy Scouts to refuse gays from ascending to leadership positions.

According to People for the American Way, a watchdog group, ADF was founded by 30 Christian ministries to serve as a counterbalance to the American Civil Liberties Union.

The organization defends the right of Christians to “share the gospel” in workplaces and public schools, asserting that efforts to curb such speech at work and schools are “anti-Christian.”

None of the major news agencies reporting on the story included quotations from the school or the principal, stating that a spokesman had referred them to a staff attorney. The articles suggest they did little research beyond the statements provided by William’s attorneys.

Reuters included scant information about the group who sued on Williams behalf, saying only that the group advocates “religious freedom.”

A media watch site, Seeing the Forest, first caught the story Wednesday evening.

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

California’s Education Code does allow “references to religion or references to or the use of religious literature … when such references or uses do not constitute instruction in religious principles … and when such references or uses are incidental to or illustrative of matters properly included in the course of study,” as William’s lawyers have pointed out.

It does not, however, allow for forced religious dogma in public schools.

***Do some research before you accept some story that has been fed to you by Fox News and the mainstream Sensationalist (not liberal) media.

[ChildofReagan]

I'll take FoxNews any day over this freaked-out website of 'rational' thought.

Get a life...this crap goes on everyday and this is the latest instance of Christian persecution.

[AmateurVisionary]

I'd like to clear up a few things here. First, the school, principal, etc did NOT BAN the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence or any such thing. What they did do was make this teacher get his lesson plans approved by the administration before he put the lesson plan to work. Now, here in Mississippi this is very common for someone to have to approve a lesson plan before it is taught. Maybe it's an odd thing in CA, I don't know.

Now, the problem they had with his lesson plans in the first place was that the teacher was taking excerpts from the various founding documents and making handouts with JUST these excerpts on them. These excerpts ONLY contained references to God or a Creator, etc, that were in the founding documents he was using.

What started this all off? Of the preceding paragraph, I am certain of its veracity.
But as to what precipitated the actions of the administration, I’m not 100% sure. However, based on early reports of the situation, and hearing personally from some of the involved people, what happened is as follows:

The administration had received previous complaints from parents and students that Mr. Williams had been, basically, proselytizing in his classroom. At some point before the administrative screening began, a student asked Mr. Williams why he had to say “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. In response, Mr. Williams made the handouts with excerpts from certain founding documents which supported his case that America was wholly founded as a Christian nation, and that was why this student had to say “under God” in the pledge.

I’m not trying to start a fight here. I believe that we were, basically, founded on Judeo-Christian values. I believe in God. I believe in lower taxes and strong families. I believe in States’ Rights and gun ownership. But I do not believe that teachers should be evangelizing students as a captive audience in a public school. If this is what happened, and again, I don’t know with 100% certainty that it did, then the school has every right to keep an eye on him.

My only real point here is that before a mob is started to torch the school (metaphorically speaking), I think we should know ALL the facts involved. And if a school DID ban the Constitution, DoI, etc on religious or ANY grounds, I would be first in line to demand that its certification and funding be withdrawn as it would not be able to teach history with any truth. However, even though I don’t have every fact, I DO know that that is NOT what happened in this case. So please, before we all have arteries popping, calm down and wait for all the facts to come out.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

AV

[AmateurVisionary]

Here's a couple of links to pieces with a little more insight into the events:

From the San Mateo Times

http://www.sanmateocountytimes.com/cda/article/print/0,1674,87%257E11268%257E2556644,00.html

And from a little more Leftist perspective, www.eRiposte.com. There is a lot of legit information here, but there is also an obvious anti-religion perspective. Disregard what you like, but please at least check out his sources and some of the real facts (as opposed to this guy's opinion stuff).

http://www.eriposte.com/philosophy/fundamentalism/stevenscreek.htm

[AmateurVisionary]

Sorry, left out a couple links:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/05/weekinreview/05murp.html?oref=login

http://entroposcope.blogspot.com/2004/12/stevens-creek-school-debacle.html

[AmateurVisionary]

Here's another document of interest

In full, the Complaint filed by Stephen Williams and attorneys in Williams v. Vidmar et al. in PDF format.

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/media/WilliamsvCupertinoComplaint.pdf

[AmateurVisionary]

So, now that you've seen the facts, there appears to be no more bellowing and name calling? Curious....

AV

[groundhogsteve]

Folks the real story here is “Religious Right lies through their teeth”. And most of you suckers fell for it. Let me explain.

The Declaration was not banned in Cupertino. What was banned was a heavily edited handout with only the religious references in the Declaration – “nature’s God”, “Creator”, and “Divine Providence”. Also other handouts, that put together, show that this teacher was coming to class with an agenda to push – the “Christian Nation” line.

One handout had quotes from famous leaders regarding religion. One of the quotes, from George Washington, is now listed as “unauthenticated” by David Barton, a “Christian Heritage” proponent masquerading as a historian. Barton was the very guy who publicized these quotes in the 1990’s. Also in that handout, Jesus is quoted about the bible. Help me out here, what does that have to do with teaching the ‘religious, economic….etc.’ reasons that our nation was founded for that the teacher claims he was only following the California curriculum guidelines? Further, there is no countervailing opinions – for example, some of the things that Jefferson, Adams, or Paine said that would drive Jerry Falwell over the wall.

Another handout was the supposed “Washington Prayer Journal”. This document was rejected almost 100 years ago by the Smithsonian as not being an authentic Washington artifact – the handwriting did not match, and the spelling was too good. (Washington was a notoriously poor speller).

But what story was promoted by the Alliance Defense Fund and all the right wing radio talk show hosts? “Declaration was banned”. But when you look at it, it is clear the Declaration was NOT banned, and the principal was probably right to review – and reject – these supplemental materials being brought into the classroom.

So, the very people who want to post the Ten Commandments in every classroom violated one of them themselves – from ADF to Rush to Sean and the whole gamut of minor-city pundits : Thou shall not bear false witness, folks. I hope the CUSD board sues the pants off of ADF, Fox News, Rush, and Hannity for slander.