Posted on 08/18/2005 8:50:58 AM PDT by xzins
Settlement Vindicates Use of Historical Religious Documents in Classroom
By Jim Brown August 17, 2005
(AgapePress) - A settlement has been reached in a case involving a California elementary school teacher who was barred from distributing American history documents because they contained references to God and religion.
The Alliance Defense Fund and the Cupertino School District have reached a settlement in which the district has agreed to no longer censor teacher Steven Williams because he is a Christian. Officials at Stevens Creek Elementary had prohibited Williams from providing fifth-grade students with supplemental readings such as William Penn's Frame of Government and excerpts from the Declaration of Independence.
Williams' attorney, Kevin Theriot, says the district has agreed Williams did not violate school policy when he handed out the materials. Theriot says he is hopeful that school officials now understand that religion can be discussed in schools.
"And, incidentally, the school district also agreed that teachers can talk about religion in schools, even their religious beliefs that they may subscribe to, as long as it's done objectively and as long as the teachers are not trying to convert students to their particular religious beliefs," the attorney explains.
Prior to the settlement, school officials had argued that Williams was attempting to proselytize students with the handouts. Now, says the attorney, his client is pleased with settlement. "Mr. Williams is satisfied that they are going to follow their policy [and] that there's not going to be any prohibition on him talking about religious things or distributing documents like the Declaration of Independence or William Penn's Frame of Government," he says.
Theriot says it is unfortunate that many public school teachers avoid the topic of religion while in the classroom because they are unsure what they are legally permitted to do. But the settlement in Williams v. Widmar now puts in writing a district policy that "allows teachers, no matter what their religious beliefs, to use appropriate educational material (including supplemental handouts of historical significance) during instructional time that has religious content" and also allows teachers "to teach students during instructional time about matters involving religion" provided the content is compliant with district-prescribed curriculum and is not used to influence a student's religious beliefs.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Brown, a regular contributor to AgapePress, is a reporter for American Family Radio News, which can be heard online. © 2005 AgapePress all rights reserved
necessary context.....Ishmael or Isaac,.....intelligent design?
SEE # 17
..........................(Romans 10:17)...." FAITH cometh by....and, by....THE WORD of GOD?
It is a pretty sick country we live in when the courts will prohibit ANYONE from having people read excerpts from the Declaration of Independence regardless of whether they're a Christian or not. I suspect there's more to this story but, even so, I can't imagine under what circumstance reading the DofI would be offensive.
/GAZA
/ISRAEL
/U.S.A.
......................."follow the Context".....
The teacher pulled out the excerpts from the Declar. Ind that mentioned "endowed by our creator..."
He was showing the religious roots of the nation, and the establishment considered that a violation of their precious PC "church/state" doctrine.
Essentially, truth is to be purged when it doesn't align with PC doctrine.
God save us from "school officials."
One semester in "kid prison" our then 15-year-old son had to read three books in AP English whose plots all centered on a father raping his young daughter.
When I asked the teacher why three books with the same theme, she smiled and said, "That's life."
She was all of 26.
Donchaknow....26 years old imparts vast wisdom....:>)
AP English....unfortunately, they equate volumes of work with gifted experience.
How to make an easy, fun subject into something "hard?"
Quadruple the work load and act like an elite.
......future ....'context'.....
Maranatha real soon?
Talking about our religious heritage in school?!? For shame. /sacasm
You'd think we were in France. Next they'll be banning the wearing of crosses.
Maestro's right. The end times are rushing on us.
"And, incidentally, the school district also agreed that teachers can talk about religion in schools, even their religious beliefs that they may subscribe to, as long as it's done objectively and as long as the teachers are not trying to convert students to their particular religious beliefs," the attorney explains.If that's the case, and we're talking about more than just one vague reference to God in the Declaration of Independence, then it's more than just the past.
(T)he settlement in Williams v. Widmar... also allows teachers "to teach students during instructional time about matters involving religion" provided the content is compliant with district-prescribed curriculum and is not used to influence a student's religious beliefs.
If teachers are going to teach anything about religion, the schools cannot pick and choose which religions will be allowed and which ones prohibited. Nobody can "keep the Islamics out."
Some of these books won "prestigious" awards and they were barely readable. Most centered on women struggling to get out from underneath oppressive male dominance (as if that even exists today.)
I was shocked at how poorly written these novels were, and how preachy and simplistic the plots read. And the vast majority were all written by women.
One son's HS graduation featured nine students chosen from among the 800-member graduating class to address the entire school. They were ALL girls.
College attendance is now 60% girls to 40% boys. What happened to parity?
The godless, feminist, socialist agenda is alive and well in public schools.
The silver lining here is that this agenda was so extreme in our schools that our sons came out conservative Christians who open doors for women almost as an act of rebellion to the status quo.
As God wills. 8~)
/GAZA
/ISRAEL
/U.S.A.
...........................
/Ethopia
/Slovokia
/Poland
/6 millios Jews
/7 million christians
/40 million russians
/80 million chinese
...what do the brotherhood 'Cabals' have in common?
...Harry Potty.....there 'is' Evil and there 'is' Evil
/Empires?
I don't follow you. Care to come out from behind the curtain?
They tend to drug little boys with ridlin at a rate 4 & 5 times that of little girls, too. Can't let those young bucks develop any testicles, can we?!
I agree, DrE.
As God wills.
Not true. The distinction is sedition. Islam advocates overthrow of the Constitution and its replacement with Sharia law, which is effectively sedition (if not legally such in time of war).
It's an easy distinction to make.
Unless you can make Islam illegal based on that distinction, it doesn't matter.
Islam is a legal religion. It has all the protections that apply to other religions, and as such cannot be excluded when other faiths are being included.
I don't have to make Islam illegal; sedition is already illegal.
Islam is a legal religion.
You don't have to prosecute them for adhering to Islam; you can prosecute them for practicing sedition.
An Islamist cannot even reliably repudiate Sharia law, because under Sharia law, all such promises to infidels are void. Thus, Islam is effectively an illegal religion, because its adherants automatically violate their oath of citizenship the moment they walk into a mosque and pray a prayer to impose Sharia law.
It has all the protections that apply to other religions, and as such cannot be excluded when other faiths are being included.
Who says they do? Get a clue: there is an authority here. There is nothing in the establishment clause that proscribes the power to prohibit a particular religious practice, just as there are laws already on the books against (even voluntary) human sacrifice that effectively prohibit certain pagan rites.
So you're comfortable with using legalities to outlaw a religion that you want eradicated.
Excuse me, but I'd rather we be honest if we're going to do that.
Of course certain practices of a religion may be illegal. Same for the Mormons, but outlawing multiple marriages didn't make belonging to the church itself illegal.
If proscribing the advocacy of forced conversion, under the threat of death, of every American to system of laws dictated by a global caliphate, without any religious freedom at all, is equivalent to saying that I advocate eliminating Islam in America, I plead guilty (and so should you).
However, I never said that I wanted Islam "eradicated" although it would be a better world if it had never been invented (which it was). I said I want laws prohibiting sedition enforced. At that point, it's up to Islamists to choose to abide by our laws or leave. They won't do either willingly.
Now, given that they are permitted, indeed encouraged to LIE about whether they intend to abide by our laws, principal among which is to protect the religious freedom of others, how are we to believe them? Their history suggests no such religious tolerance. I didn't create that problem; they do.
We already have laws that use legalities to circumscribe religious practices, as I have already illustrated. So the ONLY requirement I have of Islamists is that they respect my rights, of which they have NO intention.
Excuse me, but I'd rather we be honest if we're going to do that.
Oh, such a libertarian! The problem is that there is a difference with Islam from any other religion: they want you to submit or die. It's always been that way. You just don't want to accept it.
Of course certain practices of a religion may be illegal. Same for the Mormons, but outlawing multiple marriages didn't make belonging to the church itself illegal.
Actually, the Mormons used to outlaw black membership as well. When presented with a hard choice by the IRS, the church fathers had a "revelation" that black membership was permissible! The problem with Islam, by contrast, is not one of exclusion, it is that forced conversions at the point of a sword are encouraged. Islam also advocates a global caliphate, which is exactly an establishment of religion. They advocate overthrow of the Constitution. I have a problem with that. So should you. It's also illegal.
The inescapable point is: Islam has written doctrine that is anathema to the Constitution. Using the Constitution to protect it, when its adherents intend its destruction, is by no means protecting religious freedom, quite the contrary. I didn't make it that way. Muhammed did.
If you can't show forced conversions at the point of a sword within this country, then enough of them are agreeing to conform to our laws.
You make many assertions about Islamists that I don't think apply to all Muslims. Separate the two by what they actually do - Islamists commit illegal acts - and I can agree with you.
Not necessarily. History shows Islam is most willing to lay low until it has enough adherents to foment an overthrow.
You make many assertions about Islamists that I don't think apply to all Muslims.
Then you need to learn more about Islam, because yours is wishful thinking. Read the book. I did.
Separate the two by what they actually do - Islamists commit illegal acts - and I can agree with you.
ADVOCATING THE EVENTUAL OVERTHROW OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ITS REPLACEMENT WITH A THEOCRACY ALREADY IS AN ILLEGAL ACT, as I have said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.