http://wwwi.reuters.com/images/w148/2004-11-24T221631Z_01_GALAXY-DC-MDF774736_RTRIDSP_1_USREPORT-LIFE-DECLARATION-DC.jpg

A blue state...figures:

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.

Link to the above article: http://www.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6911883

Also on: www.drudgereport.com

That does cross the line...

I heard this story on my favorite source of even tempred, objective news reporting, the Michael Savage Show!
;D

OK, the principal's a crank, they ought to get rid of her.  You can't teach about 18th century America if you've got an hysterical deiphobe bossing you around.  Even the most convicted atheist must take into account how people thought two or three hundred years ago. 

Now, it the teacher was saying,"It's too bad some of you boys and girls don't believe in God like Washington and Adams, 'coz if you don't you're going to hell," that would be something to gripe about.  No one should be castigated for simply teaching the contents of historical documents.  Silly, silly, silly.

But let's not go too hog wild with this red state/blue state stuff in regard to individual nutcases.

Even the most convicted atheist

er.. "convicted"?  I didn't think heresy was a crime any more ;)

But far and away the best way to spread atheism is to encourage people to think critically about their assumptions, rather than be as closed-minded as a fundamentalist religious nutcase.  I have had lots of discussions with my eldest about God, gods, myths and religions... it's ended up with her topping the class in her RS exam, but not being brainwashed about the existance of a God, and perfectly capable of thinking about it for herself.

This teacher's behaviour is the sort of thing that gets atheism en mass a bad name, so sensible atheists (who are IMO the overwhelming majority) get tarred with the same brush.  A bit like any other fundamentalist in that respect, I guess.

er.. "convicted"?  I didn't think heresy was a crime any more ;)

But far and away the best way to spread atheism is to encourage people to think critically about their assumptions, rather than be as closed-minded as a fundamentalist religious nutcase.  I have had lots of discussions with my eldest about God, gods, myths and religions... it's ended up with her topping the class in her RS exam, but not being brainwashed about the existance of a God, and perfectly capable of thinking about it for herself.

This teacher's behaviour is the sort of thing that gets atheism en mass a bad name, so sensible atheists (who are IMO the overwhelming majority) get tarred with the same brush.  A bit like any other fundamentalist in that respect, I guess.


God, you're arrogant.

And no more of this, please.  I didn't want or mean for this to be a religion thread.  Just say if you agree or disagree with the thinking that you should remove the declaration of independence from a school that teaches American history simply because it mentions God.

God, you're arrogant.

If anyone has the right to be arrogant, I guess He does... after all, He did create everything, didn't He?


Just say if you agree or disagree with the thinking that you should remove the declaration of independence from a school that teaches American history simply because it mentions God.

It's an insane concept: you can't teach history without historical context.  If that includes references to God, you've got to include them, whether you think he's there or not.

I tend to be sceptical of these news stories.  There is usually much more of it than meets the
shallow reporting of the media. 

God you're arrogant.



If anyone has the right to be arrogant, I guess He does... after all, He did create everything, didn't He?





LOL, philbo

but not being brainwashed about the existance of a God, and perfectly capable of thinking about it for herself.

This teacher's behaviour is the sort of thing that gets atheism en mass a bad name, so sensible atheists (who are IMO the overwhelming majority) get tarred with the same brush.  A bit like any other fundamentalist in that respect, I guess.


You have those few in every religion. Many respectable religions are smeared by the actions of a few. You gotta learn to look past them and see the good in any faith, or lack thereof.

"Do not believe anything that is said, regardless who wrote it, who said it; even if it was me, if it conflicts with your common sense and basic principles."

Its obviously incredibly stupid to ban the Declaration from a course in US history for ANY reason.  However, it would also be inappropriate to refer to Jefferson and Franklin as Christians, they were Diests (the watch implies the watch maker).  I'm not sure about Adams. 

Its obviously incredibly stupid to ban the Declaration from a course in US history for ANY reason.  However, it would also be inappropriate to refer to Jefferson and Franklin as Christians, they were Diests (the watch implies the watch maker).  I'm not sure about Adams. 



Adams was a Unitarian.



Cat

er.. "convicted"?  I didn't think heresy was a crime any more ;)


Uhhh, it might be on its way back in the USA.  We've got theocrats on the rise in the Republican party.  I had an ominous nightmare last night in which my radio station was being fined by the FCC because I made a speech on the air in which I declared I didn't believe in God!
::)

I knew it was only a matter of time before someone posted this bit of right-wing flamebait.  When I didn't see it here yesterday, I figured I'd post the rebuttal before anyone had the chance to be sucked in by something this obvious and planted.

Sorry to disappoint the neocons in the audience, but he wasn't terminated for giving out the Decleration.  He was fired for handing out religious material and throwing bits of other documents in to cover his rear, so he could claim the documents they were trying to ban were typical texts like the Decleration. 

It's a stunt by the conservative right, and was announced the day before Thanksgiving, timed to cause controversy at the dinner table, and at a time when the conventional press didn't have time to shoot this down as the pack of lies that it is.  The sheep, er, listeners of Rush, et. al. buy it up like it's the truth, and the rest of us haven't the proper information because no one has done a PROPER investigation.  All we have is a press release from the uber-right-wing Christian defense league.

I knew it was only a matter of time before someone posted this bit of right-wing flamebait.  When I didn't see it here yesterday, I figured I'd post the rebuttal before anyone had the chance to be sucked in by something this obvious and planted.

Sorry to disappoint the neocons in the audience, but he wasn't terminated for giving out the Decleration.  He was fired for handing out religious material and throwing bits of other documents in to cover his rear, so he could claim the documents they were trying to ban were typical texts like the Decleration. 

It's a stunt by the conservative right, and was announced the day before Thanksgiving, timed to cause controversy at the dinner table, and at a time when the conventional press didn't have time to shoot this down as the pack of lies that it is.  The sheep, er, listeners of Rush, et. al. buy it up like it's the truth, and the rest of us haven't the proper information because no one has done a PROPER investigation.  All we have is a press release from the uber-right-wing Christian defense league.


Thanks Chucky.  It's like I said, you have to wait for the rest of the news, usually planted somewhere
deep inside, off of page one, before the real issue comes up. GW reads a snippet, jumps up and down
gets all excited, posts this stuff without the whole story.  Sadly, it seems to be the way some of our
fellow americans also recieve their news.  Eating the small, poisonous, bits while ignoring the banquet.

Thanks Chucky.  It's like I said, you have to wait for the rest of the news, usually planted somewhere
deep inside, off of page one, before the real issue comes up. GW reads a snippet, jumps up and down
gets all excited, posts this stuff without the whole story.  Sadly, it seems to be the way some of our
fellow americans also recieve their news.  Eating the small, poisonous, bits while ignoring the banquet.


It's not just him though, there's a whole legion of people who have zero reasoning ability when it comes to the news, no matter the source.  A lie like this gets printed, and after it's refuted, do the people who regard these polemics and newspapers think about it, and say something like "Hey, they blatantly lied to me about a news story, and misprepresented it" or do they just shrug and listen to the next lie.  They'll see the Dan Rather thing last fall, and crow about how awful that story was researched, yet this thing could be disproved with very, very little research. Heck, in this case we're not even being shown the document in question so the whole story can be known.

I knew it was only a matter of time before someone posted this bit of right-wing flamebait.  When I didn't see it here yesterday, I figured I'd post the rebuttal before anyone had the chance to be sucked in by something this obvious and planted.

Sorry to disappoint the neocons in the audience, but he wasn't terminated for giving out the Decleration.  He was fired for handing out religious material and throwing bits of other documents in to cover his rear, so he could claim the documents they were trying to ban were typical texts like the Decleration. 

It's a stunt by the conservative right, and was announced the day before Thanksgiving, timed to cause controversy at the dinner table, and at a time when the conventional press didn't have time to shoot this down as the pack of lies that it is.  The sheep, er, listeners of Rush, et. al. buy it up like it's the truth, and the rest of us haven't the proper information because no one has done a PROPER investigation.  All we have is a press release from the uber-right-wing Christian defense league.

There I go again, giving the clowns of the right-wing propaganda mills credit where no credit is due!  When will I ever learn?
::)
BTW, Chucky, do you have link to the low-down on the hype?  I'd like to read it for myself.

No surprise here.  Just more of the vast right wing conspitancy.

There I go again, giving the clowns of the right-wing propaganda mills credit where no credit is due!  When will I ever learn?
::)
BTW, Chucky, do you have link to the low-down on the hype?  I'd like to read it for myself.



hmm.. it was linked to on metafilter.com, and the rebuttal wasn't huge.  It actually pointed out mostly what was in the original article and built off that.  Since there isn't a lot of information, you have to read between the lines a little bit.

http://seetheforest.blogspot.com/2004_11_01_seetheforest_archive.html#110134337110716232

here was the article I read on it.