• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

News: Declaration of Independence Banned at Calif School

Status
Not open for further replies.

MetatronM

Unconfirmed Member
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."
W....T.....F?
 
See, this is the kind of shit that people like O'Reilly will seize on and spin into more broad anti-liberal sentiment. I applaud the ACLU and those in favor of a separation of church and state, but when their ideals exceed rationality they end up hurting their cause more than helping it. What's next, we can't discuss the historical importance of Martin Luther or Ghandi because doing so would involve their belief in god?
 

Flynn

Member
I need to hear more before I pass judgment on what's going on here.

Could be a case of boneheaded political correctness, runaway beurocracy or just a stupid mistake.

The majority of information in this piece comes from the defendants lawyer -- not a very reliable source.

Right now the story amounts to a Reuters-sponsored press release.
 

AntoneM

Member
hmm, interesting read. Seems like the teacher is trying to play it up as discrimination against Christians... if that tells me anything it tells me that he probably does need to have his lesson plans and hand outs screened before he presents them to the children.
 

firex

Member
max_cool said:
hmm, interesting read. Seems like the teacher is trying to play it up as discrimination against Christians... if that tells me anything it tells me that he probably does need to have his lesson plans and hand outs screened before he presents them to the children.
seriously. Christian Americans whining that they're being discriminated against is as stupid as white people saying they're being racially oppressed. When the majority of Americans are Christian there's really no grounds to say you're being discriminated against.

I also expect much more than what this story says will be revealed if this gets more press.
 

kumanoki

Member
So can any student infringe upon the inalieable rights of other students now?

Sounds just like normal high school to me.....
 
Ned Flanders said:
See, this is the kind of shit that people like O'Reilly will seize on and spin into more broad anti-liberal sentiment. I applaud the ACLU and those in favor of a separation of church and state, but when their ideals exceed rationality they end up hurting their cause more than helping it.

The ACLU was not mentioned at all in this story.
 

Flynn

Member
Phoenix said:
Herein being the other extreme stupidity in the country, to ban everything related to God.

For all we know the teacher's proposed lesson plan could have said, "Readings By Important People Who You Should Emulate By Accepting Jesus Christ as Your Only God and Savior."

And that headline is very misleading. The Declaration of Indepenance wasn't banned, it was barred from a single teachers reading list.
 

Phoenix

Member
Flynn said:
For all we know the teacher's proposed lesson plan could have said, "Readings By Important People Who You Should Emulate By Accepting Jesus Christ as Your Only God and Savior."

And that headline is very misleading. The Declaration of Indepenance wasn't banned, it was barred from a single teachers reading list.



Right, because that wouldn't be worthy enough to be mentioned in the article.
 

DJ Sl4m

Member
No big surprise here, afterall it is Cali, the only surprising thig about it is New York didn't adopt this ban first.

Down with religeous forcefullness, Go BLUE!!!!!!
 

Phoenix

Member
DJ Sl4m said:
No big surprise here, afterall it is Cali, the only surprising thig about it is New York didn't adopt this ban first.

Down with religeous forcefullness, Go BLUE!!!!!!

Religious forcefulness? I hope this is a joke account.
 
Phoenix said:
Right, because that wouldn't be worthy enough to be mentioned in the article.
As has already been pointed out, the article seems to be based entirely on the teacher's account. We don't have the full story.
 

Mandark

Small balls, big fun!
Phoenix said:
Flynn said:
For all we know the teacher's proposed lesson plan could have said, "Readings By Important People Who You Should Emulate By Accepting Jesus Christ as Your Only God and Savior."

And that headline is very misleading. The Declaration of Indepenance wasn't banned, it was barred from a single teachers reading list.



Right, because that wouldn't be worthy enough to be mentioned in the article.
I expect better of you. The article uses the plaintiff's lawyer and the ADC press release as its only sources. Not bagging on the reporter, who did try to get opposing quotes and has a deadline, but it's pretty obvious that this isn't a deep investigative piece. To say that something must not have happened because it wasn't included in the article is silly.

The article says the ADC "advocates for religious freedom." In fact, it is an explicitly Christian organization that quotes the Bible and is active in opposing "the homosexual agenda."

The fourth handout listed is "What Great Leaders Have Said About The Bible." Google turned up this from the Plains Baptist Challenger, and a reference to this. Both are definitely intended for prosletyzing. The handout could be something else, though with that name, it's hard to imagine that it's much different.

Another handout, "Fact Sheet: Currency & Coins - History of 'In God We Trust'" deals entirely with events after 1860 (except to mention a regulation that was passed in 1837). California's 5th grade history curriculum includes American history through 1850. So why would he bring it up for discussion?

Point 66 is a great example of clever elipsis use.
Court Filing said:
This course focuses on one of the most remarkable stories in history: the creation of a new nation . . . founded on Judeo-Christian heritage . . .
California Curriculum Framework said:
This course focuses on one of the most remarkable stories in history: the creation of a new nation, peopled by immigrants from all parts of the globe, and governed by institutions founded on Judeo-Christian heritage, the ideals of the Englightenment, and English traditions of self-government.
California Content Standards said:
Students learn about the colonial government founded on Judeo-Christian principles, the ideals of the Enlightenment, and the English traditions of self-government.
According to the California Department of Education, "Curriculum frameworks are the blueprints for implementing the content standards." So I'd lean towards thinking the standards are talking about the colonial governments rather than the United States, especially when you look at the details of the framework and standards. "Describe the religious aspects of the earliest colonies (e.g., Puritanism in Massachusetts, Anglicanism in Virginia, Catholicism in Maryland, Quakerism in Pennsylvania)."

Maybe Williams has a case. But my gut is telling me that he was cherry-picking quotes from historical literature to support the final point of his lawsuit, "This nation was founded on the Judeo-Christian heritage" and teach it in a public school classroom.
 
Sirpopopop said:
The ACLU was not mentioned at all in this story.

I'm completely aware of that fact. I mentioned the ACLU because although I believe they are largely noble in their cause, they have been known to extend their pursuits beyond rational bounds, particularly on issues regarding the seperation of church and state, which this case centers on.
 

Phoenix

Member
Mandark said:
I expect better of you. The article uses the plaintiff's lawyer and the ADC press release as its only sources. Not bagging on the reporter, who did try to get opposing quotes and has a deadline, but it's pretty obvious that this isn't a deep investigative piece. To say that something must not have happened because it wasn't included in the article is silly.

Sorry, just assumed that any competent news source would report objectively on the story. Didn't realize this wasn't an objective source. If they are religious extremists trying to use the schools to push religion, I'm sure the courts will find that quickly during the findings of fact.


Maybe Williams has a case. But my gut is telling me that he was cherry-picking quotes from historical literature to support the final point of his lawsuit, "This nation was founded on the Judeo-Christian heritage" and teach it in a public school classroom.

And this would be truth to a certain point and whether or not this is a valid case will depend on if he's just giving the facts and letting the kids draw their own conclusions or if he is 'introducing conclusions' in his handouts. I'm more concerned with some of the things that are historical documents that weren't allowed than the pieces that you listed. 3rd party handouts are always subject, but actual historical documents? Nah, you'll have to justify that to me.
 
Until I hear otherwise, I'm assuming this "banning" was in fact denial of a class on how religious the founders were. That's not history, it's an agenda. It sounds to me like advocacy, not teaching.

My history class was a linear course in what happened and its interpretation. This sounds like using examples from history to make a point about civics.
 

Phoenix

Member
Ignatz Mouse said:
Until I hear otherwise, I'm assuming this "banning" was in fact denial of a class on how religious the founders were. That's not history, it's an agenda. It sounds to me like advocacy, not teaching.

My history class was a linear course in what happened and its interpretation. This sounds like using examples from history to make a point about civics.

History is written by the winners, so much of anything you get will come with a fair amount of advocacy - just an FYI.
 
I understand that, but the winners so far are those who believe in separation of church and state. I endorse that. This case seems to be disingenuous to me, because it appears that the teacher does not believe in separation, and is attempting to game the system by

a) claiming discrimination, when in fact its his agenda, and not him, under attack

and

b) sensationalizng the story so that at first glance it appears absurd even to the moderates. A deliberately polarizing tactic designed to smoke-screen the issue and deny rational debate.

It's exactly the sort of tactic that lead people to believe, and then act, as if student were actively oppressed due to their religious beliefs at school. Which, in turns leads administrations to get even more uptight, which probably *does* lead students being oppressed.

Damn zealots.
 

DonasaurusRex

Online Ho Champ
This is nuts, Im a huge history buff , we cant cut out portions of history to teach to our children. These are historical documents these students have a right to see them what in the world are they thinking??? How are they going to be brainwashed by READING, LEARNING, and STUDYING. Thats not the only thing they teach in school. Your telling me a public school class is more effective than a church at converting people to christianity now?? Half the little bastard kids that go to church now because of their parents dont even stick with it when they grow up geezus.
 
Ned Flanders said:
I'm completely aware of that fact. I mentioned the ACLU because although I believe they are largely noble in their cause, they have been known to extend their pursuits beyond rational bounds, particularly on issues regarding the seperation of church and state, which this case centers on.

But, you can't say the ACLU would support this action unless they come right out and say it. Therefore, you can't confuse their ideals with that of people who support this move.
 

duckroll

Member
Let's sum up this thread.

Original post source: A one-sided story on a questionable event where the details have not been fully verified with all parties concerned.

GAF Group A: Holy shit WTF!

GAF Group B: We hate religion! YAY GOOOOOOO!

GAF Group C: WTF are you all talking about.


Awesome. I love intelligent discussions! :lol
 

XS+

Banned
I'm all for teaching the historical significance of these documents and their ramifications in our society. However, if this teacher is exploiting their importance to mask a god peddling agenda, then I definitely agree with the school's choice. If you want to worship god, then do so at home. Worship your god damn toilet, if that's what gets your rocks off. But don't try to insinuate that religious BS in a public school. I don't want my children being fed that religious malarkey.
 

XS+

Banned
Phoenix said:
Herein being the other extreme stupidity in the country, to ban everything related to God.

There's nothing stupid about refusing proselytization in a public setting.
 

duckroll

Member
XS+ said:
There's nothing stupid about refusing proselytization in a public setting.

wight.jpg


:lol :lol :lol :lol
 
Of course, the title is misleading. They are "banning" certain excerpts that may be used in a different context.

Several excerpts from John Adam's diary, including the July 26, 1796 passage, ``Cloudy ... The Christian religion is above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the black guard Paine say what he will; it is resignation to God, it is goodness itself to man.'

Speaking from his home Wednesday, a school holiday, Williams said the problems started last year after he responded to a student who asked why the Pledge of Allegiance includes the phrase under God.

Eventually a parent complained, and the principal started requesting his lesson plans and handouts.

He may be like the teacher who was supposedly fired for having Bush's picture in the room even though she may have in fact been quite the partisan in the classroom. When they're controlling the government, the right wing needs to somehow keep the liberal boogeyman scary.

http://www.sanmateocountytimes.com/Stories/0,1413,87~11268~2556644,00.html
http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82~1865~2558339,00.html
 
Yup... the story's bullshit. Surprise, surprise.
Here are the quotes from Exhibit E (bold text is my emphasis):

George Washington...It is impossible to rightly govern the world without the Bible.
John Adams...The Bible is the best book in the world. It contains more than all the libraries I have seen.
Thomas Jefferson...The Bible makes the best people in the world.
Abraham Lincoln...But for this Book we cannot know right from wrong. I believe the Bible is the best gift God has ever given to man.
Ulysses S. Grant...The Bible is the anchor of our liberties.
Rutherford B. Hayes...The best religion the world has ever known is the religion of the the Bible. It builds up all that is good.
William McKinley...The more profoundly we study this wonderful Book..the better citizens we will become.
Theodore Roosevelt...No educated man can afford to be ignorant of the Bible.
Herbert Hoover...The whole of the inspirations of our civilization springs from the teaching of Christ. To read the Bible is a necessity of American life.
Jesus Christ...It is written, man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds of the mouth of God.

...let's turn to a list of quotations that frequently appear in religious right literature, but are now admitted by religious right leaders to be either doubtful or false. The source of this list is none other than David Barton, an important accomodationist author we criticize extensively in our responses to the quotations above, and elsewhere in this website. Briefly, Barton has released a press statement stating that nine of the quotations appearing in his book The Myth of Separation (including the first two above) are of doubtful authenticity (one of these has since been authenticated; see below). Additionally, he lists three others that are popularly cited by other conservative authors, but are probably not true. A good article summarizing Barton's list can be found in the July/August 1996 edition of Church and State, A separationist publication.

Barton lists the following quotations as unconfirmed (i.e., no one has been able to trace them to an original source):

* It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ! --Patrick Henry
* It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible. --George Washington
* Whosoever shall introduce into the public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world. --Benjamin Franklin
GEORGE WASHINGTON
The false image of Washington as a devout Christian was fabricated by Mason Locke Weems, a clergyman who also invented the cherry-tree fable and in 1800 published his Life of George Washington. Washington, a Deist and a Freemason, never once mentioned the name of Jesus Christ in any of his thousands of letters, and pointedly referred to divinity as “It.”

Whenever he (rarely) attended church, Washington always deliberately left before communion, demonstrating disbelief in Christianity’s central ceremony.

JOHN ADAMS
Adams, a Unitarian inspired by the Enlightenment, fiercely opposed doctrines of supernaturalism or damnation, writing to Jefferson: “I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved — the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!”

Adams realized how politically crucial — and imperiled — a secular state would be: “The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. … It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service [forming the U.S. government] had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses. …Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery… are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind” (A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787–88).

THOMAS JEFFERSON
It’s a commonly stated error that U.S. law, based on English common law, is thus grounded in Judeo-Christian tradition.

Yet Jefferson (writing to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814 ) noted that common law “is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England …about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century. …We may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”

Jefferson professed disbelief in the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus Christ, while respecting moral teachings by whomever might have been a historical Jesus. He cut up a Bible, assembling his own version: “The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful,” he wrote Adams (January 24, 1814), “evidence that parts have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds.”

Scorning miracles, saints, salvation, damnation, and angelic presences, Jefferson embraced reason, materialism, and science. He challenged Patrick Henry, who wanted a Christian theocracy: “[A]n amendment was proposed by inserting ‘Jesus Christ,’ so that [the preamble] should read ‘A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion’; the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination” (from Jefferson’s Autobiography, referring to the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom).

The theme is consistent throughout Jefferson ’s prolific correspondence: “Question with boldness even the existence of a God” (letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787).

“[The clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man” (letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, September 23, 1800).

“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which…thus[built] a wall of separation between church and state” (letter to the Danbury [ Connecticut ] Baptist Association, January 1, 1802).

“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government” (letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813).

“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own” (letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814).

“[W]hence arises the morality of the Atheist? …Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God” (letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814).
 
Well, that about wraps it up for Williams.

The "Declarashun iz Bannded!!1" ploy will fuel more idiots remembering only the headline for years to come, unfortunately.
 

etiolate

Banned
I don't quite get it. So the material was banned, because the teacher was showing how 'the founding fathers' felt about religion and how it may have influenced them?
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
etiolate said:
I don't quite get it. So the material was banned, because the teacher was showing how 'the founding fathers' felt about religion and how it may have influenced them?
No, for being completely dishonest about it.
 

MetatronM

Unconfirmed Member
etiolate said:
I don't quite get it. So the material was banned, because the teacher was showing how 'the founding fathers' felt about religion and how it may have influenced them?

...

The Declaration of Independence of the United States of America acknowledges faith towards a supreme God who created mankind. The Declaration also acknowledges by all who signed it, the laws of God, the providence of God, and the judgment of God.

The Declaration also appeals to God as the Supreme Judge of the world for their intentions. Furthermore, for the support of this Declaration, the signers relied firmly on the protection of Divine Providence.

No student should fail to know these truths of our American history. Encourage the teachers in your school to distribute this information. It certainly is not in the current text books given to most students in public schools. This kind of godly heritage information must be provided by parents and pastors and god fearing teachers. The state has not done it. It's up to you. What your child learns depends in large part upon you.

Guess again.
 
Follow the link. It's rather rambling and wordy, but very well documented, and addresses a few things of note:

1) The particulars of the case, including the fact that it was not the Declaration that was banned, but rather particular handouts, rife with misinformation (also documented*) were banned.

2) Establishes that the Principal has not banned any other references to God at the school

3) Elaborates on the smear campaign against the Principal and the school

4) Goes into detail on the nature of separation of church and state as written about by the founding fathers, and some of their religious and philosophical views. This was ancilliary to the legal case, but is really the heart of the matter-- what did the founders believe, and how is that being represented? This was very enlightening to me, who believed that some of the claims from civil libertarians overstated the founding fathers' point of view. In fact, some of the founders seem downright hostile toward organized religion in the writings presented.
 
F

Folder

Unconfirmed Member
Ned Flanders said:
See, this is the kind of shit that people like O'Reilly will seize on and spin into more broad anti-liberal sentiment. I applaud the ACLU and those in favor of a separation of church and state, but when their ideals exceed rationality they end up hurting their cause more than helping it. What's next, we can't discuss the historical importance of Martin Luther or Ghandi because doing so would involve their belief in god?
I am your new biggest fan
 
But the ACLU wasn't going nuts here (and actually was not even involved her). The teacher was distributing religious propaganda with historical inaccuracy to advance an agenda, particularly contrary to that of the founders, in fact.

It's as if the teacher were pro-British and was passing out lies, half-truths and distortions showing how the founding fathers intent was to someday reunite with the England.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom