NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

http://www.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6911883

*Applauds*

How to promote religious tolerance - pretend it doesn't exist. Er...

Moderately amusing.

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.

http://www.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6911883
They will be out burning books next.

Or like the second world war the US could just re write history to suit it self.

They will be out burning books next.

It'll be just like Farenheit 451.

very french

I find it virtually impossible to believe that anyone with half an ounce of sense could object to a copy of the Declaration of Independence! It seems that some of these folks have taken complete leave of their senses.

Blue state *cough cough*

very french?

Blue state *cough cough*
Red governor *cough cough*
;)

Red governor *cough cough*
;)

G'damn those Commies.

very french

?
I think he was making an allusion to the current French policies of banning all religious symbols from schools.

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.

http://www.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6911883

This is political correctness taken too far.....

Seriously, it is the DELCARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, that is extremely important in American history! My American history teacher has an enlarged version of the Declaration of Independence hung on his classroom wall and nobody cares. Geez, I'm glad I don't live in California.......

Red governor *cough cough*
;)

Perhaps a red governor with totally blue thinking..lol :p

I think he was making an allusion to the current French policies of banning all religious symbols from schools.Oh OK. It's just another ignorant. I should be used to it.

very french





?


I think he was making an allusion to the current French policies of banning all religious symbols from schools.

It's just his sig. It could be as irrelevant to this discussion as green beans in a desert.

And where is the ACLU in this?


Proving my point about them yet again.

Frankly, I am almost tempted to post Geo. Washington's thanksgiving proclamation, but I will leave it up to others.

This is pathetic. :mad:

And where is the ACLU in this?


Proving my point about them yet again.

Frankly, I am almost tempted to post Geo. Washington's thanksgiving proclamation, but I will leave it up to others.

This is pathetic. :mad:
It's worse than pathetic. It's also a violation of almost everything in the Constitution. I don't consider myself a "conservative," but this type of thing certainly doesn't endear the liberal approach to me. :(

Yar!

It's worse than pathetic. It's also a violation of almost everything in the Constitution. I don't consider myself a "conservative," but this type of thing certainly doesn't endear the liberal approach to me. :(


Well I hardly consider myself I conservative either. But I am disgusted.

Following this logic we would have to get rid of nearly all history.



George Washington's 1789 Thanksgiving Day Proclamation

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 favour; 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 PUBLICK THANSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and 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 TWENTY-SIXTH 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 in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed;-- for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish Constitutions of government for our sasety 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 favours which He has 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 publick 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 kindness unto us); and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase 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, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.

(signed) G. Washington

There, I did it, now california can ban the holiday too.

hurr

yeah, blue state, but it was the stupid school, not the state

that is going a little far though.

Wait, isn't this the country that crams creationism down student's throats and violently opposes evolution?

(I realize I'm being unfair and over-generalizing A LOT, but you can see my point)

Wait, isn't this the country that crams creationism down student's throats and violently opposes evolution?

(I realize I'm being unfair and over-generalizing A LOT, but you can see my point)

No actually, I don't.

I oppose vehemently the teaching of creationism.

This is worse however.

Wait, isn't this the country that crams creationism down student's throats and violently opposes evolution?

(I realize I'm being unfair and over-generalizing A LOT, but you can see my point)
More than "a lot."

CA isn't as blue as one would think. Very much of it is quite red. The proportion of Kerry supporters was low compared to other blue states.

Give the fruits and nuts a break.

Well, thats California for ya.

I just read the article and I can't find the position of the school. All I hear is from the teacher and his lawyer.

There can be a lot of reasons why the school acted like it did. Just on the God issue, the only example they give is the declaration of independance. It is probably the only mild text he gave. He could have given text like "Jesus is great! Convert!" or other pro-religious texts. I'd be willing to bet that he wasn't in trouble for the declaration of independance but for other texts distributed.

I reserve my outrage until I hear both sides of the story. Jumping up and down on the ACLU is a bit premature at this point.

I just read the article and I can't find the position of the school. All I hear is from the teacher and his lawyer.

There can be a lot of reasons why the school acted like it did. Just on the God issue, the only example they give is the declaration of independance. It is probably the only mild text he gave. He could have given text like "Jesus is great! Convert!" or other pro-religious texts. I'd be willing to bet that he wasn't in trouble for the declaration of independance but for other texts distributed.

I reserve my outrage until I hear both sides of the story. Jumping up and down on the ACLU is a bit premature at this point.


Not taking his case though, is it?

Not taking his case though, is it?
Maybe they know something we don't...

I cannot imagine that we have the entire story, here.

This is a very ludicrous situation and I cannot believe that an entire school district would stand behind that superintendant if he/she is as looney as it sounds.

I just read the article and I can't find the position of the school. All I hear is from the teacher and his lawyer.

There can be a lot of reasons why the school acted like it did. Just on the God issue, the only example they give is the declaration of independance. It is probably the only mild text he gave. He could have given text like "Jesus is great! Convert!" or other pro-religious texts. I'd be willing to bet that he wasn't in trouble for the declaration of independance but for other texts distributed.

I reserve my outrage until I hear both sides of the story. Jumping up and down on the ACLU is a bit premature at this point.

I was about to post the same thing. This article is completely biased, thus useless; we need to know the other guys views. Presented like this, it seems to be terrible, but I'm waiting for the other guys' position to form any judgement.

well:

1. It's from a pretty non-partisan source (reuters).

2. What the hell does that matter?

(VO note the use of BL style)

Seriously, I can see stopping some documents from being presented, or a biased presentation. However I can envision no circumsatnces under which the Declaration of Independence should be prohibited.

Simply put, they should not have prohibited that.

I was about to post the same thing. This article is completely biased, thus useless; we need to know the other guys views. Presented like this, it seems to be terrible, but I'm waiting for the other guys' position to form any judgement.
Probably wise, but I don't think the full story will be much different.

well:

1. It's from a pretty non-partisan source (reuters).

2. What the hell does that matter?

(VO note the use of BL style)

Seriously, I can see stopping some documents from being presented, or a biased presentation. However I can envision no circumsatnces under which the Declaration of Independence should be prohibited.

Simply put, they should not have prohibited that.
1. True. I don't fault the source. However, we only have one version. So the story can prove to be a storm in a teacup.

2. I'm sure the guy wasn't banned for the declaration of independence. That would be too hard to explain for the school board. It MUST be something else the teacher did.

A good analogy would be if I get busted for selling the following:
LSD
pot
cocaine
aspirin
heroin
and extassy
but scream that I sould not get arrested for selling aspirin.

very french

it's an outrage. do note that this is political correctness and NOT secularism. Secularism is not out there to rewrite history as a good understanding of the past is essential in understanding the present and preserving our future. Secular Western European countries tend not to let PC ruin there history lessons ...

A good analogy would be if I get busted for selling the following:
LSD
pot
cocaine
aspirin
heroin
and extassy
but scream that I sould not get arrested for selling aspirin.

Inapposite, they could have left the declaration out of it quite easily.

Indeed, they could have specifically made a point to leave it alone.

Inapposite, they could have left the declaration out of it quite easily.

Indeed, they could have specifically made a point to leave it alone.
That's why I say that we hear only one side of the story. Of course, the teacher will use the DOI as an example. The journalists should have asked what other document he was passing to the kids.

That's why I say that we hear only one side of the story. Of course, the teacher will use the DOI as an example. The journalists should have asked what other document he was passing to the kids.

I hear what you are saying, but the fact that they wouldn't exempt that one from the list shows a singular - and troubling - lack of judgment.

It looks as though this clown was cherry-picking bits and pieces of the D of I and other documents to give the little kids the impression that america was a nation meant for christians.

I think its good that he cant try to use his position as teacher to filter the material his class gets so as to coerce them into believing in his religion.

Wait, isn't this the country that crams creationism down student's throats and violently opposes evolution?

(I realize I'm being unfair and over-generalizing A LOT, but you can see my point)

You're not over-generalizing even a little. You're just flat-out wrong. Evolution is taught in public schools. It is taught the same way every other scientific theory of its caliber is taught. Not very thoroughly.

I also doubt that you would find anything but a small minority of the U.S. believing in Creationism, let alone trying to teach it to others, school or no. Evolution is even taught as the only theory on human origins in most religious schools that I know of.

Is it even legal to ban the viewing the dec. of indep.? i mean this is america u cant stop people from reading ne thing here. I mean if Mein Kampf hasnt been banned lol

Is it even legal to ban the viewing the dec. of indep.? i mean this is america u cant stop people from reading ne thing here. I mean if Mein Kampf hasnt been banned lol


This looks to have been taken vastly out of context.

It is perfectly legal for a school administrator to curb efforts by a teacher in his or her charge to proselytize to students under the guise of education.

If this teacher was indeed cherry-picking bits and pieces from historical documents to give the impression that christianity was somehow the basis for the united states and therefore tying christianity to patriotism and other ideas, what the administrator did was correct both legally and morally.

Is it even legal to ban the viewing the dec. of indep.? i mean this is america u cant stop people from reading ne thing here. I mean if Mein Kampf hasnt been banned lol
I suspect, although I can't prove, that a portion of those voting to reelect President Bush did so because of this very thing. Many Americans think that this "political correctness" has gone way too far.

This looks to have been taken vastly out of context.

It is perfectly legal for a school administrator to curb efforts by a teacher in his or her charge to proselytize to students under the guise of education.

If this teacher was indeed cherry-picking bits and pieces from historical documents to give the impression that christianity was somehow the basis for the united states and therefore tying christianity to patriotism and other ideas, what the administrator did was correct both legally and morally.

Precisely. From the way the article read, the school has not banned the Declartion of Indepence from being handed out or taught. It has just refused to let one very specific teacher hand out the Declaration. Sounds as though the problem is in how the teacher is presenting it and not with the school.

Now, as mentioned the school's position has not been made, however I DO note the comment that he "wanted to teach the TRUE history of the country", and also that "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."


Now just to play devil's advocate here - suppose he was deliberately excerpting the religious bits to use and skipping the rest? And that this was what the principal objected to? That he was trying to frame his lessons in a way that made the "true" history of the country a religious endeavour rather than the rebellion against absentee governence that it was?


Would the principal have been out of line then if she had felt that this person was trying to use his class as a religious forum?

Frankly, this article does not put it all into enough context - so I will wait for further info.

If the principal WAS trying to restrict access to important historical docs out of overzealous political correctness then she was in the wrong. However if the teacher was trying to push religion under the guise of a history class then he was wrong.

Now, as mentioned the school's position has not been made, however I DO note the comment that he "wanted to teach the TRUE history of the country", and also that "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."


Now just to play devil's advocate here - suppose he was deliberately excerpting the religious bits to use and skipping the rest? And that this was what the principal objected to? That he was trying to frame his lessons in a way that made the "true" history of the country a religious endeavour rather than the rebellion against absentee governence that it was?


Would the principal have been out of line then if she had felt that this person was trying to use his class as a religious forum?

Frankly, this article does not put it all into enough context - so I will wait for further info.

If the principal WAS trying to restrict access to important historical docs out of overzealous political correctness then she was in the wrong. However if the teacher was trying to push religion under the guise of a history class then he was wrong.


On the other hand, this (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=716&e=28&u=/latimests/20041125/ts_latimes/guardsmensaytheyrefacingiraqilltrained) is completely in context and needs no further explaination.

No need to reserve judgment there.

On the other hand, this (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=716&e=28&u=/latimests/20041125/ts_latimes/guardsmensaytheyrefacingiraqilltrained) is completely in context and needs no further explaination.

No need to reserve judgment there.


I already posted that story to a thread of it's very own.. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=376393)

The teacher's a moron. The founding fathers weren't Christian/catholic. In fact, they hated it. At the time, in 1776, only around 5% of the population were church goers. The rest believed in another god.

Edit for more clarity:
The founding fathers were not Christian/Catholic. During this time, christianity was a minority and most people hated it. Thanks.

I already posted that story to a thread of it's very own.. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=376393)

no irony :(

The teacher's a moron. The founding fathers weren't Christian/catholic. In fact, they hated it. At the time, in 1776, only around 5% of the population were church goers. The rest believed in another god.

Edit for more clarity:
The founding fathers were not Christian/Catholic. During this time, christianity was a minority and most people hated it. Thanks.
5%? :rolleyes:

Source?

The teacher's a moron. The founding fathers weren't Christian/catholic. In fact, they hated it. At the time, in 1776, only around 5% of the population were church goers. The rest believed in another god.

Edit for more clarity:
The founding fathers were not Christian/Catholic. During this time, christianity was a minority and most people hated it. Thanks.
And of course, you have some actual ... you know ... like, proof of this? :)

5%? :rolleyes:

Source?


Sure, but of course, it's taken from an atheist website. But they do have religious figures confirming it within the text. The 5% can be found in the second to last paragraph.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html

Edit: An exerpt from the text
As for the religious beliefs of the general population in pre and post revolutionary times, it wasn't nearly as Christian as most people think. Lynn R. Buzzard, executive director of the Christian Legal Society (a national organization of Christian lawyers) has admitted that there is little proof to support the claim that the colonial population was overwhelmingly Christian. "Not only were a good many of the revolutionary leaders more deist than Christian," Buzzard wrote, "but the actual number of church members was rather small. Perhaps as few as five percent of the populace were church members in 1776" (Schools They Haven't Got a Prayer, Elgin, Illinois David C. Cook Publishing, 1982, p. 81). Historian Richard Hofstadter says that "perhaps as many as ninety percent of the Americans were unchurched in 1790" (Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, New York Alfred A. Knopf, 1974, p. 82) and goes on to say that "mid-eighteenth century America had a smaller proportion of church members than any other nation in Christendom," noting that "in 1800 [only] about one of every fifteen Americans was a church member" (p. 89). Historian James MacGregor Burns agrees with these figures, noting that "(t)here had been a `very wintry season' for religion every where in America after the Revolution" (The American Experiment Vineyard of Liberty, New York Vintage Books, 1983, p. 493). He adds that "ninety percent of the people lay outside the churches."

And of course, you have some actual ... you know ... like, proof of this? :)
The founding fathers not being christians is fiarly well known.
The minority thing, is probably false.

Infidels.org

I guess that explains the figure :rolleyes:

Red governor *cough cough*
;)
Actually, purple governor would be more correct. He is really only "red" when it comes to most of his economic policies.

Infidels.org

I guess that explains the figure :rolleyes:

You know what? If it's so stupid and obviously false, why don't you go and disprove it? You think something like this is going to show up on a religious website? Go ahead, if it's false, it should be easy to disprove.

Infidels.org

I guess that explains the figure :rolleyes:

Now wait just a minute Kwangi. How dare you suggest that an atheist site might be biased against Christianity and use unrealistic numbers! ;)

I cannot imagine that we have the entire story, here.

This is a very ludicrous situation and I cannot believe that an entire school district would stand behind that superintendant if he/she is as looney as it sounds.
You haven't dealty with many school districts then, they pull looney shit like this all the time irrespective of political idealogy.

Looney Left-

Restrict God
Promote Allah

There are several instances where they have done just that. Hypocrites! :gundge:

Looney Left-

Restrict God
Promote Allah

There are several instances where they have done just that. Hypocrites! :gundge:

I would like to see proof of where they promote allah in the school system.

You know what? If it's so stupid and obviously false, why don't you go and disprove it? You think something like this is going to show up on a religious website? Go ahead, if it's false, it should be easy to disprove.

Go read state constitutions as existed in 1788.

That will clear it up for you.

Hmm. Here in Groß-Britannien, I have only had "before Christian era" and "Christian era" forced upon me as P.C. (still went ahead and used Anno Domini).

What was that about the teacher being Moronic? How? He was circulating the declaration of independence - if he'd said the founding fathers weren't Christian, P.C. would probably have bitten him the other way. Actually, not, since P.C. seems to have an overt anti-God bias…. :mad: :mad: :headbang:

wow....my state and county never cease to amaze me....

I would like to see proof of where they promote allah in the school system.

In 7th grade(September 2001-June 2002), we spent about two whole months on the religion of Islam. We haven't spent so much as two weeks on Christianity or Judaism, or any other religion.


Funny how these things work...

Go read state constitutions as existed in 1788.

That will clear it up for you.

I don't know what you're trying to say. A state constitution is not the same as a national constitution. And even then, the discussion is about founding fathers and their religious preference. I'm not sure if the founding fathers wrote the state constitution or not, so you will have to clarify it for me.

I am pretty sure that the majority of the founding fathers did not want religion to dictate a country's position in issues.

Hmm. Here in Groß-Britannien, I have only had "before Christian era" and "Christian era" forced upon me as P.C. (still went ahead and used Anno Domini).

I've always heard the C to stand for common, not Christian.

I've always heard the C to stand for common, not Christian.

Yes. That does seem odd that someone would say it stands for Christian.

I don't know what you're trying to say. A state constitution is not the same as a national constitution. And even then, the discussion is about founding fathers and their religious preference. I'm not sure if the founding fathers wrote the state constitution or not, so you will have to clarify it for me.

I am pretty sure that the majority of the founding fathers did not want religion to dictate a country's position in issues.

Many state constitutions at that time provided for established churches.

Hence they were christian soveriegns upon ratification. Thus your 5% claim is easily dismissed.

Many state constitutions at that time provided for established churches.

Hence they were christian soveriegns upon ratification. Thus your 5% claim is easily dismissed.

Don't tell me that. Send a letter to the Christian Legal Society and tell them that. I'm just reiterating what they were saying.

Edit: Unless you are telling me that they are wrong. Because obviously, you are smarter than a league of educated lawyers.

I've always heard the C to stand for common, not Christian.
Historically speaking, it stands for Christian. It dates back to the Gregorian calendar devised by pope Gregory. Also, since the only scholars in the middle ages were religious people, they included their faith in the marking of time.

So yeah, the C stands for Christ.

Historically speaking, it stands for Christian. It dates back to the Gregorian calendar devised by pope Gregory. Also, since the only scholars in the middle ages were religious people, they included their faith in the marking of time.

So yeah, the C stands for Christ.

*sigh*

Old system: BC=Before Christ AD=Anno Domini

New System: BCE=Before Common Era CE=Common Era

wow....my state and county never cease to amaze me....



In 7th grade(September 2001-June 2002), we spent about two whole months on the religion of Islam. We haven't spent so much as two weeks on Christianity or Judaism, or any other religion.


Funny how these things work...

I could ust as easily reverse that and say that the district did it from a standpoint of just assuming that everyone was familiar with Christianity (a somewhat Christo-centric viewpoint, not anti-Christian).

This is quite ridiculous. I'd agree that it sounds like either the administrator was gunning for this guy. Another possiblity is that this guy has consistently been pushing the envelope (or beating the kids over the head with the Christian references in such materials, downplaying that now) and the administrator just said, "Hell with it - no more God-referencing materials, period!"

I wonder if the Declaration was explicitly included, or if it just happens to fall into the category and makes a sensationalist example?

Typical stupid government school move, similar to expelling children for the red cheese spreaders that come with cheese n' crackers packs.