NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112935,00.html
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20041124-1309-life-declaration.html
http://www.charismanews.com/a.php?ArticleID=10186
http://www.sanmateocountytimes.com/Stories/0,1413,87~11268~2556644,00.html

apparently, in California, the Declaration of Independence is now banned from being taught in Public schools because it makes reference to God.
This is just another attack on American culture, heritage, and tradition.

In case you can't find the story:
"In Cupertino, California, a teacher is going to court after the local school district removed some of his supplementary teaching materials — including excerpts from the Declaration of Independence — because they contained references to God, Christianity (search) and the Bible. FOX News correspondent Anita Vogel has the story."

Very small part of California, and it won't hold up.

.

Meh, anything that contradicts the Fox News Party Line is anti-American. Why should I care?

Meh, anything that contradicts the Fox News Party Line is anti-American. Why should I care?

Note the word "excerpts"

Sounds like the teacher was using the document as an excuse to preach, rather than just giving it whole, as it was intended.

The Declaration of Independance also refers to native Americans as "savages".

Note the word "excerpts"

Sounds like the teacher was using the document as an excuse to preach, rather than just giving it whole, as it was intended.

Meh. I've become so desensitized to the American media spin machine that I just don't care anymore...sad, isn't it?

I want Walter Cronkite to anchor the evening news!!!

I think that the decleration of independance should be taught in schools as a history topic - just like here the UK we teach the royalist vs Cromwell's rebel uprising. I applaud that America does not link education with religion, but it seems absurd that major historical events are not taught because of some tedious link.

Having said that, I think America sometimes gets too caught up in its history and culture, and in trying to force it on every pupil something is lost. If you were all less patriotic then there wouldn't be the need to cram every single American political event into the school system, perhaps you could learn more about the world around you - it would certainly help with the current USA/rest of the world relations problems!

There's a reason the DoI isn't considered a governing document.. it's a big complex "Up Yours England!" note. Nothing more, nothing less. It's like when Martin Luther tacked up that note on the Church.

And yeah, its all garbage. The country doesn't react to anything real anymore anyways. The country went wuss after Kent State.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6578096/

There is a little more to the story then your blip. Fox of course leaves off details.

Some of the comments from MSN says he is being singled out because he is a christian and the fact the founders were relgious men.....

Now as I read this, I get the image he is trying to "teach" children this country was founded for Christianity.

She might of been trying to change his tude.

Now what I said is just an observation. But I think there is more to the story.

Also, this is just one school.........

I think that the decleration of independance should be taught in schools as a history topic - just like here the UK we teach the royalist vs Cromwell's rebel uprising. I applaud that America does not link education with religion, but it seems absurd that major historical events are not taught because of some tedious link.

Having said that, I think America sometimes gets too caught up in its history and culture, and in trying to force it on every pupil something is lost. If you were all less patriotic then there wouldn't be the need to cram every single American political event into the school system, perhaps you could learn more about the world around you - it would certainly help with the current USA/rest of the world relations problems!

1) An American Patriot is called a "Rebel". We're a rebel nation. No joke. The whole fricking point of America is questioning authority. We were founded by DEISTS, for crying out loud. Its just that the country was then taken over by Christians, who want everyone to OBEY authority. Which makes sense, considering the Biblie is more or less communistic. (So much irony it hurts)

2) It's true, we don't learn much about the rest of the world. If it makes you feel better, most kids in the US don't give a damn about OUR history either.

3) I'm more worried that kids get different information based on their age. In grade school, America is magically delicious. Only later do you learn that the country is just as rancid as anyone else, and some of the countries biggest heroes are/were horribly evil or at least selfish bastards. And if you go to the right schools (Right wing schools tend to hire right wing teachers, if they can), you NEVER learn this stuff. Often, however, its too late. The Myth of America is so strong in people they ignore the facts.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6578096/

There is a little more to the story then your blip. Fox of course leaves off details.

Some of the comments from MSN says he is being singled out because he is a christian and the fact the founders were relgious men.....

Now as I read this, I get the image he is trying to "teach" children this country was founded for Christianity.

She might of been trying to change hit tude.

Now what I said is just an observation. But I think there is more to the story.

Also, this is just one school.........

If I was a student in this teacher's class, I would be taking the Declaration of Independence and making him live up to it. If the teacher wants to play games with indoctrinating the kids, I'm going to question that as a student.

I did this all the time in school...from about the fifth grade on. Whenever my teacher gave a nationalistic sermon, I raised my hand and asked "Why should we be forced to believe that democracy is good? Isn't that hypocritical? Prove that the US is the best country in the world without using the word freedom." Stuff like that. I guess you could call me a pinko traitor :D

The teachers who treated their students like convicted felons absolutely hated me, but teachers that actually cared whether or not students were learning loved me, because I provided a perfect example to the rest of the class about what it means to live in a democratic society. Needless to say, I was most popular with teachers who taught things like government and history; I was a walking example of what the Bill of Rights meant :cool:

Back to the original story, in my experience, the same teachers who whine the most about being oppressed for their Christianity are usually the same teachers who try to cram their ideology down students' throats. So I'm gonna take this teacher's claim with a grain of salt.

FYI, I never said the pledge in school after the fifth grade. It had nothing to do with the debate over the words "under God;" I just didn't want to be forced against my will to mumble words to a piece of cloth every day.

Sorry for the incoherent rant :D

Edit: No, I wasn't raised in a liberal household. The rest of the family was utterly apolitical, so I was left to form my own political opinions (no pun intended).

"") An American Patriot is called a "Rebel". We're a rebel nation. No joke. The whole fricking point of America is questioning authority. We were founded by DEISTS, for crying out loud. Its just that the country was then taken over by Christians, who want everyone to OBEY authority. Which makes sense, considering the Biblie is more or less communistic. (So much irony it hurts)""


Taken over by christens when did this happen ? sounds more like just more whining about the lose of the elction ? also when was the US ever atheist and whos freedom to worship or not worship is being imperaled . ?

""2) It's true, we don't learn much about the rest of the world. If it makes you feel better, most kids in the US don't give a damn about OUR history either.""

thats very faslse i know alot about my nations and alot about the world . also this who US rest of the world problem is a joke at best . some how the western european view is no the WORLD VIEW ? something i dont get . and if the whole world did hate us differnt parts of the world would all have differnt reason for hating us . say european and canadian say we shoudl be more soilclist and of course the best one give up are econ and miltary to the UN so they can have a say on how we use it lol . and other parts would want us to change to fasion goals that re the oopsite of why the europeans dis like us at the time . sooo say europe and china dilikes the US policy it would be for oopsite reasons ! so the real problem is right now the US is Numbero Uno and everyone wants a say in what we do how we do it how we channle are econ might etc etc . but in the end we cant please everyone ...

3) I'm more worried that kids get different information based on their age. In grade school, America is magically delicious. Only later do you learn that the country is just as rancid as anyone else, and some of the countries biggest heroes are/were horribly evil or at least selfish bastards. And if you go to the right schools (Right wing schools tend to hire right wing teachers, if they can), you NEVER learn this stuff. Often, however, its too late. The Myth of America is so strong in people they ignore the facts.


well if must be hard to be self hating . but lets face it america has had problems in the past and since are founding the march toward cival right womens right and greater inclusion in democracy began and we took care of a problems and we were allowed to do this thanks to the SYSTEMs the rancid white men set up back in 1776 ... and we never nneeded inferance from another nations to do all this . but america isnt a untpio so who am i to say were better than the USSR Nazi germany etc etc lol

i'm sorry jsut get soo sick of the 60s hippies view of the world and the US

If I was a student in this teacher's class, I would be taking the Declaration of Independence and making him live up to it. If the teacher wants to play games with indoctrinating the kids, I'm going to question that as a student.


hmm it was the opsite to me . my left wing public educaters would give me the left wing view .. ignore the crimes of every nation culture race and eithnic group but but rant for hours on americans crimes that were half as bad .

go on about rapanations ... i would then ask my black teacher if he would give jews repartions for working on the pyramides . =-)

i went after the global warming end of world debat and attacked it while the left was raming save the trees bulshit own are thoarts .

no offecne but in the large picture the left is what is trying to brain wash and indocdronat far worce and far more wide spread then the christans . and i agree he has no right to indocdrnate those kids ... same goes for the envirometalist . femanist . anti war . etc etc they should be out with him out of a school

Now as I read this, I get the image he is trying to "teach" children this country was founded for Christianity

thats just what u think not proven . also u have to rember before u go bashing fox LOOK what state this is coming out of . the same state that have 8 year old putting condoms on cutcumbers and has kids reading sally has to mommies lol =-)

"") An American Patriot is called a "Rebel". We're a rebel nation. No joke. The whole fricking point of America is questioning authority. We were founded by DEISTS, for crying out loud. Its just that the country was then taken over by Christians, who want everyone to OBEY authority. Which makes sense, considering the Biblie is more or less communistic. (So much irony it hurts)""


Taken over by christens when did this happen ? sounds more like just more whining about the lose of the elction ? also when was the US ever atheist and whos freedom to worship or not worship is being imperaled . ?

""2) It's true, we don't learn much about the rest of the world. If it makes you feel better, most kids in the US don't give a damn about OUR history either.""

thats very faslse i know alot about my nations and alot about the world . also this who US rest of the world problem is a joke at best . some how the western european view is no the WORLD VIEW ? something i dont get . and if the whole world did hate us differnt parts of the world would all have differnt reason for hating us . say european and canadian say we shoudl be more soilclist and of course the best one give up are econ and miltary to the UN so they can have a say on how we use it lol . and other parts would want us to change to fasion goals that re the oopsite of why the europeans dis like us at the time . sooo say europe and china dilikes the US policy it would be for oopsite reasons ! so the real problem is right now the US is Numbero Uno and everyone wants a say in what we do how we do it how we channle are econ might etc etc . but in the end we cant please everyone ...

3) I'm more worried that kids get different information based on their age. In grade school, America is magically delicious. Only later do you learn that the country is just as rancid as anyone else, and some of the countries biggest heroes are/were horribly evil or at least selfish bastards. And if you go to the right schools (Right wing schools tend to hire right wing teachers, if they can), you NEVER learn this stuff. Often, however, its too late. The Myth of America is so strong in people they ignore the facts.


well if must be hard to be self hating . but lets face it america has had problems in the past and since are founding the march toward cival right womens right and greater inclusion in democracy began and we took care of a problems and we were allowed to do this thanks to the SYSTEMs the rancid white men set up back in 1776 ... and we never nneeded inferance from another nations to do all this . but america isnt a untpio so who am i to say were better than the USSR Nazi germany etc etc lol

i'm sorry jsut get soo sick of the 60s hippies view of the world and the US
Just thought this deserved to be posted again, with the bits I found most amusing in bold.

If I was a student in this teacher's class, I would be taking the Declaration of Independence and making him live up to it. If the teacher wants to play games with indoctrinating the kids, I'm going to question that as a student.

I did this all the time in school...from about the fifth grade on. Whenever my teacher gave a nationalistic sermon, I raised my hand and asked "Why should we be forced to believe that democracy is good? Isn't that hypocritical? Prove that the US is the best country in the world without using the word freedom." Stuff like that. I guess you could call me a pinko traitor :D


You pinko traitor! ;) That is an excellent approach. I always argued with my teachers as well. Hated by many and was liked my many. The ones that liked me always pointed me to books I might not have found on my own.

It's a difference of attitudes I guess. My family was around since the 1700s. If you ever heard of Major Angus McDonald.....

So there was always an intrest for the truth rather then legond.

FYI, I never said the pledge in school after the fifth grade. It had nothing to do with the debate over the words "under God;" I just didn't want to be forced against my will to mumble words to a piece of cloth every day.


What was that Christian thing about praying to idols? ;)


Sorry for the incoherent rant :D

Edit: No, I wasn't raised in a liberal household. The rest of the family was utterly apolitical, so I was left to form my own political opinions (no pun intended).

I followed you just fine. ;)

If I was a student in this teacher's class, I would be taking the Declaration of Independence and making him live up to it. If the teacher wants to play games with indoctrinating the kids, I'm going to question that as a student.


hmm it was the opsite to me . my left wing public educaters would give me the left wing view .. ignore the crimes of every nation culture race and eithnic group but but rant for hours on americans crimes that were half as bad .

go on about rapanations ... i would then ask my black teacher if he would give jews repartions for working on the pyramides . =-)

i went after the global warming end of world debat and attacked it while the left was raming save the trees bulshit own are thoarts .

no offecne but in the large picture the left is what is trying to brain wash and indocdronat far worce and far more wide spread then the christans . and i agree he has no right to indocdrnate those kids ... same goes for the envirometalist . femanist . anti war . etc etc they should be out with him out of a school

I'm an equal oppurtunity questioner...I threw slave reparations back in more than one teacher's face, for example. I do think it's going a bit far to make those four generations removed from slavery, not to mention immigrants that came here after the abolition thereof, pay for it.

However, most of the textbooks that I had to read were patriotic propaganda that made lame attempts to spin the errors that America has committed. For example, something like...

"Though the American Indians were driven off their original lands, the government successfully resettled them, and taught them the ways of American democracy. Eventually, the Indians enjoyed equal rights, and everyone lived happily ever after." :rolleyes:

No mention of the (mutual) atrocities committed by both Uncle Sam and the Indians in retaliation; everything has to be happy and in the end, the United States, though not without occasional setbacks, continues to be the most free country on earth. :rolleyes:

Not anymore, it ain't. If I could afford the immigration lawyer and the plane ticket, I'd be moving to Sweden or Belgium yesterday. Maybe even France. :D

And I can tell that you have every right to complain about the education that you received, too.

""2) It's true, we don't learn much about the rest of the world. If it makes you feel better, most kids in the US don't give a damn about OUR history either.""

thats very faslse i know alot about my nations and alot about the world . also this who US rest of the world problem is a joke at best . some how the western european view is no the WORLD VIEW ? something i dont get . and if the whole world did hate us differnt parts of the world would all have differnt reason for hating us . say european and canadian say we shoudl be more soilclist and of course the best one give up are econ and miltary to the UN so they can have a say on how we use it lol . and other parts would want us to change to fasion goals that re the oopsite of why the europeans dis like us at the time . sooo say europe and china dilikes the US policy it would be for oopsite reasons ! so the real problem is right now the US is Numbero Uno and everyone wants a say in what we do how we do it how we channle are econ might etc etc . but in the end we cant please everyone ...


Wow that was a nice rant that didn't even address the question. Ok you study history. So did I and so did Woody.

The fact remains is that many American youth, especially Teens, barely know history. My favorite example is one twit that says the Axis powers were Germany, Japan, and England.

Out of all the young of today; the amount that have a good understanding of US history is small.

The numbers are probably even smaller when it comes to events of other nations.


well if must be hard to be self hating . but lets face it america has had problems in the past and since are founding the march toward cival right womens right and greater inclusion in democracy began and we took care of a problems and we were allowed to do this thanks to the SYSTEMs the rancid white men set up back in 1776 ... and we never nneeded inferance from another nations to do all this . but america isnt a untpio so who am i to say were better than the USSR Nazi germany etc etc lol


Again whoa. Civil rights? I guess you missed that each black is 3/5 of a vote part. Women? I guess the sufferage gals were misinformed.

As to interfering? No we never bothered Mexico, Central America, Spain, Canda, the Nations people, Hawaii, the Philipenes, etc. etc. etc.


i'm sorry jsut get soo sick of the 60s hippies view of the world and the US

Yes I guess people that bring up black marks can get annoying.

What was that Christian thing about praying to idols? ;)
I followed you just fine. ;)

Hehehe...the idolatry was part of it. But part of it was that I also didn't want to be forced to say something that I saw as, at best superficial, at worst, a piece of propaganda created to ensure compliant little students.

i went after the global warming end of world debat and attacked it while the left was raming save the trees bulshit own are thoarts .

no offecne but in the large picture the left is what is trying to brain wash and indocdronat far worce and far more wide spread then the christans . and i agree he has no right to indocdrnate those kids ... same goes for the envirometalist . femanist . anti war . etc etc they should be out with him out of a school

Hey it's Rush!

Wowwww that if funny! :D

Eh
Movie with Bill Murray and Ghost Busters Guy
How America is um mongrel but that makes them good
I blame Puritants :mp5:

Now as I read this, I get the image he is trying to "teach" children this country was founded for Christianity

thats just what u think not proven . also u have to rember before u go bashing fox LOOK what state this is coming out of . the same state that have 8 year old putting condoms on cutcumbers and has kids reading sally has to mommies lol =-)

Ahh the liberal fag state refernce.

You from Kentucky? YOu sound like one of my cracker relatives.

If I was a student in this teacher's class, I would be taking the Declaration of Independence and making him live up to it. If the teacher wants to play games with indoctrinating the kids, I'm going to question that as a student.


hmm it was the opsite to me . my left wing public educaters would give me the left wing view .. ignore the crimes of every nation culture race and eithnic group but but rant for hours on americans crimes that were half as bad .

go on about rapanations ... i would then ask my black teacher if he would give jews repartions for working on the pyramides . =-)

i went after the global warming end of world debat and attacked it while the left was raming save the trees bulshit own are thoarts .

no offecne but in the large picture the left is what is trying to brain wash and indocdronat far worce and far more wide spread then the christans . and i agree he has no right to indocdrnate those kids ... same goes for the envirometalist . femanist . anti war . etc etc they should be out with him out of a school

Is this another antiamerican rant that we always see on here?

I couldn't abide living in a red state. I'm proud of my blue state. We blue staters are modern rebels and Deists much like our Founding Fathers.
In fact, I think all red states should form their own little Theocracy and let us alone.

And if you go to the right schools (Right wing schools tend to hire right wing teachers, if they can), you NEVER learn this stuff.
And leftie schools never try to hire leftie teachers? Quid pro quo Incenjucarania, Quid pro quo.

And if anyone asks I did NOT just watch Silence of the Lambs. Nope certainly not.

In fact, I think all red states should form their own little Theocracy and let us alone.

the problem with that is that then you would be abandoning significant percentages of their populations to the utter horror of what those fascists would do without some sane courts and a bill of rights to hold them back.

I couldn't abide living in a red state. I'm proud of my blue state. We blue staters are modern rebels and Deists much like our Founding Fathers.
In fact, I think all red states should form their own little Theocracy and let us alone.
Love the delusions. Daley is about as much of a rebel as a freaking Tory. And he's king of Illinois.

Well seeing how this thread has kinda gotten sidetracked I'd just like to take a moment to laugh at the way someone has rearranged all the keys on Liberta Islands keyboard :p :D :p

ok now that thats over with... Hey Not so fast now I live In a red state but I'm by no means Red! so no fair blue state folks thinkin' you can just run off and leave guys like me behind!

ok now that thats over with.. I do think its silly to pull the Declaration from classrooms but ole dude probablly was trying to use it to preach in school.. ya know what sucks.. back when i was in elementary school they used to take us to a building across the street that wasn't part of the school where we would have bible studies.. you beleive that shit? but like I say you can only shove so much religion down someones throat before the retch it up again :p

Well seeing how this thread has kinda gotten sidetracked I'd just like to take a moment to laugh at the way someone has rearranged all the keys on Liberta Islands keyboard :p :D :p
ROFL!

I did this all the time in school...from about the fifth grade on. Whenever my teacher gave a nationalistic sermon, I raised my hand and asked "Why should we be forced to believe that democracy is good? Isn't that hypocritical? Prove that the US is the best country in the world without using the word freedom." Stuff like that. I guess you could call me a pinko traitor :D


This is just about the funniest thing I have read in a long time. Kudos.

apparently, in California, the Declaration of Independence is now banned from being taught in Public schools because it makes reference to God.
This is just another attack on American culture, heritage, and tradition.
Erm, no. Separation of Church and State, anyone? The whole reason the Europeans religious community emigrated? It's people like you who are undermining American tradition.

Taken over by christens when did this happen ? sounds more like just more whining about the lose of the elction ? also when was the US ever atheist and whos freedom to worship or not worship is being imperaled . ?



When the love of chastity got ignored more often than usual, ne?

What are you blathering about? I was annoyed with Christians trying to screw with the world since I heard about the Crusades. I never said Atheist, I said DEIST. The nation's founders were, to a rather large extent, Deists.

When did this argument ever have anything to do with whether or not you worshipped? It's about someone using a document in a biased manner.



thats very faslse i know alot about my nations and alot about the world . also this who US rest of the world problem is a joke at best . some how the western european view is no the WORLD VIEW ? something i dont get . and if the whole world did hate us differnt parts of the world would all have differnt reason for hating us . say european and canadian say we shoudl be more soilclist and of course the best one give up are econ and miltary to the UN so they can have a say on how we use it lol . and other parts would want us to change to fasion goals that re the oopsite of why the europeans dis like us at the time . sooo say europe and china dilikes the US policy it would be for oopsite reasons ! so the real problem is right now the US is Numbero Uno and everyone wants a say in what we do how we do it how we channle are econ might etc etc . but in the end we cant please everyone ...


I'm glad to know that you are the vast majority of American children and have missed the point entirely.

On average, US citizens don't care about history. Most of the WORLD doesn't truly care about history. It's part of why we all keep making the same stupid mistakes. (The US is sneaking up on Rome and Britain as we speak in making the "Center of the World Ma!" mistake, with China set to be our next center).


3) I'm more worried that kids get different information based on their age. In grade school, America is magically delicious. Only later do you learn that the country is just as rancid as anyone else, and some of the countries biggest heroes are/were horribly evil or at least selfish bastards. And if you go to the right schools (Right wing schools tend to hire right wing teachers, if they can), you NEVER learn this stuff. Often, however, its too late. The Myth of America is so strong in people they ignore the facts.


well if must be hard to be self hating.


As we all know, I was every US President and KKK member and slaver and senator and house rep and mayor. Currently, I'm the Crab Nebula. I needed a change of pace.


but lets face it america has had problems in the past and since are founding the march toward cival right womens right and greater inclusion in democracy began and we took care of a problems and we were allowed to do this thanks to the SYSTEMs the rancid white men set up back in 1776 ... and we never nneeded inferance from another nations to do all this . but america isnt a untpio so who am i to say were better than the USSR Nazi germany etc etc lol

i'm sorry jsut get soo sick of the 60s hippies view of the world and the US

Hippies were idiots too. Most humans are. They were just less evil idiots than what we have right now. And thank heavens its not a Utopia, Utopia requires slavery. Sick little book, that one.

And I ask you, if we didn't need help, what makes us think that every other nation needs OUR help? We tell them to butt out, but we can't keep our sticky fingers out of everyone else's business. This is why other countries have so much to say about the US; because we don't mind our own damned business.

In Cupertino, California, a teacher is going to court after the local school district removed some of his supplementary teaching materials — including excerpts from the Declaration of Independence — because they contained references to God, Christianity (search) and the Bible. FOX News correspondent Anita Vogel has the story.

I remember reading the full article. The defense had full right to explain their views, but the position of the attack were absolutely not described (except by the defense, which must be completely neutral, don't you think?). The problem is probably that the teacher insisted on the references on God and promoted christianism as the only american patriot religion. I can't be sure, because Fox news isn't going to give me that info. References to fox news are always the source of bad posts ;)

Updated with more links.

This is clearly a violation of the law for the district to do this.
All he was doing was saying that the founders believed we derived our rights from God. That is in the Declaration of independence, in most state constitutions and in the federal constitution itself.
And you might want to consider that the single complaint (only one athiest person complained about it) is likely to be the same moron that complained bout the Pledge of Allegiance and who threatened a lawsuit over the words "In God We Trust" on US currency.
This is a case that will likely wind its way to the supreme court unless the school district changes direction. And it is likely the Supreme Court will find for the teacher as his rights are clearly being violated.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112935,00.html
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20041124-1309-life-declaration.html
http://www.charismanews.com/a.php?ArticleID=10186
http://www.sanmateocountytimes.com/Stories/0,1413,87~11268~2556644,00.html

apparently, in California, the Declaration of Independence is now banned from being taught in Public schools because it makes reference to God.
This is just another attack on American culture, heritage, and tradition.

In case you can't find the story:
"In Cupertino, California, a teacher is going to court after the local school district removed some of his supplementary teaching materials — including excerpts from the Declaration of Independence — because they contained references to God, Christianity (search) and the Bible. FOX News correspondent Anita Vogel has the story."

Look into the story, the Declaration of Independence is not being banned, this particular teacher's style is.

This man picked out *only* US historical documents that portrayed Christianity in a good light and ignored all other documents or parts of documents that did not - *IN a 5th Grade History Class*.

In other words, he was preaching instead of teaching.

Now as I read this, I get the image he is trying to "teach" children this country was founded for Christianity

thats just what u think not proven . also u have to rember before u go bashing fox LOOK what state this is coming out of . the same state that have 8 year old putting condoms on cutcumbers and has kids reading sally has to mommies lol =-)


Actually, the reason he was reprimanded *was* preaching, and documents other than the Declaration of Independence were involved.

Did I call it, or did I call it? I didn't even have to read the articles. It was just that damned word, "excerpts".

Yay for the insipid predictibility of zealots! Er, wait, hell.

Updated with more links.


All of the links you added adopt the same biased attitude, giving the point of view of the teacher, but not the point of view of the attackers. I guess they're all rightist papers :rolleyes:

here is one of the things that were read to the class, from a link that is a little bit more objective (althought this is the only place left to the accusation in the article...):
``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.''

Updated with more links.

This is clearly a violation of the law for the district to do this.
All he was doing was saying that the founders believed we derived our rights from God. That is in the Declaration of independence, in most state constitutions and in the federal constitution itself.
And you might want to consider that the single complaint (only one athiest person complained about it) is likely to be the same moron that complained bout the Pledge of Allegiance and who threatened a lawsuit over the words "In God We Trust" on US currency.
This is a case that will likely wind its way to the supreme court unless the school district changes direction. And it is likely the Supreme Court will find for the teacher as his rights are clearly being violated.

No he is not. He is putting the founded for Chistianity spin on history. Washington was a diest and he wanted to use a prayer book he had. I have one because it was my great-great-grandfathers. I am a bluemoon catholic.

He misrepresents the Declaration because there is no refernce to the Christian God.

All the material she blocked obviously shows a Christian spin to his lecture.

The fact an ultra-conservative Christian lawyer group is taking up his case shows he wants a Christian spin on history.

Let it go to the courts. They will either refuse to hear it or find a quick and dirty way to throw out the case just like they did wiht Nedow.

The fact an ultra-conservative Christian lawyer group is taking up his case shows he wants a Christian spin on history.


And notice that neither the teacher's union nor the ACLU will touch it with a 30-ft pole.

Updated with more links.

Just to add. Your links moved me to the he wanted to preach Christianity camp.....

This is not "anti-American". The Declaration of Independence isn't even an official government document; it's a piece of propaganda that was designed to set off the Revolution.

According to a Civil Rights Attorney I saw on the O'Reilly Factor the day after Thanksgiving, the school's issue was more about the fact that the teacher was trying to use documents like the Declaration of Independence to show that the Founders were religious men. In other words, it was not that religious references were "occaisonally coming up", it was that he was using these documents to further his own agenda of the founders having been religious.

http://www.napanews.com/templates/index.cf...9D-C24915D0AE90

Williams told the Oakland Tribune that the problems started last year after he responded to a student who asked why the Pledge of Allegiance includes the phrase, "under God." After a parent complained, the principal started requesting his lesson plans and handouts.

Obviously, without knowing more details it's hard to comment further- my first guess is that he probably wasn't being extremely detailed or nuanced in explaining the wide and variable religious positions held by the founders.

The fact that this is a 5th grade classroom makes me even less sympathetic to the teacher's case. I don't think arguing various positions about the Founding Fathers' religious beliefs- or lack thereof- and even more important, what impact that has, or should have, on modern-day American society, is really appropriate for 5th graders. So why not leave it for a later date?

Sorry, I don't see the cause for "outrage" here.

Understand; my issue is not with recognizing and acknowledging that SOME of the Founders were religious; it is with perpetuating the myth that they were uniformly Christian or "religious", because that simply isn't true, and it's been well-documented. If you're going to teach kids about this stuff, tell them about the religious founders, sure, but also at least give them SOME conception about the situation's complexity. Expose them to the fact that a lot of the Founders seem to have been Deists; to the fact that many of the big-name ones seem to have displayed outright indifference or hostility to religion or Christianity. Have them contrast THIS behavior and information with the well-known (and publicized) writings in which they invoke God the Creator.

In other words- MAKE THEM THINK. Don't just pass out copies of the Dec. of Independence with "God" underlined. Giving them a bunch of Founder-written documents with "god" in them doesn't TEACH them anything.

What's better, to learn an incorrect and oversimplified lesson, or nothing at all? A hard choice. I for one am GLAD that I didn't learn much US history until the 8th grade; I think it probably kept me from learning as much dumbed-down bullshit as some other people. There are always drawbacks when choosing to focus on one educational component over another; I'm just unconvinced that the faith of the Founders is something 5th graders need to spend a lot of time ruminating over.

All this takes me back to the day in 8th grade when our history teacher was out, so the school principal sat in. He proceeded to spend the hour telling us that the First Amendment guaranteed our freedom to practice the religion of our choice, but that we were *not* free to practice no religion. And furthermore, "religion" meant that you believed in a single God. Thus we were mandated by the Constitution not to be atheists, agnostics, pagans, or any other non-single-deity religion.

Oh yeah, and the 7th/8th grade "science teacher" who was actually a Church of Christ minister, and informed us that we were not to read the chapter in the science book on evolution "because we don't believe in that."

It's amazing I ever made it to college with a background like that.

The Declaration of Independance also refers to native Americans as "savages".

they were, at the time.

All of the links you added adopt the same biased attitude, giving the point of view of the teacher, but not the point of view of the attackers. I guess they're all rightist papers :rolleyes:

here is one of the things that were read to the class, from a link that is a little bit more objective (althought this is the only place left to the accusation in the article...):
``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.''
You are correct that there is an apparent bias. But these were the only moderate links I could find. The rest were biased in the direction of forcing religion on people so I didn't use them.

Where did you get that qoute from?

they were, at the time.

Anyone who wasn't European was considered 'savage,' at the time. :rolleyes:

No he is not. He is putting the founded for Chistianity spin on history. Washington was a diest and he wanted to use a prayer book he had. I have one because it was my great-great-grandfathers. I am a bluemoon catholic.

He misrepresents the Declaration because there is no refernce to the Christian God.

All the material she blocked obviously shows a Christian spin to his lecture.

The fact an ultra-conservative Christian lawyer group is taking up his case shows he wants a Christian spin on history.

Let it go to the courts. They will either refuse to hear it or find a quick and dirty way to throw out the case just like they did wiht Nedow.

Deists are christians in case you didn't know.
There is a reference in the Declaration. "All men are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights". And those rights are ones that only God can take away or limit and not man.
She was banning Christianity from the schools. You have to remember that this is a district where kids get suspended for praying on the playground.
The religious views of the lawyers is irrelevant. They would have done the same thing if it was Buddhists being censored for their beliefs.
Newdow had no standing whatsoever. This teacher on the other hand has clear and solid standing and his case is pretty strong under US Supreme Court precedent.

And notice that neither the teacher's union nor the ACLU will touch it with a 30-ft pole.
The ACLU and teachers unions are communist anti american organizations that seek to ban all religions from the public square, not just christianity. As such, that puts them against the US Constitution.
History has shown that is the athiests who are trying to ban other people from exercising their rights to religious freedom freedom of thought, and freedom of speech.

This is not "anti-American". The Declaration of Independence isn't even an official government document; it's a piece of propaganda that was designed to set off the Revolution.

According to a Civil Rights Attorney I saw on the O'Reilly Factor the day after Thanksgiving, the school's issue was more about the fact that the teacher was trying to use documents like the Declaration of Independence to show that the Founders were religious men. In other words, it was not that religious references were "occaisonally coming up", it was that he was using these documents to further his own agenda of the founders having been religious.

http://www.napanews.com/templates/index.cf...9D-C24915D0AE90



Obviously, without knowing more details it's hard to comment further- my first guess is that he probably wasn't being extremely detailed or nuanced in explaining the wide and variable religious positions held by the founders.

The fact that this is a 5th grade classroom makes me even less sympathetic to the teacher's case. I don't think arguing various positions about the Founding Fathers' religious beliefs- or lack thereof- and even more important, what impact that has, or should have, on modern-day American society, is really appropriate for 5th graders. So why not leave it for a later date?

Sorry, I don't see the cause for "outrage" here.

Understand; my issue is not with recognizing and acknowledging that SOME of the Founders were religious; it is with perpetuating the myth that they were uniformly Christian or "religious", because that simply isn't true, and it's been well-documented. If you're going to teach kids about this stuff, tell them about the religious founders, sure, but also at least give them SOME conception about the situation's complexity. Expose them to the fact that a lot of the Founders seem to have been Deists; to the fact that many of the big-name ones seem to have displayed outright indifference or hostility to religion or Christianity. Have them contrast THIS behavior and information with the well-known (and publicized) writings in which they invoke God the Creator.

In other words- MAKE THEM THINK. Don't just pass out copies of the Dec. of Independence with "God" underlined. Giving them a bunch of Founder-written documents with "god" in them doesn't TEACH them anything.

What's better, to learn an incorrect and oversimplified lesson, or nothing at all? A hard choice. I for one am GLAD that I didn't learn much US history until the 8th grade; I think it probably kept me from learning as much dumbed-down bullshit as some other people. There are always drawbacks when choosing to focus on one educational component over another; I'm just unconvinced that the faith of the Founders is something 5th graders need to spend a lot of time ruminating over.

The founders of the US were all deeply religious men. The only thing being that their religiousity took on different forms of expression. As stated in an earlier post, diests are christians.
I would agree with whether this was a proper subject for 5th graders to begin with. At that age, they should be concentrating on reading, writing, math, physical education, and music.

All this takes me back to the day in 8th grade when our history teacher was out, so the school principal sat in. He proceeded to spend the hour telling us that the First Amendment guaranteed our freedom to practice the religion of our choice, but that we were *not* free to practice no religion. And furthermore, "religion" meant that you believed in a single God. Thus we were mandated by the Constitution not to be atheists, agnostics, pagans, or any other non-single-deity religion.

Oh yeah, and the 7th/8th grade "science teacher" who was actually a Church of Christ minister, and informed us that we were not to read the chapter in the science book on evolution "because we don't believe in that."

It's amazing I ever made it to college with a background like that.
Was that a public school you attended? Cause its sounds more like a church school.
And if your principle did say that, he was likely a crackpot.

Where did you get that qoute from?
your "sanmlateocountytimes" link

Boil it down. You will have one view and you will have another. We have a seperation of religion and state for a reason. Religion should be taught at what ever religious place (read church, mosque, temple, ancient oak circle) you favor. Education (read reading, writing, math, science etc.) should be taught at public schools. If you want to learn about what ever god(s) go to your local place of worship. If you want to learn how to add go to a public school. We seperate these things for the very fact that there are so many beliefs. Not all Christains believe or impliment thier faiths in the same fashion. If Bush were a member of the Jesus Christ Church of Peace he might have a different view of the military then his evangelical views now. The current infusion of certain beliefs into the US government benifits only a certain style of Christain faith and takes little account of many other Christain view/muslim views/jewish views/the church of homer simpson views. To make the system free from the shadow of any one belief it was hoped that ALL faiths and peoples could be represented. I don't feel like that's happening. I don't think that the DOI should be banned from schools nor should the word god have such a negative over tone to it the US's media. I don't think that any one faith should be stressed in any lesson in public schools. Private schools or what ever faith? They can say and teach what ever faith they want. You should NEVER look to your government and find (a) God peering back at you. That leads to a whole lot of people killing each other over who God(s) love the most. As far as I have read (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Morman Christian, Quaker, Hindu, Buddhist) teachings, all of them say the same thing. Don't kill, don't hate, love everybody and forgive everything. My wife once told me that Christ didn't kill anybody and he said that thing about turning the other cheek. Well most holy books (yup even muslim) say don't kill. It's people who decide to add the "except when I say it's ok" part. Sorry for the long post and I really am sorry if I offended anybody. Just dropping my two cents and hoping it doesn't echo.

your "sanmlateocountytimes" link
that's a liberal paper. Just about every single paper in california is a liberal paper. The reason it appears biased for the teacher and not the district is only because the district refused to comment. If they had, the paper would have given them preferential treatment. but because they didn't, the paper had no choice. This is very typical of California school districts in that they think they are above the law and are not accountable to the people who elect them.

The ACLU and teachers unions are communist anti american organizations that seek to ban all religions from the public square, not just christianity. As such, that puts them against the US Constitution.
History has shown that is the athiests who are trying to ban other people from exercising their rights to religious freedom freedom of thought, and freedom of speech.

"History has shown"? Please provide some evidence that your statement is true. Please also cite the part of the Constitution where it says "because we believe in God, we're going to make this great nation and give it lots of cool rights, because only God would do a thing like that".

I must admit this is the first time I have seen "atheists" submitted for "Jews" in a plot to take over the United States...

I must admit this is the first time I have seen "atheists" submitted for "Jews" in a plot to take over the United States...

A once-common nickname for the ACLU was the "ACL-Jew." This is less common nowadays, because slurs against Jews are no longer acceptable in public. Athiests, on the other hand, can be attacked without penalty in most circles. Still, it's the same idea--fundamentalist Christians have convinced themselves that a small religious minority is plotting to take over the country.

"History has shown"? Please provide some evidence that your statement is true. Please also cite the part of the Constitution where it says "because we believe in God, we're going to make this great nation and give it lots of cool rights, because only God would do a thing like that".

I must admit this is the first time I have seen "atheists" submitted for "Jews" in a plot to take over the United States...
Nah, the jews are our friends and allies. It is atheists who are the real enemy. They want o take over not just the United States, but the whole world.
:)

A once-common nickname for the ACLU was the "ACL-Jew." This is less common nowadays, because slurs against Jews are no longer acceptable in public. Athiests, on the other hand, can be attacked without penalty in most circles. Still, it's the same idea--fundamentalist Christians have convinced themselves that a small religious minority is plotting to take over the country.
But they are. Why won't you believe?

I couldn't abide living in a red state. I'm proud of my blue state. We blue staters are modern rebels and Deists much like our Founding Fathers.
In fact, I think all red states should form their own little Theocracy and let us alone.

NOOOO!!! Don't strand me in this pit of doom!

As far as I have read (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Morman Christian, Quaker, Hindu, Buddhist) teachings, all of them say the same thing. Don't kill, don't hate, love everybody and forgive everything. My wife once told me that Christ didn't kill anybody and he said that thing about turning the other cheek. Well most holy books (yup even muslim) say don't kill.

While I agree with what you're going after....

Christians (mixed bag, I know)/Jews/Muslims - the OT has numerous situations where God orders the Israelites to kill entire peoples, including men, women, and children who were noncombatants but would not convert.

Buddhism - "If you meet the Buddha walking along the road, kill him."

Hindu - Krishna often takes the form of the Goddess of Death and destruction... orders the deaths of thousands....

Like I said, I agree with what you're saying 100%. Of the examples above, all are either metaphorical statements, or historical accounts and not meant for indicating how to live (disclaimer). :)

Deists are christians in case you didn't know.

Yes and No. Deism is a concept regarding the level of interaction 'God' has with the World. Some Deists are christians. Some aren't. It is fairly clear from diaries and other private materials that most of the founding fathers weren't.

They would have done the same thing if it was Buddhists being censored for their beliefs.

You'd have to work pretty hard to censor us for our beliefs. Particularly since we accept forms of scriptural interpretaion that would make most western religion gouge out their ears.

Was that a public school you attended? Cause its sounds more like a church school.
And if your principle did say that, he was likely a crackpot.


Nope, it was a small-town public school in a (very) Red state, though back then it was actually still a Blue state. The principal was a member of the Methodist church, which was actually one of the more moderate churches in town, if you can believe that.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112935,00.html
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20041124-1309-life-declaration.html
http://www.charismanews.com/a.php?ArticleID=10186
http://www.sanmateocountytimes.com/Stories/0,1413,87~11268~2556644,00.html

apparently, in California, the Declaration of Independence is now banned from being taught in Public schools because it makes reference to God.
This is just another attack on American culture, heritage, and tradition.

In case you can't find the story:
"In Cupertino, California, a teacher is going to court after the local school district removed some of his supplementary teaching materials — including excerpts from the Declaration of Independence — because they contained references to God, Christianity (search) and the Bible. FOX News correspondent Anita Vogel has the story."
Excellent "news" as always.

This is one area (other than those moronic trial lawyers), that I really don't approve of. I just don't see the reason. Why take some (most likely already underpaid) poor teacher to court over it?

Maybe I'm just a dumbass, but I don't see why some people have a fit over it. Who said it's Christianity's version of God it's referring to? A lot of religions have a God (or many Gods), whether Buddah, Allah, what not. The only type of people I could see it offending are Athesists, but everyone knows that true athesists wouldn't care.

Yeesh.

- Asylum Nova

PS: In no way though, would I make sure to keep it in schools. If the teacher has a liking for it, sure, recite it. If a teacher doesn't like it, don't make it law for it to be recited. And if a child has a problem with reciting it, don't make him. Again, freedom of choice here.

This is one area (other than those moronic trial lawyers), that I really don't approve of. I just don't see the reason. Why take some (most likely already underpaid) poor teacher to court over it?

Maybe I'm just a dumbass, but I don't see why some people have a fit over it. Who said it's Christianity's version of God it's referring to? A lot of religions have a God (or many Gods), whether Buddah, Allah, what not. The only type of people I could see it offending are Athesists, but everyone knows that true athesists wouldn't care.

Yeesh.

- Asylum Nova

PS: In no way though, would I make sure to keep it in schools. If the teacher has a liking for it, sure, recite it. If a teacher doesn't like it, don't make it law for it to be recited. And if a child has a problem with reciting it, don't make him. Again, freedom of choice here.

1. The teacher is the one who is suing the district over it.
2. Good point, but there were no catholics, buddhists, athiests, or muslims in America at the time. The founders were not hostile to religion. What they disliked was religious excess. They were christian diests.
3. Even then, it is a small number of athiests who are trying to ban religion from public life. Newdow being one of the most infamous.
4. It is up to teachers to decide what they include in their lesson plans as long as it doesn't involve handing out alcohol, pot, porn. or other stuff it is illegal for children to have.
5. Children do not have the same rights as adults because they are not capable of thinking for themselves. Due to their not being anything religious about the Declaration of Independence, it is not up to the child whether he should be required to recite or memorize it. It is the duty of all Americans to know the Declaration of Independence but sadly only 20% public school students do. And ony 45% of the US public at large does.

The Declaration of Independance also refers to native Americans as "savages".
:D *snicker*

1. The teacher is the one who is suing the district over it.
2. Good point, but there were no catholics, buddhists, athiests, or muslims in America at the time. The founders were not hostile to religion. What they disliked was religious excess. They were christian diests.
3. Even then, it is a small number of athiests who are trying to ban religion from public life. Newdow being one of the most infamous.
4. It is up to teachers to decide what they include in their lesson plans as long as it doesn't involve handing out alcohol, pot, porn. or other stuff it is illegal for children to have.
5. Children do not have the same rights as adults because they are not capable of thinking for themselves. Due to their not being anything religious about the Declaration of Independence, it is not up to the child whether he should be required to recite or memorize it. It is the duty of all Americans to know the Declaration of Independence but sadly only 20% public school students do. And ony 45% of the US public at large does.

Indeed, polls in the 90's also found that only 34% of Americans knew what was actually in the US Constitution.
In the same polls it was found that 78% of Americans believed that the position of President was all powerful.
The same percentage believed that Congress was nothing but an advisory panel.
They also believed that the Bill of Rights was nothing more than a myth made up by trouble makers.
On rights:
65% said there was no such thing as freedom of speech or religion but the same amount said there was a right to abortion and a right to beat or kill any one who said something you found offensive.
79% said Parents had no rights.
54% said you have right to have sex with whoever you want even if the other person says no.
The same number said that the constitution does not give a right to a fair trial.
79% said that there is no right to be treated equally under the law.

When you look at these polls, yeah, its kind of scary where we are going. But the blame belongs on the public schools like the ones in Cali who, when I went through, taught Mexican history and govt. and taught that Mexico was victim that was very saintly till America invaded and "raped" its people. In some schools in Cali, they still punish you if you are white or if you speak english.

they were, at the time. Although the Whities came up with scalping - not the natives.

Indeed, polls in the 90's also found that only 34% of Americans knew what was actually in the US Constitution.
In the same polls it was found that 78% of Americans believed that the position of President was all powerful.
The same percentage believed that Congress was nothing but an advisory panel.
They also believed that the Bill of Rights was nothing more than a myth made up by trouble makers.
On rights:
65% said there was no such thing as freedom of speech or religion but the same amount said there was a right to abortion and a right to beat or kill any one who said something you found offensive.
79% said Parents had no rights.
54% said you have right to have sex with whoever you want even if the other person says no.
The same number said that the constitution does not give a right to a fair trial.
79% said that there is no right to be treated equally under the law.

When you look at these polls, yeah, its kind of scary where we are going. But the blame belongs on the public schools like the ones in Cali who, when I went through, taught Mexican history and govt. and taught that Mexico was victim that was very saintly till America invaded and "raped" its people. In some schools in Cali, they still punish you if you are white or if you speak english.

Those numbers are outlandish and patently unbelieveable. 54% of Americans basically said rape was not a crime? Come on! Can you point to a credible source with these kinds of poll numbers?

(Well, some of the Constitution-specific ones wouldn't surprise me, actually.)

Those numbers are outlandish and patently unbelieveable. 54% of Americans basically said rape was not a crime? Come on! Can you point to a credible source with these kinds of poll numbers?

(Well, some of the Constitution-specific ones wouldn't surprise me, actually.)
It was 8 years ago, so I don't have them with me where I am. I have them back home.

Wow, if I read something on the FOX website, I just know it's balanced!

Deists are christians in case you didn't know.

No not all the time. Some were but the majority were not. Deism is not a branch of Christianity.


There is a reference in the Declaration. "All men are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights".

Actully when refering to God you say the CREATOR. The use of their keeps it generic. It is not a reference to the Christian God.


And those rights are ones that only God can take away or limit and not man.
Really. Men have done a rather good job at it. *Coughs* GITMO *Coughs*


She was banning Christianity from the schools. You have to remember that this is a district where kids get suspended for praying on the playground.

The district is not what the discussion is about. It is this one school.

She was preventing a Christian from preeching to 5th graders and misrepresenting the history of this nation. His job is to present just the facts. Interpretations and debate come later.


The religious views of the lawyers is irrelevant. They would have done the same thing if it was Buddhists being censored for their beliefs

It's very relavent as to their intent. It's not about freedom of speech is about making sure children get christianity preeched at them.

Newdow had no standing whatsoever. This teacher on the other hand has clear and solid standing and his case is pretty strong under US Supreme Court precedent.

The Courts tend to avoid Religious issues. That Jackass in Alabama didn't get their time so why should he?

The Christian lawyers will take it to the courts but I will bet they will refuse to hear it.

The ACLU and teachers unions are communist anti american organizations that seek to ban all religions from the public square, not just christianity. As such, that puts them against the US Constitution.
History has shown that is the athiests who are trying to ban other people from exercising their rights to religious freedom freedom of thought, and freedom of speech.


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO

Yea that's why the ACLU sided with Rush Limbaugh on a privacy issue.

And it is a lie that they seek to ban all religions. That goes against the Constitution.

If a public square is open to all religions then the ACLU has nothing to say.
The problem is that the Christians that cry oppression don't want the other Religions to have their say.

The teachers unions have not opinion of Religion.

Most of the athiests I know fight Religion when it's forced on them. They usually think you are stupid for doing it and don't care that it goes on.

that's a liberal paper. Just about every single paper in california is a liberal paper. The reason it appears biased for the teacher and not the district is only because the district refused to comment. If they had, the paper would have given them preferential treatment. but because they didn't, the paper had no choice. This is very typical of California school districts in that they think they are above the law and are not accountable to the people who elect them.

That is not true either. The Mercury is very conservative (it once censored a Doonesbery strip because they thought it insulted Poppy Bush).

Most of the little city papers tend to be centrist.

As to the district comments. Yup there a problems with them.

This is one area (other than those moronic trial lawyers), that I really don't approve of. I just don't see the reason. Why take some (most likely already underpaid) poor teacher to court over it?

Maybe I'm just a dumbass, but I don't see why some people have a fit over it. Who said it's Christianity's version of God it's referring to? A lot of religions have a God (or many Gods), whether Buddah, Allah, what not. The only type of people I could see it offending are Athesists, but everyone knows that true athesists wouldn't care.

Yeesh.

- Asylum Nova

PS: In no way though, would I make sure to keep it in schools. If the teacher has a liking for it, sure, recite it. If a teacher doesn't like it, don't make it law for it to be recited. And if a child has a problem with reciting it, don't make him. Again, freedom of choice here.

Some of us have other views. Some of the schools I attended were Catholic.

In history, you learned history. We have a Relgious studies class to cover Religion.

1. The teacher is the one who is suing the district over it.
Of course, he can't preech.

2. Good point, but there were no catholics, buddhists, athiests, or muslims in America at the time. The founders were not hostile to religion. What they disliked was religious excess. They were christian diests.

And you know this how? Sorry but there were Catholics in America. The athiests? Well I am sure there were people that didn't belive it God. Yes the founders were not hostile to Religion. Many thought it was good for the character. But most that that was your own thing and not a enforcable thing. As was pointed out to you a couple times. Only a few were Christian oriented diests.


3. Even then, it is a small number of athiests who are trying to ban religion from public life. Newdow being one of the most infamous.

Again a lie. The atheists are NOT trying to ban religion. They don't like the Christians forcing it on people. Under God was not part of the original pledge.


4. It is up to teachers to decide what they include in their lesson plans as long as it doesn't involve handing out alcohol, pot, porn. or other stuff it is illegal for children to have.

No the school has a lesson plan to what is taught. The teacher does not have total control of the detail. The teacher is not absolute.


5. Children do not have the same rights as adults because they are not capable of thinking for themselves. Due to their not being anything religious about the Declaration of Independence, it is not up to the child whether he should be required to recite or memorize it. It is the duty of all Americans to know the Declaration of Independence but sadly only 20% public school students do. And ony 45% of the US public at large does.

Good lord.

The DOI was only to say that we split from England!

It is the duty of every American to know the CONSTITUTION of the United States and what rights they have....

And they must know the DOI also. Cause it has equal standing with the consitution.

When you look at these polls, yeah, its kind of scary where we are going. But the blame belongs on the public schools like the ones in Cali who, when I went through, taught Mexican history and govt. and taught that Mexico was victim that was very saintly till America invaded and "raped" its people. In some schools in Cali, they still punish you if you are white or if you speak english.

The figures you have to post your source.

But the above claim, I call it a lie. I went though the public schools as well(we moved around) and never saw any of that.

As to being white. That is another lie.

Good lord.

The DOI was only to say that we split from England!

It is the duty of every American to know the CONSTITUTION of the United States and what rights they have....

It tells you something when people think "Fuck off, England" is more important then "This is why we're a country..."

1) An American Patriot is called a "Rebel". We're a rebel nation. No joke. The whole fricking point of America is questioning authority. We were founded by DEISTS, for crying out loud. Its just that the country was then taken over by Christians, who want everyone to OBEY authority. Which makes sense, considering the Biblie is more or less communistic. (So much irony it hurts)

2) It's true, we don't learn much about the rest of the world. If it makes you feel better, most kids in the US don't give a damn about OUR history either.

3) I'm more worried that kids get different information based on their age. In grade school, America is magically delicious. Only later do you learn that the country is just as rancid as anyone else, and some of the countries biggest heroes are/were horribly evil or at least selfish bastards. And if you go to the right schools (Right wing schools tend to hire right wing teachers, if they can), you NEVER learn this stuff. Often, however, its too late. The

Myth of America is so strong in people they ignore the facts.

Actually the majority of people who made up america in the early stages were in fact quakers, so actually the christains were taklen over not the over way round

And they must know the DOI also. Cause it has equal standing with the consitution.

Oh really?

Care to give an example a lawsuit over the DOI?

The rights of Americans are defined by the Constitution. Our goverment is defined by the Constitution.....

People should know the DOI.

Knowing the Consititution is far more important.

And they must know the DOI also. Cause it has equal standing with the consitution.
Bullshit. The DoI simply declared independence from Britain. It has validity in any other context whatsoever.

[QUOTE=Incenjucarania]1) An American Patriot is called a "Rebel". We're a rebel nation. No joke. The whole fricking point of America is questioning authority. We were founded by DEISTS, for crying out loud. Its just that the country was then taken over by Christians, who want everyone to OBEY authority. Which makes sense, considering the Biblie is more or less communistic. (So much irony it hurts)QUOTE]

The Bible is not communistic -- "Thou shalt not steal" is one of the Ten Commandments... Communism says it's okay to steal from some to give to others.

It tells you something when people think "Fuck off, England" is more important then "This is why we're a country..."

It's almost scary some times.

I wonder sometimes if the Patriot Act could even happen if the average American knew and understood the Constitution?

[QUOTE=Incenjucarania]1) An American Patriot is called a "Rebel". We're a rebel nation. No joke. The whole fricking point of America is questioning authority. We were founded by DEISTS, for crying out loud. Its just that the country was then taken over by Christians, who want everyone to OBEY authority. Which makes sense, considering the Biblie is more or less communistic. (So much irony it hurts)QUOTE]

The Bible is not communistic -- "Thou shalt not steal" is one of the Ten Commandments... Communism says it's okay to steal from some to give to others.


Come on now. That is an economic analogy.

I can introduce you to a Russian that will tell you that the USSR was very brutile if you stole and were caught.

As to Religion founding modern law. The laws of Hamurabi covered many things before the Bible/Koran......

An article from the San Jose Mercury. It actually made the front page.

Points noted:

1) Teacher says he has used the same material for years.
2) The good conservative "Christian" base have been flooding the telephone systems and email with nasty messages. Many are borderline threats so the Sheriffs department is keep a few deputies around at the school. As one said "When you get e-mails that say, 'We hope you burn in hell,' obviously you are concerned," said Sheriff Capt. John Hirokawa. He also mentioned there haven't been any direct death threats, but they come close.
3) The district has stated the message of historical documents being banned is false.
4) The community has not stepped forth to defend the teacher. Yet the principle has a small table full of flowers, a Toblerone chock bar, stacks of cards and valintines from children in the school stating support for her.
5) A house a few blocks from the school has a message stating keep Religion from our schools. The owner says "If I want my kids going to church, I'll take them." She has requested her daughter not be placed in the teachers class.
6) "Several parents said that Williams' fervent Christian beliefs had been a topic of concern and conversation amoung parents at the school well before the lawsuit."

"Mr. Willisams discusses his Christianity in the classroom," said Dorothy Pickler, who has two children at Stevens Creek, "He slants lessons in that direction. Parents have complained."

7) "Armineh Noravian, whose son had Williams last year, said that the teacher wore a Jesus ring, a cross near the collar of his shirt and talk to his students often about his Bible study classes. Noravian said that when Williams sent his students home with a proclamation for national prayer day from President Bush, she and other parents complained to the principal.

"The class was studying George Washing at the time," Noravian said. "It had nothing to do with George W. Bush or the proclamation of prayer.

Norvain said that Williams' discussion of his Christian faith troubled her because Stevens Creek is a diverse school with many Jewish, Hindu, and other non-Christian students.

-----

The Merc tends to be pro-goverment so the usual "liberal bias" can't be used here.

So it appears the guy is preeching. Some evangalistas can't help themselves......

You are correct that there is an apparent bias. But these were the only moderate links I could find. The rest were biased in the direction of forcing religion on people so I didn't use them.

Where did you get that qoute from?

So you are willing to post links biased in one direction and not those you see as being biased in the opposite?

You do realize that to get the full story, you have to read articles from all viewpoints?

Deists are christians in case you didn't know.

This is incredibly wrong. Perhaps you should look up Deism, which is essentially the "watchmaker" view. They believed that some sort of higher power made the universe, and then just sits back and watches it go, with no interference. Christianity involves *lots* of interference. So, no, Deists are not, in any way, shape, or form, Christians.

There is a reference in the Declaration. "All men are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights". And those rights are ones that only God can take away or limit and not man.

Notice it says "creator," not "God," not "Jesus Christ." Notice also that it does not say "the Creator" or "a Creator." It says "their Creator." In other words, *whatever Creator every human being believes in" gave them certain unalienable rights. This Creator could be God, Zeus, Enlightenment, a pantheon of gods, Gaeia, an alien species, or hell, even evolution (for atheists).

She was banning Christianity from the schools. You have to remember that this is a district where kids get suspended for praying on the playground.

She was banning *the teaching* of Christianity from the school. A fifth grade history class is not the place to preach.

If the latter is true, which I doubt very seriously, *that* is cause for a lawsuit.

Newdow had no standing whatsoever. This teacher on the other hand has clear and solid standing and his case is pretty strong under US Supreme Court precedent.

Show me Supreme Court precedent where a teacher attempting to teach fifth graders that the founding fathers were Christian (which is, overall, a lie) and that the US is a Christian nation (which is, out and out, a lie) would be in the right.

The ACLU and teachers unions are communist anti american organizations that seek to ban all religions from the public square, not just christianity. As such, that puts them against the US Constitution.

Yes, and that would be why the ACLU has defended young kids who wanted to use Bible verses as their personal senior quotes? This would be why the ACLU took up a girl's suit and had the school go back and reprint all the school yearbooks, with her Bible quote included?

History has shown that is the athiests who are trying to ban other people from exercising their rights to religious freedom freedom of thought, and freedom of speech.

Apparently, you were taught the same kind of botched history that these kids are getting, since that is entirely untrue. Atheists have never amounted to more than 1-2% of any population, and have *never* tried to keep people from exercising any of the above rights. The only case that you could *sort of* have for that would be in the Soviet Union, where the ruling class was expected to be (but generally was not) atheist.

Although the Whities came up with scalping - not the natives.

Specifically the French - originally.

[QUOTE=Incenjucarania]1) An American Patriot is called a "Rebel". We're a rebel nation. No joke. The whole fricking point of America is questioning authority. We were founded by DEISTS, for crying out loud. Its just that the country was then taken over by Christians, who want everyone to OBEY authority. Which makes sense, considering the Biblie is more or less communistic. (So much irony it hurts)QUOTE]

The Bible is not communistic -- "Thou shalt not steal" is one of the Ten Commandments... Communism says it's okay to steal from some to give to others.

It also says, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and render unto God that which is God's." (From memory, but you get the idea...) Yes, the government does have a Biblically-sanctioned right to tax people.

The government also has the right to spend its tax revenues. To imply the Bible is solely capitalist (or solely Communist) for that matter, is a grave misinterpretation.

The founders of the US were all deeply religious men.

Uh huh; prove it.

The only thing being that their religiousity took on different forms of expression.

So by that argument, is there anyone who ISN'T "deeply religious"? Do you have any specific examples? Because I'm aware of quite a few indicating hostility and/or apathy to organized religion from certain well-known Founders.

As stated in an earlier post, diests are christians.

As stated by many posters after you, this is false.

They were deeply moral, not deeply religious. There is a big difference.

An article from the San Jose Mercury. It actually made the front page.

Points noted:

1) Teacher says he has used the same material for years.
2) The good conservative "Christian" base have been flooding the telephone systems and email with nasty messages. Many are borderline threats so the Sheriffs department is keep a few deputies around at the school. As one said "When you get e-mails that say, 'We hope you burn in hell,' obviously you are concerned," said Sheriff Capt. John Hirokawa. He also mentioned there haven't been any direct death threats, but they come close.
3) The district has stated the message of historical documents being banned is false.
4) The community has not stepped forth to defend the teacher. Yet the principle has a small table full of flowers, a Toblerone chock bar, stacks of cards and valintines from children in the school stating support for her.
5) A house a few blocks from the school has a message stating keep Religion from our schools. The owner says "If I want my kids going to church, I'll take them." She has requested her daughter not be placed in the teachers class.
6) "Several parents said that Williams' fervent Christian beliefs had been a topic of concern and conversation amoung parents at the school well before the lawsuit."

"Mr. Willisams discusses his Christianity in the classroom," said Dorothy Pickler, who has two children at Stevens Creek, "He slants lessons in that direction. Parents have complained."

7) "Armineh Noravian, whose son had Williams last year, said that the teacher wore a Jesus ring, a cross near the collar of his shirt and talk to his students often about his Bible study classes. Noravian said that when Williams sent his students home with a proclamation for national prayer day from President Bush, she and other parents complained to the principal.

"The class was studying George Washing at the time," Noravian said. "It had nothing to do with George W. Bush or the proclamation of prayer.

Norvain said that Williams' discussion of his Christian faith troubled her because Stevens Creek is a diverse school with many Jewish, Hindu, and other non-Christian students.

-----

The Merc tends to be pro-goverment so the usual "liberal bias" can't be used here.

So it appears the guy is preeching. Some evangalistas can't help themselves......Man I can't believe this topic is still hot. I thought this was settled last week.

Everything you posted here is true, but let me add a little more. The teacher is notorious for his preaching, there have been lots of complaints. The school district is being silent as advised by their attorneys, the teachers lawyer is a scumbag who is trying this thing in the media, staging press conferences and whipping up the religious right with misleading statements about 'banning' the DOI. If the teacher was presenting just the DOI there wouldn't have been any problem, trouble was he was presenting just excerpts along with things like 'Washingtons prayer diary' among other things that were not your usual 5th grade history stuff. I think the teachers lawyer is hoping to pressure an out of court settlement, because if it goes to court and the truth comes out they'll go down in flames.

The figures you have to post your source.

But the above claim, I call it a lie. I went though the public schools as well(we moved around) and never saw any of that.

As to being white. That is another lie.
Excuse me, that happens to be personal experience. So no I don't need a source. And no it is not a lie.

Oh really?

Care to give an example a lawsuit over the DOI?

The rights of Americans are defined by the Constitution. Our goverment is defined by the Constitution.....

People should know the DOI.

Knowing the Consititution is far more important.
How can they understand the Constitution unless you teach the DOI first? You have to give them the background. The DOI was the precurser to the constitution.

It's almost scary some times.

I wonder sometimes if the Patriot Act could even happen if the average American knew and understood the Constitution?
Some parts of the Patriot Act are oddly similar to the Alien And Sedition Acts of Jefferson's Presidency.

Excuse me, that happens to be personal experience. So no I don't need a source. And no it is not a lie.

Ok then lets hear the state and the school and what was the problems you encountered.

Come on now. That is an economic analogy.

I can introduce you to a Russian that will tell you that the USSR was very brutile if you stole and were caught.

As to Religion founding modern law. The laws of Hamurabi covered many things before the Bible/Koran......
I don't think founded. I would say influence would be a better word.
In America we don't have laws based on religion, or at least we or not supposed to.

So you are willing to post links biased in one direction and not those you see as being biased in the opposite?

You do realize that to get the full story, you have to read articles from all viewpoints?
AT the time of the post, those were the only links I was able to find. I am sure more have been made available since then.

i haven't read the entire thread, but thought i'd interject something. i read a couple of posts that held sympathy to the teacher, because after all, this country was founded on christian tenents. i reiterate the point made earlier that many of the foudners were in fact deists.

text from treaty:
"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion — as it has in itself no character of enmity [hatred] against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] — and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

during deliberations on our godless (as in it never mentions him) constitution a mention of christ was put forth and voted down.

TO DEFEND THE TEACHER- it is interesting that in all these posts no one bothered to mention the mentions of god in the declaration of independance, there are only two. they are as follows:

...endowed by their Creator with certain...
...and of nature's God entitle them...

so we have a mention of a all inclusive (it could be me) creator and a nameless god that is the owner of nature. this is not preaching christianity to show this to students. it may be to distort these simple refernece as you present them to 5th graders, who knows...

nick

Ok then lets hear the state and the school and what was the problems you encountered.
California. It was a couple of schools. And the memories are painful so excuse me if I chose not to post them as I do not like remembering them.

The Declaration of Independance also refers to native Americans as "savages".
What is your point? It is still a historical document and to ban it is to shun the true record of American political and social development.

i haven't read the entire thread, but thought i'd interject something. i read a couple of posts that held sympathy to the teacher, because after all, this country was founded on christian tenents. i reiterate the point made earlier that many of the foudners were in fact deists.

text from treaty:
"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion — as it has in itself no character of enmity [hatred] against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] — and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

during deliberations on our godless (as in it never mentions him) constitution a mention of christ was put forth and voted down.

TO DEFEND THE TEACHER- it is interesting that in all these posts no one bothered to mention the mentions of god in the declaration of independance, there are only two. they are as follows:

...endowed by their Creator with certain...
...and of nature's God entitle them...

so we have a mention of a all inclusive (it could be me) creator and a nameless god that is the owner of nature. this is not preaching christianity to show this to students. it may be to distort these simple refernece as you present them to 5th graders, who knows...

nick
I see you are familiar with the treaty of Tripoli.
It would be distortion if he was using them to claim that the founders were trying to create a theocracy. Which contradicted by the founders themselves, the const. and the DOI.

California. It was a couple of schools. And the memories are painful so excuse me if I chose not to post them as I do not like remembering them.

Ok now I am not buying this. A californian school punishing you for being white? Other students maybe. But the school. Not buying it sorry.....

Hannity and Holmes is having a special on it tonight. Should be on in 3 hours. I wonder if they'll get all sides. I think the schools should say something cause it hurts them due them not saying anything. It makes them look guilty.

Ok now I am not buying this. A californian school punishing you for being white? Other students maybe. But the school. Not buying it sorry.....
I don't you to buy cause you were never in my situation. You were probably up north somewhere and no where near Los Angeles County where this took place. Yes the schools did discriminate against white children.

What is your point? It is still a historical document and to ban it is to shun the true record of American political and social development.

Do you really think 5th grade is where people learn the "true record of American political and social development"??

Do you think he was giving these kids all sides of the argument? That he exposed them, for instance, to the evidence that Franklin was utterly apathetic to any concept of Jesus as a diety, the unflattering quotes by Paine and Jefferson, the fact that Washington rarely entered a church, or that Adams may likely have been a Satanist as an old man? Or, as others have mentioned, the Treaty of Tripoli?

It doesn't sound like it. Rather, he's just pushing one part of the argument- HIS.

I'd rather 5th graders learn nothing at all about this shit rather than be exposed to crap like that.

I don't you to buy cause you were never in my situation. You were probably up north somewhere and no where near Los Angeles County where this took place. Yes the schools did discriminate against white children.

Examples?

This guy was only answering kid's questions and everytime a kid asked him about the religion of some person like Columbus, the school got a complaint from the same parent. Even though the Columbus question ony took 30 secs to answer and was matter of fact.
The parent has the right to opt his child out of the history class. But he does not have the right to deprive the children of other parents of the right to ask the question regarding the religion of historical persons.

The teacher has had zero complaints until this one parent began complaining.
And now apparently other teachers are speaking out saying they too have been barred from teaching the DOI.

The District has issued a statement denying it has banned the DOI or the Constitution. The District also says the popular media is maligning it.

The teacher gets to teach again but they send in a kid with a recorder and check to see who's telling the truth.

Interesting, the athiest fellow they have on there is saying that the teacher may not have done anything wrong.

The teacher gets to teach again but they send in a kid with a recorder and check to see who's telling the truth.
Would be a good idea. Doubtful if they would do it though.

Oh come on. The fact that the concept of "Seperation of Church and State" is not specifically stated in the US Constitution is irrelevant. It doesn't prove it doesn't exist.
This is a good episode they got on.

Question for those of you who think the teacher is wrong just for mentioning God:
How do answer you a child who asks a question like:
1. Why is the phrase "under God" part of the pledge of allegiance?
2. Why is God mentioned in the DOI?

They got Newdow on there and he is saying the teacher did not do anything wrong. And he sued to have Under God removed from the pledge.
this sean hannity fellow is throwing cheap personal shots.

Good question from Oliver North. The constitution does mention blessings. So where do these blessings come from if not from God?

Question for those of you who think the teacher is wrong just for mentioning God:
How do answer you a child who asks a question like:
1. Why is the phrase "under God" part of the pledge of allegiance?
2. Why is God mentioned in the DOI?

1) Under God was not part of the original Pledge. It was added by the Eisenhower administration to make a statement against the communists.

2) The Christian God is not mentioned in the DOI. For example, it says their creator rather then the Creator. Also, the laws of nature and Nature's God. Such terminalogy was used to keep from the establishment of a State Relgion. Many remembered the history of the Relgious wars of Europe.

Hannity and Holmes is having a special on it tonight. Should be on in 3 hours. I wonder if they'll get all sides. I think the schools should say something cause it hurts them due them not saying anything. It makes them look guilty.So you buy into this media untruthfest that the teachers lawyer started.

Any competent lawyer will advise you to not talk about a pending case.

Unless you have no case and causing a stir makes you such a pain in the ass they'll likely pay you anyway just to go away.

Then the truth doesn't really matter and the more speculation and attention the better.

Sound like anything you're seeing right now?

This guy was only answering kid's questions and everytime a kid asked him about the religion of some person like Columbus, the school got a complaint from the same parent. Even though the Columbus question ony took 30 secs to answer and was matter of fact.
The parent has the right to opt his child out of the history class. But he does not have the right to deprive the children of other parents of the right to ask the question regarding the religion of historical persons.

Well then either the parents are lying or he is.

Sorry but not many 5th graders are going to ask about the Religious leanings of long dead people.

He was evangelising.

The teacher does not have the right to talk Religion to the children unless the parents all agree.

He should change to a relgious school if he wants to do that.

How ironic it is illegal to mention God in the classroom, but children must know the 7 tenets of Islam to graduate from this school district.

this sean hannity fellow is throwing cheap personal shots.

Status Quo for him. He is an idiot.....

Well then either the parents are lying or he is.

Sorry but not many 5th graders are going to ask about the Religious leanings of long dead people.

He was evangelising.

The teacher does not have the right to talk Religion to the children unless the parents all agree.

He should change to a relgious school if he wants to do that.
Its been established that we don't know that he was evangelizing.
And yes he does have the right to answer questions they have.

How ironic it is illegal to mention God in the classroom, but children must know the 7 tenets of Islam to graduate from this school district.

Actually that claim was made before and a parent at work says that is not true. He lives in Cupertino.

Its been established that we don't know that he was evangelizing.
And yes he does have the right to answer questions they have.

Actually it has been established. The Mercury Article I read(they are a local paper) says he was. Parents are quoted in the story as saying he talked up Christianity all the time.

Actually that claim was made before and a parent at work says that is not true. He lives in Cupertino.
The mother they just had on there said that her son was required by the district to know the 7 tenets of Islam or they would not allow him to graduate.

Good question from Oliver North. The constitution does mention blessings. So where do these blessings come from if not from God?

Ollie should stick to talking about war stories.

Blessings come from everybody.

When I proposed to my wife, I first ask for her dad's blessings.

So far, all the athiests on the program including that Newdow fellow, are saying that the teacher did nothing wrong.

Updated with more links.
All he was doing was saying that the founders believed we derived our rights from God. That is in the Declaration of independence, in most state constitutions and in the federal constitution itself.


Try reading the Consitution before making such incredibly incorrect statements. The federal constition makes NO reference to our rights being derived from God. All the Preamble says is that the government is "of the people, for the people and by the people." The words God, Jesus, or Christian (nor Judaism, Mohmedan, etc.) appear NO WHERE in our consitution. Even the Freedom of Religion Amendment doesn't use anything more than the word "religion".

It is ignorance like this about our constitution that worries me the most about the state of our country today. People love to say what it does and doesn't say when its obvious they have never read it.

I bet you would find it interesting to know that the Treaty of Tripoli (circa 1785 maybe?) specifically states in one of its last articles that the US is in no way founded on Christian principles or beliefs. The treaty was written under the Washington Administration and officially enacted by the Adams Administration. (Okay, so I could be wrong on the administrations, but I don't think so--I know I am write about the content though). This was the first treaty our country entered into, and as you may know, treaties become acting law within our nation.

The mother they just had on there said that her son was required by the district to know the 7 tenets of Islam or they would not allow him to graduate.

It's not true. I lived in Cupertino myself.

Did she explain how they were judged and what requirement if fullfilled.

Sorry not valid. Graduation requirements are classes and grades. Knowing Religion is not part of the requirement.

Its been established that we don't know that he was evangelizing.
And yes he does have the right to answer questions they have.
He was using GORGE WASHINGTON'S PRAYER DIARY as part of lesson plan.

Convincing 5th graders that the US is a 'Christian nation' is not a standard part of the US history lesson plan. At least not in public schools. That's the real reason for this whole thing. His lesson plan was so off the wall they told him he could only use what was approved in advance after one too many complaints. The principle scratched most of what he was using and told him to revert to a more traditional lesson plan and lay off the preaching.

You should actually read some of the unbiased reports of this blowup, you know, the one's that did research and have some facts from other sources besides the teacher and his lawyer.

How much you wanna bet this 'Christian teacher' is looking for a six or seven figure settlement?

The mother they just had on there said that her son was required by the district to know the 7 tenets of Islam or they would not allow him to graduate.

Now, I do not know the situation here. However, I did have to take a World History course in Jr. High that was taught as basically World Religion and its effect on world development (really the two were inseparable for much of history). We covered everything--Chrstianity, Islam, Judaism, Shintoism, Hinduism, Buddism, Native American Religions. It was a great course. Why? Because we weren't taught that one religion was right. It makes perfect sense to me that schools can teach what different religions believe, they just cannot preach one religion as being any better than another.

Try reading the Consitution before making such incredibly incorrect statements. The federal constition makes NO reference to our rights being derived from God. All the Preamble says is that the government is "of the people, for the people and by the people." The words God, Jesus, or Christian (nor Judaism, Mohmedan, etc.) appear NO WHERE in our consitution. Even the Freedom of Religion Amendment doesn't use anything more than the word "religion".

It is ignorance like this about our constitution that worries me the most about the state of our country today. People love to say what it does and doesn't say when its obvious they have never read it.

I bet you would find it interesting to know that the Treaty of Tripoli (circa 1785 maybe?) specifically states in one of its last articles that the US is in no way founded on Christian principles or beliefs. The treaty was written under the Washington Administration and officially enacted by the Adams Administration. (Okay, so I could be wrong on the administrations, but I don't think so--I know I am write about the content though). This was the first treaty our country entered into, and as you may know, treaties become acting law within our nation.

It was a treaty signed under duress cause the pirates of Tripoli were threatening to kill Americans.

He was using GORGE WASHINGTON'S PRAYER DIARY as part of lesson plan.

Convincing 5th graders that the US is a 'Christian nation' is not a standard part of the US history lesson plan. At least not in public schools. That's the real reason for this whole thing. His lesson plan was so off the wall they told him he could only use what was approved in advance after one too many complaints. The principle scratched most of what he was using and told him to revert to a more traditional lesson plan and lay off the preaching.

You should actually read some of the unbiased reports of this blowup, you know, the one's that did research and have some facts from other sources besides the teacher and his lawyer.

How much you wanna bet this 'Christian teacher' is looking for a six or seven figure settlement?
They admitted it was only one person who did all the complaining. And a lot of public schools do teach that this is a christian nation.
As explosive as this issue is, there are no unbiased reports.

It was a treaty signed under duress cause the pirates of Tripoli were threatening to kill Americans.

Funny that I've never come across that in all my readings about this treaty. Care to share a source? (I'm legitimately interested).

I would also posit, however, that a lot of treaties are signed "under duress" particularly ones that end wars--the Treaty of Versailles comes to mind, of course we were on the causing duress side of that one. I would also posit that they didn't have to include a clause saying we were not "a Christian nation".

If you'd like me to go further into the actual writings of the founding fathers I can--the vast majority of them were Deists, quite a few were opposed to Christianity, referring to it as the "greatest hoax pulled off on the world" etc.

Now, I do not know the situation here. However, I did have to take a World History course in Jr. High that was taught as basically World Religion and its effect on world development (really the two were inseparable for much of history). We covered everything--Chrstianity, Islam, Judaism, Shintoism, Hinduism, Buddism, Native American Religions. It was a great course. Why? Because we weren't taught that one religion was right. It makes perfect sense to me that schools can teach what different religions believe, they just cannot preach one religion as being any better than another.
I have no problem with a class on comparitive religions. What I do have a problem with is that they violated the kid's right to opt out of it.

They admitted it was only one person who did all the complaining. And a lot of public schools do teach that this is a christian nation.
As explosive as this issue is, there are no unbiased reports.Who 'admitted'? I've read reports that quoted at least two diferent parents. You should really try to dig up the stuff that was in the locals before the lawyer went national and whipped up the religious fanatics. After that the substance went to shit.

I have no problem with a class on comparitive religions. What I do have a problem with is that they violated the kid's right to opt out of it.

I see no reason to be able to opt out of a comparitive religion class provided its taught from teh aspect of historical development and understanding of some of the major forces driving our world. When it exists that and instead becomes about proselytizing (sp?), then I would get pretty visciously opposed. We are not a Christian nation and public schools are not the place to convert people to Christianity (or any other religion or lack thereof).

Funny that I've never come across that in all my readings about this treaty. Care to share a source? (I'm legitimately interested).

I would also posit, however, that a lot of treaties are signed "under duress" particularly ones that end wars--the Treaty of Versailles comes to mind, of course we were on the causing duress side of that one. I would also posit that they didn't have to include a clause saying we were not "a Christian nation".

If you'd like me to go further into the actual writings of the founding fathers I can--the vast majority of them were Deists, quite a few were opposed to Christianity, referring to it as the "greatest hoax pulled off on the world" etc.
If they were so anti christian, then why did they enact laws mandating military chaplains?
Why did they permit the states to laws favoring christianity over all other religions.
Why did they open all of their sessions with a prayer to the Christian God?
Why did they not seek to ban christianity if they were so hostile to it as you claim?

Who 'admitted'? I've read reports that quoted at least two diferent parents. You should really try to dig up the stuff that was in the locals before the lawyer went national and whipped up the religious fanatics. After that the substance went to shit.
2 parents is not representative of all the parents in the district.

A lot of people are freaking out about the pledge of allegiance. The original wording in no way mentioned God. The words "under God" were added during the McCarthy era, since marxism and certain forms of communism do not allow belief in God (the whole idea was that you could not have two passions in life, i.e., God and your government). I know people who refuse to say the words "under God" because that was just not how they learned it (this is obviously the older generation).
As for evangelism in public schools, it's inappropriate. I have taken my fair share of evangelical theology courses and that is just not the way (if you are a monotheist) God wants us to do it. Who am I to force my religion upon you in a setting where you are to grow mentally instead of spiritually?
However, we cannot ignore the theocracy this nation was originally founded on (think Puritans). It still affects our culture. That being said, we cannot ignore the way that other spiritualities have affected society.
My two cents.

They admitted it was only one person who did all the complaining. And a lot of public schools do teach that this is a christian nation.
As explosive as this issue is, there are no unbiased reports.

Who admited? The article I read said he suspects one parent.

Yet, the article quoted several parents complaining.

I see no reason to be able to opt out of a comparitive religion class provided its taught from teh aspect of historical development and understanding of some of the major forces driving our world. When it exists that and instead becomes about proselytizing (sp?), then I would get pretty visciously opposed. We are not a Christian nation and public schools are not the place to convert people to Christianity (or any other religion or lack thereof).
Reason would be if it violated his right to freedom of conscience. Same thing with the teacher's class. If the kid told his parents that he was uncomfortable with the teacher asking questions relating to God or using documents relating to God, the parents have the right to have their child opt out. ANd the school is required by law to comply with their request. It's about the right to freedom of conscience.

If they were so anti christian, then why did they enact laws mandating military chaplains?

Not all Chaplains are Christian. They allowed military men to expres their religion--they didn't force it on them.


Why did they permit the states to laws favoring christianity over all other religions.


Likely they believed in states' rights unlike the modern conservatives.


Why did they open all of their sessions with a prayer to the Christian God?


Wasn't this a fairly recent (last hundred years) addition to the workings of Congress?


Why did they not seek to ban christianity if they were so hostile to it as you claim?

Because they believed in Freedom of Religion. They didn't seek to impose their religious beliefs on others--unlike so many today. Religious reasons weren't used to write laws, logic was.

You gonna give me that source?

Reason would be if it violated his right to freedom of conscience. Same thing with the teacher's class. If the kid told his parents that he was uncomfortable with the teacher asking questions relating to God or using documents relating to God, the parents have the right to have their child opt out. ANd the school is required by law to comply with their request. It's about the right to freedom of conscience.

Funny, I thought history classes were about teaching history. I have a right to opt out of that if I dont' like the fact that religions have affected history?

Mind you, I'm drawing a line at a difference between understanding religions and their effect on the world and teaching that one religion is right. Surely you can see the difference.

However, we cannot ignore the theocracy this nation was originally founded on (think Puritans). It still affects our culture. That being said, we cannot ignore the way that other spiritualities have affected society.
My two cents.

I agree with you right up until this. Again I reiterate, this nation was NOT founded as a theocracy.

They admitted it was only one person who did all the complaining. And a lot of public schools do teach that this is a christian nation.
As explosive as this issue is, there are no unbiased reports.

Really there are 4 districts here and guess what?

They don't.

Don't make up facts.

Not all Chaplains are Christian. They allowed military men to expres their religion--they didn't force it on them.



Likely they believed in states' rights unlike the modern conservatives.



Wasn't this a fairly recent (last hundred years) addition to the workings of Congress?



Because they believed in Freedom of Religion. They didn't seek to impose their religious beliefs on others--unlike so many today. Religious reasons weren't used to write laws, logic was.

You gonna give me that source?

1. Is that why the first chaplains were required by law to be christians?
2. So if the state constitution required that teacher preach in the class room that would make it acceptable?
3. No. The first sesssion of Congress and every session since then was opened with a christian prayer. It was only recently (last 20 to 30 years) that other religions have been allowed to do the prayer. Same with all sessions of the US Supreme Court. And every President has made reference to the Christian God.

However, we cannot ignore the theocracy this nation was originally founded on (think Puritans). It still affects our culture. That being said, we cannot ignore the way that other spiritualities have affected society.
My two cents.

Actually Jamestown was up and running before the Puritans landed.

Really there are 4 districts here and guess what?

They don't.

Don't make up facts.
Many school districts do. Just because you havne't experienced it doesn't mean it never happened. The world is much bigger than just one person's experience.
There are many things you are personally not eyewitness too. But that does not make them all untrue.

Funny, I thought history classes were about teaching history. I have a right to opt out of that if I dont' like the fact that religions have affected history?

Mind you, I'm drawing a line at a difference between understanding religions and their effect on the world and teaching that one religion is right. Surely you can see the difference.
The US Supreme Court says you do. Its kind of silly, but you have the right.

1. Is that why the first chaplains were required by law to be christians?
2. So if the state constitution required that teacher preach in the class room that would make it acceptable?
3. No. The first sesssion of Congress and every session since then was opened with a christian prayer. It was only recently (last 20 to 30 years) that other religions have been allowed to do the prayer. Same with all sessions of the US Supreme Court. And every President has made reference to the Christian God.

I'm learning stuff here. Mainly that they were wrong. And still are. But true freedom is an ideal, an ever-expanding search, one that I hope will one day be realized.

1. I did not know that about Chaplains. I am again going to ask you for a source on this. I'm glad that it is not the same these days. People who follow a religion should have access to someone who can administer that religion (many chaplains today, though representative of one particular religion are trained to help with the others).
2. I'm not saying that allowing the states to do whatever they wish is right. There is also the little fact that the legislature and executive branches don't get to patrol state constitutions. Instead the judicial branch has to do so and then only does so when a case is brought berfore them. So if no one ever challenged the state laws, then they never got overturned.
3. If there are no objections from the Congressmen, then great. I'm glad they are getting multi-religious now. Grow.

As for Presidents, I have no problem with them having their religion and mentioning it. They just don't get to make laws based on it without non-religious justification. Also, as a continuing note that we are NOT FOUNDED AS A CHRISTIAN NATION the oath that the President takes at his inauguration (sp?) doesn't mention god or the Bible. Indeed, he or she does not swear on the Bible but instead swears to "preserve, protect and defend the Constition of the United States of America." The highest law in the land, the one where it never mentions Jesus.

I think that people should have a right to opt out of history classes EVEN IF they're taught properly. And don't think that I'm one of those "ignorant" people who doesn't know what's best for himself. I read history books for personal enjoyment now. When I was in high school, however, I wouldn't be caught dead near my history book. A person has to want to learn.

The US Supreme Court says you do. Its kind of silly, but you have the right.

Now I'm not familiar with specific cases or anything,b ut the only times I've heard of this is when people obejct to being taught one religions is right or that we are a Christian nation (again we aren't). I've never heard an objection to teaching the history of religions. Hell, I'm from Mississippi and the people here didn't object to us learning about Islam (pretty impressive, though that was many years pre-9/11).

Many school districts do. Just because you havne't experienced it doesn't mean it never happened. The world is much bigger than just one person's experience.
There are many things you are personally not eyewitness too. But that does not make them all untrue.

Yes in the Bible belt states I am sure they do.

That is not the situation in Cupertino and the schools around.

Just because Alabama does something does not mean California has to do the same.

I think that people should have a right to opt out of history classes EVEN IF they're taught properly. And don't think that I'm one of those "ignorant" people who doesn't know what's best for himself. I read history books for personal enjoyment now. When I was in high school, however, I wouldn't be caught dead near my history book. A person has to want to learn.

If high school students have the right to opt out of certain classes, we are doomed. Cause guess what? THE VAST MAJORITY WOULD OPT OUT. I'm in med school now, but in high school would I have opted out if given the choice? You bet. There is a reason we have mandatory public education in most (if not all) states.

If it has references to Christianity, why not make references to all the other religions while their at it. Or better yet, Not have any reference to any god whatsoever.

If it has references to Christianity, why not make references to all the other religions while their at it. Or better yet, Not have any reference to any god whatsoever.

You can't learn human history without learning about the ways that the myriad religions have affected it. There is a difference between preaching a religion and learning about a religion.

I'm learning stuff here. Mainly that they were wrong. And still are. But true freedom is an ideal, an ever-expanding search, one that I hope will one day be realized.

1. I did not know that about Chaplains. I am again going to ask you for a source on this. I'm glad that it is not the same these days. People who follow a religion should have access to someone who can administer that religion (many chaplains today, though representative of one particular religion are trained to help with the others).
2. I'm not saying that allowing the states to do whatever they wish is right. There is also the little fact that the legislature and executive branches don't get to patrol state constitutions. Instead the judicial branch has to do so and then only does so when a case is brought berfore them. So if no one ever challenged the state laws, then they never got overturned.
3. If there are no objections from the Congressmen, then great. I'm glad they are getting multi-religious now. Grow.

As for Presidents, I have no problem with them having their religion and mentioning it. They just don't get to make laws based on it without non-religious justification. Also, as a continuing note that we are NOT FOUNDED AS A CHRISTIAN NATION the oath that the President takes at his inauguration (sp?) doesn't mention god or the Bible. Indeed, he or she does not swear on the Bible but instead swears to "preserve, protect and defend the Constition of the United States of America." The highest law in the land, the one where it never mentions Jesus.

On number 2, there were many people who did challenge the state laws but the laws were all upheld until around the 1860's t0 1870's.
Do you object to President Bush saying his favorite person was Jesus Christ?
I doubt they would have needed to have God in the oath even if they did want a theocracy.

Now I'm not familiar with specific cases or anything,b ut the only times I've heard of this is when people obejct to being taught one religions is right or that we are a Christian nation (again we aren't). I've never heard an objection to teaching the history of religions. Hell, I'm from Mississippi and the people here didn't object to us learning about Islam (pretty impressive, though that was many years pre-9/11).
How old are you? Cause things were a lot different when I was in school.

If it has references to Christianity, why not make references to all the other religions while their at it. Or better yet, Not have any reference to any god whatsoever.

Now you're thinking. That's actually the idea behind separation of church and state.

If high school students have the right to opt out of certain classes, we are doomed. Cause guess what? THE VAST MAJORITY WOULD OPT OUT. I'm in med school now, but in high school would I have opted out if given the choice? You bet.

So? What does that have to do with med school? Children 100 years ago barely spent any time at all in school. They seem to have come through it with no less success than students today.

There is a reason we have mandatory public education in most (if not all) states.

Social norming?

If it has references to Christianity, why not make references to all the other religions while their at it. Or better yet, Not have any reference to any god whatsoever.

Because History books would be rather tiny. You can't talk about Europe about the effects of the Crusades, the Inquisition, the 30 years war.....

On number 2, there were many people who did challenge the state laws but the laws were all upheld until around the 1860's t0 1870's.
Do you object to President Bush saying his favorite person was Jesus Christ?
I doubt they would have needed to have God in the oath even if they did want a theocracy.

I have no objection to President Bush saying that. Jesus is one of my favorite people, even if I don't believe in him as the son of God. What he taught was good stuff.

And somehow I imagine that if they were going to have a theocracy, God would've been brought up int he oath. Its just one of those things Christians can't resist doing.

Again, I reiterate, we are not a theocracy now or ever.

How old are you? Cause things were a lot different when I was in school.

24. It wasn't too long ago.

If high school students have the right to opt out of certain classes, we are doomed. Cause guess what? THE VAST MAJORITY WOULD OPT OUT. I'm in med school now, but in high school would I have opted out if given the choice? You bet. There is a reason we have mandatory public education in most (if not all) states.
I would tend to agree with you here. You don't have a right to opt out just because. You must a legitimate reason. IE: the teacher is actually preaching or having kids do transcendental meditation during class time.

How old are you? Cause things were a lot different when I was in school.

Same question to you....

I think that the decleration of independance should be taught in schools as a history topic - just like here the UK we teach the royalist vs Cromwell's rebel uprising. I applaud that America does not link education with religion, but it seems absurd that major historical events are not taught because of some tedious link.

Having said that, I think America sometimes gets too caught up in its history and culture, and in trying to force it on every pupil something is lost. If you were all less patriotic then there wouldn't be the need to cram every single American political event into the school system, perhaps you could learn more about the world around you - it would certainly help with the current USA/rest of the world relations problems!

The same is done here in Australia. And I would have to agree with Jones America would do well to know a little more about the world. If you really think this is a big issue at the moment you most certainly do need to now what is going on in the world. And im not just talking about the Iraq war.

You can't learn human history without learning about the ways that the myriad religions have affected it. There is a difference between preaching a religion and learning about a religion.
Teaching about a religion could be misconstrued to be preaching the religion. I don't think there would be as much disagreement over sticking to teaching about the religions' contribution to our society. But I suppose you have to breifly cover what the religions believe in order to do that.

So? What does that have to do with med school? Children 100 years ago barely spent any time at all in school. They seem to have come through it with no less success than students today.


It says that I got through high school, doing my best (because I was forced to go and my parents would accept no less--yes they deserve much of the credit) and then I went to college where I found a love of learning, kicked ass and have now progressed. Children 100 years ago did not have as much to learn to understand the world they lived in. 100 years ago the chief caues of disease were acute bacterial infections, today the chief causes are chronic disorders such as HTN. 100 years ago we didn't have nuclear fusion, radar, relativity, computers, and were just developing usage of telephones. Most places didn't even have electricity. To get by in the world today requires much more education.


Social norming?

Passing on enough knowledge that society can continue without going back to the dark ages?

In defense of history I present the old Bromide which is absolutely true: Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. We have to learn what has come before so we can know what is going on.

So? What does that have to do with med school? Children 100 years ago barely spent any time at all in school. They seem to have come through it with no less success than students today.



Social norming?
Wrong. They has mandatory public education back then and the discipline requirements were harsher. The teachers were allowed to beat disruptive children with long wooden sticks.

I would tend to agree with you here. You don't have a right to opt out just because. You must a legitimate reason. IE: the teacher is actually preaching or having kids do transcendental meditation during class time.

I would agree with you. But there IS a difference between preaching and teaching.

I have no objection to President Bush saying that. Jesus is one of my favorite people, even if I don't believe in him as the son of God. What he taught was good stuff.

And somehow I imagine that if they were going to have a theocracy, God would've been brought up int he oath. Its just one of those things Christians can't resist doing.

Again, I reiterate, we are not a theocracy now or ever.I'm A christian fundamentalist, but I don't fell the need to bring up God all the time.

Teaching about a religion could be misconstrued to be preaching the religion. I don't think there would be as much disagreement over sticking to teaching about the religions' contribution to our society. But I suppose you have to breifly cover what the religions believe in order to do that.

It depends.

Talking about Muslims and Christians and the Crusades? Doubtful

Talking about Prostestants and Catholics fighting in Europe? Doubtful

Talking about the founding fathers were all Christians, talking about your bible studies class? Yes.

Teaching about a religion could be misconstrued to be preaching the religion. I don't think there would be as much disagreement over sticking to teaching about the religions' contribution to our society. But I suppose you have to breifly cover what the religions believe in order to do that.

You do. Further, learning what a religion actually teaches allows you to understand people around you who don't fit into your perfect little mindset of what the world is like. I am better able to relate to my Muslim friends because I know who Mohammed is, I know about the Greater and Lesser Jihads, and I've read a few excerpts from the Koran. Sure its not a comprehensive knowledge, but its gives me a base to work from. I was never taught that Islam was right--just what people who are Islamic believe.

I'm A christian fundamentalist, but I don't fell the need to bring up God all the time.

We kind of figured that out. ;)

I'm A christian fundamentalist, but I don't fell the need to bring up God all the time.

Then I'm quite proud of you. You are very different with the breeds I've met (most in the Bible Belt but I've met quite a few around the nation as well). Most cannot wait to make reference to their religion. IT does not have to necesarily be God, but things like "what would jesus do" or "have a blessed day". There are no groups I've met who, if given the chance to rewrite the oath the President takes, wouldn't mention JEsus or at least God in it.

Granted, I can't speak for ALL fundies, but I know quite a few the ones I know are like that.

24. It wasn't too long ago.
You're a few years younger than me. WHen I went through, you could be suspended for being part of a Bible club. Kids were suspended for mentioning God or Jesus in their essays.
Hell, schools punished kids for using the Bible for their book reports.
I remember one time I was advised to stop reading the Bible during the free reading period because one person was complaining but no one else had a problem. Reason that no one else had a problem being that I wasn't a particularly disruptive student. I kept to myself all the time.

Same question to you....
31. And you?

You're a few years younger than me. WHen I went through, you could be suspended for being part of a Bible club. Kids were suspended for mentioning God or Jesus in their essays.
Hell, schools punished kids for using the Bible for their book reports.
I remember one time I was advised to stop reading the Bible during the free reading period because one person was complaining but no one else had a problem. Reason that no one else had a problem being that I wasn't a particularly disruptive student. I kept to myself all the time.

Well, frankly if that happened, it was wrong (the part about essays, etc.). Of course I woudl ask to know more about the assignments and said Bible Club. And what part of the country were you in? And just how old are you?

To be honest, I'm finding that very hard to believe. I'd just like more information.

All of this worry about people not having enough information to survive can be resolved quite easily, without forcing people to recite phrases that they never wanted to memorize in the first place (note the intentional lack of the word "learn"). You tell people that if they ever find out that they needed something that they opted out of, then they're still responsible for it. Let people take care of themselves. I'm nobody's mother.

As for med school, if you didn't learn what you needed to learn, would you have just given up and died? No, you would have gained new motivation to learn it. And you would have been happy about it. And you would have done it efficiently.

The same is done here in Australia. And I would have to agree with Jones America would do well to know a little more about the world. If you really think this is a big issue at the moment you most certainly do need to now what is going on in the world. And im not just talking about the Iraq war.
I would agree. There is not enough discussion in schools of current events. Too much emphasis on rote memorization.

All of this worry about people not having enough information to survive can be resolved quite easily, without forcing people to recite phrases that they never wanted to memorize in the first place (note the intentional lack of the word "learn"). You tell people that if they ever find out that they needed something that they opted out of, then they're still responsible for it. Let people take care of themselves. I'm nobody's mother.

As for med school, if you didn't learn what you needed to learn, would you have just given up and died? No, you would have gained new motivation to learn it. And you would have been happy about it. And you would have done it efficiently.

Actually, I'd probably be a grease monkey at this point. I'm glad I was forced to go to school and learn. Even if I had eventually come back to the love of learning I've since developed, it would've taken me a lot longer and been a lot harder.

Teens tend to be lazy--but its also easier for them to learn.

You're a few years younger than me. WHen I went through, you could be suspended for being part of a Bible club. Kids were suspended for mentioning God or Jesus in their essays.
Hell, schools punished kids for using the Bible for their book reports.
I remember one time I was advised to stop reading the Bible during the free reading period because one person was complaining but no one else had a problem. Reason that no one else had a problem being that I wasn't a particularly disruptive student. I kept to myself all the time.

When and what school was this?

Free period reading and getting dinged would piss me off.

God or Jesus in the essays? Well what was the topic and what was the punishement?

I would agree with you. But there IS a difference between preaching and teaching.
Yeah there is. I am just saying that some people could misconstrue it.

I would agree. There is not enough discussion in schools of current events. Too much emphasis on rote memorization.

We agree again.

Well, frankly if that happened, it was wrong (the part about essays, etc.). Of course I woudl ask to know more about the assignments and said Bible Club. And what part of the country were you in? And just how old are you?

To be honest, I'm finding that very hard to believe. I'd just like more information.

Me too.....

Then I'm quite proud of you. You are very different with the breeds I've met (most in the Bible Belt but I've met quite a few around the nation as well). Most cannot wait to make reference to their religion. IT does not have to necesarily be God, but things like "what would jesus do" or "have a blessed day". There are no groups I've met who, if given the chance to rewrite the oath the President takes, wouldn't mention JEsus or at least God in it.

Granted, I can't speak for ALL fundies, but I know quite a few the ones I know are like that.
well, I just don't see the point mentioning God in every circumstance or in changing the oath.
I think God needs me to constantly plug him to every person I come across. I just assume that every American has already heard about him and made their decision.
What I do do however, is have dreams and visions. Though I don't exactly talk to anyone about those except my girlfriend.

Teens tend to be lazy--but its also easier for them to learn.

I dispute this claim. Please provide a source.

I dispute this claim. Please provide a source.

For which portion? That its easier for them to learn or that many tend to be lazy? On the lazy one I can give you my own experience--true, anecdotal is one of the weaker forms of evidence, but its what you are getting nonetheless. Why? Because its almost 3AM and my medicine is finally kicking in :)

Well, frankly if that happened, it was wrong (the part about essays, etc.). Of course I woudl ask to know more about the assignments and said Bible Club. And what part of the country were you in? And just how old are you?

To be honest, I'm finding that very hard to believe. I'd just like more information.
Bible clubs weren't allowed until the federal courts ruled that schools couldn't ban them. That was in 1993 that happened. We were lucky that we had an open minded principle in 1992 that let us do it. Alot of the stuff that christian students are allowed to do on campus today is because of lawsuits that were filed and heard back in the early 1990's.
It was in southern california.
31.

Bible clubs weren't allowed until the federal courts ruled that schools couldn't ban them. That was in 1993 that happened. We were lucky that we had an open minded principle in 1992 that let us do it. Alot of the stuff that christian students are allowed to do on campus today is because of lawsuits that were filed and heard back in the early 1990's.
It was in southern california.
31.

Quite interesting. Growing up in teh South where Bible clubs have ruled the school for years, that is quite a change from what I was raised with. <shrugs>

Anyways, this has been good chat, but I have to be up in five hours and am finally feeling like I can shake this insomnia and sleep.

So goodnight to you all and enjoy the chat. Thank you for stimulating my thoughts.

For which portion? That its easier for them to learn or that many tend to be lazy? On the lazy one I can give you my own experience--true, anecdotal is one of the weaker forms of evidence, but its what you are getting nonetheless. Why? Because its almost 3AM and my medicine is finally kicking in :)

I dispute them both. I've not seen any convincing arguments that teens are willing to do less work or that they're more capable of learning than adults. To me, it's all a matter of proper motivation.

I myself was a D/C student most of my child hood all the way up to 11th grade.
Then I started getting A's and B's but that was when I became a christian and helped start the Bible Club and was attending church 3 times a week and evangelizing.

Bible clubs weren't allowed until the federal courts ruled that schools couldn't ban them. That was in 1993 that happened. We were lucky that we had an open minded principle in 1992 that let us do it. Alot of the stuff that christian students are allowed to do on campus today is because of lawsuits that were filed and heard back in the early 1990's.
It was in southern california.
31.

Interesting. Did the other Relgions have clubs? If so then it was wrong to ding you for it. If the school didn't want the clubs? Well there is validity since they aren't picking one Religion over the other.

Not all schools were that way. My high school had Relgious clubs. They rightfully figured that if they didn't discrimate, they couldn't be dinged for it.

I am older then you BTW and I am Northern Cali....

Interesting. Did the other Relgions have clubs? If so then it was wrong to ding you for it. If the school didn't want the clubs? Well there is validity since they aren't picking one Religion over the other.

Not all schools were that way. My high school had Relgious clubs. They rightfully figured that if they didn't discrimate, they couldn't be dinged for it.

I am older then you BTW and I am Northern Cali....
Ours was the first cause they wanted to see what would happen if we did. They were pretty cautious about it.
Not all schools were afraid of being sued. But after the courts made their decision that protected schools from being sued for having such clubs, all schools in cali started having them, instead of just the few.
That was our strategy, that if they didn't allow it, we would sue for discrimination and I had lawyers lined up. But it didn't even go that far cause they ok'd it. Probably helped that I was more confrontational with the district than the other members were and it was likely that that influenced them cause the other club members kept getting told no.

Whether something is treated as condoning or denouncing a specific religion or not, in any given situation, is often the perogative of just one or two people - ie. whichever faculty members are directly involved. Differant people have differant ideas as to what, exactly, is or isn't allowed under the existing laws, never mind what they can/can't get away with inspite/because of those laws.

Further, such decisions tend to end up being biased in favor of the belief systems held by the people making the decisions (which shouldn't be a surprise). It's natural to be more defensive regarding things we object to or simply don't share in, than those that we are a part of.

For example, I would imagine that the majority of faculty members who support things such as christian clubs, would rather strenuously object to satanist clubs, to pick a fairly extreme example.

Another good example: "In God We Trust" is written on at least some of your money. No mention of Brahama, Ahura Mazda, Buddha, Amaterasu or any of the other ten billion or so entities that are worshiped in the world. And it's certainly anti-athiest.

Though, really, I'd be more worried about the fact that you've got the Freemason's "all-seeing eye" on your money.

Wrong. They has mandatory public education back then and the discipline requirements were harsher. The teachers were allowed to beat disruptive children with long wooden sticks.

And darn it if order wasn't maintained. Kids simply didn't walk into their schoolhouses and blow away their teachers with Winchester 73's.

Sigh. I can't wait for another 50 years or so to pass when education will probably be optional. Given Ebonics, Whole Math, No Child Left Behind, Magnet Schools and everything else (I've worked in an inner-city school system for 3 years), it's the only option left.

When a kid throws a chair at a teacher, breaks a disc in her back and sends her into 2 years of therapy... and gets NO punishment... something is wrong with the system.

If they were so anti christian, then why did they enact laws mandating military chaplains?
Why did they permit the states to laws favoring christianity over all other religions.
Why did they open all of their sessions with a prayer to the Christian God?
Why did they not seek to ban christianity if they were so hostile to it as you claim?

Just some thoughts from a quote I've always liked:

Richard Shenkman, I loved Paul Revere, Whether he Rode or Not:

As for the beliefs of the founding fathers, the remarkable thing is not that so many believed in Christianity, but that so many expressed doubt about it... Ben Franklin never believed in the divinity of Christ and as a young man he toyed with polytheism... as an old man John Adams became fascinated with paganism... Thomas Jefferson believed in God and considered himself a Christian, but he seemed to reject the divinity of Christ and considered Calvin's sermons blasphemous. Alexander Hamilton, both at the beginning of his life and near the end, expressed faith in Christianity, but during the revolutionary period he was utterly indifferent to it... Thomas Paine condemned the "monstrous belief" that God had ever spoken to man. George Washington, though he belonged to the Episcopal church, never mentioned Christ in any of his writings and he was a deist.

Certainly the founders weren't hostile either to religion or the clergy... but neither did they insist, one and all, that religion was a pillar of liberty. Indeed, many of the most illustrious founders plainly rejected the idea. Historian John Diggins says those involved in writing and defeding the Constitution, men like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, "expressed profound ambivalence about religion, often seeing it as divisive rather than cohesive." And some of those who later came to believe in the necessity of religion, such as Adams, originally thought religiosity was of little matter.

... The founders have been pressed into the service of religion so long now and with such force that it is almost impossible to recover what they really thought. But we can certainly reconstruct their actions... Consider the practice of public prayers [such as] opening meetings of Congress with a prayer... we do more of it than they ever did (not because they opposed praying but because they thought politics and praying didn't mix). The Constitutional Convention opened without a single prayer and several of the first presidents, including both Jefferson and Madison, generally refused to issue prayers, despite importunings that they do so. Under pressure, Madison relented in the War of 1812, but held to his belief that chaplains shouldn't be appointed to the military or be allowed to open Congress.

I dispute them both. I've not seen any convincing arguments that teens are willing to do less work or that they're more capable of learning than adults. To me, it's all a matter of proper motivation.

How old are you, BTW? This isn't a dig, and I don't mean to sound patronsing, though I probably will, but if you're a teen yourself then you need to understand that perceptions change as you get older. One of the things about getting older is you leave a trail of monumentally stupid decisions in your wake that makes you realise just how little you knew back then, despite being so sure about everything. This, hopefully, leads you in turn to realise how little you probably know now.

One quick note, I can't help but find it strange that the term "anti-American" is used so frequently to describe actions or beliefs of American citizens yet the terms "anti-British", "anti-French", "anti-German" et al are almost solely used to refer to external attidues or beliefs (eg "the French are anti-English" and vice versa).

I can't quite work it out myself, anyone have any ideas?

What is your point? It is still a historical document and to ban it is to shun the true record of American political and social development.

You ignore the main point - so I will write it in bold, all caps.

[i]NO ONE IS BANNING ANYONE FROM TEACHING ABOUT THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE[/I

Ok, now that we have that out of the way. WHat is being banned, is a teacher using historical documents to preach his religion, and his viewpoint that our nation should follow his religion, to a 5th grade history class.

Question for those of you who think the teacher is wrong just for mentioning God:
How do answer you a child who asks a question like:
1. Why is the phrase "under God" part of the pledge of allegiance?
2. Why is God mentioned in the DOI?

1. Legislators in the '50's were afraid of communists, whom they believed to be athiests. In order to discriminate against said atheistic communists, and to prove that the US was "not like them," they added "under God" into the pledge.

2. The writer's of the DOI and the Constitution believed strongly in a Creator. This Creator, to some, is the Christian God. To others, it is Allah. To still others, it is nature itself. The founders used terms that would include all religions, and allow all citizens to hold their own beliefs.


THe answer would *not* be "because the US is a Christian country and all good little patriots are Christian, just like the founding fathers were ((never mind that most of them were not))."

It was a treaty signed under duress cause the pirates of Tripoli were threatening to kill Americans.

Which would explain the following:

(a) During the writing of the Constitution, it was proposed that the preamble contain a reference to Jesus Christ. This was almost *unanimously* struck down. Many state Constitutions later did include such a reference.

(b) The treaty itself passed almost *unanimously* with something like one vote against it. In fact, there may not have been any votes against it.

(c) Every founding father alive at the time expressed approval of the treaty.

You're a few years younger than me. WHen I went through, you could be suspended for being part of a Bible club. Kids were suspended for mentioning God or Jesus in their essays.
Hell, schools punished kids for using the Bible for their book reports.
I remember one time I was advised to stop reading the Bible during the free reading period because one person was complaining but no one else had a problem. Reason that no one else had a problem being that I wasn't a particularly disruptive student. I kept to myself all the time.

And all of *these,* if there were not other circumstances which you are not sharing, were grounds for a lawsuit.

And all of *these,* if there were not other circumstances which you are not sharing, were grounds for a lawsuit.

Dem, its very good to have you here :)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112935,00.html
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20041124-1309-life-declaration.html
http://www.charismanews.com/a.php?ArticleID=10186
http://www.sanmateocountytimes.com/Stories/0,1413,87~11268~2556644,00.html

apparently, in California, the Declaration of Independence is now banned from being taught in Public schools because it makes reference to God.
This is just another attack on American culture, heritage, and tradition.

In case you can't find the story:
"In Cupertino, California, a teacher is going to court after the local school district removed some of his supplementary teaching materials — including excerpts from the Declaration of Independence — because they contained references to God, Christianity (search) and the Bible. FOX News correspondent Anita Vogel has the story."


Technically not anti-american.
Just anti religeous.

One quick note, I can't help but find it strange that the term "anti-American" is used so frequently to describe actions or beliefs of American citizens yet the terms "anti-British", "anti-French", "anti-German" et al are almost solely used to refer to external attidues or beliefs (eg "the French are anti-English" and vice versa).

I can't quite work it out myself, anyone have any ideas?So far I've only used it myself for outsiders, I don't quite see why people use against other americans. I could see the phrase anti-american ideals, but even that would only describe the current norm which is so schizo it ain't funny.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112935,00.html
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20041124-1309-life-declaration.html
http://www.charismanews.com/a.php?ArticleID=10186
http://www.sanmateocountytimes.com/Stories/0,1413,87~11268~2556644,00.html

apparently, in California, the Declaration of Independence is now banned from being taught in Public schools because it makes reference to God.
This is just another attack on American culture, heritage, and tradition.

In case you can't find the story:
"In Cupertino, California, a teacher is going to court after the local school district removed some of his supplementary teaching materials — including excerpts from the Declaration of Independence — because they contained references to God, Christianity (search) and the Bible. FOX News correspondent Anita Vogel has the story."

Damn political correctness! Even if people don't agree with the concept of "God", our history needs to be taught right.

1. Legislators in the '50's were afraid of communists, whom they believed to be athiests. In order to discriminate against said atheistic communists, and to prove that the US was "not like them," they added "under God" into the pledge.

2. The writer's of the DOI and the Constitution believed strongly in a Creator. This Creator, to some, is the Christian God. To others, it is Allah. To still others, it is nature itself. The founders used terms that would include all religions, and allow all citizens to hold their own beliefs.


THe answer would *not* be "because the US is a Christian country and all good little patriots are Christian, just like the founding fathers were ((never mind that most of them were not))."

That's along the line I was thinking. Most-- if not all-- of the Founding Fathers were Masons, a rather covert society occupied with symbolism, enlightenment, rationality, etc. (Joseph Campbell goes into detail about it in one of his books, I think The Power of Myth.) So for them, "God" was not a Christian God, or a God of any particular religion other than Reason.

That said, they didn't intend to exclude individuals' religions. The U.S. was meant, I assume, to be an inclusive state, not an exclusive state. They probably wouldn't be happy with citizens misinterpreting Constitutional passages and using them to fuel Christian propaganda, and they also wouldn't be happy with citizens allowing their religious phobias to warp their democratic message, etc.

How old are you, BTW? This isn't a dig, and I don't mean to sound patronsing, though I probably will, but if you're a teen yourself then you need to understand that perceptions change as you get older. One of the things about getting older is you leave a trail of monumentally stupid decisions in your wake that makes you realise just how little you knew back then, despite being so sure about everything. This, hopefully, leads you in turn to realise how little you probably know now.

Patronizing, indeed. I am 23. While this is still young, my views have changed considerably since high school. After all, I've had more time to think about them. With the help of a few good references, such as Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People," I have decided that it will not be a good idea to control other people until I would like to be controlled by others. While I do not dispute that education is important to me and many others, I cannot deny that it is a special interest group and that government enforcement places a bias on society.

The basis for my dispute above was in what I learned in developmental and cognitive psychology classes and also from personal experience. This summer, I worked at a math/cryptology thinktank. The full-time staff worked from 9-5 every weekday. The undergraduate and pre-doctoral interns were there until 7 or 8 consistently and often on weekends. But I'm probably biased, and so was the person that I was responding to, in my opinion. I don't think that there's any cognitive or motivational difference between teens and adults.

Dude, Liberta Islands, please learn to speak English before you post here.

Damn political correctness! Even if people don't agree with the concept of "God", our history needs to be taught right.

It was not a question of about God it's the fact he was talking up Christianity to a bunch of 5th graders. Mixed nationalities and religions to boot.

Damn political correctness! Even if people don't agree with the concept of "God", our history needs to be taught right.

I agree. That's why we shoudl be teaching children that we were no founded as a theocracy but as a secular nation.

as has been pointed out, they aren't saying the DOI cannot be taught, just that it cannot be used to preach to children about the fact that we are a Christian nation (which again, we are not).

You guys know the teacher was ONLY QUOTING PARTS IN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE WITH THE WORD GOD IN IT, RIGHT?

He was trying to prove that America should be a theocracy.

Stop being whipped into a frenzy by your overlords for god's sake.

You guys know the teacher was ONLY QUOTING PARTS IN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE WITH THE WORD GOD IN IT, RIGHT?

He was trying to prove that America should be a theocracy.

Stop being whipped into a frenzy by your overlords for god's sake.

I wasn't aware of that. The only articles I read on the issue portrayed him as a sort of victim of constitutional castration. But if he were on a theocracy campaign, that would alter my opinion. Then I would say: What a buttmunch.

1. The Declaration was written before the Bill of Rights.

2. If a religion is "promoted" in a literary work, it's ok. But posting the ten commandments in Court or a cafeteria is not.

Patronizing, indeed. I am 23. While this is still young, my views have changed considerably since high school. After all, I've had more time to think about them. With the help of a few good references, such as Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People," I have decided that it will not be a good idea to control other people until I would like to be controlled by others. While I do not dispute that education is important to me and many others, I cannot deny that it is a special interest group and that government enforcement places a bias on society.

The basis for my dispute above was in what I learned in developmental and cognitive psychology classes and also from personal experience. This summer, I worked at a math/cryptology thinktank. The full-time staff worked from 9-5 every weekday. The undergraduate and pre-doctoral interns were there until 7 or 8 consistently and often on weekends. But I'm probably biased, and so was the person that I was responding to, in my opinion. I don't think that there's any cognitive or motivational difference between teens and adults.

Apologies for sounding patronising, like I said, not intended. And you're only a couple of years younger than me so I hardly have a basis to. I'd be inclined to agree with your last points but for me it's not innate cognitive or motivational factors that are key, it's experience. I have nothing to base this on apart from personal experience; put simply as a teenager I was a fecking idiot. I think teenagers are often ill-equipped to realise exactly what is needed in the big bad world ahead, teenage life has its own raft of concerns that don't really allow you to seriously consider life beyond the next big social event. So I would always argue that certain courses should be mandatory since they are those that best equip you to cope with the real world and give you the most options. I'd include in this the native language, a foreign language, mathamatics (but we can drop trigonometry), science and, yes, history. If nothing else this thread testifies to the reason why more people need to learn history.

1. The Declaration was written before the Bill of Rights.

2. If a religion is "promoted" in a literary work, it's ok. But posting the ten commandments in Court or a cafeteria is not.
How bout we just post the last seven with the first three crossed out :D

How bout we just post the last seven with the first three crossed out :D

Aw, I really like #2: "You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."

All sculptors and whittlers should be put to death!

Oh oh! I...I remember this one time...This isn't really related to the question but I was reminded of it when someone mentioned that when an American teen was asked which powers were in the Axis he gave a really stupid answer...

So anyway, I have been asked several times by my fellow classmates..."What if Russia won WWII!?"

It makes me so sad.

And...On behalf of the Americans, I would like to apologize for the posts made by Liberta Islands on this thread.

I am sorry, people of Europe, Canada and...everywhere else. I am so sorry.

I now truly know why we are so hated. It's not the nukes, Vietnam or Iraq, or any of that...

It's people like HIM! Please don't hate all of us!