Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on November 24, 2004, 08:08:29 PM
-
Our 'progressive' Kalifornia:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A California teacher has been barred by his school from giving students documents from American history that refer to God -- including the Declaration of Independence.
Steven Williams, a fifth-grade teacher at Stevens Creek School in the San Francisco Bay area suburb of Cupertino, sued for discrimination on Monday, claiming he had been singled out for censorship by principal Patricia Vidmar because he is a Christian.
"It's a fact of American history that our founders were religious men, and to hide this fact from young fifth-graders in the name of political correctness is outrageous and shameful," said Williams' attorney, Terry Thompson.
"Williams wants to teach his students the true history of our country," he said. "There is nothing in the Establishment Clause (of the U.S. Constitution) that prohibits a teacher from showing students the Declaration of Independence."
Vidmar could not be reached for comment on the lawsuit, which was filed on Monday in U.S. District Court in San Jose and claims violations of Williams rights to free speech under the First Amendment.
Phyllis Vogel, assistant superintendent for Cupertino Unified School District, said the lawsuit had been forwarded to a staff attorney. She declined to comment further.
Williams asserts in the lawsuit that since May he has been required to submit all of his lesson plans and supplemental handouts to Vidmar for approval, and that the principal will not permit him to use any that contain references to God or Christianity.
Among the materials she has rejected, according to Williams, are excerpts from the Declaration of Independence, George Washington's journal, John Adams' diary, Samuel Adams' "The Rights of the Colonists" and William Penn's "The Frame of Government of Pennsylvania."
"He hands out a lot of material and perhaps 5 to 10 percent refers to God and Christianity because that's what the founders wrote," said Thompson, a lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund, which advocates for religious freedom. "The principal seems to be systematically censoring material that refers to Christianity and it is pure discrimination."
In June, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case of a California atheist who wanted the words "under God" struck from the Pledge of Allegiance as recited by school children. The appeals court in California had found that the phrase amounted to a violation of church and state separation.
http://www.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6911883
-
blah blah blah blah blahrrg blurrrg
-
California isn't even a real state to begin with. They're a bunch of gold-diggers.
-
Why not Allah, Budha etc.
-
Originally posted by SLO
Why not put Allah then, instead of God or Budha etc.
Why not leave it? Means the same thing, except its a recognized ENGLISH word.
-
Actually I'm begining to think that between the religeous nuts, secularists, revisionists, anti-violence litigators and every other activist that's gotten involved in various schools across the country they're pretty much down to teaching....math? Maybe? Science is out...not religeous enough. American History is out, too religeous. Dodge ball and JRTOC are out, too violent and besides, those JROTC kids have (shudder) GUNS IN SCHOOL! BAD! BAD! Art is out, heaven forbid anyone see Venus' breasts at such a formative age... Wait, can't say heaven forbid, too religeous again... and of course we can't teach that the Honorable Mister Lincoln freed the slaves, because really, he didn't... so... 1+1=2. Wait. Too sexual. Here, have a condom and be safe. I'm so confused. No wonder kids hate school:rolleyes:
-
take a chill pill chrome dome...
it is a just a word after all
-
I'm curious as to why this teacher's lesson plans were being reviewed before he could teach them. Surely that's not something the administration has time to do for every teacher. I bet there's more to this story. But whatever, it's Kalifornia, who gives a chit.
-
Originally posted by SLO
take a chill pill chrome dome...
it is a just a word after all
Tell that to the lunatics who prevent American children from studying the Decleration of Independace, the most important document in the history of this nation just because of that one word...
And to think this is going on in my hometown, in my old school district, just a mile from where I now sit. Disguisting...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Tell that to the lunatics who prevent American children from studying the Decleration of Independace, the most important document in the history of this nation...
Bah.... It was written before the Constitution (perhaps THAT was the important document you were referring to?). The Dec of Independance was just basicaly a list of greivances against Britain.
-
No decleration, no usa no constitution. Its far more than merely written before it, it is the founding document of this nation signed July 4 1776 which we still celebrate today as this country's birthday and not september 17, 1787 when the constitution was adopted. So while the constituation is clearly the more important technical document in daily government it ultimately takes a second place to the Decleration of Independance.
Sorry Nash, no bah... This form of idiocy in preventing american children from studying the decleration is morally and logically unjustifiable as is your attempt to mitigate the significance of this act by devalutiong the decleration of independance.
-
To be honest, I don't want kids that learn that stuff in my society, who believe there is no god but government. No faith = bad intentions to others.
-
Grun... Christians are constantly quoting the DoI, and avoid mentioning the constitution like the plague. Why? Because the DoI has the word "God" and the Constitution doesn't.
Why is this important? Because it hints at the strong possibility that, much like the teacher in some olden thread who got canned but turned out to be a whack-job, there is more to the story here.
-
So a school in a liberal california suburb bans the decleration of independance from its clasrooms and you try to shift this into some right wing christian conspiracy?
Good god man, what is wrong with you? Why this obession over one word?
Or am I assuming too much?
Let me ask you this, if the Decleration was banned in this school because of the presence of the word "god" would you be in agreement with this act?
Yes or No? Please clear up any confusion I migh have wrt to your views here.
-
[sarcasm] yea that paper and words written on it started a war. time to ban paper and writing words. [/sarcasm]
:rolleyes:
-
"No faith = bad intentions to others."
Huh?
BS detector going off!
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Let me ask you this, if the Decleration was banned in this school because of the presence of the word "god" would you be in agreement with this act?
Yes or No? Please clear up any confusion I migh have wrt to your views here.
Let me put it this way for you Grun.... Ripsnort was the only guy who used the word "banned".
Re-read the story with that in mind, and try and see if you can figure out why it would be that the principal, who rejected his inclusion of the DoI in his (particular, as far as we know) lesson plan, has asked to review his lesson plans prior to him giving them in the first place.
Maybe this is a good lesson plan for parsing the media, and parsing the dipsnort-like framing of media bites.
-
This is not a discussion about the merits of religion vs atheism.
This is a discussion about the decision of one AMERICAN school to deny its students the chance to study the Decleration of Independance because it mentions the word "God" a single time.
If you want to discuss other things, feel free to start a new thread.
-
I don't believe in God, so do many others, the DoI was written a long time ago, maybe you can switch a few words and get with the program...
teach history yes...no need to preach it.
-
Why dont you just answer the question Nash?
Is that so hard? Can you just state your support for or opposition to barring the Decleration from these classrooms because it contains the word "God?"
Even if we entertain your ideas, why not just tell the teacher eliminate inapproriate texts from his study plan but leave the Declearation?
So again, just answer the question I asked you.
Can you just state your support for or opposition to barring the Decleration from these classrooms because it contains the word "God?"
-
uh.... yeah, Grun. That's kinda what I was gettin' at. I dunno where you saw religion vs atheism in my post.
-
Originally posted by SLO
I don't believe in God, so do many others, the DoI was written a long time ago, maybe you can switch a few words and get with the program...
teach history yes...no need to preach it.
You want original historical documents, meaning NOT LAWS, altered merely to match current political whims and attitudes?
Whats next SLO, airbrushing out discredited/liquidated political figures from historical photographs?
Thats insane....
-
Originally posted by Nash
uh.... yeah, Grun. That's kinda what I was gettin' at. I dunno where you saw religion vs atheism in my post.
Not your post Nash, the other ones that got into the morality of religion etc...
-
Grun I am going to try to sneak this in fast before you get any more drunk, which usually happens at about this point in the night, whereby your grip on anything approaching coherence slackens in opposite and direct proportion to the the vehemence with which you begin to shout your misdirected point of view.
The school didn't ban the DoI. Only Ripsnort said "banned".
The school removed the DoI from this instructor's lesson plans. Amongst other things. Maybe in his lesson plans, the DoI resided as a single sheet of paper in an enormous stack of religious books. Perhaps that explains why the principal had to go through the trouble of singling him out and requesting him to submit his lesson plans prior to him giving them. So the principal simply chucked that stack out. Yet, OH NO THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDANCE HAS BEEN BANNED.
-
Wanna read the DoI, go to a Library or search the Net, no need to preach it Grun, you understand the difference right...
Original or not Grun, it was always the IDEA that counted, never the words.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Maybe in his leson plans, the DoI resided as a single sheet of paper in an enormous stack of religious books. And the principle simply chucked that stack out. Yet, OH NO THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDANCE HAS BEEN BANNED.
That's just ridicuous to the extreme, Nath...
-
Oh?
Out of everything that the DoI is about, his attourney felt the need to say, "It's a fact of American history that our founders were religious men, and to hide this fact from young fifth-graders in the name of political correctness is outrageous and shameful," said Williams' attorney, Terry Thompson."
Now... For what purpose do you think the teacher was using the DoI for?
Why would his lawyer say that out of all the things he could have said about the teacher's use of the DoI in his lessons?
Why would his principal take the unusual step of asking for the teacher's lesson plans starting back in May?
Do you really think that the principal suspected that he may have been teaching Math wrong, requested his teaching plans, saw the DoI, and tossed it?
-
Originally posted by SLO
Wanna read the DoI, go to a Library or search the Net, no need to preach it Grun, you understand the difference right...
Original or not Grun, it was always the IDEA that counted, never the words.
Preach it? So handing out the Decleration for study in a 5th grade classroom now preaching?
Its just the idea and not the words??? WORDS ARE IDEAS.. The words are important, they are how this document survies, how it is transmitted through the ages. They are how the idea survives.
You are letting your hatred of the word "God" transform you into some sort of Salinist era revisionist who eliminates uudesirable facts from the historic record. That is exacvtly what you are advocating here.
Sick!
-
By this article he appears to be a history teacher, but feel free to assume all sorts of wonderful "Maybe this, Maybe that" scenarious to defend and mitigate this outrage Nash...
And you still have not answered the question...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
You are letting your hatred of the word "God" transform you into some sort of Salinist era revisionist who eliminates uudesirable facts from the historic record. That is exacvtly what you are advocating here.
Sick!
A classification huh Grun, come now, I hope to hiccup!! god you're not serious:rofl
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
You are letting your hatred of the word "God" transform you into some sort of Salinist era revisionist who eliminates uudesirable facts from the historic record.
Classic!
:rofl
-
Eliminating words from original historical documents to suit current political whims is exactly what they did back then, and it is exactly what you are suggesting now.
Indeed, I hope that you were not serious when you said it..
-
Grun ya gotta remember, these Kanukistanis are descended from the ones who were too timid to fight off the Brits. Words like "independence" and "liberty" don't have the same meaning for them as for us. Don't expect outrage. They are pretty good neighbors despite their flaws.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
By this article he appears to be a history teacher, but feel free to assume all sorts of wonderful "Maybe this, Maybe that" scenarious to defend and mitigate this outrage Nash...
And you still have not answered the question...
Well.... which one?
You and Rip are the only people "assuming".
Do me a favour, and keep tabs on this one Grun. Lemme know what becomes of it tomorrow or the day after, when the entire story emerges, and guys like you pretend that the whole thing never happened.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Classic!
:rofl
Thayts exactly what he suggested...
I don't believe in God, so do many others, the DoI was written a long time ago, maybe you can switch a few words and get with the program...
SWITCH A FEW WORDS AND GET WITH THE PROGRAM
Yea classic, Darkness at Noon classic...
-
Can you just state your support for or opposition to barring the Decleration from classrooms because it contains the word "God?"
Would yiou support such an act or oppose it?
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Grun ya gotta remember, these Kanukistanis are descended from the ones who were too timid to fight off the Brits. Words like "independence" and "liberty" don't have the same meaning for them as for us. Don't expect outrage. They are pretty good neighbors despite their flaws.
Now thats a classic! :rofl
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Can you just state your support for or opposition to barring the Decleration from classrooms because it contains the word "God?"
Would yiou support such an act or oppose it?
Too easy! How could you even think of banning it? That's ridiculous...
You just don't get it....
A Principal had to take the unusual step of monitoring... then finally barring one particular teacher from using certain materials in his lessons; one them being the DoI.
The teacher sues.
His lawyer comes out and what does he say? He does not say, "I don't know why the principal banned him from teaching such a historic document"....
He says instead, "It's a fact of American history that our founders were religious men, and to hide this fact from young fifth-graders in the name of political correctness is outrageous and shameful," said Williams' attorney, Terry Thompson.
We'll see how this develops tomorrow.
Funny though.... how this vague piece ends up in a Rip-post with a mangled title that manages to not only suggest that the DoI was banned outright in a school, but that it's also a California State-wide thing. Hilar....
-
That scenario is reasonable enough and I perfectly understand what you are saying.
Still, according to this the offical is eliminating everything with a refernce to the word "god." Including the Decleration which has it only one time.
I see no reasonable circumstances where the Decleration should be removed from the lesson plan only on one instance of the word God, or specificalkly "Nature's God" as it is written in the decleration. If the teacher gets to this point in the decleration, and then gives a 10minute lecture on the benefits of chritianity then by all means fire his bellybutton because he is a bad history teacher. But simply removing the decleration alltogerer from the lesson because of the word god, is doing a great disservice to the students.
"Williams asserts in the lawsuit that since May he has been required to submit all of his lesson plans and supplemental handouts to Vidmar for approval, and that the principal will not permit him to use any that contain references to God or Christianity.
Among the materials she has rejected, according to Williams, are excerpts from the Declaration of Independence, George Washington's journal, John Adams' diary, Samuel Adams' "The Rights of the Colonists" and William Penn's "The Frame of Government of Pennsylvania."
"He hands out a lot of material and perhaps 5 to 10 percent refers to God and Christianity because that's what the founders wrote," said Thompson, a lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund, which advocates for religious freedom. "The principal seems to be systematically censoring material that refers to Christianity and it is pure discrimination.""
-
Got curious, looked around, finally landed here:
(http://members.shaw.ca/cwharton/pics/drudge.jpg)
WHY, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DO I KEEP GETTING SUCKED INTO THIS STUFF.
-
Originally posted by SLO
I don't believe in God, so do many others, the DoI was written a long time ago, maybe you can switch a few words and get with the program...
teach history yes...no need to preach it.
Because you dont change historical documents from the founding of your country just to suit current political correctness.
and make no mistake this is about political correctness and NOT seperation of church and state.
Most people that make this rediculous arguement have not a clue as to what that ammendment is about
and what is currently forgotten or omitted in this claim is another part of it you never hear
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Here this explains it a little better in part anyway
The Myth of the Seperation of Church and State (http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html)
-
Whatever about the merits of the argument and it does look like this teacher was to some extent introducing religion in his classes. That, he has no business doing.
But aside from the issues in this case, believe me you really do not want religion to have any place in government in the USA. There is nothing more divisive. Not neccessarily between the religious and the secular but between opposing religions. Any so called history teacher must know this. On tiop of that any country where religion has an undue influence on the government is not a place you want to live. Ireland was like that for far too long and it crippled our freedoms. We came out of it OK but look at other countries where religion dominated. There are plenty of examples. Iran being one.
Whatever this case is about it is nothing to do with the DOI any argument that pretends otherwise is sophistry. This is not political correctness It goes a lot deeper than that.
-
free speech is much to important to just allow anyone to use it...
book and doucument banning is the only way... what they don't see can't harm them.
lazs
-
While im anti-religion in schools, this is too much.
The document is a HISTORICAL item. Whether it say 'god' or not its part of the nation's history and should be studied.
The document does not preach or attempt to indoctrinate children into a religion.
The whole thing is stupid. Shame on california.
-
oio... I don't think you get it... the word "god" is much too inflamatory to allow it to be heard or even seen in printed form. Those documents that contain it, no matter how historical, should be banned from schools... if you wish to teach history to children what is wrong with simply changing the wording of documents to something more "progressive".
To let the printed word get into schools uncensored would lead to all sorts of infection of our comrades. Next they might allow books like Hemmingway's "to have and to have not" in that contain racial slurs.
A whole generation could be infected without vigilance... they would be bombarded with all sorts of ideas and might make the wrong decision as to what is the right way to think about things... bombarding children with information is not a very progressive way to teach.
Next... you will be letting parents decide what types of schools they pay for and.... well... that will be the end.
Teachers and lawyers are much more astute about what your children should see and hear than you are.
lazs
-
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.