I totally agree with Terry Thompson.!

"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.

It seems to me that "You're damned if you do, and damned if you don't."

This brings to mind a qoute from a game about limiting knowledge to control people. If certain pieces of history are deemed incorrect by those in power, then they would be using that to limit what people know. ack, attack of the 1984 people, duck and cover.

edited to add qoute (note qoute is from a computer game, from a fictional document by a fictional person, at least i'm pretty sure it's that way)

Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master. -- Commissioner Pravin Lal

"a proposed constitutional amendment requiring the teaching of the constitution in schools"

Senator Byrd did not propose a "Constitutional amendment." He added an amendment (or rider) to an appropriations bill that will require public schools to teach students about the Constitution from grade school through college. There is a HUGE difference between amending a bill and amending the Constitution. I am not trying to be petty....just wanted to make sure that people are not being misinformed.

""There is nothing in the Establishment Clause (of the U.S. Constitution) that prohibits a teacher from showing students the Declaration of Independence."

In my opinion, that is correct. I can't speak for Senator Byrd. Perhaps you should write to his office and inquire what his position is on this issue. It's a lot better than speculating... As for this law suit...I don't think it will go anywhere and the whole story is just media hype trying to sell newspapers. People can bring lawsuits for any number of reasons but that does not mean that they have any legal merit. I think this one will get tossed...in the meantime it makes nice, juicy headlines.

"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."

It always looked a lot to me, like this law was emplaced to keep the government from stopping you practicing your beliefs, or saying what you liked. Not preventing you from practicing your religion or speaking your mind in public places to avoid offending someone. Much less admitting that some of the founders possibly believed in God.

Thomas Jefferson said it best, "If it neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg, what matter it if my neighbor worships one god, or twenty?"

Furthermore, the decleration of independence? Man was it vague. It doesn't really come out and say God, or the Christian God, or any such. It pussyfoots around with such phrases as (and after all, Jefferson was a pretty vague deist), Creator, Supreme Judge of the World, and Divine Providence.

Danny:

Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master. -- Commissioner Pravin Lal

Great quote. Thank you for posting it.

T_Bone:

Senator Byrd did not propose a "Constitutional amendment." He added an amendment (or rider) to an appropriations bill that will require public schools to teach students about the Constitution from grade school through college. There is a HUGE difference between amending a bill and amending the Constitution. I am not trying to be petty....just wanted to make sure that people are not being misinformed.

Duly noted. An amendment.....

It's a lot better than speculating...

It was a rhetorical question. Byrd's opinion really matters not to me.

As for this law suit...I don't think it will go anywhere and the whole story is just media hype trying to sell newspapers. People can bring lawsuits for any number of reasons but that does not mean that they have any legal merit. I think this one will get tossed...in the meantime it makes nice, juicy headlines.

I could care less about the lawsuit. It was the school's ruling that concerns me. I noticed that you didn't address that issue.

Spc Nobody Special:

Not preventing you from practicing your religion or speaking your mind in public places to avoid offending someone

Exactly! Civil rights don't just apply to minorites.

Furthermore, the decleration of independence? Man was it vague. It doesn't really come out and say God

Sorry to disagree, but it does mention God (even in the capital manner). In other sections it does address diety by various names as you mentioned. Below is an excerpt from the declaration.

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

Banning a historical document? That's a laugh if that is what is happening.

Frankly, when I believe in separation of church and state that signifies that federal officials/teachers and anyone in some type of public service cannot promote a specific religious agenda on us.

That's what our founders were trying to do: they wanted to be able to practice as they wished and not be persecuted as they were in England.

Banning the declaration of independence is quite frankly going to far.
From that article he was teaching his student by having them look at a specific example in history which our nation does have certain leanings (ok, more than certain but once your shores opened up to one group you opened them up for other religions and therefore have to respect them as well, that's how you keep fairness in the system, on atheist well you have to realize that you can't force your views on others as well) and 'God' will be mentioned iin there. I'm amazed; what I want to read now is a story with a better explanation; always like to look at multiple sources.


oh, I'm thinking that some 'plagarism' via not looking at article reproduction rights is taking place that should probably be looked into before some people get into trouble. You can cite a source, you can even take quotes from a source, you can link but don't believe you can repost an article in its entirety on any site unless you get permission: hell its right there in the bottom of the article:


All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.



Just my two cents on this; just mentioning this because I wanted to include an article from the nytimes on my website on something for personal use and looked into things and the options really suck (have to tear down the article after a year after paying for its use; which seems time intensive) but that's the way they make their revenue...

How do I purchase a reprint?
Question
How do I purchase a reprint?
Answer


For copyright and revenue reasons, Reuters cannot grant carte-blanche permission for re-use of its articles. If there is a particular story you would like to reproduce, publish, host on your website or distribute, please e-mail or fax a copy of the article to us, and provide some additional details as to its intended use.

Email - support@rsicopyright.com

Fax. - +1 651 762 0163.

You may also call us on +1 800 217 7874.

Please include a brief cover-note giving your name, organization, address and fax number, the headline and date of publication of the article, and a line on how you intend to use it. We will then contact you with pricing details, and to organize licensing of the requested article. Due to the increasing volume of e-mails we are receiving, please cut and paste the text of the article rather than sending it in an attachment.



have to laugh at myself; seems I'm committing the same act...

Mercedes,

Under the Fair Use Provision of the International Copyright Law, an article can be cited and posted as long as the source is listed, credit is given, and the content is not changed.

what's really goin on here?  are all teachers at this school or in the district prohibited from using the declaration of independence?  were his lessons based on the entire document or only portions?  

something isnt right here and im not referring to the prohibition (if this is truly a case of a teacher being forbidden to construct a lesson on the declaration that's clearly not right, of course).   it strikes me very strange that this involves only one teacher.

im hoping someone can provide more details. 

This nation was founded by devoted Christians, we should give some respect to them and leave their last marks on the world last. You know you do not have to say the pledge of alliengce, the atheist child could simple just stand there

our Founding Fathers believed in GOD!!!!!

prolly didnt believe that germs existed.  or quasars.  and they prolly believed there was no way of preventing smallpox. 

so what? 

before you get all riled up over politically correct or moral values or discrimination, shouldnt someone examine this a lil closer?

the pertinent question is whether all the teachers in the cupertino usd are being told they cant teach about the doe...or if its just this one.  and if thats the case whats the reason hes been singled out.

Chalk another one up to "Zero Intelligence" in our school system.

It is ironic that we hire our educators and school administrators because we have an interest in a thinking populace, yet in the end it is those educators and administrators who seem least interested in actually thinking.

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.

I have to correct another misconception, but I am not sure if it was quoted or from the blogger.

A 3 judge panel of the US 9th found the phrase was a violation, but the full court overturned that verdict.  So when the US Supreme court refused to hear the case, they let the phrase stand as not a violation.

And in answer to another's question, this is just one teacher.  But then it only takes one person to get a ban going.  It is called creeping incrementalism.