Declaration of Independence Banned!

Mandated Curriculum or Religious Propaganda?

Published on December 5, 2004 By iamheather In Politics

After reading another blog about a proposed amendment requiring the teaching of the constitution in schools, I could not help but recall a recent news story. How would Senator Byrd, being a Democrat, address this school decision? If Byrd's amendment passed, would we then have to declare what parts of the constitution and American history could be taught? Would we have to censor our own history?

Declaration of Independence Banned at Calif School
Wed Nov 24, 2004 04:12 PM ET

By Dan Whitcomb
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.

Comments (Page 2)

kingbee

on Dec 06, 2004

, this is just one teacher. But then it only takes one person to get a ban going. It is called creeping incrementalism.

hmmmm you know its only one teacher for sure? whats the backround besides that creeping stuff youre suggesting?

shadesofgrey

on Dec 06, 2004

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.

Iamheather--this has actually been debated around here quite a bit. I think the ruling that came down was that you couldn't post entire articles--but I'm not 100% sure. I am certain that another "older" JoeUser could probably clarify that.

Fair use is an iffy defense if one were to be prosecuted for copyright infringement...The Los Angelos Times recently sued Free Republic over their on-line bulletin board which reposted articles in full. The court found that:

Given that the overwhelming majority of the repostings were of the entirety of the articles, there was no “transformative” use of the copyrighted material. This means that part of being “fair use” is when a user takes otherwise protected materials and reuses it in such as way as to create some new work or enhance the meaning of the original materials by this new use. It also means that such new use does not deprive the owner of a market for the underlying material because the new use is of a different nature than the original use.

. Given that the articles posted to defendant’s site were almost verbatim copies of the originals, the Court found against the defendant on this issue. The Court said that the defendant failed to show that it was necessary for comment purposes to copy the entirety of the articles.

Sorry to hijack...

terpfan1980

on Dec 06, 2004

Reply #17 By: Citizen kingbee - 12/6/2004 8:56:26 AM
, this is just one teacher. But then it only takes one person to get a ban going. It is called creeping incrementalism.

hmmmm you know its only one teacher for sure? whats the backround besides that creeping stuff youre suggesting?

I started an article on this topic about a week before Iamheather got this new one going. (Link here: Now we've really gone too far, Declaration of Indy banned)

I've been following the case as best I can in the meantime.

The particulars for this case are that this is one individual teacher, who is an admitted devout christian. Regardless, he's done his best to teach history within context. He tried to use materials from framers of the constitution, as well as the authors of the Declaration of Independence -- that included Jefferson, William Penn, Ben Franklin, etc.

Some of the specifics around what really started this issue is that the teacher was demonstrating to students how close the wording in the DoI is to writings of Penn and others. When you compare the materials, you see where a lot of writings in the DoI and Constitution (and bill of rights) came from, or were developed to address.

Unfortunately, in the name of avoiding church and state issues, the principal of the school over-reacted and clamped down on the teacher telling him that the materials that mentioned GOD were not acceptable, and that all materials must be screened by the principal before use in the teachers class.

The ACLU and it's friends are on a rampage to eradicate GOD from our history. Any mention of a higher power, and acknowledgement of same, and a team of lawyers come swooping in to defeat that acknowledgement and eradicate it from public view. We must cleanse ourselves of these mentions and acknowledgement so that we can all be free to celebrate and worship to nothing. So we can have rights that mean nothing. A right to practice religion that is overriden by a right to not have relgion at all. That's the wacky world we live in.

Matt

on Dec 06, 2004

Did you read about how in Georgia museums, anti-evolution gangs have tagged displays with "Just a Theory" stickers? It was on the Swift Report this week.

terpfan1980

on Dec 06, 2004

Reply #21 By: Citizen Helix the II - 12/6/2004 12:41:16 PM
It is becoming a remarkable issue, the whole thing of religion in public. If I have freedom of religion, should I be able to say a prayer anywhere I want for any reason? Isn't that tolerance?
An athiest, a pagan, etc., should have to tolerate GOD in public. Read my lips, T-o-l-e-r-a-t-e. Not be subverted, but tolerate. And so what if it makes them nervous that someone says God in front of them....they should have to deal with it.. Same as a Christian should have to tolerate a pagan...(Oh, my! Logic, fairness, and equality! FER SHAME!!)

You know that thing that amazes me about this issue is just what you mention, but further to the point. It seems that Pagans, Atheists, and others that are not tolerant of religion have a fear that even hearing the word God or mention of a holier and higher power and authority have some deep rooted fear that even hearing God mentioned may convert them or must be part of a concerted effort to convert them.

I don't understand what is so hard about not saying "under god" when you say the pledge of allegiance. Or what is so difficult about not saying a prayer when one is being said before a meal at a state funded military academy (or the U.S. military academies). If you are being singled out, and you are being asked to say the prayer, or you're being told you're going to say the pledge of allegiance by yourself, or that you're going to sing God Bless America as a solo, then I'd understand. But even then, how hard is it to speak up and object then and there by saying I'm sorry but I don't want to or will not sing about God?

If I see someone sitting down to eat lunch who bows their head and says a prayer before they eat, I don't assume that they're trying to convert me to their religion. I assume that they're a religious person and that they've opted to show it in that way. That doesn't mean I'm wrong for not doing it, or that they're right because they do. It's just a difference in how we behave.

But it's obvious to me that people like Michael Newdow and others that are so fervently anti-religous have some serious problems behind why they are fighting so hard to crush the will of the majority.

iamheather

on Dec 06, 2004

Grog:

This nation was founded by devoted Christians, we should give some respect to them and leave their last marks on the world last

It is a part of our history. Like the Native Americans are a part of our history, we learn and read about their beliefs in school. My children do not feel threatened by this. It does not change their beliefs.

LW:

Pssst.....hey people, our Founding Fathers believed in GOD!!!!! (oh...the horror....the horror.)

A majority did. Some didn't. Why can we not learn both.

Any part of our history now deemed 'offensive' to any minority groups, whether they be Indians, jews, blacks, or atheists is subject to censoring at best, and changing the entire story around at worst.

Civil liberties apply to all, not just minorities.

Kingbee:

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?

Probably not. We can teach that. We can learn what they believed and didn't believe. We can decide and evaluate for ourselves whether they were right or wrong.

ParaTed2K

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

At the least, Zero Intelligence in that school principal.

Dr. Guy

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.

Thank you for the clarification, but the words were from the article. They were not my own.

It is called creeping incrementalism.

I like that phrase. Creeping incrementalism is exactly what it is, otherwise known as a slippery slope.

terpfan:

started an article on this topic about a week before Iamheather got this new one going. (Link here: Now we've really gone too far, Declaration of Indy banned

I had no idea. Sorry if you feel like I stole your topic.

Helix:

The ACLU and it's friends are on a rampage to eradicate GOD from our history. Any mention of a higher power, and acknowledgement of same, and a team of lawyers come swooping in to defeat that acknowledgement and eradicate it from public view. We must cleanse ourselves of these mentions and acknowledgement so that we can all be free to celebrate and worship to nothing. So we can have rights that mean nothing. A right to practice religion that is overriden by a right to not have relgion at all. That's the wacky world we live in.

Strange and scary, in my opinion.

If I have freedom of religion, should I be able to say a prayer anywhere I want for any reason? Isn't that tolerance?

Exactly. As long as you don't scream out that everyone must stop what they are doing and pray with you.

Same as a Christian should have to tolerate a pagan...(Oh, my! Logic, fairness, and equality! FER SHAME!!)

Hey, careful of that logic stuff.....

People get tired of being hated..after so long, they will rebel at some point. You keep pushing and you'll be pushed back..logical enough. I do not agree with it, nor any violence in the name of religion or anti-religion..But you can't allow one and not the other...you can't.

A lot of Christians become radical in thinking because they feel persecuted. I am by no means condoning radical behavior.

terpfan:

I don't understand what is so hard about not saying "under god" when you say the pledge of allegiance. Or what is so difficult about not saying a prayer when one is being said before a meal at a state funded military academy (or the U.S. military academies). If you are being singled out, and you are being asked to say the prayer, or you're being told you're going to say the pledge of allegiance by yourself, or that you're going to sing God Bless America as a solo, then I'd understand. But even then, how hard is it to speak up and object then and there by saying I'm sorry but I don't want to or will not sing about God?

It is called tolerance. The same tolerance people on the left claim the right doesn't have. Can the anti-religion people please "tolerate" Christian practices as long as the Christians do not force them to participate?

terpfan1980

on Dec 06, 2004

terpfan:
started an article on this topic about a week before Iamheather got this new one going. (Link here: Now we've really gone too far, Declaration of Indy banned

I had no idea. Sorry if you feel like I stole your topic.

Not at all. More an observation that this topic is circling around here and in society in general. There've been multiple forum threads and topics on Church and State issues lately, and it seems to be showing just how heated the discussions are becoming on this topic.

It really does seem that there is a very serious rift between those that want "under god" to stay or are willing to ignore it and those like Newdow that so vehemently want it gone. The ACLU of course preaches to us that we must tolerate Newdow and his minority rights and views, while ignoring the rights of those that would prefer that Newdow just shut up and go away. (At least just shut up).

People like him, and the person referenced in this blog entry/article (link follows:) In Calif., Cross Site Stirs Discord.. more Church + state - atheist Philip Paulson, are people who seem to like tilting at windmills hoping for a victory that they can tout as protecting the interests of everyone when in fact they are strictly trying to make everyone follow their rules and vision.

It's sickening, and as you point out, tolerance is for everyone but the left to have of the practices by the left. Irony at it's finest -- NOT!

iamheather

on Dec 06, 2004

terpfan

The ACLU of course preaches to us that we must tolerate Newdow and his minority rights and views, while ignoring the rights of those that would prefer that Newdow just shut up and go away. (At least just shut up).

The ACLU ignores the rights of Christians, period.

Moderateman

on Dec 06, 2004

This {banning the constitution} is just more leftwing liberal bullshit........... the secularist have declared war against all religion and seem to be winning thanx to the Asshole Constipated Liberal Unbelievers aclu for short.

iamheather

on Dec 06, 2004

the secularist have declared war against all religion and seem to be winning

I refuse to stand by and accept their victory. Evil prevails when good men do nothing.

drmiler

on Dec 06, 2004

Reply #27 By: iamheather - 12/6/2004 5:41:35 PM
the secularist have declared war against all religion and seem to be winning

I refuse to stand by and accept their victory. Evil prevails when good men do nothing.

They (the secularist) have fired the opening salvo.... now it's our turn!

Christian and a true beliver in the father, son, and holy ghost. Amen!

iamheather

on Dec 06, 2004

They (the secularist) have fired the opening salvo.... now it's our turn!Christian and a true beliver in the father, son, and holy ghost. Amen!

And amen, but without violence, please

In a Christlike manner....

Moderateman

on Dec 06, 2004

Reply By: iamheatherPosted: Monday, December 06, 2004They (the secularist) have fired the opening salvo.... now it's our turn!Christian and a true beliver in the father, son, and holy ghost. Amen!And amen, but without violence, please In a Christlike manner....

ummm Iseem to remember Christ kicking some butt one time when HE finally had enuff disrespect of a Holy Place. am I wrong??? and If the people of religious bent do not do something the leftwing secularist will soon have God erased from any mention publically.

iamheather

on Dec 06, 2004

Christ had some harsh words, and knocked around some tables. He didn't kill anyone in the name of religion.

I agree with religious people doing something. Afterall, I did post

I refuse to stand by and accept their victory. Evil prevails when good men do nothing

kingbee

on Dec 06, 2004

The particulars for this case are that this is one individual teacher, who is an admitted devout christian. Regardless, he's done his best to teach history within context. He tried to use materials from framers of the constitution, as well as the authors of the Declaration of Independence -- that included Jefferson, William Penn, Ben Franklin, etc.

Some of the specifics around what really started this issue is that the teacher was demonstrating to students how close the wording in the DoI is to writings of Penn and others. When you compare the materials, you see where a lot of writings in the DoI and Constitution (and bill of rights) came from, or were developed to address.

if this guy wants so badly to teach kids how the founders agreed with his beliefs or (much more defensible from the standpoint of what education is all about) how his beliefs agree with those of the founders, it seems obvious he should have chosen a christian school in which to teach. those who wish to have this man impart his message to their children are equally free to enroll them in that school. my father made a very good salary but spent many years denying himself even small luxuries, choosing instead to purchase a religious education for his 8 kids. had we gone to public schools, he would have expected our teachers to do the job for which they were hired according to the rules determined by those administering the school system and not waste the taxpayer's money nor our time evangelizing instead of teaching.

you may not want to see it that way but it's exactly what appears to be happening based on the information provided.

what's so bad about a religiously inspired teacher professing his particular faith to his students? a. that's not what he was hired to do. b. altho you may wish to frame this as a prohibition against christianity, that's not at all the issue. what if he belongs to a christian sect that is decidedly out of the mainstream? do christians still want christians permitted to teach apocrypha or what you and your sect consider heresy? the only way to avoid that is to eliminate the possibility altogether--and that is the point of jefferson's letter to the danbury baptists. c. this isnt about some mythical athiest cult driving a political faction's legal siege machine. first of all, characterizing non-believers as believing fervently in nothing--much less in congregation with others who don't believe is absolute nonsense. secondly the aclu defends the rights of neonazis with as much effort as it does defends those of other groups.

finally, the title of this article is not only inaccurate but outright bullshit. the declaration of independence hasnt been banned (nor moderateman has the constitution) or anything close to that. charaterizing an instance of employee insubordination or refusing to perform as an attack on the declaration of independence--much less a successful one (banned is past tense no?)--is nothing more than overdramatized hysterics.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!