kingbee

if this guy wants so badly to teach kids how the founders agreed with his beliefs or

"This guy" just wanted to pass out a supplemental copy of the Declaration of Independence. The principal decided nothing with the word "God" was allowed to be distriputed to the students.

I find the principal and school administration's lack of response fairly interesting and telling.

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.

The teacher will not allow any material, including the Declaration of Independence, to be allowed in the classroom.


ban1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bn)
tr.v. banned, ban·ning, bans
To prohibit, especially by official decree.

Main Entry: ban
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Forms: banned; ban·ning
: to prohibit or forbid

The principal banned the Declaration of Independence in her school.

Reply #32 By: kingbee - 12/6/2004 11:34:53 PM 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. 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.

What I'd like to know is how you *assumed* all of this from what little info was given? Just because someone is a devout Christian does *not* mean that's what he's espousing to the kids,

What I'd like to know is how you *assumed* all of this from what little info was given?

I was wondering the same thing, drmiler.

Some people are jumping on the secularist but it seems funny in that the constitution and other documents were attempts to keep this so (by our 'framers,' forefathers, etc.).
One can be devout in their faith and at the same time realize that they have to be open to others rights to practice religion.
==============
Not sure about the guy cited; he 'seems' to be pushing his beliefs (and should be fired; you do not push your beliefs on me and I won't push mine on you is pretty simple in that regards; sort of like my rights end at your nose ).
Either way, banning the document is frankly, 'stupid' beyond belief. Hell, in my u.s. history class my teacher passed out a little book with the constitution and the declaration of independence for us to keep (and learn about our history). If he was just using the documents for instructional 'purposes' then whoever banned the document should be fired. Anyways, would like to hear from the highest court on what this decision will be; frankly, believe they will have a field day with any 'ultra-secularist' because that court bases their stuff from that 'sheet'; in constitutional law I don't believe that the dec. of indep. has any relevance (believe everyonce in a while someone cites something from that but it gets shut down), its the constitution stupid.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Copyright Law; I'm thinking that while the u.s. tends to obey some laws when in their favor; if reuters is u.s. based then u.s. law will no doubt fall on reposting articles. Me, to stay out of any problems I would 'fair use' (as mentioned by ... damn to lazy to scroll up) it by paraphrasing and 'liberally' quoting from the article as many newspapers tend to do when citing other news articles.

What I'd like to know is how you *assumed* all of this from what little info was given? Just because someone is a devout Christian does *not* mean that's what he's espousing to the kids,

the key is in the article that began this thread.

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."

im gonna make one further assumption: that yall have actually read the declaration of independence.

why would such a relatively short and tightly concise document require excerpting?  and what inspired the choice of the other documents? 

the 2nd one is more accurately and commonly known as 'george wachington's prayer journal'  

samuel adams' 'rights of colonists' should have been excerpted--to remove the portion in which adams asserts..."And it is now generally agreed among Christians that this spirit of toleration, in the fullest extent consistent with the being of civil society, is the chief characteristical mark of the Church. Insomuch that Mr. Locke has asserted and proved, beyond the possibility of contradiction on any solid ground, that such toleration ought to be extended to all whose doctrines are not subversive of society. The only sects which he thinks ought to be, and which by all wise laws are excluded from such toleration, are those who teach doctrines subversive of the civil government under which they live. The Roman Catholics or Papists are excluded by reason of such doctrines as these, that princes excommunicated may be deposed, and those that they call heretics may be destroyed without mercy; besides their recognizing the Pope in so absolute a manner, in subversion of government, by introducing, as far as possible into the states under whose protection they enjoy life, liberty, and property, that solecism in politics, imperium in imperio, leading directly to the worst anarchy and confusion, civil discord, war, and bloodshed."  

btw that was what i was alluding to re: the  possibility of teaching sectarian doctrine that would be heretical to other christian sects in my earlier comment

then there's this (also from the original article)

"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

adf was founded by the same group ministers who are now claiming bush owes them for his victory...kennedy, dobson, wildmon, etc...and coincidentally the same ones who openly advocate the us be reconstituted as a dominionalist theocracy.

ban1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bn) tr.v. banned, ban·ning, bans To prohibit, especially by official decree. Main Entry: ban Function: transitive verb Inflected Forms: banned; ban·ning : to prohibit or forbid The principal banned the Declaration of Independence in her school.

actually she didnt.  she intervened to prevent this guy from distributing excerpts of the doi in his class.  he's the only teacher who requires this oversight apparently.  but in fact whether you wanna copy entries from 20 dictionaries to try and prove your point, what was banned (if anything) was an excerpt.

 

Interesting points, kingbee. Still disagree on the banning thing, but the above explanation before that was interesting. Have an insightful on me.

since this is your blog, youre at total liberty to disregard this but...pasting in the definition of 'excerpt' is unnecessary if youre thinkin of doing it on my behalf.  if i should forget the meaning, ill happily look it up myself.

an insightful on me.

bless you my child (and thanks too)

since this is your blog, youre at total liberty to disregard this but...pasting in the definition of 'excerpt' is unnecessary if youre thinkin of doing it on my behalf. if i should forget the meaning, ill happily look it up myself

smart aleck....

Didn't even think of it, but wish I had

but wish I had

im sorry i talked ya outta it now

I'm getting this feeling that many people have jumped wildly to unsupported conclusions based on limited facts and accusations made by the teacher in a legal brief.

I heard in a newscast this evening that there is more to the story. This particular teacher may have been engaging in proselitizing using the "excerpts" in question. He may also have previously been disciplined or counseled about activities considered proselitizing in nature. The principal may have been acting to put a stop to that, not to ban the DOI from being used or taught.

The point is the facts have not been fully developed and we should probably hold off on any sweeping statements or generalizations one way or the other. Whatever actually happened has to be put in context. I realize it occurred in California , but it's hard for me to believe any principal would in fact ban the teaching or classroom use of the DOI, for any reason.

Interesting "excerpt" from Sam Adams - always a good decision. Thanks for that, kingbee.

Cheers,
Daiwa

i totally agree.... the Declaration of Independence is a large part of US history and censoring it is just plain stupid; its like trying to hide that hitler existed.

When reading the bible at schools was outlawed, large problems started. i remember in the 90s when they did outlaw it and since then, the US has changed. ALOT. i wish i could say for the better but no.

Movies have lots more violence and sex and now thats mostly waht kids think about.

well... i g2g i will be back though

Fox News is currently interviewing the teacher in question right now. Let's get the facts straight!