Call me crazy, but I am a dyed flaming redheaded conservative, alternative rock-loving, tattooed, Sinead O'Connor fan who knows every song from the '50's and '60's, and card carrying member of the Republican party.

Tune to Fox News for an interesting interview with the teacher that was the subject of the article Declaration of Independence Banned! The facts ought to be interesting.

If you miss the show on now, it will be replayed later on tonight.

 

Update: Here is the transcript of the interview with the teacher.

 

STEPHEN WILLIAMS, TEACHER, STEVENS CREEK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: Yes. Last year, starting out in the beginning of the year, I hadn't changed my curriculum much at all, as I've done in the past several years, as a fifth grade teacher.

And a few weeks into the year, there was a student who said, "Why do we say 'under God' in the Pledge? And I thought, current events, past events, this is an appropriate topic to talk about.

So I said, "Let's discuss this for a few minutes." After discussing it, I didn't put too much of my opinion into it.

At the end of the day that day in school, my principal came in school and said, "What are you doing talking about God in the classroom?"

And I was kind of taken back, and I said, well, and I — I explained to her why — why it came up. And she said, "All right, it sounds reasonable."

A little bit — while later, it came up that Christopher Columbus was a Christian. This was about a 30-second discussion, where I said, "Well, a Christian means you're a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ."

The principal at the end of the day comes in and says, "What are you talking about Jesus Christ?" I explained what happened in class.

She said, "All right, sounds reasonable."

Well, the pattern developed. A parent — some parent was calling in any time there was a mention of God, Christianity, or Jesus Christ, and they just took it as a personal agenda.

HANNITY: I want to put this in perspective here. Because I have spoken to you before. Less than five percent of the materials, —you would give supplemental materials to kids — ever mentioned God. There was no discussion.

You were a history teacher. You're teaching relevant history.

WILLIAMS: One of the subjects, yes.

HANNITY: Now, you are singled out, inasmuch as no other teacher had to give whatever supplemental materials you wanted to give to your students, you first had to give it to the principal. Tell us how that then became you can't give the Declaration of Independence to them?

WILLIAMS: Right. One lesson I handed out was on the National Day of Prayer (search). We talked about it for maybe ten minutes. And the principal decided, that's it, you know, and — again this has happened a handful of times and this is one of the handful of times.

And at that point, she decided, "OK, I want to see all of your lessons that include anything about God, Jesus Christ or Christianity."

So then the now famous "the Declaration was banned." Well, my kids had read the Declaration so that's a little bit of a stretch. But what I wanted to teach was William Penn's frame of government, Samuel Adams, "The Rights of Colonists" and the first two paragraphs that exactly what you read in the beginning and the last paragraph and show how the wording came from some of the founding documents.

HANNITY: It's interesting because they keep putting out these somewhat conflicting, in my view, statements to the press, the school district — by the way, which was invited to be with us tonight, and they're not here.

But it seems like there's two strategies going on. They want to paint you as some type of a religious zealot, extremist out that is out there to proselytize students. Do you have an agenda such as that?

WILLIAMS: Absolutely not. My agenda is to give students an accurate representation of history. And whether you like it or not...

HANNITY: That's it?

WILLIAMS: ... there are some things in our historical documents and in our history that have been directly influenced by Christianity and references to God and Jesus.

ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: Stephen, Jordan, thank you both for being here. I say this as a liberal, because I am, thank you. You may not have done anything wrong. I mean, as long as you're not proselytizing.

I've heard that other — some of the things we've read in the press are that other parents have complained that you proselytize. Are those inaccurate stories?

WILLIAMS: What they...

COLMES: What are they saying?

JORDAN LORENCE, ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND: What they mean by proselytize is that he mentions God. And see, there are people that have this allergic reaction to any mention of God.

Now, if we're talking about "Huckleberry Finn (search )" and some parent called up and complained...

COLMES: Right.

LORENCE: ... the teacher wouldn't — the principal would not say to him, "Get rid of 'Huckleberry Finn'." They'd say, "You have the right to opt out, but this is part of our history. Mark Twain was a big writer." You should confront that.

This is the only issue where they think, wrongly, that there's this mandate to go on a search and destroy mission and eliminate all things religious.

COLMES: Right. Let me ask you about this. Now, the Alliance Defense Fund, you're — the group you work for...

LORENCE: That's right.

COLMES: ... it has claimed, says in their mission statement, "defends the right of Christians to share the Gospel in workplaces in public schools, claiming that any efforts to curb proselytizing at work and school are anti-Christian."

Is that an accurate representation?

LORENCE: By — by individuals, not by government employees. They don't have a right to proselytize. We've never taken that position or...

COLMES: But you say the right of Christians to share the gospel. You believe that that was correct?

LORENCE: Yes, I do. I mean, just like George Washington and others...

COLMES: Does that mean that your client has the right to share the Gospel?

LORENCE: He does not as a school employee, no, but he does as a regular person. He doesn't surrender his rights simply because he's a schoolteacher.

COLMES: All right. What I want to understand here, Stephen, also is, are you selectively taking documents, some of which, say, for example, John Adams diary includes the phrase, "The Christian religion is above all religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom," et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, which would then set the Christian religion as above other religions?

Is that one of the supportive documents?

WILLIAMS: First of all, look at my track record...

COLMES: Is that one of the — just answer me, is that one of the documents you offered to the school that they rejected?

WILLIAMS: One of many, yes.

COLMES: So can you understand why the school might have a problem with a document that says a Christian religion above all religions that have ever prevailed? That's not the government view.

LORENCE: But the Supreme Court has said you can even teach the Bible itself. It's the context that's important. Yes, I mean, sure, I mean, ome of the quotes are pretty intense out of the Bible, that Jesus is the only way. But you can teach them if it's a proper context.

The principal here, unfortunately, got involved and got messed up with this wrong understanding of the Constitution to think context isn't important. If I see a God word, it gets eliminated. And that's one of the reasons he contacted us, and that's why we took the case.

COLMES: Well, we wish the school could be here to give their side.

LORENCE: We...

WILLIAMS: Look at my track record. In all of the years of teaching, I have had zero complaints on this issue, zero. So all of a sudden this one year...

HANNITY: You're a great American. Best of luck to you both and appreciate all you do. Thank you for being with us.

*Lorence in the above transcript is attorney Jordan Lorence form the Alliance Defense Fund.

The link at the bottom will take you to FoxNews where you can view the above interview. "
Comments (Page 2)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Dec 18, 2004
"I am not sure this is a fair judgement. Usually "run of the mill" attourneys charge a considerable amount of money. I would be willing to bet that the Alliance Defense Fund took this case pro bono. The teacher may have appealed to them for monetary reasons, more than agendas."

That is why I stated "may" indicate. However. Most teacher's unions I know of have lawyers for this type of thing. I would bet also the ADF took the case pro bono, but if I was trying to prove that I wasn't proselytizing this is not a group I would choose to identify myself with. I would also not make myself a pawn on a show like Hannity and Colmes, where the issue will only be politicized (that is unless I had an agenda). Good information is still scarce at this point, but if you look around for information from sources other than political hack shows and activists websites you will realize that there are several parents who have complained, not just this year, and they are not atheists.

In any case it is impossible to pass judgement without the other side of the story I am simply playing devils advocate and hoping others throw in sources of more credible information.

It is not a fight between the ACLU and ADF. The case is against the principal and school board members who generally have council available.
on Dec 19, 2004

These attempts to remove all references to God in public life have gotten ridiculous. With over 96% of our population expressing a belief in some sort of deity, is it really necessary to go to such extremes so as not to offend the 4% who dont?

If they dont believe in God, why are they so terror-struck when confronted with the fact that so many do?

its not references to god in public life.  private citizens (except when acting as representatives of the state) and other non-governmental entities that are not directly tax-supported are free to engage in as much religious promotion as they care to without violating zoning laws or something similar.   assuming all 96% of believers have no problem mr williams teaching method (not the case, of course), the us is still a republic not a democracy and the constitution is still the law of our land.

i truly don't understand conservatives--assuming that term still describes those who are most stongly opposed to governmental interference in our lives--who don't see a need to keep the state and religion distinctly separated.

on Dec 19, 2004
one further note: if you remember, one of the 'founder's documents" used by mr williams has been described as 'george washington's journal' or, as it's more commonly known, 'george washington's prayer journal'.

apparently, its neither since it was not written by george washington.  it would seem as if perhaps mr williams' credentials deserve a bit more scrutiny (im not a history teacher and i found this).

From Religous Beliefs of Our Presidents, by Franklin Steiner, which was originally was published in 1936 and has been re-published in a modern edition

Some 30 years ago it was proclaimed that in his youth he [Washington] composed a prayer book for his own use, containing a prayer for five days, beginning with Sunday and ending with Thursday. The manuscript of this prayer book was said to have been found among the contents of an old trunk. It was printed and facsimiles published. Clergymen read it from the altar, one of them saying it contained so much "spirituality" that he had to stop, as he could not control his emotions while reading it.

Yet, while this prayer book was vociferously proclaimed to have been written by Washington, there was not an iota of evidence that he ever had anything to do with it, or that it even ever belonged to him. A little investigation soon pricked the bubble. Worthington C. Ford, who had handled more of Washington's manuscripts than any other man except Washington himself, declared that the penmanship was not that of washington. Rupert Hughes (Washington, vol. 1, p. 658) gives facsimile specimens of the handwriting in the prayer book side by side with known specimens of Washington's penmanship at the time the prayer book was supposed to have been written. A glance proves that they are not by the same hand.

Then in the prayer book manuscript all of the words are spelled correctly, while Washington was a notoriously poor speller. But the greatest blow it received was when the Smithsonian Institute refused to accept it as a genuine Washington relic. That Washington did not compose it was proved by Dr. W.A. Croffutt, a newspaper correspondent of the Capital, who traced the source of some of the prayers to an old prayer brook in the Congressional Library printed, in the reign of James the First.

Even the Rev. W. Herbert Burk, rector of the Episcopal Church of Valley Forge, although a firm believer in Washington's religiosity, thus speaks of these prayers: "At present, the question is an open one, and its settlement will depend on the discovery of the originals, or upon the demonstration that they are the work of Washington."

It is not now recognized by the Library of Congress or the definitive edition of George Washington's papers.
on Dec 19, 2004

Reply #18 By: kingbee - 12/19/2004 12:01:34 AM
These attempts to remove all references to God in public life have gotten ridiculous. With over 96% of our population expressing a belief in some sort of deity, is it really necessary to go to such extremes so as not to offend the 4% who dont?

If they dont believe in God, why are they so terror-struck when confronted with the fact that so many do?

its not references to god in public life. private citizens (except when acting as representatives of the state) and other non-governmental entities that are not directly tax-supported are free to engage in as much religious promotion as they care to without violating zoning laws or something similar. assuming all 96% of believers have no problem mr williams teaching method (not the case, of course), the us is still a republic not a democracy and the constitution is still the law of our land.

i truly don't understand conservatives--assuming that term still describes those who are most stongly opposed to governmental interference in our lives--who don't see a need to keep the state and religion distinctly separated.


You need to do a little more reading on the true meaning of the words "separation of church and state." See Link.

Link

on Dec 19, 2004

You need to do a little more reading on the true meaning of the words "separation of church and state." See
 


hmmm. i wasnt misquoting (nor quoting) madison. why is that link relevant to my statements?   

on Dec 19, 2004
Reply #21 By: kingbee - 12/19/2004 5:03:22 AM
You need to do a little more reading on the true meaning of the words "separation of church and state." See



hmmm. i wasnt misquoting (nor quoting) madison. why is that link relevant to my statements?


It's realitive because you didn't read the whole thing. If you had you would have known that only the first 3 or 4 paragraphs deal with Madison.
on Dec 19, 2004

It's realitive because you didn't read the whole thing. If you had you would have known that only the first 3 or 4 paragraphs deal with Madison


check your link again.  the entire page you've linked is devoted to madison's writings by date and provenance. 

on Dec 19, 2004

Reply #23 By: kingbee - 12/19/2004 6:47:21 AM
It's realitive because you didn't read the whole thing. If you had you would have known that only the first 3 or 4 paragraphs deal with Madison



check your link again. the entire page you've linked is devoted to madison's writings by date and provenance.


I must apologize. After going back and rereading it myself, I find that you are correct.
on Dec 20, 2004
after you visit the school's parent organization website, and youve seen the pix of the declaration of independence and constitution as theyre displayed in the school, i think it's only fair that you concede the headline of this article is not only inaccurate but inflammatory.  im all for showbiz but...
on Dec 20, 2004
"after you visit the school's parent organization website, and youve seen the pix of the declaration of independence and constitution as theyre displayed in the school, i think it's only fair that you concede the headline of this article is not only inaccurate but inflammatory. im all for showbiz but..."

This is just typical one sided media. Certain shows love to hawk on issues with very lopsided views. Some are more fair than others. In this case, the article and issue is one sided since the other side of the story is not represented and won't be until the case goes to court. It will be interesting to see what happens. If Williams is in fact pushing the limit my guess is the particlar network will move the story to actual news shows with little mention. Or they will simply drop the issue. But they win because many of their viewers will end up thinking that the strory was about the viewpoint they are projecting through their opinion shows. If it is the principal being overly cautious, however they will continue to pound the issue. Unfortunately they will continue trying to make people believe this is simply liberals trying to take religion out of schools, when in fact it is about school districts trying to find some sort of middle ground to avoid the law suits coming from overzealous parents on both sides of the issue. The facts will only come out when this goes to court. We simply won't know whether this is a case of an overzealous teacher or parents until it goes to court. It may also be the principal , but usually they are simply caught in the middle of disputes that are truly between parents and teachers.

As to the DOI it is not only in the library but also in the student's textbook. The copy of the DOI not allowed was a supplementary handout. The questions I have is whether it is a complete copy or only certain parts? Is it footnoted or highlighted? What are the objectives written in the lesson plan for that lesson? I have also seen articles in some local papers there claiming that some students have mentioned to their parents that he often talks about his bible study within his class, which "if true" could be a big problem for him.


on Dec 20, 2004
The questions I have is whether it is a complete copy or only certain parts?
 

the handouts were initially described as 'excerpts'.  in the original thread about this topic, i wondered why it was necessary to exerpt the doi.  it's a relatively short document.
on Dec 20, 2004

Reply #27 By: kingbee - 12/20/2004 9:18:31 PM
The questions I have is whether it is a complete copy or only certain parts?


the handouts were initially described as 'excerpts'. in the original thread about this topic, i wondered why it was necessary to exerpt the doi. it's a relatively short document.


Not really. That is unless you consider 4 standard pages to be a short document.
on Dec 20, 2004

Not really. That is unless you consider 4 standard pages to be a short document


the doi (minus the signatures) consists of 1325 words.  iamheather's article is 1356 words. 

on Dec 21, 2004

Reply #29 By: kingbee - 12/20/2004 11:56:17 PM
Not really. That is unless you consider 4 standard pages to be a short document



the doi (minus the signatures) consists of 1325 words. iamheather's article is 1356 words.


Neither one of them could be considered short.
on Dec 21, 2004

Independent1

This is just typical one sided media. Certain shows love to hawk on issues with very lopsided views. Some are more fair than others. In this case, the article and issue is one sided since the other side of the story is not represented and won't be until the case goes to court. It will be interesting to see what happens. If Williams is in fact pushing the limit my guess is the particlar network will move the story to actual news shows with little mention. Or they will simply drop the issue. But they win because many of their viewers will end up thinking that the strory was about the viewpoint they are projecting through their opinion shows. If it is the principal being overly cautious, however they will continue to pound the issue. Unfortunately they will continue trying to make people believe this is simply liberals trying to take religion out of schools, when in fact it is about school districts trying to find some sort of middle ground to avoid the law suits coming from overzealous parents on both sides of the issue.

Actually, my update asked that people watch the Hannity and Colmes special. Anyone who has ever watched the show knows that both liberal and conservative viewpoints are represented equally. The reason I only posted the transcript of the teacher and lawyer is because that is all I could find on the website. The entire program was an hour long with the teacher/lawyer segment only lasting about 10 minutes. That segment was followed by Michael Newdow and an Atheist Alliance attorney. Be careful with your judgement. Know the facts before you criticize and condemn. 

4 Pages1 2 3 4