# CA. Teacher Banned for Declaration of Independence



## MA-Caver (Dec 2, 2004)

Now I don't know about the rest of you but something is seriously wrong here. 


> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,140042,00.html
> Banned from Showing Students the Declaration of Independence
> Tuesday, November 30, 2004
> Ex-CBS News Head on the Network's Future
> ...


Just what is this going to be leading to. That our children will be denied even viewing in a learning environment a historical (and in my mind/heart/soul a sacred) document like the Declaration of Independence. Sure it has God in it because (IMO) God, inspired Jefferson to write it.  This paper has the blueprints of this country (among the Bill of Rights and others) and kids need to know all of it so that the integrity of the documents will continue to guide them in their future.  IMO the principal of the school should be banned not the teacher.  I hope he wins the suit and something good will come of it. Hopefully he'll get his job back and allowed to teach American History as it was meant to be taught... Truthfully and unashamed.  
Thoughts, opinions here? Or am I alone in this outrage?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 2, 2004)

I see something very wrong when you ban the very documents our nation was founded upon over a stupid misunderstanding of the concept of seperation of church and state.

Its not the bible, its the damn founding principles of this country.

Utter insanity.


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 2, 2004)

Sounds a bit like he was singled out:

WILLIAMS: Well, in the e-mail that she replied to me, she said, quote  well, I'm paraphrasing  but she said that, once again, all of the documents that you submitted to me are of a religious nature and you are trying to push *your religious views* on to the students.


They must have known he was open about his religion. Another no-no.


----------



## Deuce (Dec 2, 2004)

I think it's ridiculous. From what I understand, the teacher wasn't pushing God on the kids at all. I don't see how mentioning the word "God" in the classroom is a crusade of christian recruitment. There are so many references to God from all sorts of historical sources. To deny the children exposure to important historical works because "God" is mentioned is to deny our children education.


----------



## qizmoduis (Dec 2, 2004)

Please.  There are no schools in this country where teaching the Declaration of Independence is banned.  Notice the very selective choice of documents actually discussed in the article and the reference to other unnamed religious documents.  It sounds like a rather typical fabrication to me.  This kind of nonsense happens all the time.  Some hyper-religious nutcase decides to use his or her position of power as a teacher to indoctrinate captive students in their religion, and gets called on it.  Right-wing echo-chamber picks it up, and voila!  Sensationalism at its finest.  The real story will come out in a few days, but will be completely ignored.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Dec 2, 2004)

I couldnt tell from the interview whether the "numerous incidents" were of him being contacted about one class session or repeated class sessions centering around God being in the historical documents.  I'd also like to know why he was discussing God being mentioned in these documents, whether it was on a single or numerous occassions.  If it was just to answer the kids question about whether "God" is in them, I see no problem.  But if he was taking the typical "God is in our historical documents, so that means the US is a Christian nation" stance, then there's a problem.


----------



## OUMoose (Dec 2, 2004)

from the article said:
			
		

> WILLIAMS: So I started to submit to her everything, and that's when I submitted to her one lesson plan. *Then you've all heard the Declaration of Independence was banned, and it was*. What I submitted was three documents: William Penn's, "The Frame of Government (search)," Samuel Adams, "The Rights of Colonists (search)," and the Declaration of Independence. My intent, as I explained to my principal, was to show where the wording from the Declaration of Independence comes from. And it came  you can see the wording in our founding documents.



Of course!!  You can't show documents like that to children!!  God (whoops, did i say that?) forbid some free thinking is fostered in this Abercrombie age of conformity!

The document is not about religion, nor the integration of church and state.  It is about our country and the ideas its founded on.  Now, if the teacher was forcing religious views in a non-parochial school, then he was in the wrong.   As qizmoduis stated, there's probably some facts missing here.  However, given the article in its current state, the school is most definitely in the wrong.  History, whether it be relgious or otherwise, is important for people to know as it lets us know where we came from.  Who was it that said "Those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it"?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 2, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> I see something very wrong when you ban the very documents our nation was founded upon over a stupid misunderstanding of the concept of seperation of church and state.
> 
> Its not the bible, its the damn founding principles of this country.
> 
> Utter insanity.




I agree with this, in particular since the U.S. Supreme Court has rulled that the Declaration of Indepenence is just that, and not a legal document for our laws and rules of operations for ths government, that would be the U.S. Constitution written years latter after the loose confederacy of the 13 states defeated the British enough to more be able to establish a more lasting document for guiding this country. In another thread this came up and I said that it should not be removed and it should be preserved as a part of history.

 :asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 2, 2004)

Many of us have discussed God in classrooms across the country for more than 20 years, and never gotten the slightest static about it. Funny.

Most likely, a) the principal's a bonehead; b) the teacher's a bonehead, who is doing this at the behest of some particular group.

I'd say it's a sad day when we allow adolescent screeching from the likes of Hannity and Colmes--these are entertainment programs, right?--to set national debates.


----------



## Ping898 (Dec 2, 2004)

I think half the problem is parents are quick to hear what they want to hear and then immediately complain.  Be interesting to know what that kid told his parents after class, and if he told them exactly what happened, if all the really "heard" was the word God and went on the defensive.


----------



## deadhand31 (Dec 2, 2004)

I find this horribly abusive, and absurd. Is it honestly so wrong to tell children that the founding fathers had God included into our founding documents? Is it wrong to tell students, with full historical accuracy, that the founding fathers believed in God-given rights? People were much different back then. Our government has changed quite a bit. I think it's important to know where our government came from. Hell, one reason why people came over here was because they wanted to worship God their own way, instead of the king's way. What on earth are we telling kids about the pilgrims' voyage now???


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 2, 2004)

In case anybody's interested in reality, the declaration says, "the laws of Nature of of Nature's God," and it talks about a, "Creator," but it most certainly says nothing about Christianity whatsoever.

And despite the recurrent fantasy, our so-called "founding fathers," were very far from being fundamentalists. Paine was an agnostic; Franklin...it's unclear; Washington and Adams Christian (but Adams' wife was a feminist); Jefferson and others Deists.

But this is the sort of discussion you get when you take anything that idiot Hannity says seriously. He is, as many have noted, essentially a teenage boy who gets paid enormous amounts of money to shoot his mouth off about topics of which he is utterly ignorant.


----------



## Zepp (Dec 2, 2004)

The very fact that this story comes from anyone on Fox News already tells me that a large part of the actual story is missing.  It'd be nice to hear about what really happened from a source of journalism.


----------



## raedyn (Dec 2, 2004)

deadhand31 said:
			
		

> Is it honestly so wrong to tell children that the founding fathers had God included into our founding documents?


I really think it depends what point you are trying to make with it. To quote the God parts of the documents, out of context, no background, and use that to "prove" the US is  "Christian nation" and therefore that determines what so-called "values" should be taught in school, and that we should all pray etc - that would be wrong in a public school (sez me. but not only me).



			
				deadhand31 said:
			
		

> Is it wrong to tell students, with full historical accuracy, that the founding fathers believed in God-given rights? People were much different back then. Our government has changed quite a bit. I think it's important to know where our government came from. Hell, one reason why people came over here was because they wanted to worship God their own way, instead of the king's way.


But if it was being talked about in these contexts, and to say the America is intended to be a welcoming nation where its citizens can determine their beliefs about God for _themselves - _that would be an acceptable context. So here, I don't think that we have enough information to determine if these documents were being used appropriately.


----------



## someguy (Dec 2, 2004)

I'm sure there is more to it than that.  It wouldn't make sense for there not to be.
I'm to lazy to look into this at all at the moment.  Or maybe it's that final I have in a bit.


----------



## auxprix (Dec 2, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> I couldnt tell from the interview whether the "numerous incidents" were of him being contacted about one class session or repeated class sessions centering around God being in the historical documents. I'd also like to know why he was discussing God being mentioned in these documents, whether it was on a single or numerous occassions. If it was just to answer the kids question about whether "God" is in them, I see no problem. But if he was taking the typical "God is in our historical documents, so that means the US is a Christian nation" stance, then there's a problem.


Agreed. I think that there has to be more story here. Whenever someones in trouble, they love to paint themselves as the innocent who got caught up in bureaucratic BS.

My guess is that the teacher has been pushing boundaries on this issue for a while, and the discussion was more than just "most pilgrims were christian." I certainly hope that this is a typical fox news fabrication. I'd like to hear a good counterpoint from the school.


----------



## TonyM. (Dec 6, 2004)

On a similar note, back in the early eighties people went around door to door with a copy of the constitution asking people what they thought of it. Over forty per cent of the people polled thought it was some sort of communist doctrine and wanted nothing to do with it.


----------



## Oak Bo (Dec 6, 2004)

That's some really sad stuff. I hope the teacher can get his job back.


----------



## raedyn (Dec 6, 2004)

He didn't lose his job, they just placed restrictions on what materials he could bring into the classroom.


----------



## qizmoduis (Dec 10, 2004)

It was exactly as I predicted.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200412090002

This kind of thing happens all the time in this country.  An overzealous evangelizer gets out of control in school.  He/she gets called on it.  Right-wingers and other nutcases completely misrepresent it so that it looks like christians are being persecuted (which is a serious laugher).  News organizations splash the nonsense all over the airwaves.  The real truth comes out, but nobody hears about it, or cares, because the truth does nothing to reinforce their cherished beliefs of being persecuted underdogs, when in reality, they are the elite and the real oppressors.

Typical.


----------



## shinbushi (Dec 10, 2004)

qizmoduis said:
			
		

> It was exactly as I predicted.
> 
> http://mediamatters.org/items/200412090002
> 
> ...


 But this is a left-wing website.  You also have to remember that ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN , as well as most newspapers are uber liberal.


----------



## Flatlander (Dec 10, 2004)

shinbushi said:
			
		

> But this is a left-wing website. You also have to remember that ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN , as well as most newspapers are uber liberal.


And, how is that relevant to the discussion? Do you see a specific distortion of facts that you would care to address?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 10, 2004)

After all, the mere fact that this story has been featured on Hannity, on Limbaugh--along with the yutz with the Commandments on a Big Rock snuck into the court in the middle of the night, and eighteen other sillinesses--is in no way significant.

Hey, has Hannity repudiated Bob Jones University yet? They ban jazz, and have a dorm named after a Grand Dragon of the KKK...

Nope, didn't think so.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Dec 10, 2004)

shinbushi said:
			
		

> You also have to remember that ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN , as well as most newspapers are uber liberal.



Ah, the typical Sean Hannity-esque accusation, which has actually been shown to be totally incorrect.


----------



## auxprix (Dec 10, 2004)

shinbushi said:
			
		

> But this is a left-wing website. You also have to remember that ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN , as well as most newspapers are uber liberal.


a bit off topic, but I'm going to call you on it anyway.


B***S***!

Media is far from being "Uber-liberal." They are sensationalist. They sell a story that people want to see. That's why you see all of the american flag burnings and anti american demonstrations. Americans WANT to see that. Before you jump on me, let me clarify. Americans don't really want to see the flag desecrated, but that is the sort of image that draws viewers. Remember that mad cow scare? we saw the same footage of that sick heffer stumbling around a billion times. People like human pieces, things that are easy to relate to. We see demonstrations at Trade conventions, but hear little about what's going on inside.

I've always thought that the labeling of the media as "Left wing" has been an ingeneous ploy for conservatives to cover their butts.


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 13, 2004)

qizmoduis said:
			
		

> Please. There are no schools in this country where teaching the Declaration of Independence is banned. Notice the very selective choice of documents actually discussed in the article and the reference to other unnamed religious documents. It sounds like a rather typical fabrication to me. This kind of nonsense happens all the time. Some hyper-religious nutcase decides to use his or her position of power as a teacher to indoctrinate captive students in their religion, and gets called on it. Right-wing echo-chamber picks it up, and voila! Sensationalism at its finest. The real story will come out in a few days, but will be completely ignored.


Or some hyper political/literalist is so paranoid about "God comments" that any mention of it is 'wrong.' Similarly in literature, just because a book contains a sexual scene or a curse word does not make it a 'bad book.' I have had this stuff come up in terms of teaching/using Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter books in class (not to this extent by any means.)

The simple trick to this is to video tape classroom instruction periodically. It is a powerful teacher assessment tool so that teachers can do the 'tale of the tape' thing AND it is evidence of any comments that might be out of sync with the state standards or the approved curriculum.

If the percentages/time devote to the topic are as he mentions, how is it wrong to talk about 'God/Religion' as one of the many motivations/value systems/philosophies that people drew from in creating the Nation?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 13, 2004)

Ah. In order to safely discuss religion in the classroom--and by "safely," we mean in order to protect oneself against the godless Left--we impose a surveillance mechanism upon ourselves, so that others can check up on exactly what we're doing.

That's just ducky. At least it helps clarify the connection between the demand to "discuss religion," (which in this case, actually translates out as, "impose my particular version of Fundamentalist Christianity upon my students") and the deployment of State control on behalf of the Christian Right.

One still hasn't run into any examples of the Admin attacking a teacher for discussing religion in the classroom, in more than twenty years. And one suspects that this is one more put-up job---along with the bus driver, and the pharmicist, and etc. etc. etc.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 13, 2004)

Ah. In order to safely discuss religion in the classroom--and by "safely," we mean in order to protect oneself against the godless Left--we impose a surveillance mechanism upon ourselves, so that others can check up on exactly what we're doing.

That's just ducky. At least it helps clarify the connection between the demand to "discuss religion," (which in this case, actually translates out as, "impose my particular version of Fundamentalist Christianity upon my students") and the deployment of State control on behalf of the Christian Right.

One still hasn't run into any examples of the Admin attacking a teacher for discussing religion in the classroom, in more than twenty years. And one suspects that this is one more put-up job---along with the bus driver, and the pharmicist, and etc. etc. etc.


----------

