 Us School Bars Declaration Of Independence, Is this what we've come to? |
|
Shamalama  |
Posted: 29-Nov-2004, 08:34 AM
|
Celtic Guardian
Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 2,165
Joined: 05-Feb-2004
Zodiac: Birch
Realm: Conyers, GA
|
A California teacher who teaches his fifth-grade students with the aid of primary source documents like the Declaration of Independence has been ordered by school administrators to stop using such artifacts of American history because the material contains references to God.
In a federal discrimination lawsuit, filed Monday in U.S. District Court, Steven Williams contends that brass at Cupertino's Stevens Creek School have recently rejected his use of "curriculum-related handouts" like the Declaration, various state constitutions, George Washington's journal, John Adams's diary, and writings by William Penn.
Williams alleges that the San Francisco-area school's principal, Patricia Vidmar, banned the use of these handouts because "many original source documents from the founding era contain references to God and Christianity." Williams alleges that Vidmar cracked down on his lesson plans in May, shortly after he distributed an example of a presidential proclamation. The document he chose was one issued by President George W. Bush dealing with a National Day of Prayer.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/11240...041declar1.html
http://www.sanmateocountytimes.com/Stories...l?search=filter
OK. Time for a Shamalama-rant.
Steven Williams is a fifth grade teacher at Stevens Creek. He has filed a lawsuit against Stevens Creek principal Patricia Vidmar and other school officials claiming discrimination. Williams claims that he has been forbidden to use the Declaration of Independence in his classroom instruction. Why? Because it contains references to God and to Christianity.
Those men who signed The Declaration of Independence put their lives and their fortunes on the line. Some were killed for their treachery. Others lost their families. Many lost all that they owned. We celebrate the signing of this document every year in one of our nation's most revered holidays, and now we have some school principal out there in the Pelosi-land blue state telling a teacher he can't use the Declaration in class because it mentions God?
Williams said he thinks society has become hypersensitive to any reference of Christianity in the public arena, especially schools. He said he has taught students about Ramadan and Kwanzaa and applauded for those lessons.
"People are like, 'Oh good, that's diversity,' "he said. "As soon as Christianity involved, it's separation of church and state."
Need I say that this is a government school we're dealing with here?
This week, if the media says anything about this, we'll find that quite a few Americans will be outraged at this government school atrocity. The website for the Stevens Creek Elementary School had tanked by Sunday. You can watch for the school board and other officials to start making excuses. Since you can't get information from their dead website, I'll post some details here in case you want to say anything to them yourself:
Stevens Creek Elementary School
10300 Ainsworth Drive
Cupertino, California 95014
Principal: Patricia Vidmar
(408) 245-3312
Do you want this in your state?
--------------------
|
|
|
| stevenpd |
Posted: 29-Nov-2004, 12:50 PM
|
Celtic Guardian
Group: Founder
Posts: 2,900
Joined: 15-Feb-2002
Zodiac: Reed
Realm: Fountain Valley, Calif.
|
What is not reported is that in May a PARENT complained about his teaching. He was then found to be a Christian. That's when he was placed on "double secret probation." He submitted a list of materials that he downloaded off the Discovery Channel's website, of which the Declaration of Independence was one item.
He was trying to explain the CONTEXT of this period of American history.
Cupertino is part of California's Silicon Valley, just south of San Fransico, closer to San Jose.
What are the liberals so afraid of? That their "moral relativity" is nothing more than smoke and mirrors? Afraid that there just might be something greater than themselves? That Christian values based on the Ten Commandments are irrelevent to today's society?
Things like, "You shall have no other gods before me," "Honor your father and your mother," "You shall not steal," and "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor." Yes, these are the things that we need protection from and from a government that was inescapably intertwined by the founding fathers of this nation with religion. Religion was one of the main reasons the colonists came to the new world. To escape religious persecution and establish religious freedom.
This issue is wrong on so many levels.
--------------------
2018 Vote in the 2018 Music AwardsDear Lord, lest I continue in my complacent ways, help me to remember that someone died for me today. And if there be war, help me to remember to ask and to answer "am I worth dying for?" - Eleanor RooseveltThe ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. -- Herbert Spencer, English Philosopher (1820-1903)
|
|
|
| Shamalama |
Posted: 30-Nov-2004, 12:11 PM
|
Celtic Guardian
Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 2,165
Joined: 05-Feb-2004
Zodiac: Birch
Realm: Conyers, GA
|
Things like "don't steal", "don't lie", "don't kill" are both part of the Ten Commandments as well as part of being civilized.
The Ten Commandments have no place in the government just as some tort law has no place in the Bible. But some of our definitions of being "civilized" have their roots in the early European-Christian system. To deny such is to deny history.
That is NOT to say that the Federal Code should be replaced with the Gospel. But you also have to acknowledge that most of the founding fathers were people raised in the Christian faith, and that their vision of a new country contained Christian beliefs.
Back during the founding of this country is was not only "OK" and "popular" to be a Christian, but it could be argued that it was almost "mandatory" to be a person to be of "good standing" in their community. Today it has swung in the opposite direction.
To say that our government was inescapably intertwined by the founding fathers of this nation with religion may be stretching the point a bit. There are "religious beliefs" and "morals", and the two are not identical. "Thou shalt not kill" is Christian, Judeo, and just plain good - should we remove this law from the books just because Thomas Jefferson was a Protestant? Is our code of law bad, and pro-Christian, just because it contains "Thou shalt not steal"? Can anyone here name a federal law that is strictly pro-Christian?
I don't see our country is being pro any religion. But I do see our country as having many laws based on morals. The problem is that "morals" are the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group dealing with what is good and bad - and no group of people can seem to come to terms with what is "good" or "bad" anymore; everything today is "relative", directly opposed to what the founding fathers believed.
|
|
|
| stevenpd |
Posted: 30-Nov-2004, 02:49 PM
|
Celtic Guardian
Group: Founder
Posts: 2,900
Joined: 15-Feb-2002
Zodiac: Reed
Realm: Fountain Valley, Calif.
|
| QUOTE | | That is NOT to say that the Federal Code should be replaced with the Gospel. But you also have to acknowledge that most of the founding fathers were people raised in the Christian faith, and that their vision of a new country contained Christian beliefs. |
I think this is the crux of the issue. How can you teach American history without the context?
| QUOTE | | That is NOT to say that the Federal Code should be replaced with the Gospel. But you also have to acknowledge that most of the founding fathers were people raised in the Christian faith, and that their vision of a new country contained Christian beliefs. |
Nor should the Federal Code be replaced with the Gospel. I don't believe that anyone could even suggest such a switch. The complexities of modern life in day-to-day living between, shall we say, believers and non-believers is too great. For the common denominator of all it does need to remain singularly nonsecular.
| QUOTE | | To say that our government was inescapably intertwined by the founding fathers of this nation with religion may be stretching the point a bit. There are "religious beliefs" and "morals", and the two are not identical. "Thou shalt not kill" is Christian, Judeo, and just plain good - should we remove this law from the books just because Thomas Jefferson was a Protestant? Is our code of law bad, and pro-Christian, just because it contains "Thou shalt not steal"? Can anyone here name a federal law that is strictly pro-Christian? |
You have acknowledged that the founding fathers of this country were raised with Christian beliefs. How do you separate a person from his/her beliefs? Now if you say, "All people must be Christian and all others are not welcome," you have created a theocracy. But that is not what we have.
Justice is supposed to be blind. I believe that issue at hand is whether or not it is possible to eliminate any references to any specific religion. Especially if the country has its roots from a religion. Elimination of all references, specifically here in American history, sullies our history of religious tolerance. Have we become so polarized and intolerant that the argument is between believers and nonbelievers?
| QUOTE | | I don't see our country is being pro any religion. But I do see our country as having many laws based on morals. The problem is that "morals" are the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group dealing with what is good and bad - and no group of people can seem to come to terms with what is "good" or "bad" anymore; everything today is "relative", directly opposed to what the founding fathers believed. |
Nor do I see our country as being for any one religion. The problem of moral laws is that it is difficult to enforce because it deals with the intent and actions of the individual. Morals are the base rules for person-to-person dealings. If the government is to be nonsecular how can they determine good and bad? Moral relativism is the bane of modern society, specifically because is blurs the line between good and evil; right and wrong.
Why is it so agregious to have religious affiliantions in a country that was started because of them? Why are the people that are so desparately trying to sanitize public institutions of all references to something that was a beginning cause to the very country they live in?
And now we have full circle to the issues at hand: Is it possible to eliminate any references to any specific religion? How do you separate a person from his/her beliefs?
| QUOTE (Shamalama @ 30-Nov-2004, 10:11 AM) | Things like "don't steal", "don't lie", "don't kill" are both part of the Ten Commandments as well as part of being civilized.
The Ten Commandments have no place in the government just as some tort law has no place in the Bible. But some of our definitions of being "civilized" have their roots in the early European-Christian system. To deny such is to deny history.
That is NOT to say that the Federal Code should be replaced with the Gospel. But you also have to acknowledge that most of the founding fathers were people raised in the Christian faith, and that their vision of a new country contained Christian beliefs.
Back during the founding of this country is was not only "OK" and "popular" to be a Christian, but it could be argued that it was almost "mandatory" to be a person to be of "good standing" in their community. Today it has swung in the opposite direction.
To say that our government was inescapably intertwined by the founding fathers of this nation with religion may be stretching the point a bit. There are "religious beliefs" and "morals", and the two are not identical. "Thou shalt not kill" is Christian, Judeo, and just plain good - should we remove this law from the books just because Thomas Jefferson was a Protestant? Is our code of law bad, and pro-Christian, just because it contains "Thou shalt not steal"? Can anyone here name a federal law that is strictly pro-Christian?
I don't see our country is being pro any religion. But I do see our country as having many laws based on morals. The problem is that "morals" are the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group dealing with what is good and bad - and no group of people can seem to come to terms with what is "good" or "bad" anymore; everything today is "relative", directly opposed to what the founding fathers believed. |
|
|
|
| stevenpd |
Posted: 01-Dec-2004, 11:26 AM
|
Celtic Guardian
Group: Founder
Posts: 2,900
Joined: 15-Feb-2002
Zodiac: Reed
Realm: Fountain Valley, Calif.
|
| QUOTE (Swanny @ 30-Nov-2004, 09:55 PM) | Comparing the founding documents to the 10 commandments is apples and oranges, but once again we see that Kalifornia truly is the Granola State (full of fruits, nuts and flakes).
Regarding the 10 Commandments (or as Liberals prefer to refer to them, the 10 Suggestions), the real reason they can't be posted in courthouses is because of the admonishments against lying, cheating and stealing. Posting such in a building full of judges and lawyers creates a hostile work environment.
S |
| QUOTE | | Comparing the founding documents to the 10 commandments is apples and oranges, but once again we see that Kalifornia truly is the Granola State (full of fruits, nuts and flakes). |
As one Californian, I take exception to being grouped with the truly fruity.
| QUOTE | | What are the liberals so afraid of? That their "moral relativity" is nothing more than smoke and mirrors? Afraid that there just might be something greater than themselves? That Christian values based on the Ten Commandments are irrelevent to today's society? |
And the other exception that I must take is the comparison of the 10 Commandments to the founding documents. The Commandments were used as a point of focus illustrating what liberals may be afraid of.
| QUOTE | | Regarding the 10 Commandments (or as Liberals prefer to refer to them, the 10 Suggestions), the real reason they can't be posted in courthouses is because of the admonishments against lying, cheating and stealing. Posting such in a building full of judges and lawyers creates a hostile work environment. |
Which is my point.
The mere fact that we must discuss this issue at all is appalling. It also shows the contempt that liberals have towards anything that obstructs the path towards socialism, even America's history. Which they are attempting to rewrite as evidenced by this incident and many others.
|
|
|
| Swanny |
Posted: 01-Dec-2004, 07:39 PM
|
Celtic Guardian
Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 1,108
Joined: 08-Jun-2003
Zodiac: Birch
Realm: Two Rivers, Alaska
|
| QUOTE | | Why not? Why should the congress have all of the fun? |
It goes back to that pesky little Constitution and the concept of separate and balanced powers. Stevenpd, you made my point for me. The 9th circuit court of appeals has been overturned more often than any other, simply because of their crackpot decisions. They are noted as THE most liberal and THE most erroneous court of appeals in the U.S. I doubt that you are "truly fruity", but any conservative who can endure the excesses of California's special brand of lunacy must be at least a little bit nuts  . That's cool though. I'm pretty nuts myself, and some have accussed me of being a bit of a flake. | QUOTE | | It also shows the contempt that liberals have towards anything that obstructs the path towards socialism, even America's history. |
We need to be a bit careful here. Conservatives are as likely to ignore the concepts upon which the US was founded as are liberals.
Yes Maisky, there are religious nut-cases on both sides of the fence. Hard-core atheist fanatics qualify just as strongly as do hard core Christian, Jewish, Buddist, Muslim or other fanatics and I don't care to have any of those beliefs jammed down my throat. On the other hand though, freedom of speech needs to apply to all for if it doesn't, then it will surely apply to none.
S
|
|
|
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
 Pages: (2) [1] 2
Track this topic
Receive email notification when a reply has been made to this topic and you are not active on the board.
Subscribe to this forum
Receive email notification when a new topic is posted in this forum and you are not active on the board.
Download / Print this Topic
Download this topic in different formats or view a printer friendly version.
|
"You can't run with the big dogs if you still pee like a puppy".
