Declaration of Independence Banned

Taken From:http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20041124-1309-life-declaration.html

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

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20041124/i/r891918239.jpg

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."

...

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."

I think this crap has gone too far now, i could say something about how unjust and blah blah blah. But blantantly some people need to just shut the hell up. First it was the ten commandments in front of a building, then pledge of alliegance, now this.

I fucking hate this "politicallly correct" bullshit.

I'm suprised by this article, actually. If I remember correctly, the first American presidents might have been religious, but were also very fond of keeping it out of the system. Still, in the Dutch constitution, there is no mention of God either. Perhaps, to preserve equality, it could be removed from the constitution?

In the Netherlands, you see, we just start with article 1, and we put all of our rights in that constitution. For example, article 7, is that of free speech. We have no need for an introduction "We the people of the Netherlands...". Still, I do believe that people are entitled to their opinions, and their opinions should be able to be expressed. If it is the professional opinion of that principal to ban the constitution, than she should do that.

None of us are principals, and none of us are capable of completely understanding what he/she is trying to do. Respect my authiritoi...

Mr U

Speaking of which, this is quite a familiar problem. There was a school system that faced a conundrum in America: teach both Creation theory and Evolution theory, or drop the outdated one? The main consensus was that 'since they're both only theories, they both deserve to be taught'.
Now, politically correct and everything is all nice and well, but even I know you can't make too many compromises if you want to stick to the truth. In this case there shouldn't be a need to continue teaching the long-disproven Creation theory. In a twisted way, same for this: trying to eliminate religious influences in a clearly religiously slanted (in a significant enough way) event is also too much of a compromise. Just stick to the facts (leave the religious facts known), but leave the personal freedom of interpretation alone. Difficult though considering the country. I have the feeling that more than a little propaganda-spiced history caused this whole issue in the first place.

or drop the outdated one? ... even I know you can't make too many compromises if you want to stick to the truth. In this case there shouldn't be a need to continue teaching the long-disproven Creation theory.
Mac, please don't turn this into a creation/evolution debate. Creationism has not been disproven, so don't start saying it has been. Don't take this personally, but I'd rather not see people become misguided due to one post that just states untruths. If you'd like, we can take this to our own thread and debate it there, but until then, there is just as much proof supporting Creationism as there is supporting Evolution.

This is going against the idea of free speech, don't you think? Oh yeah, let's go erase God from everything of the past because it goes against other religions. However, the problem is, by doing this, they are taking away the right of Free Speech from the those who founded this country and -their- religion. Yes, they are long dead, but that doesn't mean you can erase their beliefs because they aren't there to defend it.

They were not expressing free speech. The law, in a constitutional nation, must be equal and apply to all. This includes civilians and the government itself.

If God is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, that's a bad thing. Although I have not studied US American Law, most people consider the Declaration of Independence to be the foundation of America. If one does not believe in God, one could see it as an excuse not to abide the law. Plus, it goes against one of the principals of democracy, the separation of church and government.

Mr U

Done, PP. I'm interested to see how this resurrected debate will go. Untruths, you say? Quite a harsh line without a good argument, and I'd consider that an insult.
Ouch HU. It's beauracracies (I can't even spell it) like these that make my head spin. Can't we all keep to the spirit of things instead of looking for loopholes? :D
Anyway to clarify, I don't think it's the idea of free speech that is the issue...I've come to fear any free speech-related arguments for its inevitable abuse. I think its more of historical facts. If the founders were religious and founded America partly because of their religious ideals, why leave those facts out? Whether America has changed from their vision (I doubt so ;)) or not has nothing to do with history's proper interpretation. Of course, a deliberate controlling and filtering of the things the teacher taught to purposely side a religious view alone is treason to the pursuit of historical facts as well, and if he did so, he deserves, in spirit (lol), what he got.

I could agree with you, if the US was the only nation in the world, or everyone in the US and abroad would be Christian. Thank goodness, they aren't. The mere fact that the foundation of America is so religious gives Fundamentalistic Mulsims base on which to spread their "The Christian west wants to convert us" propaganda.

I do not believe that a nation that has so many internal religious problems (obviously) should have a reference to God within her Law. Not only is it bad towards to Atheïsts, but also buddhists and hinduists to which this idea also does not apply.

And, Mac, I feel that legal loopholes are quite important. Although no judge will ever declare someone innocent because of it, it is a dangerous situation, and I'm suprised it has not been discussed.

Sure, you can keep the historic document, but that does not mean you can not assure that your legal system is without reference to God.

Mr U

I don't know. Personally, I'd like to repeat again that I don't really see all this as a 'God' issue, muslims and all that and insulted folks. I mean, you've got references, leave the references in. Everyone knows when you say a pledge with 'God' in it it doesn't mean you're a follower.
History is remembered for its unique events in separated contrast to ours. If we're to change history, both its good and bad, eventually censoring it in the present and future, what remains of it eventually? I can't imagine a Star Trek-like utopian future purposely erasing records of Britney Spears or Janet Jackson for their 'lewd content and purpose of their songs', lol.

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH BRITNEY SPEARS!

Now that we have cleared that up, I do not believe in altering historical documents. We have the catholic/protestant church for that. Remember that they too, only recently, modified the Bible (King James Version) to suit their desires. I am not saying that we should completely eliminate all documents containing reference to God. I am saying that a healthy democracy that preaches equality to all people should not have a religious basis. Now, my recommendation is keeping the historical record, but making sure that in no pledge or vow includes God.

I'm not sure whether this actually happens in the US, but in the movies (yes, sadly I have little access to documentaries regarding the US justice system) people swear to the truth one the Bible. Now, I could swear on the Lord of the Rings and be less indifferent to telling the truth than swearing on the Bible.

In the Netherlands, we are 'forced' to tell the truth, yes, but we do not swear it on a deity, which I believe is the only correct way of practicing law in a democracy.

Mr U

Heh heh. In another time Britney may be forgotten. ;)
I see your point, but I don't really think it's that big a deal that we need to separate religion and democracy that much in word. Maybe taking away the word 'God' in pledges seems right, but we have old historical documents here that face editing or censorship.
Certain rituals also have long lost their religious meanings even though the act is still there. I think even in my country people on the stand swear on the Bible (the whole 'truth and nothing but the truth' thing), but I seriously don't think they care. It's more for the culture and solemnity.
My bottom line is, sure, change if you want things like a pledge, though you'll definitely face friction especially in religious countries like the U.S. This is more an opinion issue though I'm ok for anything. However, historical facts must stay the same, if we are to at least remember what the past systems were like.

There we agree. I have no ambitions to turn the world into a George Orwell thriller. Still, I feel that no matter how ceremonial a pledge may seem, a pledge is a pledge and must be equal to all. Including atheists, buddhists and others who do not beleive in one deity.

Heh heh. In another time Britney may be forgotten. ;)

Not while I'm alive, and I intend to live a long, long time. :p

Mr U

I find censorship more offensive than the use of a word such as "God". But, I am not surprised since America is "The Land of Mixed Priorities". I love my country, but our problems are absurd and the people who quibble over shit like this are worse.

Historical documents like the Declaration and the Constitution should NOT be edited or censored. It would be an abomination to our history, much in the same way Britney Spears is an abomination to music. :D Seriously though, I agree with HU: separation of church and state is vital to the success and purity of a equally representational democratic society. I believe in God yet I do not mind that the word is removed from our pledge and religious displays are removed from public government buildings. But, it is wrong to censor history. We must fully learn where we come from in order to know where we are going. I don't feel that the debate between creationism and evolution is a good example to correlate with this issue. Instead, let us consider "the right to bear arms". The Constitution says we have "the right to bear arms". Many do not realize that the Founders wrote this so as to empower the citizens of the original thirteen states to form militias in order to protect their homes. They could not have conceived of the kinds of weapons that were to be invented. They could not have imagined an incident like the shootings at Columbine High School. The Founders knew that church must not interfere with government because their point of reference was King Charles (or whatever his name was) and his persecution of those who did not pledge allegiance to the Church of England. God was an unspoken and assumed aspect of their personal lives and the melting pot of America had only ONE ingredient thus far, if you get my meaning. Just as they could not have conceived the problems with "the right to bear arms", they could not have conceived of the issues that are arising now with their use of language that they obviously took for granted because times were different 200+ years ago. Bottom line: don't censor history, YET don't be afraid of change. Into the creation of this country, the Founders ingeniously built the ability to grow, change, and expound its principles. We must use common sense when we delegate the needs of the State at present. Censorship and other negative actions are NOT the way to preserve this much needed common sensical way of thinking. Compromises can be achieved. If people want religious displays, fund and display them privately, and by "privately" I mean in a financial context. And the pledge can still be said as is by those who want to say it that way. Now the next absurd new article we will read is, "Student faces suspension after electing to use the "under God" line in his recitation of the morning pledge." It's coming..................

I think the church-state thing has gone a bit too far this time. This document is over 200 years old and now they want to change it becuase somebody wants to bitch about the dreaded three letter word, "God." Oh no! run for the hills.

The way I understand the separation of church and state idea in the US founding is that the government would have no say in what the church did and vice-versa. Not to the point it is now where the government can't even acknowledge religion and the church has to bow down to the government, not that the church doesn't have to follow the law. Its commanded in the bible that people follow the law. I don't think from what I've read that the founding father's intention was to have them have nothing to do with each other. We just didn't want to end up like England where the church ran the country or the government ran the church. That doesn't mean that we have to chase every religious reference out of every important document in history. Thats a dishonor to the man who wrote it, and those who signed it.

I don't think anyone suggested changing the historical reference, only making sure that the law is kept 'up-to-date'. Currently, there is a lot of turmoil, and the government is finally realising that there are Atheists who want their say also.

Anyway, I presented my arguments earlier.

I agree with you, Anomolous. Good points. Just remember, the Enter button is your friend ;).

Mr U

I agree with you, Anomolous. Good points. Just remember, the Enter button is your friend ;).

Mr U

:D Hee hee.........sorry 'bout that. I know I tend to smoosh everything together...........hard on the eyes. I'll pay attention to that in the future.

I fucking hate this "politicallly correct" bullshit.

Could not have said it better my self. ;)