Leftist, No Doubt, Run Amok.

[Snow]

"Declaration of Independence Banned at Calif School

Wed Nov 24, 2004 04:12 PM ET

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...."

http://www.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopu...storyID=6911883

I don't know what the whole story is but I guarantee you, the principal that banned the Declaration of Indenpendence from class voted for Kerry, not Bush.

[Jenda]

I don't know what the whole story is but I guarantee you, the principle that banned the Declaration of Indenpendence from class voted for Kerry, not Bush.

ROFLOL!

[Franken]

Originally posted by Snow@Nov 24 2004, 06:54 PM

"Declaration of Independence Banned at Calif School

Wed Nov 24, 2004 04:12 PM ET

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...."

http://www.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopu...storyID=6911883

I don't know what the whole story is but I guarantee you, the principle that banned the Declaration of Indenpendence from class voted for Kerry, not Bush.

Haha! Yeah, bet he did

[Cal]

Yeah, after all, promoting religion is an important function of governmental institutions, like schools. Of course, democrats like Kerry are against all religion, they want it banned from society, they want it irradicated. Even when they are practicing catholics and make no secret of the fact, they wish they didn't have to be, and want all the public school children to become atheists.

Questions for y'all:

If a teacher is permitted to promote religion by purposely bringing to the students attention material he knows promotes religion, is it then also OK for a teacher to promote atheism, by emphasizing material that promotes atheism?

Can a person be in favor of keeping religion in churches and education in schools, without being accused of being an atheist?

[Larry Kozlowski]

Red state.... hmmm. Always connotated that color with "communist".

[Snow]

I'll answer your question Cal, sure - there's no harm in information, it all depends on the presentation...

... but your answer is ambiguous. Are so saying you doubt the principal was a liberal, or are you saying that is good to ban the Declaration of Indepence?

[Guest TheProudDuck]

My suspicion is that the teacher was using the material in question to expresslyadvance the position that religion played a major part in the founding of th United States.

Among many left-liberals, it is an article of faith that the Founders were all deists and that the American Revolution was an exclusive exercise in Enlightenment secular reason. I doubt th principal would have objected to materials showing the influence of Montesquieu and Locke on the Revolutio. The truth is more complex than that, though. It is impossible to understand the American Revolution without understanding the interplay between the colonists strong religious, and specifically British Nonconformist Protestant, worldview.

Cal, you wrote, "If a teacher is permitted to promote religion by purposely bringing to the students attention material he knows promotes religion ..." Interesting question. Does presenting accurate material about the mentality of the Founders "promote religion?" Does showing that religion contributed to the founding of the United States constitute "promotion" of religion? Should the truth not be presented if it has the effect of associating religion with a positive development like the Founding?

The Church has taken criticism from intellectuals for discouraging its teachers from presenting, in Church teaching, information about Church history that, while true, may not present the Church in the most complimentary light. "Some things are true that are not very helpful," as I believe Elder Packer put it. Isn't the principal doing the exact same thing?

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow@Nov 27 2004, 10:35 AM

I'll answer your question Cal, sure - there's no harm in information, it all depends on the presentation...

... but your answer is ambiguous. Are so saying you doubt the principal was a liberal, or are you saying that is good to ban the Declaration of Indepence?

More directly and perhaps less sarcastically, the details of what the teacher was saying and doing are not provided, so you can't really expect more than an ambiguous answer anyway---however, I suspect that the teacher had an agenda that included the promotion of religion over non-religion.

No, I have no objection to an academic treatment of the idea that part of the culture of the peoples, times and places involved in the founding of the republic--but there is now in the country a strong movement by evangelical christians to use public schools to deliver a religious message. They see it as their heavenly mandate to "save" the children from the heathen atheisic public schools. The interpret the absence of religion in public schools as a statement AGAINST religion. They don't seem to be able to conceptualize the fact that there can be a place for secular learning without religion that still doesn't make a statement against nor for religion.

In most societies of the past, religion WAS the government and in order to be educated in the ways of the society and government, you had to be, shall I say brainwashed, into conformity with the religious rules, lest you break a religious rule and end up in jail or worse.

One of the clear intentions of the Framers was to do away with religious government--in the sense that the government would not impose religion on society. Clearly the Framers, at least many of them, had no desire to irradicate religion, but simple put it where it belonged, in churches, not in the public forum by government coercion or compulsion.

The problem with allowing schools to be a forum for religion has three prongs: First, being a governmental institution, a public school is a agent of the government. Second, because children are so inherently vulnerable and impressionable, any message, overt or subtly implied, that says "hey kids, you should believe in God" or "you should believe in religion over non-religion" becomes a potent deliverer of government sponsored religion. Third, because public school attendance is mandatory, for the most part, students don't even have a choice as to whether they are going to be taught religion making christian evangelism in schools even more coercive.

My answer then is: If you are going to study the DI without intentionally emphasizing the religious aspect fine--but if you are going to carry the message that says " because the Framers included the word "God" therefore they intended that you should believe in God", that, in my opinion, is government sponsored religion.

Don't we have enough churches in america such that schools have to jump in there and become another sunday school?

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Nov 27 2004, 02:08 PM

My suspicion is that the teacher was using the material in question to expresslyadvance the position that religion played a major part in the founding of th United States.

Among many left-liberals, it is an article of faith that the Founders were all deists and that the American Revolution was an exclusive exercise in Enlightenment secular reason.  I doubt th principal would have objected to materials showing the influence of Montesquieu and Locke on the Revolutio.  The truth is more complex than that, though.  It is impossible to understand the American Revolution without understanding the interplay between the colonists strong religious, and specifically British Nonconformist Protestant, worldview. 

Cal, you wrote, "If a teacher is permitted to promote religion by purposely bringing to the students attention material he knows promotes religion ..."  Interesting question.  Does presenting accurate material about the mentality of the Founders "promote religion?"  Does showing that religion contributed to the founding of the United States constitute "promotion" of religion?  Should the truth not be presented if it has the effect of associating religion with a positive development like the Founding?

The Church has taken criticism from intellectuals for discouraging its teachers from presenting, in Church teaching, information about Church history that, while true, may not present the Church in the most complimentary light.  "Some things are true that are not very helpful," as I believe Elder Packer put it.  Isn't the principal doing the exact same thing?

The Church has taken criticism from intellectuals for discouraging its teachers from presenting, in Church teaching, information about Church history that, while true, may not present the Church in the most complimentary light.  "Some things are true that are not very helpful," as I believe Elder Packer put it.  Isn't the principal doing the exact same thing?

As I said above, we don't seem to have enough information to know EXACTLY what the principal observed. If it was his impression that the teacher was slanting the lesson to deliver the message that "you kids should reverence God because the founding fathers did" I can completely understand the principal's reaction.

If the teacher, on the other hand, was simply saying various of the Framers believed in God on various levels of faith, without making the kids think that the Framers were all evangelical christians whose primary mission was to spread christianity, then I have no problem.

As to your comment on the faith of the Framers, it is well known and documented that many of them WERE simply diests, with no particular faith in organized religion. Whether that fact offends evangelical christians is irrelevant. I know a lot of people would like the world, including impressionable school children, to think that the Framers were all devout practicing christians. To teach that, if that is what the teacher at issue here was teaching, amounts to a falsification intended to instill religious bias. If that is the case, I totally agree with the principal.

As to teaching things that are "not very helpful"--- to me that is a euphamism for suppression of the truth for the benefit of the survival of the organization. But that is not really the issue here. Churches can do what ever they want to within the law as far as indoctrinating their "flock". But that is a far cry from saying that the government should sanction the promotion of religion--whether it be by truth or falacy. To me, the issue is not whether it is actually true or not the Framers were practicing christians or even religious; the issue is, are you presenting a message that promotes religion over non-religion in public schools, which are an agency of government? If you are, then you are violating the legal rule as it exists in this country today. Should the rule be changed? I don't think so, even though it is a fairly recent clarification.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Cal,

I suspect that the principal was acting out of the same general squeamishness towards religion that led Maryland's schools to completely omit, in teaching about Thanksgiving, exactly to whom the Pilgrims were giving thanks. Maryland apparently considered it too much of a "promotion" of religion to acknowledge that the Pilgrims, whose whole point in being in the New World was to practice their strenuous religion, celebrated Thanksgiving to give thanks to God. I actually read a direct quote from some Maryland administrator, saying that the schools were in the business of teaching history, not religion.

Good holy catfish, madam! You can't teach the history of the Pilgrims with the religion left out. It's like teaching the Civil War and ignoring slavery. Leopold von Ranke must be spinning in his grave: "Wie es eigentlich gewesen ist, you chowderheads!"

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Nov 28 2004, 12:13 PM

Cal,

I suspect that the principal was acting out of the same general squeamishness towards religion that led Maryland's schools to completely omit, in teaching about Thanksgiving, exactly to whom the Pilgrims were giving thanks. Maryland apparently considered it too much of a "promotion" of religion to acknowledge that the Pilgrims, whose whole point in being in the New World was to practice their strenuous religion, celebrated Thanksgiving to give thanks to God. I actually read a direct quote from some Maryland administrator, saying that the schools were in the business of teaching history, not religion.

Good holy catfish, madam! You can't teach the history of the Pilgrims with the religion left out. It's like teaching the Civil War and ignoring slavery. Leopold von Ranke must be spinning in his grave: "Wie es eigentlich gewesen ist, you chowderheads!"

Do we know the details of what the Maryland public officials were observing in the classroom when the history of the pilgrims was being taught? I haven't read an transcripts of testimony as to what exactly was going on. I suspect that these officials simply didn't want to have to make the fine distinction between teaching about religious culture, and teaching with a bias in favor of it, which would be tantamount to inculcating religion into public school kids.

It seems like those that are bothered by the LACK of religious teaching in schools, would prefer, deep down, that the schools DID teach religion over non-religion. And that is the problem.

As a science teacher, when I taught Biology, inevitably students would ask if I believe in evolution or if I thought evolution disproved the existance of God. My response was always the same. Science only addresses problems that can have the scientific method address them. In other words, you have to have a testable hypothesis that you can design experiments to address. There is no experiment that can address this question, and so science neither affirms nor denies the existance of things that it cannot address at all.

I do tell them that what schools teach, in science at least, is the thinking of the majority of the scientific community. There will always be fringe scientists that will agree with all kinds of stuff. The vast majority of the scientific community considers that organic evolution is a fact.

On the other hand, for teachers to teach that kids should believe in God is not only promoting religion over non-religion, it is not even in the spirit of academic or scientific thinking because it is a hypothesis that assumes the existance of the very thing that it cannot prove. For that, and other reasons, religion belongs in churches, not schools.

As long as a teacher can teach about the social impact of religion on societies, I see no problem. And most schools do have classes that teach about the bible, and public universities do to, and this is not considered a violation of the ESt. clause. But since younger kids (k 1-12) are considered more impressionable and vulnerable, I think that a principal should have the discretion to decide when teachers are likely to cross the line---and if you have to forgo some history in order to comply with a greater legal mandate, perhaps, so be it. After all, there is plenty of history that goes untold.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Cal@Nov 27 2004, 08:33 AM

Yeah,  after all, promoting religion is an important function of governmental institutions, like schools. Of course, democrats like Kerry are against all religion, they want it banned from society, they want it irradicated.  Even when they are practicing catholics and make no secret of the fact, they wish they didn't have to be, and want all the public school children to become atheists.

Questions for y'all:

If a teacher is permitted to promote religion by purposely bringing to the students attention material he knows promotes religion, is it then also OK for a teacher to promote atheism, by emphasizing material that promotes atheism? 

Can a person be in favor of keeping religion in churches and education in schools, without being accused of being an atheist?

Question for Cal:

Should the facts of history and the reason for that particular action that took place, be overlooked because it might upset some people? I mean, this country was founded on Christian ideals and the founding fathers were Christian gentlemen working under Christian guidelines for what they perceived as a Christian calling. These facts should be hidden? History should be changed? What are you advocating?

Teaching that something was done in the name of religion (Christianity) is not the same as teaching Christianity.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Jenda+Nov 28 2004, 02:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Nov 28 2004, 02:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Nov 27 2004, 08:33 AM

Yeah,  after all, promoting religion is an important function of governmental institutions, like schools. Of course, democrats like Kerry are against all religion, they want it banned from society, they want it irradicated.  Even when they are practicing catholics and make no secret of the fact, they wish they didn't have to be, and want all the public school children to become atheists.

Questions for y'all:

If a teacher is permitted to promote religion by purposely bringing to the students attention material he knows promotes religion, is it then also OK for a teacher to promote atheism, by emphasizing material that promotes atheism?  

Can a person be in favor of keeping religion in churches and education in schools, without being accused of being an atheist?

Question for Cal:

Should the facts of history and the reason for that particular action that took place, be overlooked because it might upset some people? I mean, this country was founded on Christian ideals and the founding fathers were Christian gentlemen working under Christian guidelines for what they perceived as a Christian calling. These facts should be hidden? History should be changed? What are you advocating?

Teaching that something was done in the name of religion (Christianity) is not the same as teaching Christianity.

I agree with your last statement that teaching about religion is not the same as teaching in its favor. However, when a school principal decides that the teacher is crossing the line and is promoting religion over non-religion (or visa versa for that matter) he has the obligation to call the teacher on that.

As to what this country was founded on, you make a couple of factual errors. First, not all the Framers of the constitution were professed Christians--Jeffereson, Franklin and several others were Diests who didn't profess any great faith in organized religion.

Had the Framers been in favor of the government promoting religion, they certainly would not have included the Establishment Clause. It is one thing to say that the Framers were from a Christian background, and quite another to insist that they believed that public institutions should promote it. Freedom to be free of government coersion on the subject of religion was the primary value they had in mind--and that value was the one on which this country was founded, not on the idea that everyone should be Christian or even religious at all. When you insist that public schools should be free to promote religion over non-religion is to violate that principal on its most fundamental level; that is, to inculcate religion into young people by government power. So I disagree with your position on that.

[Snow]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Nov 28 2004, 11:13 AM

Good holy catfish, madam! You can't teach the history of the Pilgrims with the religion left out. It's like teaching the Civil War and ignoring slavery. Leopold von Ranke must be spinning in his grave: "Wie es eigentlich gewesen ist, you chowderheads!"

In fact you can't talk about much of anything if you exclude religion.

Classical music, Bach for example, is so wrapped up in Christianity, that the two can't be excluded. The KJV Bible was and is a major influence on Western speech and literature. Ancient Greece or Roman involves in large measure religion. You can't speak of the history of the Middle East or indeed what is going on there today without talking religion. You can't discuss the history of America or western intellectual traditions or music or art or culture without religion.

I guarendarntee it that these liberal, politically correct wackos, always leftists, have no problem discussing, oh say, ancient Greek or Egyptian religion but heaven and hell forbid you should bring up Christianity - then they invoke some imagined speration of church and state clause which, in fact, is not in the constitution as such, in that language. The constitution says nothing about keeping religion out of schools and any argument that it implies is is an extended and twisted one. What is says is: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." That's a far cry from what the leftist haters of religion falsely proclaim it to say.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Cal@Nov 28 2004, 02:07 PM

I agree with your last statement that teaching about religion is not the same as teaching in its favor. However, when a school principal decides that the teacher is crossing the line and is promoting religion over non-religion (or visa versa for that matter) he has the obligation to call the teacher on that.

What obligation?

Certainly not a federal constitutional obligation. Obviously not a moral or ethical obligation. The only obligation they have is to promote a liberal leftist agenda that attacks conservative values.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow+Nov 28 2004, 03:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Nov 28 2004, 03:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Nov 28 2004, 02:07 PM

I agree with your last statement that teaching about religion is not the same as teaching in its favor. However, when a school principal decides that the teacher is crossing the line and is promoting religion over non-religion (or visa versa for that matter) he has the obligation to call the teacher on that.

What obligation?

Certainly not a federal constitutional obligation. Obviously not a moral or ethical obligation. The only obligation they have is to promote a liberal leftist agenda that attacks conservative values.

Snow-- you sure have gift for missing the point. The issue is not that you can't talk about religion in public schools K-12, you just can't do it in a way that conveys the message that says the student should prefer religion over non-religion or should adopt some particular religious philosophy. For example, I mention the CAtholic church several times when I teach about the evolution of scientific thinking in western society. Do I say, "he kids, the catholic church is bad, or you should join or not join the catholic church, ..."? Obviously not. I mention it as a matter of fact, without giving my slant on Christianity one way or the other.

When an american history teacher teaches that the puritans came to america to escape religious persecution and that they practiced their religion in early america that is fine. If the teacher goes on to say that since the puritans were Christians or even believed in God, that we should therefore have their religious symbols all over our governmental institutions (on our money, Christian prayers in our schools etc), you are saying, as an agent of a governmental institution, which a public school teacher is (like it or not) that our government prefers or endorses religion over non-religion---which is not only false, but illegal.

You are dead wrong about a principal not having an obligation to monitor what is being taught. In case you hadn't noticed school districts can be sued and held liable for violating Supreme Court rulings---and one is that that public schools may not ENDORSE religion. Talk about it all you want, but if the teacher starts teaching that the school is endorsing religion, then he is violating Supreme Court rulings. Supreme Court rulings are the law of the land, in case you hadn't noticed.

All your ranting and raving and name calling don't change the fact.

By the way, your extreme pronouncement that liberals hate religion is preposterous, and you know it. I don't hate religion, just your brand of it.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Cal+Nov 28 2004, 03:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Nov 28 2004, 03:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Nov 28 2004, 02:24 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Nov 27 2004, 08:33 AM

Yeah,  after all, promoting religion is an important function of governmental institutions, like schools. Of course, democrats like Kerry are against all religion, they want it banned from society, they want it irradicated.  Even when they are practicing catholics and make no secret of the fact, they wish they didn't have to be, and want all the public school children to become atheists.

Questions for y'all:

If a teacher is permitted to promote religion by purposely bringing to the students attention material he knows promotes religion, is it then also OK for a teacher to promote atheism, by emphasizing material that promotes atheism?  

Can a person be in favor of keeping religion in churches and education in schools, without being accused of being an atheist?

Question for Cal:

Should the facts of history and the reason for that particular action that took place, be overlooked because it might upset some people? I mean, this country was founded on Christian ideals and the founding fathers were Christian gentlemen working under Christian guidelines for what they perceived as a Christian calling. These facts should be hidden? History should be changed? What are you advocating?

Teaching that something was done in the name of religion (Christianity) is not the same as teaching Christianity.

I agree with your last statement that teaching about religion is not the same as teaching in its favor. However, when a school principal decides that the teacher is crossing the line and is promoting religion over non-religion (or visa versa for that matter) he has the obligation to call the teacher on that.

As to what this country was founded on, you make a couple of factual errors. First, not all the Framers of the constitution were professed Christians--Jeffereson, Franklin and several others were Diests who didn't profess any great faith in organized religion.

Had the Framers been in favor of the government promoting religion, they certainly would not have included the Establishment Clause. It is one thing to say that the Framers were from a Christian background, and quite another to insist that they believed that public institutions should promote it. Freedom to be free of government coersion on the subject of religion was the primary value they had in mind--and that value was the one on which this country was founded, not on the idea that everyone should be Christian or even religious at all. When you insist that public schools should be free to promote religion over non-religion is to violate that principal on its most fundamental level; that is, to inculcate religion into young people by government power. So I disagree with your position on that.

Your response kind of reminds me of the case against the high school biology teacher who taught the facts (not theories) of evolution. That it is flawed. Which is the only fact that can be claimed about evolution. When he taught the truths of the theories, and it was all scientific, the principal monitored his class and eventually denied him his job because, of course, teaching against evolution means that one is teaching creationism.

It's just a bunch of hogwash. Just as your post assumed that I had taken a stand about teaching religion in school (which I said nothing about), so the principal took the (equally wrong) stand that that teacher was teaching creationism.

I think it would help to have a dose of healthy trust here. Trust that the truth can be spoken without the fear that Christianity is being pushed.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Jenda+Nov 28 2004, 06:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Nov 28 2004, 06:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Nov 28 2004, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by -Jenda@Nov 28 2004, 02:24 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Nov 27 2004, 08:33 AM

Yeah,  after all, promoting religion is an important function of governmental institutions, like schools. Of course, democrats like Kerry are against all religion, they want it banned from society, they want it irradicated.  Even when they are practicing catholics and make no secret of the fact, they wish they didn't have to be, and want all the public school children to become atheists.

Questions for y'all:

If a teacher is permitted to promote religion by purposely bringing to the students attention material he knows promotes religion, is it then also OK for a teacher to promote atheism, by emphasizing material that promotes atheism?  

Can a person be in favor of keeping religion in churches and education in schools, without being accused of being an atheist?

Question for Cal:

Should the facts of history and the reason for that particular action that took place, be overlooked because it might upset some people? I mean, this country was founded on Christian ideals and the founding fathers were Christian gentlemen working under Christian guidelines for what they perceived as a Christian calling. These facts should be hidden? History should be changed? What are you advocating?

Teaching that something was done in the name of religion (Christianity) is not the same as teaching Christianity.

I agree with your last statement that teaching about religion is not the same as teaching in its favor. However, when a school principal decides that the teacher is crossing the line and is promoting religion over non-religion (or visa versa for that matter) he has the obligation to call the teacher on that.

As to what this country was founded on, you make a couple of factual errors. First, not all the Framers of the constitution were professed Christians--Jeffereson, Franklin and several others were Diests who didn't profess any great faith in organized religion.

Had the Framers been in favor of the government promoting religion, they certainly would not have included the Establishment Clause. It is one thing to say that the Framers were from a Christian background, and quite another to insist that they believed that public institutions should promote it. Freedom to be free of government coersion on the subject of religion was the primary value they had in mind--and that value was the one on which this country was founded, not on the idea that everyone should be Christian or even religious at all. When you insist that public schools should be free to promote religion over non-religion is to violate that principal on its most fundamental level; that is, to inculcate religion into young people by government power. So I disagree with your position on that.

Your response kind of reminds me of the case against the high school biology teacher who taught the facts (not theories) of evolution. That it is flawed. Which is the only fact that can be claimed about evolution. When he taught the truths of the theories, and it was all scientific, the principal monitored his class and eventually denied him his job because, of course, teaching against evolution means that one is teaching creationism.

It's just a bunch of hogwash. Just as your post assumed that I had taken a stand about teaching religion in school (which I said nothing about), so the principal took the (equally wrong) stand that that teacher was teaching creationism.

I think it would help to have a dose of healthy trust here. Trust that the truth can be spoken without the fear that Christianity is being pushed.

Jenda--your are also missing the point. It has nothing to do with the merits of evolution as a scientific fact or theory. Neither does the mention of religion violate the Supreme Courts interpretation of the Establishment clause. The only thing that treds on constitutional prohibitions is the ENDORSEMENT of religion in public schools. I have never said you can't discuss christianity, nor did I say that high school principals are flawless in their judgement about what is or is not endorsing religion.

The bottom line is, endorsement of religion over non-religion is unconstitutional at this point in time in this country. Evolution is not religion, creationism is.

[Jenda]

Cal, I fail to see what you are getting so incensed over. Where, in the original article, did it say that the teacher was promoting Christianity (or any other religion)? It states that the teacher was trying to teach the true history of the US, which included that the founding fathers were religious. If, as you say, some of them were Deists, then the teacher could hardly be promoting Christianity, could he?

Maybe you are the one missing the point.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Had the Framers been in favor of the government promoting religion, they certainly would not have included the Establishment Clause.

As with most constitutional law, the devil (or the equivalent secular opposition figure) is in the details: What constitutes the kind of "promoting religion" that the Framers prohibited by the Establishment Clause?

"Establishment," at the time of the drafting of the First Amendment, was a legal term of art, referring specifically to the establishment of a state-sponsored church on the model of the Church of England, with clergy selected and paid by the government, and the church supported by taxes.

Since that time, judges have dramatically expanded the reach of the Establishment Clause's language, as judges are wont to do. Judges derive their power from statutory language; since it is human nature to desire more power, it can be expected that those judges will interpret that language to give them the broadest possible power. I think that was one of the flaws of human nature that the Founders overlooked in setting up the Constitution's systems of checks and balances, and one of the reasons why America has the world's most expensively litigious society, with 90% of the world's lawyers. But I digress.

You suggest that teachers have such a compelling duty to avoid "endorsing" religion that, given the vague and continually-evolving standard of what constitutes an endorsement, they must err on the side of caution -- even to the point of teaching distorted history. That flips the First Amendment's "chilling effect" jurisprudence exactly on its head. In First Amendment law, a law that does not clearly or directly restrict speech may violate the Free Speech Clause if it has a "chilling effect" on protected speech. That is, if people aren't certain of the reach of a law, they will watch what they say so as to avoid running afoul of it, and probably refrain from some measure of protected expression. (The economic counterpart of this problem is overinsurance. When you're uncertain of the level of risk, you may take greater precautions than are called for by the actual risk level.) It seems to me that you're advocating a "religious speech" exception to "chilling effect" jurisprudence, where not only does the "chilling effect" rule not apply to speech touching religion by certain figures, but operates in reverse, with the Constitution commanding that protected speech be suppressed so as to avoid getting anywhere near the line. That can't be right.

"The Pilgrims had a harvest festival to thank God for their survival" is not "promoting religion." "The Founders were profoundly influenced in their political thinking by a tradition that drew heavily on Christian religion as well as Enlightenment philosophy, with even the deists among them endorsing religion as an 'indispensable support' of civil society" is not a promotion of religion, either. It's a statement of historical fact -- or at least a statement of a debatable historical proposition.

The fact that some schools have been driven by fear of litigation to treat mentions of religion as a kind of allergen suggests to me that the separationists have gone too far, driving the First Amendment far beyond the bounds of its original meaning. My legal philosophy is that the original meaning of a text is the only acceptable meaning; otherwise, the text loses its legitimacy as an expression of the public will. (Laws "derive their just powers from the consent of the governed" and all that.) The ACLU (among others) have created a climate that impermissibly chills religious expression, and need to rethink their approach.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Cal+Nov 28 2004, 03:23 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Nov 28 2004, 03:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Snow@Nov 28 2004, 03:49 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Nov 28 2004, 02:07 PM

I agree with your last statement that teaching about religion is not the same as teaching in its favor. However, when a school principal decides that the teacher is crossing the line and is promoting religion over non-religion (or visa versa for that matter) he has the obligation to call the teacher on that.

What obligation?

Certainly not a federal constitutional obligation. Obviously not a moral or ethical obligation. The only obligation they have is to promote a liberal leftist agenda that attacks conservative values.

Snow-- you sure have gift for missing the point. The issue is not that you can't talk about religion in public schools K-12, you just can't do it in a way that conveys the message that says the student should prefer religion over non-religion or should adopt some particular religious philosophy. For example, I mention the CAtholic church several times when I teach about the evolution of scientific thinking in western society. Do I say, "he kids, the catholic church is bad, or you should join or not join the catholic church, ..."? Obviously not. I mention it as a matter of fact, without giving my slant on Christianity one way or the other.

When an american history teacher teaches that the puritans came to america to escape religious persecution and that they practiced their religion in early america that is fine. If the teacher goes on to say that since the puritans were Christians or even believed in God, that we should therefore have their religious symbols all over our governmental institutions (on our money, Christian prayers in our schools etc), you are saying, as an agent of a governmental institution, which a public school teacher is (like it or not) that our government prefers or endorses religion over non-religion---which is not only false, but illegal.

You are dead wrong about a principal not having an obligation to monitor what is being taught. In case you hadn't noticed school districts can be sued and held liable for violating Supreme Court rulings---and one is that that public schools may not ENDORSE religion. Talk about it all you want, but if the teacher starts teaching that the school is endorsing religion, then he is violating Supreme Court rulings. Supreme Court rulings are the law of the land, in case you hadn't noticed.

All your ranting and raving and name calling don't change the fact.

By the way, your extreme pronouncement that liberals hate religion is preposterous, and you know it. I don't hate religion, just your brand of it.

Talk about missing a point--- you seem to have missed them all.

I got your point entirely, I just disagree with it.

First, The constitution says nothing about a teacher giving preferential treatment to one religion over another. I see that PD has responded to this thread - without having read his response, I'm sure he'll have covered the constitutional issues but the constitution prohibits the federal govt. from making laws restricting or establishing religion. It says absolutely squat about a teacher teaching, say, Christianity in a positive light, and, say, donkey worship in a pejorative light.

Second, liberal activist judges make seek to legislate from the bench and may be successful in doing so but that doesn't make their liberal agenda right.

Third, I didn't say that a principal doesn't have an obligation to monitor teachers. What I did was question your assertion that principal has an obligation to ensure that religion is not given preference over non-religion. The constitution says no such thing and to the extent that liberal courts have "legislated" otherwise still doesn't make it right or good or desirable.

Fourth, I don't think that liberals, per say, hate religion. It is obviously however that those who are antagonistic against religion are generally liberal.

[Traveler]

My opinion for what it is worth concerning public education:

I am more concerned in the method used to determine what is taught in public schools that what exactly is being taught.

1. I believe a community, by majority rule, has the right to decide what their children are taught in public schools.

2. A majority is 50% of the registered voters plus 1.

I do not believe the federal government has any right to determine what is taught in schools. I believe our constitution places the overseeing of schools to the states. I believe it is more important to keep a separation of federal oversight of our schools than it is to maintain a separation of church and state in our state run schools.

Just a note in passing. Currently the public schools in the USA are considered the worse among the industrialized nations - something that has developed over the last 10 years. Last year when I was in Taiwan I was told that anyone being educated in the USA during the last 10 years will not find it helpful to work in Taiwan. The Japanese also feel that during the last 10 years the schools in America have fallen far behind - especially Asian schools.

The Traveler

[Ray]

I’m going to take this opportunity to say that I agree with the point Cal is making.

If I understand Cal correctly, he is stating that public schools should not endorse a particular religion… and not stating that public schools should not teach about a particular religion.

Do I understand you correctly, Cal? If not, then that is what I say.

In other words, I say that public schools should be in the business of sharing information, and not in the business of endorsing a particular view. And that means that public schools should be able to teach religion just as much as they teach history or homemaking or physical fitness, just as long as they don’t endorse a particular view.

Btw, evolution should also not be endorsed. I think it’s okay for teachers to teach students about evolution, and that some scientists believe in evolution, and that some scientists accept it as fact, but if a teacher goes so far as to say that evolution IS fact and should be accepted as fact, they are then endorsing evolution.

And in case you don’t know it, evolution is as much a religion as any other.

[Larry Kozlowski]

Speaking of evolution, looks like Urban Meyer just might be the next Notre Dame football coach. Good for Notre Dame, bad for Utah. :-(

[Ray]

Originally posted by Cal@ Nov 27 2004, 08:33 AM

Questions for y'all:

If a teacher is permitted to promote religion by purposely bringing to the students attention material he knows promotes religion, is it then also OK for a teacher to promote atheism, by emphasizing material that promotes atheism?

I believe a public school teacher should refrain from endorsing a particular view about anything while on duty as a public school teacher. I think a public school teacher’s job is merely to present information, without personally promoting anything, and then to follow up with questions to determine whether or not their students are learning the information. Do you understand what I’m saying?

Btw, I'm the Sunday School President in my ward and I advise the teachers to present the information in the scriptures while questioning the students to determine that they are learning that information. But yes, since Sunday School is not under the same limitations as a public school, I also advise them to share their testimony and feelings about the information they present.

Can a person be in favor of keeping religion in churches and education in schools, without being accused of being an atheist?

Yes, but I see nothing wrong with teaching religion in public schools, along with other things, as long as teachers don’t endorse a particular view as the only view that is true.

Btw, for anybody who doesn’t know the difference between teaching about a religion and endorsing a religion:

If I were to say that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only church currently on the Earth which has the authority of Jesus to act in His name, I would be endorsing a religion, because I would be giving my support to the claim made by the Church and Church leaders who teach that Jesus has authorized this Church to act in His name.

however,

If I were to say that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches and makes the claim that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only church currently on the Earth which has the authority of Jesus to act in His name, (without adding my personal testimony or declaring my membership status), I would then only be teaching about a religion.

I hope my explanation of the difference has helped somebody who didn’t already know this.

And btw, given the fact that I am not a public school teacher teaching students in a public school, I will now add my endorsement of the Church and state that I am a card carrying member. :)