• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

Declaration of Independence Banned at Calif School

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

wiin

Senior member
Oct 28, 1999
937
0
76
TuxDave said:

Maybe there's something more to this teacher. If only we could get a copy of the lesson plan to see if this 5th grade teacher is a nut-job and deserves to have all of his lessons censored

California Education Law

51230. As a part of the course in American government and civics
required for high school graduation pursuant to subparagraph (D) of
paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 51225.3, all pupils shall
read and be taught all of the following:
(a) The Declaration of Independence.
(b) The United States Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.

(c) Substantive selections from the Federalist Papers.
(d) The Emancipation Proclamation.
(e) The Gettysburg Address.
(f) George Washington's Farewell Address.



Yup. There sure is something more to this teacher. He is doing his job.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: wiin
TuxDave said:

Maybe there's something more to this teacher. If only we could get a copy of the lesson plan to see if this 5th grade teacher is a nut-job and deserves to have all of his lessons censored

California Education Law

51230. As a part of the course in American government and civics
required for high school graduation pursuant to subparagraph (D) of
paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 51225.3, all pupils shall
read and be taught excerpts from all of the following:
(a) The Declaration of Independence.
(b) The United States Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.

(c) Substantive selections from the Federalist Papers.
(d) The Emancipation Proclamation.
(e) The Gettysburg Address.
(f) George Washington's Farewell Address.



Yup. There sure is something more to this teacher. He is doing his job.[/quote]

Yup. ;)

 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: wiin
TuxDave said:

Maybe there's something more to this teacher. If only we could get a copy of the lesson plan to see if this 5th grade teacher is a nut-job and deserves to have all of his lessons censored

California Education Law

51230. As a part of the course in American government and civics
required for high school graduation pursuant to subparagraph (D) of
paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 51225.3, all pupils shall
read and be taught excerpts from all of the following:
(a) The Declaration of Independence.
(b) The United States Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.

(c) Substantive selections from the Federalist Papers.
(d) The Emancipation Proclamation.
(e) The Gettysburg Address.
(f) George Washington's Farewell Address.



Yup. There sure is something more to this teacher. He is doing his job.

Yup. ;)

[/quote] Seems like it. If it is as it is reported this Principal is way out of line. That said we are only privy to the teacher's side of the story.

 

JustAnAverageGuy

Diamond Member
Aug 1, 2003
9,057
0
76
There's got to be more to this story.

As for the guys claiming right-wing agenda stuff

"He hands out a lot of material and perhaps 5 to 10 percent refers to God and Christianity because that's what the founders wrote," said Thompson, a lawyer

Maybe he was presenting it 'incorrectly', but less than one in ten papers is hardly jesusfreak marterial.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy
stopped reading about halfway through the thread, but there's got to be more to this story.

As for the guys claiming right-wing agenda stuff

"He hands out a lot of material and perhaps 5 to 10 percent refers to God and Christianity because that's what the founders wrote," said Thompson, a lawyer

Maybe he was presenting it 'incorrectly', but less than one in ten papers is hardly jesusfreak marterial.
R.I.F. -- you quoted the lawyer who is defending the teacher and took his word as gospel, you realize that?

Some of you, like wiin I know, are not too bright. In every article where there is obvious bias and sensationalism, like this one, there is always one place where they give it away. They have to in order to avoid libel suits. In this particular article, they give it away when they point out that only this one teacher has been barred, and not others. His lawyer plays it off that it's because this teacher is a Christian, but the odds are certain that many other teachers there are Christians as well.

Now... back to the DOI, which I mentioned on the first page of this thread but everyone obviously skipped right over... I welcome anyone here to find a reference to the Christian God in that precious document. You won't find it.
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,470
1
81
Originally posted by: Vic
Now... back to the DOI, which I mentioned on the first page of this thread but everyone obviously skipped right over... I welcome anyone here to find a reference to the Christian God in that precious document. You won't find it.
Hmmm...so you're saying the school shouldn't have banned it?

I agree :thumbsup:
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: Vic
Now... back to the DOI, which I mentioned on the first page of this thread but everyone obviously skipped right over... I welcome anyone here to find a reference to the Christian God in that precious document. You won't find it.
Hmmm...so you're saying the school shouldn't have banned it?

I agree :thumbsup:
The school didn't ban the teaching of the DoI. I don't know where you read that except in the misleading headline. They only barred this one teacher from teaching it, most likely because he was doing so incorrectly and inappropriately. There is nothing in the article that says that any other teachers are barred from teaching it and I find it safe to assume that they are not barred, as teaching the DoI is a requirement in CA.
The teacher's lawyer says that "Williams wants to teach his students the true history of our country", but I have a gut feeling that Mr. Williams idea of the true history of our country is not actually the true history of our country, but some kind of Fundamentalist revision, and not in compliance with the school's approved curriculum.

I am a Christian, and I believe the time and plce for children to learn religion is with their parents and in the church of their parents' choice. Not from their public school teacher on a public salary in a publicly-funded school and that teacher's particular church of choice, which might be some whacked-out cult group with views that I wouldn't want my child learning.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: wiin
TuxDave said:

Maybe there's something more to this teacher. If only we could get a copy of the lesson plan to see if this 5th grade teacher is a nut-job and deserves to have all of his lessons censored

California Education Law

51230. As a part of the course in American government and civics
required for high school graduation pursuant to subparagraph (D) of
paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 51225.3, all pupils shall
read and be taught excerpts from all of the following:
(a) The Declaration of Independence.
(b) The United States Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.

(c) Substantive selections from the Federalist Papers.
(d) The Emancipation Proclamation.
(e) The Gettysburg Address.
(f) George Washington's Farewell Address.



Yup. There sure is something more to this teacher. He is doing his job.

Yup. ;)
Seems like it. If it is as it is reported this Principal is way out of line. That said we are only privy to the teacher's side of the story.

[/quote]

Did you guys even read the list he put in his lawsuit. It's not those papers.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/a...ve/1124041declar6.html
and read paragraph 41 for what his agenda is.
If he wants to "explain the role of religion in the nation's founding", why doesn't he include the treaty of Tripoli, unanimously approved by US senate in 1797 and signed by John Adams, that says:
"The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"
He is either omitting it to push his own agenda, or his is ignorant on the subject and shouldn't be teaching.
His lawsuit reads like a propaganda statement, last paragraph states "This nation was founded on Judeo-Christian heritage," which contradicts what the whole US senate and John Adams said in 1797.
This guy should not be teaching government or civics. He doesn't even know that the First Ammendment does NOT allow him to teach whatever he wants to kids and expect not to face consequences from his employer. You can't teach 2+2=5 and expect the principal to stand by, just as you can't teach revisionist history.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
The Declaration of Independence

Action of Second Continental Congress, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America

WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards of their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pas Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only.
He has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his Measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the People.
He has refused for a long Time, after such Dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the Dangers of Invasion from without, and Convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their Salaries.
He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance.
He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an arbitrary Government, and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute Rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People.
He is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the Works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized Nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the Executioners of their Friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes and Conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury. A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.
Nor have we been wanting in Attentions to our British Brethren. We have warned them from Time to Time of Attempts by their Legislature to extend an unwarrantable Jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here. We have appealed to their native Justice and Magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the Ties of our common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our Connections and Correspondence. They too have been deaf to the Voice of Justice and of Consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

In actuality, the DoI is an anti-religious document. Prior to its writing, the King of England ruled under the premise of the "Divine Right of Kings," which said that the king derived his authority to rule from God. The DoI says that "all men are created equal", and thus none had any divine right (that is what that passage actually means), and that government was an institution of men which derived its power only by the consent of the governed, and that if a government became destructive it was the right of the people to change it. This was absolutely amazing thinking of the time, and of course it led to war (as it was intended to). No greater challenge could have been made to the King's authority.
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,470
1
81
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: Vic
Now... back to the DOI, which I mentioned on the first page of this thread but everyone obviously skipped right over... I welcome anyone here to find a reference to the Christian God in that precious document. You won't find it.
Hmmm...so you're saying the school shouldn't have banned it?

I agree :thumbsup:
The school didn't ban the teaching of the DoI. I don't know where you read that except in the misleading headline. They only barred this one teacher from teaching it, most likely because he was doing so incorrectly and inappropriately. There is nothing in the article that says that any other teachers are barred from teaching it and I find it safe to assume that they are not barred, as teaching the DoI is a requirement in CA.
Oops, bad wording on my part then. But you're saying the school shouldn't have barred a teacher from using it, right?

To that, I still agree :thumbsup:
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: Vic
Now... back to the DOI, which I mentioned on the first page of this thread but everyone obviously skipped right over... I welcome anyone here to find a reference to the Christian God in that precious document. You won't find it.
Hmmm...so you're saying the school shouldn't have banned it?

I agree :thumbsup:
The school didn't ban the teaching of the DoI. I don't know where you read that except in the misleading headline. They only barred this one teacher from teaching it, most likely because he was doing so incorrectly and inappropriately. There is nothing in the article that says that any other teachers are barred from teaching it and I find it safe to assume that they are not barred, as teaching the DoI is a requirement in CA.
Oops, bad wording on my part then. But you're saying the school shouldn't have barred a teacher from using it, right?

To that, I still agree :thumbsup:
I'll say that I think they should have found some other way to discipline the teacher.
 

JustAnAverageGuy

Diamond Member
Aug 1, 2003
9,057
0
76
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy
stopped reading about halfway through the thread, but there's got to be more to this story.

As for the guys claiming right-wing agenda stuff

"He hands out a lot of material and perhaps 5 to 10 percent refers to God and Christianity because that's what the founders wrote," said Thompson, a lawyer

Maybe he was presenting it 'incorrectly', but less than one in ten papers is hardly jesusfreak marterial.
R.I.F. -- you quoted the lawyer

I'll give you that. You'll notice that I stopped the copy & paste at the word lawyer. ;)
 
Oct 18, 2004
186
0
0


I think the Prinicipal needs to get his head on straight. Also when the majority of Americans are Christian which includes most teachers, how can this teacher feel he is being singled out because he is a Christian? Martyr Complex?[/quote]

Money
 

JackStorm

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2003
1,216
1
0
I'm no fan of religion, but from what the article says. This seems, on the surface, like a case of censorship and some sort of discrimination against Christianity/religion. Can't say I agree with what that Vidmar person did, IF and ONLY if the article is true.

But something struck me as odd, why would only THIS teacher have to go through this Vidmar person to get approval? Smells fishy. Like the teacher had done something in the past that caused the school to censor just him. I get the feeling if you were to take a look at the teachers past you'd find something that showed he was up to something.

HOWEVER, has anyone considered that they BOTH might be trying to push an agenda? The teacher a religions one and the other person a anti-religious one? Might be worth considering.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Is he also telling his students that the founders of the country were also Slave Owners?
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
"It's a fact of American history that our founders were religious men" Is what this teacher is trying to highlight and impress upon the children WHY is that so important?
 

TuxDave

Lifer
Oct 8, 2002
10,571
3
71
Originally posted by: wiin
TuxDave said:

Maybe there's something more to this teacher. If only we could get a copy of the lesson plan to see if this 5th grade teacher is a nut-job and deserves to have all of his lessons censored

California Education Law

51230. As a part of the course in American government and civics
required for high school graduation pursuant to subparagraph (D) of
paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 51225.3, all pupils shall
read and be taught all of the following:
(a) The Declaration of Independence.
(b) The United States Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.

(c) Substantive selections from the Federalist Papers.
(d) The Emancipation Proclamation.
(e) The Gettysburg Address.
(f) George Washington's Farewell Address.



Yup. There sure is something more to this teacher. He is doing his job.

:confused: You P&N people seriously confuse the hell out of me. Maybe you can explain this to me. How is 'what is required to be taught in the class by law' equate to 'what he is really teaching in class'. Hmm... NOTHING perhaps? That is why I said it would help if we could see his lesson plan to see what he is actually saying. Durrrr...
 

TuxDave

Lifer
Oct 8, 2002
10,571
3
71
Thanks for the complaint papers. I'm interested in how this turns out. Religion did play a large role in the founding of the country, but some of the handouts are really irrelevant. "What Great Leaders Have Said About the Bible"? Why is this necessary?

 

Spencer278

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2002
3,637
0
0
Williams asserts in the lawsuit that since May he has been required to submit all of his lesson plans and supplemental handouts to Vidmar for approval, and that the principal will not permit him to use any that contain references to God or Christianity.

I don't think any principal would bother with reviewing a leason plan unless he had a good reason. So I think that the teacher is full of it based on the lazense of administrators.
 

Format C:

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,662
0
0
You know, its kinda hard to take seriously the opinions of those of you that can't even figure out the principle is not a HE. HE is a SHE, and I don't see how anybody that actually READ the OP could have NOT known that. Obviously some of you are just running off at the mouth without even putting forth the effort to see what it is you're talking about.
 

TuxDave

Lifer
Oct 8, 2002
10,571
3
71
Originally posted by: Format C:
You know, its kinda hard to take seriously the opinions of those of you that can't even figure out the principle is not a HE. HE is a SHE, and I don't see how anybody that actually READ the OP could have NOT known that. Obviously some of you are just running off at the mouth without even putting forth the effort to see what it is you're talking about.

principle != principal
;)
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: Format C:
You know, its kinda hard to take seriously the opinions of those of you that can't even figure out the principle is not a HE. HE is a SHE, and I don't see how anybody that actually READ the OP could have NOT known that. Obviously some of you are just running off at the mouth without even putting forth the effort to see what it is you're talking about.

obviously
 

Format C:

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,662
0
0
Originally posted by: TuxDave
Originally posted by: Format C:
You know, its kinda hard to take seriously the opinions of those of you that can't even figure out the principle is not a HE. HE is a SHE, and I don't see how anybody that actually READ the OP could have NOT known that. Obviously some of you are just running off at the mouth without even putting forth the effort to see what it is you're talking about.

principle != principal
;)
Heh. Thanks for catching that. No chance you'd go for, "I meant to say the principle principal" is there? :)

 

AlricTheMad

Member
Jun 25, 2001
125
0
0
Originally posted by: dahunan
"It's a fact of American history that our founders were religious men" Is what this teacher is trying to highlight and impress upon the children WHY is that so important?

Actually I think it might be more acurate to say the our Founding Fathers were spirtual men. This does not necessarily mean religious.

This teacher, if he is using the DoI to teach his students that this country was founded on Christian Ideals, really needs to be checked. Those that drafted the DoI seemed to want to avoid promoting and religion. Notice, as someone els poitned out well up the thread, the DoI says .... Natures God (not the God of Man) and ... Their Creator (not God). I imagine if they were true Christians this language would not have been acceptable to any of them.

Pat