The W
Views: 100772054
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
23.11.14 1419
The W - Current Events & Politics - CA Principal forbids teaching of Declaration of Independence
This thread has 66 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.34
Pages: 1 2 Next
(910 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (34 total)
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1300 days
Last activity: 1097 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
Another great moment in California schools:
    Originally posted by Dan Whitcomb/Reuters
    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."

    Vidmar could not be reached for comment on the lawsuit, which was filed on Monday in U.S. District Court in San Jose and claims violations of Williams rights to free speech under the First Amendment.

    Phyllis Vogel, assistant superintendent for Cupertino Unified School District, said the lawsuit had been forwarded to a staff attorney. She declined to comment further.

    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.

    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."

    "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 for the Alliance Defense Fund, which advocates for religious freedom. "The principal seems to be systematically censoring material that refers to Christianity and it is pure discrimination."

    In June, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case of a California atheist who wanted the words "under God" struck from the Pledge of Allegiance as recited by school children. The appeals court in California had found that the phrase amounted to a violation of church and state separation.
James Tarnto of OpinionJournal.com points out the tiny problem with all of this.

We suspect the case's denouement will be similar to those old "Star Trek" episodes in which the Enterprise crew defeats a power-mad computer by flummoxing it with a paradox. After all, the Constitution wouldn't exist without the Declaration of Independence. That means if the Declaration is unconstitutional, the Constitution must be too. But if the Constitution is unconstitutional, then how can anything be unconstitutional, including the Constitution? Can't you just see the smoke pouring from Principal Vidmar's ears?



Promote this thread!
Roy.
Pepperoni








Since: 25.2.04
From: Keystone State

Since last post: 2388 days
Last activity: 858 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.41
Things like this happen for two reasons:

1. Schools get so afraid that an athiest or a non-Christian is going to go crazy if little Johnny comes home talking about God that they go overkill in fear of a lawsuit.

2. Teachers abuse their own power, and try to convert their own kids to their beliefs.

It seems that the only person not allowed to pass out these materials is Mr. Williams. Submitting basic lesson plans to a principal is not uncommon, and the principal editing said lesson plans is also not uncommon. If Mr. Williams is offended by this practice, then he needs to quit the profession, because I'd say that 100% of teachers need to do this at one time or another.

I'd be interested to see if other teachers could teach the same material, and if they've tried to submit similar material. The principal is either discriminating against Chrstian materals or editing Mr. Williams' material because he's using the material inappropriately. Context is everything. Saying "God" in a classroom isn't inappropriate. Saying America was based partly on religion isn't inappropriate. Saying that all Americans should be Christians and/or saying that Christianity is the one true religion is inappropriate. Especially around elementary school kids who see teachers more than their own parents. You could say that it's just one or two kids that might be offended but what if it was your kid being told (indirectly, most likely) that his religion (or non-religion) was wrong?

Of course, you could also say that he's ignoring basic history, as both of my American history textbooks say that the Founding Fathers weren't especially religious. Of course, they did put God in there, and ignoring that would be bad teaching.

But, like I said, context is everything here. If they're just banning God for fear of lawsuits and ignorance, then it's awful. If they're preventing a bad teacher from doing more bad teaching, then I'm all for it.

EDIT: According to the teacher (just saw a blurb on Fox News), he's been a target ever since a student asked why they say "under God" in the pledge. He said something to the effect of "She and her parents didn't like my answer" to that question. Nobody followed up and asked what, exactly, his answer was.

(edited by Roy. on 29.11.04 1216)
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 510 days
Last activity: 510 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.60
    Originally posted by Grimis
    James Tarnto of OpinionJournal.com points out the tiny problem with all of this.

    We suspect the case's denouement will be similar to those old "Star Trek" episodes in which the Enterprise crew defeats a power-mad computer by flummoxing it with a paradox. After all, the Constitution wouldn't exist without the Declaration of Independence. That means if the Declaration is unconstitutional, the Constitution must be too. But if the Constitution is unconstitutional, then how can anything be unconstitutional, including the Constitution? Can't you just see the smoke pouring from Principal Vidmar's ears?






I can give you the answer to this question: The Declaration of Independence led into the creation of a nation under the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation were eliminated via a coup d'etat for the Constitution, thus the Constitution amounted to a denunciation of the Declaration of Independence and thus has no lineage to the Declaration.
As for this case: Because a principal and a teacher can't behave like grown-ups, the taxpayers of California are going to have their dollars spent on a lawsuit.



Money is no replacement for the love of a good woman. Real estate, especially in the current marketplace, is another story.
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3065 days
Last activity: 278 days
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
    Originally posted by Dan Whitcomb/Reuters
    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."


Which excerpts were selected, and in what context were they placed?

Not to pick on the article too much, but we're getting one side of the story here. Typical disputes over lesson-plan content do not result in James Dobson's and Donald Wildmon's legal firm being called in, any more than typical liberal teachers have the ACLU on speed-dial.








Dubya v2.0. We're ALL living in Bumfuck, Alabama now.
rockstar
Salami








Since: 2.1.02
From: East TN

Since last post: 3599 days
Last activity: 3477 days
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.29
The Smoking Gun has the lawsuit in question here.

The problem that this edumacator is running into appears to be a lack of balance in how he is presenting the role of religion in the founding of our government. The exhibits referred to in the lawsuit aren't on the site, but here are some examples:

    Originally posted by Smoking Gun
    d. A handout entitled "What Great Leaders Have Said About the Bible"

    i. A handout entitled "Fact Sheet: Currency and Coins - History of 'In God We Trust.'"


Would he be interested in balancing what great leaders have said about the Bible with the Jefferson Bible? Does he explain that 'In God We Trust' wasn't placed on coinage until 1908, long after all of our Founding Fathers were dead? Does he explain that the great seal on the back of the dollar bill says "New Secular Order"? Does he point out that the only religious reference in the Constitution (the one document that counts), aside from the First Amendment, is the word "lord" as a point of reference for the date of the signing of the document?

    Originally posted by Smoking Gun
    36. Mr. Williams is aware that one parent has complained about one handout during a lesson on Presidential Proclamations.

    37. Mr. Williams gave a supplemental handout consisting of President George W. Bush's Proclamation on the National Day of Prayer as an example of a Presidential Proclamation.


Of all of the Presidential Proclamations to choose from, National Day of Prayer is the one he chooses? I'm guessing this guy does a piss poor job of covering his biases. Yeah, our Founding Fathers were religious men of varying stripes, and some of them were also Freemasons. Why not teach about the role of Freemasonry in the founding of our country?

(edited by rockstar on 29.11.04 1345)


FactCheck.org's Whoppers of the 2004 Presidential Election
A Fan
Liverwurst








Since: 3.1.02

Since last post: 3588 days
Last activity: 3588 days
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.48
It depends what the course is. If the course is your typical high school history course. The teacher is trying to give the students a more current feel for history. The problem with teaching history is that there is no real connection for the students. The effects of the Articles of Confederation has no bearing to a teenager, the level of interest is fairly low. I loved history as a student, but most people thought it was boring and were interested in Chem, Bio and other sujects that have instant results and effects. When I taught, I tried using current events to get the students interested, because it was going on around them. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

Also, the freemansory in U.S. history right or wrong has an X-Files feel to it. It is not disregarded to teach, but its hard to explain to a Principal why Jimmy is coming how screaming of vast conspiracies inside the government. I agree it should be taught though, its just something I can see easier explained in a college classroom than a high school classroom. College classrooms have a great deal more freedom for teachers to teach and if the student doesn't like the material they can always drop the class.

I agree banning the Declaration of Independance is hella stupid. Studying history requires you study the culture as well and saying that Christianity played zero part of building the United States is ludicrous. I want seperation from church and state, but this crosses the line of seperation between poltical correct and reality.



"All faith reguires is giving into the possibility of hope."
BigSteve
Pepperoni








Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2872 days
Last activity: 2600 days
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.01
    Originally posted by redsoxnation
      Originally posted by Grimis
      James Tarnto of OpinionJournal.com points out the tiny problem with all of this.

      We suspect the case's denouement will be similar to those old "Star Trek" episodes in which the Enterprise crew defeats a power-mad computer by flummoxing it with a paradox. After all, the Constitution wouldn't exist without the Declaration of Independence. That means if the Declaration is unconstitutional, the Constitution must be too. But if the Constitution is unconstitutional, then how can anything be unconstitutional, including the Constitution? Can't you just see the smoke pouring from Principal Vidmar's ears?






    I can give you the answer to this question: The Declaration of Independence led into the creation of a nation under the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation were eliminated via a coup d'etat for the Constitution, thus the Constitution amounted to a denunciation of the Declaration of Independence and thus has no lineage to the Declaration.
    As for this case: Because a principal and a teacher can't behave like grown-ups, the taxpayers of California are going to have their dollars spent on a lawsuit.


I don't think that the Constitution amounts to anything close to a denunciation of the Declaration of Independance. Without Independance, there'd be no country to write a Constitution for.
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3065 days
Last activity: 278 days
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
    Originally posted by A Fan
    It depends what the course is. If the course is your typical high school history course.


This is a fifth-grade class. Delving into the religious backgrounds of the Founders is a little heavy for a bunch of public-school ten-year-olds.


    I agree banning the Declaration of Independance is hella stupid. Studying history requires you study the culture as well and saying that Christianity played zero part of building the United States is ludicrous.


The teacher has _not_ been forbidden to teach his students about the Declaration of Independence or the men that created it.

The teacher _has_ been forbidden from presenting unspecified excerpts of many documents, the Declaration being one, in the context in which the teacher wanted to present them. I'm inferring from this that the principal feels that the teacher is cherry-picking Christian bits from those documents/period of history and is presenting them selectively.


(edited by vsp on 29.11.04 1319)


Dubya v2.0. We're ALL living in Bumfuck, Alabama now.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1347 days
Last activity: 113 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.85
If the teacher is using his position to preach Christianity to students, he should be fired. So his students are to be denied historical FACTS because one teacher can't remain professional?

On the whole, I think people take that Establishment Clause WAY too far. Acknowledging that your forebears and past leaders believed in God is not an endorsement of religion.



Still on the Shelf.com

Updated Weekly
SlipperyPete
Bauerwurst








Since: 13.8.04

Since last post: 3631 days
Last activity: 3631 days
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.00
    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    If the teacher is using his position to preach Christianity to students, he should be fired. So his students are to be denied historical FACTS because one teacher can't remain professional?
I'm curious as to what some of you are reading to gather the impression that the teacher is somehow acting unprofessional. The lawsuit states that only around five percent of the things he hands out during the year contain any reference to God or Christianity. Five percent? That hardly sounds like preaching, and it hardly warrants these kind of sweeping overreactions from the principal.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1347 days
Last activity: 113 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.85
I don't mind that he is handing out the documents that make reference to God - far from it. The fact that these materials are being denied to him because he allegedly is using them to teach students about God is troubling to me.

If this teacher is acting inappropriately, the answer should be to terminate him, not to alter the curriculum so that there isn't anything there for him to twist into a "worship Jesus" message. If the teacher is acting properly, and the principal is disallowing material because it mentions God, the Principal should be disciplined.

I guess, either way, the Principal is wrong here, and should have her feet held to the fire. She is either inserting her own anti-religious beliefs into the curriculum, or is failing to properly handle a teacher who is acting inappropriately. How is cutting out any portion of the curriculum, no matter how small, the right answer here? If the teacher was a conservative, and was using history to promote his political beliefs, are we going to have him stop teaching about the Civil War just because Lincoln was a Republican? Of course not.

We may not know enough about the situation yet to determine if the teacher is acting improperly, but we sure can see enough of the story to know that some tough questions need to be asked to the principal about her behavior.



Still on the Shelf.com

Updated Weekly
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 13 days
Last activity: 19 hours
AIM:  
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.81
I have been staying out of this due to a lack of time to discuss this, but I do want to point out that Pool-Boy is making a number of statements without any facts to back them up.

Please qualify your declarations with something (State Law, court case, quote from the article) rather than just posting whatever you believe.



Willful ignorance of science is not commendable. Refusing to learn the difference between a credible source and a shill is criminally stupid.
bash91
Merguez








Since: 2.1.02
From: Plain Dealing, LA

Since last post: 830 days
Last activity: 6 hours
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.10
    Originally posted by Guru Zim
    I have been staying out of this due to a lack of time to discuss this, but I do want to point out that Pool-Boy is making a number of statements without any facts to back them up.


Huh? I'm not seeing it. I don't necessarily agree with what he's saying, but everything he's said can be found in the article or is an opinion specifically referencing something from the article. If you're going to call him out, be specific.

Tim

(edited by bash91 on 29.11.04 1842)


Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit. -- Erasmus
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3065 days
Last activity: 278 days
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
    Originally posted by SlipperyPete
    I'm curious as to what some of you are reading to gather the impression that the teacher is somehow acting unprofessional.


I'm curious as to what you are reading to gather the impression that the teacher is obviously NOT acting unprofessionally!

The actual excerpts that the teacher wanted to use and the context in which he wished to present them are NOT on the Smoking Gun page, nor in the article. Therefore, we do not know whether
(a) the teacher is putting an improper emphasis on Christianity in an elementary-school history class,
(b) the principal is being overzealous in preventing the teacher from presenting material involving Christianity,
(c) neither,
(d) or both.

Any of those are quite possible.

The principal received a parental complaint over a sensitive issue (religion) and acted on it. That's responsible in my book. The teacher is the only one whose handouts are being checked for content; the teacher is also the only one who complaints have been lodged against. Logical, no?

At the beginning of the year, the principal expressed concern that the teacher would attempt to proselytize on school time. The teacher said "I won't." Knowing that he was under scrutiny, the teacher continued to present material that the principal found to be questionable and Christianity-themed. (So much for "submit to governing authorities" as per point 51 in the lawsuit.)

OBVIOUSLY, the principal and teacher disagree as to what constitutes proselytizing, or whether the handouts in question and their presentation meet that definition. OBVIOUSLY, if the teacher had been actively reading Scripture to students on school time, he'd have gotten canned quickly; this is a more borderline case as to what constitutes proper religion-themed content, and I can't blame the principal for being cautious with sanctions. (If she'd simply said "You're a Christian, get out," then there _would_ be major lawsuits, and they'd be a lot more justifiable.)

This is a dispute over lesson content. Unless something major turns up, this is questionable lawsuit material, IMHO. The ONLY thing on the teacher's side right now is his own insistence that he understands that he's not allowed to proselytize, and we haven't heard the other side yet, nor will we until the lawsuit progresses.

    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    The fact that these materials are being denied to him because he allegedly is using them to teach students about God is troubling to me.


And if a fifth-grade public-school teacher is using History class to attempt to teach students about God, THAT is DEEPLY troubling to me.

(edited by vsp on 29.11.04 1623)

Dubya v2.0. We're ALL living in Bumfuck, Alabama now.
Roy.
Pepperoni








Since: 25.2.04
From: Keystone State

Since last post: 2388 days
Last activity: 858 days
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.28
    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    If the teacher was a conservative, and was using history to promote his political beliefs, are we going to have him stop teaching about the Civil War just because Lincoln was a Republican? Of course not.


There's no separation of Lincoln and State. And don't tell me you can't separate beliefs from what you are teaching, because that's not true. The best (BEST!) evolution curriculum that I ever saw was written and taught by a woman who happened to be a creationist.

    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    I guess, either way, the Principal is wrong here, and should have her feet held to the fire. She is either inserting her own anti-religious beliefs into the curriculum, or is failing to properly handle a teacher who is acting inappropriately.


Or you could say that by cutting the curriculum she is handling the situation. Are you aware of how hard it is to fire a teacher? It's one of the reasons why I love the job (and can sometimes hate it). It's not as simple as "you're fired". There is unions to deal with, school boards and other higher ups to consult, plus, where do you find somebody to come in a teach 32 kids (the average size of 5th grade classrooms in that school (cupertino.k12.ca.us)school) on short notice? Controlling the curriculum, while making sure the students are still getting a good education is a perfect way to diffuse the situation. Each school district has a specific curriculum that must be taught. The federal (and state) government doesn't care how it is taught, only that it gets taught and that the students pass the appropriate tests. I'm pretty sure there's no section on the test regarding what the Founding Fathers said about the Bible. If the principal is just being spiteful, then there needs to be something done, but it's looking more and more (especially with the Smoking Gun stuff) that Mr. Williams was walking a very thin line and might be on the wrong side of it. Calling in lawyers to waste everybody's money (as well as interrupting the learning process) seems like a bad move to me.

Mr. Williams has now thrust his students and his fellow teachers into the spotlight with this lawsuit. He's going to try to make a martyr out of himself (justified or not), and nobody is going to win. He should have shut up, quit at the end of the year, and went to another school district. Or tried to change the system from the inside. Teaching isn't about personal glory or passing along a specific agenda. It's about the kids, man. [/soapbox]
Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 230 days
Last activity: 31 days
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.97
    Originally posted by SlipperyPete
      Originally posted by Pool-Boy
      If the teacher is using his position to preach Christianity to students, he should be fired. So his students are to be denied historical FACTS because one teacher can't remain professional?
    I'm curious as to what some of you are reading to gather the impression that the teacher is somehow acting unprofessional. The lawsuit states that only around five percent of the things he hands out during the year contain any reference to God or Christianity. Five percent? That hardly sounds like preaching, and it hardly warrants these kind of sweeping overreactions from the principal.


The teacher is suing on the grounds that he is being singled out for censorship because he is a Christian. Which would seem to suggest that he's teaching things that only a *Christian* would teach, and not teaching things that the rest of the staff are teaching.

-Jag



"During his term in office, George Bush has relentlessly continued to be presidentódespite the clear benefits to America his absence would bring to the lives of citizens everywhere."

Here's to another four years...
SlipperyPete
Bauerwurst








Since: 13.8.04

Since last post: 3631 days
Last activity: 3631 days
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.71
    Originally posted by vsp
    I'm curious as to what you are reading to gather the impression that the teacher is obviously NOT acting unprofessionally!
I'm reading the portion of the lawsuit that says that only five percent of what the teacher gives to the students has any reference God or Christianity. I'm sorry, but if someone has a problem with five percent, that crosses the boundry into paranoid lunacy.

    Originally posted by vsp
    The actual excerpts that the teacher wanted to use and the context in which he wished to present them are NOT on the Smoking Gun page, nor in the article.
Is there some section in the Declaration of Independence I haven't seen before that tries to convert people to Christianity? The only thing the principal could possibly ban is the "endowed by their Creator" portion, which comes at the beginning and is by far the most well-known, widely-quoted part of the document. I'm only guessing but it may be difficult to teach children about this subject under those conditions.

    Originally posted by vsp
    The principal received a parental complaint over a sensitive issue (religion) and acted on it. That's responsible in my book.
The suit does not state when the parental complaint came in relation to the actions of the principal. But let's say the complaint did come first, prior to the 2003-2004 school year. What we have is one complaint about one document, and the principal reacting to this by suggesting to a teacher that she worries he may try to convert his students, banning a lesson on Easter, and so forth. Does that sound the slightest bit reasonable to you?

    Originally posted by vsp
    The teacher is the only one whose handouts are being checked for content; the teacher is also the only one who complaints have been lodged against. Logical, no?
How do you know no other teachers have received complaints? Furthermore, how many other teachers at the school, the ones who don't have to have their material checked in advance and who also use material that mentions God, are Christians like the teacher in question? And, again, we're talking about one complaint. One complaint is by no means a logical justification for this type of overreaction.

    Originally posted by Jaguar
    The teacher is suing on the grounds that he is being singled out for censorship because he is a Christian. Which would seem to suggest that he's teaching things that only a *Christian* would teach, and not teaching things that the rest of the staff are teaching.
Or it suggests that, in this "ban 'under God' from the Pledge" era, the principal is either so insanely P.C. or so personally supportive of such measures that she has a problem with the fact that five percent of the handouts from a Christian teacher mention God. Considering the ridiculous degree of overreacting that this woman has displayed, this seems a little more likely.
rockstar
Salami








Since: 2.1.02
From: East TN

Since last post: 3599 days
Last activity: 3477 days
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.29
    Originally posted by SlipperyPete
    I'm reading the portion of the lawsuit that says that only five percent...if someone has a problem with five percent, that crosses the boundry into paranoid lunacy.


The problem isn't the marginal percentage of reference material in question (although mentioning that irrelevant fact in the lawsuit is a nice red herring), it is likely the lack of balance, context and explanation in what is presented. As has also been stated, this type of discussion is a bit too heavy and complicated for FIFTH GRADERS. The role of religion in the lives of our Founding Fathers is a large topic for a high school history class, if not something to be saved for college courses. Does this teacher take the time to explain that Washington was an Episcopalian, in my experience an incredibly liberal denomination? How about Jefferson's views on religious independence? A handout on what great leaders have to say about the bible is at best a spurious document, likely a compilation of out-of-context and possibly misattributed quotes that does nothing to actually educate anyone on the matter of religion and the founding of our country.


    Is there some section in the Declaration of Independence I haven't seen before that tries to convert people to Christianity? The only thing the principal could possibly ban is the "endowed by their Creator" portion, which comes at the beginning and is by far the most well-known, widely-quoted part of the document. I'm only guessing but it may be difficult to teach children about this subject under those conditions.


I've seen/heard entirely too many people try to use that quote as an argument that our Founding Fathers were Christians of the beliefs/denomination of the person presenting the argument, which is not the case. At all. Especially when you consider the beliefs of the author of the document.


    The suit does not state when the parental complaint came in relation to the actions of the principal. But let's say the complaint did come first, prior to the 2003-2004 school year.


Further reading of the lawsuit and a little abstract thought might lead one to believe that the complaint preceded May 19, 2004, which is when the teacher was directed to submit his lesson plans.


    What we have is one complaint about one document, and the principal reacting to this by suggesting to a teacher that she worries he may try to convert his students, banning a lesson on Easter, and so forth. Does that sound the slightest bit reasonable to you?


Again, further reading and abstract thought leads one to believe, based on the allowance of lessons on religious holidays of Christmas, Ramadan, Kwanzaa, etc., that the principal appreciates broad instruction rather than narrow instruction. How about balancing Easter lessons with Lent, Yom Kippur, etc?


    How do you know no other teachers have received complaints? Furthermore, how many other teachers at the school, the ones who don't have to have their material checked in advance and who also use material that mentions God, are Christians like the teacher in question? And, again, we're talking about one complaint. One complaint is by no means a logical justification for this type of overreaction.


Complaints against other teachers, as well as their religious beliefs, are likely irrelevant and more abstract thought might imply that the principal has a better understanding of who her teachers are and what they're teaching than you're assuming.


    Or it suggests that, in this "ban 'under God' from the Pledge" era, the principal is either so insanely P.C. or so personally supportive of such measures that she has a problem with the fact that five percent of the handouts from a Christian teacher mention God. Considering the ridiculous degree of overreacting that this woman has displayed, this seems a little more likely.


Considering that we haven't seen the handouts in question, declaring the principal's actions a ridiculous overreaction is certainly a ridiculous overreaction.



FactCheck.org's Whoppers of the 2004 Presidential Election
messenoir
Summer sausage








Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 577 days
Last activity: 443 days
AIM:  
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.84
Adams was a Unitarian, which is not a Christian denomination. Are we going to teach about Unitarianism? Franklin was a Deist, believing in a Spirtiual Being but rejecting Christianity. Are we going to teach about Deism? Jefferson was also a Deist, rejecting the divinity of Christ.

3 of the biggest founding fathers were not Christians. So why is it Christianity gets forwarded as the religion this country was founded on?

I, as a Christian, do not want God mentioned in my public documents. This country was founded on Freedom, which some Founding Fathers supported because of their faith, and others supported for other reasons.

We should be teaching Freedom, and stop letting mentions of God to obscure that Freedom. Mixing God and Government of any sort (including schools) ruins religion and ruins government both. All that happens when God is forced down a student's throats is to cause that student to be driven further away from the Church.



Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
SlipperyPete
Bauerwurst








Since: 13.8.04

Since last post: 3631 days
Last activity: 3631 days
#20 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.66
    Originally posted by rockstar
    Considering that we haven't seen the handouts in question, declaring the principal's actions a ridiculous overreaction is certainly a ridiculous overreaction.
Excerpts from the Declaration of Independence. Exactly what more do you need to know? The document mentions God and it's been banned from the classroom. Forbidding something because it happens to mention God most certainly qualifies as a ridiculous overreaction.

    Originally posted by rockstar
    Further reading of the lawsuit and a little abstract thought might lead one to believe that the complaint preceded May 19, 2004, which is when the teacher was directed to submit his lesson plans.
Did the complaint proceed the beginning of the 03-04 school year, when the principal told the teacher that she was worried about him trying to convert his students? If not, sounds like the principal has a bit of a problem with this guy, doesn't it? If so, sounds like the principal is making a rather ridiculous overreaction based on one complaint about one handout, doesn't it?

And since you're such a big fan of abstract thinking, why not take a look at what's going on in public schools and apply some of that knowledge here? You've got a little girl in New Jersey who wrote a Thanksgiving poem and the school administration edited out the word "God" when she mentioned the Pilgrims thanking God at the first Thanksgiving. You've got Maryland schools telling kids they can thank anyone they want during Thanksgiving celebrations, as long as it's not God. You've got the principal in this case not letting a teacher use the Declaration of Independence because it mentions God. And so on and so on. Defend this woman all you want, but overreacting P.C. administrators are the norm in these cases, not the exception.


(edited by SlipperyPete on 30.11.04 0251)
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread rated: 5.34
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread ahead: Possible Splenda shortage in the coming year?
Next thread: Marc Rich back in the news....
Previous thread: Ukraine Government Ousted by Parliament
(910 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Obama needs to counter the lack of experience label and someone with a long track record makes sense. I agree with Peter that Obama/Biden seems logical. Edwards is out. Accepting the bottom half of the ticket twice in a row is not appealing.
- General Zod, Giuliani, Edwards dropping out (2008)
Related threads: California Voters: Note - 100% of precincts reporting - What now for California? - More...
The W - Current Events & Politics - CA Principal forbids teaching of Declaration of IndependenceRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.148 seconds.