California school refuses to allow teaching the Declaration of Independence

[Seadog]

I wish I could say that I can't believe it, but it is sounding all too familiar nowadays. A teacher in Cupertino Union high has been denied permission to teach about the Declaration of Independence, because he would have to discuss the references to God.
I honestly cannot understand some of these idiots. They have banned any association between the military and the Boy Scouts because they require a belief in God and refuses gays. Yet, the military rejects gays and has clergy and churches (or Rabbis and temples, etc.). I realize that most Californians only see plastic and digital money, but God is present on all federal currency.
We honor giving thanks to God (Thanksgiving), the birth of God's only son (Christmass), his son's death (Easter), All Saints Eve (Halloween) and the life of a preacher (Martin Luther King), all sanctioned to some to degree by the Government. God is so intertwined with our society that it cannot be removed, but we are allowing a few zealots to drive us apart with unreasonable demands. We should be allowed to explained Christian values in our classes, so that children understand what our founding fathers used as a value system. Judaism, Budism, Muslimism, and general American Indian religions, among others should be touched upon.
Failure to teach about religion breeds fear and intolerance. Children do not understand the nuances of politics or philosophy. We need not teach what to believe, just that religion is an important value to our society.

[Forkin' Crazy]

.
Failure to teach about religion breeds fear and intolerance. Children do not understand the nuances of politics or philosophy. We need not teach what to believe, just that religion is an important value to our society.
I think you're right on. Isn't the constitution based on the Ten Comandments? Something they will not teach either.
I wonder how much they teach about WWII? Probably nothing! Liberals in our school systems is akin to cancer of society! :mad:

[spectratoad]

I guess they should just drop teaching how this country was founded too. We were founded on Christian principles but also to be tolerant of everyones belief and that you could be in this country with the freedom of religion.
Just another step towards the demise of this country. We are in a self destructive mode and pretty soon that movie MAd Max is going to be a reality. When you lose your history you lose yourself and your identity.

[Jeanyus]

The publik skool system is doomed. If I wanted to educate a child I would not use the public schools. The teachers have lost control, and the liberal parents and lawers are controling it. I saw the teacher who was told to keep the constitution out of the classroom, on Fox news. The scool board wants to approve all of his teaching materials before he uses them. The teacher was singled out (because a student posed a question about god, and the teacher had a discussion on the subject) and he is sueing the scool district, I wonder if the ACLU will help him? :rollside:
A parent complained that talking about God made her child uncomfortable.Must be nice to be a kid and never have to be exposed to an uncomfortable situation.

[rrrr]

The teacher was interviewed on Hannity & Colmes last night. This all started when a student asked about the court flap over the Pledge of Allegiance last year. The teacher said he thought it was a good current events subject, so they had a discussion about the lawsuit to remove the word "God" from the Pledge.
He said that 30 minutes after school ended the principal called him into her office demanding to know why he had a conversation about God in his class. So you know what happened; some out of control left wing liberal freak of a parent had called the school. The kid had to have been coached to sound the alarm if the word was ever said in the classroom.
So because of one effing stupid family, the principal caved in to pressure and won't let the guy teach American History. He seemed like a very normal young guy; he said he has never presented any reference to God in a religious context.
California's Education Code does allow "references to religion or references to or the use of religious literature … when such references or uses do not constitute instruction in religious principles … and when such references or uses are incidental to or illustrative of matters properly included in the course of study." WTF do they consider this as?
If I had a kid in that school system I would go door to door with a petition to kick the entire school board out on their ass. This is beyond stupid.
Call or write:
Stevens Creek School
http://www.cupertino.k12.ca.us/Stcreek.www/
10300 Ainsworth Drive
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 245-3312
Patricia Vidmar, Principal
(408) 245-3312 x 110
Fax (408) 245-7484
Part of the Cupertino Union School District:
http://cupertino.ca.campusgrid.net/home
10301 Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 252-3000
William E. Bragg, Superintendent
bragg_bill@cupertino.k12.ca.us
Board:
board@cupertino.k12.ca.us
:mad: :mad:

[GMFL]

Quote from above.. "I wish I could say that I can't believe it, but it is sounding all too familiar nowadays. A teacher in Cupertino Union high has been denied permission to teach about the Declaration of Independence, because he would have to discuss the references to God."
You should re-read our U.S. Constitution. There is no mention of God in the Constitution, or in any of the Amendments to it. In addittion, the "religion" appears once in the First Amendment. The word "religious" appears once in Article VI where a "religious test" for holding any position of public trust is barred.
Sounds like the extream religious right is trying to start something with that story.

[Seadog]

DID I SAY THE CONSTITUTION??????? I said the Declaration of Independence. Have you read it? Do you know the difference? While it is not a religeous document, it has its basis in the christian religion, and the Magna Carte, which is also based in religeous belief. Study the important documents of our government and their origins before you make a further dummy of yourself. This has nothing to do with the religeous right, it has to do with denying the history of our country to satisfy a politically correctness agenda similar to that of the Nazis.
Study your history. Look at those governments that kept any reference to God or religion from their government and children. Communism, fascism and other totalitarian governments are the examples. Ours is a country of diverse religions. We did not reject religion in our government, we rejected a government sponsored religion. In New Jersey, a school district has banned Christmas Carols because a couple of people felt that the it excluded those who did not celebrate Christmas. It is logic like this that will result in Christmas being banned. Making everyone unhappy so that everyone is equally miserable, is not the answer. Teaching the teachers and students that others do not celebrate the same way, is much better and leads to understanding of diversity. Attacking the religeon based celebrations makes moderates more radical and encourages adversarial attitudes.

[Seadog]

Let me show you a historical interpretation of the sentence
"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."
This sentence has become an especially celebrated part of the Declaration of Independence. It states God (more of a God-as-nature than a clearly Christian God) has given each human equal rights to life, freedom, and the ability to pursue happiness. The "pursuit of happiness" has been interpreted to include fair economic opportunities. The declaration begins with a discussion of such profound philosophical and religious concepts because it aims to justify a very bold venture. Declaring a separation from the most economically and militarily powerful nation on earth, Jefferson and the Continental Congress invoke these principles so that the very laws of creation seem to justify Independence.

[GMFL]

[QUOTE=Seadog]DID I SAY THE CONSTITUTION??????? I said the Declaration of Independence. Have you read it? Do you know the difference? While it is not a religeous document, it has its basis in the christian religion, and the Magna Carte, which is also based in religeous belief. Study the important documents of our government and their origins before you make a further dummy of yourself. This has nothing to do with the religeous right, it has to do with denying the history of our country to satisfy a politically correctness agenda similar to that of the Nazis.
To answer your questions there, yes, yes. What I did not not read very well was your post. My bad there.
However, Why did the founding fathers create a literally godless Constitution? (I know, you didn't say that. The Declartion of Independance declared our Independance of the 13 colonies from the Brits, The Constitution outlines our Gov't and hence the Country in witch we live) It seems clear to me that they did not want there to be any link between the political and religious aspects of life. U.S. history shows that religious life has benefited enormously from that lack of linkage. The United States has the most widespread and vibrant religious life of any industrialized nation. I do not think this is a coincidence.
Both governmentand religion benefit when there is no such religio-political connection. If religionists break down the constitutional barrier, they had better be ready for vigorous government intrusion into religion.
But just one Dummy's opinion.

[Seadog]

Our founding fathers had dealt with the British sanctioned Church of England and its influence on government. The Church of England was developed because of the Catholic Church refusal to allow the King to divorce. In retaliation, he banned the Catholic Church and instituted the Church of England. This is why they were careful to not include religion in the basic Constitution. It is also why it forbade the government to establish a religion or to ban the right to practice any religion in the Bill of Rights which were patterned after the Virginia Charter Bill of Rights. However, the definition of what is a religion and what is not, is left for lesser laws.
BTW, my ancestors were forever excommunicated from the Catholic Church in the 1500s because we played football instead of going to mass. Not exactly religeous right material.

[rrrr]

Sounds like the extream religious right is trying to start something with that story.
Sounds like you don't have a clue. Please explain why the mention of God in a historical document has anything to do with the "extream (sic) religious right".
Your statement about a "Godless" Constitution is ridiculous. Our government has always entertwined references to God or a Creator since the beginning of this country, and it continues to this day.
The First Amendment of the Constitution states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Last time I checked, Congress had not made any laws regarding religion, and therefore the "Establishment Clause" has not been violated.
The position of the school board is asinine.

[Jeanyus]

But just one Dummy's opinion.
Can I get an Amen!
Our founding fathers set up a govenment that is supposed to protect the church from the state. Seems like the anti God squad wants to turn it aruond and protect the state from the church.
Here is a question for the anti God Squad, why is it OK, in public schools and colleges, to discuss Islam and Alla, or Budism, or any religion, but if you say the word God or christian youre in big trouble?
Kids in scool could use the F word and get in less trouble than if they said "God". How come it's OK to say God if you put the word dam on the end of it?
How does it harm children if God is discussed in a classroom?
Why is it OK to discuss drugs, sex, gay sex, crime, or any part of life in general, but as soon as someone says "God" its like he just said the most foul thing on earth.
Does freedom of speech only apply to you?

[HM]

Can I get an Amen.
Amen!!

[1978 Rogers]

Does California have a chance of resolving some of its growing problems with a governer? I don't understand how a state could let so much crap happen. No control on immigration, rising costs of healthcare. Good Luck down there, I feel sorry for the hard working person that can't afford to live in the conditions faced down in Cali.

[eliminatedsprinter]

From what I've seen there are 2 sides to this particular story. On one side you have a slightly kooky teacher who wants to teach the declaration and constitution in a somewhat off beat way (by placing a little more emphasis on the religious aspects than what has been the historical norm). On the other side you have a very kooky and PC school district, that easily gets their panties in a wad and won't back it's teachers when nutty parents complain. All in all a perfect story for the media to sensationalize. Oh well, it sure beats hearing more blather about the Scott Peterson trial....

[GMFL]

But just one Dummy's opinion.
Can I get an Amen!
Our founding fathers set up a govenment that is supposed to protect the church from the state. Seems like the anti God squad wants to turn it aruond and protect the state from the church.
Here is a question for the anti God Squad, why is it OK, in public schools and colleges, to discuss Islam and Alla, or Budism, or any religion, but if you say the word God or christian youre in big trouble?
Kids in scool could use the F word and get in less trouble than if they said "God". How come it's OK to say God if you put the word dam on the end of it?
How does it harm children if God is discussed in a classroom?
Why is it OK to discuss drugs, sex, gay sex, crime, or any part of life in general, but as soon as someone says "God" its like he just said the most foul thing on earth.
Does freedom of speech only apply to you?
When those without a valid or strong argument speak, they usually come back with insults and/or accusations.
I never said I was anti God. I never said I agreed with the decision of the school board, nor with the belief that ANY religion should be taught by our public schools. I do believe in learning and keeping schools focused on that. If I wanted my kids to learn about a particular religion however, that is best done outside of our public schools. For the sake of all Americans and their individual views.
Many zealots, religious or otherwise, refuse to see another side to any situation. Rather than discuss or present their views they resort to extremes that tend to push rational thinkers away.
Good luck with your views.

[GMFL]

Sounds like you don't have a clue. Please explain why the mention of God in a historical document has anything to do with the "extream (sic) religious right".
I never said that, I attributed the sensationalizing of the situation to the religious right.
Your statement about a "Godless" Constitution is ridiculous. Our government has always entertwined (sic) references to God or a Creator since the beginning of this country, and it continues to this day.
Let's see some examples, i.e. support your argument. The First Amendment does not intertwine a God or Creator into our government, it states that individuals have a right to pursue religion on their own.

[GMFL]

From what I've seen there are 2 sides to this particular story. On one side you have a slightly kooky teacher who wants to teach the declaration and constitution in a somewhat off beat way (by placing a little more emphasis on the religious aspects than what has been the historical norm). On the other side you have a very kooky and PC school district, that easily gets their panties in a wad and won't back it's teachers when nutty parents complain. All in all a perfect story for the media to sensationalize. Oh well, it sure beats hearing more blather about the Scott Peterson trial....
You are probably the most correct person here.

[rrrr]

Let's see some examples, i.e. support your argument. The First Amendment does not intertwine a God or Creator into our government, it states that individuals have a right to pursue religion on their own.
I didn't say that the Constitution intertwined religion into our government, I said it has always been there. It's a fact.
Pay close attention next month when President Bush is sworn in again.Why, what's that his hand is on?
Go to the Supreme Court and listen to the statement that opens a session.
Take your change out and look at it.
The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It doesn't only "state that individuals have a right to pursue religion on their own", it also says the government will not make any official establishment of religion by enacting a law.
Speaking of "rational thinkers", anyone that can think should be able to see that the exclusion of documents written by the founders of our country because of a reference to "God" is specious. They don't say "Baptist God" or Catholic God" or "Islamic Allah" or any other specific religious reference.
To exclude the material on that basis is simply the agenda of those that espouse secular humanism and wish to remove all references to religion from society.
Think I'm a zealot? Guess again. Haven't been in a church in years except for weddings and funerals.
Check this out....
"I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of the new faith...These teachers must imbody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subjects they teach, regardless of the educational level-preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new-the rotting corpse of Christianity...and the new faith of humanism."
Dunphy, John `A Religion For A New Age' in, THE HUMANIST, Jan/Feb, 1983, p. 26
It's for real, kiddies.

[Jeanyus]

When those without a valid or strong argument speak, they usually come back with insults and/or accusations.
I never said I was anti God. I never said I agreed with the decision of the school board, nor with the belief that ANY religion should be taught by our public schools. I do believe in learning and keeping schools focused on that. If I wanted my kids to learn about a particular religion however, that is best done outside of our public schools. For the sake of all Americans and their individual views.
Many zealots, religious or otherwise, refuse to see another side to any situation. Rather than discuss or present their views they resort to extremes that tend to push rational thinkers away.
Good luck with your views.
Sorry for the insult, you must have really thin skin, I don't see any insults or accusations in my post, you said just another dumb opinion and I agreed with you.
Never acused you of being anti God. Just asking a few questions, I agree that religion should not be taught in schools.
How can you teach the history of the United States without mentioning God.
Remember a lot of people emigrated to the Colonies so they could practice religion without persecution. I would bet money that the revolutionary soldiers said prayers bofore battle, congress has had open prayers since the begining.One Nation under God, it's in the Pledge Of Allegiance. I'm against the teacher preaching a sermon. Tell me how you educate a child, and ignore how much religion has affected, and continues to affect the United States.
I guess since 1 person has a different view, that no one should be able to mention religion. Of course you have to forget all about the majority rules stuff.
So are you saying that the people, who protested the teacher mentioning God, are rational thinkers? If so that where our views differ.

[1978 Rogers]

We have a similar situation in Washington, not about religion. I heard this on NPR a couple weeks ago. A history teacher from a school on Bainbridge Island in Washington was taking kids on a field trip to a site in the woods. I don't remember the grade, I think middle school. The site was used as a camp for Japanese Americans that lived in the area during WW2 after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The teacher was telling kids how it was bad, what the people had to go throught, etc. A sort of Liberal persective. Some of the parents complained to the school district saying "if this is going to be taught, both sides of the history should be taught. Not just the bad things that happend the to Japanese. We don't want our kids to learn this.
I sympothize with the parent that wanted both sides taught. NPR played an interview of a WW2 vets that worked for the Navy in Washington. I found it very amazing that the Navy had listening posts up and down the West Coast of the US. The Navy had records of radio interception coming from the NW Washington in Japanese. From this they thought it could be spys. This was one of the reasons the Japanese in Washington were rounded up and put into camps. I was never taught this about the intercepted radio comunications when I was in school.
Any ways the field trips to the old camp have been stopped and it's being argued in court. I hope this made scense.

[Seadog]

How can a teacher be considered kooky because he explained that there were religeous properties to the Declaration of Independence? As demonstrated in my quote above, scholars realize that the most profound part of the Declaration is the contention that so much of what we demanded from England was not wishful thinking, but a right granted to us by a Divine being. It drove straight to a religeous philosophy that had never before been stated so succinctly, nor in a document from a legislative body. The D of I screams with a new way of looking at the relationship between God, man and government. As such, it is impossible for any teacher to explain the document without dealing with the implications.

[ssanddemon]

I for one will be very relieved when the term 'political correctness' is old hat and symbolizes an unappealing past generation. I believe we are well along that track, and stories such as this are helping to usher that outmoded culture along. This mindset has been deeply absorbed into all layers of government, and will take time and the energy of the voting public to eradicate, but with the last election it became clear that the left has reached the end of its pendulum swing, and clearer minds will prevail.

[eliminatedsprinter]

How can a teacher be considered kooky because he explained that there were religeous properties to the Declaration of Independence? As demonstrated in my quote above, scholars realize that the most profound part of the Declaration is the contention that so much of what we demanded from England was not wishful thinking, but a right granted to us by a Divine being. It drove straight to a religeous philosophy that had never before been stated so succinctly, nor in a document from a legislative body. The D of I screams with a new way of looking at the relationship between God, man and government. As such, it is impossible for any teacher to explain the document without dealing with the implications.
Of course what you just described dosen't make him kooky. But after seeing him in several interviews I get the impression that he has a bit of an ax to grind and has been placing a bit of EXTRA EMPHISIS on the religious aspects. I realize full well the the importance in recognizing that our rights come from a source higher than government. However, he seems, to me, to be a fellow who is just a little kooky and is not as innocent from proselytizing as he claims to be. Like I said above, he works for a very kooky PC school district and the inevitable clash is perfect fodder for the press to sensationalize, especially when one side can claim the other is supressing the teaching of the bill of rights.

[Seadog]

That may be so, but I am going only on what I read in the media. There should be no excuse for extremism from either side. Students need to learn truth, not ideology. We learn so much about our present, when we study our history from a unvarnished perspective. I personally hate the biographies that deal mostly with the seamier side of people, yet it is foolish to dismiss it entirely.

[HP350SC]

You are probably the most correct person here.
Absolutely.

[HP350SC]

A little off topic, but I believe the majority of religious people are fine and have good values. It is the extremists in any religion that cause many problems in the world. Me, I ask questions, and the theory of evolution makes total sense to me. Sometime in the not too distant future science willl be too big a factor to ignore. My personal belief is, religion was integrated with the beginning of civilization and was created to explain things man did not understand. From my own perspective, it's OK not to have an answer about everything in the universe. It will come in time.

[eliminatedsprinter]

That may be so, but I am going only on what I read in the media. There should be no excuse for extremism from either side. Students need to learn truth, not ideology. We learn so much about our present, when we study our history from a unvarnished perspective. I personally hate the biographies that deal mostly with the seamier side of people, yet it is foolish to dismiss it entirely.
I agree, but I think there is a bit of extremism on both sides here and oversensationalism from the press as well. Afterall, the school board can't go public whith anything they know about this teacher, because all his employment info is confidential.
There is no doubt that PC school districts are getting in the way of accurate teaching of history. But in this case, I am increasingly getting the impression that this teacher is one of those people (whom we all know) that has a hard time not constantly proselytizing and is not always successfull in avoiding doing it in the classroom....