Declaration of Independence Banned!

I totally agree with Terry Thompson.!

"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.

It seems to me that "You're damned if you do, and damned if you don't."

This brings to mind a qoute from a game about limiting knowledge to control people. If certain pieces of history are deemed incorrect by those in power, then they would be using that to limit what people know. ack, attack of the 1984 people, duck and cover.

edited to add qoute (note qoute is from a computer game, from a fictional document by a fictional person, at least i'm pretty sure it's that way)

Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master. -- Commissioner Pravin Lal

"a proposed constitutional amendment requiring the teaching of the constitution in schools"

Senator Byrd did not propose a "Constitutional amendment." He added an amendment (or rider) to an appropriations bill that will require public schools to teach students about the Constitution from grade school through college. There is a HUGE difference between amending a bill and amending the Constitution. I am not trying to be petty....just wanted to make sure that people are not being misinformed.

""There is nothing in the Establishment Clause (of the U.S. Constitution) that prohibits a teacher from showing students the Declaration of Independence."

In my opinion, that is correct. I can't speak for Senator Byrd. Perhaps you should write to his office and inquire what his position is on this issue. It's a lot better than speculating... As for this law suit...I don't think it will go anywhere and the whole story is just media hype trying to sell newspapers. People can bring lawsuits for any number of reasons but that does not mean that they have any legal merit. I think this one will get tossed...in the meantime it makes nice, juicy headlines.

"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 always looked a lot to me, like this law was emplaced to keep the government from stopping you practicing your beliefs, or saying what you liked. Not preventing you from practicing your religion or speaking your mind in public places to avoid offending someone. Much less admitting that some of the founders possibly believed in God.

Thomas Jefferson said it best, "If it neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg, what matter it if my neighbor worships one god, or twenty?"

Furthermore, the decleration of independence? Man was it vague. It doesn't really come out and say God, or the Christian God, or any such. It pussyfoots around with such phrases as (and after all, Jefferson was a pretty vague deist), Creator, Supreme Judge of the World, and Divine Providence.

Danny:

Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master. -- Commissioner Pravin Lal

Great quote. Thank you for posting it.

T_Bone:

Senator Byrd did not propose a "Constitutional amendment." He added an amendment (or rider) to an appropriations bill that will require public schools to teach students about the Constitution from grade school through college. There is a HUGE difference between amending a bill and amending the Constitution. I am not trying to be petty....just wanted to make sure that people are not being misinformed.

Duly noted. An amendment.....

It's a lot better than speculating...

It was a rhetorical question. Byrd's opinion really matters not to me.

As for this law suit...I don't think it will go anywhere and the whole story is just media hype trying to sell newspapers. People can bring lawsuits for any number of reasons but that does not mean that they have any legal merit. I think this one will get tossed...in the meantime it makes nice, juicy headlines.

I could care less about the lawsuit. It was the school's ruling that concerns me. I noticed that you didn't address that issue.

Spc Nobody Special:

Not preventing you from practicing your religion or speaking your mind in public places to avoid offending someone

Exactly! Civil rights don't just apply to minorites.

Furthermore, the decleration of independence? Man was it vague. It doesn't really come out and say God

Sorry to disagree, but it does mention God (even in the capital manner). In other sections it does address diety by various names as you mentioned. Below is an excerpt from the declaration.

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

Banning a historical document? That's a laugh if that is what is happening.

Frankly, when I believe in separation of church and state that signifies that federal officials/teachers and anyone in some type of public service cannot promote a specific religious agenda on us.

That's what our founders were trying to do: they wanted to be able to practice as they wished and not be persecuted as they were in England.

Banning the declaration of independence is quite frankly going to far.
From that article he was teaching his student by having them look at a specific example in history which our nation does have certain leanings (ok, more than certain but once your shores opened up to one group you opened them up for other religions and therefore have to respect them as well, that's how you keep fairness in the system, on atheist well you have to realize that you can't force your views on others as well) and 'God' will be mentioned iin there. I'm amazed; what I want to read now is a story with a better explanation; always like to look at multiple sources.


oh, I'm thinking that some 'plagarism' via not looking at article reproduction rights is taking place that should probably be looked into before some people get into trouble. You can cite a source, you can even take quotes from a source, you can link but don't believe you can repost an article in its entirety on any site unless you get permission: hell its right there in the bottom of the article:


All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.



Just my two cents on this; just mentioning this because I wanted to include an article from the nytimes on my website on something for personal use and looked into things and the options really suck (have to tear down the article after a year after paying for its use; which seems time intensive) but that's the way they make their revenue...

How do I purchase a reprint?
Question
How do I purchase a reprint?
Answer


For copyright and revenue reasons, Reuters cannot grant carte-blanche permission for re-use of its articles. If there is a particular story you would like to reproduce, publish, host on your website or distribute, please e-mail or fax a copy of the article to us, and provide some additional details as to its intended use.

Email - [email protected]

Fax. - +1 651 762 0163.

You may also call us on +1 800 217 7874.

Please include a brief cover-note giving your name, organization, address and fax number, the headline and date of publication of the article, and a line on how you intend to use it. We will then contact you with pricing details, and to organize licensing of the requested article. Due to the increasing volume of e-mails we are receiving, please cut and paste the text of the article rather than sending it in an attachment.



have to laugh at myself; seems I'm committing the same act...

Mercedes,

Under the Fair Use Provision of the International Copyright Law, an article can be cited and posted as long as the source is listed, credit is given, and the content is not changed.

what's really goin on here?  are all teachers at this school or in the district prohibited from using the declaration of independence?  were his lessons based on the entire document or only portions?  

something isnt right here and im not referring to the prohibition (if this is truly a case of a teacher being forbidden to construct a lesson on the declaration that's clearly not right, of course).   it strikes me very strange that this involves only one teacher.

im hoping someone can provide more details. 

This nation was founded by devoted Christians, we should give some respect to them and leave their last marks on the world last. You know you do not have to say the pledge of alliengce, the atheist child could simple just stand there

our Founding Fathers believed in GOD!!!!!

prolly didnt believe that germs existed.  or quasars.  and they prolly believed there was no way of preventing smallpox. 

so what? 

before you get all riled up over politically correct or moral values or discrimination, shouldnt someone examine this a lil closer?

the pertinent question is whether all the teachers in the cupertino usd are being told they cant teach about the doe...or if its just this one.  and if thats the case whats the reason hes been singled out.

Chalk another one up to "Zero Intelligence" in our school system.

It is ironic that we hire our educators and school administrators because we have an interest in a thinking populace, yet in the end it is those educators and administrators who seem least interested in actually thinking.

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.

I have to correct another misconception, but I am not sure if it was quoted or from the blogger.

A 3 judge panel of the US 9th found the phrase was a violation, but the full court overturned that verdict.  So when the US Supreme court refused to hear the case, they let the phrase stand as not a violation.

And in answer to another's question, this is just one teacher.  But then it only takes one person to get a ban going.  It is called creeping incrementalism.

, this is just one teacher. But then it only takes one person to get a ban going. It is called creeping incrementalism.

hmmmm you know its only one teacher for sure?  whats the backround besides that creeping stuff youre suggesting?

Mercedes, Under the Fair Use Provision of the International Copyright Law, an article can be cited and posted as long as the source is listed, credit is given, and the content is not changed.

Iamheather--this has actually been debated around here quite a bit. I think the ruling that came down was that you couldn't post entire articles--but I'm not 100% sure. I am certain that another "older" JoeUser could probably clarify that.

Fair use is an iffy defense if one were to be prosecuted for copyright infringement...The Los Angelos Times recently sued Free Republic over their on-line bulletin board which reposted articles in full. The court found that:

Given that the overwhelming majority of the repostings were of the entirety of the articles, there was no “transformative” use of the copyrighted material. This means that part of being “fair use” is when a user takes otherwise protected materials and reuses it in such as way as to create some new work or enhance the meaning of the original materials by this new use. It also means that such new use does not deprive the owner of a market for the underlying material because the new use is of a different nature than the original use.

. Given that the articles posted to defendant’s site were almost verbatim copies of the originals, the Court found against the defendant on this issue. The Court said that the defendant failed to show that it was necessary for comment purposes to copy the entirety of the articles.

Sorry to hijack...

Reply #17 By: Citizen kingbee - 12/6/2004 8:56:26 AM , this is just one teacher. But then it only takes one person to get a ban going. It is called creeping incrementalism. hmmmm you know its only one teacher for sure? whats the backround besides that creeping stuff youre suggesting?

I started an article on this topic about a week before Iamheather got this new one going. (Link here: Now we've really gone too far, Declaration of Indy banned)

I've been following the case as best I can in the meantime.

The particulars for this case are that this is one individual teacher, who is an admitted devout christian. Regardless, he's done his best to teach history within context. He tried to use materials from framers of the constitution, as well as the authors of the Declaration of Independence -- that included Jefferson, William Penn, Ben Franklin, etc.

Some of the specifics around what really started this issue is that the teacher was demonstrating to students how close the wording in the DoI is to writings of Penn and others. When you compare the materials, you see where a lot of writings in the DoI and Constitution (and bill of rights) came from, or were developed to address.

Unfortunately, in the name of avoiding church and state issues, the principal of the school over-reacted and clamped down on the teacher telling him that the materials that mentioned GOD were not acceptable, and that all materials must be screened by the principal before use in the teachers class.

The ACLU and it's friends are on a rampage to eradicate GOD from our history. Any mention of a higher power, and acknowledgement of same, and a team of lawyers come swooping in to defeat that acknowledgement and eradicate it from public view. We must cleanse ourselves of these mentions and acknowledgement so that we can all be free to celebrate and worship to nothing. So we can have rights that mean nothing. A right to practice religion that is overriden by a right to not have relgion at all. That's the wacky world we live in.

Did you read about how in Georgia museums, anti-evolution gangs have tagged displays with "Just a Theory" stickers? It was on the Swift Report this week.

Reply #21 By: Citizen Helix the II - 12/6/2004 12:41:16 PM It is becoming a remarkable issue, the whole thing of religion in public. If I have freedom of religion, should I be able to say a prayer anywhere I want for any reason? Isn't that tolerance? An athiest, a pagan, etc., should have to tolerate GOD in public. Read my lips, T-o-l-e-r-a-t-e. Not be subverted, but tolerate. And so what if it makes them nervous that someone says God in front of them....they should have to deal with it.. Same as a Christian should have to tolerate a pagan...(Oh, my! Logic, fairness, and equality! FER SHAME!!)

You know that thing that amazes me about this issue is just what you mention, but further to the point. It seems that Pagans, Atheists, and others that are not tolerant of religion have a fear that even hearing the word God or mention of a holier and higher power and authority have some deep rooted fear that even hearing God mentioned may convert them or must be part of a concerted effort to convert them.

I don't understand what is so hard about not saying "under god" when you say the pledge of allegiance. Or what is so difficult about not saying a prayer when one is being said before a meal at a state funded military academy (or the U.S. military academies). If you are being singled out, and you are being asked to say the prayer, or you're being told you're going to say the pledge of allegiance by yourself, or that you're going to sing God Bless America as a solo, then I'd understand. But even then, how hard is it to speak up and object then and there by saying I'm sorry but I don't want to or will not sing about God?

If I see someone sitting down to eat lunch who bows their head and says a prayer before they eat, I don't assume that they're trying to convert me to their religion. I assume that they're a religious person and that they've opted to show it in that way. That doesn't mean I'm wrong for not doing it, or that they're right because they do. It's just a difference in how we behave.

But it's obvious to me that people like Michael Newdow and others that are so fervently anti-religous have some serious problems behind why they are fighting so hard to crush the will of the majority.

Grog:

This nation was founded by devoted Christians, we should give some respect to them and leave their last marks on the world last

It is a part of our history. Like the Native Americans are a part of our history, we learn and read about their beliefs in school. My children do not feel threatened by this. It does not change their beliefs.

LW:

Pssst.....hey people, our Founding Fathers believed in GOD!!!!! (oh...the horror....the horror.)

A majority did. Some didn't. Why can we not learn both.

Any part of our history now deemed 'offensive' to any minority groups, whether they be Indians, jews, blacks, or atheists is subject to censoring at best, and changing the entire story around at worst.

Civil liberties apply to all, not just minorities.

Kingbee:

our Founding Fathers believed in GOD!!!!! prolly didnt believe that germs existed. or quasars. and they prolly believed there was no way of preventing smallpox. so what?

Probably not. We can teach that. We can learn what they believed and didn't believe. We can decide and evaluate for ourselves whether they were right or wrong.

ParaTed2K

Chalk another one up to "Zero Intelligence" in our school system.

At the least, Zero Intelligence in that school principal.

Dr. Guy

A 3 judge panel of the US 9th found the phrase was a violation, but the full court overturned that verdict. So when the US Supreme court refused to hear the case, they let the phrase stand as not a violation.

Thank you for the clarification, but the words were from the article. They were not my own.

It is called creeping incrementalism.

I like that phrase. Creeping incrementalism is exactly what it is, otherwise known as a slippery slope.

terpfan:

started an article on this topic about a week before Iamheather got this new one going. (Link here: Now we've really gone too far, Declaration of Indy banned

I had no idea. Sorry if you feel like I stole your topic.

Helix:

The ACLU and it's friends are on a rampage to eradicate GOD from our history. Any mention of a higher power, and acknowledgement of same, and a team of lawyers come swooping in to defeat that acknowledgement and eradicate it from public view. We must cleanse ourselves of these mentions and acknowledgement so that we can all be free to celebrate and worship to nothing. So we can have rights that mean nothing. A right to practice religion that is overriden by a right to not have relgion at all. That's the wacky world we live in.

Strange and scary, in my opinion.

If I have freedom of religion, should I be able to say a prayer anywhere I want for any reason? Isn't that tolerance?

Exactly. As long as you don't scream out that everyone must stop what they are doing and pray with you.

Same as a Christian should have to tolerate a pagan...(Oh, my! Logic, fairness, and equality! FER SHAME!!)

Hey, careful of that logic stuff.....

People get tired of being hated..after so long, they will rebel at some point. You keep pushing and you'll be pushed back..logical enough. I do not agree with it, nor any violence in the name of religion or anti-religion..But you can't allow one and not the other...you can't.

A lot of Christians become radical in thinking because they feel persecuted. I am by no means condoning radical behavior.

terpfan:

I don't understand what is so hard about not saying "under god" when you say the pledge of allegiance. Or what is so difficult about not saying a prayer when one is being said before a meal at a state funded military academy (or the U.S. military academies). If you are being singled out, and you are being asked to say the prayer, or you're being told you're going to say the pledge of allegiance by yourself, or that you're going to sing God Bless America as a solo, then I'd understand. But even then, how hard is it to speak up and object then and there by saying I'm sorry but I don't want to or will not sing about God?

It is called tolerance. The same tolerance people on the left claim the right doesn't have. Can the anti-religion people please "tolerate" Christian practices as long as the Christians do not force them to participate?

terpfan: started an article on this topic about a week before Iamheather got this new one going. (Link here: Now we've really gone too far, Declaration of Indy banned I had no idea. Sorry if you feel like I stole your topic.

Not at all. More an observation that this topic is circling around here and in society in general. There've been multiple forum threads and topics on Church and State issues lately, and it seems to be showing just how heated the discussions are becoming on this topic.

It really does seem that there is a very serious rift between those that want "under god" to stay or are willing to ignore it and those like Newdow that so vehemently want it gone. The ACLU of course preaches to us that we must tolerate Newdow and his minority rights and views, while ignoring the rights of those that would prefer that Newdow just shut up and go away. (At least just shut up).

People like him, and the person referenced in this blog entry/article (link follows:) In Calif., Cross Site Stirs Discord.. more Church + state - atheist Philip Paulson, are people who seem to like tilting at windmills hoping for a victory that they can tout as protecting the interests of everyone when in fact they are strictly trying to make everyone follow their rules and vision.

It's sickening, and as you point out, tolerance is for everyone but the left to have of the practices by the left. Irony at it's finest -- NOT!

terpfan

The ACLU of course preaches to us that we must tolerate Newdow and his minority rights and views, while ignoring the rights of those that would prefer that Newdow just shut up and go away. (At least just shut up).

The ACLU ignores the rights of Christians, period.

This {banning the constitution} is just more leftwing liberal bullshit........... the secularist have declared war against all religion and seem to be winning thanx to the Asshole Constipated Liberal Unbelievers aclu for short.

the secularist have declared war against all religion and seem to be winning

I refuse to stand by and accept their victory. Evil prevails when good men do nothing.