Declaration of Independence Banned! UPDATE!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,141030,00.html

Tune to Fox News for an interesting interview with the teacher that was the subject of the article Declaration of Independence Banned! The facts ought to be interesting.

If you miss the show on now, it will be replayed later on tonight.

 

Update: Here is the transcript of the interview with the teacher.

 

STEPHEN WILLIAMS, TEACHER, STEVENS CREEK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: Yes. Last year, starting out in the beginning of the year, I hadn't changed my curriculum much at all, as I've done in the past several years, as a fifth grade teacher.

And a few weeks into the year, there was a student who said, "Why do we say 'under God' in the Pledge? And I thought, current events, past events, this is an appropriate topic to talk about.

So I said, "Let's discuss this for a few minutes." After discussing it, I didn't put too much of my opinion into it.

At the end of the day that day in school, my principal came in school and said, "What are you doing talking about God in the classroom?"

And I was kind of taken back, and I said, well, and I — I explained to her why — why it came up. And she said, "All right, it sounds reasonable."

A little bit — while later, it came up that Christopher Columbus was a Christian. This was about a 30-second discussion, where I said, "Well, a Christian means you're a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ."

The principal at the end of the day comes in and says, "What are you talking about Jesus Christ?" I explained what happened in class.

She said, "All right, sounds reasonable."

Well, the pattern developed. A parent — some parent was calling in any time there was a mention of God, Christianity, or Jesus Christ, and they just took it as a personal agenda.

HANNITY: I want to put this in perspective here. Because I have spoken to you before. Less than five percent of the materials, —you would give supplemental materials to kids — ever mentioned God. There was no discussion.

You were a history teacher. You're teaching relevant history.

WILLIAMS: One of the subjects, yes.

HANNITY: Now, you are singled out, inasmuch as no other teacher had to give whatever supplemental materials you wanted to give to your students, you first had to give it to the principal. Tell us how that then became you can't give the Declaration of Independence to them?

WILLIAMS: Right. One lesson I handed out was on the National Day of Prayer (search). We talked about it for maybe ten minutes. And the principal decided, that's it, you know, and — again this has happened a handful of times and this is one of the handful of times.

And at that point, she decided, "OK, I want to see all of your lessons that include anything about God, Jesus Christ or Christianity."

So then the now famous "the Declaration was banned." Well, my kids had read the Declaration so that's a little bit of a stretch. But what I wanted to teach was William Penn's frame of government, Samuel Adams, "The Rights of Colonists" and the first two paragraphs that exactly what you read in the beginning and the last paragraph and show how the wording came from some of the founding documents.

HANNITY: It's interesting because they keep putting out these somewhat conflicting, in my view, statements to the press, the school district — by the way, which was invited to be with us tonight, and they're not here.

But it seems like there's two strategies going on. They want to paint you as some type of a religious zealot, extremist out that is out there to proselytize students. Do you have an agenda such as that?

WILLIAMS: Absolutely not. My agenda is to give students an accurate representation of history. And whether you like it or not...

HANNITY: That's it?

WILLIAMS: ... there are some things in our historical documents and in our history that have been directly influenced by Christianity and references to God and Jesus.

ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: Stephen, Jordan, thank you both for being here. I say this as a liberal, because I am, thank you. You may not have done anything wrong. I mean, as long as you're not proselytizing.

I've heard that other — some of the things we've read in the press are that other parents have complained that you proselytize. Are those inaccurate stories?

WILLIAMS: What they...

COLMES: What are they saying?

JORDAN LORENCE, ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND: What they mean by proselytize is that he mentions God. And see, there are people that have this allergic reaction to any mention of God.

Now, if we're talking about "Huckleberry Finn (search )" and some parent called up and complained...

COLMES: Right.

LORENCE: ... the teacher wouldn't — the principal would not say to him, "Get rid of 'Huckleberry Finn'." They'd say, "You have the right to opt out, but this is part of our history. Mark Twain was a big writer." You should confront that.

This is the only issue where they think, wrongly, that there's this mandate to go on a search and destroy mission and eliminate all things religious.

COLMES: Right. Let me ask you about this. Now, the Alliance Defense Fund, you're — the group you work for...

LORENCE: That's right.

COLMES: ... it has claimed, says in their mission statement, "defends the right of Christians to share the Gospel in workplaces in public schools, claiming that any efforts to curb proselytizing at work and school are anti-Christian."

Is that an accurate representation?

LORENCE: By — by individuals, not by government employees. They don't have a right to proselytize. We've never taken that position or...

COLMES: But you say the right of Christians to share the gospel. You believe that that was correct?

LORENCE: Yes, I do. I mean, just like George Washington and others...

COLMES: Does that mean that your client has the right to share the Gospel?

LORENCE: He does not as a school employee, no, but he does as a regular person. He doesn't surrender his rights simply because he's a schoolteacher.

COLMES: All right. What I want to understand here, Stephen, also is, are you selectively taking documents, some of which, say, for example, John Adams diary includes the phrase, "The Christian religion is above all religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom," et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, which would then set the Christian religion as above other religions?

Is that one of the supportive documents?

WILLIAMS: First of all, look at my track record...

COLMES: Is that one of the — just answer me, is that one of the documents you offered to the school that they rejected?

WILLIAMS: One of many, yes.

COLMES: So can you understand why the school might have a problem with a document that says a Christian religion above all religions that have ever prevailed? That's not the government view.

LORENCE: But the Supreme Court has said you can even teach the Bible itself. It's the context that's important. Yes, I mean, sure, I mean, ome of the quotes are pretty intense out of the Bible, that Jesus is the only way. But you can teach them if it's a proper context.

The principal here, unfortunately, got involved and got messed up with this wrong understanding of the Constitution to think context isn't important. If I see a God word, it gets eliminated. And that's one of the reasons he contacted us, and that's why we took the case.

COLMES: Well, we wish the school could be here to give their side.

LORENCE: We...

WILLIAMS: Look at my track record. In all of the years of teaching, I have had zero complaints on this issue, zero. So all of a sudden this one year...

HANNITY: You're a great American. Best of luck to you both and appreciate all you do. Thank you for being with us.

*Lorence in the above transcript is attorney Jordan Lorence form the Alliance Defense Fund.

The link at the bottom will take you to FoxNews where you can view the above interview. "
27,298 views 49 replies
Reply #1 Top
That was interesting...
While I could be confusified, it sounded like the interviewer had a case to make against any mention of god/christiantiy/etc. But from what the teacher was saying he was just teaching history. And as he said, like it or not christianity is part of our nations history. I still think banning the declaration of independence for any reason is asking for trouble. I keep thinking about that quote I posted elsewhere (but don't feel like looking up again), beware those that control your access to information because they believe themselves your master.
Reply #2 Top

beware those that control your access to information because they believe themselves your master.

Great quote, Danny. And so true.

Reply #3 Top

why didnt his lawyer jump in and answer for him when hannity was askin the questions?  or perhaps a better question might be why his lawyer felt he had to answer colmes' questions instead of lettin this guy expound on his past history.  while i wasnt really seeking it out, i found an article in a local (oakland? i didnt bookmark it dammit) last week that stated this all started in 2003 when some parents complained about the content of his lessons.

he's clearly gotta agenda--as does the group defending him.  when you're already in trouble with your boss for coming in late a few times, you dont decide to show 7 hours late the following week without some sorta plan. he just randomly decided to teach on the national day of prayer? 

Reply #4 Top
Well fine, since your quoting my paraphrase I'm going to have to go and find the real quote now
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master. -- Commissioner Pravin Lal
Reply #5 Top

i found an article in a local (oakland? i didnt bookmark it dammit) last week that stated this all started in 2003 when some parents complained about the content of his lessons.

Kingbee, if you would, could you locate and link to the above mentioned article? Did you happen to see the interview. Along the same lines as your questioning, why did the school district and the principal of the school refuse the invitation to appear along with the teacher and his lawyer?

As far as previous agendas and complaints on the teacher....note this:

National Day of Prayer (search). We talked about it for maybe ten minutes. And the principal decided, that's it, you know, and — again this has happened a handful of times and this is one of the handful of times.

And at that point, she decided, "OK, I want to see all of your lessons that include anything about God, Jesus Christ or Christianity."

WILLIAMS: First of all, look at my track record...

WILLIAMS: Look at my track record. In all of the years of teaching, I have had zero complaints on this issue, zero. So all of a sudden this one year...

 

Reply #6 Top
Thanks for the quote, Danny. I love it and plan to use it liberally (no pun intended).
Reply #7 Top

, why did the school district and the principal of the school refuse the invitation to appear along with the teacher and his lawyer


defendents in civil actions rarely make public statements.  as a general rule, the less said, the better--prior to the actual hearing. (unless youre required--ala michael jackson--to exhibit body parts to comply with a discovery motion; in which case, you go on tv and make a bigger fool outta yourself )

ill try to locate that article a little later.

Reply #8 Top

ill try to locate that article a little later.

Thank you. Oh and if you are Scott Peterson...then the defendant does and interview with Diane Sawyer

 

Reply #9 Top
I still don't know if the DOI was actually "banned" or not. Was the teacher ever told he could not use or refer to the DOI in his history curriculum?

There's a significant difference between discussing the role of religion in our history, even specific references to God, and proselytizing. The latter is the only thing we should be objecting to.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #10 Top

Reply #3 By: kingbee - 12/17/2004 11:38:20 PM
why didnt his lawyer jump in and answer for him when hannity was askin the questions? or perhaps a better question might be why his lawyer felt he had to answer colmes' questions instead of lettin this guy expound on his past history. while i wasnt really seeking it out, i found an article in a local (oakland? i didnt bookmark it dammit) last week that stated this all started in 2003 when some parents complained about the content of his lessons.
he's clearly gotta agenda--as does the group defending him. when you're already in trouble with your boss for coming in late a few times, you dont decide to show 7 hours late the following week without some sorta plan. he just randomly decided to teach on the national day of prayer?


Reread. Colmes was the one with the agenda not Hannity.
Reply #11 Top
It is difficult to tell what the truth of all of this is because it is being reported almost exclusively by people with agendas. Every single person on that panel had an agenda, either political, religious or both. One wouldn't expect the principal or school board to show up and I suspect their legal representatives advised them not to. It would have been nice to hear their side of the story. We will probably all have to wait until it goes to trial to see what this truly about. As a whole the DOI has not been banned from the school. From what I can gather certain documents have been disallowed within the context of specific lesson plans. The teacher feels that he is being singled out. When parents are complaining about specific teachers for any number of different reasons, they should be scrutinized. In any case without seeing the principal's, the school board's, or complaining parents sides of the story it looked to me like this forum didn't contain enough facts to show whether or not the teacher or the principal is in fact doing something that they shouldn't be doing. In any case the fact that the teacher is being represented by a lawyer from a group that has a specific political agenda as opposed to an average "run of the mill" attourney may very well indicate that the teacher is not being upfront about the intent of his history lessons.
Reply #12 Top
interesting. This might just be a fight between the ACLU and the Alliance Defense Fund. And we're here on the sidelines getting sucked up in the process . What used to be normalspeak when it comes to God and religion now becomes carefulspeak. It's also odd. Glad I'm not a History teacher.
Reply #13 Top

Daiwa

There's a significant difference between discussing the role of religion in our history, even specific references to God, and proselytizing. The latter is the only thing we should be objecting to.

Agreed, but I am still not convinced that he is "proselytizing." Why has there not been complaints before? Why did the principal have no problem at first?  Glad to see you around again, Daiwa. I have missed your insightful comments.

Independent1

In any case the fact that the teacher is being represented by a lawyer from a group that has a specific political agenda as opposed to an average "run of the mill" attourney may very well indicate that the teacher is not being upfront about the intent of his history lessons.

I am not sure this is a fair judgement. Usually "run of the mill" attourneys charge a considerable amount of money. I would be willing to bet that the Alliance Defense Fund took this case pro bono. The teacher may have appealed to them for monetary reasons, more than agendas.

scatter629

This might just be a fight between the ACLU and the Alliance Defense Fund

Interesting...It very well may be.

LW

If they dont believe in God, why are they so terror-struck when confronted with the fact that so many do?

The whole program last night was focused on the issue of "separation of church and state." It was fascinating. Michael Newdow was in one segment with Oliver North. Ollie brought up the same point as you. Why does it threaten them so?

Reply #14 Top

Kingbee, if you would, could you locate and link to the above mentioned article? Did you happen to see the interview.


i was incorrect in that it was a san jose paper (instead of oakland).  here's a link.  link

here's some more info i found while trying to find that link: 

the school's parent organization's website (with pix of framed copies of the constitution and doi in the school library)  link which includes the following statement:

You may have heard bad things about our school in the national news lately - that it banned the U.S. Constitution, prohibited the Declaration of Independence, and tried to throw God out of the classroom.

 
Our constituion hanging in the school library - where it's always been!  Nothing could be further from the Truth!

You may also have heard that our schoolteachers and staff have received over a thousand threats and harassing messages. They have been targeted both at work and at home, during the day in even in the middle of the night.

That, unfortunately is true: They have been threatened with physical harm and religious damnation.

Who would do such a thing?

A multi-million dollar legal group called the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) has filed a lawsuit, and issued press releases which initiated the media storm which apparently lead to these threats.
 
The declaration of Independence too, of course. 

The ADF are professional lawyers and experienced media manipulators, who sue many schools. Their media blitz has turned out the many individuals who have been threatening our teachers, our school, and our children. Our little neighborhood school now has constant police on duty to protect our children. The book & pencil money we raised with community events, food sales and fund raisers now has to go for lawyers and security.

We have created this website to refute the lies and distortions of this group of lawyers, and try to persuade those who have been sending us hate messages that their hate is misguided.

Our goals are to:

Explain the truth about what really is happening here to the world.
Dissuade ADF from continuing their misguided lawsuit against our loving community.
Assure that ADF is defeated in court if they persist with their harassment
Put a stop to the threats agains our school and children.
Thank you - The Stevens Creek Parents

Reply #15 Top

here's the text of the san jose mercury article to which i referred in my initial reply (it's linked in comment above).  i bolded the last sentence for emphasis because i think it's extremely germane to this discussion.

And a few blocks from the school, a home festooned with Christmas lights also sported a home-made lawn sign proclaiming, ``Keep Religion out of Public Schools.''

``If I want my kids going to church, I'll take them,'' said Nathalie Schuler of her lawn sign.

Schuler said she is requesting that her daughter not be placed in Williams' class next year.

``They're alienating those of us who are not as fundamentalist,'' Schuler said.

Several parents said that Williams' fervent Christian beliefs had been a topic of concern and conversation among parents at the school well before the lawsuit.

``Mr. Williams discusses his Christianity in the classroom,'' said Dorothy Pickler, who has two children at Stevens Creek. ``He slants lessons in that direction. Parents have complained.''

Armineh Noravian, whose son had Williams last year, said that the teacher wore a Jesus ring, a cross near the collar of his shirt and talked to his students often about his Bible study classes.

Noravian said that when Williams sent his students home with a proclamation for national prayer day from President Bush, she and other parents complained to the principal.

``The class was studying George Washington at the time,'' Noravian said. ``It had nothing to do with George W. Bush or the proclamation of prayer.''

Noravian said that Williams' discussion of his Christian faith troubled her because Stevens Creek is a diverse school with many Jewish, Hindu and other non-Christian students.

Reply #16 Top
"I am not sure this is a fair judgement. Usually "run of the mill" attourneys charge a considerable amount of money. I would be willing to bet that the Alliance Defense Fund took this case pro bono. The teacher may have appealed to them for monetary reasons, more than agendas."

That is why I stated "may" indicate. However. Most teacher's unions I know of have lawyers for this type of thing. I would bet also the ADF took the case pro bono, but if I was trying to prove that I wasn't proselytizing this is not a group I would choose to identify myself with. I would also not make myself a pawn on a show like Hannity and Colmes, where the issue will only be politicized (that is unless I had an agenda). Good information is still scarce at this point, but if you look around for information from sources other than political hack shows and activists websites you will realize that there are several parents who have complained, not just this year, and they are not atheists.

In any case it is impossible to pass judgement without the other side of the story I am simply playing devils advocate and hoping others throw in sources of more credible information.

It is not a fight between the ACLU and ADF. The case is against the principal and school board members who generally have council available.
Reply #17 Top

These attempts to remove all references to God in public life have gotten ridiculous. With over 96% of our population expressing a belief in some sort of deity, is it really necessary to go to such extremes so as not to offend the 4% who dont?

If they dont believe in God, why are they so terror-struck when confronted with the fact that so many do?

its not references to god in public life.  private citizens (except when acting as representatives of the state) and other non-governmental entities that are not directly tax-supported are free to engage in as much religious promotion as they care to without violating zoning laws or something similar.   assuming all 96% of believers have no problem mr williams teaching method (not the case, of course), the us is still a republic not a democracy and the constitution is still the law of our land.

i truly don't understand conservatives--assuming that term still describes those who are most stongly opposed to governmental interference in our lives--who don't see a need to keep the state and religion distinctly separated.

Reply #18 Top
one further note: if you remember, one of the 'founder's documents" used by mr williams has been described as 'george washington's journal' or, as it's more commonly known, 'george washington's prayer journal'.

apparently, its neither since it was not written by george washington.  it would seem as if perhaps mr williams' credentials deserve a bit more scrutiny (im not a history teacher and i found this).

From Religous Beliefs of Our Presidents, by Franklin Steiner, which was originally was published in 1936 and has been re-published in a modern edition

Some 30 years ago it was proclaimed that in his youth he [Washington] composed a prayer book for his own use, containing a prayer for five days, beginning with Sunday and ending with Thursday. The manuscript of this prayer book was said to have been found among the contents of an old trunk. It was printed and facsimiles published. Clergymen read it from the altar, one of them saying it contained so much "spirituality" that he had to stop, as he could not control his emotions while reading it.

Yet, while this prayer book was vociferously proclaimed to have been written by Washington, there was not an iota of evidence that he ever had anything to do with it, or that it even ever belonged to him. A little investigation soon pricked the bubble. Worthington C. Ford, who had handled more of Washington's manuscripts than any other man except Washington himself, declared that the penmanship was not that of washington. Rupert Hughes (Washington, vol. 1, p. 658) gives facsimile specimens of the handwriting in the prayer book side by side with known specimens of Washington's penmanship at the time the prayer book was supposed to have been written. A glance proves that they are not by the same hand.

Then in the prayer book manuscript all of the words are spelled correctly, while Washington was a notoriously poor speller. But the greatest blow it received was when the Smithsonian Institute refused to accept it as a genuine Washington relic. That Washington did not compose it was proved by Dr. W.A. Croffutt, a newspaper correspondent of the Capital, who traced the source of some of the prayers to an old prayer brook in the Congressional Library printed, in the reign of James the First.

Even the Rev. W. Herbert Burk, rector of the Episcopal Church of Valley Forge, although a firm believer in Washington's religiosity, thus speaks of these prayers: "At present, the question is an open one, and its settlement will depend on the discovery of the originals, or upon the demonstration that they are the work of Washington."

It is not now recognized by the Library of Congress or the definitive edition of George Washington's papers.
Reply #19 Top

Reply #18 By: kingbee - 12/19/2004 12:01:34 AM
These attempts to remove all references to God in public life have gotten ridiculous. With over 96% of our population expressing a belief in some sort of deity, is it really necessary to go to such extremes so as not to offend the 4% who dont?

If they dont believe in God, why are they so terror-struck when confronted with the fact that so many do?

its not references to god in public life. private citizens (except when acting as representatives of the state) and other non-governmental entities that are not directly tax-supported are free to engage in as much religious promotion as they care to without violating zoning laws or something similar. assuming all 96% of believers have no problem mr williams teaching method (not the case, of course), the us is still a republic not a democracy and the constitution is still the law of our land.

i truly don't understand conservatives--assuming that term still describes those who are most stongly opposed to governmental interference in our lives--who don't see a need to keep the state and religion distinctly separated.


You need to do a little more reading on the true meaning of the words "separation of church and state." See Link.

Link

Reply #20 Top

You need to do a little more reading on the true meaning of the words "separation of church and state." See
 


hmmm. i wasnt misquoting (nor quoting) madison. why is that link relevant to my statements?   

Reply #21 Top
Reply #21 By: kingbee - 12/19/2004 5:03:22 AM
You need to do a little more reading on the true meaning of the words "separation of church and state." See



hmmm. i wasnt misquoting (nor quoting) madison. why is that link relevant to my statements?


It's realitive because you didn't read the whole thing. If you had you would have known that only the first 3 or 4 paragraphs deal with Madison.
Reply #22 Top

It's realitive because you didn't read the whole thing. If you had you would have known that only the first 3 or 4 paragraphs deal with Madison


check your link again.  the entire page you've linked is devoted to madison's writings by date and provenance. 

Reply #23 Top

Reply #23 By: kingbee - 12/19/2004 6:47:21 AM
It's realitive because you didn't read the whole thing. If you had you would have known that only the first 3 or 4 paragraphs deal with Madison



check your link again. the entire page you've linked is devoted to madison's writings by date and provenance.


I must apologize. After going back and rereading it myself, I find that you are correct.
Reply #24 Top
after you visit the school's parent organization website, and youve seen the pix of the declaration of independence and constitution as theyre displayed in the school, i think it's only fair that you concede the headline of this article is not only inaccurate but inflammatory.  im all for showbiz but...
Reply #25 Top
"after you visit the school's parent organization website, and youve seen the pix of the declaration of independence and constitution as theyre displayed in the school, i think it's only fair that you concede the headline of this article is not only inaccurate but inflammatory. im all for showbiz but..."

This is just typical one sided media. Certain shows love to hawk on issues with very lopsided views. Some are more fair than others. In this case, the article and issue is one sided since the other side of the story is not represented and won't be until the case goes to court. It will be interesting to see what happens. If Williams is in fact pushing the limit my guess is the particlar network will move the story to actual news shows with little mention. Or they will simply drop the issue. But they win because many of their viewers will end up thinking that the strory was about the viewpoint they are projecting through their opinion shows. If it is the principal being overly cautious, however they will continue to pound the issue. Unfortunately they will continue trying to make people believe this is simply liberals trying to take religion out of schools, when in fact it is about school districts trying to find some sort of middle ground to avoid the law suits coming from overzealous parents on both sides of the issue. The facts will only come out when this goes to court. We simply won't know whether this is a case of an overzealous teacher or parents until it goes to court. It may also be the principal , but usually they are simply caught in the middle of disputes that are truly between parents and teachers.

As to the DOI it is not only in the library but also in the student's textbook. The copy of the DOI not allowed was a supplementary handout. The questions I have is whether it is a complete copy or only certain parts? Is it footnoted or highlighted? What are the objectives written in the lesson plan for that lesson? I have also seen articles in some local papers there claiming that some students have mentioned to their parents that he often talks about his bible study within his class, which "if true" could be a big problem for him.