Declaration of Independence Banned at Calif School

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cincygreg:
But if he's just handing out documents that say it just for historical purposes and not to enforce religion uipon someone, then what is the big deal?

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well here's a little hint for ya, greggy. The big deal is that the little I've read so far suggests that he's lying. Oooh, a god fearing kinda guy lying. Why (sputtering), that's, that's just not possible!!!

Get a clue.

<font color="#a52a2a" size="1">[ November 27, 2004 01:13 PM: Message edited by: Pi?a ]</font>

This reminds me of the woman who was supposedly disciplined merely for displaying a photo of Pres. Bush in the classroom. There was a lot of outrage until it came out that she was doing a lot more than just displaying the photo, including political indoctrination, etc. Prolly a lot more to this story as well - it's supicious that other teachers at the school could hand out these documents, but not the teacher in question.

Section 66 - The founders allowed almost no Judeo-Christian or other religious influence in the Government they set up. Compare the 1st Commandment with the 1st Amendment to understand this clearly.

<font color="#a52a2a" size="1">[ November 27, 2004 02:23 PM: Message edited by: LanDroid ]</font>

Indoctrination happens all the time in the classroom. It is generally recognized that college professors tend to be liberal (is this where we get the term "liberal arts"? [img]smile.gif[/img] )

When my son came home the other day, he mentioned that in the sixth grade they were discussing the opening of a new Super Wal-Mart down the street. He told me that the classroom consensus was that this was a bad thing, because "Wal-Mart doesn't pay their employees a high enough wage". We had a brief discussion of the nature of at-will employment, but I was a little concerned at the apparent political slant.

Anyway, seeing as how in this particular case the principal first objected when the example of a Presidential Proclamation that was chosen was a National Day of Prayer, it seems apparent that there was intent to slant the presentation through careful selection of documents and "excerpts". This happens. It doesn't make it right. But the ones who should be objecting are the parents - and, apparently, at least one did (page 5, point 36 on the complaint on TSG). So, the school board acted to change a situation that may have led to a legal challenge against the district.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LanDroid:
Prolly a lot more to this story as well - it's supicious that other teachers at the school could hand out these documents, but not the teacher in question.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Lan, I read where it said that other teachers could hand out documents but not where it said that they were handing out the same documents. ???

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Pi?a:
I mean have you really looked at some of the out and out wierd crap that the catholics are into? (I chose catholics as it was the religion that I was indoctrinated into so it's the one I'm most familiar with)

I mean if you want to dress your top dog in big funny hats, robes and scepter, have weekly get togethers to eat and drink your god wafers and heavenly hemoglobin, hell, have at it. But don't expect me to live by tenets of a religion apparently based on the sillier I look and act the closer my god to thee. Or to put up with those beliefs being used as the basis for the laws of the land. Or to have teachers using the classroom as a heavenly pulpit to spread the "good" word of god jr.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It's posts like this one that remind me why I can't abide tolerant liberals.

gae

As usual, you make pretty much no sense. Where in my post do you see me being intolerant? I could care less what the catholics, or any other of god's earthly footsoldiers do, as long as they don't try and push thier often times ridiculous beliefs and practices on me.

Just because they're free to worship as they see fit doesn't mean I can't comment on the out and out sillyness of what they do. I mean going to traditional catholic church is a lot like visiting with a third world dictator who takes themself way too seriously and thinks that conspicuous, and tacky, display of wealth and gaudy uniforms is going to impress anyone.

And really, who can take a religion seriously that dresses it's female "clergy" (nuns) like penguins? Yeah, yeah, I know they've relaxed that a bit over the years but the mindset still prevails.

Being a recovering Catholic myself, I tend to agree with you about the Catholic Church.

I made my snide comment because you know there are practicing Catholics on this board. Your opinions are your opinions, and I'm sure that the Catholics here have thick enough skins to blow off your diatribe. From your post, you didn't give a tinker's damn if you offended THEM.

BUT!! You're offended by the language of the Declaration of Independence.

You just can't have it both ways. If you have the right to insult Catholics because of their beliefs, the rites and rituals of their Church, then I have the right to insult you with the Declaration of Independence. And the Constitution. And the Gettysburg Address.

That's my problem with your side, Tomas.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by gae:
I made my snide comment because you know there are practicing Catholics on this board. Your opinions are your opinions, and I'm sure that the Catholics here have thick enough skins to blow off your diatribe. From your post, you didn't give a tinker's damn if you offended THEM.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You?re right, I don?t really care if I offend ?them? or not. I?m not really trying to, I?m just posting my opinion about what I consider to be some very silly beliefs and practices. Frankly I could care less about hurting their feelings considering that according to their belief system I should be doomed to an eternity in hell. Somehow I think I?m being the less offensive party in this particular give and take.

Quote:

---

BUT!! You're offended by the language of the Declaration of Independence.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Firstly, I?m not ?offended? by the language in the Declaration of Independence. I don?t know how you came to that conclusion. I do think it is inappropriate but I also understand that it was a product of it?s time and the whole concept of freedom of religion was new.

What I am offended by is someone using it to try and preach their particular flavor of religion in a classroom setting. It?s not the document I have a problem with, it?s what is being done with it.

Quote:

---

You just can't have it both ways. If you have the right to insult Catholics because of their beliefs, the rites and rituals of their Church, then I have the right to insult you with the Declaration of Independence. And the Constitution. And the Gettysburg Address.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I have the right to express my opinions about anything I want to. If someone finds that insulting then so be it. If you want to try and insult me with all of the documents you cite then go ahead and knock yourself out but it really won?t work as I don?t find them ?insulting? even if I do take exception to some of the language they contain. You?re trying to set up a straw man argument here and it just won?t work as your basic assumptions are incorrect.

Quote:

---

That's my problem with your side, Tomas.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Heh, I always love when you tell me what?s wrong with my ?side?. The fact that you see the world as being either on your ?side? or against it pretty well defines, IMO, one of the basic things wrong with you.

see section 66

Well here's a bit more:

There's a copy of the complaint that was filed posted at The Smoking Gun .

I read through it briefly but apparently he was handing out excerpts from documents and there had been at least one complaint from a parent about his pushing religion which suggests to me that my guess about him preaching via the classroom is a bit more likely.

Keep in mind that the document posted is the complaint and like the article only has one side of things represented.