Declaration of Independence Banned at Calif School

**Piña** · November 28th, 2004, 04:25 AM

Originally posted by travelinman:
see section 66

What I see in section 66, in a complaint filed by a christian right wing legal support group, is a heavy use of ellipses ( . . . )

I think I'd like to see what they left out from the complete reference.

**Gunslinger** · November 28th, 2004, 05:06 AM

You know, this was a nice little discussion.

Two things:

1) IMHO, if all he was doing just referencing God and Christian ethics as they are stated in the documents and NOT 'preaching' (as it were), then I don't see a problem. If he is 'preaching', then there may be an issue. Which brings me to my 2nd point.

2) As Pina pointed out when we were wrapping our discussion up, only one side of this matter has been aired out. We really should hear what the defendants have to say before decisions are made and conclusions reached. There may be more to this than meets the eye. Let's wait until it gets into the courtroom and see what happens.

**Lew** · November 29th, 2004, 01:00 PM

But I've always had a problem with the sentiment expressed by Pina (and similar sentiments expressed in the Enquirer over the weekend in the article about George Bush's faith) along the lines of "I don't care what you believe so long as you don't force it on me." The inherent problem with that idea is that, if taken to its logical end, the only way to avoid violating it is for no one to interact in any way with anyone else. I was always taught the best way to describe "politics" is to think of it as deciding who gets what. And by definition, the personal beliefs (or philosophy, or ideology, or whatever term you wish to use) of those who do the decidin' are ALWAYS going to be forced upon the governed.

Atheism, agnosticism....they are also beliefs, and any politician who ascribes to them would, undoubtedly, make decisions based upon his or her convictions that stem from those beliefs.

Perhaps I'm against the President. Perhaps his policies (which are influenced in part by his beliefs) lead to the creation of programs I don't want to fund. Yet my tax dollars go to fund those programs. Are not his beliefs being "forced" upon me? Well yeah, in a way. But what's the alternative? Not paying taxes? Leaving the country? Running for President myself? For some, yes, but for the majority of us, we take our medicine and move forward.

I'll grant you that there's probably much more to this story than just "the teacher can't talk about the Declaration of Independence in class." But I don't believe it's humanly possible to completely separate one's actions from one's beliefs.

**cincygreg** · November 29th, 2004, 03:18 PM

Like I said.
Open your wallet or look at the money in your pocket or purse. It says "in god we trust" on US Currency

Gonna stop using money? No, of course not.

Gonna ask them to reprint every single dollar bill of every denomination? No again.

This whole thing is dumb.

Some idiot got all pissy because someone handed out a document that was written by the founding fathers that said "under god" on it.

Whoodeefricken doo.

My guess is that the people who got pissed probably have something better to worry about.

If the teacher is not force feeding his students relgion, and not doing it as an act to get them to "give their lives to god" or something like that, then who gives a rats ass.

I am in no way a religious person, and I dont have a problem with it.
Dont wanna say "under god" then dont say it.

I do agree that religion does not belong in public schools, but I dont think this qualifies as religious teaching.

And another thing...

Going to church, does not give people the right to be assholes either.
The overly religious need to chill the heck out and stop being so damn high and might just because they go to church.

It doesnt make you better than anyone else.

**LAKE** · November 29th, 2004, 10:05 PM

Well said, Greg. [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img]

**cincygreg** · November 29th, 2004, 11:18 PM

Thanks LAKE!

[img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]cool.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img]

**Piña** · November 30th, 2004, 02:17 AM

Originally posted by Lew:
[QB]But I've always had a problem with the sentiment expressed by Pina (and similar sentiments expressed in the Enquirer over the weekend in the article about George Bush's faith) along the lines of "I don't care what you believe so long as you don't force it on me." The inherent problem with that idea is that, if taken to its logical end, the only way to avoid violating it is for no one to interact in any way with anyone else.

Sorry Lew but I?ve got to take exception to your logic here. You say that taking the ?don?t force it one me? idea to its? logical end would result in an inability to interact with anyone. . I assume here that you mean interact in any way that could be seen as having religious content or overtones. There is no inevitable progression from someone being prohibited from forcing there beliefs on you, as would be the case with students and a proselytizing teacher, to someone not being able to interact with others. Had you said ?taken to the extreme? then I might have agreed that it was a possible outcome but taking something to extremes and taking something to its? logical end are not the same thing.

We draw lines all the time to differentiate acceptable behaviors from unacceptable ones. Being a lawyer you are probably far more familiar than most here where many of those lines are drawn and realize that the mere act of setting limits on behavior does not cause things to deteriorate into a worst case scenario.

I was always taught the best way to describe "politics" is to think of it as deciding who gets what. And by definition, the personal beliefs (or philosophy, or ideology, or whatever term you wish to use) of those who do the decidin' are ALWAYS going to be forced upon the governed.

That?s why there are safeguards built into the system, though they are under zealous attack recently, to protect the rights of the less powerful. As a ?free? society it is imperative that we maintain those safeguards, perhaps most especially with regard to religious beliefs.

Atheism, agnosticism....they are also beliefs, and any politician who ascribes to them would, undoubtedly, make decisions based upon his or her convictions that stem from those beliefs.

This would vary from one individual to the next and would hopefully be tempered by the understanding that when elected that you are representing those who elected you and should try to act in a way to best serve their needs whether they are in accord with your beliefs or not. And yes, I know, all politicians are corrupt and evil minions of the devil and none of them ever go into public service because they actually believe that they actually serve the public.

Perhaps I'm against the President. Perhaps his policies (which are influenced in part by his beliefs) lead to the creation of programs I don't want to fund. Yet my tax dollars go to fund those programs. Are not his beliefs being "forced" upon me? Well yeah, in a way. But what's the alternative? Not paying taxes? Leaving the country? Running for President myself? For some, yes, but for the majority of us, we take our medicine and move forward.

There is a major difference between policy that is influenced by the governing individuals belief system and preaching to a captive classroom audience. We have, well had anyway, a system of checks and balances to guard against the sort of abuse you describe.

As to our alternatives: They?re the same as they?ve always been. Get politically active, run for office, vote or find some other way of getting involved in the process.

I'll grant you that there's probably much more to this story than just "the teacher can't talk about the Declaration of Independence in class." But I don't believe it's humanly possible to completely separate one's actions from one's beliefs.

I agree. Our beliefs will always influence us. But this is not about subtle influence rather it is about someone in a position of authority pushing their beliefs onto children in a government run (public) school. I?m of the opinion that it is most likely that this is the case here and my comments are predicated on that opinion.

**reason** · November 30th, 2004, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by LAKE:
Well said, Greg. [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img]

Figures you'd agree with someone who doesn't even have nearly enough information to make an informed decision.

This is one of those stories that is so sensational, I prefer to wait to see how it pans out before I make a decision.

When Pina presented a list that showed Focus on the Family and The American Family Association, it gave me pause. These guys stick their noses into a lot of things, and I still have an extremely sick feeling over what they did here in Cincinnati involving Issue 3.

Focus on the Family funded those misleading, inaccurate ads featuring Phil Heimlich. It's fair to say they are responsible for a nice chunk of money that never seemed to make it on CCV's campaign finance report.

All those appalling "Save Civil Rights, Save Marriage signs," I blame on these same people.

In other words, these folks arent' about the truth. They will lie and put whatever monies possible to get their way, trampling on the rights of others along the way.

The American Family Association called for a boycott of P&G, claiming they were in support of gay marriage, merely because they supported the repeal of Issue 3.

All about lies, bigotry, and fear.

I guess my skeptical eye is raised really high on this one. I'm betting the school district ends up being in the right, but we'll see.

[ November 30, 2004 10:34 AM: Message edited by: reason ]

**travelinman** · November 30th, 2004, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by reason:
[QB]In other words, these folks arent' about the truth. They will lie and put whatever monies possible to get their way, trampling on the rights of others along the way.
QB]

Sounds like your talking about liberals.

**reason** · November 30th, 2004, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by travelinman:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by reason:
[QB]In other words, these folks arent' about the truth. They will lie and put whatever monies possible to get their way, trampling on the rights of others along the way.
QB]

Sounds like your talking about liberals.<hr /></blockquote>The liberals I know aren't religious zealots who forgot we don't live in a theocracy.