California School Bans Declaration of Independance

A mellow place for Bobcats to discuss topics free of political posturing

Moderators: rtb, kmax, SonomaCat

User avatar
'93HonoluluCat
BobcatNation Team Captain
Posts: 433
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 3:12 am
Location: Honolulu, HI

California School Bans Declaration of Independance

Post by '93HonoluluCat » Wed Nov 24, 2004 6:32 pm

I don't know whether I should cry, shake with fear, or shake with anger.

From a Reuters report:
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A California teacher has been barred by his school from giving students documents from American history that refer to God -- including the Declaration of Independence...

Among the materials she has rejected, according to Williams, are excerpts from the Declaration of Independence, George Washington's journal, John Adams' diary, Samuel Adams' "The Rights of the Colonists" and William Penn's "The Frame of Government of Pennsylvania."
When schools ban historical documents--documents upon which the entire fabric of our country is based--the mis-named "political correctness" has gone too far.

To those that have disagreed with me in the past: is this not indicative of a "slippery slope," we have often debated?

I weep for our future.



User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23960
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Re: California School Bans Declaration of Independance

Post by SonomaCat » Wed Nov 24, 2004 8:14 pm

'93HonoluluCat wrote:I don't know whether I should cry, shake with fear, or shake with anger.

From a Reuters report:
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A California teacher has been barred by his school from giving students documents from American history that refer to God -- including the Declaration of Independence...

Among the materials she has rejected, according to Williams, are excerpts from the Declaration of Independence, George Washington's journal, John Adams' diary, Samuel Adams' "The Rights of the Colonists" and William Penn's "The Frame of Government of Pennsylvania."
When schools ban historical documents--documents upon which the entire fabric of our country is based--the mis-named "political correctness" has gone too far.

To those that have disagreed with me in the past: is this not indicative of a "slippery slope," we have often debated?

I weep for our future.
Yeah, this sounds like a stupid decision, and I'm sure it will be corrected. Just because some isolated people are incapable of understanding the concept of the church/state seperation doesn't mean we should scrap the whole concept.

Don't worry -- this is an outlier and not something that 99.9999999% of the people in the country want to see happen. There's a big difference between studying historical documents that have the word "God" or "Creator" in them and the state actually promoting a religion. Nearly all people can see that distinction. We just apparently have one or two stupid and/or paranoid people that can't tell the difference.

Or, perhaps, was this decision made by somebody that was actually trying to make a point and did this to intentionally discredit legitimate church/state gripes? I'll have to read more about it.



User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23960
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Post by SonomaCat » Wed Nov 24, 2004 8:25 pm

Ahhh, it is becoming more clear now:
Steven Williams, a fifth-grade teacher at Stevens Creek School in the San Francisco Bay area suburb of Cupertino, sued for discrimination on Monday, claiming he had been singled out for censorship by principal Patricia Vidmar because he is a Christian.

"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.
If you read between the lines, you see that this teacher is trying to actually promote Christianity, and is apparently handing out these historical documents as "proof" that we are a Christian nation, or something like that. As with most "politically correct" accusations, a little context behind the story generally makes the act seem less foolish.

It appears that the teacher isn't using these documents in the context of teaching American History, but rather in teaching Christianity.

Cupertino is a really good school district near San Jose that is primarily Asian, so there is probably a good mix of Christian and non-Christian students in that class. If the teacher was trying to promote the idea that the U.S. is a "Christian" nation, to the exclusion of those kids who aren't Christian, it makes sense that somebody would step in and stop him. The article is pretty slanted in its presentation (heavily quoting his attorney as they are in the process of suing the school), but I assume if both sides of the story were told in the article, we would find out that the teacher is in the wrong on this one.

Chalk this one up to sensational news reporting in the name of getting eyes on your work. There are enough people who will eat this stuff up without asking the obvious questions that need to be asked, and who will not bother to seek out any kind of context, that it makes a journalist's job pretty easy. Hell, foxnews.com has a weekly column devoted exactly to this kind of thing. Without context, it's pretty easy to come up with material to make the "other side" look foolish.
Last edited by SonomaCat on Wed Nov 24, 2004 8:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.



User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23960
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Post by SonomaCat » Wed Nov 24, 2004 9:10 pm

Here's the link to the full article:

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?ty ... ID=6911883



User avatar
'93HonoluluCat
BobcatNation Team Captain
Posts: 433
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 3:12 am
Location: Honolulu, HI

Post by '93HonoluluCat » Thu Nov 25, 2004 2:49 am

BAC wrote:
There are enough people who will eat this stuff up without asking the obvious questions that need to be asked, and who will not bother to seek out any kind of context, that it makes a journalist's job pretty easy.
BAC, I'm trying not to take that statement personally, but is that a dig on me?

For the record, I linked to the article (it's the URL attached to the underlined "a Reuters report") in my original post.

I also disagree with your assessment of the situation. I don't think we can say that he is trying to promote Christianity just because, as the article states, "he is a Christian." School materials are school materials.

From the Reuters report:
Among the materials [the principal of the school] has rejected, according to [the teacher's lawyer], are excerpts from the Declaration of Independence, George Washington's journal, John Adams' diary, Samuel Adams' "The Rights of the Colonists" and William Penn's "The Frame of Government of Pennsylvania."

"He hands out a lot of material and perhaps 5 to 10 percent refers to God and Christianity because that's what the founders wrote...The principal seems to be systematically censoring material that refers to Christianity and it is pure discrimination."
Again, since we're not in the school and in the situation, we don't know for sure, but without a really good explanation from the principal on this one, I know one CA school district that's going to have egg on its face.

Before you know it, the CA Supreme Court is going to rule the U.S. Constitution unconstitutional. Impossible? Think again--and read the preamble. The ACLU's already trying to figure out how to get that stricken, I bet.



User avatar
BWahlberg
2nd Team All-BobcatNation
Posts: 1370
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2004 5:13 pm
Location: Missoula
Contact:

Post by BWahlberg » Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:14 pm

I could be wrong with this statement but,

A lot of people latch onto that the founders of our country were religious, and that they'd be sick and ashamed of what we're doing now. Most of it I bet.

But weren't they also the people who decided a seperation of Church and State? If they deemed religion shouldn't be much involved any of our government systems, then why do many people now push to adjoin Church and State.

Just a question...

And if I'm wrong in this statement, then completely ignore my youthful rambling... 8)



User avatar
'93HonoluluCat
BobcatNation Team Captain
Posts: 433
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 3:12 am
Location: Honolulu, HI

Post by '93HonoluluCat » Fri Nov 26, 2004 1:34 pm

Re/Max wrote:
But weren't they also the people who decided a seperation of Church and State? If they deemed religion shouldn't be much involved any of our government systems, then why do many people now push to adjoin Church and State.
BAC, others, and I discussed this in a seperate thread, but I'll restate it here.

The bottom line is that the Founders wanted to protect the church from the state, not the state from the church. It's an important nuance to grasp.

Anytime religion is mentioned within the confines of government today people cry, "Separation of Church and State." Many people think this statement appears in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and therefore must be strictly enforced. However, the words: "separation," "church," and "state" do not even appear in the first amendment. The First Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The statement about a wall of separation between church and state was made in a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. The congregation heard a widespread rumor that the Congregationalists, another denomination, were to become the national religion. This was very alarming to people who knew about religious persecution in England by the state established church. Jefferson made it clear in his letter to the Danbury Congregation that the separation was to be that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God. Jefferson's letter from which the phrase "separation of church and state" was taken affirmed first amendment rights. Jefferson wrote:
I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.
The reason Jefferson choose the expression "separation of church and state" was because he was addressing a Baptist congregation; a denomination of which he was not a member. Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the state would make dictates to the church.

Government was never meant to be our master as in a ruthless monarchy or dictatorship. Instead, it was to be our servant. The Founders believed that the people have full power to govern themselves and that people chose to give up some of their rights for the general good and the protection of rights. Each person should be self-governed and this is why virtue is so important. Government was meant to serve the people by protecting their liberty and rights, not serve by an enormous amount of social programs. The authors of the Constitution wanted the government to have as little power as possible so that if authority was misused it would not cause as much damage. Yet they wanted government to have enough authority to protect the rights of the people.

The worldview at the time of the founding of our government was a view held by the Bible: that Man's heart is corrupt and if the opportunity to advance oneself at the expense of another arose, more often than not, we would choose to do so. The Founders firmly believed this and that's why an enormous effort to set up checks and balances took place. As the saying goes, "...absolute power corrupts absolutely." They wanted to make certain that no man could take away rights given by God. They also did not set up the government as a true democracy, because they believed, as mentioned earlier, Man tends towards wickedness. Just because the majority wants something does not mean that it should be granted, because the majority could easily err. Government was not to be run by whatever the majority wanted but instead by principle, specifically the principles of the Bible.

The American people knew what would happen if the State established the Church like in England. Even though it was not recent history to them, they knew that England went so far as forbidding worship in private homes and sponsoring all church activities and keeping people under strict dictates. They were forced to go to the state-established church and do things that were contrary to their conscience. No other churches were allowed, and mandatory attendance of the established church was compelled under the Conventicle Act of 1665. Failure to comply would result in imprisonment and torture.

The people did not want freedom from religion, but freedom of religion. The only real reason to separate the church from the state would be to instill a new morality and establish a new system of beliefs. Our Founding Fathers were God-fearing men who understood that for a country to stand it must have a solid foundation; the Bible was the source of this foundation. They believed that God's ways were much higher than Man's ways and held firmly that the Bible was the absolute standard of truth and used the Bible as a source to form our government.

There is no such thing as a pluralistic society. There will always be one dominant view, otherwise it will be in transition from one belief system to another. Therefore, to say Biblical principles should not be allowed in government and school is to either be ignorant of the historic intent of the founding fathers, or blatantly bigoted against Christianity.

Each form of government has a guiding principle: monarchy in which the guiding principle is honor; aristocracy in which the guiding principle is moderation; republican democracy in which the guiding principle is virtue; despotism in which the guiding principle is fear. Without people of the United States upholding good moral conduct, society soon degenerates into a corrupt system where people misuse the authority of government to obtain what they want at the expense of others. The U.S. Constitution is the form of our government, but the power is in the virtue of the people.

The virtue desired of the people is shown in the Bible. This is why Biblical morality was taught in public schools until the early 1960's. Government officials were required to declare their belief in God even to be allowed to hold a public office until a case in the U.S. Supreme Court called Torcaso v. Watkins (Oct. 1960). God was seen as the author of natural law and morality. If one did not believe in God one could not operate from a proper moral base. And by not having a foundation from which to work, one would destroy the community.

The two primary places where morality is taught are the family and the church. The church was allowed to influence the government in righteousness and justice so that virtue would be upheld. Not allowing the church to influence the state is detrimental to the country and destroys our foundation of righteousness and justice. It is absolutely necessary for the church to influence the state in virtue because without virtue our government will crumble--the representatives will look after their own good instead of the country's.

Our U.S. Constitution was founded on Biblical principles and it was the intention of the authors for this to be a Christian nation. The Constitution had 55 people work upon it, of which 52 were evangelical Christians. We can go back in history and look at what the Founders wrote to know where they were getting their ideas. This is exactly what two professors did. Donald Lutz and Charles Hyneman reviewed an estimated 15,000 items with explicit political content printed between 1760 and 1805 and from these items they identified 3,154 references to other sources. The source they most often quoted was the Bible, accounting for 34% of all citations. Sixty percent of all quotes came from men who used the Bible to form their conclusions. That means that 94% of all quotes by the founding fathers were based on the Bible. The Founding Fathers took ideas from the Bible and incorporated them into our government. If it was their intention to separate the state and church they would never have taken principles from the Bible and put them into our government. An example of an idea taken from the Bible and then incorporated into our government is found in Isaiah 33:22 which says, "For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king..." The Founding Fathers took this scripture and made three major branches in our government: judicial, legislative, and executive.

As mentioned earlier, the Founding Fathers strongly believed that Man was by nature corrupt and therefore it was necessary to separate the powers of the government. For instance, the President has the power to execute laws but not make them, and Congress has the power to make laws but not to judge the people. The simple principle of checks and balances came from the Bible to protect people from tyranny. The President of the United States is free to influence Congress, although he can not exercise authority over it because they are separated. Since this is true, why should the church not be allowed to influence the state?

People have read too much into the phrase "separation of church and state," which is to be a separation of civil authority from ecclesiastical authority, not moral values. Congress has passed laws that it is illegal to murder and steal, which is the legislation of morality. These standards of morality are found in the Bible. Should we remove them from law because the church should be separated from the state?

There is no such thing as a pluralistic society; there will always be one dominant view. Someone's morality is going to be taught--but whose? Secular Humanism is a religion that teaches that through Man's ability we will reach universal peace and unity and make heaven on earth. They promote a way of life that systematically excludes God and all religion in the traditional sense; that Man is the highest point to which nature has evolved, and he can rely on only himself and that the universe was not created, but instead is self-existing; and that Man has the potential to be good in and of himself. All of this of course is in direct conflict with not only the teachings of the Bible but even the lessons of history. In June 1961 in a case called Torcaso v. Watkins, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others." The Supreme Court declared Secular Humanism to be a religion. The American Humanist Association certifies counselors who enjoy the same legal status as ordained ministers. Since the Supreme Court has said that Secular Humanism is a religion, why is it being allowed to be taught in schools? The removal of public prayer of those who wish to participate is, in effect, establishing the religion of Humanism over Christianity. This is exactly what our founding fathers tried to stop from happening with the First Amendment.



User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23960
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Post by SonomaCat » Fri Nov 26, 2004 4:29 pm

'93HonoluluCat wrote:The bottom line is that the Founders wanted to protect the church from the state, not the state from the church. It's an important nuance to grasp.
Yeah, well, most books I have read disagree with that assertion, and the Supreme Court does as well, so let's just assume that the Founding Fathers were actually at least a little concerned about the state being run by any particular religion. And, even if we were able to read their minds, and it turned out that they really did want the U.S. to be a theocracy, but just didn't articulate it very well in the documents they left for us, we can substitute our own good judgment in acknowledging that it isn't a good idea to allow the government to promote any particular religion over another.

As to the question of whether I was taking a shot at you in my initial post on the topic, I have to honestly say that I didn't have you in mind when I was writing the post -- I was thinking of all of the jackass talking heads and foxnews.com PC-decryers who would jump all over a story like this and point to it as a sign that our country is going straight to hell without understanding the full story. That being said, I guess you could take offense to my comments as well, since that's basically what you did, but that wasn't my intent. I was bracing for the right wing media backlash that would follow.

So far, all I have seen on this story are directly from the mouth of the attorney (from a anti-Separation of Church/State group, incidentally) that filed the suit, so the Reuters and AP stories are essentially just press releases from this group. The school is not speaking on the topic (smartly) as is often the case when any organization is getting sued. Only the sensationalists try their cases in the press. Those are generally the parties that don't have the facts on their side.

I guess this one will shake itself out, and we will eventually find out if this was a frivilous lawsuit filed for the sake of publicity and to provide ammunition for those who don't care to know the full story and simply want to paint using the anti-PC brush, or whether the school administrators really are America hating morons that are blinded by their allegiance to PC ethics.

And schools have never disallowed anyone to pray in school -- anyone can pray to whoever/whatever they want any time they feel like it. The fact that everyone isn't forced to pray in no way prevents the individuals from praying. That's what the freedom of religion is all about. People are free to not be Christians, and the government should have no role in either preventing them from being whatever they want to be or encouraging them to become Christians. Likewise, Christians (or any other religion) should not be discouraged from being Christians. I have yet to hear of any legitimate situation where the government did anything to discourage Christianity (except teach science in schools, which scares some fundamentalist parents who prefer the "It's that way because God said so" approach to education, and then we wonder why we are falling behind the rest of the industrialized world).

As for the silly laws quoted from the 60's and before, chalk those up to the same folks who brought us segregation and slavery. Yes, there is a high correlation between the people who supported those two sets of laws.
Last edited by SonomaCat on Fri Nov 26, 2004 5:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.



User avatar
'93HonoluluCat
BobcatNation Team Captain
Posts: 433
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 3:12 am
Location: Honolulu, HI

Post by '93HonoluluCat » Sat Nov 27, 2004 12:35 am

Short responses only:
Yeah, well, most books I have read disagree with that assertion, and the Supreme Court does as well,
I could probably find just as many books that support the idea. Additionally, let's not get on the "supreme court making policy" thread again, okay with you, BAC?
And, even if we were able to read their minds, and it turned out that they really did want the U.S. to be a theocracy
I can't make this point any clearer. They didn't want a theocracy, but they wanted a government with Biblical moral values (as opposed to the moral values we found in Idi Amin's Ethiopia, for instance). Biblical morals does not equate a theocracy.
So far, all I have seen on this story are directly from the mouth of the attorney (from a anti-Separation of Church/State group, incidentally) that filed the suit, so the Reuters and AP stories are essentially just press releases from this group. The school is not speaking on the topic (smartly) as is often the case when any organization is getting sued. Only the sensationalists try their cases in the press. Those are generally the parties that don't have the facts on their side.

I guess this one will shake itself out,
Absolutely, I agree in toto.
except teach science in schools, which scares some fundamentalist parents who prefer the "It's that way because God said so" approach to education, and then we wonder why we are falling behind the rest of the industrialized world).
Let's not get started on this one here--it can be a lengthy thread it and of itself.
As for the silly laws quoted from the 60's and before, chalk those up to the same folks who brought us segregation and slavery. Yes, there is a high correlation between the people who supported those two sets of laws.
Unfortunately there are a number of "Christians" that believe in segregation. The Aryan Nation, for instance, are racists and anti-Semites, at the same time claiming to be Christian. However, they seem to forget that not only was Christ a Jew, he was most certainly not caucasian. Christians are directed to care for everyone like a brother or sister. It's too bad that many of us (Christians) don't pass this test, and lend credence to other's view that Christians are hypocrites. It's an unfortunate view, and one that's difficult to overcome.



User avatar
Bleedinbluengold
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3427
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 10:24 am
Location: Belly of the Beast

Post by Bleedinbluengold » Sat Nov 27, 2004 8:42 am

'93HonoluluCat wrote: The bottom line is that the Founders wanted to protect the church from the state, not the state from the church. It's an important nuance to grasp.
I think it was meant both ways, actually. From what I've read, the Constitution was written such that a State-sponsored religion could not be established (i.e., national religion), but also such that the "Church" was not above the federal government, ala how the Papacy more or less legitimized kings back in the day.

In my humble opinion, religious teachings have no place in our public school systems. Send your kids to a private school instead if you want that sort of thing. Also, in my opinion, references to God have every place in historical teachings, including those presented in public schools. Leaving such references out of historical writings, purposely, is just plain wrong.

That's an important nuance that everyone should grasp. There's a big difference between teaching religion and teaching history. If a person can't decipher between the two, then there probably isn't much anyone can do about that...sadly.



geogfather
BobcatNation Letterman
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 9:16 pm

Post by geogfather » Sat Nov 27, 2004 7:22 pm

'93HonoluluCat wrote: I can't make this point any clearer. They didn't want a theocracy, but they wanted a government with Biblical moral values (as opposed to the moral values we found in Idi Amin's Ethiopia, for instance).

Well Im not gonna get to involved n this arguement, becasue I dont think it will lead anywhere, but....

First of all Idi Amin was not from ethiopia, he was the ruler of Uganda. Not that it makes a difference, I just wanted to point out the error.

As for the topic itself: I am a history teacher and I will tell yout that it is not possible or even reasonable to teach the history of this country and not talk about religion. We are a nation built on moral values, even if they dont exist as stongly as they once did. Even before we were a nation people came to this part of the world for religious freedom. Now Im not saying you stand up at the front of class and talk about what makes Christianity so endearing, but to not mention its role in the history of the US is just as bad as the aforementioned preaching.



User avatar
'93HonoluluCat
BobcatNation Team Captain
Posts: 433
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 3:12 am
Location: Honolulu, HI

Post by '93HonoluluCat » Sat Nov 27, 2004 10:28 pm

geogfather wrote:
First of all Idi Amin was...the ruler of Uganda.
Yep. That's for the vector check. I knew that, but sometimes when I'm writing I get going, "stream of consciousness style" and forget to go back and fact check. Regardless, thanks.



User avatar
'93HonoluluCat
BobcatNation Team Captain
Posts: 433
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 3:12 am
Location: Honolulu, HI

Post by '93HonoluluCat » Sat Nov 27, 2004 10:30 pm

I meant thanks for the vector check...not "that's"

Someone out there able to help me figure out why my post edit function won't work?



velochat
BobcatNation Team Captain
Posts: 447
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 11:29 am
Location: Bozeman

Post by velochat » Mon Nov 29, 2004 9:01 am

Teaching religion's role in history and advocating for a religion are completely different things. As long as one analyzes the impacts of religions on mores etc, as well as the ugly side, dispassionately, discussion of religion belongs in public schools and universities. Arguments favoring a particular religion or sect don't belong in public schools. Religions contribute most certainly to social mores in both positive and negative wasy. History has much to instruct regarding the dangers of religious influence over the state. Corporate influence over the state, church, or journalism is also quite dangerous, as we have learned and forgotten many times.



iaafan
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 7177
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 12:44 pm

Post by iaafan » Wed Dec 01, 2004 10:32 am

A line has to be drawn in the sand simply, and obviously, because there are those out there that want to use religion as a means to gain power. I have a hard time believing that the upper crust Conservatives in the US actually give a damn about morals, but they have taken that stand to get the votes necessary to get their reps in office, to protect their interests and the interests of those who protect and feed them.

I feel that religion is the easy way out for many people. They don't want to put out the effort to find scientific answers, so they continue to ride the religious-side of their upbringings. When someone tries to bring science into the mix they feel insecure and begin to despise that source. I've had many discussions end and have seen friendships go by the wayside due to this. I feel there are Conservative politicians out there don't mind seeing this occur. Some say ignorance is bliss, others say: if you think education is expensive, try ignorance.

I see politicians who want to keep God in the text books as possibly having a motive for that. It's true that religion is part of our history, but the basic argument for not mixing church and state has its basis here and there are those who want to use education and other means as a segue for the two. It is a sinister ploy and one we average citizens should be wary of.

I don't think religion and its affect on world cultures should be removed from text books, but I'm glad to see people such as this person in California speaking up occasionally as it serves as a good means of keeping things in check and warding off mind control.



User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23960
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Post by SonomaCat » Thu Dec 02, 2004 3:37 pm

'93HonoluluCat wrote:
Re/Max wrote:
But weren't they also the people who decided a seperation of Church and State? If they deemed religion shouldn't be much involved any of our government systems, then why do many people now push to adjoin Church and State.
BAC, others, and I discussed this in a seperate thread, but I'll restate it here.

The bottom line is that the Founders wanted to protect the church from the state, not the state from the church. It's an important nuance to grasp.

Anytime religion is mentioned within the confines of government today people cry, "Separation of Church and State." Many people think this statement appears in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and therefore must be strictly enforced. However, the words: "separation," "church," and "state" do not even appear in the first amendment. The First Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The statement about a wall of separation between church and state was made in a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. The congregation heard a widespread rumor that the Congregationalists, another denomination, were to become the national religion. This was very alarming to people who knew about religious persecution in England by the state established church. Jefferson made it clear in his letter to the Danbury Congregation that the separation was to be that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God. Jefferson's letter from which the phrase "separation of church and state" was taken affirmed first amendment rights. Jefferson wrote:
I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.
The reason Jefferson choose the expression "separation of church and state" was because he was addressing a Baptist congregation; a denomination of which he was not a member. Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the state would make dictates to the church.

Government was never meant to be our master as in a ruthless monarchy or dictatorship. Instead, it was to be our servant. The Founders believed that the people have full power to govern themselves and that people chose to give up some of their rights for the general good and the protection of rights. Each person should be self-governed and this is why virtue is so important. Government was meant to serve the people by protecting their liberty and rights, not serve by an enormous amount of social programs. The authors of the Constitution wanted the government to have as little power as possible so that if authority was misused it would not cause as much damage. Yet they wanted government to have enough authority to protect the rights of the people.

The worldview at the time of the founding of our government was a view held by the Bible: that Man's heart is corrupt and if the opportunity to advance oneself at the expense of another arose, more often than not, we would choose to do so. The Founders firmly believed this and that's why an enormous effort to set up checks and balances took place. As the saying goes, "...absolute power corrupts absolutely." They wanted to make certain that no man could take away rights given by God. They also did not set up the government as a true democracy, because they believed, as mentioned earlier, Man tends towards wickedness. Just because the majority wants something does not mean that it should be granted, because the majority could easily err. Government was not to be run by whatever the majority wanted but instead by principle, specifically the principles of the Bible.

The American people knew what would happen if the State established the Church like in England. Even though it was not recent history to them, they knew that England went so far as forbidding worship in private homes and sponsoring all church activities and keeping people under strict dictates. They were forced to go to the state-established church and do things that were contrary to their conscience. No other churches were allowed, and mandatory attendance of the established church was compelled under the Conventicle Act of 1665. Failure to comply would result in imprisonment and torture.

The people did not want freedom from religion, but freedom of religion. The only real reason to separate the church from the state would be to instill a new morality and establish a new system of beliefs. Our Founding Fathers were God-fearing men who understood that for a country to stand it must have a solid foundation; the Bible was the source of this foundation. They believed that God's ways were much higher than Man's ways and held firmly that the Bible was the absolute standard of truth and used the Bible as a source to form our government.

There is no such thing as a pluralistic society. There will always be one dominant view, otherwise it will be in transition from one belief system to another. Therefore, to say Biblical principles should not be allowed in government and school is to either be ignorant of the historic intent of the founding fathers, or blatantly bigoted against Christianity.

Each form of government has a guiding principle: monarchy in which the guiding principle is honor; aristocracy in which the guiding principle is moderation; republican democracy in which the guiding principle is virtue; despotism in which the guiding principle is fear. Without people of the United States upholding good moral conduct, society soon degenerates into a corrupt system where people misuse the authority of government to obtain what they want at the expense of others. The U.S. Constitution is the form of our government, but the power is in the virtue of the people.

The virtue desired of the people is shown in the Bible. This is why Biblical morality was taught in public schools until the early 1960's. Government officials were required to declare their belief in God even to be allowed to hold a public office until a case in the U.S. Supreme Court called Torcaso v. Watkins (Oct. 1960). God was seen as the author of natural law and morality. If one did not believe in God one could not operate from a proper moral base. And by not having a foundation from which to work, one would destroy the community.

The two primary places where morality is taught are the family and the church. The church was allowed to influence the government in righteousness and justice so that virtue would be upheld. Not allowing the church to influence the state is detrimental to the country and destroys our foundation of righteousness and justice. It is absolutely necessary for the church to influence the state in virtue because without virtue our government will crumble--the representatives will look after their own good instead of the country's.

Our U.S. Constitution was founded on Biblical principles and it was the intention of the authors for this to be a Christian nation. The Constitution had 55 people work upon it, of which 52 were evangelical Christians. We can go back in history and look at what the Founders wrote to know where they were getting their ideas. This is exactly what two professors did. Donald Lutz and Charles Hyneman reviewed an estimated 15,000 items with explicit political content printed between 1760 and 1805 and from these items they identified 3,154 references to other sources. The source they most often quoted was the Bible, accounting for 34% of all citations. Sixty percent of all quotes came from men who used the Bible to form their conclusions. That means that 94% of all quotes by the founding fathers were based on the Bible. The Founding Fathers took ideas from the Bible and incorporated them into our government. If it was their intention to separate the state and church they would never have taken principles from the Bible and put them into our government. An example of an idea taken from the Bible and then incorporated into our government is found in Isaiah 33:22 which says, "For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king..." The Founding Fathers took this scripture and made three major branches in our government: judicial, legislative, and executive.

As mentioned earlier, the Founding Fathers strongly believed that Man was by nature corrupt and therefore it was necessary to separate the powers of the government. For instance, the President has the power to execute laws but not make them, and Congress has the power to make laws but not to judge the people. The simple principle of checks and balances came from the Bible to protect people from tyranny. The President of the United States is free to influence Congress, although he can not exercise authority over it because they are separated. Since this is true, why should the church not be allowed to influence the state?

People have read too much into the phrase "separation of church and state," which is to be a separation of civil authority from ecclesiastical authority, not moral values. Congress has passed laws that it is illegal to murder and steal, which is the legislation of morality. These standards of morality are found in the Bible. Should we remove them from law because the church should be separated from the state?

There is no such thing as a pluralistic society; there will always be one dominant view. Someone's morality is going to be taught--but whose? Secular Humanism is a religion that teaches that through Man's ability we will reach universal peace and unity and make heaven on earth. They promote a way of life that systematically excludes God and all religion in the traditional sense; that Man is the highest point to which nature has evolved, and he can rely on only himself and that the universe was not created, but instead is self-existing; and that Man has the potential to be good in and of himself. All of this of course is in direct conflict with not only the teachings of the Bible but even the lessons of history. In June 1961 in a case called Torcaso v. Watkins, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others." The Supreme Court declared Secular Humanism to be a religion. The American Humanist Association certifies counselors who enjoy the same legal status as ordained ministers. Since the Supreme Court has said that Secular Humanism is a religion, why is it being allowed to be taught in schools? The removal of public prayer of those who wish to participate is, in effect, establishing the religion of Humanism over Christianity. This is exactly what our founding fathers tried to stop from happening with the First Amendment.
I'm now seeing how easy it is to come up with really long and well written posts that can overwhelm people with volume. I had previously assumed it was all first edition stuff:

http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html



User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23960
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Post by SonomaCat » Fri Dec 03, 2004 3:05 pm

Here's a blog that came up on my google search that seems to be asking the same questions I was when this story first broke. It will be interesting to hear the whole story when either this goes to court or it gets tossed out of court, allowing the school to then speak freely on the issue:

http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_d ... _inte.html



User avatar
Bleedinbluengold
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3427
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 10:24 am
Location: Belly of the Beast

Post by Bleedinbluengold » Fri Dec 03, 2004 3:11 pm

Thanks for bursting my bubble on 5-O Cat! Next thing you'll be telling me is that 5-O wasn't/isn't in the USAF, or worse, that 5-O is really bearbac or neverplayed.



User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23960
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Post by SonomaCat » Thu Dec 09, 2004 12:27 pm

Here's an article from the San Jose Mercury News about the case. It is becoming a bit more clear that the school wasn't banning historical documents or editing them for God references, as was first claimed, but rather the were not allowing him to distribute more questionable material that he prepared that specifically excerpted God references from documents and compiled into a handout. The MN is free online, but has sign-in requirements, so I will just post the content as opposed to the link:

Nearly 3,000 people packed the Flint Center in Cupertino for a live broadcast Wednesday of Fox News' ``Hannity & Colmes'' talk show featuring Stephen J. Williams, the teacher at the center of a reinvigorated debate about the place of religion in public schools.

Williams, who teaches fifth grade at Stevens Creek Elementary School in Cupertino, reiterated his position that the handouts he gives students with history lessons are a natural part of U.S. colonial history and that he presents God modestly in his class.

``Some people say I'm trying to teach Christianity all of the time in my class, but 99 percent of what I teach is secular,'' Williams, 38, said on the show.

Williams said he is stunned at how the lawsuit he filed against the Cupertino Union School District over restricting his use of religious materials has snowballed.

``I'm blown away at what a hot-button issue this has become,'' he said. ``I think for many people it strikes at the heart of the heritage of this nation. The Founding Fathers were clear that their right came from God. That is in the basic documents.''

Many in the audience seemed to agree with Williams' stance, applauding him during the broadcast.

``I support him,'' said Tom Forese, 30, who works in commercial real estate. ``Most elementary schools are requiring the teaching of Islam, and I agree with that. But it's equally important to teach the Christian view.''

But Kate Froesberg, a 50-year-old parent whose son was in Williams' class last year, said Williams goes overboard in presenting God in the classroom.

``Everyone has been very tolerant of him at school, but there are many complaints,'' she said. ``He's got an agenda. He's overdoing it in trying to make a case for Christianity.''

Williams sued the Cupertino Union School District recently, saying his civil rights were violated when he was told by Stevens Creek Elementary School Principal Patricia Vidmar to refrain from using supplemental teaching materials on colonial history that had religious references.

Among Williams' controversial teaching handouts are excerpts with multiple references to God from the U.S. Constitution and from various state constitutions. There also is a handout created by Williams called ``What Great Leaders Have Said About the Bible'' -- quotes from U.S. presidents and Jesus.

But the district says it has not banned any historic documents.

Williams and his attorney, Jordan Lorence of the Alliance Defense Fund, plan to be interviewed on ``Good Morning America'' this morning. The two have already been on several radio and TV talk shows. The Alliance Defense Fund is a conservative group that supports Christian causes.



velochat
BobcatNation Team Captain
Posts: 447
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 11:29 am
Location: Bozeman

Post by velochat » Thu Dec 09, 2004 12:45 pm

I stopped reading waikiki's messages a long time ago, not from animosity so much as because they're too frigging long. I'm pretty sure the founding fathers were thinking about the abuses of power by the churches which dominated politics in europe over centuries. Does the inquisition ring a bell? Cardinal Richelieu? etc. Power corrupts.



Post Reply