More on the "Declaration is Banned" story

The teacher clearly has no understanding of what is appropriate or constitutional in a public school classroom.

Since the principal has been reviewing his handouts, I'd say he knows what's allowed, he simply chooses to ignore it. B

There's sort of a trend with these sorts of stories that I've been noticing, and I wonder if anyone else is getting the same sense from them, or it's just me...

It seems as though whenever there's a report of a fundamentalist Christian group pushing their religious views on the populace at large in violation of either the spirit or the letter of the law, it's usually an accurate report. But whenever there's a report involving some "liberal egghead" pushing their secular humanist agenda on some poor hapless, well intended Christian Joe Sixpack, it usually turns out to be fairly misleading, and the poor hapless Joe Sixpack usually turns out to be violating either the spirit or the letter of separation of Church and State.

Does this perception of mine ring true with anyone else?

Does this perception of mine ring true with anyone else?

Uh, yeah.

Except that this was *not* accurately reported at first. It was reported as "School bans teaching of Declaration of Independence because it mentions God."

If I had ever been given a handout like that in school, there is no way in hell I would have done any of it.

What a pathetic BS story.

Um...you might wish to check out the U.S. Department of Education Guidelines at http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/religionandschools/ regarding religious expression in the public schools.

Your statement that "A public school teacher cannot assign his students to read the bible.." is clearly untrue according to current guidelines by the federal goverment. A teacher MAY assign portions of scripture for academic purposes, just as he may assign portions of the Koran, which California schools already do.

You are certainly forgiven for this innacurate statement of yours. And you are forgiven for your failure to do a simple internet search of the Department of Education on this matter. You are forgiven, I am sure, as least as much as you forgive Mr. Williams, for his failure to research the validity of the Washinton Prayer book materials he uses in his class.

Um...you might wish to check out the U.S. Department of Education Guidelines at http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/religionandschools/ regarding religious expression in the public schools.

These guidlines primarily concern the individual students (and the teachers) right to religious expression in schools, which is protected and which no-one here is saying should not be.

From the site -

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the First Amendment requires public school officials to be neutral in their treatment of religion, showing neither favoritism toward nor hostility against religious expression such as prayer. Accordingly, the First Amendment forbids religious activity that is sponsored by the government but protects religious activity that is initiated by private individuals, and the line between government-sponsored and privately initiated religious expression is vital to a proper understanding of the First Amendment's scope. As the Court has explained in several cases, "there is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect."

The complaint here is the teacher, as a public school official and representative of the government cannot prosyletize by making up his own version of American History.

Your statement that "A public school teacher cannot assign his students to read the bible.." is clearly untrue according to current guidelines by the federal goverment. A teacher MAY assign portions of scripture for academic purposes, just as he may assign portions of the Koran, which California schools already do.

If you included the rest of that sentence you'd see that's what he said, "...interview a Christian family or church worker to find out about their beliefs, or "review the famous teachings of Jesus", especially when teaching American history (perhaps in a comparative religion class in high school)."

In history class you need to teach history, just as in science class you need to teach science.

You are certainly forgiven for this innacurate statement of yours. And you are forgiven for your failure to do a simple internet search of the Department of Education on this matter. You are forgiven, I am sure, as least as much as you forgive Mr. Williams, for his failure to research the validity of the Washinton Prayer book materials he uses in his class.

Except that Williams is a school teacher with very much a different legal responsibility than a blogger. Not to mention this particular blogger doesn't seem to require forgiveness since he apparently didn't do what you claim.

We can forgive Williams, but that doesn't mean we condone his actions.

Tommie wrote:
Your statement that "A public school teacher cannot assign his students to read the bible.." is clearly untrue according to current guidelines by the federal goverment. A teacher MAY assign portions of scripture for academic purposes, just as he may assign portions of the Koran, which California schools already do.
The key statement here is "for academic purposes", which is a far narrower standard than you likely would believe. The courts have ruled, and rightly so, that there are some contexts in which a teacher may assign bible reading, specifically in comparative religion classes or in "bible-as-literature" courses. But this would only be true in secondary schools, and only for elective courses. This situation lacks that crucial context - it's an elementary school, it's forced reading (as opposed to an elective), and it's not at all relevant to what he is supposed to be teaching.
You are certainly forgiven for this innacurate statement of yours. And you are forgiven for your failure to do a simple internet search of the Department of Education on this matter. You are forgiven, I am sure, as least as much as you forgive Mr. Williams, for his failure to research the validity of the Washinton Prayer book materials he uses in his class.
LOL. Such superficial smugness is amusing. There is, of course, nothing here to forgive. The case has to do with legal questions, not questions of personal forgiveness.

Where do I begin? Is there a word limit here?

If Mr. Williams is not being criticized for expressing his religion at school, then what is the problem here ? It doesn't seem to follow that Mr. Williams can proselytize these children without "religious expression"of some sort, unless you are really saying that minor instruction about historical aspects of Christianity in American history is proselytizing. To get to proselytizing, Mr. Williams would have to had religiously expressed himself in the first place. This is why I provided the guidelines from the government.

Mr. Williams's lesson plan doesn't LOOK like religion expression to me, and if not religion expression, where the proselytizing? And if not proselytizing, WHAT is the problem here? All proselytizing is certainly teaching; but not all teaching is proselytizing.

Actually, this is very intriguing. Are critics really worried that a few handouts and interviews will send brainwashed innocent children flocking to the feet of Jesus Christ? Because, if that is true, every Christian parent in the country needs only a few handouts and interviews. Because, as most Christian parents know, years of influence, and even lifelong attendance at Christian schools, often produces no Christian response in their children. I provided the URL for the benefit of those who believe Mr. Williams conduct is religious expression.

But back to my point. So, now, it doesn't look like Mr. Williams is expressing his religion (in or outside the guidelines) and brief lessons about historical facts isn't proselytizing. The problem centers around the supplimentary materials. And, here, Mr. Williams may have no leg to stand on if the principal doesn't like the materials. Yet, the principal may also have no leg to stand on if the parents get cranky, and decide they LIKE the lesson plans. [Most Americans do believe in the Bible] This is where the "public" in "public schools" can be of great value. I have not assumed or alleged that his lesson plan is religious expression, it only seems that a good many someone elses have. Otherwise, what's the beef?

As far as suitability goes, WHEN it is appropriate to teach different topics and subjects to school children has been the subject of debate for 6,000 years. The school Mr. Williams teaches at has already made this decision. They provided the age appropriate texts TO Mr. Williams for teaching this subject. Mr. Williams supplied supplimentary material, a common behavior all over America. If he violated any local or federal rules, he certainly needs to stop it at once. If he has not, I say let the parents decide.

American public schools often immerse their students in topical studies, by utilizing all the "subjects" and resourses for the express purpose of studying ONE topic. Math, history, science, literature, the bulletin board, and classroom decorations are often solely devoted to studying ONE topic, for instance: the Egyptian Pharaohs. Indeed, the math system of the Pharaonic ages is investigated, and math "period" is devoted to this. The science of Pharaonic Egypt is investigated and science "period" is devoted to this, and so on. This may go on for, say, a week, or longer, or however long they have time to study it.

Additionally, students may be fortunate to have a local museum which happens to have a large Egyptian display for them to visit. Field trips! Also, there may be a local Egyptian ethnic association nearby for the students to visit. They may indeed "interview" members of the Egyptian community and write or report about whatever subjects seems fitting. All this immersion in one topic, using the subjects of math, science, literature, and social studies is a time honored method of instuction and highly effective. This appears to be what Williams is doing, but I do not know for sure.

And regarding the quote I pulled out to examine and discuss: "A public school teacher cannot assign his students to read the bible", this is misleading and still false. False, unless the Supreme Court has ruled after Stone v. Graham. And anyway, children, may be excused from such lessons.. The guidelines state clearly that the children cannot be compelled to read the bible for "devotional" purposes. Mr. Williams lesson plan is not devotional in any way. Good grief...even Mohatmas Ghandi thought that "famous teachings" of Jesus were sublime. Perhaps only Christian teachers are guilty of evil intentions when they note that Jesus Christ had anything sublime or famous to say, or that any nation on earth might have found Jesus's precepts worthy of honor or adherence. Then again, perhaps it would please the principal and like-minded critics if Mr. Williams taught about the precepts of Jesus that Mr. Ghandi most liked. It all smells....unseemly.

Finally, forgiveness doesn't have to be a two way street, of course. One is free to reject it, or even deny the need for it. Forgiveness is as much a benefit to the forgiver as it can be for the forgiven. I offer up forgiveness most freely, because I hope it is offered up most freely for others and myself as well. Perhaps Ghandi could have explained this Christian principle to those who dislike hearing such things from Christians. Not that you do, of course.

P.S. What are HTML tags? And thanks for responding everyone!

Tommie-
I think you misunderstand the legal issues in this case. The plaintiff is Mr. Williams, not the school district. The ADF, who is representing Mr. Williams, must prove that the school district, through the principal, acted illegally (either with regard to the Constitution or with regard to statutory law regarding education in the state of California) by requiring that he have his handouts approved of before handing them out. There are two primary reasons why this is going to be very, very difficult for them to establish. First, because the supplemental handouts he uses are riddled with false information (at least two quotes from the founding fathers and one entire alleged document quoted from is fraudulent, and almost certainly another document is as well). Second, because some of his assignments clearly are not germane to the subject he is supposed to be teaching.
If you look at the Easter handout that I linked to and go through each assignment, you can see that there is only one that has any actual use in teaching American history. And that one contains an entirely false reference to a document that does not appear to exist. The connection between the other assignments and American history is just non-existent. How does asking a child to read the Passion story in the bible and comment on the themes of betrayal and resurrection help teach American history? Given those facts (and that is only a very brief list, there are more difficulties in the handouts as well), it is entirely reasonable that the administration told him he had to have their prior approval for his supplemental material.
As far as the parents are concerned, it was the parental complaints that prompted the principal to make that decision in the first place. The ADF is going to find it impossible to defend many of the handouts prepared by Mr. Williams in court because, well, they're just impossible to defend. They are not relevant to the state guidelines and not relevant to the subject he claims to be teaching, they are merely using the fact that some Americans in history were Christian to teach about Christianity. They're going to lose, as well they should.

Don't bother. I've been up this path before, and the princess is always in another castle.

The fact someone is condoning this says something.

Ed,

I am not really addressing the legal case here. I'm addressing the accusations on this message board, such as: proselytizing, and violating the constitution. I am not saying Mr. Williams case is justifiable, it isn't even relevant to me.

The charge of proselytizing is absurd and that is why I addressed it. The statement about not being able to assign the bible for American History is, slightly misleading and not true, and that is why I addressed it.

I did not hear any hand-ringing about the miserably poor education of American school teachers, which is certainly more germane to this topic than the absurdity of proselytizing. It is outrageous that Mr. Williams introduced less than excellent materials to his students.

American school teachers, though devoted, loving, and mostly well meaning, are among the least educated graduates who leave our colleges and universities. Teachers Colleges are vast intellectual garbage dumps. Talk about germane. I wonder if this would have been such a problem if Mr. Williams had provided impeccable and enlightening supplimentary materials?

Regarding the Declaration of Independence and the relevance of discussing the Creator mentioned in it, to leave OUT describing the historical context of this God who has given these most precious rights nowhere else previously described in history, is absurd beyond belief and indeed a true attempt at rewriting history and shoving things down others' throats. There is only ONE God/Creator who is involved in the text of the Declaration. And THAT seems to be the problem for the critics on this message board, and perhaps the principal and parents who objected to it. If the materials were so bad, and the parents truly wanted the FACTS taught, they could have lobbied for excellent materials. But they did not.

Clearly, there is no getting around the intolerance of people who don't want their kids exposed to disagreeable and inconvenient religious facts energizing and surrounding our national founding period. The revolutionary period was, in large part, a revolution from the church pulpit. To hide this essential and critical information from our children is to foist upon them, our own intolerance of Christians, as well as an intolerance of real education.

Several years ago, there was an expensive attempt by the National Endowment for the Humanities to write history standards for American public schools. The scholars would recommend the primary topics to learn and at what grade they should be learned. They also provided supplimentary material recommendations. Mr. Williams was on the right track, but apparently failed to reach any high standards.

The attempt by the N.E.H. to write history standards failed miserably, in my opinion, mostly because leftist scholars on the committee felt compelled to hide the greatness of America and Western Civilization, and focus on their errors. It also failed because those on the left also magnified the greatness of other cultures, nations and civilizations, but conveniently left out many crucial criticisms of them. The project collasped, and millions of dollars were wasted. I wouldn't be surprised if something like that is operating here, but at a much lower rubber-meets-the-road level.

The posts here were about: proselytizing, assigning the bible as being unconstitutional, and Christians pushing their religious views on others; and THAT is what I continue to address.

Ed, I trust you will inform me when I reach the high state of unsuperficial smugness.

The charge of proselytizing is absurd and that is why I addressed it.
The charge of proselytizing is not only not absurd, it is quite well supported. First, you have the Easter handout that contains assignments that are not at all relevant to the teaching of AMerican history. Their sole purpose is to inculcate Christian belief in the students, which is emphatically not the teacher's job. Additionally, you have now the testimony of several parents who said that Mr. Williams would talk constantly about Jesus to his students, even during math or science lessons, not just history.
The statement about not being able to assign the bible for American History is, slightly misleading and not true, and that is why I addressed it.
Actually, that statement was true and I explained why in my first response to you. The courts have ruled that you can assign bible reading only in certain specific circumstances, either a comparative religion class or a bible-as-literature class, both of which would be electives at the secondary level, not required classes at the elementary level. Mandatory bible reading at the elementary school level would be a violation of the establishment clause in any setting that I can imagine, as the courts have consistently ruled since at least 1963.
I did not hear any hand-ringing about the miserably poor education of American school teachers, which is certainly more germane to this topic than the absurdity of proselytizing. It is outrageous that Mr. Williams introduced less than excellent materials to his students.
You didn't hear that because this conversation, on the part of everyone but you, was about the legal issues surrounding the lawsuit. But I've ranted about the sorry state of our entire educational system many times, including the entire notion of teachers having degrees in education as opposed to the field they're teaching. And I wouldn't limit it to teachers either; most administrators are badly educated as well.
Regarding the Declaration of Independence and the relevance of discussing the Creator mentioned in it, to leave OUT describing the historical context of this God who has given these most precious rights nowhere else previously described in history, is absurd beyond belief and indeed a true attempt at rewriting history and shoving things down others' throats. There is only ONE God/Creator who is involved in the text of the Declaration. And THAT seems to be the problem for the critics on this message board, and perhaps the principal and parents who objected to it.
Whoa, this isn't even close. In fact, the "creator" mentioned in the Declaration was perceived quite differently even by different men who signed the document. If you really want to place it in historical context, then any claim that it refers only to the biblical Christian God, which is the teacher's claim by the way, is patently false. The Declaration was written primarily by Jefferson, who did not believe in the biblical God at all, and in fact explicitly rejected that conception of God. It was edited by John Adams, who was a Unitarian who rejected much of the Christian conception of God, and by Ben Franklin, a deist who rejected almost everything in the bible. The Declaration, and the nation's founding in general, was the result of a compromise between Enlightenment deists and orthodox Christians. That's why the Declaration contains such phrases as "creator" and "Nature and Nature's God", because those were phrases that were essentially deistic, but could be seen by the orthodox Christians as referring to their gods as well. The founders differed wildly on their conception of God, some completely rejecting the Christian conception of it. To pretend that the language in the Declaration meant one and only one God is simply false. Jefferson's God and Witherspoon's God were entirely different.
Clearly, there is no getting around the intolerance of people who don't want their kids exposed to disagreeable and inconvenient religious facts energizing and surrounding our national founding period. The revolutionary period was, in large part, a revolution from the church pulpit. To hide this essential and critical information from our children is to foist upon them, our own intolerance of Christians, as well as an intolerance of real education.
That's absurd. Your claim about the Declaration above shows that it is you who wants to hide information from them by pretending that the Declaration's use of "creator" could only mean the orthodox Christian one when the very writers of that document didn't share that belief. The nation's founding should be presented as what it was, a group of people with very diverse views on the religious questions ranging from straightforward Enlightenment deism (Paine, Franklin, Allen, etc) to staunchly orthodox Christianity (Witherspoon, Henry, Samuel Adams, etc). In fact, among the leading lights of the group (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton), there is not a single orthodox Christian.
Now it is certainly true that the men who formed most of the colonies that later became the 13 states were predominately orthodox Christians of one form or another, and were often deeply motivated by their religious beliefs. That absolutely should be taught in school, and it is. You cannot teach about the formation of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, or Rhode Island, or the Mayflower Compact, without teaching that the people who settled there were motivated largely by their religious faith. But this can certainly be done without actually inculcating that faith in the students. You certainly don't need to have students read the Passion story from the gospels and then write a paper on the themes of betrayal and resurrection in order to teach that the Puritans believed they were establishing a Godly society in Massachusetts.
The posts here were about: proselytizing, assigning the bible as being unconstitutional, and Christians pushing their religious views on others; and THAT is what I continue to address.
And you continue to address it without regard for accuracy or context.

Ed,

This is fun!

Orthodox Christian and Protestant are not interchangeable terms. Orthodox Christians in America came from Russian via Alaska after the American Revolution and they are not protestants. The founders and Puritans were NOT Orthodox Christians.

The Supreme Court says in Stone v. Graham [1980] : "..the bible may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, OR THE LIKE."

The John Adams quotes merely affirm his dislike of ecclesiastical abuses, not Christ or the Bible.

The "Creator" in the Declaration was most certainly NOT Allah, or some Pagan God, and is what I meant when I said that there was only one GOD/CREATOR. And, I don't think it audacious to claim that the God of the Bible is probably the God or Creator in the Declaration. We have enough information about Jefferson to draw that conclusion.

Websters 1854 volume says a Deist is "One who believes in the existence of a God, but denies revealed religion; one who professes no form of religion, but follows the light of nature and reason, as his only guides in doctrine and practice; a free-thinker."

How does "...denies revealed religion...professes no form of religion" and "...follows the light of nature and reason, as his only guides..." square with Jefferson's own words:

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus..." (1816 Letter To Charles Thomson) [1]

"The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man. 1. That there is only one God, and he all perfect. 2. That there is a future state of rewards and punish-ments. 3. That to love God with all thy heart and they neighbor as theyself, is the sum of religion. (1822 Letter To Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse) [2]

.I am a christian in the only sense in which he [Jesus] wished anyone to be, sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others..." [3]

And from Historian Gertrude Himmelfarb we learn:

"Even Thomas Jefferson, who was suspected of being a nonbeliever, believed in Christianity as the national faith. A recently discovered handwritten history of a Washington parish recounts his exhange with a friend who happened to meet him on his way to church one Sunday morning carrying his large red prayer book.

'You going to church Mr. J. You do not believe a word in it.'

'Sir,' said Jefferson, 'no nation has ever yet existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be.' 'The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I as chief Magistrate of this nation am bound to give it the sanction of my example. Good morning Sir.'" [4]

So Jefferson said he believed in Christ, told people he was a Christian, said he supported Christ's doctrines, and went to Church to worship Him, but I and others cannot rightly draw a conclusion that Jefferson was a Christian, or that the Creator in the Declaration ISN'T the God of the Bible? If this is the case, drawing conclusions has no place in intellectual pursuits.

Without Christians there are no Puritans or Mayflower Compact, and so on. If Christianity was indeed most indespensible in the founding of this nation (and it was) the lessons about Easter neatly fits in with the history of explaining how Christians came to be Christians [they were once, long ago, Jews], and how Christians came to have a leading role in the birth our nation.

I really do find it fascinating that a few lessons about Easter could be spun into a diabolical subversive mind bending "inculcation" of this dreaded "Christianity". Now, if only Christian schools could figure out how easily Mr. Williams executed this devious plot to capture the minds of children, they could revolutionize Christian School education. The court permits teaching about the history of holidays worshipped in America.(Stone v. Graham, I think) You, and others like you, I'm sure, merely seem to dislike HOW he does it.

If it is true that Mr. Williams has the habit of providing erroneous classroom materials, he NEEDS to be supervised, or even fired.

If Mr. Williams has violated his personal privilege of religious expression, he needs to stop it.To prove assertions that he proselytized, the court will have to sift his conduct through Stone v. Graham. It will all be interesting, I'm sure.

Sources:

1.
"Thomas Jefferson And His Life", Peter Pauper Press, Inc. 1986 (obtained from Greenfield Village and Henry Ford Museum, Dearborn Michigan. page. 29.

2.
IBID. page 30.

3.
"The Rewriting of America's History". Catherine Millard. Horizon Books.1991. page 92

4.
"One Nation; Two Cultures. Gertrude Himmelfarb. Vintage Books. 2001. page 86

Hey, Tommie,

Yes, this is fun! From bios of two of your authors:

Gertrude Himmelfarb, the wife of neoconservative godfather Irving Kristol and mother of William Kristol, is a scholar whose work has focused on issues of virtue, morality, Victorian society, and modern values.

Catherine Millard, B.A., M.A., is the founder and president of Christian Heritage Tours, Inc., a tour group which teaches individuals or groups throughout the areas of Washington D.C.; Philadelphia, Valley Forge, and Gettysburg, Pennsylvania; and Williamsburg, Jamestown, and Yorktown, Virginia; about the true history of our country.

Got any references from the reality-based community?

Orthodox Christian and Protestant are not interchangeable terms. Orthodox Christians in America came from Russian via Alaska after the American Revolution and they are not protestants. The founders and Puritans were NOT Orthodox Christians.
I didn't say "Orthodox Christians", I said "orthodox Christians". There are Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox, but by leaving the word uncapitalized, I thought it obvious that I was referring to mainstream, plain old Christians.
The Supreme Court says in Stone v. Graham [1980] : "..the bible may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, OR THE LIKE."
Yes, none of which is the case here. I have gone through the assignment in which he assigned bible reading line by line and showed why they had no bearing on the study of American history, which is the context in which the assignment was given. I've already agreed with you three times now that bible reading may be assigned in some contexts, but I've also pointed out why none of those contexts exist in this case. I have no idea why you keep repeating what has already been admitted to without bothering to address whether it applies in this particular case, the only case relevant to the discussion.
The John Adams quotes merely affirm his dislike of ecclesiastical abuses, not Christ or the Bible.
I don't recall offering a John Adams quote that dealt with ecclesiastical abuses at all, nor do I recall claiming that Adams had a "dislike" of Christ or the bible.
The "Creator" in the Declaration was most certainly NOT Allah, or some Pagan God, and is what I meant when I said that there was only one GOD/CREATOR. And, I don't think it audacious to claim that the God of the Bible is probably the God or Creator in the Declaration. We have enough information about Jefferson to draw that conclusion.
Wow, where do I even start with this one? First, Allah is the same God that Christians believe in, they just believe in a different revelation from that God. Second, the notion that you have enough information about Jefferson to draw the conclusion that his conception of "creator" referred to the biblical god is false. Rather than just reading isolated quotes from a couple of Jefferson's letters, try reading them in their entirety and you will see what Jefferson really believed. He utterly rejected the Old Testament conception of God, calling it "cruel, capricious and unjust" among other things. As far as Jesus is concerned, you need to read the full letters you're quoting.
Jefferson not only did not believe that Jesus was divine, he didn't believe that Jesus ever claimed to be divine. He savaged Paul and the apostles as distorters of his thoughts, and he viewed Jesus solely as an ethical philosopher. He called his system of ethics the most sublime he had ever encountered, but denied the entire Christian mythology about Jesus, including the virgin birth, all claims of divinity or of having performed miracles, the resurrection, and so forth. He believed Jesus to have been a brilliant man and nothing more, and that his followers falsely turned him into a god. So when he says he was a Christian "in the only sense" that Jesus would have wanted him to be, he is referring to accepting his philosophy as true and not at all to anything like orthodox Christianity. The "doctrines" he accepted were merely the ethical thoughts of a human being, and he went through the gospels and cut out all of the claims or miracles or divinity that he said were falsely attributed to him. His beliefs were a long, long way from being Christian in any real sense, and he clearly uses the term to mean something quite different than you are implying.
Himmelfarb's claim that Jefferson believed in "Christianity as the national faith" is the sort of shoddy scholarship that has left her reputation considerably weakened over the last couple of decades among historians. It flatly contradicts Jeffersons views as expressed literally dozens of times during his life. To form that anachronistic conclusion from a single snippet of a third party conversation that no one can confirm to have taken place, and then place that one snippet over and above his clearly stated views in dozens of letters written in his own hand, is extremely shoddy scholarship. Sadly, Himmelfarb long ago made the transition from serious scholar to popular hack.
Without Christians there are no Puritans or Mayflower Compact, and so on. If Christianity was indeed most indespensible in the founding of this nation (and it was) the lessons about Easter neatly fits in with the history of explaining how Christians came to be Christians [they were once, long ago, Jews], and how Christians came to have a leading role in the birth our nation.
Nonsense. You don't have to teach the Christian mythology in order to teach that people were motivated by their Christianity, or that they were Christians. If they were teaching about the war between Muslims and the Spanish, would it be necessary to have them read chapters of the Quran and write papers on the themes found there? Certainly not in the 5th grade!
I really do find it fascinating that a few lessons about Easter could be spun into a diabolical subversive mind bending "inculcation" of this dreaded "Christianity". Now, if only Christian schools could figure out how easily Mr. Williams executed this devious plot to capture the minds of children, they could revolutionize Christian School education. The court permits teaching about the history of holidays worshipped in America.(Stone v. Graham, I think) You, and others like you, I'm sure, merely seem to dislike HOW he does it.
This is just silly and inflated rhetoric. Of course I dislike how he does it - he does it dishonestly and in inappropriate contexts. He can't even teach math without referring constantly to Jesus. Isn't that a big clue that the principal's oversight is not only reasonable, but constitutionally necessary?

Ed,

Sorry about the "orthodox" thing. I have never heard of Christians referred to in that way.

I think the link to John Adams's quotes came from a link you posted at the bottom of the first post. It linked to a site called eriposte.com. FROM eriposte it went to an atheist site, which had the quotes.

I'm going to take Mr. Jefferson's word about the God of the Old Testament:

" I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessities and comforts of life...with His Providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power, and to whose goodness I ask you to join with me in supplications that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants...and shall secure to you the peace, friendsip and approbation of all nations." Second Inaugural Address, March 1805 [1] Egads, Jefferson is a real Bible thumper.

Some nasty Anglicans got very mad at Jefferson because he fought against their wishes to establish an Anglican Church-state in Virginia. In their rath against Jefferson, they accused him of being "...an atheist, deist, or devil...". Jefferson said they called him these names to " [soothe] their resentments against his Act of Virginia..."[2]

Of course, Jefferson WROTE that Act of Virgina to PREVENT the establishment of the Anglican church. Anglicans were furious with him, so they called him a four letter word: deist. Opps! That's five.

And like the Anglicans of old who lied about dear old Jeff and called him nasty names like "deist", todays nasty folk continue to lodge the deist charge against him, only they do it to soothe THEIR resentments against Christians who have the gall to claim Jefferson as one of their own.

In other words, the allegations that Jefferson was a Deist came from his enemies, not from Jefferson. The enemies who said this about him were Anglicans. The same Anglicans that persecuted and tortured the Pilgrims and Puritans.

Other founders thought there was some good things from the Bible too.
Here is one of many samples from the State Convention debates for ratifying the Constitution [from the Library of Congress Collection]:

"Sir, the instance adduced from the history of the Jewish theocracy evinces that there are certain situations in communities which will unavoidably lead to results similiar to those we experience. The Israelites were unsuccessful in war; they were sometimes defeated by their enemies......" Dr. Jarvis, Massachuetts Convention. page 218

"The nation of Israel, having recieved a form of civil government from heaven, enjoyed it for a considerable period; but, at length, laboring under pressures which were brought upon them by their own misconduct and imprudence, instead of imputing their misfortunes to their true causes, ...asked Samuel [the jewish judge] to make them a king to judge them, like other nations....." Mr. Smith, New York. page 226 [3]

OMG! More bible thumpers! Don't they know about separation of church and state?

There are examples, too numerous to mention here, of how the ratifiers resorted to scripture time and again, to provide themselves with guidance about the difficult decisions they were making while founding our nation. It is not odd that Mr. Williams should also resort to scripture where it fits in with history and where it does not violate the law, or the rules of the school.

You may think it wouldn't be important to discuss the "mythology" behind Christianity, as you call it, and you have a right to that opinion. But, if there WAS a mythology behind it all, than what is the problem with knowing about it, if it was "THE" "mythology in question?

I can see it all now.

Teacher: "Children. Many of the founders were Christians."

Curious student: "Teacher, what is a Christian?"

Teacher: "A Christian is a person who believes in Jesus Christ."

Curious student: "Who was Jesus Christ?"

Teacher: "A member of the nonreality based community!"

::::joking joking::::

I am not saying that there should be an in-depth study of these topics in fifth grade. One can go back very far in history without having to go in to too much detail or depth. I don't believe Mr. Williams has done in-depth lessons on this subject.

A precocious fifth grader can tell you why and how Obi Wan Kenobi ended up as a hermit on Tatooine because of the ancient Clone Wars. He can also probably tell you everything about the history of each of the hundreds of characters in the Star War universe: what planets they come from, how they reproduce, the particulars of their bodily features [furry, ten legs, scales, or whatever!], their ancient and "modern" roles in the Star War saga, where they good guys or bad guys, did they belong to the Rebellion, or not..etc., etc. Fifth graders are capable of a good deal of learning.

You simply assert that Allah and the Christian God are the same God but provide us with no evidence for this. I can prove to you that they are not the same God within the context of the Koran and the Bible themselves. How will YOU do it? And if the Koran was as crucial to the founding of this country as the Bible was, I would say it TOO should be included in Mr. Williams's lessons. Fortunately, it was not.
My silly and inflated rhetoric about "diabolical... subversive" Mr. Williams was intended to be silly and inflated, in order to highlight the silly and inflated rhetoric about "proselytizing ...[and]..."inculcat[ing]". And I have already agreed with you that he shouldn't violate his right to free expression in the classroom, which has not yet been proven.
Sources:
1.
"The Rewriting Of History, Catherine Millard. (the Catherine Millard of Nonreality-Community fame) page 91.
2.
IBID. page 96
3.
The quote about Samuel is found at: http://memory.loc.gov/ll/lled/002/0200/02380226.gif

.

I'm going to take Mr. Jefferson's word about the God of the Old Testament:
" I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessities and comforts of life...with His Providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power, and to whose goodness I ask you to join with me in supplications that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants...and shall secure to you the peace, friendsip and approbation of all nations." Second Inaugural Address, March 1805 [1] Egads, Jefferson is a real Bible thumper.
Okay, but take all of his words, not just a vague reference to the ancient Israelites from a public speech intended to ingratiate himself with a largely Christian population. Look in particular at his private writings and remember that Jefferson had sworn his friends to secrecy about his private religious views because he knew they would damage him if the public knew of them. Jefferson wrote privately at great length about the bible and what he believed and did not believe. He believed that there was only one God, of course, and that all religions worshipped the same God, but that they also built up many falsehoods and foisted lies upon their conception of God.
Discussing the role of Jesus as a religious reformer trying to break free of those falsehoods and lies he says, "His object was the reformation of some articles in the religion of the Jews, as taught by Moses. That sect had presented for the object of their worship, a being of terrific character, cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust." This obviously refers to the Old Testament conception of God. Jefferson makes a great distinction between the belief in one God and the religion that grows up around that belief, which is why he could refer to "that Being" that led the Israelites out of the wilderness and yet condemn virtually everything that they believed about that Being. It's also why he could call the ethical system of Jesus the most sublime and perfect he had ever encountered while also savaging the apostles as distorters and liars who wrapped up his simple and pure ideas in bandages of deceit. This is why you have to dig a little deeper into his writings to see what he really believed. You can read that full letter showing in much more detail his views about Jesus and the biblical god here.
Some nasty Anglicans got very mad at Jefferson because he fought against their wishes to establish an Anglican Church-state in Virginia. In their rath against Jefferson, they accused him of being "...an atheist, deist, or devil...". Jefferson said they called him these names to " [soothe] their resentments against his Act of Virginia..."[2]
Of course, Jefferson WROTE that Act of Virgina to PREVENT the establishment of the Anglican church. Anglicans were furious with him, so they called him a four letter word: deist. Opps! That's five.
And like the Anglicans of old who lied about dear old Jeff and called him nasty names like "deist", todays nasty folk continue to lodge the deist charge against him, only they do it to soothe THEIR resentments against Christians who have the gall to claim Jefferson as one of their own.
Once again, this is mostly false. Jefferson's Act for Establishing Religious Freedom was passed by Madison in 1786, but it was not to overthrow an Anglican establishment but to counter a bill put in by Patrick Henry that allowed for multiple establishments. The Anglican church had already been established as the state church of Virginia, but that had already been changed in favor of multiple establishments and Henry's bill would have used tax dollars to support a multitude of Christian churches. Madison was the one who pushed Jefferson's bill through while Jefferson was in France and it was to put an end to multiple establishments, not to the earlier Anglican establishment.
Also, it was not the Anglicans who called Jefferson an atheist and a devil, it was the followers of John Adams during the election of 1800, one of the nastiest in history (though they later became fast friends). Jefferson was surely not an atheist or a devil, but as far as deism is concerned, he was fairly close. He called himself a Unitarian, which was closely aligned with European deism and he himself associated his views with those of Voltaire, Condorcet and d'Holbach among other Continental deists. I simply call him a Unitarian because that is what he called himself at the end of his life. What I object to is the notion that he was, in any real sense, a Christian. He rejected every supernatural element of Christianity, he rejected the biblical conception of God entirely, and he rejected any notion that Jesus had even claimed to be anything more than a philosopher and reformer. His views were as far away from Christianity as mine are, and you certainly wouldn't consider me a Christian.

Tommie,

Some of my colleagues in teaching may be undereducated -- as is the plaintiff in that California case. His crude, revised version of U.S. history, including claims that the deity referred to in the Declaration is the God of Abraham, have no basis in fact. His lesson plans demonstrate a desire to sway students to Christianity at the expense of American history.

He has no such right to lie to students. As a Christian, I resent his misrepresentation of the faith. As an American, I note that were the Russians to try to do the same thing he has tried to do, it would be tantamount to an act of war (apologies to Milton Goldberg and the Excellence in Education Commission).

We are faced with a rising tide of mediocrity, and that idiot teacher who is pushing an odd version of Christianity is in current ripple.

How about we ask that the suit be dismissed for failure to state a claim, other than malpractice by the teacher?

Perhaps it is we overeducated, overqualified teachers who suffer most from these idiots. When he's done, the kids will be sent to me to try to get them back up to snuff to pass the required tests for graduation.

A mind is a terrible thing to lose, Dan Quayle once observed. Euripides put it in perspective: Whom the gods destroy they first make mad. The Christian wackoes have gone over the line on this one. They have become sinners in the hands of an angry God, and I suspect the courts will take a suitable vengeance on them. The teacher, having become the Dan Quayle poster boy of the year, won't notice, and will go on the lecture circuit.

If Williams is being honest about the principles this country was founded upon, then he should include Thomas Paine, the Greeks and the idea that the Founding Fathers wanted to get away from religious intolerance and persecution when this country's Constitution/Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence were created.

Based on these documents this country was clearly founded upon the principle of separation of church and state. The Founding Fathers knew the history and danger of mixing religion and government and wanted a clear separation between the two.

"I contemplate with sovereign 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."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association

If Williams wants to present and accurate picture of what inspired the Founding Fathers, then Williams should talk about Ancient Greece, the Enlightenment movement as well as the inspiration of Thomas Paine, etc. In addition, Williams should include quotes from Paine, Jefferson, Socrates, Plato, etc., rather than biblical quotes or quotes about Christianity.

Furthermore, I don't know why Williams would want to give more than a cursory overview of the various religious holidays in his US History class. Religious holidays have and have had very little impact on the form of government we have in the US. To do more than a cursory overview really gets into a religious studies and/or a comparative religion class.

If Williams were teaching a world history class I could understand wanting to include information regarding the various religions as well as information on the Holy Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, etc., but William's is teaching a US History class!

When a student in William's class asked why "Under God" was in the "Pledge of Allegiance," Williams should have responded within a historical framework. For example, Williams should have told the students that the Pledge of Allegiance was first published in the 1890's and "Under God" was added in 1954. That response would make more sense than producing religious quotes and/or Washington's prayer journal. Williams should have discussed why "Under God" was added to the Pledge as well as why all of our currency has "In God We Trust" on it. (In God We Trust was added to our currency in the 1950's and 1960's.) To try to imply that the "Pledge of Allegiance" and "Under God" were part of the Founding Documents or that Christianity was part of the Founding Fathers agenda is historically inaccurate and wrong for a US History teacher to be teaching. Williams should state unequivocally that the Founding Fathers did not want to mix religion and government because the results have always been violent, deadly and oppressive.

To leave the parents to straighten out the misinformation regarding religion is wrong. Religion for most people is very mysterious and has been taught to each generation by "religious" leaders who want to keep people in the dark. It is the only way for religious leaders to justify their positions and their need for money, power and control.

For a history teacher to be proselytizing and/or distorting information to bolster their faith/viewpoint is wrong. History teachers should let religion have its rightful place in history, but they shouldn't elevate religion's place in history to fit their particular faith and/or agenda. I think the Founding Fathers would be rolling in their graves if they knew how Christians have turned the founding of this country into a religious event.
_____________________________________

If Williams must include famous quotes for his class, then he should include some of the following to counter balance all his religious quotes:

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the bible is filled, it would seem more consistent that we called it the word of a demon than the 'Word of God.' It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind."
-Thomas Paine

"What is it the Bible teaches us? - raping, cruelty, and murder. What is it the New Testament teaches us? - to believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married, and the belief of this debauchery is called faith."
-Thomas Paine

"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst."
-Thomas Paine

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."
-Benjamin Franklin

"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man."
-Thomas Jefferson

"It is between fifty and sixty years since I read the Apocalypse, and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac."
-Thomas Jefferson

"The Christian God is a being of terrific character -- cruel, vindictive, capricious, and unjust."
-Thomas Jefferson

"I am for liberty of conscience in its noblest, broadest, and highest sense. But I cannot give liberty of conscience to the pope and his followers, the papists, so long as they tell me, through all their councils, theologians, and canon laws that their conscience orders them to burn my wife, strangle my children, and cut my throat when they find their opportunity."
-Abraham Lincoln

"The bible has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies."
-Mark Twain

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute."
-President John F. Kennedy