Declaration of Independence Banned at Calif School

[danwxman]

It is also possible that the teacher was using the documents mentioned to advance the notion that we are somehow a Christian nation, and that the founding fathers were all Christians.  We know that this notion is false, and the principal would be correct in stopping the teacher.

The founders were very religious people. To deny it is to be a revisionist. Which of course most colleges and schools are full of, revisionist teachers.

The founders were not all religious. Please get your history correct. Wait, who am I kidding? You're a southerner...I shouldn't expect you to get history right.

My history is right. You believe the lies that have come from the Liberal/Yankee dominated school system for the past 125 years. The schools teach nothing but lies and deceptions regarding American history. I mean the schools teach that Lincoln was a great hero and president when in fact the truth is he was a terrible man and deserved to be killed. Anyone who teaches that the bastard Sherman or Grant were correct in their actions are worthy of jail and not promotion or to be paid by the state.

Okay. Instead of argue and debate, just bash my school which you know nothing about. That's cool and all.

I am just saying. Instead of believing the lies and hidden agendas that are pushed through by the public school system go to a library or National Archives and look up some private diaries and writings from the time in history that you are researching. Your eyes will open up to the facts.

Yes. Personal diaries are certainly an unbiased source of history.

You would trust a modern history book over a diary or personal account?

That's a tough one...modern history textbooks (especially the ones used in public schools) tend to be very Pro-America biased.

[??????????]

It is also possible that the teacher was using the documents mentioned to advance the notion that we are somehow a Christian nation, and that the founding fathers were all Christians.  We know that this notion is false, and the principal would be correct in stopping the teacher.

The founders were very religious people. To deny it is to be a revisionist. Which of course most colleges and schools are full of, revisionist teachers.

The founders were not all religious. Please get your history correct. Wait, who am I kidding? You're a southerner...I shouldn't expect you to get history right.

My history is right. You believe the lies that have come from the Liberal/Yankee dominated school system for the past 125 years. The schools teach nothing but lies and deceptions regarding American history. I mean the schools teach that Lincoln was a great hero and president when in fact the truth is he was a terrible man and deserved to be killed. Anyone who teaches that the bastard Sherman or Grant were correct in their actions are worthy of jail and not promotion or to be paid by the state.

Okay. Instead of argue and debate, just bash my school which you know nothing about. That's cool and all.

I am just saying. Instead of believing the lies and hidden agendas that are pushed through by the public school system go to a library or National Archives and look up some private diaries and writings from the time in history that you are researching. Your eyes will open up to the facts.

Yes. Personal diaries are certainly an unbiased source of history.

You would trust a modern history book over a diary or personal account?

That's a tough one...modern history textbooks (especially the ones used in public schools) tend to be very Pro-America biased.

Any book that claims to be a "history book" and only goes over the Revolution or Civil war in 2-3 pages is only worthy of the garbage can.

[The Vorlon]

Yes. Personal diaries are certainly an unbiased source of history.

The argument on "the table" is if the various founding fathers were a religious lot.

If we were to read, say Jefferson's Diaries, this would indeed IMHO, be a fairly good guide to the degree to which Jefferson was religious.

Repeat for all availble founding fathers...

In totality, these diaries would indeed provide good insight into the degree of religiosity of the Founders IMHO.

[J. J.]

First of all, I've never claimed I wasn't biased.  It is important, IMO, to know the biases of who is speaked/posting.  

Second, it is revisionist not to mention the role of religion in history; this was a large factor, even in Paine's arguments for independence.  At least four colonies were founded for religious reasons, MA, MD, RI, PA.  All of that context is important to understanding the mindset of the revolutionists.

[danwxman]

Yes. Personal diaries are certainly an unbiased source of history.

The argument on "the table" is if the various founding fathers were a religious lot.

If we were to read, say Jefferson's Diaries, this would indeed IMHO, be a fairly good guide to the degree to which Jefferson was religious.

Repeat for all availble founding fathers...

In totality, these diaries would indeed provide good insight into the degree of religiosity of the Founders IMHO.

I've never read Jefferson's diary...and you may very well be correct. But that doesn't change the fact that he didn't let his personal religious beliefs get in the way of how he thought America should be governed.

[MODU]

The founding fathers weren't religious?  *dies laughin*  That's the funniest thing I've heard all day.

They might not ALL have been "Christians," but they were certainly religious.  Washington  and Paine were Deists, Adams (and Quincy Adams) were Unitarians, Jefferson was a Christian (variety unknown since he later wrote his own version of the Gospel), Franklin went from "Christian" to agnostic, and so on.  Many of those that signed the Declaration were heads of churches, while others were Freemasons who believed that everything depends on the providence of God.

So yes, they were religious even if they weren't "Christians."  

[danwxman]

The founding fathers weren't religious?  *dies laughin*  That's the funniest thing I've heard all day.

They might not ALL have been "Christians," but they were certainly religious.  Washington  and Paine were Deists, Adams (and Quincy Adams) were Unitarians, Jefferson was a Christian (variety unknown since he later wrote his own version of the Gospel), Franklin went from "Christian" to agnostic, and so on.  Many of those that signed the Declaration were heads of churches, while others were Freemasons who believed that everything depends on the providence of God.

So yes, they were religious even if they weren't "Christians."  

Who said the founders weren't religious?

[The Vorlon]

Yes. Personal diaries are certainly an unbiased source of history.

The argument on "the table" is if the various founding fathers were a religious lot.

If we were to read, say Jefferson's Diaries, this would indeed IMHO, be a fairly good guide to the degree to which Jefferson was religious.

Repeat for all availble founding fathers...

In totality, these diaries would indeed provide good insight into the degree of religiosity of the Founders IMHO.

I've never read Jefferson's diary...and you may very well be correct. But that doesn't change the fact that he didn't let his personal religious beliefs get in the way of how he thought America should be governed.

Jefferson is one of my own personal heros actually.

I am especially fond of those 10 little bits he wisely had tacked on to the Constitution way back when..

Jefferson actually wanted to make the "Bill or Rights" even more sweeping in it's restrictions on the power of Government, but hads to compromise out some of the more restrictive language.

Much of the US Bill or rights was based on the Virginia Bill of rights penned by George Mason..

The Virginia Declaration of Rights

Virginia's Declaration of Rights was drawn upon by Thomas Jefferson for the opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence. It was widely copied by the other colonies and became the basis of the Bill of Rights. Written by George Mason, it was adopted by the Virginia Constitutional Convention on June 12, 1776.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free convention which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government .

Section 1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Section 2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants and at all times amenable to them.

Section 3. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration. And that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community has an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.

Section 4. That no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services; which, nor being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge to be hereditary.

Section 5. That the legislative and executive powers of the state should be separate and distinct from the judiciary; and that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression, by feeling and participating the burdens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into that body from which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by frequent, certain, and regular elections, in which all, or any part, of the former members, to be again eligible, or ineligible, as the laws shall direct. - Term limits

Section 6. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assembled for the public good.

Section 7. That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority, without consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights and ought not to be exercised.

Section 8. That in all capital or criminal prosecutions a man has a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence in his favor, and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of twelve men of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty; nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; that no man be deprived of his liberty except by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers.

Section 9. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Section 10. That general warrants, whereby an officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted.

Section 11. That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by jury is preferable to any other and ought to be held sacred.

Section 12. That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.

Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Section 14. That the people have a right to uniform government; and, therefore, that no government separate from or independent of the government of Virginia ought to be erected or established within the limits thereof.

Section 15. That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

Section 16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

wonderful strawmen arguments here, especially in agcat's first post. Not a single Democrat here has come out in favor of this. And I'll be not a single prominemnt Democrat politician will either. So how are we to blame?

There was a case in Arkansas where an openly gay student was tormented by his teachers. They encouraged other students to make fun of him, and at one point forced him to come in front of class and read a selection of Bible verses about how homosexuality is an abomination and punishable by death and all that. Did we blame the national Republican party? No, becuase they had absolutely nothing to do with it. It was handled properly. The school district got a huge lawsuit and those teachers are now unemployed. How are the Senate Democrats to blame for this now? Why not do what we do and put blame where it's do?

Great logic though, next Senate election some voter will think "Hmm, I heard out in some school in California a teacher was prohibited from handing out copies of the Declaration of Indepence because it mentioned God in it, I guess I have to vote for the Republican now, even though the Democratic candidate has absolutely nothing to do with this!"

Let me make it clear to all conservatives: I THINK THIS IS ING STUPID.

Now let me hear more nonsense about how all Democrats are in favor of this.

[A18]

Vorlon-- you left out part of Section 16. The wording is very important, IMHO.

Section 16. Free exercise of religion; no establishment of religion.

That religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other. No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. And the General Assembly shall not prescribe any religious test whatever, or confer any peculiar privileges or advantages on any sect or denomination, or pass any law requiring or authorizing any religious society, or the people of any district within this Commonwealth, to levy on themselves or others, any tax for the erection or repair of any house of public worship, or for the support of any church or ministry; but it shall be left free to every person to select his religious instructor, and to make for his support such private contract as he shall please.

And this is what the Bill of Rights was based off of. There dies the notion that any vague reference to religion is banned by the first amendment.

[A18]

Now let me hear more nonsense about how all Democrats are in favor of this.

The Dems have nothing to do with this. But what scares me is that some of the judges they appoint have this kind of a philosophy (just like "under God" in the pledge).

I don't even think 1% of Democrats would agree with this.

Wait-- I just thought of the ONE "Democrat" who might support this! OPEBO!

[ATFFL]

wonderful strawmen arguments here,

Now let me hear more nonsense about how all Democrats are in favor of this.

Wow, why to condemn the strawman arguments and then make your own.  Way to go, BRTD, for the most hypocritical post of the day. 

What is being said in this thread is that the mainstream democratic party has to come out strongly against this or the Republicans can and damn well will paint the entire party as being in favor of banning the DoI.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Now let me hear more nonsense about how all Democrats are in favor of this.

The Dems have nothing to do with this. But what scares me is that some of the judges they appoint have this kind of a philosophy (just like "under God" in the pledge).

I don't even think 1% of Democrats would agree with this.

Wait-- I just thought of the ONE "Democrat" who might support this! OPEBO!

the judge who wrote the decision on the Under God deal was a Nixon appointee.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

wonderful strawmen arguments here,

Now let me hear more nonsense about how all Democrats are in favor of this.

Wow, why to condemn the strawman arguments and then make your own.  Way to go, BRTD, for the most hypocritical post of the day. 

What is being said in this thread is that the mainstream democratic party has to come out strongly against this or the Republicans can and damn well will paint the entire party as being in favor of banning the DoI.

I guarantee that if any resolution comes out like one against the Under God, the Democrats will not oppose it. However, we just can't call a press conference and go on national TV about how one principal is an idiot.

Did we demand the national Republicans come out strongly with the situation on the gay student? No, because IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, JUST AS THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DEMOCATIC PARTY.

My argument wasn't a strawman though, go read agcat's post on page 3.

[Andrew]

But what scares me is that some of the judges they appoint have this kind of a philosophy (just like "under God" in the pledge).

Of course, that decision was clearly correct.  You can bet that the Supreme Court justices were happy they could find a way to overturn the decision (Newdow did not have standing to bring the case) while avoiding the substantive issue of establishment of religion.

[A18]

I'm going to post this one more time until someone pays attention. Here's what the First Amendment was based on:

Section 16. Free exercise of religion; no establishment of religion.

That religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other. No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. And the General Assembly shall not prescribe any religious test whatever, or confer any peculiar privileges or advantages on any sect or denomination, or pass any law requiring or authorizing any religious society, or the people of any district within this Commonwealth, to levy on themselves or others, any tax for the erection or repair of any house of public worship, or for the support of any church or ministry; but it shall be left free to every person to select his religious instructor, and to make for his support such private contract as he shall please.

Yes...any voluntary reference to God in a pledge would clearly be outlawed by this...

[ATFFL]

wonderful strawmen arguments here,

Now let me hear more nonsense about how all Democrats are in favor of this.

Wow, why to condemn the strawman arguments and then make your own.  Way to go, BRTD, for the most hypocritical post of the day. 

What is being said in this thread is that the mainstream democratic party has to come out strongly against this or the Republicans can and damn well will paint the entire party as being in favor of banning the DoI.

I guarantee that if any resolution comes out like one against the Under God, the Democrats will not oppose it. However, we just can't call a press conference and go on national TV about how one principal is an idiot.

Did we demand the national Republicans come out strongly with the situation on the gay student? No, because IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, JUST AS THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DEMOCATIC PARTY.

My argument wasn't a strawman though, go read agcat's post on page 3.

Can't wait until the 9th Circuit gets around to ruling in favor of the school district.  Then sit back and watch the fun.

Perhaps some of you sophisticated blue state libs can enlighten us  flyover country simpletons as to the rationale behind this decision.  I'm sure it's probably beyond our limited comprehension, but why not give it a go.

Show me where he says all liberals are in favor of it.

Words like "perhaps" and "some"  are an invitation to do exactly what you did, say that you, a blue state liberal, can't defend it either.

[The Vorlon]

Vorlon-- you left out part of Section 16. The wording is very important, IMHO.

Section 16. Free exercise of religion; no establishment of religion.

That religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other. No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. And the General Assembly shall not prescribe any religious test whatever, or confer any peculiar privileges or advantages on any sect or denomination, or pass any law requiring or authorizing any religious society, or the people of any district within this Commonwealth, to levy on themselves or others, any tax for the erection or repair of any house of public worship, or for the support of any church or ministry; but it shall be left free to every person to select his religious instructor, and to make for his support such private contract as he shall please.

And this is what the Bill of Rights was based off of. There dies the notion that any vague reference to religion is banned by the first amendment.

It was not my intention to truncate Article 16, think it was just a "cut and paste" error or something.

Thank-you for posting the full 16th Article fromthe Virginia Bill of Rights, it places it direct and proper historical context the intent of the 1st Amendment.

The relevant passage is actually this:

but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion

To profess is, by definition, a public act, such as speaking at a meeting or in debate in a public assembly...


I personally am an Athiest, and while I don't want you or anybody else forcing religion down my proverbial throat, it is equally wrong for an athiest such as my self to deny you your religious values.

I guess my position of this crazy liberal notion of freedom FROM religion is summarized as such:

I do not believe in God, but I happen to be very good friends with a couple who are deeply devout.

A few Saturdays ago they held a dinner party and, horror of horrors! started the meal with a prayer!

To me, basic fundemental politeness, not to mention respect for the beliefs of others required that I just simply quietly bow my head in a moment of quiet personal thought while the prayer went on.

I guess you could make an  argument that I was 'forced" to participate in a religious ritual against my will, but to me this is a bogus argument.

Was I hurt in any way?

I had to listen to a few nice words of thanks for the wonderful life we are all fortunate to live, endure some additional agony about how we are grateful to enjoy the company of some good friends, and tollerate the pain or people extending their hopes that we all lead long healthy and happy lives....

Excuse me if I don't fully agree with the ACLU position that my rights were violated and that my fundemental human rights were threatened to the core...

Granted, this is a private function, but I think the logic carried over within reason to public events as well....

An assembly at school starts with a non-demoninational prayer asking for wisdom, and saying thanks for all we have to be thankful for..

Excuse me, but who got hurt here...?

[DaleC76]

The funny thing is, you can find quotes by each of the founding fathers that are both religious and non-religious.  Most of them, like many others, felt different about religion in their old age than they did while they were in the prime of their lives.  Young men rarely seem to have time for God. 

Ben Franklin, probably the most secular founding father (who once considered himself an agnostic) proposed that each session of the Constitutional Convention begin with a prayer.  He was in his eighties at the time and in poor health.  When the rest of the delegates expressed little interest in such a notion, Franklin lamented "The convention, except three or four persons, thought prayers unnecessary!"

[??????????]

Most farmers of that period and well up into the 20th Century definately believed in God but they didn't attend any sort of organized church. While many civil war soldiers did believe in God, for certain, they didn't follow the teachings of any particular sect.

[phk]

I wish more schools in California did this.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well we all know what happened the last time somebody plagiarized Kinnock...

Heehee... poor Joe Biden...

[MODU]

I wish more schools in California did this.

What, deny teaching our children and grandchildren about our nations history?  Maybe we should skip the whole Revolutionary period and go right into the 1800's?

Here my take on the whole thing.  Now I am older than most of you on this site, but even back when I went through public school, we were taught all the religions of the world and their beliefs.  We learned about Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, and so on, and in great detail.  However, Christianity was brushed over since it was implied that we were already well versed in the topic.  Now that I am much older, I understand that this was far from the truth since there are so many variations of Christianity.  

But now, listening to those who are going through school today, they learn everything I mentioned above except for any discussion on Christianity, as if it were a bad thing.  The mere mention of it can get you in trouble for some reason.  Why?  I blame it all on political correctness, which is an oxymoron (there is nothing PC about PC).  So, we either do this fairly and stop teach ALL religion in school at the extent of hurting our intellectual development and tolerance, or we understand that "Christianity" exists and it's ok to discuss it even if you don't agree with it.

Enough of this revisionist history concept or the blatant disregard for other peoples beliefs.  If people force our children and grandchildren to learn about "Adam and Steve," it is just as fair for us to force their children and grandchildren to learn about the orgins behind "Adam and Eve."  Thank god mine live in counties where the school board is more intellectually responsible to not allow principals like this one to dictate what can and can't be taught.

[A18]

I wish more schools in California did this.

I wish every Democrat would react the way you and Shira did.

[phk]

The Pledge of Allegiance should also be banned from schools.