[B]Jesus in the Classroom[/B]

[Pure]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/12/08/MNGPBA8DPL1.DTL

Another issue for the Supremes?
The case is discussed in this week's New Yorker, Mar 21

Battle over God in U.S. history class
Cupertino teacher sues to tell role of Christianity


Stephen Williams wants to teach his fifth-graders at a Cupertino public school all about Christianity's role in America's founding -- an effort that has opened a blue state-red state divide smack in the middle of the blue Bay Area. Williams, a self-described "orthodox Christian," ran afoul of school administrators -- and several parents of his students at Stevens Creek Elementary School -- when he backed up his contention that religion was central to the Founding Fathers by passing out historical documents to supplement the district-approved curriculum.

Williams complained that state-approved textbooks contain scant mention of how much Christianity meant to early America. So he handed out William Penn's Frame of Government of Pennsylvania, in which Penn wrote, "Government seems to me a part of religion itself, a thing sacred in its institution and end." Williams also passed out a list of religious clauses in state constitutions such as Delaware's -- which in 1776 required officeholders to "profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son."

Then there was George Washington's prayer journal. And as an example of a modern-day presidential proclamation, Williams distributed President Bush's statement on National Prayer Day 2004, in which he said, "Prayer is an opportunity to praise God for His mighty works." Some parents said Williams crossed the line into evangelizing, and they complained. "My daughter came home one day and said, 'Mr. Williams talks about Jesus 100 times a day,' " said Mike Zimmers, whose daughter was Williams' student last year and began complaining on the second day of school. "She's adored every teacher she had until then."

In May, Williams said, school Principal Patricia Vidmar began reviewing all his lesson plans and supplemental handouts in advance -- something he said doesn't happen to other teachers. Last month, Williams filed suit in federal court in Oakland claiming that administrators were "systematically rejecting" any reference to God or Christianity in his handouts. Williams said his speech and academic freedom had been restricted "because of its religious content and viewpoint."

The debate over Williams' methods has electrified the evangelical and conservative network that helped return Bush to the White House last month. One result: The normally placid school district, in a town where Bush got only 33 percent of the vote Nov. 2, has been bombarded by 3,000 e-mails and 350 phone calls. At least one police officer has been patrolling Stevens Creek School in recent days. With many critics [Drudge on the 'Drudge Report']saying they heard that the school district is "banning the Declaration of Independence," and a few choice e-mails suggesting that "all of you in the school district can burn in hell," Cupertino's spokesman, Jeffrey Nishihara, somewhat exasperated, said, "The district has not stopped teaching about the Declaration of Independence." The district denied all the claims in Williams' suit, and said it looks forward to explaining its side in court. Williams, who has taught in the district for eight years, declined to be interviewed for this story.

Some parents, the district's defenders, and civil liberties groups say the suit is an attempt by the Christian right to remake the nation's history. Although parents say Williams "is a nice guy," they say he's created an intimidating atmosphere for students who may be too young to contradict their teacher.

"This is the same thing that people have been trying to do for 200 years. The only difference now is that they're well funded, media savvy and litigious, " said Ivory Madison, who has done legal analysis for Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "It's a shame that our tax dollars have to be used for a school district to defend the Constitution."

The fiery issue will be fanned again tonight. Williams is scheduled to appear on the Fox News cable show "Hannity and Colmes" when the show films at De Anza College. Supporters hope his case will rekindle a national debate that has long simmered in conservative circles: When is it appropriate to mention God in the classroom?

"What next? Perhaps some school official will try and rule that the Constitution is unconstitutional," the conservative National Lawyers Association said in its condemnation of "this rogue school principal." The 2,700-member Missouri-based organization, which dubs itself "an alternative to the American Bar Association" and has supported the Boy Scouts in discrimination cases brought against the youth group, will probably file a brief on behalf of Williams, said CEO Mario Mandina. "We heard from a number of our members who said, 'This is the last straw, ' " Mandina said.

Williams is being represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, the legal organization that has filed litigation opposing same-sex marriage in several states, including California. Conservatives lump Williams' case with others they feel aim to strip religious references, specifically Christian ones, from the culture. They put it in the same category as the effort to take the words "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance.

"It's a real infringement on traditional American culture," said KSFO-AM talk show host Barbara Simpson. Ralph Otte's Los Gatos American Legion Post passed a resolution Monday night in support of Williams. The issue struck a nerve with members, who wear "For God and Country" on their caps. "People were saying, 'For Pete's sake, don't let them get away with it,' " said Otte, an 82-year-old World War II veteran and longtime teacher. "Guys are ready to put on their caps and show up wherever they're needed."

But critics say Williams is taking religion out of context. One of his handouts is titled, "What Great Leaders Have Said About the Bible." It quotes nine U.S. presidents singing the praises of the Bible, followed by a quote from Jesus Christ.

"It's just out of context," said Madison. "You're putting these presidents in the same context as Jesus." Some parents at Stephens Creek School say conservative media outlets have twisted the story to make the district look silly. Plus, they feel that Williams has crossed a line -- one that fifth-graders may be too naive to know has been breached.

"This is not about teaching history, this is about indoctrination," said Armineh Noravian, whose child was formerly in one of Williams' classes. In a school district where 45 languages are spoken, Noravian asked, "what would happen if someone whose religion is not a majority religion would be doing this? It isn't OK (for a teacher) to make a kid feel like he isn't like you." Dorothy Pickler informally requested that her fifth-grade child not have Williams as a teacher this year. "Because what he's doing isn't teaching history," she said. "If you were teaching at a church school, that would be great. But he isn't." E-mail Joe Garofoli

 

[Colleen Thomas]

The impact of Christianity on the american political landscape sounds like a 3000 level college course to me. Not something you would stress in a survey course, much less a fifth grade classroom.

I'm not in favor of removing religion from american public life, but I don't support prostelytising in the classroom either. It seems to me, in this case, the teacher is using his authority as a teacher to evangelize and that's clearly out of bounds.

 

[Belegon]

I agree that the impact of Christianity on early american politics and thinking is a higher level course.

But I also am getting so sick of both sides of the PC debate! Look, it is no big deal to say that many of the founding fathers were christian or influenced by their religion. Just don't make it sound like the reason that they were concerned about their ideals.

I don't think we need to completly erase religion from a school's frame of reference as long as we are not teaching that one is superior to the others. If they want to talk about how Jefferson's religion helped shape his thinking, great. Just don forget the same thing about Ghandi...

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I agree that the impact of Christianity on early american politics and thinking is a higher level course.

But I also am getting so sick of both sides of the PC debate! Look, it is no big deal to say that many of the founding fathers were christian or influenced by their religion. Just don't make it sound like the reason that they were concerned about their ideals.

I don't think we need to completly erase religion from a school's frame of reference as long as we are not teaching that one is superior to the others. If they want to talk about how Jefferson's religion helped shape his thinking, great. Just don forget the same thing about Ghandi...

One problem I see Bel, is the exact nature of the founder's religion. When Jefferson says "All men are endowed by their creator..." Christians point to it as proof his religion was at the core of his thinking, with the implication he was a christian. In fact, the majority of evidence I have seen is that Jefferson was a Diest. The same can be said of many of the founding fathers. Diests were not christinas, their belief was closest in form to a natural agnostic.

If you want to say Jeffesrson's religion influenced his thinking, that's fine. If you go on to imply his religion was Christianity, you are no longer dealing with historical fact, but are in the land of historical interpretation. I don't think fifth graders are equipped with the critical thinking skills to diferentiate yet.

 

[cantdog]

The majority of state constitutions required a person to swear that he believed in a particular religious doctrine before that person could run for office in the state, at the time the Revolution ended. Virginia was a notable exception, brought about by the urging of Jefferson, largely. The Constitutional Convention produced a Godless document, however. You had to profess the Trinity in one state, something which wouldn't have flown the next state over, for example.

The Godless constitutional document for the new republic was done on purpose. It was no oversight, but a deliberate attempt to divorce religion from the legislating in the country. It's no wonder these fellows don't like America; freethinkers invented it. The "orthodox Christians," however, the evangelicals who knew full well their views were in the minority and any, for one, establishment of religion, or for the other, religious test for office holding would further marginalize them, those fellows, in the 1780s, supported the idea. The rhapsodic envangelists made common cause with the Deists, agnostics, atheists and so on to support the subtraction of God from the document. God was specifically disinvited to make law in the new republic.

Ever since Martin Luther and Zwingli, people had been slaughtering one another over religion. In 1800 there were centuries of massacres and wars to show the idea of state religion was sheerest poison, and a mere invitation to strife, lynchings, pogroms, and more governmental slaughterings or wars. The evangelicals saw a clear advantage in the idea, which would allow them to operate.

The Virgina constitution had been reformed in its entirety to call upon God not at all, and to ensure the freedom, in Virginia, to worship any god or none at all, but the language about none at all was not included, specifically in the national constitution.

As ratification proceeded, and the first half of the new century progressed, the establishment of religion in the states' constitutions were all removed, as well as the oaths of belief once needed to run for office. Again, this was not a heedless thing, not an accident, but a deliberate break from the past.

To quote the original Delaware constitution as a way to demonstrate the importance of religion in the minds of the founders of the nation is to quote it out of context for a fraudulent purpose, therefore. The exercise is a polemical, not historical one. It represents a deliberate distortion. This sort of thing has gone on for two hundred years. They got God on the money in the 1930's and they act like it is evidence of the deep Christian conviction of the founders. Lies. Hooey.

Overstepping the bounds is too mild for it. It is a deliberate distortion of history to further an un-American end, to wit, establishment of Christianity.

cantdog

 

[curious2c]

If it is allowed to teach Christianity in the classroom, that will open the door for all religions being allowed to be taught, or rather, forced to be taught in the class room.

Some people will be quite upset when some Satanist, or even Pagan sues to have their version of history taught as well. That is why it is and always has been best to keep religion out of the schools totally. That is one area for the parents to teach, or lead in.

 

[Pure]

Cant said,

//To quote the original Delaware constitution as a way to demonstrate the importance of religion in the minds of the founders of the nation is to quote it out of context for a fraudulent purpose, therefore.//

That stuck in my craw also. State constitutions required belief in God and/or Christianity, early on, *but all that is defunct* and nullified for a long time (since 19th century mostly). The 14th amendment would ultimately do them in.

Heck, the original Massachusetts founding documents required you to be a puritan [the only true Calvinist church], and allowed laws with the death penalty for certain religious practices (e.g., those of Quakers).

Quoting the founders on 'God' is a slimy tactic. Jefferson was no Christian, as he denied the divinity of Christ. Washington was a lackadaisical Episcopalian, not pious devote' of Jesus as God's Son--kind of an early day Ronald Reagan.

Some others around at the founding, like Thomas Payne, said religion and Christianity in particular-- as theological doctrines-- were a load of crap and source of intolerance. Williams would not get into that.

There are now websites of "Christian quotes" culled from notable Americans. Indeed, they've provoked criticism since a number of the 'Christian' quotes cannot be found in any of the person's papers, letters or writings; they're 'urban myths' as it were.

OTOH, the story represents a great shift in American practices, an eliminating of church state barriers. America is being re-Christianized (with some concessions to Jews).

 

[cantdog]

It's important to see this underhanded tripe in its larger, un-American, context. The teacher's attempt to minimalize what he's doing as somehow informing students about facts of history is entirely disingenuous.

 

[The_old_man]

I only wish more "Facts" were taught in school today. The present "PC" drivel is leading to a future population of feelgood morons. Facts seem to be the only thing NOT being taught.

The Federal Constitution forbids many actions to the FEDERAL government but says nothing about State actions so long as that action does not involve interstate commerce.

Many things that the Federal government have declared illegal Federally Should Not have any authority WITHIN State boundaries.

One example is Medicinal Marijuana, another is the Ten Commandments in state government buildings. There are many more.

I have always been agnostic as my great grandfather was almost a catholic priest. He failed the final exam.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

When I was a kid growing up - a Jewish kid - there wasn't much thought given to keeping religion out of the schools. My school always had a Chrstmas tree and we all learned to sing Christmas carols and all that stuff, and it was fun. But you know, it really did alienate me too. I didn't realize it at the time, but it really did give me the feeling that I was an outsider and that America wasn't really for me like it was for other people. I wouldn't say that it made me feel like this wasn't my country, but it did make me feel second-class and not as American as my Christian classmates.

It's a feeling that's stuck with me all the way through adulthood, and it's worth thinking about, what this guy's Jesus lessons are doing to whatever non-Christians he might have in his class.

 

[BlackShanglan]

One problem I see Bel, is the exact nature of the founder's religion. When Jefferson says "All men are endowed by their creator..." Christians point to it as proof his religion was at the core of his thinking, with the implication he was a christian. In fact, the majority of evidence I have seen is that Jefferson was a Diest. The same can be said of many of the founding fathers. Diests were not christinas, their belief was closest in form to a natural agnostic.

If you want to say Jeffesrson's religion influenced his thinking, that's fine. If you go on to imply his religion was Christianity, you are no longer dealing with historical fact, but are in the land of historical interpretation. I don't think fifth graders are equipped with the critical thinking skills to diferentiate yet.

You know, I've heard this too, and that is what disturbs me more than anything - that this individual may well be distorting actual fact. I agree with Bel that the influence of religion has a place - it's very difficult to teach the history of the leadership of England, for example, or the early American authors, without it. But to take a man whom I have often heard described as a Deist and use him as a Christian poster-man is thoroughly unreasonable. I'm fine with them saying that he's a Deist and this is how Deism affected the US, just as I'd be fine with Bel's example of how religion played its role with Ghandi, or how atheism was important to Huxley. But to turn a man into a new religion now that he's dead is the very antithesis of real education.

I'll also say this: I think there's a context issue here. I first heard of this case on a conservative news site, where it was headlined as "Teacher disciplined for mentioning founding fathers' religion" or some such. However, even their reporting suggested to me that this was a major theme of the man's classroom and that it appeared frequently to the point of being dunned in. Mentioning Christianity's role in one issue is not the same as making it the crux of every lesson for a semester. I wouldn't hire a geometry teacher who wanted every lesson to focus on Pythagoras's contributions; for the same reason, I don't think it's appropriate to have an overwhelming influence on this single issue. Proportion deserves some attention here.

Shanglan

 

[Dar~]

I can't choose an answer for your pole b/c what I would chose is not up there. I don't htink that religion should be banned from schools, I just don't think it should be taught in schools. I also don't think that if it is taught it should be taught because our forefathers loved it. If it is taught it should be taught not as a faith but as a non denomnitive way of educating children abou treligion. Facts of each faiths belief and all common faiths should be taught. Just because a country was started with one religion, doesn't mean that it is the right religion or the only religion. All should be taught equally or they shouldn't be taught at all. If they aren't taught, they should be allowing students to pray at lunch if they want or read their bibles in the halls. these actions can not be determined to be correct by a governing body. If a student wants to pray they should be able to so long as they aren't being forced or aren't trying to force others to.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

Oh, hell. I usually avoid this type of thread because I'm convinced no one really gives a good fart in a Texas tornado what I think, and about nine times out of ten, these suckers end up depressing me, kind of like the network evening news shows.

But for what it's worth, here goes:

We Americans hate gray. We always want the differences in any issue to be clear-cut and the choices black-and-white. Sad to say, but life seldom accomodates us.

We also tend to bend over backwards to avoid upsetting any person or group. IMHO, that's a far, far better thing than the opposite extreme. But it can create problems.

In America, school curriculums vary state-to-state and often within a state, from district-to-district. But with a few notable exceptions, practically ANYTHING can be taught in most public schools, from some timid form of sex education to the glory of the free enterprise system. There are only two subjects that cannot be a part of the core curriculum: religion and war.

As a result, most Americans know practically nothing about either subject.

(note 1: Yes, most Americans consider themselves religious. But that's an issue of faith, not knowledge. Few have any concept of the differences between, or within, the worlds great religions. For example, many Episcopalians have no idea each Baptist church is autonomous.)

(note 2: Yes, many Americans are either members of, or veterans of, the military. But knowing how to march and shoot is not the same as understanding the scope and consequences of modern war.)

I would argue this ignorance has played a significant role in our limited success dealing with any conflict that contains a strong religious component, and with our being involved in eight major wars, plus many smaller military actions, over the last 110 years.

People are right to question the motives of this teacher. But his stated goal is something virtually every school board, teacher, and administrator in this country is unwilling to even consider for fear of offending someone; educating kids about one of the key elements of history.

There is a difference between teaching about the impact of religion on history, both negative and positive, and preaching faith. There is also a difference between teaching about the cost of war, and training to fight

Someday, this country may acknowlede such a difference exists. Maybe, but I'm not hopeful. There's always that chance somebody might bruise the sensibilities of someone else. That wouldn't be nice, and it could be a career killer. Better to just avoid those subjects entirely. After all, ignorance is bliss, right?

Rumple Foreskin

ps: IMHO, the four questions were all of the "Do you still beat your wife?" variety, so I didn't vote. RF

 

[BlackShanglan]

Good post Rumple, and very cogent. I agree with you on all points - was actually blessed to attend a school that included overviews of several religions in history and philosophy classes - and I agree that it would be a much better thing to give people some idea of what role these things have played in the world instead of pretending that they don't exist.

What made me uneasy about this specific teacher was the close focus on Christianity to the apparent exclusion of all other religions, the heavy presence of that one religion, and the possible misrepresentation of some of the founding fathers' beliefs. One would, of course, have to hear more to be sure - and I agree, I dislike the tendency to insist that everything must be black and white. But if what is coming through is what my admittedly limited knowledge gives me the impression of - a sort of "back door" insistance on fundamental Christian values as a bedrock of past and present US law and government - then I would be concerned. There's a fine line there, and like you I wish we could all grow a little more accepting of the fact that fine lines exist, and at times it's desirable to approach them instead of hiding in trenches a hundred yards back to either side. But I think he's pushing that line a bit far if that is indeed what he is teaching.

Shanglan

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

Shanglan,

You were lucky to have that sort of education. I was a whiz at history in high school, but wasn't exposed to any of those issues in an organized fashion until college.

My major heartburn with what that guy is doing concerns something he has no control over. Unless his supervisors establish common sense guidelines for a balanced and appropriate way to handle the issue of religion, he must either avoid the subject, stick to the PC minimalist approach, or teach w/o any parameters.

I'll cut the supervisors a little slack. This issue is a lot easier to dodge than deal with. Few events in history have a single cause. However religion and religious beliefs have and still do play a significant role in this country (just ask John Kerry) and around the world.

Subjective Rumple ramble: IMHO, minimizing the impact of religion on American history is no more intellectual honest than downplaying the roll of blacks and women. But when one considers the level of stupidity in America about history and geography, the subject begins to seem a very moot point. For someone who believes George Santayana was right, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," that's depressing.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[Pure]

As a matter of fact, the New Yorker article mentioned the teacher did discuss other religions, i.e., around their holidays. The point is that he mentioned Christianity as the religion endorsed by the founders, and by the presidents from Washington to Bush Sr. This give Xtianity a 'pride of place' as it were, and according to some Jewish parents was not welcomed. See mabeuse, above.

 

[cantdog]

Damn good, Rumple. I learned about the established churches in the states and all that because I found it really fascinating the way it all played out. I think kids in, say, Delaware, ought at least to know what changes went on in the Delaware constitution around that time, and why, because it's their heritage. This doodah seems to be caught up in the millenial religious current of our time, but much of history is incomprehensible without religion.

I taught school, and I know there is immediate feedback when your class skirts these hot-button issues during the course of discussions. I was only teaching French and German (and the English class of the slow sophomores), but even in French class you have to talk about something. And the kids told the parents who told the principal who told me to lay off the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre in French class. The next fuckin day!

Teachers are in a fishbowl. There's enormous pressure on them, as there needs to be. They ought to be paid twice what they get once they show they can handle that extraordinary pressure with grace and effectiveness. People snipe at them all the time, because their children are at stake, and their future.

 

[Pure]

trivia for today;
At the time of the constitution ratification and after, Connecticutt had an established church.

Rumple spoke of //downplaying the roll of blacks and women.//

The latter at least are on a roll.
----

dnd won't join my pole, and I'm just as glad.

----

I declare this to be the thyme of homonyms.

 

[BlackShanglan]

More interesting thoughts from Rumple and Cant both. I agree that teachers are likely to get sniped pretty much whatever they do. No mention of religion in class? Secular humanism! Mention one or two religions in class? Proselytizing! Give equal coverage to every religion in class? You've just derailed all other lessons for the year and really pissed off the atheists. It's a thankless job, and I think Rumple has an excellent point about the need for guidelines. If nothing else, shifting that duty up to the school board should make help make the community solve its own schizophrenic approach to the topic rather than nailing teachers into a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.

But then, there will always be something that upsets the petty-minded. I can recall a student in one of my college history classes yelling at the professor and stamping out of the lecture hall because she'd pointed out that some of the figures on Greek vases weren't "wrestling." I'm not sure why he felt he had so much invested in this issue, but one assumes that the dean got a note of complaint. Fortunately, at the college level, the general reaction is to laugh. It's quite a different game at the lower levels, where attendance is compulsory.

Shanglan

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Having majored in History and studied it all my life, I take abuse of it personally. I canno thelp but feel, this man has hijacked history and distored it, as a vehicle to evangelism. It's even more distrubling, because his audience is captive and his authority over them is far to coercive. Fifth graders, to a large extent, have not developed the critical thinking skills that allow one to seaparate fact from opinion.

I don't favor removing religion from public life. I don't even feel it should be out of bounds to discuss the impact of religion in the clasroom, when it bears heavily on a subject. You cannot really understand the impact of certain historical events without understanding religion and its influence. The crusades, for example, make little sense if you teach them without an in depth look at roman catholicism and Islam. Nor can you fully grasp the build up to World war II, if you cannot understand the impact of religion on the quasi-religious doctrine of racism known colloqually as "the white man's burden".

Understanding the impact religion has had on events is imperative, in placing those event in context. At the fifth grade level? I seem to remember sweating remembering 1066. Religion as a motivator in historic events should not be taught until teh students are past an age where they can make value choices. The opportunity for abuse is simply too great.

Further, the way it is taught has to be monitored. If he is making Washington out to be a christian, he isn't teaching history, he's prostelitizing. Washington may have been a christian, but the evidence is just as strong, if not stronger that he was a deist. In this class, there is no one to point that out, and no one to challenge the teacher's interpretation. that's the real problem here. he has a stage and a captive audience, one that isn't equipped yet to sort through his asseertions and make informed decisions of their own.

As far as I can see, he needs to be reprimanded at the least or fired. Not for teaching religion, but for interpreting history in a controversail way and presenting it as fact. It makes him either A. A bad historian or B. A fraud.

I wouldn't want either one of those options taching my child history, if I had one.

Edit: My typing will deteriorate through the day, I'm tying one one. Sorry for the typos.

 

[cantdog]

I have always been glad you don't mess around spell checking, Colly; I don't know why, but I know I'd miss it if it suddenly went all proper. Maybe I've just learned to treasure you the way you always have been.

cantdog

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I have always been glad you don't mess around spell checking, Colly; I don't know why, but I know I'd miss it if it suddenly went all proper. Maybe I've just learned to treasure you the way you always have been.

cantdog