John C. A. Bambenek ([info]bambenek) wrote,
@ 2004-11-24 16:09:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Current mood:busy
Current music:DI.fm Vocal Trance

Just when you thought you heard it all...
It gets worse.

http://www.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6911883

You can't show students the Declaration of Independence in the United States anymore? Wow. Just wow.

Info on the school...

Stevens Creek School
http://www.cupertino.k12.ca.us/Stcreek.www/
10300 Ainsworth Drive
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 245-3312

Patricia Vidmar, Principal
(408) 245-3312 x 110
Fax (408) 245-7484

Part of the Cupertino Union School District:
http://cupertino.ca.campusgrid.net/home
10301 Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 252-3000

William E. Bragg, Superintendent
bragg_bill@cupertino.k12.ca.us

Board:
board@cupertino.k12.ca.us

Contact them to let them know what you think about this.

UPDATE:
Well the info got linked up at Drudge from me, but he didn't credit me... Oh well :(

UPDATE2:
The legal filing is online at The Smoking Gun here


(27 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]politicsinmind
2004-11-25 05:05 pm UTC (link)
Argghhh! Here are my thoughts in Comic form:

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]bambenek
2004-11-29 07:54 pm UTC (link)
Excellent... :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]tuftears
2004-11-29 07:42 pm UTC (link)
Very weird stuff. While it's quite reasonable to present the Declaration of Independence as part of a social studies class, I wonder if he had a history of attempting to present a fundamentalist Christian agenda? If that's the case though, then I think that instead of prohibiting specific materials from being presented, they should fire the teacher.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]bambenek
2004-11-29 07:53 pm UTC (link)
Don't know, it's possible that he's pushing the system. He probably picked the fight as much as the next guy and forced them into a box. But still, the censored the religious parts of the Declaration itself. Should the principal even be censoring ANYTHING in the classroom? Evangelizing is one thing, presenting history in the context of the religious expressions of the founders is another.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]evil_genius
2004-11-30 02:03 pm UTC (link)
Much like fox news you have dramatically oversimplified what is a complex story in order to push your personal agenda. It's pathetic when they do it. And doubly so when you do it.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]bambenek
2004-11-30 03:06 pm UTC (link)
Let's skip past the personal insults a second and the pushing personal agenda... you're at my blog, who's agenda do you think I'm going to push?

Here are the facts, the school principal censored the religious parts of the Declaration and didn't allow any documents from the founders read that include God. Was the teacher evangelizing in class? I don't know. Would an appropriate response be to black out and reference to God in the Declaration, I don't think so. Maybe it's that innocent, but I doubt it.

But, I was fair. I contacted the school for comment. I didn't get one. If they decide at some point to comment, I'll include their comment here. But at this point, I've heard no alternative story in the press, just speculation about how the school COULD be innocent. Do you know of any story out there in the press that could exonerate the school? If so, I'll read it immediately. If it fleshes out and the other article was wrong, I'll apologize immediately.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]bambenek
2004-11-30 03:08 pm UTC (link)
And one other thing, now that you are gloating that you moved to Finland to get away from Bush, how about renouncing your citizenship...

If you have the compunction to leave the US for another country, you should have the integrity to demonstrate that by renouncing your citizenship.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]evil_genius
2004-11-30 03:20 pm UTC (link)
The paper work has already been filed. Enjoy that fuck a presidentl

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]bambenek
2004-11-30 03:32 pm UTC (link)
Thanks, and I will. I'm joyful every day that we have him instead of Kerry. I look forward to his Supreme Court appointments, I look forward to tort reform, I look forward to Social Security reform. Most of all, I look forward to 4 years from now when the Dems will use all the same "sky is falling" rhetoric that they used this year and lose yet again.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]evil_genius
2004-11-30 03:51 pm UTC (link)
And when you lose your job thanks to his economic programs I hope you thank the Dems for protecting social programs. Or if your sister, wife, gf, friend were to get pregnant I hope you thank them for protecting her right to choose what she does with her body and her pregnancy.

I would like to thank Bush for turning my $40,000 a year income from a €47,000 to a €30,000 job in just 2 years. I would like to thank him for me being embarrassed to say I am an American. I already plan on introducing myself as Canadian (I was from 15 miles from Windsor anyways) here in order to avoid "issues". I would also like to thank him for forcing my hand. The idea of getting my wife to be through the blizzard of red tap so she could stay in the states was enough on it's own to make me relocate (she is a doctor mind you). I would like to thank bush for claiming that a county that has 33% of the earths wealth but less than 1/20th of its population "Can't afford universal healthcare". But yet a tiny country, like Finland, with a statistically insignificant fraction of the US budget. Manages to have both a superior education system and a FAR superior health care system. Both of which are open to all.

A country the size of Montana with only 5 million people in it is making the current administration look mighty ineffectual.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]bambenek
2004-11-30 03:54 pm UTC (link)
Both my sisters, and my sister-in-law have been pregnant and didn't see the need to murder a child for their convenience.

I did lose my job a few years, know what I did? Got another one. Didn't spend one day on unemployment. I have many friends who lost jobs too... they got other jobs and still voted Republican.

You know what the problem with universal healthcare is? Is universal sucks wherever its tried.

Education does suck in this country, that's why we want school choice.

And you aren't an American anymore. You made that choice so you don't have to be embarassed anymore.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]evil_genius
2004-11-30 03:57 pm UTC (link)
"You know what the problem with universal healthcare is? Is universal sucks wherever its tried."

your ignorance on this subject shines like a beacon of stupidity. do 3 minutes of googling on the subject and come back to me.

Check say France and Finland. Both of whom have universal healthcare and both of whom have a higher standard of care than the USA.

Face facts. I know that is alot to ask of a FAUX News viewer.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]bambenek
2004-11-30 04:03 pm UTC (link)
I don't watch Fox or any TV for that matter. I've been in Europe I've seen it first hand. There's a reason most major medical advancements happen in the US. And I have studied the issue, it costs more and responds less to the patient. Always, that's how bureaucracy works.

I've also had enough of your personal insults. You're banned from my journal. Enjoy your stay in Finland.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Sometimes it's best not to listen to the attorney defending the teacher...
[info]preserver3
2004-11-30 06:08 pm UTC (link)
Until you have the actual facts of the case, I urge you to withold judgement. The prosecution is stating its case, and that's the only side you're seeing. This teacher was already on probation for attempting to distribute religious material in a public school, and that's why material was passing across a principal's desk and being censored in the first place.

Perhaps you've read about other instances where religious types try to implant religious doctrine into public schools? http://www.jsonline.com/news/editorials/nov04/276761.asp

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: Sometimes it's best not to listen to the attorney defending the teacher...
[info]bambenek
2004-11-30 10:08 pm UTC (link)
Well, in this case, I don't necesarrily think the instructor is the complete victim. I'm sure he was trying to prove a point about the religious elements of our nation's founding and they are there. But if I was to evangelize people, I don't think the Declaration would be a document I'd use for it, and the principals blacking out parts of it is just stupid even IF that was his intent. I've read the lawsuit, and I'd like to see what the religious material is in the first place, but it's somewhat irrelevant.

Trying to pretend that the founders did not have religious views (at least those they hoped the people would have) and the religious components of the Declaration aren't there is dumb. I've sought out comment about this matter with the school and the school board... regardless of the response, I'll put it here. I've seen no other version of events at this point in time in the press. But in short, I've gone through alternative takes on this situation and none of them make sense very much. I'm sure the teacher was bucking the system and perhaps to force the school from making the very stupid decision they did. Still doesn't make the school not stupid. Just means they got played.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Sometimes it's best not to listen to the attorney defending the teacher...
[info]preserver3
2004-11-30 11:04 pm UTC (link)
As to the religious leanings of the founding fathers, most were deists, a belief system whereby God was some sort of clock maker who set the world in motion and then either left or destroyed himself. Modern Collective deists believe you can subsume the pieces, but i'm not one of those. The founding fathers believed that God rarely made corrective measures in the lives of men and expected people of action to make changes for the better. benjamin Franklin was the notable exception, who believed the guidance of prayer could in fact invoke the spirit of God.

As to the Declaration of Independence, it was largely penned by Jefferson, a noted Deist and naturalist. He was also a philanderer and womanizer, but no one is perfect--especially not politicians.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Sometimes it's best not to listen to the attorney defending the teacher...
[info]bambenek
2004-11-30 11:14 pm UTC (link)
I've heard the deist argument, I've heard the Christian argument, and to be honest, I don't have an over-riding opinion on either at this point in time. It's an issue that receives vigorous debate, and quite frankly, I think should be addressed in the classroom. You simply cannot get a good understanding of why our country was formed the way it was without it. And you should obviously do it in such a way that isn't evangelizing. So in short, the debate on whether this is a "Christian" nation or not, I don't have a big opinion one way or the other. I think their are arguments on both sides and many are caused by a lack of consensus of what a "Christian nation" means. I think it is clear that regardless of what the founders were, they were pretty vocal that religion was important and should be encoraged in general.

As such, I'm not sure why you'd go to the founders for evangelical purposes, precisely because they wouldn't be good examples of good Christian men. That's why I'm highly skeptical of the theory that this teacher was evangelizing with the founder's writings. I could see him trying to make the point of the religious component of the founding of our nation, in part, to antagonize the principal. Sure, but to censor these documents, or blackout parts of the Declaration, more importantly, is just outright dumb.

I tend to think there tends never to be an innocent party when it comes to media stories. The innocent don't often run to the press to scream about injustice (sure it happens sometimes), so while I'm sure the teacher was probably trying to pick a fight, the school was stupid in taking him up, or at the very least picked a pisspoor method to silence him.

But we don't have all the facts except one side in the press and the school hasn't returned comment. We'll see as time goes on.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
A lack of consensus of what a "Christian nation" means.
(Anonymous)
2004-12-01 07:07 am UTC (link)
That, in part, is the heart of the matter. If the phrase "Christian nation" merely means a nation the majority of whose citizens happen to be members of the Christian religion (although of various denominations), that is simply a statement of fact, and not very controversial. On the other hand, if it means a nation founded on "Christian principles" (whatever they might be), or whose law and government are in someway restricted to or based on Christianity, then that statement is manifestly incorrect.

First of all, people should remember that the Declaration of Independance (noble and inspiring as it is) is not part of our law. The supreme law of the land is the Constitution, and what it says about Christianity is very revealing: NOTHING! There is no mention of any particular religion in the original document, and the only mention of religion (in general) comes in Article 6 (or VI) where religious tests for public office are forbidden.

This was quite deliberate on the part of the drafters, and was fully debated in all 13 of the original states. Patrick Henry, for example objected to Article 6 precisely because it would allow anyone, a Jew, a Hindu, an infidel or an atheist to be a member of Congress or even President. Henry urged that the Constitution be rejected in that form, and resubmitted to the states with a religious test that only allowed Christians to serve in the government. He also wanted the Preamble changed to invoke Christ by name, and to declare Jesus the source of all Americans' rights, and the authority of the government. He didn't get his way.

In contrast, in most of the other "Christian nations" of the time (1789) you not only had to be a member of the Christian faith to serve in government (or even vote), it had to be the "right" denomination. Catholics were barred from voting or serving in Parliament in Great Britain, while Protestants fared no better in France. In some countries it even mattered which denomination of Protestantism you belonged to. And, of course, Jews were beyond the pale everywhere. (In fact, the ban on Jews wasn't lifted in Great Britain until late in the 19th Century.)

That is the glory of America: by separating religion and government we are all free to worship as we chose. Moreover, we can be confident that our goverment represents all of us, and is not choosing religious sides. History teaches that when religion and government are mingled the end results are disastrous to both.

So while this country is, indeed, culturally "Christian" (because a majority of its citizens are of that faith), and is a descendant of and an outgrowth of "Christian" Europe, it is also something new in history: a nation which, by keeping its government out of religion, guarantees free worship to all. Some might say that is truly rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar, and unto G-d what is G-d's.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: A lack of consensus of what a "Christian nation" means.
[info]bambenek
2004-12-01 05:48 pm UTC (link)
Well what does based on Christianity mean? Are there any principles of Christianity and a Christian perspective of law that don't rely on the religious expression itself?

I'd certainly have to say that Christianity had a large impact on Western civilization and law in general that persists even today. The entire concept of just war and the criteria used by the US and for that matter, the UN, is straight out of Augustine. That doesn't necessarily mean that I think the US should be Christian only. Really I think it's a semantic debate at it's core and really not so much the point. The country is not meant to exclude non-Christians but to try to seperate Christianity from any influence on where we are as a nation is simply wrong as well.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: A semantic debate: what a "Christian nation" means.
(Anonymous)
2004-12-08 03:48 am UTC (link)
Really I think it's a semantic debate at it's core

Indeed, which is the point of the first paragraph of my December 1st comment. The phrase "Christian Nation" can simply be a demographic statement (and obviously true), an attempt to claim that America is based on principles exclusively or particularly derived from Christianity (plainly false), or as you pointed out (John) based in part on ideas and a heritage derived from Western Civilization, and therefore greatly influenced by Christian thought, among others.

The problem is: all too often the phrase "Christian Nation" is used in the second or exclusivist sense. Thus my verbose analysis and discussion of the Constitution (and its history) - to make the point that America is 'in no way founded on the Christian Religion', as a famous treaty puts it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: A semantic debate: what a "Christian nation" means.
[info]bambenek
2004-12-08 05:14 am UTC (link)
I think the phrase is misused on both sides, by and large. I think the important distinction is founded on the Christian religion vs founded on Christian principles, the two aren't the same (at least not as I define it). You can pick any number of things, the emphasis on education, for instance. We are an overworked nation working on average 60 hours a week (so I've heard), aka "protestant work ethic". I think if you seperate out the exclusively religious or theological aspects of Christianity (those directed towards god), and left the ethical aspect (those directed towards fellow man) you'd probably see alot of similarities. Of course, it all depends on how you want to parse it in the end.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: Sometimes it's best not to listen to the attorney defending the teacher...
(Anonymous)
2004-12-04 04:44 pm UTC (link)
There are 69 other 5th grade classes in that district. They ALL teach about the Delcaration, it is in fact printed in the history text book. Like the other guy said, only one side of the story is out. If you read his entire complaint then you will see the other supplemental materials that he thought were so necessary to teach the material. o_0 http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/story/?id=549

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Sometimes it's best not to listen to the attorney defending the teacher...
[info]bambenek
2004-12-04 06:27 pm UTC (link)
If he was trying to make the point that the country was founded on Christian principles, that's fair game for the classroom. If he was trying to evangelize, it is not.

You may disagree with the opinion that the country was so founded, but there is healthy disagreement among University professors, historians, and others who are well respected. Toqueville essentially said the same thing, as did many others, and let's be honest, you can't understand where the country came from without at least understanding the religious implications of the time. If that was his point, and I think it was, it's fair game.

If he was saying believe in Jesus because George Washington did, then it isn't. And let's be honest, the materials cited wouldn't be my first choice for evangelical materials precisely because the founders were more deists than Christians.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Anonymous)
2004-12-27 10:52 pm UTC (link)
You have incited a mob. The Cupertino School District teachers and administrators have been the subject of death threats and hate mail. You right wingers went off half-cocked without knowing the facts. The Declaration of Independence has not been banned; it is posted throughout the school and its full text is found within the fifth grade history textbook. The teacher in question was not disciplined, fired or fined.

For all you conservatives that believe that the courts should not decide school curriculum, how can you condone filing a lawsuit over a principal's supervision of curriculum?

The principal told the teacher to not use excerpts of historical material because it represented a slanted religious statement. A cut-and-paste editorial job with a religious tract spliced in. Terribly dishonest. Specifically, the excerpt of the Declaration of Independence was disallowed because it was so in-bedded with the other material.

You should be ashamed of spreading lies and hate. The lynch-mob you have unleashed is despicable. You are responsible for this because you did not wait to learn the facts before you lit a fire under this mass form of harassment.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]bambenek
2004-12-27 10:55 pm UTC (link)
Really, and your story is based on what? Something you read at the DU?

How many times to people on the left engage in these same tactics? Want me to show you videos? Audio? Do you repudiate that?

What's wrong with using clips of a historical document? It's done all the time.

And since when do principles micromanage the curriculum of a teacher to come to a certain conclusion about history? Hear of academic freedom?

I don't condone the death threats, if they happened.

I do condone calls for their resignation.

Do you condone death threats against people like me?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Anonymous)
2004-12-29 05:49 pm UTC (link)
What happened to my prior post. Too afraid of it?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]bambenek
2004-12-29 06:44 pm UTC (link)
It's there.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(27 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…