Censorship in California... or, How To Raise A Nation Of Idiots

[Xander Harris]

Did you see the news out of California today? A Christian history teacher had several of his teaching materials seized by the principle. Why? They contained references to religion. Among the banned items? The Declaration of Independance (!!!!!!!) and George Washington's diaries. Said one of the parents who supports the principle: "Well, my understanding is that he was trying to give them stuff that contained religion" So?

I don't get it. Whether you're Christian, Muslim, Athiest or satanist, you can't deny that 70%-100% of history is about religion. How can you possibly teach history at all if all religion is prohibited? It seems somewhat impossible to me. This isn't an attack on Christianity, as some would make it out to be. It's simply an attack on intelligence and reason feuled by an idiotic ideology.

The follow up story was about penguins performing in Japan for Christmas. (pretty cute penguins, too.. I laughed. But I digress) Yep. Ban any referance to dieties in our schools, but our entire western civillization's economy is based around a holiday celebrating Christ's birth. Idiocy.

How can you teach history, let alone current events without referencing religion? We're at WAR with a militant branch of a religion (Disclaimer: Yes, Islam is a religion of peace yadda yadda... obviously I'm not talking about mainstream Islam. However, the terrorists are strongly religiously motivated by their twisted interpretation of the Koran. End Disclaimer.) You might as well just ban references to Newton's laws and then expect someone to teach a physics class as expect someone to teach a History class with no religious references.

The principle should do the human gene pool a favor and go jump off a cliff. ;)

[Ezekiel]

[COLOR=Green][SIZE=1]No matter how hilarious I find this, I can actually believe that someone would do that. I totally agree with you on the matter, Xander, you cannot possibly teach history if any religious mention is taken out.

I may be going off topic a bit, but I'd like to mention something on the actual study of religion.

I wouldn't say I have a strong belief in anything, I tend to question most religions and that annoys some people very much, especially my die-hard Christian RE teachers. At the moment I have religious studies two times a week. I have science everyday and maths everyday.... now what bugs me is the fact that I have more homework from RE than I do from just those two lessons put together. I'm in Year 10 now and last year we chose our subjects. We had to take RE and I swear, half the people in my year were up in arms about it.

Back to the point, we are currently learning about sex before marriage. I write more about sex in RE than I feel I should and yet this is the set syllabus for our lessons? Last week I had homework to research three different types of contraception. Now could anyone please tell me what that has to do with religion?

It seems to me that schools worldwide haven't grasped the idea of religion for fear of being politically incorrect, I have learn more about the Muslim faith since I started school than I have about Christianity. While I have nothing against any other religion, I believe that we should be taught things about the religion that actually means something to most people in our country.

Back onto the point. What amazes me most about this case is the fact that it has actually been allowed to go as far as it has. I can't believe that parents actually agree with the decision. It's absurd.

*sits back and waits for a healthy argument between certain members*[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[DeathBug]

In all fairness, Christianity is the only religion people get really upset about. Also in all fairness, it [i]is[/i] California, so it's not exactly a good measurement of the rest of the country. (They haven't sunk into the ocean yet?)

In a related story, the Govenator changed the title of the big tree in the town square from a "holiday" tree back to a "Christmas" tree, and said it would remain that way as long as he was Govenor. So, it's not totally a hopeless situation.

[Adahn]

[font=Courier New][color=blue]I'll point out that whatever arguments may develop, the principal is wrong for seizing the declaration of independence. I don't think an uproar should be caused because the principal very obviously made a grave judgment error.[/color][/font]

[Brasil]

[quote name='Adahn']I don't think an uproar should be caused because the principal very obviously made a grave judgment error.[/quote]
Oh, I think the uproar is quite justified. From what I've read/heard, the instructor was working entirely within the school's teacher protocol parameters.

A student asked him a question that happened to relate to the topic at hand, that topic being the Pledge of Allegiance, the question being why do we say "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, and the course being a history course, the instructor then started to explore exactly why, (rightly) making note that the Fouding Fathers were more or less Christian, with a bit of variation between a few of them.

If I were that instructor who got targeted like that, I'd take the school to the f-ck-ng cleaners. This instructor, however, just wants to continue to teach without those absurd restrictions, and the "uproar" we hear is people taking notice of the separation of Church and State gone too far and (rightly) speaking up.

[Ezekiel]

[quote name='Adahn][font=Courier New][color=blue]I don't think an uproar should be caused because the principal very obviously made a grave judgment error.[/color'][/font][/quote]

[COLOR=Green][SIZE=1]I agree with Siren, people have every right to make an uproar about this. The Declaration of Independence is a vital part of every American's history and by restricting children?s knowledge on it, isn't that denying them their own personal history that all of them share? Basically I think that this is one of those issues where it should be blown out of proportion by the media, just to make people realise what damned political correctness is doing to the world.[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Adahn]

[font=Courier New][color=blue]I've been misunderstood. There shouldn't be an uproar because the principal is very obviously wrong. I thought I made that clear, but I guess I did not. There's no argument. The principal was wrong.[/color][/font]

[Lady_Rin]

All of this is over the amendment(sp) on the separation of church and state. Can anyone tell me what the intent is of that amendment?

Since it says "In god we trust" on the money should't we remove it.

What about the all seeing eye in the great seal?

For some reaspon in the past few years Americans have become obsessed with the separation of church and state. Mostly from the fundamentalists or atheists. Why? Does it serve any useful purpose?


Is someone going to misunderstand my post? :} LOL << Notice this is a joke>>

Did you also know these books have been banned in some states for references to god or it doesn't suit the school board.

Tom Sawyer and Huckelberry Finn from Mark Twain
Anne of Green Gables this is one of the sweetest girls ever. She out pollyannas Pollyanna.
The Illiad and the Odyssey by Homer.
Leaves of Grass, Walt Whitman's famous collection of poetry
Anna Sewell's Black Beauty, a story about a horse.
Uncle Tom's Cabin By Harriet Beecher Stowe
Silas Marner
The works of Poe, Shakespeare, shelley, Thoerau and more. Why?

[Boba Fett]

[QUOTE=Siren]A student asked him a question that happened to relate to the topic at hand, that topic being the Pledge of Allegiance, the question being why do we say "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, and the course being a history course, the instructor then started to explore exactly why, (rightly) making note that the Fouding Fathers were more or less Christian, with a bit of variation between a few of them.
[/QUOTE]

[color=green]Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the "under god" portion of the pledge was [URL=http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_pled.htm]added[/URL] during the Cold War as a way to oppose the atheism of communism.[/color]

[Sol-Blade]

[quote name='Boba Fett][color=green]Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the "under god" portion of the pledge was [URL=http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_pled.htm]added[/URL'] during the Cold War as a way to oppose the atheism of communism.[/color][/quote]

[SIZE=-3]No, that's what I heard also.

Anyways, I think that, even though it IS sort of a valid uproar...aren't we getting just a little too emotional about it? I mean, back in my days everyone said Under God, even if they were not Christian. Why now, in these past few recent years has the problem suddenly become so major? I mean, I won't deny that there has been problems like this before, but since 2000 we seem to have had alot of complaints, not about Under God but about Religion in schools in general. Did anyone remember about the father who fought the school district administration in New York last year? He was mad that his wife was making his daughter go to a school where they made her say Under God. He is an atheist, his wife is a Christian. Now, he literally said [i]made[/i], and that is a pretty strong word to use. I've been out of high school for at least 2 years now, and last I heard skipping the words Under God was [B]not[/B]; high treason. Did something change? =/

I mean, Xander is right, you can't possibly hope to teach history without delving into religon. Back in the early centuries, wars were FOUGHT over religion. People came to POWER through religion. People DIED over religon.

Okay, I believe that no one should compromise their beliefs, no matter what. But, I mean does really saying Under God damn you to hell? If it's that big a deal, and apparently it is...then why not just NOT say it? I think there was a problem with that also, but whatever I forget. :D[/SIZE]

[Brasil]

[quote name='Adahn']I've been misunderstood. There shouldn't be an uproar because the principal is very obviously wrong. I thought I made that clear, but I guess I did not. There's no argument. The principal was wrong.[/quote]
Obviously wrong doesn't matter, because the teacher was being [i]targeted[/i]...that's discrimination, and it's perfectly appropriate to bring in a lawsuit, and it's perfectly appropriate for the uproar to become deafening. If I were a member of that community, I'd be up-in-arms, as well. Principal clearly wrong or not, there needs to be action taken, and I'm all for the community getting worked-up over it. The situation calls for it, essentially.

Boba, more or less, that's right, but in asking why "Under God" is in the Pledge of Allegiance, I think there's more of a backstory than just the Cold War, don't ya think? ;)

[Retribution]

[quote name='Lady_Rin']All of this is over the amendment(sp) on the separation of church and state. Can anyone tell me what the intent is of that amendment?[/quote]
The intent of this amendment is so that we remain true to our Constitution. I'm not sure if you know this, but our constitution allows religious freedom, therefore the views of the Christian church don't have to be shoved down anyone's throat. What if you were a Muslim, and your view conflicted with a law that was passed? What do they do then? Obey the law, and break from religion?

This separation is made so that doesn't happen, and everyone can worship or not in peace. What about the abortion law? What if your atheist, and you don't think that life begins at conception, but the gov't does, therefore the law is passed? Sucks, don't it?

On the other end of the spectrum, if you are Catholic, and you do think that it does, the way you can continue with your religion is just not to have one. While they don't like other people having them, it's America, therefore the law would be unconstitutional, because it conflicts with our freedom of religion by having laws that conflict with religions.

[quote]
Is someone going to misunderstand my post? :} LOL << Notice this is a joke>>
[/quote]
No. Just... No. :nono:

[Boba Fett]

[quote name='Siren']Boba, more or less, that's right, but in asking why "Under God" is in the Pledge of Allegiance, I think there's more of a backstory than just the Cold War, don't ya think? ;)[/quote]

[color=green]"Under God" is something that, I feel, has become more of a tradition now than anything else. It really doesn?t bother me that this is in the pledge, and I say it although I am not religious. Like the "In god we trust" on our money, it's part of a society based on Judaeo-Christian values.

People need to stop being offended by things like this and be a little more passive. Especially since the pledge is optional...[/color]

[Morpheus]

Yeah, no one says the pledge at my high school anyway. I really don't see why this is an issue. Many religious groups persecuted people of other religions they conquered. you have to say it for the text to be accurate. the text for the foundation of american colonies would say, "_________ Missionaries _______ed natives that _______ed _______ to ________ because they thought believing in __________ and ________ was evil."

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=Boba Fett]"Under God" is something that, I feel, has become more of a tradition now than anything else. It really doesn?t bother me that this is in the pledge, and I say it although I am not religious. Like the "In god we trust" on our money, it's part of a society based on Judaeo-Christian values.

People need to stop being offended by things like this and be a little more passive. Especially since the pledge is optional...[/QUOTE]
I agree entirely that people need to stop being whiny little biznitches. But even though "Under God" has become more traditional than anything else, I do think that the instructor's history lesson about the Christian background (not basis, heh) of the United States Founding Fathers was appropriate, because the way I see it, if you look at the chronology of the US Presidents, you notice a similar religious background, and I don't think that's pure coincidence.

I'd go as far as to say that the reasoning behind adding "Under God" to the Pledge during the Cold War was more based on the country's history than the Atheism of our enemy. If we were Atheists, there wouldn't have been any problem. You dig?

[Xander Harris]

[quote name='Morpheus']Yeah, no one says the pledge at my high school anyway. I really don't see why this is an issue. Many religious groups persecuted people of other religions they conquered. you have to say it for the text to be accurate. the text for the foundation of american colonies would say, "_________ Missionaries _______ed natives that _______ed _______ to ________ because they thought believing in __________ and ________ was evil."[/quote]


Lol. Therein lies my frustration. You simply can't understand history without mentioning one of history's primary shaping forces.

[Pumpkin]

[QUOTE=DeathBug]In all fairness, Christianity is the only religion people get really upset about. Also in all fairness, it [i]is[/i] California, so it's not exactly a good measurement of the rest of the country. (They haven't sunk into the ocean yet?)

In a related story, the Govenator changed the title of the big tree in the town square from a "holiday" tree back to a "Christmas" tree, and said it would remain that way as long as he was Govenor. So, it's not totally a hopeless situation.[/QUOTE]

[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=1][COLOR=SeaGreen] I live in California. So I find that somewhat offensive. I think the "Govenator" has been doing a pretty good job, atleast he's more honest then some other governors we've had in the past. As far as taking Christianity out of history, this could have happened to any state. Its just that people bitched about it here first. People want to make everything fair, but it is also silly when in history people back then we're mostly all christians in the U.S. Religion is a part of history, history is a part of religion, its as if they cant go without eachother. People back then were very religious, how could you teach history otherwise? I think they will limit what they will teach, but i think people are too tight-lipped now for their own good. People are not going to get the truth they deserve. [/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Erika]

[QUOTE=Xander Harris]Ban any referance to dieties in our schools, but our entire western civillization's economy is based around a holiday celebrating Christ's birth.

[/QUOTE][size=1][color=royalblue][b][off-topic][/b]Quick correction, with no argumentive intentions--there was no date at all in The Bible stating Christ's birth, or the commanded celebration of (or anyone elses's for that matter). In fact, he wasn't even born in the winter season.[b][/off-topic][/b] :p Couldn't resist.

Lol, anyways, my religion is plain and simple...we follow God's written word (should know what that is). By my viewpoint, America is simply cutting itself off from God, and seeing as how things are now, I'm somewhat interested on where this fracas will lead.

Reap what we sow, I guess. :([/color][/size]

[Xander Harris]

[QUOTE=Dark Serena][size=1][color=royalblue][off-topic]Quick correction, with no argumentive intentions--there was no date at all in The Bible stating Christ's birth, or the commanded celebration of (or anyone elses's for that matter). In fact, he wasn't even born in the winter season.[/off-topic] :p Couldn't resist.
([/color][/size][/QUOTE]

I never said that there was, or that he was. Just that our economy depends on a holiday meant to celebrate the event.

Edit: Of course, it was origionally meant to celebrate Saturn... either way it's a religious holiday...

"Reap what we sow"... too true, DarkSerena, too true. You have the words of wisdom :)

[MissWem]

[COLOR=DarkRed]I dare say I want to comment on this being neither in America nor American, so just correct me if I misunderstand or offend someone in relation to how America functions.
---
I figured that by now, that the entire "In God we trust" is supposed to be symbolic of America's patriotism, is it not? Then despite the fact that it started with most of the country being Christian by now it shouldn't particularly matter because God technically could be from any religion since as far as I know, it isn't exactly stated on the money that it's [i]Christian[/i] based money, or a [i]Christian[/i] God in the pledge.

Personally I think it's just Aethism taken too far, in fact I don't like Aethism because of how it signifies intolerance, which isn't fair as much religion is ingrained into any society.

The one thing that my English teacher was quick to respond to was the fact that I had said "I disliked the biblical references in the texts we have been studying". Her reponse was to remind me that just about all of the great works of literature are filled with or even allude to some sort of religion. Not just Christianity. I've even had to learn some Arabic.

The Aethistic parents seem so bent on having their childrens' beliefs not to be influenced by religion they've forgotten that's what they grew up learning as well.

Since the man is being targeted for trying to teach, law suit away!![/COLOR]

[Seibzeihn]

[quote=DerelictDestiny]The Aethistic parents seem so bent on having their childrens' beliefs not to be influenced by religion they've forgotten that's what they grew up learning as well.
[/quote]
[color=navy][font=garamond]IMHO, I think it's more like the fact that parents wouldn't want children being taught [i]just/primarily[/i] Christianity in schools. Especially early in school (i.e. elementary school) where the children are more impressionable. Thus, overteaching Christianity will basically place that religion upon the students, whether they like it or not, because they won't know any better.

Now, I highlight the world [b]primarily[/b] because I understand that it is impossible to teach history without religion. However, it is [b]quite[/b] possible to teach other religions as well. I think that most schools (and I'm generalizing here, I know, but it seems like a logical assumption) in America, being a primarily Christian nation, have the problem of overteaching Christianity, to the point where it seems like it is the only religion that ever existed, and/or the 'correct' religion. Thus, we have the separation of church and state -- people should be free to make up their own minds, not dogmatized by Christianity in school (which everyone is required to attend).

*Shrugs* I speak in a situational sense. Me, I haven't really had that problem in my schools, and I live in California.

[quote]Personally I think it's just Aethism taken too far, in fact I don't like Aethism because of how it signifies intolerance, which isn't fair as much religion is ingrained into any society.
[/quote]

Without turning this into a flame war, I missed when atheism became intolerance. Atheism is just a belief, like Christianity. While you may have meant that the parents' actions may have been atheistic -- which I would also disagree with -- saying that atheism signifies intolerance, is saying that every other religion is also intolerant. Sure, some people might give atheism a bad name for being overly extremist, but I (as an atheist) consider myself tolerant of other religions. If you're Christian, or Muslim, etc. that's great. Whatever floats your boat :cool: [/color][/font]

[Erika]

[quote name='Xander Harris']I never said that there was, or that he was. Just that our economy depends on a holiday meant to celebrate the event.[/quote]

[size=1][color=royalblue]Lol, I know, and it was clear to me. It wasn't quite necessary for you to state that for me to state what I said. ^_^ I was just pointing out the general conception the majority of people seem to believe, and was straightening it out. :p

For one thing, in order to lead (which ties in with parenting), you need to avoid hypocriticism. I see aetheists celebrating Christmas albeit it's a religious holiday (dealing with deities and whatnot), and I'm guessing Easter, too. Well, gift-giving (or an annual giving spirit as I see it ~_~), or anything else for that matter tying in with Christmas, is like saying you don't eat pizza yet you eat the crusts. :(

The fact of the matter is, it's still celebrating Christmas regardless of your personal intentions or beliefs. It's a given, like the fact that smoking is damaging to your health, even if you do it to 'relieve stress' or something. (And I'm not tying that in with Christmas either, and in saying that I mean it's a given, and not that if you celebrate Christmas you're bad. ^_^)

Simply put, once our children are taught to shut God out of our lives...well...let's just say I see history repeating itself. :( They are our future after all.

And I'm being candid and honest on this subject, so I'm not really seeking a debate, but simply stating my thoughts. ^_^;

[quote name='Xander Harris'] Edit: Of course, it was origionally meant to celebrate Saturn... either way it's a religious holiday...[/quote]

I agree on the second half of the statement, but the first half can lead me to digression, lol. ^__^;;[/color][/size]

[MissWem]

[QUOTE=Sevotharte]IMHO, I think it's more like the fact that parents wouldn't want children being taught [i]just/primarily[/i] Christianity in schools. Especially early in school (i.e. elementary school) where the children are more impressionable. Thus, overteaching Christianity will basically place that religion upon the students, whether they like it or not, because they won't know any better.
[/QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkRed]Definitely. Fortunately, I suppose I've been brought up in New Zealand which is actually considered a very secular country. Unfortunately I've spent half my school life in a Christian environment.

However, I've never been to America so I don't know personally to what extent the over-teaching of Christianity has gone on for.[/COLOR]
[QUOTE]
Without turning this into a flame war, I missed when atheism became intolerance. Atheism is just a belief, like Christianity. While you may have meant that the parents' actions may have been atheistic -- which I would also disagree with -- saying that atheism signifies intolerance, is saying that every other religion is also intolerant. Sure, some people might give atheism a bad name for being overly extremist, but I (as an atheist) consider myself tolerant of other religions. If you're Christian, or Muslim, etc. that's great. Whatever floats your boat :cool:[/QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkRed]My apologies, I only realized after going to bed that my idea of Athiesm was rather.. clouded. My brother fancies himself as an Athiest however he thorough believes in a separation of state and church and that religion is one of the stupidest things humanity could've invented, hence I kinda thought it was rather intolerant. I try not to let his opinion influence me since I prefer to remain Agnostic ^^"

Don't worry, I don't believe in flaming. I believe in being blunt.[/COLOR]

[Brasil]

As I understand it, as long as an instructor isn't [i]preaching[/i] religion, isn't spewing eternal damnation and such at the students, as long as the instructor is talking about it objectively, they're in the clear.

I think that's one of the issues here, too, and probably one of the items of the lawsuit. The instructor, even though he had a Christian background, wasn't trying to convert anyone; he was merely answering a question that happened to pertain to religion.

[Bio]

[font=Trebuchet MS]Religious history was [i]required [/i]in my teacher's curriculum last year. She was sort of uncomfortable about it, and made sure that we knew it was perfectly legal for her do teach what she had to. There were even excerpts from stories in the Bible, the Torah, and the Koran in out text book. I really don't see what the big deal is. As long as this stuff is introduced at an age when kids can formulate their own opinions, I think it's fine to teach this stuff. As long as the teacher isn't biasing the information, anyway.[/font]