By now most of you will have heard of Steven Williams, the fifth grade teacher in Cupertino, California, who is suing the school district for preventing him from distributing excerpts from the Declaration of Independence and other primary sources of American history because they contain references to God.
The school district denies his claim. An article on the controversy in today’s Week in Review section of the New York Times quotes an assistant superintendent who claims that “No teacher has been stopped from passing out the Declaration of Independence.”
Prudence suggests that we should wait for the facts to be established in court, or elsewhere, before pronouncing definitive judgments, but it is not too soon to see that this controversy reveals the continuing intensity of the red-blue culture wars. Jordan Lorence, an attorney for Mr. Williams,
said the school principal’s actions typified a prevailing mind-set among people who have “an allergic reaction” to the mention of God in schools.
“There seems to be a momentum to the logic and world view of the blue-state people, so to speak,” Mr. Lorence said. “When it comes to these types of things, the cultural norm seems to be that you are allowed to be hypersensitive to any mention of God in a public setting, no matter what the context is. Anyone who disagrees is just an ignorant rube from a hayseed red state. I use hyperbole for effect, but that is the mind-set.”
Indeed. It even seems to be the mind-set in this article, despite an obvious attempt at balance. Here’s the second paragraph:
In an affluent town in a region identified with the liberal elite, Mr. Williams has single-handedly turned the Declaration of Independence into a powerful tool for the Christian right in its battle against secularist teaching of colonial history, thrusting God and Christianity into the very same history lesson as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
One doesn’t have to be a Christian or a right-winger or a member of the Christianright (why not print this as one word, since that’s how more and more people use it?) or, for that matter, do any “thrusting” to recognize that God — or ideas about God — played quite a large role in colonial American history.
Yes, “the very same history” as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
There is a big difference between a school district preventing a history teacher from presenting the Declaration of Independence to students and a history teacher using the Declaration of Independence as a jumping off point for a religious sermon. It’s pretty clear that the teacher was doing the latter. The article says that “[p]rimary historical documents are a favorite vehicle because many states, including California, place a great emphasis upon them in their curriculum standards.”
The article also says that this teacher had previously lectured students about National Prayer Day and the presence of “under God” in the Pledge and on currency. Do honestly believe that his discussion of National Prayer Day was intended as a genuine history lesson rather than an attempt to proselytize? I really can’t see how you could have any sympathy for this man.
The question is one of context, Xavier. What if he was discussing ongoing controversies about church-state separation? The key being “ongoing,” especially this time of year. “Under God” in the Pledge and on currency is a legitimate debate topic for History class.
I’ve personally observed that it seems Williams may have gone overboard; however, John is correct — it’d be best to see what happens in court.
That the professor mentioned national prayer day means nothing. You can’t punish him for past acts. You can prevent him from mentioning prayer day (depending on the context, as Dave mentions), but that doesn’t mean every move he makes is suspect.
I said from the start that sooner or later we would find that teachers would be stopped from using the Declaration and the Gettysburg Address (especially the latter, since the words of the Pledge are echoed there exactly). We are now at the point — and Xavier proves this — that we have to look at the psyche of professors before allowing them to use material. Next step? Check out their religious denominations. No one will stop a muslim or an atheist from using the Declaration for their own purposes.
There is no avoiding it: Religion WAS important to the founding fathers. That’s history. You may not like it, but there it is.
‘I’ve personally observed that it seems Williams may have gone overboard; however, John is correct — it’d be best to see what happens in court.’
Which is why its pretty crappy that this guy quotes an article that admits is using hyperbole.
Our first problem is that you begin with something from an unreliable source – the NYT. Then you pass over the information in the article that Mr. Williams passed out the Presidential Proclamation about national prayer day, saying it was meant only as an example of such proclamations. Uh huh. Also mentioned in the article and passed over in your comments: How many people not educated in a Christian school ever got excerpts from George Washington
As opposed to, say, being represented by the ACLU for handing out something Christians may be offended by?
I’m just glad we have people like actus and notherbob2 to “educate” us on exactly what Williams is doing in class.
I’m all for including plenty of information about Jefferson and Franklin’s views on Christianity in history curricula. ;)
It is the height of intellectual dishonesty, verging on deliberate and unscrupulous misleading, to exclude the reality of socio-political impact of religious and/or religious based worldview, specifically Christian worldview, on the history of this developing nation, right up to this very day. But then, when has the Left ever been bound by scruples when there are points to be made?
You lost me with “specifically Christian” which doesn’t apply to the two Founding Fathers I previously mentioned, nor to Washington; all 3 of these, and many others besides, were classic 18th Century Deists and Jefferson and Franklin at least were quite public in their differences with Christian orthodoxy (to the point that many of their opponents affected to suspect them of atheism) . None of them would have anything but contempt for efforts to smuggle Christian proselytizing into secular public institutions (not to mention efforts to rewrite history).
The very first post I read about this was skeptical, pointing out that the school is required by California law to teach the Declaration and other documents, so a claim that he was not allowed to do so seemed to be more about the way the material was presented. If he was using them to promote a particular religion, or especially a particular sect of a broad religion, it will become known in court – if it actually goes that far.
Both Xavier and notherbob2 seem to be sure of two things, both of which strike me as more problematical:
1. Mr. Williams is guilty of doing something he shouldn’t.
2. I’m sure he’s not.
Their deconstructive skills — which is to say, their ability to read beyond mere text into the Truth of the matter — is quite impressive.
If it were up to me, we would err on the side of extending wide latitude in what teachers are allowed to teach. Take two hypothetical teachers; I’ll call them Williams and Williams2. Williams is deeply religious, and in addition (though this doesn’t flow from his religion) believes the Pilgrims and Puritans were motivated primarily by religious concerns, concerns that were revived in the Great Awakening of the 1740s and again in the American Revolution.
Williams2, by contrast, is deeply secular, and in addition (though this doesnt’ necessarily flow from his secularism) believes that most early settlers, especially in areas outside New England, were not primarily motivated by religion, and that over time the secularism of the new society grew even stronger, leading to a Constitution that drew a strict separation between church and state.
Now, a few observations:
I could go on. Instead, let me say that I believe in the separation of church and state. Teachers in public schools should not proselytize for or against religion. Having said that, however, perhaps I should add (some of you may think I should say “confess”) that the fear on the left of Christianity in the schools, or elsewhere, almost always strikes me as overblown.
H.L. Mencken once famously, and notoriously incorrectly, defined a Puritan as someone who lived in constant fear that somewhere, someone was having a good time. Many contemporary liberals strike me as having a similar fear that the failure to expunge Christianity from the schools will turn them into mirror images of Islaminc fundamentalist academies turning out hordes of zealots primed to kill Jews and secularists.
Steve, sorry to have lost you. Actually what I am saying is regardless of the individuals’ particular theological persuasion, they lived in a culture that was totally influenced by a Christian worldview. And even if they did not themselves embrace that worldview 100 per cent, they could not help but be influenced by it. Sort of the way we live in either the enlightenment culture or the post-modern today. Even if we embrace neither ourselves, it’s hard to completely divorce oneself from their influence, non?
Correct, but talking in class about this Christian background without making it clear that key figures like Jefferson and Franklin were highly and openly sceptical of Christian orthdoxy would be quite misleading, n’est-ce pas?
“I said from the start that sooner or later we would find that teachers would be stopped from using the Declaration and the Gettysburg Address…” (Dom)
Oh, they’ve found a way around that.
In my history book in 10th grade they simply cut all the references to God from the Gettysburg Address. Well, it may have been a video that was quoting Lincoln… Nevertheless, every single phrase that had to do with God was simply left out. I was irked, to say the least. The speech is only a couple paragraphs long–the intent of the editing was obvious.
Makes you think, doesn’t it?
Next Round in the Culture War
I’ve been arguing with myself about this subject since the election. Now that they’ve been thoroughly thrashed at the ballot box, where is the next place for those moral hordes…
Xavier claims, “There is a big difference between a school district preventing a history teacher from presenting the Declaration of Independence to students and a history teacher using the Declaration of Independence as a jumping off point for a religious sermon. It’s pretty clear that the teacher was doing the latter.”
Actually that’s not clear at all. Williams was singled out, among all other teachers at this school, and prevented from using the Declaration and other American historical documents that make explicit references to a Christian God, not because of any specific allegations that he was using these documents to engage in proselytizing (there have not, in fact, been any such allegations), but because his outspokeness *in the teacher break room*, *among his colleagues*, made the school’s principal *afraid* that he *might* use such documents for proselytizing.
Williams was not singled out for proselytizing. He was singled out because of his religion.
Actually, its quite funny that there is a controversy over this, because quite frankly its hard to read from the declaration of independence and avoid being accused of preaching. Of course, that is why it is such a splendid opportunity to take advantage of this, which the board of the school clearly picked up. (Good way to get rid of a christian teacher they do not like. ;) ) A teacher can’t be blamed for the blatant christian foundations of the declaration of independence. Such an accusation is absurd and childish.