fearlessly proclaiming the truth & the other truth! voice of the teknoshamanic institute
Soooprise....Soooprise...Soooprise
Published on August 20, 2005 By kingbee In Politics

in the midst of last december's  holiday season rants about the secularization of all things christmas (which i'm guessing is prolly an annual event but..), right-thinking juists were passed a BIG-ASS hit of ideological crack in the form of at least three articles with headlines screaming stuff like  "DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE BANNED IN CLASSROOM".

as those who didn't experience immediate cardiac arrest, implode or melt into gooey pools before clicking their way to the content discovered, that was the issue  described in a press release from the arizona-based alliance defense fund which was, by some amazing coincidence, picking up the tab for a lawsuit filed by a cupertino, ca teacher who claimed his principal was the evil-doer evil-doing the banning. .

if you woulda thought this place had already depleted its outrage reserves decrying heathen efforts to smash up candy canes and other sacred symbols, you woulda been wrong.  without a moment's hesitation wasted in consideration of  fact or logic, most of the usual suspects immediately took to their keyboards and began pounding out  their demands for blood, righteous  jeremiads...or both!

exactly a week and a day ago, the la times reported on the aftermath.  i purposely held back on this to see whether those who roused the rabble would follow suit.  since they haven't here's how this one played itself out according to the times.

Christian Teacher's Lawsuit Settled
Stephen Williams had alleged that Cupertino district officials forbade him from teaching the religious context of America's founding.

By Robert Hollis, Special to The Times


A San Jose federal court judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit filed by a Cupertino schoolteacher who accused his principal and other officials of illegally forbidding him from teaching about the religious context of America's founding.

U.S. District Judge James Ware dismissed the suit, filed by fifth-grade teacher and avowed "orthodox Christian" Stephen Williams, after both sides in the case agreed to a voluntary settlement.

 
Details of the agreement were not available. But Cupertino Union School District spokesman Jeremy Nishihara said there were no legal penalties or admission of liability by the district.

Williams filed his civil rights lawsuit in November 2004, accusing Stevens Creek Elementary School Principal Patricia Vidmar and other district officials of banning him from giving his students supplemental materials he had prepared on the country's religious underpinnings.

Williams' suit alleged that he had used excerpts from the Declaration of Independence in the banned materials, a contention the Arizona-Based Alliance Defense Fund announced in a news release headlined "Declaration of Independence Banned From Classroom."

The organization underwrote Williams' suit.

District officials called that allegation absurd, pointing out that the Declaration of Independence is part of the Stevens Creek curriculum and that it is displayed in schools throughout the district.

The news release triggered a media storm, especially among conservative commentators and news organizations.

Within days, district officials were deluged by angry telephone calls, letters and e-mails from across the country.

Earlier this year, Ware tossed out all but one of Williams' claims. In the remaining claim, Williams alleged that all other teachers were allowed to use similar supplemental materials while he was being restricted from using them because he is a Christian.

That last claim was dismissed along with the suit.

The settlement was reached "when both sides came to the agreement that the policy the Cupertino Union School District has had in place allows for the teaching of religion, provided it is age-appropriate and consistent with the district's state-approved curriculum," according to a statement released by the district late Thursday.

Neither Williams nor officials with the Alliance Defense Fund were available for comment.

The district's Nishihara said that each side would pay its own legal costs, which he declined to estimate. He said Williams continues to teach in the district, although not at Stevens Creek Elementary.

i'm very tempted to quote some of the comments from the ju screeds from last december, but rather than point out individual silliness, i'll just provide the links and let yall check out your own silliness. Link Link Link

 

 


Comments
on Aug 20, 2005

a pic of the declaration that was hanging on the school wall (and its website) at the time all the villagers were lighting torches and getting ready to march on the castle kinda bump



on Aug 20, 2005
As one who fell on that particular sword (although it was slightly before my time here at JU), I thank you for pointing out the facts, and I am also just glad that it didn't turn out to be true.
on Aug 20, 2005
for posting this in context with the knee-jerky reactions of the righties, both outside our ju realm of existence, and within.
on Aug 20, 2005

Details of the agreement were not available.

The settlement was reached "when both sides came to the agreement that the policy the Cupertino Union School District has had in place allows for the teaching of religion, provided it is age-appropriate and consistent with the district's state-approved curriculum," according to a statement released by the district late Thursday.

Nothing on your post as you are just relaying what you read.  But someone is either lying, or cant write worth poop.

on Aug 20, 2005
There's plenty of knee-jerkin' from both sides to go around, dabe, & it's particularly funny to have you flinging that accusation.

Thanks for the follow-up on the story, kb.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Aug 20, 2005
Actually, Daiwa, I responded extensively to you regarding knee jerking reactions in my article with the cartoon about bush hiding behind the curtain to avoid Cindy Sheehan. And, it was for that reason that I bolded the term knee jerking above. However, and for some reason, the article has completely disappeared from my blog. I sent an email to Brad asking about it, as my response to you was certainly more important than the cartoon. I'm still waiting for a reply from him.
on Aug 20, 2005
I was wondering what happened to that article. I'll keep an eye out for its reappearance.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Aug 20, 2005
Unfortunately, we may never know what the crux of the dispute was, now that the matter has been settled rather than tried. As I said at the time this hit the fan, we should rightly object to a public school teacher crossing the line & proselytizing, but a discussion of the religious environment in the mid-1770's that informed the Declaration, including the important political issue of freedom of religion, should be part of curriculum. I doubt the teacher was ever told that the Declaration could not be taught. There had to be something else to it & he pulled the old mis-direction play to avoid discipline of some sort. Just my guess.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Aug 20, 2005
I must've been on an everquest binge and the time, I don't even remember that. I reminds me of the recent thing about the teacher who was made to resign for having a picture of Bush in the classroom. With the political, soap-opera settings in school administration and local politics, there's no way to tell what is really going on in cases like this.
on Aug 21, 2005
I am also just glad that it didn't turn out to be true


i agree with ya there. i dunno if you went back to check out the comments, but one of the documents this teacher was excerpting was samuel adams' 'rights of colonists' which advocates--among other much more worthy policies--religious tolerance for everyone but roman catholics.
on Aug 21, 2005
for posting this in context with the knee-jerky reactions of the righties, both outside our ju realm of existence, and within.


as the comments from those posts illustrate, there were more than a few instant reactions and apparent total acceptance of 'the facts' as presented by the advocacy group that was handling the teacher's case. what i found particularly amusing was the invective heaped on the aclu (which wasn't involved as i recall) instead of the alliance defense fund (which was).
on Aug 21, 2005
But someone is either lying, or cant write worth poop.


i'm not at all certain what leads you to a choice between those two options. do tell.
on Aug 21, 2005
Unfortunately, we may never know what the crux of the dispute was, now that the matter has been settled rather than tried. As I said at the time this hit the fan, we should rightly object to a public school teacher crossing the line & proselytizing, but a discussion of the religious environment in the mid-1770's that informed the Declaration, including the important political issue of freedom of religion, should be part of curriculum. I doubt the teacher was ever told that the Declaration could not be taught. There had to be something else to it & he pulled the old mis-direction play to avoid discipline of some sort. Just my guess


rereading the comments on those threads confirmed my recollection of your very reasonable and deliberate response to the original articles. i'm in total agreement with the statement quoted above.
on Aug 21, 2005
I must've been on an everquest binge and the time, I don't even remember that.


i first read that as an 'everclear' binge and almost went catatonic. you musta been on hiatus of some sort though.

With the political, soap-opera settings in school administration and local politics, there's no way to tell what is really going on in cases like this.


this isn't a big district. hopefully it didn't cost them too much to deal with this. i'd also like to think that the alliance defense fund didn't waste alotta resources provided by their contributors.