| FUNDAMENTALISM
Far-Right
fundamentalists launch intimidation campaign against Stevens Creek
Elementary School Principal in Cupertino, CA
- Far Right group filed utterly
frivolous lawsuit against the Principal and the Cupertino Union School District (CUSD)
on behalf of teacher Stephen Williams who used slanted, dubious or
false propaganda to push a "Christian" nation perspective on
the school students and then claimed
"discrimination" when he was stopped from pursuing this
- As of 4/15/05, a judge dismissed three out of four claims in the
lawsuit outright
- As of 8/12/05, the lawsuit was dropped with the school prevailing
entirely.
[To
contact me or find out more about this site, click here.]
Last
update:
09/30/2005
PREFACE
I set this page up to bring more
attention to this issue (the false claim "Declaration of
Independence Banned...") at Stevens Creek Elementary school in Cupertino, CA
(an affluent city in Silicon Valley), following the lead of Dave
Johnson at Seeing the Forest who brought it to my attention.
Since then I have contacted a few sources who provided me additional
details. (Updates made on this
page are listed here.)
A group of
over 100 concerned parents from the Stevens Creek Elementary School
have created a
website (We
the Parents) aimed at repudiating the false charges from the Alliance
Defense Fund and the teacher Stephen Williams and the misleading/false
negative media coverage of the school. Please visit their website to learn more. On
1/25/05, they released a letter to the Alliance Defense Fund asking
for an apology and a retraction of their false press release.
Here is the text of that letter. As of 1/31/05, the school
district filed a motion asking the Court to dismiss ADF's
frivolous lawsuit -
see here for their press release and
here for their actual brief (link thanks to one of the parents). ADF had previously
amended their original lawsuit and (curiously) deleted the exhibits
(analyzed in this page) from the amended lawsuit. It appears they
have also eliminated the original lawsuit from their webpage since I
have been unable to find it. Copies of the original lawsuit and
amended one are here.
As of
4/15/05, a Federal Judge, rightly, dismissed three of the four claims
in the ADF lawsuit as having no merit (thanks to two of the parents
who wrote to me with this update). The CUSD press release (via We
The Parents) notes this:
APRIL 28, 2005 –
Today, Federal Court Judge James Ware issued a ruling to dismiss
three out of the four causes of action listed in the lawsuit filed
by a teacher against representatives of the Cupertino Union School
District. The three causes of action being dismissed are: (1)
representatives of the district violated the free speech rights of
the teacher; (2) there was a vagueness in the district’s policy
regarding the use of supplementary materials; and (3) the teacher’s
right of religious expression had been violated.
The one remaining cause
of action that will be allowed to move forward is that the
representatives of the district allegedly treated the teacher
differently because of his religious beliefs. The Court’s decision
was based strictly on the fact that the plaintiff’s allegations at
least made a sufficient argument that, if proved, could support an
equal protection claim.
The case will now move
to the discovery phase where the facts will begin to be revealed.
Thereafter, representatives of the district will be filing a motion
for summary judgment, seeking a dismissal of the remaining cause of
action. The court has tentatively scheduled this motion for October
2005.
As one of the parents who forwarded
this information to me noted (in part):
...The judge, after raking the ADF
lawyer over the coals for wasting the court' time, dismissed 3 of
the four charges against the principal and district. The judge ruled
that Mr. Williams freedom of speech was not violated in any way.
These were the charges included in the original suit discussed on
Hannity and Colmes and in the major news media last November. After
several weeks, the case was amended to include a charge that Mr.
Williams was discriminated against based on his religion. This is
the one count the judge (reluctantly as reported by parents at the
hearing) allowed to go to discovery. Apparently the ADF claimed they
were not ready to present their case and needed more time. The local
feeling is that this charge will be next to impossible to prove, and
that it is likely the ADF will withdraw quietly over the summer...
It has been my position all along that
this is a frivolous and bogus lawsuit without *any* merit (see
below). ADF's lawsuits, like those of other "Christian
Right" groups have historically been more
successful on "Free Speech" claims, and the fact that
Stephen Williams' claim on free speech violations was summarily
dismissed shows how extraordinarily weak his case is. The remaining
(equal protection) claim should easily be dismissed once the facts of
the case come out, since it is an utterly laughable and bogus claim -
as I have shown here.
As of
8/12/05, the Far Right Alliance Defense Fund and its client Stephen
Williams have dropped the remaining frivolous claim in their lawsuit
against Stevens Creek School Principal Patricia Vidmar and the
Cupertino Union School District (CUSD) voluntarily (thanks to a
Stevens Creek parent for the tip). This is consistent with my
prediction that this lawsuit would not pass the laugh test.
The parents group We
The Parents has provided some links on this development. Here's
a copy (PDF) of the settlement agreement which was the basis of
the lawsuit being dropped. The San Jose Mercury News continued its
egregiously sub-standard coverage of this whole episode with an underwhelming
report about the end of the lawsuit. I say underwhelming because
it starts with this paragraph (emphasis mine):
The teacher whose discrimination
lawsuit thrust Cupertino's Stevens Creek Elementary School into the
national debate over religion in schools has withdrawn his case, with
both sides agreeing to dismiss all claims.
Both sides? The Cupertino
Union School District or Stevens Creek Elementary School did not file
a lawsuit claiming anything. They just defended
themselves using taxpayer money against Stephen Williams' and
the Alliance Defense Fund's remarkably, and egregiously, frivolous
fraud of a lawsuit.
The Mercury News also highlights one of
the terms of the agreement pursuant to the withdrawal of the lawsuit.
No money will be exchanged, since
both sides agreed to cover their own legal expenses.
For Stephen Williams and the ADF to get
away with their frivolous, baseless, fabrications (see
here for why I say that) with no consequences (particularly
financial) is a travesty. With their frivolous lawsuit they forced the
County to use precious taxpayer dollars, during a time of education
budget cuts in the state, to defend against their baseless claims.
Clearly, ADF and Williams have demonstrated a contempt for education
and taxpayer dollars. [ADF is free to file lawsuits that have merit,
based on an honest set of claims - I am not opposed to that; however,
from the very beginning it was clear that this lawsuit was a hoax].
The settlement agreement makes it
crystal clear that no changes have been made to the school district
curriculum or guidelines, i.e., the school and the school district
were right and never did anything wrong. Williams and the ADF have
signed the agreement which states, among other things, that:
1. The parties agree that existing
District policy allows teachers, no matter what their religious
beliefs, to use appropriate educational material (including
supplemental handouts of historical significance) during
instructional time that has religious content - so long as it is
objective, age appropriate, and in compliance with the curriculum as
prescribed by the District, and not being used to influence a
student's religious belief (or lack thereof).
...
3. The parties agree that the District, acting through the
Superintendent, Superintendent's designee, school board and/or site
administrator, has the final say in determining whether instruction
or educational materials is appropriate and in compliance with the
curriculum.
4. In consideration of the above
mentioned agreements, Williams hereby withdraws his complaint in
this case against all Defendants, with prejudice.
So much for all of ADF's fake claims in
their lawsuit about discrimination and other nonsense. So much for all
the fakery that their propagandists in the mainstream
media (especially the freely mendacious hosts
at Fox News) spread - which led to chaos in the
school and vile threats against school employees (especially the
Principal Patricia Vidmar). Do these people have no
shame?
On
9/30/05 I published an email interview with three parents from
Stevens Creek Elementary School at The
Left Coaster: Part
1, Part
2, Part
3, Part
4
SUMMARY
A quick review of the lawsuit and the media brouhaha
instigated by Stephen Williams' supporters indicates that this has all the
makings of a typical right-wing hit job: a frivolous lawsuit, false
propaganda (by the plaintiffs and the media) and intimidation/character
assassination [No offense is intended here to
conservatives in general, I am really referring to the right-wing
media and Far Right here. There are genuinely concerned (and
staunch) conservatives who don't approve of this lawsuit or the Far
Right's/media's behavior - and who support Principal Vidmar. Please
take a moment to click here for more on this].
The school and its staff (especially Principal
Vidmar)
have been deluged with scores of nasty emails and phone calls
including hostile comments such as "We hope you burn in hell".
Another call was made to one of the teachers on 12/9/04 at 1:30 am
saying "I know who you are, where you live
and that you work for that godforsaken school." This kind
of intimidation is making it very difficult for parents or teachers to
speak out publicly against the nastiness and false claims behind the
lawsuit. [I have therefore posted
a special request on Dailykos asking people to take action, by
including the text of a letter I wrote to the CUSD Superintendent and
Board].
The reality here is that the teaching material of Mr. Williams is unbelievably slanted
towards promoting God, religion and Christianity ("Christian
nation" propaganda) while leaving out easily available,
copious amounts of material that contradict the picture he was
trying to provide the students. Some of his teaching supplements were
even found to be bogus or dubious in origin [see some examples in Exhibit
E and Exhibit G of the original lawsuit
or Handout G of the amended lawsuit]. It shows a complete disregard for providing young students
a well rounded perspective on what the founders of the United States
really thought, not just about God or religion, but also about how God
or religion should interact with the business of Government. It
tells me that the principal may indeed have had good justification for
doing what she did. [Ed
Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars has linked to this
must-read
commentary in FindLaw by legal scholar Vikram David Amar in the context of
the Stephen Williams Cupertino lawsuit. Also take a minute to read my
companion article: Church-State
Separation in the United States: Religion in Public Schools and the
Legal/Off-Courtroom Strategies of the Christian Right]
Let me add a clarification in response
to some emails I received. The objective of this page is not to claim
that the Founding Fathers of the United States were irreligious or had
no faith in Christianity (even though there are quotations presented
here that gives the impression that some of them might have been that
way). Indeed, if we set aside some of the prominent Founding Fathers, there
is a fair amount of evidence that Americans from that era tended
to more religious than not - although they craved for freedom
of religion, which was one of the reasons many of the migrants
came to this country. However, in terms of the Founding Fathers
themselves, the real issue we are dealing with in this incident is not whether they were devout Christians but
whether they believed religion or church needed to be an integral part
of the Government of the United States. The issue is also not whether
John Adams or Abraham Lincoln or any of the others that Mr. Williams
quoted were religious - it is whether they were blindly religious in
the manner portrayed by Mr. Williams in his
"supplements".
[Note: The lawsuit has a fair
number of documents. I have reviewed most of them and the details of
that review were used to compile the summary (above). The review is
available (below) starting here; to contact the
media to ask them to provide the real facts on this story please go to
section 6].
On another serious note, this episode
demonstrates yet again why much of the media in this country is not liberal by any
means, but is rather driven to report a "he-said she-said"
perspective with little independent fact checking. The right-wing
media, as usual, is openly dishonest and fraudulent (as I have
summarized in Appendix A). Dave has chronicled this in
this update (edited on 12/6/04 to include a correction in Dave's
post):
The New York Times, in God,
American History and a Fifth-Grade Class, writes today
about the Thanksgiving-week "Declaration
of Independence Banned" story. They cover the story in a
he-said/she-said manner, saying the teacher's contrived lawsuit,
"...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..."
The Times story does not
even mention that the controversy -- the reason they are covering
the story at all -- only exists because of the
inflammatory claim that the Declaration of Independence was
banned by the school because it contained the word 'God,' and does
not refute this outright lie beyond one "he said"
statement. The school had not banned the Declaration of
Independence, it had asked a teacher to stop giving unconstitutional
"supplemental handouts" (like this,
perhaps?) to students.
The original story
surfaced in the Right's echo chamber (Drudge, Limbaugh, Fox...) the
day before Thanksgiving -- carefully timed to make it impossible to
refute for several days, and to stir up emotions at family
dinnertables. Now the story is widespread, which is
probably the reason the Times addressed it at all. A Google search
of "Declaration
of Independence banned" yields 17,200 citations. (That is a
search of the text in quotes, not for sites containing some mix of
the words.)
The Alliance
Defense Fund, the "Christian law" organization
responsible for the lawsuit states on their website that they use
"strategy and coordination" to advance their mission to
"spread of the Gospel." In this case their agitprop
strategy of bearing false witness to provoke argument and division
has proven successful. This lie is being repeated
by blogs, discussion forums and word-of-mouth "water
cooler" conversations. And the intended culture-war response is
evoked in the thinking of the public: they are "fed
up" with "politically
correct" "domestic
enemies" who are taking the separation
of church and state "too
far."
Professional journalism again fails us. As far as I know, no
"journalists" have seriously looked into the outrageous
claim that a school banned the Declaration of Independence because
it contains the word 'God', even though it is a major topic of
discussion across the country, after Reuters allowed
itself to be used to publicize and bring mainstream credibility
to the lie.
Evidence
backing up my summary is shown below - grouped in a few sections (some of the links to other commentary on the web
are from Dave). Please peruse through the sections and then help
the Principal and correct the false stories in the media by going to Section
6.
SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
1. A BIG LIE
DISSECTED: HIGH LEVEL SUMMARY OF THE ISSUE, FROM DAVE JOHNSON
1.1 Alliance Defense
Fund belatedly acknowledges that the claim that the "Declaration of
Independence was banned..." from the school is false, but blames the
media for this rather than taking ownership for their own false
claim
2. WHAT ARE THE REAL
FACTS ON THE ISSUE?
2.1 Was Stephen
Williams discriminated against because he was a "Christian"?
2.2 Is/was Principal
Vidmar against the mention of God in the classroom?
2.3 Is/Was Principal
Vidmar against the mention of anything to do with Jesus Christ or
Christianity in the classroom?
2.3.1 Is/Was Principal
Vidmar hostile to discussions on religion or Christianity in general?
2.4 What can we say
about the choice of "supplemental materials" that plaintiff
Williams chose for his students? A lot. The material is incredibly
slanted and in some cases dubious or bogus.
EXHIBITS FROM ORIGINAL ADF LAWSUIT
Exhibit A (page 17):
National Day of Prayer, 2004 - By the President of the United States
of America, A Proclamation
Exhibit B (page 20):
Excerpts from FRAME OF GOVERNMENT OF PENNSYLVANIA by William Penn
(1682)
Exhibit C (page 22):
Declaration of Independence
Exhibit D (page 24):
Religious Clauses in State Constitutions
Exhibit E (page 27):
What Great Leaders Have Said About the Bible
Exhibit F (page 29):
The Rights of the Colonists by Samuel Adams
Exhibit G (page 32):
George Washington's Prayer Journal
Exhibit H (page 36):
John Adams' Diary
Exhibit I (page 39):
The Principles of Natural Law, Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui
Exhibit J (page 46):
Fact Sheets: Currency and Coins - History of "In God We
Trust"
Exhibit K (page 50):
History-Social Science Framework for California Public Schools
SOME ADDITIONAL HANDOUTS MENTIONED IN THE
AMENDED LAWSUIT
Handout g (page
9): The Conversion of Quaker Isaac Potts to the Cause of
Patriotism through the Observation of George Washingtons Prayer,
from Rev. Nathanial Randolph Snowden, Diary and Remembrances
Handout h (page
9): “George Washington’s Adopted Daughter Discusses Washington’s
Religious Character,” by Nelly Custis-Lewis
2.4.1 Steven Williams'
Easter assignment to his students
2.5 Why Williams'
"supplemental materials" are worth being concerned about
3. WHO IS BEHIND ADF
(THE GROUP THAT HAS FILED THE LAWSUIT AGAINST CUSD)?
Alliance Defense Fund
- The late Bill
Bright
- The late Marlin
Maddoux
- James Dobson
- D. James
Kennedy
- Don Wildmon
4.
INTIMIDATION OF THE STEVENS CREEK SCHOOL
4.1 Intimidating
phone calls to Stevens Creek School
4.2 Letters of
intimidation sent to the Stevens Creek PTO
5. RECOMMENDATIONS TO
THE PARENTS AND TEACHERS OF STEVENS CREEK SCHOOL
6. HOW TO HELP
PRINCIPAL PATRICIA VIDMAR (and contact the Press as well)
APPENDIX A:
RIGHT-WING MEDIA'S DISTORTIONS, DISHONESTY AND PROPAGANDA
FOOTNOTE: An
important clarification on my use of the term "right-wing",
in response to an email from a staunchly conservative parent who is
fighting on behalf of Principal Vidmar
UPDATES: Links to
updates made on this page after 12/15/04
1.
A BIG LIE DISSECTED: HIGH LEVEL SUMMARY OF THE ISSUE, FROM DAVE
JOHNSON
Here's
Dave:
"Declaration
Of Independence Banned" - It's A Lie!
I don't have much time right now but I want to bring attention to
this "news" story Declaration
of Independence Banned at Calif School:
A California teacher
has been barred by his school from giving students documents from
American history that refer to God -- including the Declaration of
Independence.
Steven Williams, a fifth-grade teacher at Stevens Creek School in
the San Francisco Bay area suburb of Cupertino, sued for
discrimination on Monday, claiming he had been singled out for
censorship by principal Patricia Vidmar because he is a Christian.
Summary
(inferred) - the teacher was forcing his students to listen to and
read "Christian Nation" propaganda. The school asked him
to stop. The teacher is suing the school with the help of a
right-wing "Christian Law" organization, the Alliance
Defense Fund. (Also see this.)
The school did not "ban the Declaration of
Independence" -- that is just a lie. This story is like
when you hear that a man was "arrested for praying" and
you find out he was kneeling in the middle of a busy intersection at
rush hour and refused to move.
This is the BIG STORY today, on Rush, and Drudge, and the rest of
the Usual Suspects. And it is a carefully planned and carefully
timed lie.
The story is timed for this afternoon so that it cannot be refuted
until Monday.
It is timed to cause fights and hatred at family Thanksgiving
dinners across the country.
It is part of a strategy to reinforce a "conventional
wisdom" notion that "liberals" are "going too
far" with their demands of separation of church and state.
People
For the American Way has a web page about the Alliance Defense
Fund. From PFAW:
ADF's Founders:
Bill Bright, founder of Campus Crusade for Christ
Larry Burkett, founder of Christian Financial Concepts
Rev. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family
Rev. D. James Kennedy, founder of Coral Ridge Ministries
Marlin Maddoux, President of International Christian Media
Don Wildmon, founder of American Family Association
(And 25+ other ministries)
President and General Counsel: Alan Sears
Date of founding: 1994
Finances: $15,411,093 (2001 budget)
And note this:
ADF defines itself by
its ability to strategize and coordinate with lawyers all over the
United States.
[. . .]
ADF also defends the right of Christians to 'share the gospel' in
workplaces and public schools, claiming that any efforts to curb
proselytizing at work and school are anti-Christian.
"Strategize
and coordinate." Sounds like what's happening with this story,
planted on Rush and Drudge, in time for the holiday. I hope that
other bloggers can pick up on this. I suspect many of us are going
to miss how important this is -- how big of an effect this is going
to have on things we care about. This story is designed as
ammunition for family conversations tomorrow.
As I write this, O'Reilly is on the air on FOX saying "Another
ruling by an activist judge that puts us all in danger." That's
an exact quote. It isn't about this story, but it reinforces it:
Yet more "liberals' who are "going too far."
See the forest. See how this stuff works!
Update - I have a more few pre-holiday minutes to spend on
this... To be clear about this story, the school said the teacher
could not use handouts that included quotes from the
Declaration and other documents. A San
Mateo Times story (where I live) says,
"She then
prevented Williams from giving students several handouts
including:
- Excerpts from the Declaration of Independence with references to
"God," "Creator," and "Supreme
Judge."
And
from the Alliance's
press release,
Attorneys with the
Alliance Defense Fund filed suit yesterday against the Cupertino
Union School District for prohibiting a teacher from providing supplemental
handouts to students about American history because the
historical documents contain some references to God and religion.
[emphasis added]
Supplemental handouts,
huh? I wonder where he got those from?
That's all this is. The rest is strategic disinformation --
agitprop.
And for the Right's spin on the story -- how's suing for saying "Merry
Christmas?"
As late as 11/29/04, at Fox News,
Hannity and Colmes are still grossly misleading their viewers by
claiming that Williams was "Banned from Showing Students the
Declaration of Independence". More here.
1.1
Alliance Defense Fund belatedly acknowledges that the claim that the
"Declaration of Independence was banned..." from the school is false,
but blames the media for this rather than taking ownership for their own
false claim
On 2/2/05, one of the parents forwarded
me two press releases.
The first one is from ADF, in response to
the letter previously sent to ADF by
We The
Parents asking for an apology (h).
I could not find this letter on ADF's website as of 2/4/04, but as the
parent stated: "This is a press release they give
only to news reporters who ask for a response to our open letter. They
are too embarrassed to post it."
A report in the Cupertino Courier confirms that ADF did issue this
press release. Here is ADF's press release (the exact fonts/punctuation
may be different from how it was in ADF's release since I am reproducing
this from a forwarded email):
ALLIANCE
DEFENSE FUND STATEMENT
January 27, 2005 ˆ FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT ADF MEDIA RELATIONS: (480) 444-0020
ADF dispels misunderstandings about lawsuit against Cupertino
Union School District
SCOTTSDALE, Ariz.˜Some media reports have incorrectly characterized
the lawsuit filed on behalf of teacher Stephen Williams against the
Cupertino Union School District as challenging a complete ban by the
school of the Declaration of Independence from the entire school.
That characterization is wrong.
The text of our Nov. 23, 2004, news release on this lawsuit clearly
stated that Mr. Williams was prohibited from using the Declaration
in his classroom despite having sound academic reasons to do so.
Additionally, the actual complaint is a public document and is (and
has been) available at our Web site at
www.alliancedefensefund.org/userdocs/WilliamsvCupertinoComplaint.pdf.
What is at issue in this lawsuit is not the reputation or general
quality of education at Stevens Creek Elementary School, where Mr.
Williams teaches. It is the question of whether school officials
violated the U.S. Constitution when they placed particular
limitations upon Mr. Williams ~and only Mr. Williams~ pertaining to
the teaching of his class. This is the question that led to informal
efforts to resolve the problem and, when those failed, to court.
After the lawsuit was filed, extensive media coverage and a vigorous
public debate developed on the issue. Unfortunately, some people
expressed themselves in a hateful, angry manner toward the school
and others involved in the controversy. ADF deplores such
uncivilized behavior on all fronts: such crude behavior by any
person does nothing to further reasoned discussion of the
fundamental rights at issue.
We the
Parents have responded, thusly:
Cupertino parents
request that lawyers' group take further actions to correct mistakes
Cupertino, 2/2/02:
We, The Parents, a group of parents at Stevens Creek Elementary
issued a statement today regarding the ADF‚s response to their Open
Letter of last week. The letter requested that the ADF issue a
public apology and a retraction of their November 23 press release
which falsely stated that the Declaration of Independence had been
banned at their school.
The ADF, in a press release on 1/27/05, deny that the Declaration of
Independence has been banned from Stevens Creek Elementary. Such a
ban was widely reported following the ADF's November 23 press
release headlined "Declaration of Independence banned from
classroom", but the ADF now describe these reports as a
mischaracterization of the truth. They also decry the behavior of
those who "expressed themselves in a hateful, angry manner toward
the school and others involved in the controversy," which the parent
group believes was the direct result of the inflammatory headline of
the November 23 statement.
"We truly feel this is a David vs. Goliath kind of a victory! The
small mouse squeaked so loud the elephant had to move," said Jean
Marie Danielson. "We welcome this first step from ADF to putting the
record straight, but still look forward to receiving a public
apology for the harm they have caused our school and our children,"
stated Richard Crouch. "What we have seen so far looks more like an
effort to minimize their own legal liability."
ADF still claims in their latest press release that "Mr. Williams
was prohibited from using the Declaration in his classroom despite
having sound academic reasons to do so." John Bartas, co-founder of
the group, responds "that claim sounds ridiculous when you know that
the document is printed entirely in the text book used by all fifth
grade students and teachers. The lawsuit states that Williams wanted
to use was his own 'excerpts', not the complete and original
Declaration."
Nathalie Schuler, media relations volunteer for the group, stated
that the ADF has blamed the media for misrepresenting their claims
and has not taken responsibility for its own actions. "We still see
their original misleading and inflammatory press release on their
website. Recently the school received another email with a clear
call to action‚ asking Christians‚ to contact the school and convey
their feelings, and to do more than just speak out. This e-mail
reproduced the original ADF press release. We think this will
continue to happen as long as they don't withdraw it and publicly
apologize for misleading the public in the first place."
The group also questions the validity of the claim by the ADF that
Williams was singled out by the principal because he is a Christian.
"There are other fifth grade teachers at our school who are also
Christian and they are not required to turn in lesson plans,"
explained Larry Woodard, a parent at the school and former supporter
of the ADF. "Since the ADF mislead the public on the Declaration
ban, what does that say about the credibility of the rest of their
claims?" asked Woodard.
The group continues to request a public retraction and apology from
the ADF. The full text of the Open Letter to the ADF can be found of
the parents website, www.stevenscreekparents.org
Indeed, ADF continues to lie on their
website. Even as of 2/5/05, the headline associated with their
November news release
still says: "Declaration of Independence Banned from Classroom".
2. WHAT ARE
THE REAL FACTS ON THE ISSUE?
In response to the lawsuit filed on
behalf of the teacher, The Cupertino Union School District has issued
two press releases on its website so far - one
dated 11/29/04 and another
dated 11/30/04. The releases state that the school district will
provide the court all the details supporting its viewpoint, and
the 11/30 release also points out the following (bold text is eRiposte
emphasis):
The Declaration of
Independence, sections of the United States Constitution, and other
historical documents are re-printed in our textbooks, displayed in
some of our school buildings, and taught in our social studies
curriculum and lessons. There has been no ban of such documents or
their underlying principles in the Cupertino Union School District.
The Constitution
requires the District to uphold the First Amendment which mandates
the separation
between Church and State. Courts have repeatedly held that public
schools have the right and the duty to review instructional
materials to ensure compliance with this constitutional obligation.
The District’s conduct in this matter has been consistent with its
obligations.
Principal Vidmar has been silent - but
this is not unexpected considering that a lawsuit has been filed against
her (and that she has been the subject of an intimidation campaign - more on this in Section
4 and Section 5).
However, this leads to a bit of a
problem. As usual, you have an accuser and his right-wing supporters
making misleading claims (as late as 11/29/04, at Fox News, Hannity
and Colmes are still grossly misleading their viewers by
claiming that Williams was "Banned from Showing Students the
Declaration of Independence" - more here) and filing a lawsuit, but the school district, wanting
to (rightfully) deal with this in the court system has not released
the details that provide a full perspective of what actually
happened.
So, where does that leave us?
A. First, there is the parent (or possibly
multiple parents - see below)
who complained against teacher Steven Williams. There is no need
for the parent(s) to be silent. Principal Vidmar acted on a specific
complaint (or complaints) - so, regardless of who is at fault here, the details on
the complaint(s) should be made available to counterbalance the so-called "facts" that the proponents of the lawsuit have provided to the
Press.
One of my sources (in the school PTO),
indicated to me that it is possible that multiple complaints were filed against
this teacher (not just one). I am still trying to get one or more
of the parents (not sure if more than one is involved) who filed the complaint to provide as much details on
the complaint as possible (if you are one such parent, please
send me as much information as you can - your anonymity will be
preserved!)
B. Second, as I show in Section
3, the group filing the lawsuit is a combination of far Right
fundamentalists who specialize in filing (intimidating) frivolous
lawsuits, especially the type involving church and state and
gays.
C. Third, in the absence of more detailed
information from the school or the complaining parents, we can dissect
the claims some more by reviewing the claims and the lawsuit.
2.1 Was
Stephen Williams discriminated against because he was a
"Christian"?
The original Reuters report which Dave
captured says this (note that this report calls the teacher
Steven, but another more recent article as of 12/8/04 says
"Stephen"):
Steven Williams, a fifth-grade teacher at Stevens Creek School in
the San Francisco Bay area suburb of Cupertino, sued for
discrimination on Monday, claiming he had been singled out for
censorship by principal Patricia Vidmar because he is a Christian.
As John
McKay observed:
Notice the
unqualified use of the word "Christian." I've talked about
this before. This is how the right appropriates a word for their own
use. It implies many things. By making it sound like he is the only
Christian in the school, he claims the privileged position of a
beleaguered minority. It also implies that only his variety of
Christianity is the only authentic variety, the only one allowed to
be simply "Christian." Authenticity is a powerful quality
in the American value system.
John's observation is quite correct.
The discrimination angle already makes no sense given Williams admits
he has been allowed to teach without incident for many years
previously. Moreover, are we led to believe that Williams is the only Christian
teacher in the school - a school in a fairly affluent community (student
ethnicity 42% White, 50% Asian - via Liz
Ditz)? A
reasonable guess would say that the answer is NO. So, I think we can
say with fairly high confidence that this claim of discrimination
because he is a Christian is nonsensical.
2.2 Is/Was
Principal Vidmar against the mention of God in the classroom?
Clearly not. Even the Plaintiffs
state
the following in page 6 of the ORIGINAL lawsuit:
39. Other teachers
are permitted to show films and distribute handouts containing
references to God.
...
56. Mr. Williams has distributed his chosen handouts during previous
school years without any problems.
So, clearly, there is NO CASE here that
the Principal was somehow anti-God and forced teachers to stop talking
about God.
2.3
Is/Was Principal Vidmar against the mention of anything to do with
Jesus Christ or Christianity in the classroom?
The answer again is NO (not just
because other teachers in the school are allowed to sharing materials
with a Christian religious background with their students). Indeed,
the plaintiffs' claim is patently false on this matter (see below).
Indeed, as Julia
at American Street has pointed out, this becomes apparent
from the plaintiffs claims as well (bold text is my emphasis):
Mr. Williams also,
presumably for Thanksgiving consumption, whips out the old chestnut
about Christianity not being given equal status in a diverse society
Williams said he
thinks society has become hypersensitive to any reference of
Christianity in the public arena, especially schools. He said he
has taught students about Ramadan and Kwanzaa and applauded for
those lessons.
“People are
like, “Oh good, that’s diversity,’ ‘’ he said. “As
soon as Christianity involved, it’s separation of church and
state.'’
Well, not quite
that either. From the complaint:
In November 2003,
Mr. Williams taught a lesson on the origins of Thanksgiving.
On December 2003
and January 2004, Mr. Williams taught lessons on the origins of
religious holidays, including Christmas, Ramadan, Diwali, Hanukah
and the Chinese New Year.
Principal Vidmar
did not object to the lessons about Thanksgiving or the religious
holidays.
In April 2004, Mr.
Williams intended to teach a lesson about the religious holiday of
Easter.
Principal Vidmar
ordered Mr. Williams not to teach a lesson about Easter.
Principal Vidmar
gave this order because Easter is a Christian religious holiday.
See, Christmas?
Not a Christian religious holiday and he was allowed to teach it in
a lesson talking about multicultural religious celebrations and
their role in american life.
[AN ASIDE: Atrios has posted
an interesting tidbit on Christmas from the
History Channel that I found revealing:
An Outlaw Christmas
In the early 17th century, a wave of religious reform changed the way
Christmas was celebrated in Europe. When Oliver Cromwell and his
Puritan forces took over England in 1645, they vowed to rid England of
decadence and, as part of their effort, cancelled Christmas. By
popular demand, Charles II was restored to the throne and, with him,
came the return of the popular holiday.
The pilgrims, English separatists that came to America in 1620, were
even more orthodox in their Puritan beliefs than Cromwell. As a
result, Christmas was not a holiday in early America. From 1659 to
1681, the celebration of Christmas was actually outlawed in Boston.
Anyone exhibiting the Christmas spirit was fined five shillings. By
contrast, in the Jamestown settlement, Captain John Smith reported
that Christmas was enjoyed by all and passed without incident.
After the American Revolution, English customs fell out of favor,
including Christmas. In fact, Congress was in session on December 25,
1789, the first Christmas under America's new constitution. Christmas
wasn't declared a federal holiday until June 26, 1870...]
Coming back to Williams' and ADF's complaint
it
also mentions the following in page 6 of the ORIGINAL lawsuit:
56. Mr. Williams has
distributed his chosen handouts during previous school years without
any problems.
So, Mr. Williams was not really
"discriminated against" in the past - which means that
Principal Vidmar cannot simply be against God or Christianity can she?
Obviously something else precipitated the change in her position,
didn't it? Rather than Ms. Vidmar supposedly being against a
"Christian" like plaintiff Williams or
"discriminating" against him.
What could it be? Well, at least one parent
complained - as Mr. Williams has himself admitted. (Actually more than
one parent complained - more on this below).
As Julia
has noted:
Do principals have
the right to ask teachers to submit materials not on the curriculum
for approval? Yes. Do any other teachers in Mr. Williams’ school
have to submit their materials? No. Is there a reason for this?
Well, yeah.
Speaking from his
home Wednesday, a school holiday, Williams said the problems
started last year after he responded to a student who asked why
the Pledge of Allegiance includes the phrase, “under God.'’
Eventually a
parent complained and the principal started requesting his lesson
plans and handouts.
“I’ve never
even tried to hint the kids need to believe this or this is the
right religion to believe,'’ said Williams, who has been
teaching eight years. “I’m just trying to teach history.'’
I
Speak of Dreams (Liz Ditz) links to a Mercury
News article which notes that a National Prayer Day handout was
one of the triggers of parent complaints against Mr. Williams:
...Noravian, whose
son had Williams last year, said that the teacher wore a Jesus ring,
a cross near the collar of his shirt and talked to his students
often about his Bible study classes. Noravian said that when
Williams sent his students home with a proclamation for national
prayer day from President Bush, she and other parents complained to
the principal.
"The class was
studying George Washington at the time,'' Noravian said. ``It had
nothing to do with George W. Bush or the proclamation of
prayer.''...
Via, Ed
Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars, I see that Elaine
Korry at NPR did a brief
story on 12/12/04 (I had sent them an email before this day but
looks like they didn't bother to read it since she mentioned
"George Washington's Prayer Journal" without noting that GW
never wrote it). Anyway, Ed notes the following about the NPR piece:
That story said that
there were in fact multiple complaints to the principal by multiple
parents. The story interviewed several parents who said that Mr.
Williams talked about Jesus constantly, during math lessons or science
lessons or, as one put it, "a hundred times a day". They
also interviewed several other teachers from the school, according to
the reporter, and not one of them took Williams' side in the dispute.
It also pointed out that the 5th grade textbook that he uses in his
5th grade class contains a full copy of the Declaration of
Independence, putting the lie to the ADF's claim that the Declaration
was "banned in the classroom".
A story in the local
city paper the Cupertino Courier says:
The controversy began
in Williams' fifth grade classroom last year following discussions
about the phrase "under God" used in the Pledge of
Allegiance and discussions about the faith of Christopher Columbus.
Thompson maintains that on both occasions student questions sparked
the discussions. He believes, however, that it was students' parents
who alerted the principal to the classroom discussions.
Subsequently,
Williams was also allegedly prevented from discussing Easter as a
religious holiday.
Finally, last May
Vidmar reportedly asked to see all of Williams' lesson plans and
handouts before he used them in class. She then, according to
Williams' attorney, rejected lesson plans and handouts involving God
and religion. Thompson said other teachers at the school did not
have to follow this policy.
According to
Thompson, among the censored handouts were the Declaration of
Independence and excerpts from George Washington's diary.
"It's like being
asked to teach architecture without being allowed to talk about
cathedrals," said Thompson. "It's hard to teach American
history when you expunge Christianity," he said. "After
all, this country was not founded by the Boston Agnostics
Club."
Well, well. Talking about the Pledge of
Allegiance and the origin of "Under God", Julia has has
a helpful reminder on this (bold text is my emphasis):
A
brief history of the Pledge of Allegiance and the addition of the
words “under God”
Francis Bellamy
(1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in
August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he
is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy,
author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward
(1888) and Equality (1897).
Francis Bellamy in
his sermons and lectures and Edward Bellamy in his novels and
articles described in detail how the middle class could create a
planned economy with political, social and economic equality for
all. The government would run a peace time economy similar to our
present military industrial complex.
The Pledge was
published in the September 8th issue of The Youth’s Companion,
the leading family magazine and the Reader’s Digest of its day.
Its owner and editor, Daniel Ford, had hired Francis in 1891 as
his assistant when Francis was pressured into leaving his baptist
church in Boston because of his socialist sermons. As a member of
his congregation, Ford had enjoyed Francis’s sermons. Ford later
founded the liberal and often controversial Ford Hall Forum,
located in downtown Boston.
In 1892 Francis
Bellamy was also a chairman of a committee of state
superintendents of education in the National Education
Association. As its chairman, he prepared the program for the
public schools’ quadricentennial celebration for Columbus Day in
1892. He structured this public school program around a flag
raising ceremony and a flag salute - his ‘Pledge of
Allegiance.’
His original
Pledge read as follows: ‘I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to)
the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all.’ He considered placing the word,
‘equality,’ in his Pledge, but knew that the state
superintendents of education on his committee were against
equality for women and African Americans. [’to’ added in
October, 1892.]
Dr. Mortimer Adler,
American philosopher and last living founder of the Great Books
program at Saint John’s College, has analyzed these ideas in his
book, The Six Great Ideas. He argues that the three great ideas of
the American political tradition are ‘equality, liberty and
justice for all.’ ‘Justice’ mediates between the often
conflicting goals of ‘liberty’ and ‘equality.’
In 1923 and 1924
the National Flag Conference, under the ‘leadership of the
American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution,
changed the Pledge’s words, ‘my Flag,’ to ‘the Flag of the
United States of America.’ Bellamy disliked this change, but his
protest was ignored.
In 1954,
Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the
words, ‘under God,’ to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a
patriotic oath and a public prayer.
Bellamy’s
granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change.
He had been pressured into leaving his church in 1891 because of
his socialist sermons. In his retirement in Florida, he stopped
attending church because he disliked the racial bigotry he found
there.
What follows is
Bellamy’s own account of some of the thoughts that went through
his mind in August, 1892, as he picked the words of his Pledge:
It began as an
intensive communing with salient points of our national history,
from the Declaration of Independence onwards with the makings of
the Constitution…with the meaning of the Civil War with the
aspiration of the people…
The true
reason for allegiance to the Flag is the ‘republic for which
it stands.’ …And what does that vast thing, the Republic
mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One
Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One
Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as
Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And
its future?
Just here arose
the temptation of the historic slogan of the French Revolution
which meant so much to Jefferson and his friends, ‘Liberty,
equality, fraternity.’ No, that would be too fanciful, too
many thousands of years off in realization. But we as a nation
do stand square on the doctrine of liberty and justice for
all…
OK, who guesses
Mr. Williams gave his class a rousing talk on utopian socialism and
the history of racial and gender discrimination in the religious
establishment of the US during the turn of the last century? Bueller?
Anybody?
Jim Allison and Susan Batte have an excellent
site, and one of the topics they cover in depth is the Pledge
of Allegiance - check it out.
2.3.1
Is/Was Principal Vidmar hostile to discussions on religion or
Christianity in general?
One of the conservative parents at the
school sent me an email with this notable summary:
Allow me to run at the mouth
(fingers?) a bit: On a national scale, political correctness is
taking too much of our national history and underlying context out
of the school curriculum, and I object to that. Compounding this,
for fear of offending someone, religion fails to receive the
academic coverage a balanced education requires.
To single out Stevens Creek
Elementary as being part of this problem is, to be charitable,
silly. If anything, we should be hailed as a perfect example of HOW
to do it. Founding documents, all of them, are taught in correct
historic and
religious context, we teach about all religions, Christianity
included (which is not done in too many schools), sing patriotic
songs like God Bless America, sing Christmas carols and other
religious holiday songs. We even have a Bible study and prayer group
that meets on school grounds, with the endorsement and full support
of our fine principal, Patti Vidmar.
I think that about says it all, doesn't
it?
Well, yes, but there's a lot more to
say about this horrible, frivolous lawsuit. Not knowing the nature of
the parent's complaint, there is a lot we can tell about Mr.
William's intent by perusing through the
many
exhibits in the ORIGINAL lawsuit (starting at page 17) - each
exhibit being one of the "supplemental" materials that
plaintiff Williams distributed or wanted to distribute to his
students. So let us take a look, shall we?
2.4
What can we say about the choice of "supplemental materials"
that plaintiff Williams chose for his students? A lot. The material is
incredibly slanted and in some cases dubious or bogus.
To review this let us quickly peruse
through the many
exhibits in the ORIGINAL lawsuit.
Exhibit A (page 17):
National Day of Prayer, 2004 - By the President of the United States
of America, A Proclamation
This sheet (and its accompanying
""History of the National Day of Prayer" in page 19) is
a strong statement claiming to acknowledge the "sovereignty of
God". Among other things, on page 19, a statement is made that:
The National Day of
Prayer has great significance for us as a nation. It enables us to
recall the way in which our founding fathers sought the wisdom of
God when faced with critical decisions.
This is very clearly an attempt to tell
students that the President and the founders of the country strongly
believed in God and relied on "God's" wisdom to make
critical decisions. As I have shown later on this page, this is at
best misleading and at worst false theocratic propaganda since it
conveniently omits statements from the founding fathers warning
against letting matters of God and religion interfere into the affairs
of the state and statements renouncing the notion of God or religion.
I
Speak of Dreams (Liz Ditz) links to a Mercury
News article which notes that this handout was one of the triggers
of parent complaints against Mr. Williams:
...Noravian, whose
son had Williams last year, said that the teacher wore a Jesus ring,
a cross near the collar of his shirt and talked to his students
often about his Bible study classes. Noravian said that when
Williams sent his students home with a proclamation for national
prayer day from President Bush, she and other parents complained to
the principal.
"The class was
studying George Washington at the time,'' Noravian said. ``It had
nothing to do with George W. Bush or the proclamation of
prayer.''...
Exhibit B (page 20):
Excerpts from FRAME OF GOVERNMENT OF PENNSYLVANIA by William Penn
(1682)
As with Exhibit A, this sheet makes
strong statements about God - such as God being the creator of the
world and there being a "divine right of government beyond
exception". Conveniently though, this leaves out material that
provides better context for William Penn's true beliefs - which are
represented in the Quaker Religion that he subscribed to (after being
introduced to it in 1661).
As this
essay points out (bold text is my emphasis):
The Quakers, also
known as the Society of Friends was religious group that founded
Pennsylvania. William Penn, one of the leaders, worked with the
Quakers, Indians and the other population to make an ideal world for
him, his followers, and the other people in his environment.
With his efforts, and the help of others, the Quakers left a huge
impact on Pennsylvania and the entire nation.
The Quakers are a religion that originated in England in protest
of the Anglican Church's practices. The man in charge of this
religious revolution was George Fox.1 He believed that God didn't
live in churches as much as he lived in people's hearts.2 In that
state of mind, he went out into the world in search of his true
religion. He argued with priests, slept in fields, and spent days
and nights trying to find followers. His first followers were mostly
young people and women. Besides freedom of religion, they wanted
freedom of speech, worship and assembly, refusal to go to war or
take oath, and equality of the sexes and social classes.3 In
England, between the years of 1650 and 1700, more than 15,000
Quakers were fined and/or imprisoned; 366 were killed.4 The
reason why the Quakers were put through such torture was because
their beliefs and culture was different from the Anglican Church.
At that time, any religion that was practiced in England other than
the Anglican Church would be persecuted. They believed that
religion shouldn't be practiced in a church as much as in your
heart. [next
section separated for clarity]
The differences
that were between the Quakers and the Anglican Christians was that
the Anglicans practiced strict discipline in their prayers. They
would go to prayer every morning, and ask for forgiveness of their
sins. They believed that the sacred authority was the Bible, the
only way to make your way to heaven was to go to sermon; they should
glorify God in the world; and pay no attention to the irrationality
of God. They didn't believe men could achieve anything for
themselves; only God could do that. The Quakers, on the other
hand, believed that God should be in your spirit, not in sermon, and
that your sacred authority shouldn't be a book, it should be your
inner light, the force that drives you through you life. They
believed you shouldn't be servants of God, but to be friends of God.
They believed violence was an unnecessary part of life, and things
could be worked out in other ways.5 The Quakers thought the
authority of God was absolute, but didn't need to be preached at a
formal meeting as much as the Anglican Church believed that should
happen. [next
section separated for clarity]
In 1661, William Penn was introduced to Quakerism. He
had been studying at Christ Church in Oxford. He started to notice
that he didn't believe in some of the things that he was studying in
his religion. So, he started to go to Quaker meetings, and believe
in that religion instead.6 In England, he was expelled from Oxford
in 1662 for refusing to conform to the Anglican Church, so he moved
on to Pennsylvania in the "New World." In this new colony
that he established, he set up a freedom of worship. It became a
retreat for many religious groups coming from Germany, Holland,
Scandinavia, and Great Britain.7 He decided to go to the New World,
but first he made a trip with Quaker leader George Fox. When they
got there, the construction from the plans of Penn's was already in
progress. 8 In 1682, Pennsylvania was founded by William Penn. He
came upon his own personal ship, Welcome, along with William
Bradford, Nicholas Waln, and Thomas Wynne and other less known men.9
Now they had many established colonies in Pennsylvania and a strong
belief system with which build a state. One of the things William
Penn is known well for is his attitude toward the Native Americans.
He created a friendly environment with his colonies and the Native
Americans. He believed that treating the Native Americans fairly,
not harshly, would prevent any tension between the two groups, which
could cause wars otherwise. He knew that they were different than
himself and his followers, but they should be given much respect for
they were in the New World centuries before England even knew about
it. He included them in jury and everyday actions. He considered
them to be equal to him.10
The
following summary on the Quaker website may be referred to,
instead, if one has a problem with spelling-challenged essays [this
link was added on 1/3/05 in response to this
letter/post by Brian Carnell]:
William Penn,
America's First Great Champion for Liberty and Peace
by Jim Powell
Mr. Powell is editor of Laissez-Faire Books and Senior Fellow at the
Cato Institute. He has written for The New York Times, The Wall
Street Journal, Barron's, American Heritage, and more than three
dozen other publications. Copyright © by Jim Powell. Reprinted on
www.quaker.org by permission.
William Penn was the first great hero of American liberty. During
the late seventeenth century, when Protestants persecuted Catholics,
Catholics persecuted Protestants, and both persecuted Quakers and
Jews, Penn established an American sanctuary which protected freedom
of conscience. Almost everywhere else, colonists stole land from the
Indians, but Penn traveled unarmed among the Indians and negotiated
peaceful purchases. He insisted that women deserved equal rights
with men. He gave Pennsylvania a written constitution which limited
the power of government, provided a humane penal code, and
guaranteed many fundamental liberties.
For the first time in modem history, a large society offered equal
rights to people of different races and religions. Penn's dramatic
example caused quite a stir in Europe. The French philosopher
Voltaire, a champion of religious toleration, offered lavish praise.
"William Penn might, with reason, boast of having brought down upon
earth the Golden Age, which in all probability, never had any real
existence but in his dominions. "
Penn was the only person who made major contributions to liberty in
both the New World and the Old World. Before he conceived the idea
of Pennsylvania, he became the leading defender of religious
toleration in England. He was imprisoned six times for speaking out
courageously. While in prison, he wrote one pamphlet after another,
which gave Quakers a literature and attacked intolerance. He alone
proved capable of challenging oppressive government policies in
court--one of his cases helped secure the right to trial by jury.
Penn used his diplomatic skills and family connections to get large
numbers of Quakers out of jail. He saved many from the gallows.
Despite the remarkable clarity of Penn's vision for liberty, he had
a curious blind spot about slavery. He owned some slaves in America,
as did many other Quakers. Antislavery didn't become a widely shared
Quaker position until 1758, 40 years after Penn's death. Quakers
were far ahead of most other Americans, but it's surprising that
people with their humanitarian views could have contemplated owning
slaves at all.
There were just two portraits of Penn painted during his lifetime,
one depicting him as a handsome youth, the other as a stout old man.
A biographer described young Penn's "oval face of almost girlish
prettiness but with strong features, the brusqueness of the
straight, short nose in counterpoint to the almost sensuous mouth.
What gives the face its dominant character are the eyes, burning
with a dark, luminous insistence ... it is known from verbal
descriptions that Penn was fairly tall and athletic. Altogether, the
young man must have been both handsome and impressive."
William Penn was born on October 14, 1644, in London. The most
specific description of his mother, Margaret, came from a neighbor,
the acid-tongued diarist Samuel Pepys who described her as
"well-looked, fat, short old Dutch woman, but one who hath been
heretofore pretty handsome." She did the child-rearing, since her
husband, William Penn Sr., was seldom at home. He was a much
sought-after naval commander because he knew the waters around
England, could handle a ship in bad weather and get the most from
his crew. Admiral Penn had a good personal relationship with Stuart
kings and for a while served their most famous adversary, the
Puritan Oliver Cromwell.
Left mostly to himself, young William became interested in religion.
He was thrilled to hear a talk by Thomas Loe, a missionary for the
Society of Friends derisively known as Quakers. Founded in 1647 by
the English preacher George Fox, Quakers were a mystical Protestant
sect emphasizing a direct relationship with God. An individual's
conscience, not the Bible, was the ultimate authority on morals.
Quakers didn't have a clergy or churches. Rather, they held meetings
where participants meditated silently and spoke up when the Spirit
moved them. They favored plain dress and a simple life rather than
aristocratic affectation.
After acquiring a sturdy education in Greek and Roman classics, Penn
emerged as a rebel when he entered Oxford University. He defied
Anglican officials by visiting John Owen, a professor dismissed for
advocating tolerant humanism. Penn further rebelled by protesting
compulsory chapel attendance, for which he was expelled at age 17.
His parents sent him to France where he would be less likely to
cause further embarrassment, and he might acquire some manners. He
enrolled at l'Académie Protestante, the most respected French
Protestant university, located in Saumur. He studied with Christian
humanist Moïse Amyraut, who supported religious toleration.
Back in England by August 1664, Penn soon studied at Lincoln's Inn,
the most prestigious law school in London. He learned the common law
basis for civil liberties and gained some experience with courtroom
strategy. He was going to need it.
Admiral Penn, assigned to rebuilding the British Navy for war with
the Dutch, asked that his son serve as personal assistant. Young
William must have gained a valuable inside view of high command.
Admiral Penn also used his son as a courier delivering military
messages to King Charles II. Young William developed a cordial
relationship with the King and his brother, the Duke of York, the
future King James II.
Penn's quest for spiritual peace led him to attend Quaker meetings
even though the government considered this a crime. In September
1667, police broke into a meeting and arrested everyone. Since Penn
looked like a fashionable aristocrat rather than a plain Quaker, the
police released him. He protested that he was indeed a Quaker and
should be treated the same as the others. Penn drew on his legal
training to prepare a defense. Meanwhile, in jail he began writing
about freedom of conscience. His father disowned him, and young Penn
lived in a succession of Quaker households. He learned that the
movement was started by passionate preachers who had little
education. There was hardly any Quaker literature. He resolved to
help by applying his scholarly knowledge and legal training. He
began writing pamphlets, which were distributed through the Quaker
underground.
In 1668, one of his hosts was Isaac Penington, a wealthy man in
Buckinghamshire. Penn met his stepdaughter Gulielma Springett, and
it was practically love at first sight. Poet John Milton's literary
secretary Thomas Ellwood noted her "innocently open, free and
familiar Conversation, springing from the abundant Affability,
Courtesy and Sweetness of her natural Temper." Penn married Gulielma
on April 4, 1672. She was to bear seven children, four of whom died
in infancy.
Meanwhile, Penn attacked the Catholic/ Anglican doctrine of the
Trinity, and the Anglican bishop had him imprisoned in the notorious
Tower of London. Ordered to recant, Penn declared from his cold
isolation cell: "My prison shall be my grave before I will budge a
jot; for I owe my conscience to no mortal man." By the time he was
released seven months later, he had written pamphlets defining the
principal elements of Quakerism. His best-known work from this
period: No Cross, No Crown, which presented a pioneering historical
case for religious toleration...
The website
of the Quakers also says this (bold text is my emphasis):
This is a religious
group which came to America from England in the mid 1600's. They
are referred to as Quakers because they believe that divine
revelation does not come from an ordained ministry or the Church,
but comes from "the Christian within." This inner
divinity, also called the "inner light" was often
accompanied by trembling, or quaking. They refer to themselves as
the Society of Friends, and their congregation is called a meeting.
Quakers became so prevalent in the late 1600s that a Yearly Meeting,
a confederation of regional meetings, was established. They had
hoped to find religious freedom in the colonies, but were ostracized
by Puritan settlers. They left Plymouth and settled in the New
Bedford area, which was called Dartmouth at the time.
Quakers were known
for their very simple, plain attire and their outspoken rejection of
slavery. They had a strong dedication to hard work and social
advancement of the less fortunate. New Bedford Quakers included
the very wealthy Benjamin Rotch, Samuel
Rodman, William
Rotch, Sr., and Andrew
Robeson. Although each of these men had the means to produce
opulent mansions, each opted instead for the very simple, although
large, unadorned building as his home or place of business. The
lifestyle of the Society of Friends translated into the unassuming, federal
style of architecture.
Exhibit C (page 22):
Declaration of Independence
What is notable here is that it is NOT
the entire Declaration of Independence that is shown (or ostensibly
distributed). What is shown are the first and last paragraph and a
portion of the second paragraph - with mentions of "Nature's
God", "Creator", "Supreme Judge of the world"
and "Divine Providence". No context is provided for
these extracts.
For example, Robin
Morgan has commented that:
The words
“Nature’s God,” the “Creator” and “divine Providence ”
do appear in the Declaration. But in its context — an era, and
author, Thomas Jefferson, that celebrated science and the
Enlightenment — these words are analogous to our contemporary
phrase “life force.”
...
But the Founders
were, after all, revolutionaries. Their passion —
especially regarding secularism — glows in the documents they
forged and in their personal words.
THOMAS PAINE
Paine’s
writings heavily influenced the other Founders. A freethinker who
opposed all organized religion, he reserved particular vituperation
for Christianity. “My country is the world and my religion is to
do good” (The Rights of Man, 1791).
“I
do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the
Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the
Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is
my own church” (The Age of Reason, 1794).
I cover this
topic in more detail
under Exhibit E, but the "revolutionaries" context that
Morgan points out is crucial. The founders were people who were
rebelling against the Anglican king and church - and were trying to
bolster their case by invoking a higher power. This did not mean
that they were beholden to this higher power in dictating the
matters of Government or to a particular religion. Everyone has a
right to believe in (their) God (or not believe) and the founders
were sufficiently forward thinking to enshrine freedom of religion
in the Constitution. But they were equally forward thinking in
separating the affairs of church and state after seeing how many of
their friends or acquaintances or fellow citizens were persecuted by
charlatans misusing God or religion as their protective shield.
More on the
Declaration of Independence here:
Something to keep
in mind:
In an interview on
the History Channel, on the evening of July 3, 1999, Dr. Stephen
Lucas professor of communication arts, University of Wisconsin,
Madison, who had spent the previous 15 years studying the origins
of the Declaration of Independence made the following points:
(1). The men who
wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence would be totally
amazed by all the things people have since invented about what it
was about, what it meant etc..
(2). That all these
religious connections and meanings etc that have been added by
others later was never implied as written or as understood at the
time by it authors, that they were not part of what was originally
important, the original understandings, meanings, intentions. etc.
(3).One of the
points made over and over again was that the purpose of the
Declaration of Independence was to justify/explain the separation
of the colonies from England to other European countries and
elicit support from them.
(4). It also points
out that much of Jefferson's writings (Declaration of Independence
writings) were borrowed from himself (his proposed constitution
for Virginia) The Va Declaration of Rights, and other sources.
That such practices were quite common practice at that time
period.
The Declaration
was not meant to give a religious foundation to this nation, to its
founding, its founding documents, its legal system or laws. It was
not intended to give a theological discourse on the creation of
mankind.
The very things that
people remember, focus on and quote today, those 16 or so words
would have been the least important words of the document to those
who wrote it, debated it, passed it and signed it. It is like we
reversed things. The least important words are now the most
important and the most imporant words at that time are all but
forgotten, surely not argued about, debated, quoted, etc.
...
The
American Historical Review Vol. 104 # 3 June 1999.
Allen Jayne.
Jefferson's Declaration of Independence: Origins, Philosophy, and
Theology. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. 1998. Pp. xiii,
245. $39.95.
This book is a
clear, concise, and accurate account of the philosophical and
religious views that inspired Thomas Jefferson to compose the
United States' formative document. Allen Jayne leaves no doubt
that the "Nature's God" found in the Declaration of
Independence, the deity who provides the American colonists with
their right to rebel against the British government, is the
rationalist God of deism, not the personal God of Abraham.
More here.
Exhibit D (page 24):
Religious Clauses in State Constitutions
These are clauses picked from various
state constitutions from the period of 1776 to 1796, highlighting
various things - most of which skew towards the requirement of
believing in God or being of the Protestant religion to hold office.
There is one clause in some cases which forbids clergymen from running
for office (not being an expert on this I am not sure if this
reflected in some way on the desire to keep the church out of the
state) but reading the extracts make it clear that this is coexistent
with a requirement of belief in God and being a Protestant (to run for
office) in many cases. Countervailing evidence on the framers' beliefs
and intentions is not presented.
Put another way, just because some
states had religion or Christianity entrenched in their laws or
Constitutions did not mean that that was legal per the U.S.
Constitution or that the founders of the United States agreed with it.
These states simply got away with it for decades before religious
minorities fought to have such laws revoked or annulled. Indeed, there
were states which specifically emphasized religious freedom or
separation of church and state.
John Witte Jr. has a very
interesting review on this very topic at the First Amendment Center,
and I reproduce some extracts here:
Thomas Jefferson once
called America’s new constitutional protections of religious
freedom a “bold” and “novel experiment.” These new state and
federal guarantees, Jefferson declared, defied the millennium-old
assumptions inherited from Western Europe — that one form of
Christianity must be established in a community, and that the state
must protect and support it against other religions. America would
no longer suffer such prescriptions and proscriptions of religion by
government. All forms of Christianity had to stand on their own feet
and on an equal footing with all other faiths. Their survival and
growth had to turn on the cogency of their word, not the coercion of
the sword; on the faith of their members, not the force of the law.
That bold
constitutional experiment in granting religious freedom to all
remains in place, and in progress, in the United States. Before
1940, principal governance of the experiment lay with the states.
The First Amendment, ratified in 1791, applied by its terms only to
the federal government — “Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof … .” The first application of the free-exercise
clause came in Reynolds
v. United States (1879), a Mormon challenge to federal laws
against polygamy. The first application of the establishment clause
came in Bradfield
v. Roberts (1899), a taxpayer challenge to congressional
funding of a Catholic hospital. In both these cases and in the 10
federal cases on religion to follow before 1940 — challenging
federal immigration, education and military laws — the Supreme
Court found no First Amendment violation. It held for Congress in
each instance, offering mostly superficial readings of the First
Amendment.
State
constitutions
Before 1940, most
legal issues respecting religion were left to the states to resolve,
each in accordance with its own state constitution. By 1833, every
state constitution guaranteed its citizens basic liberty of
conscience, free exercise of religion, and freedom of religious
worship and association. Every state also removed the most glaring
vestiges of early religious establishments, notably the mandatory
payment of tithes and compulsory participation in religious
services. Most states accommodated citizens with religious scruples
against serving in the military or swearing religious oaths. Most
states also granted peaceable religious communities the right to
have corporate charters and properties and to maintain their own
religious schools, marriage ceremonies, charities, hospitals and
cemeteries.
These basic
guarantees of private religious freedom, however, did not prevent
the states from patronizing a general form of public religion, and
ostracizing those private parties who objected. Before 1940, only
one state constitution — ironically, the Constitution of Utah
(1896) — had a provision mandating “no union of Church and
State.” For much of the 19th century, state officials routinely
acknowledged and supported common (usually Christian) beliefs and
practices. “In God We Trust” and similar confessions appeared on
currency, stamps, state seals and government stationery. The Ten
Commandments and other Bible verses were inscribed on the walls of
many courthouses, public schools and other public buildings.
Crucifixes and other Christian symbols were erected in some state
parks and on statehouse grounds. Flags flew at half staff on Good
Friday. Easter, Christmas and other Christian holy days were state
holidays. Sundays were official days of rest. Government-sponsored
chaplains were appointed to state legislatures, asylums, prisons,
and hospitals. Prayers were offered in Congress and in state
legislatures. Thanksgiving Day prayers and proclamations were made
by presidents, governors and mayors alike.
Government officials
afforded various forms of aid to religious groups. State and federal
subsidies were given to Christian missionaries, charities and
schools on the American frontier. Tax exemptions were accorded to
Christian churches, clerics and charities. Special criminal laws
protected church properties from violation; special procedural laws
protected church officials from discovery and testimony. Tax
revenues supported the acquisition of religious art for state
museums, the purchase of religious texts for public state schools,
and the construction and maintenance of private religious schools.
Government officials
predicated some of their laws and policies directly on Christian
teachings. Many of the first state schools and universities had
mandatory courses in religion and compulsory attendance at daily
chapel and Sunday worship. State prisons, reformatories, orphanages
and asylums taught basic Christian beliefs and values. Polygamy,
prostitution, pornography and other sexual offenses against
Christian morals were prohibited. State marriage and divorce laws
generally followed Christian commonplaces. Blasphemy was still
occasionally prosecuted. It was a commonplace of 19th-century
American legal thought, made famous by Justice Joseph Story, that
“Christianity is a part of the common law.”
This pattern of
granting freedom to all private religions while patronizing a common
Christian religion worked well enough for the religiously
homogeneous times and towns of the early republic — particularly
when the frontier provided a place for religious minorities to
escape and start their lives anew. As the American populace became
more pluralized and the frontier more populated, however, this
system became harder to maintain. The Second Great Awakening of
1810-1870 introduced a host of newly minted Christian faiths —
Adventists, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and many others. It also
greatly expanded the populations of Baptists and Methodists, many of
whom favored a stronger separation of church and state. The 13th,
14th and 15th amendments liberated a host of long-cloaked African
and Muslim beliefs and rituals. The great waves of immigration from
the 1870s onward brought vast new populations of Catholics, as well
as smaller groups of Jews, Eastern Orthodox Christians, and the
first substantial populations of Buddhists, Confucians and Hindus.
Some of these new or
newly expanded religious communities refused to conform. Others
refused to live quietly or leave quietly for the frontier. Still
others began to crusade actively against the Protestant biases of
the system — particularly in the public schools, which emerged as
the major battleground among Protestants, Catholics and secularists
over American identity. In response, a good number of states
reformed their constitutions — at minimum outlawing direct state
aid for religious education and other religious causes, sometimes
taking more-aggressive steps of restricting religious tax exemptions
and corporate charters. But other states and local communities
continued traditional patterns aggressively and clamped down on
religious dissenters. From the 1880s onward, some local authorities
began to deny Roman Catholics their school charters, Mormons their
corporate charters, Eastern Orthodox their canonical freedoms,
Jehovah's Witnesses their preaching permits, Jews and Adventists
their Sabbath-day observances. When state courts turned a largely
blind eye to their plight, religious dissenters turned to the
federal courts for relief.
Enter the Supreme
Court
The U.S. Supreme Court, after some tepid interventions in the 1920s
and 1930s, responded forcefully to the plight of religious
dissenters. In the landmark cases of Cantwell
v. Connecticut (1940) and Everson
v. Board of Education (1947), the Court incorporated the
First Amendment free-exercise and establishment clauses into the
due-process clause of the 14th Amendment. On its face, the Court
held, the First Amendment binds the federal government: “Congress
shall make no law … .” As a general statement of religious
liberty, however, the First Amendment also binds state governments.
For religious liberty is part of the body, the corpus, of
fundamental liberties guaranteed by the 14th Amendment: “No state
shall deprive any person of ... liberty ... without due process of
law.”
By so incorporating
the First Amendment religion clauses into the 14th Amendment
due-process clause, the Supreme Court accomplished what the Blaine
Amendment (1876) and 15 other proposed amendments to the
Constitution could not accomplish. It created a national law on
religious freedom enforceable by the federal courts against federal,
state, and local governments alike. In 150-plus First Amendment
cases decided after 1940, the Supreme Court took firm control of the
American experiment in religious freedom, with lower federal courts
and most state courts following its lead.
The First Amendment
on its face holds complementary guarantees of religious freedom. The
free-exercise clause outlaws government proscriptions of religion
— actions that unduly burden the conscience, restrict religious
expression, discriminate against religion or invade the autonomy of
churches and other religious bodies. The establishment clause
outlaws government prescriptions of religion — actions that coerce
the conscience, mandate forms of religious expression, discriminate
in favor of religion or improperly ally the state with churches or
other religious bodies. The free exercise and establishment clauses
thereby afford reciprocal protections to the principles of liberty
of conscience, freedom of religious expression, religious equality
and separation of church and state. (See
information on state Blaine-like amendments.)
Despite their
structural symmetry, the Supreme Court has generally treated these
First Amendment religious freedoms in separate lines of cases. In
more than 50 cases from 1940 to 1980, the Court created a strong
free-exercise clause guarantee that protected both religious
individuals and religious groups. This provided religious claimants
with special protections from general laws that ran afoul of core
claims of conscience or central commandments of faith. Since the
mid-1980s, however, the Court has weakened the free-exercise clause,
requiring only that laws be “neutral” and “generally
applicable” to pass constitutional muster. Similarly, in more than
30 cases from 1947 to 1989, the Court created a strong establishment
clause, emphasizing especially the principle of separation of church
and state. This eradicated many traditional privileges and
protections of public Christianity, particularly in the public
schools. Beginning in the mid-1980s, however, the Court slowly
weakened this separationist reading, allowing for the reintroduction
of various types of state support for and cooperation with religion.
While no coherent First Amendment theory has yet emerged to bring
these two lines of cases together, the Court’s most recent cases
have experimented actively with principles of neutrality that are
common to both religion clauses.
Charles Haynes also
has a piece at the First Amendment Center on the history of
religious liberties in America.
Exhibit E (page 27):
What Great Leaders Have Said About the Bible
Another classic attempt to include
quotes favorable to promoting Christianity, while leaving out material
that provides better context or criticizes the practice of religion or
priests.
There are three things that raise flags
about this particular exhibit.
(a) I noticed that this
"Supplement" or Exhibit is unsourced, but doing a
Google search on one of the quotes produced other links on the web
containing this same list. An example is this
identical (and also unsourced) list on the web page of a
Professor John Cimbala at Penn State (another
link here with the same list). This raises a question: Considering
Mr. Williams is a teacher and considering his penchant for filing
lawsuits, did he lift these quotes from someone else without
acknowledging it as such in his "study material" --
thereby presenting them as the results of his own
"research"? I would think he owes us an answer on
this.
(b) The other question that emerges is
this: "Are the quotes authentic?" (especially
considering they are widely cited on the web by right-wingers).
Here are the quotes from Exhibit E
(bold text is my emphasis):
George Washington...It
is impossible to rightly govern the world without the Bible.
John Adams...The Bible is the best book in the world. It
contains more than all the libraries I have seen.
Thomas Jefferson...The Bible makes the best people in the
world.
Abraham Lincoln...But for this Book we cannot know right from
wrong. I believe the Bible is the best gift God has ever given to
man.
Ulysses S. Grant...The Bible is the anchor of our liberties.
Rutherford B. Hayes...The best religion the world has ever
known is the religion of the the Bible. It builds up all that is
good.
William McKinley...The more profoundly we study this
wonderful Book..the better citizens we will become.
Theodore Roosevelt...No educated man can afford to be
ignorant of the Bible.
Herbert Hoover...The whole of the inspirations of our
civilization springs from the teaching of Christ. To read the Bible
is a necessity of American life.
Jesus Christ...It is written, man shall not live by bread
alone, but by every word that proceeds of the mouth of God.
[Incidentally, Jesus Christ is a
religious figure and not an American - so referring him to next to
American leaders in an American history class is a bit much - as
reader Steve also pointed out.]
At least one of the quotes above is
either dubious or bogus - the one attributed to George Washington. [I
found a variation of it on some
websites: "It is impossible to rightly
govern the world without God and the Bible"]
Jim Allison and Susan
Batte have an excellent
website devoted to various aspects of Church and State (Tom Peters
has a detailed
section that is good as well) and one
of their links points out that the quote attributed to George
Washington (among others not mentioned in the list above) is
stated as "unconfirmed" (i.e., either dubious or bogus) by the
very author
(ultra right-winger David Barton) who originally propagated it (also
see this
link):
...let's turn to a list
of quotations that frequently appear in religious right literature,
but are now admitted by religious right leaders to be either
doubtful or false. The source of this list is none other than David
Barton, an important accomodationist author we criticize
extensively in our responses to the quotations above, and elsewhere
in this website. Briefly, Barton has released a press statement
stating that nine of the quotations appearing in his book The
Myth of Separation (including the first two above) are of
doubtful authenticity (one of these has since been authenticated;
see below). Additionally, he lists three others that are popularly
cited by other conservative authors, but are probably not true.
A good article summarizing Barton's list can be found in the
July/August 1996 edition of Church and State, A separationist
publication.
Barton lists the
following quotations as unconfirmed (i.e., no one has been
able to trace them to an original source):
- It cannot be
emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was
founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on
religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ! --Patrick Henry
- It is
impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the
Bible. --George Washington
- Whosoever shall
introduce into the public affairs the principles of primitive
Christianity will change the face of the world. --Benjamin
Franklin
...
I cover Barton further in Section
3.
Ed
Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars briefly commented
on the quote attributed to Jefferson, saying that it too, is likely
bogus:
Nor did Jefferson say,
"The Bible makes the best people in the world."
I wrote to him asking whether he has a
source that confirms this, and he wrote back saying:
I first came across the
Jefferson quote when I was in college and tried very hard to find it
in Jefferson's writings. I talked to 2 Jefferson scholars about it as
well and no one could find any such quote, and we all noted that it
would be out of line with a great deal of writing he had done on the
subject. No one who has ever referenced it, so far as I know, has
provided a source for it other than someone else quoting it. So I feel
quite secure in claiming that it is fraudulent, but since I haven't
looked activiely at it in nearly 20 years, I can't offer anything more
definitive than that. The mere fact that it is so at odds with
everything else Jefferson said on the subject and no one has ever
provided a source for it is compelling reason to reject it, in my
view.
I could not find this quote in the Jefferson
Digital Archive at the University of Virginia. I also did a Google
search on this quote. As expected, a number of websites refer to
this quote, but NOT a single one cites a source for this quote. What's
more, there is one
website which actually attributes this quote to Charles Carroll,
not Thomas Jefferson. (Not to say that this attribution is
correct, either).
All in all, I lean towards concluding
that this quote is also either bogus or dubious in origin.
With respect to the Lincoln quote, this
website claims that it was a response by Lincoln to having been
presented with a Bible and that his response was published by the Washington
Chronicle on September 5, 1864. What is notable is that the quote
that is shown there transposes the order of the quote presented
by Mr. Williams. Namely it says this: "In regard to this Great
Book, I have but to say, I believe the Bible is the best gift God
has given to man. All the good Savior gave to the world was
communicated through this Book. But for this Book we could not know
right from wrong..." Another
website (and this
one) state that this quote is authentic.
I don't know if the other quotes are
authentic or not - perhaps they are, perhaps they are not. I don't
know for sure (if you have evidence suggesting any of them are
dubious, please send
it to me).
Regardless...
(c) Even if one were to assume that the
other quotes are true, Williams conveniently forgot to mention
hordes of quotes or facts deeply unfriendly to his cause - facts
that reveal that his use of the quotes above is grossly misleading
and unbecoming of a teacher. In the following, some such
quotes are presented (if any reader believes any of *these* are
dubious or false, please let me know and I will correct them).
Here is a selection of more
comprehensive quotes from various American leaders: Washington,
Adams,
Jefferson,
Madison,
and Lincoln.
Via JRM at Dailykos, there is also
Jefferson's famous "The
Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom" - that led to
"The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom" thanks to
James Madison. The Department of State has this
blurb on it:
In
Virginia, the American Revolution led to the disestablishment of the
Anglican Church, which had been tied closely to the royal
government. Then the question arose as to whether the new state
should continue to impose taxes to be used for the support of all
recognized churches. The proposal had a number of supporters who,
even if they no longer accepted an established church, still
believed that religion should be supported by the public purse.
For some Virginians,
however, imposing religion on people smacked of tyranny. Thomas
Jefferson and James Madison, both of whom would later be president
of the United States, argued that religious beliefs should be solely
matters of individual conscience and completely immune from any
interference by the state. Moreover, religious activity of any sort
should be wholly voluntary. Not only did they oppose taxing people
to support an established church, but they also objected to forcing
people to pay taxes even for their own church. To Jefferson, a high
wall of separation should always keep church and state apart.
Jefferson drafted the
following measure, but it was Madison who skillfully secured its
adoption by the Virginia legislature in 1786. It is still part of
modern Virginia's constitution, and it has not only been copied by
other states but was also the basis for the Religion Clauses in the
Constitution's Bill of Rights. Both men considered this bill one of
the great achievements of their lives, and Jefferson directed that
on his tombstone he should not be remembered as president of the
United States or for any of the other high offices he held, but as
the author of the Declaration of Independence and the Virginia
Statute for Religious Freedom, and as the founder of the University
of Virginia.
For further reading:
William Lee Miller, The First Liberty: Religion and the American
Republic (1985); Leonard W. Levy, The Establishment Clause and the
First Amendment (1986); Merrill D. Peterson and Robert C. Vaughn,
eds., The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom: Its Evolution and
Consequences in American History (1988).
VIRGINIA STATUTE FOR
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
Whereas Almighty God
hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by
temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend
only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure
from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord
both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on
either, as it was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious
presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as
ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired
men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up
their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and
infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath
established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of
the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish
contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he
disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to
support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is
depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions
to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern,
and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is
withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which
proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an
additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the
instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on
our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or
geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the
public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called
to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce
this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of
those privileges and advantages to which in common with his
fellow-citizens he has a natural right; that it tends only to
corrupt the principles of that religion it is meant to encourage, by
bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who
will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these
are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are
those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the
civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion,
and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on
supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at
once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course
judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment,
and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall
square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the
rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere
when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good
order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to
herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error,
and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human
interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and
debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely
to contradict them:
Be it enacted by the
General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or
support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor
shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or
goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious
opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and
by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and
that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their
civil capacities.
And though we well
know that this assembly elected by the people for the ordinary
purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of
succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and
that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no
effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the
rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and
that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or
to narrow its operation, such act shall be an infringement of
natural right.
Source: W.W.
Hening, ed., Statutes at Large of Virginia, vol. 12 (1823): 84-86.
Jefferson's original draft is here.
Madison's "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious
Assessments" is here.
As PBS
points out:
Jefferson first
drafted his “Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom” in 1777.
Although it was not enacted into law until 1786, it firmly
established the principles of religious freedom and the separation
of church and state and provided the basis for the First
Amendment’s clause on religion.
Just in case there is any doubt about
what the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says, here
it is:
Congress shall make
no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Robin Morgan has helpfully
provided some information (in Ms magazine) - including quotes from George Washington, John
Adams and Thomas Jefferson:
GEORGE
WASHINGTON
The false image of Washington as a devout Christian
was fabricated by Mason Locke Weems, a clergyman who also invented
the cherry-tree fable and in 1800 published his Life of George
Washington. Washington, a Deist and a Freemason, never once
mentioned the name of Jesus Christ in any of his thousands of
letters, and pointedly referred to divinity as “It.”
Whenever
he (rarely) attended church, Washington always deliberately left
before communion, demonstrating disbelief in Christianity’s
central ceremony.
JOHN
ADAMS
Adams, a Unitarian inspired by the Enlightenment, fiercely
opposed doctrines of supernaturalism or damnation, writing to
Jefferson: “I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the
most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of
mankind has preserved — the Cross. Consider what calamities that
engine of grief has produced!”
Adams realized how politically crucial — and imperiled — a
secular state would be: “The United States of America have
exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the
simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently
enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture,
hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era
in their history. … It will never be pretended that any persons
employed in that service [forming the U.S. government] had
interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence
of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring
in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that
these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the
senses. …Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus
founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a
pretence of miracle or mystery… are a great point gained in favor
of the rights of mankind” (A Defence of the Constitutions of
Government of the United States of America, 1787–88).
THOMAS
JEFFERSON
It’s a commonly stated error that U.S. law, based on
English common law, is thus grounded in Judeo-Christian tradition.
Yet
Jefferson (writing to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814 ) noted
that common law “is that system of law which was introduced by the
Saxons on their settlement in England …about the middle of the
fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh
century. …We may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the
judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever
was a part of the common law.”
Jefferson professed disbelief in the Trinity and the divinity of
Jesus Christ, while respecting moral teachings by whomever might
have been a historical Jesus. He cut up a Bible, assembling his own
version: “The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so
defective and doubtful,” he wrote Adams (January 24, 1814),
“evidence that parts have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and
that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds.”
Scorning miracles, saints, salvation, damnation, and angelic
presences, Jefferson embraced reason, materialism, and science. He
challenged Patrick Henry, who wanted a Christian theocracy: “[A]n
amendment was proposed by inserting ‘Jesus Christ,’ so that [the
preamble] should read ‘A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ,
the holy author of our religion’; the insertion was rejected by a
great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the
mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and
Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination” (from
Jefferson’s Autobiography, referring to the Statute of
Virginia for Religious Freedom).
The theme is consistent throughout Jefferson ’s prolific
correspondence: “Question with boldness even the existence of a
God” (letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787).
“[The clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me,
will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe
rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility
against every form of tyranny over the mind of man” (letter to Dr.
Benjamin Rush, September 23, 1800).
“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole
American people which…thus[built] a wall of separation between
church and state” (letter to the Danbury [ Connecticut ] Baptist
Association, January 1, 1802).
“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden
people maintaining a free civil government” (letter to Alexander
von Humboldt, December 6, 1813).
“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to
liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his
abuses in return for protection to his own” (letter to Horatio G.
Spafford, March 17, 1814).
“[W]hence arises the morality of the Atheist? …Their virtue,
then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God”
(letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814).
“I
am of a sect by myself, as far as I know” (letter to Ezra Stiles,
June 25, 1819). [eRiposte
note: The letter was
to Ezra Stiles Ely (thanks to reader Steve for pointing this
out)]
“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus… will
be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain
of Jupiter” (letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823).
[eRiposte
note: Click
here (via reader Steve) for more Jefferson quotes]
...That’s only a sampling, quotes that blast cobwebs off the tamed
images we have of the Founders. Their own statements — not dead
rhetoric but alive with ringing, still radical, ideas — can
reconnect us to our proud, secular roots, and should inspire us to
honor and defend them.
Jefferson also said
this:
But those facts in the
bible which contradict the laws of nature, must be examined with more
care, and under a variety of faces.
And this
(bold text is my emphasis):
The first stage of this
education being the schools of the hundreds, wherein the great mass of
the people will receive their instruction, the principal foundations
of future order will be laid here. Instead, therefore, of putting
the Bible and the Testament into the hands of the children at an age
when their judgments are not sufficiently matured for religious
inquiries, their memories may here be stored with the most useful
facts from Grecian, Roman, European and American history. The
first elements of morality, too, may be instilled into their minds:
such as, when further developed as their judgments advance in
strength, may teach them how to work out their own greatest happiness,
by showing them that it does not depend on the condition of life in
which chance has placed them, but is always the result of a good
conscience, good health, occupation, and freedom in all just pursuits.
Here
are a couple of quotes from Lincoln (among many at this site)
- one of which is in direct contradiction to what teacher Williams
provided:
The Bible is not my
book nor Christianity my profession. -- Abraham Lincoln, quoted
by Joseph Lewis in "Lincoln
the Freethinker"
...
Both read the same
Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes his aid against the
other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just
God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's
faces, but let us judge not that we be not judged.
-- Abraham Lincoln, sarcasm in his Second Innaugural Address
(1865)
...
The United States
government must not undertake to run the Churches. When an individual,
in the Church or out of it, becomes dangerous to the public interest
he must be checked.
-- Abraham Lincoln, regarding the Churches, quoted from
Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, p.
143
Franklin Steiner provides much needed
perspective on Ulysses
Grant:
It has been erroneously maintained
that General Grant was a Methodist. The fact is, he was not a member
of any Church, and had not even been baptized. Once, while a cadet
at West Point, he failed to attend chapel. For this he received
eight demerits, and was placed under arrest. He tells of this
incident in a letter written to his cousin, McKinsey Grifflith,
September 22, 1839. He objected to being compelled to go to church,
saying, "This is not republican." (Brown's 'Life of
Grant,' p. 320.)
Mrs. Julia Dent Grant was a
Methodist, a member and attendant of the Metropolitan Methodist
Church of New York City, after the Grant family made the metropolis
their home, Her husband accompanied her, as many other husbands have
done when their wives have been church members. Some men who do not
dance accompany their wives to balls. Does this make them dancers?
...
From the time General Grant became
seriously ill, in the spring of 1886, until his death, on July 23,
the Rev. Newman devoted to him almost all his attention. He became a
member of the family, leading in family prayer, and endeavoring to
point out to the General the way of salvation. He made as inglorious
a failure in this endeavor as he did in trying to convince the
Mormons that the Bible did not sanction Polygamy. He did succeed, as
W.E. Woodward says, in "making a fool of himself."
We may well wonder why he was thus
permitted to plague the dying man. General Chaffee, one of whose
daughters General Grant's son married, enlightens us, in the
following words: "There has been a good deal of nonsense in the
papers about Dr. Newman's visits. General Grant does not believe
that Dr. Newman's prayers will save him. He allows the doctor to
pray simply because he does not want to hurt his feelings, He is
indifferent on his own account to everything." General Chaffee
had formerly been a senator from Colorado, was with Grant frequently
during his illness and knew whereof he spoke.
A contemporary journalist said:
"His acceptance of the effusive and offensive ministrations of
the peripatetic preacher was probably due as much to his regard for
the feelings of his family and his tolerance of his ministerial
friend as to any faith in religion. All the press can gather now
about his religious belief is filtered through Dr. Newman, and must,
therefore, be largely discounted." To what extent this writer
is telling the truth will appear hereafter.
Yet, the Rev. Newman had a reason of
his own for being there and he was candid enough to tell it. It was
not to save from hell the soul of the man who had witnessed so much
death, destruction and carnage on the field of battle. He said,
"Great men may gain nothing from relegion, but religion can
gain much from great men," In other words he was there to
obtain publicity for his Church and for himself.
...
On the morning followinl, the
General's death, the 'World' said: General Grant, as it would
appear, had no settled convictions on the subject of religion.
Having been interrogated during his last illiness on the question of
religion, he replied that he had not given it deep study, and was
unprepared to express an opinion. He intimated that he saw no use of
devoting, any special thought to theology at so late a day, and that
he was prepared to take his chances with the millions of people who
went before him."
The 'Christian Statesman' said:
"It is not on record that he (Grant] spoke at any time of the
Saviour, or expressed his sense of dependence on his atonement and
mediation." The Nashville 'Christian Advocate,' a Methodist
organ, rebuked Dr. Newman in these words:
"Some ministers seem to
have an incurable itch for claiming that all the men who have
figured prominently in public life are Christians. Mr. Lincoln has
almost been canonized, and General Grant has been put forward as
possessing all the graces, though neither one of them ever joined
the Church or made the slightest public profession of faith in
Jesus. Has it (Christianity) anything to gain by decking itself with
the ambiguous compliments of men who never submitted themselves to
its demands? The less of all this the better. We are sick of the
pulpit toadyism that pronounces its best eulogies over those who are
not the real disciples of Jesus Christ."
...
General Grant was a firm believer in
separation of church and state, and had no patience with clerical
interference with the government. In his 'Memoirs' (vol. 1, p, 213),
he said: "No political party can, or ought to, exist when one
of its corner- stones is opposition to freedom of thought. If a sect
sets up its laws as binding above the state laws, whenever the two
come in conflict, this claim must be resisted and suppressed at any
cost.
He was opposed to all types of
religious interference with the public schools. In his speech before
the Army of the Tennessee, delivered in Des Moines Iowa, in 1875,
General Grant used these words, which are often quoted:
"The free school is the promoter
of that intelligence which is to preserve us as a nation. If we were
to have another contest in the near future of our national
existence, I prediet that the dividing line will not be Mason's and
Dixon's, but between patriotism and intelligence on one side, and
superstition, ambition and ignorance on the other. Let us all labor
to add all needful guarantees for the more perfect security of FREE
THOUGHT, FREE SPEECH AND FREE PRESS, pure morals, unfettered
religious sentiments, and of equal rights and privileges to all men,
irrespective of nationality, color or religion. Encourage free
schools, and resolve that not one dollar of money be appropriated to
the support of any sectarian school. Resolve that neither the State
nor nation, or both combined, shall support institutions of learning
other than those sufficient to afford every child growing up in the
land the opportunity of a good common education, unmixed with
sectarian, pagan or atheistical tenets. Leave the matter of religion
to the family altar, the Church, and the private schools, supported
entirely by private contributions. KEEP CHURCH AND STATE FOREVER
SEPARATE."
Digby
also points out that it is rather misleading to invoke the
religious writings of the founders without pointing out other things
they have said:
Certainly, it's a
stretch to evoke the founding fathers on this religiosity issue,
particularly Jefferson. He wasn't a Christian, he was a Deist. I
know that's inconvenient, but it's true. Back in those days you
didn't have to pass a religious test to be in government like you do
today. Why, they even put it in the constitution.
". . . Some books against
Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an
effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the
arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared
to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a
thorough Deist."
Franklin
"... I am not afraid of
priests. They have tried upon me all their various batteries of
pious whining, hypocritical canting, lying and slandering. I have
contemplated their order from the Magi of the East to the Saints of
the West and I have found no difference of character, but of more or
less caution, in proportion to their information or ignorance on
whom their interested duperies were to be played off. Their sway in
New England is indeed formidable. No mind beyond mediocrity dares
there to develop itself."
Jefferson
What influence, in fact, have
ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they
have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the
civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the
thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the
guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert
the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient
auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate
it, needs them not."
Madison
. . . Thirteen governments [of the
original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people
alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are
destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of
the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of
mankind."
Adams
The 1796 treaty with Tripoli, negotiations begun under Washington
and signed by Adams states:
[As] the government of
the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the
Christian Religion
Please spare us the
rewiting of history. There were Christians, Deists and atheists
among the founders. But they were all products of the Enlightenment
which the current Christians seem determined to reject. The founders
are rolling in their graves, all right.
Even in cases where a President or
Founding Father believed in God or was a Christian, their quotes can
easily be taken out of context. For example, Franklin Steiner
highlights what Rutherford
Hayes really thought about religion/God:
In his Diary (May 17,
1890), he states his position: "I am not a subscriber to any
creed. I belong to no Church. But in a sense satisfactory to myself,
and believed by me to be important, I try to be a Christian and to
help do Christian work." (P. 435.)
Before his last
sickness he said: "I am a Christian according to my conscience,
in belief, not, of course, in character and conduct, but in purpose
and wish: not, of course, by the orthodox standard. But I am content
and have a feeling of trust and safety." (P. 437.)
He read and admired
Emerson, who was not orthodox but a Pantheist. From him he said he
obtained "mental improvment, information and kept the mental
faculties alert and alive." He thought the Sage of Concord
prepared us "for the inevitable, to be content at least for the
time, and also for the future," and that he "developed and
strengthened character." "How Emerson prepares one to meet
the disappointmerts and griefs of this mortal life! His writings
seem to me to be religion. They bring peace, consolation; that rest
for the mind and heart which we all long for -- content." (pp.
433-434.)
I could go on and on - but I don't
have that much time right now. The point is that the material
distributed by teacher Williams is outrageous and selectively
ignored vast amounts of evidence contradicting what he distributed
or wanted to distribute.
(An even more comprehensive/extensive
list of quotations is here
(via this
excellent resource page on the issue of Church-State
separation).)
Exhibit F (page 29):
The Rights of the Colonists by Samuel Adams
I am still reading up on this. No
specific comments for now other than that this fits the pattern of
Williams cherry-picking stuff to promote God or Christianity (from the
standpoint of America's founding) without presenting the wealth of
overwhelming evidence on the other side.
Exhibit G (page 32):
George Washington's Prayer Journal
This Exhibit shows extracts from a
supposed journal that George Washington kept - starting on a Sunday
morning and ending on a Thursday morning. As it turns out this is
another bogus document - and the school district should be coming down
hard on Williams for using this as a study reference.
Alert reader Steve brought to my
attention a remarkable analysis by Franklin Steiner, titled "The
Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents". One of the
revealing things that Steiner talks about here
is the so-called "Prayer Journal" (bold text is my
emphasis).
Washington must have
been "powerful in prayer" if we are to believe two other
stories told of his attempts to reach the "throne of
grace." Some 30 years ago it was proclaimed that in his
youth he composed a prayer book for his own use, containing a prayer
for five days, beginning with Sunday and ending with Thursday.
The manuscript of this prayer book was said to have been found among
the contents of an old trunk. It was printed and facsimiles
published. Clergymen read it from the altar, one of them saying it
contained so much "spirituality" that he had to stop, as
he could not control his emotions while reading it.
Yet, while this
prayer book was vociferously proclaimed to have been written by
Washington, there was not an iota of evidence that he ever had
anything to do with it, or that it even ever belonged to him. A
little investigation soon pricked the bubble. Worthington C. Ford,
who had handled more of Washington's manuscripts than any other man
except Washington himself, declared that the penmanship was not that
of washington. Rupert Hughes (Washington, vol. 1, p. 658) gives
facsimile specimens of the handwriting in the prayer book side by
side with known specimens of Washington's penmanship at the time the
prayer book was supposed to have been written. A glance proves that
they are not by the same hand.
Then in the prayer
book manuscript all of the words are spelled correctly, while
Washington was a notoriously poor speller. But the greatest blow it
received was when the Smithsonian Institute refused to accept it as
a genuine Washington relic. That Washington did not compose it was
proved by Dr. W.A. Croffutt, a newspaper correspondent of the
Capital, who traced the source of some of the prayers to an old
prayer brook [book] in the Congressional Library printed, in the
reign of James the First.
Even the Rev. W.
Herbert Burk, rector of the Episcopal Church of Valley Forge,
although a firm believer in Washington's religiosity, thus speaks of
these prayers: "At present, the question is an open one, and
its settlement will depend on the discovery of the originals, or
upon the demonstration that they are the work of Washington."
As reader Steve said in his
email:
"This fact alone shows a serious disregard for actual
historical research by the teacher"
Amen.
UPDATE: Ed
Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars took an additional
step of consulting an expert on George Washington - Frank Grizzard at
the University of Virginia - on whether Washington actually wrote
this. The answer is NO. Here is the relevant part of Grizzard's
reponse to Ed, which Ed has kindly allowed me to post here (note that
Grizzard's point about the journal being that of "a
descendant's" seems to be speculation based on the claim from the
manuscript dealer, whose original claim itself was debunked):
The so-called prayer
journal is not in GW's writing, although I'm not sure it's actually
a forgery. The manuscript dealer (Burk I think) who first sold it
when it came to light in the 19th century printed a facsimilie
edition in which he admits that the Smithsonian rejected it as a
non-GW document, but it did have Washington family provenance, so he
said. Thus it apparently was a descendant's. Johnson's version is
taken from Burk. The prayers are based on the English prayer book.
NOTE: At I
Speak of Dreams, Liz Ditz has also noted the bogus nature of the
supposed George Washington link to this document: "One of the items assigned by Steven
Williams is "George Washington's Prayer Book" It turns out
that, while published in 1891, it was revealed to be a fraud at some
point before the publication of Steiner's publication of Religious
Beliefs of Our Presidents in 1936. It is not now recognized by the
Library
of Congress or the definitive edition of George
Washington's papers."
Exhibit H (page 36):
John Adams' Diary
There are extracts from February 22,
1756 to May 1, 1756. Then there are additional extracts from July 26,
1796 and August 24, 1796.
Again, quotes are presented in
isolation about Adams' views on the Bible and Jesus Christ.
Information that would provide a fuller picture of Adams' position
regarding religion, the American state or constitution or founding is
not.
I cover Adams' alternate views - which
provide a much better perspective on what he really thought - in Sec.
2.4.1. Please click here.
Some
teasers:
The question before
the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world
by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by
fictitious miracles?
-- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 20, 1815
...
Thirteen
governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural
authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or
mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of
that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor
of the rights of mankind.
-- John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of
Government of the United States of America" (1787-88), from
Adrienne Koch, ed., The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of
the American Experiment and a Free Society (1965) p. 258, quoted
from Ed and Michael Buckner, "Quotations
that Support the Separation of State and Church"
...
As I understand
the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it
happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended
with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the
most bloody religion that ever existed?
-- John Adams, letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, December 27, 1816
...
Indeed, Mr. Jefferson, what could be invented to debase the ancient
Christianism which Greeks, Romans, Hebrews and Christian factions,
above all the Catholics, have not fraudulently imposed upon the
public? Miracles after miracles have rolled down in torrents.
-- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, December 3, 1813,
quoted from James
A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief
Cabalistic
Christianity, which is Catholic Christianity, and which has
prevailed for 1,500 years, has received a mortal wound, of which the
monster must finally die. Yet so strong is his constitution, that he
may endure for centuries before he expires.
-- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, July 16, 1814,
from James
A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief
...
I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal
example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has
preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of
grief has produced!
-- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, from George Seldes,
The Great Quotations, also from James
A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief
Exhibit I (page 39):
The Principles of Natural Law, Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui
As Julia
at American Street points out sarcastically, this is another
instance of cherry-picking to mislead students:
...Excerpts from
“The Principles of Natural Law” by Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui
(an attempt to demonstrate that all laws are based on God’s law
written by a swiss jurist who died in 1748 and whose works on the
religious basis of man’s law are popularly credited by
fundamentalists fighting the separation of church and state with
being a great influence on the founders because various founders are
known to have read them. Certainly more influential than that
blackguard Paine, whoever he was.) were left out of the Reuters and
MSGOP stories, for lack of room, no doubt.
Exhibit J (page 46):
Fact Sheets: Currency and Coins - History of "In God We
Trust"
It seems this material was produced in
response to a question from a student. Again, I am not sure why Mr. Williams
doesn't mention the source of this exhibit on the exhibit itself
considering it appears to be a reproduction of this
page at the U.S. Department of the Treasury. But, he can certainly
be chided for his attempt to provide selective, one-sided and
superficial history.
As American
United for Separation of Church and State points out:
How did
"In God We Trust" earn its current status? It all started
with money. Visitors to the U.S. Mint's website (www.usmint.gov)
find a four-paragraph explanation. According to the Mint, in 1861
"a minister" wrote to the Secretary of the Treasury and
made the suggestion, which was quickly implemented.
That's
the Mint's sanitized version. The real story is a good deal more
complicated and centers on an anti-separationist organization that
can fairly be called the 19th-century version of the Christian
Coalition.
That
group was the National Reform Association (NRA), an openly
theocratic outfit that sprang up during the Civil War with an
aggressive agenda to mix church and state and remove any notion of a
separation between the two institutions. It's largely due to the
NRA's machinations that "In God We Trust" adorns our money
today.
One
thing is clear: Despite popular belief and misinformation from the
Religious Right, the phrase does not spring from the founding
period. It was never proposed or suggested by any of the framers. In
fact, early U.S. coinage like the Constitution itself was secular
and contained no mention of God, Jesus Christ or Christianity.
In 1776,
John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson designed a great
seal of the United States and put forth "E Pluribus Unum"
(a Latin phrase translated as "from many, one") as the
national motto. Congress rejected the seal but adopted the motto. It
began appearing on U.S. coins as early as 1795.
Secular
money and a secular government did not sit well with some people,
and by the middle of the 19th century conservative Christians had
gained enough support to press for changes through the NRA. Composed
primarily of fundamentalist Protestant ministers, the NRA believed
that the bloody Civil War had been God's punishment on the nation
for failing to recognize the deity in the Constitution. The group
set about to fix that oversight by adding a "Christian
nation" amendment.
The
NRA's proposal was not subtle. It would have had the U.S. government
recognize "the Lord Jesus Christ as the ruler among
nations," boldly declaring "his will as the supreme law of
the land, in order to constitute a Christian government."
The
United States was heavily Protestant at this time, and the NRA had
no difficulty putting together a grassroots movement with some real
muscle. NRA activists engineered the introduction of the amendment
in Congress several times in the latter half of the 19th century but
failed to secure the two-thirds votes in both chambers needed for
passage.
The
NRA's agenda, however, went beyond the "Christian nation"
amendment. The group also sought strict Sunday laws, worked to keep
repressive anti-divorce statutes in place, advocated mandatory Bible
reading in public schools and, eventually, sought recognition of God
on U.S. coinage. With these issues it enjoyed much more success.
The NRA
had members and supporters in powerful positions, including several
in elected offices. In 1861 President Abraham Lincoln appointed
former Pennsylvania governor James Pollock as director of the Mint.
Pollock was active in the formation of the NRA two years later and
would go on to play a key role in subsequent developments.
Late in
1861, a Baptist minister in Pennsylvania, the Rev. Mark Richard
Watkinson, wrote a letter to Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P.
Chase, bemoaning the lack of "the recognition of the Almighty
God in some form on our coins." Watkinson had big ideas and
went so far as to recommend a new design for the reverse of U.S.
coins. It should feature, he wrote, 13 stars, an all-seeing eye
topped by a halo and a flag with the words "God, liberty,
law" written on its bars.
Watkinson
was sure his design would "make a beautiful coin to which no
possible citizen would object." Such a coin, he advised Chase,
"would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. This would
place us under the divine protection we have personally
claimed...."
Chase,
who had received similar letters from other members of the clergy
and the public, liked the idea of adding God to the coinage but was
apparently less enthusiastic about Watkinson's proposed design. He
directed Pollock to take action on the motto only. In a letter to
the Mint director, Chase asserted, "No nation can be strong
except in the strength of God, or safe except in his defense. The
trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins.
You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay
with a motto expressing...this national recognition."
Given
his involvement with the NRA, Pollock was only too happy to comply
and began pressing for the change immediately. In an 1863 report,
Pollock wrote, "We claim to be a Christian nation why should we
not vindicate our character by honoring the God of Nations in the
exercise of our political Sovereignty as a Nation?"
But
there was one problem: A federal law of 1837 barred the use of new
phrases on coins. To get around this, Pollock and his allies
engineered amending the law in 1864. They had a measure introduced
in Congress that dealt mainly with weights and measures of one-cent
coins but that also contained a key section authorizing the
production of a new two-cent piece. This new law also gave the
director of the Mint authority to determine "the shape, mottoes
and devices of said coins."
Pollock
now had license to add a new motto to at least one coin. Originally,
he suggested using either "Our God and Our Country" or
"God, Our Trust" on the coin, but Chase overruled him in
favor of "In God We Trust." Pollock promptly ordered the
motto added to the two-cent piece; 26 million of them were minted.
The following year, Pollock engineered passage of a law authorizing
the use of the phrase on three-cent pieces. After that, the God
motto gradually began appearing on coins of other denominations.
Things
remained quiet until the turn of the century. But controversy flared
anew in 1905 after President Theodore Roosevelt directed the Mint to
contract with the sculptor Augustus Saint-Gaudens to come up with
new designs for the nation's coins. On aesthetic grounds, Saint-Gaudens
disliked the use of "In God We Trust" on the coinage and
proposed leaving it off. Roosevelt was also no fan of the phrase; he
argued that it cheapened religion to have a God motto on money and
recommended instead using only "E Pluribus Unum."
In a
letter dated Nov. 11, 1907, Roosevelt responded to a minister who
had written to him expressing dismay over the omission of "In
God We Trust" on the new coins. "My own feeling in the
matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such a motto on
coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does not good
but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence which comes
dangerously close to sacrilege," Roosevelt asserted.
Coins
were minted without the religious motto, but public outcry was swift
and strong. Roosevelt quickly reversed himself and agreed to sign
legislation mandating that "In God We Trust" appear on all
U.S. coins. Congress duly passed the bill, and Roosevelt signed it
into law on May 18, 1908.
Coins
remained the most popular medium of exchange in the United States
until the beginning of the 20th century. As paper money became more
common, a drive was launched to make sure "In God We
Trust" would appear on dollars of various denominations as
well. President Dwight D. Eisenhower endorsed the idea in 1955, and
a bill quickly passed Congress requiring the use of the phrase on
paper money. It has appeared on all notes since October of 1957.
During
the Civil War, supporters of the use of the phrase "In God We
Trust" on currency argued that it would mitigate the results of
that divisive conflict. By the 1950s, a different argument had
arisen: This time, the religious motto was designed to fend off
communism.
Speaking
on behalf of Eisenhower's proposal in 1955, U.S. Rep. Charles E.
Bennett (D-Fla.) insisted that the motto was needed "in these
days when imperialistic and materialistic communism seeks to attack
and destroy freedom." Seeing the phrase on money, the
legislator argued, would remind people that "as long as this
country trusts in God, it will prevail."
Less
than a year later, the same forces in Congress banded together to
declare "In God We Trust" the national motto. Legislation
establishing this, H.R. Res. 396, was introduced on March 22, 1956,
and stormed through the House and Senate. The American Humanist
Association lodged a protest, but its concerns were ignored, and
Eisenhower signed the measure into law on July 30, 1956. (About two
years earlier, on June 14, 1954, Eisenhower, at the behest of a
lobbying effort spearheaded by the Knights of Columbus and the
American Legion, signed legislation passed by Congress that added
the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance.)
Exhibit K (page 50):
History-Social Science Framework for California Public Schools
In the lawsuit documentation, the
Plaintiffs state
the following in page 8:
64. The California
Department of Education has published the content standards
governing history and the social sciences as part of a book entitled
"History-Social Science Framework for California Public Schools
Kindergarten through Grade Twelve" ("Framework")
65. In that book, the
History-Social Science Content Standards for Grade Five are entitled
"United States History and Geography: Making a New
Nation." A true and correct copy of these standards (including
the cover pages of the Framework) is attached as Exhibit K.
66. The introduction
to the History-Social Science Content Standards for Grade Five
state: "This course focuses on one of the most remarkable
stories in history: the creation of a new nation...founded on the
Judeo-Christian heritage...." Ex. K at 64.
67. This nation was
founded on the Judeo-Christian heritage.
The last statement - and by extension
the statement in the CA Dep. of Education book - is at best (very
generously speaking) highly
debatable (in the sense that the founders came from a Christian
culture but did not want to enforce Christian legal or moral
principles) and at worst (more objectively) simply wrong.
For example, Robin
Morgan highlights a challenge to the "Christian" part of
the statement by some of the founding fathers themselves:
But the 1796 Treaty
of Tripoli — initiated by George Washington and signed into law by
John Adams — proclaims: “The Government of the United States
of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion.”
...
But the Founders
were, after all, revolutionaries. Their passion —
especially regarding secularism — glows in the documents they
forged and in their personal words.
...
It’s a commonly
stated error that U.S. law, based on English common law, is thus
grounded in Judeo-Christian tradition.
Yet
Jefferson (writing to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814 ) noted
that common law “is that system of law which was introduced by the
Saxons on their settlement in England …about the middle of the
fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh
century. …We may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the
judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever
was a part of the common law.”
Jefferson professed disbelief in the Trinity and the divinity of
Jesus Christ, while respecting moral teachings by whomever might
have been a historical Jesus. He cut up a Bible, assembling his own
version: “The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so
defective and doubtful,” he wrote Adams (January 24, 1814),
“evidence that parts have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and
that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds.”
More on the
Treaty of Tripoli here:
Unlike most
governments of the past, the American Founding Fathers set up a
government divorced from any religion. Their establishment of a
secular government did not require a reflection to themselves of its
origin; they knew this as a ubiquitous unspoken given. However, as
the United States delved into international affairs, few foreign
nations knew about the intentions of the U.S. For this reason, an
insight from at a little known but legal document written in the
late 1700s explicitly reveals the secular nature of the U.S.
goverenment to a foreign nation. Officially called the "Treaty
of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the
Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary," most refer to it as
simply the Treaty of Tripoli. In Article 11, it states:
"As the
Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense,
founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no
character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity,
of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any
war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is
declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious
opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony
existing between the two countries." [bold text, mine]
Click
here to see the actual article 11 of the Treaty
The preliminary
treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the end of George
Washington's last term as president). Joel Barlow, the American
diplomat served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for
the treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as
a chaplain in the revolutionary army. He became good friends with
Paine, Jefferson, and read Enlightenment literature. Later he
abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate
of secular government. Joel Barlow wrote the original English
version of the treaty, including Amendment 11. Barlow forwarded the
treaty to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy Pickering,
the secretary of state, endorsed it and John Adams concurred (now
during his presidency), sending the document on to the Senate. The
Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and officially ratified
by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797. All during
this multi-review process, the wording of Article 11 never raised
the slightest concern. The treaty even became public through its
publication in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1797.
So here we have a
clear admission by the United States in 1797 that our government did
not found itself upon Christianity. Unlike the Declaration of
Independence, this treaty represented U.S. law as all U.S. Treaties
do (see the Constitution, Article VI, Sect.2: "This
Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made
in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall
be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the
supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be
bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to
the contrary notwithstanding.") [Bold text, mine]
Although the Treaty
of Tripoli under agreement only lasted a few years and no longer has
legal status, it clearly represented the feelings of our Founding
Fathers at the beginning of the American government.
More on the
Treaty here
and see this
debunking of the so-called debunking of the Treaty of Tripoli language
(bottom of the page).
A more
detailed note on Common Law:
According to the
Constitution's 7th Amendment: "In suits at common law. . . the
right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and no fact, tried by a
jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United
States than according to the rules of the common law."
Here, many Christians
believe that common law came from Christian foundations and
therefore the Constitution derives from it. They use various quotes
from Supreme Court Justices proclaiming that Christianity came as
part of the laws of England, and therefore from its common law
heritage.
But one of our
principle Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, elaborated about the
history of common law in his letter to Thomas Cooper on February 10,
1814:
"For we know
that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by
the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time
to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date
of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. .
. This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth
century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh
century; the conversion of the first christian king of the
Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the
last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years,
during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no
part of it."
". . . if any
one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period,
supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to
have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far
alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it.
But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law.
If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the
introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion
could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet
Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the
close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no
such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by
all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is,
nor ever was a part of the common law."
In the same letter,
Jefferson examined how the error spread about Christianity and
common law. Jefferson realized that a misinterpretation had occurred
with a Latin term by Prisot, "ancien scripture", in
reference to common law history. The term meant "ancient
scripture" but people had incorrectly interpreted it to mean
"Holy Scripture," thus spreading the myth that common law
came from the Bible. Jefferson writes:
- "And
Blackstone repeats, in the words of Sir Matthew Hale, that
'Christianity is part of the laws of England,' citing Ventris
and Strange ubi surpa. 4. Blackst. 59. Lord Mansfield
qualifies it a little by saying that 'The essential principles
of revealed religion are part of the common law." In the
case of the Chamberlain of London v. Evans, 1767. But he cites
no authority, and leaves us at our peril to find out what, in
the opinion of the judge, and according to the measure of his
foot or his faith, are those essential principles of revealed
religion obligatory on us as a part of the common law."
-
- Thus we find
this string of authorities, when examined to the beginning,
all hanging on the same hook, a perverted expression of
Priscot's, or on one another, or nobody."
The Encyclopedia
Britannica, also describes the Saxon origin and adds: "The
nature of the new common law was at first much influenced by the
principles of Roman law, but later it developed more and more along
independent lines." Also prominent among the characteristics
that derived out of common law include the institution of the jury,
and the right to speedy trial.
...
Note 1: The
end of the Constitution records the year of its ratification,
"the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one
thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven." Although, indeed, it
uses the word "Lord", it does not refer to Jesus but
rather to the dating method. Incredibly, some Christians attempt to
use this as justification for a Christian derived Constitution. The
term simply conveys a written English form of the Latin, Anno
Domini (AD), which means the year of our Lord (no, it does not
mean After Death). This scripted form served as a common way of
dating in the 1700s. The Constitution also uses many pagan words
such as January (from the two-headed Roman god, Janus), and June
(named after the Roman Goddess Juno). Can you imagine the ludicrous
position of someone trying to argue for the justification of a pagan
god based Constitution? The same goes to any Christian who attempts
to use a dating convention as an argument against the Constitution's
secular nature, and can only paint himself as naive, or worse, as
dishonest and deceiving.
Jefferson's note
on John Cartwright is along similar lines. See
here:
I was glad to find in
your book a formal contradiction of the judiciary usurpation of
legislative powers; for such the judges have usurped in their
repeated decisions, that Christianity is a part of the common law.
The proof of the contrary, which you have adduced, is
incontrovertible; to wit, that the common law existed while the
Anglo-Saxons were yet Pagans, at a time when they had never heard
the name of Christ pronounced, or knew that such a character had
ever existed. But it may amuse you, to show when, and by what means,
they stole this law in upon us. In a case of
quare impedit
in the Year Book 34, H. 6, folio 38 (anno 1458.) a question was
made, how far the ecclesiastical law was to be respected in a common
law court? And Prisot, Chief Justice, gives his opinion in these
words: “A tiel leis qu'ils de seint eglise ont en
ancien scripture,
covient à nous à donner credence; car ceo common ley sur quels
touts manners leis sont fondés. Et auxy, Sir, nous sumus oblègés
de conustre lour ley de saint eglisse; et semblablement its sont
obligés de consustre nostre ley. Et, Sir, si poit apperer or à
nous que l'evesque ad fait come un ordinary fera en tiel cas, adong
nous devons cee adjuger bon, ou auterment nemy,” æc. See S. C.
Fitzh. Abr. Qu. imp. 89, Bro. Abr. Qu. imp. 12. Finch in his first
book c. 3, is the first afterwards who quotes this case and mistakes
it thus: “To such laws of the church as have warrant in
holy scripture,
our law giveth credence.” And cites Prisot; mistranslating
“ancien scripture, ”
into
“holy scripture.”
Whereas Prisot palpably says, “to such laws as those of holy
church have in
ancient writing,
it is proper for us to give credence,” to wit, to their
ancient written
laws. This was in 1613, a century and a half after the dictum of
Prisot. Wingate, in 1658, erects this false translation into a maxim
of the common law, copying the words of Finch, but citing Prisot,
Wing. Max. 3. And Sheppard, title, “Religion,” in 1675, copies
the same mistranslation, quoting the Y. B. Finch and Wingate. Hale
expresses it in these words: “Christianity is parcel of the laws
of England.” 1 Ventr. 293, 3 Keb. 607. But he quotes no authority.
By these echoings and re-echoings from one to another, it had become
so established in 1728, that in the case of the King
vs.
Woolston, 2 Stra. 834, the court would not suffer it to be debated,
whether to write against Christianity was punishable in the temporal
court at common law? Wood, therefore, 409, ventures still to vary
the phrase, and say, that all blasphemy and profaneness are offences
by the common law; and cites 2 Stra. Then Blackstone, in 1763, iv.
59, repeats the words of Hale, that “Christianity is part of the
laws of England,” citing Ventris and Strange. And finally, Lord
Mansfield, with a little qualification, in Evans' case, in 1767,
says, that “the essential principles of revealed religion are part
of the common law.” Thus ingulphing Bible, Testament and
all into the common law, without citing any authority. And thus we
find this chain of authorities, hanging link by link, one [Col 2]
upon another, and all ultimately on one and the same hook, and that
a mistranslation of the words
“ancien scripture,”
used by Prisot. Finch quotes Prisot; Wingate does the same. Sheppard
quotes Prisot, Finch and Wingate. Hale cites nobody. The court in
Woolston's case, cites Hale. Wood cites Woolston's case. Blackstone
quotes Woolston's case and Hale. And Lord Mansfield, like Hale,
ventures it on his own authority. Here I might defy the best-read
lawyer to produce another scrip of authority for this judiciary
forgery; and I might go on further to show, how some of the
Anglo-Saxon priests interpolated into the text of Alfred's laws, the
20th, 21st, 22d, and 23d chapters of Exodus, and the 15th, of the
Acts of the Apostles, from the 23d to the 29th verses. But this
would lead my pen and your patience too far. What a conspiracy this
between Church and State! --
TITLE: To John
Cartwright.
EDITION: Washington ed.
vii
,
359.
PLACE: Monticello
DATE: 1824
Another website
says
this:
Claim:
..."This country was built on Judeo-Christian principles, the
basis of which is the Ten Commandments, no one can deny
that..."
Rebuttal:
The Constitution of the United States and the legal system which
comes from it, was influenced by many sources, but primarily the
philosophical works of Locke, Hume, and Rousseau -- thinkers most
commonly associated with the "Age of Enlightenment".
This radical new worldview affected nearly every aspect of life,
including traditional "Judeo-Christian" doctrines,
particularly the relationship between spiritual establishments and
temporal government. The uniquely American approach involved a
complete separation. (The Enlightenment in America by
Ernest Cassara, 1988, University Press of America")
Reid is merely
echoing the long-debunked "Christianity is part of common
law" theme, without bothering to think it through. Our system
of law is noted, quite to the contrary, to its complete and total
lack of recognition and special status for religious doctrines of
any kind.
The group,
Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AUSCS) also
points out:
Religious Right
groups and their allies insist that the United States was designed
to be officially Christian and that our laws should enforce the
doctrines of (their version of) Christianity. Is this viewpoint
accurate? Is there anything in the Constitution that gives special
treatment or preference to Christianity? Did the founders of our
government believe this or intend to create a government that gave
special recognition to Christianity?
The answer to all of
these questions is no. The U.S. Constitution is a wholly secular
document. It contains no mention of Christianity or Jesus Christ. In
fact, the Constitution refers to religion only twice in the First
Amendment, which bars laws "respecting an establishment of
religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and in
Article VI, which prohibits "religious tests" for public
office. Both of these provisions are evidence that the country was
not founded as officially Christian.
The Founding Fathers
did not create a secular government because they disliked religion.
Many were believers themselves. Yet they were well aware of the
dangers of church-state union. They had studied and even seen
first-hand the difficulties that church-state partnerships spawned
in Europe. During the American colonial period, alliances between
religion and government produced oppression and tyranny on our own
shores.
Many colonies, for
example, had provisions limiting public office to "Trinitarian
Protestants" and other types of laws designed to prop up the
religious sentiments of the politically powerful. Some colonies had
officially established churches and taxed all citizens to support
them, whether they were members or not. Dissenters faced
imprisonment, torture and even death.
These arrangements
led to bitterness and sectarian division. Many people began
agitating for an end to "religious tests" for public
office, tax subsidies for churches and other forms of state
endorsement of religion. Those who led this charge were not
anti-religion. Indeed, many were members of the clergy and people of
deep piety. They argued that true faith did not need or want the
support of government.
Respect for religious
pluralism gradually became the norm. When Thomas Jefferson wrote the
Declaration of Independence, for example, he spoke of
"unalienable rights endowed by our Creator." He used
generic religious language that all religious groups of the day
would respond to, not narrowly Christian language traditionally
employed by nations with state churches.
While some of the
country's founders believed that the government should espouse
Christianity, that viewpoint soon became a losing proposition. In
Virginia, Patrick Henry argued in favor of tax support for Christian
churches. But Henry and his cohorts were in the minority and lost
that battle. Jefferson, James Madison and their allies among the
state's religious groups ended Virginia's established church and
helped pass the Virginia Statute for Religious Liberty, a 1786 law
guaranteeing religious freedom to all.
Jefferson and
Madison's viewpoint also carried the day when the Constitution, and
later, the Bill of Rights, were written. Had an officially Christian
nation been the goal of the founders, that concept would appear in
the Constitution. It does not. Instead, our nation's governing
document ensures religious freedom for everyone.
Maryland
representative Luther Martin said that a handful of delegates to the
Constitutional Convention argued for formal recognition of
Christianity in the Constitution, insisting that such language was
necessary in order to "hold out some distinction between the
professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or
paganism." But that view was not adopted, and the Constitution
gave government no authority over religion. Article VI, which allows
persons of all religious viewpoints to hold public office, was
adopted by a unanimous vote. Through ratification of the First
Amendment, observed Jefferson, the American people built a
"wall of separation between church and state."
Some pastors who
favored church-state union were outraged and delivered sermons
asserting that the United States would not be a successful nation
because its Constitution did not give special treatment to
Christianity. But many others welcomed the new dawn of freedom and
praised the Constitution and the First Amendment as true protectors
of liberty.
Early national
leaders understood that separation of church and state would be good
for all faiths including Christianity. Jefferson rejoiced that
Virginia had passed his religious freedom law, noting that it would
ensure religious freedom for "the Jew and the Gentile, the
Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, the infidel of every
denomination."
Other early U.S.
leaders echoed that view. President George Washington, in a famous
1790 letter to a Jewish congregation in Newport, R.I., celebrated
the fact that Jews had full freedom of worship in America. Noted
Washington, "All possess alike liberty of conscience and
immunities of citizenship."
Washington's
administration even negotiated a treaty with the Muslim rulers of
north Africa that stated explicitly that the United States was not
founded on Christianity. The pact, known as the Treaty with Tripoli,
was approved unanimously by the Senate in 1797, under the
administration of John Adams. Article 11 of the treaty states,
"[T]he government of the United States is not, in any sense,
founded on the Christian religion…."
Also see here
and here.
A quick search on
the internet revealed a few other challenges to this notion of the
U.S. having been founded on a Judeo-Christian heritage - from the
standpoint of questioning whether American laws are really consistent
with say, Biblical teachings. I won't
reproduce them here because I am unsure about the validity of those
challenges. But, simply put, this is not black-and-white as the
supporters of Steven Williams (or even CA state) would like to have
everyone believe.
SOME ADDITIONAL HANDOUTS
MENTIONED IN
THE AMENDED LAWSUIT
I took a quick look at the amended
lawsuit and discovered some additional documents are referred to in this
lawsuit (in addition to those covered in the original lawsuit). These
documents are mentioned in pages 8 and 9, with the following leading
paragraph:
65. On May 14, 2004,
Mr. Williams informed Principal Vidmar that his students were
experiencing confusion over the “separation of church and state.” He
requested permission to distribute a number of handouts to his
students as part of a forty-five (45) minute lesson to demonstrate
the founder’s beliefs about religion, and how those beliefs
influenced the way the United States government was formed...
Since I don't have time to review all of
his additional handouts, I picked a couple to examine.
Handout g (page 9): The Conversion of Quaker Isaac Potts to the
Cause of Patriotism through the Observation of George Washington's
Prayer, from Rev. Nathanial Randolph Snowden, Diary and Remembrances
Although this document is not attached to
the lawsuit, it is easily found via a Google search. Not surprisingly
the story of the "conversion of Quaker Isaac Potts...." turns out to be
one whose authenticity is dubious at best. Indeed,
Presidential historian Franklin Steiner covered this in
his "The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents" and states that
this is just another urban legend (bold text in the following
extract is eRiposte emphasis):
While the "Washington
Prayer Book" was thoroughly discredited, there is another prayer
yarn told of him that will not die so easily. United States
histories, Sunday School papers and religious tracts have sustained
its life. The United States government has emblazoned it in bronze
on the front of the Subtreasury building in New York City. In 1928,
the Postmaster-General issued $2,000,000. in postage stamps to
commemorate it. When he was informed that it was a fiction and the
real facts presented to him, he replied that he was too busy to
correct the mistakes of history. As a romance it is always worth
telling. The scene was laid in Valley Forge, in the winter of
1777-78, while Washington's army was in winter quarters, suffering
from hunger, nakedness and cold, when many had abandoned all hope of
success. There, Isaac Potts, a Quaker, at whose house Washington is
said to have had his headquarters, when walking in the woods on a
cold winter day, saw Washington on his knees in the snow engaged in
prayer, his hat off and his horse tied to a sapling.
This story was first told by our old acquaintance, Weems, the
great protagonist of Washington mythology, He does not give his
authority for telling it, but others have added to the account. We
can clear Isaac Potts of all complicity in foisting it upon the
world, as he never told it or certified to its truth. The nearest we
can approach him is that some old person said he had told it. The
Rev. E.C. M'Guire, in a book entitled 'The Religious Opinions and
Character of Washington,' published in 1836, quotes a man 80 years
old, one Devault Beaver, who claims he received the story from Potts
and his family.
In 1862, James Ross Snowden wrote a letter to the Rev. T.W.J. Wylie,
minister of the First Reformed Presbyterian Church of Philadelphia,
in which he said his father. N.R. Snowden, had heard the incident
from Potts. He said he could not find his father's papers, in
which it is claimed he wrote an account of it. He admits that Weems
told the story in a different manner from his father's version, but
insists that his father told it correctly. As in all of these
fables, when evidence is sought, some link in the chain is lost. The
character of the proof is shady. The word of very old men is always
to be taken with a grain of allowance, especially when
uncorroborated. I once talked with an old man of 87 who claimed that
he had seen Lafayette, Charles Carron, of Carronton, and Martha
Washington. Upon an investigation, I found it possible that he had
seen the first two, but as his birth record showed him to have been
born in 1802, the year Martha Washington died, it is certain that he
never saw her.
We sometimes speak of incredible stories as "old wives' tales," not
thinking that similar stories told by old men are in the same
category. This payer story is told with variations. According
to Weems, Potts accidentally finds Washington at prayer. Being
attracted by a sound in "a venerable grove," he looks into it and
finds him pouring forth his soul to God, his countenance being of
"angelic serenity," these two expressions being added to give a
dramatic and romantic effect. Weems makes Potts a patriot, who,
after watching Washington's struggle with the Almighty, rushes into
his house with great glee, and shouts to his wife, "Sarah! My dear
Sarah! all's well! all's well! George Washington will yet prevail!"
telling her what he had seen. According to the story as told by the
Rev. Mr. M'Guire, Potts was a Tory, as most Quakers were, and he
makes him say to his wife, not calling her by any Christian name,
"Our cause is lost." He seemed to think the revolutionary conflict
would be settled by Washington's prayer. Instead of Potts's coming
upon Washington suddenly, hearing a sound in the grove, and upon
investigating finding the Commander-in-Chief at his orisons, as told
by Weems, M'Guire makes him follow the General for some time to see
where he was going and what he was going to do, when, lo, he saw him
get down on his knees in the snow and pray. According to the
Snowden account, Potts's wife's name was not Sarah, but Betty.
He represents him as now willing to support the cause of America,
does not tell what his views were previously. The prayer causing the
Quaker to change from a Tory to a patriot was no doubt the work of
some later artist who wished the fable to be more effective.
The Rev. M.J. Savage says:
"The pictures that represent him on his knees in the winter
forest at Valley Forge are even silly caricatures. Washington was at
least not sentimental, and he had nothing about him of the Pharisee
that displays his religion at street corners or out in the woods in
the sight of observers, of observers, or where his portrait could be
taken by 'our special artist!'"
Benson J. Lossing, in his 'Field Book of the Revolution' (vol. 2, p.
336), also gives an account of this historical prayer, but does not
mention the source from which he obtained it. Like Weems, he tells
that Potts was attracted by a noise in the grove, but while none of
the other chroniclers say anything about Washington's having a
horse, Lossing speaks of "his horse tied to a sapling," and instead
of the General's face being a "countenance of angelic serenity," he
says it was "suffused with tears." A reasonable question to ask
is, "Can there be found any evidence that Washington was a 'praying
man?"
Bishop White, whose church he attended on and off for 25 years in
Philadelphia, says he never saw him on his knees in church. This
ought to settle the question. If he did not kneel in church, who
will believe that he did so on the ground, covered with snow, with
his hat off, when the thermometer, was probably below zero?
As further proof that the story is fictitious, there is reason to
believe that Isaac Potts did not live in Valley Forge at the time
Washington's army was there, in the winter of 1777-1778. Mr. Myers
of the Valley Forge Park Commission, recently admitted this.
That Potts did not own the house at the time is established by
Washington's account book, where it is proved that the rent for
headquarters was paid to Mrs. Deborah Hawes, and the receipts were
made out in her name. Potts bought the house when the war was over.
There is yet another story of Washington's praying in the bushes at
Princeton, which we will not dilate upon now. But Valley Forge was
the most prolific in legends. During the same winter that Potts
caught Washington praying in the snow, the Rev. John Gano, Baptist
preacher, is said to have cut the ice in the river, and baptized the
commander-in-chief by immersion in the presence of 42 people, all
sworn to secrecy! And this has been confirmed by a grandson of the
Rev. Gano in an affidavit made at the age of 83 years! But the
entire story is discredited by the fact that the Rev. Gano was not
at Valley Forge, and that he served with Clinton's, and not with
Washington's, army. For proof, see 'Biographical Memoirs of the Rev.
John Gano,' also Headingly's 'Chaplains of the Revolution.'
...
Those who think they find in Washington's praying in the snow at
Valley Forge an evidence of the effteacy of prayer will find that a
long time elapsed between the time he besought God, and the
realization. During the remainder of his life he was not without
trials and tribulations. After the battle of Monmouth, in 1778, he
did not fight another battle for three years, chiefly because of
want of guns, clothing and ammunition for his men. In the meantime
the British raided the coast of Connecticut, burning and destroying.
Arnold's treason almost succeeded, in which case, all would have
been lost. The British invaded and conquered Georgia and the
Carolinas. They subdued the inhabitants with great cruelty, and were
about to subject Virginia to the same fate. Whether prayer was
responsible for it or not, the real Providence of Washington and the
country manifested itself in the form of French assistance, At
Yorktown, in 1781, Washington, with 9,000 of his own troops, General
Rochambeau with 7,000 French soldiers, Admiral De Grasse with 42
French ships of the line and 19,000 French seamen, surrounded Lord
Cornwallis, who had an inferior force, and compelled him to
surrender. This would not have been possible had Thomas Paine and
John Laurens not journeyed to France in February, 1781, and on
August 25 returned to Boston with a shipload of clothing, arms and
ammunition, and 2,500,000, livres of silver, to clothe Washington's
ragged and unpaid soldiers and place in their hands arms fit to use
in battle.
But it is not likely that the Valley Forge prayer story will die
soon. It is too good a "property" to abandon, for the Rev. W.
Herbert Burk, the Valley Forge rector, is working hard to erect a
million dollar church to commemorate it. He also stands sponsor for
the prayer in St. Paul's Chapel in New York City. Bishop Warburton
once said: "A lie has no legs and cannot stand, but it has wings and
can fly far and wide."
The
National Park Service website also considers this story a fable:
An equally persistent
legend tells how a Quaker silently observed Washington as he knelt
in the snow in a bower of trees to pray for the deliverance of his
troops and his country. This tale was first published in the 1808
edition of a biography of Washington by the colorful itinerant
preacher and traveling book salesman, Mason L. (Parson) Weems. Weems
never revealed his source, but he identified Washington's observer
as "a certain good old FRIEND of the respectable family and name of
Potts." The sight had supposedly so impressed Potts that he confided
to his wife Sarah his belief that Washington was a man of God and
that the nation was saved. This charming story had certain
inconsistencies, such as the fact that Washington had never been
overtly religious. In addition, between 1774 and 1782 Isaac Potts,
who owned Washington's Headquarters during the time of the
encampment, had been living in Pottsgrove, not Valley Forge. And
even if Potts had visited the winter encampment, his wife at the
time had been named Martha, not Sarah.
Nevertheless, the
prayer-in-the-snow story captured the endorsement of the respected
Virginia historian Bishop Meade in 1857. From the mid-1800s, various
artists attempted to illustrate it, creating visual images that
ended up in churches and schools. In her book George Washington
Slept Here, Karal Ann Marling describes the story as an "icon" in
the collective conscience of Americans, [58] and that being the
case, most nineteenth-century accounts of Valley Forge included the
prayer story. Watson mentioned it only briefly, but Woodman claimed
that he had heard it from residents before he "saw the account
published." [59] In biographies of Washington both published in
1860, George Washington Parke Custis and Benson Lossing each quoted
the prayer story in footnotes using almost the same words. In these
versions, more detail appears. The Quaker Isaac Potts is strolling
along the creek when he hears a solemn voice. He notices the
general's horse tethered to a sapling and finds Washington on his
knees, "his cheeks suffused with tears." In this version, Potts
confides to his wife that if God would listen to any human,
Washington would be the one, and therefore America was assured of
her independence. [60] Bean picked up this version in Foot-Prints,
down to Washington's tear-stained cheeks. [61]
By the last quarter of the nineteenth century, the prayer story was
apparently coming under its first attacks. In 1874, in a family
history of the Pottses, Mrs. (Isabella) Thomas Potts James offered
some documentation for the tradition, saying she had copied her
version of the prayer legend from material written by Ruth Anna
Potts, Isaac Potts's daughter, who had died in 1811. [62] A 1901
magazine article also mentioned this document, while an account
written in 1904 contended that the prayer story was "no mythical
tale." [63] As if to give physical weight to the legend, an 1875
newspaper story told how a Reading resident had been given a cane
carved from the wood of the tree under which Washington had prayed.
[64]
Clearly, Mrs. Potts James' vested
interest in propagating the story needs to be taken into account in
interpreting her version.
The
Historic Valley Forge website (which also, undoubtedly, has a
vested interest in promoting the Valley Forge story) believes the
story may be "Legend" or "Tradition" or "Fact". As much as they seem
comfortable sweeping aside holes and contradictions in the different
stories circulating about this, much of the material they provide
suggests it is not "fact". Indeed, the fact that
they don't seem to acknowledge that the quote (in Exhibit E above)
attributed to George Washington is fake suggests to me that their
authority on these matters is less than credible. Anyway
here is some of the content they have on their website about the
Valley Forge story:
In 1918, the Valley
Forge Park Commission refused a request by a patriotic organization
for permission to erect a monument or marker on the spot where it
was claimed Washington was seen kneeling in prayer. The Commission's
report reviewed its examination of the thousands of pages of
correspondence and diaries of the Commander-in-Chief and his staff;
generals of divisions and brigades; officers and privates of
regiments; the Congressional Committee who were at the camp;
manuscripts in the Library of Congress and other institutions where
Revolutionary matter is preserved. It concluded by observing "in
none of these were found a single paragraph that will substantiate
the tradition of the 'Prayer at Valley Forge.'"
Snowden's Diary Gives Data
The nearest to an
authentication of the Potts story of Washington's prayer in the
woods seems to be supplied by the "Diary and Remembrances" of the
Rev. Nathaniel Randolph Snowden, an ordained Presbyterian minister,
graduate of Princeton with a degree from Dickinson College. The
original is owned by the Historical Society of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Snowden was born in Philadelphia January 17, 1770 and died November
12, 1851. His writings cover a period from youth to 1846. In his
records may be found these observations, in Mr. Snowden's own
handwriting:
"I knew
personally the celebrated Quaker Potts who saw Gen'l Washington
alone in the woods at prayer. I got it from himself, myself.
Weems mentioned it in his history of Washington, but I got it
from the man myself, as follows:
"I was riding with him (Mr. Potts) in Montgomery County, Penn'a
near to the Valley Forge, where the army lay during the war of
ye Revolution. Mr. Potts was a Senator in our State & a Whig. I
told him I was agreeably surprised to find him a friend to his
country as the Quakers were mostly Tories. He said, 'It was so
and I was a rank Tory once, for I never believed that America
c'd proceed against Great Britain whose fleets and armies
covered the land and ocean, but something very extraordinary
converted me to the Good Faith!" "What was that," I inquired?
'Do you see that woods, & that plain. It was about a quarter of
a mile off from the place we were riding, as it happened.'
'There,' said he, 'laid the army of Washington. It was a most
distressing time of ye war, and all were for giving up the Ship
but that great and good man. In that woods pointing to a close
in view, I heard a plaintive sound as, of a man at prayer. I
tied my horse to a sapling & went quietly into the woods & to my
astonishment I saw the great George Washington on his knees
alone, with his sword on one side and his cocked hat on the
other. He was at Prayer to the God of the Armies, beseeching to
interpose with his Divine aid, as it was ye Crisis, & the cause
of the country, of humanity & of the world.
'Such a prayer I never heard from the lips of man. I left him
alone praying.
'I went home & told my wife. I saw a sight and heard today what
I never saw or heard before, and just related to her what I had
seen & heard & observed. We never thought a man c'd be a soldier
& a Christian, but if there is one in the world, it is
Washington. She also was astonished. We thought it was the cause
of God, & America could prevail.' "He then to me put out his
right hand & said 'I turned right about and became a Whig.'"
Mr. Snowden, as if to
emphasize the piety of Washington sets forth in his records that he
often saw Washington, that he accompanied seventy other clergymen to
visit him on the anniversary of his birth February 22, 1792. Then
Mr. Snowden adds:
"I felt much
impressed in his presence and reflected upon the hand and
wonderful Providence of God in raising him up and qualifying him
with so many rare qualities and virtues for the good of this
country and the world. Washington was not only brave and
talented, but a truly excellent and pious man of God and of
prayer. He always retired before a battle and in any emergency
for prayer and direction."
"When the army lay at Morristown, the Rev. Dr. Jones,
administered the sacrament of ye Lord's supper. Washington came
forward at ye head of all his officers and took his seat at ye
1st table, & took of ye bread and wine, the Symbols of Christ's
broken body and shed blood, to do this in remembrance of ye L J
C & thus professed himself a Christian & a disciple of the
blessed Jesus."
The Rev. Mr.
Snowden's use of "John" and not "Isaac" in referring to Potts may
easily be due to momentary lapse of concentration on a single item,
as happens frequently among writers who possess the correct facts
but neglect their importance at the moment. In compiling a Valley
Forge guide book recently the writer inadvertently placed Anthony
Wayne's birthplace in Delaware County, when as a matter of fact he
had know since boyhood "Mad Anthony" was a native of Chester County.
Some published accounts of the Potts version of the "Prayer" have
Potts addressing his wife as "Sarah." True it is he had a wife by
that name but she was his second spouse whom Isaac married at
Abington Meeting March 10, 1803. Other writers claim Isaac Potts was
a widower at the time of the Encampment and others that he did not
reside at Valley Forge during the winter of 1777 and 1778. These
claims would seem to be in error as substantiated by "The Potts
Memorial" a worthy genealogical-historical account of the Potts
family compiled in 1874 by Mrs. Thomas Potts (Isabella) James, after
eleven years of painstaking work. In Mrs. James' record Isaac Potts
is shown as marrying Martha Bolton at Plymouth Meeting December 6,
1770, that she lived with Isaac at Valley Forge in 1777 and 1778 and
died April 39, 1798 at Cheltenham, Montgomery County.
Potts' Biographer Speaks
The prevailing idea
that Isaac Potts owned and carried on the valley forge before or
during the Revolution seems to have no foundation in fact. His own
family biographer does not find that he had any connection with the
iron works until after the close of the war. Isaac owned and
operated a grist mill at the time of the Encampment. The forge was
owned by a brother. In 1777 Isaac was only 26 years of age, and like
most Quakers, was opposed to the war. His family genealogist,
however, says he remained at Valley Forge during its occupation by
the American forces and superintended the grinding of the grain
which Washington ordered neighboring farmers to bring to his army.
One should read what Potts' biographer, Mrs. Thomas Potts James says
about "the Prayer of Valley Forge," and note her authority. Mrs.
James writes "it was not in human nature, or Quaker nature either,
for Isaac to be very much pleased to run his mill according to
military requisition, to see his peaceful valley invaded by men at
arms. That he changed his mind when he overheard Washington's
devotions is evident. I copied from a paper in the possession of one
of his grand-daughters. It is in the handwriting of, and signed by,
his daughter, Ruth-Anna, who died in 1811.
The daughter's story differs in some particulars from that of Weems
and also from accounts given by Watson and Lossing. Yet, there is no
substantial difference
[eRiposte note:
That's easy to say but this is history we are talking about!
This personal website takes a much more stringent view of these
discrepancies, pointing out additional discrepancies].
The writing of Potts' daughter preserves the devotional scene to its
concluding observations by Potts that "if George Washington be not a
man of God, I am mistaken, and still more shall I be disappointed if
God do not through him perform some great thing for this country."
Handout h (page 9): “George Washington’s Adopted Daughter Discusses
Washington’s Religious Character,” by Nelly Custis-Lewis
This document (also not in the lawsuit)
appears to refer to
this letter. While (teacher) Stephen Williams was free to use this
self-serving letter by Custis-Lewis (which is certainly a historical
document), it was irresponsible of him to not include facts that
independently show that the claims in the letter about Washington's
religiosity do not withstand proper scrutiny. At best,
Williams' intention to distribute this uncritically is consistent with
his tendency to proselytize or skew history towards his perspective.
More objectively, it is another indication of his willingness to
foist dubious or false information on his unsuspecting students to push
his "Christian" agenda.
Again, here's Presidential historian
Franklin Steiner in
"The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents" (bold text in the
following extract is eRiposte emphasis):
Thwarted in their
attempts to find evidence that Washington was publicly a pious man,
those interested have tried to prove that he was privately devout,
and prayed clandestinely. If any were in a position to know of this
it would be his own family. His adopted daughter, and
step-granddaughter, Nellie Custis, wrote Mr. Sparks in 1833, when
Washington's alleged piety was called into question and it was
necessary to find evidence to prove it, "I never witnessed his
private devotions. I never inquired about them." (See Sparks's
Washington, p. 522.) She professes to think he was a believer,
and mentions persons having told her they had seen him pray years
ago, but all of the evidence is of this character -- always second
hand. It will be necessary to show what interest Washington had in
making the public think he was not religious, when in fact he was in
private. In this he would be as much of a deceiver as those who are
religious in public and not in private. And a really religious man
believes in "letting his light shine." If, like Washington, he
is not a religious man, and at the same time honest, not wishing to
offend his friends who are religious, he will take a non-committal
attitude. The more we know of the real character of George
Washington, the more we find him to have been a man who refrained
from subterfuge.
George Washington Parke Custis, a step-grandson and adopted son of
Washington, wrote, from time to time, a series of articles for
newspapers. giving his recollections of his adopted father. He was
but 18 when Washington died, in 1799, and his own death occurred in
1857. His articles were, after his death, collected and edited by
B.J. Lossing and published in book form. His, statements vary
greatly when compares with those of others who knew Washington. In
fact, he, as a mythologist, is assigned next place to Weems. He says
that Washington, standing, was in the habit of asking the blessing
at the table. Of the hundreds who had dined with Washington, no one
confirms this. But it is interesting to read the statement of one
who did dine with him and thought he was asking the blessing but
found for it no confirmation.
Commissary-General Claude Blanchard dined with Washington, and gives
in his Journal the following account:
"There was a clergyman at this dinner who blessed the food and
said grace after they had done eating and had brought in the wine. I
was told that General Washington said grace when there was no
clergyman at the table, as fathers of a family do in America. The
first time that I dined with him there was no clergyman and I did
not perceive that he made this prayer, yet I remember that, on
taking his place at the table, he made a gesture and said a ward,
which I took for a piece of politeness, and which was perhaps a
religious action.
In this case his prayer must have been short; the clergyman made use
of more forms. We remained a very long time at the table. They drank
12 or 15 healths with Madeira wine, In the course of the meal beer
was served and grum, rum mixed with water."
This, rather than proving that Washington prayed at the dinner,
rather proves that they all liberally celebrated the sacrament.
...
[eRiposte note:
Steiner goes into a detailed examination of Washington's religious
beliefs here and I am not reproducing it. It is available at the URL
above. I am just reproducing the following, which suffices for now]
I have cited four
churches which Washington attended. The ministers of two of them say
emphatically that he did not commune. One of them says just as
emphatically that he was not a believer, only a Deist. The other
says he had no evidence of his Christian belief other than that he
attended church, which is no evidence at all. In the other two, in
both of which he was a vestryman, no evidence could be found that he
ever stood at the Lord's table.
On January 20, 1833, Mr. Sparks wrote to Nellie Custis, then Mrs.
Lewis, for evidence that her step-grandfather communed. She
answered, on February 20, 1833, as follows: "On communion Sundays,
he left the Church with me after the blessing, and returned home,
and we sent the carriage back after my grandmother." (Sparks's
'Washington,' p. 521.) Sparks himself, on p. 523, expresses his
regrets at this in these words:
"The circumstance of his withdrawing himself from the communion
service, at a certain period of his life, has been remarked as
singular. This may be admitted and regretted, both on account of his
example, and the value of his opinion as to the importance and
practical tendency of the rite."
...
This atheist website (whose authenticity is unknown to me)
includes the following passage which I am reproducing because it
appears to be broadly consistent with Steiner's findings:
Another common
source of "biographical information" about Washington's alleged
religious beliefs comes from the writings of one Nelly Custis-Lewis,
George Washington's step-granddaughter. Typical of her claims is
that, when Washington died, his wife, Martha "resigned him without a
murmur into the arms of his Savior and his God, with the assured
hope of his eternal felicity." That all sounds very nice, but it is
untrue. Martha was in the room with George when he died, but so were
at least five other people: Washington's friend and secretary Tobias
Lear, his overseer George Rawlins, his personal physician Dr. James
Craik, and two other physicians--Dr. Elisha Dick and Dr. Gustavus
Brown. Each of these men individually chronicled Washington's final
hours, and all accounts agree: Washington spoke of his last will and
testament, of burial plans and other secular matters. He never made
any religious remarks, nor did anyone else in the room, including
Mrs. Washington, who sat at the foot of the bed. It was Lear who was
next to Washington when he died, to whom he addressed his last words
and who arranged his body.
Nelly Custis-Lewis admitted that "I never witnessed his private
devotions. I never inquired about them", and "he was not one of
those who act or pray, 'that they may be seen of men' [ref. Matthew
6:5]. He communed with his God in secret [ref. Matthew 6:6]." The
lack of any evidence did not prevent Nelly Custis-Lewis from
claiming "His life, his writings, prove that he was a Christian."
Considering that Washington's thousands of pages of handwritten text
in both his diaries and his correspondence never once used the words
"Jesus" or "Christ", that is a curious claim indeed.
The Rev. Dr. Beverly Tucker of the Episcopal
church later attempted to show that Washington was indeed a
communicant, but after thoroughly researching the claims of Nelly
Custis-Lewis, he was forced to dismiss them as untrue.
2.4.1
Steven Williams' Easter assignment to his students
I just got access to the Easter
assignment that Steven Williams gave to his class. A scanned copy of
the document is here.
(See some comments on the inappropriateness of this handout at I
Speak of Dreams and Dispatches
from the Culture Wars). This assignment is consistent with Williams' biased and slanted
approach to teaching American history. Look at these extracts, for
example:
- John Adams wrote,
"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious
people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any
other." He also wrote a paper called, "American
Independence was Achieved Upon the Principles of
Christianity." Write a one page report on why he felt so
strongly that this nation should be founded on Christian
principles and quote some primary sources.
- Review some of the
famous teachings of Jesus Christ such as: the Golden Rule, the
Sermon on the Mount, and parable of the Good Samaritan. Write a
response to this teaching and how it is applied today in our
culture and examples of how it has shaped our nation. Present a
short oral presentation or skit to the class which demonstrates
what you learned.
First
a comment on Williams' claim that Adams "wrote a paper called, "American
Independence was Achieved Upon the Principles of
Christianity."" -
this is yet another exaggerated/slanted reference.
Ed Brayton at Dispatches
from the Culture Wars sent in an email that he had sent to Gregg
Lint (editor of the John Adams collection) and Lint's response (only
relevant extracts are reproduced here and not the entire email):
...One of the
handouts that the teacher used references a document I have never
heard of and I wondered if you could help me determine if it
actually exists. The handout in question says, "He (Adams) also
wrote a paper called, 'American Independence was Achieved Upon the
Principles of Christianity'." I was unable to find any
reference to such a document in a google search other than one at http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/adamsprinciples.html,
and there is it attributed not to a paper but thusly:
Source: John Adams to
Thomas Jefferson, June 28th, 1813, from Quincy. The Adams-Jefferson
Letters: The Complete Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson and
Abigail and John Adams, edited by Lester J. Cappon, 1988, the
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC, pp.
338-340.
Can you comment on
whether this is authentically attributed to John Adams? It certainly
seems to conflict with his "A Defence of the Constitutions of
Government of the United States of America", penned in 1788. If
it is authentic, can you comment on how it fits with his views as
expressed elsewhere? Thank you for your time and attention.
Ed Brayton
Dear Mr. Brayton,
There is no record,
in our files at least, that John Adams never wrote a paper entitled
"American Independence was achieved upon the principles of
Christianity." I think that you have probably found the source
of the attribution in Adams' letter to Jefferson of 28 June 1813,
but he refers to the "general Principles of Christianity"
and I would put the emphasis on the word "general." Since
John Adams wrote a great deal there are references to Christianity
scattered throughout his papers, but most are in the sense that
Adams uses in this letter. The first sentence of the last paragraph
of the letter to Jefferson that "I may have flattered myself
that my Sentiments were sufficiently known to have protected me
against Suspicions of narrow thoughts, contrasted Sentiments,
biggotted, enthusiastic or superstitious Principles civil political
philosophical, or ecclesiastical"; probably is as good a
representation of his thinking on the matter as you will find
anywhere.
If you have any other
questions let me know.
Gregg L. Lint
John Adams was a Unitarian
and not an orthodox Christian by any means - because like many others
he was disturbed by the corruption and dogma of the more orthodox churches.
Here,
the Unitarian Universalist Association explains what that is all
about:
In the first
centuries of the Christian era, Christians held a variety of beliefs
concerning the nature of Jesus. In 325 CE, however, the Council of
Nicea promulgated the doctrine of the Trinity-God as Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost-and denounced all those who believed differently as
heretics.
In the sixteenth
century, Christian humanists in Central Europe-in Poland and
Transylvania-studied the Bible closely. They could not find the
orthodox dogma of the Trinity in the texts. Therefore, they
affirmed-as did Jesus, according to the Gospels-the unity, or
oneness, of God. Hence they acquired the name Unitarian.
These
sixteenth-century Unitarians preached and organized churches
according to their own rational convictions in the face of
overwhelming orthodox opposition and persecution. They also
advocated religious freedom for others. In Transylvania, now part of
Romania, Unitarians persuaded the Diet (legislature) to pass the
Edict of Toleration. In 1568 the law declared that, since
"faith is the gift of God," people would not be forced to
adhere to a faith they did not choose.
In the seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries, radical reformers in Europe and America
also studied the Bible closely. They found only a few references to
hell, which they believed orthodox Christians had grossly
misinterpreted. They found, both in the Bible and in their own
hearts, an unconditionally loving God. They believed that God would
not deem any human being unworthy of divine love, and that salvation
was for all. Because of this emphasis on universal salvation, they
called themselves Universalists.
In the eighteenth
century, a dogmatic Calvinist insistence on predestination and human
depravity seemed to liberal Christians irrational, perverse, and
contrary to both biblical tradition and immediate experience.
Liberal Christians believe that human beings are free to heed an
inner summons of conscience and character. To deny human freedom is
to make God a tyrant and to undermine God-given human dignity.
In continuity with
our sixteenth-century Unitarian forebears, today we Unitarian
Universalists are determined to follow our own reasoned convictions,
no matter what others may say, and we embrace tolerance as a central
principle, inside and outside our own churches.
Also during the
seventeenth century, reformers in several European countries,
especially in England, could not find a biblical basis for the
authority and power of ecclesiastical bishops. They affirmed,
therefore, the authority and power of the Holy Spirit to guide the
local members. These reformers on the radical left wing of the
Reformation, seeking to "purify" the church of its
"corruptions," reclaimed what they believed to be ancient
church practice and named it congregational polity.
These same
seventeenth-century radicals did away with creeds, that is, with
precisely phrased statements of belief to which members had to
subscribe. Members joining their churches signed a simple and
broadly phrased covenant, or agreement, such as this one: "We
pledge to walk together in the ways of the Lord as it pleaseth Him
to make them known to us, now and in days to come."
Some of these
reformers, the Pilgrims and the Puritans, crossed the Atlantic and
braved the North American wilderness to establish covenanted
congregations whose direction belonged to the local members. Some of
these original congregational churches developed increasingly
liberal theological beliefs after 1750, and in the early nineteenth
century, many of them added the word Unitarian to their
names. Thus, some of the oldest churches in the United States,
including the First Parish of Plymouth, Massachusetts, became
Unitarian. In the late eighteenth century, other radicals who
believed in religious liberty and universal salvation organized
separate Universalist congregations.
In continuity with our independent forebears, today Unitarian
Universalist congregations are covenanted, not creedal.
Congregational polity is a basic doctrine. In the spirit of freedom,
we cherish honest dialogue and persuasion, not coercion. We embrace
democratic method as a central principle. Our local members unite to
engage in and to support ministries of their own choosing.
Also, John Adams wrote a lot of stuff.
He wrote this
too:
The question before
the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world
by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by
fictitious miracles?
-- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 20, 1815
The United States of
America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments
erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now
sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice,
imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this
event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the
formation of the American governments is at present little known or
regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an
object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons
employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in
any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work
upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it
will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived
merely by the use of reason and the senses.
-- John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of
Government of the United States of America" (1787-88), from
Adrienne Koch, ed., The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of
the American Experiment and a Free Society (1965) p. 258, quoted
from Ed and Michael Buckner, "Quotations
that Support the Separation of State and Church
Thirteen governments
[of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of
the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and
which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole
quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the
rights of mankind.
-- John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of
Government of the United States of America" (1787-88), from
Adrienne Koch, ed., The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of
the American Experiment and a Free Society (1965) p. 258, quoted
from Ed and Michael Buckner, "Quotations
that Support the Separation of State and Church"
We should begin by
setting conscience free. When all men of all religions ... shall
enjoy equal liberty, property, and an equal chance for honors and
power ... we may expect that improvements will be made in the human
character and the state of society.
-- John Adams, letter to Dr. Price, April 8, 1785, quoted
from Albert Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on
Religious Freedom (1991)
As I understand the
Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it
happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended
with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the
most bloody religion that ever existed?
-- John Adams, letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, December 27, 1816
The frightful engines
of ecclesiastical councils, of diabolical malice, and Calvinistical
good-nature never failed to terrify me exceedingly whenever I
thought of preaching.
-- John Adams, letter to his brother-in-law, Richard Cranch,
October 18, 1756, explaining why he rejected the ministry
I shall have liberty
to think for myself without molesting others or being molested
myself.
-- John Adams, letter to his brother-in-law, Richard Cranch,
August 29, 1756, explaining how his independent opinions would
create much difficulty in the ministry, in Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith
of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation (1987) p. 88, quoted
from Ed and Michael Buckner, "Quotations
that Support the Separation of State and Church"
When philosophic
reason is clear and certain by intuition or necessary induction, no
subsequent revelation supported by prophecies or miracles can
supersede it.
-- John Adams, from Rufus K. Noyes, Views of Religion,
quoted from from James
A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief
Indeed, Mr.
Jefferson, what could be invented to debase the ancient Christianism
which Greeks, Romans, Hebrews and Christian factions, above all the
Catholics, have not fraudulently imposed upon the public? Miracles
after miracles have rolled down in torrents.
-- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, December 3, 1813,
quoted from James
A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief
Cabalistic
Christianity, which is Catholic Christianity, and which has
prevailed for 1,500 years, has received a mortal wound, of which the
monster must finally die. Yet so strong is his constitution, that he
may endure for centuries before he expires.
-- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, July 16, 1814,
from James
A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief
I do not like the
reappearance of the Jesuits.... Shall we not have regular swarms of
them here, in as many disguises as only a king of the gipsies can
assume, dressed as printers, publishers, writers and schoolmasters?
If ever there was a body of men who merited damnation on earth and
in Hell, it is this society of Loyola's. Nevertheless, we are
compelled by our system of religious toleration to offer them an
asylum.
-- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, May 5, 1816
Let the human mind
loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and
dogmatism cannot confine it.
-- John Adams, letter to his son, John Quincy Adams, November
13, 1816, from James
A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief
Can a free government
possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion?
-- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, May 19, 1821, from
James A.
Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief
I almost shudder at
the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of
grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross.
Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!
-- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, from George Seldes,
The Great Quotations, also from James
A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief
The priesthood have,
in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning.... And, even
since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or
dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest
billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish
brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and
applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a
sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find
you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your
legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes.
-- John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814, quoted in Norman
Cousins, In God We Trust: The Religious Beliefs and Ideas of the
American Founding Fathers (1958), p. 108, quoted from James
A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief
The Church of Rome
has made it an article of faith that no man can be saved out of
their church, and all other religious sects approach this dreadful
opinion in proportion to their ignorance, and the influence of
ignorant or wicked priests.
-- John Adams, Diary and Autobiography
What havoc has been
made of books through every century of the Christian era? Where are
fifty gospels condemned as spurious by the bull of Pope Gelasius?
Where are forty wagon-loads of Hebrew manuscripts burned in France,
by order of another pope, because of suspected heresy? Remember the Index
Expurgato-rius, the Inquisition, the stake, the axe, the halter,
and the guillotine; and, oh! horrible, the rack! This is as bad, if
not worse, than a slow fire. Nor should the Lion's Mouth be
forgotten. Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious
frauds that has raged and triumphed for 1,500 years.
-- John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814, quoted by Norman
Cousins in In God We Trust: The Religious Beliefs and Ideas of
the American Founding Fathers (New York: Harper & Brothers,
1958), p. 106-7, from James
A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief
God is an essence
that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of,
there never will be any liberal science in the world.
-- John Adams, "this awful blashpemy" that he
refers to is the myth of the Incarnation of Christ, from Ira D.
Cardiff, What Great Men Think of Religion, quoted from James
A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief
Numberless have been
the systems of iniquity The most refined, sublime, extensive, and
astonishing constitution of policy that ever was conceived by the
mind of man was framed by the Romish clergy for the aggrandizement
of their own Order They even persuaded mankind to believe,
faithfully and undoubtingly, that God Almighty had entrusted them
with the keys of heaven, whose gates they might open and close at
pleasure ... with authority to license all sorts of sins and Crimes
... or withholding the rain of heaven and the beams of the sun; with
the management of earthquakes, pestilence, and famine; nay, with the
mysterious, awful, incomprehensible power of creating out of bread
and wine the flesh and blood of God himself. All these opinions they
were enabled to spread and rivet among the people by reducing their
minds to a state of sordid ignorance and staring timidity, and by
infusing into them a religious horror of letters and knowledge. Thus
was human nature chained fast for ages in a cruel, shameful, and
deplorable servitude....
Of all the nonsense and delusion which had
ever passed through the mind of man, none had ever been more
extravagant than the notions of absolutions, indelible characters,
uninterrupted successions, and the rest of those fantastical ideas,
derived from the canon law, which had thrown such a glare of
mystery, sanctity, reverence, and right reverend eminence and
holiness around the idea of a priest as no mortal could deserve ...
the ridiculous fancies of sanctified effluvia from episcopal
fingers.
-- John Adams, "A Dissertation on the Canon and the
Feudal Law," printed in the Boston Gazette, August 1765
We think ourselves
possessed, or, at least, we boast that we are so, of liberty of
conscience on all subjects, and of the right of free inquiry and
private judgment in all cases, and yet how far are we from these
exalted privileges in fact! There exists, I believe, throughout the
whole Christian world, a law which makes it blasphemy to deny or
doubt the divine inspiration of all the books of the Old and New
Testaments, from Genesis to Revelations. In most countries of Europe
it is punished by fire at the stake, or the rack, or the wheel. In
England itself it is punished by boring through the tongue with a
red-hot poker. In America it is not better; even in our own
Massachusetts, which I believe, upon the whole, is as temperate and
moderate in religious zeal as most of the States, a law was made in
the latter end of the last century, repealing the cruel punishments
of the former laws, but substituting fine and imprisonment upon all
those blasphemers upon any book of the Old Testament or New. Now,
what free inquiry, when a writer must surely encounter the risk of
fine or imprisonment for adducing any argument for investigating
into the divine authority of those books? Who would run the risk of
translating Dupuis? But I cannot enlarge upon this subject, though I
have it much at heart. I think such laws a great embarrassment,
great obstructions to the improvement of the human mind. Books that
cannot bear examination, certainly ought not to be established as
divine inspiration by penal laws. It is true, few persons appear
desirous to put such laws in execution, and it is also true that
some few persons are hardy enough to venture to depart from them.
But as long as they continue in force as laws, the human mind must
make an awkward and clumsy progress in its investigations. I wish
they were repealed. The substance and essence of Christianity, as I
understand it, is eternal and unchangeable, and will bear
examination forever, but it has been mixed with extraneous
ingredients, which I think will not bear examination, and they ought
to be separated. Adieu.
-- John Adams, one of his last letters to Thomas Jefferson,
January 23, 1825. Adams was 90, Jefferson 81 at the time; both died
on July 4th of the following year, on the 50th anniversary of the
signing of the Declaration of Independence. From Adrienne Koch, ed.,
The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American
Experiment and a Free Society (1965) p. 234. Quoted from Ed and
Michael Buckner, "Quotations
that Support the Separation of State and Church."
|
Wilson:
Early Presidents Not Religious
"The
founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of
the presidents who had thus far been elected [Washington;
Adams; Jefferson; Madison; Monroe; Adams; Jackson] not a one
had professed a belief in Christianity....
"Among all our presidents from
Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at
least not of more than Unitarianism."
-- The Reverend Doctor Bird
Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, in a
sermon preached in October, 1831. One might expect a modern
defender of the Evangelical to play with the meaning of
"Christianity," making it refer only to a specific
brand of orthodoxy, first sentence quoted in John E.
Remsberg, "Six Historic Americans," second
sentence quoted in Paul F. Boller, George Washington
& Religion, pp. 14-15
|
|
The
Treaty of Tripoli
Signed by John Adams
"As the
government of the United States is not, in any sense,
founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no
character of enmity against the laws, religion or
tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] ... it is declared ...
that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever
product an interruption of the harmony existing between the
two countries....
"The United States is not a
Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a
Mohammedan nation."
-- Treaty
of Tripoli (1797), carried unanimously by the Senate and
signed into law by John Adams (the original language
is by Joel Barlow, U.S. Consul)
|
Need I say more?
In summary, a quick examination of the
exhibits shows that this lawsuit is more of a bogus hit job that is classic right-wing
media/Far Right garbage rather than a
genuine grievance against Principal Vidmar. (And folks, this type
of stuff is nothing new for the right-wing. They do it all the time.
For example, remember the big
lie spread by them after 9/11 about the National Education
Association?).
2.5
Why Williams' "supplemental materials" are worth being
concerned about
As I have clearly shown in Sec
2.4, Mr. Williams' material has a strong bias towards promoting
God, Religion and Christianity. Some of the material is bogus
or dubious in origin. The material that can be sourced shows a complete
disregard for providing young students a well rounded perspective on
what the founders of the United States really thought, not just about
God or religion, but also about how God or religion should interact
with the business of Government. It tells me that the principal
may indeed have had good justification for doing what she
did.
As more information comes my way I will
publish it here. Please continue to check back over the next week. And
parents or teachers, if you know more about this issue, especially the
complaints against Mr. Williams, please
send it to me (I will preserve your anonymity).
3. WHO IS
BEHIND ADF (THE GROUP THAT HAS FILED THE LAWSUIT AGAINST CUSD)?
Let's first look at ADF at a
10,000-foot level and then explore some of its founders in greater
detail.
ALLIANCE
DEFENSE FUND
The PFAW
page Dave mentions provides some highlights showing the right wing
nuts responsible for this outfit ADF.
15333
N. Pima Road, Suite 165
Scottsdale AZ 85260
Phone: 1-800-TELL-ADF
www.alliancedefensefund.org
ADF’s Founders:
- Bill
Bright, founder of Campus Crusade for Christ
- Larry
Burkett, founder of Christian Financial Concepts
- Rev.
James Dobson, founder of Focus
on the Family
- Rev.
D. James Kennedy, founder of Coral Ridge
Ministries
- Marlin
Maddoux, President of International Christian
Media
- Don
Wildmon, founder of American
Family Association
(And 25+ other ministries)
President and General Counsel: Alan Sears
Date of founding: 1994
Finances: $15,411,093 (2001 budget)
|
|
They also have this additional
detail that is worth keeping in mind.
- Unique to ADF is
their collective of high-power founders, including wealthy
right-wing organizations such as Dobson’s Focus on the Family
and D. James Kennedy’s Coral Ridge Ministries.
- The ADF embodies the
beliefs of its founders, harnessing the efforts of a cadre of
right-wing groups that have hundreds of million dollars at their
disposal. All of these groups are influential members of the
Right, they are pro-life and anti-gay and their ultimate goal is
to see the law and government of the US enshrined with
conservative Christian principles.
- The relationship
between ADF and it’s founders is one of mutual self-interest,
the ADF has access to the resources and networking of these large
organizations, meanwhile the large organizations have an endless
supply of lawyers at their command.
- ADF’s strength
goes beyond their budget, and extends much further due to their
influence with well-funded religious-right groups.
- Two issues that all
of the founders have in common is their work against the right to
abortion and gays and lesbians. They are particularly tireless in
attacking any and every attempt by gays and lesbians to have
families, domestic partnership or civil unions, or be protected
from discrimination in employment or housing.
More about ADF here.
ADF'S
RECONSTRUCTIONIST TIES
In October 2001, Rob Boston at
Americans United for the Separation of Church and State wrote
a chilling review of the extreme fundamentalist (just when
you though fundamentalist was bad enough!) Christian
Reconstructionists and their influence on today's Christian Right and
the powers-that-be in Washington (almost exclusively Republican
lawmakers). Let me quote some extracts here (with bold text being my
emphasis):
The Rev.
William Einwechter has a novel solution to the problem of
incorrigible juvenile delinquents -- stone them to death.
Einwechter
says the stoning penalty is clearly called for in the Bible
(Deuteronomy 21:18-21), and he's not ashamed to say that the
punishment should still apply today.
...
Einwechter's piece appeared in Chalcedon Report, a magazine
published by Christian Reconstructionists, the most aggressive and
extreme wing of the Religious Right. Currently serving as vice
president of an organization called the National Reform Association
(NRA), Einwechter's writings frequently appear on the group's
website (www.natreformassn.org).
Reconstructionists
-- also called "theonomists" or advocates of
"dominion theology" -- want to impose "biblical
law" (or, more accurately, their interpretation of biblical
law) on the United States. Under their view, democracy should be
scrapped and replaced with a theocratic state based on a literal
reading of the Old Testament's legal code.
In a
"reconstructed" society, government would be dramatically
scaled back. Most government institutions, including public schools
and various welfare/social service programs, would be abolished and
replaced with church-run efforts. Political leaders would look to
the Bible, not the Constitution, as the nation's governing document.
As if
this were not controversial enough, Christian Reconstructionists
also advocate an extreme vision of social policy. Citing passages
from the Old Testament Books of Deuteronomy and Leviticus, many
Reconstructionists would institute the death penalty for a number of
offenses, among them striking or cursing a parent, adultery,
homosexuality, "unchastity," rape of a betrothed virgin,
witchcraft, "incorrigible" juvenile delinquency, blasphemy
and propagation of "false" religious doctrines. Some favor
stoning as the biblically preferred means of execution.
Reconstructionists
also argue that the Bible sanctions some forms of slavery and
accords women a second-class status. One Reconstructionist writer,
Steve Schlissel, has asserted that the "God-ordained
order" places "God above all, man joyfully under God,
woman lovingly under man, and the animals at bottom."
Reconstructionists
have little use for separation of church and state. Einwechter
recently asserted that the separation concept be thrown aside in
favor of something he calls "national confessionalism."
...
Einwechter dismisses America's traditional model of a secular
government that protects the rights of believers and nonbelievers
alike. "Secularism is so patently false," he writes,
"that it is amazing that this is the view of church and state
that is supported by so many Christians."
Although
Reconstructionism may seem so far out as to be easily dismissed, the
philosophy has in fact provided the intellectual basis for much of
the Religious Right's thinking and political activism. Stripped of
its more extreme features, watered-down versions of
Reconstructionism are the driving force behind groups like the
Christian Coalition, whose leaders, during the group's early
years, talked openly of the need for far-right Christians to take
control of government from local school boards all the way to the
White House.
...
The National Reform Association, a Pittsburgh, Pa.-based group,
represents a new wave of Reconstructionist thinking. Christian
Reconstructionists trace their roots to 16th-century French church
reformer John Calvin, but their modern spiritual grandfather was
Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987), an American theologian and author
whose ideas laid the philosophical foundations of Reconstructionism
-- but did not necessarily call for full-blown political activism.
In
1959, ex-missionary Rousas John Rushdoony began popularizing Van
Til's ideas when he published a seminal work of Reconstructionism
titled By What Standard? An Analysis of the Philosophy of
Cornelius Van Til. Rushdoony subsequently coined the term
"Christian Reconstructionism" and in 1966 founded the
Chalcedon Foundation, the first Reconstructionist think tank.
...
But Rushdoony, tucked away in an overlooked corner of rural
California, never had much of a direct impact on national politics.
Nor did he seem to want to.
...
By contrast, the new breed of Christian Reconstructionists are eager
to jump head first into politics, and increasingly they are finding
the doors of Congress and the White House wide open to them.
NRA
activists made their first venture to Washington on March 1, 2000,
where they met with a number of Republican lawmakers. Ziegler,
Einwechter and two others "reestablished the lobbying arm of
the National Reform Association in the nation's capital" during
the visit, Ziegler reported.
The four
met personally with Reps. Asa Hutchison (R-Ark.), John Hostettler
(R-Ind.), J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.), Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Steve
LaTourette (R-Ohio) and met with staffers of other House and Senate
members, including Ohio senators George Voinovich and Mike DeWine
and Don Nickels of Oklahoma, all Republicans.
Five
months later, Ziegler, Einwechter and other group leaders returned
to Capitol Hill. Reporting on the July 13, 2000, visit, Einwechter
and Ziegler proudly noted that they had met with staffers from the
offices of then-Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), Sens. James M.
Inhofe (R-Okla.), John Ashcroft (R-Mo.), Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), Ben
Campbell (R-Colo.), Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.), Tim Hutchison (R-Ark.),
Bob Smith (R-N.H.), Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), Spencer Abraham (R-Mich.),
Phil Gramm (R-Texas) and Jesse Helms (R-N.C.).
During
the second meeting, NRA representatives met personally with several
House members, including Reps. James Traficant (D-Ohio), Steve
Chabot (R-Ohio) and Steve Buyer (R-Ind.). They met with staffers
from other offices, including House Majority Leader Dick Armey
(R-Texas) and Reps. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), Steve Largent (R-Okla.) and
Chris Smith (R-N.J.)
Following
the November elections, with the landscape in Washington greatly
changed, the Reconstructionists came back. On April 25, 2001, the
group again met with several House members, including Majority Whip
DeLay, House Republican Conference Chair J.C. Watts (R-Okla.) and
Reps. Mark Souder (R-Ind.), Pat Tiberi (R-Ohio) and LaTourette.
During
the last visit, the Christian Reconstructionist delegation also
stopped at the White House, where it was warmly received by an
official in the Office of Public Policy and Liaison; they also
stopped in to visit with the staff of Ashcroft, now serving as
attorney general.
While
meeting with DeLay, Ziegler reported, the NRA officials made plans
to sponsor a "biblical worldview seminar to be conducted at the
Capitol" for congressional staffers. Although a date for the
event has yet to be announced, Ziegler says it will occur next year.
He also hopes to meet with President Bush and Vice President Dick
Cheney later this year or next.
This
type of access and influence is nothing short of remarkable,
considering the extreme views taken by some Reconstructionists. Some
activists in the movement, including Rushdoony and Atlanta-area
leader Gary DeMar, who runs a group called American Vision (www.americanvision.org),
have asserted that the Bible mandates the death penalty for
homosexuals and doctors who provide abortions. Asked about the
matter on Atlanta radio station WSB in 1991, DeMar offered cold
comfort by saying that gays would be executed only if two witnesses
had observed them engaging in homosexual acts.
Ziegler
denies that he goes that far. He told Church & State
that the NRA advocates a type of political libertarianism with a
small federal government and power based in the states. Under this
model, he insisted, local control would prevail.
"If
you're asking me if a homosexual should be executed just for being a
homosexual, I would say no," Ziegler said. "But if he is
harming individuals through actions like rape, then there should be
some penalty."
Zielger
conceded that under "national confessionalism," states
could legally apply the death penalty for certain offenses, such as
homosexuality or providing abortions. But other states, he said,
would retain the right to go in the opposite direction.
...
In duplicating a model that worked so well for the Christian
Coalition for many years, Ziegler unintentionally underscores just
how much influence the Reconstructionists have had on the nation's
leading Religious Right groups. Indeed, it seems unlikely that the
Religious Right would have become as powerful as it did without the
intellectual platform built for it by Reconstructionists.
In the
late 1970s and '80s, a large number of conservative evangelicals
entered politics and sought a biblical basis for their actions.
Reconstructionists had already provided that justification.
Robert
Billings, an early Religious Right strategist and one of the
founders of the Moral Majority, said it best in 1980 when he stated
bluntly, "If it weren't for [Rushdoony's] books, none of us
would be here."
More
recently, Reconstructionist writer Gary North, Rushdoony's
son-in-law, commenting on Rushdoony's death, told the Los
Angeles Times, "Rushdoony's writings are the source
of many of the core ideas of the New Christian Right's political
activism."
Television
preacher Pat Robertson also owes a debt to the Reconstructionists. Although
Robertson has always denied being a Reconstructionist, Rushdoony
once made an appearance on Robertson's show and much of the
televangelist's rhetoric about Christians taking control echoes
theonomist rhetoric. In 1999 Robertson told his "700 Club"
audience that he reads a newsletter produced by North.
(Although
North, a prolific writer and founder of the Institute for Christian
Economics, married Rushdoony's daughter, the two men became
estranged. North spent much of 1999 predicting the collapse of
American society over the "Y2K" problem and relocated to
an isolated compound in rural Arkansas to ride out the expected
civil unrest. Despite the failed prediction, he still publishes
investment newsletters and pontificates on other matters. The
Dallas Morning News on Feb 3 published a North opinion piece
criticizing the film version of Tim LaHaye's "Left Behind"
novel.)
D.
James Kennedy, the TV preacher who runs Coral Ridge Ministries in
Fort Lauderdale, Fla., also has Reconstructionist ties. In May of
1996, Kennedy addressed a banquet sponsored by DeMar's American
Vision. The group's newsletter noted that "American Vision has
enjoyed a wonderful friendship and working relationship with Dr.
Kennedy and others at Coral Ridge for many years."
In
addition, George Grant, one of the most vociferous and anti-gay
of the Reconstructionists, is a former vice president at Kennedy's
Coral Ridge Ministries and still lectures at Kennedy's Knox
Theological Seminary. Both Kennedy's ministry and the Christian
Coalition have sold copies of a Grant book, Legislating
Immorality, which laments the fact that legal codes calling for
the death penalty for gay people have been abandoned.
Grant
also speaks regularly at events sponsored by the Alliance
Defense Fund, an umbrella legal group created by prominent Religious
Right leaders (Kennedy, James Dobson and Donald Wildmon among them).
Grant addresses law students every summer as part of the Alliance's
"Blackstone Fellowship" program.
Dobson's
Focus on the Family currently sells Grant's Grand Illusions: The
Legacy of Planned Parenthood, a book that attacks reproductive
rights and calls the separation of church and state "a
myth." FOF also sells a taped interview with Grant. (Dobson has
stated that in 1996 he voted for Howard Phillips, the presidential
candidate of the Reconstructionist-oriented U.S. Taxpayers Party.)
Reconstructionists
have also influenced various ultra-conservative forces that oppose
public education. Several high profile attacks against public
schools and teachers unions, especially the National Education
Association, have come from the pen of Reconstructionist Samuel L.
Blumenfeld. His books, including N.E.A.: Trojan Horse in
American Education, which labels the NEA an "educational
Mafia," are frequently sold on right-wing websites.
Even
allegedly intellectual conservative writers have lauded the
movement. Following Rushdoony's death, Peter J. Leithart, a
professor of theology and literature at New St. Andrews College in
Moscow, Idaho, wrote a fawning piece in The Weekly Standard
saluting Rushdoony and asserting that he had "as great an
impact on American life as other, better known American theologians
of the past century."
It's not
surprising that far-right publications and television evangelists
like Robertson and Kennedy, who take extreme views on many social
issues, would not hesitate to laud the Reconstructionists. What's
more alarming is that some influential politicians are starting to
do the same.
Although
it's not well known, President George W. Bush's former welfare guru,
Marvin Olasky, has clearly been influenced by Reconstructionists.
Olasky, who coined the term "compassionate conservatism,"
has written several books over the years studded with references to
Reconstructionist writers like Rushdoony, North, DeMar and Grant.
(Grant, is a former columnist for Olasky's World magazine.)
Olasky
has never publicly admitted that he is a Reconstructionist. But his
books and articles often parrot Reconstructionist views, including
his belief that churches, not the government, should provide for the
poor. Olasky also agrees with the Reconstructionists on some social
issues. In one tome, Fighting for Liberty and Virtue
(1995), he goes so far as to adopt the Reconstructionist view
defending slavery, noting that Scripture "does not simply ban
all of its modes."
Ironically,
Olasky's influence in Washington may be waning at the same time more
overt Reconstructionists are winning new entrée. He has become
disenchanted with the first major religious thrust of the Bush
administration -- the so-called "faith-based initiative."
Olasky believes that the Bush approach would foster too much
government interference in church affairs and lead to state control.
In
Washington, the Reconstructionists' outreach has been almost
exclusively focused on the Republican Party. This is especially
noteworthy, considering that the movement has in the past tried to
form a political unit -- the Constitution Party (formerly the U.S.
Taxpayers Party), headed by Howard Phillips, a Jewish convert to
Reconstructionism and former Nixon administration official. (Grant
was also instrumental in the formation of the party.)
Although
Phillips sits on the National Reform Association's advisory board,
Ziegler bluntly admits that his party is not a viable vehicle for
political action. (The party has run Phillips for president three
times since 1992, in 2000 garnering only 98,020 votes nationwide,
less then one-tenth of 1 percent.)
"My
mantra is, there are two trains going to Washington -- it's the
Republican and Democratic parties, and we have to look at
them," said Ziegler. "They are the vehicles....I support
Howard and what he does, but I look at his party as kind of a
lobbying operation. At the end of the day, if you really want to be
effective in electing people you've got to be dealing with the major
parties."
Ziegler
clearly puts more emphasis on the GOP. In late 1999 he threatened to
run for Congress against LaTourette in the Republican primary,
charging that the congressman was too moderate. He later dropped the
idea after a county GOP official convinced him that a hard-right
candidate could not carry the district. Ziegler now says the move
was just an attempt to get LaTourette to take his movement
seriously, and notes that he has since met with the congressman.
A
Ziegler run would not have been unprecedented. Reconstructionists
have had some success in state politics. In California and Texas,
well-heeled far-right activists Howard F. Ahmanson Jr. and Steven
Hotze, both of whom have ties to Reconstructionist groups, have
successfully assisted candidates seeking state and local offices.
...
Reconstructionists have
also been politically active in Ziegler's home base of Ohio. In 1996
they helped elect Ron Young to the Ohio House of Representatives,
and Zielger boasts that his activists knocked off an entrenched
Republican in the primary to do it. Young had previously run for
Congress on the U.S. Taxpayers Party ticket and, during that race,
brought Atlanta Reconstructionist DeMar to speak on his behalf at
local appearances.
James W.
Watkins, a United Church of Christ minister in northeastern Ohio who
has opposed the Reconstructionists' political efforts, notes that
movement backers have learned to downplay the more controversial
aspects of their platform and focus instead on more palatable
pocketbook positions that may resonate with many voters.
For
example, Watkins recalls that during Young's campaign, the
Reconstructionists steered clear of controversial religious issues.
Instead, they highlighted Young's opposition to a highly unpopular
vehicle emissions test.
"They
actually ran a very good, carefully organized telephone campaign
through the entire district," said Watkins. "Every
registered voter was called; I even got a call....They know what it
takes to win, at least to people around here on a local legislative
level. They put in the resources and the time and effort to do
that."
Watkins
said he encountered difficulty convincing people that the
Reconstructionists are extreme. "If you read the books and the
stuff they have written, when they talk about freedom or other
American concepts they are talking about it inside their theocratic
framework," said Watkins. "They don't really believe that
true democracy exists outside their theocratic framework. It's like
talking to the communists. They could talk about elections and
democracy, but they had their own definition for that kind of thing.
You had to be careful because you would think they were talking
about the same kind of things you were. You always have to bear that
in mind when you're talking to Reconstructionists."
...
Rob Boston has some additional
information in this
June 2004 update on the ADF's Reconstructionist ties:
At least one ADF
project, the Blackstone Fellowship for law students, has ties to the
Christian Reconstructionist movement. Reconstructionists are the
most extreme manifestation of the Religious Right in America. They
advocate a society anchored in "biblical law" and would
literally base U.S. law on the legal code of the Old Testament. In
their ideal society, offenses like blasphemy, fornication,
"witchcraft," homosexuality, worshipping "false
gods" and incorrigible juvenile delinquency would merit the death
penalty. In other words, Reconstructionists long to replace America's
secular democracy with a harsh fundamentalist Christian theocracy.
(See "Operation Potomac," October 2001 Church &
State.)
...
Reconstructionists
have appeared at the ADF's Blackstone events and continue to do so.
Past Blackstone speakers include George Grant, a leading
Reconstructionist theorist known for his extreme views. In his 1993
book Legislating Immorality, the Tennessee-based Grant
laments the fact that legal codes calling for the death penalty for
gay people have been abolished.
Gary DeMar, a
Georgia-based Reconstructionist who endorsed the idea of the
death penalty for gays in his 1987 book The Ruler of Nations:
Biblical Principles for Government, spoke at a previous ADF
seminar and is scheduled to appear at this year's Blackstone event,
which takes place this month.
Jeffery J. Ventrella,
the ADF's senior vice president of strategic training and
coordinator of the Blackstone program, has published several
articles in The Chalcedon Report, the leading
Reconstructionist journal, which was founded by Rushdoony. Ventrella,
who describes himself as an "ordained Ruling Elder in the
Orthodox Presbyterian Church" in his ADF bio, also teaches
classes at Bahnsen Theological Seminary, a correspondence school
in Placentia, Calif., named after the late Greg Bahnsen, one of the
key architects of the Reconstructionist movement.
In one Chalcedon
Report article, Ventrella blasted the increasing acceptance of
gays in corporate America.
...
In an e-mail to Church
& State, Ventrella said he is not a Reconstructionist
and does not favor executing gays. He downplayed Blackstone
appearances by Grant and DeMar.
"Neither
gentleman addressed issues relating to homosexuality; each gentleman
addressed issues pertaining to constitutional history and
governmental structure," Ventrella wrote.
ADF president, Alan
E. Sears, did not respond to requests for an interview.
For many years,
Christian Reconstructionism was seen as an obscure theology,
debated and discussed by a radical but small corps of true
believers. Through ties to groups like the Alliance Defense Fund,
the extremist adherents of Christian Reconstructionism could
gain a boost where it matters most – in the nation's courtrooms.
ADF's
FINANCIERS
Not much is publicly known about the
key financiers of ADF (apart from rank-and-file conservatives who
donate to ADF especially because it is a registered non-profit
organization). The only information I have been able to find so far is
this
partial list from Media Transparency which indicates that at least
the following foundations have provided five-figure sums to ADF in
2003 OR prior to that - Bill
and Berniece Grewcock Foundation, Richard
and Helen DeVos Foundation, and the Lynde
and Harry Bradley Foundation (apparently the largest conservative
funding group in the U.S.).
I have discussed ADF's tax-exempt
status in some additional detail in a separate article: "Church-State
Separation in the United States: Religion in Public Schools and the
Legal/Off-Courtroom Strategies of the Christian Right". For
the ADF discussion, click
here.
ADF'S FOUNDERS
Now, let's look at a few of the
founders in more detail.
(THE
LATE) BILL BRIGHT
As this
website reminds us (bold text is my emphasis):
When Falwell wrote of a
1995 Promise Keepers rally he hosted, "It appears that America's
anti-Biblical feminist movement is at last dying, thank God, and is
possibly being replaced by a Christ centered men's movement," or
when Bill Bright said that "wives should be treated with love
and respect and included in decision making, but the man is the head
of the household and women are responders" or that Supreme Court
decisions have too "sharply defined the separation of church and
state" in matters such as state-sponsored prayer in schools or
the teaching of evolution rather than creationism, I winced.
(THE
LATE) MARLIN MADDOUX
Scoobie
Davis (also behind Theocracy Watch) reminds us about this
fraudster:
...one of the
founders listed is the late Marlin Maddox. When I monitored the
sectarian right's radio programs in the 1990's, Maddox was front and
center in the various paranoid Clinton conspiracy theories, e.g.,
the Clinton Body Count, Foster, Mena. I wish I had been a fly on the
wall when Maddox went to his "reward" and had to do some 'splaining
to God.
JAMES
DOBSON
Americans United for Separation of
Church and State (a group that has done such excellent work on this
topic) has some
choice quotes from Dobson. Here are some of them:
"Children are
the prize to the winners in the second great civil war. Those who
control what young people are taught and what they experience –
what they see, hear, think, and believe – will determine the
future course for the nation." Children
At Risk: The Battle for the Hearts and Minds of Our Kids, Word
Publishing, 1990, p. 35 (coauthored with Gary Bauer)
...
"Do we as Christians need to be liked so badly that we chose to
remain silent in response to the killing of babies, the spreading of
homosexual propaganda to our children, the distribution of condoms
and immoral advice to our teenagers, and the undermining of marriage
as an institution? Would Jesus have ignored these wicked activities?
Would the One who severely threatened those who would harm a child
have ignored the bloody hands of today’s abortionists? No, I am
convinced that he would be the first to condemn sin in high places,
and I doubt if he would have minced words in making the point."
Christianity
Today, June 19, 1995
"The world of
the Christian activist can be a very lonely place. War is always
tough on those who are called to fight it." Christianity
Today, June 19, 1995
"[Tolerance is
a] kind of watchword of those who reject the concept of right and
wrong…. It’s a kind of a desensitization to evil of all
varieties. Everything has become acceptable to those who are
tolerant." Focus
On The Family radio broadcast, Nov. 4, 1996
"I rarely do
political endorsements, but I’m making an exception now to
personally endorse Randall Terry because I believe in this man. He’s
been a great friend of the family who is now running for election to
the U.S. House of Representatives. I wish we had a dozen more like
him in Congress." Endorsement
letter for anti-abortion extremist Randall Terry, 1998
...
"Unfortunately, the terms multiculturalism and diversity
have come to have very different meanings when used by the
cultural elite. They are a kind of Trojan horse in which to smuggle
the concept of moral relativism into the heartland of Western
culture." Solid
Answers (Tyndale House Publishers), 1997, p. 537
"Without
question in my mind, the greatest danger to our moral perspective
and to the family and indeed to the nation is the homosexual
activist movement.... Homosexuals want it all. They want everything.…
They want it all, and what’s scary about it is they’re getting
it all." Address
to the Family Research Council Washington Briefing, March 15, 2001
(reported in the May 2001 Church & State)
Like the rest of his ilk, Dobson
isn't about to let facts get in the way of accusations. An
example:
In his opinion
column, Garry Wills revisited the wild claim of conservative
leader James Dobson, whose book Children at Risk reported
that the White House distributed a workbook to schools asking
children "to draw the world's largest penis, compare white
and black penises, and show their parents making love." (I'm
quoting Wills.) Dobson has never been able to substantiate this
claim, despite repeated requests for evidence. And Wills persists
in pointing out the credibility gap because the book's
introduction was written by William Bennett. "Bennett goes
about denouncing Clinton as a liar," Wills says, "but he
promotes the kind of lies that right-wingers want to hear."
Garry Wills spoke about this here:
Yet Dobson is as
wacky as they come. In a book he co-authored with Gary Bauer, he
made outrageous claims that he has refused, under many challenges,
to back up -- for instance, that the White House mailed out
instructions to schools for children to draw the largest penis
they can imagine.
Dobson also, in the
same book, said that humanism was to blame for the man who had his
own daughter artificially inseminated with his semen so he could
take the kidneys out of her 7-month-old fetus to get a compatible
kidney implant for himself. This incest-and-murder story, from a
man who calls himself "Doctor," supposes that a
7-month-old fetus kidney will support a grown man.
Dobson's other controversial positions
are highlighted here.
Nowadays known as Radical
Cleric Mullah Dobson, he is a major Washington power player these
days - and was actually covered recently by Josh Marshall at Talkingpointsmemo:
And
more from
Mullah Dobson,from The Daily Oklahoman, Oct. 23rd, 2004 ...
Dobson warned those
attending the Friday afternoon rally at Oklahoma Christian
University that the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman
must be protected.
He cited examples
of countries such as Norway that have allowed same-sex couples to
marry as proof that fewer men and women get married. Dobson said
80 percent of children are born out of wedlock in Norway.
“Homosexuals are
not monogamous. They want to destroy the institution of
marriage,” Dobson said.
“It will destroy
marriage. It will destroy the Earth.”
Dobson urged rally
attendees to reach out to homosexuals and “bring them to
Jesus.”
He also urged
supporters in attendance to fast and pray on the Thursday and
weekend before the Nov. 2 election and to go to the polls to elect
Coburn to the Senate.
Dobson said a vote
for Carson, “even if you think he’s right,” would be a vote
for U.S. Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D.; Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass.; and
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont.
“Patrick Leahy is
a ‘God’s people’ hater,” Dobson said.
“I don’t know
if he hates God, but he hates God’s people.”
Dobson said Coburn
was exactly the kind of senator Oklahoma needs.
“I am passionate
in my support of Dr. Tom Coburn,” Dobson said.
“This man
absolutely has to be sent back to Washington.”
Also on hand to
support Coburn, U.S. Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Warr Acres, said more
lawmakers who believe in “the divine origins of the country”
are needed.
Mullah James Dobson,
as Andrew Sullivan described
him, "the social policy director of the Bush
administration."
And as for this 'mullah'
issue, most folks who wrote in didn't seem to catch that I had
already tipped my hand when I wrote that I was "mulling"
the question. But everyone who wrote in seemed to agree that it
wasn't a problem. One interesting suggestion though was that we
might prefer the more precise and non-sectarian phrases sometimes
used in the media to describe the sundry Dobsonites and Dobsonians
of the Middle East.
So for instance, we
might say "radical cleric James Dobson." Or since, Dobson
is not himself a man of the cloth, we might say 'radical cleric Pat
Robertson.'
D.
JAMES KENNEDY
This guy is not far behind.
Americans United for Separation of
Church and State has some
choice quotes from Kennedy. Here are some of them:
"This is our
land. This is our world. This is our heritage, and with God’s
help, we shall reclaim this nation for Jesus Christ. And no power on
earth can stop us." Character
& Destiny: A Nation In Search of Its Soul, (Zondervan Publishing
House, 1997) (written with Jim Nelson Black)
"How much more
forcefully can I say it? The time has come, and it is long overdue,
when Christians and conservatives
and all men and women who believe in the birthright of freedom must
rise up and reclaim America for Jesus Christ." Character
& Destiny: A Nation In Search of Its Soul, (Zondervan Publishing
House, 1997) (written with Jim Nelson Black)
"Christians did
not start the culture war but...we are going to end it. That is a
fact, and the Bible assures us of victory." Character
& Destiny: A Nation In Search of Its Soul, (Zondervan Publishing
House, 1997) (written with Jim Nelson Black)
"Not all the
educators in our public schools and universities are deliberately
deceitful, not all of them want to destroy this nation, but many do.
The major teachers’ unions certainly do." Character
& Destiny: A Nation In Search of Its Soul, (Zondervan Publishing
House, 1997) (written with Jim Nelson Black)
...
"Just a few years ago, there were as many as ten thousand
Communist professors in American universities. The average person
never saw any of them, and many would doubt the truth of that
statistic. But I can assure you it is true." Character
& Destiny: A Nation In Search of Its Soul, (Zondervan Publishing
House, 1997) (written with Jim Nelson Black)
"Teachers in
many of our public schools have acceded to the policies of the
liberal teachers’ unions to make sure that students from
kindergarten through high school will be stripped of any sense of
moral or ethical absolutes. Right and wrong are non-issues in our
public schools." Character
& Destiny: A Nation In Search of Its Soul, (Zondervan Publishing
House, 1997) (written with Jim Nelson Black)
"Every new
advance and every step taken by science confirm not evolution but
the Genesis account of creation. Yet evolution still continues to be
taught as fact.... Thus, the honorable place that had been given to
human beings by God is surreptitiously aborted, and they are dragged
down into the slime." Character
& Destiny: A Nation In Search of Its Soul, (Zondervan Publishing
House, 1997) (written with Jim Nelson Black)
"If we are
committed and involved in taking back the nation for Christian moral
values, and if we are willing to risk the scorn of the secular media
and the bureaucracy that stand against us, there is no doubt we can
witness the dismantling of not just the Berlin Wall but the even
more diabolical ‘wall of separation’ that has led to increasing
secularization, godlessness, immorality, and corruption in our
country." Character
& Destiny: A Nation In Search of Its Soul, (Zondervan Publishing
House, 1997) (written with Jim Nelson Black)
"God forbid that
we who were born into the blessings of a Christian America should
let our patrimony slip like sand through our fingers and leave to
our children the bleached bones of a godless secular society. But
whatever the outcome, one thing is certain: God has called us to
engage the enemy in this culture war. That is our challenge
today." Character
& Destiny: A Nation In Search of Its Soul, (Zondervan Publishing
House, 1997) (written with Jim Nelson Black)
Rob Boston wrote
this excellent piece in Church and State back in 1993 (bold
text is my emphasis - also see the red highlight):
Richard J. Barnett
was flipping TV channels one weekend a few months ago when a program
on a local religious station caught his eye.
The Sacramento
resident watched as a young, dark-haired man on his television
screen blasted separation of church and state and called for a
return to America's "Christian heritage."
Barnett. who serves
as vice president of the Church-State Council, an organization
affiliated with the Seventh-day Adventist Church, was suspicious. In
his job Barnett works with church-state issues every day, and much
of what he heard on the television that day just didn't ring true.
At the end of his
presentation, the speaker began hawking copies of a videotape
titled, "Foundations of American Government." Curious,
Barnett ordered the tape. What he got was a 12 minute attack on
church-state separation that attempts to "prove" that the
concept is a myth and that founders like Thomas Jefferson, James
Madison and Alexander Hamilton really meant for government to
reflect "Christian" principles.
The man behind the
tape turned out to be David Barton, a fundamentalist activist who
makes a living attacking separation of church and state. The video
Barnett received is a shorter version of Barton's one hour
documentary "America' s Godly Heritage." Both tapes in
turn are based on Barton's 1989 book The Myth of Separation.
Even though the book
and videos are riddled with factual errors, half truths and
distortions, they have become the weapons of choice for
Religious Right activists in their ongoing war against separation of
church and state. In recent months, Americans United members
from around the country have discovered letters to the editor in
their local newspapers repeating Barton's charges. The videos
have aired on public access and religious stations from coast to
coast, and crates of the books have been shipped to evangelical
churches for distribution.
Several Religious
Right Groups are promoting the books and videos, including
branches of Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition. Last August
Barton spoke at a statewide gathering of the Christian Coalition in
Texas. Last September he was interviewed by James Dobson of Focus
on the Family, a Colorado based Religious Right group, on
Dobson's daily radio program (heard on nearly 2,000 stations
nationwide).
In addition, the Rev,
Jerry Falwell has praised Barton's book from his televised pulpit
and ordered hundreds of copies for the Liberty University book
store. Boosted by this momentum, the Texas activist has been
traveling the country and making personal appearances before church
groups, further spreading his anti-separationist ideas.
In Utah, the state
branch of the Eagle Forum used Barton's materials to pitch an
anti-separationist argument during a recent unsuccessful effort to
water down the strict church-state provisions of the state
constitution. According to Utah church-state separation activist
Chris Alien, Eagle Forum members sent a 20-page document based on
Barton's book to all members of the Utah legislature and to members
of a special Religious Liberty Committee that had been formed to
examine issue.
Another incident that
demonstrates the far reach of Barton's ideas occurred last year in
Colorado during the state Republican Party convention. David S.
Nelson, state director of the Colorado branch of the Christian
Coalition distributed fliers asserting that "The Separation of
Church and State is (1) Not a teaching of the founding fathers; (2)
Not an historical teaching; (3) Not a teaching of law (except in
recent years); (4) Not a biblical teaching." This language is
lifted word for word from Barton's tape.
Nelson also repeated
inaccurate Barton charges about Thomas Jefferson's "wall of
separation between church and state" phrase. Nelson claimed
that Jefferson said the "wall is a one dimensional wall [Barton
actually used the term "one directional"]. It keeps the
government from running the church but it makes sure that Christian
principles will always stay in government." (In truth,
Jefferson said no such thing. See [article below] for a refutation
of this myth and other Barton errors.)
An updated 1992
version of the video relations omits the "one-directional
wall" mistake. Barton also corrected some other errors that
appear in the original 1990 version.. For instance, in the 1990
video, Barton mistakenly claimed that Canada does not give tax
exemptions to churches. In fact, Canada follows a system similar to
that of the United States.
But the new tape
still contains plenty of errors and distortions. And, because
numerous copies of the early version remain in circulation, its
flawed history keeps popping up around the country. A letter to
the editor that appeared in The Ann Arbor News on Jan. 24 is
typical of many that have given Barton's distorted views wide
circulation. Headlined "First Amendment doesn't separate
church, stale," the letter by Leanne Wade recycles several of
Barton's charges using language taken directly from the 1990
videotape, including the "one directional" wall myth.
Unfortunately, no one at the Michigan newspaper bothered to check
the letter's accuracy before printing it.
According to Barnett
of the Church-State Council, Barton's video has been aired on TV
stations and appeared in churches in the Western states he monitors.
"It's very subtle," Barnett told Church & State.
"The person who is not up on what occurred in American history
can be very easily deceived."
Barnett said
several Religious Right organizations are distributing the video,
primarily D.
James Kennedy's Coral Ridge Ministries and
the Christian Coalition. "They all tout the same tune regarding
the intent of the founders and their religious beliefs,"
Barnett said. "They overlook a lot of the facts."
...
Barton also has
ties to extremist elements. In his literature, Christian
Reconstructionist authors and organizations are sometimes
recommended. Reconstructionist activist Gary DeMar's book God
And Government is suggested reading, and Reconstructionist-oriented
groups such as the Plymouth Rock Foundation and the Providence
Foundation are touted as resources.
Perhaps most
alarming, Barton also has had a relationship with the racist and
anti-Semitic fringes of the far right. According to Skipp Porteous
of the Massachusetts-based Institute for First Amendment Studies,
Barton was listed in promotional literature as a "new and
special speaker" at a 1991 summer retreat in Colorado sponsored
by Scriptures for America, a far-right ministry headed by Pastor
Pete Peters. Peters' organization, which is virulently anti-Semitic
and racist, spreads hysteria about Jews and homosexuals and has been
linked to neo-Nazi groups. (The organization distributes a booklet
called Death Penalty For Homosexuals.)
Peters' church is
part of the racist "Christian Identity" movement. and
three members of The Order, a violent neo-Nazi organization,
formerly attended Peters' small congregation in LaPorte, Cole. After
members of The Order murdered Denver radio talk show host Alan Berg
in the mid 1980s, critics of Peters' ministry in Colorado charged
that his hate-filled sermons had spurred the assassination.
[...there's a lot
more including a systematic debunking of the documentary...go read
the whole thing - Ed.]
Another link about Kennedy here:
Organized by Gays
United to Attack Repression and Discrmination (GUARD), the marchers
responded to a series of antigay ads that Coral Ridge Ministries and
other extremist organizations have placed in major newspapers during
the past few weeks.
...
"This is not
the first time that Coral Ridge Ministries has waged war against gay
people under the guise of 'Christian love,'" said Ramos,
referring to Coral Ridge's series of antigay newspaper ads.
"We call this a
'March for Truth,' because we seek to counteract Coral Ridge's lies.
Their ads play on peoples' insecurities about homosexuality for
political and monetary gain. They perpetuate myths and falsehoods
about gays and lesbians and foster bigotry and violence against
lesbian and gay people," said Ramos.
Unrepentant, Rev.
Kennedy held a press conference inside the church, where he paraded
his flock of "cured" homosexuals. "It is not about
hate. It is about hope," said Kennedy, who is considering
buying more ad space.
Another website has
this to say about Kennedy:
Dr. Kennedy is a
long-time opponent of church/state separation and an unrelenting
critic of public schools. He recently made the claim that there are
90,000,000 Americans who are illiterate (he didn't say if the numbers
included toddlers and infants), and that only 7% of high school
seniors are capable of reading and comprehending a newspaper article
or doing simple calculations. Such statements are hog wash, but if
they were true, Kennedy would have legions of followers.
In a sermon broadcast Nov. 16, 1997, Kennedy attacked "New
Age" beliefs including, but certainly not limited to, meditation.
According to Kennedy, any time anyone sits in "their stupid lotus
position" and invokes a "mantra" they are invoking
demons and false gods. Ah, but what aboout Kennedy's
"mantra" - "amen"?
Kennedy criticizes the "materialism of our age." Check out
his marketing pages for excellent examples of the evil he decries.
More about Kennedy here
and here.
If you want to know more about David
Barton, this
should give you pause.
DON
WILDMON
Here's an
introduction to Wildmon and his American Family Association by
Americans United for Separation of Church and State (bold text is my
emphasis):
Operating
from deep in the heart of Mississippi, a fundamentalist minister named
Donald E. Wildmon strikes terror into the hearts of corporation
executives everywhere by organizing wildly successful boycotts of
firms that advertise on television shows Wildmon considers
"indecent" or does he?
Wildmon
and his Tupelo-based American Family Association (originally
called the National Federation for Decency) first came to prominence
in the late 1970s when he promised to clean up television. He vowed
to organize boycotts against companies that placed ads on shows that
he believed contained too much sexual content.
Wildmon,
a 63-year-old United Methodist minister, often takes the credit when
companies pull ads from certain programs, but his effectiveness has
been hotly debated. Journalist Fred Clarkson reported in his 1997
book Eternal Hostility that companies such as Johnson &
Johnson and Holiday Inn stood up to Wildmon's boycott threats and
suffered no ill effects.
Over the
years, Wildmon's AFA has become a profitable family enterprise. In
1999, the last year for which figures are available, the group's
budget was just under $10 million, and total assets were valued at
$17.5 million. In 1991, Wildmon built WAFR, a radio station in
Tupelo that broadcasts via satellite to 156 stations, reaching
people in 27 states with a mix of gospel music and news.
Wildmon's
son, Tim, now serves as vice president of the AFA and is apparently
preparing to assume the mantle of leadership when his father, who
has had heart trouble, steps down.
As the
group grew, it took on other issues. The AFA website contains the
standard Religious Right mix of attacks on public schools, public
libraries, reproductive rights and gay people. There is also an
entire section, labeled the "National Clearinghouse on Marilyn
Manson Info," chronicling the activities of the flamboyant
shock rocker.
(Some
of the AFA's recommended links are interesting, to say the least.
Kjos Ministries, www.crossroad.to, is "heartily
recommended" by Wildmon for its pages attacking the popular
"Harry Potter" books and Pokemon cards, both of which are
accused of promoting witchcraft. The Kjos site also asserts that
PBS's popular "Teletubbies" program for toddlers is part
of a United Nations-led plot to impose a "global agenda for
lifelong learning" on the United States.)
But
Wildmon's bread and butter remains blasting television sitcoms for
their sexual content. He and his supporters apparently have a lot of
time on their hands, as they sit and doggedly record every mention
of sex in sitcoms. These are summarized in the AFA's monthly
magazine, the American Family Association Journal.
It may
be easy to dismiss such tactics as just a tad compulsive, but
Wildmon watchers assert that he is more than just a noisy crank
obsessed with sex talk on TV. They note that in 1991 the AFA's law
center filed a lawsuit against a California public school district
over the use of a series of readers called "Impressions."
Wildmon
asserted that the books promoted humanism and witchcraft. The courts
found the AFA's claims without merit, and the suit was unsuccessful.
But the fuss spooked publisher Holt, Rinehart and Winston, which
stopped producing the series, despite the praise it had earned from
many educators.
Wildmon
has also been accused of dallying with anti-Semitism. During a 1985
speech before the National Religious Broadcasters, Wildmon cited a
survey of top media executives conducted by two researchers,
claiming that the results "indicated that 59 percent of the
people who are responsible for network programming were raised in
Jewish homes. If the people who control the networks in Hollywood
were 59 percent Christian and if they were only 1 percent as
anti-Semitic as the networks are currently anti-Christian, there
would [be] a massive public outcry from the national liberal secular
media."
The
researchers who did the study did not support Wildmon's conclusions,
and one of them later wrote to Wildmon and advised him to stop
distorting its findings. Nevertheless, Wildmon continued to cite the
study for the next four years. He also ignored letters on the topic
from the Anti-Defamation League.
The
ADL has also noted that the AFA Journal has reprinted
articles critical of Israel from The Spotlight, a
far-right, virulently anti-Semitic newspaper published by Willis
Carto, a Holocaust "revisionist."
Wildmon
claims nearly half a million members and hundreds of local chapters,
but critics are skeptical of those figures. With his crusade to post
"In God We Trust" posters in public schools, Wildmon may
be trying to make the leap from monitor of naughty TV to major
player in the Religious Right. Only time will tell how successful he
will be.
Here's another
note I found on the web:
The
Worldview Weekend folks have sent out their latest bit of idiocy to
my email inbox, this one written by none other than the Rev. Donald
Wildmon. In addition to the regular lies about Specter and what he
didn't say, he added this new one:
Specter is the person
who killed the nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court and
tried to kill the nomination of Clarence Thomas.
Just a complete and
utter lie. Not only did [Republican
Senator Arlen] Specter
not try to kill the Thomas nomination, he was the chief prosecutor
grilling Anita Hill during the hearings and he led the fight for
Thomas on the floor of the Senate. Gosh, maybe if I go to one of
those "Worldview Weekends", they'll have a session on how
to make up lies about their political opponents in the name of
Jesus. What cretins.
Ready for more? Here
goes:
In a recent AFA
Action Alert, Wildmon cites the Local Law Enforcement
Enhancement Act (S 625) that was introduced into the Senate by
sponsor Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusses). The bill, according to
Kennedy, "would greatly expand the federal government's power
to enter "hate crime" cases and it would add "sexual
orientation" to the existing law." Basically, due to the
growing number of hate crimes over the years, this bill would give
the law a more powerful tool to help in combating crimes that are
motivated by hate.
So, this would be a
good tool to try to stop hate crimes, right? Not according to
Wildmon.
In what could be the
sickest twist yet by Wildmon to stop some sort of "homosexual
agenda," he has called on his AFA members to get Congress to
oppose this bill. The claims: "American Family
Association opposes the bill because it expands federal power,
promotes the homosexual agenda, and would skew the allocation of law
enforcement resources to "politically correct" crimes. AFA
believes such laws will lead to suppression of the freedoms of
speech, religion and assembly, as authorities will falsely treat
Biblical views as "hate speech" that incites violence."
So basically, Wildmon condone crimes against homosexuals that are
fuled by hate. And basically, he's wanting ALL minorities to suffer
just because it covers homosexuality. This would include race,
religion, creed, and national origin. And what do they mean by
"politically correct" crimes? Wildmon tries to cover
himself by putting this as a quote, but we all know he's just doing
that to save his own skin, and try to make people think differently
and not read between the lines.
He then goes on: Hate
crime laws violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection
under the law because they target speech and thoughts, not actions,
which are already covered under criminal law. Hate crime laws divide
citizens into groups with differing levels of protection. Mr.
Kennedy's bill authorizes this federal power grab by citing the
Interstate Commerce Clause rather than the 14th Amendment, because
he knows that "sexual orientation" has never been declared
a specially protected minority class such as racial or ethnic groups
that are covered under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause.
Sounds more like he's
worried about this hate crimes law bill hurting him in his horrid
homophobic agenda campaign more than the free speech right. First
and foremost, this is coming from someone who, many times, has tried
to censor TV, movies, books, etc., because of explicit material.
Gee, I wonder if that is a violation of free speech? What about
stopping a lesbian person going on national TV to express her
thoughts (i.e.: Rosie O'Donnel) about gay adoption? Wildmon says
that it suppresses free speech. However, he should be familiar with
suppressing that right for other normal citizens, including
homosexuals who just want to live their own lives without fear and
being discriminated against and being prejudiced against. Plus, it
seems funny that he said that it targets "speech and thoughts,
not actions." Hmm, Wildmon, seems that you haven't been the
cause of some actions yourself, with the picketing of gay funerals
and the boycott of Disney for them giving health benefit to their
homosexual employees, not to mention the current struggle to stop
the production of a homosexual
education program that is to be aired on Nickelodeon in the near
future.
Here's another
snippet about Wildmon's AFA:
The American
Family Association is shocked and outraged yet again. For those
familiar with the Reverend Donald Wildmon and his group, this
probably comes as no surprise. These people are pretty easily
shocked and outraged. What is suprising is that they're concerned
that the separation of church and state isn't being upheld strongly
enough.
No, really.
It seems that the National
Center for Science Education and the University of California's
Paleontology Museum have spent government
money to create
a website that helps teachers to understand and teach evolution.
This website, called Understanding
Evolution, actually says that evolution as a fact can coexist
quite peacefully alongside religious beliefs. It even goes so far as
to (GASP!) link to a web page with 16
statements in support of evolution from various religious bodies.
Biblical
literalists, such as Dr. John West of the Discovery
Institute (which pushes Intelligent Design, a dressed-up version
of creationism), are of course not taking this lying down. The
American Family Association news item quotes him as saying this:
This is clearly a violation of
existing precedents dealing with the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment," West says. "The government isn't
supposed to be promoting theology, let alone in the science
classroom. You can have an objective and neutral discussion of
religious beliefs, but that's not what they're advocating
here."
Yeah, you heard right: These
guys are now complaining about the need for separation of church and
state. Yes, this is the same group of people who are supporting the
so-called Religious
Liberties Restoration Act, which would let the
"community" plaster the Ten Commandments and the official
national motto (In God We Trust) anywhere, including schools and
government property. Other religious messages would not be so
exempted. Apparently that's what is meant by "an objective and
neutral discussion of religious beliefs."
The wholesale attack... um, I
mean "objective and neutral discussion of the scientific merits
of the theory of evolution" continues. In state
after state,
creationists and Bible literalists continue to attempt to discredit
or weaken the teaching of evolution. But are they right this time?
Is using government money to train teachers that religion and
evolution don't have to be incompatible a violation of the
establishment clause?
More on Don Wildmon here.
4.
INTIMIDATION OF THE STEVENS CREEK SCHOOL
4.1
INTIMIDATING PHONE CALLS TO STEVENS CREEK SCHOOL
A contact told me that police were
called to the school on 11/30 because the school has been receiving
crank calls or intimidating calls all day. Apparently District
officials (in suits) were also called and were seen answering the
phones.
I understand Principal Vidmar has been
subject to scores of nasty phone calls
including hostile comments such as "We hope you burn in hell".
Another call was made to one of the teachers on 12/9/04 at 1:30 am
saying "I know who you are, where you live
and that you work for that godforsaken school."
4.2
LETTERS OF INTIMIDATION SENT TO THE STEVENS CREEK SCHOOL's PTO
A contact informed me that some mass emails had been
coming in to a horde of recipients from a sender (named Dan [Last
Name Withheld for now]) -- in what I see as a clear attempt to
intimidate the Principal and CUSD (it is possible that the Dan may
have picked off the email IDs of the PTO members from the school's
website). The contact was kind enough to forward me some of the letters
since I expressed an interest in investigating this incident further
and reporting about it on this website. I am reproducing extracts from
a few of the many emails (not necessarily in
chronological order) to show the kind of nonsense that the
parents, the principal and school officials are being subject to and
the casual willingness of those on the Far Right to use
lawsuits (I guess "trial lawyers" aren't "bad"
after all, huh?).
NOTE that these emails were
unsolicited and sent to a mass email group.
EMAIL 1 (bold
text is eRiposte emphasis):
SUBJECT: Stevens
Creek Elementary: Time to subject principal Patricia Vidmar to a
psychiatric evaluation?
Dear Mr. Bragg and
Board of Education Members:
Do recent
instructional decisions by principal Patricia Vidmar of Stevens
Creek Elementary School indicate that she may be overly stressed
with her work as principal? If so, is it time for you to subject
Ms. Vidmar to a thorough evaluation by a school-district appointed
psychiatrist to determine whether she is mentally/emotionally fit
for duty?
In question here is
not Ms. Vidmar's possible violation of Mr. Steven Williams' right to
free speech guaranteed by the United States constitution, which is
the basis of Mr. Williams' suit filed in U.S. District Court in San
Jose. Nor in question is that Ms. Vidmar allegedly allows other
teachers to "show films and distribute handouts containing
references to God" (see text of complaint below) but does not
allow Mr. Williams the same latitude. Nor in question is the
substantial amount of taxpayers' money that must now be expended by
the school district to defend Ms. Vidmar and you.
Is the real question
rather the mental/emotional stability of a principal that
arbitrarily bans the reading of original historical texts referring
to God, although all mentally/emotionally stable principals know how
to reasonably follow the California State Educational Code (e.g.,
51511) and California Department of Education guidelines (see text
of complaint below), which explicitly allow such references? If so,
do you think that an immediate psychiatric evaluation of
principal Vidmar will help safeguard the well-being of students and
staff at Stevens Creek Elementary?
text of complaint: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1124041declar1.html
Regards, Dan [Last
Name Withheld for now]
EMAIL 2 (bold
text is eRiposte emphasis):
SUBJECT: Request
to CUSD: Please dismiss principal Patricia Vidmar (Stevens Creek
Elementary) immediately
cc: Santa Clara
County Office of Education; Cupertino officials (mayor; city
manager; city council members; public information officer; city
clerk)
Dear Superintendent
Bragg, and Board of Education members of CUSD:
The lawsuit brought
against Principal Patricia Vidmar (Stevens Creek Elementary School)
and the CUSD Board of Education by Mr. Steven Williams (see text of
complaint below) will cost the school district many thousands of
dollars. The lawsuit could easily have been avoided if Ms. Vidmar
had bothered to consult the California State Educational Code (e.g.,
51511) and California Department of Education guidelines (see text
of complaint below), which explicitly allow the instructional
materials used by Mr. Steven Williams.
Request: Please
dismiss Principal Vidmar from her position immediately. A dismissal
will (a) set an example for other principals; (b) help to right the
wrong done to Mr. Steven Williams; (c) help to ensure that in the
future school employees follow California State Educational Code and
California Department of Education guidelines, sparing the school
district easily avoidable lawsuits.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1124041declar1.html
Regards, Dan [Last
Name Withheld for now]
EMAIL 3 - An
EXCHANGE in which the letter writer Dan claims he is a long-time
resident of Santa Clara county and the CUSD (bold text is eRiposte
emphasis) - but also see EMAIL 4 for a follow-up on this!
[eRiposte Note:
First a parent responded to one of Dan's emails as follows]
Dear Mr. [Last
Name Withheld for now],
Please excuse our
ignorance, but we would like to know just exactly who is taking it
upon themselves to speak for us, the parents of current students of
the school. Nobody with which we have discussed this burgeoning case
can identify you.
Would you be so kind
as to identify yourself and your connection with these events?
Sincerely,
[Parent Name
Withheld]
[To which Dan
responded as follows]
Dear [Parent
Name Withheld]
Your
"ignorance" is excused. My interest ensues as a long-time
resident of Santa Clara county and the CUSD. Ms. Vidmar's alleged
violation of Mr. Steven Williams' right to free speech guaranteed by
the United States constitution and the resulting civil suit now
extend this matter far beyond the confines of the CUSD.
Request: Please
locate the exact word, phrase or sentence in my original email that
shows that I am taking it upon myself to speak for "the parents
of current students of the school." I can't find it.
Nota bene: I simply
asked questions in the first and last paragraph of my original
email.
I wish you and your
family a happy Thanksgiving -- i.e., a giving of thanks to God.
Regards, Dan [Last
Name Withheld for now]
EMAIL 4 - A parent
clearly well-versed in the standard right-wing MO (good for him!)
writes to Dan asking whether Dan really lives in Santa Clara county
given that his email provider does not seem to have any operations in
Santa Clara county based on Cox's website! (bold text is eRiposte
emphasis)
Dan has NOT,
repeat NOT responded to this parent's email as of 11/29/04 (it was
written to Dan 11/25/04).
Mr. [Name
Withheld for now].
You state that
your interest "ensues as a long-time resident of Santa Clara
county and the CUSD", yet your email address identifies you as
a customer of a cable company that doesn't serve SCC (http://www.cox.net/wwwredir/index.htm),
and based on the IP address and MX in our correspondence, appears to
originate from the east coast, possibly Florida. Please reconcile
this discrepancy.
I welcome partisans
to the discussion, provided they don't attempt to portray themselves
as objective (Dan Rather's demise). With the appearance of this
item on Drudge and the mention on Rush's show, I want to make sure
we know who we're talking to.
I find it
interesting this complaint was filed such that it broke over the
Thanksgiving holiday; as a strategist, I consider the timing a
brilliant move. Notable was one commentator's take on it, "As a
lawyer, however, I should note that most allegations asserted in
pleadings are untrue. So news reports based on what someone has
stated in a legal complaint should always be taken with a huge grain
of salt."
Fortunately, we have
a legal process that trumps trial by media.
Cooler heads will
prevail and wait until all the facts are aired before passing
judgment.
On either party.
[Parent Name
withheld]
EMAIL 5 - an
exchange in which the letter writer Dan contradicts himself by
claiming that he neither requested an evaluation of the Principal nor
her termination! [he only asked for her "dismissal", see?]
(bold text is eRiposte emphasis):
[eRiposte Note:
Another parent responded to one of Dan's emails as follows]:
Dear Mr. [Last
Name Withheld for now],
We’ve all received
several emails from you. At this point you have requested that Ms.
Vidmar undergo mental evaluation and that she be fired. To mince
words about semantics is inappropriate, you have asked for her
termination.
In reading the
lawsuit, it is general and really doesn’t get to the central issue
relative to California law. The central issue is not whether
documents can be introduced into the classroom that contain
religious references, rather the issue will likely revolve around
whether these documents were used to promote a specific religious
perspective.
For information to
the people reading this email, the lawsuit is funded through an
organization in Arizona. Here is a link that you can explore
yourself http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/contact/.
I will point out that
a common theme appears in the responses. Stevens Creek is a very
diverse place where children from many religions, including children
from Christian families like mine, can feel comfortable and learn.
At this point, you
are now providing critiques of the grammar used within the emails.
On the surface, this seems somewhat petty to me. However, if this is
good for the community, I’ll contribute. The language in the
lawsuit is incorrect. In section 66, the word “state” should be
“states”.
Best regards,
[Parent Name
Withheld]
[To which Dan
responded as follows]
Dear [Parent
Name Withheld]:
I beg to differ: The
"central issue" you mention is not one specific to
"California law" but is rather the most likely basis for
the defendants' legal strategy, be they so foolish as to let this
matter proceed to adjudication, possibly receiving a highly
embarrassing injunction for their efforts right from the get-go.
It is downright
amusing that your "central issue" -- i.e., the
distribution of source texts from the time of the Founding Fathers
for the purpose of promoting "a specific religious
perspective" -- is a far stronger attack against California
Department of Education guidelines than against the position of
plaintiff Williams. To quote from a section of the complaint, which
you yourself have cited (namely 66), a set of content standards of
the California Department of Education for Grade Five states:
"This course
focuses on one of the most remarkable stories in history: the
creation of a new nation...founded on the Judeo-Christian
heritage..."
Several of the texts
submitted by Mr. Williams merely contained the word "God,"
a term common to many religions of the world, whereas the
above-mentioned content standards of the California Department of
Education praise a specific religious heritage. If the latter isn't
"a specific religious perspective," then I've never seen
one. But both "God" and "Judeo-Christian
heritage" are allowed under California Education Code 51511 as
references within instruction in public schools. If the defendants
wish to extrapolate from such periodic references the intent of
instruction in religious "principles" (section 51511),
they do so at their own legal risk and resulting professional
detriment.
Would Ms. Vidmar
object to California Education Code section 51230 (excerpted below)?
Would she, for example, allow eighteen teachers to explicate the
Declaration of Independence, but forbid three others from doing it
on the grounds that she divines in the text's reference to the term
"God" their intent to instruct in religious principles?
Mr. [Parent Name
Withheld], do you
now have an inkling of the precarious legal situation in which the
CUSD Board of Education et alii currently find themselves?
[California Education
Code section 51230:
"As a part of
the course in American government and civics required for high
school graduation pursuant to subparagraph (D) of paragraph (1) of
subdivision (a) of Section 51225.3, all pupils shall read and be
taught all of the following:
(a) The Declaration
of Independence.
..."]
In earnest, I laud
your sense of community:
"Stevens Creek
is a very diverse place where children from many religions,
including children from Christian families like mine, can feel
comfortable and learn."
Did this thought of
community also cross Principal Vidmar's mind? If so, why didn't she
see this federal suit coming a mile away and choose instead a
community-friendly solution of the matter -- for the sake of all
involved? Wouldn't any school principal of good will and even only
moderate wisdom have done that, even if it meant escalating the
matter immediately to the school board for resolution? As it is,
what comes next? Depositions, oaths, word against word of members of
a "community"? What has gone wrong here, and why has it
gone wrong?
I ask: Are you,
other parents, the school's PTO, and CUSD school board finally
awake? Will you see such problems in the future and find a
community-friendly solution while the problems are still small?
You've relied on a tone-deaf school principal in causa Williams. Now
where has it gotten you? Tax dollars thrown out the window; anxiety
for children, parents, teachers, administrators, and school
district; a federal court telling you what to do. A fine mess.
It is a pleasure to
correspond with you.
Regards, Dan [Last
Name Withheld for now]
P.S.:
Please reread my
two original emails. At no point have I "requested" any
evaluation of Ms. Vidmar, nor have I asked for any
"termination." I insist upon my texts being taken for what
they state. If you need to reconstruct argumentation before
attempting to rebut it, try it on someone else.
My "critiques of
the grammar used within the emails" were in answer to two
respondents and quite justified in both cases. One rode roughshod
over argumentation she hadn't even properly read; the other used so
much incorrect English that I had to reread the response twice and
then still wasn't sure what she meant. And she is a PTO member!
5.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE PARENTS AND TEACHERS OF STEVENS CREEK SCHOOL
Parents and teachers, regardless of
your ideological or political orientation, please take note that this
is the standard MO for right-wing fundamentalists to intimidate good
and competent people, especially teachers. It starts with a
breathlessly spread claim with minimal facts accompanied by
distortions or lies - which then gets
amplified nationally by the vast,
fraudulent right-wing media apparatus to make a mountain out of a
grain of sand (remember the big
lie spread by them after 9/11 about the National Education
Association? - to cite just one example).
As I have shown clearly in Section
2.4, Mr. Williams' teaching material (which was held back by
Principal Vidmar) has a strong bias towards promoting God,
Religion and Christianity. Some of the material is bogus or
dubious in origin. The material that can be sourced shows a complete
disregard for providing young students a well rounded perspective on
what the founders of the United States really thought, not just about
God or religion, but also about how God or religion should interact
with the business of Government. It tells me that the principal
may indeed have had good justification for doing what she
did.
The worst way to respond to this is
to panic, blame the school or the principal or ask the school or
principal to be conciliatory. That will get enormously exploited by
the right wing (in a negative way).
The best way to respond is to try
and get the facts out about:
- Why a parent was complaining about this
teacher
- The type of slanted or bogus
material he was using (see Section 2.4)
- The type of fraudulent or far right
fundamentalists behind this witch-hunt (see Section 3)
and to respond to all queries by stating that you will wait
for the facts to come out and that you do not want to assign blame
prematurely. If you know the principal well enough to trust her
judgment then consider creating a legal defense fund for her and
publishing information on all the good she has done for the school (send
me information on this if you have any).
Additionally,
please send this link
(politely) to your local media, the national media, and TV/
radio affiliates to ask them to correct the inaccuracies and slant
in their reporting and asking them to expose the dubious or false
propaganda that teacher Williams was trying to pass on to his
students. The following email links are provided for your
convenience.
Finally, consider the following points.
As Lisa Sabater at Culture
Kitchen points out:
This is an amazing
example of how the left needs to get their act together and start
reframing politics as a fight for the libertarian integrity of the
US Constitution. These kinds of shenanigans are carefully
orchestrated by alleged non-profit, non-sectarian, civics
oriented organizations that are just the store-front of dominionist
ministries across the United States. And if you don't believe
this is an orchestrated effort by the right, check out Falwell's
Thanksgiving message: "I thank God" f ... [Media Matters
for America].
Put in another way,
the Left has to start looking closely at the churches and ministries
that fund organizations like Alliance
Defense Fund and HSLDA
| Home School Legal Defense Association. The lines between
religious ministry and political fundraising and lobbying are often
non-existent within these organizations. Anybody from the
Pharisee Nation can found a church or ministry, get tax-free
status. Without paying taxes to the government and virtually no one
monitoring them, the
Pharisee Nation can then use that money to fund not just
anti-democratic political activities, but lobbying efforts that are
meant to further their "christian takeover" of every
single aspect of the US government.
As Digby
has noted:
That's the best case
for lawsuit reform I've ever heard, right there.
STF points out that this is coordinated to come out the day before
Thanksgiving so that they can pound it over the holiday week-end
without anybody being able to properly respond. These precious little
stories are becoming commonplace these days. I remember the one about
the teacher who was allegedly discriminated against because she put a
picture of Bush on the bulletin board. It turned out that she had a
f****** shrine up there and
was insulting 12 year old kids whose parents were voting for Kerry.
All the wingnuts keened and wailed about the unfairness of it all,
always being the first to claim victimhood. As each tale is debunked
they just move to the next.
These little personal stories are a very effective way to spread
propaganda. We need to figure out a way to deal with this stuff.
6.
HOW TO HELP PRINCIPAL PATRICIA VIDMAR
-
The best way to respond is to try
and get the facts out about:
- Why a parent was complaining about this
teacher
- The type of slanted or bogus
material he was using (see Section 2.4)
- The type of fraudulent or far
right fundamentalists behind this witch-hunt (see Section
3)
and to respond to all queries by stating that you will wait
for the facts to come out and that you do not want to assign blame
prematurely. If you know the principal well enough to trust her
judgment then consider creating a legal defense fund for her and
publishing information on all the good she has done for the school (send
me information on this if you have any).
-
If you know the principal well enough
to trust her judgment then consider creating a legal defense fund for
her and publishing information on all the good she has done for the
school (send me
information on this if you have any).
-
If you would like to contribute to a
Legal Defense Fund for Principal Vidmar, please contact
me and let me know. I will alert you if and when such a fund is
set up. Alternately check back on this page in a few days.
-
Finally,
please send this link
(politely) to your local media, the national media, and TV/radio affiliates
to ask them to correct the inaccuracies and slant in their
reporting and asking them to expose the dubious or false
propaganda that teacher Williams was trying to pass on to his
students. The following email links are provided for your
convenience.
APPENDIX
A: A Special Note on the The Right-Wing Media's Distortions,
Dishonesty and Propaganda
As Media Matters reported
on 12/9/04:
Over the last two
weeks, FOX News Channel has repeatedly -- and falsely -- reported
that an elementary school in Cupertino, California, banned the
Declaration of Independence because it mentioned God.
Between November 24
and December 7, the Cupertino case has been falsely reported on
seven occasions on FOX News primetime programs, numerous times
during FOX News daytime programming, as well as on FOX
Broadcasting Network's FOX News Sunday. Hannity &
Colmes planned a December 8 live broadcast from Cupertino; a
promo for that show asserted that the Constitution and Declaration
of Independence had been "banned" by a California school
that is "erasing God." The November 29 edition of
MSNBC's Scarborough Country falsely reported the story;
CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNBC have not covered the story.
...
Williams was
interviewed on the November 29 edition of FOX News' Hannity
& Colmes along with Alliance Defense Fund attorney Jordan
Lorence, but no guest appeared to defend the school. During that
program, co-hosts Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes, as well as
Williams and Lorence, falsely asserted that the school had banned
the Declaration of Independence, without noting that only the
handout including the excerpts chosen by Williams had been
prohibited. Colmes revised his account of the story in subsequent
editions of Hannity & Colmes.
Below is a summary
of the pundits and programs presenting the false claim that
Stevens Creek elementary school banned the Declaration of
Independence because it mentions God:
- Host Brit Hume,
FOX News' Special Report with Brit Hume, November 24
- Guest host and Big
Story host John Gibson, FOX News' The O'Reilly Factor,
November 26
- Co-hosts Sean
Hannity and Alan Colmes, FOX News' Hannity & Colmes,
November 29
- Guest host and
MSNBC political analyst Monica Crowley, MSNBC's Scarborough
Country, November 29
- Hannity, Hannity
& Colmes, December 3
- Host Chris
Wallace, FOX Broadcasting Company's FOX News Sunday,
December 5
- Host Bill
O'Reilly and guest and former Speaker of the House Newt
Gingrich, The O'Reilly Factor, December 6
- Hannity, Hannity
& Colmes, December 6
- Hannity, Hannity
& Colmes, December 7
Sean Hannity, perhaps the most
pathological liar in the Fox News line-up, unsurprisingly, continued
his mendacity even after the teacher (Stephen Williams) himself
corrected the record:
Cupertino, Calif.
teacher Stephen J. Williams, who filed a lawsuit challenging
Stevens Creek Elementary School's decision to prohibit his
supplemental teaching materials -- which related to the importance
of Christian faith in American history and included excerpts from
the Declaration of Independence -- admitted that his students had
"read the Declaration, so that's a little bit of a
stretch" to claim that "the Declaration was
banned." Williams's comment came during the December 8
edition of FOX News' Hannity & Colmes, which was
broadcast live from Cupertino. Nevertheless, Sean Hannity
continued to falsely suggest that the school had banned the
Declaration because it made reference to God.
...
Here is a
summary of what Hannity said on December 8 -- after
Williams acknowledged that Stevens Creek Elementary School had not
banned the Declaration of Independence:
HANNITY: [T]here
seems to be a total and complete intolerance [on the part of
liberals] to the foundation of this country and the principles
that we hold dear. And the fact of the matter is America was
founded by a very deeply religious people. ...The majority of
Americans ... don't mind the real Declaration of Independence
being used in schools.
[...]
HANNITY: [W]e
have gotten to the point where we don't even allow our kids to
read real historical documents. ... Can we read in Cupertino?
Can we read in Cupertino, to give our kids the Declaration of
Independence anymore?
[...]
HANNITY: It's
[religion] divisive only if you try and say we can't use a
founding document in front of our kids.
On 12/9/04, Hannity and Colmes held
their taping in Cupertino's De Anza College focusing in part on this
case. Via LeftI,
here is a note on this show that appeared in Poynter Online, by
reporter Luke Stangel of Palo Alto Daily News - showing how this was
just a partisan, orchestrated show:
| Inside
the "Hannity and Colmes" show |
12/9/2004
6:57:24 PM
From LUKE
STANGEL, Palo Alto Daily News: I just got back to the
office from the live taping of the Hannity & Colmes Fox
News talk show at the Flint Center in Cupertino, Calif. Our
newspaper has been following fifth-grade teacher Stephen
Williams' lawsuit against his school district after his
principal barred him from handing out literature that she
felt amounted to Christian propaganda.
Interestingly, they turned away all reporters at the door,
saying the media couldn't come in. This came hot on the
heels of two prominent articles in the San Jose Mercury News
and San Francisco Chronicle today describing Williams'
planned live interview on Hannity & Colmes. The
interview was Williams' first public appearance and
interview since the media circus came to town.
A private security guard outside the Flint Center shoved my
photographer's camera from his face and said he couldn't
take photos. The same guard said he wouldn't let me in the
building to report on the interview, saying show producers
didn't want the media inside.
I eventually got in anyway — I suppose I wouldn't be a
good reporter if I didn't — and the show turned out to be
fairly enlightening. Although Hannity and Colmes profess to
run a somewhat balanced issues-oriented show on the air, the
off-air moments with the audience proved rather
telling.
"How many liberals are here tonight?" Hannity
asked the audience during the last commercial break.
Six people clapped, to overwhelming boos from the audience.
"Stand up and tell me sir: what worthwhile thing has
John Kerry done in the last 20 years?" Hannity said
pointing to one man, to which the crowd erupted into
applause.
Half an hour before the show began, Hannity paraded out in
front of the audience, which clapped wildly for him.
"We came to San Francisco and we can't find one
liberal?" he asked, to laughs. "That's why we came
to San Francisco. Listen: we're taking over San
Francisco!"
"Hey! Tell them California is a future red state!"
a man yelled.
"On a personal note, for all of you who voted for
President George W. Bush, thank you for saving
America," Hannity said, before the tape began rolling.
|
LeftI also
has a brief report from the show. In another
post, he provides a partial transcript from the show exposing
Hannity for the person he is.
Last night was
probably the first show I've actually watched from start to
finish, and watching Hannity with Michael Newdow in particular was
a real lesson in his methods. Of course they consisted of the
usual - personal attacks (talking about Newdow's lack of custody
of his daughter as if it had anything to do with this case),
absurd statements (claiming that Newdow's wife "enjoys"
saying the Pledge of Allegiance - really? does anyone actually
"enjoy" such a thing? does she do it voluntarily several
times during the day just for fun?), refusing to answer questions
from a guest, talking over a guest's answers or otherwise refusing
to let them answer a question (and I'm not just talking about
cutting short long-winded answers), etc.
But
these exchanges I thought were particularly instructive
(transcription mine from tape):
Hannity: Who is the
author of the Bill of Rights?
Newdow: James Madison
Hannity: Who hired the first chaplain for Congress?
Newdow: You were wrong when you did this on your web site and
you're wrong now. James Madison was a member of a committee of
six individuals, and he said later, "It was not with my
approbation that this was approved of."
Hannity: You're changing the issue. [Ed. note: ? He was
answering a direct question!]
...
Newdow [shortly thereafter, responding to Oliver North on the
subject of "In God We Trust" on coins]: That's why we
have a Bill of Rights.
Hannity: The author of that Bill of Rights hired the first
chaplain. [Ed. note: repeats the lie he has been called on;
Newdow's assertion that Madison didn't approve remains totally
unchallenged]
...
Newdow: Let me ask you a question. What was the first act of
Congress?
North (or Hannity, unclear, it's off-camera): What was it?
Newdow: The Oath Act. They took out two references to God from
their oath.
Hannity: If you hire a chaplain... [Ed. note: third
repetition of the incorrect statement, twice after being called
on it and failing to respond]
Newdow: They hired a chaplain before they had an establishment
clause.
Hannity: No, they didn't. It was right after the Bill of Rights,
Michael.
Newdow: No, it was in April and May of 1789. It wasn't until
June 8 that James Madison introduced the Bill of Rights.
Hannity [visibily not listening, and talking over Newdow's last
answer]: We've gotten to the point where we don't even allow our
kids to read real historical documents [like the] Declaration of
Independence [Ed. note: flat out lying, ignoring the fact,
which was noted earlier in the show in a written statement from
the Cupertino Union School District which appeared on screen,
that the textbook used in the teacher's classroom contains the
full text of both the Declaration and the Constitution, and of
course failing to acknowledge Newdow's refutation of his
previous statement]
The facts? We don't
need no steenkin' facts!
Incidentally, Media Matters has
separately reported that the Right-Wing media (particularly Fox
News) is on a campaign this year to distort news and mislead viewers
about so-called attacks on Christianity or Christmas.
FOX News is
aggressively hyping several small controversies involving public
holiday displays that don't explicitly mention Christmas in order to
depict a widespread and sinister "attack on Christmas" by
"secular progressives." Led by hosts Bill O'Reilly and Sean
Hannity, FOX News anchors have returned continually to several minor
stories whose theme is the purported marginalization or persecution of
Christians. A closer examination of each of these stories reveals that
they hardly constitute an anti-Christmas trend.
Columbia Journalism Review's CJR
Daily (Paul McLeary) has a post on this as well:
Stories about banned
Christmas carols and employers forbidding
the use of "Merry Christmas" in favor of "Happy
Holidays" seem to pop up each December. Over the past few
days, however, the issue has been moved front and center by a
hungry press, with stories popping up in the national media almost
daily, and conservative television host Bill O'Reilly running a
daily segment titled "Christmas Under Siege."
But wade through
the wall-to-wall coverage of the story, and it becomes apparent
that there are only a handful of examples -- three, to be exact --
being recycled in article after article. Many of these pieces
use the same
incidents in almost the same way. Some even hit for the cycle,
as USA Today did
today, referencing all three stories in one shot.
The first heavily
cited anecdote comes from New Jersey's South Orange-Maplewood
school district's decision to ban Christmas carols at school
holiday concerts. That story, egged on by conservative opinion
columnists, has seen ink in the New York Post, the Washington
Times, Daily [UK] Telegraph, Newsday,
Mississippi's Sun Herald, and the Milwaukee Journal
Sentinel, just to name a few.
Similarly, at least
27 mainstream newspapers have reported on Macy's owner Federated
Department Stores' rule forbidding its outlets from using the
phrase "Merry Christmas." Trouble is, the rule doesn't
exist. According to the company's Web
site, its stores have "no policy with regard to the use
of specific references to Christmas ... This includes using the
phrase Merry Christmas if they believe it is appropriate to do
so." But fact never stopped the echo chamber, and in this
case reporters continue to parrot Fox News commentator Bill
O'Reilly, transcribing the complaints of an anti-Macy's group
called the "Committee to Save Merry Christmas," often
with no rebuttal from the store itself.
The third anecdote,
cited in roughly 25 papers, revolves around the righteous
indignation caused by the City of Denver when it denied a local
church's application to have a float in the city's holiday parade
-- although the city notes that it hasn't allowed religious or
politically themed floats in over a decade.
When not flogging
the same three stories -- two of which are essentially false -- to
create the appearance of a genuine national trend, the media is
busy interviewing the same outraged representatives of a few
conservative family groups trying to put the Christ back in
Christmas. The Alliance Defense Fund, for example, has been cited
in numerous stories in the past week, as has the Rutherford
Institute, another conservative group.
We're reluctant to
take the role of Ebenezer Scrooge in this morality play, but in
the course of digesting over four dozen of these faux stories, the
words "Bah, Humbug!" just kept coming to mind.
So we have a
suggestion for all the reporters and editors who are keeping this
one alive: Instead of worrying so much about putting Christ back
in Christmas, you might start thinking about putting news back in
"news reports."
FOOTNOTE: An important
clarification on my use of the term "right-wing", in
response to an email from a staunchly conservative parent who is
fighting on behalf of Principal Vidmar
One of the parents at Stevens Creek
school wrote to me on 12/11/04. Here is a relevant extract from his
email:
I'm a staunch
conservative. Trying to portray this whole sad episode as a
right-wing issue is a grave strategic mistake. Whackos exist on
both sides of the aisle and we're galvanizing support from all
over.
I'm sad to comment
that we on the right also have our own "Michael Moores"
to contend with. Some parents at the school were interested in my
take as a vocal staunch conservative: I am offended to be placed
in the same category as those "supporting" Williams and
have nothing but absolute contempt for the hypocrisy and lack of
intellectual and journalistic rigor behind this event's portrayal,
and disgust for those twisting the events to their benefit.
All of my
conservative friends express similar disgust. You want
unity?
:-)
Regards
I sent this response to this parent:
Dear [Parent Name
Withheld],
I am sorry that my
reference "right-wing" offended you. It was not, and
is not, my intention to club all conservatives here into the
"right-wing" category. My use of the term here is really
in reference to the right-wing media and the Christian Far Right
(sometimes politicians fall in this same category). There is a
long history of them inventing tales to push their own agenda (you
can see a few examples by going to Media
Matters for America or Daily
Howler or other such sites). So, while I may be guilty of poor
writing (and I don't claim to be a good writer), I don't use the
words lightly considering the groups that they were intended to
describe.
Having said that, I
appreciate the offer of unity and commend conservatives such as
you and your friends for speaking out against the nonsense that
has been going on. I have made an attempt to address your
complaint by making it more clear on my page what I mean(t) when I
use(d) the words "right-wing" (namely, I have explained
that it is in reference to the right-wing media and the Christian
Far Right). I have also added an extract from your email and made
a reference to it prominently in my summary (at the top of the
page).
I am aware that you
are making a strong effort to fight back on behalf of the
Principal and the school. I want to thank you for doing that (and
for your offer of unity), especially considering that you are a
staunch conservative. As I said above, perhaps my choice of words
was poor, but I strongly believe in working together with people
from diverse backgrounds and ideologies in solving problems.
(Indeed, I also have thoughtful Republican or Conservative
friends, whom I do not consider "right-wing"). So, I
hope with the clarifications I have made on my website and with my
inclusion of your comments (referred to with a prominent link in
my summary), we can find the unity you are looking for to address
this issue head on and enable the parents, teachers and students
of Steven Creek school to move forward by fighting off the
frivolous lawsuit.
With best regards
The parent's response:
Thanks for the
quick note. Absolutely no offense taken by the
"right-wing" label.
Did I mention I'm a "proud" conservative? :-)
My aim is to remove
the partisan label being incorrectly placed on this issue. Uphill
battle, I know, but I'm going to keep after it.
Thanks for your
help here; my kids (all 700 of them) certainly appreciate it.
Best
UPDATES:
Links to updates made on this page after 12/15/04
12/27/04: Updates here,
here, here, here
and here.
Also, I've added the following note to the Summary at the top of this page:
Ed
Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars has linked to this
must-read
commentary in FindLaw by legal scholar Vikram David Amar in the context of
the Stephen Williams Cupertino lawsuit. Also take a minute to read my
companion article: Church-State
Separation in the United States: Religion in Public Schools and
the Legal/Off-Courtroom Strategies of the Christian Right
12/30/04: Created a PREFACE
section at the top of the page and added this note:
A group of
over 100 concerned parents from the Stevens Creek Elementary School
have created a
website aimed at repudiating the false charges from the Alliance
Defense Fund and the teacher Stephen Williams and the misleading/false
negative media coverage of the school -- We
the Parents. Please visit their website to learn more.
1/3/05: Brian
Carnell
posted a note on his blog questioning my use of an essay about
Quakers and William Penn. He sent me an email with the same
sentiments (reproduced here in its entirety, followed by my
response) :
As a Fox News-addicted atheist, I
found your page on the Stevens Creek controversy to be interesting.
I also found it to have a number of disturbing defects that really
undercut your case.
On the positive side, the exposure of the bogus quotes from the
Founding Fathers and Washington's prayer journal were excellent.
On the negative side, you seem at times to be as loose with sources
and facts as the Xian teacher in this case. My jaw hit the floor
when I happened upon your "*Exhibit B (page 20): Excerpts from FRAME
OF GOVERNMENT OF PENNSYLVANIA by William Penn (1682)." You link to
and quote extensively from a poorly written essay that is replete
grammatical errors (in parts, the essay is all but incoherent). I
was curious as to who had written such a poor essay, assuming the
author must be some sort of well-known authority for you to link to
them despite the obvious problems with the essay.
Needless to say, I received a major shock when I clicked on the link
and found the essay is from an essay paper mill with absolutely no
indication of authorship or anything else that would allow anyone to
know how reliable the author is.
I don't see how you can take NPR to task for not checking on the
provenance and authenticity of GW's prayer journal when you
apparently have no problem relying on exactly the same sort of low
standards for scholarship when it supports your case.
The fact that you link to and rely upon this essay, frankly, throws
up a huge red flag about your entire page on the controversy, just
as the Xian teacher's mention of the GW prayer diary and other bogus
info. throws up a red flag about his entire teaching methodology.
eRiposte response:
I'm taking a break from a brief
hiatus to respond.
I am amenable to correct anything on my Stevens Creek lawsuit page
that is incorrect. Rather than simply dismiss the essay it would be
actually useful if you point out what information in the essay,
specifically, is wrong or incorrect (other than typos). My website
is just another website and the issue is not whether my source is
the "essay paper mill" but whether the contents from that source are
reliable or not. If you send me information that specifically
refutes the extracts I have from the "paper mill" I will
be happy to post a correction (unlike Fox News).
Moreover, you will notice that the essay does have references at the
bottom of the essay providing its sources. I also checked the Quaker
website to see if broad claims about Penn and his interest in
Quakerism were true. They are:
http://www.quaker.org/wmpenn.html
I picked a source out of numerous ones because I thought it had a
handy summary of many of the points I wanted to highlight - rather
than have to cite multiple sources for the various items on a page
that is already far too long. Moreover, I am a free-lancer with
limited time and I don't have the time to pick and choose sources
based on the reader's liking of the source. I pick and choose
sources based on my confidence in the reliability of the information
from the source. So again, if the essay is wrong or
flawed, please let me know and I will fix it (unlike NPR).
I find the comparison to NPR amusing. They refused to cover the
facts on the bogus and slanted documents. They largely acted as an
unofficial stenographer to the Christian Right, only marginally
better than Fox News. Not to mention, for a Fox News addict, I find
it even more amusing that one
link on a website where none of the specific information presented
has been challenged to date is enough to throw a red flag for you,
when years and years of utterly false propaganda and misinformation
- provided daily - is insufficient to stop you from being a Fox News
addict.
Such are the times...it must be a moral clarity thing...
After the above exchange I decided to post an
extract on this page, here, from the Quaker
website referenced above. Mr. Carnell seeks to link my quoting a
sourced essay (I stated clearly it was an essay when I linked to it
- and the essay lists the sources for its assertions as well) with
no author specified, with Mr. Williams' use of an unsourced document
and linking it to George Washington (for example). This does not
make any sense and seems to be an attempt to simply discredit using
"guilt by association".
Moreover, I am not a Church-State expert or an expert
on the religious beliefs of Presidents. I don't claim to be infallible.
I am a website owner with an interest in research. I am not paid to do
the job of fact-checking that NPR or Fox News does, or the job of using
correct historical documents in a history class, which Mr. Williams is
paid to do. Having said that, I have stated right from the beginning
that I will post any corrections if readers bring it to my attention. So
far I have not seen anything challenging the *facts* presented here.
2/3/05:
A couple of people have reported to me that ADF's original lawsuit -
which was located here, with the attached exhibits, is no longer to
be found at their website. In any case, a local copy of the original
lawsuit with all its exhibits is
here. ADF has apparently filed an
updated lawsuit, which mentions some additional documents but
(curiously) lacks the original exhibits analyzed in this page. I have
not yet had a chance to look at the amended lawsuit in detail.
2/5/05:
I spent a couple of hours analyzing some information from ADF's
amended lawsuit. Not surprisingly, more examples of Williams'
propagandizing emerge, as seen in the two of the new handouts mentioned
in this amended lawsuit (which I looked at) -
Handout g and Handout h; again, there is
bogus or dubious information in these handouts.
Additionally, thanks to a forwarded
message from a Stevens Creek Elementary School parent, who is part of "We
The Parents", ADF has belatedly acknowledged (in response to a
letter from "We the Parents") the following: "Some
media reports have incorrectly characterized the lawsuit filed on behalf
of teacher Stephen Williams against the Cupertino Union School District
as challenging a complete ban by the school of the Declaration of
Independence from the entire school. That characterization is wrong."
So, they blame the media for this lie rather than taking ownership for
their own false claim (which continues to show up on their website!).
Click here for details on this.
5/31/05:
Three out of four claims of ADF dismissed and the fourth goes to
discovery. More detailed coverage of this development here.
8/14/05:
Lawsuit dropped by Stephen Williams and far Right Alliance Defense
Fund. Details here.
9/30/05:
Email interview with three Stevens Creek Elementary parents published.
Details here.
|
