| 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
|
