Charter Member of the Sub-Media

November 24, 2004

The Eradication of Faith From Public View « GWOM »

Lest anyone think I was exaggerating the case when I said I feared atheists/secularists were trying to sanitize society for their own sensibilities, in violation of the 1st Amendment, check this out.


Williams asserts in the lawsuit that since May he has been required to submit all of his lesson plans and supplemental handouts to Vidmar for approval, and that the principal will not permit him to use any that contain references to God or Christianity.

Among the materials she has rejected, according to Williams, are excerpts from the Declaration of Independence, George Washington's journal, John Adams' diary, Samuel Adams' "The Rights of the Colonists" and William Penn's "The Frame of Government of Pennsylvania."

"He hands out a lot of material and perhaps 5 to 10 percent refers to God and Christianity because that's what the founders wrote," said Thompson, a lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund, which advocates for religious freedom. "The principal seems to be systematically censoring material that refers to Christianity and it is pure discrimination."

Let's just whitewash any part of history we find inconvenient, shall we? The techniques of Orwell, Marx and Lenin are still being used in United States schools.

Posted by Nathan at 06:02 PM | Comments (6)

Is it just me, or has the ACLU been taking "uppers" or eating their Wheaties.

They seem to be sueing everyone since Bush won the election earlier this month.

Posted by: Jeremy at November 24, 2004 06:12 PM

Well, I'm assuming it's because the progressive/atheist/secular agenda is being rejected by greater and greater numbers of citizens and voters. They've been able to use activist judges to impose some items, but even those (like Roe v Wade) are imperiled by Supreme Court retirements while a Republican is in the White House. And President Bush made an extremely important move by sending a clear message that democracy will be served; he threatened to throw his support behind a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as only between opposite genders. [please note: the pro-SSM activists distort what he actually said and did, don't they?] The 11 states that amended their state constitutions indicate that President Bush might have the political capital to pull it off over the objections of a distinct but vocal they've backed off and decided that if they can't win the debate, make sure the debate is never allowed to happen.

Eradicating freedom of religious expression is an appropriate pre-emptive strike, considering their ultimate goals.

Posted by: Nathan at November 24, 2004 06:49 PM

I'm just thinking about the backlash in public opinion. The ACLU is getting some bad press (even when its "good press" in the NYTimes - because I believe the Average American can read between the spinlines of the press.) (At least I hope that is true.)

So what would happen if the majority of the public rejects the ACLU (a non-government entity)?

That could be the ultimate end to this path were on.

Posted by: Jeremy at November 24, 2004 07:13 PM

Personally, I just like to see the sheer ignorance behind statements such as "atheists/secularists were trying to sanitize society for their own sensibilities" - gosh, I never knew I was doing that, particularly given that I think handing out historical American documents, in the context of an American history class (assuming this was the case), is perfectly acceptable and what anyone with a functioning brain might expect.

Posted by: andy at November 24, 2004 10:09 PM

Now, Andy, don't jump at generalizations. That doesn't advance the discussion at all.

But for the sake of argument, who should I name as the ones trying to suppress free expression of religious values? It's more than just the ACLU. I didn't think George Soros was behind this, too, but there is a disorganized but increasingly coherent attempt to establish an atheist default. Should I blame the van Pattons?
Naming a group is just verbal shorthand for ease of discussion, and should not ever be taken to mean "100% of all people who consider using this term to describe themselves 100% of the time".

Posted by: Nathan at November 24, 2004 10:32 PM

For example, remember the flap over Judge Moore's statue/monument of the 10 Commandments? While I disapproved of his refusal to comply with a court order, the complaint was brought by a supposedly-adult lawyer who said she couldn't even bear to see the statue, it upset her so much.

That is exactly the sanitization of a public display for the sensibility of an atheist and/or secularist.

As is someone complaining to remove a nativity scene from City Hall grounds.

As is calling a Christmas tree a "holiday tree".

As is saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas".

As is removing the words "Under God" from the Pledge.

So it's not all atheists, but pretending to not comprehend an easily-understood speech generalization doesn't do anyone any good.

One last reminder: You may be convinced those attempts are all good and proper and in line with the intent of the forefathers in the 1st Amendment. Some legal scholars think so. Enough don't, however, that the standard ACLU opinion of Separation of Church and State is never a slam-dunk, the ACLU's victory against the Boy Scouts notwithstanding.

I think the tide may be turning, however, and future rulings that nativity scenes must be removed and you can't sing Christmas songs in school programs may be considered as ridiculous as some of the "Zero Tolerance" rules that get kids suspended for bring 1" plastic guns to school or for saving someone's life by sharing an asthma inhaler.
It's going to be an interesting and probably messy couple of years, I think...maybe the whole rest of the decade.

Posted by: Nathan at November 24, 2004 10:45 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?