By Dan Whitcomb
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - 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.

"It's a fact of American history that our founders were religious men, and to hide this fact from young fifth-graders in the name of political correctness is outrageous and shameful," said Williams' attorney, Terry Thompson.

"Williams wants to teach his students the true history of our country," he said. "There is nothing in the Establishment Clause (of the U.S. Constitution) that prohibits a teacher from showing students the Declaration of Independence."

Vidmar could not be reached for comment on the lawsuit, which was filed on Monday in U.S. District Court in San Jose and claims violations of Williams rights to free speech under the First Amendment.

Phyllis Vogel, assistant superintendent for Cupertino Unified School District, said the lawsuit had been forwarded to a staff attorney. She declined to comment further.

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."

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case of a California atheist who wanted the words "under God" struck from the Pledge of Allegiance as recited by school children. The appeals court in California had found that the phrase amounted to a violation of church and state separation.


------

I somehow suspect that if people everywhere appreciated each other as much as they appreciate having those three little letters written together on paper, then we would actually find ourselves doing fairly well.

I figured this would be next after the pledge of allegiance.

I personally don't see "God" as any violation of personal freedom, as "God" does not refer to a particular person, unless you want it to. "God" is who (or what) you worship. If nature is your God, so be it. Those government documents nowhere define who or what God is.

I'm not an advocate for prayer in school, but not allowing the pledge of allegiance to be taught because it contains the word god is taking it pretty far, even I'll admit that. But if you look at where this happened it's not exactly a conservative area. However, if he was focusing the curriculum on how our forefathers were religious and the importance of god in founding our country, then I do have a problem with that. The curriculum happening to contain references to god is one thing, focusing the lesson on god is another. Just my opinion.

I don't know how relevant that particular argument is, since some people (myself included) do not worship anything at all, and many religious beliefs are not particularly comparable to the form of single-deity-above-us-all kind of worship intimated. However, I don't think that letting religion influence our choices as educators is wise, simply because it has nothing to do with the curriculum. It's time away from valuable learning opportunities, the same way that dull, repetitive lecture is.

Evolution and the Declaration are both significant and important intellectually-influential elements of modern life. They should be involved in American schooling.

Creationism is a religious notion, whether it's right or wrong, and can be taught elsewhere. The pledge has no real learning value at all. These things do not belong. I can't believe that most people who are frustrated with how schools perform are often the same people who have innumerable opinions on additional things schools should teach or do in addition to their curriculum.

Nothing should be included or excluded from EDUCATION because of one group's or person's beliefs. When you succumb to such thinking, you dilute the value of the process.

Then why not change it to "God(s)" ?

I'm sure we're getting the whole story from this article.

--PunkDavid

We have the crazies from the right who want "God" printed on every cereal box and we have our crazies on the left who are offended by the stupidest things that could harm no one... figures.

Eh, I don't see "God" as something atheists of polytheists should be offended by. Many Christian denominations are technically polytheistic. That's not really the point, though... Basically I don't believe there is anything wrong with it saying "God" if it doesn't define what "God" is (or isn't).

Religion is part of history and has shaped empires and democracies. It should be included because it was the very basis of many important events and nations throughout time. We are talking history here, and not teaching about the faiths and religions themselves. I'm not saying they should spread the "word", but they should say that religions obviously played a part in the secular world of history.

They do not have to evangelize a faith, but they should tell it like it was...that certain societies were either fully theocratic or used religion as a basis for law and order.

Example:

The Tang Dynasty in China utlized laws gleaned from Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism. A teacher should mention that when teaching about the Dynasty, but does not need to preach about the religions themselves. That would be for a whole other class, such as religion or a church itself.

It really isn't a big deal and I have a feeling,like PD said, there must be more to this.

I'm not saying that's an incorrect notion...I'm merely stating that I don't find it useful for arguing the legalities or morality of the situation. I think my approach seems much more appropriate.

I should also note that the teacher is suing the district, which I find ludicrous as a method of addressing the situation and dubious, since the legal bills will hurt the district and thus the students.

Reading something *about* religion, or that simply includes religious *references* or expressions is quite a different matter than reciting an affirmation of belief or faith in something. While I can understand why an atheist or a person just for a variety of reasons, does not wish to recite the pledge of allegiance, having a problem with the declaration of independence doesn't make sense to me - it is a historical document of value for educational purpose. I am not a christian, but I have no problem with an english lit. class studying parts of the bible such as the story of job for example, as a piece of literature.

We just need to change some wording is all.

One nation under_________(insert deity/nondeity here)

I like to say god, but my god is the real god. Yours are phony.

Exactly. Sounds to me like he might have been censured for something in the past. Why else would he have to submit his lesson plans to make sure there were no references to Christianity? Hmmm.

Most teacher's have to submit lesson plans...however, few principals ever look at them.

That's what I was thinking. I bet he has made his faith a little too public in some way OTHER than merely handing out copies of the Declaration of Independence. Us godless leftists aren't usually THAT nuts.

"Look, kids. The Declaration of Independence says "GOD" in it. See, right there. "GOD". Our founding fathers were CHRISTIANS who believed in GOD. See?"

--PunkDavid (god )

"Because they all appear to have prohibitions, admonitions and proffered truths which cannot be established as a matter of intellect or natural law, which is reason -- simple reason -- unattended by revelation of faith. Most of them insist that you believe in certain things not because you can prove absolutely that they are so, but because you want to believe in them. Give me a church or a religion that has one principle: Love one another as you love yourself, and I will belong to that church."
—Abe Lincoln explaining why he belongs to no church.

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
—Thomas Jefferson

"Twenty times during the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out. This would be the best of all possible worlds if there was no religion in it."
—John Adams

Given the fact that the Northeast was largely settled by people escaping lack of religious freedom (correct me if I'm wrong), I think Lincoln and Adams' statements are not statements of their belief, but statements of their disdain towards organized religion. I don't think those statements imply that they weren't religious at all.

oh - that's a point - I didn't think of that possibility...