History Teacher is Proselytizing

Current issues and things in the news

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
BeHereNow
Site Supporter
Posts: 584
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2004 6:18 pm
Location: Maryland
Has thanked: 2 times

History Teacher is Proselytizing

Post #1

Post by BeHereNow »

Seventil replied to my post.

I quoted a news story:
Here is the rest of the story:
a schoolteacher, Stephen Williams of Mountain View, California, was passing out supplementary literature along with copies of the Declaration of Independence. As evidenced in Case Number C 04 4946 Williams vs. Vidmar, the supplementary materials included:
• A letter from George W. Bush proclaiming the National Day of Prayer - e.g. - "Prayer is an opportunity to praise God for His mighty works, His gift of freedom, His mercy, and His boundless love...According to Scripture, 'the Lord is near to all who call upon Him...He also will hear their cry, and save them.'"
• A two page list of Religious Clauses in State Constitutions - e.g. - Georgia - Article VI (1977) "The representatives shall be chosen out of the residents in each county...and they shall be of the Protestant religion..."
• A list of quotes titled "What Great Leaders Have Said About the Bible" - e.g. - George Washington...It is impossible to rightly govern the world without the Bible. and Jesus Christ...It is written, man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
• Excerpts from George Washington's Prayer Journal - e.g. - Sunday Evening O most Glorious God, in Jesus Christ my merciful and loving father, I acknowledge and confess my guilt...
• Excerpts from John Adams' Diary - e.g. - The Christian religion is above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity, and humanity, let the blackguard Paine say what he will; it is resignation to God, it is goodness itself to man.
• A fact sheet titled, "Currency & Coins - History of 'In God We Trust'" –
BeHereNow comments: Clearly the teacher was promoting Protestant Christianity. This is inappropriate.
seventil replies: The teacher was promiting protestant Christianity?
And for the science teacher that says Darwin believed in evolution?
Evolution is a scientific theory.
In the History of Christianity every time the church has locked horns with science or its predecessors, it has been wrong and lost. I challenge you to name one time The Church had it right and science had it wrong. Surely you are aware of the church’s history on these matters and there should be no need to list all of them.
In Biblical times some of the most important human discoveries that ever occurred, yet are never mentioned in the Bible.
If the Bible has a stake in science, why does it never mention such things as control of fire, invention of the wheel, use and discovery of tools?
Why are the natural science references so vague. So vague that over the centuries the church has slowly changed its interpretation of the Old Testment to conform to science. Always in the beginning the church cries heresy, but in the end concedes.
Or for the history teacher who said the egyptian pharoahs believed in Ra?
This is taught as history, not spiritual truth. This teacher presented Christianity as spiritual truth. No history teacher presents Ra as spiritual truth. Can't you see the difference?
And the archaeologist who teaches that the old kings of Greece worshipped their Greek Gods? And the Norse theirs? And the Romans theirs?
Mythology, history, not spiritual truth!

But since when did mentioning the beliefs of our past leaders have anything to do with religious converting?
This is proselytizing, clear and simple. Not simply for Christianity, but for Protestantism. Only certain Christians are worthy to hold public office. You don’t think this is proselytizing?
Please explain, because I'm baffled at your logic here.
I’m the one that is baffled. We need to discuss this.

It can be considered a Christian nation, because the majority of the people believe in Christianity.
Agreed. I liked your phrase “can be consider”. This has a much different meaning that “it is a”.
I will accept your statement if you will accept mine:
“And it can equally be considered a Deist nation because the founding fathers were primarily Deists.”
If I need to prove this to you I will. Other here have done it better than I can, but I will not shy away from a challenge.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A special thanks to hannahjoy for pointing out a major spelling error which I was able to correct.
Last edited by BeHereNow on Sat Feb 05, 2005 6:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
hannahjoy
Apprentice
Posts: 236
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 10:19 pm
Location: Greenville, SC

Post #2

Post by hannahjoy »

I think you mean proselytizing, not prophesizing (which is not a word at all).

The reason the Bible is vague on scientific matters is that it's purpose is spiritual, not scientific, instruction.
"Bearing shame and scoffing rude,
In my place condemned He stood;
Sealed my pardon with His blood;
Hallelujah! What a Saviour!"
- Philip P. Bliss, 1838-1876

User avatar
BeHereNow
Site Supporter
Posts: 584
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2004 6:18 pm
Location: Maryland
Has thanked: 2 times

Post #3

Post by BeHereNow »

I think you mean proselytizing, not prophesizing (which is not a word at all).
The reason the Bible is vague on scientific matters is that it's purpose is spiritual, not scientific, instruction.
Yes, I guess those big words get me confused. Egg on my face.
Thanks for the correction hannahjoy.

Your point is my point, and yet surely we don’t agree.

If the purpose of the Bible is spiritual, isn’t the business of the church spiritual?
Why does the church feel compelled to make scientific pronouncements?

I agree that the Bible can reasonably be considered a “guidebook for life”, but it needs to be recognized that it does not treat all aspects of life equally.

The Bible has been used to deny certain medical treatment to ill individuals. This is an incorrect application of the Bible as it is not a book of medicine.
The Bible can correctly be used to make pronouncements concerning the spiritual nature of the origin of species, but has no business making scientific pronouncements on the same subject.
Do you see it a different way?

User avatar
Andrew Sutton
Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:26 am
Location: Concord, North Carolina

Re: History Teacher is Proselytizing

Post #4

Post by Andrew Sutton »

Here is the rest of the story:
a schoolteacher, Stephen Williams of Mountain View, California, was passing out supplementary literature along with copies of the Declaration of Independence. As evidenced in Case Number C 04 4946 Williams vs. Vidmar, the supplementary materials included:
• A letter from George W. Bush proclaiming the National Day of Prayer - e.g. - "Prayer is an opportunity to praise God for His mighty works, His gift of freedom, His mercy, and His boundless love...According to Scripture, 'the Lord is near to all who call upon Him...He also will hear their cry, and save them.'"
• A two page list of Religious Clauses in State Constitutions - e.g. - Georgia - Article VI (1977) "The representatives shall be chosen out of the residents in each county...and they shall be of the Protestant religion..."
• A list of quotes titled "What Great Leaders Have Said About the Bible" - e.g. - George Washington...It is impossible to rightly govern the world without the Bible. and Jesus Christ...It is written, man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
• Excerpts from George Washington's Prayer Journal - e.g. - Sunday Evening O most Glorious God, in Jesus Christ my merciful and loving father, I acknowledge and confess my guilt...
• Excerpts from John Adams' Diary - e.g. - The Christian religion is above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity, and humanity, let the blackguard Paine say what he will; it is resignation to God, it is goodness itself to man.
• A fact sheet titled, "Currency & Coins - History of 'In God We Trust'" –
BeHereNow comments: Clearly the teacher was promoting Protestant Christianity. This is inappropriate.
Beliefs drive behavior. All the items you mention totaled up to nothing more than a summation of the beliefs of the men and women who run/founded this country. It is no different then discussing what the beliefs of Adolf Hitler were in the contect of Depression era and WWII Germany.
seventil replies: The teacher was promiting protestant Christianity?
And for the science teacher that says Darwin believed in evolution?
Evolution is a scientific theory.
Or for the history teacher who said the egyptian pharoahs believed in Ra?
This is taught as history, not spiritual truth. This teacher presented Christianity as spiritual truth. No history teacher presents Ra as spiritual truth. Can't you see the difference?
He presented what those individuals perceived as spiritual truth. Again Beliefs drive behavior
And the archaeologist who teaches that the old kings of Greece worshipped their Greek Gods? And the Norse theirs? And the Romans theirs?
Mythology, history, not spiritual truth!
Spiritual truth for them
But since when did mentioning the beliefs of our past leaders have anything to do with religious converting?
This is proselytizing, clear and simple. Not simply for Christianity, but for Protestantism. Only certain Christians are worthy to hold public office. You don’t think this is proselytizing?
It is only proselytizing if you attempt to persuade the students that those individuals were in fact correct
Please explain, because I'm baffled at your logic here.
I’m the one that is baffled. We need to discuss this.
I'm every bit as baffled as the previous poster. This seems like the type of logic that R.A. Heinlein referred to as "wooly logic" ie not logical or well thought throug at all

[/quote]

User avatar
BeHereNow
Site Supporter
Posts: 584
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2004 6:18 pm
Location: Maryland
Has thanked: 2 times

Post #5

Post by BeHereNow »

Andrew Sutton: This seems like the type of logic that R.A. Heinlein referred to as "wooly logic" is not logical or well thought through at all


My Neanderthal roots bristle at this comment. It is also rumored at family gatherings my clan has Cro-Magnon blood in our veins. We shall see if your Modern man is any match for the wooly logic you mock.
Andrew Sutton: All the items you mention totaled up to nothing more than a summation of the beliefs of the men and women who run/founded this country.
This is a false statement. It is at the core of your false beliefs. It has several false aspects.

First of all, they are not a “summation of the beliefs of the men and women who run/founded this country.”
They are a summation of certain beliefs of some men and women who run/founded this country, and that is the problem.

There is a significant majority of others who feel Deism is the acceptable belief system for this country, and Atheists as well have the same freedoms from the tyranny or organized Christianity. They see Christainty as a stumbling block to truth and freedom.

Also, because they are falsely represented as a summation, they are propaganda pure and simple.

The George Washington quote (“impossible to govern without the bible”) is an invention, pure fiction. You can not find the document it came from because it does not exist. It is rumored to come from his First Inaugural address, April 30, 1789, but in fact the document does not mention god, Jesus, Christ, or the Bible. It only mentions the nebulous “Invisible hand”, “Great Author”, “Almighty Being”.
George was a deist, pure and simple.
If you attempt a rebuttal, please address this falsehood first. Show me the mammoth beef!



The proof that the group I favor is in the majority is absence of ANY reference to Christianity in the official documents.
Surely you believe that when the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were written, the majority had their way and the minority acquiesced.
If you attempt a rebuttal, please address this issue second.

I don’t doubt that politicians will make statements to please the crowds. For every public proclamation that has a direct reference to Christianity, there is a more private comment to a friend about the superstition of Christianity.

GW is a Christian of convenience. It gets him the votes. He plays the role.
When a head count is done to number the Christians, all are included. Families who have not stepped foot in a church for a decade are numbered among the faithful. They proudly proclaim their Christianity but have never been baptized and never taken communion.

You may challenge any of my quotes, and I will find the original source documents and we can discuss your disagreement.



To the United Baptist Churches in Virginia in May, 1789, Washington said that every man "ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience."

John Adams, a Unitarian, flatly denied the doctrine of eternal damnation. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, he wrote:
"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!"

In his, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" [1787-1788], John Adams wrote:
"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.

James Madison
Called the father of the Constitution, Madison had no conventional sense of Christianity. In 1785, Madison wrote in his Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments:
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." "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."

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the 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.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

Was George Washington a Christian?
His preacher didn't think so:

Why, for example, did George Washington refuse to take communion for most of his adult life, thereby (in effect) excommunicating himself from the Church of Christ? Why are his public references to the Lord Jesus Christ almost non-existent? Why did Washington aspire and attain to the rank of Grand Master in the Masonic lodge, a lodge in which each promotion requires the applicant to swear to an anti-Christian oath?

Washington's own pastor during the 8 years of his Presidency -- Dr. James Abercrombie, Assistant Rector of Christ Church in Philadelphia -- had grave doubts about the state of Washington's soul. While his wife went forward to kneel with the communicants on communion Sunday, Washington always walked out the back door. Rebuked indirectly from the pulpit, he acknowledged his offense and promised never to attend church on communion Sunday, a promise that he kept. Dr. Abercrombie left us these words: "That Washington was a professing Christian, is evident from his regular attendance in our church; but, Sir, I cannot consider any man as a real Christian who uniformly disregards an ordinance so solemnly enjoined by the divine Author of our holy religion, and considered as a channel of divine grace."



Benjamin Franklin
Although Franklin received religious training, his nature forced him to rebel against the irrational tenets of his parents Christianity. His Autobiography revels his skepticism, "My parents had given me betimes religions impressions, and I received from my infancy a pious education in the principles of Calvinism. But scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself.
". . . 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 through Deist."

In an essay on "Toleration," Franklin wrote:
"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here [England] and in New England."

Dr. Priestley, an intimate friend of Franklin, wrote of him:
"It is much to be lamented that a man of Franklin's general good character and great influence should have been an unbeliever in Christianity, and also have done as much as he did to make others unbelievers" (Priestley's Autobiography)

Thomas Paine
This freethinker and author of several books, influenced more early Americans than any other writer. Although he held Deist beliefs, he wrote in his famous The Age of Reason:
"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my church. "
"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. "

User avatar
Andrew Sutton
Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:26 am
Location: Concord, North Carolina

Post #6

Post by Andrew Sutton »

Without taking up a lot of time with quoting and counter quoting I'll try to respond to that lengthy post of yours . You are right that it was only some of our leaders and there were others with differing views among our country's leadership in anytime period you wish to choose. While they were possibly slanted towards certain individuals if those were individuals that the texts (which in most states are determined at the state or district level not by the teacher) emphiseised then they were entirely appropriate, within that context.

I didn't check before making my post to see if the quotes that were listed were actually genuine They all had a legitimate feel to them . :oops: The man made a series error in note back referancing his sources which anyone with the educational background to be teaching history should know better. A serious judgment error but not in itself proof of proselytizing.

Protestant Christianity, Judaism, Deism ,Theism and given the part of Europe most of them came from probable a few closet Pagans were all found among the Founding Fathers. I suspect that , but can't prove, that is as likely a reason as your stated belief that the majority were Deists for the lack of reference to any specific faith.

The point you are continuing to mis is that to accuse a person of proselytizing you must show that they were attempting to teach the validity of the Beliefs the are teaching about..
Come let us reason together,saith the Lord

Is 1:18[/code]

User avatar
BeHereNow
Site Supporter
Posts: 584
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2004 6:18 pm
Location: Maryland
Has thanked: 2 times

Post #7

Post by BeHereNow »

The point you are continuing to miss is that to accuse a person of proselytizing you must show that they were attempting to teach the validity of the Beliefs they are teaching about..
We should be able to agree the teacher was circulating, and endorsing propaganda.
Propaganda is meant to sway opinion, to convince another line of thought is superior.

When a person of authority such as a teacher passes out handouts he is “teaching” the materials contained.
To say that yes, he was teaching (as you say), but he was not teaching that the beliefs were valid is difficult for me to understand. Are you saying sometimes teachers teach material that is invalid? This has never happened to me. Now I have had mythology classes where material was present as “We don’t believe these things, but some people did…” If the teacher made a disclaimer and said “This is not truth, just some fanciful ideas some people have.” I would agree with you. He did not do this.
We of course do not expect that he sat everyone down and said “If you are not Christian you will all burn in hell, so here is what you must believe.”

If we still disagree please tell me at what point a teacher’s actions are inappropriate.

The founding fathers that I call Deists were Deists by decision, not default.
There were some who were Deists by default, I trust you would agree that they certainly were not Christian. To represent them as Christian when they were not is wrong and deceitful either way.

User avatar
MagusYanam
Guru
Posts: 1562
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: Providence, RI (East Side)

Post #8

Post by MagusYanam »

I agree, BeHereNow - a teacher should not endorse any particular religious view. And it certainly does look like that's what this particular history teacher is doing, especially since much of what he is teaching has little basis in fact. If, however, he is engaging the students in a critique of the handouts, that would be another story entirely.

Also, John Adams was a Unitarian? I can well believe that, though he most definitely was not in name a Unitarian during his presidency (1797-1801). William Ellery Channing began Unitarianism in America formally in 1819, with the Baltimore Sermon. (The AUA was created six years later, in 1825.) Before that, the Adams family was liberal Congregationalist with unitarian (little u) leanings (according to Wikipedia). Thanks for the interesting quotes by the Founding Fathers, by the way; I never could stomach the Religious-Right arguments that the United States was a 'Christian nation' and that the Founding Fathers had made it that way.

User avatar
BeHereNow
Site Supporter
Posts: 584
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2004 6:18 pm
Location: Maryland
Has thanked: 2 times

Post #9

Post by BeHereNow »

From Thomas Jefferson:
To Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse Monticello, June 26, 1822
DEAR SIR,
-- I have received and read with thankfulness and pleasure your denunciation of the abuses of tobacco and wine. Yet, however sound in its principles, I expect it will be but a sermon to the wind. You will find it as difficult to inculcate these sanative precepts on the sensualities of the present day, as to convince an Athanasian that there is but one God. I wish success to both attempts, and am happy to learn from you that the latter, at least, is making progress, and the more rapidly in proportion as our Platonizing Christians make more stir and noise about it. The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.

1. That there is one only God, and he all perfect.
2. That there is a future state of rewards and punishments.
3. That to love God with all thy heart and thy neighbor as thyself, is the sum of religion.

These are the great points on which he endeavored to reform the religion of the Jews. But compare with these the demoralizing dogmas of Calvin.
1. That there are three Gods. (ed. This is the trinity)
2. That good works, or the love of our neighbor, are nothing.
3. That faith is every thing, and the more incomprehensible the proposition, the more merit in its faith.
4. That reason in religion is of unlawful use.
5. That God, from the beginning, elected certain individuals to be saved, and certain others to be damned; and that no crimes of the former can damn them; no virtues of the latter save.

Now, which of these is the true and charitable Christian?
He who believes and acts on the simple doctrines of Jesus?
Or the impious dogmatists, as Athanasius and Calvin? Verily I say these are the false shepherds foretold as to enter not by the door into the sheepfold, but to climb up some other way. They are mere usurpers of the Christian name, teaching a counter-religion made up of the deliria of crazy imaginations, as foreign from Christianity as is that of Mahomet. Their blasphemies have driven thinking men into infidelity, who have too hastily rejected the supposed author himself, with the horrors so falsely imputed to him. Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would now have been Christian. I rejoice that in this blessed country of free inquiry and belief, which has surrendered its creed and conscience to neither kings nor priests, the genuine doctrine of one only God is reviving, and I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die an Unitarian.
But much I fear, that when this great truth shall be re-established, its votaries will fall into the fatal error of fabricating formulas of creed and confessions of faith, the engines which so soon destroyed the religion of Jesus, and made of Christendom a mere Aceldama; that they will give up morals for mysteries, and Jesus for Plato. How much wiser are the Quakers, who, agreeing in the fundamental doctrines of the gospel, schismatize about no mysteries, and, keeping within the pale of common sense, suffer no speculative differences of opinion, any more than of feature, to impair the love of their brethren. Be this the wisdom of Unitarians, this the holy mantle which shall cover within its charitable circumference all who believe in one God, and who love their neighbor! I conclude my sermon with sincere assurances of my friendly esteem and respect.
Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Andrew Sutton
Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:26 am
Location: Concord, North Carolina

Post #10

Post by Andrew Sutton »

We should be able to agree the teacher was circulating, and endorsing propaganda.
Propaganda is meant to sway opinion, to convince another line of thought is superior.
Nope can't agree because he isn't reread your own definition and then reread what the man actually did
When a person of authority such as a teacher passes out handouts he is “teaching” the materials contained.
To say that yes, he was teaching (as you say), but he was not teaching that the beliefs were valid is difficult for me to understand. Are you saying sometimes teachers teach material that is invalid? This has never happened to me. Now I have had mythology classes where material was present as “We don’t believe these things, but some people did…” If the teacher made a disclaimer and said “This is not truth, just some fanciful ideas some people have.” I would agree with you. He did not do this.
What he appears to have been doing was showing what the beliefs of a group of our leaders believed. Unless you have some information you haven't shared about this event there is no indication of a value judgment on the beliefs. I will certainly agree that he did a lousy research job on his citations, which is grounds for serious concern. Bad Information can be worse than none.

I had a professor pass out 23 pages of extracts from Volkish tracts during a course on Europe in the period between WWI and WWII no one accused her of propagandizing even though the Volkish movement is the direct ancestor of modern Fascism and She was born in Hamburg, Ger. in 1923. Nor am I aware of anyone in that class who ever expressed any Fascist sympathies.
If we still disagree please tell me at what point a teacher’s actions are inappropriate.
when they say this mans beliefs are right or that groups beliefs are wrong in an academic enviroment
The founding fathers that I call Deists were Deists by decision, not default.
There were some who were Deists by default, I trust you would agree that they certainly were not Christian. To represent them as Christian when they were not is wrong and deceitful either way.
i
:roll: As I said in my last post there were a diversity of Faiths ,yes including deists , among the Founding Fathers and this diversity is ,imho, as good if not better hypothesis for the lack of specific religous references in the founding documents of this country.
Come let us reason together,saith the Lord

Is 1:18[/code]

Post Reply