Many of us remember the headline, “Declaration of Independence banned from classroom.” Just before Thanksgiving, the Alliance Defense Fund filed suit against the Cupertino, Calif., school district and issued a press release with that claim at the top–and all hell broke loose.
Talk radio and TV rushed to the aid of Steven Williams, a public-school teacher and professed Christian who had apparently suffered religious discrimination at the hands of a martinet-principal. Not allowed to teach the Declaration of Independence? Was it possible? People all over the country began contacting the Stevens Creek Elementary School. The court of public opinion’s verdict was swift: Someone had pushed the cause of secularism into new realms of absurdity and abuse…
It turns out that the Declaration had not been “banned.” It still appears in the school’s fifth-grade textbook and hangs from classroom walls. The real claim is narrower. The suit alleges that, for religious reasons, Mr. Williams was forced to get approval from the principal before handing out supplemental materials to his fifth-grade class, and among those materials, on one occasion, was an excerpt from the Declaration. How did it come about that the school’s principal, Patti Vidmar, withheld her approval from this noble text?
According to Mark Davis, the school district’s counsel, Mr. Williams had become the subject of “a couple of formal and some informal complaints” because of the frequency and alleged inappropriateness of his mentions of faith in the classroom. He had become a born-again Christian in spring 2001…Other parents claim Mr. Williams kept a Bible on his desk alongside worship CDs and regularly spoke to his classes about his weekend Bible studies. Armineh Noravian objected when Mr. Williams passed out President Bush’s Day of Prayer proclamation in her son’s class this year, to show students, Mr. Williams later told her, “the importance of prayer.”
Ultimately, Ms. Vidmar–a Christian herself, who got permission at Stevens Creek for an after-school Good News Bible club–stepped in. She asked Mr. Williams to show her lesson plans mentioning God or religion. She approved some, like the one showing C.S. Lewis’s Narnia stories to be Christian allegory. But others, like the lesson on Easter and the Resurrection, she told him to omit…
Religious people nationwide will no doubt be following the case closely, thinking of instances in which public schools have over-interpreted the separation of church and state to mean virtually banning religion from their premises. But should this new lawsuit join that list of excessive vigilance? The parents and principal at Stevens Creek don’t seem to have a problem with religion at their school. They do seem to feel that one of their fifth-grade teachers crossed a line. For those who worry about the way faith is treated in our public institutions, Mr. Williams may not be the best candidate for a hero.
The gig is up. And this is from the dyed-in-the-wool liberals at the Wall Street Journal. In other news, some pinko-communist leftist clown the former solicitor general of the United States under President Ronald Reagan notes, in no uncertain terms, why the Schiavo legislation was such a bad deal:
IN their intervention in the Terri Schiavo matter, Republicans in Congress and President Bush have, in a few brief legislative clauses, embraced the kind of free-floating judicial activism, disregard for orderly procedure and contempt for the integrity of state processes that they quite rightly have denounced and sought to discipline for decades…
Congress’s intervention in the Schiavo case is equally mischievous. It demanded that a federal court decide this issue without giving any deference to state law or the previous course of state court proceedings. This is exactly the sort of episodic federal intervention without regard for the integrity of state processes that plagued death penalty cases for years, and that Congress moved to end when it passed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. And the real possibility now of the case bouncing back and forth between the federal district court and the federal appeals court, and maybe even back to state court, is just what Congress tried to shut down in death penalty cases…
Finally, the law passed by Congress on Monday was an obvious attempt – under the pretense of allowing the determination of federal constitutional rights – to delay the outcome decreed by Florida state law with the hope of making that outcome impossible. That is precisely the worrisome tactic employed with increasingly imaginative stays and orders of re-litigation in a number of federal courts, most noticeably the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers nine Western states. And it is also precisely the sort of tactic that Congress sought to discipline in the Effective Death Penalty Act.
It is no good for politicians to try to justify this absurd departure from principles of federalism and respect for sound and orderly judicial administration by saying that, in this case, the life at stake is unquestionably innocent. For in many of the death penalty cases, the claim has also been that the prisoner had at least unfairly, and perhaps even incorrectly, been condemned to death.
What we have is many of the the same political leaders who denounced the Supreme Court’s decision forbidding states from executing those who committed their crimes as juveniles now feel free to parachute in on a case that had been within a state court’s purview for 15 years.
And while we are at it, we should point out the absolute cowardice on the part of Senate Democrats:
The House of Representatives acted quickly over the weekend in the wrenching case of Terri Schiavo, so quickly that maybe those who opposed the special bill allowing the federal courts to take over the case might have missed the Senate’s role – conspicuous for its silence.
The debate was confined to the House, for nearly four hours late Sunday night and early Monday. In the Senate, home of Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein of California, and, of course, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Charles E. Schumer of New York, nothing.
An objection from just one senator might have blocked or slowed the measure’s march to the House. Instead, the Senate Democratic leadership approved the bill by unanimous consent, with no floor discussion about the Florida woman whose doctors say is in a “persistent vegetative state.” What’s going on?
Senators, at least those here in New York, are not talking for public consumption, but neither is their strategy well hidden. They have opted to sit back, let the courts take the heat and avoid a passionate attack from social conservatives who see this as an issue of life, like abortion, and want Ms. Schiavo’s feeding tube, removed on Friday, reinserted. By not tangling on the Senate floor, the lawmakers have escaped broad accusation of opposing life.
Democratic Senators who are critical of the measure were saying this week that they had little to gain by taking on this issue. Constitutional experts assured them that there was little chance that the federal courts would step in or that the United States Supreme Court would intervene after refusing several times to hear the state case. They also worried that if they blocked the bill, they risked being blamed if Ms. Schiavo died before the House passed it.
Enough already.
Oliver
Why should we have gotten involved and gotten flack while the far right decided to call jihad on the judiciary branch?
AT
Oh please, do you really think the Democrats who opposed this did so because of their strong deference to state judiciaries and limited government, or do you think they did so because they strongly support a duty, err, I mean a right to die?
t
This issue boils down to ONE thing only: what were Terri’s wishes?
Now, the truth is, that none of us know. 99.9% of the people voicing an opinion on this matter, have no f’n idea what Terri wanted.
The person who the FLA legislature designated as the legal guardian, says he knows. He has testified that Terri wanted said she wanted to die in this situation. Judge Greer believed him, and also has ample testimony from medical experts that she is in PVS. Those two things are all he needs to starve her to death. Period.
To me, while Michael’s testimony is pretty flimsy evidence, in cases like this – without written notice (living will, etc.) – there’s not much chance of having stronger evidence.
It’s unfortunate that the law is what it is, but the legislature could have changed it – and just a few days ago chose not to.
Thus, Terri should be put to death.
The judges and all the courts are correct in this case, and the Republicans et al have made fools of themselves. I nromally favour the conservative/Republican viewpoint, but on this one, they’ve really blown it.
Something I don’t hear discussed much, is how the religious right is showing us all why we don’t want them in power. Because these people are as whacked-out as the loony left! They would keep Terri alive even AGAINST her wishes, because they don’t believe anyone should have that right at all! About 80%+ of Americans disagree with them. So do I. Their arguments are disingenuous, because they do not ask “what did Terri want”. I have nto heard a single one of these people say that *IF* they thought Terri wanted to die in this situation, that they would support her right to do so. Even tonight, on H&C, the brotehr and sister were asked this question,a nd they punted instead of giving a straight answer.
I won’t stand for people on EITHER side of the political spectrum trying to impose their beliefs or values on *ME*.
AT
t, what’s your opinion of the cases of Marjorie Nighbert, Robert Wendland, and Michael Martin?
Jesurgislac
t, one of the many terrible things about the Schiavo case has been how Michael Schiavo’s position in the case has been lied about: how he has been slandered and demonized: and he is now even receiving death threats. (That traditional method pro-lifers have of showing what they mean by “pro-life.)
That Terri Schiavo would not have wished to be kept alive in a PVS with a feeding tube was not solely dependent on Michael Schiavo’s testimony.
It is inappropriate to refer to Michael Schiavo as “starving her to death”. Michael Schiavo gave the right to make that decision to the courts, seven years ago, when it became evident that he and the Schindlers could not achieve consensus.
Kimmitt
Senate Dems acted in as craven a fashion as they usually act; they’ve gotten a little better with Senator Reid as Minority Leader, but something in the water in DC seems to convince them that they need to hide from the people — and ideals — which got them elected.
AT
Keeping in mind that they lost four seats last time, Kimmitt, exactly what ideals would those be?
Editor - 201k
Regarding Steven Williams, the New Yorker reports that what ultimately got him in trouble in Cupertino–what crossed the line–was a “supplemental handout” he made himselt that had just the God and/or religious references from the Declaration of Independece.
As John mentions, the school (and the class’s textbook) have the DOI in it–of course. But there’s an “abridged” version for younger kids as well. The abridged version omits a lot of stuff–including the few religious references. It’s a pared-down version for 10 year-olds. When they get older they dea with the full version.
Williams printed a handout with just the religious parts on it. And this was after he’d got the whole school–parents, kids, other teachers–fed up with his single-mindedness. All the “supplemental” material he submitted was always directly or indirectly on the religious aspects of the subjects. The New Yorker lists them. It was way out of proportion. One thing that pushed a lot of people over the edge with him was a handout he stuck in the mailboxes of the other teachers explaining in what ways they could “legally teach religion” in their class. The other teachers–many of whom are Christians–didn’t exactly appreciate him telling them how to teach.
Obvious the faith of some of the Founders played a role in the formation of the Republic–but it’s a big subject and it cuts both ways, as people here know. The religious views of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Tom Paine, etc., bore no resemblence to today’s evangelical Christianity. But whatever it was, and to whatever degree it played a role, Williams was out of all proportion with it as far as teaching fifth-grade. The list of materials he brought to the principal (before getting to the “religious-only” Declaration of Independece) would convince anyone of that.
Editor - 201k
As for Terri Schiavo: I’m worried that we now live in a country in which the people who think they can force their views on her in direct opposition to what has been determined to be her will have so much power.
It’s scary to think how far that could go. Forget your individual will, forget the courts, forget the laws that have evolved to protect individual liberty–forget everything: we think it’s a bad idea and you shall obey.
Bob
If we presume that there is a negative nad factor regarding Demo Senators for their lack of opposition to the Republican jihad, then can we presume that the Republicans are just all righteous Christians?
I think not.
It’s a power grab, to further concentrate their power to further concentrate their wealth and the wealth of their handlers.
Maybe we’ll have a compromise between the Schiavo theological gymnastics, the Futile Care Act from Texas and the recent changes in the bankruptcy laws. The hospitals can keep brain-dead loved ones alive until the loved ones are thoroughly bankrupt and deeply in debt. Then the plug is pulled (but it’s pulled by a corporation, so it’s not a sin, it’s free enterprise) and the living remain in chains for the rest of their wretched lives.
Sounds like a plan.
I think that the disturbing thing about the Schiavo mess is that Congress now has precedence to further insinuate itself into people’s personal lives. For a bunch of guys who used to claim that they wanted to get government off our backs, they seem to keep turning up in all sorts of intimate places, whether through the Patriot Act (the name alone should have warned everyone), the Schiavo law and everything else pulled by this group.
BOHICA.
willyb
I think that the disturbing thing about the Schiavo mess is that Congress now has precedence to further insinuate itself into people’s personal lives.
Is the sky falling? Please explain how a (bad) piece of legislation that was narrowly limited to Terri Schiavo’s case, and largely procedural, has such a huge impact on us?
brendan
I disagree on the democrats’ “cowardice”.
Were the dems to come out opposing the GOP on this, they would have exposed themselves to any number of catcalls. “Why do you hate terri”, etc etc.
better to keep quiet and let the lunatics on the fringe make their big old stink, thus scaring moderates away from the GOP.
Craven? yes. But no more craven than 3 senators making hash of the separation of powers just to pander to the religious right.
Kimmitt
Yeah, I know, I know — I just hate the idea of our guys putting their names on something which is so blatantly unconstitutional.
ccobb
Let’s see, Republicans are in the act of digging their own grave. Dems are cowards for not jumping in ahead of them. Hmm. Not buying what you’re selling.