That is so loony. It is impossible to understand Anglo-American history without knowing WHY those guys acted as they did! Read "Albion's Seed", or "The Cousins' Wars," for more info. People 200 yrs ago did not necessarily think and act as we do today. Unfortunately, the pubic school screachers don't seem to know this.

One example: The Pilgrim Fathers were right badass Congregationalists. I think they reserved the right to whip Baptists over the line into the next colony, and I'm pretty sure they hanged at least one Quaker female. Kinda funny, now, when you think of all the R. Caths. running things now in Mass.

Disclaimer: I am ANGLO-Celtic. I have all of the good qualities of Irishmen, with none of the bad ones. e.g.; When I drink too much, I don't pick fights, I comment on other people's blogs.

Just want to know, if for a fact (and I've left this email on 'left' sites as well) you truly believe that the minority of far left people represent the group of liberal Americans who feel privacy of the individual is one of America's greatest, yet disappearing, gifts?
For every nut-job LEFTY who wants to ban the Declaration of Independence or the Pledge of Allegiance, are you helping to 'out' every Right-Wing Fundamentalist who uses God to justify the basic freedoms this country was founded on?

I'm against this kind of government-enforced atheism. It is the reductio ad absurdam of so much that certain fanatic secularists have been doing, including their trying to ban the Pledge of Allegiance because it has the words "under God" in it. If you don't want to mouth those three syllables, you don't have to. But those who want to should be allowed to. Establishment of irreligion is as bad as establishment of religion, and there is also that clause about the "free exercise" of religion. I'm not a Christian myself (I'm a polytheist), but I respect the rights of Christians.

Anybody who knows anything about me knows that I'm an absolute defender of the privacy of the individual, including freedom of worship and of the holy sexual embrace between consenting adults (whether androsexual or gynosexual). I absolutely oppose the totalitarian doctrines articulated by Bork and Santorum. I absolutely defend Griswold vs. Connecticut (1965), Stanley vs. Georgia (1969), and Lawrence and Garner vs. Texas (2003).

"Freedom means freedom for everyone."
-Vice President Cheney

"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties."
-John Milton, "The Aeropagitica"

"If all mankind, minus one, were of one opinion, and only one man were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
-John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty"

"I have sworn, upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every tyranny over the mind of man."
-Thomas Jefferson

"The right to privacy reflects the moral fact that the individual belongs to himself and not to others or to society as a whole."
-Justice Harry Blackmun, dissent in Bowers vs. Hardwick (1986)

"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."
-Justice Anthony Kennedy, Lawrence and Garner vs. Texas (2003)

"We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being."
-Justice William O. Douglas

People should look into the facts of the case before judging.

While this guy is doing a great job with the media exploitation, the facts more than justify the actions taken against this person.

Please note that all of the other teachers in the area have NOT had the materials banned. Just this guy. Why? Because he wasn't actually teaching the materials as a whole, he was taking excerpts from the materials, combining it with his own personal religions teachings, and using it to justify a rather odd version of american history.

His version of american history was more about teaching christianity to the kids, and a specific version of christianity at that. Many parents complained, his lesson plans were reviewed and were found to be nothing short of preaching extremely far reaching extremist points of view that are not even mainstream religion.

I think all of us would agree that teaching 5th graders that only christians are true americans in the eyes of god; that slavery was just because blacks are not people in the eyes of god; that the purpose of america is to spread the word of god through force if required; are all extremist points of view and do not belong in a classroom.

That's what the case really is. Unfortunately, the media has jumped on the controversial 'banning' of historical documents, which isn't true at all. In fact, the fact that other teachers still use the same materials is even specifically listed in this man's complaint agains the school. The school has only banned him, nothing else.