There’s obviously two issues here, one of a teacher disregarding the rules, and another of a teacher bringing God into the classroom.

As long as the context of the lesson wasn’t to make a religious point, I personally would never have a problem with historical documents being used in a classroom. That said, if these documents were banned purely because they mention God, there’s something wrong with the system.

Rececently, a student read the Pledge over his school’s TV closed circuit network but left the words “Under God” out, in express defiance of what was expected of him. He was banned for the duration of the school year from participating in the school TV news program.

Both guys broke the rules. Obviously, the teacher should be held to a much higher standard, but both were defiant of some ridiculous notions of religion in schools.

I have pondered a lot on the idea of teachers evangelising in schools. Going to a christian school for most of my life I was subjected to it, more in my junior years than in my later years.

I read reacently what I thought was the most convincing reason that it is a crime for teachers to teach what is myth to a lot of people as fact. Freedom of speech, it is acceptible provided that you have Freedom from speech, the ability to not listen, where you are not forced to listen to a viewpoint.

IMVHO Teachers who evangelise their students are abusing their position in 2 ways:
1. They are violating the basic human right to believe what ever you want to believe, by using their position of authority to push their religion. Not as a choice but instead they are told it is a fact on a par with 1+1 = 2.

2. They are violating the principles of freedom of speech because their audience cannot get up and leave, they are speaking to people who do not have a choice as to whether to listen. It does not matter if the choice would be be made in the favou r of the teacher, the abscence of the choice is the problem.

2. Adendum. Admitedly a lot of school is taught in this fashion, which causes a flaw in my second argument, however I have yet to have a science or history teach say “X is true, and if you don’t believe it then you will spend eternity in a pit of fire”

“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.

According to the Reconstructionists, that’s a “fact,” anyway. 

Ellie asked:

What do you speculate they might find in this teacher’s past?

The article notes:

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.

This makes me think that Mr. Williams has given the principal a REASON to approve his lesson plans because he’s prone to proselytizing.

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.�

If the only supplemental materials Mr. Williams has been submitting for review are those that build strong support for the “fact” that the founders were “religious men,” when there are plenty of documents (as we well know) that show them to be anything BUT the sort of “religious” today’s Christian Right would like people to believe, then I can see why the principal has a problem with Mr. Williams’ attempt to proselytize to a bunch of 10-year-olds under the guise of teaching them American History.

Not that I endorse the advocation of any religious view in the classroom, but I think there’s the mistaken assumption that all of the founding father held religious views that would be unacceptable to the more liberal among us. 

For example consider Thomas Jefferson, he was very much a religious pluralist and his edition of the bible is one that would be acceptable to most agnostics today (in that he tries to draw the story of the historical Jesus from the New Testament without all the supernatural mumbo jumbo and instead placed his focus on Jesus as an ethical example).  I mean if the religious right were trying to push Jefferson’s view of religion I would probably be less likely to object than I currently do to the advocation of the crazy view held by people like Jerry Falwell.

Now this is not to say that the religious views of Jefferson should be taught in class.  Indeed, I don’t think it should, for a public institution, especially one that deals with our children, to endorse one religious view over another is an infringement to everyone’s right to religious autonomy. 

For example, how would Christians feel if Islamic views were taught in schools?  I’m pretty sure that they’d be pretty pissy about it, hell some are pissy because science is being taught in schools.  Now some might argue because Christians are the majority in North America that their religious perspective somehow has primacy.

However, this isn’t true.  Freedom and equality, if they are concepts that are worthwhile, must apply to everyone even the minority.  Indeed, I think that if freedom (any kind of freedom not just freedom of religion) is to be anything more than lip service it must apply especially to the minority.

That’s just my thoughts on the matter.

I can’t add much to what Unsomnambulist, Tom H, and OB have said here. The Reuters article didn’t really provide enough information for a judgement.  That said, I found it interesting that the entire article was quoted in the post above, with the exception of the last paragraph:

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.

...so it’s not just Christians who are (possibly) being discriminated against- it cuts both ways.

I could have sworn that the separation of church and state is in the U.S. constitution because not all of the founding fathers were “men of faith”. 
I really hope that the court case and decision make clear what is and isn’t acceptable.  I really doubt that the principle singled this teacher out solely because he was a christian.
My guess is he shouldn’t be teaching in the public system but instead at a Christian private school where he can happily promote his views.

I feel there is a lot of judgment and assumptions being made here. We do not know the content of the materials he was providing to his students. For a school to say that any item that mentions god is not allowed would be limiting our students education to a degree I cannot fathom.

He should not be preaching, but to mention that he feels there is a god and that these men believed in him does no one any harm.

People seem to freak out when they hear any one say the word god to their children but it is unavoidable. It is too much a part of American history and public discussion today.

Teach your kids what you want them to know, and let them know that there are other views out there and they may hear tidbits about those other views. If you have a relationship with you kid you’ll not be blindsided when he comes home and mentions such things.

I cannot agree more with this:

As long as the context of the lesson wasn’t to make a religious point, I personally would never have a problem with historical documents being used in a classroom. That said, if these documents were banned purely because they mention God, there’s something wrong with the system.

Now this is not to say that the religious views of Jefferson should be taught in class.  Indeed, I don’t think it should, for a public institution, especially one that deals with our children, to endorse one religious view over another is an infringement to everyone’s right to religious autonomy.

Agreed, SS.  Not to mention we’re talking FIFTH graders here.  They’re only 10!  The concepts of rebellion, revolution, monarchy and government are difficult enough for them to start wrapping their minds around; never mind throwing religion into the mix!

Zilch, I spend a lot of time lurking at Newdow’s site’s forums - it certainly DOES cut both ways (and more OUR way than theirs).

My personal tendency is to give the teacher the benefit of a doubt. 

the principal will not permit him to use any that contain references to God or Christianity

:rubeyes:  I pity the poor sap that tries to teach Canterbury Tales.  Or any other Medieval lit.

If Mr. Williams is providing students with a representative sample of the Founding Fathers’ writings, and then letting them come to their own conclusions, then he is -doing his job.-

I have a sneaking suspicion that that is -not- what’s going on, though.  It may well be that Mr. Williams’ selections are not truly representative.

His choice of legal council only heightens my suspicions.

Alliance Defense Fund

I know lawyers are supposed to be ‘zealous advocates,’ but I don’t think that’s synonymous with ‘advocate zealots.’

It’ll be interesting to see how the case ‘shakes out.’

Update at The Blue Lemur:

Declaration Of Independence banned!

The seemingly preposterous headline made major waves on the conservative Drudge Report and Fox News network Wednesday, joining Reuters and the Associated Press, in a misleading story that exhibited serious reportorial negligence, RAW STORY has learned.

The story, which reports that a California teacher has been banned from giving students documents from American history that refer to God, including the Declaration of Independence, is said a product of right-wing spin.

In fact, Cupertino public school principal Patricia Vidmar banned documents relating to God because the teacher had been forcing students to listen to what some felt was Christian propaganda, a media watchdog site reports. According to the site, the school had told him to stop but he did not comply, at which point the principal required that he submit his lesson plans to her in advance.

I suspected as much.

I think the words of the “Founding Fathers” should be taught at an early age…

John Adams:

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.

... Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind. [From “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” by John Adams, 1787.]

James Madison:

Although prayer groups proliferate in today’s Congress, James Madison, “father of the Constitution,� denounced even the presence of chaplains in Congress — and in the armed forces — as unconstitutional. He opposed all use of “religion as an engine of civil policy,� and accurately prophesied the threat of “ecclesiastical corporations.�

“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise� (letter to William Bradford, April 1, 1774).

“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� (Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, Section 7, 1785).

“What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries� (Ibid., Section 8).

Thomas Jefferson:

It’s a commonly stated error that U.S. law, based on English common law, is thus grounded in Judeo-Christian tradition.

Yet Jefferson (writing to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814 ) noted that common law “is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England …about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century. …We may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.�

Jefferson professed disbelief in the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus Christ, while respecting moral teachings by whomever might have been a historical Jesus. He cut up a Bible, assembling his own version: “The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful,� he wrote Adams (January 24, 1814), “evidence that parts have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds.�

Scorning miracles, saints, salvation, damnation, and angelic presences, Jefferson embraced reason, materialism, and science.

“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus… will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter� (letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823).

“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which…thus[built] a wall of separation between church and state� (letter to the Danbury [ Connecticut ] Baptist Association, January 1, 1802).

George Washington:

The false image of Washington as a devout Christian was fabricated by Mason Locke Weems, a clergyman who also invented the cherry-tree fable and in 1800 published his Life of George Washington. Washington, a Deist and a Freemason, never once mentioned the name of Jesus Christ in any of his thousands of letters, and pointedly referred to divinity as “It.�

Whenever he (rarely) attended church, Washington always deliberately left before communion, demonstrating disbelief in Christianity’s central ceremony.

Thomas Paine:

Paine’s writings heavily influenced the other Founders. A freethinker who opposed all organized religion, he reserved particular vituperation for Christianity. “My country is the world and my religion is to do good� (The Rights of Man, 1791).

“I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church� (The Age of Reason, 1794).

“Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory in itself than this thing called Christianity� (Ibid.).

PS. I don’t think the DOI helps this fool’s case anyway. The DOI mentions a “creator”, well for me (and I’m sure, for those who wrote it) that is nothing more than “Mother Nature”. And “Nature’s God” is simply science!

Wake up people! The Dark Ages Redux approaches!:ahhh:

Spocko, good quotes.

I imagine I’ll be in the minority here, but I think teachers should be able to talk about their religious faith.  Being a government employee should not mean having to pretend you are objective on issues where you hold strong opinions.  That is a service to no one.

See, the problem with rigidly controlling teachers’ personal expression is that it sets up an expectation for the kids that teachers speak ex cathedra.  (Or at least, for the kids’ parents’ lawyers.) The idea is that every word that comes out of the teacher’s mouth somehow carries the full weight of state approval.

Given that many silly or purely idiotic ideas have made it into the official curriculum in the past, that trust is misplaced.  Kids should learn early on that their teachers are just ordinary schmoes and that even official teachings can be wrong.

An example of officially pushing religion would be having an assembly for a preacher, saying “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance (because you’re not just saying it to the child; you’re expecting the child to say it back to you,) or any religious expression over the school PA system.  Kids need lessons in how to distinguish person from office.

It is true that you can hardly talk about US history without talking about religion.  Kids need to know that some founding fathers were devoutly religious men, and some of them were at the other extreme.  Yet they built a nation together by deciding to leave religious beliefs to the individual.  It was the only solution that had - or has - any chance of working over the long haul.

And the teacher is an individual.  Kids should be taught that instead of thinking their teachers are somehow channeling the founding fathers.  I guess what I’m saying is;

• Less credibility for teachers, more freedom for everyone
• More realistic assessment of the role of religion in American History
• More balanced assessment of the religious convictions of the founding fathers, instead of neocons and secularists both trying to claim “the founding fathers” as their own.

What I’m suggesting is a big paradigm shift but could break the logjam.  Because… if Christian teachers can be open about their beliefs, so can secularist, humanist teachers.  Fair’s fair, after all.

I think noone actually answered a couple of Ellie’s questions.

What would be an appropriate way to deal with a teacher proselytizing, given s/he were tenured?

Assuming that the teacher is proselytizing during school hours, on school grounds, while in the commission of his/her duties as a teacher, then administration should take the same actions that they would take if the teacher were engaging in some comparably illegal activity, say, child molestation (ah, sweet hyperbole.  I jest, of course, I jest).

But really.  The school could very well be held liable for violating students’ rights.  They have a responsibility to take -some- action, if only to insulate themselves from lawsuits.

How much leeway does a teacher have to supplement district-approved curriculum?

I want to say “a lot.” I don’t want administrators telling me that I can’t teach Shelley or Blake or Milton because they have explicitly religious, or anti-religious, content.  At the same time, I can fully understand why some parents would not want their children exposed to certain writers, or to certain instructors.

so, um, I gotta say “I don’t know.”

Actually, Dof did just answer some of those questions.

Kids should learn early on that their teachers are just ordinary schmoes and that even official teachings can be wrong.

I concur wholeheartedly.  In fact, that’s pretty much my opening statement for every class I teach.

I could have sworn that the separation of church and state is in the U.S. constitution because not all of the founding fathers were “men of faith�.

One of our local friends is a 1st amendment lawyer; he basically shrugs off the “but it doesn’t explicitely say this in the constitution” line. Even so, what it does say is unambiguous about the intent.

DOF,

I largely agree with you except there’s one small problem with your proposal.  Younger kids in the lower grades tend to only get one teacher for the entire year.  That being the case if the teacher happens to hold a particular religious view and endorses it in class the child doesn’t get any other perspective.  Moreover, given the amount of time young kids spend in school and the great degree of malleability that exists in their perspective.  Getting a very religious teacher in an early grade can result in some very deeply ingrained ideas.

This is not to say that in higher grades, when the children are a little more capable of critical reasoning, that teachers must suppress their own religious tendencies.  Indeed, in higher grades I think it would be useful if there was some religious discourse if it was had in a manner that allowed the children to dissent from the majority opinion.  However, I think that should be at most informal chatting rather than something that is prescribed by the curriculum.

On a semi-related note, I think many of you might be amused by this entry about Thanksgiving that I found on a friend of a friend’s friend’s live journal. I’ve come to think of this guy as Mirror Universe Les of sorts.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/bitpig/

Socialist, that’s another thing I’d like to change: marooning young kids with one teacher all day for an entire year.  If the teacher and the kid happen to “click,” then it works out just fine.  But if they don’t (as happened to my kids several times) it’s hell for the kid and not much more fun for the teacher.

On the other hand, given the stellar results our education system produces, I shouldn’t propose monkeying with it.  Why tamper with perfection? 

It really bothers me when a teacher can’t wear a cross, have a bible on her desk, or have any other personal expression of faith.  It means you also can’t have any personal expression of non-faith, or alternate faith, either.  It’s bad for everyone, especially for kids.

Absolutely right informal chatting is preferable to official curriculum.  Can you imagine the mash that various committees and interest groups would make out of a required religion course? The student would be unable to learn what any religion really says about anything.

I think I ate too much Thanksgiving dinner!

Socialist Swine, I can see that this teacher omitted Jefferson’s diary in favor of Washington & others who were more religious.  I don’t see Williams as teaching religion, so I don’t think the analogy of teaching Islamic religion follows.  If most of the founding fathers were Muslim, then it would fit more...though I whole-heartedly agree with your recent comment about open religious discourse in higher grades (which I teach in).  I am a little at a loss for younger grades, I think the main problem is how many parents remain uninvolved, then are shocked when their children hold opinions formed more by their teachers than by themselves.  Ideally, I would love to see more homeschooling at younger grades.

zilch, thanx for posting the rest of that article, it was an accident becuause this is the 1st time I made a post, so I added to the bottom in the wrong section then deleted too much.  Yet I don’t see how that shows discrimination going the other way, the CA supreme court just decided the lawsuit had no basis.

I personally think the possible motivations of the founding fathers is very important for students to have the opportunity to consider. I strongly agree with nowiser, & thanx for focusing on the ?s again.  I think it’s interesting to see that only 5-10% of the submitted docs mention God.  But as a teacher I know what you submit & what goes on in your classroom can be 180 degrees different.  I have a feeling the principal walked into this trap.  I think the Blue Lemur is the same story, different headline.

GeekMom, actually, though separation of church & state isn’t explicit, it has been a guiding principle not so we can separate from Judeo-Christian vs. Islamic vs. atheistic values, but because of the Catholic-Protestant warfare tearing Europe apart at the time, England in particular.  Founding fathers, excluding Jefferson (who was an elitist, racist, mysogonistic in my humble opinion,) contrary to Spocko’s biased opinion quotes based in little facts & quotes out of context, though not devout or fanatic, took Judeo-Christian beliefs for universally held common sense.

I REALLY enjoyed my family’s company, & ate just enough of a delicious dinner!

I definitely agree with DOF’s conclusions.  From what I know of the founding fathers most of them were deists at best.  I certainly would not agree with making a lesson out of the religious background of the founding fathers.  IT could be mentioned but making a lesson out of it would be overbearing.  I agree that the children are there to learn.  Preaching has no place in a public school classroom.  If a teacher wants to mention on the first day of class they are Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, etc.  That they should be able to do that.  I hope though any mention of religious things is never allowed in schools because honestly I think political leanings should be banned as well.  Religion and politics make up a persons worldview.  I think it is best to have variety of worldviews but not to ban any.

Adendum. Admitedly a lot of school is taught in this fashion, which causes a flaw in my second argument, however I have yet to have a science or history teach say “X is true, and if you don’t believe it then you will spend eternity in a pit of fire�

As I stated earlier preaching in public schools has no place and thus I also would propose that similar statements made with reference political ideology also be banned.  But then where would we be?  Has anyone ever stopped to realize how much natural propaganda for democracy there is in the classrooms or media or everywhere?  I have not had one professor that hasn’t said I should vote.  Anyone ever noticed those who don’t vote are made out to be “bad”?  I’ve heard of clubs and organizations who have to almost fight the school to get money for their club or organization because they don’t vote for leadership but allow the leadership to decide who is most qualified to lead.  People whine about the fundamentalist conservative Christian whatever trying to indoctrinate everyone with their beliefs.  I will stand next to you and say they shouldn’t do it either, but why can’t I say get your democracy propaganda out of my face?

Ellie,

According to the article you quoted 5-10% of the material that the teacher handed out in class referred to God and/or Christianity.  When you mention that fact you say “only”, but that “only” 5-10% seems to me to be a pretty clear indication that he’s trying to influence his classes into accepting his religious views. 

I’ve not once ever mentioned anything regarding religion in any of the classes I’ve ever taught, let alone provided any of my students with handouts that referred to religion or rejection of religion.  Now granted my teaching experience has been restricted to University settings so perhaps things are a little different.  However, I think 5-10% of the material referring to religious matters in a class that isn’t about religion (I’m assuming that he isn’t teaching a religion class, otherwise there wouldn’t be any issue) demonstrates a worrying trend.

Now it’s odd that the case is focussed upon the Declaration of Independence.  However, given the guy’s apparent history of making references to specific religious positions in the milieu of his classroom.  It seems that the case against him isn’t completely without merit.

I think university it about 180 degrees from where this guy is...definitely from where I teach.  90% of my students will never go to college.  His probably will, it’s a fairly affluent area, but they are well below that cognative level.

Imagine teaching a room full of Christian kids.  Sure, you’re gonna be motivated to make them question it because you KNOW their parents won’t.  You face the dilemma that this is where kids are gonna 1st learn why their country is either a great place with a reasonable way to approach their problems, or why they are living in the worst, most screwed up place on earth.  Children are our most interesting mirrors.  They don’t judge things as off-topic or out-of-bounds, only boring or interesting.  & even if they say something, they see judgement as forming, not final.  I appreciate that I can change my mind around my students all the time, & they are fine with it, whereas adults will rip me apart as hypocritical in a second.

Teaching history is tricky.  You can find any number of quirks about historical figures to focus on...scandals, vices.  In the area of San Fran he’s in, I don’t find it far-fetched that parents are HYPER-sensitive to religion as an oppresive unnecessary evil, & want it OUT of their children’s experience.  It’s their right to reduce it, but unrealistic to expect to eliminate it.  Yet they’ve probably so isolated themselves from Christianity, they think that’s possible.  Williams has probably been frustrated over the years, & justifies himself, thinking that his students probably get the opposite side at home.  In my opinion the kids are suffering in this tug-o-war between the two.

I think it’s ok to teach a class on religion, in which a survey of many different religions are explained, and I also think its ok to present the religious views of our founding fathers as historical elements--not as ‘this is what they thought, so it’s what you should think, too.  In addition, as others have mentioned, it’s apparent that the ffs were not all fundies, so they should be presented in a survey of resources to show the true variety of their beliefs.

I imagine I’ll be in the minority here, but I think teachers should be able to talk about their religious faith.  Being a government employee should not mean having to pretend you are objective on issues where you hold strong opinions.

I have problems with some presentations of personal expression, though.  First, it’s one thing to talk about your beliefs, quite another to tell children what to believe.  It doesn’t have to be an assembly for a priest to constitute inappropriateness.  While I agree that children should be exposed to many viewpoints, and that they should be encouraged to think for themselves and understand that the teacher is a regular schmoe, we have to be careful. The teacher still has to maintain respect in the class, so too much schmoeness could get out of hand in the wrong group. 
Also, I think its the teacher’s job to encourage students to develop their own thoughts.  If the teacher immediately frames everything in his/her own thoughts, then the students have little room to grow, esp. those who have yet to develop good reasoning skills.  I think the best teachers I had in school, the ones that allowed me to grow the most in terms of thinking, debating, and reasoning, were the ones who kept out of it at first--presented everything in an unbiased manner, and allowed us to present all of our opinions before expressing their own, sometimes interjecting their own thoughts if we needed a jump start or if it seemed like a good place to jump in.  Then it felt as if we were dealing with the teacher as the adults we were becoming. 
For me, it’s all about presentation.
That said, none of the opinions the teachers presented were on religion or had to do with their religious beliefs.  They were all politics, history, whatever the topic.  Still, if a teacher feels the need to spill it, then they should still do it in an objective manner...and it really only needs to be addressed once.

zilch, thanx for posting the rest of that article, it was an accident becuause this is the 1st time I made a post, so I added to the bottom in the wrong section then deleted too much.  Yet I don’t see how that shows discrimination going the other way, the CA supreme court just decided the lawsuit had no basis.

Uh, Ellie, sorry to put this so bluntly, but you might want to read the paragraph that you deleted from the article again, and see if you understand it this time.

The fact that he’s trying to dig so deep into the religious backgrounds of the founding fathers while teaching a bunch of 5th graders kind of puts up red flags to begin with. As was said before, revolution, war, and politics in any form are quite complex ideas for 10 year olds to deal with.
It should be enough to note that one of the many reasons this country was founded was because of the need for an individuals right to his/her own religious beliefs, and that religious pressure in Europe was one of the reasons that so many made the trip across the ocean at great risk to themselves & their families.
Save the in depth analysis of the religious background of our forefathers, and whatever impact it had on the framing of our government, for more mature intellects. On a purely educational level, trying to teach such History/Civics material to 5th graders is comparable to trying to teach them Calculus instead of grade school math.