mnodonnell
-
Posts
36 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Articles
Media Demo
Posts posted by mnodonnell
-
-
-
Based on the apparent impossibility of an infinite regress (if an endless series of events precedes the present, then we could never have reached the present because crossing an actual infinity by successive addition is an apparent impossibility).
That's why.
Time is simply another dimension, just like space. The past is not necessary to reach "now" the same way that distance is not necessary to reach "here". More accurately, time is indefinite as opposed to infinite.
Regardless, I think this debate sprung up as a counter to the appropriateness of teaching evolution in schools without presenting alternatives. This is not evolution, however, this is a discussion on abiogenesis.
There is no definitive consensus in the scientific community regarding abiogenesis, so it is not something that should be taught as a scientific "fact".
-
Okay, you got me there, "on your pillow!!" Are you happy now? My problem is, why would you actually care what other parents are teaching their children out of the public schools? Really, why? We shouldn't preach/teach religion in the public schools, and I completely agree with that, but why would you now feel the need to insult the people that actually do believe in god?
It is because I have a regard for my fellow humans, my community, and society in general.
Parents have every right to teach their children whatever they want, and I cannot (and should not) control that. However, that does not mean that I'm not allowed to care.
Why do you feel the need to be so above and beyond everyone else in this universe?I think you have the "above and beyond" argument backward. I put myself on the same plane as everyone else. It is religion that seeks to segment the human race (e.g. "God's Chosen People", and the Rapture).
Unfortunately, you seem to be the sad one, and the scared one."The sad one" and "the scared one" as opposed to who?
I wonder why you are so mad at god.I needed someone to fill that void after I reconciled with Santa Claus.
-
"lemmings over a cliff"?? Are you for real? You must have REALLY hated church as a kid. I could just see you crying in your pillow while your mother screamed at you to get ready for church ("pweeze momma, I don't wanna go to church, it's so borrring"). Meanwhile, your heathen friends are outside playing soccer!! I hope your a young guy, your statement is beyond childish and completely ignorant.
It actually went like this: "Please, mother, I do not want to go to church. It is so boring!" I took my grammar and diction very seriously. I would also cry on my pillow -- it was simply too difficult to get inside of it after a while.
I actually had the opportunity to go to church AND play soccer. How Kearnyite-American!
Regarding ignorance, that is what I was saddled with back when I actually believed the nonsense I was being taught at Sunday School. I am still ignorant of many subjects, but this is one where I have gained great clarity.
If you are curious about my age you can reference my only topic posting on this message board. I dated myself quite precisely.
-
Wow. How wonderful it must be to live in your world of intellectual perfection, blissfully ignorant to the possibility that you may be wrong ... equalling ... nay, surpassing ... any potentially greater forces at work in the universe. For whatever God may be or not be ... He, She or It shall always have the comfort of knowing you are there to be worshipped.
I'll put you on the list for my fan club meetings. Our next session concerns the spelling difficulties presented by double consonants and the proper use of the ellipsis.
I'll give you a preview of the introduction of the next meeting, which is where I lay out what I do know.
1. I know enough to admit that I do not know something. For example, what came before the Big Bang? I do not have the faintest clue.
2. However, I do not fall back on a supernatural deistic force as the default answer to things I do not know. I do not consult 4,000+ year old books for answers to these kinds of questions. Despite what you have perceived, I'm content with simply not knowing.
3. I know that there is a big difference between deism and theism. It is the difference between: "I believe there is some higher intelligence that is responsible for the universe in which I exist."; and "I believe there is some higher intelligence that is responsible for the universe in which I exist; and he has said unto me: do not eat the pork."
-
So you wouldn't inflict the deviancy of rationalism on others?
What is deviant about being rational?
I'm just trying to understand your world view as a coherent whole--which may be a futile undertaking, admittedly.Using message board postings to gain an understanding of my world view is probably futile.
If you demand that I observe your religion that demands I keep my religion to myself, doesn't that make you a hypocrite (tell-tale sign of logical inconsistency, in other words)?I do not have a religion to observe.
-
Matt, let me give you an alternative: do whatever you want to do, it has the same effect.
2smart4u, what's wrong with you? You seem like a sick little monkey.
Unless, of course, KOTW edited out the prescient comments that illustrate your intellectual superiority. For that, let me say: Thank you KOTW! I don't know if I can handle the embarrassment.
-
Don't rationalists consider themselves the enlightened minority? They have their own deviant behavior to think about.
Indeed? Can we expect you to assist in spearheading the attempt to repeal the First Amendment?
Yet given the opportunity, perhaps you'd try aggressive steps to stem the madness ... as was done in the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China.
No?
Long live deviant behavior. so long as the deviants are not inflicting their deviance to others.
The First Amendment is my favorite amendment. Why would I repeal it? What are you talking about?
I do not propose to do anything to stop people from freely practicing their religions -- just keep it to yourself. Have you listened to anything I've said? I think you're stuck in the echo chamber. Do not fret -- it's a common malady.
-
You are misunderstanding the role falsifiability in regards to the scientific method. You cannot initially advance claims that are not falsifiable, so your question is irrelevant.
I will grant you that the ark does not violate the Constitution. The Constitution cannot be expected to govern the realm of fantasy.
-
A reasonable person does not ignore and omit the words "Things like that" and concludes that Paszkiewicz is talking about various things about which the school system might teach tolerance. Some public schools do encourage social acceptance of deviant behavior.
If schools didn't encourage social acceptance of individual deviant behavior, how would rationalists deal with religious people? It's hard for ethical people to sit idly by as children are dragged into church every Sunday, like lemmings over a cliff. But we learn to tolerate the madness, as sad as it may be.
-
Well, here we are, nearly a year after the story of one of the worst examples of malfeasance in the annals of educational history broke into the news, still arguing over it as though the conduct of this teacher could somehow be defended. I'm actually starting to think maybe there is a hell and we've all gone there, doomed to spend eternity watching fools try to defend the indefensible.
OK, if we're going to do it, let's at least do it right. Let's go over what Mr. Doofus actually said, line by line and point by point.
As an overview, any competent educator listening to what Mr. Doofus did in that classroom (and in the meeting in Somma's office, too) would say that this was an immature teacher who let his personal agenda completely obscure his job as a teacher, including most especially his obligations to his students (both intellectually and ethically). He completely forgot the lessons of his classes in education (or maybe never learned them in the first place), used a gentle tone of voice to disguise the fact that he was bullying his students intellectually, and allowed the students to make a few comments to give the impression that he was allowing an even-handed discussion; when what he was really doing was taking control of the class to give long-winded explanations promoting fundamentalist Christianity.
Any competent educator would immediately identify the following sins by this teacher, leaving the issue of church-state separation completely aside.
1. Competent teachers do not lose control of themselves. They do not allow, much less encourage, their classes to become vehicles for their own agendas.
2. Good, fair and honest teachers do not pretend to hold a free-form discussion, whether on or off the curriculum, and then take control of the discussion whenever they want to. If they're going to lecture, then lecture, but don't pretend you're doing something else; and if it's a lecture, it must be within the curriculum, which this was not. It's appropriate to field questions within the subject matter the teacher is being paid to teach, but don't go outside your field and presume to give long answers to students' questions, all the while pretending you're just having a open discussion with no right or wrong answers. If the discussion is outside the curriculum, which this certainly was, they can't have it both ways, pretending to conduct an open discussion, but then dominating the discussion with long-winded speeches promoting their own views.
3. Good teachers don't undermine what other teachers in the approved curriculum are doing. It's amazing that Mr. Doofus wasn't fired for what he said about science, the educational system and all his fellow educators, leaving the church-state problem completely aside. This guy is no educator. He's a jerk.
4. Good teachers set good examples intellectually and ethically. This jackass did enough things wrong in a single day to supply an education class an entire semester's worth of material of what not to do.
5. Ethical teachers do not lie about their own conduct in an attempt to get one of their students to back down from an accusation, especially when that accusation is true. This alone should have gotten Mr. Doofus fired.
So what the hey, let the games begin. We'll start with the class of September 14, 2006. I'm taking from the transcript, which I've read, and the recordngs, which I've heard.
The "discussion" begins with Mr. Doofus expounding on his views toward Halloween. While there's nothing in these first few minutes that explicitly crosses the church-state line, it's obvious that Mr. Doofus is itching to open up a discussion that will allow him to promote his religious views. Consider the following:
He was discussing the historical root of the "holiday" (an inaccurate term, not significant), then gratuitously interjects this: "I just don't want my kids dressing up as anything evil." Great. Let's open the discussion of evil.
And in just a few moments, we have this, again from Mr. Doofus. ". . . so we try to set up an alternative counterpoint of salvation . . ." So much for a student introducing the subject of religion or religious dogma. It began with the teacher, and there it is.
Then after a few minutes, he interjects his personal religious views again; and again, it's completely gratuitous, aimed toward the promotion of his own religious views: "Anyway, my kids are home schooled . . ." Great. Your public school students really needed to know that, Mr. Doofus. Why not just come right out and say that you don't believe in the system you're supposed to be a part of --- you know, the one that puts bread on your table, Mr. Hypocritical Doofus, who would really like to teach in a fundie school but can't because it doesn't pay enough. Great job of teaching students how to backstab their eventual employers, Mr. Hypocritical Doofus.
Then he starts talking about Kearny, how he doesn't lock his own doors because of what a great town Kearny is. And then we get the explicit introduction of fundamentalist Christian religious dogma with this statement by Mr. Proselytizing Fundie Doofus: "The highest value in public education is tolerance. But tolerance of what? Deviant behavior? There are a lot of things I don't want my kids tolerating. Ethnic diversity? Yes. Deviant sexual behavior? No. Things like that, and that's all being taught right from kindergarten on up. I still believe in the concept of sin, man's fallen nature . . ."
And there you have it, the introduction of Christian dogma into the discussion by whom? Matthew? No. Another student? No. Who, then?
Why, none other than Mr. Proselytizing Fundie Doofus himself. He was just itching to have that discussion opened, the class was going on for about five minutes, no student formally brought up religion, so Mr. Proselytizing Fundie Doofus, having grown impatient after five minutes, decided to open it himself.
So what's wrong with what he said?
1. He's promoting religious dogma in a public school.
2. He's telling students in a public school that the entire educational system, of which he and they are parts, is corrupt. That's disloyalty, just for starters.
3. He's telling his students that the public schools are teaching deviant behavior, including deviant sexual behavior. There's no other way to interpret "that's all being taught right from kindergarten on up."
4. He's promoting a myth. "Man's fallen nature" is a myth. It is part of the creationist story, directly opposed to nature through evolution, and therefore a direct violation of the prohibition of promoting creationism instead of evolution. It's hardly subtle at this point, even though he's not explicitly using the terms "evolution" and "creation" yet. He'll get to that shortly. But don't let anyone tell you that he didn't introduce the subject. He did, it was entirely gratuitous, and Matthew had absolutely nothing to do with it.
This explanation of why he doesn't lock his doors then turns into a long, uninterrupted speech, in which Mr. Doofus goes on to say the following: ". . . you surrender your kid to the state from preschool on up through 12th grade, and Mom and Dad are trying to tell you that the Bible is God's word, and their lives are deeply rooten in faith. But yet the "smart" people --- and I say that in quotations becasue they're not all really that smart --- the teachers that you're exposed to from kindergarten through 12th grade, never once will you see them crack open a Bible, never once will you hear them quote it, never once hear a prayer uttered from their lips." So who brought up the Bible? Why, Mr. Proselytizing Doofus, of course. Not Matthew, not some other student. Mr. Proselytizing Doofus, and none other.
Now what else is wrong with those entirely gratuitous remarks?
1. Mr. Doofus is interjecting his personal views into what is supposed to be an open discussion. A good teacher would remember that he is the authority figure there. He can't have it both ways: an open discussion on the one hand, and a lecture on the other.
2. He's mocking and demeaning all the other teachers those students have ever had from kindergarten on up. That's the implication, and it's clear.
3. He's advocating for the Bible. It's not allowed.
And we've only gotten onto page 2. There are 18 pages of this drivel.
So why not? Let's have some fun.
Amen. Thank you for taking the time to lay this out so precisely.
-
The defeatocratic "debate" last night was a joke. Hilliary was asked a direct
question; does she support driver's licenses for illegal aliens in N.Y. as Gov.
Spitzer wants to do. She would not answer the question, she danced around
the question like the cowardly defeatocrat she is. Who in the world would vote
for anyone who doesn't have the courage to answer a direct question.
It's probably because politicians' jobs are to get elected; not to answer questions.
Who are these "defeatocrats"? I though Hillary was a democrat.
-
No student was "told" that.
Students were told that Christianity teaches the necessity of Christ to salvation. That is historically accurate and any student who reaches adulthood without knowing it hasn't been educated, given that Christianity is the dominant religion in the U.S.
That is not historically accurate -- Christ is not necessary to salvation. I know you'll like this one: do you have any proof from history that people achieved salvation through Christ? Did anyone catch it on tape?
I'm an adult and I was never taught that. Should I give back my degree?
-
Just as we should have a public policy to stop smoking, the government should try to prevent ********** sex. A lot of it ******* ** ***** *** **********. Their spread of AIDS affects the whole community.
Their health-care costs are picked up by everyone. And those that also have sex **** ***** spread their diseases to ******** *****.
Public education and heavy fines or jail time when caught might help.
KOTW Note: The above post was edited for content.
You should take your hatred for evangelical preachers and Catholic priests somewhere else. It will not be tolerated here.
-
That's primarily up to the employer.
There should be no constitutional prohibition on a public school teacher's expression of religious opinion short of proselytizing or discriminatory treatment (and that sort of thing) because of the First Amendment (no law restricting the free expression of religion).
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/PDF/pa...idereligion.PDF
First, it's not really up to the employer. Public schools are not allowed to discriminate on religious grounds. The Kearny BOE cannot just decide to only hire Christian teachers.
Here are two follow-ups for you:
1. It's been clear from the beginning of the discussion that a big point of discord between you and your opponents stems from whether Mr. Paszkiewicz was expressing opinion or proselytizing.
I actually do not think that he was, technically speaking, proselytizing. I don't believe he had any intention of actually converting anyone in the classroom to Christianity or his Christian sect.
However, I do feel that he was preaching in the classroom, and that is not permissible.
Do you really feel that his religiously-themed statements were presented in appropriate context with the curriculum material, and if so, do you think it was a balanced presentation?
2. Do you think there is any danger in presenting religious beliefs, even in a balanced manner, when they conflict with the curriculum? For example, lets consider the case of a student asking their science teacher if it was possible for man to live for 3 days in the belly a living whale. Would it be appropriate for the teacher to state that the given science curriculum would indicate that the man could not live, but many Christians believe that this is indeed possible (with God's mercy, of course)?
-
We're having the discussion because the radical religious right cannot abide the fact that a real expert set straight Paszkiewicz's babbling. I would hate to think, however, that evolution isn't debatable. All science is debatable. That's what drives it forward. The point is that evolution is univerally accepted, practically speaking, throughout the scientific community and communities of enlightened minds all over the world.
You are correct: it is certainly debatable, and many aspects of evolution are hotly debated every day.
The problem is that the primary public debate about evolution concerns evidence vs. scripture, and that is maddening. I have to admit that the Discovery Institute has done a brilliant job of casting doubt on evolution.
-
Michael, Albert Einstein, who did not speak until he was four years old (as I recall it), later observed that his delayed language development helped him become a scientist because it allowed him a longer time to experience the world on its own terms without having to fit it into the artificial boundaries imposed by language.
Like all words, atheism can mean several things, and be seen in several planes. I was referring to the legal treatment of atheism. As your response suggests, atheism is a religious point of view in distinction from theism. Government may no more promote atheism than it may promote theism (don't we wish it actually worked that way!). It is in that sense that atheism is a religion.
In other ways even under the law (I should have qualified this before), atheism is not a religion. For example, it has no clergy unless you count people like Dawkins and Hitchens; most atheists have no congregation, though a few do. These are some of the distinctions to which the law has looked for other purposes.
The dirty little secret of First Amendment law as it pertains to religion is that at least some of the Framers probably weren't thinking about atheism as an option. However, the principle they had in mind certainly applies, which is how Engel v. Vitale and similar cases made it into our jurisprudence. Had it not been for the 14th Amendment, though, we could easily have become a theocracy by now. On the other hand, if 20th century Americans had been forced to fight for religious freedom, they might have appreciated it more.
I have another way of looking at it altogether. For me, religion is the human attempt to consider and bring all things together into a coherent whole. This can be applied to our individual lives, to our interpersonal relationships and to all of nature, i.e., to all things. Seen that way, atheism isn't a religion because it merely opposes theism, making it in a sense an anti-religion, unless you define an atheist not as someone who says there is no god, but as someone who does not affirmatively believe in a god (hence a-theism, without a god).
Ah, words. Can't live without 'em, can't stop arguing with 'em.
Paul, I generally agree with you; and I understand that it is necessary to treat atheism as a religion in some cases in order to accurately apply the law. However, in a theoretical world where there is no religion (and what a wonderful world it would be) there would be no such thing as atheism.
Simply put: I consider myself an atheist, and I do not consider it to be a religion. It comes with no obligations or rituals.
-
Regarding Kenneth Miller's presentation: why are we having so much discussion about a presentation that no one witnessed?
Besides, it was a presentation on evolution and anyone who really understands evolution knows that it is not a debatable topic.
-
Bryan, here is a question specifically for you*; something that can allow you to illustrate your point:
In what context (I know you love context) is it appropriate for a teacher in a public school to express their personal religious beliefs?
*Well, If others would like to answer, feel free.
-
There is no way that atheism is a religion, the same way that "independents" are not members of a political party.
It's true that atheism, as a concept, only exists in the context of religion/theism/deism, but that does not make it a religion per se.
-
They could, but I think it would unconstitutional. It would be a restriction on various freedoms that are protected in other areas of the Constitution.
But as we have seen with the push for a marriage amendment, there is no guarantee that our government will not act to constitutionally suppress individual freedoms.
-
I think Mr. P should be given an award for his teaching abilities and moral courage to stand up against all the atheists who mistakenly think "separation of church and state" means anything more than the federal government establishing a federal religion.I hardly think the founders of the constitution meant to forbid a christmas tree in a park or a cross on a hill. Stand strong, Mr.P, you have many supporters and backers. Don't let the Loony Lefties get you down, you're on the right side of this issue. God bless you.
This issue has nothing to do with religious or political affiliations (sidebar: why does anyone, aside from those trying to get elected to public office, affiliate with a party anyway?). It is not just atheists, or agnostics, or deists that would oppose the teaching of Christian doctrine in public schools. It is also for Muslims; and Jews; and Hindus; and Buddhists; and Christians that feel their religion is none of the government's business.
...atheists mistakenly think "separation of church and state" means anything more than the federal government establishing a federal religionHave you read any of the comments here or the Establishment Clause? Let me assure you that atheists would support anything but the establishment of a federal religion. By the way, atheism is not a religion.
-
If you do not like what is going on in your school, thank Matt LaClair and his dad. After all, he did say that someone threatened his life so this entire poem fits what the LaClairs have done to the schools in Kearny. And mostly since the Pledge of Allegiance and The Lord's Prayer are not allowed in most public schools anymore
Because the word "God" is mentioned....
I do not like what is going on at Kearny High, and I do thank Matthew LaClair for bringing it to light. However, I do not see why the LaClairs are always dragged into this issue. As far the issue at hand is concerned, they are irrelevant. It is not about what David Paszkiewicz was preaching to one student, it's about what he was preaching, and will continue to preach, to all students.
Regarding prayer in schools: students can pray all they want in school -- there are no restrictions. It is the school itself that cannot endorse religion and therefore cannot promulgate prayer.
On to the always fun topic of the Pledge of Allegiance: "under God" was added to the pledge in by Congress in 1954 -- it was not in the original pledge. It was in response to the anti-communist fervor of the McCarthy era. Contrary to popular (at least in some places) opinion, this is not a Christian nation and our code of law is not based on the ten commandments.
Besides, free countries should not require their citizens to pledge an allegiance to anything.
-
The fact is, he's a really good teacher and the religious statements only came up in answer to provacative questions from one student, questions about how he felt about a topic, not about the topic.
A well-liked teacher, no doubt; but some of his statements call his competence into question. A firm grasp of the subject matter is essential, in my opinion.
I hope so, too, although it's entirely possible. When likability is involved I'm not sure facts matter. Besides, he may be a perfectly wonderful man. I have family members that know him and like him quite a bit. However, I would like to see him fired and I do not even know him. I'm basing my opinion on the facts at hand, and nothing more.
David Paszkiewicz should be fired
in Kearny
Posted
I'm not treating time as a magic trick (or as an Aristotlean argument) -- I'm explaining it as it actually exists.