Jump to content

A student of uncommon courage


Guest Paul

Recommended Posts

Very creative with the Newsflash.  Oh wait now I have to listen to you !

No, but it would benefit you to realize it, even though it's something incredibly obvious to anyone who understands the Constitution.

I don't think so.  With that quote under your name "A realistic optimist" yet every chance you get you try to degrade what your forefathers have done for you.

My forefathers gave me freedom, and I'm degrading them by standing up for someone's freedom not to chant with everyone else? What are you smoking?

Your quote like the little diddlies at the bottom of every one of your posts like little oxymorons.

(my quotes change, so I'm repeating the ones being referred to, for context)

Please explain how these two quotes are oxymoronic:

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire

"Without a doubt the greatest injury of all was done by basing morals on myth. For, sooner or later, myth is recognized for what it is, and disappears. Then morality loses the foundation on which it has been built." --Lord Samuel

or what that

Did you mean "was that?"

ox-Y-moron. More fitting in your case.

Two hyphens and a capital letter in the wrong place are more fitting? Um, okay.

Thank you Matthew.

I'm still not Matthew, but yes, you should thank people like him for upholding the freedom you take for granted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 446
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That's right Matthew, your friends are all fools.

I'm still not Matthew, and even regardless of that, why would I be referring to my own friends when talking about the most foolish people I've come into contact with? Why would I befriend people I thought were foolish?

Your attempted insult fails miserably. It's got to at least make some kind of sense.

There is no desparation in my voice, but I  believe I do hear one in yours.

Dude, you're reading written words. If you're not only hearing a voice when you read written words, but assigning it to be mine and even assigning inflections to it, then I think it's high time you got an evaluation. B)

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is beautiful.  Did you write it?  Seriously, if you did I'd like to know if you have published writings.  If you didn't write it, I'd like to know who did.

It's also true most of the time.  Maybe my only reservation is, what if the unreasonable is most of your community.  Sometimes changing one mind isn't enough.  Maybe sometimes the best thing to do is speak to people in the only language they understand, even if it makes you itch.

As to Matthew, he's kinda young to be told his maturing is over, don't you think?

I wrote it, thank you.

If you are referring to Kearny, I don't think that the entire community is unreasonable. There is just an "unreasonable vocal majority".

As Paul well knows, bad facts make bad law. I think that - in this instance - there was a very popular teacher who was also very popular in the community. The community is heavily Christian based, and this was a religious-related issue. Matthew has a history of exercising his rights in the school on other issues (not standing for the pledge, dress code) - so you have someone with a history of non-conformity in a conformist community.

If instead, had the captain of the soccer team expressed outrage against a hated teacher's discussion of non-Christian religious beliefs, the community would have been more open to the purposes behind, and the imposition of, the Establishment Clause.

My comment to Matthew about skin thickness was rhetorical - I know full well he's been though enough to have tough skin now. He's not done maturing, but he's strong enough to withstand the verbal taunts on-line, I'm sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, Mr. Paszkiewicz, you got me. It's Matthew. Boy, I just can't put one past you, can I.

You know, Mr. P, you really disappoint me, entering a battle of wits unarmed. It's like going into a swordfight without a sword, or a wrestling match without your trunks on. It just leaves you so, well --- vulnerable. You know.

If you're going to try comebacks, you can't just call me Matthew twenty times in a row. You have to try to say something clever, like "Oh yeah?!" If you get really good at it, you might even be able to weave in the topic, like I did. If you read my posts again, I think you'll see the difference.

By the way, thanks for that day off Tuesday. I really appreciated it. A few of my classmates even thanked me.

How did it go for you? How did your fellow teachers feel about getting schooled because of you? I bet you were just their little apple-cheeked boy.

Well, now that we know it's just you and me here, we don't have to be so formal anymore. From now on, you can just call me sir.

Your accidental teacher,

Matthew

KOTW Note:  Please note that this post was submitted as "Matthew" as a Guest and may not be the registered member "Matthew LaClair".

True colors shining through.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul has neither said nor even implied that, you filthy liar.

WilliamK (posting from another computer)

Are you kidding? Paul longs for the day when nobody stands for the pledge, put out the flag, or sings the anthem.

Did you ever hear that actions speak louder than words?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I wrote it, thank you.

If you are referring to Kearny, I don't think that the entire community is unreasonable.  There is just an "unreasonable vocal majority". 

As Paul well knows, bad facts make bad law.  I think that - in this instance - there was a very popular teacher who was also very popular in the community.  The community is heavily Christian based, and this was a religious-related issue.  Matthew has a history of exercising his rights in the school on other issues (not standing for the pledge, dress code) - so you have someone with a history of non-conformity in a conformist community.

If instead, had the captain of the soccer team expressed outrage against a hated teacher's discussion of non-Christian religious beliefs, the community would have been more open to the purposes behind, and the imposition of, the Establishment Clause.

My comment to Matthew about skin thickness was rhetorical - I know full well he's been though enough to have tough skin now.  He's not done maturing, but he's strong enough to withstand the verbal taunts on-line, I'm sure.

Maybe people don't like what he did simply because of the way he did it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you kidding? Paul longs for the day when nobody stands for the pledge, put out the flag, or sings the anthem.

Proof or gtfo. <_<

Did you ever hear that actions speak louder than words?

Naturally, then, you can give an example of an action of Paul's that reasonably leads to the conclusion that his goal is for no one to stand for the pledge, no one to fly the flag, and no one to sing the national anthem. That is, unless you're a shameless liar.

So, what'll it be? :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe people don't like what he did simply because of the way he did it.

Yet they don't seem to realize that had he done it any other way, it never would have been brought to light to begin with. Mr. P. and Matthew would have been in that meeting, Paszkiewicz's lies would have been believed over Matthew's truth, and that would have been the end of it.

No one--not those who support Mr. P. and denigrate Matthew, and not even those who agree Mr. P. did wrong but think Matthew could have 'done better' or reached the same outcome through different means--have suggested a reasonable alternate course of action Matthew could have taken to reach the same outcome. Looks like if he had done anything differently, either Paszkiewicz or the Board would have simply snuffed his wholly valid complaints.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yet they don't seem to realize that had he done it any other way, it never would have been brought to light to begin with. Mr. P. and Matthew would have been in that meeting, Paszkiewicz's lies would have been believed over Matthew's truth, and that would have been the end of it.

No one--not those who support Mr. P. and denigrate Matthew, and not even those who agree Mr. P. did wrong but think Matthew could have 'done better' or reached the same outcome through different means--have suggested a reasonable alternate course of action Matthew could have taken to reach the same outcome. Looks like if he had done anything differently, either Paszkiewicz or the Board would have simply snuffed his wholly valid complaints.

Wrong. Once Matt complained and Paszkiewicz was spoken to, the preaching stopped. All this was prior to Matt going public with the recordings. If it didn't stop, how come Matt has no recordings after he first advised the administration?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrong.  Once Matt complained and Paszkiewicz was spoken to, the preaching stopped.  All this was prior to Matt going public with the recordings.  If it didn't stop, how come Matt has no recordings after he first advised the administration?

68272[/snapback]

You're missing the point. No corrections would have been made without the recordings. The entire school system wanted it swept under the rug, leaving Paszkiewicz free to start up again the next year. He was doing this for years. Why are there no recordings of all that? Simple. Nobody recorded him until Matthew, so every time a student complained, it was just swept under the rug, until Matthew did what he did.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrong.  Once Matt complained and Paszkiewicz was spoken to, the preaching stopped.

Actually, from what I'm hearing it's still continuing. Mr. P. is damned lucky both that the LaClairs didn't try to get him fired (they had ample reasons to), and that none of the other students/parents have the guts to stand up to that sort of thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, from what I'm hearing it's still continuing. Mr. P. is damned lucky both that the LaClairs didn't try to get him fired (they had ample reasons to), and that none of the other students/parents have the guts to stand up to that sort of thing.

68348[/snapback]

If this is true, please come forward with the information and it will be dealt with.

JW

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrong.  Once Matt complained and Paszkiewicz was spoken to, the preaching stopped.  All this was prior to Matt going public with the recordings.  If it didn't stop, how come Matt has no recordings after he first advised the administration?

68272[/snapback]

You guys just never, ever, ever get it, do you. No matter how many times we explain it to you, you never get it.

This wasn't just about this one classroom. We've said that over and over and over again, and yet you keep insisting that's all this was about. You're wrong.

Fundamentalist Christians are trying to rewrite our Constitution and turn this country from a democracy into a theocracy, a system of government based on religion, where the dominant religion rules. It's called dominionism, which means that these radical fundamentalists believe that they have the right to force their religion on the rest of us: they believe that through their religion, they should have dominion over the rest of us. They're taking over local school boards wherever they can, and they're trying to replace science with religious dogma.

That is not how our Constitution was written. Exactly the opposite, the framers understood the dangers of making the state subject to the church. In American democracy, the majority rules on taxes, the election of public officials, and many other things, but the majority does not rule on matters of religion. In matters of religion, each individual remains free and equal to every other individual.

But that doesn't matter to these right-wing fundamentalists. That is why a David Paszkiewicz can write a letter to his local newspaper arguing that Thomas Jefferson supported Christian dominionism, when in fact Jefferson was the one who penned the phrase "separation of church and state." That is why right-wing fundamentalist teachers like Paszkiewicz, all over this country, are flouting the Constitution, thumbing their nose at the law. They think they can get away with it.

Matthew didn't understand this entire history, but he recognized the dynamics of the situation. He understood that he had to call this teacher out, and that it wasn't enough just to get him to stop in that one class. He wanted it stopped in all the classes. He had to have proof because he didn't know that he would be believed.

Had Paszkiewicz shown some humility, and/or the administration or school board taken control and issued the corrections that are now being made a year later, even then this would not have gone public. When none of that happened, we decided that the situation was a little bit like what the farmer does with the mule: When it's not paying attention, bang it over the head with a 2x4 because it's the only thing the critter understands.

A dominionist like Paszkiewicz has to understand that if he pulls this crap there just might be a kid in that class willing to show the whole world what he did. Because of what Matthew did, the next right-wing radical fundamentalist who thinks he can thumb his nose at the law just might think twice about it.

School boards and administrations have to understand that if they ignore behavior this blatant, they might end up looking like fools.

That's why we did it. If you want to argue against that, go ahead, but at least act like you read what we've been telling you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Energizer Bunny of hot air emission keeps right on going ...

You guys just never, ever, ever get it, do you. No matter how many times we explain it to you, you never get it.

This wasn't just about this one classroom. We've said that over and over and over again, and yet you keep insisting that's all this was about. You're wrong.

Fundamentalist Christians are trying to rewrite our Constitution and turn this country from a democracy into a theocracy, a system of government based on religion, where the dominant religion rules. It's called dominionism, which means that these radical fundamentalists believe that they have the right to force their religion on the rest of us: they believe that through their religion, they should have dominion over the rest of us. They're taking over local school boards wherever they can, and they're trying to replace science with religious dogma.

There's absolutely no evidence that David Paszkiewicz was or is a Dominionist.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm

A dominionist like Paszkiewicz ...

68361[/snapback]

:P

LaClair's a demagogue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course. What these folks don't like about "the way he did it" is that it was effective.

68284[/snapback]

No, more likely that it was sneaky and underhanded and it was meant to advance an agenda.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No, more likely that it was sneaky and underhanded and it was meant to advance an agenda.

68401[/snapback]

It was done in the only way possible to advance the agenda, which included:

1. Defense of the US Constitution;

2. The integrity of the educational process;

3. The integrity of science education;

4. Religious freedom for everyone, not just those in the majority.

So I proudly agree with you. We did it to advance a very important agenda that is of concern to every thinking person in this country.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...