Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
mnodonnell

David Paszkiewicz should be fired

Recommended Posts

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.

71067[/snapback]

You should take your hatred for evangelical preachers and Catholic priests somewhere else. It will not be tolerated here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gee, Bryan, that's oh-so-reassuring coming from you.  After all, you're the guy who doesn't think P. was proselytizing.

Right. And you're the one too open-minded to discuss it while I am the one so closed-minded that I will discuss it. We've been over this before.

I doubt you'd think any speech that didn't include a Reading of the Gospel and an altar call could be called proselytizing -- and you might think even that would be okay as long as there were no choir singing "I Surrender All" in the background.

71211[/snapback]

Actually I faulted Paszkiewicz on one point, but you'll have forgotten all about that long ago. And why bother to double-check when you can just lie about me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

So, how many false rumors about Paszkiewicz were started by members of the LaClair household on this forum? Be specific.

Strife, did you ever go to church?

I'm going to guess (and hope) that you did.

The priest or pastors at the pulpit preach and the congregation listens.

Are you following me?

Does the congregation responds at all to what the priest or pastor is saying?

NO.

So, to answer your question, when the LaClairs accused Mr. P. of preaching, that is called false rumors.

Because I heard kids talking, I heard opinions being given and heard, I heard students exchanging their feelings about things and questions being asked.

I did not hear Mr. P. making the kids open their Bibles, I did not hear Mr. P. taking an offering or tithes, and I did not hear Mr. P. making them sing any Hymn. I did not hear Mr. P. make them pray.

Did you get the difference yet?

What happened in that class would not possibly fly in church. You don't believe me go to any church in town and check it out. :P

71259[/snapback]

The legal test for what constitutes impermissible preching in the public schools is not what practices churches use regarding give-and-take. The legal test is whether the teacher is promoting his religion. It doesn't matter whether he allows give and take. It's still preachin', and it's not allowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Wrong.  He lied on here about being spoken to by a HS administrator regarding his not sitting quietly while the Pledge was being recited by the class.

71260[/snapback]

You claim that, but you have not provided a shred of evidence to support it. You got it recorded? You got the name of an administrator? You got a date? You got a place where this reprimand supposedly happened? Were you there? Did you witness it? I doubt that you would have, because such a reprimand to a student would be given in private. So how do you know this happened?

You're making it up. It wouldn't be the first time a disgruntled fundie made up something about Matthew because he outed their favorite teacher. You're accusing a kid of something (and not much at that), and you don't even have the guts to come forward as his accuser and confront him, which makes you a coward on top of everything else.

And until you have some evidence to back up your claim, that's how it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Right.  And you're the one too open-minded to discuss it while I am the one so closed-minded that I will discuss it.  We've been over this before.

Actually I faulted Paszkiewicz on one point, but you'll have forgotten all about that long ago.  And why bother to double-check when you can just lie about me?

71314[/snapback]

I favor open-mindedness. Therefore, I'm opening a discussion comparing the composition of Bryan's brain to donkey dung.

We can explore the many facets of this fascinating discussion. We could compare their specific gravity, their molecular composition, their origins and many other subjects, including perhaps most important, their respective usefulness. No doubt it will be a fascinating discussion.

And how can we not have the discussion! After all, we wouldn't want to be close-minded, now would we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good job Strife.

Coming in as a guest was a great idea. :P

71286[/snapback]

Um, the post you replied to was made by me while logged in. See, it says "by Strife767."

So, what in the world are you talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

So, how many false rumors about Paszkiewicz were started by members of the LaClair household on this forum? Be specific.

Strife, did you ever go to church?

I'm going to guess (and hope) that you did.

The priest or pastors at the pulpit preach and the congregation listens.

Are you following me?

Does the congregation responds at all to what the priest or pastor is saying?

NO.

So, to answer your question, when the LaClairs accused Mr. P. of preaching, that is called false rumors.

Because I heard kids talking, I heard opinions being given and heard, I heard students exchanging their feelings about things and questions being asked.

I did not hear Mr. P. making the kids open their Bibles, I did not hear Mr. P. taking an offering or tithes, and I did not hear Mr. P. making them sing any Hymn. I did not hear Mr. P. make them pray.

Did you get the difference yet?

What happened in that class would not possibly fly in church. You don't believe me go to any church in town and check it out. ;)

71259[/snapback]

Ok, instead of preaching, lets use the word proselytizing. I assume that everything is correct now right? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
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.

71257[/snapback]

Michael, you're right. One of the tag lines for the radical right is "teach the controversy," meaning that evolution and creationism should both be taught in the schools. The fatal defect in that argument is that scientifically there is no controversy. There's nothing to teach except the evolution, because that's the only theory with any scientific support. Then you hear the boneheads who don't understand one thing about science pontificating about how thoroughly in disupute the subject is. Meanwhile, the entire biological and medical communities all over the world are applying evolutionary biology to make real advances that materially improve our lives with each passing year. But to hear the boneheads talk, it's all up for grabs. Meanwhile, our kids here in America are falling behind in the scientists, and these idiots can't figure out why. You're right, it's absolutely maddening.

I have family members who keep telling me to keep an open mind, an ironic comment to say the least. The problem with that is that the only thing they want me to keep an open mind to is what they believe. That's not an open mind, but the exact opposite. Because they're so dug into their own way of thinking, they can't see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul

So, how many false rumors about Paszkiewicz were started by members of the LaClair household on this forum? Be specific.

Strife, did you ever go to church?

I'm going to guess (and hope) that you did.

The priest or pastors at the pulpit preach and the congregation listens.

Are you following me?

Does the congregation responds at all to what the priest or pastor is saying?

NO.

So, to answer your question, when the LaClairs accused Mr. P. of preaching, that is called false rumors.

Because I heard kids talking, I heard opinions being given and heard, I heard students exchanging their feelings about things and questions being asked.

I did not hear Mr. P. making the kids open their Bibles, I did not hear Mr. P. taking an offering or tithes, and I did not hear Mr. P. making them sing any Hymn. I did not hear Mr. P. make them pray.

Did you get the difference yet?

What happened in that class would not possibly fly in church. You don't believe me go to any church in town and check it out. :rolleyes:

71259[/snapback]

Well, we're making a tiny bit of progress, maybe. It took you guys a year to articulate your position, but you finally did it. You're saying that Mr. P wasn't preaching because he allowed a give-and-take discussion. There are three things wrong with your argument.

First, you’re using a church definition of preaching. Church definitions don’t govern the courts.

Second, there are plenty of churches where the congregation shouts “praise God,” “preach it, brother,” “that’s right!” and the like during the preachin’. So while the exchange may not be of the same tone or character, there is an exchange.

Third, preaching is not a legal term. It’s a term people have used as a short-hand to describe what Mr. Paszkiewicz was doing. The legal term is promoting a religion or religious views. Mr. Paszkiewicz was doing both. Whether you call it preaching or not, it’s still not allowed.

In short, the distinction you’re trying to make is legally irrelevant.

Oh, and by the way, even if you were right it would be an imprecise characterization, not a false rumor. A false rumor implies an incorrect statement of fact, such as the false claim that Matthew was admonished regarding the pledge by an administrator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul

No, I will not accept that Paszkiewicz was disrespectful to his students.

I'm so glad you finally admitted that Mr. P respected everyone of his student.

Including the one that stabbed him on the back.

Everyone opinions was heard, everyone participated and everyone was respected. :rolleyes:

71250[/snapback]

Three questions.

1. How is it respectful to tell someone that he belongs in hell?

2. How is it respectful to tell someone that if he is sincere he will abandon his religious beliefs and adopt yours?

3. How is it respectful to tell a student to ignore his pastor and his mother on a religious question?

You don't have to accept the truth, but if you can't answer those questions, you're just denying the truth.

71277[/snapback]

Great questions, not that they'll be answered, certainly not intelligently. The list of disrespectful comments by Mr. P is a long one. He essentially dismissed the entire scientific and educational communities as meriting virtually no consideration, in contrast to his own personal beliefs, which he held up as the gold standard. That is extremely disrespectful, not to mention outrageous coming from a teacher. He was also completely dismissive of and disrespectful toward Islam, and in fact every religious belief except his own (and all their practitioners).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, how many false rumors about Paszkiewicz were started by members of the LaClair household on this forum? Be specific.

Strife, did you ever go to church?

I'm going to guess (and hope) that you did.

The priest or pastors at the pulpit preach and the congregation listens.

Are you following me?

Does the congregation responds at all to what the priest or pastor is saying?

NO.

Does that matter at all?

"NO."

It doesn't magically cease being endorsement of religion when someone responds to it.

So, to answer your question, when the LaClairs accused Mr. P. of preaching, that is called false rumors.

No, it's a fact. Preaching is preaching while the preacher is speaking, completely regardless of whether there are comments in between or afterwards.

Because I heard kids talking, I heard opinions being given and heard, I heard students exchanging their feelings about things and questions being asked.

Makes absolutely no difference.

I did not hear Mr. P. making the kids open their Bibles, I did not hear Mr. P. taking an offering or tithes, and I did not hear Mr. P. making them sing any Hymn. I did not hear Mr. P. make them pray.

This is the weakest attempt yet--offer an absurdly-narrow definition of preaching, then insist he wasn't preaching because he didn't fit it. Who do you think is falling for this, exactly?

Did you get the difference yet?

What happened in that class would not possibly fly in church. You don't believe me go to any church in town and check it out. :rolleyes:

71259[/snapback]

Again, totally irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because they are not smoking in private places.  They are smoking in privately owned establishments that cater to the general public.

Privately-owned establishment = private place. Members of the general public are allowed in any privately-owned property, as long as the owner allows it.

I'll ask once more, directly: why do you think it is unfair for a business owner to decide if he/she wants to allow smokers to patronize his/her establishment? Forcing them to not allow smoking is almost forced discrimination.

I think no one should smoke, but I also think if you own the business, it should be your call if you want to let smokers in. I think the fact that smoking is banned in bars just shows how absurd this all is. Smoking's banned, but drinking isn't? Where's the logic there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2smart4u

Three questions.

1. How is it respectful to tell someone that he belongs in hell?

2. How is it respectful to tell someone that if he is sincere he will abandon his religious beliefs and adopt yours?

3. How is it respectful to tell a student to ignore his pastor and his mother on a religious question?

You don't have to accept the truth, but if you can't answer those questions, you're just denying the truth.

71277[/snapback]

Great questions, not that they'll be answered, certainly not intelligently. The list of disrespectful comments by Mr. P is a long one. He essentially dismissed the entire scientific and educational communities as meriting virtually no consideration, in contrast to his own personal beliefs, which he held up as the gold standard. That is extremely disrespectful, not to mention outrageous coming from a teacher. He was also completely dismissive of and disrespectful toward Islam, and in fact every religious belief except his own (and all their practitioners).

71353[/snapback]

I think you've worn this subject out. You've hashed and re-hashed this until

we're all sick of it. Please go back to chasing ambulances and let us all try to

forget about Paul and his crime-fighting, super-hero son.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

First, you’re using a church definition of preaching. Church definitions don’t govern the courts.

That was not the point.

BTW Did you hear anything on those tapes like "Praise the Lord" "Preach it" etc...

Third, preaching is not a legal term. It’s a term people have used as a short-hand to describe what Mr. Paszkiewicz was doing. The legal term is promoting a religion or religious views. Mr. Paszkiewicz was doing both. Whether you call it preaching or not, it’s still not allowed.

Not people Paul. You used. You used in 300 press releases by your own admission on this forum. The press no doubt chose it's headlines from your releases. You put alot of work into the spin to cast Mr. P. as a heartless right wing radical.

He was not promoting a religion.

He was asked his opinion by your son.

In short, the distinction you’re trying to make is legally irrelevant.

Paul I could care less for your irrelevance B.S. Because you think you know it all. You are a closed minded person, who wants the world to revolve around you and your humanist religion. You fancy yourself as a hero standing up for the minority when in fact you're just a short fat man with a Napolean complex.

People like you are supposed to be tolerant of other's religions, where is your tolerance Paul? The Catholics, Protestants, Baptists are all bad according to you. They are all evil. How intolerant of them to not allow you and your son to make the town of Kearny live by your standards and believe the way you believe.

You are a very arrogant person and besides everything else you've done, you’re arrogance alone turned many people against you. Get off of your high horse. But becareful use a step ladder.

As for your son, I'm sure he will go far one day. However, a wise man once said, "As you walk down the road of life, once in a while you find a turtle on a fence post and you have to wonder how it got there." In the case of Matthew it will be your 300 press releases maligning Mr. P's character that caused him to rise to the top. This is so sad because other KHS students will have to struggle to be successful on their own merits. This isn't a bad thing though, it shows that they and their parents have integrity.

Oh, and by the way, even if you were right it would be an imprecise characterization, not a false rumor. A false rumor implies an incorrect statement of fact, such as the false claim that Matthew was admonished regarding the pledge by an administrator.

And that is what you done, a "FALSE RUMOR"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's got nothing to do with the words that you use.  You are simply pompous.

71261[/snapback]

Hmm. I still think you mean "pretentious poseur". But who am I to quibble with your diction?

And if your characterization is based on something other than the words I use, what is your objection? My opinions, which are no doubt fundamentally different from yours? (You should pardon the oblique pun . . .)

Leigh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I favor open-mindedness. Therefore, I'm opening a discussion comparing the composition of Bryan's brain to donkey dung.

We can explore the many facets of this fascinating discussion. We could compare their specific gravity, their molecular composition, their origins and many other subjects, including perhaps most important, their respective usefulness. No doubt it will be a fascinating discussion.

And how can we not have the discussion! After all, we wouldn't want to be close-minded, now would we?

71320[/snapback]

Fallacy of appeal to ridicule ... typical of your side (here at KOTW, anyway).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Three questions.

1. How is it respectful to tell someone that he belongs in hell?

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.

2. How is it respectful to tell someone that if he is sincere he will abandon his religious beliefs and adopt yours?

What, "That's your prerogative"? Just make it mean whatever you want it to mean ...

3. How is it respectful to tell a student to ignore his pastor and his mother on a religious question?

Should we just take your word for it after the other two fabrications?

I still haven't seen a transcript version of this allegation. How about it, o keeper of the tapes?

You don't have to accept the truth, but if you can't answer those questions, you're just denying the truth.

71277[/snapback]

Great questions, not that they'll be answered, certainly not intelligently.

:)

The list of disrespectful comments by Mr. P is a long one. He essentially dismissed the entire scientific and educational communities as meriting virtually no consideration, in contrast to his own personal beliefs, which he held up as the gold standard.

Essentially, eh? Virtually? Gold standard?

Let's see the quotations that merit such disrespectful charges.

That is extremely disrespectful, not to mention outrageous coming from a teacher. He was also completely dismissive of and disrespectful toward Islam, and in fact every religious belief except his own (and all their practitioners).

71353[/snapback]

How?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First, you’re using a church definition of preaching. Church definitions don’t govern the courts.

What is the court's definition of "preaching" relevant to church/state separation?

Third, preaching is not a legal term. It’s a term people have used as a short-hand to describe what Mr. Paszkiewicz was doing. The legal term is promoting a religion or religious views.

So, if Paszkiewicz was simply caught wearing a cross around his neck one day at school, your side would say he was "preaching," right?

Mr. Paszkiewicz was doing both. Whether you call it preaching or not, it’s still not allowed.

Teachers promote their religious beliefs all the time, just like the atheist teacher I pointed out in Washington state. How much would anyone bet me that Paul would not have complained about that teacher if Matthew LaClair had been in that class?

In short, the distinction you’re trying to make is legally irrelevant.

In short, you're very probably religiously motivated.

Oh, and by the way, even if you were right it would be an imprecise characterization, not a false rumor. A false rumor implies an incorrect statement of fact, such as the false claim that Matthew was admonished regarding the pledge by an administrator.

71351[/snapback]

So sue him. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Michael, you're right. One of the tag lines for the radical right is "teach the controversy," meaning that evolution and creationism should both be taught in the schools. The fatal defect in that argument is that scientifically there is no controversy. There's nothing to teach except the evolution, because that's the only theory with any scientific support. Then you hear the boneheads who don't understand one thing about science pontificating about how thoroughly in disupute the subject is. Meanwhile, the entire biological and medical communities all over the world are applying evolutionary biology to make real advances that materially improve our lives with each passing year. But to hear the boneheads talk, it's all up for grabs. Meanwhile, our kids here in America are falling behind in the scientists, and these idiots can't figure out why. You're right, it's absolutely maddening.

I have family members who keep telling me to keep an open mind, an ironic comment to say the least. The problem with that is that the only thing they want me to keep an open mind to is what they believe. That's not an open mind, but the exact opposite. Because they're so dug into their own way of thinking, they can't see it.

71350[/snapback]

At least you admit that other family members think you've lost your marbles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

Great questions, not that they'll be answered, certainly not intelligently. The list of disrespectful comments by Mr. P is a long one. He essentially dismissed the entire scientific and educational communities as meriting virtually no consideration, in contrast to his own personal beliefs, which he held up as the gold standard. That is extremely disrespectful, not to mention outrageous coming from a teacher. He was also completely dismissive of and disrespectful toward Islam, and in fact every religious belief except his own (and all their practitioners).

71353[/snapback]

I think you've worn this subject out. You've hashed and re-hashed this until

we're all sick of it. Please go back to chasing ambulances and let us all try to

forget about Paul and his crime-fighting, super-hero son.

71384[/snapback]

In other words, you got your arses kicked. Now be a man and acknowledge the fact. Then maybe it will go away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
First, you’re using a church definition of preaching. Church definitions don’t govern the courts.

That was not the point.

71385[/snapback]

It was the point. It is the point. What Paszkiewicz did is a violation of the US Constitution, dismissive of the science curriculum and a blight on the educational system. He did it to promote his personal religious views. It is precisely the point.

The remainder of your post isn't worth reprinting. You should have the sense to be embarrassed by it, but you don't. Your side didn't just lose this one, you got clobbered. And it happened because you are the arrogant ones, thinking you can shove your religion down everyone else's throat. But Matthew had him headed off at every pass, and nothing could make you angrier than the fact that the kid was right, and he was smarter than all of you put together.

Whatever Paul is personally, he has been right on every issue and every point. You have been wrong on every issue and every point. Your beloved Mr. P got caught red-handed, but instead of admitting that he crossed the line, you tried every trick you could think of to get the kid to back down. But he didn't back down. He kicked your sorry behinds. And the more awards and accolades he won, the angrier you became. Act like an adult for once and admit, just this once, that you were wrong and that a high school kid had your lunch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

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.

What, "That's your prerogative"? Just make it mean whatever you want it to mean ...

Should we just take your word for it after the other two fabrications?

I still haven't seen a transcript version of this allegation. How about it, o keeper of the tapes?

Great questions, not that they'll be answered, certainly not intelligently.

:rolleyes:

Essentially, eh? Virtually? Gold standard?

Let's see the quotations that merit such disrespectful charges.

How?

71412[/snapback]

"Prove that George W. Bush claimed Iraq had WMDs. Prove that there are fifty states in the USA. Prove to me that every living human being has a heart and a brain. Prove that the earth isn't flat. Prove to me that there's water on earth."

Go away, Bryan.

Share this post


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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...