David Paszkiewicz should be fired

[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.

Essentially, eh? Virtually? Gold standard?

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

How?

71412[/snapback]

The students were told exactly that. Paszkiewicz's exact words were:

1. "If you reject that, you belong in hell." He said it to the entire class, referring to Jesus supposedly dying on the cross to pay the price for "our sins".

2. "Don't buy it." He said this directly to a male student in response to the student saying that his mother and his pastor had told him something about the Bible.

3. "If you're sincerely seeking, you'll put your finger in" (Jesus's side). He said it directly to Matthew, inescapably implying by simple logic (negation of the consequent) that if he does not put his finger in (accept Jesus), then he is insincere, and by extension so are his parents, and every other non-Christian.

This isn't for Bryan's benefit. He's hopeless. It's to make sure that no one is left with an impression that simply isn't consistent with the facts.

[Strife767]

How do you know I didn't have Monday off?

Do you have Wednesday's off too?

10:30am

71423[/snapback]

[Guest Paul]

71385[/snapback]

You're wrong. The fact that he was preaching is exactly the point. The whole world got it. You don't get it because you think it's OK for Christian preachers to preach in the public schools.

And it is preaching. Just because the audience wasn't responding the way they would in church doesn't change what Paszkiewicz was saying one bit. I grew up attending mass every Sunday until I left the church at age 21, exactly 32 years ago tomorrow. I know what preaching sounds like, and this was preaching. He was promoting his religion. That's what preaching is. He's not allowed to do it in the public schools.

I don't think he's entirely heartless, but the fact is, he didn't give a damn about my son when he was being attacked, just like he didn't give a damn about all the other kids he knew didn't agree with him on religious issues. In his eyes, it's OK that they burn in hell. I have no use for that. You're entitled to your views, that is mine. I've never published the letter I wrote him. Would you like me to do that? This discussion should have ended a long time ago. You're really pissing me off, constantly trying to reinvent what happened to suit your wishes. Don't think I don't have more to reveal about him and his conduct if I choose to do it. I do. So if you really care about the guy, end this discussion tonight. You lost. Get used to it. Enough.

And he is a right wing radical. I don't have much use for that either, but at least it doesn't inherently violate the Constitution.

[Guest Paul]

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

71436[/snapback]

No, that's not what they say. They can't understand why I stopped believing in what they call God, and since they can't imagine thinking there isn't one, they just assume I don't have an open mind. But in fact it's the other way around.

I once practiced law with someone who thought my tastes in music were too narrow. He listened only to top 40. I was listening to classical (from Hildegard of Bingen ca. 1100 to the present), jazz, world, blues, country, American regional (e.g., Cajun), heavy metal (check out Yngwie Malmsteen!), top 40 and plenty of other music, too. My colleague couldn't see value in most of that music, and since I wasn't listening to what he was listening to every day, I must have narrow tastes. He was sitting in a tiny little room telling me I didn't get out enough. Meanwhile, my CD collection is bigger than the room he was sitting in.

Get it?

[Guest Guest]

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?

71373[/snapback]

Hey Strife, I'll take a crack at this. I have seen this quote attributed to a lot of people, not the least of whom is Oliver Wendall Holmes, who stated "My right to swing my arms ends where my neighbor's nose begins". I think that is the distinction between drinking and smoking. An individual's drinking does not directly affect the person sitting next to him or her, while such person's smoking allows unfiltered smoke to enter the nose - and thus lungs - of those around the smoker.

Back in law school - which, for me, occurred prior to the smoking ban - I took a class entitled "Law & Medicine". The costs associated with uninsured and/or underinsured medical conditions and complications from smoking (including second hand smoke) were so incredibly staggering that we actually debated whether smoking should be banned from public and private places in class.

Public place prohibition was easy - non-smokers should not have to subject themselves to the physical harm of smoking while frequenting a public place. While a few civil libertarians held out, most agreed that the ban was appropriate (and remember, this occured pre-ban).

Private place prohibition was much trickier. And the class was split. Of those thinking that some sort of action was appropriate, about half suggested that "sanctions" should be used to (hopefully) curb smoking use and to serve as some sort of recompense to the government (and, thus, the taxpayers) for the health care costs. "Sanction" was a broad term - which mostly focused on an increased cigarette tax (noting that taxes are meant to control behavior of the citizenry) which - as we have come to learn - does little to curb the smoking problem. Another sanction was to implement some sort of "permit" system to (essentially) tax establishments that allowed smoking to recoup some of the health care costs caused by smoking. Detractors (I think correctly) noted that it was too difficult to monitor AND much of the revenues would be devoured by the bureaucratic animal assigned to monitor the system.

The other half of the anti-smoking group thought that the rights of non-smokers to be (a) free from the harms of second hand smoke, and ( to be free from the uninsured/underinsured medical costs associated with smoking, dictated that a ban on smoking in private places was appropriate as well.

The class (of about 60 would-be lawyers ... or as I like to call it, "Hell") ultimately decided that there would either have to be an absolute ban or no ban. A vote in class was in favor of a ban by about 32-28.

So then why the ban? Maybe an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Or, as my professor analogized, "it's like putting barbed wire on the bannister to keep grandma from sliding down it ... it doesn't stop her, but it sure slows her down a bit".

At the end of the day, life has its twists and turns. And no smoker can be sure that they will be insured and/or financially capable of paying their own medical bills when symptoms, conditions and/or complications ultimately arise. Therefore, the costs get pushed onto the taxpayers - many of whom do not smoke. Because people have deemed that it is unfair for the non-smoking taxpayers to absorb the costs for the sins of the smoker, everything that can be done to prevent smoking - including private bans - should be used.

Of course, this doesn't get around the issues of "why smoking and why not drinking" (other than they tried Prohibition and it failed miserably)? Or "why smoking and why not fast food"? It could be that cigarettes really are much worse for you than scotch or hamburgers. Or it could be what the highway patrolman replies when you say "why didn't you pull the guy in front of me over for speeding" ... which, of course is, "because I pulled you over". There may be a reason, or there may be no rhyme or reason for it. At the end of the day, someone raised the issue, it got traction, then hit critical mass, and wham, no more smoking in the boys' room.

Anyway, it's the best that I've got on the subject. Hope my babbling makes sense.

[Bryan]

A religion was promoted, and that's not allowed.

You appear to suggest that the First Amendment prohibits religious speech.

Have you read the First Amendment?

Maybe Bryan can explain to us why all the lawyers on the case thought Engel and Schempp and other cases do apply.

Shall I contact David Paszkiewicz's lawyer in an attempt to verify your claim?

Of course they think those cases apply--what else could they use to justify their legal claim? If there's anything better you certainly haven't offered it.

Maybe he can explain why the school's attorneys advised their clients to settle.

They gave up little and saved money. Winning a case often costs money.

Maybe he can explain why the school board acknowledged that Matthew brought "a serious situation" to their attention if there was no violation.

Part of the settlement, one of the things LaClair asked for that they didn't mind granting.

Even Paszkiewicz's own lawyer, whom he obtained through the right-wing ACLJ, didn't argue that these cases don't apply to a teacher.

To whom would he argue? The case never went to court.

I think you're wrong about the ACLJ involvement, BTW. Yet another good reason for you to post as "Guest."

In fact, he acknowledged that a teacher may not preach in class. He just claimed that his client wasn't preaching, which of course is ridiculous.

Is it? Based on what?

It is true that each Supreme Court results in a decision for that case. However, cases establish precedents, and the precedent in Engel, Schempp and other First Amendment cases, as enunciated by the courts, is that the state may not allow its schools to be used to promote a religion.

As enunciated by what courts and using what words?

Whether the state actor is the legislature, the local board of education or an individual teacher, the rule is the same, because what matters is what is being done, not which state actor is doing it.

And you base this claim on what precedent?

If cases didn't establish precedents, the religious right wouldn't be so upset about Roe v. Wade.

If you had a good argument to make, would you bother with a red herring like that?

Of course some cases establish precedent. You just don't get to choose what the precedent happens to be regardless of the facts of the case or the opinion.

Sure, that case was only directly dispositive on the parties, but it established a precedent that is the controlling law for abortions all over the USA.

Albeit bad law, which will result in the overturn of Roe v. Wade eventually if the majority of justices begin to consider themselves bound to interpret the law rather than invent it.

Then maybe Bryan can give us a brief resume of his legal training. No doubt it will be brief, indeed.

71273[/snapback]

I occasionally watch "Boston Legal." There. Now you can ignore the arguments and just rely on a fallacious exercise of argumentum ad hominem.

Since lawyers are so fond of arguing deliberately via logical fallacies, perhaps you are one.

[Guest Guest]

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

71436[/snapback]

Try listening to what he's saying for once, instead of making some moronic "gotcha".

[Guest Guest]

You appear to suggest that the First Amendment prohibits religious speech.

Have you read the First Amendment?

Shall I contact David Paszkiewicz's lawyer in an attempt to verify your claim?

Of course they think those cases apply--what else could they use to justify their legal claim?  If there's anything better you certainly haven't offered it.

They gave up little and saved money.  Winning a case often costs money.

Part of the settlement, one of the things LaClair asked for that they didn't mind granting.

To whom would he argue?  The case never went to court.

I think you're wrong about the ACLJ involvement, BTW.  Yet another good reason for you to post as "Guest."

Is it?  Based on what?

As enunciated by what courts and using what words?

And you base this claim on what precedent?

If you had a good argument to make, would you bother with a red herring like that?

Of course some cases establish precedent.  You just don't get to choose what the precedent happens to be regardless of the facts of the case or the opinion.

Sure, that case was only directly dispositive on the parties, but it established a precedent that is the controlling law for abortions all over the USA.

Albeit bad law, which will result in the overturn of Roe v. Wade eventually if the majority of justices begin to consider themselves bound to interpret the law rather than invent it.

I occasionally watch "Boston Legal."  There.  Now you can ignore the arguments and just rely on a fallacious exercise of argumentum ad hominem.

Since lawyers are so fond of arguing deliberately via logical fallacies, perhaps you are one.

71496[/snapback]

Being in another state, Bryan, you wouldn't be aware of the fact that Paszkiewicz's right-wing lawyer acknowledged at a Board meeting what you're trying to deny. When the Board was contemplating a stated policy prohibiting teachers from promoting a religion in class (which they eventually adopted), Stratos argued that they should change the wording. Basically what he wanted was a standard so loose that a teacher would have had to hit a student over the head with a Bible to violate the policy. But at least he acknowledged the fact that the teacher is a state actor under the law.

You're an ass, Bryan. You find some stupid reason to justify whatever you want to believe. You have no common sense and no objectivity at all. Go away.

[Strife767]

Hey Strife, I'll take a crack at this.  I have seen this quote attributed to a lot of people, not the least of whom is Oliver Wendall Holmes, who stated "My right to swing my arms ends where my neighbor's nose begins".  I think that is the distinction between drinking and smoking.  An individual's drinking does not directly affect the person sitting next to him or her,

I understand what you're saying (as a health thing), but I still don't like being around someone who's drunk. The smell and the way being drunk changes people is an 'effect' too, technically. Again, I understand your point.

while such person's smoking allows unfiltered smoke to enter the nose - and thus lungs - of those around the smoker.

Well, sure--but the kicker is that non-smokers can avoid establishments that allow smokers if they want. Now, it depends on the business--certain businesses, like bars, are worse off when smokers can't go there. Other places, like say a Wal-mart, are better off when they don't allow smoking. And since every business wants to...well, stay in business, I think you would find that most businesses would be smoke-free of their own will, while a small amount/kind would want to be more welcoming to smokers, for lack of a better term.

It's just that forcing things one way for all businesses just kind of leaves a bad taste in my mouth, I guess. I'm actually in favor of banning smoking in all public areas, in case I didn't state that earlier.

Back in law school - which, for me, occurred prior to the smoking ban - I took a class entitled "Law & Medicine".  The costs associated with uninsured and/or underinsured medical conditions and complications from smoking (including second hand smoke) were so incredibly staggering that we actually debated whether smoking should be banned from public and private places in class.

Understandable. But if a non-smoker was simply aware that a place catered to smokers, and then was allowed to make the choice of whether or not they wanted to patronize that establishment anyway, what would be wrong with that?

Public place prohibition was easy - non-smokers should not have to subject themselves to the physical harm of smoking while frequenting a public place.  While a few civil libertarians held out, most agreed that the ban was appropriate (and remember, this occured pre-ban). 

Private place prohibition was much trickier.  And the class was split.  Of those thinking that some sort of action was appropriate, about half suggested that "sanctions" should be used to (hopefully) curb smoking use and to serve as some sort of recompense to the government (and, thus, the taxpayers) for the health care costs.  "Sanction" was a broad term - which mostly focused on an increased cigarette tax (noting that taxes are meant to control behavior of the citizenry) which - as we have come to learn - does little to curb the smoking problem.  Another sanction was to implement some sort of "permit" system to (essentially) tax establishments that allowed smoking to recoup some of the health care costs caused by smoking.  Detractors (I think correctly) noted that it was too difficult to monitor AND much of the revenues would be devoured by the bureaucratic animal assigned to monitor the system.

The other half of the anti-smoking group thought that the rights of non-smokers to be (a) free from the harms of second hand smoke, and ( to be free from the uninsured/underinsured medical costs associated with smoking, dictated that a ban on smoking in private places was appropriate as well.

The class (of about 60 would-be lawyers ... or as I like to call it, "Hell") ultimately decided that there would either have to be an absolute ban or no ban.  A vote in class was in favor of a ban by about 32-28.

That really is a split.

So then why the ban?  Maybe an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.  Or, as my professor analogized, "it's like putting barbed wire on the bannister to keep grandma from sliding down it ... it doesn't stop her, but it sure slows her down a bit".

At the end of the day, life has its twists and turns.  And no smoker can be sure that they will be insured and/or financially capable of paying their own medical bills when symptoms, conditions and/or complications ultimately arise.  Therefore, the costs get pushed onto the taxpayers - many of whom do not smoke.

  Because people have deemed that it is unfair for the non-smoking taxpayers to absorb the costs for the sins of the smoker, everything that can be done to prevent smoking - including private bans - should be used.

Now, what if hypothetically the illnesses a smoker brings upon him or herself were always 'untouched' by tax dollars? That plus no ban--how do you think that would work? If the taxpayers could be assured that smokers would have to foot their own bills for smoking-related conditions, would they feel the same, do you think?

Of course, this doesn't get around the issues of "why smoking and why not drinking" (other than they tried Prohibition and it failed miserably)?  Or "why smoking and why not fast food"?  It could be that cigarettes really are much worse for you than scotch or hamburgers.  Or it could be what the highway patrolman replies when you say "why didn't you pull the guy in front of me over for speeding" ... which, of course is, "because I pulled you over".  There may be a reason, or there may be no rhyme or reason for it.  At the end of the day, someone raised the issue, it got traction, then hit critical mass, and wham, no more smoking in the boys' room.

Anyway, it's the best that I've got on the subject.  Hope my babbling makes sense.

71493[/snapback]

Hey, I won't knock reasoned, calm discussion with me on this forum--I've come to cherish it for the rare delicacy it is.

[Guest Guest]

I occasionally watch "Boston Legal."  There.  Now you can ignore the arguments and just rely on a fallacious exercise of argumentum ad hominem.

Since lawyers are so fond of arguing deliberately via logical fallacies, perhaps you are one.

71496[/snapback]

When I'm sick, I go to a doctor, not a philosopher. If I needed heart surgery, I'd want a doctor to do it, specifically a cardio-thoracic surgeon. I wouldn't be guilty of ad hominem in telling my auto mechanic that I didn't want him doing my heart surgery.

It matters that you don't have any legal training, Bryan, because you don't understand what you presume to judge. The point is, you don't understand the arguments because you don't know the law, either in form or in substance. People go to law school to learn those things, and the really good ones sometimes make it to high-level appellate courts or get to argue before the US Supreme Court. It matters that you haven't taken step one in that process. So when you try to argue the law, you're not qualified. It's not ad hominem. It's a matter of your not being remotely qualified or remotely competent in the field.

You asked for applications of the principle that a teacher is a state actor, never mind the fact that most members of the general public know that. You were given those applications. Those cases are dead on the money. You didn't like the answer, so you went off on one of your typical tangents that you go off on when you can't think of anything else.

Maybe one day you'll grow up.

[Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo]

I understand what you're saying (as a health thing), but I still don't like being around someone who's drunk. The smell and the way being drunk changes people is an 'effect' too, technically. Again, I understand your point.

Well, sure--but the kicker is that non-smokers can avoid establishments that allow smokers if they want. Now, it depends on the business--certain businesses, like bars, are worse off when smokers can't go there. Other places, like say a Wal-mart, are better off when they don't allow smoking. And since every business wants to...well, stay in business, I think you would find that most businesses would be smoke-free of their own will, while a small amount/kind would want to be more welcoming to smokers, for lack of a better term.

It's just that forcing things one way for all businesses just kind of leaves a bad taste in my mouth, I guess. I'm actually in favor of banning smoking in all public areas, in case I didn't state that earlier.

Understandable. But if a non-smoker was simply aware that a place catered to smokers, and then was allowed to make the choice of whether or not they wanted to patronize that establishment anyway, what would be wrong with that?

That really is a split.

Now, what if hypothetically the illnesses a smoker brings upon him or herself were always 'untouched' by tax dollars? That plus no ban--how do you think that would work? If the taxpayers could be assured that smokers would have to foot their own bills for smoking-related conditions, would they feel the same, do you think?

Hey, I won't knock reasoned, calm discussion with me on this forum--I've come to cherish it for the rare delicacy it is.

71521[/snapback]

I agree with you that the market will sort itself out and let's be honest drinking and smoking go hand in hand. I know alot of people who "don't smoke" except when they go out to party. When someone opens a non-smoking bar then like minded folks will flock to it and vice versa.

I guess what bothers me more than the actual smoking issue is the way folks these days are willing to just roll over and accept sweeping mandates regarding the rights of others. What ever happend to freedom of choice?

[Guest Guest]

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?

71373[/snapback]

Privately owned does not equal the right to do whatever the owner wants in his/her establishment.

[Guest Guest]

71463[/snapback]

The funny faces are so you. They are so very childish.

[Guest Guest]

71463[/snapback]

It must be great to work for the town of Kearny!

I guess you have off on Thursday too? 10:10am

[Guest Guest]

I don't think he's entirely heartless, but the fact is, he didn't give a damn about my son when he was being attacked, just like he didn't give a damn about all the other kids he knew didn't agree with him on religious issues. In his eyes, it's OK that they burn in hell. I have no use for that. You're entitled to your views, that is mine. I've never published the letter I wrote him. Would you like me to do that? This discussion should have ended a long time ago. You're really pissing me off, constantly trying to reinvent what happened to suit your wishes. Don't think I don't have more to reveal about him and his conduct if I choose to do it. I do. So if you really care about the guy, end this discussion tonight. You lost. Get used to it. Enough.

Now you are showing your true bully color.

[Guest Guest]

You're wrong. The fact that he was preaching is exactly the point. The whole world got it. You don't get it because you think it's OK for Christian preachers to preach in the public schools.

And it is preaching. Just because the audience wasn't responding the way they would in church doesn't change what Paszkiewicz was saying one bit. I grew up attending mass every Sunday until I left the church at age 21, exactly 32 years ago tomorrow. I know what preaching sounds like, and this was preaching. He was promoting his religion. That's what preaching is. He's not allowed to do it in the public schools.

I don't think he's entirely heartless, but the fact is, he didn't give a damn about my son when he was being attacked, just like he didn't give a damn about all the other kids he knew didn't agree with him on religious issues. In his eyes, it's OK that they burn in hell. I have no use for that. You're entitled to your views, that is mine. I've never published the letter I wrote him. Would you like me to do that? This discussion should have ended a long time ago. You're really pissing me off, constantly trying to reinvent what happened to suit your wishes. Don't think I don't have more to reveal about him and his conduct if I choose to do it. I do. So if you really care about the guy, end this discussion tonight. You lost. Get used to it. Enough.

And he is a right wing radical. I don't have much use for that either, but at least it doesn't inherently violate the Constitution.

71482[/snapback]

Is that what your Humanist Religion is all about?

Great religion you have going there Paul?

Very tolerant! Very Humanist!

[Guest Guest]

No, that's not what they say. They can't understand why I stopped believing in what they call God, and since they can't imagine thinking there isn't one, they just assume I don't have an open mind. But in fact it's the other way around.

I once practiced law with someone who thought my tastes in music were too narrow. He listened only to top 40. I was listening to classical (from Hildegard of Bingen ca. 1100 to the present), jazz, world, blues, country, American regional (e.g., Cajun), heavy metal (check out Yngwie Malmsteen!), top 40 and plenty of other music, too. My colleague couldn't see value in most of that music, and since I wasn't listening to what he was listening to every day, I must have narrow tastes. He was sitting in a tiny little room telling me I didn't get out enough. Meanwhile, my CD collection is bigger than the room he was sitting in.

Get it?

71486[/snapback]

No, I do not get it? I wonder often why you use the Muslim religion when you wish to make a point? As worldly as you think you might be, it appears you have not been much out of the United States. Why do you not use other religions in your comparisons when trying to make points? Have you ever been to the Mid East to know my culture and ways. We do mix religion and school together and it works fine for our culture. Because you have no faith in your god, do not think that others faith is not that strong. That is where you are misled again.

[Guest Guest]

The students were told exactly that. Paszkiewicz's exact words were:

1. "If you reject that, you belong in hell." He said it to the entire class, referring to Jesus supposedly dying on the cross to pay the price for "our sins".

Actually, this quote has three different variations in the dialogue in the recording and it was in answer to the atheist student’s question regarding how a truly loving God could possibly send his children to Hell.

the teacher responded that the way he saw it was,

“He (God) did everything in His power to make sure that you could go to Heaven, so much so, that He put your sin on his own body, suffered your pains for you, and He’s saying, ‘Please accept me, believe me!’ If you reject that, you belong in Hell … its up to you to reason it out, the outcome is your prerogative. But the way I see it, God himself sent his Son to die for David Paszkiewicz on that cross … and if I reject that, then it really is to Hell with me.” (Classroom Recording September 14, 2007)

2. "Don't buy it." He said this directly to a male student in response to the student saying that his mother and his pastor had told him something about the Bible.

This was in response to a student saying that the Bible has gone through many changes over the centuries. When the teacher asked where he heard this, the student replied that he heard it from the History Channel, his mother and his pastor. The teacher did not just say "Don't buy it," he offered evidence. He pointed out the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls predate our ealiest texts of the OT by 900 years and demonstrate no change. It doesn't appear that any disrespect was meant in his comment. In fact, no offense seemed to be taken by the student on the tape. It was a historical issue being examined, no one was being disparaged or maligned. (Check Classroom Recording Sept. 15, 2007)

3. "If you're sincerely seeking, you'll put your finger in" (Jesus's side). He said it directly to Matthew, inescapably implying by simple logic (negation of the consequent) that if he does not put his finger in (accept Jesus), then he is insincere, and by extension so are his parents, and every other non-Christian.

The exact context is as follows (Classroom Recording Sept. 15, 2007):

(The students express frustation on the recording concerning Mathew's criticism of God because he allows animals to suffer. He argues that a just god would not punish animals because of man. the students present Mathew with various arguments as to why Mathew is wrong.)

Female Student: I would like to know what religion Matt is?

Male Student: Matt is an atheist.

Teacher: I think Matt is kind of searching, when he makes a decision, he wants it to be certain. That's my guess anyway.

(Students still actively involved in discussion with Mathew, still questioning his religion)

Teacher: Matt's like Thomas, he (Thomas) needed absolute proof.

Female Student: He (Thomas) had to put his finger in the hand.

Teacher: One day, if you are legitimately searching, your finger will go in the whole.

Context matters! In no way can the teacher be interpreted as being disrespectful on the recordings. By the way, after listening carefully to the recordings myself, it appears Mathew was either "searching" by his numerous questions, or, perhaps "proseletyzing" for atheism by these questions.

[Bryan]

Being in another state, Bryan, you wouldn't be aware of the fact that Paszkiewicz's  right-wing lawyer acknowledged at a Board meeting what you're trying to deny.

No, I wouldn't--but even in another state I sniffed out the fact that you misidentified his affiliation.

When the Board was contemplating a stated policy prohibiting teachers from promoting a religion in class (which they eventually adopted), Stratos argued that they should change the wording. Basically what he wanted was a standard so loose that a teacher would have had to hit a student over the head with a Bible to violate the policy. But at least he acknowledged the fact that the teacher is a state actor under the law.

Heh. So that's what you think I'm trying to deny.

Maybe you should review:

"Guest":

Whether the state actor is the legislature, the local board of education or an individual teacher, the rule is the same, because what matters is what is being done, not which state actor is doing it.

Bryan:

And you base this claim on what precedent?

IOW, I asking for your basis in precedent for claiming that "the rule is the same," not claiming that a public school teacher is not a state actor.

Nice try at bait-and-switch, though.

You're an ass, Bryan.

That's more typical of the arguments I see from your side.

You find some stupid reason to justify whatever you want to believe.

If only you could address that reason instead of indulging in fallacies of distraction ...

You have no common sense and no objectivity at all.

... but I won't hold my breath.

Go away.

71518[/snapback]

No, thank you.

[Bryan]

The students were told exactly that. Paszkiewicz's exact words were:

1. "If you reject that, you belong in hell." He said it to the entire class, referring to Jesus supposedly dying on the cross to pay the price for "our sins".

2. "Don't buy it." He said this directly to a male student in response to the student saying that his mother and his pastor had told him something about the Bible.

3. "If you're sincerely seeking, you'll put your finger in" (Jesus's side). He said it directly to Matthew, inescapably implying by simple logic (negation of the consequent) that if he does not put his finger in (accept Jesus), then he is insincere, and by extension so are his parents, and every other non-Christian.

This isn't for Bryan's benefit. He's hopeless. It's to make sure that no one is left with an impression that simply isn't consistent with the facts.

71462[/snapback]

1. "Guest" simply repeats the process of dropping the context as if that somehow addresses the issue.

2. Source?

3. Source?

It's funny that "Guest" suggests that his claims are based on facts when he offers no facts in support of his assertions.

[Guest Guest]

The students were told exactly that. Paszkiewicz's exact words were:

1. "If you reject that, you belong in hell." He said it to the entire class, referring to Jesus supposedly dying on the cross to pay the price for "our sins".

Actually, this quote has three different variations in the dialogue in the recording and it was in answer to the atheist student’s question regarding how a truly loving God could possibly send his children to Hell.

the teacher responded that the way he saw it was,

“He (God) did everything in His power to make sure that you could go to Heaven, so much so, that He put your sin on his own body, suffered your pains for you, and He’s saying, ‘Please accept me, believe me!’ If you reject that, you belong in Hell … its up to you to reason it out, the outcome is your prerogative. But the way I see it, God himself sent his Son to die for David Paszkiewicz on that cross … and if I reject that, then it really is to Hell with me.” (Classroom Recording September 14, 2007)

2. "Don't buy it." He said this directly to a male student in response to the student saying that his mother and his pastor had told him something about the Bible.

This was in response to a student saying that the Bible has gone through many changes over the centuries. When the teacher asked where he heard this, the student replied that he heard it from the History Channel, his mother and his pastor. The teacher did not just say "Don't buy it," he offered evidence. He pointed out the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls predate our ealiest texts of the OT by 900 years and demonstrate no change. It doesn't appear that any disrespect was meant in his comment. In fact, no offense seemed to be taken by the student on the tape. It was a historical issue being examined, no one was being disparaged or maligned. (Check Classroom Recording Sept. 15, 2007)

3. "If you're sincerely seeking, you'll put your finger in" (Jesus's side). He said it directly to Matthew, inescapably implying by simple logic (negation of the consequent) that if he does not put his finger in (accept Jesus), then he is insincere, and by extension so are his parents, and every other non-Christian.

The exact context is as follows (Classroom Recording Sept. 15, 2007):

(The students express frustation on the recording concerning Mathew's criticism of God because he allows animals to suffer. He argues that a just god would not punish animals because of man. the students present Mathew with various arguments as to why Mathew is wrong.)

Female Student: I would like to know what religion Matt is?

Male Student: Matt is an atheist.

Teacher: I think Matt is kind of searching, when he makes a decision, he wants it to be certain. That's my guess anyway.

(Students still actively involved in discussion with Mathew, still questioning his religion)

Teacher: Matt's like Thomas, he (Thomas) needed absolute proof.

Female Student: He (Thomas) had to put his finger in the hand.

Teacher: One day, if you are legitimately searching, your finger will go in the whole.

Context matters! In no way can the teacher be interpreted as being disrespectful on the recordings. By the way, after listening carefully to the recordings myself, it appears Mathew was either "searching" by his numerous questions, or, perhaps "proseletyzing" for atheism by these questions.

71650[/snapback]

Of course it was disrespectful. He implied that anyone who didn't believe in Jesus wasn't legitimately searching for the truth. That's completely disrespectful, and blatant proselytizing. Not to mention that your biases toward the Christian religion are transparent.

Even if you believe Mr. P had evidence that the Bible hadn't been changed (which is questionable at best), there is still no excuse for a public school teacher telling a student "don't buy it" when the reference is to something the student's mother and pastor told him about their religion. He had no business doing that.

There aren't three versions of what he said. If you had listened to the recordings, you would know what he said. There is no context that can make "if you reject that, you belong in hell" anything less than blatant religious proselytizing, or if you prefer another term, preaching. And if you want the legal term, it's promoting a relgion. It's not allowed.

[Guest Guest]

No, I wouldn't--but even in another state I sniffed out the fact that you misidentified his affiliation.

Heh.  So that's what you think I'm trying to deny.

Maybe you should review:

"Guest":

Whether the state actor is the legislature, the local board of education or an individual teacher, the rule is the same, because what matters is what is being done, not which state actor is doing it.

Bryan:

And you base this claim on what precedent?

IOW, I asking for your basis in precedent for claiming that "the rule is the same," not claiming that a public school teacher is not a state actor.

Nice try at bait-and-switch, though.

That's more typical of the arguments I see from your side.

If only you could address that reason instead of indulging in fallacies of distraction ...

... but I won't hold my breath.

No, thank you.

71662[/snapback]

"IOW, I asking for your basis in precedent for claiming that "the rule is the same," not claiming that a public school teacher is not a state actor. Nice try at bait-and-switch, though."

It's the same argument in different words. State actors may not use the public schools to promote a religion. The rule is the same whether the promotion is via legislation or via an individual act by a teacher. It's really pitiful that you try deny your making your own argument.

[billydee4]

71650[/snapback]

Where can I find all of the tapes and/or the transcripts?

[Strife767]

The funny faces are so you. They are so very childish.

71568[/snapback]

Some posts just don't merit a response in words.

[Strife767]

Privately owned does not equal the right to do whatever the owner wants in his/her establishment.

71558[/snapback]

Please, let's move this to the relevant thread.