David Paszkiewicz should be fired

[billydee4]

I just reread the transcripts I could find and, theology and preaching aside, Paszkiewicz, in some parts seems very confused. He often contradicts what had just said a few minutes before. Please indulge me. My comments are in blue.

Student M1: What were the prophecies?

Teacher: What were they? There were actually hundereds of 'em...

Student M1: ...that came true...

Teacher: New Testament, Old Testament?

LaClaire: The ones that came true.

Student M2: Go with easier.

Teacher: I'll give you a major Old Testament prophecy, I'll give you

two. One, the children of Israel themselves. Moses in Genesis talks

about one day they're going to be in slavery for 400 years. Long

before the event, but God would deliver them. And then in Exodus,

they're in slavery, and He delivers 'em 430 years later. Things like

that. [ So god was off by thirty years. What's 30 years if you are eternal? Could it be that Genesis was written after the exodus--if it actually happened?]You have many prophecies, like, um, I'll give you an interesting

one, this is the Old Testament, this is in the book of Ezekiel. And

Ezekiel gives us prophecies concerning the nations. He talks about the

city of Tyre which would be off the coast of Lebanon in the ancient

world. Tyre still exists in Lebanon today. This is the Mediterranean

coast, where Israel would be here, Lebanon would be here, and he had

the city of Tyre right here. Ezekiel rants in his prophecy against this

king of Tyre and how evil he is and about how God is going to judge him.

And in the ancient world, the people of this city was really

impregnable, because what would happen was, there was a tiny island a

quarter mile off the coast. Whenever they were going to be invaded,

the people of the city would get on boats and go to what they called

"Little Tyre", a walled rock [...?] out off the coast, and it had a

water supply, and it had food stores and stuff, there. [so was the city of Tyre off the coast of Lebanon or on the coast?] Ezekiel said that they would come, that they would be conquered, that Tyre would be raized - that every stone would be overturned, and cast into the sea, and the men of the sea would be slaughtered, and it would be known as

a place were fishermen mend their nets (??). You can look it up in the

older Encyclopedia Brittanica, look up Tyre, and it will say that it's a

place where fishermen mend their nets. Not the newest one, but the

older one, the ones they had the old [???]. [Ezekiel specifically states that Nebuchadnezzar would do this. He never conquered Tyre. Also, the bible says nothing about Little Tyre and Big Tyre. What P is saying would be like someone saying "I am going to conquer New York City and then they take over Brooklyn and say they conquered New York City. This sounds like the Chewbacca defense. The newer Encyclopedia Brittanica editions may have dropped the part about the nets because the found out it wasn't true. Just a hunch on my part.]Alexander the Great comes down the scene of history. He's not a military guy, he's a soldier. [Huh? Soldiers don't count as "military guys"? ] He gets to Tyre, he wants to conquer the city, and he is so frustrated that the city has escaped. [He is trying to conquer a city that Nebuchadnezzar had already conquered and levelled? ] And he's [??] that, he has his men take every stone of the city and throw it into the sea to build a causeline [Not a real word] from

the mainland to Little Tyre and slaughters the men of the city. [...??] [so Big Al takes all of the stones from a city that is no longer there and builds a "causeline"? Keep in mind that Ezekiel says that Nebuchadnezzar was going to destroy Tyre.]

Student N1: Did Alexander the Great read the Bible?

Teacher: No, this occured before his time. [P said earlier that Genesis was written in 1440 bce--a number he pulled out of somewhere dark and smelly--so Alexander very well could have read the Hebrew Scriptures.] It was predicted as a prophecy then - but it was that specific. Now the coastline of Lebanon looks like this. Because there's a causeway there. It's no longer an

island. And you have Little Tyre out here and Tyre on the mainland, and

that's how it was formed. And history records that Alexander the Great

came and raized the city and threw it into the sea. [Again, Alexander is not mentioned in Ezekiel] Where were we

goin, anyway?

The transcripts quoted are from dranger.com.

For more information, check out these websites:

http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/.../2/992tyre.html

davematson.edwardtbabinski.us/prophecy_tyre.html

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_tyre.html

http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyan_theology/th...16-20/16-06.htm

Here is just a little more idiocy.

Teacher: Nah, he just told Moses. You get it?

LaClaire: And we know - wait, wait, and we know -

Teacher: Yeah, for 6 days, there was only him and man. [Huh? Did man exist from Day 1? Why isn't this mentioned in Genesis?]

Teacher: ...(w)here did Moses' conception of the universe come from? Cause it was unlike anything he'd been taught in school. And he had the order

scientifically correct. You start with light, and then you go to -

because you can't live without light generated from the sun. The

energy that we get from the food that we eat, ultimately finds its way

back to the source, the sun. Plants and photosynthesis, the beef that

we enjoy eats the plants, and we get that energy from the beef. It

transfers, and Moses had the order correct. [but Genesis says that light was created on the first day. Then god created plants on the third day. Plants need the sun for photosynthesis, but the sun wasn't created until the fourth day.]

Paszkiewicz doesn't know history. He doesn't even know "biblical history." He just comes off as a pompous, ignorant raving radical fundamentalist.

Now, people like Bryan will come back and try to tell us that this is all taken out of context. I think this is plenty of context for any rational person. I used to think that the biggest problem our society was that people are stupid. Now I think the problem is that some people want to be stupid. Why is this man still teaching?

[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]

Sounds like you're very lonely.

[Guest Ad Infinitum]

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

Have you read the First Amendment?

. . . .

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]

No, he/she suggested exactly what he, she wrote, which was "A religion was promoted, and that's not allowed." Don't know what Bryan means by "religious speech," but a public school teacher may not misuse the classroom to promote a religion. That is exactly what the guest wrote. You quoted it, Bryan. Did you bother to read it?

As for your last few lines, Bryan, quite apart from your now admitted ignorance of the law, don't you think your repeated cries against ad hominem attacks on others ring hollow in light of your last sentence disparaging lawyers? Really, Bryan, it's like you're standing naked under the big clock at Macy's at noon on Thanksgiving. Do you really think we don't see you?

[Guest Ad Infinitum]

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.

71524[/snapback]

Extremely well-put. Isn't it interesting, and revealing, that Bryan completely ignores the post citing the cases he asked for.

[Guest Ad Infinitum]

Is that what your Humanist Religion is all about?

Great religion you have going there Paul?

Very tolerant! Very Humanist!

71588[/snapback]

You're attacking Paul for being intolerant? You've gotta be kidding me.

[Guest Ad Infinitum]

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.

71612[/snapback]

This is a joke, right? Very seriously, we in the USA don't live under Islamic law. We live under the Constitution of the United States, which forbids the state from getting involved in religion.

By the way, when was the last time Paul said anything about Islam? Anything at all, let alone using the religion to make a point?

[Guest Ad Infinitum]

71650[/snapback]

"Thaaaat's right, boys and girls, don't you listen to your dumb old mom and stupid old pastor about the Bible. You listen to me, Mr. Wacky-Packy, your in-school Mr. Rodgers for wacked-out right-wing purposefully ignorant Bible-thumping fundies.

"And you, the trouble-making kid over there asking all the dumb questions. Hey, boy, if you're really looking for the truth, just agree with me. Don't you listen to all those other 'smaaaart people,' your other teachers who really aren't all that smart. You're in my classroom now, boy, so you listen to me. My religion is the right one, and if you don't believe it, you belong in hell."

And apparently some people don't have any problem with this at all. Coming from a public school teacher on the public payroll on the public's time. No problem. Totally professional job of teaching. Perfectly respectful.

To paraphrase the little boy in "The Sixth Sense," "I see stupid people. They don't know they're stupid." And that truly is the heart-stopping, pant-soiling, scary part of this story.

[Guest Guest]

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

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

71579[/snapback]

This is a great town!

Strife has off on Fridays too! 10:00am

I have to go see the Mayor.

I want to know how can I have a job just like Strifes?

[Bryan]

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.

Did you ever hear about the Canadian imposter who saved lives by posing as a doctor and performing successful surgeries?

It matters that you don't have any legal training, Bryan, because you don't understand what you presume to judge.

You appear to have forgotten that you don't know that I don't have any legal training.

The point is, you don't understand the arguments because you don't know the law, either in form or in substance.

How do you know that?

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.

Did you know that one need not have any formal legal training to sit on the Supreme Court?

Did you know that one can argue before the Supreme Court without any formal legal training?

It matters that you haven't taken step one in that process.

You don't know that I haven't taken one step in that process, and it doesn't really matter if I hadn't. The argument itself is always the ultimate issue.

So when you try to argue the law, you're not qualified. It's not ad hominem.

Sure it is, for there is no requirement for arguing law.

When you distract from the argument at hand and try to make the issue into qualifications it is definitely an ad hominem argument. No question about it whatsoever. Now, ad hominem arguments are not necessarily fallacious, but avoiding the argument about the law on its merits to instead focus on qualification is certainly a fallacy of distraction--and that is the essence of the ad hominem fallacy.

It's a matter of your not being remotely qualified or remotely competent in the field.

If you could demonstrate that by dealing specifically with my arguments then you wouldn't be committing a logical fallacy. Good luck.

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.

No, I didn't.

Review again (since you couldn't get it through your head the first time):

"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.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=71662

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.

71524[/snapback]

So you can't answer the question so you just huff, puff, toss in a lie or two and insist that you were right all along.

What are your legal qualifications, btw?

[Guest Guest]

Leaving aside the logistics of getting Pasziewicz fired (which O'Donnell apparently hasn't had time to seriously contemplate) ...

What personal belief do you think was advanced, Mr. O'Donnell?

What evidence of ignorance of science and/or the Constitution do you think Mr. Paszkiewicz evidenced, Mr. O'Donnell?

How did he supposedly do that?

One would think that you had never encountered a labor union.

Liberal insider. 

69397[/snapback]

Who is this? The teacher says there were dinosaurs on Noah's ark, and "Bryan" wants to know what evidence there is of his ignorance!?

Way to go, Bryan. Now we have evidence that at least two people are ignorant.

[Bryan]

71650[/snapback]

What is your source for the recordings from Sept. 15?

[Guest Guest]

Is that what your Humanist Religion is all about?

Great religion you have going there Paul?

Very tolerant! Very Humanist!

71588[/snapback]

Considering the venom he has been subjected to, Mr. LaClair has been remarkably restrained most of the time. Can't blame him for venting occasionally.

If he has additional information that might embarrass Mr. Paszkiewicz, you can't blame him for disclosing it if you make some charge against him or Matthew that isn't true. Don't forget, they withheld the recording from Somma's office until Paszkiewicz denied that he had lied in that meeting, thereby implying that Matthew lied. After seeing Paul on this forum, my suspicion is that you're getting dangerously close to something that would bring forth more information that you and your favorite teacher wouldn't like.

So if you insist on continuing the discussion, don't say you weren't warned.

[Matthew LaClair]

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]

I do not appreciate the chasing ambulances crack. It is untrue, cliched and based on nothing but biased conjecture. However, I have never been called a crime-fighting super-hero. I do not agree 100%, but I would just like to say thank you for such kindness.

[Strife767]

No, I do not get it?  I wonder often why you use the Muslim religion when you wish to make a point?

It's a good 'target' for the analogy because the same kind of Christian fundie who would be an apologist for Paszkiewicz tends to be the kind who freely denounces and badmouths Islam, another major world religion. And because people like Paul and I know quite well that these guys wouldn't defend a Muslim teacher the way they defended Paszkiewicz, use the analogy to point out their hypocrisy and bias. It's as simple as that.

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?

I think another part of it is the bandwagon bigotry that accompanied the bandwagon 'patriotism' following 9/11--suddenly, everyone was super-patriotic, and everyone put "Muslim" next to "terrorist" in their mind's thesaurus.

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.

Don't take it personally--it is only an analogy. In any case, do you disagree that Paszkiewicz's apologists would not have defended him had he been preaching Islam instead (hypothetically)?

Because you have no faith in your god,

This is like saying someone whose hair never gets cut doesn't trust his/her hairdresser--this comment makes no sense directed at someone of a nontheistic religion.

do not think that others faith is not that strong. That is where you are misled again.

71612[/snapback]

What did he say that gave you the impression that he thinks that, I wonder? In fact, he probably feels the opposite--that people like Paszkiewicz and his apologists are faithful to a fault, to the point where they will reject anything that conflicts with it in any way, be it established science (e.g. evolution) or irrefutable evidence (e.g. the audio recordings).

[Strife767]

Is that what your Humanist Religion is all about? Great religion you have going there Paul? Very tolerant! Very Humanist!

71588[/snapback]

Are you suggesting it's bad to be intolerant of dishonesty and inappropriate (not to mention unconstitutional) behavior?

[Guest Guest]

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

71697[/snapback]

The transcripts are not very clear.

Whoever did them did a very poor job.

I could not find one that was actually complete.

[Strife767]

This is a great town!

Strife has off on Fridays too!  10:00am

I have to go see the Mayor. 

I want to know how can I have a job just like Strifes?

71737[/snapback]

This is very entertaining.

[Guest Guest]

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]

You were already told how Paszkiewicz was being disrespectful. You just don't want to hear it.

As for Matthew, it doesn't matter what he was doing. He's not a state actor.

You fundies aren't very good at the thinking thing, are you.

[Guest Guest]

Did you ever hear about the Canadian imposter who saved lives by posing as a doctor and performing successful surgeries?

You appear to have forgotten that you don't know that I don't have any legal training.

How do you know that?

Did you know that one need not have any formal legal training to sit on the Supreme Court?

Did you know that one can argue before the Supreme Court without any formal legal training?

You don't know that I haven't taken one step in that process, and it doesn't really matter if I hadn't.  The argument itself is always the ultimate issue.

Sure it is, for there is no requirement for arguing law.

When you distract from the argument at hand and try to make the issue into qualifications it is definitely an ad hominem argument.  No question about it whatsoever.  Now, ad hominem arguments are not necessarily fallacious, but avoiding the argument about the law on its merits to instead focus on qualification is certainly a fallacy of distraction--and that is the essence of the ad hominem fallacy.

If you could demonstrate that by dealing specifically with my arguments then you wouldn't be committing a logical fallacy.  Good luck.

No, I didn't.

Review again (since you couldn't get it through your head the first time):

"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.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=71662

So you can't answer the question so you just huff, puff, toss in a lie or two and insist that you were right all along.

What are your legal qualifications, btw? 

71745[/snapback]

Yes of course, Bryan. I can understand your not wanting to boast of your extensive qualifications in the law. They're quite obvious.

So you know the law and I'm an inter-galactically renowned Martian-spaceship designer. Yup, you sure got me on that one.

Perhaps you missed post 273, which reads as follows:

"For a good analysis of the state actor doctrine, see http://www.txnb.uscourts.gov/opinions/rfn/...63_20060511.pdf.

"See also West v. Atkins, 487 US 42, 49 (1988) and US v. Classic, 313 US 299 (1941).

"These cases can be found through the following links, respectively.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/487/42/

http://supreme.justia.com/us/313/299/case.html

"There is no doubt under these cases that an individual acting under the state’s authority is a state actor. There is also no doubt that a public school teacher acts under the state’s authority while teaching in the public classroom.

"For an analysis of this legal issue from the perspective of an organization that promotes religious exercise in the public schools, see http://www.nlf.net/Resources/issues/syatp%...on%20letter.htm. Even they recognize that “whether teachers can actively participate in See You at the Pole depends on whether they are acting in their official capacity or as a citizen.”

"In this case, there is no question that Mr. Paszkiewicz was acting in his official capacity while teaching the class. The mere fact that he departed from the curriculum and all good sense does not change that fact.

"How d'ya like them applications, dimwit?"

[Bryan]

Who is this? The teacher says there were dinosaurs on Noah's ark, and "Bryan" wants to know what evidence there is of his ignorance!? 

Ignorance of science and/or the Constitution was alleged.

How would you scientifically falsify the claim that dinosaurs were on the ark? Or is that it that you think the ark violated the Constitution?

Way to go, Bryan. Now we have evidence that at least two people are ignorant.

71784[/snapback]

I look forward to an attempt from you to explain it so that you aren't one of them.

[Bryan]

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

71697[/snapback]

These are the only available classroom recordings, at least to my knowledge. I sometimes see claims about things that were said that I can't find on these recordings.

http://thecanessacorner.blogspot.com/2006/...recordings.html

[Guest Guest]

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.

71667[/snapback]

Bryan makes pretty much alll of his claims without the slightest attempt to support any of them. Not that he's particularly funny.

[Guest Guest]

What is your source for the recordings from Sept. 15?

71794[/snapback]

Dear Bryan,

Please fill out your request in triplicate while standing unassisted on your right leg dressed in a pink tutu and singing the entire text of Tolstoy's novel War and Peace, in Chinese, to the tune of "I'm Forever Blowing Bubbles." If you mispronounce or skip a word or syllable, you have to start over. You're allowed one breath per chapter and you may take a three-second break every five hours. Now go away and leave the adults alone.

[Guest Guest]

Sounds like you're very lonely.

71712[/snapback]

No. He has REAL friends and a well rounded life.

He doesn't need to sit in some corner talking and praying to a mythical figure.

[Guest Guest]

Ignorance of science and/or the Constitution was alleged.

How would you scientifically falsify the claim that dinosaurs were on the ark?  Or is that it that you think the ark violated the Constitution?

I look forward to an attempt from you to explain it so that you aren't one of them.

71848[/snapback]

As the saying goes, sometimes it's better to remain silent and let people wonder whether you are ignorant than speak and remove all doubt. Bryan has just removed all doubt.

Bryan, I suggest you read something, anything that is respected in the field, on evolutionary and biological history. Dinosaurs disappeared from Earth approximately 65 million years ago. Humans did not appear until more than 60 million years after that. We know this because we can measure the ages of the remains we have found of various species. And while it's possible for this aspect of science to be off by a little, it would be a stretch beyond the point of all credulity to imagine that humans and dinosaurs ever existed at the same time.

Therefore, humans and dinosaurs never co-existed. It was impossible for living humans to have been on the boat with living dinosaurs, because the two species never existed at the same time.

Bryan will no doubt argue that the past 100 million years cannot be reproduced in a laboratory. You can't reproduce a murder, either. That doesn't mean that police can't use forensic evidence to determine what happened.

And then of course there's the problem of getting all the animal species onto a boat of the size described in the Bible. The animals who were alive when that myth was written wouldn't have fit, much less the enormous dinosaurs.

Oh, by the way, if there was only two of every species on the ark, what did the carnivores eat?

I can't believe that in the year 2007 we still have to tell people that Fred Flintstone didn't have a pet brontosaurus, or that the story of Noah's ark is a freaking myth, a story that makes no more sense and has no more basis in fact than the tooth fairy. Where's my Tylenol?