David Paszkiewicz should be fired

[Strife767]

Of course you can pose an idea, anyone can.  However, just because an idea is posed, doesn't automatically make it a "reasonable" explanation for the origin of the universe.

Exactly! This is precisely why no one in the scientific community takes creationism seriously. Now do you get it?

For example, one weakness of your argument is that you do not account for the origin of the space alien.

Do creationists account for the origin of God? No, they just say "He always was/is eternal/etc."

Was his planet created by a space alien from another planet? If you say he had no beginning, then you are on the same page as the Theist, "God created the universe." No need to use Science to disprove this one. Just common sense.  You can't have an infinite regress of alien "creator" beings.  There had to be a first being.

72037[/snapback]

What? There had to be a first being? Why is it impossible to you that there were/are ZERO such beings? There is nothing to suggest that anything else is the case--any such beings are totally baselessly assumed, and it's obvious Matthew is lampooning exactly that with his 'idea.'

[Strife767]

Kevin Canessa put all the recordings up in February 2007, also on thecanessacorner, but the last time I checked the link it was broken. You can try, though. He put up all the recordings, including the meeting in Somma's office.

72019[/snapback]

Well, I found the link you're referring to, I believe:

http://thecanessacorner.blogspot.com/2007/...wicz-first.html

[KNJ]

Who would you go to if you wanted to get rid of a teacher? Does it take a petition or something?

I'm just wondering because no one's talked about exactly how they could actually go about getting rid of Mr. Paszkiewicz.

[Guest Guest]

It has already been demonstrated that the Dranger transcript is innacurate.

This is probably because of the poor quality of many parts of the recordings as well as Dranger's personal bias.  For example, his hearing the teacher say "salvation" when the recording actually says "celebration." This was demonstrated in an earlier post.

Also, your remarks seem to be off the cuff without any research.

I don't care to put every sentence of your lengthy post under the microscope, but it is a fact that there was an ancient city of Tyre which was in present day Lebanon and one half mile off the coast was an island called Little Tyre.

During periods of invasion, the inhabitants Of Tyre would flee to little Tyre off the coast.  When the invaders left, they would return and rebuild.

The specifics of Ezekiel's prophecy in chapter 26 verses 3-21 include:

v-3  " ...I will bring many nations against you, like the sea casting up its waves."    [/color]

This comes true literally.  Waves of the sea come in succession.  Tyre was

      conquered by a succession of nations:

      1.  The Babylonians (Nebuchanezzar) 585-573 BC

      2.  Alexander the Great  333 BC

      3.  Antigonus 314 BC

      4.  The Moslems 1291 AD

     

V-4  "They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock."

(In 333 BC Alexander came to conquer Tyre.  The people of Tyre escaped to the island of little Tyre before he arrived.  He was so angry that he had his men level the city of Tyre, scrape up its rubble and throw it into the sea to build a causeway to little Tyre for his men to march across.  History records that he then killed 8,000 and made 30,000 slaves.)

v-5  "Out in the sea she will become a place to spread fishnets..."

(Today, fishermen mend nets there)

v-8  This verse states that Tyre will be destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar.

     

(This occured over the period of 585-573 BC)

v-12  "...they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea."

(Alexander did this in 333 BC)

v-14  "...you will never be rebuilt..."

(the immediate areas have been rebuilt as a fishing town unlike the glorious center of Med. Sea trade that Tyre once was.  The original city has never been rebuilt)

In short, you are right in saying that Alexander is not mentioned by name in the prophecy, but he fulfills the prophecy to the letter.

72048[/snapback]

No it doesn't. The so-called prophecy is too vague to be applied to anything in particular. You're just taking a story and filling in the gaping holes to make it fit where you want it. It's not intellectually sound, which is why real historians don't accept it.

Meanwhile, evolution of species is proven beyond and doubt, accepted by the entire scientific community, and yet you still don't accept it, for one reason: it doesn't tell you what you want to hear.

[Guest Guest]

Of course you can pose an idea, anyone can.  However, just because an idea is posed, doesn't automatically make it a "reasonable" explanation for the origin of the universe.  For example, one weakness of your argument is that you do not account for the origin of the space alien.  Was his planet created by a space alien from another planet? If you say he had no beginning, then you are on the same page as the Theist, "God created the universe." No need to use Science to disprove this one. Just common sense.  You can't have an infinite regress of alien "creator" beings.  There had to be a first being.

72037[/snapback]

So where did that first being come from? If you say he was always there, we can say the same thing about reality without a first being making it happen. There is not the slightest reason to believe that reality began with consciousness, especially when every conscious thing that we know of depends entirely on its material, organic brain. What you're saying contradicts all the evidence, which doesn't necessarily mean that reality can't be turned inside out or upside down somewhere along the way; but once you adopt that as your explanation, all your reasoning goes out the window, too.

There's absolutely no difference between saying a first being just is, and saying nature without a first being just is. Either way, all you're doing is choosing the characteristics you want reality to have, but the truth is you don't a thing about it. None of us does. The difference is that some of us are honest and/or strong enough to admit it.

A fatal inconsistency in your argument is that you claim that something as complex as a protein molecule, for example, could not just come to exist without somebody making it happen. You don't know that, and you don't have any basis for assessing how likely it is because you have no frame of reference. You don't know the final or ultimate nature of reality, and without that you can't say how things ultimately came to be. But what's even worse for your argument is that you're claiming an even greater complexity (this incomprehensibly complex being that you imagine and call God) to exist without anyone creating it. You can't escape the contradiction.

Science doesn't claim to make ultimate statements. But by following the scientific method, science uncovers little pieces of reality, one step at a time; and it's important because we use that knowledge to advance technology, medicine, etc., and improve our lives.

By contrast, the main effect of religious dogma is to divide humanity. It doesn't make our lives better, it makes them worse.

So to summarize, it's not just that we scientific naturalists are giving different answers. We're also asking different questions, and for a very good reason. None of us knows the ultimate answers to the ultimate questions. You're focusing on questions we can't answer. We're focusing on questions we can answer, and have a long record of scientific accomplishments to prove it.

[Matthew LaClair]

Of course you can pose an idea, anyone can.  However, just because an idea is posed, doesn't automatically make it a "reasonable" explanation for the origin of the universe.  For example, one weakness of your argument is that you do not account for the origin of the space alien.  Was his planet created by a space alien from another planet? If you say he had no beginning, then you are on the same page as the Theist, "God created the universe." No need to use Science to disprove this one. Just common sense.  You can't have an infinite regress of alien "creator" beings.  There had to be a first being.

72037[/snapback]

I am not claiming that my hypothetical belief is true. The point that I was trying to make was that just because somebody believes something, it is not necessarily true. Also, speaking of the existence of a first being, who or what created that being? I do not know the origins of the universe, but I can accept the fact that I do not know. The best we can do as a people is to use science to attempt to discover the answers to these questions. Currently, the Big Bang theory is the most logical and accepted among scientists, but it is not necessarily the absolute truth. The point is that to dismiss such theories as non-scientific in a public school classroom is inappropriate.

[Matthew LaClair]

Matt, you need to go to church tomorrow and pray for forgiveness. **** ***l ****

***** *** **** **** ** **** ** **** ** ***** ***** ***** **** **** ****** ****

KOTW Note: The above post was edited for content.

71999[/snapback]

"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you."

I am sure that you know where this quote is from. There are some things in Christianity that I find beautiful. This quote is one of them. I think perhaps you should reconsider your post. I doubt you will apologize or even consider the above quote. If you are so sick that you will tell somebody that they need to pray for forgiveness, and then curse them off, then I feel sorry for you. Please, reconsider your words. If you do not, don’t worry. I have already forgiven you.

[Bryan]

Bryan, you tried to distinguish the Paszkiewicz matter from the Engel and Schempp cases on the ground that in the latter two cases the promotion of religion was done via an act of legislation, while in the Paszkiewicz matter it was done through the words of a single teacher, acting on his own.

That is correct.

In the law, we call that a distinction without a difference, which is a lawyer’s way of saying it doesn’t matter.

... and if it were as easy as simply claiming (without any justification whatever) that it doesn't matter, then you would have done a fantastic job of making your case.

As it is, unfortunately for you, it's just more huffing and puffing.

The cases cited in post 273 state the rule that applies to all state actors.

State actors above the level of the individual do not have personal opinions, do they?

You'll huff, you'll puff ...

The definition of a state actor in these cases clearly applies to public school teachers. That answers your question.

Would you care to bang your fist or stomp your foot for added emphasis?

It doesn't address the question. If it did, there would be an excellent chance that you could refer to a case that was actually somewhat close to this matter in character.

Those cases pull the Paszkiewicz, Engel and Schempp cases together under a single rule of law, which governs all three situations. You did put the point at issue, whether you intended to or not, and if you’re now conceding that it’s not at issue, then there’s nothing here for you to discuss.

Fallacy of the false dilemma. The state as such has no individual rights. Individuals do have individual rights. Stamping an individual with "state actor" does not eliminate individual rights--however much you might wish otherwise.

So post 273 and the cases cited therein answer your question completely and directly, but apparently you don’t see it, probably for the same reason you don’t see everything else you don’t want to see.

72033[/snapback]

IOW, you'll huff and you'll puff and you'll ...

[Bryan]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Techinically you are correct

You only say that because you read the amendment.

but then again is yelling "FIRE!" in a crowed theater allowed under this amendment? No.

Good luck applying the principle in that instance to the facts in this case. Not that I know anything about the law.

(I seem to recall an episode of "Ally McBeal" ...)

In this specific case I guess they would technically curtail each other.

Because the restriction on Congress regarding the establishment religion will somehow cancel out freedom of speech?

Perhaps you should explain your thinking ("clear and present danger" seems a bit of a stretch).

So does this all mean that any public school teacher should be allowed to promote a particular religion in a public classroom?

72026[/snapback]

Before the First Amendment was stretched out to cover governments at every level, the answer would clearly have been "no." Given the Court's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, however, you ask a very good question.

Otherwise, it's easy to see the way to entirely secularizing the United States.

Nationalize everything. Give everyone (including preachers) a mandatory government job.

We're already pretty well on the way.

[Bryan]

Kevin Canessa put all the recordings up in February 2007, also on thecanessacorner, but the last time I checked the link it was broken. You can try, though. He put up all the recordings, including the meeting in Somma's office.

72019[/snapback]

http://thecanessacorner.blogspot.com/2007/...wicz-first.html

[billydee4]

It has already been demonstrated that the Dranger transcript is innacurate.

This is probably because of the poor quality of many parts of the recordings as well as Dranger's personal bias.  For example, his hearing the teacher say "salvation" when the recording actually says "celebration." This was demonstrated in an earlier post.

Also, your remarks seem to be off the cuff without any research.

I don't care to put every sentence of your lengthy post under the microscope, but it is a fact that there was an ancient city of Tyre which was in present day Lebanon and one half mile off the coast was an island called Little Tyre.

During periods of invasion, the inhabitants Of Tyre would flee to little Tyre off the coast.  When the invaders left, they would return and rebuild.

The specifics of Ezekiel's prophecy in chapter 26 verses 3-21 include:

v-3  " ...I will bring many nations against you, like the sea casting up its waves."    [/color]

This comes true literally.  Waves of the sea come in succession.  Tyre was

      conquered by a succession of nations:

      1.  The Babylonians (Nebuchanezzar) 585-573 BC

      2.  Alexander the Great  333 BC

      3.  Antigonus 314 BC

      4.  The Moslems 1291 AD

     

V-4  "They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock."

(In 333 BC Alexander came to conquer Tyre.  The people of Tyre escaped to the island of little Tyre before he arrived.  He was so angry that he had his men level the city of Tyre, scrape up its rubble and throw it into the sea to build a causeway to little Tyre for his men to march across.  History records that he then killed 8,000 and made 30,000 slaves.)

v-5  "Out in the sea she will become a place to spread fishnets..."

(Today, fishermen mend nets there)

v-8  This verse states that Tyre will be destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar.

     

(This occured over the period of 585-573 BC)

v-12  "...they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea."

(Alexander did this in 333 BC)

v-14  "...you will never be rebuilt..."

(the immediate areas have been rebuilt as a fishing town unlike the glorious center of Med. Sea trade that Tyre once was.  The original city has never been rebuilt)

In short, you are right in saying that Alexander is not mentioned by name in the prophecy, but he fulfills the prophecy to the letter.

72048[/snapback]

Sorry, Mr P, but history proves you wrong. First of all the island city of Tyre was the main city and the coastal settlements, the daughter-cities, were also part of the city. I can find no historical reference to Little Tyre and Big Tyre.

Ez 26:5 says "It shall become, in the midst of the sea, a place for spreading nets."

This is clearly a reference to the island. Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to the city for thirteen years and never conquered it. Tyre would up paying tribute to Babylon.

Even if they were part of the prophecy, four kingdoms do not make many nations.

If Nebuchadnezzar had destroyed the coastal settlements, how then could Alexander come and raze it again a few hundred years later?

The prophecy specifically says that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre. He didn't.

It also says in verse 17-19 specifically say that the city will be covered with water. This clearly references an island. The coastal cities were never covered with water.

Alexander razed the coastal settlements and made a causeway to the island, making Tyre a peninsula. It's still there today.

I think my Brooklyn vs NYC analogy is valid.

I listed several sites where you can find this information. You show nothing to back up your claims.

The point I was trying to make is that, in addition to preaching fundamentalist christianity and teaching non-science as science, you were also very illogical in your discussions. I would not like to have anyone as confused as you teach my children or grandchildren.

[Guest Ad Infinitum]

Who would you go to if you wanted to get rid of a teacher? Does it take a petition or something?

I'm just wondering because no one's talked about exactly how they could actually go about getting rid of Mr. Paszkiewicz.

72126[/snapback]

I don't know what you do now, a year after the fact. The time for the community to act was a year ago, when this all happened, but the community sat on its collective butt and let it happen. If this had been a Muslim teacher proselytizing for Islam against the infidel Christians, servants of the great Satan, there would have been a line stretching all the way around the high school demanding his immediate termination.

There's no formal procedure for a community organizing to get a teacher fired. All you can do is organize a group and do something. A year after the fact, I don't see it happening.

[Bryan]

I am not claiming that my hypothetical belief is true. The point that I was trying to make was that just because somebody believes something, it is not necessarily true. Also, speaking of the existence of a first being, who or what created that being?

The most basic logic should tell you that asking "who" created a first being is a nonsense question (like how long did it take to create time?).

You might ask what created a first being if by "being" you implicitly mean "person" in some sense, but if you're talking about cosmology then "being" might be personal or impersonal (and as a result either question would be nonsense).

Maybe you should think of a better question, Matthew.

I do not know the origins of the universe,

Huh? What happened to "very dense matter"?

but I can accept the fact that I do not know. The best we can do as a people is to use science to attempt to discover the answers to these questions.

So much for mathematics and philosophy?

Currently, the Big Bang theory is the most logical and accepted among scientists, but it is not necessarily the absolute truth. The point is that to dismiss such theories as non-scientific in a public school classroom is inappropriate.

72138[/snapback]

Matthew ends up saying that scientific fairy tales are OK. All others are excluded.

When steady-state cosmology is in vogue, it will stand as scientific orthodoxy and teaching it in the public schools is OK. When big bang cosmology supplants it, then that will be taught in public schools. Who cares if they contradict? They are science.

In thousands of public schools all over the country, students are taught a version of science that is weak in the philosophy of science. Students learn scientific theories as though they are true doctrines.

There's a crusade for the LaClairs if they were serious about anything other than advancing their own religious agenda.

[Guest Guest]

That is correct.

... and if it were as easy as simply claiming (without any justification whatever) that it doesn't matter, then you would have done a fantastic job of making your case.

As it is, unfortunately for you, it's just more huffing and puffing.

State actors above the level of the individual do not have personal opinions, do they?

You'll huff, you'll puff ...

Would you care to bang your fist or stomp your foot for added emphasis?

It doesn't address the question.  If it did, there would be an excellent chance that you could refer to a case that was actually somewhat close to this matter in character.

Fallacy of the false dilemma.  The state as such has no individual rights.  Individuals do have individual rights.  Stamping an individual with "state actor" does not eliminate individual rights--however much you might wish otherwise.

IOW, you'll huff and you'll puff and you'll ...

72145[/snapback]

Bryan doesn't understand his own argument. Once he concedes the teacher is a state actor, all constitutional prohibitions apply to his functions as a state actor. The argument Bryan is trying to make, but doesn't know how, is that an individual teacher has countervailing free speech rights. It doesn't occur to Bryan, apparently, that an individual's speech may be limited in time and place. For example, none of us can just walk into a legislative session and begin shouting from the gallery.

Similarly, a public school teacher is being paid to teach. He's not on his own time. It's not the time or the place for him to be spouting his personal opinions. The classroom is not his pulpit or his soapbox. So while he does not entirely relinquish his free speech rights by walking into school, those rights (especially within the classroom during a class session) are not co-extensive to those he has outside the school. Several Supreme Court cases state this rule, and no I'm not going to research and cite them. They're not hard to find.

The NLF paper, linked in post 273, makes all of that clear, and it includes case citations. However, for specific case authority to that effect, read Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District. You can find it at:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/peloza.html

[Guest Guest]

I am not claiming that my hypothetical belief is true. The point that I was trying to make was that just because somebody believes something, it is not necessarily true. Also, speaking of the existence of a first being, who or what created that being? I do not know the origins of the universe, but I can accept the fact that I do not know. The best we can do as a people is to use science to attempt to discover the answers to these questions. Currently, the Big Bang theory is the most logical and accepted among scientists, but it is not necessarily the absolute truth. The point is that to dismiss such theories as non-scientific in a public school classroom is inappropriate.

72138[/snapback]

Do you and your father ever listen to each other talk? Or for that matter do you ever listen to yourself talk? The theories that you pose and suggest here are the same types of things that your teacher was posing in his class. Except as he said it was his belief. The exception is that you got your dad's lawyers involved. I am again having the pleasure of meeting him again today at the parent teacher conference and my child has completely enjoyed his class. Don't you find it ironic that you were the only one to go on record to complain about him yet he must have taught thousands of students?

And for the record the Big Bang theory is just that, a "theory". Science is only as good as someone can disprove the theories. And theories have been disproved hundreds and hundreds of times already. These disproved theories make way for new theories.

You dilemma started because you could not accept that as a possible truth.

[Guest Guest]

Exactly! This is precisely why no one in the scientific community takes creationism seriously. Now do you get it?

Do creationists account for the origin of God? No, they just say "He always was/is eternal/etc."

What? There had to be a first being? Why is it impossible to you that there were/are ZERO such beings? There is nothing to suggest that anything else is the case--any such beings are totally baselessly assumed, and it's obvious Matthew is lampooning exactly that with his 'idea.'

72120[/snapback]

Even Albert thought the universe always existed.

[Guest Karney parint]

The state as such has no individual rights.  Individuals do have individual rights.  Stamping an individual with "state actor" does not eliminate individual rights--however much you might wish otherwise.

IOW, you'll huff and you'll puff and you'll ...

72145[/snapback]

Yah, ur rite, Bryan. Mr. P kin say what he wants.

Don't waist yur time argooing with stoopid pepul. Call Mr. P and tell him the skool is vilating his constapashunil rites. I hope he soos them.

[Bryan]

Bryan doesn't understand his own argument. Once he concedes the teacher is a state actor, all constitutional prohibitions apply to his functions as a state actor. The argument Bryan is trying to make, but doesn't know how, is that an individual teacher has countervailing free speech rights.

If I didn't know how to make the argument then how did you know what it was?

It doesn't occur to Bryan, apparently, that an individual's speech may be

limited in time and place.

Why would you think that hadn't occurred to me, other than wishful thinking?

For example, none of us can just walk into a legislative session and begin shouting from the gallery.

Even if you're not a state actor?

Still waiting for the alleged precedent ... but you can cite a case about gallery-shouting if you wish.

Similarly, a public school teacher is being paid to teach.

Who's paying the person shouting in the gallery, again? Or is it not really that similar after all?

He's not on his own time. It's not the time or the place for him to be spouting his personal opinions.

Why not, in legal terms?

Or isn't the legal basis important to you?

The classroom is not his pulpit or his soapbox. So while he does not entirely relinquish his free speech rights by walking into school, those rights (especially within the classroom during a class session) are not co-extensive to those he has outside the school. Several Supreme Court cases state this rule, and no I'm not going to research and cite them. They're not hard to find.

They're so easy to find that you won't cite them. Okay ...

The NLF paper, linked in post 273, makes all of that clear, and it includes case citations.

Could you make clear what part of the NLF paper is supposed to make all of that clear? When I read it I keep thinking that it stresses the fact that a teacher isn't necessarily a state actor.

http://www.nlf.net/Resources/issues/syatp%...on%20letter.htm

However, for specific case authority to that effect, read Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District. You can find it at:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/peloza.html

72222[/snapback]

That case makes my point regarding the lack of a local statute restricting Paszkiewicz's speech. Note that the court did not say that it was okay for the school district to restrict the speech of the teacher because of the Constitution, but because of the legitimate fear of lawsuit.

And, just in case you missed it:

The school district's restriction on Peloza's ability to talk with students about religion during the school day is a restriction on his right of free speech.

http://www.texscience.org/files/court-case...-capistrano.htm

Thus the LaClairs are eager to stand up for the Constitution ... at the expense of the Constitution.

[Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo]

Do you and your father ever listen to each other talk?  Or for that matter do you ever listen to yourself talk?  The theories that you pose and suggest here are the same types of things that your teacher was posing in his class. Except as he said it was his belief. The exception is that you got your dad's lawyers involved.  I am again having the pleasure of meeting him again today at the parent teacher conference and my child has completely enjoyed his class.  Don't you find it ironic that you were the only one to go on record to complain about him yet he must have taught thousands of students? 

And for the record the Big Bang theory is just that, a "theory".  Science is only as good as someone can disprove the theories.  And theories have been disproved hundreds and hundreds of times already.  These disproved theories make way for new theories. 

You dilemma started because you could not accept that as a possible truth.

72224[/snapback]

Maybe Mr. P should have followed Matt's example and discussed his personal religious beliefs on a bulletin board such as this instead of .......wait for it.........

A PUBLIC SCHOOL CLASSROOM!

[Guest Paul]

Do you and your father ever listen to each other talk?  Or for that matter do you ever listen to yourself talk?  The theories that you pose and suggest here are the same types of things that your teacher was posing in his class. Except as he said it was his belief. The exception is that you got your dad's lawyers involved.  I am again having the pleasure of meeting him again today at the parent teacher conference and my child has completely enjoyed his class.  Don't you find it ironic that you were the only one to go on record to complain about him yet he must have taught thousands of students? 

And for the record the Big Bang theory is just that, a "theory".  Science is only as good as someone can disprove the theories.  And theories have been disproved hundreds and hundreds of times already.  These disproved theories make way for new theories. 

You dilemma started because you could not accept that as a possible truth.

72224[/snapback]

You asked Matthew, but I'll answer. He may, too.

We do listen to each other. In fact, we have been criticized by people who think he's just my puppet. Now you're not fortunate enough to have had him as a son --- I had and have that pleasure, not that your own children aren't wonderful --- but if you had lived with him, you would soon learn that he is no one's puppet. If he has a fault along those lines, it's stubbornness, a fact he will readily admit if you ask him. So for starters the people who want to criticize us really ought to decide which side of the fence they want to sit on. You won't, of course, because your view has nothing to do with the truth. You just don't like the fact that someone you like was exposed through his own words.

One thing I've learned about people who don't think: If you show them they're wrong, they get mad. If you show them they're wrong in a way they can't deny, they get furious. That's all his defense, and arguments like yours, have ever been about.

Then you make a second point, claiming that our theories are the same as Paszkiewicz's. There are two things wrong with that statement.

1. It's not true. Our theories are based on science. His are based on myth and superstition. Ours are consistent with the curriculum and the law. His are not. Those are two basic and essential differences.

2. Even if it had been true, it wouldn't change the fact that a public school teacher may not misuse the classroom to promote his religious views. I could argue for Humanism on this board all day long. He may not argue for Christianity in his classroom, not even for a moment. He can do it here, but not there. It's unconstitutional. Honestly, are you new to this thread, or do you just ignore this essential fact because you don't like it? So to repeat the difference, we are not speaking in a classroom using the authority of the state. He was. So either you don't know the law, or you choose to ignore it.

As to your argument about theories, there's a grain of truth in it. Theories do make way for other theories. That is how science advances. That is why we can communicate with each other through the internet. That is why Americans live more than a decade longer on average than they did a century ago. Yet you make it sound as though theories are unimportant. "Just a theory." I was every bit as furious (and I was furious when I heard those recordings) at Paszkiewicz's complete mangling of and ignorance about science in a history class, as I was about his dismissive and arrogant proselytizing. He had no business even bringing up evolution or the big bang if he is that ignorant of them. But you're just wrong suggesting that we don't understand the provisional character of science. We do. The problem with what Paszkiewicz did is that he babbled ignorance in an attempt to dismiss and discredit science. And yes, I do mean babbled. It was nonsense that no 21st century educator should ever say in any school, public or private.

So to answer your remaining question, I don't find it ironic that Matthew was the only one to complain. I find it sad, even tragic. To me, it reflects an insular culture in our town, which acts on the premise that we in Kearny can do as we please. Well, that's not how good education works. There's a reason for education classes and a science curriculum. There's a reason why the vast majority of people all over the world who heard this story couldn't believe the abominable reaction of well-meaning people like you. They called you idiots, fools, Neanderthals and a great many other unflattering names. Honestly, you brought it on yourselves. Maybe you don't realize it, but it was your attitude that made Kearny a laughingstock. This story could have been about just one out-of-control teacher. You made it about the whole town. Did you ever think of it that way? Well, you should, and if you don't believe me, I suggest you read some of the things that were written about attitudes like yours. They're still on the internet. I suspect they'll be there for a long time. And if you want to know whose fault that is, don't blame me; you go look in the mirror.

And if you ever want to discuss it civilly, we are available.

[Strife767]

Even Albert thought the universe always existed.

72232[/snapback]

So far, it's the concept that creates the fewest 'tough questions.' In other words, Occam's Razor favors it. Assuming there's a supremely (or any kind of) intelligent creater mixed in there somewhere creates more problems than it solves, not the least of which is the infinite regression thing.

[Strife767]

Do you and your father ever listen to each other talk?

No, they both scream unintelligibly to drown it out whenever the other talks. Obviously.

Or for that matter do you ever listen to yourself talk?  The theories that you pose and suggest here are the same types of things that your teacher was posing in his class.

Whaaaat? The Big Bang model is not a religious belief.

Except as he said it was his belief. The exception is that you got your dad's lawyers involved.  I am again having the pleasure of meeting him again today at the parent teacher conference and my child has completely enjoyed his class.

Congratulations on your successful brainwashing?

Don't you find it ironic that you were the only one to go on record to complain about him yet he must have taught thousands of students?

Yes--it made Kearny the laughingstock of the tri-state area. The fact that only one student took Paszkiewicz to task is shocking, and says a lot (all bad) about the state of this school system.

And for the record the Big Bang theory is just that, a "theory".

0.5. Actually, it's a cosmological model.

1. You know what else is "just a theory?" GRAVITY.

Read this, and save yourself the shame of making this extremely old, extremely weak creationist argument again:

www.notjustatheory.com

Science is only as good as someone can disprove the theories.  And theories have been disproved hundreds and hundreds of times already.  These disproved theories make way for new theories.

Psst--taking everything we know and putting it into a coherent unit, one that can only be refined by newer, better evidence, and continually adapts to our knowledge base, is infinitely more useful than a baseless assumption that isn't even falsifiable!

People like you act like hot shit talking about that, but you don't even realize how ridiculous your statements are. First of all, you wouldn't even know about any of the corrections scientists make if they didn't correct themselves with (their) new findings--in other words, no creationist has ever corrected a scientist--ever. Secondly, you pretend your silly belief is better because it's never been corrected--well, it's easy to have that when it's unfalsifiable. How about you make a claim that can actually be tested--then we'll see just how strong your arguments are.

You dilemma started because you could not accept that as a possible truth.

72224[/snapback]

In science, all 'truth' is provisional--minds are always open to new evidence and new ideas. You've got some nerve accusing anyone else of being closed-minded.

[Guest Guest]

When steady-state cosmology is in vogue, it will stand as scientific orthodoxy and teaching it in the public schools is OK.  When big bang cosmology supplants it, then that will be taught in public schools.  Who cares if they contradict?  They are science.

72221[/snapback]

You actually came very close to getting one right for a change. What you don't seem to understand is that science does not claim to give final answers. All of science's answers are provisional, meaning they may be supplanted by new and better answers; and eventually those new and better answers may be found to be wrong, bringing science back closer to the old answer, or moving it still further away.

What you don't seem to understand, account for or respect, is that this is how science makes progress; and that scientific progress is not just hypothetical or even theoretical, but demonstrable. The point that you're overlooking is that the old theories are no longer taught once they have been discarded, except in classes about the history, philosophy or methods of science; but in that context they are taught as old theories, not vibrant working theories. So when you ask a loaded question like "Who cares if they contradict?" you're assuming something that simply isn't true.

By contrast, theism has no such record of progress. It makes more ambitious claims, but it makes them without any basis in fact. That is one of several reasons why religious beliefs like Paszkiewicz's are not taught in the public schools.

[Guest Guest]

If I didn't know how to make the argument then how did you know what it was? 

Why would you think that hadn't occurred to me, other than wishful thinking?

Even if you're not a state actor? 

Still waiting for the alleged precedent ... but you can cite a case about gallery-shouting if you wish.

Who's paying the person shouting in the gallery, again?  Or is it not really that similar after all?

Why not, in legal terms?

Or isn't the legal basis important to you?

They're so easy to find that you won't cite them.  Okay ...

Could you make clear what part of the NLF paper is supposed to make all of that clear?  When I read it I keep thinking that it stresses the fact that a teacher isn't necessarily a state actor.

http://www.nlf.net/Resources/issues/syatp%...on%20letter.htm

That case makes my point regarding the lack of a local statute restricting Paszkiewicz's speech.  Note that the court did not say that it was okay for the school district to restrict the speech of the teacher because of the Constitution, but because of the legitimate fear of lawsuit.

And, just in case you missed it:

The school district's restriction on Peloza's ability to talk with students about religion during the school day is a restriction on his right of free speech.

http://www.texscience.org/files/court-case...-capistrano.htm

Thus the LaClairs are eager to stand up for the Constitution ... at the expense of the Constitution.

72292[/snapback]

Of course a teacher isn't necessarily a state actor. No one ever said he is. However, he is a state actor when he is speaking to his class in the classroom during class time. There isn't the slightest doubt about that.

For those who don't open the link to the Peloza case, here is the summary, which appears on the first page:

"High school biology teacher brought action against school district, its board of trustees, and various personnel at high school, challenging school district's requirement that he teach evolutionism, as well as school district order barring him from discussing his religious beliefs with students. The United States District Court, Central District of California, David W. Williams, J., 782 F.Supp. 1412, dismissed and awarded attorney fees to school district. Teacher appealed. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) teacher failed to state claim for violation of establishment clause of First Amendment in connection with school district's requiring him to teach evolution, i.e., that higher life forms evolved from lower ones; (2) school district's restriction on teacher's right of free speech in prohibiting teacher from talking with students about religion during school day, including times when he was not actually teaching class, was justified by school district's interest in avoiding establishment clause violation; (3) teacher's allegations of injury to his reputation as result of allegedly defamatory statements made to and about him were insufficient to support claim for deprivation of liberty interest under § 1983; but (4) teacher's complaint was not entirely frivolous, precluding award of costs and attorney fees under Rule 11 and § 1988."

Of course his speech was restricted. The reasons are exactly what I wrote in my previous post. OK, so the school district didn't want to be sued, but the court wouldn't have decided the case this way unless a case brought against the school district would have been valid.

Here was the essence of Peloza's complaint, as stated in the Court's opinion:

"Peloza further alleges he has been forbidden to discuss religious matters with students the entire time that he is on the school campus even if a conversation is initiated by a student and the discussion is outside of class time." Obviously, the difference between Peloza and the Paszkiewicz matter is that Paszkiewicz was discussing these matters during class time.

The legal test, also stated in the Court's opinion, is as follows:

"To withstand an Establishment Clause challenge, a state statute, policy or action (1) must have a secular purpose; (2) must, as its primary effect, neither advance nor inhibit religion; and (3) must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religions. Lemon V. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 2111, 29 L.Ed.2d,745 (1971)."

Peloza was claiming that required teaching of evolution amounted to the promotion of a religion. Here's an important part of the Court's analysis:

"We reject this claim because neither the Supreme Court, nor this circuit, has ever held that evolutionism or secular humanism are "religions" for Establishment Clause purposes. Indeed, both the dictionary definition of religion and the clear weight of the case law are to the contrary. The Supreme Court has held unequivocally that while the belief in a divine creator of the universe is a religious belief, the scientific theory that higher forms of life evolved from lower forms is not. Edwards V. Aguillard. 482 U.S. 578, 107 S.Ct. 2573, 96 L.Ed.2d 510 (1987) (holding unconstitutional, under Establishment Clause, Louisiana's "Balanced Treatment for Creation-science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act")."

Here's a good explanation of the science in the context of the law. The language is from the District Court opinion, which was adopted by the Court of Appeals:

"Since the evolutionist theory is not a religion, to require an instructor to teach this theory is not a violation of the Establishment Clause.... Evolution is a scientific theory based on the gathering and studying of data, and modification of new data. It is an established scientific theory which is used as the basis for many areas of science. As scientific methods advance and become more accurate, the scientific community will revise the accepted theory to a more accurate explanation of life's origins. Plaintiffs assertions that the teaching of evolution would be a violation of the Establishment Clause is unfounded."

Here is the text of the rule Peloza (the teacher) was challenging:

"You are hereby directed to refrain from any attempt to convert students to Christianity or initiating conversations about your religious beliefs during instructional time, which the District believes includes any time students are required to be on campus as well as the time students immediately arrive for the purposes of attending school for instruction, lunch time, and the time immediately prior to students' departure after the instructional day."

And here is the Court's decision:

"The school district's restriction on Peloza's ability to talk with students about religion during the school day is a restriction on his right of free speech. Nevertheless, "the Court has repeatedly emphasized the need for allowing the comprehensive authority of the States and of school officials, consistent with fundamental constitutional safeguards, to prescribe and control conduct in the schools." Tinker V. Des Moines Indep. Community School Dist, 393 U.S. 503, 506-O7, 89 S.Ct. 733, 737, 21 L.Ed.2d 731 (1969). "[T]he interest of the State in avoiding an Establishment Clause violation 'may be [a] compelling' one justifying an abridgment of free speech otherwise protected by the First Amendment...." Lamb's Chapel V. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist., - U.S., 113 S.Ct. 2141, 2148, 124 L.Ed.2d 352 (1993) (quoting Widmar V. Vincent, 4M U.S. 263, 271, 102 S.Ct. 269, 275, 70 L.Ed.2d 440 (1981)). This principle applies in this case. The school district's interest in avoiding an Establishment Clause violation trumps Peloza's right to free speech.

"While at the high school, whether he is in the classroom or outside of it during contract time, Peloza is not just any ordinary citizen. He is a teacher. He is one of those especially respected persons chosen to teach in the high school's classroom. He is clothed with the mantle of one who imparts knowledge and wisdom. His expressions of opinion are all the more believable because he is a teacher. The likelihood of high school students equating his views with those of the school is substantial. To permit him to discuss his religious beliefs with students during school time on school grounds would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Such speech would not have a secular purpose, would have the primary effect of advancing religion, and would entangle the school with religion. In sum, it would flunk all three parts of the test articulated in Lemon V. Kurtzman,-403 U.S. 602, 91 S.Ct. 21O5, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971). See Roberts V. Madigan, 921 F.2d 1047, 1O56-58 (loth Cir.1990) (teacher could be prohibited from reading Bible during silent reading period, and from stocking two books on Christianity on shelves, because these things could leave students with the impression that Christianity was officially sanctioned), cert. denied, -U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 3025,120 L.Ed.2d 896 (1992)."

In other words, exactly what I told you. Just what part of your argument do you imagine the Court agreed with, Bryan?

[Guest Guest]

The most basic logic should tell you that asking "who" created a first being is a nonsense question (like how long did it take to create time?).

72221[/snapback]

Hmmm. Seems like a great question to me. In fact, it's the perfect question because if the theistic claim is that life or the universe is too complex to explain on its own, or that reality can't just pop out of nowhere --- well, both those arguments apply equally to a hypothetical first being. You don't suppose Bryan is calling it nonsense because he can't answer it.

Nah, couldn't be that.