Jump to content

David Paszkiewicz should be fired


mnodonnell

Recommended Posts

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?

72292[/snapback]

Oh Bryan, Bryan, Bryan. We told you why a teacher may not preach his religion in a public school. Speech may be restricted as to time and place. When you, anyone, takes a job, they can't just spend their day preaching religion. This is especially important in a public school, where students have the right not to be preached to.

As for a citizen shouting from the legislative gallery --- again, Bryan, Bryan, Bryan. When courts use examples like that, they're looking for salient points. They take the body of case law, and analyze the precedential value of cases in light of the facts of the case. The case at issue doesn't have to be the same in all respects as its precedent. Judges think. They reason. They consider things from different perspecives. They think as lawyers are trained to think. They consider relevance and salience. We know you haven't been to law school, but come on, this isn't a hard point if you're not hell-bent on not seeing it.

The point about not being allowed to shout from the legislature's gallery is that speech may be restricted as to time and place. After all, we citizens have the right to petition our legislatures, and to try to persuade our legislators to vote the way we want. On what basis does the sergeant at arms order that a person who insists on exercising his free speech from the gallery be removed? Come on, Bryan, even you know the answer to that one. If you need a hint, I just told you the answer. I've been telling you the answer for days, and it's in the court opinions we've been citing back and forth. You just don't want to hear it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 763
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Thanks, but apparently you weren't aware that I am not a young-earth creationist.

The point is that dinosaurs on the ark isn't falsifiable per se, so it doesn't really have anything to do with an understanding of science.

Once can have an absolutely perfect understanding of science while disagreeing with its propositions.

72009[/snapback]

1. If you're not a young-earth creationist, then you know dinosaurs were not on Noah's ark, even assuming there was a Noah's ark.

2. Of course the claim that dinosaurs on "the ark" is falsifiable. Humans and dinosaurs never co-existed, so they couldn't have been on a boat together.

3. Of course it has to do with science. Science is about data, among other things, and all the data tell us that the time between the extinction of dinosaurs and the appearance of humans was approximately 65 millions years. You write as though science is just a collection of isolated facts and ideas --- at least when they're ideas you do not wish to accept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. If you're not a young-earth creationist, then you know dinosaurs were not on Noah's ark, even assuming there was a Noah's ark.

That doesn't follow. I'd have to be certain that my beliefs were correct and for that I'd have to make a further appeal to some sort of evidence.

2. Of course the claim that dinosaurs on "the ark" is falsifiable. Humans and dinosaurs never co-existed, so they couldn't have been on a boat together.

You must have missed the story I referenced earlier about the scientist who thinks that dinosaurs may have survived even into the modern world (not just through the beginnings of humanity). Why would a scientist believe that if it had been falsified?

You're going to have to face that fact that you can't claim that something is falsified based in turn on unfalsifiable claims. Your foundation will not support your conclusion.

3. Of course it has to do with science. Science is about data, among other things, and all the data tell us that the time between the extinction of dinosaurs and the appearance of humans was approximately 65 millions years. You write as though science is just a collection of isolated facts and ideas --- at least when they're ideas you do not wish to accept.

72420[/snapback]

:angry:

Apparently you were trying to deal with this:

Once can have an absolutely perfect understanding of science while disagreeing with its propositions.

Read it again, then try to answer the point again when you think you really understand it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh Bryan, Bryan, Bryan. We told you why a teacher may not preach his religion in a public school. Speech may be restricted as to time and place.

That does not address the issue unless you can show that the specific speech (in terms of content) was restricted from that time and that place. Good luck with that. You'll need better precedents than what has been given thus far.

When you, anyone, takes a job, they can't just spend their day preaching religion. This is especially important in a public school, where students have the right not to be preached to.

You seem pretty happy to throw over one very clear Constitutional right in favor of one that is considerably less clear (if it exists at all).

Why is that?

As for a citizen shouting from the legislative gallery --- again, Bryan, Bryan, Bryan. When courts use examples like that, they're looking for salient points. They take the body of case law, and analyze the precedential value of cases in light of the facts of the case. The case at issue doesn't have to be the same in all respects as its precedent. Judges think. They reason. They consider things from different perspecives. They think as lawyers are trained to think. They consider relevance and salience. We know you haven't been to law school, but come on, this isn't a hard point if you're not hell-bent on not seeing it.

How is that supposed to explain how the person in shouting in the gallery is like the teacher, in principle, given that the nature of the teacher as an employee of the state came up immediately in the comparison?

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

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...dpost&pid=72222

Or is your purpose to distract from the apparent error?

The point about not being allowed to shout from the legislature's gallery is that speech may be restricted as to time and place.

That gets you no closer to a principled objection to this speech in this place at this time. That's the point.

After all, we citizens have the right to petition our legislatures, and to try to persuade our legislators to vote the way we want. On what basis does the sergeant at arms order that a person who insists on exercising his free speech from the gallery be removed? Come on, Bryan, even you know the answer to that one. If you need a hint, I just told you the answer. I've been telling you the answer for days, and it's in the court opinions we've been citing back and forth. You just don't want to hear it.

72416[/snapback]

On the contrary, I do want to hear a relevant precedent if you've got one. So far you don't seem to have one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Apparently "Guest" isn't prepared to so much as bat an eyelash that the Court advocated a breach of the First Amendment in its ruling ("Congress"--expanded via the 14th Amendment, passing a law restricting freedoms of speech and religion).

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 other difference is that Peloza had a policy with the force of law bearing on his specific actions while Paszkiewicz did not.

Thus we have an outcry from defenders of the Constitution who are eagerly trashing an explicit right in the Constitution in favor of an implicit (and dubious) right in the Constitution.

In the end, it's not about the Constitution. It's about ideology (the LaClairs wanting to bend the community to their ideology).

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."

... points up the Court's difficulty in defining "religion" on a consistent basis ...

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?

72413[/snapback]

That the action of the local authorities constitutes a restriction on the teacher's First Amendment right of free speech.

And they'd probably have to agree that the local authorities in Kearny placed no such restrictions on teachers.

And as an aside, it's pretty funny how Ninth Circuit dodged its opportunity to find that secular humanism is a religion for purposes of the Establishment Clause. Though counsel for Mr. Peloza may be at least partly to blame for that.

As such, the case provides yet more evidence of an agenda-driven court system that undercuts the foundations of democracy.

Good job of coming up with a case that reasonably ties in as a precedent, by the way. The only thing missing is a local policy that Paszkiewicz crossed (a policy that would necessarily violate the First Amendment but for the self-contradictory stance of the Court).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

72221[/snapback]

It would be nonsense if you accept the theistic premise, but the alternative is also nonsense according to the theists' own logic. You can't say that something as complex as a protein molecule couldn't have existed without a creator, unless you are also prepared to explain the existence of the greatest complexity of all, namely the supposed creator.

If you posit that a first being just was, before anything else was, then we can say the same thing about the natural universe: maybe insensible nature just was, before anything else was. If you say that something as complex as a human eye must have had a designed and creator, then by the same logic your hypothetical first being (the most complex thing of all) would also have to have had a creator, which as you point out is illogical. Either way you're just arguing over fairy dust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be nonsense if you accept the theistic premise, but the alternative is also nonsense according to the theists' own logic. You can't say that something as complex as a protein molecule couldn't have existed without a creator, unless you are also prepared to explain the existence of the greatest complexity of all, namely the supposed creator.

I'm a theist. Where did you find the above in my logic, ever?

If you posit that a first being just was, before anything else was, then we can say the same thing about the natural universe: maybe insensible nature just was, before anything else was.

Quite true. Why would insensible and in-stasis nature do otherwise (go non-stasis and sensible at least in places)?

If you say that something as complex as a human eye must have had a designed and creator, then by the same logic your hypothetical first being (the most complex thing of all) would also have to have had a creator, which as you point out is illogical.

You failed to understand the argument. Nobody argues, as far as I can tell, that the eye was the first entity complex enough to create further complex entities, and once you accept the existence of a first cause (personal or not) the issue is not whether the first cause was in turn created by something else but whether or not the first cause is personal.

Either way you're just arguing over fairy dust.

72521[/snapback]

Either way you're blowing smoke.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be nonsense if you accept the theistic premise, but the alternative is also nonsense according to the theists' own logic. You can't say that something as complex as a protein molecule couldn't have existed without a creator, unless you are also prepared to explain the existence of the greatest complexity of all, namely the supposed creator.

If you posit that a first being just was, before anything else was, then we can say the same thing about the natural universe: maybe insensible nature just was, before anything else was. If you say that something as complex as a human eye must have had a designed and creator, then by the same logic your hypothetical first being (the most complex thing of all) would also have to have had a creator, which as you point out is illogical. Either way you're just arguing over fairy dust.

72521[/snapback]

In other words, "drop the special pleading nonsense, no one's falling for it." :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently "Guest" isn't prepared to so much as bat an eyelash that the Court advocated a breach of the First Amendment in its ruling ("Congress"--expanded via the 14th Amendment, passing a law restricting freedoms of speech and religion).

The other difference is that Peloza had a policy with the force of law bearing on his specific actions while Paszkiewicz did not.

Thus we have an outcry from defenders of the Constitution who are eagerly trashing an explicit right in the Constitution in favor of an implicit (and dubious) right in the Constitution.

In the end, it's not about the Constitution.  It's about ideology (the LaClairs wanting to bend the community to their ideology).

... points up the Court's difficulty in defining "religion" on a consistent basis ...

That the action of the local authorities constitutes a restriction on the teacher's First Amendment right of free speech.

And they'd probably have to agree that the local authorities in Kearny placed no such restrictions on teachers.

And as an aside, it's pretty funny how Ninth Circuit dodged its opportunity to find that secular humanism is a religion for purposes of the Establishment Clause.  Though counsel for Mr. Peloza may be at least partly to blame for that.

As such, the case provides yet more evidence of an agenda-driven court system that undercuts the foundations of democracy.

Good job of coming up with a case that reasonably ties in as a precedent, by the way.  The only thing missing is a local policy that Paszkiewicz crossed (a policy that would necessarily violate the First Amendment but for the self-contradictory stance of the Court).

72490[/snapback]

In other words, according to Bryan the courts are wrong. He knows how to interpret the law and the Constitution, and they don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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.

72142[/snapback]

But the real question is have you and your father forgiven Mr. David Paszkiewicz? You words are a double edged sword and saying those words are one thing, but living them are another. Therefore if you and your father do forgive him, then why not call off the dogs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have to be certain that my beliefs were correct and for that I'd have to make a further appeal to some sort of evidence.

You must have missed the story I referenced earlier about the scientist who thinks that dinosaurs may have survived even into the modern world (not just through the beginnings of humanity).  Why would a scientist believe that if it had been falsified?

. . . .

Once can have an absolutely perfect understanding of science while disagreeing with its propositions.

72485[/snapback]

So if a scientist believes it, even in opposition to all his colleagues, it's true.

However, things are not true unless we are absolutely certain about them.

Meanwhile, we are to discard the fundamental propositions of science itself. (Does that include an appeal to the evidence? Or maybe we just appeal to the evidence when doing so furthers the point Bryan wishes to make at the moment.)

On what criteria do we discard the fundamental propositions of science? Does that include all the criteria, or only some of them? Shall we discard them in all cases, or only sometimes? On what criteria do we draw these lines? Why, whatever criteria Bryan chooses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a theist.  Where did you find the above in my logic, ever?

Quite true.  Why would insensible and in-stasis nature  do otherwise (go non-stasis and sensible at least in places)?

You failed to understand the argument.  Nobody argues, as far as I can tell, that the eye was the first entity complex enough to create further complex entities, and once you accept the existence of a first cause (personal or not) the issue is not whether the first cause was in turn created by something else but whether or not the first cause is personal.

Either way you're blowing smoke.

:)

72551[/snapback]

On what basis must a reasonable person conclude that there was a first cause?

On what basis must a reasonable person conclude that consciousness preceded matter?

As to each of these questions, please state your proof specifically and in detail, including all empirical data and the frame of reference for each of your statements of fact (which you don't have).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the real question is have you and your father forgiven Mr. David Paszkiewicz?  You words are a double edged sword and saying those words are one thing, but living them are another.  Therefore if you and your father do forgive him, then why not call off the dogs?

72567[/snapback]

I'm curious, has Mr. Paszkiewicz been posting here? Does anyone know?

As for calling off the dogs, what do you claim they're doing? They have the right to speak on this issue so long as others continue to comment. What are they doing wrong?

This is the same hypocrisy we get from religious fundamentalists at every turn. "You stop talking because this has been beaten to death, but I'm going to continue to talk about it." One standard for them, another for everyone else. Typical my-way-or-the-highway thinking of blind religious zealots.

If you don't want the issue discussed, then stop responding. Until then, the people at the center of it have every right to speak up for themselves, because it affects them directly. They don't have to, but they have the right, and it's more understandable than the continued comments from people who don't have a direct stake in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the real question is have you and your father forgiven Mr. David Paszkiewicz?  You words are a double edged sword and saying those words are one thing, but living them are another.  Therefore if you and your father do forgive him, then why not call off the dogs?

72567[/snapback]

Forgiveness only matters if there is remorse. Paszkiewicz has no remorse for what he did at all.

Regardless, what "dogs" are you referring to, exactly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words, according to Bryan the courts are wrong. He knows how to interpret the law and the Constitution, and they don't.

72566[/snapback]

The courts reverse themselves on things routinely, so obviously they are fallible.

Add to that the apparent contradiction, which "Guest" doesn't address in any fashion, and the conclusion that the courts are wrong--somewhere--is inescapable for anyone who expects reason to rule the day.

I do have an idea of how the courts should rule on these issues, and I've already described it to a large extent--and I've yet to see any contradiction demonstrated in my view.

Based on reason, I have to give myself the advantage on this one over the courts. Are those who see if differently minus any type of rational evaluation to be taken seriously?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the real question is have you and your father forgiven Mr. David Paszkiewicz?  You words are a double edged sword and saying those words are one thing, but living them are another.  Therefore if you and your father do forgive him, then why not call off the dogs?

72567[/snapback]

What would you call not taking the case to court? Sounds like calling off the dogs to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The courts reverse themselves on things routinely, so obviously they are fallible.

Add to that the apparent contradiction, which "Guest" doesn't address in any fashion, and the conclusion that the courts are wrong--somewhere--is inescapable for anyone who expects reason to rule the day.

I do have an idea of how the courts should rule on these issues, and I've already described it to a large extent--and I've yet to see any contradiction demonstrated in my view.

Based on reason, I have to give myself the advantage on this one over the courts.  Are those who see if differently minus any type of rational evaluation to be taken seriously?

72619[/snapback]

Bryan never reverses himself on anything. Ergo, he is infallible.

Hallelujah! I've seen the light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would you call not taking the case to court? Sounds like calling off the dogs to me.

72644[/snapback]

Or not asking that he be fired. They showed more compassion toward him than he did toward them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On what basis must a reasonable person conclude that there was a first cause?

Based on the apparent impossibility of an infinite regress (if an endless series of events precedes the present, then we could never have reached the present because crossing an actual infinity by successive addition is an apparent impossibility).

That's why.

On what basis must a reasonable person conclude that consciousness preceded matter?

The reasonable person should consider a person first cause more likely than an impersonal first cause because impersonal entities are notoriously poor self-starters (having something to do with an absence of self, I suppose).

As to each of these questions, please state your proof specifically and in detail, including all empirical data and the frame of reference for each of your statements of fact (which you don't have).

72604[/snapback]

:lol:

On what basis do you demand empirical evidence in order to resolve this question? Provide the empirical proof that your momma is conscious (or ever was conscious).

If I just had a penny for every time an atheist had tried a cheesy argument like that, I could pay for all of Hillary's proposed government spending.

Let me put it this way: Give me the empirical proof that an empirical proof is properly required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should get out more, Bryan. Go to law school or something. I'm not going to flatter your ego too much and tell you you're smart, but you definitely debate an issue well. There is a whole world of arguments to be had out there. So come on, let's just drop the God in the classroom thing. It's played out and increasingly incessant. I mean, it is really incredible how sometimes I can read your posts and think "wow, he makes a great point. I never saw it that way" Really... It's most amazing because I'VE HEARD THE TAPES. WE ALL HAVE. PASKASDJIOFH IS A DIRTY, LYING SONOFABITCH. Mr. P knew he was wrong. He lied about what he said in class during a tape-recorded conference with the principal present. So all the legal-bs aside, the man dishonest and wrong and denied the things he said, because he knew he was wrong. Drop it. Please. Nobody here is on the supreme court, so you're not goign to redefine the laws and conditions of the seperation of church and state. Good luck though if you really think this shitty forum is going to do you any good in the real world. And if it's just for leisure then you're also gay. F**K all of you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh Bryan, Bryan, Bryan. We told you why a teacher may not preach his religion in a public school. Speech may be restricted as to time and place. When you, anyone, takes a job, they can't just spend their day preaching religion. This is especially important in a public school, where students have the right not to be preached to.

As for a citizen shouting from the legislative gallery --- again, Bryan, Bryan, Bryan.

72416[/snapback]

What's this Bryan, Bryan, Bryan stuff? Is there a problem with your keyboard? Are are you just that happy to talk to him? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious, has Mr. Paszkiewicz been posting here? Does anyone know?

As for calling off the dogs, what do you claim they're doing? They have the right to speak on this issue so long as others continue to comment. What are they doing wrong?

This is the same hypocrisy we get from religious fundamentalists at every turn. "You stop talking because this has been beaten to death, but I'm going to continue to talk about it." One standard for them, another for everyone else. Typical my-way-or-the-highway thinking of blind religious zealots.

If you don't want the issue discussed, then stop responding. Until then, the people at the center of it have every right to speak up for themselves, because it affects them directly. They don't have to, but they have the right, and it's more understandable than the continued comments from people who don't have a direct stake in it.

72606[/snapback]

I have not seen one post from Mr. Paszkiewicz on this forum. In my opinion and since this forum is just that of peoples opinion, I believe that it would have done Matthew more harm than good if the court had thrown this case out since it being a matter of interpretation as to what Mr. LaClair calls proselytizing may or may not stand up in court despite what his father Paul LaClair claims here. It would make for a messy situation all around and no one would win. The reason for my responding to these posts are that if all the post are one sided here, then there becomes a falsehood that what is said here is reality and that is not always the truth as in this case. It appears to others on the outside looking in that it must be that way because the LaClairs' and a limited others say so.

To me it has nothing to do with religion but a personal vendetta for whatever reason. It started with the “Hell with me” speech, then to the big bang theory and then to dinosaurs. It more than likely would have gone to something else if the school administration hadn’t intervened. "So life goes on and on and on in the circle game."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not seen one post from Mr. Paszkiewicz on this forum. In my opinion and since this forum is just that of peoples opinion, I believe that it would have done Matthew more harm than good if the court had thrown this case out since it being a matter of interpretation as to what Mr. LaClair calls proselytizing may or may not stand up in court despite what his father Paul LaClair claims here.  It would make for a messy situation all around and no one would win.  The reason for my responding to these posts are that if all the post are one sided here, then there becomes a falsehood that what is said here is reality and that is not always the truth as in this case.  It appears to others on the outside looking in that it must be that way because the LaClairs' and a limited others say so. 

To me it has nothing to do with religion but a personal vendetta for whatever reason. It started with the “Hell with me” speech, then to the big bang theory and then to dinosaurs. It more than likely would have gone to something else if the school administration hadn’t intervened. "So life goes on and on and on in the circle game."

72748[/snapback]

"I have not seen one post from Mr. Paszkiewicz on this forum." How would you know?

The truth is, the media wouldn't have paid us any attention, and the Kearny Board of Education wouldn't have had much to worry about if Matthew hadn't had recordings. So when you argue that people are basing their opinions on our statements, that's just not true. They've heard the recordings or seen excerpts from them, and have judged for themselves. You don't have to hear much to know that Mr. Paszkiewicz was far out of line.

Yesterday the judge on our case approved the settlement, which will soon be reduced to a written Order. Included in it is a provision that when the ADL finishes the teacher training and the teachers carry their lessons to the students, someone else will teach David Paszkiewicz's class on those issues. In other words, he's not going to be allowed to teach church-state separation in his own classroom. I'm very sorry that it came to this, but unless he is willing to teach the curriculum and can be trusted to do it, other provisions are going to be made. He has been given the opportunity to continue to teach at KHS, but instead of admitting he made mistakes, he holds firm to his personal agenda. The provision I just mentioned would not have been in the agreement if Mr. Paszkiewicz's response been appropriate, but it wasn't. The message I draw from President McDonald's signature on the addendum to the settlement agreement is that the Board knows he can't be trusted to teach that part of the curriculum. That's a problem, and obviously it's ongoing, whether he's still preaching in class or not.

Our position has nothing to do with forgiveness or non-forgiveness. The issue is that our teachers must do what they're being paid to do. They must teach the approved curriculum, not preach and proselytize for their personal agendas. It's important enough to fight for. So Matthew did, and we supported him. It's also important enough to follow through, which is one reason we continue to comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not seen one post from Mr. Paszkiewicz on this forum. In my opinion and since this forum is just that of peoples opinion, I believe that it would have done Matthew more harm than good if the court had thrown this case out since it being a matter of interpretation as to what Mr. LaClair calls proselytizing may or may not stand up in court despite what his father Paul LaClair claims here.

Do you honestly think there would be any chance that Paszkiewicz would not be found 'guilty' of proselytizing with those recordings readily available as evidence?

It appears to others on the outside looking in that it must be that way because the LaClairs' and a limited others say so.

It might be that way in Kearny, but the fact is that overall, it's been quite the opposite--even a group whose primary goal is to reinstate state-sanctioned prayer refused to defend Paszkiewicz's actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That does not address the issue unless you can show that the specific speech (in terms of content) was restricted from that time and that place.  Good luck with that.  You'll need better precedents than what has been given thus far.

You seem pretty happy to throw over one very clear Constitutional right in favor of one that is considerably less clear (if it exists at all).

Why is that?

How is that supposed to explain how the person in shouting in the gallery is like the teacher, in principle, given that the nature of the teacher as an employee of the state came up immediately in the comparison?

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

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...dpost&pid=72222

Or is your purpose to distract from the apparent error?

That gets you no closer to a principled objection to this speech in this place at this time.  That's the point.

On the contrary, I do want to hear a relevant precedent if you've got one.  So far you don't seem to have one.

72486[/snapback]

It does address the issue. It's clear from established precedents, including the cases cited here, that public school teachers may not use their classrooms to promote a religion. The contents of the "specific speech" needn't be the same. That's not how the law works. If it was, there'd be no such thing as precedent except with cases whose facts were exactly the same as previous cases. Courts identify legal principles, and while similar facts can be useful, they're not essential to precedent. If you don't believe me, read just about any Supreme Court case in the past 150 years, or more, and then look at the cases that are cited as precedent. In virtually every case, the Court relied on previous cases that didn't have the same facts. In fact, if the facts were the same, there would have been no need for the case to go to the Supreme Court because the precedent would have been beyond dispute. Let Bryan show us a single Supreme Court case where the facts were exactly the same as a previous Supreme Court case (there aren't any), and then in addition to that, the lower federal or the state courts ignored the previous Supreme Court decision so that exactly the same facts came to the US Supreme Court a second time. There aren't any such cases. Bryan is living in fantasy land with his sentient rocks.

Bryan does not understand the first thing about the law. He is determined to ignore established legal principles on church-state separation, because they do not support his position.

----

The person in the legislative gallery is there to listen and watch. He may not disrupt the proceedings, not even to exercise his speech rights.

Public school teachers are there to teach the subject matter. They may not use their classrooms to promote their religious beliefs.

None of this is the least bit complicated except for people like Bryan who are hell-bent on not understanding it or, more aptly put, not accepting it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...