David Paszkiewicz should be fired

[Guest Guest]

These technical arguments are all sound, but I come down in favor of the ban on smoking in public places because there are at least three factors, the combination of which makes smoking unique. It's intrusive to those around it who do not smoke. It costs government and industry huge amounts of money every year. It has no health benefits or other redeeming features to justify it.

In short, smoking in public places is stupid and selfish, and quite beyond that, it costs everyone. I don't favor criminalization because that wouldn't work, but government very properly discourages the practice in every way it properly can. It's reasonable to think that a ban on public smoking will reduce the incidence of smoking in the long run. If it has those effects, it's worth it, especially when all it's balanced against is the smoker's right to have to be stupid in private instead of in public.

70621[/snapback]

Really? F**K you!

[Guest Kearny Christian]

Mr. LaClair has since stated that had he known what he knows now, including how unrepentant Paszkiewicz would be, he might have called for P's termination. My guess is that LaClair understood the politics of the situation and chose to take the high road and keep his eye on the ball (which was student and teacher training according to him and his son), instead of putting himself at the center of a controversity within a controversy. If so, it was a smart move, but I don't it necessarily take it to represent how he really feels. His latest comments bear this out.

70649[/snapback]

I think Mr. P should be given an award for his teaching abilities and moral courage to stand up against all the atheists who mistakenly think "separation of church and state" means anything more than the federal government establishing a federal religion.I hardly think the founders of the constitution meant to forbid a christmas tree in a park or a cross on a hill. Stand strong, Mr.P, you have many supporters and backers. Don't let the Loony Lefties get you down, you're on the right side of this issue. God bless you.

[Guest Guest]

Awesome.  "Guest" has found a loophole in the principle of religious neutrality.  Secular religions may be favored by the government.  Wasn't that the system favored in the old Soviet Union?

70594[/snapback]

No, it's the system we've been living under since the country was founded. It's not a matter of favoring a secular religion. It's a matter of eating, clothing ourselves and taking care of ourselves. Those are secular concerns. Those are the things we all have in common. Just because some people call that their religion doesn't change the fact that we must attend to those things.

[Guest Guest]

Looking back on my days in the Kearny School system, a lot of teachers said a lot of things that could have gotten them in a lot of trouble. 

I still think that your characterizations remain exaggerated at best, and your logic is flawed.

That being said, I wonder what it is that you cannot entertain the idea that someone can support Matthew, disagree with the teacher's actions, but thinks that the teacher's conduct did not warrant termination?

70595[/snapback]

I told you why. It was too blatant, too outrageous, too sustained, and coupled with too many other things, including a complete lack of humility or any sense of repentance.

[Guest Guest]

Here's Matthew LaClair introducing the problem of evil:

"But for example, wouldn't something like Noah's Ark be an example of a mistake by God?"

Tell us more about lying, Strife.

70599[/snapback]

How about a little context, Bryan. Here is what immediately preceded that question:

Paszkiewicz: "The Bible explains inspiration, and it occurs in a number of different ways. Inspiration from the biblical writers, according to the Bible, not according to what some professor said, it works like this: God speaks through prophets and inspires their writing. The text itself could reflect the personality of the writing. Your style of writing permeates the text. But the accuracy is ensured of what you're writing. And Moses was a prophet. And he got these revelations from God. I'm sure the primary sources that he used - for example, if I was Noah, and I knew the flood was coming, I wouldn't just take those two animals on the ark of every breed, I would also take every map I could find, every math book, whatever, whatever he had in his day, the technology of the day, I would have taken on the Ark. I'm sure Moses had ancient accounts that were written by men on the Ark, because Noah was on there with his 3 sons. Well, read the text of Genesis, at least one of his sons was still alive even when Abraham was around. Now let's say Noah's son Shem, since he lived a significantly long time after the flood, and let's say I was a little boy Abraham, and I was his descendent. I'd be visiting Grandpa, he'd be telling me these stories on his knee. And I'd probably write them down. Or somebody in my family would, and they would pass them on. But these guys may have operated from primary sources, but the biblical convention is that the accuracy is ensured by God."

LaClair: "But for example, wouldn't something like Noah's Ark be an example of a mistake by God?"

The teacher was proselytizing, which is not his right to do. Matthew challenged it, as is his right to do.

You want to keep tracing the discussion backward? It's Paszkiewicz preaching and proselytizing all the way.

[Strife767]

I think Mr. P should be given an award for his teaching abilities

You mean the ability to lie and not know the subject he teaches? I don't think an award is appropriate for that.

and moral courage to stand up against all the atheists

Stand up? Did he ever say, "Yeah, I said that, what of it?" No noooo, you must be mistaken. He didn't stand up to anything--he tried to lie and deny all the controversial stuff he said. He showed absolutely no pride in his words--what he did show was a guilty conscience--that is, after the proof got out. Bet that one stings, doesn't it?

But then again, your kind doesn't know any other way to get things done, right? "Lying for Jesus" is your motto.

who mistakenly think "separation of church and state" means anything more than the federal government establishing a federal religion.

Would you be saying the same thing if it was a Muslim teacher telling students they'd go to Hell if they didn't believe in Allah?

I hardly think the founders of the constitution meant to forbid a christmas tree in a park or a cross on a hill.

What about tax-paid public employees preaching while on the job?

Look at the letters the founding fathers wrote about the "wall of separation." Read the Jefferson Bible. Educate yourself.

Stand strong, Mr.P, you have many supporters and backers. Don't let the Loony Lefties get you down, you're on the right side of this issue. God bless you.

70700[/snapback]

Rest assured that there are a lot more Christians who disagree with you than agree, foolish apologist.

[Strife767]

Really? F**K you!

70698[/snapback]

This might end arguments on the playground with other children, but you'll have to work a bit harder here where the grown-ups are.

[Strife767]

Instead of pointing out the flaws in your argument, let's just leave it at the fact that Mr. P is still employed,

Considering the fact that if Paul didn't put pressure on the Board, they would have done nothing to rectify the situation, the fact that they didn't do X (in this case, fire Paszkiewicz) means absolutely nothing.

[Guest Guest]

This is a perfect example of what I as a smoker have a problem with. You, like everyone else make the same misguided disctinction between a private and or public extablishments. Just because a private establishment is open to the public does not inherently make it a "public" establishment and as such should retain the right to make its own decision about what activites are allowed on the premises.

But go ahead and make your laws but don't come whining to me when they take away something you enjoy. Whatever you don't think "It'll never happen to me."

70697[/snapback]

Since when does a privately owned establishment have the "right to make its own decision about what activites are allowed on the premises"? There are numerous laws regulating what goes on in any privately owned establishment.

[mnodonnell]

I think Mr. P should be given an award for his teaching abilities and moral courage to stand up against all the atheists who mistakenly think "separation of church and state" means anything more than the federal government establishing a federal religion.I hardly think the founders of the constitution meant to forbid a christmas tree in a park or a cross on a hill. Stand strong, Mr.P, you have many supporters and backers. Don't let the Loony Lefties get you down, you're on the right side of this issue. God bless you.

70700[/snapback]

This issue has nothing to do with religious or political affiliations (sidebar: why does anyone, aside from those trying to get elected to public office, affiliate with a party anyway?). It is not just atheists, or agnostics, or deists that would oppose the teaching of Christian doctrine in public schools. It is also for Muslims; and Jews; and Hindus; and Buddhists; and Christians that feel their religion is none of the government's business.

...atheists mistakenly think "separation of church and state" means anything more than the federal government establishing a federal religion

Have you read any of the comments here or the Establishment Clause? Let me assure you that atheists would support anything but the establishment of a federal religion. By the way, atheism is not a religion.

[an American in Texas]

I think Mr. P should be given an award for his teaching abilities and moral courage to stand up against all the atheists who mistakenly think "separation of church and state" means anything more than the federal government establishing a federal religion.I hardly think the founders of the constitution meant to forbid a christmas tree in a park or a cross on a hill. Stand strong, Mr.P, you have many supporters and backers. Don't let the Loony Lefties get you down, you're on the right side of this issue. God bless you.

70700[/snapback]

Some people will NEVER get it. This guy taught fundamentalist Christian doctrine in a public school classroom. That is AGAINST THE LAW. (And Bryan, your sophistry aside, anybody who listens to that tape can clearly hear the teacher proselytizing.)

He then LIED about it. THAT IS IMMORAL.

I am absolutely flabbergasted by the morons who continue to defend the indefensible.

And by the way, it's not just "atheists" who are opposed to these actions. Christians are too. There is no way I'd let any of my children's teachers get away with spouting a mixture of bad theology, scientific quackery, and false history in the classroom.

Leigh

[Guest Paul]

This is a perfect example of what I as a smoker have a problem with. You, like everyone else make the same misguided disctinction between a private and or public extablishments. Just because a private establishment is open to the public does not inherently make it a "public" establishment and as such should retain the right to make its own decision about what activites are allowed on the premises.

But go ahead and make your laws but don't come whining to me when they take away something you enjoy. Whatever you don't think "It'll never happen to me."

70697[/snapback]

Keith, I have to disagree with you on this one. Your points are all well-taken, but in my mind they are overriden by one consideration, which is added to the devastating health effects of smoking.

I pay taxes, in considerable amounts, and I don't smoke. I don't know what portion of my tax dollar goes to pay for the health costs of smoking, but it's substantial. That fact joins me to the smoker at the pocketbook, so that under the circumstances, I want government doing everything it can to make it known that this culture strongly disfavors and discourages smoking. To me, this is not a neutral; smoking is not just another innocuous behavioral choice that people make that doesn't hurt anyone. Smoking hurts not only the smoker, but also the taxpayer. Yes, you can analogize to other things (like cheeseburgers at McDonald's), but the difference, as someone has observed, is that everyone has to eat and drink, and practically speaking everyone needs transportation. No one needs to smoke.

So in the end, as I see it, my libertarian streak --- and I do have one on issues where I think libertarianism merits expression --- doesn't kick in here because smoking doesn't involve just the smoker, or even the people in the place of business who can choose not to be there. It also involves us involuntary taxpayers who are forced to bear the costs of the smoking addiction.

[Guest Paul]

I think Mr. P should be given an award for his teaching abilities and moral courage to stand up against all the atheists who mistakenly think "separation of church and state" means anything more than the federal government establishing a federal religion.I hardly think the founders of the constitution meant to forbid a christmas tree in a park or a cross on a hill. Stand strong, Mr.P, you have many supporters and backers. Don't let the Loony Lefties get you down, you're on the right side of this issue. God bless you.

70700[/snapback]

But separation of church and state does mean more than that. You may wish it didn't, but it does, and even if you think that's not what the Framers intended (I think it is), it's still the law, because that is how the Supreme Court has interpreted it, and unlike Bush v. Gore the votes weren't close. Even the current court, which is about as far right as we're going to get (I hope!) would recognize the fact.

We all know that Mr. P has many supporters in town. You were at the meetings with your signs. We get it. What saddens me is that you see one thing, your religious beliefs, and everything else is secondary to that. You're free to live that way if you want to, but the fact is that most of us don't agree with you. So while it's clear that Mr. Paszkiewicz isn't going to be fired for what happened here, I think it's also safe to say that he isn't going to be getting any awards unless your group decides to give him one.

[Guest Paul]

This issue has nothing to do with religious or political affiliations (sidebar: why does anyone, aside from those trying to get elected to public office, affiliate with a party anyway?).  It is not just atheists, or agnostics, or deists that would oppose the teaching of Christian doctrine in public schools.  It is also for Muslims; and Jews; and Hindus; and Buddhists; and Christians that feel their religion is none of the government's business.

Have you read any of the comments here or the Establishment Clause?  Let me assure you that atheists would support anything but the establishment of a federal religion.  By the way, atheism is not a religion.

70726[/snapback]

Michael, under the law, atheism is a religion. If you think about it, it has to be. Government can no more promote atheism than theism. It must remain neutral. No easy task to be sure, but neutrality is the key.

[Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo]

Keith, I have to disagree with you on this one. Your points are all well-taken, but in my mind they are overriden by one consideration, which is added to the devastating health effects of smoking.

I pay taxes, in considerable amounts, and I don't smoke. I don't know what portion of my tax dollar goes to pay for the health costs of smoking, but it's substantial. That fact joins me to the smoker at the pocketbook, so that under the circumstances, I want government doing everything it can to make it known that this culture strongly disfavors and discourages smoking. To me, this is not a neutral; smoking is not just another innocuous behavioral choice that people make that doesn't hurt anyone. Smoking hurts not only the smoker, but also the taxpayer. Yes, you can analogize to other things (like cheeseburgers at McDonald's), but the difference, as someone has observed, is that everyone has to eat and drink, and practically speaking everyone needs transportation. No one needs to smoke.

So in the end, as I see it, my libertarian streak --- and I do have one on issues where I think libertarianism merits expression --- doesn't kick in here because smoking doesn't involve just the smoker, or even the people in the place of business who can choose not to be there. It also involves us involuntary taxpayers who are forced to bear the costs of the smoking addiction.

70748[/snapback]

I understand your point and agree up to a point. The fact is smokers are one of the most highly taxed elements in our society with the incredibly high taxes on cigarettes. Unfortunately the taxes which are supposed to offset healthcare costs for smokers never get used for that, thus shifting some burden back to others.

I hear the arguement all the time about how it's costing you money. We smokers are already footing the bill but as I said before the money never goes where it is supposed to. Do you support the new SCHIP bill? If so guess who's paying for it? It's not you, it's smokers who will once again be taxed and this time they are not even hiding the fact that it won't go to offest smoking related illness. So don't whine to me about taxes, Paul. I pay my fair share and I feel that I have earned the right to smoke in a bar that still allows it and you don't have patronize the establishment if you don't want to. I realize that smoking is a divisive issue much like abortion and even spearation of church and state. I ask you, let's say tommorrow smoking is outlawed for good. What will be the next great boogyman? Redmeat? Frenchfries? How fit are you Paul? Could you stand to lose a few pounds? How would you like it if for example you were denied healthcare because maybe you have a thing for cheesecake? It may sound silly but I think in 10 years we will look back and asked what happened to our freedom of choice. I've supported alot of your opinions here but I got to call you on the 'ol "it's costing me money" dodge. Don't blame smokers for your tax bill because believe me smokers are paying thier fair share of taxes. Blame the gov't for thier continued mishandling and sleight of hand with our tax dollars.

[Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo]

Keith, I have to disagree with you on this one. Your points are all well-taken, but in my mind they are overriden by one consideration, which is added to the devastating health effects of smoking.

I pay taxes, in considerable amounts, and I don't smoke. I don't know what portion of my tax dollar goes to pay for the health costs of smoking, but it's substantial. That fact joins me to the smoker at the pocketbook, so that under the circumstances, I want government doing everything it can to make it known that this culture strongly disfavors and discourages smoking. To me, this is not a neutral; smoking is not just another innocuous behavioral choice that people make that doesn't hurt anyone. Smoking hurts not only the smoker, but also the taxpayer. Yes, you can analogize to other things (like cheeseburgers at McDonald's), but the difference, as someone has observed, is that everyone has to eat and drink, and practically speaking everyone needs transportation. No one needs to smoke.

So in the end, as I see it, my libertarian streak --- and I do have one on issues where I think libertarianism merits expression --- doesn't kick in here because smoking doesn't involve just the smoker, or even the people in the place of business who can choose not to be there. It also involves us involuntary taxpayers who are forced to bear the costs of the smoking addiction.

70748[/snapback]

One more thing. The gov't really doesn't want us to quit as much as you may think otherwise. They may try to pigeon hole us to only our homes but trust me they do not want us to quit! We are a cash cow for them. Untold millions in taxes for them to play with instead of using it for it's intended purpose. One more thing about the healthcare discussion. We need to ask ourselves why it is so obscenely expensive in the first place. I guess it's just like oil and everything else... the fat cats at the top our licking off the cream while the rest of us are left to churn the butter.

[Bryan]

Keith, I have to disagree with you on this one. Your points are all well-taken, but in my mind they are overriden by one consideration, which is added to the devastating health effects of smoking.

I pay taxes, in considerable amounts, and I don't smoke. I don't know what portion of my tax dollar goes to pay for the health costs of smoking, but it's substantial. That fact joins me to the smoker at the pocketbook, so that under the circumstances, I want government doing everything it can to make it known that this culture strongly disfavors and discourages smoking. To me, this is not a neutral; smoking is not just another innocuous behavioral choice that people make that doesn't hurt anyone. Smoking hurts not only the smoker, but also the taxpayer. Yes, you can analogize to other things (like cheeseburgers at McDonald's), but the difference, as someone has observed, is that everyone has to eat and drink, and practically speaking everyone needs transportation. No one needs to smoke.

So in the end, as I see it, my libertarian streak --- and I do have one on issues where I think libertarianism merits expression --- doesn't kick in here because smoking doesn't involve just the smoker, or even the people in the place of business who can choose not to be there. It also involves us involuntary taxpayers who are forced to bear the costs of the smoking addiction.

70748[/snapback]

Paul's is exactly the reasoning that eventually leads to outlawing hang-gliding and skateboarding (especially once a nationalized health-care system is instituted).

If he can stop you from smoking because of increased health risk, then why not other activities on the same grounds?

Everyone needs to eat, but New York has already banned trans fats in its restaurants.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16051436/

Can donuts be far behind?

Cheeseburgers will probably join the list when a majority oppose the eating of cheeseburgers. It's all part of our evolving constitution.

[Bryan]

Some people will NEVER get it.  This guy taught fundamentalist Christian doctrine in a public school classroom.  That is AGAINST THE LAW.  (And Bryan, your sophistry aside, anybody who listens to that tape can clearly hear the teacher proselytizing.)

That's why your side refuses to consider the evidence of the tape apart from snippets taken out of context, I suppose.

He then LIED about it.  THAT IS IMMORAL.

I don't think there's any good evidence that he lied about it on the tape. You'll disagree and refuse to discuss the specifics ... no doubt because you're open-minded while I am closed-minded.

I am absolutely flabbergasted by the morons who continue to defend the indefensible.

For some reason I don't think you're referring to yourself.

I showed on numerous occasions where Paszkiewicz was unquestionably taken out of context. Your side does nothing but repeat the charges without solving that problem.

And by the way, it's not just "atheists" who are opposed to these actions.  Christians are too.  There is no way I'd let any of my children's teachers get away with spouting a mixture of bad theology, scientific quackery, and false history in the classroom.

Leigh

70735[/snapback]

Like you'd recognize any of it.

[Bryan]

Let me assure you that atheists would support anything but the establishment of a federal religion.  By the way, atheism is not a religion.

70726[/snapback]

Therefore the United States government could constitutionally promote atheism?

[Guest Guest]

It's not nonsense. It's the law.

Paszkiewicz was supposed to be teaching a history class in a public school. The questions were irrelevant to the curriculum, and outside of the teacher's prerogatives to express an opinion. The students may ask, and discuss among themselves, but the teacher may not express his views on matters of religion. The reason is that he is the authority figure in the classroom, acting on behalf of the state, which may not promote a religion. That's the law.

Paszkiewicz was promoting Christianity, and in particular fundamentalist biblical Christianity.

The ADL trained the teachers on the Constitution. If you want to call respect for the Constitution a form of religion, you're free to do that, but it won't negate the legal obligation to follow the Constitution.

The only reason there were no questions of Ken Miller was that Mr. Somma cut short his first address at 45 minutes. It was supposed to last an hour. Go complain to Somma. Miller was prepared to take questions, stopped his presentation at 45 minutes so that he could do so. However, he did take questions in the second assembly.

Miller was not preaching. He was teaching science, and he did it properly. If you don't think so, complain about something specific he said. You'll find that he knows the material. He wrote one of the biology texts used at Kearny High, is highly respected by his fellow biologists, and has a national if not international reputation as such.

Wanna whine about anything else?

70615[/snapback]

The Title was: “Everything you ever wanted to know about Darwin but were afraid to ask.”

· His title implied there would be a question and answer session. (There was not)

· He stated in his intro that there would be a question and answer session. (There was not)

· He spent much of his time bragging about himself. His proudest moment seemed to be when he was talking about his appearance on the Steven Colbert Show. (By the way, Colbert made a “buffoon” out of him on the show).

· Lastly: This man did exactly what Mr. P was “accused” of doing.

He was allowed to come into KHS and proselytize for evolution for a full hour.

He had a captive audience.

He was unopposed and the students could not ask questions.

This was far different than what occurred in the teacher’s classroom.

· Students asked questions.

· The teacher gave answers.

· There was discussion.

· Everyone was allowed to participate.

· Everyone was respected.

[Bryan]

How about a little context, Bryan.

Provide all the context you wish. There's nothing about the problem of evil until Matthew introduces it.

Strife, of course, tried to provide himself an out by essentially trying to say that once Paszkiewicz talked about religion that any religious topic therefore traces back to Paszkiewicz. That's the epitome of disingenuous argumentation (not new territory for Strife, either).

Here is what immediately preceded that question:

Paszkiewicz: "The Bible explains inspiration, and it occurs in a number of different ways. Inspiration from the biblical writers, according to the Bible, not according to what some professor said, it works like this: God speaks through prophets and inspires their writing. The text itself could reflect the personality of the writing. Your style of writing permeates the text. But the accuracy is ensured of what you're writing. And Moses was a prophet. And he got these revelations from God. I'm sure the primary sources that he used - for example, if I was Noah, and I knew the flood was coming, I wouldn't just take those two animals on the ark of every breed, I would also take every map I could find, every math book, whatever, whatever he had in his day, the technology of the day, I would have taken on the Ark. I'm sure Moses had ancient accounts that were written by men on the Ark, because Noah was on there with his 3 sons. Well, read the text of Genesis, at least one of his sons was still alive even when Abraham was around. Now let's say Noah's son Shem, since he lived a significantly long time after the flood, and let's say I was a little boy Abraham, and I was his descendent. I'd be visiting Grandpa, he'd be telling me these stories on his knee. And I'd probably write them down. Or somebody in my family would, and they would pass them on. But these guys may have operated from primary sources, but the biblical convention is  that the accuracy is ensured by God."

LaClair: "But for example, wouldn't something like Noah's Ark be an example of a mistake by God?"

The teacher was proselytizing, which is not his right to do.

It's not proselytizing to factually relate biblical doctrines, and LaClair obviously went to a brand new religious topic with his question, regardless of your attempt to obfuscate the fact.

Matthew challenged it, as is his right to do.

Matthew didn't challenge anything. He changed the topic.

You want to keep tracing the discussion backward? It's Paszkiewicz preaching and proselytizing all the way.

70709[/snapback]

Right. Paszkiewicz should have been fired as soon as he mentioned the religious topic of Halloween.

[Guest Guest]

It's not nonsense. It's the law.

Paszkiewicz was supposed to be teaching a history class in a public school. The questions were irrelevant to the curriculum, and outside of the teacher's prerogatives to express an opinion. The students may ask, and discuss among themselves, but the teacher may not express his views on matters of religion. The reason is that he is the authority figure in the classroom, acting on behalf of the state, which may not promote a religion. That's the law.

Paszkiewicz was promoting Christianity, and in particular fundamentalist biblical Christianity.

The ADL trained the teachers on the Constitution. If you want to call respect for the Constitution a form of religion, you're free to do that, but it won't negate the legal obligation to follow the Constitution.

The only reason there were no questions of Ken Miller was that Mr. Somma cut short his first address at 45 minutes. It was supposed to last an hour. Go complain to Somma. Miller was prepared to take questions, stopped his presentation at 45 minutes so that he could do so. However, he did take questions in the second assembly.

Miller was not preaching. He was teaching science, and he did it properly. If you don't think so, complain about something specific he said. You'll find that he knows the material. He wrote one of the biology texts used at Kearny High, is highly respected by his fellow biologists, and has a national if not international reputation as such.

Wanna whine about anything else?

70615[/snapback]

The man had one hour. He took 15 minutes to brag about himself. According to my math he had left 45 minutes to indoctrinate the students. No question asked.

[Strife767]

The man had one hour. He took 15 minutes to brag about himself.

Let me guess--he explained his credentials/qualifications and you consider that 'bragging.'

According to my math he had left 45 minutes to indoctrinate the students. No question asked.

70786[/snapback]

Indoctrinate? Really? Indoctrinate into what, exactly? Be specific--it also helps if you cite specific statements, or at least summarize them.

I won't hold my breath for a legitimate answer to the above question, though.

[Strife767]

The Title was: “Everything you ever wanted to know about Darwin but were afraid to ask.”

· His title implied there would be a question and answer session. (There was not)

Really? Because lots of books use similar titles, and they're very one-way. Saying 'afraid to ask' implies not asking (because one was afraid). Use your head.

· He stated in his intro that there would be a question and answer session. (There was not)

He was cut short, iirc.

· He spent much of his time bragging about himself. His proudest moment seemed to be when he was talking about his appearance on the Steven Colbert Show. (By the way, Colbert made a “buffoon” out of him on the show).

· Lastly: This man did exactly what Mr. P was “accused” of doing.

He was allowed to come into KHS and proselytize for evolution for a full hour.

Proselytize for evolution? What the hell are you talking about? Evolution isn't a religion, doofus. It's a fact. Do you consider genes and gravity things one can "proselytize for" too?

He had a captive audience.

And the difference from any other speaker/lecturer/teacher is...?

He was unopposed and the students could not ask questions.

Because he was cut short/ran out of time. Stop trying to make him sound like a liar as a result of something so simple--it reflects badly on you.

This was far different than what occurred in the teacher’s classroom.

Yeah, because he didn't endorse his religion (which is Christianity, by the way).

· Students asked questions.

· The teacher gave answers.

That he knew he wasn't allowed to give (his lies in the meeting prove he knew he was doing something wrong).

· There was discussion.

He quickly shut down anyone disagreeing opinions.

· Everyone was allowed to participate.

· Everyone was respected.

70783[/snapback]

Everyone was respected? What about the people in his classes that he declared belonged in Hell as a result of their beliefs? You call that respect? Is that what your religion teaches you--that it's respectful to condemn unbelievers to eternal suffering?

[Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo]

Paul's is exactly the reasoning that eventually leads to outlawing hang-gliding and skateboarding (especially once a nationalized health-care system is instituted).

If he can stop you from smoking because of increased health risk, then why not other activities on the same grounds?

Everyone needs to eat, but New York has already banned trans fats in its restaurants.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16051436/

Can donuts be far behind?

Cheeseburgers will probably join the list when a majority oppose the eating of cheeseburgers.  It's all part of our evolving constitution. 

70778[/snapback]

Bryan I am happy to say that I agree with you for once.