KHS Teacher Controversy

[Guest Mr Spock]

Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.

The above is a quote by Dennis Prager.

The needs of the many- outweigh the needs of the few.

I said that in Star Trek 2

Little by little our customs and traditions are being stripped away by self serving people . What great unamaginable harm was done to this 16 year old "child"?

Is he so unsecure in his own beliefs that he can not tolerate others beliefs.

The teacher did what teachers have been doing for generations. Interjecting his own beliefs into a conversation. I don't think anyone in that class took what he said as gospel(pardon the pun).

Everyone continued to breathe and to think and live just like they did in their previous periods class.

Give it a rest.

Forgive them all- for they no not what they do

[Guest Guest]

How does Paul "know" that Mr. P lied? He sent Matt into the meeting with the principal with his trusty tape recorder.

Given what has been written by Paul and those in support of him, one gets the impression that most of Kearny holds the same views. It is a very scary thought. After reading both the transcript and the blog responses in support of the teacher (who I think was wrong and needs to be warned, by the way), I am very much encouraged by the common sense views stated by many readers. They have a clear understanding of this man, his methods, and his disregard for the viewpoints of others. If one does not agree with him, they are subject to disdain and outright rudeness. It seems to be okay to use your freedom of speech when you agree with Mr. LaClair, but he does not seem to like to exercise the same rights in regards to those that disagree with him.

It doesn't really matter what readers in Australia or Canada, Paris or Timbuktu think of Matt and Paul's actions. The LaClairs in New Jersey live here. What should matter is what their community believes. From what I've read, they've alienated themselves from an involved, active community, for the sake of promoting their own agenda. From all appearances, this was done to gather attention from the media. Any reasonable parent who had issues with a teacher would have certainly made an appointment to be at a meeting himself. The actions taken before, during and after this event call Mr. LaClair's motives into serious question. The fact that he would encourage his son to take actions that would lead to a lawsuit is shameful and reprehensible.

While Mr. LaClair and his son seem dead set against the "rituals" of democracy, they've lost the message these rituals bring. In addition to showing respect for those who have truly sacrificed to keep ours one of the greatest nations on earth, these rituals like showing

respect for the flag, reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, or singing the national anthem…those are some of the common rituals that we as Americans share together in public. While we don't all hold the same views about how the nation should be run, those small acts are part of what binds us together as one common nation.

Mr. LaClair, in his zealous pursuit to promote his own agenda, has lost sight of that. Will we lose as a nation regardless of this outcome? No, in truth, Mr. LaClair and Matthew have lost before they've ever stepped into court. They've lost something that cannot be decided by a judge-the respect and admiration of the community, and millions of others outside of the east coast, Australia, and New Jersey, who do not share their view points.

This is just one man's opinion. No response is required, nor do I wish for a comment from Mr. LaClair. I, too, am entitled to my opinions.

[Guest Pauline]

If you are from Kearny then by now you have heard a story that has been blown WAY OUT OF PROPORTION.

A student of KHS, one Matthew LaClair has gone to the newspaper stating that a teacher has been forcing his religious views in is history class.

Now I am all for having freedom of speech, but I also believe every subject has a place and time for discussion; and religion in a history class is not that place.

HOWEVER!!!! This 16 year old CHILD, is nothing more than an attention seeking, immature person, who is also been known to "previously garnered attention for protesting Bush administration activities by refusing to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance" (the lippar blog) I will include this website at the end of my rant!

This kid thinks he is so self rightcious and claims he “was requesting an apology and correction of false and anti-scientific statements" (the lippard blog).

If you listen to the audio (which I will also supply the site to) you can clearly hear that Laclair PROVOKED the conversation, and you can hear that the teacher had responded QUITE APPROPRIATELY:

One example being:

Matthew: isn't the whole point of public schools is so that you can separate personal beliefs from teachers and administrators from non religious teachings during school, like school prayer and all that.

teacher: the purpose of public school is to provide free education for people that couldn't afford education. That’s the purpose of public school

Matthew: what would decide what religion should be taught in school, what would decide that?

teacher: no it's not about teaching, my point is it's not about teaching religion, these issues all come up in time, ( tape fades out) things get legislated and we talk in class

the public school shouldn't teach a religion but the scriptures aren't religion they are a foundation of the worlds religion, the world main religion any way.

religion is a set way of doing things

In the conversation above, taken my Matthew Laclair himself, i see no wrong doing by this teacher, i do however see constant and what seems to be "rehearsed" provoking of the topic.

I hope he is reading this right now, because I just have one question for him: What on earth was the need to go to the newspaper? Laclair stated that he had a meeting with the principle, teacher, and the head of the social studies department and at first they did not seem to believe him but then he pulled out the cd's.....which in itself violated this teachers right to privacy.

So again, my question, after laclair proved himself with the cd's why did he not wait for administrative action to take place? There was no need to go to the newspaper, and I think in doing so, this Matthew laclair just proves that he is a 16 year old high school student, and therefore has ALOT to learn before he goes off starting religious wars, and pledge of allegiance protest in the United States of America, a country that has always, and especially since 9/11 shown great pride in our ONE NATION UNDER GOD!!!!

ps: a little side note for everyone reading this who disagrees: stating your views on religion and "forcing your beliefs on someone" is two COMPLELTY DIFFERENT THINGS.

so I would like to say to everyone who agrees or disagrees, we are all here in this nation, in this community together, and my religion is Roman Catholic, so when I say GOD BLESS YOU, I’m not forcing my views, I’m using my faith to wish you health and happiness

GOD BLESS you all

PPS: if this offends anyone then tough, because I AM offended that a wonderful teacher is being persecuted by an unknowledgeable juvenile for merely stating what he believes in. Also that this kid is living in MY COUTNRY where my friends and family have fought to keep our freedom and he turns his back on our president and our flag.

lippard blog: http://lippard.blogspot.com/2006/11/public...-class-you.html

Audio:

http://www.nj.com/cgi-bin/prxy/xmedia/nph-.../classaudio.mp3

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If the teacher himself did not feel he was wrong, why did he lie? And isn't calling someone a liar very similar to "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor"?

[oldfart56]

I hope this answers your question...

http://www.fsgp.org/newsletters/newsletter_2006_0708.pdf

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

dang now we know the truth about this fool paul! talk about agenda! paul you are a member of the NJ BAR right? well you put your hand on the bible to join that means you told a BIG LIE TO THE BAR! I HOPE SOMEONE TURNS YOU IN! YOU HAVE A TRUST OF THE LAW TO KEEP " A LAW WITH A BASE OF JUDAO CHRIST/GOD BACKROUND! I HOPE SOMEONE DOES "PRAY FOR YOU " YOU NEED IT!!!!!!!OH PLEASE STAY AWAY FROM ANY KIDS IN KEARNY THEY DO NOT NEED YOUR PROBLEMS!!!

[Guest Kearny resident]

  dang now we know the truth about this fool paul! talk about agenda! paul you are a member of the NJ BAR right? well you put your hand on the bible to join that means you told a BIG LIE TO THE BAR! I HOPE SOMEONE TURNS YOU IN! YOU HAVE A TRUST OF THE LAW TO KEEP " A LAW WITH A BASE OF JUDAO CHRIST/GOD BACKROUND! I HOPE SOMEONE DOES "PRAY FOR YOU " YOU NEED IT!!!!!!!OH PLEASE STAY AWAY FROM ANY KIDS IN KEARNY THEY DO NOT NEED YOUR PROBLEMS!!!  

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The man'sreligious beliefs (or lack thereof) have nothing to do with the issue at hand. Did Teacher P. cross the line and effectively preach in a public school. If Teacher X preached atheism, or being a good Muslim, would you accept that conduct. The whole idea behind our forefathers writing the separation of church and state was exactly for this reason: You can believe in (or chose to not believe) one or more religions. In school however nobody should be forced (captive audience) to listen to your beliefs or lack thereof.

It amazes me that folks simply don't get it. In Iraq, people are killed over what religion they belong. If we could teach them and have them accept "separation of church and state", then our soldiers could get out of Iraq sooner than later. Unfortunately, given the responses on this website the majority here don't get the concept, how can we expect Iraqs to get it.

Kearny BOE act and act quickly.

[Guest Guest]

The man'sreligious beliefs (or lack thereof) have nothing to do with the issue at hand.  Did Teacher P. cross the line and effectively preach in a public school. If Teacher X preached atheism, or being a good Muslim, would you accept that conduct.  The whole idea behind our forefathers writing the separation of church and state was exactly for this reason:  You can believe in (or chose to not believe) one or more religions.  In school however nobody should be forced (captive audience) to listen to your beliefs or lack thereof.

It amazes me that folks simply don't get it.  In Iraq, people are killed over what religion they belong.  If we could teach them and have them accept "separation of church and state", then our soldiers could get out of Iraq sooner than later.  Unfortunately, given the responses on this website the majority here don't get the concept, how can we expect Iraqs to get it.

Kearny BOE act and act quickly.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Somehow I think if Mr. P's beliefs were in line with Paul LaClairs, regardless of what law he broke, we would not be discussing this at all.

As for the seperation of church and state. It was never the intention of the founding fathers to remove religion from school. This is a relatively modern idea. The intention was to allow all citizens to practice their respective religions without fear of persecution. That is why there are still numerous references to God in our government, our currency, out pledge, and the fact that public servants take their oath of office by swearing on a Bible.

[Guest Paul]

How does Paul "know" that Mr. P lied?  He sent Matt into the meeting with the principal with his trusty tape recorder.

Given what has been written by Paul and those in support of him, one gets the impression that most of Kearny holds the same views.  It is a very scary thought.  After reading both the transcript and the blog responses in support of the teacher (who I think was wrong and needs to be warned, by the way), I am very much encouraged by the common sense views stated by many readers.  They have a clear understanding of this man, his methods, and his disregard for the viewpoints of others.  If one does not agree with him, they are subject to disdain and outright rudeness.  It seems to be okay to use your freedom of speech when you agree with Mr. LaClair, but he does not seem to like to exercise the same rights in regards to those that disagree with him. 

It doesn't really matter what readers in Australia or Canada, Paris or Timbuktu think of Matt and Paul's actions.  The LaClairs in New Jersey live here.  What should matter is what their community believes.  From what I've read, they've alienated themselves from an involved, active community, for the sake of promoting their own agenda.  From all appearances, this was done to gather attention from the media.  Any reasonable parent who had issues with a teacher would have certainly made an appointment to be at a meeting himself.  The actions taken before, during and after this event call Mr. LaClair's motives into serious question.  The fact that he would encourage his son to take actions that would lead to a lawsuit is shameful and reprehensible. 

While Mr. LaClair and his son seem dead set against the "rituals" of democracy, they've lost the message these rituals bring.  In addition to showing respect for those who have truly sacrificed to keep ours one of the greatest nations on earth, these rituals like showing

respect for the flag, reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, or singing the national anthem…those are some of the common rituals that we as Americans share together in public.  While we don't all hold the same views about how the nation should be run, those small acts are part of what binds us together as one common nation. 

Mr. LaClair, in his zealous pursuit to promote his own agenda, has lost sight of that.  Will we lose as a nation regardless of this outcome?  No, in truth, Mr. LaClair and Matthew have lost before they've ever stepped into court.  They've lost something that cannot be decided by a judge-the respect and admiration of the community, and millions of others outside of the east coast, Australia, and New Jersey, who do not share their view points.

This is just one man's opinion.  No response is required, nor do I wish for a comment from Mr. LaClair.  I, too, am entitled to my opinions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Constitution and the quality of education are not a private agenda. They are properly the concern of every citizen. You are surely entitled to your opinion, so please feel free to respond. I would appreciate it if you omit any speculation regarding our motives, which you know nothing about.

We are not opposed to the rituals of democracy. We are opposed to putting the facade where the foundation belongs. If we do too much of that, the house will eventually collapse.

[Guest EMS]

Paul,

If you want to fight for somthing why not health care in Kearny.

"As announced on their web site, MONOC, the company that runs the paramedic units running out of Clara Maass (Unit 256) in Belleville and the old West Hudson Hospital (Unit 257) will be cutting back the units significantly.

In a nut shell, 256 will be shut down entirely and 257 will be pared back to a 7 am to 11 pm operation only. That will leave one paramedic unit based in Kearny for their entire coverage area (Kearny, Lyndhurst, Harrison, East Newark, North Arlington, Belleville and Nutley) and no unit for the same area between 11 pm and 7 am. The web site gives MONOC's reasons for this and the other units in the state they are closing.

The area will have to rely on the availability of Paramedic units from Newark, Jersey City and possibly Clifton and Montclair. The Clifton unit is also a MONOC unit so I doubt they will be much of a help.

If anyone is interested, the web site is www.monoc.org/executive.cfm

Please spread the word. This needs to be halted before someone is hurt or worse."

[Guest Guest]

The Constitution and the quality of education are not a private agenda. They are properly the concern of every citizen. You are surely entitled to your opinion, so please feel free to respond. I would appreciate it if you omit any speculation regarding our motives, which you know nothing about.

We are not opposed to the rituals of democracy. We are opposed to putting the facade where the foundation belongs. If we do too much of that, the house will eventually collapse.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When proper procedure through the appropriate channels was not followed, i.e., when you took this to the media and continued to press your own point in a public forum, when your son was given your approval to tape an entire classroom of students and then again to tape a meeting you didn’t feel the need to attend with the principal in order to gather “evidence” against one person, you took the matter out of the concern of “every citizen” and made it a public personal vendetta against one person. At that point it stopped being about your “concern” for the Constitution and the quality of education and became instead the focal point for a variety of issues that either you or your son have tried to raise over the last several months…the Pledge of Allegiance, the words “In God We Trust” on our currency, and now this. They all center around one issue, God. That betrays your own biases.

If, as you say, you’re doing the work of “real citizenship” in this regard, then I have every right and a duty of my own as a citizen to question your motives. I will continue to do so, and I don’t need your approval to voice them. No one decreed you “Lord of the Blog”; you can’t invite comments, then tell people how they can do so and with what opinions you want to hear. You open yourself to all, like them or not.

Your actions do not reflect ethical or moral behaviour in my opinion. In my opinion you are not leading the charge through a good and necessary fight; you seem bent on sowing the seeds of discontent and destruction, quite gleefully I might add. That, in my view, does not show a love of country or patriotism; it appears to be the opposite. I don’t question that you believe what you’re doing is right for you, but I don’t believe you’ve considered the effects of your actions as they relate to the common good. It’s become personal, and from the outside it doesn’t look like it matters to you who you hurt as long as you win.

The Constitution and the quality of education have been addressed. The teacher has evidently been warned and has stopped discussion of religion in class. I do not disagree with that. I read the transcripts, and although Matthew appears to be questioning in order to gather the information he wanted recorded I wasn’t there and can’t attest to the tone, the mood of the classroom, the participation levels of the students or what took place in the days before or after the event. In any event, the teacher had a responsibility to voice that he was not free to give his opinion and move on. If that been your concern, then when the matter was taken care of and the teacher stopped your ends would have been met, the change made, and the business of education and life in Kearny would have continued without the disruptive distractions that followed your approach of the media. What are you seeking? An apology? In that case it is not an issue of common good and a fight for real citizenship, but a personal statement to your own view points as you attempt to validate them through a public forum.

Who is wrong? Both are unquestionably. However, from what I read, the teacher has stopped his objectionable behaviour; you and your son have not. As you choose to keep the issue going rather than on focusing on Matthew’s education and the quality of life he’ll face in school over the next couple of years and in the community beyond that, I hold you more responsible. Matt is technically still a child. He doesn’t know what he’s missing or what he’s lost by his actions. You do, and still you encourage him to continue. That’s not courage. It’s promoting your own agenda through your son’s life. There is time to learn the lessons of political activism after high school. Now should be a time in which he gets to enjoy being a teenager. I suspect that right now, life is less than that for him in his school life.

Right now I’m quite certain you feel justified; most who zealously pursue a course of action do. I’m also fairly certain that you feel you have to follow this path and don’t need the prayers of others. I’ll be saying some anyway because that is my way. I believe you have just as much right to not believe as I do to believe. The difference is that while I’m willing to tolerate your way of life, you seem to hold in disdain those whose views differ from yours. I have to wonder years from now when time has passed and Matthew has had time to reflect on how his life could have taken a less antagonistic path to achieve the same ends, how well your conscience will hold up. Not as it relates to yourself, but as to what you’ve embroiled your child into. This is not a child’s fight; he’s not even old enough to vote so the ‘fight of real citizenship’ doesn’t fly with him. This should have been a man’s fight.

Through your own actions, your motives appear to be questionable. That is my opinion.

[Guest Guest]

The Constitution and the quality of education are not a private agenda. They are properly the concern of every citizen. You are surely entitled to your opinion, so please feel free to respond. I would appreciate it if you omit any speculation regarding our motives, which you know nothing about.

We are not opposed to the rituals of democracy. We are opposed to putting the facade where the foundation belongs. If we do too much of that, the house will eventually collapse.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The facade and the foundation are two distinct parts of the house. Both are necessary to complete the picture. You're fighting the facade while the real foundation is being ignored.

[Guest Guest]

Somehow I think if Mr. P's beliefs were in line with Paul LaClairs, regardless of what law he broke, we would not be discussing this at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have no doubt!!! Paul is just mad because Mr. P mentioned God....God really bothers some people...I wonder why!

[Guest Guest]

When proper procedure through the appropriate channels was not followed, i.e., when you took this to the media and continued to press your own point in a public forum, when your son was given your approval to tape an entire classroom of students and then again to tape a meeting you didn’t feel the need to attend with the principal in order to gather “evidence” against one person, you took the matter out of the concern of “every citizen” and made it a public personal vendetta against one person.  At that point it stopped being about your “concern” for the Constitution and the quality of education and became instead the focal point for a variety of issues that either you or your son have tried to raise over the last several months…the Pledge of Allegiance, the words “In God We Trust” on our currency, and now this.  They all center around one issue, God.  That betrays your own biases.

If, as you say, you’re doing the work of “real citizenship” in this regard, then I have every right and a duty of my own as a citizen to question your motives.  I will continue to do so, and I don’t need your approval to voice them.  No one decreed you “Lord of the Blog”; you can’t invite comments, then tell people how they can do so and with what opinions you want to hear.  You open yourself to all, like them or not. 

Your actions do not reflect ethical or moral behaviour in my opinion.  In my opinion you are not leading the charge through a good and necessary fight; you seem bent on sowing the seeds of discontent and destruction, quite gleefully I might add.  That, in my view, does not show a love of country or patriotism; it appears to be the opposite.  I don’t question that you believe what you’re doing is right for you, but I don’t believe you’ve considered the effects of your actions as they relate to the common good.  It’s become personal, and from the outside it doesn’t look like it matters to you who you hurt as long as you win.

The Constitution and the quality of education have been addressed.  The teacher has evidently been warned and has stopped discussion of religion in class.  I do not disagree with that.  I read the transcripts, and although Matthew appears to be questioning in order to gather the information he wanted recorded I wasn’t there and can’t attest to the tone, the mood of the classroom, the participation levels of the students or what took place in the days before or after the event.  In any event, the teacher had a responsibility to voice that he was not free to give his opinion and move on.  If that been your concern, then when the matter was taken care of and the teacher stopped your ends would have been met, the change made, and the business of education and life in Kearny would have continued without the disruptive distractions that followed your approach of the media.  What are you seeking?  An apology?  In that case it is not an issue of common good and a fight for real citizenship, but a personal statement to your own view points as you attempt to validate them through a public forum. 

Who is wrong?  Both are unquestionably.  However, from what I read, the teacher has stopped his objectionable behaviour; you and your son have not.  As you choose to keep the issue going rather than on focusing on Matthew’s education and the quality of life he’ll face in school over the next couple of years and in the community beyond that, I hold you more responsible.  Matt is technically still a child.  He doesn’t know what he’s missing or what he’s lost by his actions.  You do, and still you encourage him to continue.  That’s not courage.  It’s promoting your own agenda through your son’s life.  There is time to learn the lessons of political activism after high school.  Now should be a time in which he gets to enjoy being a teenager.  I suspect that right now, life is less than that for him in his school life.

Right now I’m quite certain you feel justified; most who zealously pursue a course of action do.  I’m also fairly certain that you feel you have to follow this path and don’t need the prayers of others.  I’ll be saying some anyway because that is my way.  I believe you have just as much right to not believe as I do to believe.  The difference is that while I’m willing to tolerate your way of life, you seem to hold in disdain those whose views differ from yours.  I have to wonder years from now when time has passed and Matthew has had time to reflect on how his life could have taken a less antagonistic path to achieve the same ends, how well your conscience will hold up.  Not as it relates to yourself, but as to what you’ve embroiled your child into.  This is not a child’s fight; he’s not even old enough to vote so the ‘fight of real citizenship’ doesn’t fly with him.  This should have been a man’s fight.

Through your own actions, your motives appear to be questionable.  That is my opinion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

BRAVO!!!!!!

[Guest Guest]

I have no doubt!!! Paul is just mad because Mr. P mentioned God....God really bothers some people...I wonder why!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How could God bother the LaClairs? Every two years when Mrs. LaClair is sworn in as a town committee member, she takes an oath on the Bible which ends with, "to the best of my ability, so help me God".

[Guest Guest]

Somehow I think if Mr. P's beliefs were in line with Paul LaClairs, regardless of what law he broke, we would not be discussing this at all.

As for the seperation of church and state.  It was never the intention of the founding fathers to remove religion from school.  This is a relatively modern idea.  The intention was to allow all citizens to practice their respective religions without fear of persecution.  That is why there are still numerous references to God in our government, our currency, out pledge, and the fact that public servants take their oath of office by swearing on a Bible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Better be careful, that you don't "go to hell", but then again you've have company!

You might even be related to some of the residents.

[Guest Guest]

Somehow I think if Mr. P's beliefs were in line with Paul LaClairs, regardless of what law he broke, we would not be discussing this at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wrong. The majority of the people defending Pas would be all over this like white on rice and this would be exponentially bigger than it already is.

[Guest Guest]

How could God bother the LaClairs? Every two years when Mrs. LaClair is sworn in as a town committee member, she takes an oath on the Bible which ends with, "to the best of my ability, so help me God".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who is a liar then? By the way, the person who called Mr. P a liar never answered my question. How do you know that he lied? Matthew said it? hahahahahah! Soooo funny!

[Guest Paul]

Who is a liar then? By the way, the person who called Mr. P a liar never answered my question. How do you know that he lied? Matthew said it? hahahahahah! Soooo funny!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Debra does not swear on the Bible.

[Guest Paul]

Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.

The above is a quote by Dennis Prager.

The needs of the many- outweigh the needs of the few.

I said that in Star Trek 2

Little by little our customs and traditions are being stripped away by self serving people . What great unamaginable harm was done to this 16 year old "child"?

Is he so unsecure in his own beliefs that he can not tolerate others beliefs.

The teacher did what teachers have been doing for generations. Interjecting his own beliefs into a conversation. I don't think anyone in that class took what he said as gospel(pardon the pun).

Everyone continued to breathe and to think and live just like they did in their previous periods class.

Give it a rest.

Forgive them all- for they no not what they do

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You were free to give it a rest, but did not choose to do so. So what are you really saying?

[Guest Paul]

The facade and the foundation are two distinct parts of the house.  Both are necessary to complete the picture.  You're fighting the facade while the real foundation is being ignored.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Others are forcing the fight on the facade. All Matthew does is sit quietly while others recite the Pledge. In response, people have verbally and physically and abused him. Others tell us he should recite the pledge or leave the country. So much for freedom of conscience. They are the ones forcing this issue in the first instance.

[Jake]

Others are forcing the fight on the facade. All Matthew does is sit quietly while others recite the Pledge. In response, people have verbally and physically and abused him. Others tell us he should recite the pledge or leave the country. So much for freedom of conscience. They are the ones forcing this issue in the first instance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No one is forcing you to fight, stand for the Pledge, or bring (possible) legal action against the school. You do those things because you choose to or not. Just because you decide to make an issue out of a situation that's been overblown, doesn't mean others have to agree with your decision.

If life has been as bad as you make out these last weeks, maybe it's time to reevaluate and look deeply to see if maybe.....just maybe.....you over-reacted and might be wrong. I would suggest this to anyone who's had such a reaction to their opinions. As humans sometimes mistakes in judgement are made. Maybe it's time to give it a rest, as another writer suggested.

You also chose to bring this to the media and start blog posts. Just because others disagree with you doesn't make them wrong....and it doesn't make you right....

[Guest Guest]

The man'sreligious beliefs (or lack thereof) have nothing to do with the issue at hand.  Did Teacher P. cross the line and effectively preach in a public school. If Teacher X preached atheism, or being a good Muslim, would you accept that conduct.  The whole idea behind our forefathers writing the separation of church and state was exactly for this reason:  You can believe in (or chose to not believe) one or more religions.  In school however nobody should be forced (captive audience) to listen to your beliefs or lack thereof.

It amazes me that folks simply don't get it.  In Iraq, people are killed over what religion they belong.  If we could teach them and have them accept "separation of church and state", then our soldiers could get out of Iraq sooner than later.  Unfortunately, given the responses on this website the majority here don't get the concept, how can we expect Iraqs to get it.

Kearny BOE act and act quickly.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Stop crying seperation of church and state when you know nothing about it. Read the Constitution. This is not what this issue is about.

[Guest Guest]

Others are forcing the fight on the facade. All Matthew does is sit quietly while others recite the Pledge. In response, people have verbally and physically and abused him. Others tell us he should recite the pledge or leave the country. So much for freedom of conscience. They are the ones forcing this issue in the first instance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lets be honest for a change. Matthew does alot more than sit quietly. From what others have said he constantly initiates battles over a variety of issues.

And while were at it lets clarify some other things;

The Constitution, as written and as intended, said nothing about religion and public schools. The short phrase concerning religion is has been taken out of context and blown completely out of proportion. It has been spun by lawmakers and judges, both conservative and liberal, who have bowed to pressure from groups like the ACLU and others over the past 50 years. Everyone that has posted here should read the Constitution. The writers of the Constitution were god fearing people who never intended to wipe away religion from our society as Paul would have you believe.

Why won't Paul touch certain issues; the fact that the teacher has already been dealt with and has stopped the behavior, the idea that if this teacher was promoting atheism Paul would have no problem with it, the fact that the tapes Matthew made violated the teacher's contract, the fact that the teacher never advocated his religion, the fact that Paul didn't attend a meeting with the principal and the teacher, etc.

Paul claims that the radical right and conservatives have misinterpreted the Constitution. He fails to see that it's really these groups and the majority of the country who have been extremely tolerant of people like him and their crusade to remove religion from everything. Left up to people that think like Paul, our money would be changed, our Pledge would be changed, even holiday decorations on public property would be removed. So who is really the radical here.

Didn't Paul have to swear on the bible to get into the bar? Doesn't he sit in court and watch people sworn in? I guess the lack of seperation of church and state is fine when it meets his needs. The same way he invokes the names of scientists who have developed theories on the big bang and gravity when it suits him. He doesn't mention that many of these scientists also admit, that after lifetimes of studying and working on these theories, that there must be some higher power at work in the universe.

I think he should take this case to court. And while he's at it he can get the holiday displays put up by the town removed, stop the Post Office from selling stamps with religious icons on them, and end town sponsered Easter Egg Hunts.

[Guest Guest]

Lets be honest for a change.  Matthew does alot more than sit quietly.  From what others have said he constantly initiates battles over a variety of issues.

And while were at it lets clarify some other things;

The Constitution, as written and as intended, said nothing about religion and public schools.  The short phrase concerning religion is has been taken out of context and blown completely out of proportion.  It has been spun by lawmakers and judges, both conservative and liberal, who have bowed to pressure from groups like the ACLU and others over the past 50 years.  Everyone that has posted here should read the Constitution.  The writers of the Constitution were god fearing people who never intended to wipe away religion from our society as Paul would have you believe.

Why won't Paul touch certain issues; the fact that the teacher has already been dealt with and has stopped the behavior, the idea that if this teacher was promoting atheism Paul would have no problem with it, the fact that the tapes Matthew made violated the teacher's contract, the fact that the teacher never advocated his religion, the fact that Paul didn't attend a meeting with the principal and the teacher, etc.

Paul claims that the radical right and conservatives have misinterpreted the Constitution.  He fails to see that it's really these groups and the majority of the country who have been extremely tolerant of people like him and their crusade to remove religion from everything.  Left up to people that think like Paul, our money would be changed, our Pledge would be changed, even holiday decorations on public property would be removed.  So who is really the radical here.

Didn't Paul have to swear on the bible to get into the bar? Doesn't he sit in court and watch people sworn in? I guess the lack of seperation of church and state is fine when it meets his needs.  The same way he invokes the names of scientists who have developed theories on the big bang and gravity when it suits him.  He doesn't mention that many of these scientists also admit, that after lifetimes of studying and working on these theories, that there must be some higher power at work in the universe.

I think he should take this case to court.  And while he's at it he can get the holiday displays put up by the town removed, stop the Post Office from selling stamps with religious icons on them, and end town sponsered Easter Egg Hunts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Great job!!!

[Guest Guest_Paul_*]

Lets be honest for a change.  Matthew does alot more than sit quietly.  From what others have said he constantly initiates battles over a variety of issues.

And while were at it lets clarify some other things;

The Constitution, as written and as intended, said nothing about religion and public schools.  The short phrase concerning religion is has been taken out of context and blown completely out of proportion.  It has been spun by lawmakers and judges, both conservative and liberal, who have bowed to pressure from groups like the ACLU and others over the past 50 years.  Everyone that has posted here should read the Constitution.  The writers of the Constitution were god fearing people who never intended to wipe away religion from our society as Paul would have you believe.

Why won't Paul touch certain issues; the fact that the teacher has already been dealt with and has stopped the behavior, the idea that if this teacher was promoting atheism Paul would have no problem with it, the fact that the tapes Matthew made violated the teacher's contract, the fact that the teacher never advocated his religion, the fact that Paul didn't attend a meeting with the principal and the teacher, etc.

Paul claims that the radical right and conservatives have misinterpreted the Constitution.  He fails to see that it's really these groups and the majority of the country who have been extremely tolerant of people like him and their crusade to remove religion from everything.  Left up to people that think like Paul, our money would be changed, our Pledge would be changed, even holiday decorations on public property would be removed.  So who is really the radical here.

Didn't Paul have to swear on the bible to get into the bar? Doesn't he sit in court and watch people sworn in? I guess the lack of seperation of church and state is fine when it meets his needs.  The same way he invokes the names of scientists who have developed theories on the big bang and gravity when it suits him.  He doesn't mention that many of these scientists also admit, that after lifetimes of studying and working on these theories, that there must be some higher power at work in the universe.

I think he should take this case to court.  And while he's at it he can get the holiday displays put up by the town removed, stop the Post Office from selling stamps with religious icons on them, and end town sponsered Easter Egg Hunts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You don't agree with the state of the law as interpreted by the courts. That is your right, but the law is what it is. Many people didn't agree with the outcome in Bush v. Gore either, but the decision was accepted and we moved on. Your assumptions are just that, not facts.

To answer your questions: I did not swear on the Bible to be admitted to the bar. I sit in court and watch people sworn in, as is their right. The Bible to me is not like a cross to Dracula.

All the teacher's contract says, as I read it, is that teacher evaluations may not be recorded. It's very poorly drafted in its ambiguity, but even if you stretch it to mean previously recorded materials may not be used for purposes of teacher evaluations, that does not mean that the student violated the contract. That is impossible, as he is not a party to it.

The teacher clearly advocated his religion. No reasonable person could listen to the recordings and say otherwise.

You're clear enough about how you look at American life. People in the minority are supposed to shut up and "know their place." We went through that with race relations, too. All it is, is spin. The law remains the law.

[Guest Paul]

No one is forcing you to fight, stand for the Pledge, or bring (possible) legal action against the school.  You do those things because you choose to or not.  Just because you decide to make an issue out of a situation that's been overblown, doesn't mean others have to agree with your decision. 

If life has been as bad as you make out these last weeks, maybe it's time to reevaluate and look deeply to see if maybe.....just maybe.....you over-reacted and might be wrong.  I would suggest this to anyone who's had such a reaction to their opinions.  As humans sometimes mistakes in judgement are made.  Maybe it's time to give it a rest, as another writer suggested. 

You also chose to bring this to the media and start blog posts.  Just because others disagree with you doesn't make them wrong....and it doesn't make you right....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I didn't say our lives have been bad. I said this hasn't been easy.

It's none of my business, Jake, but you'll get further in life if you'll actually listen to what people are saying instead of presuming to tell them what they're saying --- unless of course you want to run for office as a right-winger or host a right-wing radio talk show. Then you can pander to people who fall for that stuff.

Enough of that. I came to answer questions, not to argue. My best to you.