KHS Teacher Controversy

[Guest Guest]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You say the teacher clearly advocated his religion. I say he didn't, that's my opinion, and I'm fairly reasonable. I'll also say that a person with your beliefs lives to fight a case like this, and I don't mean that in a negative way. I think if it was so cut and dry you would have filed your case already, because you know you'll get no satisfaction from the administrators or the BOE.

The law is what it is because the majority have not really challenged it. I believe that the majority of the people in this country, and the people you call the radical right, are far more tolerant of your views than you give them credit for.

I never said that the minority must shut up and know their place. I'd just like to have the holiday displays up this time of year. The kids enjoy it and it helps make people a little more friendly, even for a short while.

Aside from that, where in Engel v. Vitale does it say that there is to be no discussion of religion or god in a public school classroom, period. This is basically what the editor of The Observer wrote. Am I missing something?

[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}>

I totally agree with you! Paul you need to save our country! We need you and Matthew to save the United States of America...LOL!!!

Paul go do something useful. Leave Mr. P alone! Enough with that conversation. Stop trying to make people believe the way you do!!!! If you are "soooooooooo" right, stop arguing! Take Matthew to six flags, disneyworld, etc...Let the boy have some fun and forget about Mr. P!

[Guest Paul]

You say the teacher clearly advocated his religion.  I say he didn't, that's my opinion, and I'm fairly reasonable.  I'll also say that a person with your beliefs lives to fight a case like this, and I don't mean that in a negative way.  I think if it was so cut and dry you would have filed your case already, because you know you'll get no satisfaction from the administrators or the BOE.

The law is what it is because the majority have not really challenged it.  I believe that the majority of the people in this country, and the people you call the radical right, are far more tolerant of your views than you give them credit for.

I never said that the minority must shut up and know their place.  I'd just like to have the holiday displays up this time of year.  The kids enjoy it and it helps make people a little more friendly, even for a short while.

Aside from that, where in Engel v. Vitale does it say that there is to be no discussion of religion or god in a public school classroom, period.  This is basically what the editor of The Observer wrote.  Am I missing something?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't see how you can say that this teacher did not advocate his religion, when he went to the extent of saying three times in three different ways that all non-Christians belong in hell; that a being must have created the universe; that dinosaurs were on Noah's ark; the biblical prophecies have been proved to the letter, justifying Christian belief --- I could go on and on, as he did. How can you say that isn't promoting his religion?

You can have holiday displays this time of year. Any private individual or organization is unlimited in this, and even at Town Hall you can have your nativity scene as long as it is accompanied by other displays so that the display in total does not promote a religion. Someone raised the Nutcracker in another post; I don't have a problem with Tchaikovsky's masterpiece being performed at a public school --- the mere fact that it depicts a Christian family celebrating in their own way does not mean it crosses the line, as I see it. Personally, I like this time of year and the displays very much. I just don't like when government gets involved in the wrong way. I also don't like it when private organizations and even religions get "in your face" with remarks, displays, etc., but that is a matter of personal taste --- they may do as they please within zoning rules, etc.

Engel v. Vitale does not say that there should be no discussion of religion in the public schools. The decision holds that the teacher, acting on behalf of the state may not promote a religion. That is the state of the law, and I agree with it. Why isn't that reasonable? Honestly, I can't see any reason for objecting to this rule except that some people want to use government to promote their religion. Isn't that really what's behind P's defenders?

[Guest Guest]

Dear Matt's Dad, what are you doing to your son? You are making his school life a living hell.  Do you think it's worth it for your son to not have friends in high school? Do you think it's worth it for your son to be looked at by anyone he comes in contact with to be suspicious of him?  Anyone who comes within a few feet of your son is wary. Is that what you want for him?

Dear unregistered

Don't you feel guilty about trying to manipulate Matt's father through his love of his son? You can't debate the issues so you try and manipulate through emotion.

Debate the issues or keep off the board.

You also write "Do you think it's worth it for your son to not have friends in high school? Do you think it's worth it for your son to be looked at by anyone he comes in contact with to be suspicious of him? Anyone who comes within a few feet of your son is wary. Is that what you want for him?"

But who's doing these things? Who are the ones giving Matt such a hard time? Not Matt's father! It's you and your friends. You do these things then go on to complain about being forced to do them by Matt's father. Are you so easy to manipulate. Are you claiming that someone only has to say something & you and your friends are FORCED to behave in a certain way? Give me a break. Take responsibility for your own actions. While you're doing that you might also take a leaf out of Jesus's book when he said "love your enemies".

[Guest Guest]

[quote=Guest,Dec 5 2006, 06:55 pm

"You say the teacher clearly advocated his religion. I say he didn't, that's my opinion, and I'm fairly reasonable. "

I have two replies:

1) The teacher told his class that unless they believed in Jesus they were going to hell. In other words "believe this or else"! Please explain how this is NOT advocating his faith.

2) Do you think this would be acceptable if a member of a faith you dislike made this statement? No? Then why is it alright if a member of your faith does it? Isn't the application of one rule for your faith and one rule for everyone else's faith a double standard? Do you really think that your religion is so weak it needs special protection from the law?

These are serious questions. Please answer.

Thank you

[Guest Paul]

Dear unregistered

  Don't you feel guilty about trying to manipulate Matt's father through his love of his son?  You can't debate the issues so you try and manipulate through emotion. 

Debate the issues or keep off the board.

You also write "Do you think it's worth it for your son to not have friends in high school? Do you think it's worth it for your son to be looked at by anyone he comes in contact with to be suspicious of him?  Anyone who comes within a few feet of your son is wary. Is that what you want for him?" 

But who's doing these things?  Who are the ones giving Matt such a hard time?  Not Matt's father!  It's you and your friends.  You do these things then go on to complain about being forced to do them by Matt's father.  Are you so easy to manipulate.  Are you claiming that someone only has to say something & you and your friends are FORCED to behave in a certain way?  Give me a break.  Take responsibility for your own actions.  While you're doing that you might also take a leaf out of Jesus's book when he said "love your enemies".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you. This is exactly right. We're supposed to shut up, and if we don't, some folks will threaten to make life miserable for Matt, and it'll be my fault. I've seen it all before and I'm not buying it, and neither is he. Thanks for saying what is obvious to most, but apparently not to some.

[Guest Guest]

complete 9/14 transcript here

[Guest Guest]

[quote name=Guest' date='Dec 5 2006, 06:55 pm

"You say the teacher clearly advocated his religion. I say he didn't, that's my opinion, and I'm fairly reasonable. "

I have two replies:

1) The teacher told his class that unless they believed in Jesus they were going to hell. In other words "believe this or else"! Please explain how this is NOT advocating his faith.

2) Do you think this would be acceptable if a member of a faith you dislike made this statement? No? Then why is it alright if a member of your faith does it? Isn't the application of one rule for your faith and one rule for everyone else's faith a double standard? Do you really think that your religion is so weak it needs special protection from the law?

These are serious questions. Please answer.

Thank you

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1)The teacher told the class that in his own personal view of his religion if people do not accept Jesus they belong in hell. In other words he was expressing his opinion on how he views his religion. He never forced the students to accept this as fact.

The 1962 Supreme Court Case that is being thrown around here as an example, was about students being forced to participate in a prayer in a public school, there by advocating a religion, even though the prayer was non-denominational. It did not outlaw religious discussion or the mention of religion in a public school classroom as the Editor of The Observer would have you believe.

2)I'm pretty sure that if the teacher was discussing the LaClairs beliefs, for instance, telling the class that it was his opinion that there is no god, we would not be posting about this topic at all.

It's pretty clear from Matt's actions, both in this situation and prior to this, that Matt and his dad are crusaders. I'm fine with that.

I'm not worried about my religion being weak. It has certainly stood the test of time, far longer than any country or government. I'm certainly not worried about an informal discussion in a classroom and I doubt that Matt LaClair was intimidated or had his views changed by anything this teacher said.

I do empatize with the LaClairs however, because I think their concern is genuine, even though this has been blown out of proportion, and they'll probably get little or no satisfaction from the BOE or administrators.

[Guest Paul]

[quote name=Guest' date='Dec 5 2006, 06:55 pm

"You say the teacher clearly advocated his religion. I say he didn't, that's my opinion, and I'm fairly reasonable. "

I have two replies:

1) The teacher told his class that unless they believed in Jesus they were going to hell. In other words "believe this or else"! Please explain how this is NOT advocating his faith.

2) Do you think this would be acceptable if a member of a faith you dislike made this statement? No? Then why is it alright if a member of your faith does it? Isn't the application of one rule for your faith and one rule for everyone else's faith a double standard? Do you really think that your religion is so weak it needs special protection from the law?

These are serious questions. Please answer.

Thank you

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's worse than a double standard. It's hypocrisy. As any Bible-savvy Christian will tell you, Jesus displayed his greatest contempt toward the hypocrites. So it's also a complete failure to understand Jesus' teachings as recorded in the Bible.

[Guest Paul]

complete 9/14 transcript here

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This transcript is not entirely accurate. The most glaring error is: "You're a (???), you belong here." Paszkiewicz clearly says "If you reject that, you belong in hell."

[Guest guest]

My problem with schools is not that I don't think my kids are

gonna learn reading, writing and arthmetic and learn it well...[the

world??] The highest value in public education is tolerance. But

tolerance - of what? Deviant behavior? There are a lot of things I

don't want my kids tolerating. Ethnic diversity? Yes. Sexually deviant

behavior? No. Things like that, and that's all being taught right from

kindergarten and up. I still believe in the concept of sin, man's born

in nature, all that stuff, and uh, you know, that's considered

old-fashioned nowadays, and that's how my kids are being raised. Some

days when you think about these things, that's what people that are

concerned about - is the most part concerned with. [Fa...?] Carnegie's

got great schools as far as qualified teachers and stuff like that,

but, there's a lot of disparity when it comes to world views. Public

schools in general - your family - let's suppose you're a religious

family. Send your kid - you surrender your kid to the state from

preschool on through 12th grade, and Mom and Dad are trying to tell

you that the Bible is God's word, and their lives are deeply rooted in

faith... but yet the "smart" people - and I say that in quotations,

because they're not all really that smart - the teachers that you're

exposed to from kindergarten through 12th grade, never once will you

see them crack open a Bible, never once will you hear them quote it,

never once hear a prayer uttered from their lips. Over the course of

12 years, what's the transfer? Smart people don't have faith, don't

believe. [student: No it's not...] That's the transfer, it was a lot

of the transfer. Now, my parents grew up and went to public schools,

but they went prior to 1962, so teachers read the Bible, the teachers

prayed, it was part of the school day, and in other words, just a very

very different attitude, but that's also back a generation, back to

totalitarianism, communism, following the Great Depression, and all

that.

ARE YOU KIDDIN ME!!!! AND THE UNION SUPPORTS THIS IDIOT!!!!!

he was given the chance to apologize and didn't??? WHAT A FOOL...

Great article on the theoberserver.com... maybe some of you who support this teacher should read it@@@

I support his firing!!!!

[Guest Guest]

complete 9/14 transcript here

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow! This is UNBELIEVABLE! Everyone should read this. Where's the history being taught? No wonder scores are dropping. I thought they were really picking on this guy but you know what? The kid is right. How long has this been going on?

[KHS81]

Religion at no time belongs in a public school, and neither do tape recorders.

Both were dead wrong!.

Can't believe the attention it drew. Well I guess I should not consider FOX news attention.

Since it's not illegal to bring a tape recorder into the classroom, you may want to check out NJ wiretapping laws. Since LaClair was party to the conversation he has every legal right to tape record the teacher without his knowledge or consent.

[KHS81]

It's really sad...this 16 year old practically spits on our "Pledge of Allegiance" while many of our fathers were at war at his age...my 87yr old father is still haunted by what he faced while at war-kill or be killed-so he had no choice but to kill --then he took that young mans wallet out and saw pictures of that 17 year old's family and he was devastated.My dad had to live with that for the past 70 yrs and still breaks up when he speaks of it. Kids today, my 16 year old included, and many adults, I think...don't realize what our fathers and their family, went through for this country.so we could be free...but not free to turn our backs on it....Matt LaClair is free today because of our fathers..and he is free to leave this country if he does not agree with what we stand for!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. So Matt does'nt want to stand for the " Pledge of Allegiance" thats his right.How many of your childs classmates including yours pledges correctly. Does your child stand at attention placing his/her right hand over thier heart, how many say the pledge loud and clear and not mumble their way thru it.Before critizing any child over the Pledge of Alliance make sure yours is correct. Those with the " love it or leave it mentality" are also free to leave at anytime.

[Guest i preach religion in public scho]

any kearny resident who doesn't stand behind Matthew is a fool.....its a shame that the blame is placed on him for a LEGAL recording.......... rather than the teacher who is disgracing the kearny public school system and all public schools in general....

and now i read he home schools his kids because he doesn't want educators like him casting false impressions on his innocent kids..... give me a break

the board of ed should discipline him, have him make an apology to matthew, his family, and the town of kearny!!!!!!!!!!

[Guest Paul]

Wow! This is UNBELIEVABLE! Everyone should read this. Where's the history being taught? No wonder scores are dropping. I thought they were really picking on this guy but you know what? The kid is right. How long has this been going on?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Look at the extent and intensity of it. Does it look like new behavior?

[Guest Guest]

Wow! This is UNBELIEVABLE! Everyone should read this. Where's the history being taught? No wonder scores are dropping. I thought they were really picking on this guy but you know what? The kid is right. How long has this been going on?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I tend to agree. I'm a fully accredited teacher & if I spent any amount of time, let alone one whole class, talking this sort of rot I'd be out on my ear. And I've taught in religious schools. Almost the entire lesson is taken up with religious instruction - not history.

When the teacher does deign to touch on actual history in this lesson he gets his historical facts completely incorrect. He got the Egyptian & Mesopotamian creation myths wrong, his explanation of the theory of evolution is wrong. He even uses the term "theory" as though it were nothing but a guess. Those are just three examples out of many. This is the teacher the students say is so great? Heaven help them!

[Guest Guest]

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}>

Yes Paul, please do it! Save us from the Christians! We need a lawyer like you, who has faith in absolutely nothing, (except in the Big Bang theory, which in fact requires a lot of faith) to save America!!!!!! You are hillarious Paul, I think you should stop working in New York and find a job as a clown somewhere else. Remember, what goes aorund comes around...

[Guest Paul]

1. So Matt does'nt want to stand for the " Pledge of Allegiance" thats his right.How many of your childs classmates including yours pledges correctly. Does your child stand at attention placing his/her right hand over thier heart, how many say the pledge loud and clear and not mumble their way thru it.Before critizing any child over the Pledge of Alliance make sure yours is correct. Those with the " love it or leave it mentality" are also free to leave at anytime.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not only is it his right, he's making a point. Some may not agree with the point, but it's an important one. Our country is at war, or at least that's what it's called. 65 years ago we were in another war. In that war (WWII), every American sacrificed tangibly to aid the war effort: Americans accepted rationing, did with less, bought war bonds, etc. By contrast, there is no shared sacrifice today. Instead, we see folks driving around alone in their SUVs while our soldiers are fighting a war for cheap oil, and some people seem to think they're being patriotic because they put a yellow ribbon on the gas-guzzling monster. As Bill Maher puts it, our soldiers are at war, we're shopping.

Patriotic rituals have their place, but when an entire nation is acting like this, and then waving the flag harder than ever, the symbol has taken the place of real citizenship. Historically, that leads to dictatorship, so it's not much of a surprise that the Bush administration has taken us in precisely that direction. Yelling "Go, USA" at the top of our lungs is no substitute for becoming an active part of the team. Refusing to go along with mere cheerleading at the cost of being unpopular is an act of true patriotism.

It's fascinating how many of the people who don't get it remind us we are free to leave. To my understanding, the most basic principle of being an American is freedom. Those who don't agree with that concept are as free to leave as anyone else.

Of course, no one is forced to agree with his politics. But to say that Matthew is spitting on anything or anyone is disrespectful to him and extremely close-minded.

[Guest Paul]

I tend to agree.  I'm a fully accredited teacher & if I spent any amount of time, let alone one whole class, talking this sort of rot I'd be out on my ear.  And I've taught in religious schools.  Almost the entire lesson is taken up with religious instruction - not history.

When the teacher does deign to touch on actual history in this lesson he gets his historical facts completely incorrect.  He got the Egyptian & Mesopotamian creation myths wrong, his explanation of the theory of evolution is wrong.  He even uses the term "theory" as though it were nothing but a guess.  Those are just three examples out of many.  This is the teacher the students say is so great?  Heaven help them!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As you correctly point out, not only is his explanation of evolutionary theory wrong, Paszkiewicz doesn't even understand what a theory is. (As someone who obviously knows next to nothing about science, he is well-advised to stay away from it.) A theory does not mean an absence of proof. Just the opposite, a theory is an organized explanation with sufficient evidence behind it to be considered reliable by the scientific community. By contrast, a hypothesis is an organized explanation without sufficient support to be considered reliable. A theory may be a fact, as evolutionary theory is. A hypothesis may also be a fact, but as long as it remains a hypothesis it is, by definition, not proved to the satisfaction of the scientific community. This teacher fed a popular misconception to promote biblical creationism. If he was going to take it on himself to undermine the science curriculum and violate the First Amendment at the same time, the least he could have done was have some basic knowledge of what he was talking about; he did not. His ignorance on this subject is appalling for any 21st century educator. This is one of several ways in which this teacher gave information that is simply wrong, and did real damage in that classroom. A winning demeanor does not save the day, in fact it makes him dangerous. This is like the Pied Piper, only this Piper led the students off into the cave of scientific ignorance and religious bigotry. It truly is shocking and appalling.

[Guest Paul]

Yes Paul, please do it! Save us from the Christians! We need a lawyer like you, who has faith in absolutely nothing, (except in the Big Bang theory, which in fact requires a lot of faith) to save America!!!!!! You are hillarious Paul, I think you should stop working in New York and find a job as a clown somewhere else. Remember, what goes aorund comes around...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That word "faith" means many things to many people. The Christian theologian Paul Tillich wrote a brillian little book on the subject, making the point that when faith is taken to mean wrapping oneself around a chosen belief just because that belief is the most comforting (for example), it takes the spiritual dimension out of Faith, and actually does great harm. It removes the spiritual dimension because the very essence of spirituality is looking (and acting) outside oneself, humbly becoming a part of the greater whole. When all a person does is make his or her mind up about what to believe, and refuses to consider how those beliefs might be misinformed, unwise, etc., the only thing that person truly worships is his own opinion.

For me, Faith means acting for good even though we have no guarantee that good will result from our actions, or to put it another way, Faith is acting to open life's possibilities. More an action than a belief, it is one of the great creative forces in life.

The Big Bang is not a product of faith in the way the author implies. This theory of the formation of the universe is simply the conclusion of the majority of scientists all over the world based on the evidence we have. It is the most likely explanation based on the available evidence. None of these scientists proposes it is the final answer to anything. No scientific theory ever is. The point is that by following the scientific method, scientists have compiled an enormous track record of progress. Throw out the method, and progress will be stymied.

Not every comparison between science and religion is useful, but if the author wishes to insist on it in this context, nothing in theology comes anywhere close to science in terms of progress and proven results, or is even in the same league in that regard, let alone ballpark. Religion makes contributions in other areas, but not many in this one. And I see no value in the thoughts and attitudes expressed by the author above.

As we've seen in other posts, the author's comments reflect a lack of understanding about what science is and how it operates. Scientists do not propose ultimate answers. By the very nature of the scientific inquiry and method, science is always open to new data that may lead to changes in theory. Newton's theory of gravity, for example, informed the world for centuries (and it still does), making the industrial revolution and much of our modern technology possible. Yet, as Einstein and others discovered in the early 1900's, Newton's theory of gravity is fundamentally wrong. Does that mean that apples no longer fall from trees? Of course not, but it does mean that while Newton's theory predicts events, its explanation of what was actually going on was wrong. Does it mean that the world would have better off without it? Of course not.

Would we be better off without the kind of unthinking stubbornnes that characterizes too much of what people call "faith" these days? I think we would. Would we be better off not attaching ourselves too strongly to "faith" beliefs that can never be tested or verified? Again, I think we would. In large part, it's a matter of judgment and balance.

Addressing legitimate concerns in as respectful and thoughtful way as one can requires considerable Faith in the capacity of people to act with dignity and respect in response. At times that Faith is not rewarded, except that the effort itself is a reward of a kind. Anyone can be snide, rude, nasty, dismissive, arrogant, etc. Thinking things through in a calm and respectful manner takes work and Faith, too much of both for some apparently.

[Guest John]

Premeditated entrapment!!!

How about the administration taking action against this traitor, who should be dropped in the center of Iraq, so he don't have to salute our flag, but help burn it with people like himself!!!!!

He should be suspended for having a recording device in the classroom.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Twit.

[Guest John]

Jim............if you are writing about spelling you should check your own writing. Resonses? Memebers? Who's in trouble? Give us all a break! At least we got a good laugh out of your response!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are a twit. Here's some of your own back at you. How many periods are in an elipsis and what is its correct use? Your grammar is atrocious as well. It's not surprising that you would be on the teacher's side of the argument. Instead of pointing out typos in an informal forum and being petty why don't make an actual argument. Until then you'll have to pardon me if I suggest you piss off.

[Guest Guest]

That word "faith" means many things to many people. The Christian theologian Paul Tillich wrote a brillian little book on the subject, making the point that when faith is taken to mean wrapping oneself around a chosen belief just because that belief is the most comforting (for example), it takes the spiritual dimension out of Faith, and actually does great harm. It removes the spiritual dimension because the very essence of spirituality is looking (and acting) outside oneself, humbly becoming a part of the greater whole. When all a person does is make his or her mind up about what to believe, and refuses to consider how those beliefs might be misinformed, unwise, etc., the only thing that person truly worships is his own opinion.

For me, Faith means acting for good even though we have no guarantee that good will result from our actions, or to put it another way, Faith is acting to open life's possibilities. More an action than a belief, it is one of the great creative forces in life.

The Big Bang is not a product of faith in the way the author implies. This theory of the formation of the universe is simply the conclusion of the majority of scientists all over the world based on the evidence we have. It is the most likely explanation based on the available evidence. None of these scientists proposes it is the final answer to anything. No scientific theory ever is. The point is that by following the scientific method, scientists have compiled an enormous track record of progress. Throw out the method, and progress will be stymied.

Not every comparison between science and religion is useful, but if the author wishes to insist on it in this context, nothing in theology comes anywhere close to science in terms of progress and proven results, or is even in the same league in that regard, let alone ballpark. Religion makes contributions in other areas, but not many in this one. And I see no value in the thoughts and attitudes expressed by the author above.

As we've seen in other posts, the author's comments reflect a lack of understanding about what science is and how it operates. Scientists do not propose ultimate answers. By the very nature of the scientific inquiry and method, science is always open to new data that may lead to changes in theory. Newton's theory of gravity, for example, informed the world for centuries (and it still does), making the industrial revolution and much of our modern technology possible. Yet, as Einstein and others discovered in the early 1900's, Newton's theory of gravity is fundamentally wrong. Does that mean that apples no longer fall from trees? Of course not, but it does mean that while Newton's theory predicts events, its explanation of what was actually going on was wrong. Does it mean that the world would have better off without it? Of course not.

Would we be better off without the kind of unthinking stubbornnes that characterizes too much of what people call "faith" these days? I think we would. Would we be better off not attaching ourselves too strongly to "faith" beliefs that can never be tested or verified? Again, I think we would. In large part, it's a matter of judgment and balance.

Addressing legitimate concerns in as respectful and thoughtful way as one can requires considerable Faith in the capacity of people to act with dignity and respect in response. At times that Faith is not rewarded, except that the effort itself is a reward of a kind. Anyone can be snide, rude, nasty, dismissive, arrogant, etc. Thinking things through in a calm and respectful manner takes work and Faith, too much of both for some apparently.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was going to say there is no point in arguing with "Guest" but I've change my mind. People with reprehensible viewpoints should be encouraged to share them. Once they've been identified we can give them a wide berth.

[Guest Paul]

I was going to say there is no point in arguing with "Guest" but I've change my mind.  People with reprehensible viewpoints should be encouraged to share them.  Once they've been identified we can give them a wide berth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A large, empty bowl is the easiest to fill.