Jump to content

Answers on Kearny HS teacher controversy


Guest Paul

Recommended Posts

I'm a Christian.

This teacher and anyone who agrees with him is a disgrace to the faith.  Jesus would never have acted in such a hateful way and said that a girl would go to hell to her faith.  Jesus was compassionate to everyone. 

If you know anything, you would know that Jews, Christians and Muslims all worship the God of Abraham. 

There is also no reason that God did not create evolution, just like he created everything else.  Why couldn't God have been the source of the Big Bang?  By denying evolution, you all make yourselves honestly look like idiots to scientists, and this is why we have so few scientists believing in God.  Get some sense and realize that evolution and God can go hand in hand the same as God and creationism.  Evolution is creationism, just at a slower pace. 

Anyway, I just wanted to say that those who really follow Jesus' teachings who are Christians are ashamed of this teacher and his supporters' conduct.  You make us all look bad and will be the downfall of Christianity.

Gloria, I hope there is a place in your heaven for the Buddhist, the Wiccan, the atheist and the Humanist, too. After all, everyone means everyone. At least that's how I see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 390
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Sherman, we have not filed a lawsuit, even to this day. We sent four letters through the school district's entire chain of command, practically begging for a resolution. They did not even have the courtesy to respond, until I finally got their attorney on the phone one day; after trying to evade my question, he finally told me that what they do about what happens in my son's classroom was not my concern. As for the retaliation, they know perfectly well what is going on, and obviously choose to defend their teacher, but not their student.

You mention chain of command. If this bothered your son so much or you, my question to you is this. Did your son before doing what he did talk to the teacher? Did you called, e-mailed or went to the school to talk to the teacher? Did you go to Parents Conferences so could meet the teacher and talk to him?

If you are following the chain of command the order would be the teacher, if that did not work than the administration. Why did you skip that part?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mention chain of command. If this bothered your son so much or you, my question to you is this. Did your son before doing what he did talk to the teacher? Did you called, e-mailed or went to the school to talk to the teacher? Did you go to Parents Conferences so could meet the teacher and talk to him?

If you are following the chain of command the order would be the teacher, if that did not work than the administration. Why did you skip that part?

Because the teacher was obviously on an evangelical mission and would only have stopped the behavior in my son's class, continuing it in every other. My son is concerned about the violation of the Constitution not only for himself, but for others, and chose to take the matter over teacher's head. He has so stated on several radio and TV broadcasts where he has been interviewed. I fully support that, as do many others who see this as part of a bigger issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the teacher was obviously on an evangelical mission and would only have stopped the behavior in my son's class, continuing it in every other. My son is concerned about the violation of the Constitution not only for himself, but for others, and chose to take the matter over teacher's head. He has so stated on several radio and TV broadcasts where he has been interviewed. I fully support that, as do many others who see this as part of a bigger issue.

So I guess I can call you a liar as well.

You said you follow the chain of commands.

Chain of command starts at the first link.

The first link was the teacher.

You should be concern with things that affects your child, your son did not do this for others he (you) did for you own propaganda. Going to the teacher first would not brought you this far. True?

Did the others students asked your son to represent them?

Did the other students nominated Matt as their LEADER?

Did the other students even know from the begining what Matt was up to?

I do mean one student (MATT) I mean the class.

I think these are very fair questions since Matt is speaking for OTHERS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest_Janet_*

I take exception to the editorial on the front page of the website, along with those contributors who suggest that the Board of Education has not taken sufficiently appropriate action in response to the LeClairs' allegation that Mr. P was preaching in class. Removing Mr. P. from class would have left the class without a regular teacher. This is never a good result and the class would have suffered. It could also have led to polarizing retribution from students who supported Mr. P despite his alleged inappropriate remarks. It also would have likely resulted in an immediate grievance by Mr. P. and resulting litigation. Tenured teachers are employed pursuant to contract, and have rights regarding how and if they can be disciplined. Disciplinary litigation is expensive to the taxpayers with no guarantee of success. If cessation of inappropriate behavior by the teacher is the end goal, the goal can be, and apparently was obtained, through the guidance given by the school administrators, and no further action need be taken. If punishment is the goal, then we have entered into an entirely different issue. Why is punishment necessary if behavior has been corrected?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You must be living in Iran. This is the United States of America, a VERY christian nation.  97% of american citizens celebrate christmas, our currency reads "In God We Trust".

THis is a VERY ignorant statement.

The population of non-christians is FAR greater than 3%. In 2001 79.8% of america considered themselves "christian" that number was shrinking somewhat rapidly, so by this year it should be even less. So in 2001 AT LEAST 20% of americans didn't celebrate a "christian" christmas. That doesn't mean that they didn't celebrate christmas at all though. I personally celebrate christmas every year and I'm agnostic, but I realize that christmas has long since ceased to be a primarily religious holiday and is now more of a celebration of capitalism than anything else.

It's funny that you bring up that "in god we trust" is on our currency...it's ironic since if there is a "god" of america, it's the dollar, itself....that's the god we all trust in.

America is capitalist, NOT CHRISTIAN!

(Here is the source of my info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_...e_United_States you should really try reaserching something before just pulling figures out of thin air and making yourself look unintelligent)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate your comments, but evolution is a part of the science curriculum at Kearny High School. It is inappropriate for the history teacher to interject himself into science, in which he obviously has no training.

In addition, I wish people uniformly believed in the Constitution, but they don't.

FOOLS! You'll all be sorry when they find the remains of Noah's Ark with Dinosaur Bones on them!!! Your belief in evolution is as misplaced as your faith in Gravity!!! Moreover, if we never allow our teachers to preach in class - how will we ever create the mindless drones needed to perform the menial tasks required of our society without resorting to revolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mention chain of command. If this bothered your son so much or you, my question to you is this. Did your son before doing what he did talk to the teacher? Did you called, e-mailed or went to the school to talk to the teacher? Did you go to Parents Conferences so could meet the teacher and talk to him?

If you are following the chain of command the order would be the teacher, if that did not work than the administration. Why did you skip that part?

Why would some one speak to the teacher. The teacher was wrong! The proper thing would have been for the powers to be to speak to the teacher and then call Mathew and his parents to school for a meeting with the Superintendent, Principal and the teacher.

In this meeting they should have all apologized and insured Mathew and his family that this type of behavior from a teacher was not acceptable .

End of story and chain of command!

I hope Mathew does a CD....a TV Movie....... and is on Oprah!!!!!

Go for it Mathew!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am Paul LaClair, father of Matthew LaClair. I am opening this topic to invite all concerned, in whatever way they may be concerned, to ask questions and engage in a respectful and thoughtful discussion of this incident. I may post threads myself to initiate topics.

I am doing this because if people are going to discuss this, it should be discussed in a thoughtful and respectful way. There is no call for the vicious attacks that have been publicly posted against a young man whose actions were not motivated by self-interest, but by a passionate commitment to our Constitution, separation of church and state, the integrity and value of science, the quality of education and the rule of law. With all due respect to those who have presumed to know Matthew's motives --- who have not been the least bit respectful in some cases --- I am certain that I know him better than you do.

All appropriate and respectful questions will be answered. All personal attacks will be ignored.

It is commendable that you had the courage to oppose your teacher's proselytizing in class. Mr. Paszkiewicz's statements, "If you reject his gift of salvation, then you know where you belong" and ...that only Christians had a place in heaven, are not only offensive; but they definitely violate the boundary between church and state. How would a Muslim feel in his class? One of the tenets of Christianity is acceptance of those who have different beliefs. Mr. Paszkiewicz can freely express his religious ideology in church and lecture halls, but school is not an appropriate venue. The breathtaking ignorance and viciousness of the people who are vilifying you is extremely disturbing. This behavior is regressive. Remember the Salem witch trials, the crusades? Christianity can certainly be brutal. Apparently these people have forgotten that one of our rights is freedom of religion. Demonizing those of another faith in a public school setting is abridging this freedom. This country needs more people like you who has the strength of his own belief system and has the courage to oppose those who trample on your rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the teacher was obviously on an evangelical mission and would only have stopped the behavior in my son's class, continuing it in every other. My son is concerned about the violation of the Constitution not only for himself, but for others, and chose to take the matter over teacher's head. He has so stated on several radio and TV broadcasts where he has been interviewed. I fully support that, as do many others who see this as part of a bigger issue.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When you say obviously, is that your opinion he would not have stopped without taking the matter over his head? Are you saying that talking to the teacher and the schools superintendent the matter would have continued?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take exception to the editorial on the front page of the website, along with those contributors who suggest that the Board of Education has not taken sufficiently appropriate action in response to the LeClairs' allegation that Mr. P was preaching in class.  Removing Mr. P. from class would have left the class without a regular teacher.  This is never a good result and the class would have suffered.  It could also have led to polarizing retribution from students who supported Mr. P despite his alleged inappropriate remarks.  It also would have likely resulted in an immediate grievance by Mr. P.  and resulting litigation.  Tenured teachers are employed pursuant to contract, and have rights regarding how and if they can be disciplined.  Disciplinary litigation is expensive to the taxpayers with no guarantee of success.  If cessation of inappropriate behavior by the teacher is the end goal, the goal can be, and apparently was obtained, through the guidance given by the school administrators, and no further action need be taken.  If punishment is the goal, then we have entered into an entirely different issue.  Why is punishment necessary if behavior has been corrected?

Why is punishment necessary if behavior has been corrected?!? HUH?!?

That's like asking why do we punish law breakers even when they've stopped breaking the law.

The teacher needs to be punished because he broke the law and betrayed the trust that was put on him. His behavior has shown that he is not qualified to be a public school teacher.

> "Disciplinary litigation is expensive to the taxpayers with no guarantee of success."

If you think protecting freedom and the Constitution is expensive , try tyranny and lawlessness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I guess I can call you a liar as well.

You said you follow the chain of commands.

Chain of command starts at the first link.

The first link was the teacher.

You should be concern with things that affects your child, your son did not do this for others he (you) did for you own propaganda. Going to the teacher first would not brought you this far. True?

Did the others students asked your son to represent them?

Did the other students nominated Matt as their LEADER?

Did the other students even know from the begining what Matt was up to?

I do mean one student (MATT) I mean the class.

I think these are very fair questions since Matt is speaking for OTHERS.

Your questions are all completely irrelevant. And NO Matt is not speaking for others. He is speaking for himself.

The teacher has blatantly violated the US Consitution. Matt has irrefutable proof of that violation (the recordings.) The question now is what is an appropriate punishment for the teacher's behavior. Why does it matter whether other students have nominated Matt as their leader or not? Stop trying to shift the blame from the teacher to Matt.

Other students might have enjoyed the teacher's preaching in class. But that has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that the teacher has broken the law.

Let's say your son's teacher repeatedly talk about his favorite sexual positions in a history class and all students except your son enjoyed all that sex talk. Would that have stopped you from reporting the teacher's behavior to the authorities because other students didn't "nominate your son as their leader"? Didn't think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sherman, we have not filed a lawsuit, even to this day. We sent four letters through the school district's entire chain of command, practically begging for a resolution.

Thanks for correcting my misunderstanding. At this point, I would take some more forceful action, if it were my child who were the target of retaliation. Doesn't New Jersey have a Civil Rights Commission with staff you can contact to get some independent help?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for correcting my misunderstanding. At this point, I would take some more forceful action, if it were my child who were the target of retaliation. Doesn't New Jersey have a Civil Rights Commission with staff you can contact to get some independent help?

We are considering our next steps, if any. We will be guided not only by a technical view of our legal rights, but by what will be accomplised by any steps we take. We won't be submitting our decision to a committee for approval, but that is what will determine our course of action. Those who do not wish to believe it are free to continue to make fools of themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Manhattanite, on Dec 20 2006, 05:45 AM, wrote:

Thank you Paul and Matt for standing up for what is right. This country has been overrun by religious zealotry for far too long. It's unbelievable that in 2006 that we're still debating issues like this. Are we heading back to the days of the Scopes Monkey Trial?

What do you know about the Scopes trial, other than what you remember from "Inherit the Wind"?

And to all of Matt's detractors- What Mr. P. did was a direct violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Given that Paszkiewicz is not Congress, and given that the First Amendment does little more touching religion than restrict Congress from passing legislation that either prohibits the exercise of religion or establishing a religion, how can Paskiewicz directly violate the First Amendment?

Judging from some of the ridiculously juvenile personal attacks that I've seen on this discussion board that may[ ]be too difficult for you to understand. So I'll make it a bit more simple- Mr. P. broke the law. And he should be made to answer for his actions.

What's the standard penalty for breaking the First Amendment, assuming that's the law to which you refer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you. You are very insightful, and almost dead-on the money about what happened in our household. Matthew called his own shots, often against my advice, which proved to be inferior to his own judgments. After he called the teacher to account in Mr. Somma's office and produced the recordings, I wrote a "hands-off" letter and took over.

As for Matthew being the only student in the class, or many classes, who got it --- the facts speak for themselves. I truly hope our town will learn from this and begin to take citizenship seriously by teaching it to the young. Of course, we adults will have to get it, too.

Thank you, savior of Kearny! You needed a lawyer like you to defend us fromt he evil teachers...lol! You are hillarious Paul! By the way, the religious dsiplay in front of the town hall are still bothering me...please have them removed! Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, savior of Kearny! You needed a lawyer like you to defend us fromt he evil teachers...lol! You are hillarious Paul! By the way, the religious dsiplay in front of the town hall are still bothering me...please have them removed! Thanks!

It took you a week to come up with this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're ok with the setting up, leading questions, and recording without permission?

As a former KHS student, I must support what Matt did. While I had no history teachers that promoted religion in class and Mr. P was a mere child when I graduated. I did have a teacher who used his classroom as a political platform for his own future career in politics. I recall this teacher asking by a show of hands how many parents would be voting for him and how many would'nt. I wish back then I had the same courage to come forward and say somthing. As for the recording by Matt, he did nothing wrong I'm sure Paul has made this clear and I shall also for all those who don't listen. Matt did nothing illegal in recording the class without " Mr. P " permission. A quick google search for NJ wiretapping laws will explain all. As long as Matt was party to the conversation no consent to record is needed. Just the same as if you and I were having a conversation I could legally record that conversation without your knowledge or consent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Keith Brown-Marshall,Mo
The Yaweh of the Old Testament is a jealous, child abusing, misogynistic, casually murderous ethnic cleanser, as the following examples serve to illustrate:

Genesis 19:5-8

And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them (i.e. sodomize them).

And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,

And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.

Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

In other words, Lot says it's OK to gang-rape his daughters, just be so kind as to leave these the angels of Yahweh who have come to warn him about the impending destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah alone.  Whatever else this strange story means, it gives one a good idea of the status of women in a culture ruled by Yahweh.

Exodus 32:4

Aaron got everybody together to pool their gold and make a golden calf, and made an altar so they could all start sacrificing to it.  Well you shouldn't be fooling around behind Yahweh's back, cause he's gonna send Moses down the mountain as his draconian enforcer.  Moses races down the mountain carrying the stone tablets.  Upon the sight of the golden calf he becomes so enraged he drops the stone tablets and breaks them (fortunately Yahweh gave him a replacement set, so that was all right).  Moses seizes the golden calf, burns it, grinds it into powder, mixes it with water, and forces everyone to drink it.  Then he tells everyone in the the tribe of Levi to grab a sword and kill as many people as possible, some 3000 or more.  But that wasn't enough to assuage Yahweh's jealous sulk, as his parting shot he unleashes a plague on the hapless survivors.

Behold Yahweh -- the kind, benevolent, judicious, righteous role model for all of mankind...

Hebrews 11:17

This is the "wonderful" story of Abraham, who upon receiving a hallucination from

Yahweh, comes within moments of killing his son Isaac.  Fortunately for Isaac, a second hallucination of Yahweh by Abraham saves his life.  In this day and age Abraham would be locked up as a child abuser.  Fortunately we do not derive our modern standards of human behavior from the examples set forth in this ancient work of dark fiction.

Judges 11:29-40

Jepthath promises to sacrifice the first living thing he sees upon his return home if Yahweh grants him victory over the Ammonites.  The first living thing he sees when he returns home is his daughter, his only child, and Yahweh does not see fit to intervene in his burnt offering of her, as he did in the case of Isaac.

Yet another example of Yahweh's misogyny...

Numbers 15:32-36

When the tribe of Moses found the man gathering sticks on the Sabbath, what did Yahweh tell them to do?  And the Lord said unto Moses the man shall be surely put to death, and the congregation stoned him and he died. 

Did this innocent stick gatherer have a family, a wife and children to mourn for him?

Numbers 25:4

For the sin of flirting with a rival god, in this case Baal, Yahweh reacts with characteristic jealous rage.  Yaweh says to Moses, "Take all the leaders of the people and execute them in broad daylight before the Lord, so that the fierce anger of the Lord may turn away from Israel."

Joshua 2:1-22, 6:1-27

Oh yes, here's another nice story.  This book in general is noteworthy for its bloodthirsty massacres, and the xenophobic relish with which records them.  In the case of Jericho, Yahweh orders the Israelites take this city for their own, and kill everyone -- every man, woman, child, donkey, sheep, chicken and cow.  Because Yahweh says they're all sinners and it's OK. 

And the New Testament, things don't really get that much better...

Does everyone who holds up the Bible as a literal moral standard for society have a clear idea of what is actually written in it?  How can anyone today base their life on such appalling role model as Yaweh, and even worse self-righteously force this evil monster on the rest of us?

"Religion is an insult to human dignity.  With or without it you have good people doing good things, and bad people doing bad things.  But for good people to do evil things it takes religion" -- Steven Weinberg, Nobel prize-winning physicist

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully, as when they do it from religious conviction." --  Blaise Pascal

To Matthew LaClair, bravo for your courage to stand up for rational thinking.  The above is just a small sampling of the undefendable passages found in both the Old and New Testaments.  If you haven't read it already, I highly suggest "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, where the above examples and many more will be found.

Nicolas Danborn

Seattle, Washington

Epitome O' Hypocrisy

It was apparently sacrilidge to gather sticks on the Sabbath, but it was ok to gather stones and use them to kill someone?

Please, can any contemporary Christian defend this type of hypocrisy? I would like to hear your thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest A. V. Blom
Epitome O' Hypocrisy

    It was apparently sacrilidge to gather sticks on the Sabbath, but it was ok to gather stones and use them to kill someone?

  Please, can any contemporary Christian defend this type of hypocrisy? I would like to hear your thoughts.

Well, as said previously: "OBEY" is the only important law in the Old Testament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul,

I appreciate your willingness to respond to civil questions. Hopefully you will consider my questions to be civil. You may have answered my first one already--if so I apologize, but I stopped looking around page 10 of this thread. Q 1. What is your definition of proselytizing?

Q 2. More specifically, what portion of the "dranger.com classtranscript" do you think constitutes proselytizing, advocacy, or preaching? In other replies you've indicated something along the lines of "if you can't see it I can't help you." Surely if you feel it is so blatant you should be able to point out the two or three most egregious examples.

Q 3. Presupposing your answer to Q 2. centers around the "going to hell" portion of the dialog, would have persued this endeavor if the teacher qualified his response with something along the lines of "Christians believe that if you do not accept Jesus' sacrifice as propitiation for your sins you are condemed to spend eternity in hell?" The difference being the answer attributed to Christians in general rather than the teacher's position/belief.

Having spent some time in classrooms as a teacher my read of the transcript is the teacher is someone responsive to his students and is trying to promote discussion and thought. IMHO, your son's questions seem to be driving to a point he wished to capture on his recording device. Q 4. Did you at any point advise (coach) your son regarding the questions he asked in the classroom or subsequently the discussion with the principal?

Q 5. Is there some record of what question(s) was specifically aksed in the principal's office? Again, IMHO, the dialog in the classroom transcript does not equal proselytizing, advocacy, or preaching. This sounds more like something that is in the eye of the beholder. Q 6. Could the teacher's denial be true (i.e. not the lie you/Matt consider it to be) in his opinion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, as said previously: "OBEY" is the only important law in the Old Testament.

And none of Ten Commandments are of any importance?

Mind ... shrinking ... God ... bad ... can't think ... for self ... hitch wagon ... to atheist propoganda ... aaaah! aaaah! aaaah!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul,

I appreciate your willingness to respond to civil questions.  Hopefully you will consider my questions to be civil.  You may have answered my first one already--if so I apologize, but I stopped looking around page 10 of this thread.  Q 1. What is your definition of proselytizing?

Q 2. More specifically, what portion of the "dranger.com classtranscript" do you think constitutes proselytizing, advocacy, or preaching?  In other replies you've indicated something along the lines of "if you can't see it I can't help you."  Surely if you feel it is so blatant you should be able to point out the two or three most egregious examples.

Q 3. Presupposing your answer to Q 2. centers around the "going to hell" portion of the dialog, would have persued this endeavor if the teacher qualified his response with something along the lines of "Christians believe that if you do not accept Jesus' sacrifice as propitiation for your sins you are condemed to spend eternity in hell?"  The difference being the answer attributed to Christians in general rather than the teacher's position/belief.

Having spent some time in classrooms as a teacher my read of the transcript is the teacher is someone responsive to his students and is trying to promote discussion and thought.  IMHO, your son's questions seem to be driving to a point he wished to capture on his recording device. Q 4.  Did you at any point advise (coach) your son regarding the questions he asked in the classroom or subsequently the discussion with the principal?

Q 5.  Is there some record of what question(s) was specifically aksed in the principal's office?  Again, IMHO, the dialog in the classroom transcript does not equal proselytizing, advocacy, or preaching.  This sounds more like something that is in the eye of the beholder.  Q 6.  Could the teacher's denial be true (i.e. not the lie you/Matt consider it to be) in his opinion?

I think your questions are entirely civil, and I thank you for that. My definition of proselytizing is the standard one, i.e., attempting to convert others to a faith, in this case Christianity.

Paszkiewicz emphasized in open class that Jesus' last words on earth were to make disciples of all men. He was using the classroom in an attempt to do that. I don't think there's any other reasonable interpretation of what he did and said.

Examples include Paszkiewicz's assertion that the universe had to be created by a being, that all non-Christians will spend eternity in hell (and belong there), and that the Bible is proved true by biblical prophecies, which he claimed have been verified to the letter.

Even if Paszkiewicz had been discussing Christian beliefs generally, there would still be a question why this was arising in a US History class: in some contexts it might be appropriate, but these discussions came nowhere close to that.

At no time did I coach Matthew in what questions to ask. However, his questions surely reflect his religious training, by me, and I am gratified to know he was listening all these years.

I do not agree with you that what occurred in the classroom can be interpreted as anything short of proselytizing or, if you prefer another term, evangelizing for Paszkiewicz's particular version of what he calls Christianity. I say it that way because I think many Christians don't see it as particularly Christian. It's possible, I suppose, for some people to convince themselves of just about anything, but I think the comment "you got the big fish . . . you got the big Christian guy who is a teacher" is an admission of having been caught.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just putting my two cents in--I don't expect Paul to deal with two conversations at once.

I think your questions are entirely civil, and I thank you for that. My definition of proselytizing is the standard one, i.e., attempting to convert others to a faith, in this case Christianity.

A faith, in this case Christianity.

Paszkiewicz emphasized in open class that Jesus' last words on earth were to make disciples of all men.

Context? That's not in the 9-14 transcript, from what I can tell.

He was using the classroom in an attempt to do that. I don't think there's any other reasonable interpretation of what he did and said.

Opinion noted, but let's not beg the question.

Examples include Paszkiewicz's assertion that the universe had to be created by a being,

Don't Jews, Muslims, and quite a few others believe that?

And isn't it a classic philosophical problem apart from that?

"'That the supreme god of Plato’s cosmos should wear the mask of a manual worker is a triumph of the philosophical imagination over ingrained social prejudice. ... But this divine mechanic is not a drudge. He is an artist or, more precisely, what an artist would have to be in Plato’s conception of art: not the inventor of new form, but the imposer of pre-existing form on as yet formless material.'"

http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/timaeus.htm

that all non-Christians will spend eternity in hell (and belong there),

... taking Paszkiewicz out of context.

That is not something that Paszkiewicz presented as a dogma to be accepted by the class, but as part of a description of Christianity in response to a student question. Specifically, relating to the problem of evil (another classic philosophical question).

and that the Bible is proved true by biblical prophecies, which he claimed have been verified to the letter.

Again, a student asked why a given statement should be accepted, and Paszkiewicz gave a response in keeping with the view of one who accepts the Bible account (the only POV relevant to the question that was asked). That view could encompass sects of Judaism and Islam, as well as others.

What specific religion is Paszkiewicz pushing, again?

Even if Paszkiewicz had been discussing Christian beliefs generally, there would still be a question why this was arising in a US History class: in some contexts it might be appropriate, but these discussions came nowhere close to that.

The 9-14 transcipt gives some indication that the general topic is populism.

Paul can't see any connect whatever that might make a comparison of faith-based notions relevant?

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/...ay.cfm?HHID=157

At no time did I coach Matthew in what questions to ask. However, his questions surely reflect his religious training, by me, and I am gratified to know he was listening all these years.

How come Matthew appeared to have no idea how Christianity addresses the problem of evil?

I do not agree with you that what occurred in the classroom can be interpreted as anything short of proselytizing or, if you prefer another term, evangelizing for Paszkiewicz's particular version of what he calls Christianity. I say it that way because I think many Christians don't see it as particularly Christian.

Indeed, given that an intelligent creator is an idea found in dozens of religious traditions.

It's possible, I suppose, for some people to convince themselves of just about anything, but I think the comment "you got the big fish . . . you got the big Christian guy who is a teacher" is an admission of having been caught.

Caught in what way, such that the context is respected?

Was Matthew fishing with his tape recorder or not?

FWIW, the quotation of Paszkiewicz here is apparently not from a recorded source, but from the recollection of an interested party (Matthew LaClair).

The story containing that quotation appears at the Lippard blog, but without (AFAICT) referring to the original source, and without revealing the source of the quotation--not exactly standard journalistic practice.

You know the original source for that one, Paul? Anybody?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...