Answers on Kearny HS teacher controversy

[Guest A. Scalia]

Many of those who oppose the Roe v. Wade decision (irrespective of their feelings on the act of abortion) do so on their interpretation that it is not based on an actual constitutional principle but rather because the left is "throwing away the principle... creating a rule of men, not a rule of law." In his dissent, Justice White wrote in pertinent part:

"I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court."

I can see principle and reason in evaluating an argument and I understand how systems of law work. The principle of my Reagan/Clinton argument was that you showed your bias against the right by choosing to condemn President Reagan's prayer while ignoring the significant amount of pew time that President Clinton enjoyed while in his official capacity. It seems in this case that you are the one who took up the charge against the free exercise of an individual's religion - that of President Reagan. I surmised that if you were making an attack against the right, then my jab about President Clinton's moral imprudences might be inbounds. I don't know if Justice White would have agreed that it is only the right who throw away legal principles to suit their particular fancy.

Quote=Guest_Paul_*,Dec 1 2006, 11:01 AM]

This post is a perfect example of the problem. Too many people do not understand how systems of law work. They look at the facts of particular cases instead of looking at the principle. That is one of many reasons our country has become so divided: the right abandoned what used to be a common commitment to legal principles under which our country flourished for more than 200 years. So when they don't like the result of a particular case, some people are willing to throw away the principle. This is especially characteristic of the right. That results in rule of men, not rule of law, exactly the opposite of what the Framers gave us and our Constitutional system demands. The writer here thinks he's making a good argument, I presume, but what he/she is really doing is illustrating exactly why this way of thinking undermines the democratic system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest Paul]

Many of those who oppose the Roe v. Wade decision (irrespective of their feelings on the act of abortion) do so on their interpretation that it is not based on an actual constitutional principle but rather because the left is "throwing away the principle... creating a rule of men, not a rule of law." In his dissent, Justice White wrote in pertinent part:

"I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court."

I can see principle and reason in evaluating an argument and I understand how systems of law work. The principle of my Reagan/Clinton argument was that you showed your bias against the right by choosing to condemn President Reagan's prayer while ignoring the significant amount of pew time that President Clinton enjoyed while in his official capacity. It seems in this case that you are the one who took up the charge against the free exercise of an individual's religion - that of President Reagan. I surmised that if you were making an attack against the right, then my jab about President Clinton's moral imprudences might be inbounds. I don't know if Justice White would have agreed that it is only the right who throw away legal principles to suit their particular fancy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Historically, Reagan did things in public settings that every public official before him knew not to do. This does not mean that Clinton and many others did not pander to popular sentiment thereafter. They did, and they are.

Roe v. Wade is another matter entirely. Don't assume that I don't agree with many parts of your argument.

[Guest Paul]

Speaking of history: History is loaded with examples of nations that have torn themselves apart over religion. Catholics and Protestants in Britain and Ireland; Hindus, Muslims and their sects in India and Pakistan; the current disaster in Iraq; the list goes on and on and on throughout history.

Can anyone cite even one example of a nation that was torn apart by separating church and state? I don't think so. The principle is that the state will not establish or promote religion, but will leave all free to worship as they please on their time and in their own ways.

Given the clear and unwavering pattern throughout history, why would any sensible people want to do anything except what the Supreme Court has announced in cases like Engel v. Vitale? The only reason I can see is to push one's own views on others by the power of numbers, but that is not consistent with "liberty and justice for all." That is the principle and the issue of justice we are trying to defend.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Still no answer from the apologists.

[Guest Paul]

ENGEL V. VITALE

Justice Black delivered the opinion of the Court.

The respondent Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 9, New Hyde Park, New York, acting in its official capacity under state law, directed the School District's principal to cause the following prayer to be said aloud by each class in the presence of a teacher at the beginning of each school day:

Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessing upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.

This daily procedure was adopted on the recommendation of the State Board of Regents, a governmental agency created by the State Constitution to which the New York Legislature has granted broad supervisory, executive, and legislative powers over the State's public school system. These state officials composed the prayer which they recommended and published as a part of their "Statement on Moral and Spiritual Training in the Schools," saying: "We believe that this Statement will be subscribed to by all men and women of good will, and we call upon all of them to aid in giving life to our program."...

We think that by using its public school system to encourage recitation of the Regents' prayer, the State of New York has adopted a practice wholly incon-sistent with the Establishment Clause. There can, of course, be no doubt that New York's program of daily classroom invocation of God's blessings as prescribed in the Regents' prayer is a religious activity. It is a solemn avowal of divine faith and supplication for the blessing of the Almighty. The nature of such a prayer has always been religious, none of the respondents has denied this and the trial court expressly so found...

The petitioners contend among other things that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents' prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State's use of the Regents' prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with that contention since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.

It is a matter of history that this very practice of establishing governmentally composed prayers for religious services was one of the reasons which caused many of our early colonists to leave England and seek religious freedom in America. The Book of Common Prayer, which was created under governmental direction and which was approved by Acts of Parliament in 1548 and 1549, set out in minute detail the accepted form and content of prayer and other religious ceremonies to be used in the established, tax-supported Church of England...

What part of this opinion did the teacher violate?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The establishment clause prohibits a public school teacher from preaching his personal religious beliefs every bit as much as it prohibits him from leading a prayer. It violates the establishemt clause. This is well settled in the law.

[Guest Paul]

When I was young and impressionable growing up and attending school (I'm sure you can tell Catholic school - St. Cecilia's) the concept of a heaven and a hell served a very valid useful purpose. I'm not sure of the exact context, as I wasn't there, were you?  I think more people should be aquainted with them, every religion has their own version of heaven and hell. Hopefully, this helps to make the world a more civilized place in which children grow up and are educated.

We constantly use them: what in hell?; everyone under heaven!; etc.

EDUCATION and especially CRITICAL THINKING are enhanced by different viewpoints! I understand there needs to be a seperation of Church and State.

Paul, if we didn't have different viewpoints why would we need lawyers?

Perhaps if more people grew up with a concept of heaven and hell; or even WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND it would be a better world!

THANK GOD WE LIVE IN AMERICA! EVERY DAY I THANK GOD MY ANCECTORS WERE PERSECUTED FOR THEIR RELIGION AND MOVED HERE!!

IT'S GREAT TO BE AN AMERICAN - I'm not so sure I still believe in a "Heaven" or a "Hell" yet, I do live my life realizing THAT WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND

In other words, I do have afear of GOD and it's not a bad thing! Get it???????

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You may fear what you call God all you like. If you run around telling people who don't share your concept of God that they belong in hell, I suspect you'll find some of them won't take to it very well. If you do it in an official public capacity, you violate the Constitution.

[Guest Paul]

Hey Paul,

If this was an atheist teaching the class, and having a DISCUSSION like the one your son recorded. Would you be here today?

I guess not.

Stop hiding behind every excuse you can find, and admit. The issue is no longer what happen in that classroom, but you are out there to make an example of someone to try to proof your beliefs.

It's only a issue of Separation of Church and State because it did not go your way.

Show me how did he FORCED his beliefs upon the student. Show me where and when the RELIGIOUS activity took place.

He does not have any more DISCUSSION in the classroom,  what else are you after?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I presume you mean an atheist telling kids there is no God. I would oppose that too. Would you? What you do in that situation?

I've told you what we wanted. Inaccurate information must be corrected. The improper nature of the religious comments must be addressed. Quality control must be instituted.

[Guest Paul]

Paul- The majority of Kearny citizens have not been "harmed" by the words of teacher "P" because most are Christians themselves. They know the difference between preaching and just hearing ones opinions of religion. Maybe that is why it took 15 years for someone (your son) to feel offended and put a stop to it, which HAS been accomplished, I don't think anyone criticises your son for reporting this to the administration, I think that the majority of Kearny would not want ANY child harmed and would agree that knowing that just one child is harmed it should stop (which has been accomplished). I think we ALL agree that a warning to the teacher with possible termination should he continue to discuss "God" in school is the proper channels the administration should take.  This is where the issue should have ended, knowing the mission was accomplished.

My heart is breaking over this, a respected and well loved man has been called horrible names by your supporters, while, a loving, fun, caring and talented child has been alienated, threatened, and called horrible names by his peers.

As a mother of a 16 year old son myself, I am appalled at the thought of the remote possibility that I would not be able to attend a meeting of adults with MY son without my being present. I am not a lawyer, I am only a high school graduated, and even I know that I have every right to attend such a meeting, I know I have every right to walk into school, sign a registry that I am on school property, and sit in on a class quietly and observe the class. And "God" help them if they try to stop me!

For the record-"You belong in hell" was a reference to himself and not to the students.

Now Paul, as far as this new can of worms you are trying to open, I have the PLEASURE of knowing many Muslim people. Some are dear friends, some are only acquaintances, and we have discussed our religions together often. I have asked questions to them and vise-a-Versa. I find it fascinating that we hold many similar beliefs. I am not offended by our differences.  Every single Muslim person that I have had the pleasure to meet has been loving, caring, friendly, sincere, humorous, ect. ect. , and yes, they have feelings too! If KHS has a Muslim teacher on staff, I would not mind if during a discussion in class, he or she expressed their opinion on their beliefs, I welcome my son to know about different beliefs, it teaches love and tolerance.

So in answer to your question, if a 15 year veteran teacher, who is well loved and respected by the students of KHS, and "happens" to be Muslim, and  has offended your son or any child, by expressing his opinion of belief (religion), I would support your son or any other child, by stopping it at once(just as you have). However, if you were to take steps further, as is the case with teacher "P", by creating a media circus in Kearny, up until that point, I will start to support the Muslim teacher.

As a final point, while I support your sons request to cease all religious dialog in school because it offends others and is against the law, I do not and will not support you if you should bring this issue to the courts for your financial benefit (the school budget has not been past for the last 8 years by the people of Kearny and would surely cause damage to an already struggling BOE),  or worse, to have someones life, family and  career destroyed.

To the people of Kearny- please, take a moment to reflect on this latest question of Paul LaClair's, really think about it, and please respond on this forum.

Paul asks:

"I (and others) keep asking the question, and none of Paszkiewicz's defenders will ever touch it: What would this look like if Paszkiewicz had been a Muslim telling Christian kids they're going to hell."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So why didn't Paszkiewicz apologize, correct his inappropriate and inaccurate comments and move on? Had that been done, this would have ended there.

Instead, he tried to blame Matt and deny what he had done. And while you may not think it newsworthy, news organizations and major civil liberties organizations do. The majority of Kearn-ites may not have been harmed, but the minority should not have to put up with this. That is what religious freedom for everyone is all about.

Unfair treatment to a minority often does not upset the majority. It's invisible to them. Read Ralph Ellison's classic novel. That's part of the problem.

[Guest Paul]

Anyone esle think Paul and his son have had enough of the spotlight? Thank GOD they live in America! One nation under God or is it Heaven, Paul? Don't believe in hell - then put this behind you and youe son so he is a little more accepted by his peers!!! For his sake! For GOD'S sake. But, mostly for our sake!!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We're doing fine, thanks, could do without the occasional abuse. We also appreciate that some of what appears here at KOTW does not necessarily represent the majority view in Kearny.

Perhaps you could explain to us how this is harming you.

[Guest Paul]

Mr. Laclair, this is still just your opinion.  It shows an inability to look at a situation in other ways, keeping in mind that we all don't have to think like you to be right.

It also makes me question your reasons for doing this...it looks like there's more behind this than correcting a problem with a teacher at the local high school.  It looks like what you're doing is gearing up in order to push your own political agenda.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In other words, since it's my opinion, I should keep it to myself. If challenged, I should not explain. I opened the topic to explain. With all due respect, I'm not the one who is insisting on being right at all costs.

You are entirely correct that there is a political dimension to this on both sides. That's why it's in the news.

[Guest Paul]

And while you're reading the constitution, you might notice that NO WHERE does the constitution say anything about talking about religous topics in class. This business of "separation of church and state" has been blown way out of proportion.  The founding fathers were god fearing people, they never intended the word "god" to be taboo in our schools.  The radical left wackos have caused this insanity. This country was founded on Judeo-Christian values, it  says "In God We Trust" on our money, what further proof do we need.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Constitution prohibits government from establishing a religion. The law is very clear that this applies to our public schools and the teachers in them. I think most Americans have come to see the wisdom of that.

The Treaty of Ghent, entered into in the early days of our republic, explicitly states that the USA was not founded as a Christian nation. We have a secular Constitution that has worked for more than 200 years. It can even withstand "minor" encroachments like "In God We Trust" on our money. That doesn't mean government should be saying that.

[Guest Paul]

EDUCATION - lOOK UP THE DEFINITION IN THE DICTIONARY!!!!  It involves teaching, more importantly LEARNING. It's clearly dependent upon airing and dicussing both sides of any issue, everyone is entitled to their opinion. As young adults learn the opposing viewpoints they can question, debate, discuss and even argue over ertain viewpoints.  Isn't this a GREAT COUNTRY!!! Do you think any other country or press has the diametricaly opposite viewpoints disclosed or discussed in their schools or press as we do ???? Show me the passionate person about anything that doesn't cross the line occasionally - WE HAVE ALL LEARNED SOMETHING AND EVERYTHING SHOULD BE UNDER CONTROL from this point on.

Let's think about moving on AND DON'T FORGET TO THANK GOD THAT WE LIVE IN AMERICA, AND STAND AT ATTENTION EACH TIME WE PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD! Anyone who thinks there are better countries to live in should consider buying a ticket and visiting them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That argument would make some sense if the topic was a part of the curriculum, which these topics were not. Moreover, discussions like this generally take place among the students. This teacher used the classroom as a soapbox and a pulpit simultaneously. Mr. P has a soothing manner, which is probably one reason the students like him; however, these sessions amounted to intellectual bullying. That is horrid pedagogy and mighty self-centered.

[Jake]

Still no answer from the apologists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You seem adept at being selective as well. I notice there are many posts you choose not to answer to. As long as you choose to answer only a select few, you should afford the same right to others. People answer to what moves them. Although you appear to, sometimes desperately, want to elevate this to a greater level it's still only what it appears to be--an overreaction to a matter that from all accounts has already been corrected.

[Guest Guest]

So why didn't Paszkiewicz apologize, correct his inappropriate and inaccurate comments and move on? Had that been done, this would have ended there.

***Because you do not agree with him or his beliefs it does not mean he has to apologize. One is entitled to his opinion. In fact that's exactly what he said, it was his opinion. His rights as a citizen does not stop as he enters a public building. "Correct his inappropriate and in anccurate comments?" Correct according to who? You? Who made you the judge of what is wrong and what is right? Because you are a lawyer? None of that makes you qualified to make judgements to what is wrong or right. The sad truth is that you do not want this to stop. You are keeping this alive, because again you did not get your way. You sound like a spoiled little child, that didn't get his way. So you cry and whine until someone gets tired and gives in.

Instead, he tried to blame Matt and deny what he had done. And while you may not think it newsworthy, news organizations and major civil liberties organizations do. The majority of Kearn-ites may not have been harmed, but the minority should not have to put up with this. That is what religious freedom for everyone is all about.

***If you were such a concerned parent, when this came up you should gone to the teacher first. By the way did Matt do that? Did he go to the teacher? Because I did hear on the recording the teacher saying that if the subject would be offensive to anyone the discussion would be done. I heard your son responding NO. In fact seems to me your son was enjoying the discussion. In fact the whole class was enjoying the discussion.

By the way, did your son move to a different class? Because that was also another alternative. But I guess that would not make the big news? Correct?

I saw your answer to the question: If this was an atheist teaching the class, would all this have happened? You said yes. I don't think so. Your son would not have asked leading questions. Admit it Paul. The issue isn't Mr. P. it's JESUS.

By the way, there was another Paul, like you, who hated Jesus. His story is in Acts chapter 9 (especially verses 4 & 5).

[Guest Guest]

And while you're reading the constitution, you might notice that NO WHERE does the constitution say anything about talking about religous topics in class. This business of "separation of church and state" has been blown way out of proportion.  The founding fathers were god fearing people, they never intended the word "god" to be taboo in our schools.  The radical left wackos have caused this insanity. This country was founded on Judeo-Christian values, it  says "In God We Trust" on our money, what further proof do we need.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Finally, a person making sense.

[Guest Guest]

The Constitution prohibits government from establishing a religion. The law is very clear that this applies to our public schools and the teachers in them. I think most Americans have come to see the wisdom of that.

The Treaty of Ghent, entered into in the early days of our republic, explicitly states that the USA was not founded as a Christian nation. We have a secular Constitution that has worked for more than 200 years. It can even withstand "minor" encroachments like "In God We Trust" on our money. That doesn't mean government should be saying that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is clear that the Constitution prohibits government from establishing a religion.

It has been lawmakers, judges, and lawyers that have spun the Constitution into an instrument for removing talk of god and religion from public schools.

And you have tried to spin this issue from a teacher informally talking about his personal beliefs into an out of control man preaching and converting his students.

I agree, the Constitution can withstand minor encroachments, the question is can you?

[Guest Guest_Paul_*]

You seem adept at being selective as well.  I notice there are many posts you choose not to answer to.  As long as you choose to answer only a select few, you should afford the same right to others.  People answer to what moves them.  Although you appear to, sometimes desperately, want to elevate this to a greater level it's still only what it appears to be--an overreaction to a matter that from all accounts has already been corrected.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I said I will answer all relevant and appropriate questions. I have and I will. If you think I've not answered such a question, please point it out to me, and I will answer it. I don't think there are any.

By contrast, the questions that the apologists ignore go to the heart of the matter. It's obvious why they're not being answered. The apologists' position is not defensible.

[Jake]

In other words, since it's my opinion, I should keep it to myself. If challenged, I should not explain. I opened the topic to explain. With all due respect, I'm not the one who is insisting on being right at all costs.

You are entirely correct that there is a political dimension to this on both sides. That's why it's in the news.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, excuse me. From here, it looked more like an attempt at justification.

With all due respect........you're not out to win at all costs? It appears that's exactly what you're doing on all counts.

No, it's in the news because you called the media to make sure that happened.

[Guest Guest_voter_*]

I said I will answer all relevant and appropriate questions. I have and I will. If you think I've not answered such a question, please point it out to me, and I will answer it. I don't think there are any.

By contrast, the questions that the apologists ignore go to the heart of the matter. It's obvious why they're not being answered. The apologists' position is not defensible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My question is what has the Members of the Kearny Board of Education done with respect to this matter. I noticed that there was a closed session in October to discuss Personnel matters. Was this matter brought up at that time? What is the procedure for bringing a teacher up on charges? Was that procedure followed? What is the outcome? Is there an appeal process? Is that open to the public?

[Guest Paul]

My question is what has the Members of the Kearny Board of Education done with respect to this matter.  I noticed that there was a closed session in October to discuss Personnel matters.  Was this matter brought up at that time?  What is the procedure for bringing a teacher up on charges?  Was that procedure followed?  What is the outcome?  Is there an appeal process?  Is that open to the public?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Since the October closed session was closed, we don't know what they discussed. However, Paszkiewicz was not there, so I presume he was not given a Rice notice. (This is the name for the notice to be given to a teacher the Board is going to discuss.)

I don't know if a citizen can bring a teacher up on charges. I have been told that the teacher has the option whether hearings on charges are open or closed, and that the public does not have the right to know what action was taken, if any.

[Jake]

I said I will answer all relevant and appropriate questions. I have and I will. If you think I've not answered such a question, please point it out to me, and I will answer it. I don't think there are any.

By contrast, the questions that the apologists ignore go to the heart of the matter. It's obvious why they're not being answered. The apologists' position is not defensible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You could start with these, but I suspect it's a pointless exercise. You seem very obviously bent on one course only, and appear to have been from the beginning.

KHS teacher controversy blog

Quote, Post #115, 11-27-2006 I have ask why legal action will follow?

Quote, Post #117, 11-27-2006, So what sacrifices has Matthew made for the soldiers?

Quote, Post #117, 11-27-2006, Does "the real work of citizenship" end when the limelight fades?

Quote, Post #124, 11-27-2006, The principal indicated?

(So what exactly did he say then? No, Matt, your parents are not allowed to come to a meeting as important as this?)

Quote, Post #127, 11-28-2006, How does Paul "know" that Mr. P lied?

(Did Matthew take a recorder in and record the meeting he attended with the principal and teacher also?)

Quote, Post #134, 11-29-2006, What are you seeking? An apology?

(If so, why? This makes no sense. The teacher owes you no apology.)

Answers to KHS teacher controversy Blog

Quote, Post #14, 11-26-2006, Then you fully acknowledge that the teacher's response was to STOP THE BEHAVIOR. Well, if he STOPPED THE BEHAVIOR, it would seem that the bulk of your significant ends were met, so why continue with the religion based concerns?

Quote, Post #14, 11-26-2006, why continue on the religion issue but for an application of leverage?

Quote, Post #19, 11-27-2006, As a parent, and you as an attorney, why in the world would you not attend the most important meeting of your family's lives?

Quote, Post #31, 11-27-2006, did your son ever express his concern with Mr Paszkiewicz in class or after class? Did you ever called Mr. Paszkiewicz? Did you ever e-mail or try to speak with Mr Paszkiewicz? Did you visit him during Parent Conferences?

Quote, Post #138, 12-4-2006, "Correct his inappropriate and in anccurate comments?" Correct according to who? You? Who made you the judge of what is wrong and what is right?

By the way, Paul, your questions to the "apologists" is off topic to the events at hand; your belief that they're at the "heart of the matter" just illustrates a difference in viewpoints. I don't think anyone is under obligation to enter into a historical discussion of religious conflicts with you, and the "apologists" have no need to defend themselves or their positions. You placed yourself in the public forum with the blog comments, and asked people to "put the heat on" you (if I remember correctly from an earlier blog entry); the public's actions aren't on trial or in question here with this particular incident. You, however, do seem to be spending an extraordinary amount of time defending and justifying your own actions and those of your son. Interesting.

[Guest Paul]

The establishment clause prohibits a public school teacher from preaching his personal religious beliefs every bit as much as it prohibits him from leading a prayer. It violates the establishemt clause. This is well settled in the law.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I neglected to mention that the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, adopted after the Civil War, extended the guarantees of liberty contained in the Bill of Rights to all citizens in their relationships to the states. The Fourteenth Amendment says that no citizen shall be deprived of equal protection of the laws. That means all citizens, and all the laws in all the states.

Few freedoms are more fundamental than the right to worship as we choose. There is no equality for a person in a minority religion when the dominant religion forces its way into the public schools, especially in a case as egregious as ours, where the teacher says that if you're not a Christian "you belong in hell."

Looking at the bigger picture, what we had before the Supreme Court finally took this seriously in 1962 (Engel v. Vitale) was the culturally dominant religion forcing itself on everyone else. The right wing spins this out as the creation of a new right, but it was just taking seriously the rights that had been there all along, since around 1868 when the 14th Amendment was ratified --- the same as blacks were forced to ride in the back of the bus before our country finally became more serious about equal rights in the 1950s and 1960s. Some people continue to insist that everything was just peachy before that, but that can only be explained by their being in the minority and not caring about equality for everyone else.

As a matter of history, some of the Framers did argue for the establishment of a Christian Constitution. That is not what the Framers adopted, however. That view did not prevail. The Constitution is distinctly and entirely secular, and has been so for the entire 217 years of its existence. The mere fact that some of the Framers did not agree does not alter the state's relationship to religion under American law.

Some people who are in the majority always have trouble seeing this. Yet some of these same people remind us how Christians were once a persecuted minority in the early days of the Christian religion; and in fact in some places Christians are still persecuted. It seems to me that the most humane and for that matter the most Christian rule is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you if the tables were turned. That means that the majority should not push its religion on the minority just because it has superior numbers. Religion is a personal matter, and everyone should be free to worship as they see fit without the government force-feeding the dominant religion on them. (Many Christians don't want the government in religion because they do not trust the government to deliver the message appropriately. Case in point: "You belong in hell.") That is the meaning and purpose behind the law.

[Guest Paul]

. . . I have the PLEASURE of knowing many Muslim people. Some are dear friends, some are only acquaintances, and we have discussed our religions together often. I have asked questions to them and vise-a-Versa. I find it fascinating that we hold many similar beliefs. I am not offended by our differences.  Every single Muslim person that I have had the pleasure to meet has been loving, caring, friendly, sincere, humorous, ect. ect. , and yes, they have feelings too! If KHS has a Muslim teacher on staff, I would not mind if during a discussion in class, he or she expressed their opinion on their beliefs, I welcome my son to know about different beliefs, it teaches love and tolerance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I enjoy these discussions, too. If you would like to put together a group where we can discuss these issues, Matt and I will be happy to come. We're not the least bit offended by these differences.

This could even be done in school, if the school could somehow pull together a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Confucian, a Wiccan, a Humanist, an atheist, an agnostic, etc., to have the discussion, where all participants were on an equal level of authority. Or, in a class on comparative religion, show and discuss any one of many excellent recorded discussions among people of different faiths. That would be enlightening and perfectly appropriate.

However, the teacher has control of the class. Whether Muslim, Christian, Humanist, or whatever, it is wrong for him or her to use that authority to push his or her religion, which is what happened here. So please, Mary, don't misunderstand what we're saying. There are times and places and ways to have this discussion. But not in that history class (it wasn't part of the curriculum anyway) in that way.

[Guest Guest]

My question is what has the Members of the Kearny Board of Education done with respect to this matter.  I noticed that there was a closed session in October to discuss Personnel matters.  Was this matter brought up at that time?  What is the procedure for bringing a teacher up on charges?  Was that procedure followed?  What is the outcome?  Is there an appeal process?  Is that open to the public?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The BOE is too busy trying to get the football team out of the Watchung conference. What makes you think they will do important things. At least the teacher in question here teaches, not like the coach who makes a ton of money to do nothing. Then they wonder why our budget doesn\'t pass in this Town. Stop paying big bucks to worthless staff and see what happens

[Guest Paul]

Oh, excuse me.  From here, it looked more like an attempt at justification. 

With all due respect........you're not out to win at all costs?  It appears that's exactly what you're doing on all counts.

No, it's in the news because you called the media to make sure that happened.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't have the power to demand a full-page story in the Jersey Journal, or any of the articles that have appeared in the paper. I could call the newspaper about my cat, too, but I doubt they'd run the story.

[Guest Paul]

You could start with these, but I suspect it's a pointless exercise.  You seem very obviously bent on one course only, and appear to have been from the beginning.

KHS teacher controversy blog

Quote, Post #115, 11-27-2006  I have ask why legal action will follow?

Quote, Post #117, 11-27-2006, So what sacrifices has Matthew made for the soldiers?

Quote, Post #117, 11-27-2006, Does "the real work of citizenship" end when the limelight fades?

Quote, Post #124, 11-27-2006, The principal indicated? 

(So what exactly did he say then?  No, Matt, your parents are not allowed to come to a meeting as important as this?)

Quote, Post #127, 11-28-2006, How does Paul "know" that Mr. P lied?

(Did Matthew take a recorder in and record the meeting he attended with the principal and teacher also?)

Quote, Post #134, 11-29-2006, What are you seeking? An apology?

(If so, why?  This makes no sense.  The teacher owes you no apology.)

Answers to KHS teacher controversy Blog

Quote, Post #14, 11-26-2006, Then you fully acknowledge that the teacher's response was to STOP THE BEHAVIOR. Well, if he STOPPED THE BEHAVIOR, it would seem that the bulk of your significant ends were met, so why continue with the religion based concerns?

Quote, Post #14, 11-26-2006, why continue on the religion issue but for an application of leverage?

Quote, Post #19, 11-27-2006, As a parent, and you as an attorney, why in the world would you not attend the most important meeting of your family's lives?

Quote, Post #31, 11-27-2006, did your son ever express his concern with Mr Paszkiewicz in class or after class? Did you ever called Mr. Paszkiewicz? Did you ever e-mail or try to speak with Mr Paszkiewicz? Did you visit him during Parent Conferences?

Quote, Post #138, 12-4-2006, "Correct his inappropriate and in anccurate comments?" Correct according to who? You? Who made you the judge of what is wrong and what is right?

By the way, Paul, your questions to the "apologists" is off topic to the events at hand; your belief that they're at the "heart of the matter" just illustrates a difference in viewpoints.  I don't think anyone is under obligation to enter into a historical discussion of religious conflicts with you, and the "apologists" have no need to defend themselves or their positions.  You placed yourself in the public forum with the blog comments, and asked people to "put the heat on" you (if I remember correctly from an earlier blog entry); the public's actions aren't on trial or in question here with this particular incident.  You, however, do seem to be spending an extraordinary amount of time defending and justifying your own actions and those of your son.  Interesting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We do have many differences of opinion. The news here is not that a very bad boy recorded his teacher. That wouldn't make the papers. The news is that his teacher violated the Constitution, undermined the science curriculum and engaged in horrid pedagogy. None of your questions goes to those issues.

As long as we have operated within the law and the rules, I will not answer questions about our motives, one course of action that we might have taken versus another, what actions we intend to take, our personal lives, etc. To you those may be important and germane, but just as you are not required to justify yourself to me, neither are we required to justify ourselves to you. The difference is that there were many violations of law and simple common decency, which --- believe us or not --- we are trying to address. We have the support of many, both within and without Kearny.

I composed the above response, then read your questions again to be sure I wasn't missing anything. Like it or not, I won't be answering those questions.