Answers on Kearny HS teacher controversy

[Guest Guest]

Along time ago my father gave me some wise advice. It was to "pick my battles". In other words, know when to ignore things that don't harm you personally, know when to look the other way, and know when to fight. I think this was a situation where you choose to ignore it.

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

Your Father was a wise man. This situation should have been handled with a little more finesse. But as you probably have ascertained, some people like to give advice, but not accept advice. I couldn't agree more with your philosophy.

[Guest Guest]

Dear Paul,

    Public school teachers walk a very fine line whenever they discuss politics and/or religion.  (These days it is sometimes difficult to tell the difference.) Teachers are in special positions of authority and should be held to the highest of standards. However, when I first read about the controversy I thought that a teacher who enjoyed open, frank discussions with his students was being cornered.  I am a college teacher who enjoys such discussions so I was sympathetic to a "colleague."

    As I read on and looked at all the steps taken by your family (outside of litigation) I could not help but see your son's side of the argument.  If the teacher had come clean in the first place then all of this unpleasantness could have been avoided.  Instead, he lied and became vindictive, hardly actions and qualities that I would like to see in a fellow teacher, not to mention a fellow Christian.

    I hope that these issues will be resolved quickly so that you and your family can get on with your lives, that is, lives without death-threats and name-calling.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Uh, you're making some rather large assumptions that the teacher didn't come clean, lied, and became vindictive. As far as I can tell, that has only been the position set forth by the LeClair family (and espoused through some shoddy journalism) and no one (neither the teacher nor the administration) has acknowledged this fact. So - without another "tape" or further proof of these subsequent acts, we are deadlocked in a 'he said - she said' situation about what happened after the classroom discussion. But to assume that the teacher misbehaved is to only hear one side of the story and to believe it. The administration, when faced with the spectre of litigation from the LeClair family, has rightly placed a gag order on all parties involved. All this being said ... you cannot blindly believe the teacher either.

At the end of the day, what's really happening is that Paul LeClair has an agenda (I know 'agenda' has negative connotations, but I'm using it for lack of a better term ... don't read into it). He has some really strong opinions and beliefs in respect of science and religion. He has written on this subject in an Atheist publication. The irony is that by the teacher getting on his pulpit (and, I think wrongly), it allowed Paul to get on his pulpit - so to speak - and try to raise awareness and support for his cause. And good for him - so rarely do you find the opportunity to champion your cause on such a large stage as the one that the teacher presented to the LeClairs.

But let us not ignore the fact that the LeClairs have thrust themselves into this situation voluntarily. Regardless of whether the teacher has discussed religion in the classroom before, in this very situation the son initiated the conversations and questions, and then taped them. They released the tapes to the media for broader coverage. This is not something that happened "accidentally". Moreover, the family could have ignored it and not been thrust into this controversy.

For better or worse, Paul - through his son - brought this upon the LeClair family. Paul's a bright guy (or seems to be). He knows that this is a lightening rod of an issue. So he had to know that there would be a substantial amount of negative fallout from it. I trust that he has confidence that his 16 year old son is mentally and emotionally mature enough to handle the pressure. Hence, after weighing the issues, Paul chose to pursue this issue in the manner in which he did. It takes more than a modicum of courage to pursue a difficult course of action. But not for one minute do I feel sorry for him or his family for the fallout (nor do I suggest that they are looking for my pity). And while kudos to the LeClairs may be warranted for holding true to their beliefs ... whatever troubles they must also face are self-inflicted.

[Guest Guest]

As much as I would love to, I just can't bring myself to read anything that nut job has to say. She has already been proven to be a plagerist and her books generally slant to her way of thinking. What we could do is possibly find a scientist who can better explain the two theories in scientific terms. In order to agree with her with regards to the Scopes trial you would have to disagree with evolution, which has been the basis of science as we know it. What is good though is that you have atleast heard of creationism. Before you write back and accuse me of only wanting to listen to one side, please let me explain that I make it a point to stay away from people who's own agenda is to further their own causes as is the case of Coulter. And also, we should discuss this in a different forum out of respect for Paul La Clair. He started this thread to open a dialogue of what occurred to his son and not to get into a religious debate between people who's opinions will not change each others.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Let's not talk about respect... Paul and his son have no respect for people's opinion. He is been trying to push his "beliefs" (I hope this word doesn't offend him) on us since the day he joined this discussion board. That's why he started this topic. We can talk anything we want here...It is a free country you know? If Matthew chooses not stand to the flag solute and chooses not to respect this country, I choose not to respect Paul LaClair and his robot, I mean...his son! Sorry about that...

[Guest Guest]

Apparently we did need them, because no one's been doing a thing up until now. This town and school board should not have allowed this behavior to continue this long.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We now have a new follower of the LaClairs!!! Welcome! Make sure to contact the LaCLairs...I am just telling you to contact them because if you keep defending them, they will ask you to contact them...I am just saving them some time you know!

[Guest Paul]

Uh, you're making some rather large assumptions that the teacher didn't come clean, lied, and became vindictive.  As far as I can tell, that has only been the position set forth by the LeClair family (and espoused through some shoddy journalism) and no one (neither the teacher nor the administration) has acknowledged this fact.  So - without another "tape" or further proof of these subsequent acts, we are deadlocked in a 'he said - she said' situation about what happened after the classroom discussion.  But to assume that the teacher misbehaved is to only hear one side of the story and to believe it.  The administration, when faced with the spectre of litigation from the LeClair family, has rightly placed a gag order on all parties involved.  All this being said ... you cannot blindly believe the teacher either.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Much of what you write in the remainder of this post is very perceptive. However, as to the paragraph above, I disagree on two points.

Because Matthew was present at the meeting wherein Paszkiewicz denied saying what he said, etc., you cannot appropriately call a conclusion based on that evidence an assumption. In addition, you cannot characterize it as a "he said - she said" situation when one side is silent. You are free not to believe Matthew, but in a court of law his testimony would be allowed as evidence, and if believed would be sufficient to sustain a verdict. And in a situation where the other side remained silent on the matter, that would probably be sufficient grounds for a directed verdict. So the word "assumption" is out of place.

The main reason the administration is faced with litigation is that they circled the wagons and refused to address this matter, even to the point of meeting with us to discuss it. That remains so today. As an attorney, I know that parties can enter into negotiations under mutual promise of confidentiality, reduced to writing if necessary. So I cannot agree with you that the decision to stonewall this was or is in anyone's best interests: ours, the school district's, or (assuming you are a Kearny resident), yours. As a constituent and a taxpayer, I am furious over being treated like this, and if you were in my shoes you would probably feel the same way. Remember, if this is how they treat us, it is also how they will treat you if you become an inconvenience to them. I hope voters will remember that when the school board comes up for re-election, and that the taxpayers will speak out regarding the conduct of the superintendent and the attorney, as some already have. I have been practicing law for 29 years. There is no excuse for this behavior.

[Guest Paul]

At the end of the day, what's really happening is that Paul LeClair has an agenda (I know 'agenda' has negative connotations, but I'm using it for lack of a better term ... don't read into it). 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

P.S. That's fair, but how about calling it a commitment. We have a deep commitment to the quality of education and to the Constitution. That would avoid the negative baggage associated with the term "agenda."

Oh, and it's spelled "LaClair." No offense taken. My band director from 5th grade through senior year never got it right either.

[Guest Paul]

Along time ago my father gave me some wise advice. It was to "pick my battles". In other words, know when to ignore things that don't harm you personally, know when to look the other way, and know when to fight.  I think this was a situation where you choose to ignore it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Patriot, I completely disagree on at least one point. There is not a shred of patriotism in standing up only when something affects us personally. Sorry it took me a few days to catch this.

[Guest M M O 'Hare]

The fact that this has been going on for 30 days on this board amazes me.

If their were so many anti religious zealots around-- yes zealots - this would have ended long ago. The majority of this town and the surrounding area believe in God and Christ and no matter what anyone says that is fact and can not be changed. We are a conservative bunch in this town regardless of what the outcome of local elections are or what the past media hype on this story was. The teacher is still teaching. That is fact and cannot be changed. The teacher was dealt with by the BOE- that is fact and cannot be changed( I could be a member of the board--you have no idea- that is fact and cannot be changed). Look at the Seattle Airport-that is fact and cannot be changed.

There are quite a few interpratations of "Seperation of Church and State". The school, town , state government, BOE or anyone in that room advocated that Christianity must be practiced here or else.

An opinion is an opinion. If your son- child, adult by age of majority in some states was offended--too bad. He should get used to being offended by most of what he sees or hears in his life. I know I am-- just turn on the TV or radio. I bet he has no prblem with that crap. I do. But you know what? To each his own. I should have to turn on the TV or radio and listen to that crap?

Now you will say that government is funding the school and is different.

How much government funding do the airwaves get? I can turn on free radio stations and hear religious programming all day long.

I can just turn it off. The government funds a lot of that you know. Most of it is hosts opinions. Just like the teachers. here is an option-- private school. I'll bet you will here an opinion like that teachers too. Does it make it any different when the money is coming out of your pocket instead of the taxpayers? Of course you can always stop attending the private school if it offended so---

[Guest Guest]

"The teacher was dealt with by the BOE- that is fact and cannot be changed( I could be a member of the board--you have no idea- that is fact and cannot be changed)"

What did the BOE decide? I've heard nothing and the teacher didn't lose any pay, did not get removed from his classroom, wasn't publically reprimanded. If his contract says that his imformation is confidential then we should change that contract. If Mr. P did nothing wrong then why doesn't he waive the confidentiality of his proceeding (if there was one) and allow everyone to know what the penalty was for sending people to hell and not teaching.

Mr. LaClair, Kearny is a strange creature. If you were in Montclair, Glen Ridge, Ridgewood, Westfield... and others... this teacher would have been gone along time ago. What is he teaching? Putting aside the fact that he sent the kids to hell, he doesn't know the subject matter he is teaching (religion) and he is not teaching the subject matter he was hired (and is paid) to teach.

Members of the BOE, reprimand this teacher and make it public. Enough is Enough.

[Guest Guest]

Putting aside the fact that he sent the kids to hell, he doesn't know the subject matter he is teaching (religion) and he is not teaching the subject matter he was hired (and is paid) to teach.

A teacher or anyone for that matter cannot send anyone to hell. The choice is yours. You can refuse GOD's teachings, thats your free will, but do not complain about the consequences. God does not force you or anyone to accept HIM.

THIS IS WHAT THE BIBLE HAVE TO SAY:

JOHN 3:16

FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD THAT HE GAVE HIS ONE AND ONLY SON, THAT WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM SHALL NOT PERISH BUT HAVE ETERNAL LIFE.

JOHN 3:18

WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM IS NOT CONDEMNED, BUT WHOEVER DOES NOT BELIEVE STANDS CONDEMNED ALREADY BECAUSE HE HAS NOT BELIEVED IN THE NAME OF GOD'S ONE AND ONLY SON.

[Guest Paul]

"The teacher was dealt with by the BOE- that is fact and cannot be changed( I could be a member of the board--you have no idea- that is fact and cannot be changed)"

What did the BOE decide?  I've heard nothing and the teacher didn't lose any pay, did not get removed from his classroom, wasn't publically reprimanded.  If his contract says that his imformation is confidential then we should change that contract.  If Mr. P did nothing wrong then why doesn't he waive the confidentiality of his proceeding (if there was one) and allow everyone to know what the penalty was for sending people to hell and not teaching.

Mr. LaClair, Kearny is a strange creature.  If you were in Montclair, Glen Ridge, Ridgewood, Westfield... and others... this teacher would have been gone along time ago.  What is he teaching?  Putting aside the fact that he sent the kids to hell, he doesn't know the subject matter he is teaching (religion) and he is not teaching the subject matter he was hired (and is paid) to teach.

Members of the BOE, reprimand this teacher and make it public.  Enough is Enough.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I know. This is obscene, and I don't care how conservative Kearny is. There is no excuse for misusing a position of authority to peddle abusiveness and nonsense. At the very least, I would think the authorities would care about the quality of education being offered, but apparently they don't.

It seemed odd to me that none of the other students seemed to care. We'll see where this ends up. Thank you for your note.

[Guest Paul]

The fact that this has been going on for 30 days on this board amazes me.

If their were so many anti religious zealots around-- yes zealots - this would have ended long ago. The majority of this town and the surrounding area believe in God and Christ and no matter what anyone says that is fact and can not be changed. We are a conservative bunch in this town regardless of what the outcome of local elections are or what the past media hype on this story was. The teacher is still teaching. That is fact and cannot be changed. The teacher was dealt with by the BOE- that is fact and cannot be changed( I could be a member of the board--you have no idea- that is fact and cannot be changed). Look at the Seattle Airport-that is fact and cannot be changed.

There are quite a few interpratations of "Seperation of Church and State". The school, town , state government, BOE or anyone in that room advocated  that Christianity must be practiced here or else.

An opinion is an opinion.  If your  son- child, adult  by age of majority in some states was offended--too bad. He should get used to being offended by most of what he sees or hears in his life. I know I am-- just turn on the TV or radio. I bet he has no prblem with that crap. I do. But you know what? To each his own. I should have to turn on the TV or radio and listen to that crap?

Now you will say that government is funding the school and is different.

How much government funding do the airwaves get? I can turn on free radio stations and hear religious programming all day long.

I can just turn it off. The government funds a lot of that you know. Most of it is hosts opinions. Just like the teachers. here is an option-- private school. I'll bet you will here an opinion like that teachers too. Does it make it any different when the money is coming out of your pocket instead of the taxpayers?  Of course you can always stop attending the private school if it offended so---

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is a big difference between being a Christian and being a bigot. I see the difference, and so do most Christians and people of all other religious traditions, in this town and outside it.

Apparently, and ironically, some people who call themselves Christians see no difference. That will be our undoing, and no it's not OK. Those of us who know better may not be able to stop it, but at least a few of us have decided we won't remain silent any longer either.

[Guest Paul]

Putting aside the fact that he sent the kids to hell, he doesn't know the subject matter he is teaching (religion) and he is not teaching the subject matter he was hired (and is paid) to teach.

         

            A teacher or anyone for that matter cannot send anyone to hell. The choice is yours. You can refuse GOD's teachings, thats your free will, but do not complain about the consequences. God does not force you or anyone to accept HIM.

THIS IS WHAT THE BIBLE HAVE TO SAY:

JOHN 3:16

FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD THAT HE GAVE HIS ONE AND ONLY SON, THAT WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM SHALL NOT PERISH BUT HAVE ETERNAL LIFE.

JOHN 3:18

WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM IS NOT CONDEMNED, BUT WHOEVER DOES NOT BELIEVE STANDS CONDEMNED ALREADY BECAUSE HE HAS NOT BELIEVED IN THE NAME OF  GOD'S ONE AND ONLY SON.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I invite you to discuss this on the civility and religion topic, recently opened. I also invite you to read my response to Angel regarding what "God" may or may not have to say. If it isn't what you think, what are you going to do --- argue with him?

[Guest Guest]

There is a big difference between being a Christian and being a bigot. I see the difference, and so do most Christians and people of all other religious traditions, in this town and outside it.

Apparently, and ironically, some people who call themselves Christians see no difference. That will be our undoing, and no it's not OK. Those of us who know better may not be able to stop it, but at least a few of us have decided we won't remain silent any longer either.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well put, except these words could just as easily be substituted:

There is a big difference between being an atheist or Humanist and being a bigot. I see the difference and so do most atheists and people of all of other religious traditions, in this town and outside it.

Apparently, and ironically, some people who call themselves atheists or Humanists see no difference. That will be our undoing, and no it's not OK. Those of us who know better may not be able to stop it, but at least a few of us have decided we won't remain silent any longer either.

The road runs both ways, Paul. Unfortunately you seem to have missed the lesson in humility and tolerance along the way somewhere. And that is a shame. You see, accepting people of all faiths is not only a Christian's duty. It is everyone's obligation, regardless of whether they believe or not. Look to yourself before you start placing blame on others.

[Guest Paul]

Well put, except these words could just as easily be substituted:

There is a big difference between being an atheist or Humanist and being a bigot.  I see the difference and so do most atheists and people of all of other religious traditions, in this town and outside it.

Apparently, and ironically, some people who call themselves atheists or Humanists see no difference.  That will be our undoing, and no it's not OK.  Those of us who know better may not be able to stop it, but at least a few of us have decided we won't remain silent any longer either.

The road runs both ways, Paul.  Unfortunately you seem to have missed the lesson in humility and tolerance along the way somewhere.  And that is a shame. You see, accepting people of all faiths is not only a Christian's duty.  It is everyone's obligation, regardless of whether they believe or not.  Look to yourself before you start placing blame on others.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're right, and while I'm not the world's finest example of humility, I'm at a loss to see how anything I've written is intolerant. As for placing blame, I don't think it inappropriate to call what the teacher said in Matthew's classroom wrong, for quite a few reasons.

Were I to write a post as you just did, with conclusions only, attached to nothing specific, I can imagine the reaction. Would you please explain your comment as it pertains to this discussion.

[Guest Guest]

Look at it another way. In a completely alterante dimension, if a muslim or hindu or any other religious person had been teaching the class and was espousing their viewpoint about their God, and all of the other people that were going to hell the alliances would be very different. The only reason this kid is catching flack is because most Americans are christian. If the teacher had been an atheist and one of the good christian students had made the tape and asked for an apology the public would be behind him. I hope that most of you are intelligent enough to understand this. I'm an Taoist myself, but I certainly have nothing against Christians. I operate on a live and let live basis, but I don't take kindly to being told te beleive something, or told that I'm going to hell. It's kind of annoying.

[Guest so_glad_I_dont_live_in_Kearny]

I feel sorry for all the rational right-thinking citizens of Kearny. I'm sorry that the majority of the people in your community are fundamentalist idiots who support opinionated lunatics imposing their views on impressionable teens in a public-funded institution. While people in other countries are progressing scientifically, we seem to be moving towards the dark ages. Forget about the debate about atheism/science/religion, if people don't even recognize the need to keep public institutions funded by the tax-paying public out of the influence of religion, I don't have much hope for this country.

[Guest WhiskeyTango]

You guys do realize it is against the law for a teacher to preach in school right?

[Guest S. Lawton]

Well put, except these words could just as easily be substituted:

The road runs both ways, Paul.  Unfortunately you seem to have missed the lesson in humility and tolerance along the way somewhere.  And that is a shame. You see, accepting people of all faiths is not only a Christian's duty.  It is everyone's obligation, regardless of whether they believe or not.  Look to yourself before you start placing blame on others.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This town ought to be ashamed of the hate and poison so many of its citizens have directed at Mr. LaClair and his son. It seems that most of these nasty responses have come from the mouths of professed Christians, but I would imagine Christ himself would be ashamed of these reactions. For those who want to profess to a religion, we have churches. And Churches have Sunday schools or the equivalent to educate its patrons on the scriptures or teachings of that particular religion. As we have heard in Matthews own recordings, there are plenty of differences in beliefs even among all Christians, not to mention other religions. Part of the reasoning in separating Church and state is to give all religions equal respect and to allow different denominations to teach their doctrine in their own words -- and to not force anyone into a religion that they don't believe in. That's what makes America beautiful ... equal and mutual respect and understanding. Why not try to be more loving and tolerant and leave the teaching of religion to the Churches who can best teach their doctrine to people who come there just to seek it and not try to force-feed it to those who came to learn about other topics entirely. It would be refreshing to see the citizens of Kearney not only open your minds, but to soften your hearts.

[Guest Guest]

Hoo man... this board just got a link in the Leftyleftylefty New York Times!

Looks like Mr. LaClair is about to get some reinforcements. If I know the internet as well as I think I do, a lot of them are going to be even less civil to the residents of Kearney (if that's even possible) than they were to a young man who had the unlimited gall to stand up against a blatant abuse of power.

More succinctly: Get out the sandbags, fundies, y'all are about to get flooded!

[Guest Jim]

What an embarrassing insight into a small minded town. Good luck Paul and Matt.

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.

Someone needs a real history class. Treaty of Tripoli 1797, Article 11:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Interesting in today context.

Also suggested reading: The letters of Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams. I doubt you'd find much to support the contention of founding this Great Nation on "Judao-Christian" values. Certainly not in context with "In Got We Trust" on our currency. What further proof does anyone need? One might start with actual facts.

Another good lesson; when and why "In God We Trust" got added to our money.

[Guest Dr. Lou]

When on earth did 'Christian' come to mean individuals who are openly disrespectful to and hurtful of other persons...and especially those to whose charge they have been given? Quite frankly, I do not understand how anybody is able to support what this teacher said and did based solely on the venue in which he chose to say and do it.

It is wholly wrong to try and turn this event into an issue of Christian versus everybody else. There is NO restriction of the beliefs of this teacher or even the most ardent Christian in this scenario. Instead, the issue is the venue, professional responsibilities, and the role the history teacher had as compared to the liberties he chose to take in his classroom.

I absolutely support Mr. Paszkiewicz's right to believe as he sees fit and to speak to those beliefs when appropriate. But I am also a teacher who currently trains teachers at a university level. Would anybody support me if I were to stand in front of my teachers-to-be and lecture on which political party should win the next Presidential election or told them that if they did not teach safe sex rather than abstinence to all of their own secondary students, they would fail as teachers? Suppose I just informed all that if they didn't follow MY preference of faith, they would be failed teachers and human beings?

No doubt that would cause chaos. And it should because if I were to push such opinions on my own students, I would be breaking my covenant with them to present relevant, course consistent, and thoughtful material with the intent for them to use this information to formulate their own opinions and practices. I would be absolutely in the wrong.

And this is the one other point I wish to quickly identify. That is, the teacher's responsibility is to the history curriculum (or that in which s/he has been trained). There is absolutely no reason for a history teacher to be undermining the efforts of other high school teachers in biology or social studies. Mr. Paszkiewicz's behavior was unprofessional not specifically because of his topic but the fact that this topic had NOTHING to do with his subject area and potentially compromised the work of his professional colleagues in the high school.

So, this is not in any way us v. them. This is first and foremost an issue of professionalism and demonstrating respect and responsibility as a professional. No doubt there are plenty of other venues in which Mr. Paszkiewicz can bring his philosophy and faith into his classroom. And if this is of paramount importance to him, I would encourage him to move out of the public school sector. While he is employed in the public schools, however, Mr. Paszkiewicz should first focus on his content curriculum and the related needs of his students.

[Guest Zane]

I am truly astounded by this hatemongering attitute being directed toward this fine young man and his family. Truly astounded. I am originally from the are around Kearny, and I cannot believe that any students, any staff, or any school board in that area would tolerate a teacher preaching religion in the classroom of a public school. It is completely and utterly inappropriate, unethical, and illegal.

I focus here on the unethical. What right does that "teacher" have to impose his views on the class, in which students from various backgrounds are REQUIRED to be present. If I were a student in his class, or if my son were, you can damned well bet that I a member of our family would have done the same as Matthew did.

Matthew is a better and more upstanding citizen of this nation than that "teacher" will ever be.

Get it together, Kearny.

[Guest John Wright]

Paul please give us a break.  If you want a fair discussion about this then lets be fair. 

Many people are well aware of Matthew's need to take up confrontational issues.  Not standing for the pledge, protesting Bush, protesting In God We Trust being on our currency, looking for debate from other students, etc, are just a few examples.  While Mr. P may have overstepped, I'm sure Matt was chomping at the bit to get him.  So please, lets drop the innocent and defenseless 16 year nonsense.  He knew enough to bring a recording device into the class, engage the teacher in the discussion, and keep the discussion going with leading questions to get as much on tape as possible.

...

I know you love the Constitution and the law will probably side with you.  You don't have to look to hard to see some of the wacky judgements and silly cases that many judges entertain.  However, the very thing you're going to sue over, will always be co-mingled with government because the founding fathers based this government's defining documents on Judeo-Christian principles.  I guess this is a small fact that you left out of Matthew's training.

You may think you're fighting some great crusade to keep all of the children safe from this out of control man and uphold the Constitution.  The sad fact is that you and your son have caused another huge and unnecessary distraction in an educational system that has so many more important issues to deal with.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul,

I just wish to express how proud I would be if my son were half as brave and intelligint as Matthew. As for this post I am quoting I just want to say that it scares me to consider how threatened people become when someone begins to express their views if those views contradict their own prejudices. It seems to me that more people should be protesting the things that they don't believe in. What if Jesus himself had never stood up and protested against the injustices he saw all around him and spoke out for those without the voice to speak for themselves?

And I am so tired of people who have no understanding of the founding fathers beliefs stating that this country was founded on judeo-christian beliefs. The majority of this country's founders were actually deists, and Benjamin and Jefferson were actually considered atheists in their day (although the term has changed a lot since that time) and were far from being christians. The founding fathers did everything that they could to seperate the actual government of this country from the influence of religion.

And to close I just want to apologize if I have hijacked your thread and veered away form the matter at hand and I will just answer the person whose post I quote above by saying that far from being a distraction this event highlights the most important thing that should be taking place in our schools across this nation, namely the molding of young minds who are able to stand up courageously and eloquently defend their personal views in the face of a cowed and indoctrinated majority and speak truth to power.

Remember you are fighting for us all! Good luck!

[Guest John Wright]

Please quote the line IN the U.S. Constitution where it mentions this "Wall"  The ONLY place the "Separation of Church and State" is mentioned by THomas Jefferson is in a private correspondance, and NOT in either the Declaration of Independance, or the Constitution/BoR, in fact, "God" is Specifically MENTIONED in the Declaration  you know "Bound by their CREATOR with certain Inalienable Rights".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Saying "creator" is a far cry form saying "God"