Answers on Kearny HS teacher controversy

[Guest Nicolas Danborn]

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

[Guest C Ghanbarpour]

I fully support Matthew LaClair and I am proud that a young person was willing to do what he thought was right and to stand up for his beliefs. This in spite of peer pressure and the fact that the person he disagrees with is in a position of power. Back when the Nazis were rounding up the Jews, I bet there were a lot of people who sat around saying that people should keep their mouths shut, know when to pick battles, stop making a fuss, etc. But this is a democracy, and everybody's got the right to speak their minds so that maybe, at the end of the day, we can all come together and reach some kind of agreement, make some progress. And let's not forget that what this teacher was doing is ILLEGAL.

And where are all the parents whose kids were in this guy's class? Do any of you really want some teacher out there getting the 'ok' to tell your kid(s) what they should or shouldn't believe? There's a good reason why there's a separation between church and state, and that's because if every teacher out there started going off in class about what he or she believed in and what church they went to on Sunday, or Saturday, or whenever, well by the time the school bell rang the kids wouldn't even have had a chance to open their books. I say, leave preaching to the preachers and have teachers teach what they've been trained to do. And if anyone has a problem with that, well you can just go spend the summer with my relatives in Iran, there's plenty of preaching in the schools out there!!

[Guest Kalvin]

I've read all 10 pages of this discussion and would love to respond to everything, but I don't have the time. I do have a message for Matt:

I'm in college now, but I remember high school quite well. I would never have had the courage to ostracize myself from my entire community just to do the right thing--really, I'm amazed at your determination. Please know that most of the country appreciates what you're doing-- all of the nonbelievers, of course, since they're just as biased for you as Kearny seems to be against you, but also many Christians who understand what makes this country and the Constitution tick. Unlike so many other people in this forum, I couldn't care less whether you want the attention you're getting. I'm sure if Rosa Parks held a news conference today, she'd be criticized for not settling such a minor issue with the bus company, and for being attention-seeking. Don't give up, Matt. Your pursuit of justice is an inspiration to the rest of us.

[Guest Kalvin]

By the way, Paul left a point unaddressed earlier-- the Founding Fathers mostly believed in God, they did NOT believe in an intolerant society where schoolteachers would willingly proselytize during class and saying that anyone not subscribing to their particular brand of intolerance would go to hell. About the Founding Fathers:

In terms of religious affiliation, the men were mostly Protestants. Only three, C. Carroll, D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons, were Roman Catholics. Several were not particularly religious, and many of the more prominent Founding Fathers were opponents of traditional religion. Many of them considered themselves to be Deists or had strong Deist and anti-church leanings in their speeches and correspondence, including George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson (who created "Jefferson's Bible"), Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Ethan Allen, and Thomas Paine. However, a few of the more notable founders, such as Patrick Henry, were strong proponents of traditional religion.

It's from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fath...hic_information. You can do your own research if you disagree and report back if you find differently.

[Guest Bob from Belfast]

Now that this has become a globally aired issue, I'd just like to thank the people who took the time to post viewpoints. Here in N. Ireland, we are probably similar to that area of the U.S. (Kearny??) so similar debates may arise in the future. If they do, I'll check back to see how this one played out. As a reference point, look at any of the online U.K. papers for some amusement on political correctness in today's multi-cultural England. Do a search on how one headmistress banned the term "Virgin Mary" from the Christmas performance assuming it would offend the Muslim pupils. The Muslim parents, of course, took more offense at the assumption of idiotic sensitivity on their part. Oddly enough, in Protestant Ulster, usage of the appellation "Virgin Mary" would be seen in most quarters to indicate a level of comfort with Romanism.

Do they teach semiotics in Kearny?

Merry Christmas (or Season's Greetings for the sensitive non-Christians)

[Guest J. Shelton]

Why should it be discussed in a thoughtful and respectful way? Did Matthew give Mr. P those considerations?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He is an adult who is using his office as a teacher to proselytize. He deserves no consideration and should be deathly ashamed of his actions.

[Guest J. Shelton]

You say "seeking out injustices" as if it were something that one should avoid. Far better to be ignorant of injustices, yes? That is what hordes of Germans who lived near Auschwitz, Sobibor and any number of other locations thought as well. Better to just ignore the black smoke and smell of rotting flesh...

[Guest J. Shelton]

If you are a member of the BOE I despair for the future definition of "education". Of course, no one would be able to read it anyway, so I suppose that's alright.

[Guest Dr. Serge]

I couldn't agree more.

As an American residing abroad, it is embarrassing to see that a public school teacher diverts a history class into preaching his personal view of religion. That may be done in other counties, but is specifically prohibited in the United States. And to my recollection, Kearney, N.J., is still a part of our country.

It may have been far more reasonable for Mr. Paszkiewicz to advise his students that they could hear his religious views at the local Baptist church, then for him to have aired them in a classroom. His students, for all intents and purposes, are a captive audience. And his use of classroom time to preach his version of religion is abusive of the trust placed in him by the public.

For a student to protest against a teachers use of classroom time for propagating a particular brand of religion is both acceptable and praiseworthy. Matthew is deserving of far better than some have handed him.

And for those who have threatened him with death, it should be made clear that death threats are a serious matter. Those who issue them should be pursued to the best ability of the New Jersey police.

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest Guest]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dear Paul,

Based on my barely educated opinion (if that) of the constitution, and the fact that I myself believe the same things as the teacher, who was obviously breaking the law, I feel that what has happened was wrong. Why didn't you merely complain to the principal and have a sit down? That way your son could have moved classes and my children could have had the benefit of the added brainwashing this teacher was giving out for free. I mean it's hard to get my kids to regularly attend Sunday school so I need all the anti-evolution nonsense I can shoved down their throats or I'm never going to totally corrupt their innocent views to mirror my own. Remember you should never stand up for yourself as that is being too public and grabbing for attention. Can't you be a little more passive and less aggressive? I think it should be illegal to ask teachers questions that could server to incriminate them.

--Some Ignorant hill billy asshole

[Guest Dan Gutman]

I just read the NYT article. Matthew LaClair is a courageous young man. Teachers who force

their religious views upon students have no place in a classroom.

[Guest Greg Bleakley]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest Brad]

What a courageous and upstanding son you have raised, Mr. LaClair. No student in a public school should be subjected to the ramblings of a demented religionist. The christian Bible has no historical basis in fact and therefore should not be allowed as a reference source for a real History class.

Kudos to Matthew for standing up against this outrageous behavior by a teacher. Let Mr. Paszkiewicz teach his silliness in a Sunday school class, not in a public school.

[Ilumminato]

Why is that ignoramus still employed as a so-called teacher in Kearny? Is the town truly that blatanly ignorant? Are the students at Kearny so backward that they rather regress into religious stupidity than advance into true learning? The ignoramus must be summarily fired. If he wants to teach and preach ahistorical nonsense, he can misteach at a denominational institution.

[Guest ACCER]

I fully support Matthew and his family. I live in a similiar small town that has done similiar things (we made national news a few years ago for attempting to post the 10 commandments). I know what he and his family have gone through, both with the public response and in trying to get the school to do the right thing. Just because a teacher has been teaching for 14 years doesn't mean it's ok. A favourite line of a local principal is "that's the way it's always been done". That doesn't make it right just longstanding. It means that for a very long time people have allowed a wrong to continue unchallenged. They should be ashamed.

So should the teacher. He had no right to assert that people who choose not to believe his way belong in Hell to a captive audience.

Good luck to Matthew LaClair and his family.

~ACCER

[Guest Tree]

Someone who is responsible for the education of teenagers should not be this ignorant and backwards. Also, this "teacher" telling kids they will spend an eternity in hell if they don't believe exactly as he does is nothing short of abuse. I'm so glad this man's idiocy is on tape and I hope he's fired. People need to fight against this level of bigotry and ignorance and not give evangelicals an inch.

[Guest Supporter of Matthew LeClair]

I think the ideal way to resolve this issue would be for Mr. Paszkiewicz to debate either Sam Harris or the creators of the site www.whygodhatesamputees.com in front of the community. The unambiguous schism between rational and irrational thinking will then be clear for all participants to see.

Go ahead: believe in God, Jesus, Allah - whatever name you prefer - just don't pretend that there is any sort of defensible, rational basis for that belief. At least not defensible or rational in the same way that governs, literally, every other aspect of our lives and enables everyone to benefit from science, technology, etc.

[Guest NjNell]

I am so very impressed with the LaClairs, and especially by Matthew's courage. It's difficult to stick your neck out, and especially to take the risk of being ostracized in this increasingly intolerant 'Christian' country.

People may want to do the right thing, but why is it that so few are willing to stand up for what is right? Why don't more people teach their children that standing up for principle, even if it costs you, is the highest form of service--to God and to your community?

I believe that real Christians do not judge, do not condemn, do not force their views on others and do not proselytize in public school classrooms, creating a hostile environment for children who have other beliefs (Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and others). This country often seems to lose sight of the fact that America is stronger when we come together to appreciate and share our differences.

Bravo to the LaClair family. Know that you have a tremendous amount of support--if not in your clearly ignorant and closed-minded community and school--in the wider community of sensitive, open and thinking people. Matthew: you stick to your guns. You did the right thing, the honorable thing. I wish more people had your principles and the guts to follow them.

[Guest Guest]

Kudos to Matthew for doing the right thing.

It's sad to see not only a teacher abusing his position but also so many people directing their anger at Matthew when the teacher is the one clearly at fault.

[Guest Guest]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sure ... commitment is a fair term. Reminds me of an old mentor who told me that I needed to be committed to the firm, not just involved. He said the difference between being committed and being involved is like the traditional bacon and eggs breakfast. The chicken was involved, but the pig was committed.

So, to Mr. LaClair (got it right ... wink, wink), though I may agree and disagree with you on the the numerous points involved in this issue, I admire your commitment. I'll be curious to see what the official position of the school board will be once they finally get around to addressing the issue.

[Guest Guest]

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.

No one is trying to change that. Stop playing a martyr.

We are a conservative bunch in this town

Then you should be "conservative" by upholding the Constitution of the U.S. which disallows preaching in public schools.

If your  son- child, adult  by age of majority in some states was offended--too bad.

This is not a matter of being offended, this is a matter of the teacher breaking the law. (to say nothing about the morality of a teacher trying to intimidate his students by threatening damnation)

here is an option-- private school.

Why should he have to change schools (at great expense to his family) when it is the teacher who is at fault?

[Guest Guest]

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.

  I have to disagree with you on this one Paul.  You have jumped to the conclusion that I did not believe Matthew, and that a the school's silence constituted a position.  As an attorney, you go too far in assuming this was a trial now.  I submit that we are still in discovery - so any movement for summary judgment - let alone a directed verdict - would be premature and appropriately denied.  I am sure you believe your son implicitly.  However, those who do not have the pleasure of knowing your family should wait until both sides have weighed in on the subject.  That being said - see my comment below on the "timeliness" of the school board.

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not sure if you've practiced much municipal or school board law in your day, but in my experience NO municipality or school board would engage you in negotiations - it would empower you too much (and they would much prefer to drag their feet until the issue dies - which, kudos to you, does not appear likely). And, no, it's not in your best interest, my best interest or anyone's best interest (other than the school's best interest - which is what those elected officials are looking to protect). That being said, your best course of action would not be to engage the school board as an entity in this matter. Your comment regarding re-elections is a much greater point of leverage. Because at the end of the day, the members of the school board are more interested in protecting their interests as individual candidates than they are in protecting the school's interests in these matters. If you want action (and I think at this point more than a sufficient amount of time has passed such that we are all OWED some form of resolution - even if it is a statement saying they will do nothing further), take it to the candidates and the elections. I believe the elections are in April (or at least they used to be), so the posturing and campaigning should begin shortly after the new year.

[kim]

Paul,

I read about the issue over on a website called reddit. If you want to see what some of the people over there are saying, you can visit http://reddit.com/info/v6h2/comments . One of the most encouraging ones, I think, reads: “It frightens me, and I'm a church-goin' Christian. If this guy was teaching in my kid's school, I'd be fighting for his dismissal.” I want to thank your family and I hope that you know there are people all over the world rooting for you, watching this story unfold.

I found this website while doing a bit of digging to find out more about what happened. When I read in the NY Times article that Matt’s actions were not well-received in the community nor in his school, I was appalled. When I read that he was losing friends over this debate, I was heartbroken.

I'm a university student, and in my entire academic career, I have never experienced a situation like this. If this were happening at any level of education in my area, from kindergarten to elementary to middle to high school, this would be considered completely unacceptable by my community---by Christians, atheists, Muslims alike. A proper high school does not indoctrinate its students, and a caring community does not stand for behaviour like this. High school is where young adults develop the skills to be analytic, critical, logical, and creative thinkers. Students should be taught how to evaluate, rationalize, and make their own decisions based on careful consideration. Students should not be preached at. I want to commend you for filling in the gaps where a poor educational system appears to have failed. It looks like Matt possesses all of these qualities. He’s obviously a smart kid. Matt is lucky to have such an astute and compassionate upbringing---one that, unfortunately, many students in Kearny have seemed to miss out on.

I want to extend my utmost gratitude to Matt for having the guts to go through with this when it’s such a sensitive issue. It seems that Matt has generally remained away from media attention---and rightfully so, since the role he played is not the issue under contention---but I can’t help but wonder how he’s doing. I hope he doesn’t find himself being too ostracized at school for what has happened, and I hope he doesn’t feel alienated in the community. I really hope that he understands that there are people all over the world who know he’s done the right thing, and I hope he doesn't end up regretting this decision in the future.

I also hope that, when he graduates from high school, he finds himself an excellent post-secondary education---far, far away from Kearny.

[Guest Israel]

Mr. LaClair,

I am following this story a bit. I am curious as to what Mr. Paszkiewicz said in class that in your words were "false statements he had made in class, particularly those related to science." of which you have asked for an apology. Also what have the students been "poisoned" with.

[Guest Guest]

What this teacher did is no difference than an atheist forcing his views on the students. If the teacher wanted to express his religious views, he have rights to do that. The only thing that I don't think he should do is use the word "YOU" to the students. like "YOU will end up putting yourself in hell unless YOU repent and turn to Jesus". He could simply say " I believe that sinners will go to hell unless they repent and turn to Jesus". I wouldn't mind hearing what a Muslim state what he/she believes in, or what an Atheist believe in...as long as they don't use the word "YOU" , or test us for it, or teach us to harm another body.