civility and religion

[Guest Guest]

"You belong in hell." These words were plastered all over newspaper headlines last month. The question I'm suggesting for discussion is: To what extent is language like this appropriate and in what contexts is it appropriate, if at all.

To be clear, the statement was that if you do not accept Jesus, then you belong in hell. By hell, the teacher meant a place or state of eternal and unremitting torment in a fire that burns but never consumes. (This was made clear during the in-class discussion.)

In churches where this is believed, a remark like this may come as no surprise, though my personal view is that it is destructive of the social fabric in any context. Clearly, the law can do nothing to impede it or shut it down.

At the opposite extreme is a captive audience, like a group of public school students, where the teacher takes it upon himself to make a remark like this. In that setting, this is clearly against the law, clearly outside the teacher's rights to say, clearly wrong ethically and morally.

What about saying this among friends? What if the President of the United States decided to say this in an address to the nation, just before the now-obligatory closing line "God bless America?" What if candidates for public office started running on this theology as part of their platform? How far can this be allowed to go before we lose our commitment to equal treatment for all and our democratic system of government?

To what extent does a belief system like this inherently tear apart the social fabric? It's important to our community because while it's all very nice to say that we respect each other's religious beliefs, what do we do when one religious group believes we should all be slain as infidels? The religious right in the USA makes exactly that charge against radical Islam, but how far removed from radical Islam is a statement like this?

We used to have an unspoken social contract of sorts until the radical right began ripping away at it in the past few decades. How much further can our society go in undoing the mutual respect implied by that unspoken agreement before we are at each other's throats?

Have at it, y'all.

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

I feel sorry for the students trying to learn. With all this distraction going on, I hope this one matter was worth it. As adults we have to think about them. Sometimes we have to say enough, show the students we care about them. Hopefully they can remember some of the year with good memories. Leave them have that.

[Guest Paul]

I don’t think he’s creating a conflict, I think he’s pointing one out that already exists. The idea that everyone is inherently equal – that we have no privileged classes – is a basic American ideal. It’s the first of the self-evident truths listed in the Declaration of Independence. And it directly conflicts, at least potentially, with the idea that some people are going to hell and that we know who those people are. If you know someone’s going to hell you’re going to have a strong impetus to treat that person differently while she’s on Earth. That’s why Paszkiewicz proselytized for his brand of Christianity in class. If a Muslim teacher had done the same thing he would never have stood for it, but he apparently thought Christians of his particular stripe are somehow special and ought to be allowed to do things others can’t.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Isn't it amazing how much power Matthew and I are believed to have over what other people say. I don't know what's going on inside those right-wing fundamentalist heads, but whatever it is has nothing to do with reality.

[Calybos]

    I feel sorry for the students trying to learn. With all this distraction going on, I hope this one matter was worth it. As adults we have to think about them. Sometimes we have to say enough, show the students we care about them. Hopefully they can remember some of the year with good memories. Leave them have that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agreed. I feel sorry for ANY students trying to learn with this nutty teacher raving and preaching at them instead of doing his job. Getting rid of him and getting back to teaching will definitely be worth the turmoil of exposing his behavior.

[Guest A.V. Blom]

Isn't it amazing how much power Matthew and I are believed to have over what other people say. I don't know what's going on inside those right-wing fundamentalist heads, but whatever it is has nothing to do with reality.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, obviously you're a member of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy, out to destroy American lives, family values, and apple pies! You must have your secret Mind Control Ray hidden somewhere, so you can control the minds of your Nefarious Cult and corrupt the hearts of innocent Christians, including a practicing pastor! Watch out everyone, let's gather the pitchforks and torches to defend our valiant Christian values against doctor LeClairenstein!

And don't claiming you had nothing to do with Haggard, either!

All blessings be to His Noodly Appendage

[Guest a proud american]

Isn't it amazing how much power Matthew and I are believed to have over what other people say. I don't know what's going on inside those right-wing fundamentalist heads, but whatever it is has nothing to do with reality.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think it's because you understand authoritarianism and they don't. I like to use the example of the guy in a car during the summer with no air-conditioning coming home from his low paying job who's stuck in traffic listening to one of talking heads telling him whos fault it is. It's always someones fault but never their like thinking people. After a while he starts to believe it. And once this occurs, the authoritarian has converted another. Soon they lose all touch with whats right and wrong and automatically blame those who disagree. But as long as there are people who understand what these peoples true intentions are, there is light at the end of the tunnell. That's what their problem is.

[Guest Guest]

Isn't it amazing how much power Matthew and I are believed to have over what other people say. I don't know what's going on inside those right-wing fundamentalist heads, but whatever it is has nothing to do with reality.

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

You do have the power to stop it. Let the students go back to learning in peace.

[Bryan]

"You belong in hell." These words were plastered all over newspaper headlines last month. The question I'm suggesting for discussion is: To what extent is language like this appropriate and in what contexts is it appropriate, if at all.

Do you believe in freedom of speech, Paul? If so, then you should agree that language like that is appropriate, at least from the listening end.

So maybe you question whether it is moral/ethical to use such language?

Well, if it were true, would it be appropriate?

If it were true of a point-of-view that was illustrated, would it be appropriate?

If there were circumstances that might alter the way the phrase was understood, such as within an understanding of Christian theology where God does no will that anyone should experience hell, but that state would be necessary because of a rejection of Jesus, would that be appropriate?

Are you a moral relativist, Paul? If so, it should be staggeringly easy for you to imagine appropriate times to utter something equivalent.

To be clear, the statement was that if you do not accept Jesus, then you belong in hell. By hell, the teacher meant a place or state of eternal and unremitting torment in a fire that burns but never consumes. (This was made clear during the in-class discussion.)

I'd like to see additional transcripts made available.

I tend not to trust partial accounts.

In churches where this is believed, a remark like this may come as no surprise, though my personal view is that it is destructive of the social fabric in any context. Clearly, the law can do nothing to impede it or shut it down.

Sure it can. Make secular education mandatory for all, leave little time for deeper theological instruction, and religions other than the secular religion will be marginalized. Dewey had it figured out long ago, I think. It never occurred to you at all?

Destructive of the social fabric? You credit Luther with nothing of raising the status of peasants during the Reformation?

Have you give any thought to the future of the social fabric taking multiculturalism to its logical extreme (accepting all cultures into one despite contradictions)?

At the opposite extreme is a captive audience, like a group of public school students, where the teacher takes it upon himself to make a remark like this. In that setting, this is clearly against the law, clearly outside the teacher's rights to say, clearly wrong ethically and morally.

It's not at all clear without the entire context, Paul.

Mr. Paszkiewicz seems to have respected his audience, at least in transcripts I've read, by gaining their assent before discussing the specifics of religion. Granted, there may be a great deal of material that I'm not familiar with at this point.

What about saying this among friends? What if the President of the United States decided to say this in an address to the nation, just before the now-obligatory closing line "God bless America?"

That would be politically unwise, especially if an election were coming up.

It almost looks like you're running off on a tangent, though. How would such a comment by the president relate to his job?

What if candidates for public office started running on this theology as part of their platform?

They might have a tough time getting elected.

If they got elected, however, you could console yourself with the fact that majority rule had prevailed (and that might be important if you were a certain type of moral relativist).

How far can this be allowed to go before we lose our commitment to equal treatment for all and our democratic system of government?

Maybe you should cut off free speech for some in order to preserve equal treatment for all.

The United States had a long history of having its government filled with religious folks. How did we end up a "commitment to equal treatment" despite that? Could it be that the belief in a literal hell and literal salvation through Jesus Christ isn't as destructive to the social fabric as Paul thinks?

To what extent does a belief system like this inherently tear apart the social fabric?

Not at all, so far as I can tell. The people responsible for the commitment to equal treatment in the first place largely held such beliefs.

Can you make an affirmative case, Paul, or have you decided to place the burden of proof far away from yourself?

It's important to our community because while it's all very nice to say that we respect each other's religious beliefs, what do we do when one religious group believes we should all be slain as infidels? The religious right in the USA makes exactly that charge against radical Islam, but how far removed from radical Islam is a statement like this?

As far as the east is from the west, your insinuation notwithstanding.

We used to have an unspoken social contract of sorts until the radical right began ripping away at it in the past few decades.

Religious folk have begun to notice that minorities are using the courts to use the "living constitution" to alter the social fabric.

Is it right for the courts to trump the legislature at every turn, Paul? What happened to Congress' check on the judicial branch? Part of the "social contract" apparently stipulates that they should pretend they don't have that power.

Oops. The religious right is chipping away at that social contract, too.

Apparently there are at least two visions of the social contract. Which one is right, Paul? It's not easy to answer if you're a consistent moral relativist, is it? If you can answer, then you're probably not a moral relativist. I look forward to your answer, whatever it is (information is good!).

How much further can our society go in undoing the mutual respect implied by that unspoken agreement before we are at each other's throats?

See, here you are all full of respect, claiming that the other guy's beliefs destroy the social fabric, based on your own belief ("my personal view is that it is destructive of the social fabric in any context").

In what circumstances would it be appropriate to call the beliefs of others "destructive of the social fabric in any context," Paul?

Cheers.

[Guest Guest]

I think it's because you understand authoritarianism and they don't. I like to use the example of the guy in a car during the summer with no air-conditioning coming home from his low paying job who's stuck in traffic listening to one of talking heads telling him whos fault it is. It's always someones fault but never their like thinking people. After a while he starts to believe it. And once this occurs, the authoritarian has converted another. Soon they lose all touch with whats right and wrong and automatically blame those who disagree. But as long as there are people who understand what these peoples true intentions are, there is light at the end of the tunnell. That's what their problem is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree. Understanding the authoritarian mind (strongly characterized by a nearly total absence of reason) is key to understanding this entire episode.

[Guest Guest]

Isn't it amazing how much power Matthew and I are believed to have over what other people say. I don't know what's going on inside those right-wing fundamentalist heads, but whatever it is has nothing to do with reality.

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

You do have the power to stop it. Let the students go back to learning in peace.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They are learning in peace. No one is involving the students in this controversy. The only students not at peace seem to be the ones going out of their way to spit venom at Matthew.

[Guest WilliamK]

What about saying this among friends? What if the President of the United States decided to say this in an address to the nation, just before the now-obligatory closing line "God bless America?" What if candidates for public office started running on this theology as part of their platform? How far can this be allowed to go before we lose our commitment to equal treatment for all and our democratic system of government?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are we not there already? Ok, maybe not. But we've definitely slipped in that direction. Compare the three American presidents quoted below. The slippage is not at all subtle.

James Madison:

"Religious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings & fasts are shoots from the same root with the legislative acts reviewed. Altho’ recommendations only, they imply a religious agency, making no part of the trust delegated to political rulers."

Thomas Jefferson:

"But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe, a day of fasting and prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the United States an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from. It must be meant, too, that this recommendation is to carry some authority and to be sanctioned by some penalty on those who disregard it; not indeed of fine and imprisonment, but of some degree of proscription, perhaps in public opinion. And does the change in the nature of the penalty make the recommendation less a law of conduct for those to whom it is directed?"

George W. Bush:

"NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 21, 2001, a National Day of Prayer and Thanksgiving and call upon the citizens of our Nation to gather together in homes and places of worship to pray alone and together and offer thanksgiving to God for all the blessings of this great and good land. On this day, I call upon Americans to recall all that unites us. Let us become a nation rich not only in material wealth but in ideals -- rich in justice and compassion and family love and moral courage. I ask Americans to bow our heads in humility before our Heavenly Father, a God who calls us not to judge our neighbors, but to love them, to ask His guidance upon our Nation and its leaders in every level of government."

[Guest Guest]

Agreed. I feel sorry for ANY students trying to learn with this nutty teacher raving and preaching at them instead of doing his job. Getting rid of him and getting back to teaching will definitely be worth the turmoil of exposing his behavior.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Completely agreed.

The honorable thing now for the teacher to do is to apologize and resign.

Be a man, Mr. P. You broke the law and created enough disruption to your class already. Do the right thing and take responsibility of your own actions.

[Guest Guest]

Isn't it amazing how much power Matthew and I are believed to have over what other people say. I don't know what's going on inside those right-wing fundamentalist heads, but whatever it is has nothing to do with reality.

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

You do have the power to stop it. Let the students go back to learning in peace.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Which the teacher can easily accomplish by apologizing and resigning. Yet he refuses to take responsibility of his own actions. Way to go to set a moral example for your students Mr P!

[Guest Guest]

Which the teacher can easily accomplish by apologizing and resigning. Yet he refuses to take responsibility of his own actions. Way to go to set a moral example for your students Mr P!

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

While this will go on for some time, most likely on t.v., radio and the newspapers. I fell bad for all, Matt needs his education, Mr. P. needs his job to make a living and the other students their education. Sometimes we need to step back and look at a different approach to solve this matter. The current method isn't working.

[Guest Guest]

Do you believe in freedom of speech, Paul?  If so, then you should agree that language like that is appropriate, at least from the listening end.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Paul] Here we go again. The tired old free speech argument on behalf of a teacher. It does not apply. He is an employee hired to do a job. The law is that he must not express his religious opinions in a public school. Others have stated the reasons for this many times throughout these topics. As an attorney, I can't start spouting my political opinions during a trial. That's not a violation of my free speech; it goes with the job.

So maybe you question whether it is moral/ethical to use such language?

Well, if it were true, would it be appropriate?

If it were true of a point-of-view that was illustrated, would it be appropriate?

If there were circumstances that might alter the way the phrase was understood, such as within an understanding of Christian theology where God does no will that anyone should experience hell, but that state would be necessary because of a rejection of Jesus, would that be appropriate?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's the same thing dressed up in fancier language. It's equally inappropriate.

Are you a moral relativist, Paul?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Morality and ethics are relative to context. However, they are grounded in the nature of being human. If you define your term, I can better answer your question. However, see below.

I'd like to see additional transcripts made available.

I tend not to trust partial accounts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The 9/14 transcript, available at several places on line, is not partial.

Sure it can.  Make secular education mandatory for all, leave little time for deeper theological instruction, and religions other than the secular religion will be marginalized.  Dewey had it figured out long ago, I think.  It never occurred to you at all?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're right. My mistake was in making too categorical a statement. Just as this culture promotes theism, we could become a culture that discourages it.

Mr. Paszkiewicz seems to have respected his audience, at least in transcripts I've read, by gaining their assent before discussing the specifics of religion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To that extent he, did, but it's still a violation of law. Engel v. Vitale specifically holds that the students' consent does not matter. They are a captive audience, and many may feel reluctant to object. Agree or disagree, that is the law. In many other ways, he was not respectful at all.

In addition, he was dogmatic, and he interrupted to students to push his views as the authority figure, on matters completely outside the curriculum and intensely personal. There was nothing respectful about that.

The United States had a long history of having its government filled with religious folks.  How did we end up a "commitment to equal treatment" despite that?  Could it be that the belief in a literal hell and literal salvation through Jesus Christ isn't as destructive to the social fabric as Paul thinks?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What has saved us, I think, is our respect for other points of view and our willingness to put religion aside in the public square. The Framers gave us perhaps the most brilliant and enduring document in human history, and for quite a long while we have followed it, not perfectly, but in the main. Paszkiewicz and tens of millions of others who share the hard-line theistic viewpoint are trying to destroy that. If they succeed, they will destroy our democracy.

Is it right for the courts to trump the legislature at every turn, Paul?  What happened to Congress' check on the judicial branch?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They don't. The courts have been very careful to watch that line.

In what circumstances would it be appropriate to call the beliefs of others "destructive of the social fabric in any context," Paul?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Obviously, I am not a moral relativist as you define that term. It is appropriate where there are good grounds to believe it is true.

[Bryan]

Guest (aka Paul LaClair), on Dec 23 2006, 11:07 AM, wrote:

[Paul] Here we go again. The tired old free speech argument on behalf of a teacher. It does not apply. He is an employee hired to do a job.

Rewind, there, kiddo. You asked in what situations that language would be appropriate in an apparently open-ended way. I took it that you were removing consideration of the Kearny context and replied accordingly.

I was building my point.

Based on your acceptance of free speech (you failed to affirm your belief in it, for some reason), we have a good basic argument that this type of speech is appropriate. My argument had nothing to do with justifying the teacher's actions in the classroom. I was simply answering the broad issue as you had presented it.

Straw man argument, counselor.

The law is that he must not express his religious opinions in a public school.

No, the law is that the government may not pass a law establishing religion. Unless the state of New Jersey has some really bizarre laws. Can I trust you to cite the statute to which you refer?

Others have stated the reasons for this many times throughout these topics. As an attorney, I can't start spouting my political opinions during a trial. That's not a violation of my free speech; it goes with the job.

I expect you want to avoid being cited for contempt of court--and your client might be concerned if you appear to lose your focus on his or her case.

Your analogy is strained absent the statute that the teacher is supposedly flaunting; as for the school, of course they should be interested in the way Mr. Paszkiewicz conducts his class (but let's not beg the question).

I had written:

"So maybe you question whether it is moral/ethical to use such language?

Well, if it were true, would it be appropriate?

If it were true of a point-of-view that was illustrated, would it be appropriate?

If there were circumstances that might alter the way the phrase was understood, such as within an understanding of Christian theology where God does no will that anyone should experience hell, but that state would be necessary because of a rejection of Jesus, would that be appropriate?"

It's the same thing dressed up in fancier language. It's equally inappropriate.

No, it's exactly the same language dressed up in different circumstances, in answer to your query about what circumstances would be appropriate (and, indeed, offered in the form of questions for your consideration--but apparently you misunderstood a bit).

Morality and ethics are relative to context. However, they are grounded in the nature of being human. If you define your term, I can better answer your

question.

Don't let me stop you from providing an explanation in standard terms with your concern over my term (because it's not really my term).

http://www.iep.utm.edu/r/relativi.htm

The 9/14 transcript, available at several places on line, is not partial.

Great, because that's the one that I read. Here's what you wrote (apparently in reference to the 9-14 discussion?):

"To be clear, the statement was that if you do not accept Jesus, then you belong in hell. By hell, the teacher meant a place or state of eternal and unremitting torment in a fire that burns but never consumes. (This was made clear during the in-class discussion.)"

Here's a link to the transcript:

http://www.dranger.com/classtranscript.html

Here's the way the transcript reads (with some context):

Teacher: I believe that it's one or the other, Heaven or Hell, but

this is the answer to your question - and I believe that because

there's no mention in Genesis through Revalations of a place called

Purgatory - but this is the issue: God is not only for

(love??inaudible) the way he describes himself in the scriptures, he

is also completely just. He did everything in his power to make sure

that you could go to Heaven, so much so, that he put your sin on his

own body, suffered your pains for you, and he's saying "Please, accept

me, believe!" You're a (???), you belong here.

LaClaire: But would you still do that to your child? If your child

disagreed with you, if your child let's say, lied to you about

something very important, and you were very angry at them for the

moment. Would you throw your child in a burning oven for eternity?

Teacher: No I wouldn't, but neither does God. Because we disagree with

God on many issues, and we're treated like we're all his children, and

he does things to try and draw us back. But we can't disagree with him

on salvation. Either he paid the price or he didn't - if you reject

his gift of salvation, you're going where you belong.

It's a pity we've got a "(???)" at such a critical point, isn't it?

It looks like he's factually describing Christian doctrine (an aspect of history) rather than directing the comment at any individual (plural "you" in keeping with the preceding "we").

So, Paul, you said that the comment about belonging in hell was ethically and morally wrong.

Why?

Again, it appears that Paszkiewicz presented a perspective--potentially relevant to a history course--on Christian doctrine, and the latter portion, at the very least, was in response to a student's participation in the discussion.

You're right. My mistake was in making too categorical a statement. Just as this culture promotes theism, we could become a culture that discourages it.

Some steps have been taken to move the culture toward rejection of theism. Is it wrong for theists to resist those steps, in principle?

To that extent he, did, but it's still a violation of law. Engel v. Vitale specifically holds that the students' consent does not matter. They are a captive audience, and many may feel reluctant to object. Agree or disagree, that is the law.

Engel v. Vitale concerned the enactment of a state law mandating the reading of a prayer composed by state officials. The law was held unconstitutional (and could only be found so according to the First Amendment in light of the Fourteenth Amendment). The teacher in this case is not a law that may be found unconstitutional.

In many other ways, he was not respectful at all.

Given that there were many ways that he was not respectful at all, you should have an easy time pointing to one specific example (best if it's from an easily verifiable source, like the Sept 14 transcript).

In addition, he was dogmatic, and he interrupted to students to push his views as the authority figure, on matters completely outside the curriculum and intensely personal. There was nothing respectful about that.

You have the transcript available. Match some quotations to your claims, because I think your case is thin.

What has saved us, I think, is our respect for other points of view and our willingness to put religion aside in the public square.

If we respect other points of view, why then do we put aside religion in the public square? It's almost as though religious points of view cannot be respected, therefore they are not welcome in the public square.

The barren public square is hostile to religion, is it not?

Why isn't a civil public square sufficient to secure freedom and democracy?

The Framers gave us perhaps the most brilliant and enduring document in human history, and for quite a long while we have followed it, not perfectly, but in the main. Paszkiewicz and tens of millions of others who share the hard-line theistic viewpoint are trying to destroy that.

Paul, the U.S. Constitution was constructed based on the presumption that basic morality was common to all religions (atheism wasn't a serious idea in their time, FWIW). They took what was held in common (spelled out in the Declaration of Independence) and crafted the constitution in light of that understanding, since it represented the path to unity.

Today, it has become apparent that formerly self-evident truths are no longer self-evident. You can't respect every view equally where views have little in common with one another. Chaos results. Historically, it has been the willingness of theists (including deists) to focus on what they held in common to achieve national unity--a basis for uniting the states. Take away the common ground and you place the whole experiment at risk.

If they succeed, they will destroy our democracy.

They might destroy the a multicultural democracy that you have in mind, but that democracy is not the historical U.S. democracy.

The historical U.S. democracy grew out of specifically theistic roots, touching their understanding of universal morality. The society welcomed (at its best) any who were willing to work within those parameters, so that's why Roman Catholics and Jews found emigration to the U.S., on balance, a good experience (both groups experienced significant mistreatment at times).

When a nation welcomes its ideological enemies (doing nothing to perpetuate the common ground), it sows the seeds of its own destruction.

They don't. The courts have been very careful to watch that line.

No, they haven't, and Roe v. Wade is an excellent example contrary to your claim. There was insufficient popular support for legalizing abortion-on-demand, so the court crafted the law it wanted by finding it (surprise!) in the Constitution.

Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg has criticized the legal reasoning behind that decision.

Obviously, I am not a moral relativist as you define that term. It is appropriate where there are good grounds to believe it is true.

If you were a sadomasoschist, wouldn't you be morally obligated to give others a good beating based on the Golden Rule?

IOW, it's not obvious that you're not a moral relativist. There are hints that you're inconsistent, but that's common to moral relativists (not that I necessarily believe that you see yourself as a moral relativist).

[Strife767]

Paul, if you are implying that belief in God is ruining our social fabric then you are a misguided man.

Oh, really? Why don't you take a look at this, then?

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html <-- Religious societies are less moral than secular ones. Also singling out the "bible belt":

"There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms (Aral and Holmes; Beeghley, Doyle, 2002)."

Forget all this nonsense about radical this and radical that.

I'd love to, but you fundies just won't go away.

Ironically, many people consider atheism "radical."

There has got to be some middle ground.

Oh, really? Do tell.

Simply put, if more people would practice their religion of choice and attend religious services regularly instead of practicing sports, shopping and other events on the Sabbath, we might all be better off?

No. On a personal level, if one wants to go to a church/temple/whatever and pray on their time or whatver, that's fine. But on a societal level? It contributes nothing. At least shopping contributes to the economy. And practicing sports is good for health, which means overall lower health care costs. Pray all you want, but don't act like you're doing society a service by sitting in a church one or more times a week. You aren't.

Society, especially our children, are growing up lost.

I bet I know what your definition of "lost" is.

let's bring back faith.

I was right.

I will end this post with a well known phrase first coined by Tug McGraw of my beloved NY Mets, "Ya Gotta Believe!!!"

I have a better one:

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms." --Albert Einstein

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest A. V. Blom]

God fearing American:

The only people better off from going to church more will be the clergy. There is NOTHING to suggest church makes anyone better..it is possible that it does the OPPOSITE, instead.

[oneellama]

"It's a pity we've got a "(???)" at such a critical point, isn't it?

It looks like he's factually describing Christian doctrine (an aspect of history) rather than directing the comment at any individual (plural "you" in keeping with the preceding "we").

So, Paul, you said that the comment about belonging in hell was ethically and morally wrong.

Why?

Again, it appears that Paszkiewicz presented a perspective--potentially relevant to a history course--on Christian doctrine, and the latter portion, at the very least, was in response to a student's participation in the discussion."

__________________________

Actually, I believe the missing segment is quite audible on the Quicktime audio file posted by The Observer, and that segment of the transcript you used can be corrected (shown in bold in the transcript below.

It is clear by this time in the tape that Matthew LaClair is questioning a number of Mr. Paskiewicz's statements. Just prior to the section you cite, Matthew has questioned how the stories attributed to Moses were recorded in the first five books of the Bible. Mr. Paskiewicz responds that Moses was a prophet, and the accuracy is ensured through revelation and inspiration by God. Mr. Paskiewicz then switches to the story of Noah, speculating that Noah's grandsons could have written down the stories, and the "biblical convention is that the accuracy is ensured by God."

Matthew again raises concerns, this time that God doesn't make mistakes, yet it could be viewed that the story of Noah (and by implication, the Great Flood) was a mistake by God because he had to pretty much give up and start all over. This led to a discussion by a few of the students and Mr. Paskiewicz on free will.

Matthew then questioned why an "all loving God" would give up on a human being who had done something that was wrong in God's eyes, and condemn that person to burn in hell forever after only one lifetime (implying, no second chance). He makes an analogy to a parent, a child who had done something terrible, and no second chances.

A second student diverts the conversation to an exploration of purgatory. The corrected transcript would then proceed:

Teacher: See, I don't mean to step on anybody's toes; I know a lot of

you believe in purgatory; I don't.

Student 4: Neither do I.

Teacher: I believe that it's one or the other, Heaven or Hell, but

this is the answer to your question - and I believe that because

there's no mention in Genesis through Revalations of a place called

Purgatory - but this is the issue: God is not only for

(love??inaudible) the way he describes himself in the scriptures, he

is also completely just. He did everything in his power to make sure

that you could go to Heaven, so much so, that he put your sin on his

own body, suffered your pains for you, and he's saying "Please, accept

me, believe!" You reject that, you belong in hell.

Mr. Paskiewicz states his opinion that there is no purgatory, that God is completely just, that if you reject his entreaties to believe in God's willingness to take on your sin so you can go Heaven, than you belong in hell.

I think the evidence from the tape shows that Mr. Paskiewicz is presenting his own view of the dogma, not presenting it as a history lesson on Christianity. He says "I believe it's one or the other. Heaven or Hell." He then goes on to describe a specific condition that will land you in hell -- if you fail to believe that God took on human sin and pain in order to ensure each individual's path to Heaven. I also think it is fairly clear from this passage that the "you" is singular -- that is, an individual who is chosing (through free will, presumably) to reject or accept God, and the consequences thereof. It is not clear from a simple audio track whether that singular "you" was a generic "you" or a particular student "you." If he addressed it to an individual student, regardless of whether it was Matthew or any other student, I think he was illustrating his point, not singling out a particular student as already on that path. The emphasis he puts on "your" (shown in italics in the transcript) tells me this final segment is directed not at the girl asking about purgatory, but rather at Matthew.

So what is the proper construct to consider if this choice on the teacher's part was morally or ethically wrong?

[Guest Guest]

 

Paul, the U.S. Constitution was constructed based on the presumption that basic morality was common to all religions (atheism wasn't a serious idea in their time, FWIW).  They took what was held in common (spelled out in the Declaration of Independence) and crafted the constitution in light of that understanding, since it represented the path to unity.

Today, it has become apparent that formerly self-evident truths are no longer self-evident.  You can't respect every view equally where views have little in common with one another.  Chaos results.  Historically, it has been the willingness of theists (including deists) to focus on what they held in common to achieve national unity--a basis for uniting the states.  Take away the common ground and you place the whole experiment at risk.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Given the mass murder committed by both sides for no oher reason than the "My God is better than your God" argument during the Crusades I'd say the presumption of morality being common to all religions ws a little off base.

[Guest A. V. Blom]

Given the mass murder committed by both sides for no oher reason than the "My God is better than your God" argument during the Crusades I'd say the presumption of morality being common to all religions ws a little off base.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It has a morality. But, when we take the Bible literally, it's just one that we would find both morally abhorrent and quite inconsistent. The gist of it, however, can be condensed to one word:

OBEY

It is the one thing made clear, time and time again. Do whatever God wants you to do...or else. It is position of clear moral relativism. Whatever strikes the divine whim must be followed...and as long as you believe in Jesus, any atrocity is acceptable. After all, only faith brings you to heaven.

[Bryan]

oneellama, on Dec 24 2006, 04:21 AM, wrote (i've put it in green):

"It's a pity we've got a "(???)" at such a critical point, isn't it?

It looks like he's factually describing Christian doctrine (an aspect of history) rather than directing the comment at any individual (plural "you" in keeping with the preceding "we").

So, Paul, you said that the comment about belonging in hell was ethically and morally wrong.

Why?

Again, it appears that Paszkiewicz presented a perspective--potentially relevant to a history course--on Christian doctrine, and the latter portion, at the very least, was in response to a student's participation in the discussion."

__________________________

Actually, I believe the missing segment is quite audible on the Quicktime audio file posted by The Observer, and that segment of the transcript you used can be corrected (shown in bold in the transcript below.

The version you have in bold is so different from the one posted at the website that I am concerned about its overall accuracy (I'm talking about the one apparently recommended by Paul LaClair).

It is clear by this time in the tape that Matthew LaClair is questioning a number of Mr. Paskiewicz's statements.

Right, in the broader context of the role of religion in society (including public schools). LaClair is participating in the discussion in such a way that the discussion is perpetuated and deepened.

Just prior to the section you cite, Matthew has questioned how the stories attributed to Moses were recorded in the first five books of the Bible. Mr. Paskiewicz responds that Moses was a prophet, and the accuracy is ensured through revelation and inspiration by God.

Right, summing up with "the biblical convention is that the accuracy is ensured by God."

Mr. Paskiewicz then switches to the story of Noah, speculating that Noah's grandsons could have written down the stories, and the "biblical convention is that the accuracy is ensured by God."

"witches" to the story of Noah? I'd call it an illustration designed to show how an account of the flood would end up at Moses' disposal. Do you think that improper of Paszkiewicz, given the question posed by LaClair ("How do we prove that it is

these people who did these different things? Did the Lord talk to him,

did he come down and say, 'Moses, I want you to write this for me.'")?

Matthew again raises concerns, this time that God doesn't make mistakes,

Oh, you mean that LaClair "switches" from the mode of transmission of the story to the separate topic of God's supposed perfection? ("But for example, wouldn't something like Noah's Ark be an example of a mistake by God? Because, at least from what I know of the Bible, because he had to destroy, start over.")

yet it could be viewed that the story of Noah (and by implication, the Great Flood) was a mistake by God because he had to pretty much give up and start all over. This led to a discussion by a few of the students and Mr. Paskiewicz on free will.

That's one of the classic philosophical problems. Isn't it a shame that it's being discussed in a public school?

Matthew then questioned why an "all loving God" would give up on a human being who had done something that was wrong in God's eyes, and condemn that person to burn in hell forever after only one lifetime (implying, no second chance). He makes an analogy to a parent, a child who had done something terrible, and no second chances.

A second student diverts the conversation to an exploration of purgatory. The corrected transcript would then proceed:

Teacher: See, I don't mean to step on anybody's toes; I know a lot of

you believe in purgatory; I don't.

Student 4: Neither do I.

Teacher: I believe that it's one or the other, Heaven or Hell, but

this is the answer to your question - and I believe that because

there's no mention in Genesis through Revalations of a place called

Purgatory - but this is the issue: God is not only for

(love??inaudible) the way he describes himself in the scriptures, he

is also completely just. He did everything in his power to make sure

that you could go to Heaven, so much so, that he put your sin on his

own body, suffered your pains for you, and he's saying "Please, accept

me, believe!" You reject that, you belong in hell.

Mr. Paskiewicz states his opinion that there is no purgatory, that God is completely just, that if you reject his entreaties to believe in God's willingness to take on your sin so you can go Heaven, than you belong in hell.

With all due respect, you're missing the obvious. Examine the section of transcript you provided. Paszkiewicz gives his opinion about purgatory prior to emphasizing the answer to the earlier question. He separates his opinion on purgatory from the discussion of free will. Thus he ends up answering LaClair's question with an academic tone, emphasizing the necessity of hell within the theological framework because of the need to preserve perfect justice--which is, indeed, the traditional answer to the additional issue LaClair brought up concerning the supposed mistake.

I think the evidence from the tape shows that Mr. Paskiewicz is presenting his own view of the dogma, not presenting it as a history lesson on Christianity.

Opinion noted, but you seem to be ignoring some of his statements while focusing on others (thus affecting the context).

Purgatory was treated according to his opinion, while the issue of free will was given a standard treatment that should be welcome, I believe, in a philosophical discussion of moral responsibility.

He says "I believe it's one or the other. Heaven or Hell." He then goes on to describe a specific condition that will land you in hell -- if you fail to believe that God took on human sin and pain in order to ensure each individual's path to Heaven.

Well, again you seem to be ignoring the context that you just finished mentioning (which is curious). You recognize that the teacher had been asked about the moral responsibility for the flood (via the implication that the evil of man resulted from the actions of God in such a way that God was culpable for evil). The mention of hell occurs in the context of the free will explanation, and Paszkiewicz emphasizes that he is answering LaClair's question with that response.

I also think it is fairly clear from this passage that the "you" is singular -- that is, an individual who is chosing (through free will, presumably) to reject or accept God, and the consequences thereof. It is not clear from a simple audio track whether that singular "you" was a generic "you" or a particular student "you." If he addressed it to an individual student, regardless of whether it was Matthew or any other student, I think he was illustrating his point, not singling out a particular student as already on that path. The emphasis he puts on "your" (shown in italics in the transcript) tells me this final segment is directed not at the girl asking about purgatory, but rather at Matthew.

Where "your" occurs in italics it seem obviously directed at Matthew, but other than that Paszkiewicz is using "we" ("Because we disagree with God on many issues, and we're treated like we're all his children, and he does things to try and draw us back. But we can't disagree with him on salvation. Either he paid the price or he didn't - if you reject his gift of salvation, you're going where you belong.")

The context emphasizes "we," implying a plural "you" and Paszkiewicz emphasizes that he is answering LaClair's question (with an admittedly singular "you" elsewhere).

So what is the proper construct to consider if this choice on the teacher's part was morally or ethically wrong?

I'd like to think that in a quality school an intelligently atheist instructor (I'm assuming no contradiction in terms) could give exactly the same answer that Paskiewicz gave after saying that he didn't believe in purgatory, heaven, or hell--and it would be no reason to raise a concern over church/state separation.

[Guest Guest]

Given the mass murder committed by both sides for no oher reason than the "My God is better than your God" argument during the Crusades I'd say the presumption of morality being common to all religions ws a little off base.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Right, so take the next step and figure out the implications for a government founded on a multicultural ideal.

And just in case you're interested in clearing up your misconceptions (if it's not just oversimplification) a bit, you can go here:

http://www.grailwerk.com/docs/The%20Econom...s/CAKTQB89.html

[Guest Guest]

oneellama, on Dec 24 2006, 04:21 AM, wrote (i've put it in green):

"It's a pity we've got a "(???)" at such a critical point, isn't it?

It looks like he's factually describing Christian doctrine (an aspect of history) rather than directing the comment at any individual (plural "you" in keeping with the preceding "we").

So, Paul, you said that the comment about belonging in hell was ethically and morally wrong.

Why?

Again, it appears that Paszkiewicz presented a perspective--potentially relevant to a history course--on Christian doctrine, and the latter portion, at the very least, was in response to a student's participation in the discussion."

__________________________

Actually, I believe the missing segment is quite audible on the Quicktime audio file posted by The Observer, and that segment of the transcript you used can be corrected (shown in bold in the transcript below.

The version you have in bold is so different from the one posted at the website that I am concerned about its overall accuracy (I'm talking about the one apparently recommended by Paul LaClair).

It is clear by this time in the tape that Matthew LaClair is questioning a number of Mr. Paskiewicz's statements.

Right, in the broader context of the role of religion in society (including public schools).  LaClair is participating in the discussion in such a way that the discussion is perpetuated and deepened.

Just prior to the section you cite, Matthew has questioned how the stories attributed to Moses were recorded in the first five books of the Bible.  Mr. Paskiewicz responds that Moses was a prophet, and the accuracy is ensured through revelation and inspiration by God.

Right, summing up with "the biblical convention is that the accuracy is ensured by God."

Mr. Paskiewicz then switches to the story of Noah, speculating that Noah's grandsons could have written down the stories, and the "biblical convention is that the accuracy is ensured by God."

"witches" to the story of Noah?  I'd call it an illustration designed to show how an account of the flood would end up at Moses' disposal.  Do you think that improper of Paszkiewicz, given the question posed by LaClair ("How do we prove that it is

these people who did these different things? Did the Lord talk to him,

did he come down and say, 'Moses, I want you to write this for me.'")?

Matthew again raises concerns, this time that God doesn't make mistakes,

Oh, you mean that LaClair "switches" from the mode of transmission of the story to the separate topic of God's supposed perfection?    ("But for example, wouldn't something like Noah's Ark be an example of a mistake by God? Because, at least from what I know of the Bible, because he had to destroy, start over.")

yet it could be viewed that the story of Noah (and by implication, the Great Flood) was a mistake by God because he had to pretty much give up and start all over.  This led to a discussion by a few of the students and Mr. Paskiewicz on free will.

That's one of the classic philosophical problems.  Isn't it a shame that it's being discussed in a public school?

Matthew then questioned why an "all loving God" would give up on a human being who had done something that was wrong in God's eyes, and condemn that person to burn in hell forever after only one lifetime (implying, no second chance).  He makes an analogy to a parent, a child who had done something terrible, and no second chances.

A second student diverts the conversation to an exploration of purgatory.  The corrected transcript would then proceed:

Teacher: See, I don't mean to step on anybody's toes; I know a lot of

you believe in purgatory; I don't.

Student 4: Neither do I.

Teacher: I believe that it's one or the other, Heaven or Hell, but

this is the answer to your question - and I believe that because

there's no mention in Genesis through Revalations of a place called

Purgatory - but this is the issue: God is not only for

(love??inaudible) the way he describes himself in the scriptures, he

is also completely just. He did everything in his power to make sure

that you could go to Heaven, so much so, that he put your sin on his

own body, suffered your pains for you, and he's saying "Please, accept

me, believe!" You reject that, you belong in hell.

Mr. Paskiewicz states his opinion that there is no purgatory, that God is completely just, that if you reject his entreaties to believe in God's willingness to take on your sin so you can go Heaven, than you belong in hell.

With all due respect, you're missing the obvious.  Examine the section of transcript you provided.  Paszkiewicz gives his opinion about purgatory prior to emphasizing the answer to the earlier question.  He separates his opinion on purgatory from the discussion of free will.  Thus he ends up answering LaClair's question with an academic tone, emphasizing the necessity of hell within the theological framework because of the need to preserve perfect justice--which is, indeed, the traditional answer to the additional issue LaClair brought up concerning the supposed mistake.

I think the evidence from the tape shows that Mr. Paskiewicz is presenting his own view of the dogma, not presenting it as a history lesson on Christianity.

Opinion noted, but you seem to be ignoring some of his statements while focusing on others (thus affecting the context).

Purgatory was treated according to his opinion, while the issue of free will was given a standard treatment that should be welcome, I believe, in a philosophical discussion of moral responsibility.

He says "I believe it's one or the other.  Heaven or Hell."  He then goes on to describe a specific condition that will land you in hell -- if you fail to believe that God took on human sin and pain in order to ensure each individual's path to Heaven.

Well, again you seem to be ignoring the context that you just finished mentioning (which is curious).  You recognize that the teacher had been asked about the moral responsibility for the flood (via the implication that the evil of man resulted from the actions of God in such a way that God was culpable for evil).  The mention of hell occurs in the context of the free will explanation, and Paszkiewicz emphasizes that he is answering LaClair's question with that response.

I also think it is fairly clear from this passage that the "you" is singular -- that is, an individual who is chosing (through free will, presumably) to reject or accept God, and the consequences thereof.  It is not clear from a simple audio track whether that singular "you" was a generic "you" or a particular student "you."  If he addressed it to an individual student, regardless of whether it was Matthew or any other student, I think he was illustrating his point, not singling out a particular student as already on that path.  The emphasis he puts on "your" (shown in italics in the transcript) tells me this final segment is directed not at the girl asking about purgatory, but rather at Matthew.

Where "your" occurs in italics it seem obviously directed at Matthew, but other than that Paszkiewicz is using "we" ("Because we disagree with God on many issues, and we're treated like we're all his children, and he does things to try and draw us back. But we can't disagree with him on salvation. Either he paid the price or he didn't - if you reject his gift of salvation, you're going where you belong.")

The context emphasizes "we," implying a plural "you" and Paszkiewicz emphasizes that he is answering LaClair's question (with an admittedly singular "you" elsewhere).

So what is the proper construct to consider if this choice on the teacher's part was morally or ethically wrong?

I'd like to think that in a quality school an intelligently atheist instructor (I'm assuming no contradiction in terms) could give exactly the same answer that Paskiewicz gave after saying that he didn't believe in purgatory, heaven, or hell--and it would be no reason to raise a concern over church/state separation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This argument is pointless. The teacher expressed his religious opinions in open class. That is Constitutionally forbidden. Nothing else is relevant on that point.

[Guest Guest]

It has a morality. But, when we take the Bible literally, it's just one that we would find both morally abhorrent and quite inconsistent. The gist of it, however, can be condensed to one word:

OBEY

It is the one thing made clear, time and time again. Do whatever God wants you to do...or else. It is position of clear moral relativism. Whatever strikes the divine whim must be followed...and as long as you believe in Jesus, any atrocity is acceptable. After all, only faith brings you to heaven.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Funny, from my readings of the New Testament, I get a different four letter word.

LOVE.

I guess where you stand on a particular subject often depends upon where you sit.

[Bryan]

This argument is pointless. The teacher expressed his religious opinions in open class. That is Constitutionally forbidden. Nothing else is relevant on that point.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Funny stuff, there, "Guest."

You might as well be saying that your mind's made up and you can't be bothered with the evidence.

The Constitution does not forbid the expression of religious opinions in class.

If it did, then you should be promptly asking yourself what constitutes a "religious" opinion (good luck pinning that down).

Not a bad question to ask yourself in any case.