Jump to content

David Paszkiewicz Letter to Editor


Guest Observer fan

Recommended Posts

Bryan, you really know how to go on and on forever without actually saying anything, don't you?

Fallacy of the complex question (question contains questionable premise).

I think your lack of an argument has already been clearly demonstrated, and nothing more really needs to be added:

That's because you have no argument, present case included (this response and the earlier one).

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=40389

Paul had no argument, either. He made an assertion but provided absolutely no concrete evidence in support. Good enough for Strife, apparently.

Paul apparently did not have the ability or inclination to elaborate:

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...t=620&p=40389

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...t=620&p=40389

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=40443

"Guest" had no argument, either.

Good enough for Strife, apparently.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=40452

Paul's charge was equivocal.

Do you know what that means?

So, do you have any legal training?

Do you have any argument to stack up against mine? From anybody regardless of legal training?

And are you finished trying to change the subject from your latest embarassment (I thought fundies did that--you a fundie, Strife?)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 247
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The "right" to which you refer is not among those enumerated in the Constitution, as Paskiewicz points out.

Once you appeal to 20th century court opinions in arguing for the right (I'd be glad to see you try without that appeal), you're conceding the brunt of Paszkiewicz's argument.

That's part of the real story.

Jefferson was Episcopalian in affiliation, and deist in belief.  He was a Christian (in his own words) to the extent that he held Jesus' moral teachings as the ideal.

....

Bryan, you're also overlooking a fairly obvious point. Arguing about the Founders' personal religious beliefs is irrelevant to whether those beliefs should be espoused and endorsed by government.

And on that point, it wouldn't matter if every Founding Father had been a hardcore Southern Baptist. They STILL didn't want government involved in religious matters, and they explicitly set up our Constitution to guarantee that.

That's the inarguable point that the evangelicals, fundies, and similar Chrsitian zealots try so hard to deny. It's why they muddy the waters with context-free quotes, speculation about motives (both those of the founders' and of any who disagree with their agenda, such as the LaClaris), and hysterical cries of "persecution." Because thet government is designed to be wholly, explicitly, 100% secular, and they know it. They don't LIKE it, but they know it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bryan,

I'm curious. Do you believe that Mr. P's statements in class were constitutional?

I think that Jefferson, Washington, and Franklin would have unquestionably found the comments constitutional.

That doesn't directly answer your question, however.

The constitution has become a malleable document in the hands of the courts. Some precedents in the wake of the 14th Amendment place Paszkiewicz's statements in doubt. Others offer him some support. Given an equivocal constitution, nobody can say for certain except for the courts--but I do accept accept the principle of rewriting the constitution via interpretation.

Changing the constitution ought to be done by amendment, not through judicial interpretation (that is, activism).

Using an interpretation of the constitution based the language of the law interpreted in the light of authorial intent, what Paszkiewicz said should be fine (under the purview of the local government). The sole questionable comment in my mind was Paszkiewicz's apparently unequivocal statement to effect that a first cause "must" be intelligent--but even that type of comment may qualify as a commonplace low-level hyperbole.

Assuming that the transcripts and recordings that have been posted are accurate, of course.

I'm basing my comments on the Sept. 14 transcript. Apart from that I've only heard the two-part recording posted online in mp3 format in which I found nothing at all that seemed out of line.

Constitutionality aside, do you think it's appropriate for a teacher to espouse his religious beliefs in a public high school classroom?

Paszkiewicz is a Baptist, right? Which Baptist beliefs that he actively attempt to impress upon his students in doctrinaire fashion?

Your question itself is insufficiently specific because one of the terms may be prejudicially defined. What is a "religious belief"?

If a Muslim had made similar pro-Islamic statements, would your answers be different?

No, they would not.

But for some reason folks do not tire of asking. <_<

What about a Sikh, or a Wiccan, or even a Satanist?

Comments parallel to Paszkiewicz's by members of any of the above groups would be okay by me (with the exception of parallels to Paskiewicz's claim that a First Cause must be intelligent).

If the Satanist were to tell the class that of course it's okay to take revenge on people who "wrong" you, I think that should be prohibited (though more as a matter of sustaining the social contract than as a matter of church/state separation).

In a class where religious beliefs are fair game for discussion, on the other hand, there should be nothing wrong with a Satanist (Wiccan, whatever) using his own beliefs to illustrate a point (short of proselytization, which I define more narrowly than some others--though I find my definition more in line with what the dictionary offers).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bryan, you're also overlooking a fairly obvious point. Arguing about the Founders' personal religious beliefs is irrelevant to whether those beliefs should be espoused and endorsed by government.

I'm not overlooking that point.

I'm just making sure that Strife's inaccurate statements do not remain unchallenged.

Is that okay with you?

And on that point, it wouldn't matter if every Founding Father had been a hardcore Southern Baptist. They STILL didn't want government involved in religious matters, and they explicitly set up our Constitution to guarantee that.

You haven't been paying attention.

The architects of the constitution set it up to bar the national government from delving into religious matters. It was the 14th Amendment, passed in the wake of the American Civil War, that was subsequently stretched (beyond recognition, I would suggest) to bind state and local governments in the same manner as the national government up to and including the establishment of religion.

http://www.nps.gov/archive/malu/documents/amend14.htm

That's the inarguable point that the evangelicals, fundies, and similar Chrsitian zealots try so hard to deny.

You need to look at the argument that's on the table instead of the pre-cooked one in your imagination.

It's why they muddy the waters with context-free quotes, speculation about motives (both those of the founders' and of any who disagree with their agenda, such as the LaClaris), and hysterical cries of "persecution." Because thet government is designed to be wholly, explicitly, 100% secular, and they know it. They don't LIKE it, but they know it.

Does that mean that you'll explain how this quotation was used out-of-context?

"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:428

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1650.htm

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...opic=3727&st=0#

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bryan, you're also overlooking a fairly obvious point. Arguing about the Founders' personal religious beliefs is irrelevant to whether those beliefs should be espoused and endorsed by government.

And on that point, it wouldn't matter if every Founding Father had been a hardcore Southern Baptist. They STILL didn't want government involved in religious matters, and they explicitly set up our Constitution to guarantee that.

That's the inarguable point that the evangelicals, fundies, and similar Chrsitian zealots try so hard to deny. It's why they muddy the waters with context-free quotes, speculation about motives (both those of the founders' and of any who disagree with their agenda, such as the LaClaris), and hysterical cries of "persecution." Because thet government is designed to be wholly, explicitly, 100% secular, and they know it. They don't LIKE it, but they know it.

The Founders didn't "explicitly" set up anything of the kind. Please read the short passage, hardly even a sentence, in the Constitution and think about what you're saying. It is quite open to interpretation which is what anti-religious zealots like you base your arguments on.

And you'd better re-think the 100% secular comment also. Just remember, the Bible and now the Koran are used to swear folks in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Son, when are you coming home, you've be spending all your time in your boyfriend's house on his damn computer. Burger King  called,  you've haven't showed up for work in over a week.

You know what's really funny? None of you imbeciles who write this idiocy (wouldn't be surprised to learn it was all 1 or 2 people) ever even have the balls to register. Hell, no one can really do anything to you with just an email address, but you still don't register. Talk about wimpy.

Also, funny that you are retarded enough to consider implying I'm gay to be an insult. I'm not gay (and my girlfriend would sure agree), but if I was, it would only make this comment even funnier. I'm guessing you're one of those older homophobes--your 'breed' is dying out, though, thankfully. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bryan, you're also overlooking a fairly obvious point. Arguing about the Founders' personal religious beliefs is irrelevant to whether those beliefs should be espoused and endorsed by government.

And on that point, it wouldn't matter if every Founding Father had been a hardcore Southern Baptist. They STILL didn't want government involved in religious matters, and they explicitly set up our Constitution to guarantee that.

That's the inarguable point that the evangelicals, fundies, and similar Chrsitian zealots try so hard to deny. It's why they muddy the waters with context-free quotes, speculation about motives (both those of the founders' and of any who disagree with their agenda, such as the LaClaris), and hysterical cries of "persecution." Because thet government is designed to be wholly, explicitly, 100% secular, and they know it. They don't LIKE it, but they know it.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Steve_C
I couldn't have said it better myself.

I find it funny that Mister P tried using Jefferson to defend his preaching in class.

And Franklin who was a Deist and never joined any particular church.

He also forgets that the schools at the time of the founding fathers were private schools.

There were very few public schools at the time.

It was Jefferson who wanted to build a wall between church and state.

From Wiki:

Following the Revolution, Jefferson played a leading role in the disestablishment of religion in Virginia. Previously the Anglican Church had tax support. As he wrote in his Notes on Virginia, a law was in effect in Virginia that "if a person brought up a Christian denies the being of a God, or the Trinity …he is punishable on the first offense by incapacity to hold any office …; on the second by a disability to sue, to take any gift or legacy …, and by three year' imprisonment." Prospective officer-holders were required to swear that they did not believe in the central Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.

From 1784 to 1786, Jefferson and James Madison worked together to oppose Patrick Henry's attempts to again assess taxes in Virginia to support churches. Instead, in 1786, the Virginia General Assembly passed Jefferson's Bill for Religious Freedom, which he had first submitted in 1779 and was one of only three accomplishments he put in his own epitaph. The law read:

“No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.[28]”

One of Jefferson’s least well known writings is: "Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make half the world fools and half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the world"- Thomas Jefferson, in his Notes on Virginia. [12]

Jefferson sought what he called a "wall of separation between Church and State", which he believed was a principle expressed by the First Amendment. This phrase has been cited several times by the Supreme Court in its interpretation of the Establishment Clause.[29] In an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, he wrote:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State.[30]”

He used the phrase "wall of separation" again in an 1808 letter to Virginia Baptists:

“Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.[31]”

During his Presidency, Jefferson refused to issue proclamations calling for days of prayer and thanksgiving. Moreover, his private letters indicate he was skeptical of too much interference by clergy in matters of civil government. His letters contain the following observations: "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government",[32] and, "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."[33]

"May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all), the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government".[34]

It's pathetic that he tries to use the first amendment to justify his absolute violation of it.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Together with the Free Exercise Clause, ("or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), these two clauses make up what are commonly known as the religion clauses.

This has been interpreted as the prohibition of 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress and later, by a Supreme Court Judge, 2) the preference of one religion over another or of religion over non-religious philosophies in general. The first approach is called the "separationist" or "no aid" interpretation. In separationist interpretation, the clause, as historically understood, prohibits Congress from aiding religion in any way even if such aid is made without regard to denomination. The second approach is called the "non-preferentialist" or "accommodationist" interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you'd better re-think the 100% secular comment also.  Just remember, the Bible and now the Koran are used to swear folks in.

Actually, you're wrong on that too. The official swearing-in is done as a group, with a simple raised hand. There's an optional ceremony for individuals later, in which they can swear on a book if they choose... but it has no official standing.

Just like nobody has to swear on a bible to testify in court, although many people still believe that's required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it funny that Mister P tried using Jefferson to defend his preaching in class.

And Franklin who was a Deist and never joined any particular church.

He also forgets that the schools at the time of the founding fathers were private schools.

There were very few public schools at the time.

Oh, wow, I didn't even know that. o.O Makes sense, though.

It was Jefferson who wanted to build a wall between church and state.

From Wiki:

Following the Revolution, Jefferson played a leading role in the disestablishment of religion in Virginia. Previously the Anglican Church had tax support. As he wrote in his Notes on Virginia, a law was in effect in Virginia that "if a person brought up a Christian denies the being of a God, or the Trinity …he is punishable on the first offense by incapacity to hold any office …; on the second by a disability to sue, to take any gift or legacy …, and by three year' imprisonment." Prospective officer-holders were required to swear that they did not believe in the central Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.

From 1784 to 1786, Jefferson and James Madison worked together to oppose Patrick Henry's attempts to again assess taxes in Virginia to support churches. Instead, in 1786, the Virginia General Assembly passed Jefferson's Bill for Religious Freedom, which he had first submitted in 1779 and was one of only three accomplishments he put in his own epitaph. The law read:

“No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.[28]”

One of Jefferson’s least well known writings is: "Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make half the world fools and half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the world"- Thomas Jefferson, in his Notes on Virginia. [12]

Jefferson sought what he called a "wall of separation between Church and State", which he believed was a principle expressed by the First Amendment. This phrase has been cited several times by the Supreme Court in its interpretation of the Establishment Clause.[29] In an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, he wrote:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State.[30]”

He used the phrase "wall of separation" again in an 1808 letter to Virginia Baptists:

“Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.[31]”

During his Presidency, Jefferson refused to issue proclamations calling for days of prayer and thanksgiving. Moreover, his private letters indicate he was skeptical of too much interference by clergy in matters of civil government. His letters contain the following observations: "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government",[32] and, "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."[33]

"May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all), the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government".[34]

It's pathetic that he tries to use the first amendment to justify his absolute violation of it.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Together with the Free Exercise Clause, ("or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), these two clauses make up what are commonly known as the religion clauses.

This has been interpreted as the prohibition of 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress and later, by a Supreme Court Judge, 2) the preference of one religion over another or of religion over non-religious philosophies in general. The first approach is called the "separationist" or "no aid" interpretation. In separationist interpretation, the clause, as historically understood, prohibits Congress from aiding religion in any way even if such aid is made without regard to denomination. The second approach is called the "non-preferentialist" or "accommodationist" interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, you're wrong on that too. The official swearing-in is done as a group, with a simple raised hand. There's an optional ceremony for individuals later, in which they can swear on a book if they choose... but it has no official standing.

Just like nobody has to swear on a bible to testify in court, although many people still believe that's required.

*nods at the last part* It wasn't too long ago that I learned that--prior to that it was another "under God"-ish thing that I was against, if you catch my drift. :) That's good, though--well done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest A Christian
Actually, you're wrong on that too. The official swearing-in is done as a group, with a simple raised hand. There's an optional ceremony for individuals later, in which they can swear on a book if they choose... but it has no official standing.

Just like nobody has to swear on a bible to testify in court, although many people still believe that's required.

Calybos.....just curious, it you were to touch a bible would your hand burn ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it funny that Mister P tried using Jefferson to defend his preaching in class.

And Franklin who was a Deist and never joined any particular church.

I'll visit your argument as to the former.

As for the latter, Franklin believed in active provenance on the part of God, and was on record with a motion recommending prayer before government deliberations.

That's not how many people think of deists today.

Prior to the 17th century the terms ["deism" and "deist"] were used interchangeably with the terms "theism" and "theist", respectively. ... Theologians and philosophers of the seventeenth century began to give a different signification to the words.... Both [theists and deists] asserted belief in one supreme God, the Creator.... and agreed that God is personal and distinct from the world. But the theist taught that god remained actively interested in and operative in the world which he had made, whereas the deist maintained that God endowed the world at creation with self-sustaining and self-acting powers and then abandoned it to the operation of these powers acting as second causes.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

He also forgets that the schools at the time of the founding fathers were private schools.

There were very few public schools at the time.

Paszkiewicz didn't mention anything about schools at all, AFAICT.

Looks like you're making up a straw man argument, Steve.

Why would you do that?

It was Jefferson who wanted to build a wall between church and state.

From Wiki:

Following the Revolution, Jefferson played a leading role in the disestablishment of religion in Virginia. Previously the Anglican Church had tax support. As he wrote in his Notes on Virginia, a law was in effect in Virginia that "if a person brought up a Christian denies the being of a God, or the Trinity …he is punishable on the first offense by incapacity to hold any office …; on the second by a disability to sue, to take any gift or legacy …, and by three year' imprisonment." Prospective officer-holders were required to swear that they did not believe in the central Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.

From 1784 to 1786, Jefferson and James Madison worked together to oppose Patrick Henry's attempts to again assess taxes in Virginia to support churches. Instead, in 1786, the Virginia General Assembly passed Jefferson's Bill for Religious Freedom, which he had first submitted in 1779 and was one of only three accomplishments he put in his own epitaph. The law read:

“No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.[28]”

One of Jefferson’s least well known writings is: "Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make half the world fools and half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the world"- Thomas Jefferson, in his Notes on Virginia. [12]

Jefferson sought what he called a "wall of separation between Church and State", which he believed was a principle expressed by the First Amendment. This phrase has been cited several times by the Supreme Court in its interpretation of the Establishment Clause.[29] In an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, he wrote:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State.[30]”

He used the phrase "wall of separation" again in an 1808 letter to Virginia Baptists:

“Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.[31]”

During his Presidency, Jefferson refused to issue proclamations calling for days of prayer and thanksgiving. Moreover, his private letters indicate he was skeptical of too much interference by clergy in matters of civil government. His letters contain the following observations: "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government",[32] and, "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."[33]

"May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all), the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government".[34]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jeffer...hurch_and_state

Note the portion that I have highlighted in green. How did Jefferson define "state church" in your opinion, Steve?

And how would you describe his objection to a state church?

It's pathetic that he tries to use the first amendment to justify his absolute violation of it.

As I have already pointed out, the First Amendment had no teeth in it against the powers of the individual states. The states were held to possess those powers not reserved to the national government. That only changed after the Civil War.

Jefferson, Washington, and Franklin were all dead by the time of the Civil War.

They would not recognize the application of the First Amendment as it is applied today with respect to state and local governments.

It's like you guys aren't aware of that fact, and so far there seems little hope that you possess the will to accept the obvious.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Together with the Free Exercise Clause, ("or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), these two clauses make up what are commonly known as the religion clauses.

This has been interpreted as the prohibition of 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress and later, by a Supreme Court Judge, 2) the preference of one religion over another or of religion over non-religious philosophies in general. The first approach is called the "separationist" or "no aid" interpretation. In separationist interpretation, the clause, as historically understood, prohibits Congress from aiding religion in any way even if such aid is made without regard to denomination. The second approach is called the "non-preferentialist" or "accommodationist" interpretation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment...First_Amendment

Huh. With Wikipedia's help and a little luck you may never need to write anything of your own again.

I'd ask you, Steve, how far back the "historically understood" view goes, but since you're just copying and pasting the substance of your posts I may presume too much understanding on your part of what you copied.

This article goes deeper than Wikipedia (the encylopedia anyone can edit).

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=804

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bryan,

Thanks for the considerate response. A couple of comments -

Paszkiewicz is a Baptist, right?  Which Baptist beliefs that he actively attempt to impress upon his students in doctrinaire fashion?

Examples of statements that I consider inappropiate include the following:

"The text [of the Bible] is full of biblical prophecy that comes to pass."

Implying proof of the Bible's accuracy. In other words, a specific claim for the truth of a specific religion.

"Now, this whole idea of faith, my faith is reasoned. It's not like, "I really hope it's true, so I'm just going to believe a lot and hope I go to Heaven when I die." No, it's not like that. It's not like I could stand on the edge of a building and say "I believe I can fly, if I really try hard now," no. That's foolishness. You can believe all you want. It's all gonna end the same. With your face splattered on the sidewalk. Why is my faith rooted and grounded in the scriptures? Because of biblical prophecy. That has come true within the letter and verifies the text."

Again, a specific truth claim regarding Mr. Paszkiewicz's religion.

"I'm sure Moses had ancient accounts that were written by men on the Ark, because Noah was on there with his 3 sons."

Yet another claim (or implication, at least) that the Bible is literally true.

"When God created man, he gave him free will. He could have very easily wound us up like robots and said "serve me" like the angels. But he's a good God, he's a holy God, and the choice is up to you. You can reciprocate properly to the very one that gave you life, or you don't have to, I love you that much, the choice is yours."

Once again, Mr. Paszkiewicz is presenting his religious beliefs as truth.

"God himself sent his only son to die for days (???)...on the cross. That's the idea. And if I reject that, then it really is, then to Hell with me."

These are just a few of Mr. Paszkiewicz's statements that I consider entirely inappropriate for a teacher to make in a public classroom. And, with respect, I don't think it's necessary to precisely specific what is a religious belief to judge this case. I grant that in some cases, reasonable people can disagree what is or is not a religious belief. I don't think this is such a case.

Comments parallel to Paszkiewicz's by members of any of the above groups [Muslims, Sikhs, Wiccans, Satanists] would be okay by me (with the exception of parallels to Paskiewicz's claim that a First Cause must be intelligent).

If the Satanist were to tell the class that of course it's okay to take revenge on people who "wrong" you, I think that should be prohibited (though more as a matter of sustaining the social contract than as a matter of church/state separation).

I'm glad to hear that. If you've answered this question before, I apologize; I missed it. I've seen the question asked quite a few times (and even asked it myself on another thread), but this is the first time I've seen anyone actually answer.

I don't agree with your position, but at least it's consistent and doesn't attempt to claim any privilege for one religion over another. Unfortunately, I suspect a large fraction of Mr. Paszkiewicz's defenders see things rather differently. (Of course, I could be wrong. Hard to tell, since most of them seem to be reluctant to admit their position on this point. :rolleyes: )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it funny that Mister P tried using Jefferson to defend his preaching in class.

And Franklin who was a Deist and never joined any particular church.

He also forgets that the schools at the time of the founding fathers were private schools.

There were very few public schools at the time.

It was Jefferson who wanted to build a wall between church and state.

From Wiki:

Following the Revolution, Jefferson played a leading role in the disestablishment of religion in Virginia. Previously the Anglican Church had tax support. As he wrote in his Notes on Virginia, a law was in effect in Virginia that "if a person brought up a Christian denies the being of a God, or the Trinity …he is punishable on the first offense by incapacity to hold any office …; on the second by a disability to sue, to take any gift or legacy …, and by three year' imprisonment." Prospective officer-holders were required to swear that they did not believe in the central Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.

From 1784 to 1786, Jefferson and James Madison worked together to oppose Patrick Henry's attempts to again assess taxes in Virginia to support churches. Instead, in 1786, the Virginia General Assembly passed Jefferson's Bill for Religious Freedom, which he had first submitted in 1779 and was one of only three accomplishments he put in his own epitaph. The law read:

“No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.[28]”

One of Jefferson’s least well known writings is: "Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make half the world fools and half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the world"- Thomas Jefferson, in his Notes on Virginia. [12]

Jefferson sought what he called a "wall of separation between Church and State", which he believed was a principle expressed by the First Amendment. This phrase has been cited several times by the Supreme Court in its interpretation of the Establishment Clause.[29] In an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, he wrote:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State.[30]”

He used the phrase "wall of separation" again in an 1808 letter to Virginia Baptists:

“Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.[31]”

During his Presidency, Jefferson refused to issue proclamations calling for days of prayer and thanksgiving. Moreover, his private letters indicate he was skeptical of too much interference by clergy in matters of civil government. His letters contain the following observations: "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government",[32] and, "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."[33]

"May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all), the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government".[34]

It's pathetic that he tries to use the first amendment to justify his absolute violation of it.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Together with the Free Exercise Clause, ("or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), these two clauses make up what are commonly known as the religion clauses.

This has been interpreted as the prohibition of 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress and later, by a Supreme Court Judge, 2) the preference of one religion over another or of religion over non-religious philosophies in general. The first approach is called the "separationist" or "no aid" interpretation. In separationist interpretation, the clause, as historically understood, prohibits Congress from aiding religion in any way even if such aid is made without regard to denomination. The second approach is called the "non-preferentialist" or "accommodationist" interpretation.

Paszkiewicz's complete distortion of history is troubling given his position as a history teacher on the public payroll. Thomas Jefferson did not believe that Jesus of Nazareth was divine, was a savior, or anything like that. He believed Jesus was a teacher. Jefferson did not believe in the so-called miracles reported in the Bible. He thought that the further removed they were from what we experience in the world, the less likely they were to be true. He also commented at least once that there were marvelous passages in the Bible, and passages that were dreadful, and that it was easy to tell the difference between them. Thomas Jefferson was so critical of the Bible that he put together the "Jefferson Bible" by literally cutting entire passages out of the Bible that he did not believe to be true.

Jefferson considered himself a Deist, not a Christian except in a limited sense. For him, as for many of the Founding Fathers who were Deists, there was a clear distinction between Christianity and Deism. The letter to Benjamin Rush, which Paszkiewicz MISQUOTES, states that Jefferson considered himself a Christian ONLY in the sense of believing in Jesus' doctrines. By doctrines he was referring to secular principles like the Golden Rule. The whole point of this statement to Rush was to state that he (Jefferson) was not a Christian in the traditional sense, but only in the sense that Jesus said many things that merit following. That a local public school history teacher who has already gotten himself in trouble for preaching in the classroom would use his first public statement to distort history is shocking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of comments -

Examples of statements that I consider inappropiate include the following:

"The text [of the Bible] is full of biblical prophecy that comes to pass."

Implying proof of the Bible's accuracy. In other words, a specific claim for the truth of a specific religion.

You would be correct if the context did not argue in Paszkiewicz's favor. Paszkiewicz was fielding a question from a student inquiring as to what basis religious believers had for accepting the veracity of Bible accounts (for example).

The context is important, is it not?

"Now, this whole idea of faith, my faith is reasoned. It's not like, "I really hope it's true, so I'm just going to believe a lot and hope I go to Heaven when I die." No, it's not like that. It's not like I could stand on the edge of a building and say "I believe I can fly, if I really try hard now," no. That's foolishness. You can believe all you want. It's all gonna end the same. With your face splattered on the sidewalk. Why is my faith rooted and grounded in the scriptures? Because of biblical prophecy. That has come true within the letter and verifies the text."

Again, a specific truth claim regarding Mr. Paszkiewicz's religion.

Again, a response to a reasonable question from a student.

Is the topic of religion off-limits in the classroom?

"I'm sure Moses had ancient accounts that were written by men on the Ark, because Noah was on there with his 3 sons."

Yet another claim (or implication, at least) that the Bible is literally true.

Another instance where Paszkiewicz is presenting an explanation for a reasoned belief in the Bible text, in answer to a question from a student.

"When God created man, he gave him free will. He could have very easily wound us up like robots and said "serve me" like the angels. But he's a good God, he's a holy God, and the choice is up to you. You can reciprocate properly to the very one that gave you life, or you don't have to, I love you that much, the choice is yours."

Once again, Mr. Paszkiewicz is presenting his religious beliefs as truth.

Not if you pay attention to the context, he's not.

He is not presenting these ideas as something that the students are expected to accept as true. He is presenting these ideas to illustrate the rational basis of religious belief, fulfilling the parallel to beliefs about the claims of science.

"God himself sent his only son to die for days (???)...on the cross. That's the idea. And if I reject that, then it really is, then to Hell with me."

These are just a few of Mr. Paszkiewicz's statements that I consider entirely inappropriate for a teacher to make in a public classroom.

Regardless of the context?

And, with respect, I don't think it's necessary to precisely specific what is a religious belief to judge this case.

Certainly keeping the definition secret helps protect against a charge of inconsistency, however. :wub:

I grant that in some cases, reasonable people can disagree what is or is not a religious belief. I don't think this is such a case.

That's a very convenient view for you to have, given that you are unwilling to spell out the criteria you employ in making the determination.

I'm glad to hear that. If you've answered this question before, I apologize; I missed it. I've seen the question asked quite a few times (and even asked it myself on another thread), but this is the first time I've seen anyone actually answer.

I don't agree with your position, but at least it's consistent and doesn't attempt to claim any privilege for one religion over another. Unfortunately, I suspect a large fraction of Mr. Paszkiewicz's defenders see things rather differently. (Of course, I could be wrong. Hard to tell, since most of them seem to be reluctant to admit their position on this point.  :D )

Fair enough. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest DingoDave
Wow, wow, are you angry because Mr. P quoted the founders and there is not much you can say about it or because is not what you expected? I wonder why you are so angry... :lol:

It appears that Mr. P has taken these quotes almost verbatum from a right wing Christian fundamentalist website which is run by a self appointed 'expert' on these matters by the name of David Barton.

Mr. Barton runs a website called 'Wallbuilders'.

Barton appears to be nothing more than another right wing religious nutjob who has been described as a "pseudo-historian", and whose work has been described as "laced with exaggerations, half-truths and misstatements of fact."

For an analysis of the apparent source of Mr. P's quotations quotations visit

www.rightwingwatch.org/individuals/david_paszkiewi/index.html

If this letter to the editor is typical of the quality of Mr. P's historical analytical abilities, then it appears that the students at Kearny High School are being sorely disadvantaged by having him as their history teacher, even apart from his preaching and his ridiculous scientific blunders.

I think he final paragraph of the above article sums up Mr. P's situation quite concisely.

"As a history teacher, Paszkiewicz ought to know better than to rely on a "historian" whose credentials are as suspect as Barton's. If he keeps this up, Paszkiewicz may soon need to issue his own list of “Unconfirmed Quotations.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears that Mr. P has taken these quotes almost verbatum from a right wing Christian fundamentalist website which is run by a self appointed 'expert' on these matters by the name of David Barton.

Mr. Barton runs a website called 'Wallbuilders'.

Barton appears to be nothing more than another right wing religious nutjob who has been described as a "pseudo-historian", and whose work has been described as "laced with exaggerations, half-truths and misstatements of fact."

For an analysis of the apparent source of Mr. P's quotations quotations visit

www.rightwingwatch.org/individuals/david_paszkiewi/index.html

If this letter to the editor is typical of the quality of Mr. P's historical analytical abilities, then it appears that the students at Kearny High School are being sorely disadvantaged by having him as their history teacher, even apart from his preaching and his ridiculous scientific blunders.

I think he final paragraph of the above article sums up Mr. P's situation quite concisely.

"As a history teacher, Paszkiewicz ought to know better than to rely on a "historian" whose credentials are as suspect as Barton's. If he keeps this up, Paszkiewicz may soon need to issue his own list of “Unconfirmed Quotations.”

Hah, you beat me to it. Nice job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You would be correct if the context did not argue in Paszkiewicz's favor. Paszkiewicz was fielding a question from a student inquiring as to what basis religious believers had for accepting the veracity of Bible accounts (for example).

The context is important, is it not?

It would be if Mr. P. had spoken differently. He might have said "One reason a believer might accept the veracity of the Bible is if it contained specific prophesies that could be shown to have come true." That isn't what he said. He said that the Bible was full of prophesies that did come true. That's a claim for the truth of his religion, pure and simple.

Is the topic of religion off-limits in the classroom?

That's a legal/constitutional question, and I don't have the expertise to answer authoritatively. But from my understanding, no, the topic of religion is not off-limits in a public classroom. Nor do I think it should be. However, based on my understanding of how courts currently interpret the constitution, it is off limits for a teacher to present their religion as true. That interpretationi also fits my personal views on the matter.

He is not presenting these ideas as something that the students are expected to accept as true.  He is presenting these ideas to illustrate the rational basis of religious belief, fulfilling the parallel to beliefs about the claims of science.

I disagree in part. I agree that he didn't tell students that they must accept his ideas as true. Whether he had any intent to convince them is unknowable, so I give him the benefit of the doubt there as well.

However, he was not simply illustrating the possible rational basis of religious belief in the abstract. He was attempting to illustrate that his religious beliefs are rational. That is not the same thing. Again, he could have prefaced his statements by saying "A believer might argue that...." He did not.

Certainly keeping the definition [of what is a religious belief] secret helps protect against a charge of inconsistency, however.

Have I been inconsistent? If so, I apologize, but I don't recall when. If you'll kindly provide an illustrative quote, perhaps I can clarify.

That's a very convenient view for you to have, given that you are unwilling to spell out the criteria you employ in making the determination.

As I said, reasonable people may sometimes disagree on what is or is not a religious belief. If I thought this case were at all equivocal, that would be one thing. But it's not (IMO). Do you disagree? Do you deny that Mr. P. was discussing religious beliefs, by any reasonable definition of the term?

Personally, I think your question of "what is a religious belief" is something of a debating trick. An attempt to shift the subject. Unless you're prepared to argue that Mr. P was not discussing religion, your question isn't relevant. Just because some cases may be arguable doesn't mean every case is. As an analogy, consider that green and yellow are unquestionably different colors, even if it's difficult to precisely divide green from yellow on the color spectrum.

This is not one of those difficult cases. Mr. P. was unambiguously discussing religious beliefs; his religious beliefs in particular. Based on the transcript, it seems clear that he repeatedly made truth claims about his religious beliefs. (I say "seems" to acknowledge that I don't know for a fact that the transcript is accurate.) You can argue that he was merely answering students' questions in a hypothetical way, but the posted transcript doesn't support you.

P.S. Please forgive any typos. I'm using a rather old and blurry monitor tonight, and it's a bit difficult to proofread. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jim Lippard

David Paszkiewicz, already considered a fool, has now spoken and removed all doubt.

A U.S. History teacher who defends his position by using misquotations and misrepresentations of the statements of the Founding Fathers is someone who shouldn't be teaching history--that's a demonstration of incompetence, dishonesty, or both.

For the details (including references to an image of the Jefferson letter Paszkiewicz misrepresents), see:

1. Kennesaw State Univ. history professor David Parker:

http://anotherhistoryblog.blogspot.com/200...n-on-jesus.html

2. Dispatches from the Culture Wars blogger Ed Brayton:

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/01...displays_hi.php

Ed gives a further refutation of the same David Barton-based claims from another individual here:

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/01...churchstate.php

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on the transcript, it seems clear that he repeatedly made truth claims about his religious beliefs. (I say "seems" to acknowledge that I don't know for a fact that the transcript is accurate.)

Well, here, don't let yourself doubt--listen for yourself.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=40870

http://www.davidkowalski.com/teachpreach.mp3

http://thecanessacorner.blogspot.com/2006/...recordings.html

You can argue that he was merely answering students' questions in a hypothetical way, but the posted transcript doesn't support you.

Neither do the recordings, I assure you. But don't take my word for it--listen for yourself.

P.S. Please forgive any typos. I'm using a rather old and blurry monitor tonight, and it's a bit difficult to proofread.  :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, you're wrong on that too. The official swearing-in is done as a group, with a simple raised hand. There's an optional ceremony for individuals later, in which they can swear on a book if they choose... but it has no official standing.

Just like nobody has to swear on a bible to testify in court, although many people still believe that's required.

I didn't say it was official. I said it is done, and that things are not as secular as you would like them to appear. Does that frighten you? :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note - "Guest" at 1:28 AM on 1/14,07 was me (qetzal). I don't know if I am forgetting to enter my pseudonym, or if something about the preview function makes it get lost some times. Sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...