Jump to content

School Board takes new Steps


God Save Us From Christians

Recommended Posts

No court needs to decide whether or not Mr. P. lied about what he said, because what he said in itself is the real issue.

There is more than one real issue. What P said is one, lying about it is another.

There is more than one aspect to the story. The law and the Constitution is one. The quality of education, including science education, is another, and also history education now that P wrote a letter to the Observer completely distorting the Framers' views on Christianity. Whether P should keep his job, or his license, is a third issue, and both his ridiculous in-class statements and his dishonesty are relevant to that. A fourth issue is the abysmal response from the administration and the board. Their failure to protect the student's interests, letting him twist in the wind while they keep a stony, self-preservational silence is a fifth. There are probably other issues.

Illogic is the other side's stock in trade, Strife. You've reasoned too well here to posit a false choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 174
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There is more than one real issue. What P said is one, lying about it is another.

There is more than one aspect to the story. The law and the Constitution is one. The quality of education, including science education, is another, and also history education now that P wrote a letter to the Observer completely distorting the Framers' views on Christianity. Whether P should keep his job, or his license, is a third issue, and both his ridiculous in-class statements and his dishonesty are relevant to that. A fourth issue is the abysmal response from the administration and the board. Their failure to protect the student's interests, letting him twist in the wind while they keep a stony, self-preservational silence is a fifth. There are probably other issues.

Illogic is the other side's stock in trade, Strife. You've reasoned too well here to posit a false choice.

Well, I realize all of that, but what I was saying is that the preaching/undermining science/getting basic history wrong etc. was the most serious issue, at least in my opinion. All of the other issues are extensions of that, and wouldn't exist without this happening first.

But yeah, if you look at it from a court perspective, you're pretty much right on. *nods*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anything said in public space is fair game and can be recorded legally (feel free to cite the law it would break if you disagree). It doesn't matter the age of the speaker--you're speaking of recording someone's voice in a public space as if it was rape, for crying out loud.

I disagree with you Strife. I would suggest that the school is a quasi-public place. If it were truly a "public" place, you or I would be able to go there and walk around freely - which we are not permitted to do. In addition, I think that your opinion might be a bit tainted by the fact that Matthew taped Mr. P preaching in class - which many agree is a good thing. However, we all have to consider the interests of the minor children in the classroom who are also sharing their opinions within the classroom. These are opinions shared before the age of maturity (and, honestly, before they are fully formed as people). Someone can record these opinions, and use them later when these people reach adulthood for various purposes (such as if someone is running for public office). This would be an unfair use of recording AND it could also cause students to refrain from sharing opinions in the classroom - which is an integral part of the education process.

A better solution would be to allow the administration access via camera and audio to each classroom. Students should be allowed to place an anonymous complaint, and then the administration can randomly check into the classroom without the teacher even knowing. This can also improve security within the schools.

I hate disagree with you because I know how snippy you can get (just kidding), but sometimes bad facts make bad law - and continuing to allow random taping in the classroom just seems to be bad law to me . . . even though in this case it achieved the appropriate result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the end, it's a non-issue. Whether Mr. P. lied in that meeting about what he said doesn't really matter at all. What matters is that he did say a whole lot of things he shouldn't have, and those things just happen to be on tape. :D

Oh yes it matters! It matters because he was accussed of lying by Mr. LaClair. So, if Mr. LaClair called Mr. P a liar, and Mr. P did not lie, then Mr. LaClair is a liar.

If Mr. LaClair is a liar, his son is also a liar because all the information he gets is from his son, therefore we cannot believe what they say. In other words, without concrete evidence, it is impossible to believe someone who lies!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I realize all of that, but what I was saying is that the preaching/undermining science/getting basic history wrong etc. was the most serious issue, at least in my opinion. All of the other issues are extensions of that, and wouldn't exist without this happening first.

But yeah, if you look at it from a court perspective, you're pretty much right on. *nods*

Of course it is not the most serious issue, especially now that we are all coming to the conclusion that Mr. LaClair accussed Mr. P and can't prove. He is either lying or is hidding something...all of a sudden it became irrelevant!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with you Strife.

Okay, I'll bite. Why's that?

I would suggest that the school is a quasi-public place.  If it were truly a "public" place, you or I would be able to go there and walk around freely - which we are not permitted to do.

Fair enough. But the fact is that public school teachers, and the schools they're teaching in, are paid with taxpayers' money. In that sense, it is a "public place." Certainly, I would not agree that there is any "right to privacy" for students or teachers while school is in session, because I don't think any 'time' or place paid for by taxes should be treated like a private place (notice how the reasons for the policy include something along the lines of 'protecting the privacy of the students and teachers' or something like that).

In addition, I think that your opinion might be a bit tainted by the fact that Matthew taped Mr. P preaching in class - which many agree is a good thing.

How so? My opinion about recording class sessions was the same prior to and after I heard about this issue. Maybe you mean something else, but 'tainted' sounds to me like a suggestion that the 'preaching issue' changed my opinion about it (in a negative way, from the connotation of the word).

However, we all have to consider the interests of the minor children in the classroom who are also sharing their opinions within the classroom.  These are opinions shared before the age of maturity (and, honestly, before they are fully formed as people). Someone can record these opinions, and use them later when these people reach adulthood for various purposes (such as if someone is running for public office).

I agree that doing that would be wrong. However, this line of logic sounds a little like forcing a woman to wear less revealing clothes in an attempt to make her less likely to be raped. If someone acts irresponsibly with such a recording, it is all 'on them,' and all resources toward preventing the act should be channeled _toward_ the offender, not the victim, if you catch my drift. Furthermore, like the rapist, the 'mudslinger' will not act differently toward a person with 'thicker clothing.' They'll just find another way to do the same (just watch TV in the months before an election for proof of this :D).

This would be an unfair use of recording AND it could also cause students to refrain from sharing opinions in the classroom - which is an integral part of the education process.

A better solution would be to allow the administration access via camera and audio to each classroom.  Students should be allowed to place an anonymous complaint, and then the administration can randomly check into the classroom without the teacher even knowing.  This can also improve security within the schools.

Absolutely, absolutely agreed. I suggested basically the same thing earlier, saying that the accountability should be put back in the hands of the administration.

I hate disagree with you because I know how snippy you can get (just kidding),

:D

I give what I get. Look at this post. See? When I'm greeted with a calm, non-inflammatory post, even if I think it's the wrongest thing ever (obviously not the case here), I respond in kind too. *shakes head* I'm really not the horrible person most of Mr. P.'s apologists would like to pretend I am. I'm just very direct. :P

but sometimes bad facts make bad law - and continuing to allow random taping in the classroom just seems to be bad law to me . . . even though in this case it achieved the appropriate result.

Well, barring 'random' recording without the administration doing any monitoring in its place is a step backward, if you ask me. If they implemented a system like you (and I in another post) described, they could ban student recording (but frankly, with that kind of system in place, why bother? That's like banning using pencil and paper on a math test in which you're allowed to use calculators), and it would not lessen a student's/teacher's ability to both prove an allegation and disprove a false/malicious one. Not to mention that it's been pretty clearly shown that adding monitoring at a place of employment increases overall 'morality' there. In this case, I'm sure it'd apply to the students as well as the teachers/faculty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with you Strife.  I would suggest that the school is a quasi-public place.  If it were truly a "public" place, you or I would be able to go there and walk around freely - which we are not permitted to do.  In addition, I think that your opinion might be a bit tainted by the fact that Matthew taped Mr. P preaching in class - which many agree is a good thing.  However, we all have to consider the interests of the minor children in the classroom who are also sharing their opinions within the classroom.  These are opinions shared before the age of maturity (and, honestly, before they are fully formed as people).  Someone can record these opinions, and use them later when these people reach adulthood for various purposes (such as if someone is running for public office).  This would be an unfair use of recording AND it could also cause students to refrain from sharing opinions in the classroom - which is an integral part of the education process. 

A better solution would be to allow the administration access via camera and audio to each classroom.  Students should be allowed to place an anonymous complaint, and then the administration can randomly check into the classroom without the teacher even knowing.  This can also improve security within the schools.

I hate disagree with you because I know how snippy you can get (just kidding), but sometimes bad facts make bad law - and continuing to allow random taping in the classroom just seems to be bad law to me . . . even though in this case it achieved the appropriate result.

This is a well-reasoned post, even though I disagree with the new policy, and with parts of this post. Guest, why not identify yourself? You have a valuable contribution to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with you Strife.  I would suggest that the school is a quasi-public place.  If it were truly a "public" place, you or I would be able to go there and walk around freely - which we are not permitted to do.  In addition, I think that your opinion might be a bit tainted by the fact that Matthew taped Mr. P preaching in class - which many agree is a good thing.  However, we all have to consider the interests of the minor children in the classroom who are also sharing their opinions within the classroom.  These are opinions shared before the age of maturity (and, honestly, before they are fully formed as people).  Someone can record these opinions, and use them later when these people reach adulthood for various purposes (such as if someone is running for public office).  This would be an unfair use of recording AND it could also cause students to refrain from sharing opinions in the classroom - which is an integral part of the education process. 

A better solution would be to allow the administration access via camera and audio to each classroom.  Students should be allowed to place an anonymous complaint, and then the administration can randomly check into the classroom without the teacher even knowing.  This can also improve security within the schools.

I hate disagree with you because I know how snippy you can get (just kidding), but sometimes bad facts make bad law - and continuing to allow random taping in the classroom just seems to be bad law to me . . . even though in this case it achieved the appropriate result.

On the other hand, what do you do when the school's administration is corrupt, and more interested in preserving their prerogatives than in educating the students or following the law? Tragically, that appears to be the case at KHS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I'll bite. Why's that?

Fair enough. But the fact is that public school teachers, and the schools they're teaching in, are paid with taxpayers' money. In that sense, it is a "public place." Certainly, I would not agree that there is any "right to privacy" for students or teachers while school is in session, because I don't think any 'time' or place paid for by taxes should be treated like a private place (notice how the reasons for the policy include something along the lines of 'protecting the privacy of the students and teachers' or something like that).

How so? My opinion about recording class sessions was the same prior to and after I heard about this issue. Maybe you mean something else, but 'tainted' sounds to me like a suggestion that the 'preaching issue' changed my opinion about it (in a negative way, from the connotation of the word).

I agree that doing that would be wrong. However, this line of logic sounds a little like forcing a woman to wear less revealing clothes in an attempt to make her less likely to be raped. If someone acts irresponsibly with such a recording, it is all 'on them,' and all resources toward preventing the act should be channeled _toward_ the offender, not the victim, if you catch my drift. Furthermore, like the rapist, the 'mudslinger' will not act differently toward a person with 'thicker clothing.' They'll just find another way to do the same (just watch TV in the months before an election for proof of this <_<).

Absolutely, absolutely agreed. I suggested basically the same thing earlier, saying that the accountability should be put back in the hands of the administration.

:P

I give what I get. Look at this post. See? When I'm greeted with a calm, non-inflammatory post, even if I think it's the wrongest thing ever (obviously not the case here), I respond in kind too. *shakes head* I'm really not the horrible person most of Mr. P.'s apologists would like to pretend I am. I'm just very direct. :P

Well, barring 'random' recording without the administration doing any monitoring in its place is a step backward, if you ask me. If they implemented a system like you (and I in another post) described, they could ban student recording (but frankly, with that kind of system in place, why bother? That's like banning using pencil and paper on a math test in which you're allowed to use calculators), and it would not lessen a student's/teacher's ability to both prove an allegation and disprove a false/malicious one. Not to mention that it's been pretty clearly shown that adding monitoring at a place of employment increases overall 'morality' there. In this case, I'm sure it'd apply to the students as well as the teachers/faculty.

"wrongest " :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest WilliamK
On the other hand, what do you do when the school's administration is corrupt, and more interested in preserving their prerogatives than in educating the students or following the law? Tragically, that appears to be the case at KHS.

I was thinking the same thing. It's an interesting suggestion, but it raises the classic "who will watch the watchers" question. Personally, I favor enabling the watched to watch the watchers. Or at least, to refrain from diminishing their ability to do so, which is what this new policy does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand, what do you do when the school's administration is corrupt, and more interested in preserving their prerogatives than in educating the students or following the law? Tragically, that appears to be the case at KHS.

Well, with the new camera systems, third party access to the live feed can be given via password. Accordingly, perhaps the parent can schedule a meeting in the administration office and together the parent and the member of the administration appointed for such task can view the live feed. Alternatively, having an independent third party appointed for such task (perhaps someone appointed by the town who is not on the board of ed's payroll) who can view the live feed (and make recordings) without the necessity of having to notify the administration or the teacher could suffice. The logistics can be worked out - the bigger issue is the cost of the camera system in an already overtaxed district.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Steve_C
Strife is one of the bestest people here.

I just have to keep bringing this up....

Mr. P said there were dinosaurs on Noah's ark.

Can anyone explain to me how this kook still has a job teaching?

If he had said Moses rode on a Triceratops, would anyone deny he's a loon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just have to keep bringing this up....

Mr. P said there were dinosaurs on Noah's ark.

Can anyone explain to me how this kook still has a job teaching?

If he had said Moses rode on a Triceratops, would anyone deny he's a loon?

Of course if he said Moses rode on a Triceratops he'd be a loon. It was ABRAHAM who rode on the Triceratops, Moses rode a Brontosaurus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he had said Moses rode on a Triceratops, would anyone deny he's a loon?

Yes, of course. How can you seriously ask this question in view of all we've seen?

Some of these people are so far removed from reality that being removed from reality is quite literally a badge of honor to them. It's about not living in this horrid, mundane world. If you don't understand that, you must not be saved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course if he said Moses rode on a Triceratops he'd be a loon.  It was ABRAHAM who rode on the Triceratops, Moses rode a Brontosaurus.

This is true. It's in the bible. Therefore it must be true.

Because you can't find it in your bible proves that you are not really a Christian, because your vision is clouded by Satan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you post your resume and credentials.

Why? That's irrelevant. I can smell the planned appeal to authority in reverse (which is just another form of ad hominem) already. I mean, there have already been people whining about how I'm automatically 'wrong' just because I'm a lot younger than they are.

If the stupidest, homeschooled psychopath said that water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen, he/she would still be right. Your request is not only without merit, its purpose is woefully (for you) transparent.

If you have no answer for the things in my previous post (http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php?showtopic=3891&view=findpost&p=44607), just admit it. You're not going to get anywhere with ridiculous things like the above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest WilliamK
Some of these people are so far removed from reality that being removed from reality is quite literally a badge of honor to them. It's about not living in this horrid, mundane world. If you don't understand that, you must not be saved.

That's a very interesting observation. It seems that the ideologies that have the most fervent believers usually do require acceptance of something that demands at least a partial abandonment of reason. The Hare Krishna's, for example, posit that the moon is farther from the earth than the sun, even though this is counter to even the most basic understanding of astronomy and physics and is proven false with each solar eclipse. This, along with several other equally absurd beliefs has lead the HK's to be among the purveyors of the moon-hoax hoax. (see http://science.krishna.org/Articles/2000/08/00082.html)

So how do they reconcile the obvious discrepancies between their beliefs and observed reality? Like this:

(quoted from the above link)

Now, why do we believe the Vedic scriptures rather than the material scientists? Because the Vedic scriptures differ from the conclusions of material science in that they are not based on imperfect sensory investigation, but are apaurusa i.e., they emanate from God, who is beyond the material world. In other words, Vedic evidence stands above the defects of conditioned souls within the material world. Thus, when it comes to real scientific knowledge, the standard of Vedic authority is perfect because it originates directly from the all-perfect, omniscient Personality of Godhead.

Wow. Replace "Vedic" with "Biblical" and "apaurusa" with "divinely inspired" and it sounds a lot like what I was taught as a child in Pentacostal and Assembly of God churches. I'm sure the Baptists would find it agreeable as well. And I doubt it would so much as raise an eyebrow even in many of the less fundamentalist churches. With similarly slight customization, I've little doubt that many Muslims would agree with it too.

In this view, "truth" becomes defined by conformity with doctrine rather than by conformity with observation. Once a mind has been deformed enough to accept this, the doctrine gains nearly complete control. It is in light of this that the benefit of the absurdities becomes apparent. (Benefit for the belief system, that is, not necessarily the believer.)

The absurdities serve as a test of faith. As a goal for the follower in training, and as a gauge for his overseers. Once the believer has come to fully accept the hard to believe things, he is fully a member of the faith. His fellow believers accept him into the group. His leaders begin to trust him. Not only does it solidify the faith of the believer, but it clarifies his distinction from those outside the faith. He can now easily discount even the most well reasoned and strongly evidenced counterarguments as being the mutterings of unenlightened outsiders, of mere men vs. the knowledge handed down from a god.

Additionally, once that stage of faith is achieved, the incomprehensibility of the absurd beliefs is then taken not as evidence of their absurdity, but as evidence of the believer's inferiority to the divine source of that knowledge. Evidence that he is not qualified to question it, and therefore must trust it absolutely.

L. Ron Hubbard understood this when he created Scientology. The stunningly absurd stuff about Xenu and "body thetans", far from keeping it from taking hold, is one of the keys to Scientology's somewhat disturbing success. The absurdities in a religion don't necessarily attract converts. But they are a significant part of what locks them in once converted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a very interesting observation. It seems that the ideologies that have the most fervent believers usually do require acceptance of something that demands at least a partial abandonment of reason. The Hare Krishna's, for example, posit that the moon is farther from the earth than the sun, even though this is counter to even the most basic understanding of astronomy and physics and is proven false with each solar eclipse. This, along with several other equally absurd beliefs has lead the HK's to be among the purveyors of the moon-hoax hoax. (see http://science.krishna.org/Articles/2000/08/00082.html)

So how do they reconcile the obvious discrepancies between their beliefs and observed reality? Like this:

(quoted from the above link)

Wow. Replace "Vedic" with "Biblical" and "apaurusa" with "divinely inspired" and it sounds a lot like what I was taught as a child in Pentacostal and Assembly of God churches. I'm sure the Baptists would find it agreeable as well. And I doubt it would so much as raise an eyebrow even in many of the less fundamentalist churches. With similarly slight customization, I've little doubt that many Muslims would agree with it too.

In this view, "truth" becomes defined by conformity with doctrine rather than by conformity with observation. Once a mind has been deformed enough to accept this, the doctrine gains nearly complete control. It is in light of this that the benefit of the absurdities becomes apparent. (Benefit for the belief system, that is, not necessarily the believer.)

The absurdities serve as a test of faith. As a goal for the follower in training, and as a gauge for his overseers. Once the  believer has come to fully accept the hard to believe things, he is fully a member of the faith. His fellow believers accept him into the group. His leaders begin to trust him. Not only does it solidify the faith of the believer, but it clarifies his distinction from those outside the faith. He can now easily discount even the most well reasoned and strongly evidenced counterarguments as being the mutterings of unenlightened outsiders, of mere men vs. the knowledge handed down from a god.

Additionally, once that stage of faith is achieved, the incomprehensibility of the absurd beliefs is then taken not as evidence of their absurdity, but as evidence of the believer's inferiority to the divine source of that knowledge. Evidence that he is not qualified to question it, and therefore must trust it absolutely.

L. Ron Hubbard understood this when he created Scientology. The stunningly absurd stuff about Xenu and "body thetans", far from keeping it from taking hold, is one of the keys to Scientology's somewhat disturbing success. The absurdities in a religion don't necessarily attract converts. But they are a significant part of what locks them in once converted.

I think the absurdities also attract because they offer a convenience, which is much easier than addressing the world as it actually is.

The ultimate irony is that the most fervent "believers" end up worshiping their own opinion above all else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why? That's irrelevant. I can smell the planned appeal to authority in reverse (which is just another form of ad hominem) already. I mean, there have already been people whining about how I'm automatically 'wrong' just because I'm a lot younger than they are.

If the stupidest, homeschooled psychopath said that water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen, he/she would still be right. Your request is not only without merit, its purpose is woefully (for you) transparent.

If you have no answer for the things in my previous post (http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php?showtopic=3891&view=findpost&p=44607), just admit it. You're not going to get anywhere with ridiculous things like the above.

It's not irrelevant at all. At least we know Paul is a lawyer and can speak from direct knowledge and experience regarding the topic.

At least he doesn't keep saying "ad hominem" over and over.

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...