Jump to content

"You belong in hell"


Guest Paul

Recommended Posts

Here is the exact language used by Mr. Paszkiewicz at three different points in the October 10 meeting, denying that he uttered the phrase "you belong in hell." The timings refer to the points on the recording.

1. [8:36-9:15] {Matthew} “. . . I remember you complaining specifically about a 1962 Supreme Court decision that said that you cannot preach religion. You specifically cited that one, you talked about it, and then here, this statement of ‘if you reject that, you belong in hell.’” {Paszkiewicz} “Well, I don’t, you know . . . I never said that. Now if you, you you use the word belong here. I didn’t say that. You know how I know I – I – I didn’t say that? I don’t even say that outside the classroom, but --- so I know I wouldn’t say it in the classroom.”

2. [14:01-14:20] {Matthew} “The first thing I have to get straight in order to understand this is you did not say that ‘if you reject that, you belong in hell.” {Paszkiewicz}“The question --- No, I didn’t. I didn’t say that. I said the text says, Jesus says, if you’re asking what the Bible says, he says ‘I am the way, the truth and the light,’ and that was in response to a student’s question. That’s what I said.”

3. [43:20-43:47] {Matthew} “My number, number one thing, I’m not going to go through the rest of them, I’m just going to stop at that because it’s already 3:30. I don’t know how we did this for so long, but um . . . You did not say if you reject that, then you belong in hell.” {Paszkiewicz} “Absolutely. No, I quoted John 14:6.” {Matthew} “OK” {Paszkiewicz} “And if I said anything, it might be ‘that’s what the Bible says.’ I didn’t stand in front of the class and say ‘if you reject this . . .’”

And here is what Mr. Paszkiewicz actually said in class on September 14.

1. "God is not only all love 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."

2. "Either he paid the price or he didn't - if you reject his gift of salvation, you're going where you belong."

3. "God himself sent his only son to die for David Paszkiewicz on the cross. That's the idea. And if I reject that, then it really is, then to Hell with you."

Mr. Paszkiewicz also said this at 5:44-5:55 of the October 10 meeting: “Well, I had to recall real quick, because a letter like this could prevent me from ever working again. So you can bet your bottom dollar I’m recalling everything to the letter.”

Is it reasonable to construe the denials as anything less than lying?

Finally, what is the significance of this statement by Mr. Paszkiewicz at 13:17 of the October 10 meeting: “I stand by everything I said, and, uh, it’s no different than things I’ve said for fifteen years.”

Oh, those inconvenient recordings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for dealing in evidence, Paul.

But did you have to start another thread? :)

Here is the exact language used by Mr. Paszkiewicz at three different points in the October 10 meeting, denying that he uttered the phrase "you belong in hell." The timings refer to the points on the recording.

And let's not forget about context.

I'll help out with that since Paul likes to downplay it (evidently).

1. [8:36-9:15] {Matthew} “. . . I remember you complaining specifically about a 1962 Supreme Court decision that said that you cannot preach religion. You specifically cited that one, you talked about it, and then here, this statement of ‘if you reject that, you belong in hell.’” {Paszkiewicz} “Well, I don’t, you know . . . I never said that. Now if you, you you use the word belong here. I didn’t say that. You know how I know I – I – I didn’t say that? I don’t even say that outside the classroom, but --- so I know I wouldn’t say it in the classroom.”

The context is preaching in class ("that said you cannot preach religion"). Matthew follows that immediately with the phrase "you belong in hell."

And of course Matthew presents the phrase outside of its original context.

An illustration to drive home the point:

Suppose a man was drunk one night in Vegas and couldn't remember clearly what he had said and done (his ability to remember is not an important part of the analogy).

His friends want to play a trick. They'll tell him he got married to a friend even though he is seriously anti-marriage.

You got married! You said "I do!" they exclaim.

He's skeptical. He's deeply anti-marriage.

"I wouldn't have said 'I do,'" he replies.

They have him on tape!

(Does anyone want to go out for some beer?)

"I do!"

Did the man lie when he denied saying "I do"?

Matthew set up a very specific context. Pazskiewicz was correct to deny having said what he was accused of saying since the context determines the meaning of the words.

2. [14:01-14:20] {Matthew} “The first thing I have to get straight in order to understand this is you did not say that ‘if you reject that, you belong in hell.” {Paszkiewicz}“The question --- No, I didn’t. I didn’t say that. I said the text says, Jesus says, if you’re asking what the Bible says, he says ‘I am the way, the truth and the light,’ and that was in response to a student’s question. That’s what I said.”

3. [43:20-43:47] {Matthew} “My number, number one thing, I’m not going to go through the rest of them, I’m just going to stop at that because it’s already 3:30. I don’t know how we did this for so long, but um . . . You did not say if you reject that, then you belong in hell.” {Paszkiewicz} “Absolutely. No, I quoted John 14:6.” {Matthew} “OK” {Paszkiewicz} “And if I said anything, it might be ‘that’s what the Bible says.’ I didn’t stand in front of the class and say ‘if you reject this . . .’”

Again, it is clear that Paszkiewicz understands the statement in terms of proselytizing ("I didn't stand up in front of the class and say 'if you reject this ...'"), and that is rather the focus of the meeting.

If the question had not been in the context of confronting the class with the gospel, but instead had been simply on the issue of whether the words were uttered regardless of context, Paszkiewicz probably would have answered that he could not remember uttering the phrase. Unless he remembered uttering it.

The statement cannot be rightly separated from the intent of the speaker.

And here is what Mr. Paszkiewicz actually said in class on September 14.

Thank you, Paul, for specifying the corresponding portions of the classroom transcripts. That saves me from having to issue caveats based on my incomplete familiarity with the material.

1. "God is not only all love 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."

2. "Either he paid the price or he didn't - if you reject his gift of salvation, you're going where you belong."

3. "God himself sent his only son to die for David Paszkiewicz on the cross. That's the idea. And if I reject that, then it really is, then to Hell with you."

Great. No surprises.

The Dranger transcript reads "then to hell with me" rather than "then to hell with you."

Who made the error? Paul or Mr. Dranger?

Each of the three comments were made in the context of explaining the problem of evil (a higher level religious topic if ever there was one). It is an accurate, factual reporting on the Christian explanation for reconciling an all-good god with the existence of evil and the concept of eternal punishment.

If that's proselytizing, then thousands of teachers across the nation proselytize various beliefs every day of the week covering all manner of topics.

During the meeting, Paszkiewicz realized (judging from his statements) that all of the quotations came from the same context.

Mr. Paszkiewicz also said this at 5:44-5:55 of the October 10 meeting: “Well, I had to recall real quick, because a letter like this could prevent me from ever working again. So you can bet your bottom dollar I’m recalling everything to the letter.”

Is it reasonable to construe the denials as anything less than lying?

In a word, yes.

Paszkiewicz was quite forthright in allowing that conversations touching the specifics of religion had taken place. He was at the meeting to defend himself from the charge of preaching his beliefs.

There is additional evidence that may help shed light on the reasonableness of the charges brought against Mr. Paszkiewicz.

That is, the letter Matthew addressed to the school board and the list of quotations that Matthew seems to use during the meeting.

That would assist in confirming of disconfirming the accuracy of the quotations used by young LaClair.

I ask Paul to help make that information public in order to serve the interests of truth.

Finally, what is the significance of this statement by Mr. Paszkiewicz at 13:17 of the October 10 meeting: “I stand by everything I said, and, uh, it’s no different than things I’ve said for fifteen years.”

That's easy, now that we have the context.

He was affirming that he did not believe he had done anything wrong based on years of having avoided offending other potential Matthew LaClairs.

True to form, Paul LaClair lifts the statement from its context to try to manipulate public opinion.

Oh, those inconvenient recordings.

The recordings are the best, aside from the inherent rudeness of recording others without their consent. They can be used to pin down both LaClairs on past inaccuracies, including inaccuracies in the tort claim notice.

And also, of course, to show how Mr. LaClair is currently spinning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its obvious listening to the transcripts that Mr. P is blatantly lying or he's in the advanced stages of Alzheimer's.

I don't think he has Alzheimer's.

So, how does he reconcile lying with his Christian beliefs? Or was he not in Sunday school when they talked about the 9th commandment?

It is usually hopeless dealing with that type.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What if he stated that God likes going to the carnival and anyone who hates carnivals belongs on hell?? It's his opinion, his belief, and if anyone asked me what I believed, I'd answer them too.

Also, any 16 year old boy that wears skirts to school has bigger problems than just what a teacher says in class.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Its obvious listening to the transcripts that Mr. P is blatantly lying or he's in the advanced stages of Alzheimer's.

I don't think he has Alzheimer's.

So, how does he reconcile lying with his Christian beliefs? Or was he not in Sunday school when they talked about the 9th commandment?

It is usually hopeless dealing with that type.

It's generally referred to as self-preservation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So he admits he's been doing this for 15 years? Some school system you have there.

Well, cut some of us some slack, we're trying to fix the situation. It would be a lot easier/faster if it weren't an uphill battle, wading through a sea of religious automatons who would rather turn their children into walking billboards (just the memory turns my stomach...brought back memories of seeing the Phelps kids with the signs...) for their 'cause' (which isn't the personal attack on religion they apparently perceive it to be) than truly understand the reality of the situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with what Bryan had said. The transcript clearly states "then to hell with me" not "to hell with you." Is there anything wrong with saying that you're going to hell? I say I'm going to hell all the time. I also would like to ask a question, if Matt said at the beginning all he wanted was an apology, then why are the LaClairs suing the Kearny Board of Ed? I heard that its compensation for the stress that Matt is dealing with, but isn't that to be expected? I personally harbor no ill feelings to Matthew, but did he think people were going to pat him on the back and congradulate him for doing something the kids dont want? Thomas Jefferson once said, "In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle stand like a rock." Basically saying that if one were to make waves, he better have the toughness to withstand the onslaught that is to follow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Each of the three comments were made in the context of explaining the problem of evil (a higher level religious topic if ever there was one).  It is an accurate, factual reporting on the Christian explanation for reconciling an all-good god with the existence of evil and the concept of eternal punishment.

If that's proselytizing, then thousands of teachers across the nation proselytize various beliefs every day of the week covering all manner of topics.

There is additional evidence that may help shed light on the reasonableness of the charges brought against Mr. Paszkiewicz.

That is, the letter Matthew addressed to the school board and the list of quotations that Matthew seems to use during the meeting.

That would assist in confirming of disconfirming the accuracy of the quotations used by young LaClair.

I ask Paul to help make that information public in order to serve the interests of truth.

That's easy, now that we have the context.

He was affirming that he did not believe he had done anything wrong based on years of having avoided offending other potential Matthew LaClairs.

Bryan, I thought you actually listened to the Oct. 10 meeting. If you did, you heard Mr. Paszkiewicz read Matthew's letter nearly word-for-word. However, to satisfy you, here is the entire text:

"My name is Matthew LaClair and I am a junior in your High School. There is a big problem in my U.S. History Acc. Class. I have Mr. Paszkiewicz as a teacher. He has been preaching his religion and his politics throughout the time I have been in school. There are a number of terrible things he has said and done in this high school. In the short amount of time I have had him as a teacher, he has said things such as "If you reject the Lord as your savior, you belong in hell." He said that he has to believe that the board of education has the same faith as he has and that the state of New Jersey has come up with "some weird idea of what education should be." He told us that Evolution and the Big Bang theory are not science and that his faith is correct. A student in my class said he was taught something about his religion by History Channels, his pastor and his mother and Mr. Paszkiewicz told him "don't buy it." Mr. Paszkiewicz was talking by name about a Muslim in this school and on his crew team that in his belief, she would go to hell. He did not say it to be mean or as a threat, he said it as a fact. He has said many more terrible things during the time I have been in school.

"Teachers in this school are representing you, the Board of Education, the State of New Jersey and the United States of America. I cannot stand by and watch this teacher continue to preach his religion and his politics to the class. I could just let it slip and not let it bother me, but it does. Could I just be quiet and sit there while he preaches his politics and religion? Yes. Could I just get through the class without causing a fuss? Yes. But I cannot allow this teacher to continue to do what he is doing because I am not only concerned about myself. I am concerned about the future generation of students that will be going through this school. I do not want students to be told by a public school teacher that Evolution and the Big Bang theory are both false, especially considering the fact he does not have the qualifications to teach science. I do not want students to be told that if they do not accept his idea of the Lord's salvation, they will go to hell. I do not want students to be told by Mr. Paszkiewicz to ignore their parents, their preachers, and History Channels. I care about the future generation and I do not want Mr. Paszkiewicz to continue preaching to and poisoning students.

"My parents are aware of the situation and they believe it is very serious, much more so than I have said with this letter. We request a meeting, possibly this afternoon or some afternoon this week with you, Mr. Paszkiewicz, my parents and me. We await your response."

As for your ridiculous claim that Mr. Paszkiewicz was not proselytizing his religion, he did not offer the statement "you belong in hell" in any historical context, but as his value judgment and opinion. As an authority figure in a public school, he may not do that. At other points, he made it clear that the line of what is acceptable ends at the defining lines of Christianity. At other points, he asserted elements of Christian theology as established fact, e.g., that a being must have created the universe, that the Bible is proved true by its own prophecies, etc. There is no doubt in any reasonable mind that he was proeselytizing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bryan,

No matter how you want to slice and dice things it doesn't look good for Mr. P. See, he denied saying certain things in the meeting which he clearly did say in class. If he really truly had been answering a question ("If you are asking what the bible says...") why would he deny saying what he said in class?

Besides, for someone who clearly talks about religion so much in class, the "if you are asking..." phrase seems to be a shield of sorts.

My turn for an analogy.

When I was in elementary school this meme went around where all the kids thought that somehow if you prefaced statements with "no offense," it was an appropriate thing to say. Needless to say, this ended up coining phrases such as "no offense, but i hate you," and other ridiculous things.

What I am getting at is just because Mr. P says "if you are asking what the bible says..." and then launches into a 15 serm-err discussion about jesus, does not make it ok in a public school setting.

What we have to look at here is the collective evidence, not minute pieces of "context."

We have a teacher who thinks evolution is faith and that creationism/ID is legit,

AND who talks about religion a lot in a class where it is not the main, or even tangential subject, AND we have evidence (admittedly anecdotal ATM due to less recorder wielding students) that Mr. P has always been like this AND he has been reprimanded for this EXACT behavior before!

Whew!

Short version is that the whole BODY of evidence show a man (consciously or not) bent on infusing he religion-based views into every class.

cut and splice the context of any individual statement, but thats basically like a creationist looking for holes in the fossil record. Even where such holes exist, they do not ipso facto disprove the massive, massive, body of evidence behind it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dingo Dave

Bryan wrote:

An illustration to drive home the point:

Suppose a man was drunk one night in Vegas and couldn't remember clearly what he had said and done (his ability to remember is not an important part of the analogy).

His friends want to play a trick. They'll tell him he got married to a friend even though he is seriously anti-marriage.

You got married! You said "I do!" they exclaim.

He's skeptical. He's deeply anti-marriage.

"I wouldn't have said 'I do,'" he replies.

They have him on tape!

(Does anyone want to go out for some beer?)

"I do!"

Did the man lie when he denied saying "I do"?

Matthew set up a very specific context. Pazskiewicz was correct to deny having said what he was accused of saying since the context determines the meaning of the words.

You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel with this one. This is lame even by your standards.

The Dranger transcript reads "then to hell with me" rather than "then to hell with you."

Who made the error? Paul or Mr. Dranger?

For the record, I do seem to recall that the transcript read "then to Hell with me". But what the Hell difference does it make (pun intended)?

How does that change the clear intent of David's statement even one iota? Even if this is the accurate quote, we merely have David P. stating in a slightly different way his opinion that all non-Christians deserve to be condemned to Hell, including himself if he wasn't already a Christian.

More hair splitting Bryan? Why don't you give up while you're behind. You're making yourself look like a complete ass now.

By the way, can anyone explain to me how anyone can put someone else's sin on his own body?

Is it like face paint, or sunscreen, or something???

What David P. appears to be saying is that in his own mind, he has turned Jesus into some sort of 'scapeman' or 'scapegod', instead of a 'scapegoat'.

Does he realise how absolutely absurd that sounds to a non-Christian?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is the exact language used by Mr. Paszkiewicz at three different points in the October 10 meeting, denying that he uttered the phrase "you belong in hell." The timings refer to the points on the recording.

1. [8:36-9:15] {Matthew} “. . . I remember you complaining specifically about a 1962 Supreme Court decision that said that you cannot preach religion. You specifically cited that one, you talked about it, and then here, this statement of ‘if you reject that, you belong in hell.’” {Paszkiewicz} “Well, I don’t, you know . . . I never said that. Now if you, you you use the word belong here. I didn’t say that. You know how I know I – I – I didn’t say that? I don’t even say that outside the classroom, but --- so I know I wouldn’t say it in the classroom.”

2. [14:01-14:20] {Matthew} “The first thing I have to get straight in order to understand this is you did not say that ‘if you reject that, you belong in hell.” {Paszkiewicz}“The question --- No, I didn’t. I didn’t say that. I said the text says, Jesus says, if you’re asking what the Bible says, he says ‘I am the way, the truth and the light,’ and that was in response to a student’s question. That’s what I said.”

3. [43:20-43:47] {Matthew} “My number, number one thing, I’m not going to go through the rest of them, I’m just going to stop at that because it’s already 3:30. I don’t know how we did this for so long, but um . . . You did not say if you reject that, then you belong in hell.” {Paszkiewicz} “Absolutely. No, I quoted John 14:6.” {Matthew} “OK” {Paszkiewicz} “And if I said anything, it might be ‘that’s what the Bible says.’ I didn’t stand in front of the class and say ‘if you reject this . . .’”

And here is what Mr. Paszkiewicz actually said in class on September 14.

1. "God is not only all love 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."

2. "Either he paid the price or he didn't - if you reject his gift of salvation, you're going where you belong."

3. "God himself sent his only son to die for David Paszkiewicz on the cross. That's the idea. And if I reject that, then it really is, then to Hell with you."

Mr. Paszkiewicz also said this at 5:44-5:55 of the October 10 meeting: “Well, I had to recall real quick, because a letter like this could prevent me from ever working again. So you can bet your bottom dollar I’m recalling everything to the letter.”

Is it reasonable to construe the denials as anything less than lying?

Finally, what is the significance of this statement by Mr. Paszkiewicz at 13:17 of the October 10 meeting: “I stand by everything I said, and, uh, it’s no different than things I’ve said for fifteen years.”

Oh, those inconvenient recordings.

Where does Matthew get off telling the media that Kearny is a "odd town". He also mentioned to the press that he has done a lot of thing in the school system. What things have Matthew done in the school system. I do not recall anything in the past two and half years before this event.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with what Bryan had said. The transcript clearly states "then to hell with me" not "to hell with you." Is there anything wrong with saying that you're going to hell? I say I'm going to hell all the time. I also would like to ask a question, if Matt said at the beginning all he wanted was an apology, then why are the LaClairs suing the Kearny Board of Ed? I heard that its compensation for the stress that Matt is dealing with, but isn't that to be expected? I personally harbor no ill feelings to Matthew, but did he think people were going to pat him on the back and congradulate him for doing something the kids dont want? Thomas Jefferson once said, "In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle stand like a rock." Basically saying that if one were to make waves, he better have the toughness to withstand the onslaught that is to follow.

****, I appreciate your speaking with Matthew, but you're wrong here. There was no apology nor any correction, so we are pursuing our remedies. We never asked for only an apology. We also wanted quality control (which the Board has now said it will do) and corrections of inappropriate remarks. In any case, after four months, we'd be entitled to take a different position than we did at the beginning.

There is plenty wrong with an authority figure in a public school telling students of other religious faiths that they belong in hell. You chose the least offensive of the remarks, and it's still out of line.

As for toughness, I dare say Matthew has exhibited plenty of it. And as for Thomas Jefferson, Matthew has been selected for the Thomas Jefferson Student Activist award, to be given in Madison, WI this October. Have you ever done anything that put you in a position of standing against your peers like this? If not, on what basis do you lecture Matthew on the subject?

KOTW Note: The above post was edited for content.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Where does Matthew get off telling the media that Kearny is a "odd town".  He also mentioned to the press that he has done a lot of thing in the school system.  What things have Matthew done in the school system. I do not recall anything in the past two and half years before this event.

Where do you get off questioning his right to be frustrated under these circumstances? He's seventeen. Give him a break. He's not running for president. And he's not going under your microscope.

Link to post
Share on other sites
any 16 year old boy that wears skirts to school has bigger problems than just what a teacher says in class.

I hope you realize you've just shown yourself to be less mature than a 16-year-old.

I loved the wearing a skirt to school thing--it was just perfect. A form of protest which is both harmless and eye-opening, both serious and funny. A perfect way to expose the idiocy of a dress code which would tell (intentionally only male, I'm sure) students when they can and can't wear shorts (while not intending to impose any such restriction on females). I dare ask--what on Earth is the point of such a silly rule?

Sadly, idiots like you can do nothing but point and snicker and accuse Matthew of gender confusion or whatever you want to call it as a result of his ingenious 'silent protest.' Adults acting that sophomoric just turns my stomach--grow up, would you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
****, I appreciate your speaking with Matthew, but you're wrong here. There was no apology nor any correction, so we are pursuing our remedies. We never asked for only an apology. We also wanted quality control (which the Board has now said it will do) and corrections of inappropriate remarks. In any case, after four months, we'd be entitled to take a different position than we did at the beginning.

There is plenty wrong with an authority figure in a public school telling students of other religious faiths that they belong in hell. You chose the least offensive of the remarks, and it's still out of line.

As for toughness, I dare say Matthew has exhibited plenty of it. And as for Thomas Jefferson, Matthew has been selected for the Thomas Jefferson Student Activist award, to be given in Madison, WI this October. Have you ever done anything that put you in a position of standing against your peers like this? If not, on what basis do you lecture Matthew on the subject?

KOTW Note: The above post was edited for content.

I was not questioning Matthews toughness, I was merely stating that the response he is recieving is to be expected. And yes I have stood against my peers, Only I took a lot more then death threats. I used to get in a lot of fights because people didn't agree with my views. But the difference is, I never went complained about what someone said, being words are only what you make them to be. I also was fighting uniforms before Matt and you were, at least to my knowledge. So do not misconstrue what I said, Matt has guts to do what he did, I just honestly think that everyone is making a big deal out of nothing. Is it really that terrible? Was he reprimanded? I believe the answer is yes to both questions, but how can you ask someone to apologize for an opinion? If you said something that I didn't agree with should you apologize to me?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with what Bryan had said. The transcript clearly states "then to hell with me" not "to hell with you."

Okay, two things:

1. Do you honestly believe he was considering himself differently from others? That he would be saying 'if I reject it, then to hell with me, but you can reject it and you'll be fine, it only applies to me'? How naive can you be? Also considering:

2. Other statements of his make the intended message of the above quite clear in context. Read this very carefully: "...we can't disagree with [God] on salvation...if you reject his gift of salvation, you're going where you belong" --David Paszkiewicz (emphasis added--note all of those words which extend the focus of his statements far outside his own person)

There is no ambiguity. He is clearly defining the fate of everyone who does not believe what he does.

Is there anything wrong with saying that you're going to hell?

When a teacher tells a student that if they don't share his beliefs, they will go to hell, yes! It only flies in the face of the highest law of this country. :lol:

I say I'm going to hell all the time.

You can condemn yourself all you want--that doesn't affect anyone else. Likewise, students are perfectly within their rights to pray in school. Any personal expression of faith is fine--the problem is when a teacher, paid with tax dollars, endorses his religion while on the clock. That is very clearly forbidden in this country, and for good reason.

I also would like to ask a question, if Matt said at the beginning all he wanted was an apology,

He also wanted Paszkiewicz to correct the erroneous statements he made about several scientific concepts.

then why are the LaClairs suing the Kearny Board of Ed?

Psst...did you notice that they never got that apology?

I heard that its compensation for the stress that Matt is dealing with, but isn't that to be expected?

No. One should not _expect_ the Board of Education and the high school administration and the teacher in question to turn a blind eye to the abuse Matthew has had to deal with as a result of his actions, which were 100% justified. The school has a responsibility to its students, and that responsibility was neglected in Matthew's case.

I personally harbor no ill feelings to Matthew, but did he think people were going to pat him on the back and congradulate him for doing something the kids dont want?

Despite their age, the kids should know better. If my best friend did something wrong, I would be fully capable of holding them accountable for what they did despite my friendship. But _especially_ the high school administration and the Board should DEFINITELY know better than to let Matthew be treated the way he was.

Thomas Jefferson once said, "In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle stand like a rock." Basically saying that if one were to make waves, he better have the toughness to withstand the onslaught that is to follow.

And he does, as he has shown. However, the fact remains that despite his ability to deal with what he has dealt with, he shouldn't have had to deal with any of that. He did nothing wrong--why should he be expected to just lay down and take the abuse?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bryan, I thought you actually listened to the Oct. 10 meeting. If you did, you heard Mr. Paszkiewicz read Matthew's letter nearly word-for-word.

I did. People do not tend to specify where quotation marks are placed when reading aloud, however. I didn't hear anyone do that during the meeting.

Did you?

However, to satisfy you, here is the entire text:

"My name is Matthew LaClair and I am a junior in your High School. There is a big problem in my U.S. History Acc. Class. I have Mr. Paszkiewicz as a teacher. He has been preaching his religion and his politics throughout the time I have been in school. There are a number of terrible things he has said and done in this high school. In the short amount of time I have had him as a teacher, he has said things such as "If you reject the Lord as your savior, you belong in hell." He said that he has to believe that the board of education has the same faith as he has and that the state of New Jersey has come up with "some weird idea of what education should be." He told us that Evolution and the Big Bang theory are not science and that his faith is correct. A student in my class said he was taught something about his religion by History Channels, his pastor and his mother and Mr. Paszkiewicz told him "don't buy it." Mr. Paszkiewicz was talking by name about a Muslim in this school and on his crew team that in his belief, she would go to hell. He did not say it to be mean or as a threat, he said it as a fact. He has said many more terrible things during the time I have been in school.

"Teachers in this school are representing you, the Board of Education, the State of New Jersey and the United States of America. I cannot stand by and watch this teacher continue to preach his religion and his politics to the class. I could just let it slip and not let it bother me, but it does. Could I just be quiet and sit there while he preaches his politics and religion? Yes. Could I just get through the class without causing a fuss? Yes. But I cannot allow this teacher to continue to do what he is doing because I am not only concerned about myself. I am concerned about the future generation of students that will be going through this school. I do not want students to be told by a public school teacher that Evolution and the Big Bang theory are both false, especially considering the fact he does not have the qualifications to teach science. I do not want students to be told that if they do not accept his idea of the Lord's salvation, they will go to hell. I do not want students to be told by Mr. Paszkiewicz to ignore their parents, their preachers, and History Channels. I care about the future generation and I do not want Mr. Paszkiewicz to continue preaching to and poisoning students.

"My parents are aware of the situation and they believe it is very serious, much more so than I have said with this letter. We request a meeting, possibly this afternoon or some afternoon this week with you, Mr. Paszkiewicz, my parents and me. We await your response."

Thank you, Paul

That's not all I asked about, BTW:

"There is additional evidence that may help shed light on the reasonableness of the charges brought against Mr. Paszkiewicz.

That is, the letter Matthew addressed to the school board and the list of quotations that Matthew seems to use during the meeting.

That would assist in confirming of disconfirming the accuracy of the quotations used by young LaClair.[/i]

Am I incorrect in my impression that Matthew referred to a written list of quotations during the meeting?

The letter you offered does not seem to cover all of the quotations that Matthew mentioned.

Apart from that, the following quotation does not appear on the Dranger transcript at all:

""If you reject the Lord as your savior, you belong in hell."

Does it occur on one of the other CDs?

As for your ridiculous claim that Mr. Paszkiewicz was not proselytizing his religion, he did not offer the statement "you belong in hell" in any historical context, but as his value judgment and opinion. As an authority figure in a public school, he may not do that.

Paul, I thought you were a lawyer. Haven't you paid attention to what I've been saying?

I allow that Paszkiewicz may have been proselytizing in the post you answered:

"If that's proselytizing, then thousands of teachers across the nation proselytize various beliefs every day of the week covering all manner of topics."

How is it that you and your lawyerly brain are so cavalier in treating the statements of others? Is it part of some lawyer schtick to deliberately ignore what people say or do you really not comprehend what you're reading?

At other points, he made it clear that the line of what is acceptable ends at the defining lines of Christianity.

It's not clear to me what you're talking about, there.

At other points, he asserted elements of Christian theology as established fact, e.g., that a being must have created the universe,

Christianity teaches that God created the universe, not that a "being" created the universe. But apart from that I concur that the statement was improper in that affirmed unequivocally something that probably cannot be known.

On the other hand I think it's ludicrous to sue over it.

that the Bible is proved true by its own prophecies, etc.

I just love it when "etc." follows one example. Shades of L. Ron Hubbard, albeit Hubbard preferred "... and so on."

If you revisit the context, you should see that the statement was made in answer to Matthew LaClair's question concerning the origin of trust in the Bible. As such, the answer is historical in nature.

There is no doubt in any reasonable mind that he was proeselytizing.

Smells like an either/or fallacy in which you are accusing me of being unreasonable.

http://ksumail.kennesaw.edu/~shagin/logfal-pbc-eitheror.htm

Is it a source of pride among the lawyers you know that they can sway people with deliberately fallacious reasoning?

Link to post
Share on other sites
For the record, I do seem to recall that the transcript read "then to Hell with me". But what the Hell difference does it make (pun intended)?

Is there any doubt at all that if Paszkiewicz altered a quotation like that you would call him a liar or worse?

How does that change the clear intent of David's statement even one iota?

The intent of explaining the philosophical issue of reconciling eternal punishment with the existence of God, as asked by Matthew LaClair? Not a great deal, but take the statement out of context and it makes it appear as though Paszkiewicz was preaching like Jimmy Swaggart--which clearly wasn't the case.

Even if this is the accurate quote, we merely have David P. stating in a slightly different way his opinion that all non-Christians deserve to be condemned to Hell, including himself if he wasn't already a Christian.

More hair splitting Bryan? Why don't you give up while you're behind. You're making yourself look like a complete ass now.

Huh. We have a lawyer apparently deliberately misquoting people when he has the best access to the original data--in an apparent attempt to sway public opinion about the individual (pretty much the classic definition of a malicious gossip)--and I'm the ass.

Go figure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Where do you get off questioning his right to be frustrated under these circumstances? He's seventeen. Give him a break. He's not running for president. And he's not going under your microscope.

Look who is calling the kettle black now. What kind of break did he give the Teacher? Did he confront him about this? I will answer that for you. No, he did not. Did he give the Board of Education a break when he called them all incompetent? I will answer that for you. No, he did not.

This 17 year old knew EXACTLY what he was doing when he taped the teacher. He knew EXACTLY what he was doing when he contacted the media. This was his rebellion against the school.

Give me a break. You cannot be serious! He is not running for President. He is running for publicity for college and funding.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bryan is completely delusional.

Bryan is one of the best reasons to watch this board because of how he rationalizes *anything* just to win the argument. If he left, in all honesty, I would be saddened.

You should check out the "Christianity" thread. I'm still waiting for a response from him.

Link to post
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...