"Don't buy it."

[Guest Paul]

When I heard this segment on the September 15 recording, I could hardly believe it. Here is Paszkiewicz telling a Christian student to ignore his mother and his pastor on the Bible, and listen to him. This one wins a special award for arrogance, presumptuousness, hypocrisy and of course the denial in the October 10 meeting.

i. [Oct. 10, 2006]

1. [18:41-18:53] {Paszkiewicz} “You make statements here about me telling people not to listen to their parents. If I were preaching religion, that would even contradict my religion, wouldn’t it.” {Matthew} “Yes it would.” {Paszkiewicz} “Because the opposite is true, so I didn’t say it.”

2. [37:19-37:45] {Matthew} “Do you remember Student Y saying something about his religion from his mother and his pastor, and then you said ‘don’t buy it?” {Paszkiewicz} “I already addressed that one, and he said, he was talking about the History Channel, and I told him that it may --- I said the History Channel, depending on who writes the segment, is going to be, is going to have their particular bias, and it may contradict what your mom or your pastor says.”

3. [44:43-45:06] {Matthew} “And the only other one that was really big was when you told um, you told Student Y after he had said that he learned something about his religion from his pastor, his mother and History Channels, and you told him, ‘don’t buy it.’” {Paszkiewicz} “I said you gotta be careful about buying everything you hear on the History Channel because this stuff, and it might contradict your mom and your pastor.”

And here is what Mr. Paszkiewicz actually said in class. Yet again, Matthew’s characterization is correct, and Mr. Paszkiewicz’s denial is false.

ii. [september 15, 2006, 7:22-*] {Student Y} “I mean the changes that were made when there was the whole controversy of the two popes, when one was calling the other one the antichrist, and some of them started making revisions to the Bible . . .” {Paszkiewicz} “Where does this come from? Where did you hear that?”{Student Y} “It’s been like places on History channels, I’ve heard it from the internet, I’ve heard it from my own pastor at some points . . .” {Paszkiewicz} “Yeah, don’t . . .” {Student} “. . . I’ve heard it from my mother, who’s a CCD teacher . . .” {Paszkiewicz} “Don’t buy it. Because we have . . . there’s so many. We don’t have the original Bible, but we have so many ancient manuscripts that we piece together that we can virtually say we have the original.”

The presumptuousness is obvious, as is the falsity of the denial: telling a minor student to ignore his parent on religion. So where is the hypocrisy? Consider the following statement from Mr. Paszkiewicz on September 14 about what he would do to his own son if he defied Mr. P on religion:

Student F1: But then, what would you do if one kid was, after a while, your kid goes home to you and says "thanks for teaching me all this but I don't agree, I don't have faith."

Teacher: Until you're 18? You have to agree.

Student F1: Okay, but I'm saying, you know -

Teacher: If you're 18 years old and you make that decision? I'll still love you, I don't have to agree with you. I’ll never abandon you. Regardless of what decision you make. But, you think of even God, the way he's portrayed in the scriptures. People have done horrible things in the Bible; did he stop loving us? No, I mean the relationship was damaged, but he didn't stop loving us. And that's how - the example we should have as parents. But if my kid is age 12, and he's telling me "Dad, I appreciate your time and effort, but I've decided in my 12 years of wisdom that I'm going to stop going to church." After I break his backside, we're going to have a little attitude adjustment, he's going to get in the car with the rest of the family and go to church.

So here he is telling the class that his own son must obey him, and the next day telling Student Y to ignore his mother. Lovely. He must know that was wrong (1) because he said so, and (2) because he denied it. So why did he say it? He can't say Matthew made him do it, becuase Matthew had nothing to do with this part of the discussion. The devil, perhaps?

[Strife767]

When I heard this segment on the September 15 recording, I could hardly believe it. Here is Paszkiewicz telling a Christian student to ignore his mother and his pastor on the Bible, and listen to him. This one wins a special award for arrogance, presumptuousness, hypocrisy and of course the denial in the October 10 meeting.

i. [Oct. 10, 2006]

1. [18:41-18:53] {Paszkiewicz} “You make statements here about me telling people not to listen to their parents. If I were preaching religion, that would even contradict my religion, wouldn’t it.” {Matthew} “Yes it would.” {Paszkiewicz} “Because the opposite is true, so I didn’t say it.”

2. [37:19-37:45] {Matthew} “Do you remember Student Y saying something about his religion from his mother and his pastor, and then you said ‘don’t buy it?” {Paszkiewicz} “I already addressed that one, and he said, he was talking about the History Channel, and I told him that it may --- I said the History Channel, depending on who writes the segment, is going to be, is going to have their particular bias, and it may contradict what your mom or your pastor says.”

3. [44:43-45:06] {Matthew} “And the only other one that was really big was when you told um, you told Student Y after he had said that he learned something about his religion from his pastor, his mother and History Channels,  and you told him, ‘don’t buy it.’” {Paszkiewicz} “I said you gotta be careful about buying everything you hear on the History Channel because this stuff, and it might contradict your mom and your pastor.”

And here is what Mr. Paszkiewicz actually said in class. Yet again, Matthew’s characterization is correct, and Mr. Paszkiewicz’s denial is false.

ii. [september 15, 2006, 7:22-*] {Student Y} “I mean the changes that were made when there was the whole controversy of the two popes, when one was calling the other one the antichrist, and some of them started making revisions to the Bible . . .” {Paszkiewicz} “Where does this come from? Where did you hear that?”{Student Y} “It’s been like places on History channels, I’ve heard it from the internet, I’ve heard it from my own pastor at some points . . .” {Paszkiewicz} “Yeah, don’t . . .” {Student} “. . . I’ve heard it from my mother, who’s a CCD teacher . . .” {Paszkiewicz} “Don’t buy it. Because we have . . . there’s so many. We don’t have the original Bible, but we have so many ancient manuscripts that we piece together that we can virtually say we have the original.”

The presumptuousness is obvious, as is the falsity of the denial: telling a minor student to ignore his parent on religion. So where is the hypocrisy? Consider the following statement from Mr. Paszkiewicz on September 14 about what he would do to his own son if he defied Mr. P on religion:

Student F1: But then, what would you do if one kid was, after a while, your kid goes home to you and says "thanks for teaching me all this but I don't agree, I don't have faith."

Teacher: Until you're 18? You have to agree.

Student F1: Okay, but I'm saying, you know -

Teacher: If you're 18 years old and you make that decision? I'll still love you, I don't have to agree with you. I’ll never abandon you. Regardless of what decision you make. But, you think of even God, the way he's portrayed in the scriptures. People have done horrible things in the Bible; did he stop loving us? No, I mean the relationship was damaged, but he didn't stop loving us. And that's how - the example we should have as parents. But if my kid is age 12, and he's telling me "Dad, I appreciate your time and effort, but I've decided in my 12 years of wisdom that I'm going to stop going to church." After I break his backside, we're going to have a little attitude adjustment, he's going to get in the car with the rest of the family and go to church.

So here he is telling the class that his own son must obey him, and the next day telling Student Y to ignore his mother. Lovely. He must know that was wrong (1) because he said so, and (2) because he denied it. So why did he say it? He can't say Matthew made him do it, becuase Matthew had nothing to do with this part of the discussion. The devil, perhaps?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Truly shameful behavior. Just another reminder of how astonishing Paszkiewicz's self-righteousness is.

[Guest Guest]

I was originally on your side but, GOOD GOD!

If the Hollywood story of Howard Hughes was "The Aviator" your story would have to be "The Bloviator"!

This has gone from a "Ship of Fools" to a "Carload of Idiots"

[Guest Guest]

I was originally on your side but, GOOD GOD!

If the Hollywood story of Howard Hughes was "The Aviator" your story would have to be "The Bloviator"!

This has gone from a "Ship of Fools" to a "Carload of Idiots"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So you're for Mr. P telling students not to "buy it" from their parents or pastor?

nice...

[Guest Paul]

I was originally on your side but, GOOD GOD!

If the Hollywood story of Howard Hughes was "The Aviator" your story would have to be "The Bloviator"!

This has gone from a "Ship of Fools" to a "Carload of Idiots"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is someone forcing you to read it?

[Guest Guest]

When I heard this segment on the September 15 recording, I could hardly believe it. Here is Paszkiewicz telling a Christian student to ignore his mother and his pastor on the Bible, and listen to him. This one wins a special award for arrogance, presumptuousness, hypocrisy and of course the denial in the October 10 meeting.

i. [Oct. 10, 2006]

1. [18:41-18:53] {Paszkiewicz} “You make statements here about me telling people not to listen to their parents. If I were preaching religion, that would even contradict my religion, wouldn’t it.” {Matthew} “Yes it would.” {Paszkiewicz} “Because the opposite is true, so I didn’t say it.”

2. [37:19-37:45] {Matthew} “Do you remember Student Y saying something about his religion from his mother and his pastor, and then you said ‘don’t buy it?” {Paszkiewicz} “I already addressed that one, and he said, he was talking about the History Channel, and I told him that it may --- I said the History Channel, depending on who writes the segment, is going to be, is going to have their particular bias, and it may contradict what your mom or your pastor says.”

3. [44:43-45:06] {Matthew} “And the only other one that was really big was when you told um, you told Student Y after he had said that he learned something about his religion from his pastor, his mother and History Channels,  and you told him, ‘don’t buy it.’” {Paszkiewicz} “I said you gotta be careful about buying everything you hear on the History Channel because this stuff, and it might contradict your mom and your pastor.”

And here is what Mr. Paszkiewicz actually said in class. Yet again, Matthew’s characterization is correct, and Mr. Paszkiewicz’s denial is false.

ii. [september 15, 2006, 7:22-*] {Student Y} “I mean the changes that were made when there was the whole controversy of the two popes, when one was calling the other one the antichrist, and some of them started making revisions to the Bible . . .” {Paszkiewicz} “Where does this come from? Where did you hear that?”{Student Y} “It’s been like places on History channels, I’ve heard it from the internet, I’ve heard it from my own pastor at some points . . .” {Paszkiewicz} “Yeah, don’t . . .” {Student} “. . . I’ve heard it from my mother, who’s a CCD teacher . . .” {Paszkiewicz} “Don’t buy it. Because we have . . . there’s so many. We don’t have the original Bible, but we have so many ancient manuscripts that we piece together that we can virtually say we have the original.”

The presumptuousness is obvious, as is the falsity of the denial: telling a minor student to ignore his parent on religion. So where is the hypocrisy? Consider the following statement from Mr. Paszkiewicz on September 14 about what he would do to his own son if he defied Mr. P on religion:

Student F1: But then, what would you do if one kid was, after a while, your kid goes home to you and says "thanks for teaching me all this but I don't agree, I don't have faith."

Teacher: Until you're 18? You have to agree.

Student F1: Okay, but I'm saying, you know -

Teacher: If you're 18 years old and you make that decision? I'll still love you, I don't have to agree with you. I’ll never abandon you. Regardless of what decision you make. But, you think of even God, the way he's portrayed in the scriptures. People have done horrible things in the Bible; did he stop loving us? No, I mean the relationship was damaged, but he didn't stop loving us. And that's how - the example we should have as parents. But if my kid is age 12, and he's telling me "Dad, I appreciate your time and effort, but I've decided in my 12 years of wisdom that I'm going to stop going to church." After I break his backside, we're going to have a little attitude adjustment, he's going to get in the car with the rest of the family and go to church.

So here he is telling the class that his own son must obey him, and the next day telling Student Y to ignore his mother. Lovely. He must know that was wrong (1) because he said so, and (2) because he denied it. So why did he say it? He can't say Matthew made him do it, becuase Matthew had nothing to do with this part of the discussion. The devil, perhaps?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're absolutely right. This is rank hypocrisy and presumption, everything Paul says, and completely indefensible. Isn't it interesting that the only negative response against Paul is ad hominem, without a shred of content.

If Mr. Paszkiewicz's admirers recognize how wrong this was, why have they not admitted it? Honesty and integrity are virtues. Where are those virtues among Paszkiewicz's admirers?

[Strife767]

I was originally on your side but, GOOD GOD!

If the Hollywood story of Howard Hughes was "The Aviator" your story would have to be "The Bloviator"!

lol, wonder how many guesses it would take to figure out who wrote this? Possibly the person infatuated with the word "bloviate" and its conjugates?

[oneellama]

You're absolutely right. This is rank hypocrisy and presumption, everything Paul says, and completely indefensible. Isn't it interesting that the only negative response against Paul is ad hominem, without a shred of content.

If Mr. Paszkiewicz's admirers recognize how wrong this was, why have they not admitted it? Honesty and integrity are virtues. Where are those virtues among Paszkiewicz's admirers?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Answer your own question: They don't think it's wrong. The standard of true morality shifts with circumstance. The end justifies the means. Good triumphs over evil, even if Good has to lie for the sake of saving someone for Jesus, when inconvenient secular laws and bureucrats forget to turn their heads. They also don't think it should be debated publicly, thus the vitriol against the LaClairs, and others, in this blog, and on the posterboards at the BOE meeting.

Many people just don't seem to see that we give religion an unexplained, unquestioned, (unjustified) "bye" in the realm of rational public discourse. We must respect faith, whether we are fundamentalists or reformed Unitarians or...shall we say it?...Jews...or Moslems...or...but what about skyscraper exploders?

Now check out the dialogue in the various threads on this blog when the term "atheists" comes up. You'd get more respect from most posters here if you used the screenname "childabuser1" than to identify yourself as an atheist. Once done, that's done. "You're an atheist! What else need be said?" I've got a coworker whose been chasing me around at work like Rita Skeeter for years, her personal mission to get me to let slip whether I believe in God, and attend church, or not. At least with childabuser1, you'd have something for your resume with the Cathol...nope. Better not go there.

I think Richard Dawkins (DANGER! ATHEIST!) would say that Paul has demonstrated very well that Mr. P. does not have Christian children, any more than he has Republican children or Masonic children or Zeusian children. He has children of Christian parents. Likewise, he wanted to take over the role of Christian parent for his Kearny students, based on his faith and his evangelism. He clearly wants (and wanted) them to be "Christian children." Many, of course, are just fine with that, because they view Mr. P. as a "brother in Christ." These people can't understand what all the big whoopla is about.

Even more so for the sweet 6-year old who held up the "Jesus Saves" sign the other night at the BOE (wasn't that just so cute), and had the mother outraged at the Observer, because she thought Canessa challenged her children's freedom of speech (SHAMEFUL, MR. CANESSA, JUST SHAMEFUL). {It blows me away when Christians start throwing around the shame thing. Self-righteous arrogance, incarnate.}

Hate to say it, but this also was not a Christian child, any more than Mr. P.'s. It was a child of a Christian mother. If you don't understand this, consider what each (Mr. P. and the 6-year-old's mother) would have done had their children ON THEIR OWN chosen to address the BOE meeting with placards labeled Allahu Akbar (Allah is Great) instead. Impossible, you would say. Why in the world would they choose to do that? They've had good Christian upbringings, that's why! That, of course, is the point. "Jesus Saves" to the six-year-old is a wonderful package of hymns and pretty dresses and heartwarmingly accepting dogma for the devoted. Gone down the Akbar path, though, Mr. P.'s kid would have had a rotten-sore bum, and the 6-year old would have been in for some severe deprogramming by the minister. Come on, folks, let's get real here. Six-year olds don't "get Jesus" on their own any more than they do Allahu Akbar. But all over the world, children of Muslim parents are being taught this very thing: Allahu Akbar. Five, ten, forty years from now, someone may recognize this for what it is -- child abuse. And I'm not just talking about Allahu Akbar. Don't believe it? Try REALLY THINKING about what the concept of eternal damnation in fire for the sin of believing in the wrong god means to a six-year-old girl's subconscious. Somewhere along the line in that six-year-old's life, she's gonna discover there are (yipes!) other religions out there, who think the Christians are going to burn in hell just as surely as the Christians think the OTHERS are going to burn in hell. Hey, if I'm six, I'm votin' with my feet for Mommy and Daddy's brand of salvaltion. But that poor, poor girl in my class who isn't "a believer..." Now THERE'S morality for you.

To say that six-year old child (and others) was not being used is a mind-boggling piece of cortex-closing, group psychosing, mass hypnosing, halitosing...perhaps only matched by those who at the same meeting proclaimed they were "praying for Mr. P." or "praying for Matthew." An omniscient God doesn't need a popular vote of the Kearny faithful, delivered through intercessory prayer, to swing his attention round. He should already be on it, dude. Besides, if Mr. P. is right, we all know where Matthew's headed anyway.

So is Matthew also being used, like the 6-year old and Mr. P's kids? Listen to him on the tapes. Listen to him in the press interviews. The clue isn't what he says when served up a gopher pitch, or asked whether Mr. P. was a nice man who did good things and was a good teacher. It's when he has to think on his feet. And guess what -- he DOES think. No robot there. No platitude quotes soldered in by a Sunday School teacher. DawwwGone!. God gave that kid a BRAAAAIIN.

I am not sure what he was a "child of" at six, but now he is preparing himself to be an adult, to really CHOOSE some of those important labels -- the ones we can control, anyway. Will he be a Christian man? A Jewish man? An Atheist man? A Republican man? A Democratic man? Will he be a labelled man at all? Or simply a Thinking, Rational Man? Dunno. But you can bet he won't be trying to figure out how it's possible that the entire existence of the universe according to Mr. P. (dinosaurs, DNA, Dennis Rodman, and all) took place after the historical invention of glue by a few (apparently hell-bound) non-Christians in Sumeria. A bunch of his classmates apparently aren't so bright, or so lucky.

Sometimes I think this whole dialogue oughta stop beatin' around the bush. It's about reason and science versus faith and dogma. We know easily from the polls whose got the numbers on their side in this country, and it ain't the ones in the laboratory, it's the rectory. The only thing holding back the Christian tide is... the Constitution...a few thousand blantant contradictions, factual errors, moral abominations, and assorted irrationalities that unnerve the moderate believers...and a whole, inconvenient multitude of believers in other faiths. Worse yet, some of them think we're infidels! And they want to kill us! Can you believe that? It's enough to make me grab my sword.

[Foger]

Dominionist Preachers are allowed to lie, as long as they are serving God.

[Guest Guest]

Answer your own question:  They don't think it's wrong. The standard of true morality shifts with circumstance. The end justifies the means.  Good triumphs over evil, even if Good has to lie for the sake of saving someone for Jesus, when inconvenient secular laws and bureucrats forget to turn their heads.  They also don't think it should be debated publicly, thus the vitriol against the LaClairs, and others, in this blog, and on the posterboards at the BOE meeting.

Many people just don't seem to see that we give religion an unexplained, unquestioned, (unjustified) "bye" in the realm of rational public discourse.  We must respect faith, whether we are fundamentalists or reformed Unitarians or...shall we say it?...Jews...or Moslems...or...but what about skyscraper exploders?

Now check out the dialogue in the various threads on this blog when the term "atheists" comes up.  You'd get more respect from most posters here if you used the screenname "childabuser1" than to identify yourself as an atheist.  Once done, that's done.  "You're an atheist!  What else need be said?"  I've got a coworker whose been chasing me around at work like Rita Skeeter for years, her personal mission to get me to let slip whether I believe in God, and attend church, or not.  At least with childabuser1, you'd have something for your resume with the Cathol...nope.  Better not go there.

I think Richard Dawkins (DANGER!  ATHEIST!) would say that Paul has demonstrated very well that Mr. P. does not have Christian children, any more than he has Republican children or Masonic children or Zeusian children.  He has children of Christian parents.  Likewise, he wanted to take over the role of Christian parent for his Kearny students, based on his faith and his evangelism.  He clearly wants (and wanted) them to be "Christian children."  Many, of course, are just fine with that, because they view Mr. P. as a "brother in Christ."  These people can't understand what all the big whoopla is about.

Even more so for the sweet 6-year old who held up the "Jesus Saves" sign the other night at the BOE (wasn't that just so cute), and had the mother outraged at the Observer, because she thought Canessa challenged her children's freedom of speech (SHAMEFUL, MR. CANESSA, JUST SHAMEFUL).  {It blows me away when Christians start throwing around the shame thing.  Self-righteous arrogance, incarnate.}

Hate to say it, but this also was not a Christian child, any more than Mr. P.'s.  It was a child of a Christian mother.  If you don't understand this, consider what each (Mr. P. and the 6-year-old's mother) would have done had their children ON THEIR OWN chosen to address the BOE meeting with placards labeled Allahu Akbar (Allah is Great) instead.  Impossible, you would say.  Why in the world would they choose to do that?  They've had good Christian upbringings, that's why!  That, of course, is the point. "Jesus Saves" to the six-year-old is a wonderful package of hymns and pretty dresses and heartwarmingly accepting dogma for the devoted.  Gone down the Akbar path, though, Mr. P.'s kid would have had a rotten-sore bum, and the 6-year old would have been in for some severe deprogramming by the minister.  Come on, folks, let's get real here.  Six-year olds don't "get Jesus" on their own any more than they do Allahu Akbar.  But all over the world, children of Muslim parents are being taught this very thing: Allahu Akbar.  Five, ten, forty years from now, someone may recognize this for what it is -- child abuse.  And I'm not just talking about Allahu Akbar.  Don't believe it?  Try REALLY THINKING about what the concept of eternal damnation in fire for the sin of believing in the wrong god means to a six-year-old girl's subconscious.  Somewhere along the line in that six-year-old's life, she's gonna discover there are (yipes!) other religions out there, who think the Christians are going to burn in hell just as surely as the Christians think the OTHERS are going to burn in hell.  Hey, if I'm six, I'm votin' with my feet for Mommy and Daddy's brand of salvaltion.  But that poor, poor girl in my class who isn't "a believer..."  Now THERE'S morality for you.

To say that six-year old child (and others) was not being used is a mind-boggling piece of cortex-closing, group psychosing, mass hypnosing, halitosing...perhaps only matched by those who at the same meeting proclaimed they were "praying for Mr. P." or "praying for Matthew."  An omniscient God doesn't need a popular vote of the Kearny faithful, delivered through intercessory prayer, to swing his attention round.  He should already be on it, dude.  Besides, if Mr. P. is right, we all know where Matthew's headed anyway. 

So is Matthew also being used, like the 6-year old and Mr. P's kids?  Listen to him on the tapes.  Listen to him in the press interviews.  The clue isn't what he says when served up a gopher pitch, or asked whether Mr. P. was a nice man who did good things and was a good teacher.  It's when he has to think on his feet.  And guess what -- he DOES think.  No robot there.  No platitude quotes soldered in by a Sunday School teacher.  DawwwGone!.  God gave that kid a BRAAAAIIN.

I am not sure what he was a "child of" at six, but now he is preparing himself to be an adult, to really CHOOSE some of those important labels -- the ones we can control, anyway.  Will he be a Christian man?  A Jewish man?  An Atheist man?  A Republican man?  A Democratic man?  Will he be a labelled man at all?  Or simply a Thinking, Rational Man?  Dunno.  But you can bet he won't be trying to figure out how it's possible that the entire existence of the universe according to Mr. P. (dinosaurs, DNA, Dennis Rodman, and all) took place after the historical invention of glue by a few (apparently hell-bound) non-Christians in Sumeria.  A bunch of his classmates apparently aren't so bright, or so lucky.

Sometimes I think this whole dialogue oughta stop beatin' around the bush.  It's about reason and science versus faith and dogma.  We know easily from the polls whose got the numbers on their side in this country, and it ain't the ones in the laboratory, it's the rectory.  The only thing holding back the Christian tide is... the Constitution...a few thousand blantant contradictions, factual errors, moral abominations, and assorted irrationalities that unnerve the moderate believers...and a whole, inconvenient multitude of believers in other faiths. Worse yet, some of them think we're infidels!  And they want to kill us!  Can you believe that?  It's enough to make me grab my sword.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Might I suggest you checking into a hospital as soon as possible! No one is trying to kill you. You make it sound like its good versus evil, David versus Goliath or even Batman versus the Joker. It is not. First of all Matthew is not 6 but 17.

This whole blog is about a few thousand blatant contradictions. Its about getting notoriety. It’s about Mr. LaClair wanting to run for Congress and needing a platform to run on. It means selling out his son to do so knowing his strong temperament and determination. It is all about Paul, not Matthew. Somewhere there is “good in him” - Star Wars reference. Watch in the coming months to see what Paul LaClair’s platform is. Don’t say that you didn’t hear it here first. And it will be about the polls. Faith, dogma, science have nothing to do with it except to discredit someone making a living. He needed a platform and a forum and found it unfortunately through an unknowing teacher who was being taped. Dare I ask you if every word of yours was being taped that you wouldn’t slip up from time to time?

[Guest Guest]

Dominionist Preachers are allowed to lie, as long as they are serving God.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you Paul's campaign manager ?

[Strife767]

Answer your own question:  They don't think it's wrong. The standard of true morality shifts with circumstance. The end justifies the means.  Good triumphs over evil, even if Good has to lie for the sake of saving someone for Jesus, when inconvenient secular laws and bureucrats forget to turn their heads.  They also don't think it should be debated publicly, thus the vitriol against the LaClairs, and others, in this blog, and on the posterboards at the BOE meeting.

Many people just don't seem to see that we give religion an unexplained, unquestioned, (unjustified) "bye" in the realm of rational public discourse.  We must respect faith, whether we are fundamentalists or reformed Unitarians or...shall we say it?...Jews...or Moslems...or...but what about skyscraper exploders?

Now check out the dialogue in the various threads on this blog when the term "atheists" comes up.  You'd get more respect from most posters here if you used the screenname "childabuser1" than to identify yourself as an atheist.  Once done, that's done.  "You're an atheist!  What else need be said?"  I've got a coworker whose been chasing me around at work like Rita Skeeter for years, her personal mission to get me to let slip whether I believe in God, and attend church, or not.  At least with childabuser1, you'd have something for your resume with the Cathol...nope.  Better not go there.

I think Richard Dawkins (DANGER!  ATHEIST!) would say that Paul has demonstrated very well that Mr. P. does not have Christian children, any more than he has Republican children or Masonic children or Zeusian children.  He has children of Christian parents.  Likewise, he wanted to take over the role of Christian parent for his Kearny students, based on his faith and his evangelism.  He clearly wants (and wanted) them to be "Christian children."  Many, of course, are just fine with that, because they view Mr. P. as a "brother in Christ."  These people can't understand what all the big whoopla is about.

Even more so for the sweet 6-year old who held up the "Jesus Saves" sign the other night at the BOE (wasn't that just so cute), and had the mother outraged at the Observer, because she thought Canessa challenged her children's freedom of speech (SHAMEFUL, MR. CANESSA, JUST SHAMEFUL).  {It blows me away when Christians start throwing around the shame thing.  Self-righteous arrogance, incarnate.}

Hate to say it, but this also was not a Christian child, any more than Mr. P.'s.  It was a child of a Christian mother.  If you don't understand this, consider what each (Mr. P. and the 6-year-old's mother) would have done had their children ON THEIR OWN chosen to address the BOE meeting with placards labeled Allahu Akbar (Allah is Great) instead.  Impossible, you would say.  Why in the world would they choose to do that?  They've had good Christian upbringings, that's why!  That, of course, is the point. "Jesus Saves" to the six-year-old is a wonderful package of hymns and pretty dresses and heartwarmingly accepting dogma for the devoted.  Gone down the Akbar path, though, Mr. P.'s kid would have had a rotten-sore bum, and the 6-year old would have been in for some severe deprogramming by the minister.  Come on, folks, let's get real here.  Six-year olds don't "get Jesus" on their own any more than they do Allahu Akbar.  But all over the world, children of Muslim parents are being taught this very thing: Allahu Akbar.  Five, ten, forty years from now, someone may recognize this for what it is -- child abuse.  And I'm not just talking about Allahu Akbar.  Don't believe it?  Try REALLY THINKING about what the concept of eternal damnation in fire for the sin of believing in the wrong god means to a six-year-old girl's subconscious.  Somewhere along the line in that six-year-old's life, she's gonna discover there are (yipes!) other religions out there, who think the Christians are going to burn in hell just as surely as the Christians think the OTHERS are going to burn in hell.  Hey, if I'm six, I'm votin' with my feet for Mommy and Daddy's brand of salvaltion.  But that poor, poor girl in my class who isn't "a believer..."  Now THERE'S morality for you.

To say that six-year old child (and others) was not being used is a mind-boggling piece of cortex-closing, group psychosing, mass hypnosing, halitosing...perhaps only matched by those who at the same meeting proclaimed they were "praying for Mr. P." or "praying for Matthew."  An omniscient God doesn't need a popular vote of the Kearny faithful, delivered through intercessory prayer, to swing his attention round.  He should already be on it, dude.  Besides, if Mr. P. is right, we all know where Matthew's headed anyway. 

So is Matthew also being used, like the 6-year old and Mr. P's kids?  Listen to him on the tapes.  Listen to him in the press interviews.  The clue isn't what he says when served up a gopher pitch, or asked whether Mr. P. was a nice man who did good things and was a good teacher.  It's when he has to think on his feet.  And guess what -- he DOES think.  No robot there.  No platitude quotes soldered in by a Sunday School teacher.  DawwwGone!.  God gave that kid a BRAAAAIIN.

I am not sure what he was a "child of" at six, but now he is preparing himself to be an adult, to really CHOOSE some of those important labels -- the ones we can control, anyway.  Will he be a Christian man?  A Jewish man?  An Atheist man?  A Republican man?  A Democratic man?  Will he be a labelled man at all?  Or simply a Thinking, Rational Man?  Dunno.  But you can bet he won't be trying to figure out how it's possible that the entire existence of the universe according to Mr. P. (dinosaurs, DNA, Dennis Rodman, and all) took place after the historical invention of glue by a few (apparently hell-bound) non-Christians in Sumeria.  A bunch of his classmates apparently aren't so bright, or so lucky.

Sometimes I think this whole dialogue oughta stop beatin' around the bush.  It's about reason and science versus faith and dogma.  We know easily from the polls whose got the numbers on their side in this country, and it ain't the ones in the laboratory, it's the rectory.  The only thing holding back the Christian tide is... the Constitution...a few thousand blantant contradictions, factual errors, moral abominations, and assorted irrationalities that unnerve the moderate believers...and a whole, inconvenient multitude of believers in other faiths. Worse yet, some of them think we're infidels!  And they want to kill us!  Can you believe that?  It's enough to make me grab my sword.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your frustration is palpable...and wholly understandable. :/

[God Save Us From Christians]

Dominionist Preachers are allowed to lie, as long as they are serving God.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Christians are allowed to lie, get divorced, have affairs, do drugs, sleep with hired male prostitutes, sleep with hired female prostitutes, take illegal campaign contributions, have children out of wedlock, etc. etc. etc.

At least according to their leadership - Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart, Tom Delay, Pat Robertson, Jim Bakker, Jerry Falwell, Jesse Jackson, etc.

God save us all from the Christians.

[Guest Paul]

Answer your own question:  They don't think it's wrong. The standard of true morality shifts with circumstance. The end justifies the means.  Good triumphs over evil, even if Good has to lie for the sake of saving someone for Jesus, when inconvenient secular laws and bureucrats forget to turn their heads.  They also don't think it should be debated publicly, thus the vitriol against the LaClairs, and others, in this blog, and on the posterboards at the BOE meeting.

Many people just don't seem to see that we give religion an unexplained, unquestioned, (unjustified) "bye" in the realm of rational public discourse.  We must respect faith, whether we are fundamentalists or reformed Unitarians or...shall we say it?...Jews...or Moslems...or...but what about skyscraper exploders?

Now check out the dialogue in the various threads on this blog when the term "atheists" comes up.  You'd get more respect from most posters here if you used the screenname "childabuser1" than to identify yourself as an atheist.  Once done, that's done.  "You're an atheist!  What else need be said?"  I've got a coworker whose been chasing me around at work like Rita Skeeter for years, her personal mission to get me to let slip whether I believe in God, and attend church, or not.  At least with childabuser1, you'd have something for your resume with the Cathol...nope.  Better not go there.

I think Richard Dawkins (DANGER!  ATHEIST!) would say that Paul has demonstrated very well that Mr. P. does not have Christian children, any more than he has Republican children or Masonic children or Zeusian children.  He has children of Christian parents.  Likewise, he wanted to take over the role of Christian parent for his Kearny students, based on his faith and his evangelism.  He clearly wants (and wanted) them to be "Christian children."  Many, of course, are just fine with that, because they view Mr. P. as a "brother in Christ."  These people can't understand what all the big whoopla is about.

Even more so for the sweet 6-year old who held up the "Jesus Saves" sign the other night at the BOE (wasn't that just so cute), and had the mother outraged at the Observer, because she thought Canessa challenged her children's freedom of speech (SHAMEFUL, MR. CANESSA, JUST SHAMEFUL).  {It blows me away when Christians start throwing around the shame thing.  Self-righteous arrogance, incarnate.}

Hate to say it, but this also was not a Christian child, any more than Mr. P.'s.  It was a child of a Christian mother.  If you don't understand this, consider what each (Mr. P. and the 6-year-old's mother) would have done had their children ON THEIR OWN chosen to address the BOE meeting with placards labeled Allahu Akbar (Allah is Great) instead.  Impossible, you would say.  Why in the world would they choose to do that?  They've had good Christian upbringings, that's why!  That, of course, is the point. "Jesus Saves" to the six-year-old is a wonderful package of hymns and pretty dresses and heartwarmingly accepting dogma for the devoted.  Gone down the Akbar path, though, Mr. P.'s kid would have had a rotten-sore bum, and the 6-year old would have been in for some severe deprogramming by the minister.  Come on, folks, let's get real here.  Six-year olds don't "get Jesus" on their own any more than they do Allahu Akbar.  But all over the world, children of Muslim parents are being taught this very thing: Allahu Akbar.  Five, ten, forty years from now, someone may recognize this for what it is -- child abuse.  And I'm not just talking about Allahu Akbar.  Don't believe it?  Try REALLY THINKING about what the concept of eternal damnation in fire for the sin of believing in the wrong god means to a six-year-old girl's subconscious.  Somewhere along the line in that six-year-old's life, she's gonna discover there are (yipes!) other religions out there, who think the Christians are going to burn in hell just as surely as the Christians think the OTHERS are going to burn in hell.  Hey, if I'm six, I'm votin' with my feet for Mommy and Daddy's brand of salvaltion.  But that poor, poor girl in my class who isn't "a believer..."  Now THERE'S morality for you.

To say that six-year old child (and others) was not being used is a mind-boggling piece of cortex-closing, group psychosing, mass hypnosing, halitosing...perhaps only matched by those who at the same meeting proclaimed they were "praying for Mr. P." or "praying for Matthew."  An omniscient God doesn't need a popular vote of the Kearny faithful, delivered through intercessory prayer, to swing his attention round.  He should already be on it, dude.  Besides, if Mr. P. is right, we all know where Matthew's headed anyway. 

So is Matthew also being used, like the 6-year old and Mr. P's kids?  Listen to him on the tapes.  Listen to him in the press interviews.  The clue isn't what he says when served up a gopher pitch, or asked whether Mr. P. was a nice man who did good things and was a good teacher.  It's when he has to think on his feet.  And guess what -- he DOES think.  No robot there.  No platitude quotes soldered in by a Sunday School teacher.  DawwwGone!.  God gave that kid a BRAAAAIIN.

I am not sure what he was a "child of" at six, but now he is preparing himself to be an adult, to really CHOOSE some of those important labels -- the ones we can control, anyway.  Will he be a Christian man?  A Jewish man?  An Atheist man?  A Republican man?  A Democratic man?  Will he be a labelled man at all?  Or simply a Thinking, Rational Man?  Dunno.  But you can bet he won't be trying to figure out how it's possible that the entire existence of the universe according to Mr. P. (dinosaurs, DNA, Dennis Rodman, and all) took place after the historical invention of glue by a few (apparently hell-bound) non-Christians in Sumeria.  A bunch of his classmates apparently aren't so bright, or so lucky.

Sometimes I think this whole dialogue oughta stop beatin' around the bush.  It's about reason and science versus faith and dogma.  We know easily from the polls whose got the numbers on their side in this country, and it ain't the ones in the laboratory, it's the rectory.  The only thing holding back the Christian tide is... the Constitution...a few thousand blantant contradictions, factual errors, moral abominations, and assorted irrationalities that unnerve the moderate believers...and a whole, inconvenient multitude of believers in other faiths. Worse yet, some of them think we're infidels!  And they want to kill us!  Can you believe that?  It's enough to make me grab my sword.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I love this post. Be of good cheer. I believe rationality and reason will prevail.

[Guest Paul]

Might I suggest you checking into a hospital as soon as possible!  No one is trying to kill you.  You make it sound like its good versus evil, David versus Goliath or even Batman versus the Joker.  It is not.  First of all Matthew is not 6 but 17. 

This whole blog is about a few thousand blatant contradictions.  Its about getting notoriety. It’s about Mr. LaClair wanting to run for Congress and needing a platform to run on. It means selling out his son to do so knowing his strong temperament and determination. It is all about Paul, not Matthew.  Somewhere there is “good in him” - Star Wars reference.  Watch in the coming months to see what Paul LaClair’s platform is. Don’t say that you didn’t hear it here first.  And it will be about the polls.  Faith, dogma, science have nothing to do with it except to discredit someone making a living. He needed a platform and a forum and found it unfortunately through an unknowing teacher who was being taped.  Dare I ask you if every word of yours was being taped that you wouldn’t slip up from time to time?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not running for Congress. The post you referred to mentions Paul Aronson, who is running for Congress. No wonder you folks can't get the facts straight. You can't read.

[oneellama]

I love this post. Be of good cheer. I believe rationality and reason will prevail.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey, I'm just gettin' warmed up. Watched Field of Dreams the other night. That scene with Annie Kinsella at the PTA meetin' sure do pump ya up, don't it?

[Guest Guest]

Might I suggest you checking into a hospital as soon as possible! No one is trying to kill you. You make it sound like its good versus evil, David versus Goliath or even Batman versus the Joker. It is not. First of all Matthew is not 6 but 17.

This whole blog is about a few thousand blatant contradictions. Its about getting notoriety. It’s about Mr. LaClair wanting to run for Congress and needing a platform to run on. It means selling out his son to do so knowing his strong temperament and determination. It is all about Paul, not Matthew. Somewhere there is “good in him” - Star Wars reference. Watch in the coming months to see what Paul LaClair’s platform is. Don’t say that you didn’t hear it here first. And it will be about the polls. Faith, dogma, science have nothing to do with it except to discredit someone making a living. He needed a platform and a forum and found it unfortunately through an unknowing teacher who was being taped. Dare I ask you if every word of yours was being taped that you wouldn’t slip up from time to time?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The someone "making a living" is supposed to be teaching History in a public school on the taxpayers' dime! I don't want my tax dollars being spent on a self-righteous, fundamentalist lunatic preaching to my kid. I have absolutely no confidence that Mr. P was disciplined in any manner, nor do I believe that he will stop preaching in class. Until Matt, there was no "proof" he was doing it before; now with a ban on recording and the switching of classes who is going to report what he's actually "teaching" in the classroom now? Mr. P to this day believes he's done nothing wrong; his performance at the school board meeting and his nonsensical letter to the editor make this clear. What makes anyone think that his teaching style has changed?

[Guest qetzal]

When I heard this segment on the September 15 recording, I could hardly believe it. Here is Paszkiewicz telling a Christian student to ignore his mother and his pastor on the Bible, and listen to him....[H]ere is what Mr. Paszkiewicz actually said in class. Yet again, Matthew’s characterization is correct, and Mr. Paszkiewicz’s denial is false.

ii. [september 15, 2006, 7:22-*] {Student Y} “I mean the changes that were made when there was the whole controversy of the two popes, when one was calling the other one the antichrist, and some of them started making revisions to the Bible . . .” {Paszkiewicz} “Where does this come from? Where did you hear that?”{Student Y} “It’s been like places on History channels, I’ve heard it from the internet, I’ve heard it from my own pastor at some points . . .” {Paszkiewicz} “Yeah, don’t . . .” {Student} “. . . I’ve heard it from my mother, who’s a CCD teacher . . .” {Paszkiewicz} “Don’t buy it. Because we have . . . there’s so many. We don’t have the original Bible, but we have so many ancient manuscripts that we piece together that we can virtually say we have the original.”

The presumptuousness is obvious, as is the falsity of the denial: telling a minor student to ignore his parent on religion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've been quite critical of Mr. P.'s claims regarding the truth of his religious beliefs, and I strongly support your efforts to ensure that teachers do not make such statements in public classrooms. For that reason, I feel obligated to also speak up and say that I disagree with you in this case.

Whether or not there were once two people claiming to be pope, whether one or both made revisions to the Bible, and whether we have enough ancient manuscripts to piece together a 'complete' original Bible seem more like matters of history than religion per se. Various ancient documents either do or do not exist, either do or do not describe such events, and either can or cannot be reliably dated to the relevant time periods. These seem like matters of fact, not religious opinion.

I don't know anything about the truth of the Student Y's statements. But it appears to me that in this case, Mr. P. was simply claiming that the information from the parent & pastor was historically inaccurate. He may or may not be right, but I see nothing inherently presumptuous or inappropriate about it. No more than if he told a student not to buy his mother's claim that Cleopatra discovered America.

Truth claims about the history of a religion are very different than claims about the truth of the religion itself.

[Guest Paul]

I've been quite critical of Mr. P.'s claims regarding the truth of his religious beliefs, and I strongly support your efforts to ensure that teachers do not make such statements in public classrooms. For that reason, I feel obligated to also speak up and say that I disagree with you in this case.

Whether or not there were once two people claiming to be pope, whether one or both made revisions to the Bible, and whether we have enough ancient manuscripts to piece together a 'complete' original Bible seem more like matters of history than religion per se. Various ancient documents either do or do not exist, either do or do not describe such events, and either can or cannot be reliably dated to the relevant time periods. These seem like matters of fact, not religious opinion.

I don't know anything about the truth of the Student Y's statements. But it appears to me that in this case, Mr. P. was simply claiming that the information from the parent & pastor was historically inaccurate. He may or may not be right, but I see nothing inherently presumptuous or inappropriate about it. No more than if he told a student not to buy his mother's claim that Cleopatra discovered America.

Truth claims about the history of a religion are very different than claims about the truth of the religion itself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm shocked that someone who writes as well as you do, and seems as level-headed, could draw those conclusions. Everything Mr. P said on those recordings was pointed in one direction: proselytizing radical Christian fundamentalism. Even if you could defend any one of these points in a vacuum, which I contend you can't, there is simply no denying what this teacher was trying to do: preach to these students and promote his view as the only correct one.

[Foger]

Are you Paul's campaign manager ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How did you know..... LOL....No, but I am sending my resume out to a number of races.

[Foger]

At least according to their leadership - Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart, Tom Delay, Pat Robertson, Jim Bakker, Jerry Falwell, Jesse Jackson, etc.

God save us all from the Christians.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good point, but I would offer: you got a little mixed up. There is your run of the mill Christian, then there are your Dominionists & Reconstructionists. I'm not one thats into biblical law like stoning and such, I think that stuffs me squarely into the first group. I dont buy any of that Rapture stuff & I aint no "true believer".

[an American in Texas]

Good point, but I would offer: you got a little mixed up. There is your run of the mill Christian, then there are your Dominionists & Reconstructionists. I'm not one thats into biblical law like stoning and such, I think that stuffs me squarely into the first group.  I dont buy any of that Rapture stuff & I aint no "true believer".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

God Save Us From Christians names a number of prominent Christianists: Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart, Tom Delay, Pat Robertson, Jim Bakker, Jerry Falwell, (I omit Jesse Jackson because I know nothing about his theology). And by the way, s/he missed the most important one of all, James Dobson, and one other prominent one who immediately comes to mind, Rick Scarborough.

Let's get this straight -- these are not MY leaders, nor do they lead Christians with whom I commune.

These people are Christians, no doubt, but their political activities, like those of the rest of the religious right, are more properly termed Christian Reconstructionism or Dominionism. Some call them Christianists, in an apparently futile effort to separate their politics and Dominionist theology -- rejected by mainline Christians -- from their more conventional Christian theology.

I urge you to google these terms. They are important in the current U.S. body politic.

Among their more egregious faults, they erroneously claim that the United States was founded as a Christian nation, they reject evolution and science in favor of their interpretation of Scripture, and they claim they're being persecuted when the Constitution is enforced.

Foger, thank you for pointing out this important distinction.

Leigh Williams

Austin, Texas

[oneellama]

Might I suggest you checking into a hospital as soon as possible!  No one is trying to kill you.  You make it sound like its good versus evil, David versus Goliath or even Batman versus the Joker.  It is not.  First of all Matthew is not 6 but 17. 

This whole blog is about a few thousand blatant contradictions.  Its about getting notoriety. It’s about Mr. LaClair wanting to run for Congress and needing a platform to run on. It means selling out his son to do so knowing his strong temperament and determination. It is all about Paul, not Matthew.  Somewhere there is “good in him” - Star Wars reference.  Watch in the coming months to see what Paul LaClair’s platform is. Don’t say that you didn’t hear it here first.  And it will be about the polls.  Faith, dogma, science have nothing to do with it except to discredit someone making a living. He needed a platform and a forum and found it unfortunately through an unknowing teacher who was being taped.  Dare I ask you if every word of yours was being taped that you wouldn’t slip up from time to time?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dare away. I'm very glad you asked that question. Perhaps I can clarify a couple things for you. First, I'm a public school teacher, so the issues of responsibility, freedom of speech, ethics, and legal boundaries raised on this blog are right at the top of my priority list. In my school, it is commonplace for me to have parents, my principal, board members, and teachers from my own and other districts present in my room while I am teaching. Sometimes, they come unannounced. It is not at all a "gotcha" test; they simply know I welcome them. Most know they run the risk of being enlisted in the learning process, and often that is precisely why they are there. My teaching is enhanced by their presence and participation. My door is always propped open, except when the hallway's too noisy.

I guarantee you that there is absolutely no connection between the possibility of my being taped and the possibility of my "slipping up." I do the latter, just like any other human being, with frustrating regularity. Teaching is a profound lesson in the art of communication and opportunities for miscommunication, between all the participants (student-parent-teacher-administrator...). That's why, as teachers say, there are apologies and erasers. I offer my apologies freely, from my heart, and I erase my mistakes, insert corrections, and pursue improvement in the future. This is one of many points where Mr. P and I apparently part paths; he has shunned the apology, and his erasures have been of the facts, not the fallacies. Rose Mary Woods is not a good role model for Mr. P to metaphorically follow in this regard. [50 point Extra Point Question #1 for Mr. P's U.S. History studens: identify the person cited, the historical situation, and why Mr. P might wish he had Ms. Woods on retainer at the moment.]

On the other hand, I do not teach in fear of being taped for my slip-ups, any more than I live in fear of going to hell. To paraphrase Sam Harris, the fact that this does not worry me in the slightest should suggest to you just how inadequate I find the threat of either being taped, or going to hell. The obvious positive feedback loop here is that the less you fear true misconduct or immorality, the more you have homed in on the ethical and moral internal compass that make the fear itself moot. Consequently, I have absolutely no concern that someone will reveal a tape, overtly or covertly recorded, that might land me afoul of the Establishment Clause or any other significant policy governing my teaching ethics. Mr. P obviously can't say that now, and I would suggest it's been many years, if ever, that he could. Instead, he chose to construct his world view based on a stark choice between the fear of immeasurable punishment and a false certainty of eternal glory, and project that fear onto his own teaching choices, then his students. It is that world view itself that seems to offer only one path: slam the one who made the tape, when the more rational choice is to apologize, correct the errors -- and take a true quantum leap forward as a teacher and as a human being.

The exact same phenomenon reveals the legitimacy of the truly moral atheist human beings living in our midst, completely devoid of religiously-motivated, fear-modulated belief systems. Many Christians (including those responsible for a plethora of posts on this blog) base much of their world view on the belief that this last statement is inherently self-contradictory. If you simply reread these last two paragraphs, you will see that it is a straightforward matter to show empirically that they are wrong. This is an example of allowing rational thinking to trump irrational faith.

You, like many other posters on this blog, have demeaned or even slandered Mr. L and his son for their motives, claiming the effect is to "discredit someone making a living" or threaten a family man's ability to provide for his children. I'm still trying to convince myself that your attempt to glue the LaClair's motives to a Congressional bid by Paul was intentional yet misplaced preemption, rather than a breathtakingly inane mix-up between Paul LaClair and Paul Aronson. [50-point extra credit question for Mr. P's KHS students: identify the historical connection (albeit recent), of the phrase I just borrowed; submit answers to oneellama@comcast.net.]

But even if I can somehow work past that aspect, I'm astounded that you, and to my knowledge none of Mr. P's supporters, has asked the much more pertinent question: if you can criticize Mr. L and Matthew for raising the issue in the way they did, how can you not wonder why on earth Mr. P, knowing he was the breadwinner for his family, would take such an obvious and continuous risk by going way over the top presenting his own religious viewpoints in the classroom, as explicitly revealed on the tapes?

I think it was in The Seven Boxes of Life that Richard Bolles told the story of a religious group a few decades back that was so convinced that the second coming was inevitable on a certain day that they stopped paying their mortgages, quit their jobs, and gathered together awaiting the Rapture. Bottom line: no Rapture. Also no "Plan B," so they lost their homes, jobs, and more. Faith blinded them to reality. Those who enable Mr. P to persist in the self-deception that his choice was either correct or rational are, themselves, blinded to reality by their faith. The man is so certain of his own righteousness that he was willing to put everything of real earthly value on the line, convincing himself it was Sunday at the church, not Monday in his public school classroom. This should be a very sobering reality check for Mr. P and those rallying around him.

There is another path, both for Mr. P and the enforcement/policy arms of the administration. Recognize your mistakes. Acknowledge them openly. Apologize for them. Correct them. If you do not do that, you had better be working on a good Plan B.

--oneellama

P.S.: Dear Guest: from my earlier posts, you could learn that I just recently escaped from a hospital, where I gave up some of my innards, and my stock of spare parts was sorely (yes, a pun) depleted. Thus, forgive me if I am not anxious to let them have another go at me quite so soon, even if it were to be in the kind of hospital you were implying rather than the scalpal and suture kind. Also, it wasn't that I was specifically worried about getting killed myself (my religious paranoia only goes so far); I was actually suggesting that there are a few too many religious fanatics of different persuasions out there who view blinding violence on earth as a sign of their own imminent ascension to heaven. It's your butt, too, or even instead. My mention of the sword was supposed to be an ironic reference to Westerners readying themselves for the Crusades. I normally am not big on explicating my attempts at irony, but under the circumstances you really seemed to have been pretty oblique, so I'm cutting you a K-mart special on pithy analysis.

P.P.S.: I think if you re-read my original post that prompted your comments, you may see quite clearly that I was not missing the distinction between six-year-olds and seventeen-year-olds. In fact it was precisely my point -- to emphasize that distinction by contrasting the "Praise Jesus" children's BOE roadshow with Matt LaClair's demonstrated (if not mainstream Christian) rationality. To review (borrowing from Richard Dawkins): six-year-olds CANNOT be Christian children (or Moslem children, or whatever other similar label you might wish to impose). They are children of CHRISTIAN PARENTS, parents who routinely seek to epoxy the religiosity of their offspring, based on indoctrination, during childhood, using palpable fear as the motivator. Matthew LaClair, whatever indoctrination he may have undergone when younger, is of a developmental age where he can increasingly make reasoned choices on his own. I submit his parents have given him a toolbox to do that in a thoughtful and rational manner, rather than based on an anxiety closet of childhood fear, prompted by an infinitely loving and wonderfully all-knowing god who just happens to doom children to eternal torture for such Biblical capital crimes as being disrespectful to their parents or working on the Sabbath (if we are to believe the Old Testament), or having never known Jesus because they were born in the backwoods of Borneo (if we work off the New). All the righteous indignation in the world by the mom of the "Jesus Saves" artistes doesn't change the real source of the beliefs or their maturity level in the child. Hell, I've taught second-graders who were all convinced because of their parents' teachings and their playground discussions that the OTHER kids on the playground were headed for the Inferno, and all they had to do was say a few words and pretend to eat a cracker and they would skate. It's a great motivator for team collaboration.

[oneellama]

Might I suggest you checking into a hospital as soon as possible!  No one is trying to kill you.  You make it sound like its good versus evil, David versus Goliath or even Batman versus the Joker.  It is not.  First of all Matthew is not 6 but 17. 

This whole blog is about a few thousand blatant contradictions.  Its about getting notoriety. It’s about Mr. LaClair wanting to run for Congress and needing a platform to run on. It means selling out his son to do so knowing his strong temperament and determination. It is all about Paul, not Matthew.  Somewhere there is “good in him” - Star Wars reference.  Watch in the coming months to see what Paul LaClair’s platform is. Don’t say that you didn’t hear it here first.  And it will be about the polls.  Faith, dogma, science have nothing to do with it except to discredit someone making a living. He needed a platform and a forum and found it unfortunately through an unknowing teacher who was being taped.  Dare I ask you if every word of yours was being taped that you wouldn’t slip up from time to time?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In the interests of apologies and erasures/corrections, I must apologize to Richard Bolles for incorrectly citing his work, in my earlier post today in response to "Guest," as the SEVEN Boxes of Life, when it was, in fact, the THREE Boxes of Life.

"Boxes? What's the matter with boxes? I LOVE boxes!" -- Pandora

[Guest Guest]

I'm not running for Congress. The post you referred to mentions Paul Aronson, who is running for Congress. No wonder you folks can't get the facts straight. You can't read.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Its mainly because we dont spend our entire lives sitting in front of a keyboard or looking for an ambulance to chase, not that you could catch one in your present condition. We quickly scan and comment. That is what a blog board is for. We dont swallow a theasausus thinking we are so much better than everyone else because we are not.