Jump to content

Are you serious?!?


Guest Guest

Recommended Posts

Guest Guest

:) Has any intelligent person really read and understand some of these postings and opinions onthis web site? Everyone is bashing the teacher for answering a question from one of his students (and answered honestly), but not one person is expressing that this teacher's rights were violated. He was secretly taped!!! Not knowing he was being recorded! The last time I heard about that it was illegal. Then he was "taped" again without knowing.

In my opinion, this kid is attention hungry and so is his parents. What kind of life lesson are they teaching him? How to be sneaky? How to be manipulative? How to scum a person behind their back? the child asked a question and he did not like the answer so he went crying to mommy and daddy.

The parents of this child should stop this circus and teach this child you if you don't want the truth, don't ask the question!

Link to post
Share on other sites
:wub:  Has any intelligent person really read and understand some of these postings and opinions onthis web site?  Everyone is bashing the teacher for answering a question from one of his students (and answered honestly), but not one person is expressing that this teacher's rights were violated.  He was secretly taped!!! Not knowing he was being recorded!  The last time I heard about that it was illegal.  Then he was "taped" again without knowing.

Apparently you fail to realize that 'secret' recording is only illegal if it's done in a private setting, like a phone call or recording someone in their own home. A public school classroom is not one of these places. Read up on some law, and/or come out a bit more humbly next time, so that you don't sound as ignorant.

In my opinion, this kid is attention hungry and so is his parents.  What kind of life lesson are they teaching him?  How to be sneaky?  How to be manipulative?  How to scum a person behind their back?

Fact: If Paszkiewicz was doing his job properly, there would be nothing to 'scum' him with.

the child asked a question and he did not like the answer so he went crying to mommy and daddy.

False. Paszkiewicz brought up his religious views several times on his own, not prompted by any question. Regardless, whether it was an answer to a question is irrelevant--what makes you think public school students have the authority to give their teacher permission to violate the Constitution? Do you realize the absurdity of that position?

The parents of this child should stop this circus and teach this child you if you don't want the truth, don't ask the question!

1. Religious views are opinions, not truths.

2. Paszkiewicz is the one who needs to be taught--the teacher's desk is not a pulpit. He'll have to learn the lesson one way or the other.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
:wub:  Has any intelligent person really read and understand some of these postings and opinions onthis web site?  Everyone is bashing the teacher for answering a question from one of his students (and answered honestly), but not one person is expressing that this teacher's rights were violated.  He was secretly taped!!! Not knowing he was being recorded!  The last time I heard about that it was illegal.  Then he was "taped" again without knowing.

In my opinion, this kid is attention hungry and so is his parents.  What kind of life lesson are they teaching him?  How to be sneaky?  How to be manipulative?  How to scum a person behind their back?  the child asked a question and he did not like the answer so he went crying to mommy and daddy.

The parents of this child should stop this circus and teach this child you if you don't want the truth, don't ask the question!

Please tell me you're not a teacher at KHS!

If you listened to the tapes or read the transcripts you would know what the problem is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bewildered
:wub:  Has any intelligent person really read and understand some of these postings and opinions onthis web site?  Everyone is bashing the teacher for answering a question from one of his students (and answered honestly), but not one person is expressing that this teacher's rights were violated.  He was secretly taped!!! Not knowing he was being recorded!  The last time I heard about that it was illegal.  Then he was "taped" again without knowing.

In my opinion, this kid is attention hungry and so is his parents.  What kind of life lesson are they teaching him?  How to be sneaky?  How to be manipulative?  How to scum a person behind their back?  the child asked a question and he did not like the answer so he went crying to mommy and daddy.

The parents of this child should stop this circus and teach this child you if you don't want the truth, don't ask the question!

Paszkiewicz was preaching long before Matt started asking questions. P was never asked "What does the Bible say about______" At the meeting with the principal P said that the students were asking him what the Bible said about some issues. They never mentioned the Bible. P lied and lied and lied.

Even if the students really asked about the Bible, P could only give his religious opinion of what the Bible says. That is not allowed.

I am completely surprised that the Catholics in Kearny weren't up in arms about P's statement about purgatory. The existence of purgatory is in the dogma of the Catholic church. Do the Catholics feel comfortable with having their doctrines assailed by a public school teacher?

Taping in a public arena like a public school is perfectly legal. When Kearny has to defend their anti-taping policy in court they will lose and waste more money from the taxpayers of Kearny.

Link to post
Share on other sites
:excl:  Has any intelligent person really read and understand some of these postings and opinions onthis web site?  Everyone is bashing the teacher for answering a question from one of his students (and answered honestly), but not one person is expressing that this teacher's rights were violated.  He was secretly taped!!! Not knowing he was being recorded!  The last time I heard about that it was illegal.  Then he was "taped" again without knowing.

In my opinion, this kid is attention hungry and so is his parents.  What kind of life lesson are they teaching him?  How to be sneaky?  How to be manipulative?  How to scum a person behind their back?  the child asked a question and he did not like the answer so he went crying to mommy and daddy.

The parents of this child should stop this circus and teach this child you if you don't want the truth, don't ask the question!

For the gazillionth time:

A teacher in a public school may not express his religious opinions in class. It is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, made applicable to the states and their agencies (including the public schools) by the 14th Amendment.

It doesn't matter whether the teacher's opinion was given in response to a student's question. The law still forbids the teacher from doing it. And the fact is, Mr. Paszkiewicz expressed numerous religious opinions entirely on his own without being asked any question at all. In fact, the discussion began with the students making comments (not asking questions), and you hear Mr. P very early on eagerly asking whether any other students wanted to say anything before he expressed his views, which he was obviously eager to do. Stop the nonsense. He preached in that classroom because he is an evangelical Christian (not a disparaging term at all) who loves doing that. That's fine in itself, but he may not do that in his capacity as a public school teacher.

Matthew's act of recording this teacher was entirely legal. New Jersey is a one-party consent state.

Matthew asked his questions to challenge the teacher's views, which he didn't agree with. He didn't do it to get an education from this teacher, but to inform him. The student was trying to teach the teacher, and frankly he has some excellent questions, which the teacher was not prepared to handle. If the teacher had been listening with an open mind, he might have learned something from Matthew. I have on several occasions. Just because he's young doesn't mean he doesn't know a few things.

The remainder of your comments only reveal your biases. We'll take care of what this means to us personally, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
:excl:  Has any intelligent person really read and understand some of these postings and opinions onthis web site?  Everyone is bashing the teacher for answering a question from one of his students (and answered honestly), but not one person is expressing that this teacher's rights were violated.  He was secretly taped!!! Not knowing he was being recorded!  The last time I heard about that it was illegal.  Then he was "taped" again without knowing.

It's illegal in some states; not all. You can be taped without your consent in NJ.

Rude, yes. Illegal, no.

In my opinion, this kid is attention hungry and so is his parents.

There may be some truth to that. Matthew LaClair does have a history of flamboyant nonconformity.

What kind of life lesson are they teaching him?  How to be sneaky?  How to be manipulative?  How to scum a person behind their back?  the child asked a question and he did not like the answer so he went crying to mommy and daddy.

Could be great lawyer training if that's what they're up to. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
For the gazillionth time:

A teacher in a public school may not express his religious opinions in class.

Based on what law/precedent?

It is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, made applicable to the states and their agencies (including the public schools) by the 14th Amendment.

"It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...l=393&invol=503

It doesn't matter whether the teacher's opinion was given in response to a student's question. The law still forbids the teacher from doing it. And the fact is, Mr. Paszkiewicz expressed numerous religious opinions entirely on his own without being asked any question at all. In fact, the discussion began with the students making comments (not asking questions), and you hear Mr. P very early on eagerly asking whether any other students wanted to say anything before he expressed his views, which he was obviously eager to do. Stop the nonsense. He preached in that classroom because he is an evangelical Christian (not a disparaging term at all) who loves doing that. That's fine in itself, but he may not do that in his capacity as a public school teacher.

Matthew's act of recording this teacher was entirely legal. New Jersey is a one-party consent state.

Privacy is needed and even necessary not only in the dealings of the teacher with the student on an individual basis but also with groups of students, classes. Why should there be an expectation of privacy in the classroom? Why should there be a right to privacy in a classroom that often is occupied by many people? The answer that provides the basis for both the right and expectation of privacy is located the basic teaching and learning that is expected to go in the classroom.

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppe...-Classroom.html

Matthew asked his questions to challenge the teacher's views, which he didn't agree with. He didn't do it to get an education from this teacher, but to inform him. The student was trying to teach the teacher, and frankly he has some excellent questions, which the teacher was not prepared to handle.

Huh? Paszkiewicz did a fine job explaining the problem of evil. On the other hand, Matthew was correct that human parents will commonly lay down their lives for their children (not that the fact makes his question ultimately any better).

If the teacher had been listening with an open mind, he might have learned something from Matthew.

Daddy is starstruck. Matthew trotted out old, tired skeptical complaints.

I have on several occasions. Just because he's young doesn't mean he doesn't know a few things.

He's bright for his age, from what I can tell, but there's a ton he could learn about religion and philosophy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo.
It's illegal in some states; not all.  You can be taped without your consent in NJ.

Rude, yes.  Illegal, no.

There may be some truth to that.  Matthew LaClair does have a history of flamboyant nonconformity.

Could be great lawyer training if that's what they're up to.  :D

I applaud Matthew's "Flamboyant noncomformity" which last time I checked is not illegal.

It seems as if since 9/11 everyone just want to roll over and "let the govt' handle it". Well I've seen how the gov't has handled things thus far and I for one am not impressed. You may not agree with Matthew which is fine and completely within your rights but you got to admit the kid's got a set of cojones. I wonder if you are even capable of appreciating that. I submit that he has shown the capacity to be more of a man than you will ever be. At least he's fighting for what he believes in public and not behind a screen name.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
QUOTE(Guest @ Mar 2 2007, 11:44 PM)

  Has any intelligent person really read and understand some of these postings and opinions onthis web site?  Everyone is bashing the teacher for answering a question from one of his students (and answered honestly), but not one person is expressing that this teacher's rights were violated.  He was secretly taped!!! Not knowing he was being recorded!  The last time I heard about that it was illegal.  Then he was "taped" again without knowing.

It's illegal in some states; not all. You can be taped without your consent in NJ.

Rude, yes. Illegal, no.

Not Rude: "You belong in Hell." - Mr. P

Rude: Taping Mr. P saying "You belong in Hell."

Cojones to envy, man. bravo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
QUOTE

In my opinion, this kid is attention hungry and so is his parents.

There may be some truth to that. Matthew LaClair does have a history of flamboyant nonconformity.

Re: "flamboyant nonconformity"

Is there any other kind?

Gotta pound those nails that stick up, don't cha?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
QUOTE

What kind of life lesson are they teaching him?  How to be sneaky?  How to be manipulative?  How to scum a person behind their back?  the child asked a question and he did not like the answer so he went crying to mommy and daddy.

Could be great lawyer training if that's what they're up to. 

If they really want him to learn those "values," they should have Matthew watch Fox News and Ann Coulter.

But aside from that, when is the answer "You belong in Hell." likable? Please explain. I'm a bit dense on that one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Paszkiewicz did a fine job explaining the problem of evil. 

I disagree. His argument is that there are absolute rights and wrongs, therefore a being absolutely must have created the universe. That doesn't explain anything. It's just an answer he and others decided to settle on, based on nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
If they really want him to learn those "values," they should have Matthew watch Fox News and Ann Coulter.

But aside from that, when is the answer "You belong in Hell." likable?  Please explain.  I'm a bit dense on that one.

Mr. LaClair has thrown around the quote “you belong in hell”. Conveniently he left out the rest of the quote, the part that Mr. P. was referring to himself and not to any students in the class. Please take the time to read the complete quote and listen to the CD. Stop listening to the nonsense that comes out of Mr. LaClairs mouth, because he has done nothing but taken things out of context.

I’m sure he is going to reply and say: It’s not about context is about what he was talking about. If his son did not want to hear Mr. P. opinion, he shouldn’t asked for it. By the way there were 26 other students in that class of 27 who were not offended because they heard the statement in its entire context.

If you would listen to the tape from Sept. 14th it actually sounds like some the students are upset with Mathew for comparing God to a parent who haphazardly throws his children’s in ovens.

I found this quote in these sites The Mouth of Xythe, JewsOnFirst.org

On Sept. 14 -- the fourth day of class -- Paszkiewicz is on tape saying, "He (God) did everything in his power to make sure that you could go to heaven, so much so that he took your sin on his own body, suffered your pains for you and he's saying, 'Please accept me, believe me. If you reject that, you belong in hell. It’s up to you to reason it out. The outcome is your prerogative. But the way I see it, God himself sent his only son to die for David Paszkiewicz on that cross ... And if I reject that, then it really is to hell with you."

Before you twist the last YOU on the quote remember that his referring to himself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Secret noncomformity, to name but one.

Such irony!  Even when people on the other side agree with me they seem to have to do it via attack.

"Secret non-conformity?" Gotta keep those people in the closet I guess.

Yeah, pointing out flaws in your thinking are "attacks," but when you call someone a troll, it's "debate."

Ann Coulter would be proud.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Punxsutawney Phil
Mr. LaClair has thrown around the quote “you belong in hell”. Conveniently he left out the rest of the quote, the part that Mr. P. was referring to himself and not to any students in the class. Please take the time to read the complete quote and listen to the CD. Stop listening to the nonsense that comes out of Mr. LaClairs mouth, because he has done nothing but taken things out of context.

I’m sure he is going to reply and say: It’s not about context is about what he was talking about. If his son did not want to hear Mr. P. opinion, he shouldn’t asked for it. By the way there were 26 other students in that class of  27 who were not offended because they heard the statement in its entire context.

If you would listen to the tape from Sept. 14th it actually sounds like some the students are upset with Mathew for comparing God  to a parent who haphazardly throws his children’s in ovens.

I found this quote in these sites The Mouth of Xythe, JewsOnFirst.org

On Sept. 14 -- the fourth day of class -- Paszkiewicz is on tape saying, "He (God) did everything in his power to make sure that you could go to heaven, so much so that he took your sin on his own body, suffered your pains for you and he's saying, 'Please accept me, believe me. If you reject that, you belong in hell. It’s up to you to reason it out. The outcome is your prerogative. But the way I see it, God himself sent his only son to die for David Paszkiewicz on that cross ... And if I reject that, then it really is to hell with you."

Before you twist the last YOU on the quote remember that his referring to himself.

Excellent post and point. I will assume that what you say is accurate. This "you belong in hell" phrase has been used against this teacher a gazillion times thru-out numerous posts but it's the first time that I have heard it in the proper context. It's difficult to make a judgement on what exactly occurred due to both sides going overboard on wanting to make their point. This whole matter never should have reached this point.

I also have to agree with your other point that this student never should have asked the teacher his opinion if he did not honestly want to hear his reply...especially with a tape recorder running to boot.

Just to show that I am not totally one sided, these "Jesus Saves" clowns have absolutely no place being in the middle of this matter. They are way off base and apparently have no real understanding of what is going on. They only harm the teacher's case that he was trying to make a point during an open forum discussion. From what i can conclude, I do not think he was preaching but it almost sounds as if these religious nutjobs actually think it is okay if he was...which, of course, it is not. We all must understand that much.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. LaClair has thrown around the quote “you belong in hell”. Conveniently he left out the rest of the quote, the part that Mr. P. was referring to himself and not to any students in the class.

Oh, please.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=47328

Please take the time to read the complete quote and listen to the CD. Stop listening to the nonsense that comes out of Mr. LaClairs mouth, because he has done nothing but taken things out of context.

Oh! Has he? Perhaps you'd like to explain the context here, then:

"...we can't disagree with [God] on salvation...if you reject his gift of salvation, you're going where you belong..." --David Paszkiewicz

I’m sure he is going to reply and say: It’s not about context is about what he was talking about. If his son did not want to hear Mr. P. opinion, he shouldn’t asked for it.

No student's question(s) or anything else authorizes a teacher to endorse his religious beliefs nor to refer to his faith as being 'right' and/or factual in public school.

By the way there were 26 other students in that class of  27 who were not offended because they heard the statement in its entire context.

How do you know why they weren't offended? Who made you their representative? In case you didn't realize, Matthew also heard the statement in its entire context as he was there the whole time as well.

If you would listen to the tape from Sept. 14th it actually sounds like some the students are upset with Mathew for comparing God  to a parent who haphazardly throws his children’s in ovens.

Paszkiewicz was the one who said that not accepting his faith meant suffering for eternity. And Christians consider themselves "God's children," do they not? What's the difference? Also, you're (I believe intentionally) misconstruing Matthew's words by using the word "haphazardly." Matthew specifically referred to/compared a parent (God) sending a child to burn for disobeying, not randomly or for no reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. LaClair has thrown around the quote “you belong in hell”. Conveniently he left out the rest of the quote, the part that Mr. P. was referring to himself and not to any students in the class. Please take the time to read the complete quote and listen to the CD. Stop listening to the nonsense that comes out of Mr. LaClairs mouth, because he has done nothing but taken things out of context.

I’m sure he is going to reply and say: It’s not about context is about what he was talking about. If his son did not want to hear Mr. P. opinion, he shouldn’t asked for it. By the way there were 26 other students in that class of  27 who were not offended because they heard the statement in its entire context.

If you would listen to the tape from Sept. 14th it actually sounds like some the students are upset with Mathew for comparing God  to a parent who haphazardly throws his children’s in ovens.

I found this quote in these sites The Mouth of Xythe, JewsOnFirst.org

On Sept. 14 -- the fourth day of class -- Paszkiewicz is on tape saying, "He (God) did everything in his power to make sure that you could go to heaven, so much so that he took your sin on his own body, suffered your pains for you and he's saying, 'Please accept me, believe me. If you reject that, you belong in hell. It’s up to you to reason it out. The outcome is your prerogative. But the way I see it, God himself sent his only son to die for David Paszkiewicz on that cross ... And if I reject that, then it really is to hell with you."

Before you twist the last YOU on the quote remember that his referring to himself.

This is ridiculous. Paszkiewicz was clearly espousing hell as a universal concept --- the just punishment for anyone who rejects Jesus as his savior. Ask him whether he believes that. He obviously does. He said so in class.

Of course some of the students were upset with Matthew. They're not used to having their religious beliefs challenged so directly. Matthew didn't initiate that discussion, but he certainly turned it in a direction some people in that classroom didn't like. Took some people out of their comfort zones, to be sure. Is there a problem?

And for the gazillion-and-first time, the issue is not how Matthew received the remarks personally. They violate the Constitution. That is the issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree. His argument is that there are absolute rights and wrongs, therefore a being absolutely must have created the universe.

:lol:

Hilarious. Selective hearing/reading in action.

Matthew brought up the problem of evil very late, according to the Dranger transcript.

It starts with Matthew's suggestion that the flood may have been a mistake on God's part. At that point, free will was introduced and the discussion of the problem of evil ensued. It's about 80% down and continues to the end of the class (and after that Matthew brings up eternal torment).

The part about a being creating the universe occurred at about the halfway point.

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

That doesn't explain anything. It's just an answer he and others decided to settle on, based on nothing.

Mr. Lawyer ends up with a straw man.

What job would you have if lawyers weren't allowed to argue fallaciously, Mr. LaClair?

"this is the issue: God is not only for

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

is also completely just."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. LaClair has thrown around the quote “you belong in hell”. Conveniently he left out the rest of the quote, the part that Mr. P. was referring to himself and not to any students in the class. . .

It's amazing how far people will go to defend the indefensible. "Guest's" argument is that because in one out of three occasions in which Mr P made his argument that anyone who does not believe in Jesus belongs in hell, he used the first person, that means that all his comments are now to be transcribed into the first person, and limited to the first person alone --- never mind that Mr. P clearly stated, several times, that John 14:6 applies to everyone. Mr. P was clearly making a universal statement: everyone who does not accept Jesus as his savior belongs in hell.

But the facts don't matter to his apologists --- they never did. So they cherry pick John 14:6 as representing the truth of the universe, and wrap all of reality around it, completely overlooking the implications of that passage, interpreted as they interpret it.

Between my wife, my two kids and myself, we have more than sixty person-years of schooling, including the dozen or so years Debra spent in a Catholic school. In all those years, not one teacher ever used the phrase "you belong in hell" in any context, until Mr. Paszkiewicz. I suspect most people will tell you that none of their teachers ever used that phrase either. Most teachers, and most people, know better.

People, stop the nonsense. This is not a defensible statement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Excellent post and point.  I will assume that what you say is accurate. This "you belong in hell" phrase has been used against this teacher a gazillion times thru-out numerous posts but it's the first time that I have heard it in the proper context.

Using "me" instead of "you" was a very thin veil indeed. You want context? Read this:

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=47328

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...