KHS Teacher Controversy

[Guest Guest]

Guest, on Dec 24 2006, 03:29 AM, wrote:

The attacks on Paszkiewicz are okay, though.  Right?

If you define "demanding appropriate punishment for a law breaker" as "attacks," then sure, the "attacks" on Paszkiewicz are okay. Just like "attacks" (using your definition) on a government employee caught taking bribes are ok.

How, exactly?  The First Amendment bars Congress from passing laws that restrict the practice of religion, or from passing laws that would establish a religion.

If Paszkiewicz isn't Congress (he isn't, AFAICT), then it seems that your analysis needs a bit of explanation.

No explanation is needed if you were more knowledegable about the law.

Christofundies love to fixate on the wording "Congress". In their fantasy world any non-Congress governmental entity can do whatever they want regarding religions as long as they're not passing laws. What they fail to realize is that we live in reality and in the real world it's not up to them to decide what the First Amendment mean. It's the court's job. And the court has spoken loud and clear here. Many posters have posted links to Supreme Court cases that show clearly how misguided your interpretation of the First Amendment is. It'd be nice if you'd actually spent the time to make sure you know what you're talking about. But I'll humor you again: McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71

The Supreme Court found that "a utilization of the tax-established and tax-supported public school system to aid religious groups and to spread the faith" violated First Amendment's Establishment Clause.

See, no Congress is needed to cause a violation of the First Amendment. If the school authorities use tax-established and tax-supported public school system to spread the faith, it's a violation of the law. Is Paszkiewicz a school authority figure? Yes. Did he use tax-established and tax-supported public school system to try to spread his faith? Yes. Then he broke the law. Plain and simple. No more "but he isn't the Congress" nonsense.

Is that explanation simple enough for you?

Except that there is a law in question in the case of Rosa Parks, while in the present instance it is alleged that Paszkiewicz' actions somehow violate the First Amendment.

It is an "alleged" lawbreaking in the sense that it hasn't been formally argued and proven in Court. Just like Jim Crow laws were "allegedly" unconstitutional before that was decided by the Supreme Court. But it is obvious to any reasonal persons (that means no christofundies or racists) that Paszkiewicz's behavior was unconstituional just like Jim Crow laws were .

What's the standard jail time for breaking the First Amendment, BTW?

Huh?

Maybe I've missed the answer, but I've asked for someone to specify the law that Paskiewicz supposed broke.  I've yet to see an answer.  Since Paskiewicz is not Congress (AFAICT, anyway), it does not appear that he broke the First Amendment.

So, what law was it?  Be specific.

Soecifically, the law that Paskiewicz broke is the First Amendment. People have answered you many many times. But if you insist on living in the christofundie fantasy world and refuse to join reality, nobody can help you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Bryan]

It's not so much my need, as a need of the argument in order to progress past a point.

I appreciate that in you, for what it's worth (whoever you are)!

The absence of any attempt by fundies to address the issue which has been raised so often here, is a telling sign.

You can fall me a fundy if you like, and I think I'm addressing the issues.

If you disagree, please point me to the issues you think remain unaddressed (PM recommended).

Nobody is obliged to answer the point but complaining that "They will respond to what they want to respond", is as irellevant as it is insignificant.

Well, I think he's wise to caution you about drawing a conclusion from what you see as silence from your opposition on these discussion boards. I stumbled onto this issue as I visited an atheist website. I haven't seen any publicity for it at all from the Christian perspective (doesn't mean there isn't any, of course).

It also confirms once again that fundies perpetually invent strawmwn arguments and refuse to hold themselves accountable to fair points of argument.

Huh? That doesn't make any sense. Where's the strawman?

My arguments stand on their own merit.

Where's your best presentation of your argument, IYO (I'd like to have a look-see)?

Pointing out that a response is not compulsory is redundant and ironic. It also has the intelectual maturity of blocking your ears and chanting LA LA LA LA LA LA LA..... But claiming that "peharps your arguments are not as bright as you think they are" because nobody has to answer them is just a non-sequiter that adds stupidity to ignorance.

Hmmm.

I didn't take it that he was necessarily linking the two in terms of explanatory causation. Clearly, it is possible that your arguments would not interest someone capable of answering them, isn't it?

In short, since he didn't present it as the explanation for the apparently lack of response (but simply at potential explanation for the lack of response), you seem guilty of constructing a straw man version of his argument.

Shall I go on from here to talk about how this proves that skeptics perpetually ... ?

We can just argue instead of attacking one anther's group identification, if you like. I'm up for it.

Annoyoing... HA!!    Oh sorry, I forgot fundies get upset when you describe their sophist tactics, empty rhetoric, devoid reasoning and failure to address key points of debate. Tell you what though, I will stop describing them in a disparaging way, if they begin acting in a mature, rational and intelectualy honest manner. How does that shoe fit ya?

Well, you used a straw man argument against him.

You want me to dwell on your tactics to attack you personally, or would you appreciate it if I'd just stay on the key points of the debate?

Come to think of it, why aren't you sticking to the key points of the debate?

[Guest A. V. Blom]

I've read the transcript and argued the transcript.

Without the use of anything even resembling reading comprehension.

All you're doing is posting portions of the transcipt to imply that "It's obvious!"

Because it is. Something painfully obvious to anyone not either

a ) a complete moron or

b ) you

And there's quite a bit of overlap involved with that.

You don't have an argument.

Actually, I do. It's just that those arguments don't manage to penetrate the thick skull that seems to shelter your pea-sized brain.

I see this type of thing from skeptics frequently. Especially atheists, since they tend to hate bearing a burden of proof.

Mainly because, under most circumstances, atheists do not need to bear a burden of proof...a fact religious nutcases such as yourself seem profoundly unable to grasp.

(reference material restored by Bryan)

Thank you. May I assume that we're sticking with #1 from this assortment?

Certainly.

Go figure. That's exactly the transcript I've been referring to frequently myself.

Apparently without reading it at all.

Now your silent arguments, in the order you gave them (me taking the burden of proof that you can't shoulder):

I am in the habit of presuming at least some modicum of intelligence for most conversants. It seems I was mistaken about that.

Teacher: I never said that my assumption isn't based on faith.

Remember I confessed that at the beginning. My point is it takes more

faith that something came from nothing, than God created something out

of nothing. You understand?

Which religion is it that thinks that it takes more faith to believe that something came from something rather than something came from nothing?

His faith, as he clearly stated at the beginning of the text you quoted. Furthermore, he links this gross strawman to the existence of a deity, which is clearly proselytizing.

Let's just imagine for a moment that the school were teaching the reverse--that it makes perfect sense that something came from nothing and that the alternative warrants no consideration. Would that be an establishment of religion?

Why or why not?

If such was not scientifically established, and then used as an argument to follow a certain religion over others rather than preserving religious neutrality, yes.

Moreover, what you completely ignore is that Paskiewicz DOES here attempt to make others believe in his religious beliefs. In other words, he DOES induce them to follow his religion. This is a practice properly termed...*cue drumroll* proselytizing!

Both, in fact, are (basic) philosophical positions regarding cosmology (an apparently non-repeatable event, if you like Popperian criteria with your science).

I look forward to your answer, however.

While the Big Bang is a non-repeatable event, astronomical observation is not, and as such it can be considered an impromptu 'experiment' upon which to test the Big Bang theory. Big Bang theory DOES follow Popperian criteria.

Teacher: Cause this is what we're being told by - well, take the big

bang theory. You would have never gotten me to believe this as a

little boy cause common sense would tell me that this doesn't make

sense. But as we get older, I began listening to people in white

labcoats who have advanced degrees, the impossible all of a sudden

becomes possible. The Big Bang Theory is there was nothing out there,

there was no matter. But yet nothing exploded and created something.

Let me give you a clue, guys, if there's nothing - it can't explode!!

And that created order. It created all of the order in the universe.

How many of you have ever looked at something explode? If you can't

raise a hand, did you ever see a firecracker blow up, did you ever see

a fireworks show? Ever see a gun fire? Did you see the Twin Towers

collapse on TV? Did any of these explosions that you've seen in all of

your young life ever create order? You know what, none has ever

created order in all of human history. That's observation; nobody ever

recorded an explosion making order, but yet we can make this

assumption about an event that occured a billion years ago that

created all the order that you see. That's not scientific. There's

nothing scientific about it. It sounds cool on paper. But it defies

human reason.

LaClaire: Um, but you say that because you have faith, that the Bible,

the things written in the Bible did occur. Does that mean that if I

wanted to, I could say, I have faith, that the being or the force that

created this universe -

Teacher: It has to be a being.

LaClaire: A being.

Teacher: Cause it would require intelligence; it can't be a force.

LaClaire: So gravity has - gravity is a being.

Teacher: No, it's a force.

LaClaire: So it can be a force.

Teacher: But that's not the creator, is it? You understand, gravity,

because it doesn't have intelligence, can't be responsible for

everything that you see.

In this case, I'd say that Paszkiewicz is being a bit dogmatic (were I in his shoes I'd frame the comparison in terms of probability rather than as an absolute it can't happen without intelligence.

And you would only have showcased your lack of knowledge. Please do try, though...I feel needful of a laugh.

And, if I were his boss, I'd instruct him to start teaching that way--but proselytization?

Yes, proselytization. It is the attempt to elevate at least certain types of religion over nonreligion, and as such is the attempt to induce one to faith. In one wants to engage in sophistry, one could argue that it is not his OWN faith specifically, but that can be argued from the rest of its context, such as the 'dinosaurs on Noah's Ark' bit.

May we assume that Paszkiewicz would only attempt to convert people to his own religion? This is stuff that philosophers have talked about traditionally for ages--but today it's not allowed?

In a philosophy class, maybe, if the context were proper and understood. Stating a religious belief as a fact anywhere else does fall under the definition of proselytizing.

How would it convert a person to Christianity to acknowledge an intelligent creator? Is Deism now impossible? Theistic agnosticism?

It would still be proselytizing of theism/deism above nonreligion.

How about an attempt to put these situations through the applicable legal tests?

Stop moving the goalposts. You wanted to know whether or not it was 'proselytizing'. Your sophist tactics are starting to get annoying.

And let's reverse the situation again. What if a teacher said unequivocally that all of the order in the universe came from (an unintelligent) nothing. Is that an establishment of religion? Why or why not?

If that has no science to back it up, and is as such, religion: yes. It would be the establishment of atheistic/agnostic thought above those of the religious.

Side note: I like how LaClair, out of left field, asserts that Paszkiewicz only believes that something comes from something, in principle, because of faith in the Bible.

It seems to be an entirely accurate statement.

More of your non-argument argument:

Teacher: No. No, it's a good argument. Ok, you guys are following and

understand, right? Because what we've established - and some of you

probably disagree with what I've put on the board; that's okay, you

won't be tested on it, you understand, you'll be tested on populism,

not [inaudible due to a cough]. But um, my assertion to you is that

evolution is based faith and creation is based on faith. And here's

the difference, and it may answer your question. What the

evolutionists call faith is different from what say, Christian, what

Christians call faith. Christian faith - Judeo-Christian faith is a

reasoned faith. Take the scriptures - I'm not just saying that there

was a God - who willed the universe into existence - actually, spoke

it into existence, right? I'm not just saying that at the [start of

the text??]. The text is full of biblical prophecy that comes to pass.

Moses writes about events that take place before his time, he writes

about the [Thelassians?]. But think about the order of the events. So

we have God, he speaks. He creates light, and by the 6th day creates

man, all by speaking. And he has the order correct, and this is 1440

BC; he has the order correct, he starts with light and end with higher

lifeforms. Moses wrote in 1440 BC, not that the Earth was created

then. You know where I'm going with this.

Paszkiewicz is responding to a student's question, here.

And how, exactly, does that preclude proselytizing?

And is the point the advancement of a religion? On the contrary, the argument is that evolution, as a proposition invoking unintelligent origins (which isn't necessarily the way responsible scientists or teachers teach it, but it gets presented that way frequently) is a faith-based proposition.

Dragging down science in the process, and grossly misrepresenting evolution.

And he goes on to illustrate from Christianity. Why not use a different religion to illustrate? I'd suggest that familiarity with Christianity is greatest among his students, making Christianity the best illustrative case.

Except that he explicitly states that Judeo-Christian faith apparently is 'true'.

Paskiewicz should be credited with teaching that science (what might be termed Scientism, though the term is out-of-vogue these days) has a foundation in faith-based presuppositions, and that a parallel is found in competing worldviews: "What the evolutionists call faith is different from what say, Christian, what

Christians call faith."

Faith-based presuppositions? Now that's an amusing claim. I would love to see you back that up.

Not all students learn that in public school. They are taught methodological naturalism as the default epistemology.

Because, given the evidence, it's the only definition that makes any sense. Science deals with the observable world. Anything unobservable -such as, say, God- is out of its scope entirely.

Is that an establishment of religion? Why or why not?

No, it's an establishment of science.

Yet more of the non-argument argument (if quantity substitutes for quality, you're in great shape!):

Both are present, but unlike you, most people can actually read and understand what they're reading. You're a bit...handicapped, shall we say, in the latter.

Teacher: I believe that it's one or the other, Heaven or Hell, but

this is the answer to your question - and I believe that because

there's no mention in Genesis through Revalations of a place called

Purgatory - but this is the issue: God is not only for

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

is also completely just. He did everything in his power to make sure

that you could go to Heaven, so much so, that he put your sin on his

own body, suffered your pains for you, and he's saying "Please, accept

me, believe!" You're a (???), you belong here.

I've discussed this instance in sufficient depth already:

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...744entry39744

And copying it was too difficult for you.

The point YOU are missing is that Paskiewicz is still attempting to justify and promote a faith. Whether or not this is 'in a theological framework' is irrelevant.

And the last of the non-argument argument:

Teacher: You know, it's up to you to reason it out, and the outcome is

your perogative. But the way I see it is this: he's done everything in

his power, so much so, that he went to a cross that I should've been -

it was my sin, he was innocent! But you saw the Mel Gibson portrayal?

That was pretty accurate, when you read history, the flesh being

beaten off of his back. God himself sent his only son to die for days

(???)...on the cross. That's the idea. And if I reject that, then it

really is, then to Hell with me. I created you, I ...

Hmm. You think maybe LaClair's part of the exchange is relevant?

See italics (added by me).

LaClaire: But if he loved the child, he would not do that to the child

no matter what he did.

Teacher: You know, it's up to you to reason it out, and the outcome is

your perogative. But the way I see it is this: he's done everything in

his power, so much so, that he went to a cross that I should've been -

it was my sin, he was innocent! But you saw the Mel Gibson portrayal?

That was pretty accurate, when you read history, the flesh being

beaten off of his back. God himself sent his only son to die for days

(???)...on the cross. That's the idea. And if I reject that, then it

really is, then to Hell with me. I created you, I ...

LaClair is presenting a universalist account of god (for the sake of argument, anyway). Paszkiewicz is providing the counterpoint. Is his primary goal the advancement of his own religion, or is it to answer the question posed by the student?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It seems obvious. He is responding to what LeClaire said...that does not preclude him from proselytizing at the same time. And he is AGAIN representing his faith as fact ('reading history' rather than 'reading the Bible').

[Bryan]

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...=40035&st=600

Guest, on Dec 27 2006, 11:59 AM--and using some downright weird formatting--wrote:

The attacks on Paszkiewicz are okay, though.  Right?

If you define "demanding appropriate punishment for a law breaker" as "attacks," then sure, the "attacks" on Paszkiewicz are okay. Just like "attacks" (using your definition) on a government employee caught taking bribes are ok.

Huh. You're another one that thinks that an individual can violate the First Amendment.

There's no statute against religious speech in class. Paszkiewicz cannot be sued except for a tort claim. He can only be punished for violating the conditions of his employment.

How, exactly?  The First Amendment bars Congress from passing laws that restrict the practice of religion, or from passing laws that would establish a religion.

If Paszkiewicz isn't Congress (he isn't, AFAICT), then it seems that your analysis needs a bit of explanation.

No explanation is needed if you were more knowledegable about the law.

You're sure about that?

Christofundies love to fixate on the wording "Congress". In their fantasy world any non-Congress governmental entity can do whatever they want regarding religions as long as they're not passing laws.

Well, if you knew me better (such as by reading some of my other posts), you'd realize that isn't what I believe (it might involve ignoring Strife's inaccurate posts as to that).

We now continue with the regularly scheduled straw man/digression (whichever it turns out to be) ...

What they fail to realize is that we live in reality and in the real world it's not up to them to decide what the First Amendment mean. It's the court's job. And the court has spoken loud and clear here.

Well, they might change their mind, since it's their job to determine the meaning. And they can make it mean whatever they want it to mean. Right? They can even make it mean exactly what I want them to make it mean, potentially.

Just let me know if my analysis doesn't accord with your take on "reality."

Many posters have posted links to Supreme Court cases that show clearly how misguided your interpretation of the First Amendment is.

It is, IYO, irrelevant that the cases uniformly deal with governments instead of individuals?

Why would you fail to take note of that distinction, other than utter stupidity?

Oh, that's right--you're working under the false impression that I believe that government below the federal level is tied under the First Amendment owing to the court's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

My understanding of the First Amendment, FWIW, is that individuals cannot be legally culpable for breaking it.

My argument in the context of this thread was in response to the assertion that Paskiewicz had obviously violated a specific law, that being the First Amendment. There is not violation of the First Amendment other than touching the actions of the government.

It'd be nice if you'd actually spent the time to make sure you know what you're talking about. But I'll humor you again: McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71

It'd be even nicer if you were dealing with my argument instead of a straw man.

Should I point out that the religious teachers who visited the the public schools to teach religion were not named as defendants in the suit?

For some reason, McCollum sued the school board (the government entity). Go figure.

I only mention that because it has to do with my actual argument rather than your lovely little straw man.

The Supreme Court found that "a utilization of the tax-established and tax-supported public school system to aid religious groups and to spread the faith" violated First Amendment's Establishment Clause.

See, no Congress is needed to cause a violation of the First Amendment.

I guess that means the straw man is now flat on the ground. Are you going to jump up and down on him, now?

If the school authorities use tax-established and tax-supported public school system to spread the faith, it's a violation of the law. Is Paszkiewicz a school authority figure? Yes.

No, he's not.

He'd never be named in suit, as was the Champaign County Board of Education.

Did he use tax-established and tax-supported public school system to try to spread his faith? Yes.

It looks that way if you take his statements out of context. Otherwise, it's debatable (though skeptics aren't much for affirmative argumentation, so it doesn't get argued from that side very often).

Then he broke the law. Plain and simple. No more "but he isn't the Congress" nonsense.

The key mistake in your argument is the bald assertion that Paszkiewicz is an "authority figure" in the government. This is a fallacy of equivocation, I think. Paszkiewicz probably has zero administrative authority, which is the key to involvement in a case like this. The school board in which Paszkiewicz teaches is the probable responsible entity.

Is that explanation simple enough for you?

Your argument was delightfully simple and fatally flawed.

I hope my explanation is clear enough for you to readily agree.

Except that there is a law in question in the case of Rosa Parks, while in the present instance it is alleged that Paszkiewicz' actions somehow violate the First Amendment.

It is an "alleged" lawbreaking in the sense that it hasn't been formally argued and proven in Court. Just like Jim Crow laws were "allegedly" unconstitutional before that was decided by the Supreme Court. But it is obvious to any reasonal persons (that means no christofundies or racists) that Paszkiewicz's behavior was unconstituional just like Jim Crow laws were.

There's that favorite skeptical tactic, again. No argument needed, since it's "obvious."

What's the standard jail time for breaking the First Amendment, BTW?

Huh?

Don't we jail lawbreakers? Or at least fine them? Probation? Something?

Maybe I've missed the answer, but I've asked for someone to specify the law that Paskiewicz supposed[ly] broke.  I've yet to see an answer.  Since Paskiewicz is not Congress (AFAICT, anyway), it does not appear that he broke the First Amendment.

So, what law was it?  Be specific.

Soecifically, the law that Paskiewicz broke is the First Amendment. People have answered you many many times. But if you insist on living in the christofundie fantasy world and refuse to join reality, nobody can help you.

In truth, wouldn't I actually have to join your fantasy world in which Paszkiewicz is the type of government authority who might be a defendant in a First Amendment lawsuit?

The reality is that First Amendment violations occur through the actions of government entities, not mere government employees.

Your own citation of the McCollum case helps illustrate that point.

[Guest Guest]

You're sure about that?

As sure as you're about dinosaurs on Noah's Ark. Only that I have evidence.

Well, if you knew me better (such as by reading some of my other posts), you'd realize that isn't what I believe (it might involve ignoring Strife's inaccurate posts as to that).

We now continue with the regularly scheduled straw man/digression (whichever it turns out to be) ...

Strawman? You wrote and I quote: "If Paszkiewicz isn't Congress (he isn't, AFAICT), then it seems that your analysis needs a bit of explanation." You did fixate on the "but he isn't the Congress" nonsense. Lying about it now make you look stupider than you already are.

A lying fundie. Why am I not surprised?

Well, they might change their mind, since it's their job to determine the meaning. And they can make it mean whatever they want it to mean. Right? They can even make it mean exactly what I want them to make it mean, potentially.

Yes they can. Let me know when they change their mind about the "only apply to Congress" fantasy.

It is, IYO, irrelevant that the cases uniformly deal with governments instead of individuals?

Yes it is.

Why would you fail to take note of that distinction, other than utter stupidity?

Look, a fundie calling people stupid. Kind of like a midget calling people short. Don't worry, in the stupid department, you'll always win.

It'd be even nicer if you were dealing with my argument instead of a straw man.

"If Paszkiewicz isn't Congress (he isn't, AFAICT), then it seems that your analysis needs a bit of explanation." Gee who wrote that? Straw man huh? Rightttttt.

Should I point out that the religious teachers who visited the the public schools to teach religion were not named as defendants in the suit?

For some reason, McCollum sued the school board (the government entity). Go figure.

Because in the case of McCollum the school board made the decision to use the public school for preaching. Just like Paszkiewicz made the decision to use the public school for preaching. The parallel is perfect. Is that too hard a concept for you to grasp?

I only mention that because it has to do with my actual argument rather than your lovely little straw man.

"If Paszkiewicz isn't Congress (he isn't, AFAICT), then it seems that your analysis needs a bit of explanation." Gee who wrote that? Straw man huh? Rightttttt.

I guess that means the straw man is now flat on the ground. Are you going to jump up and down on him, now?

What straw man? "If Paszkiewicz isn't Congress (he isn't, AFAICT), then it seems that your analysis needs a bit of explanation." -- who wrote that by the way?

No, he's not.

In a classroom full of children, the teacher is the only authority figure. This should be easy enough to understand even for a christofundie. Or did I overestimate your intelligence again?

He'd never be named in suit, as was the Champaign County Board of Education.

He would if he was the sole person to make the decision to use the public school for preaching, which is exactly the case here.

It looks that way if you take his statements out of context. Otherwise, it's debatable (though skeptics aren't much for affirmative argumentation, so it doesn't get argued from that side very often).

It's debatable only to christofundies. Just like racists found it "debatable" that Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional.

The key mistake in your argument is the bald assertion that Paszkiewicz is an "authority figure" in the government. This is a fallacy of equivocation, I think. Paszkiewicz probably has zero administrative authority, which is the key to involvement in a case like this. The school board in which Paszkiewicz teaches is the probable responsible entity.

Paszkiewicz decided to stop teaching and started preaching when he was in a calssroom full of children. When that happened, he was the only authority figure there, regardless whether he has any administrative authority or not.

[Guest Paul]

Teacher: I never said that my assumption isn't based on faith.

Remember I confessed that at the beginning. My point is it takes more

faith that something came from nothing, than God created something out

of nothing. You understand?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paszkiewicz mis-stated the big bang theory. It does not posit that something came from nothing. He's just plain wrong in mis-stating the theory.

"The outcome is your prerogative . . ." How arrogant. Paszkiewicz is sayng you can make your choice, but if you don't accept my religion, you belong in hell. He doesn't even have the respect for other religions to acknowledge that he might be wrong. This is a real problem, especially when the man refuses to apologize or own up to what he did.

[Guest A. V. Blom]

Paszkiewicz mis-stated the big bang theory. It does not posit that something came from nothing. He's just plain wrong in mis-stating the theory.

"The outcome is your prerogative . . ." How arrogant. Paszkiewicz is sayng you can make your choice, but if you don't accept my religion, you belong in hell. He doesn't even have the respect for other religions to acknowledge that he might be wrong. This is a real problem, especially when the man refuses to apologize or own up to what he did.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is not really surprising...the one thing everyone opposed to evolution seems to have in common is a complete lack of understanding of the way it functions. Those that oppose the Big Bang are often similar.

[Matthew LaClair]

Hello, everybody. I am Matthew LaClair.

As you can see, most people who disagree with me do not first try to have a discussion, but they post thoughtlessly, with bitterness and arrogance. Those who read this and disagree with me, please stop with the hatred and arrogance. There is no need for that kind of discussion on this website or any other. For example, whoever is posting as 2smart4u, that is extremely arrogant and shows that this person feels that he or she is better than everybody else. I understand, however, that sometimes people just don't think. They just look at the situation without investigating and they do not care what the facts are. For those who do that, please take a step back, look at the situation again, and have a discussion without useless name calling.

It is now almost the new year and this Kearny School system has still done absolutely nothing except, I assume, tell Mr. Paszkiewicz not to do it again. That is not enough. What this teacher did was wrong. He proselytized during class, then lied about making the statements he made. What a way to show his love in his God. The board attorney said that corrective statements and apologies would not be given.

Hypocrisy seems to be rampant in this school system. On page two of our Program Of Studies, a small booklet that the students are given every year, the Kearny High School Goals are listed. A few of them are the following; to recognize the importance of ethical principles and values; to develop an appreciation of their own worth; to learn to think critically; to understand the role of a good citizen in the practice of democratic ideas and ideals; to learn to understand, accept, and value people with diverse cultural characteristics; to become a responsible contributor to the community, state, country, and world. Where are the administrators in Kearny High School and the Kearny school district pursuing these goals?

In a way, I still feel bad for Mr Paszkiewicz, but what he did is still wrong. All I asked for in early October was for corrections to be made, specifically about the scientific errors he made, some kind of apology, and quality control to make sure that this does not happen again. To date this administration has done absolutely nothing about that. Specifically the board attorney, the superintendent of schools, and now the board. It seems clear to me that the principal is going to follow the administration's corruption and incompetence.

If you would like to help, please write letters to the board of education, the newspapers such as the New York Times, the Kearny Observer , the Jersey Journal, etc. Keep this topic alive. I will not stop until this is dealt with properly. Thank you.

[Bryan]

Paszkiewicz mis-stated the big bang theory. It does not posit that something came from nothing. He's just plain wrong in mis-stating the theory.

No, he's not; or at least he's in good company.

"The big bang theory states that at some time in the distant past there was nothing. A process known as vacuum fluctuation created what astrophysicists call a singularity. From that singularity, which was about the size of a dime, our Universe was born."

http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/IU...ang_Primer.html

They probably don't know what they're talking about at Berkeley, though.

Notice how you've got no evidence supporting you position again, Paul?

"The outcome is your prerogative . . ." How arrogant. Paszkiewicz is sayng you can make your choice, but if you don't accept my religion, you belong in hell.

Pff. You're taking his statement out of context again, if you're referring to Sept. 14.

He doesn't even have the respect for other religions to acknowledge that he might be wrong. This is a real problem, especially when the man refuses to apologize or own up to what he did.

Might be wrong about what? About how Christianity in general explains the problem of evil?

[Bryan]

A. V. Blom, on Dec 27 2006, 08:23 PM, wrote:

Without the use of anything even resembling reading comprehension.

And you can do more than baldly assert it?

Because it is.

You're familiar with the fallacy of circular reasoning, other than via the exercise of same?

Something painfully obvious to anyone not either

a ) a complete moron or

b ) you

And you can do more than baldly assert it?

Am I supposed to take you seriously if you never argue for your assertions? Do you figure that if the majority of readers agree with your position already that you can just get away with firing off insults instead of dealing with the issues reasonably?

Actually, I do. It's just that those arguments don't manage to penetrate the thick skull that seems to shelter your pea-sized brain.

Again, substituting insult for dealing with the issues (still no argument). Boring.

Mainly because, under most circumstances, atheists do not need to bear a burden of proof...a fact religious nutcases such as yourself seem profoundly unable to grasp.

What would you write if you didn't have insults to lean on?

There wouldn't be much left.

Atheists make plenty of claims that require support, even if I were to allow that they don't need to do so "under most circumstances." Which I could take to mean that atheists spend less than half their time expressing themselves, I suppose.

Apparently without reading it at all.

And you base your assessment on what evidence? None? Nothing you're able to express in print, anyway?

Your insults will henceforth be clipped (unless you come up with something creative, which I would preserve out of respect) since they do not contribute anything significant to the discussion.

His faith, as he clearly stated at the beginning of the text you quoted.

His faith-based assumption, in that case, was that something tends to come from something. You don't subscribe to that faith?

Furthermore, he links this gross strawman to the existence of a deity, which is clearly proselytizing.

If he uses the example of God to illustrate something coming from something rather than something coming from nothing in the context of cosmology, therefore he is trying to get others to accept his religious faith?

That simply doesn't follow. There's no apparent logical connection.

If such was not scientifically established, and then used as an argument to follow a certain religion over others rather than preserving religious neutrality, yes.

Keep to the parallel. It would read like this:

Teacher: I never said that my assumption isn't based on faith.

Remember I confessed that at the beginning. My point is it takes more

faith that something came from something, than a vacuum fluctuation created something out of nothing. You understand?

Moreover, what you completely ignore is that Paskiewicz DOES here attempt to make others believe in his religious beliefs.

Is it a religious belief to suppose that the universe was created out of nothing by a vacuum fluctuation? Why or why not?

Cosmology is a relevant classroom topic. There are only a handful of basic models, including varieties of steady-state hypothesis, spontaneous generation from nothing, or generation from a timeless something (either intelligent or unintelligent).

My point here is that any discussion of cosmological models where one model is favored by the instructor amounts to proselytizing if you stretch the idea of religion that far.

Religious beliefs are taught ubiquitously at that level, and applying church/state separation at that level is an inappropriate gag on discussion and inquiry.

In other words, he DOES induce them to follow his religion. This is a practice properly termed...*cue drumroll* proselytizing!

Let's suppose that I teach that the big bang theory rests on creating the universe from Nothing, and that this flavor of the theory is the most likely explanation for the existence of the universe.

Am I proselytizing? Why or why not?

While the Big Bang is a non-repeatable event, astronomical observation is not, and as such it can be considered an impromptu 'experiment' upon which to test the Big Bang theory. Big Bang theory DOES follow Popperian criteria.

How about before Planck time?

"In this case, I'd say that Paszkiewicz is being a bit dogmatic (were I in his shoes I'd frame the comparison in terms of probability rather than as an absolute it can't happen without intelligence.

And you would only have showcased your lack of knowledge. Please do try, though...I feel needful of a laugh.

By taking the argument that lack of intelligence is no bar to ornate complexity, I should be able to provide a stunningly elegant proof even if I were completely lacking in intelligence.

Your response makes no sense at all.

Yes, proselytization. It is the attempt to elevate at least certain types of religion over nonreligion,

How do you define "religion" such that there is a thing called "nonreligion"?

(a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe)

Does teaching science in class predispose students to having certain beliefs about the cause and nature of the universe?

and as such is the attempt to induce one to faith.

Faith requires a definition for purposes of this discussion. I'll let you recommend one.

I[f] one wants to engage in sophistry, one could argue that it is not his OWN faith specifically, but that can be argued from the rest of its context, such as the 'dinosaurs on Noah's Ark' bit.

You mean where a student asked Paskiewicz if there were dinosaurs on the ark?

Go ahead and try to argue from the rest of the context.

It'd be nice to see you go beyond merely asserting things again.

I should note that you're engaging in the fallacy of poisoning the well, rather than arguing the issue on its merits.

In a philosophy class, maybe, if the context were proper and understood. Stating a religious belief as a fact anywhere else does fall under the definition of proselytizing.

Your statement requires a definition of "religious belief" to rescue it from useless ambiguity.

Interesting that you'd allow proselytizing in philosophy class, if I can take your statement at its apparent face value.

It would still be proselytizing of theism/deism above nonreligion.

So does reading the Declaration of Independence, what with the concept of unalienable rights relating directly to a purpose for the universe.

Stop moving the goalposts. You wanted to know whether or not it was 'proselytizing'.

You don't want the goalposts closer, eh? Suit yourself.

Your sophist tactics are starting to get annoying.

Your annoyance seems to stem from projection.

If that has no science to back it up, and is as such, religion: yes. It would be the establishment of atheistic/agnostic thought above those of the religious.

Why would having science to back it up make a difference? Science itself rests on faith-based presuppositions. Have you just created a loophole for a science-based religion?

It's really past time for your definition of religion. You seem to define it (following your statement above) as beliefs that have no scientific backing.

What's the source for that definition? Did you make it up?

It seems to be an entirely accurate statement.

lol

Based on what evidence? You don't know anybody who expects something to come from something who doesn't rely on the Bible for the idea?

And how, exactly, does that preclude proselytizing?

I didn't stop there.

And is the point the advancement of a religion? On the contrary, the argument is that evolution, as a proposition invoking unintelligent origins (which isn't necessarily the way responsible scientists or teachers teach it, but it gets presented that way frequently) is a faith-based proposition.

Dragging down science in the process, and grossly misrepresenting evolution.

How is science dragged down in the process? Do you deny, for example, the broad uniformitarian assumptions of science?

As for evolution, it has many meanings in popular language. So long as Paszkiewicz uses the term consistently in accord with an understood meaning, there is no misrepresentation by his appropriation of that meaning.

Except that he explicitly states that Judeo-Christian faith apparently is 'true'.

Where?

Faith-based presuppositions? Now that's an amusing claim. I would love to see you back that up.

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0031-8248...B2-B&size=LARGE

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/phil2/node3.html

http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~ssimon/documents/Paradigms.pdf

Because, given the evidence, it's the only definition that makes any sense. Science deals with the observable world. Anything unobservable -such as, say, God- is out of its scope entirely.

It looks like you just argued in a vicious circle.

The evidence forces us to use a metaphysically naturalistic epistemology? How did we ever discover a metaphysically naturalistic epistemology minus the the epistemology itself?

See the third of the links not far above.

No, it's an establishment of science.

We'll come back to that one after you've defined "religion."

Both are present, but unlike you, most people can actually read and understand what they're reading. You're a bit...handicapped, shall we say, in the latter.

I know I said I'd delete your insults except where they seemed creative (and I'll keep the bar pretty low, granting you the benefit of the doubt), but this one is worth keeping since it illustrates the tendency to answer an issue with insult instead of content.

And copying it was too difficult for you.

Visiting the linked material was too difficult for you?

Otherwise, why complain?

The point YOU are missing is that Paskiewicz is still attempting to justify and promote a faith.

Is that the definition of "proselytize" you used earlier? It seems to have morphed.

LaClair broached the problem of evil. Why is it proselytizing to relate the broad Christian understanding of the problem of evil?

Has Christian doctrine suddenly disappeared from history?

Whether or not this is 'in a theological framework' is irrelevant.

Is that your way of saying that you don't care about the context because your mind is already made up?

It seems obvious. He is responding to what LeClaire said...that does not preclude him from proselytizing at the same time.

And if we have no proof that he is not proselytizing we must conclude that he is proselytizing?

Note that instead of arguing (a real argument, not just assertion) that Paskiewicz is proselytizing, you seem to be arguing that it has not been proven that he was not proselytizing.

I guess since you're an atheist, you (usually) don't need to shoulder any burden of proof.

Look out if you're a defendant facing an atheist D.A..

And he is AGAIN representing his faith as fact ('reading history' rather than 'reading the Bible').

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"That was pretty accurate, when you read history, the flesh being

beaten off of his back."

It seems to me that he's just saying that the Gibson movie provides a historically accurate account of a crucifixion.

You are aware that Jesus was not the only person crucified, right?

There are ancient (historical) documents that refer to the methods of crucifixion, and it is extraordinarily likely that Paskiewicz was referring to those with his comment about history.

http://www.cuadp.org/news/KRTWire02-23-2004.htm

Review the comments you made, Blum.

In each case where the issue of proselytization comes up, you assert that it is proselytization without argument except in a couple of instances where you simply flub up the argument (as with the "history" comment here at the end).

[Bryan]

You're sure about that?

As sure as you're about dinosaurs on Noah's Ark. Only that I have evidence.

You think you have evidence. Fine.

Well, if you knew me better (such as by reading some of my other posts), you'd realize that isn't what I believe (it might involve ignoring Strife's inaccurate posts as to that).

We now continue with the regularly scheduled straw man/digression (whichever it turns out to be) ...

Strawman? You wrote and I quote: "If Paszkiewicz isn't Congress (he isn't, AFAICT), then it seems that your analysis needs a bit of explanation." You did fixate on the "but he isn't the Congress" nonsense. Lying about it now make you look stupider than you already are.

A lying fundie. Why am I not surprised?

Because you're prejudiced?

You're abandoning the context. I was responding to something written by "Guest" (I suppose it could be you):

Guest: When the so-called teacher preached to a roomful of captive students inside a public school classroom funded by the government during work hours paid for by the government, he violated the First Amendment.

Bryan: How, exactly? The First Amendment bars Congress from passing laws that restrict the practice of religion, or from passing laws that would establish a religion.

If Paszkiewicz isn't Congress (he isn't, AFAICT), then it seems that your analysis needs a bit of explanation.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but your complaint about the "fundies" is that they try to say that Paskiewicz can say what he wants to establish religion since the First Amendment is written to apply to Congress. Am I right?

I have never taken that position. Ever.

On the other hand, it is pretty obvious (if you've read the First Amendment) that it was written to apply to Congress.

So ... more explanation is needed, right?

And that's what I suggested in my post.

And there you go leaping to conclusions and inaccurately suggesting that I lied.

Well, they might change their mind, since it's their job to determine the meaning. And they can make it mean whatever they want it to mean. Right? They can even make it mean exactly what I want them to make it mean, potentially.

Yes they can. Let me know when they change their mind about the "only apply to Congress" fantasy.

You've read the First Amendment, right? Here it is (again, if you've seen it before):

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Does it look even just a little bit to you as though it was written to apply to the congress?

So, given that it looks like it was written to apply specifically to Congress (you don't disagree with that, do you?), isn't it reasonable to ask for more explanation (which is what I did)?

It is, IYO, irrelevant that the cases uniformly deal with governments instead of individuals?

Yes it is.

Strange, but thanks for answering with apparent honesty.

Why would you fail to take note of that distinction, other than utter stupidity?

Look, a fundie calling people stupid.

Huh? Read it again. I'm perfectly open to the possibility that you are not completely stupid, thus I asked for the rationale you use to ignore the distinction I mentioned above other than innate stupidity.

If you have no reason for ignoring the distinction, of course, there is reason to suspect that you may be stupid. But I don't know that without you providing the information.

Kind of like a midget calling people short. Don't worry, in the stupid department, you'll always win.

You're off to a great start, what with the straw man fallacy & all.

It'd be even nicer if you were dealing with my argument instead of a straw man.

"If Paszkiewicz isn't Congress (he isn't, AFAICT), then it seems that your analysis needs a bit of explanation." Gee who wrote that? Straw man huh? Rightttttt.

So, you disagree that the First Amendment was written to apply to Congress? What accounts for the odd sentence construction, then (I made the quotation of the First Amendment really big so that you could easily refer to it)?

Should I point out that the religious teachers who visited the the public schools to teach religion were not named as defendants in the suit?

For some reason, McCollum sued the school board (the government entity). Go figure.

Because in the case of McCollum the school board made the decision to use the public school for preaching. Just like Paszkiewicz made the decision to use the public school for preaching. The parallel is perfect. Is that too hard a concept for you to grasp?

Not at all--but I don't think that's the criterion that the courts use. They look to the apparatus of the government, so the school board is going to be about the lowest level of organization that will be sued over First Amendment issues.

That's why you'll have a tough time finding so much as one example where an individual is sued over a separation clause claim where it's not also a political office.

But you'll stick with the view that the really important thing to the law is who makes the decision to do the "preaching"? In spite of the evidence?

I only mention that because it has to do with my actual argument rather than your lovely little straw man.

"If Paszkiewicz isn't Congress (he isn't, AFAICT), then it seems that your analysis needs a bit of explanation." Gee who wrote that? Straw man huh? Rightttttt.

Since I asked for more explanation for your claim that Paskiewicz (who is not Congress) violated the First Amendment (which is a restriction on Congress) therefore I believe that the First Amendment can only apply to Congress?

That's illogical of you, friend.

Just because you produced the straw man out of sincere belief that I advocated that view, you are not off the hook for having constructed a straw man.

I guess that means the straw man is now flat on the ground. Are you going to jump up and down on him, now?

What straw man? "If Paszkiewicz isn't Congress (he isn't, AFAICT), then it seems that your analysis needs a bit of explanation." -- who wrote that by the way?

I did. So--where's the explanation I asked of you?

If you just assume my beliefs based on my question (combined with the inarguable fact that the First Amendment applies explicitly to Congress), you are committing a logical fallacy (a non sequitur).

No, he's not.

In a classroom full of children, the teacher is the only authority figure. This should be easy enough to understand even for a christofundie. Or did I overestimate your intelligence again?

To the last question: Mu.

Paszkiewicz is an authority figure, but he is not an authority figure in terms of setting government policy, even at the local level. He is only responsible for implementing policy. He has no culpability in terms of a separation of state claim.

He'd never be named in suit, as was the Champaign County Board of Education.

He would if he was the sole person to make the decision to use the public school for preaching, which is exactly the case here.

We'll see.

Can you find any example of an individual being sued in parallel to this case?

Still not bothered, eh?

It looks that way if you take his statements out of context. Otherwise, it's debatable (though skeptics aren't much for affirmative argumentation, so it doesn't get argued from that side very often).

It's debatable only to christofundies. Just like racists found it "debatable" that Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional.

The Jim Crow laws were nullified by an act of Congress, not by the courts.

I guess everyone in the legal system was pretty much racists in your book?

The key mistake in your argument is the bald assertion that Paszkiewicz is an "authority figure" in the government. This is a fallacy of equivocation, I think. Paszkiewicz probably has zero administrative authority, which is the key to involvement in a case like this. The school board in which Paszkiewicz teaches is the probable responsible entity.

Paszkiewicz decided to stop teaching and started preaching when he was in a calssroom full of children. When that happened, he was the only authority figure there, regardless whether he has any administrative authority or not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay! Your mind's made up!

[Guest Skepticus]

I appreciate that in you, for what it's worth (whoever you are)!

Thank you Bryan. It was me Skepticus, I just forgot to enter my screen name.

You can fall me a fundy if you like, and I think I'm addressing the issues.

If you disagree, please point me to the issues you think remain unaddressed (PM recommended).

Why PM Bryan? It's been repeated here over and over, what the issue is that's being ignored by fundies:

What if the teacher was prostelysing X?

(where X is a non-Christian worldview)

I am not calling you a fundie, but if the shoe fits...

Well, I think he's wise to caution you about drawing a conclusion from what you see as silence from your opposition on these discussion boards.

That's the problem right there. We are wasting time with a sophist diversion from the point in question. Until I see a better reason to interpret it as anything else, I reserve the right to assume that the silence of some, and the diversionary tactics of others, is just sophism and refusal face a good point of argument. What makes you think he's wise to caution me? I would be willing to draw the the most parsimonious conclusion based on evidence and reasoning, but none is forthcoming. I and others have presented this dilema, without a response from the fundies. Just saying no response is neccicary, is not a response that contributes to the debate.

This carrying on about the right to not respond, and not "drawing a conclusion from what you see as silence from your opposition" Is just diversionary sophism, unless you can explain a better way of interpreting it. Making these kind of noises does nothing to get us one millimetre closer to a resolution. I would love to motivate my conclusions from something other than the fundie silence and sophism, but that's not my choice. I could suppose the fundies are withholding overwhemnimg evidence and powerfull arguments to answer the challenge but that is pointless, irrelevant speculation. The most plausible explaination for fundies not supplying an answer, is that they don't have one that is reasonable and satisfying. You don't win points in a rational debate for the hypothetical possibility that you might have a good argument. Moreover, I don't take advice from fundies, on how to draw a conclusion.

Based on all evidence I have previously gathered, fundies do this all the time. They ignore important points and obsess over any triviality that can forestall anything that puts them in the defensive. They will ignore strong, relevant and critical points. They will pick at an argument and find any weak, trivial irrelevant point and use it for an attack, then smugly contend that they are doing reasoned debate.

]It also confirms once again that fundies perpetually invent strawmwn arguments and refuse to hold themselves accountable to fair points of argument.

Huh? That doesn't make any sense.  Where's the strawman?

He's off to see the wizard, the wonderfull wizard of Oz. Just follow the yellow brick road... OK, but seriously, strawman or otherwise, pointing out that people don't have to respond to a point of argument is an obvious and redundant diversion. Rather than just answering the challange, we are now having a trivial debate which diverges at a tangent to the main point of the challenge. You in fact are perpetuating it, rather than seeing that it could be resolved by just answering the original point of debate. Whether it is a strawman or not is unimportant, as it is so obviously a diversion anyway.

My arguments stand on their own merit.

Where's your best presentation of your argument, IYO (I'd like to have a look-see)?

It's in my posts above. It's not a singular section which I could hold up for a disengenuous fundie to (predicably) criticise, and thereby pretend to have demolished everything I have ever said. Moreover, what is my best presentation IMO may not be the same for somebody else. At the moment in this thread, I am only interested in one point of debate, and that has been presented numerous times.

They will respond to what they want to respond...peharps your arguments are not as bright as you think they are.

Hmmm. I didn't take it that he was necessarily linking the two in terms of explanatory causation.

Well I did. Notice the elipses "..." after "respond", and the lack of capitalisation in "perhaps", all indicating it was intended to be a part of the same sentance. I don't suppose it realy matters either way, because a bald faced propsal that "peharps your arguments are not as bright as you think they are." is just as ridiculous and redundant on it's own. If we want to trade reason for derogatory inuendo then we could be here for a year. In a rational debate, if there is something wrong with any given argument, then you are welcome to address the argument itself and point out what is wrong with it. "peharps your arguments are not as bright as you think they are." is not a response with one ounce of rational justification.

Clearly, it is possible that your arguments would not interest someone capable of answering them, isn't it?

It is also possible nay, probable that my argument (singular) is being deliberatly ignored because it is an incriminating embararasment. So the ignorance and diversion it has recieved in the face of a flat out challenge is understandable.

My challenge, specificly the one I keep returining to is an excellent argument (although unfortunately not mine), to illustrate the potential double standard of fundies. Now if you don't agree, in civilised debate, it is considered curtious to a knowledge the point being made, and provide your reasoned response. It's not just courtesy either, it is the best means we have of reaching agreement rather than an endless volley of retorical sophism. Instead of answering the direct challenge, we see a barrage of banter on matters far more trivial and uniteresting than the question I have proposed. It is hypocracy to evade a relevant question, by glibly declaring that "it is possible that your arguments would not interest someone capable of answering them..." When that statement itself is a glib, uniteresting, redundant triviality. The obvious answer is these arguments should interest a person doing honest debate, because the implications are profound. Avoidence of the issue by way of circatious rhetoric is transparent. But thankyou anyhow Bryan, for at least attempting to be reasonable and not decending into ad honinem attack.

Do I realy need to spell out the relevance and implications of this question?:

What if the teacher was prostelysing X? (where X is a non-Christian worldview)

[Guest guest]

FORGIVE ME IF IM WRONG THIS TEACHER TEACHES HISTORY AM I CORRECT? IF SO ALOT OF THE WORLDS PAST IS BASED ON RELIGION! COUNTRIES STILL TODAY FIGHT OVER IT. WHEN I WAS A KID RELIGION WAS PART OF OUR MORNING'S AT SCHOOL (PUBLIC) AND THERE WAS NO WELL, YOUR THIS RELIGION AND I AM ANOTHER B'S SO LETS NOT TALK ABOUT IT, OR I GONNA TELL IF YOU TALK ABOUT GOD OR THE COUNTRY. IF THIS KID IS A TROUBLE MAKER THEN DEAL WITH HIM ACCORDINGLY AND THIS SAME CHILD, YES I SAID CHILD DOESNT RESPECT THE LAWS OF OUR COUNTRY YES THE ONE THAT STATES ONE COUNTRY UNDER GOD THEN WHY WOULD ANYONE GIVE HIM OR ANY OTHERS LIKE HIM THE TIME OF DAY. THESE KIDS TODAY HAVE TO MANY LIBERTYS AND DO NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND HOW EASY MOST OF THEM HAVE IT IN LIFE, MUCH MORE OPPORTUNITYS AND EDUCATIONAL AVENUES THEY CAN UTILIZE. AND AS FOR THE TEACHER IF HE MAKES REFERENCE TO RELIGION IN SOME OF HIS LESSON'S THEN GOOD FOR HIM IF THE KIDS TODAY WOULD HAVE A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF RELIGION WE WOULD PROBLY HAVE A BETTER SOCIETY OF PEOPLE.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

please don't yell. besides, the 'under god' part was added in 1954. hardly part of the original pledge.

[Guest A. V. Blom]

And you can do more than baldly assert it?

So far I have. You, on the other hand, have in this post shown yourself completely incapable of even coming close to comprehending what I'm writing.

You're familiar with the fallacy of circular reasoning, other than via the exercise of same?

Yes, I am, and this is clearly NOT a case of circular reasoning, since the whole argument is not dependent upon this. The logical progression is not:

He proselytized ---> because he proselytized

It is:

He proselytized ---> Because of the following reasons (cue the rest of post).

This was only a repeat of the statement.

And you can do more than baldly assert it?

Am I supposed to take you seriously if you never argue for your assertions? Do you figure that if the majority of readers agree with your position already that you can just get away with firing off insults instead of dealing with the issues reasonably?

I can, and have. All you have so far done is gone on to mutilate facts and logic, firing off insults to distract from the fact that so far, you have made NO logical point at all. Instead, you keep asking for ever more specific evidence and, when it is not given because one assumes a basic intelligence on your part, and is therefore unwilling to phrase things in a manner understandable to a five year old, go on stating that they 'baldly assert it'.

Again, substituting insult for dealing with the issues (still no argument). Boring.

Style over substance fallacy, Bryan, AND a Strawman. Arguments have been given. Don't blame me if I respond to insults with insults.

What would you write if you didn't have insults to lean on?

There wouldn't be much left.

And yet another Style over Substance fallacy. You're getting repetitive. See above.

Atheists make plenty of claims that require support, even if I were to allow that they don't need to do so "under most circumstances." Which I could take to mean that atheists spend less than half their time expressing themselves, I suppose.

I'm talking specifically about the tired old 'you can't prove there is no God!' argument that runs so rampant among fundies like yourself.

And you base your assessment on what evidence? None? Nothing you're able to express in print, anyway?

Perhaps you should have read the rest of my post, then.

Your insults will henceforth be clipped (unless you come up with something creative, which I would preserve out of respect) since they do not contribute anything significant to the discussion.

Neither did yours. It did not stop you...don't start crying once someone flames back.

His faith, as he clearly stated at the beginning of the text you quoted.

His faith-based assumption, in that case, was that something tends to come from something. You don't subscribe to that faith?

If he uses the example of God to illustrate something coming from something rather than something coming from nothing in the context of cosmology, therefore he is trying to get others to accept his religious faith?

He is trying to convince others that God created it. Simply by stating it takes 'more faith' to believe 'something came from nothing' than that it was 'created by God', he clearly argues that a believe in a creator requires less faith (and is therefore more credible) than no belief in a creator. From there, it logically follows that he is attempting to convince them a creator exists.

That simply doesn't follow. There's no apparent logical connection.

It actually does follow, but you need to actually attempt to comprehend it.

Keep to the parallel. It would read like this:

Teacher: I never said that my assumption isn't based on faith.

Remember I confessed that at the beginning. My point is it takes more

faith that something came from something, than a vacuum fluctuation created something out of nothing. You understand?

You completely disregarded my reply.

Is it a religious belief to suppose that the universe was created out of nothing by a vacuum fluctuation? Why or why not?

If it has the science to back it up, no. If not, yes.

Cosmology is a relevant classroom topic.

Not in a history class. Your red herring is noted.

There are only a handful of basic models, including varieties of steady-state hypothesis, spontaneous generation from nothing, or generation from a timeless something (either intelligent or unintelligent).

Only one of which makes sense given the current model.

My point here is that any discussion of cosmological models where one model is favored by the instructor amounts to proselytizing if you stretch the idea of religion that far.

Except that only one of these (Big Bang) has any actual evidence to back it up without violating Occams Razor. The simple fact of the Red Shift of the universe shows that, some time ago, the universe was compressed in a single point.

Religious beliefs are taught ubiquitously at that level, and applying church/state separation at that level is an inappropriate gag on discussion and inquiry.

There are proper places for discussion and inquiry of scientific topics. The classroom is not one of them. Especially when it is not the proper classroom to begin with. Big Bang is not a 'religious belief'. It follows logically from what we know (Doppler shift), and Occam's Razor (barring anything extraneous to observations).

Let's suppose that I teach that the big bang theory rests on creating the universe from Nothing, and that this flavor of the theory is the most likely explanation for the existence of the universe.

Am I proselytizing? Why or why not?

No, if the theory is scientifically sound (Big Bang is). You would not be proselytizing because you would be teaching science.

How about before Planck time?

Before Planck time? The very statement is nonsensical. Planck time, as the word is commonly used, is only the word used for the smallest possible amount of time (specifically, the time it takes for a photon to travel the distance of a single Planck length.

Your comment makes as much sense as asking what happened 'before second' or 'before day'.

By taking the argument that lack of intelligence is no bar to ornate complexity, I should be able to provide a stunningly elegant proof even if I were completely lacking in intelligence.

And this is relevant, how?

Your response makes no sense at all.

I hear this from the person who, when called on explaining his views in terms of complexity, responds by not at all using probability.

(a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe)

Funny, I have that definition, as well. Except that, when reading the full source, it states:

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

However, to be more complete, a good definition can also be found in the American Heritage Dictionary, which is the one I'm using:

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

Does teaching science in class predispose students to having certain beliefs about the cause and nature of the universe?

Certain beliefs, yes. Which should not be confused with religion. This is a belief in the same way mathematics predisposes you to believing the derivative of X^2 is equal to 2X.

Faith requires a definition for purposes of this discussion. I'll let you recommend one.

In this case, it meant the same thing as 'religion'.

You mean where a student asked Paskiewicz if there were dinosaurs on the ark?

Go ahead and try to argue from the rest of the context.

And how is it relevant that he was asked? It is still a valid point that he is arguing in favor of a single belief system. In this case, it was used to corroborate that he is not only arguing in favor of a certain group of religion, but for a specific one.

It'd be nice to see you go beyond merely asserting things again.

Always a pleasure. Now if only someone could coax a decent reply out of you.

I should note that you're engaging in the fallacy of poisoning the well, rather than arguing the issue on its merits.

Actually, you should not. Mainly because I didn't.

I was not arguing that, since Paskiewicz believes in dinosaurs on Noah's ark, he should be disregarded. I was arguing that Paskiewicz, in said specific argument, was proselytizing. To pre-empt any sophistry on your part, I noted that, over the whole conversation, he was clearly arguing in favor of Abrahamic faith.

Your statement requires a definition of "religious belief" to rescue it from useless ambiguity.

Interesting that you'd allow proselytizing in philosophy class, if I can take your statement at its apparent face value.

My apologies. The intent of the statement was not such, but that philosophical views can be discussed in (surprise!) a philosophy class.

So does reading the Declaration of Independence, what with the concept of unalienable rights relating directly to a purpose for the universe.

Which in no sense addresses my argument. Another Red Herring.

You don't want the goalposts closer, eh? Suit yourself.

No, I don't want you to keep using your fallacies.

Your annoyance seems to stem from projection.

No, it stems from you employing fallacies in every other sentence.

Why would having science to back it up make a difference?

Because science actually IS taught in high school? And as such, is part of a required curriculum?

Science itself rests on faith-based presuppositions.

I find a certain amount of irony in this statement, given that when I used the term 'faith' you were in apparent need of a definition.

You should also note that the ONLY presupposition you need for science is the existence of the outside universe.

Have you just created a loophole for a science-based religion?

Only if we accept your asinine insistence that science is based on faith (a term you have not even bothered to define yourself).

It's really past time for your definition of religion. You seem to define it (following your statement above) as beliefs that have no scientific backing.

Something inherently linked to the term 'faith', but otherwise completely accurate, yes.

What's the source for that definition? Did you make it up?

No, it's inherent to the term 'faith', as put in the Random House unabridged dictionary. Do you think 'faith' and 'religion' are completely seperate?

It seems to be an entirely accurate statement.

lol

Based on what evidence? You don't know anybody who expects something to come from something who doesn't rely on the Bible for the idea?

Based on the combination of two statements.

1) I never said that my assumption isn't based on faith.

Remember I confessed that at the beginning.

2) "Yes, there were dinosaurs on Noah's ark" (Paraphrased, Drangor seems to be down).

Those two seem to make pretty obvious that Paskiewicz is, himself, part of the Judeo-Christian faith and that he is basing his conclusions on faith.

I didn't stop there.

No, but you apparently think it a relevant argument.

How is science dragged down in the process? Do you deny, for example, the broad uniformitarian assumptions of science? As for evolution, it has many meanings in popular language. So long as Paszkiewicz uses the term consistently in accord with an understood meaning, there is no misrepresentation by his appropriation of that meaning.

It is 'dragged down' because neither science nor evolution are based upon 'faith' in the common sense upon the word.

Where?

"Christian faith - Judeo-Christian faith is a

reasoned faith. Take the scriptures - I'm not just saying that there

was a God - who willed the universe into existence - actually, spoke

it into existence, right? I'm not just saying that at the [start of

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

Here, he explicity states that, not only is there a God, but the Biblical prophecies have also come to pass.

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0031-8248...B2-B&size=LARGE

Impossible to get unless I'm willing to pay for it.

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/phil2/node3.html

A note: this is actually part of a course to A.I. It does contain several useful things (and indeed, it has presuppositions). However, to call those based on 'faith' is a stretch. Those presuppositions are themselves the logical conclusions of what we see around us. All of these presuppositions, moreover, can be logically derived from parsimony.

http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~ssimon/documents/Paradigms.pdf

Bad luck here, kiddo. I've actually studied Kuhn. His idea of the 'paradigm shift' is completely ridiculous. Since you seem to be in the habit of throwing websites, let me do the same:

Here

It looks like you just argued in a vicious circle.

The evidence forces us to use a metaphysically naturalistic epistemology? How did we ever discover a metaphysically naturalistic epistemology minus the the epistemology itself?

See the third of the links not far above.

Since, on a very simple level, trusting your senses is a basis for science. Assumptions must start somewhere, but so far, only the methods of science have actually managed to give accurate predictions over time.

We'll come back to that one after you've defined "religion."

You have it. I'm waiting.

I know I said I'd delete your insults except where they seemed creative (and I'll keep the bar pretty low, granting you the benefit of the doubt), but this one is worth keeping since it illustrates the tendency to answer an issue with insult instead of content.

A bald-faced lie. This was an insult specifically responding to an insult of your own. Don't flame if you can't take the heat.

Visiting the linked material was too difficult for you? Otherwise, why complain?

Because it's annoying to have to pagejump just to piece together one of your arguments? When you want to give a counterpoint, be kind enough to keep it in one thread.

Is that the definition of "proselytize" you used earlier? It seems to have morphed.

That's because you seem to be unique in being unable to actually connect 'promote' with 'induce to join'

LaClair broached the problem of evil. Why is it proselytizing to relate the broad Christian understanding of the problem of evil?

For the simple reason that he is attempting to justify and hence promote a religion?

Has Christian doctrine suddenly disappeared from history?

Yet ANOTHER red herring.

Is that your way of saying that you don't care about the context because your mind is already made up?

No, it is my way of saying that the 'theological framework' is a red herring.

And if we have no proof that he is not proselytizing we must conclude that he is proselytizing?

Note that instead of arguing (a real argument, not just assertion) that Paskiewicz is proselytizing, you seem to be arguing that it has not been proven that he was not proselytizing.

Strawman. That is NOT what I was saying. I said that being a teacher's response does not stop Paskiewicz' words from being proselytizing. You seem to have managed to somehow mutilate that to 'it was not proven it wasn't, therefore it must be'. Does it hurt to take those breathtaking leaps of (il)logic?

I guess since you're an atheist, you (usually) don't need to shoulder any burden of proof.

Look out if you're a defendant facing an atheist D.A..

Now that we're on that note, do you happen to have defended O.J. Simpson? Your tactics seem remarkably similar.

"That was pretty accurate, when you read history, the flesh being

beaten off of his back."

It seems to me that he's just saying that the Gibson movie provides a historically accurate account of a crucifixion.

You are aware that Jesus was not the only person crucified, right?

There are ancient (historical) documents that refer to the methods of crucifixion, and it is extraordinarily likely that Paskiewicz was referring to those with his comment about history.

http://www.cuadp.org/news/KRTWire02-23-2004.htm

Yes, I am aware of that. Funny enough, that does not at all address the 'flesh being beaten of his back' part. That one is a clear reference to Jesus. He states that the Gibson movie is accurate to what we read 'in history' (referring to the Bible) about Jesus being whipped before the crucifixion.

Review the comments you made, Blum.

Sure, Bwyan.

In each case where the issue of proselytization comes up, you assert that it is proselytization without argument except in a couple of instances where you simply flub up the argument (as with the "history" comment here at the end).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You talking about 'asserting' is quite simply laughable. The fact that I don't simplify the argument to the point of ridiculousness does not equal me 'asserting' anything. Unless, of course, you actually ARE too stupid to understand something that is not explained in the simplest of terms.

[Guest Paul]

His faith-based assumption, in that case, was that something tends to come from something. You don't subscribe to that faith?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Seems logical, doesn't it. Problem is, we have no way of explaining how everything got started. (Even the big bang theory doesn't do that.) Of course, we can make up an explanation and say there had to be someone who created it all, but all we've done is make up an explanation that doesn't really explain anything. It's just a story, notwithstanding that people wish to believe it because it comforts them.

My conclusion is that there's something in the nature of things that exceeds our grasp, is beyond what we can understand, at least given what we know now. Maybe there are layers and layers of reality that we don't see. Maybe the four dimensions we know (three of space, plus time) are only four dimensions out of twenty, or any number --- who knows? Not us, that's for sure. Given that, the best we can do is continue to follow the scientific method, continue to learn, and maybe one day we'll know more. Meanwhile, I'm just happy to be here and to have the opportunity to live this life and make a contribution.

[Guest Guest]

Hello, everybody. I am Matthew LaClair.

As you can see, most people who disagree with me do not first try to have a discussion, but they post thoughtlessly, with bitterness and arrogance. Those who read this and disagree with me, please stop with the hatred and arrogance. There is no need for that kind of discussion on this website or any other. For example, whoever is posting as 2smart4u, that is extremely arrogant and shows that this person feels that he or she is better than everybody else. I understand, however, that sometimes people just don't think. They just look at the situation without investigating and they do not care what the facts are. For those who do that, please take a step back, look at the situation again, and have a discussion without useless name calling.

It is now almost the new year and this Kearny School system has still done absolutely nothing except, I assume, tell Mr. Paszkiewicz not to do it again. That is not enough. What this teacher did was wrong. He proselytized during class, then lied about making the statements he made. What a way to show his love in his God. The board attorney said that corrective statements and apologies would not be given.

Hypocrisy seems to be rampant in this school system. On page two of our Program Of Studies, a small booklet that the students are given every year, the Kearny High School Goals are listed. A few of them are the following; to recognize the importance of ethical principles and values; to develop an appreciation of their own worth; to learn to think critically; to understand the role of a good citizen in the practice of democratic ideas and ideals; to learn to understand, accept, and value people with diverse cultural characteristics; to become a responsible contributor to the community, state, country, and world. Where are the administrators in Kearny High School and the Kearny school district pursuing these goals?

In a way, I still feel bad for Mr Paszkiewicz, but what he did is still wrong. All I asked for in early October was for corrections to be made, specifically about the scientific errors he made, some kind of apology, and quality control to make sure that this does not happen again. To date this administration has done absolutely nothing about that. Specifically the board attorney, the superintendent of schools, and now the board. It seems clear to me that the principal is going to follow the administration's corruption and incompetence.

If you would like to help, please write letters to the board of education, the newspapers such as the New York Times, the Kearny Observer , the Jersey Journal, etc. Keep this topic alive. I will not stop until this is dealt with properly. Thank you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Matthew - you are young. Youth and exuberance can go a long way. However, sometimes you have to take a step back and re-examine the path that you are on to determine if it still remains the best course.

It seems as if the school has handled things as they see fit and, fortunately or unfortunately, you have no authority to force the school to do otherwise. You have already received the attention of the board of education (although you were ignored), the NY Times, the Observer, the Jersey Journal, etc. They have acknowledged your point, made their editorial comments, and are likely to move on. The story already seems to be dying and, in many ways, I think that it will be good for you that your 15 minutes are up. It's time that you step out of the spotlight and go to work.

May I recommend that you reconsider your media campaign and, instead, throw yourself into the political process? I really think that the change that you seek will not come from television interviews, but will instead come from rolling up your sleeves and putting a little sweat into the political process. Find out when school board elections are to take place. Seek out and support candidates that have like interests. Make the changes from the inside (Note: I read somewhere that Michael Moore actually managed to get himself elected to his town's school board while he was still a senior in high school).

Sure, it's not as glorious as getting your picture in the paper. But, unless having your picture in the paper is all you care about (and, I trust that it is NOT the case), then redirect your energies into something that will truly matter after your star has faded completely.

Go get 'em.

[Guest Guest]

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but your complaint about the "fundies" is that they try to say that Paskiewicz can say what he wants to establish religion since the First Amendment is written to apply to Congress. Am I right?

I have never taken that position. Ever.

Let's retrace the steps shall we?

I wrote that Paskiewicz broke the law.

You asked me which law specifically.

I replied First Amendment.

You wrote and I quote: "How, exactly? The First Amendment bars Congress from passing laws that restrict the practice of religion, or from passing laws that would establish a religion.

If Paszkiewicz isn't Congress (he isn't, AFAICT), then it seems that your analysis needs a bit of explanation."

While you didn't use the exact wordings "First Amendment doesn't apply to Paszkiewicz because he's not Congress." that was clearly what you were getting at given your response quoted above. If that wasn't your position, why brought up the "Paszkiewicz isn't Congress" observation at all if you didn't think that fact will somehow help your argument that Paszkiewicz didn't violate the First Amendment. Why not just say "Paszkiewicz is an individual and I don't believe the First Amendment applies to individuals" which you now claim is your position all along?

Your attempt to explain away your backpaddling is rather specious.

And what is even more bizarre is that after I explained to you how your "Paszkiewicz isn't Congress" line is irrelevant at your request (by citing a Supreme Court case that applied First Amendment to a local school board, clearly not the Congress), you accused me of creating a straw man. I directly answered a question you asked me and therefore I created a straw man? How illogical can you be?

On the other hand, it is pretty obvious (if you've read the First Amendment) that it was written to apply to Congress.

So ... more explanation is needed, right?

No.

Anyone with the most basic knowledge of the Supreme Court's First Amendment rulings knows that the First Amendment doesn't just apply to Congress. For those people no explanation is needed. Apparent you didn't know that and asked me to explain it to you, which I did. But then you accused me of creating a straw man because I explained the First Amendment to you at your request. What kind of illogic is that?

And there you go leaping to conclusions and inaccurately suggesting that I lied.

You've read the First Amendment, right? Here it is (again, if you've seen it before):

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Does it look even just a little bit to you as though it was written to apply to the congress?

So, given that it looks like it was written to apply specifically to Congress (you don't disagree with that, do you?), isn't it reasonable to ask for more explanation (which is what I did)?

Strange, but thanks for answering with apparent honesty.

You have to make up your mind. There are only 2 possible cases. Either you thought the First Amendment applied only to Congress, or you knew that it doesn't.

If you thought the First Amendment applied only to Congress, then you lied when you said "I have never taken that position. Ever."

If you knew that the First Amendment doesn't apply only to Congress, then why brought up the "Paskiewicz isn't Congress" non-issue and asked me to explain? I mean you already knew that was an non-issue right?

In either case, you are wrong to say that I created a straw man since I addressed the "First Amendment doesn't just apply to Congress" issue at your request. Yet you repeated your little "straw man" line ad nauseam. I guess this "straw man" line is in fact your own little straw man.

So, which case is it?

You're off to a great start, what with the straw man fallacy & all.

What straw man? I addressed the "First Amendment doesn't just apply to Congress" issue at your request. Or are you going to lie about that now?

So, you disagree that the First Amendment was written to apply to Congress? What accounts for the odd sentence construction, then (I made the quotation of the First Amendment really big so that you could easily refer to it)?

It doesn't matter in what exact wordings the First Amendment was written over 2 centuries ago. We live in the 21st century, not the 18th. The society keeps evolving (that's a word you hate) and so must the law. What is important is how the Court interpret the First Amendment given the circumstances of the current society. In this case, the Court has spoken loud and clear repeatedly: First Amendment doesn't just apply to Congress. End of story.

Not at all--but I don't think that's the criterion that the courts use. They look to the apparatus of the government, so the school board is going to be about the lowest level of organization that will be sued over First Amendment issues.

Your opinion only. And a wrong one at that.

But you'll stick with the view that the really important thing to the law is who makes the decision to do the "preaching"? In spite of the evidence?

What evidence? Just because no First Amendment cases have dealt with individual so far doesn't mean that First Amendment doesn't apply to individuals. If no First Amendment cases so far have dealt with the Treasury Department does that mean the First Amendment doesn't apply to the Treasury Department? Your so called "evidence" is nothing but a confusion of correlation with causation.

Since I asked for more explanation for your claim that Paskiewicz (who is not Congress) violated the First Amendment (which is a restriction on Congress) therefore I believe that the First Amendment can only apply to Congress?

No. But when you countered my claim by saying ""Paszkiewicz isn't Congress," any reasonable person can see that in your mind "Paszkiewicz isn't Congress" is an important factor in deciding whether he violated the First Amendment (otherwise why use it as your counterpoint?) And the only way you can believe "Paszkiewicz isn't Congress" is a factor is if you believe the First Amendment applies to Congress only.

That's illogical of you, friend.

It is perfectly logical. See above. What is illogical is your arguments so far.

Just because you produced the straw man out of sincere belief that I advocated that view, you are not off the hook for having constructed a straw man.

What straw man? I addressed the "First Amendment doesn't just apply to Congress" issue at your request. Or are you going to lie about that now?

I did. So--where's the explanation I asked of you?

Huh?! Are you for real? You're just getting more and more incoherrent. I gave you a detailed explanation in my post you responded to. Are you going to pretend you never saw that?

I'll humor you and give you a recap: your "Paszkiewicz isn't Congress" line is irrelevant. The only opinions of the First Amendment that matter is the Supreme Court's, not yours. And I cited a Supreme Court case to prove to you that according to the Supreme Court, First Amendment does not just apply to Congress only. Hence your "Paszkiewicz isn't Congress" line is irrelevant. Is that clear enough for you? Or do you need pictures?

Paszkiewicz is an authority figure, but he is not an authority figure in terms of setting government policy, even at the local level. He is only responsible for implementing policy. He has no culpability in terms of a separation of state claim.

Your opinions only. Or can you cite Supreme Court cases to back up your unfounded opinions?

Can you find any example of an individual being sued in parallel to this case?

Still not bothered, eh?

Again, you're confusing correlation with causation. I'll ask you again: if no First Amendment cases so far have dealt with the Treasury Department does that mean the First Amendment doesn't apply to the Treasury Department?

The Jim Crow laws were nullified by an act of Congress, not by the courts.

Wrong again. The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's Browder v. Gayle ruling that the Alabama bus segregation statue was unconsitutional.

You really need to clear up all your misunderstandings of the laws.

I guess everyone in the legal system was pretty much racists in your book?

Huh? Why would I think so when I'm the one who pointed out to you that it was the courts that struck down racist segregation laws.

You really operate by illogic don't you?

Okay! Your mind's made up!

Sure. My opinion is backed up by overwhelming evidence and logic.

On the other hand you made up your mind backed by nothing but misunderstandings and illogic.

[Guest Guest]

Forgot to add one more thing.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but your complaint about the "fundies" is that they try to say that Paskiewicz can say what he wants to establish religion since the First Amendment is written to apply to Congress.  Am I right?

I have never taken that position.  Ever.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you truly "never ever" taken that position, why did you write:

"Since Paskiewicz is not Congress (AFAICT, anyway), it does not appear that he broke the First Amendment."

Any reasonable person can tell from the sentence above that the author (i.e., you Bryan) is saying Paskiewicz didn't break the First Amendment because he is not Congress.

And the only way the author can believe that is true is if he (that's you again, Bryan) believes the First Amendment only applies to Congress.

So yes Bryan, you have taken "that position."

And you claim you didn't lie?

[Bryan]

Forgot to add one more thing.

If you truly "never ever" taken that position, why did you write:

"Since Paskiewicz is not Congress (AFAICT, anyway), it does not appear that he broke the First Amendment."

Because I was wrapping up a post that deal with Guest's explanation of a law that Paskiewicz broke, in order to refute the notion that Paskiewicz himself was breaking the law.

Paskiewicz isn't free to say whatever he wants because his employer can't permit it and stay clear of First Amendment problems, not because Paskiewicz is breaking the law thereby.

Do you see the distinction?

Any reasonable person can tell from the sentence above that the author (i.e., you Bryan) is saying Paskiewicz didn't break the First Amendment because he is not Congress.

Of course, but the position that I have not taken is that Paskiewicz is allowed to say anything he wants in class, not that Paskiewicz is himself breaking the law by what he says.

"... your complaint about the "fundies" is that they try to say that Paskiewicz can say what he wants to establish religion since the First Amendment is written to apply to Congress."

I've been consistent on this. The limitations on Paskiewicz's speech are employee guidelines, not the law (though indirectly since the school board looks to avoid First Amendment lawsuits).

And the only way the author can believe that is true is if he (that's you again, Bryan) believes the First Amendment only applies to Congress.

Incorrect. He might believe that the government is corporately responsible for breaking the First Amendment but not an individual who is not in a position to determine corporate policy.

So yes Bryan, you have taken "that position."

Your logic broke down when you supposed that Paskiewicz could only not break the law if the First Amendment only applied to Congress.

And you claim you didn't lie?

I do. If you claim that I did on the basis of your specious logic, then you are irresponsible.

[Bryan]

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but your complaint about the "fundies" is that they try to say that Paskiewicz can say what he wants to establish religion since the First Amendment is written to apply to Congress.  Am I right?

I have never taken that position.  Ever.

Let's retrace the steps shall we?

I wrote that Paskiewicz broke the law.

You asked me which law specifically.

I replied First Amendment.

You wrote and I quote: "How, exactly? The First Amendment bars Congress from passing laws that restrict the practice of religion, or from passing laws that would establish a religion.

If Paszkiewicz isn't Congress (he isn't, AFAICT), then it seems that your analysis needs a bit of explanation."

While you didn't use the exact wordings "First Amendment doesn't apply to Paszkiewicz because he's not Congress." that was clearly what you were getting at given your response quoted above.

Incorrect. I was leading you to examine your pool of knowledge (whatever the extent) to get you to figure out why legally the First Amendment applies beyond Congress. It's been discussed at some length in this forum by now, but you (AFAICT) have given no hint of possessing an understanding.

Once you understand today's application of the First Amendment, you're logically forced to see that the First Amendment as you know it wasn't invented for decades after it was written.

Plus you might figure out how it applies to government entities and not government employees specifically.

If that wasn't your position, why brought up the "Paszkiewicz isn't Congress" observation at all if you didn't think that fact will somehow help your argument that Paszkiewicz didn't violate the First Amendment.

I was using the Socratic method to help you figure it out on your own.

The going's been tough so far.

Why not just say "Paszkiewicz is an individual and I don't believe the First Amendment applies to individuals" which you now claim is your position all along?

Because if you figure it out on your own instead of me just telling you, the information sticks so much better.

Sometimes there's the added bonus that you'll just go off on illogical conclusions based on the Socratic questioning, however ...

Your attempt to explain away your backpaddling is rather specious.

I've been quite consistent (no backpedaling), and you've been illogical.

And what is even more bizarre is that after I explained to you how your "Paszkiewicz isn't Congress" line is irrelevant at your request (by citing a Supreme Court case that applied First Amendment to a local school board, clearly not the Congress), you accused me of creating a straw man.

This post contained the straw man that "In their fantasy world any non-Congress governmental entity can do whatever they want regarding religions as long as they're not passing laws."

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ic=2898&st=600#

I directly answered a question you asked me and therefore I created a straw man?

You were not answering my question (though it's quite possible you were sincerely trying). I asked what law Pasckiewicz broke. Paszkiewicz is an individual--a government employee and not a government entity (he'll never be named as the defendant in a lawsuit against the government--not as a teacher, anyway).

Your answers addressed the strawman identified above, not my question.

Do you understand, now?

How illogical can you be?

I can be very illogical if I try, I suppose. You haven't pinpointed any logical problems in what I have written, however.

On the other hand, it is pretty obvious (if you've read the First Amendment) that it was written to apply to Congress.

So ... more explanation is needed, right?

No.

lol

Suit yourself.

Anyone with the most basic knowledge of the Supreme Court's First Amendment rulings knows that the First Amendment doesn't just apply to Congress.

Right. But wouldn't you have to visit the Supreme Court's rulings to know that instead of just looking at the First Amendment?

Could it be that Court rulings actually constitute the additional explanation about which you were asked?????

And could the timing of those rulings be significant?????

Paskiewicz is attacking the foundation on which this nation was founded!!!!

Right?

Or is he?

For those people no explanation is needed. Apparent you didn't know that and asked me to explain it to you, which I did.

That's a great theory, except you can find me posting about it before we had this conversation.

Or maybe I'm just an expert computer hacker and I altered the time-stamps to make it look that way. I'll leave you to come up with your own conclusion.

But then you accused me of creating a straw man because I explained the First Amendment to you at your request. What kind of illogic is that?

To answer your question, that's your illogic. I identified your straw man (see URL above again) early on. This is also from that post (you speaking):

"Many posters have posted links to Supreme Court cases that show clearly how misguided your interpretation of the First Amendment is."

You're not just answering the question. You're supposing that my position is that government entities other than Congress are not bound by the First Amendment.

That's a straw man. There's nothing you can say, no excuse you can make that will get you off the hook for that. And yet you deny and accuse in an apparent effort to obscure your error.

Does [the First Amendment] look even just a little bit to you as though it was written to apply to the congress?

So, given that it looks like it was written to apply specifically to Congress (you don't disagree with that, do you?), isn't it reasonable to ask for more explanation (which is what I did)?

Strange, but thanks for answering with apparent honesty.

You have to make up your mind. There are only 2 possible cases. Either you thought the First Amendment applied only to Congress, or you knew that it doesn't.

Here's me, from the same post you've been mining for quotations:

"The key mistake in your argument is the bald assertion that Paszkiewicz is an 'authority figure' in the government. This is a fallacy of equivocation, I think. Paszkiewicz probably has zero administrative authority, which is the key to involvement in a case like this. The school board in which Paszkiewicz teaches is the probable responsible entity."

And, right near the end, this:

"The reality is that First Amendment violations occur through the actions of government entities, not mere government employees."

It doesn't sound to you as though my mind had been made up even then?

Yet you're asking me to make up my mind?

There's illogic for you.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ic=2898&st=600#

Post #604, just in case the URL isn't dependable.

If you thought the First Amendment applied only to Congress, then you lied when you said "I have never taken that position. Ever."

True, but the "if" condition is not met.

If you knew that the First Amendment doesn't apply only to Congress, then why brought up the "Paskiewicz isn't Congress" non-issue and asked me to explain? I mean you already knew that was an non-issue right?

It's an issue because people are accusing Pasckiewicz of breaking the law. Even you (IIRC) seem to think that Paszkiewicz is likely to be named in a lawsuit over the First Amendment issue.

That's not going to happen. Paul LaClair has affirmed it after investigating his legal options.

In either case, you are wrong to say that I created a straw man since I addressed the "First Amendment doesn't just apply to Congress" issue at your request.

No, I'm not.

You established the straw man early on and you returned to it periodically during your various screeds.

Was this you?

"Let me know when they change their mind about the "only apply to Congress" fantasy."

Yet you repeated your little "straw man" line ad nauseam.

It seemed appropriate, since you have steadfastly refused to relinquish it.

Even in the current post, you're trying to assert that I probably believed that state and local government entities are not bound by the First Amendment, and you have not ever answered (coherently) the question as to what law keeps Paszkiewicz from speaking whatever he wishes to his class.

The truth is it isn't a law. It's employment policy.

I guess this "straw man" line is in fact your own little straw man.

You're caught dead to rights, with quotations of you presenting what you supposed to be my view (despite my expressions to the contrary) followed by your attempt to attack the position that I do not hold.

That's a classic straw man.

So, which case is it?

And that's the fallacy of the false dilemma, FWIW.

I'm not wrong to accuse you of constructing a straw man because you constructed a straw man. You falsely presented my views and proceeded to attack your construct.

You're off to a great start, what with the straw man fallacy & all. 

What straw man? I addressed the "First Amendment doesn't just apply to Congress" issue at your request. Or are you going to lie about that now?

I haven't lied at all, and you are irresponsible to suggest otherwise.

Where you stick to why the First Amendment doesn't just apply to Congress, you're not constructing a straw man. When you invent a position for me and attack that position (as you seem to have done, based on the evidence), you are constructing a straw man.

<cutting out some rehash>

Just because no First Amendment cases have dealt with individual so far doesn't mean that First Amendment doesn't apply to individuals. If no First Amendment cases so far have dealt with the Treasury Department does that mean the First Amendment doesn't apply to the Treasury Department? Your so called "evidence" is nothing but a confusion of correlation with causation.

Using your argument of an evolving constitution, we could say that the First Amendment applies to everything everywhere--it's just waiting on the right combination of Supreme Court justices to declare it so.

You've got no law on your side right now. It's useless to appeal to the future where free-form interpretation could make the Constitution literally mean anything.

You could be breaking the First Amendment right now, if we used that kind of logic.

[W]hen you countered my claim by saying ""Paszkiewicz isn't Congress," any reasonable person can see that in your mind "Paszkiewicz isn't Congress" is an important factor in deciding whether he violated the First Amendment (otherwise why use it as your counterpoint?) And the only way you can believe "Paszkiewicz isn't Congress" is a factor is if you believe the First Amendment applies to Congress only.

1) I was not countering your claim with that comment. Look at the context. I simply found your explanation wanting (which is why I suggested that more explanation was needed--but you disagreed, apparently having no difficulty believing that the First Amendment means whatever the courts say it means--almost like you're in church!).

2) There's your false dilemma again.

I'll humor you and give you a recap: your "Paszkiewicz isn't Congress" line is irrelevant.

It's relevant to the coherence of your explanation.

The only opinions of the First Amendment that matter is the Supreme Court's, not yours.

And with that belief, you make the Supreme Court effectively sovereign over the United States of America.

Congress can write their laws, but the SCOTUS can make them mean anything, regardless of what Congress wants.

Thanks for protecting the Constitution.

And I cited a Supreme Court case to prove to you that according to the Supreme Court, First Amendment does not just apply to Congress only. Hence your "Paszkiewicz isn't Congress" line is irrelevant. Is that clear enough for you? Or do you need pictures?

You have pictures?

Can you find any example of an individual being sued in parallel to this case?

Still not bothered, eh?

Again, you're confusing correlation with causation.[/b]

No, I'm not. I'm pointing out that you have no legal precedent for your claim--which should concern you if you're depending on the courts' interpretations of the First Amendment.

I'll ask you again: if no First Amendment cases so far have dealt with the Treasury Department does that mean the First Amendment doesn't apply to the Treasury Department?

Has the Treasury Department ever been named as a responsible government party in a lawsuit?

I don't think so, but it has a leadership structure that would be responsible for cases involving constitutionality of action, analogous to a local school board.

It's the principle that matters.

Any other pathetic arguments you wish to present before you sign off?

The Jim Crow laws were nullified by an act of Congress, not by the courts.

Wrong again. The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's Browder v. Gayle ruling that the Alabama bus segregation statue was unconsitutional.

You really need to clear up all your misunderstandings of the laws.

Apparently you're unaware that the higher courts laid much of the foundation for Jim Crow laws through the establishment of precedent. Jim Crow laws were far more than busing in Alabama.

The so-called Jim Crow segregation laws gained significant impetus from U. S. Supreme Court rulings in the last two decades of the nineteenth century. In 1883, the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the Civil Rights Act of 1875. The 1875 law stipulated: "That all persons ... shall be entitled to full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement."

http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/history/creating2.htm

But it's not even debatable in the Supreme Court, is it? Feh.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the decisive move against Jim Crow laws.

I guess everyone in the legal system was pretty much racists in your book?

Huh? Why would I think so when I'm the one who pointed out to you that it was the courts that struck down racist segregation laws.

When they weren't upholding them, you mean?

My opinion is backed up by overwhelming evidence and logic.

Whatever you say.

[oldfart56]

1.  There is no such thing as "premeditated entrapment," and entrapment is a defense only when the entrapment is performed by an agent of the government.  LaClair didn't break any laws by recording the class.

2.  Matt LaClair didn't "set him up"--he doesn't ask questions until well into the recording.  Further, even if LaClair had initiated any discussion of religion it is still the teacher's responsibility is to not use the classroom as a forum for evanglizing.

3.  The recording shows that the teacher was leading the class in a rambling, barely controlled or coherent discussion of Halloween, the Bible, Satan, free will, home schooling his kids, the purpose of public education, and other topics having nothing to do with the U.S. History class he was supposed to be teaching.  In the course of this, the teacher demonstrated that he knows little about most of the topics he discussed, as he made erroneous statement after erroneous statement.  He is clearly not competent to be teaching any of the subjects he was talking about, none of which had anything to do with the subject of the class.

4.  When called on his religious advocacy before school administrators, the teacher clearly knew he was in the wrong, because he *lied about it* and denied having said the things he did.  Only after LaClair brought forward the recordings did he change his tune--and then refused to cooperate, asking for his union representative.

5.  The school administration claims that it has taken "corrective action," but refuses to  say what it is.  The teacher continues to teach the class.

It is interesting that those defending the teacher and criticizing LaClair fail to address any of the above points.

If I were a parent of a child in Kearny, NJ, I would be very concerned about the quality of education being given at KHS.  The teacher in question home schools his own kids, apparently because he recognizes the poor quality of public school education in Kearny.  Unfortunately, it's clear that his kids aren't getting anything better at home.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1st as a person "from" kearny i can say the kids get better than most kids in FLA! yes there is some as good but none better anywhere! all you need to do is look at the record and see just who came from kearny!!

[Guest Guest]

Because I was wrapping up a post that deal with Guest's explanation of a law that Paskiewicz broke, in order to refute the notion that Paskiewicz himself was breaking the law.

Paskiewicz isn't free to say whatever he wants because his employer can't permit it and stay clear of First Amendment problems, not because Paskiewicz is breaking the law thereby.

Do you see the distinction?

As usual, you're not making sense. That's inevitable though, you got caught lying and is now trying to talk your way out. Unfortunately with all your previous posts right here for all to see, the more you try, the less sense you make.

How exactly did saying:

"Since Paskiewicz is not Congress (AFAICT, anyway), it does not appear that he broke the First Amendment."

refute the notion that Paskiewicz himself was breaking the First Amendment? The only information you provided (other than saying Paskiewicz didn't break the First Amendment) in the quote above is that Paskiewicz is not Congress. Moreover, you asserted a causal relationship between "Paskiewicz is not Congress" and "Paskiewicz didn't break the First Amendment" in your quote. Yet according to your lie now you knew all along that the First Amendment applies to non-Congress entities too. So how exactly does telling me "Paskiewicz is not Congress" "refute" my assertion that Paskiewicz is not Congress?

It doesn't.

You're lying when you claim that you never hold the position that First Amendment applies to Congress only. As your quote above clearly exposes that lie.

And it trying to cover up your lie, you're making more and more illogical statements.

[Guest Guest]

Because if you figure it out on your own instead of me just telling you, the information sticks so much better.

LOL. Sure. Riiight. My favorite arguing tactics... in high school. "I knew that all along. I was just testing to see if you knew it too!"

Nice try.

Glad that you've reached my high school level mentally.

You were not answering my question (though it's quite possible you were sincerely trying). I asked what law Pasckiewicz broke.

I directly answered that question: Pasckiewicz broke the First Amendment.

Your position on that matter was:

"Since Paskiewicz is not Congress (AFAICT, anyway), it does not appear that he broke the First Amendment."

That was your position until I set you straight by citing Supreme Court ruling that applied First Amendment to non-Congress entity, thus proving your argument "Paskiewicz is not Congress" was irrelevant.

And now you have a new position, which is:

Paszkiewicz is an individual--a government employee and not a government entity (he'll never be named as the defendant in a lawsuit against the government--not as a teacher, anyway).

That is your personal opinion. Or can you cite a Court case that rules that First Amendment does not apply to individuals?

Right. But wouldn't you have to visit the Supreme Court's rulings to know that instead of just looking at the First Amendment?

Of course. That's the way it should be. Last I check, Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the Constitution. Not you. Not me. You could look at the First Amendment all you want and say it only applies to Congress. But it makes no difference whatsoever.

That's a great theory, except you can find me posting about it before we had this conversation.

This is what you posted before I showed you that First Amendment doesn't just apply to Congress:

"Since Paskiewicz is not Congress (AFAICT, anyway), it does not appear that he broke the First Amendment."

Yup. You thought First Amendment applies only to Congress before I corrected you. That is prefectly clear.

You're not just answering the question. You're supposing that my position is that government entities other than Congress are not bound by the First Amendment.

Which was your position, as clearly shown by your quote above.

That's a straw man. There's nothing you can say, no excuse you can make that will get you off the hook for that. And yet you deny and accuse in an apparent effort to obscure your error.

The only person who's making excuses are you. Your quote above clearly shows that before I corrected you, you thought First Amendment applies to COngress only. And now you're lying about it to try to get off the hook. It's rather pathetic really.

Here's me, from the same post you've been mining for quotations:

"The key mistake in your argument is the bald assertion that Paszkiewicz is an 'authority figure' in the government. This is a fallacy of equivocation, I think. Paszkiewicz probably has zero administrative authority, which is the key to involvement in a case like this. The school board in which Paszkiewicz teaches is the probable responsible entity."

And, right near the end, this:

"The reality is that First Amendment violations occur through the actions of government entities, not mere government employees."

It doesn't sound to you as though my mind had been made up even then?

Yet you're asking me to make up my mind?

There's illogic for you.

The 2 quotes you gave above came after I showed you First Amendment doesn't just apply to Congress. Sure you mind was made up by then. Before that, this was your position:

"Since Paskiewicz is not Congress (AFAICT, anyway), it does not appear that he broke the First Amendment."

At that time you thought First Amendment applies only to Congress.

Any other questions?

You established the straw man early on and you returned to it periodically during your various screeds.

Was this you?

"Let me know when they change their mind about the "only apply to Congress" fantasy."

It was. That's because certain people in this forum thought that First Amendment only applies to Congress. Such as this person:

"Since Paskiewicz is not Congress (AFAICT, anyway), it does not appear that he broke the First Amendment."

So who wrote the above sentence?

You thought the First Amendment only applies to Congress. I corrected your misconception directly. Not a straw man at all. The only straw man here is your pathetic attempt to call my correction of your mistake a "straw man."

You've got no law on your side right now. It's useless to appeal to the future where free-form interpretation could make the Constitution literally mean anything.

And exactly what law do you have on your side? Show me a Court ruling that says First Amendment doesn't apply to individuals, which is supposedly your new position now (You old position of "First Amendment applies only to Congress" was of course destroyed by the irrefutable proof that I showed you.)

No, I'm not. I'm pointing out that you have no legal precedent for your claim--which should concern you if you're depending on the courts' interpretations of the First Amendment.

And where is your legal precedent that says First Amendment doesn't apply to individuals?

Any other pathetic arguments you wish to present before you sign off?

Your got the pathetic market cornered. No one can ever touch you there. You have nothing to worry about there.

[Guest Guest]

As usual, you're not making sense. That's inevitable though, you got caught lying and is now trying to talk your way out. Unfortunately with all your previous posts right here for all to see, the more you try, the less sense you make.

How exactly did saying:

"Since Paskiewicz is not Congress (AFAICT, anyway), it does not appear that he broke the First Amendment."

refute the notion that Paskiewicz himself was breaking the First Amendment? The only information you provided (other than saying Paskiewicz didn't break the First Amendment) in the quote above is that Paskiewicz is not Congress. Moreover, you asserted a causal relationship between "Paskiewicz is not Congress" and "Paskiewicz didn't break the First Amendment" in your quote. Yet according to your lie now you knew all along that the First Amendment applies to non-Congress entities too. So how exactly does telling me "Paskiewicz is not Congress" "refute" my assertion that Paskiewicz is not Congress?

A typo in my sentence above. it should read:

So how exactly does telling me "Paskiewicz is not Congress" "refute" my assertion that Paskiewicz broke the First Amendment?

It doesn't.

You're lying when you claim that you never hold the position that First Amendment applies to Congress only. As your quote above clearly exposes that lie.

And it trying to cover up your lie, you're making more and more illogical statements.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Bryan]

This is a short reply since this particular "Guest" is a waste of time.

Demonstration below.

That's a straw man.  There's nothing you can say, no excuse you can make that will get you off the hook for that.  And yet you deny and accuse in an apparent effort to obscure your error.

The only person who's making excuses are you. Your quote above clearly shows that before I corrected you, you thought First Amendment applies to COngress only. And now you're lying about it to try to get off the hook. It's rather pathetic really.

"Engel v. Vitale concerned the enactment of a state law mandating the reading of a prayer composed by state officials. The law was held unconstitutional (and could only be found so according to the First Amendment in light of the Fourteenth Amendment). The teacher in this case is not a law that may be found unconstitutional."

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...616entry39616

Check the time stamp, along with the author (as I had suggested you might do in an earlier post).

Your arguments are too pathetic for me to justify wasting time on them.

The quotation above demonstrates rather unequivocally my proper understanding of the expansion of the First Amendment via the Fourteenth Amendment to governments (not individuals) in advance of any conversation with a "Guest" other than Paul LaClair.

When you accused me of lying, you provided inaccurate information, and given that I informed you of the manner in which you could verify the truth of what I said--and you ignored it--you accomplished the moral equivalent of lying when you repeated your false accusation.

Guest: "Christofundies love to fixate on the wording "Congress". In their fantasy world any non-Congress governmental entity can do whatever they want regarding religions as long as they're not passing laws."

Bryan: "Well, if you knew me better (such as by reading some of my other posts), you'd realize that isn't what I believe (it might involve ignoring Strife's inaccurate posts as to that)."

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ic=2898&st=600#

But you, "Guest," just ignored that.

And now your skeptical allies are groaning because you've made them look bad (not personally, but as a group).

Way to go, champ.