Another Point Of View

[Guest Lawyer Bob]

I've been following with amusement the various comments being put forth here concerning Mr. P and his classroom conversations. It seems most people posting here have already decided Mr. P is guilty of preaching religion in a classroom.

I would say hold on, are you taking his words out of context ? Prior to his recorded words, was he asked a direct question as to his views on religion ?? Was he simply responding to that question or questions.

Without knowing all the details, I would suggest you all take a deep breath and calm down.

[Guest Guest]

I've been following with amusement the various comments being put forth here concerning Mr. P  and his classroom conversations.  It seems most people posting here have already decided Mr. P is guilty of preaching religion in a classroom.

  I would say hold on, are you taking his words out of context ? Prior to his recorded words, was he asked a direct question as to his views on religion ??  Was he simply responding to that question or questions.

  Without knowing all the details, I would suggest you all take a deep breath and calm down.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The audio recordings are available online, and have been heard by news media from as far right as Fox to as highly respected as The New York Times. No one who has heard them claims there is anything suspect about them.

The teacher brought up the topics himself. The words are not taken out of context.

[an American in Texas]

Lawyer Bob, have you listened to the audio files from the class? If so, then you know that these conversations went on over long periods of time and on mutliple days.

It is immaterial whether the proselytizing speeches were in response to questions (which the recordings show that many were not). Nobody would have a problem with the answer, "My personal faith is just that, personal, and it's not relevent to this class," or even a forthright "I'm a practicing and professing Christian" and letting it go at that. 15 or 20 minutes of preaching on Christian theology, followed by a loaded piece of emotional blackmail like "You belong in hell if you don't agree with my religious views" is absolutely over the line, and you know it.

Leigh Williams

Austin, TX

[Guest A.V> Blom]

I've been following with amusement the various comments being put forth here concerning Mr. P  and his classroom conversations.  It seems most people posting here have already decided Mr. P is guilty of preaching religion in a classroom.

  I would say hold on, are you taking his words out of context ? Prior to his recorded words, was he asked a direct question as to his views on religion ??  Was he simply responding to that question or questions.

  Without knowing all the details, I would suggest you all take a deep breath and calm down.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No context added. He is clearly NOT being baited in any way, shape, or form, and he sounds routine enough to be doing this for years, at least, especially since that's also what other kids' comments are indicating.

[Strife767]

lol, I love the way this thread went. Too funny (my satirical exaggeration added ).

Original post: "hay guys don't u think that low-down sneaky boy took his poor defenseless teacher's words out of context to entrap him?"

Responses: "No, stupid. The audio is available online, and that is obviously not the case" x 3

Hilarious to see a baseless accusation get shot down like that.

[Guest Mano a Mano]

Hilarious to see a baseless accusation get shot down like that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And a comforting pleasure to know that blowhards won't be tolerated for too much longer on these boards.

Of course they can spew their hatred all day long, but it's really nice to see so many people step up to defend the constitution and freedom from hatred as espoused by Mr. P.

[Strife767]

And a comforting pleasure to know that blowhards won't be tolerated for too much  longer on these boards.

Of course they can spew their hatred all day long, but it's really nice to see so many people step up to defend the constitution and freedom from hatred as espoused by Mr. P.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You said it.

[Bryan]

Lawyer Bob made the good point that accusations should stem from a thorough knowledge of the situation (and he had the impression, rightly or wrongly, that some did not have all of the details). Lawyer Bob was perfectly respectful with his point, in my humble opinion.

If you want to see the type of thing people for some reason today call "hatred" just have a look at the responses to Lawyer Bob, where he is ridiculed, attacked, and unfairly parodied.

[Strife767]

Lawyer Bob made the good point that accusations should stem from a thorough knowledge of the situation (and he had the impression, rightly or wrongly, that some did not have all of the details).  Lawyer Bob was perfectly respectful with his point, in my humble opinion.

If you want to see the type of thing people for some reason today call "hatred" just have a look at the responses to Lawyer Bob, where he is ridiculed, attacked, and unfairly parodied.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The recordings are publicly available. Anyone who would seriously suggest an "out of context" argument in light of that deserves some ridicule ("attacked?" come on, now) and parody.

He brought it on himself (if he's really a lawyer, then all the more reason to make fun of his incompetence ) by broadcasting his ignorance of the situation.

[Bryan]

Strife767, on Dec 25 2006, 03:23 PM, wrote:

The recordings are publicly available. Anyone who would seriously suggest an "out of context" argument in light of that deserves some ridicule ("attacked?" come on, now) and parody.

You're saying that since recordings are publicly available, therefore nobody making comments on these discussion boards could have taken Paszkiewicz's statements out of context?

Are you serious, or was your initial "lol" meant to convey the hilarity of what you wrote subsequently?

He brought it on himself (if he's really a lawyer, then all the more reason to make fun of his incompetence ) by broadcasting his ignorance of the situation.

Heh. You really don't think that anyone has taken Paszkiewicz's statements out of context, then?

[Guest Guest]

Strife767, on Dec 25 2006, 03:23 PM, wrote:

The recordings are publicly available. Anyone who would seriously suggest an "out of context" argument in light of that deserves some ridicule ("attacked?" come on, now) and parody.

You're saying that since recordings are publicly available, therefore nobody making comments on these discussion boards could have taken Paszkiewicz's statements out of context?

Are you serious, or was your initial "lol" meant to convey the hilarity of what you wrote subsequently?

He brought it on himself (if he's really a lawyer, then all the more reason to make fun of his incompetence ) by broadcasting his ignorance of the situation.

Heh.  You really don't think that anyone has taken Paszkiewicz's statements out of context, then?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bryan - despite the idiocy of what Strife had to say (or how he said it), I think that Lawyer Bob really should have listened to the audio prior to opening a thread. I have read most of your posts - and you make some valid arguments (which Strife has been unable to do ... much to the dismay of the rest of us Matthew supporters). However, I think that even you would have to agree that - at this point, with all that's been said and done to date - taking the time to open a new thread WITHOUT taking the time to acquaint yourself with the issues in their entirety is a little lazy at best, and at worst undermines the defense of Mr. P that you and others have been trying to establish. Do you agree or is there a point of view that I am not considering?

[Bryan]

Bryan - despite the idiocy of what Strife had to say (or how he said it), I think that Lawyer Bob really should have listened to the audio prior to opening a thread.

Maybe I don't see opening a thread as that big of a deal.

I have read most of your posts - and you make some valid arguments (which Strife has been unable to do ... much to the dismay of the rest of us Matthew supporters).  However, I think that even you would have to agree that - at this point, with all that's been said and done to date - taking the time to open a new thread WITHOUT taking the time to acquaint yourself with the issues in their entirety is a little lazy at best, and at worst undermines the defense of Mr. P that you and others have been trying to establish.

Yeah, I think that ideally LB should have judged the comments from the audio (or at least a transcript.

On the other hand, I don't assume that he was aware of the availability of the recordings or transcripts. Frequently those sorts of things do not surface in the public.

Review my initial post and you'll see ("rightly or wrongly") that I did not offer unqualified support for LB. I think his tone was respectful, though, so I saw no need for people to jump all over him.

He was well-meaning and apparently underinformed regarding the subject matter.

I can think of quite a few people who should be jumped all over before Lawyer Bob on these boards.

Do you agree or is there a point of view that I am not considering?

Your point is reasonable, but this thread is so peripheral to the main issues that I'd just as soon see it sink a few pages into the background.

Cheers.