Who was educated?

[Guest Satan Rules 666]

Paskiewicz is a history teacher, Bryan. Why is he talking about creationism and evolution in the first place? hmm?

[Guest jean]

"so don't even go there. And if you actually spent the time to think about my post for 5 seconds after reading it, you would have realized that . . . .

So relax - take a deep breath - and please read more carefully in the future."

I wasn't responding to the particulars of the latter half of your post; rather, I was challenging the initial and general distaste for Matthew's deliberate strategy, which I feel is necessary. I merely used the term you engaged (I didn't necessarily think you were weighing in one way or another on this matter, nor do I care) as a springboard for discussion about the value of overt action on this front.

But the idea here that, because you have read historical papers, precludes anyone else from discussing them ("don't even go there" ??? Ah, the dulcet tones of pop culture!) -- is contemptible. You've got the last word on this stuff, have you? You'll control the debate? A glimpse into a big ego, further demonstrated by bizarrely parsing my post, looking for you, you, you. I do read carefully (as a university professor) but given the venue I'm hardly accountable for every self-congratulatory sentence you write.

Back to what should be the focus of this thread: my best to the LaClair family from afar. Stay strong. I'll check back here next time your suit hits the news.

[Bryan]

Bryan, I know you've made up your mind long ago on this matter and are now impervious to facts, but this is a simple rule of logic.

The statement "Evolution is as faith-based as religion" is not objective; it's opinion. Moreover, it's a breathtakingly stupid opinion, since it's so easily refuted by facts.

One question:

Whom are you quoting?

Now, assuming that Mr. P is NOT blindingly stupid, why would he say something so clearly false?

You tell me the source of your quotation, and then we'll talk about true and false.

[Guest Guest]

For what it's worth, Paszkiewicz himself said in the meeting that he didn't speak/teach during those days with Matthew in class any differently than he had the past 15 years. I'd bet Paszkiewicz really wasn't planning on having irrefutable evidence of his words in Matthew's backpack as he said that--it comes off as really condemning to him.

Also, I have spoken to people who either had him in class, or had run-ins with him outside the classroom, and these people displayed _zero_ surprise when they first learned of the issue from me. That says a lot too, I think...it's a bad sign.

Matthew mentioned at the meeting Paszkiewicz's tendency to 'delve' into religion in just the way you described. If you missed it, maybe give the recording of the meeting a(nother?) listen.

Unfortunately, the evidence seems to point to this not being a 'fluke' in the least. Apparently, the Christian majority in Kearny have given him the feeling over the years that he can spout off on his religion as much as he wants without consequences.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I imagine that most of us aren't always on guard about what we say - a lesson learned well by Mr. P, I'd expect.

So let me get this straight ... Matthew gets placed in Mr. P's class. Matthew hears of Mr. P's reputation as a preacher in the classroom. Matthew sits through a couple of days and hears enough to begin recording. Matthew records the discussion.

For a moment, let's forget about everything that happened subsequent to the date of recording. Clearly, no student (Matthew included) has an affirmative obligation to report a teacher for preaching in class. Nevertheless, it would seem that there was enough "chatter" (to pilfer a CIA term) about his tendency to preach, that Matthew was prepared to record within a couple of days of sitting in his class. Which begs the question, if Matthew had heard enough and learned enough about this in just the first couple of days, where was/were (in decreasing order of culpability):

1. The Department Head;

2. Other faculty members;

3. The administration; and

4. The school board?

[Guest Guest]

This teacher is known to espouse his religious views in class. When my daughter's friends heard Matthew had been assigned to this teacher, they laughed and said many of them refer to him as Pastor Paszkiewicz because he preaches in class. One of Katie's friends has told us that they would repeatedly get him off his religious rants by bringing up politics --- in either case they didn't have to do much work that day. Several students asked for transfers out of his class because of his preaching over the years. So they tell us.

As for what he did in class, Mr. P brought up religious subjects one after another on his own.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Years of questionable conduct which undoubtedly had to reach the attention of SOMEONE in the department, factuly, administration and/or school board. And yet it is YOUR problem to correct this now.

As you are closer to this than I - do you know if there is was an existing formal policy about discussing religion in the classroom? And is there one today?

[Guest Guest]

"so don't even go there.  And if you actually spent the time to think about my post for 5 seconds after reading it, you would have realized that . . . .

So relax - take a deep breath - and please read more carefully in the future."

I wasn't responding to the particulars of the latter half of your post; rather, I was challenging the initial  and general distaste for Matthew's deliberate strategy, which I feel is necessary.  I merely used the term you engaged (I didn't necessarily think you were weighing in one way or another on this matter, nor do I care) as a springboard for discussion about the value of overt action on this front.

But the idea here that, because you have read historical papers, precludes anyone else from discussing them ("don't even go there" ???  Ah, the dulcet tones of pop culture!) -- is contemptible.  You've got the last word on this stuff, have you?  You'll control the debate?  A glimpse into a big ego, further demonstrated by bizarrely parsing my post, looking for you, you, you.  I do read carefully (as a university professor) but given the venue I'm hardly accountable for every self-congratulatory sentence you write.

Back to what should be the focus of this thread:  my best to the LaClair family from afar.  Stay strong.  I'll check back here next time your suit hits the news.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You replied to my post and, in no uncertain terms, suggested that I consider the principles of our founding fathers. It was in your arrogance that you - either unwittingly or overtly - implied that I had little knowledge of them. Don't backpeddle now - if you're going to call someone out on a point, you'd best be prepared for a retort (perhaps you are not adequately prepared for such a thing in the controlled environment of a university, but in the real world such responses are commonplace). Your attempts to slink away and pretend that you were not critical of my initial comments (while trying to discredit me through the use of terms such as "big ego" and "self-congratulatory") reveal much more about you than you realize. I would suggest that - in the future - you either take the time to read a post thoroughly before trashing the author, or you refrain from critical comments altogether as you are clearly too sensitive for a strong response.

[Guest Guest]

One question:

Whom are you quoting?

You tell me the source of your quotation, and then we'll talk about true and false.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There's an old saying on Washington..."It's not the crime, but the cover-up that'll get you"..or something to that effect.

I believe that may be what we have here concerning Mr.P and Matthew. This whole mess could have been over and done with if the adults in this matter had just acted as such, took thier lumps and moved on.

[Strife767]

One question:

Whom are you quoting?

(it's paraphrasing, don't get your panties in a twist)

...evolution is based on faith, too.

Read it and weep.

[WilliamK]

The statement "Evolution is as faith-based as religion" is not objective; it's opinion. Moreover, it's a breathtakingly stupid opinion, since it's so easily refuted by facts.

One question:

Whom are you quoting?

Now, assuming that Mr. P is NOT blindingly stupid, why would he say something so clearly false?

You tell me the source of your quotation, and then we'll talk about true and false.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It was not Mr. P's words, but a paraphrase of Paul's assessment of Mr. P's position. That's what you're getting at with this question, isn't it?

But regardless of the source, is this not the idea (even if not the exact words) that you were referring to when you said "Paszkiewicz is correct about it. It's about an objective an observation as one could make."? That rather looks like both an agreement with the idea, and an implied agreement that Paul's paraphrase is a fair representation of Paszkiewicz's position.

It appears to me that Calybos' post is entirely honest, (independent of whether it is a compelling or correct) and that your insinuation with the leading question about the source of the quote is anything but.

[Bryan]

Bryan said: "Paszkiewicz is correct about it. It's about an objective an observation as one could make."

apparently in response to "Pasziewicz placed both creationism and evolution in the same category:  faith-based beliefs."

Okay, I checked back on this, because usually Bryan specializes in slicing and dicing some small point to death.  Pettifogging is his forte.

Thanks for the personal attack. It's always good to include one of those before you attempt to address an argument.

We're on a whole 'nother level here.  Bryan, surely you don't mean to say that the theory of evolution, buttressed by thousands of published academic articles and evidence from multiple scientific disicplines including biology, genetics, paleontology, geology, archeology (etc, etc), is FAITH-BASED?

What is it about inductive reasoning and epistemology that I need to explain to you?

http://www.westga.edu/~rlane/political/lecture_Mill3.html

Every belief is ultimately based on faith. Each system of though starts with unproven axioms. Reason allows inductive support of a worldview framework, but it is basic to epistemology that absolute certainty is illusory.

And you call this observation, absurd on its face, "objective"?

Well, yeah, if you insist on shearing away the context ("about a objective an observation as one can make").

What is it with you skeptics/secularists and your obsession with taking things out of context?

As I pointed out in another thread, Bryan, words have meaning.

Technically, no, words do not have meaning. Words are simply symbols, and we can attach any meaning we like to them. I can say "floor" when I refer to the ceiling, and "floor" effectively means ceiling, though you correctly pointed out that I might have difficult communicating what I mean if somebody doesn't interpret the symbol along the same lines as me.

Science is not faith.  Faith is not science.  They are two very different ways of apprehending reality.  Full stop, end of story.

It would take fewer words and make you look less hilariously pompous if you'd just shorten the above to "I really don't know much about epistemology."

Claiming that they are the same is nonsense in the most literal sense of the word.

So, with Leigh's excellent logic we can take

science is based on faith

and magically convert it to

faith=science

Looks like a straw man to me.

Why do you lot have so much trouble with having fallacies in your arguments?

[Mroberts3]

Also, I have spoken to people who either had him in class, or had run-ins with him outside the classroom, and these people displayed _zero_ surprise when they first learned of the issue from me. That says a lot too, I think...it's a bad sign.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bingo!

Strife, in one sentence (ok, 2) you have struck the very foundation here.

See, as bad as the taped incidents are, they can only go so far. Show that the tapes are not unique, but simply another day (3?) in the 14 year? pattern of Mr. P's behavior and he is in some serious hot water. If these tapes don't convince a judge (or a voting public) of what Mr. P has been up to, reams of depositions should.

If it can be shown that Matthew was simply the first student willing to stand up to what had been going on for years, Mr. P and the BoE will most certainly wish they had dealt with the matter appropriately when it first came up.

P.S.

Strife, what is your relation to the people you talked to? Are you a KHS parent/student, alum etc?

[Calybos]

One question:

Whom are you quoting?

You tell me the source of your quotation, and then we'll talk about true and false.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Evolution is based on faith" is what Mr. P said. I paraphrased... so I supposed you'll plunge into yet another semantics argument to dodge the fact that Mr. P's opinion is

1. Clearly false

and

2. Clearly religion-driven?

Of course you will. Hair-splitting to avoid the issue is your specialty.

[Guest Guest]

It was humorous to say the least listening to Mr. Paszkiewicz's right-wing attorney trying to defend his client's behavior at the Board meeting on Tuesday evening. One the arguments he made was that Matthew was educated in Mr. Paszkiewicz's class on the days Mr. Paszkiewicz was preaching religion. It was and is an education, but hardly the one Mr. Paszkiewicz seems to have intended.

The irony is that Mr. Paszkiewicz was the one who raised every one of the subjects that led to his infamous "you belong in hell" remark. The discussion began with Matthew pointing out (in response to Mr. Paszkiewicz's complaint that he cannot read from the Bible in class) that the purpose of public education is to teach objective truths, not the personal opinions of individual teachers. Matthew is entirely correct. Mr. Paszkiewicz dogmatically contradicted public policy statements by most if not all fifty state legislatures, and established law, in declaring definititely that the purpose of public education is to provide an education for people who cannot afford it, and nothing more. That statement is incorrect legally and in terms of public policy.

Matthew then challenged Mr. Paszkiewicz, asking "what if some students don't believe in the Bible." It was then that Mr. Paszkiewicz brought up evolution, and then the big bang, both of which he dismissed in favor of biblical creationism --- this time not only contrary to established science, of which he obviously knows very little, but in direct violation of law per the US Constitution.

That led to a discussion on the beginning of the world, during which Mr. Paszkiewicz yet again used the opportunity to proselytize his religious views --- yet another violation of the US Constitution and New Jersey law.

This eventually led to Matthew challenging Mr. Paszkiewicz with the question: why would a loving god ever allow anyone, under any circumstances, to be tormented forever. Perhaps Mr. Paszkiewicz is not accustomed to that question. Many of the students seem taken aback by it, too. I think it's an excellent question, one the student has every right to ask. The problem isn't whether Matthew liked or agreed with the answer; the problem is that the teacher had no right legally or ethically to be expressing his opinions in the first place --- not in a public school classroom in which he is the teacher. Like it or don't like it, but that is the law, and it is well settled.

Ironically, Mr. Paszkiewicz complained in class after Matthew complained about his conduct that a good education "takes you out of your comfort zone." He is correct. However, I suggest that it was Mr. Paszkiewicz who was taken out of his comfort zone by Matthew's questions. Whether he learned anything is another matter. To learn, one must have an open mind. So far, we see no evidence of that from Mr. Paszkiewicz or his supporters.

A question for Mr. Paszkiewicz and his supporters: Why is it that the only people who are supposed to have an open mind are the ones you don't agree with?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am glad you find this funny. You continue to take words out of context. Someone might also find it necessary to use your words against you as well. There are two interesting facts: One this very website you said it was not your intent to sue, so what do you do? Initiate all the paperwork to sue.

I do not find that funny and I certainly hope every citizen in Kearny file a slanderous counter lawsuit against you.

The second is your battle cry as you claim you are being persecuted. As regards to the "belong in hell" speech, if listening to the tape in Mr. Soma's office, it was clear that it was your son's intent to discredit him before he even took the class. Your son admitted in Soma's office that he did have other teachers discuss religion in class. Why didn't he go after the other teachers who talked about religion in class? Also why didn't your son talk to the teacher about the incident instead of first going to the press? Your son admitted he didn't. All the "normal" steps that a "normal" student would have taken your son avoided to get to the press.

And you wonder why your son has no friends. Students tell me he was a loner way before this incident happened anyway, so that is no surprise.

It doesn't matter what you think anymore because the whole town is on to what you are about.

It's nice to know what comes around, goes around.

[Guest Guest]

This teacher is known to espouse his religious views in class. When my daughter's friends heard Matthew had been assigned to this teacher, they laughed and said many of them refer to him as Pastor Paszkiewicz because he preaches in class. One of Katie's friends has told us that they would repeatedly get him off his religious rants by bringing up politics --- in either case they didn't have to do much work that day. Several students asked for transfers out of his class because of his preaching over the years. So they tell us.

As for what he did in class, Mr. P brought up religious subjects one after another on his own.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As you so fondly post here telling you have proof, where is the list of names of the "several" students asking for transfers. It would be in their records if they requested transfers which I am sure you have. Both my nephews have had him and said we was one of the best teachers they ever had. This story comes such a long way from your initial iteration of it where Matthew unwillingly went into his class and was shocked at the religious comments and references. I am glad that ***** is doing well in *****. She was lucky to escape you. Now you are even referring to Him as Pastor here. Classy. He brought up religious comments at the insistance of your son check the tapes. Thats what teachers do. They answer questions.

KOTW Note: The above post was edited for content.

[Guest Paul]

As you so fondly post here telling you have proof, where is the list of names of the "several" students asking for transfers.  It would be in their records if they requested transfers which I am sure you have.  Both my nephews have had him and said we was one of the best teachers they ever had.   This story comes such a long way from your initial iteration of it where Matthew unwillingly went into his class and was shocked at the religious comments and references.  I am glad that ***** is doing well in ****.  She was lucky to escape you.  Now you are even referring to Him as Pastor here.  Classy.  He brought up religious comments at the insistance of your son check the tapes.  Thats what teachers do. They answer questions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is there no end to your nastiness? Shame on you.

As for the only substantive comment in your post, teachers answer appropriate questions within the bounds of their subject matter usually. If a student asked a teacher what are his favorite sexual positions, may he answer? Stop the nonsense. Paszkiewicz was wrong, and he got caught. You just don't like the outcome.

[Strife767]

Bingo!

Strife, in one sentence (ok, 2) you have struck the very foundation here.

See, as bad as the taped incidents are, they can only go so far. Show that the tapes are not unique, but simply another day (3?) in the 14 year? pattern of Mr. P's behavior and he is in some serious hot water. If these tapes don't convince a judge (or a voting public) of what Mr. P has been up to, reams of depositions should.

If it can be shown that Matthew was simply the first student willing to stand up to what had been going on for years, Mr. P and the BoE will most certainly wish they had dealt with the matter appropriately when it first came up.

Yup.

P.S.

Strife, what is your relation to the people you talked to? Are you a KHS parent/student, alum etc?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Alumnus--those I've spoken to went to school with me.

[Strife767]

I am glad you find this funny. You continue to take words out of context. Someone might also find it necessary to use your words against you as well. There are two interesting facts: One this very website you said it was not your intent to sue, so what do you do? Initiate all the paperwork to sue.

The Board and Paszkiewicz leave no other choice. They're unwilling to do the right thing, so looks like they'll have to get a judge to force them to. It's sad...and both Paul and I (no doubt Matthew as well, though he hasn't said so explicitly) wish it wouldn't come to that...but some people are just too stubborn to realize how hopeless their case is.

I do not find that funny and I certainly hope every citizen in Kearny file a slanderous counter lawsuit against you.

Uh, do you even know the legal definition of slander? Apparently not, from the above statement.

The second is your battle cry as you claim you are being persecuted.

What would you call the majority of a community getting mad at him and even blatantly slandering (pay attention, this is me using the word correctly) both he and his son for doing the right thing and exposing a teacher who is doing unconstitutional, irresponsible, and unethical things in the classroom?! I'm sure you would have loved for Paszkiewicz to have gotten away with it, but face it--he's been caught. He'll have to face the music, as will the Board for trying to sweep the issue under the rug.

As regards to the "belong in hell" speech, if listening to the tape in Mr. Soma's office, it was clear that it was your son's intent to discredit him before he even took the class.

This is irrelevant. If Paszkiewicz was doing his job properly, there would be nothing to discredit him with; did you ever think about that? By this logic, you would look down on a cop for deliberately looking for crime.

Your son admitted in Soma's office that he did have other teachers discuss religion in class. Why didn't he go after the other teachers who talked about religion in class?

Because they talked about religion in the appropriate context(s), instead of preaching their personal religion to the class. You are making it obvious that you do not know the difference between these two things.

Also why didn't your son talk to the teacher about the incident

Matthew said in the meeting that he went 'over' Paszkiewicz because he felt he couldn't trust him. Well, guess what? Paszkiewicz proved him 100% right! Paszkiewicz LIED and denied much of what he said, and if it wasn't for Matthew's proof, there is no doubt the teacher would have been trusted over the complaint of a singular student.

instead of first going to the press?

This is false. "Going to the press" happened nowhere near first. In case you didn't notice, the media didn't catch wind of the events until over a month after they occurred, including the meeting.

Your son admitted he didn't.  All the "normal" steps that a "normal" student would have taken your son avoided to get to the press.

And you wonder why your son has no friends.  Students tell me he was a loner way before this incident happened anyway, so that is no surprise.

Want to tell me what this has to do with anything? Are a student's complaints less legitimate depending on how many people support him? What a stupid suggestion.

It doesn't matter what you think anymore because the whole town is on to what you are about.

"The whole town" has no idea what they're even sticking up for--all they perceive is an attack on their religion which isn't there, and they are mostly blindly supporting Paszkiewicz with jerking knees. It's depressing to see so many people oblivious to the law and the Constitution, and willing to ATTACK a(n apparently) lone high schooler who isn't.

It's nice to know what comes around, goes around.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If I believed in karma, I would agree. Paszkiewicz's idiotic stubbornness is going to cost him and his town, who are sadly mostly blind supporters, dearly. He should be ashamed to be so oblivious; he TEACHES US HISTORY, for crying out loud! If ANYBODY should know better, it should be him. But no, no apology, no remorse, and he has the guts to insist he did nothing wrong. He's got more guts than brains--a lesson all of his apologists in Kearny will have to swallow soon enough.

[Curious in VA]

The former. Matthew had heard that this teacher misused the classroom to preach, but only began recording after hearing it for himself for two days, and recognizing how far out of line it was. He began recording on the third day.

I thought it was rather cheap, by the way, and completely irrelevant, that Matthew missed a week of school. Paszkiewicz seemed to be trying to make him feel as though he was somehow to blame for being out ill a week. This was part of a larger attempt to bully and intimidate the student into backing down. I find that thoroughly disgusting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul, I apologize since you apparently took the "out of school a week" comment as something other than a statement. It was not my intent to be "rather cheap." I was trying to set the stage for my questions in order to understand how often the teacher spoke about religion based on the amount of time the student spent in the class. I was also trying to understand if the student heard these discussions prior to recording or was recording simply based off the rumors he had heard prior to the school year. The tapes are, what they are and the issue has been documented. My questions were/are not relevant to the tapings, but simply for my own curiosity.

[an American in Texas]

Bryan said :"So, with Leigh's excellent logic we can take

science is based on faith

and magically convert it to

faith=science"

Dragging in epistemology avails you nothing. (And yes, I know quite a lot about it; I had planned to enter seminary last year, and epistemology is a big topic in theology.)

Your final point should stand alone.

Bryan believes that science is based on faith.

And that is simply not true.

Faith is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." In the world of faith, our hearts, beliefs, and hopes are personal. They're part of a unique private reality that can't be reproduced by any other individual.

This is the diametric opposite of the observable, which is the realm of science. Science is our communal endeavor to create a mutually comprehensible shared reality through which we can understand the natural world. In the scientific world, evidence MUST be reproduceable or demonstrable by others -- or it's not evidence at all.

See the contrasts?

science - faith

external - internal

shared - unique

observable - unseen

In my experience, working scientists tend to be at least methodological materialists, if not philosophical materialists. In less fancy language, they're interested in the material, physical world. They spend very little time (if any) considering epistemology. They will sure tell you in a hurry that what they do is not "faith-based." And the majority of us will agree with them.

Leigh

[Guest Paul]

Well, I imagine that most of us aren't always on guard about what we say - a lesson learned well by Mr. P, I'd expect.

So let me get this straight ... Matthew gets placed in Mr. P's class.  Matthew hears of Mr. P's reputation as a preacher in the classroom.  Matthew sits through a couple of days and hears enough to begin recording.  Matthew records the discussion.

For a moment, let's forget about everything that happened subsequent to the date of recording.  Clearly, no student (Matthew included) has an affirmative obligation to report a teacher for preaching in class.  Nevertheless, it would seem that there was enough "chatter" (to pilfer a CIA term) about his tendency to preach, that Matthew was prepared to record within a couple of days of sitting in his class.  Which begs the question, if Matthew had heard enough and learned enough about this in just the first couple of days, where was/were (in decreasing order of culpability):

1.  The Department Head;

2.  Other faculty members;

3.  The administration; and

4.  The school board?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They're in the same place they have been since we brought this to their attention: sitting on their behinds doing nothing except shooting the messenger; and since this became public: running for cover.

[Guest Paul]

Years of questionable conduct which undoubtedly had to reach the attention of SOMEONE in the department, factuly, administration and/or school board.  And yet it is YOUR problem to correct this now.

As you are closer to this than I - do you know if there is was an existing formal policy about discussing religion in the classroom?  And is there one today?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Board of Education is in the process of adopting one now. All it does is conform to the law, which they are obligated to follow anyway. I swear, this is like watching the Keystone Kops.

[Guest Paul]

I am glad you find this funny. You continue to take words out of context. Someone might also find it necessary to use your words against you as well. There are two interesting facts: One this very website you said it was not your intent to sue, so what do you do? Initiate all the paperwork to sue. 

I do not find that funny and I certainly hope every citizen in Kearny file a slanderous counter lawsuit against you. 

The second is your battle cry as you claim you are being persecuted.  As regards to the "belong in hell" speech, if listening to the tape in Mr. Soma's office, it was clear that it was your son's intent to discredit him before he even took the class.  Your son admitted in Soma's office that he did have other teachers discuss religion in class. Why didn't he go after the other teachers who talked about religion in class?  Also why didn't your son talk to the teacher about the incident instead of first going to the press?  Your son admitted he didn't.  All the "normal" steps that a "normal" student would have taken your son avoided to get to the press. 

And you wonder why your son has no friends.  Students tell me he was a loner way before this incident happened anyway, so that is no surprise. 

It doesn't matter what you think anymore because the whole town is on to what you are about.

It's nice to know what comes around, goes around.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is a difference between discussing religion as a historical matter in class and a teacher expressing his personal religious views. Your side keeps making the argument that religion is part of history, which is true, so why is it that when Matthew makes the same argument you object?

The reason Matt didn't talk to the teacher first is that it was obvious that the teacher was engaging in systematic behavior that had been going on for a long time. Therefore, he had to be reported. Apply the same analysis to any habitual offender, you'll see the actions Matthew took were entirely reasonable. With long-standing behavior, you don't go to the individual; you report the behavior.

And we didn't go to the press first. We kept this within the school system for a month, taking it to the press only after it was obvious that the school district was deliberately ignoring us.

I do not believe for a second that the majority of Kearny citizens support what this teacher did, or what this administration is doing. Many may not care, but the people who understand these issues are uniformly on our side. Did you see the Herald last week? That paper interviewed students from other towns in the area, and every one of them was on Matthew's side. When many of the students who are now shunning Matthew go to college, they will realize they took the wrong side on this, and they will have regrets.

[Bryan]

(it's paraphrasing, don't get your panties in a twist)

Paraphrases do not belong within quotation marks.

Unless, of course, you're directly quoting somebody else's paraphrase.

Read it and weep.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The accurate quotation is a true statement, and the so-called "paraphrase" differs substantially in content.

That's the stuff of which lies are made.

"Evolution is as faith-based as religion"

"evolution is based on faith"

Hurray for "paraphrasing."

[Guest Guest]

Is there no end to your nastiness? Shame on you.

As for the only substantive comment in your post, teachers answer appropriate questions within the bounds of their subject matter usually. If a student asked a teacher what are his favorite sexual positions, may he answer? Stop the nonsense. Paszkiewicz was wrong, and he got caught. You just don't like the outcome.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mr. Paszkiewicz answered all your son's question except the burn in hell one and thats why you are wrong. I have read this mornings Observer and the tide is turning against you so I am loving the outcome. And what does your favorite sexual position have to do with this? Is that part of your medical malpractice? The Observer is in it for their popularity for their sales and since the tide is turning against you, toward the side that is right, I am afraid it is you that doen't like the outcome.

[an American in Texas]

For Bryan -- a philosopher talks about epistemology and science:

http://www.evolutionvscreationism.info/Evo...Scientists.html

In video #8, Dr. Barbara Forrest discusses epistemology. The discussion continues in videos #9 and #10. She speaks of case law and the Constitution, including Kitzmiller, in video #10.

Dr. Forrest's curriculum vitae is available here:

http://www2.selu.edu/Academics/Depts/HIPS/forrest.html

By the way, this video series is an excellent intro to the creationism vs. evolution controversy.

Leigh