Defiant Strife

[Bryan]

I defy you to show 'context' leading up to the first quote in my signature that shows that Paszkiewicz is 'answering a question about what the Bible says,' as he often claimed in the meeting his religious comments were, or doing anything else other than exactly what the quote portrays. Go ahead, copy and paste from the transcript the question he was answering in my quote.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First quotation in the signature:

David Paszkiewicz preaching in class: "...we can't disagree with [God] on salvation...if you reject his gift of salvation, you're going where you belong...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!...God himself sent his only son to die...and if I reject that, then it really is, then to Hell with me." --David Paszkiewicz,

http://dranger.com/classtranscript.html

Context from the Dranger transcript, bold emphasis added:

LaClaire: But for example, wouldn't something like Noah's Ark be an

example of a mistake by God? Because, at least from what I know of the

Bible, because he had to destroy, start over. In my understanding of

God in the Bible is that he's all (something falls) - oh that doesn't

sound good - oops! - he uh, he doesn't make any mistakes, right? He

doesn't make any mistakes. God. Doesn't make any mistakes. Why would

he have to start over?

Student O1: That was called free will by humans.

LaClaire: Free will.

Teacher: Free will works this way, guys. And uh, we've probably got

the bell ringing sometime. Suppose you were God. A God of your own

choice. Or let's relate it to a marriage. Let's suppose that the

person that marries you one day, was programmed to marry you. Not

programmed to marry you, but programmed to love you. And it

automatically always said yes, and it automatically met your needs,

and it was an automaton.

Student P1: Boring!

Teacher: It would be boring. And the love would not be real. It would

not be real. It has to be a choice, initiated by you. When God created

man, he gave him free will. He could have very easily wound us up like

robots and said "serve me" like the angels. But he's a good God, he's

a holy God, and the choice is up to you. You can reciprocate properly

to the very one that gave you life, or you don't have to, I love you

that much, the choice is yours.

LaClaire: Let's say that you disagree [with God]. Let's say that

maybe, in God's eyes, you have done something wrong. If you go to

Hell, that would mean that you would burn and suffer forever. Now,

hang on, let me think about this for a second. You have an all-loving

God. Why would God give up on a human being after just one lifetime?

As a parent, if your child did something wrong, if your child did

something terrible, would you throw them in an oven and leave them

there forever?

Teacher: I also didn't die for them. (going to another student) What's

your response?

Student 2: Isn't there, like, the whole thing about going to heaven

and hell, isn't there - I forget what the name of the place is...

LaClaire: Purgatory.

Student 2: Where there's a place where you go beforehand to like,

Student 3: ...a second chance...

Student 2: Yeah, like that would be your second chance.

Teacher: See, I don't mean to step on anybody's toes; I know a lot of

you believe in purgatory; I don't.

Student 4: Neither do I.

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.

LaClaire: But would you still do that to your child? If your child

disagreed with you, if your child let's say, lied to you about

something very important, and you were very angry at them for the

moment. Would you throw your child in a burning oven for eternity?

Teacher: No I wouldn't, but neither does God. Because we disagree with

God on many issues, and we're treated like we're all his children, and

he does things to try and draw us back. But we can't disagree with him

on salvation. Either he paid the price or he didn't - if you reject

his gift of salvation, you're going where you belong.

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

It should be exceptionally plain that Paszkiewicz through this point is explaining a Christian view of a philosophical problem introduced by a student, not threatening the class with hellfire.

There's more in Strife's disjointed quotation of Paszkiewicz, of course.

This segment picks up where the other one left off (again, bold emphasis added).

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 ...

Paszkiewicz offers respect for young LaClair's view, then gives his own perspective, in keeping with mainstream Christian thought.

In my view, it should be okay for Communist or a Muslim to affirm his beliefs in the same type of context.

Mr. LaClair might agree to let the Communist offer his opinions (I won't speak for LaClair on that, however), but not the Muslim because he doesn't want the Muslim to contradict Paul's religion of secular humanism.

I'm not quite as terrified of free speech as LaClair is.

[Guest Paul]

First quotation in the signature:

David Paszkiewicz preaching in class: "...we can't disagree with [God] on salvation...if you reject his gift of salvation, you're going where you belong...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!...God himself sent his only son to die...and if I reject that, then it really is, then to Hell with me." --David Paszkiewicz,

http://dranger.com/classtranscript.html

Context from the Dranger transcript, bold emphasis added:

LaClaire: But for example, wouldn't something like Noah's Ark be an

example of a mistake by God? Because, at least from what I know of the

Bible, because he had to destroy, start over. In my understanding of

God in the Bible is that he's all (something falls) - oh that doesn't

sound good - oops! - he uh, he doesn't make any mistakes, right? He

doesn't make any mistakes. God. Doesn't make any mistakes. Why would

he have to start over?

Student O1: That was called free will by humans.

LaClaire: Free will.

Teacher: Free will works this way, guys. And uh, we've probably got

the bell ringing sometime. Suppose you were God. A God of your own

choice. Or let's relate it to a marriage. Let's suppose that the

person that marries you one day, was programmed to marry you. Not

programmed to marry you, but programmed to love you. And it

automatically always said yes, and it automatically met your needs,

and it was an automaton.

Student P1: Boring!

Teacher: It would be boring. And the love would not be real. It would

not be real. It has to be a choice, initiated by you. When God created

man, he gave him free will. He could have very easily wound us up like

robots and said "serve me" like the angels. But he's a good God, he's

a holy God, and the choice is up to you. You can reciprocate properly

to the very one that gave you life, or you don't have to, I love you

that much, the choice is yours.

LaClaire: Let's say that you disagree [with God]. Let's say that

maybe, in God's eyes, you have done something wrong. If you go to

Hell, that would mean that you would burn and suffer forever. Now,

hang on, let me think about this for a second. You have an all-loving

God. Why would God give up on a human being after just one lifetime?

As a parent, if your child did something wrong, if your child did

something terrible, would you throw them in an oven and leave them

there forever?

Teacher: I also didn't die for them. (going to another student) What's

your response?

Student 2: Isn't there, like, the whole thing about going to heaven

and hell, isn't there - I forget what the name of the place is...

LaClaire: Purgatory.

Student 2: Where there's a place where you go beforehand to like,

Student 3: ...a second chance...

Student 2: Yeah, like that would be your second chance.

Teacher: See, I don't mean to step on anybody's toes; I know a lot of

you believe in purgatory; I don't.

Student 4: Neither do I.

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.

LaClaire: But would you still do that to your child? If your child

disagreed with you, if your child let's say, lied to you about

something very important, and you were very angry at them for the

moment. Would you throw your child in a burning oven for eternity?

Teacher: No I wouldn't, but neither does God. Because we disagree with

God on many issues, and we're treated like we're all his children, and

he does things to try and draw us back. But we can't disagree with him

on salvation. Either he paid the price or he didn't - if you reject

his gift of salvation, you're going where you belong.

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

It should be exceptionally plain that Paszkiewicz through this point is explaining a Christian view of a philosophical problem introduced by a student, not threatening the class with hellfire.

There's more in Strife's disjointed quotation of Paszkiewicz, of course.

This segment picks up where the other one left off (again, bold emphasis added).

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 ...

Paszkiewicz offers respect for young LaClair's view, then gives his own perspective, in keeping with mainstream Christian thought.

In my view, it should be okay for Communist or a Muslim to affirm his beliefs in the same type of context.

Mr. LaClair might agree to let the Communist offer his opinions (I won't speak for LaClair on that, however), but not the Muslim because he doesn't want the Muslim to contradict Paul's religion of secular humanism.

I'm not quite as terrified of free speech as LaClair is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bryan's argument is disingenuous. If this was a teaching technique, Paszkiewicz would have used it to illustrate the views of other religions. Instead, he promoted one and only one religion: his.

[Strife767]

Alright Bryan, I've got some context for you, the person who is convinced Paszkiewicz did NO preaching in class, taking just from the bits you've quoted:

http://dranger.com/classtranscript.html

"When God created man, he gave him free will." <-- not if. When. He is asserting the truth of creationism by presupposing it in that statement.

That right there would be enough to claim a violation of the Constitution, but I'll go on, just to see what a quick skim will come up with:

"You can reciprocate properly to the very one that gave you life..." <-- enough of the sentence is here. Again, an assertion of truth about not only the existence of his god, but of this god being the origin of life.

"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!" <-- lots of assertions about what his god did, which presupposes this god's existence, and again violates his duty to be religiously neutral.

"we can't disagree with him on salvation. Either he paid the price or he didn't - if you reject his gift of salvation, you're going where you belong." <-- CAN'T! We CAN'T disagree with his god, he says! If one does not believe what he believes, he asserts that one will go to Hell to suffer for eternity, and what's more, one will BELONG there, according to him!

It should be exceptionally plain that Paszkiewicz through this point is explaining a Christian view of a philosophical problem introduced by a student, not threatening the class with hellfire.

You are out of your mind. Only severe brainwashing would try to rationalize away something so blatantly obvious.

"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."

Yeah, good going, Bryan. You emphasized where he basically says "it's up to you: believe, or don't and go to hell. It's your choice." How kind of him to give this classroom of kids that option!

In my view, it should be okay for Communist or a Muslim to affirm his beliefs in the same type of context.

Mr. LaClair might agree to let the Communist offer his opinions (I won't speak for LaClair on that, however),

...communism isn't a religion (and "communist" isn't supposed to be capitalized). It's a type of economy. This analogy is completely false.

but not the Muslim because he doesn't want the Muslim to contradict Paul's religion of secular humanism.

Go ahead, ask him if he would be okay with a teacher telling a classroom of kids that believing in god is foolish, for example.

Or ask me. I said a while back that I would be just as pissed off (though admittedly much more surprised, since it's inarguably a much rarer occurrence (has it ever happened...?)) if it was an atheist teacher telling kids that there is no god with the same conviction as Paszkiewicz asserted the truth of god.

Neither Paul or I nor anyone else who's talked about this issue on "Matthew's side" has ever shown any evidence of that kind of bias. Yeah, Paul "might"...just like he "might" burst into flames as I'm typing this.

I'm not quite as terrified of free speech as LaClair is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Care to explain what less than no terror is like?

[Guest Guest]

First quotation in the signature:

David Paszkiewicz preaching in class: "...we can't disagree with [God] on salvation...if you reject his gift of salvation, you're going where you belong...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!...God himself sent his only son to die...and if I reject that, then it really is, then to Hell with me." --David Paszkiewicz,

http://dranger.com/classtranscript.html

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.

...

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 ...[/color]

Paszkiewicz offers respect for young LaClair's view, then gives his own perspective, in keeping with mainstream Christian thought.

In my view, it should be okay for Communist or a Muslim to affirm his beliefs in the same type of context.

Mr. LaClair might agree to let the Communist offer his opinions (I won't speak for LaClair on that, however), but not the Muslim because he doesn't want the Muslim to contradict Paul's religion of secular humanism.

I'm not quite as terrified of free speech as LaClair is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Should be "He did everything in his power to make sure that you could go to heaven, so much so that he took your sins on his own body, suffered your pains for you, and he's saying, 'Please, accept me, believe.' If you reject that, you belong in hell."

Paszkiewicz is blending his own beliefs in with what he claims is "mainstream" Christianity, which to him apparently needs the threat of Hell in order to sell people on Heaven.

[an American in Texas]

Well, folks, there it all is. Read it . . . read it ALL . . . and decide for yourself.

Bryan says this isn't preaching Christianity. I say it is.

Bryan says it's purely an example of free speech protected by the First Amendment. I say it's illegal proselytizing and clearly prohibited by establishment clause of the First Amendment.

Frankly, I am eager for the case to go to trial. The outcome is a foregone conclusion, as everyone except Bryan recognizes.

Leigh

[Guest 2smart4u]

Well, folks, there it all is.  Read it . . . read it ALL . . . and decide for yourself.

Bryan says this isn't preaching Christianity.  I say it is.

Bryan says it's purely an example of free speech protected by the First Amendment.  I say it's illegal proselytizing and clearly prohibited by establishment clause of the First Amendment.

Frankly, I am eager for the case to go to trial.  The outcome is a foregone conclusion, as everyone except Bryan recognizes.

Leigh

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Go to trial" ?? I think the courts have better things to do than entertain wackos.

[Bryan]

Bryan's argument is disingenuous.

Do tell. Was it the comprehensive use of context, or the added emphasis where I emphasized that I had added emphasis?

If this was a teaching technique, Paszkiewicz would have used it to illustrate the views of other religions.

What argument is that supposed to show as disingenuous?

Did I say that Paszkiewicz was using a "teaching technique" or words to that effect?

I can see it now:

"But for example, wouldn't something like Noah's Ark be an

example of a mistake by God? Because, at least from what I know of the

Bible, because he had to destroy, start over. In my understanding of

God in the Bible is that he's all (something falls) - oh that doesn't

sound good - oops! - he uh, he doesn't make any mistakes, right? He

doesn't make any mistakes. God. Doesn't make any mistakes. Why would

he have to start over?"

"Well, the Hindus believe in a cycle of death and rebirth, called reincarnation."

If Paszkiewicz is going to address the question, it doesn't make sense to mention any religion that makes no reference to Noah's ark.

I think that teachers should be able to address such questions and refer to their own beliefs. LaClair doesn't.

It seems disingenuous, however, for LaClair to refer to this "teaching technique" red herring.

Instead, he promoted one and only one religion: his.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The majority of his answer spoke for all the religions that place importance on the account of Noah's ark, and Noah's ark was, as I recall, the basis of the question.

Is Paszkiewicz a Jew?

There is a point where Paszkiewicz refers specifically to his own opinion on the matter, and at that point the answer is more specifically Christian in nature--which should come as no surprise. LaClair bridles at the notion of public school teachers expressing their opinions in class since he fears those opinions will be mistaken for the position of the government. I don't find that idea much of a concern for grades 11 and up.

Again, we find LaClair making an accusation that he can't seem to back up.

[Bryan]

Well, folks, there it all is.  Read it . . . read it ALL . . . and decide for yourself.

Bryan says this isn't preaching Christianity.  I say it is.

You might want to review the opening post, Leigh, for you have veered off-topic.

Strife apparently takes the position that there was nothing in the quotation to indicate that Paszkiewicz was answering a question about the Bible from a student. Strife challenged me to show otherwise. I accepted that challenge.

Apparently that's the cue for the LaClairites to crowd into the thread to change the topic.

Bryan says it's purely an example of free speech protected by the First Amendment.

I do? Quote me, then.

I say it's illegal proselytizing and clearly prohibited by establishment clause of the First Amendment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And of Strife's argument, let nothing be said.

Edited April 23, 2007 by Bryan

[Bryan]

Alright Bryan, I've got some context for you, the person who is convinced Paszkiewicz did NO preaching in class, taking just from the bits you've quoted:

http://dranger.com/classtranscript.html

Even Strife joins in on trying to change the subject.

This is hilarious.

"When God created man, he gave him free will." <-- not if. When. He is asserting the truth of creationism by presupposing it in that statement.

"I defy you to show 'context' leading up to the first quote in my signature that shows that Paszkiewicz is 'answering a question about what the Bible says,' as he often claimed in the meeting his religious comments were, or doing anything else other than exactly what the quote portrays."

That right there would be enough to claim a violation of the Constitution, but I'll go on, just to see what a quick skim will come up with:

"You can reciprocate properly to the very one that gave you life..." <-- enough of the sentence is here. Again, an assertion of truth about not only the existence of his god, but of this god being the origin of life.

"I defy you to show 'context' leading up to the first quote in my signature that shows that Paszkiewicz is 'answering a question about what the Bible says,' as he often claimed in the meeting his religious comments were, or doing anything else other than exactly what the quote portrays."

"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!" <-- lots of assertions about what his god did, which presupposes this god's existence, and again violates his duty to be religiously neutral.

"we can't disagree with him on salvation. Either he paid the price or he didn't - if you reject his gift of salvation, you're going where you belong." <-- CAN'T! We CAN'T disagree with his god, he says! If one does not believe what he believes, he asserts that one will go to Hell to suffer for eternity, and what's more, one will BELONG there, according to him!

You are out of your mind. Only severe brainwashing would try to rationalize away something so blatantly obvious.

"I defy you to show 'context' leading up to the first quote in my signature that shows that Paszkiewicz is 'answering a question about what the Bible says,' as he often claimed in the meeting his religious comments were, or doing anything else other than exactly what the quote portrays."

Yeah, good going, Bryan. You emphasized where he basically says "it's up to you: believe, or don't and go to hell. It's your choice." How kind of him to give this classroom of kids that option!

I don't think your interpretation is reasonable in light of the comment by LaClair that immediately precedes. It seems to be another example of you making things mean what you want them to mean regardless of what they say.

...communism isn't a religion (and "communist" isn't supposed to be capitalized).

(initial capital letter) a member of the Communist party or movement.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/communist

Your losing streak would make Gehrig or DiMaggio jealous.

The LaClairs also complained about Paszkiewicz preaching his politics, and Mr. LaClair himself has allowed that ideologies are a form of modern religion.

Neither Paul or I nor anyone else who's talked about this issue on "Matthew's side" has ever shown any evidence of that kind of bias. Yeah, Paul "might"...just like he "might" burst into flames as I'm typing this.

Care to explain what less than no terror is like?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You didn't read any of Paul's posts where he described Paszkiewicz's views as dangerous for the kids?

"I do mind the content of Paszkiewicz's remarks, but that's because I think the concept of hell is a destructive one, especially when (as I think most fair-minded people would acknowledge) it's always those other people who are going to spend eternity there. I just think it's a very divisive concept, and a dangerous one to the social fabric, very similar to racism."

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=40325

[Guest Paul]

Well, folks, there it all is.  Read it . . . read it ALL . . . and decide for yourself.

Bryan says this isn't preaching Christianity.  I say it is.

Bryan says it's purely an example of free speech protected by the First Amendment.  I say it's illegal proselytizing and clearly prohibited by establishment clause of the First Amendment.

Frankly, I am eager for the case to go to trial.  The outcome is a foregone conclusion, as everyone except Bryan recognizes.

Leigh

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In fairness, Leigh, I don't think Mr. Paszkiewicz gets it either. Neither does his lawyer Mr. Stratis. They don't want to get it. They want the law to serve their agenda. They're not willing to abide by the law where these issues are concerned unless they're directly threatened, e.g., by the loss of their jobs.

[Guest Guest]

In fairness, Leigh, I don't think Mr. Paszkiewicz gets it either. Neither does his lawyer Mr. Stratis. They don't want to get it. They want the law to serve their agenda. They're not willing to abide by the law where these issues are concerned unless they're directly threatened, e.g., by the loss of their jobs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So file the suit already. You may not like the outcome.

[Guest Guest]

Well, folks, there it all is.  Read it . . . read it ALL . . . and decide for yourself.

Bryan says this isn't preaching Christianity.  I say it is.

Bryan says it's purely an example of free speech protected by the First Amendment.  I say it's illegal proselytizing and clearly prohibited by establishment clause of the First Amendment.

Frankly, I am eager for the case to go to trial.  The outcome is a foregone conclusion, as everyone except Bryan recognizes.

Leigh

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For Paul's sake I hope he gets a jury full of Leighs. But I doubt it.

[Strife767]

"Go to trial" ??  I think the courts have better things to do than entertain wackos.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wacko or not, Paszkiewicz isn't really leaving the LaClairs with any other choice, unfortunately.

[Strife767]

Even Strife joins in on trying to change the subject.

This is hilarious.

Your "context" did absolutely nothing to prove that Paszkiewicz wasn't endorsing his religion, very obviously. Also, I did directly address some of the stuff you bolded, because it was especially ridiculous.

I don't think your interpretation is reasonable in light of the comment by LaClair that immediately precedes.  It seems to be another example of you making things mean what you want them to mean regardless of what they say.

More like letting you know that you've misdefined them.

(initial capital letter) a member of the Communist party or movement.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/communist

Okay, so in certain contexts, it can be correctly capitalized. My mistake.

However, that still doesn't change that it is not comparable to Islam. Here is Merriam-Webster's definitions, one for each the uncapitalized and capitalized versions of the word:

"1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed

2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d : communist systems collectively"

Your losing streak would make Gehrig or DiMaggio jealous.

The LaClairs also complained about Paszkiewicz preaching his politics, and Mr. LaClair himself has allowed that ideologies are a form of modern religion.

You didn't read any of Paul's posts where he described Paszkiewicz's views as dangerous for the kids?

His political views were dangerous not by virtue of the fact that they were political, as I'm sure you know. They're dangerous because they're untrue, and undermine real, established facts. Lying to a classroom of kids, especially, for a real-life example, to suggest to them that evolution is faith-based just like religion, obviously in an attempt to bring it 'down' to the point where they can seem equally valid, IS dangerous.

"I do mind the content of Paszkiewicz's remarks, but that's because I think the concept of hell is a destructive one, especially when (as I think most fair-minded people would acknowledge) it's always those other people who are going to spend eternity there. I just think it's a very divisive concept, and a dangerous one to the social fabric, very similar to racism."

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=40325

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I absolutely agree with Paul there. For one to firmly believe that another will meet, and indeed, deserve, unending punishment merely for not adhering to the same belief system as one does, is a very destructive mindset, and counter-productive to any kind of society that would have all people treated equally.

[Bryan]

Your "context" did absolutely nothing to prove that Paszkiewicz wasn't endorsing his religion, very obviously.

Didn't you mean to write "preaching religion"?

Also, I did directly address some of the stuff you bolded, because it was especially ridiculous.

How was it ridiculous?

More like letting you know that you've misdefined them.

Could you be specific about what was supposedly misdefined?

Okay, so in certain contexts, it can be correctly capitalized. My mistake.

Congratulations on being among the first to admit a bona fide mistake in this forum.

That counts a little bit in your favor.

However, that still doesn't change that it is not comparable to Islam.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Did I compare it to Islam?

[Guest Guest]

Bryan's argument is disingenuous. If this was a teaching technique, Paszkiewicz would have used it to illustrate the views of other religions. Instead, he promoted one and only one religion: his.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If I put my ear to this computer, I am sure I can hear a baby crying. Someone should tell LaClair his time is over. All I read on here is what Paul LaClair thinks religion should be. Maybe he should try it sometimes.

[Strife767]

If I put my ear to this computer, I am sure I can hear a baby crying.  Someone should tell LaClair his time is over.

Someone should tell you this isn't about fame. Actually, let me rephrase that--you should LISTEN when people like you are reminded over and over again that this isn't, nor ever was, some publicity stunt.

All I read on here is what Paul LaClair thinks religion should be. Maybe he should try it sometimes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He obviously has experimented or otherwise 'looked into' religion more than most of the posters here, as can be seen from what he writes.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Someone should tell you this isn't about fame. Actually, let me rephrase that--you should LISTEN when people like you are reminded over and over again that this isn't, nor ever was, some publicity stunt.

He obviously has experimented or otherwise 'looked into' religion more than most of the posters here, as can be seen from what he writes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here we go again, Strifey telling us what Paulie thinks and feels. They must be in a very "close" relationship for Strifey to have such an intimate knowledge of Paulies feelings.

[Strife767]

Here we go again, Strifey telling us what Paulie thinks and feels.

Here we go again, 2dim4words making things up as he goes along.

They must be in a very "close" relationship for Strifey to have such an intimate knowledge of Paulies feelings.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sheesh, I have gay friends who talk about this sort of thing way less than you. Maybe you ought to come out of the closet.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Here we go again, 2dim4words making things up as he goes along.

Sheesh, I have gay friends who talk about this sort of thing way less than you. Maybe you ought to come out of the closet.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sure you have gay "friends" !! LOL. Do you share a species with them too ??

[Strife767]

I'm sure you have gay "friends" !!  LOL.

Yeah, that's what I said. You could have quoted the whole sentence though, not just "friends."

Do you share a species with them too ??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Uh, yeah.

[Bryan]

Returning to the topic for a moment, which Strife seems content to bury under his important debate with 2smar ...

"I defy you to show 'context' leading up to the first quote in my signature that shows that Paszkiewicz is 'answering a question about what the Bible says,' as he often claimed in the meeting his religious comments were, or doing anything else other than exactly what the quote portrays. Go ahead, copy and paste from the transcript the question he was answering in my quote."

In the first post, I demonstrated context from the Dranger transcript that shows that the quoted material in Strife's signature was Paszkiewicz's response to a question about what the Bible says.

Strife has yet to acknowledge or address that evidence.

Instead, he has retreated to the portion of his claim regarding the supposed "preaching" that Paszkiewicz engaged in, though even on that point Strife has gone a bit flaccid, now choosing the term "endorsing his religion."

"Your "context" did absolutely nothing to prove that Paszkiewicz wasn't endorsing his religion, very obviously."

The sig line portrays Pasziewicz as "preaching" to the class, not "endorsing his religion"--are we supposed to equate preaching with endorsement?

[Strife767]

The sig line portrays Pasziewicz as "preaching" to the class, not "endorsing his religion"--are we supposed to equate preaching with endorsement?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, obviously. And the law agrees with me.

I can't bear to comment on any more of this post, because I fear I may lose a few IQ points just from reading that nonsense a second time.

[Bryan]

Yes, obviously.

Something tells me that if the situation involved a teacher claiming that the Big Bang involved no creative intelligence you would not use the term "preaching" to describe his endorsement of a religious position.

And the law agrees with me.

Where does the law equate "preaching" with "endorsement"?

I can't bear to comment on any more of this post, because I fear I may lose a few IQ points just from reading that nonsense a second time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Strife cannot be bothered to back up his claims, it appears.

[Strife767]

Something tells me that if the situation involved a teacher claiming that the Big Bang involved no creative intelligence you would not use the term "preaching" to describe his endorsement of a religious position.

This is a loaded statement. How is it any more 'religious' to say 'no creative intelligence was involved in the Big Bang' than it is to say 'no celestial magic teapots were involved in the Big Bang,' for example?

Perhaps you ought not pay so much attention to that "something" in the future.

Where does the law equate "preaching" with "endorsement"?

This reminds me of this: http://tinyurl.com/yvbz74

There comes a time when it just can't be broken down any further. If you can't see a parallel that obvious (hint: the word "endorsement" is taken as colloquially meant), I can only shrug my shoulders and hope one day you'll understand. Surely you will take this as some sort of admission of defeat, but that only underscores your problem further.

Strife cannot be bothered to back up his claims, it appears.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This coming from someone who still insists that Mr. Paszkiewicz crossed no legal lines with the stuff he said on those recordings? How ironic.