KHS Teacher Controversy

[Guest Jules]

If you are from Kearny then by now you have heard a story that has been blown WAY OUT OF PROPORTION.

A student of KHS, one Matthew LaClair has gone to the newspaper stating that a teacher has been forcing his religious views in is history class.

Now I am all for having freedom of speech, but I also believe every subject has a place and time for discussion; and religion in a history class is not that place.

HOWEVER!!!! This 16 year old CHILD, is nothing more than an attention seeking, immature person, who is also been known to "previously garnered attention for protesting Bush administration activities by refusing to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance" (the lippar blog) I will include this website at the end of my rant!

This kid thinks he is so self rightcious and claims he “was requesting an apology and correction of false and anti-scientific statements" (the lippard blog).

If you listen to the audio (which I will also supply the site to) you can clearly hear that Laclair PROVOKED the conversation, and you can hear that the teacher had responded QUITE APPROPRIATELY:

One example being:

Matthew: isn't the whole point of public schools is so that you can separate personal beliefs from teachers and administrators from non religious teachings during school, like school prayer and all that.

teacher: the purpose of public school is to provide free education for people that couldn't afford education. That’s the purpose of public school

Matthew: what would decide what religion should be taught in school, what would decide that?

teacher: no it's not about teaching, my point is it's not about teaching religion, these issues all come up in time, ( tape fades out) things get legislated and we talk in class

the public school shouldn't teach a religion but the scriptures aren't religion they are a foundation of the worlds religion, the world main religion any way.

religion is a set way of doing things

In the conversation above, taken my Matthew Laclair himself, i see no wrong doing by this teacher, i do however see constant and what seems to be "rehearsed" provoking of the topic.

I hope he is reading this right now, because I just have one question for him: What on earth was the need to go to the newspaper? Laclair stated that he had a meeting with the principle, teacher, and the head of the social studies department and at first they did not seem to believe him but then he pulled out the cd's.....which in itself violated this teachers right to privacy.

So again, my question, after laclair proved himself with the cd's why did he not wait for administrative action to take place? There was no need to go to the newspaper, and I think in doing so, this Matthew laclair just proves that he is a 16 year old high school student, and therefore has ALOT to learn before he goes off starting religious wars, and pledge of allegiance protest in the United States of America, a country that has always, and especially since 9/11 shown great pride in our ONE NATION UNDER GOD!!!!

ps: a little side note for everyone reading this who disagrees: stating your views on religion and "forcing your beliefs on someone" is two COMPLELTY DIFFERENT THINGS.

so I would like to say to everyone who agrees or disagrees, we are all here in this nation, in this community together, and my religion is Roman Catholic, so when I say GOD BLESS YOU, I’m not forcing my views, I’m using my faith to wish you health and happiness

GOD BLESS you all

PPS: if this offends anyone then tough, because I AM offended that a wonderful teacher is being persecuted by an unknowledgeable juvenile for merely stating what he believes in. Also that this kid is living in MY COUTNRY where my friends and family have fought to keep our freedom and he turns his back on our president and our flag.

lippard blog: http://lippard.blogspot.com/2006/11/public...-class-you.html

Audio:

http://www.nj.com/cgi-bin/prxy/xmedia/nph-.../classaudio.mp3

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is actually interesting that fellow American citizens do not find this wrong. Because if the teacher just made statements about Allah and quoted the Koran, you may feel mighty uncomfortable with what your children would be learning. Perhaps if the teacher praised communism, the citizens of Kearny may wish to remove the teacher from teaching in their high school. It is fine if you wish to open the public schools up to the slippery slop of "religion" but I would be inclined to think that for every teacher to insert their views in every class would be acceptable.

Let’s change some quotes from the teacher on Jesus that he made during class:

Original quote: "If you reject his gift of salvation, then you know where you belong," Mr. Paszkiewicz

New quote: If you reject Allah, then you know where you belong

Or

New quote: If you reject Zeus, then you know where you belong

Even if religion of some sort is okay for you that does not mean it is okay for everyone else. If children must attend a school 180+ days a year that is public then the school must meet the criteria of teaching only educational material (i.e. language, mathematics, science, arts, history, etc...) because this child's parents are tax payers as well. If one feels that religion is more appropriate in the class room there are a variety of private educational facilities available. The U.S. constitution does place a boundary between church and state; the public facilities are from the state. This boundary was not set up to appease only some, most of the original creators of the U.S. government strongly wanted this boundary because they knew of the dangers of not having such boundaries. I will give a short history lesson here to diverge for a moment, President John Adams remarked in his letters to Thomas Jefferson that he understood we needed a separation of church and state because he feared what his own people (Protestants) would do if they could gain control. He also was the president to sign the Treaty of Tripoli which indicated straight to the point the US government was not founded upon any religious principals. Thomas Jefferson took the Bible and cut from it every mythological reference, George Washington was a deist, Benjamin Franklin was an atheist and a man who did equally as much for this country as did Washington.

The point is simply empathy. If the shoe was on the other foot what would you think then? If the public educators spoke of the "wonders" of Allah or Shiva would your worldview still be the same? It's not "un-American" to disagree with Christianity or your government the two are separate. Scripture is not a foundation of the world religions only the Abrahamic religions but even so it offers no basis for a history lesson. Quoting scripture and stating the impact of religion historically are two different ideas, one founded in myth the other in fact.

"Religion is the masterpiece of the art of animal training, for it trains people as to how they shall think."

-Arthur Shopenhauer

[Guest Guest]

Why should Mathew and Paul speak to the teacher?

If you catch someone breaking the law, do you always feel you must speak to the lawbreaker first before you report the incident to authorities?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was not asking Paul to speak with the teacher, I was telling the guy that knows him for 30 years.

Paul and Matt missed his chance to speak with the teacher. That was the first chain of command. Got it!!!

[Guest Guest]

Grimm, on Dec 22 2006, 10:28 PM, wrote:

The teacher was in the wrong here. There is nothing that can be used to excuse his behavior. The student recorded the class without his knowledge...irrelevant. The student asked questions to lead him on....also irrelevant.

If the actions of the student are irrelevant, then you have implicitly accepted a gag on the freedom of speech in the public school classroom.

You really think that's what the constitution is about? Restricting public speech?

The people that are blaming the student should be ashamed of themselves. Those that are hiding behind the flag and the pledge should be doubly ashamed. Calling someone a traitor or unpatriotic because of what? Because he is standing up for his rights? Because unlike his teacher he respects the Constitution more then an oath to the flag? The teacher was in the wrong plain and simple and he knew he was in the wrong which is why he denied saying the things that he said.

I don't know what was said in that meeting since there is no transcript, but I can easily imagine that the teacher's words were presented in a false light.

If you don't know exactly what was said then you are being presumptuous. Should I add that you should be ashamed of yourself?

I would also like to point out to the liberals on this board that these people who support the teacher are NOT true conservatives. They are religious right fundamentalist Christians who have hi-jacked the conservative name and party.

No doubt those fundies should be ashamed of themselves for participating in our democracy.

True conservatives support the Constitution and The Bill of Rights and they don't use the power of the government to push their religious views on the citizens of this country!

How do you define "religious views"? Because the government cannot help but establish certain views that are faith-based (see, for example, the idea that freedom of speech is a good thing).

[Guest Taoist]

This teacher should be immediately fired. Dinosaurs were on the Ark? Wow. If you believe that, I'd hate to see your reaction when you find out Christmas is actually a pagan holiday. Saturnalius. Celebrated for hundreds of years before your jesus.

[Guest Patriot]

This teacher should be immediately fired. Dinosaurs were on the Ark? Wow. If you believe that, I'd hate to see your reaction when you find out Christmas is actually a pagan holiday. Saturnalius. Celebrated for hundreds of years before your jesus.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Boringgggg .

[Guest Guest]

As someone who grew up in Kearny, who still maintains strong ties to (and pays taxes in) Kearny, and who has known the teacher for over 30 years, let me just weigh in on this subject.

Although we do not communicate frequently, I have always known the teacher in this matter to be a kind, decent and honest individual - as well as a very competent teacher.

He still is all of that and more.

Why would you even doubt yourself about Mr. P. if you know him for 30 years plus?

Did you ever hear his side?

But the question that comes to my mind is why Matt did not speak to Mr P., why Matt's father did not go to him to speak to him personally? Mr. LaClair was not interested in fixing any problem and wanted to make himself known. I his done a wonderful job.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, I have not heard Dave's side. I have heard the tapes, and (in my humble opinion) I believe that Dave shouldn't have been speaking in such a manner in class. But just because I think he was wrong in this instance, and just because I don't agree with what Dave had to say, doesn't mean I think Dave is any less kind, decent or honest. And I will defend his character - and his right to be forgiven for his mistakes - the same way that I know Dave would do for me ... even if he did not agree with my positions.

As to the controversies that occurred AFTER the taping, I have always held that I do not automatically believe Matthew's version. I am withholding judgment until I hear from both sides. What I HAVE said is that if Matthew's version is true, that Dave should apologize for the events that occurred. Of course, if it turns out that Matthew's version is false, then Matthew should apologize. But, regardless of who is or isn't telling the truth, I see no reason to tar and feather the other party. As I said, we all make mistakes.

So I would submit back to you, you can support someone without supporting their opinions. I would rather surround myself with those who would disagree with me when they see fit, but who do not desert me in times of controversy, than to befriend summer patriots who disappear at times of difficulty.

[Guest Guest]

True, Mathew has offended the sensibilities of the christian fundamentalist mobs. Just like Rosa Park offended the sensibilities of the racist mobs. Mathew should wear that as a badge of honor.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes. But let's just hope that Matthew has an easier time than Rosa.

[Guest Guest]

Thank you for an excellent response. I will be most interested to know what David has to say about denying his statements in the meeting in the principal's office. I am quite certain that he did.

To one point: "But I guess I want to reserve the right to be less agreeable should the facts be different at another time (and, yes, I'm aware of how unreasonable that sounds)." I think that is entirely reasonable. Sometimes rules aren't enough. Sometimes distinctions are drawn by judgment. I am proud of Matthew's judgments in this case, as they were correct from beginning to end. In fact, people have said I advised him. I did, but he almost uniformly declined to accept my advice and did things his way --- after consulting with me in a respectful way. That makes me all the more proud of him. And to top it off, his judgments were better than mine.

If everyone exhibited your thoughtfulness, this issue would be long behind us. Thank you again for an excellent post.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just out of curiosity, what did you advise Matthew to do? Because so much of being a parent is spent tryng to help our kids to avoid harm - did you advise him to avoid the controversy? Or because when we're not simply trying to help our kids avoid harm we are trying to help them to become better people - did you advise him to pursue his beliefs?

[Guest Guest]

The "write to say Merry Christmas". 

I rest my case on this D**bA**.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So out of the whole post.. you find one typo.. and go with it. Instead of addressing the other points made? Wow... how ashamed of yourself you must.. or at least, SHOULD be.

[Guest Guest]

True, Mathew has offended the sensibilities of the christian fundamentalist mobs. Just like Rosa Park offended the sensibilities of the racist mobs. Mathew should wear that as a badge of honor.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't compare Matthews problem with God with Rosa Park. She was very religious. I find it very offensive to use this great womans name in your attack against God when she was totality devoted to God.

[Grimm]

If the actions of the student are irrelevant, then you have implicitly accepted a gag on the freedom of speech in the public school classroom.

You really think that's what the constitution is about?  Restricting public speech?

You clearly do not understand what "Freedom of Speech" stands for. It does not stand for anyone can say anything anywhere. There are some limitations such as safety...yelling fire in a crowded theater is the common example used here. Another limitation is when the speech violates the Constitution and The Bill of Rights. As an employee of the government a government school teacher can not proselytize to their students as it violates the First Amendment. The teacher is of course free to do so on their own time somewhere other then school where they no longer are wearing the hat of a government employee. If you want to interpret protecting the First Amendment as a "gag order" that is your choice but it only shows your lack of understanding of the First Amendment. Why should a teacher be afraid of their lectures being recorded if they aren't doing anything wrong? These are not private conversations we are talking about here and saying "public school classroom" is not the same as saying "public square". A more accurate description would be a "government school classroom".

I don't know what was said in that meeting since there is no transcript, but I can easily imagine that the teacher's words were presented in a false light.

If you don't know exactly what was said then you are being presumptuous.  Should I add that you should be ashamed of yourself? 

You don't know what was said but "can easily imagine that the teacher's words were presented in a false light"? Now who is being presumptuous? You can add that I should be ashamed of myself...but standing up for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and supporting those that do the same is nothing to be ashamed of.

No doubt those fundies should be ashamed of themselves for participating in our democracy. 

Participating? No! Using the government to push a religious agenda in direct violation of the Bill of Rights? Yes!

How do you define "religious views"?  Because the government cannot help but establish certain views that are faith-based (see, for example, the idea that freedom of speech is a good thing).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh things like "If you reject his gift of salvation, then you know where you belong" and "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."....you know...stuff like that. Where did you get the idea that free speech is a faith-based concept?

[Guest Guest]

I was not asking Paul to speak with the teacher, I was telling the guy that knows him for 30 years.

Paul and Matt missed his chance to speak with the teacher. That was the first chain of command. Got it!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The teacher is not the "first chain of command." He is the one who broke the law and started the whole mess. As such, he is not part of any chain of command.

If you catch a government worker taking bribes, do you go talk to him because he's the "first chain of command" or do you go straight to his superior to report the lawbreaking?

[Guest Guest]

The teacher is not the "first chain of command." He is the one who broke the law and started the whole mess. As such, he is not part of any chain of command.

If you catch a government worker taking bribes, do you go talk to him because he's the "first chain of command" or do you go straight to his superior to report the lawbreaking?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In Hudson County New Jersey, if you report it the authorities will audit your tax returns and raid your house to see if they can get some dirt on you so that you indicted and shut up about the corrupt political figure.

Just look at neighboring Harrison, a guy steals $30,000 in quarters a month and the Hudson County Prosecutor's office says they guy acted alone and did it for only three months. Meanwhile, the guy owns a mansion down the Jersey Shore on a supervisor's salary. This is Hudson County my friends. The normal rules don't apply.

[Guest A. V. Blom]

True, Mathew has offended the sensibilities of the christian fundamentalist mobs. Just like Rosa Park offended the sensibilities of the racist mobs. Mathew should wear that as a badge of honor.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't compare Matthews problem with God with Rosa Park. She was very religious. I find it very offensive to use this great womans name in your attack against God when she was totality devoted to God.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for totally missing the point. The comparison was that they both were beset my mobs intent on drowning their rights, and in both case, have been vigorously attacked for standing on them.

[Strife767]

In Hudson County New Jersey, if you report it the authorities will audit your tax returns and raid your house to see if they can get some dirt on you so that you indicted and shut up about the corrupt political figure.

Any evidence of this having ever actually happened, hotshot? Or are you just making things up? Besides, even if it had happened, that says nothing about anyone other than the people directly involved.

Just look at neighboring Harrison, a guy steals $30,000 in quarters a month and the Hudson County Prosecutor's office says they guy acted alone and did it for only three months.  Meanwhile, the guy owns a mansion down the Jersey Shore on a supervisor's salary.  This is Hudson County my friends.  The normal rules don't apply.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How dare you judge an entire county on the actions of one or few? You should be ashamed of such generalizations.

[Guest Guest]

Just out of curiosity, what did you advise Matthew to do?  Because so much of being a parent is spent tryng to help our kids to avoid harm - did you advise him to avoid the controversy?  Or because when we're not simply trying to help our kids avoid harm we are trying to help them to become better people - did you advise him to pursue his beliefs?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is Paul. I'm unable to sign in. With all due respect, this is not your concern. I've learned that we have no power to stop people from guessing and second-guessing us to their heart's content, but I would appreciate it if folks would confine the discussion to matters relevant to public concern. Our home life does not fall within those boundaries. However, we are sleeping very well, thank you.

[Guest Guest]

True, Mathew has offended the sensibilities of the christian fundamentalist mobs. Just like Rosa Park offended the sensibilities of the racist mobs. Mathew should wear that as a badge of honor.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't compare Matthews problem with God with Rosa Park. She was very religious. I find it very offensive to use this great womans name in your attack against God when she was totality devoted to God.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As usual, the christofundies are completely missing the point.

The personal religious beliefs of Mathews and Rosa are totally irrelevant. The point is that both Mathew and Rosa stood up to protect the Consitution against attacks from christofundy and racist mobs respectively. 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. When Jim Crow laws forced Rosa to give up her seat to a White passenger, it violated the Fourteenth Amendment. So yes, the parallel is obvious.

And no, Mathew (as far as I can tell) and I do not have a problem with god. What we do have a problem with is people breaking the law. Get it?

[Grimm]

Don't compare Matthews problem with God with Rosa Park. She was very religious. I find it very offensive to use this great womans name in your attack against God when she was totality devoted to God.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The issue here is not if Mathew has a "problem with God" or not. The issue is that the teacher and his supporters have a problem with The Constitution and The Bill of Rights. The fact that you see respecting the Bill of Rights as an "attack against God" is a perfect example of how fundamentalists can pervert an issue like this in a way that they feel justified in violating The Constitution.

[Guest Paul]

For quite awhile now, this discussion on the various topics has reminded me of something Rep. Morris Udall (D - Az.) said during a lengthy debate in Congress: "Everything has now been said, but not everyone has said it."

It is obvious some people will never be convinced that the law is what it is, or that it is wrong to tell a captive audience of public school students that they belong in hell, or that evolution is recognized all over the world as a science, or that a school must take its curriculum seriously if it expects to be taken seriously. So I will be taking a less active role in these discussions from this point forward, mainly responding to posts that are new in content, or otherwise as I choose. I may open a new topic here and there.

I do hope this issue will be resolved in a responsible way, and that the most heated participants in the discussion will step back and try to be more objective. If anyone is interested in working toward that end, I invite you to contact me directly by clicking on my name and sending me a message, which KOTW will pass on to me.

[Calybos]

True, Mathew has offended the sensibilities of the christian fundamentalist mobs. Just like Rosa Park offended the sensibilities of the racist mobs. Mathew should wear that as a badge of honor.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't compare Matthews problem with God with Rosa Park. She was very religious. I find it very offensive to use this great womans name in your attack against God when she was totality devoted to God.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, the comparison is entirely valid; Mrs. Parks was fighting for the rights of a minority to get equal treatment from the government, just as Paul and Matthew are.

Who is "attacking God," by the way? Or do you claim that requiring a teacher to obey the law--a doctrine of absolute religious neutrality from government, which is the only guarantee of our having religious freedom at all--is somehow "attacking God"?

[Guest guest]

Isn't the right to not stand for the Pledge an act of one's right to freedom of "speech" (freedom of expression)?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

While teachers and students do not need to surrender their religious beliefs when the enter a classroom, if a teacher is assigned to teach History, that teacher should teach it. Proselytizing is not a part of his job description.

Kudos to Matthew for calling out a teacher who was clearly abusing his position of authority.

[Guest Guest]

For quite awhile now, this discussion on the various topics has reminded me of something Rep. Morris Udall (D - Az.) said during a lengthy debate in Congress: "Everything has now been said, but not everyone has said it."

It is obvious some people will never be convinced that the law is what it is, or that it is wrong to tell a captive audience of public school students that they belong in hell, or that evolution is recognized all over the world as a science, or that a school must take its curriculum seriously if it expects to be taken seriously. So I will be taking a less active role in these discussions from this point forward, mainly responding to posts that are new in content, or otherwise as I choose. I may open a new topic here and there.

I do hope this issue will be resolved in a responsible way, and that the most heated participants in the discussion will step back and try to be more objective. If anyone is interested in working toward that end, I invite you to contact me directly by clicking on my name and sending me a message, which KOTW will pass on to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul, this Los Angeles mother wants to thank you and your son for standing up to a teacher who clearly abused his position of authority and a school district that seems to approve of his actions.

If a teacher stood in front of a class and said that there was no god and that all the kids were deluded, I would be equally shocked and the teacher would be guilty of essentially the same thing your son's teacher did.

I am sorry that your family is having such a hard time with some people. I guess free speech is protected as long as it's theirs. </sarcasm> Your son has a backbone and a conscience. The people sending him death threats lack both.

Thanks again and good luck to you and your family.

[Bryan]

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

As usual, the christofundies are completely missing the point.

Mmmm. Feel the love.

The most direct point of comparison seemed to be the idea of mob mentality. No?

The personal religious beliefs of Mathews and Rosa are totally irrelevant. The point is that both Mathew and Rosa stood up to protect the Consitution against attacks from christofundy and racist mobs respectively.

The attacks on Paszkiewicz are okay, though. Right?

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.

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.

Evidently you see the First Amendment as a law against Paskiewicz' ability to practice free speech in combination with his religion in the context of his job.

Isn't that a bit ironic?

When Jim Crow laws forced Rosa to give up her seat to a White passenger, it violated the Fourteenth Amendment. So yes, the parallel is obvious.

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.

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

And no, Mathew (as far as I can tell) and I do not have a problem with god. What we do have a problem with is people breaking the law. Get it?

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.

[Strife767]

(there's that max limit of "quote" tags problem again--fix this pleeeease? )

Guest, on Dec 24 2006, 03:29 AM, wrote:
[b]As usual, the christofundies are completely missing the point.[/b]

Mmmm.  Feel the [i]love[/i].

Remind me again--was it an atheist or a Christian who was condemning high school students to hell?

The most direct point of comparison seemed to be the idea of mob mentality.  No?

[b]The personal religious beliefs of Mathews and Rosa are totally irrelevant. The point is that both Mathew and Rosa stood up to protect the Consitution against attacks from christofundy and racist mobs respectively.[/b]

The attacks on Paszkiewicz are okay, though.  Right?

What attacks?

[b]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.[/b]

How, exactly?

Wow, how amazingly ignorant can one be?

"It is one of the fundamental principles of the Supreme Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence that the Constitution forbids not only state practices that "aid one religion . . . or prefer one religion over another," but also those practices that "aid all religions" and thus endorse or prefer religion over nonreligion. Everson, 330 U.S. at 15. See Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 53 (1985)("[T]he individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all"); see also County of Allegheny v. ACLU Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573, 589-94, 598-602 (1989); Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock, 489 U.S. 1, 17 (1989); Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 (1961).

Please read up on these cases at least before you make more of a fool of yourself.

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

As you can see in the court cases above, it obviously does not take something as grand as a Congress-passed law to violate the First Amendment.

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

Actually, it's just you that needs to inform yourself.

Evidently you see the First Amendment as a law against Paskiewicz' ability to practice free speech in combination with his religion in the context of his job.

Religious preaching is not allowed in governmental institutions nor by governmental employees while they are "on the clock." End of story--it's a shame that a 22 year-old who hates legalese understands the law better than you do.

Isn't that a bit ironic?

What's ironic is the fact that, had the teacher been atheist and the student Christian, the reaction by people like you would be exactly opposite. That is, it would be ironic (to me), did I not already know how fundies and their apologists work.

[b]When Jim Crow laws forced Rosa to give up her seat to a White passenger, it violated the Fourteenth Amendment. So yes, the parallel is obvious.[/b]

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.

Religious preaching is not allowed in governmental institutions nor by governmental employees while they are "on the clock." End of story--it's a shame that a 22 year-old who hates legalese understands the law better than you do.

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

Oh man, this is cute. *laughs* What exactly are you trying to do with this statement, make it sound like the First Amendment isn't a law?

[b]And no, Mathew (as far as I can tell) and I do not have a problem with god. What we do have a problem with is people breaking the law. Get it?[/b]

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.

Answer: First Amendment, specifically the Establishment Clause.

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

Only because of your astonishing ignorance to the law.

So, what law was it?  Be specific.

First Amendment, specifically the Establishment Clause.

Now a question for you--why exactly have you ignored all of the successful court cases against similar actions and avoided realizing just how obvious this violation is? Be specific.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest Guest]

Thanks for totally missing the point. The comparison was that they both were beset my mobs intent on drowning their rights, and in both case, have been vigorously attacked for standing on them.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The point is, this great womans name shouldn't be used in this discussion to discredit God. I feel that a great number of people out there agree.