Kris

Huh? don't get this. PLease explain

Lincoln Logger-thanks for taking the time to respond to my question. Rather than jump to conclusions about what when on in Kearny back in 2006, I did some research of my own and went back into the archives of this website and others trying to make sense out of what you all experienced. I am not a resident of Kearny as I have stated before, and certainly do not know what it was like for any of you during that time period, but as an observer of the facts, I think they rather speak for themselves. It seems to me that the person who committed the wrong here was a teacher using his classroom as a pulpit and then adding insult to injury by trying to deny it until he was confronted with recordings. It seems to me that things only got out of hand when the school principal and the board, and then ultimately the community, refused to act and properly discipline the teacher, and instead tried to blame the young victim just because he was a kid and the teacher was a respected member of the community. I doubt very much that the Laclair's would have carried this any further had the teacher just copped to what he had done, apologized to young Matthew and stopped using his classroom as a church service. I think perhaps because his pride and integrity were questioned, he could not allow himself to do the thing that would have probably made this whole thing go away in a heartbeat. "Pride goeth before a fall" Where have a heard that before? Seems that someone who is a clergymen would understand the importance of honesty and not try to cover up his actions with lying and then resort to sarcasm "you caught the big fish" when his lies were discovered. That was one of the things that made me lose respect for Bill Clinton during the sex scandel time. It isn't what he did so much, but that he could not stop lying about it. Just be accountable for your actions. That's what the church is always teaching. Sounds like he just couldn't bear that he was made a fool of by a 16 year old kid, but the truth is, he made a fool of himself. I do not know that Laclair's personally, but I have met young Matthew, as I said before, and I found him to be a very well mannered, respectful and very knowledgeable about his field of study. That is a very limited perspective, I know, so I am not judging any of you on your feelings of hostility that you seem to feel toward this family. I do welcome you to enlighten me further, however.

Thanks even if you don't mean it. I am glad to be here. It doesn't look like Paul really needs my help though. He seems to be able to hold his own. I would like to know why you all have such a negative opinion of him though-just because he doesn;t agree with you.

Thanks for the warm welcome Paul. As you predicted, it has been less than warm from others, but that's okay. It will take more than personal insults from people who don't even know me to scare me off. I have seen by reading here that you have taken alot of heat here from fellow posters but you have stuck to the facts and remained digified in defending yourself. That is refreshing to read. Thanks

It amazes me that most of you when not knowing what else to say resort to name calling and hurtling insults. Facts and rational arguments speak much louder to me than resorting to junior high school antics. I'm not sure what to make of the Kool-Aid remark. If you are referring to the Jim Jones massacre--If memory serves, I believe that was do to someone's religious fanaticism. I am not a fanatic. I don't like extremists of any kind. I make my decisions based on common sense and human logic and not necessarily on rituals and traditions passed down for generations that have no meaning or purpose and the only argument for doing them is that "it's always been done that way". There would be no human progress without those brave souls willing to challenge what is accepted as the norm. If you call that living in the Land of Oz, then I am happy to know I am in good company.

I am a member of the FFRF and although I don't necessarily support the display of this particular sign, overall the group does a great job representing the non-believing minority. I do feel however, that they have just as much right to express themselves as the religious people do. That is what makes this country great. I also had the pleasure of meeting Matthew at Freethought Day and I found him to be very articulate, well mannered and not at all arrogant. You are all taking cheap shots at Paul and I am not sure why. You may not agree with his opinions, but the least you can do is keep the atmosphere civil and non judgemental

This my first post here. I stumbled on this website when doing an online search. I want to say first and foremost that I am not a resident of Kearney so I do not know how much my opinion would be warranted or respected. I do feel the issue of the Pledge of Allegience is not exclusive to Kearney so I do hope it is safe to post here. First of all, I am a little shocked and surprised at the mud slinging I have been reading back and forth on this topic. I know people have strong emotions when it comes to such things as the Pledge but I believe the topic was about children reciting the Pledge. I have 3 children and my youngest is 8 years old. They recite the Pledge every day in her classroom and although I have not formally protested, I do not feel this is appropriate. Not because I am not patriotic but rather because I believe that grade school children cannot be morally or emotionally responsible for what they say. Most children do not even know what they are saying when uttering the Pledge. I did an original play a couple of years ago with a bunch of school kids (some as old as 14) about the history of America and when we got to the part about the Pledge, I had to sit down with my cast and translate the meaning of each word and phrase. Children often recite things from memory but, very often, with little cognizant understanding about what they are saying. I personally remember memorizing song lyrics and prayers and finding out years later that not only was I reciting them incorrectly, but I had no idea what those words meant to me personally. How many of us when reciting the Pledge as children got to the word indivisible and said invisible instead? That was a word we could understand even if it has no meaning in the context of the rest of the sentence. I think it is wrong to indoctrinate children before they are at the age of being able to earn knowledge for themselves. I do not have anything against the Pledge per se but as Paul has been trying so desperately to point out here, is that the PLedge is just a ritual and does not prove anything about one's loyalty to country and flag. I am against the words "Under God" in the Pledge because they were not part of the original document and were added by a bunch of Communist fearing radicals in the 1950s, and I believe that the Pledge should be all inclusive, uniting us all as American citizens.