Strife767

The recordings are publicly available. Anyone who would seriously suggest an "out of context" argument in light of that deserves some ridicule ("attacked?" come on, now) and parody. He brought it on himself (if he's really a lawyer, then all the more reason to make fun of his incompetence ) by broadcasting his ignorance of the situation.

I fixed your tagging--you know, a closing bold tag needs an opening one. That would be because you've already proven just how little working knowledge you have of the First Amendment. None of it would need to be repealed or reinterpreted. The First Amendment gives people the freedom to practice religion, not to tell people what to believe. That includes children. People under the age of majority should not have to deal with indoctrination from their parents or any other figures of authority--if they want to believe in some religion or another, they can make that decision on their own once they are old enough to: 1. Realize that there are more religions out there than one's parents' (most parents will quite happily make their children feel like it's either their religion or no religion--in fact, I've seen several Christian fundamentalists equate all other religions with atheism!). 2. Make an informed, responsible decision about what they want to believe. The fact that people like you like to pretend that atheism/agnosticism/secular humanism is a religion (likely because being religious, it's hard to imagine people who aren't religious at all, so the mind tends to want to assign them a religion, even if it isn't there--the same kind of thinking that assigns genders to inanimate objects) is irrelevant. Children should not be forced to participate in their parents' religious rituals, and they _especially_ should not be led to believe that _any_ religion has any kind of factual foundation--I hate it when people pretend their beliefs are not beliefs, but irrefutable fact. You see, I wouldn't have a problem with parents telling their kids (still against forcing them to participate or be present at rituals etc., though) about their religions, if only they would keep things in the proper context. But it is rarely the case that a parent tells a child "this is what I believe" when they explain their religion. A child is much more likely to hear "this is what is." That is damaging to the impressionable child's developing sense of reality, especially when they eventually are taught something in school that directly contradicts some teaching or another of the religious "facts" they've been taught at home. Why put a child through that? This is my opinion, but I dare say that religious indoctrination does to a child's developing sense of reality what adult/child sex does to a child's developing sexuality. Put your torches down, I am not drawing a parallel with child molestation--it's a metaphor. Religious indoctrination does the same kind of damage to a different part of the child. In conclusion, I realize that parents would like to see their kids 'follow in their footsteps' in matters of faith. Parents also often want their kids to grow up into either their careers, or 'high-end' careers they unsuccessfully aspired to. But just because you want it, doesn't mean you have the right to impose it on your child. He/she is an individual and a human being, not a crafts project for you to mold however you like. (your sarcasm is terrible) Listen, I realize just how precious child indoctrination is to fundies--without it, your numbers would shrivel up to negligible amounts within a generation or two. Don't think I don't know how you guys work--I was born and raised on the inside of that 'little' scheme (I wish it was merely "little"). As much as I'm used to counter-arguments to this like "well, it's MY kid!" my answer is always the same: ethically, and morally, if not legally (yet), there are just some things that are just NOT in the best interest of the child. Forcing your religious beliefs onto them is one of them, imho. Simple as that. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(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}>

I love the Daily Show, and you're right--they do a damned good job of informing people, even though they're not technically a "news show" so they don't have to worry about this 'journalistic integrity' sort of thing. But they still manage to do a better job than most, if not all, news programs on TV. I only wish it was an hour long. Then again, the Colbert Report is a good 'chaser.' *chuckles* It's a beautifully clever parody of nonsense like O'Reilly, and Colbert plays the part perfectly (though sometimes he just can't stand it anymore and cracks up, just a little ).

You didn't listen to/ignored the recordings, huh?

I think the Internet, and its ability to widely disseminate information in a way that makes the sheltering/indoctrination of children exponentially more difficult, is going to play a major role in eliminating fundamentalism, if not all religion, eventually.

Paid by the government, works for the government, on the government's time at the time of the actions... Yes, he was acting as an 'agent' of the government as a public school teacher, which means he is subject to the laws applicable to state-funded employees and institutions. He blatantly violated one of the biggest ones with no remorse at all. Not at all--don't speak of things you don't understand. The laws and the Constitution, as well as legal precedents, can be freely researched. Maybe take some time off from lying for Jesus to educate yourself a bit? Maybe a futile request, but I have to try... 1. He spoke of his dogma as if it was fact: "you belong in hell" is not an opinion. 2. Opinion or not, he still broke the law. The law is quite clear on this matter. It does not protect all speech--it's so funny that you idiots are still even attempting this argument. A public school teacher telling his students who "belong in hell" is no more protected speech than yelling "fire!" in a crowded public location. The line where free speech ends, like with all other rights, is the line where it infringes on the rights of another. The endorsement of a religion in a public school crosses that line quite clearly. It's in the Constitution, and it's decided court cases in the past. Face it. Public school teachers cannot legally preach to their students. End of story. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You said it. Holy shit have a lot of religious nuts come out of nowhere to defend their hopeless cause. Talk about crazies. I pity you, if you don't love your country enough to stand up for its highest laws. I pity you for not thinking it's a big deal for a public school history teacher to tell people who does and doesn't "belong in hell." If only. You can try to trivialize it all you want, but you know damned well, just as well as I (have you listened to the recordings?), that it was much, much more serious than that. And that's before taking into account his dishonest denial of his own statements to his bosses. I do believe you're just making this up. On the other end of the spectrum is an extreme that actually has happened...a TV station fined hundreds of thousands of dollars because there was a visible female nipple on-screen for a few seconds. Now that is just ridiculous. Not nearly an accurate description of the actual events and you know it, liar. The law is very clear on this matter. The teacher has violated the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America without regard or remorse, and for that he deserves to be fired at LEAST. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, for the upper 1%.

Here's the real story: "Kerry maintained that his quip was a 'botched joke' and was 'not about, and never intended to refer to, any troops.' It was, he said, a jab at President Bush's Iraq policy that didn't come off and had originally been scripted thusly: 'Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren’t smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush.'" --http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/kerrysign.asp Bush is more of a traitor to this nation than Kerry could ever aspire to be. Him talking about same-sex marriage being "the greatest threat" while we're entrenched in a needless war in Iraq is just the tip of the iceberg. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Same here--that man has earned a lot of respect from me.

*laughs* This is hilarious. Hey, "BushBacker:" the recordings are publicly available. You apologists for that bigot have no way out. The sooner you face that reality, the sooner you'll stop being a laughingstock, at least in this circumstance.

Because to defend the teacher's actions necessarily means to defend bigotry and dishonesty, as his actions included both. Open your eyes. Pffff, lol. It's so funny to see people talking about it as if it's some unfounded accusation, some story some kid made up to hurt a teacher's credibility. Would you wake up already? The evidence is airtight. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Never done a recreational drug in my life, and plan on keeping it that way. Error one. I'm for the legalization of all drugs. That's so uptight of me, isn't it? Just putting those two statements there to show you just on how many levels you were w-r-o-n-g. 'Course, I'm not surprised all you had was a childish comment as a response. That tends to be what fundies degenerate to when they realize just how hopeless their "arguments" are. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You said it.

Couldn't have said it any better than the poster who this guy is replying to:

www.evilbible.com said it well within its "God is Impossible" section: I have to say--if one believes in a just (and onmipotent) god, one cannot believe in the concept of hell.

As an atheist, I feel compelled to defend this. Listen, it's nothing personal, but if you are going to believe in a "god," then you had better be prepared to hear that belief called a superstition, because that is what it is. To call it a superstition is not a personal attack--I know it might seem that way because of your emotional attachment to your beliefs, but it isn't--look at it objectively. Believing that one will go to "hell" or "heaven" when they die depending on certain actions taken in life, is exactly as (no more, no less) superstitious as believing that walking under a ladder will bring bad luck. Neither of those has any real proof behind them, and both are believed by people on a 'faith basis'--that is, treating it as fact in the absence of that evidence. Of course--the vast majority of atheists, myself included, have no problem at all with that. The thing is, it really tends to get on an atheist's nerves when a Christian/Muslim/whatever starts to take it beyond that--to start telling others that their way is the way, etc. At that point, that person deserves to be reminded just exactly what they've put all their faith in--call it putting a zealot in his/her place. Sure, perfectly fine and commendable. While I disagree that following the teachings of an old book is the only road to those same virtues, I'm glad you aspire to them in any case. That's what ultimately matters when it comes to people interacting with each other. Good. Pascal's Wager is a load of baloney, as you probably realize. *chuckles* That's fine. While I cannot understand how one can reach a conclusion with no real evidence, it is your life. You may live it as you wish. The only time I will be 'intolerant' of a religion is when a member of one starts proselytizing and/or mistreating fellow human beings because of it. I think I'm fully justified in that sort of a response to bigotry--disagree if you like. Is that genuine enough for you? <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you kidding me? Alright, buddy, let's take a look at these questions you seem to have so much confidence in: In a way, yes. But of course, he can 'speak from the heart' etc. However, as a government employee, there are simply a few laws about stuff he is not allowed to talk about while "on the clock." And that teacher broke one of those. Simple as that. You're seriously trying to draw a parallel between answering a yes or no question, and telling people they belong in hell? Talk about grasping at straws here. Just who do you think you're kidding? And there isn't. What a retarded statement, seriously. The "loony left" (by which I can only assume you are referring to the law-abiding citizens, since it's only those who ignore the transgression of the Constitution who are defending the teacher) appears to want to uphold the Constitution. Your pathetically weak attempts at equating a public school teacher answering one yes or no question about whether his kid will be baptized with the real situation of a public school teacher making declarations about who belongs in hell are shameful. Just plain shameful. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You know what you shouldn't forget? The fact that there is legal precedent (someone remind me exactly which case it was--it was mentioned on this forum already, but it slipped my mind) to the fact that the students' consent does not matter. It is still quite illegal, because of the teacher's position of power among other things. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To this specific forum, yes. To Kearny, hell no. What point are you trying to make? Condescending already? Actually, ever since I've heard about this case, it seems very much that "most others" are actually supporting the teacher. I call as I see, and someone trying to defend their precious fellow bigot by referring to him declaring certain people belong in hell in a history class is an innocent little "mistake," is full of shit, quite frankly. I have no sympathy for his apologists, and for good reason, considering the outrageous circumstances (he was caught in the act, lied to his bosses, and people are still defending his actions!). I'm so very sorry if I don't have as much "tact" as you'd like when dealing with such under-handed statements coming from people who spew garbage like that and think no one's going to notice. I noticed. I'm not fooled. Deal with it. He abused his teaching position in a public, state-funded school to proselytize. Fact, not opinion. He broke the law. Fact, not opinion. He lied blatantly to his bosses about his crime. Fact, not opinion. He hasn't made any attempt at apology and shows zero remorse for his actions. Fact, not opinion. I want people to accept the FACTS. His apologists do not accept the facts. They spew the persecution complex and "freedom of speech" nonsense around and act like the teacher was the one wronged just because Matthew took steps to catch him in the act! What's your point? Wow, what a non-sequitur. Just what are you attempting to say here? Seems like someone was projecting about the whole "name calling when someone disagrees with you" thing. Now, I corrected your false statements about me, and laid out exactly why I said what I said. Can you do the same? <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Uh, no. Not only does a legal precedent for this already exist, but in this case, it is _very_ obvious that a law was broken. If someone shot someone else, would it be "just opinion and speculation" whether he/she broke a law before he goes to court? Completely irrelevant. You can sue someone without any law having been broken. Also, when you sue someone, you do not have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" like in a criminal case. A lawsuit is not even close to the same as a criminal case. Educate yourself. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I look forward to the day when everyone realizes they don't need to create a God to believe in to make life worth living. ...I also look forward to the day when the cycle of brainwashing stops (compare the # of new Christians (just an example) who "join" the religion because their parents raised them into it vs. the # of born-agains--there is quite a difference). I think it's abusive to, whether or not one realizes it, attack an impressionable child's sense of reality and critical thinking by injecting all of these illogical and unfounded ideas about God and such into their heads before they've really gotten a chance to experience reality. I think it harms them--I don't think "freedom of religion" should excuse that, and that it should be as illegal as spanking one's child. That would be the biggest step, I think, toward removing this useless mysticism and superstition from the lives of modern human beings of the 21st century. I just can't see why anyone would cling to millenia-old superstitions like that... Sorry, just a little rant. *chuckles*

Oh, really? Why don't you take a look at this, then? http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html <-- Religious societies are less moral than secular ones. Also singling out the "bible belt": I'd love to, but you fundies just won't go away. Ironically, many people consider atheism "radical." Oh, really? Do tell. No. On a personal level, if one wants to go to a church/temple/whatever and pray on their time or whatver, that's fine. But on a societal level? It contributes nothing. At least shopping contributes to the economy. And practicing sports is good for health, which means overall lower health care costs. Pray all you want, but don't act like you're doing society a service by sitting in a church one or more times a week. You aren't. I bet I know what your definition of "lost" is. I was right. I have a better one: "I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms." --Albert Einstein <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(the name you used suits you, by the way) LOL, sweeping generalization right in the second breath. I'm ashamed for both of us. He intentionally violated one of the highest laws in the land. Firing is too good for him. No, he's pointing out that the fundamentalist Christians obviously have no problem with the teacher's law-breaking (any rational person would not defend the teacher) because it suits their agenda of injecting religion into public schools and institutions. It's just a simply hypothetical question that would quite effectively point out the hypocrisy of those defending the law-breaking teacher--that is, it would, if any of the people defending him had the guts to answer it honestly. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>