Calybos

Incorrect. It is a philosophical opinion held by many cultures and religions that murder is wrong. If it were SOLELY a religious opinion, then obviously teaching the same would be 'religious instruction.' A better analogy would be a history teacher announcing that eating pork is sinful.

I'd say most of them. Any of the definitions that mention "sermon" or "gospel" would qualify, since that would violate the religious neutrality required by the Constitution.

Don't be disappointed! Keep trying, Kard. You've already got Paul beat by a mile on uselessness and hot air (see, Paul has responded to actual question and requests for information); now you just need to ratchet up your noise level.

Bryan, I know you've made up your mind long ago on this matter and are now impervious to facts, but this is a simple rule of logic. The statement "Evolution is as faith-based as religion" is not objective; it's opinion. Moreover, it's a breathtakingly stupid opinion, since it's so easily refuted by facts. Now, assuming that Mr. P is NOT blindingly stupid, why would he say something so clearly false? The answer, as shown in the numerous statements from the recordings, is that he puts preaching about his personal religion ahead of any other priority... like, oh, let's say, teaching. Or the truth. Since his opinion is both factually wrong AND religion-based, it has no place in the classroom. Teachers are supposed to help students understand, not willfully blind them to reality. And nonsense about evolution being anything other than rock-solid science are a deliberate attempt to mislead. Bottom line: Mr. Paskiewicz is a bad teacher.

Because Mr. P's attempt to downgrade the respected science of evolutionary theory to "faith-based" is clearly motivated by religious beliefs. And Mr. P's religious beliefs (once again) have no place in a classroom. And Bryan, you might want to ease up on the complaints of how much time others spend on this forum... given your own apparent lack of an outside life as well.

There we go! Too bad you didn't have the guts to give even a screen name. NAMBLA does have (and deserve) Constitutional rights, even aside from the fact that, as an organization, they do not molest children. They talk about sex with children; they publish, demonstrate, and speak about the subject. None of those are crimes. (Of course, many people who hate freedom think they SHOULD be crimes.) But the even bigger point is that even criminals have Constitutional rights. Those rights don't go away when you commit a crime... in fact, they become even more important. Any person who says "X doesn't deserve Constitutional rights" is spitting on the Constitution and knows nothing about America. And he certainly doesn't deserve the title "patriot." Class dismissed!

So close! You're almost there, "patriot." You've said that NAMBLA deserves to be in prison for their positions, and you put their "rights" in sarcastic quotes. Just oooone more tiny step... go ahead and say that "NAMBLA doesn't deserve any Constitutional rights because I don't like 'em." Say it! Go ahead and spit on the Constitution you claim to love and reveal your sick hypocrisy for all to see! Just answer the question, "patriot:" Does NAMBLA have Constitutional rights, or don't they?

Wrong all three times. "under God" was not part of the original pledge; "In God We Trust" was not required to be added to our money until the hyper-paranoid Red Scare of the 1950s; and testifying in court does NOT require swearing on a bible. Apparently, you don't need much of a brain to be a "patriot." Indeed, it seems to be a positive hindrance.

How said that respecting the students' Constitutional rights is such a hardship for you. I had no idea sticking to the topic you're paid to teach, rather than preaching, was so difficult.

So the fact that a public school teacher was violating our Constitutional rights... this is irrelevant "trash" to you? That's unimportant in your eyes? Exactly which Constitution did you think you were defending in the Marines?

All politics is local. Not every case can be argued in front of the Supreme Court. It takes local activists to preserve the Constitution on a local level. If that bothers you, by all means get off your ass and get involved yourself.

Thank you for summing it up so succinctly, Paul. I tried to walk Bryan through the basics of naturalism as the core methodology for science, and he kept whining about how I wasn't leaving room for anything "supernatural" in science. Eventually, I gave up on him. Some skulls are just too thick, you know?

And a Creator is definitely one more entity than necessary. The notion that everything must have a cause is--once again, I point out--a philosophical demand, not a scientific one. In addition, the "anthropic principle" is one of the few areas where both rationalists and theists agree: it's nonsense. From the evolutionary perspective, life arose and evolved to suit the conditions that prevail in our universe, not vice-versa. And from the theist perspective, God doesn't make bad designs. Either way the "remarkable coincidence", which is what the anthropic principle boils down to (a Belief from Incredulity/Improbability argument), is simply not meaningful evidence.

Well done. Too many people seem to forget that "Question Authority" was not just a slogan of the sixties--it was also the foundation of our country!

Funny how nobody ever says that about Bryan, who can't go five minutes without posting another lengthy essay declaring his personal opinions as Sacred Truth.

Here's the relevant links. Yes, William Arkin did say "mercenaries" in regard to U.S. troops: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarnin...uppor.html#more He also apologized for it: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarnin...st_11.html#more He has also reiterated his main point, that unquestioning blind support for anything--even the sacred "troops," especially after the numerous scandals that have emerged--is a dangerous mentality for so-called patriots to adopt. And on that point, I agree with him.

When the minority has right on its side, the majority always calls them "troublemakers." It means as little now as it did then.

There are always people with a vested interest in forcing children to submit to authority without question. Don't let them bother you, Paul OR Matthew. When the law and the facts are on your side, stand by them. The truth will out.

Cool. Maybe those lucky students will get some competent instruction now in Vartan's class.

I guess all of Jesus's parables must have been factually true accounts too, huh? Because analogies DON'T EXIST.

Or they didn't want to get in trouble, and only Paul had the courage to speak out on Mr. P's wrongful acts. It all depends on how far you're willing to bend over backwards to defend preaching in the classroom. From the look of things here, a lot of folks in Kearny are pretty limber.

Don't let that stop you. You've got plenty to be embarrassed about all by yourself.

What a relief! Now, when teachers violate the Constitution, there won't be any way for students to prove it and potentially embarrass the school board. And that's the same as not having any problems at all, right?

Talk about shooting the messenger! The recording proves that Mr. P is the one who violated the Constitution... so you assume that the guy who MADE the recording must have been trying to hide something. Wow, that's some real desperate tactics there.

I see the misunderstanding persists, and I'm just not a good enough teacher to show you how to correct it. "Since when are uncaused events natural, according to any scientific understanding of the term?" Uncaused events ARE natural; you're the one inisisting that causation is the key to describing something as natural rather than supernatural. There is no such requirement. "To a non-scientist such as myself, the term "naturalistic origin" seems to be a stand-in for "cause." You're saying that uncaused events have causes, it seems." No, I'm saying that causation (or non-causation) has no bearing on whether something is a natural phenomenon properly studied in the realm of science. "Uncaused" is neither supernatural, nor particularly troubling, in the discussion of physics, any more than multiple dimensions are troubling--no matter how counter-intuitive to everyday life they may seem.