David Paszkiewicz should be fired

[Strife767]

Just as we should have a public policy to stop smoking, the government should try to prevent ********** sex. A lot of it ******* ** ***** *** **********. Their spread of AIDS affects the whole community.

Their health-care costs are picked up by everyone. And those that also have sex **** ***** spread their diseases to ******** *****. 

Public education and heavy fines or jail time when caught might help.

KOTW Note: The above post was edited for content.

71067[/snapback]

(KOTW, it's pretty obvious what he's talking about--would have been a much better choice just not to let garbage like this on the forum to begin with. Seriously, now)

This takes derailing a topic to another level--you are a disgusting person. I suggest you don't get your 'facts' from Paul Cameron, retard.

[Strife767]

Certainly not your words

a.k.a.

"Do you prefer blue or red?"

"Certainly not yellow, durrr"

or for that matter Matthews have any credibility so live with it.

71081[/snapback]

Matthew's never been caught in a lie, which is more than can be said for Paszkiewicz or his supporters on this forum, who have been caught spreading several complete fabrications spanning every member of the LaClair household.

So, how many false rumors about Paszkiewicz were started by members of the LaClair household on this forum? Be specific.

[Strife767]

What you fail to realize is that just because it may be a law it does not always mean it is right. Laws have been changed over and over since the framers starting writing them. It’s what keeps people like you with food on your table. It’s not about how many supporters Mr. Paszkiewicz or anyone else has. It’s about what is right for the community and the people of it.

And it is not right for everyone's taxes to be paying for ANYONE to endorse his or her religion. Period.

And as far as you being happy or sad, I couldn’t care less. Never could. You and your band of lawyers have made society in America so much weaker than you will ever realize. And you do lie when you say that that most of you agree with you.

Paul is lying when he says that most of himself agrees with himself?

It contradicts what you said above.  I would be happy to give Mr. Paszkiewicz.

Might I suggest some proofreading before clicking "Add Reply" in the future?

What you and your lawyer friends have done to him is wrong

Yes, how dare he hold Paszkiewicz accountable for his own words?!

yet you call yourself a religious man. I want no part in that religion.

71086[/snapback]

That says more about you than you may ever realize.

[an American in Texas]

That's primarily up to the employer.

There should be no constitutional prohibition on a public school teacher's expression of religious opinion short of proselytizing or discriminatory treatment (and that sort of thing) because of the First Amendment (no law restricting the free expression of religion).

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/PDF/pa...idereligion.PDF

71073[/snapback]

Gee, Bryan, that's oh-so-reassuring coming from you. After all, you're the guy who doesn't think P. was proselytizing. I doubt you'd think any speech that didn't include a Reading of the Gospel and an altar call could be called proselytizing -- and you might think even that would be okay as long as there were no choir singing "I Surrender All" in the background.

Leigh

[Strife767]

<terribly quoted mishmash of a post>

71096[/snapback]

Let me know when you learn how to use a quote tag; then I'll reply.

[Strife767]

This is for our friend Strife.

By the way Chris.

Oh, so I'm Chris now? Not Matthew anymore?

Call me Ishmael.

What are you doing on the computer at 10:30am on Monday morning? Does the town knows that instead of working your are on KOTW?

How do you know I didn't have Monday off?

One more reason why taxes are so high in this town. We are paying for Strife to be on his computer/phone when he is suppose to be working.

Now, 11:00 he still here.

Shame! Shame! Shame!

71097[/snapback]

You should feel ashamed of how much lying you did in this post.

[Strife767]

Strify!

It's 11:25am (Monday)

Go back to work. If you get caught you will get in trouble!

71100[/snapback]

[an American in Texas]

What a pompous ass.

71112[/snapback]

Paul has noticed this trend, I'm sure. Whenever we use words they don't understand, we suddenly become "pompous". Folks, if you can't understand my remarkably clear prose, the expression you're reaching for is "supercilious snob". Or maybe "pretentious poseur".

I'll bet it was that word "meretricious" that pushed this YAG over the edge. Sheesh, folks, don't you know how to use Google?

BRYAN is pompous. Paul and I are warm, witty, and do you the honor of assuming you're well-educated. After all, it's not our fault if you can't keep up.

(For the sarcasm-impaired, this whole post is slightly -- only slightly -- tongue-in-cheek.)

Leigh

[Guest Guest]

No, I will not accept that Paszkiewicz was disrespectful to his students.

I'm so glad you finally admitted that Mr. P respected everyone of his student.

Including the one that stabbed him on the back.

Everyone opinions was heard, everyone participated and everyone was respected.

[mnodonnell]

Michael, Albert Einstein, who did not speak until he was four years old (as I recall it), later observed that his delayed language development helped him become a scientist because it allowed him a longer time to experience the world on its own terms without having to fit it into the artificial boundaries imposed by language.

Like all words, atheism can mean several things, and be seen in several planes. I was referring to the legal treatment of atheism. As your response suggests, atheism is a religious point of view in distinction from theism. Government may no more promote atheism than it may promote theism (don't we wish it actually worked that way!). It is in that sense that atheism is a religion.

In other ways even under the law (I should have qualified this before), atheism is not a religion. For example, it has no clergy unless you count people like Dawkins and Hitchens; most atheists have no congregation, though a few do. These are some of the distinctions to which the law has looked for other purposes.

The dirty little secret of First Amendment law as it pertains to religion is that at least some of the Framers probably weren't thinking about atheism as an option. However, the principle they had in mind certainly applies, which is how Engel v. Vitale and similar cases made it into our jurisprudence. Had it not been for the 14th Amendment, though, we could easily have become a theocracy by now. On the other hand, if 20th century Americans had been forced to fight for religious freedom, they might have appreciated it more.

I have another way of looking at it altogether. For me, religion is the human attempt to consider and bring all things together into a coherent whole. This can be applied to our individual lives, to our interpersonal relationships and to all of nature, i.e., to all things. Seen that way, atheism isn't a religion because it merely opposes theism, making it in a sense an anti-religion, unless you define an atheist not as someone who says there is no god, but as someone who does not affirmatively believe in a god (hence a-theism, without a god).

Ah, words. Can't live without 'em, can't stop arguing with 'em.

71006[/snapback]

Paul, I generally agree with you; and I understand that it is necessary to treat atheism as a religion in some cases in order to accurately apply the law. However, in a theoretical world where there is no religion (and what a wonderful world it would be) there would be no such thing as atheism.

Simply put: I consider myself an atheist, and I do not consider it to be a religion. It comes with no obligations or rituals.

[mnodonnell]

We're having the discussion because the radical religious right cannot abide the fact that a real expert set straight Paszkiewicz's babbling. I would hate to think, however, that evolution isn't debatable. All science is debatable. That's what drives it forward. The point is that evolution is univerally accepted, practically speaking, throughout the scientific community and communities of enlightened minds all over the world.

71168[/snapback]

You are correct: it is certainly debatable, and many aspects of evolution are hotly debated every day.

The problem is that the primary public debate about evolution concerns evidence vs. scripture, and that is maddening. I have to admit that the Discovery Institute has done a brilliant job of casting doubt on evolution.

[Guest Guest]

So, how many false rumors about Paszkiewicz were started by members of the LaClair household on this forum? Be specific.

Strife, did you ever go to church?

I'm going to guess (and hope) that you did.

The priest or pastors at the pulpit preach and the congregation listens.

Are you following me?

Does the congregation responds at all to what the priest or pastor is saying?

NO.

So, to answer your question, when the LaClairs accused Mr. P. of preaching, that is called false rumors.

Because I heard kids talking, I heard opinions being given and heard, I heard students exchanging their feelings about things and questions being asked.

I did not hear Mr. P. making the kids open their Bibles, I did not hear Mr. P. taking an offering or tithes, and I did not hear Mr. P. making them sing any Hymn. I did not hear Mr. P. make them pray.

Did you get the difference yet?

What happened in that class would not possibly fly in church. You don't believe me go to any church in town and check it out.

[Guest Guest]

a.k.a.

"Do you prefer blue or red?"

"Certainly not yellow, durrr"

Matthew's never been caught in a lie, which is more than can be said for Paszkiewicz or his supporters on this forum, which have been caught spreading several complete fabrications about every member of the LaClair household.

So, how many false rumors about Paszkiewicz were started by members of the LaClair household on this forum? Be specific.

71207[/snapback]

Wrong. He lied on here about being spoken to by a HS administrator regarding his not sitting quietly while the Pledge was being recited by the class.

[Guest Guest]

Paul has noticed this trend, I'm sure.  Whenever we use words they don't understand, we suddenly become "pompous".  Folks, if you can't understand my remarkably clear prose, the expression you're reaching for is "supercilious snob".  Or maybe "pretentious poseur". 

I'll bet it was that word "meretricious" that pushed this YAG over the edge.  Sheesh, folks, don't you know how to use Google?

BRYAN is pompous.  Paul and I are warm, witty, and do you the honor of assuming you're well-educated.  After all, it's not our fault if you can't keep up.

(For the sarcasm-impaired, this whole post is slightly -- only slightly -- tongue-in-cheek.)

Leigh

71215[/snapback]

It's got nothing to do with the words that you use. You are simply pompous.

[Guest Guest]

Then shouldn't you be able to provide me an application of the precedent demonstrating your claim?

Or is it supposed to rest on your accompanying huffing and puffing?

The law was simply struck down in each case.  There were no other relevant consequences for the state, so your talk about a "state actor" is superfluous.

A religion was discussed in class, and that is allowed.

Or if it's not, then something's been done to the First Amendment.

71186[/snapback]

A religion was promoted, and that's not allowed.

Maybe Bryan can explain to us why all the lawyers on the case thought Engel and Schempp and other cases do apply. Maybe he can explain why the school's attorneys advised their clients to settle. Maybe he can explain why the school board acknowledged that Matthew brought "a serious situation" to their attention if there was no violation. Even Paszkiewicz's own lawyer, whom he obtained through the right-wing ACLJ, didn't argue that these cases don't apply to a teacher. In fact, he acknowledged that a teacher may not preach in class. He just claimed that his client wasn't preaching, which of course is ridiculous.

It is true that each Supreme Court results in a decision for that case. However, cases establish precedents, and the precedent in Engel, Schempp and other First Amendment cases, as enunciated by the courts, is that the state may not allow its schools to be used to promote a religion. Whether the state actor is the legislature, the local board of education or an individual teacher, the rule is the same, because what matters is what is being done, not which state actor is doing it.

If cases didn't establish precedents, the religious right wouldn't be so upset about Roe v. Wade. Sure, that case was only directly dispositive on the parties, but it established a precedent that is the controlling law for abortions all over the USA.

Then maybe Bryan can give us a brief resume of his legal training. No doubt it will be brief, indeed.

[Guest Guest]

And drinking isn't? Hell, I could say the same about fundamentalist Christianity, but you won't see me calling for a ban on it, because I understand the concept of freedom in this country.

There is a difference (which most people are unable to see) between wanting people to stop doing something, and wanting the law to force them to stop doing something.

Most of the time someone expresses a "there oughta be a law" sentiment, there usually oughtn't.

That's why smoking is banned in public places, and shouldn't be banned in private ones. That way, no one is ever forced to go anywhere where people are smoking, and they can have a smoke-free environment, while smokers can smoke. Why isn't that a reasonable compromise?

71092[/snapback]

Because they are not smoking in private places. They are smoking in privately owned establishments that cater to the general public. When you cater to the public laws should be established for the common good.

BTW, isn't the outdoors a public place? Maybe we should ban smoking there too. Don't you get tired of all of the cigarette waste on the streets and sidewalks?

[Guest Guest]

Paul has noticed this trend, I'm sure.  Whenever we use words they don't understand, we suddenly become "pompous".  Folks, if you can't understand my remarkably clear prose, the expression you're reaching for is "supercilious snob".  Or maybe "pretentious poseur". 

I'll bet it was that word "meretricious" that pushed this YAG over the edge.  Sheesh, folks, don't you know how to use Google?

BRYAN is pompous.  Paul and I are warm, witty, and do you the honor of assuming you're well-educated.  After all, it's not our fault if you can't keep up.

(For the sarcasm-impaired, this whole post is slightly -- only slightly -- tongue-in-cheek.)

Leigh

71215[/snapback]

How refreshing it is to see someone who knows how to use the English language. Bravo.

[Guest Guest]

Oh, so I'm Chris now? Not Matthew anymore?

Call me Ishmael.

How do you know I didn't have Monday off?

You should feel ashamed of how much lying you did in this post.

71213[/snapback]

Darkness is spreading.

[Guest Guest]

No, I will not accept that Paszkiewicz was disrespectful to his students.

I'm so glad you finally admitted that Mr. P respected everyone of his student.

Including the one that stabbed him on the back.

Everyone opinions was heard, everyone participated and everyone was respected.

71250[/snapback]

Three questions.

1. How is it respectful to tell someone that he belongs in hell?

2. How is it respectful to tell someone that if he is sincere he will abandon his religious beliefs and adopt yours?

3. How is it respectful to tell a student to ignore his pastor and his mother on a religious question?

You don't have to accept the truth, but if you can't answer those questions, you're just denying the truth.

[Guest Guest]

Paul has noticed this trend, I'm sure.  Whenever we use words they don't understand, we suddenly become "pompous".  Folks, if you can't understand my remarkably clear prose, the expression you're reaching for is "supercilious snob".  Or maybe "pretentious poseur". 

I'll bet it was that word "meretricious" that pushed this YAG over the edge.  Sheesh, folks, don't you know how to use Google?

BRYAN is pompous.  Paul and I are warm, witty, and do you the honor of assuming you're well-educated.  After all, it's not our fault if you can't keep up.

(For the sarcasm-impaired, this whole post is slightly -- only slightly -- tongue-in-cheek.)

Leigh

71215[/snapback]

Pompous: having or exhibiting self-importance.

I think that fits Leigh just fine.

[mnodonnell]

That's primarily up to the employer.

There should be no constitutional prohibition on a public school teacher's expression of religious opinion short of proselytizing or discriminatory treatment (and that sort of thing) because of the First Amendment (no law restricting the free expression of religion).

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/PDF/pa...idereligion.PDF

71073[/snapback]

First, it's not really up to the employer. Public schools are not allowed to discriminate on religious grounds. The Kearny BOE cannot just decide to only hire Christian teachers.

Here are two follow-ups for you:

1. It's been clear from the beginning of the discussion that a big point of discord between you and your opponents stems from whether Mr. Paszkiewicz was expressing opinion or proselytizing.

I actually do not think that he was, technically speaking, proselytizing. I don't believe he had any intention of actually converting anyone in the classroom to Christianity or his Christian sect.

However, I do feel that he was preaching in the classroom, and that is not permissible.

Do you really feel that his religiously-themed statements were presented in appropriate context with the curriculum material, and if so, do you think it was a balanced presentation?

2. Do you think there is any danger in presenting religious beliefs, even in a balanced manner, when they conflict with the curriculum? For example, lets consider the case of a student asking their science teacher if it was possible for man to live for 3 days in the belly a living whale. Would it be appropriate for the teacher to state that the given science curriculum would indicate that the man could not live, but many Christians believe that this is indeed possible (with God's mercy, of course)?

[Guest Guest]

71214[/snapback]

Good job Strife.

Coming in as a guest was a great idea.

[Guest Guest]

Then shouldn't you be able to provide me an application of the precedent demonstrating your claim?

Or is it supposed to rest on your accompanying huffing and puffing?

The law was simply struck down in each case.  There were no other relevant consequences for the state, so your talk about a "state actor" is superfluous.

A religion was discussed in class, and that is allowed.

Or if it's not, then something's been done to the First Amendment.

71186[/snapback]

For a good analysis of the state actor doctrine, see http://www.txnb.uscourts.gov/opinions/rfn/...63_20060511.pdf.

See also West v. Atkins, 487 US 42, 49 (1988) and US v. Classic, 313 US 299 (1941).

These cases can be found through the following links, respectively.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/487/42/

http://supreme.justia.com/us/313/299/case.html

There is no doubt under these cases that an individual acting under the state’s authority is a state actor. There is also no doubt that a public school teacher acts under the state’s authority while teaching in the public classroom.

For an analysis of this legal issue from the perspective of an organization that promotes religious exercise in the public schools, see http://www.nlf.net/Resources/issues/syatp%...on%20letter.htm. Even they recognize that “whether teachers can actively participate in See You at the Pole depends on whether they are acting in their official capacity or as a citizen.”

In this case, there is no question that Mr. Paszkiewicz was acting in his official capacity while teaching the class. The mere fact that he departed from the curriculum and all good sense does not change that fact.

How d'ya like them applications, dimwit?

[Strife767]

No, I will not accept that Paszkiewicz was disrespectful to his students.

I'm so glad you finally admitted that Mr. P respected everyone of his student.

No, stupid, I'm talking about not accepting the disrespect, not rejecting the fact that he was disrespectful. Nice try--actually, no. Care to try again?

Including the one that stabbed him on the back.

LOL, it's backstabbing to present someone with their own words?

Everyone opinions was heard, everyone participated and everyone was respected.

71250[/snapback]

Paszkiewicz disrespected (and underestimated) Matthew when he assumed that Matthew would not be resourceful enough to prove his accusations to be true, and attempted to lie his way out of responsibility for any wrongdoing. And that's just one example.

[Strife767]

Paul has noticed this trend, I'm sure.  Whenever we use words they don't understand, we suddenly become "pompous".

Haha, I know exactly what you're talking about--several times when talking to someone, the moment I use a word he/she doesn't understand, I become "stuck-up" or "arrogant" to them (it's rare that person even has 'access' to the word "pompous" ).