David Paszkiewicz should be fired

[Strife767]

He was cut short, iirc.

Were you there?

Because he was cut short/ran out of time. 

Were you there?

This is what I've heard from credible people. A "guest"'s contradiction is not exactly enough to counter that.

Yeah, because he didn't endorse his religion (which is Christianity) by the way).

What twisted version are you talking about?

Version of what? Yes, Miller is a Christian, if that's what you're talking about. If not, rephrase--preferably with some coherence.

He quickly shut down anyone with disagreeing opinions.

Keep trying.

This is like saying "better luck next time" to a dart player who just hit the triple 20 on all three throws.

Everyone was respected? What about the people in his classes that he declared belonged in Hell as a result of their beliefs? You call that respect? Is that what your religion teaches you--that it's respectful to condemn unbelievers to eternal suffering?

If you don't like go tell God. But since you don't believe in God just wait until you feel the heat. To be honest God might chose to start with your tongue just to teach you a lesson for all the times you mocked Him. 

1. "God" is not the foundation of law in this country; the Constitution is. If you don't like that, feel free to pray for it to magically change.

2. Keep your sick, sadistic fantasies to yourself. Look at the horrible ways this faith has warped your mind. You would positively relish seeing me burn, wouldn't you? Depraved monster.

When that time comes, don't act stupid, as you do here everyday.

Am I a doodyhead, too?

Accept what comes to you. It was your choice. NOT God's.

70876[/snapback]

No, I will not accept that Paszkiewicz was disrespectful to his students. How is that my choice, by the way? Do you even read what you write?

[Strife767]

They could, but I think it would unconstitutional.  It would be a restriction on various freedoms that are protected in other areas of the Constitution.

It depends on what one means by "atheism," I think. There is strong atheism, which is a positive assertion about the non-existence of a god or gods, and then there is weak atheism, which is merely a lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods.

The former would (or at least should) be just as prohibited as the endorsement of any religion (though I wouldn't call it itself a religion simply because there are no real tenets associated with it--the only thing necessarily common between any two strong atheists is the positive assertion mentioned above), so I think legally it should be, for all intents and purposes, considered the same way a religion is.

The latter, in a way would be practically impossible to endorse in the first place even if one were to try, because there is no positive statement/claim made at all. "I don't believe X" is not an endorsement of anything, and so couldn't be prohibited, I don't think.

Thoughts?

[Guest Guest]

So you utilized the fallacy of appeal to ridicule, then.

Your daddy uses fallacies routinely, also.

70870[/snapback]

As a result of excessively stupid argumentation by Bryan, I regularly ignore him.

[Guest Guest]

How would the flood being a mistake possibly challenge what Paszkiewicz had said?

It's a complete change of subject; the only commonality is that it's still talking about the Bible (leaping off from the mention of Noah and the ark).  That'll be enough for the weasel, Strife.

You've changed topics on us.  I was dealing with Strife's claim that Paszkiewicz "introduced every religious topic himself."

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=70567

By what law or precedent?

Back it up or zip it. 

Again, you're engaged in a confusion over our topic.  Strife made an inaccurate statement about Paszkiewicz (part of a river of disinformation from his detractors) and I challenged it.

This serves as yet another fine example of your side rushing to take statements out of context.

70871[/snapback]

Engel v. Vitale. Abington v. Schempp.

Grow up, Bryan.

[Guest Guest]

If you don't like go tell God. But since you don't believe in God just wait until you feel the heat. To be honest God might chose to start with your tongue just to teach you a lesson for all the times you mocked Him. 

When that time comes, don't act stupid, as you do here everyday.

Accept what comes to you. It was your choice. NOT God's.

70876[/snapback]

As if we didn't already know, your opinions are based entirely on your religious beliefs. That's all they are, your beliefs. The rest of us aren't bound by them, and most of us don't buy them.

I really wish you could see how angry you are.

I really wish you could see that you just admitted Matthew's main point.

I really wish it was possible to have a discussion with you. But for that, you'll have to open your mind and accept the fact that your religious beliefs are just that. They do not hold sway in our public schools, and you may not force them on the rest of us; and we, contrary to your sick and twisted vision of eternal hellfire, are not going to spend eternity being punished by anyone. You can live in that hell if you want to. Most of us don't.

[Guest Guest]

It was not cut short.

He had a certain amount of time and he used part of that time to talk about himself.

70879[/snapback]

So what? He's a stranger to the school, it's expected. If people don't know who he is, why should they listen to him?

Kenneth Miller is one of the most respected biologists and educators in the country. There's no way he did anything out of line.

The people criticizing him are complete idiots. Your side lost. Get over it.

[Guest Guest]

(even if it's wrong)

This idea has been pushed back into the news recently by the news that Haeckel's drawings of embryonic similarities were not correct. British embryologist Michael Richardson and his colleages published an important paper in the August 1997 issue of Anatomy & Embryology showing that Haeckel had fudged his drawings to make the early stages of embryos appear more alike than they actually are! As it turns out, Haeckel's contemporaries had spotted the fraud during his lifetime, and got him to admit it. However, his drawings nonetheless became the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology in nearly every biology textbook, including ours!

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/Haeckel.html

Apparently the village idiot thinks this makes a point. Gimme a break. Miller is a respected biologist. His word is good against Bryyyyyyan's 24/7.

(I tried to find a source Paul would trust)

I find a way to make clear that I do not regard evolution, properly understood, as either antireligious or antispiritual. Most students seem to appreciate those sentiments. They probably figure that Professor Miller, trying to be a nice guy and doubtlessly an agnostic, is trying to find a way to be unequivocal about evolution without offending the University chaplain.

There are always a few who find me after class and want to pin me down. They ask me point-blank: "Do you believe in God?"

And I tell each of them, "Yes."

http://www.findingdarwinsgod.com/excerpt/index.html

Miller seems to have a relatively poor understanding of philosophy (he might be slightly better at philosophy of science--one can hope).

So what? He was there to teach evolutionary biology, not philosophy. Leave it to Bryan to leave no nit unpicked.

Sounds like he goes beyond that with his own students.

So what? He teaches at a private university, where he's allowed to do that.

What Paszkiewicz and Miller do with their students looks rather similar.

You've gotta be freaking kidding me. Dinosaurs on Noah's ark? Ack, why did I even bother with Bryyyyyyyyyyan?

But Paul agrees more with Miller.

What Miller said about philosophy (and science, in referencing contingency) in his book excerpt was just wrong (and Paszkiewicz was right about each of the areas of science that the LaClairs have claimed were wrong).  I hope he didn't repeat the bad information to KHS students.

What, specifically, did Miller teach that contradicted Paszkiewicz?

Kind of like Paul LaClair that way.  LaClair still hasn't admitted that he and Mini-me were wrong about the big bang, and the elder LaClair, to my knowledge, still hasn't admitted his error regarding the bogus targeted gas boycott idea.

Well, got me there. 

And that's why Matthew had to take statements out of context and lie to Paszkiewicz's supervisors.

Disgusting. What a jerk.

70880[/snapback]

[Guest Guest]

Jeez, Bryan, we've been over this many times.  Those on both sides have listened to the entire exchange.  I know I did.  We heard proselytizing.  As I may have mentioned before, I was brought up in a Southern Baptist church.  I certainly recognize preachin' when I hear it.

The denial is not on the tape, as you very well know.  . . .

Leigh

70896[/snapback]

Actually, Paszkiewicz's denials are recorded, if that's what you're referring to. Matthew recorded the meeting in the principal's office where Paszkiewicz lied about what he had said. That recording used to be online - not sure if it still is.

[Guest Guest]

I'm so sorry!

Matthew said so it must be law.

70869[/snapback]

That's not the point. People with a proven track record of distorting the truth and outright lying (the religious right) don't like the fact that a nationally renowned expert in evolutionary biology was brought into KHS to clean up Mr. Packy's dinosaur do-do. So they're pulling their usual routine of inventing non-facts that in their minds somehow justify them. It's no surprise. They do it all the time. That's why most of us can't stand them, and won't open our doors when they come trying to tell us that they know just how we can be saved from a hell that exists only in their narrow little minds.

The point is that Kenneth Miller is too good a speaker to have spent an excessive or an inadequate amount of time stating his credentials. It's just that a few people with their noses out of joint don't like hearing the truth because they think it contradicts their religion.

[Guest Guest]

How would the flood being a mistake possibly challenge what Paszkiewicz had said?

It's a complete change of subject; the only commonality is that it's still talking about the Bible (leaping off from the mention of Noah and the ark).  That'll be enough for the weasel, Strife.

70871[/snapback]

Paszkiewicz had been babbling about Noah's ark and related theological subjects for half an hour by the time Matthew asked this question. The question didn't have to relate to the last thing he said. There was plenty of material to draw on. As someone said early on in a blog on this story, if I had been there, I would have gone Richard Dawkins on his ass.

The other point, as someone just noted: IT DOESN'T MATTER. Teachers may not promote a religion in a public school, not even in response to a question. Doesn't matter whether the student changed the subject. In his mind, the question seemed a logical one to ask. In fact, it was an excellent question to challenge the buffoon.

What part of IT DOESN'T MATTER don't you morons understand?

[Guest Guest]

And that's why Matthew had to take statements out of context and lie to Paszkiewicz's supervisors.

70880[/snapback]

This is disgusting. Matthew presented the officials with recordings. Recordings are recordings. There's nothing out of context.

I'd say this is a new low for Bryan, but unfortunately it isn't.

[Guest Paul]

Sorry, but I just got to thinking a little more about this post. Please expand on "fining people for smoking where children can see them" First of all how would you propose to enforce this? Secondly instead of fining me, an adult smoker, how about we let those parents do thier job and explain to the children about smoking. Again I ask you Paul, what's next? Today I'm fined because a child saw me smoke, tommorrow you are find because some kid saw you with a large order of fries? You of all people should be aware of the kind of precedents we would be setting with this kind of activity. I have to be honest that I am sick and tired of my activities as an adult being being called out because we have to protect  the children. Maybe it should be up to parents should do thier jobs and teach children instead of Kindergarten Cops handing out tickets because some kid saw me lighting up in my vehicle. BTW no one in my family smoked while I was growing up so I don't think your theory would work too well. If you really want to "protect" the children maybe you should be more concerned about  what's on TV, video games and music. Children can come home from school and watch the Jerry Springer show or any other manner of trash but you want to fine me if one see's me smoking? Naturally I don't advocate anyone smoking unless they are 18 but that is no excuse to infringe on my rights as an adult.

70881[/snapback]

Keith, I don't know how a system of fines might work. It was just an idea.

I understand your points. They're all good ones, especially your concern about government being constantly on our backs for every detail of our lives. I get it. On the other hand, smoking is a social problem and framing this as a choice between parental respsonsibility and government action is a false choice. Obviously I hit a raw nerve.

[Guest Paul]

There is no way that atheism is a religion, the same way that "independents" are not members of a political party.

It's true that atheism, as a concept, only exists in the context of religion/theism/deism, but that does not make it a religion per se.

70936[/snapback]

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.

[Bryan]

Jeez, Bryan, we've been over this many times.  Those on both sides have listened to the entire exchange.  I know I did.  We heard proselytizing.  As I may have mentioned before, I was brought up in a Southern Baptist church.  I certainly recognize preachin' when I hear it.

That is not a principled answer. It's akin to claiming you know art when you see it.

The denial is not on the tape, as you very well know.

The denial, I believe, is allegedly on the tape of the office meeting attended by Somma, LaClair, Paskiewicz and Woods. Perhaps you're talking about a different denial, but I doubt it. And in any case Matthew's behavior in the office meeting marked him as a witness of dubious reliability (presenting quotations devoid of context and making deceptive comments).

It comes from Matthew's testimony.  I believe him.  You don't.

I compared Matthew's words to what I heard on the tape.

Interesting to note that Leigh broadcasts her bias by believing LaClair based on his word.

I believe Matthew because he has been the more credible witness.

In what way? Was it the way he tells Mr. Somma that he doesn't see how he can prove what Paszkiewicz said in class? Nothing like a little deception to help establish one's credibility ...

And if P. has denied it, I'm not aware of it.

The DA wants you on the jury if you'll use that kind of presumption against the defendant.

And by the way, I don't think you're close-minded.  I think you're willfully blind.

For example? Or can you not see one?

You've certainly attempted to demonstrate some problem with context -- ad nauseum, in fact.  You've failed miserably.

For example?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that someone who says dinosaurs were on the Ark is full of crap.

And you're certainly no rocket scientist. We can at least agree on that.

P.'s later letter to the editor was full of fake history, courtesy of that crackpot David Barton.

I proved rather convincingly that Paszkiewicz almost certainly did not get his information from Barton. You'd have to have been blind to miss it.

And Paszkiewicz's quotations were all historical, I believe. He did make an error in not properly contextualizing two quotations of Jefferson (and drew from a source that misidentified the letter), however.

So ... here we have the Christian, Leigh, lying about Paszkiewicz with her "full of fake history" comment. Nice work, Leigh.

And his take on hell is very bad theology indeed, as we exhaustively explored on another thread.

So yes, I can recognize those evils when I see them.  Just as I can recognize your sophistry, no matter how much you roll your eyes.

70896[/snapback]

Leigh has remained consistently clueless.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=42513

[mnodonnell]

Bryan, here is a question specifically for you*; something that can allow you to illustrate your point:

In what context (I know you love context) is it appropriate for a teacher in a public school to express their personal religious beliefs?

*Well, If others would like to answer, feel free.

[mnodonnell]

Regarding Kenneth Miller's presentation: why are we having so much discussion about a presentation that no one witnessed?

Besides, it was a presentation on evolution and anyone who really understands evolution knows that it is not a debatable topic.

[Bryan]

Paszkiewicz had been babbling about Noah's ark and related theological subjects for half an hour by the time Matthew asked this question. The question didn't have to relate to the last thing he said. There was plenty of material to draw on. As someone said early on in a blog on this story, if I had been there, I would have gone Richard Dawkins on his ass.

LaClair's question was not related to any of Paszkiewicz's topics that preceded. The question about the supposed mistake was intended to change to a different topic.

The other point, as someone just noted: IT DOESN'T MATTER. Teachers may not promote a religion in a public school, not even in response to a question.

Describing the Christian explanation for the problem of evil is not promoting a religion any more than discussing Henry Ford promotes the Ford Motor Company.

Doesn't matter whether the student changed the subject.

Actually it matters quite a bit--with respect to Strife's claim that Pasziewicz brought up every religious subject.

I'll bet he's glad you're helping to cover for his lie, however.

[Bryan]

As a result of excessively stupid argumentation by Bryan, I regularly ignore him.

70986[/snapback]

If you ignore Matthew's fallacy, then it didn't really happen.

[Bryan]

Engel v. Vitale.

A suit challenging a prayer composed by government officials and mandated as a regular recital in class?

How is that supposed to be a precedent for this case? There is no legislation involved, here.

Abington v. Schempp.

Likewise, a statute mandating a Bible reading.

There's no statute in this case. How does the precedent apply?

Grow up, Bryan.

70987[/snapback]

Don't let Google do your thinking for you.

[Bryan]

This is disgusting. Matthew presented the officials with recordings. Recordings are recordings. There's nothing out of context.

Matthew's entire presentation took the quotations out of context.

There was no playing of the recording during the meeting.

I'd say this is a new low for Bryan, but unfortunately it isn't.

70999[/snapback]

Your unintended irony is impressive. You were able to ignore the obvious truth in favor of slavishly covering for LaClair effortlessly.

[Strife767]

Kenneth Miller is one of the most respected biologists and educators in the country. There's no way he did anything out of line.

Well, it's certainly not impossible. But it is monumentally unlikely, all things considered.

The people criticizing him are complete idiots. Your side lost. Get over it.

70991[/snapback]

Yes, it really is time to accept reality and move on.

Not to mention that if Miller had actually done something out of line, considering the atmosphere in KHS at least at the time the whole Paszkiewicz issue occurred, everyone would have jumped down his throat for it; yet no one did--all we're getting are a lot of "guests" with vague complaints, and criticisms for totally reasonable things (coming down on him for a freaking introduction? Are you kidding me?).

And didn't the superintendent have nothing but good things to say about the assembly?

Stop whining, people.

[Strife767]

Actually, Paszkiewicz's denials are recorded, if that's what you're referring to. Matthew recorded the meeting in the principal's office where Paszkiewicz lied about what he had said. That recording used to be online - not sure if it still is.

70994[/snapback]

It must be, but I forget where--couldn't find it by searching in the forum.

Maybe Paul or Matthew could re-link us here if/when they read this?

[Guest Guest]

That is not a principled answer.  It's akin to claiming you know art when you see it.

71015[/snapback]

We also know a jerk when we see one. Or would you like us to list the criteria?

[Guest Guest]

Keith, I don't know how a system of fines might work. It was just an idea.

I understand your points. They're all good ones, especially your concern about government being constantly on our backs for every detail of our lives. I get it. On the other hand, smoking is a social problem and framing this as a choice between parental respsonsibility and government action is a false choice. Obviously I hit a raw nerve.

71004[/snapback]

How about we just ban smoking because it's filthy and disgusting. The people that do it are affecting those around them that have the right to be in a smoke free environment.

Keith is a classic paranoid who thinks the government is out to get him. He said a few posts back that he's got a problem with almost all of the laws the government uses in privately owned establishments. Maybe we should all start urinating or fighting in the middle of a restaurant because the owner says it's ok.

[Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo]

Keith, I don't know how a system of fines might work. It was just an idea.

I understand your points. They're all good ones, especially your concern about government being constantly on our backs for every detail of our lives. I get it. On the other hand, smoking is a social problem and framing this as a choice between parental respsonsibility and government action is a false choice. Obviously I hit a raw nerve.

71004[/snapback]

Paul,

You are correct that this issue does hit a raw nerve because where will it all end?We can't live in a vacuum. There will always be many dangers that children will be exposed to, that's part of growind up. If you see a flag today, stop and look at it for a minute and think about what it really stands for. Freedom maybe? That's what I've always beed told. If you truly want to live in a free country the sometimes you have to put up with things you don't agree with without trying to legislate them away.