Matthew's intelligence

[Guest Ad Infinitum]

As long as we're at it, let's explore Matthew's role in Mr. Doofus' class. Let's take the same September 14, 2006 session.

The first question Matthew asks is an excellent one, perfectly on point, and utterly correct: "Isn't the whole point of public school so that you can separate personal beliefs from teachers and administrators from non-religious teachings during school, like school prayer and all that?"

He's exactly right. The point of public school is to teach students about objective truths in the world, irrespective of religious belief and irrespective of individual teachers' biases. Things like science, math and history. Matthew is absolutely dead right, and it's the perfect question in response to the fact that Mr. Doofus is already misusing the classroom to promote his religion.

So what does Mr. Doofus say? "No. The purpose of public education is to provide free education to people that couldn't afford education. Period." He then goes on to whine about the public schools having become vehicles for social engineering to imply that how each school handles religion should be up to the majority in each school district.

Well, yet again, Mr. Doofus is wrong. The states determine the purposes of their educational systems, not Mr. Doofus, but they must stay within Constitutional boundaries. Many of the states have policy statements about the purposes of their educational systems. These usually include the promotion of democratic values and diversity, including religious diversity. Mr. Doofus says in substance, oh no, democracy has nothing to do with our American education system (ignorant jackass!), and we don't want religious diversity. We want the majority to decide how religion is going to be handled in the schools. News flash, Mr. Doofus. In the USA, the majority doesn't control in matters of religion. They do in Iraq and they did in the Soviet Union, but not here. The majority can, if it gets big enough, impose its will and dictate. But if it does that, the USA will no longer be the USA. If that happens, our country will have abandoned its commitment to religious freedom for everyone, not just those in the majority.

And this is supposed to be history class. Matthew knows more about our history vis-a-vis religious freedom than this so-called teacher. That's one of the great ironies in this story.

So just to be clear, Mr. Proselytizing Fundie Doofus was promoting his religion, and Matthew asked a question designed to bring the subject matter back to what is appropriately discussed in a public school.

Great question, Matt. Well done.

[Guest 2smart4u]

As long as we're at it, let's explore Matthew's role in Mr. Doofus' class. Let's take the same September 14, 2006 session.

The first question Matthew asks is an excellent one, perfectly on point, and utterly correct: "Isn't the whole point of public school so that you can separate personal beliefs from teachers and administrators from non-religious teachings during school, like school prayer and all that?"

He's exactly right. The point of public school is to teach students about objective truths in the world, irrespective of religious belief and irrespective of individual teachers' biases. Things like science, math and history. Matthew is absolutely dead right, and it's the perfect question in response to the fact that Mr. Doofus is already misusing the classroom to promote his religion.

So what does Mr. Doofus say? "No. The purpose of public education is to provide free education to people that couldn't afford education. Period." He then goes on to whine about the public schools having become vehicles for social engineering to imply that how each school handles religion should be up to the majority in each school district.

Well, yet again, Mr. Doofus is wrong. The states determine the purposes of their educational systems, not Mr. Doofus, but they must stay within Constitutional boundaries. Many of the states have policy statements about the purposes of their educational systems. These usually include the promotion of democratic values and diversity, including religious diversity. Mr. Doofus says in substance, oh no, democracy has nothing to do with our American education system (ignorant jackass!), and we don't want religious diversity. We want the majority to decide how religion is going to be handled in the schools. News flash, Mr. Doofus. In the USA, the majority doesn't control in matters of religion. They do in Iraq and they did in the Soviet Union, but not here. The majority can, if it gets big enough, impose its will and dictate. But if it does that, the USA will no longer be the USA. If that happens, our country will have abandoned its commitment to religious freedom for everyone, not just those in the majority.

And this is supposed to be history class. Matthew knows more about our history vis-a-vis religious freedom than this so-called teacher. That's one of the great ironies in this story.

So just to be clear, Mr. Proselytizing Fundie Doofus was promoting his religion, and Matthew asked a question designed to bring the subject matter back to what is appropriately discussed in a public school.

Great question, Matt. Well done.

71728[/snapback]

"Ad Infinitum" ?? Paul has yet another pen name.

[Guest Ad Infinitum]

The second question Matthew asked in class on 9/14/06 was this: “What would decide what should be – what religion should be taught in schools, what would decide that?”

This is another excellent question, entirely appropriate in a US history class, and actually germane to the subject matter that the class was supposed to cover. So here is the second example in a row of the student, Matthew, giving the teacher an opportunity to bring the class back into appropriate subject matter. That may not have been Matthew’s intention, but a truly good teacher would have appreciated the reminder and shifted the discussion back onto appropriate turf. Of course, that is not what happened.

The point suggested by the question, which any competent history who was actually doing his job would have seen, is because the USA is a religiously diverse country, where all religions have equal room for expression, there are no grounds for deciding which religion to teach in the schools. Surprisingly, Mr. Proselytizing Fundie Doofus tacitly concedes that point, but because he doesn’t like it he fails to explain it, choosing instead to say only that “the public schools shouldn’t teach a religion.” It was a perfect opportunity for him to explain why, but he blew it, the obvious reason being that he doesn’t really believe it.

We know that because he spent the next few minutes trying to find a way around it, arguing first that the Bible isn’t a religion, and therefore it’s OK to read from it (approvingly, of course), and then arguing that if his religious beliefs coincide with those of the majority in the school district, he should be allowed to promote them. Matt asked a great question, but Paszkiewicz’s answer was contradictory and, of course, confusing.

[Guest Ad Infinitum]

Matthew’s third question on 9/14/06 was in response to Paszkiewicz’s (P) argument that the Bible is not a religion, and therefore “we should be able to bring that into the classroom, read it, and shouldn’t be threatened by anybody.” Unfortunately, that statement completely misapprehends and in fact ignores the reasons for the law, which holds that reading the Bible for the purpose of promoting its teachings constitutes the promotion of a religion. So for starters, P’s view is incorrect in the law. It is also incorrect factually because in fact the Bible is a major part of the Christian religion, a point Christians would normally jump at the chance to make, unless of course it doesn’t suit their purposes in that moment; the argument that the Bible is not a religion is disingenuous, which is no surprise considering where this is coming from.

Then followed Matthew’s third question of the day: “What if some students don’t believe in the Bible?” For the third time now, the student is trying to bring a renegade teacher back to an appropriate subject matter. In asking that question, Matthew correctly identified and interpreted the applicable law, isolated the problem with P’s position and posed it to P and the class in the form of a question. Matthew wasn’t asking P to discuss theology here, the Bible’s contents; he was asking P to justify his argument in light of the reasons behind the legal rule that rejects P’s argument. Matthew was the one discussing the Bible in light of US history. Mr. Doofus wasn’t going to be satisfied until he proselytized for it.

So what does P do? Well, instead of answering the question, he does what hard-line fundies usually do. He changes the subject: “Well, that’s their prerogative. What if the student doesn’t believe in evolution? What if the student doesn’t believe in some other aspect of the educational curriculum?”

The correct and proper answer to P’s question, of course, is that the curriculum is taught anyway. Schools don’t stop teaching math just because some student decides he doesn’t buy into calculus, or evolution just because some student thinks he knows more about it than the worldwide body of scientists who have devoted their lives to studying and applying it.

But at least P has set the standard for himself. To defend his position, he has to justify the Bible as part of the curriculum in the public schools, because after all, the argument is about what we do in response to objections about some aspect of the curriculum. The problem with that is that the courts have already ruled that promoting the Bible as part of the curriculum in the public schools is unconstitutional; and in fact the Bible is not a part of the curriculum, certainly not in the sense that Mr. Proselytizing Fundie Doofus means. A school might offer historical study on the Bible if they’re not merely using that as a front to promote it as a religious text, but it can’t allow daily Bible reading just for the sake of reading from the Bible, which is what Mr. Proselytizing Fundie Doofus was arguing to do. That is promoting a religion. So the correct and proper answer to Matthew's question is: "That's why we don't teach the Bible in public schools. Not everyone believes in it, it's not objectively proved to be true, and that's why it's not a part of the curriculum."

The second problem with Doofus’ answer is that by contrasting the Bible with evolution, Doofus (D) just walked himself into the evolution-creationism issue, something a public school teacher with any sense these days knows better than to do. The courts have held, correctly, that because evolution is science, it may be taught as a part of the science curriculum. The Bible, which is not science, may not. In fact, with evolution now the unifying principle for all of modern biology, we can’t afford to have our schools not teach it, because if we do that, other countries that are teaching evolution are going to keep widening the gap between us and them in the sciences – a battle we’re already losing, and falling further behind all the time. In other words, with his answer, D (Doofus Paszkiewicz) just did exactly what the courts have ruled he may not do.

Then it gets worse, fast:

Matthew: “Well, evolution is scientific, evolution . . .”

DP: “Is it?”

Matthew: “Yes, I can get you a whole bunch of information on it.”

DP: “Matt, I’m 38 years old, I’ve seen the information.”

Of all the stupid remarks Doofus made over these few days, that last remark is among the worst. We’ll get to that. D then proceeds to butcher an explanation of evolution and the scientific method to make the argument that evolution has no basis in fact, while biblical creationism is fully supported, established and proved by biblical prophecy. That’s utter nonsense, but that’s what he said.

So there you have it. The discussion on the Bible was initiated by the teacher, the student asked three consecutive questions, and now makes a comment, trying to bring the discussion back onto proper ground, but Mr. Proselytizing Fundie Doofus, being hell-bent on proselytizing, insisted to doing exactly what the law says he may not do. And that is why Dr. Kenneth Miller just came to Kearny High to correct what the Doofus had said.

So what’s wrong with what Mr. Proselytizing Fundie Doofus did here?

1. He doesn’t know a thing about evolution, which is why the school brought in Dr. Miller to correct him.

2. He dissed the approved science curriculum from pure ignorance.

3. He trashed established science to promote his religion.

4. He completely missed his chance to explain the reasons for the law, which would have been appropriate in a US history class.

5. He brought the discussion deeper and deeper into religion. He and his apologists have tried to claim that he was just the helpless teacher roped into a discussion on religion because his students kept asking him questions about it. That’s not what happened. Just the opposite, Matthew kept trying to bring the discussion back onto appropriate ground, and Doofus kept insisting that it remain focused on religion – and not just any religion, but his religion – and not just focused on the subject of religion, but focused on an effort to promote and proselytize his religion.

6. The arrogance of this man, implying that he has read all there is to read on evolutionary biology, when he obviously doesn’t know the first thing about it, is mind-bending.

And it gets worse after that. However, Matthew has been, and remains, squarely on target throughout.

[Guest 2smart4u]

The second question Matthew asked in class on 9/14/06 was this: “What would decide what should be – what religion should be taught in schools, what would decide that?”

This is another excellent question, entirely appropriate in a US history class, and actually germane to the subject matter that the class was supposed to cover. So here is the second example in a row of the student, Matthew, giving the teacher an opportunity to bring the class back into appropriate subject matter. That may not have been Matthew’s intention, but a truly good teacher would have appreciated the reminder and shifted the discussion back onto appropriate turf. Of course, that is not what happened.

The point suggested by the question, which any competent history who was actually doing his job would have seen, is because the USA is a religiously diverse country, where all religions have equal room for expression, there are no grounds for deciding which religion to teach in the schools. Surprisingly, Mr. Proselytizing Fundie Doofus tacitly concedes that point, but because he doesn’t like it he fails to explain it, choosing instead to say only that “the public schools shouldn’t teach a religion.” It was a perfect opportunity for him to explain why, but he blew it, the obvious reason being that he doesn’t really believe it.

We know that because he spent the next few minutes trying to find a way around it, arguing first that the Bible isn’t a religion, and therefore it’s OK to read from it (approvingly, of course), and then arguing that if his religious beliefs coincide with those of the majority in the school district, he should be allowed to promote them. Matt asked a great question, but Paszkiewicz’s answer was contradictory and, of course, confusing.

72215[/snapback]

Give us a break with the pen names. After a gazillion postings, everyone knows

your writing style, PAULIE.

[Strife767]

Give us a break with the pen names. After a gazillion postings, everyone knows

  your writing style, PAULIE.

72511[/snapback]

And baseless accusations are all 2dim can muster when he knows he's got no answer, no counter-argument, no nothing.

[Guest Guest]

Give us a break with the pen names. After a gazillion postings, everyone knows

  your writing style, PAULIE.

72511[/snapback]

And yours when you're not being bleeped. To you, everyone who writes above sixth-grade level must look the same.

[billydee4]

And baseless accusations are all 2dim can muster when he knows he's got no answer, no counter-argument, no nothing.

72562[/snapback]

Sorry, Strife, but I have to call you on this. 2dumb has never had an answer, a counter-argument, or point. He only makes stupid comments when he either disagrees with or doesn't understand a post. I think he just doesnt understand much at all.

[Guest Guest]

And yours when you're not being bleeped. To you, everyone who writes above sixth-grade level must look the same.

72569[/snapback]

2smart4u is right. Everyone can see through Paul's multiple pen names. He's such a jerk.

[Strife767]

Sorry, Strife, but I have to call you on this.  2dumb has never had an answer, a counter-argument, or point.

Which is why he always makes stupid comments.

He only makes stupid comments when he either disagrees with or doesn't understand a post.  I think he just doesnt understand much at all.

72640[/snapback]

[Guest Guest]

2smart4u  is right. Everyone can see through Paul's multiple pen names. He's such a jerk.

72954[/snapback]

Shouldn't the focus of any discussions have been about the issues? Aren't the real jerks the ones who tried to make it personal by attacking people instead of focusing on what happened? Isn't everyone who said Matthew was just out to get Paszkiewicz a jerk for overlooking and ignoring the fact that he wasn't just making claims about what was said? He had hard proof in the form of recordings.

Assume you're right. Assume that everyone on one side of this is Paul and everyone on the other side is Paszkiewicz himself. So what? Forget about the fact that you don't really know what you're claiming as fact. Forget about the fact that you could be anyone. Aren't you being a jerk by buying into the idea that this is a personality contest?

[Guest Guest]

If this is accurate, then obviously Paszkiewicz was lying when he said the student set him up. That alone - lying about what he did and lying about a student - should have gotten him fired.