Jump to content

Student rights and community understanding


Guest Paul

Recommended Posts

Guest Gene Queval
No metaphysical basis for your morality? Does that concern you at all? When your unique morals conflict with those of somebody else (as with your basis for objecting to the Christian account of salvation), do you not wonder whether there is a correct view?

Your sketch of your ministerial duties and views was interesting, but I thought I'd stick with what I had asked you about. Thanks for the reply.

Hi Bryan,

I don’t make choices on the basis of metaphysics. It does not concern me and I don’t know which Christian accounts you think I object to. There is one Christian view that says that only one hundred and forty four thousand people will enter heaven and another that says everyone gets in. There are Trinitarians and Unitarians and host of others who object to some other Christian’s account of salvation. To pretend that there is a universal understanding of salvation among Christians would not be sincere for me. I am however perfectly willing for all those people to insist that they are correct… especially to each other. 

Strictly speaking it is in the implementation of ones morals where conflicts occur. I might prefer to enter every intersection upon arrival but there are modern traffic lights that mediate my preference. There are correct views but they are not absolute. They get tweaked by nuanced circumstances. We all should stop at the red light but we want the emergency responders to have the chance to save lives and going through the light might get them there in time. That said, I have been known to run a light now and then…I have sinned.

I get to my private sector job on public sector roads. I might prefer to save the tax that it costs to fill the pot hole but if it costs me more to make repairs on the car because the road damages my car I haven’t saved anything. Perhaps the greatest feature of the US Constitution is the fact that it’s amendable. I certainly would have argued for the repeal of prohibition had I been around back then even though alcohol is poison to the addicted. These are just a few examples of why I object to absolutism.

I am learning to live.

Gene

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi Bryan,

I don’t make choices on the basis of metaphysics. It does not concern me and I don’t know which Christian accounts you think I object to. There is one Christian view that says that only one hundred and forty four thousand people will enter heaven and another that says everyone gets in. There are Trinitarians and Unitarians and host of others who object to some other Christian’s account of salvation. To pretend that there is a universal understanding of salvation among Christians would not be sincere for me. I am however perfectly willing for all those people to insist that they are correct… especially to each other. 

Strictly speaking it is in the implementation of ones morals where conflicts occur. I might prefer to enter every intersection upon arrival but there are modern traffic lights that mediate my preference. There are correct views but they are not absolute. They get tweaked by nuanced circumstances. We all should stop at the red light but we want the emergency responders to have the chance to save lives and going through the light might get them there in time. That said, I have been known to run a light now and then…I have sinned.

I get to my private sector job on public sector roads. I might prefer to save the tax that it costs to fill the pot hole but if it costs me more to make repairs on the car because the road damages my car I haven’t saved anything. Perhaps the greatest feature of the US Constitution is the fact that it’s amendable. I certainly would have argued for the repeal of prohibition had I been around back then even though alcohol is poison to the addicted. These are just a few examples of why I object to absolutism.

I am learning to live.

Gene

Ah, Gene, I miss your practical approach to life and ethics.

"The wheel is spinning, but the hamster is dead."

What did you mean by that, anyway?

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this was an anonymous question from someone who wasn't confirming your biases, you wouldn't be calling it evidence. You're not fooling anyone except maybe yourself, Bryan.

At least your bias is clear enough.

Some Christians are constantly whining about being persecuted. What they would say if they were more intellectually honest about it is that they're not allowed to force their religion on everyone.

You should send a letter explaining that to the Christians in Darfur. Except most of them are dead already.

So when you write of a chilling effect, an objective person must consider the source. If that source is David Paszkiewicz, then it's just the usual whine from someone who thinks he should be allowed to push his religion on everyone else.

Again, your bias is clear enough.

And of course, you completely ignore the real problem, even assuming the stories to be true, which is ignorance. The solution is to educate teachers, not to refuse to uphold the law.

You appear to have neglected my reliance on the law in making my case. Very convenient for you, I'm sure.

you think[/b] it might in some way impede Christian evangelizing, you'll choose to ignore the law. That's exactly why this happened in the first place.

:lol:

Some of the straw men you guys build are so funny they should be doing shows in Vegas.

It's interesting, though, that you refer to the "chilling effect" of Supreme Court decisions. That's about as close as you ever come to admitting that these events happened because to uphold the law.

:lol:

Now playing at the Stardust ...

It wasn't the chilling effect "of" Supreme Court decisions to which I referred. It was the rationale used by the Supreme Court in reaching some of its key decisions regarding free speech. Didn't visit the source I provided before electing to insert your foot in your mouth, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

QUOTE

Some Christians are constantly whining about being persecuted. What they would say if they were more intellectually honest about it is that they're not allowed to force their religion on everyone.

You should send a letter explaining that to the Christians in Darfur.

There would be no reason to do that. The reference was obviously to American Christians who call their inability to force their religion on the rest of us "persecution".

Someone recently wrote that you're intelligent, Bryan. What I see is dishonesty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Bryan,

I don’t make choices on the basis of metaphysics. It does not concern me

That doesn't seem possible. Even if you think the ultimate reality is that there is no ultimate reality it should have some concern for you. Perhaps you mistake "metaphysics" for supernaturalism?

and I don’t know which Christian accounts you think I object to.

That seems odd considering you specified one of them for me. That's the example I had in mind and no other, unless you'd like to specifically add to the list you started ("I do not believe that a kind deity would require human sacrifice").

Strictly speaking it is in the implementation of ones morals where conflicts occur. I might prefer to enter every intersection upon arrival but there are modern traffic lights that mediate my preference. There are correct views but they are not absolute. They get tweaked by nuanced circumstances. We all should stop at the red light but we want the emergency responders to have the chance to save lives and going through the light might get them there in time. That said, I have been known to run a light now and then…I have sinned.

Have you really, if there is no metaphysical basis for sin? If you're not concerned with metaphysics then why let it concern you?

Perhaps the greatest feature of the US Constitution is the fact that it’s amendable.

If that were the greatest feature should we perhaps make it easier to amend the Constitution? When was the last time it was amended?

I certainly would have argued for the repeal of prohibition had I been around back then even though alcohol is poison to the addicted. These are just a few examples of why I object to absolutism.

I'm not supposed to apply that reasoning to the 13th Amendment by analogy, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
It wasn't the chilling effect "of" Supreme Court decisions to which I referred. It was the rationale used by the Supreme Court in reaching some of its key decisions regarding free speech.

That's like Joe Frazier saying "Foreman didn't knock me out, his fists did."

What a moronic argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Gene Queval
Ah, Gene, I miss your practical approach to life and ethics.

"The wheel is spinning, but the hamster is dead."

What did you mean by that, anyway?

Paul

My dear friend,

You are very kind and to quote me is flattering beyond merit. I have used that metaphor to describe an experience that many people can see in others but rarely in themselves. A particular kind of patterned decision making that repeatedly produces either a bad result or no change. A mental loop of inanity not unlike others we have heard. You know, like: pull over no one is driving or he's not playing with a full deck. As I recall, when I said it in your presence, everyone fell out laughing so hard that I guess it was easy to forget what it meant.

Do. Be. Do. Be. Do,

Gene

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Gene Queval

I don’t make choices on the basis of metaphysics. It does not concern me

That doesn't seem possible. Even if you think the ultimate reality is that there is no ultimate reality it should have some concern for you. Perhaps you mistake "metaphysics" for supernaturalism?

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy investigating principles of reality transcending those of any particular science, traditionally, cosmology and ontology. It is concerned with explaining the ultimate nature of being and the world. I am not interested in explaining the ultimate nature of being and the world. As far as I’m concerned I make choices based on the best information I have available.

Why do you choose an action?

QUOTE

and I don’t know which Christian accounts you think I object to.

That seems odd considering you specified one of them for me. That's the example I had in mind and no other, unless you'd like to specifically add to the list you started ("I do not believe that a kind deity would require human sacrifice").

There are a wide variety of opinions on the matter of salvation. Do you think there is a kind deity that requires human sacrifice?

QUOTE

Strictly speaking it is in the implementation of ones morals where conflicts occur. I might prefer to enter every intersection upon arrival but there are modern traffic lights that mediate my preference. There are correct views but they are not absolute. They get tweaked by nuanced circumstances. We all should stop at the red light but we want the emergency responders to have the chance to save lives and going through the light might get them there in time. That said, I have been known to run a light now and then…I have sinned.

Have you really, if there is no metaphysical basis for sin? If you're not concerned with metaphysics then why let it concern you?

No I have never sinned. It only concerns me when see the lights in the rearview mirror and hear the sirens.

Do you think running a traffic light is a sin?

QUOTE

Perhaps the greatest feature of the US Constitution is the fact that it’s amendable.

If that were the greatest feature should we perhaps make it easier to amend the Constitution? When was the last time it was amended?

Maybe we should make it easier, after all the 27th amendment was ratified in 1992 maybe we’re due.

What do you think?

QUOTE

I certainly would have argued for the repeal of prohibition had I been around back then even though alcohol is poison to the addicted. These are just a few examples of why I object to absolutism.

I'm not supposed to apply that reasoning to the 13th Amendment by analogy, I guess.

If memory serves there are 2 sections to the 13th Amendment. Section 2 defines the exceptions for section 1. What makes you think you shouldn’t lobby for or against the 13 amendment? Is it a political reasoning or a religious reasoning? Is it the little voice in your head? Is it the ultimate Goddess herself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My dear friend,

You are very kind and to quote me is flattering beyond merit. I have used that metaphor to describe an experience that many people can see in others but rarely in themselves. A particular kind of patterned decision making that repeatedly produces either a bad result or no change. A mental loop of inanity not unlike others we have heard. You know, like: pull over no one is driving or he's not playing with a full deck. As I recall, when I said it in your presence, everyone fell out laughing so hard that I guess it was easy to forget what it meant.

Do. Be. Do. Be. Do,

Gene

I'll never forget when you said that, it brought the house down. But it wouldn't have been what it was if someone else had said it. I've repeated that line hundreds of times.

I see you've turned to the great philosopher Sinatra, who tried to carve out a middle ground between Descartes (to do is to be) and Sartre (to be is to do), with Do-Be-Do-Be-Do. My personal favorite, though, is the great philosopher Flintstone (Yabba-Dabba-Doo).

Ah, school was such fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest *Autonomous*
That seems odd considering you specified one of them for me. That's the example I had in mind and no other, unless you'd like to specifically add to the list you started ("I do not believe that a kind deity would require human sacrifice").

This is an interesting feature of many theists, and explains many of their positions on atheists.

Not believing something is not objecting to it. I do not believe that God exists (please note "I do not believe" does not equate to "I know"-I'd really rather not rehash that crap again). That does not mean I object to the idea, it simply means I don't accept it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy investigating principles of reality transcending those of any particular science, traditionally, cosmology and ontology. It is concerned with explaining the ultimate nature of being and the world.

Smells like cut & paste. :angry:

I am not interested in explaining the ultimate nature of being and the world. As far as I’m concerned I make choices based on the best information I have available.

Gene, you weren't asked to explain the ultimate nature of being and the world. Your answer implicitly confirms that you're interested in the ultimate nature of being, for you aim to base your actions on the "best" information you have available. What makes a given datum the "best"?

Why do you choose an action?

Metaphysically, on the basis of my preferences via libertarian free will.

There are a wide variety of opinions on the matter of salvation. Do you think there is a kind deity that requires human sacrifice?

Yes. One that is both kind and just. Are you preparing the way to keep yourself from going on the defensive?

No I have never sinned. It only concerns me when see the lights in the rearview mirror and hear the sirens.

Do you think running a traffic light is a sin?

No, not necessarily. But it could be.

Maybe we should make it easier, after all the 27th amendment was ratified in 1992 maybe we’re due.

What do you think?

I think your answer is equivocal. I think that the Constitutional system of amendment is fine except that the courts have turned into a shortcut to constitutional amendments, making the use of amendments for significant changes seem unduly arduous.

Gene:

I certainly would have argued for the repeal of prohibition had I been around back then even though alcohol is poison to the addicted. These are just a few examples of why I object to absolutism.

Bryan:

I'm not supposed to apply that reasoning to the 13th Amendment by analogy, I guess.

Gene:

If memory serves there are 2 sections to the 13th Amendment. Section 2 defines the exceptions for section 1. What makes you think you shouldn’t lobby for or against the 13 amendment?

What makes you think I think that? Was I not specifically talking about application of your logic?

Is it a political reasoning or a religious reasoning? Is it the little voice in your head? Is it the ultimate Goddess herself?

I thought we were talking about your logic. You're not a goddess, are you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Last evening I attended meet-the-candidates night at Garfield School. Four of the five Board candidates were there, all except Ms. Santos. I asked some questions, and I believe Mr. Paszkiewicz, who was also there, asked a question.

I cannot be certain Mr. Paszkiewicz asked this question, but he did fill out a card, and I presume that he did ask this. He stated that three Christian students’ rights have recently been violated. One was a student who was not allowed to pray at lunch (I think it was lunch). Another was a student whose letter to the troops was censored because it contained a Christian reference. I do not recall the third incident, but it was of a similar character.

Mr. Paszkiewicz’s question for the Board members was whether the teachers are now fearful because of what happened in his case, and are over-reacting. If they are, they have no reason to be.

The problem, if there is one, is not fear, but misunderstanding. The legal distinction is abundantly clear. That was the purpose of the ADL training. The students may express their religious views in school. Teachers and other school employees and officials are restricted.

If any of these incidents occurred, it was wrong. The students should have been allowed to express themselves.

You may notice that we have not protested the formation of the Christian club at the high school, advised by Mr. Paszkiewicz. That is because as far as we know the club is operating within the law. As long as it does so, it will have only our good wishes.

It is a pity that Mr. Paszkiewicz and his supporters refuse to make any attempt to speak with me. There is room for common ground. Had he, or any of these students, come to me, I would have defended their right to express themselves as vigorously as I pressed the case that Mr. Paszkiewicz was out of line.

I am very sorry that the incident struck some raw nerves, and opened wounds that apparently will not heal, but it is time to get past it and look for common ground. I considered this to be a moral obligation when I was a practicing Christian, and I still do, no less now than then. Misunderstanding persists because one side refuses to talk to the other.

So I take this opportunity again to invite a dialogue between the opposing sides. My number is in the book, and Mr. Paszkiewicz has my permission to send a note to Matthew, who is in school every day, through the office of the principal or the guidance counselor. Actually, he doesn’t need my permission, because Matthew is now eighteen.

I take this opportunity also to welcome my friend Gene Queval to KOTW. He is a marvelous man with an enormous heart and a terrific sense of humor. Thank you for your post, Gene, and welcome.

I ask you this: what lawyer would make such acusations without proof unless he was trying to stir up trouble as he usually does. His comments go something like this:

#1 "I cannot be certain Mr. Paszkiewicz asked this question"

#2 "I presume that he did ask "

#3 "It is a pity that Mr. Paszkiewicz and his supporters refuse to make any attempt to speak with me" which I can relate to because I feel no one in their right mind should speak to you. He did not even know if Mr. Paszkiewicz said it. I think he has Paszkiewicz envy or what that some other male member part envy?

#4 "Misunderstanding persists because one side refuses to talk to the other." No Mr. LaClair misunderstand persists because you are too stuborn to drop these misguided attacks against this person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
This is an interesting feature of many theists, and explains many of their positions on atheists.

Not believing something is not objecting to it.

I don't believe you're correct.

I do not believe that God exists (please note "I do not believe" does not equate to "I know"-I'd really rather not rehash that crap again).

I don't believe you're dealing seriously with the issue that Gene and I were discussing.

That does not mean I object to the idea, it simply means I don't accept it.

I don't believe you have any idea what you're talking about.

Obviously I'm not objecting to anything you say ...

***

This illustrates the disingenuousness of some atheists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bob
Bah. I believe I predicted that your machinations would produce a chilling effect on proper religious free speech. You denied it then, as I recall. Now there is evidence to support the prediction, but no acknowledgment from you of a correlation and no expression of regret over the outcome.

Just an apparently puzzled Well, that shouldn't have happened.

Clearly, the correct course of action is to educate these "victims" that prayer during lunch and writing Christian good wishes to soldiers are absolutely fine.

Paul's post clearly shows regret if such incidences happened. What you're upset about is that there is no admission of wrong doing, which annoys you because Matt and Paul did nothing wrong.

It is also hysterical that you scoff at "Well, that shouldn't have happened," for being such a strong supporter of Bush policies. I know that is off-topic, but it is just so darn funny.

Seriously, if you have a podcast, I would definitely listen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
I ask you this: what lawyer would make such acusations without proof unless he was trying to stir up trouble as he usually does. His comments go something like this:

#1 "I cannot be certain Mr. Paszkiewicz asked this question"

#2 "I presume that he did ask "

#3 "It is a pity that Mr. Paszkiewicz and his supporters refuse to make any attempt to speak with me" which I can relate to because I feel no one in their right mind should speak to you.

No one in their right mind wouldn't. Paul's been more than generous considering all that's happened, and he's always expressed himself rationally and patiently, despite all of the mudslinging, like the above.

It's people like you that are disgusting, not Mr. LaClair.

He did not even know if Mr. Paszkiewicz said it.

Which would neatly explain why he explicitly said exactly that.

I think he has Paszkiewicz envy or what that some other male member part envy?

I think your thought process is a bit off-kilter.

#4 "Misunderstanding persists because one side refuses to talk to the other." No Mr. LaClair misunderstand persists because you are too stuborn to drop these misguided attacks against this person.

So, Paul expresses frustration that Paszkiewicz did all of this obviously wrong stuff, was proven undeniably, and yet admits no wrong, and PAUL is the one being stubborn and misguided? Are you out of your mind?

Who's misguided? Who refuses to admit wrongdoing, even after just about everyone else, including the Board, has come around?

Who's stubborn? Who requested to switch ENTIRE CLASSES with another teacher just to avoid being in the same class with a student brave enough to call him on his inappropriate teaching methods?

You've got the wrong guy, buddy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest *Autonomous*
I don't believe you're correct.

I don't believe you're dealing seriously with the issue that Gene and I were discussing.

I don't believe you have any idea what you're talking about.

Obviously I'm not objecting to anything you say ...

Three weeks and that's what you come up with? Obviously you aren't objecting to anything I said, you're making an ad hominem in a passive-aggressive manner. You don't even directly address anything I said.

I don't believe that your post is not filled with epic fail.

This illustrates the disingenuousness of some atheists.

This illustrates the disingenuousness of some theists.

To address the point you almost made, here's the definition of object as a verb from dictionary.com:

10. to offer a reason or argument in opposition.

11. to express or feel disapproval, dislike, or distaste; be averse.

12. to refuse or attempt to refuse to permit some action, speech, etc.

There are a few options between "accept" and "object" unless you wish to redefine the terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Slow Down, Hoss
What you're upset about is that there is no admission of wrong doing, which annoys you because Matt and Paul did nothing wrong.

Hold on. I hate to open an old wound, but I suppose I will. While Matt did nothing legally wrong here, his decision to secretly tape the classroom discussion was, in my opinion, ethically questionable. And while I agree that - in light of subsequent events - it was maybe the only way to get firm proof of the teacher delving perhaps a bit too deeply into religion, I think the initial decision to do so is not above reproach. In my humble opinion, it is the only potential fault that I can find on the part of Matt and Paul (while I see many on the other side). Still, I have never really seen them "own" the fact that the initial taping was questionable from an ethical point of view - even if they found it to be ultimately necessary. Not that I am a "supporter" of Mr. P, but to me, as a independent bystander, I would have liked them to at least acknowledge the possibility that the taping may not have been the gentlemanly thing to do. I feel that it would only strengthen their position as I have difficulty with credibility issues when someone claims they have done nothing wrong in a dispute as large as they (read last sentence as the same criticism of Mr. P).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Hold on. I hate to open an old wound, but I suppose I will. While Matt did nothing legally wrong here, his decision to secretly tape the classroom discussion was, in my opinion, ethically questionable. And while I agree that - in light of subsequent events - it was maybe the only way to get firm proof of the teacher delving perhaps a bit too deeply into religion, I think the initial decision to do so is not above reproach. In my humble opinion, it is the only potential fault that I can find on the part of Matt and Paul (while I see many on the other side). Still, I have never really seen them "own" the fact that the initial taping was questionable from an ethical point of view - even if they found it to be ultimately necessary. Not that I am a "supporter" of Mr. P, but to me, as a independent bystander, I would have liked them to at least acknowledge the possibility that the taping may not have been the gentlemanly thing to do. I feel that it would only strengthen their position as I have difficulty with credibility issues when someone claims they have done nothing wrong in a dispute as large as they (read last sentence as the same criticism of Mr. P).

If it was the right thing to do in the end, then it wasn't ethically questionable. You can't live on the fence. Remember, Hamlet is a tragedy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Hold on. I hate to open an old wound, but I suppose I will. While Matt did nothing legally wrong here, his decision to secretly tape the classroom discussion was, in my opinion, ethically questionable. And while I agree that - in light of subsequent events - it was maybe the only way to get firm proof of the teacher delving perhaps a bit too deeply into religion, I think the initial decision to do so is not above reproach. In my humble opinion, it is the only potential fault that I can find on the part of Matt and Paul (while I see many on the other side). Still, I have never really seen them "own" the fact that the initial taping was questionable from an ethical point of view - even if they found it to be ultimately necessary. Not that I am a "supporter" of Mr. P, but to me, as a independent bystander, I would have liked them to at least acknowledge the possibility that the taping may not have been the gentlemanly thing to do. I feel that it would only strengthen their position as I have difficulty with credibility issues when someone claims they have done nothing wrong in a dispute as large as they (read last sentence as the same criticism of Mr. P).

Very well said.

You will never find Paul or Matt "owning" what you point out. It doesn't fit their agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest KHS Alumnus
Hold on. I hate to open an old wound, but I suppose I will. While Matt did nothing legally wrong here, his decision to secretly tape the classroom discussion was, in my opinion, ethically questionable.

Considering it was the only option, I strongly disagree. It's no more unethical than it is to catch a robber through hidden surveillance cameras.

And while I agree that - in light of subsequent events - it was maybe the only way to get firm proof of the teacher delving perhaps a bit too deeply into religion,

Forget maybe--if Matthew had done virtually ANYTHING else, Paszkiewicz would have gotten away with it. The evidence in that meeting is clear--Paszkiewicz is willing to lie to cover up his wrongdoing, which is exactly what he tried to do. And if Matthew had done anything BUT record his exact words, he wouldn't have had the evidence necessary to counter Paszkiewicz's denials.

I think the initial decision to do so is not above reproach.

It is when you're dealing with an unscrupulous character like Paszkiewicz. Matthew did what he HAD to do to prove his 'case'.

In my humble opinion, it is the only potential fault that I can find on the part of Matt and Paul (while I see many on the other side). Still, I have never really seen them "own" the fact that the initial taping was questionable from an ethical point of view - even if they found it to be ultimately necessary.

Even if it wasn't necessary, I don't see what's so unethical about it, considering that this is a public school classroom we're talking about, as opposed to someone's private conversation in their own home. A teacher has no reasonable expectation of privacy at his/her job, and recording classes, most of the time without asking permission, is not uncommon in classes in general, for students who don't trust their memory or the speed of their writing hand, or who just want to review later.

Not that I am a "supporter" of Mr. P, but to me, as a independent bystander, I would have liked them to at least acknowledge the possibility that the taping may not have been the gentlemanly thing to do. I feel that it would only strengthen their position as I have difficulty with credibility issues when someone claims they have done nothing wrong in a dispute as large as they (read last sentence as the same criticism of Mr. P).

See the above paragraph--no point in restating it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Paul
Very well said.

You will never find Paul or Matt "owning" what you point out. It doesn't fit their agenda.

What would you like me to own? Matthew recorded the class without telling anyone in advance. It’s a fact. Make of it what you will.

If you want me to tell that it was an ethically questionable act, I won’t do that because I don’t believe that. He got one chance to decide what he was going to do. Many ethical choices require us to balance conflicting considerations. It’s no more ethically questionable than sending troops to fight Hitler was.

On the other hand, if you want me to tell you that in a perfect world, we wouldn’t have to make choices like that, then yes, I’ll own that, and I’m sure Matthew would too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Paul
Hold on. I hate to open an old wound, but I suppose I will. While Matt did nothing legally wrong here, his decision to secretly tape the classroom discussion was, in my opinion, ethically questionable. And while I agree that - in light of subsequent events - it was maybe the only way to get firm proof of the teacher delving perhaps a bit too deeply into religion, I think the initial decision to do so is not above reproach. In my humble opinion, it is the only potential fault that I can find on the part of Matt and Paul (while I see many on the other side). Still, I have never really seen them "own" the fact that the initial taping was questionable from an ethical point of view - even if they found it to be ultimately necessary. Not that I am a "supporter" of Mr. P, but to me, as a independent bystander, I would have liked them to at least acknowledge the possibility that the taping may not have been the gentlemanly thing to do. I feel that it would only strengthen their position as I have difficulty with credibility issues when someone claims they have done nothing wrong in a dispute as large as they (read last sentence as the same criticism of Mr. P).

First, I don’t understand what purpose you think that would serve. Are you our judge? What do you want, and why?

Second, you’re asking the impossible. Every one of us confronts ethical choices. Just because someone picks an option doesn’t mean his choice is ethically questionable.

Take each of the alternatives in this case. Each of them would be ethically deficient, because each would have allowed Mr. P to get away with and continue his misconduct. These include:

Doing nothing

Notifying Mr. P that he wanted to record the classes

Complaining to the administration without proof

Unless you have a better alternative, it makes no sense to say that Matthew’s choice was ethically questionable. I’ve been inviting anyone and everyone to post such an alternative for a long time, and so have others; no one has come up with one yet.

Are you the same person who made this argument last year? I remember having this entire discussion right here a year ago. I asked then what alternative would have been preferable, and never got a response. I pointed out that we don’t live in a vacuum or in a perfect world. We live in this world, where sometimes we have to choose among imperfect alternatives.

Consider a couple examples:

1. A widowed mother is working two jobs trying to make ends meet so she can support her three young children. One became ill, putting her so far in debt that she can no longer pay the mortgage. When the Marshall gets the eviction notice, is his conduct ethically questionable if he carries out the order and evicts her and her innocent children?

2. A doctor has two patients, both of whom need a heart transplant. He has one available heart. Is his conduct ethically questionable if he chooses one patient and not the other?

Do you see the problem with the standard you’re imposing? No one can live up to it.

Frankly, what you’re doing is ethically questionable. You’re demanding a standard of conduct from another person, but when you’re asked what the alternatives were, you can’t give one. Like Matthew, you have a choice.

1. You can continue to criticize another person for not living up to a standard you couldn’t meet yourself (no one could meet it), or

2. You can take responsibility for your comments here and either come up with a preferable alternative course of action, or admit that your criticism is not well-founded.

Instead of taking responsibility for yourself, you just keep making the same statement even though you can’t support it. Whatever judgment you’re passing, why shouldn’t it be passed on you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bob
Hold on. I hate to open an old wound, but I suppose I will. While Matt did nothing legally wrong here, his decision to secretly tape the classroom discussion was, in my opinion, ethically questionable. And while I agree that - in light of subsequent events - it was maybe the only way to get firm proof of the teacher delving perhaps a bit too deeply into religion, I think the initial decision to do so is not above reproach. In my humble opinion, it is the only potential fault that I can find on the part of Matt and Paul (while I see many on the other side). Still, I have never really seen them "own" the fact that the initial taping was questionable from an ethical point of view - even if they found it to be ultimately necessary. Not that I am a "supporter" of Mr. P, but to me, as a independent bystander, I would have liked them to at least acknowledge the possibility that the taping may not have been the gentlemanly thing to do. I feel that it would only strengthen their position as I have difficulty with credibility issues when someone claims they have done nothing wrong in a dispute as large as they (read last sentence as the same criticism of Mr. P).

There are going to be aspects to this whole ugly mess that people will object to. I'm sure Mr.P and Matt feel they could have handled some things differently, in hindsight.

But to get anyone to admit wrong-doing from either side is unrealistic, whether you are on the side of Matt or Mr.P, and such things don't speak to the larger topic at hand.

In this case, the thread of discussion was opened up with Paul expressing how sorry he feels that misunderstandings may have caused some students to feel they had to suppress religious expression. This clearly shows that more education is needed on the subject.

To dwell on Matt's taping of Mr.P does not help resolve the current situation, and you shouldn't let whatever you might think of Matt's credibility color any of the verifiable facts.

Clearly, Paul supports the students' rights of religious expression and correcting whatever is wrongly suppressing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Charlie Brown

Sorry folks, but you people who insist on rehashing this stuff, ad nauseam, are caught in a time warp. It's time to move on...if nothing else, I have you on loitering charges.

Good Grief!

CB

Considering it was the only option, I strongly disagree. It's no more unethical than it is to catch a robber through hidden surveillance cameras.

Forget maybe--if Matthew had done virtually ANYTHING else, Paszkiewicz would have gotten away with it. The evidence in that meeting is clear--Paszkiewicz is willing to lie to cover up his wrongdoing, which is exactly what he tried to do. And if Matthew had done anything BUT record his exact words, he wouldn't have had the evidence necessary to counter Paszkiewicz's denials.

It is when you're dealing with an unscrupulous character like Paszkiewicz. Matthew did what he HAD to do to prove his 'case'.

Even if it wasn't necessary, I don't see what's so unethical about it, considering that this is a public school classroom we're talking about, as opposed to someone's private conversation in their own home. A teacher has no reasonable expectation of privacy at his/her job, and recording classes, most of the time without asking permission, is not uncommon in classes in general, for students who don't trust their memory or the speed of their writing hand, or who just want to review later.

See the above paragraph--no point in restating it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Very well said.

You will never find Paul or Matt "owning" what you point out. It doesn't fit their agenda.

What do you claim is their agenda? Back up your answer with relevant facts.

If you can do that, are you claiming there's something wrong with "their agenda?" If so, what? Back up your answer with intelligent reasoning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...