KHS Teacher Controversy

[Guest Paul]

Like most of the world, I can't say much for definite, because I wasn't sitting there in those history classes. So all comments are contingent. That said:

- If Mr Paszkiewicz uses history classes to expound Christian opinions, he's wrong to do so. Similarly, he'd be wrong to say 'Death to the enemies of Allah', 'Take care not to anger Zeus', 'Anyone who doesn't vote Democrat is unworthy of life', 'You should recognise no cheese but stilton' or 'Kneel before Zod'. None of this is teaching *about* anything: religion, history, religious history or anything else. It's forcing an opinion, and that's bullying, not teaching.

- So the US is 'One Nation Under God', not 'One Nation Under Allah, Zeus, Democrats, Stilton or Zod'. Hmm. In what sense is it 'One Nation Under God'? In the sense that God was added to the pledge of allegiance during the Communism paranoia of the 50's? The country certainly wasn't founded that way. It was religiously non-aligned from its inception. What does 'separation of church and state' *mean* if not separation of church and state?

- I've no idea to what extent Matthew might have prompted any of Mr Paszkiewicz's remarks. But, for him to have taken that recorder into class, he must have found in his first lessons that there was a reason to do so. For him to try to prompt such responses, he must have had grounds to expect inappropriate behaviour. And for the recordings to have had the effects they've had, Mr Paszkiewicz has surely made statements that have no place in a history lesson. Quoting instances of him making perfectly reasonable comments at other times does not negate this.

- No one has the right to threaten Matthew's life. Mr Paszkiewicz has the right to his religious beliefs, but not the right to teach them as facts of life (which they demonstrably are not). Matthew has the right to bring such bogus teaching to light. Death threats and outright abuse are bang out of order. Perhaps those in Kearny who have abused or ostracized Matthew as a result of this episode would like to reflect for a moment on the impression of Christianity they are giving to the rest of the world. You don't come out of this sort of behaviour as an especially loveable bunch. And if your faith is so fragile that it can't even respect the educational laws of your own nation ('Under God'), then it's a pretty sorry sort of faith.

- On the other hand, why this desire to sue Mr Paszkiewicz? How can that be a good idea? Why is everyone so keen to sue everyone else all the time? In my country, I find that teachers are now afraid to assist injured children because they risk being sued for so much as touching them. I would urge Mr LaClair to examine his motives. If he wants Mr Paszkiewicz to sort his teaching from his preaching, there is no need for a law suit. Or, if he wants to S**K every last dollar he can out of the situation: by all means, go ahead and sue. Doing so reflects on him no better than abuse reflects on his son's detractors. (If he wants someone to sue, try the people behind the death threats. They're asking for it.)

- Lastly. Maybe Mathew hasn't gone about this in the very best way and maybe he's the sort of guy who's disposed to make this kind of argument. None of that has any bearing on the matter of whether there is actually something to argue *about* - and it sounds rather as if there is. Attacking Matthew for being 'just a 16 year old kid' is ridiculous. Who else but 16 year old kids attend Mr Paszkiewicz's history lessons? You'll be waiting a long time for a 55 year old judge to complain about the inappropriate remarks he's just had from Mr Paszkiewicz at high school. Matthew has succeeded in bringing this matter to light, he's found a way of producing evidence to back up his claims (hands up anyone who can do the same for Mr Paszkiewicz's alleged religious claims, by the way) and he's taken it to the relevant authorities. Whatever else he's been, he's been resourceful, law-abiding and non-abusive. Many of his detractors look pretty shoddy by comparison.

Like it or not, the media coverage has brought this story before the eyes of the world (which is how I get to shoot my opinions off from England). The people of Kearny need to be careful not give the impression of regressing into a medieval lynch mob. From out here, Matthew appears to have behaved quite responsibly and to be in need of support. Those who attack him ought to think twice about their motives before they start hurling stones. (I have a feeling that even Jesus might have agreed with that sentiment.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We have been very clear. We never wanted litigation.

We asked for one thing from Mr. Paszkiewicz: an apology. In fact, Matthew asked him directly, both on his behalf and on ours. It has not been forthcoming, and he has not once picked up the phone to call me. As the clear offender here, it is his duty, not mine. Putting everything else aside, he had absolutely no business interjecting himself into my son's religious education. He could have his attorney make the call if he is concerned about speaking with me without his counsel.

We asked for two things from the school district: correction of inappropriate and inaccurate remarks, and quality control. After a month of putting us off hoping this would go away, their attorney told me it was not my business.

As I have stated, we are considering litigation. However, it was not our intention. The school district's transparent attempt to sweep this under the rug and look the other way the next time this happens, and Matthew isn't sitting there, is unacceptable. We should not have to tell professional educators this, but apparently we do. The job of assuring quality control should not rest on the shoulders of one sixteen-year-old with the courage to do the right thing, but apparently it is.

Like it or don't like it, that is where we stand. We appreciate the support of the many people both within Kearny and outside it who see this all very clearly.

[Guest Paul]

I do think the kid baited the teacher.  However, the teacher should have CLEARLY known what is and what is not appropriate to talk about in a public school.  Ultimately the teacher has only himself to blame for these issues.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nonsense. This is a blanket conclusion without a shred of fact behind it. The fact is that Paszkiewicz brought up every single topic that now has him all over the news, completely on his own, and for one reason by all appearances: it is what he wanted to talk about. As an evangelical Christian, he takes seriously Jesus' reported injunction to make disciples of all men. He so stated in the very classroom where he was doing that. That statement is recorded, along with all the rest.

The fact is that Matthew did not initiate one topic, not one.

You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Kindly state a factual basis for this remark, or don't make the accusation. This is a request, not a command, as I do not have the power to command you. However, it is a request that any civil person would honor.

[Guest Paul]

Will start by noting, I am neither American nor remotely suggesting that the teacher was in the right (I have listened to the recorded class conversations)

But the posts on this site reveal a tenuous bias from both sides, with the NYT article (which incidentally led me here), clearly bolstering the number of recent Christian bashers that have swooped here to make comments.

 

Rather than help this case [of separation of Church and State], the latest posters have fallen into strident and unapologetic deriding of other people, their beliefs systems and convictions.

I do not see how a reference to the fact that there is no difference between Christianity and even the most bizarre African tribal religion, helps Matthew and Paul. The least this unfortunate reference would have done is to further alienate others by generating more bitterness and eliciting outrage from the real Christians (not the pretenders who use the Christian nomenclature when it is convenient and deny the lifestyle at every other turn).

I think the above post is the height of recklessness, and the result of a deeply prejudiced mind. Has this poster being to Africa?  Does he even know what it is to be a REAL Christian?

The above comment raises fundamental questions about the genuiness of all of Matthew and Pauls' supporters [read defenders of the constitution], and what their real intentions here are.

Paul, do go to the Law courts if you feel so strongly about this issue, and remain convinced that the measures taken so far to stop this teacher from proselytizing in his class is unsatisfactory. Do however note that the longer this takes, the more polarizing it us turning out to be - the latest set of postings are guaranteeing that. I do hope this is not the intention

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, polarizing the community is not our intention. However, when a party or parties clearly in the wrong will not do right, that is what the law is for. We shall see.

[Guest Newsworthy]

Matthew LaClair, get a life. You are looking for publicity, why I don't know considering you have nothing to offer the public.

GOD BLESS YOU ANYWAYS you scrawny lil bast1rd.

[Guest A Proud American]

Dear Matthew LaClair,

Standing up for what you believe in can be costly. It can tear apart friendships, devastate your personal life, and threaten your very way of life.

But if we cannot stand up for what we believe in in this country, which was founded on the very ideals of tolerance and the separation of church from government, we have strayed far indeed from the visions of our forefathers.

Know that there are many, many who support you. And please realize that those who do not are, in fact, putting their faith above their country, which is exactly what many of these same people condemn when they talk about the lawlessness in the Middle East.

You did the right thing. Unfortunately, the right thing isn't always recognized by everyone as such in the here and now. In the end, you will be vindicated. Until then, keep your head up...you deserve nothing less than respect, and those who vilify you deserve nothing more than their self-made shackles of ignorance.

- A thankful American

[Guest Paul]

I just wanted to say that when I was a high school student, I never saw why there was a divide between Christianity and scientific methods.    If anything, the use of my God-given senses and intellect to study all Creation only made this world seem more beautiful and amazing.  Later, when we studied Einstein's famous equation E=mc^2, I was immediately reminded of the first passages of Genesis.  And I always imagined the Big Bang occuring at the snap of God's fingers.

This is how my own view of the world has formed out of respect for both Christianity and science, and I am always saddened when people use the pulpit as a position of authority to divide us.  It seems to me that if anything drives people away from Christianity, it is not science, but those who allow religious pride to draw lines in the sand to define "us" vs "them," a practice many find repugnant.

In this particular case, I do not see a clear either/or LaClaire/Paszkiewicz divide either.  I don't see where either party is solely in the right or wrong.

Even though I find many of Mr. Paszkiewicz's ideas to be fatally flawed, some of the best teachers I ever had were wrong on occasion, sometimes fundamentally so, IMHO.  What they did that earned my gratitude was challenge me and care for me as a student, despite their flaws.

I firmly believe that evangelical talk of religion should stay out of public schools and be left to the home and church.  Historical talk of religion in a historical context is unavoidable and should be done so without judgement and in a manner that fairly represents the world's religions.

Though I feel Paszkiewicz veered into Christian proselytizing, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, because it seemed like he did so to challenge the students' way of thinking.  If I were in the class, I would have disagreed with him and would have enjoyed the chance to voice my arguments as LaClaire did.  That said, there are other ways of challenging students, and Paszkiewicz should not have been proselytizing, nor should he do it again.  Though I am willing to give further benefit of the doubt to Paszkiewicz when he asks his students if the path the discussion was going in makes anyone uncomfortable, he should have realized that objection to Christian discussion carries a stigma that might make someone afraid to speak up.  He shouldn't have put any such student in that position.

Even though I agree with Laclair on many points, I feel that he should have spoken up when Paszkiewicz asked if anyone was uncomfortable with the discussion of Christianity.  LaClair does not seem disinclined to do so.  Instead, he seemed to further the discussion.  Even so, he seems to exhibit curiosity and courage I would not normally expect in a young man his age.

I know nothing beyond the single class recording I heard.  I have read about LaClair's previous attempts at resolving the issue and reports on how Paszkiewicz reacted, but I do not feel I know enough about how Paszkiewicz has taught the class over a longer term to put everything in the proper context.

At this point, I really do not see how either party deserves the malice being thrown at them.  But I do appreciate some of the more thoughtful responses this issue has generated.  It reminds me that not everyone has lost their senses.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I respectfully disagree with your characterization of the teacher's behavior. Paszkiewicz did not "veer" into religious discussions. He launched into an extended proselytizing session. He was on an evangelical mission, he as much as said so in class. Like it or not, there is no place for this in a public school in the USA. It is a violation of the Constitution, and even those organizations that support teachers' freedom to express their religious views have acknowledged that Paszkiewicz was clearly wrong in this case.

Furthermore, it is not the student's duty to tell the teacher he is out of line. The Supreme Court of the US has stated this specifically in Engel v. Vitale, the school prayer case from 1962. So not only does it make sense, it's the law. The student has every right --- legally, morally and ethically --- to make a record of a teacher this far out of line, and submit it to the proper authorities. The teacher is in a position of public trust. What he will do in one class is an example of what he will do in any other. A grown man whining about being set up by a sixteen-year-old student has a few things to learn about moral responsibility.

[Guest Patriot]

So, its not just that there's preaching in class, but people actually support the idiot president? You force people to pledge allegience to a country that has lost its morality by following christianity? Doesn't anyone get it? WE ARE THE BAD GUYS IN THE WORLD NOW...in large part due to the christian right...you people are so lost and you are leading the rest of us to ruin.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Whoever wrote the above post is one sick puppy. I hope he doesn't have any kids, it would be a crime to pass on all those defective genes.

[Guest Karl Marx]

What a moron! College kids record lectures ALL of the time. Primarily because they are still half-asleep from staying up too late the night before. But also so they can review what was said and think about it again and again if necessary until they understand it. Plus it's more accurate than taking notes. So what's wrong with a high school kid doing it? Especially if there was something egregiously wrong going on in the classroom, and there was!

[oneellama]

If you are new to this issue, particularly if you are coming by way of the New York Times article, I recommend that you read this letter to the editor by Matthew's father, Paul, that was published some time after the controversy became public. I think it provides important background and perspective for viewing many of the comments in this thread as well as understanding the broader issue.

[Guest Andrew]

I read one transcript of an entire class that I found among these forums. I found the teacher's personal religious beliefs to be rather offensive to anyone who does not subscribe to his particular brand of religion. However, the teacher seemed to go out of his way to make it understood, in this particular transcript, that his comments, however vulgar to some, reflected only his own personal beliefs. Certainly, an argument can be made that due to the pedagogical nature of his position and to his authoritian relationship to a captive audience of his students that his comments were inappropriate. Although it doesn't seem that his comments were part of a lesson on the current "culture wars" in America, would we want to censor that kind of discussion in a high school social studies class? Is it wrong for a teacher to tell his class simply "I am a Christian" or "I am a Jew" or "I am a Muslim" or " I am an Atheist"? I don't think anyone would want classroom censorship to reach that level. From this one transcript, it seems to me that that is all the teacher said, albeit in quite a lengthy diatribe.

What really troubles me, as a practicing scientist, are the teacher's comments about science. It is very clear from the transcript that the teacher is ill-informed about how science works, about the basis of modern biological science, about the basic facts of evolutionary biology, and about how scientists use the word "theory". From the transcript, it seems that this teacher was teaching a class in evolutionary biology. Regardless of the religious content of the teacher's remarks, his lecture on science was inexcusable. He is not qualified to address scientific issues. Why should this matter? Because for every American applicant I have for a science job opening, I have 50 better-qualified applicants from China, India, and Pakistan.

[Guest guest]

Lets be honest for a change.  Matthew does alot more than sit quietly.  From what others have said he constantly initiates battles over a variety of issues.

And while were at it lets clarify some other things;

The Constitution, as written and as intended, said nothing about religion and public schools.  The short phrase concerning religion is has been taken out of context and blown completely out of proportion.  It has been spun by lawmakers and judges, both conservative and liberal, who have bowed to pressure from groups like the ACLU and others over the past 50 years.  Everyone that has posted here should read the Constitution.  The writers of the Constitution were god fearing people who never intended to wipe away religion from our society as Paul would have you believe.

Why won't Paul touch certain issues; the fact that the teacher has already been dealt with and has stopped the behavior, the idea that if this teacher was promoting atheism Paul would have no problem with it, the fact that the tapes Matthew made violated the teacher's contract, the fact that the teacher never advocated his religion, the fact that Paul didn't attend a meeting with the principal and the teacher, etc.

Paul claims that the radical right and conservatives have misinterpreted the Constitution.  He fails to see that it's really these groups and the majority of the country who have been extremely tolerant of people like him and their crusade to remove religion from everything.  Left up to people that think like Paul, our money would be changed, our Pledge would be changed, even holiday decorations on public property would be removed.  So who is really the radical here.

Didn't Paul have to swear on the bible to get into the bar? Doesn't he sit in court and watch people sworn in? I guess the lack of seperation of church and state is fine when it meets his needs.  The same way he invokes the names of scientists who have developed theories on the big bang and gravity when it suits him.  He doesn't mention that many of these scientists also admit, that after lifetimes of studying and working on these theories, that there must be some higher power at work in the universe.

I think he should take this case to court.  And while he's at it he can get the holiday displays put up by the town removed, stop the Post Office from selling stamps with religious icons on them, and end town sponsered Easter Egg Hunts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One of Our Founding Fathers view on the subject

"No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.[31]

”

One of Jefferson’s least well known writings is: "Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make half the world fools and half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the world"- Thomas Jefferson, in his Notes on Virginia

[Guest guest]

one more

"Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society" Thomas Jefferson

Do you suppose the third president of The United States could be elected today?

[Guest TS]

First of all, what this kid did was entirely legal. There was *nothing* wrong with it, and I am ashamed to read all of the comments that denigrate him. His teacher was clearly preaching to his class about what is right and wrong according to his own religious faith, which is prohibited by law. There was nothing wrong with La Claire's questions challenging what the teacher was preaching, and from the recording it is clear that it was the teacher, not the student, that initiated this line of discussion.

Let's get this straight:

(1) it is an abuse of power for a teacher to preach religion in his public school classroom. It is not improper for a student to take a teacher to task for doing so. It is the teacher who's actions need correction, not the student's.

(2) The teacher knew what he did was wrong, which is why he lied about it. The student's apprehension that his teacher would deny preaching in class turned out to be entirely justified.

For those who argue that this teacher was "set up", perhaps they should give some though as to whether a teacher that can be so easily led astray from his duties by a student has the skill to lead a classroom.

[Guest Guest]

I suspect the ffrf.org folks will be bestowing an award on this brave young man as a winner of one of their Emperor has no clothes awards... you can go to their website and donate to them...I am going to.

Kudos to matt and his dad.

If the pro teacher posts really reflect on the community --and the community reflects the education they obtained therein--y'all got some serious learnin' to do 'bout what makes this country great-- (HINT: it has nothing to do with God or religion)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Donate to who? I say donate to KOTW. Poor KOTW he has to put up with all these crazy Kearny folk, not to mention the folks in Harrison, East Newark and North Arlington; pay the bill for internet service; and babysit the posts; and he gets nothing.

I say the LaClair's should shop until they drop on KOTW so the guy has money to pay his bill at the end of the month. But for KOTW, this issue would have been dead a month ago.

[Guest Jordan]

As a high school social studies teacher I am ashamed that this man calls himslef and educator. I too am honest with my students about my beliefs, my political beliefs, but to tell a young person they are going to hell, that is irresponsible at best, and probably immoral.

I am glad to see that there is one courageous young person on Kearny. If there is a heaven that truly rewards those who do what his right, there will certainly be a place for him there, too bad he won't see his teacher there.

[hdpv1918]

This young man is very brave. He is standing up to what has always been passed by with a shrug and a wink. Your town should be very proud ofhim. The teacher, on the other hand, should be dismissed, or at the very least reprimanded and reassigned to a position in the district where he can do no further harm by inflicting his doctrinaire religious beliefs on students too ignorant or timid to stand up to him.

[Guest godfearing]

I say this kid and his family are assholes looking to make some money and trying to get national attention.Them and everyone who agrees with teaching about evolution and nothing else in school are idiots also. All you dumb and ignorent people will be sorry when you are in front of GOD and will be held acountable for not teaching nor believing the truth that this life and world as we know it comes from one true devine entity. It will be to late to be sorry then. As the old saying goes "you reap what you sow" I will pray for you though. I pray someday all will know the truth and the truth is the one and only living GOD.

[Guest godfearing]

To everyone who is attacking this poor student: Where in your supposedly sacred bibble does it say that you can viscerally attack those who disagree with you? Oh right, thats the entire point - religious nutjobs aren't allowed to be tolerant of unbelievers! This whole story, blown out of proportion as it may be, is not about the kid who called his teacher on some exceptionally egregious breaches of conduct.

To those who agree with this so-called teacher, you can choose to believe whatever you want, but if you want to know why secular Americans, and many of your own brethren are so repulsed by your conception of the role of religion in American life, it boils down to one thing: hypocrisy. It baffles me that you can praise Jesus for his tolerance, while you attack those who stand up against blatant prostytizing by an authority figure who should know the difference between his classroom and his pulpit. It is hypocrisy to defend his right to free speech while making ad hominem attacks against the student who felt he needed to broadcast his teacher's transgressions to the world at large. If you want to know why I can't stand people who claim to be christians it is in the hypocrisy of believing in a god who preaches tolerance while simultaneously displaying so much callous intolerance of those who choose not to believe what you believe. I have read your bibble, and I have found not one smidge of evidence that you who call yourself christians are practicing anything that jesus would approve of. step back, and look at yourselves closely, see if you can reconcile what you are with what you believe yourselves to be, and then get back to me. I won't hold my breath though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your an idiot!!!!!!!

[Guest Guest]

Nazi. Scarry.

[Guest Guest]

You are (that's "you're") the idiot.

[Guest Guest]

If you are from Kearny then by now you have heard a story that has been blown WAY OUT OF PROPORTION.

A student of KHS, one Matthew LaClair has gone to the newspaper stating that a teacher has been forcing his religious views in is history class.

Now I am all for having freedom of speech, but I also believe every subject has a place and time for discussion; and religion in a history class is not that place.

HOWEVER!!!! This 16 year old CHILD, is nothing more than an attention seeking, immature person, who is also been known to "previously garnered attention for protesting Bush administration activities by refusing to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance" (the lippar blog) I will include this website at the end of my rant!

This kid thinks he is so self rightcious and claims he “was requesting an apology and correction of false and anti-scientific statements" (the lippard blog).

If you listen to the audio (which I will also supply the site to) you can clearly hear that Laclair PROVOKED the conversation, and you can hear that the teacher had responded QUITE APPROPRIATELY:

One example being:

Matthew: isn't the whole point of public schools is so that you can separate personal beliefs from teachers and administrators from non religious teachings during school, like school prayer and all that.

teacher: the purpose of public school is to provide free education for people that couldn't afford education. That’s the purpose of public school

Matthew: what would decide what religion should be taught in school, what would decide that?

teacher: no it's not about teaching, my point is it's not about teaching religion, these issues all come up in time, ( tape fades out) things get legislated and we talk in class

the public school shouldn't teach a religion but the scriptures aren't religion they are a foundation of the worlds religion, the world main religion any way.

religion is a set way of doing things

In the conversation above, taken my Matthew Laclair himself, i see no wrong doing by this teacher, i do however see constant and what seems to be "rehearsed" provoking of the topic.

I hope he is reading this right now, because I just have one question for him: What on earth was the need to go to the newspaper? Laclair stated that he had a meeting with the principle, teacher, and the head of the social studies department and at first they did not seem to believe him but then he pulled out the cd's.....which in itself violated this teachers right to privacy.

So again, my question, after laclair proved himself with the cd's why did he not wait for administrative action to take place? There was no need to go to the newspaper, and I think in doing so, this Matthew laclair just proves that he is a 16 year old high school student, and therefore has ALOT to learn before he goes off starting religious wars, and pledge of allegiance protest in the United States of America, a country that has always, and especially since 9/11 shown great pride in our ONE NATION UNDER GOD!!!!

ps: a little side note for everyone reading this who disagrees: stating your views on religion and "forcing your beliefs on someone" is two COMPLELTY DIFFERENT THINGS.

so I would like to say to everyone who agrees or disagrees, we are all here in this nation, in this community together, and my religion is Roman Catholic, so when I say GOD BLESS YOU, I’m not forcing my views, I’m using my faith to wish you health and happiness

GOD BLESS you all

PPS: if this offends anyone then tough, because I AM offended that a wonderful teacher is being persecuted by an unknowledgeable juvenile for merely stating what he believes in. Also that this kid is living in MY COUTNRY where my friends and family have fought to keep our freedom and he turns his back on our president and our flag.

lippard blog: http://lippard.blogspot.com/2006/11/public...-class-you.html

Audio:

http://www.nj.com/cgi-bin/prxy/xmedia/nph-.../classaudio.mp3

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This whole thing is the teachers fault.

With the taxes that are paid in Kearny for the schools, can't we hire teachers who know how to discuss these issues with in the guide lines for acceptable discussions about sensitive subjects.

With all his degrees this teacher had no common sense.

As to Mathew, I think he did the right thing going to the newpapers. As usual in Kearny I am sure this whole mess would have been swept under some rug or hidden in some closet with the rest of the skeletons. It is about time that the powers to be are called on the carpet to do what we pay taxes for.

Teach inforce the rules that exist and not make them up as they go along to suit their agendas.

Kudos to You and your family Mathew and don't back down maybe you can teach a few people that they can not do whatever they want.

Come to think about it.. the teacher must have been speaking about the Current Board of Ed and The Mayor and Council who all think they are GODS!

Does Santos Have his picture hanging on Town Hall yet?

Do you think he had anything to do with evolution?

[Guest Guest]

If you are from Kearny then by now you have heard a story that has been blown WAY OUT OF PROPORTION.

A student of KHS, one Matthew LaClair has gone to the newspaper stating that a teacher has been forcing his religious views in is history class.

Now I am all for having freedom of speech, but I also believe every subject has a place and time for discussion; and religion in a history class is not that place.

HOWEVER!!!! This 16 year old CHILD, is nothing more than an attention seeking, immature person, who is also been known to "previously garnered attention for protesting Bush administration activities by refusing to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance" (the lippar blog) I will include this website at the end of my rant!

This kid thinks he is so self rightcious and claims he “was requesting an apology and correction of false and anti-scientific statements" (the lippard blog).

If you listen to the audio (which I will also supply the site to) you can clearly hear that Laclair PROVOKED the conversation, and you can hear that the teacher had responded QUITE APPROPRIATELY:

One example being:

Matthew: isn't the whole point of public schools is so that you can separate personal beliefs from teachers and administrators from non religious teachings during school, like school prayer and all that.

teacher: the purpose of public school is to provide free education for people that couldn't afford education. That’s the purpose of public school

Matthew: what would decide what religion should be taught in school, what would decide that?

teacher: no it's not about teaching, my point is it's not about teaching religion, these issues all come up in time, ( tape fades out) things get legislated and we talk in class

the public school shouldn't teach a religion but the scriptures aren't religion they are a foundation of the worlds religion, the world main religion any way.

religion is a set way of doing things

In the conversation above, taken my Matthew Laclair himself, i see no wrong doing by this teacher, i do however see constant and what seems to be "rehearsed" provoking of the topic.

I hope he is reading this right now, because I just have one question for him: What on earth was the need to go to the newspaper? Laclair stated that he had a meeting with the principle, teacher, and the head of the social studies department and at first they did not seem to believe him but then he pulled out the cd's.....which in itself violated this teachers right to privacy.

So again, my question, after laclair proved himself with the cd's why did he not wait for administrative action to take place? There was no need to go to the newspaper, and I think in doing so, this Matthew laclair just proves that he is a 16 year old high school student, and therefore has ALOT to learn before he goes off starting religious wars, and pledge of allegiance protest in the United States of America, a country that has always, and especially since 9/11 shown great pride in our ONE NATION UNDER GOD!!!!

ps: a little side note for everyone reading this who disagrees: stating your views on religion and "forcing your beliefs on someone" is two COMPLELTY DIFFERENT THINGS.

so I would like to say to everyone who agrees or disagrees, we are all here in this nation, in this community together, and my religion is Roman Catholic, so when I say GOD BLESS YOU, I’m not forcing my views, I’m using my faith to wish you health and happiness

GOD BLESS you all

PPS: if this offends anyone then tough, because I AM offended that a wonderful teacher is being persecuted by an unknowledgeable juvenile for merely stating what he believes in. Also that this kid is living in MY COUTNRY where my friends and family have fought to keep our freedom and he turns his back on our president and our flag.

lippard blog: http://lippard.blogspot.com/2006/11/public...-class-you.html

Audio:

http://www.nj.com/cgi-bin/prxy/xmedia/nph-.../classaudio.mp3

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

God bless means shit to me.

This isn't YOUR country either.

It's A country where there is a lot of good and bad.

And based on your attitude, apprently the people who fought for freedom didn't win.

You make me sick...

[Guest Guest]

I say this kid and his family are assholes looking to make some money and trying to get national attention.Them and everyone who agrees with teaching about evolution and nothing else in school are idiots also. All you dumb and ignorent people will be sorry when you are in front of GOD and will be held acountable for not teaching nor believing the truth that this life and world as we know it comes from one true devine entity. It will be to late to be sorry then. As the old saying goes "you reap what you sow" I will pray for you though. I pray someday all will know   the truth and the truth is the one and only living GOD.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hahahahaha... your life is lost to lies.

[Guest Guest]

After 23 pages of this thread, there is little I have to add that has not already been said. However, I do want to express my sincere support for Matthew and his family. This young man truly exemplifies freedom and courage, and his brand of patriotism and integrity is far more genuine than I imagine many in this thread will ever hope to achieve.

The sheer amount of vitriol that has been directed toward this boy and his family is nothing less than disgusting; but what is even more sorrowfully shameful is the way in which so-called Christians are continuing to misuse their faith as a crutch to support this hatefulness. You people are a disgrace to your own religion and I truly pity your small-mindedness.

[Guest Dan]

I think it is pretty ironic that this kid has the nerve to fight against freedom of speech but loves to invoke his right to not have to stand and salute the flag at school. By the way, I think his attorney father should advise him that it is unlawful to record a conversation with someone unless they are advised of this.  Maybe Matthew should look in the mirror, reassess the situation and see that his High School is in full support of the teacher in this matter

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's not freedom of speech if the student would have been punished for getting up and walking away from it. So it's not the issue of freedom of speech, its the idea of forcing messages of hate onto a student body in which the teacher has authority over. I also believe it was the right thing to do when he recorded it, as it was his accurate judgement call that he believed the teacher would lie about the incident at the student's expense. The student did what was necessary to protect himself from a hate-preaching teacher.