KHS Teacher Controversy

[Guest Guest]

The issue has been addressed. Two months ago!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Then why is the lawbreaker still teaching in a public school funded by the taxpayers drawing salaries paid for by the taxpayers?

On top of that, not a peep of apology from the lawbreaker.

[Guest Califool]

Reading this thread was very entertaining. To be honest, if I was a resident of this fine town I'd be less concerned with evangelical procelatyzing, recording people without knowledge, or constitutional precedent than I would be with the quality of teaching observed. You have a complete idiot teaching what I consider to be one of the single most important classes of secondary education. This is a man ignorant of current events, politics, science, theology, and history.

High School US history is a time when a student finds out about the nasty underbelly of his country, and he needs guidance of a reasonable, balanced, and well grounded teacher to make sense of it. He needs to understand the mistakes his country has made without coming to hate it to make sure that they are not repeated in the future.

Your kids deserve a true scholar and instead of bashing a whisle-blower you should give them one.

[Guest Skepticus]

Hey Skepticus, do you a have job? It doesn't look like you do! You spend so much time posting in here. By the way, invite the LaClairs to move to Australia, this way they will live us ALONE!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No I don't at the moment, and not that it's any of your f**king buiseness, the searching is a bit tough at this time of year, when everybody's winding down for xmas and nobody's hiring. I don't see what my employment status, has to do with any of the discussion here. I guess it just gives you something to blather on about, and something to ridicule others with when you don't have an actual point to contribute to a grown up debate.

On another point, The only reason you can direct a personal comment at me, is because I am using a screen name. When you edit a post, there's an edit feild near the top, where people with the balls can write a screen name to identify themselves as anything other than "Guest". You should try it sometime who--ever--you--are, if you ever grow some balls that is. Leaving a blank name feild is lazy, inconsiderate and cowardly. Particularly if you are going strong on the attack. You just pop up out of the amorphous mass made up of numerous other posters identified as "Guest", who also don't put anything in the name feild, and make rude personal coments and adhominem attacks from the security of your relative annonimity. If you were the only one appearing as "Guest", then I suppose you are the most prolific poster here. Have you got a job?

I suppose I should assume all of the nasty, pointless, stupid, evasive, contradictory, etc. etc.. posts from "Guest" are one particular fundie. If you don't identify yourself otherwise, you should expect to recieve the criticims owing to any other "Guest" especialy if you exploit the benifit of others identifying themselves while you who--ever--you--are, have not.

The "write to say Merry Christmas".

I rest my case on this D**bA**.

Here we see Guest poking fun at a simple typo. Apart from the nonexistence of any "case" being made, Guest also quoted about 20 lines of text from TheHeathenAngel which consisted entirly of THAs' responses in previous posts, without the rest of the conversation indispersed. What the point is of reading this (or posting it in the first place), is hard to tell, you can't see what context the comments are made in anyway. Having done this Guest finishes with those two lines. which only reffer to one line of THAs' Why didn't you just quote the line you wanted to reffer to? Like this:

...this way they will live us ALONE!

I rest my case on this D**bA**.

Well done moron!!!

BTW: The LaClairs are wecome to come to Aust. What makes you think they can't communicate with you from over here? I'm over here. I'm on the internet. Aren't I communicating with you? You'll never be alone while assimilated into the amorphus Borg like multitude of Lazy, rude, inconsiderate and guttless, morons who's collective identity is Guest.

NB: Appologies to the non-trouble-making casual visitor (Guest) who is not being decietfull and not delibereatly being an @$$h***. Also to those who occasionaly forget to put their screen name on a post. Obviously I don't mean to implicate you, only the fundie zealots, who, hiding behind the subterfuge of annonimity, can deliberatly slander and deride specific people, because those specific people have identified themselves. Pathetic, Low-Life, guttless, gutter-sniping, cowards, who-ever-you-are.

[Guest aj]

For a 16 year old, it should be enough to have simply stood up for what's right, but imagine being so young and having to face such a hostile school atmosphere, watching someone in a position of power over you deny their actions and by association to that, make it appear that you lied.

No doubt it helped having the confidence that comes from knowing what your doing what is right, but having proof of your assertions?

Priceless.

What is remarkable to me, is the number of those who wear the cloak of self-righteousness as though it were a some kind of teflon to truth and reason. They refuse to address:

The implications (repeatedly brought up by others) this has for allowing those with different beliefs or faiths to proselytize to students.

That the teacher's denial of doing what the young man claimed (and proved with the recordings) is very indicative that he knew he was not supposed to be doing it.

In the catagory of "Most Blatant Display of Denial" there are some, whom after being slapped in the face with the proof of young LaClair's assertions, made the willfully dishonest claim that the teacher wasn't proselytizing, but merely "teaching history", or "expressing his opinion".

Their vitriol and calls for punishment for this young man is reminiscient of the shameful treatment many times given to whistleblowers in this country.

Even with the seemingly large show of support shown to this long time teacher, I would hope that his many friends and supporters remember that support for the man doesn't always translate to blanket support of his actions.

Good luck and good wishes to young Matt ... and to his teacher as

well.

[Guest Paul]

It should be noted that "under God' was added by an Act of Congress to puff up Congress's anti-Communist credentials to counter critcisms from the likes of Senator Joseph McCarthy and his John Birch Society allies that they were soft on the evil Red Menace.  Of course, those accusations were purely political in nature, as was the whole Communist witch-hunting phenomenon of the late 1940s-early 1950s: declare a false crisis, then offer a "solution" to said "crisis," ensuring that these "saviors" of Democracy will then hold elective office indefinitely, and be able to use their unfettered authority to further their political ends and ambitions.

Sound familiar?  Just substutute the names Bush and Cheney for McCarthy.  As to how this relates to the matter of Matthew LaClair and his teacher,  the climate fostered by the current White House, in which the Separation of Church and State is under constant seige from the higest levels in government, encourages those like Mr Paskiewicz who then think that they have Washington's blessings to proselytize and breach a barrier that the Founding Fathers thoughtr essential and idispensable in a democracy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is a very important point. There is a large political movement in the USA, which seeks to destroy our democracy and replace it with a theocracy. It is called dominionism, referring to some self-proclaimed Christians having dominion over everyone else. If this is not stopped, democracy will not survive. Our nation's founders made a choice to found a secular government. Some disagreed, but the framers were very clear about it.

Without question, the radical religious right has been emboldened in recent years. This episode points up how extreme and irresponsible they are, not only in their actions, but in their defense of those actions. There is simply no connection to fact or reality in many of the posts supporting Paszkiewicz, and no rational defense of his behavior; even most conservatives agree. I believe the American people are finally beginning to speak out against this form of extremism.

[Guest Paul]

Let me get this straight.  You were told by the district attorney that what was happening to your own flesh and blood was none of your concern?  That is outrageous!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is correct. Mr. Lindenfelser told me over the telephone in the last conversation I care to have with him that whether any corrections will be made in the classroom where my son is a student is something I am "not entitled to know", his exact words. As a fellow attorney and a Kearny resident, I am appalled (legal advice like that could easily end up costing me money as a taxpayer); as you rightly point out, it doesn't take an attorney to know that is completely wrong, both legally and ethically. I cannot for the life of me understand what this man is thinking, or why the Board does not get a second opinion. It appears to me and to my wife that Mr. Lindenfelser has allowed his personal feelings and opinions to interfere with his duties to his client.

[Guest Paul]

Lots of people from all over the coutry are weighing in on this topic.  Lots of people with little knowledge of the individuals involved, the local community, or the operations of the local school board have suddenly becoming "experts" in all things Kearny.

As someone who grew up in Kearny, who still maintains strong ties to (and pays taxes in) Kearny, and who has known the teacher for over 30 years, let me just weigh in on this subject.

Although we do not communicate frequently, I have always known the teacher in this matter to be a kind, decent and honest individual - as well as a very competent teacher.  He also happens to have strong religious and political beliefs that vary substantially from mine.  Yet although his opinions differ greatly from my beliefs, we have managed to maintain a positive relationship for the better part of three decades.  So for those on the outside who think that people in Kearny can't have a difference of opinion without devolving to the lowest common denominator, think again.

The student in this matter, Matthew, was raised by a father who also has very different political and religious beliefs than the teacher.  It is my understanding that Matthew was not very popular in school because of the beliefs he shared with his father.  This is not uncommon in other communities - where people voice opinions that are out of the norm, or in nature itself, which abhors entropy.  So to those who suggest that people in Kearny are "wrong" for ostracizing Matthew in this matter well, you have a point, but don't act like it wouldn't happen in your backyard either.  For better or worse, Kearny hasn't cornered the market on small-mindedness.

Back to the issue:  Matthew felt that what the teacher was doing is wrong, and took steps to stop the action.  At the same time, as I read in an earlier post, it also gave the LaClairs the opportunity to espouse - on a very large stage - their beliefs.  And they took it ... for better or worse they stepped into the limelight at least appreciating that what they were going to do would be unpopular with some, draw the ire of others, and find support among many as well.

I don't know Matthew.  I know the teacher.  As far as what happened in the classroom, Matthew was 100% correct.  According to established law, the teacher violated the establishment clause.  If you don't agree with that - take it up with the legislature and have them amend the Constitution.  Until then, that's where the law stands.  I don't agree with Matthew's tactics of taping anyone in a classroom (I think it can have a chilling effect on the education process).  I know that it's legal - but I just think it sets a bad precedent.  As far as an apology and a correction ... I think that the statements should have been corrected - at a minimum by having the teacher state that what he said was opinion and not in accordance with the curriculum taught down the hall in science class (remember, this was a history class).  An apology?  Yeah, if I'm the teacher I'd probably apologize, but I don't think that anyone was unequivocally OWED an apology in this matter.

When we get into what occurred AFTER the classroom incidents, I have seen and heard all types of accounts of what really happened.  And since I don't know (and since no one other than the actual parties at issue were there), I really can't make a firm statement on who acted appropriately and who did not.  However, I thought that the events that occurred afterwards were reported on poorly by the local paper, The Observer, and only with slightly more journalistic integrity by the New York Times (which pains me to say).

The amazing part is how irrational supporters of both sides have gotten.  I can't believe that people actually wanted to SUSPEND MATTHEW!  As if the kid doesn't have enough problems to deal with right now.  If you truly feel that he acted inappropriately by surreptitiously taping his teacher, are his social challenges not enough of a punishment (or have you forgetten what it's like to be in high school)?  And I also can't believe that people actually want the teacher TERMINATED!  Aren't we all entitled to make a mistake from time to time?  If the teacher continues to act inappropriately, then talk of suspensions and terminations are appropriate.  Until then, be thankful for all of the times that you've been given a second chance.

Can't we all just live with the fact that Matthew is going to continue going to school, and that David is going to continue teaching there?  Can't we all just give it a rest and just talk about some of the open issues?  Let's talk about under what circumstances is it appropriate or inappropriate to tape someone in a classroom setting without his or her consent (students may be less than willing to participate in classroom discussions if they may be being taped).  Let's talk about to what extent a teacher may express his or her opinions about Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Humanism or any other -Ism in a classroom without violating the establishment clause.  Leave the resolution of this isolated matter to the parties at issue (Paul seems perfectly capable of keeping these issues moving forward and, although he's going to get stonewalled by the school board, I trust his persistence will cause changes - and may already have caused changes - within the administration that may not be visible now).  Instead, let's try to build some sort of consensus as to how these items should be viewed THE NEXT TIME AND IN THE NEXT LOCATION that something like this should occur.  Otherwise, we're all crying over milk that was spilled months ago

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dear "Guest,"

You write a very intelligent post, so I wish to take you up on your invitation to engage in a productive dialogue. I'm sorry I don't know who you are. Perhaps you will see fit to tell us.

I must ask you, is it not obvious what would have happened had Matthew not recorded the classes? Many students who were in the class deny that Paszkiewicz said what is clearly audible on the recordings. I don't understand the psychology behind that, but obviously they would surely have denied it all the more vehemently had there been no recordings. As for Paszkiewicz, he did deny making many of the statements, until Matthew produced the recordings, at which point he essentially admitted he had been caught, saying "you got the big fish." So while I have no reason to doubt that you know this teacher as an honest man, can you truly say he was honest in this case? Is it possible that when the chips were down, he failed the integrity test?

Getting back to the point, if there had been no recordings, the situation would have been exactly what Matthew feared. People hate him now, and all he did was preserve the truth — that's all, he made a record of the truth. Can you imagine what would have happened had he not had the truth to defend himself with --- he would have no support. The truth was his only defense, and that is what Paszkiewicz's defenders hate so vehemently: they can't deny the truth, no matter how hard they try.

This is an old story, as in the story of the boy who observed that the emperor has no clothes. Good grief, do we learn nothing from our fine narratives?

Students record their classes all the time. So I really want to know: is it really more important that a citizen be denied any means of proving that a serious wrong has been done, than it is to make a clear record of the wrong so the public can see clearly what is happening in a public setting? I don't see it chilling the educational process. In all the years I went to public school (13 years), I cannot think of a single instance in which a teacher of mine would have had any reason to be concerned had the public heard a recording of his or her class. Is there really a chilling effect here? I don't see it, especially since a student who feels strongly enough can surreptitiously record a class whether the school makes a rule against it or not. Matthew has never recorded a class in his life before this; he did it because the situation was so far out of control. So I don't understand that logic, and you seem like a reasonable person. Why is there anything wrong with Matthew's approach, given the nature of the teacher's conduct? Could you please explain?

Finally, while I have not called publicly for Mr. Paszkiewicz's termination, the many calls for it are not irrational. There are grounds for termination, no question about it, and many professional educators have so stated. The question is whether that is the best resolution, or whether he should be allowed to continue with the understanding that he will never repeat this behavior. Terminate or don't terminate, the resolution is rational either way.

By contrast, there is no basis for suspending the student, because he did not violate any law or any rule. It's that simple. They can't suspend him even if they want to. But they could easily fire the teacher, for far less than this --- and if he had been a Muslim, a Jew, a Humanist, etc., you can bet they would have. So the parallel you suggest is not well-taken.

I hope we can continue this dialogue. Though I don't agree with you on these points, your approach, among those who have defended the teacher in any way, is refreshing to say the least.

[Guest Paul]

LadyGuest from Ohio - with all due respect, you are owed NOTHING from the townspeople.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So much for "one nation."

[Guest Paul]

I must respectfully differ where your opinion of taping is concerned, for two reasons:

1) The precedent has already been set. Students frequently tape college lectures -I do it myself, occasionally, especially after I've been up all night.

2) Even if it would have set a precedent, other cases of it can be viewed on their own merit. Because in this case, Matthew was right on the money. He thought the teacher would deny having said anything illegal -and he was right about it. The teacher lied about it, showing that he knew fully well his actions had been illegal...and that he did not care either way, counting on his apparent popularity to shield him from criticism.

While I do not deny that taping someone is indeed a very large step to take, it should not be forgotten that in this case, Matthew's deed more than vindicated itself.

As for owing apologies: yes, I DO believe an apology is owed, to those offended by the teacher (apparently, breaking the law is not offensive to some people...even though an attempt to subvert the frakking Contstitution of the United States of America is far more 'treasonous' than refusing to stand for the Pledge).

The people who have been told they were going to go to and suffer for eternity for not believing as Mr. P. did...he owes them an apology. An apology which, unfortunately, they are unlikely to get unless it is forced out of P...and even then will be completely insincere.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mr. P owes my wife and me an apology for another reason. On 9/15, near the end of class, he compared Matthew to the apostle Thomas, "doubting Thomas," who needed absolute proof before believing that Jesus had risen, according to the story. He said, "if you are sincerely seeking, you'll put your finger in" Jesus' wounds," i.e., accept what I'm telling you about Jesus.

Matthew was not brought up in that religion. It is not a public school teacher's place to contradict the parents' religious upbringing.

Worse, he flat-out implied that all non-Christians are ipso facto insincere. He told my son that I am insincere because I am not what he would call a Christian. What gives him the right to do that? Since when do public school teachers have the right to speak that way about their students' parents?

The fact that Paszkiewicz's pitiful attempts to use his authority to proselytize did not succeed does not diminish his moral obligation. He owes us an apology.

[Guest Tim Hedrick]

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}>

Sorry, but you entirely miss the point!

No doubt LaClair went into the classroom with the intention to use a tape recorder to record inappropriate statments by his ADULT teacher. No doubt he used a scripted or even a rehearsed series of remarks to get him wound up and going on his religious spiel. How do you think LaClair knew he would be willing to make such remarks if he has not made similar unprovoked remarks in the past? How many sixteen years olds do you know that would have the patience to sit there with a tape recording turning for hours for him to go on topic? For that matter, how many adults do you know that would have the patience to wait when they've had enough and had made a decision to do something about it? Not many.

Secondly, your saying "God Bless You" to us in this forum is OBVIOUSLY not the same thing as this adult teacher telling his captive audience of juvenile students "If you don't accept Christ you deserve to go to Hell!" This is a public forum and you are not in a position of authority over me. I can read this or not. I can turn your comments off at will if for some reason they offended me. A student in a high school room does not have the ability to do this!!!! They can't choose to walk out (at least not without repercussions). Thirdly, do you remember being sixteen? Did your word of something inappropriate going on with an adult get accepted very often? Think you might NEED to use a tape recorder to be believed? Were you really able to debate in as articulate a manner as an adult? Especially when you were angry or defending yourself?

If I walk up to a strange woman on the street and ask her twice if she wants to sleep with me I may be a bit of a jerk but I can't be arrested. If I walk up to my secretary and ask her the same thing twice I've committed sexual harrasement. Do you get the difference in the relationship?? One is trapped there is a subordinate relationship and the other is not! It's the location and the relationship that makes the difference not the remark.

What happened here was not a question of "Freedom of Speach" or "Freedom of Religion." It was an adult abusing a position of authority. Does he deserve to be fired? In my opinion, without a history of similar remarks and of being cautioned regarding them, NO. Does he need to be advised that he cannot make similar remarks to hs class (DURING CLASS) and receive a day or two off, YES. If he continues to abuse his captive audiences of students in a similar manner should he then be dismissed, YES.

I am Christian, however, I certainly can sympathize with being a sixteen year old Jew, Muslim, Agnostic, or Aethiest, sitting in that classroom and having no choice but to listen to this teacher forcing his religious ideology on me and being told that I "deserve to go to Hell." Good God, wake up!

[Guest Guest]

No I don't at the moment, and not that it's any of your f**king buiseness, the searching is a bit tough at this time of year, when everybody's winding down for xmas and nobody's hiring. I don't see what my employment status, has to do with any of the discussion here. I guess it just gives you something to blather on about, and something to ridicule others with when you don't have an actual point to contribute to a grown up debate.

On another point, The only reason you can direct a personal comment at me, is because I am using a screen name. When you edit a post, there's an edit feild near the top, where people with the balls can write a screen name to identify themselves as anything other than "Guest". You should try it sometime who--ever--you--are, if you ever grow some balls that is. Leaving a blank name feild is lazy, inconsiderate and cowardly. Particularly if you are going strong on the attack. You just pop up out of the amorphous mass made up of numerous other posters identified as "Guest", who also don't put anything in the name feild, and make rude personal coments and adhominem attacks from the security of your relative annonimity. If you were the only one appearing as "Guest", then I suppose you are the most prolific poster here. Have you got a job?

I suppose I should assume all of the nasty, pointless, stupid, evasive, contradictory, etc. etc.. posts from "Guest" are one particular fundie. If you don't identify yourself otherwise, you should expect to recieve the criticims owing to any other "Guest" especialy if you exploit the benifit of others identifying themselves while you who--ever--you--are, have not.

I rest my case on this D**bA**.

Well done moron!!!

BTW: The LaClairs are wecome to come to Aust. What makes you think they can't communicate with you from over here? I'm over here. I'm on the internet. Aren't I communicating with you? You'll never be alone while assimilated into the amorphus Borg like multitude of Lazy, rude, inconsiderate and guttless, morons who's collective identity is Guest.

NB: Appologies to the non-trouble-making casual visitor (Guest) who is not being decietfull and not delibereatly being an @$$h***. Also to those who occasionaly forget to put their screen name on a post. Obviously I don't mean to implicate you, only the fundie zealots, who, hiding behind the subterfuge of annonimity, can deliberatly slander and deride specific people, because those specific people have identified themselves. Pathetic, Low-Life, guttless, gutter-sniping, cowards, who-ever-you-are.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Using "write" in place of "right" is not a simple typo you horses ass. And you better check your spelling also, maybe that's why you don't have a job.

[Guest O. W. Holmes]

  While it is well-established that your son was legally correct in his actions, morally I find the method in which he carried out his stunts reprehensible.  It seems that your son is the left-wing equivalent of a police officer standing on Kearny Ave. and writing every car a speeding ticket for traveling 26 in a 25, because he can. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My dear fellow, you have the wrong analogy. Mathew is not the person with authority. The teacher is. Mathew is like the concerned citizen gathering evidence about the genial cop who has been taking bribes for years. Often in these cases, taped evidence is the only thing that will get the job done because the corruption on the front lines is often supported by corruption higher up.

[Guest Guest]

Dear "Guest,"

You write a very intelligent post, so I wish to take you up on your invitation to engage in a productive dialogue. I'm sorry I don't know who you are. Perhaps you will see fit to tell us.

I must ask you, is it not obvious what would have happened had Matthew not recorded the classes? Many students who were in the class deny that Paszkiewicz said what is clearly audible on the recordings. I don't understand the psychology behind that, but obviously they would surely have denied it all the more vehemently had there been no recordings. As for Paszkiewicz, he did deny making many of the statements, until Matthew produced the recordings, at which point he essentially admitted he had been caught, saying "you got the big fish." So while I have no reason to doubt that you know this teacher as an honest man, can you truly say he was honest in this case? Is it possible that when the chips were down, he failed the integrity test?

Getting back to the point, if there had been no recordings, the situation would have been exactly what Matthew feared. People hate him now, and all he did was preserve the truth — that's all, he made a record of the truth. Can you imagine what would have happened had he not had the truth to defend himself with --- he would have no support. The truth was his only defense, and that is what Paszkiewicz's defenders hate so vehemently: they can't deny the truth, no matter how hard they try.

This is an old story, as in the story of the boy who observed that the emperor has no clothes. Good grief, do we learn nothing from our fine narratives?

Students record their classes all the time. So I really want to know: is it really more important that a citizen be denied any means of proving that a serious wrong has been done, than it is to make a clear record of the wrong so the public can see clearly what is happening in a public setting? I don't see it chilling the educational process. In all the years I went to public school (13 years), I cannot think of a single instance in which a teacher of mine would have had any reason to be concerned had the public heard a recording of his or her class. Is there really a chilling effect here? I don't see it, especially since a student who feels strongly enough can surreptitiously record a class whether the school makes a rule against it or not. Matthew has never recorded a class in his life before this; he did it because the situation was so far out of control. So I don't understand that logic, and you seem like a reasonable person. Why is there anything wrong with Matthew's approach, given the nature of the teacher's conduct? Could you please explain?

Finally, while I have not called publicly for Mr. Paszkiewicz's termination, the many calls for it are not irrational. There are grounds for termination, no question about it, and many professional educators have so stated. The question is whether that is the best resolution, or whether he should be allowed to continue with the understanding that he will never repeat this behavior. Terminate or don't terminate, the resolution is rational either way.

By contrast, there is no basis for suspending the student, because he did not violate any law or any rule. It's that simple. They can't suspend him even if they want to. But they could easily fire the teacher, for far less than this --- and if he had been a Muslim, a Jew, a Humanist, etc., you can bet they would have. So the parallel you suggest is not well-taken.

I hope we can continue this dialogue. Though I don't agree with you on these points, your approach, among those who have defended the teacher in any way, is refreshing to say the least.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Paul - thanks for the reply. I really don't know what the answer is on the taping of the conversations (and I don't know that I have come to a conclusion in my own mind either). I understand your point of view, I understand that it is legal, but it's still something that rubs me the wrong way - if that makes any sense. The reason why I continue to wrestle with it - rather than dismiss it out of hand - is that I think you're right. This was the only way that Matthew could have gotten enough evidence in this matter. I guess my feelings are that - in this case - the ends justify the means. But I guess I want to reserve the right to be less agreeable should the facts be different at another time (and, yes, I'm aware of how unreasonable that sounds).

As for me, as I have said, I have known David for over 30 years. As a result, the content of the tape didn't surprise me. I have known about David's beliefs for some time now. However, the fact that he said these things in a classroom did surprise me. Greatly. I guess when you are both a minister and a teacher, one of the hazards is that you have to be eternally vigilant about what hat you're wearing at what time. David was not. I know that you have not called for his termination - which has shown significant restraint on your part since you are so close to this matter. However, I think that a termination is inappropriate in this matter; PROVIDED, HOWEVER that (a) he did not engage in a current course of conduct that was the subject of censure or discipline in the past (i.e., he hadn't been warned to stop this in the past), and ( that he continues teaching under the knowledge and agreement that if he repeats this behavior his employment will be terminated. So I guess my belief is that - absent the facts in (a) - anyone calling for his immediate termination is having the same knee-jerk reaction to a polarizing situation that is being displayed by the people calling for Matthew's suspension (while acknowledging your point that there may be a justification for David's termination while there is none for Matthew's suspension).

An additional issue about taping (that tends to make your point) is that there is no proof that David actually denied making these statements, or referred to himself as the "big fish" because Matthew didn't tape these conversations (I have not spoken with David since these events occurred, so I have not yet heard his side of the story). But to answer your question about integrity, I think that there are times when all of us have had to "dance with the devil". In this case, if Matthew is telling the truth, it appears that the devil, not David, was the one leading. And, if David was lying, I hope that he eventually would find the fortitude to swallow his pride a little, sit Matthew down, and apologize for setting a poor example. If he is the man I remember him being, and if he was in fact lying, I trust that he will.

Your son has a long road ahead of him, Paul. Between not standing for the pledge of allegiance and taping his teacher (which is being viewed by many of the myopics as an attack on religion), Matthew has offended sensibilities in two highly sensitive areas. Standing up for what he believes in is going to make him a better man, but I fear that the mob mentality at the school is ruining his boyhood. I would love to see the administration - or better yet - David, take the lead and teach the student body the importance of being tolerant of opinions or statements that oppose your beliefs. Absent that - have you thought about putting Paul into private school? There's plenty of time later for him to be a man, but there's so little time left for him to enjoy being a boy. I would hate to see him miss out on that.

Thanks.

[Guest Skepticus]

Using "write" in place of "right" is not a simple typo you horses ass. 

<Sarcasm>That's right, it is a henious evil, of devistating proportions. Something like throwing kind-hearted people into a pit of burning torture for eternity, just because they don't believe in the existence of a supernatural deity<Sarcasm>

I'm not sure if there is another word for the evil horror, of using the spelling of a word which is pronounced the same but spelled differently, than the word which was intended, so I called it a typo. It never bothered me, because I understood the intended meaning in the first place. So did you, as you easily volanteered the correct word. For that reason, I considered your criticism trivial. For the same reason the original error of english usage you pointed out is also trivial.

The point I have tried to make, is that a trivial spelling or language usage error is an insignificant and irrelevant point, while the issue we are debating is the Injustice of a history teacher prostelysing religion in a publc school.

And you better check your spelling also, maybe that's why you don't have a job.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How charitable of you to say so, and to laugh at my current misfortune. I guess that is the Christian in you coming out. I don't care much about my average spelling capability, and I don't use a spell checker on these posts, because I assume that as long as they get the message across, that is the most important thing.

I don't expect to be called out on my spelling, because the the important thing is to communicate thoughts, with enough accuracy to be understood. I do infact steer clear of adhominem attacks on spelling because they show imaturity and because they are irrelivant, strawman arguments which display a desire to have a comeback at any cost. To win a debate by having the last word however infantile etc etc..

If I wanted to play that game, I would have started it long ago, with the litterary skills displayed by the Neaderthals posting their lynch-mob menatlity at the begining of this thread. The poor spelling, sentance construction and vocabulary of the Kearny Klux Klan, is posatively deplorable. Furthermore, since you (or whoever "Guest" is) still wish to post without a screen name, I should attribute all spelling and other language usage mistakes published on this board by "Guest" to you (who ever you are). But it is not becoming to start a flame war over spelling, as it is obvious that the opponent will surely enough find an eventual spelling mistake and try running me into the ground with it as a hypocryte.

This get us nowhere, despite the temptation to point out the general lack of litteracy of the opponent and claim it as evidence of a general lack of inteligence. It comes at the price of insulting your opponent who, out of anger, will never want to see any point that I subsequently make. They will eventualy discover some insignificant spelling mistake and try to rub my nose in it. That is why I don't go there.

The point is that you did go there. It makes no difference whether the mistake is a typo or an instance of incorect word usage, or anything similar; it was an innocent, trivial and irrelevant mistake of no consequence. It had notheing to do with the point of discussion.

I pulled you up, firstly because you were being a sophist prat and trying to assasinate another posters character, secondly because you were avoiding any inteligent debate with your off-handed popshots and thirdly because you haven't the balls to identify yourself from any other annonomus person posting here. It's not as if anybody can throw rocks through your window, just because you adopt a screen-name, The only thing you have to loose is that each of your posts could be identified as belonging to the same person. Obviously you have something to hide and wish to remain a nameless coward.

To be quite honest, I am suffering some ambivilence from submiting to my prevoius hostile tone and have entertained the thought of apologising for submitting to my flames and name calling. I don't like where this has gone already. I admit I posted out of anger and hostility. I don't like to ever get into a slanging match which I understand nobody wins, but even if I did apologise, who would I be apologising to?

All I know is some unidentified person is posting here with adhominem attacks and infantile criticisms that mount to nothing as far as the inteligent debate goes. However wrong I may have been for letting my temper get the better of me, I don't think I should appologise to an anonymous person who won't even be identified by a psudeonm. I should however appologise to the rest of the people here for being baited and letting my anger show.

BTW: I should mention that I believe there are worse predicaments than being temporarily unemployed. Being a telemarketer (a parisite), who rings people at dinner time to sell them something they don't need would be one example, and being a fundementalist preacher disguised as a history teacher (vermin) would be another. At any time I have found myself unemployed, I have always put enough back into my community to be happy living with my concience. My employmet status remains none of your business. And as with the screen name, I see you have still not volanteered yours (who-ever-you-are).

[Guest Dustin]

*sigh*

Oh dear Lord, this is funny. It kinda reminds me why I moved out of the Bible Belt in the first place. But wait, Kearny, NJ isn't Dallas, TX or Topeka, KS, so what the heck?

As a someone who's taught music lessons and led bands, I know what it's like to have kids asking questions that I really shouldn't answer. But, how hard is it to simply dodge the question? A kid asked me of he'd go to hell for seeing The Da Vinci Code (yeah...seriously), and I just told him that I didn't know enough about the whole issue to reply (warning, playing dumb usually works best for arts teachers, since we're not expected to know anything of substance). If Matt was truly "baiting" his teacher (which I sincerely doubt), then the teacher should have turned onto another topic.

It seems that Mr. LaClair here is making rather good points, but unfortunately one of the first things a Baptist is taught (I should know, I used to be one) is that anything that begins to disagree with what preacher says at church must be the word of Satan. Thus, I fear that this argument will rage until some other incident related to religion (or abortion, or marriage equality) comes into the news. Since one side (for argument's sake, we'll call it the right) refuses to even listen to anything but their own rhetoric, this will go nowhere.

I am doubly distressed that Matt is receiving this level of flak. He's standing up for his right not to be given a sermon in a place that he is legally compelled to be! Kudos to you Matt, and forget what the ignorant fundamentalists are saying. And Kudos to your parents...they raised you to think for yourself, instead of receiving your beliefs from preacher.

Dustin Manuel

slider40337@yahoo.com

650-722-1106

Anonymity is the place where cowards speak from

[Guest Wok2Moons]

For your info, he was teaching history. If you listened to the recording, which was on the internet yesterday, you will see and HEAR this little twit set the man up. How would YOU like to wake up in the morning and see your face on the front page of a local newspaper, on every tv station and radio station. What speaks volume is the students of KHS are outraged at this flagrant violation of not only this teacher's rights but every student in that classroom's right to speak their mind without the threat of being tape recorded. Every student in that classroom who contributed to this debate is now on the internet for the world to hear.At the end of the recording, you can hear "the little twit" sayin "Yeees"!  The only thing he has accomplished is alienating the few friends that he has, and publically embarrassing a Kearny family, a well respected teacher and coach, for WHAT? I'll tell you what, a minute of fame on televison.  Shame on 1010 Wins, the Jersey Journal and every media who are trying to make news, not report it. If you watched the news, the other students are jeering him for the jerk that he is. And remember, this is the same kid that refuses to stand for the flag salute when kids almost his age are dying for his rights. By the way, to his parents "your kid needs a bath & hair wash.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would like to wake up to that very much, if only to clear my conscience of the wretched and humiliating things that I said to some poor student. If I had made remarks even close to what that man said to one of his students, I would be down on my knees begging for forgiveness from whatever God there might or might not be above us. And please notice that I'm not referring to him in a derogatory way, such as 'that little twit.' I would have thought that adults discussing such an important matter would have been above such petty accusations, but apparently I was wrong. I am a high school student avidly awaiting the passing over of the reigns of this country to my generation, but it is now more apparent than ever that we have an awful lot of cleaning up to do.

As to what you say was accomplished by his actions, if the 'few friends' he had now despise him for what he did, then they won't be missed too much. Friends who would take the side of the opposition in such a clearly misguided attempt to cover up a blatant act of irresponsible and inexcusable behavior, are no more friends than those who would throw you up against a locker and demand your lunch money. He will find new friends I am sure, friends who won't shift to whatever side the cleary misinformed pulblic is leaning towards just to maintain their social status.

You say that Matt did this just to get a few minutes of television airtime? I'm sorry, but that statement is as clearly false as saying that the real reason we went into Iraq was because they had weapons of mass destruction. No one who knows anything about this courageous boy, no one who has spent sufficient time reading even these blogs, would make such an outrageous claim. If anyone deserves shame, it is you, and those who follow in your footsteps. He showed an enormous amount of perseverance and resolve in the choices that he made, and he should be commended in every respect for the way that he has tried to uphold the justice system of this country.

Lastly, you ended your little personal attack on this 16 year old boy by saying that he refused to stand up for the pledge to the flag. I belive that this is called an ad hominem attack, which is a recognized logical fallacy where you attack the person in rather than focusing on the substance of the argument. Um, I can't quite remember . . . hmm . . . let me think . . . nope, I can't seem to recall that refusing to pledge to the flag of the United States is a crime. Let me check, nope, not a crime. The only reason you could possibly have to bring this up is to steer the conversation away from the issue at hand, that of the teacher's wrongs and not Matt's. So please, in the future, refrain from bringing such an important matter of justice down into the completely unrelated terms of a perfectly acceptable decision made by, in my opionion, a young man, not a little twit, who I will look up to for the rest of my life.

Oh, and saying "your kid needs a bath and hair wash?" (With no quotation marks at the end of your sentence I might add. My history teacher would be in tears.) I didn't know that we were exchanging insults at a high school lunch table. Next thing I know, you will be coming forth with 'your mom' jokes . . .

[Guest Guest]

As someone who grew up in Kearny, who still maintains strong ties to (and pays taxes in) Kearny, and who has known the teacher for over 30 years, let me just weigh in on this subject.

Although we do not communicate frequently, I have always known the teacher in this matter to be a kind, decent and honest individual - as well as a very competent teacher.

He still is all of that and more.

Why would you even doubt yourself about Mr. P. if you know him for 30 years plus?

Did you ever hear his side?

But the question that comes to my mind is why Matt did not speak to Mr P., why Matt's father did not go to him to speak to him personally? Mr. LaClair was not interested in fixing any problem and wanted to make himself known. I his done a wonderful job.

[Grimm]

The teacher was in the wrong here. There is nothing that can be used to excuse his behavior. The student recorded the class without his knowledge...irrelevant. The student asked questions to lead him on....also irrelevant.

The people that are blaming the student should be ashamed of themselves. Those that are hiding behind the flag and the pledge should be doubly ashamed. Calling someone a traitor or unpatriotic because of what? Because he is standing up for his rights? Because unlike his teacher he respects the Constitution more then an oath to the flag? The teacher was in the wrong plain and simple and he knew he was in the wrong which is why he denied saying the things that he said.

I would also like to point out to the liberals on this board that these people who support the teacher are NOT true conservatives. They are religious right fundamentalist Christians who have hi-jacked the conservative name and party.

True conservatives support the Constitution and The Bill of Rights and they don't use the power of the government to push their religious views on the citizens of this country!

"The Republicans are selling their soul to win elections. Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."

Barry Goldwater--1994

[Guest Guest]

Hi Paul - thanks for the reply.  I really don't know what the answer is on the taping of the conversations (and I don't know that I have come to a conclusion in my own mind either).  I understand your point of view, I understand that it is legal, but it's still something that rubs me the wrong way - if that makes any sense.  The reason why I continue to wrestle with it - rather than dismiss it out of hand - is that I think you're right.  This was the only way that Matthew could have gotten enough evidence in this matter.  I guess my feelings are that - in this case - the ends justify the means.  But I guess I want to reserve the right to be less agreeable should the facts be different at another time (and, yes, I'm aware of how unreasonable that sounds).

As for me, as I have said, I have known David for over 30 years.  As a result, the content of the tape didn't surprise me.  I have known about David's beliefs for some time now.  However, the fact that he said these things in a classroom did surprise me.  Greatly.  I guess when you are both a minister and a teacher, one of the hazards is that you have to be eternally vigilant about what hat you're wearing at what time.  David was not.  I know that you have not called for his termination - which has shown significant restraint on your part since you are so close to this matter.  However, I think that a termination is inappropriate in this matter; PROVIDED, HOWEVER that (a) he did not engage in a current course of conduct that was the subject of censure or discipline in the past (i.e., he hadn't been warned to stop this in the past), and ( that he continues teaching under the knowledge and agreement that if he repeats this behavior his employment will be terminated.  So I guess my belief is that - absent the facts in (a) - anyone calling for his immediate termination is having the same knee-jerk reaction to a polarizing situation that is being displayed by the people calling for Matthew's suspension (while acknowledging your point that there may be a justification for David's termination while there is none for Matthew's suspension). 

An additional issue about taping (that tends to make your point) is that there is no proof that David actually denied making these statements, or referred to himself as the "big fish" because Matthew didn't tape these conversations (I have not spoken with David since these events occurred, so I have not yet heard his side of the story).  But to answer your question about integrity, I think that there are times when all of us have had to "dance with the devil".  In this case, if Matthew is telling the truth, it appears that the devil, not David, was the one leading.  And, if David was lying, I hope that he eventually would find the fortitude to swallow his pride a little, sit Matthew down, and apologize for setting a poor example.  If he is the man I remember him being, and if he was in fact lying, I trust that he will.

Your son has a long road ahead of him, Paul.  Between not standing for the pledge of allegiance and taping his teacher (which is being viewed by many of the myopics as an attack on religion), Matthew has offended sensibilities in two highly sensitive areas.  Standing up for what he believes in is going to make him a better man, but I fear that the mob mentality at the school is ruining his boyhood.  I would love to see the administration - or better yet - David, take the lead and teach the student body the importance of being tolerant of opinions or statements that oppose your beliefs.  Absent that - have you thought about putting Paul into private school? There's plenty of time later for him to be a man, but there's so little time left for him to enjoy being a boy.  I would hate to see him miss out on that.

Thanks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you for an excellent response. I will be most interested to know what David has to say about denying his statements in the meeting in the principal's office. I am quite certain that he did.

To one point: "But I guess I want to reserve the right to be less agreeable should the facts be different at another time (and, yes, I'm aware of how unreasonable that sounds)." I think that is entirely reasonable. Sometimes rules aren't enough. Sometimes distinctions are drawn by judgment. I am proud of Matthew's judgments in this case, as they were correct from beginning to end. In fact, people have said I advised him. I did, but he almost uniformly declined to accept my advice and did things his way --- after consulting with me in a respectful way. That makes me all the more proud of him. And to top it off, his judgments were better than mine.

If everyone exhibited your thoughtfulness, this issue would be long behind us. Thank you again for an excellent post.

[Guest Guest]

Your son has a long road ahead of him, Paul.  Between not standing for the pledge of allegiance and taping his teacher (which is being viewed by many of the myopics as an attack on religion), Matthew has offended sensibilities in two highly sensitive areas. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True, Mathew has offended the sensibilities of the christian fundamentalist mobs. Just like Rosa Park offended the sensibilities of the racist mobs. Mathew should wear that as a badge of honor.

[Guest Guest]

He still is all of that and more.

Why would you even doubt yourself about Mr. P. if you know him for 30 years plus?

Did you ever hear his side?

But the question that comes to my mind is why Matt did not speak to Mr P., why Matt's father did not go to him to speak to him personally? Mr. LaClair was not interested in fixing any problem and wanted to make himself known. I his done a wonderful job.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why should Mathew and Paul speak to the teacher?

If you catch someone breaking the law, do you always feel you must speak to the lawbreaker first before you report the incident to authorities?

[Guest Guest]

He still is all of that and more.

Why would you even doubt yourself about Mr. P. if you know him for 30 years plus?

Did you ever hear his side?

But the question that comes to my mind is why Matt did not speak to Mr P., why Matt's father did not go to him to speak to him personally? Mr. LaClair was not interested in fixing any problem and wanted to make himself known. I his done a wonderful job.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why should Mathew and Paul speak to the teacher?

If you catch someone breaking the law, do you always feel you must speak to the lawbreaker first before you report the incident to authorities?

[Guest Joel]

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

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:

I listened to the audio. It was very clear that while the teacher

may be "kind, decent and honest," he is also a religous fanatic

who was rationalizing his teaching of religion in a state-sponsored,

compulsory forum, otherwise known as a public school history 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

Please! How would he feel about someone he hired-- perhaps

a TV repairman, or a math teacher-- takign time out to teach

that the only really "manly" religion is worship of Thor, based

on the Holy Scriptures of Norse mythology, the Eddas?

In the conversation above, taken my Matthew Laclair himself, i see no wrong doing by this teacher,

I do. When he's not attempting to "disprove" evolution based

on his own ignorance of both evolution and the scientific method,

he's rationalizing his teaching of religion in a STATE institution

under a variety of rationalizations that amount to simple sophistry.

Oh yes, he also spent some time bemoaning the way students

are no longer forced to recite Christian prayers in public school

as they were in the good old days, when schools, using their authority

of governmental compulsion, forced ALL students to be subjected to

the SPIRITUAL environment that the majority of parents were

comfortable with. An argument can be made for the general value

of this, but it's NOT consistent with the US Constitution....

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.

The teacher made his statements to a captive audience (the

students HAD to be there) in a public forum. No privacy issue

is involved. And why the newspaper? That's obvious. His small

community wasn't terribly interested in-- and in fact hostile to--

Constitutional requirements on public education. Only by

bringing these activities to the attention of the wider community

via the Constitutionally-protected mechanism of a free press, would

this anti-Constitutional activity be adequately addressed.

One more thing... as for this teacher being "set up," most teachers

I know wouldn't be "entrapped" into pushing stuff about unbelievers

winding up in Hell, attempting to "disprove" evolution, offering

as established fact that God dictated the true story of creation to

Moses, etc., regardless of the "provocation." It will be clear to

anyone who listens to the audio that this teacher both believed what

he was saying, and was eager to preach it to his students.

[Guest Warren S]

1.  There is no such thing as "premeditated entrapment," and entrapment is a defense only when the entrapment is performed by an agent of the government.  LaClair didn't break any laws by recording the class.

2.  Matt LaClair didn't "set him up"--he doesn't ask questions until well into the recording.  Further, even if LaClair had initiated any discussion of religion it is still the teacher's responsibility is to not use the classroom as a forum for evanglizing.

3.  The recording shows that the teacher was leading the class in a rambling, barely controlled or coherent discussion of Halloween, the Bible, Satan, free will, home schooling his kids, the purpose of public education, and other topics having nothing to do with the U.S. History class he was supposed to be teaching.  In the course of this, the teacher demonstrated that he knows little about most of the topics he discussed, as he made erroneous statement after erroneous statement.  He is clearly not competent to be teaching any of the subjects he was talking about, none of which had anything to do with the subject of the class.

4.  When called on his religious advocacy before school administrators, the teacher clearly knew he was in the wrong, because he *lied about it* and denied having said the things he did.  Only after LaClair brought forward the recordings did he change his tune--and then refused to cooperate, asking for his union representative.

5.  The school administration claims that it has taken "corrective action," but refuses to  say what it is.  The teacher continues to teach the class.

It is interesting that those defending the teacher and criticizing LaClair fail to address any of the above points.

If I were a parent of a child in Kearny, NJ, I would be very concerned about the quality of education being given at KHS.  The teacher in question home schools his own kids, apparently because he recognizes the poor quality of public school education in Kearny.  Unfortunately, it's clear that his kids aren't getting anything better at home.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I could not agree more.

This teacher is a disgrace to educators around the world.

1. To the guy who said he was teaching history by mentioning Genesis 1, should read Richard Dawkins' "The Ancestor's Tale" and have a rethink about that.

2. As far as I'm concerned, were it practical, all lessons should be taped so that pupils can have reference back to what their teachers have said. Matthew is mainly being accused of baiting, which he manifestly wasn't, because he cannot produce recordings of previous classes where his teacher told him among other things that if he didn't beleive in Jesus he would go to hell. A laughable assertion but prosletizing nevertheless.

3. Almost without exception, those defenders of this mindless fundementalist are so-called born-again themselves and support him only because he preached - oh, yes! preached - their religion of choice. The point has been made already and the assertion is unsurmountable that had he done exactly the same thing but being a Jehova's Witness or a Mormon (other deplorable christian cults) let alone a Muslim or some other deluded religionist, he would have been fired on the spot to stop him. No doubt, had he been an athiest and tried to rationalize with the class, in Kearny no doubt, he most likely would have been lynched.

4. What Matthew did was a brave and selfless act, exchanging popularity and acceptance for ridicule, open hatred and from some more extreme xtian nutcases out there, threats of death in the pursuit of truth, justice and what is right. In my eyes that makes him closer to the fictional Jesus than most of his mindless detractors.

Well done Matthew, there are millions around the world that applaude your actions and wish for more enlightened students like you!

May I commend to readers the following websites for their information and edification:

www.blasphemychallenge.com

www.richarddawkins.net

www.godisanillusion.com

www.whygodwonthealamputees.com <-- the most imporant question in the history of questions about God.

and

www.endchristmas.com

Happy Holidays and may the truth of rationality light your way this xmas.

[Guest Warren S]

Hey Skepticus, do you a have job? It doesn't look like you do! You spend so much time posting in here. By the way, invite the LaClairs to move to Australia, this way they will live us ALONE!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You have the audacity to criticise Skepticus' spelling when you would have the LaClairs "live" you alone.

Brave, valiant and measured Skepticus may not wish to descend to your level but for the moment I will.

Kindly put out your flaming torch and remove your sheet with the eye holes long enough to hear me out.

I am an ex-baptist, with two theological degrees and I was accepted as a pastor shortly before resigning.

If you took a nice long hard look at the four gospels you would find them hopelessly contradictory. Even a cursory reading renders them incomprehensible let alone the words of Jesus which can barely be understood because he hardly ever says anything in a straight forward manner.

The gospels' utter incomprehension is enough to destroy the whole Bible although each book can be shown to have its major and minor problems.

Secondly I challenge any christian to show that praying to god is even slightly more effective than praying to a horseshoe. Over time you will find that it is not. If your reply is that god answers prayers with yes, no or wait, then my response is that the horseshoe answers prayers in exactly the same way. There is no difference.

Thirdly while you may have heard of or even thought you experienced god's healing powers I ask you, despite all the magical claims made about god's power and all the "blind" that have seen or the "lame" walked - whether god has ever, ever re-grown an amputated limb, anytime in recorded history, anywhere in the world. No he has not.

The reason for an incomprehensible Bible, lack of answered prayer and no healed amputees is quite simply that god does not exist.

I am aware that attempting to persuade you has been like spitting into the wind because even now you are donning your sheet and lighting up your torch to give me a good old fashioned lynching with a god ordained hanging or a nice burning at the stake.

However, thanks to the miracle of the internet I can address you without fear of physical violence, the threats of which are surprisingly frequent from the mob of believers in the supposedly peaceful xtian religion.

I can heartily endorse Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion" to all you doubting Thomas' out there.

Lastly and at the risk or ruining my post, if you can't respond properly to Skepticus in the future, kindly learn to spell properly and borrow a dictionary to learn the difference between 'leave' and 'live' you moron.

Warmest Regards