KHS Teacher Controversy

[Guest Guest]

Maybe I've missed the answer, but I've asked for someone to specify the law that Paskiewicz supposed broke.  I've yet to see an answer.  Since Paskiewicz is not Congress (AFAICT, anyway), it does not appear that he broke the First Amendment.

So, what law was it?  Be specific.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, you have apparently missed it. Paszkiewicz violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. See the US Supreme Court case titled Engel v. Vitale (1962). You can look it up on line. There is no controversy about this among people who know the law.

[Bryan]

Strife767 wrote:

Remind me again--was it an atheist or a Christian who was condemning high school students to hell?

Neither, but thanks for the fallacy of the false dilemma.

What attacks?

Calling for his dismissal and calling his words proselytization without the benefit of a strong supporting argument, for example.

Wow, how amazingly ignorant can one be?

We see your demonstration below.

"It is one of the fundamental principles of the Supreme Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence that the Constitution forbids not only state practices that "aid one religion . . . or prefer one religion over another," but also those practices that "aid all religions" and thus endorse or prefer religion over nonreligion. Everson, 330 U.S. at 15. See Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 53 (1985)("[T]he individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all"); see also County of Allegheny v. ACLU Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573, 589-94, 598-602 (1989); Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock, 489 U.S. 1, 17 (1989); Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 (1961).

Please read up on these cases at least before you make more of a fool of yourself.

Wallace v Jaffree: Ruled a state law unconstitutional.

What New Jersey law is unconstitutional in this case?

County of Allegheny v ACLU Greater Pittsburgh Chapter: Enjoined a county government from a specific practice.

What government practice is to be enjoined in this case and why (feel free to try an application of the Lemon test)?

Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock: Found a state law unconstitutional.

What New Jersey law is unconstitutional in this case?

Torcaso v. Watkins: Found a test for office administered by the state of Maryland unconstitutional (the test was in Maryland's constitution).

What aspect of New Jersey's law is unconstitutional in this case?

You couldn't find a truly similar case, eh?

As you can see in the court cases above, it obviously does not take something as grand as a Congress-passed law to violate the First Amendment.

And doesn't that strike you as the least bit strange, given the wording of the First Amendment?

The Fourteenth Amendment broadens the application of the Constitutional to other levels of government (as I've already mentioned elsewhere).

At what level do you find Paszkiewicz?

Actually, it's just you that needs to inform yourself.

Because you're too lazy to even try?

You offered me a bunch of examples of government breaking the first amendment through practice (a religion-specific creche) and legislation. The creche case had the Lemon test applied to it. You haven't lifted a finger (AFAICT) to apply the tines of the Lemon test to this case. Have you?

So, you're dodging the question while supposing that you need to educate me about stuff I already know.

Why don't you just answer the question, instead?

Religious preaching is not allowed in governmental institutions nor by governmental employees while they are "on the clock." End of story--it's a shame that a 22 year-old who hates legalese understands the law better than you do.

It is very improbable that you know that law better than I do.

Religious preaching is not allowed in government institutions nor by governmental employees, but the prohibition is not by statute. In other words, there's no law against it. It's an employment practice that government employers engage in so that the government will not risk lawsuit.

Paszkiewicz didn't break the law. End of story.

What's ironic is the fact that, had the teacher been atheist and the student Christian, the reaction by people like you would be exactly opposite. That is, it would be ironic (to me), did I not already know how fundies and their apologists work.

Huh. You dodged another question.

Is that how you customarily work?

Religious preaching is not allowed in governmental institutions nor by governmental employees while they are "on the clock." End of story--it's a shame that a 22 year-old who hates legalese understands the law better than you do.

Don't confuse the employee handbook with the law of the land.

They're not the same thing.

Oh man, this is cute. *laughs* What exactly are you trying to do with this statement, make it sound like the First Amendment isn't a law?

Just trying to illustrate to you that an individual cannot break the First Amendment, thus individuals are not legally culpable for violations church/state separation (among other things). The way you dodge questions, however, I'm having to spell out the answers letter-by-letter for you instead of allowing you to figure it out for yourself.

Answer: First Amendment, specifically the Establishment Clause.

Bzzt. Wrong answer.

Only because of your astonishing ignorance to the law.

You should read the First Amendment sometime. Maybe it will begin to open your eyes about a few things.

Now a question for you--why exactly have you ignored all of the successful court cases against similar actions and avoided realizing just how obvious this violation is?

Be specific.

Because nobody had presented any until this answer by you--and still nobody has shown a similar case (an individual's words breaking the law where the words were not somehow mandated by government action), nor how an individual can break the law in terms of the First Amendment.

See, that's how you answer a question.

Try it sometime.

[an American in Texas]

Rosa Parks' name is not being used to discredit God. It's being used as an example of standing up against bigotry.

The Christianists are doing a fine job of discrediting God and the faith on their own. In addition to spitting on the Constitution.

Leigh

[Grimm]

The point is, this great womans name shouldn't be used in this discussion to discredit God. I feel that a great number of people out there agree.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No..the point is that this discussion or issue has NOTHING to do with discrediting God. What the teacher did is wrong not based on the validity of God or Jesus or the Bible. It's wrong because what he did was unconstitutional. By incorrectly boiling it down to "discredit God" you want others to not think this issue through critically and logically because they already know were they stand on that issue but that is not what this is about.

[Grimm]

The point is, this great womans name shouldn't be used in this discussion to discredit God. I feel that a great number of people out there agree.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No..the point is that this discussion or issue has NOTHING to do with discrediting God. What the teacher did is wrong not based on the validity of God or Jesus or the Bible. It's wrong because what he did was unconstitutional. By incorrectly boiling it down to "discredit God" you want others to not think this issue through critically and logically because they already know were they stand on that issue but that is not what this is about.

[Calybos]

Thanks for totally missing the point. The comparison was that they both were beset my mobs intent on drowning their rights, and in both case, have been vigorously attacked for standing on them.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The point is, this great womans name shouldn't be used in this discussion to discredit God. I feel that a great number of people out there agree.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And the counterpoint is, this ISN'T an attempt to discredit or attack God. It's an attempt to uphold the law. Why do you keep pretending otherwise?

[Guest Guest]

As usual, the christofundies are completely missing the point.

The personal religious beliefs of Mathews and Rosa are totally irrelevant. The point is that both Mathew and Rosa stood up to protect the Consitution against attacks from christofundy and racist mobs respectively. When the so-called teacher preached to a roomful of captive students inside a public school classroom funded by the government during work hours paid for by the government, he violated the First Amendment. When Jim Crow laws forced Rosa to give up her seat to a White passenger, it violated the Fourteenth Amendment. So yes, the parallel is obvious.

And no, Mathew (as far as I can tell) and I do not have a problem with god. What we do have a problem with is people breaking the law. Get it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The implicit argument that pointing out the excesses of Christian fundamentalists is an attack on God is breathtaking for its arrogance and its lack of any sense of spiritual humility. Apparently these fundamentalists think there is no distinction between themselves and God, i.e., they think they are God.

[Strife767]

Strife767 wrote:

Remind me again--was it an atheist or a Christian who was condemning high school students to hell?

Neither, but thanks for the fallacy of the false dilemma.

I do believe you're lying--the teacher quite explicitly stated that anyone who doesn't 'see it his way' dogmatically and religiously, "belongs in hell." And he is Christian.

What attacks?

Calling for his dismissal and calling his words proselytization without the benefit of a strong supporting argument, for example.

LOL, you have got to be kidding! If those teacher's actions aren't proselytization, nothing is. Have you even listened to the recordings?

He deserves to be dismissed not only _because_ of his actions, but because he lied about his actions (which is an admission of guilt in my opinion, since no one put him up to lying or anything) and showed no remorse for his activities when they were revealed.

Wow, how amazingly ignorant can one be?

We see your demonstration below.

This should be good, considering you've already claimed that there is no "strong supporting argument" that the teacher was proselytizing.

"It is one of the fundamental principles of the Supreme Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence that the Constitution forbids not only state practices that "aid one religion . . . or prefer one religion over another," but also those practices that "aid all religions" and thus endorse or prefer religion over nonreligion. Everson, 330 U.S. at 15. See Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 53 (1985)("[T]he individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all"); see also County of Allegheny v. ACLU Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573, 589-94, 598-602 (1989); Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock, 489 U.S. 1, 17 (1989); Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 (1961).

Please read up on these cases at least before you make more of a fool of yourself.

Wallace v Jaffree:  Ruled a state law unconstitutional.

What New Jersey law is unconstitutional in this case?

County of Allegheny v ACLU Greater Pittsburgh Chapter:  Enjoined a county government from a specific practice.

What government practice is to be enjoined in this case and why (feel free to try an application of the Lemon test)?

Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock:  Found a state law unconstitutional.

What New Jersey law is unconstitutional in this case?

Torcaso v. Watkins:  Found a test for office administered by the state of Maryland unconstitutional (the test was in Maryland's constitution).

What aspect of New Jersey's law is unconstitutional in this case?

You couldn't find a truly similar case, eh?

Not exactly the same, but the same sorts of principles. What I want to know is how exactly you can justify religious preaching done by a government employee, and say that it is not a violation of separation of church and state.

As you can see in the court cases above, it obviously does not take something as grand as a Congress-passed law to violate the First Amendment.

And doesn't that strike you as the least bit strange, given the wording of the First Amendment?

The Fourteenth Amendment broadens the application of the Constitutional to other levels of government (as I've already mentioned elsewhere).

At what level do you find Paszkiewicz?

He's a government employee.

Actually, it's just you that needs to inform yourself.

Because you're too lazy to even try?

You offered me a bunch of examples of government breaking the first amendment through practice (a religion-specific creche) and legislation.  The creche case had the Lemon test applied to it.  You haven't lifted a finger (AFAICT) to apply the tines of the Lemon test to this case.  Have you?

So, you're dodging the question while supposing that you need to educate me about stuff I already know. 

Why don't you just answer the question, instead?

Like I said, I don't like delving into legal stuff. However, I'd say that the only way for that teacher to be innocent is if there is no separation of church and state at all. And obviously, that's not the case.

Religious preaching is not allowed in governmental institutions nor by governmental employees while they are "on the clock." End of story--it's a shame that a 22 year-old who hates legalese understands the law better than you do.

It is very improbable that you know that law better than I do.

Religious preaching is not allowed in government institutions nor by governmental employees,

Then the teacher did something that is "not allowed." There is no getting around that.

but the prohibition is not by statute. In other words, there's no law against it.  It's an employment practice that government employers engage in so that the government will not risk lawsuit.

Paszkiewicz didn't break the law.  End of story.

So even if you maintain that he only violated an "employment practice," how exactly do you claim he should still keep his job?

What's ironic is the fact that, had the teacher been atheist and the student Christian, the reaction by people like you would be exactly opposite. That is, it would be ironic (to me), did I not already know how fundies and their apologists work.

Huh.  You dodged another question.

Is that how you customarily work?

Religious preaching is not allowed in governmental institutions nor by governmental employees while they are "on the clock." End of story--it's a shame that a 22 year-old who hates legalese understands the law better than you do.

Don't confuse the employee handbook with the law of the land.

They're not the same thing.

Either way, he should be fired. Still having trouble seeing why exactly you disagree with that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest Guest]

This is Paul. I'm unable to sign in. With all due respect, this is not your concern. I've learned that we have no power to stop people from guessing and second-guessing us to their heart's content, but I would appreciate it if folks would confine the discussion to matters relevant to public concern. Our home life does not fall within those boundaries. However, we are sleeping very well, thank you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul you are pathetic!

[Guest Guest]

And the counterpoint is, this ISN'T an attempt to discredit or attack God. It's an attempt to uphold the law. Why do you keep pretending otherwise?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally the last two replys omitted her name.

[Guest Skepticus]

Thanks for totally missing the point. The comparison was that they both were beset my mobs intent on drowning their rights, and in both case, have been vigorously attacked for standing on them.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The point is, this great womans name shouldn't be used in this discussion to discredit God. I feel that a great number of people out there agree.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are forgetting that it was A. V. Blom who made the point in relation to Rosa Parks:

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.

The criticism of this point is an attempt to hijack it and make an irrelevant association of the point with Rosa Parks' religiousity. It wasn't your point in the first place, so you don't get to say what the point is about. The irrelivance in self justifications of crusading mobs, actualy exemplifies the point perfectly.

Again you fail to see the difference between protecting the constitution and attacking your own personal interpretatioin of God. Even putting the constitution aside, A. V. Blom was using this annalogy to characterise the emotional special pleading of Christian fundementalists and racist mobs alike. In both cases their sensabilities are offended by their own willful predjudice.

To demonstrate that this analogy is perfectly relevant and fair, we only have to consider how effective it would be if Rosa Parks was actualy an athiest or a muslem or hindu or whatever. Since her actions were taken to make a stand against racism, her religious views are irrelivant. She offended the sensabilities of those mobs, because they were unreasonable and predjudiced. The generalisation works just as well regardless of what her religious views were. The analogy with Matt LaClair works, because the religious fundementalist mobs assasinating his character are just as unreasonable and predjudiced.

Part of this predjudice manifests in the form of what has been coined on another thread as "the fundie persecution complex" with thanks to Strife767. Somebody does or says something to deffend a basic liberty or human right, and it is recieved as an attack on something else, usualy a falsely assumed human right liberty etc. etc...

The wholsale ignorance of those attacking Matt LaClair is exemplified again and again in their failure to recognise this basic difference, between defending a right and attacking a personal belief. Your claim that Rosa Parks' name should not be "used in this discussion to discredit God" is a rediculous example of the fundie persecution complex, not just because you attempt to hijack the point being made by A. V. Blom and subvert it with the irrelevance of Rosa Parks' religious convictions, but also because you mischaracterise this discussion on behalf of the deffenders of Matts' acthions. How many times does it need to be repeated, that deffending the law which prohibits prostelysing of religion in a public school, is nothing like attacking your (or anybody elses), personal idea of God.

The importance of this distinction has been pointed out all over this board, time and time again. Even on this very thread we have several refutations of the claim that Rosa Parks' name was ever being "used in this discussion to discredit God"

The issue here is not if Mathew has a "problem with God" or not.  The issue is that the teacher and his supporters have a problem with The Constitution and The Bill of Rights.  The fact that you see respecting the Bill of Rights as an "attack against God" is a perfect example of how fundamentalists can pervert an issue like this in a way that they feel justified in violating The Constitution.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you even read previous posts before jumping into a thread and responding to a single post, demanding what the point should be about, and parroting already reffuted fundie rhetorhic? As usual fundies just go on making the same infuriating strawman claims, ignoring the reffutations and arguing at a tangent to the main relevant points. What was wrong with answering the above quoted post by Grimm, which reffutes the very same irrelevant claim you have thoughtlesly paroted?

One answer might be that, fundies never respond with a well reasoned relevant deffence. Their main tactic is to be on the attack at all costs. Screaming blue murder that they are being victimised presents a diversion to smokescreen their own wrong doings. Since standing in deffence is an inherantly weak position, if you are actually wrong, they go out on the attack with poorly reasoned strawman arguments ad hominem attacks and exersises in special pleading. Implicit in this is the fact that fundies do not want to search for truth or reach agreement, so they will resort to sophistry and rhetoric and even feign mature, respectable debate. They will deffend the indefensable by attacking the incontrovertible,

The appauling strawman fallacy that defending the constitution (by not allowing prostelysing in a public shool) is tantamount to attacking God, is reffuted abundantly by the analogy wherin the teacher could have been prostelysing some other religion or worldview even athiesm. It's fairly safe to assume that had the teacher been a wiccan or a druid "protecting" the students with a "safe space spell" and prostlysing the need to empower your "spirit guides" s/he would be lambasted, castigated and disengaged by the fundies and the school board without hesitation.

I'd like to be able to say that I know this for sure, but the funny thing is that the fundies have a real hard time addressing a direct challange to defend their own potential double standards. I realy would love to hear what "reasonable justifications" fundies have for tollerating and defending the prostelysing of religion in publc schools, all the while assuming that the only religion that need to be considered and deffended is that of mainstream chritianity. But despite the fact that this challange has been raised here so very many times; despite the fact that the analogy has been drawn so often to illustrate the double standard, fundies have refused just as often to even acknowledge the point with even a cursory comment.

I believe the reason for this is that it puts them in the defensive mode. Christofundies would rather dispute the oilyness of your skin or the colour of your shoe-laces than a relevant criticism of their own position. They are forever searching for a way to side-step accountability to a reasoned rational debate, so they ignore key points of which the onus of defense lay squarely at their feet, by inventing spurious offensive manuvours.

It's all smoke and mirrors with that lot. It would be nice to think it were another way, but that would imply that we were all on the same side, the side which searches earnestly for the truth, the side on which beliefs were provisional aproximations of nature, the side which attends to no dogma. In this scenario, it is also assumed that people are capable of reason and are willing to face empirical evedice with integrity and objectivity, to face chalanges of reasoning swiftly and honesty.

Instead we find what is to be expected from the entrenched, dogmatic, divisive and disengenuous fundie front. A wall of smoke and mirrors to deflect or subvert accountability and circumvent true reasoning of the facts. The vitriol of the fundie front stems from a misguided notion that they have a God-given moral mandate to spread their gospel and if the law should get in the way of this mandate, then so much for the law. The law of God is above the law of man.

Effectivly, their argument relies from the outset on the existence of such a moral arbiter as the supernatural creator they have claimed exists. Religious crusaiders who wish to prostelyse in school are to them, honorable missionaries evangelising the one true God. Never will a person so besotted by dogma recognise the rights of others to not have their religious mumbo jumbo flaunted in our faces. Since they can't explain why their religion should be given an honarable pardon from constitutional responsability, they resort to playing dirty pool by claiming they are being savagely atacked, when the constitutional rule of law is being upheld and honoured. This is the same constitution which benifits them when the shoe is on the other foot.

So come on Christofundies, how about coming clean with an explaination of how you would deal with Muslems, Pagans and Athiests prostelysing their worldview in public schools. Wouldn't you need to invoke the constitution? Or is the constitution wrong? Perhaps we should permit any teacher preach any religion or even prostelyse atheism in public school. Where are the supporters of David Paszkiewicz who can explain this dilema? The challange has been presented numerous times, but I am yet to see even an atempted response.

What if the teacher was prostelysing X? (where X is a non-Christian worldview)

Come on Paszkiewicz suporters, why don't you respond to anything that may expose your double standards?

[Guest Guest]

What the taxpayers of Kearny should be concerned about is a teacher whose conduct in the classroom subjects the school district to a potential lawsuit. What the parents of KHS students should be concerned about is a teacher who spends time proselytizing rather than teaching. What the KHS students should be concerned about is an administration that who took one month to react to a fellow student's concerns about the conduct of a teacher in the classroom.

[Strife767]

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=39899

Seconded.

[Guest Guest]

What the taxpayers of Kearny should be concerned about is a teacher whose conduct in the classroom subjects the school district to a potential lawsuit.  What the parents of KHS students should be concerned about is a teacher who spends time proselytizing rather than teaching.  What the KHS students should be concerned about is an administration that who took one month to react to a fellow student's concerns about the conduct of a teacher in the classroom.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well put. Please remember, however, that the administration's failure to act has also exposed the school district to the potential lawsuit.

[Bryan]

My thanks to the board administrators for expanding the utility of the quotation tags. Or at least I think it's been done--sometimes the preview shows the html tags instead of the quotation boxes, so it's hard to tell.

Strife767, on Dec 26 2006, 12:08 PM, wrote:

I do believe you're lying--the teacher quite explicitly stated that anyone who doesn't 'see it his way' dogmatically and religiously, "belongs in hell." And he is Christian.

Baloney, if you're talking about the 9-14 recording. You're inferring proselytization where Paszkiewicz describes a generic Christian response to the question LaClair posed.

LOL, you have got to be kidding! If those teacher's actions aren't proselytization, nothing is.

Okay, then nothing is proselytization (your lack of argumentation in favor of bald assertion is duly noted).

Have you even listened to the recordings?

The sound quality for the recordings is poor, as I understand it, and I haven't located a sound file that will download for me smoothly. I've read the transcript for Sept 14, which is mentioned as apparently among the most sensational examples of egregious behavior by Mr. Paszkiewicz.

It stands as a tribute to the hypersensitivity and illogic of the secularists, AFAICT.

He deserves to be dismissed not only _because_ of his actions, but because he lied about his actions (which is an admission of guilt in my opinion, since no one put him up to lying or anything) and showed no remorse for his activities when they were revealed.

I have no evidence that he lied except for the testimony of the LaClair family. Is it unreasonable to think that they may have provided an inaccurate account, minus a corroborating version of the conversation?

As for remorse, you're taking for granted that he proselytized without providing any argument in favor (I'm fully expecting the tried and true "It's obvious!" argument, if anything).

This should be good, considering you've already claimed that there is no "strong supporting argument" that the teacher was proselytizing.

Was that comment supposed to remedy the situation? Heh. You could at least say "It's obvious!" Heh.

Not exactly the same, but the same sorts of principles. What I want to know is how exactly you can justify religious preaching done by a government employee, and say that it is not a violation of separation of church and state.

Maybe you should go talk to a Army chaplain about that one.

Seriously, he wasn't preaching (and you've yet to argue otherwise beyond bald assertion), if the 9-14 recording is representative.

You said that Paskewicz broke the law. You provided non-parallel cases in support of your claim. Paskiewicz can't be the first to talk about god in the classroom, can he? Find a real parallel case, champ.

He's a government employee.

Yes, and?

Feel free to point out the statute that makes it a crime for government employees to talk about religion while on the job. Beware arguing in a circle from the First Amendment.

Like I said, I don't like delving into legal stuff.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you said you knew more about the law than I did. Must be time to clean out the ol' earwax.

However, I'd say that the only way for that teacher to be innocent is if there is no separation of church and state at all. And obviously, that's not the case.

And it's obviously the case that you are not the sovereign ruler of the United States, so what you say doesn't really carry much weight without some reference to the law.

Then the teacher did something that is "not allowed." There is no getting around that.

Why not? Have you issued a sovereign decree?

So even if you maintain that he only violated an "employment practice," how exactly do you claim he should still keep his job?

1) I don't claim that he only violated employment practice. I said that he violated the conditions of his employment at worst (along with possibly increasing the school district's chances of enduring a lawsuit).

2) I'm not claiming he should still keep his job, either. I'm just pointing out where your arguments stink. I don't know all the facts; it's possible that he did enough to warrant being fired--but I haven't seen it yet.

Either way, he should be fired.

Don't forget to have your court advisers affix your royal seal to the instruction you'll be sending to the school board.

Still having trouble seeing why exactly you disagree with that.

I disagree because Paszkiewicz's 9-14 words are best described as an exposition of Christian doctrine in answer to a student's question in the context of a history discussion rather than as proselytization (as I have argued in this forum), and you apparently have no argument for your position other than to insist on your conclusion--which isn't really an argument.

[Bryan]

What the taxpayers of Kearny should be concerned about is a teacher whose conduct in the classroom subjects the school district to a potential lawsuit.

Good point. Fire all of them.

What the parents of KHS students should be concerned about is a teacher who spends time proselytizing rather than teaching.

Paszkiewicz is being taken out of context in the 9-14 transcript. Are there reliable examples apart from 9-14?

What the KHS students should be concerned about is an administration that who took one month to react to a fellow student's concerns about the conduct of a teacher in the classroom.

Based on the evidence I've seen, their immediate reaction (not doing much, if anything) was appropriate.

Why do you think the teacher was proselytizing? Can you provide a definition (URL is fine) and compile evidence from Paszkiewicz's words (in context) to support the argument?

[Guest Guest]

There is no basis to suspend the student. The recordings do not violate any law or regulation. The school cannot suspend someone without a violation, and the student did not violate anything.

As for the recordings being available on the internet:

1. The students were already making their comments in a class of 25 or more students, so they are hardly private to begin with.

2. None of the students has anything to be ashamed of for what they said.

3. No one would be able to identify the students who did not already know them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If I were a parent of one of these students I would sue you Paul!

[Guest Guest]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The point is, this great womans name shouldn't be used in this discussion to discredit God. I feel that a great number of people out there agree.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are forgetting that it was A. V. Blom who made the point in relation to Rosa Parks:

Do you even read previous posts before jumping into a thread and responding to a single post, demanding what the point should be about, and parroting already reffuted fundie rhetorhic? As usual fundies just go on making the same infuriating strawman claims, ignoring the reffutations and arguing at a tangent to the main relevant points. What was wrong with answering the above quoted post by Grimm, which reffutes the very same irrelevant claim you have thoughtlesly paroted?

One answer might be that, fundies never respond with a well reasoned relevant deffence. Their main tactic is to be on the attack at all costs. Screaming blue murder that they are being victimised presents a diversion to smokescreen their own wrong doings. Since standing in deffence is an inherantly weak position, if you are actually wrong, they go out on the attack with poorly reasoned strawman arguments ad hominem attacks and exersises in special pleading. Implicit in this is the fact that fundies do not want to search for truth or reach agreement, so they will resort to sophistry and rhetoric and even feign mature, respectable debate. They will deffend the indefensable by attacking the incontrovertible,

The appauling strawman fallacy that defending the constitution (by not allowing prostelysing in a public shool) is tantamount to attacking God, is reffuted abundantly by the analogy wherin the teacher could have been prostelysing some other religion or worldview even athiesm. It's fairly safe to assume that had the teacher been a wiccan or a druid "protecting" the students with a "safe space spell" and prostlysing the need to empower your "spirit guides" s/he would be lambasted, castigated and disengaged by the fundies and the school board without hesitation.

I'd like to be able to say that I know this for sure, but the funny thing is that the fundies have a real hard time addressing a direct challange to defend their own potential double standards. I realy would love to hear what "reasonable justifications" fundies have for tollerating and defending the prostelysing of religion in publc schools, all the while assuming that the only religion that need to be considered and deffended is that of mainstream chritianity. But despite the fact that this challange has been raised here so very many times; despite the fact that the analogy has been drawn so often to illustrate the double standard, fundies have refused just as often to even acknowledge the point with even a cursory comment.

I believe the reason for this is that it puts them in the defensive mode. Christofundies would rather dispute the oilyness of your skin or the colour of your shoe-laces than a relevant criticism of their own position. They are forever searching for a way to side-step accountability to a reasoned rational debate, so they ignore key points of which the onus of defense lay squarely at their feet, by inventing spurious offensive manuvours.

It's all smoke and mirrors with that lot. It would be nice to think it were another way, but that would imply that we were all on the same side, the side which searches earnestly for the truth, the side on which beliefs were provisional aproximations of nature, the side which attends to no dogma. In this scenario, it is also assumed that people are capable of reason and are willing to face empirical evedice with integrity and objectivity, to face chalanges of reasoning swiftly and honesty.

Instead we find what is to be expected from the entrenched, dogmatic, divisive and disengenuous fundie front. A wall of smoke and mirrors to deflect or subvert accountability and circumvent true reasoning of the facts. The vitriol of the fundie front stems from a misguided notion that they have a God-given moral mandate to spread their gospel and if the law should get in the way of this mandate, then so much for the law. The law of God is above the law of man.

Effectivly, their argument relies from the outset on the existence of such a moral arbiter as the supernatural creator they have claimed exists. Religious crusaiders who wish to prostelyse in school are to them, honorable missionaries evangelising the one true God. Never will a person so besotted by dogma recognise the rights of others to not have their religious mumbo jumbo flaunted in our faces. Since they can't explain why their religion should be given an honarable pardon from constitutional responsability, they resort to playing dirty pool by claiming they are being savagely atacked, when the constitutional rule of law is being upheld and honoured. This is the same constitution which benifits them when the shoe is on the other foot.

So come on Christofundies, how about coming clean with an explaination of how you would deal with Muslems, Pagans and Athiests prostelysing their worldview in public schools. Wouldn't you need to invoke the constitution? Or is the constitution wrong? Perhaps we should permit any teacher preach any religion or even prostelyse atheism in public school. Where are the supporters of David Paszkiewicz who can explain this dilema? The challange has been presented numerous times, but I am yet to see even an atempted response.

What if the teacher was prostelysing X? (where X is a non-Christian worldview)

Come on Paszkiewicz suporters, why don't you respond to anything that may expose your double standards?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[/quote/]

Why do you need people to respond? They will respond to what they want to respond...peharps your arguments are not as bright as you think they are. They are long and annoying...

[Guest A. V. Blom]

My thanks to the board administrators for expanding the utility of the quotation tags.  Or at least I think it's been done--sometimes the preview shows the html tags instead of the quotation boxes, so it's hard to tell.

Strife767, on Dec 26 2006, 12:08 PM, wrote:

Baloney, if you're talking about the 9-14 recording.  You're inferring proselytization where Paszkiewicz describes a generic Christian response to the question LaClair posed.

Okay, then nothing is proselytization (your lack of argumentation in favor of bald assertion is duly noted).

The sound quality for the recordings is poor, as I understand it, and I haven't located a sound file that will download for me smoothly.  I've read the transcript for Sept 14, which is mentioned as apparently among the most sensational examples of egregious behavior by Mr. Paszkiewicz.

It stands as a tribute to the hypersensitivity and illogic of the secularists, AFAICT.

I have no evidence that he lied except for the testimony of the LaClair family.  Is it unreasonable to think that they may have provided an inaccurate account, minus a corroborating version of the conversation?

As for remorse, you're taking for granted that he proselytized without providing any argument in favor (I'm fully expecting the tried and true "It's obvious!" argument, if anything).

Was that comment supposed to remedy the situation?  Heh.  You could at least say "It's obvious!"  Heh.

Maybe you should go talk to a Army chaplain about that one.

Seriously, he wasn't preaching (and you've yet to argue otherwise beyond bald assertion), if the 9-14 recording is representative.

You said that Paskewicz broke the law.  You provided non-parallel cases in support of your claim.  Paskiewicz can't be the first to talk about god in the classroom, can he?  Find a real parallel case, champ.

Yes, and?

Feel free to point out the statute that makes it a crime for government employees to talk about religion while on the job.  Beware arguing in a circle from the First Amendment.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you said you knew more about the law than I did.  Must be time to clean out the ol' earwax.

And it's obviously the case that you are not the sovereign ruler of the United States, so what you say doesn't really carry much weight without some reference to the law.

Why not?  Have you issued a sovereign decree?

1)  I don't claim that he only violated employment practice.  I said that he violated the conditions of his employment at worst (along with possibly increasing the school district's chances of enduring a lawsuit).

2)  I'm not claiming he should still keep his job, either.  I'm just pointing out where your arguments stink.  I don't know all the facts; it's possible that he did enough to warrant being fired--but I haven't seen it yet.

Don't forget to have your court advisers affix your royal seal to the instruction you'll be sending to the school board.

I disagree because Paszkiewicz's 9-14 words are best described as an exposition of Christian doctrine in answer to a student's question in the context of a history discussion rather than as proselytization (as I have argued in this forum), and you apparently have no argument for your position other than to insist on your conclusion--which isn't really an argument.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fine, have it your way, since you are apparently incapable of reading the transcript yourself.

First, the definition of proselytize, from the American Heritage Dictionary:

v.  intr.

1. To induce someone to convert to one's own religious faith.

2. To induce someone to join one's own political party or to espouse one's doctrine.

v.  tr.

To convert (a person) from one belief, doctrine, cause, or faith to another.

Now, some quotes from Paskiewicz, from here:

(Courtesy of Stephen Dranger, who made these available)

Teacher: I never said that my assumption isn't based on faith.

Remember I confessed that at the beginning. My point is it takes more

faith that something came from nothing, than God created something out

of nothing. You understand?

Teacher: Cause this is what we're being told by - well, take the big

bang theory. You would have never gotten me to believe this as a

little boy cause common sense would tell me that this doesn't make

sense. But as we get older, I began listening to people in white

labcoats who have advanced degrees, the impossible all of a sudden

becomes possible. The Big Bang Theory is there was nothing out there,

there was no matter. But yet nothing exploded and created something.

Let me give you a clue, guys, if there's nothing - it can't explode!!

And that created order. It created all of the order in the universe.

How many of you have ever looked at something explode? If you can't

raise a hand, did you ever see a firecracker blow up, did you ever see

a fireworks show? Ever see a gun fire? Did you see the Twin Towers

collapse on TV? Did any of these explosions that you've seen in all of

your young life ever create order? You know what, none has ever

created order in all of human history. That's observation; nobody ever

recorded an explosion making order, but yet we can make this

assumption about an event that occured a billion years ago that

created all the order that you see. That's not scientific. There's

nothing scientific about it. It sounds cool on paper. But it defies

human reason.

LaClaire: Um, but you say that because you have faith, that the Bible,

the things written in the Bible did occur. Does that mean that if I

wanted to, I could say, I have faith, that the being or the force that

created this universe -

Teacher: It has to be a being.

LaClaire: A being.

Teacher: Cause it would require intelligence; it can't be a force.

LaClaire: So gravity has - gravity is a being.

Teacher: No, it's a force.

LaClaire: So it can be a force.

Teacher: But that's not the creator, is it? You understand, gravity,

because it doesn't have intelligence, can't be responsible for

everything that you see.

(Oh, and a note to the 'he set him up' crowd: both of these comments were made BEFORE Paskiewicz asked whether or not the direction this was taken bothered anyone)

Teacher: No. No, it's a good argument. Ok, you guys are following and

understand, right? Because what we've established - and some of you

probably disagree with what I've put on the board; that's okay, you

won't be tested on it, you understand, you'll be tested on populism,

not [inaudible due to a cough]. But um, my assertion to you is that

evolution is based faith and creation is based on faith. And here's

the difference, and it may answer your question. What the

evolutionists call faith is different from what say, Christian, what

Christians call faith. Christian faith - Judeo-Christian faith is a

reasoned faith. Take the scriptures - I'm not just saying that there

was a God - who willed the universe into existence - actually, spoke

it into existence, right? I'm not just saying that at the [start of

the text??]. The text is full of biblical prophecy that comes to pass.

Moses writes about events that take place before his time, he writes

about the [Thelassians?]. But think about the order of the events. So

we have God, he speaks. He creates light, and by the 6th day creates

man, all by speaking. And he has the order correct, and this is 1440

BC; he has the order correct, he starts with light and end with higher

lifeforms. Moses wrote in 1440 BC, not that the Earth was created

then. You know where I'm going with this.

Teacher: The Bible explains inspiration, and it occurs in a number of

different ways. Inspiration from the biblical writers, according to

the Bible, not according to what some professor said, it works like

this: God speaks through prophets and inspires their writing. The text

itself could reflect the personality of the writing. Your style of

writing permeates the text. But the accuracy is ensured of what you're

writing. And Moses was a prophet. And he got these revelations from

God. I'm sure the primary sources that he used - for example, if I was

Noah, and I knew the flood was coming, I wouldn't just take those two

animals on the ark of every breed, I would also take every map I could

find, every math book, whatever, whatever he had in his day, the

technology of the day, I would have taken on the Ark. I'm sure Moses

had ancient accounts that were written by men on the Ark, because Noah

was on there with his 3 sons. Well, read the text of Genesis, at least

one of his sons was still alive even when Abraham was around. Now

let's say Noah's son Shem, since he lived a significantly long time

after the flood, and let's say I was a little boy Abraham, and I was

his descendent. I'd be visiting Grandpa, he'd be telling me these

stories on his knee. And I'd probably write them down. Or somebody in

my family would, and they would pass them on. But these guys may have

operated from primary sources, but the biblical convention is that the

accuracy is ensured by God.

Teacher: I believe that it's one or the other, Heaven or Hell, but

this is the answer to your question - and I believe that because

there's no mention in Genesis through Revalations of a place called

Purgatory - but this is the issue: God is not only for

(love??inaudible) the way he describes himself in the scriptures, he

is also completely just. He did everything in his power to make sure

that you could go to Heaven, so much so, that he put your sin on his

own body, suffered your pains for you, and he's saying "Please, accept

me, believe!" You're a (???), you belong here.

Teacher: You know, it's up to you to reason it out, and the outcome is

your perogative. But the way I see it is this: he's done everything in

his power, so much so, that he went to a cross that I should've been -

it was my sin, he was innocent! But you saw the Mel Gibson portrayal?

That was pretty accurate, when you read history, the flesh being

beaten off of his back. God himself sent his only son to die for days

(???)...on the cross. That's the idea. And if I reject that, then it

really is, then to Hell with me. I created you, I ...

Here you go. All of those are clear attempts to make the class follow his religious beliefs. He has not said it in so many words, but it is his clearest intention. He argues things happened as in his faith (and argues from a purely religious viewpoint). It is clearly meant to have others follow his religious beliefs.

[Guest A. V. Blom]

If I were a parent of one of these students I would sue you Paul!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And you would have no case, and therefore would be laughed out of court.

[Guest Patriot]

Fine, have it your way, since you are apparently incapable of reading the transcript yourself.

First, the definition of proselytize, from the American Heritage Dictionary:

Now, some quotes from Paskiewicz, from here:

(Courtesy of Stephen Dranger, who made these available)

(Oh, and a note to the 'he set him up' crowd: both of these comments were made BEFORE Paskiewicz asked whether or not the direction this was taken bothered anyone)

Here you go. All of those are clear attempts to make the class follow his religious beliefs. He has not said it in so many words, but it is his clearest intention. He argues things happened as in his faith (and argues from a purely religious viewpoint). It is clearly meant to have others follow his religious beliefs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A. V. Blom, Have you found your life's calling on KOTW ?? Your obsessive compulsive disorder is showing. Take your meds and lie down.

[Guest A. V. Blom]

Why do you need people to respond?

Because if they don't, they show themselves to be moral and intellectual cowards who participate in mindless groupthink.

They will respond to what they want to respond...peharps your arguments are not as bright as you think they are.

Or perhaps, people like YOU are too afraid to showcase your obvious hypocrisy.

They are long and annoying...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Translation: You are too lazy to actually read any arguments, yet think you are somehow capable of providing an adequate response.

Here's a hint: you are not.

[Guest Guest]

What if the teacher was prostelysing X? (where X is a non-Christian worldview)

Come on Paszkiewicz suporters, why don't you respond to anything that may expose your double standards?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[/quote/]

Why do you need people to respond? They will respond to what they want to respond...peharps your arguments are not as bright as you think they are. They are long and annoying...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's not so much my need, as a need of the argument in order to progress past a point. If it were a game of chess and I had you in check, you might move your bloody king or do something to address the issue. It's a point that's begging for an answer. Fiddling with your pawns and refusing to take your move won't get you out of check.

The absence of any attempt by fundies to address the issue which has been raised so often here, is a telling sign. Nobody is obliged to answer the point but complaining that "They will respond to what they want to respond", is as irellevant as it is insignificant. It also confirms once again that fundies perpetually invent strawmwn arguments and refuse to hold themselves accountable to fair points of argument.

My arguments stand on their own merit. Pointing out that a response is not compulsory is redundant and ironic. It also has the intelectual maturity of blocking your ears and chanting LA LA LA LA LA LA LA..... But claiming that "peharps your arguments are not as bright as you think they are" because nobody has to answer them is just a non-sequiter that adds stupidity to ignorance.

Annoyoing... HA!! Oh sorry, I forgot fundies get upset when you describe their sophist tactics, empty rhetoric, devoid reasoning and failure to address key points of debate. Tell you what though, I will stop describing them in a disparaging way, if they begin acting in a mature, rational and intelectualy honest manner. How does that shoe fit ya?

[Guest A. V. Blom]

A. V. Blom,  Have you found your life's calling on KOTW ??

Not really...though watching you squirm about, pretending you actually have a point is always fun I suppose.

Your obsessive compulsive disorder is showing.

Yeah...lol, I actually say something useful.

While I realize it is the norm to your kind to respond only by vacuous platitudes, some people here are actually trying to have a discussion. Perhaps you can join us after you're done with primary school.

Take your meds and lie down.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Little Patriot...how many times must people tell you? You are supposed to actually take anti-psychosis meds yourself, not attempt to pass them away like a used-car salesman.

[Bryan]

Fine, have it your way, since you are apparently incapable of reading the transcript yourself.

I've read the transcript and argued the transcript.

All you're doing is posting portions of the transcipt to imply that "It's obvious!"

You don't have an argument.

I see this type of thing from skeptics frequently. Especially atheists, since they tend to hate bearing a burden of proof.

First, the definition of proselytize, from the American Heritage Dictionary:

(v.  intr.

1. To induce someone to convert to one's own religious faith.

2. To induce someone to join one's own political party or to espouse one's doctrine.

v.  tr.

To convert (a person) from one belief, doctrine, cause, or faith to another.)

(reference material restored by Bryan)

Thank you. May I assume that we're sticking with #1 from this assortment?

Now, some quotes from Paskiewicz, from here:

Go figure. That's exactly the transcript I've been referring to frequently myself.

(Courtesy of Stephen Dranger, who made these available)

(Oh, and a note to the 'he set him up' crowd: both of these comments were made BEFORE Paskiewicz asked whether or not the direction this was taken bothered anyone)

Here you go. All of those are clear attempts to make the class follow his religious beliefs. He has not said it in so many words, but it is his clearest intention. He argues things happened as in his faith (and argues from a purely religious viewpoint). It is clearly meant to have others follow his religious beliefs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was going to respond to each of your non-argument arguments (the quotations, that is, but I think I'll do that after the board program automatically preserves the entirety of your own argument.

It's the big blank before "Here you go," after we which get a summary that could be expressed as "It's obvious!"

Now your silent arguments, in the order you gave them (me taking the burden of proof that you can't shoulder):

Teacher: I never said that my assumption isn't based on faith.

Remember I confessed that at the beginning. My point is it takes more

faith that something came from nothing, than God created something out

of nothing. You understand?

Which religion is it that thinks that it takes more faith to believe that something came from something rather than something came from nothing?

Let's just imagine for a moment that the school were teaching the reverse--that it makes perfect sense that something came from nothing and that the alternative warrants no consideration. Would that be an establishment of religion?

Why or why not?

Both, in fact, are (basic) philosophical positions regarding cosmology (an apparently non-repeatable event, if you like Popperian criteria with your science).

I look forward to your answer, however.

Teacher: Cause this is what we're being told by - well, take the big

bang theory. You would have never gotten me to believe this as a

little boy cause common sense would tell me that this doesn't make

sense. But as we get older, I began listening to people in white

labcoats who have advanced degrees, the impossible all of a sudden

becomes possible. The Big Bang Theory is there was nothing out there,

there was no matter. But yet nothing exploded and created something.

Let me give you a clue, guys, if there's nothing - it can't explode!!

And that created order. It created all of the order in the universe.

How many of you have ever looked at something explode? If you can't

raise a hand, did you ever see a firecracker blow up, did you ever see

a fireworks show? Ever see a gun fire? Did you see the Twin Towers

collapse on TV? Did any of these explosions that you've seen in all of

your young life ever create order? You know what, none has ever

created order in all of human history. That's observation; nobody ever

recorded an explosion making order, but yet we can make this

assumption about an event that occured a billion years ago that

created all the order that you see. That's not scientific. There's

nothing scientific about it. It sounds cool on paper. But it defies

human reason.

LaClaire: Um, but you say that because you have faith, that the Bible,

the things written in the Bible did occur. Does that mean that if I

wanted to, I could say, I have faith, that the being or the force that

created this universe -

Teacher: It has to be a being.

LaClaire: A being.

Teacher: Cause it would require intelligence; it can't be a force.

LaClaire: So gravity has - gravity is a being.

Teacher: No, it's a force.

LaClaire: So it can be a force.

Teacher: But that's not the creator, is it? You understand, gravity,

because it doesn't have intelligence, can't be responsible for

everything that you see.

In this case, I'd say that Paszkiewicz is being a bit dogmatic (were I in his shoes I'd frame the comparison in terms of probability rather than as an absolute it can't happen without intelligence. And, if I were his boss, I'd instruct him to start teaching that way--but proselytization?

May we assume that Paszkiewicz would only attempt to convert people to his own religion? This is stuff that philosophers have talked about traditionally for ages--but today it's not allowed? How would it convert a person to Christianity to acknowledge an intelligent creator? Is Deism now impossible? Theistic agnosticism?

How about an attempt to put these situations through the applicable legal tests?

And let's reverse the situation again. What if a teacher said unequivocally that all of the order in the universe came from (an unintelligent) nothing.

Is that an establishment of religion? Why or why not?

Side note: I like how LaClair, out of left field, asserts that Paszkiewicz only believes that something comes from something, in principle, because of faith in the Bible.

More of your non-argument argument:

Teacher: No. No, it's a good argument. Ok, you guys are following and

understand, right? Because what we've established - and some of you

probably disagree with what I've put on the board; that's okay, you

won't be tested on it, you understand, you'll be tested on populism,

not [inaudible due to a cough]. But um, my assertion to you is that

evolution is based faith and creation is based on faith. And here's

the difference, and it may answer your question. What the

evolutionists call faith is different from what say, Christian, what

Christians call faith. Christian faith - Judeo-Christian faith is a

reasoned faith. Take the scriptures - I'm not just saying that there

was a God - who willed the universe into existence - actually, spoke

it into existence, right? I'm not just saying that at the [start of

the text??]. The text is full of biblical prophecy that comes to pass.

Moses writes about events that take place before his time, he writes

about the [Thelassians?]. But think about the order of the events. So

we have God, he speaks. He creates light, and by the 6th day creates

man, all by speaking. And he has the order correct, and this is 1440

BC; he has the order correct, he starts with light and end with higher

lifeforms. Moses wrote in 1440 BC, not that the Earth was created

then. You know where I'm going with this.

Paszkiewicz is responding to a student's question, here.

And is the point the advancement of a religion? On the contrary, the argument is that evolution, as a proposition invoking unintelligent origins (which isn't necessarily the way responsible scientists or teachers teach it, but it gets presented that way frequently) is a faith-based proposition. And he goes on to illustrate from Christianity. Why not use a different religion to illustrate? I'd suggest that familiarity with Christianity is greatest among his students, making Christianity the best illustrative case.

Paskiewicz should be credited with teaching that science (what might be termed Scientism, though the term is out-of-vogue these days) has a foundation in faith-based presuppositions, and that a parallel is found in competing worldviews: "What the evolutionists call faith is different from what say, Christian, what

Christians call faith."

Not all students learn that in public school. They are taught methodological naturalism as the default epistemology.

Is that an establishment of religion? Why or why not?

Yet more of the non-argument argument (if quantity substitutes for quality, you're in great shape!):

Teacher: I believe that it's one or the other, Heaven or Hell, but

this is the answer to your question - and I believe that because

there's no mention in Genesis through Revalations of a place called

Purgatory - but this is the issue: God is not only for

(love??inaudible) the way he describes himself in the scriptures, he

is also completely just. He did everything in his power to make sure

that you could go to Heaven, so much so, that he put your sin on his

own body, suffered your pains for you, and he's saying "Please, accept

me, believe!" You're a (???), you belong here.

I've discussed this instance in sufficient depth already:

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...744entry39744

And the last of the non-argument argument:

Teacher: You know, it's up to you to reason it out, and the outcome is

your perogative. But the way I see it is this: he's done everything in

his power, so much so, that he went to a cross that I should've been -

it was my sin, he was innocent! But you saw the Mel Gibson portrayal?

That was pretty accurate, when you read history, the flesh being

beaten off of his back. God himself sent his only son to die for days

(???)...on the cross. That's the idea. And if I reject that, then it

really is, then to Hell with me. I created you, I ...

Hmm. You think maybe LaClair's part of the exchange is relevant?

See italics (added by me).

LaClaire: But if he loved the child, he would not do that to the child

no matter what he did.

Teacher: You know, it's up to you to reason it out, and the outcome is

your perogative. But the way I see it is this: he's done everything in

his power, so much so, that he went to a cross that I should've been -

it was my sin, he was innocent! But you saw the Mel Gibson portrayal?

That was pretty accurate, when you read history, the flesh being

beaten off of his back. God himself sent his only son to die for days

(???)...on the cross. That's the idea. And if I reject that, then it

really is, then to Hell with me. I created you, I ...

LaClair is presenting a universalist account of god (for the sake of argument, anyway). Paszkiewicz is providing the counterpoint. Is his primary goal the advancement of his own religion, or is it to answer the question posed by the student?