Jump to content

The case of the hypocritical teacher


Guest Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

The teacher, David Paszkiewicz, has missed an opportunity to deliver perhaps the finest spiritual lesson of his life. Instead, he has given a lesson in all the things a true follower of God --- in any faith tradition, including atheism, where God might be defined as the highest good --- should not do.

When the student informed his bosses about his conduct, he should have told the truth, and humbly recognized the integrity of the student's conduct. Instead, he tried to blame the student, thinking the other students in the class would side with him. Moral failure number one.

When the student called him to account for his own words at a meeting in the principal's office, he denied that he had said what he obviously said. In short, he lied, and he tried to intimidate and bully the student with his power and position to have his way. He had no concern for a student who was only doing the right thing, or for the truth. Moral failure number two.

When the student was threatened and attacked by fellow students and members of the community, Paszkiewicz had a moral obligation to speak out on his behalf, telling his followers that he would not have this student attacked in his name. Instead, he remained silent while this student carried his sins for him. This sounds very much like a story we've all heard from the Christian narrative. Moral failure number three.

The cock has crowed three times. Paszkiewicz's deepest failures in this story are these moral, ethical and spiritual ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The teacher, David Paszkiewicz, has missed an opportunity to deliver perhaps the finest spiritual lesson of his life. Instead, he has given a lesson in all the things a true follower of God --- in any faith tradition, including atheism, where God might be defined as the highest good --- should not do.

When the student informed his bosses about his conduct, he should have told the truth, and humbly recognized the integrity of the student's conduct. Instead, he tried to blame the student, thinking the other students in the class would side with him. Moral failure number one.

When the student called him to account for his own words at a meeting in the principal's office, he denied that he had said what he obviously said. In short, he lied, and he tried to intimidate and bully the student with his power and position to have his way. He had no concern for a student who was only doing the right thing, or for the truth. Moral failure number two.

When the student was threatened and attacked by fellow students and members of the community, Paszkiewicz had a moral obligation to speak out on his behalf, telling his followers that he would not have this student attacked in his name. Instead, he remained silent while this student carried his sins for him. This sounds very much like a story we've all heard from the Christian narrative. Moral failure number three.

The cock has crowed three times. Paszkiewicz's deepest failures in this story are these moral, ethical and spiritual ones.

Dear Guest,

You have managed to summarize over 30 pages of posts on the subject into an eloquent 5 paragraphs. You are correct only Mr. P can put an end to this by privately reaching out to Mathew LaClair and then publically stating his mistakes and stating that he has learned from his mistakes and will not preach in the classroom but only in his church. That is the christian way to handle this matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The teacher, David Paszkiewicz, has missed an opportunity to deliver perhaps the finest spiritual lesson of his life. Instead, he has given a lesson in all the things a true follower of God --- in any faith tradition, including atheism, where God might be defined as the highest good --- should not do.

When the student informed his bosses about his conduct, he should have told the truth, and humbly recognized the integrity of the student's conduct. Instead, he tried to blame the student, thinking the other students in the class would side with him. Moral failure number one.

When the student called him to account for his own words at a meeting in the principal's office, he denied that he had said what he obviously said. In short, he lied, and he tried to intimidate and bully the student with his power and position to have his way. He had no concern for a student who was only doing the right thing, or for the truth. Moral failure number two.

When the student was threatened and attacked by fellow students and members of the community, Paszkiewicz had a moral obligation to speak out on his behalf, telling his followers that he would not have this student attacked in his name. Instead, he remained silent while this student carried his sins for him. This sounds very much like a story we've all heard from the Christian narrative. Moral failure number three.

The cock has crowed three times. Paszkiewicz's deepest failures in this story are these moral, ethical and spiritual ones.

Amen !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest, on Dec 26 2006, 09:36 AM, wrote:

The teacher, David Paszkiewicz, has missed an opportunity to deliver perhaps the finest spiritual lesson of his life. Instead, he has given a lesson in all the things a true follower of God --- in any faith tradition, including atheism, where God might be defined as the highest good --- should not do.

When the student informed his bosses about his conduct, he should have told the truth, and humbly recognized the integrity of the student's conduct. Instead, he tried to blame the student, thinking the other students in the class would side with him. Moral failure number one.

So, you're familiar with the specifics of the conversation that took place in the administrative offices?

Or are you just accepting the LaClair account at face value without corroboration?

When the student called him to account for his own words at a meeting in the principal's office, he denied that he had said what he obviously said. In short, he lied, and he tried to intimidate and bully the student with his power and position to have his way. He had no concern for a student who was only doing the right thing, or for the truth. Moral failure number two.

You were in office, then?

When the student was threatened and attacked by fellow students and members of the community, Paszkiewicz had a moral obligation to speak out on his behalf, telling his followers that he would not have this student attacked in his name. Instead, he remained silent while this student carried his sins for him. This sounds very much like a story we've all heard from the Christian narrative. Moral failure number three.

So, you've kept close tabs on Paszkiewicz such that you confirm his continued silence regarding death threats and whatnot directed at LaClair?

Somehow, I doubt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The teacher, David Paszkiewicz, has missed an opportunity to deliver perhaps the finest spiritual lesson of his life. Instead, he has given a lesson in all the things a true follower of God --- in any faith tradition, including atheism, where God might be defined as the highest good --- should not do.

When the student informed his bosses about his conduct, he should have told the truth, and humbly recognized the integrity of the student's conduct. Instead, he tried to blame the student, thinking the other students in the class would side with him. Moral failure number one.

When the student called him to account for his own words at a meeting in the principal's office, he denied that he had said what he obviously said. In short, he lied, and he tried to intimidate and bully the student with his power and position to have his way. He had no concern for a student who was only doing the right thing, or for the truth. Moral failure number two.

When the student was threatened and attacked by fellow students and members of the community, Paszkiewicz had a moral obligation to speak out on his behalf, telling his followers that he would not have this student attacked in his name. Instead, he remained silent while this student carried his sins for him. This sounds very much like a story we've all heard from the Christian narrative. Moral failure number three.

The cock has crowed three times. Paszkiewicz's deepest failures in this story are these moral, ethical and spiritual ones.

Good points. Basically, the attempt to convert others by intimidation is inherently a non-Christian attitude that real Christians should find reprehensible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The teacher, David Paszkiewicz, has missed an opportunity to deliver perhaps the finest spiritual lesson of his life. Instead, he has given a lesson in all the things a true follower of God --- in any faith tradition, including atheism, where God might be defined as the highest good --- should not do.

When the student informed his bosses about his conduct, he should have told the truth, and humbly recognized the integrity of the student's conduct. Instead, he tried to blame the student, thinking the other students in the class would side with him. Moral failure number one.

When the student called him to account for his own words at a meeting in the principal's office, he denied that he had said what he obviously said. In short, he lied, and he tried to intimidate and bully the student with his power and position to have his way. He had no concern for a student who was only doing the right thing, or for the truth. Moral failure number two.

When the student was threatened and attacked by fellow students and members of the community, Paszkiewicz had a moral obligation to speak out on his behalf, telling his followers that he would not have this student attacked in his name. Instead, he remained silent while this student carried his sins for him. This sounds very much like a story we've all heard from the Christian narrative. Moral failure number three.

The cock has crowed three times. Paszkiewicz's deepest failures in this story are these moral, ethical and spiritual ones.

BRAVO! Well thought and well said!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The teacher, David Paszkiewicz, has missed an opportunity to deliver perhaps the finest spiritual lesson of his life. Instead, he has given a lesson in all the things a true follower of God --- in any faith tradition, including atheism, where God might be defined as the highest good --- should not do.

When the student informed his bosses about his conduct, he should have told the truth, and humbly recognized the integrity of the student's conduct. Instead, he tried to blame the student, thinking the other students in the class would side with him. Moral failure number one.

When the student called him to account for his own words at a meeting in the principal's office, he denied that he had said what he obviously said. In short, he lied, and he tried to intimidate and bully the student with his power and position to have his way. He had no concern for a student who was only doing the right thing, or for the truth. Moral failure number two.

When the student was threatened and attacked by fellow students and members of the community, Paszkiewicz had a moral obligation to speak out on his behalf, telling his followers that he would not have this student attacked in his name. Instead, he remained silent while this student carried his sins for him. This sounds very much like a story we've all heard from the Christian narrative. Moral failure number three.

The cock has crowed three times. Paszkiewicz's deepest failures in this story are these moral, ethical and spiritual ones.

Other than the students' claims, do you have any proof that the teacher tried to blame the student, and/or lied and/or tried to intimidate and bully the student.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the student informed his bosses about his conduct, he should have told the truth, and humbly recognized the integrity of the student's conduct. Instead, he tried to blame the student, thinking the other students in the class would side with him. Moral failure number one.

How can you accuse this man of not telling the truth? Were you in that meeting? What did he blame the student of? Of recording the class without his knowledge? Of acting like he was enjoying the class so he could get the teacher in trouble? Moral failure is right on the part of the student.

When the student called him to account for his own words at a meeting in the principal's office, he denied that he had said what he obviously said. In short, he lied, and he tried to intimidate and bully the student with his power and position to have his way. He had no concern for a student who was only doing the right thing, or for the truth. Moral failure number two.

Are you sure is not the other way around? How did this student aproached this teacher? Doing the right thing? According to whom? The right thing would have been to go to the teacher if anything was making him unconfortable? Did he do that?

When the student was threatened and attacked by fellow students and members of the community, Paszkiewicz had a moral obligation to speak out on his behalf,

What is it, should Mr. P. have to babysit Matthew? He should go ask his atheist friends to cover his tail for him. He got himself in this position.

How do you know he never came to Matt's defense? Why don't you ask Matt, if he is truely as honest as you think he is, he will tell. Because it did happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other than the students' claims, do you have any proof that the teacher tried to blame the student, and/or lied and/or tried to intimidate and bully the student.

Maybe there is no hard proof of that (if it wasn't for Matthew's resourcefulness, there wouldn't be hard proof of _anything_ :P), but I think the teacher's total lack of remorse and showing no signs of wanting to apologize for his actions at all does say _something_. What that something is may be open to interpretation, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe there is no hard proof of that (if it wasn't for Matthew's resourcefulness, there wouldn't be hard proof of _anything_ :)), but I think the teacher's total lack of remorse and showing no signs of wanting to apologize for his actions at all does say _something_. What that something is may be open to interpretation, though.

Props to you for showing a willingness to modify your view according to what the evidence shows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...