Jump to content

Support for Mr. P


Guest A Christian
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest A Christian

How ironic that over the holiest of days we have all these anti-God atheists flooding KOTW with their vitriolic hate speech.

It's as if Lucifer has unleashed the dogs of hell on Mr. P.

I'm here to say that many people in Kearny and elsewhere support Mr. P. He commited no crime. Many students in that classroom believe in Mr. P and support him, they know the goodness that lives in his heart and soul.

And yes, we're all aware of the "separation of church and state" issues involved here. But keep in mind that rules made up by liberal courts do not carry the authority of God and Mr. P is following the laws of God as a christian.

I urge the Bd of Ed to take no disciplinary action against Mr. P. I recognize we need to placate the "Dogs of Hell" in Kearny so I would suggest Mr. P refrain from any talk of religion in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

How ironic that over the holiest of days we have all these anti-God atheists flooding KOTW with their vitriolic hate speech.

  It's as if Lucifer has unleashed the dogs of hell on Mr. P.

  I'm here to say that many people in Kearny and elsewhere support Mr. P.  He commited no crime.  Many students in that classroom believe in Mr. P and support him, they know the goodness that lives in his heart and soul.

  And yes, we're all aware of the "separation of church and state" issues involved here.  But keep in mind that rules made up by liberal courts do not carry the authority of God and Mr. P is following the laws of God as a christian. 

  I urge the Bd of Ed to take no disciplinary action against Mr. P.  I recognize we need to placate the "Dogs of Hell" in Kearny so I would suggest Mr. P  refrain from any talk of religion in the future.

meanwhile can we ask the other teachers at khs to stop talking about this issue to their students. accordin to my kid thats all they talk about. theres no teaching going on. no wonder the students are against laclair. these other teachers are doing the same kind of brainwashing that paskiweciz did expcept no religion. cmon people lets get back to work. my daughter needs an education. she doesnt need to hear about how outraged students should be because one of their own taped a classroom. get over it already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How ironic that over the holiest of days we have all these anti-God atheists flooding KOTW with their vitriolic hate speech.

Oh yeah, THAT'S hate speech, as opposed to saying that everyone who doesn't believe in the dogma you do belongs in hell. :lol:

For you to equate pro-Constitution to anti-God is an insult to every decent human being, whether of faith or not.

It's as if Lucifer has unleashed the dogs of hell on Mr. P.

I smell persecution complex.

I'm here to say that many people in Kearny and elsewhere support Mr. P.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

He commited no crime.  Many students in that classroom believe in Mr. P and support him, they know the goodness that lives in his heart and soul.

Such goodness it must require to condemn people to hell!

And yes, we're all aware of the "separation of church and state" issues involved here.  But keep in mind that rules made up by liberal courts do not carry the authority of God and Mr. P is following the laws of God as a christian.

And then people are surprised at the kinds of reactions people like this get?

Hey buddy, "keep in mind" that the USA is not a theocracy, and its rules override the laws of your God. Your God has no authority here--deal with it.

I urge the Bd of Ed to take no disciplinary action against Mr. P.  I recognize we need to placate the "Dogs of Hell" in Kearny so I would suggest Mr. P  refrain from any talk of religion in the future.

LOL, I love it when someone defending him is like "he did nothing wrong" but at the same time turns around and is like "don't do it again, though." Please--if you _really_ believed your precious proselytizer was innocent, you wouldn't throw that last part in. Just who do you think you're kidding?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How ironic that over the holiest of days we have all these anti-God atheists flooding KOTW with their vitriolic hate speech.

  It's as if Lucifer has unleashed the dogs of hell on Mr. P.

  I'm here to say that many people in Kearny and elsewhere support Mr. P.  He commited no crime.  Many students in that classroom believe in Mr. P and support him, they know the goodness that lives in his heart and soul.

  And yes, we're all aware of the "separation of church and state" issues involved here.  But keep in mind that rules made up by liberal courts do not carry the authority of God and Mr. P is following the laws of God as a christian. 

  I urge the Bd of Ed to take no disciplinary action against Mr. P.  I recognize we need to placate the "Dogs of Hell" in Kearny so I would suggest Mr. P  refrain from any talk of religion in the future.

It's the arrogance of people like you we need to protect students from. Did you ever think for one minute that there are other religions that don't see December 25 as the "holiest of days" and in our society their views are just as valid as any other?

I personally don't care if you happen to worship Oak Trees or Martians but trying to impose those views on students in a publicly funded school without equal time given to other religions is just plain wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How ironic that over the holiest of days we have all these anti-God atheists flooding KOTW with their vitriolic hate speech.

 

I'll take exception with you on two issues:

1 YOU may think that Christmas is the holiest of days but that is an opinion not shared by those of other rligious belifs.

2 I believe in most Christian religions that Easter Sunday is considered the holiest of days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Christian, on Dec 26 2006, 02:32 PM, wrote:

How ironic that over the holiest of days we have all these anti-God atheists flooding KOTW with their vitriolic hate speech.

There's been too much of that from both sides.

Nobody should be threatening the LaClairs regardless of how misguided their actions might be.

It's as if Lucifer has unleashed the dogs of hell on Mr. P.

That's a bit hyperbolic (though so is the secularist reaction to this situation).

I'm here to say that many people in Kearny and elsewhere support Mr. P. He commited no crime.

That's correct. At worst, he violated the conditions of his employment and caused his school district to risk a lawsuit by secularists by making it appear (at least to some) guilty of violating the establishment clause.

Many students in that classroom believe in Mr. P and support him, they know the goodness that lives in his heart and soul.

I don't know the guy, but I suppose you may be right. :lol:

And yes, we're all aware of the "separation of church and state" issues involved here. But keep in mind that rules made up by liberal courts do not carry the authority of God and Mr. P is following the laws of God as a christian.

He's also well within the understanding of the First Amendment that ruled until the courts began expanding the reach of secularism via application of the Fourteenth Amendment.

I urge the Bd of Ed to take no disciplinary action against Mr. P.

Assuming that nothing more serious comes to light than what appears on the 9/14 transcript, and assuming that Pieszkiewicz did not go against the specific conditions of his employment, I fully agree.

I recognize we need to placate the "Dogs of Hell" in Kearny so I would suggest Mr. P refrain from any talk of religion in the future.

Huh? Placate, schmacate. The secularists will keep pushing until you go right out the door unless you stand fast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How ironic that over the holiest of days we have all these anti-God atheists flooding KOTW with their vitriolic hate speech.

  It's as if Lucifer has unleashed the dogs of hell on Mr. P.

  I'm here to say that many people in Kearny and elsewhere support Mr. P.  He commited no crime.  Many students in that classroom believe in Mr. P and support him, they know the goodness that lives in his heart and soul.

  And yes, we're all aware of the "separation of church and state" issues involved here.  But keep in mind that rules made up by liberal courts do not carry the authority of God and Mr. P is following the laws of God as a christian. 

  I urge the Bd of Ed to take no disciplinary action against Mr. P.  I recognize we need to placate the "Dogs of Hell" in Kearny so I would suggest Mr. P  refrain from any talk of religion in the future.

LOL !!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How ironic that over the holiest of days we have all these anti-God atheists flooding KOTW with their vitriolic hate speech.

  It's as if Lucifer has unleashed the dogs of hell on Mr. P.

  I'm here to say that many people in Kearny and elsewhere support Mr. P.  He commited no crime.  Many students in that classroom believe in Mr. P and support him, they know the goodness that lives in his heart and soul.

  And yes, we're all aware of the "separation of church and state" issues involved here.  But keep in mind that rules made up by liberal courts do not carry the authority of God and Mr. P is following the laws of God as a christian. 

  I urge the Bd of Ed to take no disciplinary action against Mr. P.  I recognize we need to placate the "Dogs of Hell" in Kearny so I would suggest Mr. P  refrain from any talk of religion in the future.

Since you label yourself "A Christian" perhaps you could help us out and point out exactly where in scripture Jesus preached the intolerance and air of superiority you display?

I must have been misled somewhere along the way as i always pictured him as a loving, tolerant, humble man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  And yes, we're all aware of the "separation of church and state" issues involved here.  But keep in mind that rules made up by liberal courts do not carry the authority of God and Mr. P is following the laws of God as a christian. 

Christians are obligated to follow the secular laws of the nation where they live; Jesus said so. Ignoring those laws "to spread the gospel" is both a crime AND a sin. Are you seriously suggesting that Christians should ignore the laws of our nation, including those that guarantee our religious freedoms?

Seriously, folks; we don't live in a theocracy. Christians don't get a pass on the constraints of our Constitution; they have to obey it just like the rest of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How ironic that over the holiest of days we have all these anti-God atheists flooding KOTW with their vitriolic hate speech.

  It's as if Lucifer has unleashed the dogs of hell on Mr. P.

  I'm here to say that many people in Kearny and elsewhere support Mr. P.  He commited no crime.  Many students in that classroom believe in Mr. P and support him, they know the goodness that lives in his heart and soul.

  And yes, we're all aware of the "separation of church and state" issues involved here.  But keep in mind that rules made up by liberal courts do not carry the authority of God and Mr. P is following the laws of God as a christian. 

  I urge the Bd of Ed to take no disciplinary action against Mr. P.  I recognize we need to placate the "Dogs of Hell" in Kearny so I would suggest Mr. P  refrain from any talk of religion in the future.

:lol: i back what you say to a point! he did NO WRONG! and the courts are going to recall that stupid rule they made! it was not the LAW! if you looked at fox news over the weekend you will see why its going to be overturned!also most all the posting done here have been by NON KEARNY FOLK! that is they NEVER OR NEVER WILL LIVE IN TOWN! they are all from "1" group! and do not talk for people of KEARNY! :P
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How ironic that over the holiest of days we have all these anti-God atheists flooding KOTW with their vitriolic hate speech.

  It's as if Lucifer has unleashed the dogs of hell on Mr. P.

  I'm here to say that many people in Kearny and elsewhere support Mr. P.  He commited no crime.  Many students in that classroom believe in Mr. P and support him, they know the goodness that lives in his heart and soul.

  And yes, we're all aware of the "separation of church and state" issues involved here.  But keep in mind that rules made up by liberal courts do not carry the authority of God and Mr. P is following the laws of God as a christian. 

  I urge the Bd of Ed to take no disciplinary action against Mr. P.  I recognize we need to placate the "Dogs of Hell" in Kearny so I would suggest Mr. P  refrain from any talk of religion in the future.

Funny how that goodness involved blasting an individual student in the classroom and telling her that she was going to hell.

So Lucifer has unleashed the dogs of hell on Mr. P, huh? That's funny, I thought that the United States of America was trying to unleash a certain amount of justice on a man who made illegal and extremely inappropriate comments to a classroom full of high school students. True, the "liberal" courts do not hold the so called "authority of God," but I wouldn't think that an individual high school history teacher would have more claim to the previously stated authority than this countries court system. Or more authority than, hold on, let me think . . . oh yeah, the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, which expressly forbids exactly the kind of despicable things this man did.

Placate the "Dogs of Hell?" So everyone who stands up for what is right, including the young heroin Matt, is a dog of hell? Wow, that's a long list. I suppose that you would hold a bone in front of anyone who doesn't bow down to that almighty being who may or may not reside above us, huh?

Oh, and it IS ironic that these events should occur over these 'holy days.' Maybe if there is a God up there he will find it within his all-powerful self during this special period to dish out some justice on a man who has just disregarded the very morals and virtues that maintain the foundation of this country. Or maybe, as has been demonstrated time and time again, he will just sit back and let the good people of America who strive for what is right, run into that stubborn and unmoving brick wall that is religion. The wall that refuses to crumble, no matter how ugly and eroded the bricks become.

So how about you stop making statements based entirely on religious beliefs and focus on the issue at hand, the one where evidence, a word rarely seen in religion, tells us everything that we need to know. But don't be too discouraged. If I see any dogs running through my backyard chasing after Mr. P, who knows? I might just consider changing my position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:P i back what you say to a point! he did NO WRONG! and the courts are going to recall that stupid rule they made! it was not the LAW! if you looked at fox news over the weekend you will see why its going to be overturned!also most all the posting done here have been by NON KEARNY FOLK! that is they NEVER OR NEVER WILL LIVE IN TOWN! they are all from "1" group! and do not talk for people of KEARNY! :(

Ha ha fox news, now there's some good, unbiased programming. Hey, while we're at it, how about we go listen to some conservative propaganda and invade another sovereign nation to establish oil dealings? If you believe a single thing that is said on that 'news' channel, then you have more than a couple screws loose upstairs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the arrogance of people like you we need to protect students from.  Did you ever think for one minute that there are other religions that don't see December 25 as the "holiest of days" and in our society their views are just as valid as any other?

I personally don't care if you happen to worship Oak Trees or Martians but trying to impose those views on students in a publicly funded school without equal time given to other religions is just plain wrong.

I don't think you know what is going on, no one imposed any religious view on anyone, Matthew is the one who can't stand people's opinion, if they are different than his. That's why he was always trying to start an argument against those who were in favor of Bush. Also....so what that other people don't see December 25th as the holiest of days? Christians have freedom of speech too, you know? They have the right to celebrate christmas without having to worry if people are happy about it or not.

Mr. P, I think you are a great teacher and don't worry about what people who don't know you say. Your students support you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you label yourself "A Christian" perhaps you could help us out and point out exactly where in scripture Jesus preached the intolerance and air of superiority you display?

I must have been misled somewhere along the way as i always pictured him as a loving, tolerant, humble man.

Yes, Jesus was humble, loving, however he was not too tolerant...Well, I think you are the one who doesn't know the scripture. In fact he talked more about hell than heaven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha ha fox news, now there's some good, unbiased programming.  Hey, while we're at it, how about we go listen to some conservative propaganda and invade another sovereign nation to establish oil dealings?  If you believe a single thing that is said on that 'news' channel, then you have more than a couple screws loose upstairs.

Well, that's your opinion...we don't have to agree with i!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny how that goodness involved blasting an individual student in the classroom and telling her that she was going to hell.

Are you quite certain you have your facts right? What's your source for that information?

So Lucifer has unleashed the dogs of hell on Mr. P, huh?  That's funny, I thought that the United States of America was trying to unleash a certain amount of justice on a man who made illegal and extremely inappropriate comments to a classroom full of high school students.

Here we go again.

Individuals do not violate the First Amendment. Governments may. The teacher bears no personal culpability under the law. His comments were not illegal, and it should be debated whether or not the comments were inappropriate.

True, the "liberal" courts do not hold the so called "authority of God," but I wouldn't think that an individual high school history teacher would have more claim to the previously stated authority than this countries court system.  Or more authority than, hold on, let me think . . . oh yeah, the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, which expressly forbids exactly the kind of despicable things this man did.

Read the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment one right after the other and type that again.

"[E]xpressly forbids." Sheesh.

Placate the "Dogs of Hell?"  So everyone who stands up for what is right, including the young heroin Matt, is a dog of hell?  Wow, that's a long list.  I suppose that you would hold a bone in front of anyone who doesn't bow down to that almighty being who may or may not reside above us, huh?

Man, I missed my chance to be a hero by exposing all the teachers in my past who disparaged religion. Right?

Oh, and it IS ironic that these events should occur over these 'holy days.'  Maybe if there is a God up there he will find it within his all-powerful self during this special period to dish out some justice on a man who has just disregarded the very morals and virtues that maintain the foundation of this country.

Yeah, definitely read through the First Amendment and try to figure out how it "expressly forbids" speech like that used by Paszkiewicz.

Allow me to help, in fact:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Or maybe, as has been demonstrated time and time again, he will just sit back and let the good people of America who strive for what is right, run into that stubborn and unmoving brick wall that is religion.  The wall that refuses to crumble, no matter how ugly and eroded the bricks become.

They could erode completely yet still refuse to crumble? You should admit that's impressive.

So how about you stop making statements based entirely on religious beliefs and focus on the issue at hand, the one where evidence, a word rarely seen in religion, tells us everything that we need to know.

I guess we don't need our old religions anymore now that we have you.

Tell us, O Great One, how the First Amendment forbids speech of the type uttered by Mr. Paszkiewicz. Or should we just take it on faith?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Placate, schmacate.  The secularists will keep pushing until you go right out the door unless you stand fast.

The "secularists" are the ones who recognize the importance of keeping government and religion separate, exactly as the Constitution requires. Read that again: the Bill of Rights requires a secular government... one that is entirely, 100% neutral on all matters of religion in the performance of its duties.

But thank you for making your true agenda crystal-clear to everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christians are obligated to follow the secular laws of the nation where they live; Jesus said so. Ignoring those laws "to spread the gospel" is both a crime AND a sin. Are you seriously suggesting that Christians should ignore the laws of our nation, including those that guarantee our religious freedoms?

Seriously, folks; we don't live in a theocracy. Christians don't get a pass on the constraints of our Constitution; they have to obey it just like the rest of us.

The main impetus behind this entire incident, and the posts of Paszkiewicz's defenders, is that they see nothing wrong with living in a theocracy --- provided it is a theocracy of their own religion, of course. It's amazing that this man can be so biased and still teach history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Individuals do not violate the First Amendment.  Governments may.  The teacher bears no personal culpability under the law.  His comments were not illegal, and it should be debated whether or not the comments were inappropriate.

Read the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment one right after the other and type that again.

"[E]xpressly forbids."  Sheesh. 

Yeah, definitely read through the First Amendment and try to figure out how it "expressly forbids" speech like that used by Paszkiewicz.

Bryan, you really seem stuck on this point, so here's some helpful info for you.

"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).

"For the past 20 years, the federal courts have utilized the three-pronged framework first set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), to maintain the separation of government and religion. Under the so-called "Lemon test," a court must inquire (1) whether the government's action has a secular or a religious purpose; (2) whether the primary effect of the government's action is to advance or endorse religion; and (3) whether the government's policy or practice fosters an excessive entanglement between government and religion. See 403 U.S. at 612-13. In recent years, the Supreme Court has also frequently asked whether the challenged governmental action constitutes an impermissible "endorsement" of religion. See, e.g., Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 592 (inquiry is whether the government "convey or attempt to convey a message that religion or a particular religious belief is favored or preferred"); id. at 592-94; School District of the City of Grand Rapids v. Ball, 473 U.S. 373, 390 (1985)("[A]n important concern of the effects test is whether the symbolic union of church and state effected by the challenged governmental action is sufficiently likely to be perceived by adherents ... as an endorsement, and by nonadherents as a disapproval, of their individual religious choices").

A teacher, in the performance of his duties during school hours, acts as an agent of government and is required to abide by the restrictions placed on government as specified in the Constitution. If he doesn't, he's breaking the law.

Violation of the First Amendment's requirements is, in fact, lawbreaking, just as if a judge showed gender bias in the performance of his duties, or if a DMV worker refused to wait on a Hispanic citizen. Those actions by government employees are illegal, simply because they violate the terms of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. So yes, an individual certainly CAN break those laws.

But then, such an understanding doesn't advance your "stop the secularists" agenda, so I can see why you'd resist it. Doesn't change the facts, though; a teacher preaching during school hours is automatically and inherently breaking the law, just as if he'd automatically flunked all his Muslim or black students.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Jesus was humble, loving, however he was not too tolerant...Well, I think you are the one who doesn't know the scripture. In fact he talked more about hell than heaven.

Jesus wasn't tolerant? Have you been reading the Bible, Taliban version?

TRY learning some FACTS,

You'd find the Kingdom of Heaven mentioned far more often than hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patriot
The main impetus behind this entire incident, and the posts of Paszkiewicz's defenders, is that they see nothing wrong with living in a theocracy --- provided it is a theocracy of their own religion, of course. It's amazing that this man can be so biased and still teach history.

I have to chuckle at some of these comments. Some of these Dizzy Darwiniacs woud have you believe that Mr. P's words were tantamount to "the government establishing a religion". I bet Mr.P never realized his words carried so much authority, that simply by expressing an opinion would create a nationwide religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest A. V. Blom
I have to chuckle at some of these comments. Some of these Dizzy Darwiniacs woud have you believe that Mr. P's words were tantamount to "the government establishing a religion".  I bet Mr.P never realized his words carried so much authority, that simply by expressing an opinion would create a nationwide religion.

Which is, of course, no one's point except for yours. Perhaps you should go out a bit more and get an education...try to look up the definition of "Straw Man", specifically.

Oh, and turn off Fox News. If you stop right away, your I.Q. might remain in the double digits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Individuals do not violate the First Amendment.  Governments may.  The teacher bears no personal culpability under the law.  His comments were not illegal, and it should be debated whether or not the comments were inappropriate.

Read the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment one right after the other and type that again.

"[E]xpressly forbids."  Sheesh.

Yeah, definitely read through the First Amendment and try to figure out how it "expressly forbids" speech like that used by Paszkiewicz.

Bryan, you really seem stuck on this point, so here's some helpful info for you.

Ah, more examples of the government being the culpable party rather than the individual. That really misses the point of what I wrote.

Thanks!

A teacher, in the performance of his duties during school hours, acts as an agent of government and is required to abide by the restrictions placed on government as specified in the Constitution. If he doesn't, he's breaking the law.

You're begging the question. What law does he break?

He doesn't break any law, in fact. The government can fire him for not living up to his job responsibilities, but he'll never have a criminal record. He'll never have a criminal record because he didn't break any law.

Violation of the First Amendment's requirements is, in fact, lawbreaking, just as if a judge showed gender bias in the performance of his duties, or if a DMV worker refused to wait on a Hispanic citizen.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

I guess if you redefine "lawbreaking" then you're exactly right.

Congratulations.

I might point out that judge will never be charged with any sort of crime for gender bias, and neither will the DMV worker be charged with any crime.

Of course, I'm working with the old-fashioned regular definitions instead of the one you just got finished minting.

Those actions by government employees are illegal, simply because they violate the terms of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. So yes, an individual certainly CAN break those laws.

You tell 'em, Humpty.

But then, such an understanding doesn't advance your "stop the secularists" agenda, so I can see why you'd resist it.

You're right. It probably has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that no individual has ever been charged with the crime of breaking the First Amendment. Not so much as ticketed.

Doesn't change the facts, though; a teacher preaching during school hours is automatically and inherently breaking the law, just as if he'd automatically flunked all his Muslim or black students.

lol

It's not against the law to flunk all of your Muslim or black students, either. The students could sue for injury (tort) and they'd almost assuredly win, but the teacher broke no law.

Not that somebody couldn't write a law like that, but I'd be willing to bet there's nothing on the books that would find a teacher guilty of wronging society in general (a crime) for flunking a certain class of students.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you quite certain you have your facts right?  What's your source for that information? 

Here we go again.

Individuals do not violate the First Amendment.  Governments may.  The teacher bears no personal culpability under the law.  His comments were not illegal, and it should be debated whether or not the comments were inappropriate.

Read the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment one right after the other and type that again.

"[E]xpressly forbids."  Sheesh. 

Man, I missed my chance to be a hero by exposing all the teachers in my past who disparaged religion.  Right? 

Yeah, definitely read through the First Amendment and try to figure out how it "expressly forbids" speech like that used by Paszkiewicz.

Allow me to help, in fact:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

They could erode completely yet still refuse to crumble?  You should admit that's impressive. 

I guess we don't need our old religions anymore now that we have you.

Tell us, O Great One, how the First Amendment forbids speech of the type uttered by Mr. Paszkiewicz.  Or should we just take it on faith?

You are a selfish individual. The man who posted this comment has no wish to be revered as a 'great one.' He was making comments that have truth in them, even if they are a little harsh.

If you had teachers that disparaged religion, then yes, you should have come forth and made what they did public, because that is not their job. Their job is to teach, which in itself is hard enough. They do not have the authority to discuss highly controversial religious ideas with their students. And yes, they are highly controversial becuase, like the man whom you berated said, evidence is a word rarely seen in religion.

Every answer you gave was sarcastic. How about YOU give some support for your arguments. Oh yeah, read through the aritcle submitted by the New York times to get some information as to the girl he singled out. Before posting again, how about you do some research yourself.

Yeah, um, excuse me. Did you say that individuals don't violate the first amendment? So I could go around to individuals right now and threaten them to become atheist at gunpoint and it would be ok. Sheesh yourself.

The quote you gave was certainly not pertaining to a public school classroom. Stop giving logical fallacies. There is no way that any court in America that is unbiased would support Mr. P in his argument that he wasn't violating the first amendment. So yes, here we go again. And for good reason.

Oh, and when did he say that it could erode completely? Nice comment, shows your intelligence. Religion will never crumble, no matter how outlandish and outrageous the ideas become. As if they aren't so already.

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...