Support for Mr. P

[oldfart56]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

notice to all who posted on this site "all" a prayer chain has started to pray for anybody who does not know JESUS CHRIST! this chaine is now going in fla and wisconsin nj pa for a start! more than 300 will be praying for the town of kearny! and its "non belivers" your posting on this site all in 1 place make it nice and easy to pray for each and every 1 of you! may the LOVE OF JESUS GROW IN YOUR HARTS!!!

[Calybos]

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.

Okay, let's boil it down even further. You agree that this teacher's actions were a violation of the First Amendment-required separation of church and state... you just don't consider that "lawbreaking," right?

Or is that another distraction tactic, along the lines of "It depends on whether I specifically used the word 'imminent' to lie to the public"? You're splitting hairs in a desperate attempt to throw a smokescreen around this teacher's clearly wrongful, unconstitutional act.

But you're still stuck with it. Whether he's sued or not--whether he's even charged or not--this teach violated the requirements of the First Amendment regarding what the government (and its employees) are permitted to do in the performance of their duties.

[Bryan]

Again, the preview gives me little hope that the quotation tags are working properly.

Apologies in advance if the appearance is bedraggled.

You are a selfish individual.

And you judge people.

The man who posted this comment has no wish to be revered as a 'great one.'

He wasn't revered. The comment was sarcastic, intended to highlight the fact that his assertions had no evidential support.

He was making comments that have truth in them, even if they are a little harsh.

Are you a priest of His order, then?

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.

Okay, at least you're consistent (or trying to appear to be).

I don't expect a teacher to completely remove his deeply-help opinions in check where they touch on the curriculum. Not even in the case of a philosophy professor whose favorite subject is to argue against the existence of god with students.

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.

Let's mark that down: Students shall be in school roughly seven hours out of the day, during which time they are not to have informed discussion of highly controversial religious ideas. Religious ideas can still be treated on Saturday or Sunday, assuming that the student has finished his secular homework.

Religion must not be important if it's off-limits so much of the time. You agree?

And yes, they are highly controversial becuase, like the man whom you berated said, evidence is a word rarely seen in religion.

I have yet to see the evidence in support of the claim that evidence is a word rarely seen in religion.

It's not your religion, is it?

Every answer you gave was sarcastic.

He only asked one question, AFAICT. If you're talking about my responses in general, the first two were entirely non-sarcastic. Try to be more accurate, please.

How about YOU give some support for your arguments.

I do so regularly. Where an argument is made, however, it can be enough to point out the flaws in the other person's argument without bothering to advance a contrary conclusion. An atheist, for example, could criticize an argument against the existence of god.

I've already noted how skeptics tend to abhor bearing the burden of proof, however. I'll count you among those.

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.

This article?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/18/nyregion...i=5070&emc=eta1

I've already read that one. I've looked at the reporting that's been done on the story. You have no room to criticize me, there.

Newspapers are not that reliable, for what it's worth. Quotations are commonly taken out of context, and arithmetic is routinely botched.

Yeah, um, excuse me. Did you say that individuals don't violate the first amendment?

Correct. You get a gold star for paying attention.

So I could go around to individuals right now and threaten them to become atheist at gunpoint and it would be ok. Sheesh yourself.

You would not be charged with breaking the First Amendment if you did that. You'd be charged with assault with a deadly weapon or the like. The First Amendment would have no bearing on your trial.

The quote you gave was certainly not pertaining to a public school classroom.

The First Amendment, you mean?

Stop giving logical fallacies.

Are you suggesting that I committed a logical fallacy? Which one (and where)?

Or are you demanding that I stop identifying the logical fallacies of others? If the latter, why should I?

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.

Why not? Because you say so?

It must be your religion, since you so hate to give evidence in support.

So yes, here we go again. And for good reason.

Because we need a skeptical pantheon instead of just the other guy declaring the conclusion true by divine fiat?

Oh, and when did he say that it could erode completely?

He said "no matter how ugly and eroded the bricks become" I reasoned that total erosion could take place, and following his logic the wall would still stand after it had completely eroded. Still, I didn't assume that I knew what he meant, so I phrased it as a question so that he could affirm or deny.

Nice comment, shows your intelligence.

Really? Explain how.

Religion will never crumble, no matter how outlandish and outrageous the ideas become. As if they aren't so already.

We could use you as a case in point, under the assumption that your total lack of evidence means that you're religious.

[Guest tired of wingnuts]

F#@$ Mr. P. anf fox news and hannity and all of u wingnuts

[KOTW]

Again, the preview gives me little hope that the quotation tags are working properly.

Apologies in advance if the appearance is bedraggled.

And you judge people.

He wasn't revered. The comment was sarcastic, intended to highlight the fact that his assertions had no evidential support.

Are you a priest of His order, then? 

Okay, at least you're consistent (or trying to appear to be). 

I don't expect a teacher to completely remove his deeply-help opinions in check where they touch on the curriculum.  Not even in the case of a philosophy professor whose favorite subject is to argue against the existence of god with students.

Let's mark that down:  Students shall be in school roughly seven hours out of the day, during which time they are not to have informed discussion of highly controversial religious ideas.  Religious ideas can still be treated on Saturday or Sunday, assuming that the student has finished his secular homework.

Religion must not be important if it's off-limits so much of the time.  You agree?

I have yet to see the evidence in support of the claim that evidence is a word rarely seen in religion.

It's not your religion, is it?

He only asked one question, AFAICT.  If you're talking about my responses in general, the first two were entirely non-sarcastic.  Try to be more accurate, please.

I do so regularly.  Where an argument is made, however, it can be enough to point out the flaws in the other person's argument without bothering to advance a contrary conclusion.  An atheist, for example, could criticize an argument against the existence of god.

I've already noted how skeptics tend to abhor bearing the burden of proof, however.  I'll count you among those.

This article?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/18/nyregion...i=5070&emc=eta1

I've already read that one.  I've looked at the reporting that's been done on the story.  You have no room to criticize me, there.

Newspapers are not that reliable, for what it's worth.  Quotations are commonly taken out of context, and arithmetic is routinely botched.

Correct.  You get a gold star for paying attention.

You would not be charged with breaking the First Amendment if you did that.  You'd be charged with assault with a deadly weapon or the like.  The First Amendment would have no bearing on your trial.

The First Amendment, you mean?

Are you suggesting that I committed a logical fallacy?  Which one (and where)?

Or are you demanding that I stop identifying the logical fallacies of others?  If the latter, why should I?

Why not?  Because you say so? 

It must be your religion, since you so hate to give evidence in support. 

Because we need a skeptical pantheon instead of just the other guy declaring the conclusion true by divine fiat?

He said "no matter how ugly and eroded the bricks become"  I reasoned that total erosion could take place, and following his logic the wall would still stand after it had completely eroded.   Still, I didn't assume that I knew what he meant, so I phrased it as a question so that he could affirm or deny.

Really?  Explain how.

We could use you as a case in point, under the assumption that your total lack of evidence means that you're religious.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bryan,

I tested the quotes feature. It maxes out at 10 quotes per post. I have been unable to correct this apparent flaw in the discussion board.

I will continue to work towards a solution. In the interim, please break up your posts so the quote feature works.

Regards,

KOTW

[Guest Guest]

In FACT?  NOBODY on this good earth knows for SURE if any of it is FACT!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's your opinion....

[Guest Guest]

You are the best Mr.P!!!!

[Guest Guest]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mr. P as with all other Christians are mistaken and will forever burn in the fires of Hell as the so called "god" they choose to pray to is not the one true God. It will be a great pleasure for me to watch you burn.

[Guest Paul]

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bryan, a statement like this only reveals your biases. What door can the majority possibly be pushed out of? No one can push Christians out of the doors to their churches in this culture, and may it always remain so. What door do you think you have a right to be in, and why?

I'll ask the same question I've asked before, which none of you has answered: Either of us could easily name many societies and nations that have been ripped apart, and entire peoples that have been decimated, by the state's involvment with religion. By contrast, I don't think anyone can name even one society that has suffered in that way, or in any significant way, by following the rule that people should remain free to worship as they see fit, the state staying out of it. The right to worship is individual and intensely, and therefore not the state's business, no less if the state would presume to promote a religion than if it would try to impede it. Given the atrocious history of mixing church and state, why isn't that the best rule?

[Guest Paul]

. . . . 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.

. . . . "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."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bryan, your argument that individuals do not violate the Constitution is false. Who but individuals act on behalf of the state? No one. Governments, like corporations, are run by people. Your argument would imply that there can never be a governmental violation of the Constitution or the law.

You can argue that the establishment clause in the First Amendment, made applicable to the states and their creations by the Fourteenth, is not "explicit," but you're only splitting semantic hairs. There is no controversy that the law prohibits a public school teacher from preaching religion in the classroom. There may be controversy among some people like yourself who do not like the law, but the law is clear.

Finally, if you don't think what Paszkiewicz did crossed the line morally and ethically, as well as legally, that says more about you than about the merits of the case.

Bryan, by all appearances you'll never be convinced of anything here, no matter how compelling the argument is. At least, though, be honest about the law, and try to be open about human values --- if I may be so bold as to suggest it.

[Guest Paul]

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!

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.

'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.

You tell 'em, Humpty.

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.

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bryan, the mere fact that it's not a crime doesn't mean that it isn't a violation of the Constitution. It is.

[Guest Paul]

notice to all who posted on this site "all" a prayer chain has started to pray for anybody who does not know JESUS CHRIST! this chaine is now going in fla and wisconsin nj pa  for a start! more than 300 will be praying for the town of kearny! and its "non belivers" your posting on this site all in 1 place make it nice and easy to pray for each and every 1 of you! may the LOVE OF JESUS GROW IN YOUR HARTS!!!  

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Look to your heart and be honest, oldfart (what a wonderful opportunity that names gives!). Is this your form of taunting?

[Guest Guest]

That's your opinion....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No................It's FACT!

[oldfart56]

Look to your heart and be honest, oldfart (what a wonderful opportunity that names gives!). Is this your form of taunting?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul now DO YOU REALY WANT TO SPAR WITH ME? 1st as you can see NOBODY CAN SAY "ANY THING" TO HURT ME! un like you i have nothing to prove! i have no books to sell or future in politics! but sir Paul you have much to lose! read my bio! oh oldfart56 is what i post with but its not me! its my 56ford truck!! thats what my grand kids call it! they call me the OLDREDNECK!!!AND YA IM THE REAL DEAL! but at least i know who god is! and where my soul will go! what happened to you as a kid ? why are you so sure in your thinking? you see from a state far from nj we can see the real thing you are doing! but why? why this teacher? i can see you wanting to jump start your kid in politics heck there is BIG MONEY IN IT! but why like this? also Paul are you from kearny? or did you just move there? when i said we are praying for you i"we ment it! and do not think that a {redneck}can't be a real christian but a jew too! and "fyi" im born and raised in kearny! so this i say to you in the name of JESUS we love you and are praying for you and your family!!!

[Guest Guest]

Look to your heart and be honest, oldfart (what a wonderful opportunity that names gives!). Is this your form of taunting?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul do you support Mr. P? No? Then get out of here, in case you can't read it...."Support for Mr.P" go write about Matthew...You still have a lot of work to do to promote your son...since you have nothing else to do other than post here, go call fox news, cnn....

[Bryan]

Bryan, the mere fact that it's not a crime doesn't mean that it isn't a violation of the Constitution.

Did I maintain at any point that since Paskiewicz did not commit any crime that therefore no breach of the Constitution had occurred?

Of course not. I treat them as separate issues.

Those who say that Paskiewicz broke the law and should be punished for it are simply wrong, so I'm trying to correct their error.

It is.

I doubt there's anything actionable (other than a strained tort) unless the school officials (other than Paszkiewicz) somehow endorse the supposedly unconstitutional behavior.

That said, I think your side tends to take Paskiewicz's comments out of context (the New York Times did a nice job of that, also).

It occurs to me that Paskiewicz does have the potential for a libel suit against those who have declared him guilty in advance of his trial (the trial that won't take place over a law he didn't break!)...

False and malicious speech isn't protected, is it?

[Guest Keith - Marshall,Mo]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think what you fail to realize is that if one man is allowed to do this (Religeon in public school that is) then it sets a precedent. Then it is only a matter of time before the government would in fact be supporting religeon by default and it wouldn't not only be Christianinty either, it would be any religeon and or non-religeon that particular educator believed in. This is the epitome of the proverbial "Slippery Slope"

Which is precisely why we have "Separation of Church and State!"

[KHS81]

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!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry olfart. I was raised and still live in Kearny. Mr. P is nothing more than a goose stepping jackbooted evangical christian neocon who belives in fairy tale land. The dinosaurs were on noah's ark come on who's he kidding. Mr P is 2 steps short of being in the same league as the Westboro Baptist Church crew. If Paskewiscz is so innocent why does'nt he open his pie hole and make a statement in his defense. This guy gives Baptists everywhere a bad name

[Matthew LaClair]

Did I maintain at any point that since Paskiewicz did not commit any crime that therefore no breach of the Constitution had occurred?

Of course not.  I treat them as separate issues.

Those who say that Paskiewicz broke the law and should be punished for it are simply wrong, so I'm trying to correct their error.

I doubt there's anything actionable (other than a strained tort) unless the school officials (other than Paszkiewicz) somehow endorse the supposedly unconstitutional behavior.

That said, I think your side tends to take Paskiewicz's comments out of context (the New York Times did a nice job of that, also).

It occurs to me that Paskiewicz does have the potential for a libel suit against those who have declared him guilty in advance of his trial (the trial that won't take place over a law he didn't break!)...

False and malicious speech isn't protected, is it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bryan is correct that there is no criminal violation. For there to be a criminal violation, there has to be a violation of a criminal statute. (Another provision in our Constitution is a prohibition against ex post facto laws.) Partly because of the power of the pro-theist elements in our society, no legislature has the guts to pass a law attaching a penalty to this form of behavior.

However, Paszkiewicz did violate TheConstitution. That is enough to justify disciplinary action by Paszkiewicz's employers should they choose to take it. If this was a Muslim teacher, that action would almost surely have been taken.

There is also a civil rights violation here. We may not choose to pursue it, but if that is our choice, it won't be because we can't.

So let's be fair. Bryan's not entirely wrong, even though he is being extremely one-sided.

[Guest Paul]

Bryan is correct that there is no criminal violation. For there to be a criminal violation, there has to be a violation of a criminal statute. (Another provision in our Constitution is a prohibition against ex post facto laws.) Partly because of the power of the pro-theist elements in our society, no legislature has the guts to pass a law attaching a penalty to this form of behavior.

However, Paszkiewicz did violate TheConstitution. That is enough to justify disciplinary action by Paszkiewicz's employers should they choose to take it. If this was a Muslim teacher, that action would almost surely have been taken.

There is also a civil rights violation here. We may not choose to pursue it, but if that is our choice, it won't be because we can't.

So let's be fair. Bryan's not entirely wrong, even though he is being extremely one-sided.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry. This was my post. We use the same computer.

[Guest Guest]

Partly because of the power of the pro-theist elements in our society, no legislature has the guts to pass a law attaching a penalty to this form of behavior.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

C'mon Paul. I know that the teacher's behavior has a lot of us bent, but to attach a penalty to what the teacher said would trample all over the First Amendment. We do offer penalties when such comments rise to the level of hate speech, but most reasonable minds would tend to suggest that - while over-the-top - this was NOT hate speech as most penal codes define it. Accordingly, it is the collective wisdom of our forefathers and the framers of the Constitution, along with the reasonable conscience of society in general, that has kept the legislature from attaching a penalty to this form of behavior ... NOT the pro-theist elements in our society.

[Guest Paul]

C'mon Paul.  I know that the teacher's behavior has a lot of us bent, but to attach a penalty to what the teacher said would trample all over the First Amendment.  We do offer penalties when such comments rise to the level of hate speech, but most reasonable minds would tend to suggest that - while over-the-top - this was NOT hate speech as most penal codes define it.  Accordingly, it is the collective wisdom of our forefathers and the framers of the Constitution, along with the reasonable conscience of society in general, that has kept the legislature from attaching a penalty to this form of behavior ... NOT the pro-theist elements in our society.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I respectfully disagree. A public school teacher is in a position of public trust, and quite beyond that, the penalty could attach to the school district, not necessarily the individual teacher. If it did attach to the teacher, I'm not at all convinced that it would violate any free speech rights under the First Amendment. I haven't researched the issue legally because there isn't a snowball's chance in you-know-where that any legislature is going to impose a sanction against this behavior. On the other hand, the classroom isn't the teacher's personal soapbox, or his pulpit. It is his office, and he is obligated to behave professionally, just as I am in mine. There are certain things we're not allowed to say; that prohibition is not a violation of our free speech rights.

In addition, I do think there are quite a few similarities between hate speech and telling high school students that they belong in hell if they don't share the teacher's religious beliefs. Where we draw the line is a matter of accepted norms, and no doubt the location (and thickness) of that line is influenced by the number of theists versus the number of non-theists in our culture.

Before you completely write off the idea that the dominance of theistic belief in our culture makes any sanction against Paszkiewicz-like preaching (in class) politically impractical, ask yourself what would happen to a legislator who proposed such a law. He'd be out at the next election by voters who would see it as an attack on their religions.

[Bryan]

I respectfully disagree. A public school teacher is in a position of public trust, and quite beyond that, the penalty could attach to the school district, not necessarily the individual teacher. If it did attach to the teacher, I'm not at all convinced that it would violate any free speech rights under the First Amendment.

That's the glory of the living Constitution. One day it can be read to allow the government to take over the press, eliminate freedom of expression, and oppress all religious beliefs save that of the default worldview of the state.

And all without changing a word of the Constitution or even adding an amendment.

Of course a government penalty for an expression of one's sincere beliefs violates free speech.

But what do I know? I'm extremely one-sided!

I haven't researched the issue legally because there isn't a snowball's chance in you-know-where that any legislature is going to impose a sanction against this behavior.

A person could lose his job over it--that's not sanction enough?

On the other hand, the classroom isn't the teacher's personal soapbox, or his pulpit. It is his office, and he is obligated to behave professionally, just as I am in mine.

Typically that's up to your employer. If you're self-employed, then nothing at all stops you from telling every client that you're an atheist and that their religious beliefs are a load of bunk.

They're not obligated to keep you as their attorney, however.

There are certain things we're not allowed to say; that prohibition is not a violation of our free speech rights.

Good grief!

Doesn't that depend entirely on what is prohibited?

If Congress passed a law tomorrow stipulating that anyone who said "Kafelnikov" would be put to death, that would certainly be something that we're not allowed to say, but wouldn't it also be a restriction on free speech?

What makes you certain, Paul, that some of the laws we've already got on the books are not unconstitutional restrictions on free speech???

In another thread there was a dispute about the SCOTUS's role in eliminating Jim Crow laws. Of course, the court largely laid the foundation for Jim Crow laws with its decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, so any decision the court made against a Jim Crow law was an effective reversal of its own opinion.

Is the SCOTUS infallible? Were they right to void civil rights in the 19th century and right to uphold them in the 20th?

In addition, I do think there are quite a few similarities between hate speech and telling high school students that they belong in hell if they don't share the teacher's religious beliefs.

While the U.S. has instituted some of those dopey "hate crimes" laws here and there, "hate speech" is not against the law. The primary application of "hate speech" codes occurs in those fountains of tolerance and diversity--our nation's colleges and universities.

So watch who you call "water buffalo."

Where we draw the line is a matter of accepted norms, and no doubt the location (and thickness) of that line is influenced by the number of theists versus the number of non-theists in our culture.

So what's the ethical principle, Paul? Majority makes right, or appeal to an objective morality based on ... what?

Before you completely write off the idea that the dominance of theistic belief in our culture makes any sanction against Paszkiewicz-like preaching (in class) politically impractical, ask yourself what would happen to a legislator who proposed such a law. He'd be out at the next election by voters who would see it as an attack on their religions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Can't we do something about this stupid representative government?

Where's the Secularist dictator when you really need one?

[Guest Guest]

I respectfully disagree. A public school teacher is in a position of public trust, and quite beyond that, the penalty could attach to the school district, not necessarily the individual teacher. If it did attach to the teacher, I'm not at all convinced that it would violate any free speech rights under the First Amendment. I haven't researched the issue legally because there isn't a snowball's chance in you-know-where that any legislature is going to impose a sanction against this behavior. On the other hand, the classroom isn't the teacher's personal soapbox, or his pulpit. It is his office, and he is obligated to behave professionally, just as I am in mine. There are certain things we're not allowed to say; that prohibition is not a violation of our free speech rights.

In addition, I do think there are quite a few similarities between hate speech and telling high school students that they belong in hell if they don't share the teacher's religious beliefs. Where we draw the line is a matter of accepted norms, and no doubt the location (and thickness) of that line is influenced by the number of theists versus the number of non-theists in our culture.

Before you completely write off the idea that the dominance of theistic belief in our culture makes any sanction against Paszkiewicz-like preaching (in class) politically impractical, ask yourself what would happen to a legislator who proposed such a law. He'd be out at the next election by voters who would see it as an attack on their religions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So - just so I understand - are you suggesting that CRIMINAL sanctions are appropriate, or just CIVIL sanctions akin to an FCC fine? Or is there a door number 3?

[Guest Guest]

So - just so I understand - are you suggesting that CRIMINAL sanctions are appropriate, or just CIVIL sanctions akin to an FCC fine?  Or is there a door number 3?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My opinion: Proselytizing in a public school doesn't justifying a criminal penalty. I'm not even sure it justifies a fine. However, the law should provide a remedy for violations, and perhaps a penalty to the school district if it condones the behavior. (Present civil rights laws probably take care of this last element.)