School Board takes new Steps

[Guest bik49ypik@yahoo.com]

On the other hand, what do you do when the school's administration is corrupt, and more interested in preserving their prerogatives than in educating the students or following the law? Tragically, that appears to be the case at KHS.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So there goes Mr. Attorney spouting off again. As always prove that the entire school administration is corrupt. Those are some pretty strong accusations and since everyone knows that this is Mr. LaClair then each one of them should sue your ass off that is not corrupt. Speak about slander. You are such an egotistical bigot is it not even fun to bad mouth you anymore. You just disgust me. Maybe you will get a scholarship from this as well. Big whoop.

[Strife767]

It's not irrelevant at all.

Yes, it is. Behe, as an example, is proof that credentials/degrees does not make someone automatically right (nor does lack of them make them wrong).

At least we know Paul is a lawyer and can speak from direct knowledge and experience regarding the topic.

And we all know how well his posts have been received by other Kearnians.

At least he doesn't keep saying "ad hominem" over and over.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I call it as I see it. If people stop acting like children, I will stop calling them on it.

[Guest Guest]

I think the absurdities also attract because they offer a convenience, which is much easier than addressing the world as it actually is.

The ultimate irony is that the most fervent "believers" end up worshiping their own opinion above all else.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Someone is getting angry!!!!

[Guest Guest]

I think the absurdities also attract because they offer a convenience, which is much easier than addressing the world as it actually is.

The ultimate irony is that the most fervent "believers" end up worshiping their own opinion above all else.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree, at least when it comes to the deeply held religious belief of atheists. They claim God does not exist. What they are actually saying is that among all the things that exist, God is not among them. By making this statement they are claiming omniscience, which is an attribute of God Himself. How does the atheist know God does not exist? Has he actually exhaustively counted all the things that exist in this universe and concluded that God is not among them? By the way, for atheism to be compatible with science, it would have to account for everything in the universe because it deals with the empirical (those things which can be observed).

[Guest Guest]

On the other hand, what do you do when the school's administration is corrupt, and more interested in preserving their prerogatives than in educating the students or following the law? Tragically, that appears to be the case at KHS.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is this an accussation?

[Guest TomRam]

So there goes Mr. Attorney spouting off again.  As always prove that the entire school administration is corrupt.  Those are some pretty strong accusations and since everyone knows that this is Mr. LaClair then each one of them should sue your ass off that is not corrupt.  Speak about slander.    You are such an egotistical bigot is it not even fun to bad mouth you anymore.  You just disgust me.  Maybe you will get a scholarship from this as well.  Big whoop.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is really bothering you, isn't it. Have you ever considered that maybe you just don't like the way it's turning out? There is solid evidence of bigotry here, but it's not on the LaClair side.

[Strife767]

I agree, at least when it comes to the deeply held religious belief of atheists.

Talk about an oxymoron. Kinda like "religious tolerance."

They claim God does not exist.

Atheists do not claim any god exists. Can you tell the difference between that and what you wrote above? Since my guess is no, I'll show you myself:

"The most common misunderstanding about atheism is the definition. Many insist that atheism is really the denial of the existence of God, but there are two errors here. First, it pretends that atheism is exclusively about their god, the god common to Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Second, it focuses on a narrow sub-set of atheism and atheists to the exclusion of all others. Standard dictionary definitions list "denial of God or gods" second; first comes "disbelief in god or Gods." Disbelief is not the same as denial, it's either the absence of belief or the presence of skepticism." --http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyths/p/AtheismMyths.htm

What they are actually saying is that among all the things that exist, God is not among them.

On the contrary--theists are the ones who claim that their god(s) is "among all the things that exist," and without any supporting evidence to boot. The theists are the ones who seek to add their god(s) to the 'sum of all things.'

By making this statement they are claiming omniscience, which is an attribute of God Himself.

No surprise that a false conclusion would follow the false premise above--disbelieving in (or not claiming) a presence is not the same as believing in (or claiming) an absence.

But tell me something, o hotshot theist--how is it that you can claim that your god exists but that other religions' gods do not? Any theism that does not include every single god ever conceived is guilty of the "claim of omniscience" you falsely accuse atheists of.

How does the atheist know God does not exist?

Very few atheists claim to know for sure--the vast majority of us are simply playing the odds. How many hundreds of things have people credited to their god(s) in history, before science found the real explanation? Basically all weather phenomena has been thought at one time by a majority of people to be caused by some deity, all illnesses were thought to be curses, and so on. So what do theists say now, after all of their 'divine interventions' have been explained with science? "Well, we were wrong all these other times, but we're SURE we're right about this."? Or to just ignore the science and throw a tantrum about how you're right and anyone who disagrees is a liar (enter the creationism movement)? Both responses are equally pathetic.

Not assuming the existence of something for which there is no evidence is the only rational way to go.

Besides, theists who talk like this (at least) are totally hypocritical. You'll believe in your god, but not in anyone else's. Why not? The same amount of legitimate evidence exists no matter what god you're talking about (that is, zero). And forget others' gods--there are a myriad concepts that have no evidence for existing in reality despite being written about in books and spoken of in legends, but that theists don't believe in: unicorns, leprechauns, gryphons, pegasuses, etc. ANYONE who believes in ANY of these things and not ALL others is not only foolish for making a baseless assumption about the thing(s) they DO believe in, but they're a total hypocrite for rejecting all the rest.

Has he actually exhaustively counted all the things that exist in this universe and concluded that God is not among them?

You are fallaciously shifting the burden of proof (along with the proving the negative fallacy too). Do you really think it makes sense for us to accept every idea any random person comes up with, and then go down the list and try to disprove each one? What about the ones that can't be disproven? Are they to be automatically considered correct? This is a ridiculous way of looking at things. Atheists do not believe in any god because there is NO evidence that there exists, or ever existed, any such deity (and damned if all theists, even within the major religions of which there are myriad sects, can even agree on an end-all definition of "God")! That's all there is to it, and all there needs to be 'to it.'

It is perfectly logical to not accept the existence of something for which there is no evidence. That is the foundation of atheism, and why it exists.

To accept the existence of something that has no evidence 'on faith' from the mouths of your parents, a priest, or anyone else, is nothing but pure gullibility. And that is the cornerstone of organized religion.

By the way, for atheism to be compatible with science, it would have to account for everything in the universe because it deals with the empirical (those things which can be observed).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. Science is not limited to the directly observable. There are lots of other ways of acquiring evidence, and all of those methods are also considered empirical.

2. What's your point? Atheism is wholly compatible with all science.

[Guest Dingo Dave]

I agree, at least when it comes to the deeply held religious belief of atheists.  They claim God does not exist.  What they are actually saying is that among all the things that exist, God is not among them.  By making this statement they are claiming omniscience, which is an attribute of God Himself.  How does the atheist know God does not exist?  Has he actually exhaustively counted all the things that exist in this universe and concluded that God is not among them?  By the way, for atheism to be compatible with science, it would have to account for everything in the universe because it deals with the empirical (those things which can be observed).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wrong.

What this atheist claims is that the evidence presented by god believers is inadequate to support the belief that a god, or gods, do exist.

In the absence of such evidence, I choose not to believe these claims.

Why should I believe in Zeus, or Aton, or Marduk, or Chemosh, or Dianna, or Dionisis, or Mithra, or Ahura Mazda, or Isis, or Astarte, or Yahweh, or Kali, or Brahma, or Allah, or ...................... until there is sufficient evidence to justify such a belief?

Do I need to go through all the gods I don't believe in? And why should I make an exception for yours?

Does a person have to be omniscient before he can safely say that he has no good reason to believe in leprechauns or fairies?

If you're a Christian, please have the humility to admit that your particular god, is only one of the thousands that people throughout the ages have believed in, and in some cases still believe in.

If convincing evidence was forthcoming, most Atheists I know, including myself, would be prepared to change their minds about the existance of supernatural entities. However, until such time as this happens, I'm going with the odds and treating all these claims with equal skepticism. Why shouldn't I?

[Guest Guest]

Yes, it is. Behe, as an example, is proof that credentials/degrees does not make someone automatically right (nor does lack of them make them wrong).

And we all know how well his posts have been received by other Kearnians.

I call it as I see it. If people stop acting like children, I will stop calling them on it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I never said it had anything to do with right or wrong.

This is the response I expected. It speaks volumes. Thanks.

[Guest Paul]

I agree, at least when it comes to the deeply held religious belief of atheists.  They claim God does not exist.  What they are actually saying is that among all the things that exist, God is not among them.  By making this statement they are claiming omniscience, which is an attribute of God Himself.  How does the atheist know God does not exist?  Has he actually exhaustively counted all the things that exist in this universe and concluded that God is not among them?  By the way, for atheism to be compatible with science, it would have to account for everything in the universe because it deals with the empirical (those things which can be observed).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Seen that way, the same critique applies to theism, does it not? If not, why not?

The fallacy in your argument is the assumption that it makes sense for any human being to imagine he/she can know all things. That's one of the major points made by science itself: the gathering of knowledge proceeds according to a proven method, known as the scientific method. In the early 21st century, we have a vast body of knowledge that we have accumulated by following that method, and a wealth of technologies as well. It's the method that makes the difference, not what is "ultimately true" --- because no one knows what is "ultimately true." Faith makes sense in certain contexts, but when it's used to justify claims of fact, its use is misplaced and generally harmful. People do it anyway because it comforts them, etc., but it still does a great deal of harm.

[Strife767]

I never said it had anything to do with right or wrong. 

This is the response I expected.  It speaks volumes.  Thanks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And this is the non-answer I expected. Can't say I actually expected an explanation for why my "resume and credentials" would have any effect on the validity of my statements. Thanks.

[Guest bik49ypik@yahoo.com]

I think the absurdities also attract because they offer a convenience, which is much easier than addressing the world as it actually is.

The ultimate irony is that the most fervent "believers" end up worshiping their own opinion above all else.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No! Again you are incorrect. The ultimate irony is that you actually think that people care what Paul and his boy Matthew think.

We know who's opinions you worship and hide behind. The Constitution of the United States of Paul Laclair. Tape that one will you.

[Strife767]

     

No! Again you are incorrect.  The ultimate irony is that you actually think that people care what Paul and his boy Matthew think.       

We know who's opinions you worship and hide behind.  The Constitution of the United States of Paul Laclair. Tape that one will you. 

     

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What a ridiculous (cluster of) thing(s) to say. Paul's interpretation of the Constitution is perfectly accurate, despite however much whining about it Paszkiewicz might do.

[an American in Texas]

     

No! Again you are incorrect.  The ultimate irony is that you actually think that people care what Paul and his boy Matthew think.       

We know who's opinions you worship and hide behind.  The Constitution of the United States of Paul Laclair. Tape that one will you. 

     

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You say many silly things, Bik, but this one I can't let slide by.

The Constitution is not Paul's, nor would he ever claim it to be. It belongs to the world, and most particularly to those of us in the world who are Americans.

The profound respect we feel for it is not the same as worship. It arises from our educated evaluation of its content and purpose.

And far from hiding behind it, we put it right up front, as indeed we should since it is the highest law of our land.

You are also quite mistaken when you assert that people don't care what Paul and Matthew think. Many of us do care very much, for we realize that without brave citizens like them who will speak up to defend the Constitution, our country is in danger of devolving into a theocracy like, say, Iran's.

Leigh Williams

Austin, Texas

[Guest bik49ypik@yahoo.com]

Seen that way, the same critique applies to theism, does it not? If not, why not?

The fallacy in your argument is the assumption that it makes sense for any human being to imagine he/she can know all things. That's one of the major points made by science itself: the gathering of knowledge proceeds according to a proven method, known as the scientific method. In the early 21st century, we have a vast body of knowledge that we have accumulated by following that method, and a wealth of technologies as well. It's the method that makes the difference, not what is "ultimately true" --- because no one knows what is "ultimately true."  People do it anyway because it comforts them, etc., but it still does a great deal of harm.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am glad you are not a teacher in the Kearny School System. Growing up we had faith in the scientific evidence that milk was also good for you. Drink two glasses of whole milk a day. Now its not good, have to go to low fat or skim milk. Most scientific evidence is good when used the right way. But even scientists have to have a little faith in their results.

So you are saying that in MOST cases Faith generally does more harm than good. That is such a good way to look at life. Therefore in your opinion the things people have the most faith in, like future, their own sons and daughters, their family, is more harmful than good. What do you have faith in? And yes my faith does comfort me.

[Guest bik49ypik@yahoo.com]

You say many silly things, Bik, but this one I can't let slide by.

The Constitution is not Paul's, nor would he ever claim it to be.  It belongs to the world, and most particularly to those of us in the world who are Americans. 

The profound respect we feel for it is not the same as worship.  It arises from our educated evaluation of its content and purpose. 

And far from hiding behind it, we put it right up front, as indeed we should since it is the highest law of our land.

You are also quite mistaken when you assert that people don't care what Paul and Matthew think.  Many of us do care very much, for we realize that without brave citizens like them who will speak up to defend the Constitution, our country is in danger of devolving into a theocracy like, say, Iran's.

Leigh Williams

Austin, Texas

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I do agree with you. Please don't get me wrong. But the whole idea of this website is the verbal assault by this person named Paul Laclair and Strife767's on a teacher. Nothing more. Once you realize that then the rest is just trash.

By the way I did serve my time as a US Marine and I am damn proud of the United States. I have lived in this great country my entire life. And this is my Constitution just as much as it is theirs. This whole subject is just about a father trying to make a name for his son for college and scholarships. He wasn't going to get it for his athletic prowness or by some of the other things he's done in the school. The mention of God and religion is mentioned in the Constitution which these certain "no-names" would like to also have removed. But they are such small fish in a big pond that would rather go after the defenseless and smaller prey. That is not real American.

Thanks for replying and hope I cleared it up.

p.s. You don't get the ninjas. Its just to get their attention. Thanks and have a great day.

[Guest Paul]

You say many silly things, Bik, but this one I can't let slide by.

The Constitution is not Paul's, nor would he ever claim it to be.  It belongs to the world, and most particularly to those of us in the world who are Americans. 

The profound respect we feel for it is not the same as worship.  It arises from our educated evaluation of its content and purpose. 

And far from hiding behind it, we put it right up front, as indeed we should since it is the highest law of our land.

You are also quite mistaken when you assert that people don't care what Paul and Matthew think.  Many of us do care very much, for we realize that without brave citizens like them who will speak up to defend the Constitution, our country is in danger of devolving into a theocracy like, say, Iran's.

Leigh Williams

Austin, Texas

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Quite a fuss being made over inconsequential opinions.

[Calybos]

I do agree with you. Please don't get me wrong. But the whole idea of this website is the verbal assault by this person named Paul Laclair and Strife767's on a teacher. Nothing more. Once you realize that then the rest is just trash.

So the fact that a public school teacher was violating our Constitutional rights... this is irrelevant "trash" to you? That's unimportant in your eyes?

Exactly which Constitution did you think you were defending in the Marines?

[Strife767]

I am glad you are not a teacher in the Kearny School System. Growing up we had faith in the scientific evidence that milk was also good for you. Drink two glasses of whole milk a day.  Now its not good, have to go to low fat or skim milk. Most scientific evidence is good when used the right way. But even scientists have to have a little faith in their results.

Scientists accept everything they find and every new discovery they make as provisional--there is no faith involved at all, because no (legitimate) scientist discovers or finds something and declares it an absolute truth.

Therefore in your opinion the things people have the most faith in, like future, their own sons and daughters, their family, is more harmful than good.

You know, when I first read about this logical fallacy on Wikipedia, I thought, "No way...no one could ever be so stupid to actually do that." But here it is, equivocation! In the style of "a feather is light, light can't be dark, therefore a feather can't be dark," you are redefining the word "faith." It is obvious that "faith" in the actual context is theistic faith only.

What do you have faith in?  And yes my faith does comfort me.

Doesn't change the fact that it contradicts reality. I think this is worth considering: if one's only way of dealing with the world is with theism that directly contradicts it, is that not textbook insanity/schizophrenia?

[Strife767]

But the whole idea of this website is the verbal assault by this person named Paul Laclair and Strife767's on a teacher. Nothing more.

Absolutely false. This website not dedicated to only Kearny, the subforum "Kearny" is not dedicated to only the Paszkiewicz issue, and the implication that the issue is all about the "verbal assault" of a teacher who abused his position is laughable.

Once you realize that then the rest is just trash.

By the way I did serve my time as a US Marine and I am damn proud of the United States. I have lived in this great country my entire life. And this is my Constitution just as much as it is theirs.

Then why do you oppose it? It is yours, but not yours to redefine. It is as much your duty as any other American's to uphold it, not undermine it.

This whole subject is just about a father trying to make a name for his son for college and scholarships.

This allegation is just as baseless as it was the first time it was mentioned. Mr. P.'s apologists' "if someone gives you money, you're a beggar" logic is ludicrous and without any merit at all. That is, of course, unless you can actually prove what you say...

He wasn't going to get it for his athletic prowness or by some of the other things he's done in the school.

He won a college scholarship in eighth grade, several years before this issue occurred. Refuted. You fail.

The mention of God and religion is mentioned in the Constitution which these certain "no-names" would like to also have removed.

1. Cite me the part of the Constitution where it says "God."

2. It is important to mention religion in the Constitution, by virtue of the fact that it is important to have separation of church and state in the Constitution--it'd be hard to put that in the Constitution without mentioning the "church" part.

But they are such small fish in a big pond that would rather go after the defenseless and smaller prey.  That is not real American.

But a teacher who proselytizes to his students is? How hypocritical of you to whine about Paul's actions as being somehow "unamerican" while you turn a blind eye to Paszkiewicz's actions. That is downright disgraceful.

[Guest Guest]

Absolutely false. This website not dedicated to only Kearny, the subforum "Kearny" is not dedicated to only the Paszkiewicz issue, and the implication that the issue is all about the "verbal assault" of a teacher who abused his position is laughable.

Then why do you oppose it? It is yours, but not yours to redefine. It is as much your duty as any other American's to uphold it, not undermine it.

This allegation is just as baseless as it was the first time it was mentioned. Mr. P.'s apologists' "if someone gives you money, you're a beggar" logic is ludicrous and without any merit at all. That is, of course, unless you can actually prove what you say...

He won a college scholarship in eighth grade, several years before this issue occurred. Refuted. Try again.

1. Cite me the part of the Constitution where it says "God."

2. It is important to mention religion in the Constitution, by virtue of the fact that it is important to have separation of church and state in the Constitution--it'd be hard to put that in the Constitution without mentioning the "church" part.

But a teacher who proselytizes to his students is? How hypocritical of you to whine about Paul's actions as being somehow "unamerican" while you turn a blind eye to Paszkiewicz's action. That is downright disgraceful.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ok fella 1st yes or no? then you and paul are wrong ! yes wrong! the constitution is for freedom "of" NOT "from ! its s/p s/h groups that want to redefine the constitution,not the "church" so try if you will' but reread the history book then see what the truth is. in fact the judao christian ethec is all about FREEDOM! and makeing life better for man.

[Guest Guest]

If convincing evidence was forthcoming, most Atheists I know, including myself, would be prepared to change their minds about the existance of supernatural entities. However, until such time as this happens, I'm going with the odds and treating all these claims with equal skepticism. Why shouldn't I?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Y'know, at the end of the day, we really have two groups posting here ... the atheists who say "you can't prove there is a God, so there isn't one", and the religious who say "I don't need proof to believe so you shouldn't either". To me, it sounds a lot like two fleas fighting over who owns the dog.

I think the digression into faith and religion has truly obfuscated the real issues that have drawn most of us to the forum - to the detriment of the debate. And, while we digress into hypothetical arguments which are unlikely to be proven or disproven in 1,000 lifetimes, a high school kid who felt that his teacher was violating the Constitution and reported it is still being harrassed and, essentially, is having his youth destroyed. I have a big problem with that. Also, a respected teacher with a long period of service to the school who, at a minimum, made some questionable comments, or, at worst, violated the Constitution in a classroom is having his family's livelihood threatened. I also have a big problem with that.

This whole ordeal needs to be dialed down a notch. If I had to lay out some steps, I would suggest that first and foremost, the administration must protect the student. Matthew is a BOY. He is a very intelligent and mature boy, but he is not yet a man, no matter how you slice it. So he is entitled to the protection of the school.

As an aside, I feel that the administration is missing the boat on using Matthew and this entire controversy as an example of how to open your mind and consider antithetical opinions, as well as the importance of advocacy and debate. The sounds coming out of his mouth are merely words. Hear them - they won't hurt you. If you don't agree with them - it's okay. You can tell Matthew you don't agree with him and the sun will still come up tomorrow. If you agree with them, it's okay, no matter how young or old we are we're still entitled to reconsider our beliefs and opinions - it's how we grow as people. I think that a lot of students could benefit from understanding the ebb and flow of advocacy and debate, and it would certainly make them better prepared for their future endeavors. Instead, he is being stigmatized socially, and held out in a way as a "boat rocker" and a cautionary tale. This is a great opportunity lost.

Secondly, the administration must protect the hundreds of other students not named Matthew LaClair. All of this controversy cannot be creating a positive learning environment within the school. There are many bright, articulate students who may just not care enough about this debate to engage in it and, instead, save their efforts for other issues and concerns. All students should be allowed to pursue their education within the mandated curriculum without distraction. Finding a quick resolution to this matter from this point forward would be in the best interest of all students.

Lastly, let's not throw Principal Somma, nor Mr. P under the bus. This is the Principal's first year - and this issue is clearly a lodestone of controversy. Let him handle it and grow as an administrator while understanding that there may or may not be mistakes along the way. Also, it appears that no previous student has made a formal complaint about Mr. P prior to Matthew (please correct me if I am wrong). Accordingly, the School Board, the Superintendent and the entire administration should (a) establish a set of principles and guidelines to follow, ( communicate the principles and guidelines to ALL students, parents and faculty, © train the teaching staff in same, and (d) monitor compliance. But to terminate a teacher and, thus, terminate his and his family's livelihood for engaging in what he clearly believed was free speech (whether or not the belief was reasonable), seems excessive and is personally violative of my opinion that we are all entitled to a second chance.

Sorry for the run on, and the clearly very personal opinions, but as a parent myself, I'd hate to see my son dealing with the abuse that Matthew is receiving (self-inflicted or not). But, also as a parent, I would hate to have the livelihood of my family terminated for a first time breach without any opportunity to cure. All parties involved (including the students who are not at the center of the controversy) should be afforded some care and consideration at this point.

And now that we've all huffed and puffed, it's time to rebuild the house.

[Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo]

Y'know, at the end of the day, we really have two groups posting here ... the atheists who say "you can't prove there is a God, so there isn't one", and the religious who say "I don't need proof to believe so you shouldn't either".  To me, it sounds a lot like two fleas fighting over who owns the dog.

I think the digression into faith and religion has truly obfuscated the real issues that have drawn most of us to the forum - to the detriment of the debate.  And, while we digress into hypothetical arguments which are unlikely to be proven or disproven in 1,000 lifetimes, a high school kid who felt that his teacher was violating the Constitution and reported it is still being harrassed and, essentially, is having his youth destroyed.  I have a big problem with that.  Also, a respected teacher with a long period of service to the school who, at a minimum, made some questionable comments, or, at worst, violated the Constitution in a classroom is having his family's livelihood threatened.  I also have a big problem with that.

This whole ordeal needs to be dialed down a notch.  If I had to lay out some steps, I would suggest that first and foremost, the administration must protect the student.  Matthew is a BOY.  He is a very intelligent and mature boy, but he is not yet a man, no matter how you slice it.  So he is entitled to the protection of the school.

As an aside, I feel that the administration is missing the boat on using Matthew and this entire controversy as an example of how to open your mind and consider antithetical opinions, as well as the importance of advocacy and debate.  The sounds coming out of his mouth are merely words.  Hear them - they won't hurt you.  If you don't agree with them - it's okay.  You can tell Matthew you don't agree with him and the sun will still come up tomorrow.  If you agree with them, it's okay, no matter how young or old we are we're still entitled to reconsider our beliefs and opinions - it's how we grow as people.  I think that a lot of students could benefit from understanding the ebb and flow of advocacy and debate, and it would certainly make them better prepared for their future endeavors.  Instead, he is being stigmatized socially, and held out in a way as a "boat rocker" and a cautionary tale.  This is a great opportunity lost.

Secondly, the administration must protect the hundreds of other students not named Matthew LaClair.  All of this controversy cannot be creating a positive learning environment within the school.  There are many bright, articulate students who may just not care enough about this debate to engage in it and, instead, save their efforts for other issues and concerns.  All students should be allowed to pursue their education within the mandated curriculum without distraction.  Finding a quick resolution to this matter from this point forward would be in the best interest of all students.

Lastly, let's not throw Principal Somma, nor Mr. P under the bus.  This is the Principal's first year - and this issue is clearly a lodestone of controversy.  Let him handle it and grow as an administrator while understanding that there may or may not be mistakes along the way.  Also, it appears that no previous student has made a formal complaint about Mr. P prior to Matthew (please correct me if I am wrong).  Accordingly, the School Board, the Superintendent and the entire administration should (a) establish a set of principles and guidelines to follow, ( communicate the principles and guidelines to ALL students, parents and faculty, © train the teaching staff in same, and (d) monitor compliance.  But to terminate a teacher and, thus, terminate his and his family's livelihood for engaging in what he clearly believed was free speech (whether or not the belief was reasonable), seems excessive and is personally violative of my opinion that we are all entitled to a second chance.

Sorry for the run on, and the clearly very personal opinions, but as a parent myself, I'd hate to see my son dealing with the abuse that Matthew is receiving (self-inflicted or not).  But, also as a parent, I would hate to have the livelihood of my family terminated for a first time breach without any opportunity to cure.  All parties involved (including the students who are not at the center of the controversy) should be afforded some care and consideration at this point. 

And now that we've all huffed and puffed, it's time to rebuild the house.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you for this wonderful example rational thought.

[Guest Paul]

ok fella 1st yes or no? then you and paul are wrong ! yes wrong! the constitution is for freedom "of" NOT "from ! its s/p s/h groups that want to redefine the constitution,not the "church" so try if you will' but reread the history book then see what the truth is.   in fact the judao christian ethec is all about FREEDOM! and makeing life better for man.   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So is the Humanist ethic, and the Buddhist ethic: about making life better for man. Both are religions without a god. In fact, the Humanist ethic is about that exclusively. The Humanist's objection to theism is that theism distracts people from that central purpose of life. This is even supported biblically: no one can serve two masters, and as we see over and over from theistic extremists, their (your) literal beliefs often put them at odds with their commitment to love and support their brothers and sisters. There is no other way to explain the viciousness that we have been reading on these pages (or the anger in your post), almost exclusively from the radical religious right.

It is you who is just wrong. The history behind the First Amendment is that many of our early settlers had fled religious oppression in Europe. We can't be free to practice our own religions --- theistic or non-theistic --- unless we are free from oppression by other religions. In history, this is no small concern. Billions of people have suffered under the thumb of someone else's religion. So the First Amendment is very much about freedom from religion.

[Guest Paul]

Y'know, at the end of the day, we really have two groups posting here ... the atheists who say "you can't prove there is a God, so there isn't one", and the religious who say "I don't need proof to believe so you shouldn't either".  To me, it sounds a lot like two fleas fighting over who owns the dog.

I think the digression into faith and religion has truly obfuscated the real issues that have drawn most of us to the forum - to the detriment of the debate.  And, while we digress into hypothetical arguments which are unlikely to be proven or disproven in 1,000 lifetimes, a high school kid who felt that his teacher was violating the Constitution and reported it is still being harrassed and, essentially, is having his youth destroyed.  I have a big problem with that.  Also, a respected teacher with a long period of service to the school who, at a minimum, made some questionable comments, or, at worst, violated the Constitution in a classroom is having his family's livelihood threatened.  I also have a big problem with that.

This whole ordeal needs to be dialed down a notch.  If I had to lay out some steps, I would suggest that first and foremost, the administration must protect the student.  Matthew is a BOY.  He is a very intelligent and mature boy, but he is not yet a man, no matter how you slice it.  So he is entitled to the protection of the school.

As an aside, I feel that the administration is missing the boat on using Matthew and this entire controversy as an example of how to open your mind and consider antithetical opinions, as well as the importance of advocacy and debate.  The sounds coming out of his mouth are merely words.  Hear them - they won't hurt you.  If you don't agree with them - it's okay.  You can tell Matthew you don't agree with him and the sun will still come up tomorrow.  If you agree with them, it's okay, no matter how young or old we are we're still entitled to reconsider our beliefs and opinions - it's how we grow as people.  I think that a lot of students could benefit from understanding the ebb and flow of advocacy and debate, and it would certainly make them better prepared for their future endeavors.  Instead, he is being stigmatized socially, and held out in a way as a "boat rocker" and a cautionary tale.  This is a great opportunity lost.

Secondly, the administration must protect the hundreds of other students not named Matthew LaClair.  All of this controversy cannot be creating a positive learning environment within the school.  There are many bright, articulate students who may just not care enough about this debate to engage in it and, instead, save their efforts for other issues and concerns.  All students should be allowed to pursue their education within the mandated curriculum without distraction.  Finding a quick resolution to this matter from this point forward would be in the best interest of all students.

Lastly, let's not throw Principal Somma, nor Mr. P under the bus.  This is the Principal's first year - and this issue is clearly a lodestone of controversy.  Let him handle it and grow as an administrator while understanding that there may or may not be mistakes along the way.  Also, it appears that no previous student has made a formal complaint about Mr. P prior to Matthew (please correct me if I am wrong).  Accordingly, the School Board, the Superintendent and the entire administration should (a) establish a set of principles and guidelines to follow, ( communicate the principles and guidelines to ALL students, parents and faculty, © train the teaching staff in same, and (d) monitor compliance.  But to terminate a teacher and, thus, terminate his and his family's livelihood for engaging in what he clearly believed was free speech (whether or not the belief was reasonable), seems excessive and is personally violative of my opinion that we are all entitled to a second chance.

Sorry for the run on, and the clearly very personal opinions, but as a parent myself, I'd hate to see my son dealing with the abuse that Matthew is receiving (self-inflicted or not).  But, also as a parent, I would hate to have the livelihood of my family terminated for a first time breach without any opportunity to cure.  All parties involved (including the students who are not at the center of the controversy) should be afforded some care and consideration at this point. 

And now that we've all huffed and puffed, it's time to rebuild the house.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you, and congratulations for such an excellent post.

My main point of disagreement with your post, and the only one I'll raise here: Mr. Paszkiewicz has a responsibility here, which I don't see you acknowledging. As Edna Davie wrote in a letter to the Observer, he has to make a choice. If he wishes to teach in a public school, he must conform to the law and the rules. He can hardly do that with his private attorney telling him he has the right to preach in class, especially when he wishes that to his core. The law gives little latitude to excuses based on deeply held beliefs. The law is the law, and citizens must follow it or suffer the consequences. We would be going much easier on him had he shown some humility, but in fact he has shown the exact opposite. In his first public letter he misquoted historic figures and completely distorted their views on church-state separation, all in an attempt to justify his misconduct. In his second letter, he seems oblivious to his own words. This is very troubling, and I do think he has an obligation to the public at least to acknowledge that he crossed the legal line. It is very hard to move on when the person responsible for a national news story of this kind has shown absolutely no contrition or even humility. After all, if he did nothing wrong, then what behavior is it that Board President McDonald says has not been repeated? He has a public reponsibility as a teacher in a public school; he cannot have it both ways. If this doesn't make sense to you, please tell me why. From the content and tone of your post, I would value your opinion.

Finally, if you live in Kearny, I wonder whether you would consider running for the Board of Education. The filing deadline is only about a week away. The Board could use someone of your obvious intelligence and depth.