School Board takes new Steps

[Strife767]

ok fella 1st yes or no?

What?

then you and paul are wrong ! yes wrong!

Oh, now I understand...wait, no I don't. What are you blabbering about?

the constitution is for freedom "of" NOT "from !

The Consitution grants freedom up to but not including the point where it infringes on the rights of others. Parents and children have the right to have public schools that are religiously neutral, and Paszkiewicz crossed that line, big time.

its s/p s/h groups that want to redefine the constitution,

"s/p s/h"?

not the "church" so try if you will' but reread the history book then see what the truth is.

If you think that freedom of speech extends to infringing on the rights of others, then all I can do is laugh, and then invite you to take that to court so that I can laugh at you some more.

  in fact the judao christian ethec is all about FREEDOM!

Oh yes, I know. "You are free to believe what we do, or you are free to suffer for eternity in hell." No thank you--I'm not interested in that kind of "freedom."

and makeing life better for man.   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Students' lives are not made better by them being lied to.

[Strife767]

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",

Not quite. Okay, listen: if there is no proof of something, then its existence should not be assumed. Very few atheists actually say "there is/are no god(s)." But all atheists agree that it makes no sense to believe in a god for which there exists no evidence. "I do not believe" is different from "I believe there is no." Atheists do not believe in a god for the same reason they do not believe in fairies.

and the religious who say "I don't need proof to believe so you shouldn't either".

Believe me, I wish more theists would put it that way. Many of them seem more likely to say "I have proof, you just don't see/realize/have enough faith to understand it," which is condescending and arrogant. Sadly, no apologist of Mr. P.'s on this forum has ever stated what you just said above. They've all said variations of what I just 'quoted' instead. And that is uncalled for.

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, for one, am putting my voice out for him. I haven't lost sight of the real issue amidst the arguments you're talking about. I can't speak for anyone else, though.

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.

You make it sound as if Mr. Paszkiewicz is a victim of the latter. He isn't--he brought the scandal upon himself for his actions. He put his own livelihood in danger by acting the way he did. That is no one's fault but his own--would you really blame the person(s) who took him to task for what he did for this?

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.

Sounds good to me. Of course, it might turn out that the administration will have to literally be forced to do what it should before any real corrective action will be taken.

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.

Exactly! I agree wholeheartedly.

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.

Agreed as well.

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).

I believe you're right--although apparently many former students of his who read about this issue expressed familiarity with Mr. P.'s 'methods,' sadly. But I do understand that it's hard to stand up to your teacher like that, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if that, and only that, was the reason no one's said anything up to this point.

Accordingly, the School Board, the Superintendent and the entire administration should (a) establish a set of principles and guidelines to follow, (b ) communicate the principles and guidelines to ALL students, parents and faculty, (c ) 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.

But there is something else you apparently did not consider here. A second chance is one thing, but after he was called on his actions, the fact is that he showed zero remorse for them. Instead, he went into this tirade that displayed not only an unwillingness to accept that he did anything wrong, but a gross incompetence of US history (the subject he teaches!), the foundation of this country and its Constitution, even going so far as misquoting at least one 'founding father.' Is someone with an attitude like that (and such a loose grasp on his subject) someone who deserves another 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.

But Paszkiewicz had plenty of opportunity to "cure," to right what was wrong, even if only to merely apologize. But he spat on those opportunities, and used them to go on self-righteous rants laced with factual errors and logical fallacy.

[Guest bewildered]

     

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. 

     

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The daily quota of milk was set by the American Dairy Council to boost sales.

[Guest bewildered]

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}>

What the hell are you trying to say? I suspect you are another example of a KHS graduate.

This is what the Bill of Rights says about religion:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

No mention of freedom of or freedom from religion.

What are s/p s/h groups?

Groups like the ACLU cannot make laws or make decisions about what is constitutional or not. The lawmakers and courts do that. It's their job.

I hope you are not referring to David Barton's distortion of history.

What is the judeo-christian ethic? Are these the same people that approved of slavery for more than 4,000 years.

Freedom and making life better for people is a product of the Enlightenment, not judeo-christians.

[Guest Guest]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I appreciate the compliments, Paul. I no longer live in Kearny, but have strong economic and familial ties to the area (which keeps me posting as a Guest for their benefit). However, as a non-resident, I am not able to run for the Board.

As for Dave, I think someone, somewhere in the administration has to either advise him that his conduct is not appropriate in the classroom (and document same), or draft a set of policies proscribing the conduct, and provide him with same. If the administration fails to do either, then any of Dave's transgressions rest squarely on the shoulders of the administration. Conversely, if they provide documented admonishments and/or formal policy, and he preaches in violation thereof, he needs to be terminated as he will have had his second chance at that point and will have wasted it. But until that happens, he's still working on his first chance - does that make sense?

I am a Christian. I have known Dave for some time (although it has been some time since we have been "friends"), and I really do like him (or, shall I say, when I did know him I did like him). But I really wouldn't want Dave or anyone else discussing religious beliefs with my children in school. Religion, spirituality or whatever you want to call it is personal to me and my family. And if I truly believe that Dave is one who should be talking to my kids about it, I'll be happy to visit his church on Sunday to discuss it (or otherwise invite him into my home to minister to my family). Otherwise, I don't want anyone - as well intentioned as they may be - discussing religion in any capacity beyond the factual accounts prescribed by the state-mandated curriculum.

My current disappointment actually rests with Dave. I know that he's being attacked and honestly, if I was to be in Dave's shoes right now, I'd be feeling awfully defensive. But if Dave's religious beliefs and commitment to education are as strong as I remember them to be, I would have hoped that he would have stepped forward, discussed his disagreement with Matthew regarding the Constitutionality of his comments openly, and set a shining example for all on how to resolve a difference of opinion ... even if you are ultimately on the wrong side of the argument.

But, I'm not naive, and I know that he is getting pressure from the administration and otherwise receiving legal counsel in this matter. I just doesn't seem to be very competent counsel (although I guess you can't argue with the fact that he still has his job on the other end of this controversy).

I also think that if Dave truly believes that he should be able to share his religious opinions and beliefs in the classroom, he should become an advocate for his cause. There appears to be a large number of individuals who agree with him, and he should take up arms with them and create some sort of foundation that pushes for his beliefs. At such time, these matters can be resolved in open debate exactly where they belong ... outside of the classroom.

[Guest Guest]

What?

The Consitution grants freedom up to but not including the point where it infringes on the rights of others.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is C-O-N-S-T-I-T-U-T-I-O-N!

[Guest Guest]

You make it sound as if Mr. Paszkiewicz is a victim of the latter. He isn't--he brought the scandal upon himself for his actions. He put his own livelihood in danger by acting the way he did. That is no one's fault but his own--would you really blame the person(s) who took him to task for what he did for this?

But there is something else you apparently did not consider here. A second chance is one thing, but after he was called on his actions, the fact is that he showed zero remorse for them. Instead, he went into this tirade that displayed not only an unwillingness to accept that he did anything wrong, but a gross incompetence of US history (the subject he teaches!), the foundation of this country and its Constitution, even going so far as misquoting at least one 'founding father.' Is someone with an attitude like that (and such a loose grasp on his subject) someone who deserves another chance?

But Paszkiewicz had plenty of opportunity to "cure," to right what was wrong, even if only to merely apologize. But he spat on those opportunities, and used them to go on self-righteous rants laced with factual errors and logical fallacy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Strife, you have been one of Matthew's most enthusiastic supporters for some time now, and I thank you for that. Both you and Paul have made me rethink my positions - some changed, most did not - but I'm the better person for it.

You have also been one of Dave's most fervent critics, and I also thank you for that. Again, I've rethought positions, changed a few, and I'm the better person for it.

I suppose that we will just have to agree to disagree when it comes to Dave (which it seems that you are a poster who is capable of such rational conclusion). This is not to say that I believe that Dave is above reproach in this matter. I just think that the administration has failed him to date by not giving him the appropriate guidelines of conduct.

Now, if he HAS been given appropriate guidelines and he has gone beyond them - then I would agree that his position should be in jeopardy and his termination a foregone conclusion if he were to violate the rules again. However, if his conduct has NOT gone beyond the guidelines of conduct issued by the administration, then I would think that this matter is between the LaClair family and the administration, not Dave.

In any event, all I can say is that - as a person supporting a family - that I would prefer to err on the side of caution when dealing with a family's livelihood. I would suggest that Paul would agree with me - as he initially was very reluctant to call for Dave's dismissal. I don't know whether after all that's transpired he maintains the same position, but at least at first he shared this view.

Lastly, while I am of the strong opinion that everyone but child molesters deserve a second chance, I am also of the stronger opinion that third chances should not be granted under any circumstances. No one is entitled to be a teacher, lawyer or professional pole vaulter for that matter. We earn our right to our positions with eternal vigilence. Sometimes, a stumble prevents a fall. But once you have proven your inability to keep your feet, it is time to tread on a different surface.

[Guest Guest]

I appreciate the compliments, Paul.  I no longer live in Kearny, but have strong economic and familial ties to the area (which keeps me posting as a Guest for their benefit).  However, as a non-resident, I am not able to run for the Board. 

As for Dave, I think someone, somewhere in the administration has to either advise him that his conduct is not appropriate in the classroom (and document same), or draft a set of policies proscribing the conduct, and provide him with same.  If the administration fails to do either, then any of Dave's transgressions rest squarely on the shoulders of the administration.  Conversely, if they provide documented admonishments and/or formal policy, and he preaches in violation thereof, he needs to be terminated as he will have had his second chance at that point and will have wasted it.  But until that happens, he's still working on his first chance - does that make sense?

I am a Christian.  I have known Dave for some time (although it has been some time since we have been "friends"), and I really do like him (or, shall I say, when I did know him I did like him).  But I really wouldn't want Dave or anyone else discussing religious beliefs with my children in school.  Religion, spirituality or whatever you want to call it is personal to me and my family.  And if I truly believe that Dave is one who should be talking to my kids about it, I'll be happy to visit his church on Sunday to discuss it (or otherwise invite him into my home to minister to my family).  Otherwise, I don't want anyone - as well intentioned as they may be - discussing religion in any capacity beyond the factual accounts prescribed by the state-mandated curriculum.

My current disappointment actually rests with Dave.  I know that he's being attacked and honestly, if I was to be in Dave's shoes right now, I'd be feeling awfully defensive.  But if Dave's religious beliefs and commitment to education are as strong as I remember them to be, I would have hoped that he would have stepped forward, discussed his disagreement with Matthew regarding the Constitutionality of his comments openly, and set a shining example for all on how to resolve a difference of opinion ... even if you are ultimately on the wrong side of the argument.

But, I'm not naive, and I know that he is getting pressure from the administration and otherwise receiving legal counsel in this matter.  I just doesn't seem to be very competent counsel (although I guess you can't argue with the fact that he still has his job on the other end of this controversy).

I also think that if Dave truly believes that he should be able to share his religious opinions and beliefs in the classroom, he should become an advocate for his cause.  There appears to be a large number of individuals who agree with him, and he should take up arms with them and create some sort of foundation that pushes for his beliefs.  At such time, these matters can be resolved in open debate exactly where they belong ... outside of the classroom.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How did you hear about this issue concerning your "friend" DAVE?

Did you read the newspapers? Hear it on TV? See it on this site or did you actually call your so called "friend" and get his side of the story? Did you relly on one side information? Because you have not heard the other side, how can you come to this conclusion? I would recommend you try reaching your "friend" and speak to him first. That would be the fair thing to do instead of getting the information from the person that has a vested interest in spreading false information for his own benefit. You are quick to judge Dave, yet his account has not appeared in print, at least i haven't found it. What I have seen though are the angry railings of Paul in the papers. His letter to the Observer last week was shameful. He called the teacher a liar, hypocrit, bully and intimidator. Does this describe the friend that you knew?

[Strife767]

It is C-O-N-S-T-I-T-U-T-I-O-N!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It was a typo. Get over it--I've spelled the word correctly a myriad other times in my posts.

[Guest Paul]

I appreciate the compliments, Paul.  I no longer live in Kearny, but have strong economic and familial ties to the area (which keeps me posting as a Guest for their benefit).  However, as a non-resident, I am not able to run for the Board. 

As for Dave, I think someone, somewhere in the administration has to either advise him that his conduct is not appropriate in the classroom (and document same), or draft a set of policies proscribing the conduct, and provide him with same.  If the administration fails to do either, then any of Dave's transgressions rest squarely on the shoulders of the administration.  Conversely, if they provide documented admonishments and/or formal policy, and he preaches in violation thereof, he needs to be terminated as he will have had his second chance at that point and will have wasted it.  But until that happens, he's still working on his first chance - does that make sense?

I am a Christian.  I have known Dave for some time (although it has been some time since we have been "friends"), and I really do like him (or, shall I say, when I did know him I did like him).  But I really wouldn't want Dave or anyone else discussing religious beliefs with my children in school.  Religion, spirituality or whatever you want to call it is personal to me and my family.  And if I truly believe that Dave is one who should be talking to my kids about it, I'll be happy to visit his church on Sunday to discuss it (or otherwise invite him into my home to minister to my family).  Otherwise, I don't want anyone - as well intentioned as they may be - discussing religion in any capacity beyond the factual accounts prescribed by the state-mandated curriculum.

My current disappointment actually rests with Dave.  I know that he's being attacked and honestly, if I was to be in Dave's shoes right now, I'd be feeling awfully defensive.  But if Dave's religious beliefs and commitment to education are as strong as I remember them to be, I would have hoped that he would have stepped forward, discussed his disagreement with Matthew regarding the Constitutionality of his comments openly, and set a shining example for all on how to resolve a difference of opinion ... even if you are ultimately on the wrong side of the argument.

But, I'm not naive, and I know that he is getting pressure from the administration and otherwise receiving legal counsel in this matter.  I just doesn't seem to be very competent counsel (although I guess you can't argue with the fact that he still has his job on the other end of this controversy).

I also think that if Dave truly believes that he should be able to share his religious opinions and beliefs in the classroom, he should become an advocate for his cause.  There appears to be a large number of individuals who agree with him, and he should take up arms with them and create some sort of foundation that pushes for his beliefs.  At such time, these matters can be resolved in open debate exactly where they belong ... outside of the classroom.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Again, all excellent points. I'm sorry you're not still in town.

[Guest Paul]

Strife, you have been one of Matthew's most enthusiastic supporters for some time now, and I thank you for that.  Both you and Paul have made me rethink my positions - some changed, most did not - but I'm the better person for it.

You have also been one of Dave's most fervent critics, and I also thank you for that.  Again, I've rethought positions, changed a few, and I'm the better person for it. 

I suppose that we will just have to agree to disagree when it comes to Dave (which it seems that you are a poster who is capable of such rational conclusion).  This is not to say that I believe that Dave is above reproach in this matter.  I just think that the administration has failed him to date by not giving him the appropriate guidelines of conduct. 

Now, if he HAS been given appropriate guidelines and he has gone beyond them - then I would agree that his position should be in jeopardy and his termination a foregone conclusion if he were to violate the rules again.  However, if his conduct has NOT gone beyond the guidelines of conduct issued by the administration, then I would think that this matter is between the LaClair family and the administration, not Dave.

In any event, all I can say is that - as a person supporting a family - that I would prefer to err on the side of caution when dealing with a family's livelihood.  I would suggest that Paul would agree with me - as he initially was very reluctant to call for Dave's dismissal.  I don't know whether after all that's transpired he maintains the same position, but at least at first he shared this view.

Lastly, while I am of the strong opinion that everyone but child molesters deserve a second chance, I am also of the stronger opinion that third chances should not be granted under any circumstances.  No one is entitled to be a teacher, lawyer or professional pole vaulter for that matter.  We earn our right to our positions with eternal vigilence.  Sometimes, a stumble prevents a fall.  But once you have proven your inability to keep your feet, it is time to tread on a different surface.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Another excellent post. I do agree that Mr. Paszkiewicz should be allowed a second chance. However, I am very disappointed that he has used his second chance to persist in a position that is contrary to his responsibilities as a public school teacher, and in addition to that has failed to speak out in defense of his (now former) student, who is being harassed in his name.

I do not know Mr. Paszkiewicz personally, but respectfully suggest that the picture you see as someone with whom he can agree, apparently, on certain matters is very different than the picture we and others have seen as persons with whom he cannot agree on these matters. That disparity is very troubling.

[Guest Paul]

What I have seen though are the angry railings of Paul in the papers.  His letter to the Observer last week was shameful.  He called the teacher a liar, hypocrit, bully and intimidator. Does this describe the friend that you knew?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It may not describe the writer's friend as he knows him, but my letter does describe Mr. Paszkiewicz's conduct in this case. I stand by every word of it, and suggest you keep your eyes on the news in the next few days. Having practiced law for nearly thirty years, I do not make such statements without an air-tight foundation.

[Guest Guest]

Another excellent post. I do agree that Mr. Paszkiewicz should be allowed a second chance. However, I am very disappointed that he has used his second chance to persist in a position that is contrary to his responsibilities as a public school teacher, and in addition to that has failed to speak out in defense of his (now former) student, who is being harassed in his name.

I do not know Mr. Paszkiewicz personally, but respectfully suggest that the picture you see as someone with whom he can agree, apparently, on certain matters is very different than the picture we and others have seen as persons with whom he cannot agree on these matters. That disparity is very troubling.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paszkiewicz has no abligation to defnd your son. His job is to teach and not to be walking around as Matthew's body guard. If your son is going through this, it is his fault and yours! What did you expect Mr. P to say about Matthew...

Mr. P going to CNN

"People, please don't do anything to Matthew. He didn't do anything wrong. He is such a good kid. It not the first time that he tries to get a teacher fired, but it is okay, he is only a child. He doesn't know what his doing. When you see Matthew, give him a hug and a kiss because he really needs it!" Wake up Paul!

[an American in Texas]

Yet Another Unidentifiable Guest (YAUG): "Paszkiewicz has no abligation to defnd your son."

You are mistaken. Every teacher has an obligation to stop bullying. Or so says the Austin Independent School District, which has a clear policy on this matter. Perhaps Kearny has no policy, as they in the past had no policy on religious proselytizing in the classroom.

YAUG: "His job is to teach and not to be walking around as Matthew's body guard."

Indeed. If he had taken his role more seriously, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Unfortunately, he was more interested in teaching religion than history.

YAUG: "If your son is going through this, it is his fault and yours!"

Again, you are mistaken. Shall we declare this an official "Blame the victim" day? Paul and Matthew stood up for a principle worth defending. The teacher was clearly at fault.

YAUG: "What did you expect Mr. P to say about Matthew..."

How about this: As a Christian and as a teacher, I will not tolerate threats of violence from those who claim to be defending me. While I disagree with Matthew's view of the discussions I held in my classroom, I do respect his right to defend his view without harassment and bullying.

Leigh Willliams

Austin, Texas

[Guest Paul]

Paszkiewicz has no abligation to defnd your son. His job is to teach and not to be walking around as Matthew's body guard. If your son is going through this, it is his fault and yours!  What did you expect Mr. P to say about Matthew...

Mr. P going to CNN

"People,  please don't do anything to Matthew. He didn't do anything wrong. He is such a good kid. It not the first time that he tries to get a teacher fired, but it is okay, he is only a child. He doesn't know what his doing. When you see Matthew, give him a hug and a kiss because he really needs it!"    Wake up Paul!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Anyone who truly understands Jesus' teachings would know the answer to your question. Mr. Paszkiewicz should say "I will not have this young man attacked in my name."

[Stixx3969]

I have yet to hear, after reading numerous threads and seeing the question posed many,many times. I have yet to hear an answer.

To all those that support Mr. P and say that he did nothing wrong, what if it had been any religion other than Christianity?

This is one of the problems that I have with Christians. Not Christianity, but Christians.

Damn the evidence, we are ALWAYS right!

Whatever............

[Strife767]

Paszkiewicz has no abligation to defnd your son. His job is to teach

And yet he seems to prefer talking about his dogma and anti-science politics than teaching. Go figure.

[Bryan]

Anyone who truly understands Jesus' teachings would know the answer to your question. Mr. Paszkiewicz should say "I will not have this young man attacked in my name."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's pretty funny you should say that while you're attacking Paszkiewicz in your own name.

So, you understand Jesus' teachings, then?

[Guest Paul]

I have yet to hear, after reading numerous threads and seeing the question posed many,many times. I have yet to hear an answer.

To all those that support Mr. P and say that he did nothing wrong, what if it had been any religion other than Christianity?

This is one of the problems that I have with Christians. Not Christianity, but Christians.

Damn the evidence, we are ALWAYS right!

Whatever............

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That can happen when people are taught to think things are true because they wish them to be.

[Guest Paul]

It's pretty funny you should say that while you're attacking Paszkiewicz in your own name.

So, you understand Jesus' teachings, then? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm speaking the truth. The fact that it isn't pretty doesn't change it.

[Guest Guest]

How did you hear about this issue concerning your "friend" DAVE?

Did you read the newspapers? Hear it on TV? See it on this site or did you actually call your so called "friend" and get his side of the story? Did you relly on one side information? Because you have not heard the other side, how can you come to this conclusion? I would recommend you try reaching your "friend" and speak to him first. That would be the fair thing to do instead of getting the information from the person that has a vested interest in spreading false information for his own benefit. You are quick to judge Dave, yet his account has not appeared in print, at least i haven't found it.  What I have seen though are the angry railings of Paul in the papers.  His letter to the Observer last week was shameful.  He called the teacher a liar, hypocrit, bully and intimidator. Does this describe the friend that you knew?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, other than the recordings (which I have reviewed) I have NOT spoken with Dave. I have had much dialogue through this forum with Paul and, as Paul will note, we have certainly not agreed on everything. I have also taken great pains in my posts (which may be overlooked by the untrained eye) to note that I have not heard Dave's side and, as such, I am unwilling to formulate a conclusion on the matter.

That being said, from what I heard on the tapes, I disagree with what Dave discussed in the class. My position is - and has always been - that I think the subject matter went beyond acceptable bounds. That does NOT however, mean that I think he should be terminated. If anything, I think that the administration should take the appropriate steps to outline the rules of conduct for Dave and the rest of the faculty. Thereafter, if he knowing exceeds those bounds, then the administration has to consider more serious disciplinary action. I have also made other suggestions to improve the situation.

So, maybe you should not be so quick to judge whether I am judging my "friend". My support for Dave does not mean that I have to agree with him in all instances. This is one of those instances.

I also think that a Christian can state that - although you believe in the Christian tenents that Dave discussed in the classroom (although the full degree of which may be of some debate) - you can feel that the classroom was not an appropriate forum for a discussion of such beliefs. That's all - it doesn't have to mean that I think Dave's an evil-doer or an otherwise bad guy. To the contrary, assuming he is still woven of the same moral fiber from his youth, I think that Dave is an outstanding individual.

As for Paul, well, he's much closer to the situation and has a lot more riding on it than I do. Remember, it's not your child fielding the abuse on a daily basis. So, again, his frustration and opinions are understandable to me. Do I agree with all of them? No. Does he have a right to express them? Yes. Should Dave, the administration, the school board, I, and you give him the floor and seriously consider the points he is making? Well, I think we do an injustice to our forefathers if we fail to do so.

Hope this clears up a few things for you.

[an American in Texas]

Bryan: "It's pretty funny you should say that while you're attacking Paszkiewicz in your own name."

Bryan, the LaClairs called Paszkiewicz on proselytizing in the classroom, a clear violation of the law. It's false and inflammatory to call their well-justified actions an "attack."

Bryan: "So, you understand Jesus' teachings, then? "

Better than you do, obviously.

Leigh Williams

Austin, Texas

[Guest Guest]

Another excellent post. I do agree that Mr. Paszkiewicz should be allowed a second chance. However, I am very disappointed that he has used his second chance to persist in a position that is contrary to his responsibilities as a public school teacher, and in addition to that has failed to speak out in defense of his (now former) student, who is being harassed in his name.

I do not know Mr. Paszkiewicz personally, but respectfully suggest that the picture you see as someone with whom he can agree, apparently, on certain matters is very different than the picture we and others have seen as persons with whom he cannot agree on these matters. That disparity is very troubling.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think that sometimes when we are placed in a controversy - especially one involving high stakes - we retreat internally to our place of comfort and hold steadfast to the beliefs we held when we walked into the breach. I know that I have been guilty of this on more than one occasion. Unfortunately, it's at that exact moment when we should be the most flexible and the most open to alternative solutions.

Maybe it's just because I've been doing a ton of reading lately on the country's forefathers that I see such a rare and unique opportunity to demonstrate the founding principles in this instance. I really hope that Dave sees it because it is an incredible opportunity to show personal greatness to his fellow faculty, students, parishioners and neighbors.

Look, as a bystander I know it's easy for me to stand back and lob suggestions with immunity. I just hope that if a situation like this is ever presented to me, that I would recognize it and take it.

[Guest Dingo Dave]

As for Dave, I think someone, somewhere in the administration has to either advise him that his conduct is not appropriate in the classroom (and document same), or draft a set of policies proscribing the conduct, and provide him with same.  If the administration fails to do either, then any of Dave's transgressions rest squarely on the shoulders of the administration.  Conversely, if they provide documented admonishments and/or formal policy, and he preaches in violation thereof, he needs to be terminated as he will have had his second chance at that point and will have wasted it.  But until that happens, he's still working on his first chance - does that make sense?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If what Mattew said in the recorded meeting with the principle and David P. is accurate, then the class recordings were made after David had already been reprimanded by the school authorities and instructed not to preach.

At the end of the meeting, when Mattew was handing out the CDs, David asked him whether they were recorded before or after his reprimand. Mattew replied that the class recordings had been made after David had been instructed to stop preaching by the school authorities.

If this is indeed the case, then by that stage, David P. had already used up his second chance.

[Bryan]

Bryan:  "It's pretty funny you should say that while you're attacking Paszkiewicz in your own name."

Bryan, the LaClairs called Paszkiewicz on proselytizing in the classroom, a clear violation of the law.  It's false and inflammatory to call their well-justified actions an "attack."

I'm referring to Mr. LaClair's recent technique of attacking Mr. Paszkiewicz character with statements posted publicly and to KOTW.

Those are attacks regardless of whether you think they were justified

Bryan:  "So, you understand Jesus' teachings, then?  "

Better than you do, obviously.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are very funny!

You've put together an altogether impressive string of stinging debate losses yet you continue on as though you believe you're undefeated and untied.

Betcha Strife never accuses you of offering a semantic argument, above.