Jump to content

Observer, the 2007-07-03 letter about Mr. P.


Strife767

Recommended Posts

What amazes you is the fact that you really do believe that his apology would have done anything. Even if as you persuaded your son to try to get the burn in hell thing started and even if Mr. P did apologize, you still would have harassed him about the dinosaur thing or the next thing or the next. This was not just the face that you wanted an apology. It was that you wanted a reputation and now you have now. And the fact that you do not hear others backing you is because the backers are just a limited few here.

So are you going to go to the streets now, parading down Kearny Ave stirring up trouble?  The people of this town know the character of this man and he is a good man who does not deserve your intimidation. 

If you want support you are not going to get it from anyone in this town. Oh maybe one who cannot help but comment as you deputy against Mr. P.

How hypocritical you are in one post you say that you are praying for brotherhood and in the next post you want all those people to rise up against a man.

1. An apology was the right thing to do. As for his reputation, only he can damage that.

2. A person's character has many facets. A person may exhibit fine character in one setting but not in others. At issue here are the teacher's actions surrounding this matter. Those actions do not paint a flattering picture. As to the broader question of character, I try not to make judgments like that because I do not believe in judging a person wholesale. I believe that is the spiritual meaning of Jesus' injunction against judging others. However, on that subject, in this instance opinions appear to be sharply divided.

3. We have plenty of support in this town. Just because the radical right shouts the loudest doesn't mean that it holds the majority, or that its views will prevail. Of course, that won't stop the right from declaring itself the victor regardless of the evidence --- that's just par for the course.

4. I don't want anyone to "rise up" against Mr. Paszkiewicz or anyone else. However, I am shocked that people whose religious views and prerogatives have been swept under the rug do not appear to be upset about it. Brotherhood is not inconsistent with making amends, and failure to make those amends does not bode well for this teacher's future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There are numerous posts detailing why this sequence of events occurred. Must this be rehashed ad infinitum?

:blink:

In the minds of those who don't like the outcome, it must be rehashed until it produces a different outcome: the one they want. So yes, it must be rehashed ad infinitum, because they're never going to get a different outcome. It is what it is, they don't like it, and they won't accept it. So they insist on re-playing the argument from the beginning hoping it will eventually come out differently. They don't learn anything because they're not interested in the truth; they're only interested in having their beliefs confirmed. If you look closely at the mode of thought in religious fundamentalism and in the authoritarian personality, you'll see that dynamic very clearly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
So please tell me where the honesty is of secretly taping a teacher and then not even having the guts enough to approach him on it, but instead go directly to his boss. 

You do not deserve that right to shake my hand.  It is reserved for people I respect as a sign of friendship.  Calling the people of this fine town names in a town that I have spent my entire life living in does not make you a friend.

There is no respect of you by myself or any of my friends so look elsewhere. 

In my eyes you have no honesty.

Yeah, if a Jewish teacher said "Jesus was not the Messiah" to your kid in class I'm sure you'd have a the "guts" not to bring his boss into it.

And what part of "But make sure to tell Matthew that Mr. P doesn't **** *****, ** **** ******** ***** ****** ** ** ***** *** ****. ** **** **** ** ***** ******** ****..." don't you understand?

Ah, it must have been too friendly and respectful for this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
What's wrong with wanting him to correct false statements? It was stated from the beginning that Matthew wanted an apology as well as corrections of the erroneous statements.

Only in your twisted imagination.

If he's such a good man, why did he refuse to protect the student of his who was being harassed for doing the right thing?

If he's such a good man, why did he dishonestly twist the words of founding fathers in an attempt to (astonishingly) make it look like he was in the right when it's obvious he wasn't?

If he's such a good man, why did he advocate child abuse in his classroom? I quote:

(emphasis added)

1. This country does not work through mob rule. Neither Paul nor Matthew _needs_ popular support. The Constitution is on their side, and because of that, the only variable is the DEGREE to which Paszkiewicz and the board will lose. And that depends wholly on them. They've been given plenty of chances to fix the issue, but they've ignored them; that's no one's fault but theirs.

2. Support for Paul and Matthew in Kearny is growing (or, at least, the willingness of their supporters to speak up)--did you forget that the Mayor himself is on their side? The letter that started this thread is more evidence. Paszkiewicz has been doing a bad job for a long time, and now it's all catching up to him. Deal with it.

Rise up to force him to be held accountable for what he says and does. That's all--is that such a horrible thing? He is responsible for his preaching, his lies, and so on. I guess you don't realize that.

It doesn't surprise me that you try to skew the truth. Matthew never approached Mr. P for an apology. He went to Mr. Soma and then the media. If this is such my twisted imagination then why do the LaClairs have such little support in town? As you say here Matthew does not have popular vote so therefore most people think what he did was wrong. It's just you and your sick over posting that cannot accept it. You think that if you say it enough times that maybe people will think its true.

And the Mayor is not necessarily on his side. It’s just that he is running scared. And he did mention that Matthew might have had ulterior motives.

Now it is the cries of you and Paul wondering why more people are not rising up against him. As you say above. "Rise up to force him to be held accountable” Sounds like you are calling for an overthrow. The people of this town are too smart.

And there is no mob rule. If there was I am sure something would have been done by now. Instead this is trying to be worked out but you keep stirring the pot and calling for the people to rise up against him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Matthew had no other choice--in case you didn't notice, Paszkiewicz LIED about most of the things he said in class that Matthew recorded! If Matthew hadn't recorded him, Paszkiewicz would have gotten away with his wrongdoing. Sounds like that's what you'd want.

Maybe you should shake your own hand then, o arrogant and self-important "Guest."

Try opening them.

Matthew has a choice. We all have choices. Its just that he was too immature to go the route that an adult would have taken. To approach the teacher.

I have enough people shaking my hands I do not need his. "O arrogant" is that Irish? Maybe for St. Patty's day?

Remember you are a guest here just as much as I am. Because neither of us know who each other and you also hide behind the name of Strife767.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
1. An apology was the right thing to do. As for his reputation, only he can damage that.

2. A person's character has many facets. A person may exhibit fine character in one setting but not in others. At issue here are the teacher's actions surrounding this matter. Those actions do not paint a flattering picture. As to the broader question of character, I try not to make judgments like that because I do not believe in judging a person wholesale. I believe that is the spiritual meaning of Jesus' injunction against judging others. However, on that subject, in this instance opinions appear to be sharply divided.

3. We have plenty of support in this town. Just because the radical right shouts the loudest doesn't mean that it holds the majority, or that its views will prevail. Of course, that won't stop the right from declaring itself the victor regardless of the evidence --- that's just par for the course.

4. I don't want anyone to "rise up" against Mr. Paszkiewicz or anyone else. However, I am shocked that people whose religious views and prerogatives have been swept under the rug do not appear to be upset about it. Brotherhood is not inconsistent with making amends, and failure to make those amends does not bode well for this teacher's future.

Do you honestly believe that if you found out that someone was secretly recording you then using it against you to destroy your reputation and your livelihood that can all be swept under a rug? And there you go again, if he does not make amends as you say then is future as a teacher is in jeopardy? Sounds almost threatening to me.

And you call this teacher dangerous?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. An apology was the right thing to do. As for his reputation, only he can damage that.

2. A person's character has many facets. A person may exhibit fine character in one setting but not in others. At issue here are the teacher's actions surrounding this matter. Those actions do not paint a flattering picture. As to the broader question of character, I try not to make judgments like that because I do not believe in judging a person wholesale. I believe that is the spiritual meaning of Jesus' injunction against judging others. However, on that subject, in this instance opinions appear to be sharply divided.

3. We have plenty of support in this town. Just because the radical right shouts the loudest doesn't mean that it holds the majority, or that its views will prevail. Of course, that won't stop the right from declaring itself the victor regardless of the evidence --- that's just par for the course.

4. I don't want anyone to "rise up" against Mr. Paszkiewicz or anyone else. However, I am shocked that people whose religious views and prerogatives have been swept under the rug do not appear to be upset about it. Brotherhood is not inconsistent with making amends, and failure to make those amends does not bode well for this teacher's future.

3. They're trying to apply the squeaking wheel principle.

4. I'll be somewhat blunter - you mean the Catholics whose dogma of purgatory has been found invalid by Mr. P. or the Muslims who will as Mr. P. states go to hell?

I'm surprised. Do Kearny Catholics and Muslims not being bothered by Mr. P's religious bigotry against their religion indicate a lack of self respect and worth? Or do they have so little religious belief that when someone bashes it its ok?

Are there other religious groups he's insulted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Nanyse
1. An apology was the right thing to do. As for his reputation, only he can damage that.

I would like to introduce myself as someone new these pages. I have seen post criticizing peoples English and therefore I will do my best to be clear with the right grammar. I might agree with you that an apology at that time would have cleared up things with regard to the incorrect statements that this person said in class. As far as teaching as opposed to preaching, I am unsure if that apology was necessary or warranted. Or if his comments toward my religion or other religions were not sincere. I will try to explain that later. I also do not want to break laws but reading the mayors comments it is unclear.

2. A person's character has many facets. A person may exhibit fine character in one setting but not in others. At issue here are the teacher's actions surrounding this matter. Those actions do not paint a flattering picture. As to the broader question of character, I try not to make judgments like that because I do not believe in judging a person wholesale. I believe that is the spiritual meaning of Jesus' injunction against judging others. However, on that subject, in this instance opinions appear to be sharply divided.

Hoping you could help me with answering this question. I have read throughout these many pages that you have sited a number of things that this teacher has done. If you do not believe in judging someone as you say Jesus did, then why are you going after this man? Although he may not have every one of his facts correct, I sincerely believe that he is trying to be a good teacher. If we were all perfect I guess we wouldn’t have any need for a being or creature greater than each of us. I see people everywhere in this country walking not between the lines or tossing rubbish on the streets but I do not see the necessity to condemn them. I am sure it is breaking a law but no one seems to care. Why pick on this teacher over this. There are other public officials I have read stealing, even reading here in some post of child abuse. I just keep wondering why this man?

3. We have plenty of support in this town. Just because the radical right shouts the loudest doesn't mean that it holds the majority, or that its views will prevail. Of course, that won't stop the right from declaring itself the victor regardless of the evidence --- that's just par for the course.

I would like to know who or what you are talking about when you refer to the radical right ? This phrase is one I am unfamiliar with?

4. I don't want anyone to "rise up" against Mr. Paszkiewicz or anyone else. However, I am shocked that people whose religious views and prerogatives have been swept under the rug do not appear to be upset about it. Brotherhood is not inconsistent with making amends, and failure to make those amends does not bode well for this teacher's future.

Although my views are different than Mr. Paszkiewicz, I am not upset by it. After a few sleepless nights I did sit down and listen for myself the tapes. I also read the mayors comments and I do not know where the line in the sand lays. As the mayor himself has said “This does not mean that devout persons are not welcome in government or public education. It also does not mean that religious perspective can never be expressed in a public forum.” Religion has been a part of history just as much as history has been a part of religion. Most wars have been fought for some kind of religious belief somewhere or other so to exclude one is like talking about the Civil War and not talking about slavery. The fabric between the two is interwoven. If the subject matter is to further explain an event then where does the subject have to stop before it is declared preaching? I have asked because some of my people are reluctant to speak openingly about our religion but we also understand and respect other views of us and our religion. It’s not an easy concept to grasp and different people have different ways of trying to explain about other religions. I strongly believe what is what this teacher was trying to do so to answer your question I am not upset. I hope my English was written well enough for you to understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Dingo Dave

Strife767 wrote:

If he's such a good man, why did he advocate child abuse in his classroom? I quote:

QUOTE(David Paszkiewicz @ http://dranger.com/classtranscript.html)

...if my kid is age 12, and he's telling me, 'Dad, I appreciate your time and effort, but I've decided in my 12 years of wisdom that I'm going to stop going to church.' After I break his backside, we're going to have a little attitude adjustment, he's going to get in the car with the rest of the family and go to church...you still gotta do as your old man tells you to do, or suffer the consequences.

(emphasis added)

Because he believes that his dedication to an ancient cult leader should overide his love for a member of his own family; Even his own son.

Abraham would have been proud of him. Paszkiewicz's son isn't named Isaac by any chance is he?

I just hope that there is a ram stuck in a nearby bush which he can mutilate instead (like there was for Abraham), if or when he feels mentally compelled to break some of his son's bones over what amounts to a difference of religion.

Yeah, he sure sounds like a great father to me. :lol: Perhaps we should nominate both Paszkiewicz and Abraham for 'Father of the Year'.

Maybe his local child welfare agency should take a look into some of his parenting methods. Who else besides a sheer, raving lunatic would say such a thing in front of an entire public high school class?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't surprise me that you try to skew the truth. Matthew never approached Mr. P for an apology. He went to Mr. Soma and then the media.

Okay, let's break this down:

1. He met with Mr. Somma and Mr. Paszkiewicz at the same time, in the same meeting.

2. As of the meeting, Paszkiewicz knew that an apology and corrections of his false statements were wanted.

3. You say "went to Mr. Soma (sic) and then the media" as if the two events happened one right after the other, where in fact the latter occurred over a month after the former.

If this is such my twisted imagination then why do the LaClairs have such little support in town?

Giving this town the benefit of the doubt, it's because they think their religion is being attacked, and are behind Paszkiewicz as a pure knee-jerk reaction against the threat they mistakenly perceive.

However, if you want to consider their local support, why not also consider their support outside of Kearny? It's quite apparent that practically everywhere else, support for the LaClairs and admonition of Paszkiewicz is the norm.

So, now answer me: why do the LaClairs have such widespread support all over this country?

As you say here Matthew does not have popular vote so therefore most people think what he did was wrong.

What's your point? What "most people think" is completely irrelevant here. The law and the Constitution are quite clear on this matter.

It's just you and your sick over posting that cannot accept it.    You think that if you say it enough times that maybe people will think its true.

You're projecting. :D

I don't believe it is the LaClairs or their supporters who keep on trying to deflect or distract from the issue by pouncing onto irrelevent details or semantics in an attempt to avoid the issue entirely. As has been said several times by several people, it is _very_ obvious who will lose if this matter goes to court. The LaClairs and I, at least, really wish that the matter could be settled without having to force that to happen. But the fact is that Paszkiewicz's position is legal suicide. Mark my words--if he takes this issue to court, he will lose.

And the Mayor is not necessarily on his side.

Oh? So how exactly do you interpret this?

...the Kearny Board of Education must publicly repudiate the teacher’s statements at issue because they were made with the intent of endorsing a religious view in a public school classroom setting.
It’s just that he is running scared.

lol, yeah, okay.

And he did mention that Matthew might have had ulterior motives.

Actually, he came down on people trying to avoid the issue by making accusations of ulterior motives. Big difference.

Now it is the cries of you and Paul wondering why more people are not rising up against him.

Huh? Actually, more people _are_ coming out against him. Aren't you paying attention?

As you say above. "Rise up to force him to be held accountable” Sounds like you are calling for an overthrow. The people of this town are too smart.

To interpret mandating accountability with revolution is not smart; it's absurd.

(part 1 of 2)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(part 2 of 2)

And there is no mob rule.

I know. But a whole lot of people apparently wished there was. Remember the woman at the Board meeting who said we should just do what the majority wants?

If there was I am sure something would have been done by now.  Instead this is trying to be worked out

Surely not by Paszkiewicz or the Board. The hand's been outstretched for a resolution for some time now.

but you keep stirring the pot and calling for the people to rise up against him.

If you're going to insist on deliberately misinterpreting what I wrote, then what can I do but ask you to stop acting like an idiot? People _should_ be forced to be held accountable for their own words and actions. That's all I said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matthew has a choice. We all have choices. Its just that he was too immature to go the route that an adult would have taken. To approach the teacher.

Matthew went 'over' the teacher because he said he felt he couldn't trust him. Paszkiewicz proved that feeling 100% correct as he lied through his teeth about his statements at the meeting. Whine about it all you want, but that's the reality.

I have enough people shaking my hands I do not need his.  "O arrogant" is that Irish?  Maybe for St. Patty's day?

Uh, no. Go check a dictionary.

Remember you are a guest here just as much as I am. Because neither of us know who each other and you also hide behind the name of Strife767.

At least I'm willing to attach a common 'identity' to what I write, so that I'm not a random voice in the crowd. Why don't you do the same?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you honestly believe that if you found out that someone was secretly recording you then using it against you to destroy your reputation and your livelihood that can all be swept under a rug?  And there you go again, if he does not make amends as you say then is future as a teacher is in jeopardy?  Sounds almost threatening to me.

And you call this teacher dangerous?

If a recording of my own words could be used to destroy my reputation, then I would have only myself to blame. If I was recorded doing something wrong, those offended would have a right to my apology.

It's all very simple, and it doesn't change just because you may like this teacher or share his theology, or for any other reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3. They're trying to apply the squeaking wheel principle.

4. I'll be somewhat blunter - you mean the Catholics whose dogma of purgatory has been found invalid by Mr. P. or the Muslims who will as Mr. P. states go to hell?

I'm surprised. Do Kearny Catholics and Muslims not being bothered by Mr. P's religious bigotry against their religion indicate a lack of self respect and worth? Or do they have so little religious belief that when someone bashes it its ok?

Are there other religious groups he's insulted?

The more apt question is whether there are any religious groups he didn't insult. He insulted all non-Christians by saying that God's perfect justice demands they suffer in torment for all eternity. He insulted all Christians by portraying God that way. That covers everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to introduce myself as someone new these pages. I have seen post criticizing peoples English and therefore I will do my best to be clear with the right grammar.  I might agree with you that an apology at that time would have cleared up things with regard to the incorrect statements that this person said in class.  As far as teaching as opposed to preaching, I am unsure if that apology was necessary or warranted. Or if his comments toward my religion or other religions were not sincere. I will try to explain that later. I also do not want to break laws but reading the mayors comments it is unclear. 

Hoping you could help me with answering this question. I have read throughout these many pages that you have sited a number of things that this teacher has done.  If you do not believe in judging someone as you say Jesus did, then why are you going after this man?  Although he may not have every one of his facts correct, I sincerely believe that he is trying to be a good teacher.  If we were all perfect I guess we wouldn’t have any need for a being or creature greater than each of us.  I see people everywhere in this country walking not between the lines or tossing rubbish on the streets but I do not see the necessity to condemn them. I am sure it is breaking a law but no one seems to care.  Why pick on this teacher over this.  There are other public officials I have read stealing, even reading here in some post of child abuse.  I just keep wondering why this man?

I would like to know who or what you are talking about when you refer to the radical right ?  This phrase is one I am unfamiliar with?

Although my views are different than Mr. Paszkiewicz, I am not upset by it.  After a few sleepless nights I did sit down and listen for myself the tapes. I also read the mayors comments and I do not know where the line in the sand lays.  As the mayor himself has said “This does not mean that devout persons are not welcome in government or public education. It also does not mean that religious perspective can never be expressed in a public forum.”  Religion has been a part of history just as much as history has been a part of religion.  Most wars have been fought for some kind of religious belief somewhere or other so to exclude one is like talking about the Civil War and not talking about slavery. The fabric between the two is interwoven.  If the subject matter is to further explain an event then where does the subject have to stop before it is declared preaching? I have asked because some of my people are reluctant to speak openingly about our religion but we also understand and respect other views of us and our religion.  It’s not an easy concept to grasp and different people have different ways of trying to explain about other religions.  I strongly believe what is what this teacher was trying to do so to answer your question I am not upset.  I hope my English was written well enough for you to understand.

Hello, and welcome. I'll answer your questions as best I can.

Your characterization that I am "going after this man" already implies a value judgment on your part. "This man" should have apologized, and should be demonstrating humility and contrition. Instead, his public comments consist of two letters, the first of which completely distorts American religious history and the second of which completely distorts the events at issue. His attorney has accused my son of setting the teacher up, which is absurd. I'm not about to put up with this nonsense, and so I am commenting, and reserve the right to continue to comment as long as this matter remains in the public eye. I have had it up to my eyeballs with the unspoken demand that if Paszkiewicz digs in his heels long enough, he gets a pass. He pulled his BS on the wrong kid this time, and now it's time to own up. Important issues are at stake here, including the integrity of our system of laws under the Constitution, and the quality and integrity of the education in public schools.

I presume Mr. P is trying to be a good teacher. However, he has also been trying to proselytize his religion in an inappropriate venue, and he has absolutely no humility in appreciating that my religion is as sacred to me as his is to him. He also appears to have very little or no respect for the law when it conflicts with his religiuous views.

Why him? Let someone pull this c--p on your son, and you'll know the answer to that question.

I do not agree with you that Mr. P was only trying to explain the subject of religion. He was obviously and blatantly preaching a particular religion, not surprisingly his own. A public school teacher may not use his position to do that. That is the law, and it is clear.

Finally, on where the line is, my suggestion is that you get a good book on the First Amendment and study it. Perhaps the ACLU could give you some suggestions. Regarding the radical right, I can only suggest that you begin following and studying the news. I appreciate your questions, but I've been following these issues closely for decades. I can't post the sum of that here. Actually, a good book to start with would be Conservatives Without Conscience by John Dean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bewildered
I If you do not believe in judging someone as you say Jesus did, then why are you going after this man?  Although he may not have every one of his facts correct, I sincerely believe that he is trying to be a good teacher.

So you don't see any reason for our country to have a judicial system?  We should just not judge them and let them go?

What facts are you referring to?

If we were all perfect I guess we wouldn’t have any need for a being or creature greater than each of us.

You should use "I" and not "we" in this sentence.  Don't think that all people need a being greater than them for anything.

I see people everywhere in this country walking not between the lines or tossing rubbish on the streets but I do not see the necessity to condemn them. I am sure it is breaking a law but no one seems to care.  Why pick on this teacher over this.  There are other public officials I have read stealing, even reading here in some post of child abuse.  I just keep wondering why this man?

So you equate littering with doing something that is not constitutional?  Someone needs to get their moral values straight.  Paszkiewicz

crossed the line when he started preaching his religion. He is the one who advocated child abuse  on the tapes.

I would like to know who or what you are talking about when you refer to the radical right ?  This phrase is one I am unfamiliar with?

Do a google search.  Read something.  If you are a recent immigrant I would understand why you do not know about the religious right. 

Although my views are different than Mr. Paszkiewicz, I am not upset by it.  After a few sleepless nights I did sit down and listen for myself the tapes. I also read the mayors comments and I do not know where the line in the sand lays. 

The line is apparant to anyone who believes in the Constitution.  People working for the government are not allowed to preach while on duty. 

As the mayor himself has said “This does not mean that devout persons are not welcome in government or public education. It also does not mean that religious perspective can never be expressed in a public forum.”  Religion has been a part of history just as much as history has been a part of religion.  Most wars have been fought for some kind of religious belief somewhere or other so to exclude one is like talking about the Civil War and not talking about slavery. The fabric between the two is interwoven.  If the subject matter is to further explain an event then where does the subject have to stop before it is declared preaching?             

Paszkiewicz was not trying to teach history.  He was preaching.  The only things he said that could be considered history were Noah's ark (mythology) or the fulfilling of a prophecy (not true).  Paszkiewicz was not trying to explain an event.  He was preaching.I

I have asked because some of my people are reluctant to speak openingly about our religion but we also understand and respect other views of us and our religion.

No one should be reluctant to speak about their religion if done at an appropriate time and place.  Unfortunately there is no law against idiots  and bigots putting down someone else's religion.

I am glad your people understands and respects other views.

Paszkiewicz doesn't get it.  When someone like Pat Robertson calls another religion a "gutter religion"he is not respecting the teachings of Jesus and traditional American values.

It’s not an easy concept to grasp and different people have different ways of trying to explain about other religions.  I strongly believe what is what this teacher was trying to do so to answer your question I am not upset.  I hope my English was written well enough for you to understand.

Listen to the tapes.  Paszkiewicz is not answering questions he is preaching.

You seem like a very good, sensitive person.  I don't need to know what your religion is but the Constitution protects your rights to be that religion and people like me respect that religion.

Your English was good, unlike a lot of born and bred Americans on this forum.

I also think that you are well on your way to being completely proficient in English.

Keep up the good work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Matthew had no other choice--in case you didn't notice, Paszkiewicz LIED about most of the things he said in class that Matthew recorded! If Matthew hadn't recorded him, Paszkiewicz would have gotten away with his wrongdoing. Sounds like that's what you'd want.

Right result - questionable tactic. Matthew had no knowledge that Mr. P was going to lie. Accordingly, his initial act of recording cannot be justified by what followed - that's tenuous, if not flawed, logic. So I really wish that everyone would stop justifying Matthew's recording as appropriate BECAUSE Mr. P lied.

Rather, a simple statement that although Matthew could have consulted with Mr. P regarding this matter, he chose not to and, instead, decided that recording the statements of the teacher was necessary to building a case against him (based upon the teacher's reputation and what he'd heard the first couple of classes). It was a tactical decision to pursue an agenda that is important to the LaClair family (and apparently to many others).

And, oh yeah, it was perfectly within his rights to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Giving this town the benefit of the doubt, it's because they think their religion is being attacked, and are behind Paszkiewicz as a pure knee-jerk reaction against the threat they mistakenly perceive.

(part 1 of 2)

Well, to be fair, the town's religions have been attacked. Not by the LaClairs, but by the atheists - yourself included - who have flocked to the board and injected Flying Spaghetti Monsters into a Constitutional issue (I noticed that you have backed off and have refocused on the issues - kudos - but others clearly have another agenda). I think many of the atheists really thought that this was a religious issue as well, and thought that they were supporting the LaClairs. Instead, they've really hijacked the debate, muddied the waters, and - in my opinion - cast an unjusifiably negative light onto the LaClairs. I admit - I was initially guilty of same.

Now, subtract all of the back and forth on the religious topics and perhaps, just perhaps, people would feel less defensive about their religious beliefs and more willing to consider the Constitutional implications of this whole mess. And, I think more people would be supportive of the LaClairs at that point.

Perhaps those with the religious agendas can open a new thread so that the pure Constitutional issues can be addressed in one location?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Do you honestly believe that if you found out that someone was secretly recording you then using it against you to destroy your reputation and your livelihood that can all be swept under a rug?  And there you go again, if he does not make amends as you say then is future as a teacher is in jeopardy?  Sounds almost threatening to me.

And you call this teacher dangerous?

The LaClairs are dangerous!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right result - questionable tactic.  Matthew had no knowledge that Mr. P was going to lie.

But he apparently suspected exactly that--how do you interpret him saying he acted as he did because he felt he couldn't trust Paszkiewicz?

Accordingly, his initial act of recording cannot be justified by what followed - that's tenuous, if not flawed, logic.  So I really wish that everyone would stop justifying Matthew's recording as appropriate BECAUSE Mr. P lied.

But distrust in Paszkiewicz was Matthew's motive for recording his words directly. You seem not to realize that. I think the fact that his reason for making the recordings in the first place was shown to have been justified is important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right result - questionable tactic.  Matthew had no knowledge that Mr. P was going to lie.  Accordingly, his initial act of recording cannot be justified by what followed - that's tenuous, if not flawed, logic.  So I really wish that everyone would stop justifying Matthew's recording as appropriate BECAUSE Mr. P lied.

Rather, a simple statement that although Matthew could have consulted with Mr. P regarding this matter, he chose not to and, instead, decided that recording the statements of the teacher was necessary to building a case against him (based upon the teacher's reputation and what he'd heard the first couple of classes).  It was a tactical decision to pursue an agenda that is important to the LaClair family (and apparently to many others).

And, oh yeah, it was perfectly within his rights to do so.

Matthew sensed that he could not trust Mr. Paszkiewicz, and told Mr. P so to his face in the principal's office on October 10. The basis for that belief was the fervency with which the teacher was pursuing his goals; obviously, this was not new behavior, and was clearly intended to advance the teacher's religion --- a systematic violation of the Constitution, not a mere slip of the tongue or accident. So Matthew's conclusion was based on sound evidence and solid reasoning.

Perhaps Mr. Paszkiewicz would not lie, but it was likely that he would, and Matthew could not take the chance, making this kind of accusation. The method (not a "tactic") was therefore the correct one to ensure preservation of the truth. The truth would not have been preserved in any other way. You can argue that Matthew did not "know" that, but in fact he did, to a reasonable likelihood --- we have a way of knowing that is intuitive; Matthew's instincts are excellent in this regard, he knows it from experience, and so do I. He also knew that he could not count on his classmates for support, and again he was absolutely correct; they continue to defend Mr. Paszkiewicz even with recordings, so imagine what they would say if there were none. Finally, as Matthew has explained many times, merely talking to Mr. Paszkiewicz might have stopped the behavior in that one class, but not in other classes where students may have been afraid to speak up; and if you doubt the basis for that fear, look at the harassment and abuse Matthew has endured. So you can look for holes in Matthew's reasoning, but throughout this entire episode, he has been correct EVERY TIME; the reasonable conclusion is that he knows what he is doing, perhaps more than any of the rest of us would have.

Finally, let's be clear that the "agenda" Matthew pursued was defense of the US Constitution, specifically separation of church and state. The radical right has set out on an agenda to infiltrate the public schools and destroy separation of church and state. This is an organized movement, and Mr. Paszkiewicz was clearly identifiable as being in favor of its goals, if not formally a part of it (which he may be). There was more at stake than what was going on just in that one classroom. So people can use value-laden words like "tactic" and "agenda," but then let's be honest about what is really at issue and at stake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, to be fair, the town's religions have been attacked.  Not by the LaClairs, but by the atheists - yourself included - who have flocked to the board and injected Flying Spaghetti Monsters into a Constitutional issue (I noticed that you have backed off and have refocused on the issues - kudos - but others clearly have another agenda).  I think many of the atheists really thought that this was a religious issue as well, and thought that they were supporting the LaClairs.  Instead, they've really hijacked the debate, muddied the waters, and - in my opinion - cast an unjusifiably negative light onto the LaClairs.  I admit - I was initially guilty of same. 

Now, subtract all of the back and forth on the religious topics and perhaps, just perhaps, people would feel less defensive about their religious beliefs and more willing to consider the Constitutional implications of this whole mess.  And, I think more people would be supportive of the LaClairs at that point.

Perhaps those with the religious agendas can open a new thread so that the pure Constitutional issues can be addressed in one location?

To be fair, the atheists who have posted are expressing their views on religion in an appropriate forum. If they have a critique of religion, they have the right to express it. I do not subscribe to the notion that it's not OK to criticize a religion, notwithstanding the taboo against such criticism in our culture. Given the divisive history of institutional religion, they have a valid point, which is not to say that I agree with everything they've written.

That said, I agree that a calmer and more carefully reasoned approach to this subject on all sides would have been preferable to what occurred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Well, to be fair, the town's religions have been attacked.  Not by the LaClairs, but by the atheists - yourself included - who have flocked to the board and injected Flying Spaghetti Monsters into a Constitutional issue (I noticed that you have backed off and have refocused on the issues - kudos - but others clearly have another agenda).  I think many of the atheists really thought that this was a religious issue as well, and thought that they were supporting the LaClairs.  Instead, they've really hijacked the debate, muddied the waters, and - in my opinion - cast an unjusifiably negative light onto the LaClairs.  I admit - I was initially guilty of same. 

Now, subtract all of the back and forth on the religious topics and perhaps, just perhaps, people would feel less defensive about their religious beliefs and more willing to consider the Constitutional implications of this whole mess.  And, I think more people would be supportive of the LaClairs at that point.

Perhaps those with the religious agendas can open a new thread so that the pure Constitutional issues can be addressed in one location?

I recall a few references to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The most notable, for me, was in the short-lived topic called "I would like to teach in Kearny." That brief thread was hilarious, and each character, including FSM, pointed up the absurdity of the position being defended by Paszkiewicz's side.

Humor is a tool. In that instance, I thought it was used very well and very effectively. It's no ground for complaint that a person's own thoughts and actions invite ridicule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Matthew sensed that he could not trust Mr. Paszkiewicz, and told Mr. P so to his face in the principal's office on October 10. The basis for that belief was the fervency with which the teacher was pursuing his goals; obviously, this was not new behavior, and was clearly intended to advance the teacher's religion --- a systematic violation of the Constitution, not a mere slip of the tongue or accident. So Matthew's conclusion was based on sound evidence and solid reasoning.

Perhaps Mr. Paszkiewicz would not lie, but it was likely that he would, and Matthew could not take the chance, making this kind of accusation. The method (not a "tactic") was therefore the correct one to ensure preservation of the truth. The truth would not have been preserved in any other way. You can argue that Matthew did not "know" that, but in fact he did, to a reasonable likelihood --- we have a way of knowing that is intuitive; Matthew's instincts are excellent in this regard, he knows it from experience, and so do I. He also knew that he could not count on his classmates for support, and again he was absolutely correct; they continue to defend Mr. Paszkiewicz even with recordings, so imagine what they would say if there were none. Finally, as Matthew has explained many times, merely talking to Mr. Paszkiewicz might have stopped the behavior in that one class, but not in other classes where students may have been afraid to speak up; and if you doubt the basis for that fear, look at the harassment and abuse Matthew has endured. So you can look for holes in Matthew's reasoning, but throughout this entire episode, he has been correct EVERY TIME; the reasonable conclusion is that he knows what he is doing, perhaps more than any of the rest of us would have.

Finally, let's be clear that the "agenda" Matthew pursued was defense of the US Constitution, specifically separation of church and state. The radical right has set out on an agenda to infiltrate the public schools and destroy separation of church and state. This is an organized movement, and Mr. Paszkiewicz was clearly identifiable as being in favor of its goals, if not formally a part of it (which he may be). There was more at stake than what was going on just in that one classroom. So people can use value-laden words like "tactic" and "agenda," but then let's be honest about what is really at issue and at stake.

Hi Paul - I've been away for several weeks, and I guess that I'm just a little frustrated that this forum is a time capsule - no matter how long you leave it, you come back and it's the same arguments.

But to my (and your) point, so I understand you correctly, essentially what you are arguing is that a "hunch" is sound evidence and solid reasoning enough to justify the recordings (speaking of the initial recordings - to which I was referring in the post). And that is exactly my point.

I'm not arguing that he wasn't right, nor am I arguing that he wasn't entitled to do so. Instead, I am pointing out a flaw in another poster's argument in which the poster stated that the teacher's lie after-the-fact is justification to the initial recording. And while you certainly can (and you do) make the argument that Matthew's belief that the teacher would lie - and not the teacher's lying - is the justification, you clearly cannot state that the actual lying was the justification. It's a small point, granted, but it's a pet peeve of mine.

But that still brings us to the issue of when an action is justified based upon a "hunch". When is it okay for a police officer to search a vehicle based upon a hunch? There's certainly case law to that effect. When is it okay for a principal to search a student's locker based upon a hunch? That issue has been addressed (although not fully). Violating the privacy of teachers, classmates and other students to rectify a Establishment Clause violation? I think we're breaking new ground on this (which begs litigation for the establishment of precedent, but I sure hope it can be avoided).

It's the violation of privacy in this matter that I am - and have been - struggling with since the beginning. And it's not just Mr. P's privacy, it's all the other students' privacy as well (including the Muslim student whose name was released). So to be clear, the violations of privacy for all involved are the means, which are purportedly justified by the ends of stopping Mr. P from preaching in class. And - although reluctantly - I can buy that in this instance (with the one unfortuate issue of the release of the Muslim student's name, which I am sure you would have corrected had you had it to do over again), I struggle with it. But to those who are pinning you on the release of the student's name, I really believe that you would not have released the tapes if the Board had addressed this matter appropriately and in a timely fashion.

As a separate issue, you seem to have a semantical problem with the words "tactic" and "agenda". Please understand that what is inferred is not always what is implied. As to the use of "tactic" - whether you call it method, mode or otherwise, it is the means that Matthew used to advance his cause. So, perhaps the implication is equivalent to the inference - but not with a negative connotation. However, with respect to "agenda", I do not belittle in any fashion the cause for which Matthew is fighting. And I think that the "silent majority" in this matter - myself included - should consider your position (believe what you want - just don't preach it in school) as compared to some of your more vocal counterparts (believe what I say and how I say it - and don't stop me from telling your kids what and how to believe too).

Lastly, I am curious as to how Matthew knew that the teacher was going to lie "from experience" - when has Matthew dealt with this issue before? Or is there some other irrelevant context that doesn't need to be explored at this time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...