Paul's Letter to the Observer

[Guest Paul]

I think that people need to realize that there is nothing in the Constitution that specifically prohibits preaching in the classroom.  The founders, in their wisdom, drafted a document that was capable of interpretation, and was flexible enough to change with the times (which is why it is frequently called a "living document").  Accordingly, they included the Establishment Clause as a specific prohibition on the government funding or otherwise declaring a national religion (a pet peeve of Madison and Jefferson) - leaving the depth of its permissions and proscriptions open to future interpretation.

So how is is that Mr. P violated the Constitution by preaching in class if there's no specific proscription against preaching?  Because the judiciary has a long-standing right to interpret the Constitution, and those opinions of the judiciary (who are appointed, not elected) become law.

Accordingly, when the Supreme Court addressed the issue for the first time in 1947, the Court - in a 5-4 vote on the issue of reimbursing parents for bussing to parochial schools - otherwise unanimously stated that the Establishment Clause did more than merely prohibit the establishment of a state religion.  A number of decisions have followed - with the facts of the cases causing substantial fluctuations in the outcomes - some expanding restrictions, and others stating that the Establishment Clause did not require a "callous indifference to religion".  The particulars of this Constitutional conflict have not played out fully - and much of the detail is still open to interpretation.

Nevertheless, the bulk of the established precedent prohibits preaching in a classroom.  Still, a substantial shift in the judiciary, and a particular set of facts laid at the feet of judges keeps the full extent of the Establishment Clause in constant doubt.  For those of you who would rather not have your state, local and federal politicians telling you what your children must believe - I would suggest that a little bit of vigiliance - even with respect to an otherwise popular member of the local faculty and community - may be in order.  As you may see with the looming threats to abortion rights established in Roe v. Wade, what we accept as a fundamental freedom today, can be legislated (or interpreted) away from us tomorrow.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're basically correct, but your explanation omits the Fourteenth Amendment, by which the First Amendment became applicable to the states and their sub-units, including the public schools. The 14th Amendment was adopted shortly after the Civil War, in 1868, I believe.

[Guest Paul]

Paul,

It certainly seems like some sort of backtracking has occurred.  If this is not such a big deal in the grander scheme, why did Matt bring it up again at the BOE meeting and you follow that up with the letter to The Observer?

As I stated before, I lean much more to your side of this whole issue, but this flip-flop or "playing of semantics" regarding the dress/skirt seems to bring into question your credibility.

Here is my last post on this. http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=50118

Would you please respond directly? No response from Strife767 is requested, required or desired.  Only interested in Paul's complete explanation to the situation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've explained it in detail several times in the past day or two on KOTW alone. Please check those posts.

I still would like to know what this has to do with anything. Credibility is an issue where there's an accuser, but Matthew is not an accuser. He has it recorded. What does Matthew's credibility, or mine, have to do with anything when the exact comments, the entire class sessions, are recorded? You seem like a reasonable person, so please explain.

[Strife767]

Would you please respond directly? No response from Strife767 is requested, required or desired.  Only interested in Paul's complete explanation to the situation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you are interested in speaking one on one with Paul or anyone else on the forum, the proper avenue is the private message, which is a function directly built-in for that exact purpose. If you post something here, anyone can respond to it whether you like it or not. *shrugs*

[Guest Guest]

I've explained it in detail several times in the past day or two on KOTW alone. Please check those posts.

I still would like to know what this has to do with anything. Credibility is an issue where there's an accuser, but Matthew is not an accuser. He has it recorded. What does Matthew's credibility, or mine, have to do with anything when the exact comments, the entire class sessions, are recorded? You seem like a reasonable person, so please explain.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please point me to the posts that explain and/or answer my questions. As you know, this is not the easiest message board to have an ongoing dialog on. If your responses are not I this thread, I have not seen them.

Everybody involved in this matter can have their credibility questioned at anytime if it appears that they are not being truthful about any subject. Comes with the public spotlight that you have chosen to bring upon yourselves. I'm not saying it wasn't justified, but it was not the only option.

I'm just trying to give you the chance to put the skirt/dress issue to bed once and for all, which you and Matthew tried to do with your letter to the Observer and Matthew going before the BOE. But it just raised more questions in my mind.

1. - Someone on here stated that Matthew worn a dress to school.

2. - You replied and said that he wore a skirt to protest the dress code and used the "show just as much leg" statement, referring to girls being allowed to wear skirts and boy not allowed to wear shorts.

3. - Matthew goes before the BOE on 3/19 and denies that he worn a dress and you write a letter to the Editor of the Observer also denying that he wore a dress. Is this just semantics regarding the skirt wearing you had already admitted to?

4. - Your letter refers to a long gothic skirt worn by Matthew which "goes down to the ankles". How is doing this a protest of the dress code because "skirts show just as much skin as shorts"?

I already have major questions regarding Mr. P.'s credibility, thanks to the evidence you have brought forward. And I have stated that I am more on your side of this issue than Mr. P.'s.

My questions seem fairly simple, but if you can not answer them directly it raises doubts about things that are not facts of evidence, such as your stated motivations, that you truely wish to resolve this prior to litigation, etc.

Thanks.

[Guest Guest]

You have chosen to ignore Strife767. View this post · Un-ignore Strife767

[Guest Paul]

If you are interested in speaking one on one with Paul or anyone else on the forum, the proper avenue is the private message, which is a function directly built-in for that exact purpose. If you post something here, anyone can respond to it whether you like it or not. *shrugs*

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The person would have to identify himself/herself, which he/she obviously is not willing to do. The internet is a wonderful thing, as are these chat boards, but they do have their drawbacks. One of the drawbacks is that the cloak of anonymity makes people more willing to be nasty and otherwise irresponsible in their comments.

[Guest Guest]

The person would have to identify himself/herself, which he/she obviously is not willing to do. The internet is a wonderful thing, as are these chat boards, but they do have their drawbacks. One of the drawbacks is that the cloak of anonymity makes people more willing to be nasty and otherwise irresponsible in their comments.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul,

I hope you are not referring to me. I don't believe I have been nasty or irresponsible with any of my posts. I recognized an apparent inconsistency in statements and asked for clarification. Inconsistancy in statements can be a credibility issue and have brought that to your attention. If you believe that it was nasty, I apologize, but it was not my intention.

[Guest Paul]

Please point me to the posts that explain and/or answer my questions.  As you know, this is not the easiest message board to have an ongoing dialog on.  If your responses are not I this thread, I have not seen them.

Everybody involved in this matter can have their credibility questioned at anytime if it appears that they are not being truthful about any subject.  Comes with the public spotlight that you have chosen to bring upon yourselves.  I'm not saying it wasn't justified, but it was not the only option.

I'm just trying to give you the chance to put the skirt/dress issue to bed once and for all, which you and Matthew tried to do with your letter to the Observer and Matthew going before the BOE.  But it just raised more questions in my mind.

1. - Someone on here stated that Matthew worn a dress to school.

2. - You replied and said that he wore a skirt to protest the dress code and used the "show just as much leg" statement, referring to girls being allowed to wear skirts and boy not allowed to wear shorts.

3. - Matthew goes before the BOE on 3/19 and denies that he worn a dress and you write a letter to the Editor of the Observer also denying that he wore a dress.  Is this just semantics regarding the skirt wearing you had already admitted to?

4. - Your letter refers to a long gothic skirt worn by Matthew which "goes down to the ankles".  How is doing this a protest of the dress code because "skirts show just as much skin as shorts"?

I already have major questions regarding Mr. P.'s credibility, thanks to the evidence you have brought forward.  And I have stated that I am more on your side of this issue than Mr. P.'s.

My questions seem fairly simple, but if you can not answer them directly it raises doubts about things that are not facts of evidence, such as your stated motivations, that you truely wish to resolve this prior to litigation, etc.

Thanks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll do that for you, since you seem sincere, but first I want you to tell me what our credibility has to do with anything. I want you to think it through and tell me why that matters here. Then I'll re-type the same explanation I've given several times before. But please do me that courtesy first.

[Guest Paul]

Please point me to the posts that explain and/or answer my questions.  As you know, this is not the easiest message board to have an ongoing dialog on.  If your responses are not I this thread, I have not seen them.

Everybody involved in this matter can have their credibility questioned at anytime if it appears that they are not being truthful about any subject.  Comes with the public spotlight that you have chosen to bring upon yourselves.  I'm not saying it wasn't justified, but it was not the only option.

I'm just trying to give you the chance to put the skirt/dress issue to bed once and for all, which you and Matthew tried to do with your letter to the Observer and Matthew going before the BOE.  But it just raised more questions in my mind.

1. - Someone on here stated that Matthew worn a dress to school.

2. - You replied and said that he wore a skirt to protest the dress code and used the "show just as much leg" statement, referring to girls being allowed to wear skirts and boy not allowed to wear shorts.

3. - Matthew goes before the BOE on 3/19 and denies that he worn a dress and you write a letter to the Editor of the Observer also denying that he wore a dress.  Is this just semantics regarding the skirt wearing you had already admitted to?

4. - Your letter refers to a long gothic skirt worn by Matthew which "goes down to the ankles".  How is doing this a protest of the dress code because "skirts show just as much skin as shorts"?

I already have major questions regarding Mr. P.'s credibility, thanks to the evidence you have brought forward.  And I have stated that I am more on your side of this issue than Mr. P.'s.

My questions seem fairly simple, but if you can not answer them directly it raises doubts about things that are not facts of evidence, such as your stated motivations, that you truely wish to resolve this prior to litigation, etc.

Thanks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thinking it over, I have other questions I would like you to answer, so I can better understand why you think our credibility has anything to do with the issues at hand.

I disagree with you that everyone's credibility is up for comment. It wouldn't occur to me to question your credibility, for example, because it's not relevant to the discussion. Since I don't know who you are, you could be a model of virtue and verity, or you could be a repeated convict on multiple perjury charges. I don't know, and It doesn't matter for our purposes on this discussion. Your points are what matter here, not your credibility.

Similarly, you don't know what we will do if our requests are met. We've said what we will do, and so far we have honored our word, including in ways I can't even discuss here. So you can wonder all you like, but you have no basis for saying that we wouldn't hold to our word here. I'm asking you why our credibility is relevant to you, especially when the best anyone can come up with is whether a long, black gothic-looking outfit can be called a skirt. Since I know what it looks like, it's my impression that it could be called a skirt, but not a dress. Good grief, you think that goes to credibility? Why?

And frankly, I've answered your question, several times, as I already told you. It didn't put the matter to rest, because you're still asking me the same question. I understand you didn't see those posts, but when you say that my answering your question will put this point to rest "once and for all," that's just not true. Some people will never accept the explanation, perfectly reasonable as it may be; just like some people still don't think Paszkiewicz was preaching in class. When people don't want to hear you, they don't. Being in the public eye is quite an experience, not necessarily one I would recommend. You have to learn to roll with the punches, because they're going to come no matter what you do. I can tell you that we did this not to make a name for ourselves, but to stand up for several critically important principles --- all the more important because obviously no one else in the school was going to do it, including Matthew's lily-livered classmates (sorry, but it's true) who say one thing to him and something completely different on TV and to their peers, to Matthew's detriment no less. People who have known him since kindergarten, and don't even have the integrity to tell the truth when they know he is under the gun. Never mind the truth when you're worried about what your friends think. That is exactly what is going on, which is why some of these kids still claim Paszkiewicz never said what is on record for the whole world to hear. Many of these kids will grow and learn later, but right now they're not doing the right thing. Had any of them been attacked as he has been, he would have defended them. The same quality led him to do what he did.

That is the truth, but people who do not wish to believe it don't believe it, and there's nothing we can do about it, except keep repeating our point and correcting mis-statements, which is what I've been doing here --- for what is it, three or four months now. Try it some time, and let me know if you come out looking good to everyone, including people with biases a mile deep and enough anger in them to sink a battleship. Walk a mile in my shoes, or better still in Matthew's. Then let's talk.

Here are my questions:

1. Matthew stood up for the US Constitution, science and the quality of education in his school and in our country. I've been telling him about the importance of the First Amendment since he was small, so the only surprise to me is that he learned and understood as much as he did, and so well. I've lived in my house and helped educate my son, so I know it's true. So here's my question: Isn't his commitment to these issues a sufficient explanation for why he did it, and isn't my commitment to the same issues (along with defending my son) a sufficient explanation for why I'm doing it? If not, why not? Please explain.

2. Is it possible that your reaction stems from your not sharing our commitment on these issues. If not, how important do you think these issues are? If so, doesn't that color your impressions, and explain why you're distracted off on a "credibility" tangent that is completely irrelevant to your concerns?

I don't mean to beat on you. Just the opposite, you are the most reasonable-sounding person who has asked me the "credibility" question. So I'd like your explanation why you think it matters, considering all the above, because I don't understand why you think it matters. If you would be so kind, I would appreciate it.

[Strife767]

You have chosen to ignore Strife767. View this post · Un-ignore Strife767

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

http://maddox.xmission.net/crybaby.gif

[Strife767]

I think that people need to realize that there is nothing in the Constitution that specifically prohibits preaching in the classroom.

The First Amendment keeps church and state separate at the federal level, and the Fourteenth Amendment extends the scope of the First down through state, city, etc.

That's my understanding.

[Guest DaysAreNumbered]

The person would have to identify himself/herself, which he/she obviously is not willing to do. The internet is a wonderful thing, as are these chat boards, but they do have their drawbacks. One of the drawbacks is that the cloak of anonymity makes people more willing to be nasty and otherwise irresponsible in their comments.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The web master knows who everyone is that posts here and they pass it along. There is alot of fallout heading towards Kearny. Those fraud private eye's have hundreds of individuals from Kearny involved in a Federal criminal conspiracy and embezzlement scheme that used deception and bribes to obtain their bounty. Paul knows in the courtroom its all about the facts not the delusions of mentally ill private detectives who had to falseify all their state applications in order to obtain their security permits in the first place and the violations go on and on.

[Guest Guest]

I'll do that for you, since you seem sincere, but first I want you to tell me what our credibility has to do with anything. I want you to think it through and tell me why that matters here. Then I'll re-type the same explanation I've given several times before. But please do me that courtesy first.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul,

To me, credibility is a very important thing and it appeared to me that you and Matthew flip-flopped on the issue of the dress/skirt. You and Matthew made the choice to become public figures, reluctantly, I know, but still you choice. I just wanted you to clarify an issue that you and Matthew chose to take off the message boards and make part of the record at a BOE meeting and then follow it up with a letter to the observer editor. This made it appear to me that you thought this was an important issue and therefore I questioned what I perceived as an inconsistancy.

If you choose not to clarify any further then you think you have already, just say so and I will drop the subject, but the inconsistancies will remain in my mind.

Thinking it over, I have other questions I would like you to answer, so I can better understand why you think our credibility has anything to do with the issues at hand.

I disagree with you that everyone's credibility is up for comment. It wouldn't occur to me to question your credibility, for example, because it's not relevant to the discussion. Since I don't know who you are, you could be a model of virtue and verity, or you could be a repeated convict on multiple perjury charges. I don't know, and It doesn't matter for our purposes on this discussion. Your points are what matter here, not your credibility.

Similarly, you don't know what we will do if our requests are met. We've said what we will do, and so far we have honored our word, including in ways I can't even discuss here. So you can wonder all you like, but you have no basis for saying that we wouldn't hold to our word here. I'm asking you why our credibility is relevant to you, especially when the best anyone can come up with is whether a long, black gothic-looking outfit can be called a skirt. Since I know what it looks like, it's my impression that it could be called a skirt, but not a dress. Good grief, you think that goes to credibility? Why?

And frankly, I've answered your question, several times, as I already told you. It didn't put the matter to rest, because you're still asking me the same question. I understand you didn't see those posts, but when you say that my answering your question will put this point to rest "once and for all," that's just not true. Some people will never accept the explanation, perfectly reasonable as it may be; just like some people still don't think Paszkiewicz was preaching in class. When people don't want to hear you, they don't. Being in the public eye is quite an experience, not necessarily one I would recommend. You have to learn to roll with the punches, because they're going to come no matter what you do. I can tell you that we did this not to make a name for ourselves, but to stand up for several critically important principles --- all the more important because obviously no one else in the school was going to do it, including Matthew's lily-livered classmates (sorry, but it's true) who say one thing to him and something completely different on TV and to their peers, to Matthew's detriment no less. People who have known him since kindergarten, and don't even have the integrity to tell the truth when they know he is under the gun. Never mind the truth when you're worried about what your friends think. That is exactly what is going on, which is why some of these kids still claim Paszkiewicz never said what is on record for the whole world to hear. Many of these kids will grow and learn later, but right now they're not doing the right thing. Had any of them been attacked as he has been, he would have defended them. The same quality led him to do what he did.

That is the truth, but people who do not wish to believe it don't believe it, and there's nothing we can do about it, except keep repeating our point and correcting mis-statements, which is what I've been doing here --- for what is it, three or four months now. Try it some time, and let me know if you come out looking good to everyone, including people with biases a mile deep and enough anger in them to sink a battleship. Walk a mile in my shoes, or better still in Matthew's. Then let's talk.

Here are my questions:

1. Matthew stood up for the US Constitution, science and the quality of education in his school and in our country. I've been telling him about the importance of the First Amendment since he was small, so the only surprise to me is that he learned and understood as much as he did, and so well. I've lived in my house and helped educate my son, so I know it's true. So here's my question: Isn't his commitment to these issues a sufficient explanation for why he did it, and isn't my commitment to the same issues (along with defending my son) a sufficient explanation for why I'm doing it? If not, why not? Please explain.

I agree that what Mr. P. did was wrong, but if there was no prior discipline on his record for this type of violation, this did not warrant anything more than a written reprimand to start the progressive discipline procedure. What has occurred since Matthew first asked for a meeting with administration is another story.

2. Is it possible that your reaction stems from your not sharing our commitment on these issues. If not, how important do you think these issues are? If so, doesn't that color your impressions, and explain why you're distracted off on a "credibility" tangent that is completely irrelevant to your concerns?

My reaction is no different than something you, as a lawyer, would have done. One of the parties to this situation appeared to make an inconsistant statement and I questioned it. I was actually hoping that you could fully explain it and end this, but as far as I can tell, you have avoided answering me directly. If you feel that you have adequately clarified this issue elsewhere, just point me to those posts...no need to re-type anything.

Believe me, I hold the laws of this country in very high regard and believe Matthew has done a courageous thing and you are right to be very proud of him and I admire the way you defend him.

I don't mean to beat on you. Just the opposite, you are the most reasonable-sounding person who has asked me the "credibility" question. So I'd like your explanation why you think it matters, considering all the above, because I don't understand why you think it matters. If you would be so kind, I would appreciate it.

Don't worry, I'm not feeling beat upon.

[Guest Paul]

Paul,

I hope you are not referring to me.  I don't believe I have been nasty or irresponsible with any of my posts.  I recognized an apparent inconsistency in statements and asked for clarification.  Inconsistancy in statements can be a credibility issue and have brought that to your attention.  If you believe that it was nasty, I apologize, but it was not my intention.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How could we possibly know? Even if you don't want to reveal your real name, you must at least adopt some sort of identifying name at KOTW if you don't want us to wonder whether you're one of the nasty guests as opposed to one of the more reasonable guests, as opposed to . . . you get the idea.

[Guest Paul]

The web master knows who everyone is that posts here and they pass it along. There is alot of fallout heading towards Kearny. Those fraud private eye's have hundreds of individuals from Kearny involved in a Federal criminal conspiracy and embezzlement scheme that used deception and bribes to obtain their bounty. Paul knows in the courtroom its all about the facts not the delusions of mentally ill private detectives who had to falseify all their state applications in order to obtain their security permits in the first place and the violations go on and on.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As the one who knows, I tell you that Paul has no idea what you're talking about.

[Guest Paul]

Paul,

To me, credibility is a very important thing and it appeared to me that you and Matthew flip-flopped on the issue of the dress/skirt.  You and Matthew made the choice to become public figures, reluctantly, I know, but still you choice.  I just wanted you to clarify an issue that you and Matthew chose to take off the message boards and make part of the record at a BOE meeting and then follow it up with a letter to the observer editor.  This made it appear to me that you thought this was an important issue and therefore I questioned what I perceived as an inconsistancy.

If you choose not to clarify any further then you think you have already, just say so and I will drop the subject, but the inconsistancies will remain in my mind.

I agree that what Mr. P. did was wrong, but if there was no prior discipline on his record for this type of violation, this did not warrant anything more than a written reprimand to start the progressive discipline procedure.  What has occurred since Matthew first asked for a meeting with administration is another story.

My reaction is no different than something you, as a lawyer, would have done.  One of the parties to this situation appeared to make an inconsistant statement and I questioned it.  I was actually hoping that you could fully explain it and end this, but as far as I can tell, you have avoided answering me directly.  If you feel that you have adequately clarified this issue elsewhere, just point me to those posts...no need to re-type anything.

Believe me, I hold the laws of this country in very high regard and believe Matthew has done a courageous thing and you are right to be very proud of him and I admire the way you defend him.

Don't worry, I'm not feeling beat upon.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm going to answer your question even though you have not answered mine. You probably think you did, but you didn't. As I've said over and over, our issue is not whether and to what extent this teacher is disciplined. Therefore, your comments about no prior discipline, etc., are not relevant to our concerns. Improper statements were made, which should be corrected. It has nothing to do with whether Matthew and I are models of truth-telling or the world's biggest liars. That was my point, and you do not address it. I am disappointed. Please give this some thought, because I believe that being led off on tangents is one of the biggest problems we're facing as a nation. It's why we have so many abysmally bad political leaders.

As to your comments about our credibility, mine and Matthew's, you do not address our comments substantively, or consider them in context. That is what I asked you to do, and I don't see any of that in your answer. I addressed this subject my letter to the Observer, and at KOTW, in response to comments from others. I have not brought it up on my own that I can recall, and if I would it would be for another reason. Matthew made the comment at the BoE meeting to illustrate the silliness of the attacks being made against him, and to point out that they were not based on fact. That reasonable conclusion is not that the accusation is an important one, but that it isn't based on the facts. When a person is being publicly attacked, that is a reasonable thing to point out, don't you think.

That said, here is my answer to your question as posted on another page in KOTW. It's in several other places, too. "I'll say it again. I recall Matthew wearing a long, black outfit to school, which could be called a skirt because it doesn't have pant legs. I leave for work long before he gets up, and come home hours after he does, so I did not see him in it that day. But I do recall him discussing the school's policy and talking about wearing the outfit for that reason. I recall he wore it another time or two as well, just because he liked it. He also wore it in a play on the Lincoln School stage, as I mentioned in my letter to the Observer. He never wore a dress, to school or anywhere else that I recall. Those are the facts, like them or not."

Finally, I do appreciate that you understand the large issue that we're raising. Thank you for that, and for not merely "taking sides."

[Guest Guest]

The First Amendment keeps church and state separate at the federal level, and the Fourteenth Amendment extends the scope of the First down through state, city, etc.

That's my understanding.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually yes and no. You're right in that that's how the law operates. However, you're confusing operation through judicial interpretation with specific language. The judiciary has "interpreted" what you describe - however, there is nothing in the Constitution, or any amendment thereto, that specifically states that you cannot preach in a classroom. Accordingly, things left open to judicial interpretation are subject to re-interpretation as time passes. Accordingly, if the wrong fact set should get in front of the wrong judges at some point in the future, that details that form the totality of that proscription can be chipped away.

[Guest DaysAreNumbered]

As the one who knows, I tell you that Paul has no idea what you're talking about.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your swimming with sharks Paul, Your adversary's believe every word they are told by individuals who have three million reasons to lie.

1. The Lemon test? = Failed

2. The coercion test? = Failed

3. The endorsment test = Failed

[Strife767]

Actually yes and no.  You're right in that that's how the law operates.  However, you're confusing operation through judicial interpretation with specific language.  The judiciary has "interpreted" what you describe - however, there is nothing in the Constitution, or any amendment thereto, that specifically states that you cannot preach in a classroom.

There's also nothing in the Constitution that prohibits racially-based death threats, for example. In this case, I think the wording gives a good general idea on tax dollar-funded 'things' needing to be religiously neutral. And preaching of a religion certainly violates that, no?

Accordingly, things left open to judicial interpretation are subject to re-interpretation as time passes.  Accordingly, if the wrong fact set should get in front of the wrong judges at some point in the future, that details that form the totality of that proscription can be chipped away.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, yeah. Hopefully not, obviously.

[Guest Paul]

Your swimming with sharks Paul, Your adversary's believe every word they are told by individuals who have three million reasons to lie. 

1. The Lemon test? = Failed

2. The coercion test? = Failed

3. The endorsment test = Failed

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Intriguing. Tell us more. I don't read Egyptian hieroglyphics.

[Foger]

Oh, sorry, yes it is. In fact, the Constitution is the SUPREME law of the land.

Are we really back to that tired old dodge? "Sure he violated the Constitution, but since when is THAT a big deal? It's not like he broke the law or anything."

The lengths these nuts will go to in defending classroom preachers is just amazing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ahem,

Sorry, I thought it was quite obvious.

[Guest Paul]

Actually yes and no.  You're right in that that's how the law operates.  However, you're confusing operation through judicial interpretation with specific language.  The judiciary has "interpreted" what you describe - however, there is nothing in the Constitution, or any amendment thereto, that specifically states that you cannot preach in a classroom.  Accordingly, things left open to judicial interpretation are subject to re-interpretation as time passes.  Accordingly, if the wrong fact set should get in front of the wrong judges at some point in the future, that details that form the totality of that proscription can be chipped away.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you're making the point that some poltically motivated, right wing judiciary could distort all meaning out of Constitution principles, unfortunately you are correct. If you're arguing that those principles are not clear from the text and all the documents surrounding adoption of the Constitution, and its historical context, I respectfully but vehemently disagree.

[Guest Guest]

I'm going to answer your question even though you have not answered mine. You probably think you did, but you didn't. As I've said over and over, our issue is not whether and to what extent this teacher is disciplined. Therefore, your comments about no prior discipline, etc., are not relevant to our concerns. Improper statements were made, which should be corrected. It has nothing to do with whether Matthew and I are models of truth-telling or the world's biggest liars. That was my point, and you do not address it. I am disappointed. Please give this some thought, because I believe that being led off on tangents is one of the biggest problems we're facing as a nation. It's why we have so many abysmally bad political leaders.

As to your comments about our credibility, mine and Matthew's, you do not address our comments substantively, or consider them in context. That is what I asked you to do, and I don't see any of that in your answer. I addressed this subject my letter to the Observer, and at KOTW, in response to comments from others. I have not brought it up on my own that I can recall, and if I would it would be for another reason. Matthew made the comment at the BoE meeting to illustrate the silliness of the attacks being made against him, and to point out that they were not based on fact. That reasonable conclusion is not that the accusation is an important one, but that it isn't based on the facts. When a person is being publicly attacked, that is a reasonable thing to point out, don't you think.

That said, here is my answer to your question as posted on another page in KOTW. It's in several other places, too. "I'll say it again. I recall Matthew wearing a long, black outfit to school, which could be called a skirt because it doesn't have pant legs. I leave for work long before he gets up, and come home hours after he does, so I did not see him in it that day. But I do recall him discussing the school's policy and talking about wearing the outfit for that reason. I recall he wore it another time or two as well, just because he liked it. He also wore it in a play on the Lincoln School stage, as I mentioned in my letter to the Observer. He never wore a dress, to school or anywhere else that I recall. Those are the facts, like them or not."

Finally, I do appreciate that you understand the large issue that we're raising. Thank you for that, and for not merely "taking sides."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I guess we are even. You believe I didn't satisfactorily answer your question and I do not believe that your above response has clarified the dress/skirt issue either.

I do believe that I answered your question regarding the credibility issue. It is important to me. If you are okay with even one person, anonymous or not, believing your credibility is at issue, so be it.

I do not believe you have clarified the dress/skirt issue because the above quote by you is exactly the statement that contradicts your original statement on this subject.

But, since it only appears that we are going around in circles on this, I am willing to no longer continute this discussion, but will, in my own mind continue to believe that you are either flip-flopping on this or playing the "semantics game".

[Strife767]

Ahem,

Sorry, I thought it was quite obvious.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This forum ignores IMG tags for some reason...noticed that earlier.

[Guest Paul]

Well, I guess we are even.  You believe I didn't satisfactorily answer your question and I do not believe that your above response has clarified the dress/skirt issue either. 

I do believe that I answered your question regarding the credibility issue.  It is important to me.  If you are okay with even one person, anonymous or not, believing your credibility is at issue, so be it.

I do not believe you have clarified the dress/skirt issue because the above quote by you is exactly the statement that contradicts your original statement on this subject.

But, since it only appears that we are going around in circles on this, I am willing to no longer continute this discussion, but will, in my own mind continue to believe that you are either flip-flopping on this or playing the "semantics game".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Excuse me, but there is no contradiction. Furthermore, the fact that you declare the issue to be important does not tell me why it is; that's the part of the question you're not answering.

In addition, it's not OK with me that you think this calls my credibility into question, but apparently you've made up your mind to think that it does, notwithstanding the lack of any basis for holding that view. You certainly aren't stating one.