yayyyyyy God

[ollie]

Harsh guys! C'mon Ollie, Birdy is one of the rare dissenting voices that keeps this place from becoming an echo chamber.

And I'll repeat that I think you'd find more variety of discussion between the regulars if there wasn't this constant battle against the one "dissenting" voice. Anyone can play devil's advocate or be a troll.

But if you think I'm being too harsh, and Birdy obviously does, then I'll bow out and try to ignore this corner of Jambands.ca.

[ollie]

I guess i'm not granted the same rights as those in the echo chamber.

Who grants rights around here? It's not like I'm using admin privileges to delete or edit your posts. I'm throwing out my 2 cents like everybody else.

[Birdy]

my two cents is about politics.

you're great.

see ya.

[d_rawk]

But if you think I'm being too harsh, and Birdy obviously does, then I'll bow out and try to ignore this corner of Jambands.ca.

I would equally hate to see that.

I lack the requisite skills to negotiate this.

Back when the politics forum started, I declined the moderatorship offer as I believed (and still do, I think) that a moderator wasn't needed. If I had taken on the role, this would probably be the first time I'd have been tempted to lock a thread.

Can we maybe voluntarily take it upon ourselves to walk away for a couple of days? I'll be the first out.

[phishtaper]

perhaps this may help. it's the original editorial.

December 18, 2006

Talk in Class Turns to God, Setting Off Public Debate on Rights

By TINA KELLEY

KEARNY, N.J. — Before David Paszkiewicz got to teach his accelerated 11th-grade history class about the United States Constitution this fall, he was accused of violating it.

Shortly after school began in September, the teacher told his sixth-period students at Kearny High School that evolution and the Big Bang were not scientific, that dinosaurs were aboard Noah’s ark, and that only Christians had a place in heaven, according to audio recordings made by a student whose family is now considering a lawsuit claiming Mr. Paszkiewicz broke the church-state boundary.

“If you reject his gift of salvation, then you know where you belong,†Mr. Paszkiewicz was recorded saying of Jesus. “He did everything in his power to make sure that you could go to heaven, so much so that he took your sins on his own body, suffered your pains for you, and he’s saying, ‘Please, accept me, believe.’ If you reject that, you belong in hell.â€

The student, Matthew LaClair, said that he felt uncomfortable with Mr. Paszkiewicz’s statements in the first week, and taped eight classes starting Sept. 13 out of fear that officials would not believe the teacher had made the comments.

Since Matthew’s complaint, administrators have said they have taken “corrective action†against Mr. Paszkiewicz, 38, who has taught in the district for 14 years and is also a youth pastor at Kearny Baptist Church. However, they declined to say what the action was, saying it was a personnel matter.

“I think he’s an excellent teacher,†said the school principal, Al Somma. “As far as I know, there have never been any problems in the past.â€

Staci Snider, the president of the local teacher’s union, said Mr. Paszkiewicz (pronounced pass-KEV-ich) had been assigned a lawyer from the union, the New Jersey Education Association. Two calls to Mr. Paszkiewicz at school and one to his home were not returned.

In this tale of the teacher who preached in class and the pupil he offended, students and the larger community have mostly lined up with Mr. Paszkiewicz, not with Matthew, who has received a death threat handled by the police, as well as critical comments from classmates.

Greice Coelho, who took Mr. Paszkiewicz’s class and is a member of his youth group, said in a letter to The Observer, the local weekly newspaper, that Matthew was “ignoring the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which gives every citizen the freedom of religion.†Some anonymous posters on the town’s electronic bulletin board, Kearnyontheweb.com, called for Matthew’s suspension.

On the sidewalks outside the high school, which has 1,750 students, many agreed with 15-year-old Kyle Durkin, who said, “I’m on the teacher’s side all the way.â€

While science teachers, particularly in the Bible Belt, have been known to refuse to teach evolution, the controversy here, 10 miles west of Manhattan, hinges on assertions Mr. Paszkiewicz made in class, including how a specific Muslim girl would go to hell.

“This is extremely rare for a teacher to get this blatantly evangelical,†said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a nonprofit educational association. “He’s really out there proselytizing, trying to convert students to his faith, and I think that that’s more than just saying I have some academic freedom right to talk about the Bible’s view of creation as well as evolution.â€

Even some legal organizations that often champion the expression of religious beliefs are hesitant to support Mr. Paszkiewicz.

“It’s proselytizing, and the courts have been pretty clear you can’t do that,†said John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, a group that provides legal services in religious freedom cases. “You can’t step across the line and proselytize, and that’s what he’s done here.â€

The class started on Sept. 11, and Matthew quickly grew concerned. “The first couple of days I had him, he had already begun discussing his religious point of view,†Matthew, a thin, articulate 16-year-old with braces and a passion for politics and the theater, recalled in an interview. “It wasn’t even just his point of view, it went beyond that to say this is the right way, this is the only way. The way he said it, I wasn’t sure how far he was going to go.â€

On the second day of taping, after the discussion veered from Moses’s education to free will, Matthew asked why a loving God would consign humans to hell, according to the recording.

Some of Matthew’s detractors say he set up his teacher by baiting him with religious questions. But Matthew, who was raised in the Ethical Culture Society, a humanist religious and educational group, said all of his comments were in response to something the teacher said.

“I didn’t start any of the topics that were discussed,†he said.

In a Sept. 25 letter to the principal, Matthew wrote: “I care about the future generation and I do not want Mr. Paszkiewicz to continue preaching to and poisoning students.†He met with school officials and handed over the recordings.

Matthew’s family wrote four letters to the district asking for an apology and for the teacher to correct any false statements he had made in class, particularly those related to science. Matthew’s father, Paul LaClair, a lawyer, said he was now considering legal action against the district, claiming that Mr. Paszkiewicz’s teachings violated their son’s First Amendment and civil rights, and that his words misled the class and went against the curriculum.

Kenneth J. Lindenfelser, the lawyer for the Kearny school board, said he could not discuss Mr. Paszkiewicz specifically, but that when a complaint comes in about a teacher, it is investigated, and then the department leader works with the teacher to correct any inappropriate behavior.

The teacher is monitored, and his or her evaluation could be noted, Mr. Lindenfelser said, adding that if these steps did not work, the teacher could be reprimanded, suspended or, eventually, fired.

As for the request that Mr. Paszkiewicz correct his statements that conflict with the district’s science curriculum, “Sometimes, the more you dwell on the issue, the more you continue the issue,†Mr. Lindenfelser said. “Sometimes, it’s better to stop any inappropriate behavior and move on.â€

The district’s actions have succeeded, he said, as the family has not reported any continued violations.

Bloggers around the world have called Matthew courageous. In contrast, the LaClairs said they had been surprised by the vehemence of the opposition that local residents had expressed against Matthew.

Frank Viscuso, a Kearny resident, wrote in a letter to The Observer that “when a student is advised by his ‘attorney’ father to bait a teacher with questions about religion, and then records his answers and takes the story to 300 newspapers, that family isn’t ‘offended’ by what was said in the classroom — they’re simply looking for a payout and to make a name for themselves.†He called the teacher one of the town’s best.

However, Andrew Lewczuk, a former student of Mr. Paszkiewicz, praised his abilities as a history teacher but said he regretted that he had not protested the religious discussions. “In the end, the manner in which Mr. Paszkiewicz spoke with his students was careless, inconsiderate and inappropriate,†he wrote to The Observer. “It was an abuse of power and influence, and it’s my own fault that I didn’t do anything about this.â€

One teacher, who did not give his name, said he thought both Matthew and his teacher had done the right thing. “The student had the right to do what he did,†the man said. As for Mr. Paszkiewicz, “He had the right to say what he said, he was not preaching, and that’s something I’m very much against.â€

Matthew said he missed the friends he had lost over his role in the debate, and said he could “feel the glares†when he walked into school.

Instead of mulling Supreme Court precedents, he said with half a smile, “I should be worrying about who I’m going to take to the prom.â€

1) the recordings do exist. this is not a case of hearsay, birdy.

2) something inappropriate was going on in the classroom because school administrators took "corrective action" against the teacher.

[Kanada Kev]

Didn't we all go to school?? Then we should all know, just ask god:

Look, there he is!!!

[ollie]

I'll be the first out.

This is getting ridiculous. I'm the one with the obviously low tolerance level around here so please don't leave on my account.

[Birdy]

Noone needs to quit anything.

It is what it is.

The thread is dead... let's move on.

Thanks for posting the NYTimes article Pt... but i'm really, really done with this one.

Maybe my mission would be complete if the yayyyy god thread were to be locked after all.

KIDDING!

[meggo]

don't you guys have jobs?

[she types from a computer at work...]

[Birdy]

PT,

and i admit, the evidence in this article is far more compelling.

[d_rawk]

This is getting ridiculous. I'm the one with the obviously low tolerance level around here so please don't leave on my account.

I think we've misunderstood each other. I didn't mean for that to sound huffy or pissy at all. I wasn't trying to say 'I'm so disgusted that I'm walking away' kind of thing, just a 'And I'm willing to eat my own dog food, so I'll do it too, if that is what we need to do' kind of thing.

[ollie]

This is getting ridiculous. I'm the one with the obviously low tolerance level around here so please don't leave on my account.

I think we've misunderstood each other. I didn't mean for that to sound huffy or pissy at all. I wasn't trying to say 'I'm so disgusted that I'm walking away' kind of thing, just a 'And I'm willing to eat my own dog food, so I'll do it too, if that is what we need to do' kind of thing.

And again because I didn't think you were being pissy at all. Maybe a little martyr-ish though.

[phishtaper]

well, im willing to move on so long as all of you are willing to admit that im the prettiest one here.

[bradm]

I think Bradm's second paragraph was meant to demonstrate the need for the formal seperation of church and state - it gets misunderstood as a division to exclude religiously-informed voices, but its initial intent was to protect the political machinery, ostensibly now in the hands of the citizenry, from the over-reaching influence of an all powerful church which was itself the domain of an elite cadre or any other inidividual / collective that could claim political legitimacy by virtue of divinity (or having the exclusive ear of divinity, depending on what religious notions are popular at the time).

Stop me when I am putting words in your mouth, Brad. I'm just trying to explain how I personally understood it.

You pretty much nailed it. To me, the question, "Should the state's authority be influenced or guided by church?" necessarily implies the follow-up question: "Which church* should influence the state's authority?"

Aloha,

Brad

* Of course, this assumes that a decent defintion of "church" can be arrived at, which itself brings up a question: who decides whether this or that organization is a "church" for the purposes of exterting influence on the state's authority?

[Birdy]

You're gorgeous Pt.

[Deeps]

This has been an interesting read. I stayed away, due to the fact that I had to get some work done.

I've got to say though. A teacher/role model's pechant for anything should be tempered forthright on account of their being obliged to not bias the developing minds of their pupils.

In comparison to the benefit a teacher provides when instructing their students to think for themselves, the need to express their opinions (aka their individual freedom of expression) pales.

My .02.

Steve

[Thorgnor]

Yeah, lock the thread now that the real article has been posted, sans edits. Now that Birdy has no leg to stand on.

The kid was out of line for feeling that he was doomed, either to hell or to fail the class... nobody should have to learn from this event.

The dissent is fine with me, it represents the "majority" of Canadian opinion even if Birdy feels really put upon by reading our AUTHOROTATIVE voices. We clearly wield much power in Canada, and must be told how wrong we all are for supporting Reason instead of Belief in situations where we are trying to be reasonable!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Bradm is a sarcastic genius.

[Birdy]

I still have a leg or two. In a really long and disturbingly convoluted way I was trying to touch upon how some of us sensitize, or desensitize these issues. The real article shows proof, and admittedly that part of my argument sucks. Yet i still wouldn't have taken it to the level this kid has.

To me it shouldn't come down to being between reason and belief and I see and can understand the reasonable side of your argument. What I'm looking for is a way that can represent us all, those who look to reason and those who look to belief for answers.

And think that possibly, such a way has the potential to make everyone more accepting of each other, regardless of where our differences lie.

Bradm offered up suggestions and I only wish I was able to do the same.

I hear what's been said against my argument in this thread. I guess the method to the madness here is that maybe I just need to agree to disagree and carry on for another day.

[ollie]

Kissed and made up. Hope we're cool too d_jango. Sorry to subject you all to my bad day.

[Birdy]

and me as well.

it's nice to think we can moderate ourselves.

[Thorgnor]

Not to keep it rolling, BUT...

If you want to have a discussion about something real, and you want to come to an agreement, you must "reason" your way there as an English speaker. What we settle on is belief, it's where our evidence gives out and consensus begins.

But this debate between secularism and religious life is not something we can afford to let creep into science, science depends on reason. It is not religion. History is the science of the past and to say that we should let teachers throw their beliefs around when they should be doing thier utmost, as a duty to the future, to be unbiased is religious fascism.

So not to prick it up yet again, but if we're talking political science I'll never accept a "belief" where evidence can be presented. And if you want to debate policy that's cool, but we can't come to an agreement when one of us settles on "this is how I feel".

Sometimes the truth really does hurt, like when we notice that we're racist, or unintentionally forwarding our least favorite arguments out of context. To say that this was a case of "poor put upon believer" is bunk, how much play do Jewish or Muslim radicals get in our reasonable society? ... and thank God for that.

I don't see you standing up for young female footballers who have to remove their headscarves to play. I don't remeber you getting fired up about the need to show ID and its discriminatory effects on Muslim women who veil. You know, seems to me you only defend "Conservatives", the "Right" and your own interests.

Think about Galileo before you request a seat for any church at the political policy table.

And then answer my question...

Are you for real?

Edited November 4, 2008 by Guest

[Birdy]

I'm not here in this thread to defend anyone but moreso everyone. But if you get the opinion i'm in it for myself, sobeit. But you couldn't be further from the truth.

I'm just trying to find a way for an across the board representation of those who believe and those who reason. For real. I think it actually might be one of my better traits.

[phishtaper]

the kid was a lawyer-spawned, shit-disturbing dick and the oddball teacher got sucked into preaching. solved.

PT is the prettiest! say it!

[d_rawk]

Kissed and made up. Hope we're cool too d_jango.

Always! I'm the guy who started the 'Ollie appreciation thread', after all

PT is the prettiest! say it!

I can't stand not being the prettiest guy in the room, it makes me very very grumpy, but sometimes there is a prettier guy, and that guy is PT.

[Kanada Kev]

To be balanced, you just gotta make fun of those atheists too :

Edited November 10, 2008 by Guest