tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10623297.post116647415814249964..comments2023-11-17T06:40:12.183-06:00Comments on Don Singleton: Talk in Class Turns to God, Setting Off Public Debate on RightsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10623297.post-1166631586614276612006-12-20T10:19:00.000-06:002006-12-20T10:19:00.000-06:00The First Amendment restricts Congress. The 14th A...<I>The First Amendment restricts Congress. The 14th Amendment extends equal protection to the states, but says nothing about local government.<BR/><BR/>That isn't how the Supreme Court has interpreted it over the last 60 years.</I><BR/><BR/><B>I think they went too far in interpreting something Jefferson wrote in a letter to a church assuring them that the Feds would not discriminate against them, but that is beside the point.</B><BR/><BR/><I>For an employee of any government agency to make a statement about faith does not establish an official state religion. Bill Clinton was a Baptist, and spoke of his faith. That did not make us all Baptists. GWB is a Methodist, and has spoken of his faith. That does not make us all Methodists.<BR/><BR/>Not relevant. The remarks of Clinton and Bush are understood to be their individual views;</I><BR/><BR/><B>As are what a teacher answers when a child asks him a question.</B><BR/><BR/><I>were any president to attempt to represent their individual beliefs as the official position of the government, that would certainly be crossing the line. (In fact, Bush has arguably crossed that line by incorporating sectarian propaganda in government publications on topics such as family planning.)<BR/><BR/>A teacher in a classroom is (rightly) held to a different standard, because in most cases our educational system is based on a model in which teachers impart knowledge to students.</I><BR/><BR/><B>That may have been the case when we went to school. Now they are just expected to fill their minds with secular humanistic crap.</B><BR/><BR/><I>This guy was presenting his religious beliefs not as an individual opinion but as fact--was, in effect, teaching (as distinguished from merely expressing) his narrowly sectarian beliefs.</I><BR/><BR/><B>Can you prove that? Was it in his lesson plan?</B><BR/><BR/><I>There is some evidence, however, that these statements by the teacher are in resonse to questions posed by some students, and if he is asked what he believes, it seems reasonable for him to answer the question. <BR/><BR/>I'm not sure what evidence you have for this, but the article pretty clearly says that LaClair didn't start asking his questions (while taping) until Paszkiewicz had already done a fair amount of proselytizing.</I><BR/><BR/><B>You just admitted that LeClair was asking questions. Can you prove that the objectionable things were a part of the prequestion proselytizing, and not answers to the questions.</B><BR/><BR/><I>It's also worth noting (from an earlier article in the Jersey Journal, link expired unfortunately) that when LaClair went to the principal with his complaint, Paszkiewicz denied saying what LaClair claimed he said--until LaClair played the tape. Paszkiewicz didn't just use classroom time for his own sectarian purposes--he lied about doing it. How anyone can think this guy is anything other than complete scum (whatever their religious beliefs) is beyond me. </I><BR/><BR/><B>If he was proselytizing to the degree of the quotes, without them being answers to questions from the students, he was wrong, but I would not say he was scum.</B>Don Singletonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02991386635454877389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10623297.post-1166569559572669792006-12-19T17:05:00.000-06:002006-12-19T17:05:00.000-06:00The First Amendment restricts Congress. The 14th A...<I>The First Amendment restricts Congress. The 14th Amendment extends equal protection to the states, but says nothing about local government.</I><BR/><BR/>That isn't how the Supreme Court has interpreted it over the last 60 years. <BR/><BR/><I>For an employee of any government agency to make a statement about faith does not establish an official state religion. Bill Clinton was a Baptist, and spoke of his faith. That did not make us all Baptists. GWB is a Methodist, and has spoken of his faith. That does not make us all Methodists.</I><BR/><BR/>Not relevant. The remarks of Clinton and Bush are understood to be their <I>individual</I> views; were any president to attempt to represent their individual beliefs as the official position of the government, that would certainly be crossing the line. (In fact, Bush has arguably crossed that line by incorporating sectarian propaganda in government publications on topics such as family planning.)<BR/><BR/>A teacher in a classroom is (rightly) held to a different standard, because in most cases our educational system is based on a model in which teachers impart knowledge to students. This guy was presenting his religious beliefs not as an individual opinion but as fact--was, in effect, <I>teaching</I> (as distinguished from merely <I>expressing</I>) his narrowly sectarian beliefs. <BR/><BR/><I>There is some evidence, however, that these statements by the teacher are in resonse to questions posed by some students, and if he is asked what he believes, it seems reasonable for him to answer the question. </I><BR/><BR/>I'm not sure what evidence you have for this, but the article pretty clearly says that LaClair didn't start asking his questions (while taping) until Paszkiewicz had already done a fair amount of proselytizing. <BR/><BR/>It's also worth noting (from an earlier article in the Jersey Journal, link expired unfortunately) that when LaClair went to the principal with his complaint, <I>Paszkiewicz denied saying what LaClair claimed he said</I>--until LaClair played the tape. Paszkiewicz didn't just use classroom time for his own sectarian purposes--he <I>lied</I> about doing it. How anyone can think this guy is anything other than complete scum (whatever their religious beliefs) is beyond me.Tom Hiltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17575511424823512042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10623297.post-1166564462376175402006-12-19T15:41:00.000-06:002006-12-19T15:41:00.000-06:00A teacher has no place telling students that if th...<I>A teacher has no place telling students that if they do not believe as he does they are going to hell.</I><BR/><BR/><B>If you are talking about it being in the lesson plan, and it is not a religion course or Sunday School, I would agree with you.<BR/><BR/>There is some evidence, however, that these statements by the teacher are in resonse to questions posed by some students, and if he is asked what he believes, it seems reasonable for him to answer the question.</B>Don Singletonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02991386635454877389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10623297.post-1166557529589313692006-12-19T13:45:00.000-06:002006-12-19T13:45:00.000-06:00A teacher has no place telling students that if th...A teacher has no place telling students that if they do not believe as he does they are going to hell.Jack Steinerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16625864271071630940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10623297.post-1166540795053370022006-12-19T09:06:00.000-06:002006-12-19T09:06:00.000-06:00Did he establish a religion, or prohibit anyone's ...<I>Did he establish a religion, or prohibit anyone's free exercise of their religion.<BR/><BR/>The answers are yes and sort of, respectively. <BR/><BR/>David Paszkiewicz is an employee of the government, teaching in a government-funded classroom, to students required by the government to attend.</I><BR/><BR/><B>I believe he is an employee of the local governemt. Possibly the city, but probably a school board. The First Amendment restricts Congress. The 14th Amendment extends equal protection to the states, but says nothing about local government.</B><BR/><BR/><I>For him to teach his religious beliefs as fact is to give them de facto government sponsorship--and that's exactly what 'establishment' means in a First Amendment context.</I><BR/><BR/><B>Au Contraire, my good friend. Establishment means exactly what is says, naming one church to be the official church of the nation. At the time of the signing several of the colonies had official state churches, and they did not want the federal government to select one of them and make it the official church for the entire nation.<BR/><BR/>For an employee of any government agency to make a statement about faith does not establish an official state religion. Bill Clinton was a Baptist, and spoke of his faith. That did not make us all Baptists. GWB is a Methodist, and has spoken of his faith. That does not make us all Methodists.</B><BR/><BR/><I>And yes, telling a Muslim student she is going to hell is at the very least discouraging her free expression of her religion. Just how free is she to express her religious beliefs when her peers have all been told they damn her to hell? (If some teacher told his students Christians were going to hell, I guarantee you would understand that point.)</I><BR/><BR/><B>I have heard Christian pastors that said that other Christians were going to hell if they did not adopt what his particular church teaches. I still feel my ticket Home will be honored.<BR/><BR/>Muslims say that Christians and Jews will go to hell. I have no objection to their saying that.<BR/><BR/>I have an objection to them killing anyone that does not convert to their faith</B>Don Singletonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02991386635454877389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10623297.post-1166478561879628322006-12-18T15:49:00.000-06:002006-12-18T15:49:00.000-06:00Did he establish a religion, or prohibit anyone's ...<I>Did he establish a religion, or prohibit anyone's free exercise of their religion.</I><BR/><BR/>The answers are yes and sort of, respectively. <BR/><BR/>David Paszkiewicz is an employee of the government, teaching in a government-funded classroom, to students required by the government to attend. For him to teach his religious beliefs as fact is to give them de facto government sponsorship--and that's exactly what 'establishment' means in a First Amendment context. <BR/><BR/>And yes, telling a Muslim student she is going to hell is <I>at the very least</I> discouraging her free expression of her religion. Just how free is she to express her religious beliefs when her peers have all been told they damn her to hell? (If some teacher told his students <I>Christians</I> were going to hell, I guarantee you would understand that point.)Tom Hiltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17575511424823512042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10623297.post-1166476595671938312006-12-18T15:16:00.000-06:002006-12-18T15:16:00.000-06:00"Matthew LaClair has received a death threat."Noth...<I>"Matthew LaClair has received a death threat."<BR/><BR/>Nothing speaks more to the blessings of Christianity than threatening to kill heretics and unbelievers.</I><BR/><BR/><B>If the death threat really occurred, I denounce anyone that made it, and I hope that the authorities find him promptly, and prosecute him to the full extent of the law. The Quran may endorse such behaviour, but the Holy Bible certainly does not.</B>Don Singletonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02991386635454877389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10623297.post-1166476022816525972006-12-18T15:07:00.000-06:002006-12-18T15:07:00.000-06:00"Matthew LaClair has received a death threat."Noth...<I>"Matthew LaClair has received a death threat."</I><BR/><BR/>Nothing speaks more to the blessings of Christianity than threatening to kill heretics and unbelievers.knighterranthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14886831250521410342noreply@blogger.com