Stop Dominionism in Kearny

by: Paul LaClair

Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 10:30:00 AM EST

"If Fascism ever comes to America, it will come wrapped in the flag, carrying the cross." This prophetic statement from Sinclair Lewis is being played out in Kearny right now.

My seventeen-year-old son is at the center of a "controversy" about a history teacher who was misusing his position to proselytize biblical fundamentalism (he is a Baptist) in a public school. Among the many galling aspects of this saga is that the matter is considered a controversy at all.

This teacher did not merely say "Jesus loves you," or lead a prayer. He told high school juniors who do not share his beliefs that they "belong in hell" --- not merely that they will go to hell, but that they belong there.

In the face of my son's obvious skepticism, he dogmatically asserted that the universe must have been created by a being. On this and many other points, he was not expressing a mere opinion, but stating his beliefs as fact.

how many high school teachers are publicly called "ignorant and scientifically illiterate" by a world-renowned astrophysicist?He dismissed evolution and the big bang in favor of biblical creationism, in direct violation of settled Constitutional law. Quite apart from the illegality of this behavior, his "knowledge" of science is questionable to say the least. After all, how many high school teachers are publicly called "ignorant and scientifically illiterate" by a world-renowned astrophysicist? He also implied that all non-conservatives (we can only imagine what he means by that) are like Nazi appeasers.

He even had the audacity to tell my son that if he is sincerely seeking, he will "put his hand into Jesus' side," implying that the young man's mother and I are not sincere in our religious beliefs. Where I was raised, that sort of thing would be considered --- let's put it charitably --- rude.

Since my son reported this misbehavior, Mr. Paszkiewicz and his apologists have persisted in a series of denials, obfuscations and shell-gaming that would make Karl Rove proud. True to form, Paszkiewicz and his radical-right apologists have circled the wagons around him with a pitiful collection of arguments, including the notion that my son somehow forced him to say these outrageous things. Next they'll be telling us that Matthew can walk on water.

Do not underestimate for one moment what is at stake here. This sort of thing goes on in the Bible belt all the time. Looking at the abuse my son has endured ten miles west of Manhattan, can you imagine what would happen to a student who had the courage to report something like this in those parts of this country?

Paszkiewicz's behavior is part of a movement called dominionism: right wing Christians literally and fervently believe that because most Americans are Christian, they have the right to have dominion over everyone else. History tells us where that leads, as group after group is dropped from the list of the acceptable. We are confident the vast majority of Americans reject this dark vision.

[Editor's note] What you can do:

Support the ACLU, PFAW and Americans United.
Send letters to the Jersey Journal, Star-Ledger and/or Kearny Observer.
Participate at www.kearnyontheweb.com.
Attend the next Board of Education meeting on March 19 at 7pm at Franklin School, 100 Davis Avenue in Kearny.
Send the Board of Education (100 Davis Avenue, Kearny, NJ 07032) letters of protest and calls for action: (a) school-wide assemblies to correct Paszkiewicz's mis-statements of science and educate students on the First Amendment and (b) rescind the no-recording-without-consent policy at least until after a suitable time and after thorough public input and discussion.

Paul LaClair :: Stop Dominionism in Kearny

Tags: Kearny, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

Stop Dominionism in Kearny | 30 comments

Re (4.00 / 2)

First of all, I applaud you and your son for standing up for what is right and legal. I'm probably one of the most open about my faith here at Blue Jersey and I can plainly see where the line was crossed. After reading your post, I figured out what was bothering me the most:

He dismissed evolution and the big bang in favor of biblical creationism, in direct violation of settled Constitutional law. Quite apart from the illegality of this behavior, his "knowledge" of science is questionable to say the least.

This is a guy who teaches HISTORY. He shouldn't be discussing either religion or science in his class - except in a VERY narrow construct. For example, if they are talking about the Scopes Monkey Trial, then it is valid to discuss what the prevailing attitudes were at the time. But that isn't - by any report - what this teacher was doing.

I've often opposed creationism and it's bastard child (intelligent design) in the classroom as being unscientific. If you want to learn religious dogma (or teach it), then go to church on Sunday. If you want to learn science (or teach it), then go to a science class. The fact that this occurred in a history class just makes it bizarre. Even those who want to retreat behind "teach the controversy" nonsense simply can't stretch it to justify this intrusion of personal belief into public education.

Again, my hearty thanks for opposing this and supporting your son's - and every other child's - right to a public education without fear of religious persecution.

by: Thurman Hart @ Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 19:33:05 PM UTC

Let's All "Show Up" on This One (0.00 / 0)

After reading your post, I figured out what was bothering me the most.....

XT, if that mere reference to one element of this "teacher's" abuse of his role/job, of his students minds and of the US Constitution bothered you...then when you listen to the actual class in its full forty five minutes of infamy.....you're going to blow a few gaskets.

Perhaps that just might drive you to find a way to try to make the time to come out to the next KSB (Kearny School Board) meeting.....and bring along any elected officials of any level that you may be able to influence to do likewise.

As I understand it, the kind of "Christianity" that this fellow teaches (in or out of the classroom) is (in many regards) to Christianity what Talibanism is to Islam.

It is wrong, on every level, for the State to become an instrument for the promotion/promulgation/preaching of one particular "religious" perspective. Period.

Unfortunately, the people on the KSB don't yet fully comprehend that simple truth as they seem far more threatened and offended by what Matthew did than by what the "teacher" did.

One thing our opponents do know how to do very effectively is to SHOW UP.

Until we are able to meet them on the existential plane of realpolitik; we are just talking.

Don't get me wrong. Talk is good, in fact it's essential...but at some point it must enter the realm of action.

Fortunately, we still have enough of a democracy and civil society remaining that that action can take the form of simply showing up at a meeting and speaking our minds.

If enough of us fail to exercise our right to speak freely in a democracy (over a sufficient period of time) those rights will be taken away from us by those who do show up.

To you who may think "it can't happen here", "America can never become a theocracy". I say....Wake Up! Look at the trends. Look at who is president. Look at the hard core of what's left of his supporters.

It wasn't so long ago that the public schools were a racially segregated (by lots of "good Christians") place of officially sanctioned "prayer" as led by the "teacher" or that it was a crime for a woman to control her own reproductive system or that there were not even "civil unions" in NJ.

The kind of "dominionism" that Matthew's dad refers to above is not just about a threat to one i6 year old. It's a clear and present danger to all that is sacred in our secular democratic Constitutional Republic.

We aren't in Kansas! This is New Jersey...and we are here blogging on Blue Jersey.

What you{{WE}}can do:
1. Support the ACLU, PFAW and Americans United.
2. Send letters to the Jersey Journal, Star-Ledger and/or Kearny Observer.
3. Participate at www.kearnyontheweb.com.
4. Attend the next Board of Education meeting on March 19 at 7pm at Franklin School, 100 Davis Avenue in Kearny.
5. Send the Board of Education (100 Davis Avenue, Kearny, NJ 07032) letters of protest and calls for action: (a) school-wide assemblies to correct Paszkiewicz's mis-statements of science and educate students on the First Amendment and (b) rescind the no-recording-without-consent policy at least until after a suitable time and after thorough public input and discussion.

XT, I know you as one who has "shown up". It was a pleasure meeting you in Ridgewood a while back...and I know you've got your hands full with the twins but, if you can find a way to get to this next KSB meeting, I know your strong and clear voice will make a difference.

Obviously, it's not going to be possible for every single person reading this to get to the KBE meeting; but I bet that if we all made it a priority that at least 25 or 50 could show up.

Then perhaps after the meeting we can all go out and joyfully celebrate American democracy in action!

by: Nick Lento @ Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 21:47:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.

You must enter a subject for your comment

Paul LaClair, thanks for coming to bluejesey.net (0.00 / 0)

I would like to Echo X Texan's comments. You folks standing up for what is right, is inspiring. I would offer my virtual support, "got your back". Now how about some more boots on the ground kind of support...
Paul LaClair, would you consider coming to South Orange, to the Essex DFA meeting to talk? The meeting is Wednesday, March 7th, 7pm to 9pm. The goal, to recruit some bodies for the next BOE meeting. Maybe speak for a few minutes and take some questions.....

Check out my 3 paragraph primer on Polywell Fusion.

by: FogerRox @ Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 20:15:30 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.

You must enter a subject for your comment

Essex DFA (0.00 / 0)

Roger, please give me details on Essex DFA. You can get my e-mail from Juan or Steve. I'll be happy to work with you.
Paul LaClair

by: Paul LaClair @ Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 16:38:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.

You must enter a subject for your comment

i'm just glad... (0.00 / 0)

...this Matthew has his family's support. Not much a bright kid can't overcome with a supportive family at his back... i take great comfort in that. I remember first reading about this thinking "I hope this incident doen't mess this kid up too much."
He'll be fine.
Matt LeClair is my newest hero.

activist for hire.

by: Jay Lassiter @ Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 20:50:52 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.

You must enter a subject for your comment

RE (0.00 / 0)

Me comments.
XT

by: Thurman Hart @ Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 21:59:39 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.

You must enter a subject for your comment

vulgar & boorish (4.00 / 1)

I was educated in the 50s & 60s in Roselle Park NJ public schools, a town not unlike Kearny. Even following the school prayer decision it wasn't a big deal to mix standard Christian sentiments into school holiday celebrations. But not once, from K to 12, do I recall any teacher expressing strong personal religious views either to a class or me personally. There is something wrong with David Paszkiewicz. Decades ago it may have been only a matter of good manners & courtesy that kept teachers from mouthing off about religion. Anyway, they didn't - not in Roselle Park, where the school was about evenly divided between Catholics & protestants with a smattering of Jews & kids with no particular religion we knew of. Aside from the obvious church-state issue, it is clear Paszkiewicz is a vulgar, boorish man, & I wouldn't be at all surprised if many of his fellow teachers hold just that opinion of him. If he jabbers on to students, he probably does it in the teachers' lunchroom, too. He is much in need of a smackdown, & I hope he gets one.

by: Wesleylake @ Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 01:54:26 AM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.

You must enter a subject for your comment

Been there, done that (0.00 / 0)

Was a totally different time. Not that I codone it, of course. We grow, partly because some of the brave teachers there said, "Continue On." And we continued on.
I am so sorry for Kearney. Please, put your boots on the ground. This is 2007, not when I went to high school.

by: SmartyJones @ Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 03:44:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.

You must enter a subject for your comment

Video of Last Weeks Meeting on BlueJersey... (0.00 / 0)

You won't even have to leave the BlueJersey website to view it.
http://www.bluejerse...

by: Nick Lento @ Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 06:57:01 AM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.

You must enter a subject for your comment

Devil's Advocate (0.00 / 0)

Mr. LaClair, I say this with all due respect, IN MY OPINION, you're winning over support by conveying only one side of the story, and with that, I have an issue. I am not saying Mr. Paszkiewicz was right in what he allegedly said and I am not saying that I totally believe your son and think he is right for making a big deal over this. I want to say that I am going to try and keep this more as a "devil's advocate" comment, rather than an "I believe so and so is wrong" comment. Obviously it will appear as if I am defending Mr. Paszkiewicz, but that's only because your post was attacking him.
In the interest of full disclosure, let me start out by saying the following:
1. I am a resident of Kearny.
2. I am a graduate of Kearny High (Class of '02).
3. I was educated by Mr. David Paszkiewicz.
4. I liked Mr. Paszkiewicz as a teacher.
5. I am a Christian; however, I am not a "radical".
6. I was not in the room when this alleged incident took place, therefore, I am a product of secondary information, reading about the story in the newspapers and seeing it on the news. I recognize that "spinning the story" is a powerful tool and is implored by the media on a regular basis. I also understand that those closest to the incident will have some difficulties in remaining 100% objective in their accounts. Therefore, I believe none of them. This is the kind of issue that everyone, minus the students present in the room, will base their opinions on bad information. That being said, I am merely trying to be fair and mention some "points" that may present a new perspective to the bluejersey readers. They are as follows:
? Mr. Paszkiewicz was my history teacher during my junior year in high school. Although it was widely known that he was a religious man, it never came as a result of his mentioning. It was all hear-say. He did not overtly mention his religious beliefs in class. The Kearny newspapers are all reporting that Mr. Paszkiewicz asked if any of the students objected to the nature of the conversation. Why did Matthew not object? In addition to having a reputation as a "religious" man, Mr. "P" was also known for being fair and caring for his students' feelings very much. I am sure if Matthew objected to the ALLEGED mention of personal religious beliefs in class, and stated his objections, the conversation would have proceeded no further.
? Matthew LaClair supposedly recorded the alleged conversation and burned onto CD's. I am familiar with technology, but please tell me if I am mistaken. There is not a single device that allows an individual to record sound directly onto a compact disc. You need to have a device to record the conversation, then transfer the conversation to a computer, and from there, deliver the conversation onto a CD. This clearly leaves room for editing. (Please don't mistake what I am saying here. I am not accusing Matt of editing the conversation. I am merely mentioning that it is entirely possible.) Computers are amazing pieces of machinery and with all the technology available today, editing a recorded conversation to make it sound the way you want it to sound is extremely possible.
? Mr. LaClair writes, "This teacher did not merely say "Jesus loves you," or lead a prayer. He told high school juniors who do not share his beliefs that they "belong in hell" --- not merely that they will go to hell, but that they belong there." I do not have the rest of the statement in front of me, and any responsible person making an informed decision would like to know the full statement and the context of which it was said before merely believing that Mr. Paszkiewicz told his students that they belong in hell. I implore the readers here to not draw conclusions based on a third party relaying this information. (Once again, not saying Mr. P didn't say these words, but please examine the context and the full statement first.)(Both of which I would provide if I was 100% positive I was correctly relaying the sentiment and words.)
? If I was provided with the correct information, Matthew LaClair had a previous incident in the high school where he refused to stand for the "Pledge of Allegiance". It has also been reported that he: wore a dress to school (against school dress code) and put stickers on his locker expressing his displeasure with President Bush (and refusing to take them down when asked). Each time he was addressed by the school administration, he quickly claimed that his "freedom of speech" was being violated. This could lead someone to believe that he is merely a "rabble rouser". Maybe your son isn't bothered by Pazskiewicz's words or actions. He may have just found a way to stir up controversy and exploited it. At the age of 17, being the center of attention and escaping the feeling of being "normal" and "just another student" is extremely exciting.
? You also write that Mr. Paszkiewicz has gathered the "right wingers" as a defense. The LaClair family has done just the same with the "left wing" groups, bringing in the ACLU and posting on "bluejersey". My point is this: If you are blaming Mr. Paszkiewicz for gather those that agree with him in support, you have to do the same to the LaClair family. The issue here should not be right wing vs. left wing. Naturally there are going to be disagreements about this issue and it has been highly politicized for years. That being said, there is nothing wrong with Paszkiewicz lining up like-minded supporters, much like there is nothing wrong with the LaClair family doing the same.
? As previously mentioned, both sides can spin this story to their advantage. However, I have heard many reports that claim Matthew was the one leading the questioning in Mr. Pazskiewicz's class. He supposedly controlled the substance and direction of the conversation. If it made him so uncomfortable, why continue?
? This one is more statement. This one is of my personal opinion: Your son is 17. If I was told that I would be going to hell because I didn't believe in Jesus as the savior when I was 17, I would have shrugged it off and said "You're a nut." I know all people are different, but could this really have damaged a 17 year old enough to bring it to this point? It's nothing a discussion in the next class about how "crazy" your history teacher is couldn't fix.
Unfortunately this issue does not seem to have a quick end in site. Without saying who I believe is right and who I believe is wrong, I think that until it is resolved, the Kearny tax payers are suffering with the school board focused on this issue instead of focusing on creating a better education for ALL students. I hope for a quick resolution, because quite frankly, I'm tired of hearing about it, and it seems like an issue that could have easily been resolved behind closed doors and without expense to Kearny's residents.
- Adam Guziejewski
adamguzi@gmail.com

by: YouthforaBetterNJ @ Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 12:47:33 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.

You must enter a subject for your comment

I smell a troll. (4.00 / 1)

Hate to say this, but you're either a troll or ignorant. Considering that you live in Kearny and you're so familiar with the situation, you're probably not ignorant of the facts.
I am sure if Matthew objected to the ALLEGED mention of personal religious beliefs in class...
You don't need to be devil's advocate or play the "he said, she said" game because there are audio recordings of the class lessons publicly available on the internet. If you listened to them, you would know this is not "alleged". This is real. So unless you want to question the veracity of the recordings themselves, listen to them and then come back and make your case on the facts.

by: Juan Melli @ Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 13:25:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.

You must enter a subject for your comment

Amen! (0.00 / 0)

(Pardon the "Pun.")

by: krose @ Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 16:04:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.

You must enter a subject for your comment

To be honest, I stopped (0.00 / 0)

reading your post when I came to "alleged conversation" and the editing mumbo jumbo right after it.
If what you say is true, that would mean that Paszkiewicz has become more radical since you left high school. If he felt that he should refrain from preaching to his classes back then, what has changed? And the answer to that is exactly what we all worry about.

by: Sidd Finch @ Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 14:01:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.

You must enter a subject for your comment

um (3.00 / 1)

I do not have the rest of the statement in front of me, and any responsible person making an informed decision would like to know the full statement and the context of which it was said before merely believing that Mr. Paszkiewicz told his students that they belong in hell.
Please tell me in what context this statement would EVER be appropriate for a teacher to tell his students? Unless he was being threatened (and even then it is not appropriate), there is absolutely no reason a teacher should ever say that his students "belong in hell".
I'll wait......

Scott Garrett - on the wrong side of, well, everything.

by: Adam L @ Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 19:01:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.

You must enter a subject for your comment

Replies (0.00 / 0)

1. Jmelli: I am a troll or ignorant? I have to say sir/madam, it is you that are the ignorant one if you don't appreciate what I have done for you here. I have merely posted some "other facts" of the case so you, the reader of Mr. LaClair's post could have some idea of what is being said by BOTH sides before forming an opinion (he said his piece and I'm presenting an other). The only opinion I have expressed is that of annoyance at the level to which this situation has heightened. For all you know, I could be the biggest LaClair supporter. However, I am also a realist and I understand that extreme ideologues, on the left or the right (perhaps much like yourself?) are dangerous people and form opinions without informing themselves of the facts. By posting only one side of the story, I felt there was a danger of that happening here (although I do understand this website is based on largely liberal ideas, many of which I support. However, I support such ideas based on facts and not simply because they are "liberal"). I have heard pieces of the recordings, and I have my opinion, which I have chosen not to express in this post. I never said I was ignorant of the facts, but I was not in the room. And relying on the recordings on the internet, Paszkiewicz's word, the LaClair family's word and/or the media's reporting as 100% true is foolish. As far as being a troll, I am far too good looking to be one of those.
2. Sidd Finch: I don't know what has changed and I haven't said we shouldn't be worried about it. In fact, you're right, it may be something we need to focus on, being there aren't more pressing matters facing our society today. My comment about the editing was intended to make you "think about the possibility" that editing could occur. I never said Matt did edit. I never said that what is on the recordings isn't how it happened But editing by is entirely possible. Technology is a wonderful thing. And unless you are a forensic expert and can tell me whether or not they were edited, the possibility still exists.
3. It appears everyone here has made up their mind on how they feel on the issue. I hope it was done so based on some real investigation and fact finding and not solely based on Mr. LaClair's or my own posts, because that's where the real ignorance would exist.

by: YouthforaBetterNJ @ Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 15:20:39 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.

You must enter a subject for your comment

youth.... (0.00 / 0)

This isn't a liberal or conservative issue. It is an American issue. It's a Constitutional issue. It's about religious freedom. You know, one of those things the country was founded on. Everyone should take this seriously.
You are doing something very dangerous and it doesn't make any difference who you support.
You're trying to make the case that there are two sets of facts. There aren't. There is evidence in the form of audio recordings here. It's pretty clear what happened and you would know that if you listened to them. If you think it's acceptable, say so, but don't come here and try to blur the facts by throwing out completely irrelevant information that reads more like a coordinated hit piece than an attempt at "balance".
When you do that, you lose all credibility as far as I'm concerned.

by: Juan Melli @ Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 16:00:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.

You must enter a subject for your comment

You also act as if we were uneducated and stupid people here, (0.00 / 0)

who would not already have taken ALL sides into account! Your side has already been expressed in the Star-Ledger, sir. We get what you are attempting to express. We just don't "BUY" it! Sorry for you, we are a very bright group of people who could never be swayed by an illogical argument such as yours!

by: krose @ Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 16:09:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.

You must enter a subject for your comment

comments (4.00 / 1)

Probably it would be worth remembering that many people read this site and they do not always comment. You don't seemd to be aware that there have many posts on this subject here, including a first hand account of how people behaved at the school board meeting.
I think your perspective is interesting. I am glad you chose to share it.
What's especially interesting to me is that besides the 'we can't ever know anything, not that I am taking sides' tone to it, is that it expresses the fundamental barrier the liberal activist faces:
You admit yourself that the teacher sounds like a "nut", but that of course is only 'personal.' Someone who thinks so should not actually do anything about it. That is the fundamental sin. And so, a host of arguments and attacks are mustered, the same ones applied to every liberal who speaks out, but basically 'troublemaker' sums it up. And of course it is okay to heckle at meetings, as long as you're part of the majority, but not okay to complain to authorities if you're in the minority.

Frank LoBiondo Record and Jon Runyan Watch

by: Hopeful @ Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 16:14:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.

You must enter a subject for your comment

Has anyone disputed that the teacher (0.00 / 0)

said the words on the tapes?

by: Sidd Finch @ Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 16:32:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.

You must enter a subject for your comment

Hang In There "Youth" (4.00 / 1)

At this point, I don't think you're a "troll". (If you are, then you're an abominably incompetent one ;-)
I DO think you are entirely wrong in your opinions/beliefs in re this case.
I invite you to thoroughly read this response...to digest it fully; and to then specifically tell me where you disagree and why. That's called a real discussion...and that's what this forum is truly all about.
I suspect that, from your perspective, this is "the lions den", so I have to cut you some slack and won't critique your literary style which uses way too many words to try to defensively couch yourself as being, somehow, objective. (Folks here have told me that I'm way too long winded too. LOL)
My sense is that you honestly believe that your ex teacher is an innocent good guy and that Matthew is as agent of....well, shall we say "secular humanism"
The audio of the one 45 minute classroom session is 100% damning (in a US Constitutional legal context). The uninterrupted unedited recording is a fluid and complex interweaving of numerous voices and background sounds. It is clearly not fake/digital fabrication as you suggest/imply.
To defend David Paszkiewicz you must also defend the extant audio as is. Even his own attorney accepts it as a fact, and none of the students present or David himself have denied that it is an accurate sound recording.
Check out the video of Paszkiewicz's attorney here (He's the first speaker in part two) http://www.bluejerse...
And check out the various links to the audio here http://www.bluejerse...
Unless you want to live in a theocracy (that espouses the particular brand of "Christianity" that David Paszkiewicz deems is "the word of God") then I suggest you take a good long hard look at what it is you are (by trying to excuse/minimize/justify) supporting.
PS
...a few sites that may be of interest to anyone concerned about this case:
http://www.alternet....
http://edstrong.blog...
http://www.spiritual...

by: Nick Lento @ Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 16:33:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.

You must enter a subject for your comment

Thanks... (4.00 / 2)

Mr. LaClair -- Thanks for engaging us on this extremely important issue. I look forward to meeting you at the March 19 meeting. -- Paul

by: Paul Aronsohn @ Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 16:46:06 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.

You must enter a subject for your comment

Well, Nick, it sounds like Paul was listening (4.00 / 1)

when you wrote:
Wouldn't it be cool if any of the potential candidates who want to retire Garrett would actually show up at the next Kearny school board meeting to defend the US Constitution from these people?!
My guess- and I may be going out on a limb here- is that Mr. Aronsohn would like to retire Garrett.

by: Sidd Finch @ Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 17:38:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.

You must enter a subject for your comment

Kudos To Paul For.... (4.00 / 1)

Listening; and for committing to show up!
As I've been saying (over and over in any number of ways) this case is a kind of gut check for all of us who espouse progressive views.
What this "teacher" did here was so blatant and so indefensible that it is absolutely unconstitutional on its face.
Matthew LaClaire, as a victim in this case, deserves our support; but more importantly, the US Constitution demands our all out protection!
I look forward to hearing Paul's presentation to the Kearny Board of Education on March 19th.
Let's all show up in a joyful affirmation/celebration of our constitutional democracy!
By the way, where is Garrett on this??? Why is he silent?
Scott, come out come out where ever you are!!! Please "come on down" and defend a fellow "true believer"!

by: Nick Lento @ Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 18:14:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.

You must enter a subject for your comment

Correction.... (0.00 / 0)

I was wrong to make a dichotomy above between supporting Matthew LaClaire and the US Constitution: They are EQUALLY demanding of our active support/defense.
In this particular case/instance LaClaire is actually the human embodiment of the Constitution.
Passively allowing him be "messed with" in this manner is the equivalent of allowing the Constitution itself to be trashed.

by: Nick Lento @ Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 18:22:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.

You must enter a subject for your comment

Garrett - The Social Darwinist Against Evolution would rather homeschool (3.00 / 1)

Told ya Paul cares. One of the issues I have heard Paul Aronsohn mention over and over is the way Garrett looks at education. Garrett's views on education are one of Paul's top platforms. Garrett's ideas on evolution and home schooling are something that alarm Paul Aronsohn and should really alarm parents in NJ. I am not surprised Paul Aronsohn would be there at the meeting, public education is a passionate issue for Paul and a crystal clear difference between Aronsohn and Garrett.

One Vote. Yours. It really does matter.

by: carolh @ Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 20:09:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.

You must enter a subject for your comment

Clarification???...Maybe Not (0.00 / 0)

1. Sidd Finch: I don't recall saying that I THINK it was appropriate for Paszkiewicz to say that his students belonged in hell. My intention of my post must have been lost when transcribing it from the brain to the computer (which happens when I am hasty in my writing)?.as far as this being the lion's den, not so?I agree with most of what's on this site?even some things regarding this issue?Now for my wordiness?I apologize, but it has been something that has plagued me my entire life?if you can believe it, I've had college professors tell me to eliminate pages from terms papers that needed to be a minimum of 50 pages (and not because the content was a problem..yikes)?I was also threatened by my American Foreign Policy professor that if my final exam answers exceed 2 blue book pages (as they did on my first two exams), I would be dropped a letter grade?it was tough, but I did manage (how can you not write a lot of AFP though?)?unfortunately for you, I'm not practicing that kind of restraint here (see #3 below)?
a. PS - Alternet is one of my favorite daily reads
2. Jmelli: there are only one set of facts. You are correct. I just am skeptical of their reporting especially when there are two very emotionally involved sides to this is all I'm saying. Recordings or no recordings, I was not physically in the room. And unless I was, I am going to remain a skeptic of LaClair and Paszkiewicz.
3. Krose: Sorry if I came off as saying you were uneducated. I am glad to hear you were in fact well informed. That pleases me very much. I did not mean to convey the idea that I actually thought you were. I was trying to say that I hoped a thorough examination was done and it appears as if it was. And the Star-ledger expressed "my side". What side is that? Where did I say "I believe _______ is right"? I did not say which side I was on. Also, I can't assume that everyone that reads this website reads the Star-ledger (Circulation only goes so far). If I were to express my true opinion on this, I believe it would shock you. Please don't misunderstood what I wrote as my opinion. Maybe I should have just stuck with expressing that though. In addition to my skepticism of both sides, my opinion is too long winded (even longer winded than my initial post), because in my mind, the whole situation is murky. I don't know where I stand on it. (but here it comes anyway, well sort of)?Mr. Paszkiewicz was wrong for discussing his personal religious beliefs in a public school setting and I only say it was wrong of him because he violated written rules and ordinances that should have prevented him from doing so. In that sense, he was wrong and quite honestly, because he was aware of such ordinances, he is a jackass for knowingly violating the rules and causing all this trouble for himself. That being said, he should have issued an apology to Matt LaClair and anyone else that was offended?and been subject to disciplinary action by the school board (maybe a few weeks suspension, or even better, administration oversight of his lesson plans and lectures?maybe have a vice-principal sit in on his class for sometime?who knows, but something along those lines)?This is my opinion based on the rules and Paszkiewicz's actions?I also think Matt LaClair may have taken Paszkiewicz a little too seriously?And I suppose I feel that if I were in Matt's shoes, I would have debated Paszkiewicz right then and there in class (which we did many times, and he was fully accepting of that)?What is the need to take it to record the guy? Why take it to the administration or the school board? Just as he expressed his personal beliefs, you come right back and do the same to him?best solution in my mind, but hey, well all deal in different ways I suppose?Now, for the deeper, more philosophical issue?should Paszkiewicz or ANYONE be prevented from expressing their personal beliefs, whether or not they are religious, and whether or not they are in a public school setting? That I don't know yet?.I've been debating that with myself and others for years?Essentially, preventing anyone from expressing their personal religious beliefs COULD BE thought of as a violation of their freedom of speech?could it not? Then again, some could say making murder illegal is preventing freedom of expression (and just throwing it out there?I am NOT in favor of murder)?The same could be argued with Matt LaClair's Anti-Bush stickers on his locker...He was only expressing his right to freedom of speech, yet the school administration found it to be a disruption and asked him to remove the stickers?he claimed his freedom of speech was violated?in principle, you could make the same argument for Paszkiewicz?someone could say Matt LaClair is violating Paszkiewicz's freedom of speech (and I know that church and state are separate c/o the Bill of Rights?but was this the intent?)?therefore, its all quite unsure to me what to believe?In summation, I believe Paszkiewicz was "wrong" in the sense that he broke a rule?and as a teacher and a figurehead, one that knows the rules at that, he was wrong for allowing the conversation to go down this road?what I'm unsure about is whether or not he was wrong in principle...should he (or ANYONE) be prevented from expressing their personal beliefs (religious or not)?...Where should the line be drawn on preventing expression of personal ideas? What makes it right to restrict expressing religious views in a school while allowing all of us to come together on this blog and express our opinions?...This is something I am unsure about and have been trying to figure out for some time?I didn't mean to digress, but I felt it was time I told you how I feel about this incident in particular?and just saying "he's wrong, but not wrong, but really he might be wrong" wouldn't be enough?Oh, and any guidance is welcome if its even a topic of interest?
4. Hopeful: I am not attacking liberals. Despite how I may have sounded on my post, that's not what I am in the business of doing. I support many "liberal" ideals (not all, but quite a few). I do not equate LIBERALS with TROUBLEMAKERS?I equate IDEOLOGUES with TROUBLEMAKERS. When I said the teacher was a "nut", I didn't mean to say I personally thought he was. In fact, my experiences with him have always been pleasant, and that does not mean I think he was right in this instance. And by all means, complain when you're in the minority, they need the loudest voice.

by: YouthforaBetterNJ @ Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 16:16:51 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.

You must enter a subject for your comment

Apologies for the Formatting (0.00 / 0)

Sorry about the formatting above. It looks like there are a lot of question marks (?) where I did not place them. I have a habit of typing "three periods" (dot-dot-dot) when I am in a "discussion" and they have appeared as question marks. However, some do belong there because I did ask questions.

by: YouthforaBetterNJ @ Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 16:19:30 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.

You must enter a subject for your comment

Something tells me you have a manifesto (4.00 / 1)

sitting around somewhere, youth. :-)
Not that I agree with you, but you might have a valid argument or two in there. I just don't know if anyone will take the time to find them. You can always follow up.

by: Sidd Finch @ Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 16:45:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.

You must enter a subject for your comment

Don't you get it? (0.00 / 0)

It's not the formatting that bothers me about your comments--it's what you say. For example:
"Where should the line be drawn on preventing expression of personal ideas? What makes it right to restrict expressing religious views in a school while allowing all of us to come together on this blog and express our opinions?"
Public schools are paid for by tax dollars and serve the entire community. A privately run and privately funded blog, in which people can voice their personal opinions, is quite another thing. I'm surprised you don't seem to understand the difference, but it would probably help if you read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are." (Teddy Roosevelt)

by: DottieG @ Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 18:16:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.

You must enter a subject for your comment

Adam, you're missing the point. (4.00 / 2)

Adam, I appreciate the even tone of your post, but with all due respect to you, there is only one side to this story: the recordings. They tell an unmistakable tale of a teacher badly out of line and, frankly, out of control. They are not edited, and if you would like to hear them, just let me know. They are on line, but if you would like to drop by some time and listen to them, we'll be happy to let you do that. Just give us a call, and remind us that you posted here. Better still, get a group of people together (who are willing to listen with an open mind) and we'll all discuss it together.
No doubt the political right has as much right to its views as the left, but the simple fact is that Mr. Paszkiewicz violated the US Constitution, made a mockery of KHS' science curriculum and engaged in some of the worst pedagogy I've ever heard. Maybe he didn't do that with you, but a great many people have told me he did it with them, and he undeniably did it in this case. In this case, the right is defending clear violations of the law, and clearly unacceptable teaching. They're doing it solely from political motives wholly divorced from the law and from sound educational principles, whereas in this case the left is motivated by a desire to stand up for the law and quality education; that is what makes the difference, so that the two sides are not on equal footing.
The focus that you place on my son's conduct, his reaction, etc., is misplaced. Matthew is not a paid public employee in a position of public trust. Mr. Paszkiewicz is, and as such he owes the public a duty to abide by the laws and teach the curriculum. In that first week of class at least, he failed miserably on all counts. Matthew had every right to give Mr. Paszkiewicz all the rope he wanted, in order to see how far he would run with it. Law enforcement officials use that technique commonly, and it's entirely appropriate not only for law enforcement officials, but also for private citizens. In criminal law (and I hasten to say this matter does not involve criminal activity), the relevant question is the extent of the perpetrator's criminal dangerousness. In this case, the relevant question is the extent of the teacher's educational and Constitutional malfeasance. Matthew exposed that. The fact that you like Mr. Paszkiewicz does not diminish the degree of wrong he did in that classroom, and has done since.
You are incorrect, by the way, in repeating the claim that Matthew has complained about his first amendment rights being violated in each of the instances you named. The Pledge issue does involve personal freedom of expression, and Matthew was vindicated on that issue. In fact, a teacher apologized to him in open class for having berated him. So Matthew was right. There was one incident when Matthew wore a skirt to school (as I recall it, though I never saw him in the skirt), or at least spoke about doing it, but that had nothing to do with freedom of speech, and it wasn't against any dress code. It can't be, because a dress code provision like that would be against the law. The incident involving stickers on the locker occurred the first few days of freshman year, and the only reason it was an issue at all is that school officials failed to explain the policy correctly. Matthew was first told that he couldn't post because of content: he could post something like "support our troops," but he couldn't post something against Bush. A school may not do that; it may not prohibit stickers based on political content. However, when Matthew was told that no one is allowed to post on lockers at all, he recognized this as a rule that the school has every right to make and enforce, and he complied. I find it interesting that you characterize my comments as being based on third-party accounts, when in fact they are based on actual recordings; and then you make statements that are based entirely on third-party accounts that simply are not true. In addition, when you make a statement questioning the validity of the recordings and then say you're not at least suggesting an act of tampering, that makes no sense --- there is no other purpose to such a statement.
Finally, like many people, you completely miss the point about why Matthew did what he did. His comfort level is not the issue. The Constitution was being violated, and the educational purposes of KHS were being undermined by some truly abysmal "teaching." Matthew had not only the right, but in his eyes the duty to put a stop to it if he could. The US Constitution and the quality of education at KHS were and are the issues. Just because a great many people don't seem to care much about either of those issues doesn't mean Matthew isn't right in caring about them deeply, and acting on that concern. In fact, I respectfully suggest to you that Matthew's actions exemplify citizenship at a very high level, a quality that is sorely lacking from the many who are willing to stand by and watch this sort of thing go on because it doesn't bother or affect them personally and immediately. The fact that so few people are willing to stick their necks out in service of great principles does not bode well for our country.

by: Paul LaClair @ Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 05:02:12 AM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.

You must enter a subject for your comment

Stop Dominionism in Kearny | 30 comments