Talk In Class Turns To God

[Nomad559]

Talk In Class Turns To God, Setting Off Public Debate On Rights

Audio

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.”

[Warpy]

1. Mr P. needs to find a church for that garbage

and stick to the syllabus in class.

He's allowed to be a fool. He's not allowed to teach his variety of magical thinking as fact.

He's especially unqualified to send anybody else to hell.

[Az]

2. "Teaching the scriptures is not religion"

Wow.... the religious right has mastered the art of spin.

[TechBear_Seattle]

17. This is delusion, not spin

And religions mastered the art of fostering delusions millennia ago.

[Danger Mouse]

3. What the fuck?

How is there even a debate? You don't tell your class that if they don't believe in Jesus, they belong in Hell. Cut and dry. it has NO. FUCKING. PLACE. in the classroom.

[Az]

6. This is the second such blurb about something like this

I posted a thread in GD about a teacher that told a Muslim girl in class that unless she accepts Jesus she is going to hell. And this was in the 4th grade. The tumult from that incident wound up destroying the girls family and running them out of town. It was covered on this weekend This American Life. Linkie http://audio.thisamericanlife.org/podcast/322.mp3 Its the first story after all the intro stuff. Its some tear jerking stuff. I mean they completely screwed this family over and all the teacher wound up with was some tolerance training and monitoring.

[Danger Mouse]

35. God bless America!

I fucking hate this country sometimes. Sorry, I shouldn't blame our country for this. I fucking hate fundies sometimes. There, that's better. Who do they think they are, to ruin lives like that? And they call themselves Christians.
Jesus wept.

[Mythsaje]

4. Too bad he wasn't teaching when I was in high school...

We would have laughed him off the campus.

[eppur_se_muova]

5. "Hey teach, we ain't in a church. Put a sock in it."

That's what I remember high school being like.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

7. Totally out of line and unConstitutional

The Supreme Court decision allowed teaching ABOUT religion in an objective manner, not proselytizing, and this was definitely proselytizing.

I wonder how Paskiewicz would have reacted if a teacher of another religous persuasion would have tried to convert his children (if he has any).

[Az]

8. The standard argument against that

is that this is a Christian nation. And of course when confronted with all the evidence to the contrary they retreat to the majority Christian nation and teaching should reflect those values.

The entire religious right has a very interconnected series of arguments. They are also constantly testing and probing the system to see what excesses they can get away with and what will be called. This actually sounds a bit like one of those.

They desperately want their own Scopes trial.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

12. That's precisely where you ask them,

"If you live in one of those Detroit suburbs with a majority Arab population, should your child's teacher require the students to pray facing Mecca five times a day? If you live in Hawaii, should your child be required to say the Nenbutsu or other Buddhist prayers? If you live in Boston, should your child be required to start the school day by praying the Rosary? If not, why not, as long as the children are supposed to be evangelized to the whatever the majority religion is in their area?"

[charlie]

11. It's hard to decide what's worse

This Man o' Gawd giving hellfire sermons on every topic under the sun or his LYING to all assembled (including the principal) to hear the kid's complaint. If he hadn't been recorded, LaClair would've been boned. His last words to the kid: "You got the big fish ... you got the big Christian guy who is a teacher...!"

And apparently this sort of hubris, mendacity, meanness, and self-serving martyrdom is just peachy with much of the community. It's fucking dismaying.

[rollopollo]

9. Completely Inappropriate

Christians and non-Christians alike can agree this was utterly inappropriate. I just hope these incidents don't encourage people to paint Christianity with a broad brush. With over 150M Christians, there are going to be a few bad apples. I do hope the NYTimes and others report on some of the positive work that churches are doing as well to give a balanced picture.

[Az]

10. Its not a few bad apples

Its not Christianity either. Not all of Christianity any way. But it is a select group of Christians that are attempting to force their particular views on our children and our society. This is not just some isolated incident. Its not some yahoo that decided to run off the tracks on his own.

There is a very real battle going on in our class rooms right now. They even have books and texts they are trying to introduce to subvert our secular education process.

Its not all Christians. Not by a long shot. Its just a very vocal and very active group of Christians.

[rollopollo]

13. I take your point

My main concern was that people realize that these fundies do not represent the wider Christian community. Sometimes the hostility created by these groups spills over into general resentment of Christianity, mockery of beliefs, etc. Similar to how people sometimes need to be reminded that terrorist acts and extremism are not hallmarks of Islam.

[cosmik debris]

14. How do we know?

"these fundies do not represent the wider Christian community"

How do we know that? The fundies are generally given a great deal of credit for controlling the last two presidential elections. How do we know that they are not the driving force of the Christian religion? How are we non-Christians supposed to know that they are not the leaders when they seem to control the agenda and express themselves louder, longer, and more successfully than any other Christians?

Where is this wider Christian community? And why aren't they as outspoken as the fundies? What are they doing to regain control of the religion hijacked by the American Taliban?

[rollopollo]

18. Every religion

...has its share of fundamentalists. Take Islam for example. The extremists not only speak louder than the moderates and are more activist, but also dominate politics in the Middle East. This doesn't mean though that the average Muslim or that Islam is responsible for their behavior. I'll just end with this: when well-meaning people seek to confront extremism, but instead make moderates the target of their venom as well, they simply create more extremists. I fear our foreign policy and domestic spying program are having that result in the Muslim world. If moderates believe they are being persecuted despite their restraint, they rightfully perceive that bigotry as more threatening to them than even extremists in their midst.

[Az]

19. This is a very important point

One that is often lost in religious debates. You don't have to beat people over the head if they are not trying to beat you over the head. Do not assume that just because they come from the samne belief as those who are trying to beat you over the head that they do so as well.

People tend to treat others as they are treated. If you treat people horribly they will treat you horribly.

[cosmik debris]

20. The point I was trying to get at was

The loudest voice from the wider Christian community is the voice of the far right. The greatest political power from the wider Christian community comes from the far right. The most political activism from the wider Christian community comes from the far right.

You may believe that the moderates are the wider Christian community but there is no evidence of that. The indicators that I see tell me that the moderates are a small minority. They do not control the agenda, and they do not speak or act with any degree of efficacy. In the world of political power, they are nobody.

[kiahzero]

21. The reactionaries get all the media attention.

Your argument is the same one that conservatives use to attack Islam at large - "Why don't we hear these moderate voices, if they do exist?"

The answer is the same to both questions: you don't hear them because they're not getting media attention.

[cosmik debris]

22. It's all the media's fault?? I don't think so.

When did the Lutherans introduce amendments to state constitutions to protect the rights of homosexuals?

When did the Presbyterians protest outside a hospital that denied a woman the right to control her own body?

When did the Episcopalians file suits in Federal Court to keep religion out of the schools?

When did the Methodists protest against Faith Based Initiatives?

The fundies have political power greater than the liberal Christians. They have demonstrated that from the last two presidential elections to an enormous number of school board elections.

The fundies are far more active than the liberal Christians. They are on the streets in front of Planned Parenthood clinics around the country. They are putting up “10 commandment” monuments in any place they can. They are running for school boards on the creationist platform. They had enormously successful petition drives for anti-gay constitutional amendments. They practically created the office of Faith Based Initiatives and I suspect that they are the main beneficiaries. They intimidate pharmacies and health care organizations who distribute Plan B.

The fundies are far more vocal than the liberal Christians. They are the voice of Christianity in America.

[kiahzero]

23. None of that supports your claim:

The indicators that I see tell me that the moderates are a small minority.

[cosmik debris]

24. The original claim made by rollopollo was

"...fundies do not represent the wider Christian community."

I presented evidence that the fundies ARE the wider christian community because they have a greater voice, impact, and political influence and power. And that the moderate Christians are not doing or saying any thing or having any influence.

You might disagree with that statement but I have seen no evidence at all that the original claim has even slight credibility. I've heard the "silent majority" story before and it didn't work in 1969 and it doesn't work now.

[kiahzero]

25. That statement appears to have been referring to numbers.

I guess you think all Muslims are terrorists too, right? The argument is exactly the same.

[cosmik debris]

26. You are the only one who has said anything about muslims

I don't know why you want to change the subject, but I'm not interested in discussing Muslims. The original discussion was about the wider Christian community.

If you have any evidence that the wider Christian community is moderate, please present it. Until then, I will believe that the majority is the group with the most political influence and power, the one with the greatest impact on society, the one with the loudest voice, the one with the most activists. You don't have to believe the same thing, but it would be nice if you would share the basis of your belief.

[kiahzero]

27. What can I say, I'm a law student.

Argument by analogy isn't a class in law school, but it might as well be. The reason I bring up Islam is because you are making the exact same argument that conservatives consistently make: "If moderate Muslims exist, why don't I know about them?"

You can believe that Christians are mostly fundamentalists all you want - it's retarded to do so, but that's your right.

[cosmik debris]

28. Still you decline to present evidence

Name calling doesn't count as evidence. Muslims are not involved in this discussion.

Back to my original question: How do you know? What evidence do you have to support your claim. I have given you the basis of my opinion. You have not given me the basis for yours. Why do you believe that the majority of Christians are moderate? Or is this just something you accept on faith?

[kiahzero]

29. I'm not going to go out of my way to do research for you.

I've seen polling data in the past, but I'm not going to go work to find it for you.

[cosmik debris]

30. I hope you are not specializing in trial law

If you won't refute my evidence and you won't present evidence of your own. You can't just call an opposing attorney retarded and hope to win. You might want to reconsider your career choice.

[kiahzero]

31. Um... nobody's paying me.

I could:

A) Study for my Torts exam on Thursday
B) Do something relaxing
C) Do research for someone who's not going to change his mind anyway

Hrm... I wonder which one I should choose.

For the record, I didn't call you retarded, I called your position that most Christians are fundamentalists retarded.

[cosmik debris]

32. You make a point that you refuse to support.

Your insult has no basis in fact. I guess you are just being nasty because you can't support your position.

[kiahzero]

33. Correction

I'm being nasty because I'm like that. I'm not providing research because I don't feel like it.

[cosmik debris]

34. Both indications of the weakness of your argument. n/t

[cosmik debris]

36. Here is more evidence for my position.

"Polls taken last year showed that 45 percent of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form 10,000 years ago (or less) and that man shares no common ancestor with the ape. Only 26 percent believe in the central tenet of evolution, that all life descended from a single ancestor."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/24/AR2005092401262.html

If you accept that first paragraph as a fundamentalist position,

And if you believe that the Christian population of the U.S. is less than 90% of the population of the U.S.

(From ABC News: Eighty-three percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians. Most of the rest, 13 percent, have no religion. That leaves just 4 percent as adherents of all non-Christian religions combined — Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and a smattering of individual mentions.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/beliefnet_poll_010718.html)

Then you are stuck with the uncomfortable fact that half or more of the Christians in the U.S. are fundamentalists. It is really pretty simple math even for a lawyer.

[kiahzero]

37. 45% is more than half?

Wow... I guess math's changed in the last year.

[cosmik debris]

38. 45 is more than half of 83

Is that too tough for you?

[kiahzero]

46. OK, you caught me reading too fast

I wasn't paying enough attention and was thinking the 45% referred to Christians, not Americans generally.

As such, I decided to do a few minutes work and pull up some numbers. Aren't you happy?

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html
Fundamentalists would seem to, by definition, go to church on a weekly / more than weekly basis, yet only 35% of Americans (who voted) do so. Interestingly, that's roughly the same number of Americans that identify themselves as born-again / Evangelical.

Moving away from exit polling to polling at large:
http://www.pollingreport.com/religion.htm

How do you think fundamentalists would answer this question?
"Which of the following statements comes closest to describing your views about the Bible? The Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word. The Bible is the inspired word of God, but not everything in it should be taken literally. OR, The Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man."
The most recent results are 28%. It tends to hover around 33% or so. Interestingly, this portion seems to go up when the question is phrased in a yes-or-no manner, but I think that has more to do with polling than with people's opinions.

Also interesting: 51% of people are worried about public officials being "too close" to religious officials. Only 35% (Wow, there's that number again!) are worried they "don't pay enough attention" to religious officials.

When asked if public officials should codify their religious beliefs into law, 85% said no.

There's plenty of information in there to rebut your argument that fundamentalists represent the wider Christian community. I found it by Googling "religion polling" without the quotes. I guess I should have done so early rather than letting you drag this out. :shrug:

[rollopollo]

39. Parting Thought

It looks like this issue has been debated pretty thoroughly so I won't protract it, but I wanted to say one last thing. This whole debate started because one teacher decided to thrust his religion onto students in a public school. I responded that he was a "bad apple", that most Christians were not like him and wouldn't force their religion on children. You responded "How do we know that?" and we began a discussion on whether most Christians are fundamentalist or not. Your proof of this is that many Christians believe in creationism, not evolution. This is not germane. Christians may believe what they like but I was arguing that very few would impose their beliefs as the teacher had done. We could go round and round on this, and it's a worthwhile debate to have, but my last thought here is that I would hope that Christians avoid imposing their beliefs out of tolerance, just as much as I hope secularists avoid the intolerance that they so revile in the Christian "hypocrites" they condemn.

[cosmik debris]

40. A moving target.

Your original argument was:

"these fundies do not represent the wider Christian community"

I provided reasons why I don't believe that. You provided no reason why you do believe that.

Then you changed to:

"very few would impose their beliefs as the teacher had done"

Again you provided no reasoning or evidence to support that claim.

Since you have offered no basis for either of these opinions, I will respect that you take these assertions on "faith", but I remain skeptical.

[Zhade]

49. To the contrary, it's very germane. Belief in Creationism IS fundamentalist.

The erroneous myth of Creationism being fundamental to the bible, a Christian who believes in it is at least somewhat fundamentalist.

Since your argument reflects what CD lists below, it has everything to do with the discussion.

(And fyi, secularist doesn't mean non-religious - most believers here are also secularist, in that they support the separation of church and state.

[Meshuga]

41. That statistic says a lot about Americans

Shame on you! You American! (I guess shame on me too)

I agree with Az (upthread), "You don't have to beat people over the head if they are not trying to beat you over the head. Do not assume that just because they come from the same belief as those who are trying to beat you over the head that they do so as well."

[cosmik debris]

42. I never made that assumption

I bear no ill will toward moderate Christians. The only thing I said about them is that they are in the minority of the "wider Christian community", they are less active, less powerful, and less vocal.

That seems to be a controversial statement, but I have seen no evidence refuting that.

[Meshuga]

43. I finally open the article and the

alarming (and frustrating) stat is the fact that another poll showed that 65 percent of Americans want creationism taught alongside evolution. Would that number be so high because the moderates want to create some kind of compromise? If that is the case then that's when I think Dawkins and Harris have a point as far as moderates doing damage.

But going back to the 45%... How many of these are actually religious who only want creationism as opposed to evolution taught in school?

Yes, the extreme groups have a tendency to be the loudest, more active, and more powerful even when they are a tiny minority. I'm sure extremist embarrass Christians. Fundies embarrass me as an American.

[cosmik debris]

44. There has been no evidence presented

that the moderates are a majority or that the fundie whackjobs are just a vocal "tiny minority". The evidence (not proof) I have presented leads me to believe that the fundie whackjobs are, in fact, a majority.

It seems a common assumption here that the moderate Christians are the majority. Without evidence, I will not take that on "faith".

[Meshuga]

45. Just to be clear

I am not saying that fundies are a "tiny minority". I'm saying that extreme, even when the wackjobs are a tiny majority, are more vocal, more active, and highly influential.

I'm not claiming this but just throwing out there as a possibility but isn't there a chance that a portion of this 45% are not even religious but think the earth was created less than 10,000 ago just out of ignorance/lack of education and that's what they were taught? If such people are included in the 45% then we can't really classify them as fundamentalist Christians.

Whether fundies are a majority or minority in Christianity does not concern me. What concerns me is that there needs to be a better, consistent, and more organized way to counter them.

[Zhade]

48. Could we please NOT use retarded as an insult? My uncle is retarded.

Thanks in advance for checking that bit of insensitivity at the door next time.

[kiahzero]

51. Sorry

I meant no ill will, but I'm sorry.

[Zhade]

55. Thank you!

:)

[Zebedeo]

53. Hear, hear!

The developmentally disabled are some of the best people you will ever meet. They are in general kind-hearted, honest, good employees and just good souls.

To use their condition as an epithet is worse than insensitive. It is really heartless, and is something that has bothered me for decades.

[cosmik debris]

15. Proving once again

That it is easier to take away rights than it is to get them back.

I used to believe that The Constitution gave us rights. But it is really the people around us who give us rights. When the people of New Jersey decided that it was OK for this teacher to take away the rights of his students, then religious liberty stopped being a right and became a privilege.

[bryant69]

16. That's depressing

But I suppose it does give a hint at what the dominionists would really like our schools to be like.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Zebedeo]

47. Sounds like he went over the line,

but imagine if the opposite occurred. Suppose a high school teacher taught that the universe was not created, or that there was no Noah's ark, or that Jesus never existed, or that Jesus was not divine, or that there is no God.

Can we all agree that that would also be over the line?

[Zhade]

50. Some of it, yes. For example, no one has proven there are/are not any gods.

Hence, stating that there are no gods would be crossing the line.

In a discussion ABOUT religion, bringing up the fact that there is no corroborating evidence outside the bible for the Christian god, or Jesus and/or his alleged divinity, or Noah's Ark and the Great Flood, would not be crossing the line, as it merely reports what we know, not what we believe, and is not designed to convert anyone to anything, but to just lay out the facts.

[Zebedeo]

52. But "just laying out the facts"

depends on your POV. For example, you say that there is no evidence of the ark and the flood outside the Bible. But many would disagree with you. In fact, there are Sumerian and Babylonian documents other than the Bible (e.g. the Epic of Gilgamesh) that describe a great flood, and indeed there are hundreds of cultures that documented the Great Flood. Flood Accounts

Your post, while undoubtedly well-intentioned, demonstrates your bias. You would allow the "no Great Flood" position held by atheists to be promulgated in the public schools, because to you, this position merely reflects "the facts." Yet those holding the opposite position would argue that their position represented just "the facts."

Similar points could be made about Jesus' existence and His divinity. E.g. "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. Strobel, a former atheist, lawyer and journalist, certainly would not agree with your position that there is "no corroborating evidence outside the Bible" for the existence of Jesus or for His divinity.

I would argue that if public school teachers are prohibited by the Constitution from promulgating a particular religious position, they should also be prohibited from promulgating the opposite of that position. To me, that's only fair.

[Zhade]

54. Your link is full of self-interested bias, so it's useless in this discussion.

It is true that there is evidence of *a* flood, but not The Worldwide Flood. That's obviously what I meant. There is zero, repeat NO, evidence that the Great Flood as depicted in the bible actually happened.

Pointing that fact out isn't bias - and it is fact, unless you can offer evidence that corroborates the biblical account (no one ever has, but hey, maybe you'll make history).

I can't speak to Strobel's argument, not having read it, except to briefly mention that if it includes the name "Josephus Flavius", he needs to do his homework, as even noted biblical scholars have concluded his Vulgate "description" of Jesus is a later-added forgery.

Here's the thing - the issue shouldn't even be broached in public schools. But if someone brings up the Great Flood myth (which does look to be based on a real event magnified and exaggerated for mythic effect), it is not a violation of the 1st amendment to 1) say it's out-of-school material or 2) ask for corroborating evidence.

The difference between my pointing out that no evidence has been shown to corroborate the myth, and another's insisting the myth is true, is that the burden of proof isn't on me to disprove it, but them to prove it.

I've already pointed out by then that evidence hasn't supported the myth, so I've already backed up my position (which is, of course, that no evidence has supported the myth).

[Zebedeo]

57. What you are advocating

is that the "weak atheist" position be taught as the official government orthodoxy. To your credit, you agree that preaching the "strong atheist" position would be a Constitutional violation. But you don't see that teaching the "weak atheist" position as being correct is equally violative of the Constitution. That's because you are a weak atheist. It is hard to detect one's own biases.

[Zhade]

58. There is no bias in "I don't believe".

Maybe you just can't understand that.

[Zebedeo]

60. There is if you

propose to teach public high school students that the nonbelief is correct.

As I said above, I would argue that if teaching any particular religious belief is unconstitutional, then teaching the opposite of that belief is equally unconstitutional.

For example:

1. Teaching that Jesus is the only way to the Father = unconstitutional.
2. Teaching that Jesus is not the only way to the Father = unconstitutional.
3. Teaching that manna fell from Heaven to sustain the Israelites = unconstitutional.
4. Teaching that manna did not fall from Heaven to sustain the Israelites = unconstitutional.
5. Teaching that there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger = unconstitutional.
6. Teaching that there is a God other than Allah and Mohammed is not his messenger = unconstitutional.
7. Teaching that there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster = unconstitutional.
8. Teaching that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster = unconstitutional.

See how fair and even-handed this is? I would like to think that you could grasp that your particular variety of belief or non-belief should not be taught to public school students as the official government viewpoint, the same as you grasp that other beliefs or non-beliefs should not be so taught.

[Zhade]

61. Ah, I see where you're not getting it - I never said it was okay to TEACH it.

I said if the subject came up, stating that there is no corroborating evidence to back up the myths is not crossing the line - and it's not, because pointing that out is just laying out the fact that there is no corroborating evidence.

That fact is not up for debate; if it was, we'd have seen evidence corroborating the myths, and there is none.

I'm sure you disagree with me, but you're wrong if you assert that there is corroborating evidence - unless, of course, you can produce such evidence, which would (as I said) make you famous worldwide.

Pointing out the lack of evidence is the same as pointing out that the square root of four is two. It's just accurate information, not advocacy.

Since believers act on faith, which by definition is the belief in things for which there is no evidence, this shouldn't be a problem for them, because per their holy book(s) they're instructed to believe even in the face of nothing to back up that belief.

[Az]

56. Lots of flood stories

They tend to go hand in hand with agricultural societies that establish themself along flood plains in order to benefit from the increased agricutural boost such land provides. Most early Civs developed along rivers. And they brought with them the dangers of recurring floods. So yeah, stories and myths grew up around them. I say teach that many different cultures had flood myths. But also teach that Ice Core samples going back over 170,000 years show that at no time did a global flood ever cover the earth.

[pagandem4justice]

59. Even ignoring all other infuriating issues in this incident,

I just can't get my mind around all those dinosaurs (think of brontosaurs, allosaurs...) on what would would essentialy be a cruise ship with stables!

:wtf: :shrug: :rofl: