New York, Jan. 23, 2008?He was only 16 when secretly he taped his teacher telling students in a history class that if they did not believe Jesus died for their sins, they ?belong in hell.? Matthew LaClair, a Kearny, N.J. high school junior at the time, knew that what the teacher was doing was wrong?and that no one would believe him if he didn?t have evidence. The teacher also said that evolution was not scientific, that dinosaurs were aboard Noah?s ark and that only Christians had a place in heaven. When Matt, backed by his family, complained to school authorities that the teacher, David Paszkiewicz, was violating separation of church and state laws by promoting religion in a public school, Mr. Paszkiewicz, of course, denied it. Out came the eight tapes of the teacher proselytizing in class and Mr. Paszkiewicz had to do some fast backtracking. But being in the right isn?t always easy. After Matt turned the tapes over to school officials, he became the target of harassment, of a death threat and of retaliation by school officials who treated him?not the teacher?as the problem!But Matt, supported by the American Civil Liberties Union, Atheist organizations and by a partner from a large Manhattan law firm, was encouraged by atheists worldwide: emails, letters and phone calls poured into the little suburban town of Kearny from all over the world. The New York Times did an article about Matt. In the end, the teacher was reprimanded and Matt was grudgingly allowed to bring speakers into the school to inform the students about Separation of Church and State laws in the U.S.On January 31, Matt will tell New York City Atheists about his fight for justice in the Kearney school system and give us a few hints about another expose? he hopes to undertake soon.EVENT SUMMARY WHAT: My Fight to Get Religion Out of Public School Classes by Matthew LaClairPlus Speak-Out to Advance Atheism: A Town Hall Meeting of Ideas WHERE: SLC Conference Center 352 Seventh Ave. (Bet. 29th & 30th St.) 16th Floor New York CityWHEN: Thursday, January 31 at 6:30 p.m.COST: We would appreciate a $5 contribution CONTACTSJane EverhartDirector of Communications212-879-2687Kenneth BronsteinNYCA President212-535-7425http://www.nyc-atheists.org
What,
I agree with all of what alatham said. I think that the student would be deemed not to have committed a crime under that particular statute because (1) the teacher’s communication would likely be considered “public information,” and (2) the student was a party to the communication.
I also think the school district would be within its rights to forbid surreptitious taping. I can’t think of any individual legal right of the students that would be violated by such a restriction. As Barbiebrains notes, these restrictions are already pretty common.
If the teacher starts preaching in class again, Matt could get one of his parents to come in and monitor the class. There’s no rule against that that I know of. Of course, it would probably only make the teacher shut up while the parent is present, but if he starts up again, Matt could go to the Principal and ask if he needs to have the class monitored again.
Anyway, Bravo Matt!
Thanks Rusty.
Karen and Barbiebrains
I wonder if the school has any rules against visiting parents making in-class recordings?
What
Because of the mainstreaming of special-ed kids into regular ed classrooms, I think the parents would still not be allowed to do any recording. But I’ll defer to Barbie on this one, cos I’m not in the schools any more, and she is.
To Barbiebrains, dawnisis
The post you refer to, dawnisis, is a theological extrapolation in the style of Paulus serventus Iesu Christi. The Good News I purport to post is Reality, as best I’m able to talk it up. If it?s ?incomprehensible,? you should read more, or, learn to listen better. It?s silly talk, (?my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration?? (I Cor. 2:4)), I consent to that, but it?s a deeper and more dangerous kind of silly to not talk at all–to, instead of talking with someone about the unjust enforcement of their belief or the context of its exposition, merely report on them, with an end to ruining them. That?s all.
nathandufouroglesby,
Bloop um boopem scooptwo rooblop? Ranten scampem blabtat mat. Ruzzle ratten roo, whycum tights. “Youcum blaber snat cobbl booble” (1 SDJ 39:64), Yabbable spratzle maz. Cabi yabyab notl commonsab.
Wabbl tacklat?
Ramen.
Tongues, rna2dna? Good for you, you’re comin’ around.
nathan,
Perhaps you would make more sense if your sentences were based on the rules of english grammar.
I have no idea what you or trying to say or why????
What do you want?
dawnisis
What do you want?
I want to talk and love and be loved and talked to, like Matt LaClair, his teacher David Paszkiewicz, like Barbiebrains, assumably, and all y’all. I’m saying: conflict of belief should be dealt with in direct conversation of the parties who share the conflict (since at least in that they’re sharing something.) Conversation (the “talk” I mean, kind of like this), as opposed to “complain[ing] to…authorities”. And I mean it at a basic level: that direct communicating is better than ulterior informing. Maybe it wouldn’t have been easy for Matt in this situation, but as it happened, it didn’t sound like he had an easy time of it anyway. I’m skeptical of a new heroism constituted of reporting people to authorities. Its an action that follows the inspiration of paranoia. It seems to me a great atheist, like a great anyone, would take the kind of action that demonstrated an internal religion of his or her own: something direct, rather than duplicitous recourse to the closest governing power. Know what I mean, dear?
Nathan
Perhaps Matt had already tried the direct approach with his teacher? We don’t know.
There is no information that Matt was trying to be any “great atheist”. He was simply a student who was trying to get his teacher to stop unconstitutionally preaching to him in class.
Duplicitous recourse?
Going over the teacher’s head to school authorities is deliberately deceptive? Hardly. Especially given that we don’t know if Matt had tried talking to the teacher first.
The taping was deceptive, but that came only after the teacher lied about what was happening.
Nathan,
Do you have any evidence that Matt did not confront his teacher directly first?
nathan,
The teacher in this case was breaking the law. Authorities are to be notified.
Telling a group of children they will burn for eternity in hell if their parents do not share his beliefs is criminal behavior and child abuse.
As for your opinion of how a “great atheist” should behave and how much respect and “nice talk” should be given to a religion that burned our kind alive for thousands of years..keep dreaming.
Our constitution recognizes the need for religion and government to be separate.
Public schools are government institutions and religion is not constitutionally allowed. That teacher knew the law and choose to take away the constitutional rights of his students.
Keep religious views at home, in church or in private schools and out of government because it’s UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
So unless you wanna reject the united states contitution there is no argument to be made for the teacher.
Maybe we’re having different discussions. I have no evidence that he did or didn’t talk to the teacher: my issue isn’t with the kid but with the grounds on which he’s being recognized as a hero. What I have offered as an alternative has nothing to do with what’s constitutional or not–the whole idea is that direct communication ought to be more principal than doctrines/institutions (any given Christian doctrine/any given American political institution)–communication is more active than either of these, and these are only active and right when they’re manifested in direct communication.
You don’t think standing up for the united states constitution makes this kid a hero?
Communication is not more important than human rights.
You obsession with talking, while at the same time being an unclear speaker, is ironic.
As for open dialogue your religion is utterly intolerant and oppressive. I suggest you start by cleaning your own house.
Nathan etc.
I must echo dawn’s comment.
For someone so insistent on direct communication, you sure don’t practice it well. Is someone paying you by the word? Or are you in some bizarre contest, trying to win for the most convoluted sentence structure?
That’s why rna2dna answered you in gobbledygook the other day. Try editing yourself some.
Regarding rna’s scramble post I just love the word “yabyab”.
I will have to incorporate it into my vocab.
“Nathan’s yabyab doesn’t follow accepted sentence structure.”
“Yabbable spratzle maz” will always ring true for me.
Belated thanks rna2dna, for that comment. I laughed so hard, my sides ached.
Yabbable spratzle maz – Yes, this one is brilliant as well.
LOL
Paid by the Word. It’s been a good talk: you’re catching on.
Once dried, the product is guaranteed to provide God-like visions of the world His presence is assured. Please, watch as the applicant receives Divine Guidance while completing the final touches:
http://tinyurl.com/yop7bf
rna
Awwwww! So cute! I bet the put bacon grease on the window.
Thanks karen!
I can assure, without doubt, that I am unaware of any christian swine being in any way injured during testing of the product.
I have not read the entire thread yet.
I support the young man, but I feel he went about it the wrong way. He should have first gone to the ACLU and had copies made and Notarized of the tapes he recorded. THEN he could’ve gone back to the School Administration with the ACLU Lawyers and presented his evidence to them. The ignorant so-called ” teacher ” would not have gotten off so lightly.
It appalls me that he only received a lite slap on the hand, how outrageous!!!
The student should be commended, he stood up to bigotry, what courage. BRAVO
By the way,… I’m a Christian.
Also, it is very repugnant to me that the ” teacher ” had the gall to present his religious beliefs as the ” be all, end all ” of human experiences. Nuff said.
Students to be taught there’s no God
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24797483-421,00.html
Makes me want to move to Australia for my child’s education.
I live in Africa. Where despite the secular claim, religion gets forced down your throat in schools.
oruvykod
oruvykod
alright, i know this is old but i had to chime in. what i get out of nathan’s comments is that the kid, and maybe kids in general, should “stop snitchin’”. and that rather than seeking some authoritative backup the kid should have tried to handle this on his own. i usually am a big proponent of handling things yourself but that is a standard of behavior that best serves one amongst his peers. the young man’s teacher was not his peer but (ostensibly) an authority figure. i believe, my own disinclination towards snitching aside, that the kid’s chosen method of pursuing the matter was probably the best one for his circumstances as i understand them. nathan’s position regarding direct communication is valid for one kid dealing w/ another kid but it is grossly misplaced in this situation.
further i agree w/ obadiah this teacher should have been reamed over this. no tenure should protect a teacher from the consequences of such an abuse of his position. he should, imho, be removed from public school teaching altogether and if the jesuits want him let them have him.