I think that most students would probably feel a bit intimidated, but not Junior Matthew LaClair. He decided that he wanted to complain, but he realized that it would probably end up being his word against Paszkiewicz's, and that Paszkiewicz would be the one believed by the administration. Fortunately, LaClair was smart enough to find a way around this little problem.
On Oct. 10 -- a month after he first requested a meeting with the principal -- LaClair met with Paszkiewicz, Somma and the head of the social studies department.
At first, Paszkiewicz denied he mixed in religion with his history lesson, and the adults in the room appeared to be buying it, LaClair said. But then he reached into his backpack and produced the CDs.
Source: The Star-Ledger
That's right: Paszkiewicz denied everything and was caught up short when LaClair revealed that he had Paszkiewicz on tape (well, CD)...
On Sept. 14 -- the fourth day of class -- Paszkiewicz is on tape saying, "He (God) did everything in his power to make sure that you could go to heaven, so much so that he took your sin on his own body, suffered your pains for you and he's saying, 'Please accept me, believe me.'"
He adds, according to the tapes: "If you reject that, you belong in hell. The outcome is your prerogative. But the way I see it, God himself sent his only son to die for David Paszkiewicz on that cross ... And if you reject that, then it really is to hell with you."
Paszkiewicz didn't limit his religious observations to personal salvation, according to the tapes.
Paszkiewicz shot down the theories of evolution and the "Big Bang" in favor of creationism. He also told his class that dinosaurs were on Noah's ark, LaClair said.
Superintendent Robert Mooney maintains that Paszkiewicz is "a wonderful teacher" and he's aware of "issues" raised by the recordings. He said that there has been "corrective action," but but as of November 14th he was still teaching the same history class. I wonder if he was actually teaching history?
Jim Lippard broke the story by posting a letter from Paul L. LaClair, Matthew's father:
After taking the matter to the school administration, one of Paszkiewicz's students, junior Matthew LaClair, requested a meeting with the teacher and the school principal. LaClair, a non-Christian, was requesting an apology and correction of false and anti-scientific statements. After two weeks, a meeting took place in the principal's office, wherein Paszkiewicz denied making many of these comments, claiming that LaClair had taken his remarks out of context. Paszkiewicz specifically denied using the phrase, "you belong in hell." He also asserted that he did nothing different in this class than he has been doing in fifteen years of teaching.
At the end of the meeting, LaClair revealed that he had recorded the remarks, and presented the principal with two compact discs. The teacher then declined to comment further without his union representative. However, he fired one last shot at the student, saying, "You got the big fish ... you got the big Christian guy who is a teacher...!"
He got a "big fish"? I'm sorry, but Paszkiewicz seems to have much too high of an opinion about himself. He doesn't look like any sort of "big fish" to me and, if the details in these stories are correct, then it would be more accurate to say that LaCalir got a "big liar." Paszkiewicz is not only a Christian, but a Baptist minister, yet it looks like he was quick and willing to lie about his actions when it served his purposes.
These aren't lies about just anything, though. These aren't lies about taking the last donut in the break room, for example. No, these are lies about witnessing for Christ — about an evangelistic effort. Paszkiewicz was, according to the stories, promoting his religion to his class (classes, maybe?) and when questioned about this by the authorities, he denied it. Doesn't that sound a lot like denying Christ — like denying that one is a Christian lest one be persecuted by the authorities?
So this would mean that Paszkiewicz is not just a liar, but a liar who denies Christ when it's inconvenient to acknowledge the truth about his evangelism. What does this say about him?
You may be wondering why LaClair was concerned that his situation might turn into just being his word against Paszkiewicz's, given the fact that at least one entire history class heard all the same comments. Well, wonder no more:
Matthew LaClair, the 16-year-old junior who took issue with - and recorded - history teacher David Paszkiewicz, said classmates both shunned and cursed him yesterday in the wake of a front-page story in yesterday's Jersey Journal spotlighting LaClair complaints about Paszkiewicz's religious rants in the classroom.
"I lost a few friends," LaClair said. "I don't really hold it against them. I hope over time we'll get back together." ...
"Mr. Paszkiewicz is an outstanding man," said 16-year-old Stephanie Formoso, a member of the crew team coached by Paszkiewicz and one of his history students. "Matt set him up," Formoso added. "Mr. Paszkiewicz would always say (when he spoke about religion) 'In my opinion.' He never pushed his beliefs on anyone."
Source: The Jersey Journal
It sounds like LaClair wouldn't have been able to count on other students to stand by him and tell the truth about what their teacher was doing. Instead, other students are defending their teacher's unethical behavior. I don't think Stephanie Formoso entirely realizes what "pushing" beliefs on others can entail. You don't have to hold a gun to people's head to push your beliefs on them, and saying "in my opinion" doesn't suddenly mean that you aren't pushing your beliefs.
Someone commenting at Pharyngula has typed out what he can understand of the recording, so let's take a look at some of those beliefs, shall we?
...now my parents grew up and went to public schools but they went prior to 1962 so the teachers read the bible and the teachers prayed and it was part of the school day and. i phrase this very very diplomatically, but that's the generation that did not have terrorism did not have race aggression and all of that
Paszkiewicz is a history teacher who doesn't know that, prior to 1962, there was a tremendous amount of "race aggression" — most of it directed against blacks by whites. Is Paszkiewicz one of those conservative white Christians who imagines that America was a racial paradise before desegregation?
but if my kid is aged 12 and he's kinda like dad, i appreciate what you've taught me but i've decided in my 12 years of religion that I'm gonna stop going to church, after i break his backside, we're gonna have a little attitude adjustment and I'm gonna say you're gonna get in the car with the rest of the family and go to church. you're entitled to your own opinion, but you're gonna do what i tell you to
What a way to teach Christian love! If you don't accept the faith I'm indoctrinating you into, I'm going to beat you and we'll start trying again...
Student Question: "isn't the whole point of public school so that you can separate personal beliefs from teachers and administrators from non-religious, you know non-religious teachings during school, like, school care and all that?
no, no the purpose of public school is to provide free education for people that couldn't afford education. that's the purpose of public school.
Paszkiewicz sounds like he really respects his students... he's only teaching them because they are too poor to afford an education on their own...
public schools shouldn't teach a religion, but the scriptures aren't religion ...the scriptures are at the foundation of the world's religions. the world's main religions, anyway. religion's a set way of doing things, like for example if you take christian faith, right you have main varieties, there's roman catholicism, the methodists, the presbyterian, the baptists. we differ on church government, things like that but essentially we all believe in one great book. we should be able to bring that into the classroom, read it, and it shouldn't be threatened...
Teaching the Bible isn't teaching religion because all the world's religions — we'll, the main religions: Roman Catholicism, Methodism, Baptism, etc. — are based on the Bible. Judaism doesn't count, because they don't use the New Testament. Islam don't count because they don't accept the all of the Bible as it is currently written. Hinduism, Buddhism, and others don't even care about the Bible. No, the only religions that qualify as the world's "Main Religions" are what normal people would simply call Christian denominations.
Remember, this is a history teacher...
...this is, this is the issue: god is not, ah, only all-loving, the way he describes himself in the scriptures, he's also completely just. He did everything in, in his power to make sure that you could go to heaven. So much so, that he took your sin on his own body, suffered your pains for you and he's saying, 'Please accept me. Believe.' You reject that, you belong in hell. ...Either he paid the price or he didn't. If you reject his gift of salvation, then you're going where you belong. ...
It's, uh, yeah, it's up to you to reason it out. And the outcome is, you know, your prerogative, but the way that I figure is this: he's done everything in his power. So much so that he went to a cross that I should have gone to. It was my sin; he was innocent. But, you saw the whole Mel Gibson portrayal? That was pretty accurate when you read history; the flesh was beaten off of his back. God himself sent his only son to die for creation's [unintelligible] on that cross. That's the idea and if I reject that, then it really is 'then to hell with me.'
That's the key portion, I suppose: if you don't adopt Christianity, you deserve to burn in hell for all eternity. Did you notice all the times Paszkiewicz said "In my opinion"? Yeah, I didn't see any of that, either. I'm not going to quote any more because it hurts my head to read garbage like that — and make no mistake about it, everything he said is unmitigated garbage that has no place in any public school history class.
Paszkiewicz was taking advantage of his position of power and authority over the students when he promoted his beliefs. He was giving his religious beliefs the imprimatur of a teacher and a state official, something he had no right to do. He was pushing his beliefs because he was abusing his position as an authority figure. Jim Lippard has more comments that ostensibly come from Kearly High School students. They're really embarrassing.
Remember Superintendent Robert Mooney who said that the above comments merely raised "issues"? Here he is again:
"I think he (Paszkiewicz) was trying to have a high-level discussion with his students," Mooney added. "Right now he has to be very careful. But I also don't want in the long run for him to throttle down the level of discussion based on this issue."
Since when does a history teacher have a "high-level discussion" with students in history class by telling them that they will go to hell if they don't accept Jesus? I'm sorry, but that's completely out of line. Mooney is dealing with a teacher who went off-topic to promote his religious beliefs, told his students that they would go to hell if they weren't Christians, and lied about it when challenged. Even just the portions I quoted are completely unacceptable and Paszkiewicz said far, far more.
Religion in Public Schools:
That reminds me of my high school world history teacher. The one with the wall decorated in Limbaugh-esque magazine clippings. The one who told us he thought AIDS was a Godly curse upon homosexuals and scrawled a sarcastic snark in the margins of m Holocaust essay when I mentioned that gays were persecuted.
I think he stills teaches there. Ah, memories…
Was there really a “discussion” or just the monologue that was quoted?
And why is it that the whistleblower, rather than the perpetrator, becomes the problem?
Who’s in charge of the schools anyway?
If you follow the link, you’ll find that there is some participation from students; however, I think that it was more monologue than discussion.
Isn’t that always the case when someone blows the whistle on something that others approve of? The soldier who blew the whistle on Abu Ghraib received threats in his home town, for example.
I’m impressed by and support Matthew LaClair. What has also impressed me, but with a negative sign, is David Horowitz and his propaganda campaign against “The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America”
who spew liberal indoctrination in class
as opposed to legitimate instruction.
Sounds great, but in all of the 101
cases in Horowitz’s book, I don’t think I see a single one as bad as this or
with anywhere near comparable evidence to back it up.
I’m in Paszkiewicz’s class right now as a high school junior in that school. He still has not learned his lesson about keeping his opinions to himself. Although he’s tried to pull this attitude that ‘If the students think this way, then I can have an opinion too’, but he’s the teacher. Students and teachers go by different laws, otherwise the school system wouldn’t be structured.
Andie,
If that really is true, and he’s still spewinbg this garbage, you might want to do reoprt him to the admiistrators. I’m sure that if enough students complain about his proselytizing in the classroom, serious actions will be taken against him this time. He never really should have gotten away with it in the first place, it is completely uncoonstititional and illegal.
the teacher has been shot and killed. amen and may god have mercy on his soul, or we can see him burning in hell. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA