Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The Times has an article about the teacher in New Jersey who was using class time to tell students that they'd go to hell if they didn't believe in Jesus. The reaction from folks in the town is predictable, but discouraging. Here's an example of what the teacher was saying:
"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."
He also, evidently, specifically said that a Muslim student who was popular at the school is going to hell. Now, it's certainly fine for anyone to believe that if they wish, but it is absolutely out of bounds for a public school teacher to say that to his students while teaching class. Unfortunately, some of the people in that town just do not seem to understand that.
In this tale of the teacher who preached in class and the pupil he offended, students and the larger community have mostly lined up with Mr. Paszkiewicz, not with Matthew, who has received a death threat handled by the police, as well as critical comments from classmates.Greice Coelho, who took Mr. Paszkiewicz's class and is a member of his youth group, said in a letter to The Observer, the local weekly newspaper, that Matthew was "ignoring the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which gives every citizen the freedom of religion." Some anonymous posters on the town's electronic bulletin board, Kearnyontheweb.com, called for Matthew's suspension.
It should be noted that this is a history teacher, and perhaps if he spent less time preaching and more time teaching history, his students would know that the free exercise clause does not protect the teacher's expressions as a government employee. He is free to believe whatever he likes, of course, and he is free to tell his youth group that Muslims are going to hell at the church. But at the school, during class time, he represents the government and as such he cannot use that time to preach or to expound on his religious beliefs. And even groups who generally support public expressions of religion recognize that this is clearly unconstitutional:
"It's proselytizing, and the courts have been pretty clear you can't do that," said John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, a group that provides legal services in religious freedom cases. "You can't step across the line and proselytize, and that's what he's done here."
I would suggest that if the teacher really thinks what he did is constitutional and appropriate, he doesn't understand American history nearly well enough to teach it.
Comments
Why doesn't the Times article mention the fact that when the student originally filed the complaint, the teacher lied and denied having said these things in class? Not only was he proselityzing, he lied about it after the fact. Then, when the student produced his audio recordings, the teacher says, "You got the big fish ... you got the big Christian guy who is a teacher...!"
Posted by: Big C | December 19, 2006 10:04 AM
The NYTimes article has the usual "he said, she said" wishywashyness.
Posted by: Mustafa Mond, FCD | December 19, 2006 10:11 AM
Whoa, if J. Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute is against what he did, then that's a biggie!
Posted by: SharonB | December 19, 2006 12:58 PM
I'm with BigC. The fact that he lied clearly shows that he knew what he was/is doing is wrong. It's just unbelievable.
Posted by: frank | December 19, 2006 1:34 PM
How much support is Matt getting from the school in response to that death threat? I should think the good Christians in his school district would be unanimous in their outrage at a death threat directed against a minor.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 19, 2006 2:05 PM
You said it perfectly, Ed: "if the teacher really thinks what he did is constitutional and appropriate, he doesn't understand American history nearly well enough to teach it."
What really irks me is the community and student support the teacher seems to be getting which makes me want to jump into the PZ Myers camp and ridicule/demean the wacko-Christian nut cases -- but reason prevails. Ridiculing people like that only causes them to harden their positions and, for me, is the equivalent of verbal fisticufts.
Through Jon Rowe at http://www.positiveliberty.com -- a blog you may have heard of :) -- I found this excellent post http://gayspecies.blogspot.com/2006/12/religion-christianity-evangelicalism.html by D. Stephen Heersink.
Seems to me that challenging Christians to a deeper understanding of Christianity has some merit. "Real" Christians are not the rightwing evangelicals, the "Christian Nation" meme is made up of whole cloth, and separation of church and state is an important aspect of democracy. These are all thing that are accepted by readers of this blog yet are denied by the people who support the history teacher. Some honest history will go a long way toward strengthing democracy in America.
Posted by: AndyS | December 19, 2006 5:25 PM
Posted by: Mustafa Mond, FCD | December 19, 2006 6:02 PM
The town is not filled with "wacko-Christian nut cases." People are defending him because he's an amazing person, not because they believe in what he says. Kearny is a pretty urban place, right between Newark, Jersey City, and NYC. Hardly anyone I know there is religious in any sense of the word. The media has made him seem crazy and Matthew Laclair a hero. Fuck being politically correct for once, and realize that Paszkiewicz is keeping his job because the students he teaches love him for who he is. I'm sure he'll never mention religion again after all this business, happy? Why must people insist on more from him?
Posted by: ae | December 19, 2006 7:09 PM
So you think personal popularity and being a great guy means it's okay for people to excuse breaking the law? Or worse, means it's okay to issue death threats and ostracize a student who blew the whistle on him for breaking the law? I don't care how great a guy he is, the town's reaction has been absurd.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 19, 2006 7:11 PM
ae: how have the town responded to that death threat Matt got? Are they standing up to condemn it and say it doesn't represent their true nature? Are they admitting that it's a bit un-Christian to threaten a minor with physical violence?
Judging by your response here, you seem to care more about protecting a teacher's job than keeping your fellow townspeople free of threats and fear. Any comments on this?
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 20, 2006 9:15 AM
Of course he's a moral person. Nothing says moral like using a position of power to abuse people who are younger than you that are required by law to be in your presence. If he wants to preach and teach, he should work at a private school.
Posted by: Andrew Smash | December 20, 2006 12:57 PM
" .... and realize that Paszkiewicz is keeping his job because the students he teaches love him for who he is."
Of course they love him. He doesn't actually teach his subject, so he doesn't actually require them to do any work. If he suddenly replaced "Jesus" with "UFOs" in his daily tirades, a large percentage of his students would still love him, although perhaps their parents would be a bit quicker to get upset.
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut | December 20, 2006 2:57 PM