Teaching Intelligent Design and burning crosses

Posted 19 June 2008 by PvM

The Columbus Dispatch reports that a much awaited report on the activities of John Freshwater, a Mount Vernon teacher, has finally been released. The conclusions are straightforward and shocking

A Mount Vernon teacher undermined science instruction in the public school district by discrediting evolution in his classroom and focusing on creationism and intelligent design, a probe has found.

Worse, the teacher "burned crosses onto students’ arms, using an electrostatic device, in December. Freshwater told investigators the marks were Xs, not crosses. But all of the students interviewed in the investigation reported being branded with crosses." While his defenders argued that the teacher merely used the device to draw 'X', the picture shows otherwise. To me this clearly looks like a cross, not an 'X'. In other news, the family of one of the students who was burned filed a federal lawsuit last week against the teacher Freshwater and the school district.

Freshwater’s friend, Dave Daubenmire, defended him. “With the exception of the cross-burning episode … I believe John Freshwater is teaching the values of the parents in the Mount Vernon school district,’’ he said.

Even if that were correct, that is no excuse for violating the constitution and branding crosses in children's arms. Not to mention the other violations of a teacher's responsibilities towards his students. It is shocking to me as a Christian and a scientists that this teacher violated not just the Constitution but also how the school seemed to have turned a blind eye towards the problem and how both the school and the teacher have violated their oath and duty towards their students. What shocks me further is how his defenders attempted to trivialize the actions by Freshwater. Until now, I had assumed that there existed valid explanations for his actions however the report makes it very clear that none exist. The final conclusions of the report:

There is a significant amount of evidence that Mr. Freshwaters’ teachings regarding subjects related to evolution were not consistent with the curriculum of the Mount Vernon City Schools and State standards. Contrary to Mr. Freshwater’s statement, the evidence indicates he has been teaching creationism and intelligent design and has been teaching the unreliability of carbon dating in support of opposition to evolution. He has passed out materials to students for the past several years challenging evolution and then collecting the materials back from the students. He has done so in spite of specific directives not to teach creationism or intelligent design. He has taught students to use the code word “Here” to challenge scientific process that is considered settled by the high school science teachers.

That by itself is sufficiently troubling however this is not where his actions ended

In addition, there is evidence that Mr. Freshwater inappropriately said to his class that science is wrong because the Bible states that homosexuality is a sin and so anyone who is gay chooses to be gay and therefore is a sinner.

And finally, Freshwater used an electrostatic device improperly to brand a cross in the arms of his students

Mr. Freshwater did improperly use an electrostatic device on the student who filed the complaint and other students in his science class in a manner that was not in compliance with the manufacturer’s instructions. While there did not appear to be any intent by Mr.Freshwater to cause injury to any student, he was not using the device for its intended purpose. Contrary to Mr. Freshwater’s statement he simply made an “X” not a “cross,” all of the students described the marking as a “cross” and the pictures provided depict a “cross”.

Indeed, it surely does not look like an X to me either. And yet his defenders took him at his word that it was an X and not a cross, a statement belied by the children and the photographs.

Mr. Freshwater was insubordinate in failing to remove all of the religious materials from his classroom as ordered by his superior, Principal White.

Mr. Freshwater did burn a cross onto the complaining family’s child’s arm using an electrostatic device not designed for that purpose

The Ten Commandments together with other posters of a religious nature were posted in Mr. Freshwater’s classroom. Most were removed after Mr. White’s letter of April 14, 2008, but at least one poster remained which Mr. Freshwater was again instructed to remove on April 16, 2008, but did not do so.

Several Bibles were kept in Mr. Freshwater’s classroom including his personal Bible on his desk and one he checked out of the library placed on the lab table near the desk. Other Bibles that had been maintained in the room were removed by the time the investigators viewed Mr. Freshwater’s room.

Mr. Freshwater engaged in teaching of a religious nature, teaching creationism and related theories and calling evolution into question. He had other materials in his classroom that could be used for that purpose.

Mr. Freshwater engaged in prayer during FCA meetings in violation of the District’s legal obligations for monitoring such organizations.

Mr. Freshwater participated and possibly lead a prayer during an FCA meeting that concerned a guest speaker’s health. There is no conclusion as to whether such prayer was a “healing” prayer.

There is no evidence Mr. Freshwater violated the District’s permission slip policy.

There is no evidence Mr. Freshwater made statements about FCA members “being the saved ones” nor was there any corroboration to the allegation Mr. Freshwater gave FCA members Bibles for them to distribute. He did have two boxes of Bibles in the back of his room.

Mr. Freshwater gave an extra credit assignment for students to view the movie “Expelled” which does involve intelligent design.

102 Comments

Warren · 20 June 2008

This simple fact of burning anything in students' arms, whether an X or a cross, is child abuse.

This man needs to go to prison for the rest of his life.

PvM · 20 June 2008

Interesting perspective. Even if the student gave permission to do so? Does a student have the ability to understand and consent to this inappropriate use of the device? At the moment, the issue is in civil court, I wonder if criminal charges will be filed.

Warren said: This simple fact of burning anything in students' arms, whether an X or a cross, is child abuse. This man needs to go to prison for the rest of his life.

Raging Bee · 20 June 2008

"Permission" from a minor means nothing. And in what circumstances would such "permission" be given? An intolerant authoritarian, claiming authority both as a teacher and as a "Christian" bringing the Word of God, who consistently forces his beliefs on his students, no questions allowed, with the consent of the school administration, now hints that his students could show their "faith" by getting a permanent scar. And if you don't take the "initiation," you're not "one of the faithful." That's not "permission," it's peer pressure manipulated by adults.

PvM · 20 June 2008

Very good points. I am playing the devil's advocate to ensure that my logic and position are not unnecessarily biased by my beliefs. Yes, I tend to agree with you that teachers have an incredible power over their students and with it comes an incredible responsibility. Such a relationship can easily be manipulated for good or evil. Using such a position to indoctrinate children in issues of faith seems highly inappropriate. I wonder what the response would have been if instead the teacher were an atheist who had been telling his students that there is no God? Would Freshwater supporters still support the "right" of the teacher to do so? Or is this limited to teachers who support indoctrination in the most popular faith?

Raging Bee said: "Permission" from a minor means nothing. And in what circumstances would such "permission" be given? An intolerant authoritarian, claiming authority both as a teacher and as a "Christian" bringing the Word of God, who consistently forces his beliefs on his students, no questions allowed, with the consent of the school administration, now hints that his students could show their "faith" by getting a permanent scar. And if you don't take the "initiation," you're not "one of the faithful." That's not "permission," it's peer pressure manipulated by adults.

Fredgiblet · 20 June 2008

PvM said: I wonder what the response would have been if instead the teacher were an atheist who had been telling his students that there is no God?

My guess? He'd have been crucified.

GvlGeologist, FCD · 20 June 2008

In the article in the Columbus Dispatch listed in the OP, there are a number of documents related to the dispute listed under "Web Extras". The first is a letter from William White, the principal of the school, that, among other things, says,

With regard to religious materials in your classroom, it has been brought to my attention that you have a bible out on your desk ... While you certainly may read your bible on your own, duty free time [i.e. during lunch], it cannot be sitting out on your desk when students are in the classroom and when you are supposed to be engaged in your responsibilities as a teacher. ... As a public school teacher, you cannot engage in any activity that promotes or denigrates a particular religion or religious beliefs while on board property, during any school activity or while you are "on duty" as a teacher. Unless a particular discussion about religion or religious decorations or symbols is part of a Board approved curriculum, you may not engage in religious discussions with students while at school or keep religious materials displayed in the classroom.

(I should note that the "..." refer to another issue that Mr. Freshwater complied with.) Mr. Freshwater replies,

In addition, my superiors have ordered me to remove the Bible from the desk of my classroom. Because the Bible is personal, private property and the source of personal inner-strength in my own life the removal of it from my desk would be nothing short of infringement on my own deeply held, personal religious beliefs granted by God and guaranteed under the "free-exercise clause" of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The First Amendment reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; (emph. mine) or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. My question today is if Congress can make no law prohibiting the "free exercise" of my faith, from where does the Mt. Vernon City Schools obtain the power to restrict it? Until the Mount Vernon City Schools can demonstrate to me how I can remove the Bible from my desk without sacrificing my own God-given right to free exercise of my faith, I cannot in good-conscience comply with their directive. I do not forfeit my right to free expression of my faith when I walk into the school and because I strongly object to the "Christian censorship" being promoted in our schools I respectfully reject the request to remove the Bible.

It seems to me that, deliberately or not, Mr. Freshwater is misinterpreting the instructions by Mr. White. Mr. White said that the bible "cannot be sitting out on your desk when students are in the classroom", not that it had to be removed entirely, and specifically said that Mr. Freshwater could read the bible on his own, off duty time such as lunch. But Mr. Freshwater cannot put pressure on the students by displaying a religious text on his desk. Doing so makes a statement, and I think that any non-Christian in the class would be made to feel unconfortable by it. This is playing the victim card, as we have seen many trolls on PT do in the past. IANAL

blackant · 20 June 2008

Yuck!
Why would any teacher mess with a kid's body like that!
This guy may have a few screws loose.
Was it temporary or permanent marking?

Daoud · 20 June 2008

I think regardless of the creationism/separation of church and state issues, the "branding" (whether X or crosses is irrelevant) equals assault. This teacher should be fired at the very least.

Marc · 20 June 2008

Couple questions

Mr. Freshwater did improperly use an electrostatic device on the student who filed the complaint

was the complaint filed before or after the ritual scarring? I'm wondering if it was done to the student in response to the complaint, or if the student was fine with it until after it was done (possibly being the parents that freaked out on seeing it)

In addition, my superiors have ordered me to remove the Bible from the desk of my classroom. Because the Bible is personal, private property and the source of personal inner-strength in my own life the removal of it from my desk would be nothing short of infringement on my own deeply held, personal religious beliefs granted by God and guaranteed under the “free-exercise clause” of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

We realy need some remedial constitutional law classes. The first amendment grants us freedom of speach, but it does not compel newspapers or publishers to print anyones insane rantings. Nor does the freedom of religion compel employers to allow any action on the job especially when it interfeers with the job. Using his reasoning a Hindu hired by a fast food place would be legally allowed to give all the burgers a religious funeral.

chuck · 20 June 2008

It is not possible for an 8th grader to give valid consent for something like that any more than they could give valid consent to being tattooed or branded.

The fact that he still has his job is a refutation of the whole premise of Expelled.

In fact what we have here is protection of child abuse and dereliction of duty due to the perpetrator's Christian religion.

Imagine if a Muslim had done this in a public school.

Mike Elzinga · 20 June 2008

I know a teacher who is a lot like this Freshwater character, and I also know that these kinds of idiots cannot survive without support or acquiescence from the administration.

The person I know has been grotesquely incompetent as far as the subject matter of his courses are concerned (computer science and math), and he has been proselytizing from the first day he entered the classroom. He also has actively denigrated the religions of the Hindu, Muslim, and Catholic students in his class and this has been recorded and reported repeatedly by students.

During his first few years before receiving tenure, he was supervised by a master teacher who became totally frustrated with him and recommended strongly that this idiot not receive tenure. The director of the program dithered repeatedly and finally recommended this crackpot for tenure.

It has been 12 years since this idiot received tenure, and he hasn’t changed. He bribes students with A’s to give him good evaluations, and he punishes students with low grades if they complain about him. The teachers around him, the parents, and the students all know this is going on and they complain regularly; but nothing is ever done about it except an occasional reprimand and a brief referral to a master teacher.

There is clearly some kind of behind-the-scenes politics that keeps him in place.

Random Lurker · 20 June 2008

chuck said: In fact what we have here is protection of child abuse and dereliction of duty due to the perpetrator's Christian religion. Imagine if a Muslim had done this in a public school.

And this is why separation of church and state must be applied at the classroom level. It's amazing to me that so many people do not realize how biased they are when judging the actions of people that share their religion, even when those actions are abusive.

DavidK · 20 June 2008

Another potential future martyr for the Discovery Institute?

hje · 20 June 2008

While his defenders argued that the teacher merely used the device to draw ‘X’, the picture shows otherwise.

This really typifies the problem in general. Like the punch line of a joke I recall: "Who are you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes?"

Flint · 20 June 2008

I also know that these kinds of idiots cannot survive without support or acquiescence from the administration.

And for the most part, the administration doesn't want to cause problems with the community. After all, their paycheck comes from community funding, and their jobs are hostage to political boards and committees who tend to be ardent creationists also, selected (voted in by) a creationist community, and funded by tax programs advertised as supported by God. Also, as we've seen in cases like Hovind and Judge Roy Moore, these people will spit righteously in the eye of any law they find to be godless. Freshwater's flat "fuck you" refusal to follow the law OR the requests of his boss, are playing straight to the local community, where his support is doubtless solid and fanatical. Slogans like "forfeit my right to express my faith" and "censorship against Christians in the schools" aren't anything but political cheerleading. Any action taken against him has been powerfully positioned as an attempt to attack and suppress the local faith, and persecute the devout. While the schools are the best weapon in the war to reach sanity (and at best not nearly as powerful as parental indoctrination, Sunday school, and peer pressure), getting the creationists out of positions of influence and authority means being VERY unpopular while removing one brick for every 100 replaced in the wall between the locals and genuine knowledge. So Freshwater keeps his job, his bible stays on his desk, the case slowly filters through the courts, finally coming to ground with a decision demanding that Freshwater move his bible. Which he ignores, nobody arrests him, and the status quo continues.

david · 20 June 2008

As an irrelevant aside, let me mention -- for those who haven't seen it -- that the co-writer of "Expelled," Kevin Miller has a blog:

http://kevinwrites.typepad.com

In it you'll see the same general approach to difficult questions that you might expect from a guy willing to put his name on the "Expelled" credits: questions he can't evade, he expels.

Tyrannosaurus · 20 June 2008

When dealing with minors (anyone under the age of 18 years) consent is not granted nor received. Consent does not simply exists. If anything is the parents the ones called into give it. Branding or scarification done in the school by a teacher simply violate any moral or common sense. This teacher should be prosecuted for child abuse and endangerment.

megan · 20 June 2008

Mike Elzinga said: I know a teacher who is a lot like this Freshwater character, and I also know that these kinds of idiots cannot survive without support or acquiescence from the administration. There is clearly some kind of behind-the-scenes politics that keeps him in place.

Here comes a fairly useless comment, but maybe someone can help me out here. I know there is some sort of government organization you can contact to help in situations like this, but I don't remember who it is. I heard an epispode of This American Life once that broke my heart, and it was about a Muslim family and the unfortunate experiences they had well after 9/11 when the kids were forced to read books saying Muslims were bad people, and the whole school turned on the kids from the Muslim family. Through the government action, the teachers were given some minor educational slaps on the wrist. It didn't solve everything, but it couldn't hurt. The sooner you start demanding change, the sooner that teacher will stop harming the self esteem of those kids.

megan · 20 June 2008

Mike Elzinga said: I know a teacher who is a lot like this Freshwater character, and I also know that these kinds of idiots cannot survive without support or acquiescence from the administration. There is clearly some kind of behind-the-scenes politics that keeps him in place.

I heard a story on This American Life once, where a Muslim family was able to get a fed. govt. agency involved to try and help stop religious discrimination coming from a teacher. Still wrist-slapping, but it's worth a shot.

Paul Burnett · 20 June 2008

Mr. Freshwater did improperly use an electrostatic device on the student...

What "electrostatic device" would do this? That looks more like a burn from a hot wire or a small soldering iron or such, rather than anything one would get from a Wimhurst Machine or a Van de Graaf Generator. This part of the indictment might be thrown out if the "device" was not specifically "electrostatic" in nature.

chuck · 20 June 2008

Paul Burnett said:
Mr. Freshwater did improperly use an electrostatic device on the student...
What "electrostatic device" would do this? That looks more like a burn from a hot wire or a small soldering iron or such, rather than anything one would get from a Wimhurst Machine or a Van de Graaf Generator. This part of the indictment might be thrown out if the "device" was not specifically "electrostatic" in nature.

Oh it's an electrostatic device all right. The report has the manufacturer and model: http://www.electrotechnicproduct.com/pinhole.asp

iml8 · 20 June 2008

Tyrannosaurus said: Branding or scarification done in the school by a teacher simply violates any moral or common sense.

I think this is the type of incident where people are slow to react simply because they are dumbfounded: "I must have heard this wrong. Tell me what happened again, please?" And when told again the reaction is: "You did WHAT? WHY?!" White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

Mike Elzinga · 20 June 2008

chuck said:
Paul Burnett said:
Mr. Freshwater did improperly use an electrostatic device on the student...
What "electrostatic device" would do this? That looks more like a burn from a hot wire or a small soldering iron or such, rather than anything one would get from a Wimhurst Machine or a Van de Graaf Generator. This part of the indictment might be thrown out if the "device" was not specifically "electrostatic" in nature.
Oh it's an electrostatic device all right. The report has the manufacturer and model: http://www.electrotechnicproduct.com/pinhole.asp

I used to have one of these gadgets in my lab. It's a little like a Tesla coil. It generates high-voltage, high-frequency coronal discharge from its tip.

Erasmus · 20 June 2008

Imagine if a teacher burned in a picture of an upside down star with a ruminant of the genus Capra in it. I'm sure parents wouldn't have any problems with this type of free expression. Surely not.

Warren · 20 June 2008

PvM said: I wonder what the response would have been if instead the teacher were an atheist who had been telling his students that there is no God?

Actually there have been many test cases of this type floated already. Every time a teacher has sex with a student, the question of permission -- consent -- is always nullified, and the teacher is prosecuted as a sexual predator. From a legal perspective I believe there's plenty of precedent. Bodily harm was inflicted by this deranged individual, and the matter of consent has clearly been invalidated in abusive situations.

Stanton · 20 June 2008

Warren said:
PvM said: I wonder what the response would have been if instead the teacher were an atheist who had been telling his students that there is no God?
Actually there have been many test cases of this type floated already. Every time a teacher has sex with a student, the question of permission -- consent -- is always nullified, and the teacher is prosecuted as a sexual predator. From a legal perspective I believe there's plenty of precedent. Bodily harm was inflicted by this deranged individual, and the matter of consent has clearly been invalidated in abusive situations.

Then there's the troublesome fact that Mr Freshwater made very little effort, if any effort at all, to teach his students science.

Mats · 20 June 2008

Nice "guilty by association" you have there, mr "Christian" PvM.

If the story is true (I have no reason to think otherwise) it's sad that the teacher did what he. However, don't bring the scaremongering type of rethoric "He descredited evolution AND burned children's arms".

Mats · 20 June 2008

I wonder what the response would have been if instead the teacher were an atheist who had been telling his students that there is no God?

That's the sine qua non of atheistic public schools.

harold · 20 June 2008

PvM -

I wonder what the response would have been if instead the teacher were an atheist who had been telling his students that there is no God? Would Freshwater supporters still support the “right” of the teacher to do so? Or is this limited to teachers who support indoctrination in the most popular faith?

To use public schools to forcefully indoctrinate other peoples' children, over whom the teacher has a position of limited but very strong authority and strong responsibility, is an outrage against human rights in general and a violation of the US constitution in particular. An atheist who taught lies instead of science, and who physically and psychologically abused children by scarring their bodies with indoctrinating material in this way, would be equally guilty. The grossly inappropriate championing of any sectarian view by a teacher clearly denigrates all other views by implication. Indeed, I would suggest that teachers should be careful about even discussing the irrelevant issue of their own religious beliefs, as a statement by a teacher, especially a popular, feared, or manipulative one, "I am Hindu" or the like, would in itself border on implying that the particular religion in question enjoys favor (and by extension, alternate views disfavor) from public school authorities. There are, of course, situations in which a sensitive and professional teacher might disclose his or her own views in order to make a point AGAINST discrimination and to PROMOTE respect for the rights and beliefs of others, but such situations are tricky and challenging for the best. I strongly support everyone's right to express their full opinion, but some professional roles require restraint on the job, lest illegal and immoral favoritism/discrimination be practiced, deliberately or inadvertently. This man's only defense is his probable significant mental illness. He certainly shouldn't be teaching. Unfortunately, some private school will probably hire him.

This man needs to go to prison for the rest of his life.

Of course not. He does need to be permanently removed from his professional role; all licenses revoked and so on. He should and will face civil suits and criminal charges; mental illness may be a strong mitigating factor, though. I realize that Warren was speaking from understandable outrage, but life in prison would be very excessive.

Pam cheshire · 20 June 2008

Warren said: This simple fact of burning anything in students' arms, whether an X or a cross, is child abuse. This man needs to go to prison for the rest of his life.

PLEASE! We have people that MURDER and THEY aren't sentenced to prison for the rest of their lives. Get a life Warren!

RBH · 20 June 2008

Flint wrote

Freshwater’s flat “fuck you” refusal to follow the law OR the requests of his boss, are playing straight to the local community, where his support is doubtless solid and fanatical.

In fact, his support has eroded away and is now (on my reading) down to 20% or 25% of the community, if that.

PvM · 20 June 2008

That’s the sine qua non of atheistic public schools.

And where can such schools be found. Surely not in this country.

PvM · 20 June 2008

Guilt by association? Perhaps I do not understand This teacher broke the teacher student trust relationship by teaching creationism and by branding/burning children's arms. As a Christian, a scientist and a parent, I am quite outraged by this violation of trust.

Mats said: Nice "guilty by association" you have there, mr "Christian" PvM. If the story is true (I have no reason to think otherwise) it's sad that the teacher did what he. However, don't bring the scaremongering type of rethoric "He descredited evolution AND burned children's arms".

Stanton · 20 June 2008

Mats does not understand that Mr Freshwater is breaking several laws, including the facts that a) Mr Freshwater did not teach his students science like he was paid to do, and b) he used an electronic device to burn crosses into his students' skin. On the other hand, if I am wrong about this, Mats is free to explain why a science teacher is free to teach his own religious point of view instead of teaching science in a science classroom, and why a science teacher can brand his students with the religious symbols of his choice, and Mats is free to explain how either of these acts do not violate the US Constitution or other laws against child abuse.

PvM said: Guilt by association? Perhaps I do not understand This teacher broke the teacher student trust relationship by teaching creationism and by branding/burning children's arms. As a Christian, a scientist and a parent, I am quite outraged by this violation of trust.
Mats said: Nice "guilty by association" you have there, mr "Christian" PvM. If the story is true (I have no reason to think otherwise) it's sad that the teacher did what he. However, don't bring the scaremongering type of rethoric "He descredited evolution AND burned children's arms".

iml8 · 20 June 2008

Mats said: That's the sine qua non of atheistic public schools.

I had a friend from India who insisted he was all for prayer in the schools: "Class, we will now recite an excerpt from chapter four of the Bhagavad-Gita." But at least he was being silly on purpose. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

raven · 20 June 2008

Mats the troll: I wonder what the response would have been if instead the teacher were an atheist who had been telling his students that there is no God?

Atheists don't say there is no god. They just say it is very unlikely. No one has been able to prove that god exists, or that it doesn't. So how does a teacher saying he doesn't believe in god any different from a teacher saying he does? IIRC correctly teachers can declare their beliefs but can't preach to or prosyletize students, separation of church and state.

mats the delusional: That’s the sine qua non of atheistic public schools.

Teachers in public schools are drawn from the population at large and reflect them. 90% of the population self identifies themselves as religious, mostly xian, so the teachers would be expected to be about the same. If you could count, you would know that 90% is hardly a downtrodden minority. The big problem isn't atheists who don't believe in anything breaking the law, it is christofascist teachers doing so constantly and bragging about it.

Flint · 20 June 2008

RBH:

In fact, his support has eroded away and is now (on my reading) down to 20% or 25% of the community, if that.

Permit me to horselaugh at this response. My understanding is that Freshwater's behavior is not new; it has been going on for some time. It certainly wasn't a secret. It was ipso facto permissable, approved, sanctioned behavior by the community. And his wording is clearly a political appeal to the sense of the community that has accepted what he's been doing for some while now. But what has happened is, the glare of publicity has polarized the case, with news reporters with klieg lights and microphones grilling school administrators. And this sort of polarization separates the vocal approval from the tacit approval. Much the same thing happened in Dover, where once the nation's attention was focused on whether they were all superstitious ignorant rubes, and with their election results international news fodder, a small majority decided to mimic sapience until the heat was off. Just like in Kansas, where once the world's laughter had died and the 15 minutes of fame expired, why, the Kansans re-elected the creationists. Publicity returns; creationists out. Publicity fades, creationists back. Why, do you suppose? Freshwater probably pushed the boundaries just a bit too far, but the community is STILL strongly creationist. The support for Freshwater has eroded, but the support for what he did and what he stands for hasn't diminished at all. His replacement could do precisely the same thing, which would be gladly approved by local community standards, so long as the meddling atheist media pays no attention, and isn't trying to make them look ignorant. The message might be positive, however. So long as you don't much care about your neighbors, your reputation, and your job, you can blow the whistle and hope that maybe someone else's kids get a better education someday.

Dale Husband · 20 June 2008

raven said: Atheists don't say there is no god. They just say it is very unlikely. No one has been able to prove that god exists, or that it doesn't.

Actually, some atheists do deny outright the existence of God. You just described agnosticism, which is my position. Nice to see Mats the Moron back again. NOT!

Mats · 20 June 2008

PvM said:
That’s the sine qua non of atheistic public schools.
And where can such schools be found. Surely not in this country.

American public schools are hot beds for atheism where Christianity is censored. But it's ok to teach islam

Gary Bohn · 20 June 2008

Tell you what, if a teacher can 'brand' my child then I can yank his balls off and stuff them down his throat.

The priority in this should be the children, then what is being taught.

PvM · 20 June 2008

American public schools are hot beds for atheism where Christianity is censored. But it’s ok to teach islam

It's ok to teach Christianity as well as Islam in American public schools. While one may confuse science with atheism, the simple fact is that there are no logical supporting evidences for your claims. Don't you feel a bit foolish?

iml8 · 20 June 2008

Mats said: American public schools are hot beds for atheism where Christianity is censored. But it's ok to teach islam

As I keep telling people, you really can find decaffienated coffee that tastes every bit as good as the real thing. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

raven · 20 June 2008

Mats making things up: American public schools are hot beds for atheism where Christianity is censored. But it’s ok to teach islam>

Well that does it. Clearly you have never been to school which explains a huge amount of your muddled thinking. I can speak definitely about a few schools, the ones I went to. My primary and secondary schools never had a single atheist that I was aware of. Maybe they were there but they were so far in the closet that no one could find them. Some of the teachers were Asian Americans but I have no idea whatsoever what their religion was, if any. In fact, none of the teachers in 12 years ever identified themselves as any religion. This is most likely because we were in school to learn stuff like reading, writing, arithmetic, science, PE, and so on. By the US constitution, religion is separated and there are places called "churches" for them. And I can't recall anyone ever even mentioning the word Moslem, Islam, or anything similar. We did study Russia and communism in poly sci for a few days but so what, the teacher wasn't expecting us to become marxists. We also studied the Holocaust but again, the teacher didn't expect us to start building death camps at recess. What is it with you christofascists and continual lying. I've said on other threads that most xian Death Cultist trolls that care enough to spout their hate and lies are merely mentally ill people filling up their waking hours. So Mats, what is your diagnosis? What sort of meds aren't you taking that you should be? And how much do you hate the USA and western civilization anyway. Clearly you were born in the wrong century in the wrong country. Sorry but the Spanish Inquisition, witch burnings, Reformation wars, and crusades have been over for centuries.

Mats · 20 June 2008

PvM said:
American public schools are hot beds for atheism where Christianity is censored. But it’s ok to teach islam
It's ok to teach Christianity as well as Islam in American public schools. While one may confuse science with atheism, the simple fact is that there are no logical supporting evidences for your claims. Don't you feel a bit foolish?

Do you want the evidence that public schools are indoctrinating kids with anti-Christian view points?

Gary Bohn · 20 June 2008

Mats said:
PvM said:
That’s the sine qua non of atheistic public schools.
And where can such schools be found. Surely not in this country.
American public schools are hot beds for atheism where Christianity is censored. But it's ok to teach islam

Where is Islam taught in a secular school? Do they take time to kneel and pray to Allah in class? I understand that you are upset that your previously held position of power and influence is being eroded by the advancement of minority viewpoints, but since that power and influence is hardly warranted, you should be grateful for the enormous power still held by Christians. Christians, when taken as an homogeneous group, wield more power than any other.

iml8 · 20 June 2008

Mats said: Do you want the evidence that public schools are indoctrinating kids with anti-Christian view points?

Why not try a nice hot cup of steaming decaf instead? Mmmm, good ... White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

PvM · 20 June 2008

Don't you feel even more foolish for changing your tune. Show me that Christianity is being censored from schools and that Islam is allowed to be taught. Yes, I am very well aware of some of the controversies, what I am pointing out is that the constitution does not prohibit teaching about religions.

Mats said:
PvM said:
American public schools are hot beds for atheism where Christianity is censored. But it’s ok to teach islam
It's ok to teach Christianity as well as Islam in American public schools. While one may confuse science with atheism, the simple fact is that there are no logical supporting evidences for your claims. Don't you feel a bit foolish?
Do you want the evidence that public schools are indoctrinating kids with anti-Christian view points?

iml8 · 20 June 2008

PvM said: Don't you feel a bit foolish?

I wouldn't bet on it. As the saying goes: When it doesn't smell any more, you're in it up to your eyes. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

Flint · 20 June 2008

In fact, his support has eroded away and is now (on my reading) down to 20% or 25% of the community, if that.

What we see here is what I call Kitty Genovese syndrome. A minority supports Freshwater, but an overwhelming majority does not object to Freshwater. Can we say that those who have no problem with what he's been doing, but who won't come to his defense when he's under fire either, support him or not? Let's be realistic. People like Freshwater would be tarred and feathered and toted out of town on a rail if they pulled that in any community where the overwhelming majority didn't approve of what he was doing. What 20-25% are doing is explicitly supporting him despite the publicity. What the overwhelming majority has been doing is backing his approach so long as it's kept quiet, and who will re-elect the local school board, give a raise to the principal and administrators, and hire another Freshwater as soon as the publicity wanders off to the next little fuss.

Flint · 20 June 2008

Do you want the evidence that public schools are indoctrinating kids with anti-Christian view points?

Actually, we've been given tons of such evidence. And invariably, it amounts to "anything that does NOT evangelize my faith, is ipso facto in opposition to my faith". If someone's faith makes the claim that their god(s) do everything, any view that there are non-god causes is ANTI-GODS! There is no neutral. And, by law, public education must remain neutral. To Mats, neutral doesn't exist - it is necessarily against his faith, because it does not ratify his faith. No middle ground is even conceivable. And therefore, any class that just lists the tenets of any religion's doctrine, in the format of "faith A believes this, faith B believes this, faith C believes this" is necessarily preaching the truth-value of those religions. To him, his beliefs are not one of a very large number of competing baseless claims. His beliefs are TRUTH. Even mentioning another faith must therefore mean asserting that its claims are Truth. There is no neutral.

jjdiogenes · 20 June 2008

Word just came down a little while ago that he was fired today - the school board voted unanimously - 5-0 to fire him.

RBH · 20 June 2008

Word just came down a little while ago that he was fired today - the school board voted unanimously - 5-0 to fire him.

No, the board voted 5-0 to initiate the termination proceedings. See my post above.

RBH · 20 June 2008

Flint wrote

Permit me to horselaugh at this response. My understanding is that Freshwater’s behavior is not new; it has been going on for some time. It certainly wasn’t a secret. It was ipso facto permissable, approved, sanctioned behavior by the community. And his wording is clearly a political appeal to the sense of the community that has accepted what he’s been doing for some while now. ... Freshwater probably pushed the boundaries just a bit too far, but the community is STILL strongly creationist. The support for Freshwater has eroded, but the support for what he did and what he stands for hasn’t diminished at all. His replacement could do precisely the same thing, which would be gladly approved by local community standards, so long as the meddling atheist media pays no attention, and isn’t trying to make them look ignorant.

Chuckle, maybe, but not horselaugh. Your original assertion was

Freshwater’s flat “fuck you” refusal to follow the law OR the requests of his boss, are playing straight to the local community, where his support is doubtless solid and fanatical.

He's playing to the hard-core fundamentalist 20% of the community. This evening I talked with two pastors of 'mainstream' churches and will talk with more in the coming days. They are finally realizing who claims to be speaking for "Christians" and don't like it. And they don't like what they're reading in the papers, seeing on TV, and hearing from some of their congregation about it. You don't know the degree to which "Coach" David Daubenmire, Freshwater's self-appointed spokesman, is disliked here. I'm confident that his replacement could not so anything near what he did. The administration and board have both been badly burned over this -- I watched all their faces this afternoon -- and know now what can happen if they're not a helluva lot more vigilant. Flint wrote further

What we see here is what I call Kitty Genovese syndrome. A minority supports Freshwater, but an overwhelming majority does not object to Freshwater. Can we say that those who have no problem with what he’s been doing, but who won’t come to his defense when he’s under fire either, support him or not?

Wrong tense: did not object to Freshwater. There's considerable objection now. I'm not blindly sanguine, as I (foolishly) was in 2002. Nor are a fair number of other people. That's reassuring to me, in that more will be watching to see that it doesn't happen again.

Flint · 21 June 2008

RBH:

Wrong tense: did not object to Freshwater. There’s considerable objection now.

If you're right, then I'm heartened. But if it takes national negative publicity to light a fire under a community (and school administration) that has been willing to tolerate the truly incredible abuse Freshwater has been exercising, I admit I'm really surprised that so many people have had such a profound religious conversion in such a short period of time. I'll accept that like me, Freshwater, misunderstood the tacit approval of his behavior for some extended period of time as, you know, tacit approval of his behavior. I've always thought that if the TV cameras were running, Kitty Genovese would have received immediate attention from everyone who might be in the picture. I know that fanatical nitwits like Freshwater (and Roy Moore, and Hovind, etc. etc. etc.) are beyond the reach of any persuasion short of lobotomy. I just find the willingness to tolerate what he'd been preaching unexplainable short of the overwhelming majority of the community finding his material (and his bible-pounding) entirely acceptable. Burning brands into children as though they were steers, that may have been a bit much even for creationists. But either not one parent noticed that their kids were parroting material too idiotic even for AiG to stomach, or they all considered it a Good Thing. I'm hopeful that people across the country will read about this and say, hey, it only takes one person willing to blow the whistle, and the abuses will stop. Sadly, anywhere abuse is woven into the fabric of the local culture (whether it's a town, or the Air Force, or the Bush Administration), whistle-blowing tends to have the most profound and lasting effect on the whistle-blower, and that effect is negative.

Quinn · 21 June 2008

Wow... Teachers like this (and their often complicate administrators) do not belong in any school, other than some backwards Madras in a third world country...

It absolutely blows my mind that, in the 21st century, there's still people like this running around thinking that a bunch of fables and metaphorical stories written by goat herders ~2,000 years ago serves as the blueprint for what a just and happy life should be. Let alone, someone entrusted to teach children about Science! No wonder the rest of the world laughs at us; they all think we're a bunch of Christian whackos!

But the great thing about America, however, is that we are free to pursue whatever fantasy we want... But no one ever wants to ask themselves the hard questions; they only want the easy answers that they think resides in antiquated religious texts...

The quicker people get a grip on reality and realze that any answer you are looking for resides in Science, the quicker we can end religion, and conversly, Global suffering in general.

Quinn · 21 June 2008

Wow... Teachers like this (and their often complicate administrators) do not belong in any school, other than some backwards Madras in a third world country...

The quicker people get a grip on reality and realze that any answer you are looking for resides in Science, the quicker we can end religion, and conversly, Global suffering in general.

RBH · 21 June 2008

Flint wrote

If you’re right, then I’m heartened. But if it takes national negative publicity to light a fire under a community (and school administration) that has been willing to tolerate the truly incredible abuse Freshwater has been exercising, I admit I’m really surprised that so many people have had such a profound religious conversion in such a short period of time.

It's not the national publicity that's doing it (though that doesn't hurt). It's the local publicity. Before it was basically hidden away, with no one in the system willing to rock the boat. Now the boat has been publicly rocked, and a fair number of people are not happy with what's falling out of it. Four young colleagues of mine were at the meeting today, all biologists, and several (two, I think) have kids coming up through the school system. I'm very confident that having seen this hoorah, they're not going to relax their vigilance. And that's all it takes -- a few willing to holler as the current parents did.

PvM · 21 June 2008

Four young colleagues of mine were at the meeting today, all biologists, and several (two, I think) have kids coming up through the school system. I’m very confident that having seen this hoorah, they’re not going to relax their vigilance. And that’s all it takes – a few willing to holler as the current parents did.

The people who spoke up during the meeting showed a remarkable tunnel vision on God, Christianity and how violating or reinterpreting the Constitution was somehow ok if it was for God. Sounds like they have taken a lesson from G Bush who has done a horrible job in guiding his people in these matters. As a Christian I am horrified by the attitude of these people. They truly scare me as they abandon morality and reason.

raven · 21 June 2008

As a Christian I am horrified by the attitude of these people. They truly scare me as they abandon morality and reason.

I knew a couple who lived near Mt. Vernon. Both professionals with stable, high paying jobs. One day, they moved to SoCal which is culturally a long ways from central Ohio. Better climate but much higher cost of living. They never said much about why they moved as if it was self explanatory. But it was a few years after their first child was born. I think I know why now.

tupelo · 21 June 2008

Mats said:
PvM said:
That’s the sine qua non of atheistic public schools.
And where can such schools be found. Surely not in this country.
American public schools are HOTBEDS for atheism where Christianity is censored. But it's ok to teach Islam

(Small corrections made to lessen the look of their stupidity) You are not a troll, not offensive, but rather a unbelievable, complete nutcase. Seriously. Are you using the computer from a mental facility? Because you seem to actually believe the nonsense you have dumped here, and if so you clearly do not walk on the streets of any village town or city in the USA, or read any newspaper, or watch any network television, or have any contact with the public school system. You are a sad, deluded person. Really and sincerely, get in touch with people who can help you - there are likely good Christian organizations that will help you shed these dangerous delusions and paranoia. You will come to a sad (and bad) end on this path you are walking.

Frank J · 21 June 2008

The guy is obviously a deeply disturbed Biblical literalist - a YEC, and I would not be surprised if even a flat-earther. Since his approach is radically different than the DI's - though just as milseading and illegal - this would be a perfect opportunity for the DI to express clear and unambiguous disapproval of his actions, and give at least begin to back up their pretense that they are not promoting creationism.

I haven't read all the comments or checked the DI's sites, so if anyone heard anything either way, please let me know.

Frank J · 21 June 2008

And now a word of warning to my side: Please don't take the bait and say that this is just what anti-evolution acivists want. It really isn't, and not just because he got caught.

The DI, and probably even AIG - actually I wouldn't be surprised if AIG speaks out first - will likely make statements disapproving of Freshwater's actions, especially the cross (or X) burning. Then they'll quickly move on to the safer turf of whining about "Darwinists."

What I don't expect from the DI is a clear, detailed, sustained disapproval of all his actions, including teaching arguments that they (& even AIG in the case of moon dust) know are thoroughly refuted. I also do not expect the DI to take any responsibility for the influence of "Expelled." They have a point, because Freshwater has free will. But most Christians I know would still take some responsibility.

HamStrung · 21 June 2008

Frank J said: The guy is obviously a deeply disturbed Biblical literalist - a YEC, and I would not be surprised if even a flat-earther. Since his approach is radically different than the DI's - though just as milseading and illegal - this would be a perfect opportunity for the DI to express clear and unambiguous disapproval of his actions, and give at least begin to back up their pretense that they are not promoting creationism. I haven't read all the comments or checked the DI's sites, so if anyone heard anything either way, please let me know.

We have here what appears to be a man with some problems. He should not have done what he did but it hardly needs a prisons sentence. I think he needs counseling. Some time off. To even bring this up is petty. Does the word 'strawman' ring a bell?

Ken Baggaley · 21 June 2008

"We have here what appears to be a man with some problems. He should not have done what he did but it hardly needs a prisons sentence. I think he needs counseling. Some time off.
To even bring this up is petty. Does the word ‘strawman’ ring a bell?"

Respectfully disagree. The person certainly has problems, but is also a danger to his students. He should immediately be physically removed from the premises, placed in a cell for the crimes of assault and battery, fired, his license fully revoked, and THEN, and only then, be given the counselling he so obviously requires.

He is a danger to the children. He must be immediately and fully removed from them. All other considerations are secondary.

Stanton · 21 June 2008

HamStrung/Jacob/bobby/balanced said: We have here what appears to be a man with some problems. He should not have done what he did but it hardly needs a prisons sentence. I think he needs counseling. Some time off. To even bring this up is petty. Does the word 'strawman' ring a bell?

So, then, please explain why school children are safe with a science teacher who, instead of teaching his students science like he has been paid to do, preaches at his students on how gays are sinners because they chose to sin, and why we should feel secure because he burns crosses into their arms an electrical device.

HamStrung · 21 June 2008

Stanton said:
HamStrung/Jacob/bobby/balanced said: We have here what appears to be a man with some problems. He should not have done what he did but it hardly needs a prisons sentence. I think he needs counseling. Some time off. To even bring this up is petty. Does the word 'strawman' ring a bell?
So, then, please explain why school children are safe with a science teacher who, instead of teaching his students science like he has been paid to do, preaches at his students on how gays are sinners because they chose to sin, and why we should feel secure because he burns crosses into their arms an electrical device.

Really do you have a reading problem? When did I say students are safe with this teacher? And he should teach what the law says he should teach. But to say that ID is not a viable concept because somebody is having some kind of serious judgement problems is illogical. If an atheist goes beserk and goes on a killing spree that mean atheism is a corrupt philosophy.

HamStrung · 21 June 2008

Ken Baggaley said: "We have here what appears to be a man with some problems. He should not have done what he did but it hardly needs a prisons sentence. I think he needs counseling. Some time off. To even bring this up is petty. Does the word ‘strawman’ ring a bell?" Respectfully disagree. The person certainly has problems, but is also a danger to his students. He should immediately be physically removed from the premises, placed in a cell for the crimes of assault and battery, fired, his license fully revoked, and THEN, and only then, be given the counselling he so obviously requires. He is a danger to the children. He must be immediately and fully removed from them. All other considerations are secondary.

Held without bail? This is definitely a border line assault. No one was seriously injured. To do overkill on this takes time away from kids who are really abused. From what I read many kids liked him. This seems like an excuse for a law suit to make money. This reminds of camping and getting an 'indian burn'. Sure he should not have done it. Not into todays litigious society. Does he belong to a union?

Science Avenger · 21 June 2008

HamStrung said:
Stanton said: So, then, please explain why school children are safe with a science teacher who, instead of teaching his students science like he has been paid to do, preaches at his students on how gays are sinners because they chose to sin, and why we should feel secure because he burns crosses into their arms an electrical device.
Really do you have a reading problem? When did I say students are safe with this teacher? And he should teach what the law says he should teach. But to say that ID is not a viable concept because somebody is having some kind of serious judgement problems is illogical.

Answering questions with questions, then making a baselessly loaded and completely irrelevant assertion, which even in a proper context would reveal little more than a masterful grasp of the obvious. That's really first class trolling. Someone around here must really find this crap entertaining.

SWT · 21 June 2008

HamStrung said:
Stanton said:
HamStrung/Jacob/bobby/balanced said: We have here what appears to be a man with some problems. He should not have done what he did but it hardly needs a prisons sentence. I think he needs counseling. Some time off. To even bring this up is petty. Does the word 'strawman' ring a bell?
So, then, please explain why school children are safe with a science teacher who, instead of teaching his students science like he has been paid to do, preaches at his students on how gays are sinners because they chose to sin, and why we should feel secure because he burns crosses into their arms an electrical device.
Really do you have a reading problem? When did I say students are safe with this teacher? And he should teach what the law says he should teach. But to say that ID is not a viable concept because somebody is having some kind of serious judgement problems is illogical. If an atheist goes beserk and goes on a killing spree that mean atheism is a corrupt philosophy.

Hmmm ... does the word "strawman" ring a bell?

harold · 21 June 2008

Hamstrung -

But to say that ID is not a viable concept because somebody is having some kind of serious judgement problems is illogical.

How dare you accuse anyone of saying any such thing? No-one did. It's really very simple - 1) It's illegal to discriminate in taxpayer funded public schools by favoring one sectarian dogma and denigrating all others. 2) Teaching science-denying bullshit instead of the curriculum is grossly unprofessional and potentially a firing offense even if the bullshit is non-discriminatory and well-meaning. 3) ID/Creationism fails on both grounds. It is pseudo-science and it is nakedly sectarian. 4) Thus, it is not that "ID is wrong because Freshwater showed poor judgment" but that "Freshwater showed poor judgment by teaching discriminatory, sectarian lies as science in a taxpayer funded public school". 5) He also showed poor judgment by scarring a religious symbol into students' flesh. However, you were almost right. The objectively observable judgment of those who peddle ID is universally so poor as to constitute one weak piece of evidence against ID. If I knew nothing about ID except the biographies of its proponents, I would already be suspicious of it.

Hamstrung · 21 June 2008

Science Avenger said:
HamStrung said:
Stanton said: So, then, please explain why school children are safe with a science teacher who, instead of teaching his students science like he has been paid to do, preaches at his students on how gays are sinners because they chose to sin, and why we should feel secure because he burns crosses into their arms an electrical device.
Really do you have a reading problem? When did I say students are safe with this teacher? And he should teach what the law says he should teach. But to say that ID is not a viable concept because somebody is having some kind of serious judgement problems is illogical.
Answering questions with questions, then making a baselessly loaded and completely irrelevant assertion, which even in a proper context would reveal little more than a masterful grasp of the obvious. That's really first class trolling. Someone around here must really find this crap entertaining.

You must find it very captivating since you cannot stop reading it and responding to it. And if you want to helpful around here you should not respond to any posts that you feel are 'trolling' I do not respond to many of the trolls here.

Frank J · 21 June 2008

We have here what appears to be a man with some problems. He should not have done what he did but it hardly needs a prisons sentence. I think he needs counseling. Some time off. To even bring this up is petty. Does the word ‘strawman’ ring a bell?
— HamStrung

Yes, especially since I said nothing of whether or not he should be jailed - or even fired. Yet, oddly you chose to put that in a reply to my comment, which was only about what the DI would say about him. Scrolling down I see that you might be one of the regular trolls, so I shouldn't be surprised.

Hamstrung · 21 June 2008

Frank J said:
We have here what appears to be a man with some problems. He should not have done what he did but it hardly needs a prisons sentence. I think he needs counseling. Some time off. To even bring this up is petty. Does the word ‘strawman’ ring a bell?
— HamStrung
Yes, especially since I said nothing of whether or not he should be jailed - or even fired. Yet, oddly you chose to put that in a reply to my comment, which was only about what the DI would say about him. Scrolling down I see that you might be one of the regular trolls, so I shouldn't be surprised.

You really should not respond to a post by someone you think is a troll.

harold · 21 June 2008

Hamstrung -

You really should not respond to a post by someone you think is a troll.

No doubt you think that this was a "clever" reply to Frank J. However, I disagree. I think that trolls who deliberately misrepresent the statements of others should be shown up for what they are.

ndt · 21 June 2008

Warren said: This simple fact of burning anything in students' arms, whether an X or a cross, is child abuse. This man needs to go to prison for the rest of his life.

This. Whether it's a cross or an X is a minor issue. The major issue is that he burned the skin of children.

Mike Elzinga · 21 June 2008

I think that trolls who deliberately misrepresent the statements of others should be shown up for what they are.

On the other hand, in the case of Hamstrung/bobby (or whatever its latest incarnation is), shoveling out its troll dung is not censorship since there is absolutely no information contained in troll dung. Dumping the crap simply improves the signal-to-noise ratio.

Ken Baggaley · 21 June 2008

Hamstrung said:

"Held without bail? This is definitely a border line assault. No one was seriously injured. To do overkill on this takes time away from kids who are really abused. From what I read many kids liked him. This seems like an excuse for a law suit to make money."

He physically and intentionally injured a child in his care - and felt it justified - and has a history of defying his superiors' instructions. This is not 'overkill' - this man is a danger to children. He must be removed immediately. THEN we can see about helping him.

Regardless of his teaching angle or personal convictions.

B. A. Rainey · 21 June 2008

I wonder why Mr. Freshwater even became a science teacher. If he believes that evolution is a lie, and that biblical creation is historical fact, then why doesn't he teacher English or mathematics or music appreciation? Furthermore, Freshwater is incorrect when he implies that science teaches that a person's "sexual orientation" is inborn. Science has not proven any such thing. And if a persons enters into a homosexual relationship, it is a matter of choice, not genes.

Flint · 21 June 2008

wonder why Mr. Freshwater even became a science teacher. If he believes that evolution is a lie, and that biblical creation is historical fact, then why doesn’t he teacher English or mathematics or music appreciation?

Because if you sincerely believe science is the tool of the devil, you don't let the devil teach kids in one class, while you teach something irrelevant. You beard the devil in his den, teaching generations of kids that science is bunk! As RBH has testified, it works. These kids have been successfully crippled, quite severely and probably permanently. You can't do that teaching music appreciation.

Furthermore, Freshwater is incorrect when he implies that science teaches that a person’s “sexual orientation” is inborn. Science has not proven any such thing

Obviously, Freshwater was not just possibly, but violently, incorrect about much if not most of what he preached. Which is WHY he preached in science class in the first place. Now, the evidence is that sexual orientation is as biological as handedness (and being left-handed was once also regarded as choosing evil). But Freshwater seems to have no real clue what evidence MEANS. Creationists typically don't. It's kind of a shame that the worst injury done to the kids has been allowed and even encouraged for so long, and Freshwater trips up over a relatively insignificant injury, but that's how the system works.

Science Avenger · 21 June 2008

Mike Elzinga said: On the other hand, in the case of Hamstrung/bobby (or whatever its latest incarnation is), shoveling out its troll dung is not censorship since there is absolutely no information contained in troll dung. Dumping the crap simply improves the signal-to-noise ratio.

Amen brother.

PvM · 21 June 2008

But to say that ID is not a viable concept because somebody is having some kind of serious judgement problems is illogical.

No, ID is not a viable concept because it remains scientifically vacuous. That ID Creationists also have serious judgement problems in attempting to teach their nonsense in public schools seems to be once again supported by this unfortunate incident.

PvM · 21 June 2008

ndt said:
Warren said: This simple fact of burning anything in students' arms, whether an X or a cross, is child abuse. This man needs to go to prison for the rest of his life.
This. Whether it's a cross or an X is a minor issue. The major issue is that he burned the skin of children.

I disagree, the issue of cross versus X is a major issue as it adds a religious tone to this inappropriate behavior.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 21 June 2008

Mats said:
I wonder what the response would have been if instead the teacher were an atheist who had been telling his students that there is no God?
That's the sine qua non of atheistic public schools.

Which atheistic or atheist schools? Famously, organizing atheists is like herding cats. It is hard enough to find organized atheism or atheist organization. I have never heard of an atheist organized school. Perhaps there are some private schooling, but AFAIU statistics shows that it is mainly religious people who home school. (I could be wrong though, I haven't seen the statistics myself.) But this is all besides the point of a comparison; the correct comparison would have to be with an unorganized atheist that discredit religion in his class room and physically violate students while doing so. I have a hard time finding such an incident. Also, I can't come up with a reason to act in such a manner. Probably because of the fundamental truth in what Steven Weinberg once noted: “With or without [religion] you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion.”

Stanton · 22 June 2008

HamStrung/bobby/jacob/bernard/george said: Held without bail? This is definitely a border line assault. No one was seriously injured. To do overkill on this takes time away from kids who are really abused. From what I read many kids liked him. This seems like an excuse for a law suit to make money. This reminds of camping and getting an 'indian burn'. Sure he should not have done it. Not into todays litigious society. Does he belong to a union?

So, in other words, Hamstrung/bobby/jacob/bernard/george does not mind the idea that a teacher would deliberately scar children by using an electronic device in an inappropriate manner. Since Mr Freshwater has yet to electrocute any of his students, perhaps we should let him keep his job so he can continue not teaching science, and branding children with crosses with no further legal repercussions, then?

HamStrung · 22 June 2008

[ So, in other words, Hamstrung/bobby/jacob/bernard/george does not mind the idea that a teacher would deliberately scar children by using an electronic device in an inappropriate manner. ]

whoever said that? do you really teach? you have reading comprehension problems.

Ken Baggaley · 22 June 2008

Hamstrung so far has not actually responded to posts, he has merely repeated strawman accusations. He is not looking for discourse, he is trolling.

It is pointless to feed trolls.

For everyone else, bottom line: a teacher who physically injures students, feels such action is justified, and has a history of openly and blatantly defying direct instructions, is a danger to the children under his supervision and should be removed from the classroomn immediately. Period.

HamStrung · 22 June 2008

Ken Baggaley said: Hamstrung so far has not actually responded to posts, he has merely repeated strawman accusations. He is not looking for discourse, he is trolling. It is pointless to feed trolls. For everyone else, bottom line: a teacher who physically injures students, feels such action is justified, and has a history of openly and blatantly defying direct instructions, is a danger to the children under his supervision and should be removed from the classroomn immediately. Period.

I do not believe that correcting mistatements is trolling.

rog · 22 June 2008

HamStrung said: I do not believe that correcting mistatements is trolling.

HamStrung, You really have that passive-aggressive behavior down pat. Good job! You offer the perfect complement to Keith's aggressive-aggressive behavior. How does passive-aggressive behavior work with the other relationships in your life? Usually passive-aggressive behavior is quite destructive.

Frank J · 22 June 2008

However, I disagree. I think that trolls who deliberately misrepresent the statements of others should be shown up for what they are.
— harold

The trick is to know when to stop. I admit to occasionally having engaged them long enough to where I contributed to hijacking the thread. So lately I try to keep myself in check. To bring the topic back to Freshwater, I'll ask again. Has the DI weighed in yet?

Peter Henderson · 22 June 2008

We have here what appears to be a man with some problems. He should not have done what he did but it hardly needs a prisons sentence. I think he needs counseling. Some time off.

This is definitely a border line assault. No one was seriously injured

Hamstrung: No it is not. It might not require a prison sentence but in this country (the UK) it would be regarded as a very serious offence indeed by Social services. Speaking of which, what is the equivalent of Social Services in the US ? Does the US have the social workers ? There would definitely be child protection issues raised, Freshwater would lose his job (possibly with a suspended prison sentence), and I would imagine the school would undergo some serious scrutiny by both the Department of Education and Social Services. He (Freshwater) would not be allowed to teach again. I would imagine there might possibly be a public enquiry as well. This would definitely be viewed as serious misconduct in the UK.

William Wallace · 22 June 2008

PvM continues to attempt to mock his Christian brothers in a den of vipers.

PvM · 23 June 2008

I am not mocking my Christian brothers, I am appalled at what some Christians are willing to do to further their faith, including violating the teacher student trust, violating school regulations and violating state and federal laws and the US constitution. What worries me even more is how when caught burning crosses in the arms of students, the incident is first played down by saying that these were not crosses but 'X's and then, when pictures show up contradicting these claims, the argument moves to "this was a valid science experiment performed for years"... Worse, Freshwater's defenders now claim that he was following state and federal law when teaching intelligent design creationism when in fact he failed to follow the educational guidelines which applied to the 10th grade not the 8th grade. This shows you once again that 'teach the controversy' is nothing more than a ruse to allow people like Freshwater to undermine science teachings and proselytize. And what is wrong with mocking foolish behavior my dear confused Christian friend?

William Wallace said: PvM continues to attempt to mock his Christian brothers in a den of vipers.

Warren · 23 June 2008

ndt said:
Warren said: This simple fact of burning anything in students' arms, whether an X or a cross, is child abuse. This man needs to go to prison for the rest of his life.
This. Whether it's a cross or an X is a minor issue. The major issue is that he burned the skin of children.

Right. He could have etched the Mona Lisa, or a gang symbol, or a pentagram -- none of it would have mattered. That he was promoting as fact clear falsehoods is irrelevant. He is accused (and apparently guilty) of assault on a child, and that deserves a lot more than simply losing his job. He should be arrested, prosecuted and treated as a criminal. Assuming a guilty finding, he should be jailed.

HamStrung · 24 June 2008

Warren said:
ndt said:
Warren said: This simple fact of burning anything in students' arms, whether an X or a cross, is child abuse. This man needs to go to prison for the rest of his life.
This. Whether it's a cross or an X is a minor issue. The major issue is that he burned the skin of children.
Right. He could have etched the Mona Lisa, or a gang symbol, or a pentagram -- none of it would have mattered. That he was promoting as fact clear falsehoods is irrelevant. He is accused (and apparently guilty) of assault on a child, and that deserves a lot more than simply losing his job. He should be arrested, prosecuted and treated as a criminal. Assuming a guilty finding, he should be jailed.

If you were the judge how much time would you sentence him to prison for?

Erik · 26 June 2008

Well I'm Anti-Theist and this story made made me physically ill. Science teachers are supposed to teach science in science and and not myths and legends from the leading death cult in the world.

Also if this prick branded my kid with a cross I'd brand his fucking knee caps with a shotgun gun. Let him pray his way out of that.

What an ignorant and bigoted savage this cocksucker is.

Skwee · 28 June 2008

“With the exception of the cross-burning episode … I believe John Freshwater is teaching the values of the parents in the Mount Vernon school district,’’ he said.

"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

Andy G · 1 July 2008

There's very good article (IMO) about the case over on this site:

http://cafephilos.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/the-firing-of-john-freshwater/

and some interesting discussion.

It's going to be very important to see how the courts handle the issue should Freshwater "appeal" his firing (i.e., sue the school board for ... wrongful dismissal, would it be?)

Reason being, of course, that these so-called "Academic freedom" bills (such as the one just passed in LA) *may* make the future firing of teachers for doing same more difficult, perhaps impossible.

Florida dodged that bullett this spring, but I have no doubt that some damn fool state representative will bring it up again, pandering to their constituency (did I use the right word?) and cravenly passing the buck onto the individual local school boards, not to mention, if what I think I understand is correct, the massive wasteful cost in time and $ that lawsuits would bring.

It would therefore behoove us all, now, before the next election, to find out where our school board members stand on this issue, and to educate them best we can in what we know about what is good science and good science teaching, what is NOT good science and teaching, and why these bills, while appearing so innocuous on the surface, are really going to do more harm than good, and could be bad for them not only personally (as in not getting elected/reelected), but also bad for the school board and the school district they represent.

Leane Roffey Line, PhD · 4 August 2008

I have posted your blog in a comment made to a follow-up article on this most bizarre example of teaching I have seen in decades. Independent of the more human questions of cruelty to children, teaching ID/evolution, Who's da betta Christian, etc. we have the fundamental issue of safety in the classroom. That one is at the basis of any set of state standards, national standards, or world standards for the teaching of any science anywhere. No matter which way the court comes down on this "teacher" no one can change the immutable laws of physics...thermal output burns skin. This isn't rock, paper, scissors.

As an adult, would you allow your subteen or teen to deliberately put his or her hand in a fire? To stand outside in a lightning storm with a metal rod in their hand? To stick a piece of metal in an electrical socket? The physical number of examination questions I have written for states all over the USA and Puerto Rico concerning safety in the classroom numbers in the hundreds. There is no question in my mind that safety standards have been violated here.

Your post here is excellent, PvM, and your critics and detractors need their heads examined in more ways than just their religious positions.

Leane Roffey Line, PhD · 4 August 2008

The blog to which you are now crossposted is wave4.wordpress.com, The Fourth Estate.

Leane Roffey Line, PhD · 4 August 2008

make that the Fourth Wave. It's Monday.

Benjamin Studtmann · 28 August 2009

Perhaps as punishment he should have a Wiccan pentagram burned into his body with some sort of powerful electrostatic device. Tit for tat, zip for zap.

Jennifer Strong · 28 August 2009

Why, pray tell, hasn't this guy been launched into the sun yet? Because if that kid were MY son, I'd be advocating the stiffest jail term available.