Freshwater: Rutherford Institute joins the case

"Rather, they need to be taught how to think for themselves.”

Or go to hell.

I will enjoy hearing the Rutherford Institute's explanation as to why his critical thinking teaching methods required Freshwater to hide his teaching materials from the administration and the parents.

I guess 'academic freedom' in this case means no one has the right to critically analyze the materials Freshwater uses to teach critical analysis. :)

This will never end..............!!!!!

"for using teaching methods that encourage public school students to think critically about the school’s science curriculum"

They may have a point there. Having a cross burned into your flesh would make you think critically about what they hell they think they're doing.

What next? Fred Phelps?

How is it possible to mix Christian reconstructionism with human and constitutional rights?

Yet bizarrely, a lot of the stuff on their web site looks legit. Is it possible that they're just making a horrible mistake this time? Where do they get their funding from? That would probably say a lot.

So, the Rutherford Institute is going to defend John Freshwater's right to collect money for a job he was contractually obligated to do, while refusing to do what he was contractually obligated to do.

The Constitution guarantees such a right?

I don't get it. I agree with every word on that Rutherford Institute site about freedom of religion.

That's (one of the major reasons) why I am AGAINST Freshwater.

He's trying to get the government to favor one religion (his own science-denying interpretation of the Bible) and to inhibit the rights of the students and families who believe anything else.

Although almost anyone would describe me as "liberal" (I'm moderate to mildly-more-liberal-than-average in places like Manhattan or Boulder CO), I often agree with "conservatives" (that's "conservatives", not "Republicans") about human rights and freedom of religion (and a variety of other things). Again, that's "conservatives", as far as I can tell I don't agree with contemporary Republicans on anything.

Either the Rutherford Institute is doing deep, deep cover, or they have been very badly misinformed and taken advantage of.

If that press release reflects what the Rutherford folks really think, then they are either hopeless (and unlikely) dupes, or else their site's statements about freedom of religion are encoded in a way we're not decoding properly. Because the press release goes beyond spin; it's flat contrary to fact. He wasn't fired for keeping religious articles in his classroom, and he wasn't encouraging anything resembling critical thinking - he was doing exactly the opposite.

Maybe the Rutherford Institute should have a couple of discussions with the likes of Hamilton, or the Thomas More Law Center.

Flint said: Maybe the Rutherford Institute should have a couple of discussions with the likes of Hamilton, or the Thomas More Law Center.

At least, it might alert them to check if there's any water in the pool before diving.

so is this new effort going to cost the school, i.e., the taxpayer some additional $$$?

harold said: I don't get it. I agree with every word on that Rutherford Institute site about freedom of religion.

Finally, a third American religious constituency emerged: the secularists, who claim no belief in the supernatural at all. Secularists generally claim human happiness as the sole measure by which to make moral, and thus religious, judgments. So where does the breakdown of a religiously homogenous nation leave us? It leaves us in the midst of a spiritual vacuum, which the various religious perspectives today seek to fill by trying to dominate the cultural and political processes. In turn, each religious view, with its respective organizations, perceives this struggle for dominance by competing religious views as an all-out assault on its constitutional freedoms in general and on its freedom of religion in particular. In the end, the question is not whether religion should be permitted a role in politics and culture. The question is what role it should play and why. The most appropriate role of religion in politics lies in its ability to define moral issues and to provide the transcendent authority for their solutions. Religion provides the moral vision—the moral compass—for society. Whatever its tenets, religion explains the moral significance of social institutions such as family and law and, indeed, government itself. Religion provides the imperative for obedience or resistance to what the state accomplishes and what it orders. Religion can do this most effectively through the individual—and most durably apart from the power of the state. ... The voice of moral authority raised without dependence upon the legitimacy of the state will always be the highest expression of true freedom. Such a voice denies the ultimate authority of the government to create or define right or wrong by its own power. The authority to raise the standards of moral right or wrong is defined by religion and, if consistently practiced, will eventually be reflected in government policies.

The voice of moral authority raised without dependence upon the legitimacy of the state will always be the highest expression of true freedom. Such a voice denies the ultimate authority of the government to create or define right or wrong by its own power. The authority to raise the standards of moral right or wrong is defined by religion and, if consistently practiced, will eventually be reflected in government policies.

So,

would it be the constitutional right to not be pumped full of some zealot's particular religious guff?

Or is it just the rather dubious "right" to pump such guff?

Sounds like they support some "rights" to exceed actual rights.

Rusty

“What we need today are more teachers and school administrators who understand that young people don’t need to be indoctrinated. Rather, they need to be taught how to think for themselves.”

Which is why Freshwater shouldn't be in the classroom; he was seeking to indoctrinate children.

The voice of moral authority raised without dependence upon the legitimacy of the state will always be the highest expression of true freedom. Such a voice denies the ultimate authority of the government to create or define right or wrong by its own power.

The authority to raise the standards of moral right or wrong is defined by religion and, if consistently practiced, will eventually be reflected in government policies

Okay, I know I'm Canadian, but I thought your gummint was "of/by/for the people". In which case "the state" has a duty to uphold the definition of right and wrong determined by those who make up "the state".
No?

fnxtr -

It is obvious that all states on earth, including Canada, which I am also a citizen of (I am a dual US/Canadian citizen) have, at present, some tendency to occasionally abuse some of their citizens.

Private protest of government actions, rather than "if the government did it, it must be right", is a critical human right. I have no problem with that part of the claims.

The Rutherford Institute states:
"Freshwater's students earned the highest state standardized test scores in science of any eighth grade class in the district. Moreover, according to a federal judge's findings, Freshwater was the only science teacher at Mount Vernon Middle School who achieved a "passing" score on the Ohio Achievement Test"
I can't find where a Federal Judge said that. Can anyone point me the right direction?

harold said: Where do they get their funding from? That would probably say a lot.

“The right of public school teachers to academic freedom is the bedrock of American education,”

wgwII said: The Rutherford Institute states: "Freshwater's students earned the highest state standardized test scores in science of any eighth grade class in the district. Moreover, according to a federal judge's findings, Freshwater was the only science teacher at Mount Vernon Middle School who achieved a "passing" score on the Ohio Achievement Test" I can't find where a Federal Judge said that. Can anyone point me the right direction?

“The right of public school teachers to academic freedom is the bedrock of American education,”

I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.

Yipppeeee, just in time for the new levy vote. Interesting how the timing of all these events keep happening right before MVCS has a vote on funding. (BTW, has Mr. Thompson come forward yet with all the cases of mismanaged funds he said he was going to fix?)

My youngest was born just a few months before this fiasco began. I thought it would be over before oldest sibling finished kindergarten. Then I thought it'd be over before her middle sibling started kindergarten. Now I'm wondering if it will be over in time for her to start kindergarten.

The monstrosity that is Ohio SB 5 will do nothing about this waste of time and money - this whole process is not based on Mr Freshwater's union membership as he was not a member of the teacher's union. That to me is the kicker - several people have used this case to firm up their support for SB 5. BLAH!

I sent this email (with the typos, yes, bad editing day) to "staff@rutherford.org".

Dear Staff Member -

Please forward this email to Mr Whitehead.

Mr Whitehead -

I became aware of your institute when I learned of your pending advocacy for John Freshwater.

Although we differ somewhat in philosophy, I noticed that your Institute is dedicated to the defense of individual human rights. We have strong agreement in this area, and I was impressed by the non-partisan, independent decisions you made, with regard to the past cases you have chosen.

I am very familiar with the John Freshwater case.

The theory of evolution is the fundamental theory of mainstream biomedical science. No-one needs to "believe" in it if they don't want to, but when biology is taught in taxpayer funded American public schools, it is mainstream, experimentally-supported biology which should be taught.

Sectarian religious denial of evolution should NOT be taught in public schools as "science". This violates the rights of all students to practice religion or not as they and their families see fit without government interference. Public school teachers are government employees in a position of authority. Of course they should not in any way have their own religious freedoms compromised, but they should not teach sectarian dogma to students as "science".

Mr Freshwater was actually terminated for shocking a student with an electrical apparatus, but he also had a long history of using creationist materials and showing implied discrimination toward students who were not of fundamentalist Protestant faith.

How much religious material a public school teacher (or police officer, etc) should display is an intriguing question, as it is very much at the intersection of their personal rights, versus the rights of those over whom they have legitimate government authority not to told, directly or indirectly ,by government agents, which religion to follow. However, this is irrelevant to the Freshwater case. He was asked to remove religious items only after his misuse of the classroom to create government favoritism for his own religious sect (with himself as the agent of government) had become problematic.

harold said: fnxtr - It is obvious that all states on earth, including Canada, which I am also a citizen of (I am a dual US/Canadian citizen) have, at present, some tendency to occasionally abuse some of their citizens. Private protest of government actions, rather than "if the government did it, it must be right", is a critical human right. I have no problem with that part of the claims.

cwj said: I can't wait to see them try to make that argument in front of a judge, as opposed to in a press release.

CMB said: What next? Fred Phelps?

I do not think a classroom should contain materials unrelated to teaching the subject at hand. No pictures of your family, sports equipment, or stuffed animal toys. I don't think any distracting material is appropriate and don't remember my teachers having any. Except for a bottle of perfume on a desk that was accidentally knocked over by a student who caught Hell! And the picture of George Washington on many walls and I spent way too much time wondering why the artist didn't finish it and why the school hung an unfinished portrait of the guy -- see what I mean about distracting?

Debbie Henthorn said:

CMB said: What next? Fred Phelps?

Interestingly enough, according to the website, TRI apparently filed in support of WBC's rights. "Snyder v. Phelps (US): In a case that tests the limits of the First Amendment’s protections for free speech, TRI urged the Court to “protect the equality of ideas in the public square,” even when those ideas may be disagreeable to society at large." As always Richard - thank you for your quick access to background information. My man has been long familiar with TRI and its deep pockets. I am just beginning my journey into the hell of research.

harold said: However, even so, it's not consistent for him to defend Freshwater. Freshwater acted against religious freedom and did not morally criticize the government, but rather, merely tried to bully students who weren't of his particular religious sect and lie about science to make his particular sect seem more credible.

Please let us know if you get a response.

I read the Mt Vernon News article today about this.
http://www.mountvernonnews.com/local/11/04/12/rutherford-institute-to-assist-freshwater

Here is my favorite quote "If what he’s doing is telling me the truth"

That is where there seems to be issues for Mr Freshwater. Maybe Mr Whitehead should read Judge Frosts opinion on the matter.
http://ncse.com/webfm_send/1407

Scott F said:

harold said: I don't get it. I agree with every word on that Rutherford Institute site about freedom of religion.

Reading some of the Rutherford Institute site, and the Wiki articles about Christian Reconstructionism and Theonomy (which I'd never heard of before), I think the difference is in the definition of "religion". My guess is that to them, "freedom of religion" means that you are free (in the Calvinist sense) to worship Christ in whatever acceptable way that you see fit. It's an interesting melding of Libertarianism and Theocracy. From this article:

Finally, a third American religious constituency emerged: the secularists, who claim no belief in the supernatural at all. Secularists generally claim human happiness as the sole measure by which to make moral, and thus religious, judgments. So where does the breakdown of a religiously homogenous nation leave us? It leaves us in the midst of a spiritual vacuum, which the various religious perspectives today seek to fill by trying to dominate the cultural and political processes. In turn, each religious view, with its respective organizations, perceives this struggle for dominance by competing religious views as an all-out assault on its constitutional freedoms in general and on its freedom of religion in particular. In the end, the question is not whether religion should be permitted a role in politics and culture. The question is what role it should play and why. The most appropriate role of religion in politics lies in its ability to define moral issues and to provide the transcendent authority for their solutions. Religion provides the moral vision—the moral compass—for society. Whatever its tenets, religion explains the moral significance of social institutions such as family and law and, indeed, government itself. Religion provides the imperative for obedience or resistance to what the state accomplishes and what it orders. Religion can do this most effectively through the individual—and most durably apart from the power of the state. ... The voice of moral authority raised without dependence upon the legitimacy of the state will always be the highest expression of true freedom. Such a voice denies the ultimate authority of the government to create or define right or wrong by its own power. The authority to raise the standards of moral right or wrong is defined by religion and, if consistently practiced, will eventually be reflected in government policies.

There is no reason for the school system not to support multiple meta-cognitive interpretations of metaphysical phenomena. Darwinian metaphysics is not the only metaphysics there is; there are new alternative understandings of ontology and cosmogony based on information theory that are more vibrant and robust than Darwinian chance. There is nothing wrong with letting them be heard.

apparently the school board is violating his constitutional right to burn crosses in student's arms.

There is no reason for the school system not to support multiple meta-cognitive interpretations of metaphysical phenomena. The metaphysics of modern planetary science is not the only metaphysics there is; there are new alternative understandings of ontology and cosmogony based on information theory that are more vibrant and robust than the conventional planetary wisdom that the Moon is made of rock. There is nothing wrong with letting the green-cheese theory be heard.

darwinism.dogBarf() said: There is no reason for the school system not to support multiple meta-cognitive interpretations of metaphysical phenomena. Darwinian metaphysics is not the only metaphysics there is; there are new alternative understandings of ontology and cosmogony based on information theory that are more vibrant and robust than Darwinian chance. There is nothing wrong with letting them be heard.

mrg said: There is nothing wrong with letting the green-cheese theory be heard.

There is nothing wrong with letting the green-cheese theory be curd.

darwinism.dogBarf() said: There is no reason for the school system not to support multiple meta-cognitive interpretations of metaphysical phenomena. Darwinian metaphysics is not the only metaphysics there is; there are new alternative understandings of ontology and cosmogony based on information theory that are more vibrant and robust than Darwinian chance. There is nothing wrong with letting them be heard.

darwinism.dogBarf() said: There is no reason for the school system not to support multiple meta-cognitive interpretations of metaphysical phenomena. Darwinian metaphysics is not the only metaphysics there is...

I just don't get it. IIRC there were several reasons that Freshwater was fired, each of them on their own would be sufficient justification, in combination, he is not redeemable. (child abuse/endangerment, insubordination, religion/curriculum issues) the Rutherford Institute seems to be addressing only the latter as if that's the ONLY reason that Freshwater was terminated. Is there a meme about him being canned "merely for keeping a Bible on his desk".

Very interesting article I found;
http://www.publiceye.org/ifas/fw/9406/rutherford.html

IFAS | Freedom Writer | June 1994 | rutherford.html

P ROFILE
The Rutherford Institute
The Institute for First Amendment Studies receives many calls concerning a number of Religious Right organizations. Near the top of the list is the Rutherford Institute, a Virginia-based Christian legal organization that promotes the Christian Right agenda through the courts. The following report offers some pertinent and basic information about this influential organization.

Samuel Rutherford, a 17th-century Scottish minister, is best known for his defiance of the King. Rutherford proclaimed that, as kings were not divine, kings' laws were not above God's laws. He urged his followers to disobey any royal decrees that failed to follow God's laws.

In 1982, attorney John W. Whitehead, writer/filmmaker Franky Schaeffer, and other "concerned Christians" formed a new organization to act as "the legal arm of Christian civil liberties in this country." They named it the Rutherford Institute after Samuel Rutherford.

Schaeffer contended that "modern-day courts issue laws which are contrary to God's law." And Whitehead believes, according to an article by Martin Mawyer published in the May 1983 issue of the Moral Majority Report, "that courts must place themselves under the authority of God's law."

Mawyer's article explains, "The Institute states that 'all of civil affairs and government, including law, should be based upon principles found in the Bible.'" That statement is a simplified definition of Christian Reconstruction, an important movement within evangelical Christianity.

From the beginning, the Rutherford Institute has taken a militant position. "We need to be very aggressive, not passive," Whitehead said in a 1983 interview. "Take the initiative. Sue rather than waiting to be sued. That's where we've been weak. We've always been on the defensive. We need to frame the issue and pick the court. The institute, if necessary, will charge that government is violating religious freedoms rather than the church waiting for the government to charge it with violating the law.

Franky Schaeffer, son of the late theologian Francis Schaeffer, wrote Bad News for Modern Man: An Agenda for Christian Activism, a guide for radical Christians. As a writer and filmmaker, Franky Schaeffer (he now prefers Frank) played an important role in the development of the Religious Right.

A vocal opponent of abortion, he wrote: "Every church should be involved in the prolife movement. Abortion clinics must be picketed nonstop. Doctors who wish to murder the innocent must be harassed and driven from our communities." In 1990, in a move toward religious purity, Schaeffer joined the Greek Orthodox Church. Today, his role as a Christian Right activist has diminished.

On the other hand, John Whitehead's 1982 book, The Second American Revolution, which sold well over 100,000 copies, helped establish the Rutherford Institute as a leading far-right organization.

The Second American Revolution contains numerous references to a former Presbyterian minister named Rousas John (R.J.) Rushdoony. A prolific writer, Rushdoony is known as "the father of Christian Reconstruction." He heads an organization called Chalcedon.

According to Rushdoony's brochure, "The Ministry of Chalcedon," "Chalcedon was instrumental in establishing the Rutherford Institute, the purpose of which is to aid lawyers in the defense of religious liberties." In fact, Rushdoony served as a board member of the Rutherford Institute, and is listed as a speaker at Rutherford conferences.

In a discussion on Christian Reconstructionism, Dr. Jay Grimstead, president of the Coalition on Revival (COR) said, "We believe that God has given the Bible as a rule book for all society, Christian and non-Christian alike. I concur with most of the Reconstructionist matters; and I am trying to help rebuild society on the Word of God, and loosely, that would be a Reconstructionist orientation in anybody's book."

In the views of Christian Reconstructionists, every aspect of society, including law, medicine, education, the media, and the arts and entertainment, should be based upon the Reconstructionists' interpretation of the Bible. Strict interpretation includes swift justice for sinners, including the death penalty for abortionists, "unrepentant" homosexuals, and, according to Rushdoony, even "incorrigible sons."

Alexis I. Crow, an attorney with the Rutherford Institute, told us "John Whitehead is not a Reconstructionist and he never has been." While Whitehead may not be a Reconstructionist, he is apparently Reconstructionist-influenced, or Reconstructionist-oriented. Besides his affiliation with Rushdoony and references to Rushdoony's writings in The Second American Revolution, in the same book Whitehead declares his own Reconstructionist-like beliefs.

Like Reconstructionists, Whitehead sees the mission of the Christian church as one of domination. "The church," Whitehead writes, "has a mandate from the Creator to be a dominant influence on the whole culture."

Currently, the Republican Party is fighting for its soul; it is trying to ward off domination by religious extremists. Back in 1982 Whitehead addressed this very issue. "Getting involved in local politics will eventually mean Christians running for office. This will include attending and eventually TAKING CONTROL [emphasis added] of party conventions where grass-roots decisions are made."

Christian Reconstructionists want to take control of America's legal and educational system. Whitehead concurs. "The challenge of the Christian attorney," he writes, "is to be a vocal, dynamic spokesman for the true legal profession — the one with Christ at its center — and to stop at nothing less than reclaiming the whole system."

On education, Whitehead says, "[T]he public education system, which includes the entire educational structure up through the university level, must be reinstilled with Christian theism." He adds, "If there is little hope of revamping public education — and this is more than a probability — then Christians must remove their financial support from the system."

Rushdoony's influence is apparent in Whitehead's book. When asked if there has been a parting of the ways between Whitehead and Rushdoony, Crow failed to respond.

There is some confusion about the history of John Whitehead's relationship with COR. A 1986 brochure on COR's "Continental Congress on the Christian World View III," a Fourth of July weekend conference held in Washington, lists Whitehead as a speaker and Steering Committee member. The topic of his talk at the conference was called "Priorities for the Eighties." His photo is included in the brochure.

Nevertheless, Alexis Crow of Rutherford claims that Whitehead is not, nor ever has been a member of COR, or of COR's Steering Committee. To clear up the matter we called Jay Grimstead, COR's president. "As far as I know," he said, "John was a member in the early years; maybe for a couple of years. At one time, several dispensationalists withdrew. About that time, John's office called and asked that he be taken off." Grimstead added, "I thought he was on then [1986], when we made the brochure."

"The Rutherford Institute is an organization that defends the rights of ALL religious persons," according to Crow, "regardless of denomination or creed and, as such, has defended, among others, Christians, Jews, atheists, Santerians, Native Americans, and Hare Krishna."

Her statement is a bewildering one. Many people, such as Unitarian Universalists and people of other liberal religions, feel that there are circumstances where it is their religious duty to have an abortion. How many times has the Rutherford Institute defended religious people who opt for their legal right to have an abortion?

Other religious people, such as many members of the Metropolitan Community Church, are gay Christians. They believe God has made them homosexual, and accept that as a gift from God, just as others celebrate their heterosexuality. How many times has the Rutherford Institute defended the rights of gays and lesbians?

Does the Rutherford Institute really defend the rights of all religious people, or do they seek special privileges for Christians — such as helping Christians discriminate against gays in housing or employment?

Operating on an annual budget of $8 million, the Rutherford Institute and its team of aggressive lawyers may soon show up in your neighborhood. With about 230 active cases, the institute can be commended for taking on some cases involving true religious liberty. However, it is clear that the organization pursues the agenda originally outlined by John Whitehead and Franky Schaeffer. "We must influence all areas of life including law and politics," Whitehead stated. "We can leave nothing untouched by the Bible."

These damned “Christian” RDeconstructionists are one of the unfortunate side effects of the First Amendment separation of Church and State clause.

In the ideal case, public schools would be teaching everyone the best universal knowledge that societies and civilizations have to offer while sectarians can be free to go to their churches and worship as they please.

And anyone who chooses to learn sectarian-pseudo science would be free to go to one of those churches for which such pseudo-science props up sectarian dogma.

Unfortunately “freedom of religion” also means freedom for those religions whose gut-busting, dog-determined mission it is to enslave everyone else, disrupt the process of imparting universal knowledge to the rest of society’s kids, and ultimately bring down the very government that grants them those freedoms.

This is exactly the kind of thinking one associates with the Diabolic; namely to take any possible Good and turn it into abject Evil.

I just sent this letter:

Mr Whitehead :

I am concerned that your defense of John Freshwater will give disproportionate credence to the current anti-science mentalities operating at large in the United States.

Evolution is a scientific theory, not a religion, and the theory's robust stature as an explanation of life's origins is not a matter for high school science teachers to refute. Moreover, creationism in any form, which includes intelligent design, is not a scientific alternative to evolutionary theory (Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. (400 F. Supp. 2d 707, Docket no. 4cv2688) and cannot be introduced in a public school classroom without violating the establishment of religion clause of the Constitution.

You may have Christian fundamentalist sympathies, but this is not a sufficient pretext to proselytize the public schools with biblical literalist philosophies that are unfalsifiable in any way compatible with the scientific method.

Please do not waste the court's time with yet another monkey trial.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely.

wonderin quoted a 1994 article: The Second American Revolution contains numerous references to a former Presbyterian minister named Rousas John (R.J.) Rushdoony. A prolific writer, Rushdoony is known as "the father of Christian Reconstruction." He heads an organization called Chalcedon.

Unfortunately “freedom of religion” also means freedom for those religions whose gut-busting, dog-determined mission it is to enslave everyone else, disrupt the process of imparting universal knowledge to the rest of society’s kids, and ultimately bring down the very government that grants them those freedoms.

fnxtr said: Okay, I know I'm Canadian, but I thought your gummint was "of/by/for the people". In which case "the state" has a duty to uphold the definition of right and wrong determined by those who make up "the state". No?

wgwII said: The Rutherford Institute states: "Freshwater's students earned the highest state standardized test scores in science of any eighth grade class in the district. Moreover, according to a federal judge's findings, Freshwater was the only science teacher at Mount Vernon Middle School who achieved a "passing" score on the Ohio Achievement Test" I can't find where a Federal Judge said that. Can anyone point me the right direction?

Your constitution didn't write itself, Helena.

fnxtr said: Your constitution didn't write itself, Helena.

wonderin said: Very interesting article I found; http://www.publiceye.org/ifas/fw/9406/rutherford.html ... "We can leave nothing untouched by the Bible."

DavidK said: so is this new effort going to cost the school, i.e., the taxpayer some additional $$$?

wgwII said: The Rutherford Institute states: "Freshwater's students earned the highest state standardized test scores in science of any eighth grade class in the district. Moreover, according to a federal judge's findings, Freshwater was the only science teacher at Mount Vernon Middle School who achieved a "passing" score on the Ohio Achievement Test" I can't find where a Federal Judge said that. Can anyone point me the right direction?

JRE said: Yipppeeee, just in time for the new levy vote. Interesting how the timing of all these events keep happening right before MVCS has a vote on funding. (BTW, has Mr. Thompson come forward yet with all the cases of mismanaged funds he said he was going to fix?) My youngest was born just a few months before this fiasco began. I thought it would be over before oldest sibling finished kindergarten. Then I thought it'd be over before her middle sibling started kindergarten. Now I'm wondering if it will be over in time for her to start kindergarten. The monstrosity that is Ohio SB 5 will do nothing about this waste of time and money - this whole process is not based on Mr Freshwater's union membership as he was not a member of the teacher's union. That to me is the kicker - several people have used this case to firm up their support for SB 5. BLAH!

Helena Constantine said: fnxtr.

fnxtr said: Okay, I know I'm Canadian, but I thought your gummint was "of/by/for the people". In which case "the state" has a duty to uphold the definition of right and wrong determined by those who make up "the state". No?

No. The definition of right and wrong (or rather legal and illegal) is not determined by the majority, but by the Constitution. The founders set it up that way to prevent mob-rule.

John said:

JRE said: Yipppeeee, just in time for the new levy vote. Interesting how the timing of all these events keep happening right before MVCS has a vote on funding. (BTW, has Mr. Thompson come forward yet with all the cases of mismanaged funds he said he was going to fix?) My youngest was born just a few months before this fiasco began. I thought it would be over before oldest sibling finished kindergarten. Then I thought it'd be over before her middle sibling started kindergarten. Now I'm wondering if it will be over in time for her to start kindergarten. The monstrosity that is Ohio SB 5 will do nothing about this waste of time and money - this whole process is not based on Mr Freshwater's union membership as he was not a member of the teacher's union. That to me is the kicker - several people have used this case to firm up their support for SB 5. BLAH!

Yes, JRE, this drags on and on -- giving people in the community an easy excuse not to vote for our much-needed levy May 3. Our district has not asked residents for any new funds since *1996*! And Freshwater is jeopardizing the education of every child in our town.

Surprisingly, I have not yet received a response to the email I sent to the Rutherford Institute.

John_S said: The majority, of course, can always amend the Constitution.

The Rutherford Institute’s roots are in part in Christian Reconstructionism–among its founding Board of Directors were Howard Ahmanson, Jr., a major funder of the Discovery Institute, and R.J. Rushdoony of the Chalcedon Foundation, also funded (at least formerly) by Ahmanson. Rushdooney was a prominent proponent of Christian Reconstructionism.

bcseweb.org Rushdooney: Our list may not be perfect but it seems to cover those “crimes” against the family that are inferred by Rushdoony’s statement to Moyers. The real frightening side of it is the interpretation of heresy, apostasy and idolatry. Rushdoony’s position seems to suggest that he would have anyone killed who disagreed with his religious opinions. That represents all but a tiny minority of people. Add to that death penalties for what is quite legal, blasphemy, not getting on with parents and working on a Sunday means that it the fantasy ideal world of Rushdoony and his pals, there will be an awful lot of mass murderers and amongst a tiny population. We have done figures for the UK which suggest that around 99% of the population would end up dead and the remainder would have each, on average, killed 500 fellow citizens. Chalcedon foundation bsceweb.org. Stoning disobedient children to death.Contempt for Parental Authority: Those who consider death as a horrible punishment here must realise that in such a case as ….cut for length Rev. William Einwechter, “Modern Issues in Biblical Perspective: Stoning Disobedient Children”, The Chalcedon Report, January 1999

Sigh. When you are violating the human rights of others, you have to do it on your own time. Not during the time you are representing the SECULAR STATE.

That was Freshwater's mistake. He decided to violate the human rights of his students, for years, during his time of representing the State.

It was both illegal and immoral and there is no defense. Even if I were a Christian, I would find it repulsive because I know my version of (from when I was growing up) Christianity is far different than the one he is purported to practice. So much so that if we weren't in a secular state where our religious freedoms are protected from a neutral position, we'd be killing each other off as heretics.

Something that, btw, did happen in this country. Even to some of the siblings of my ancestors.

Show the math or shut up.

This kinda sounds like the state of Georgia putting a sticker inside their biology texts warning students/readers not to take the contents regarding evolution seriously, no?

...working on a Sunday...

If you ever do write a book (and it can be a small book, a lot of NCSE type books are small, and not novel-y), you should call it "The Thing That Would Not Die."

Although, the good people of Mt. Vernon might think I mean Freshwater, not the undead monster that's the Freshwater case. Anyone know how much money Freshwater's already cost the school? Have insurance premiums gone up? What legal fees weren't covered. Are we looking at at least a milliion, just like Kitzmiller v. Dover?

Because if it ever gets to that level, I'm calling it as a tactic - intimidation by lawsuit, successful or sucidal. Let us teach creation (or at least "evolution bad!") or we'll run down your budget for the next year or two.

Marion Delgado said: Because if it ever gets to that level, I'm calling it as a tactic - intimidation by lawsuit, successful or sucidal. Let us teach creation (or at least "evolution bad!") or we'll run down your budget for the next year or two.