Freshwater: Ohio Supreme Court affirms his termination

Isn't Pfeiffer's acidly sarcastic, scathing dissent going to give Freshwater ammunition to keep going? (For example, note his writing "How special." at one point.) We in the community are all tired of this (and I am relieved at this outcome), but Freshwater now has an Ohio Supreme Court Justice who has affirmed that Freshwater's First Amendment rights were infringed upon -- and the main body of the opinion ruling the termination valid admits the point outright, conceding that the school should have allowed him to keep the Bible on the desk, that the school was in the wrong.

My daughter is over there in that building as I type this. I am just afraid it is not over. :-(

Is this really it? Can there be no further appeal? Is there no way to spend any more taxpayer money on this nonsense? Are creationists finally going to get the message? Are they going to try to pull this stunt again? Are they gong to learn their lesson? Are they going to declare this abject failure as a victory for god? Will Freshwater finally admit that the was wrong? Will he admit that he abused his power? WIll he admit that he cheated his students of an education? WIll he show any remorse at all? Can he be forced to pay the court costs?

Thanks Richard for all your hard work.

Personal note: This brings to an end my immersion in this case.

to today, I’ve written on the order of 300,000 words on the case.

I would characterize this decision as judicial punt, but it is more like a squib kick. At least the court stayed within itself by respecting the referee hearing and appellate court decisions, rather than committing a gross overstep by re-instating Freshwater.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/.TbL2PUZs5nAS7VJYYmLrqRi1BJ6xTB.#abdc5 said: Isn't Pfeiffer's acidly sarcastic, scathing dissent going to give Freshwater ammunition to keep going? (For example, note his writing "How special." at one point.) We in the community are all tired of this (and I am relieved at this outcome), but Freshwater now has an Ohio Supreme Court Justice who has affirmed that Freshwater's First Amendment rights were infringed upon -- and the main body of the opinion ruling the termination valid admits the point outright, conceding that the school should have allowed him to keep the Bible on the desk, that the school was in the wrong.

My daughter is over there in that building as I type this. I am just afraid it is not over. :-(

Not really a satisfying end, but not the defeat for secular education in Ohio some posters had feared either. At least it's over for now.
Thanks for the fantastic coverage, Richard!

DS said: Is this really it? Can there be no further appeal? Is there no way to spend any more taxpayer money on this nonsense? Are creationists finally going to get the message? Are they going to try to pull this stunt again? Are they gong to learn their lesson? Are they going to declare this abject failure as a victory for god? Will Freshwater finally admit that the was wrong? Will he admit that he abused his power? WIll he admit that he cheated his students of an education? WIll he show any remorse at all? Can he be forced to pay the court costs?

Your work on this Richard has been outstanding! Thanks!

I'm very happy the verdict is what it is, however I really think that this will embolden most creationists to keep trying. They were that close to winning this one. And given the dissent, I really think it's only a matter of time before they win one of these battles again. What a shame...

The cynical part of me tells me that the judges found a way to obey the law with the least risk of losing in their next election.

Those dissenting opinions are a good reminder of how important it is that President Obama gets to appoint another Supreme Court justice.

We already know what the Discovery Institute will learn from this. "If only Ohio had one of our academic freedom laws, Freshwater would still be teaching."

Sometimes bad things happen to bad people.

I do hope that the uselessness of appeals will finally be recognized (SCOTUS, at the least, is still a potential appeal, I presume), and/or the money and will to push it has run out. It seems ridiculous to try to go any further, especially since the Supreme Court has ruled against creationism so many times and in so many ways (precedents, IOW).

Freshwater should try to salvage what he can of his life, maybe attempt a bit of a martyr play, even if he's not a great speaker. Too bad for him, but it cost a lot all around, and he was primarily at fault, so it's time for him to stop leeching money from others.

Too bad that the decision was so close, but that makes little difference in the end.

Glen Davidson

The dissenting opinions reveal that there are some judges in the courts that don’t recognize pseudoscience when they see it.

ID/creationism and the materials Freshwater used from AiG and the DI are junk science; and it is bad pedagogy to pass junk science off as a serious alternative to the real science.

It appears as though the ID/creationists will keep hammering on “alternatives ” “academic freedom” and “teach the controversy” in order to promote their religion disguised as junk science. This is going to require that teachers be able to humiliate the junk science by exposing it for what it is.

ID/creationists don’t understand even high school level science; and they insist on pushing their junk science into the classroom using any of the various ruses that might persuade a panel of judges. But what may persuade a judge in this case is not appropriate for instruction.

We don’t teach alchemy or astrology in order to improve instruction in science; so there is no reason to teach medieval and dead-headedly wrong scientific understanding in order to “improve” science instruction.

ID/creationism is not a substitute for teaching the lessons of historical science and scientific dead ends; ID/creationism is deliberate deception acting in the present trying to get around the law.

JimboK said: I would characterize this decision as judicial punt, but it is more like a squib kick. At least the court stayed within itself by respecting the referee hearing and appellate court decisions, rather than committing a gross overstep by re-instating Freshwater.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Sometimes bad things happen to bad people. I do hope that the uselessness of appeals will finally be recognized (SCOTUS, at the least, is still a potential appeal, I presume), and/or the money and will to push it has run out. It seems ridiculous to try to go any further, especially since the Supreme Court has ruled against creationism so many times and in so many ways (precedents, IOW).

DS said: Is this really it? Can there be no further appeal? Is there no way to spend any more taxpayer money on this nonsense? Are creationists finally going to get the message? Are they going to try to pull this stunt again? Are they gong to learn their lesson? Are they going to declare this abject failure as a victory for god? Will Freshwater finally admit that the was wrong? Will he admit that he abused his power? WIll he admit that he cheated his students of an education? WIll he show any remorse at all? Can he be forced to pay the court costs? Thanks Richard for all your hard work.

Thanks for all the hard work Richard!

As to any appeal, Masked Panda is right, all that's left is a very unlikely to succeed Writ of Certiorari. He might try to bring a Federal Civil Rights violation case against the school board but that seems unlikely, given reports of his financial situation. He's gotten this far because the Rutherford Institute stepped in to prosecute the appeal but, almost certainly, it wouldn't take on a new case for free. Unless his original attorney (who I wouldn't let carry by briefcase into court) takes the case pro bono, it won't happen. No other lawyer is likely to want to touch this mess and, for several reasons, such a suit is not very likely to succeed in any event.

And this, too, is a fundamental reason why Republicans refuse to confirm any of President Obama's judicial nominees. They're too "liberal" and only conservative, god-fearing conservative fundamentalist leaning/favoring nominees are acceptable, from the SCOTUS on down. There will always be more Freshwater cases, and yes, the legislatures will be lobbied for the DI "freedom(?)" laws to preach pseudoscience.

We begin by considering Principal White’s order for Freshwater to remove his personal Bible from his desk. We conclude that this order was neither reasonable nor valid. The order infringed without justification upon conduct protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In this case, we must reject the district’s justification because the inconspicuous presence of Freshwater’s personal Bible posed no threat to the Establishment Clause and the record supports that he did not use the Bible while teaching. A public school violates the Establishment Clause if its actions could reasonably be perceived as an official endorsement of religion... ...The district does not convey a message that it endorses or promotes Christianity by simply allowing Freshwater to keep a personal Bible on his desk.

HROC concluded that the Bible was not on display; it was neither prominently staged nor placed in a way that would draw any particular attention to it. Other witnesses testified that Freshwater himself never drew any attention to the Bible. Given this unobtrusive, obscured, personal setting, no reasonable observer would assume that the state intended to promote or endorse Freshwater’s Bible.

Freshwater’s refusal to remove the other items from his classroom—the Oxford Bible, Jesus of Nazareth, and the George W. Bush/Colin Powell poster—presents a much simpler issue. Freshwater’s First Amendment rights did not protect the display of these items, because they were not a part of his exercise of his religion. Freshwater admitted that he checked out the additional books only in order to make a point once this controversy began. Thus, the district would not run afoul of the Free Exercise Clause by ordering Freshwater to remove these materials; the orders were both reasonable and valid. Freshwater’s willful disobedience of these direct orders demonstrates blatant insubordination. That insubordination is established by clear and convincing evidence, and the record fully supports the board’s decision to terminate him on these grounds.

Having read the dissenting opinions, I have two observations. One is that Judge Pfeiffer must be a very unpleasant person to work near.

The second is that the majority did write a weak opinion.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/.TbL2PUZs5nAS7VJYYmLrqRi1BJ6xTB.#abdc5 said: My daughter is over there in that building as I type this. I am just afraid it is not over. :-(

Thank you for the good advice re my daughter, Dr. Hoppe.

DS said: Thanks Richard for all your hard work.

I second (and third, and fourth ...) the extreme gratitude to Richard Hoppe for all the diligent and insightful effort.

In the annals of judicial courage, the current decision is right up there with the Tennessee Supreme Court throwing out John T. Scopes's conviction on the grounds that the judge, not the jury, had assessed the $100 fine.

Joe Felsenstein said: In the annals of judicial courage, the current decision is right up there with the Tennessee Supreme Court throwing out John T. Scopes's conviction on the grounds that the judge, not the jury, had assessed the $100 fine.

One is reminded of Sir Humphrey Appleby's most severe damnation, reserved only for acts which were, in his opinion, the very height of folly: "Minister, I think that would be a very courageous decision."

In coming to Freshwater’s defense after he was discharged in January 2011, Rutherford Institute attorneys argued that where a teacher’s speech is in compliance with all Board policies and directly relates to the prescribed curriculum, the school should not be permitted to terminate the teacher’s employment as a means of censoring a particular academic viewpoint from the classroom. Institute attorneys plan to file a motion to ask the Ohio Supreme Court to reconsider their opinion in order to focus on the constitutional issues at the heart of the case, particularly as they relate to academic freedom in the classroom.

The foundational premise of the Merit Brief, the premise that underpins its academic freedom arguments, is that intelligent design and creation science are legitimate academic theories competing with evolutionary theory.

I never followed this case save noting it was stressed on this forum.
Firing someone is a big and sad thing when the purpose of school is to teach the truth.
I suspect its more incompetence from appointed, suspect on what reasons, Judges.
Its NOT religious opinions that is behind any creationist opinion.
The opinion is that this or that happened in some origin matter. Its irrelevant if it touches of some doctrines in some religion.
The judges are wrong in saying this teacher is imposing or pushing a religious opinion.
The opinion just , might, have a source from a religion but one can not discredit the opinion because of the source.
because who opposes murder and ones religion opposes murder does not make the anti-murder opinion a religious opinion. Even if its a source. tHe opinion is separate from the source as far as society is concerned.
anyways cases like this are great and hopefully more to come to stress the censorship and general immoral and illegal control on conclusions in this or that concerning nature.
A decent dust up.
I do insist these are days of poor jurisprudence. Better decisions would of been made in the past. Its a poor crop of justices for many reasons.
On to the next case.

Small correction: Justice Paul Pfeifer's surname has only two fs, not three.

Ugh. You're right, Douglas.

Richard B. Hoppe said: I'm told that it is very rare for the Court to accept a request for reconsideration. If by unhappy chance that occurs,

eric said: So the situation we have here is, as I see it: -Three judges would probably take up the constitutional issue and rule for Freshwater -One judge may or may not take it up, but would rule against him -Three judges likely would rule against him, but clearly don't want to even have to answer the question.

eric said: Now, add to that: if the ruling plurality had wanted to rule in favor of Freshwater on the constitutional issue, they could've easily formed a majority with the dissenting judges. So the fact that they didn't is (I'd argue) pretty good circumstantial evidence that they don't favor Freshwater, but did not want to take up this issue.

SensuousCurmudgeon said: I've heard that appellate courts generally won't deal with constitutional issues if the case can be disposed of on more mundane grounds. If that's true here, then Freshwater is out of luck.

Robert Byers said: Firing someone is a big and sad thing when the purpose of school is to teach the truth.

That's it for Byers in this thread, folks.

I reiterate the thanks to Richard for his indefatigable coverage of the outrageous case of John 'Burn de Kids' Fleshzapper.

One of the obvious screwups in the dissent by the Passhole, was that prior citations to college students who are not obligated to attend school cannot be applied to the Freshwater case. But the assholes did apply them anyway.

Maybe some Supreme Court justices need some Muslim crescents burned in their arms via van die graaf generator.

I can't believe this whole business dragged on for so long. I was sick of just reading the name "Freshwater".

So branding students with religious symbols get a pass. Not teaching the science curriculum gets a pass. Teaching creationism gets a pass. Even putting a bible on your desk and refusing to remove it gets a pass. But putting a book about Jesus out gets you fired.

It seems like the court took the case because at l east some of them wanted to make a statement about "religious freedom". Then they realized that legally there was no way they could do that and get away with it. So they tried for months to come up with some way to get out of the mess without admitting that they had made a mistake by taking the case. In the end, they just decided to uphold the lower court decision on a minor point and avoid all the real controversy.

So has Freshwater lost his house? Is he broke from paying legal fees? Did he get another job? Is he teaching somewhere? Is he going to go away quietly, or is he gong to do something so monumentally stupid that it gets hem thrown in jail so he can then play the martyr even more? Is he gong to admit that the will of god was finally done, or is he going to claim that god has forsaken him?

DS said: So branding students with religious symbols get a pass. Not teaching the science curriculum gets a pass. Teaching creationism gets a pass. Even putting a bible on your desk and refusing to remove it gets a pass. But putting a book about Jesus out gets you fired.

Why couldn't they just get the guy for tax evasion, like a real criminal?

eric said:

DS said: So branding students with religious symbols get a pass. Not teaching the science curriculum gets a pass. Teaching creationism gets a pass. Even putting a bible on your desk and refusing to remove it gets a pass. But putting a book about Jesus out gets you fired.

Even worse, I think their line of reasoning about the library books could be applied almost regardless of content. In essense they said: checking these books out of the library and putting them on his desk as replacements for the bible was an intentional gesture of defiance, an attempt to 'get around' the administration's request. That makes it insubordination. An 'evil' administration could easily take this precedent and use it to fire teachers who symbolically protest some unfair punishment. You get written up. You go along with whatever they request but also put a book about Nelson Mandela's struggles out on your desk as a social statement that you don't really agree with your punishment. Well, that could be interpreted as defiance...which now legally counts as insubordination...so you're fired. For, basically, voicing your disagreement with your punishment. Hopefully that's an extreme/hyperbolic interpretation, and future courts will stick to "he replaced his bible with a proxy bible, so it was direct disobedience." But with rulings like this, IMO we always have to think about the worst possible interpretation being applied somewhere, because I guarantee someone will do that. In this case, the worst possible interpretation is not friendly to teachers.

So has Freshwater lost his house? Is he broke from paying legal fees? Did he get another job? Is he teaching somewhere? Is he going to go away quietly, or is he gong to do something so monumentally stupid that it gets hem thrown in jail so he can then play the martyr even more? Is he gong to admit that the will of god was finally done, or is he going to claim that god has forsaken him?

j. biggs said: I agree that the reasoning behind the decision is flawed. However from a pragmatic standpoint, I doubt any school district including an 'evil' one would fire a person over checking out books from the library.

The MV school district really had a lot more on Freshwater than what this judgment shows and yet it cost the school district in excess of $1 million.

If anything this whole debacle was a bad thing because reasonable school districts see how damned expensive it is to get rid of a teacher who was by most accounts asking for dismissal. It would be a complete disaster to try dismissing a teacher on such shaky grounds as defiantly checking out a book and placing on his or her desk regardless of this ruling. Theoretically you are right about the implications of this ruling, but if anything, I believe this case probably has made school districts less apt to fire a teacher (even for cause) rather than more.

And while I don’t know, it’s tempting to speculate that Pfeifer has some personal animus toward the hearing referee: deleted for length: Pfeifer: Ironically, the lead opinion in this case proves the existence of God. Apparently, he’s an R.C. 3319.16 referee from Shelby.

And while I don’t know, it’s tempting to speculate that Pfeifer has some personal animus toward the hearing referee

eric said:

The MV school district really had a lot more on Freshwater than what this judgment shows and yet it cost the school district in excess of $1 million.

But that's a problem, because the legal precedent being set (for Ohio) is the judgement. Not how much the district spent. Not the voluminous evidence the district had. Not the arguments they made that were rejected by the court. The precedent will be, solely, the single argument the court accepted.

If anything this whole debacle was a bad thing because reasonable school districts see how damned expensive it is to get rid of a teacher who was by most accounts asking for dismissal. It would be a complete disaster to try dismissing a teacher on such shaky grounds as defiantly checking out a book and placing on his or her desk regardless of this ruling. Theoretically you are right about the implications of this ruling, but if anything, I believe this case probably has made school districts less apt to fire a teacher (even for cause) rather than more.

I generally agree. Even if I'm right, a legal argument is only going to be made after an administrative hearing - and Freshwater made it clear that even the administrative hearings can be deterringly costly for a district. So even if the precedent made a firing decision more likely to stand up in court, it doesn't necessarily make it cheaper or faster.

The Sensuous Curmudgeon has the Disco Tute's reaction to the Freshwater decision. AFAIK, that's their first mention of the case in over 2,000 days.

So if the court refuses to rule on the aspects of the case that you want them to rule on they are cowards. If the court rules against you on these issues they are activists. If the court rules for you on these issues they are courageous. Got it.

Look, if these guys want to challenge the constitutionality of replacing science in public schools with religious nonsense, what's stopping them? If they really thought they could win they should go for it. Of course it hasn't worked out too well in the past, but if enough nominees get blocked who knows. Eventually the butt heads might win.

I seem to remember, and I can't lay my hands on the reference at the moment, that there was a letter Freshwater wrote that was particularly damning.

The Super wrote to Freshwater telling him to clear the religious stuff out of his class room.

Freshwater replied by letter saying he would do that except for the Bible on his desk, and if that was considered insubordination then so be it.

Thus, Freshers threw down the gauntlet. Clearly Freshwater intended to be insubordinate.

Or I dreamed the whole thing.

My take on this is that this is about the best finding we could have hoped for. When the Ohio Supremes decided to hear this ridiculous case, well that was in itself a worrying sign that there was a strong pro-Creationist streak among the judges. And this finding shows that one of the judges is clearly a full-blown fundamentalist sympathiser, another has Religious Right logic wired into his brain and the rest of the judges, while finding against Freshwater, still had one eye on the next election and were afraid to strike down his self-righteous religious entitlement arguments even if they were legally unsupportable. So they found a way to find against him on the grounds of insubordination while expressly leaving aside his unconstitutional display of religious objects, and doing their best to ignore aside the entire 1st Amendment argument (where existing legal precedent would have forced them to find against Freshwater if they had chosen to address it).

Is it a good finding? God no. It opens a lot of doors to future disruptive Creationist tactics. But it's probably the best we could expect from the current Ohio Supreme Court in the current political climate.

Oh, and Richard --- many, many thanks for your countless hours of work on this case. You've done a brilliant job.

Chris Lawson said: and the rest of the judges, while finding against Freshwater, still had one eye on the next election and were afraid to strike down his self-righteous religious entitlement arguments even if they were legally unsupportable.

eric,

I didn't know that. Now I'm sadder.

Chris Lawson said: Oh, and Richard --- many, many thanks for your countless hours of work on this case. You've done a brilliant job.

Chris Lawson said: My take on this is that this is about the best finding we could have hoped for. When the Ohio Supremes decided to hear this ridiculous case, well that was in itself a worrying sign that there was a strong pro-Creationist streak among the judges. And this finding shows that one of the judges is clearly a full-blown fundamentalist sympathiser, another has Religious Right logic wired into his brain and the rest of the judges, while finding against Freshwater, still had one eye on the next election and were afraid to strike down his self-righteous religious entitlement arguments even if they were legally unsupportable. So they found a way to find against him on the grounds of insubordination while expressly leaving aside his unconstitutional display of religious objects, and doing their best to ignore aside the entire 1st Amendment argument (where existing legal precedent would have forced them to find against Freshwater if they had chosen to address it). Is it a good finding? God no. It opens a lot of doors to future disruptive Creationist tactics. But it's probably the best we could expect from the current Ohio Supreme Court in the current political climate.

harold said: It is very annoying not to have a valid opposition party, but we don't have two tolerable parties.

Doc Bill said: I seem to remember, and I can't lay my hands on the reference at the moment, that there was a letter Freshwater wrote that was particularly damning. The Super wrote to Freshwater telling him to clear the religious stuff out of his class room. Freshwater replied by letter saying he would do that except for the Bible on his desk, and if that was considered insubordination then so be it. Thus, Freshers threw down the gauntlet. Clearly Freshwater intended to be insubordinate. Or I dreamed the whole thing.

Belated thanks for your dedicated coverage of this embarrassing legal issue.

JimboK said: I have found a news video. Here. It unfortunately cuts Freshwater off at the moment were he is being defiant.

Folks outside of Ohio may not be aware that Pfeifer has always been considered a liberal judge (despite being a Republican). He has almost always been to the left of the rest of the court (which has only one Democratic member). So, this case must have pulled out some sort of religious conviction of his. (To quote Hitchens: "Religion poisons everything.")

eric said: OT, but...

harold said: It is very annoying not to have a valid opposition party, but we don't have two tolerable parties.

20 States have traditional open primaries and CA has something wierd which is even 'opener'. I strongly encourage voters who dislike their presidential or representative choices to vote in the primary elections. Even better, get involved in running primary candidates that agree more with your policy positions. Making your choice heard as the parties are deciding which candidates to run IS your "opposition party" for the forseeable future. And as the Tea Party has shown, while a run for President may be an unrealistic goal, such movements can certainly put 40-50 people in Congress and have a significant impact on national priorities and spending. No, I'm not supporting their ideology. But I am telling you that their political strategy was fairly effective and is something other movements should consider emulating.

harold said: In the short term, those who value science also need to be aware that the Republican party is potentially dangerous to science education and funding. Again, in my opinion, both parties tend to stink, and the Democrats are perfectly capable of doing things like cutting useful funding for education and scientific agencies in the name of "centrism", and so on, but do NOT have remotely the same record of pandering to the most overt organized anti-science movements, such as evolution denial, climate denial, tobacco/health denial, HIV denial, etc.

One more minor peep from the peanut gallery:

Kudos to Richard B. Hoppe for amazing persistence and grueling detail work on a project surely anticipated at the beginning as a temporary curiosity!

SensuousCurmudgeon,

At the risk of staying off-topic, that Atlantic article is a terrible piece of false equivalence. The author is right to point out that anti-scientific thinking isn't confined to Republicans and that not all Republicans are creationist know-nothings. But whatever flaws the Democrats have in terms of science, they are dwarfed by the antagonism shown by the Republican party, which seems willing to throw any bit of science under the bus if it conflicts with a the goals of fundamentalists or industries, even when it will cause obvious and serious harm to people.

I just wanted to join in chorus of thank you's to Richard B. Hoppe. How he found the stamina to follow this clowns antics with a straight face is amazing!

JimboK said:

JimboK said: I have found a news video. Here. It unfortunately cuts Freshwater off at the moment were he is being defiant.

Fixed link (I think)... Sorry.. Video can be found by going Mt. Vernon News website, clicking on "Extra-Edition", scrolling down to the Freshwater story.

DS said: Yea sure, he gained great strength and inspiration by having his "personal" bible on his public desk. He couldn't possibly have gotten the same thing by keeping it in the desk drawer! What a bunch of baloney.

SensuousCurmudgeon said:

harold said: In the short term, those who value science also need to be aware that the Republican party is potentially dangerous to science education and funding. Again, in my opinion, both parties tend to stink, and the Democrats are perfectly capable of doing things like cutting useful funding for education and scientific agencies in the name of "centrism", and so on, but do NOT have remotely the same record of pandering to the most overt organized anti-science movements, such as evolution denial, climate denial, tobacco/health denial, HIV denial, etc.

As long as we're off topic, take a good look at this in The Atlantic: The Republican Party Isn't Really the Anti-Science Party.

harold said: The right wing political science denial movements are politically and legally aggressive and do enormous harm. Climate denial, tobacco/disease denial, HIV denial - the direct harm is obvious. Evolution denial has done less harm, but has cost struggling school districts millions of dollars (undoubtedly billions in aggregate) and contributed to the mis-education of countless students. [...] First of all, all of the science denial movements I mentioned above are actively promoted at the legislative level by Republican representatives. There is no Democratic equivalent to that. ... Second of all, most of the unscientific stuff ascribed to "liberals", and this certainly includes vaccine denial (which is not being promoted at the legislative level by ANY Democrat, nor the Green Party, nor Independent Senator Bernie Sanders, nor anyone else whom you might describe as a "leftist" or "liberal" whom I can think of), are not specific to "liberals". [...] [O]nce someone identifies as "a Republican" they seem to rigidly hold to that with great ego investment, even as the party radically changes. I don't like the Democrats, either, they just aren't as bad on a number of issues, and this is one example.

FWIW, it's pretty much standard jurisprudence to avoid Constitutional issues when a case can be decided on other grounds. It's only when the Constitutional issues are the sum and substance of the case that a court should address them.

All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience. No person shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or maintain any form of worship, against his consent; and no preference shall be given, by law, to any religious society; nor shall any interference with the rights of conscience be permitted. No religious test shall be required, as a qualification for office, nor shall any person be incompetent to be a witness on account of his religious belief; but nothing herein shall be construed to dispense with oaths and affirmations. Religion, morality, and knowledge, however, being essential to good government, it shall be the duty of the general assembly to pass suitable laws to protect every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship, and to encourage schools and the means of instruction.

SensuousCurmudgeon said:

harold said: The right wing political science denial movements are politically and legally aggressive and do enormous harm. Climate denial, tobacco/disease denial, HIV denial - the direct harm is obvious. Evolution denial has done less harm, but has cost struggling school districts millions of dollars (undoubtedly billions in aggregate) and contributed to the mis-education of countless students. [...] First of all, all of the science denial movements I mentioned above are actively promoted at the legislative level by Republican representatives. There is no Democratic equivalent to that. ... Second of all, most of the unscientific stuff ascribed to "liberals", and this certainly includes vaccine denial (which is not being promoted at the legislative level by ANY Democrat, nor the Green Party, nor Independent Senator Bernie Sanders, nor anyone else whom you might describe as a "leftist" or "liberal" whom I can think of), are not specific to "liberals". [...] [O]nce someone identifies as "a Republican" they seem to rigidly hold to that with great ego investment, even as the party radically changes. I don't like the Democrats, either, they just aren't as bad on a number of issues, and this is one example.

I don't want to hijack this thread over an issue which probably belongs at my blog rather than here. I've discussed this thing before. As we know, loads of Southern and Midwestern "social conservatives" were actively recruited into the Republican party as part of Nixon's "Southern Strategy," after those people (who had been Dems pretty much since the Civil War), felt betrayed by Johnson's civil rights policy. Of course, there had always been creationist in both parties, but people like Goldwater thought it was a horrible idea to welcome such a large block of them into the GOP. He was ignored. We see the results. Those people now think of themselves as the "true" conservatives. I registered Republican in 1976 so I could vote for Reagan in the Florida primary -- my first presidential primary vote. I've stayed in that party, probably due to what we might share as a dislike over the McGovern influence in the Democrat party. I've been saying that I'd switch to being a registered Independent if the GOP nominated a genuine bozo like Rick Santorum or Michele Bachmann, and that's what I would do. As for the Dems' anti-science issues, I need only mention their opposition to nuclear-generated power. There are others ("nuclear winter" is one that had its day, as a pretext for disarmament). It's difficult to claim any actual equivalence here, but both parties will adopt irrational policies if that's what it takes to please strident constituencies and win elections. I'm not a fan of either party these days. For me, voting has become an unhappy choice of the lesser of two evils.

SensuousCurmudgeon said: I registered Republican in 1976 so I could vote for Reagan in the Florida primary -- my first presidential primary vote. I've stayed in that party, probably due to what we might share as a dislike over the McGovern influence in the Democrat party. I've been saying that I'd switch to being a registered Independent if the GOP nominated a genuine bozo like Rick Santorum or Michele Bachmann, and that's what I would do.

As for the Dems' anti-science issues, I need only mention their opposition to nuclear-generated power.

There are others ("nuclear winter" is one that had its day, as a pretext for disarmament).

It's difficult to claim any actual equivalence here, but both parties will adopt irrational policies if that's what it takes to please strident constituencies and win elections.

As for the Dems’ anti-science issues, I need only mention their opposition to nuclear-generated power.

harold said: This is a false equivalence for many reasons ...

Remaining aloof from inconvenient facts is one of the human failings that allows the Freshwaters of the world to thrive. Denying the thorough and overt anti-science cover that the Republican party lavishes on him and the rest of its "base" is not going to fix the problems within that party. Letting them off easy by pretending they're not all that anti-science after all, that the other party is somehow also "anti-science," is just giving them the green light to keep piling it on.

SensuousCurmudgeon said:

harold said: This is a false equivalence for many reasons ...

Perhaps. But my unpopular political opinions have nothing to do with Freshwater, so I shall remain aloof.

would NOT say - aaaarh....

Time to calm down a bit, folks.

BTW, an attorney of my acquaintance has conjectured that the motion to the Ohio Supreme Court requesting reconsideration of its decision is a prelude to asking SCOTUS to grant cert in the case.

Read the 2012 Texas GOP platform.

I dare you.

Richard B. Hoppe said: Time to calm down a bit, folks.

ksplawn said: Remaining aloof from inconvenient facts is one of the human failings that allows the Freshwaters of the world to thrive. Denying the thorough and overt anti-science cover that the Republican party lavishes on him and the rest of its "base" is not going to fix the problems within that party. Letting them off easy by pretending they're not all that anti-science after all, that the other party is somehow also "anti-science," is just giving them the green light to keep piling it on.

Letting any politician, regardless of party, off the hook for lying about science is a mistake. We need to hold politicians accountable for their actions, but instead they get immunity.....

Richard B. Hoppe said: BTW, an attorney of my acquaintance has conjectured that the motion to the Ohio Supreme Court requesting reconsideration of its decision is a prelude to asking SCOTUS to grant cert in the case.

I strongly encourage voters who dislike their presidential or representative choices to vote in the primary elections.

GOP nominated a genuine bozo like Rick Santorum or Michele Bachmann, and that’s what I would do.

But Republicans, conservatives, and the religious are no more uniquely “anti-science” than any other demographic or political group. It’s just that “anti-science” has been defined using a limited set of issues that make the right wing and religious look relatively worse.

As for the Dems’ anti-science issues, I need only mention their opposition to nuclear-generated power.

thomasjneal.nz said:

As for the Dems’ anti-science issues, I need only mention their opposition to nuclear-generated power.

uh, that's not anti science. it has nothing to do with science, it's an economic and environmental issue to them. they aren't asking legislators to rewrite textbooks about nuclear energy. false equivalence indeed. this is the first time I have read your words, and I have to conclude you are completely delusional.

TomS said:

thomasjneal.nz said:

As for the Dems’ anti-science issues, I need only mention their opposition to nuclear-generated power.

uh, that's not anti science. it has nothing to do with science, it's an economic and environmental issue to them. they aren't asking legislators to rewrite textbooks about nuclear energy. false equivalence indeed. this is the first time I have read your words, and I have to conclude you are completely delusional.

Sensuous Curmudgeon runs one of the best blogs on issues related to evolution denial.

Harold, I think you may be guilty of false equivalence yourself. The false equivalence of which I speak is the rise in global temperatures, and its cause. (Perhaps it is better to call this the false "Law of Cause and Effect" rather than false equivalence.) You, like most of the public, Al Gore, almost all liberals, and some conservatives, apparently automatically ascribe that increase to human activity (burning of fossil fuels, burning of forests, etc).

But the Carbon Cycle of the Earth is very complex. There is a vast store of dissolved carbon dioxide in the oceans, huge quantities of carbonate ions in seawater, and immense volumes of precipitated calcium carbonate on the ocean floor, all exchanging back and forth, and thence with the atmosphere. Natural sources of carbon dioxide are principally volcanoes and emissions from mid-ocean ridges. Interestingly, while the carbon dioxide from volcanoes contributes to warming of the biosphere, the dust they inject into the upper atmosphere reflects solar radiation and thus cools the surface of the Earth.

How well-measured are the quantities of volcanic carbon dioxide, and mid-ocean ridge carbon dioxide? They may indeed be greater than the human-injected carbon dioxide. Volcanoes are relatively easy to spot. Their plumes can be photographed and their gaseous emissions analyzed. But the uncountable small emissions along the mid-ocean ridges in every ocean are much more difficult to estimate, much less well-measured.

So at the risk of being derided by all but a few posters here, I will say that the rise of global temperatures may be caused by human activity, but that is by no means certain - not until we understand the Earth's Carbon Cycle in better detail.

Remember IBIG's "Law Of Cause And Effect"? (Sarfati at AiG just wrote another pseudo-scientific piece purporting just that.) It's false equivalence when you jump to the conclusion that because global temperatures have risen, it must be due to humans burning fossil fuels. It's obviously true. Or is it? No, it is not.

So I take a minority view. Now, I must prepare for the firestorm of criticism. I will not answer any, unless they deal with the quantization of meteoric carbon dioxide and the global carbon cycle. (Meteoric, in the geological sense, means "newly injected into the surface of the Earth from deeper in the crust.")

Life is complicated, human society more so. Although I expect most of Freshwater's supporters are conservatives and Republicans, I would not be surprised to find a few registered Democrats as well.

Prongs - you sound just like a creationist. Show me all of the steps from bacteria to whale and then I will believe....

IANAS, but the pertinent questions seem plain to me.

1. Has there been a dramatic rise in atmospheric CO2 in recent times?

2. If yes, what new source of CO2 might be contributing to the recent rise that wasn't, say, several centuries ago?

3. If natural sources such as increased vulcanism could be the cause, have such sources dramatically increased in the last century? Or is there reason to think, though their frequency might not be greater, that their CO2 output could be significantly higher?

4. COULD human burning of fossil fuel (and other activities that release greenhouse gasses) POSSIBLY be a significant contributor to climate change?

5. COULD climate change result in severe human suffering, dislocation, geopolitical crises, etc.?

6. If the answers to 4 and 5 are even POSSIBLY yes, then isn't it worth our while to try to mitigate those effects?

Again, I am not a scientist, climate or otherwise.

Harold, I think you may be guilty of false equivalence yourself. The false equivalence of which I speak is the rise in global temperatures, and its cause.

(Perhaps it is better to call this the false “Law of Cause and Effect” rather than false equivalence.) You, like most of the public, Al Gore, almost all liberals, and some conservatives, apparently automatically ascribe that increase to human activity (burning of fossil fuels, burning of forests, etc). But the Carbon Cycle of the Earth is very complex. There is a vast store of dissolved carbon dioxide in the oceans, huge quantities of carbonate ions in seawater, and immense volumes of precipitated calcium carbonate on the ocean floor, all exchanging back and forth, and thence with the atmosphere. Natural sources of carbon dioxide are principally volcanoes and emissions from mid-ocean ridges. Interestingly, while the carbon dioxide from volcanoes contributes to warming of the biosphere, the dust they inject into the upper atmosphere reflects solar radiation and thus cools the surface of the Earth.

How well-measured are the quantities of volcanic carbon dioxide, and mid-ocean ridge carbon dioxide? They may indeed be greater than the human-injected carbon dioxide. Volcanoes are relatively easy to spot. Their plumes can be photographed and their gaseous emissions analyzed. But the uncountable small emissions along the mid-ocean ridges in every ocean are much more difficult to estimate, much less well-measured. So at the risk of being derided by all but a few posters here, I will say that the rise of global temperatures may be caused by human activity, but that is by no means certain - not until we understand the Earth’s Carbon Cycle in better detail.

Remember IBIG’s “Law Of Cause And Effect”? (Sarfati at AiG just wrote another pseudo-scientific piece purporting just that.)

It’s false equivalence when you jump to the conclusion that because global temperatures have risen, it must be due to humans burning fossil fuels. It’s obviously true. Or is it? No, it is not.

So I take a minority view.

Now, I must prepare for the firestorm of criticism. I will not answer any, unless they deal with the quantization of meteoric carbon dioxide and the global carbon cycle. (Meteoric, in the geological sense, means “newly injected into the surface of the Earth from deeper in the crust.”) Life is complicated, human society more so. Although I expect most of Freshwater’s supporters are conservatives and Republicans, I would not be surprised to find a few registered Democrats as well.

It is, of course, perfectly possible to have right wing political preferences without denying scientific reality.

After all, many or most political preferences are expressions of subjective values.

However, it it NOT possible to deny either climate change, or the current Republican record on scientific issues, without denying reality, in a dishonest way. Period.

Over the last 800,000 years atmospheric CO2 levels as indicated by the ice-core data have fluctuated between 170 and 300 parts per million by volume (ppmv), corresponding with conditions of glacial and interglacial periods. The Vostok core indicates very similar trends. Prior to about 450,000 years before present time (BP) atmospheric CO2 levels were always at or below 260 ppmv and reached lowest values, approaching 170 ppmv, between 660,000 and 670,000 years ago. The highest pre-industrial value recorded in 800,000 years of ice-core record was 298.6 ppmv, in the Vostok core, around 330,000 years ago. Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased markedly in industrial times; measurements in year 2010 at Cape Grim Tasmania and the South Pole both indicated values of 386 ppmv, and are currently increasing at about 2 ppmv/year.

Just a note, I posted a very lengthy and very linky comment in reply to prongs. There were so many links it's being held for moderation. Hopefully it will show up soon.

yup it did, and it's a gudun.

prediction is that prongs will simply go to his favorite denial site and copypasta some boilerplate response along the lines of a "different interpretation of data".

...just like a creationist would.

As an educator I have a question pertaining to the original incidents. If he burned some marks onto the arm of the students, why was not fired for doing so or even thrown in jail? I am not from the civilized world but I would have have been thrown of the school grounds 5 minutes later and my name would appear on some kind of register.

I noticed how extraordinarily similar most of the “skeptical” arguments against it were to the arguments used by Creationists.

Come now, we're being unfair to climate change deniers. Their basic position is straightforward:

1. There is no global warming.

2. Well, OK, there is global warming. but it isn't caused by humans.

3. Well, OK, there is global warming and it is caused by humans, but it's good for us.

4. Well, OK, there is global warming and it is caused by humans, but God will never let us mess up the world too badly. But he reserves the right to do that whenever he wants.

5. Well, OK, there is global warming and it is caused by humans, but these are the Last Days and a few of us are going to be "raptured" tomorrow or the next day, so what the hell do we care; the rest of you sinners can live in the hothouse for the next thousand years until Jesus destroys the whole shebang.

6. Well, OK, there is global warming but it's more expensive to fix it than to let it happen.

icstuff said: As an educator I have a question pertaining to the original incidents. If he burned some marks onto the arm of the students, why was not fired for doing so or even thrown in jail? I am not from the civilized world but I would have have been thrown of the school grounds 5 minutes later and my name would appear on some kind of register.

DS said:

JimboK said:

JimboK said: I have found a news video. Here. It unfortunately cuts Freshwater off at the moment were he is being defiant.

Fixed link (I think)... Sorry.. Video can be found by going Mt. Vernon News website, clicking on "Extra-Edition", scrolling down to the Freshwater story.

Yea sure, he gained great strength and inspiration by having his "personal" bible on his public desk. He couldn't possibly have gotten the same thing by keeping it in the desk drawer! What a bunch of baloney.

JimboK said:

DS said:

JimboK said:

JimboK said: I have found a news video. Here. It unfortunately cuts Freshwater off at the moment were he is being defiant.

Fixed link (I think)... Sorry.. Video can be found by going Mt. Vernon News website, clicking on "Extra-Edition", scrolling down to the Freshwater story.

Yea sure, he gained great strength and inspiration by having his "personal" bible on his public desk. He couldn't possibly have gotten the same thing by keeping it in the desk drawer! What a bunch of baloney.

From the "amens" to Freshwater's mispronunciation "the free-exercise klaus"; it's all pretty sickening. BTW, the video is dated April 16, 2008.

My first comment here...

If Freshwater didn't refer to or use the bible on his desk to make or bolster his claims during class, and if he didn't even use it for personal reading, ...why was it there at all?

The obvious answer is that he used it just like his offensive displays - to intimidate, to cement his unlawful promulgation of religious mumbo-jumbo, and to make a point. Either that, or to hide his porn under.

Of course he never read it! He couldn't have, or he'd understand that ostentatious displays of religulous fervour are frowned upon by the main protagonist in the book he never used.

Oh, and I'd like to just say thanks to everyone who's provided so many helpful links. More opportunities to learn are rare, and very much appreciated!

The USGS said: The optically dense Pinatubo aerosol cloud caused marked changes in the amount of radiation reaching the Earth's surface; in turn, these changes affected weather and climate over the past 3 years following the eruption.

• Mt. Agung, Bali, Indonesia: 1963
• El Chicon, Mexico: 1982
• Mt. Pinatubo, Philippines: 1991

Contained in my huge infodump is the perspective that humans emit about 100x more CO2 than volcanoes per year, and human emissions are about 3% of global annual emissions. What's more, about half of our emissions are being soaked up by natural sinks to make the annual increase in emissions less than the amount we spew into the atmosphere over the same period.

It kind of follows that even very large, singular volcanic eruptions aren't really going to show up in the Keeling Curve.

ksplawn said: 6. Well, OK, there is global warming but it's more expensive to fix it than to let it happen.

This page claims that the total annual CO2 released from volcanism is equal to less than 3 days of anthropogenic emissions. It would take 700 Pinatubo-sized eruptions to equal the annual human CO2 output.

It's been said that the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption was actually carbon-negative, at least in it's initial stage, as the grounding of flights in Europe more than offset the emissions of the volcano itself.