Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I've mentioned before that John Freshwater is buddies with religious right loony Dave Daubenmire, so it's no surprise that Daubenmire is defending his friend. But his arguments are quite amusing. Like this one:
Neither Freshwater nor his attorney, Roger Weaver, could be reached for comment last night. 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.
Probably so. I bet a majority of parents in that district would support many of the things he did. But that is simply irrelevant. What he did was illegal, no matter how many people agree with it. And he knew it was illegal and was warned many times to stop. End of argument.
"Do you think there are other teachers in the public classroom that are trying to drive their opinions in the classroom?'' Daubenmire asked. "I don't care who you are. You cannot separate your value system from your teaching.''
A perfect argument for why creationists should not be allowed to teach evolution, don't you think?
Politics
Comments
Oh man, so many pithy one liner responses, so little time.
Posted by: DarkSyde | June 22, 2008 9:42 AM
Pontius Pilate was a lovely bloke, except for one crucifixion...DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 22, 2008 10:09 AM
Yeah, all you crazies calling for him to be fired are way off-base! All he did was burn a cross into a kid's arm...no big deal!
Posted by: Robert Ward | June 22, 2008 10:10 AM
Nah, nah, Freshwater was a lovely bloke. He used to bring his mum flowers an' that. -Dj
Posted by: DingoJack | June 22, 2008 10:12 AM
I have written, eh, passionately, about ex-Coach Dave Daubenmire over the last year. His biweekly columns are pay dirt if you are mining botched and unintentionally hilarious metaphors with homosexual subtext. Seriously, the guy is a laff riot. He lost his own job for preaching to students. And then there was his son Zach, who... Never mind. Anyway, he's on the moon.
HJ
Posted by: Bing McGhandi | June 22, 2008 10:14 AM
Good thing, people like this, only exist in the backwaters of Alabama; otherwise, we might be subjected to sophisticated, New York Times, columnists like David Brooks explaining why "moderate" Republicans kissing the ring of Hagee, is not what we think it is and is of little consequence. ;-)
Posted by: Cromwell's severed head | June 22, 2008 10:50 AM
"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
Posted by: khan | June 22, 2008 11:04 AM
Cromwell's severed head:
Unfortunately, this happened in Ohio, far from the deep south. The religious nutbags have been expanding in Ohio for years, mostly radiating northward from Cincitucky. It makes me want to spin my head 360 degrees and vomit green pea soup.
Posted by: c-serpent | June 22, 2008 11:05 AM
Freshwater did comment later in the day. There is a news report here,
which also has a link you can click on to see the video (sorry, they play a commercial first). Freshwater appears about halfway through the video.
While Freshwater claims he only ("only", heh) burnt an "X" into the kids arm, there's a picture there that clearly shows a cross.
Posted by: Ahcuah | June 22, 2008 11:07 AM
How in the hell does this guy Freshwater think that burning an "X" is a student's arm is less of a problem to anyone with any sense? Did he think the Board of Ed. would say "Oh well, if it was only an "X" that's okay then!" What a goddamned nut!!
Posted by: strider | June 22, 2008 11:35 AM
Well, duh!
Posted by: kehrsam | June 22, 2008 12:37 PM
I had almost forgotten altogether about the Freshwater case.
My only thought has been:
"What if one of those kids was my kid? How much could I get in a civil suit and would I even be able to file criminal charges against this SOB?"
If they want to burn kids' arms at church, then I can chalk it up to Christian masochism (and there are plenty of examples), but it's not okay, at least for me, that they were doing this in a domain paid for by the taxpayer and run by a supposedly secular organization. (that organization that I'm talking about, is the US government)
Posted by: JStein | June 22, 2008 1:00 PM
As an Ohioan, I have been following this case closely for a while. I am saddened that it has taken this long for ANY action. Freshwater should have been in prison a long time ago, and the entire school board should be facing criminal charges. This was not the first student he has burned a cross into.
Let that sink in.
He burned students before. The school board decided that wasn't a reason to fire him and bring charges. They got upset about a bible on his desk. How the fuck can that ever be permissible? Over 11 years, he has branded nearly a dozen students for not believing his particular brand of twisted idiocy, and the school board allowed him to keep his job.
The failures go deep in this case, and more people than him deserved to be fired and imprisoned.
Posted by: Rich Stage | June 22, 2008 1:34 PM
I've put up selected writings about Daubenmire at my site, if anyone is interested. He's the CrAzIeSt ChRiStIaN out there, and I follow a lot of them.
HJ
Posted by: Bing McGhandi | June 22, 2008 2:42 PM
Daubenmire's lots of fun: settling with the ACLU out of court and then bragging about having "defeated" the organisation; launching a libel action against parents who criticized his actions, etc.
Posted by: Bartholomew | June 22, 2008 3:21 PM
"I don't care who you are. You cannot separate your value system from your teaching.''
Debatable position, but a truly ethical teacher does everything they can to minimize their personal input into the educational process. Freshwater did the opposite, after reading the report, it is obvious he not only did everything he could to force his religious beliefs into the classroom, he also took every step he could to avoid getting caught knowing that he was breaking the law. Really there is no excuse for passing out worksheets and reading materials that directly contradict board policy and state standards and then collecting them at the end of each class. That is an obvious attempt to circumvent the law and cover your tracks while doing so.
Posted by: dogmeatib | June 22, 2008 3:31 PM
Apart from pillars made out of their enemy skulls, the Mongols had great taste in decor.
w.t.f? Most town's local values do not include cruel and unusual punishment to children administered without their parents' knowledge or consent. Having admitted he's done this, how can anyone cooingly defend him.
Posted by: Samantha Vimes | June 22, 2008 3:52 PM
There's something that puzzles me in the reports. Freshwater is said to have claimed that carbon dating is unreliable in an attack on evolution. However, carbon dating only reaches back a few tens of thousands of years. Carbon dates are therefore a problem for young earth creationism, but they aren't relevant to the evaluation of the paleontological evidence for evolution since it is all much older than the range in which carbon dating is useful.
Are the accounts wrong and was he actually using this claim to undermine an argument against a young earth, or is he so ignorant that he thinks that fossils are dated by carbon dating?
Posted by: Bill Poser | June 22, 2008 4:33 PM
Bill Poser - regarding your question on whether Freshwater is so ignorant as to claim carbon dating "flaws" discredit TOE:
As a child growing up fundie, the church attempted to indoctrinate me to believe that notion as well. So the only small surprise I got out of the Freshwater story beyond his branding kids was that the claim that carbon dating flaws falsifies the TOE is still alive and kicking - anecdotal evidence of the level of virulent ignorance by people that oppose scientific reasoning.
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 22, 2008 6:05 PM
Michael Heath:
Interesting. I had thought that the "benefit" of the activities of the Creation Research Institute etc. was that Creationists had become a bit more sophisticated in their delusions.
Posted by: Bill Poser | June 22, 2008 6:49 PM
I've just discovered --- via another blog that linked to a website --- that, not only did Freshwater burn a cross on an 8th grade kid, he burned a cross on an 8th grade Catholic Anne G
Posted by: Anne Gilbert | June 22, 2008 7:01 PM
The post above should read "8th grade Catholic kid!" And the remainder is: Of course, to people like Freshwater, Catholics aren't really Christians. But still. . . .What gives???? Freshwater should have been fired long ago.
Anne G
Posted by: Anne Gilbert | June 22, 2008 7:04 PM
Anne said, "Catholics aren't really Christians"
To a fundie, claiming you are a devout Catholic is not evidence to them you are a Christian. However, most fundies believe some Catholics are Christians; to them it's based on whether you believe in the Trinity and are "born again".
I got that you were being a bit facetious, however, I thought it was worth pointing out how they distinguish the difference.
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 22, 2008 7:25 PM
Michael Heath
I can assure you that Southern Baptists & the various Pentecostal sects in the southern US consider Roman Catholics as being deceived by Satan, and in no way "true Christians". I grew up attending Southern Baptist churches. As a young adult I started attending Pentecostal based churches. During the mid to late 1970's I became a phone counselor for CBN's 700 Club at their home base in Va. During those years I became close friends with both Baptist & Pentecostal pastors. They were of the opinion that Roman Catholicism was a cult whose followers were doomed to hell. My association with either of those churches ended in the early 90's.
From my perspective, as an outsider during the last 15 or so years, is that those denominations have allied themselves more closely with denominations they consider heretical for political and cultural war purposes only. The theological differences still exist. As an example of this I'll cite the reverened Moon as an example. Moon was talked about frequently by preaches such as Falwell and Robertson as the devil incarnate during those years. Since he now funds so many like minded causes, he gets a pass. One has to look no farther than the latest flap-up with John Hagee & John McCain to see how some protestant denominations view Catholics. I still hear the same things I did years ago from the rank and file members of those denominations I did years ago. Nothing has really changed except the politics.
Posted by: silverspoon | June 22, 2008 9:20 PM
silverspoon:
Hell, schmell. I had a "consult" with his nooodlieness, the FSM and he said that all KKKristians, and most other religionists are going to be tossed into the Eternal Pizza Oven of Doom.
Posted by: democommie | June 22, 2008 9:46 PM
democommie
You're a heretic and deluded. The FSM is but a mere pretender to the throne of she that shall not be named. She who has a mane of gold shall trample you under foot. And your descendants will wallow in her muck & mire for days without end. (amen).
Posted by: silverspoon | June 22, 2008 9:58 PM
silverspoon -
Re my assertion:
and your reply:
I believe you over-extend your argument. Like I stated, certainly fundies believe that being a devout Catholic is not evidence of being a Christian; that claim by me can be reconciled to your point. But since fundies believe that being a Christian requires a personal "born again" experience that is authentic only if one also believes in the Trinity, fundies do believe some, and the operative word here is some like I stated before, Catholics can be Christians in spite of their being Catholics.
So while I agree with your claim that fundies see the Catholic religion as fundamentally flawed and also agree with your points about how fundies perceive the Catholic religion, I have not seen evidence that their non-biblical dogma has them claiming all devout Catholics are not Christians. I use the word dogma here because I'm certain that some fundies beliefs are consistent with your claims, but that is not a universal position within fundamentalism Christianity nor does their dogma make the claim that a person can't be a Christian and a Catholic, at least I've seen no written evidence in their doctrinal positions that make an absolute claim like you do here.
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 22, 2008 10:54 PM
Michael Heath and silverspoon: Yes, I agree with you both! As a Southern Baptist, I can attest that the denomination has ratcheted down the anti-Catholic position from where it was @1980 or so. But this has been purely for reasons of political expediency. Look at any map published by the International Missions Board and note that countries such as Poland, Ireland, and Italy are marked as having less than 10% "Christian" populations.
Yes, they will admit that individual Catholics can be saved; they just don't find it likely. Interestingly, the topic of which denominations SBC missionaries are allowed to cooperate with has been a subject of debate: Roman Catholics don't come anywhere near to making the cut (nor do Pentacostals, for that matter). My denomination is in trouble, but apparently we shall go pure to our grave.
Posted by: kehrsam | June 22, 2008 11:49 PM
Archeans seemed to have no trouble with homosexuality, I know of no laws prohibiting it in Babylonia, Assyria, Phoencia, Italic tribes etc. (although I am no expert and could easily be wrong), so how is the bible typical of the attidudes of Bronze Age Fertile Cresant/Mediterranean cultures?
The arguement: "It's in the bible, that must be the common attidute otherwise it wouldn't be in the bible" sounds a little Ad hoc prompter hoc to me. Enlighten me -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 23, 2008 12:29 AM
DJ: The current best scholarship on the situation is that the "Holiness Code" of Leviticus originally applied only to the Aaronid priests, not to the Children of Israel at large. Keep in mind that the Deuteronomistic History was written in the late 7th Century, or perhaps in the return from exile after 520 BCE.It is much easier to impose a new conduct upon a returning population than upon one which has never been exiled.
Mind also, that at least as late as Ezra (late 5th Century BCE) Ezra was reading to the people new laws that "astonished" them. The rules for priests and the people at large were great and varied.
The issue with homosexual conduct was temple prostitution associated with the various Baals and the goddess Ashtarte. And yes, it certainly made sense for the One God to prohibit His priests from participating in pagan rituals. As I have argued elsewhere, there is no evidence for a general prohibition against prostitution or homosexuality in the OT. Neither is there affirmation, but the Phred Phelps' of the world are reading a hatred into the text which does not exist.
Posted by: kehrsam | June 23, 2008 12:47 AM
Oops wrong thread, please ignore the above. Carry on -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 23, 2008 12:47 AM
Are we really sure (I mean, with proofs and all) that burning a cross in a kid's arm is not actually part of "the values of the parents in the Mount Vernon school district" ?
Posted by: Christophe Thill | June 23, 2008 7:00 AM
The fact is, most parents in Mount Vernon are God-fearing and Bible-Believing, unlike you liberal left atheists. Only an outsider provacateur would try to stir up this trouble.
Posted by: Gary Ruppert | June 23, 2008 8:19 AM
I have been covering the Minutemen and other theocons in Central Ohio for the Columbus Free Pres for about four years. Unfortuantely, I've had other responsibilities that kept me from covering the Freshwater case. Freshwater is pretty out there. He's been a regular protester at Columbus clinics and and wife is the director of a Mount Vernon CPC. If you'd like to read more about the activities of the MM and their friends please go to Theoconia http://theoconia.blogspot.com I have no doubt that this will be a protracted and ugly battle.
Posted by: Marley Greiner | June 23, 2008 9:12 AM
Gary Ruppert - It's hard to tell if you're joking or not. If not, then
1. The suit against Freshwater was brought by the parents of some of his students. Hardly outside provacateurs.
2. Because "most" people believe something does not make it right to try and force that belief on others.
Posted by: Taz | June 23, 2008 9:13 AM
I have been covering the Minutemen and other theocons in Central Ohio for the Columbus Free Pres for about four years. Unfortunately, I've had other responsibilities that kept me from covering the Freshwater case. Freshwater is pretty out there. He's been a regular protester at Columbus clinics and and wife is the director of a Mount Vernon CPC. If you'd like to read more about the activities of the MM and their friends please go to I have no doubt that this will be a protracted and ugly battle.
Posted by: Marley Greiner | June 23, 2008 9:14 AM
I have been covering the Minutemen and other theocons in Central Ohio for the Columbus Free Pres for about four years. Unfortunately, I've had other responsibilities that kept me from covering the Freshwater case. Freshwater is pretty out there. He's been a regular protester at Columbus clinics and and wife is the director of a Mount Vernon CPC. If you'd like to read more about the activities of the MM and their friends please go to Theoconia I have no doubt that this will be a protracted and ugly battle.
Posted by: Marley Greiner | June 23, 2008 9:15 AM
Oops I apologize for the hiccup! I'm working on a wanky dial-up that's doing strange things. The last post is the correct post.
Posted by: Marley Greiner | June 23, 2008 9:22 AM
c-serpent
Unfortunately, this happened in Ohio, far from the deep south. The religious nut bags have been expanding in Ohio for years, mostly radiating northward from Cincitucky.
There was a time when sarcasm wasn't as hard to recognize as it is today but your response only proves my point, i.e. that this is somehow a product of geography - culture and not a result of power politics. For those too young to remember, Reagan was the first candidate to openly court the evangelical vote through the organizations of Falwell & Robertson and this Freshwater thing, logically follows, as surely as night follows day.
While the right wingers were fulminating about Obama & Rev. Wright McCain was prostrating himself before the lunatic Rev. Hagee, without comment, from the less than curious media. Only when the bloggers and you tube, started posting some of Hagee's more insane rants, did Mc Cain feel compelled to distance himself, as if the rev.'s views had been a state secret before McCain went groveling for his support.
What did David Brooks say on the News Hour? http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june08/brookshields_05-23.html
DAVID BROOKS: Right. Hagee says something idiotic every 45 minutes or so and McCain has had to distance or apologize, but he's never completely broken until these latest remarks about Hitler.
And it's, A, embarrassing, but I can't believe it will have any political effect, because people know McCain.
and this:
Well, this is because McCain doesn't actually -- or the people in the McCain campaign are not that expert in the evangelical community. They think Hagee is important.
If they actually knew a little more, they would know they don't have to worry about a guy like that and they can go to the people who actually matter. But I think that's a sign of the lack of connection that McCain has had. And that has actually been a problem for McCain, the lack of connection to the authentically important social conservatives.
What a load. As if Robertson and Falwell are any more tolerant or less idiotic than Hagee. As if the Republicans could have won any election since 92 without them.
Posted by: cromwell's severed head | June 23, 2008 12:46 PM
silverspoon:
So, it's what? the "Hairdryers of Hell"?
Posted by: democommie | June 24, 2008 8:15 AM
Gary Ruppert? Say it ain't so! Ed, you've just caught one of the trolls from Sadly, No!.
Posted by: slavdude | June 24, 2008 6:52 PM
I have put up 2 blogs on John Freshwater, including pictures and commentary of him when he was protesting abortion in Columbus. I'm writing some more on different topics regarding him and hope to have them up soon. Theoconia>/a>
Posted by: Marley Greiner | June 26, 2008 3:14 PM