Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
John Freshwater, come on down! You're the next contestant on How to Make a Fake Martyr. The school board in Mt. Vernon voted unanimously yesterday to terminate John Freshwater in light of the results of their investigation. By law they have to allow him to have a hearing to dispute his firing, which should be loads of fun to watch. You can bet that an army of clueless dolts will be there screaming bloody murder about how this is all about a Bible on his desk.
I also predict that he will file a lawsuit, helped along by one of the bottom of the barrel Christian legal firms (either the Thomas More Law Center or Liberty Counsel would be my guess). And that suit will get laughed at long enough to grant a motion to dismiss from the school. And then his martyrdom will be complete, when he will take his place on the Mt. Rushmore of stupidity along with Judge Roy Moore and Bill Buckingham.
Comments
Grounds for firing: burning crosses into children's arms.
They needn't even mention his beliefs. Hopefully this will be one the Creos can't use.
Posted by: wazza | June 21, 2008 5:55 AM
After hearing that this shit has been going on for years I have a faint hope that a few other students or parents would sign onto a class action suit in a civil case and strip this asshole of everything he owns AND get the shitheads in the school administration who allowed this as well.
Posted by: democommie | June 21, 2008 6:14 AM
WHEN, not if, he is terminated, Freshwater should be
hired by Blackwater, an American company famous for shooting non-Christians in Moslem countries, and owned by the fundamentalist Christ-Nazi Erik Prince ( of Peace? ).
Posted by: calgnostic | June 21, 2008 6:25 AM
Despite the damning report of the independent investigators, Freshwater's defenders are sticking to their spin this is only about a Bible on his desk. My bet is that's the story that will pass into contemporary evangelical mythology.
By the way, Freshwater's friends are now trying to recall the School Board. In Ohio, a petition to recall a school board goes before a judge, rather than is placed on a ballot. I'm guessing the judge will dismiss the petition.
Posted by: Paul Sunstone | June 21, 2008 6:36 AM
Mt. Vernon is one of the pretty but doomed small towns you find throughout rural Ohio. Freshwater has been auditioning for martyrdom for some time.
Posted by: Bill Gardner | June 21, 2008 6:53 AM
I've no doubt Freshwater's defenders would like to make it a "Bible on his desk" issue. But once they get wind that he was branding 12 year-old students my guess is some of them will run for the hills and those that remain are going to find themselves in one hell of an awkward position. And can you imagine the fury if this guy had been burning a Darwin Fish into kids' arms?
Posted by: DarkSyde | June 21, 2008 7:35 AM
I read you headline, "The Next Fake Martyr", to my wife.
She got it perfectly, saying "Martyrs don't torture people; martyrs get tortured."
Posted by: Jim Ramsey | June 21, 2008 7:54 AM
I don't understand why he isn't being charged with assault, presuming there's something behind the news stories about the "branding".
Posted by: Bruce Stephens | June 21, 2008 8:13 AM
In the no-citation world of liberal-press/activist-court-hates-baby-Jesus stories, it doesn't matter what the true story is. As long as some idiot can claim that a beloved school teacher was fired for having a Bible on his desk, that's all that matters.
The name, along with all of the true details, will be soon forgotten.
Posted by: BaldApe | June 21, 2008 8:31 AM
@Bruce Stephens:
The "branding"
http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/06/20/burned/
Posted by: Oskar | June 21, 2008 8:39 AM
This sounds like a case for David Gibbs who delights in taking on losers like Freshwater.
Posted by: SLC | June 21, 2008 9:06 AM
Oh, the WND's already trying to downplay the child burning:
Daubenmire insisted to WND that the "cross branding" was nothing of the sort. He characterized it as a science experiment Freshwater had been doing for 21 years in which he made X marks, not crosses, on the students' skin with a Tesa Coil to demonstrate electrical current.
'They tried to make it out to be a cross, because it made him look like some kind of idiot,' Daubenmire said of the parents.
. . . and branding an X wouldn't have made that pseudoteacher look idiotic?
Daubenmire pointed out experts have affirmed the experiment causes no injury to students.
He said the experiment session at the center of the lawsuit, conducted in December, had already been investigated and dealt with.
Daubenmire argued that the accusations about teaching intelligent design or creationism date back to 2003, when Freshwater was challenging students to 'clinically analyze evolution.'
Hey Daubenmire, you misread the memo . . . it's "critically," not "clinically."
Posted by: Cheryl Shepherd-Adams | June 21, 2008 9:37 AM
Hell, while they're at it they should sue the school district for failing to teach their children. If it is true, as has been reported, that there were complaints about Freshwater for 11 years (as reported in the "Friendly Athiest" link above in the comments), and that his students had to be retaught the basics on a consistent basis, then the school system should have taken action a long time ago. Even with a tenure system there are plenty of ways to keep this guy away from children - my mother, an elementary school teacher, used to joke about all the loser teachers who had been given bullsh*t jobs in the administrative offices because tenure rules prevented their outright firing.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | June 21, 2008 10:47 AM
I can see "Expelled Again" now, featuring John Freshwater and Crystal Dixon as Christian martyrs, then demonstrating Darwin's obvious association with the Chinese earthquakes (Darwin=Godless=communist=God's wrath=earthquakes.)
A little work ripping off a musical score, and this one's in the can.
Posted by: Tim | June 21, 2008 11:14 AM
to investigators, he said it was an X not a cross, though he told the students it was a cross plus the students said it was a cross.
He lied to the investigators! As did those fundies at Dover.
It seems a common trait of these fundies is to lie, why is that, does covering your butt take precedence over the truth or is it just a normal Christian characteristic.
is that Christian like?
Posted by: richCares | June 21, 2008 11:26 AM
richCares - Nope not "Christian like" but "Christian lite".
Faux Christians is there anything worse? -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 21, 2008 11:41 AM
Tim,
From the article you cite it looks to me like Crystal Dixon's rights were violated by the University. What the ACLU said was right on the money: her anti-gay statements are a legitimate reason for the University to look at whether she has acted with bias against gay people in her job, but in the absence of evidence that she has, she is entitled to express her personal opinions. Since she was apparently fired entirely on the basis of her statements, without any investigation into her job performance, I would say that the university has improperly discriminated against her on the basis of her views.
Posted by: Bill Poser | June 21, 2008 11:53 AM
Hey, at least this situation's been heaven-sent for "Coach" Dave Daubenmire of Pass the Salt Ministries (Freshwater's most avid defender): he gets to be on Geraldo Rivera's Fox Noise show at 10 pm to-(Saturday) night!
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | June 21, 2008 11:54 AM
Another reason why my previously positive opinion of tenure (at least outside of post-secondary institutions) is souring somewhat.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | June 21, 2008 12:18 PM
I have to disagree with you, Bill. Dixon did identify herself as an employee of the university and revealed a degree of policy. While expressing her own opinion, she did involve the University.
Posted by: a. mcewen | June 21, 2008 1:24 PM
Bill,
With your argument, an outspoken Aryan Nationalist could be Dean of Students at Howard, and so long as it couldn't be proved that his racism informed his work, Howard's s.o.l. While the ACLU might agree, and Thomas More would certainly, I sure don't.
Ms. Dixon was not just any employee of U. Toledo, she was a VP and director of Human Resources, a job that by its nature makes her an emissary for the University. And she's openly publishing gay bashing articles in the local paper. I can't see a reason in the world why the Univerisity would keep someone in this position who is publicly repudiating its very deepest core values.
By the way, before she was terminated she was offered a different job, which at the advice of her (Thomas More) attorney, she declined. But Dixon will be in the news again, and this is diverting attention from the creep being honored today, John Freshwater.
Posted by: Tim | June 21, 2008 2:29 PM
Even if Freshwater burned an "X" on their arms, he still should be fired. This is not classroom discipline, it's abuse! And no school system can or should tolerate this. Even if the Thomas More Legal Foundation(or the Christian Rights Center, or whatever it's called), should represent him --- and he does deserve legal representation --- he should still lose and be fired, because he committed an illegal act.
Anne G
Posted by: Anne Gilbert | June 21, 2008 5:56 PM
@ DarkSyde: Very good point! If it had been a Darwin fish, someone would have been lynched by now.
By the way, the Plaintiffs who are suing the school and Freshwater have made clear in a fax to the local paper sent by their lawyer that one of their beefs is his breaking the law regarding separation of church and state. So, at least someone in this mess has their head screwed on right.
Posted by: Paul Sunstone | June 21, 2008 10:45 PM
Freshwater is a neurological child molester; he may have emotionally damaged some students to the same degree as a child molester. He deserves to have the cover of Darwin's, "Origin Of The Species," tattooed on his forehead.
It's time to tax organized religion and their affiliates. Religous fanatics need to be screened-out during the hiring process.
Posted by: A God | June 22, 2008 2:21 PM
I was in 8th grade science 21 years ago and I had a great science teacher who let us play with a tesla coil. We shocked the crap out of each other and guess what, we learned. Yes it hurt a little, yes it left a mark if we did it long enough, but we learned about electricity. Remember Ben Franklin with a kite and key? Heck, my high school science teacher taught us how to make fireworks and about how the right mixture of oxygen and natural gas in a soap bubble sounded like a gun shot in the class when ignited. Some of that experimentation is science.
Now, I will disclose that I know John - or at least knew him. He was one of my father's friends when I lived in Ashton, Idaho. I was in elementary school when I knew him, but he was an honorable man then and I believe he still is. How can we censure him because he stands up for what he believes. Everyone should stand up for what they believe, if we don't, what kind of spineless people are we?
The tesla coil is not the problem, it is just what the other side is blowing out of porportion. One, as I stated before, I got to play around with one many times in 8th grade. Our science teacher let us shock each other, at least John was controlling the situation and not letting anyone get seriously hurt. Now before I get bashed for saying no one was serriously hurt, the report itself said mild pain and spots that did not blister and went away. Two, the school knows it is screwed on the bible on the desk thing so they are trying to push all the attention to the tesla coil.
As far as the seperation of church and state, what a crock. Our founding fathers never ment to keep Christian veiws out of state affairs. In fact our whole nation is founded on Christian ideals (if you don't believe me, look at our money, read the Constitution, read anything ever written by some of the founding fathers such as Ben Franklin). The idea of seperation of church and state was to stop the state with interfering with religion.
Posted by: Dennis McArthur | June 23, 2008 6:47 PM
"read the Constitution, read anything ever written by some of the founding fathers such as Ben Franklin)."
We have read the Constitution, which, by the way is Godless, and the record of the Constitution Convention which didn't cite the Bible or Christianity at all for its principles, and the writings of Ben Franklin.
And yes, we've see the quotation of Franklin's on his call to prayer at the Constitutional Convention which proves he wasn't a "Deist" because he said he believed in a God who governs in the affairs of man. We also know that they didn't pray or act on Franklin's call to prayer, that they noted were they to do so it would have smacked of desperation.
And Franklin by the way, may have been a "theist" but was not a "Christian" either because he, like the other key Founders, rejected all of its tenets of orthodoxy including the infallibility of the Bible.
You, on the other hand, should spend more time studying the primary sources and the research that we have uncovered on this website and on the website links to my name below.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | June 23, 2008 9:15 PM
Really? What did you learn from this about electricity? Was Ohm's Law not clear until you saw welting? Your science teacher doesn't sound so great to me (assuming your story is even true).
Did he set firecrackers off in your hands to emphasize his points?
What was the hypothis he was testing when repeatedly zapping and burning these kids? What did they learn about electricity? Was his next lesson to hit them with a baseball bat to demonstrate Newton's Laws?
He wasn't hired to teach his beliefs. He was hired to teach science. He certainly wasn't hired to brand children.
Just a little pain and swelling. Who would complain about that but a bunch of busybodies?!
Of course if he had had a copy of the Koran on his desk and had been burning crescents not crosses in kids skin, then I'm sure people like you wouldn't be talking about how honourable he is and how he's standing up for what he believes. Then you'd be screaming for his head on a stick.
Yep, just as Ed predicted.
Even I, not an American, know this is patently false. I think it's you who needs to read the Constitution and the writings of the founders.
Posted by: Dave S. | June 23, 2008 9:42 PM
Dennis MacArthur:
It doesn't appear that you've spent a lot of time reading up on the constitution and its authors. And, dude, learn to spell.
Posted by: democommie | June 23, 2008 11:39 PM
Dennis - I've siad this earlier, but since you've missed it:
If you beat the crap out of your wife, she may recover phtically, but it's still assault, you might stab your next-door neighbour, they might recover, it's still assault, you might even back some women into a corner and threaten to rape her, there's no wound or bruise at all, but it's still assault.
It is irrelavant whether any permannent damage (or any damage at all) occurs apart from determining the severity of the charge, IT IS STILL ASSAULT. Got it? -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 24, 2008 12:57 AM
Wow,
Looks like the boat got rocked a little. First, just let me say that everything I related is true. I know some implied that my remarks might not be true, but they all are. As I already disclosed I knew John, I am supprised some would think me untruthful because of that.
Second, as far as the comment about the Koran, you are also wrong about me. I believe in a different religion than John. I support him because of the man I knew him to be. No, I would not have a problem if a teacher wanted to put the Koran on his or her desk. Now, I know that many of you won't believe that, but it is also true. If you asked John about my religion, I bet he would say that I wasn't even Christian. However, I still support him as a good man.
As for my spelling, sorry, it is not perfect, but let me just say, YOU SPELLED MY NAME WRONG when you addressed me. Also, you should never start a sentence with "and" or use "dude" in formal writting. So tell me, which is worse?
As for reading the Constitution, I have. I can't see how anyone could read it and not believe those men had a reverance for God. "In God We Trust."
As for the burns, I understand what assult is and even the difference between assult and battery. Some could argue that John went past assult and committed battery. However, there is a difference in the severity of the actions you describe, DingoJack, and what John Freshwater did. While what he did should warrant discipline, I do not believe it warrants firing. Even the investigator of the case said that none of the kids were forced to participate. As I stated before, I played with a tesla coil when I was in 8th grade because I wanted to. Now as an adult, no I would not choose to, but as a male student in Middle School, you bet I did just to be macho.
Posted by: Dennis McArthur | June 24, 2008 12:00 PM
Who said your recollections were untrue because you knew him? They could be untrue simply because you miss-remember.
But it's not about 'putting a Bible', or a Koran on his desk. And no, I don't believe for a second that the people in his district supporting him now would do so if he wasn't trying to 'stand up' for their beliefs as well as his.
Good men don't assault people. And good teacher's teach, they don't spread the Good Word in class.
That phrase is not in the Constitution. What part of the Constitution gives you that impression? "In God We Trust" didn't come about on currency until after the Civil War. It wasn't adopted as the motto until almost 100 years after that.
Posted by: Dave S. | June 24, 2008 12:40 PM
Sorry, I did not mean to imply that "In God We Trust" was in the Constitution. I place that quote as what I think the attitude of the Constitution is. Here is a Quote and source site as to what I was trying to convey.
The mistake modern secularists make is obvious. They take a twentieth-century concept like "secularism" and read it back into the Constitution. They take a concept that didn't even exist in the eighteenth century and attribute it to the framers of the Constitution. Unfortunately, this is a very common error. The fact that the word "God" does not appear in the Constitution means little. It is actually a rather shallow observation. The reality is "God" is in every word of the Constitution, including the punctuation. Below the surface of the words in the Constitution, there is a mountain of ideas that made its formation possible. The belief that God exists and that all nations of the world are subject to Him sits on the summit of that mountain. americanvision.org/articlearchive/05-02-05.asp
In the Declaration, the founding fathers did refer to the God of nature and man's creator.
I don't miss-remember things either.
As for the bible on his desk, yes it is what some of this is about. If people are supporting him only because his views fall in line with their's, shame on them. I hope some are supporting him because he is standing up for what he believes in.
As for assult, assult is "threat" not action. Battery is action. If none of the kids felt a threat, how is it assult? If they volunteered, how is it assult? Maybe the first kid every year did not know what it was, but every kid after that did, and they still volunteered. So I reject the fact that he assulted anyone. Once again, I did not say I think we should all walk around zapping each other with tesla coils, I just don't think John is the monster you are trying to paint him. I think if you ask even those that have filed against him, they would admit that he was usually a good teacher.
I also don't have a problem with him presenting other opinions in his class as he teaches. I believe we all do that every day. I believe we weaken our nation when we won't each stand up for what we believe, even if some of the ideas are different. Having a different opinion does not make you wrong. You can come to accept him as a "good man" that doesn't believe what you do. I don't believe in the same religion as John, but I would let my kids get taught by him.
Posted by: Dennis McArthur | June 24, 2008 1:05 PM
One thing for sure--you're neither a lawyer or policeman.
You clearly don't understand the law, the Constitution OR history. Keep talking--you deserve the verbal thrarshings you're about to get.
Posted by: gwangung | June 24, 2008 1:10 PM
Why would you want to give me a verbal thrashing? I respect the opinions that have been voiced that are different than my own. Why don't others? I can see and respect the other opinions expressed here. I don't have to agree with them, but I should be civil.
As for assult, I believe it is the threat that is important. If there is a policeman on here that would explain it differently, I would love to hear and learn. As it has been explained to me by a friend who is a policeman, assult is basically feeling threatened. It can be physical, but it does not have to be.
I also may not "clearly" understand the Constitution or history as you do, but what makes you sure you are right? Were you there, I wasn't so my expression on it is belief and opinion, but I do have the right to express them just as you do. Some things are fact. We became the United States is fact. Wars fought are fact. What you or I believe were the underlying currents in the Constitution are opinion, but I will listen to yours if you will share it.
I am not posting because I want to "bash" other's views, I am posting because I don't think John or this issue deserves the hammering it is taking. Neither do I suppose that my views will change everyone else's opinion, but I do believe I can discuss them with others.
Posted by: Dennis McArthur | June 24, 2008 2:19 PM
I would like to comment a little more on the assult issue. Everytime a running back is given a ball, he is going to get hit, hacked, and pulled to the ground even though he dosen't want to be. Sometimes the result is injury or even death, but we don't slap the other kid who hit him or the coach with an assult charge. Why? - Context - It is a game. Context does matter. I think that is what is missing here in the "branding" story. Those kids volunteered. I also know they are young, but 12-13 year olds play football as well, once again I believe context is important.
Now if you have questions about what I am saying, ask me. If you have a different opinion share it; I will listen. We can all be civil about it.
Posted by: Dennis McArthur | June 24, 2008 2:35 PM
Dennis: you say that all the kids "volunteered" to be burned by Freshwater. Are there any instances of any student -- even one -- refusing to be burned? If so, what were the circumstances, and how was that student treated afterword? And if not, that would imply a form of social pressure even stronger that all that peer pressure that leads some -- but by no means all -- teens to do drugs and/or have sex.
They take a twentieth-century concept like "secularism" and read it back into the Constitution.
Wrong. If you actually studied the history, and the words of the Founders, you would know that what we now call "secularism" came from the Constitution, and from the political ideals on which it was based. What we now have, was exactly what the Founders very clearly said they intended.
The fact that the word "God" does not appear in the Constitution means little.
Horsemuffins: it proves the Founders' intent not to enshrine or establish any religious belief or doctrine in their government or laws.
The reality is "God" is in every word of the Constitution, including the punctuation.
What, each period is a microdot containing Bible verses? (And how many angels can dance on each one?)
I think if you ask even those that have filed against him, they would admit that he was usually a good teacher.
"Those that have filed against him" have stated that he degraded his science material with religious doctrine, to the point where his students had to be re-taught the material properly; so your statement here sounds really dishonest.
Having a different opinion does not make you wrong.
No, but disguising your opinions as "science" makes you a liar. And pretending it's all a matter of "different opinions" also makes you a liar.
I also may not "clearly" understand the Constitution or history as you do, but what makes you sure you are right?
Because we read the writings of those who were there -- which you clearly have not done.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 24, 2008 2:53 PM
Not all opinions are equal. For example, informed opinions are worth more than uninformed ones. And you are clearly not informed. Note: this is something that can clearly be rectified. Not doing so is saying something about yourself.
THWACK!
Posted by: gwangung | June 24, 2008 3:12 PM
gwangung,
Your comment can be redirected right to you. I comment on the man John Freshwater is because I know him. You only listen to one side of the issue and consider yourself informed. Go talk to John and watch him for a few days.
What do you recommend I read to become informed? I'll read it.
Raging Bee, I don't think John give his opinion as science, and I am not pretending everything is a difference of opinions. However, two men can read the same thing and have a different opinion about what it says and neither be right or wrong.
Posted by: Dennis McArthur | June 24, 2008 3:27 PM
You don't "think" John gave his opinion as science? Did you try to verify this before trying to defend the man? We don't care what you "think," we care what actually happened, as reported by reliable sources. That's not a matter of opinion. Nor is it a matter of opinion that your friend was explicitly alleged to have done precisely that, misrepresenting material fact in direct violation of his employer's rules.
However, two men can read the same thing and have a different opinion about what it says and neither be right or wrong.
Sorry, that's not always true. There's such a thing as objective reality -- and you're starting to sound extremely childlike whan you try to frame all these disputes as mere matters of differing opinion. My friends and I used to do this -- when we were in grade-school. We learned very soon that it was not something grownups do.
PS: I'm still waiting for your answer on how many kids refused to be "voluntarily" branded. Your silence is getting louder with each of your posts.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 24, 2008 3:39 PM
Oh, and...
You only listen to one side of the issue and consider yourself informed.
WE're listening to your side right now, and so far you're doing a crappy job of convincing us we were wrong. So don't blame us if we're not convinced to change sides here -- just keep trying. And here's a helpful hint: if you're trying to convince us that your "side" is objectively right, then subjectivism is NOT the way to go.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 24, 2008 3:54 PM
Total nonsense. For one thing, we don't have to use apparently The Force to find out what went on in formulating the Constitution. We have the writings of the founders themselves, in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere. Fact is, if they had wanted to God-base America, they would have said so in the legal foundation of the nation. It wouldn't have started "We the people ...", it would have started something like "By the glory of God ...". Their basis was clear, in enlightenment thinking along the likes of Locke and Montesque.
That's a generic phrase meaning whatever 'Creator' means to you. Which God to your knowledge gives people unalienable rights like liberty?
This isn't about his beliefs, it's about his proselytizing those beliefs in the classroom. As a government agent, that was NOT his right.
HE'S the adult, not the children. It's his responsibility to use the equipment in a safe manner and see to it that they do too, regardless of whether they "volunteered".
No, I don't accept him as a "good man", and it's NOT because I don't share his beliefs, it's because of those SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FROM OUR INVESTIGTION in the report. Lots of great teachers don't share my beliefs I'm quite certain. I would be just as opposed to his actions if he shared my beliefs 100%. That you might be willing to let your kids be taught by him proves only that you're willing to sacrifice their education for a non-existant principle.
Those are adults giving informed consent with the full expectation going in that they will be hit. These are children who shouldn't expect burns as a routine part of science class, which you have yet to explain what scientific principle exactly this was supposed to teach.
Posted by: Dave S. | June 24, 2008 4:24 PM
Dennis McArthur wrote:
"In god we trust" appears nowhere in the constitution, nor does it have anything to do with the founding fathers. It was added to the money long after they were all dead.
You quoted a religious right website saying:
This is quite a silly statement. It isn't just that the word "god" does not appear in the constitution. The founders made quite clear what the sources were for the ideas in the constitution. They wrote the Federalist Papers to explain and defend them, for example, and nowhere is the Bible mentioned as a source for the ideas contained in it. They did mention several Enlightenment philosophers like John Locke and Montesquieu. We have the records of several of the men who attended the constitutional convention and none of them mentions any discussion about Biblical principles or religion in the writing of that document (Franklin did at one point suggest that they have a group prayer to bring the bickering sides together, but his suggestion was ignored by the others). And we have the constitution itself. If you really think that the constitution is based on "Christian ideals" then it should be easy to point to the ideas found in the constitution and to their analog in the Bible or in Christian theology. But you can't. They don't exist.
Now, that doesn't mean that the founding fathers were atheists (or even "secularists", though that term does apply fairly well to a few of them if defined narrowly enough). They weren't. But the constitution is a product of Enlightenment philosophy, not Christianity. The conservative clergy of the day railed against the constitution, especially Article 6, which banned religious tests for office.
It is unconstitutional and illegal for a teacher in a public school to introduce their religion into the curriculum. And I cry bullshit on your claim to be in favor of teachers doing so. If it was a Muslim teacher using handouts from a Muslim group and telling his students that if a scientific theory conflicts with the Quran it must be false, I'd be willing to bet you wouldn't be defending his "different opinion" or commending him for "standing up for his beliefs." What he did was illegal. He knew it was illegal. He did it anyway. And when he was told to stop, he found deceitful ways to introduce his views (like having the kids say "here" when anything in the text conflicted with the Bible).
So let's put it in the proper context: this was not a game, it was a science class. And a science teacher deliberately used a piece of scientific equipment to burn students with 50,000 volts of electricity - equipment that explicitly says in the instructions to never bring in contact with human skin. The context makes it worse, not better.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 24, 2008 5:03 PM
Then you know a man who branded children in his care. Those are the unvarnished facts, undisputed by no one.
You seem to be under the fallacy of "He can't be a monster! I know him!" Neighbors and acquaintenances of serial killers have been known to utter this fallacy; it is not much of a stretch for this to apply in less extreme cases (and perhaps to a greater extent).
THWACK!
Posted by: gwangung | June 24, 2008 5:06 PM
Dennis,
I find your entire framework to be rather dubious:
1)The settlers coming to North America were, very often, escaping religious persecution. Why would they use religious symbols and such after that??? Of cfourse, they would aim to make the Constitution "religiously neutral" as possible.
2)"The reality is "God" is in every word of the Constitution, including the punctuation. Below the surface of the words in the Constitution, there is a mountain of ideas that made its formation possible. The belief that God exists and that all nations of the world are subject to Him sits on the summit of that mountain."
Yeah....RIIIIIIIIIIIGHHTTTTTT! This obviously explains why they used the Great Code of the Iroquois as the model for the Constitution..... a people who had a hatred for the White Man's religion.....
and lastly...
Strange.... the laws of the United States and many other nations recognize that a child is NOT just another adult in a smallish body, but someone that is vulnerable to authority figures such as teachers, religious ministers, Scout leaders and others. They are not yet able to form full and informed consent! As well, you have the issue of peer pressure that has shown us that children will do many thingsd they inately know are wrong, just to save face in front of their peers. In no way can those children be perseved as willingly volunteering to be burnt by the Tesla coil...and we are not talking just one zap... but more than a couple dozen.....
Sorry, Dennis, good try but Freshwater is not a "good" teacher... he is a child abuser and sadist.
Posted by: Rahn | June 25, 2008 2:01 PM
The words "In God We Trust" were added to our money in 1957, just as the words "under God" were added to the pledge of allegiance in 1954, to fight those darned "Godless Communists". I'm pretty sure the founding fathers were mostly dead by then. Oh well, Dennis, as they say ignorance is bliss, and you seem like a pretty happy camper.
Posted by: SonOfLiberty2008 | July 8, 2008 11:38 PM
Mr. Freshwater is a wonderful man, he stands up for what he believes in and he won't back down for you , or for anyone. I was in Mr. Freshwaters class about 8 years ago and I will have you know that he never pushed his beliefs on anybody, he simply gave students the option of choosing one theory, that has not been scientifically proven, or another theory that has not been scientifically proven. Think about it... All these poeple saying, "Oh, we definately came from monkeys" well, 600 years ago the earth was 100% flat, and there was only one land mass on the entire planet. Also beofre that, there was only one planet. Yet, over time, it has been proven that we were wrong, time and time again. So what's wrong with Mr. FresH2O saying, "one theory is evolution, another is Creation"? In a hundred years there will be a new theory, and teaching evolution will be illegal.
He did not burn crosses into any students arms, some snot nosed kid just wants to get back at him for something, Mr. Freshwater probably failed him for never doing his homework. And so what if he gave them an extra credit assignment that had "no intelectual value" it was EXTRA credit, which means the students had a CHOICE, they did not have to watch the movie. As for the biggest topic of all, his Bible, would you rather have your children seeing a book on a desk, whose contents teach you how to be a good person (do not steal, do not murder, do not cheat on your spouse, etc.) or one with pictures of half naked girls, or a book like Harry Potter which was REQUIRED reading when I was in school(which means you have to read it, not just look at its cover, like Mr. FresH2O's Bible, where all students ever had to see was the cover), that teaches you that spells and hurting people and witchcraft are good, and socially acceptable? I myself would want my child to see a harmless Bible on a mans desk then to see all the other garbage I mentioned. This is not about one man, one Bible, this is about the world dismissing the idea of God, about the wolrd's corruption. Where will this end? This is far from over. Will the words "God" "Jesus" "Church" and "Christain" become swear words to society? Will it be illegal to talk about God outside of a Church? Will churches be illegal? This is far far from over, it's not the end of the Freshwater case, it's the beginning of something much, much larger. I will be supporting Mr. FresH2O the whole way, 100% all the way to the supreme court.
Posted by: LAURA HITCHCOCK | July 26, 2008 10:38 PM
Dennis-
You have very valid points, and i agree with you 100%.
Posted by: LAURA HITCHCOCK | July 26, 2008 10:46 PM
Laura: your story is flatly contradicted by recent evidence discussed in the report. Even if every word of your story is true, your story is still eight years old; the evidence that Freshwater did what you deny he did is a lot more recent.
He did not burn crosses into any students arms, some snot nosed kid just wants to get back at him for something, Mr. Freshwater probably failed him for never doing his homework.
Is that something you have evidence for, or something you choose to believe merely because it supports your prejudice?
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 26, 2008 11:41 PM
Laura Hitchcock wrote:
The fact that the things he believes in are false and unconstitutional to teach seems to escape you.
That's funny, because he claims that he never taught anything about creationism at all. Thank you for telling us that that he is lying.
It's obvious that you learned science from an ignorant man like John Freshwater. Both of these claims are not only false but absurdly false. Educated people have known the earth was a sphere since the time of the ancient Greeks. And if they really thought that there was only one landmass on the earth, why did they take boats back and forth between continents?
Because creation is not a theory at all, it is a religious belief. In science, explanations must be testable, falsifiable and must explain the data; creationism has none of those attributes. Your false dichotomy is as ridiculous as saying that we should teach the theory of gravity and the "theory" of angels escorting apples to the ground one at a time, or that we should teach celestial mechanics and the "theory" that invisible leprechauns push the planets around in their orbits. This isn't apples and oranges, it's apples and abstract paintings.
I love this claim that he didn't burn crosses into students' arms. He admits to having used the tesla coil to burn things into students' skin as an "experiment" (in what? How to misuse technical equipment?). And we've got pictures of one such burning and it is clearly a cross. What exactly didn't he do here?
A year from now, John Freshwater is going to be just another fake martyr, going from outraged fundamentalist church to outraged fundamentalist church telling his highly distorted tale of persecution. And that is all he will ever be other than an example to others of what teachers should never, ever do.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 27, 2008 12:23 AM