Mount Vernon, Ohio is a small town with a big headache. The community of 15,000 in Central Ohio is divided over the actions of John Freshwater, a person found to be using his position as a middle school science teacher to undermine the separation of church and state, to teach creationism and intelligent design in his classrooms, and to even burn crosses on the arms of his students.
Yet, despite Mr. Freshwater’s behavior, quite a few people in Mount Vernon support him. Apparently among his most ardent supporters are the members of a local Christian group that calls itself “Minutemen United“, and who envision themselves as existing “…to wage war against a culture of God-haters”.
The division in the community began back in early April when Mr. Freshwater received a letter from his principal, William D. White, ordering him to remove all religious materials from his classroom.
Mr. Freshwater responded a little over a week later. In a letter to Principal White, he agreed to remove the Ten Commandments from his door, along with some biblical posters and spare Bibles from his classroom, but he refused to remove his personal Bible from where it was displayed on his desk.
“In addition, my superiors have ordered me to remove the Bible from the desk of my classroom. Because the Bible is personal, private property and the source of personal inner-strength in my own life the removal of it from my desk would be nothing short of infringement on my own deeply held, personal religious beliefs granted by God and guaranteed under the ‘free-exercise clause’ of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution,” Mr. Freshwater wrote.
Mr. Freshwater soon thereafter gathered about 100 people together on Mount Vernon’s public square and read a declaration of his God-given and Constitutional right to keep his Bible on his desk. Within a couple days, some former students of his organized a rally for him which was attended by “hundreds of students [from both the high school and the middle school], joined by some parents and community members…”.
Up until this point the issue was being spun by Mr. Freshwater as solely a matter of whether he could keep his personal Bible on display in his classroom. But then the local newspaper, The Mount Vernon News, received a fax from an attorney representing anonymous plaintiffs. The fax read in part:
We are religious people, but we were offended when Mr. Freshwater burned a cross onto the arm of our child. This was done in science class in December 2007, where an electric shock machine was used to burn our child. The burn was severe enough that our child awoke that night with severe pain, and the cross remained there for several weeks. … We have tried to keep this a private matter and hesitate to tell the whole story to the media for fear that we will be retaliated against.
We are Christians who practice our faith where it belongs, at church and in our home and, most importantly, outside the public classroom, where the law requires a separation of church and state.
The plaintiffs — who wished to remain anonymous to prevent their child from being retaliated against — made clear in the fax that this was not about Mr. Freshwater’s Bible, which they did not object to, “but about the violation of laws and defiance of school policy”.
By the time the School Board met to discuss the matter, many more allegations had surfaced. Consequently, the Board met in executive session to decide to have an independent organization investigate the allegations, and Superintendent Steve Short announced, “The allegations against Mr. Freshwater are very serious. This is not about his personal Bible on his desktop. It is about the totality of his conduct.”
The organization that investigated Mr. Freshwater was HR on Call, a human resources company. It took all of May and most of June to pour over the records, interview people, and otherwise research the matter. Yesterday, the Company released it’s report. Among the findings:
•Mr. Freshwater did burn a cross onto the complaining family’s child’s arm using an electrostatic device not designed for that purpose. While there did not appear to be any intent by Mr. Freshwater to cause injury to any student, he was not using the device for its intended purpose. Contrary to Mr. Freshwater’s statement he simply made an “X” not a “cross,” all of the students described the marking as a “cross” and the pictures provided depict a “cross.”
•The Ten Commandments together with other posters of a religious nature were posted in Mr. Freshwater’s classroom. Most were removed after Mr. White’s letter of April 14, 2008, but at least one poster remained which Mr. Freshwater was again instructed to remove on April 16, 2008, but did not do so.
•Several Bibles were kept in Mr. Freshwater’s classroom including his personal Bible on his desk and one he checked out of the library placed on the lab table near the desk. Other Bibles that had been maintained in the room were removed by the time the investigators viewed Mr. Freshwater’s room.
•Mr. Freshwater engaged in teaching of a religious nature, teaching creationism and related theories and calling evolution into question. He had other materials in his classroom that could be used for that purpose.
•Mr. Freshwater engaged in prayer during FCA [Fellowship of Christian Athletes] meetings in violation of the district’s legal obligations for monitoring such organizations.
•Mr. Freshwater participated and possibly led a prayer during an FCA meeting that concerned a guest speaker’s health. There is no conclusion as to whether such prayer was a “healing” prayer.
•There is no evidence Mr. Freshwater made statements about FCA members “being the saved ones” nor was there any corroboration to the allegation Mr. Freshwater gave FCA members Bibles for them to distribute. He did have two boxes of Bibles in the back of his room.
•Mr. Freshwater gave an extra credit assignment for students to view the movie “Expelled” which does involve intelligent design.
So a story that began with a middle school science teacher’s refusal to remove a Bible from display on his desk had now turned into a bizarre tale of cross burnings, proselytizing, undermining the separation of church and state, and teaching creationism and intelligent design in a public school. But the single most astonishing act in the drama was yet to come.
Yesterday’s report reveals Mr. Freshwater has a long history of complaints against him — all of which have been more or less ignored until the most recent ones. John Freshwater has taught at Mount Vernon Middle School for 21 years. For at least the past 11 years, he has been the subject of numerous complaints lodged against him by his fellow teachers, his students, and their parents.
His colleagues over at the high school, for instance, claim his teaching of evolution is so flawed they are forced to re-teach the subject to his students when they get into high school. It has also come out that Mr. Freshwater has been told on at least several occasions to change his behavior, but has refused to do so. Only now, years after the complaints first started coming in, has anything been done about them.
Today, Friday, the School Board “…unanimously passed a resolution of intent to consider the termination of [Mr. Freshwater's] teaching contract. “Board president Ian Watson said the board will proceed with termination at its meeting on July 7, unless Freshwater files a written request for a hearing within 10 days of receiving notice of the board’s intent to fire him.”
Yet even before today’s School Board news, Mr. Freshwater’s friends were aiming to payback the Board. The melodramatic Minutemen United group earlier this week launched a drive to recall the School Board. Although the drive does not seem to have much chance of succeeding, it might indicate just how hot tempers are in Mount Vernon these days.
Minutemen United was founded by David Daubenmire, a man who was himself sued by the ACLU in 1999 for leading the high school football team he coached in prayer. Mr. Daubenmire is a close friend of Mr. Freshwater and has called the accusations against him a “witch hunt”. Mr. Daubenmire has said:
The science experiment [the alleged burning of the student] took place in December, and the parents did not go to the police and didn’t file a criminal complaint. It was not until April, when John Freshwater refused to remove his Bible, that the school board rapidly made the decision to accuse him of things and then go back and find evidence.
With the exception of the science experiment, John Freshwater is teaching the beliefs and values that the majority of people in this community agree with. The only thing the On Call report found is evidence that Mr. Freshwater is a Christian.
So, Mr. Daubenmire is still trying to spin the story as merely about John Freshwater displaying a Bible.
There is much more to this story than I have the space for — so I have provided references and further reading at the end of this post. It occurs to me, however, that we have here one instance of what’s going on in many hundreds — even thousands — of science classrooms across the country. Teachers entrusted to teach science are instead teaching creationism and intelligent design.
A team led by Michael Berkman recently polled 2,000 high school science teachers across the nation. Sixteen percent of them — about one in every six teachers — identified themselves as creationists. Moreover:
…a quarter of the teachers also reported spending at least some time teaching about creationism or intelligent design. Of these, 48 percent — about 12.5 percent of the total survey — said they taught it as a “valid, scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species”.
There are a lot of John Freshwater’s out there. And, intentionally or not, they are doing their best to undermine the nation’s science education.
I pity the kids who because of some fool teacher will grow up without an understanding of evolution. Not only will that close off some fields and opportunities for them, but how can anyone these days deeply understand human nature without understanding how human nature arose and evolved? Kids deprived of an adequate science education are kids who in the 21st Century will be left behind.
Main References and Further Reading:
Freshwater Considered for Contract Termination
Group Starts Preparations for Recalling Board Members
Independent Investigation of Complaint Regarding John Freshwater
Lawsuit Filed Against School, Teacher
Science Teacher Dissed Evolution
Study: 16 Percent of US Science Teachers are Creationists
Special Blog References:
Ed Brayton over at Dispatches from the Culture Wars provides sharp details of the investigation report here.
Scott Pilutik, at Reality Based Community, has a brilliant insight into Mr. Freshwater’s betrayal of Jesus here.
Richard B. Hoppe at Panda’s Thumb has an excellent post on the larger significance of these events here.
Rob McGehee over at Wise Adder reports from down in the trenches of public school science teaching here.
Ceryx at The Bronze Gate explains one of the factors that moves creationists to deny evolution here.
Ed Darrell over at Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub has put up an outstanding post that begins with a thorough discussion of the scientific instrument used to burn the students here.
200 responses so far ↓
a. mcewen // June 20, 2008 at 8:06 pm
kudos to an excellent post. from what i read thus far, some folks were trying to spin the story as one about “a Bible on a desk.”
evangelistbro // June 20, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Since the phrase “separation of church and state” (not in the Constitution) was in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut assuring them of no governmental influence in the church’s affairs (not the other way around) there is no “separation” to undermine.
It is inspiring and refreshing to see a man hold to his convictions, pray even “in violation of the district’s legal obligations for monitoring”, and dare to keep a Bible on his desk!
A “fool teacher”, “kids deprived of an adequate science education?”
Why is someone a fool? Seeing an enormous, intricately complex, ordered universe, and denying even the possibility of an intelligent designer? Is that intellectually honest?
Reading assignment: Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Keppler
Ceryx // June 21, 2008 at 5:43 am
It seems to me that teacher recruitment is in need of some overhaul, a science teacher should be teaching science. And while I support science teachers devoting some time, say one or two lessens to alternative theories, the vast majority of their teaching material should be composed of up-to-date accepted science.
Perhaps there is a shortage of people qualified to teach science in the US, I don’t know, but I find it odd that there are so many so-called science teachers out there that are not teaching good science to the next generation. Something is clearly going awry with the selecting and hiring of teaching staff.
goesdownbitter // June 21, 2008 at 6:56 am
Why hasn’t he been charged for assault and battery for burning a child’s arm?
Don // June 21, 2008 at 9:21 am
This post is typical atheist blather, and no facts. Nowhere is the consent of the child considered. Nowhere is the issue of whether this was a normal experiment that Mr. Freshwater used year after year. One year he draws a frog, the next year he draws a cross. As for teaching creationism, that is absolutely legal in a public school forum, because evolutionary theory is seriously flawed. Just consider the long list of prehistoric humanoid fakes that he been used to push Darwins theories for years.
mary // June 21, 2008 at 10:18 am
Don
It is NOT legal if the school board has already told you No. They told him 2003 he was not allowed to teach it.
A teacher in a classroom is the adult, consent does not matter. He should not have done it all the years he did.
Ed Darrell // June 21, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Separation of church and state: It’s in the Constitution. I don’t play a constitutional lawyer on television, I am one*, but it seems to me anyone can read the Constitution and see. Especially if one understands that the Constitution sets up a limited government, that is as Madison described, one that can do only what is delegated to it. The Constitution is a short document.
First, in the Preamble, it is made clear that the document is a compact between citizens: “We the people . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution . . .” The usual role of God ordaining (in some western nations) is altered, intentionally. It is not God who establishes this government, but you and I, together. From teh first words of the Constitution, there is separation of church and state.
Second, in Article 1, the legislative branch is given no role in religion; neither is any religion given any role in the legislature. In Article 2, the executive branch gets no role in religion, and religion gets no role in the executive branch. In Article 3, the judicial branch gets no role in religion, and religion gets no role in the judicial branch. In Article 4, the people get a guarantee of a republican form of government in the states, but the states get no role in religion, and religion gets no role in state government. This is, by design, a perfect separation of church and state.
Third, in Article VI, the hard and fast rule that no religious test can be used for any office in government, federal, state or local, means that no official will have a formal, governmental role in religion, and no religion can insist on a role in any official’s duties.
Fourth, Amendment 1 closes the door to weasling around it: Congress is prohibited from even considering any legislation that might grant a new bureaucracy or a new power to get around the other bans on state and church marriage, plus the peoples’ rights in religion are enumerated.
Fifth: In 1801 the Baptists (!) in Danbury, Connecticut, grew concerned that Connecticut would act to infringe on their church services, or teachings, or right to exist. So they wrote to President Jefferson. Jefferson responded with an official declaration of government policy on what the First Amendment and Constitution mean in such cases. Jefferson carefully constructed the form of the device as well as the content with his Attorney General, Levi Lincoln, to be sure that it would state what the law was. This “letter” is the proclamation. It’s an official statement of the U.S. government, collected in the president’s official papers and not in his personal papers. Make no mistake: Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists was an official act, an official statement of the law of the United States. Jefferson intended it to assuage the Baptists in Danbury, to inform and warn the Connecticut legislatures, and to be a touchstone to which future Americans could turn for information. It was only fitting and proper for the Supreme Court to use the letter in this capacity as it has done several times.
Sixth: The phrase, “separation of church and state” dates back another 100 years and more, to the founding of Rhode Island. It is the religion/state facet of the idea of government by consent of the governed without interference from religious entities, expressed so well in the Mayflower Compact, in the first paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence, and carried through in the Constitution (see especially the Preamble, above).
No, the phrase “separation of church and state” never appears in the Constitution. The principles are part of the warp and woof, and history, of the document, however. The law is clear, was clear, and denying the Constitution says what it says won’t change it or make it go away.
Consequently, John Freshwater, an agent of the government, had no right, duty, privilege, instruction, nor any other legal foundation for his actions. Speaking as a Christian, I would say he has no Biblical foundation, either. Whether there is any other moral foundation, I doubt. (Paul’s the philosopher here; I’ll let him talk about other moral foundations.)
It’s sad to see a teacher licensed to teach who doesn’t understand the legal duties of the job, who acts insubordinately to place his employer in legal jeopardy, and who shirks the duties he signed an oath to perform. It’s sad to see a teacher so completely unfamiliar with the content of what he is supposed to teach.
Darwin saw the appearance of design in nature, too. He studied nature to see what causes that appearance of design, and discovered evolution. Evolution is one of the best documented, most thoroughly understood of the chief theories of science. Additionally, evolution is one of the outstanding ideas of western civilization, leading to scientific advances in medicine and agriculture that allow us to have a human population so large as this planet has now. Students need to understand the great ideas of western civilization, both scientifically and culturally.
I cannot think of a good religious reason to teach garbage to children and shock them with a device that warns it should never be used in contact with humans. By most international law, that would be deemed torture.
When I got my teaching license, torture was not one of the prescribed methods of teaching.
Reading assignments: The Constitution of the United States of America (try Findlaw.com, NARA.gov, there are lots of sites); Darwin, On the Origin of Species and chapter 5 (development of morality) of Descent of Man (both available online at several sources); The Boy Scout Law (here’s a good source:
http://www.scouting.org/Media/FactSheets/02-503a.aspx ); Ohio’s science standards (hope this fits):
http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?page=3&TopicRelationID=334&ContentID=834&Content=32645
* I’m also a licensed, certified teacher — of history, government, and other social studies, if you’re curious.
Ed Darrell // June 21, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Fakes? Piltdown Man frustrated Darwinian theorists for a while, until scientists determined it was fake. The Piltdown hoax, interestingly, seems to have been perpetrated in jest, with a Catholic priest as part of the hoax conspiracy. In any case, it promoted evolution in no fashion.
There are no other fakes I can think of.
In contrast, there are 20 species pretty well established between modern humans and our last, proto-ape common ancestor with chimps.
No fakes vs. 20 solid examples.
Don? What was your point?
macsimcon // June 21, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Who does this man think he is to promote Christianity, let alone any religion, using taxpayer-funded facilities and time? If he wants to teach Sunday school, seek employment at a church, but his first amendment rights stop where his duty to teach a state-sanctioned curriculum begins.
There are reams of evidence, experiments, and studies to support the theory of evolution. What evidence and experiments support Intelligent Design? A banana’s shape hardly proves the existence of a divine architect, especially since many bananas don’t even have that shape. ID is a story, a fanciful explanation, a desire to understand, but it is definitely NOT a theory which can be tested using the scientific method.
rambodoc // June 21, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Super post, Paul! That was very interesting indeed… Americans find newer controversies all the time, but the moral premises remain old!
Paul // June 22, 2008 at 2:05 am
@ A. McEwen: Welcome to the blog!
And thank you for your kind words!
@ Evangelistbro: Welcome to the blog!
If you will find his comment to this post, I think Ed Darrell has done a thorough and superior job of addressing your concern about the separation of church and state in the Constitution. So, I won’t myself attempt to do it.
As for why I believe Mr. Freshwater is being foolish, Evangelistbro, I think he is foolish to assume he can teach both creationism/intelligent design to his students and at the same time encourage them to develop the virtues of intellectual honesty and personal integrity.
Thank you for some interesting comments!
@ Ceryx: Welcome to the blog!
I completely agree with you that much needs to be done about the quality of science education in this country. In addition to what you’ve mentioned, I would add that future science teachers need to be more thoroughly educated in science. For instance: It might astound you to know that a science teacher in the US is not required to take even a single course in evolutionary biology.
@ GoesDownBitter: RE: “Why hasn’t Mr. Freshwater been charged for burning his students?” That seems to me a very good question. It might be too early to tell whether he is going to be charged or not.
By the way, GDB, that’s a very interesting post you’ve made on your blog about war with Iran.
@ Don: Your comments puzzle me because there is not one thing you have chosen to say that is both true and relevant. Am I mistaken to conclude you are a mere troll?
@ Mary: Welcome to the blog!
I agree with you that we simply cannot morally accept a child’s agreement to being burnt as valid legal consent.
@ Ed: Welcome to the blog!
First, thank you for taking the time to write such a wonderfully factual and informative essay on the separation of church and state in the Constitution! It is very much appreciated by me.
Second, I’m not much of an authority on morality, Ed, and I’m genuinely stumped to recall any moral reasoning I’ve ever come across which could be applied favorably to Mr. Freshwater’s behavior — with the possible exception of one notion: The notion (his) lies are justified when they are for the greater good. But applying that principle in this case seems very problematic to me.
@ Macsimcon: Welcome to the blog!
And well-said!
@ Doc: Thanks, Doc! Your observation strikes me as very true.
Stacy S. // June 22, 2008 at 8:22 am
Great post! This is the first time I’ve seen a picture of the jerk - and I’ve been following this story for a while.
ceejayoz // June 22, 2008 at 10:37 am
Great post, thanks. I was linked here via Pharyngula.
Hope someone files those assault charges on this one.
Noadi // June 22, 2008 at 10:47 am
Don: A middle school aged child cannot consent to bodily harm. If a parent had done that to their child they would be up on child abuse charges.
While all the religious preaching and lack of science teaching is bad enough (and I think plenty of grounds for firing him). That branding incident alone is enough for termination and loss of teaching credentials and hopefully criminal charges. There is no possible justification for doing such a thing to your students, it’s an abuse of authority and assault.
Calladus // June 22, 2008 at 11:10 am
Ed Darrell -
One thing that I’m not sure I understand. Perhaps I have it wrong?
I’ve been told that the Government isn’t necessarily required to stay away from religion, but to stay neutral in regards to religion.
In other words - under the right circumstances teaching the bible is okay, as long as equal time is given to other religions (and to no religion too).
Speaking as an Atheist, I’d have no problem with the teacher posting the 10 commandments on the classroom wall - as long as the teacher also post the basic principles of every other religion on the walls too - including the manifesto of Secular Humanism.
This would seem an agreeable solution - except that the sheer number of religions in the world would result in a classroom completely papered with religious wallpaper.
So, I guess my understanding is that the reason why government stays away from religion is because it is impossible to accommodate everyone equally.
And as for evangelistbro - you list Newton as a study reference. Do you think we should also teach Newton’s alchemy and his search for the Philosopher’s Stone as science too?
Being really smart doesn’t mean you’re always right. That’s what’s so great about the scientific method - it (eventually) weeds out the junk from the truth.
John B. Sandlin // June 22, 2008 at 11:49 am
@Paul: Thanks for posting this report. It’s interesting how far some people are willing to go to try to deny the things science shows us to be true. Evolution was fact first, Darwin sought a way to explain it. Preaching a literal interpretation of Genesis as a counter to evolution is wrong and, in the long run, evil.
@evangelistbro: You suggest reading the following authors: Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Keppler
Perhaps you should read about their history, too. They all contravened conventional teachings of the church at the time and despite a deep belief in their God, Copernicus and Galileo were persecuted by the church:
Regarding Copernicus:
“The Polish astronomer Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543) never liked the Earth-based view of the universe, yet he never publicly announced his views until he was old. This was due to the Church — anyone who opposed Church doctrine was branded a heretic, and that would destroy your reputation, put you in prison, or even sentence you to death.” (http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/stu/pre20th_europe_church.html)
Galileo was brought to trial for his heliocentric theory and was forced to recant that theory or be punished - even thoug he recanted, he spent the remainder of his life essentially under house arrest, by order of the Church. It turns out the Church was wrong about the heliocentric model.
Newton spent a large part of his life in vain pursuits. Some of which the church would have frowned upon had it known (ever hear of Alchemy?)
Keppler’s problems with the Church weren’t related to his science so I left him out.
@Don: How is this post typical of atheistic blather? I bet there are a great many Christians , true Christians, that will side with Paul. Also, a minor may not legally give consent.
@Ed Darrell: Wow - and thanks. I didn’t know that particular letter by Jefferson was considered part of legal precident - that’s interesting and helpful information.
John B. Sandlin
sailor // June 22, 2008 at 12:42 pm
“This post is typical atheist blather, and no facts. Nowhere is the consent of the child considered. Nowhere is the issue of whether this was a normal experiment that Mr. Freshwater used year after year. One year he draws a frog, the next year he draws a cross.”
Don it may no have occured to you, but even if a teacher got a kid to agree to burn a cross on his arm, it would be illegal. I just do not undertand why this man isnot in jail.
schmidtty // June 22, 2008 at 1:01 pm
As a teacher and a Christian, I take issue with Freshwater’s (and his friends’
bellicose posture against all things secular. He does a disservice to his students and his faith community by framing this disagreements as a war between God-lovers and God-haters.
Christians who doubt the scientific validity of evolution by natural selection must stop seeing this as a fight between good and evil. It is a scientific debate, not a religious one–and there are Christians on both sides. There is no demonic conspiracy to brainwash our kids with Darwinism, and as long as we insist that there is one, we isolate ourselves (and our kids) from all important scientific discussions. Freshwater needs to start acting like a Christian and a scientist. Right now he’s acting like a hack.
But his most annoying and destructive attitude is his belligerent insistence that HIS rights are being violated. If he is unwilling to teach what he was hired to teach–if he is unwilling to fulfill his contract–if he is not doing his job–then he deserves to be fired. That’s not persecution; it’s justice, and it should be expected.
This guy is no martyr. His bosses have actually shown quite a lot of (Christian?) patience and forebearance by letting him keep his job after years of complaints about his performance. His insubordination is indefensible, and he should stop justifying it by calling it Christian.
bobhope2112 // June 22, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Kepler’s intersection of religion and astronomy did not cause him to collide with papal authority, but it makes for an interesting study. He was convinced that the solar system was a sort of model of the Holy Trinity rendered in perfect geometric forms. It’s clear to see that his astronomy improved as he dispensed with scripture in favor of direct observation. That’s a lesson “scientific” creationists could stand to learn.
Ed // June 22, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Petition
Ed // June 22, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Hurray! Chalk one up for the good guys.
http://www.gopetition.com/online/18938.html
Ed // June 22, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Great article but I noticed the consistent misspelling of the name “Daubenmire” http://www.ptsalt.com/about
I listened to his most recent two podcasts and they are very scary.
http://www.ptsalt.com/radio
He is an ignorant hate filled blowhard control freak who hates true education.
Ed Darrell // June 22, 2008 at 2:07 pm
The government can’t advocate religion over non-religion. The government is not required to be hostile to religion, but non-hostility to religion can’t be hostile to disbelief or other beliefs.
Short version: In schools, we can teach about religion and its influences on history, we can teach about religion, especially in a comparative religion course. We can’t teach that kids must or should choose one religion, or just a religion.
There is a course that has the approval of Americans United for Separation of Church and State and several religions, which studies the Bible in true academic fashion. That’s fine — you don’t have to give equal time to other faiths.
It’s not okay to say “you ought to be Christian” if you give “equal time” to Buddhists, Hindus, Native Americans, Atheists, Ba’Hais, and so on. That’s still a violation of the child’s right to choose her own faith.
Most good English teachers include sections of the Bible as literature. Some of the stories are rather foundational to our culture — the prodigal son, the good Samaritan, Moses leading the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt, etc. Frequently fundamentalists complain — they don’t want their children to read the story and understand it, they want their kids to be indoctrinated that the story is true, regardless what it says.
That would be illegal. Do you see the distinction?
I talk about codes of laws including the various versions of the Ten Commandments and the Jewish laws in my business law courses in college — a few students are always shocked to learn that there are differing versions of the Ten Commandments, and there is always at least one who insists that the Code of Hammurabi cannot possibly be older than the Ten Commandments. But that’s college.
Outside of a business law course that surveys the history of legal codes, I have not found any valid reason to post the Ten Commandments. It’ s not a foundational document to our nation, nor to any others, for U.S. or world history (and most states’ standards recognize that). As a pragmatic matter, the decisions on posting the decalogue generally involve county or state governments. The Supreme Court has ruled that a posting of the Ten Commandments in a larger display of codes, such as the “Foundations of Freedom” found in airports, county government buildings and a few schools, is okay. It’s out of place there, but it’s not the focus of the display — and most kids are smart enough to figure it doesn’t belong. Frankly, I don’t have room for that stuff in my classroom — many of the documents will be in handouts, and in the readings, and posted at different times.
In history we talk about the Dark Ages, Crusades, the Renaissance, the Reformation and the Enlightenment, all of which necessarily involve some discussion of the roles religions played. Mention of God is not forbidden. Preaching that one way of following God is correct, is what is prohibited.
No. The only prohibitions are on violations of the establishment clause — actions that appear to endorse one path of faith over any other — or actions that violate the free exercise clause, such as a teacher telling a student that she may not read the Bible on her own time.
Teachers are agents of the government. Teachers may not lead students in prayer, but at the same time, a teacher may not stop a student’s praying so long as it is not otherwise disruptive (and then the disruption is the issue, not the prayer).
Atheist // June 22, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Excuse me, you’re all nuts.
The report said the Tesla coil experiment was done frequently and volutarily. That was alos back in december but nobody said anything until now.
I’m an atheist but I’m pissed off at all the people who will lie about this guy to get him fired.
The school board should just negotiate with him limitations to the religiosity and tell him to stop the Tesla coil experiments out of caution.
Every science student I know has tried touching a Tesla coil so it’s not branding or anything of the sort, but should be stopped out of caution.
If this ends up in court, it will be because everyone (on both sides) are behaving like a-holes.
eclectic infidel // June 22, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Howdy. I found your blog via Little Green Footballs, on which there is a link to yourblog regarding Mr. Freshwater. You’ll be pleased to note that the majority of us on LGF oppose Mr. Freshwater’s actions.
Thank you for posting about this issue.
sailor // June 22, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Atheist, if you are that, you are nuts. Touching a coil is one thing, burning a sodding great cross with it is quite another (go look at the picture). It hurt him enough he could not sleep. This is assault, plain and simple. It does not matter even if the student begged him to do it. The teacher is supposed to be in charge.
freelunch // June 22, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Great roundup, Paul, thanks. I understand why PZ linked to you.
Don, your ignorance and dishonesty aren’t even worth bothering with. You condemn yourself.
Atheist, I don’t believe a word you say, starting with your name.
eclectic infidel, when LGF is opposed to something that someone who is nominally conservative does, then it is clear that he has behaved far beyond the bounds of human decency. Thanks for the unexpected report.
Doug // June 22, 2008 at 4:19 pm
An X, not a T. The guy can’t only teach science he can’t teach English either.
fromheretoeternity // June 22, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Don…5 words for ya:
Seperation of Church and State
Defaithed // June 22, 2008 at 5:45 pm
@evangelistbro:
“Why is someone a fool? Seeing an enormous, intricately complex, ordered universe, and denying even the possibility of an intelligent designer? Is that intellectually honest?”
Seeing a beautiful, sparkly, multi-colored rainbow, and denying even the possibility of a mischievous Leprechaun at the end? Is that intellectually honest? We must introduce Leprechaun science into the schools!
Here’s the clue you missed, my friend. It’s fine to ask “Is there a God”, “Is there an Intelligent Designer”, “Is there a Zeus”, “Are there Leprechauns”, etc. But teach those “possibilities” in school? No, and for a simple reason: there is ZERO EVIDENCE for all of those “possibilities”.
If we had schools teaching every belief for which there is ZERO EVIDENCE, the length of required school curricula topics would be infinite. Kind of hard to go through infinite topics in a school year, don’t you think?
iceman // June 22, 2008 at 7:46 pm
This reminds me of the hate crime investigation at my high school when one student called another an unkind word for a Jew. The parents of the half jewish kid were asked by the investigator who asked if they had any indication of trouble before this as the two kids were friends. The parents said, “Yes, that student did burn a cross on our lawn a few months ago but it was a small cross so we did not call the police but we do have the cross in our garage.”
richCares // June 22, 2008 at 8:47 pm
evolution has lead to amazing cures, one example is the use of pig heart valves being used to save lifes of those with failed heart valves (I am one of them). these idiots are totally unaware of the medical advances made through evolutionary biology. if we ignored evolutionary biology then there would be a lot more dead people. these “I don’t believe in evolution” nuts are dangerous and they condemn their children to ignorance. so don’t say “full of vitrol at times as both sides are”, Anyone remember what an iron lung was, there was one on every block when I was a kid. these iron lungs would still be with us if the “I don’t believe in evolution” nuts had their way. But hey, they can pray for cures (and die) can’t they!
iron lung = severe polio for those not aware
Austin // June 22, 2008 at 8:53 pm
For the benefit of any dolts who think it is legal to teach creationism in public school science classes, you might want to read the results of Kitzmiller vs the Dover Area School District. This case cost Dover Pennsylvania millions. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html
Bryan Weddell // June 22, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Although I dislike bible-thumpers on principle, the “burning a cross” reports seem a little bit exaggerated. They make one think of Dolores Umbridge, when it appears to be a “who wants to feel the Tesla coil” thing producing a temporary reddening.
People have been known to do that for fun; look up “violet wand”.
The choice of symbol is decidedly creepy, though; I usually associate that sort of thing with bad horror films.
waldo // June 22, 2008 at 9:01 pm
God shmod…these clowns don’t care about spiritualism or honesty. Their use of religion is political manoeuvering and manipulation. Bush uses God to justify war and torure in exactly the same way Churches have done for centuries. He personifies the hypocrisy of the religious right in America.
Freshwater wouldn’t know God if She bit him on the ass.
earthlingblues // June 22, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Great post, Paul. I’m glad it looks like this guy is getting fired. I followed the links to check out Dave Daubenmire and his Minutemen United; that’s disturbing group.
whiskytangofoxtrot // June 22, 2008 at 9:09 pm
As a school teacher myself, active in my local teachers’ union, I just want to throw in my two cents’ worth on Mr. Freshwater’s flawed concept of a “right” to keep a Bible on his desk. First of all, NO PART OF A CLASSROOM is the property of a teacher. A teacher may have personal property in the classroom, and most do. As a Kindergarten teacher, I have many books, science materials, math manipulatives, etc., bought and paid-for with my own money and which will move with me at such time as I may be reassigned. However, any such personal property is there at the pleasure of the local administration and/or governing board, and must be removed upon request. Failure to do so is insubordination, which is grounds for setting in motion the wheels of due process by which a teacher, even one who is tenured, may be removed. So much for that argument. Proof of this is supported in the many examples of teachers nailed for keeping flasks of liquor in their desks, kiddie porn on personal laptops brought into the classroom, and even poorly-considered e-mails sent via a classroom computer over the district network.
Failure to see “the writing on the wall (Book of Daniel, qv.):” at no point in any of this coverage did I see mention of his filing of a grievance against his principal or the school board, which would be his right under due process. The grievance process is handled through the union locally, not by engaging the services of typically-fickle local nutjobs with an axe to grind. Maybe he’s been made aware that his grievance could never get past the first stage, and (very likely) he’s the kind of weenie that doesn’t have anything nice to say about his union until he’s in trouble, and then wonders why they roll their eyes when they see him coming. Next week I’ll be in DC for the NEA annual meeting, and I’ll try to find out more from people in the delegation from Ohio.
Atheist // June 22, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Sailor - b.s.!
Bryan Weddell is absolutely correct - this was no branding. Go look at the outside firm’s report - the teacher marked himself, and kids volunteeered to do something cool.
All this is about is exaggerated, intolerant hatred for believers.
I have no religious belief myself, but trumping-up false assault charges against believers won’t make the world any better.
His religious belief in the classroom? BFD. Dock him some pay. Don’t crucify him.
Atheist // June 22, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Ed Darrell, you’re being dis-honest. The issue is religion in the schools, and you know quite well that is NOT in the Constitution.
It was put there circa 1962 by a Supreme Court given to expansive interpretation of the Constitution.
I’m not dis-satsified to see religion out of the schools, but I disagree with the idea that this Freshwater is some sort of monster. He’s not.
Excuse me, but there are millions of religious in the USA. Secualrists who won’t compromise are setting up as much civil strife as religious who won’t compromise.
Finally, you know as well as I do it’s pretty ambiguous whether or not he can have a Bible.
Come on now. This guy is being hounded because many people hate religion. That’s plain wrong and bigoted.
I reject religion but don’t hate it. Tolerate the religious. Compromise with them - especially in a matter like this which is so much easier to finesse than, say, abortion.
Autonomous // June 22, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Atheist (I don’t believe that either)-you can read the full pdf of the investigation here:
http://www.dispatch.com/wwwexportcontent/sites/dispatch/local_news/stories/2008/06/19/Freshwater.pdf
The branding is only part of it. He is obviously not doing his job, and it is obvious that the school has been protecting him for years.
Atheist // June 22, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Autonomous, I read that report awhile ago.
You seem to have read it very selectively. The report said the students liked him and he knew his material: “Several students described him as a “great guy” and their “favorite teacher.” Fellow teachers and administrators also spoke positively regarding Mr. Freshwater as a person.” “Another teacher whose duties included being in Mr. Freshwaters’ classroom during the 2006 –
2007 school year for several days found him to be a dynamic teacher who engaged the students,”
“He said that he uses the device about twice a year and has done so for 21 years. At the end of the
experiment the kids are excited and ask if they can touch it. He said that he demonstrates it on his
own arm by making an “X” and then lets them touch it voluntarily. He said that the incident in
question occurred in December 2007. He remembers getting from 3 to 8 volunteers,”
“Mr. Maley said that there were no formal complaints against Mr. Freshwater because parents did
not want him fired, so there is nothing in writing in his file.”
I’m sorry, the guy should be disciplined but not fired. He’s getting screwed by bigotry.
Austin // June 22, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Apparently “Atheist” finds the Establishment Clause an inconsequential triviality, much like Bush considers the 4th Amendment and habeas corpus.
Autonomous // June 22, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Speaking of reading selectively…
(keep in mind this guy’s supposed to be teaching science)
From page 4:
Parents and former students of Mr. Freshwater presented the following copies of materials that
Mr. Freshwater had handed out in class to them. They said his normal practice was to collect the
handouts at the end of class, but in these cases they had not turned them back in. These
documents were reviewed with Dr. Weston and the two representatives of the science department
who stated that none of these documents should have been used as part of the curriculum for an
eighth grade science class:
· Two worksheets that a parent of a former student said were handed out by Mr. Freshwater in
his 2002 science class titled, “The Giraffe” and “The Woodpecker.” Both end with the
statement, “Is there an I.D. involved?” (Copies as Attachment
· Documents that a parent of a former student said were handed out by Mr. Freshwater in his
2003 science class titled, “Dragon History,” “Dinosaur Fossils – Age Old Debate” and
“Dinosaur Extinction.” Note that the copy of “Dragon History” and the copy of “Dinosaur
Extinction” that were available for review in the meeting with Dr. Weston and the two
representatives of the science department had portions of each document deleted. A former
student had a copy of the “Dinosaur Extinction” handout she received from Mr. Freshwater
that included the full document with references to God and the Bible in the parts that had
been deleted. (Copy as Attachment 9)
· A copy of a complaint filed on April 4, 2006 against Mr. Freshwater regarding a handout
titled, “Darwin’s Theory of Evolution – The Premise and Problem.” The complaint chargedMr. Freshwater with passing out a paper from “All About God Ministries” entitled “Darwin’s
Theory of Evolution – The Premise and the Problem” which the parent believed to be
improper. As a result of this complaint Mr. Freshwater received a letter dated June 8, 2006
from Superintendent Jeff Maley stating in part, “The material has not passed the test of
scientific review and acceptance of the established scientific community. I am directing you
to delete the material from your supplemental resources. Also, in the future please refrain
from using materials that the source or author cannot be readily identified.” (Copy as
Attachment 10)
Dr. Weston stated that she has had to deal with internal and external complaints about his failure
to follow the curriculum for much of her 11 years at Mount Vernon. It has come to her attention
many times. She has reported these events to administrators and there have been some attempts
to make changes and other instances where they seem to have been disregarded, particularly by
one former assistant principal. She said that Mr. Freshwater cannot separate creationism/
intelligent design from teaching to the science standards. She stated Mr. Freshwater has a lot of
influence with his students that causes her concern.
Former Superintendent Jeff Maley said he had received informal complaints regarding Mr.
Freshwaters’ teaching creationism/intelligent design rather than evolution. When he had such
circumstances with Mr. Freshwater he would tell him not to teach creationism or intelligent
design. He stated he never had complaints concerning any other teacher like the ones concerning
Mr. Freshwater. He tried to find another position for Mr. Freshwater, but could not do so because
he was only certified in science.
In a January 21, 2003 evaluation by Principal Jeff Kuntz, Mr. Freshwater was directed to
“Continue to adhere to board policy and guidelines 2270 with respect to Religion In The
Curriculum.” As part of the evaluation, he was given copies of the policy and guidelines.
The High School Principal said that Mr. Freshwater has caused issues for her high school teachers
in having to reeducate students from his teachings. The specific issues include a number of areas
– his failure to follow the curriculum regarding teaching creationism/intelligent design rather
than evolution and his teaching of the Periodic Table, as examples. The High School Principal
specifically asked that her daughter not be assigned to Mr. Freshwater for her 8th grade science
due to her concern about his teaching not being consistent with the curriculum.
A ninth grade science teacher provided copies of questionnaires that incoming students complete on the first or second day of school in the fall. The teacher provided copies for the following
school years (Copies attached as Attachments 11, 12 and 13 respectively):
· 2005 – 2006 (Incoming students from Mr. Freshwaters’ 2004 – 2005 class)
· 2006 – 2007 (Incoming students from Mr. Freshwaters’ 2005 – 2006 class)
· 2007 – 2008 (Incoming students from Mr. Freshwaters’ 2006 – 2007 class)
These questionnaires have a consistent pattern of comments from year to year such as:
· In response to question 2: What are some things you disliked or found difficult in your past
science classes?
o “I disliked how much time we spent studying evolution, although I found it
interesting, I wanted to move on.” (2005 – 2006)
o “Studying evolution out of the book because it is all opinion. Not proven facts.”
(2005 – 2006)
o “Evolutions theory before eighth grade because teachers always say look in your
book when the book can’t give you solid evidence.” (2006 – 2007)
· In response to question 3: What is the most important concept you learned in science last
year?
o “The difference between theories and proven laws. Obvious, but I suppose very
important.” (2005 – 2006)
o “Evolution, and why that isn’t probable and how it is.” (2005 – 2006)
o “The dates scientists put on things are not always accurate.” (2005 – 2006)
o “The most important concept was the evolution theories.” (2006 – 2007)
o “Evolution.” (2006 – 2007)
o “Big Bang Theory” (2007 – 200
o “The Big bang theory was the most important concept I learned in science.”
(2007 – 200
· In response to question 4: What are some topics that you enjoyed studying last year (and
why)?
o “Evolution, because we learned about it and how it can or can’t be true and got
both sides of the story.” (2005 – 2006)
o “Evolution because, despite the fact that I don’t believe it, I find some of the
techniques they use to come to their results interesting.” (2005 – 2006)
o “Evolution because Mr. Freshwater showed us both sides of the issue.” (2006 –
2007)
o “Evolution because we always had debates about it.” (2006 – 2007)
o “I liked debating about creation and evolution, because it’s always fun to
debate!” (2007 – 200
During interviews high school science teachers expressed frustration and concern regarding
having to “re-teach” concepts that in their opinion had been improperly taught by Mr. Freshwater
at the eighth grade level. Comments included:
· At the high school level evolution is the underlying principle of all biology. At the ninth
grade level when we bring up evolution there is challenge and argumentation from students
who have had Mr. Freshwater, bordering on hostility.
· “Here” from John Freshwaters’ students means that anytime he was telling them something
out of the textbook that was wrong from his perspective they were to say, “Here.” For
example, Mr. Freshwater taught there are reasons why carbon dating may not be accurate and
so students were to say, “Here.” The high school science teachers pointed out the scientific
data supports carbon dating as being accurate. Mr. Freshwater’s emphasis to the students is,
“If carbon dating is wrong then evolution is wrong.” This becomes a detriment to the
students getting a proper science education and requires the high school teachers to re-teach
the basic science curriculum.
A ninth grade science teacher shared an e-mail she had sent in August 2007 to the high school
principal stating, “The sections of the OGT that our students have the most difficulty with
concern “science as process”… by mis-teaching science (i.e. that there’s some sort of “difference
between facts and hypotheses”) this sets us up to miss this portion of the OGT, thus losing out on
our AYP. I find it extremely unfair to have to start EACH SCHOOL YEAR reteaching students
how science ACTUALLY works.” (Copy as Attachment 14)
Autonomous // June 22, 2008 at 10:27 pm
To Atheist:
I think my last comment was too long-sorry. Read pages 4-5 of the report and then tell me that he’s doing his job as a science teacher. The whole burning thing is incidental, and so is whether or not people like him. When teachers in the 9th grade have to re-teach basic concepts because of him, he’s harming his students by teaching them outright falsehoods. It looks like I’m not the one reading selectively.
Anon // June 22, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Well, if Mr. Freshwater does indeed get fired, he can always seek a job in a nice Waziristan Madrasa. I gather those folks are all too happy to hire nutjobs who yammer about god all day. (He may have to learn to burn some new shapes into arms, but I’m sure they have stencils.)
Austin // June 22, 2008 at 11:06 pm
“Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine our civil rights”
Thomas Jefferson
Atheist // June 22, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Austin, have you no better argument than to put words in another’s mouth?
I said nothing about abandoning the est clause. I pointed out that the establishment clause wasn’t interpreted to put religion out of the schools, until long after the Constitution’s adoption in 1791. In fact, from 1791 to 1962, religion in schools was mostly accepted.
That doesn’t mean it should be accepted now but it does mean it’s a bit extreme to crucify the teacher.
Autonomous, you didn’t read the report carefully. The teacher taught creationism, but it’s not at all clear whether he did so after being instructed not to, or only before. His only clear offences after being told no, were leaving up one creationist poster and one Bible on his desk. Apparently he did remove several other Bibles and posters.
Excuse me, I still think you’re all nuts. There are millions of religious in the USA. COMPROMISE WITH THEM. In this case, that may mean disciplining the teacher or docking his pay, but not firing him. 21-year teachers shouldn’t be fired over this nonsense.
Atheist // June 23, 2008 at 12:02 am
By the way, I don’t think creationism should be handled in the classroom any differently from other controversies (abortion, gay rights, etc).
Present to the kids the pros and cons of both sides and encourage them to argue it out and think for themselves.
I happen to support evolution over creationism, but it’s no threat to me if kids in the classroom get to argue it out.
I tend to the “liberal” view (pro-gay-rights, pro-abortion) and I have confidence that the kids will reach that conclusion too.
Autonomous // June 23, 2008 at 12:39 am
Did you read the pages suggested? He obviously knew what he was doing-note that he took the questionable materials back at the end of the class.
Here’s the thing-there is no controversy. The arguments against evolution are purely religious in nature. Remember the Dover trial? The problem, as was stated in my post above, is that he is teaching them a warped view of what science is.
Autonomous // June 23, 2008 at 12:43 am
One last thing-compromise what? He wasn’t doing his job, he got fired. That’s it. Only the loudmouth whacko minority of Christians are supporting this guy. Why should we compromise? For decades the atheists of this country remained silent and the Religious Right took over the government. I won’t compromise what is true to pander to people who want to believe the world was made 6000 years ago.
Ed Darrell // June 23, 2008 at 1:40 am
See my previous post about what is in the Constitution — separation of church and state is woven throughout. Check my few references to Constitution to see that I’m right.
Our Constitution is a set of delegated powers, and it established a government that is limited to only those powers the people delegate to it. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a delegation of religious authority in any fashion to any government.
Incidentally, this view was so powerful that it was carried over to the state constitutions. Each state constitution creates exactly the same separation of church and state in each state. Madison, the Father of the Constitution, had spent a year in Virginia getting Jefferson’s Statute for Religious Freedom passed into law, to enact the Virginia Bill of Rights section on freedom of religion. Madison knew the issue inside an out. If you’re curious about his views, see especially the Memorial and Remonstrance (try the Avalon collection at Yale’s website if you can’t find it anywhere else); and look at Madison’s comments in the Federalist Papers. Freshwater’s violation of the religious rights of the children has absolutely no foundation in law.
Don’t take my word for it; go here and read the letter sent to the lawyers of every school district in America about the protection of religious rights in the schools:
http://www.ed.gov/Speeches/08-1995/religion.html
That letter was first sent out during the Clinton administration; the Bush folk have endorsed it. It’s very solid law.
The 1962 rulings rely on precedents dating back to the Magna Carta at least. It is four square on all points as Madison, Jefferson, Washington and others intended them to be. And, you’ve dropped one of the dates most religion-down-the-throats-of-kids advocates use — the usual first reference to the Danbury Baptist proclamation was 1947, not 1962. You’re confusing the religion law cases.
You misunderstand the law. The law does not require that religion be left out. The law requires that state agents may not dictate religion to children. Here is my shorthand version, Darrell’s Corollary of the First Amendment: The state — which means administrators and teachers — cannot tell a kid whether to pray, when to pray, where to pray, how to pray, what to pray about, nor to what or to whom to pray.
When Freshwater teaches religious dogma — which is what creationism has been determined to be (after creationists swore under oath that it is), that teacher violates several of those “cannots.”
If you want to get religion out of the schools, tough luck. We in education are bound to protect the rights of children to hold beliefs and practice them. It’s in the Constitution. We cannot shirk that duty, as Freshwater did.
The law does not ban religion in schools. Students’ expressions of religion are specifically and carefully protected. Mr. Freshwater showed no regard for his students’ religious rights under the law.
As an atheist, you’re woefully under-informed and ill-informed about this topic. Check with the American Humanists, or the Unitarians, or the Freedom From Religion Foundation, or maybe better, the American Civil Liberties Union. ACLU defends the religious rights of all people — their defenses of the rights of Christians to preach on streetcorners and pass out tracts to families in houses is legendary. Or check the First Amendment Foundation, or any con law book.
No one has the right to impose religion on children in the public schools. No one. This is a protection for those of us who are religious much more than for non-religious. This Freshwater guy is teaching a form of religion that my Christian sect finds noxious. He’s not defending religion against irreligion — he’s trampling the rights of the children. He has no right to do that.
This isn’t ambiguous at all. He has a right to carry a Bible with him to read on his own time. He has a duty to be certain that he does not impose his beliefs on students, either informally, or formally, such as through the material he teaches.
His teachings do not measure up to Ohio standards on science. So they are suspect from the start in that regard. His teachings also violate Ohio law and federal law that protects the religious rights of the kids.
This is a form of child abuse, even without the torture device.
He has a right to carry a Bible. He has no right to preach from it. His using the Bible as a text would be protected if he had not been using his Bible to violate the rights of the children. He may not do that.
This man abused the religious rights of students that the law charged him with a duty to protect. That is one of the most egregious violations of duty possible. The hounds are on him because he’s a refugee from the law. The hounds are on him justly. As a Christian, I abhor his disregard for the Constitution, his disregard of his oath to the State of Ohio and its constitution, and his disregard for the teachings of Jesus to do well by children especially. What he has done is grievous sin, religiously. The state is not hounding him about that. He’ll have to explain it to a much higher court.
But make no mistake about it, his disregard for the law is not a religious right.
Appeasement with evil is not justice. This is not a case for compromise. The man has abused children and the law for years, according to the record that I think will be difficult to contest.
If I had found a teacher doing this to my children, I would have sued him personally. The courts of Texas would strip any immunity he might have as a government employee, and I’d personally go after his assets for the damage done. And I’d move fast, because if someone like me were in the county prosecutor’s office, he’d be facing criminal assault charges, too, for all those cases where the statute of limitations had not run.
I’m a conservative, fair guy, and I bear the man no animus.
Paul // June 23, 2008 at 1:42 am
Folks, I think there might be some mischief going on in the comments here on my Freshwater post. Late yesterday, a commentator showed up going by the name of “Atheist”. Yet, it turns out this guy smells of deception. He’s been spouting talking points that could come straight from the Discovery Institute. Stuff like, “let’s teach the controversy.” So, while he’s pretending to be an atheist and on “one side”, so to speak, he’s actually laying out the case for the “other side” — the Freshwater side — in this controversy.
I bring all this up because I’m getting vibes from this “Atheist” guy that he’s much more than an amateur at this game. Perhaps I’m just being paranoid here, but I smell in this “Atheist” some kind of professional or near professional public relations person. Some kind of hired hand.
So I’m wondering if that’s at all possible. Have any of you ever had cause to believe that, say, the Discovery Institute has pulled a trick like this before? I know for certain that this sort of dirty trick is routinely played in politics these days, but I am ignorant of whether or not it’s also being played in the creationism/evolution debate. Any ideas?
peter // June 23, 2008 at 2:11 am
“Mr. Freshwater gave an extra credit assignment for students to view the movie “Expelled””.
I don’t know the US educational system, but is this not discriminating against those who don’t go to see this tendentious film?
If those who do go get some advantage compared to those who don’t, that strikes me as a gross abuse of his position to promote a POV.
Peter
bobhope2112 // June 23, 2008 at 2:15 am
Was it the “pro-abortion” comment that tipped you off? With the possible exception of Sarah Silverman, I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone that’s enthusiastic about abortions. There’s not reason to think that an atheist can’t be a twit, but something about “Atheist” does not wring true.
bobhope2112 // June 23, 2008 at 2:16 am
Wow, I really pooched that last sentence. There’s no reason to think that an atheist can’t be a twit, but something about “Atheist” does not ring true.
Devout Christian // June 23, 2008 at 2:21 am
This is precisely the sort of remark no “Atheist” would make.
Paul // June 23, 2008 at 2:23 am
Thanks, Bob! I was wondering if I was the only one who suspected something here. I’d rather not say what has tipped me off because I don’t want this “Atheist” fellow to so easily learn how to improve his or her game, but let’s just say it’s more than one thing.
I’ve seen this sort of crap in politics. I was wondering if it’s also not prevalent in the creationism/evolution debate?
Paul // June 23, 2008 at 2:27 am
Thanks, Devout Christian! It’s good to get some “second opinions” here. I hope I’m not just being paranoid, but these games are being played in politics these days, and the thought occurs to me they might be being played here too.
Calladus // June 23, 2008 at 2:35 am
Ed Darrell - thanks for the info. It gives me much to consider. I appreciate that.
(not really an) Atheist - I’d be willing to admit there is a Creation controversy if the Creationists could come up with a positive bit of evidence for creation. Without said evidence, it becomes glaringly evident that the “controversy” is manufactured and I think it reasonable to keep it out of the classroom.
As for compromising with religion - I’m sure that Scientology would agree with you 100 percent - along with the thousands of other hurtful cults.
I look at the Freshwater case as a type of “statutory rape”. It doesn’t matter that the kid thought it was cool and gave consent to be branded - legally the kid is not allowed to consent - the teacher took advantage of him.
He should be tried, and if found guilty he should be fired, banned from teaching for life, and jailed.
Paul // June 23, 2008 at 2:41 am
I’m afraid I agree with you here, Calladus. The phrase “statutory rape” actually came to mind when I was researching the article. It fits in a rough way what Mr. Freshwater has been doing to his students. Not just the branding. But also the abuse of teaching them pseudo-science as fact.
Paul // June 23, 2008 at 2:51 am
Thank you for making such a trenchant point, Schmidtty! I hadn’t looked at it in that way, but I believe you are spot on.
Paul // June 23, 2008 at 2:57 am
Thank you, Eclectic Infidel! It is gratifying to see people from all over the spectrum opposed to Mr. Freshwater’s behavior. Some of us might have one reason to oppose him, while some of us might have another. But Mr. Freshwater has surely gone beyond the bounds in not one but several ways.
Jeff // June 23, 2008 at 4:40 am
Abortions for everyone. (booo..), Ok, Abortions for no one. (boo..). Abortions for some, little american flags for the rest. (Yeahhh!)
- The Simpsons.
The term Pro-abortion is a classic trickery of the Fundies, supposing you only get 2 choices. Pro-life is one position, the opposing view is “pro-choice”, not pro-death. Saying Pro-abortion just exagerates their claim.
This “Athiest” is most certainly a mole.
That being said… Let us still debate, but without the masks.
Jeff
complex field // June 23, 2008 at 5:11 am
Athiests who will not compromise? This usage is a typical attempt to quiet “the other side”. “You need to compromise” = “shut up”
Marley Greiner // June 23, 2008 at 5:58 am
I’ve written about the Minutemen for the Columbus Free Press and my own blog, Theoconia over the last four years. Due to other responsibilities I haven’t been able to cover the John Freshwater case, but I’ve been following it I’d bet the bank this will get real ugly. I don’t want to write up any specific conjecture here, but it wouldn’t surprise me if outside national organizations come in on this. Coshocton County, the headquarters of much MM activity is a hotbed of weirdness anyway. (I used to hang out there). Every summer Flip Benham from Operation Rescue/Save America comes up for a few days for a retreat. There is also a small KKK contingent, though I want to make clear that the MM have no connection to them as far as I know and it would greatly surprise me if they did.
John Freshwater has been a regular at clinic protests for years in Columbus. The majority of those weekly protesters have been MM members. His wife is the director of the CPC in Mount Vernon. He is not just a passive teacher caught up in his own undoing.
If anyone would like to read more about the Minutemen go to Theoconia at http://theoconia.blogspot.com Some of the pieces are pretty long.
I think the Freshwater case is going to stick around for a long time and be a national story.
Gavin // June 23, 2008 at 6:06 am
Regarding the Michael Berkman Poll: 16% is about 1 in 6 while 1 in 8 is about 13%.
Atheist // June 23, 2008 at 7:47 am
Autonomous, I recommend you never own a business, because you’ll get sued left and right.
The students liked Freshwater and said he knew his stuff scientifically, aside from his creationist quirks.
You don’t fire long-term employees from a civil service position over quirks and not expect to get sued.
He might even win in court. Ordinary firing procedure requires first trying to negotiate. If the report on his creationism teaching covers a period befre he was asked to stop, then that can’t be used against him.
If his only offence now seems to be a Bible on the desk wen the board has told him to sometimes hide it, then that’s insufficient for firing with risking lawsuit.
You, like Ed, have a problem: YOU HATE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE. You’re bigots. I’m atheist but don’t hate the religious.
Ed, you ARE dis-honest, responding to simple points with disquisitions about irrelevant matters. That’s your way f trying to dominate and squash dissent.
My points had nothing to do with grandiose “separation of church and state”. My point were simply and correctly:
* The USA had prayer in the schools until circa 1962 without falling apart.
* The ban from 1962 on was, of course, modern interpretation inferred from the Est Clause, NOT explicitly stated therein.
* Given that relatively recent interpretation - with which I might well agree - it is tendentious to try to paint the teacher as a monster just because he mentions religion. Yes, it’s quirky, but so what?
STOP HATING THE RELIGIOUS. THAT’S INTOLERANCE, AND SOME OF US ATHEISTS WILL HATE YOU FOR YOUR INTOLERANCE.
tips // June 23, 2008 at 8:00 am
Good morning, I am new to this site. I have just learned about this site. I am going to read on and it’s very interesting to know
Paul // June 23, 2008 at 8:02 am
@ Gavin: Thanks for the correction! I had in mind the 12.5% figure but wrote “one in eight” when speaking of the 16% figure. Glad you caught that!
Atheist // June 23, 2008 at 8:03 am
Calladus, you haven’t read me carefully. I have not said one word supporting thre concept of creationism. I simply think on the scale of offensiveness, most of those Christians with a God compulsion are pretty innocuous. And there are enough of them, and have always been in almost every place and time for 2 millennia, that TOLERANCE is in order.
Yeah, yeah, there have been clinic bombers. But Freshwater isn’t one of them.
As for “statutory rape,” by such ridiculous comparisons you are disresepecting real rape victims. The “branding” nonsense is just a transparent excuse to get rid of a guy who’s a bit of a pain in the neck. I doubt it will hold up in court - and you can be sure he will sue the school board over firing, perhaps backed by a lot of religious money.
It’s insane for those here, simply to saitsfy their intellectual egos, to want to put the schjool district in a situation in which it wastes a lot of money on legal battles. Compromise with the guy. Agree he can keep his Bible on his desk if he removes all other religious items, make him kee the creationis to out-of-class discussion groups, and so on.
But trumping up false assault and rape accusations is both foolish and defamatory. I infer that’s why the DA hasn’t done either. He’s out to win his cases, not waste his time. Even the kid’s parents did not file any kind of police complaint.
When did secular humanism become as intolerant a sword as religion used to be?
Autonomous // June 23, 2008 at 8:04 am
I’m a bigot? You do realize that I said most religious people don’t agree with him, right? I do despise those who think that they should proselytize children, but most people do.
You clearly haven’t read the pages I suggested that you read. How about the summary? How about explaining on what grounds you disagree with the investigations findings? I reserved judgement until I read the entire thing. You clearly did not.
Paul // June 23, 2008 at 8:04 am
@ Marley: Thank you for the link to your information about the Minutemen and Mr. Freshwater’s ties to them! Quite interesting.
Atheist // June 23, 2008 at 8:16 am
Jeff,
Stop trying to cover your weak argument by trying to put words in others’ mouths. I support abortion rights whether you want to call it pro-abortion or pro-choice.
Those here who insist anyone disagreeing with them must be a fundie are admitting they’re losing the debate with me.
Once again, my argument is hardly pro-religion. It is for TOLERANCE of limited religion.
Creationism talk doesn’t scare me. Jihadis do. Stop wasting time with the creationists. Use common sense.
My neighbour’s dog piddles on my lawn. I’m not about to make a court case over it - and neither should this school board.
Autonomous // June 23, 2008 at 8:19 am
So Atheist-what exactly do you disagree with in the investigation’s findings? If you can’t answer that, stating that you’re winning is ridiculous.
Fox1 // June 23, 2008 at 8:30 am
Atheist, dude, I hope you never own a business, because, seriously, No One Is Buying What You’re Selling.
Unless this is some kind of concern troll (Wikipedia) master class, then bravo, sir, bravo.
Geez, people think we all hopped on this here series of tubes yesterday or something. It’s just insulting.
Atheist // June 23, 2008 at 8:30 am
Autonomous,
The summary was just that - a partial re-capitulation of the detial. It added nothing to the detail, only re-capitulated it, just bulleted points for those who didn’t want to bother with the details.
You also haven’t answered my points. On the two main charges against him: 1. the report is ambiguous about whether his creationist teaching was before or after he was told to stop. Until that’s clear, the school board would be foolish to invite a court case. 2. On the marking matter, it would be easy to show in court this is a game kids in science classes play frequently., and on the