Ohio, US: Science Teacher burns crosses onto arms

Kanastrous · Post by **Kanastrous** » 2008-06-21 02:23pm

To make this a freedom-of-religion argument, don't they need to demonstrate that branding minors on the arms is part of the practitioner's religious observance?

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2008-06-21 02:26pm

Kanastrous wrote:To make this a freedom-of-religion argument, don't they need to demonstrate that branding minors on the arms is part of the practitioner's religious observance?

If that were the case I'd found the First Church of Darwin, which would be dedicated to cleansing the genepool. Mostly through the use of chlorine.

Zixinus · Post by **Zixinus** » 2008-06-21 02:29pm

Hmmm. Don't know about that, Can you provide references to passages in that particular book?

Not necessary, you could twist some obscure passage to make it mean that anyway. But it doesn't have to be in the Bible: when your a zealot, superstitious thinking makes sense. The guy probably thought that he was warding off evil from the kids or something. Don't look for too deep logic: this is a child at mind.

McClure was one of about 60 people at the meeting in the Mount Vernon Middle School library. Most were Freshwater supporters.

This is why partly why the USA is facing recession: this guy is a criminal but he has supporters. This isn't a lone cook allowed to run insane: this guy's actions were not only tolerated but encouraged.

After learning of the board's decision, Freshwater called the consultants' report half-truths and said he never veered from the state standards for teaching science.

Just curious: isn't there a Bible passage about not lying?

Complaints about Freshwater's teachings were made by teachers and people in the community for at least 11 years, a school administrator told consultants. Freshwater has taught eighth-grade science in the district for 21 years.

That is another reason

Hamilton called the complaints “fabrications created by a couple of students. … Not a single child has ever been harmed,” he said.

The worst part is, that in this guy's twisted mind, he isn't lying.

As long as said Catholic is not teaching early Christian history...they seem good at ignoring history in that case.....

Not that they deserve much respect, but that is not that terrible big issue. Sure, they cover some aspects of history a bit but so do most schools, especially about their own national history. That is by no means an excuse, but the students still know more history then none.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2008-06-21 02:53pm

So, Mr. Frwshwater... Burning a cross into the arms of children with an electrostatic device (those things HURT by the way) is practicing your religious beliefs, and you have a right to do that? No. Fuck you. That is assault. As to the bible, you are in a position of public trust, which means you have to hang the missionary impulse of your religion at the door.

Ohma · Post by **Ohma** » 2008-06-21 03:14pm

“We're all Christian people. … But rules are rules. You just can't do that in a public school,” said Karen McClure, a Mount Vernon resident who was at yesterday's meeting to support her daughter, school board member Jolene Goetzman.

Does her quote there strike anyone else as really creepy? Or am I reading too much into it?

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2008-06-21 06:50pm

On rhoenix's good advice, I merged the duplicate thread rather than just locking it. Thanks.

rhoenix · Post by **rhoenix** » 2008-06-21 08:53pm

Master of Ossus wrote:On rhoenix's good advice, I merged the duplicate thread rather than just locking it. Thanks.

You have my gratitude - there were some good points made.

rhoenix · Post by **rhoenix** » 2008-06-21 10:04pm

Duct-tape edit: With this sort of evidence, and this issue now a public and nation-wide spectacle, what are possible reactions to this? There's quite probable dismissal by fundies, but what about more moderate Christians in America?

Darth Lucifer · Post by **Darth Lucifer** » 2008-06-22 01:10am

rhoenix wrote:Duct-tape edit: With this sort of evidence, and this issue now a public and nation-wide spectacle, what are possible reactions to this? There's quite probable dismissal by fundies, but what about more moderate Christians in America?

Moderates will also disavow Mr. Dishwater. There have been stories far worse than this one (Love Demonstrated Ministries & the truck dragging incident there comes to mind) but the reasoning is always the same: "But they're not TEH REEL CHR1$T1@NZZ!"

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2008-06-22 02:30am

Funny, I'm pretty sure Matthew 18:16 says something about if someone harms a child you should chain a millstone to their neck and hurl them into the sea.

Darth Ruinus · Post by **Darth Ruinus** » 2008-06-22 02:54am

Ohma wrote:Does her quote there strike anyone else as really creepy? Or am I reading too much into it?

Probably because she says "you just can't do that in a public school" which, I guess if you read into it, means that she may think it's acceptable to do so elsewhere.

Kanastrous · Post by **Kanastrous** » 2008-06-22 11:36am

Keevan_Colton wrote:
Kanastrous wrote:To make this a freedom-of-religion argument, don't they need to demonstrate that branding minors on the arms is part of the practitioner's religious observance?
If that were the case I'd found the First Church of Darwin, which would be dedicated to cleansing the genepool. Mostly through the use of chlorine.

First Church of Darwin Reformed, sinner. We use baseball bats.

See, the schism wasn't long in coming.

Sidewinder · Post by **Sidewinder** » 2008-06-22 07:29pm

Ender wrote:Funny, I'm pretty sure Matthew 18:16 says something about if someone harms a child you should chain a millstone to their neck and hurl them into the sea.

It's actually Matthew 18:6, which states, "But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea." (New International Version.)

Simmon · Post by **Simmon** » 2008-06-22 07:58pm

Ender wrote:
Funny, I'm pretty sure Matthew 18:16 says something about if someone harms a child you should chain a millstone to their neck and hurl them into the sea.

It's actually Matthew 18:6, which states, "But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea." (New International Version.)

And so, by Mr. Freshwater's logic, only pushing a child away from Jesus is a sin, and therefore branding crosses into their arms is actualy pushing them towards Jesus, thus making it an act of a saint. P, Q, therefore R indeed.

PeZook · Post by **PeZook** » 2008-06-23 02:47am

Freshwater told investigators the marks were Xs, not crosses.

Oh, that's okay then.

Fuck, this entire article is completely surreal.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-06-23 09:45am

Kanastrous wrote:To make this a freedom-of-religion argument, don't they need to demonstrate that branding minors on the arms is part of the practitioner's religious observance?

Someone needs to state unequivocally that freedom of religion does not mean that an employee has carte blanche to ignore the wishes of his employer, because that's the way an awful lot of people treat it.

This guy can be as much of a fundie as he wants on his own time, but when he insists on doing it while on company time (particularly when the "company "is the government), he should get a boot up the ass.

PS. This story doesn't surprise me at all. It's fucking Ohio.