PDA

View Full Version : Report: Ohio teacher burned cross on kids' arms



Cold Warrior
06-21-2008, 08:22 AM
Whacky-Whacky Alert!


Report: Ohio teacher burned cross on kids' arms

Jun 20 02:58 PM US/Eastern

MOUNT VERNON, Ohio (AP) - A public school teacher preached his Christian beliefs despite complaints by other teachers and administrators and used a device to burn the image of a cross on students' arms, according to a report by independent investigators.
Mount Vernon Middle School teacher John Freshwater also taught creationism in his science class and was insubordinate in failing to remove a Bible and other religious materials from his classroom, the report said.

School board members were scheduled to meet Friday afternoon to discuss the findings by consulting firm H.R. On Call Inc., hired by the district to investigate. The report was released Thursday.

School Superintendent Stephen Short wouldn't comment on the report before Friday's meeting, his office said. A message seeking comment was left for Freshwater's attorney, Roger Weaver.

The report comes one week after a family filed a federal lawsuit in Columbus against Freshwater and the school district, saying Freshwater burned a cross on their child's arm that remained for three or four weeks.

More... (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91DVT200&show_article=1)

linda22003
06-21-2008, 08:49 AM
I'd LOVE to hear what the defense for this could possibly be. Where's Jinx?

Bubba Dawg
06-21-2008, 09:18 AM
Okay, if your 'friend' is defending you and has to say:


Freshwater's friend Dave Daubenmire defended him.

"With the exception of the cross-burning episode ... I believe John Freshwater is teaching the values of the parents in the Mount Vernon school district," he told The Columbus Dispatch in a story published Friday

..you may have a problem. I heard on CNN this morning he was fired.

Vepr
06-21-2008, 11:21 AM
Well you can't say his classes were boring. Good thing they stopped him before he moved on to burning witches at the stake. :eek:

LogansPapa
06-21-2008, 11:33 AM
Ooooh. Flashback to the 16th Century! In their darkest corners of their true hearts - many followers of The Word will take great glee in this story.

Sonnabend
06-21-2008, 11:37 AM
Well you can't say his classes were boring. Good thing they stopped him before he moved on to burning witches at the stake. They never were. Hanged, yes. One man pressed to death under a mass of stones.

None burned to death.


I'd LOVE to hear what the defense for this could possibly be. Where's Jinx?

I'll save you the trouble. He's a whackjob and you get them anywhere.

Now, as you seem to be in a moral equivalence mood, here, Linda, try comparing that incident (which has been handled) to these.

6/20/2008 (Yala, Thailand) - Islamic gunmen open up on a truck, killing an occupant.

6/20/2008 (Mogadishu, Somalia) - At least two children are among thirteen civilians killed in attacks by Islamic militia.

6/20/2008 (Neveh Tzuf, Israel) - Masked Palestinians shoot two Israelis in a brutal drive-by attack.

6/20/2008 (Helmand, Afghanistan) - Children are among the casualties when a sucide bomber detonates in a crowded market.

6/19/2008 (Hajira, Pakistan) - Four local soldiers are killed by Islamic terrorists.

6/19/2008 (Tuz Khormato, Iraq) - A man is kidnapped and tortured to death by Mujahid.

Thailand: A 3-year-old boy and his father are gunned down.

Pakistan: Muslim radicals ambush a food relief convoy, killing the driver and three others, and then setting fire to the goods.

biccat
06-21-2008, 11:40 AM
I'll save you the trouble. He's a whackjob and you get them anywhere.
But not atheists, homosexuals, or agnostics. They are people who can do no wrong and are ruthlessly persecuted by the Evil Christian Overlords in this country.

Vepr
06-21-2008, 11:41 AM
Witches were not burned at the stake in America but it was not an uncommon punishment by the church in Europe.

Cold Warrior
06-21-2008, 12:14 PM
But not atheists, homosexuals, or agnostics. They are people who can do no wrong and are ruthlessly persecuted by the Evil Christian Overlords in this country.

Your parallels miss the mark in ways that Sonna's do not. In the cited article, this whacky-whacky was doing these things motivated specifically by his religion and his desire that others, willingly or not, share it. This is analogous to the Islamic examples provided by Sonna. In your case, you seem to be simply saying that there are bad people in all walks of life and religion, an obvious fact. You would have made a more compelling case if you had referenced agnostics, for example, who caused bodily and intellectual harm to others specifically because they (the perpetrators) were agnostic and were attempting to compell the victims to be agnostics as well.

jinxmchue
06-21-2008, 01:26 PM
I'd LOVE to hear what the defense for this could possibly be. Where's Jinx?

Burning crosses into kids' arms.

F U.

AlmostThere
06-21-2008, 04:30 PM
Ooooh. Flashback to the 16th Century! In their darkest corners of their true hearts - many followers of The Word will take great glee in this story.

Am I reading this right? You're saying there are Christians who on some level, support branding kids with a cross? Please say I misunderstood.

wilbur
06-21-2008, 04:35 PM
Sounds like this guy belongs in a movie, as the crazy fanactical religious stereotype.

InspiredHome
06-21-2008, 04:39 PM
It's not a Christian problem it's a warped human nature problem. Nowhere in the Bible does it say to burn a cross into your arm. There will always be elements in the population who act contrary to their beliefs. Now, atheists like Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot acted precisely according to their worldview.

wilbur
06-21-2008, 04:45 PM
It's not a Christian problem it's a warped human nature problem. Nowhere in the Bible does it say to burn a cross into your arm. There will always be elements in the population who act contrary to their beliefs. Now, atheists like Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot acted precisely according to their worldview.

Ah, gotcha.... so Christians get to disavow any nutcases acting in the name of Jesus, but any one who is crazy and atheist... well thats just the natural result of atheism.. :rolleyes:

InspiredHome
06-21-2008, 04:59 PM
The difference is that this particular Christian was acting CONTRARY to the Christian worldview whereas the murderous dictators acted ACCORDING to their worldview.

wilbur
06-21-2008, 05:02 PM
The difference is that this particular Christian was acting CONTRARY to the Christian worldview whereas the murderous dictators acted ACCORDING to their worldview.

I don't think you'll find many atheists who say those dictators act in their worldview. And it really depends on what Christian you are talking too.. when souls are at stake, anything is justifiable for some people.

nightflight
06-21-2008, 05:35 PM
The difference is that this particular Christian was acting CONTRARY to the Christian worldview whereas the murderous dictators acted ACCORDING to their worldview.

Then this would be true of every atheist, which it obviously is not.

Furthermore, I have no doubt that if bin Laden could, he would wipe out several major cities. Do you deny this?

InspiredHome
06-21-2008, 05:58 PM
Because many atheists act on borrowed capital. From where is morality attained other than what is relative to society?

wilbur
06-21-2008, 06:04 PM
Because many atheists act on borrowed capital. From where is morality attained other than what is relative to society?

Where does religion get it? Hint: The answer is not god.

InspiredHome
06-21-2008, 06:05 PM
Where does religion get it? Hint: The answer is not god.

Only according to you.

wilbur
06-21-2008, 06:14 PM
Only according to you.

According to reality. Religion gets its morals from the same place atheists get theirs from. God sure seems to have a lot of mutually exclusive and contradictory morals, when one takes into account the thousands of different religions in the world. If morals come from God.... then morals should be consistent across the entire human race.

Sonnabend
06-21-2008, 06:18 PM
As far as I am, concerned and as far as I know,. no Christian anywhere will agree with what this teacher did. Saying otherwise is bullshit.

Atheists dont do it either. Only one who does is this nutbag.

wilbur
06-21-2008, 06:22 PM
As far as I am, concerned and as far as I know,. no Christian anywhere will agree with what this teacher did. Saying otherwise is bullshit.

Atheists dont do it either. Only one who does is this nutbag.

For once, I mostly agree w/ sonnabend. Fuckin A.

InspiredHome
06-21-2008, 06:26 PM
For once, I mostly agree w/ sonnabend. Fuckin A.


The non-existent place is freezing over.:D Enough bantering for today. I have ankle biters to feed.

Jumpy
06-21-2008, 07:54 PM
I don't care if the teacher is encouraging branding crosses, nazi symbols, or satanist symbols, the guy is obviously a freak and should not be teaching on the tax payers dime. What a weirdo!!

Cold Warrior
06-21-2008, 07:59 PM
I don't care if the teacher is encouraging branding crosses, nazi symbols, or satanist symbols, the guy is obviously a freak and should not be teaching on the tax payers dime. What a weirdo!!

I completely agree, Jump. However, does anyone think he's "a freak and should not be teaching" because he...


...preached his Christian beliefs despite complaints by other teachers and administrators ... [and] taught creationism in his science class and was insubordinate in failing to remove a Bible and other religious materials from his classroom

Moreover, does anyone see a pattern to his behaviour in the actions cited above and his "cross burning" activities?

Jumpy
06-21-2008, 08:03 PM
I completely agree, Jump. However, does anyone think he's "a freak and should not be teaching" because he...



Moreover, does anyone see a pattern to his behaviour in the actions cited above and his "cross burning" activities?

I think he is a freak because he went a step further with the branding . Not because he taught creationism, and all of that other stuff.

crockspot
06-21-2008, 08:18 PM
That'll put the fear of God into those heathen children!

Cold Warrior
06-21-2008, 08:20 PM
That'll put the fear of God into those heathen children!

Hallelujah! :D

Welcome back, crock.

The Night Owl
06-21-2008, 08:22 PM
I have a gut feeling that the part about the teacher branding students is a hoax.

crockspot
06-21-2008, 08:35 PM
Hallelujah! :D

Welcome back, crock.

My sweetie teaches third grade at a charter school in Ohio. It's not really a Christian school, but the board is all Presbyterian pastors, so they are pretty Christian-friendly. It's somewhat of an elite school in an inner city area, almost all minority children. One of her kids pushed her right over a desk a couple of months ago. Of course, the school didn't do much but suspend the kid. He's back in her summer school class. When they get out of hand, she just calls their mothers now. Most of them will come down to the school and beat their own child with a belt right in front of the class. :D

Jumpy
06-21-2008, 08:36 PM
I have a gut feeling that the part about the teacher branding students is a hoax.

yeah.. it all sounds pretty fishy to me.

AlmostThere
06-21-2008, 08:37 PM
According to reality. Religion gets its morals from the same place atheists get theirs from. God sure seems to have a lot of mutually exclusive and contradictory morals, when one takes into account the thousands of different religions in the world. If morals come from God.... then morals should be consistent across the entire human race.
Your argument reminded me of this clip of Rummsfeld. . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjwqwa21jeU
Whether Christian, atheist, Muslim, Jew, whatever, morality is fairly constant. When you were a small child, well before you had a concept of religion, you began to learn there is right and there is wrong. I don't participate in any organized religion nor do I reject the idea of an almighty being, but I still consider myself a moral person. IMHO, a rational, well adjusted person should be able to see what is the right thing to do if they're willing to be honest with themselves.

LogansPapa
06-21-2008, 08:43 PM
Am I reading this right? You're saying there are Christians who on some level, support branding kids with a cross? Please say I misunderstood.

Some? Yeah - about 14 in North America at the moment. My point was that like 400 years ago - people can use any supposed icon to get more than a bit carried away, and using that very safe feeling and a fall back position of labeling others as "heretics" and therefor doing unspeakable acts - justifying their Lord's supposed law.

biccat
06-21-2008, 08:44 PM
Your argument reminded me of this clip of Rummsfeld. . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjwqwa21jeU
I don't understand what was so funny about that clip.

Cold Warrior
06-21-2008, 08:53 PM
Your argument reminded me of this clip of Rummsfeld. . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjwqwa21jeU
Whether Christian, atheist, Muslim, Jew, whatever, morality is fairly constant. When you were a small child, well before you had a concept of religion, you began to learn there is right and there is wrong. I don't participate in any organized religion nor do I reject the idea of an almighty being, but I still consider myself a moral person. IMHO, a rational, well adjusted person should be able to see what is the right thing to do if they're willing to be honest with themselves.

In order to function, society must agree upon certain "morals," if you chose to call them that. As an example, stealing is "morally bad," as if it were allowed and condoned, the societal framework would break apart. That most religions and semi-religions, e.g. Confucianism, share a basic set of principles, is not an indication that a God stepped down to provide them (or wrote them in stone), but rather that they are principles that facilitate the development of a society in which humans can coexist.

AlmostThere
06-21-2008, 08:54 PM
He's back in her summer school class. When they get out of hand, she just calls their mothers now. Most of them will come down to the school and beat their own child with a belt right in front of the class. :D

Is that really true? That is an awesome idea. I just read your post to my wife. We both immediately agreed what an supremely effective technique that would be. Bravo.

Don't get me wrong, I don't endorse child abuse. But to let a child grow up without understanding their actions have consequences is truly cruel.

AlmostThere
06-21-2008, 09:17 PM
In order to function, society must agree upon certain "morals," if you chose to call them that. As an example, stealing is "morally bad," as if it were allowed and condoned, the societal framework would break apart. That most religions and semi-religions, e.g. Confucianism, share a basic set of principles, is not an indication that a God stepped down to provide them (or wrote them in stone), but rather that they are principles that facilitate the development of a society in which humans can coexist.

Bad pun, otherwise totally agree.

Lanie
06-21-2008, 09:21 PM
Witches were not burned at the stake in America but it was not an uncommon punishment by the church in Europe.

Didn't Joan of Arc get burned at the stake?

Lanie
06-21-2008, 09:28 PM
I have a gut feeling that the part about the teacher branding students is a hoax.

I think the parents are confirming it happened.

on edit:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/06/20/Parents_say_teacher_branded_cross_on_son/UPI-36651213940683/


The parents say that Freshwater used a piece of electrical equipment to etch a cross on their son in December. When they complained, the district responded by telling the teacher not to do anything similar in the future.



Yuk.

Cold Warrior
06-21-2008, 09:31 PM
Didn't Joan of Arc get burned at the stake?

Yes, at a time when Christianity was as old as Islam is today.

FlaGator
06-21-2008, 09:45 PM
I'd LOVE to hear what the defense for this could possibly be. Where's Jinx?


If the story is accurate then there is no defense. The man was insane. Insanity, however, is not solely a issue among christians. The Virginia Tech shooter wasn't religious at all from what I can tell and I think that he cold be classified as insane.

Cold Warrior
06-21-2008, 09:49 PM
If the story is accurate then there is no defense. The man was insane. Insanity, however, is not solely a issue among christians. The Virginia Tech shooter wasn't religious at all from what I can tell and I think that he cold be classified as insane.

Hi FlaGator! I agree that there is no defense for such actions, but your comparison with the VT shooter is slightly disingenous as he had no religious motive (that I know of, at least) for his actions. Herein, this guy clearly does. That is NOT to say that he is representative of Christianity.

FlaGator
06-21-2008, 09:57 PM
I don't think you'll find many atheists who say those dictators act in their worldview. And it really depends on what Christian you are talking too.. when souls are at stake, anything is justifiable for some people.

It is interesting that when Atheists have been in power in the 20th century, they are responsible for more deaths than all the Christian leaders through out history combined. Stalin has about 25 to 30 million. Projections for Mao top 60 million. Pol Pot only wacked about 3 to 4 millioin but it was around 1/3 of the people of Cambodia. I would try to work in the 20 or so million by Hilter but he was not technically an atheist. He viewed himself as divine. This is not to say that atheism breeds murderers. Like anything else it can be used to justify tyrannical behavior but the naturalist world view that many atheist adhere to does tend to make the killing easier to justify. The atheists that are basically humanist tend to have a value system that doesn't allow them to exploit others. Unfortunately most of the humanists aren't interested in the type of power that the naturalist dictators seem to crave.

AlmostThere
06-21-2008, 10:04 PM
I don't understand what was so funny about that clip.
Personally, I liked Rummsfeld, so it wasn't intended as a shot at him by me. I've always wondered if he was being serious or screwing with the White House reporters during that briefing. At any rate, it's a fairly good representation of Doublespeak in my opinion. A poster here had made an argument that made as much sense as "unknown unknowns: There are things we don't know that we do not know". Actually I understand unknown unknowns. That's scary. :eek:

Shannon
06-21-2008, 10:06 PM
Yes, at a time when Christianity was as old as Islam is today.

I'm just going to reply with a couple :rolleyes: :rolleyes:.

FlaGator
06-21-2008, 10:18 PM
Then this would be true of every atheist, which it obviously is not.

Furthermore, I have no doubt that if bin Laden could, he would wipe out several major cities. Do you deny this?


Atheists follow one or combinations of several world views (I'll try not to make too many generalizations). Those that follow the naturalist worldview tend to be able to justify immoral behavior. They have a tendency to be nihilists. Then you have the secular humanists and they tend find beneficial ways to assist society. Their moral outlook makes them sympathetic to the human condition and desire to see it improved. Existential atheists are more self oriented but exhibit what theist would consider secular moral behavior. They are somewhere between the humanists and the naturalist.

Bin Laden's and the radical Muslims are theists who view Allah as the ultimate reality and Allah tells them it is ok to convert via conquest. The God of Christianity does not condone conversion by conquest. God tells us to share the gospel and then leave the rest up to Him. Any actions outside of that behavior are not Christian behaviors regardless of what the person claims. Bin Laden is acting within the scope of the world view of Islamic beliefs. The teacher in question is not acting within the acceptable norms of Christianity.

LogansPapa
06-21-2008, 10:20 PM
Bin Laden's and the radical Muslims are theists who view Allah as the ultimate reality and Allah tells them it is ok to convert via conquest. The God of Christianity does not condone conversion by conquest. God tells us to share the gospel and then leave the rest up to Him. Any actions outside of that behavior are not Christian behaviors regardless of what the person claims. Bin Laden is acting within the scope of the world view of Islamic beliefs. The teacher in question is not acting within the acceptable norms of Christianity.

outstanding.

FlaGator
06-21-2008, 10:25 PM
Hi FlaGator! I agree that there is no defense for such actions, but your comparison with the VT shooter is slightly disingenous as he had no religious motive (that I know of, at least) for his actions. Herein, this guy clearly does. That is NOT to say that he is representative of Christianity.

That was my point. Insanity is not inherent to the religious. Anyone can loose it and behave irrationally. It is disingenerous to single this behavior out because the perpetrator believes he is religious when he could just have easily have done it for secular reasons. How are his motivations different if he painted swastika's on a synagogue or burned a cross in someone's front yard or drowned two children in a car because her boy friend didn't want children. The behavior is not acceptable regardless of his reasons.

Goldwater
06-21-2008, 10:31 PM
Sonnabend and CW are correct. That is all.

FlaGator
06-21-2008, 10:47 PM
According to reality. Religion gets its morals from the same place atheists get theirs from. God sure seems to have a lot of mutually exclusive and contradictory morals, when one takes into account the thousands of different religions in the world. If morals come from God.... then morals should be consistent across the entire human race.

I believe it was C.S. Lewis who addressed this issue and from my admittedly theist perspective I agree with him. God created a set of just and true moral laws and created man with the awareness of those laws. After man's fall he became corrupt and imperfect. Still being aware of those laws man has endeavored to interpret them but does so imperfectly. That which is imperfect cannot fully comprehend that which is perfect. Thus the many seemingly different moral codes we see existing. There are some basic morals, however, that tend to common to all cultures. Murder is a good example but even murder is interpreted imperfectly. One culture says that killing a thief is ok but another says that killing a thief is wrong; you just cut off his hand. Each culture has redefined the meaning for murder to make acceptable what they consider is justifiable killing. In short each culture considers murder to be wrong, but they redefine (interpret) what is an action of murder so as to allow for their own imperfect justice to be enforced.

If you donít believe in God then the above would make little sense because its premise is unacceptable to you.

The Night Owl
06-21-2008, 10:52 PM
I think the parents are confirming it happened.

on edit:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/06/20/Parents_say_teacher_branded_cross_on_son/UPI-36651213940683/



Yuk.

The parents cannot confirm what they did not witness.

linda22003
06-22-2008, 06:49 AM
Didn't Joan of Arc get burned at the stake?

Yes, but not for being a witch.

Sonnabend
06-22-2008, 06:59 AM
Some? Yeah - about 14 in North America at the moment

Name them.

crockspot
06-22-2008, 09:49 AM
Is that really true? That is an awesome idea. I just read your post to my wife. We both immediately agreed what an supremely effective technique that would be. Bravo.

Don't get me wrong, I don't endorse child abuse. But to let a child grow up without understanding their actions have consequences is truly cruel.

It is absolutely true, at least according to my girl. It has happened a number of times. The school is not allowed to mete out corporal punishment, but the parents are another story.

crockspot
06-22-2008, 12:29 PM
OK, latest word from my gf who teaches in Ohio, and whose aunt lives in the town where this happened, the teacher did not actually brand the child, the child branded himself. The parents are blaming the teacher though.

AlmostThere
06-22-2008, 01:57 PM
It is absolutely true, at least according to my girl. It has happened a number of times. The school is not allowed to mete out corporal punishment, but the parents are another story.
Again, Bravo. My sis-n-law, an educator, retired a couple years ago and we've discussed numerous times the disciplinary problems in schools and the extensive problems they create. She had over 20 years in the classroom and another 10 in admin. In her opinion, which I respect greatly, throwing money at the problem will accomplish nothing. Money can't buy a student's respect for the teacher or authority in general, respect for his classmates or respect for himself. She is convinced that lack of respect is at the root of the disciplinary problems in the classroom. Money can't buy the parental involvement necessary for a child to succeed. It may be of some help to a financially struggling household, but it doesn't guarantee their participation.

She would say, a lack of parental involvement made her job much, much more difficult but if the student was well-behaved, she stood a fighting chance of educating the child with or without the parent's help.

Good luck to your lady. If anyone deserves the multi-million dollar contracts and their face on a Wheaties box it is the teacher who genuinely cares about the students they teach. :):)

AlmostThere
06-22-2008, 02:22 PM
OK, latest word from my gf who teaches in Ohio, and whose aunt lives in the town where this happened, the teacher did not actually brand the child, the child branded himself. The parents are blaming the teacher though.
As may be obvious from some of my posts, I'm a huge fan of good teachers. With that said, if the teacher was aware of what the kid was doing and didn't attempt to stop it, IMHO, the parents have a right to hold him responsible. I saw a 20-30 second interview with the teacher last night. I personally didn't have enough time to get a good read on the guy. But what hit me between the eyes was the 10 second sound-bite from one of his supporting students. The look on the student's face and the commitment in his voice gave me the impression that the student practically worshiped the teacher. That was scary.

LogansPapa
06-22-2008, 02:54 PM
Name them.

It's a joke humorless one - it's just a joke.:rolleyes:

nacho
06-22-2008, 05:34 PM
It's a joke humorless one - it's just a joke.:rolleyes:

Since it wasn't funny, though, wouldn't that make you the humorless one?

LogansPapa
06-22-2008, 08:55 PM
Since it wasn't funny, though, wouldn't that make you the humorless one?


Hey!:mad: Okay - attempt at humor. Satisfied?:cool:

Lanie
06-22-2008, 09:13 PM
The parents cannot confirm what they did not witness.

Can they confirm the cross on their kid's arm? Can multiple witnesses confirm it was the same person who encouraged that?

Lanie
06-22-2008, 09:17 PM
OK, latest word from my gf who teaches in Ohio, and whose aunt lives in the town where this happened, the teacher did not actually brand the child, the child branded himself. The parents are blaming the teacher though.

Okay, I'll keep an open mind then.