The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

COLUMBUS, Ohio - An Ohio school board has voted to fire a science teacher accused of using a device to burn the image of a Christian cross on students' arms.
 
The Mount Vernon school board passed a resolution Friday to end the contract of middle school teacher John Freshwater. He can't be fired until after he is given a hearing to challenge the decision.

The instructor is accused of preaching his Christian beliefs in class and teaching creationism.

A family says Freshwater burned a cross into a child's arm that remained for three to four weeks. The family has sued the teacher and the school district.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080620/ap_on_re_us/teacher_bible (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080620/ap_on_re_us/teacher_bible)

Damn, if some ass did that to my kid I would ask for more than just the loss of his job.  I would seek criminal charges and some jail time. 

...that whole arm burning thing wouldn't fly either!  ;)

 :o

And this is exactly the kind of maniac that gives us Christians a bad rep.  He wants to preach about Jesus and Creation, fine.  But you can't force someone into your beliefs.  They have to do it because they want to.


LMFAO!!!!  History Of The World!!!  What a movie!!!!!

Touch my kid, ever, and I'm going to jail for a very long time.

I have to agree with Tommy about maniacs giving Christians a bad rep - even though that is a bit "religionist".

I'd still like to hear more details to understand what he was thinking and determine just how out of line he was.  If the parents/family are open Christians acting offended just so they can sue - he was still wrong and they're taking full advantage of it.  If it was a child of a different religion then the cross would be intolerant and offensive - he'd be a lot more wrong.

Several students (volunteers) received the demonstration but only one is suing.  You know who pays for litigation against public schools.... you do.  They're easy targets and often willing to settle. 

He was wrong.  The district is trying to fire him but can't due the teacher's union (NEA - No Excellence Allowed).  I'm not sure it merits a lawsuit.

Guru you need to tell the whole story not just part of it. I am not going to defend what this guy did, even as a Christian I wouldn't this on my kids arm. But this guy is considered to be one of the schools best teachers, many students are sticking up for him. It sounds like these kids volunteered to have marks placed on their arms, he said he did it in a form of an x, but the picture clearly shows a cross. Let's not totally make this man sound like he abused these kids, because they would disagree with you. He has paid the price for his stupidity, and now he needs to live with it.

Mel Brooks rules

Where in that report does it say anything about him being one of the best teachers because I didn't see it, but I did find this

But Lynda Weston, the district's director of teaching and learning, told investigators that she has dealt with complaints about Freshwater for much of her 11-year term at the district, the report said.

A former superintendent, Jeff Maley, said he tried to find another position for Freshwater but couldn't because he was certified only in science, the report said


Also it said several students which is significantly different than the many you are claiming.

"Best" is subjective but this paragraph implies he's generally well liked by the students.

"Several students interviewed by investigators described Freshwater, who has been employed by the school district located 40 miles northeast of Columbus for 21 years, as a great guy and their favorite teacher."

Had any of the other students complained during their interview do you think the paper would have squashed that information?

The fact that "she has dealt with complaints about Freshwater for much of her 11-year term at the district" and they haven't fired him despite him being certified in just one area and not a member protected class says something as well.

All I am saying is that the story is slanted, what he did can't be defended, but he did not abuse these kids, as the article appears in this post. I have no problem teaching Christian views but like Tommy said you can't force it down their throats. I also believe parents should have the rights to opt their kids out of classes that may teach against their beliefs including atheism.

Using a device to mark/brand impressionable children for weeks that are under you direct control and influence would probably be considered a for of abuse by a good portion of people, at the very least it a gross abuse of his position as an educator

No...not fine.  He's a science teacher.  Teach science.

Too bad people don't feel the same way about teachers preaching the liberal agenda. 

Does bitching about liberals get tiring for you?  It's all you talk about.

You bitch about Jesse and Al tying everything to race.  You do the same thing.  You find a way to relate everything to your politics.

Get a hobby.

Wow Dave.  That was absolutely Guru-esque.  Is that the maturity level you were shooting for? 

Anyways, how many years did you work in the public schools?  Seriously.  Perhaps it's different where you are because you don't live in an ultra blue state.

I don't understand you calling out my maturity.  I'm being totally serious.

You are missing the point.  I'm not defending schools and liberal agendas  -- I don't have to.  The point is that it has nothing to do with this.  You find a way to turn every thread into liberal bashing.

And then, you call out Guru, who's completely uninvolved, while private messaging me about his behavior, you hypocrite.

Your answer was not very mature.  You could have asked me to explain/elaborate.

So how long have you worked in the public schools?  Is this an area of your expertise? 

The point is that neither agenda should be pushed.  One is.  We accept it and we all know what it has done to the system.  When the other agenda is pushed people get fired, and rightfully so. 

About a PM he sent me similar to the one he sent Defense5499.   ;)  A fact you neglected.  If I remember correctly it said something like, "Is this necessary?"

Perhaps the comparison was uncalled for, but you can't deny it was accurate.

I'm trying to figure out Who's agenda we're pushing...and why I didn't get a copy of it....

"We're"?

 ??? Yeah..as in a contraction of We and are...As in The Mods, the people that you are accusing of running people off the board...and wagging your finger at...

Where did I say that?

I wasn't sure if you were talking about schools or TDMMC.

Run was speaking about agendas being pushed in school and not the moderators "agenda".  Dave ( IMHO) unnecessarily attacked run instead of addressing the issue and then run explained this is what he was pointing out about what guru does. Dave then proceeded to want to address the fact that guru was brought into the conversation unprovoked as if this was run's agenda all long.

I obviously agree with run and simeon and I think most unbiased people would too.  The liberal agenda is pushed over and over in school and whenever someone pushes something conservative it seems everyone wants to burn them at the stake no questions asked.  I haven't seen anyone agree with what this guy did but most of us conservatives would believe there is probably more to the story.  This is the same argument given by several members whenever a liberal bashing article is posted.  Since most of us agree that pretty much every article is slanted to whatever views the author holds I'm not sure what the argument is.

Was what the guy did wrong? yes
Was there more to the story?  Possibly
Could the guy just be a some crazy kook? possibly
Could the guy have mistakenly done something unintended? possibly

Either way there is probably more to the story.

The only reason why this is even talked about is because this guy is a Christian, yes stuff like this happens in schools across this great land. I hardly doubt this teacher forced these kids to be marked by this machine, I am willing to bet they volunteered.
Without a doubt he made a poor decision by doing this, he was wrong for doing it.
HE DID NOT abuse these kids, this is no more than an anti Christian article.
I did read this article before it was posted here on the board, and it is a good article to put on the off topic board. I think it is great that we can take different sides, if we all agreed that would be boring.

How do you define abuse? What is the difference between a bruise that last several days or a broken bone that takes 6 weeks to heal?
Even if he asked them permission, they are still children. He is an adult, in a position of power, and therefor can wield a lot of influence. Plus he could have gained their trust so as to lead them into this, which is not unlike some pedophiles and other abusers have done in the past. Once you gain a child's trust you can get them to do things that can be either positive or negative.
I do not see why suddenly this is an attack against "christians". This guy messed up, badly.

He's a science teacher teaching creationism. He is NOT one of the schools best teachers.

QFT...Especially since this is a PUBLIC school.

The very first post had a poke at Christianity.

After that Stroke went on to quote a song that directly makes fun of some of the worst things ever done in the name of Christianity as to make the connection between the two. BTW ... I loved that movie. Its a classic.

And the list goes on. I don't care either way but people were taking a swipe at Christianity in this thread and continue to do so.

A poke at Christianity in the first post?

It was a joke about teaching it in a science class.  When did biology class become a suitable location for mass? 

This was not physical abuse.  

A bruise or broken bone results from an accident or violence.

Was it emotional abuse?  That's hard to support if the kids volunteered.  


True.


Yeah, he probably had no interest in gaining their trust to make the teacher-student relationship better and facilitate the learning process.  The teaching gig was just a cover.  ::)


Lead them into what?  Having an inappropriate symbol left on their skin as part of a science demonstration?  


If that was true then the familes of every student subjected to this abusive victimization would be filing a lawsuit.  Right now it's 1 out of how many?   No worries though.  I suspect the lawyers are beating the bushes trying to scare up some other plaintiffs.  

Good thing for this family that their child didn't put the balm on.    

Is there another link/source that the rest of us aren't privy too?

Where else but TDMMC could "accused of preaching his Christian beliefs" become "teaching creationism" and conducting "mass"? 

Fresh from the link itself.

Other findings show that Freshwater taught that carbon dating was unreliable to argue against evolution.

He is a proud christian who is teaching against evolution. That could be taken as he is trying to open the door for creationism under its shiny new packaging " Intellegent Design".
Also quoting a song in jest from a very silly movie is not what I would really call persecuting christians.
RTW- wether you use a device to burn an image into the flesh of a child or a cigarette, iron, etc., it can still be looked upon as a form of abuse. You must get parents permission for everything in schools nowadays to avoid litigation, so I somehow doubt kids giving their okay for this is kosher.
I think this is ultimately a teacher who made a bonehead decision, and it has some minor religious undertones that is allowing people on both sides to run with it and blow it out of purportion. Take out the religious overtones and just look at it as a teacher branding his students as part of a lab, and he looks like a tool who should probably lose his job, as there were/are others ways to demonstrate how this device works.

Why do you say that ? Evolution is not pure science, as a matter of fact its part of the atheist agenda, but that religion or lack of one is ok to teach. While many scientist do believe in creation in the science form, this is a subject that has great arguments on both sides.

But it is ok when a public school in California can force kids to read the kuron, take on a Musleum name and force them to wage their own jihad, where was the aclu on that one ?

don't worry that is ok in public schools though.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/000412.php

evolution IS science.  the things that darwin predicted back before there was even electricity are being proven with every scientific advancement we make (such as genetics).  evolution has been both observed in nature and in science labs.  there is no rational, cohesive argument for intelligent design (aka creationism).

and to call evolution the "atheists agenda" is just ludicrous and false.  intelligent design is a religious agenda because the only people that believe in intelligent design are religious people.   evolution is believed by all religious and non-religions.

So?  He's not the only person who doubts carbon dating.     


Teaching against, or providing another possibility?   


Sure it could be, much like a teacher gaining the trust of his students could be taken as him grooming them to be victims of pedophilia.  ;)(link (http://www.thedolphinsmakemecry.com/forums/index.php?topic=11059.msg116192#msg116192)). 


I'm sure that anything "you" disagree with can be considered a form of abuse.  Apparently this was not painful like a cigarette or iron.  It's unlikely the kids would submit to torture.  It left the temporarily physically "scarred" - like a temporary tatoo.

Had he chose any non-religious shape then this wouldn't be news.


Speaking of people running with it and blowing it out of proportion....

First it was implications/comparisons to pediphilia.  Now it's branding?  Brands are permanent.  Writing on them with a permanent marker seems to be a more appropriate analogy.

People make evolution sound as simple and provable as gravity.  It's the best scentific theory we have at this time but there are still a lot of questions.

(I know, I know ... Gravity is not simple.  An apple falling from a tree ... simple.  Explaining why and how the apple fell ..... nail that and there's a Nobel Prize with your name on it. )     

God created evolution

Done and done...

Disagree, theres no suchthing as evolution.
let's get this back on subject.
Everyone agree's what this guy did was wrong, therefore should lose his job.

Cuz humans look like VERY teeny people when ejaculated, and just grow inside the egg in a woman's womb. Looks like a 9 month evolution to me. Why not a gene pool?

Huh ? You are saying birth of a child is evolution in process ?

Had he chose a much more intelligent way to demonstrate this piece of lab equipment, as I am sure this is not the optimal way to show how it works in labs around the world, then it would not have been an issue at all, but you seem to ignore this so you can have a way to fly your anti liberal flag.
I find it supremely hypocritical that you engaged in 6+ pages ripping apart the teaching profession and the wages teachers get paid, especially when they are not held accountable for their actions, yet when a teacher who obviously screwed up, yet seems to share your religious views, you are all over how wrong it is, and it is the liber persecution of a god fearing christian teacher.

what are you smoking?  there is plenty of proof that evolution has happened....darwin's finches and lactose intolerance in humans for example.


most people are mistaken in their definition of evolution.  evolution does not describe the course of individual life itself, but rather refers to the process over millions of years.  evolution says small changes (such as gene mutations) take place over the course of generations.  it describes how organisms adapt to their environment and develop new ways to cope with change.  if you take groups of the same species and put them in completely different environments, over hundreds of generations they will take completely different paths in their developments, so much so that they could evolve into different species.

There are questions about how evolution fits together, but not whether or not it exists and is in place.

All of the evidence we have is confirming what we already know.  There is no scientific debate on whether or not evolution exists.  Not believing in it is lunacy.

Simeon has already made crazy (and false) anti-scientific statements on here before, regarding why bees can't fly, so I'm guessing that his resources aren't that reliable.  Seriously, there is no debate on the subject.

It's the same thing that happened with cigarettes causing cancer.  All scientific data pointed to it, but there were a few fringe scientists who were either uncredited, unable to reproduce their results to peer review, or were on the tobacco payroll. 

Evolution is.  Period.

yeah, evolution is pretty much law/fact at this point, and it only gets stronger as science advances.


the people who argue the hardest against evolution are the people who misunderstand what evolution is all about.  it doesn't answer the question HOW or WHERE life came from, but it nails the process and paths it has taken to get to this point.

Sigh... no, there are NOT great arguments on both sides. There is, however, a very small number of people confined almost completely to a single country (the US) who are, apparently, completely nuts and try to push an agenda of "Intelligent Design". The rest of the world relies on science. Even the Vatican accepts evolution "in general" (they won't clarify their exact position - and the Vatican certainly isn't unified in its stance).

Many other, if not all, of the other major religions have no problem with evolution.

Trying to argue that "evolution as a science" is part of an "atheist agenda" is either ignorant or malicious.

Although I agreed with you on most points, you should not make a category mistake and classify evolution within the same grounds as "laws/facts". Evolution, being a scientific theory, is the best explanation for a particular phenomenon, but could still be proven wrong. Never will a scientist state a theory as a definite truth because it could still potentially be falsified. Science is always changing and is never satisfied with a single answer and is always in a constant process in search for a better explanation.

To address the ORIGINAL POST, if the instructor actually taught religion in school, he should be fired. Based on our bylaws, it is illegal for religion to be taught in publicly funded educational institutions with the exception of high schools in Kansas. In no way is the argument for intelligent design a science. For anything to be considered a science, it must be fallible, parsimonious, and falsifiable. Intelligent design does not include any of the 3 components mentioned previously.

This makes no sense.

This doesn't make a lot of sense either.  Are you sure you didn't respond to the wrong post?

I think evidence is the word you're looking for.

(http://209.85.117.199/1250/23/0/e879//e879.gif)

Somewhere between zero and very little debate within the scientific community.  Outside the scientific community there's quite a bit more.  :-\

Remember, "spontaneous generation" was the accepted theory of life for about 1000 years.  It was widely accepted that, for example, if you left a pile of raw meat to decay it would spontaneously turn into maggots.

Evolution is the best scientific theory we have at this time but we never know what's around the corner...

It's curious how we encouraged to question the norm in every other aspect of our lives.  Independent thinking is something we generally look up to.  But put a religious aspect behind those questions and suddenly you're completely nuts. 

(http://209.85.117.199/1250/23/0/e786//e786.gif)


If we reach the level where we can explain everything scientifically that would sure undermine competing explanations.  Unfortunately we've barely scratched the surface.  We can't even explain gravity.

Then when scientific discoveries, such as the Big Bang, reek of higher power it seems to give strength to their argument. 


Calling people who don't believe "completely nuts" mainly due to their religious roots makes it sound a bit anti-Christian.

Charles Darwin himself was ostracized and considered totally nuts after publishing his theory.

I want no religion in school. However, I find the fact that you're using a site called jihadwatch hilarious. Like that is a reputable source.

I stand corrected TBod  ;D  

Did you look at the link or just dismiss it outright?  It's just their summation of a report on a news site.  The first sentence contains a link to the source.  Here it is: link (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36118).

Here's a related article: link (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26074).

This isn't about religion. I very much encourage people to question the norm - and evolution is no different. The problem with Creationists is that their arguments make no sense, they don't present any evidence to back up their claims, they blatantly ignore any data they don't like. The FACT is that the overwhelming majority of scientific data, experiment and observation support evolution.

Questioning the norm is great, but if you're unwilling to even consider being persuaded that your point of view is wrong, then it makes no sense to discuss. I, for one, could be persuaded of just about anything, PROVIDING the evidence and arguments where there to back it up, but that just isn't the case with creationism.

Historically, the "scientific community" and "the church" have both believed really stupid things... thrown objects continuing in a straight line until they somehow "ran out of energy" and then fell straight down and a flat Earth (and the whole Earth is the center of the Universe debacle) come to mind as prime examples.

Every new, radical theory will meet resistance. That's the nature of the beast. Quantum mechanics met massive resistance, as did the (Special) Theory of Relativity and countless other theories (no, don't get me started on what "theory" means in science-speak). The critical point is that all these new theories were supported by EVIDENCE. By OBSERVATION, by EXPERIMENT. Creationism is supported by nothing, except Creationist's interpretation of certain religious texts. And, no, I'm sorry, that doesn't count as evidence (or observation, or experiment).

Children/parents should be allowed to opt out of science class?

Those links are even more laughable. World Net Daily is some sort of righty Christian progpaganda machine. Do you even read real news?

Great post, but I haven't heard anyone on the board say it was wrong to fire him.
I agree with his religious views, but think he went over the line. I believe most Christians on here are saying this article is only sensationalized  because it was a way for the liberal media to attack Christianity, if this guy was an atheist making happy faces with this device, it would never had been a story like this case. However I will restate it, this man was wrong in what he did, and he deserves to lose his job.

Wow.  This thread is all over the place.  I think my eyes just started bleeding from some of the grandstanding that I've been reading.

The real issue, which seems to be lost, is that this teacher burned something on to a student's arm. 

He.burned.something.on.to.a.s tudent's.arm.

The physical action is the issue.  Where I come from, that's assault at most and reckless behavior with a child in the least.

If you think it is funny why don't you research if this happened or not. You are nieve if you don't believe religion is taught in school. I demanded my kids be dismissed from learning about Native American Spiritualism. It does happen, but most people think as long as its not Christianity or Jewish believes being taught it is ok. So keep on laughing.

worldnetdaily
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36118
Daniel Pipe
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2003/12/courts-okay-to-proselytize-for-islam-in.html

Maine's right -

issues aside, political, religious, no matter what your agenda, you don't burn anything on a kid's arm.  A happy face, peace sign, a heart, NOTHING.  teacher + hot object + kid = FIRED!

I agree and said that., I remember a science teaching when I went to school rubbing poison ivy on students arm to show would it did to you, he didn't get fired, never got published in any paper, and abosolutely no law suits.

so, then, to you, this is OK? You said you didn't want your kids learning about Native American Spirituality, but you're fine with a teacher rubbing poison ivy on them?

No I found it horable for this teacher to rub it on students, what I am telling you is nobody made a big deal out of it, like this article did. This stuff happens all the time, I am sure other science teachers are doing similar stuff. Did you ever play with a Van De Graaf generator in school, it seems pretty cool, but electricity is flowing through you.

Its static electricity, its not nearly enough to hurt you.  No more than if you rub your feet on the carpet.

Its no secret that back then people were less anal.  People used to spank their kids in public, whip kids with belts, etc.  Remember the stories of the Catholic School Nuns that used to paddle kids when they stepped out of line?

Now all those kids that got paddled grew up and had their own kids and now if you see a mom spanking her kid for knocking down a display in the grocery store, the Dept. of Children and Families will be there in 8 seconds flat to take that kid away cause the mom is "un-fit". ::)

Its not ALWAYS an attack on religion, regardless of what you might decipher.  This is uproar about a teacher harming a child - nothing more.  Like Maine said - anyone touches his kid, he ends up in jail.  And I applaud him for that.

Sure there is...you just need to have faith.


Definitely isn't the type of person I'd like to see teaching my nieces/nephews.

Have you been watching the general decline in scores on standardized achievement tests?  They've been opting out in one way or another for decades.  ;)

I miss the mature and open-minded Buddhagirl.  She wasn't the type who'd dismiss a story outright merely due to those who published it, label everyone who disagreed with her a racist, applaud a young boy for spitting on cop, etc. *sigh*

Except for the fact it wasn't a hot object - the whole point of the demonstration - solid point.

Yeah, that's exactly what he said.   ::)

Curse Simeon for not being a litigious student!!!

These links are laughable, do I read real news ? Last I knew Daniel Pipes works for CNN news, but maybe CNN doesn't do real news. But if you are up to it go to the CNN website and type in these words,"Judge rules Islamic education OK in California classrooms", you can read Daniels article on there.

Uhmmm...you're kidding right. I've slammed many others on here for quoting the World Net Daily. I don't label those that disagree with me racist. I label racists as racists. Especially when they say, "I don't care if it's racist...blah blah blah." I will always applaud a young boy for spitting on a racist cop. I would like to take him out for ice cream.


The search on CNN is just a Google search. The story itself isn't on CNN. Nor is it on any other reputable news source. The only sites it's coming up on are religous and right winged sites. Furthermore, I searched for Daniel Pipes and couldn't find any stories written by him that were on the actual CNN site.

These are stories hyped up to support the Christian agenda.

Regardless, no teacher should leave any sort of mark on a child. Period.

Ok Buddahgirl you are correct this never happened, and religion is not not taught in schools, I am so glad you researched this, including researching the lawsuit filed, but it never happened.
Nobody is disagreeing about the mark, I wouldn't want it on my kids, I would have been upset and wanted to speak to the teacher on this issue. This man deserves to lose his job, but don't bet your bottom dollar he doesn't get hired by a private school immediately.

I tried to pull up anything about the lawsuit that wasn't on a religous site and couldn't. What am I supposed to gather from that? This would be a HUGE story if it were true. I should've seen it on Yahoo, BBC, NBC, etc.

I've never said that there isn't religion being taught in school. I don't understand where you get that idea from. I said that there should NEVER be any religion taught in school. Period. However, I have no problem with them teaching children about other cultures.

All those sites did not get together to make up a story, though I do admit the big news organizations do it. But I am going to agree with you, religion shouldn't be taught in public schools, this should be the parents and church responsibility. As far as teaching cultures, there is a fine line, take for example the muslim faith in public schools, they claim they are teaching culture instead of religion. I think it's a slippery slope, and I believe parents should know what is being taught. Culture is fine as long as the religious believes aren't included. So do you favor the culture of the Hebrew people being taught in school ? A major part of their culture is their Jewish faith.

You're right about some cultures being so intertwined with religion that it's hard to differentiate where one ends and the other begins.

It's all falls under "multiculturalism" and "tolerance" that is being taught in our schools.  Done properly, they can be positive experiences but even then someone will probably complain.   The line between teaching about a different culture/religion and pushing it is probably different for all of us.

Of course, had John Freshwater properly demonstrated a high frequency generator we wouldn't be having this discussion.

So the big network news agencies fabricate stories, but not the smaller religious-based sites?

Simeon, you crack me up sometimes...but I have faith that someday you'll get a clue.

I doubt you're expecting this, but I'm not as outraged as everyone else about the original post regarding the teacher.

The only thing that bothers me about it is that (according to the article) this is from a long line of other issues from him, including some false teachings and his own religious beliefs.  So, sure -- if the parents are pissed, cut him loose.  It's probably something you should've done a while ago.

But, in terms of the fact that he "burned" something on to a student, since it wasn't really a BURN, I don't think it's a huge deal.  I wouldn't really care if someone did it to my kid, so long as it's not painful and is not permanent.  I actually think that hands on stuff like this gets kids involved.  And as far as that being a cross, I wouldn't have even known unless you told me.

It sounds to me that this incident, when coupled with his prior problems, paints a new, bigger picture.  I could overlook this one incident if it stood alone.

(http://209.85.117.199/1250/23/0/e814//e814.gif)

How moderate and boring!  Aren't we supposed to be ranting about him needing to be burned at the stake or screaming about his right to speak his mind?   ;D

Okay, seriously, I (http://209.85.117.199/1250/23/0/e879//e879.gif) your calm and well-reasoned outlook. 

As for "false teachings" - was that about the carbon dating?  He should not be teaching that carbon dating is inaccurate.  Some kids tune in and out all the time.  They hear bits, pieces and fragments of what teachers say, or they just flat out misunderstand what they heard.

Maybe I didn't correctly understand the last sentence of the article, which says this:

"Other findings show that Freshwater taught that carbon dating was unreliable to argue against evolution."

It sounds that he was saying that you couldn't use carbon dating to discredit evolutionary theory.




However, I want to touch on something that you said, Run.  It sounds like you're saying that Carbon dating is inaccurate.  It's not.  If it's used correctly, it's accurate.  When it's used by people who don't understand its limits, it doesn't work.

(I haven't studied up on this in a few weeks, but I think this is how it goes...)

Carbon dating is a tool that works only after a certain age range.  If you try to use it outside of that range, there are too many naturally occurring contaminants that ruin your data.  (I can't remember what it is ....Radon or something...)  It's not that the method is inaccurate, it's just that the method is ineffective in certain date ranges, and people who use it incorrectly are the problem.

It's like saying a calendar is ineffective because you're using one from the wrong year.

Taught vs mentioning his personal opinion?  I guess it's a matter of degree.

It can't be used for that, can it?

In other words, you CAN use carbon dating to discredit evolutionary theory?

I wonder if they meant this: "To argue against evolution he taught that carbon dating was inaccurate."


Nope.  If it's his opinion, and that opinion is based on something other than religion, then he should be able to mention it.

Dave, all due respect, I think that you would take a vastly different stance if you had a child.  Hands on learning is fine.  Putting your hands on someone else's child isn't, whether 'burning' hurts or not isn't the point.  That child is a person and has boundaries that need to be respected.  Two situations for you:

1:  A co-worker, a PEER, says "this is cool and only stings.  Watch what I can do to your arm.  Don't worry, it'll go away."

2:  A boss calls a meeting and in front of everyone pulls you to the front.  'Pull up your sleeve, Gray.'

Two different set of circumstances.  The boss, like the the teacher, is in a position of authority.  The same authority that kids are supposed to be respecting.  You are more likely to say 'no thanks' to your friend, your peer.  You are more likely to feel like you can not say no to your boss.  

Again - this teacher has zero right to touch a child.  He overstepped in a massive way.

My father was a science teacher for over 30 years.  The one time he ever laid his hand on a student was when one came to class and flipped out (he was on PCP).  My dad restrained him until help arrived.  There is no reason for a teacher to touch anyone.

No, you can't.  That's what I'm saying.  The article is unclear on what he was actually teaching.


Exactly.  From the text, I couldn't tell what they meant.

Anything is possible, but I just don't see myself caring about this.  To me, it's the same as getting an X drawn on your arm with a permanent marker.  Sure, maybe he shouldn't have done it, but it's not like I'm going to go after the guy's job from it.

Just because I don't have kids, doesn't mean that there aren't kids in my life that I always want to protect.  I don't have biological children, but it doesn't mean I approve of people harming kids.

I don't really think it's fair to call this a burn.  ...it's a mark.  Not a big deal, in my opinion.

I'm fine backing off from the 'burn' comment and calling it a mark as well.  For me, simply put, I don't want anyone touching my child.  I don't want someone making an 'x' on her shoulder with a marker, or anything else.  A huge portion of my stance here is built upon growing up as an educator's son.  My dad taught back in the day when teachers were allowed to spank students.  Can you believe that?  He never laid a hand on one.  Not even, not once.  He also coached basketball, football and baseball.  Same deal.  He always said that he was there to teach, the student to learn and that personal space is personal space.

I'm not advocating spanking students, or even marking students.

I'm just saying that I wouldn't care if this happened to my kid.  It doesn't bother me.  Maybe it should, but it doesn't.

The religious implications (and it's not even really clear that there were any) bother me way more than the mark itself.  If it had been a smiley face and my son/daughter came home with it, I'd say "Cool!"

Please don't take this as my attacking your position, I ask the following question out of curiosity only:

You have a dog, yes?  Say you're at a off leash dog park and your dog is running around, happy as can be, with a tennis ball in his / her mouth.  Someone wants that tennis ball to throw to their dog.  Rather than waiting they grab your dog's collar and wrestle the ball from your dog's mouth. 

How are you feeling / reacting to someone you don't know touching your dog in this manner?

Edited for an ugly spelling error.  I is wicked smaat.

I'm with Dave.  Teachers have to walk such a fine line as it is.  If you believe that part of the problem with schools is that our best and brightest are leaving that career behind, or not choosing it in the first place, then parents over-reacting to such situations is part of the cause.

In my experience it was usually parents and teachers on one side and the student and administrator on the other.  

If you want your children to rule the school just have them know the name of a lawyer or threaten to drop out.  In my experience either scares the hell out of administrators.

Everyone who touches your child dog is not snatching a toy from her to give to his child dog.   ;)

^ Not that it's the same, but I wouldn't care about that either.

I don't want anyone harming, threatening, or intimidating my children (or anyone's children).  Short of that, though, to me, there's a bit of crying wolf to freaking out over non-issues.  In this case, nobody got hurt, and assuming there was no mal-intent, it's no big deal.  I doesn't sound from the tone of this article that this was done through authority or that it was some kind of punishment.

I don't believe that not wanting a teacher to touch my child is 'over-reacting' in any sense of the word.

I would not want a teacher putting something on my kids against their will, but if they came home and said "Look at this Mommy, it's really cool!",  I would not get worked up about it.  Sometimes they do face painting or the fake tattoos.  I might have an issue if a religious symbol were used at a public school, but our school district is very strict about that kind of thing.  That being said, I make an effort to get to know my kid's teachers and I feel they are good teachers.

I think it is.  Teachers touch you all the time, between handshakes, pats on the back, high fives, etc.  I think that there's a great distinction in the kind of touch we're talking about, from harm or other forms of inappropriate touch.

Kids don't live in a bubble.  Neither do teachers.  They should maintain a professional environment, but they're all people that are interacting, and touch is a way of doing that.

Dave - we are getting ultra nit picky here and starting to deal with semantics.  There is a huge difference between shaking my child's hand versus using something on her arm that leaves a mark...one that takes a couple months to go away.

Saying "great job" and giving her a hi-five doesn't do this:

(http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20080620/capt.ac5d0932340f4e9db0a6f37fc9a4280b.teacher_bible_co101.jpg?x=400&y=268&sig=UzQXlWdc56WY2bilwPDA3w--)

I want one clear and simple thing when my child goes to school: to be educated.  You don't need to do something like this to educate a child.  I would have been pissed if my child came home with this on their arm as well.  Again - if that teacher wants to do this on HIS arm to show how the piece of equipment works, go ahead.  It's your arm.  Leave my kid's arm alone.

That's the first time I have paid attention to the picture.  I'm not sure about the rest of you but I wouldn't have even thought of that as a cross.

Just wondering ... I wonder if he allowed the kids to do that to themseves or if he actually did it? Would it make a difference to you?

Of course there is, just as there's a difference between harming your child and what has happened here.  That's the point I'm illustrating.

In my opinion, you ARE over-reacting.  You're talking about going in and beating up a teacher and going to jail for a non-harmful, temporary mark on a kid's arm.  I just don't think it's a big deal.

Maybe I'm under-reacting.

No, I wouldn't think cross.  But the second someone tells me this guy preaches Christianity in the classroom and anti-evolution rhetoric, I would.  That would piss me off more than anything.  "WTF is this guy teaching this in a SCIENCE CLASS for?!" 

Marking a child let alone one of your students whom I'm assuming are minors, is pretty ballsy.  You need parental consent when they get something as trivial as an ear piercing, and this guy is marking them.  Even if they "volunteered" to get the "marking" it is still way beyond their own reach and especially his.  Harmless or not you wouldn't want some asshole drawing a pentagram on your kid's forehead, would you?

As for the last sentence in the article, it kind of had me puzzled as well but I gathered that it meant to say it doesn't work in order to argue against evolution. Other findings show that Freshwater taught that carbon dating was unreliable (<insert comma> in order) to argue against evolution.

Amen.

"Harm, threaten and intimidate" are much more specific than touch.

Should be fun the first day the little one comes home with dirty britches.  "WHY DIDN'T YOU CHANGE MY CHILD!"  "Umm, because I didn't want to get beat up!"

Simeon got it, but then again I did not expect you to.
There had to be many other options to demonstrate this machine that other labs use that does not involve the use of human flesh as a tapestry.
Both CF and Sim, who are clearly two of the biggest chritians supporters on this board have been more ration and understanding about this than you have, and I can understand their worry about their faith being labeled by incidents like this. You are just once again using a story to rant about bad liberals.

Thank you, yes I do believe this was wrong, I don't care if it was a cross or smiley face.
I have read many hypocritical post on here and name calling also.
If you chose the science of creation over the theories of evolution you are crazy. If you quote a case in California and only Christian sites post about it, then its a lie.
I think we should stick to the issue instead of attacking people for their believes.
I am sure this teacher is not the only one to make marks on a student with a high frequency generator, you may be surprised how often it does happen. I am sure if we all thought back to our school years, a teacher did something or allowed something to happen that wasn't appropriate. I remember science and survival class they made us climb a ladder then fall back wards into the hands of the students, it was to teach us to trust one and another, but what if they didn't catch me or someone else ?

Same ol' BS mooth.

Do you even bother to read my posts before you respond to them or do you just respond to what you hope I said?

Science and survival class? What kind of school was this?

It was a public school and great class, it was one of my favorite.
They taught you science of plants and climates, and then teach you the best way to survive in certain conditions. Here is an example, how to dig a snow cave, how to build a net to catch fish, and what plants you can and can not eat. It was fun.

That's the first time I've paid much attention to the photo as well, and given the rest of the details of the story, I have a hard time seeing anything BUT a cross there.

I'm in Maine's camp on this one... You don't mark my child, whether by heat or generated frequencies. It's not part of the educational process I'd want for my child. I probably wouldn't beat up the teacher, but I might take a curling iron and draw a rough pentagram in the middle of his forehead. ;)

Sounds cool and progressive, but I have never heard of a curriculum like it. As much time as I spent outdoors I would have loved it.

Not sure how progressive it was, I took this class back in 1983, not even sure if its around anymore. But it was neat learning what plants you can eat, and some you can boil into a drink, man that was so long ago...The rock climbing was fun.

It's far from being in proportion or consistant as there isn't anything on top of where it crosses.  The small portion that extends to the right isn't nearly as defined as the one that protrudes to the left. Do I see a cross when I want too? Yes but it would not have been "my" first choice.  I thought it was more of several a random marks.

I thought it looked more like a midget wearing safety goggles, eating ice cream

...either that or a cross.

When I made that statement I was also under the assumption that the cross had been actually burned into the arm of the child.  I'm funny like that, I go by the title of the thread.

So, yes.  Using something hot enough to burn skin - a teacher BURNS something into my child's skin and they will have me to deal with under very unpleasant circumstances.  If a child is in a public school system and is assaulted by a teacher - who is protecting that child?  Not the school.  Certainly not the teacher.

It would take a lot to provoke me into violence.  I have trained my whole life to avoid it.  I am all about defense.  You want to set me off, harm my child.  I stand by those words and always will.  You won't find many parents that do not stand by those words.

The actual mark wasn't so much of a burn so my real life reaction would be a little different.  That doesn't change the fact - that teacher doesn't need to lay a hand on my child.

And Run - you are being utterly ridiculous making a correlation between "dirty britches" (what are you, anyway?  65 years old?) and a mark on a kid's arm that takes a couple of months to go away.  You parent the way you deem fit, I'll do the same.  I shouldn't expect anything less, you are the king of the "huh?" comments.  Because a child in a science class having something marked on their arm and a dirty pair of pants are the same...how?  In what world?  Did daycare providers start teaching science to toddlers while changing diapers?  Get real.

And, honestly, Dave -- try HAVING a child before telling someone that they are being over protective.  Because in this case you really need to know what you are talking about before putting that assumption on someone.  You need to have experience with waking up at 2am to find your two month old throwing up everywhere and a 104 degree fever.  Or day care calling and saying that your 9 month old is struggling to breathe and they just called the rescue.  Or something as simple as every day "did she get enough to eat today" worries.  Your life is spent worrying about that child.  Are they healthy?  Are they happy?  Are they growing at the right right?  Is their nutrition where it should be?  Is this vaccine really something she needs?  Are we doing the right thing by using a day care a couple days a week?  Am I spending enough time to grow her intellect and imagination?  Is she learning good social skills?  Are you doing everything that you can to set them up for life success?  Are you doing all you can to make sure that they are well adjusted?  That doesn't even get into the things you worry about with the future and money.

If you don't have a child you have no right to tell someone who does what is over reacting and what isn't.  It's not your child.  That is a pretty big liberty to take.

My child.  Do not put a mark on her arm that requires a couple months to heal.  End of story.

Maine, I am not sure about your point of not having children making you not know how to act. I see parents all the time that I think do wrong, but it is on the other end of the scale. I don't have kids but I know when one is allowed to run free and not get any sort of direction or discipline. Just because I don't have a child doesn't mean I (or anyone else) is ignorant. Do I think you are overreacting. Tough to say. This thing is basically harmless but I wouldn't want my child forced to do it. If they volunteer, who gives a shit. It is going away. If anything I think the fact you do have a child may have jaded your view a bit. You automatically have taken this to worst case scenario, when really it is no worse than a henna tattoo. It isn't permanent and it was apparently painless. I initially took the title of the thread the same way. I was picturing physical burns with permanent scarring (I have watched people brand themselves so I know the sight and smell I pictured) but this just wasn't the case.

Phish - I think I am being clear.  If it's my child that has come home with a mark on their arm and I get upset about my child...believe it or not there isn't room to debate whether I am over reacting or not.  It's not your child.  It's not Dave's.  It's not Run's.  It's not Santa Claus'.  It's my child. 

Entitlement doesn't stop at material things, people seem to think it's okay to walk around placing judgement upon other people in circumstances that they get snap shots of.  It's easy to judge from afar. 

I agree that in today's world people are ultra sensitive about things, perhaps too sensitive.  And I also agree that people are also WAY too judgemental about things in this society as well -- and many times judging things that they have zero experience in.

Unless you have a child and understand the constant worry that goes along with having one you can't understand.  Just like a man can't understand what it's like to be a woman or a woman to be a man.  There are things that you simply have to experience to "get."  Sorry if that rubs you, or anyone else, the wrong way.  It's true. 

I'm not saying everyone needs to have children to have opinions.  What I AM saying is that you need to have children to understand my position on mine.  It's a members only club in that regard.

And people keep going back to "pain."  Do a little research on the equipment that was used.  It is described as "not safe for use on skin" and that each mark feels like a strong burst of static electricity.  Once stings a little.  I'm looking at that mark and I see, what?  30-40 seperate marks?  Is that the same as "pain?"  No.  Was it nessassary to do?  NO. 

I'm not sure what is so hard to understand when it comes to keeping your hands to yourself and people's desires to have their space. 

I'd love to see a science teacher try putting a mark like that on the Abbiechrist...he'd have a sudden compulsion to fling himself off the roof or something. ;)

I get your point and agree that no student should be forced into this excersize. 30-40 pursts of static electricity mean little to nothing to me as long as the child volunteered. I don't have to have a child to take that position. These children are not going to be scarred emotionally or physically by this. If they were, then they have nore serious problems the parent needs to worry about.

I hope you don't take this too personally, but the quote I pulled out almost seems ultra possessive. It is probably me more than you on this one, but take this quote to an extreme and you can see how utterly rediculous it is. Let's say someone has a child and beats the shit our of them for having an accident in their pants. According to your quote the parent is entitled to do so and no childless person could have an opinion about it. I know this isn't where you are going with what you said, but please step back for a minute and see what words come out as a result for your love of Abby (I hope I remembered her name).

I am not trying to judge your position. I respect it and it is yours to have. I just think you feel that every person who has a child automatically feels the same way and that any person without a child is basically void of having any insight or perspective.

^^
Abby would put the Jedi mind trick on him.  The conversation with the EMT's would go like this...

"Professor Watershed, just so we're clear, you WANTED to put this engaged curling iron inside your anus?  Why?"

You're right.

Hey, Abby comes home with that mark and tells me that she asked to do it I am probably still making a call just to find out what was used and how long the mark will be there.  She is her own person and can make decisions like that.  I do have trust in teachers to not put her in harm's way. 

My stance is that is the teacher is just running around the class going "watch this" without really asking "who wants to do this?" 

Abby raises her hand and says "I will, bring it on!"  I'm good with that.  I hope that takes care of a little of the confusion.

My whole beaf initially was that I thought it was a real burn.  And then my other stance is against a teacher using this as part of a lesson that everyone must parttake in, like it or not. 

Even at 2, Abby is very much her own person and her mother and I respect her as an individual.  I won't second guess her unless it's really needed.  I am a free thinking individual and I'm raising Abby to be the same.  I see where you are at on this one and agree.  I think there might be a little confusion as to where my stance is at.

I hope that clarifies my position a little?  I know it seems like a hard position and in some ways it is, but it is also based on circumstance.

Wow this is getting pretty heated now it includes curling irons. Majority of times I agree with Maine, but this is not one of them. I agree that the teacher had no right to mark any childs arm, there must be better ways to demonstrate this machine. I disagree about the fact you need to have children to form a real opinion about what is wrong or right. I also disagree about him getting violent with the teacher, as marking the child is not illegal but assault and battery is. I don't think I would have filed a lawsuit but I would go to every school board meeting demanding that he be fired. As a parent I understand you want to protect your child, and you want whats best for them, but committing a crime to do it is not the best way to teach your kids.
This guy lost his job, isn't that punishment enough ?

Dude - try reading my posts.  You quite obviously have not because you are stating the direct opposite of everything that I have said.

Yeah, I'm the one being utterly ridiculous.  ::)

I'm old enough to focus on the point and not make a big deal about "dirty britches" vs "poopy pants" or "soiled diaper".  I'm also old enough to not say "touch" when I mean "harm.

Care-providers and school officials are going to have to touch your child to do their jobs.

After crappy administrators, which is more redundant than you'd think, overprotective parents are a teacher's worst nightmare.

(http://209.85.117.199/1250/23/0/e879//e879.gif)

To both statements above - believe it or not, I probably have a little more experience with this than you.  I lived it being the son of a life long educator and coach.  From being called at home because parent 'a' didn't agree with a grade to being yelled at because parent 'b's' son isn't getting enough playing time, I've seen it all.  The phenomenon of blaming teachers for everything didn't start last year.


He gets my point and can see the direction and stance I have been taking all along!  Dancing in the streets ensues!

Damn Maine....you're getting a tad defensive.

I made the statement that perhaps you were over-reactive regarding going to jail for beating up a teacher who marked the kid's arm.  I don't think it's my job to assume that you hadn't real the article attached, after 7 pages of dialog, and only skimmed the thread title.

I've been trying to be respectful and choose my words carefully, but you're making it hard to have a conversation with you.  It's only a matter of time before you flip out, if we don't agree.

^If you say so, slick.  Dave, you don't know me.  You've never spoken to me.  I don't "flip out."  This is a conversation, sometimes levels of communication go beyond someone's comfort zone.  That doesn't mean that I am "making it hard to do."

I believe that my being defensive in this case is a little warranted.  I also believe that you aren't really understanding what I am saying.  I'll make it crystal clear:

If a teacher touched my daughter in an inappropriate way, or physically harmed her - yes.  At that point he would have a very ticked off me to deal with and it wouldn't be pretty.

My initial response to this thread was that of the title: teacher BURNS item into a child's arm.

I also said that if Abby had raised her hand and said "hey, I'll try that" - that's up for her to decide.  I'm not going to second guess my child.  I might call the teacher and ask about the equipment that was used, but that's about it.

This thread is full of hyptotheticals, yes?  I said that, hypothetically, if a teacher harmed my child there would be hell to pay.  I was told that I was over reacting.  I don't feel that anyone has the cause to tell me that is the case.

I never said that under the circumstances of what happened I would march into the school and take the teacher to task. I was using a hypothetical situation of a teacher BURNING items into a student's arm.

A teacher shouldn't be touching a student without their permission.  That's the long and short of it.  If the student in question agreed to do this, we're wasting a lot of time debating something that shouldn't be debated.  If the teacher required all students in his class to do this as part of a lesson, that's another story.

So to be clear, and not be accused of "flipping out", I'll say again: my stance on confronting a teacher physically would be reserved to a situation where that teacher harmed my child.

Please feel free to re-read my posts. 

Maine's...coming after a teacher...
 8)
(http://www.brainpowerlearning.com/bully.jpg)

I understand what you're saying now, Maine.  But it's not what you said before.

Your revelation that you were only drawing your conclusion from the title of the post came on page 8, Reply #106.  This was well after you mentioned beating up the teacher, Reply #4.

I don't think that's the onus is on me to crawl into your head and figure out what you mean and what parts of the article you've read.  Now that you've explained it, fine.  But it's not until 8 pages into the discussion that you let us know that you were talking about a hypothetical traditional burn, rather than the static electricity mark that that the rest of us are talking about.

^Fair enough, I'm sorry that I wasn't clear enough with what I was saying.

That was my second guess!!!  ;D