Talk:Religious rights of teachers

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A good point regarding the fact that it's not really a full bio of Freshwater, Ed...but it seems like an article on the religious rights of teachers should also feature more than one example. Are there any other good cases at the moment we could use to expand on the theme? --Benp 16:48, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

The expansion you made a moment ago is what I was looking for. Keep up the good work. --Ed Poor Talk 17:31, 8 July 2008 (EDT)


"...marking students' arms with an 'X'..."

I'm sorry, but there's a photo of the burn here, and it definitely looks like a cross, not an X. --transResident Transfanform! 17:38, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

To be honest, it looks more like a "7" than either of those to me. It's hard to tell what's part of the mark and what's freckles on the upper arm. The device he used doesn't exactly have pinpoint accuracy. --Benp 17:49, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
Does it matter? He burnt students. Perhaps that isn't clear enough: He burnt markings into the flesh of students. And here we are defending him just because we have this instinct to jump to the aid of anyone who claims to be a persecuted christian. Put asside all the religious concerns, and just think about that - is anyone who physically injures students fit to be a teacher? He is a danger, but Christians are being blinded to this by the deep desire to only see the best in 'one of our own' and leaders eager to hype up claims of persecution. NewCrusader 17:53, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Benp wrote: "The device he used doesn't exactly have pinpoint accuracy." Actually, it does. The device, an Electro-Technics Products BD-10A High Frequency Generator has a point on it - see the picture at Also, the Instruction Manual states: "Never touch or come in contact with the high voltage output of this device..." PaulBurnett 23:07, 14 February 2010 (EST)

"Textbooks...were unacceptable because they reflected a Christian viewpoint."

That is an un-encyclopedic and unfair over-simplification (and mis-quote) of the judge's ruling. The textbooks were unacceptable not because they were Christian but because they were so scientifically illiterate that students taught using them would not be able to cope in actual science classes. The judge mentioned that even "some Christian schools have declined to use (the) textbooks because of concerns about the texts' academic merit." See the decision at PaulBurnett 23:42, 14 February 2010 (EST)