Back to the “Branding”

Righting 1st Amendment Wrongs

We have been following the John Freshwater story on this blog closely. A reader of A Good Choice . . . blog commented on the article, "Freshwater Legal Defense Fund." I responded to a comment made by that reader today. I repeat it here because others may have the same concern.

Anonymous said...

What about the branding? Where in the Bible does it mention branding children is okay?

I would send money to defend religious freedom, but I will not defend the branding. That's child abuse.

Why aren't you mentioning the branding? Does your silence mean you support it?


gregjaye said...

There was no branding. See related articles here and here.

I agree deliberate branding or burning of a child would be abuse. However, the pictures circulating are not necessarily truthful. It will take a school board hearing to hear Mr. Freshwater's appeal (8/26) and the lawsuit to examine the "evidence" of the photo.

John Freshwater stated that he did not burn or brand any child.

There is some suspicion that the photos are not photos of any student resulting from the experiment done in the classroom.

I heard Columbus area talk show host Bob Burney say that his grandson this past school year was a student in Mr. Freshwater's class - an eye witness and he told his grandfather that their was no branding.

The branding issue was blown up by the Columbus Dispatch, the school board and the investigator - to embellish their position.

We will see what happens as the hearing and the trial plays out . . .

Furthermore, the questionable branding or burning issue is merely a diversionary tactic to turn attention away from the violation of Mr. Freshwater's right to keep his personal Bible on top of his classroom desk. That remains the central issue in this case.