Great moments in Christmas: School says Jesus on cross “violent image”

posted at 10:55 am on December 15, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

One eight-year-old in Taunton just learned a valuable lesson in political correctness, and a school district may wind up learning a little something about free speech, religious expression, and not asking questions to which one does not want to hear the answers.  An elementary school student was asked to draw something that reminded him of Christmas.  When he drew a picture of Jesus on a crucifix, the teacher and the administration recoiled in horror at the “violent image.”  No, really:

An eight year old elementary school student in Taunton was sent home from school and required to undergo a psychological evaluation after drawing a stick figure picture of Jesus on the cross.

The  second grader at Maxham Elementary school was told by this teacher that the drawing was violent.  This was after the class was asked to sketch something that reminded them of Christmas. …

The father tells the “Taunton Gazette” because his son put Xs  on the eyes of Jesus, the teacher thought it was violent.

But he drew Jesus with a smile!  Doesn’t that count for anything?

It’s hard to imagine a more clueless, knee-jerk response than the one given by this school.  First, Jesus on a crucifix has been a symbol of Christianity for two millenia.  Since Christmas is in fact a Christian holiday, at least nominally, the crucifix in this drawing clearly came from Christian symbolism and not some latent threat of a reenactment of the last scenes of Spartacus from a second grader. How dense or deliberately obtuse must a teacher and administrators be not to understand the symbolism involved in this drawing?

The story does end on a happy note.  The father of the student has been given permission for his child to attend another school in the district.  They should have transferred the teacher and the administrators instead, preferably to quiet rooms with as little contact with children as possible.  The real threat here is that the gross stupidity will infect the students.

Update: We headlined this, but I should update the post with the school’s response (hat tip from Twitter DTipson):

But after a few days on the cross themselves — and staying silent because of confidentiality issues — Taunton school officials began telling a much different story. In a statement posted on the system’s Web site, school officials said that in fact the boy had never been suspended, the teacher never requested that the children make a drawing that reminded them of Christmas or any religious holiday, and that the drawing that the boy’s father distributed to the media is in fact not the one the boy’s teacher discovered and was concerned about.

The school said it could not provide further information for reasons of confidentiality, but it noted that until Chester Johnson spoke to the newspaper the family and school officials had been “working together in a cooperative and positive manner.” It said all proper protocols had been followed and that school officials would do the same thing again if presented with similar circumstances …

Johnson acknowledged that his son was not suspended but insisted the drawing was the one that upset the teacher. He added that his son wrote his name above the Christ figure and said it was a self-portrait. It was also reported that in June 2008 a fifth-grade student was suspended from a local middle school for a day after he drew a stick figure that appeared to show him shooting his teacher and a classmate — an event that led some to believe the incident with the second-grader may have been related to that episode and heightened concern over possible school violence since the Columbine massacre.

Still, Johnson wasn’t backing down. The Boston Globe said he “held court” for the media at his girlfriend’s apartment Tuesday, insisting that the school apologize and that his son’s rights were violated. “It hurts me that they did this to my kid,” Johnson said. “They can’t mess with our religion; they owe us a small lump sum for this.”

So the school disputes what the father said, and the father is still sticking to his story.  The “self-portrait” claim seems a little beyond a second-grader, but not impossible.  Even so, demanding a psychological evaluation over a drawing of a crucifix seems very, very strange — and if the school would do it again, I’d still wonder whether parents wouldn’t do better to follow Johnson’s lead and send their children somewhere else.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

I understand the teacher/administrator’s reaction. If you look back to WHY the Catholic Church used the symbol of Christ on the Cross to pointedly hold up our Savior and King as opposed to the state (at the time Rome and now BO and his cohorts), yeah… I see why they got upset.

Just think, all these 2,000 years later, Christ on the Cross STILL instills fear and hatred among those who oppose Him and what He stood for. Amazing!

UnderstandingisPower on December 15, 2009 at 12:19 PM

I wonder how many of you Christians though would be speaking a different tune if the kid drew instead violent imagery from another religion such as the death and resurrection of Osiris.

Holger on December 15, 2009 at 12:12 PM

Does it have anything to do with Christmas?

mizflame98 on December 15, 2009 at 12:19 PM

I wonder how many of you Christians though would be speaking a different tune if the kid drew instead violent imagery from another religion such as the death and resurrection of Osiris.

Holger on December 15, 2009 at 12:12 PM

What percentage of the population worships Osiris? Can a teacher be reasonably be expected to spot Egyptian symbols? If the child and his family actually worshiped Osiris then he should be cut some slack.

gwelf on December 15, 2009 at 12:19 PM

So, you give up all pretext of living socially with non-Christians? Further, anything can be excused if the claim is made that it is a show of Christian piety?

Count to 10 on December 15, 2009 at 12:17 PM

We’re pretty comfortable living with non-believers around. But we don’t have to tolerate your stupidity.

bluelightbrigade on December 15, 2009 at 12:19 PM

What you people seem to miss is that the cross in that picture could have been turned on it’s side and then it looks like a gun. Thank God someone caught that dangerous child before it was too late!!

/sarc

ihasurnominashun on December 15, 2009 at 12:21 PM

Maybe they thought it was a drawing of Muhammid and were afraid angry muslim extremists would blow up the school.

DethMetalCookieMonst on December 15, 2009 at 12:21 PM

Maybe, assuming the kid had some kind of history of behavior this might be an indicator of issues. Maybe if he’d done other drawings depicting violence.

TheUnrepentantGeek on December 15, 2009 at 12:15 PM

That’s the kind of this psychological evaluation are supposed to determine.
Not that the field of psychology is overly reliable at this point, but that’s a separate issue.

Think process here, not anecdote. Is “violent imagery is acceptable if it has a religious component” really a precedent you want set?

Count to 10 on December 15, 2009 at 12:22 PM

So, you give up all pretext of living socially with non-Christians? Further, anything can be excused if the claim is made that it is a show of Christian piety?

What?

Are you insane? What does that have to do with anything that was commented on?

reaganaut on December 15, 2009 at 12:22 PM

You know, if he would have just drawn it upside-down, he’d be hailed as a “BAMF” by the teacher (and the Left).

bluelightbrigade on December 15, 2009 at 12:22 PM

Christmas is Jesus’ birthday!

Not the day he was beaten and nailed to a cross and left to die.

What a poorly indoctrinated child.

Dave Rywall on December 15, 2009 at 12:16 PM

Jesus was born in March, by all accounts.

Christmas merely covers up the Winter Solstice…an actual violent affair.

bluelightbrigade on December 15, 2009 at 12:18 PM
—-
Don’t make baby Jesus cry with your facts.

Dave Rywall on December 15, 2009 at 12:22 PM

We’re pretty comfortable living with non-believers around. But we don’t have to tolerate your stupidity.

bluelightbrigade on December 15, 2009 at 12:19 PM

Okay, do a role reversal on that statement, and we might actually be getting somewhere.

Count to 10 on December 15, 2009 at 12:23 PM

Don’t make baby Jesus cry with your facts.

Dave Rywall on December 15, 2009 at 12:22 PM

Don’t make us LOL with your stupid non-sequiters.

bluelightbrigade on December 15, 2009 at 12:23 PM

Actually, it IS very violent.

It is not the teacher’s place to attack the child because the parents teach him of a very violent act, no matter what the reason.
But it IS very violent.

bridgetown on December 15, 2009 at 12:23 PM

Just so we’re clear:

Teaching “fisting” “rimming” and “watersports” is not just fine but to be held up as the goal and so defensible no one should even question it.

Teaching Christ at Christmas it to be banished, punished, and then thrown down the memory hole.

Got it.

Seriously, people, do we really want to go where these people are leading?

UnderstandingisPower on December 15, 2009 at 12:24 PM

Okay, do a role reversal on that statement, and we might actually be getting somewhere.

Count to 10 on December 15, 2009 at 12:23 PM

/ad hominem

Thanks for playing, MM

bluelightbrigade on December 15, 2009 at 12:24 PM

What you people seem to miss is that the cross in that picture could have been turned on it’s side and then it looks like a gun. Thank God someone caught that dangerous child before it was too late!!

Hehehehe…and with Jesus hanging on it would be the worst kind, a Christian Gun.

Bishop on December 15, 2009 at 12:24 PM

Maybe, just maybe, you guys can step out of your “all things Christ are good” mindset and look at this from a more neutral standpoint? The kid isn’t being punished for expressing a religious concept, he is being punished for depicting a violent act. Would you be okay with a Muslim majority school allowing students to draw pictures of beheadings?

Count to 10 on December 15, 2009 at 11:56 AM

You don’t see the difference between what Christ endured FOR US, so that we might have forgiveness and violence which is done TO OTHERS because they are not forgiven?

Thanks for putting your IQ in your screen name.

aikidoka on December 15, 2009 at 12:25 PM

It is not the teacher’s place to attack the child because the parents teach him of a very violent act, no matter what the reason.

Hopeless.

reaganaut on December 15, 2009 at 12:25 PM

Christmas is Jesus’ birthday!

Not the day he was beaten and nailed to a cross and left to die.

What a poorly indoctrinated child.

Dave Rywall on December 15, 2009 at 12:16 PM

Teaching your kinds your religion = indoctrination. Thanks for the 2 minutes hate Drywall.

TheUnrepentantGeek on December 15, 2009 at 12:26 PM

Count to 10 on December 15, 2009 at 11:56 AM

I choose to believe you’re just being contrarian for the hell of it. Nobody can be that stupid.

SKYFOX on December 15, 2009 at 12:26 PM

While, elsewhere “Allah is God” was removed from a “Holiday Show” at an Indiana grade school.

profitsbeard on December 15, 2009 at 12:26 PM

What we all need is a little Johnny Cochrane ditty:

Just because the crucifixion was a violent fact, doesn’t make Christianity a violent act.

Simple enough for you, Drywal & Count to 10?

bluelightbrigade on December 15, 2009 at 12:26 PM

What?

Are you insane? What does that have to do with anything that was commented on?

reaganaut on December 15, 2009 at 12:22 PM

Kid draws violent image. Kid is punished. Punishment attacked because “religious component” excuses violent imagery. Argument not applicable to non-Christian religion.
Pretty strait forward.

Count to 10 on December 15, 2009 at 12:26 PM

Think process here, not anecdote. Is “violent imagery is acceptable if it has a religious component” really a precedent you want set?

Count to 10 on December 15, 2009 at 12:22 PM

Think, quit being a ‘tard and read the article.

TheUnrepentantGeek on December 15, 2009 at 12:27 PM

Nobody can be that stupid.

SKYFOX on December 15, 2009 at 12:26 PM

Yes they can, and Count to 10 probably is.

bluelightbrigade on December 15, 2009 at 12:27 PM

I smell a rift in the conservative ranks…maybe Carville was right.

Bishop on December 15, 2009 at 12:28 PM

Kid draws violent image. Kid is punished. Punishment attacked because “religious component” excuses violent imagery. Argument not applicable to non-Christian religion.
Pretty strait forward.

Count to 10 on December 15, 2009 at 12:26 PM

If you completely ignore common sense, this comes across as something beyond word salad. If.

TheUnrepentantGeek on December 15, 2009 at 12:28 PM

bluelightbrigade on December 15, 2009 at 12:18 PM

No one knows when Christ was born. There is no evidence in scripture about it, and there is no mention of Christ outside scripture until about 42 AD. Placing his birth in the spring is just speculation.

Ted Torgerson on December 15, 2009 at 12:28 PM

Christmas merely covers up the Winter Solstice…an actual violent affair.

bluelightbrigade on December 15, 2009 at 12:18 PM

Maybe in the Middle East or Mesoamerica. Everywhere else, not so much.

Holger on December 15, 2009 at 12:29 PM

Actually, it IS very violent.

It is not the teacher’s place to attack the child because the parents teach him of a very violent act, no matter what the reason.
But it IS very violent.

bridgetown on December 15, 2009 at 12:23 PM

But the forgiveness is greater.

-

TwilightStruggler on December 15, 2009 at 12:29 PM

I guess this means Obama?
jwolf on December 15, 2009 at 11:57 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLkokNuIojw&feature=related

davidk on December 15, 2009 at 12:29 PM

Argument not applicable to non-Christian religion.
Pretty strait forward.

Count to 10 on December 15, 2009 at 12:26 PM

Go ahead, MM, tell us where it doesn’t apply.

Denmark, perhaps?

bluelightbrigade on December 15, 2009 at 12:30 PM

No one knows when Christ was born. There is no evidence in scripture about it, and there is no mention of Christ outside scripture until about 42 AD. Placing his birth in the spring is just speculation.

Ted Torgerson on December 15, 2009 at 12:28 PM

It’s estimated by the time shepherds were in the fields.

bluelightbrigade on December 15, 2009 at 12:31 PM

Hopeless. Never mind.

Count to 10 on December 15, 2009 at 12:32 PM

Maybe in the Middle East or Mesoamerica. Everywhere else, not so much.

Holger on December 15, 2009 at 12:29 PM

Basic history, my friend. That you don’t know it is your own fault.

bluelightbrigade on December 15, 2009 at 12:32 PM

Kid draws violent image. Kid is punished. Punishment attacked because “religious component” excuses violent imagery. Argument not applicable to non-Christian religion.
Pretty strait forward.

Count to 10 on December 15, 2009 at 12:26 PM

Did you awake from a 3000 year coma? You want to argue that the Crucifixion is a ‘violent image’ that meets this requirement then you have to totally strip this out of the context of the society we live in and the task the child was asked to do.

Aside from that you’re also saying that a mildly violent image that doesn’t have any social context should also elicit a psychiatric evaluation?

The fact you claim you are being neutral on this issue tells me that you’re dealing with a lot self-deception regarding your clarity of reasoning.

gwelf on December 15, 2009 at 12:32 PM

gwelf on December 15, 2009 at 12:32 PM

Count to 10 couldn’t play anymore.

Hopeless. Never mind.

Count to 10 on December 15, 2009 at 12:32 PM

bluelightbrigade on December 15, 2009 at 12:34 PM

I would bet that the teacher is under 30 and was raised as an atheist who attended public schools with a PC agenda. He/She may have been truly ignorant of the significance of the image. However, someone in the administration had to know better.

My daughter attended public school for kindergarten. One day, on the playground, she was singing Jesus Loves Me to herself on the swing. Apparently this was an outrage and I was summoned to the school for a meeting to make me aware of my daughter’s need for sensitivity. I was given a sensitivity DVD for her to watch and a tolerance coloring book. Seriously. We enrolled our daughter in Catholic school the next day. We live in an area that is overwhelmingly Republican and military. I wasn’t expecting that garbage here.
It is okay to practice any religion you want in the U.S. as long as it isn’t Christianity

ExcessivelyDiverted on December 15, 2009 at 12:34 PM

It’s estimated by the time shepherds were in the fields.

bluelightbrigade on December 15, 2009 at 12:31 PM

Also the Star of Bethlehem fixes a spring date, not a winter date depending on what Astronomical event was.

Holger on December 15, 2009 at 12:34 PM

Also the Star of Bethlehem fixes a spring date, not a winter date depending on what Astronomical event was.

Holger on December 15, 2009 at 12:34 PM

Now we’re having a discussion :)

March-April. They’re pretty close, though, aren’t they? Also, March can be both Winter and Spring.

bluelightbrigade on December 15, 2009 at 12:36 PM

What the cross means to me:
Jesus is not a fair-weather friend. He’s still your friend in times of great violence.

-

TwilightStruggler on December 15, 2009 at 12:36 PM

Most likely, the teacher is trying to be fair and religiously neutral.

On…Christmas. Sure.

Remove the religious element to the drawing, and you have a clear depiction of violence.

You’d also remove the very reason that Christmas is celebrated.

Actually, now that I think about it, if a child responds to a “what do you feel about religion” with the most violent image associated with that religion, isn’t a psychological evaluation appropriate?

Well, don’t think too much, there. The assignment was Christmas, not “about religion.”

Maybe it’s nothing, but maybe the kid is fixated on violence and death, and is only hiding it behind a pious facade.

Count to 10 on December 15, 2009 at 12:10 PM

Or, maybe, there’s a consequence for dumbing down Education Colleges to the extent that the dumbest college bound people gravitate towards Education. There’s a consequence to churning out teachers, upwards of 60% not being able to pass a 9th grade skills test in Massachusetts.

MNHawk on December 15, 2009 at 12:37 PM

The kid was asked what does Christmas mean to him. For a lot of Christians, it means Jesus, usually depicted on a cross.

I’ve been to a midnite Christmas service where there was one large cross and a very simple manger – nothing festive.

Blake on December 15, 2009 at 12:37 PM

Hopeless. Never mind.

Count to 10 on December 15, 2009 at 12:32 PM

Yes. Spouting nonsense that ignores the facts of the article and any reasonable assessment of the context of the event is indeed hopeless.

TheUnrepentantGeek on December 15, 2009 at 12:37 PM

Teaching your kinds your religion = indoctrination. Thanks for the 2 minutes hate Drywall.

TheUnrepentantGeek on December 15, 2009 at 12:26 PM
———
Well now, name me a couple of Christians who gave their kids the freedom to choose and I’ll take it alllll bakc and baby Jesus won’t cry,

Dave Rywall on December 15, 2009 at 12:38 PM

Well now, name me a couple of Christians who gave their kids the freedom to choose and I’ll take it alllll bakc and baby Jesus won’t cry,

Dave Rywall on December 15, 2009 at 12:38 PM

My two parents. Try again, nitwit.

TheUnrepentantGeek on December 15, 2009 at 12:39 PM

Kid draws violent image. Kid is punished. Punishment attacked because “religious component” excuses violent imagery. Argument not applicable to non-Christian religion.
Pretty strait forward.

Count to 10 on December 15, 2009 at 12:26 PM

I assume you have very little experience being around children. Many if not most boys try to work bombs, fighter jets and guns into most things they draw. They also play all sorts of ‘war games’. Are you suggesting that they should all be hauled before doctors for psychiatric evaluations?

gwelf on December 15, 2009 at 12:39 PM

I smell a rift in the conservative ranks…maybe Carville was right.

Bishop on December 15, 2009 at 12:28 PM
//

You mean you smell the same rift that has existed between non-believers and believers for thousands of years?

uknowmorethanme on December 15, 2009 at 12:39 PM

What we all need is a little Johnny Cochrane ditty:

Just because the crucifixion was a violent fact, doesn’t make Christianity a violent act.

Simple enough for you, Drywal & Count to 10?

bluelightbrigade on December 15, 2009 at 12:26 PM

Aw Yeah! You just gave me an opening to post this. Those two have been using this argument the whole time. LOL!

mizflame98 on December 15, 2009 at 12:40 PM

Kid draws violent image. Kid is punished. Punishment attacked because “religious component” excuses violent imagery. Argument not applicable to non-Christian religion.
Pretty strait forward.

Count to 10 on December 15, 2009 at 12:26 PM
//

A stick figure with X’ed out eyes does not make a violent image.

We might as well ban Shakespeare while were going crazy with the cheez-whiz.

uknowmorethanme on December 15, 2009 at 12:41 PM

What we all need is a little Johnny Cochrane ditty:

Just because the crucifixion was a violent fact, doesn’t make Christianity a violent act.

Simple enough for you, Drywal & Count to 10?

bluelightbrigade on December 15, 2009 at 12:26 PM
—–
Oh my Lord you’re right – the Bible has zero violence in it.
Thanks for having such a sharp grasp on your magical book.

Dave Rywall on December 15, 2009 at 12:41 PM

I assume you have very little experience being around children. Many if not most boys try to work bombs, fighter jets and guns into most things they draw. They also play all sorts of ‘war games’. Are you suggesting that they should all be hauled before doctors for psychiatric evaluations?

gwelf on December 15, 2009 at 12:39 PM

Sweet merciful lord, THANK YOU.

Add to that list: Dinosaurs, Aliens, Ravenous Animals, Knights, Superheroes, and on and on, pretty much all of which are SHOOTING LAZER BEAMS PEW PEW PEW.

And yet somehow, we’re not spitting out millions of little Charlie Mansons.

TheUnrepentantGeek on December 15, 2009 at 12:41 PM

My two parents. Try again, nitwit.

TheUnrepentantGeek on December 15, 2009 at 12:39 PM
——
Right.

Dave Rywall on December 15, 2009 at 12:41 PM

Anyone see The Passion of the Christ?

There’s a reason they call it the “Passion”. It’s supposed to get you to think about the true meaning of the Christian faith, which is based on Christ’s suffering on humanity’s behalf (and resurrection, I know…).

It’s a fallacy to equate that to actual man-on-man violence like, say, jihad, or gangs (which are like cults).

That the teacher was to stupid (or capricious) to effectively navigate that those facts is a sad indictment of the public ed system , k-16, in this country.

Shame on them.

bluelightbrigade on December 15, 2009 at 12:42 PM

Well now, name me a couple of Christians who gave their kids the freedom to choose and I’ll take it alllll bakc and baby Jesus won’t cry,

Dave Rywall on December 15, 2009 at 12:38 PM

My parents.

gwelf on December 15, 2009 at 12:42 PM

4,000 babies aborted each day and these libtards are concerned about one picture depicting a violent act that occurred.

In other news:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,580235,00.html?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a16:g2:r1:c0.393639:b29368936:z10

davidk on December 15, 2009 at 12:42 PM

I think the crucifix itself is violent. This was a special device reserved for 2 kinds of people: slaves and enemies of the Roman state. It was the most dishonorable death imaginable and an extremely painful way to die: during the preliminary scourging criminals typically went into shock.

That is why it is a significant symbol in Christianity: Jesus didn’t die in battle, or in his bed, or from poison. He was crucified.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion#Roman_Empire

GTR640 on December 15, 2009 at 12:42 PM

Oh my Lord you’re right – the Bible has zero violence in it.
Thanks for having such a sharp grasp on your magical book.

Dave Rywall on December 15, 2009 at 12:41 PM

You already did your two minutes.

History books have violence in them too Drywall! Woah noes! We shouldn’t teach our kids about war!

TheUnrepentantGeek on December 15, 2009 at 12:42 PM

4,000 babies aborted each day and these libtards are concerned about one picture depicting a violent act that occurred.

In other news:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,580235,00.html?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a16:g2:r1:c0.393639:b29368936:z10

davidk on December 15, 2009 at 12:42 PM
——
Yet here you sit doing nothing.

Dave Rywall on December 15, 2009 at 12:43 PM

Thanks for having such a sharp grasp on your magical book.

Dave Rywall on December 15, 2009 at 12:41 PM

Bwhahaha!

The classic “Violent Old Testament God makes Christianity Inherently Violent” fallacy.

Lol.

Thanks for playing, but we all know you’re an idiot.

bluelightbrigade on December 15, 2009 at 12:43 PM

Right.

Dave Rywall on December 15, 2009 at 12:41 PM

And my wife’s parents. And a host of others.

But you assume I’m lying because you can’t handle a world that doesn’t fit your cute little stereotypes about Christians.

Bigot.

TheUnrepentantGeek on December 15, 2009 at 12:44 PM

You already did your two minutes.

History books have violence in them too Drywall! Woah noes! We shouldn’t teach our kids about war!

TheUnrepentantGeek on December 15, 2009 at 12:42 PM
——
Low flying jet.

Dave Rywall on December 15, 2009 at 12:44 PM

Thanks for playing, but we all know you’re an idiot.

bluelightbrigade on December 15, 2009 at 12:43 PM
——
Don’t worry – as long as you repent for this unChristian behaviour, God will forgive you and you still might get into heaven.

Dave Rywall on December 15, 2009 at 12:45 PM

Well now, name me a couple of Christians who gave their kids the freedom to choose and I’ll take it alllll bakc and baby Jesus won’t cry,
Dave Rywall on December 15, 2009 at 12:38 PM

My parents, too. Christian parents give their children the access and lead them in the way they should go. It’s up to the individual to choose Him or not.

kingsjester on December 15, 2009 at 12:45 PM

You’re darn right it’s violent, that was part of the point.

Grafted on December 15, 2009 at 12:46 PM

Basic history, my friend. That you don’t know it is your own fault.

bluelightbrigade on December 15, 2009 at 12:32 PM

Jack Chick Tracts are not a good place to recieve discussions on historical practices of the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans and Celts.

Holger on December 15, 2009 at 12:47 PM

Low flying jet.

Dave Rywall on December 15, 2009 at 12:44 PM

Price of tea in China.

TheUnrepentantGeek on December 15, 2009 at 12:47 PM

Don’t worry – as long as you repent for this unChristian behaviour, God will forgive you and you still might get into heaven.

Dave Rywall on December 15, 2009 at 12:45 PM

/ad hominem

bluelightbrigade on December 15, 2009 at 12:48 PM

Bigot.

TheUnrepentantGeek on December 15, 2009 at 12:44 PM
——-
So you claim that your parents sat you down and said “Hey little guy, here’s what we believe. But lots of people believe this other stuff and these people believe this other stuff. So do you want to join our religion or another religion or none at all?”

yeah right

Dave Rywall on December 15, 2009 at 12:48 PM

bluelightbrigade on December 15, 2009 at 12:36 PM

But March-April is not the Winter Solstice. At the very least you Christians can admit the Christmas Tree, the giving of presents and the Old Man giving gifts are German things.

Holger on December 15, 2009 at 12:49 PM

But March-April is not the Winter Solstice. At the very least you Christians can admit the Christmas Tree, the giving of presents and the Old Man giving gifts are German things.

Holger on December 15, 2009 at 12:49 PM
—–
Hell, they think Jesus was white as Wonder Bread.

Dave Rywall on December 15, 2009 at 12:50 PM

Think process here, not anecdote. Is “violent imagery is acceptable if it has a religious component” really a precedent you want set?

Count to 10 on December 15, 2009 at 12:22 PM

Why should anyone care if a kid draws a violent image, religiously based, or not? I remember my elementary/middle school years. The girls drew pictures of flowers and butterflies. We boys drew pictures of hot rods, monsters, and people getting decapitated.

PackerBronco on December 15, 2009 at 12:50 PM

So you claim that your parents sat you down and said “Hey little guy, here’s what we believe. But lots of people believe this other stuff and these people believe this other stuff. So do you want to join our religion or another religion or none at all?”

yeah right

Dave Rywall on December 15, 2009 at 12:48 PM

They explained the world to me as they saw it. Then made it clear that they would love and support me no matter what I did. Just as my wife’s parents did.

Which is what good parents do in every world beyond the seething ball of hatred you’ve constructed to cushion yourself from uncomfortable realities.

Bigot.

TheUnrepentantGeek on December 15, 2009 at 12:51 PM

now that I think
Count to 10 on December 15, 2009 at 12:10 PM

.
Oh please you think?
That is about as believable as AP bragging he bagged Helen Thomas.

LincolntheHun on December 15, 2009 at 12:52 PM

Jack Chick Tracts are not a good place to recieve discussions on historical practices of the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans and Celts.

Holger on December 15, 2009 at 12:47 PM

Sorry. Not Catholic, so I had to google that.

Still, non-sequiters aside, the fact that X-mas covers up the Winter Solstice is no less true.

bluelightbrigade on December 15, 2009 at 12:52 PM

Come on. An eight-year-old wouldn’t understand that the symbolism that he was expressing — that Christians have used for two millennia — of Jesus on a Cross was a violent image at all. What eight-year-old would understand the mechanics of a crucifixion, the most degrading and painful death imaginable?

In all probability, he was showing that he connected Christmas as the birth of Jesus, whom he then connected to his life, death and resurrection. The Jesus who was sent by God to be the savior of us all.

That is my belief, and my profession.

Tennman on December 15, 2009 at 12:53 PM

Hell, they think Jesus was white as Wonder Bread.

Dave Rywall on December 15, 2009 at 12:50 PM

Do you have anything on tap but stupid, done-to-death Daily Show garbage? Any means of communication beyond feeble stereotypes?

Few individuals I’ve seen online are so worthy of pity as an otherwise educated person with nothing better to do with their time than spew unthinking venom at people they’ve never met for imagined wrongs. You’re just sad.

TheUnrepentantGeek on December 15, 2009 at 12:53 PM

ell, they think Jesus was white as Wonder Bread.

Dave Rywall on December 15, 2009 at 12:50 PM

No “they” don’t.

He was as brown as me. :)

Thanks for playing today, Drywall. xxxOOOxxx

bluelightbrigade on December 15, 2009 at 12:53 PM

They explained the world to me as they saw it. Then made it clear that they would love and support me no matter what I did. Just as my wife’s parents did.

Which is what good parents do in every world beyond the seething ball of hatred you’ve constructed to cushion yourself from uncomfortable realities.

Bigot.

TheUnrepentantGeek on December 15, 2009 at 12:51 PM
—–
awww warm fuzzies

Dave Rywall on December 15, 2009 at 12:53 PM

awww warm fuzzies

Dave Rywall on December 15, 2009 at 12:53 PM

What a sad human being.

TheUnrepentantGeek on December 15, 2009 at 12:55 PM

1 Corinthians 1:18

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

davidk on December 15, 2009 at 12:55 PM

Do you have anything on tap but stupid, done-to-death Daily Show garbage? Any means of communication beyond feeble stereotypes?

Few individuals I’ve seen online are so worthy of pity as an otherwise educated person with nothing better to do with their time than spew unthinking venom at people they’ve never met for imagined wrongs. You’re just sad.

TheUnrepentantGeek on December 15, 2009 at 12:53 PM
———
You need to google Jesus and look at the lily white pictures.

Then maybe you could explain what happened to all those women on the planet who died before the Council of Trent so graciously acknowledged that women actually had souls.

Dave Rywall on December 15, 2009 at 12:57 PM

bluelightbrigade on December 15, 2009 at 12:52 PM

Jack Chick isn’t Catholic. And his tracts are hillariously erroneous.

Holger on December 15, 2009 at 12:57 PM

If you’re dumb enough to live in Massachusetts, you shouldn’t be surprised by crap like this. Either move to another state or shut up and take your lumps.

olesparkie on December 15, 2009 at 12:57 PM

My parents’ attitude was, “If you are going to live under our roof and set your feet under our table, then you will go to our church.”

davidk on December 15, 2009 at 12:59 PM

Oh my Lord you’re right – the Bible has zero violence in it.
Thanks for having such a sharp grasp on your magical book.
Dave Rywall on December 15, 2009 at 12:41 PM

Hey it’s everyone’s fav Canadian Dufus!
Well Davy I’m not sure you have read the Bible, but the first half called The Old Testament is a history of the Jewish people. In the second half called the New Testament the only violence is a beat down Jesus gave some money changers for defiling the temple, one of the apostles cutting off the ear of a Roman for trying to arrest Jesus (which Jesus healed), and Jesus willingly going to his death. What is so magical is that Jesus had a choice, and rather than run away like a liberal, he went to his death knowing what pain and horror awaited him because he love humanity so much.

LincolntheHun on December 15, 2009 at 12:59 PM

And his tracts are hillariously erroneous.

Holger on December 15, 2009 at 12:57 PM

So’s making fun of him.

bluelightbrigade on December 15, 2009 at 1:00 PM

Jack Chick Tracts are not a good place to recieve discussions on historical practices of the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans and Celts.
Holger on December 15, 2009 at 12:47 PM

Jack Chick is anti-Catholic and is so offensive that his comics are not allowed on military posts. And that is a high hurdle to meet.

LincolntheHun on December 15, 2009 at 1:02 PM

And, hey, Rywall?

It’s not indoctrination. It’s called raising a child up in the way he should go. Just like teaching the ten commandments in ways they can understand. Like There is but one God, and he is who we worship. You can’t make money or anything else be the most important thing in your life. You can’t steal your sister’s stuff. You can’t murder people in cold blood. You have to listen to mom and dad. You can’t talk dirty, using God’s name as a curseword. You can’t be so envious of your friends when they have stuff you can’t have. You can’t cheat on your wife. You have to make Sunday a day of worship. You can’t lie.

Basic stuff. Not indoctrination, but doing your job as a parent to raise your kids the right way.

So don’t get your little panties in a wad about your semantics issues. Just recognize that in this instance, you’re just wrong.

Tennman on December 15, 2009 at 1:02 PM

olesparkie:

If you’re dumb enough to live in Massachusetts, you shouldn’t be surprised by crap like this.

Massachusetts people are dum dums.

dave742 on December 15, 2009 at 1:03 PM

1 Corinthians 1:18

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

davidk on December 15, 2009 at 12:55 PM

Actually, Correctly translated, there is no ‘cross’ at all.

“For the testimony (logos) of the upright pole that enables us to stand (stauros) is to those who are perishing (apollumi – having received the death penalty; who are destroyed, lost, put entirely out of the way, abolished, finished and rendered useless; declared one who must be put to death) foolishness (moria – moronic, folly, absurd, senseless, and ignorant), but to us who are being saved (sozo – delivered, made whole, preserved, kept safe and sound, rescued from danger and destruction) it is the intrinsic power of God.” (1 Corinthians 1:18)

It’s about the testimony, not the ghoulish crucifix the child drew. Many people are led astray from the Word.
That’s so sad.

bridgetown on December 15, 2009 at 1:03 PM

Come on. An eight-year-old wouldn’t understand that the symbolism that he was expressing — that Christians have used for two millennia — of Jesus on a Cross was a violent image at all. What eight-year-old would understand the mechanics of a crucifixion, the most degrading and painful death imaginable?

In all probability, he was showing that he connected Christmas as the birth of Jesus, whom he then connected to his life, death and resurrection. The Jesus who was sent by God to be the savior of us all.

That is my belief, and my profession.

Tennman on December 15, 2009 at 12:53 PM

Finally! Tennman has nailed it! … oh, sorry, i mean, uh, “clarified” it :)
……

max1 on December 15, 2009 at 1:04 PM

Jonah Goldberg asks:

I immediately wondered why an omnivorous reptomammal indigenous to the icy planet of Hoth would much care about his offspring drawing a stick-figure of Jesus.

mankai on December 15, 2009 at 1:05 PM

You need to google Jesus and look at the lily white pictures.
Dave Rywall on December 15, 2009 at 12:57 PM

Oh a picture of Pres. Obama drawn in red instantly changes his skin coloration?

LincolntheHun on December 15, 2009 at 1:05 PM

You need to google Jesus and look at the lily white pictures.

Then maybe you could explain what happened to all those women on the planet who died before the Council of Trent so graciously acknowledged that women actually had souls.

Dave Rywall on December 15, 2009 at 12:57 PM

I can only imagine how you’d treat one of your own children who decided to become a Christian. Though I doubt you are as open to their choices as you’d like us to be.

gwelf on December 15, 2009 at 1:05 PM

I can only imagine how you’d treat one of your own children who decided to become a Christian. Though I doubt you are as open to their choices as you’d like us to be.

gwelf on December 15, 2009 at 1:05 PM

cf. Rifqa Bary.

bluelightbrigade on December 15, 2009 at 1:07 PM

Yet, this idiot teacher would probably applaud the child’s use of a peace symbol. Despite it in essence serving the same function for Nero and his persecution of the Christians.

Heftyjo on December 15, 2009 at 1:08 PM

mankai on December 15, 2009 at 1:05 PM

This is why

mizflame98 on December 15, 2009 at 1:09 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6