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 3 4 5 6

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

Wrong Council, Dave…

Some text about the Council of Macon in 545AD:


There came forward at this council a certain bishop who maintained that woman could not be included under the term `man’. However, he accepted the reason­ing of the other bishops and did not press his case: for the holy book of the Old Testament tells us that in the beginning, when God created man, `Male and female he created them, and called their name Adam’, which means earthly man; even so He called the woman Eve, yet of both he used the word `man’. Similarly, our Lord Jesus Christ is called the Son of Man, although he was the son of the Virgin, that is to say of a woman … They supported their arguments with many other references, and he said no more.

Consider Catholic theology itself — to deny that a woman has a soul would be to deny that the Virgin Mary has a soul, since she is obviously a woman. Since Mary plays quite a soulful role in Scripture, there you have it.

Dave, you can’t even get your history right, much less your theology. Poor man.

unclesmrgol on December 15, 2009 at 3:12 PM

So hicsuget doesn’t usually display irrational hatred towards the religious?

gwelf on December 15, 2009 at 3:06 PM

Not that I’ve personally seen before today.
He/she does normally push back against irrationalism hard, but apparently not today.

DarkCurrent on December 15, 2009 at 3:12 PM

Ed, why did you leave out this part?

Count to 10 on December 15, 2009 at 3:06 PM

Two possible answers to that:

1. Click the link. Not that hard.
2. Why would you care? I mean, it’s been all day, and you’re bringing it up now? It’s like you try and fail at one argument, and then go sifting for another – unrelated, I might add – argument.

Sure. Maybe she was concerned about the racial tones. But you’ve been working a different meme, and so its surt of suspect that you bring it up now.

bluelightbrigade on December 15, 2009 at 3:13 PM

This is exactly why I want to homeschool my children. I don’t even trust the catholic schools after an 8th grade science teacher tried to fail anyone who didn’t believe in global warming. I miss the days when professors actually had brains, I was always happy to walk into a classroom and see someone over 40 because then I knew I had a better chance of learning something . . .
Btw I was recently going through some old pictures of my public grade school days, I was shocked to see a nativity scene on the billboard. And all of the class standing in front of it by a Christmas tree smiling. I guess we were all just brainwashed idiots

Ingenue on December 15, 2009 at 3:13 PM

under the circumstances what was the school supposed to do? Every time some kid shoots up a school the whole country agonizes over all the signs that were missed. If it appears that Christmas makes this poor kid think of being brutally murdered, then of course the teacher has a responsibility, not only to the community but to the child, to make sure he’s ok.

Much ado about much ado about nothing.

RightOFLeft on December 15, 2009 at 3:01 PM

Your blowing everything out of proportion in order to satisfy your own punitive cravings to be malicious towards Christians and to pervert the lives of children are the much ado, making a mountain of a pebble, swallowing camels but gagging on a gnat. Of course, by complement of your edict, this community has an obligation to interfere in your sense of identity, to set you on the straight and narrow. Obnoxious turd.

maverick muse on December 15, 2009 at 3:15 PM

He/she does normally push back against irrationalism hard, but apparently not today.

DarkCurrent on December 15, 2009 at 3:12 PM

Faith and rationality aren’t incompatible. Maybe today they chose to ignore that.

bluelightbrigade on December 15, 2009 at 3:15 PM

I don’t know that I have ever met someone like that — though there might be some who frequent hot air. On the other hand, with a switch of atheist and Christian, that describes right2brite to a ‘t’.

Count to 10 on December 15, 2009 at 3:02 PM

Well, one of my friends told me about her brother-in-law. My friend’s husband is the sanest one of three brothers raised by emotionally abusive parents. One brother is dead, I believe by his own hand. The other brother became a Chasid whose sole purpose in life, according to my friend, seems to be to get in people’s faces about how they’re not Jewish enough. According to my friend, this man yelled at the officiating rabbi in the middle of his niece’s (my friend’s daughter’s) Bat Mitzvah for doing something “wrong”.

I tell this story about this particular man because it’s fresh in my mind, but even if he had been a Christian or Muslim or a Buddhist or a member of any other religion, or none, he would have done something similar in a similar situation, because what was speaking in that moment was not his Jewishness but his deeply emotionally damaged state.

We are all flawed and wounded in ways we ourselves may not even realize. How, then, could a casually encountered stranger make such a realization?

We all have a responsibility to make ourselves as emotionally healthy as we can before we can ever hope to be a healing influence on others. “Cast out the log in your own eye before you can see to cast out the speck in your brother’s eye.” Some deeply wounded people use their religion or philosophy not to help themselves to grow emotionally, but as a substitute for emotional growth — not as a bridge to something transcendent, but as armor to keep it out. Such persons, by unknowingly acting out of their woundedness, inevitably give a bad name to the beliefs they profess. Very sad.

Mary in LA on December 15, 2009 at 3:17 PM

I also know Count to 10 and hicsuget both to be highly intelligent, since I usually agree with them. I just think they’ve lost perspective somehow in this case.

DarkCurrent on December 15, 2009 at 3:00 PM

So hicsuget doesn’t usually display irrational hatred towards the religious?

gwelf on December 15, 2009 at 3:06 PM

Yes, he does, gwelf.

LOL Darkcurrent, knowing someone to be highly intelligent because you usually agree with them just leveled your playing field.

maverick muse on December 15, 2009 at 3:20 PM

8 year olds have very active imaginations – if you sent them to a psychiatrist for everything they did or said because if an adult said it you’d be concerned then every child in school is going to be seeing a psychiatrist.

gwelf on December 15, 2009 at 3:11 PM

8-year-olds don’t typically draw themselves being murdered.

RightOFLeft on December 15, 2009 at 3:21 PM

The father of the student has been given permission for his child to attend another school in the district.

SEPARATE BUT EQUAL?!?

voxpopuli on December 15, 2009 at 3:21 PM

Wait, so what happens when a kid shows up at school WEARING a crucifix?

Ingenue on December 15, 2009 at 3:22 PM

RegularJoe on December 15, 2009 at 3:08 PM

You seem to be describing “true” Christians being discriminated against by “false” Christians, which you are assuming to be a majority. They probably disagree.

Count to 10 on December 15, 2009 at 3:23 PM

Your blowing everything out of proportion in order to satisfy your own punitive cravings to be malicious towards Christians and to pervert the lives of children are the much ado, making a mountain of a pebble, swallowing camels but gagging on a gnat. Of course, by complement of your edict, this community has an obligation to interfere in your sense of identity, to set you on the straight and narrow. Obnoxious turd.

maverick muse on December 15, 2009 at 3:15 PM

I have no beef with Christianity. I’m concerned enough for the welfare of children that I can forgive schools for occasionally being too vigilant looking for signs of behavioral problems. The kid had to see a school psychologist. Big deal. Who’s overreacting here?

RightOFLeft on December 15, 2009 at 3:26 PM

During interrogation, 8-year-olds parrot answers from the leading information being asked.

maverick muse on December 15, 2009 at 3:26 PM

2. Why would you care? I mean, it’s been all day, and you’re bringing it up now? It’s like you try and fail at one argument, and then go sifting for another – unrelated, I might add – argument.

bluelightbrigade on December 15, 2009 at 3:13 PM

Oddly enough, the only part of the article that loaded up when I clicked the first time was the first paragraph, so I didn’t see the rest until I went back just a few minutes ago.
I consider you to have lost that argument, but I gave up waiting for you to recognize it. This is a different matter. The father is alleging racism, and it wasn’t Jesus on the cross, but the child himself, two things that have the potential to change the nature of the discussion.

Count to 10 on December 15, 2009 at 3:27 PM

RightOFLeft on December 15, 2009 at 3:26 PM

The school over reacted here.

maverick muse on December 15, 2009 at 3:27 PM

Public schools must end…public education, via funding scholarships for all kids to choose any school, is just fine with me.

WashJeff on December 15, 2009 at 11:37 AM

Certainly, provided those schools are privately run without meddling from the government. I feel like education and health care like I do about other basic essentials in life: For those who can afford it, they should have to pay their own way. Those who don’t can get subsidized by the government but only by way of vouchers they can use to then go out and purchase goods and services on the private market like anyone else. The govt. doesn’t actually feed the hungry; it gives them food stamps. All govt. subsidies — if they must exist — should operate the same way.

NoLeftTurn on December 15, 2009 at 3:29 PM

unclesmrgol on December 15, 2009 at 3:12 PM

Just an observation… why do RCs only care about what the Popes and Councils have to say when it’s convenient?

Just sayin’…

mankai on December 15, 2009 at 3:30 PM

8-year-olds don’t typically draw themselves being murdered.

RightOFLeft on December 15, 2009 at 3:21 PM

Then Jesus said to his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.” Matthew 16:24

I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. Galatians 2:20

Christians are called on to imitate Christ. Not to the literal extent of having themselves crucified (although there are those who do so, it’s exceptional), but metaphorically. Perhaps this little boy had heard this passage in Sunday school and was thinking about it and trying to make sense of it in his 8-year-old mind?

Mary in LA on December 15, 2009 at 3:30 PM

Mary in LA on December 15, 2009 at 3:17 PM

I can’t offer any data in support of that, but it sounds true, or at least plausible.

Count to 10 on December 15, 2009 at 3:30 PM

8-year-olds don’t typically draw themselves being murdered.

RightOFLeft on December 15, 2009 at 3:21 PM

No, but eight-year olds do often draw themselves as someone they admire.

Niere on December 15, 2009 at 3:32 PM

I have no beef with Christianity. I’m concerned enough for the welfare of children that I can forgive schools for occasionally being too vigilant looking for signs of behavioral problems. The kid had to see a school psychologist. Big deal. Who’s overreacting here?

RightOFLeft on December 15, 2009 at 3:26 PM

There doesn’t appear to be any pattern of distrubing behavior here so this would appear to be an over-reaction.

Also, this was the ultimate outcome:
(a) The child is ‘traumatized’ (as reported by the father)
(b) The child is now going to a different school. This is also something that is usually unsettling to children because it disrupts friendships etc.

gwelf on December 15, 2009 at 3:32 PM

8-year-olds don’t typically draw themselves being murdered.

RightOFLeft on December 15, 2009 at 3:21 PM

They also draw pictures of themselves in battle with laser wielding dinosaurs.

gwelf on December 15, 2009 at 3:34 PM

Making a public argument out of a child’s picture is the problem, not the artwork.

Making a taboo of personal expression in art while enforcing the education of explicit sexual activity is the height of hypocrisy.

If the teacher felt a need to talk with the child, the parent, the school counselor, making the child a public figure was the height of irresponsibility as private conversations do not require the media.

IF this kid was disturbed when he drew the picture, you can bet he is overwrought now. To him, everyone’s talking about him in a bad way, either side of the argument. Even if he “wanted” attention, what’s happening is making whatever was wrong so much worse, he’ll never forget.

maverick muse on December 15, 2009 at 3:36 PM

The “Safe Schools” Czar was unavailable for comment.

Buy Danish on December 15, 2009 at 3:37 PM

The school over reacted here.

maverick muse on December 15, 2009 at 3:27 PM

I don’t think they did. They obviously didn’t do a good job of communicating with the student, but, look, have you ever had a conversation with an 8-year-old? It’s pretty easy to misunderstand them. Even the father admits that the school just misunderstood what his son was trying to draw.

Teachers have a difficult job. They’ll make mistakes. I’d rather see them err on the side of caution when it comes to violence.

RightOFLeft on December 15, 2009 at 3:38 PM

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.

money

The Race Card on December 15, 2009 at 3:39 PM

Ed,

The Pope’s latest discourse is Green in a Gore way.

maverick muse on December 15, 2009 at 3:40 PM

RegularJoe on December 15, 2009 at 3:08 PM

A non-Christian’s perspective.

Most of the bashing coming from the Left and non-Christians is a bed made by Christian hands. A lot of that bashing is just stupid but the reason is jutsified.

You got political power. You shape policy. You are a cultural force.

But when beat the drums on stupid issues such as putting the Ten Commandments in the Classroom or Wiccans at Fort Hood you should expect to take fire from those who are offended and that people caught in the middle will not to care how much fire is coming your way because all in all you deserve that fire.

Holger on December 15, 2009 at 3:41 PM

RightOFLeft on December 15, 2009 at 3:38 PM

Exactly right. Who knows… if that teacher hadn’t reacted quickly, that kid would probably start crucifying his classmates by lunch.

And what’s a little “psychological analysis” among friends? After all, psychology is such a hard science, there is no way a government could ever use it to suppress ideas or control its citizens.

/sarc

mankai on December 15, 2009 at 3:41 PM

How dense or deliberately obtuse must a teacher and administrators be not to understand the symbolism involved in this drawing?

Now you know why I think Schools of Education should be banned. They are indoctrination centers that teach that feces are really pleasant smelling.

chemman on December 15, 2009 at 3:45 PM

maverick muse on December 15, 2009 at 3:40 PM

“It is important to acknowledge that among the causes of the present ecological crisis is the historical responsibility of the industrialized countries,”

When they agree: The Pope is the successor to Peter and represents 2000 years of wisdom!

When they don’t: He’s just a man, you don’t have to agree with the Pope on everything.

I’d quote the post-conciliar documents of Vatican II here in regard to submitting will and intellect to Pope and bishop, but quoting Popes, Councils or the like is somehow tantamount to being a “catholic-basher”… yeah, I can’t figure that one out either.

mankai on December 15, 2009 at 3:45 PM

There doesn’t appear to be any pattern of distrubing behavior here so this would appear to be an over-reaction.

Also, this was the ultimate outcome:
(a) The child is ‘traumatized’ (as reported by the father)
(b) The child is now going to a different school. This is also something that is usually unsettling to children because it disrupts friendships etc.

gwelf on December 15, 2009 at 3:32 PM

(a) is dubious. We’ve all been in situations when we were kids where we got in trouble for something that we didn’t really do. It’s not pleasant, but it’s pretty easy to get over. I think “traumatized” is a little melodramatic.

(b) was probably the father’s decision, and it was unnecessary.

RightOFLeft on December 15, 2009 at 3:47 PM

Holger on December 15, 2009 at 3:41 PM

I’m with you on that last part… but Christians hardly wield any real power… possibly in a few locales… but nationally? No way.

mankai on December 15, 2009 at 3:50 PM

I’d rather see them err on the side of caution when it comes to violence.

RightOFLeft on December 15, 2009 at 3:38 PM

What you call “caution” is child abuse.

Your same rationality would permit civil authority figures to enter your home without reasonable cause because they felt from their own morbid curiosity a “need” to search through your identity, excusing their lack of credibility that they’ve managed to cover with a self-righteous zealous that they identify as “responsibility” to adjust your life for you.

I’d rather see teachers err on the side of consideration for the child’s sense of well being that REQUIRES privacy. That ability to cope with the pressures of life is destroyed when thrust into the public for media scrutiny. Humans needs privacy, and this teacher abused the child’s trust by fabricating trouble to satisfy the teacher’s morbid mind.

maverick muse on December 15, 2009 at 3:51 PM

I, and most of my elementary school friends years and years ago would all be in therapy or kicked out of school were we in today’s schools. We often drew violent images, war scenes mostly. We would even create battles on paper which we would pass back and forth, our stick men armies fighting it out with each other.

My kids do this today, on their own, with no prompting from anyone. Usually it’s based on some video games they play (or earlier on, that their friends played, but my kids were only able to hear about because we kept them away from violent video games until they were older) They also play war games with leggos. While toy guns aren’t allowed at school, sticks and fingers still are turned into imaginary weapons.

Fortunately my kids go to a private school where this nonsense of criminalizing play that comes quite naturally to boys doesn’t take place. We even had an incident where a boy talked about shooting another kid with a BB gun, a harmless jest that he really didn’t understand the seriousness of in today’s world. He wasn’t booted out of school and sent to counseling. His parents were notified, there was a simple little discussion and that was the end of it.

flyfishingdad on December 15, 2009 at 3:55 PM

mankai on December 15, 2009 at 3:45 PM

Benedict’s early childhood in Nazi Germany may have impressed strong affinity with the earlier Socialist Green movement, nationalist then, globalist today.

maverick muse on December 15, 2009 at 3:57 PM

I swear, the atheists in this thread pretending to be very, very concerned by stick figure depictions of very well known religious icons is as hilarious as it is mendacious.

You’re angry at god. For the nine-millionth time, we get it. Go take your anger issues elsewhere. Maybe see a therapist.

TheUnrepentantGeek on December 15, 2009 at 2:44 PM

+ ∞

malclave on December 15, 2009 at 3:57 PM

I swear, the atheists in this thread pretending to be very, very concerned by stick figure depictions of very well known religious icons is as hilarious as it is mendacious.

You’re angry at god. For the nine-millionth time, we get it. Go take your anger issues elsewhere. Maybe see a therapist.

TheUnrepentantGeek on December 15, 2009 at 2:44 PM

Wow…I leave a thread for a few moments and WHAMMY! You go for the full PWN!

Awesome :)

bluelightbrigade on December 15, 2009 at 4:00 PM

flyfishingdad on December 15, 2009 at 3:55 PM

We note that those promoting the abuse of children via public educators are not parents themselves, but inexperienced self-appointed know-it-alls regarding early childhood development.

maverick muse on December 15, 2009 at 4:01 PM

TheUnrepentantGeek on December 15, 2009 at 2:44 PM

Well, I’ll have to agree with you there.

mankai on December 15, 2009 at 4:01 PM

Count to 10 is the teacher. They’re just trying to defends themselves for stupidity as best they can.

I was baptist as a Episcopal but attended Methodist Sunday School as a child. I’m 40. I went through a “find my religion” phase during High School and attended Lutheran, Baptist, Catholic, Hindi, and Buddhist Churches/Temples. My mom’s best friend is a Roman Catholic Priest who runs the all boys boarding school at St. Michael’s Preparatory School and Abbey in Laguna Niguel, CA and have attended (and been denied the Eucharist for not being Roman Catholic) there on Christmas Eve. I have both types of crosses. I grew up during the Madonna Era where the cross became jewelry. The dogma being espoused here is ridiculous. As a mother of two boys 11 and 8 and my own personal experience, I can assure you that the child wasn’t looking at the cross as a “violent” symbol. It is merely a symbol. And just because you see every Sunday the cross above the alter with Jesus on it (depending on your denomination) doesn’t mean you’ve watched the Passion and associate all the specific to how he got there. There are people who actually hang themselves by their boobs on hooks on purpose and survive and you can see that on A & E. I think a lot of you with this violent meme are thinking from your own adult perspective and placing far more mental comprehension on this 8 yr old’s religious views. It’s comical to watch people who while even saying how idiotic this is trying to explain buffoonery.

Yes, schools can force you to send your kids to see a shrink. If you refuse they’ll just call CPS. It’s just better to comply if you’re the type, like most of you here, that feels they need to explain an 8 yrs point of view with little or no interaction with the child. It simply is what it is. I, on the other hand, would have done what this parent did and more. Shaming people is great because as they beg off religious view points, one thing is universal, even atheists live by guilt and shame. I’m glad my religious journey has kept me from it. So now I just love to give my views and I’m seriously not interested what you think about it except for if you’re a Senator trying to implement ObamaCare and telling me what I can and can’t do… then we have problems.

Sultry Beauty on December 15, 2009 at 4:02 PM

As a Catholic I am offended. This PC world that we are living in, geesh it’s like 3/4 part of the US was bullied and is making up amends for it!

Grow UP people!

I don’t want to think for a second that Christ’s sacrifice for us has been worthless. Hmmm…other religions don’t even mention it. Hmmm…Perhaps these are the same people that do not care about our troops, or are against our wars.

I am ticked off enough at the “Christmas Wars”, the “Easter Wars”, the lame excuse to cut off traditions for decades within a town just because of ONE sucker filing a complaint.

It seems Sarah’s ethic complaints against her are spreading like measles all over the country. What the heck is this, “ATHEISTS, UNITE!?” Sorry Allahpundit…Love you, but there are lines to be respected and bounds to not be trespassed.

Whatever happened with the “I respect your opinion”, thing?

ProudPalinFan on December 15, 2009 at 4:03 PM

When they agree: The Pope is the successor to Peter and represents 2000 years of wisdom!

When they don’t: He’s just a man, you don’t have to agree with the Pope on everything.

I’d quote the post-conciliar documents of Vatican II here in regard to submitting will and intellect to Pope and bishop, but quoting Popes, Councils or the like is somehow tantamount to being a “catholic-basher”… yeah, I can’t figure that one out either.

mankai on December 15, 2009 at 3:45 PM

I’m sure you think your mother did a lot right in life.
I’m sure she does some things you find just downright dumb.
I’m sure you’d get in my face if I started telling you which was which.

Chris_Balsz on December 15, 2009 at 4:04 PM

I consider you to have lost that argument, but I gave up waiting for you to recognize it. This is a different matter. The father is alleging racism, and it wasn’t Jesus on the cross, but the child himself, two things that have the potential to change the nature of the discussion.

Count to 10 on December 15, 2009 at 3:27 PM

Sure you did.

And you gave yourself a grade? How Presidential of you.

Lol.

Again…you’re just now changing the subject. Sounds like a B+ to me.

bluelightbrigade on December 15, 2009 at 4:05 PM

Count to 10 is the teacher.

Scary.

bluelightbrigade on December 15, 2009 at 4:05 PM

RegularJoe on December 15, 2009 at 3:08 PM

You seem to be describing “true” Christians being discriminated against by “false” Christians, which you are assuming to be a majority. They probably disagree.

Count to 10 on December 15, 2009 at 3:23 PM

I’m not aware of any of the specific individuals referred to above ever identifying themselves as Christians; in one case (my boss) he was a fairly staunch atheist. I have seen a few cases of what might be called “self-loathing Christians”, and a few where people were of other faiths, but in my experience discriminatory behavior is overwhelmingly from atheistic or agnostic anti-Christian zealots.

And, again, compared to REAL persecution — torture, beatings, imprisonment, execution — we’ve got it pretty easy here. I mostly want to retain the right to religiously educate my own children without some idiot at the school telling my kid our beliefs are stupid or weird or (as in this case) crazy or dangerous.

RegularJoe on December 15, 2009 at 4:06 PM

Count to 10 is the teacher.

Scary.

bluelightbrigade on December 15, 2009 at 4:05 PM

And I doubt it.

bluelightbrigade on December 15, 2009 at 4:06 PM

I swear, the atheists in this thread pretending to be very, very concerned by stick figure depictions of very well known religious icons is as hilarious as it is mendacious.

You’re angry at god. For the nine-millionth time, we get it. Go take your anger issues elsewhere. Maybe see a therapist.

TheUnrepentantGeek on December 15, 2009 at 2:44 PM

It’s so much easier to attack the scapegoat of the whipping boy.

I’d rather see them err on the side of caution when it comes to violence.

RightOFLeft on December 15, 2009 at 3:38 PM

We’ve all been in situations when we were kids where we got in trouble for something that we didn’t really do. It’s not pleasant, but it’s pretty easy to get over. I think “traumatized” is a little melodramatic.

RightOFLeft on December 15, 2009 at 3:47 PM

It takes a sick bully to demand that a child take abuse from the teacher and subsequent public ridicule in the name of “caution”.

maverick muse on December 15, 2009 at 4:08 PM

Sultry Beauty on December 15, 2009 at 4:02 PM

We went through similar circumstances you and I. For whatever reason, I was called back to Catholicism. I can’t just explain why.

It would be a very interesting thing if this happened to us. I wonder how Mr. PPF would handle this situation, because I know what I’d do.

I was talking to my 8-yo on the way back home about ACORN (we were listening to Sean), what they did, what they believe in and why I don’t agree with what they say and believe-in a very simple way. From there we moved to capitalism and how hard we should work hard(and his dad does, of course) to be successful and that I will always support his (my son’s) decisions in education and such, because he has the freedom to work hard, go to college, have job(s) and if he really works hard, he can be rich.

Tell that to an 8-yo, the magic “rich” word. Then he won’t want to be lazy on a couch, watching TV all day, getting money on the mail because he is not helping himself nor other people.

ProudPalinFan on December 15, 2009 at 4:11 PM

I’m sure you think your mother did a lot right in life.
I’m sure she does some things you find just downright dumb.
I’m sure you’d get in my face if I started telling you which was which.

Chris_Balsz on December 15, 2009 at 4:04 PM

I’m quite able to tell the difference.

My mother never wrote anything down claiming it was perfect, unchangeable and necessary lest I burn in torment forever… only to change her mind on a whim either.

You love him when he (or a bishop) threatens the eternal state of a politician or judge for not obeying on one issue, but you won’t be so keen when they start doing it on other issues.

mankai on December 15, 2009 at 4:11 PM

They also draw pictures of themselves in battle with laser wielding dinosaurs.

gwelf on December 15, 2009 at 3:34 PM

Heh. That’s exactly the sort of scene they like to draw. What would be unusual is if they let the dinosaur win that battle in graphic way. It’s very unusual for kids to draw themselves being tortured/maimed/killed. Presumably nobody else in the class drew something violent. Just this one kid. Yeah, it got blown out proportion. Then it got blown out of proportion again. We’ve got people on this thread suggesting that it’s part of some fascist re-education program. For Christmas’ sake, people, get a grip. It was an honest, innocent mistake. The kid probably would have already forgotten about it if people weren’t trying to make a national crisis out of it.

RightOFLeft on December 15, 2009 at 4:11 PM

It takes a sick bully to demand that a child take abuse from the teacher and subsequent public ridicule in the name of “caution”.

maverick muse on December 15, 2009 at 4:08 PM

Seeing the school counseler is child abuse? Here’s a paper bag, just breathe.

RightOFLeft on December 15, 2009 at 4:13 PM

TULSA, OK — Founder of ORU, Oral Roberts, has died at the age of 91 due to complications from pneumonia. Below is the full text from the Press Release sent out.

Speaking of religious charlatans…

Apparently he didn’t have enough faith to be healed from pneumonia.

mankai on December 15, 2009 at 4:13 PM

Sultry Beauty on December 15, 2009 at 4:02 PM

+1

/Practicer of Sedona Method?

maverick muse on December 15, 2009 at 4:13 PM

RightOFLeft on December 15, 2009 at 4:13 PM

Your poor reading comprehension won’t get you into the Ivy League.

PRIVATELY dealing with a student is NOT what happened. This teacher along with the school counselor and administration threw this little boy into the public arena to suffer emotional abuse. And you call it “caution”. Abuse is violent, and is expressed on many different levels. You’re a sadistic hypocrite to not admit where YOU err.

Never attempt to put your words in my mouth.

maverick muse on December 15, 2009 at 4:20 PM

I think “traumatized” is a little melodramatic.

RightOFLeft on December 15, 2009 at 3:47 PM

No kids, huh?

There’s a reason we don’t let teachers tell about their own religious beliefs: it’s because they are — especially for very young kids — looked up to as ultimate authorities, givers of knowledge. They are often more educated than the child’s parents (mine always were, though I later learned that didn’t necessarily mean they were SMARTER). So if a teacher says “Jesus loves you” (or “There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger”, etc.), it carries inordinate weight, and we don’t want agents of the state to wield that sort of power. In the same way, they have no business telling a child that iconography of his religion makes him subject to psychological examination — the interpretation of which is “you’re not just WRONG to believe what you believe; you’re CRAZY!”

Now, there may be some kids tough enough to hear that from an authority figure they’ve been told to respect, who has the ability to reward or punish them, without being traumatized; but my kids weren’t. The teacher who spoke of my daughter’s tape of Bible verses set to music as unacceptable affected her for life. From that MOMENT on — in Kindergarten (she’s 25 now) — she went from her Bible tape being her favorite music to being ashamed of, and as a teenager totally rejecting, Christianity. She might have rejected it anyway; but it wouldn’t have happened in Kindergarten if it weren’t for this traumatic experience.

RegularJoe on December 15, 2009 at 4:24 PM

maverick muse on December 15, 2009 at 4:20 PM

Reposting your argument doesn’t make it any less tenuous.

RightOFLeft on December 15, 2009 at 4:26 PM

Apparently he didn’t have enough faith to be healed from pneumonia.

mankai on December 15, 2009 at 4:13 PM

Never mind that he was 91 (a good run, if you ask me), but it’s when you people make assinine and bigoted comments like this that makes me wish I didn’t have to share a planet with you.

vapig on December 15, 2009 at 4:32 PM

RightOfLeft, you’ve commented on the story saying that it was the child on the cross, not Christ. First, I wonder if the reporter got it right. I never assume that they have correctly understood ANYONE, let alone a small child.

But supposing for a moment that the child DID draw himself on the cross. There is a verse in the Bible (Gal 2:20) that says “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” So for a boy raised with the Bible, the notion of being symbolically “crucified with Christ” may be familiar. And how else would he depict that, other than to show himself on a cross? At his age, I understood that Jesus was crucified on a cross, and I understood that we were to follow his example, to “take our cross”, to be “crucified with Christ”. I didn’t fully appreciate the horrible, torturous physical reality of what that meant, and this boy probably doesn’t either.

A better way to have handled this would be for the teacher to have PRIVATELY — i.e. without even the boy knowing it — contacted the parents, and let them know about the drawing, and found out: had they just heard a sermon that this relates to? Was there some reason this was on the child’s mind? Basically let the parents know, and leave it up to them if any clarification of the religious beliefs was called for.

RegularJoe on December 15, 2009 at 4:34 PM

RegularJoe on December 15, 2009 at 4:24 PM

This has nothing to do with religion. For all we know the teacher is devoutly Christian. In fact, just based on demographics, he/she probably is. Even the father is attributing the incident to racism rather than religious discrimination.

If a student depicts himself in mortal danger, the teacher should treat that seriously in every instance. They have a legal obligation to do so.

RightOFLeft on December 15, 2009 at 4:38 PM

Reposting your argument doesn’t make it any less tenuous.

RightOFLeft on December 15, 2009 at 4:26 PM

Not reading them makes your chastisement no less silly.

/just saying.

bluelightbrigade on December 15, 2009 at 4:40 PM

RightOfLeft, you’ve commented on the story saying that it was the child on the cross, not Christ. First, I wonder if the reporter got it right. I never assume that they have correctly understood ANYONE, let alone a small child.

That’s how the reporter claims the father characterized the incident. Maybe the reporter got it wrong, but it’s a stretch. There are a whole lot of facts we don’t know, though, so point taken. Cuts both ways.

RightOFLeft on December 15, 2009 at 4:40 PM

Okay, folks. Good Night :)

bluelightbrigade on December 15, 2009 at 4:42 PM

TULSA, OK — Founder of ORU, Oral Roberts, has died at the age of 91 due to complications from pneumonia. Below is the full text from the Press Release sent out.

Speaking of religious charlatans…

Apparently he didn’t have enough faith to be healed from pneumonia.

mankai on December 15, 2009 at 4:13 PM

I worship the risen Christ, not any of his followers. His followers, including me, are all flawed people, unworthy of redemption. It is only by God’s grace that we are redeemed, not of works lest any man should boast.

And I don’t know that much about Roberts, but if his faith was genuine — and whatever my disagreements with him, I don’t assume otherwise — if his faith was genuine, there’s no reason to assume he wanted to be cured. Paul said (Phil. 1:21) “for to me, to live is Christ, to die is gain”. Maybe Roberts just finally got the ultimate gain.

RegularJoe on December 15, 2009 at 4:42 PM

Not reading them makes your chastisement no less silly.

/just saying.

bluelightbrigade on December 15, 2009 at 4:40 PM

I read it fine. He just wants his argument to be something more than it is.

RightOFLeft on December 15, 2009 at 4:46 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

I’m not really sure that I understand this statement, but it reminds me of something Cornelius Van Till wrote that I thought was an interesting read. Basically, he pointed out that we are all raised with certain dispositions.

Those who had good, involved parents were “indoctrinated” by their parents’ worldview regardless. Some were conditioned to view the world through the lens of an ultimate, intelligent, and relational Creator who graciously provides the means of reconciliation to a rebellious people, others were were taught that Christianity is just a silly superstition.

Is the latter really any more fair or open-minded than the former?

http://www.the-highway.com/why_I_believe_cvt.html

BlueCollarAstronaut on December 15, 2009 at 4:50 PM

RegularJoe on December 15, 2009 at 4:24 PM

This has nothing to do with religion. For all we know the teacher is devoutly Christian. In fact, just based on demographics, he/she probably is. Even the father is attributing the incident to racism rather than religious discrimination.

If a student depicts himself in mortal danger, the teacher should treat that seriously in every instance. They have a legal obligation to do so.

RightOFLeft on December 15, 2009 at 4:38 PM

You would have to really stretch the definition of “Christian” to reach a point where a picture of what at least APPEARS to be Jesus on the cross seems troubling when a child is told to draw a Christmas-related picture. She may indeed be nominally Christian (“culturally Christian” — identifying with Christianity as a part of her family heritage); but if she were an ACTUAL FOLLOWER OF CHRIST, she would understand that Christ on the cross is an image that is meant to glorify CHRIST, not the violence committed against him. Just as a picture of Joan of Arc at the stake would not glorify burning people at the stake, but Joan herself. If anything, it VILIFIES such violence.

RegularJoe on December 15, 2009 at 5:02 PM

I’m concerned with the rush to defend said stick figure just because it happens to resemble a religious symbol.

Count to 10 on December 15, 2009 at 2:49 PM

Yes, because the context matters not at all.

PS. By your guidelines darn near every boy that draws would be “evaluated.” People like you and Hicsuget represent the best possible case for home schooling ever contrived.

TheUnrepentantGeek on December 15, 2009 at 5:12 PM

The kid had to see a school psychologist. Big deal. Who’s overreacting here?

RightOFLeft on December 15, 2009 at 3:26 PM

I’d say you are. There was no need or reason for the kid to see anyone. The only mistake he made was confusing Easter with Christmas. He was still thinking of Christ which is the reason for the season.

Bill R. on December 15, 2009 at 5:14 PM

Just an observation… why do RCs only care about what the Popes and Councils have to say when it’s convenient?

Just sayin’…

mankai on December 15, 2009 at 3:30 PM

Pardon?

It might have something to do with those pesky passages in Scripture warning against private interpretation that I consider at all what Popes and Councils and even my own lowly parish priest has to say about what it takes to be a good Christian. When you are a member of a Church which is over two millenia old, there’s quite a bit to consider in building your informed conscience.

As for the other Catholics of which you speak, I’d prefer to let them tell you themselves. Feel free to ask them.

unclesmrgol on December 15, 2009 at 5:20 PM

The kid had to see a school psychologist. Big deal. Who’s overreacting here?

RightOFLeft on December 15, 2009 at 3:26 PM

He’s a special needs kid and he had to transfer to a new school. He was sent home for the day. God only knows what kind of fuss the teacher made in class.

TheUnrepentantGeek on December 15, 2009 at 5:26 PM

Kids father should be promoted from substitute custodian to school principal.

Mr Purple on December 15, 2009 at 5:30 PM

The kid had to see a school psychologist. Big deal. Who’s overreacting here?

RightOFLeft on December 15, 2009 at 3:26 PM

Swing it around this way, actually: suppose someone FROM THE GOVERNMENT saw your posts on this site, and FORCED you — remember, it’s the government — to go see a shrink. You know, just in case. Better safe than sorry.

I certainly hope you would be outraged. That’s how Christians feel about this.

RegularJoe on December 15, 2009 at 5:33 PM

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

Was that when you were an MP in the navy?

Johan Klaus on December 15, 2009 at 5:40 PM

RightOFLeft on December 15, 2009 at 3:26 PM

His First Amendment rights were violated. What’s the big deal?

davidk on December 15, 2009 at 5:44 PM

I’m guessing this has been said already, but I’ll say it anyway:

The image of the crucifix is a violent image that children need to be protected from — but giving kids in junior high and high school some reading assignments with explicit passages about adult sexual predators fisting underage boys is A-OK????

Gee, I can’t imagine why parents are tempted to homeschool their children. /sarc

Aitch748 on December 15, 2009 at 5:52 PM

Wonder what religion if any this teacher has? Just curios.
If a “violent drawing” by a child must be met with an suspension and psychological evaluation, then a violent act by a teacher needs to at least demand an equal response!
The only real violence occurred by the teacher and the school district to this child!! This teacher needs fired immediately! No child who has a religious faith should feel safe at this school! The teacher needs to go and the school needs to apologize publicly and pledge to protect children from being targeted for suspension because of their Christian faith!
The teacher has proven his/her complete incompetence and lack of any kind of good judgment. A total brain dead moron who obviously harbors hatred and fear of religious symbols!
I ask? What would be the response be from the Muslim community and the mainstream media had this child been expelled for drawing a Muslim Crescent?

JellyToast on December 15, 2009 at 5:55 PM

The kid had to see a school psychologist. Big deal. Who’s overreacting here?

RightOFLeft on December 15, 2009 at 3:26 PM

The school!

Johan Klaus on December 15, 2009 at 6:03 PM

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.

The sour note you hear is not the transfer of the student to another school. It is that of this parent allowing their children to darken the door of ANY public school.

What will it take for parents to wake up and realize that all these “isolated incidents” are occurring on a regular basis everywhere?

Until parents do a mass exodus, expect more of the same. And expect no pity from me.

PrincipledPilgrim on December 15, 2009 at 6:04 PM

Reposting your argument doesn’t make it any less tenuous.

RightOFLeft on December 15, 2009 at 4:26 PM

Take your own advice, numbskull. It is you with no credibility, and your repetitions only reiterate your foolishness. Keep it up at risk of proving your basis for rational thought to be insane. As it is, your stupidity is your own problem.

The kid’s picture was a non-problem. The authorities over reaction presented the child with a very big problem. That’s it.

maverick muse on December 15, 2009 at 6:12 PM

Johan Klaus on December 15, 2009 at 6:03 PM

Yep.

maverick muse on December 15, 2009 at 6:13 PM

The school acted stupidly and the boy pays? up is down and down is up.

CWforFreedom on December 15, 2009 at 6:20 PM

Reposting your argument doesn’t make it any less tenuous.

RightOFLeft on December 15, 2009 at 4:26 PM

Not reading them makes your chastisement no less silly.

/just saying.

bluelightbrigade on December 15, 2009 at 4:40 PM

I read it fine. He just wants his argument to be something more than it is.

RightOFLeft on December 15, 2009 at 4:46 PM

ROL has failing reading comprehension and difficulty expressing intelligent thought. Ironically, his every barb lands painfully in his own dumbass. Read every ROL entry above and note his blatant failure to lend his consideration for the child, while yet proud of his sense of “caution”.

maverick muse on December 15, 2009 at 6:29 PM

The kid’s picture was a non-problem. The authorities over reaction presented the child with a very big problem. That’s it.

maverick muse on December 15, 2009 at 6:12 PM

When a kid draws a picture of himself nailed to a cross, it is worth a conversation with the school psychologist, especially if the school already has him on retainer. The child shouldn’t have been punished or sent home early.

The Dad thinks it’s racism, others think it is anti-Christian, it should just be a routine conversation to make sure the kid isn’t in harm’s way.

dedalus on December 15, 2009 at 6:52 PM

There are several angles through which this can be observed and opinions drawn.

1) Who is the teacher?

Is the teacher a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Ba’hai, a Sikh, a Buddhist, a Shinto, a Zoroastrian, a Jain, or other?

Is the teacher an atheist, or an agnostic?

2) Why did the teacher find the drawing so frightening? What sent alarms off in his or her head? Was it merely the “x” drawn for eyes, or was it the image of a person crucified?

Was it the symbol of the cross itself?

3) What is the race of the teacher?

What is the race of the student?

The article states that the student is black, but is the offspring a child of two black parents, or is the child the offspring of a mixed race parentage? For example, is the mother white and the father black, or is the mother Chinese, Indian, Arab, or other, and the father black?

How does the mixture of the child’s race and the race of the teacher come into play?

The father is quoted in the article as stating that he thinks the incident is racially motivated, a case of racism.

Why does he think so?

Knowing the teacher’s race and political affiliation would help.

For example, is the teacher black or Hispanic? Is he or she a devout Barack Hussein Obama cultist? Is the teacher a left wing looney tune, a Libertarian, a Communist, a Socialist, a Fascist, a Liberal, or a Conservative?

If the teacher is a left wing looney toon, Communist, Socialist, Fascist, or Liberal then I can understand his or her action much better. It makes no sense that such action would be performed by a Libertarian or a Conservative, who tend to respect people’s right to free speech and expression.

3) What is the teacher’s “sexual orientation?”

Is he a homosexual? If so, how “homosexual” is he? Is he a rabid, self absorbed, in-your-face, agenda driven, advocate of homosexual behavior and propaganda?

Is she a lesbian? If so, how “lesbian” is she? The same questions as in the paragraph above apply.

Flaming, in-your-face, militant homosexuals and lesbians do tend to be oppressors of others, enjoy pushing others around, squelching free speech, and being, well, militant.

Was any of this an issue, or a contributing factor to how the teacher reacted toward the student and the student’s drawing?

4) Is the teacher a “student” of Psychology?

Many people, if not most people, involved in the pseudo-science/political field tend to be nuts and are likely to engage in the kind of behavior that this teacher and her fellow school board members engaged in.

After all, just ask a “psychologist” what they think of Rush Limbaugh, or Sarah Palin, and you will get an earful of their “expert opinion” at how Rush is a bully who has no power but likes to feel powerful by pushing people around and leading sheeping listeners to do his bidding. Sarah Palin is an intellectual efete who doesn’t know her ass from a hole in the ground, who is superstitious, and dangerous. Just ask a left leaning Psychologist and they will tell you, and that is who the “main stream press/media” will seek out for an “expert” opinion regarding conservatives, Christians, pro-lifers, etc.

Well, that is enough food for thought.

Is there any more harassment, abuse, and acts of corrupting the morals of a minor, as takes place in government schools, that people, that parents need to see or hear before they realize that they should just home school their children so they get better grades, have better social skills, are not taught how to have homosexual acts, anal sex, oral sex, or do fisting when they are five, six, or seven years old, are not taught that Barack Hussein Obama is the Messiah, Lord of the Universe, Savior of Mankind, George W. Bush is the devil and anything that Obama is doing wrong is NOT his fault but the fault of George W. Bush, that the US as a bad country, that anyone who is not black or Hispanic is a racist, etc.?

Summation: This case is another reason to home school your child or children, and not leave this innocent, bright chidren to be perverted and corrupted by the state run schools and their agenda driven advocates in left wing politics, in the homosexual and lesbian community, in the racist black and Hispanic community, in the atheist community, and in the leftist community.

William2006 on December 15, 2009 at 7:27 PM

Why is Charlie Brown Christmas still being showed on ABC? This should be banned. But leave Charlie Brown Halloween and Thanksgiving on.

I’m writing ABC to complain. Christians have no place in this world.

Ugh.

CEA_Agent on December 15, 2009 at 8:35 PM

“Jesus Cristo Garcia you carry that cross out of this generic classroom and march straight into Principal Pilates office!”

kregg on December 15, 2009 at 8:39 PM

Well crucifixion is definitely violent. duh.

Spathi on December 15, 2009 at 8:44 PM

This picture is actually quite tame, compared to the stuff my three boys draw ALL THE TIME.

That’s a good point, considering my boys have drawn pics of people getting eaten by giant spiders, crushed under the feet of monsters, or getting thrown from a cliff. If one of them drew what this kid did, I would secretly wonder why there were no pools of blood.

Bishop on December 15, 2009 at 1:22 PM

Over here we’re on Middle Ages, Civil War, Native American fights against the cowboys and there’s fire, cannons, arrows and body parts all over the place. My kid is one heck of a strategist. If he keeps it up he might end up in the Pentagon.

Any of you have played Age of Empires series, Halo, Halo 2, Sims and Xbox game 13? Now they are up to Mafia Wars in FB and Pirates something.

Blame it on PPF’s husband./snort

ProudPalinFan on December 15, 2009 at 8:53 PM

“Jesus Cristo Garcia you carry that cross out of this generic classroom and march straight into Principal Pilates office!

kregg on December 15, 2009 at 8:39 PM

*tearing up, LOL!*

ProudPalinFan on December 15, 2009 at 8:55 PM

No, very few Christians would not recognize Jesus on the cross as a symbol of the ultimate sacrifice…and have for thousands of years.
Ed didn’t say the “only” symbol, just one recognized by Christians…you don’t recognize Jesus on the cross? I am not Catholic, and I can’t remember any Christian Church stating that Jesus on the cross doesn’t represent something very special…it may have even been mentioned in the bible…

right2bright on December 15, 2009 at 11:19 AM

You completely missed my point, so I’ll repeat it:

A couple of things. I’m not objecting to the kid’s drawing at all, but why does Ed sound like he’s not agreeing that it’s a violent image? I’m quite sure all of the abuse, capped off by being nailed to a cross to die is “violent”.

Also, to this point:

“First, Jesus on a crucifix has been a symbol of Christianity for two millenia.”

No, it’s a symbol of Catholicism. You’ll find most evangelicals don’t keep have just a cross… not with Jesus still attached because “He is risen”, and not still up there… He’s in Heaven with his father.

RightWinged on December 15, 2009 at 11:15 AM

If you read my first paragraph, you’d know that I’m not denying Jesus WAS on the cross. But Ed was talking about the symbol of Jesus on the cross (statues, hanging on Catholic churches, chain pendents, etc.) My point is that most Christians don’t view Jesus as still on the cross, because, as we say, “He is Risen” and now resides in Heaven with his father.

RightWinged on December 15, 2009 at 9:05 PM

The odd part of this story is that Taunton is a VERY Catholic town. I live here, we seriously have dozens of churches across town.

We have 2 Catholic, and multiple Christian, primary schools, 1 Catholic middle school and 1 Catholic High School. The demographics are 90% white- Portuguese and Italian and just about every house has a Mary in the half shell sitting in a side garden. My wife is Asian and when we built the house she insisted we put a Mary in the flower bed to blend in better.

We even have a Christmas Parade and the entire town green is decorated..complete with a gigunta manger, with 3 wise men, Mary, Joseph and Baby Jesus too.

Go figure.

Alden Pyle on December 15, 2009 at 9:38 PM

When they agree: The Pope is the successor to Peter and represents 2000 years of wisdom!

When they don’t: He’s just a man, you don’t have to agree with the Pope on everything.

I’d quote the post-conciliar documents of Vatican II here in regard to submitting will and intellect to Pope and bishop, but quoting Popes, Councils or the like is somehow tantamount to being a “catholic-basher”… yeah, I can’t figure that one out either.

mankai on December 15, 2009 at 3:45 PM

Were you a faithful Catholic or simply any other interested person I’d be happy to discuss ex cathedra teachings with you and whether the Holy Father’s World Peace Day letter is to be given the same weight of teaching as a Papal Encyclical. But those who fling out scraps of Scripture or Church Teaching in a drive-by fashion are more intent on their own escape so they can cower in some hole and pat themselves on the back in self-congratulatory fashion: it is foolish to try to enter into discussion with a fleeing back. In plain language, you have no idea what you are talking about. What makes it worse is that you are basing your attack on a Reuters’ article rather than on the actual document which is easily available.

For others who are interested, the Holy Father’s letter is first of all based on “science” that is revealing itself to be no science at all. When he speaks of “climate change, desertification, the deterioration and loss of productivity in vast agricultural areas, the pollution of rivers and aquifers, the loss of biodiversity, the increase of natural catastrophes and the deforestation of equatorial and tropical regions,” many of us are grateful that the truth regarding human involvement is finally being revealed. Climate change caused by sunspot activity is not within the sphere of human activity, neither are natural catastrophes such activity causes. Secondly, the Holy Father writes from the perspective that the forms of government including non-governmental bodies, many of which are complicit and, in fact, owe their very existence to the lies that have been promulgated over the past 40+ years, will themselves continue to be part of the response to ecological issues. There are many of us working and praying so that the truth will be fully revealed and those responsible prevented from inflicting further damage with their lies. And that damage is great. They would replace stewardship with “green” which is no stewardship at all but only an opportunity to make vast sums of money and control many, many lives. As a survivor of the Nazis, the Holy Father is not interested in turning us all over to word government but in subsidiarity, which he discusses in his letter.

Few Catholics or other Christians would fail to agree that “large numbers of people in different countries and areas of our planet are experiencing increased hardship because of the negligence or refusal of many others to exercise responsible stewardship over the environment.” And much of what has been discussed on this thread refers to “[humanity‘s need for] a profound cultural renewal; [it’s need] to rediscover those values which can serve as the solid basis for building a brighter future for all.”

Who will do what and how we will act to be better stewards the Holy Father leaves to us. And yes, the West – in particular, the United States of America – will do much to lead the way. We have the knowledge and, if we can get those who would squander it out of office, the capital and the freedom to create capital that just doesn’t exist in other parts of the world. We also have shown repeatedly that we have the will to do what is necessary. And Christians (including Catholics) will be part of it because we firmly believe that we are responsible not to be “green” but to be good stewards. Of course, we can’t force good stewardship on others just as we can’t force those who make drive-by attacks to relinquish their anger and discover that maybe being Christian is something they just don’t understand.

Drusilla on December 15, 2009 at 10:33 PM

If the cross is too violent , then I wonder how well they would hold up to an image like this.

Saltysam on December 15, 2009 at 10:38 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6