Friday, December 18, 2009

MA: Superintendent Defends Actions Over Jesus Drawing

With unbelievable mealy-mouthed hypocrisy: The crucifixion is "violent". Who knew? Will Catholic crucifixes be banned now too?
"Taunton's school superintendent defended actions by school administrators Tuesday amid demands from the mayor to apologize to the family of a second-grader who was sent home from school and required to undergo a psychological evaluation after drawing a stick-figure picture of Jesus Christ on the cross.

Chester Johnson, the boy's father, said he got a call on Dec. 2 from Maxham Elementary School telling him that his son had created a violent drawing depicting a crucified Jesus with Xs covering his eyes to signify that he had died on the cross.“He meant no harm. He believes in Jesus,” Johnson said.

After a public uproar when the incident became public, Mayor Charles Crowley said he wanted School Superintendent Julie Hackett to apologize to the Johnson family.

Hackett released a statement Tuesday evening, indicating that the boy was not suspended and that the drawing published is not the same drawing discovered by the teacher. "This incident occurred nearly two weeks ago, it was handled appropriately and the school staff and family had been working together in a cooperative and positive manner," the statement read.

The statement indicated that school administrators acted within protocol for the student's care and well-being."It is unfortunate that the actions of our district staff have been classified as 'religious' in nature, when, in fact, they were based solely on the well-being of the student," the statement read.

The boy's father, who released a drawing to the media, said his son made the drawing in class after his teacher asked the children to sketch something that reminded them of Christmas.

If we are going to analyze the drawings of an 8-year-old looking for violence, then we have a problem,” said Toni Saunders, an educational consultant who represents the family. “They weren’t looking at the fact that this is an 8-year-old child with special needs,” she said. “They made him leave school, and they recommended that a psychiatrist do an evaluation.



Anonymous said...

We should hang the teacher.. if it was a muslim child drawing a bombing of a church, it would have been an approved drawing.

Stan B said...

Right now, this story is in flux. The father is claiming it was the picture of Jesus (like the one displayed for the press), the school says it wasn't, but can't really give the details because of privacy issues regarding the student.

I'm not sure I buy the story as related by the father, but I don't know for sure.

Dr. No said...

Well, if you don't know for sure, why are you assuming it's the father who's lying rather than the leftist political hacks who've been caught bashing Christianity again?

Anonymous said...

Well, if you don't know for sure, why are you assuming it's the father who's lying rather than the leftist political hacks who've been caught bashing Christianity again?

Well, let's see......

The father claims that the assignment was that the kids draw something that reminded them of Christmas. If the teacher, school administration and superintendent are "leftist political hacks," why would they support any mention of Christmas in the school, much less an assignment on Christmas?

What fits better with the story? The father's contention that the "leftist political hacks" make an assignment on Christmas (think leftist "separation of church and state") or the school's claim that no such assignment was ever given?

The father initially claimed his son was suspended, but after the school issued its statement saying the child was not suspended, the father has now said the kid was not suspended.

The father initially claimed the picture was of Jesus, but then later admitted his son said the picture was of himself.

The father initially said the child was asked who was depicted on the drawing and the child answered "Jesus." When asked again, the child became "confused" and wrote "ME" on the drawing.

The school believes that a child drawing his own death is something that should be looked into. We can debate that all day but what is clear is that the child was not evaluated for his religious beliefs, but for the depiction of his own death.

The school board contends that the picture being shown to the media is not the one the child drew. In fact, it is not clear where the picture was drawn. However, the picture given to the media does not say "ME" anywhere on it, which is part of what the father claims happened.

Finally, there is this little gem from the father:

“They don’t know who they (expletive) with,” he said. “They made a mistake and now Jesus is going to make them pay for it.” (

Stan is correct in that the story is in flux. The father's version of the events has changed over time.

The father has now "lawyered up" which in and of itself is not a crime, but as he has now been advised not to meet with school officials and has demanded money, it makes one wonder. At least it does me.

If the kid was actually persecuted for his beliefs, then why change the story? Why provide "evidence" that doesn't fit your own narrative?

Just because there is racial bigotry does not mean all claims are true. (Remember Tawana Brawley?) Likewise just because there is religious persecution in the schools does not mean all claims of it are true.

Anonymous said...

This is an odd story from the normal die hard leftist hacks. It really sounds like someone is making the situation up just for a money making lawsuit.

I'm not saying what the father claims isn't true, it just sounds a bit odd the way the story is unfolding.

Anonymous said...

The reason the school suggested an evaluation is because the boy said it was himself on the cross, not Jesus. This story was all over the news tonight.

Anonymous said...

"The reason the school suggested an evaluation is because the boy said it was himself on the cross, not Jesus. This story was all over the news tonight."

that is NO reason for evaluation. perhaps they should start evaluating parents that actually have violent children (real violence not drawn up on paper)

Anonymous said...

"OK Children. Enough of this evil Jesus stuff. Let's get back to bowing to Mecca, then take out our "Heather has Two Mommies" and "Joey's Daddy Has a Special Friend". Then we will discuss the evils of earning a profit and why the teacher's union wants fewer days of work each year. And has your mommy or daddy been listening to that evil Rush Limbaugh?"

Anonymous said...

I'm sure if little Johnny had drawn a man with a towel wrapped around his head cutting off the head of another person, he'd get an "A" for creativity and tolerance.

Do they even give grades anymore?

Anonymous said...

I think the kid deserves more credit than he is being given . He is hitting the bulls eye on some basic christian doctrine "I am crucified with Christ ....." . As a believer I am on that cross as well as Jesus .

Ish Gebor

Marcus Ranum said...

If you read US law, the crucifix is obscene (ironically enough, under the "protect the children" laws regarding internet porn) -
For the purposes of this chapter, the term-- [...] ``sexually explicit conduct'' means actual or simulated-- [...] sadistic or masochistic abuse;

If you show a crucifix to someone under the age of 18, it is a federal crime.

I mean, seriously, it is pretty disgusting to show that kind of thing to children and you can see that kids grow up warped and violentized thanks to such abuse.