Public school lunacy of the day
A second-grader in Taunton, MA was kicked out of school, suspended, and ordered to undergo a mental evaluation for…
…drawing a picture of Jesus Christ on the cross.
(Hat tip: Michael Graham)
One picture of Jesus gets a kid booted from the classroom.
But Fort Hood killer Nidal Hasan’s years of jihadist threats got him…a promotion and access to open season on our troops.
And GLSEN founder Kevin Jennings’ not-safe-for-school radical activism got him…a job as Safe Schools czar.
Lunacy.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Columbia University to Offer ‘Occupy 101′ Course
January 2, 2012 11:15 AM by Doug Powers
75 Comments
Document drop: What Scholastic is teaching your kids about the Occupiers
December 9, 2011 11:30 AM by Michelle Malkin
102 Comments
Professor: ‘Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer’ Promotes Bullying
December 5, 2011 04:39 PM by Doug Powers
136 Comments
Moonbat of the day: Suffolk Univ. law prof condemns sending care packages to troops, flying American flag
November 14, 2011 08:36 PM by Michelle Malkin
46 CommentsWisconsin: 4th Grade Teacher Takes Class to Protest at Capitol
November 4, 2011 10:44 AM by Doug Powers
124 Comments
Colorado bellwether: Voters reject statewide tax increases
November 1, 2011 10:46 PM by Michelle Malkin
65 Comments
The EduJobs III Bailout; Update – Harry Reid: Who cares about private sector jobs?
October 19, 2011 04:38 AM by Michelle Malkin
94 Comments
PC Educator of the Week: Thanksgiving, Columbus Day are Insensitive Holidays
October 15, 2011 12:06 PM by Doug Powers
41 Comments
Categories: Education,Political Correctness
Riehl World View
» Whitney Houston: If I should stay I would only be in your wayPatterico
» Rick Santorum and the two playbooksGateway Pundit
» Barack The BenevolentRiehl World View
» Romney's Blood Is Blue, Not ConservativePundit & Pundette
» King Barack vs. the Nonconformists
Pure:
Yes, so?
Umm, no.
How so? Describe to me how my position is, in practice, different.
Is that your cat? Looks like it’s had plenty of cheezburgers!
In practice?? What’s to practice????
ROFLMOA
Pure:
Ummm… that’s kind of my point.
On December 16th, 2009 at 8:24 am, JHSII said:
No, I was addressing the trend I’ve seen here of bashing people who aren’t Christian here in these commentary pages over the past few weeks. Or did you not read the opening paragraph of where I’m asking what religions are acceptable here.
As to Christians celebrating a Pagan festival after co-opting it from those pagans. You’re welcome to do so and to put out as many creches as you desire. On Easter you can put up your cross too. It doesn’t bother me in the least. I don’t care what religion you practice. Heck, I’ve known a couple of Satanists in the US Army. One of my Sergeants remarked about them, “Well, it might be a good thing. After all, we know the guy upstairs is good so he’ll give you a fair shake, the guy downstairs, well we don’t know. So…”
I truly believe that freedom of religion is one of the virtues of this country. Of course I believe that about all ten of the “Civil Rights” in our Constitution. But, sometimes I wonder if that’s as important to others here? Which is why I asked about those fifteen and really would have listed hundreds of others.
http://cheezburger.com/pictures-by-Jeff2161/
Wow, Jeff even has a portfolio there.
He’s more into it than me!
Does that explain something about Jeff?
Ssnark:
I got on Sean Hannity’s radio program once and more or less asked him the same question you did here (as it applies to atheists):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0r_gWY-rCuE
From what you’ve seen here, his answers shouldn’t surprise you.
I see Chanukah is moving along nicely in here…
Had the student drawn the same picture in a jar of urine, he/she would have gotten a gold star for the day, and we wouldn’t be having this discussion, as the event would not have risen to event status.
…and it’s nice to have the comment counter back to normal.
jangar:
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/12/15/public-school-lunacy-of-the-day/comment-page-4/#comment-857825
On December 16th, 2009 at 8:40 am, zeroangel said:
You do realize that I’d beg to disagree with that statement. The funny part is that I was talking with a nice rather learned Jewish fellow the other day and when I brought up the fact that in Afghanistan and Iraq I lived closely with fundamentalist Muslims and sometimes ones who might be the enemy. He said, you know what, in the history of both religions, Jews have been better treated by the Muslims more often than the Christians. A point of view that I’d never considered. Although Jews can be as intolerant as anyone. Apparently Jesus of Nazareth’s rebellion against the Pharisitic Jews (Pharisees) who commercialized the temple and the Saducees who were dogmatists got him into the hot water that got him crucified and of course one of the greatest Jewish (at least by race) minds of all times, Spinoza was cast out by the fundamentalist Jews of Amsterdam.
Seems to me, the biggest problem with religion in general is all the humans that muck it up.
But, hey, I’m a simple minded Soldier who never studied and applied himself like John Kerry says, so ended up in Iraq not just once but three times.
If that’s the case, the little rugrat has messianic issues.
Ssnark:
I will submit that there are certainly Muslims capable of being good people, however, this is largely because they do not follow their religion to the letter.
Open the Koran to damn near any page and start reading, you should come across a call to kill someone within a paragraph or a page or two.
Well, firstly, I see religion as man-made to begin with, however, that aside, I would say that humans often can either make religion useful for good or evil, however, at it’s core, it is irrational by definition (claims lack any evidence).
Jangar:
Or he is suicidal and the psych eval was warranted.
BBL guys.
Let it be said and noted that I, the jangar, agree with the zero.
…and diapers are yucky and stink.
Don’t know if anyone else has seen this. I would hope MM would at least put up a link to the school’s side of the story in this matter:
If this is true, I think the school acted appropriately the father of the boy should be ashamed for stoking religious flames.
Ahhh…and here we get to the REAL heart of the matter…
Looking for work, Chap?
So, you’re racist as well, chap?
On December 16th, 2009 at 9:22 am, zeroangel said:
On December 16th, 2009 at 9:24 am, jangar said:
RE: Koran
I’d be a fool if I didn’t agree that the Koran advocates a great deal of violence.
I’m not so sure, I think a lot has to do with the Mullah or Imam than in say, Methodism. Islam is more like Judaism in that a lot of time is spent on debate and discussion of the Koran and other holy books. Mullahs are more teacher/discussion leader than they are pastoral in a Christian sense. So their influence and whether they believe that the Koran is a literal and fundamental eternal book or a history that contains certain eternal lessons to be gleaned from its verses or surras and of course which lessons the Mullah or Imam chooses to emphasize. I’ve run into far more interpretations of Islam from its practitioners and its leaders than exists in Christianity. Again the closest parallel in a major religion in this, is Judaism. If there were only a way to influence the teachers (Mullahs and Imams).
Wow. That guy is dumb. Nobody pays out for offending Christians.
Sorry, don’t buy it. No kid is that original.
…but if Rev. Wright had said it of…
Morning Chap!
Mookie posted it first, I reposted it a few times now.
I wonder what the odds are…
Ssnark:
Well, you seem to know more about it than I do, but I still stand by what I said. Religion at it’s core is irrational. In my mind all religions are as fabricated and false as Scientology (for example). Any fabricated and false thing that calls on people to kill anyone (no matter how it’s interpretted) can’t be a good thing overall.
Sorry. I basically skimmed about 150 comments.
I emailed MM the link. Here’s betting it won’t go up.
Chap:
I would take that bet (perhaps we can bet a glass of wine or beer if I’m ever in DC) however, I have a feeling you are right.
I know this isn’t germane to your point, but just because something isn’t based on logic, doesn’t mean that it’s irrational. Just because the reasons that people practice/believe aren’t logical doesn’t mean that they don’t exist or that they’re not valid.
corkie:
How would you describe something that isn’t based on evidence or logic?
illogical?
MM has corrected articles in the past.
Well, Spock, it’s called faith.
corkie:
Furthermore, yes, I will conceed that it’s entirely possible that Xenu threw a bunch of aliens into volcanoes and their souls now inhabit human bodies.
It’s possible, but if that’s not irrational perhaps you have a better word to describe it?
John:
you want to take Chap’s bet?
jangar:
What’s your feeling on Scientologists, Jim?
Bones: They’re dead, Jim
jangar:
No doubt you think they are bonkers, their religion is false, and that they are just plain silly. Am I wrong?
I ask you, what makes your religion any more valid?
Thousands of years worth of scripture, a modern calendar with a historic point of origin, and GOBS of people who gave their lives for the sake of the Gospel of Christ. Just to name a few.
jangar out…
From the level of skepticism, one would get the impression that it never happens. I was pointing out that it does.
This thread is over 400 comments and is a day old. She’d probably start a new thread rather than update.
Jangar:
Many religions have this. There are several that are much older than Christianity.
This is largely due to the fact that the Romans conquered a good portion of the ancient world and that the West later went on (through rational, scientific inquiry giving them an advantage, among other things) to more or less complete the conquest. Are you saying, “might makes right?”
Plenty of people gave their lives for other religions too. I doubt Christians rank highest in body count.
None of these things put Christianity at the top of the list.
Oh come on… it’s just getting started here.
John:
So what are we betting?
Hey guys, are you still at it?
There are still holes in the school’s account – on the other hand, the father isn’t really helping his son’s case when he tosses around claims of racism (plus his misuse of vocabulary doesn’t paint him as the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree either).
But I’m not buying the super’s assertion that the child was never suspended; if that’s the case, why was there a need for a report stating that it was okay for the child to return to school – that would be the hardcopy psych report that the Boston Globe (not exactly a bastion of conservative reporting) saw and cited in its article. That doesn’t add up to match the super’s claims.
And Hackett (the super) is claiming that the picture that the father showed us isn’t the one that caused concern – never mind whether or not it was a class assignment, something we may never know the truth of. If that’s the case, what exactly was the troublesome drawing that required a psych evaluation? I don’t think she can claim to be protecting the child at this late date by not being upfront about what imagery bothered the teacher enough that she called the principle about it, resulting in the still undisputed requirement that the child undergo a psych evaluation.
And there is still the report of the education consultant, Toni Saunders, who has been working with the parents after being contacted by a mutual acquaintance (see the original article).
There’s another article in the local news that indicates I was mistaken about the teacher talking to the child – but it does come across as though the teacher and principal made him feel like he did something wrong:
No question that some are flogging this story to further their own agendas (possibly including the father), but what has bothered me from the start here is an eight year old child who has been made to feel that he did something bad. Kids don’t just forget about things like that as some have suggested. That it’s a child involved is something we shouldn’t lose sight of, for a variety of reasons.
Wayfaring:
The father brought up monetarial restitution. Chap mentioned it. In my mind, that ends it right there. He lost all credibility.
We will never know the full details of this case, but more and more it’s looking like it was not a case of religious persecution.
I’m not betting anything. I was just saying it was not unprecedented and if she were to follow up, what the path were to be.
Yes, the monetary resolution was one thing that turned me off to the father, though he phrased it as a small lump sum, which could be simply a desire to be reimbursed for the cost of the psych evaluation – did you know that the parents were required to pay for that out of their own pockets? As a sometimes janitor, his finances probably aren’t so flush that that expense didn’t hurt.
As noted, the dad isn’t the most articulate person, nor the most sympathetic, but there is room for doubt on that point, especially knowing how imprecise so much news ‘reporting’ can be (and too many reporters are IMHO borderline illiterate – horribly judgmental of me, I know).
And until the super tells – or better, shows – the drawing she claims created the need for the psych evaluation in the first place, we can’t begin to know whether or not any bias against religion motivated the school’s actions.
BTW people who live or have lived in Taunton can tell you that this isn’t the first incident involving the school system there. If this was a first time occurrence people might give the super the benefit of the doubt, especially given the father’s statements about racism and monetary compensation. But as it stands, most aren’t buying Hackett’s version of things.
My guess is that the truth lies somewhere in between.
As are emtions, Spock.
emotions!
cicerokid:
Depends on how you look at it, really. At least in the case of emotions I can point to chemical reactions that occur in the brain, they are at least, grounded in reality.
Wayfaring:
Again, we will have to agree to disagree.
You might want to take your own advice there, bub. The definition of atheist is “one who believes that there is no deity”, not: “one who does not believe in a deity”. That second one is already covered under agnostic. Agnostics don’t believe in deities, because if they did they wouldn’t be agnostic.
So you think that the parents should be forced to bear the cost of a psych evaluation that was mandated by the school system? A psych evaluation based on exactly what problematic action/behavior of that child (a child with no previous behavioral problems btw)?
The super, Hackett, won’t say; she’s simply saying that it isn’t what the father said while denying that the child was expelled/suspended from school – again, then why the need for the report that states it’s okay for him to return to school?
To dismiss the rest of the evidence just because of the father’s comment about wanting some sort of monetary recompense, for which there is, in all probability, a logical rationale, well, that isn’t logical.
The father said they had just been to visit a Christian shrine and the son asked questions about the crucifix and in particular why Jesus’s eyes were closed.
He probably made the drawing on his own.
Happened to “sign” it above the subject, rather than below as adults are expected to do.
If there’s a difference in “practice”, it would probably be that atheists are probably more active and vocal in attacking persons of faith.
Maybe you are trying to draw agnostics and deists into your camp to bolster your cause.
How did you know about Chaps newly acquired taste?
swede: How am I supposed to relax when you guys are so mean to poor, innocent little JLS and zero is spouting his rabbid atheism? Check yo seff!
You owe me a massage. Aren’t you swedes supposed to be good at that???
From Wayfaring Stranger‘s link:
The bit about “questioned for the third time” kinda concerns me a little, as if they were really fishing for a particular answer from the kid and the kid finally relented and answered the way he presumed they wanted him to, thinking they would finally leave him alone after that.
Maybe I’m overreacting, but it just kinda seems weird that they would have to sort of interrogate him like this over what appears to be a simple drawing of a crucifix.
The kid wrote HIS NAME on the cross (a fact I had missed from the first article)? It may have just been an innocent scrawl but if that were me, I’d see that as a HUGE warning sign. What the hell is a teacher supposed to do? Take the chance that the kid isn’t engaging in self destructive thoughts or behavior?
I think MM should provide this update.
But does this really indicated self destructive behavior? If anything this should indicate that this kid feels mistreated by the “system” (maybe even the school system).
Nobody can crucify themselves.
Blackstone:
We can split hairs and get into a semantics argument. As I said, the classical definition of agnosticism is rather different from the colloquial one. I guarantee I could find other dictionary definitions that support my viewpoint.
Wayfaring:
I didn’t say that. I was disagreeing with this:
At this point, I think we can begin to say it doesn’t seem to be a case of religious discrimination.
No one is dismissing anything. I am saying, all told, considering the evidence we have, it seems unlikely that this is a case of religious discrimination.
Pure:
No, there are plenty of atheists (probably the majority) that do no such thing.
When it comes to my ideas about not discriminating against anyone and having separation of church and state I think most deists, pantheists, “agnostics,” and so forth are on my side already.
I am no more rabid about my lack of faith then any of you are about your faith.
Chap:
That’s exactly what some people seem to be saying.
Yes, illogical is a better descriptor.
Heh.
Maybe the kid thought he was doing grafitti.
zero, two things:
First, it is helpful to specify which portion of someone’s comments are being responded to so that a response to your response can focus on the correct issue. Saying that we’ll have to agree to disagree (essentially what you posted before) doesn’t give any clue as to which portion of a post that raised more than one point leaves the impression that the entire post is being disagreed with.
And yes, we do disagree in that you might be able to “say it doesn’t seem to be a case of religious discrimination.” (your words), but we cannot “know whether or not any bias against religion motivated the school’s actions” (my words). There’s a wide gulf between saying something is so and knowing that it is.
Secondly, now who’d backpeddling?
That sounds fairly dismissive to me. And please don’t try to claim that you merely meant the father’s word being called into question.
I’m still following this locally, not just relying on reports here, and there are still the questions that were raised before which no one seems to want to address, like why the super claims that the child wasn’t suspended (or otherwise removed from the class), yet there is the paper trail that shows he had to be okayed per a psych evaluation to return to the class.
If the super is misrepresenting that, then her entire statement is suspect – and I think it’s reasonable to expect a little more clarity and precision in the statements of a school superintendent than those of a janitor.
Aggh! that got more than a little garbled; it should read:
Saying that we’ll have to agree to disagree (essentially what you posted before) doesn’t give any clue as to which portion you’re disagreeing with in a post that raised more than one point and leaves the impression that the entire post is being disagreed with.
*need coffee….
Wayfaring:
Well, first, I was trying to simply just call an end to our debate since it’s going nowhere. I figured you might just say “OK” and leave it at that. Oh well.
Only of the father, not any other evidence (some of which suggests it wasn’t religous is nature.)
Why not? That’s exactly what I said:
Is this just becoming a case of winning a debate with zero? *yawn*
I’m not. At this point, I’m comfortable in saying it sure seems like things got screwed up and got out of hand, however, it doesn’t seem like it is about religious discrimination.
You can keep posting, I’ll keep responding but I’m not sure we are even communicating anymore.
You’re right; apparently we’re not “communicating.”
I’m still concerned about an eight year old child whose academic record will forever carry the stigma of this incident – not to mention his psyche. Getting to the truth of this could help erase that stigma.
And you don’t need to respond; whether you think so or not, I’m not trying to “win” anything. I’m just one of those wacko people who cares about other people.
I [still] hope you and yours have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
Wayfaring:
Oh come on. OF COURSE I care about the child. It sucks, poor fellow had to go through a bunch of unnesscery stuff (since the psych eval cleared him, the concerns were apparently unwarranted).
I just wanted to clarify that alone. It doesn’t change the fact that it’s entirely possible it wasn’t religious in nature at all.
Hristos se rodi!
Wayfaring:
Vaistinu se rodi!
Excellent points by ssnark which I am in agreement with. Funny thing is how one sect of any religion villifies and besmirches the efforts of other points of view.
Evidenced by the wordplay between posters is the obvious comment of holding ones group to be superior to others let alone holding alternate views as sheer apostacy.
Holding a document to be religious merely by the (then) current calendar report of “in the year of our Lord…” is ludicrous.
Speaking of the Founding Fathers as deeply religious is merely one viewpoint which does not withstand serious scrutiny. Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, etc. were closely identified as Deists. Try reading Ethan Allen’s Reason the Only Oracle of Man Or A Compendious System Of Natural Religion. Allen’s arguments are as close to any current athiest mindset possible, and I recommend its reading (if you can locate one). But wait, Ethan Allen wasn’t a founding father now, was he? Better check out an old obsolete history text to verify.
FWIW: People really should defer projection on athiests over thier beliefs/non beliefs. That is a personal decision and does not reflect on the qualities defining American as ssarnk states. IMHO I would enjoy/encourage people such as zero on my watch (as we said in the canoe club) just as I would not mind being in the same fox hole.
468 comments on this topic. Nothing like the power of the name of Jesus to bring the good, the evil, & those who are trying to decide between the two, into the debate..
Adults tend to overcomplicate.
Here’s my take: a child was asked to produce a drawing based on a particular theme. The teacher freaked at seeing a dead Jesus on the cross.
The end.
If liberal school teacher behavior of the past is any indication, the liberal teacher saw a depiction of God, & know that children who understand it cannot be brainwashed with the liberal agenda.
THAT is not that complicated..
That link was pasted in in error. My apologies.
I was replying to Cicero’s last post..
It’s appropriate, Dan. The endangered species being people with common sense.
Actually there is race factor also which seems to be under-reported. The family is black and the father said he felt his special needs was targeted for attack because he is black. The father is the one who created the stink.
Howdy Pure:
Taking a rare opportunity here and removing race from the equation. What effect would have been resolved differently otherwise? I see either a religious bent decision by the school/teacher or a seriously troubled child needing help.
On the second option however, kids try to emulate and depict what they see around them. I am not aware of many instances of crucifiction in comic books, movies or video games lately (but I do live under the proverbial rock).
The local news report with interview of father who says “they were just looking for something”:
http://news.yahoo.com/video/local-15749667/17153205
Oh hai, Kingfish!
*blush*
Believe it or not, I actually considered that same point.
There is also a report that the drawing shown by the father is not the same drawing that was done in class.
The school also says the child was not suspended.
If all that is true, maybe the drawing made in class was more disturbing and considering the child is in special needs, maybe that made a difference in their decision to give him psychological evaluation.
So the father’s upset and drawing to public attention creates more stress for the child, if not now but his memories of it.
Local news video with father interview:
http://news.yahoo.com/video/local-15749667/17153205
oops, sorry. didn’t think it posted the first time.
I hate to comment on these he said, she said kind of arguments because the initial story is never correct or complete and once it hits the MSM, it gets blown out of proportion six ways from zero. I don’t think we’ll ever know the truth here because it was the first victim.
The little boy may well have issues, he’s a special needs child and those needs may have dictated a different approach from that which another may have received. But the father is looking for a monetary settlement (reward) for this, the school is trying to CYA and the poor kid is lost in the whole kerfluffle for legal one upmanship and money.
I’m sick and tired of everything boiling down to money. It’s not about right or wrong or justice or the best interest of a child. It’s about money and pride and people’s personal axes to grind.
That’s a he(( of a way to celebrate this season of miracles. With adults acting like spoilt children and arguing over money and their own personal agendas over a little boy who is probably scared and wondering what he did to cause all this yelling and shouting and carrying on.
Yes pure, I did watch the link. All I can say that as the parent of special needs children (yes, plural): There are time and instances between the education system and myself in which we do not see eye to eye. This in turn leads to aggitation (witnessed by the father) and perhaps the wrong choice of words used. Not haveing the full information at my fingertips, I defer judgement…especially with experiences with a not above the board education system like I reside in (WA).
ssnark, don’t you think it sounds like the father’s demand for reparations is what created the news story?
I do not doubt that. But you are not going screaming to the local media about it, let alone claiming it is based on racism.
On December 16th, 2009 at 7:55 pm, purealchemy said:
I can’t be too sure of anything except the poor kid is caught in the middle and nobody seems to be looking out for him. The minute this hit the MSM and there were potentially lawyers involved, the truth was the second victim in this mess.
Off topic, but just posted this on the Schumer thread. Any reactions?:
#65On December 16th, 2009 at 7:35 pm, purealchemy said:
If y’all get burned out bashing Schumer:
“One thin September soon
A floating continent disappears
In midnight sun
Vapors rise as
Fever settles on an acid sea
Neptune’s bones dissolve”
– Al Gore’s climate change poem, “Our Choice”
#66On December 16th, 2009 at 7:40 pm, purealchemy said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mCngWelRTk
Al Gore recites poem to Harry Smith who is very touched
Kingfish, could you re-word this? I am not getting what you mean. Or ssnark if he does get it.