baltimoresun.com

« Oral Roberts dead | Main | Lesbian rabbi says she's White House-bound »

December 15, 2009

Updated: School district disputes crucifix claim

A Massachusetts school district late Tuesday denied a father's claims that his son was suspended for drawing a stick figure of Jesus on a cross, the Associated Press is reporting.

The Taunton School District said in a written statement that the second-grade student was never suspended over the sketch and that a drawing circulated to reporters by the boy's father, Chester Johnson, is not the same one that was discovered by the teacher earlier this month, the AP reports.

The district also denied the father's claims that the boy and his classmates were assigned by a teacher to draw something that reminded them of the holiday season.

Johnson did not return multiple phone messages from The Associated Press on Tuesday night about the school district's statements.

The original post follows:

An 8-year-old Massachusetts boy was sent home from school and ordered to undergo a psychological evaluation after he was asked to make a Christmas drawing and sketched what appeared to be a stick figure of Jesus on a cross, the Associated Press is reporting.

Chester Johnson of Taunton, Mass., said his son made the drawing on Dec. 2 after his second-grade teacher asked children to sketch something that reminded them of the holiday, according to the AP. The assignment came just days after the family had visited the holiday lights display at the National Shrine of Our Lady of La Salette in Attleboro, Mass., where Johnson said his son seemed taken with the religious statues he saw there.

"When he seen the crucifixion of Jesus on the cross, that's what he drew," Johnson told the AP. "He liked that. That drew his eye."

Johnson, who works at the school as a janitor on a per diem basis, said administrators were concerned the boy drew Xs for Jesus' eyes, and particularly worried when his son said he'd drawn himself on the cross after officials pressed him about who he'd drawn.

Johnson said his son might have been worried about getting in trouble if he said he drew Jesus. "If he said it was him, it was more like a cartoon," Johnson said.

Superintendent Julie Hackett said she could not discuss an individual student and did not address the drawing specifically or the teacher's reaction to it, but did say the school has safety protocols in place that were followed.

Hackett did not return multiple calls from The Associated Press on Tuesday.

Read the rest of the Associated Press story.

AP photo

Posted by Matthew Hay Brown at 7:12 PM | | Comments (21)
        

Comments

Why don't they also send Leonardo Da Vinci, Salvadore Dali, and every other artist home too.

This is about pathologizing childrens' behavior. Please read "The War on Kids".

As a retired teacher, I know that a wise, smart, intelligent, unbiased teacher would have ordered that the drawing be sent home. What ever happened to separation of church and state?

Our constitution doesnt say that church and state have to be seperate. A teacher who would order the drawing to be sent home is wise and unbiased? Wise for satan yes. Unbiased, no.

No such thing as Satan, Clay. He's all in your mind.

If that is what you want me to think and it is obviously what he wants me to think then in a sense you are him. Thanks.

What ever happened to Christmas being about the birth of Christ. The child was asked to draw what he thought Christmas was and he did. Whatever happened to freedom of speech,
Li Miller I am glad you are retired! :)

I don't know if anyone noticed that above the figure on the cross, is written the name "Jake", the name of the child. If he has drawn himself into this picture, then he definitely needs to talk to a qualified professional, if only for some guidance about what might be a serious personal crisis.

Robert - For once we are in agreement. I think there is more to this story than the claims of the father.

EVERYBODY IS TRYING TO PASS THE BUCK HERE. THE TEACHER PASSES IT ON TO THE PRINCIPAL OF THE SCHOOL, THEN ON TO THE SCHOOL BOARD. AND SO ON AND SO ON. WE SEND OUR CHILDREN TO SCHOOL FOR LIFE GUIDANCE AND TO LEARN THE "A" "B""C"'s. WE AS PARENTS ARE THE GUARDIANS OF OUR CHILDREN.
I GRANT YOU SOME PARENTS DON'T DESERVE THAT HONOR BUT IT IS NOT
THE SCHOOL'S PLACE TO MONITOR THIS. THE SCHOOL BOARDS IN THE UNITED STATES HAVE BECOME THE BIGGEST GOVERMENT IN THE WORLD, AND THEY NEED TO BE TAKEN DOWN A PEG OR TWO. SCHOOLS KEEP YOUIR NOSE OUT OF THE CHILDS RELEGON. AND IT IS VERY APARENT THAT THE SCHOOL SYSTEM CAN'T EVEN TEACH THE A-B-C's ANYMORE.
OVER THIRTY PERSENT OF THE KIDS CAN'T READ OR WRITE AND THEY PASS ALL THE WAY THRU HIGH SCHOOL AS LONG AS THEY ARE UOTSTANDING IN SOME SPORT ie: FOOT BALL, BASKET BALL ect.

Danny Ellsworth - Typing in all caps is considered shouting and is rude, so much so that many won't even read posts presented that way.

Just another reason to avoid the public school system.

Here's the solution, everyone: homeschooling. Seton Home Study School is a fully accredited private Catholic school; we use it as our provider and they are great at providing everything you need. May I recommend them to parents who are concerned about godless public schools.

Elizabeth,

If your god is omnipotent, how can any part of creation be "godless"? If you provide your child with religious values, then no school can remove those values. Challenge them perhaps, which I hope you would agree is a good thing, for what is faith if it is not challenged? And no public school should ever teach religious values, but rather should teach and underscore the values of our secular society (diversity, accommodation of varying views, citizenship). Again, it is up to you (and your church) to provide religious training if that is important to you..

The public schools should not be teaching values period. That is a subject open to as much intrepretation as religion.

So...public schools should not be teaching the values of good citizenship (which, of necessity, include respect for others and informed participation)?

The problem is we all don't agree on what good citizenship means. As an example the two you mention are ones most would agree on. That being said how do you define respect for others? There is a line between respect and acceptance as ok. That's the problem far too much gray. I would prefer myself and my church teaching the lessons.

The price of membership in a civil society (i.e., citizenship) is accommodation of (or respect for) differences. If you call this "acceptance," so be it. If, for example, your child encounters a "lifestyle" at school that is contrary to one s/he has been taught at home is acceptable, your child should, I believe, learn that other families have differing values, accept that reality, accommodate that schoolmate's perspective, bring questions to you ... and move on. Where's the problem in that?

The problem is the difference between accommodation and respect and the school over riding a parent’s right to teach the values of their own faith. If one's faith says a certain behavior is morally wrong then state shouldn't be doing anything that even hints that its own or someone else’s interpretation of what is morally acceptable behavior is correct. My own faith teaches certain behavior is immoral and I don’t want the school system promoting it as not being immoral. It doesn’t mean that the other person should be subjected to any ridicule or even judgment for that matter. That also has no business in the school. The kids are in school to learn basic skills not a lesson in values or morals. If you want that as then it would have to look at many sources some religious and some secular. Since most atheist and agnostics would not accept anything close to religious values being taught I don’t see why people of any religion should have the state teaching their kids values.

OK. Let's cut to the quick. Let's say one of your child's classmates comes from a family headed by a same-sex couple. If we agree that the child is not to be judged or ridiculed, I assume you would have no problem with treating that child like any other in the class, and with the teacher, for example, inviting his parents to back-to-school night. If the teacher makes no moral judgment in this case, this is hardly "promotion." It is, though accommodation and, yes, "acceptance."

As a non-believer myself, I would have no problem with some religious VALUES (please avoid the prohibition of "false gods") being taught to my child (she's now twenty-five years old, by the way). I would have a problem with religious mythology (the Resurrection, the Nativity, for example) being taught as fact or history. Personally, I have no problem with music with religious words or themes (Christmas carols, for example) being performed in a school setting, as long as they are not presented with any suggestion that they are anything more than artifacts of the festive season.

Finally, I would suggest that by retreating into church-based education or even home schooling of your child, you could not (and should not) "protect" your child indefinitely from encounters with components of larger society that reflect values other than your own. That's called real life.

The child should be treated as any other in class and I would want to know immediately if my child in any way judged, taunted or ridiculed the other child. While my religion teaches the act is sinful it also teaches to leave judgment to God and love your neighbor and that means all of them believers, unbelievers, those who persecute us and those who we don’t agree with on matters of morals. To me acceptance would be the school doing things which would lend any credibility that same sex acts or any other behavior as morally acceptable to God.

The problem with values is that we all don’t seem to share the same values and too often they are manipulated by people those who want more secular versus those who want more religion. I think it’s simpler to stick to the basics language arts, math, science etc and leave the values lessons alone. The schools primary job is to teach those skills and that sort of knowledge.

I don’t advocate retreating into only a church based or home school teaching of kids. One of mine goes to private school for the overall quality of education. The other is in public school because he has autism and required special accommodations that could only be addressed that way. None of my kids are shielded from anything. I want them to understand and be able to live in the world without losing their values and faith. They also need to understand the difference between sharing faith and values and trying to force them on others. At the end of the day I care nothing for what society values, but what is of value to God. I respect yours or anyone else’s right to believe differently. I also respect that state schools have no business promoting what God wants of us. I just don’t want them promoting anyone wants or believes as well.

Post a comment

All comments must be approved by the blog author. Please do not resubmit comments if they do not immediately appear. You are not required to use your full name when posting, but you should use a real e-mail address. Comments may be republished in print, but we will not publish your e-mail address. Our full Terms of Service are available here.

Verification (needed to reduce spam):

About Matthew Hay Brown
Matthew Hay Brown writes and blogs about faith and values in public and private life for The Baltimore Sun. A former Washington correspondent for the newspaper, he has long written about the intersection of religion and politics. He has reported from Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and the Middle East, traveling most recently to Syria and Jordan to write about the Iraqi refugee crisis.
-- ADVERTISEMENT --

Most Recent Comments
Baltimore Sun coverage
Religion in the news
Charm City Current
Stay connected