And so it begins: If you’re Christian, you must be psychologically disturbed

I have commented in this space previously about the ongoing war against religious faith generally, and Christian faith in particular, being waged by the Left in this country. Sadly, one of the chief battlegrounds has been our public schools, where the slightest mention or display by a student of anything like a Christian symbol or belief can be labeled “intolerance of diversity” and constitute grounds for discipline.

Worse news, though, is that the next phase of anti-Christianity has now begun. Unsatisfied with labeling Christians as bigots, the new logic goes like this: Belief in Jesus is irrational and therefore evidence of a psychological problem, which should of course be treated with therapy and drugs until the person becomes a happy, well-adjusted atheist.

If you think this is a wild exaggeration, consider the recent case of an 8-year old boy in Taunton, Massachusetts. In response to an instruction by his teacher to draw something that reminded him of the holiday season, the boy drew a stick figure of Christ on the cross. The teacher and the school administration decided that the appropriate reaction to this outrage was to send the child home from school immediately and force him to undergo a psychological evaluation  – which he passed – before allowing him to return.

The teacher apparently became upset because he or she felt the image was violent, being especially disturbed by the child’s drawing Xs where Jesus’ eyes would be (a common way of representing closed eyes.) The teacher claims the boy said he had drawn himself on the cross. You can judge for yourself how alarming and violent the image is here.

Even taking the teacher’s explanation at face value, I fail to see how a rational person would judge this 8 year old  boy to be a danger to himself or his classmates based on this drawing. If the teacher had concerns about the boy’s home situation, surely that did not require such immediate and drastic action. Needless to say, the poor kid does not understand what he did wrong and has been rather traumatized by the whole business. He will be transferring to another school at the request of his parents.

It is difficult to escape the conclusion that it is the teacher rather than the student who should be undergoing a mandatory psychological evaluation. But don’t hold your breath.

Italy can’t make 2 plus 2 equal 5

I have often blogged in support of religious expression against what I perceive as excessive repression in the name of secularism. However, it does happen that sometimes the secularists are in the right. So it is with a recent case in the European Court in which the Italian government lost its attempt to defend the widespread practice of displaying a crucifix in public school classrooms.

Italy, of course is a traditionally Catholic nation, and the crucifix is a familiar symbol in every city and village there. But Italy is also a country that claims to adhere to the European Union’s standards of freedom of religion. So when a parent complained about the presence of a crucifix in her child’s public school classroom and sought unsuccessfully to have it removed, she appealed all the way to the European Court.

Italy argued unsuccessfully that the crucifix was a traditional symbol of Italian culture. In fact, there is nothing about crucifixes in Italy that makes them unique to Italy or any different than those found in Spain, France, or any other Catholic area. Italy also insisted – rather ridiculously – that the crucifix is a symbol of unity, tolerance, and secularism. Secularism??

This would certainly come as news to anyone familiar with the Inquisition or the Jewish ghettoes. Yes, modern Italy is a relatively secular and tolerant country, but the crucifix is hardly a symbol of that modernity.

Ironically, courtrooms in Italy also display crucifixes. The Euro court’s ruling would seem to open up the ability to challenge that practice as well.

The point is not that Italy is deliberately trying to foist Catholicism on its citizens. Rather, it’s that the prominent display of the symbol of a very specific religious domination is inherently discriminatory and exclusionary to those who practice a different faith or none at all.

There is a separate argument to be made here about whether an international court should have the right to tell a sovereign state such as Italy what it can and cannot do – but that is something Italy should have considered as part of its membership in the European Union.

Democrats: Don’t kill D.C. school vouchers

CNN talking head Roland Martin has a very good piece up imploring President Obama and the Democrats not to kill the school voucher program that allows economically disadvantaged students in Washington D.C. (primarily black) to attend private schools. Martin points out that many of the Democratic politicans who oppose vouchers, including Obama, send their children to private schools.

Like Martin, I am a product of the public schools (though I attended a private college) and a believer in public education. Nevertheless, until cities like D.C. can offer a decent public education, it is not fair to allow a generation of kids to be failed by the public system when alternatives exist. Yet that is precisely what the teachers’ unions would have us do.

Democrats have long claimed to be the champions of underprivileged minorities. Here’s their chance to prove it or be exposed as hypocrites.