Depravity: 5-Year-Old’s hands burned for Touching Bible

A 25-year-old Arizona man was arrested Sunday on suspicion of child abuse after allegedly burning his 5-year-old son’s hand because the boy touched his Bible.

Johnny Salazar, of Chandler, Ariz., was taking care of 5-year-old James and his 2-year-old brother — who he has joint custody of with their mother — when the incident occurred.

When Johnny Salazar’s parents returned from church on Sunday, they noticed red blistering on James’ wrist. They asked Salazar what happened and he told them he burned his son with a cigarette lighter, police said.

“The boy was touching his Bible and he thought the boy may be possessed,” Chandler Police Sgt. Joe Favazzo said.

via Father Accused of Burning 5-Year-Old Son for Touching Bible.


HT – Robert, via Facebook.

You Might Also Like

17 Replies to “Depravity: 5-Year-Old’s hands burned for Touching Bible”

  1. Accusation. Not a conviction.

    Sorry to say, “… he has joint custody of [son] with their mother …” is dead reckoning giveaway to a wanna-be custody battle.

    Read: has this child been burned by an ongoing custody battle in more ways than one?

    You’ve got to know the practice. In daily life. Domestic law is not – domesticated.

    I see this stuff in practice every day. It’s common. And sad.

    For example, would it make any difference if you learned that in Arizona, child support varies with custody?

    Careful. Very careful. Remember allegations v. Strauss-Kahn.

    Facts trump suspicions. Suspicions should not be makeweight proxies for doing careful, good theology.

    If you want real stories, see verified cases of kids dying with snake handlers, or exorcisms causing deaths.

    We’re a bit down the road from the Salem witchcraft trials. But maybe not aggregately if you added up all the cases nationally.

    Save that at Salem, ordained ministers were in charge.

    Be very careful with allegations. The lost art of seeing both sides. Polemical theology poisons that. Theologians can be trained and can train themselves to be much, much more observant of – facts.

    Maybe unsettled Christianity means unsettling one’s self with theology and paying more attention to facts?



  2. … more specifically, the story that you cited involves accusation/allegations that happen every single day in domestic law cases all across the nation. And that includes calling the cops.

    So far, understand?

    Next, if I’m rambling, then I’ll connect the dots for you with small words.

    What’s depraved is to take an unproven allegation and a “suspicion” and then treat them as your occasion to comment on human depravity. Or did I not see the word “Depravity” in your own header?

    That’s depraved.


    Because you have no factual basis to know whether the father or the mother is depraved in this case, or worse, whether the child might be taken away from both a depraved mother and a depraved father pending a CPS (Child Protective Services) investigation into how the child got burned.

    The reference to Salem is about how ordained clergy (bloated on theological terms waiting to be applied on the slightest “spectral evidence” ) – ordained clergy acting as judges in Salem used anterior and post-hoc reasoning based on facts and spectral evidence (look up – spectral evidence) as bone thin as things like wind blowing the curtains to infer demonic – depraved – causes.

    And to kill people on such thin evidence and “suspicions.”

    Allegations. Suspicions. Convictions and death sentences for mere “suspicions.”

    In this case, a child has been burned.

    So someone must be “depraved”?

    Spectral evidence here includes dreams of depravity which are only inside your own head upon hearing “suspicions”?

    What’s hard to understand here – the word “suspicion?” – did you read the same words that you posted “suspicion of child abuse”?

    Look, this is not an anti-Christian bash. I’m a believer.

    1. I’ve learned when someone says ‘I’m not bashing you because I’m like you’ that person rarely is.

      Further, this is hardly the Salem Witch Trails. A little, or a lot, of perspective is needed.

      And, you are still rambling.

  3. Ha! Thank you!

    Joel, I do apologize.

    I don’t know the nuances of in-house banter. I’m busy working on my own narcissistic bias and my ruminating project about how theology gets translated into case judgments. Trying to understand myself. As much as others.

    Sorry again for my blather!

    Mea culpa for jumping to my own judgments! This crow tastes pretty gnarly and RAW … cough!

    Hahaa … God, save me!



  4. i was right. and i was correct in my statement. he did confess and he has no clue about the Bible or Christianity.

  5. Jim? You mean I’m preoccupied with Jim West? As “Just Sayin’” said about Jim West?

    Or do you mean I’m preoccupied with myself – Jim?

    I’ve skimmed Jim West maybe once or twice at the most across the space of a few years, and, I could not tell you anything about Jim West. I’m not one of Jim West’s groupies if that’s what you mean?

    I frankly cannot read between the lines of your comments and “Just Sayin’s” comment about Jim West.

    If you mean that I’m preoccupied with myself (Jim), then what a nice ad hom as an excuse to avoid dealing with what I wrote. I was willing to see myself the fool and fooled and to say so, as if I missed some subtle play you made against Jim West, that is, if your use of the word depravity was not really your own thinking on this matter, but instead, using depravity as a spin on Jim West . If – just if – that’s your angle, then I missed it. And I apologize for jumping too soon.

    If, on the other hand, you mean I am preoccupied with myself, then the father in the news story is depraved and I am depraved too? –a slam dunk to challenges to you? – is that how it works?

    If you meant the word depravity as your own word (and not a slam on some other blogger), then I stand by what I wrote. And you still do not understand the story that you cited. You do not understand that so-called confession. You just think you do. You assume. You are utterly clueless about how so-called confessions reported by the news (police report or no) are not prima facie admissible in court. This so-called confession – if there ever was a real confession – is not automatically admissible in court, except in the courts of wild imaginations ready to rush to judgment.

    You’re really saying more about yourself than about this case. You don’t even know if there was an admissible confession. There is no conviction. You do not understand how the system works. Especially in indigent or borderline indigent cases with vulnerable defendants, as the clues in this case suggest. You just think you know. And assume.

    And you know less about Salem than you know about this news report. Clueless.



  6. most confessions are ultimately admitted, it would then be for the jury to decide if the statements should be reliable. Most states require additional evidence besides a confession. In criminal cases, the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to convict. However, most states (the ones I have practiced in) on an action by the state to remove or permanently sever parental rights the evidence of the confession along with any other evidence requires a lower standard of proof. What does this all mean. If the state were to began proceedings against him, either criminally or to remove his child from his care, he is in a lot of trouble.

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.