Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Michigan Bill Will Protect Religious Bullies

These are some strong words from a Time blogger.

The Michigan state Senate has just passed a bill called “Matt’s Safe School Law,” named after a student who committed suicide after being bullied. The bill will now be sent to the House. So far, so good, the state is going to tighten down on a serious problem.

But get this:
On Wednesday, the Republican-controlled state senate passed an anti-bullying bill that manages to protect school bullies instead of those they victimize. It accomplishes this impressive feat by allowing students, teachers, and other school employees to claim that “a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction” justifies their harassment. Why Does Michigan’s Anti-Bullying Bill Protect Religious Tormenters?

These guys are amazing.

The author, Amy Sullivan, is a Michigan resident. She writes a weekly column in Time, "Articles of Faith," about the intersection of religion and politics.
Michigan is already one of only three states in the country that have not enacted any form of anti-bullying legislation. For more than a decade, Democrats in the state legislature have fought their Republican colleagues and social conservatives such as Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, who referred to anti-bullying measures as “a Trojan horse for the homosexual agenda.” In that time, at least ten Michigan students who were victims of bullying have killed themselves.

This year, Republicans only agreed to consider an anti-bullying measure that did not require school districts to report bullying incidents, did not include any provisions for enforcement or teacher training, and did not hold administrators accountable if they fail to act. And they fought back Democratic attempts to enumerate particular types of students who are prone to being bullied, such as religious and racial minorities, and gay students. But it was the addition of special protections for religiously-motivated bullying that led all 11 Democratic senators to vote against the legislation they had long championed.

This is not about expressing your beliefs, it's not about having an opinion that homosexuality is wrong -- it's about bullying. In Michigan, bullies who do not belong to hateful churches can be punished, if this bill passes.
In an emotional speech on the Senate floor, Democratic Leader Gretchen Whitmer accused her colleagues of creating a blueprint for consequence-free bullying. “As passed today,” said Whitmer, “bullying kids is okay if a student, parent, teacher or school employee can come up with a moral or religious reason for doing it.”

The bill is called “Matt’s Safe School Law,” after Matt Epling, a Michigan student who committed suicide in 2002 after enduring prolonged bullying. Matt’s father, Kevin Epling, expressed his dismay in a Facebook post after the state senate vote on Wednesday. “I am ashamed that this could be Michigan’s bill on anti-bullying,” wrote Epling. “For years the line [from Republicans] has been ‘no protected classes,’ and the first thing they throw in…was a very protected class, and limited them from repercussions of their own actions.”

To understand what happened in Michigan, it’s important to know that social conservatives consider themselves the real victims. At the federal level, they unsuccessfully fought for the inclusion of a provision protecting religious freedom when Congress expanded the definition of a hate crime to include crimes motivated by a victim’s sexual orientation. They also strongly oppose legislation that would prevent discrimination against gay individuals in the workplace, charging that such a law would endanger religious freedom. A report on the Christian Broadcasting Network outlined one such concern: “The special protections for gay and transgendered teachers will make it extremely difficult for [public school] districts that might want to remove them from the classroom.”

In other words, social conservatives believe that efforts to protect gays from assault, discrimination or bullying impinge on their religious freedom to express and act on their belief that homosexuality is an abomination. That’s stating it harshly, but it is the underlying belief.

This belief, however, relies on a warped understanding of religious liberty. Freedom of religious expression doesn’t give someone the right to kick the crap out of a gay kid or to verbally torment her. It doesn’t give someone the right to fire a gay employee instead of dealing with the potential discomfort of working with him.

It’s also a highly selective conception of religious liberty. The same religious conservatives who applaud the religious exemption in Michigan’s anti-bullying bill would be appalled if it protected a Muslim student in Dearborn who defended bullying a Christian classmate by saying he considered her an infidel.

Worst of all, such abuses of the concept of religious liberty undermine efforts to focus attention on serious threats to religious freedom. A Christian pastor in Iran currently faces execution because he will not convert back to Islam. China openly represses religious minorities like Tibetan Buddhists and Uighur Muslims. Christians in Syria and Egypt continue to be targets of violence, and Muslims in Europe face civil penalties for wearing religious garb in public. Next to these realities, it takes a serious persecution complex to get worked up about defending the right of a Michigan high school student to target a gay classmate for ridicule.

And that's what we're up against. It is a total inversion of morality, where those who appoint themselves morally superior believe they are justified in doing bad things.

35 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Voter backlash will turn this abomination around in 2012.

November 09, 2011 9:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"In other words, social conservatives believe that efforts to protect gays from assault, discrimination or bullying impinge on their religious freedom"

the problem is that this term "bullying" is used rather loosley

most people think of physical intimidation or discrimination but the above reveals that "bullying" is something different in the mind of gay advocates

can you give us some examples of behavior that would be covered as "bullying" that is not already illegal?

November 09, 2011 11:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"most people think of physical intimidation or discrimination but the above reveals that "bullying" is something different in the mind of gay advocates"

Why don't you tell us what you imagine is different about how "gay advocates" think about bullying from what most people you know think about it.

If you want some examples of bullying that has lead gay teens to suicide, you can go to google and enter the words GAY TEEN COMMITS SUICIDE and read some of the 2.65 million reports about it.

Here's the first one that come up on my search:

Gay Buffalo Teen Commits Suicide on Eve of National Bullying Summit

"Jamey had been tormented for the past 12 months by cyberbullies who made disparaging comments with gay references on his Formspring account, a website that allows anonymous posts.

"JAMIE IS STUPID, GAY, FAT ANND [sic] UGLY. HE MUST DIE!" one post said, according to local reports. Another read, "I wouldn't care if you died. No one would. So just do it :) It would make everyone WAY more happier!""

November 09, 2011 12:20 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

It's important to distinguish between bullying and the righteous arm of God.

November 09, 2011 1:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

so your saying there's a difference?

November 09, 2011 3:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

""JAMIE IS STUPID, GAY, FAT ANND [sic] UGLY. HE MUST DIE!" one post said, according to local reports. Another read, "I wouldn't care if you died. No one would. So just do it :) It would make everyone WAY more happier!"""

OK, thanks for the example.

While this is not nice behavior, by no means can we tolerate a society where it is illegal to call someone "fat" "stupid" "gay" or "ugly". We either have freedom of speech or we don't and few of us want to live in a society where the government decides what speech is naughty or nice with enforcement powers. If the kids can be found, they can get a good talking to by their parents of teachers but that's not something that belongs in the law.

The "HE MUST DIE" stuff is another matter. This sounds like a threat on someone's life and law enforcement authorities already have the legal tools to deal with this. Homosexuality is irrelevant and shouldn't be a factor either heightening or lessening the situation.

No anti-bullying legislation is necessary. It's redundant at best and probably motivated by worse.

November 09, 2011 4:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

any other examples of things gay advocates think should be illegal under an anti-bullying law that aren't already illegal?

we know that gay advocates think there is a "Thumper" clause in the Constitution but the reality is that free speech is protected

what else?

or does TTF admit that anti-bullying laws are indeed a Trojan horse for the gay agenda?

November 09, 2011 5:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

wtf are you trying to say anon? i think most decent people are opposed to bullying. Free speech is protected, harassment not so much. It doesn't have anything to do with being gay, except that people like you think it's your right to especailly hassle gay people.

November 09, 2011 5:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm saying that vague terms like "harassment" and "hassle", when applied to speech are generally an infringement on freedom of speech

I also think "most decent people are opposed to bullying" but I think they have in mind something quite different from what gay advocates are talking about

for example, I have been regularly criticized here for "bullying" other commenters

yet, I usually am the lone proponent on my side and don't possess any particularly unfair advantage

how is that "bullying"?

are my comments the kind of thing that kids in school won't be able to say without violating the law?

November 09, 2011 6:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anon, please show us one example of anyone saying you are "bullying" anyone here. Youdrown people out and go on tangents, your opinions are horseshit, you assert rather than reason, you cant tell the difference between a fact and an opinion, you make up the other persons argument and then refute your own fictional creation, but i dont think anyone would say you have enough power here to bully anyone.

Really, please, show me one example of someone here calling you a bully.. Then we can talk.

November 09, 2011 6:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Really, please, show me one example of someone here calling you a bully.. Then we can talk"

actually, it's been a common accusation

just do a search for "anon" and "bully"

here's the first one I find, from December 23, 2005:

"Anon's a flamer - and not in a good way. He (I'll make the gender assumption) sounds like the annoying half-bully nobody likes in high school"

can we talk now?

you see, "bully" is just a code word for anyone with the audacity to question the gay agenda

the purpose of these "anti-bullying" laws is to give gay advocates the upper hand in any debate about whether homosexuality in normal and appropriate

one must be careful to only argue in a way that allows gaysters the advantage or you'll be accused of "bullying"

gays don't want to be protected from bullying

they want to be endorsed and favored by the authorities

November 09, 2011 9:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"sounds like the annoying half-bully nobody likes in high school"..."

you think that is somebody accusing you of being a bully here?

Sounds like they are calling you an effete wimp if anything

And yes, "effete" does sort of sound like "effeminate"

November 09, 2011 9:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

so, that one example didn't work for you

no problemo

using the blog's search feature, here's a more direct example from November 17, 2005:

"Anonymous is just one of those schoolyard bullies that the programs on bullying in MCPS schools must address."

TTFers

they're teaching the facts

as they exist in another time and dimension

the signpost up ahead?

the Twilight Zone

November 09, 2011 10:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous is just one of those schoolyard bullies that the programs on bullying in MCPS schools must address."

Anon, even I would agree with that statement. You sound like a schoolyard bully, you are rude and arrogant and judgmental, inconsiderate and self-centered, blind to your own falts and magnifying other peoples. You sound like a 9-year-old onthe playground, telling everybody they need to play by your rules and let you win.

This person is not saying that you bully anybody here. here you are just a punk, cynthia uses your brain for a speed bag, if you get my drift. Yes, a speed bag.

November 09, 2011 11:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

no matter how you hard you pirouette the facts, they remain

homosexual advocates use the term "bullying" as loosely and irresponsibly as the treat all other language

to them, "bullying" is not endorsing the normality of homosexuality and one goal of the gay agenda is to outlaw that type of thinking

the "anti-bullying" legislation is simply a chess move toward the goal of capturing that king

November 09, 2011 11:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

hey, cinco

these guys apparently consider you the brains of this outfit

could you help 'em out?

they can't come up with a definition of "bullying"

they know everyone's against it but they can't say what it is

we've already ruled out assault and discrimination

any ideas?

November 09, 2011 11:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No anon, you dont get to make up what somebody else has said and then prove that its wrong. Nobody has said that. if somebody says there gay and you say "I dont believe that is morally right," you are not a bully. Nobody would say that.

there might be some rules in places about inclusive speech, and we might not talk in some places about niggers and kikes and queers, im sorry if you wish you could but its not all right. At the same time that is not what anybody means by bullying.

you want the constitution to protect your rudeness and it does up to a point. But it also protects the freedom of the people you insult, dont forget that.

November 09, 2011 11:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

after I pointed out that gay advocates who push for "anti-bullying" laws, also push the envelope on the definition of bullying and that my argumentation here is often described by these TTfers as "bullying", a TTFer tried to dispute the obvious:

"Really, please, show me one example of someone here calling you a bully.. Then we can talk."

so, I simply searched the blog and put up the first of many such examples that the search produced:

"Anonymous is just one of those schoolyard bullies that the programs on bullying in MCPS schools must address."

apparently, the TTFer can't live up to his words as we now get this:

"No anon, you dont get to make up what somebody else has said and then prove that its wrong."

I didn't do that. I provided a clear example of a TTFer saying my speech is why "anti-bullying" programs are needed.

"Nobody has said that. if somebody says there gay and you say "I dont believe that is morally right," you are not a bully. Nobody would say that."

ah, but we have dozens of examples of TTFers saying just that

and you had asked for "one"

"there might be some rules in places about inclusive speech,"

a real Orwellianism from someone who want to exclude certain speech by law

"and we might not talk in some places about niggers and kikes and queers, im sorry if you wish you could but its not all right."

I'm not saying it's alright, I'm saying it's appropriateness is not a matter for law enforcement

and your sad attempt to conflate behavior and desire with race is noted

no, being an African-American is not the equivalent of harboring deviant sexual desires

"At the same time that is not what anybody means by bullying."

the comments directed at me would indicate otherwise

"you want the constitution to protect your rudeness and it does up to a point."

if the "rudeness" you refer to is speech, there is no ending point to that freedom, under the Constitution

say, you don't like the Constitution, do you?

"But it also protects the freedom of the people you insult, dont forget that."

if you mean the "freedom" to outlaw speech that doesn't portray them positively, that is not a Constitutional freedom

I think we see the homosexual agenda at work here

it's obvious

November 10, 2011 6:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice try anon. we are talking here about bullying, not speech. no one has suggested passing a law that says that you cant still call gay peopel faggots. A lot of places aren't going to put up with it, but i have not heard of anyone proposing a law against it have you?

November 10, 2011 7:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge, told ABC:

“There were some caucus members who worried that if a child stood up in sex education class or speech class and made a statement: ‘In my religion, I don’t believe in gay marriage,’ or something, they didn’t want the child to be evicted from school for just making a statement.

“Nothing in the bill is intended that the child could confront another child and abuse them in any way. I wouldn’t have a problem with some of the language being removed as long as it was very clear that a student’s First Amendment rights were protected. … There is no intent on my part to justify bullying, in any form.”

The bill may also be amended further to cover cyberbullying. Kevin Epling, the father of Matt, said:

“I think there needs to be stronger language on cyberbullying and there needs to be stronger language on reporting, all the way to the state level,” he said.

House Education Chair Paul Scott told MIRS that the language caught him off-guard.

“It doesn’t strike me that a religious person would ever need to bully,” Scott said."

November 10, 2011 8:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So tell us what it is that motivates you to come here day after day year after year to denigrate LGBT people. Do you think you can "save" someone or "change" anyone's mind by putting LGBT people down all the time?

Your comments make you appear to carry a lot of hatred for LGBT people in your heart and to enjoy spreading your hatred around.

That's not what most of us think of as being a good Christian.

November 10, 2011 8:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great anon, this is great. A republican christian has said "they didn’t want the child to be evicted from school for just making a statement."

i dont want that either, nobody wants that, thats why there wouldnt be a rule about it. If there is a law about bullying it will not be applyed to someone who says "I don't believe in that." Thats just paranoid and dumb. Its the same kind of thing you do, make up something fictional and then claim to be against it.

The religious right lives for victimhood, they live to feel persecuted. So they act like assholes and then guess what, people are not nice to them. Self fullfilling prophecy.

November 10, 2011 8:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"we are talking here about bullying, not speech. no one has suggested passing a law that says that you cant still call gay peopel faggots"

when I hear the anecdotes gay advocates tell, it usually speech that is considered "bullying"

above, someone provided an example of calling someone "ugly, fat, stupid and gay" and said that was "bullying"

if it's something other than speech and it's not already illegal(like assault or threats of violence), I ask you again to elaborate

as far as I can see, the intent of these laws is either to give preference to the sexual deviant in enforcing current laws or to curtail certain types of speech

November 10, 2011 11:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The religious right lives for victimhood, they live to feel persecuted"

this is quite an astounding statement coming from a group that is constantly trying to get hate crimes and anti-bullying laws passed to protect them because they are so victimized

an amazing level of egotism

November 10, 2011 11:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"when I hear the anecdotes gay advocates tell, it usually speech that is considered "bullying""

There you go again anon. Show us one place where a "gay avdocate" said that someone saying they dont believe in homosexuality was considered bullying.

November 10, 2011 11:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

there you go again, moron

I didn't specify what speech I was talking about

please give us an example of bullying that is either not speech or not otherwise already illegal

betcha can't

November 10, 2011 12:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon, kids rough-house all the time at school and elsewhere and teachers let it go on. mostly its nothing but often it is not. A law would require schools to take action when the activity meets the criterion of bullying, however that will be defined. As much shoving and wrestling as kids do, you never hear of one charged with assault, so your argument that its allready a crime doesnt' hold water. It is up to schools and adults to monitor that it is just in fun and not malicious. Tough call, but you know it when you see it.

November 10, 2011 12:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ohio Bully Beating of Gay Student Caught on Cell Phone

The beaten gay boy's mother is pressing charges against the bully "Just for all the people out there that have that hate in their heart, they need to let it go because you know, people are going to be who they are."

Assault and battery are definitely crimes, but what about going to school every day and enduring months of being taunted day after day? That kid and many more kids just like him, show up to class every day with their bully waiting for them because the bully plans to torment them again with his fists (illegal) and his words (illegal only if they are express a real threat in some jurisdictions) and nobody acts like they notice or care about what that bully does.

That mother has a message for Anonymous:

Let all that hate you have for gay folks in your heart go.

November 10, 2011 9:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Assault and battery are definitely crimes, but what about going to school every day and enduring months of being taunted day after day? That kid and many more kids just like him, show up to class every day with their bully waiting for them because the bully plans to torment them again with his fists (illegal) and his words (illegal only if they are express a real threat in some jurisdictions) and nobody acts like they notice or care about what that bully does."

no reason for any new laws here

the teacher is obligated to provide an environment where the kid can learn

if they allow this behavior in the class, the parents should report it to the principal and if not remedied, sue

November 10, 2011 10:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

how are the parents xupposed to know what happens at school?

November 10, 2011 10:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

parents need to be proactive in knowing what's going on in a kids life

November 10, 2011 10:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

dude there is no way to know what happens at school, you trust the teachers and principles

November 10, 2011 10:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

dude, passing a stupid "anti-bullying" law won't change that

btw, people who aren't good spellers don't have to be embarassed anymore

we have spell check now

it's the principle of the thing that's of principal importance

November 11, 2011 5:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Nice try anon. we are talking here about bullying, not speech. no one has suggested passing a law that says that you cant still call gay peopel faggots. A lot of places aren't going to put up with it, but i have not heard of anyone proposing a law against it have you?"

Actually, the MC gender identity law is vague enough that one could be prosecuted for using the "wrong" pronoun....

November 11, 2011 7:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"one could be prosecuted for using the "wrong" pronoun...."

What law school did you attend? I bet you didn't attend a single law school and have no idea what "one could be prosecuted for."

Ruth Jacobs and her accusers used the "wrong pronoun" repeatedly in front of the Montgomery County Ethics Commission and not one of them was charged with anything or "prosecuted." In fact, the decision by the Ethics Commission that exonerated Dr. Beyer from the CRG's vendetta against her stated:

"The Commission found Mr. Schall's testimony, as well at Verlon Mason's audiotape and affidavit unpersuasive. Mr. Mason's use of the derogatory term "shim" when referring to Dr. Beyer, evidences a bias against transgendered individuals. Similarly, Mr. Schall displayed a palpable and unapologetic disdain for transgendered individuals which, in the Commission's judgment, makes his testimony not credible."

Schall demonstrated that disdain when he repeatedly said things like:
"she was, or he was"
"And then Jim Kennedy came in and Mr. Beyer"
"You know, throwing her weight around. His weight around, excuse me"
"She told him her name, his name"

So the use of incorrect pronouns in front of several Montgomery County Ethics Commissioners didn't get anyone "prosecuted" for violating MoCo's non-discrimination law.

As usual, Anon makes up and peddles lies.

November 12, 2011 2:28 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home