soma Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 Our immature Christian brothers are at it again bullying and hurting others with their actions. It is shameless what our Christian brothers and sisters do in the name of Christianity. The Michigan State Senate passed an anti-bullying bill with an “exception” that condones bullying if religiously-motivated. This loophole effectively renders toothless an important bill named for Matt Epling, a 14-year-old Michigan student who committed suicide after sustained bullying from fellow students. It seems Christians are crucifying others in the name of Christ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick the Nevermet Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 If I was a more hate-filled person, I would look forward to students legally bullying fundamentalist teenagers, due to their actions being based on a moral or religious principle. But I'm not, and that would have some narrative power, it would be very wrong. EDIT: And we also all know that exception isn't really for non-christians There are so many levels to that law, and each is utterly shocking. It makes a mockery out of the original intent of the bill, it highlights how much homophobia certain conservative Christians have, and it also highlights how much they believe they have the right to violence. Even if they were correct that homosexuality was sinful (they aren't), that would still not justify bullying gay teens until they kill themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 I know next to nothing about this law. What is the justification given? Surely they are not saying that it is okay to bully gays for religious reasons, are they? George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick the Nevermet Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 Link here. Arguably, this is good news: The Michigan Senate this week passed a bill to authorize the law, Matt's Safe School Law, which is named after Matt Epling, a freshman from East Lansing, Mich., who killed himself after being bullied by upperclassmen in 2002. I say 'arguably', because I'm willing to leave open the possibility someone can disagree on a reasonable point, even if I disagree. However, this is bad: But in a change before Wednesday's vote, Republican lawmakers added a clause ensuring that the bill "does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held belief or moral conviction" of a student or school worker. "They kind of snuck in this extra paragraph, really kind of setting apart kids that feel their religious beliefs, their moral convictions, basically, can allow them to bully," said Matt Epling's father, Kevin Epling. "That one paragraph, though, negates most of the things that we tried to put in." The quote from the 1st paragraph is from the bill. Here is the justification: Republican state Sen. Rick Jones, the bill's sponsor, told ABC News today that the GOP wanted to make sure students' First Amendment rights were protected. "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," he said. The state lawmaker said the bill was personal to him because his son, now 31, had been a victim of bullying, and because a friend's granddaughter had fatally shot herself after being bullied. "Nothing in the bill is intended that the child could confront another child and abuse them in any way," Jones told ABC News today. "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." Now. Do I think that members of the religious right were, on average, calling up they're legislators, demanding they have the right to bash gay people? No. I'm sure they (or many of them) truly believe they are right, think they are acting out of a love of God and holiness, and are worried that liberal schools will persecute them using this law to ram multiculturalism down their throats (or something). However, in practice? ...In practice, I remain dubious that the mere statement "In my religion, I don't believe in gay marriage" would have resulted in a suspension according to the wording of this bill. And if the bill really is THAT broad, than nobody should have voted for it for any reason. In practice, this will amount to one group's speech being a bit more protected than others, and maybe allow people to get a bit more... assertive shall we say? in how they make those statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 As I understand it our speech is protected by the Constitution and cannot be restricted or expanded by an act of a legislature. As a result, this paragraph would have no legal consequence. But, I guess, it might give some comfort to those who wish to express their prejudices publicly (or pandering politicians). George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick the Nevermet Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 Oh, you're correct. It's just those little proclamations from state legislatures can sometimes have effects. For an example on a very different issue, I had a rather negative reaction to Oklahoma (if I remember correctly) passing a resolution restating the sovereignty of states over the federal government. Legally vapid, absolutely, but still something to be concerned about. Back to the case at hand, I cannot help but think that extra paragraph will have some effect on the law in practice, whether or not it should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 I cannot help but think that extra paragraph will have some effect on the law in practice, whether or not it should. Yes, it probably accomplishes what it apparently was covertly intended to do; nullify or dilute the anti-bullying provision of the law. What it probably would not do is accomplish the claimed purpose; protect, already protected, freedom of speech. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick the Nevermet Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 Update: Religious exception for anti-bullying is removed. Gay and Muslim activists rejoice, as do I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JenellYB Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 Thank goodness sanity prevailed in this one! Jenell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 I find it sad that Christians have to fear sometimes the actions of some who also profess being part of the same faith and say they promote a faith based on love. It has been the case through history. I do not see any Cathars around nowadays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JenellYB Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 An uncomfortable and sad reality in my life has been that the only persecution or abuse I've ever experienced in my life for my being a Christian or professing myself a Christian has been from others that call themselves Christian determined to judge me as NOT qualified to consider myself a "real" Christian in their opinions. Jenell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soma Posted December 12, 2011 Author Share Posted December 12, 2011 Jenell I experienced similar events. I lived 20 years overseas and was respected in every country as a Christian, but in America I am judged and condemned for following the Divinity within and not the rules without. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.