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.One of the most important ingredients of politically conservative religious fundamentalism is the persecution complex. As others in the thread have noted, they already believe that Muslims, gays, atheists, and other nonbelievers are persecuting Christians unpunished. The Columbine shootings are still bandied about as proof, for example.
This section does not abridge the rights under the First Amendment of the constitution of the United States or under article I of the state constitution of 1963 of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil's parent or guardian. This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil's parent or guardian.So it's nonsense to say that
"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."It's nonsense because a statement of a religious belief couldn't be an assault (in any legal sense) or discrimination anyways, which would require some sort of action.
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.”Protip for Michigan Republicans: when the father of the kid you have named the bill after is denouncing your bill, you're doing it wrong.
This section does not abridge the rights under the First Amendment of the constitution of the United States or under article I of the state constitution of 1963 of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil's parent or guardian. This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil's parent or guardian.You missed an earlier portion of the bill:
A policy adopted pursuant to subsection (1) shall include at least all of the followingIn short, it's a mealy-mouthed bit of language. Everyone is protected, but the First Amendment still stands, especially for seriously held religious beliefs.
...
a provision indicating that all pupils are protected under the policy and that bullying is equally prohibited without regard to its subject matter or motivating animus.
"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."It's nonsense because a statement of a religious belief couldn't be an assault (in any legal sense) or discrimination anyways, which would require some sort of action.
(b) "Bullying" means any written, verbal, or physical act, or any electronic communication, by a pupil directed at 1 or more other pupils that is intended or that a reasonable person would know is likely to harm 1 or more pupils either directly or indirectly by doing any of the following:Bullying isn't about beating up the weird kids. It's about tormenting, taunting, causing mental anguish, and generally interfering with their schooling.
(i) Substantially interfering with educational opportunities, benefits, or programs of 1 or more pupils.
(ii) Substantially and adversely affecting the ability of a pupil to participate in or benefit from the school district's or public school's educational programs or activities by placing the pupil in reasonable fear of physical harm.
(iii) Having an actual and substantial detrimental effect on a pupil's physical or mental health or causing substantial emotional distress.
(iv) Causing substantial disruption in, or substantial interference with, the orderly operation of the school.
"We guess Simon & Schuster thinks this is smart marketing -- mocking Christian pastors who preach the bible's teaching on sexuality (warning: many folks will find this deeply offensive)."*Oh, for those poor persecuted Christianists!
The language was blasted by Senate Democrats, the father of the boy for whom the bill is named, and State Superintendent Mike Flanagan. It has also garnered national attention.Don't you see, singling out one (persecuted) group was the problem? Anyway, it's meaningless, if the bill already says "no bullying of anyone," as "homosexuals" are a subset of "everyone."
“We are working on the situation to try to take care of the language in the Senate bill that the House Republicans cannot support,” Adler said.
It may not go far enough for Democrats who not only want the language struck, but want more specific language added to the legislation that would bar bullying students for specific instances, such as sexual orientation.
... This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil's parent or guardian.It sounds pretty clear to me that if there were a religiously-motivated incident of bullying or harassment, the kid could raise as a defense the fact that his/her comments were a statement of a sincerely held religious belief ...
An earlier version of this post said that Matt Epling was assaulted by anti-gay bullies. His father, Kevin Epling, says there is no indication that the assault against his son was related to sexual orientation.Do you, or do you not, think that school employees, staff, teachers, etc should be permitted to tell students that they should die, that God hates them, that they should be tortured for all eternity, etc? The teachers, staff, etc will all claim it's simply a statement of their sincerely held religious belief that faggots should die, do you agree?
I think they should probably be permitted to express these views (some of which are incredibly rare). The situations in which it is appropriate to express these views would be, in public elementary and secondary schools, quite limited, probably to responses to direct questioning by students.Ok, and if a teacher takes the time, only 30 seconds or so, every day to tell Student B that they think Student B should die, what then? Is that something you will claim is a legitimate expression of religious belief, or is that something you're willing to say should be banned.
« Older "A momentous and difficult decision for the f... | The Codex Seraphinianus.... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
"Blessed are the bullies..."
Yeah, I forgot about that part of the beatitudes. Whew. Carry on then.
posted by symbioid at 6:24 AM on November 7, 2011 [14 favorites]