• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Republicans: Bullying is OK when based on religion

Engyo

Prince of Dorkness!
This language could be interpreted to allow all verbal bullying as long as the bully believes their abuse is "moral."

So, in addition to homosexual kids being bullied by religious kids, religious kids can be bullied by kids of other religions, or by militant atheist kids. The kids would only need to show that they sincerely believe the target of their bullying is "evil."

What a nice clear message that sends to kids. "Bullying is never OK, except when it is OK, which is whenever you think it's OK. Got it?"
True. By this law, shouts of "Infidels must die!" would be perfectly acceptable.
 

cablescavenger

Well-Known Member
Michigan state senate passes 'license to bully' legislation.
Advocates for a law to prohibit bullying and provide school districts with the tools to address the problem were dealt a stinging rebuke Wednesday morning in the Republican-controlled Michigan Senate.

The GOP pushed through an amended bill, SB 137, which does nothing advocates have pushed for — including reporting requirements and enumeration, or listing, of protected classes. In addition, the legislation provides an exception which allows bullying based on “moral convictions.”

The full language of the insert is: “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 and parent or guardian.”

In a floor speech Minority Leader in the Senate Gretchen Whitmer (D-East Lansing) slammed the Republicans over the amended language.

“Here today you claim to be protecting kids and you’re actually putting them in more danger,” Whitmer said. “But bullying is not OK. We should be protecting public policy that protects kids — all kids, from bullies — all bullies. But instead you have set us back further by creating a blueprint for bullying.”​
America has a secular govt. The voters choose the politicians. If they insist on voting in religious leaders this is what happens.
 

cablescavenger

Well-Known Member
Michigan state senate passes 'license to bully' legislation.
Advocates for a law to prohibit bullying and provide school districts with the tools to address the problem were dealt a stinging rebuke Wednesday morning in the Republican-controlled Michigan Senate.

The GOP pushed through an amended bill, SB 137, which does nothing advocates have pushed for — including reporting requirements and enumeration, or listing, of protected classes. In addition, the legislation provides an exception which allows bullying based on “moral convictions.”

The full language of the insert is: “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 and parent or guardian.”

In a floor speech Minority Leader in the Senate Gretchen Whitmer (D-East Lansing) slammed the Republicans over the amended language.

“Here today you claim to be protecting kids and you’re actually putting them in more danger,” Whitmer said. “But bullying is not OK. We should be protecting public policy that protects kids — all kids, from bullies — all bullies. But instead you have set us back further by creating a blueprint for bullying.”​
Hmmm... now I think about it, is that not unconstitutional? as it ignores religious freedoms. It won't last 5 minutes, there are so many people aware of it.
It is the stuff that quietly passes you by that you need to keep an eye on.
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
The amendment was, in my opinion, added to aid in preventing the law from being abused. Though it may work out that religious bullying is protected, it, again my opinion, was intended to ensure that the street preacher saying "homosexuality is a sin" isn't prosecuted, not the students who say "You're going to hell ******".
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Revoltingest, I get that you like to try to always be diplomatic and pragmatic, but there must come a time when something is so repugnant and reprehensible that you just have to draw the line. We're talking about people who take pleasure in causing suffering and suicide, and use a Jewish zombie on a stick to justify it.
I'm being objective rather than diplomatic by recognizing that the issue is not as black & white as some would make it out to be.
Diplomacy is exhibited by not sharing my opinion about how small-minded, partisan & simplistic some are.

True. By this law, shouts of "Infidels must die!" would be perfectly acceptable.
Laws generally allow leeway to be enforced according to the spirit intended, while accommodating a wide range of varied situations.
We have many other laws whose enforcement is more just than the nominal words.
Perhaps your state allows any act, no matter how heinous, if permissible by carefully parsing the letter of the law.....but Michigan is better than that.
The absurd example you give would certainly be treated as something other than mere expression of religious belief.
The new law appears to have potential to be used to effectively combat bullying.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I've got an idea. How about if us parents teach our kids NOT TO BULLY ANYBODY!!!
Good! I also teach fighting back, which is a problem in our district. Defending oneself physically is treated the same as assault - the victim gets suspended too.
I let my kids know that if they get suspended for self defense, then I'm OK with it....especially if the assailant gets injured.
 
Good! I also teach fighting back, which is a problem in our district. Defending oneself physically is treated the same as assault - the victim gets suspended too.
I let my kids know that if they get suspended for self defense, then I'm OK with it....especially if the assailant gets injured.

Same here. My mom would not tolerate bullying. I fought back once and got suspended for three days. My mom gave me money and told me to have fun.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
True. By this law, shouts of "Infidels must die!" would be perfectly acceptable.

Absolutely. This law explicitly permits an extremist Islamist student to openly advocate the violent destruction of "the Great Satan" on American public school property, as long as s/he states it in an intimidating manner to a particular child perceived to represent evil "American" values, and as long as s/he believes the statements to be true.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
The amendment was, in my opinion, added to aid in preventing the law from being abused. Though it may work out that religious bullying is protected, it, again my opinion, was intended to ensure that the street preacher saying "homosexuality is a sin" isn't prosecuted, not the students who say "You're going to hell ******".

That interpretation seems a bit of a stretch. Can you elaborate on your reasoning? The language seems completely clear: as long as the bullying is motivated by a sincere belief the bullying is "moral", the bullying is permitted.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
The amendment was, in my opinion, added to aid in preventing the law from being abused. Though it may work out that religious bullying is protected, it, again my opinion, was intended to ensure that the street preacher saying "homosexuality is a sin" isn't prosecuted, not the students who say "You're going to hell ******".

What is a street preacher doing in a public school? It's pretty clear cut was constitutes bullying.
 
Last edited:

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
I'm being objective rather than diplomatic by recognizing that the issue is not as black & white as some would make it out to be.
Diplomacy is exhibited by not sharing my opinion about how small-minded, partisan & simplistic some are.

I didn't realize protecting children was a complex, partisan issue. At least it shouldn't be.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
Same here. My mom would not tolerate bullying. I fought back once and got suspended for three days. My mom gave me money and told me to have fun.

As a curious aside, I once tackled a boy who picked on me all the time in the schoolyard, pinned him down and proceeded to stuff handfuls of grass into his shirt and mouth. His mother happened to be the recess volunteer that day and rushed over, screaming "Travis Blobbert*, you go to the principal's office right this second!!!!"

I was totally baffled, since I was the instigator and was really kicking his arse, and by any reasonable measure she ought to have been biased toward her son. Then she said "I don't know what that was about, but he probably deserved it".

I sincerely believed that it was my moral obligation to kick the tar out of Travis Blobbert (and his smart-arse little brother), so I guess it's OK.

* names have been changed to protect the innocent.
 
HAha! She was probably embarrased that a girl kicked her kid's butt! Good for you!!
I never liked fighting, still don't if I don't have to. I usually ended up laying there until they were done and went away.
I won't let my kids deal with that like I did.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
I didn't realize protecting children was a complex, partisan issue. At least it shouldn't be.

I agree. Bullying is bullying. As long as the type of behavior that constitutes verbal or physical abuse is clear, there should be no need for any exemptions for anybody, religious or otherwise.
 
Top