Republicans: Bullying is OK when based on religion

[Alceste]

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.

In retrospect, Travis and his little brother were probably awful because their parents were awful, so I'm not proud of kicking his ***. OK, I'm a LITTLE proud, because he was REALLY mean - meaner than anybody (except girls, who are mean in devious, subtle ways that aren't so easily aborted) but I don't believe that pride represents my higher nature.

 

[Antiochian]

Considering all the laws against harassment we have, and considering that bullying is harassment, I'm amazed that anyone would be opposed to legislation that forces schools to do what they otherwise are too lazy or indifferent to do. School officials are only too happy to look the other way when this sort of garbage happens, especially if the bully's a prized athlete. At least that's how it was back in my high school days.

 

[Majikthise]

I work in a school. Staff are always worried about litigation from parents who think their little darling can do no wrong.

 

[Father Heathen]

especially if the bully's a prized athlete.

It has always boiled my blood about how much attention and importance schools would place on chasing balls around when their actual priority should be, you know, education.

 

[Majikthise]

It has always boiled my blood about how much attention and importance schools would place on chasing balls around when their actual priority should be, you know, education.

Exactly! Education, not babysitting.

 

[Father Heathen]

Exactly! Education, not babysitting.

They don't even do that. They just go through the motions and usher the little urchins through, turning a blind eye to problems.

I remember when I was in high school I had a classmate who's behavior should've warranted a psychiatric evaluation (Idolizing Hitler and drawing swastikas and disturbing imagery on his notebook, talking to him, and to Abraham Lincoln on pennies, drawing a cross on the chalkboard, taping a rubber skeleton to it and calling it Jesus, etc.), but the school brushed it under the rug. And another kid who had serious developmental problems and who failed everything, but they passed him anyway because it was easier than dealing with the issue. It also didn't help that these kids had wholly useless families that contributed to the problem. Oh, and both kids were bullied, of course. The school never gave a ****.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

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.

Three things:

1. There is a difference between objectivity and false balance.

2. I understand your perspective. I admit that the conclusions I have reached are apparently (but not actually) partisan and simplistic. However, I arrived at my conclusions by objectively considering the facts. If you believe that I relish attacking the GOP for no reason, I can assure you that you are mistaken (you may be interested to know I voted for George W. Bush in 2004).

3. You cannot simply dismiss harsh criticism of the Republican party / conservatives as "simplistic" and "partisan", and claim that your position is "objective", especially when my criticism is backed up by facts, and your objections are thus far devoid of any.​

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.

But in order to be "objective", one would have to apply this accommodating attitude equally towards the other version of the anti-bullying law (before it was amended). Then we arrive at the conclusion that the "nominal words" of the law which prohibit bullying should "generally allow leeway" (to use your terms) so as not to interfere with First Amendment rights to free speech outside a bullying context. The "spirit intended" by the original law was never to abridge a person's right to express disagreeable views, as long as the conversation does not evolve into a situation of bullying / harassment. That is implicit since any state law is superseded by the State and Federal Constitutions. And, in this case, the protection of First Amendment rights is explicit as well:

SB 137, Section 8: 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.​

The language which is being disputed (among many other revisions to the bill) follows directly after:

SB 137, Section 8: 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 and parent or guardian.​

So, in addition to having First Amendment rights to free speech, pupils also have an additional right. They have the right to a statement of "sincerely held religious belief", whether or not that statement is within a bullying / harassment context. This is virtually the opposite of what was intended when the parents of gay kids who committed suicide tried to introduce anti-bullying legislation.

In other words, you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Unless, of course, you have a sincere religious belief that there is a fire ...

 

[waitasec]

I wonder what they were thinking of when doing such

it was a revelation from god of course...

 

[waitasec]

If Christians sincerely believed in Christ, wouldn't they be worrying about the spiritual repercussions of contradicting his message?

i can see the head lines now...
christian found innocent, claims to be defending his god

 

[Mr Spinkles]

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 ******".

I agree that was most likely the intention of the inserted language, but that is not its effect. First Amendment rights can be protected without adding the language in dispute. See my post above.

 

[Me Myself]

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 ******".

"You are going to hell sinner!" could be religious and without bad words and it would fit inside religious beliefs.

"Homosexuality is a sin" Shouldn´t be considered bullying without the aclaration unless it is being done everyday, in which case it would be bullying.

 

[Revoltingest]

1. There is a difference between objectivity and false balance.

No argument about that, which is why I prefer real balance to false balance.

2. I understand your perspective. I admit that the conclusions I have reached are apparently (but not actually) partisan and simplistic. However, I arrived at my conclusions by objectively considering the facts. If you believe that I relish attacking the GOP for no reason, I can assure you that you are mistaken (you may be interested to know I voted for George W. Bush in 2004).

Your having voted for GWB & seeing the results would certainly be an understandable reason for wanting to bash the GOP.
But I don't dispute your motives...I just take issue with the excessive partisanship & broad brush strokes.

3. You cannot simply dismiss harsh criticism of the Republican party / conservatives as "simplistic" and "partisan"....

If you re-read my post, you'll see that I was responding to Father Heathen's statement that I was being diplomatic about the law & legislators.
I don't hold opinions for the purpose of getting along with others. But I explained that I was being diplomatic in avoiding harsh words.
This was a discussion about criticism, rather than actually making personal criticisms. (I try to be nice most of the time...with some success.)

..., and claim that your position is "objective", especially when my criticism is backed up by facts, and your objections are thus far devoid of any.

Have you notice that much of your argument dwells upon my inadequacies, rather than the issue?
I find that your analysis is to make extreme speculations about improbable & unreasonable application of the law, & then present that as what will happen.
You're simply wrong about how laws & public policy function in Michigan if you believe that bullying is permissible if religious in nature. Further, you conclude
that Republicans favor religious based bullying (which simply isn't the case here). This smacks of mere partisan bashing.

But in order to be "objective", one would have to apply this accommodating attitude equally towards the other version of the anti-bullying law (before it was amended). Then we arrive at the conclusion that the "nominal words" of the law which prohibit bullying should "generally allow leeway" (to use your terms) so as not to interfere with First Amendment rights to free speech outside a bullying context. That is implicit since any state law is superseded by the State and Federal Constitutions. And, in this case, the protection of First Amendment rights is explicit as well:

SB 137, Section 8: 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.​

The language which is being disputed (among many other revisions to the bill) follows directly after:

SB 137, Section 8: 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 and parent or guardian.​

So, in addition to having First Amendment rights to free speech, pupils also have an additional right. They have the right to a statement of "sincerely held religious belief", whether or not that statement is within a bullying / harassment context.

This is not an additional right, but rather a statement that an existing right isn't thwarted by the law. This is regularly done in legislation here, since
legislators want judges (who aren't always the most diligent & careful workers) to follow original intent & ensure compliance with our constitution.

This is virtually the opposite of what was intended when the parents of gay kids who committed suicide tried to introduce anti-bullying legislation.

This does not support your argument that Republicans intended to allow religious bullying. I understand that you see it that way,
but our lawmakers don't have the motives which you attribute to them. Perhaps Texas is greatly different from Michigan.
Note however, that I don't say it's the best designed piece of legislation. I speak only to intent.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Have you notice that much of your argument dwells upon my inadequacies, rather than the issue?

No, I have not noticed that. I thought I was talking about the inadequacies of your argument. If I dwelled upon your personal inadequacies, please quote where I did so, and I will promptly apologize.

This is not an additional right, but rather a statement that an existing right isn't thwarted by the law.

The green is a statement that an existing right isn't thwarted by the law. The green is not being disputed. The red is. Read it again. The red does not contain any caveat that a sincere religious statement might be considered bullying or harassment, or possibly prohibited. From the perspective of a parent whose gay child committed suicide, perhaps because of sincere religious statements like "You are going to hell," this language is not only unhelpful, but profoundly wrong.

Again, this would be like passing a law that says you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. And then the religious lobby amends the bill to say it does not prohibit a "sincere religious statement". That does not clarify, it muddies the water.

This does not support your argument that Republicans intended to allow religious bullying.

That's not my argument. I do not believe Republicans intended to allow religious bullying.

For the third time: my argument is that the language in question reverses the intent and meaning of the anti-bullying bill, as it was originally introduced by the parents of kids who committed suicide due to bullying. And I believe that is a bad thing.

I have no doubt Republicans did this unintentionally, as an inadvertent consequence of where they place their priorities and how big their various concerns are (protecting free speech against homosexuality vs. protecting gay kids from school bullying).

But I also understand that an over
the top title gets discussion going where a boring one would fail to draw interest.

I could have called this thread "Amended SB 137 passes MI State Senate". That would be boring. Instead, I stated my opinion and why people should care, and then provided information in the OP so that anyone who wishes can agree or disagree.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, I have not noticed that. I thought I was talking about the inadequacies of your argument. If I dwelled upon your personal inadequacies, please quote where I did so, and I will promptly apologize.

You are correct. Not only was I kerfuffuled about the whom, I was remembering an impression from an entirely different thread!
(As a lame excuse, I claim great distraction today.)

The green is a statement that an existing right isn't thwarted by the law. The green is not being disputed. The red is. Read it again. The red does not contain any caveat that a sincere religious statement might be considered bullying or harassment, or possibly prohibited. From the perspective of a parent whose gay child committed suicide, perhaps because of sincere religious statements like "You are going to hell," this language is not only unhelpful, but profoundly wrong.

I disagree about this. I see the language as preventing the suppression of religious speech. Those who believe homosexuality to be an affront
to their god should be free to say so. But if this is done in such a way as to be bullying, then the bullying itself should be prevented.

Again, this would be like passing a law that says you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. And then the religious lobby amends the bill to say it does not prohibit a "sincere religious statement". That does not clarify, it muddies the water.

The analogy doesn't work for me.

That's not my argument. I do not believe Republicans intended to allow religious bullying.

I sure had another impression from the OP & its title.
" Republicans: Bullying is OK when based on religion "
"Michigan state senate passes 'license to bully' legislation."
"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.”

For the third time: my argument is that the language in question reverses the intent and meaning of the anti-bullying bill, as it was originally introduced by the parents of kids who committed suicide due to bullying. And I believe that is a bad thing.

A law is not just a collection of words which allow all possible interpretations based solely upon syntax.
It is (ideally) enforced in the context of intent, public policy, case law & the wording.

I have no doubt Republicans did this unintentionally, as an inadvertent consequence of where they place their priorities and how big their various concerns are (protecting free speech against homosexuality vs. protecting gay kids from school bullying).
I could have called this thread "Amended SB 137 passes MI State Senate". That would be boring. Instead, I stated my opinion and why people should care, and then provided information in the OP so that anyone who wishes can agree or disagree.

I realize our roles.
You post a thread with a provocative title.
I object to it.
Perhaps we're predestined to have this conversation.

 

[Me Myself]

I disagree about this. I see the language as preventing the suppression of religious speech. Those who believe homosexuality to be an affront to their god should be free to say so. But if this is done in such a way as to be bullying, then the bullying itself should be prevented.

And that is exactly why the clarification was 100% unnecesary. Bullying is not permitted. Period. Clear right?

Saying homosexuality is wrong is not bullying if you say it once for example. If you say it everyday to the face of the gay and thell him he is sinning, it becomes bullying.

No aclaration is truly required

 

[Revoltingest]

And that is exactly why the clarification was 100% unnecesary. Bullying is not permitted. Period. Clear right?
Saying homosexuality is wrong is not bullying if you say it once for example. If you say it everyday to the face of the gay and thell him he is sinning, it becomes bullying.
No aclaration is truly required

As with many laws, case law will further define this one. This is done more often than many realize.
The Americans With Disabilities Act is an example of one where we didn't know what it meant until test cases appeared.
As I understand it, this was by design, since it was too sweeping & game changing for lawmakers to address the complexities.
I'm neither approving or disapproving this method...it's just what happens.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I sure had another impression from the OP & its title.

The OP does not talk about GOP intentions. The OP is about outcomes.

 

[Revoltingest]

The OP does not talk about GOP intentions. The OP is about outcomes.

I'll forgive the title, since provocation is appropriate there.
Good! Our only issue is a disagreement about the effect of the law.
Frankly, my biggest concern is that schools will continue to cast a blind eye to bullying.
Unless the law has teeth (eg, imposing liability upon the schools), it might not change anything.

 

[waitasec]

ultimately people are responsible for their actions no matter what this bill says...

 

[Revoltingest]

ultimately people are responsible for their actions no matter what this bill says...

True dat.
Let's hope the law creates incentives which greatly improve the situation.