Republican: Bullying Bill An ‘Attack on The Bible & Conservative Christians’

[her209]

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2014/...-attack-on-the-bible-conservative-christians/

But Republican critics call the bill (HF826) social engineering, and worse. They are comparing the tougher law to Hitler and George Orwell’s dystopian novel “1984.”

“Fascism, Minnesota style,” said Rep. Mary Franson (R–Alexandria). ”HF826 is simply another attack on the Bible and conservative Christians.”

GOP lawmakers say free speech is getting bullied, by a national gay rights lobby. That’s because the bill specifically defines bullying to include attacks on a student’s sexual orientation or gender identification.

Link to bill:
http://legiscan.com/MN/text/HF826/id/808369

Not sure where these lawmakers are coming from regarding the Bible angle unless the Bible teaches their followers to bully and harass gay and transgender people to death. Does it? Even then, the victim's rights win out over the bully's perceived right of be able to bully people.

 

[Jaskalas]

I do not know the contents of said bill, but as it is described I'll back this ‘Attack on The Bible & Conservative Christians’

 

[Jhhnn]

The Old Testament way of dealing with homosexuals was to execute them. I'm sure there was a lot of good clean fun to be had in bullying & torturing them on the way to being stoned, hacked or hung until dead. Fun for the whole family! Even toddlers love throwing rocks, particularly when mommy & daddy teach 'em that it's the right thing to do.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I do not know the contents of said bill, but as it is described I'll back this ‘Attack on The Bible & Conservative Christians’

Well, the original post has a direct link to the bill in question. So, rather than inform yourself as to the truth of the matter you choose to simply throw out the usual 'they're persecuting Christians' crap?

I have to say you just presented yourself in a rather unflattering light.

 

[Darwin333]

I do not know the contents of said bill, but as it is described I'll back this ‘Attack on The Bible & Conservative Christians’

Dang its getting to be really hard to be a Christian in the US these days. I've even heard of people converting to other religions like Islam just to escape the persecution!

 

[Moonbeam]

In order to properly understand how a bigot can feel persecuted and victimized by not being allowed to practice his or her bigotry, you have to understand the paradoxical nature of bigotry. Bigots believe in the good and they also mistakenly believe that what they believe IS good. Thus, if they are prevented from doing what is good, they feel a crime is being directed against them. A homophobe is a person who has an irrational fear of homosexuality he or she was indoctrinated with as a child usually under the pretext that it is a religious truth. The person has no ability to resist this indoctrination and would face the same scorn that bigots direct at their targets if he or she didn't knuckle and bend under the weight of that programming. A bigot becomes a bigot in order to survive and stays one because he was taught he was good for being one. To abandon that bigotry as an adult would spark an emotional crisis, a soul searching, and the awakening of memories of old pain. This is hard to do and only happens under certain conditions, a gay person as a child, exposure to good people who are gay, etc.

All we can really do is pity people who are bigots. They are blind and can't see they are bigots. All they see is that they believe in the good and there is a real good. They just don't really know what it is. Bigots don't choose to be bigots. They are created by exposure to violence and hate.

 

[Jaskalas]

Well, the original post has a direct link to the bill in question. So, rather than inform yourself as to the truth of the matter you choose to simply throw out the usual 'they're persecuting Christians' crap?

I have to say you just presented yourself in a rather unflattering light.

I did go back and search through it. What's there to find, exactly? If they really did change it to protect Sexual Orientation then I've no problem with that. As I said, if that constitutes an "attack" on said Christians, then I favor said "attack".

Some of your post makes me think you agree with me on this.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I did go back and search through it. What's there to find, exactly? If they really did change it to protect Sexual Orientation then I've no problem with that. As I said, if that constitutes an "attack" on said Christians, then I favor said "attack".

Some of your post makes me think you agree with me on this.

Crap! My apologies. I somehow misread/misunderstood that statement. Sorry.

 

[Fern]

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2014/...-attack-on-the-bible-conservative-christians/



Link to bill:
http://legiscan.com/MN/text/HF826/id/808369

Not sure where these lawmakers are coming from regarding the Bible angle unless the Bible teaches their followers to bully and harass gay and transgender people to death. Does it? Even then, the victim's rights win out over the bully's perceived right of be able to bully people.

I would guess the mere mention that the Bible etc condemns homosexuality is enough for prosecution under this bill. (Note: I haven't read the bill.)

Clearly, this bill does restrict free speech. The question would be if it's a reasonable restriction.

I too think it's social engineering and perhaps Orwellian. I don't think it's necessary and believe the school should be able to handle bullying. If they can't the passing of another law won't help.

Fern

 

[Jaskalas]

Crap! My apologies. I somehow misread/misunderstood that statement. Sorry.

I can see how "I'll back" wasn't clear. Apologies for not writing better.

In addition I totally understand people might not guess how "Liberal" I am given some arguments I make on the subject of marriage. I favor equality and "maximum extent of freedom possible". For this subject: children should be protected in school, and that includes sexual orientation.

I cannot fathom a person claiming to be holy advocating the torment of others. Or for any religious person not to excommunicate such men. They lower themselves by keeping such company.

 

[Jaskalas]

I would guess the mere mention that the Bible etc condemns homosexuality is enough for prosecution under this bill. (Note: I haven't read the bill.)

Clearly, this bill does restrict free speech. The question would be if it's a reasonable restriction.

I too think it's social engineering and perhaps Orwellian. I don't think it's necessary and believe the school should be able to handle bullying. If they can't the passing of another law won't help.

Fern

Perhaps a lesson in bureaucracy is needed. You see, unless all speech is acceptable and all sorts of bullying allowed without restriction, then the terms of what is NOT allowed must be legally spelled out. Endless lawsuits force their hand.

You'd agree that schools should be safe environments, no?

 

[Fern]

Perhaps a lesson in bureaucracy is needed. You see, unless all speech is acceptable and all sorts of bullying allowed without restriction, then the terms of what is NOT allowed must be legally spelled out. Endless lawsuits force their hand.

Don't agree.

You'd agree that schools should be safe environments, no?

Absolutely.

Fern

 

[Victorian Gray]

I would guess the mere mention that the Bible etc condemns homosexuality is enough for prosecution under this bill. (Note: I haven't read the bill.)

1 (above) plus 2 (following below) = me asking you if you aren't even just a little bit embarrassed?

Clearly, this bill does restrict free speech. The question would be if it's a reasonable restriction.

I too think it's social engineering and perhaps Orwellian. I don't think it's necessary and believe the school should be able to handle bullying. If they can't the passing of another law won't help.

Fern

 

[sandorski]

Being against Homosexuality is fine, don't do it. When you begin to force that Belief onto others, that's where the problem begins.

 

[sportage]

You lost me at (R–
What is with these (R–'s ?
Talk about the clan sticking together.
Time we turned the (R– into (D-
You never hear this crap from an (D-

 

[Bitek]

The response is quite a bit over the top. The bill defines prohibited personal attacks based orientation, as well as the other common sense categories as race, gender, disabilities, immigration status, etc.

Any company you work for has the same HR policy. The gop should learn when to measure thier responses so they can maintain some credibility.

 

[TheSiege]

In order to properly understand how a bigot can feel persecuted and victimized by not being allowed to practice his or her bigotry, you have to understand the paradoxical nature of bigotry. Bigots believe in the good and they also mistakenly believe that what they believe IS good. Thus, if they are prevented from doing what is good, they feel a crime is being directed against them. A homophobe is a person who has an irrational fear of homosexuality he or she was indoctrinated with as a child usually under the pretext that it is a religious truth. The person has no ability to resist this indoctrination and would face the same scorn that bigots direct at their targets if he or she didn't knuckle and bend under the weight of that programming. A bigot becomes a bigot in order to survive and stays one because he was taught he was good for being one. To abandon that bigotry as an adult would spark an emotional crisis, a soul searching, and the awakening of memories of old pain. This is hard to do and only happens under certain conditions, a gay person as a child, exposure to good people who are gay, etc.

All we can really do is pity people who are bigots. They are blind and can't see they are bigots. All they see is that they believe in the good and there is a real good. They just don't really know what it is. Bigots don't choose to be bigots. They are created by exposure to violence and hate.

Spot on, agreed 100%

 

[Fern]

1 (above) plus 2 (following below) = me asking you if you aren't even just a little bit embarrassed?

Nope.

Anytime the govt restricts what you can say it does restrict free speech. And again, the question becomes whether it's a reasonable restriction.

It's not difficult.

Fern

 

[Victorian Gray]

Nope.

Anytime the govt restricts what you can say it does restrict free speech. And again, the question becomes whether it's a reasonable restriction.

It's not difficult.

Fern

So, you are claiming that without reading the actual bill yourself you know for a fact that it's restricting free speech.

Wow! You're special.

 

[piasabird]

So dont send your kids to school.

 

[Fern]

So, you are claiming that without reading the actual bill yourself you know for a fact that it's restricting free speech.

Wow! You're special.

OK, reading comprehension for the win:

I would guess the mere mention that the Bible etc condemns homosexuality is enough for prosecution under this bill. (Note: I haven't read the bill.)

Clearly, this bill does restrict free speech. The question would be if it's a reasonable restriction.
-snip-
Fern

The "guess" and noting I didn't read the bill had to do with the so-called "bible angle" raised by the OP, not with restricting free speech.

Other than you nobody is arguing that it doesn't restrict free speech. Again, the question would be where that restriction is reasonable.

Are you Canadian? If so, that likely explains your difficulty.

Fern

 

[Jaskalas]

Is it reasonable? Well... that might be a point if we were to consider the populace at large. Would it be wrong to enact anti bullying laws for everyone? Maybe so...

That would be a fascinating debate.

Yet the subject at hand involves protecting children while they are forced to attend school. We put them there before their peers, made to endure hours of each other day in and day out, year after year... Being tortured or bullied by others is a real affliction with real casualties. Kids do die from the behavior of others we force upon them.

Is it not our responsibility, our duty to protect them from this? To at least make it wrong to verbally abuse others?

 

[Fern]

Is it reasonable? Well... that might be a point if we were to consider the populace at large. Would it be wrong to enact anti bullying laws for everyone? Maybe so...

That would be a fascinating debate.

Yet the subject at hand involves protecting children while they are forced to attend school. We put them there before their peers, made to endure hours of each other day in and day out, year after year... Being tortured or bullied by others is a real affliction with real casualties. Kids do die from the behavior of others we force upon them.

Is it not our responsibility, our duty to protect them from this? To at least make it wrong to verbally abuse others?

If this were just a school rule I don't think anybody could complain because I thought the courts have made clear that students at school don't have the same free speech rights otherwise available. (Even though it seems to be continually litigated etc.; I mean even over the wearing of T-shirts).

This is govt law though, so it's different in that respect. However, it could turn out to be nothing more than a 'school policy' in substance and thus be OK.

Fern

 

[PokerGuy]

Looks like "bullying" is the new convenient way to silence anyone who dares have an opinion that is not politically correct. Any joke, any comment that goes contrary to political correct doctrine can be labeled as "bullying" and thus punished.

Actual bullying is a bad thing, but bullying has become such a broad catch-all term for any behavior that is deemed undesirable, you can easily see how this is now the preferred weapon in the culture war.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Ah - so, it's OK for Christians to say and do whatever they want, because the bible says so.

Great!! I'll call up all the Muslims and tell them the coast is clear! They can come over here and do EXACLTY what the Koran tells them to do - because Mary Franson will defend them, no matter what.