Senate Bill 0137 in MI. - License to bully given "religious and/or moral conviction"

[Ichigo]

I'm not ignoring the premise. I'm just asking if there's documented evidence of it, that's all.

That's about as disingenuous as asking for Obama's birth certificate.

 

[Atreus21]

Not really. Religion was created as a system of control, capitalizing on the fear, ambitions, and desires of people to elicit their obedience.. lest the deity of choice punish them.

That's your understanding of it. My understanding of it is that it's a bulwark against subjectivism and madness.

I will, however, step back from the massive thread-jack that is imminent.

 

[Atreus21]

That's about as disingenuous as asking for Obama's birth certificate.

Asking for Obama's birth certificate is one thing. Constantly rebuffing the offered evidence as insufficient for political reasons is another.

So we shouldn't have any evidence that an alleged problem is an actual problem before prescribing a solution?

Surely there have been studies done on bullying and the motivations?

It just seems to me that kids don't care for religion much. I didn't care for it when I was young. I didn't like going to mass. When I see bullying now, the only religious bullying I see comes from adults, not K-12ers.

I freely admit my evidence is anecdotal. That's why I was asking if anyone has any non-anecdotal evidence.

 

[Ichigo]

Asking for Obama's birth certificate is one thing. Constantly rebuffing the offered evidence as insufficient for political reasons is another.

So we shouldn't have any evidence that an alleged problem is an actual problem before prescribing a solution?

Surely there have been studies done on bullying and the motivations?

It just seems to me that kids don't care for religion much. I didn't care for it when I was young. I didn't like going to mass. When I see bullying now, the only religious bullying I see comes from adults, not K-12ers.

I freely admit my evidence is anecdotal. That's why I was asking if anyone has any non-anecdotal evidence.

Don't let the fact that I won't do the research legwork for you prevent you from seeking your own answers.

Kids will bully other kids for every conceivable reason (any perceived difference, really).

I just think your question is as pointless as asking if kids bully others for being short, skinny, fat, poor, ugly, etc.

 

[Atreus21]

Don't let the fact that I won't do the research legwork for you prevent you from seeking your own answers.

Kids will bully other kids for every conceivable reason (any perceived difference, really).

I just think your question is as pointless as asking if kids bully others for being short, skinny, fat, poor, ugly, etc.

Perhaps I would do better to understand the OP first before I offer an opinion. I apologize.

I thought at first that this was a bill outlined to restrict religiously motivated bullying. I didn't know it was a bill designed to restrict bullying in general with this exception built in.

Obviously, if the intent is to restrict bullying, no motivation should be excluded.

Was the religious exception written into the original bill?

 

[Ichigo]

Perhaps I would do better to understand the OP first before I offer an opinion. I apologize.

I thought at first that this was a bill outlined to restrict religiously motivated bullying. I didn't know it was a bill designed to restrict bullying in general with this exception built in.

Obviously, if the intent is to restrict bullying, no motivation should be excluded.

Was the religious exception written into the original bill?

According to the video I linked, the Dem. rep seemed to imply that what was the original bill was modified in some way to include what is currently included, so I would think not.

In any case this bill has already been passed a day or two ago. By itself it means nothing but I'm definitely wary of how it might be enforced in Michigan. It's possible that nothing will come of it but there's just so much room for interpretation.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm sure you do. The fact remains, though, that religion (particularly Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) has always disapproved of, penalized, and tried to hide homosexuality.



Not really. Religion was created as a system of control, capitalizing on the fear of the unknown, the ambitions, and the desires of people to elicit their obedience.. lest the deity of choice punish them.

Please don't be a bigot. Religion was created by the fact that the people who create religion died to their egos and became God. It is the reassertion of the mechanically of human beings who hate themselves that created the Abrahamic traditions you described, a tradition that came in the form of three waves, each building on the conditions of life each had changed.

We are entering a time when the understanding of what religion is has moved to the neuroscience lab and the hidden schools that created the three waves.

Humanity is asleep, and still has no idea.

Just saying

The problem with bigotry is that bigots believe what they believe is good. At that point any comedown from their bigotry makes them feel as if they will become evil and they aren't about to do that. This is why bigotry is unamenable to reason. Only life experience, maybe being saved in the battle field by a gay, or meeting a religious person of high perfection, can change bigotry for a bigot. He has to discover in life that what he has been taught is the real evil.

In the situation we have here, we have a gay man arguing against religion, which, if he is wrong, threatens him with the fear of hell, and a Christian bigot who believes that he too will go to hell if he supports folk who are gay.

The wonderful thing about bigotry is that it creates more of the same.

All bigotry is inculcated by a subset of individuals who are sick in a particular way. The function of society is to cast light into dark holes where bigotry festers so that children raised there are exposed to differing points of view at a young age. Light is the cure for bigotry and intolerance of intolerance, the social rejection of any form of bigotry is not a reverse bigotry.

The teaching of morality based on fear is evil. Children need to know that they are free to grow, to love and to think and to feel for the condition of others. Because this does not happen, every bigot lives an unfulfilled and crimped life in a mental prison imposed on them as children.

 

[Lithium381]

But statement two is a perfect example of zero tolerance. It is not an opinion, it is bigotry. It is merely an attempt to make statement 1 politically correct. It is also intellectually and logically indefensible, unscientific, and unamenable to reason. It is nothing more than a purely religious belief and where practiced by a majority in a land that touts separation of church ans state will always lead to laws that will seek to upend that Constitutional separation to promote statement 1. It is a pure form of evil and should be subjected to the same general societal contempt to which, say, antisemitism, misogyny, or Fascism are held.

seirously!?!?!? "I like the color blue most" now i'm a bigot? just because you and I don't have the same favorite color i'm a bigot?

 

[Lithium381]

This is very similar to reverse racisism. Preiovsly gays were afraid to admit freely that they were homosexual for fear of punishment in one form or another. Now they're taking it to the other extreme where you're not allowed to have your own opinion (that opposes homosexuality). If your opinion happens to support homosexuality, well then you're free to express it, otherwise keep your yap shut????? remember people, opinions are like assholes....

 

[Double Trouble]

How do you feel if we had option 3

3) Johnny says "I believe homosexuality is wrong and a sin and you should kill yourself"?

Now he is saying what he believes in followed by what he wants you to do about it.

That's out of bounds, not because of his beliefs, but because he's likely breaking rules (encouraging someone to do something immoral and or illegal). The focus should be on punishing people who actually break the rules, not on trying to change people's personal beliefs or punishing them for expressing them just because someone else doesn't agree with them.

 

[Double Trouble]

You intentionally phrased your examples in such a way that the first one would be worse even if we weren't discussing religious speech because it's phrased much more harshly. Let's try a more fair example.

1) Susie says "I believe black people are lazy and stupid."
2) Susie says "I believe gay people are immoral and sinful."

Sorry, but in your example statement #1 would not qualify as a "sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction", so the section quoted in the OP still wouldn't apply. Even so, I'd have no problem with someone saying it in school anyway, just like I don't have a problem with people expressing the same opinion about any other group. Sure, it's offensive, but people don't have a right not to be offended. Saying those kinds of things just makes it clear to everyone else that you're a dumbass.

I'm not sure I follow the logic that the second statement is less objectionable in school or less of a bullying comment just because it's religiously based.

I don't think either one of those I'd consider bullying. This whole concept of bullying is just another avenue to push more strict political correctness IMO. Real bullying is a serious issue.

Bullying is bullying, bigotry is bigotry, and I doubt it matters very much to the victim WHAT the motivation for it might be. If you're worried about the restriction on speech going too far, then the law could be that objectionable opinions are acceptable if expressed in a respectful and straightforward way in an appropriate setting (like a classroom discussion or whatever). But that should apply to ALL points of view. Singling out religious/moral conviction from other kinds creates a distinction that I'm not sure actually exists.

The bill already specifically includes reference to freedom of speech and constitutional protection for all opinions. The additional section is to prevent people from using the political correctness hammer to squash the freedom of religion of others.

 

[Double Trouble]

... something that's forgotten by plenty of right-wingers, particularly Christians.

I agree completely, every part of our society now thinks they somehow have a right not to ever be offended. Everyone has a right to hold and express their opinion, within the framework of the law, and if someone else is offended by that, screw them.

I'm a Christian, but I have no problem with someone saying "Jesus sucks donkey balls". That's their opinion and they are entitled to it. Most people just don't understand that concept, and followers of Islam generally don't appear to have any concept of freedom of expression at all.

 

[Double Trouble]

The fear (which becomes hatred) some people have about homosexuals and homosexuality is a result of religion.

I just don't buy that. As humans we tend to fear and mock what we don't understand, that's not something brought on by religion, it's manifestation in all religions is a reflection of ourselves.

 

[Double Trouble]

This is very similar to reverse racisism. Preiovsly gays were afraid to admit freely that they were homosexual for fear of punishment in one form or another. Now they're taking it to the other extreme where you're not allowed to have your own opinion (that opposes homosexuality). If your opinion happens to support homosexuality, well then you're free to express it, otherwise keep your yap shut????? remember people, opinions are like assholes....

Yep, exactly right.

 

[woolfe9999]

So Moonbeam, a Jew/Muslim/Christian that tells a homosexual that being gay is a sin is bad, but an atheist telling a person of faith that they are a moron for having religious/spiritual beliefs is ok?

You speak against bigotry and practice it as well? How bizarre...

Fallacy. Intolerance is one thing that it is acceptable to be intolerant of. You're saying that being critical of a bigot is a form of intolerance. While that would be awfully convenient for bigots if true, it that doesn't work.

 

[Double Trouble]

Fallacy. Intolerance is one thing that it is acceptable to be intolerant of. You're saying that being critical of a bigot is a form of intolerance. While that would be awfully convenient for bigots if true, it that doesn't work.

Tolerance does not mean acceptance or agreement. In a free society you have to be tolerant of even the intolerant, provided they stay within the bounds of the law. Take the Westborough idiots as an example of that. They are repugnant, but I think they should have the right to express their opinion as much as groups expressing politically correct ones.

 

[Lithium381]

Tolerance does not mean acceptance or agreement. In a free society you have to be tolerant of even the intolerant, provided they stay within the bounds of the law. Take the Westborough idiots as an example of that. They are repugnant, but I think they should have the right to express their opinion as much as groups expressing politically correct ones.

this, this and more of this!!! people need to get the sand out of their vags' and accept that some people have differences of opinion, and THAT's OKAY!

 

[Ichigo]

Sorry, but in your example statement #1 would not qualify as a "sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction", so the section quoted in the OP still wouldn't apply. Even so, I'd have no problem with someone saying it in school anyway, just like I don't have a problem with people expressing the same opinion about any other group. Sure, it's offensive, but people don't have a right not to be offended. Saying those kinds of things just makes it clear to everyone else that you're a dumbass.



I don't think either one of those I'd consider bullying. This whole concept of bullying is just another avenue to push more strict political correctness IMO. Real bullying is a serious issue.



The bill already specifically includes reference to freedom of speech and constitutional protection for all opinions. The additional section is to prevent people from using the political correctness hammer to squash the freedom of religion of others.

Why would discrimination against race not be able to qualify as a "moral conviction" if discrimination against sexual orientation counts? Truly believing that black people are lazy isn't a reasonable position but "homosexuality is a choice" is?

Your last paragraph doesn't make any sense. Is the whole concept of bullying bunk or can it sometimes be important?

For the record, I agree with the notion in general no one has the right not to be offended but I'm quite okay with punishing children for saying awful things and being unable to conduct themselves in a respectful manner. Maybe not for a single instance, but repeated verbal abuse, especially by multiple parties, is serious bullying and needs to treated as such.

 

[sandorski]

This walks a very fine line. I can't help but think of another issue that keeps popping up that is similar. That is the Image of Mohammed issue. It is one thing for a Religious person to reject certain things as "Sin" and not do it themselves, but the moment that Personal Conviction is applied to someone outside one's Religion, then it becomes Wrong.

In regards to Bullying, this is often where Religious people cross that line regarding Homosexuals, opposing any kind of open acceptance schools may take towards Homosexuals. They openly Oppose it by speaking against it, attempting to marginalize the group based upon the "Sin" argument. All too often, like the pics of Mohammed issue, this has lead to violence against Homosexuals.

Religious freedom is very important, but it is also important to remember that Public Schools are not Religious Institutions.

 

[Lithium381]

This walks a very fine line. I can't help but think of another issue that keeps popping up that is similar. That is the Image of Mohammed issue. It is one thing for a Religious person to reject certain things as "Sin" and not do it themselves, but the moment that Personal Conviction is applied to someone outside one's Religion, then it becomes Wrong.

In regards to Bullying, this is often where Religious people cross that line regarding Homosexuals, opposing any kind of open acceptance schools may take towards Homosexuals. They openly Oppose it by speaking against it, attempting to marginalize the group based upon the "Sin" argument. All too often, like the pics of Mohammed issue, this has lead to violence against Homosexuals.

Religious freedom is very important, but it is also important to remember that Public Schools are not Religious Institutions.

agreed.

it's also important to remember that not everyone in the world shares your beliefs. .. school or not... why do people get their panties in a wad over differences of opinion?

 

[Moonbeam]

seirously!?!?!? "I like the color blue most" now i'm a bigot? just because you and I don't have the same favorite color i'm a bigot?

Why do you use the word seriously when you have no conception of what it means?

 

[Lithium381]

Why do you use the word seriously when you have no conception of what it means?

If you would like to discuss my possible mis-use of words or improper grammar, please use the PM function of the forums. Such discussions are not on topic and detract from the thread. If you have a response to the content of my post please post it here so we can continue the topic of the thread.

 

[Megatomic]

Fallacy. Intolerance is one thing that it is acceptable to be intolerant of. You're saying that being critical of a bigot is a form of intolerance. While that would be awfully convenient for bigots if true, it that doesn't work.

Did you even read what you quoted? I didn't address the atheist vs. the anti-gay bigot. At all.

 

[Rainsford]

I thought someone might misunderstand my use of the term.

Manliness can be either good or bad. Manliness is permissive of too much manliness, but emphatically rejects too little. Regarding my use of the term, I only meant that manliness means men look down on feminine or non-macho things.

That's more or less what I figured you meant, I think I understood just fine. My point was that real manliness is about your own behavior, not policing things other people do that don't strike you as sufficiently masculine. That's something I've always associated with people who are actually deeply insecure in their "manliness" and so feel the need to prove it to everyone.

I attended Catholic schools, so I may have been insulated from religious bullying since we were all the same religion. Actually, now that I think about it, that's not true. There were several muslims in my high school, and I don't recall them ever being mistreated. In fact, one of them, named Mahesh, was part of the "cool" guys' group.

Is there evidence to support the allegation that religiously motivated bullying is a problem?

Does it really matter whether it's happening or not? The law we're discussing creates a specific exemption in anti-bullying legislation for religious based bullying. If that IS a major problem, the exemption seems like it will make it worse. And if it's NOT a problem, the exemption seems like it could create one.

I went to Catholic school for several years, and I'll be honest, I don't remember much religious based bullying. But then, I don't remember anyone expressing non-Catholic viewpoints to any great degree. Not every school is the same though, especially when we're talking about private schools.

 

[Jhhnn]

This is very similar to reverse racisism. Preiovsly gays were afraid to admit freely that they were homosexual for fear of punishment in one form or another. Now they're taking it to the other extreme where you're not allowed to have your own opinion (that opposes homosexuality). If your opinion happens to support homosexuality, well then you're free to express it, otherwise keep your yap shut????? remember people, opinions are like assholes....

Homosexuality is the last frontier of equal rights for minorities.

Gay people are a naturally occurring % of the human race, and have been since the beginning. It's like eye color or skin color or being short or tall. They are what they are, and fearing or belittling them is the same thing as fearing or belittling blacks, jews, brown people or blondes.

The statute just gives haters an excuse and cover for being haters. When called on it, they'll just claim it's their deeply held moral conviction, as if they actually have any.