Political & Elections

No, I'm pretty sure they go to a private school in Montclair N.J. At least 2 of them do - not sure about the third.

Enjoy

http://videosift.com/video/Colbert-The-Word-Bully-Pulpit-Anti-Bullying-Legislation

Colbert just devoted "The Word" to the bill. He nailed it with the word "hypochristians."  

If a kid gets a pass for calling another kid a faggot (gay or straight), blame it on the stupidity of the teachers/administration.

Derogatory language is derogatory language. Calling another kid a faggot (gay or straight) is not different than calling a kid fat, stupid, ugly, white trash, n*****, smelly, retarded, any anti-religious slurs you can think of, any anti-female slurs you can think of, and on and on and on.

None of these are acceptable in polite, civil society.

If anybody thinks a "law" is going to stop people from treating other people badly (the liberal state-mandated utopia) they are dreaming.

Individual schools need to create a culture of mutual respect and kindness. I've worked in middle and high schools for fifteen years. In school with this culture, these things are not permitted. In fact, they don't even need to be dwelled upon. Kids know what is expected of them.

On the other hand, if a kid happens to bring up in a class discussion that one of the tenants of his religion is that homosexuality is wrong, what is to prevent that kid from being shunned or denigrated in our highly politically correct culture? It seems to me that is what that insert was trying to prevent.

Poetsheart: Not only did I read your posts, but I have read every one here more than once. It is unmistakable that the focus of this thread is on Christian kids bullying gays. Read the title, for goodness sake. Google the legislation and read the titles of the blogs/articles written about it ( which offer some fine examples--often including quite nasty language-- of generalized anti-Christian bigotry btw).

-- Edited by hope on Tuesday 8th of November 2011 07:12:14 PM

-- Edited by hope on Tuesday 8th of November 2011 07:27:44 PM

back up your claims with hard data. Not anecdotes, not stories from your horrific childhoods, but hard data that bullying of any kind (keeping in mind this bill was not intended to focus on only gay kids) is done by Christian kids.

You know, hope, you have a bad habit of challenging people to defend things they never said. Let me see if I can make this simple: Bullying of every sort happens to every kind of child, and it is perpetrated by kids from every possible religious background, and by those with no religious background whatsoever. I never claimed that bullying is only perpetuated by Christian kids. I was addressing the particular clause that is at the heart of the controversy being debated. That clause, which was part of supposed anti-bullying legislation, went out of its way to exempt "sincere expression of religious belief" from behaviors that might be identified as bullying. The question that comes to mind is, "why would such an exemption even be germaine to the tormenting of children by their peers, unless self-identified religious people (and not just Christians, btw) might come under fire for opening condemning homosexuality, and be seen to be contributing to the torment of homosexual students.

It would seem that you never really read what I wrote (wow, what a surprise), because what I actually said is the opposite of that which you accuse me. Read it again:

My point is that our middle schools aren't being overrun with religious zealots. Most 6th graders inclined to bully a fellow student wouldn't actually be pontificating, though they certainly would pretend to be (expressing a "sincerely" held religious belief) in order to get away with tormenting their victim.

I also expressed the observation that some kids might indeed be "expressing sincere religious belief" because there are those whose religious indoctrination has been so thorough as to cause them to repeat learned doctrine to their school peers. I then gave an example. Just because it was anecdotal does not make it an invalid observation.

Of course you know as well as I that there's no "data" that proves that Christian kids bully, just as there's no data that proves that Christian kids don't bully. But, common sense will tell you that children from every background have been known to bully---including gay kids.

I'll also wait for the hard data backing up the claims that kids are born gay. As of now, research points to a combination of genes and environment (just as for IQ, btw).

As the inimitable god of the Republican party once said, "There you go again!"

Here's what I said: It's bogus only if being homosexual is a choice, and not a state into which one is born. Many of us believe that one can no more determine one's sexual orientation than one can determine the racial group into which one is born. Apparently, you must believe the opposite.

That paragraph was about beliefs. I expressed a personal belief that gay people are born that way, and that it's not a choice. You yourself have pointed out that the best research thus far strongly indicates that there is a significant genetic component to the determination of one's sexuality, which means that it can't merely be a matter of choice. In any case, tormenting a person over their sexual orientation should never be deemed acceptable.

You need to tone down the hysteria, really. It's hard to even take this claptrap seriously anymore.

You are free to stop reading and responding to the claptrap.

Unfortunately there are 6th grade zealots out there. Their parents train them to be so from an early age and they believe their ticket to heaven is to proseletize. Even if they are few in number, there is nothing wrong with protecting others from being the target of their hate.  However, the main thing is to not give homophobes the excuse that they are zealots when chances are they are just homophobes.

Oh, please.."a zealot's right to pontificate.." Little sixth grade zealots pontificating all over the place?

Want to call strawman here, poetsheart? Or do we really believe our middle schools are being overrun by little sixth grade religious zealots?

You need to tone down the hysteria, really. It's hard to even take this claptrap seriously anymore.

Since you are probably not familiar with the more general debate among the Christian community (or maybe you are--I don't know), many of them feel that these types of bullying laws are back door ways to suppress religious expression. In this case, the fact there are many who are so outraged that gays were not specifically referenced tends to support this.

I did reference your question earlier. If our dear public school administators and teachers can't tell the difference between a sincere expression of religous belief and tormenting or bullying a kid by repeated expression of such belief, we are in big, big trouble (well, we already are, but that's another subject).

I find the equation of being black in this country with being homosexual argument bogus.

-- Edited by hope on Tuesday 8th of November 2011 09:16:38 AM

I already addressed this. The language does not give anyone an exemption to "torment a student." It does attempt to insure freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

No. You didn't. Now, would you answer my question, please?: If a "sincere" Christian were to use this exemption as cover to torment a student, how in the world would you be able to prove that that's what he's doing? As in, sincere Christian, in a "sincere" attempt to save the soul of a poor, lost, homosexual student, tells said lost soul everyday, and with "utmost sincerity" that she fears for his mortal soul because he won't repent of his homosexuality and turn to Jesus. Is that a "sincere expression of belief" or is it feigned cover for bullying?

It does attempt to insure freedom of expression and freedom of religion. Something liberals care little about.

Care to back that up, or are you merely satisfied to let that steaming pile sit and stink?

Homosexuality is not a protected right in our Constitution. Freedom of speech and of religion are.

Yeah, neither was being black for over 300 years in this country. Your point? That it's OK to oppress someone as long as they aren't Constitutionally protected?

As I said before, it's a moot point. The House will not pass this bill with that clause. The Republicans in the House have rightfully spoken out against it since the day the bill got passed. I sincerely hope this remains a big issue when these Republican senators come up for reelection in their districts. They should have known better. You don't want the protected classes that were listed in the Democrats' bill? Fine, but that means YOU cannot go and make your own protected class- the religious. You either have protected classes or you don't- it's that simple.

ETA: Even without the religious exemption clause, the bill is pathetic. If you've actually read it all the way through (and with the times I've had to read it and explain it to constituents, I could almost recite it by heart) it does virtually nothing other than say schools need to have a policy. It's really a pathetic and weak piece of legislation.

Update.

http://www.freep.com/article/20111108/NEWS05/111080352/House-likely-drop-controversial-language-anti-bullying-bill?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

Personally, I don't agree with the need for state legislation regarding this matter in the first place.

Bullying has been around since humans first roamed the earth. Schools should be in the business of teaching kindness and respect toward all people. That used to be their job, anyhow. Who knows what it is now.

The inserted sentence is there to protect kids whose religion believes homosexuality is wrong, and the assertion of these beliefs, generally or specifically, is not, in and of itself, bullying. Period.

A kid who uses his religion as an excuse to bully gay kids or kids with any differences, however, should be guilty as charged. If we really think our schools officials are so stupid they are not be able to tell the difference, why do we even send our kids to be educated at these places?

"..offering protection to the bullies themselves"

And your documentation, other than heresay, that "the bullies" had "sincerely held religious beliefs" is...??

Keep talking. The more you reveal your mindset, the more we know how to guard against it.

 It takes many links in the Daily News article to reach the meat of the matter, which is here:

http://michiganmessenger.com/53702/senate-passes-license-to-bully-legislation

"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.”

Hardly a "license to bully," and all the other hyperbolic headlines I read in pages and pages of articles about this on google.

No, I don't want any child to be bullied for any reason, nor do I want them to commit suicide for any reason, including being gay, which cases are heartbreaking and horrible. But I get where the people who inserted this language are coming from, through hard-earned knowledge of exactly how far public schools are willing to go to slip their own agendas past parents who may hold certain religious views.

Am I surprised by all the sensational headlines and the title of this thread? Nope.

-- Edited by hope on Sunday 6th of November 2011 09:51:21 PM

This literally makes me sick. I'm an intern in the senate in Michigan, and I actually intern for the senator who proposed the Democratic bill (Anderson). I was actually on the Senate floor when the debates were going on, and the actions of some of the people disgusted me. A few on the Republican side of the aisle had to be asked repeatedly to quiet down to allow the Democrats to speak (you can find evidence of this- it was taped). This bill is pathetic to say the least, and perhaps down right dangerous to some students. Those who voted for this bill should be ashamed of themselves. There has been massive backlash in Michigan and I hope it shows come election time. The House will probably not vote for the bill the way that it stands now (they have seen the backlash that the religious clause caused and many Republicans have thankfully distanced themselves from that stance, and good for them!), and I *believe* that Gov Snyder has indicated that he will not sign into law the bill that was passed by the Senate if it gets passed the House (I can't find evidence of that right now, but I'm on very limited internet). I give him major credit if that's the case.

I was bullied relentlessly in my Catholic school due to my sexuality (in 7th/8th grade nonetheless). To the point that I didn't even go to school for nearly half of my eighth grade year (my stress kept manifesting in physical problems). This is a very personal issue for me.

Edit: @Silver- What, quite frankly, pissed me off about the religious exemption more than anything was that Republicans said they wanted no one listed because it would then exclude anyone not listed. I understand that argument and have no problem with it. However, then they turn around and provide PROTECTION on the basis of religion. Is that not singling out a group? Pathetic.