Basically, from what I hear, the problem with this bill is that… it no longer lets you prosecute bullies if they did it for their religion?! That is beyond fucked up. You know how the gay kid used to be able to tell the authorites about organized bullying? Yeah. Now they can’t, because all the bully has to hide behind is “But it’s what my religion believes!” And of course, because they worship the same bloodthirsty desert god as most of Americans, they can get away with it.
What. The. Fuck.
This is so wrong in so many ways. Even if we ignore how it seems to be a pretty serious breach of the first amendment, it’s still wrong on principle. That we would allow crap like this to pass because of religious belief… Well, I’ll just say that we didn’t forgive Osama Bin Laden after 9/11 because “his religious convictions told him so”. :mad: This makes me fairly pissed.
Oh yeah, my favorite part: “Senate Dems tried to add language that would specifically prohibit bullying on the basis of race, gender, sexual preference, etc., but were unsuccessful.” If that doesn’t make the intent here obvious, I dunno what does.
I’m confused. How does the bill define “bullying”? If it is physical assault or battery, there are already laws covering that, religious belief or not.
If it is teasing and taunting (without putting the victim in fear of bodily harm), then fuck it all if the government should make that a crime, whatever the motivation.
In other words, if the government needs to pass criminal sanctions against schoolyard bullying, why can’t they use the existing law? Methinks this is a piece of jerkoff feel good legislation pushed by the teacher lobby to feel like they are Doing Something.
My WAG is that it’s covered with laws since it’s a public school system, and that the law may not allow schools to forbid verbal bullying on the basis of sexuality as long as a moral basis is claimed. So teachers/administrators may in fact be unable to forbid kids from screaming “God hates fags!” in the face of some wimpy kid on the playground because hey, that’s their deeply-held moral belief.
That’s not so much a problem as the fact that on paper, this law allows teachers to scream “God hates fags!” in the face of some wimpy kid in their class. It basically enshrines to right of every teacher, principal, administration clerk, etc… to use their duties as a platform to proselytize.
If that’s true, the fact that Michigan couldn’t even pass “jerkoff feel good legislation” (the easiest, most innocuous kind of legislation!) on the topic of stopping harmful bullying which has been shown to cause children real mental and/or physical distress to the point of killing themselves… well, I can’t think of anything more pathetic.
I can’t get over the fact they tried to make an anti-bullying law, but ended up with a bullying is okay* law. Am I misunderstanding something, or is that the actual case?
My deeply held belief, from the same chapter of the same book as their deeply held belief about gays, is that people should not wear clothes made from multiple types of fiber. Now can I go bully these Michigan Republicans, if they are wearing a blend, right in their government office? Or do I have to drag them onto school grounds first?
I think jtgain pretty much nailed it. Any Democrat lawmaker with a brain cell in Michigan HAD to know that the Republicans were going to stick in some kind of clause exempting religious beliefs so some kid wouldn’t be suspended/expelled for saying something like “I believe homosexuality is a sin” in the presence of a gay student.
Which is EXACTLY what some liberals would love to see happen, because for them the First Amendment only covers speech they agree with.
This bill was bullshit from day one. Now the Democrats get to pretend they’re the Good Guys™ and piss and moan and vilify the Republicans while kissing the asses of some of their biggest supporters.
Meanwhile kids get assaulted verbally, beat up, or kill themselves.
I don’t agree with creating laws banning insults, but they have no place in schools, and knowing the level of cruelty kids in jr. high, and high school can be, it’s a pretty agonizing thing to go through when you, yourself, are that age and a target of these fartbags, and have to endure that sort of public mental and physical flogging for years on end.
But hey, at least you, the government and the politicians involved can wash their hands clean and have a good night’s sleep. And this is how hate is bred.
So yeh, you’re right, liberals just wanna look like good guys just as much as republicans want to pretend they’re righteous. :roll eyes:
Or maybe they’re actually trying to help people from assholes.
Yes, what was formally illegal or should be illegal on some level allows the bully to hide behind “religious” beliefs. Bullying isn’t only physical. It can be verbal or internet type harassment. Now the bully has a legalized defense. “I didn’t bully him/her, I was expressing my religious beliefs.”
Teachers, acting as agents of the state, have been bound to respect the Establishment Clause and act like adults. Their own “freedom of religion” does not extend to abusing the children who are bound by law to attend school. This law reverses that and allows a teacher to spend her entire class ranting that a child is going to hell and needs to convert, with immunity from any consequence.
This part: “but in one key part it says that the legislation does not prohibit First Amendment rights” implied to me that it was just setting the scope of what’s covered in this legislation.
Can someone on trial for breaking a preexisting law really use the exception in this one as a defense?
This is my humorous, so to speak, take on the law:
A child of Islamic faith beats the shit out of a son or daughter (of which we hope is offspring of a Republican member of the Michigan Legislature) because he/she offended that Muslim for the following reason: Claiming Christ as the Son of God which to a Muslim person would be considered apostasy.
At least that’s the way I read it. Or am I missing something here?