One only has to venture over to a Conservative blog to understand that if these people ever got their way they’d burn the rest of us at the stake. But until that day arrives they’re content to let children be bullied in the name of their morality and their god.
The [Michigan pro-bullying] bill lays out what exactly constitutes bullying, but in one key part it says that the legislation does not prohibit First Amendment rights, and “does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil’s parent or guardian.”
The Detroit News reports that Senate Dems tried to add language that would specifically prohibit bullying on the basis of race, gender, sexual preference, etc., but were unsuccessful.
“I am ashamed that this could be Michigan’s bill on anti-bullying when in fact it is a ‘bullying is OK in Michigan law,’” Kevin Eppling, the father of the bill’s namesake, said in a letter.
Wow! It even gives adults (teachers, administrators, school volunteers, parents) the power to bully kids. So if the child is of a different religion? Say whatever you want… as long as your sincere. Different race? Well, if you sincerely believe that his/her race is inferior… have at it. Gay? Feel free to point out their sinful ways. Think boys are better than girls (or vice versa)? Just keep sincerely pointing this out.
Michigan hasn’t written an anti-bullying law. It’s written a “How To Bully” handbook.
Wonder how long these guys/gal would support their pro-bullying stance if an atheist/Muslim/Jewish student started sincerely stating their beliefs to little Christian ears?
The background to this is that Michigan has the largest Islamic community in the nation.
Now the Muslims get to make fun of the Papist infidels in school. What could possibly go wrong?
Worst. Loophole. Ever.
The Delaware Family Policy Council is already working on getting Delaware this same loophole. DFPC had a seminar this past August where they taught teachers how to talk about their religion in a public school.
“Bullying is okay if…”
Apparently its okay if its not your own kids getting bullied.
So what you are saying is that you want the school to be able to punish a student who says “I believe that gay sex is wrong and that people who do that are going to Hell” on the grounds that it constitutes bullying? On the other hand, you would be outraged if a student were punished for saying “I believe that people who are against homosexuality are evil and should not have a right to express their beliefs”.
You wanna preach? Go to a religious school.
Love the use of the word “evil.”
So you are suggesting that religious students should have fewer free speech rights than non-religious students in public schools? And that speech with religious content should have less First Amendment protection than speech without it?
You must really hate religious believers.
And probably bullied them in school and do so now.
Yes. Students should not be allowed to tell each other they are going to hell simply for being who they are. I say this from personal experience. I would deny this right to those who practiced it on me in school. And had it been a teacher, I would most certainly be in favor of the school firing them. I am Jewish and American and I have a right to public education free from forced indoctrination in the dominant religion.
And gays have the very same right!
Stryker — if it were a teacher, I would also be in favor of firing them.
And presumably, Stryker, you would be all for punishing an atheist student who showed up in a shirt that said “There is no God” — or are you willing to allow indoctrination by minority religions and censoring of majority religion?
pretending that there is no difference between speech and bullying is like pretending that there is no difference between thinking and saying.
Pretending there is no inconsistency between anti-bullying laws that punish religious speech and the First Amendment is like pretending that there is no inconsistency between slavery and the Thirteenth Amendment.
And last time I checked, anon, the First Amendment was all about preventing the government from penalizing “saying”.
The idea that students have free speech is laughable. They don’t. Argue for that if you want, but stop pretending that students can express themselves anyway they want in school. They can’t even read certain books.
Pandora: The US Supreme Court has a very different position on the free speech rights of students at school. Check out this 40 year old Supreme Court precedent in Tinker v. DesMoines – http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/tinker.html – “First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. This has been the unmistakable holding of this Court for almost 50 years.”
For that matter, go back to WWII for this one – http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1942/1942_591 – “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”
You don’t have a very good grasp on analogies.
Actually, you are the one with the problem, Anon, because both halves of your first example were “saying”, and then you claimed that one of them was not “saying” in an attempt to strip it of protection under the Constitution.
More proof that you don’t understand analogies was not what I was fishing for.
The problem is not that I don’t understand analogies – the problem is that your analogy was flawed.
i see we have a new troll.
original name too – suits them
Same troll, one more new name. One of our resident sockpuppets who pathetically wants to be in a place where he is routinely embarrassed.
I probably threw him off by using “thinking/saying” instead of some more accessible way to demonstrate levels of action. Perhaps, walking/running might have penetrated his fog?
Certainly would have more accurately conveyed the difference between the two, rather than imply that you want the government to ban “saying” those things that you don’t approve of.