Bullying as protected religious expression in Michigan

As far as moral panics go, bullying is a pretty shitty one. Do we really need legislation for this? Also, “bully” is a stupid word. Not sure why I think that, but maybe it just sounds like it is a word designed for 6 year olds.

“Passing the law without the added paragraph would have made it unconstitutional.”

I don’t believe that to be true. You have not made a case for it. Support your claim.

You will burn in hell EOS. You are a sinful abomination who is not fit to walk the earth. You are a deviant demon spawn, a descendent of Cain, born to corrupt the world with your impure mind and body. God hates you, and He will drop you into the fiery pit where you will be shred, sinew by sinew, and torched, over and over.

That’s the sort of language I worry this law allows. That sort of language has no place in our schools, and the consequences of it could be deadly. The Republicans have the state, and they are stepping beyond reasonable law making to persecute LGBT people. I foresee terrible consequences and a lot of suffering as a potential result.

School districts have recently been especially attentive to the issue of bullying, as victims of bullying and their families have been winning court cases against negligent schools districts that did little to address complaints of bullying. I’m not sure how this law changes that.

Still, I believe harassment of a religious nature is still illegal. Am I wrong?

I’m brainstorming a Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster angle on this–some way to turn the legislation upside down and highlight its ridiculousness for all to see. Any ideas?

“And I can’t wait until the atheists taunt some claimed-christian kid into a fit over the logic that many or may not be present in any of their pontifications.”

Logic is not in the bible, therefore christians do not acknowledge its existence.

I hesitate to take EOS’s side, but weren’t things better back in the olden times, when we taunted faggots into suicide and didn’t make such a big deal about it? Gas was cheaper back then, and life was simpler. I’ve heard that you could see a movie for a nickle.

I don’t think it’s suicide, Pete. They just get tangled up in their sheets and suffocate.

I’m curious as to the point you were trying to make, though.

Dirtgrain,

It’s the 1st amendment to the Constitution. Speech and the free exercise of religion is protected. For example, reading Romans 1 in public does not constitute yelling fire in a crowded theater. And Romans 1 has admonitions against a large variety of sinful behaviors. No one is pushed to the brink of suicide because they are told deceit, malice, greed, gossiping, slandering, hating God, insolence, arrogance and boasting are sins. Look at Megan’s petitions. Every one is about protecting LGBTQ persons. It’s not about bullying. There’s nothing you could possibly write or say to me that would convince me to commit suicide, and I certainly won’t ever attempt to enact legislation that would restrict your hateful speech.

They aren’t about protecting them, they’re about not excluding them. Frankly, instead of listing everything out, they should just say, “for any reason” and be done with it. There’s no excuse for bullying, and adding this language is just a weak excuse to pander to the conservative Christians (note I did not say ALL Christians) that have taken hold lately. I read somewhere today, just wait until extremist Muslims use this law to hide behind while yelling infidel whore at teenage girls who don’t “wear enough clothes”. Then where are you?

not in the classroom EOS, not with any teacher worth their salt

Perhaps a rider should be added that after someone gets bullied at school and it is determined to be okay based on religious grounds, the same bullied person can – on religious grounds – hire some peers to kick the living shit out of said bully. On religious grounds – old testament – eye for an eye motherfucker!

Thought there was a separation of church and state. Isn’t public school considered the state?

In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969), the Supreme Court extended free speech rights to students in school. The case involved several students who were punished for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. The Supreme Court ruled that the school could not restrict symbolic speech that did not cause undue interruptions of school activities. Justice Abe Fortas wrote,

“Schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students…are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State.”

Eel,

No, I DO think that behavior should be stopped by the teacher, but I don’t think there should be a law prohibiting that type of speech. And, no real Christian is going to say something like that to another individual. But, these laws have a chilling effect on speech and end up silencing many thoughts that are not hostile in intent but are said out of concern for an individual. In Canada today, it is illegal to read certain verses of Leviticus on the radio.

There was an interesting article on sexual harrassment in schools. Most of the time, we don’t include that in our definition of “bullying”, but it should be. Something like 60+% of girls and 40+% of boys have felt harassed (is it one “r” or two? I forget. Sorry)…boys usually for being called “fag”. Girls reported unwanted touching, being called a “slut” for having a lot of boy friends, being called names (“b’s and h’s”, I would guess). Instead of the word “bullying”, I’d kinda like to see us call it what it is–harassment (I think it is one “r”). I agree that “bullying” sounds like a 1st grade word and something about it rubs me the wrong way. I realize it’s just a matter of semantics but still.

I don’t think the link worked. Here is the URL: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/studentspeech.htm

EOS…He can shut the hell up and talk about it at Bible Study or Church

Here’s a better question, EOS.

What if a Muslim kid is in a classroom discussion and he states, “In my opinion all Christians will burn in hell. There are 7 different verses in the Koran that support my opinion.”

Should he be prevented from stating his beliefs if a Christian kid in the class says it makes him feel uncomfortable?

Keep it up EOS, every anti-gay post is another $1 I give to Ozone House.

Your narrow-mindedness might as well do some good for a change.

This stuff about quoting religious texts in classrooms, while interesting, should NOT be happening. I’ve had kids ask me about my religion (I’m generally the first and only Jew they know) and I have to say that I can’t really talk about it. You CERTAINLY can’t teach from a religious text. At least, I don’t think you can…I haven’t checked the most recent Supreme Court decisions….

Patti,
You can answer your students questions, but you can’t proselytize. You can certainly teach from a religious text. There is an entire curriculum designed for teaching the Bible as literature at the high school level in public schools as an elective.

But students are not restricted. They can give speeches about their beliefs, write papers, create artwork, and state their beliefs in a respectful manner during class discussions.

K2,
The Muslim student has every right to state his beliefs. Most Christians would encourage the dialogue.

WDM,
The gay student also has every right to promote his point of view. He is entitled to say he doesn’t believe the Bible and whatever he wants to say promoting homosexuality.

Yes, but what is the appropriate context, excepting where a teacher asked such a question? And with that exception, what is the appropriate context for a teacher to ask students such things?

Gotta say (sadly) that I agree in part with EOS here, but that this agreement is somewhat irrelevant to the subject at hand:

What if a Christian kid is in a classroom discussion and he states, “In my opinion homosexual behavior is wrong. There are 7 different Bible verses that support my opinion.”

Personally, as someone who finds EOS’s overall worldview (at least as presented in comments here) reprehensible, I will agree that a student ought reasonably be able to make that statement in school, in the course of a classroom discussion.

On the other hand, I don’t think that example qualifies as bullying, either in my opinion, or under the legislation proposed, and so isn’t germane to the discussion. From SB 0137, as passed by the Senate:

(B) “BULLYING” MEANS ANY WRITTEN, VERBAL, OR PHYSICAL ACT, OR ANY ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION, BY A PUPIL DIRECTED AT 1 OR MORE OTHER PUPILS THAT IS INTENDED OR THAT A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD KNOW IS LIKELY TO HARM 1 OR MORE PUPILS EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY BY DOING ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

(i) SUBSTANTIALLY INTERFERING WITH EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES, BENEFITS, OR PROGRAMS OF 1 OR MORE PUPILS.

(ii) SUBSTANTIALLY AND ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ABILITY OF A PUPIL TO PARTICIPATE IN OR BENEFIT FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S OR PUBLIC SCHOOL’S EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS OR ACTIVITIES BY PLACING THE PUPIL IN REASONABLE FEAR OF PHYSICAL HARM.

(iii) HAVING AN ACTUAL AND SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON A PUPIL’S PHYSICAL OR MENTAL HEALTH OR CAUSING SUBSTANTIAL EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.

(iv) CAUSING SUBSTANTIAL DISRUPTION IN, OR SUBSTANTIAL INTERFERENCE WITH, THE ORDERLY OPERATION OF THE SCHOOL.

Put simply, EOS is a troll, and it’s working. He’s presenting silly and irrelevant examples in order to entrap folks – I’ll agree, a law that forbade students from simply stating the fact that the bible says certain things (which it does in fact say) stands a good chance of being ruled unconstitutional, and I would oppose such a law. (If there were a law that prevented students from stating that they held a certain viewpoint that they had developed by reading Vonnegut, everybody currently beating up on EOS would be out buying 50 copies to mail to the jurisdiction in question.)

But, fortunately, it doesn’t matter. That, ALONE, IN AND OF ITSELF, does not count as bullying under the bill – EOS’ arguments about constitutionality and speech are completely unrelated to the current discussion. (Though I would gladly trade my middle school years with anybody lucky enough to think EOS’ examples are what “bullying” is.)

Meanwhile, I will emphasize that this statement is inaccurate:

Last week, Michigan passed anti-bullying legislation.

Untrue. The Michigan SENATE passed their version of an anti-bullying bill, after inserting the “license to bully” language in question. However, it has not yet passed the House, nor been signed by the Governor.

The outcry against the Senate’s bill so far has done some good, and has House Republicans backing away as fast as they can. From today’s MIRS Capitol news brief:

As MIRS first reported on Friday, key House Republicans, including
House Speaker Jase BOLGER (R-Marshall), House Education Chair Paul
SCOTT (R-Grand Blanc) and Rep. Phil POTVIN (R-Cadillac), sponsor of
the House anti-bullying bill, distanced themselves from the language
in SB 0137 (See “Potvin: My Bullying Bill Won’t Include Religious
Exemption,” 11/4/11).
…
Today, Bolger spokesman Ari ADLER stressed to MIRS that the Speaker
does not believe in enumerating characteristics in the bill, something
for which Democrats have pushed, but he also “doesn’t believe in going
to the other extreme and giving an excuse for bullying.” Adler said
there are “passionate people on all sides of the issue.”

And, from the referenced piece:

Rep. Phil POTVIN (R-Cadillac) told MIRS today that the new version of
his anti-bullying bill would not include an exemption on moral and
religious grounds as the Senate version passed this week did.
“Absolutely not,” Potvin said today. “Why should it? We’re talking
about everyone.”

Potvin has sponsored HB 4163, which is in the House Education
Committee, although Potvin is not on the panel. He said he was hopeful
the legislation might be taken up before the hunting break, although
he noted House Education Committee Chair Paul SCOTT (R-Grand Blanc) is
busy with the recall election Tuesday.

Note that the House version of the bill, HB 4163 (introduced back in February!) does encompass TeacherPatti’s concern of calling a spade a spade–at least as an “or”–addressing “bullying or harassment” rather than just “bullying”:

(B) “BULLYING OR HARASSMENT” MEANS ABUSE OF A PUPIL BY 1 OR MORE OTHER PUPILS IN ANY FORM. THE TERM INCLUDES, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO, CONDUCT THAT MEETS ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

Note that Ypsilanti’s own Representative David Rutledge sits on the House Education Committee, which will be deliberating the House version of this bill. He’s in the minority, but it probably wouldn’t hurt to let him know his district is fired up over the issue.

And in many liberal judges courtrooms it is quite likely that they might rule that it caused substantial emotional distress.

EOS, I’m at risk of experiencing substantial emotional distress both from your failure to properly use an apostrophe in judges’ as well as from your baseless talking points about the judicial branch. I’ll agree that wetdolphinmissile was being a dipshit with his comment, but I’ll ask you to quit while you’re ahead, and while I’m still willing to admit at least partial agreement with you.

wait- currently students can’t be required to recite the pledge of allegiance every single day? i got so many detentions for that. so many.
i shouldn’t be so surprised – at my (public) school, we also had bible classes, through 6th grade or so, and *still* had people heavily promoting the ‘meet you at the flagpole’ crap.

“In my opinion, alcoholism is harmful. There are a host of social ills that result from this behavior.”

In your opinion, would it be justified to eliminate this speech from the classroom because it may make alcoholics feel uncomfortable? A person might be genetically predisposed to becoming an alcoholic, but is still held responsible for their actions. Race is not a mutable characteristic and so therefore makes a bad analogy when compared to a behavior.

If I had had a choice, I would have much rather been raised by a homosexual than an alcoholic/drug addict.

I hate taking EOS’ troll-bait, but that statement is just beyond ignorant.

EOS: “Race is not a mutable characteristic and so therefore makes a bad analogy when compared to a behavior.”

You could claim Blackness as a choice or karma or whatever. Also, for it is mutable–or, rather, something that can be disguised or altered: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_%28racial_identity%29

I say if people want to use religion to maintain their agressive and abusive behaviour there should be a litmus test for their actual religiousness. That litmus test should be based on the writings of J. Krishnamurti, or Sri Ramakrishna. Religion isn’t religion because you use a single line of a book to support your vicious campaign of harassement and brutality towards others, there is in fact; nothing religious about that behaviour in anyway.

I want no part of a “religious” life. I want a relationship with the one who sacrificed His life to pay for our sins. Every human has sinned and therefore deserves to die. “For the wages of sin is death, BUT the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

Wow, I forgot about the pigs.

“So Jesus gave them permission. The evil spirits came out of the man and entered the pigs, and the entire herd of about 2,000 pigs plunged down the steep hillside into the lake and drowned in the water.”

That’s funny EOS; you don’t want to be “religious” but allegedly worship a god-man who was the founder of an otherworldly religious lifestyle the radical nature of which would render contemporary technological governmental systems totally inert. You as a xtian must act accordingly to the deity’s counsel, yes? If your entire bent to existence is in favor of an eternal reward in death, which is predicated by the non-resistence to wickedness and the forgiveness of sin by an eternal judge greater then yourself, where does your or these suppoesdly xtian children abuse of human beings fit? You are neither the judge of these people, nor are you to resist wickedness. You are in fact told by your diety to give them your cape when they have taken your cloak.

From which theologically vapid website did you cut and paste that from? I also like the unattributed quotation which makes no sense.

But, when it comes to homosexuality, I thought it was about what God commanded us to do. Isn’t that what you’ve been telling us, EOS?

And don’t you see it as hypocritical that you pick and choose which biblical verses you feel as though are appropriate for us to live by? You get up in arms over homosexuality, but, at the same time, as the comic linked to above points out, you don’t seem to feel as though there’s a need for you to give up your possessions, as the Bible also commands. How is it that you’re able to pick and choose, but you don’t feel as though others should have the same right?

This is absolute nonsense. Clearly, you don’t know very much about world religions.

“Every other religion in the world consists of rules that men have to do for God. “

So, should we assume that you don’t eat shellfish, and would, if you had one, sell your daughter into slavery?

I would find it helpful if you could provide a list, EOS, of all the biblical laws we’re still supposed to follow, and which ones we’re allowed to ignore “without the slightest bit of guilt.”

EOS, you’re such an asshole, we decided to reform.

http://www.black-sabbath.com/

“If we as a culture start calling evil, good and good, evil…” who gets to make this demarcation, and from when do we start? The worst part of the absolutizing nature of xtian metaphysics is that it blots out the horizon of possibilities that anyone else can have access to truth, and is the model for the totalitarianism which has so charecterized this descent into the historical mire of nihilism over the last 200 yrs. Whoever this mindless apologist is (who does nothing but twist whatever discussion into meaninglessness in an attempt derail discussion in the event he can’t twist it towards himself), he believes himself to have access to the ultimate reality and that is the sole providence of his masculinist heteronormative vengeful sky god.

EOS, my cat asked me to pass this along to you.

http://i.imgur.com/XGKIC.png

Shawano, Wisconsin, Community High School student Brandon Wegner is pursuing journalism and writes for the student newspaper “The Hawk’s Post.” Brandon and another student proposed several ideas for article topics to their faculty advisor for the student newspaper.

They eventually selected “homosexual adoption” and wrote a point-counter point in parallel columns with Brandon taking the position that homosexual adoption is wrong. He supported his position by citing Bible passages.

Brandon wrote about his view of the importance of a family having both a mother and a father. The discussion among the two students was very civil and, frankly, a model of how people should discuss controversial issues with each other.

But, a homosexual parent read the article and protested. The school principal called Brandon into his office and told him he could not speak about religion, politics, or social issues in a public school. And, without his parent’s knowledge, Brandon was called into one meeting after another, causing him to miss study time for exams and even missing one exam.

He was then hauled before Superintendent Todd Carlson who told him that the column he wrote “went against the bullying policy.” Superintendent Carlson asked Brandon to recant his views, and when he would not, he told Brandon he was “ignorant” for having his belief, and then said “we have the power to suspend you.”

The Superintendent then communicated with the school community and apologized for Brandon’s article on homosexual adoption. School officials then censored Brandon’s article, forcing him and his classmates participating in the news writing course to physically rip the page out of the newspaper before distribution at their school.

In a statement, the school “sincerely apologized” – NOT for allowing the topic to begin with, or for rushing to judgment, or for violating a student’s constitutional rights, but ONLY for the Biblical viewpoint presented in Brandon’s writing!

Under the guise of stopping bullying, the ACTUAL bullying at Shawano High School was perpetrated by Superintendent Todd Carlson and his subordinates – certainly not the student!

These school officials have displayed blatant intolerance of a view on homosexuality held by many people in our nation. The school’s actions are shocking and totally unjustified. The superintendent should immediately apologize and stop HIS bullying!

Let’s see how the courts decide this case, which according to Peter and Murph, will never happen.