Skip to main content

Michigan's New Anti-Bullying Law Protects Religious Tormenters

I read a very disturbing story just yesterday about the Michigan Republican-controlled Senate passing an anti-bullying bill which excludes from the bill bullying if it is in the name of sincerely held religious beliefs or moral conviction.

What, is this due to the bullying of homosexuals and that it's supposedly an "abomination" to God? Why even have an anti-bullying bill if it excludes bullying based on religious beliefs? Due to this, who's to say a majority of the perpetrators of such bullying won't hide behind the notion that they did this in the name of their religious beliefs or moral convictions? We wouldn't be able to prove that the individual was speaking the truth or lying. This is pathetic... Fortunately, the bill has to go through the house of representatives. The bad news is that the house has a Republican majority, so the chances of the religious exemption being stripped is about as likely as me winning the lottery tomorrow.

I did find one section of the article, whose link I shall provide at this blog's conclusion, which I found to be rather telling. In it, Amy Sullivan of TIME wrote, "It's also a highly selective conception of religious liberty. the same religious conservatives who applaud the religious exemption in Michigan's anti-bullying bill would be appalled if it protected a Muslim student in Dearborn who defended bullying a Christian classmate by saying he considered her an infidel." Precisely. But, that's different, isn't? One has to love the seemingly ubiquitous double standards.

http://swampland.time.com/2011/11/04/why-does-michigans-anti-bullying-bill-protect-religious-tormenters/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i