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/
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
Post a Comment