Bill grants exception for religious views
By Todd A. Heywood | 11.03.11 | 8:53 am
Advocates for a law to prohibit bullying and provide school districts with the tools to address the problem were dealt a stinging rebuke Wednesday morning in the Republican-controlled Michigan Senate.
The GOP pushed through an amended bill, SB 137, which does nothing advocates have pushed for — including reporting requirements and enumeration, or listing, of protected classes. In addition, the legislation provides an exception which allows bullying based on “moral convictions.”
The full language of the insert is: “This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil and parent or guardian.”
In a floor speech Minority Leader in the Senate Gretchen Whitmer (D-East Lansing) slammed the Republicans over the amended language.
“Here today you claim to be protecting kids and you’re actually putting them in more danger,” Whitmer said. “But bullying is not OK. We should be protecting public policy that protects kids — all kids, from bullies — all bullies. But instead you have set us back further by creating a blueprint for bullying.”
“Shockingly, Senate Bill 137 will do more harm than good. Senate Republicans left our students behind in favor of partisan politics and passed a bill that actually allows more bullying. Students and parents expect lawmakers to lead the charge against bullying, but instead Republicans made ideology more important than school safety,” said Emily Dievendorf, policy director of Equality Michigan. “Research clearly shows that only states with enumerated bills see a reduction in bullying. We need a bill that mentions the most affected populations and requires statewide reporting of bullying and harassment. SB 137 simply does nothing to reduce bullying in our schools.”
Democratic senators also assailed the legislation.
“The language in this legislation is disrespectful to the memory of the children who have committed suicide in this state due to bullying. Republicans clearly are not taking the bullying epidemic seriously,” said Senator John Gleason (D-Flushing). “The bill that was presented to us today offers no protections to our students and perpetuates a hostile environment in our schools.”
Gleason made headlines last month after Democratic senators attempted to attach anti-bullying legislation to a bill to lift the cap on the number of charter schools in the state. The GOP rejected both a fully enumerated bill with reporting requirements, and their own version of the bill. In response, Gleason staged a sit-in at the Capitol to protest the move.
“To the families of the ten reported suicides that were directly linked to bullying and the countless others that have gone unreported, this bill adds insult to injury,” said Senator Glenn Anderson (D-Westland). “I have been working for years to pass legislation to provide a safe school environment for all of our students. This bill goes in the exact opposite direction and in fact provides a license to bully.”
The legislation passed 26-11. It now moves to the Republican-controlled House.
Sara Wurfel, spokesperson for Gov. Rick Snyder, would not specifically address the question of the moral conviction exemption, instead issuing the following statement:
The Governor is looking forward to working with the Legislature to get strong anti-bullying legislation to his desk and provide a safe environment for all students. The Governor believes bullying at any time, under any circumstances, is wrong. Period. It has no place in classrooms, schools or communities. It’s time for Michigan to join all the other states with tough laws on the books.
“We’re pleased that the senate has passed an anti-bullying bill that will equally protect all children from all bullying for all reasons, based on their individual worth as human beings, not on being segregated into singled-out groups for special protection,” said Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan. AFA Michigan has been a leading voice opposing enumerated legislation for over a decade, often referring to the legislation as “a Trojan horse for the homosexual agenda.”
“I am ashamed that this could be Michigan’s bill on anti-bullying, when in fact it is a ‘bullying is OK in MI’ law,” said Kevin Epling, an East Lansing parent whose son committed suicide as a result of bullying. His comment was posted on his Facebook page.
In an interview he had more to say.
“For years the line has been ‘no protected classes,’ and the first thing they throw in — very secretly — was a very protected class, and limited them from repercussions of their own actions. This line has no purpose within this piece of legislation except to incite ‘religious bigotry’ within our schools. Schools are trying to build more tolerant students and future leaders, not automatons blindly following misguided adult leaders who seek a return to a 1950′s America,” Epling said. “This will only cause unrest in schools and give schools one more thing to deal with rather than trying to solve a problem. Also it is not a very well thought out ploy, as in some areas of the state the tables might be turned on the ‘anointed ones’ they seek to keep from being punished. This is just very wrong and the way it was done was wrong as well. It was bullying at its best.”
But Glenn says that the new legislation does not allow bullying based on religious beliefs or values.
“It does no such thing,” Glenn said in response to a series of email questions from Michigan Messenger. “The religious free speech protections included in the bill, consistent with the First Amendment, simply ensure that students won’t be bullied or punished — as occurred last year at a high school in Howell — for daring to say they believe a certain behavior is wrong as a matter of sincerely held religious or moral conviction. The First Amendment and other free speech protections do just that, protect free speech, not bullying. And students, like all other Americans, are free to verbally express their opinions — including religious and moral views — without fear of government repression or persecution, including under anti-bullying or harrassment laws.”
Sen. Whitmer answered Glenn’s claims in her floor speech.
“You may be able to pat yourselves on the back today and say that you did something, but in actuality you are explicitly outlining how to get away with bullying,” she said. “Your exceptions have swallowed the rule. As passed today, bullying kids is OK if a student, parent, teacher or school employee can come up with a moral or religious reason for doing it.”
The full language of the insert is: “This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil and parent or guardian.”
I'm pretty sure that this has always been the case thanks to the first amendment, but yeah, sad that nothing else was done to prevent bullying.
I see nothing wrong with the actual statement in the bill. What I do see is a lot of other people's words twisting that statement to fit the context of their own agenda.
I see nothing wrong with the actual statement in the bill. What I do see is a lot of other people's words putting that statement in the context of their own agenda.
Regardless of your interpretation of the bill, it's still anti-bullying legislation that doesn't actually do anything about bullying.
Regardless of your interpretation of the bill, it's still anti-bullying legislation that doesn't actually do anything about bullying.
As far as I'm concerned, the only actual quote from the bill in this entire article is a restatement of one of my rights.
In fact, the quote in question doesn't even guarantee the right, it just recognizes that such a right exists and doesn't attempt to take that right away.
As far as I'm concerned, the only actual quote from the bill in this entire article is a restatement of one of my rights.
Legislation that doesn't do anything about bullying is not equivalent to anti-bullying legislation.
If there's "nothing wrong with the bill," then why would the father of whom the legislation was named after (Matt's Law) have such strong words to say?
If there's "nothing wrong with the bill," then why would the father of whom the legislation was named after (Matt's Law) have such strong words to say?
I don't care about who the law was written for or their opinions on the matter. I'm telling you that the quote they are attacking specifically exists because such a right is guaranteed to us in the United States. If he is mad about that, then perhaps he should make it clear that his issue is with the Bill of Rights, not this piece of legislation.
I don't care about who the law was written for or their opinions on the matter. I'm telling you that the quote they are attacking specifically exists because such a right is guaranteed to us in the United States. If he is mad about that, then perhaps he wished to change the Bill of Rights.
There's a vast difference between "freedom of religion" and the allowance of bullying based of "religious and moral grounds."
Obviously, I support first amendment rights, but this is pushing it...a lot.
Clearly there is something ****ed with this law; people wouldn't be making such a fuss if it was simply allowing freedom of religion.
There's a vast difference between "freedom of religion" and the allowance of bullying based of "religious and moral grounds."
Obviously, I support first amendment rights, but this is pushing it...a lot.
Clearly there is something ****ed with this law; people wouldn't be making such a fuss if it was simply allowing freedom of religion.
Read the quote they are complaining about closely. It does not guarantee, but merely acknowledges freedom of religion and speech. It does nothing else. It doesn't say anything about bullying. People make a fuss over everything. The majority of them are idiots.
Listen, I understand how the freedom of speech can be used as a vehicle for bullying. But the issue at hand is not this particular piece of legislation, it's a gray area that arises with how our rights are stated. There's a famous quote that says something along the lines of "I may not like what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." I may not like everything that can be done by pushing ones rights, but it's a consequence of giving them to people. This article is just completely avoiding the issue and lying about what they want people to support.
Read the quote they are complaining about closely. It does not guarantee, but merely acknowledges freedom of religion and speech. It does nothing else. It doesn't say anything about bullying. People make a fuss over everything. The majority of them are idiots.
Listen, I understand how the freedom of speech can be used as a vehicle for bullying. But the issue at hand is not this particular piece of legislation, it's a gray area that arises with how our rights are stated. There's a famous quote that says something along the lines of "I may not like what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." I may not like everything that can be done by pushing ones rights, but it's a consequence of giving them to people. This article is just completely avoiding the issue and lying about what they want people to support.
I understand where you're coming from.
It's just... this:
Quote:
“This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil and parent or guardian.”
scares me. At the very least, the law didn't accomplish what it set out to do.
I see nothing wrong with the actual statement in the bill. What I do see is a lot of other people's words twisting that statement to fit the context of their own agenda.
Quote:
“This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil and parent or guardian.”
We all know what the quote means. It's supposed to take out of account bullying on grounds of homosexuality, since the main opposition to homosexuality is the religious right wing of the country. So for the bill to "not prohibit" harmful language if that language is based of ones religious beliefs clearly implies to everyone involved that it's OK to say "God Hates ***s" because, well, Jesus told me so.
scares me. At the very least, the law didn't accomplish what it set out to do.
They need to be straightforward about what they want accomplished without the shroud of bullying nonsense. They need to lay out specifically what they are asking for, which, from my point of view, is a restriction or clarification when it comes to our rights.
This article is stupid. I could write anti-bullying fluff all day, but if I can't even identify the real problem or offer a clear solution, should I really be involved in changing such an important piece of legislation?
“This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil and parent or guardian.”
Quote:
or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil and parent or guardian.
Quote:
moral conviction
A "moral conviction"? A ****ing "moral conviction"?
I still don't understand what kind of law will protect kids from being bullied, aren't most of bullies underage?
I don't live in the US so I'm not very informed about this whole bullying thing, but I think the problem is not just legal, those kids who bully other kids have a problem in their homes, somebody did not raise them well
Let me just state my position clearly because this is getting long-winded. I think it is absolutely, positively within someone's rights to state that being gay is wrong, regardless of whether it's a religious belief, moral conviction or something else. That's all any legislation guarantees, anyway. Ridiculing is a different ordeal. You decide where to draw the line.
We have a bully epidemic and you are passing laws providing an exception to bullies? Are you crazy???
How many more lives must be taken for you to finally understand we have a bully problem????
Adding exceptions is Not the way to go to fight bullying...
The rabid first amendment BS is unfortunate. The freedom to speak is not absolute, and it never has been. Plus, we all know the intention of the first amendment is not to allow spewing of hatred towards gays and minorities. It's to allow the spewing of hatred towards the government.