Michigan Law: It’s OK To Bully Gay Kids If You’re A Christian

Author: November 4, 2011 3:39 pm

As the stigma of homosexuality fades from public discourse, people are becoming more open about their sexuality and doing so at an earlier age. This is a sign of a healthy society. Yet, there is a segment of society that is deeply disturbed by this trend and it manifests itself in our schools as anti-gay bullying. The result has been a rash of suicide among gay teens across the country.

In an effort to stop this mindless harassment, Michigan is in the middle of passing “Matt’s Safe School Law” (official title SB 137) named for 14-year old Matt Eppling, a gay teen that committed suicide in 2002 as a result of bullying. Sounds like a reasonable response but that’s only if you’re a normal person. To a Republican, SB 137 steps on our constitutional right to hound someone until they kill themselves.

The exact language inserted by Republicans:

THIS SECTION DOES NOT ABRIDGE THE RIGHTS UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OR UNDER ARTICLE I OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION OF 1963 OF A SCHOOL EMPLOYEE, SCHOOL VOLUNTEER, PUPIL, OR A PUPIL’S PARENT OR GUARDIAN. 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’S PARENT OR GUARDIAN. (emphasis mine)


So if you really believe that homosexuals are evil and immoral, it’s perfectly fine to tell them so as much as you want. Hell, your parents can get in on it, too! You can all get together and scream “You’re a goddamn disgusting fag and you’re gonna burn forever!” whenever you feel like it!

Just so we’re clear: this would be bullying a homosexual student.

But it’s OK because it’s a religious belief! Isn’t it funny how religious conservatives use their religion to excuse so many behaviors the civilized world considers to be immoral? Let’s put it to what I like to call the “Muslim Test”: Would these same tireless defenders of the Constitution allow a group of radical Muslim students to direct their “sincerely held religious  belief” that infidels should be converted or killed at a lone Christian student until that student was good and terrorized?

Don’t be stupid! That would be bullying the poor child and that would be wrong!

Muslim Test: Failed as always.

Once again, we see the Right indulging in its favorite past time: cloaking its bigotry and hate in “religious freedom.” In this instance, the freedom to drive children to suicide over a few cherry picked verses from the Bible. Because nothing says “Love thy neighbor” like bullying people you don’t like.

Read SB 137 here.

Read more about GOP callousness here.

Feel free to tell me what a terrible person I am on Facebook here (public) or here (not so public) or follow me on Twitter @FilthyLbrlScum.

 

facebook comments:

102 Comments

  • This makes me ashamed to say I live in Michigan.

  • Friends, please take the time to read the following. I consider myself a Christian and believer in God (as I see him within me) and Jesus Christ. However, I think that it is phenomenally disgusting to “cherry pick” the bible, which happens to be one of the best books ever written, for their own purposes. What say them about everything else contained therein? Here’s a letter I came across that makes a very strong argument. It’s a bit long; please bear with me and read it in its entirety.

    Dear Dr. Laura,

    Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination… End of debate.

    I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.

    1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

    2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

    3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15: 19-24 The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

    4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

    5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath.Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

    6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?

    7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wearreading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room here?

    8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

    9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

    10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16.Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

    I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

    Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

    • So what I take from this is that you think the other laws mentioned in the Old Testament of the Bible are just as seemingly ridiculous as it’s ridicule of homosexuals. I indeed concur with this point of view. As a Christian myself I think it is ridiculous for people to say I am any less of a Christian just because I don’t agree with all of the laws presented in the Bible. It doesn’t make me a “pseudo”-Christian who cherry picks on the Bible based on what I do and don’t beleive in. It simply makes me a rational human being who follows their religion with discernment regardless of its teachings. If everyone followed every word of their religion(those who are religious) they would be constantly at each other’s throats and there would be much more war and violence in the world than there is now. Many Christians accept the positive premise of love and acceptance in the Bible and know they are to follow Christ’s example, because what was punishable by the word of the Bible in the Old Testament was thrown away by Christ’s example of forgiveness in the New Testament, isn’t the statement he made “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” This is the example we are supposed to follow and this is the non-judgemental mentality everyone should have. In reality it’s not this way for everyone, and some feel it is their duty to pass judgement on others, but it does not mean that is what Christianity is about. I personally do not pass judgement and I think everyone has the right to their own lifestyle as long as it is not harming anyone else. The same goes for Christian beliefs, as long as they are hurting nobody else it is their right to believe what they want to in this nation, so don’t take that right from me.

      • freedomwriter

        Sorry James but that is exactly what it makes you. You are cherry picking and you are a pseudo christian. If you were truly a rationale human being as you claim you wouldn’t believe any of it, for what you believe is a book of men who heard voices and stories that defy all form of rationality.
        Also everyone passes judgment, you are not better or different. ALL people judge each other. You judge their clothes, the way they talk, their affluence or lack of, you judge other christians faith or lack thereof, you judge your own religion for heavens sake, excuse the pun. You want only new testament quotes? Here ya go:

        Matthew
        10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
        10:15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

        10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
        10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
        10:36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.
        10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
        10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

        Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.–2 Chr.15:13

        12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

        7:27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it unto the dogs. mark 7-27

        • First of all, your use of the word judgement is very loosely based. I was referring to the judgement of others including acts of prejudice, bullying, and labeling. Of course everyone judges in some way subconciously, what separates people though is those who can accept their differences from others, and those who cannot and act on their disdain or hatred for those differences. I have not labeled you, and nor will I based on this conversation. However, I will call you out based on what you said to me in your defense of “rationality”. Those who are truly irrational are those who cannot accept difference of religion, orientation, race, etc. For you to say that I am irrational for believing in something is as ridiculous as someone saying that it is irrational to be homosexual, and in itself is passing judgement, and being prejudiced. You don’t know me, or hardly anything about me, yet you come out and call me a pseudo-christian and cherry picker, how dare you? Shame on you! Under the guise of telling others to stop bullying, you are bullying ME and don’t try to candy coat it. Come talk to me when you can practice what you preach.

          • Preachers Kid

            I have to agree with James. There is nothing irrational about believing the Christian precept of Jesus’s divine message. Scientific method, properly applied, does not claim to support ALL truths — even Galileo and Newton understood that there were some aspects of reality that cannot be measured empirically. Does that mean they don’t exist? No, absolutely not. We are finite beings. We have no ability to measure the infinite, or that which exists on planes other than our own. We can’t weigh, measure, or prove empirically the nature of spiritual phenomena, but a RATIONAL person does not dismiss them as irrational, because possibility is infinite until one gains the opportunity or the ability to demonstrate (PROVE) that something is not possible. Rationality does not preclude belief in possibilities, it only precludes believe in IMpossibilities. It is possible that God exists; it is possible that Jesus was his avatar, his “only begotten son.” It is also possible, as I recently argued with a Catholic friend (to no avail, alas), that just because Jesus was God’s only begotten son doesn’t mean God might not someday beget a daughter. In fact, I look forward to the Messiah being female. It would most certainly flip out some of the less open-minded “Christians” I’ve encountered.

            What is not possible for a rational person is to accept the Bible, as written, to be the literal word of God. It contradicts itself too often, and we can track its historical accretion enough to know that it has been altered, doctored, mistranslated, and “cherry-picked” into virtual non-recognizeability (sheesh, is that a word?) over many millennia. Understanding it as a tool to be used in gaining insight to faith — in other words, having open-eyed faith instead of blind faith — is far more reasonable. But contained within that context are still tremendous opportunities for growth of understanding… or, sadly, the opposite. Which is a long-winded way of saying that I sure wish many people who call themselves Christians would study up on their religion FOR REAL and understand the flawed nature of the Holy Book rather than taking the word of ill-informed bigots with a sociopolitical and/or psychosexual agenda about what it contains and how important it is to faith.

            It is, however, utterly irrational of Christians to claim that faith and belief supersede what we can understand through rational methods of measurement. As we understand that human individuals are all different, and yet all the same, we cannot rationally accept the idea that one person is “less” than another based on individual distinctions of race, gender, sexual orientation, economic or social position, etc. The REAL “pseudo-Christians” are the ones who neglect the base teachings of CHrist: “Love God with all your heart” and “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

      • Pup Equality McKeenan

        Since everyone is BORN with ORIGINAL SIN no one can throw any stones. Jesus was trying to make this point over and over. but only a few got it. Saul/Paul of Tarsis didn’t, he usurped the Jewish sect to his purposes. James, Jesus’ younger brother and Paul argued about the direction of the young sect often.

    • Pup Equality McKeenan

      THANK YOU FOR SPEAKING OUT ON THIS. Now if you were just the Pope.

    • Pup Equality McKeenan

      Here’s a take on Christianity I think might wake up some people. Christ was himself persecuted by Romans and Jews. Homosexuals are persecuted by some religions, specifically some christian sects and persons. Note where his persecution got him. Sitting at the hand of God. Why do to others what was done to him? For every person you persecute you persecute him all over. He died for your sins don’t add to them.

      • You make a reasonable point, and you actually think with your head on your shoulders. You have to take into consideration much more than the “laws” of the Old Testament and a few things that Jesus said which “sound” contradictory to his other teachings to draw any conclusions. The truth is, you have to look at the Bible as a whole to understand its meaning as parts of the Bible can be prejudged, and many will throw it away just because they don’t agree with any one part. However just looking at a person as a whole or not any one part, (race, orientation, religion) you have to look at the Bible this way as some parts will explain other parts, and I don’t care what anyone says, the ultimate message behind it is love and peace. Man is erred in his ways, and I admit there are likely many errors in current interpretations of the Bible, so in some ways it is impossible to take everything from it so literally. Jesus spoke figuratively in many of his parables and stories, much of the book of revelations is figurative as well, but Jesus primary teaching was that of Love, but he also predicted in his teachings many times that people would miss it and be blind to the message. This is ultimately what Christians should be doing is showing love and not passing judgement. Jesus never wanted us to judge.

    • too long didn’t read.

      everything i got from your crappy book;
      >blah. 69:6-9 hurrr homosexuals are bad.

      anyways, i would suggest you look at yourself and how you live your life before you “judge” another person.

      speaking for the homosexual community; i would kindly give you a middle finger, a slap to the face, and a reminder that “we aren’t going anywhere and your attempts at hate only makes us stronger”.

      kindly sodomize yourself with a unlubricated cactus.

      • @anonymous~

        Also as a “member of the homosexual community”, I would advise you not to speak for the majority with crass gestures and phrases (ie. “sodomy with a cactus”).

        The fight for equal rights in social contexts continues, of course, but it is up to US, the queers among the populous, to continually mine for the truth about homosexuality; That it is a personal affair, that it has little to do with “who we are”, and deals exclusively with whom we choose to sleep and mate with.

        Being a homo is NOT a “lifestyle choice”, or a lifestyle at all. It is a biological imperative to mate with the same sex. It is also a wonderful response to overpopulation, degredation of culture, and isolationism.

    • Michigan keep your nose out of the business of the church. Laws are supposed to be unbiased and without religious reference. All you law makers need see jail time if you truly write laws to this effect. Most of the rest of you who are posting hate and judgment upon others here will be measured by the judgment and weight of the judgement you judge others. Who among you without sin will cast the first stone. God is the judge of us all. So get a life stop cherry picking the word of God to fit yourselves for you will surly be the kindle that tantalizes the fires of hell !!! o Let us pray to the Lord, Lord have mercy.

  • i just hibijibied all over my bibbity and i made a judgment against the gays and then i kind of ran around in a circle and talked about grace and god and shit my self a little bit and that was fun but i cannot really tell you bout them chicken nugget i just ate n my mind kinda freakin out bout the turtle in the handy notebook upside my head that i drawed on. bye

    • Pup Equality McKeenan

      Tomo, DUDE! When someone gives you windowpane acid it can be PCP instead. Stick to the blotter or sugar cubed acid. much purer and less strycnine. otherwise have a good trip. :P

  • WHAT THE FUCK EVER HAPPENED TO THE GOLDEN RULE?! Treat others the way you would like to be treated? Assholes like this author make religion look bad. And everyone who agrees in persecution and bullying clearly has never been persecuted or bullied. Let people live the life they want to live. They’re not affecting you in any way at all. They’re not coming into your life trying to change you. Why are you persecuting them? I’m christian, but there’s a whole boat load of you who believe in persecuting other people to change their beliefs into what you want them to believe. If you think that, get the fuck out of this religion. God doesn’t want assholes like you representing his name.

  • While I might sympathize with your frustrations here your “Muslim test” is not only short sighted but offensive. This kind of stereotyping hurts everyone.

    • I agree with you, but I don’t think she meant to insult Muslim people, but rather to use what American Christians already believe about Muslim people to further make her point.

      If that doesn’t make you feel better, just know that I as an Athiest think Muslim people at least practice what they preach more than any Christian I’ve ever met. They also treat Atheists much better. And themselves. And Earth.

      • I’m sorry you haven’t met very true Christians then. Also, compare the Bible and the Quran, and see how different they are and what each rules.

        • freedomwriter

          They really are not that different.

          • This goes to show how much you don’t know freedom writer so you shouldn’t be running your mouth. I have read a good portion of the Q’uran and I have muslim friends who would tell you how different their religion is. The Q’uran does not support the idea of a trinity, it also supports the idea that Jesus was a prophet not a savior or the son of God. Oh, and what was that thing about virgins when you die? Yeah, that’s not in the Bible! If you’re going to come on here and criticize people, at least know what you are talking about.

            • Pup Equality McKeenan

              oooh nit picky crap. Compare the main core beliefs. Did you know in Africa there is a religion that combines both Islam and Christianity? And the people have no concerns that there are any contradictions between them. Seiks (sp?)combine Islam and Buddhism. If you have incentive you can combine any religions.

              • Pup Equality McKeenan

                look at European Christianity. Most of it has been co-opted from Pagan rites and rituals from all over Europe. Look at Hatian Vudoo aka voodoo. African religions and Christianity. No religion is pure anything.

                • I know what I said seemed nitpicky, but to a true Christian it is insulting to have your religion compared to another when there are fundamental differences between the two. However, I do see your point and maybe it does work for some people in other countries but here we are talking about the two different religions as a whole. I have nothing against Muslims. I am just not one of them is all I’m saying.

    • what are you talking about…the point is that as long as the majority is a christian majority, then its freedom of religion. The problem is the religious people in this country can’t seem to understand that if they were in the minority, they would be screaming about the unconstitutionality of a law like this. I mean, its not “they”, everyone would be. But because half this country cannot see outside of their own religious beliefs, we get laws like this.

  • Wow, just… wow. As an atheist and a lesbian, I am very, very offended at this. My god, people! More than half of the U.S have their heads stuck in their asses about homosexuality. If your ‘god’ created us like this, then why the hell are you judging us? Also, he wouldn’t hate his own creation, would he? Open your damned eyes and think how they feel. Gay kids now feel like monsters, beasts, and ugly. No one has the right to make them think that; it will only cause more distress all over. This is like judging blacks, and once again, we (the gays) aren’t going to let this happen. Stuff like this, LAWS, is absolute bullshit.

    • I'm not giving you my name

      hurrrrr it’s a choice derp

      • I support the Gay Community :)

        If it’s a choice, then when did straight people decide to become straight?

        • Wonderful how they use “love thy neighbor” but don’t acknowledge how the Bible ALSO says gays will go to HELL. Also, to some certain people, read the Bible, it says don’t cuss, and also to witness to get people saved, as in NOT doing thier own thing. And God didn’t create you like that, you chose it for yourself.
          STOP USING GOD AS A SCAPEGOAT FOR HOMOSEXUALITY. HE CLEARLY IS AGAINST IT!
          I never chose to be straight, that is just natural, as in the natural order of things that has been this way FOREVER. It’s a desire to mate with the opposite sex that is seen everywhere in nature. Homosexuality is, simply put, perverse.

          • You’re an imbecile. First, the Bible also clearly states that eating shrimp is an offense punishable by death, slavery is acceptable and killing disobedient children is proper and just. Do you support these rules? No? So we can all agree that the Bible is not the final word in morality.

            Second, how many different species of animal would you have to see display homosexual behavior before you agree that it is a natural phenomena? 5? 10? 50? How about 100? Try 1500, covering mammals, birds, lizards and insects (no fish?). I’m not even bothering with plants.(Oh? Plants don’t have sex? Keep telling yourself that, you ignorant dolt).

            Third, the fact that you felt the need to point out you never “chose” to be straight clearly shows that you know that orientation is not a choice but you feel compelled by your religious fanaticism to pretend otherwise and justify you ridiculous bigotry. How dishonest of you. Perhaps you require a refresher on not bearing false witness?

            • Pup Equality McKeenan

              Bonobos do it all the time. and they are genetically as close as chimps are to humans. 99.98% same genes. And for those of you who deny science, then why do you go to a doctor for medicine which was made with science and made on machines devised by science and use your computer to read this which is all do to science? Science is an absolute. It uses the same principals of observation, theory, testing and conclusion for all branches unlike Religion.

          • Paul F. Sullivan (@sullybaseball)

            Tim will be caught with a male whole and meth in 4…3…2…1…

        • Pup Equality McKeenan

          I invite you to come visit me in person and prove to me you can choose to become gay for an hour. Let me butt bang you and we’ll see if you can choose to endure it or you believe you are born heterosexual. seriously for an hour you can put aside your religion to test a theory for science and to prove your point that it is a choice.

        • Pup Equality McKeenan

          I promise to be gentle and use lube and to loosen you up first with some fingers. Condoms too!

      • You are ABSOLUTELY correct…. Religion is absolutely a choice, unlike sexuality, which is not.

    • God smiles on all loving relationaships.

  • OK, the issue of free speech is a chimera. A school employee representing the school district and state dos not have freedom of speech within the sphere of his or her employment. WHat if I hire a clerk in my convenience store he can say any damn thing he wants? No. School employees must follow policy which includes no hate speech to gay kids, It’s not really that difficult a concept. Apparently Republicans would like my atheist friends to say their opinions while the pledge of allegiance is being said? Why not.

    “One nation, under god…” THERE IS NO GOD KIDS ITS ALL A LIE!

    Yep.

    • Not while it is being said, interrupting the Pledge is nonsense. However, they are able to say it without interrupting anyone else, in a reasonable manner, and without threat. There is no law against that. How nice that one segment of society is allowed that freedom while you want to take it away from another.

      Why are so many people defending the absurdity of prosecuting people for what they think? Doesn’t that scare any of you?

      • Pup Equality McKeenan

        If you think and express good thoughts then you are good to go. If you think evil thoughts you are good to go. If you think evil thoughts and express them or act on them then you are guilty of a crime. See how simple that is?

        • Who decides what is evil? You? The guy currently in charge of the US? A corporate CEO? Not rational.

          “Acting” on them, absolutely. I agree with you as much as any human can agree with another.

          “Expressing” them without the intent of threat or harm? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! As I said earlier, it is not logical in any way and will never be done. It is a cute little theory for when we foam cover all the corners on the planet and get to paint pretty ponies in the sky, but is simply not realistic.

  • The language of the law precludes prosecution from someone stating their religious beliefs, it does not allow people to attack others if they disagree with their lifestyle.

    Read the story of Dakota Ary. His German teacher was teaching the “necessary” prevalence of homosexuality in Europe, even though he had been warned before of teaching his moral beliefs in the classroom. Dakota stated “I believe homosexuality is wrong, I am a Christian”. Now, I understand Dakota is short sighted and that ANY sin according to Christianity is no better or worse than another. And ANYONE who commits a sin is not precluded from the religion. HOWEVER, Dakota is afforded his free speech, whether I agree with him or not. Dakota was wrongly suspended for voicing an opinion. Luckily, the school board reviewed the teacher’s horrible decision and reversed the ruling and documentation of the student’ record. Without the caveat listed in the law above, Dakota would be wrongly subject to disciplinary review or even possibly jail time, even though he bullied no one.

    Use your brains, people. Thought Crime is ridiculous. Prosecuting people because they don’t think like you is vulgar. Isn’t that EXACTLY what the leftist movement is supposed to stand against?

    • But it does allow it. All I have to do is claim it is my strongly held religious belief that fags will burn in hell and I must be allowed to spread my belief to homosexuals as much as I want. Even if it drives them to commit suicide.

      Your example has literally nothing to do with bullying and you know it. Nice try, though.

      • Actually, you are incorrect. Read the law again “A statement of sincerely held religious belief”. Christianity, nor the Bible, use the term “Fags”. That would be a slur and therefore, a liable statement under the law.

        Thought crime is as ugly a concept as bullying. Forcing people to think the way you want them to think through legal coercion is disgusting.

        • Another nice try! The Bible does not contain the word “gay” or “lesbian” in it either. This does not stop the Westboro scum from writing signs that say “God Hates Fags”

          Back to the drawing board for you.

          • Pup Equality McKeenan

            this is the moral crux of the matter.

            “There’s no moral obligation for killing someone if you’re superior to them.”

            This loophole in this law is what it allows. If you believe you are superior then you CAN get away with murder. This country is founded on the fact no one is beneath the law nor above it, whether for religious, ethical, moral, political, nay for any reason. And to make it so into law is traitorous and punishable by death under the constitution for treason of breaking the oath of office by a politician which was sworn before their creator to protect, uphold and defend the constitution from all enemies both foreign and domestic, so that is equally enforced and working for all. Protecting life, ensuring liberty, and promoting justice for all.

          • Back to the drawing board? You obviously have misread the lettering of the law above. I don’t know if it is deliberate to garner readers or just another misinformed person, but your interpretation wouldn’t even stand up in a primary civil court, let alone any sort of appellate.

            There is nothing in the lettering of the law listed above that would allow such an attack as you stated in your premise.

            However, a person could say “My religion precludes me from accepting homosexuality. We believe homosexuals (fill in the blank)”. Which ANY human should have a right to say without fear of prosecution or thought-crime punishment. Without the caveat noted in the law, people could be prosecuted for saying just that.

            As I stated earlier, I find it ironic that the mainstream liberals of this nation only support free speech when it falls in direct line with their belief system. Prosecuting someone because they state CIVILLY their core values is vulgar and a poorly veiled attempt at brainwashing.

            • Pup Equality McKeenan

              but hate speech is NOT civil speech. I have no problem with someone saying my religion believes X. I do have a problem with someone saying my religion believes X and so I can terrorize you with intimidation, physical, emotional, psychological threats and actions every time I seem you because I “sincerely” believe in X. You fail to see the distinction. you fail to see how this law is intended to let such actions be exempted from prosecution. a friend of mine is a professor at Harvard Law school on constitutional law. and he said in his opinion this is unconstitutional. It places all the rights in the hands of the attacker and strips all the basic rights of the victim. And before you bitch he’s a liberal, he is a staunch republican. :P

              • I am not going to argue here-say with a friend who isn’t even posting here. Have the professor post here and I would love to discuss with him. I would love to read directly from him what he believes should have happened to Dakota Ary and whether this law would have protected him from frivolous extremists.

                You are correct, there is a HUGE difference between hateful speech and hate speech.

                Your problem is you believe that anyone who speaks hatefully should be prosecuted. There is no precedent to that sort of “Crime” in the United States. There is in dark age feudal nations, recent fascist nations, and current Muslim nations. Honestly, I would prefer not to model 1400 France, 1937 Germany, or 2011 Saudi Arabia.

                The caveat added to the law above protects hateful speech (which causes no harm) while still allowing the opportunity to prosecute hate speech.

                Obviously, you have missed exactly what I have typed, so I will do so again: If someone DELIBERATELY creates an intent of fear and/or harm against another human being (in any forum, not just a school) I staunchly support prosecution of that individual.

                If someone is just voicing his opinion regarding a situation, a culture, or a tradition, I support his right of free voice – even if I disagree with his point. The caveat to the law listed above protects this subset to speak their voice without fear of retribution from wacko extremists.

        • Pup Equality McKeenan

          you can think what you like so long as your lips don’t move, and your hands don’t take action. It’s self control. Try it you’ll be surprised at how effective it is.

    • Pup Equality McKeenan

      you can think about hating me all you want, but when you open your mouth and verbalize it or sit behind a computer keyboard and write it, forcing me to experience your hate, then you have crossed the line into criminal activity. At least in my book. Isn’t this what the core belief of love thy neighbor Christianity is supposed to abhor? Isn’t this what the Constitution is supposed to protect it’s citizens from?

      • Christianity and the law are two vastly different subjects.

        On the former, yes the prime intent of Christianity is “Love one another as I have loved you”. We fail everyday to do so. Christians aren’t perfect, true Christians would not state they are. But we strive to get better everyday with all facets of our lives. Hate would definitely preclude someone from finding peace with Jesus Christ.

        The law however, you have misinterpreted. I can say I hate you all I want without fear of repercussion. The Constitution does not protect us from hate, just the opposite, it allows us to voice our opinions without physical reprisal from the government. The government has NO RIGHT whatsoever in dictating how we express our beliefs as long as we physically don’t infringe on others or create a deliberate fear against another. If the Constitution provided us from protection against hate speech, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore, President Obama, Vice-President Biden, Glen Beck, and every single member of congress would be logged for a court date in the near future.

        • Pup Equality McKeenan

          The government has that right to set laws that CAN stop hate so long as the majority of the people ask for it and agree to its limitations. As far as I am concerned yes all our pols should be in court.

        • Pup Equality McKeenan

          It’s called an amendment.

          • 75% of Congress must agree to pass an Amendment. I don’t think you will find 75% of Congress agrees that Thought Crime should be prosecuted.

            They cannot “stop hate”, that is naivete’ in its grandest form. They can create legislation making it illegal to hate someone. Personally, I hope our congress has better things to vote upon than how we SHOULD think.

            BTW – Just to give you a heads up, if we passed laws protecting people from hate, you would have a charge against you from the threat of rape you made above in someone else’s comment. Your comment is one of bullying. Irony, table for one!

            • Gee whiz! I didn’t know this law was about thought crime! Can you please show where it says that you’re not allowed to think about how much you hate gays? I can’t seem to find it!

              From what I read, it’s attempting to keep people from sharing their sick and disturbed thoughts with people over and over and over again in the form of threats and harassment.

              Is there some reason you find it OK? How about YOU take the Muslim test? Your child is hounded and harassed by Muslims for being a Christian until your child kills themself? Is it OK now? Those Muslim kids were just exercising their 1st so while it’s sad you child had to die, it was all for freedom. Go ahead, tell me how that’s fine with you. No caveats. No “well my kid wouldn’t do that” or “I don’t have kids”, it’s a thought exercise. You have a teenage child that was hounded to suicide for being a Christian by Muslim kids. State right here and now, that you find it acceptable because it’s protected speech.

              When you bluster or try to alter the parameters or deny that it could happen, you have officially failed the Muslim Test. Congratulations.

              • Is this “Muslim Test” something you have thought up on your own? You are really stuck on it. It has no bearing to any of my statements.

                I will help you out and reverse the situation so we do not have to go through your needless next stage of the Muslim argument: If Christian children harrassed a sane Muslim student to the point he killed himself, I would support prosecution of those Christian children.

                The law is clear, I am now positive you are deliberately attempting to muddy the conversation either to base more readers or to simply attempt your own version of forcing others into silence, maybe both.

                It reads “DOES NOT PROHIBIT A STATEMENT OF A SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEF OR MORAL CONVICTION”. It does not read “threat” or “coercive words” or “hate filled word”, it reads “statement”. Your examples you used in a failed attempt to deride the law were not “statements”. They certainly weren’t “statements of moral conviction”

              • BTW – I am curious, do you believe PUP’s earlier statement above of a threat of rape to be bullying to the person he was posting? Why or why not?

        • Pup Equality McKeenan

          not if I flip out and go columbine on you. For every action there is an equal and opposite REACTION.

          • Why would you “go Columbine” on me. I don’t understand what issue you are addressing. You seem to be rambling.

            More importantly, this is the second thinly veiled threat you have used against someone who has disagreed with your point of view. I would recommend counseling for that anger instead of you expecting the world to conform to your narrow point of view.

  • It is wrong to allow anyone to be bullied or made fun of whatever the reason might be. There doesn’t have to be new laws written, there just has to be COMMON SENSE (Just to let you in on a little secret (COMMON SENSE) is not so common anymore). This kind of behavior would not be tolerated in schools if the teacher’s hands weren’t tied by ridiculous rules and constant fear of lawsuits. When you take God out of your system regardless of what the system may be you open the door to his counterpart and believe me he’s ready, willing, and waiting for the opportunity to take over any way, anywhere and anytime he gets a chance. If you want to complain about something, complain about ACLU and all of their frivolous lawsuits. This is the reason our school system is in such decay. The teachers need to be able to demand respect and have the authority to discipline when it is not given. Spare the rod and spoil the child worked for a couple of hundred years until we decided to be a kinder gentler society being led down the path to socialism like sheep to slaughter. AMEN (I am through preaching now)

    • Really? So Satan is forcing these good Christians to harass and torture this kids until they kill themselves? Funny, I don’t remember Jesus preaching that kind of hate and yet, when confronted with their bigotry, these good, decent Christians will always fall back on the Bible as their justification for their cruelty. THAT’S what happens when you allow religion to camouflage hate.

      • Unfortunately, this is exactly true. BUT, this is only because not all Christians are TRUE Christians. If you don’t even TRY to obey the Bible (God’s word) by sinning repetitively, you are not an example of Christ’s love, which is what we, as Christians, are supposed to be.

  • This article is an overreaction. Bullying is very difficult to define, as even the perceptions among the bully and the bullied of the event have been shown to be very discrepant. This law seeks to provide a means by which to codify a reasonable definition of bullying from which to start making a difference in kids lives. However, a restriction against speech is in itself a very dangerous thing. No doubt Republicans make every effort to pander to a simplified and misguided view of Christian faith, but in all honesty such a clause is also needed to not leave this law vulnerable to rapid demolition by any legal challenge. It’s like yelling “fire” in a movie theater. It has to be clear that speech and belief are completely free all the way up to the point at which they can be determined to cause a harm that clearly infringes on the rights of others. It can’t be just because you don’t like what is being said. I’ll keep my Constitution, thank you very much.

    • And yet, the law clearly defines what constitutes bullying. Speech that drives a child to suicide is not protected speech, it is a direct assault on a person. Otherwise it wouldn’t drive them to suicide, would it? The GOP has made sure to “protect” it by claiming religious privilege. As if being religious gave one the right to discriminate and assault those you do not like. Pure garbage. It still fails the Muslim test.

      • “Speech that drives a child to suicide is not protected speech, it is a direct assault on a person.”

        Really? Where did you get that law degree of yours?

        If I read your idiotic column and its stupidity causes me to kill myself, should you go to jail?

        Stupid doesn’t begin to describe you.

        • Uh-huh. So you’re saying bullying someone into suicide is not a form of assault whatsoever? I dare you to say that to one of the grieving parents’ face. See how well that goes. Now run along, kid.

        • Pup Equality McKeenan

          let us hope that your children are never wrongly or rightly pegged by bullies as being or appearing gay in any way and then bullied to death. More heterosexual teens are committing suicide as a result of being wrongly accused of being gay. In our society we have due process of law which states all are assumed innocent until proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty by a jury of their peers. Bullies are not peers and they place themselves as judge and jury and executioners. How is that Constitutional? How is that justifiable by Christian Doctrine of love thy neighbor and judge not lest ye be judged and he who is without sin may cast the first stone? All direct words attributed to come right from the mouth of Jesus? Do you think Jessu had no right to say what he did? Do you believe Jesus is just an ass for not agreeing with you on promoting fear, hate and violence? Do you not, as a christian, follow his teachings above all others in the bible? If not then you are NO Christian and have no right to speak on their behalf. So please do us and them all a favor sit down and shut up or tell us truly why you defend hate over truth and justice, freedom and love?
          EPIC PWNED!

      • That’s exactly the point, though. The law attempts to clearly define what constitutes bullying. If you were against bullying, you would support the bill. The clause affirming the first ammendment is in the bill so that it will make it through the courts. There is nothing wrong with holding an opposing view and expressing it respectfully. People have been hearing opposing views for thousands of years and it did not drive them to kill themselves. To say that such speech “drives a child to suicide” is a straw man of the real issue. Bullying is the real issue, not constitutionally protected free speech. People of every stripe are used to having people say bad things about them. For example, the way Christians are berated and belittled on this page could be construed as bullying under the standard espoused here. Maybe we should all teach our children to cope with the meanness of humankind. I am sorry that Children have been scarred and even died due to bullying. I would think that you would support the law trying to end it, rather than fighting against it.

        • J Davis: In middle and high school did you thump your bible at some gay kids? I am thinking that maybe you did and are in some way trying to justify your sins. Am I right here?

        • Pup Equality McKeenan

          I would rather have a “stupid” loving and caring person as my friend, than have a “smart” ass, indifferent to suffering as my friend. I would rather see no bullying, but given the option of less bullying with dispensations for a group of people using religious intolerance to protect them from prosecution or give equal footing to all groups, Yeah, I’ll stick with how it is right now. That way the bullied have the same chance to fight back columbine style. Live by hate, die by hate.

        • Pup Equality McKeenan

          an imperfect law causes more harm than a perfect crime.

        • I have to agree with you in terms of the clause allowing for respectful expression of your own belief no matter how many might see that as deluded or misinformed (either side of the isle). The issue I take with the law is that is allows school employees and teachers to express their religious views. In a school setting that is clearly inappropriate. The separation of church and state would preclude an school employee from directing student in any religious way.

          • Pup Equality McKeenan

            In regards to distribution of RU486 and the pharmacist that refused to give it out, the SJC ruled they could not use personal beliefs to prevent their views being imposed on another, when in it involves medication prescribed by a doctor for their patient. I would think the same applies here to school staff of any kind and their beliefs being told to children.

    • I’ve been asked to post this in response because the person is having trouble signing on: “”Bullying is easy to define. It is the act of imposing an attackers will upon a victim’s will and rights, with the intention of doing harm whether physical, emotional or psychological, via the use of verbal/written or physical attacks. This incites fear and terror in the victim. This is no different than torture, slavery, hostage taking or rape. Each give the attacker a position of enforced power over the victim that may last a life time. Causing lasting and irreparable harm.””

    • Pup Equality McKeenan

      “It has to be clear that speech and belief are completely free all the way up to the point at which they can be determined to cause a harm that clearly infringes on the rights of others. It can’t be just because you don’t like what is being said.”

      That is just it who decides where the harm starts and ends? In this case it is the abuser not the victim. So the rapist can say I didn’t hurt this victim and get away with the crime. Your reasoning is circular at best. If I believe god says I can do harm to someone and I believe it is not harmful then there is no harm done. Right sure there isn’t. If you had your civil rights violated by anyone and they said to you there is no harm done see ya later you’d not put up with it at all. yet you expect those not like you to do just that, Nice to see your hypocrisy is not in jeopardy of being changed any time soon. Why grant rights to the victimizer that should be allocated to only the victim?

  • THIS SITE DISGUSTS ME!! YOU WILL ALL BURN IN HELL AND MAY YOU ALL BE CONDEMNED TO HELL FOREVER!!!! I HOPE A GROUP LIKE YOU GUYS HATES YOU AS MUCH AS YOU HATE MANY OTHER GROUPS OF DIFFERENCE IN THIS COUNTRY! SCREW ALL OF YOU PIECE OF CRAP REPUBLICANS AND CHRISTIANS!!!

    • Thank you, I just found this website and I am glad u r my fellow traveler. I will be going to hell because I am gay. Would you like me to reserve a seat by the fire for you since you violate the commandment to judge not and the commandment to love not hate? It’s not often Iget a chance to meet someone who wants Republicans to burn in hell, but hey, I am for diversity.

      I am sure it would be fun to sit together on the way, do u know if it’s a long ride down?

      • Pup Equality McKeenan

        Hello. I am hijacking this plane to hell and taking it to heaven where I will crash it into god and kill him. Afterwards our souls will dance with glee and we can kick out the “false” believers. I call it the reverse rapture. ok folks who is with me?!

    • Wow. Talk about hate speech and bullying. Where are the condemnations from all of the people here who hate bullying? Oh, and for the record, Christians are used to having people hate them. It’s been going on for thousands of years. In fact approximately 171,000 Christians worldwide were murdered this year for their faith. This is why you often find Christians seeking to preserve Religious liberty and speech at every turn.

      • I cannot believe you’re playing the poor oppressed [fill in your group here] bullshit. Christians were persecuted 2000 years ago but to my understanding of history that all changed since Emperor Constantine 300 something AD made it the official religion of Rome. And throughout history the main persecutors of Christians were other Christians; Catholics vs. Protestants, and so on.
        “Christians are used to having people hate them. It’s been going on for thousands of years. In fact approximately 171,000 Christians worldwide were murdered this year for their faith.”
        OK in the Middle East, but here in America? What the hell are you talking about?
        “This is why you often find Christians seeking to preserve Religious liberty and speech at every turn.”
        How does hatred toward those who are different than you “preserve religious liberty,” and how is that Christian?
        Have you read your blog before you posted it?

        • Pup Equality McKeenan

          If I remember correctly it was about 460 CE, give or take a few decades, that Constantine “converted” to Christianity and thus enforce all of the roman empire to follow suit. I think you have confused the date 300 “AD” (SIC) with the first nation to adopt Christianity as a whole and that was in 301 CE and was the nation of Armenia. (CE = Common Era)

      • Pup Equality McKeenan

        I am all for religious freedom to worship as you like, and espouse your religious beliefs calmly and rationally to any who wish to understand and listen to it … SO long as it is not imposed on me, threatens my right to worship as I believe or not believe, or grants any believer of a religion to do harm to me either physically or mentally or emotionally or to any one else, with a free pass from equal prosecution of the law. Religion is not an excuse to do evil or to break lawfully made and accepted laws. An amendment needs to be made to clarify this distinction. Discrimination, hate crimes, hate speech, and bullying are NOT and should never be condoned or accepted under the first amendment.

  • Proud Liberal

    “DOES NOT PROHIBIT A STATEMENT OF A SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEF OR MORAL CONVICTION”

    So let me get this straight. Assuming that I’m attending high school, and using the above mandate to excuse my belief (not actually my belief–just making a point): If I’m a believer and follower of LaVeyan Satanism, that means that I can cast (voice) spells and wish immediate harm—in a “sincere” way—towards those who taunt me with their own beliefs?

    Just saying.

    • Brilliant isn’t it! The crap people pull, just like you state it doesn’t really protect anyone but those that want to get away with murder. I really believe that those that bully to the point of suicide should all be tried as murderers. No conscience whatsoever.

    • oh! good idea! i sincerely want harm to befall those that approach me and try to shove their religion down my throat. hail cthulhu. shahemforash!

    • Pup Equality McKeenan

      you say in clarification that this belief is not yours in real life. I understand that. This law allows people who say they believe in something for religious reasons (and who are not actually of that religion and would be hard to prove they are not) can use this loophole to do evil and claim (falsely) that their religious doctrines allow this evil. Again I ask who is to judge if someone is sincerely a member of a religion and sincerely believes evil done is justified? It doesn’t have to be a religion either it could be a political dogma/ideology or a business plan. Slavery was accepted on this reasoning, and we do not have legal government sanctioned slavery today. (though that is debatable with the current economic situation in the world) Most wars since the revolution, up to WWII, has been to extend the rights of the individual as a part of society, and to protect those rights from any group that wishes to deny those rights for FRIVOLOUS and PERSONAL reasons. No one is forced to like what I do, but you are forced to accept I have the right to be who I am so long as I do not violate your same equal rights, nor violate the legal laws of the land. I do have the right to change those laws that infringe upon my rights as does everyone else. All rights of the individual are Creator given and cannot be rescinded even by the Creator, and have been quantified and guaranteed by the US Constitution.

  • Konrad Weiler

    What about christian charity?

    -crusades

    -inquisition (holy office)

    • I find it interesting that the bad examples that are always brought up are from hundreds of years ago during the dark ages. One could quickly point out that such abuses came about because of a low literacy rate, and not because of the teachings of the religion. In fact the teachings and examples of the founders of Christianity is one of tolerance and peace in the face of persecution. We should be careful about bringing up the crusades and the inquisition as examples of Christian belief, because the same standard could be brought to bear upon atheists who gave us Soviet Russia and Red China who have murdered millions of people in the name of atheism. Maybe we should leave such accusations behind and focus on the issue at hand. The clause that many of you find so deplorable is meant to preserve the law in the face of Lawsuits from right-wing groups, not to placate those groups. Almost every law dealing with speech and hate crimes cotains a similar clause.

      • ” because the same standard could be brought to bear upon atheists who gave us Soviet Russia and Red China who have murdered millions of people in the name of atheism”

        Several points here: The fact that those regimes were so successful in their mass slaughter was MOSTLY due to the TECHNOLOGY that was available to them at the time. If you don’t think that the inquisition would have been equally successful had they had access to tanks, repeating rifles, telephones, morse code, mortars, airplanes, etc then you’re fooling yourself.

        Second, Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and their ilk did not attempt to take over the world to make it atheistic. They had OTHER DOGMATIC belief systems that were almost indistinguishable from religions. Hitler was a vegetarian – would you blame THAT for his atrocities? Of course not. Plus the vatican helped out the Nazis plenty (you can read up on that yourself, but if you insist I will post references).

        Finally, you can’t separate christian atrocities from christian beliefs because those atrocities are a DIRECT RESULT of what’s written in the bible. If someone is an atheist it says absolutely nothing about the rest of their beliefs. You can be an atheist and a sadist or an atheist and a saint. Whereas if someone professes to be a “christian” you immediately know that they claim knowledge of lots of things that they can’t possibly know, and that they hold certain beliefs about those who don’t share their views.

      • J Davis: Atheist communism is a religion, it’s a dogma like other religions that think they know it all, or they are the way, and must impose their way upon the rest of the world.
        I do not have problems with beliefs that help people along and give comfort as long as it doesn’t involve hurting someone else, or infringe upon other peoples beliefs. The greatest threat is from the fringe element, people who cannot comprehend or tolerate anyone who is unlike themselves.
        The problem [religious or not] is this always existed; it is part of our evolution. There is no system that can please everyone, and in pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, you have to change your part of the world to best suite you and your own.
        We live in a society where the individual ego and the group dynamic are in a constant struggle. And the caveman says, what?! [Geico commercial]
        I think we all need to understand this if we are going to find a way to get along.

        • Pup Equality McKeenan

          In the USA the law has almost always sided with the rights of the individual over those of business, religion or government. It should do so here. If those who profess a religious belief of love and acceptance, as most claim to be based on, then they have no fear of the of this law with the loophole removed as they would never have the need to bully someone. Whereas those who abuse religion, to twist it to condone their heat, fear, violence, and imposing their will upon others do not want the loophole removed as it would place them in jeopardy from the full extend of the law which is to protect children from all harm no matter the source or belief or religion or business or even government itself. If you don’t use hate in your religion then you have nothing to be ashamed of. If you use religion to support your hate then you should have no right to use it in such a way as to harm others. If you do so it is religious intolerance which is why so many left mother England’s church to get away from, you should legally be denied a free pass to act in such a way and have a religion shield you from criminal action by the police and court systems. And this is the reason why we have no State sanctioned religion. Who is to decide which religion has sovereignty over any or all others. You can’t have your cake and eat it to here. This is clear and open treason by these politicians to inject a clause for religion and those that follow any, from harm for being evil in any religion’s name. These people are being religiously intolerant. You can espouse your beliefs, but you cannot do so where it harms another. Where you bully someone else to death. The majority of those children killing themselves because of bullying are heterosexual and have been perceived as being different than what the religious bully’s believe is “what god wants”. So it is ok to force someone to death even if they are not actually guilty of not living up to the assumed standards of god believed by the bully(ies)? Where is due process of law of all are innocent until proven beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt? How is it that any religion is allowed to be exempt from this standard of our legal system? This is what the Taliban do. This is what any totalitarian state does. Are we willing to allow a religion, a business, or even our government the ability to bypass due process of the law? there in lies chaos. By making this loophole you allow radical muslims the freedom to kill, you allow any group the right to do harm to others individuals or groups of people so long as one side disagrees with another on a religious basis. This will allow the KKK and Aryan Nation to freely and without reprisals the ability to lynch anyone they want based on their interpretation of religion. Is the slippery slope we want to walk down? If you truly believe this can’t happen as a result of this law setting a precedent, just ask an Armenian Genocide survivor, or a holocaust survivor, or a native American survivor’s descendant of the trail of tears. Ask anyone who has just won their freedom in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. Or look at Syria. Look at Israel and Palestine. Look to Eastern Europe and the occupation of those countries by Communism. Look at Germany during the Nazi control. Don’t say it can’t happen here because it is. Today. Hate speech is not free speech, hate speech kills, imprisons, and demoralizes individuals. Is that the legacy you want to engender our children with? When you teach a child how to devalue someone else, Your own children can use those teachings against you one day. Are you willing to risk that? I’m not.

        • Pup Equality McKeenan

          Let the right wing lawsuits come. And when they are shot down, make those groups cover the costs of the SJC’s wasted time. This law without the loophole does not stop anyone from speaking of their beliefs. It would stop anyone from using those beliefs in any way to impose them on others who do not agree with those beliefs. You can tell me My religion does not approve or condone X within its members. cool. awesome explanation. You cannot say instead. My religion believes X and it applies to you because I think you are X and deserve no respect and my religion tells me so. Whether or not the second person is an X or not, or is a member of the attacker’s belief system or not. would you want me to do that to you? If I were Hindu, and I believe it is wrong to kill, eat and use the products made from cattle and tell you so. that is fine. if I instead were Hindu and said to you. Man how can you eat beef, that is against Vishna’s (religious) laws. You must atone for your sins by drinking the urine of cattle for 60 days and living among their filth. (this would be harmful to the nonhindu possibly placing their health in jeopardy by having to drink cattle urine for 60 days and living in cattle excrement by exposure to diseases). This is not ok.(not saying any hindi would do this to anyone) Any law that has this clause in it is out and out right wrong. A Buddhist can tell you Buddha’s message “Life is suffering”. But a Buddhist cannot under the law be allowed to make you suffer personally because they believe you aren’t suffering enough in this life of the Karmic wheel of life, by slapping your face each time he/she sees you. A Jewish moil can explain what the religious reason for circumcision is for, but they do not have the right to knock you out or incapacitate you to perform a bris on you against your will. As long as you allow others to hate on a mass scale and openly and sanctioned by free speech and the government you continue the cycle of violence, fear and hate. Isn’t it time we respect ourselves and each other enough to stop this cycle? Can’t we 7 billion plus people express and celebrate our differences without involving hate, fear and violence, without murder, oppression and devaluing life? And for you Christians out there isn’t this what Jesus did in his ministries? For you Jews, isn’t this what God and Moses freed you from in Egypt? For Muslims isn’t this what Allah preaches. Do not deny understanding of others to others if you don’t want to be misunderstood yourself.
          Benjamin Franklin said it best in this quote: “It is better to keep one’s mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open one’s mouth and prove you are a fool.” This is a truism. If you cannot say anything nice, don’t say anything at all. Have respect and good manners when you treat with others.

  • I love reading your articles. I share them all the time.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

x
Click "Like" to get the latest updates