I don’t necessarily agree with John that that tape of the crazy Republican judge in Arkansas Texas says much of anything about conservatives in general. I haven’t heard anyone on the right defend him; I’m sure you can find someone who has, of course, but the right certainly hasn’t turned this guy into William Calley. Domestic violence is a problem throughout society and I have no reason to believe it is a uniquely conservative problem. Yes, James Dobson loves corporal punishment but I doubt he could condone this.
I find this more problematic and much more reflective of the way the right has come to resemble the Taliban:
Michigan Dems say the Republican Senate gutted an anti-bullying bill when they added a clause that allows bullying based on “moral convictions.”
SB 137, also called “Matt’s Safe School Law” after 14-year old Matt Eppling who committed suicide in 2002 after being bullied, was approved in the state Senate by a 26-11 party line vote, and will now head to the House.
The bill lays out what exactly constitutes bullying, but in one key part it says that the legislation does not prohibit First Amendment rights, and “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.”
In other words, as long as you bully by saying “God hates fags”, it’s a-okay.
huckster
he’s from Texas…
Yutsano
JEEBUS SEZ UR EBIL!!
(there. covered by law. suck it.)
drunken hausfrau
This is EXACTLY in line with John’s post — Conservative Christian bullying of TEH GAY is rooted in the same sort of warped mentality that drives them to oppress women and beat their children (and their little dachsunds, too).
tim serbo
Someone on the Internet is wrong! The man in the video is a Texas judge, not an Arkansas judge. He serves, if that’s the word I want, in in Aransas County–hence the error, I suspect.
General Stuck
And this part just blew my mind
What the wingers are saying is that the constitution and its protections of the individual are trumped by our/wingnut religious convictions as the supreme law of the land.
Violet
The judge is in Texas, not Arkansas.
PWL
There’s really something sick about a party which thinks it’s OK to turn Christianity into something resembling Nazism with a cross…
trollhattan
Wow. Just wow. Republicans are in a lather about “class warfare”? How is this not culture warfare?
Beauzeaux
You can’t be serious. Just read the comments on any of the news stories.
No, the Famous Right Wingers aren’t likely to defend the judge in public, but their supporters will and do.
The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik
@drunken hausfrau:
I was just going to say this. They tend to be brethren in sharing the same kind of sociopathic impulses as their root: the need for superiority, as well as similar enabling factors that perpetuate this bullshit.
Reality Check
But I guess a gay student calling an evangelical student a “bigoted homophobic Jesus freak” would be a-ok, right? Right? Am I right?
Calouste
It’s my sincerely held moral conviction that anyone who believes in god that does things for them personally is a retard and should be locked up in a mental institution for their own and society’s safety.
I guess even if I were a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil’s parent or guardian in Michigan, that sincerely held moral conviction wouldn’t safe me for being persecuted under that law.
Reality Check
But the bottom line is this bullying stuff is moral panic and a load of piffle. I was bullied in school. EVERYONE was bullied in school pretty much. It’s part of growing up. Kids today are so fucking coddled it’s embarrassing.
trollhattan
@Reality Check: Sa-wingandamiss.
Yutsano
Stop telling us your autobiography.
And yes there’s a difference. I couldn’t explain it to you in a million years you choose to steep in your privileges so badly. Party uber alles and all that.
The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik
@Reality Check:
I feel ill for feeding the trolls, but….here, have a bit of pictorial emphasis.
Linus Bern
So if I am convinced you have cooties, and are therefore morally inferior, bullying is allowed.
EconWatcher
On the positive side, when I went to a public high school in a suburb of Chicago a few years ago for an evening event, I was surprised and impressed to see a huge billboard for the Gay-Straight Student Alliance, festooned with pictures of happy kids from various events. Absolutely inconceivable when I went to high school in the mid-80s.
Reality Check
@Yutsano:
I’m an atheist and have been since about 12 years old, I’m just doing a thought experiment here. So it WOULD be ok for a gay kid to call an evangelical kid a “homophobic Jesus freak”? That wouldn’t be bullying?
Litlebritdifrnt
OT Don’t know if anyone has posted this but the “Move your money” campaign is going gangbusters.
http://summify.com/story/TrNJOC7XrxsDBvD7/thinkprogress.org/special/2011/11/03/360804/650000-americans-credit-unions/
This is how the little guy CAN make a difference.
Reality Check
@The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik:
So you’re saying it WOULD be ok to bully someone based on their religious beliefs if they happen to not line up with society’s. Got it.
DougJ
@Reality Check:
No one should be calling children “Jesus Freaks” either.
Villago Delenda Est
@PWL:
That’s pretty much what it is, and that’s the mentality of the Dominionists.
I once took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
These assholes are enemies on the domestic side.
Reality Check
@DougJ:
Gee, thank you Doug J. That wasn’t so hard, was it?
Reality Check
Wow. Let’s do a thought experiment where Villago had said “Fundamentalist Muslims are enemies on the domestic side”.
The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik
@Reality Check:
Way to miss the point there, chuckles.
Yutsano
@Reality Check:
Yet you defend evangelical Christians early and often. Such a good little tribalist you are!
Objection: assumes facts not in evidence. You have yet to show any basis for rational thought on any comment here yet. Emotional ploys, yes.
It’s not bullying. But I refuse to waste the electrons on you explaining why not.
DougJ
@Reality Check:
High-school bullying is a terrible thing. I did not see much of it in my own high-school, but I know too many people who went through it to take it lightly
Reality Check
@The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik:
So if a kid gets called “faggot” that’s bullying, “Jesus Freak” is a teaching moment, I guess. Curious morality you have there.
Bullying is moral panic bullshit anyway (who WASN’T bullied as a kid?) but this just shows its a front for other issues, too.
DougJ
@Reality Check:
I think anyone would be opposed to bullying kids on the basis of their religious beliefs. That’s part of why this exemption is bad.
Reality Check
@DougJ:
Bullying is usually over by 10th grade at the latest grade for the vast majority of people.
Villago Delenda Est
@The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik:
It’s what the vile shitstain does, I’m afraid.
bodacious
While the whole video is disturbing in 15 different ways, what struck me is it’s relativity to something I heard Howard Dean say in a local visit in 2002. He was ‘preaching’ that to understand why the conservative right often votes against their interests we should focus on how afraid they are. Afraid that the ‘other’ is causing them to lose control of their family. The downfall of family structure is these outside influences such as gays, and immigrants, and COMPUTERS!! If that absolute fear isn’t evidenced here, I don’t know what is.
This guy is ranting about why he never should have let that computer into his house. IT was going to be the ruin of his family.
Reality Check
Muslim Kid: We don’t eat pork as a part of our belief that pigs are unclean, because in the Koran..
Non-Muslim Kid: WHAT? FREAK! Say bacon is the best thing EVAH or you’re a bigoted freak against pork eaters!
Muslim Kid: But I personally think pork is…
Non-Muslim Kid: FREAK! LOONY! FUNDAMENTALIST! BACKWARDS!
So…ok, or not?
gogol's wife
@Reality Check:
If they haven’t killed themselves yet.
Judas Escargot
@Reality Check:
Big shocker, there.
Reality Check
@gogol’s wife:
Oh COME ON. Any kid that commits suicide over bullying had other issues, to put it lightly. Otherwise we’d have a suicide rate double Japan’s.
Satanicpanic
I’m not sure I follow your logic DougJ. This all fits together pretty well with what John said.
DougJ
@Reality Check:
That’s interesting, that’s exactly when I would say I stopped seeing it at my school.
The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik
@gogol’s wife:
Also ignoring the very real psychological effects that can develop that don’t just magically disappear upon grading up.
DougJ
@Satanicpanic:
But that tape was one lone nut, with no support for his actions from conservatives in general.
Villago Delenda Est
@Reality Check:
To these Rethuglican assholes, of course that’s OK.
He’s not a human being. He’s a Muslim.
What part of this shit do you not understand, fucktard?
Emma
Reality Check is one of Doug’s troll personas. Has to be. Otherwise… well, does anyone remember a science fiction story called The Marching Morons? I used to think the author was a raving loony…
The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik
@DougJ:
Vocal support?…maybe. Like someone said, no major GOPer will likely make a statement on this, but the support structure for this kind of ‘discipline’ is there, if you read through comments and commentary on it.
This kind of stuff may not have open full throated support, but there’s definitely a depressing level of tacit support of it.
Comrade Dread
If they wanted to protect a kid who wants to say, “Homosexuality is a sin” (for whatever reason), they could have just as easily defined a level of harassment that would qualify as bullying beyond making a simple statement one or two times.
Like, once a gay student asks the person to stop bothering them and they ignore his/her wishes?
Or if they’re continually following them around badgering them?
Or if they elevate it beyond a simple discourse to malevolence using slurs?
Or if the gay student brings it up to a teacher or administrator, have the kid brought in and tell him that while he’s entitled to his beliefs, his conduct has risen to the level of harassment and needs to stop or they will be disciplined?
This would all apply if the situation were ever reversed, with a religious student being harassed by a gay student too.
There. I just passed an anti-bullying law that gives students protection from harassment, allows for religious expression and free speech, and protects everyone equally.
It’s not that hard to do, GOP.
JPL
Doug J… James Dobson used a belt on his Dachsund so maybe he’s not the best example to use.
Also,too please don’t feed the trolls.
DougJ
@JPL:
I don’t consider Reality Check to be a complete troll.
The Moar You Know
ARANSAS NOT FUCKING ARKANSAS. Please to both esteemed front-pagers, fix this gargantuan error.
j low
@DougJ: You should read some of the comments from conservatives about the video.
sven
If you don’t think this video says something about modern conservatism I have a challenge for you.
Here is a link to the same story covered by The Blaze, Glenn Beck’s online newspaper.
Just read the comments.
cathyx
@Reality Check: That explains so much.
JPL
@DougJ: hahaha… Reality Check is only half a troll, how sad.
Should we just call him check now because he does have a problem with reality.
Satanicpanic
@DougJ: They support corporal punishment, violent police crackdowns on protesters, torture, the death penalty, war whenever possible. They might give him the Steve Adler treatment, i.e., kick him out for overdoing something they vocally support. But I don’t expect any soul searching about why they love violence so much.
Berial
@DougJ:
Why the hell not?
Villago Delenda Est
@Emma:
I’ve heard that theory, that Reality Check is a DougJ persona. He could be a sockpuppet of some other front pager, inserted to generate lots of hits. It’s a cynical take on it, and as much as Cole was an enemy of reason in the past, he had his road to Damascus moment years ago and has been pumping out mea culpas ever since, and that’s unfair to him as a characterization, because it implies that he’s not sincere about it.
One of the things you pick up through years of online reading is an ineffable sense of what is bullshit, and what is not, especially when reading random comments. It’s not infallible, of course, but mine is mostly accurate, and I think RC is being sincere as only a true believer can be, one who overlooks contradictory facts and keeps true to the faith.
I could of course be wrong. DougJ might out himself and have a good laugh at my expense. Anything, as Richard Dawkins once pointed out, is possible.
It’s just very, very improbable.
Villago Delenda Est
@The Moar You Know:
It’s one letter. True, it’s an error, but it’s a very easy one for anyone to make.
Not that this is an excuse. DougJ, please heal thyself. Stat.
scav
I’m beginning to think that Christianity in certain growing parts of the US (World too, but we’ve got an extremely bad case of it here) is more or less similar to their ideal of regulation in the free market — it in no way hinders any action they wish to take, Christianity and the Mandates of the Free-Market in fact provide cover for what otherwise they would recognize as their lessor impulses. Accelerators, no breaks
ETA: to be clear, it’s always there as a latent power, we just seem to be going through one of the Great Awakenings of that particular avatar of religion. There are more benign ones.
JPL
@sven: From the comments
All I have to say is quack, quack.
jl
OK, there goes DougJ with his tired liberal smears, and set up jobs of fine and very reasonable conservatives:
“James Dobson loves corporal punishment”.
AFAIK, Dobson has really only discussed the advantages of corporal punishment for two cases:
teaching weiner dogs to squat over a human style toilet when it goes poopoo and peepee,
and
as part of the joyful process of raising little boys where the tough love father encourages them to go out and get into mishcief, so their little bottoms can be paddled in a manly exercise of discipline.
Now, if DougJ has evidence that Dobson has recommended corporal punishment to be used in doubtful or unreasonable ways, I would ask the commie math weirdo to produce evidence or retract his slur. Good day!
Scott
I’m assuming this law can be interpreted broadly enough to make assault legal as long as you have religion as your motive. Is the legislature going to do something about that?
Mary
There is a huge difference between being picked on occasionally and being bullied. You could take the time to actually read the bill’s definition of bullying, which you can find here, but I suspect you can’t be bothered.
Snowball
@Reality Check:
So it WOULD be ok for a gay kid to call an evangelical kid a “homophobic Jesus freak”? That wouldn’t be bullying?
No, it would be equally wrong.
But is this really a problem in our society? If so, could you show some evidence of evangelical kids who are committing suicide because they are being bullied by gay kids? Doubt it.
On the other hand, I can give plenty of evidence of the reverse being true, ie gay kids committing suicide because of bullying.
Villago Delenda Est
@scav:
It’s not actually Christianity as it’s ever existed before. It’s not even based on Adam Smith. It’s some bizarre hybrid of Ayn Rand with an invisible sky buddy pasted on to provide “SHUT THE FUCK UP, THAT’S WHY!” for doing things that Jesus would come at you with a nine iron for.
Reality Check
No person on Earth could follow Christianity to the letter as written in the New Testament. You’d have to be a monk, or insane, or some combination of both. That’s why Christians more or less believe or don’t believe certain things or even invent totally new stuff that’s nowhere in the NT based on their own preferences and cultural prejudices. That’s why Episcopalians can somehow twist it to say it doesn’t condemn homsoexual acts (even though it pretty clearly does, and pretty clearly believes marriage as one man one woman) and at the same time Evangelical conservatives can twist it to be compatible with capitalism (its not, Apostolic Christianity is pretty damn Socialist in outlook).
Reality Check
The vast, vast majority of people on this Earth can not, NOT, follow Christianity to the letter as written in the New Testament. You’d have to be a monk, or insane, or some combination of both. That’s why Christians more or less believe or don’t believe certain things or even invent totally new stuff that’s nowhere in the NT based on their own preferences and cultural prejudices. That’s why Episcopalians can somehow twist it to say it doesn’t condemn homsoexual acts (even though it pretty clearly does, and pretty clearly believes marriage as one man one woman) and at the same time Evangelical conservatives can twist it to be compatible with capitalism (its not, Apostolic Christianity is pretty damn Socia1ist in outlook).
handsmile
@The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik: (#44)
Linnaeus
@Scott:
Somehow I doubt it.
Jeff Fecke
@Reality Check:
And people used to settle disputes by dueling to the death. 99% of human progress has come by looking at the way things used to be and saying, “Boy, that was bad. Let’s try to do better.”
OzoneR
@Reality Check:
Yep. Cause that’s what they are.
Midnight Marauder
@Reality Check:
Stop. Just stop it. You can troll better than this, if that is what your heart desires. Either step your game up or just give it up, because this shit is abysmally weak.
JPL
@handsmile: Perry should demand an investigation, ask him to resign immediately and if he doesn’t fire his ass. Of course, that action wouldn’t involve gun slinging so it won’t happen.
kerFuFFler
I suspect that resentment against social workers intervening in cases of domestic abuse is one of the driving forces behind low-lifes supporting the GOP. Democratic candidates would no doubt secure better outcomes for them regarding taxation, healthcare, safe working environment, you name it. But the resentment over the guvmint telling them they can’t beat their women and children is too strong. They really can’t stand for the guvmint (a female social worker all too often….) telling them what to do and treating them like a child!
I can’t help but think this unfortunate “You can’t tell me what to do” mindset comes from having been abused as kids themselves.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
“Bullying for Jesus” Sounds like a great line of t-shirts and bumper stickers. Heck, we could sell boxing gloves, and towels to remove evidence.
OzoneR
@Jeff Fecke:
Republicans don’t believe in “trying to do better,” adequate is sufficient.
Trentrunner
Everyone here should read (or skim, it’s 800 pages) Steven Pinker’s new book, The Better Angels of our Nature, as it applies directly to this debate.
Big picture: Human life has become way less violent (and thus more civilized), and Pinker argues it’s because of democratic governments, the Enlightenment values, and increased communication.
Both this bullying story and the Texas Childbeating Judge story are data points supporting Pinker’s thesis.
The arc may be long, but it bends toward justice.
JGabriel
DougJ @ Top:
Michigan Dems might be smart to re-brand this as the Phelps Amendment.
.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@OzoneR: Conservatives believe that whatever is now is where we should be. Republicans, on the other hand, are trying to move backwards.
scav
@Villago Delenda Est: I don’t know, Muscular Christianity had some pretty odd quirks to it. But, in the spectrum of virus mutations, this one is indeed a doozy.
Villago Delenda Est
@Trentrunner:
It’s no coincidence that people like Michelle Bachmann think that the Enlightenment was “a mistake”.
Mainly because it separates us from the sadistic asshole invisible sky buddy they worship.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Reality Check: Calling someone that is not the same as bullying. If you were bullied in school, you would know the difference.
@Reality Check: I know. Kids should just commit suicide in private like they did when we were younger. Fuckhead.
PWL
Q: If I’m a pupil in Michigan, and have a “sincerely held…moral conviction” that Christianity (American Style) really sucks, does this mean I get a free pass on ranking on some God-botherer?
Dr. Squid
I gotta admit, I don’t recall cons flocking to defend the Oklahoma GOP w33ner pump judge, either.
MikeJ
If anyone is interested, the actual text of the bill is here. The removal of the specific protected classes doesn’t bother me at all. If you can show bullying it shouldn’t matter what the so called reason is.
elmo
Well, I for one am delighted with this development. Finally, we have them on record admitting that their sincerely held religious beliefs require them to bully children.
Christianity = vicious bullying. Hey, it’s not me saying it, it’s the Christians in Michigan. Thanks, honest Christians!
ABL
@DougJ: it’s really weird watching you argue with yourself.
(you can’t convince me you’re not reality check. the parody is just too delicious.)
;)
ABL
I have moral convictions about people who wear socks and sandals.
Just throwing that out there.
Dr. Squid
Dammit, shoulda known that referring to a certain apparatus used by that judge in Oklahoma would get flaagged.
Dr. Squid
Dammit, shoulda known that referring to a certain apparatus used by that judge in Oklahoma would get flaagged.
Snowball
@Reality Check:
But the bottom line is this bullying stuff is moral panic and a load of piffle. I was bullied in school. EVERYONE was bullied in school pretty much. It’s part of growing up. Kids today are so fucking coddled it’s embarrassing.
Why draw the line there? I assume you also think the same about sexual harassment. Do you think the women who are accusing Herman Cain are being coddled?
How about African-Americans? Do you think they are being coddled and that it was better in the days when they had to sit in the back of the bus?
Why can’t we strive for a better society instead of just leaving everything as is, even if begs for improvement?
elmo
Oh, and just to add my own experience to the discussion: I was bullied in school, to the extent that the school principal agreed with my mother that it would be best if I just stayed home. So in 7th and 8th grades, I went to school only when I was so bored at home that I actually wanted to go.
Villago Delenda Est
@ABL:
ABL, I don’t want to offend you by exposing you to my less than idyllic toes.
Just sayin’.
ed drone
@Bounced Check:
Now, there you go being sensible. Whyn’t you doing that all the time?
Go spoiling things like that, people’re gonna ignore you. Folks expect a certain brand of BS from you, and you disappoint ’em. Just can’t depend on nothin’, as the song says.
Ed
KG
Bullying comes from a place of perceived power in the social hierarchy. Popular kids don’t get bullied. Unpopular kids, or kids that don’t blend in, they get bullied. In a lot of ways, it’s no different than say, sexual harassment, which is something else that’s been in the news lately. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding as to what “bullying” actually is.
Roger Moore
@Reality Check:
I’ll say it. Anyone who thinks their personal beliefs- religious or secular- should trump the Constitution is a domestic enemy.
Roc
@trollhattan: It’s only culture warfare when Christians are on the cross.
handsmile
Having read through all the comments for a second time, I am astounded that the definition of bullying or, more precisely, its practice within a social context, has been elided.
Bullying is NOT a one-on-one exchange, a single person verbally, physically, or digitally, attacking another person. Bullying is a COLLECTIVE action in which a group of children/teens/adults employ verbal, physical or digital means to target and intimidate one or a small number of persons.
This is a crucial distinction. The collective nature of bullying is part of what makes it so difficult to eradicate in a specific environment, e.g. school, workplace, or to enact broader legislative remedies. It is far easier to sanction an individual for inappropriate or unlawful behavior than it is to adopt measures against a group, each member of which can deny personal responsibility for the behavior.
Xenos
@Reality Check: If ‘Jesus Freak’ is a slur, then so is ‘Communist’. Is this really a point you want to make?
DougJ
@ABL:
You are lucky you aren’t an academic scientist. Your moral conviction would get tired of all the outrage.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@handsmile: It doesn’t take a group to bully. Now, what a group does supply is acceptance by not taking action.
MikeJ
@handsmile: That’s not the definition used in the bill. In fact, the law says one person can bully many.
I do think anti bullying laws can be a good idea, but I also think that the definition needs to be carefully drawn. People really do have a constitutional right to be assholes. When their exercise of that right causes harm to others, ti should be actionable, just as slander and libel laws are.
chopper
@Reality Check:
might have something to do with the fact that you use the word ‘piffle’.
drkrick
@Villago Delenda Est:
+1000
In the ’90’s I started running across a certain type of conservative who couldn’t wait to excuse and even embrace any form of abuse by the powerful of the powerless. It seemed like the boot on the neck was an end in itself to them.
Mary
@MikeJ:
But children do not have the constitutional right to disrupt the educational environment of other children. That’s the principle behind basically every free speech in schools case, and that is what is specifically addressed in the Michigan law.
Chris
@Villago Delenda Est:
They want the Ayn Rand “Selfishness Uber Alles” ethic to be their guiding light, but because they’re insecure, weak, scared, authoritarian-submissive little fucks, they also need to be told that it’s okay to be guided by selfishness, that the invisible sky buddy wants them to be guided by selfishness, and they’re doing great good in the world by being guided by selfishness.
The result is a contrived, misassembled, TARFU’d political-religious cult that’s neither good Christianity nor, strictly speaking, good Objectivism, but that allows them to be assholes and still sleep at night, which was the point of the exercise.
stormhit
Now that everyone’s getting a nice dose of exposure to the particularly soulless brand if winger we have in Michigan, maybe you’ll realize why running Stupak out of the House in a red district wasn’t a great plan.
Mnemosyne
@Reality Check:
Ah, another great moment from Reality Check: in his world, it’s not a problem for one kid to call another one a faggot, the real problem is when the second kid defends himself by responding that the first one is a homophobic Jesus freak.
Basically, in RC’s mind, if you defend yourself against someone else’s abuse, you’re worse than they are.
Scott Supak
I have a sincerely held moral conviction that Republicans are evil people who like to rain death and disfigurement down on anyone who’s not like them. So, I get to bully Republicans!
Rome Again
@DougJ:
I think that went over his head. He appears to be laying the groundwork for a fight here.
PWL
Reality Check, you’re a twit.
Name-calling is not the same as bullying. Also, yer missing the point here, genius. No one should be ranking on anyone else,period. But this law explicitly ALLOWS people to do so, based on “religious convictions”–and to the point of driving someone to suicide, apparently.
Hardly sounds like Christianity to me (Remember “Turn the other cheek”? A soft answer turneth away wrath”?). So why are you, as a supposed atheist, apparently sticking up for these Nazis for Jesus? After all, this law as written allows supposed Christians to make life hell for you, too–since you’re an “atheist”….
Rome Again
@Scott Supak:
And since you’re no longer in grade school, that’s not a problem. :P
Rome Again
@Villago Delenda Est:
That’s the best definition I’ve ever seen. :P
Rome Again
@MikeJ
We’re not talking about adults here, we’re talking about children, who aren’t even allowed to vote.
(sorry, I originally posted that to Mary, it was MikeJ’s quote)
Mary
@Rome Again: I know…hence my reply to the original author of that comment.
Ah…just saw your comment below. No worries. All in good fun ;)
Rome Again
@Xenos:
Woof! LOL
Awesome!
Rome Again
@Mary:
Yeah, it was my mistake. Apologies.
;)
MikeJ
@Rome Again: Is your argument that only people who can vote have constitutional rights?
Roc
@Chris:
The non-sociopathic right looks to Rand as a treatise on how the government should behave and the Bible as a treatise on how people should behave.
Truly, it is their belief in the Church that enables them to hold such a regressive view of government.
If they expected that the Ryan plan would truly leave the elderly to die in the streets, their conscience would recoil. Trick is, they expect the communities of those cast aside would/could step in.
In their mind, who needs food stamps when the community center runs a soup kitchen? Who needs insurance when the Church can pass a second collection for a neighbor’s sick child? They sleep at night because they believe anyone who is truly deserving of help will find it in their local church and community. Because they like to think of themselves as good people who would help any other good person.
The intellectual failure of this view is that such an arrangement only looks feasible because they’ve spent their whole lives covered by the government guarantees that reduce massive disasters into a series of small oversights that a congregation can actually address with a canned food drive or a weekend cleanup event.
And the philosophical failure of this view, is that it essentially casts aside all pretense of equal protection, religious freedom and incentivizes community segregation, as religious institutions would be free to persecute anyone who didn’t look like them, talk like them or pray like them.
Halcyon
Sorry, Doug, but you’re wrong on this one. Every single action in that video was implictly condoned by all the Dobsonite bullshit in that subculture. Of course they won’t *explicitly* condone it; that’s giving away the game. (When was the last time you heard someone say that racism was awesome? Does that mean they don’t therefore condone racism?) But it is tacitly supported. All the crap about submission and beating them until their spirit is broken (yes, they really do say that) leads to this endpoint.
Or, in other words, the fact that most people who tend to agree with these guys *don’t* beat their children like this doesn’t mean this isn’t what that subculture espouses, it just means most of those people are still decent enough not to beat their children.
Rome Again
@MikeJ:
No, my argument is that children have not reached the age where they have the ability to make adult decisions and be held accountable for them.
Rome Again
@Roc:
I don’t want to rely on churches, I am not a Christian. I don’t go to Christians for help, nor should I be expected to take my help from there.
I don’t trust churches to help, because I’m sure they’ll have some converting material to hand to me with the charity package/service.
Roger Moore
@Roc:
Feature, not bug.
FormerSwingVoter
The thing that really pisses me off about the right-wing push-back against bullying gays? They would have no problem against protecting heterosexuals from bullying. At least in theory.
I read about a teacher telling his gay student how gays should die over Facebook, and the school not punishing him because they had no policy against gay-bashing. The thing is, if a teacher told a fat kid that we should let all the fatties die, he’d be fired. They honestly think that gay people don’t qualify as human beings.
Roc
@Roger Moore: To them, truly.
Which is why they don’t mind it.
Roger Moore
@Roc:
It’s all part of a long-term project that started back in the 50’s. When the Supreme Court decided that the 14th Amendment meant no government could legally discriminate, the hard-core bigots decided the solution was not to stop discriminating but to transfer as much of the government’s role as possible to private actors who could discriminate. Of course the Civil Rights act strongly limited the ability of private enterprise to discriminate, so now they’re forced to push as much as possible into churches, where they can argue that anti-discrimination rules are a violation of freedom of conscience. Why won’t these fuckers die out, already?
Roc
@Rome Again: Neither do I, would I. And beyond what I would prefer, is whether Churches and community centers are even capable of dealing with problems in the absence of federal guarantees and infrastructures.
Private levees and community labor was sufficient to ward off some of the ill effects of the flooding of the Morganza Spillway only because of what the Corps of Engineers had built. Without that, or after that has completely crumbled away, communities along the Morganza would simply not exist today. There is no small community effort that can address problems on the scale of the Mississippi changing course.
But I was never defending the correctness of that view. I’m just trying to point out that there’s no inherent philosophical conflict in taking a Randian view of federal government and a biblical view of private community.
I disagree with it, but that doesn’t mean it’s malicious or philosophically unworkable or bankrupt.
MikeJ
@FormerSwingVoter:
Except that’s not what the law says:
I do have other problems with this bill. To start:
If you notify the principal about a violation of the law and he does nothing about it, you can’t sue him for failing to do his job.
Also, the bill seems to spend an inordinate amount of time talking about false reports. I’ve read the criminal code for other laws, and the law against stabbing somebody doesn’t spend 1/3rd of it’s text talking about the punishment for falsely accusing somebody of stabbing you. Presumably because making a false report of a crime is already against the law.
Li
Actually, I think that many of you are missing the point. Under this law, it would be legal to bully a gay kid, as long as it’s verbal and you can point at some out of context quote form the Bible. But it would be illegal for the bullied kid to retort; “I think that your religion is bullshit.” because that is not a religious argument. Here is the relevant language.
(I apologize for all caps, that is the Michigan way in bills. . .)
So, all the student in the second case would have to do is say something like “Oh, when that bad gay kid called Jesus a lie I had a headache all night, and I vomited. I was horrible, he gave me nightmares!” and BOOM! The gay kid is the bully, and prosecutable, but the heartless ‘christian’ is protected under the law. Oh, but this bill gets even better! Check the next section out.
And, at that, the law that was meant to combat bullying has made illegal the ‘day of silence’ protests that have taken off amongst students to decry the anti-gay bullying. In fact, a day of silence would count as bullying, because it would cause a substantial disruption in the orderly operation of the school, and everyone participating in one could be arrested as a bully!
It’s an amazing example of newspeak, calling this an Anti-Bullying bill.
Li
Actually, I think that many of you are missing the point. Under this law, it would be legal to bully a gay kid, as long as it’s verbal and you can point at some out of context quote form the Bible. But it would be illegal for the bullied kid to retort; “I think that your religion is bullshit.” because that is not a religious argument. Here is the relevant language.
(I apologize for all caps, that is the Michigan way in bills. . .)
So, all the student in the second case would have to do is say something like “Oh, when that bad gay kid called Jesus a lie I had a headache all night, and I vomited. I was horrible, he gave me nightmares!” and BOOM! The gay kid is the bully, and prosecutable, but the heartless ‘christian’ is protected under the law. Oh, but this bill gets even better! Check the next section out.
And, at that, the law that was meant to combat bullying has made illegal the ‘day of silence’ protests that have taken off amongst students to decry the anti-gay bullying. In fact, a day of silence would count as bullying, because it would cause a substantial disruption in the orderly operation of the school, and everyone participating in one could be arrested as a bully!
It’s an amazing example of newspeak, calling this an Anti-Bullying bill.
Roc
@Roger Moore: Then, as now, I believe desegregation was a red herring. It was a social motivator to get people to the polling booths to vote for politicians that would roll back the New Deal.
They certainly do want more power in the hands of private actors, but I don’t think they care nearly so much about the right to discriminate against customers as they do about the right to maximize profit via taxes as low as possible, labor costs as low as possible, regulation as non-existent as possible, etc.
Ruckus
@OzoneR:
Republicans don’t believe in “trying to do better,” inadequate is sufficient.
Fixt for you.
Ian
@DougJ:
Quit arguing with yourself. Unless Reality Check is Cole…?
Roger Moore
@Roc:
I don’t think it’s a red herring at all; it’s the lynchpin of their coalition. There isn’t much of an inherent constituency for destroying government so the 1% can have lower taxes; it’s pretty much limited to the 1%. But tying the destruction of government to performing an end-run around the 1st and 14th Amendments has been very successful at creating the 1%/Christian Dominionist/unreconstructed racist coalition that’s at the heart of the modern Republican party.
MikeJ
@Li: No, stating that a particular religion is bullshit is in fact “a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction.” It is a belief. It is about religion. Religious belief.
Li
@MikeJ: I would like to think that is how the court in Michigan would interpret it, but anti-religious beliefs are usually not so well protected. Perhaps that is not the best example, however. What if the gay kid says something like “Shut the fuck up you stupid asshole!” ?
Chris
@Roger Moore:
I think that’s right. Many people have pointed out that the modern religious right is basically a safehaven for unreconstructed segregationists.
The anecdote that usually comes to mind is that Paul Weyrich, an uber-Catholic activist, claimed he toured the South after Roe v. Wade going through evangelical churches attempting to raise support for a Christian, inter-church pro-life coalition, and there was absolutely no interest in what he was trying to do. It’s only when President Carter removed the tax-exempt status of those “Christian academies” that still practiced segregation that everyone was suddenly very interested in “tell me more about this whole ‘religious right’ idea you’ve got.”
PatrickG
@Villago Delenda Est:
Rarely comment, and I know others have commented too, but hot damn, that’s the best thing I’ve seen in this section of the tubes all day. I simply can’t let it pass without salutary comment.
My hat is off to you, sir.
xian
@DougJ: are you actually using reason with a troll? dude makes no sense in the first place. its concept of what liberals believe is made entirely of straw.
xian
@Judas Escargot: i know… a clue to the person’s deformed persona.
xian
@JPL: especially please don’t feed one’s one sockpuppet Poe’s law fake troll.
xian
@DougJ: what’s the distinction? argues in bad faith, copypastas right-wing propaganda, changes the subject, drops thread when confronted with facts, not very bright, possibly fake.
does it contribute to the debate? does it advance clarity or a dialectical approach to truth? it is laughable of course, but it tends to derail serious discussion to little ultimate effect.