Skip to main content

 
 
 

Good news from Michigan! The state legislature is moving toward anti-bullying legislation that does not include an exemption for religiously motivated harassment.

As we reported to you earlier, the state Senate passed a measure to deal with bullying in public schools. But, remarkably, senators included an exemption for those who act out of “sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction.”

The action sparked outrage in Michigan and across the country. Most saw it for what it was: a deplorable attempt to allow bullying of LGBT kids and other minorities as long as the perpetrator was quoting Leviticus.

The House bill drew condemnation from leaders in the civil rights, civil liberties and progressive religious communities.

For example, Paul Brandeis Raushenbush, senior religion editor for the Huffington Post, wrote, “As we have become painfully aware in the last year, there is an epidemic of bullying across the country that has made laws like the one Michigan is working on so important. Too often, the victim is perceived as LGBT identified – whether they are in reality or not….The idea that religious beliefs require special provision within a law meant to protect the most vulnerable should be an affront to all religious people. It is an affront to me as a Baptist minister. The bill intimates that we people of faith require special loopholes for our irresistible urges to bully people based on our very, very sincerely held beliefs. Ridiculous.”

Raushenbush concluded, “Any anti-bullying legislation must be the same for all people. Get rid of the loophole for religious beliefs. It is insulting and wrong.”

Even TV comedian Stephen Colbert weighed in, commenting tongue-in-(right-wing)-cheek, “Bullying is just fine, as long as you get a permission slip from God.”

Fortunately, wiser heads prevailed in the Michigan House, and the anti-bullying bill passed there did not include the religion exemption.

After the national uproar, things are even looking up in the state Senate. According to the Religion News Service, State Sen. Rick Jones (R – Grand Ledge) – who sponsored the exemption – on Monday agreed to the House approach.

Jones said he intended his exemption as a protection of free speech, not an excuse for bullying. And he said he will urge his fellow Republican senators to vote for the cleaned-up proposal.

Good.

The likely outcome in Michigan shows that the forces of civility, equality and fairness can win. We just have to speak out forcefully, and let our elected representatives know where we stand.

 

 

http://www.secularnewsdaily.co...harassment-may-fail/

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Controversial "Religion clause"

 

The version of the anti-bullying bill that Michigan's senate approved contained a hotly-contested "religious and moral exemption". Under this caveat, students could make negative comments against each other, based on religious or moral convictions, as part of their First Amendment rights. If, for example, a Christian student told a gay student that he was going to hell, that would not be bullying, but simply and expression of free speech, the exemption said.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/michigan...ation-213300087.html

Originally Posted by O No!:

So I would think that this new version would ALSO prevent atheists from telling religious kids that they are deluded. Because THAT would be bullying too.

==

There was only one exemption and it was a religious exemption. Don't worry about us. Worry about the corruption of privileged religious minds that allow for this sort of thing without question of fairness and equality. We follow the rules and laws. We don't need legislation to give us rights above and beyond everyone else. We happily stand toe-to-toe with anyone without need for an artificial advantage.

If an atheist calls a religious person deluded, they are picking on someone because THEIR religious beliefs are different from the one they are calling deluded. The fact that atheists don't believe in God doesn't matter. Their RELIGIOUS BELIEFS are that there is no God. It is THEIR belief about religion, and therefore they too, are covered by this new bill.

quote:  Originally Posted by O No!:

If an atheist calls a religious person deluded, they are picking on someone because THEIR religious beliefs are different from the one they are calling deluded. The fact that atheists don't believe in God doesn't matter. Their RELIGIOUS BELIEFS are that there is no God. It is THEIR belief about religion, and therefore they too, are covered by this new bill.


Hi O No,

 

AMEN!  AMEN!  AMEN!   A religion being defined as a "belief system" -- we all have a religion.  Many of us believe in God; some believe in Allah; some make up other false gods and call them God; some believe in Buddha.  And there are some who believe in Nothing.  That, too, is a religion. 

 

To say that God does not exist means that this person must BELIEVE that God does not exist.  Therefore, it is a belief system, a religion.  And, in issues such as this one -- ALL religions should be prevented from bullying those who believe differently.  Actually, bullying under any circumstances or for any reason -- is wrong.

 

Just my thoughts.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

 

That said, now is time for the backlash!   Here comes Chick and Jennifer, huffing and puffing, loaded down with Bill Gray stones.   Smile, girls, God loves you -- and so do I.

 

Gimme A Hug

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Gimme A Hug

But the truth of the matter is that religious people are deluded.  Shall this law prevent speaking the truth?

 

I say this somewhat tongue-in-cheek.  Freedom of *and from* religion must be maintained.  This is precisely the sort of law that should not be indulged, i.e. religious exceptions.

 

Let me say a word in support of bullies.  I was never a bully, I was bullied.  But when I eventually stood up to them, I gained more than they lost.  Perhaps bullies are necessary for the development of normal humans.  By the way, most or all bullies I knew came to poor ends.

 

DF

Originally Posted by Not Shallow Not Slim:

But the truth of the matter is that religious people are deluded.  Shall this law prevent speaking the truth?

 

I say this somewhat tongue-in-cheek.  Freedom of *and from* religion must be maintained.  This is precisely the sort of law that should not be indulged, i.e. religious exceptions.

 

Let me say a word in support of bullies.  I was never a bully, I was bullied.  But when I eventually stood up to them, I gained more than they lost.  Perhaps bullies are necessary for the development of normal humans.  By the way, most or all bullies I knew came to poor ends.

 

DF

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Remember the entire town that turned on the bully and killed him? The last I saw of that case they still had no idea who had done it because no one was talking. I'm curious now, going to "google" and see if I can find the info on the story.

Gee bill, funny you don't like bullies, seeing as how you are one. Anyway, i don't think they have a big problem with atheists harassing poor little christians about their religion. Maybe it happens but it seems the biggest problems in that area are the little angels that are taught homosexuality and being "different" are sins, and that it's OK to attack anyone that doesn't believe like they do.  And once more bill, call atheism a religion if you wish, doesn't bother me one bit. Religion or not it's the best and most sensible "belief" out there.

You athiest "hide" behind the fact that you don't believe in anything and you won't say what it is you do believe therefore you can attack any religion with the benefit of not having to defend your own beliefs. You seem to know all about what Christians believe so how about going into some detail about what you believe and don't believe.

 

Originally Posted by Gingee:

You athiest "hide" behind the fact that you don't believe in anything and you won't say what it is you do believe therefore you can attack any religion with the benefit of not having to defend your own beliefs. You seem to know all about what Christians believe so how about going into some detail about what you believe and don't believe.

 

Hide to do what? Believe or don't believe about what?

Originally Posted by Gingee:

You athiest "hide" behind the fact that you don't believe in anything and you won't say what it is you do believe therefore you can attack any religion with the benefit of not having to defend your own beliefs. You seem to know all about what Christians believe so how about going into some detail about what you believe and don't believe.

 

____________________________

If an Atheist doesn't believe in the Bible & all that goes along with it, how are they "hiding" anything?

Most Atheist & non-believers were at one time a "Christian" or raised in church & knows how a Christian believes & how they work.

 

Go into some detail about what they believe & don't believe? I have an easy answer for your silly question...they don't!

 

Originally Posted by Gingee:

If you knew someone who was having trouble dealing with life in general. In other words they were down and couldn't understand where they came from and what their purpose was in life. They want to know who or what and how all this was created and what happens when they die. What would you tell them?

I'd tell them that I have only my idea of "where we came from", no one in our lifetime will probably ever know and that it didn't matter anyway because we're here. I can't speak to their "purpose" in life, they have to figure that one out, and that's another thing that doesn't matter. It's not that important to have a "purpose". I'd tell them that imo when you die you die, end of story, lights out. You are like you were before you were ever conceived. And I'd tell them to stop worrying about it all and live their life.

Originally Posted by Gingee:

You athiest "hide" behind the fact that you don't believe in anything and you won't say what it is you do believe therefore you can attack any religion with the benefit of not having to defend your own beliefs. You seem to know all about what Christians believe so how about going into some detail about what you believe and don't believe.

 

==

That's an interesting way to say that you don't know about us. All atheists on earth have exactly one thing in common, the lack of belief in gods (yours or anyone's). We "believe" in a whole lot of other things, but that varies from person to person. Best or DF or DA or RP or I may not agree on much else except that there is no God. So that's what we don't believe and we happily defend that lack of belief here on a daily basis.

However, saying that we don't believe in anything is just misguided and ill-informed. I think one thing that atheists do believe in is that the scientific method is the best way to discern the truth about how things are. We value and promote scientific literacy. Our beliefs are also informed by the use of reason. We value and promote skeptical inquiry and philosophy. Our beliefs are not dogmatic or necessarily static. That is to say that our beliefs are subject to change as our scientific knowledge and evolving understanding of our universe advances. This is perhaps our greatest advantage and strength.

I don't have to complicate it, look around you. Life is complicated whether you say it is or not. You don't want to say what you believe about life because you just want to attack what others believe. You hide behind a simplistic view of life because it doesn't have to be defended.  What's wrong can you not take what you want to dish out?

Originally Posted by Gingee:

I don't have to complicate it, look around you. Life is complicated whether you say it is or not. You don't want to say what you believe about life because you just want to attack what others believe. You hide behind a simplistic view of life because it doesn't have to be defended.  What's wrong can you not take what you want to dish out?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Well gingee I DID "say" what I felt about life. How much plainer could I have been?  If you can't accept it I can't help you. I don't have anything to "defend" and what am I not taking that I dish out? You're not making a lot of sense.

You can complicate your life in hundreds of ways gingee. You can get into deep debt knowing you can't afford things but you buy them anyway and your bills go unpaid. You can drink to excess, you can do drugs, you can be abusive to your family and others, you can lie, you can steal, you can cheat on your spouse. Like I said, there are many ways to complicate your life.

Originally Posted by A. Robustus:
Originally Posted by Gingee:

You athiest "hide" behind the fact that you don't believe in anything and you won't say what it is you do believe therefore you can attack any religion with the benefit of not having to defend your own beliefs. You seem to know all about what Christians believe so how about going into some detail about what you believe and don't believe.

 

==

That's an interesting way to say that you don't know about us. All atheists on earth have exactly one thing in common, the lack of belief in gods (yours or anyone's). We "believe" in a whole lot of other things, but that varies from person to person. Best or DF or DA or RP or I may not agree on much else except that there is no God. So that's what we don't believe and we happily defend that lack of belief here on a daily basis.

However, saying that we don't believe in anything is just misguided and ill-informed. I think one thing that atheists do believe in is that the scientific method is the best way to discern the truth about how things are. We value and promote scientific literacy. Our beliefs are also informed by the use of reason. We value and promote skeptical inquiry and philosophy. Our beliefs are not dogmatic or necessarily static. That is to say that our beliefs are subject to change as our scientific knowledge and evolving understanding of our universe advances. This is perhaps our greatest advantage and strength.

What are your scientific beliefs about what is at the end of the universe? Is it space? That can't be right because that would still be something. What is the smallest particle in life? Even the smallest particle is made up of something isn't it? When your "Scientific knowledge" explains this you may have an argument. Until then you don't. 

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

You can complicate your life in hundreds of ways gingee. You can get into deep debt knowing you can't afford things but you buy them anyway and your bills go unpaid. You can drink to excess, you can do drugs, you can be abusive to your family and others, you can lie, you can steal, you can cheat on your spouse. Like I said, there are many ways to complicate your life.


You sure are confusing me. At first you say life is not complicated unless you make it that way and then you say there are many ways to complicate your life. There are also things that complicate your life beyond your control. These are the things that we need to focus on. You seem to know so much just to know so little. You are very good at attacking when there can be no retrobution so you stay in the "safety" of your simplistic philosophy of what you think life is about, it's eaiser that way isn't it.

Originally Posted by Gingee:
Originally Posted by A. Robustus:
Originally Posted by Gingee:

You athiest "hide" behind the fact that you don't believe in anything and you won't say what it is you do believe therefore you can attack any religion with the benefit of not having to defend your own beliefs. You seem to know all about what Christians believe so how about going into some detail about what you believe and don't believe.

 

==

That's an interesting way to say that you don't know about us. All atheists on earth have exactly one thing in common, the lack of belief in gods (yours or anyone's). We "believe" in a whole lot of other things, but that varies from person to person. Best or DF or DA or RP or I may not agree on much else except that there is no God. So that's what we don't believe and we happily defend that lack of belief here on a daily basis.

However, saying that we don't believe in anything is just misguided and ill-informed. I think one thing that atheists do believe in is that the scientific method is the best way to discern the truth about how things are. We value and promote scientific literacy. Our beliefs are also informed by the use of reason. We value and promote skeptical inquiry and philosophy. Our beliefs are not dogmatic or necessarily static. That is to say that our beliefs are subject to change as our scientific knowledge and evolving understanding of our universe advances. This is perhaps our greatest advantage and strength.

What are your scientific beliefs about what is at the end of the universe? Is it space? That can't be right because that would still be something. What is the smallest particle in life? Even the smallest particle is made up of something isn't it? When your "Scientific knowledge" explains this you may have an argument. Until then you don't. 

==
First of all, What?
Secondly, I encourage you to become scientifically literate. At best, your questions are poorly formed or imagined.

Third, what argument are you talking about? Are you sure you understand what you're saying?

I tried to answer your comments directly, I'm not sure you've done the same with mine.

First, Thanks for my lesson in scientific literacy. I'm sure I am communicating with someone who is far more "intelligent" than myself. Therefore just try to grasp what I'm saying.

First, let's say you are in an observatory at night looking up at the dark night sky full of billions? of stars. If you could see to the end of the universe what would lie at the end? Would it be nothing? Would this "nothing" not consist of something? So my first question to you is what lies "beyond" the end of the universe? My other question is: If you were in a laboratory and you had the most powerful microscope made and you were trying to find the smallest particle that existed, if you could see that smallest particle, what would it consist of? Would it not consist of something smaller? If so, what would make up that smaller particle? So in my simple intellect I ask you again, what is the smallest particle? What is your highly intellectual theory on these two "simple" questions?

I know it pains you to have to lower yourself to  my level of thinking but I'm sure a person of your intellect will manage somehow to answer these two simple questions with your vast scientific knowledge.

You sure are confusing me. At first you say life is not complicated unless you make it that way and then you say there are many ways to complicate your life. There are also things that complicate your life beyond your control. These are the things that we need to focus on. You seem to know so much just to know so little. You are very good at attacking when there can be no retrobution so you stay in the "safety" of your simplistic philosophy of what you think life is about, it's eaiser that way isn't it.

 

 

First of all I said life was pretty simple unless YOU complicated it. "You" meaning individuals. YOU responded with the statement it was complicated without your doing it. I gave you examples of how YOU or anyone else COULD and DID complicate their lives. Tell me what you think I should be focused on, then tell me how you know what I do or do not focus on. Now once more, who am I attacking? Show the attack. It seems to me it's you that is all wound up and you're not actually making a lot of sense. 

Originally Posted by Gingee:

First, Thanks for my lesson in scientific literacy. I'm sure I am communicating with someone who is far more "intelligent" than myself. Therefore just try to grasp what I'm saying.

First, let's say you are in an observatory at night looking up at the dark night sky full of billions? of stars. If you could see to the end of the universe what would lie at the end? Would it be nothing? Would this "nothing" not consist of something? So my first question to you is what lies "beyond" the end of the universe? My other question is: If you were in a laboratory and you had the most powerful microscope made and you were trying to find the smallest particle that existed, if you could see that smallest particle, what would it consist of? Would it not consist of something smaller? If so, what would make up that smaller particle? So in my simple intellect I ask you again, what is the smallest particle? What is your highly intellectual theory on these two "simple" questions?

I know it pains you to have to lower yourself to  my level of thinking but I'm sure a person of your intellect will manage somehow to answer these two simple questions with your vast scientific knowledge.

==

I'd be glad to try and answer these but what I really don't understand is what these types of questions have to do with my response to your post and how explaining these would mean I would have an "argument". An argument about what? And how would not answering these negatively affect this supposed "argument"?

 

You asked for an explanation about what atheists do and don't believe. I answered. Do you better understand what atheists believe/disbelieve?

You claim that we "hide" behind the "fact" that we don't believe in "anything" and that we don't ever say what we believe. I answered your comments directly and demonstrated how there's no hiding involved and how your original premise and the "facts" that you claim about atheists are really incorrect. I'm not sure how the edge of the universe and smallest particles relates to this.

You constantly attack anything Christians post on these forums. You claim to not believe in God and you condemn any and everything they post. Either through your comments or through pasteing web sites. Again I repeat you will not truly say what you believe life is about because you don't want to have to defend your beliefs as you seem to want Christians to do. If you chose not to believe in God then that is your choice but you do not have the right to condemn what Christians believe while not revealing what you believe. You have beliefs other than the shallow ones you post on this site. Athiests talk of Christians being hypocritical yet they themselves are the hypocrites. They hide behind their shield of non-belief so they don't have to defend themselves while being able to attack the beliefs of Christians.

Originally Posted by A. Robustus:
Originally Posted by Gingee:

First, Thanks for my lesson in scientific literacy. I'm sure I am communicating with someone who is far more "intelligent" than myself. Therefore just try to grasp what I'm saying.

First, let's say you are in an observatory at night looking up at the dark night sky full of billions? of stars. If you could see to the end of the universe what would lie at the end? Would it be nothing? Would this "nothing" not consist of something? So my first question to you is what lies "beyond" the end of the universe? My other question is: If you were in a laboratory and you had the most powerful microscope made and you were trying to find the smallest particle that existed, if you could see that smallest particle, what would it consist of? Would it not consist of something smaller? If so, what would make up that smaller particle? So in my simple intellect I ask you again, what is the smallest particle? What is your highly intellectual theory on these two "simple" questions?

I know it pains you to have to lower yourself to  my level of thinking but I'm sure a person of your intellect will manage somehow to answer these two simple questions with your vast scientific knowledge.

==

I'd be glad to try and answer these but what I really don't understand is what these types of questions have to do with my response to your post and how explaining these would mean I would have an "argument". An argument about what? And how would not answering these negatively affect this supposed "argument"?

 

You asked for an explanation about what atheists do and don't believe. I answered. Do you better understand what atheists believe/disbelieve?

You claim that we "hide" behind the "fact" that we don't believe in "anything" and that we don't ever say what we believe. I answered your comments directly and demonstrated how there's no hiding involved and how your original premise and the "facts" that you claim about atheists are really incorrect. I'm not sure how the edge of the universe and smallest particles relates to this.

Your the one who said you believed in scientific knowledge. I just presented you with a couple of questions for you to answer with your scientific knowledge. As far as I can see you have yet to answer them. I do respect you for at least believing in something and saying so. Yet until you answer the two questions I asked I will continue to believe in Jesus Christ.

Originally Posted by Gingee:

You constantly attack anything Christians post on these forums. You claim to not believe in God and you condemn any and everything they post. Either through your comments or through pasteing web sites. Again I repeat you will not truly say what you believe life is about because you don't want to have to defend your beliefs as you seem to want Christians to do. If you chose not to believe in God then that is your choice but you do not have the right to condemn what Christians believe while not revealing what you believe. You have beliefs other than the shallow ones you post on this site. Athiests talk of Christians being hypocritical yet they themselves are the hypocrites.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First of all I don't attack "everything" christians post on the forum. I don't "attack" any christian. There are many threads I don't comment on at all, and there are a few christians that can post with "good sense" and have discussions. You're just wired to scan for my posts or comments and then get all worked up. Now, what websites do I post that upset you? If I make a statement about something of course I'll post the website because if I didn't someone would get upset. Apparently they can't copy and paste a few words of the article and go to the site.  I have said what I believe about life. What part did you not understand? I have nothing to "reveal" about what I believe. Ask me something specific and I will tell you. I've tried to do that on this thread but for some reason you refuse to accept the answer. I've said over and over that I consider all theories and either discard them, or if they show promise or if they interest me I put them in the category of "wait and see" where they go. How do you rationalize the idea that you can condemn what others think while hiding behind religion? What "shallow" beliefs do I have? You keep asking me about my beliefs yet at the same time call them "shallow". How about your shallow life? So if you think you know so much why keep asking?  It would be a lot easier to communicate with you if I could actually understand what you're crying about. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

(They hide behind their shield of non-belief so they don't have to defend themselves while being able to attack the beliefs of Christians.) 

 

 

You keep posting that and it makes no sense. How is a non-belief a shield?

Originally Posted by Gingee:
Originally Posted by A. Robustus:
Originally Posted by Gingee:

First, Thanks for my lesson in scientific literacy. I'm sure I am communicating with someone who is far more "intelligent" than myself. Therefore just try to grasp what I'm saying.

First, let's say you are in an observatory at night looking up at the dark night sky full of billions? of stars. If you could see to the end of the universe what would lie at the end? Would it be nothing? Would this "nothing" not consist of something? So my first question to you is what lies "beyond" the end of the universe? My other question is: If you were in a laboratory and you had the most powerful microscope made and you were trying to find the smallest particle that existed, if you could see that smallest particle, what would it consist of? Would it not consist of something smaller? If so, what would make up that smaller particle? So in my simple intellect I ask you again, what is the smallest particle? What is your highly intellectual theory on these two "simple" questions?

I know it pains you to have to lower yourself to  my level of thinking but I'm sure a person of your intellect will manage somehow to answer these two simple questions with your vast scientific knowledge.

==

I'd be glad to try and answer these but what I really don't understand is what these types of questions have to do with my response to your post and how explaining these would mean I would have an "argument". An argument about what? And how would not answering these negatively affect this supposed "argument"?

 

You asked for an explanation about what atheists do and don't believe. I answered. Do you better understand what atheists believe/disbelieve?

You claim that we "hide" behind the "fact" that we don't believe in "anything" and that we don't ever say what we believe. I answered your comments directly and demonstrated how there's no hiding involved and how your original premise and the "facts" that you claim about atheists are really incorrect. I'm not sure how the edge of the universe and smallest particles relates to this.

Your the one who said you believed in scientific knowledge. I just presented you with a couple of questions for you to answer with your scientific knowledge. As far as I can see you have yet to answer them. I do respect you for at least believing in something and saying so. Yet until you answer the two questions I asked I will continue to believe in Jesus Christ.

==

So if I answer the questions you may stop believing in God?? You and I know that won't happen. Which is why I don't get what your point is about those questions and how they, in particular, could change your life outlook. Notice that I haven't tried to convert you to atheism. I was simply addressing your misconceptions and falsehoods about atheists. I honestly don't see the point in this or how it's related to my original response to you, and you haven't explained yourself.

As far as I know, we cannot yet see the "edge" of the universe. I don't believe we even know there is an edge. It's possible that if we could look at the edge of one side of the universe, what's beyond it is the beginning of the other side of the same universe. If there is a finite edge to the universe, we don't know what would lie on the other side of existence itself (the universe), or if there is something other than the existence that we would recognize or what it would be. In short, there is no answer yet, just cosmological hypotheses. As to the smallest particle, first you'd have to define what a "particle" consists of. If we know the qualities of a particle then we can hold our findings to that definition as a standard. We'd also need that definition to describe what a particular particle consists of. If something is smaller than a particle, as defined, is it still a particle or is it something else? Could smaller somethings comprise the makeup of a particle? If so, what would they be? Everything depends on definition. I don't believe I've read about any quest for the smallest "particle" since early scientific explorations of what things are made of. Every time, they'd identify cells or molecules or atoms, etc. they'd eventually find something smaller. I believe that is still the case on the subatomic scale. Maybe you want to hear that science doesn't not yet have all the answers?

Can you now explain how answering these can possibly affect your belief in Jesus Christ?

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×