Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Tennessee legally sanctions LGBT bullying

YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 5:40:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://www.thegailygrind.com...

As if we all needed another reason to hate Tennessee:

"TENNESSEE PASSES BILL ALLOWING THE BULLYING OF LGBT STUDENTS IN THE NAME OF "RELIGIOUS FREEDOM"

Tennessee governor Bill Haslam has just received a bill that allows and encourages anti-gay bullying in the name of "religious freedom."

The Tennessee "Religious Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Act" allows students to use religion in any manner they choose, and protects their use of religion.

The ACLU warns that the bill, SB 1793/HB 1547, "crosses the line from protecting religious freedom into creating systematic imposition of some students" personal religious viewpoints on other students."

"Should this pass, students with a range of religious beliefs, as well as non-believers, would likely routinely be required to listen to religious messages or participate in religious exercises that conflict with their own beliefs," the ACLU adds. "Conversely, if a student of a minority religious faith (e.g., a Buddhist, a Wiccan, etc.) or a non-believer were to obtain a "position of honor," as defined under this bill, that student would be permitted to subject all classmates to prayer and proselytizing specific to his or her faith tradition in connection with school events. In both cases, parents would have no recourse to ensure that their children were not coerced into such religious exercise."

It goes on:

At a basic level, a student could merely write "God" on a chemistry test as the answer to a question asking to where water comes from. A student could also stand in class and say their religion says that gay people are sinners and going to hell, and that speech would be legally protected. The bill states "a student may express beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions. A student would not be penalized or rewarded on account of the religious content of the student"s work."

But the more sinister part of the bill forces all students to be subjected to the religious beliefs of the popular kids.

An evangelical student, or example, could preach the gospel during a science class, or "witness" during English. Attacks on LGBT people and same-sex marriage are automatically protected under this bill, offering anti-gay students a state-sposored license to bully. And of course, a student could claim they worship Satan and subject their classmates to that "religious viewpoint" as well.

The bill, of course, likely violates the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, but that rarely stops conservative lawmakers on a religious mission.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 6:39:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 5:40:26 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.thegailygrind.com...

As if we all needed another reason to hate Tennessee:

"TENNESSEE PASSES BILL ALLOWING THE BULLYING OF LGBT STUDENTS IN THE NAME OF "RELIGIOUS FREEDOM"

Tennessee governor Bill Haslam has just received a bill that allows and encourages anti-gay bullying in the name of "religious freedom."

The Tennessee "Religious Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Act" allows students to use religion in any manner they choose, and protects their use of religion.

The ACLU warns that the bill, SB 1793/HB 1547, "crosses the line from protecting religious freedom into creating systematic imposition of some students" personal religious viewpoints on other students."

"Should this pass, students with a range of religious beliefs, as well as non-believers, would likely routinely be required to listen to religious messages or participate in religious exercises that conflict with their own beliefs," the ACLU adds. "Conversely, if a student of a minority religious faith (e.g., a Buddhist, a Wiccan, etc.) or a non-believer were to obtain a "position of honor," as defined under this bill, that student would be permitted to subject all classmates to prayer and proselytizing specific to his or her faith tradition in connection with school events. In both cases, parents would have no recourse to ensure that their children were not coerced into such religious exercise."

It goes on:

At a basic level, a student could merely write "God" on a chemistry test as the answer to a question asking to where water comes from. A student could also stand in class and say their religion says that gay people are sinners and going to hell, and that speech would be legally protected. The bill states "a student may express beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions. A student would not be penalized or rewarded on account of the religious content of the student"s work."

But the more sinister part of the bill forces all students to be subjected to the religious beliefs of the popular kids.

An evangelical student, or example, could preach the gospel during a science class, or "witness" during English. Attacks on LGBT people and same-sex marriage are automatically protected under this bill, offering anti-gay students a state-sposored license to bully. And of course, a student could claim they worship Satan and subject their classmates to that "religious viewpoint" as well.

The bill, of course, likely violates the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, but that rarely stops conservative lawmakers on a religious mission.

I do not see how the bill violates the establishment clause as it is not respecting an establishment of religion, it is simply upholding the rights of that religion to express free speech. The bill even says that the speech or content would not be rewarded or punished, meaning the law was not created to respect the establishment of any religion, it was simply to affirm the rights of that religion. In fact the government is only allowed to restrict speech for the following reasons:

Clear and Present Danger
Will this act of speech create a dangerous situation? The First Amendment does not protect statements that are uttered to provoke violence or incite illegal action.

Justice Holmes, speaking for the unanimous Supreme Court, stated, "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

Fighting Words
Was something said face-to-face that would incite immediate violence?

In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court stated that the "English language has a number of words and expressions which by general consent [are] "fighting words" when said without a disarming smile. " Such words, as ordinary men know, are likely to cause a fight." The court determined that the New Hampshire statute in question "did no more than prohibit the face-to-face words plainly likely to cause a breach of the peace by the addressee, words whose speaking constitute a breach of the peace by the speaker " including "classical fighting words," words in current use less "classical" but equally likely to cause violence, and other disorderly words, including profanity, obscenity and threats." Jurisdictions may write statutes to punish verbal acts if the statutes are "carefully drawn so as not unduly to impair liberty of expression."

Also see What is the Fighting Words Doctrine?

Libel and Slander
Was the statement false, or put in a context that makes true statements misleading? You do not have a constitutional right to tell lies that damage or defame the reputation of a person or organization.

Obscenity
In June 1973 in Miller v. California, the Supreme Court held in a 5-to-4 decision that obscene materials do not enjoy First Amendment protection.

In Miller v. California (1973), the court refined the definition of "obscenity" established in Roth v. United States (1957). It also rejected the "utterly without redeeming social value" test of Memoirs v. Massachusetts.

In the three-part Miller test, three questions must receive affirmative responses for material to be considered "obscene":

Would the average person, applying the contemporary community standards, viewing the work as a whole, find the work appeals to the prurient interest?
Does the work depict or describe sexual conduct in a patently offensive way?
Does the work taken as a whole lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value?
One must distinguish "obscene" material, speech not protected by the First Amendment, from "indecent" material, speech protected for adults but not for children. The Supreme Court also ruled that "higher standards" may be established to protect minors from exposure to indecent material over the airwaves. In FCC v. Pacifica Foundation the court "recognized an interest in protecting minors from exposure to vulgar and offensive spoken language."

Conflict with Other Legitimate Social or Governmental Interests
Does the speech conflict with other compelling interests? For example, in times of war, there may be reasons to restrict First Amendment rights because of conflicts with national security.

To ensure a fair trial without disclosure of prejudicial information before or during a trial, a judge may place a "gag" order on participants in the trial, including attorneys. Placing prior restraint upon the media usually is unconstitutional. In Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart (1976), the Supreme Court established three criteria that must be met before a judge can issue a gag order and restrain the media during a trial.

Time, Place, and Manner
These regulations of expression are content-neutral. A question to ask: Did the expression occur at a time or place, or did the speaker use a method of communicating, that interferes with a legitimate government interest? For example, distribution of information should not impede the flow of traffic or create excessive noise levels at certain times and in certain places.

http://www.freedomforum.org...
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 6:42:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 5:40:26 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.thegailygrind.com...

As if we all needed another reason to hate Tennessee:

"TENNESSEE PASSES BILL ALLOWING THE BULLYING OF LGBT STUDENTS IN THE NAME OF "RELIGIOUS FREEDOM"

Tennessee governor Bill Haslam has just received a bill that allows and encourages anti-gay bullying in the name of "religious freedom."

The Tennessee "Religious Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Act" allows students to use religion in any manner they choose, and protects their use of religion.

The ACLU warns that the bill, SB 1793/HB 1547, "crosses the line from protecting religious freedom into creating systematic imposition of some students" personal religious viewpoints on other students."

"Should this pass, students with a range of religious beliefs, as well as non-believers, would likely routinely be required to listen to religious messages or participate in religious exercises that conflict with their own beliefs," the ACLU adds. "Conversely, if a student of a minority religious faith (e.g., a Buddhist, a Wiccan, etc.) or a non-believer were to obtain a "position of honor," as defined under this bill, that student would be permitted to subject all classmates to prayer and proselytizing specific to his or her faith tradition in connection with school events. In both cases, parents would have no recourse to ensure that their children were not coerced into such religious exercise."

It goes on:

At a basic level, a student could merely write "God" on a chemistry test as the answer to a question asking to where water comes from. A student could also stand in class and say their religion says that gay people are sinners and going to hell, and that speech would be legally protected. The bill states "a student may express beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions. A student would not be penalized or rewarded on account of the religious content of the student"s work."

But the more sinister part of the bill forces all students to be subjected to the religious beliefs of the popular kids.

An evangelical student, or example, could preach the gospel during a science class, or "witness" during English. Attacks on LGBT people and same-sex marriage are automatically protected under this bill, offering anti-gay students a state-sposored license to bully. And of course, a student could claim they worship Satan and subject their classmates to that "religious viewpoint" as well.

The bill, of course, likely violates the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, but that rarely stops conservative lawmakers on a religious mission.

And past that, I see no problem with it from a constitutional perspective or moral perspective, since taking away the right of students to express their religion would be abridging their freedoms, while allowing them to do so abridges no one's freedoms, since it is usually not considered a right to not be subjected to speech you disagree with.
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 6:46:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 6:39:01 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 3/26/2014 5:40:26 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.thegailygrind.com...

As if we all needed another reason to hate Tennessee:

"TENNESSEE PASSES BILL ALLOWING THE BULLYING OF LGBT STUDENTS IN THE NAME OF "RELIGIOUS FREEDOM"

Tennessee governor Bill Haslam has just received a bill that allows and encourages anti-gay bullying in the name of "religious freedom."

The Tennessee "Religious Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Act" allows students to use religion in any manner they choose, and protects their use of religion.

The ACLU warns that the bill, SB 1793/HB 1547, "crosses the line from protecting religious freedom into creating systematic imposition of some students" personal religious viewpoints on other students."

"Should this pass, students with a range of religious beliefs, as well as non-believers, would likely routinely be required to listen to religious messages or participate in religious exercises that conflict with their own beliefs," the ACLU adds. "Conversely, if a student of a minority religious faith (e.g., a Buddhist, a Wiccan, etc.) or a non-believer were to obtain a "position of honor," as defined under this bill, that student would be permitted to subject all classmates to prayer and proselytizing specific to his or her faith tradition in connection with school events. In both cases, parents would have no recourse to ensure that their children were not coerced into such religious exercise."

It goes on:

At a basic level, a student could merely write "God" on a chemistry test as the answer to a question asking to where water comes from. A student could also stand in class and say their religion says that gay people are sinners and going to hell, and that speech would be legally protected. The bill states "a student may express beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions. A student would not be penalized or rewarded on account of the religious content of the student"s work."

But the more sinister part of the bill forces all students to be subjected to the religious beliefs of the popular kids.

An evangelical student, or example, could preach the gospel during a science class, or "witness" during English. Attacks on LGBT people and same-sex marriage are automatically protected under this bill, offering anti-gay students a state-sposored license to bully. And of course, a student could claim they worship Satan and subject their classmates to that "religious viewpoint" as well.

The bill, of course, likely violates the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, but that rarely stops conservative lawmakers on a religious mission.

I do not see how the bill violates the establishment clause as it is not respecting an establishment of religion, it is simply upholding the rights of that religion to express free speech.

The bill permits bullying in the name of religious freedom.

The bill even says that the speech or content would not be rewarded or punished, meaning the law was not created to respect the establishment of any religion, it was simply to affirm the rights of that religion. In fact the government is only allowed to restrict speech for the following reasons:

Clear and Present Danger
Will this act of speech create a dangerous situation? The First Amendment does not protect statements that are uttered to provoke violence or incite illegal action.

Justice Holmes, speaking for the unanimous Supreme Court, stated, "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

Fighting Words
Was something said face-to-face that would incite immediate violence?

In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court stated that the "English language has a number of words and expressions which by general consent [are] "fighting words" when said without a disarming smile. " Such words, as ordinary men know, are likely to cause a fight." The court determined that the New Hampshire statute in question "did no more than prohibit the face-to-face words plainly likely to cause a breach of the peace by the addressee, words whose speaking constitute a breach of the peace by the speaker " including "classical fighting words," words in current use less "classical" but equally likely to cause violence, and other disorderly words, including profanity, obscenity and threats." Jurisdictions may write statutes to punish verbal acts if the statutes are "carefully drawn so as not unduly to impair liberty of expression."

Irrelevant, because Chaplinsky was not about the establishment clause.

Also see What is the Fighting Words Doctrine?

Libel and Slander
Was the statement false, or put in a context that makes true statements misleading? You do not have a constitutional right to tell lies that damage or defame the reputation of a person or organization.

Not talking about libel or slander. Irrelevant.

Obscenity
In June 1973 in Miller v. California, the Supreme Court held in a 5-to-4 decision that obscene materials do not enjoy First Amendment protection.

Not talking about obscenity, also irrelevant.

In Miller v. California (1973), the court refined the definition of "obscenity" established in Roth v. United States (1957). It also rejected the "utterly without redeeming social value" test of Memoirs v. Massachusetts.

Irrelevant.

In the three-part Miller test, three questions must receive affirmative responses for material to be considered "obscene":

Irrelevant.

Would the average person, applying the contemporary community standards, viewing the work as a whole, find the work appeals to the prurient interest?
Does the work depict or describe sexual conduct in a patently offensive way?
Does the work taken as a whole lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value?
One must distinguish "obscene" material, speech not protected by the First Amendment, from "indecent" material, speech protected for adults but not for children. The Supreme Court also ruled that "higher standards" may be established to protect minors from exposure to indecent material over the airwaves. In FCC v. Pacifica Foundation the court "recognized an interest in protecting minors from exposure to vulgar and offensive spoken language."

Conflict with Other Legitimate Social or Governmental Interests
Does the speech conflict with other compelling interests? For example, in times of war, there may be reasons to restrict First Amendment rights because of conflicts with national security.

Irrelevant.

To ensure a fair trial without disclosure of prejudicial information before or during a trial, a judge may place a "gag" order on participants in the trial, including attorneys. Placing prior restraint upon the media usually is unconstitutional. In Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart (1976), the Supreme Court established three criteria that must be met before a judge can issue a gag order and restrain the media during a trial.

Time, Place, and Manner
These regulations of expression are content-neutral. A question to ask: Did the expression occur at a time or place, or did the speaker use a method of communicating, that interferes with a legitimate government interest? For example, distribution of information should not impede the flow of traffic or create excessive noise levels at certain times and in certain places.

Irrelevant.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 6:49:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 6:46:12 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/26/2014 6:39:01 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 3/26/2014 5:40:26 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.thegailygrind.com...



The ACLU warns that the bill, SB 1793/HB 1547, "crosses the line from protecting religious freedom into creating systematic imposition of some students" personal religious viewpoints on other students."

"Should this pass, students with a range of religious beliefs, as well as non-believers, would likely routinely be required to listen to religious messages or participate in religious exercises that conflict with their own beliefs," the ACLU adds. "Conversely, if a student of a minority religious faith (e.g., a Buddhist, a Wiccan, etc.) or a non-believer were to obtain a "position of honor," as defined under this bill, that student would be permitted to subject all classmates to prayer and proselytizing specific to his or her faith tradition in connection with school events. In both cases, parents would have no recourse to ensure that their children were not coerced into such religious exercise."

It goes on:

At a basic level, a student could merely write "God" on a chemistry test as the answer to a question asking to where water comes from. A student could also stand in class and say their religion says that gay people are sinners and going to hell, and that speech would be legally protected. The bill states "a student may express beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions. A student would not be penalized or rewarded on account of the religious content of the student"s work."

But the more sinister part of the bill forces all students to be subjected to the religious beliefs of the popular kids.

An evangelical student, or example, could preach the gospel during a science class, or "witness" during English. Attacks on LGBT people and same-sex marriage are automatically protected under this bill, offering anti-gay students a state-sposored license to bully. And of course, a student could claim they worship Satan and subject their classmates to that "religious viewpoint" as well.

The bill, of course, likely violates the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, but that rarely stops conservative lawmakers on a religious mission.

I do not see how the bill violates the establishment clause as it is not respecting an establishment of religion, it is simply upholding the rights of that religion to express free speech.

The bill permits bullying in the name of religious freedom.

The bill even says that the speech or content would not be rewarded or punished, meaning the law was not created to respect the establishment of any religion, it was simply to affirm the rights of that religion. In fact the government is only allowed to restrict speech for the following reasons:

Clear and Present Danger
Will this act of speech create a dangerous situation? The First Amendment does not protect statements that are uttered to provoke violence or incite illegal action.

Justice Holmes, speaking for the unanimous Supreme Court, stated, "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

Fighting Words
Was something said face-to-face that would incite immediate violence?

In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court stated that the "English language has a number of words and expressions which by general consent [are] "fighting words" when said without a disarming smile. " Such words, as ordinary men know, are likely to cause a fight." The court determined that the New Hampshire statute in question "did no more than prohibit the face-to-face words plainly likely to cause a breach of the peace by the addressee, words whose speaking constitute a breach of the peace by the speaker " including "classical fighting words," words in current use less "classical" but equally likely to cause violence, and other disorderly words, including profanity, obscenity and threats." Jurisdictions may write statutes to punish verbal acts if the statutes are "carefully drawn so as not unduly to impair liberty of expression."

Irrelevant, because Chaplinsky was not about the establishment clause.

Also see What is the Fighting Words Doctrine?

Libel and Slander
Was the statement false, or put in a context that makes true statements misleading? You do not have a constitutional right to tell lies that damage or defame the reputation of a person or organization.

Not talking about libel or slander. Irrelevant.

Obscenity
In June 1973 in Miller v. California, the Supreme Court held in a 5-to-4 decision that obscene materials do not enjoy First Amendment protection.

Not talking about obscenity, also irrelevant.

In Miller v. California (1973), the court refined the definition of "obscenity" established in Roth v. United States (1957). It also rejected the "utterly without redeeming social value" test of Memoirs v. Massachusetts.

Irrelevant.

In the three-part Miller test, three questions must receive affirmative responses for material to be considered "obscene":

Irrelevant.

Would the average person, applying the contemporary community standards, viewing the work as a whole, find the work appeals to the prurient interest?
Does the work depict or describe sexual conduct in a patently offensive way?
Does the work taken as a whole lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value?
One must distinguish "obscene" material, speech not protected by the First Amendment, from "indecent" material, speech protected for adults but not for children. The Supreme Court also ruled that "higher standards" may be established to protect minors from exposure to indecent material over the airwaves. In FCC v. Pacifica Foundation the court "recognized an interest in protecting minors from exposure to vulgar and offensive spoken language."

Conflict with Other Legitimate Social or Governmental Interests
Does the speech conflict with other compelling interests? For example, in times of war, there may be reasons to restrict First Amendment rights because of conflicts with national security.

Irrelevant.

To ensure a fair trial without disclosure of prejudicial information before or during a trial, a judge may place a "gag" order on participants in the trial, including attorneys. Placing prior restraint upon the media usually is unconstitutional. In Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart (1976), the Supreme Court established three criteria that must be met before a judge can issue a gag order and restrain the media during a trial.

Time, Place, and Manner
These regulations of expression are content-neutral. A question to ask: Did the expression occur at a time or place, or did the speaker use a method of communicating, that interferes with a legitimate government interest? For example, distribution of information should not impede the flow of traffic or create excessive noise levels at certai

Your rather poor listening skills are frustrating me. Your primary complaint was that due to the establishment clause, the bill was unconstitutional. I was showing you why since "anti gay bullying", or more specifically religious expression does not fit any of the government/SC recognized categories of when it is appropriate to restrict free speech.
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 8:08:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Here is the actual PDF of the law
http://www.utexas.edu...

its not anti gay, in any way. the LGBT crowd call anything in support of religious freedom anti gay.

"students may not be penalized or rewarded on the basis of any expression of religious beliefs in homework assignments and that homework must be graded by ordinary academic standards of substance, relevance, and other legitimate pedagogical concerns."

So actually, you want students to be penalised for daring to express their religious views in homework?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 8:22:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Here's the bill if anyone cares to read it:
http://www.capitol.tn.gov...

I haven't seen anything too nefarious in there.
Can anyone point it out?
My work here is, finally, done.
bubbatheclown
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 8:53:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 5:40:26 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.thegailygrind.com...

As if we all needed another reason to hate Tennessee:

"TENNESSEE PASSES BILL ALLOWING THE BULLYING OF LGBT STUDENTS IN THE NAME OF "RELIGIOUS FREEDOM"

Tennessee governor Bill Haslam has just received a bill that allows and encourages anti-gay bullying in the name of "religious freedom."

The Tennessee "Religious Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Act" allows students to use religion in any manner they choose, and protects their use of religion.

The ACLU warns that the bill, SB 1793/HB 1547, "crosses the line from protecting religious freedom into creating systematic imposition of some students" personal religious viewpoints on other students."

"Should this pass, students with a range of religious beliefs, as well as non-believers, would likely routinely be required to listen to religious messages or participate in religious exercises that conflict with their own beliefs," the ACLU adds. "Conversely, if a student of a minority religious faith (e.g., a Buddhist, a Wiccan, etc.) or a non-believer were to obtain a "position of honor," as defined under this bill, that student would be permitted to subject all classmates to prayer and proselytizing specific to his or her faith tradition in connection with school events. In both cases, parents would have no recourse to ensure that their children were not coerced into such religious exercise."

It goes on:

At a basic level, a student could merely write "God" on a chemistry test as the answer to a question asking to where water comes from. A student could also stand in class and say their religion says that gay people are sinners and going to hell, and that speech would be legally protected. The bill states "a student may express beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions. A student would not be penalized or rewarded on account of the religious content of the student"s work."

But the more sinister part of the bill forces all students to be subjected to the religious beliefs of the popular kids.

An evangelical student, or example, could preach the gospel during a science class, or "witness" during English. Attacks on LGBT people and same-sex marriage are automatically protected under this bill, offering anti-gay students a state-sposored license to bully. And of course, a student could claim they worship Satan and subject their classmates to that "religious viewpoint" as well.

The bill, of course, likely violates the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, but that rarely stops conservative lawmakers on a religious mission.

This "bullying" is most likely something mild like being able to not permit them to lead an on-campus Christian youth group or something.
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 7:47:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
More explanation about the law:

http://www.passportmagazine.com...

Conservative lawmakers in Tennessee have sent a piece of legislation to Governor Bill Haslam that will legally allow anti-gay bullying on the basis of religious freedom. The Relgious Viewpoints Antidscrimination Act is a dangerous piece of legislation in which students can use religious arguments to legally protect themselves. The bill states that "a student may express beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions. A student would not be penalized or rewarded on account of the religious content of the student"s work." According to The New Civil Rights Movemement, this law means, that a student can write "God" as an answer to a science test that asks where water come from, he or she cannot be penalized.

The bill will also allow students to use the public school system (from classrooms to the PA system) to voice their religious opinions. According to the ACLU:

Should this pass, students with a range of religious beliefs, as well as non-believers, would likely routinely be required to listen to religious messages or participate in religious exercises that conflict with their own beliefs"Conversely, if a student of a minority religious faith (e.g., a Buddhist, a Wiccan, etc.) or a non-believer were to obtain a "position of honor," as defined under this bill, that student would be permitted to subject all classmates to prayer and proselytizing specific to his or her faith tradition in connection with school events. In both cases, parents would have no recourse to ensure that their children were not coerced into such religious exercise.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 10:18:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 7:47:43 AM, YYW wrote:

So, exposing one's belief is no considered bullying?
Ironic, given your post in the other thread about thin skinned individuals.

How does this sanction bullying, exactly?
By saying, "YYW, you are living in sin, and I don't want anything to do with you. You are not invited to my house, nor will I associate with you", are you claiming that is bullying?

Are you further saying that students should be censored in their opinioins, simply because other students' feelings might be hurt? Should they stop saying fat kids are lazy and undisciplined, too?

Now, if I were to beat Satan out of you to heal you, that is another story....
This just seems like a knee-jerk reaction, to be honest.
My work here is, finally, done.
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 10:55:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 10:18:03 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/27/2014 7:47:43 AM, YYW wrote:

So, exposing one's belief is no considered bullying?
Ironic, given your post in the other thread about thin skinned individuals.

How does this sanction bullying, exactly?
By saying, "YYW, you are living in sin, and I don't want anything to do with you. You are not invited to my house, nor will I associate with you", are you claiming that is bullying?

So, you're right that in that specific case, it would be hard to classify saying "you're living in sin" or "you're not invited to my house," etc. as bullying. But saying something like "God hate's f@gs like you!" or "I hope you die of aids because being a queer is a sin!" is, without doubt or question, bullying. All the above examples are protected.

Are you further saying that students should be censored in their opinioins, simply because other students' feelings might be hurt? Should they stop saying fat kids are lazy and undisciplined, too?

That's not what I, nor the ACLU, nor the authors of either of the articles I posted are saying. Similarly, it's not an implication of anything any of the aforementioned have said.

Now, if I were to beat Satan out of you to heal you, that is another story....

Of course.

This just seems like a knee-jerk reaction, to be honest.

So, there exists a tension between tolerance, non-discrimination and religious freedom and finding that balance is a tough thing to do. As a general principle, it's hard to write policy that actually does what we want it to do whether we're coming up with laws for the whole country, school district policies or conduct guidelines on DDO. But, in schools, we've got to take a couple of things into consideration: school's purpose, objective and how both of those things can be prudently facilitated.

Public schools are supposed to prepare students to be good members of society; that's their purpose. Their objective is to do that in a way that is best for all students. The means to that end is to create a kind of environment that is conductive to students' learning. Students (and their parents) have all kinds of diverse beliefs. Some, I'm sure, are probably racists. Others are probably sexists. Others yet, are probably morally superior liberals who shun and condemn all those who disagree with them. (lol)

But, let's say that Fred Phelps' grandkid goes to a public school in Tennessee, and that kid has been indoctrinated to believe that God hates all homosexuals and that homosexuals are the reason for all things wrong with America. The kid, who doesn't know any better, believes what he's taught and then sees an effeminate looking boy and says "You're the reason for [x bad thing], f@ggot! God says so, too!" Let's also then suppose the kid quotes one of the more colorful verses out of Leviticus. The kid, in that case, cannot be punished for saying what he said.

On the one hand, I'm ok with the kid not being punished -because punishment isn't what a kid who goes around calling people f@ggots and saying that God hates f@gs needs. The kid in that case needs a state social worker to get involved in his home, and probably some emotional/behavioral counseling. But the issue is the principle the law advances which is: "it's ok to call people horrible things in the name of religion."
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 10:59:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 5:40:26 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.thegailygrind.com...

As if we all needed another reason to hate Tennessee:

"TENNESSEE PASSES BILL ALLOWING THE BULLYING OF LGBT STUDENTS IN THE NAME OF "RELIGIOUS FREEDOM"

Tennessee governor Bill Haslam has just received a bill that allows and encourages anti-gay bullying in the name of "religious freedom."

The Tennessee "Religious Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Act" allows students to use religion in any manner they choose, and protects their use of religion.

The ACLU warns that the bill, SB 1793/HB 1547, "crosses the line from protecting religious freedom into creating systematic imposition of some students" personal religious viewpoints on other students."

"Should this pass, students with a range of religious beliefs, as well as non-believers, would likely routinely be required to listen to religious messages or participate in religious exercises that conflict with their own beliefs," the ACLU adds. "Conversely, if a student of a minority religious faith (e.g., a Buddhist, a Wiccan, etc.) or a non-believer were to obtain a "position of honor," as defined under this bill, that student would be permitted to subject all classmates to prayer and proselytizing specific to his or her faith tradition in connection with school events. In both cases, parents would have no recourse to ensure that their children were not coerced into such religious exercise."

It goes on:

At a basic level, a student could merely write "God" on a chemistry test as the answer to a question asking to where water comes from. A student could also stand in class and say their religion says that gay people are sinners and going to hell, and that speech would be legally protected. The bill states "a student may express beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions. A student would not be penalized or rewarded on account of the religious content of the student"s work."

But the more sinister part of the bill forces all students to be subjected to the religious beliefs of the popular kids.

An evangelical student, or example, could preach the gospel during a science class, or "witness" during English. Attacks on LGBT people and same-sex marriage are automatically protected under this bill, offering anti-gay students a state-sposored license to bully. And of course, a student could claim they worship Satan and subject their classmates to that "religious viewpoint" as well.

The bill, of course, likely violates the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, but that rarely stops conservative lawmakers on a religious mission.

ARE THEY CEREAL RIGHT NOW???
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 11:01:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 10:55:34 AM, YYW wrote:
At 3/27/2014 10:18:03 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/27/2014 7:47:43 AM, YYW wrote:

So, exposing one's belief is no considered bullying?
Ironic, given your post in the other thread about thin skinned individuals.

How does this sanction bullying, exactly?
By saying, "YYW, you are living in sin, and I don't want anything to do with you. You are not invited to my house, nor will I associate with you", are you claiming that is bullying?

So, you're right that in that specific case, it would be hard to classify saying "you're living in sin" or "you're not invited to my house," etc. as bullying. But saying something like "God hate's f@gs like you!" or "I hope you die of aids because being a queer is a sin!" is, without doubt or question, bullying. All the above examples are protected.

Are you further saying that students should be censored in their opinioins, simply because other students' feelings might be hurt? Should they stop saying fat kids are lazy and undisciplined, too?

That's not what I, nor the ACLU, nor the authors of either of the articles I posted are saying. Similarly, it's not an implication of anything any of the aforementioned have said.

Now, if I were to beat Satan out of you to heal you, that is another story....

Of course.

This just seems like a knee-jerk reaction, to be honest.

So, there exists a tension between tolerance, non-discrimination and religious freedom and finding that balance is a tough thing to do. As a general principle, it's hard to write policy that actually does what we want it to do whether we're coming up with laws for the whole country, school district policies or conduct guidelines on DDO. But, in schools, we've got to take a couple of things into consideration: school's purpose, objective and how both of those things can be prudently facilitated.

Public schools are supposed to prepare students to be good members of society; that's their purpose. Their objective is to do that in a way that is best for all students. The means to that end is to create a kind of environment that is conductive to students' learning. Students (and their parents) have all kinds of diverse beliefs. Some, I'm sure, are probably racists. Others are probably sexists. Others yet, are probably morally superior liberals who shun and condemn all those who disagree with them. (lol)

But, let's say that Fred Phelps' grandkid goes to a public school in Tennessee, and that kid has been indoctrinated to believe that God hates all homosexuals and that homosexuals are the reason for all things wrong with America. The kid, who doesn't know any better, believes what he's taught and then sees an effeminate looking boy and says "You're the reason for [x bad thing], f@ggot! God says so, too!" Let's also then suppose the kid quotes one of the more colorful verses out of Leviticus. The kid, in that case, cannot be punished for saying what he said.

On the one hand, I'm ok with the kid not being punished -because punishment isn't what a kid who goes around calling people f@ggots and saying that God hates f@gs needs. The kid in that case needs a state social worker to get involved in his home, and probably some emotional/behavioral counseling. But the issue is the principle the law advances which is: "it's ok to call people horrible things in the name of religion."

Dang, that's awful.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 11:02:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The reason this will likely violate the establishment clause is because students are compelled to be at school, and therefore allowing other students free reign to spout religious whatnot irrespective of that means you're compelling the students to listen to religious dogma.

If there was sufficient escape-clausery, they might be able to get away with it, but as it stands it's one-sided in favor of forcing students to be proselytized to by other students, and that's rather clearly inappropriate. That we can expect it will be used mostly against LGBT folks is irrelevant to the larger problem, although it's as clear an implication as Az's failed "turn away the gays" bill.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 11:51:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 11:02:31 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
The reason this will likely violate the establishment clause is because students are compelled to be at school, and therefore allowing other students free reign to spout religious whatnot irrespective of that means you're compelling the students to listen to religious dogma.

Yes.

If there was sufficient escape-clausery, they might be able to get away with it, but as it stands it's one-sided in favor of forcing students to be proselytized to by other students, and that's rather clearly inappropriate. That we can expect it will be used mostly against LGBT folks is irrelevant to the larger problem, although it's as clear an implication as Az's failed "turn away the gays" bill.

Before I respond, I'm curious what you mean by "the larger problem"?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 12:00:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 11:51:09 AM, YYW wrote:
At 3/27/2014 11:02:31 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
The reason this will likely violate the establishment clause is because students are compelled to be at school, and therefore allowing other students free reign to spout religious whatnot irrespective of that means you're compelling the students to listen to religious dogma.
Yes.

Yeah, I knew you got it, that was more directed to the others...

If there was sufficient escape-clausery, they might be able to get away with it, but as it stands it's one-sided in favor of forcing students to be proselytized to by other students, and that's rather clearly inappropriate. That we can expect it will be used mostly against LGBT folks is irrelevant to the larger problem, although it's as clear an implication as Az's failed "turn away the gays" bill.

Before I respond, I'm curious what you mean by "the larger problem"?

The problem is broader than the specific impact that, we can all agree, is likely going to be its main impact. It's a negative impact, to be sure. If the law were narrowed to ONLY include allowances anti-LGBT proselytizing, it would be equally (to my mind) bad, but not equally as BROADLY bad, if that makes sense. Though it would, now that I think about it, still be almost as broadly bad, just with fewer applications due to its limited scope. You touched upon it a bit in your quoting, too. The "larger problem" is the forcing of students to listen to religious dogma--that's a broad bad. It will almost certainly be used almost exclusively against gay folks, because they're one of the few minorities you're still allowed to be proudly bigoted against.

I don't mean to diminish its likely outcome, because that's bad on its own.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 12:13:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 12:00:21 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 11:51:09 AM, YYW wrote:
At 3/27/2014 11:02:31 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
The reason this will likely violate the establishment clause is because students are compelled to be at school, and therefore allowing other students free reign to spout religious whatnot irrespective of that means you're compelling the students to listen to religious dogma.
Yes.

Yeah, I knew you got it, that was more directed to the others...

If there was sufficient escape-clausery, they might be able to get away with it, but as it stands it's one-sided in favor of forcing students to be proselytized to by other students, and that's rather clearly inappropriate. That we can expect it will be used mostly against LGBT folks is irrelevant to the larger problem, although it's as clear an implication as Az's failed "turn away the gays" bill.

Before I respond, I'm curious what you mean by "the larger problem"?

The problem is broader than the specific impact that, we can all agree, is likely going to be its main impact. It's a negative impact, to be sure. If the law were narrowed to ONLY include allowances anti-LGBT proselytizing, it would be equally (to my mind) bad, but not equally as BROADLY bad, if that makes sense.

It makes perfect sense, and you're right.

Though it would, now that I think about it, still be almost as broadly bad, just with fewer applications due to its limited scope. You touched upon it a bit in your quoting, too. The "larger problem" is the forcing of students to listen to religious dogma--that's a broad bad. It will almost certainly be used almost exclusively against gay folks, because they're one of the few minorities you're still allowed to be proudly bigoted against.

I don't mean to diminish its likely outcome, because that's bad on its own.

Yeah. The bad outcomes from this law surely extend beyond legally sanctioned homophobia, insofar as legally sanctioned homophobia is but one of many really bad things this bill enshrines into law.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 5:13:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Wait, what kind of dumb*** chemistry teacher would write a test question that asks "Where does water come from?"
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2014 9:15:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 10:55:34 AM, YYW wrote:
At 3/27/2014 10:18:03 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

Now, if I were to beat Satan out of you to heal you, that is another story....

Of course.

So....if this action is not protected, why are we assuming that other actions will be?
I don't see it, from the law or any interpretation I can make, that would allow a zealot to be a bully. The PA system still needs to have a reason for being used, and being religious isn't good enough.

Further, I don't see a difference in enforcing policies given these two scenarios:
1. Hey kid, you are poor, and poor people are a scourge. My daddy is a Rush Limbaugh, and he says you are are ruining America. If you ever talk to me again, you will regret it.
2. Hey kid, you are gay, and gay people are a scourge. My daddy is a priest, and he says you are ruining America. If you ever talk to me again, you will regret it.

If one is bad, so is the other.
I don't see how this law protects the latter. (use your imagination to make it apply to bullying)
My work here is, finally, done.
Kanti
Posts: 115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2014 3:56:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The law does violates the Establishment Clause.

The issue is raised in events where the student body becomes a captive audience that is to say their participation of the event is high encouraged, and they're compelled to listen. This means graduation, oral assignments, assemblies, and morning announcements. In the case of morning announcements or oral assignments it actually becomes necessary that the students listen. It then becomes inevitable that a person will be coerced into listening to religious content that violates their personal beliefs or religious conscience. The issue here is distinguishing the speaker of the religious content(student) from the organizer of the event(public school). In this case the public school requires a student to participate in an event that could result in religious speech therefore it is essentially sponsoring it. Ultimately you need to take in mind the states that have passed legislation with basically the same language over the past 7-8 years: Texas, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. If you don't see the possible harm to religious minorities by essentially giving the evangelical South free practice on public grounds then you're being naive.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2014 4:54:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 5:13:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Wait, what kind of dumb*** chemistry teacher would write a test question that asks "Where does water come from?"

Well, some water does come from certain chemical reactions, though that's stretching it a bit.
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2014 6:31:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This would be funny, if it wasn't just so pathetic, ignorant and intolerant. Did you even read the Bill, before you posted this? Somehow, I doubt it. The sky is not falling. Get a grip.
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2014 6:41:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/31/2014 6:31:32 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
This would be funny, if it wasn't just so pathetic, ignorant and intolerant. Did you even read the Bill, before you posted this? Somehow, I doubt it. The sky is not falling. Get a grip.

I'll bet you think you're a really clever fellow, right?
Kanti
Posts: 115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2014 6:48:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/31/2014 6:31:32 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
This would be funny, if it wasn't just so pathetic, ignorant and intolerant. Did you even read the Bill, before you posted this? Somehow, I doubt it. The sky is not falling. Get a grip.

Something tells me you have no idea what you're talking about.
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2014 6:53:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/31/2014 6:48:04 PM, Kanti wrote:
At 3/31/2014 6:31:32 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
This would be funny, if it wasn't just so pathetic, ignorant and intolerant. Did you even read the Bill, before you posted this? Somehow, I doubt it. The sky is not falling. Get a grip.

Something tells me you have no idea what you're talking about.

Well. Let's see here. The OP posted this alarmist BS about Christians being allowed to legally bully homosexuals, in Tennessee. I asked him if he even read the bill he's referring to. I believe I know what I'm talking about. BTW. He didn't answer my question.
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2014 6:57:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/31/2014 6:53:52 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/31/2014 6:48:04 PM, Kanti wrote:
At 3/31/2014 6:31:32 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
This would be funny, if it wasn't just so pathetic, ignorant and intolerant. Did you even read the Bill, before you posted this? Somehow, I doubt it. The sky is not falling. Get a grip.

Something tells me you have no idea what you're talking about.

Well. Let's see here. The OP posted this alarmist BS about Christians being allowed to legally bully homosexuals, in Tennessee. I asked him if he even read the bill he's referring to. I believe I know what I'm talking about. BTW. He didn't answer my question.

You recognize that the vast majority of what the OP was, was a quote from a separate news source?

YYW didn't write the article...if you take issue with some aspect of the article, perhaps you should explain what it is.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2014 7:11:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/31/2014 6:57:09 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/31/2014 6:53:52 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/31/2014 6:48:04 PM, Kanti wrote:
At 3/31/2014 6:31:32 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
This would be funny, if it wasn't just so pathetic, ignorant and intolerant. Did you even read the Bill, before you posted this? Somehow, I doubt it. The sky is not falling. Get a grip.

Something tells me you have no idea what you're talking about.

Well. Let's see here. The OP posted this alarmist BS about Christians being allowed to legally bully homosexuals, in Tennessee. I asked him if he even read the bill he's referring to. I believe I know what I'm talking about. BTW. He didn't answer my question.

You recognize that the vast majority of what the OP was, was a quote from a separate news source?

YYW didn't write the article...if you take issue with some aspect of the article, perhaps you should explain what it is.

The OP posted from a biased website. Apparently, he agrees with them. I simply asked if he read the bill. It is a valid question. One which he still hasn't answered.
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2014 7:24:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/31/2014 6:53:52 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/31/2014 6:48:04 PM, Kanti wrote:
At 3/31/2014 6:31:32 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
This would be funny, if it wasn't just so pathetic, ignorant and intolerant. Did you even read the Bill, before you posted this? Somehow, I doubt it. The sky is not falling. Get a grip.

Something tells me you have no idea what you're talking about.

Well. Let's see here. The OP posted this alarmist BS about Christians being allowed to legally bully homosexuals, in Tennessee. I asked him if he even read the bill he's referring to. I believe I know what I'm talking about. BTW. He didn't answer my question.

I'm sure you do believe what you're talking about, and that's certainly ok. But, I'm not going to take you seriously here and I don't think anyone else should. Your first post in this thread offered nothing of value. Your second post, in defense of your first worthless post, followed in kind.

I think I can, based on the way you responded to this, deduce a few things about why you think what you do. Firstly, I'm going to go on ahead and assume that you have a high school education and that's it. Secondly, you're probably a "lukewarm" evangelical, meaning that you go to church sometimes but not with any regularity. Thirdly, you probably work a low-sklled job. You're probably from a lower middle class background and your kids -if you had any- I'm assuming struggled in school.

On the one hand, you think your life experience is enough for you to understand the world -but on the other, how could it, given that you've probably lived in only one region throughout your life. Your world, like your mind, is small -but you're ok with that because you don't know enough about the rest of even your own country to understand the difference.

You probably supported someone like Herman Cain (to prove you weren't racist) in the 2012 primary, right? Or, Michelle Bachman, because you figured that she's a hot piece of @ss that you'd fantasize about -but not speak of in the presence of "the Mrs." right? I'm guessing that you're exactly the kind of person who thinks that Obamacare is the most awful thing that could ever happen, when -ironically- you're exactly the kind of person it's designed to help.

If I were a betting man, I'd guess that you've been taught that homosexuality a lot like pedophilia, that it's morally wrong (from the pulpit of that evangelical church you go to) and that liberals (especially the gay ones) like me are corrupting our nation's youth. Religion is something that's important to you only as a source of political identity, though, and I'm guessing it's been a while since you've really talked to God. You hate people who disagree with you, despite the fact that you probably at least call yourself a Christian, too.

But, even though you think you're smart and informed and that you know "all there is to know about stuff worth knowing," you watch someone like Glen Beck to be reminded of how smart you think you are. And, when you tune into that, you get upset because you both realize that my generation is going to leave you and all those like you in the pages of history and judge you -the angry, uneducated, low-skilled and forgotten white man- for the prejudices you hold. But, Fox news tells you -explicitly and implicitly- that you should feel that way, and that it's ok to hate other people because you are nothing more than a living relic.

Realize, "ballofhate" that you aren't the targeted audience for this thread. I don't care what you think and I doubt many in this forum will. Whether you understand or care about the implications that bill in Tennessee will have is not something I'm concerned about, either. Surprised? You shouldn't be. I take solace in the fact that every day, the number of people who think like you decrease every day -but the number of people like me grows. And we will take your place in society, and wash away your influence. That's how change over time works, and it's beautiful.
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2014 7:52:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/31/2014 7:24:58 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/31/2014 6:53:52 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/31/2014 6:48:04 PM, Kanti wrote:
At 3/31/2014 6:31:32 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
This would be funny, if it wasn't just so pathetic, ignorant and intolerant. Did you even read the Bill, before you posted this? Somehow, I doubt it. The sky is not falling. Get a grip.

Something tells me you have no idea what you're talking about.

Well. Let's see here. The OP posted this alarmist BS about Christians being allowed to legally bully homosexuals, in Tennessee. I asked him if he even read the bill he's referring to. I believe I know what I'm talking about. BTW. He didn't answer my question.

I'm sure you do believe what you're talking about, and that's certainly ok. But, I'm not going to take you seriously here and I don't think anyone else should. Your first post in this thread offered nothing of value. Your second post, in defense of your first worthless post, followed in kind.

I think I can, based on the way you responded to this, deduce a few things about why you think what you do. Firstly, I'm going to go on ahead and assume that you have a high school education and that's it. Secondly, you're probably a "lukewarm" evangelical, meaning that you go to church sometimes but not with any regularity. Thirdly, you probably work a low-sklled job. You're probably from a lower middle class background and your kids -if you had any- I'm assuming struggled in school.

On the one hand, you think your life experience is enough for you to understand the world -but on the other, how could it, given that you've probably lived in only one region throughout your life. Your world, like your mind, is small -but you're ok with that because you don't know enough about the rest of even your own country to understand the difference.

You probably supported someone like Herman Cain (to prove you weren't racist) in the 2012 primary, right? Or, Michelle Bachman, because you figured that she's a hot piece of @ss that you'd fantasize about -but not speak of in the presence of "the Mrs." right? I'm guessing that you're exactly the kind of person who thinks that Obamacare is the most awful thing that could ever happen, when -ironically- you're exactly the kind of person it's designed to help.

If I were a betting man, I'd guess that you've been taught that homosexuality a lot like pedophilia, that it's morally wrong (from the pulpit of that evangelical church you go to) and that liberals (especially the gay ones) like me are corrupting our nation's youth. Religion is something that's important to you only as a source of political identity, though, and I'm guessing it's been a while since you've really talked to God. You hate people who disagree with you, despite the fact that you probably at least call yourself a Christian, too.

But, even though you think you're smart and informed and that you know "all there is to know about stuff worth knowing," you watch someone like Glen Beck to be reminded of how smart you think you are. And, when you tune into that, you get upset because you both realize that my generation is going to leave you and all those like you in the pages of history and judge you -the angry, uneducated, low-skilled and forgotten white man- for the prejudices you hold. But, Fox news tells you -explicitly and implicitly- that you should feel that way, and that it's ok to hate other people because you are nothing more than a living relic.

Realize, "ballofhate" that you aren't the targeted audience for this thread. I don't care what you think and I doubt many in this forum will. Whether you understand or care about the implications that bill in Tennessee will have is not something I'm concerned about, either. Surprised? You shouldn't be. I take solace in the fact that every day, the number of people who think like you decrease every day -but the number of people like me grows. And we will take your place in society, and wash away your influence. That's how change over time works, and it's beautiful.

Gee. That's a lot of assumptions. All of them wrong. And you obviously DO care what I think, because you took the time to paint me in a very bad way. All of it slander. My faith is central to who I am. I believe that homosexuality is a sin against God. That doesn't mean I hate gays. Just the opposite. I speak out against it, because I care for their eternal souls. You posted an article from a biased website, and acted like Christians were going to start burning gays at the stake. I simply called you on your BS, and asked if you actually read the bill. Well? Did you? You still haven't answered me, so I'll have to conclude that the answer is no. I'm entitled to my opinion. If you don't like it, then that's just too bad. You can't silence me. I will speak the truth, as I see it. Deal with it. Good day.
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.