Pro-bullying law just passed in Michigan, US.

I have few friends that claim to be religious and when I see shit like this I wonder how they can be so firm in their position. This is just disgusting. How can they claim 'moral conviction' as an exception when the law itself is so blatantly immoral?

Michigan Republicans Allow Bullying If ‘Religiously or Morally Motivated’ (Video)

In Michigan, the State’s Republican-controlled Senate has passed an anti-bullying law named after a gay victim.

Good thing you might think. Except it’s not.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://skepticsinthepub.net.nz/trackback/999

“In addition to supporting

“In addition to supporting hatred and bullying, it also misleads people into seeing Christianity as something that directly contradicts the teachings of Jesus Christ (and Paul, and the other founding Christian writers).”

But the problem is that it's looking like a "no true scotsman" fallacy in operation there (Note: I'm looking at the statement only) and I think in this case, where a clause has been added so that a particular group is protected from having any consequences from their actions, it's due hard criticism, as does other things that have been proposed as legislation in the US. This is just simply wrong, and does not protect children from the effects of bullying and instead gives free reign to the bullies to do their worst knowing they are a protected class and will not suffer any consequences for their actions. It can't be escaped that the clause was motivated by religious beliefs, ones that 'other' people as being sinful for something they cannot change.

This is because, however much anyone would like otherwise, those people claim themselves as Christian, they subscribe to and support the same belief system and would say there *is* biblical support for their statements. One example is: 1 Corinthians 6:9 (King James Version)"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." This isn't actually an "out there" extreme position at all, and even if someone expressed it in an extreme way or individually doesn't think it applies it's still part of and supported/condoned by the belief system and not repudiated by the group as a whole in any real way. It's not the only one either, there's plenty of other stuff there that is problematic like the teachings on child discipline (spare the rod, spoil the child type of stuff) that feed into things like books like "How to train up a child" which is basically a manual for child abuse and which has been linked with child deaths.

Otherwise, what would actually be said is what is wrong with the stance and why should any person or group state such a position. It would be not part of any of it, and repudiated outright.

I have few friends that claim

I have few friends that claim to be religious and when I see shit like this I wonder how they can be so firm in their position.

Because when I say I'm religious, I mean that I believe in God, not that I agree with everything said or done by anybody else who believes in God.

I suspect it offends me slightly more than it does you, if such comparisons can be meaningful. In addition to supporting hatred and bullying, it also misleads people into seeing Christianity as something that directly contradicts the teachings of Jesus Christ (and Paul, and the other founding Christian writers). And worse, it's trying to protect that bizarro Christianism legally because it can't be defended in scripture.

Basically, for you it's hateful. For me, it's hateful and blasphemous.

Hmm... Odd. For some reason

Hmm... Odd. For some reason when I was writing this you weren't in the short list I was thinking of.

Incredible!

So bullying is OK if it's homophobic or bigotted? And how is that different from what bullies say?