Entry tags:

another reason to hate people, politics, rights what rights?, teh ebil ghey agenda!

You know what we should do? Make it okay to bully queer students
C&P:

Matt Windschitl and Jason Schultz, two Iowa lawmakers, have proposed a bill to explicitly remove gay and lesbian students from anti-bullying policies in state schools.

Gay and lesbian teens are currently protected by the state’s Safe Schools Act, which aims to help students who are being bullied and harassed by ensuring a safe and non-judgmental environment to report incidents. Unacceptable, according to Schultz, who said that he has nothing against gay students, but added that he needs to remove their protections because it will lead to same-sex marriage.

Yes, you read that right. Windschitl and Schultz want to remove anti-bullying measures for gay students—one of the most vulnerable and harassed minorities—from public schools because he opposes an unrelated issue, same-sex marriage. It’s a destructive message for already bullied students, for whom these lawmakers not only have no empathy, but outright disdain.

And the excuse… It spells things out pretty clearly, doesn’t it?

I’ve pointed out many times that the lawmakers and lobbyists behind the movement to ban same-sex marriage don’t typically oppose gay weddings—they dislike gay people period. Maybe they think we’re just indulging in some personal fetish; maybe they think we’re sick in the head; whatever their misconception, one thing is clear: They aim to discriminate against all gay people at the level of the law. Once they ensure that gay people do not have the same legal rights to marriage as straights, they will move to restrict other rights and freedoms. The right to safe schools is just the start.

You can help stop it, not only by contacting Jason Schultz and Matt Windschitl, but by standing up for equal rights everywhere. Apathy is not an appropriate reaction when this is the level that opponents sink to.

Still More:
Youtube Video: Why Do Jason Schultz and Matt Windschitl Hate LGBT Students? TRANSCRIPT.

SAFE SCHOOL PROPOSAL: Two lawmakers want to exclude gay and lesbian students

Email them: jason.schultz@legis.state.ia.us, matt.windschitl@legis.state.ia.us

Sample letter for easy copy & paste: http://zjemptv.com/-/hf2291 (but feel free to write your own)

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

issendai
2010-02-11 03:52 pm UTC (link)

*raises hand*

Actually, religious diversity was at a peak in England, with dozens of tiny sects springing up all over the place. Charles II and James II both attempted to pass laws making religious tolerance into policy. One of the reasons many Puritans left England was because the King wouldn't do anything about those godless heathens who weren't doing religion right.

And yes, the Puritans got a fair bit of persecution from the other Christians of the time. It was partly a political struggle--the Puritans wanted to push the Anglican Church even farther from Catholicism, and the Anglicans pushed back with the power of the State--and while I have sympathy for any group that's persecuted simply because it opposes the Powers That Be, the Puritans did get their chance to take control of England. It was a hideous, blasted, joyless time. So I have very limited sympathy for them.

tl;dr History books forget to mention that the Pilgrims were assholes who kinda brought it on themselves.

But the Founders did have plenty of evidence of Christian-on-Christian persecution (Quakers anyone?), so you're right, they were mindful of religious tyranny and the tyranny of the majority. A wee little detail that the Puritans' modern-day spiritual cousins forget.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	kitt_in_socks 2010-02-11 08:14 pm UTC (link)
	This. The Puritans were dicks. They left England for the freedom to oppress people as they chose. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	snarkhunter 2010-02-11 09:20 pm UTC (link)
	To be fair, everyone was kind of a dick at that point in religious history. I mean, we're what? Less than 100 years out from regular heretic burnings (of Protestants when Mary was in charge, of Catholics when Edward and Elizabeth were in charge...)? Admittedly, it was a Puritan faction who beheaded the king later on, but that was more political than religious. :D (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	silrana 2010-02-11 09:38 pm UTC (link)
	This is how I look at it. It's hard to pick bad guys when they were all vigorously trying to get the upper hand over the other groups. But the main point I was trying to make was that official state religions do not make happy fun times for anyone. And it's darned easy to find yourself on the wrong side of one. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	kitt_in_socks 2010-02-11 09:45 pm UTC (link)
	Oh yeah, England definitely wasn't all sunshine and roses with freedom of religion for all back then. But the Puritans weren't just a bunch of oppressed peace-loving folk either. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	snarkhunter 2010-02-11 10:37 pm UTC (link)
	Definitely not. After all...Salem. And that's just what they did to each other. (And their slaves.) (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	issendai 2010-02-12 05:25 am UTC (link)
	This is quite true. And then a couple centuries later, their descendants became Unitarians. Because history has a sense of humor. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	witty 2010-02-12 01:44 am UTC (link)
	Well, and after all, what did the Puritans do, immediately upon arriving in their edenic new world? Schism and oppress one another on idiotically narrow points of doctrine! This would be why there are little towns all over Connecticut and Rhode Island named "No, WE enjoy god's love, STFU!!" and "NO U!"* *Only slight exaggeration. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	kitt_in_socks 2010-02-12 02:05 am UTC (link)
	I want to move to NOU, OK. (Reply to this)(Parent)

innocentsmith
2010-02-12 03:37 am UTC (link)

Less than 100 years out from regular heretic burnings (of Protestants when Mary was in charge, of Catholics when Edward and Elizabeth were in charge...)

I don't know that I'd call burnings under Edward or Elizabeth "regular," especially not compared to during Mary's reign. Granted, all of the Tudors had agendas and religious persecution went on under all of them (sometimes of each other!), but Elizabeth did try to avoid executing heretics unless they were also trying to have her bumped off the throne. "I have no desire to make windows into men's souls" and all that. When you go from 280 people executed in 5 years (under Mary) to 4 people in 45 years (under Elizabeth)...that's a pretty significant policy change.

tl;dr: Politics and religion were pretty inextricable in those days all throughout Europe, and it led to a lot of horrible crap.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

snarkhunter
2010-02-12 05:10 am UTC (link)

Yeah, I thought I was being a bit unfair to Elizabeth in my comment, but I didn't have the exact numbers. That's...edifying, to say the least. For some reason, I thought there'd been more heretic-slaying early on in her reign.

Politics and religion were pretty inextricable in those days all throughout Europe, and it led to a lot of horrible crap.

All the more reason to get religion out of our politics now!

(Reply to this)(Parent)

miera_c
2010-02-12 10:39 pm UTC (link)

Politics and religion were pretty inextricable in those days all throughout Europe, and it led to a lot of horrible crap.

Hence the reason why the men who created US federal law attempted to keep them far, far away from each other.

Also some of the influential philosophers who were "Christian" during the Revolutionary Era practiced a version of Christian faith that would not be recognized by many modern US practitioners, particularly those farther to the right.

(Whenever I hear some politician talking about how this is a Christian nation and should have Christian law, I want to ask him, "OK, but which version?" *headdesk*)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	darkrose 2010-02-13 02:18 am UTC (link)
	I've been immersed in Tudor England lately, and what has surprised me most is how many people were executed for heresy under Henry VIII, both Catholic and Protestant, depending on what mood the king was in that week. (I've also come to the conclusion that Thomas More was a self-righteous jerk, but that may be due to being in the middle of Wolf Hall) (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	alienist 2010-02-13 06:09 am UTC (link)
	No, he definitely was. (Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -