Users who Dugg This
Phil Perspective
9366 Followers
Comgen & Dr. Socks' love child
12547 Followers
cosmicsurferFeb 2, 2012
Why does it not surprise me that it is Bachmann's district? The attitudes expressed by Bachmann and her husband are of extreme fear manifesting in homophobic hate. A complete lack of faith spreading throughout the community and acted out by the deaths of those they have been abused emotionally .
The Evangelical faithless
FesteringStumpFeb 5, 2012
I agree with the substance of your comment; I disagree with you calling it a lack of faith. It is precisely because of faith that this happens. Just because all faith doesn't lead to horrific outcomes doesn't absolve faith of culpability.
cosmicsurferFeb 5, 2012
There is a difference between faith and the actions of those trying to impose dogma. Those who try to prove "faith" by removing rights of others actually have no faith.
If one believes in an omniscient being how in the hell can they think that being needs their help or even wants it? That is a lack of faith. Those people do NOT believe in an omniscient being though they may claim it. They have no belief or faith that their all powerful God has any power.
They live in fear that manifests in hate and distrust of their own deity.
Acting out in that distrust, fear, hate and anger is exact;y what creates Hate crimes and exactly what dogmatic zealots are all about.
Faith keeps one from having to act out in their fear. Faith is not about religion, it is about acceptance and contentment in one's existence and belief. If that belief includes a higher being or power then fine but acceptance that the higher power actually IS a higher power negates the need to act out to prove it
cawpinFeb 5, 2012
comicsurfer - As I Christian who attends an Evangelical Covenant church, let me say "Right on." to you. These actions are those of insecure, hateful people who don't deserve to be called Christians.
simonjester666Feb 5, 2012
I think you just stumbled on something, No one christian sect has the same principals, rules or morals, Stop calling yourselves Christians as a general description of those that believe in Jesus. When I grew up I was Lutheran, you were baptist and they were Catholic, we were all different. Now people try to put them all under the same banner "Christians" and it just does not fit. The rules are so different from sect to sect, it makes no sense. Some believe you must be born again, some believe in the trinity, some believe in the eucharist, some believe in confession. It just goes on and on, you are all different, stop trying to pretend you are not.
Im_High_TechFeb 6, 2012
Straight up. Every single Sect is different, the only similarity is that we believe in Jesus/God. How we worship and what exactly we believe in, is different.
FesteringStumpFeb 6, 2012
@simonjester666,
The fact is that all these different sects were in competition and many often wouldn't even recognise other sects as true Christians.
Protestants hated Catholics and vice versa. Then with feminism and the demand for women's right to control their own reproduction, and gay rights, many of these former rivals found they could bury the hatchet and join together in mutual hatred of someone else. The distrust of each other is not gone; It is just put on the shelf. Like people say, one way to get people together is have a common enemy.
kylekaczynskFeb 6, 2012
I think you could argue that the existence of denominations within Christianity is a distinctly un-Christian state of affairs. Coming from a professing Christian, I feel that it would be better for different Christian sects to put aside their petty differences and unite. Because all the differences between denominations really are quite petty, even between Catholicism and Protestantism (in my opinion anyways).
simonjester666Feb 6, 2012
Interesting, I find the current situation a very christian like state of affairs, all they do is judge themselves and others as they have done for thousands of years. How is it possible to "put aside their petty differences" when one sect goes complete against another as to how the rules are read? All I am saying is stop acting like you are all part of the same group, you are not.
FesteringStumpFeb 6, 2012
You are redefining faith to suit yourself. You don't get to do that. You don't get to cherrypick the faiths you like and declare only them to be true faith. That is just another version of the No true Scotsman fallacy.
Faith
 noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
Whether you like it or not the Bible contains verses that are hateful by many peoples standards. The people who think the Bible is inerrant believe they have to accept all parts of it. That is their faith-based understanding.
So don't rattle of your personal interpretation of what you believe faith is and expect me to accept it. You don't get to have the final say.
I object to religious faith because it is believing things without any evidence.
Your faith in an omniscient being may not lead you to hate homosexuals. That is good. There are many whose faith underpins and give reason to hate. It doesn't matter one iota to them that you declare their faith invalid or whaterver. By the nature of faith there is no evidence you could give that would change their minds.
You certainly don't get to redifine the meaning of the word faith either. All you can say is what faith means to you!
piddlydFeb 5, 2012
Are you surprised that this kind of attitude exists in an area that would vote to put Michele Bachman in office?
In the mobster movie "Goodfellas", Hank Hill's wife talks about how the entire gangster lifestyle becomes normalized because everyone hangs out and socializes with other people in their criminal network of friends. Things that seem outrageous to normal society become every day events to them - and they don't understand why people on the outside make such a big deal about it.
That is what happens when you get insular cliques of any sort. It applies to any political or social outlook. This is what causes strong partisan polarization and divides. People only associate with those who are like minded, only seek out information that provides the confirmational bias they are looking for - and they come to a place where they think their opinion on gun-rights, or abortion law, or homosexual marriage are held by the largest majority of people and *correct*.
It shouldn't surprise you that Michele Bachman's district is an extremely right district. Just like it shouldn't surprise me that Nancy Pelosi's district is an extremely LEFT district. Both districts are largely out of touch with the popular opinion, and both voices get a disproportionate amount of air-time for their sensationalist, extreme opinions - because opinion in the middle of the road isn't actually that interesting.
I'm looking over at the side bar for the Front Page in Politics, and I see a headline, "Ron Paul tells CNN Piers Morgan only "honest rape" merits abortion. There is bias in this headline - you can see what the outlet feels about the concept of "Honest Rape" just by the use of quotes. This opinion of Ron Paul's is a right-of-center but relatively moderate perspective on abortion. But the left will have none of that. We don't need quotes around the word "honest rape" to know exactly what Ron Paul means. The only candidate that the Left will entertain is one who is always pro-choice, in every case. But unless it is a very polarizing issue like abortion or gay-rights or race, how much press does Ron Paul get? Not much - because he tends to be between both parties in their ridiculous extremes on most everything. There is no story in THAT - and hell, if you got the word out there about THAT aspect of Ron Paul - that nutball might actually get into office and *really* make some change. What if the middle found its voice? That would be horrible for the status quo of politics by division.
drunkclamFeb 5, 2012
banning abortion is never moderate.
rglarson13Feb 5, 2012
That's exactly the same as saying that banning murder is never moderate.
There's no rational reason why we've decided that abortion is okay before the third trimester -- we've just arbitrarily decided that because the fetus isn't fully formed, it must not be a human being yet. Nobody disagrees that killing human beings is wrong; the argument surrounding abortion is entirely metaphysical: it's whether the fetus is a human being or not.
I used to be pro-choice, but the more I think logically about it, the less sure I am. Provided that we start from the position that killing a human being for the sake of convenience (for simplicity, I'll completely exempt from this discussion women whose health or whose limited access to resources -- medical, financial, agrarian, etc. -- makes it dangerous for them to carry a baby to term) is wrong (I mean, it's not like it's okay to have your grandma euthanized when she goes senile) ...
(1) If we assume that the fetus isn't a human being because it isn't fully formed, then the argument reduces to saying that things that don't look like human beings are not human beings. So, people with serious disfiguring injuries, birth defects, and possibly even really ugly people are not human beings.
(2) If we assume that the fetus isn't a human being because it doesn't have rational thought, then it probably doesn't become a human being until it's about two years old.
(3) If we assume that the fetus isn't a human being until it has brain activity, then science says it's a human being after about 6 weeks, which is a lot, lot earlier than the 28-week deadline for abortion.
(4) If we assume that the fetus is a human being once it's developed sufficiently to live outside the womb (which is the basis for most abortion deadlines nowadays), we're basically just saying that self-reliance is what makes a human being. This is further supported by the fact that it's okay to allow people to die, rather than keeping them chained to life-support machines for another 5 years. (On the other hand, without intervention, the fetus would most likely have been born just fine, so I'm not sure how much credence I give this argument.)
Ultimately, because there's no way to know when the fetus really becomes a person, it seems unreasonable to risk killing a human being over what is essentially a matter of convenience. Like, because I'm not sure whether driving the wrong way on the highway at midnight will actually endanger others, I may as well just take the most direct route to where I'm going (I guess to make this more equivalent, let's say that I'm driving myself to the hospital with an injury that will result in something serious -- loss of a limb, maybe -- if I don't get there in time).
Also, calling it a woman's right to control her body completely ignores any rights the fetus might have (actually, it necessarily assumes that the fetus isn't a human being).
Ultimately, the arguments for abortion largely seem to reduce to two things: (1) I don't like being pregnant, so I shouldn't have to be; and (2) I get to just assume that reality is the way I want it to be so that I don't need to feel bad. This doesn't mean there aren't better arguments, but the ones that are currently being used (that I have heard) all seem to rely on those two things.
On the other hand, I'll admit that the arguments against abortion also reduce to three things: (1) people suffer some sort of karmic damage as a result of doing bad (i.e., immoral, not illegal) things; (2) it is a universal constant that killing a human being is bad; and one of either (3a) the fetus is a human being from the moment of conception; or (3b) we don't know whether the fetus is a human being, and it's not worth the risk.
I still don't know where I stand on this issue, but I can definitely understand the arguments against abortion.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
piddlydFeb 5, 2012
Kind of proves my point that my comment has been buried and I'm getting absolutist responses like "banning abortion is NEVER moderate".
Unregulated abortion is NEVER moderate. There, i fixed that for you, Drunkclam.
drunkclamFeb 6, 2012
f**k off, women have a right to control their own bodies.
publiclurkerFeb 6, 2012
and trying to compare two entirely different things appears to be the hallmark of the superstitious idiots commonly known as the Christian Taliban.
Closed AccountFeb 5, 2012
"It shouldn't surprise you that Michele Bachman's district is an extremely right district. Just like it shouldn't surprise me that Nancy Pelosi's district is an extremely LEFT district. Both districts are largely out of touch with the popular opinion, and both voices get a disproportionate amount of air-time for their sensationalist, extreme opinions - because opinion in the middle of the road isn't actually that interesting. "
--Could you clarify what you mean by extremely right and extremely left in these cases? I read this a lot but I've rarely seen it actually substantiated.
"There is bias in this headline - you can see what the outlet feels about the concept of "Honest Rape" just by the use of quotes. This opinion of Ron Paul's is a right-of-center but relatively moderate perspective on abortion. But the left will have none of that. We don't need quotes around the word "honest rape" to know exactly what Ron Paul means. "
--We actually do and I think you need to examine your own biases. You talk about the phrase "honest rape" as if it's something unremarkable and its meaning should be obvious to anyone who reads it. I consider myself fairly well educated on the subject of rape but I've *never* heard or seen that phrase before. When I saw the story title, my first response was that Paul meant falsely reported accusations of rape. That apparently isn't what he means at all. Instead, he's saying that if a woman doesn't behave like a victim as *he* defines the word, then she shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion. Those are *his* criteria. He's not a woman and he shouldn't be deciding their rights based on his own biased criteria.
I get that some people love Ron Paul because they like what he has to say on their pet issue. But your pet issue is not mine. There are SOME things in life that DECENT people should consider dealbreakers. There are some people left of center who *only* care about foreign policy issues. I don't agree with Obama on everything but I don't personally think his positions on foreign policy should be a dealbreaker. That's just me. Just because you might like Paul because he says he's all about "small government" as you define it, doesn't mean we shouldn't question his definition of small government and it doesn't mean we shouldn't question whether he's a decent human being in other respects.
piddlydFeb 5, 2012
If you're not sure why Nanci Pelosi qualifies as EXTREMELY left and Michele Bachman qualifies as extremely right, I don't think you're really qualified to be involved in a discussion on these issues. Do some research on both parties. I'm clear in my head what their polarizing political views are.
I'm not a Ron Paul supporter. There are your own biases seeping in. I'm not a big fan on his position of abortion and he is too libertarian on some important fiscal and economic issues. I'm pointing out an impartial observation about Ron Paul's run and the coverage he has gotten and what the press is interested in covering.
It sounds like your definition of "honest rape" and Ron Paul's are pretty similar - to me, "honest rape" would be a legitimate rape using force or coercion, not the politically correct sense of the term that implies a post-coital decision that the woman did not want a sexual act to take place - not a drunk girl at a frat party. I'm fine with protecting the victims - and I don't think it happens often, but I think that sometimes the "victims" are abusing claiming they are raped - and that is an injustice to every actual victim.
Tell *me* how YOU define a falsely reported accusation of rape? Aren't there a certain set of criteria in your mind that helps you decide if an accuser is falsely claiming that she was raped?
You're certainly a self-righteous and preachy one yourself, talking about "decent people", decency, and other personal, subjective measures of a person. I'm sure Nancy Pelosi and Michele Bachman (and Ron Paul) are all decent people. But that doesn't have any real bearing on the issues we're discussing here.
The Digg liberal bury brigade. I forgot why I stopped coming around here. Might as well be HuffPo in these message boards.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kingnovaFeb 6, 2012
your misogynistic, disgusting views on rape get you buried. "Honest rape" is bulls**t. Rape is rape. You trying to put levels on rape as if you can know how destructive it was to the woman being raped makes me label you as a sociopath.
timetomorrowFeb 6, 2012
No one is trying to put a level on rape, we are actually saying that acts that you willingly participate in are never rape. Is that really such a stretch?
Closed AccountFeb 6, 2012
"I'm clear in my head what their polarizing political views are."
--Thanks. I think the question I asked was what makes their views extreme. Lots of people are "polarizing." The President is polarizing. Given the way he has been treated since he was elected, I'm highly skeptical that he is polarizing based on any rational interpretation of the word extreme, though.
"I'm pointing out an impartial observation about Ron Paul's run and the coverage he has gotten and what the press is interested in covering."
--I shouldn't have implied you're a Ron Paul fan but on what basis do you think his views expressed on rape here are moderate?
"It sounds like your definition of "honest rape" and Ron Paul's are pretty similar - to me, "honest rape" would be a legitimate rape using force or coercion, not the politically correct sense of the term that implies a post-coital decision that the woman did not want a sexual act to take place - not a drunk girl at a frat party."
-- It seems to me that you and Ron Paul want to narrowly define rape to serve your argument. In essence, he's saying that a woman shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion if she deserved to be raped. You're basically saying it's politically correct because *you* think drunk girls deserve to be raped and that they can't be forced or coerced.
"I'm fine with protecting the victims - and I don't think it happens often, but I think that sometimes the "victims" are abusing claiming they are raped - and that is an injustice to every actual victim."
--That's good to know but why do you suppose Ron Paul thinks there are lots of women out there who would claim they were raped just so they could get an abortion?
"Tell *me* how YOU define a falsely reported accusation of rape? Aren't there a certain set of criteria in your mind that helps you decide if an accuser is falsely claiming that she was raped?"
--Yes, I have my ideas but I'm not infallible. I'm also not a woman and I don't know what it's like to fear being raped (in the same way a woman can) or to fear getting pregnant. All I'm saying is that this statement suggests Ron Paul isn't an impartial judge of what motivates women's reproductive decision making.
"You're certainly a self-righteous and preachy one yourself, talking about "decent people", decency, and other personal, subjective measures of a person.
--I guess I'm just trying to understand what people's morality and boundaries are when it comes to their political judgment.
"I'm sure Nancy Pelosi and Michele Bachman (and Ron Paul) are all decent people. But that doesn't have any real bearing on the issues we're discussing here."
--I wasn't talking about them. I was thinking in terms of the electorate. For example, what more do you think Republicans have to do to the American public (after everything they've done since Obama was elected) to judged unelectable?
"The Digg liberal bury brigade. I forgot why I stopped coming around here. Might as well be HuffPo in these message boards."
--You let that stop you from posting here? LOL
gt777Feb 5, 2012
**** and c**k munchers? These can only be found in atheists from rolling stones! They don't teach them such words in bible schools!! Devil worshippers!! Rock on!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ericschc1Feb 5, 2012
Are you retarded, didn't read the article or both? Those words were being directed at the bisexual girl BY the supposedly "more moral Christian" children.
mtownFeb 5, 2012
Maybe it's just me but I though gt777's comment was supposed to be sarcastic.
rgb86Feb 5, 2012
I'd hope that, but then I read his other comments. It might just be an account dedicated to trolling, but it's too close to the way many people actually think, and I'd rather not have more people espousing those sentiments, even if they are actually made sarcastically.
penglustFeb 6, 2012
Bachmann, and people like her, are less than human.
rudegarFeb 5, 2012
My Mommy Always Said There Were No Monsters--No Real Ones--But There Are
clitniblr036Feb 5, 2012
Yes there are. And they can usually (though not always) be found among the so-called "faithful".
phillyoverclockFeb 5, 2012
The tone of the article makes it sound as if this kind of thing is happening only in Michelle Bachmann's congressional district. I feel it is to the detriment to issue to portray this as a isolated situation because this is happening across a wide swath of the "bible belt" region.
dividebyoFeb 5, 2012
I didn't get that at all. It was an article about a specific case of what was happening in one district. It is getting specific recognition for the fact that it is Bachmann's district (because of her very vocal point of view), and the rash of suicides in that district.
Could they have spent some time going into how it is a more widespread thing? Sure, but it was a 5 page article already - how many people here actually read through the whole thing as it stands?
deomo899Feb 5, 2012
People need to understand that this is bullying. If the children weren't gay, more would be done about this.
ben7337Feb 6, 2012
Huh? If it's done because they are gay, then isn't it kind of beyond bullying? If a woman can go to jail for inciting her daughter's enemy to commit suicide on facebook, then these people causing a massive number of suicides through "bullying" aren't bullying. They are actually comitting a hate crime.
Also reminds me to mention the case of that kid at rutgers who committed suicide when he was outed by people invading his privacy with a webcam. That would be more direct and forceful, but just as bad as what the results clearly show to be going on in this district.
jonwhFeb 5, 2012
This is what happens when you appease religious extremists. Why is the school board so afraid of angering the evangelicals? It isn't the school boards responsibility to teach ignorance and bigotry to make the hateful parents happy. It is the school boards responsibility to provide a safe learning environment and instill children with knowledge and understanding, not religious dogma.
grabateFeb 5, 2012
Interesting that one of the names they use to taunt a lesbian teen is "c**k muncher".
dividebyoFeb 5, 2012
Just a good insight into the lack of brains that goes into being a bully.
ncmusicFeb 5, 2012
Cue alancou blaming this on the Democrats via Fred Phelps!
dustinthewind2Feb 5, 2012
If there is a god, he doesn't hate gays. People hate gays. If you're going to hate gays, STOP BLAMING THE INVISIBLE MAN IN THE SKY and own up to it.
klassenburgerFeb 5, 2012
unfortunately, if there's a christian god, he definitely hates gays.
drcrankFeb 5, 2012
Wow, an entire town of assh**es.
veedekFeb 5, 2012
I've never understood why so many "Christians", who are supposed to have a faith based on the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament, who taught of love and forgiving, seem to enjoy holding on to the hate and vengeance of the Old Testament. I think they've missed the entire point of being a "Christian". I'm an atheist and I live my life by the philosophy of Christ better than any of these idiots seem to be able to. I guess that makes me a Christian atheist. It makes me a better Christian than any of these assh**es who don't even know what it means to be a Christian.
Society needs to force these hateful "Christians" into the closet. They are the ones who need to be ashamed of their BELIEFES, not allowing them to make others ashamed of who they were BORN TO BE.
jphrFeb 5, 2012
So you noticed that morals are not a package deal with religion. Actually some are using their religion to perpetrate immoral actions.
When people claim to hear voices we normally refer them to the DSM IV, but when they claim it to be the voice of god we have to respect that and a tax exemption applies.
gt777Feb 5, 2012
Why do you feel you are better than others? Didn't you just ended up like those gays haters by putting them and shaming them into a closet? The gospel of Jesus Christ is not about being better than others, but understanding God's love and seeking redemption and salvation from our sins! If you feel you have no sins and are better than others, Jesus is not for you!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ericschc1Feb 5, 2012
"The gospel of Jesus Christ is not about being better than others, but understanding God's love and seeking redemption and salvation from our sins!"
If that's the case, what do you think harassing or coercing homosexuals and other non-believers really accomplishes? No one will ever really know "God" by way of harassment or condemnation of who they feel they naturally are, as a person.
The only thing this bullying accomplishes, is it actually gives Christians a sin for which they can ask forgiveness, but they're all obviously too obtuse to see it as such.
JLF2035Feb 5, 2012
Anyone who accepts people for who they are, is better than these hateful Christians who can't mind their own business.
StonnaFeb 5, 2012
My magic eight ball predicts one of those teens flipping out on their classmates
thespookFeb 5, 2012
And nobody should be surprised when it happens. Yet, schools and some parents continue to turn a blind eye on bullying.
JLF2035Feb 5, 2012
Yup. Some people like to blame violent music and games for school shootings. But in reality, it's bullying. A person can only take so much before they do something extreme.
rgb86Feb 5, 2012
As tragic as it would be, I completely concur. In fact, it would be all too easy for one of those bullied students to go crazy during the "Day of Truth" mentioned in the article. Having everyone wearing anti-gay t-shirts makes for an awfully obvious target.
10000lakesFeb 5, 2012
I remember an incident of anti-gay bullying at a Minnesota middle school. I was working as a tech para at Oak-Land Junior High in Lake Elmo, Minnesota, which is not far from Anoka, in 2010-11. I was in the school's iMac computer lab, & one of the girls said to me, "Teacher, they called me a lesbo!" I said to the students, "It's not nice to call people names." The bullying stopped. At least the students knew I would not tolerate any bullying or harassment when they were in the computer lab. At the time, I didn't think much of the incident. I grew up with bullying, so I definitely know how much it hurts to be bullied at school. And I knew that unfortunately decades later since I was in middle school it seems like not much has changed. When I was in middle school, I was bullied & picked on for getting good grades, being a "goody-goody," & being a "teacher's pet." In 2012 bullying still exists, only now it's for different reasons. I definitely support any anti-bullying efforts by school districts, & would like to know more about Anoka-Hennepin county's new "Respectful Learning Environment Curriculum Policy." I hope that this time the school district finally has a policy that will allow teachers & school staff to fight harassment & bullying without worrying about losing their jobs!
swarbsblogFeb 6, 2012
It's true whats said about the devil, he disguises himself in various forms to get his evil deeds done. Including, pretending to be a person of faith.
rglarson13Feb 5, 2012
As a Minnesotan who lives within 30 miles of Anoka, I find this article a bit misleading. It's true that the Anoka school district does have a neutrality policy, but that doesn't mean it's anti-gay.
The district's policy is that it won't discuss homosexuality, because there's no way to win. If they say that being gay is wrong, that's anti-gay; if they say that there's nothing wrong with being gay, that's contrary to what some people genuinely believe -- and have every right to believe -- as part of their religious beliefs (that the school has to stay out of); and if they discuss both sides of the issue equally, then they're legitimizing the anti-gay side.
All the school can do is try to prevent bullying, and that's hard to do if the school doesn't see it happening. Obviously, this is where the school is failing: of the 9 students that committed suicide, 5 were not (nor were they perceived to be) gay. Bullying drove those 9 students to commit suicide -- the fact that some of those students were gay was just another way for the other students to bully them.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mylifeisdukka86Feb 5, 2012
Did you read the article? Being unable to provide support to kids because they have to pretend the bullying isn't about homosexuality is incredibly alienating for students. It makes them feel like their problems aren't worth protecting, unlike racial bullying or any other kind of bullying - and it therefore makes them feel worthless.
rglarson13Feb 5, 2012
They don't have to pretend it's not about homosexuality; they're simply not allowed to denigrate the opinions of the other student, even if they are a bully. The district has adopted the position that the school isn't allowed to restrict the opinions of students, so the teachers can't express judgment about what the students say.
Look at it this way... Let's say you belonged to a small group that believed in intelligent design, and the biology club constantly made fun of you. (Admittedly, the issue of homosexuality is a little different -- it's an active practice that some people find repugnant, as opposed to just an explanation that they disagree with.) Most of your classmates just don't get involved in the argument -- probably because they don't want to attract the negative attention of the biology kids. Of course you'd want the school to prohibit people from saying that you were wrong, but the people who believed otherwise wouldn't want that. And although there should be some limits on how far they can go, the school can't -- and shouldn't -- ban all disagreement on the subject. The biology teacher obviously has strong feelings about the issue, but he's not allowed to proselytize his opinion on the matter. So when the biology kids make fun of you, he's required to stop them, but he can't say that either one of you is wrong.
It's not just the bullying that's isolating, it's the fact that you're part of a very small minority group and a very vocal group disagrees with you (without much opposition), and the authority figures are prohibited from taking sides (and maybe you suspect that they disagree with you, as well).
I can sympathize with the kids, but I think it's wrong to make the school to take a non-neutral stance on a religious issue like this. What does need to be done is the school to crack down on bullying.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
canadudesFeb 5, 2012
You are basically a sanctimonious ass to argue that it's just too bad that gay students are being bullied to the point of suicide, and to state that it's inevitable because we couldn't possibly offend someone's freely chosen religious belief. There's thousands of religious "beliefs" - they are called "belief" because there is not a single shred of evidence that these stories are true, yet every religious belief automatically get SPECIAL RIGHTS. Wake up, grow up, and join the diverse human race.....and please quit hiding behind the idea that any one religious belief is the real truth.
rglarson13Feb 5, 2012
You're a sanctimonious ass for asserting that your belief is somehow more correct than anyone else's belief. You're the one hiding behind the idea that any one belief is the real truth. You're literally doing what you're complaining about this town doing -- you're shoving your perceived majority viewpoint down someone's throat, and insulting those who disagrees with you. It's assh**es like you that drove these kids to suicide.
Yeah, it sucks that these kids were ostracized, but it happens in every school. It wasn't just gay kids (in fact, fewer than half of them were gay) that committed suicide here, but nobody cares about them, because "School bullies drive kid to suicide, which normalizes suicide as the appropriate response to social ostracism" is a way less interesting headline, and because there's no disagreement that bullying is bad.
It's not that every religious belief gets special rights. It's that the school -- as a government entity -- has no right to decide which beliefs are correct, so it can't favor one over any other. It's just as inappropriate for the school to say that homosexuality is not bad as it is for the school to say that homosexuality is bad. They have two options: they can discuss both viewpoints, making an effort to present them equally, or they can discuss neither side. Discussion has the side effect of extending some implicit legitimacy to both sides, but as a direct result of that implication also pisses of a bunch of parents on both sides. If you're a school district trying not to piss people off (which is really the best any school district can hope for), what would you do?
Apart from the fact that being gay is what made (only 4 out of the 9 of) these kids minorities, this whole thing actually has very little to do with homosexuality. Plain and simple, it's the result of a school district's catastrophic failure to curtail bullying of a minority group.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
canadudesFeb 6, 2012
Bet you're a republican, privileged, fundamentalist and have no black friends. Just guessing. You twist words like a Faux News program. Oh yeah, bet you love Faux News too. I feel sorry for your kids if you end up spawning some. Hope for your sake they don't turn out to be gay. Then again, that just might be the hilarity of karma!
lpezzFeb 6, 2012
"The district's policy is that it won't discuss homosexuality, because there's no way to win. If they say that being gay is wrong, that's anti-gay; if they say that there's nothing wrong with being gay, that's contrary to what some people genuinely believe -- and have every right to believe -- as part of their religious beliefs (that the school has to stay out of); and if they discuss both sides of the issue equally, then they're legitimizing the anti-gay side."
If that policy keeps teachers from feeling like they can defend a gay child who is being bullied, then the policy is bulls**t. Read the ENTIRE article and you will find that the bullying was quite out in the open.
I agree that bullies pick on people for whatever their perceived weaknesses. However, if a school is unwilling or unable to defend a child who is being bullied for being a homosexual- that school legitimizes the perception of the "weakness". It will not work to have a philosophy that allows intervention into bullying, except in the case of homosexuality.
tyhoFeb 6, 2012
The real problem is the protected "classes" in America. No class of humans is more worthy of protecting over any other. Bullying is bullying. No class deserves a special set of laws.
How many people on Digg could be charged with a hate speech violation if they existed in America like they do in Canada and Europe. What if we added Mormons to the list of protected classes, or Christians, or Atheists.
We should all be one group, Americans, protected equally.
warpfieldFeb 5, 2012
There was a guy who worked to no end
To make straight the neighbouring gay men
Time would eventually tell
That he succeeded a little too well
When a convert stole away his girlfriend :)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
readmikenowFeb 5, 2012
Unfortunately people will bully you for more than your sex life. They'll bully you because of your clothes, lack of athletic ability, lact of academic ability, ethnic identity, religion, parents etc., etc. etc and the list goes on. It's amazing that you can be bullied for any number of things but if you're bullied because someone thinks you're gay it's front page news. Could the real issue here actually be bullying in general? I guess it's easier to blame a politican or a religion and not the person doing the bullying. Are we to believe bullies are just innocent victims of society who act out because of politicians and religion?...or is it just easier to do that?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountFeb 5, 2012
"Could the real issue here actually be bullying in general?"
--No. The real issue is stated very clearly in the second sentence: A *rash* of suicides in a district that's extremely intolerant of gays. Have you noticed when you go to the drugstore, certain items are kept locked behind display cases. Have you wondered why condoms and deodorant are locked away--when there are lots of items that are equally (or more expensive) right out in the open everywhere else in the store? The store didn't just decide to pick those products at random.
Contrary to your suggestion, other types of bullying do make the front page (google "Columbine") but the issue here is frequency. That's what makes the bullying of gays remarkable. You don't seem to realize how warped it is to be irked that gay victims are receiving "special" treatment. They aren't receiving special treatment because their victimization is more important than other forms of bullying. They're receiving special treatment because those who are bullied over their sexual orientation commit suicide relatively often.
readmikenowFeb 5, 2012
Unfortunately those who are bullied often enough, bad enough over anything for a period of time also commit suicide. Ever do volunteer work at a suicide hotline? It's an eye opener. Point remains gay suicides get more media attention than any other types of suicides. It's a terrible thing but it's not the only thing that's terrible. It's just gets the most attention for some reason.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rgb86Feb 5, 2012
It gets more attention due to the motivating factors behind the bullying.
People murder, attack, and commit suicide every day, and for a wide variety of reasons. It's hard to argue (unless you're completely averse to reason) that cases where these things occur quite obviously due to a pre-meditated and rationally-baseless means aren't special.
That is to say, violent people simply being violent for the sake of violence is not news. However, people being violent towards a vulnerable minority simply because they are part of that minority, not for any tangible transgressions committed, and because there is a large, organized force trying to incite people to violence and hatred.....that IS news.
readmikenowFeb 5, 2012
All I can say is the Gay people I know are far from vulnerable and I've seen them bully one another for not being "gay" enough...but that's a separate issue. Suicide is an awful thing no matter why it happens.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rgb86Feb 5, 2012
When gay guys do it to each other, it's done in fun. More importantly, it's done as an attempt to recapture the power. It's the same thing as black people calling each other "gentlemen." You take an attack against you and turn it into something...well, perhaps not always positive, but take away its hateful power.
Closed AccountFeb 6, 2012
"Unfortunately those who are bullied often enough, bad enough over anything for a period of time also commit suicide. Ever do volunteer work at a suicide hotline?"
--Um...ok. Maybe if we do this in smaller chunks:
Homophobic fundie bullies ---> gay suicide uptick in backwards district where shrill and scary Constitutional law/history/science/ geography/ and ethics-challenged Congress woman lives with her creepy, obnoxious, pale-faced, loud-mouthed, baked goods mascot-impersonating (not Betty Crocker but the one with the little chef's hat), closet homo hubby. OK? We're not talking about a rash of suicides *in general* so your point is irrelevant.
bookantFeb 5, 2012
"Could the real issue here actually be bullying in general?"
"The real issue is stated very clearly in the second sentence: A *rash* of suicides in a district that's extremely intolerant of gays."
He's not entirely wrong. I went to that High School. Damn near 30 years ago and it was an intolerant s**thole then, too. Not just GLBT, but *anyone* who deviated in *any* small way from 100% conformity to the small-town good ol' boy norms. My very first day in school there we kicked off the new school year with a school-wide assembly where the Princpal gave a nice long speech that boiled down to - "Welcome to high school. Athletics is everything. You can be an athlete, or you can be a f**king nobody."
fitzal77Feb 6, 2012
Add on to that that the people there had imposed new laws where school employees could be fired for showing support for anyone who's not straight. If these kids had had anyone to provide help for them, who knows how many could have been saved!
gt777Feb 5, 2012
Bullies exists because to feel better about ourselves, we make them look bad! Is this the survival of the fittest, like evolution theory? Or just plain result of capitalism? Nobody is better off without someone else being worse off! In biblical terms, we are are sinners because we all fell short of God's glory!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ericschc1Feb 5, 2012
Then lets see the bullies atone for their sin. Presuming the Christian god even exists, harassing & bullying gays and non-believers would sooner drive them AWAY from Christianity, not towards it.
glassagateFeb 6, 2012
It's front page news because kids, who were bullied for being gay,
later commit suicide.
In this case, the bullies are the products of Christian theocrats
who encourage their children to hate.
davidnivenFeb 5, 2012
Wait a minute. Some kids get picked on in school and suddenly the entire town, city, district, and by proxy country is to blame?
Rolling Stone, please stick to what you know...talking about lame complaint rock groups with little talent.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ericschc1Feb 5, 2012
FTA:
"When Christian activists who considered gays an abomination forced a measure through the school board forbidding the discussion of homosexuality in the district's public schools..." and..
"The district maintained a comprehensive five-page anti-bullying policy, and held diversity trainings on racial and gender sensitivity. Yet when it came to Brittany's harassment, school officials usually told her to ignore it, always glossing over the sexually charged insults. Like the time Brittany had complained about being called a "fat dyke": The school's principal, looking pained, had suggested Brittany prepare herself for the next round of teasing with snappy comebacks..." and...
"Sam was even helping to start a Gay Straight Alliance club, as a safe haven for misfits like them, although the club's progress was stalled by the school district that, among other things, was queasy about the club's flagrant use of the word "gay." Religious conservatives have called GSAs "sex clubs," and sure enough, the local religious right loudly objected to them..."
and, finally...
"Sam's death lit the fuse of a suicide epidemic that would take the lives of nine local students in under two years, a rate so high that child psychologist Dan Reidenberg, executive director of the Minnesota-based Suicide Awareness Voices of Education, declared the Anoka-Hennepin school district the site of a "suicide cluster," adding that the crisis might hold an element of contagion; suicidal thoughts had become catchy, like a lethal virus...There was another common thread: Four of the nine dead were either gay or perceived as such by other kids, and were reportedly bullied."
Obviously you didn't read the article in its entirety. Those are just examples on the first of 5 pages. Next time you make some snide remark about the over-sensitivity of liberals, why don't you shut the f**k up for one moment and consider if someone you cared about killed themselves after being mercilessly harassed for who they are, no matter what that may be. Next time you ask a random liberal or homosexual "who the f**k are you to say that's right?", stop & ask that of yourself first, non-rhetorically.
gt777Feb 5, 2012
Who will fight the rights of millions of murdered babies who have no choice to life by liberal agendas selfish right of choice to abort babies in America yearly? Aren't we all hypocrites?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mylifeisdukka86Feb 5, 2012
Certainly not God. I would think that if God has the ability to resurrect and to heal, and if He really wanted to save all those babies, He would. I mean he turned water into wine to keep a party from getting boring, so unless he only uses his powers for frivolous, unnecessary occasions, it would seem that He isn't really bothered by it too much.
klassenburgerFeb 5, 2012
abortion is the express lane to heaven.
gt777Feb 5, 2012
You have a good point again why do they buried your comments dead? So many extremists in the atheists ranks perpetuating their liberal agendas!
dividebyoFeb 5, 2012
Where is his good point? Did you not bother to read the article either?
His point appears to be that the only thing that happened in this school district is that a few kids were picked on.
He didn't bother to include that within a year 9 kids from that district had killed themselves, and that an high proportion of those kids had been either openly gay, or were bullied by others calling them gay, and using epithets to show how horrible being gay is - even if they weren't gay.
How is it a good point to ignore kids killing themselves?
breadfredFeb 5, 2012
Simples. It increases self-imposed heterosexuality.
seidnuFeb 5, 2012
I would say that them being conservatives that compassion is not one of their best qualities. Homosexuals scare them because their books tell them it is wrong. But I also understand that Jesus and God both taught love and compassion, Yet none of these conservatives seem to express it.
grabateFeb 5, 2012
Interesting that one of the names they use to taunt a lesbian teen is "c**k muncher".