The News-Leader editorial board supports Sara Lampe's bill to outlaw bullying of specifically categorized groups of students based on particular information about them.
The board, which gives opinions for the newspaper, says Sara Lampe has "guts" because she wants to outlaw bullying in those specific "categories" for those specific reasons.
The "Our Voice" column implies that if it were blond haired, blue eyed children who were being bullied and whose school work suffered as a result:
"Parents would be outraged. Lawmakers would demand change. School officials would take action."
And, the newspaper's editorial board goes on to indicate:
"State Rep. Sara Lampe hopes for that kind of reaction -- as do we -- when she files a bill outlawing bullying of various categories of students, including those who are gay."
I'm glad I'm not on their board, I disagree. No student, whether "blue-eyed," "blond haired," black, white, brown, "gay," straight, Christian, or non-Christian or, any other "various category" across a broad spectrum of "categories" should be bullied. It makes it seem like Lampe, and the News-Leader's board that agrees with her, think some laws ought to be applied only to certain categories of people and the heck with the rest of them.
I, personally, believe all people are special. Every single student should be protected from bullying and if it is going to be outlawed it should simply be outlawed across the board, not be gender specific, race specific, sexual orientation specific. If it is because of those specific categories of students named by Lampe that it is necessary to have a no bullying policy then, I think, it would be acceptable to note that fact but, to identify only "certain categories of students" for protection from bullying implies that it is okay for any category of student NOT identified to be bullied.
Such an idea will surely get brownie points among some of Lampe's Democrat party constituency but, either all students deserve protection from bullying or all students do not deserve protection from bullying. Certainly, one "category" of students shouldn't deserve protection from bullying more than another.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
9 comments:
So everyone should have the same rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
You mean to say you don't believe we should have special protections or categories for certain people?
Jack,
Was there something I wrote in this post that you didn't understand?
You don't need to ask leading questions to make your point, if you have one. Just make it. :)
Lampe's Law speaks of bullying because of
race---everybodys' got race
religion----everybody's got one or don't got one
disability--mental or physical
ancestry---our forefather and mothers
color--we are all colored one color or another
sexual orientation...we are all orientated, one way or another.
I think that just about covers everybody.
Everybody should have the same rights to life, liberty and the purfuit of happines.
Do Federal Civil Rights laws supercede state laws?
I always fall back on my old reliable: It is unAmerican to discriminate or bully anyone regardless of their race, their color, their ancestry, their religion, their disability or ability, their sexual orientation.
I interpreted Jackehammer's post as such: Bullying should be outlawed for everyone, not just the categories listed.
But by listing categories, we get their attention.
Consider the following tale:
A horse trader sold a mule to a farmer and promised that as long as the farmer was nice and polite to the mule, the animal would perform any task without hesitation.
For months the farmer politely tried to get the mule to work but the stubborn animal wouldn’t do a thing.
Finally, fed up, the farmer called the man who sold him the animal and complained that no matter how polite he was he got no cooperation.
The man told him he’d come over to help.
The man showed up at the farm and asked the farmer what he wanted the mule to do.
The farmer said he wanted the mule to plow his field.
As the farmer watched, the salesman walked up to the mule hit him on the head with a two-by-four — hard.
He then calmly and politely asked the mule to please plow the farmer’s field. The mule went right to work.
Shocked, the farmer exclaimed to the salesman that he told him to be nice and polite to the mule to get him to do anything, yet he had hit him on the head with a two x four.
The salesman replied that he was polite, but he first had to get the mule’s attention
"It makes it seem like Lampe, and the News-Leader's board that agrees with her, think some laws ought to be applied only to certain categories of people and the heck with the rest of them."
And this surprises you anymore ???
It is common practice to either be one or to get it and has been for decades. I used one of my foster parents last names while in school (6 & 7 grade)and I was the target of name calling and bullying. I didn't go crying to government to bail me out nor did I tell anyone it was happening.
One day I got mad enough that a well timed right hook caught the left jaw of one of the offending persons and this brought the name calling to a halt. simple solution to what really isn't a complex problem.
We are always going to have this in society, no matter what age bracket we are discussing and NO amounts of laws are going to bring it to and end or change the course of history. We still have white supremest groups, black supremest groups, Asian groups, Hispanic groups and so on. If this is anywhere near related to the internet bullying ban which was passed(i believe)last year the interpretations of this will be quite dangerous.
As MO gets closer to CA it might just be time to load up the wagon and head off to MT or WY.
You seem to be saying that creating certain laws that protect certain citizens is wrong. You say everyone should be protected from bullying because everyone is special.
And then …
You support laws that alienate certain citizens from obtaining certain rights.
The two seem incongruent. You either support protection of all people from bullying (and discrimination) or you do not.
Not that you should support gay marriage if you don't want to, but it seems your views don't match.
So yes, it was confusing.
Jack wrote:
"You support laws that alienate certain citizens from obtaining certain rights."
I do?
What laws have I supported that alienate certain citizens from obtaining certain rights?
It is true that I have long taken a stance in opposition of gay marriage, however, I don't believe I have ever publicly indicated a support of any "law" alienating certain citizens from obtaining certain rights.
I even did a bit of research on myself, since it has been a very long time since I've even written on the topic here and, what I found was a steady opposition to gay marriage based on the educational and health aspect if the homosexual lifestyle was normalized. You see, it has the potential of repercussions for our children that greatly disturb me.
I view it this way, Jack, a law created simply to support or exclude certain categories of people is questionable to me. I've never been able to decide how I feel about the law to define marriage as between one man and one woman so, I'd be surprised if you found a statement here wherein I endorsed something I wasn't even sure about. That makes me a bit of a pariah among some evangelical Christians. But, I do think there is a distinction that should be noted between opposing gay marriage and supporting a law to exclude gays from being married.
IF I chose to support such a law, it would be because I have weighed all aspects and what I perceive as the result of such a marriage between gays being legalized, in my mind, warrants it. Even then, there is a difference between what decisions I make in the voting booth and what I would publicly endorse.
You're welcome to search my blog and read what I have written in the past. The entries on the subject I looked at fall far short of an actual endorsement of any law you might think alienates certain citizens from obtaining certain rights. I've written alot. Even I don't want to read everything I've written on the subject since 2005, when I started this blog, and certainly, I've grown since then, it'd be a shame if I hadn't.
"But, I do think there is a distinction that should be noted between opposing gay marriage and supporting a law to exclude gays from being married."
You are the first person I've ever met that made that distinction. Very interesting, but I see the line you are making, although it is a very thin line.
I had never read any post of yours that clarified this distinction heretofore. I appreciate your clearing that up for me.
I now understand your position. Seems I was wrong. Your views are congruent.
This was fun. Let's do it again real soon.
Hey Jack!
You're always welcome around here!
:)
People are people, and we should protect their rights as individuals, NOT as members of a group. When you try to treat people as a group, they lose their inherent God given rights. The Bill of Rights in the Constitution is not an outline of what people groups should have, but what PEOPLE should have.
This disease of making laws for or against certain attributes is dangerous. When you as an individual no longer fit into these protected groups you lose rights, and that is unacceptable. The government is there to protect every last individual's rights to Life, Liberty, and Property. No individual, group, or institution should be able to remove your rights without due process of law. Even then, it should be proportionate to the trespasses that you committed against someone else's rights.
The best way as parents to keep your kids from being bullied is to take them out of the Government Child Prisons. My daughter's school doesn't have bullies. If someone decides to behave that way, they are asked to not come back.
It is the inability for bullies and thugs to be expelled from school that is causing the bullying problem. The underlying causes are mandatory attendance laws. Parents must have restored to them the rights and responsibilities over their children's education.
We must systematically throw off the Federal Government's meddling (No Child Left Behind), and refuse to allow the State to manipulate and control education. Education is a local issue, and you can't get any more local than each individual parent having complete control over when, where, and how much their child spend on education.
Post a Comment