Admittedly, this is American news so it's not as if it affects me, but on a philosophical level, I couldn't be any more disappointed with the new anti-bullying bill that passed in Michigan just recently. "Matt's Safe School Law," named for Matt Epling, who committed suicide due to ongoing bullying, was ostensibly designed to protect victims of bullying but was absolutely molested by the Republicans and Christian interest groups. You can read the article that discusses in depth just how molested it was here, but long story short, harassing people for moral or religious reasons isn't bullying under this law.
Stop and think about that for a moment... obvious rant about how preaching to people that they're gonna burn in hell unless they repent! is pretty obviously harassment, bullying and I'd argue at least slander notwithstanding, you can use "moral reasons" to fall back on anything. All jokes aside, I have moral reasons for disliking people of a right-wing bent... that doesn't give me the right to beat up Young Liberals. I mean, consider that scenario for a second; there's a young liberal kid in your high school (I didn't have any in my school but I dated an 18 year old member of the Liberal Party so I'm sure they exist...) and the kid with the Che Guevara shirt beats him up. Now, the leftie has ideological reasons for disagreeing with the rightie, and by the wording of the bill, a "moral conviction" justifies his harassment. That's messed up.
The obvious retort is that religion is different to any other moral or ideological conviction; you're talking about people's god, their whole worldview, it's waaaay bigger than puny political or ideological squabbles. Hey, guess what? No it fucking isn't. You don't get a "get out of jail free" if your "moral conviction" is based on some hallucination of a bearded surrogate space-father. You don't get a pass because you can cite an alleged higher authority. Imposing your will on someone against theirs is wrong. Wrong. It doesn't matter why you're imposing it, it's not about that. I'd like to think I don't have to explain why this is the case, but to cover my bases:
1) "Greater good" arguments are ultimately subjective and, especially when they're coming from a religious place, aren't grounded in reality, so there's no reason anyone should believe them.
2) If imposing your will on others against theirs is fine, it makes it OK for others to do the same to you, and then your tune would change pretty fucking quick.
Yes, this bill has been ruined to pander to religious zealots who feel it's their right to belittle anyone who doesn't come to their special club (who make up a surprisingly large amount of voters... different but slightly related issue) and yes, in a lot of ways this is a separation of church and state issue, but I don't want this to fall into a secular vs. religious argument. As the wording of the bill makes very clear, it doesn't have to be a religious reason, it can also be a "moral" one. This bill would be deplorable in an entirely atheist world, and entirely Catholic world or an entirely Klingon world. It's deplorable because it justifies the removal of people's rights based on how strongly some douchebag feels his opinion is correct. A reasonable society respects the right of the individual to hold their own personal opinion without fear of harassment. It does not make it OK for the majority to dictate to the minority what to think and feel, nor does it give tools to the sanctimonious to force others to believe as they do. This bill is a backwards, regressive, disgusting piece of legislature that gives bullies a new weapon against their victim. I eagerly await the news that this bill will get a rewrite, but I'm not holding my breath.
No comments:
Post a Comment