Using Anti-Bullying Laws to Bully Others

It seems the Left, along with a few naïve individuals on the Right, are making their perennial push for yet another vehicle to normalize and protect homosexual behavior in the public schools.

In typical breathless tones, complete with “informative” sidebars, the Rapid City Journal tells us that (gasp) South Dakota is the only state without an anti-bullying law.

Since 1999, 46 states have passed a total of 120 laws regulating bullying.

Not one of those was passed in South Dakota.

A new report from the U.S. Department of Education identified South Dakota as the only state in the country that doesn’t have either legislation or statewide policy dealing with bullying, an increasingly prominent issue.

Wow. You mean teachers in schools all across South Dakota currently have to stand idly by with their hands in their pockets when one student bullies another student?

How stupid do these “journalists” think we are?

There always have been bullies, and there always will be bullies.  It’s an unfortunate part of the fallen condition of humanity.  There were bullies when I was a kid and there are bullies now. Bullies bully for everything you could possibly imagine that makes a seemingly vulnerable student appear different from the herd: too fat, too thin, too tall, too short, a tomboy, a sissy, wears glasses, too rich, too poor, too smart, too dumb, walks funny, talks funny, you name it and it’s bully-fodder. From everything that I knew, teachers already understood, without the need for a state law, that it was their job to stop bullies from mistreating other children, and they had the authority to do so.  Are we now saying that teachers are incapable of disciplining unruly children without the backing of a state law?

In truth, homosexual activists have for a number of years now been very successfully using “anti-bullying” laws as a vehicle to lend an air of legitimacy to homosexual behavior and inclinations among school children, and to silence anyone who might dare tell such children that this is a dangerous and immoral behavior.  In Rapid City as in many other school districts around the country, officials have used nondiscrimination policies to elevate homosexual behavior to a protected class akin to innate, morally neutral physical characteristics such as sex and skin color.  “Anti-bullying” initiatives go hand in hand with such measures.

Only a few months ago, “anti-bullying” measures were used to silence and punish a student in Texas for having the audacity to tell another student he believed homosexual behavior to be immoral. A teacher who had been promoting the legitimacy of homosexual behavior to his students and who had hanged a picture of two men kissing on the wall of his classroom found student Dakota Ary’s statement during a class discussion of homosexual behavior intolerable, and Ary was suspended for three days.  The school later apologized after Liberty Counsel came to the defense of this student’s rights, but Ary never should have been bullied into such punishment in the first place.

And that is really what anti-bullying initiatives are all about these days. As I said and as everyone knows, bullying is nothing new, and school officials have long, long had the authority to deal with bullying.  The modern “anti-bullying” movement isn’t so much about stopping bullying as it is about bullying Christians and others who know that homosexual behavior is immoral and unhealthy from saying so publicly. These bullies insist that young, often confused children be allowed to damage and destroy their lives without being exposed to any negative information about this practice.

If we’re really concerned about bullying, we’ll leave local educators alone and let them continue doing their job of protecting every student from harassment of every kind.  We don’t need to jerk our knee and make a law for something when there are already more than adequate tools in place for dealing with it. And we don’t need to empower homosexual activist bullies into being able to further silence the truth about a dangerous and destructive sexual practice.

8 Responses to “Using Anti-Bullying Laws to Bully Others”

  1. OK, now we can sit back and wait for someone to come along and say something (to Bob or anyone agreeing with him) like this: “It’s because of people like you that homosexuals get beaten up and killed and denied basic human rights just because of who they are.”

    Uh, no. Read the article carefully and note that there is nothing there that remotely implies that Bob thinks homosexuals should be bullied, or denied protection.

    Here’s the bottom line: Neither homosexuality, nor any other paraphilia or behavioral issue comparable to it, should be treated as an innate, morally neutral quality. And no amount of name-calling, accusing, logic-bending, misrepresentation, or any other of the usual tricks, is going to change that.

  2. What’s revealing to me is the anti-anti-bullying issue now coming to light: the widespread, but suppressed, incidences of homosexual child abuse.  Will we see a backlash against activist homosexuals who dismiss, or minimize, these horrific crimes?  Probably not.  But the stark evidence is in front of everyone and is overwhelming.  Just recently, a well known sportscaster in my area has come out with the story of his own abuse by a grown man when he was a child, and has received tons of e-mails from people similarly sexually abused as children, mostly, no doubt, by same-sex abusers.

    My prayer is that the truth does prevail in this latest trend on the exposure of sexual deviants and that the depraved nature of their “orientation” is brought to light.

  3. Although homosexuality and pedophilia are two different things, the similarity and overlap between them is far greater than most people realize or want to admit. One of the many big (and extremely unconvincing) lies of the gay-rights movement is that same-sex child abuse and homosexuality have nothing to do with each other. Some people will actually claim, with a straight face, that almost all same-sex child abuse is committed by “heterosexually oriented” men.

  4. Bullying of any shape, manner, method or form simply needs to be quashed by those in authority.

    No law is going to provide more authority or equipment than currently exists or can exist.

    As I said in the article, the “anti-bullying” movement is nothing more than a vehicle to advance the legitimization and protection of homosexual behavior. Homosexual activists are smart enough to realize this generalized issue will corral a lot of supporters who would otherwise reject their agenda, and once the momentum is there, they use it as a Trojan Horse to bully anyone who dares tell the truth about homosexual behavior.

    The “anti-bullying” movement is the pinnacle of irony…and hypocrisy.

  5. As you stated, Bob, bullying of whatever type needs to be “quashed by those in authority”. I completely agree. And, as I stated, I do not agree with having legislation introduced, and/or passed as attempt to fix a problem (which does exist, it’s not fantasy). Yet, what method then should be implemented to address the issue? Where should the “authority” come from and who should be responsible for administering the remedy?

    If you feel strongly that the Gay Rights groups have an agenda concerning this, I think it only makes better sense to fight against these subversive attempts with bringing a better idea to the table. And for the record, I would support repeal of ALL Anti-Bullying laws, ordinances, and regulations in effect today. I fully believe they can be manipulated, and used with the exact opposite outcome of what it’s intent was created for; from any side of the political spectrum.

    The real problem of bullying needs to be “nipped in the bud”. Start at the beginning ages of our youth’s introduction to society. It should NOT be simply directed to benefit one specific sub-set of population. Rather, it should be a uniform application for ANY instance of bullying, for ANY reason. Personally, I know how I felt when I thought a school administrator was overstepping their “authority” in addressing issues (not bullying) with my own children. It’s a tough pill for parents to swallow. Though, sometimes parents get it wrong. In today’s world, a lot of parents (typically those of the bullies) utilize our school system as a form of ‘public babysitting’. Then, when an issue such as this pops up, said parent is the one yelling, “Not my little Johnny. He wouldn’t do such a thing!”So, if parents won’t accept responsibility for their own children’s misbehavior issues, someone else has to take that issue on. Sometimes, these issues need to be addressed in an administrative fashion at the basic level of education. If it’s known ahead of time, and the policy against ANY TYPE OF BULLYING is crystal clear to all, along with the corrective and disciplinary measures for violation, there simply would not be a reason to bring this up for legislative control.The way I see it, a stronger public school administration’s disciplinary set of guidelines should formulated and adopted. I know it was in place when I went to grade school, and we all feared the notorious ‘paddle with the holes in it’ that the Principle enjoyed talking about within earshot of any pupil. I know of very few who ever dared cross the line and gained personal experience from it. It was effective. It prevented continued re-occurrence of said offenses.

    Mind you, this is simply a rough outline in helping to solve a problem. A full set of criteria would need to be developed for actual administration.

  6. The authority and the ability to deal with bullying already exist. There is nothing more a law, or even 100 new laws, can do to help remedy real bullying.

    There are, however, two things we really need to remember (or get back in touch with, because we once understood these things as a culture).

    The first is that human nature and its fallen state means there will always be some people who will mistreat other people. That doesn’t make it okay, and it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to stop it. This acknowledgement means only that we need to realize that no piling of laws upon laws will help a situation when adequate tools already exist for dealing with a problem. One of the many unfortunate failings of liberal ideology is the belief that passing a law will magically fix a problem. Passing a law could fix a problem, but again we get back to the issue of (a) are adequate tools already in place, and (b) that pesky human nature.

    And it’s (b) that brings us to that second thing we need to get back in touch with. As I pointed out to SDAtheist on another thread, our human nature is fallen and will always seek to do what it wants on its own terms. Ultimately there is only one solution to completely fix that problem, and that is the regeneration God can bring to a person when they surrender their will to his and decide to look to God’s standard rather than their own. But Christians live in an unregenerated, fallen body, so even that process of regeneration won’t be complete until the next life.

    What society can do in the mean time, since you can’t and shouldn’t even try to force everyone to be a Christian, is what we used to do in this country up until about 50 years ago, which is to affirm an objective standard of morality for society.

    From colonial days until around the 1960s/1970s, our society upheld the Judeo-Christian moral code as the standard of behavior. NO one was forced to become a Christian, but our government, laws and very society were founded on that value system, and we made it clear that everyone was expected to behave according to that code (i.e. theft is wrong and will be punished, assaulting another person is wrong and will be punished, we are expected to be civil and kind to one another, respect for parents is required, obedience to school authorities, etc. is expected and violations will be punished both at school and at home–in short, all the things the Bible teaches us about how we are to behave and treat one another).

    We didn’t have a perfect society for those previous hundreds of years, but we had nowhere near the level of crime, violence, unruly behavior, and societal disintegration we have begun to experience in the last 50 years. About 50 years ago, as some of our leaders and then society in general began to reject that objective standard of morality, we relaxed our vigilance against disrespect for parents, disobedience at school, how we treat one another, the expectation of responsible behavior, and so on. Parents, teachers, church leaders, political leaders–all used to affirm the same moral standard, so that when a kid violated that standard, they received condemnation and correction from every corner of their relational existence. Now we have situations where a parent tells a child something is wrong, but the education system tells them this immoral behavior is wrong. Or we have educators who try to maintain order in public schools, only to have parents throw a snit-fit because don’t you know my little Johnny is perfect, and so on.

    A commitment on everyone’s part to move our society back to a uniform recognition of this objective standard is key to what you said about “nipping the problem in the bud.” The problem will never completely go away (fallen human nature will never completely go away until God regenerates this entire world), but it can be reduced as low as possible, and probably the severity of the bullying along with the volume of the bullying.

    But I think from your comments that you already recognize and agree with most of this. You seem to see that anti-bullying efforts need to be UNIFORM, rather than offering special protections for favored groups. And I would add that while protection from bullying should be extended to a child confused about his/her sexuality the same as anyone else, our efforts to protect from one immoral behavior should not be done in such a way as to lend legitimacy for another immoral and dangerous behavior.

    But back around again to my original point, there just isn’t anything substantive that a state law can add to anti-bullying efforts. If a particular teacher is failing to protect students, the principal should have and has the authority to correct and discipline that teacher, up to and including termination. If an entire school/principal is failing in their duties to protect children, the school board can discipline the principal up to and including termination. And if a school board is failing to protect students, “we the people” can discipline the board with termination at the ballot box.

    And with the very real situation where homosexual activists are using anti-bullying efforts as a tool to advance their agenda, then state-level anti-bullying efforts move from not only being a useless effort, to one that will actually place many students in a different kind of danger.

  7. The problem with the recent crop of “anti-bullying” bull is not that it doesn’t properly address bullying, but that it redefines bullying into such broad terms that good people who’ve always held positions widely held by society at large, Christianity across the board, and our current laws become targeted as the equivalent of racists and bigots.  Thus, a HS student in Fort Worth who merely states what the vast majority of US citizens have said about marriage, and agrees with state law, is now branded, according to “anti-bullying” policy, a “bully” and suspended from class.

    The Dept of HHS, with prodding from the current administration, recently published, in these new, broad, ridiculous definitions of bullying:

    Verbal: name-calling, teasingSocial:spreading rumors, leaving people out on purpose, breaking up friendships Physical: hitting, punching, shovingCyberbullying: using the Internet, mobile phones or other digital technologies to harm others

    So now, “leaving someone out on purpose” is somehow bullying?  Breaking up friendships?  Teasing?

    What have we become when the “friendship police” are now given full reign?   This is the pinnacle of political correctness and moral madness.

  8. Some of the examples of definitions equating bullying which you’ve listed are certainly examples of taking an issue too far. As such, it gives further credence to the idea that legislating a resolution to this particular problem is NOT something that can be done objectively, without prejudice, and/or applied equally under the law.

    Our kids should be allowed to be kids. Teasing each other without maliciousness is tolerable. Not everyone is going to ‘like’ everyone else. It’s human nature to be discriminate. What society and those in authority need to recognize (and I speak of parents, teachers, school administrators, bosses, pastors and overall general public) is that corrective action to a malicious intent to do harm from otherwise minimal trivialities is needed, and such malicious intent not to be allowed to fester and grow beyond control. These things are easy to recognize when they are occurring. It does not and should not require a court of law. It’s all of our personal responsibilities to make it known that such physical or mental maliciousness no matter who the recipient is, is not alright, nor condoned.

    For those that cross the line to do physical harm to another, aren’t there enough laws for assault, abuse and murder to effectively apply justice? I do believe so.