The sponsor of two of the amendments, Republican Rep. Mike Harmon of Danville, who is running for lieutenant governor under the Tea Party banner, told H-L, "This is a bill about bullying. It should not be about silencing someone's religious beliefs."
A bill that aims to better protect children from being bullied because of their sexual orientation, race or religion may not get another vote despite near unanimous approval from a House committee earlier this week.
Two Republican lawmakers have added three floor amendments to the bill, one of which would allow those with concealed weapons permits to carry guns at the state's public universities and trade schools and keep those guns in their cars. Two other
amendments would make clear that students who are stating their religious beliefs about gays and lesbians would not be punished for bullying.
"I'm favorably inclined toward the bill, but the amendments may cause it not to be considered," said House Speaker Greg Stumbo, D-Prestonsburg...
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Bad Libertarian Would Permit Verbal Abuse of School Children
Remember the days when libertarians stood for individual liberty?
The part of libertarianism I love is the part that protects and even celebrates freedom of expression and action, always with a protective eye toward anyone who might be subjected to oppression based on the conflicting ideas of another person.
Libertarianism has always included diverse philosophies and organizations, all of which advocate the goal of maximizing individual liberty and freedom.
But these days it's hard to tell the libertarians from the neo-cons.
A Republican state senator now wants to allow students to be verbally bullied in school so long as it is part of their tormenter's religious belief to do so. And he doesn't seem to mind if theyhave access to a gun when they do it.
So my "right" to oppress a weaker kid outweighs the right of that person to live in peace? Where's the liberty in that?
This from H-L, Photo by Pablo Alcala:
One of his amendments would clarify that a school's code of conduct "shall not prohibit any student from expressing their personal religious beliefs as long as that expression does not include physically harming a student or damaging a student's property."
So physical abuse is not OK, but psychological abuse is? Where's the liberty in that?