What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? This is an open thread.
A couple of items related to religion caught my eye over the past few days. Governor Terry Branstad is promoting a new anti-bullying bill, which includes a religious exemption that some may interpret as a “license to bully.” More details are below.
Also after the jump, I enclosed part of a commentary from an Iowa rabbi who is “dumbfounded” by people who “demonstrate little respect for any other religious tradition than his or her own.” I predict that this rabbi will stop being surprised long before he stops having these interactions.
Last year, Branstad organized a major conference to address bullying in Iowa schools. This press release from March 1 describes the new bill that grew out of that effort.
Branstad, Reynolds anti-bullying conference results in new legislation to combat bullying
(DES MOINES) – Gov. Terry E. Branstad’s and Lt. Gov. Kim Reynolds’ anti-bullying conference in Des Moines last November has resulted in new legislation to combat the bullying of Iowa students.
More than 1,200 Iowans attended the Nov. 27, 2012, Governor’s Bullying Prevention Summit, at Hy-Vee Hall in Des Moines to discuss how to better address bullying. The proposed bill helps schools better protect students from bullying by addressing the growing problem of cyber-bullying while respecting free-speech rights.
The legislation, House Study Bill 196, was produced by the School Administrators of Iowa, which spearheaded the effort to update Iowa Code, and did so in consultation with the Iowa Department of Education. The legislation will be introduced by Rep. Ron Jorgensen, R-Sioux City, who chairs the House Education Committee.
Changes proposed to existing statute include the following:
1. Giving schools more authority to address cyber-bullying by (a) adding “social networking” to the definition of electronic communications and (b) stating that nothing stops a school from addressing bullying or harassment that occurs away from school or a school function, while providing additional protection to school employees who decide not to act on alleged bullying under those circumstances.
2. Expanding the definition of traits or characteristics by adding “other distinguishing characteristic.”
3. Separating the definition of harassment and bullying. Harassment means conduct or an act based on an actual or perceived trait or characteristic of the student. Bullying is conduct or an act for “any reason other than any actual or perceived trait or characteristic of the student.” Sometimes kids are bullied for reasons that are not properly categorized as a trait or characteristic. Examples include relationship status, such as a boy threatening a classmate dating his former girlfriend, or a group of girls shunning a girl they’ve decided to pick on.
4. Requiring online posting of anti-bullying policies and complaint forms.
5. Protecting students’ First Amendment rights by stating that nothing in the legislation shall be construed to restrain or discipline speech that expresses political, religious or other protected categories of speech, which address legitimate matters of public concern.
The full text of House Study Bill 196 is here. At first glance, it looks like two steps forward and one step back. Several participants in last year’s conference raised concerns that Iowa’s current law does not cover social media. Adding precision to the definitions of harassment and bullying makes sense too.
The last point concerns me, because it seems to create a road map for bullying without accountability. “I hope you get AIDS, faggot” would be considered bullying. “I hope you burn in hell, faggot” might be considered a free expression of a religious viewpoint. Members of religious minority groups could be targeted for bullying too, as long as the perpetrators dressed up their derogatory remarks with a little theology.
I assume Branstad added this “religious freedom” provision in order to assuage social conservatives who view Iowa’s anti-bullying law as part of a secular, homosexual agenda. If that was his goal, he hasn’t succeeded. The lobbyist declarations for House Study Bill 196 show that Eric Goranson, who represents the Iowa Association of Christian Schools, has already registered against this bill.
Speaking of small minority groups, Saturday’s edition of the Des Moines Register included this guest editorial by Rabbi Steven Edelman-Blank of Des Moines’ Conservative Jewish congregation. Excerpt:
Occasionally, I run into someone who seems to demonstrate little respect for any other religious tradition than his or her own. The person seems to be so sure of his or her own belief system that he or she cannot even entertain the thought that there might be a bit of truth or divinity in another group’s religious beliefs.
He or she is so close-minded that there is no room to consider a different religious outlook. It is as if the person’s faith not only depends on him or her believing he or she is right, but also that everyone who does not agree is wrong.
These experiences leave me – well, dumbfounded. I think they alarm me so much because I just do not view religion this way.
I choose to follow a Jewish path without absolutely knowing that it is better than any other path. I can believe I know what God wants from me, but I can also still keep in mind that I might not have all the facts. I am OK living without absolute certainty.
Having faith is different than knowing you are 100 percent right. If we ever actually get to stand in front of a set of pearly gates, maybe we will find out which religion got it right. Somehow, though, I get the feeling that instead we will be told that this is the wrong question to ask.
It seems to me that so many people have lived on this Earth, with so many different conceptions of religion, that it is arrogant to assume your own religious group has a monopoly on the truth. Furthermore, I tend to think that part of developing a mature religious outlook is to admit that humans are limited in our ability to fully understand the world around us or how we got here.
I am personally acquainted with Rabbi Edelman-Blank. He’s a very nice guy who has clearly spent most of his life in more diverse communities, where people are generally reluctant to claim that they are on the one true path. Having lived most of my life as a Jew in Iowa, I am neither shocked nor dumbfounded by the conversations Edelman-Blank describes. I do think that one is less likely to encounter that outlook in Iowa now than, say, 20 or 30 years ago.