I have a proposal. Since it now appears that bullies in Michigan have license to bully as long as they can demonstrate that this bullying stems from deep moral or religious convictions, I suggest that should their victims demonstrate that they have suffered harm from this bullying that they or their families be able to sue the congregations that the bullies belong to. I think that is only fair.
For example, if a kid or group of kids from let's say First Baptist decide to pick on a kid because of that kid's real or perceived sexual orientation, and let's say the pastor of First Baptist was rather outspoken in his ideas about gays, I think the bullied kid should get recompense from First Baptist.
I think a lawsuit or two might put the "moral exemption" crowd on notice.
There is a story that Henry II had a problem with his Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas a Becket. It was no secret that the two often clashed. One day Henry said in front of some of his knights, "Who will rid me of that turbulent priest?" Now Henry maintained afterwards that he did not intend for his men to ride to the church and kill Thomas, but kill him they did and they would not have done so had he not said those fateful words.
Those who would defend the right of "moral exemption" would do well to ponder the story of Henry II and Thomas a Becket. He claimed that he was not responsible for what his men did, but history judged otherwise. Overnight Thomas became a saint and martyr, while Henry? He will go down in history for ordering Thomas' death.
For example, if a kid or group of kids from let's say First Baptist decide to pick on a kid because of that kid's real or perceived sexual orientation, and let's say the pastor of First Baptist was rather outspoken in his ideas about gays, I think the bullied kid should get recompense from First Baptist.
I think a lawsuit or two might put the "moral exemption" crowd on notice.
There is a story that Henry II had a problem with his Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas a Becket. It was no secret that the two often clashed. One day Henry said in front of some of his knights, "Who will rid me of that turbulent priest?" Now Henry maintained afterwards that he did not intend for his men to ride to the church and kill Thomas, but kill him they did and they would not have done so had he not said those fateful words.
Those who would defend the right of "moral exemption" would do well to ponder the story of Henry II and Thomas a Becket. He claimed that he was not responsible for what his men did, but history judged otherwise. Overnight Thomas became a saint and martyr, while Henry? He will go down in history for ordering Thomas' death.
