The Freedom Bulletin

Dan Savage, the creator of the “It Gets Better” project to combat anti-gay bullying, is now himself being accused of bullying.

During a speech to high school journalists, Savage ranted against various kinds of alleged “bull**** in the Bible.” These comments caused about 20 students to calmly and quietly leave the auditorium. Then, Savage said, ”It’s funny, as someone who is the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the Bible, how pansy-a$$ed some people react when you push back.”

I agree that by making these comments, Savage acted as a bully. A lot of attention has been given to the bullying that gay teens face, and that’s a good thing. But people shouldn’t forget about all the other victims of bullying. Religious people are often bullied for their beliefs, as are teens who, either for religious reasons or otherwise, choose not to date, wear “sexy” clothing, swear, or drink, for example. In my experience growing up in liberal, gay-marriage-supporting Massachusetts, this is actually more common than anti-gay bullying.

It’s also interesting that this article about Savage’s speech shows him wearing a t-shirt that reads, “Google Santorum.” Arguably, it was bullying for someone who disagreed with the former senator’s political and religious views to turn his name into a disgusting term. It is also arguably bullying to encourage and promote this kind of ridicule as Savage did.

And worse, Savage once said on the Bill Maher show, “I wish Republicans were all f***ing dead.” (Thanks to Say Anything, via The Humble Libertarian, for this example.)

How about being civil to people you disagree with, instead of ridiculing them (or wishing for them to be dead)? Just as no one should condemn gay people for being who they are, gay-rights supporters should not condemn Christians or Republicans for being who they are.

…and more about why birth control pills should not be free.

In the controversy about whether people who do not use birth control pills should be forced to pay for them, Republicans have generally been on the right side.

But, as Alex Koppelman at Slate points out, they are generally on the wrong side for supporting a Virginia law that would require women to undergo an ultrasound before being allowed to have an abortion. What makes this law particularly bad is that, “in many cases (most, in fact) that would mean having what’s called a ‘transvaginal ultrasound,’ in which a probe is inserted into a pregnant woman’s vagina to get the necessary image.” I believe that each person has the right to have an abortion either with or without looking at an image of the unborn baby. But for everyone who has an abortion to be forced to undergo such a degrading procedure is even worse. No one who believes in human dignity should support such a requirement which, in Koppelman’s words, ”clearly violates that woman’s liberty, not to mention her person.”

It would be a great thing for the Republican Party if they strove to become the party of liberty, not just on certain issues but on all issues.

It is right of them to view the debate about insurance coverage of birth control pills in terms of religious liberty, not in terms of medical and reproductive choice. After all, contrary to what the majority of people seem to think, no one is debating about whether people should have access to contraception. The debate is about whether people who use birth control pills should have to pick up some or all of the cost (either by actually paying the full cost or merely paying a co-pay or co-insurance), or whether they should be free, in which case the cost is evenly distributed among all of the people who purchase health insurance (which, since the Affordable Care Act requires essentially all people to purchase health insurance, equals essentially all people).

In this sense, and as many people of both parties fail to notice, the controversy is just as much an economic one as it is a “culture war.” Whether something should be paid for collectively or by the people who use it is an important issue to discuss. It is currently being discussed, for example, at hearings held by the MBTA to get the public’s input about whether the public transportation system’s budget woes should be solved by fare increases, service cuts, advertising revenue, tax increases, and/or cutbacks in other areas of the state budget.

For some reason, when a budget debate involves anything related to sex, instead of just public transportation, liberals try to frame the issue in terms of men oppressing women. Contraception is an issue that applies to both genders equally, and I object to it being treated as a women’s issue. It is women and not men who physically take birth control pills, but there are other methods of contraception, like vasectomies for example, that men physically do, and in any case, the ability to have sex without having a baby is equally important to men and women. It would really surprise me if, as has been implied, men would prefer a world with no birth control, where they would be unable to have sex without worrying about becoming a father against their will.

Additionally, I have personally encountered people who say that they are outraged and furious at the few politicians who dare to oppose the requirement that birth control pills be covered for free. This makes no sense. Unfortunately, on this particular issue, the liberal side is winning. With the Obama administration’s new policy, we went from a nation where insurance companies can choose whether or not to cover birth control pills, to one where they will be forced to cover them. Not only will birth control pills be covered, but they will be covered with no co-pay, something that cannot be said of medications that actually treat medical conditions, such as antibiotics, high blood pressure pills, asthma medications, or chemotherapy. This is, to say the least, a move in the direction that liberals would want. But as (most, but not all) liberals apparently find horrific, there are some people who disagree with this shift in policy and – gasp! – have the audacity to express their views. If liberals act as if they are being oppressed and trampled on when they are winning, I would hate to see how they react when they actually lose a policy battle.

The Republican Party should fight back against this inaccurate, illogical rhetoric by standing up for liberty on all fronts, including freedom of religion, freedom to make your own medical decisions, freedom to live your personal life the way you wish, and, as is forgotten by many people in the birth control debate, freedom to keep your own money and spend it the way you wish.

President Obama said a few days ago that Muslims have the right to build a mosque near the site of the September 11th attacks. According to Obama…

“Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.”

Later, he added that he was “was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom” of the plan but merely the Constitutional right to do so.

I, believe it or not, agree with Obama.

Building a mosque near Ground Zero is not the greatest idea. It is a little strange and not very fitting to have a mosque right near the site of the worst act of terrorism in American history, which was committed by terrorists who happened to be Muslims. If I was in charge of building the mosque, I would choose a different location.

But it would not violate anyone’s rights to build the mosque. If you buy a plot of land, you have the right to build whatever you want there, even if most people disapprove of it. New York City could offer to buy up the land and turn it into a public memorial, but as long as the mosque developers own the land, they can build whatever they want.

Newt Gingrich compared building a mosque near Ground Zero to putting Nazi signs next to the Holocaust museum. Although I am a Newt fan, I have to object to this particular analogy. Nazism is the ideology that is responsible for the Holocaust, while Islam itself is not responsible for 9/11, just certain individuals who happened to be radical Muslims. Not all Muslims are terrorists, while all Nazis are, well, Nazis. Putting a pro-terrorism memorial or terrorist training camp at Ground Zero, now that would be the equivalent of Nazi signs at the Holocaust museum.

In conclusion, although perhaps not a wise idea, there is no Constitutional or moral reason why a mosque near Ground Zero should be forbidden. The First Amendment gives people the freedoms of, among other things, religion and speech. 9/11 was the worst act of terrorism in American history. The feelings of its victims are important, and the potential Mosque builders should take them into account. But in America, we do not and should not deny people the right to practice their religion just because this would offend people.

Did you hear about the 8-year-old boy who was ordered by his school to go to a psychologist because he drew a picture of Jesus on the cross?

While there are many facts in dispute between the boy’s parents and school officials, there is no doubt in my mind that the school is in the wrong. The boy’s father said that he drew the cross when asked to draw something that reminded him of Christmas; the school denies that. It’s unclear whether the boy meant to draw himself or Jesus on the cross. The school says they didn’t actually suspend the boy but just forced him to have a psychological evaluation before he could return – seems like the same thing to me. They even disagree on whether the drawing the boy’s father has been showing to the media is the one the boy drew.

But even if you interpret the evidence in the way that is the most favorable to the school, what happened to this boy is unjust. It’s just like what I posted about last time – people need to let other people be. A school’s job is to teach kids facts about math, writing, grammar, history, science, computers, and other subjects. It shouldn’t be a school’s job to meddle in students’ lives or to push value judgments on them. Kids should be able to draw whatever they want, and teachers and superintendents shouldn’t psychoanalyze their drawings and send them to shrinks for anything different or unusual.

The father in this case has been criticized for being too willing to speak to the media and for demanding that the school reimburse his son for his suffering and pay for tuition to a private school since the boy is too traumatized to go back to the same school. But I agree with him! The school officials violated the boy’s rights and should compensate him for his suffering. I don’t blame him for wanting to go to a different school. Being singled out and sent to a psychiatrist would be traumatic, and drawing a picture, even if it is of yourself on the cross, does not merit that.

As Pink Floyd said, teachers need to leave kids alone! Schools should teach facts and skills, not psychoanalyze kids’ drawings and single them out for psychotherapy for every little thing. Kids should be able to express themselves without being labeled as mentally ill.

How tolerant and accepting liberals are. Not! 

They just took over the presidency, the Senate, and the House, and now they’re throwing fits because Obama picked one slightly conservative person to speak for a few seconds at his inauguration. Obama’s choice of pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration was a gesture of inclusion and a way of saying that Obama actually values conservatives. Now, liberals are saying Obama’s choice was bigoted because Warren opposes gay marriage. Apparently, being inclusive means doing whatever it takes to avoid anything that might even remotely be considered offensive to gays and lesbians, even if it means completely excluding all conservatives. Well, I think that conservatives are just as important as gays and lesbians. I approve of Obama’s decision to bring some actual diversity to his inauguration by choosing someone conservative. A group of people who all think identically and believe the exact same things isn’t very diverse.

On another note, Merry Christmas!

Probably just about everyone has heard about Barack Obama’s comments about “bitter” working-class Pennsylvanians who “cling to guns and religion.” I think I’m going to have to side with Hillary Clinton and the other Obama detractors on this one. Clinton said that people support the Second Amendment because they “believe it’s a matter of constitutional right” and that people are religious because they “believe it’s a matter of personal faith.” I completely agree with her. People don’t support gun-ownership rights and believe in God because they feel threatened and blindly stick to what is familiar. They believe what they believe because they think it’s the right thing to do. Obama shouldn’t dismiss people who disagree with him by saying that they are just “bitter” and need “a way to explain their frustrations.”

Here is the excerpt in question from Obama’s speech:

“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them… And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not…And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Source: CNN

In my opinion, anyone who is protesting Pope Benedict’s visit to Turkey ought to knock it off. Numerous people in the mostly Islamic country are calling the pope an enemy of Islam, and maybe he has a reason to be. After all, Muhammad did condemn celibacy, while Jesus was celibate himself, as is Benedict and all of his predecessors. I think Benedict should go to Turkey and kick some Turkish butt!