An Epidemic of Bullying

Starhawk:

""It is utterly disgraceful for a leader of a faith tradition to use the pulpit to pray for the death of the president. We Witches have a word for that--we call it cursing or hexing. And real Witches don't indulge in that sort of behavior. We have a saying, "What you send out returns on you, three times over." Hexmeister preachers, beware!
It is equally disgraceful for other spiritual leaders to remain silent and allow these abuses to continue. ""

It's tragic and ironic that the Dominionist ill-wishers end up raising just the kinds of self-generated s---storms that anyone who messes with bad stuff ends up living in.

When the creature in the mirror barks back, they have to either look at themselves, (not easy for them) or decide 'The demon in the mirror is fighting back! Fear not, we will apply still mightier force!'

And that's where they dwell.

To too many Christians, I think, they're just embarrassing and 'overzealous.'

But they're really doing something very different... quite the opposite, in fact, from what either of our faiths teach.

Dear DOUGINMOZ,

May I please jump in full body straight up front in my comment. I am taking such liberty as it is comments to comments, and I do not want to swing in with posture, but with my heart.

Really, to say “bullies are given a far greater voice than they deserve by Fox News and radio talk shows” is to say as you stated she did, “They are Fox News bullies (conservatives).” (?!) Categorically you worked her statement into a stretch for me. I read there are bullies within Fox News far too often. I read in her view bullies are excused as news, rather than entertainment. This concern of entertainment vs news is not fresh or a new view for Starhawk or anyone to mention is it? And it seems to me she is saying an entertainment factor can be found on FOX which is bullying.

And again she states “a leader of a faith tradition to use the pulpit to pray for the death of the president.” And you interpret “hate-filled preachers (Christians).” Please be more gracious and fair to the text or language with me when you interpret what I say/write. I did NOT read all Christians in that. What liberties you seem to be taking with her carefully offered words.

AND as she does throw out categorical groupings, “Now, the voices of Witches and Pagans, I'm aware, are not going to carry much weight with those gun-toting, Obama-hating good ol' boy preachers--but what about the rest of you, ministers, priests, all of you Christians--shouldn't you all be standing up and saying, "Not in our name!"” I read she is putting herself in as big a categorical frame and she is framing the source of the bullying she is aware of. (Corrections are welcome if I am getting this wrong.) There is a source for some of the bullying, yes? And in such categorical labels of Witch /Pagan or Christian she calls to all of us to unite and act together against the bullying of our own group.

I am close again to what is on deck as I have lived with the gun-toting, good ol’boy hating preachers. This is not a categorical description but specific in my experience. It was not of everybody in the congregation of my faith. And to stand up to the congregational leaders and respectfully submit concern and question left me being instructed to leave. I was supported with an ally in this process of departure. But those under the guidance and wisdom of such hating folk still will not associate with me closer than an email after previously sharing in decades of fellowship. How do I site the source of this hate without speaking to what they do? And the fact that there are enough of them to be categorically described is just creepy, but true to my experience. How do I site the sources without speaking to what they do especially if they match by some actions?

Thank you for the interaction, I appreciate your time to present your view and thoughts.

Gimpi,

You're assuming that the attacks were unfair. It's not as though Van Jones didn't do or say the things he was reported to have done and said. It's not cheating to critique him for having done and said them. It's not irrational, much less unfair, to draw certain unfavorable inferences from those things, such as about what his current views might be, whether he is being honest about them, and even if he's changed his mind what his former views say about his faculties of judgment or innate inclinations.

(My understanding is that most of the "incidents" occurred well after Jones was out of college, by the way.)

It's not as though Jones or anyone else is entitled to a post of high public trust even if he is qualified for it. It's a privilege. The ability of citizens to critique public officials on any basis they deem relevant (within the boundaries of law), on the other hand, is a right. I think we should be all be relatively pleased with this sign that the democracy is functioning normally.

DouginMoz, I appreciate your civil and congenial comments, and your willingness to call yourself on the carpet when you feel you went too far. We all have a strong tendency to group those we disagree with as "the other," a monolithic, uniform danger, while understanding the individuality of those on "our side."

I doubt Starhawk means to group all Christians as haters, or all conservatives as bullies. I base this on her close work with several Christian organizations in disaster-relief in New Orleans, and her work with farmers in permaculture development. I didn't find her comments unreasonable at first read. Perhaps that speaks to my own biases. However, at second read - from the outside - I can see how the grouping could sting.

I would also add, in Starhawk's defense, that a little doubtfulness about the good-will of the religious conservative in the case of a Pagan is understandable. Her fellow-believers (and anyone who got caught up in the mix) used to be killed. Some people (not many) who call themselves "Christian conservatives" have called for that practice to be resumed. The saying "never again" has meaning for many groups.

We can (and should) have honest disagreements without sinking into mean-spiritedness. It's hard, but vital, to remember that, when people trying to get their fellow-citizens access to needed medical care are called "communists," "Nazis," and "baby-killers," that not everyone arguing against you in the debate is shouting those attacks. Thanks for the reminder.

Dear Marilyn,
I certainly was not trying to be a bully, and if I came across that way, I apologize. Nor was my comment a diversion tactic as it spoke to the essence of the article.
Since you are an expert on bullying, you know that the first attack is usually ridicule of another person. When extended to group bullying, it evolves into stereotypes. It is easy to recognize this when we are the ones to whom it is being done. It is difficult to recognize it when we are doing it.
Starhawk called for us to "argue about ideas and not stoop to character assassination," a sentiment to which we all should aspire. But she belies the statement by ridiculing certain groups with whom she disagrees. They are Fox News bullies (conservatives), hate-filled preachers (Christians), and then hints that it must have been racism; when in fact, many of them would have been delighted to debate Jones's ideas. But they have already been branded as racist hate-filled bullies.
Normally, I ignore the posters that resort to name calling, and instead seek those with whom I disagree, but where I sense an open mind or an open heart, so that we can discuss and learn from each other in the realm of ideas. I sensed in Starhawk some openness and willingness.
I certainly don't want to come off as being holier-than-thou. I have my moments when I fail to reach the ideal, to speak with humility, love and respect to those that curse you. I have read my posts where the sneer of sarcasm has shown through a thin veil of civility - perhaps even..., no definitely even on my earier post. For whereas, I argued her "ideas," my last statement has that sneer. But it is true. It is easier said than done - for me as well.

"Let's assume for the sake of argument that Van Jones is a good man. Why should we "all tremble in fear" when an executive-branch political appointee can come under great pressure to resign or be fired when his political views are sufficiently unpopular? Isn't that an unremarkable outcome in a free political system?"
Posted by: Climacus

The reason you should be afraid, is if one good (or even average) man can be unfairly attacked over his views, anyone can. You, me, those you like, those you trust, anyone can be attacked, for views they may no longer hold. Views they may have never held. Lies and distortions about you (or anyone) can be used to create doubt, fear, and savage your reputation. And, if you decide the game isn't worth the candle, and you withdraw the field, your attackers will take that withdrawal as an admission of guilt. That's plenty to fear.

As I understand it, VanJones held those unpopular views in his college days, as many of us do. College is a time to explore many views, unusual, unpopular, controversial or just plain silly. Since those days, he appears to have grown up and accomplished a great deal of good in the world. Many would say he has added more value to society than any of his critics.

I don't know why he was targeted, I doubt race was a huge factor. I do, however, think it was about hate and greed. Hate in the form of a desire to make anyone with whom you disagree strongly suffer. Greed in the form of political attack to attract viewers and market share. There's money to be made in catering to people's desire to see people they disagree with or dislike brought low.

Just remember, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. This style of attack can and will be used against you, if it can be used against those you dislike. And cruelty is something for everyone to be afraid of.

To Character Assassination Comment: Can there be no character to describe? Can there be no thread of accountability which might be FOLLOWED to take heed?

I remember when I didn’t want to take the trash out in my teen years. I was pretty good at finding every angle of diversion or attack to thrust up, simply for the distraction of my responsibility. I know the bullying system far to well, I was raised within it and I work hard to let this simple tactic of disruption for personal gain be reformed.

What was your point?

What does this public anger say about our private faith?"

Private faith? There is nothing private about evangelical faith. They shove it down everyones' throats and tell us they are the experts because our founders were christians.

Public anger? The anger comes from their capacity for hate. The evangelicals look for evil lurking in everyone and everything. They have transformed most public discourse into revival meetings--town hells, teabag events, even the well of our government meetings. Their "faith" is why they have public anger and hate.

It is not real faith. It is drummed up mob emotion--just like in their revival meetings.

Starhawk, you wrote:
"Who do we want to be? Let's try for this: a country where when we differ, we argue about ideas and do not stoop to character assassination,..."

A lovely sentiment, but you also wrote:
"are not going to carry much weight with those gun-toting, Obama-hating good ol' boy preachers--"

And:
"The rantings of the bullies are given a far greater voice than they deserve by Fox News and radio talk shows, where entertainment is mistaken for actual reporting."

May I ask you a question? Is this not character assassination of all those that listen to Fox News, and any southern preacher that still likes to hunt which you have stereotyped into one group? You've done nothing different than what you accuse the other side of doing. I guess it's easier said than done.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Van Jones is a good man. Why should we "all tremble in fear" when an executive-branch political appointee can come under great pressure to resign or be fired when his political views are sufficiently unpopular? Isn't that an unremarkable outcome in a free political system?

Your remark about "perhaps [it was] his color" is just gratuitous innuendo about the people who found some things Jones said or did to be reprehensible.

Students within the autistic spectrum, including the high end (Asperger), experience quite a bit of bullying, harassment, and rejection in the public school system, which is only now starting to be put in check by school officials.

It was only opposed on rare occasions when I was in school (graduated 1988), by teachers on my side where there was mutual respect.

Aspies are not likely to bring weapons to school and use them. If there is a weapon, it is a probably a suicide and at home.

The greater danger might be allowing those students to withdraw socially and attempt to fill the void, compensate academically. The social price of that was not befriending many of them until last year, 20 years after graduation.
Nobody gained anything there except some grades on paper.

The only thing that stopped me from continuing withdrawal indefinitely was the intervention of a woman in the Christian fellowship who actually did eventually earn a social work license (BSW) in WV but was already combining compassion with preaching. Yes, I did learn to generate friends based on my own good qualities but I simply traded one set of problems for another: I am almost 40 and clueless about love lives in Christ. Statistics suggest low marriage rates for Aspies.

Fortunately, I did become employed in a second career field that required retraining at state expense. The state was satisfied I exhausted my attempts to make social research methods work as a career so they suggested computer programming. With slight modification it became a great Web development career. It is suggested that only 5% of Aspies are employed at full skill level. There were a total of 29 other job situations in my life before but the current one takes up 10 whole years.

We need zero tolerance in schools with regard to bullying and harassment. Send the message that one's job at school is to learn and grow. Preventing one from doing one's job is no more acceptable at school than it is in my office or any other. Students must learn to respect colleagues (classmates) and bosses (teachers and administrators). Failure to do so means suspension or termination (expulsion).

If it seems too good for kids with disabilities, think about it as for "normal kids" who will be "handicapped" if they don't learn respect for diversity. If the teachers let students get away with discrimination against diversity, they are letting the children down, because we, the employers, will not.

1. We don't tolerate discrimination against people, for example, from the Middle East
2. We don't tolerate discrimination against homosexuals, for example
3. We don't tolerate discrimination against people who have disabilities, for example
4. Generally speaking we don't tolerate discrimination in our own minds, no matter what our specific wording says

Teachers must prepare children for future roles in society.