Photo by: Brandon Cloud, MTSU Sidelines

One for one, I’m sorry that it has been over six months since my last post. I’m a terrible blogger. But part of my New Year’s resolution being a little more vigilant with my blog.

Two for two, the following information is a little dated. By about a week precisely. But in the midst of tests and advertising sales, I never got around to writing, at the very least, a decent opinion blog about the return of John McGlone to Middle Tennessee State University.

As a quick recap, members of PinPoint Evangelism came to MTSU last semester to promote their particular brand of religion. It was a typical spectacle – signs, raised voices and condemnation, from preachers and protesters alike. This semester, nothing changed. College students were still condemned as hell-bound sinners. Preachers were still condemned as narrow-minded bigots.

So with all the “love” floating around the Keathley University Center Knoll, what is even the point of acknowledging the event in the first place? What is there left to comment on?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Nothing was the number of intelligent topics of compassion, understanding and willingness at least to try to understand all opinions of people involved in, what we’ve joked around the office as, “Preacher-gate.”

Nothing remotely Christian came from PinPoint Evangelism. There was no unselfish gestures towards interested students huddled in the freezing rain. There was no patience and willingness to accept the faults of students, reminding them that despite their inefficiencies, God still loves them. When bated into arguments, there was no “turning the other cheek.”

Nothing intelligent or civil came from the MTSU students who gathered around. They were more interested in shouting “Hail Satan!” and “You suck!” then stopping to listen to PinPoint’s ministers. No grace was given in light of conflicting beliefs. No courtesy extended to allow others to peacefully believe something different.

Nothing was more humiliating, disgraceful and disgusting than watching these people (PinPoint and students) verbally warring on an otherwise peaceful campus. No one stopped to think that maybe it is okay to disagree and it doesn’t mean there must be a battle. I understand why the anger exists for both sides, but doesn’t it get tired constantly hating other people?

I’m sure PinPoint would argue their collegiate mission trips are inspired by love. But a home is only as strong as the foundation it is built on. And a foundation of hate takes far more maintainance than one made of love.

I’m sure the students would argue their messages were inspired by protection. But a shield is only as forceful as the person who wields it. Hate consumes and distracts. And a sentry who is distracted can’t do their job properly.

All in all, it would have been nice to see something, anything other than negativitey and hate. Something would have at least been more positive than nothing.

I’m sure Mr. McAllister only wants to help kids. I’m sure he’s a very nice person. I’m sure he really thinks about what he says to these kids and the thousands of others that listen – but he should think a little harder.

Tonight, he made a comment that particularly made my skin crawl. One of his male callers asked him: why do girls dress so provocatively and then complain about unwanted attention. He made a dismissive comment, then followed up with, “You get what you advertise.”

Excuse me Dawson? “You get what you advertise?”

This is one of the fundamental problems in our society – the notion that women (and men) dress to attract attention. When a woman wears too much makeup, a tight shirt or a shorter skirt, why does she deserve unwanted attention. What are you implying that she is advertising?

One of the oldest witch-hunt tactics in rape cases is that the woman “asked” for it because of what she was wearing or how she was acting. But maybe they got what they advertised – right Dawson?

What McAllister should have said was fashion is for the wearer. Women and men should dress for themselves – for what makes them happy, comfortable and/or confident. A woman should never be afraid to show as much (or as little) cleavage, leg, shoulder, back or any part of her body that she wants. The same applies to men. We should be able to do this without fear of ramifications in the form of unwanted advances, catcalls or physical assault.

No, I am not advocating that we run around naked. Nudity is something, unfortunately, dictated by social norms, and as it stands, it is socially unacceptable (unless in designated areas). But this isn’t a discussion about nudity, it’s a discussion about the freedom to express ourselves with fashion and not be confronted with hostile and/or violent consequences.

But it’s comments like Dawson’s that creates an atmosphere of fear and an acceptance for people to discriminate based on what others wear. Shame Dawson McAllister, you are supposed to be teaching kids how to be strong – part of which is being confident and not feeling like they deserve unwanted attention for any reason (including how they dress).

TO READ DAWSON’S BLOG ON THIS: CLICK HERE!

AUTHOR’S NOTE: This is a continuation of my original “Sidelines” column. Please read it before reading this blog. Also, don’t forget to read my other article about cyber-bullying. It isn’t about children bullying each other but my philosophy is the same – zero tolerance (especially Online).

About the only difference between what Carl Walker and Eric Mohat experienced and harassment is the possibility that their peers didn’t understand the ramifications of their actions. It’s hard to argue that their suicides resulted from anything other than the prolonged torment of their peers.

I find it hard to believe that a schoolyard bully fully understands that their sadistic commentary does result in another child feeling so humiliated, scared and helpless that the only possible solution is death. And if they do understand – why have we taught these bullies to act this way?

Honestly, I don’t think bullying will ever stop. As I said before, I’m somewhat of an idealist and I would love for people to just get along, but it’s just not possible.

An interesting observation that I have is “victims” of bullying are commonly sent to therapeutic devices – i.e. councilors, support groups, school district psychologists. My question is: what happens to the children accused of bullying? Are they also sent to rehabilitative groups?

It seems that time and money would be better spent on targeting people who feel the need to bully. I think that more times than not, a schoolyard bully is produced by low self-esteem. Obviously their victims experience a similar loss of self-esteem, but the bully doesn’t have any to begin with.

The only other reasoning I have behind bullying is the good ole’ stand by for any type of harassment or discrimination – fear. Something about a victim “scares” a bully into feeling the need to hurt (mentally, verbally or physically) a peer.

But in our modern society, self-esteem and fear shouldn’t really be issues. Both are easily solved by a little attention and a lot of education. Tell kids they’re special. Teach them about other types of people and how, just because someone is different, doesn’t mean it’s something to be scared of. Heck – pat them on the back and give them a compliment!

But most of all, I wonder if “faggot” has become the new “nigger.” It seems that there has been a heavy shift over the past couple of decades from racial slurs to sexual slurs. Not to say that racism isn’t around anymore because it definitely is. But I wonder what would have happened to the children in Carl’s class had they taunted a black boy or girl and called that person “nigger?” I’m sure the gym coach that taught Carl’s class would have definitely squashed that problem out.

Whatever the case may be for bullying in our society – it has gotten worse. I miss the days when school fights just involved fists and not guns, knives and police intervention. Maybe that’s what we truly need – let the kids that have a problem with each other (upon last resort) take it out back after the last school bell.

That may seem a little inhumane, but I’d rather see a kid with a bloodied nose than a bullet through his brain.

FOR STATS ON BULLYING, PLEASE VISIT THE LINKS BELOW.

National Youth Violence Prevention Resource Center

Child Abuse Effects

Bully Stoppers

So why are kids like Carl Walker, 11, and Eric Mohat, 17, killing themselves? Maybe they’ve been listening to “Teenage Suicide” by Big Fun too much. Or maybe the vicious social hierarchy portrayed in movies like “The Heathers” is reality.

Sirdeaner Walker, mother of Carl, told members of the House Education Committee last week about her son. “What could make a child his age despair so much that he would take his own life? That question haunts me to this day, and I will probably never know the answer.”

“What we do know is that Carl was being bullied relentlessly in school.”

Her pitiful story was part of a plea for Congress to strengthen anti-bullying practices in our country’s education system. Walker, along with reps from the National Association of School Psychologists and “Students Against Violence Everywhere,” for more programs that involve an active approach to preventing bullying.

Walker said “faggot” and “gay” were some of the bullying slurs used against Carl. Likewise, William and Janis Mohat, parents of Eric, filled a federal lawsuit against their local Ohio school district because their son was harassed in a similar way.

In a story by ABC News, Eric was publically told in class to go and “shoot yourself, no one will miss you.” The story says that Mohat was commonly called “gay, fag, queer and homo.” Part of the lawsuit also involves three other suicide victims who were students in Eric’s class.

The lawsuit – filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio – doesn’t seek monetary compensation, but asks that Mohat’s school admit that the children’s deaths resulted from “bullicide” and the school system put an anti-bullying program in place.

It’s pretty safe to say that everyone has either bullied, been bullied or at least witnessed some form of bullying. As adults, we typically refer to this behavior as harassment – which is punishable by law.

But who holds children accountable? Should the court systems get involved? Who is more responsible for the developing social behaviors of children – parents or school officials?

We need to start rethinking and redefining what bullying is. We need to teach children how to standup against intentional social cruelty and shrug off others who are just being mean.

Most of all, we need to give the next generation a serious self-esteem makeover. We’ll never be able to stop people from being mean, but at least we can teach the victims how to overcome it without tying a noose around their necks.

Eichelberger, in an interview with WHYY Radio about a month ago, talked about his upcoming constitutional marriage proposal and said that gay marriage was “dysfunctional” and would eventually lead to “polygamy, marrying younger people.”

But the best part was when the senator decided to add this jewel to the conversation:

“They’re not being punished. We’re allowing them to exist, and do what every American can do. We’re just not rewarding them with any special designation.”

Now I’m not the biggest fan of any long-term relationship, but I’ve always been taught that two people who love each other have the right to have their relationship legally recognized. This, of course, gets into a sticky situation – religion VS politics.

I have also been raised to believe that marriage is a religious institution. And as much as I hate to admit it, marriage should be dictated by religion. Ergo, marriage shouldn’t be a political issue whatsoever. As a supporter of the separation of church and state, marriage should be kept in the churches (or mosques, or temples) and the government (federal and state) should issue “civil unions” to peoples wanting their relationship recognized.

This results in a somewhat simple solution to the problem with the debate of gay marriage. If there is no longer a government supported religious institution, then anyone wishing to have a legal merger between two parties can have a civil union. This, in turn, leaves the religious organizations the right to include (or exclude) whomever they see fit for the “holy right” of marriage. And ultimately, people can choose they’re own way to define their relationships (wife/husband or partners).

It’s actually kind of funny to me. Religious organizations tout on that marriage is something dictated by God, but they are wanting it to be dictated by the government – which is about as far from God as I can imagine.

But most importantly, if we were to actually do what the Constitution exists for and SEPARATE church and state, we could keep idiots like Eichelberger from spreading unnecessary hate and ignorance that only blind-sight his constituents and piss everybody else off.

CLICK HERE to hear audio experts and see a video response from Eichelberger.