The fighting is most vicious when the stakes are so low.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The fighting is most vicious when the stakes are so low.
I was referring to Savage's rant.This is an issue where children and young adults are literally being driven to suicide because of the treatment they receive at the hands of their peers. I don't think the stakes are low at all.
Savage was a savage.I think the anger that Dan Savage expressed was very justifiable and appropriate. The only place where I think he fell down was in the method he used to express that anger.
I call it bullying. He was abusive.I must say I get a laugh out of some of these replies by people who think criticizing the Bible constitutes bullying. That calling out people on their hypocrisy is bullying. I do think Savage could have worded his criticisms better, and the "pansy-SSSS" thing was ill thought-out.
Welcome to the funny farm, Antiochian.
Delightful place, ain't it?
:::::: shakes head in disbelief :::::
This is an issue where children and young adults are literally being driven to suicide because of the treatment they receive at the hands of their peers. I don't think the stakes are low at all.
I think the anger that Dan Savage expressed was very justifiable and appropriate. The only place where I think he fell down was in the method he used to express that anger.
I can understand, but I don't condone.Considering what Savage has been through and witnessed, one can hardly blame him for failing to make sufficient nice-nice.
The silence of the establishment left has been, of course, what we would expect.
It's politically correct to attack Christianity. It is not politically correct to criticize certain protected groups. Rush Limbaugh calls some radical feminist a "****" and gets boycotted; John Derbyshire politely offers suggestions on how not to get killed by black criminals and gets fired from National Review.
Then you have Dan Savage, who has the support of Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi. I wonder if they will condemn these "savage" comments towards the faith of 1/6 of the world's population.
Do I detect resentment that Fox reported the issue at all?Thank you, FAUX News
No. It's all in the how of the pointing out.I agree that Savage's speech was tactless and unprofessional for a high school audience, but is pointing out blatant hypocrisy necessarily anti-christian?
Do I detect resentment that Fox reported the issue at all?
Is HufPo also culpable for reporting on it?
Is the moniker "Faux" intended to say their reporting of Savage debacle is somehow false?
I wonder if they will condemn these "savage" comments towards the faith of 1/6 of the world's population.