Anti-Bullying Speaker Curses Christian Teens

[Kathryn]

Honestly, what did they expect? One has only to read Savage's weekly column to know he's unlikely to be a squeaky clean speaker.

If they wanted make-nice-nice, they picked the wrong guy altogether.

Notice how the Bible once again, ad infinitum, is armor-clad. Must not criticize the Bible...no sirree.

So, it's about time we re-instituted slavery. God had so many nice things to say about it...like how much is too much to beat your slave who deserves it.

Why blame Savage so much? Let's lay some of that on the NSPA for being so stupidly undiscerning.

I agree that they made a very stupid choice when they chose Savage to give a speech. Very stupid. VERY STUPID.

That being said, is Savage so out of touch with appropriate behavior that he can't look out at an audience of high school students and realize that should perhaps rein things in a bit? Is HE really THAT stupid?

 

[Kathryn]

saying a hate inspiring text is wrong is not bullying. Is anti-bullying.

That's not all he said though. He called it bull **** and then went on to berate and taunt the students who walked out.

 

[Kathryn]

About profanity good for them. About belittling other ones faith to believe the bible is right when it says homosexuality diserves death...

Do I need to point that out? REALLY?

Did you know that Jesus doesn't even mention homosexuality? As a Christian I am a follower of Jesus Christ.

What makes me madder about this whole thing though, is that after the students got up and left, he began berating them and actually "calling them names." How old is this guy - fourteen? Sheeze.

 

[Me Myself]

That's not all he said though. He called it bull **** and then went on to berate and taunt the students who walked out.

What a jerk.

I agree completely that those texts that say killing homosexuals is the holy thing to do are bull*** btw. I do think he should have found another word to put all his completely rightfull contempt against it because it was a school thing, and curse words shouldn´t be there.

About taunting, I also disagree with "pansy***" , name calling sucks.

I agree with all the rest he said though.

 

[Revoltingest]

What makes me madder about this whole thing though, is that after the students got up and left, he began berating them and actually "calling them names.".....

But if Savage knows that he is righteous, doesn't that obligate him to viciously castigate & bully the wicked (ie, Xians)?

 

[Me Myself]

Did you know that Jesus doesn't even mention homosexuality? As a Christian I am a follower of Jesus Christ.

Do I know it? I´ve mentioned it countless times! Mainstream Christianity takes too much from OT. It should only take that which Jesus specifically said is okay IMO, but well, that´s another discussion xD.

 

[Kathryn]

I agree completely that those texts that say killing homosexuals is the holy thing to do are bull*** btw. I do think he should have found another word to put all his completely rightfull contempt against it because it was a school thing, and curse words shouldn´t be there.

About taunting, I also disagree with "pansy***" , name calling sucks.

I agree with all the rest he said though.

Agreement or disagreement isn't even the question here though. The appropriateness of his speech - which includes his choice of words and his tone and his off the cuff taunting of high school students - is the problem.

One can easily address the topic of bullying, even bullying of LGBT students, without calling the bible bull **** and calling students NAMES while you're giving a speech about BULLYING.

It's so ridiculous!

 

[Kathryn]

Do I know it? I´ve mentioned it countless times! Mainstream Christianity takes too much from OT. It should only take that which Jesus specifically said is okay IMO, but well, that´s another discussion xD.

True, and as a Christian mother, I raised my kids in an atmosphere of tolerance, respect, appreciation, and kindness. I raised them to embrace diversity and to treat others as they want to be treated themselves.

This includes tolerance toward people of differing sexual or gender orientations.

The Christian friends who made up our social circle raised their kids in the same environment.

That being said, if I was a parent of one of those kids who walked out - I would be very proud of them for standing firm for their own convictions. I would walk out if someone called the Koran bull **** too, for that matter, or made fun of Buddhists or the Dalai Lama.

It's ugly intolerance.

 

[Kathryn]

But if Savage knows that he is righteous, doesn't that obligate him to viciously castigate & bully the wicked (ie, Xians)?

Why yes, of course...hey wait...ummmm...what? :sarcastic

 

[HerDotness]

That being said, is Savage so out of touch with appropriate behavior that he can't look out at an audience of high school students and realize that should perhaps rein things in a bit? Is HE really THAT stupid?

The kids who were offended walked out. That's what ADULTS do when they find a speaker's words/ideas offensive.

Looked to me like the majority remained, applauding and cheering because they could overlook the bad costuming for the substance.

The man is RIGHT! Religious people disregard inconvenient passages of the Bible right and left because they know they won't follow them or people have progressed enough to regard things like how much beating is okay for your slave who asked for it as WRONG. Slavery is WRONG. If God was so all-smart, where's the part that says, "Do NOT enslave other people. Slavery is majorly bad and wrong. Don't do it."

Didn't seem to have any trouble stating pretty directly that you shouldn't lust after your neighbor's wife and stuff, did He? No problem saying "No other gods before me" and "Don't kill" and "Don't cheat on your spouse."

So, was He on vacation when the writer set down that stuff about how to treat your slaves? Would it really have been THAT difficult to have whispered to the writer being inspired..."Hey, scratch all that. Slavery is a HUGE no-no"?

Isn't it odd? Hmmmm....?

 

[Apex]

Just curious, but did he make any distinction between biblical literalists and non-literalists?

 

[Me Myself]

Agreement or disagreement isn't even the question here though. The appropriateness of his speech - which includes his choice of words and his tone and his off the cuff taunting of high school students - is the problem.

One can easily address the topic of bullying, even bullying of LGBT students, without calling the bible bull **** and calling students NAMES while you're giving a speech about BULLYING.

It's so ridiculous!

But it´s not the whole speech which is wrong. The intend is prefect except for the specific part where he called names on students. Then the excecution failed because of his cuse words. The same speech replacing "bullsheet" with "wrong" or "hateful" or "inhumane" and leaving out the name calling is perfectly fitting.

Not covering the hateful claims of a book THAT popular in a bullying speech would have been not having cojones to say what MUST be said in the moment and subject in which people NEED to hear it.

 

[gnomon]

That's not all he said though. He called it bull **** and then went on to berate and taunt the students who walked out.

That's an incorrect statement.

 

[Me Myself]

Just curious, but did he make any distinction between biblical literalists and non-literalists?

Not in the part I saw, but quite honestly, it is not a religious speech, detail is unimportant.

the important part is to denounce the hateful parts of the bible for what they are.

Homosexuals dying is NOT okay NOR rightful. No matter where it is written.

 

[RisingKnowledge]

If his rant had been against those depraved *$^#@*&!* homos, would it still be considered not bullying?
I see a broader definition of "bullying", one including berating someone to make them feel bad.

I see your point and stand corrected.

 

[Apex]

Not in the part I saw, but quite honestly, it is not a religious speech, detail is unimportant.

the important part is to denounce the hateful parts of the bible for what they are.

Homosexuals dying is NOT okay NOR rightful. No matter where it is written.

Sorry, but the details are very important. I am not amused by being lumped into the same group as literalists and those who think the Bible must remain stagnant.

 

[Revoltingest]

I see your point and stand corrected.

Geeze, I ain't correcting anyone.
I thought your post was quite reasonable too.

 

[gnomon]

Just curious, but did he make any distinction between biblical literalists and non-literalists?

"People often point out...they can't help it. They can't help with the anti-gay bullying. It says right there in Leviticus. It says right there in Timothy. It says right there in Romans........that being gay is wrong. We can learn to ignore the BS in the Bible about gay people. The same way we have learned to ignore the BS in the Bible about shellfish....."

And it goes on like that. I think it's pretty clear he's talking about literalists.

Yes, we can take all the exception we want to even referring to a part of the Bible as BS but all the comments taking what he said as calling the entirety of the Bible or even Christians as BS are just factually incorrect.

Unless, of course, there was more to the whole thing that no one is posting on Youtube. I think if there were someone would have already posted it by now.

 

[Me Myself]

Sorry, but the details are very important.

Sorry, but they are not there.

If a book said "black people who refuse to be slaves diserve to be killed." no one will say "It is wrong to say it is wrong unless you specify that it is only wrong if you take it literaly!"

Now if someone said that is a religious book, things might be different. I am sorry, I really do, deeply refuse to give a frack id you think the part of the bible where God says "kill homosexuals" is holy in anyway. It´s still wrong. Now if yuo find an awesome analogy that could be linked to it that is somehow not as diabolical as the literal remark may you be fully blessed by your realization. The text itself is still ******

I am not amused by being lumped into the same group as literalists and those who think the Bible must remain stagnant.

Saving tortured souls from suicide is a little bit more important than your amusement.

 

[HerDotness]

That's an incorrect statement.

You're quite right about this. He did not continue to berate and taunt those who walked out.