"Anti-Bully" Advocate Bullies Christian Teens

[CarmelHP]

How many positions does the bible allow? Should we praise all of Leviticus, or only portions?

What does this overinflated jerk, Savage, harassing teenagers have to do with praising anything in the bible? He was being an ******* to them because he thought that he had enough power over them that there wouldn't be any repercussions.

 

[level.eleven]

I am dumbfounded that you think it was OK for Mr Savage to "teach" tolerance, by being intolerant.

I am dumbfounded that you think it is OK for you to be intolerant, in the name of tolerance.

If your version of tolerance is predicated on the activities of consenting adults in their bedroom, of which effect you in no way shape or form, I have no tolerance for your tolerance. I don't preach tolerance. I advocate reason.

 

[Roadie]

If your version of tolerance is predicated on the activities of consenting adults in their bedroom, of which effect you in no way shape or form, I have no tolerance for your tolerance. I don't preach tolerance. I advocate reason.

I have never once mentioned my "belief" on what consenting adults do in the bedroom, now have I?

No, you advocate YOUR version of "reason", and are intolerant of anything that doesn't fit YOUR interpretation of "reason".

 

[Roadie]

Even other Homosexual groups are speaking out against Savage..

Jimmy LaSalvia, executive director of GOProud, called those statements “outrageous” and demanded an apology.
“Dan Savage should apologize for his comments and should apologize to the high school students in attendance whom he called ‘pansy-asses,’” continued LaSalvia. “It is ironic that someone whose claim to fame is fighting bullying would resort to bullying tactics in attacking high school students who were offended by his outrageous remarks.”
LaSalvia said people of faith should be treated with respect.
“Dan Savage’s outrageous anti-Christian tirade hurts – not helps – the fight for gay rights in this country,” LaSalvia said in a statement. “There is nothing incompatible between being a Christian and believing that all people should be treated equally, and Dan Savage’s attacks on Christianity only fuel those on the extremist fringe who oppose gay rights.”

Gay Conservatives Condemn Dan Savage’s Christian-Bullying | FOX News & Commentary: Todd Starnes

 

[IndyDave1776]

Since we have arrived at an argument between those of faith and of those not of faith, let me raise the questions behind the question. First, do we all believe in the concept of liberty conveyed through the vehicle of a republic to the point that we can set religion/non-religion aside and address the fact that according to the Constitution we all have the right to believe or not believe as we choose and to act freely upon that with only a few limitations (like not permitting human sacrifice since murder is not tolerated in our society for any reason with no religious use exemption available)? Can we agree that this means that we, in addition to everyone else ultimately has the right to be wrong? Now for the difficult question: Can we agree that there are people who can twist anything including but not limited to scripture, the Constitution, or other people's words into something they were never intended to be? Can we agree that with problem issues like 'bullying' the correct response is to establish the rights of the individual and honor them, and not to allow one offense to be avenged and rebounded with an increase of magnitude every time someone gets their sensibilities offended?

My point is that while I am a person of faith, as I see it, if two consenting adults want to bugger each other, that is their business. If they want to openly declare that in their reckoning it is right and proper, that is their business so long as they are not trying to commandeer our children at school while doing so. Conversely, it is my prerogative to believe that their behavior is absolutely wrong and communicate my position openly as well. The problem with activists like the one featured in this discussion is that they do not want liberty for themselves. They want to eliminate the liberty of everyone who is either not one of them or does not congratulate their choices. They get extremely hostile whenever they encounter an example of someone who dares to declare the belief that they are wrong, even stated in the most benign terms with the complete absence of rancor, but going the other way, rancor writ large is perfectly acceptable. They do not want to compete in the marketplace of ideas--they want all dissent silenced. I would add that if Christians were nearly as intolerant as they are accused of being, there would be no living homosexuals much in the same way Ahmadinejad deals with the issue.

 

[level.eleven]

I'm going to finish smoking my chicken. No, pervs, that wasn't code. I am smoking a chicken and prepping to hit it with some white bbq sauce. See you tomorrow, I can't reply to everything tonight.

 

[Roadie]

Since we have arrived at an argument between those of faith and of those not of faith, let me raise the questions behind the question. First, do we all believe in the concept of liberty conveyed through the vehicle of a republic to the point that we can set religion/non-religion aside and address the fact that according to the Constitution we all have the right to believe or not believe as we choose and to act freely upon that with only a few limitations (like not permitting human sacrifice since murder is not tolerated in our society for any reason with no religious use exemption available)? Can we agree that this means that we, in addition to everyone else ultimately has the right to be wrong? Now for the difficult question: Can we agree that there are people who can twist anything including but not limited to scripture, the Constitution, or other people's words into something they were never intended to be? Can we agree that with problem issues like 'bullying' the correct response is to establish the rights of the individual and honor them, and not to allow one offense to be avenged and rebounded with an increase of magnitude every time someone gets their sensibilities offended?

My point is that while I am a person of faith, as I see it, if two consenting adults want to bugger each other, that is their business. If they want to openly declare that in their reckoning it is right and proper, that is their business so long as they are not trying to commandeer our children at school while doing so. Conversely, it is my prerogative to believe that their behavior is absolutely wrong and communicate my position openly as well. The problem with activists like the one featured in this discussion is that they do not want liberty for themselves. They want to eliminate the liberty of everyone who is either not one of them or does not congratulate their choices. They get extremely hostile whenever they encounter an example of someone who dares to declare the belief that they are wrong, even stated in the most benign terms with the complete absence of rancor, but going the other way, rancor writ large is perfectly acceptable. They do not want to compete in the marketplace of ideas--they want all dissent silenced. I would add that if Christians were nearly as intolerant as they are accused of being, there would be no living homosexuals much in the same way Ahmadinejad deals with the issue.

Can't rep you again, but well said.

 

[Roadie]

I'm going to finish smoking my chicken. No, pervs, that wasn't code. I am smoking a chicken and prepping to hit it with some white bbq sauce. See you tomorrow, I can't reply to everything tonight.

Frankly, I could not care less what you do or don't do in the privacy of your own home ..

 

[dross]

I'm totally right wing: I believe in freedom from government interference in business.
I'm totally left wing: I believe in total legalization of drugs.
I'm totally right wing: I believe we can legitimately invade other countries for the sole purpose of liberating people from oppression.
I'm totally left wing, I believe in legalizing all consensual behavior.
I'm totally right wing: I believe abortion in the third trimester is homicide.
I'm totally left wing: I believe that the power of the death penalty should be denied the government.
I'm totally right wing: I believe you should be able to discriminate against hiring anyone for any reason.
I'm totally left wing: I think the government should have to recognize gay marriage.
I'm totally right wing: I think Christianity has overall been a force for good for humanity.
I'm totally left wing: I doubt the existence of a Superior Being.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I'm totally right wing: I believe in freedom from government interference in business.
I'm totally left wing: I believe in total legalization of drugs.
I'm totally right wing: I believe we can legitimately invade other countries for the sole purpose of liberating people from oppression.
I'm totally left wing, I believe in legalizing all consensual behavior.
I'm totally right wing: I believe abortion in the third trimester is homicide.
I'm totally left wing: I believe that the power of the death penalty should be denied the government.
I'm totally right wing: I believe you should be able to discriminate against hiring anyone for any reason.
I'm totally left wing: I think the government should have to recognize gay marriage.
I'm totally right wing: I think Christianity has overall been a force for good for humanity.
I'm totally left wing: I doubt the existence of a Superior Being.

I take it that you either believe the left/right political continuum to be a false representation of reality or else you are schizophrenic (and I know you better than to honestly consider the latter)?

 

[dross]

Frankly, I could not care less what you do or don't do in the privacy of your own home ..

I CAN care less. Just give me a few seconds of doing something other than responding to this statement and you'll find me caring so little about what other people are doing that it completely ceases to cross my mind.

In fact, I have a foolproof way to ensure that you never think about what other people are doing in their home, for those who do think about such things: Have more sex. I've found that when I'm doing that, I never think about other people.

Well, that's not entirely true, but the principle remains.

 

[Roadie]

I'm totally right wing: I believe in freedom from government interference in business.
I'm totally left wing: I believe in total legalization of drugs.
I'm totally right wing: I believe we can legitimately invade other countries for the sole purpose of liberating people from oppression.
I'm totally left wing, I believe in legalizing all consensual behavior.
I'm totally right wing: I believe abortion in the third trimester is homicide.
I'm totally left wing: I believe that the power of the death penalty should be denied the government.
I'm totally right wing: I believe you should be able to discriminate against hiring anyone for any reason.
I'm totally left wing: I think the government should have to recognize gay marriage.
I'm totally right wing: I think Christianity has overall been a force for good for humanity.
I'm totally left wing: I doubt the existence of a Superior Being.

So what you are saying is, you are a Libertarian?

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

So let me get this straight, gays dont like that a large percentage of christians are ok with treating them like second class citizens?

This is news how? Look I get it, thats not the time or place for him to go on his rant, but what did the people who booked him expect. Its kinda his mo.

I mean if I am having a seminar and I have the late Sam Kinnison as my emcee, the people who attend shouldnt be surprised if they hear cursing.

 

[IndyDave1776]

So let me get this straight, gays dont like that a large percentage of christians are ok with treating them like second class citizens?

This is news how? Look I get it, thats not the time or place for him to go on his rant, but what did the people who booked him expect. Its kinda his mo.

I mean if I am having a seminar and I have the late Sam Kinnison as my emcee, the people who attend shouldnt be surprised if they hear cursing.

You have a good point. We typically expect adjustments in behavior based on the circumstances (i.e., speaking to high school students) but the bottom line is that while it is possible for a civilized individual to emulate any degree of being less civilized, it is entirely impossible for a barbarian to act civilized.

 

[J_Wales]

Actually, I learned when I was still in Grade School that bullying stops when you stand up to those trying to bully you. It only took three fights in one day for the bullies in my neighborhood to stop picking on me.

We taught our son to stand up for himself and to not let others bully him physically, mentally, or emotionally, and to not put up with bullying in others. If more parents taught their children those values, we could put this particular issue to bed.

Hear! Hear!

 

[rambone]

The group-think could really be toned down on all sides.

Not all Christians bullied Mr. Savage. His anger should be sent directly to his oppressors, not at all of Christianity.

Not all of "the Left" approves of this kind of tirade. Folks should send their disapproval directly at Mr. Savage, not collectively at "The Left" or "Liberals" or "Gays" or whatever.

Think like individuals.

 

[Roadie]

So let me get this straight, gays dont like that a large percentage of christians are ok with treating them like second class citizens?

This is news how? Look I get it, thats not the time or place for him to go on his rant, but what did the people who booked him expect. Its kinda his mo.

I mean if I am having a seminar and I have the late Sam Kinnison as my emcee, the people who attend shouldnt be surprised if they hear cursing.

So you also support blaming an entire group, for the actions of a few..

Large percentage? Like the "large" percentage of Licensed Gun owners that commit murder? (less than 1%, FYI)

 

[Blackhawk2001]

No, you are wrong. The bible is used as justification for action, correct? It is righteous, correct? The word of god. I don't need to provide evidence of Abrahamic texts being used to abuse women, homosexuals, and other people for thousands of years. That information is readily available. Quit building strawmen and address the fact that monotheism is used as a means of and justification of, oppression. Your jock example is no different than the religious argument. A group of people who feel morally superior to weaker foes with an unpopular position. Don't use your bible as a justification for the second class status of homosexuals and this discussion doesn't exist.

Bringing freedom of speech into this discussion is childish. No one was oppressed by a government official.

In other words: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me?" YOUR "strawman" is that somehow the Bible is responsible for the actions of men, rather than men being responsible for their own actions/prejudices. Which is it going to be here, personal responsibility or "blame it on the _____"?

Don't use your perception that opposing the morality of a particular lifestyle is persecution, or you'll find yourself hoist on your own petard!

 

[Blackhawk2001]

How many positions does the bible allow? Should we praise all of Leviticus, or only portions?

If you're trying to judge Christians by their adherence to the Bible, you need to start at Matthew and go on from there.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

So let me get this straight, gays dont like that a large percentage of christians are ok with treating them like second class citizens?

This is news how? Look I get it, thats not the time or place for him to go on his rant, but what did the people who booked him expect. Its kinda his mo.

I mean if I am having a seminar and I have the late Sam Kinnison as my emcee, the people who attend shouldnt be surprised if they hear cursing.

I'm not certain where "second class citizenship" comes into play. While homosexual relationships have been and are acceptable in some cultures, I can't think of any where homosexual marriage has been accepted - and that's the crux of the "second class citizen" argument.