Apr 28, 2012
Print This Post
The head of a national gay conservative group condemned what they called anti-bullying activist Dan Savage’s “anti-Christian tirade” at a national high school journalism conference.
Savage, the founder of the “It Gets Better” anti-bullying project is facing criticism for delivering a Bible-bashing, profanity-laced speech to high school students attending a journalism conference sponsored by the National Scholastic Press Association and the Journalism Education Assocation.
FOLLOW TODD ON FACEBOOK FOR CULTURE WAR STORIES!
At one point Savage called Christian teenagers who walked out of the speech “pansy-assed.”
“We can learn to ignore the bullshit in the Bible about gay people — the same way we have learned to ignore the bullshit in the Bible about shellfish, about slavery, about dinner, about farming, about menstration about virginity about masturbation,” he told the young students. “We ignore bullshit in the Bible about all sorts of things.”
SARAH PALIN LOVES TODD’S NEW BOOK
SO DOES MARK LEVIN AND SEAN HANNITY
CLICK HERE TO GET YOUR COPY OF DISPATCHES FROM BITTER AMERICA!
A video of the speech shows a number of teenagers walking out of the auditorium as he continued his attack on the Bible, calling it a “radically pro-slavery document.”
“You can tell the Bible guys in the hall they can come back now because I’m done beating up the Bible,” he said. “It’s funny as someone who is on the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the Bible how pansy-assed people react when you push back.’
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.”
Savage also attacked the Republican Party — and specifically Callista Gingrich, the wife of Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich.
“The Bible says if a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night, she shall be dragged to her father’s doorstep and stoned to death,” he said. “Callista Gingrich still lives.”
His speech was interrupted by students cheering and howling.
“There is no effort to amend state constitutions to make it legal to stone women to death on their wedding nights if they’re not virgins — at least not yet,” Savage said. “We don’t know where the GOP is going these days.”
“People are dying because people can’t clear this one last hurdle,” he said. “They can’t get past this one last thing in the Bible — about homosexuality.
Related posts:
FOX News Talk
Why didn't the organizers and teachers stop this presentation immediately? High school students, and I have one, should be challenged and engaged, but not bullied during an anti-bullying talk. The organizers and teachers in attendance neglected their obligations in-loco-parentis, should be disciplined and participating school districts should disallow this conference until changes are made. The speaker is an ass. The teachers and organizers exhibited malfeasance and should be disciplined or fired.
Dan is a savage and he is wroing being gay is wrong and christains NEVER BE AFRAID to say so!
An anti-bullying bully, great.
Also, most people seriously misunderstand Biblical law. That's because they focus on one verse or another without knowing the other verses that also pertain to the law and because they know nothing about Jewish Oral law, which "fills in the blanks" about how these laws are actually applied. For example, the first amendment says that the govt. cannot restrict the free exercise of religion. However if someone were to have a religion that, required human sacrifice, they would not be covered. There are limitations to how the law is applied that go beyond the literal words.
The same goes for Biblical law.
Slavery- Not slavery according to the modern definition. It really was indentured servitute used to pay off debts by thieves who could not pay restitution for their crimes and as a form of rehabilitationn(They learn to work for things instead of steal). A thief had to pay back what he stole + 20% as a fine. A slave who was permanently injured by his master was set free. A master was required to feed a slave before himself. If he had only one pillow, the slave got it.
A Jewish death sentence is almost impossible to impose. First, it requires two witneses to the actual act. No heresay, no circumstantial evidence. Witnesses have to warn the perpetrators of the penalty of their act or they are disqualified as witnesses. Who commits murder or adultery with two people looking on all the while warning them not to do it? It is said that a Jewish court that delivered a death penalty once in 70 years was called "bloody".
About what the Bible says about the woman being killed for not being a virgin on her wedding night:
First of all, she was entiltled to be heard in court. You couldn't just execute people on the spot.
Jewish weddings occur in two parts.One part is the drawning up of the marriage contract. The other part is when the couple comes to live together. Now this happens all on the same day. In Biblical times they were separate. The couple was considered "married " from the giving of the contract They just had to make the preparations for setting up a home. This is what "betrothed" means in the Bible. The contract states whether or not the wife is a virgin. So, if she is suddenly not a virgin on her wedding night, that means that she commited adultery during the two ceremonies. If she declares that she lied, that's a different story. Once again, a person is given the benefit of the doubt unless there are two witnesses to an act.
Just because a legal penalty cannot be applied, it does not mean that it's o.k. to do an act. Is it o.k. to steal if you don't get caught? A lot of times, a stiff penalty is prescribed in order to be a deterrent. In other words, murder is serious. Adultery is serious. (Some people don't believe this, but think of it this way. Sexual immorality wrecks the family unit, which is the basic building block of society. Ruin the home life, and you ruin the culture. Just look at how the increase of so many societal problems coincided with the sexual revolution).
No one should look to religion for salvation. Jesus is the only one who can grant this. We are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God. Our own individual relationships with Christ are all that matters. Let our lives be an example of the greatness of walking with God. That is what Jesus did. Don't let pride and hate ruin your witness. I will let you sit at my table, wash your feet, provide you with rest and if you ask me to accept your sin I will not. Jesus spent time with Satan, he resisted his temptations and departed from him. As Christians this is the example we should follow. A shepard will guide his sheep when the sheep know that he can be trusted to lead them away from danger. The shepard will not gain the trust of the sheep by abusing them, instead he must comfort them, care for them, earn their admiration and trust.
He’s a tool of the left trying to redefine “bullying”.“Bullying” is now defined by the left as anyone who disagrees with them. This buffoon is not only going to hell, he’s a walking contradiction! Apparently, his answer to bullying is to bully others. The left will always contradict itself. The contradiction may be obvious or very subtle, but it’s always there.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10.
“Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”.
Gays defending Christianity!
That's like normal people defending Christianity!
We are all sinners, keep that in mind before passing judgement.
There is no such thing as a homosexual Christian.
Do you claim that a person cannot be saved by the blood of Christ? There are many homosexuals that have given their hearts to Jesus and been washed in the blood. Are they then not Christian just because they are homosexual? The kind of condemnation you have stated is what gets kids beaten and killed for being gay, or even just being perceived as gay.
However, apparently there is such a thing as a judgmental Christian.
Amazing how he who wants to be important and famous can show their true colors, hidden agenda so quickly.
Nothing in Dan's prepared speech is bullying. Questioning passages from the Bible in a public forum is not bullying, especially when they have been used as justification for public policy. Pointing out the historical fact that the Bible was used to support slavery is not bullying. Calling the students who couldn't stomach the criticism as pansy-assed – well that is bullying and Dan should apologize for that. It's the only truly offensive thing in what he said.
Using a position of power over students that was meant for teaching to preach a lifestyle and tear down another's beliefs? That's bullying.
Moreover, if Christians are unable to speak their minds and their beliefs or invite Christian speakers to speak about the religion, why should Dan's decrying of the bible be allowed? Separation of church and state and all that mess.
Dan is a celebrity, but he was not in a direct position of power over the students. He was not their teacher who interacted with them every day. He was an invited speaker at a conference called "Journalism on the Edge." Attacking someone's beliefs, even beliefs they hold sacred, is not bullying. It's debate. Like Dan said in his speech, in the past the Bible was used as sacred justification for slavery. Some people started attacking that belief and the consensus changed.
Christians are able to speak their minds and they do. This article quotes a gay Christian speaking his mind and this page is filled with comments from Christians speaking their minds. Free speech is alive and well. Again, this was a conference. The conference organizers get to decide whom to invite, who speaks and who doesn't. At a private conference, separation of church and state does not apply. Christians are allowed to have their own conferences and speakers and speak about their religion and homosexuality. They do it all the time.
This guy needs some old fashioned anti bullying medicine.Cracked ribs remind you every time you breathe not to do that any more.
Mr. Savage failed to mention Jesus saying, "Let he who has not sinned throw the first stone." He also fails to realize that the Bible does allow some things to happen but puts limits on human behavior. Slavery by itself is not morally evil. It is only considered evil now because of people NOT going by the Bible regarding treatment of ones slaves. Slavery was not considered evil when the Bible was written, but it did recognize that people could mistreat their slaves, and attempted to get slave owners to treat their slaves well. This idea flies over Mr. Savages head. This is similar to another thing in the Bible that God put limits on. There was a movement in the Old Testament that if you killed someone for what ever reason, the family could hunt down and kill that person, even if the death was an accident. God put in place cities the person could go to be safe. The killer was then pardoned when the High Priest died.
Sound familiar? We were all pardoned with the death of Jesus.
It's sad that this was a "journalism" conference. And the statement of having to deal with topics you don't agree with. The people who stayed would likely have left had a Christian came up on stage and did the same to them. I salute the courage of these kids leaving the conference. And the ones that left when he first started his tirade.
Do liberals know the difference between Journalism and Editorials? His speech was a verbal editorial and had nothing to do with journalism.
He's not bullying anyone. Challenging someone's beliefs is not bullying them. The people that walked out were being cowardly & they certianly didn't learn anything. If you've read the bible, you should have asked yourselves the same questions. Why is slavery acceptable in the bible, but it isn't now?
This is exactly why people don't want to 'debate' religious people. They either walk out or figuratively stick their fingers in their ears & scream 'lalalalalalalalala'.
Calling someone pansy ass is hardly bullying. Did anyone fear for their lives? Did anyone go home & commit suicide over this? Is someone now afraid to leave the house because they are afraid they'll be beaten up?
Pish posh. Grow a pair.
Okay so you and a few other people are telling those Christians to "grow a pair." BUT when you hear people tell someone who is being bullied to "grow a pair" or "stop being such a pussy" everyone gets upset. Again no fan of Christians or religion but him calling them pansy-asses doesn't help him out.
So calling someone "pansy-ass" isn't bullying? I guess calling someone a "pussy" a "fag" a "loser" a "reject" or any other name isn't bullying then right? Bullying isn't always just the extreme of physical abuse, of being scared, of wanting to commit suicide. I was bullied and I never feared for my life or wanted to kill myself but I got bullied pretty bad verbally. That's a bit ignorant of you to say that bullying is only to the extreme.
The people who were called pansy-asses weren't even present when he said it. How the hell can you call that bullying?
Even if they had been present, you cannot label every single insult as bullying, that would marginalize actual bullying. Someone calling a name ONCE that had nothing to do with your gender, your weight, your religion, your sexual orientation, etc. is NOT bullying.
You could not possibly punish every single student for name-calling, so we have to draw a line somewhere so we can do something about REAL bullies.
Someone calling you a name once is hardly 'pretty bad verbal abuse'.
Melissa McCurley I think you don't realize what bullying actually is. It's about perception. So if I were to call someone a "loser" or a "reject" but they weren't around when I said it, that's not bullying them? How about if I started a rumor about someone, it works its way around school and then that person hears the rumor. I never said it TO that person.
I never said I got called a name once when I said I was bullied pretty bad if that's where you're taking that out of context. I said I was bullied but it never got to the extent of I wanted to end my life or was afraid for my life. But my life wasn't picture perfect and I hated to go to school. That contributed to the low self-esteem I had and I sometimes wanted to run away.
My point is that bullying doesn't ALWAYS end with someone committing suicide or afraid for their life. How many people were bullied as a child and are still alive? A lot.
You can't punish every student for name-calling? Okay where is your "line?" What is "acceptable" name calling? So it's okay to call someone a pansy-ass as long as you don't do it to their face? What exactly is a "real" bully? You seem to have some very odd definitions of bullying or bullies.
Let me just be clear then and sum this all up:
"Real" bullying only is bullying if it results in physical abuse OR if the verbal abuse is so bad it causes someone to commit suicide.
"Pansy-ass" is okay to call someone but just not to that person's face.
An "insult" marginalizes bullying and is then not bullying.
My point is that for someone who is against bullying to call people names for walking out on something that is criticizing their beliefs, that seems hypocritical. If those kids went knowing what was going to be discussed, fine that's on them. BUT that doesn't give him the right to call them a "pansy-ass." Also, he would've gotten his points on the Bible across A LOT better had he not used the amount of profanity he did. I agree with what he said on the Bible. I also swear a lot more than most guys I know; however, when I give a presentation I do NOT litter it with profanities. That doesn't help.
Melissa McCurley He apologized for the pansy-ass remark so there you go. Even HE said that was wrong to use that and insult people.
Yeah, he sounded REALLY sincere in that apology. It wasn't a real apology.
AND, the people being called pansy-asses weren't even present when they were called the name. There was ONE of him & MANY of them. This is just not an example of bullying.
Melissa McCurley Lol you can't be serious…I think he was sincere about calling them pansy ass but he said he did not regret or take back the Bible talk – which he shouldn't take that back.
Do I think he will start bullying these people? No. But bullying DOES start with name calling that seems "harmless." However it does make him a hypocrite when he's trying to stop people from being harassed or bullied yet he goes and calls people who disagree with him "pansy-ass." You have to think outside of that it's some Christians who you disagree with. What if that were a Christian speaker who called some homosexuals who got up and walked out "pansy-asses?" Oh the furor even more from the liberals. I think about how I would feel if someone called me a name for just standing up for what I thought was the right decision. I generally don't care what people think but for someone to call me a "pansy-ass' if I walked out of a lecture…um no.
Agree to disagree.
Melissa McCurley Lol you can't be serious…I think he was sincere about calling them pansy ass but he said he did not regret or take back the Bible talk – which he shouldn't take that back.
Do I think he will start bullying these people? No. But bullying DOES start with name calling that seems "harmless." However it does make him a hypocrite when he's trying to stop people from being harassed or bullied yet he goes and calls people who disagree with him "pansy-ass." You have to think outside of that it's some Christians who you disagree with. What if that were a Christian speaker who called some homosexuals who got up and walked out "pansy-asses?" Oh the furor even more from the liberals. I think about how I would feel if someone called me a name for just standing up for what I thought was the right decision. I generally don't care what people think but for someone to call me a "pansy-ass' if I walked out of a lecture…um no.
Agree to disagree.
Melissa McCurley I watched the video – in that no he was not harassing or bullying them. He merely pointed out SOME Christians are hypocrites which they are. However where you kind of went off is saying that it was okay for him to call them "pansy-ass." I disagree and that does contradict what he is fighting against. That's my point.
Everything in the video though he was dead on right. Plus that walk out looked organized. But the name-calling…not necessary. I meant his apology AFTER the speech not in it.
3bullyverb
bul·lied bul·ly·ing.
Definition of BULLY.
transitive verb
1: to treat abusively.
2: to affect by means of force or coercion.
This is hardly what occurred.
Definition of Abuse
1.to use wrongly or improperly; misuse: to abuse one's authority.
2.to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way
3.to speak insultingly, harshly, and unjustly to or about.
This says otherwise.
Definition of Abuse
1.to use wrongly or improperly; misuse: to abuse one's authority.
2.to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way
3.to speak insultingly, harshly, and unjustly to or about.
This says otherwise.
Jovaun Teddy Mcgregor
He was justified in calling them pansy asses. They are weak & thin-skinned. They should be stong in their faith & their faith should be strong enough to be questioned.
If you think insulting someone–especially when it's true–is the same as bullying someone, you have serious perspective problems.
Melissa McCurley
I understand what your saying but whether or not what he said was right or not doesn't justify him saying what he said. If i were to call a girl a slut because she is one, I would get in trouble for "Bullying". People are made fun of because of their weight all the time. Are they fat? Yes. Should they be made fun of because their fat? No. I understand what your saying I truly do. Honestly if he didn't made it personal and started offending the christian people in that auditorium there wouldn't be as much of a problem. He could have made his point without resulting to calling names. That was a very immature thing to do. Also, They were not weak or thin-skinned. There were 3 things they could've done; 1. Retaliate 2. Sit down and bear it or 3. Walk away. They chose the better option. Would you honestly sit down and let a stranger, someone who does'nt even know you insult you because you're women. Most people would fight back, those with restraint will sit down and take it, people with true strength know when to just get up and walk away and trust me that is the hardest thing to do.
I'm sorry for any grammatical errors. If there is anything that you misunderstood, please let me know and I will clarify it for you.
Jovaun Teddy Mcgregor
He only insulted them AFTER they walked out.
Calling a girl a slut is never justified, because it's bullshit. It's a derogatory, sexist term. A woman making her own choices about her body & not letting double standards run her life is not a slut.
Calling someone fat is not bullying. Constantly hounding them, ganging up on them, beating them up, etc…THAT is bullying. A single instance of name-calling is NOT bullying.
Getting up and walking out required strength? What would have taken strength is to sit there respectfully, then go home, take out their bibles & see if what he said was true, then decide what to do about it themselves–what they did was stick their head in sand & not question what they have and clearly have NOT been told about this book on which they base their beliefs.
Melissa – so if someone called you "pansy ass" "weak" or "think skinned" when someone attacked your beliefs would you be so cool about it as you are with this? No it wasn't bullying – yet. But THAT is how bullies start. They start with little quips here and there and say "oh I was just kidding. Don't be such a baby." It doesn't all START with beatings, etc. I don't think he was justified in calling them ANY name just for walking out. That's their right as much as it was his to have his view on the Bible.
Jovaun is right though with his/her examples. So if a girl is promiscuous and admittedly so can we call her a "slut?" Can we make fun of people's weight because they are fat and obviously too lazy to go out and exercise? By your standards yes we can – as long as it's true. So if someone is a little weakling, I can call him or her a "pussy."
I think YOU have some serious perspective problems on what bullying actually is and consists of or how it starts out.
Slut is NEVER acceptable because it demeans women, all women & says we aren't free to behave like men do & still be accepted. It's no better than the n-bomb, or any racist or sexist term, or the 'r-word'.
He wasn't calling them pansy asses because of their beliefs. They walked out of a place where he was specifically invited to speak. He was answering a question. The people who walked out were the bullies, they are the hate-filled ones. They are the ones who refuse to hear the truth. Dan Savage would stay right there throughout any of their questioning and comments. They refused to be part of the dialogue, they refused to be part of the solution.
If your beliefs are bigoted & hurt people, be prepared to defend them, don't turn tail & huff & puff and walk out.
In what way can what Dan Savage did have resulted in actual harm to anyone? This isn't some kid with whom you have to ride the bus. This was the extent of this incident.
Slut is NEVER acceptable because it demeans women, all women & says we aren't free to behave like men do & still be accepted. It's no better than the n-bomb, or any racist or sexist term, or the 'r-word'.
He wasn't calling them pansy asses because of their beliefs. They walked out of a place where he was specifically invited to speak. He was answering a question. The people who walked out were the bullies, they are the hate-filled ones. They are the ones who refuse to hear the truth. Dan Savage would stay right there throughout any of their questioning and comments. They refused to be part of the dialogue, they refused to be part of the solution.
If your beliefs are bigoted & hurt people, be prepared to defend them, don't turn tail & huff & puff and walk out.
In what way can what Dan Savage did have resulted in actual harm to anyone? This isn't some kid with whom you have to ride the bus. This was the extent of this incident.
Melissa McCurley Not to go off topic but I will for a second: How does it demean all women if you only call it to one woman who is actually doing that? I'm just using YOUR logic. Guys who are promiscuous can be slutty too but yeah no one calls them that. I call a spade a spade. If someone calls another girl a slut, it does not demean me. If someone calls ME a slut and I know I'm not, then yeah I'll be offended a little bit. To me a slut is someone who has no self-worth and will have sex with ANYTHING they can – I don't care if it's a male or a female doing it (my ex-bf was a huge slut). I won't even go into the other two because then I'm horribly off topic. But I don't let people stereotype or generalize me.
Back to the original topic: He called them "pansy-ass" because they got up and walked out after he said stuff about the Bible. Yes they walked out on a place he was invited to speak; however, I'm sure the invite did not say "You know what? Go on a profanity laced tirade to get your point across AND call anyone who walks out a name." Lol no I am sure they didn't expect that. If the people attending knew what he would talk about, they shouldn't have been there HOWEVER it doesn't mean they CAN'T be there. I don't know what happened to lead them to go there or what was told to them.
Again I think you need to step back and read your comments. So YOUR opinion of "bigoted and hurtful" is how you judge what is bigoted and hurtful? Again I'm not arguing what he said about the Bible at all. I think he could've used a lot more tact to get his point across AND engaged in a discussion. But they had the right to get up and walk out. I mean if I thought someone might not listen to my point of view, I'd get up and walk away. Sometimes that's the better course of action.
He DID apologize for calling them "pansy ass" which means that it was in fact hurtful and he regrets saying it. How do you know how some of those people felt hearing that? You don't know. I'd be pissed if someone called me a pansy-ass because I walked away from a confrontation or something I didn't want to listen to. Really? THAT makes someone a pansy-ass?
How do YOU know the people who walked out are bullies? How do YOU know they bully homosexuals because they think the Bible tells them to? You don't know that unless you know every single person who walked out.
YOU sound like someone who only considers something bullying or hateful if it is AGAINST your agenda. I'm not liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. They're all messed up – but both sides do a LOT of bullying against people who don't support their agenda.
"If your beliefs are bigoted and hurt people, be prepared to defend them, don't turn tail and huff and puff and walk out." Really? Okay so if someone attacked something you base your beliefs on would you get all defensive and start a fight? Or would you walk away because it probably isn't worth it?
You just contradict yourself so I'm trying to understand.
Melissa McCurley Not to go off topic but I will for a second: How does it demean all women if you only call it to one woman who is actually doing that? I'm just using YOUR logic. Guys who are promiscuous can be slutty too but yeah no one calls them that. I call a spade a spade. If someone calls another girl a slut, it does not demean me. If someone calls ME a slut and I know I'm not, then yeah I'll be offended a little bit. To me a slut is someone who has no self-worth and will have sex with ANYTHING they can – I don't care if it's a male or a female doing it (my ex-bf was a huge slut). I won't even go into the other two because then I'm horribly off topic. But I don't let people stereotype or generalize me.
Back to the original topic: He called them "pansy-ass" because they got up and walked out after he said stuff about the Bible. Yes they walked out on a place he was invited to speak; however, I'm sure the invite did not say "You know what? Go on a profanity laced tirade to get your point across AND call anyone who walks out a name." Lol no I am sure they didn't expect that. If the people attending knew what he would talk about, they shouldn't have been there HOWEVER it doesn't mean they CAN'T be there. I don't know what happened to lead them to go there or what was told to them.
Again I think you need to step back and read your comments. So YOUR opinion of "bigoted and hurtful" is how you judge what is bigoted and hurtful? Again I'm not arguing what he said about the Bible at all. I think he could've used a lot more tact to get his point across AND engaged in a discussion. But they had the right to get up and walk out. I mean if I thought someone might not listen to my point of view, I'd get up and walk away. Sometimes that's the better course of action.
He DID apologize for calling them "pansy ass" which means that it was in fact hurtful and he regrets saying it. How do you know how some of those people felt hearing that? You don't know. I'd be pissed if someone called me a pansy-ass because I walked away from a confrontation or something I didn't want to listen to. Really? THAT makes someone a pansy-ass?
How do YOU know the people who walked out are bullies? How do YOU know they bully homosexuals because they think the Bible tells them to? You don't know that unless you know every single person who walked out.
YOU sound like someone who only considers something bullying or hateful if it is AGAINST your agenda. I'm not liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. They're all messed up – but both sides do a LOT of bullying against people who don't support their agenda.
"If your beliefs are bigoted and hurt people, be prepared to defend them, don't turn tail and huff and puff and walk out." Really? Okay so if someone attacked something you base your beliefs on would you get all defensive and start a fight? Or would you walk away because it probably isn't worth it?
You just contradict yourself so I'm trying to understand.
Really? Oh, good grief. I've never heard a guy called a slut in the same way it is used on women.
Really? In what way is ONE MAN bullying a group of people by calling them one name? This is typical of the religious majority in this country. "Oh, Christians are being oppressed". Seriously?
It's just not bullying. If someone calls me fat as I walk by them on the street, sure, they are being assholes, but unless they follow me & taunt me, or continue to do it everyday, or physically threaten me, it's not bullying.
Their beliefs have nothing to do with the name calling. How can you not see how ridiculous the Christian persecution complex in this country is?
Really? Oh, good grief. I've never heard a guy called a slut in the same way it is used on women.
Really? In what way is ONE MAN bullying a group of people by calling them one name? This is typical of the religious majority in this country. "Oh, Christians are being oppressed". Seriously?
It's just not bullying. If someone calls me fat as I walk by them on the street, sure, they are being assholes, but unless they follow me & taunt me, or continue to do it everyday, or physically threaten me, it's not bullying.
Their beliefs have nothing to do with the name calling. How can you not see how ridiculous the Christian persecution complex in this country is?
Kelly Calder They weren't walking away to avoid a fight; they were making a statement.
I don't mind anyone questioning or 'attacking' anything on which I base/form my opinions. If I base a 'belief' on some book & someone can show how it is 'wrong', please, let me know, I'll re-examine the source & my opinions if it is found to be erroneous. However, these people don't seem like they are willing to examine their beliefs at all. They don't want to hear anything which might make them question their 'faith'. This is a different point, but how strong can one's faith be if it cannot stand up to questioning?
Dan Savage is known for engaging with people; he WOULD listen. There generally is a Q&A session after talks like this one. They could have asked him questions then.
Melissa McCurley Well granted he called them pansyass after they left – and I don't think he was referring solely to them but it was a bit snide – but would you come back for a Q&A with someone who seemed like they didn't want to listen?
Like I said – the pansyass unnecessary. Bully – not at that point. Had he kept going with it in the media – then he would be bullying. But he didn't. But it could've been and he apologized for the remark. I just think if you're going to be leading a "Stop Bullying" campaign you shouldn't call people names. That's all.
Melissa McCurley Well granted he called them pansyass after they left – and I don't think he was referring solely to them but it was a bit snide – but would you come back for a Q&A with someone who seemed like they didn't want to listen?
Like I said – the pansyass unnecessary. Bully – not at that point. Had he kept going with it in the media – then he would be bullying. But he didn't. But it could've been and he apologized for the remark. I just think if you're going to be leading a "Stop Bullying" campaign you shouldn't call people names. That's all.
Irony? Hypocracy? Hate? Bullying?
All of the above? For someone who founded an anti-bullying project, to then intentionally expand what is a minority hate and discontent between two groups is an entirely new level of disgusting. He's like a corrupt government, claiming one ideal while perpetuating the opposite. Claiming that "It Gets Better" while spewing toxic filth at conferences, with the only identifiable purpose being the furthering of pain and intolerance. He claims to be anti-bully while bullying and calling out high schoolers who are bold enough to walk out of a speach laden with hate, an obvious lack of actual research, and smug intolerance. If he is what he actually claims to be, it would not be possible for him to deliver his "message" in this manner.
He shouldn't have called them pansy-ass but he didn't bully. It was a step toward it. If they knew what he would talk about BEFORE they went in there, then it's their own fault to hear him say SOME THINGS in the Bible are bullshit. The pansy-ass remark – he apologized.
First, he said alot more than calling them pansy-ass. Second, they didn't know before they went in because it was a seminar about over coming and preventing bullying…bashing the bible to prove his point only renders his point invalid. Oh wait he said he was sorry…oh well, ok then, I guess I can go around gay bashing as long as I say sorry. Intollerance is just that, you can't demand it if you won't give it.
Andrea Deemer-Boughton Bashing a book is not the same as bashing a person. Sorry but it's not. The Bible is not a living, breathing thing. It's paper. With words. That's it. SOME people hold it in high regard but not everyone does.
To them he did not say "a lot more" than calling them pansy-ass. I agree with what he said about the Bible. He said SOME people use the Bible as an excuse to bully homosexuals. They do. Just like they used the Bible to condone slavery. To condone banning interracial marriages. Etc, etc. People will go to the Bible to condone things they don't like and justify the things they do as a result or to justify what they like.
Bashing a persons beliefs (especially the way he did) takes away from the validity if what he was supposed to be saying and shows lack of intelligence. When in doubt attack the bible. Muslims are anti gay…do not follow the bible. Ancient Egyptians used slavery….there was no bible. "To them he did not say 'a lot more' than calling them pansy-ass." So you speak for everyone one there who was offended? What a great honor that must be! He knew he was offending people, he did to get a rise out if them. It's not even so much about calling out things in the bible as much as the forum in which he did it. It was disrespectful, tasteless and had no place in an 'anti bullying' speech.
Actually, Dan's rather crass in his speech but he hit the nail on the head- which is why people ignore the content of what he is talking about and instead focus on the tone of his message. The Bible supports capital punishment, it does support slavery in many places(New and Old Testament), it supports the subjugation and mistreatment of women, has strange dietary laws that make sense to NO ONE(academic scholars included actually), etc., the list goes on. The point Dan Savage is making is a great one- which is why people get so riled up about it- there is so much nonsense in that religious book, and newsflash: The believers deliberately pick and choose what they want to follow, to the point that the 'erasable Bible' criticism can be levied at them. Don't have to follow dietary laws- even though Jesus followed them till the day he died. We can ignore this in the Old Testament, and that, and the funny things about clothes, and the capital punishment, the stoning of people, etc., but let's pay attention to this random verse about sexual intimacy between consenting adults from a near Stoneage society; which by the way was put in a book that was actually talking about mass conveyor belt animal slaughter to Yahweh(Leviticus).
We must approach religious scriptures with moral relevancy and a critical eye. Christians do it all the time, many Jews do it all the time, etc., but on this subject of homosexuality- something that has existed both AD and BC, and has been around since the dawn of humanity, and all indicators point is not changeable and a part of the human experience- they choose not to think critically about it. But they do about other things? Why is that? Oh, right, culture and prejudice. Put your thinking caps on people- and stop whining about the 'tone' of the criticism and look instead at its content. He's hitting the nail on the head.
Yes but he could have presented his speech a lot more professionally and not called people a name right? Yeah he has points – that the Bible is full of things that people choose to follow or not follow whichever suits their agendas but that doesn't make it okay for him to call them "pansy asses."
Kelly Calder Kelly, I wouldn't have gone down the same path as him in that speech- but I saw in that article, or in articles referencing this, a 17 year old girl who essentially indicated that his comments on slavery were off base, or false- and that irritates the hell out of me. No, its in the Bible, you don't know it because you haven't read it- as many of these people here haven't. The anger here is about the worldview and how it relates with how people were raised and what they believe- not necessarily over his words. I think this is a chance to have a much deeper conversation. <_^
Jeremy Adkison Yeah slavery and all that he mentioned IS in the Bible. Most normal people know that who actually READ the Bible. BUT at the same time he is not helping his cause by calling people names.
Jeremy Adkison Yeah slavery and all that he mentioned IS in the Bible. Most normal people know that who actually READ the Bible. BUT at the same time he is not helping his cause by calling people names.
Jeremy Adkison Yeah slavery and all that he mentioned IS in the Bible. Most normal people know that who actually READ the Bible. BUT at the same time he is not helping his cause by calling people names.
Kelly Calder Those people are also not helping by walking out on the discussion, and then posting on every other comment on here but not the one that actually challenges their ironclad worldview.
Kelly Calder Those people are also not helping by walking out on the discussion, and then posting on every other comment on here but not the one that actually challenges their ironclad worldview.
This alleged "walkout" was completely staged and prearranged by Focus On The Family, whose anti-Day Of Silence event was also taking place on April 19th, For those unaware, FOTF asked Christian parents to keep their kids out of school on the annual day using to observe anti-bullying campaigns. If you watch the clips closely, you'll see that students begin to get up and leave before Savage even says his first sentence about religion. And it's more than a little convenient that a high-rez camera was in place to capture the three rows of the audience of 2800 that walked out. These students didn't feel "bullied" or "offended," they were asked in advance to attend and then walk out. Faked fakery.
That doesn't make it right for him to call anyone "pansy-asses." That's kind of being a hypocrite about anti-bullying don't you think? I'm not a fan of religion or Christians but if your causes is stop bullying, you can't make fun of people.
Forgot to add that these students all had to have permission from their parents to be there. The event WAS, after all, titled "Journalism On The Edge." This was hardly any "surprise" presentation. "Advisers/chaperones should read and discuss all convention rules with students. All students attending the convention must have permission from parents or legal guardians. Students attending the convention are the responsibility of the adviser/chaperone, and not JEA, NSPA or the hotel."
Joe Jervis My only qualm with this is the WAY he presented it. How can you be anti-bullying and then call people "pansy-ass?" That's the only thing that stood out. He made good points about the Bible but you can't be against bullying and then call people names…
Joe Jervis Okay so I watched the video and it did seem a bit too organized when they walked out. But he shouldn't have called them pansy-asses. If he can speak up for himself, they can too by walking out even if it was set up. Some of them were laughing too. He didn't harass them or bully them either. He made a lot of good points actually. But the pansy-ass a bit much.
It is a bit ridiculous that someone who started an anti-bullying group would then turn around and call people names who disagree with him. He could've made his point without the profanities. I do agree that people tend to ignore A LOT of other things in the Bible but throw out the homosexuality verses. But he had no right to attack the teenagers who walked out and no need to call them "pansy-asses."
Savage is right, of course. Scaring the kiddies is bad P.R., unfortunately. Not that it matters, but I am not gay, but I can imagine that the advocate of brutally suppressed minority might lose his cool at times.
The bible is a series of campfire tales and calculated attempts to scare the prescientific goat roapers of the bronze age circa 3rd millenium BCE, who in the words of Mark Twain, "didn't understand the mechanics of rainfall, into obedience in an era that had no separation of church and state. I always think of Twain when I hear of Christians praying for a break in a drought. Can I hear an Amena! Brother Rick Perry, gov of the Repbulic of Texas?
The most delicious foible of the Good Book is Revelations, written by thefirst " mad monk", John of Patmos, while he cooled his heels on the little island of Patmos off the coast of Turkey. He thought Nero was after him, as I recall. John was of a faction of the many operating in the Jesus movement in the century after the death Yeshua who believed that the Yeshua movement should remain Jewish. It started out that way and Yeshua and the apostles were observant Jews to the death.
"666" is simply derived from a system of Hebraic numerological devices used by John to refer to his nemisis Nero. For some reason John's faction felt particularily put upon by Nero who was actually quite indiscriminate in his muderous passions. Interestingly, Suetoninious, who discusses Nero at length does not mention an obsession with one "John of Patmos."
It is also true that the "Book" is an anti-christian diatribe by John who was opposed to the Pauline acceptance of gentiles into the Jesus movement. The book is a warning to members of the movement of what would befall them if they continued to accept the uncircumcised who did not follow the dietary and other rules of Judaism. If you have read Zoroaster, a Magi like the three who miraculously appeared from Persia to welcome the birth of Yeshua, there is a close resemblance between John's horrific tale and Zoroaster's account of the final battle between light and dark without the elaboration of a second coming. Last I know there were no scholars that had concluded that John cribbed from Zoroastrianism, the remaining practioners of which are now brutally afflicted by the current regime in Persia, Iran to the young folks. That's an irony: visits from their holy men used to be an honor.
Christianity as we know it is heavily influenced by the teachings of Paul. For example that thing about letting the gentiles into the church. Eventually the Hebrew origins were largely denied. Can you imangine a nothern European wildling named Skull Crusher giving up hog when his notion of heaven was an eternal cycle of daily battles from which all arose hale and hearty to feast on boiled boar? Look how long it took to gain submission to the gentile Mohle, the Pediatriciian. And, please remember the sacrifice of the physicians as the first practitioners of applied science in their effort to be permitted to study, develope, and advance their craft. Our lives are so much better for that.
The closing book of the New Testament was written in opposition to the religion that has arisen around it. The christians couldn't even get that right. Run little Christians, run! Nero is coming!
I supported his program before this and had just come back from a weekend fundraiser. After his attack on CHILDREN who chose to walk away rather than listen to his speech I will not support him and his group and will find another that does not promote bullying and hate of anyone different from himself.
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT).
How can this possibly be taken out of context?
Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God.
Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT).
Raping women & killing babies:
Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT).
The Bible even allows you to sell ONE'S OWN CHILDREN as slaves:
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT).
A slave is not a human, but property, so feel free to kill it as long as he takes a few days to die:
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB).
If a man rapes your daughter, do not go to the police. Make your daughter marry him if he pays the fine:
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT).
It's cool to rape women who are victims of war:
They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil. (Judges 5:30 NAB).
Here's a goodie:
Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB).
Wouldn't you know that the anti-Christ evangelicals would come out of the woodwork like the vermin they are? Poor babies, who bully everyone who doesn't believe in their drivel stolen from multiple middle eastern cultures. We can thank those who murdered the Gnostics, the Roman Catholic Church in all its glory for all this bullying. Well, at least they are killing peoples by the millions over homosexual practice as they did in South America and Miexico. Yes, the Pope gave his permission to kill the indigenous populations because they allowed open sex and gender nonconformity. If you say it long enough, you can convince yourself Gays are not victims because they chose to heap all the hostility on themselves by being born homosexual. Yes, read the scientific literature and stop reading Nancy Drew.
What were a bunch of conservative Christians doing at a lecture by a FAMOUS and CONTROVERSIAL liberal gay rights activist? The only reason they were there was to stage a mass walkout and to disrupt his lecture with a display of homophobia. It was so obviously pre-arranged. The Christians were the bullies. AS USUAL.
Being gay is the least of Savage's problems.
Being gay is the least of Savage's problems.
Just so people know, most left-leaning LGBT* people don't support Savage either. He's an asshole to everyone, even members of the LGBT* community who don't live, think, and act exactly like he does. We don't want him either. So don't blame us for what he does and says- blame him.
So Savage needs to apologize for saying there's bullshit in the Bible–when in fact there's bullshit in the Bible? Have the people attacking him actually read the thing? I have, and I can't agree with him enough. The Bible is chockfull of Iron-Age savagery: genocide, oppression of women, and of course reams of reams of a kind of superstition that no rational human being can countenance. There are some good things in the Bible, too, but it deserves no more deference that any other purely human artifact. Pointing out the truth is NOT bullying.
This is what he said in response: "I didn't call anyone's religion bullshit. I did say that there is bullshit-"untrue words or ideas"-in the Bible. That is being spun as an attack on Christianity. Which is bullshhh… which is untrue. I was not attacking the faith in which I was raised. I was attacking the argument that gay people must be discriminated against-and anti-bullying programs that address anti-gay bullying should be blocked (or exceptions should be made for bullying "motivated by faith")-because it says right there in the Bible that being gay is wrong. Yet the same people who make that claim choose to ignore what the Bible has to say about a great deal else. I did not attack Christianity. I attacked hypocrisy. My remarks can only be read as an attack on all Christians if you believe that all Christians are hypocrites. Which I don't believe."
I agree that there is a lot of hypocrisy in the Bible. There is hypocrisy among Christians. A lot of Christians will cherry pick Bible verses to make their point but you can't do that. You can't take those verses out of context of the entire Bible. So he's right – homosexuals should NOT be discriminated against, bullied, etc, because of a few verses in the Bible that were not written by god or Jesus. I guarantee you Jesus would have accepted a homosexual along with anyone else he accepted. He probably did.
So he apologized for the pansy ass remark which was the only thing that got me – I don't think he "bullied" anyone but he sounded like a bully by calling people who disagree with him a name. That's the start of bullying someone. He could've just let them walk out – that's what I would've done. Although if giving a presentation on bullying I would not attack people or their beliefs. I would've pointed out the hypocrisy but without the language.
I think that Jimmy LaSalvia has done more to help the issues of gay people than that nasty, militant, anti-God Savage. People of faith who have misgivings about homosexuality also know that there is a responsibility to extend grace and to be loving, and never hateful…Dan Savage has yet to learn a lesson from all the beatings he allegedly received — he apparently wants revenge. Disgusting behavior…
I think that Jimmy LaSalvia has done more to help the issues of gay people than that nasty, militant, anti-God Savage. People of faith who have misgivings about homosexuality also know that there is a responsibility to extend grace and to be loving, and never hateful…Dan Savage has yet to learn a lesson from all the beatings he allegedly received — he apparently wants revenge. Disgusting behavior…
There is a relationship between the Old and New Testaments. The Old Testament is the "schoolmaster" for the New Testament. The law was put in place so it could be made apparent to everyone the futility of trying to meet it. That is why we need Jesus Christ. He fulfilled the law. He was the only one who COULD fulfill it. None of this is relevant anyway as it pertains to Dan Savage. He simply WANTS to continue in his sin; and in order to do that, he felt the need to bash the Bible. This is nothing new. Jesus said very clearly that just as they hated him, they would hate us. People in the bondage to sin don't want to hear the truth. They would much rather be lied to. Jesus said it very well. People like "darkness better than light because their deeds are evil".
My qustion is this: Where are all the liberal pundits who supposedly care about "tolerance" so much? I suppose tolerance is great as long as you're not tolerating the ONE who died for us all.
Homosexuality is a SIN. PERIOD. It does not mean we hate the sinner; but we ARE supposed to hate the sin. Dan Savage, nor anyone else, can claim to love Christianity, yet deny the Bible says what it says. The Bible is very clear on the subject of homosexuality. It isn't popular–granted! It isn't politically correct–granted ! But, Christians weren't promised that people would love us. If they hated Christ, they will certainly hate His followers.
Clinton Riffe According to YOUR religion it's a sin. No one knows that is the "right" one. In fact I don't believe ANY religion has it "right." If god didn't want homosexuals, he wouldn't allow them to exist. Period.
The Bible only states what Leviticus and others say – NOT what god says. NOT what Jesus says. I guarantee you Jesus helped homosexuals, spoke with them, etc and did not condemn them.
So how often do you not eat shellfish? Or abuse a woman for not being a virgin when married? Or own slaves? If the Bible is "the word" those are some things in it. Do you follow everything or just the things you WANT to like most Christians?
He bullied the bully's because that is the language you/they know
I can't believe anyone would allow this clown to speak to a group of high school students, or anyone else for that matter. It's perverted opinions like his, that will be the downfall of our country. God says," a man shall not lay with another man", period. And other people, committing other sins, does not overrule that. I was" bullied" when I was a kid, and guess what, it taught me how to deal with life. I applaud those who left the room, they are the ones with true courage, and are not afraid to show what they think.
He's an arrogant bully, yes. He's also right about the bullshit in the Bible. However, there are decent ways to persuade others of your argument, but there's not a lot of decent persuasion going on these days from pretty much anybody.
What a hypocrite! That Sodomite pretends to oppose bullying, yet he certainly engages in it with rabid abandon. Ordinarily I'd dismiss him as just another spiteful, selfish Sodomite, but I'm outraged at his being invited (invited!) to pitch anti-Christian propaganda to those young people.
And WHO invited him to rant? Hmmm… I'm sure it's just a coincidence, but that's exactly the sort of unexpected, over-the-top, hit-'em-when-they-ain't-looking publicity ploy that Pres. Obama specializes in.
Christians are the persecuted? Huh! Well, I don't hate christians even though it's a lifestyle choice they have made. Love the christian but hate the christianity, I say, right?
Whats organized religion, let alone conservative gay republicans without hypocrisy. Fox put together a great spin clip of his speech, convienently leaving out the portions where he mentioned slavery, and pushing back after years of organized persecution. Of course add the naughty words he said in the passion of the moment, and now he's the evil doer? Fox never fails to provide a good laugh in the morning.
I only have one question for any gay christian ….. doesnt the bible say you are going to hell for BEING gay? So hell just live it up while you can. Just because you believe in god he has already passed judgement on you. Hasn't he? oops that was 2 questions.
Now, let's use a little deductive reasoning here, especially concerning this "outrage" directed at Savage.
The "Christians" who left the room were 22 students from Arrowhead Christian High School in Redlands, CA, none of the other 2800+ students left,…or were offended,…and none of their parents contacted Breitbart.com, who just happened to have a video…already carefully edited, dramatic angle, etc… And no other footage exists.
The father of two of the teens claims that they did not know that this talk was going to be about anti-GLBT bullying by a well known sex-columnest. Yet he sends his son and daughter (the first to leave the room) hundreds of miles north to a purely secular conference in another state. Does this sound like something a parent who chooses to send his kids to a Christian private school would do?
Here's the school's "Statement of Faith":
http://www.arrowheadchristian.com/page.aspx?id=248730
These are some serious Fundies here…
And no one from the school, none of the parents, students or faculty took the time to Google "Dan Savage".
I don't think this is anything more than a Breibart-style manufactured stunt.
"My son and daughter both attend Arrowhead Christian High School in Redlands, CA," Philip Naman told Breitbart News….
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/04/30/Exclusive-Parents-of-Students-Who-Walked-Out-on-Savage-What-a-Pig
Considering previous Breitbart "manufactured outrage", the misrepresentations of what was actually said and what actually happened, the carefully shot, edited and ONLY video to surface, does anybody really think this isn't just a set-up?
Isn't the term "Gay Conservives" an oxymoron?
"Dan Savage should apologize for his comments and should apologize to the high school students in attendance whom he called ‘pansy-asses,’” Jimmy LaSalvia told Fox. "
Dan did NOT call anyone Pansy-asses. No, he said some acted pansy-asses. So Jimmy stop with your hate and flaming.
"Savage also attacked the Republican Party — and specifically Callista Gingrich, the wife of Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich."
Actually, what Savage did here was no different than what those who interpret the bible literally do when they claim that homosexuality is "immoral" according to the bible. Same bible, same "absolute" morality.
But, he wasn't actually using the bible for justifying an attack, he was pointing out, by analogy, …that doing so is "B.S."
Have you no critical thinking faculties?
Now, let's use a little deductive reasoning here (y'know? that thinking instead of "knee-jerk" reaction thing?), especially concerning this "outrage" directed at Savage.
The "Christians" who left the room were 22 students from Arrowhead Christian High School in Redlands, CA, none of the other 2800+ students left, or were offended,…and none of their parents contacted Breitbart.com, who just happened to have a video…already carefully edited, dramatic angle, etc… And no other footage exists.
The father of two of the teens claims that they did not know that this talk was going to be about anti-GLBT bullying by a well known sex-columnest. Yet he sends his son and daughter (the first to leave the room) hundreds of miles north to a purely secular conference in another state. Does this sound like something a parent who chooses to send his kids to a Christian private school would do?
Here's the school's "Statement of Faith":
http://www.arrowheadchristian.com/page.aspx?id=248730
And no one from the school, none of the parents, students or faculty took the time to Google "Dan Savage"?
I don't think this is anything more than a Breibart-style manufactured stunt.
"My son and daughter both attend Arrowhead Christian High School in Redlands, CA," Philip Naman told Breitbart News….
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/04/30/Exclusive-Parents-of-Students-Who-Walked-Out-on-Savage-What-a-Pig
Considering previous Breitbart "manufactured outrage", the misrepresentations of what was actually said and what actually happened, the carefully shot, edited and ONLY video to surface, does anybody really think this isn't just a set-up?
Be not deceived, God is not mocked. For whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap. It's that simple. Always has been and always will be.
"At one point Savage called Christian teenagers who walked out of the speech “pansy-assed.”.
Actually no, seriously did they not teach you the difference between nouns and verbs when you were in school?
"Christian teenagers" = noun (one that Savage didn't once express).
"Reaction" = a verb (an action, …not a person).
So let's analyze the journalistic integrity of:
"At one point Savage called Christian teenagers who walked out of the speech “pansy-assed.” ~ TODD STARNES.
As a representation of:
"It’s funny, as someone who’s on the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the Bible, how pansy-assed some people react when you push back." ~ Dan Savage.
At worst, Mr. Starnes is willfully lying, misrepresenting the truth, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he just lacks basic English language comprehension skills.
Given the two possibilities, …how did he get a job as a reporter?
"people of faith should be treated with respect."
Oh really?
People of "faith", which by definition is; the belief in something without evidence -have been known to use their faith as a justification for bullying, as well as assassinating doctors, protesting military funerals, fly planes into buildings, etc.
Should we respect those who do follow all the laws codified in Leviticus? Like the honor killing of women and girls for not being unmarried virgins? Like those who would kill people for converting from any of the many fundamentalist faiths that descended from adherents of the Old Testament?
No!
That would we B.S. wouldn't it?
That was the point.