Anti-Bullying Speaker Curses Christian Teens

[Revoltingest]

Watched the relevant opening moments. His speech wasn't hate speech, he was pointing out facts, and a soon as he mentioned the bible and it became clear he wasn't going to laud it, the first students got up. So, gee, more Fox spin. It wasn't over the top by any means. And as mentioned also, funny how the people who push, don't like being pushed back and cry as soon as it happens to them.
Karma.

The fact that he apologized (albeit lamely) later suggests that even he thought it was over the top.

 

[Kathryn]

That must also be the reason why so many Christian women ignore passages such as:

…in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works (1 Timothy 2:9-10).

Do not let your adornment be that outward adorning of arranging the hair, of wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel; but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God (1 Peter 3:3-4).

Easy to see that today's Christian woman has "good doctrinal reasons" for paying a few hundred to get her hair colored and styled or a lot more for a weave. And those Louis Vuitton handbags attest to your following your New Testament, too, as do 2-3 carat diamond rings and wedding bands.

In short, when it suits you.

I personally believe that it's pretty clear that the point of those passages is that we should be more worried about what's on the inside of ourselves (and others) than outward appearances. Our focus should be on inner beauty. Most theologians have also reached that conclusion.

I mean, after all, the bible tells us "Out of the abundance of the HEART, the mouth speaks." Our inner heart become evident by our outward actions, from dress to what we say.

Hmmmm.

 

[Revoltingest]

Now, when it comes to policy based on that view, in particular public policy, I'm a gunna fight back, preach against it, protest policies in place based on that view, and scream bloody murder.
Private policy under that view, I'll say something about it, question it, and criticize it. Because the message is, "They can be homosexual, but not in MY house." ...and sure, homosexuals are free to change congregations and move out of the house, but it's next to impossible for an underage homosexual to leave that atmosphere.
Once again, I pose the challenge to parishioners who find Savage this offensive toward their beliefs, that if it's offensive to their beliefs as well to say that homosexuality is an abomination, that it creates the identical reaction as calling the Bible "bull ****".
Do parishioners in these churches consider how that sounds to these same teenage kids? Do we consider the same innocence and sensitivities of these kids when they're told their sinful just for loving someone of the same gender?

Savage's general anti-bullying intentions are fine, & gay/trans kids seem more vulnerable to suffering from ordinary expressions of religious belief,
so believers ought to exercise care in speech. But he was becoming that which he would decry, giving ammo to those on the other side who favor
abusive speech. Tis a bad & unnecessary tactic. I'd wager that if you gave a talk with the same theme as Savage's, that you'd get across your
message without being the nasty bully that he was. He should be more like you....minus the leathery garb (which would be a real abomination on him).

 

[Kathryn]

Savage was supposed to be delivering a speech about anti-bullying at the National High School Journalism Conference sponsored by the Journalism Education Association and the National Scholastic Press Association. But it turned into an episode of Christian-bashing.

Rick Tuttle, the journalism advisor for Sutter Union High School in California, was among several thousand people in the audience. He said they thought the speech was one thing – but it turned into something else. [quote from the OP]

I'd like to see the blame placed strongly upon the two organizations and whoever from them was dumb enough to invite Savage.

Let's see...let me think back to my stint in high school journalism. I seem to recall something about the importance of discernment, critical thinking and using good judgment. One would certainly like to think that the adult staffers and advisors of the Journalism Education Association and the National Scholastic Press Association possess those qualities, but it seems somewhat unlikely that they do.

Inviting Dan Savage was certainly a wise decision to start with. Even if he had given a make-nice-nice speech, what does it say of their choice that the man writes a sex advice column that would make Dear Abby cringe and crawl under her desk? Have educators entirely abandoned the idea that what the person promotes makes him/her a good role model or doesn't? Did no one involved in the invitation have a clue the sorts of stuff Savage says regularly in "Savage Love"?

The only way I can refer to what Savage's typical subject matter is without violating several RF rules is to say that he writes in often scatalogical language about what most people regard as very kinky sex.

What in the vast universe was wrong with those people that he was ever invited in the first place?

So, you agree that he was extremely likely to say inappropriate things? And then -he did?

So - it's not his fault -because everyone knows he's a loose cannon?

From what I understand, and this is a point that I haven't seen addressed yet, the topic of the speech wasn't simply ANTI BULLYING. It was specifically anti -GAY bullying. If that was indeed the case, he was a natural choice.

The man is a mature adult - or should be. My gosh, President Obama thought it was appropriate to invite him to the White House. If he could be trusted to behave himself at the White House, surely he can give a speech to a bunch of kids.

That being said, I've already pointed out that I think he was a terrible choice, and that the organization used very poor judgment by inviting him to speak.

Hopefully other organizations will take note.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Savage's general anti-bullying intentions are fine, & gay/trans kids seem more vulnerable to suffering from ordinary expressions of religious belief,
so believers ought to exercise care in speech. But he was becoming that which he would decry, giving ammo to those on the other side who favor
abusive speech. Tis a bad & unnecessary tactic. I'd wager that if you gave a talk with the same theme as Savage's, that you'd get across your
message without being the nasty bully that he was. He should be more like you....minus the leathery garb (which would be a real abomination on him).

Dunno about that. My leathery garb just might offend the school by itself.

 

[Revoltingest]

Dunno about that. My leathery garb just might offend the school by itself.

But it would be bully free offense, which is the best kind.

 

[gnomon]

Savage's general anti-bullying intentions are fine, & gay/trans kids seem more vulnerable to suffering from ordinary expressions of religious belief,
so believers ought to exercise care in speech. But he was becoming that which he would decry, giving ammo to those on the other side who favor
abusive speech. Tis a bad & unnecessary tactic. I'd wager that if you gave a talk with the same theme as Savage's, that you'd get across your
message without being the nasty bully that he was. He should be more like you....minus the leathery garb (which would be a real abomination on him).

The people loving this the most are those literalists who oppose homosexuals and are taking Savage's words and the walkout, which has the look of being staged, to blast the anti-bullying movement and homosexuals in general. It's a great opportunity for them to slam the It Gets Better campaign merely by slamming the creator of the campaign.

And what did the man do. Make some factual statements. Not in the best way but people are looking at the tone rather than substance.

 

[Kathryn]

The people loving this the most are those literalists who oppose homosexuals and are taking Savage's words and the walkout, which has the look of being staged, to blast the anti-bullying movement and homosexuals in general. It's a great opportunity for them to slam the It Gets Better campaign merely by slamming the creator of the campaign.

And what did the man do. Make some factual statements. Not in the best way but people are looking at the tone rather than substance.

Savage does know how to speak on the topic of anti gay bullying without acting like a jerk. He can even speak about religion and the church and gay bullying without slipping into unprofessionalism and bullying himself:

[youtube]r2qeOWUAkrM[/youtube]
Dan Savage Talks About Christianity, His Mother, And It Gets Better Project - YouTube

This video was from just a few months ago.

So frankly, I don't know why he slipped into such sarcasm and inappropriateness the other day. His outreach program to LGBT kids is certainly a viable, valid, constructive program. He doesn't have to slip into such attacks in order to validate his message.

I think it's so interesting that people keep trying to blame everyone but Savage for this brouhaha. As if the man is not responsible for his own speech. Sheeze.

 

[Revoltingest]

And what did the man do. Make some factual statements. Not in the best way but people are looking at the tone rather than substance.

it always pays to temper with tact
speeches given, employing a fact.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

it always pays to temper with tact
speeches given, employing a fact.

And when a faith has been hijacked
By those who wish to attack
The tact may as well be a duck's quack
Since facts may still be felt as a swift whack.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

And when a faith has been hijacked
By those who wish to attack
The tact may as well be a duck's quack
Since facts may still be felt as a swift whack.

But has there been an attack?
Has faith been hijacked?
If she states a fact,
And he feels a smack,
Perhaps both should take a step back.

 

[gnomon]

He's definitely responsible for the words coming out of his mouth. What he can't control is the way so many are running with it. Specifically calling it bullying when it wasn't. But that's theme many of the religious bloggers are taking and that is the theme on larger forums than this that are not as generally liberal as the average member here.

Granted, given the source of the most extreme views towards him, namely sites like World Net Daily, my opinion of how many are taking this may just be wrong. WND is probably not a site most people take seriously.

But I do believe it's a manufactured controversy. To the extent that the apparently far less than one hundred students who walked out appear to be from one school and didn't appear to be all that offended. I still wonder if they decided for themselves to walk out or if the teacher made that decision for them.

 

[Revoltingest]

And when a faith has been hijacked
By those who wish to attack
The tact may as well be a duck's quack
Since facts may still be felt as a swift whack.

Hypocrite! Charlatan! Poser!
I see you advocate the abandonment of tact,
yet you remain rational & kind in your own posts.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Hypocrite! Charlatan! Poser!

Oh yeah? Well your mother was a hamster, and your father smelled of elderberries!

I see you advocate the abandonment of tact,
yet you remain rational & kind in your own posts.

I forgive abandonment of tact. Big difference.

 

[YmirGF]

Savage was supposed to be delivering a speech about anti-bullying at the National High School Journalism Conference sponsored by the Journalism Education Association and the National Scholastic Press Association. But it turned into an episode of Christian-bashing.

Rick Tuttle, the journalism advisor for Sutter Union High School in California, was among several thousand people in the audience. He said they thought the speech was one thing – but it turned into something else. [quote from the OP]

I'd like to see the blame placed strongly upon the two organizations and whoever from them was dumb enough to invite Savage.

Let's see...let me think back to my stint in high school journalism. I seem to recall something about the importance of discernment, critical thinking and using good judgment. One would certainly like to think that the adult staffers and advisors of the Journalism Education Association and the National Scholastic Press Association possess those qualities, but it seems somewhat unlikely that they do.

Inviting Dan Savage was certainly a wise decision to start with. Even if he had given a make-nice-nice speech, what does it say of their choice that the man writes a sex advice column that would make Dear Abby cringe and crawl under her desk? Have educators entirely abandoned the idea that what the person promotes makes him/her a good role model or doesn't? Did no one involved in the invitation have a clue the sorts of stuff Savage says regularly in "Savage Love"?

The only way I can refer to what Savage's typical subject matter is without violating several RF rules is to say that he writes in often scatalogical language about what most people regard as very kinky sex.

What in the vast universe was wrong with those people that he was ever invited in the first place?

Wow, I actually agree with this post 100%. Personally, as a gay male, that was harassed and bullied, while growing up, I am not heartened that we have sunk so low as to support a man like Savage and his efforts. My tormenters were not discernibly Christian, but were run of the mill kids. No one, in those days, cared much about bullying and those of us who we subject to such treatment pretty well had to grin and bear it. It DID help being several times smarter than my attackers... a bit.

That said, I have seen video's made by Savage that would curl the hair of the average RF poster. I cannot imagine how anyone, after seeing said videos, could remain supportive of him. In some ways, Savage is an object lesson in how NOT to deal with bullying.

 

[Kathryn]

He's definitely responsible for the words coming out of his mouth. What he can't control is the way so many are running with it. Specifically calling it bullying when it wasn't. But that's theme many of the religious bloggers are taking and that is the theme on larger forums than this that are not as generally liberal as the average member here.

Granted, given the source of the most extreme views towards him, namely sites like World Net Daily, my opinion of how many are taking this may just be wrong. WND is probably not a site most people take seriously.

But I do believe it's a manufactured controversy. To the extent that the apparently far less than one hundred students who walked out appear to be from one school and didn't appear to be all that offended. I still wonder if they decided for themselves to walk out or if the teacher made that decision for them.

So this isn't inappropriate?

“The bible guys in the hall can come back now because I’m done beating up the bible… It’s funny, as someone who’s on the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the bible, how pansy-***** some people react when you push back.”

So - some of his audience did what people for centuries have done when they disagree with a speech - they got up and walked out. That's a time honored form of protest - it's not pansy ***** . It's not because "people can't take the criticism." Heads of state get up and walk out when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gets up and starts talking smack about Israel, for pete's sake. Are they being panty ***** or are they protesting the content of his speech?

Then Savage continues his diatribe after they leave. The consummate professional. Pause...

 

[gnomon]

So this isn't inappropriate?

“The bible guys in the hall can come back now because I’m done beating up the bible… It’s funny, as someone who’s on the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the bible, how pansy-***** some people react when you push back.”

So - some of his audience did what people for centuries have done when they disagree with a speech - they got up and walked out. That's a time honored form of protest - it's not pansy ***** . It's not because "people can't take the criticism." Heads of state get up and walk out when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gets up and starts talking smack about Israel, for pete's sake. Are they being panty ***** or are they protesting the content of his speech?

Then Savage continues his diatribe after they leave. The consummate professional. Pause...

I didn't say it was.

I did point out what everyone pretty much everywhere has yet to do. Provide evidence of Savage bullying students. That's the topic of this thread. That's the headline of all the blogs about this incident.

What is lacking is evidence of him bullying anyone. He didn't even single out Christians. So I'm still waiting for someone to show evidence for that.

I think we all agree he was tactless. There's no need to keep harping on that line of thought.

 

[YmirGF]

I didn't say it was.

I did point out what everyone pretty much everywhere has yet to do. Provide evidence of Savage bullying students. That's the topic of this thread. That's the headline of all the blogs about this incident.

What is lacking is evidence of him bullying anyone. He didn't even single out Christians. So I'm still waiting for someone to show evidence for that.

I think we all agree he was tactless. There's no need to keep harping on that line of thought.

I think the video is ample evidence of bullying. He is a highly regarded spokesman speaking to a large group of kids for Pete's sake. He then, knowingly, centers out a group of those kids, by association to their religious beliefs and is extremely insulting. This forced the kids affected into "fight or flight" mode. Wisely, they chose to leave. I shudder to think of how this would have degenerated had they stayed and taken issue with the speaker.

I can't help but wonder if those who stayed and laughed at them might now feel emboldened to belittle them and bully them FOR their beliefs. Talk about painting targets on unsuspecting kids.

 

[gnomon]

He didn't target them.

The first teen was walking out as soon as he started talking about the Bible. The rest quickly followed suit. Within a minute all these supposedly singled out teens were on their way out. He didn't say anything directly to them before or during the speech.

It's just that stupid remark after his little rant was over that he said "pansy *****". Those students were gone by that point. It's also quite clear his remark is about them leaving rather than sit and listen to a poorly thought out segue. I say segue because if the rest of his speech had such inflammatory and bullying commentary it would be posted as more grist for the mill. It isn't. So we can only rightly assume that this short little bit is it.

I don't care about the rest of his videos. As someone who has never listened to the man before and this is the first time I've seen him speak then those calling him out as routinely being a jerk should be able to easily provide that information. But that's not the point of this thread.

Why is students from apparently one school who walked out? It would be illogical to assume that everyone else in the audience, numbers posted as more than 2,000, are all non-believing Bible bashers. Most probably the majority of those also adhere to religious beliefs and most of those adhere to Biblically based religious beliefs. People of the same demographic as those couple of dozen people who walked out. About one percent or less of the people walking out isn't even the en masse walkout that some people are describing.

I seriously doubt that most of those teens were even offended. I can't prove that. It's just the oddness of it.

 

[A Troubled Man]

He then, knowingly, centers out a group of those kids, by association to their religious beliefs and is extremely insulting. This forced the kids affected into "fight or flight" mode.

I can't help but wonder if those who stayed and laughed at them might now feel emboldened to belittle them and bully them FOR their beliefs. Talk about painting targets on unsuspecting kids.

That's odd, you must have watched a completely different video than the one posted here. Do you have a link to the one you viewed?