Bullied gay teen faces expulsion after firing stun gun at school

[Alex314]

It's one thing to teach that Homosexuality is a sin. But if it were teaching them to dehumanize someone who is gay, that's a different story.

I completely agree. However, the trouble is many people don't see it as dehumanizing, because gays aren't human to begin with, they're abominations. It says so right in the Bible!

Church leaders are responsible for speaking the truth. Violence is another matter. Most of us sit under such teaching and do not bully others. Those who become violent are responsible for their own actions.

I'd agree with you, except for the fact that some preachers and churches are within inches of encouraging their congregations to be openly violent towards people they do not like. You cannot say it was the fault of individuals when it was clearly an effort to lead a group of people to act a certain way because of a certain religious doctrine and/or traditions.

Yes students should feel safe no matter. However I see it as a problem with the parents that they don't teach their kids NOT to be bullies. If the parents are abusive to the children or drug addicts, prosistutes or just plain negligent, then is it any wonder if the kids have issues knowing how to socialize with others?

I'm subistute teaching at an alternative school and spoke with a 15 year old today who has a 2 year old daughter. there is more issues to the story and around each child then what can be read in a newspaper.

It was wrong and illegal for his mother to give him a stun gun. She should have taught him other ways to handle the situation.

I would have had his brother and a friend escort him from one class to another. IF anyone threatened him, he could send the friend or his brother to get an adult or the School Resource Officer.

Giving him a stun gun and encouraging he use it upon other students was not the answer no matter how threaten he felt.

what is he going to do when he gets a job and his co workers pick on him about being gay?

I'm not saying its right, I'm just being realistic. people are going to pick on you.

I'd say that yes, it is illegal for her to have given him a stun gun, and yes, it probably was a bad idea for him to use it. Would I condemn that course of actions if it saved his life? Absolutely not. No lives need be at risk if the bullies don't bully people, physically verbally or mentally nor push them to suicide. In his case, while illegal, the stun gun may have saved his life. It's certainly not a can of hair spray in their eyes that was going to stop the bullies, and just perhaps the lengths this young man (woman? Not sure if he/she is trans or just gay...) went to defend himself will alert the teachers that there is definitely something going on there.
As for coworkers, they are not going to gang up on him away from supervision and beat him to within an inch of his life. That just cannot be done. They can harass and bully him, even get him fired by pushing his employer. In those cases, different strategies need to be used, and a stun gun isn't one of them. It did work from him not getting beat up, perhaps.

what many people don't know or consider is the messed up lives the bullies are living as well.

perhaps I'm being idealistic but I don't think kids are born bullies. I think its a learned thing.

often when you feel hopeless and have no control over your life, you attempt to regain power and control over others through the methods that others have used upon you.

So when you contact the parents of bullies what do you think happens?

they have a calm reasonable discussion of what their child did wrong?

Or they yell and fly off the handle and shoot up laptops?

Completely agree here. Bullying is not an innate behavior in a child, and if it is, that kid's got problems.
The bully behavior may stem from problems at home (which can't be fixed by school authorities, only the symptoms can be alleviated, if at all) or the behaviour may be a copied one from his parents. After all, if a bully was raised by a father who thinks gays are pansies and wussies and abominations, how can we expect the child to act any differently?

 

[Jullianna]

I can say it is the fault of the individuals. It always is. Even if someone is holding a gun to your head, you still have a choice as to whether you will or will not do a thing. No matter what may stir us up, we are all ultimately accountable for our own actions.

No matter what teaching we sit under, we have a choice to make as to what we will accept, toss and/or act upon.

 

[Alex314]

I can say it is the fault of the individuals. It always is. Even if someone is holding a gun to your head, you still have a choice as to whether you will or will not do a thing. No matter what may stir us up, we are all ultimately accountable for our own actions.

No matter what teaching we sit under, we have a choice to make as to what we will accept, toss and/or act upon.

You do realize of course that such a reasoning means that Hitler is totally blameless for the Second World War, he is only to be blamed for the Jews he killed himself, right? By this reasoning, there is no reason to punish someone doing hate speech, because he's merely exercising freedom of expression.

The reason Hitler IS to be blamed is because he was a key factor in creating the Second World War through not only his action, but his words, his thoughts, his policies, and the popular support such actions brought him. Remove Hitler, and WWII would have been very different.
The reason hate speech is punishable is because people incite others to violence through their words. The words themselves do not directly harm anyone, but they may lead others to commit violent actions. Had the hate-speech not been given, violent actions may have been avoided.

One can't only think of it on a case by case individual basis. People live in society, and the actions of the one may influence the actions of the many. If the one is purposefully trying to influence the actions of the many commit acts of violence, then that one is just as guilty as the people who have committed violence. Remember that alone one can't do much, but rouse a mob and you've got yourself a very dangerous 'weapon' you can use.

 

[violakat]

You do realize of course that such a reasoning means that Hitler is totally blameless for the Second World War, he is only to be blamed for the Jews he killed himself, right? By this reasoning, there is no reason to punish someone doing hate speech, because he's merely exercising freedom of expression.

The reason Hitler IS to be blamed is because he was a key factor in creating the Second World War through not only his action, but his words, his thoughts, his policies, and the popular support such actions brought him. Remove Hitler, and WWII would have been very different.
The reason hate speech is punishable is because people incite others to violence through their words. The words themselves do not directly harm anyone, but they may lead others to commit violent actions. Had the hate-speech not been given, violent actions may have been avoided.

One can't only think of it on a case by case individual basis. People live in society, and the actions of the one may influence the actions of the many. If the one is purposefully trying to influence the actions of the many commit acts of violence, then that one is just as guilty as the people who have committed violence. Remember that alone one can't do much, but rouse a mob and you've got yourself a very dangerous 'weapon' you can use.

You also realize that many people did have a gun held to their head and still said no during the WW2. Hitler is not solely to blame. No one person is solely to blame any time a war occurs. Yes, his words did influence a lot of people, yes he did order people to round up others the Jews and kill them, as well as many other groups and put them in concentration camps. And people complied with Hitler. Hitler did not have to persuade the people to think the way they did. Quite a few already felt the way he did. All Hitler had to do was just say a few words to ignite an already tense situation. In order for WW2 to have never occurred, all it took would be for one person to say no before the gun came out and then another and another and another. And then as more and more people say know it would soon add up to a thousand voices saying no, and then eventually a country, and then before long, Hitler would have seen himself through out of office, and possibly in jail. However, that was not the case. There may have been people, along the way that said no, but their voices became silent because others did not have courage to step and say no.

 

[Alex314]

You also realize that many people did have a gun held to their head and still said no during the WW2. Hitler is not solely to blame. No one person is solely to blame any time a war occurs. Yes, his words did influence a lot of people, yes he did order people to round up others the Jews and kill them, as well as many other groups and put them in concentration camps. And people complied with Hitler.

So far we are in complete agreement.

Hitler did not have to persuade the people to think the way they did. Quite a few already felt the way he did. All Hitler had to do was just say a few words to ignite an already tense situation. In order for WW2 to have never occurred, all it took would be for one person to say no before the gun came out and then another and another and another. And then as more and more people say know it would soon add up to a thousand voices saying no, and then eventually a country, and then before long, Hitler would have seen himself through out of office, and possibly in jail. However, that was not the case. There may have been people, along the way that said no, but their voices became silent because others did not have courage to step and say no.

Do remember also that no matter how people felt, they might still have not done anything had it not been for Hitler's inflaming discourses. Jews were not being murdered and their propriety vandalized or seized before Hitler, they certainly were after. I realize antisemitism is not a new sentiment, nor was it limited to Germany (treatment of the Jews worldwide at the time was shameful) but Hitler capitalized on it with hate speech to gain power. Is it that much a stretch of the imagination to imagine LGBTQ people in death camps instead of Jews and preachers at the pulpit instead of Hitler? Hate speech is hate speech.

 

[violakat]

Hitler did not have to persuade the people to think the way they did. Quite a few already felt the way he did. All Hitler had to do was just say a few words to ignite an already tense situation. In order for WW2 to have never occurred, all it took would be for one person to say no before the gun came out and then another and another and another. And then as more and more people say know it would soon add up to a thousand voices saying no, and then eventually a country, and then before long, Hitler would have seen himself through out of office, and possibly in jail. However, that was not the case. There may have been people, along the way that said no, but their voices became silent because others did not have courage to step and say no.

So far we are in complete agreement.


Do remember also that no matter how people felt, they might still have not done anything had it not been for Hitler's inflaming discourses. Jews were not being murdered and their propriety vandalized or seized before Hitler, they certainly were after. I realize antisemitism is not a new sentiment, nor was it limited to Germany (treatment of the Jews worldwide at the time was shameful) but Hitler capitalized on it with hate speech to gain power. Is it that much a stretch of the imagination to imagine LGBTQ people in death camps instead of Jews and preachers at the pulpit instead of Hitler? Hate speech is hate speech.

I believed I said that.

 

[Jullianna]

You do realize of course that such a reasoning means that Hitler is totally blameless for the Second World War, he is only to be blamed for the Jews he killed himself, right? By this reasoning, there is no reason to punish someone doing hate speech, because he's merely exercising freedom of expression.

The reason Hitler IS to be blamed is because he was a key factor in creating the Second World War through not only his action, but his words, his thoughts, his policies, and the popular support such actions brought him. Remove Hitler, and WWII would have been very different.
The reason hate speech is punishable is because people incite others to violence through their words. The words themselves do not directly harm anyone, but they may lead others to commit violent actions. Had the hate-speech not been given, violent actions may have been avoided.

One can't only think of it on a case by case individual basis. People live in society, and the actions of the one may influence the actions of the many. If the one is purposefully trying to influence the actions of the many commit acts of violence, then that one is just as guilty as the people who have committed violence. Remember that alone one can't do much, but rouse a mob and you've got yourself a very dangerous 'weapon' you can use.

He would also be responsible for the lives taken by those acting on his ordersy. Not sure why you would think I would disagree with that or how this got to be about Hitler.

Again, we are personally responsible for our own actions. We have a choice. Those under Hitler did not have to follow his orders. Perhaps they obeyed out of fear for their own lives, but they still had a choice and allowed fear to make it for them.

I didn't want to be rude and not respond, but I'm really not interested in discussing Hitler. If you are, perhaps you would like to create your own thread about that.

 

[Alex314]

I believed I said that.

Whoops, my bad! Sorry!
So, quick recap, Hitler just needed a few words to cause social uproar, which led to WWII.

Do we agree that he was in some way responsible for WWII, even had he never touched a single hair on a Jewish person's head?

Do we also agree then that hate-inspiring preachers should in some way be held accountable for the violent anti-gay behavior of their congregation when they act upon the exhortations of the priest?

Do we agree then that responsibility for such crimes do not solely rest upon the shoulders of a single person?

Do we agree that the Bible has in some way not only permitted but been used to promote such acts of violence?

He would also be responsible for the lives taken by those acting on his orders. Not sure why you would think I would disagree with that or how this got to be about Hitler.

Notice how what you say is contradicted by what comes below. If we are personally responsible for our own actions and nothing more, then Hitler is not to be blamed for the war crimes he hasn't committed himself. If he is responsible for those acting on his orders, then he is to blame for the behavior he incited in others, just as preachers should be responsible for the crimes their violent and hate-filled anti-gay sermons cause.

Again, we are personally responsible for our own actions. We have a choice. Those under Hitler did not have to follow his orders. Perhaps they obeyed out of fear for their own lives, but they still had a choice and allowed fear to make it for them.

You mean nationalism, wounded pride and ego, terrible social conditions unjustly imposed upon the German people at the end of WWI, and the will to make Germany a strong and proud nation again? That is what got Hitler in power. That is what caused WWII, not fear.

I didn't want to be rude and not respond, but I'm really not interested in discussing Hitler. If you are, perhaps you would like to create your own thread about that.

Ah. In that case I suppose we'll drop the subject of how Hitler got in power and all that. However, I could use any example of crimes committed willfully by people under orders from someone in authority, without whom the crimes would not have been committed. USSR, the Muslim government demanding for the death of the Danish cartoonist, war crimes committed by the US in Vietnam, human history is replete with these kinds of examples.

 

[Jullianna]

I see no contradiction whatsoever, but I refuse to enable the Hitler thread derailment.

 

[Alex314]

I see no contradiction whatsoever, but I refuse to enable the Hitler thread derailment.

Didn't mean to derail at all, sorry if it did. I just meant to say that preachers spouting hate-speech from the pulpit are just as responsible for the bullying of gay children as are the bullies themselves.

 

[Jullianna]

I don't completely buy into the whole "hate speech" thing because I've seen people say that just reading passages that call homosexuality an abomination is hate speech. That's quite a stretch. One can disapprove of a behavior without hating an individual.


IF a pastor is truly encouraging his followers to hate any group of people, gay or otherwise, he is accountable to God for that in a major way. And if he orders his followers to harm gay kids or encourages them to do so in any way, he is certainly accountable. However, they are still responsible for their own actions if they choose to follow those orders.

For the young man in the story to have to fear for his life, as he apparently did (and his family did), because of his sexual preference is unacceptable. It must be horrible for him and for his mom. My heart goes out to them both.

 

[violakat]

I don't completely buy into the whole "hate speech" thing because I've seen people say that just reading passages that call homosexuality an abomination is hate speech. That's quite a stretch. One can disapprove of a behavior without hating an individual.


IF a pastor is truly encouraging his followers to hate any group of people, gay or otherwise, he is accountable to God for that in a major way. And if he orders his followers to harm gay kids or encourages them to do so in any way, he is certainly accountable. However, they are still responsible for their own actions if they choose to follow those orders.

For the young man in the story to have to fear for his life, as he apparently did (and his family did), because of his sexual preference is unacceptable. It must be horrible for him and for his mom. My heart goes out to them both.

I don't think I could say it any better.

 

[Alex314]

I don't completely buy into the whole "hate speech" thing because I've seen people say that just reading passages that call homosexuality an abomination is hate speech. That's quite a stretch. One can disapprove of a behavior without hating an individual.

I understand what you mean. However, some people ARE using that line as hate speech, while others are simply stating that as a reason why they disagree with homosexuality. It's all in the intent. If you say 'I believe that based on Leviticus homosexuality is an abomination, ergo I won't be homosexual' that's fine. If you say 'All homosexual behavior is an abomination that must be stamped out' however, that would qualify as hate speech.

IF a pastor is truly encouraging his followers to hate any group of people, gay or otherwise, he is accountable to God for that in a major way.

What about being accountable to the lives of the hundreds of gay children he's making so miserable?

And if he orders his followers to harm gay kids or encourages them to do so in any way, he is certainly accountable. However, they are still responsible for their own actions if they choose to follow those orders.

I agree, I just want people to understand that IF hatred is perpetuated in an organized manner, the pastor is accountable if he preaches about homosexuality at the pulpit.

For the young man in the story to have to fear for his life, as he apparently did (and his family did), because of his sexual preference is unacceptable. It must be horrible for him and for his mom. My heart goes out to them both.

I completely agree.

 

[Jullianna]

I really can't speak to the "making gay children miserable" issue as I don't know any pastors who are teaching people to hate them and have never sat under this type of teaching.

 

[060711099100]

The education they get while they're young it's so important for bullies and bullied people
They need GOD

 

[Alex314]

I really can't speak to the "making gay children miserable" issue as I don't know any pastors who are teaching people to hate them and have never sat under this type of teaching.

Unfortunately...

Beat the Gay Out of Your Child - YouTube
Man Tattoos Anti-Gay Bible Verse on Arm - YouTube
Put All Gays in Death Camps - YouTube
"Homosexuals Are Worthy of Death" - YouTube
Christian Warrior Defends Anti-Gay Pastor - YouTube
Pastor Wants Homosexuality Criminalized - YouTube

Gay is the New Witch: The Christian Persecution of Gay Americans | Atheist Oasis – A Rational Refuge

I completely understand when people say they don't agree with homosexuality, they don't like homosexuality. It's part of the problem, but it's progress. At least, now, LGBTQ people can talk about their issues without being killed outright. It's just worrying that the ONLY people who are trying to return us to laws of those times, are religious and use their religion as justification. There is no basis, no scientific fact showing homosexuality to being anything like the demonizing christians portray them as. There is no grounds for objection, except for personal reasons and religion.
Not saying that ALL christians are like this, just that too many are.

 

[Jullianna]

Alex, I guess I just don't believe one can be a hatemonger and truly be a christian, you know? Please remember that not everyone who claims to be a christian truly is. Jesus Himself said that:

Matthew 7:
15“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

A true christian speaks the truth of scripture boldly, but does so in love and with compassion, not hate.

It is right to call sin sin. It is wrong to wish/do others harm.

 

[Sooner28]

Bullying anywhere and anytime is wrong.

 

[Alex314]

Alex, I guess I just don't believe one can be a hatemonger and truly be a christian, you know?

Do remember that being a christian does not prevent one from being a hateful bigot, and that morality is independent of religion.

Please remember that not everyone who claims to be a christian truly is. Jesus Himself said that:

Matthew 7:
15“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

A true christian speaks the truth of scripture boldly, but does so in love and with compassion, not hate.

It is right to call sin sin. It is wrong to wish/do others harm.

I understand that, but if you were to go tell that to those men, they'd say YOU aren't the true christian because you're not condemning homosexuality as the abomination it is. Do please remember that the definition of being christian is almost as varied as there are christians in the world, and using an idealized definition to exclude people whose behavior you don't agree with is called the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

 

[Jullianna]

It's not up to me to decide who is and who is not a christian. It's not up to those you described above to say I'm not either. It's up to the Lord and HE says we would be known by our LOVE and our FRUIT, not by hatred and bigotry.

As far as what the definition of a christian is, the only one that matters to me is His.

I have compassion for those who have been bullied by those who claim to do it in the name of my Lord, but that doesn't mean I'm willing to be the punching bag who answers to you for their failings. It's been interesting talking with you. Take care!