Oklahoma’s MAGA superintendent who demanded Bibles in class faces investigation after TV in his office shows naked women

[ozso]

LOL.

How many of "those" conduct meetings with naked women images?

IDK but a lot of them are really angry at him for banning lewd books from school libraries.

 

[BCP1928]

It's pretty silly though coming from those who are mad at him for banning lewd books from school libraries. Not to mention that he was probably pranked.

I hope so, because it was a pretty good prank, much more fun than if he had loaded those images himself.

 

[SimplyMe]

IDK but a lot of them are really angry at him for banning lewd books from school libraries.

No, people are not made at him for banning "lewd books" from public libraries. It seems you are confusing Oklahoma with Florida. What people are upset at Walters for is essentially trying to force Christianity into the Oklahoma Public schools (which are already some of the worst in the nation).

 

[ozso]

No, people are not made at him for banning "lewd books" from public libraries. It seems you are confusing Oklahoma with Florida. What people are upset at Walters for is essentially trying to force Christianity into the Oklahoma Public schools (which are already some of the worst in the nation).

From the OP article: "Superintendent Ryan Walters, who has tried to ban books in school libraries that contain sexual content, which he deemed as ‘pornographic’ (Oklahoma State Department of Education)".

 

[SimplyMe]

From the OP article: "Superintendent Ryan Walters, who has tried to ban books in school libraries that contain sexual content, which he deemed as ‘pornographic’ (Oklahoma State Department of Education)".

I'm not saying he hasn't done it, just that isn't what people are upset at him for.

 

[ozso]

I'm not saying he hasn't done it, just that isn't what people are upset at him for.

I'd say that's not the only thing that liberals are upset with him for.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

The problem with that is a lot of those "exposing the hypocrisy" are being hypocritical. That's why it falls flat.

Like St. Paul the Chief of Sinners? Or King David as in Jesus the son of David? There's no Christian, no matter how righteous, who's incapable of sinning. This is something we all understand, but atheist fail to grasp. The only person who ever spoke out against sin, who was without sin, was Christ. Aside from that, the guy having a 60s nudie show suddenly pop up on a screen is extremely fishy. And that's probably what they're going with; it being a prank.

I'm trying to understand your view. Do you believe Christians can justify sexual immorality if non-Christians also do it, or because figures like King David engaged in it?

 

[ozso]

I'm trying to understand your view. Do you believe Christians can justify sexual immorality if non-Christians also do it, or because figures like King David engaged in it?

I'm arguing against the primise that if a Christian sins they're a hypocrite for speaking out against sin and promoting Christianity.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

I'm arguing against the primise that if a Christian sins they're a hypocrite for speaking out against sin and promoting Christianity.

Are you defending the position that Christians are permitted to sin? Such are immoral sexual behavior?

 

[ozso]

Are you defending the position that Christians are permitted to sin? Such are immoral sexual behavior?

No, I'm arguing against the primise that if a Christian sins they're a hypocrite for speaking out against sin and promoting Christianity.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

No, I'm arguing against the primise that if a Christian sins they're a hypocrite for speaking out against sin and promoting Christianity.

That is what Jesus calls Christians who live in sin but encourage Christian living to others. Are you suggesting that Jesus was incorrect?



“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

 

[ozso]

I don't think he knew that was on the TV screen. Two other people in his office at that time didn't see it. I think it's something that came on and he was unaware of it. Perhaps he was watching something else earlier. Reports keep saying TV, so it's reasonable to

That is what Jesus calls Christians who live in sin but encourage Christian living to others. Are you suggesting that Jesus was incorrect?



“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

No, I'm not suggesting things that you're making up on your own.

Also Matthew 7:3-5 isn't applicable in this situation. It's a verse the ungodly often misuse to basically tell Christians to keep their mouth shut.

 

[NxNW]

IDK but a lot of them are really angry at him for banning lewd books from school libraries.

Turns out he wanted then for himself!

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

I don't think he knew that was on the TV screen. Two other people in his office at that time didn't see it. I think it's something that came on and he was unaware of it. Perhaps he was watching something else earlier. Reports keep saying TV, so it's reasonable to

No, I'm not suggesting things that you're making up on your own.

Also Matthew 7:3-5 isn't applicable in this situation. It's a verse the ungodly often misuse to basically tell Christians to keep their mouth shut.

So which one is your position.

This man was sinning ( watching porn) but non-Christian has no right to tell anything?

or
This man was seen in broad daylight watching a TV displaying naked women, but it is not his fault?

 

[ozso]

So which one is your position.

This man was sinning ( watching porn) but non-Christian has no right to tell anything?
or
This man was seen in broad daylight watching a TV displaying naked women, but it is not his fault?

I'd hardly call 1960s images of naked women pornography. Secondly it doesn't sound like he was watching it. Two others in his office at that time did not see naked women on a TV screen at all. So it's reasonable to conclude Walters didn't see it either. It seems more likely that he had been watching something else earlier and then that came on afterwards, after his back was turned. If a man in his 30s is going to watch porn these days, he's going to watch actual porn, rather than what looks like vintage images from the 60's. All there is to go by so far is what two out of four visitors think / claim they saw.

 

[public hermit]

I don't like this dude, much less his policies for schools, but he is a target for something like this. The idea that someone who doesn't like him could do this to him is not out of the question, is it?

I think the two meeting attendees who say they saw nude women are credible enough. And if he accidentally didn't turn off his old nudies, then that's something he should account for given his positions. I don't think there's anything wrong with seeing naked folks, but if you're going to swear up and down being a prude will save the nation, then be one.

But it could be anything. He could have been watching a documentary or the show he was watching ended or who knows?

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

I'd hardly call 1960s images of naked women pornography. Secondly it doesn't sound like he was watching it. Two others in his office at that time did not see naked women on a TV screen at all. So it's reasonable to conclude Walters didn't see it either. It seems more likely that he had been watching something else earlier and then that came on afterwards, after his back was turned. If a man in his 30s is going to watch porn these days, he's going to watch actual porn, rather than what looks like vintage images from the 60's. All there is to go by so far is what two out of four visitors think / claim they saw.

Do you know any TV channel in USA show vintage 60s naked picture on TV during day time?

Are images of naked women from the 1960s not considered pornography? If so, does that mean similar images from 2,000 or even 4,000 years ago also wouldn't count as pornography? When the Bible addresses these topics, was it exaggerating?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

No, people are not made at him for banning "lewd books" from public libraries. It seems you are confusing Oklahoma with Florida. What people are upset at Walters for is essentially trying to force Christianity into the Oklahoma Public schools (which are already some of the worst in the nation).

...if that's what they're mad about (and their anger is understandable), then they should focus on that rather than trying to highlight a situation like this.

Basically, if their position is "oh, so Mr. WantsChristianityInSchools likes to look at naughty videos, see, so he has no right to foist moral codes on others", then that's a fool's errand.


The approach of:
"Exaggerate the other side's position to the most stringent interpretation of a purity standard, and then use them falling short of that as a basis of undermining their underlying message" has almost never worked.

It'd be like getting footage of Bill Gates eating a hamburger, and then saying "Aha!!! See!! All that stuff he said about reducing red meat consumption for the environment was a crock and can now be fully dismissed"

Or perhaps a real-world example:

Remember when all of those climate activist celebrities took private jets to the climate conference?
Remember how conservatives immediately pounced on that, and tried to use it as a basis of completely dismissing climate change based on the fact that they were falling short of an exaggerated version of a purity standard?

Did that change anyone's minds about the subject?

 

[ozso]

Do you know any TV channel in USA show vintage 60s naked picture on TV during day time?

I don't know of what's on any TV channel because I haven't watched network/cable TV in over ten years. Everting I watch is on youtube, tubi, roku and pluto. Do you know every program that's available on every channel? How many channels are there altogether? 100? 200? The only reason I'm even going with TV broadcast, is because the accuser described what she saw as a TV broadcast that looked like something from the 60s.

Are images of naked women from the 1960s not considered pornography? If so, does that mean similar images from 2,000 or even 4,000 years ago also wouldn't count as pornography? When the Bible addresses these topics, was it exaggerating?

A picture of a naked person could be anything. It could be an art model. Simple ordinary images of naked adults, especially vintage images I would imagine, probably wouldn't be considered porn by most, depending on the circumstances. I doubt most would consider a 2000 year old painting or sculpture phonography. Most people normally just consider that artwork. Where does the Bible address artwork depicting naked people? Do you consider the nude images in the Sistine Chapel painted by Michelangelo pornography? Is the famous painting there of God creating Adam pornography?

Now should a Christian school superintendent be viewing images of nudes, outside of artwork, in his office? No. But no one knows what was actually going on so far. But my guess is the sheriff's department investigating the matter will figure it out. Until then, innocent until proven guilty.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

This thread, along with some of the responses from Christians, illustrates why some non-Christians perceive Christians as inconsistent in their actions or beliefs.

Walter claims to be a Christian and wants all Oklahoma students to learn about Christianity, live according to biblical teachings, and follow the Ten Commandments.

Although Walter advocates for others to lead a Christian life and abide by the Ten Commandments, it has now been revealed that he does not adhere to these principles himself.

Walter’s story is not unique; similar narratives have appeared consistently throughout five thousand years of Biblical history. The Pharisees and Sadducees outwardly displayed righteousness and advised others on how to live a godly life, yet their actions often contradicted their teachings. Jesus rebuked them and called them hypocrites. Throughout the past two thousand years of Christianity, there have been many individuals like Walter who instruct others one way but behave contrary to their own guidance.

There will always be people like Walter in our society and within Christianity. We acknowledge our imperfections, and living a Christian life means committing daily to carrying our own cross.

However, it is surprising to observe how some individuals who identify as Christians are defending or making excuses for Walter's behavior.

You are not defending Christianity; instead, your actions suggest a contradiction between what Christians teach and how they live. By excusing sinful behavior, you’re defending sin rather than faith. If you can’t honestly acknowledge sinful behavior, you are far removed from true Christian conversation.

By defending Walter, you are reinforce the perception among non-believers that Christians lead a double life—one in public and another in private.