Columnist Dan Savage stands by comments on 'bulls**t in the Bible'

[cbayer]

He also apologized for the pansy-assed comment. Kudos to Mr. Savage.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/30/columnist-dan-savage-stands-by-comments-on-bullst-in-the-bible/

By Dan Gilgoff, CNN.com Religion Editor

(CNN) - Columnist and gay-rights advocate Dan Savage is standing by his comment that “we can learn to ignore the bulls**t in the Bible about gay people” at a recent conference for high school students, a line that prompted some to walk out and spurred intense online debate.

In a blog post on Sunday, Savage wrote that his remark at a conference for the Journalism Education Association and the National Scholastic Press Association was "being spun as an attack on Christianity. Which is bullshhh… which is untrue.”

“I was not attacking the faith in which I was raised," Savage wrote. "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.”

-snip-


Savage apologized for that specific remark in Sunday’s blog post, writing that his word choice “was insulting, it was name-calling, and it was wrong.”

more at link

[bowens43]

1. Good. It's about time people start calling bullshit bullshit.

This idea that it's is somehow wrong to say bullshit is bullshit because those who believe the bullshit may be offend is ridiculous.

[Journeyman]

2. Ah, bullshit . . .

[edhopper]

3. Even the most fervent believers

admit that there is Bullshit in the Bible when pressed. Though they don't use that term. they will say that covenant is no longer in place. Or that portrayal of God is no longer valid. Still Bullshit.

[edhopper]

28. I am sorry the jury chose to hide that reply

would have made an interesting discussion.
We don't have many bible literalist, creationist, anti-science people here.

[eqfan592]

30. Don't forget homophobic! (nt)

[edhopper]

32. I know

that is what got him in trouble.
If he had stuck with the Bible bullshit, he probably wouldn't have gotten the ax.

I am in no way defending what he said, I just was interested in seeing him defend his ludicrous statement.

[cbayer]

34. He most probably would have been axed.

I biblical literalist is just not going to last long here.

[Taverner]

37. Wow! That was an epic TS'ing!!!

"I was born to hate gay people"??????!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?

I gotta sit down, my head is still spinning

[darkstar3]

40. I've actually heard that in real life.

"God made you gay, huh? Well God made me to hate gay people!" This was followed by the sound of a fist hitting a stomach.

[Taverner]

46. Stupid following the stupid

Fuck god (sorry theists)

Fuck bullys

Long live comrades, brothers, sisters, fellowship, mellowship, all of us, the 99%, 'brotherhood of man,' and just plain people.

[darkstar3]

39. That's funny, 'cause I know three who have.

I will refrain from using names since I don't want to call anyone out.

Two of them were PPR'd earlier this year, after being here for as much as 7 years. They tended to drop fundamentalist claptrap into threads in other forums, but it wasn't biblical literalism that brought the axe. It was only when they finally starting pushing their anti-choice, right-wing political views with terminology designed to offend as many as possible* that they got booted.

The third literalist is still here, and has been since 2002.

*Sounds familiar wrt a frequent religion group poster we've discussed, actually.

[cbayer]

41. The TOS here would not lead to the automatic banning of a literalist.

But should their interpretations be expressed in ways that do violate the TOS (like seeing homosexuality as a sin), it would surely lead to their eventual demise.

This one was so extreme, they couldn't even contain themselves in the first post.

[darkstar3]

42. So literalists can survive here for as long as they want, as long as they stay calm?

That's a very different statement. I think I actually agree with it.

[eqfan592]

35. Oh, I know you weren't deffending him.

I was just piling on.

[edhopper]

36. Yeah

just a troll sent back under the bridge.

[cbayer]

31. Homophobes are not welcome here.

[edhopper]

33. See #32 nt

[laconicsax]

43. I think a majority of the LGBT group would disagree with you on that.

There have been many homophobes on DU and there still are.

[darkstar3]

44. Ain't that the truth.

[cbayer]

45. Not once identified, they aren't.

There have been some people labeled as homophobes who are not. They may be naive, thoughtless, uneducated, etc, but not homophobic. Some were labeled homophobes just because of actions they had to take at various times. Even Skinner is labeled as a homophobe on other sites, which is ludicrous.

The administrators of the site are quick to ban anyone who is clearly a homophobe.

[laconicsax]

47. I'm not sure you really pay attention.

There have been several H&M posts about homophobic comments being left alone and the poster not getting banned.

Do you remember notesdev? He had posted homophobic garbage for years (you probably had to cleaned some of his filth) and didn't get banned until after saying that we need to shut up because equal rights aren't an important issue.

Members of minority groups are much better at identifying their oppressors than members of the privileged class, so it's easy to understand why you and others may not recognize the severity of the issue. I didn't even see the extent of the problem until I changed how I looked at the issue. Believe me, it's there.

The admins are quick to ban anyone who is overtly homophobic. As in the case of most other disruptors, homophobes only get banned when they overtly cross the line. As a more recent example, Kurmudgeon posted theocratic, misogynistic, homophobic garbage and didn't get banned until he went on a tirade in H&M about how his regressive prejudices were being oppressed.

[cbayer]

48. Are you a member of the GLBT community here?

[laconicsax]

51. I'm represented by the alphabet soup, yes.

I tend to not participate in the LGBT group or LGBT Civil Rights & Activism much, if that's what you're asking. I subscribe and read everything there, but I don't post much.

[cbayer]

52. If you are a member of the GLBT community, then I will defer to your increased level of

experience and sensitivity in this area.

I would also ask that you help me out by pointing out homophobes on the site. I feel pretty certain that the admins of the site would want to deal with them.

Of course, the admins are straight men and may also not see it as clearly as members of the community might see it, but I can assure you they are highly sensitive to the matter and will not hesitate to ban someone who is a homophobe. People here aren't even permitted to voice an opinion in support of civil unions as opposed to full marriage equality, a DU policy which I totally support.

[obamanut2012]

49. "Some were labeled homophobes just because of actions they had to take at various times"

Like what? This was a curious statement to me.

[cbayer]

50. Like moderators, including some who are GLBT members themselves.

[southernyankeebelle]

4. Saying "bullshit" to young people who truly believe in the bible is a turn off and you aren't

going to get your points accross if you put the wall up in the first place. Dan could of had a conversation instead he disrespect some of his audience. I don't believe the crap in the bible either. However, he should of said it differently. If you want people to respect you than you need to respect them.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

21. I disagree - Dan admitted where he was wrong

The "bullshit" comment isn't where he erred. Apologizing for honesty is simply cowardice, and there's been far too much obsequiousness towards religion in the U.S. I'm glad he didn't apologize. That, to me, IS respect - he's saying, "hey, I'm not going to lie to you, I'm going to treat you like an adult, even if you don't like it."

High school kids need to be exposed to people like Dan Savage who are willing to point out the fact that emperor ain't wearing any clothes. And not because I think the students need to renounce religion and become hardcore atheists. Instead, I think it allows them to admit, even if just to themselves, that part(s) of the bible is/are complete hooey when it comes to things like gay marriage.

[southernyankeebelle]

23. I know we have a right to disagree. I just think with young people as soon as you

put that blocked wall they turn off. That is what 16 yr olds do. I am not saying it is right but that is what young people do. It doesn't matter what the issue is. Their are nutso whatever it is. You can say the sky is blue and they'll say not it isn't. Typical teenagers.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

24. Teenagers are pretty rebellious

Last edited Sat May 5, 2012, 08:05 PM - Edit history (1)

But I would argue that Savage's comment feeds that rebellious nature rather than stifling it. Even the ones who walked out have been given a glimpse into a world outside their own. Pushing kids out of their comfort zones forces them to think about the differences in people. Kids who appreciate those differences are more open and inclusive.

With school boards becoming more and more radicalized by fundamentalist Christianity, people like Dan Savage are a much needed antidote to that sort of craziness.

[southernyankeebelle]

25. Excellent points. Its just hard as he is speaking they are walking out. Nothing accomplished.

[rexcat]

38. It would seem that the kids that walked out...

was organized prior to Dan's talk. Too bad those kids were too closed minded to hear someone with a different opinion.

[Act_of_Reparation]

29. Disrespecting an idea is not the same as disrespecting a person...

Last edited Sat May 5, 2012, 05:10 PM - Edit history (1)

... if believers cannot make the distinction, then the fault for their offense lies solely with them.

As for the strength of his words, the veracity of the nonsense in the Bible demands a veracious response. You can't approach the barbarity of Deuteronomy or Leviticus with weaksauce words, especially when there are people out there who would, if given the opportunity, live by these laws as if they really were the word of some omnipotent deity.

[Joseph8th]

54. I disagree...

... with the statement about respect. That only works with rational folk engaging in good faith. The Christian kids at the H.S. want to preserve their privilege to bully others, and are playing victim. IOW, it was a bully move by a bunch of bullies who want to be free to continue bullying as an act of 'religious freedom', and that MUST be called out.

Respect isn't the goal. One doesn't try to get respect from a bully, because one cannot reason with bullies and they only have one kind of respect: for the biggest asshole. Intolerance of intolerance is not intolerance.

Dan Savage had nothing to apologize for. It was a pansy ass move by a clutch of pampered privileged self-entitled Christian fundies. Brainwashed kids maybe? Yeah, but those are the biggest bullies of all. The only way to deal with a bully is to sink below their level -- it's the only respect they have. If you want that respect, go ahead. Me, I prefer to ridicule bullies until their heads explode, or they do.

The Rise of the Anti-Bullies is Coming!

[cbayer]

55. So are you saying that the only way to defeat bullies is to be a bigger bully?

[Joseph8th]

57. To "defeat"? ...

Ahh... There's the rub. I never said anything about defeating them. I used the phrase "deal with" -- and really that should be "win respect from" bullies. What I'm saying is that when faced with a bully, one has to consider the whole situation, and act accordingly. I'm saying look at what we are asking for when we say we want to 'win respect' from bullies -- their idea of respect is NOT the same as ours. Nor is our reason for wanting to win it contingent on reciprocation.

What I mean is this: when faced with a bully, one has several options to eliminate before sinking to the level of trying to win respect -- can I walk away or get them to walk away? Is there some way to stop the bullying without resorting to crude tactics that the bully can nonetheless understand? The chances are good, in the case of actual bullies, that these options will be quickly eliminated. The problem with bullies is precisely that they are irrational, relentless, cruel, and endlessly entertained by their victims suffering. The longer one suffers and freezes up, unable or unwilling to sink to their level and deal with them in a way they can understand, the longer the torment endures, and more satisfaction the bully reaps from the situation.

If one is physically weak and submissive or accommodating in personality, bullies can be unbearable. For many victims, there are no options. Nothing works. For many victims, being the bigger asshole just isn't an option. That's when bullying is the most cruel and inhuman, and it's those bullies for whom I have zero empathy. Having been bullied all through childhood, but not being accommodating, and learning some Kung Fu, I have personally been able to take advantage of this option, and can attest to its effectiveness. Kicking a bully's pansy ass does indeed stop the bullying. Defending the defenseless by kicking their bully's asses also does indeed work -- it's a crude method, but it's WORKS, and when bullying gets bad enough that the option of last resort is the only remaining option, and IF one has the ability to take that option, then take the damn pill. Bite the bullet and kick some bully ass. Your bully problem will go away.

Am I saying this is the ONLY method that works? No. I'm saying quite clearly that its situational, with gradations of response and gradations of effectiveness. What I am saying is that for the real bullies -- the no joke this has got to stop NOW bullies -- a thorough thrashing is not just the only way to make it stop, it's the best way. It's justice.

[cbayer]

60. Dan Savage does not agree with you.

[Joseph8th]

58. Short answer: Yes, IF we replace "defeat" with "win respect from" bullies.

Though there is something satisfying about the transformation in the bully's demeanor after a good ass-kicking. Let's keep in mind who we're talking about here. Bullies do not deserve sympathy when the chickens come home to roost. They are never the underdog.

Let's say you (rhetorical) endured long periods of looking into bullies' stupid faces as they leered and taunted, contorted by unthinking hate -- while they (take your pick) slam you into walls/lockers; spit on you; flush you; beat up on you with fists, kicks, weapons; shoving, slapping, other assaults... Let's say this occurred over the course of several years. Three or four. It can't continue, you know this, but you don't know how to stop it until someone (let's say it's your dad) takes pity on you and lets you in on a little secret. There's a time-honored way to make the bullies go away, but it's not going to be easy or fun. "You don't have to beat them all up," dad says. "Just one or two." You take some martial arts. You throw one bully across the hallway when he grabs you from behind at the drinking fountain. You almost blind another one. Most of the bullying stops. But there's still that one guy. That one -- the guy who slammed your head into the desk repeatedly while the teacher watched, helpless. Over and over your head goes into the table.

Tell me, cbayer. Who is the biggest asshole when you explode and take the head-banger out with a chair? Did he really need all those teeth?

Substitute rhetorical you for actual me, and I'll share a secret. That was my last fight for 20 years (and then I was attacked in a bar without provocation). The bullying stopped cold. It took six months to completely turn my life around. And it's damn satisfying to watch those leering stupid faces turn away to hide the bruises you put on 'em. If you are a victim of bullying, or care about someone who is a victim -- at least give them the option. I recommend Kung Fu of some sort, though any martial arts form is quite effective against the usual American-style fisticuffs.

[WolverineDG]

5. Well at least he thinks it was wrong

"If believers can ignore what the Bible says about slavery, they can ignore what the Bible says about homosexuality.”

Too bad he didn't phrase it that way & chose to lash out against students who didn't do anything to him.

[trotsky]

6. That's exactly how the right wing is framing it, too.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/04/30/473365/savage-bullying-pansy/

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2012/04/wingnuts-launch-campaign-against-dan.html

[WolverineDG]

9. Broken clocks are right twice a day nt

[trotsky]

18. I'm sure they appreciate you repeating their talking points for them!

Take care!

[WolverineDG]

19. You too! nt

[cbayer]

7. He apologized for the pansy-ass comment. I think he was emotionally reacting,

which is clearly understandable in those circumstances. But I am glad he apologized.

[WolverineDG]

8. Understandable? How?

If the students had been disruptive & heckling him, I can see that. But no, they were there for a student conference, the key note topic was how to cover bullying in their school papers, not debating over whether the Bible is "bull shit" or not. He wasn't being persecuted at all. In fact, since he had the stage, I'd say he was the one in control (not to mention, the adult in the room). The kids simply did the only thing they could do, vote with their feet.

[eqfan592]

10. Speaking of bullshit....

...Savage's point was not only valid but it was cogent to the discussion that was being had. The kids walking out were indeed "voting," they were voting in favor of ignorance, and for somebody trying to shed light on ignorance that is going to cause an emotional reaction.

Edit to fix grammar

[oilpro2]

12. Exactly right! If journalist students cannot be bothered

to hear free speech from someone, even from someone with whom they personally disagree, then they are not really journalism students, they are religiously bound students, refusing an open ear to objectionable speech.

I don't think I would like to be a student in a lecture or presentation by David Duke, I probably would not attend, if I knew in advance that he was speaking, but if I were in an audience and some speaker who was NOT David Duke began parroting the same lines about race, I would sit through it, even tho I totally would disagree.

These students could NOT have been too dumb to know who Dan Savage is, what his politics are, what his position of gay issues and bullying are. They came there willingly, probably at great expense to their parents or their sponsors. And they have the nerve to walk out on a speaker?

Who exactly do they think they are? Walking out was a major insult to a speaker they had chosen to go hear, no one put a gun to their head to get them there. Why are they so closed minded and arrogant that they think walking out is an "adult" behavior?

[cbayer]

13. While I couldn't disagree with their position more, I defend their right to walk out.

If I was sitting in a lecture in which I found the speaker to be offensive, say someone making blatantly homophobic remarks, I might walk out as well. Better that than to heckle them, imo.

OTOH, I might stick around so I could be a part of the Q & A. It depends on the event and the speaker, I suppose.

[eqfan592]

15. Having the right to do something and being right in doing something are...

...two different things. I agree completely that the kids did have the right to walk out, but I can't say they were doing the right thing.

[cbayer]

17. I agree. I just wouldn't want to abdicate my right to walk out of something

if I chose, and I was seeing some posts indicating that they really didn't have the right to do that.

[oilpro2]

16. In journalism, as in many professions, one has to put up with..

the quacks and the crazies. One has to listen and hear what they are saying.

A journalist can choose what issues and what notorious people one wishes to cover, but once one makes that decision, one has an obligation as a journalist to listen, then to critique, to ask questions, to demand accountability.

Let's take me at the David Duke clone lecture. I would patiently sit through it, not agreeing with any points the speaker made. I would hope I would be creative enough to ask questions to burst the speaker's bubble, to show him to be a fraud, a charlatan, a seriously deficient and intellectually challenged speaker.

Were I a believer in the literal truth of the Old Testament regarding homosexuality, (obviously I am not), I would find it my duty to question and critique comments by a gay liberation type speaker such as Dan Savage. Either that, or I would choose not to attend.

Walking out displays nothing but cowardice in the world of journalism. It displays a lack of conviction in one's own abilities to listen, understand, question and critique. It is a political statement, not a journalistic nor a professional statement of conviction. Walking out is a coward's way of dealing with adverse ideas and concepts. Staying and questioning and critiquing is the proper role of a journalist, in any situation.

[WolverineDG]

20. Another vote for adults bullying students nt

[eqfan592]

59. How, exactly, are you getting that from what I typed? Nt

[cbayer]

11. I just think he was taken off guard and reacted from the gut.

He has apologized for the comment. How much more should he do?

He's a great guy, has done some great work and is blunt.

[Thats my opinion]

14. The Bible says seven terrible things about homosexual relationships.

Last edited Mon Apr 30, 2012, 08:14 PM - Edit history (1)

Part of it is the old Levitic law, which says a number of terrible things about all sorts of issues, and is a cultic code.
Other sections deal with the practice of wealthy men taking on small boys as sexual companions. The issue here is domination of the weak by the strong--and is always condemned

Nowhere in the Bible, however, is there any criticism of the affectionate mutually affirmed relationship between two consenting adults. In fact the Bible goes to great length to affirm the beautiful relationship between David and Jonathan (I Samuel 20 and 2 Samuel 1:26) in which David finally says at Jonathan's death, "my love for you was greater than my love for any woman."

[EvolveOrConvolve]

22. Are you saying that the bible always condemns domination of the weak by the strong?

If so, you seem to be reading a different bible than the one I was raised on.

[uriel1972]

53. isn't that a sneakaround

the fact that the bible condemns physical intimacy between same-sex people. "Oh it's okay you can love each other, but you can't have sex."

[darkstar3]

56. That's often the view of people who call themselves "liberal Christians."

I've known "liberal Christians" with gay family members convinced that homosexuality was only OK if you never had homosexual sex.

[Thats my opinion]

61. The whole context of the David Jonathan story is sexually explicit.

Where did you get the idea we said love without sex is just fine?

[darkstar3]

62. Sexually EXplicit? I must have missed that part. Care to cite?

[uriel1972]

63. I didn't say you said it

I read Samuel again and I didn't find anything 'sexually explicit' about it. There are things you could take to mean they shared homosexual love, but there isn't anything 'sexually explicit' about it that could mean they shared homosexual sex. You could infer that if you wish but it isn't 'explicit'.

The problem lies in that the bible condemns same-sex sex, you could argue it's in the parts that were superseded I guess, but never is it expressly permitted. I admit I'm not a bible scholar, but having read it a few times, it doesn't seem same-sex friendly to me.

[Plantaganet]

64. That's the crux of the whole problem.

As I've said before - there's simply no credible argument for gay equality, rights, etc. based in scripture. This is why the believers are left trying to warp what does exist into a new, albeit dubious, form. It hurts far more than it helps, as evidenced by the outcome of today's vote in North Carolina.