Dan Savage on the Bible

[afleitch]

Whatever about the delivery, I can't say I disagree with his point at all.

^^^^

This. I'm still waiting to hear a counter to his overall argument.

[afleitch]

So is anyone going to discuss what Dan Savage actually said?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao0k9qDsOvs&feature=player_embedded

[afleitch]

So is anyone going to discuss what Dan Savage actually said?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao0k9qDsOvs&feature=player_embedded

People walked out when he called what was in the Bible about gays 'bullsh-t.' Perhaps we are to presume that these people don't consider what is said about gays bullsh-t particularly as a number of them went straight to Focus on the Family to air their grievances?

So he is right in a way. They are pansyasses for leaving. It happens to me when I've called them out on it. I can stand there and take everything thrown at me, but the moment you fight back they can't take it.

[afleitch]

So is anyone going to discuss what Dan Savage actually said?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao0k9qDsOvs&feature=player_embedded

People walked out when he called what was in the Bible about gays 'bullsh-t.' Perhaps we are to presume that these people don't consider what is said about gays bullsh-t particularly as a number of them went straight to Focus on the Family to air their grievances?

So he is right in a way. They are pansyasses for leaving. It happens to me when I've called them out on it. I can stand there and take everything thrown at me, but the moment you fight back they can't take it.

I am more outraged at a 40 year old man calling a specific group of kids "pansyasses" and how it is very contradictory to his anti-bullying message... or is bullying ok when it is directed at those who disagree with him?

It was the National High School Journalism conference. If prospective journalists can't listen to something that they disagree with without walking out then yeah, they are pansyasses for walking out of the conference.

EDIT: I note that those who left were the yearbook staff from the Arrowhead Christian Academy in California. It appears to have been a co-ordinated walkout by one school. They then talked to Focus on the Family and other such organisations so that it became a 'story' over a week after the event.

[afleitch]

And I would add it's more then something they disagree with...it is attacking something they live their lives by as do billions around the world! And it was attacked in a very profane and offensive manner... these kids didn't interrupt or protest- they simply left. Peaceful, quiet, mature- I would be proud if they were my kids for handling it like an adult...more then I could say about Savage

Watch the video and familiarise yourself with the story. Not what was fed to the media by the school pupils and their parents who arranged the walkout, but what was said.

Dan Savage, who is a Catholic himself and is a proponent of having faith communities and LGBT groups work together said that what the bible said about homosexuality was bullsh-t. Which of course it is, and offended Christian students 'spontaneously' walked out as soon as he said it. He wasn't slamming Christians or Christianity but specifically how those who say 'I have to hate gays cos it's in the bible' can easily overlook everything else objectionable and he gave examples. The fact that some (and remember there were other Christian students there who didn't walk about and applauded Savage) took offense to that and didn't want to hear him out proved his point.

[afleitch]

I've watched the video- and for you or me his original comment would be less offensive but for a 15 year old child? To have a grown man cussing about something you have grown up with? I can see how that would be much more uncomfortable for them...

You do know that they would probably have walked out even if he hadn't 'cussed'? If he'd stated his point they would still have left. They left the moment he said he believed what the bible said on homosexuality was bull. Given that they were from a Chrisitian college, perhaps it would be possible that they agreed with their interpretation of bible's 'position'? The very position that Savage was saying still drives gays to suicide today. The very thing he's fighting against. I think he can be forgiven for using the term pansyass; I would think that the students that walked out were more accurately described as cowards.

[afleitch]

Picture this for a second...

Instead of Dan Savage, Ann Coulter is invited to speak. She then brings up the issue of gay marriage and says- in front of these students- "the fact that gays want to be able to get married is bullsh**t"... at that point there would be outrage- from you, from the media, from me, from everyone... and then some offended gay or lesbian students walk out because the crowd applauded and they were uncomfortable...and Coulter refers to these gay students in front of their peers as "pansyass"

You would be singing a different tune...

That's not quite comparing like with like. Again Dan Savage was not saying the Bible is bullsh-t; he was saying that there's some bullsh-t in there that we still hang on to, even though we've let other stuff go. The fact that students walk out because Dan Savage says stop using the Bible to justify your intolerance is not particularly a noble stance.

If your scenario happened, well besides the fact I think Ann Coulter is a c-nt may cloud my vision, but I would think it a bit stupid for students to walk out rather than challenge her at the end.

[afleitch]

I think there is a difference between a legitimate and respectful point about a literal interpretation of the lines of Leviticus regarding homosexuality and the manner in which he discussed it...it was his blanket assertion of how the Bible gets things wrong and the profanity which offends me and which offnded them most likely
I am paraphrasing when I quote him as saying "The Bible got wrong the easiest moral issue of all time- slavery"... obviously I understand his point, but he is insulting and generalizing the Bible at that point. Once again- place yourslf in the shoes of a 14 year old listening to some one your parents age say these things

Let's imagine that homosexuality wasn't the issue of contention. Imagine there were a dozen racial supremacists in the audience who walked out when he said that the Bible got 'slavery wrong'; imagine the catalyst. What would you think of their walkout?

[afleitch]

I think there is a difference between a legitimate and respectful point about a literal interpretation of the lines of Leviticus regarding homosexuality and the manner in which he discussed it...it was his blanket assertion of how the Bible gets things wrong and the profanity which offends me and which offnded them most likely
I am paraphrasing when I quote him as saying "The Bible got wrong the easiest moral issue of all time- slavery"... obviously I understand his point, but he is insulting and generalizing the Bible at that point. Once again- place yourslf in the shoes of a 14 year old listening to some one your parents age say these things

Let's imagine that homosexuality wasn't the issue of contention. Imagine there were a dozen racial supremacists in the audience who walked out when he said that the Bible got 'slavery wrong'; imagine the catalyst. What would you think of their walkout?

You're talking about a point that is uniformly agreed to be archaic and not applicable. There is significant debate over the homosexuality verses...do I agree with you and Savage that it ought not to be taken literally? YES- but was this the right audience to bring that up- let alone use profanity during it?
You are changing the issue- I will not disagree with the point he is trying to make...I disagree completely with the methods and find them very hypocritical

Again, that's the point Savage was making; why is 'agreed to be archaic and not applicable' when passages in the NT, including those attributed directly to Jesus supports slavery, yet despite Jesus not saying a word about gays, homosexuality is still subject to 'significant debate'

Therefore why are to we feel 'sorry' for Christian students that have a problem with gays so walk out, but we shouldn't feel 'sorry' for those who, hypothetically speaking, would think the bible was being 'attacked' because Savage pointed out the bits on slavery?

[afleitch]

Anyway, a roundabout saying that Christians, myself included, have this problem as to what the Bible actually says on the issue (as opposed to whats convenient to read from it) and how to reconcile it, if they think reconciling is necessary at all.

I don’t disagree. The problem is that many Christians have a real difficulty not in just reconciling what the Bible says on this subject, but that they have difficulty in grasping that Christian denominations have indeed reconciled modern thinking (as thinking has progressed) with other unsavoury parts of the book as Dan Savage highlighted. Slavery is a perfect example. There is a reluctance to accept the position that churches and Christians held on this matter until recently in human history or to acknowledge that, “you know what, if you read what the NT says about slavery, slave owners had a point.” But do Christians sit and argue over slavery? Sam Harris is right; slavery is the easiest moral question we have ever faced. Are there any cases at all (unlike say murder) where owning fellow humans slaves ever justifiable? No. The Bible, and the NT flunk the issue.

Slavery is simply a choice. Sexuality is more complex. For example, Christians will point to Romans which says that people turned away from ‘the natural way to have sex.’ But of course we have seen and observed in nearly every observed animal species that procreates separated by millions of years of evolution, homosexual acts. Given that it exists in nature, given what we know about the spectrum of human sexuality, how can Paul’s pretext of it being ‘unnatural’ be correct? It may not be common, or dominant, but it exists in nature. Not only that but Paul’s rant accuses those who had same sex relationships of then being involved in everything from murder to parental disobedience. Why is this discussed in hushed awe rather than for what it is; an ill-informed rant. Why does the fact Jesus utter not a word on the matter count for nothing?

Now of course, as an atheist I understand the bible as simply a written book inspired by events perhaps, but certainly not by anything divine. However it would be nice if believers of the book would be consistent in what they do with it.

[afleitch]

Fun facts.

The video footage of the incident that I linked to was shot by Focus on the Family. Nicely staged.