Anti-Bullying Czar Dan Savage Living Up to His Title

[Soyeong]

Do you have gentler more diplomatic alternative for Dan Savage to deliver the same content?

He could have easily delivered a speech against bullying without ignorantly attacking the Bible and without using abusive language.

ie The Bible says a LOT of things that Christians currently ignore, why cant they ignore Leviticus 18:22.

Please understand that the Bible was not written to modern-day Christians. The OT was written to the Israelites and contains laws about how they should behave civilly, ceremonially, and and morally. It is not that most Christians ignore these laws, it is just that they consider that the civil and ceremonial laws were given to a different group of people, so they aren't expect to follow them in the first place. On the other hand, what was morally wrong to God will always be morally wrong to God, so it is good for Christians to follow the moral laws, even if they weren't given directly to us. This is a fairly standard line of reasoning that has easily addressed this issue, which I have no doubt most of the people who walked out could have told you, so this is why he is ignorant for making this attack and you are ignorant for assuming that Christians ignore the verses and are unable to answer his simple attacks.

Granted the vast bulk of Christians ignore Leviticus 20:13 Good Job!!. What's less uncommon is physical assault which sometimes unintentionally results in the victim's death and often puts the person in fear lasting long after physical recovery. I also never heard of a Jewish person doing this either. Here in largely secular Australia, Gay Bashing also occurs. I put it to you that the anti-homosexuality in the Bible reinforces the opposition to those that are already opposed to more equal treatment and undermines those within Christianity that would prefer to be more accepting. I don't think its a stretch that it would influence those who would otherwise be fence sitters into being opposed to homosexuality.

Once again, you show your ignorance by assuming the Bible is anti-homosexuality, when it is in fact only against homosexual behavior. Homosexual behavior is a sin, just like any other sin that Christians are against.

Insisting Dan Savage was bullying, including reversing the sequence of facts of the "Pansy A****" comment is comparable to the students walking out. You are refusing to deal with the issues. Instead you are disguising the issues by misrepresentation of what occurred.

His first statement in that video is an obvious straw man: "People often point of that they can't help with the bullying because it says right there is Leviticus, Timothy, and Romans that being gay is wrong." Which people point that out? Name one. None of those books (or the rest of the Bible) say that being gay is wrong, and even if it did, it doesn't say that we should bully people for being gay. That is insulting to every Christian in the room, and confrontational enough to get people to walk out, not because they couldn't handle what his arguments, but because they didn't come there to be insulted. His next sentence is easily confrontational enough to get Christians who hadn't left yet to start leaving. This is long before he called them pansies.

However, even if was completely justified in calling them pansies, it would still be bullying and still go against what was supposed to be his central message. If bullying is wrong, then there are no instances where it is justified, even if it is against another bully. On the other hand, if there are cases where bullying is justified, then that opens the door to justify all sorts of other bullying.

That some Christians found apparently find some contents of the Bible offensive does not make Dan Savage's actions bullying. Fox News lied. Now how about you start dealing with the issues & stop pretending I'm saying stuff I didn't, just like Fox "News".

I think you have an unhealthy obsession with Fox News.

[Jedidiah]

as usual, it's ok to beat up on the bible and Christians, but nobody else. I didn't hear him complaining about the Muslims who still kill homosexuals, or any other world religion, most of which condemn homosexuality. But Christians are always fair game.

Sparky, Muslims don't walk out they attack. Don't mess with them, it is dangerous. They be bullies.

[Sparko]

Sparky, Muslims don't walk out they attack. Don't mess with them, it is dangerous. They be bullies.

maybe that is why it's OK to pick on Christians, cuz they don't put out Fatwah's on you when you complain about them. They just walk out.

[Jedidiah]

Bullying is always against those who can't or won't fight back. Cowards bully, ergo Savage is a coward.

[Ignostic]

I argue with Muslims too, I question the values of the Koran & alleged origins from Allah->Gabriel/Jibril->Mohammed->Koran->Translation errors->Deliberate Monkeying with the text, Uthmani recension & others, dodgy memory of the companions as recorded by Hadith deemed most authentic.

But this is not a thread challenging Islamic Apologetics, or didnt you know?

Now I'll get back to dealing with some responses worthy of respect. I will not be responding to Sparko or Jedidiah.

[Ignostic]

What evidence do you have that the beatings are done by Christians, and devout Christians in particular? All the people who bullied others for "being gay" when I went to school were apatheistic at best. A couple of them I know are atheists (and still jackasses today), though I don't know what they were at the time because the subject of religion never came up.

Great response DE.

The following link is a vid on presuppositional apologetics

12 minutes - 12:47.

At a talk with plenty of "young men" at a "NRA typa church"
He seems to imply it by advocating if their were a sodomite parade christians can grab guns and go there and "Defend Christianity" and contrasts this with defending Christianity with words as an Apologist.

Force of Arms, NOT words.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yz1tAQ5RmxU&feature=plcp

I hope you will take this seriously that there people calling themselves christians motivated by the Bible to commit acts of violence against homosexuals. They are not just the KKK whom I confident the *vast* majority of you oppose.

There is the anti-homosexual legislation in Uganda. Do you really think it a stretch that there are christians (behaving poorly I would agree) that are motivated to by the bible to carry out beatings?

As I have also said earlier up the thread, the Australian experience includes homophobes including Atheists that carryout Gay Bashings. I have never been to the states, but Christianity is dominant based on the political scene there. I mentioned the Australian experience precisely because I see no reason why a basic hatred of difference can't still be a factor to a Christian even deep in the Bible Belt. The difficulty is the bible legitimising their hatred, thus its about choice.

You have idiots like Pat Robertson & Jerry Fallwell blaming 9/11 on America allowing homosexuality etc I was going to suggest the opposition to the Matthew Sheppard came from the Christian Right dominated GOP but my reading on that is more ambiguous than I thought.

Sombody else made a great response on Christian doctrine here, I'm off to find that now.

Thanks again for a thoughtful response.

[Ignostic]

Please understand that the Bible was not written to modern-day Christians. The OT was written to the Israelites and contains laws about how they should behave civilly, ceremonially, and and morally. It is not that most Christians ignore these laws, it is just that they consider that the civil and ceremonial laws were given to a different group of people, so they aren't expect to follow them in the first place. On the other hand, what was morally wrong to God will always be morally wrong to God, so it is good for Christians to follow the moral laws, even if they weren't given directly to us. This is a fairly standard line of reasoning that has easily addressed this issue, which I have no doubt most of the people who walked out could have told you, so this is why he is ignorant for making this attack and you are ignorant for assuming that Christians ignore the verses and are unable to answer his simple attacks.

As a practitioner of the Historical Critical Method, I was aware that the bible was written by ancient people shaped by their own narrow minded, totalitarian expansionist attitudes. It could not be otherwise. I do not judge the Bible by today's standard. I judge it by the standards of the day & considering the Greeks had no issue with Homosexuality & the Bible is inferior on science of the day, the bible is backward in comparison.

I'm aware of the concocted theology about Moral Laws that are still in place but we are forgiven for due to Christs sacrifice. Im not ignorant. Rather this Theology is a joke. The Bible reads like Mien Kamph in spots, it has no Moral Authority and nobody is in the position to say its "Moral Law" is still in effect. The Bible demanded genocide, & conquest rather than coexistance, forced marriage of captives, slavery. (If you are so inclined you can look up youtube user "Lorientalist" 's excelent video "The Bible vs The Qur'an". Fair warning, you might find some no-no words in the comments section as people cuss about Islam. Apparently I'm to be held accountable for material I link to. But you will find the Bible is just as bad as the Qur'an )

Want to marry sombody? rape them & pay the old man. People justifiy this by saying who would marry the woman? Why not sell the offender into slavery along with some painful scarification marking his crime for all time. A terrifying example & warning to others to steer clear from this scum. The rape was an offence against the father, the welfare of the victim was NOT AN ISSUE.

Your judgment on others ignorance is profoundly misplaced.

Once again, you show your ignorance by assuming the Bible is anti-homosexuality, when it is in fact only against homosexual behavior. Homosexual behavior is a sin, just like any other sin that Christians are against.

Is the Bible written by man or by God? Which is it? If man wrote it "The OT was written to the Israelites..." your words. On what basis do you call homosexuality a sin?

You don't understand your own position.

[Soyeong]

As a practitioner of the Historical Critical Method, I was aware that the bible was written by ancient people shaped by their own narrow minded, totalitarian expansionist attitudes. It could not be otherwise. I do not judge the Bible by today's standard. I judge it by the standards of the day & considering the Greeks had no issue with Homosexuality & the Bible is inferior on science of the day, the bible is backward in comparison.

You doesn't really make much sense to say you do not judge the Bible by today's standard and then turn around and use science as the standard for saying that it is inferior. First, the Bible is not intended to be used as a science textbook and second, science has nothing to do with whether or not homosexual behavior is wrong.

I'm aware of the concocted theology about Moral Laws that are still in place but we are forgiven for due to Christs sacrifice.

Christ's sacrifice allows for the forgiveness of sin, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't avoid doing things that are sins.

The Bible demanded genocide, & conquest rather than coexistance, forced marriage of captives, slavery.

It is not immoral for God to take lives because He has the moral authority to do so. God can grant this authority to take lives in the same way that the state can grant the authority to administer lethal injections. God is much more capable in accurately judging whether people should be killed that we are. How much more should we pay attention to God if He says that someone or a group of people should die? In other words, the actions of the Israelites were moral and consistent within the framework of Christianity. If you want to go beyond just asserting that it could not be otherwise or that the Bible has no moral authority, then you need to show where the framework is wrong.

Slavery in the Bible was more akin to indentured servants than with modern slavery. If someone couldn't pay their debts, they could sell themselves into slavery, where they were fed and sheltered, and where they could work until they paid off their debts. If they were abused by their master, then they could leave. The alternative was a life of begging or starving to death, and if they were able-bodied, good luck with the begging. This system was miles ahead of how slaves were treated in other societies at the time.

The forced marriage was likewise done for the sake of the woman. It is not ideal for the woman to have her hand forced in this way, but it is the best that can be done in a society where women are largely dependent on men to survive. It's not that different from the concept of a man being forced to take responsibility for his actions and paying child support, only in this case, the woman needed greater support.

(If you are so inclined you can look up youtube user "Lorientalist" 's excelent video "The Bible vs The Qur'an". Fair warning, you might find some no-no words in the comments section as people cuss about Islam. Apparently I'm to be held accountable for material I link to. But you will find the Bible is just as bad as the Qur'an )

If you think the Bible is as bad as the Qur'an, then you are ignorant of one, the other, or both.

Is the Bible written by man or by God? Which is it? If man wrote it "The OT was written to the Israelites..." your words. On what basis do you call homosexuality a sin?

You don't understand your own position.

The Bible was written by man and inspired by God. The inspiration by God gives the Bible the authority to call homosexual behavior a sin. This is very standard that practically any Christian could tell you. Why do you keep insisting that I'm calling homosexuality a sin without being able to point to where I've said that? Or where the Bible has said that? It would also be great if you asked Christians what there position was before assuming that they don't know what it is.

[Darth Executor]

Great response DE.

The following link is a vid on presuppositional apologetics

12 minutes - 12:47.

At a talk with plenty of "young men" at a "NRA typa church"
He seems to imply it by advocating if their were a sodomite parade christians can grab guns and go there and "Defend Christianity" and contrasts this with defending Christianity with words as an Apologist.

Force of Arms, NOT words.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yz1tAQ5RmxU&feature=plcp

I hope you will take this seriously that there people calling themselves christians motivated by the Bible to commit acts of violence against homosexuals. They are not just the KKK whom I confident the *vast* majority of you oppose.

This guy sounds exactly like the KKK type (and actually as far as I know the modern KKK condemns violence, at least in public). Furthermore a video on youtube is not violence against homosexuals. It's not even clear if he's suggesting that gay parades should be attacked given that he talks about defense. He could simply be delusional and think gay parades are cover-ups for a violent attack against Christianity. I've looked up this individual and it seems that he is a virtual nobody as I get nothing more than a footnote in a pressupositionalism wikipedia article mentioning him. I've also found a conviction for rape/sodomy for someone of the same name but I'm assuming that's not him. I'm guessing he hasn't actually shot any homosexuals. I am not saying there are no people who use Christianity as motivation to assault homosexuals. I am asking for specific evidence that it is in fact a major (or the major) driving force. In particular, I'm asking for statistics.

There is the anti-homosexual legislation in Uganda.

Was Dan Savage delivering a speech in Uganda or something? No? Stick to the current context please, if you have to go all the way to Uganda to justify Savage's bullying of some kids in the States then that pretty much sums up your case.

Do you really think it a stretch that there are christians (behaving poorly I would agree) that are motivated to by the bible to carry out beatings?

No, but I do think it is a stretch to attribute western anti-homosexual violence primarily (and virtually exclusively as far as I can tell) to Christians, particularly since I spent a good chunk of my primary and middle school being bullied and watching other people being bullied for "being gay" by people about as religious as Joseph Stalin. The reality you are trying to feed me and the reality I've actually experience do not match.

As I have also said earlier up the thread, the Australian experience includes homophobes including Atheists that carryout Gay Bashings. I have never been to the states, but Christianity is dominant based on the political scene there. I mentioned the Australian experience precisely because I see no reason why a basic hatred of difference can't still be a factor to a Christian even deep in the Bible Belt. The difficulty is the bible legitimising their hatred, thus its about choice.

The bible does not legitimise the hatred. The OT had people engaging in gay sex (who can be straight people too, just ask the greeks, it was practically the national sport there because of their hilarious take on misogyny) executed (under a ransom system, so it's unclear if they were actually executed or simply heftily fined) because wrecking family bonds and ruining your value as a spouse had severe consequences in a world where these things could literally get your family killed. Things you take for granted (like food, water and shelter being pretty much guaranteed) were not guaranteed for everybody and families had to work together to survive.

You have idiots like Pat Robertson & Jerry Fallwell blaming 9/11 on America allowing homosexuality etc I was going to suggest the opposition to the Matthew Sheppard came from the Christian Right dominated GOP but my reading on that is more ambiguous than I thought.

I oppose hate crime legislation, so if that's what you are referring to then it likely did come from the GOP. Not sure how you get from opposing hate crime legislation to beating gays though.

If you want to talk about hate crimes in-depth then start a thread here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fo...?18-Civics-101

Also, as far as I know Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell have not beaten any homosexuals so I'm not sure what the point of bringing them up is.

[Darth Executor]

Im not ignorant.

Yeah actually, you are. For example:

Want to marry sombody? rape them & pay the old man. People justifiy this by saying who would marry the woman? Why not sell the offender into slavery.

He WAS "sold into slavery". There's a reason why he's not allowed to divorce her, he is forced to fulfil his obligations towards her. You are also viewing rape through modern lens and assuming she would have objected to this punishment. I've found this to be a pretty common issue among many unbelievers: the utter inability to divorce yourselves from your personal opinions when discussing things where those beliefs are completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter what you think the punishment for rape should have been, and projecting your desires on people you know nothing about is nothing short of hubris.

[lilpixieofterror]

He called them Pansy • Edited by a Moderator • for walking out while he was raising valid points about the bible that are ignored, against shellfish & for slavery etc.

Fundy atheist are so funny when the don't understand what they are talking about. IE slavery in the Bible not being slavery of the 19th century US nor do they understand purity laws and the reasons it might be a good idea to avoid shellfish in an era where proper cooking and sanitary standards were not nearly as good.