In that spirit, I call your attention to the commentary of one Dan Savage, best known for his exhaustively detailed advice to the lovelorn, which is printed amongst the adverts in the transactional sex sections of City Pages and similar urban publications. He's also a bit of a Biblical scholar, it turns out and offered some deep thoughts on the subject recently at a student journalist convention in Seattle. Stacy McCain shares a report:
“People often point out that… they can’t help with the anti-gay bullying because it says right there in Leviticus, it says right there in Timothy, it says right there in Romans, that being gay is wrong,” Savage tells the crowd in a short video posted on Tumblr by a student attendee.Pansies? If I didn't know better, one might think that was a little bullying of Mr. Savage, no?
“We can learn to ignore the [expletive] in the Bible about gay people the same way we have learned to ignore the [expletive] in the Bible about shellfish, about slavery, about dinner, about farming, about menstruation, about virginity, about masturbation,” Savage said.
At this point, student Jenny Patterson yelled “That’s bull,” and walked out. As other students followed, Savage called them “pansies,” she said.
23 comments:
but savage ( i read him, too) has a point to an extent.
maybe its time for the biblical leaning to treat those, all of those, who boink outside the confines of biblically prescribed marriage the same.
maybe its time for the biblical leaning to treat those, all of those, who boink outside the confines of biblically prescribed marriage the same.
Maybe, but Savage would get a little farther with his argument if he stopped calling people who disagree with him "pansies," especially in the context of being an anti-bullying speaker. There seems to be a disconnect between the message and the messenger, no?
I happened to watch video of this just before coming over here. Mr. McCain's description is not entirely accurate...there was no direct exchange between Dan and the audience. He started talking about the Bible, and some students walked out (that's the part that is quoted)..if anyone yelled anything at him, the audio didn't pick it up. And in any case, he didn't respond to it. He didn't even acknowledge the people that were leaving until he had finished making his points about the Bible.
Then, as he started to move on, he noted that some people were coming back in now that he was done beating up the Bible. He then said (this is my transcription), "It's funny...as someone who's on the receiving end of beatings justified by the Bible, how pansy-ass some people react when you push back."
So, sure, in a roundabout way I guess he called the students "pansies", or at least implied that's how they were acting. But I really do think he was talking about the generally thin-skinned reaction among (a lot of, certainly not all) Christians when their magic book is criticized.
You can see for yourself here if you care to.
maybe its time for the biblical leaning to treat those, all of those, who boink outside the confines of biblically prescribed marriage the same.
That concept itself is biblical, Gino. To paraphrase: Love the sinner, hate the sin.
Brian, since when is it worth respecting if I describe your cherished beliefs as "excrement" and then insult you when you decide not to stay for the flogging?
I'm sorry, but I call Savage's behavior "abuse," not "argument," and the only thinking people in the audience were apparently those who hit the door when he started spouting off that nonsense.
Bubba--So, you're cool with the Bible's stance on owning human beings, then? With stoning non-virgins on their wedding night? Are those your cherished beliefs? Because that, quite specifically, is what Savage was referring to as [BS].
Not the whole Bible. Not Christianity. The stuff that modern Christians (sensibly!) ignore.
It really to pays to know what it is you're reacting to.
if calling some people "pansy" in this circumstance is bullying, then the word "Bully" has lost it's meaning.
Brad: exactly. some dont seem to get it.
But I really do think he was talking about the generally thin-skinned reaction among (a lot of, certainly not all) Christians when their magic book is criticized.
Magic book?
if calling some people "pansy" in this circumstance is bullying, then the word "Bully" has lost it's meaning.
Well, yeah, that's kinda the point.
17 years ago I was moving to the Fox Valley of Wisconsin, where Mr. D was once native, and I found a house my wife and I really liked. But it was on Pansy Court. I could not live in Pansy Court. I just couldn't do it. So as a bullying word, that one is pretty well selected.
Listening to Dan Savage as an expert in anti-bullying tactics is about the same as taking Michael Vick's advice on dog care.
Dan has made a large part of his career savaging those he disagrees with in the most profane ways possible. He is most assuredly an "ends justify the means" sort when it comes to public debate with his philosophical opponents.
In short, "South Park" could have easily used Savage for their hilarious "Making Bullying Kill Itself" video: http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/412200/make-bullying-kill-itself
I hadn't seen that before, FR. It is hilarious and exactly on point.
The kind of bullying Savage is fighting is the kind that leads teenagers to kill themselves because they've been told who they are and who they love is fundamentally evil. The kind of "bullying " you're trying to hang on him boils down to criticizing your religion.
Don't be such a pansy.
The kind of bullying Savage is fighting is the kind that leads teenagers to kill themselves because they've been told who they are and who they love is fundamentally evil. The kind of "bullying " you're trying to hang on him boils down to criticizing your religion.
Right, and the second part undermines his efforts on the first part. He'd be a hell of a lot more effective if he'd drop the Christianity-bashing, whether it rises to the level of "bullying" or not. He's a pretty good agent provocateur, but that's all he is. And in the end, his approach will lead to diminishing returns.
Trust me on this -- Dan Savage is no threat to my faith.
Don't be such a pansy.
I was trying to be an aster.
First Ringer:
has made a large part of his career savaging those he disagrees with in the most profane ways possible. He is most assuredly an "ends justify the means" sort when it comes to public debate with his philosophical opponents.
so he's a more polished version of Breitbart, then.
so he's a more polished version of Breitbart, then.
Huh?
"...the second part undermines his efforts on the first part. He'd be a hell of a lot more effective if he'd drop the Christianity-bashing"
Sorry, but no one gets to use their faith as justification for bigotry and then get to claim that their faith is out of bounds for criticism.
I'm not saying *you're* bigoted. I'm not even saying that *most* Christians are bigoted. But the fact is that many, many homophobes use Christianity to bolster their argument.
They are the ones bringing religion into this. Not us.
I'm not saying *you're* bigoted. I'm not even saying that *most* Christians are bigoted. But the fact is that many, many homophobes use Christianity to bolster their argument.
They are the ones bringing religion into this. Not us.
Right, but again that misses the point. If the goal is to end homophobia, those who wish to do so are going to need the support of a large number of Christians, including Christians who take the Bible seriously, which would be most Christians.
The problem is not how Scripture is interpreted, it's that Savage's particular criticisms are simultaneously gratuitous and counterproductive. I've heard the same arguments for over 30 years now and they aren't moving the needle.
Brian, you're still missing the point. Now one person may consider taboos against homosexuality to be absurd. Another may think the same thing of men putting their most prized possession in a tube of feces. Neither absurdity, however, ought to empower either side to abandon basic rules of considerate discourse.
As has Savage, and thus he is entitled to all the respect that anyone who loves the ad hominem fallacy ought to get. None.
What the **** is considerate about telling someone that the essence of his person is evil and wrong, that his family is illegitimate, all because it says so in this book I have?
You are missing the point. This whole argument has a context. Savage didn't just waltz on stage to say mean things about the Bible. To ignore the larger conversation is obtuse.
I'm done here, guys, because I know this isn't going towards resolution.
I have a few more fleshed out thoughts at my place, if you care to entertain them.
What the **** is considerate about telling someone that the essence of his person is evil and wrong, that his family is illegitimate, all because it says so in this book I have?
Nothing is considerate about it. However, there's no evidence that anyone in this particular audience did that. Which is the context here.
If Savage wants to take the argument up his Christian detractors, I don't have an issue with it. I do have an issue with bringing a fight in one context into another. Because it's not wise.
What's the goal for Savage in the argument? Acceptance, or catharsis? Just a guess -- it's gonna be hard to get both.
OK, Brian, tell me; what is considerate about telling someone that the essence of his being is evil and wrong...based on the campus diversity manual? Sorry, it happens--I lived in Boulder for a decade.
So since each of us has their own sources of authority, do we then just go and scream obscenities at each other, or do we speak a little bit respectfully to those with whom we vehemently disagree?
Besides--see my earlier notes--it's not like science doesn't have something to say about Savage's lifestyle being both a health hazard and an evolutionary dead end. And yes, I have a problem with calling lethal behaviours "normal" or "good", and have to suggest that Mr. Savage's use of invective and insult sans evidence has something to do with the body of evidence here.
Post a Comment