- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Religion
Video: Gay Rights Activist Dan Savage Slams the Bible at Anti-Bullying Event
On Monday, 'Fox & Friends' broadcast a clip of gay rights activist Dan Savage giving an anti-bullying speech that offended Christian students (video below) recently in California.
Savage said: "People often point out that they can’t help it, 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. We can learn to ignore the bullshit in the Bible about gay people."
After some Christian students walked out, Savage said: "You can tell the Bible guys in the hall they can come back now because I’m done beating up the Bible. It’s funny to someone who is on the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the Bible how pansy-ass people react when you push back."
Savage led the “It Gets Better” project, a campaign offering support and encouragement to young gays facing rejection and discrimination.
UPDATE:
Dan Savage has apologized for describing his detractors as “pansy-ass,” according to thestranger.com. Savage said in a statement: “I wasn’t calling the handful of students who left pansies, just the walk-out itself. But that’s a distinction without a difference—kinda like when religious conservatives tell their gay friends that they ‘love the sinner, hate the sin.’… Likewise, my use of ‘pansy-assed’ was insulting, it was name-calling, and it was wrong. And I apologize for saying it."
Galleries
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
Intolerance against
Intolerance against christians is legion? That's ridiculous BS. Anytime anyone disagrees with christians on any point, they start screaming "persecution!" The facts are, christians persecute others far more than they have ever been subjected to it themselves. Christians in the USA has been protected from criticism, questioning, obeying the law and given special privileges from the start.
Now that they are seeing the special status slipping away and they might have to only be equal, they are in a panic. It's about time.
Are you for real? Are you
Are you for real? Are you seriously suggesting that CHRISTIANS in America are verbally assaulted more than members of the LGBT community? This in a country where you swear oaths on the Christian bible with an overwhelming Christian majority? That's like the argument that what Christian men are the most discriminated against group in the country - absolutely fallacious. Gays aren't even protected against hate speech in all states, and you feel like they endure less verbal abuse? Man you are out there.
"Are you seriously suggesting
"Are you seriously suggesting that CHRISTIANS in America are verbally assaulted more than members of the LGBT community?"
Yep.
And the worst part about such rampant verbal assault is that it is celebrated, applauded, condoned, championed, and defended. Can you say the same for verbal assaulting gays?
No?
Well, there you go. I'm not "out there", I just don't defend, champion, condon, applaud, or celebrate atheist intolerance.
Obviously, you do. Are you capable of feeling ashamed for doing so?
Christians are verbally
Christians are verbally assaulted more than LGBT people? You better have some proof of that or you're going to be laughed at for being a terrible liar.
"Atheist Intolerance"? That has to be one of the all time great oxymorons. Theists are far more tolerant than christians. How many have said, "You're free to practice any beliefs you want, just don't try to enact them into laws for everyone.
I suggest you look at this video: http://vimeo.com/23723609
Even better, I suggest you read your bible and try to use the mindset that you've never read it or even heard of it or christianity before. An objective reading of the badly-translated, politically edited collection of myths and lies is the most effective path to truth and freedom.
While you're reading, look up Krishna, Attis, Horus, and Mithra. Learn where the entire jesus myth originated and was stolen by the early church.
While a few Fundamentalist
While a few Fundamentalist Atheists may be intolerant of Christians per se, most of the criticism I hear is against intolerant fundamentalist right-wing bigots, the ones who drape their evil natures in "Christian" clothing to justify acts and attitudes that would make Jesus weep.
You mean like those students
You mean like those students who peacefully left the seminar? Those students knew that Savage was openly gay, went anyhow, and were shamed, taunted and ridiculed for being religious in a nation where people allegedly have the right to practice their religion.
Can I assume that you are perfectly alright with this situation?
I suspect they left because
I suspect they left because they knew they were guilty and couldn't stand the heat. Theists generally love to dish it out, but are rarely good at taking it. Surely there were other christians in the audience that didn't leave. Perhaps they were more ethically courageous or agreed that theistic-based intolerance was wrong.
every comment you give is
every comment you give is dripped in hate.
As usual, theists are the
As usual, theists are the first to play the hate card.
I am angry, though. I am angry that theists have been given special protection from criticism and questioning, obeying the same rules of conduct as everyone else and even the idea of human decency.
Every comment you make is dripping with intolerance, and stupidity.
And with you everybody is
And with you everybody is intolerant bigot`s or stupid. and homo`s and black`s are given special protection from criticism and questioning,and they think the same rules of conduct dose not apply to them as everyone else and even the idea of human decency.
If freedom means anything, it is the liberty to tell others what they do not want to hear.
Chances are that you would be
Chances are that you would be wrong. The LGBT community does not have nearly as vocal a platform as the hatemongers do.
After all the extremist pseudo-Christians have entire TV networks devoted to programming their devout to follow the messages of hate and intolerance, 24/7. They have the vocal platform as well as far more political power to spread the hate and lies while the LGBT community has a handful of celebs making the odd statement when the issue comes up in the general news.
As far as the intolerance of Christians being "legion", well, you should think about that. They have spent 1800 years building up the hostility against them, even going so far as attacking other Christians in sectarian hatred and violence. And the ones that deserve it the most are the ones that cause the problem, but all of them suffer because of the hate and intolerance of the most vocal.
Maybe if the tolerant ones, the REAL Christians, stood up against the hatemongers a bit more loudly and more often, instead of staying quite because the hatemongers happen to be "Christian", then there would be less of a problem and more tolerance of Christians.
Because of the actions of the worst and the inaction of the best is what brought it upon themselves. They have themselves to blame because of that.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
I have to assume that you are
I have to assume that you are completely oblivious to the intolerance toward religious people in this nation and abroad. Nothing else would explain how you can make these statements. Maybe it has something to do with how hopelessly intolerant you, yourself, seem to be against Christians.
Maybe if you were to stand up to yourself a bit more loudly and more often, instead of staying quiET, there would more tolerance for Christians.
Alternatively, the gay community could publicly weed out the "in your face" extremists in their midst, thus bringing less disapproval upon themselves, just like you advised the "real Christians" to do. (Note: this last was an illumination of the absurdity of your suggestion and not to be taken as anything other than satire.)
I have to assume that you are
I have to assume that you are completely oblivious to the free pass and special treatment that religion has had and continues to have in the US to make such a statement.
The gay community doesn't get
The gay community doesn't get free passes and special treatment?!
Absolutely amazing. You don't get out of your echo chamber very often, do you?
Free pass to being regulated
Free pass to being regulated as 2nd class citizens, to being harassed, bullied, beaten? The fact that those that are serving in the military can finally put a picture of their loved one by their bed is still being challenged and is seen as wrong by many people? Please tell me what special treatment they are receiving?
Tell us, exactly what "free
Tell us, exactly what "free passes and special treatment" does the gay community receive? Freedom from taxes? Freedom to protest by shouting vile threats and hate speech? Freedom to ignore the laws that constrain everyone else? Maybe they get a free pass to threaten everyone else with eternal damnation? No? Then who does get those special privileges?
Isn't it interesting that the
Isn't it interesting that the believers god hates all the exact same things they do?
Those that can't or won't defend themselves can only be slaves.
Your logic is
Your logic is flawed.
Firstly, you say "hate" instead of "disapprove." That changes the tone of the belief. It is a strawman you are setting up.
Secondly, you seem to have confused cause and effect. You state that "believers god" hate the same things that the believers themselves do. This suggests that those who wrote the OT hated homosexuality, thus ascribing that quality upon their god. Your statement seems to conclude that the contemporary believers ascribe the same "hate" upon their god, instead of correctly stating it thusly:
"Many modern Christians disapprove of homosexuality because they believe their God disapproves of the same, as per the Bible."
I argue that the above sentence would be the more reasonable, logical description of the situation.
"Strawman argumant" To quote
"Strawman argumant" To quote from The Princess Bride "I do not think it means what you think it means"
Hi, lonecrane. You seem to
Hi, lonecrane.
You seem to want some attention from me. Ok.
"A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
To 'attack a straw man' is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the 'straw man'), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man (I know wikipedia isn't the work of fiction you quoted, but it'll do. /snark)
I'm pretty sure that the Christian position is not "We hate gays." I'm sure you know that already.
The person to which I replied tried to reframe hir opponent's position in this debate, and then attack the false position. That makes it a strawman argument. That makes it fallacious. Do you understand now? Do you need more attention?
Actually I don't even pay
Actually I don't even pay attention to the names when I'm responding to people unless it's in a continuous debate. Interesting that you think you warrant it though.
I understand the fallacy having studied logic & reasoning in college, and like many others, you have misapplied it.
1-There are those that claim to be Christian (I do not judge their claim) who do in fact hold the position "We hate gays"
2-The person you replied to did not reframe their opinion as it was their first post in this thread.
3-The people who do not agree with you in this thread, are not on a "team" holding the same opinion, or defending a single viewpoint from which they would create a 'straw man' to try and defeat an argument, therefor there was no reframing of a group's statement
A bit of advice, if you want to lecture someone on something, it's best if you know more than what you've quickly glanced over on wikipedia.
Thank you for playing.
I have often observed that,
I have often observed that, when "hate" is first mentioned, it almost always it is in a post by theists.
The christian position is that "we hate gays" That's why they try to make same sex marriage illegal, maintain that gays can be "cured" despite mountains of evidence to the contrary and practice intolerance and bigotry as a matter of course.
Actually, you are wrong,
Actually, you are wrong, there.
Disapproval is one thing. You don't legislate disapproval, but hatemongers DO try to legislate hate. Why else would they try to pass laws preventing gay marriage? How about when they call for death for homosexuality, as many of these pseudo-Christians do? You call that disapproval, too?
That isn't disapproval, that is hate.
Disapproval, they are entitled to mandate for their own people, not for everyone. When they try to mandate their religious intolerance against others, then it falls into the realm of hate.
"I don't like it so you can't do it" is a hate attitude, not a disapproval attitude.
As far as the bible is concerned, in the beginning, even the church not only approved of, but even sanctified gay marriage, so using the bible to oppose homosexuality is self-contradicting. It is current Christian policy, not the original biblical teachings that they are trying to enforce. The Jesuits, the finest and most respected Christian scholars in the world wrote this paper on the issue:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/2rites.asp
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
You have identified two
You have identified two distinct groups here: The "REAL Christians" and the "pseudo-christians."
Then you write a parade of horribles about the hate coming from the pseudo-christians.
This in defense of the previously identified strawman from your above post. The post about "believers."
Thus your argument was fallacious, as I said before, for at least one reason. So, no...I wasn't wrong.
The funny thing here? I'm not for or against gay marriage or civil unions, or whatever you want to call them. I'm against garbage arguments, people forcing gay couples into perpetual bachelorhood, and people forcing churches to wed gays against their teachings.
One can hold to the man-made
One can hold to the man-made teaching that homosexuality is wrong but it is not supported by the scripture. It's time that people realize that man-made prejudice is NOT part of the Bible and never was.
Just an observation - you
Just an observation - you can, or at least should be able to, hold to the biblical teachings and believe homosexuality is wrong without "bullying" - and if you can't, you better read some other biblical things, like, I don't know, blessed are the meek, love your enemies, etc.
Unless the religious can be
Unless the religious can be silent as a mouse and un-seen as the dead, they shouldn't be allowed out of their padded cells.
The religious jerkoffs, religious morons, religious pedophiles, the religious everything mentally defective, have had their 2000yrs of chance, you blew it, they blew it, religion is crap and so are its defective pushers.
Not a single thing legit about any religion or the mental defects pushing it.
Those that can't or won't defend themselves can only be slaves.
While I agree with you in
While I agree with you in principle, it would be wrong to deny them the right of free speech. Yes, I know they often try that themselves with "Why don't you atheists just shut up?"
That doesn't mean rational people should descend to their level.
"Why don't you atheists just
"Why don't you atheists just shut up?"
When is this sentiment ever espoused? Who is saying this to atheists? It is a well-known fact that those on the right are disinterested in trying to silence their detractors; it is leftists who want to muzzle their ideological opponents. This is borne out in the "'Fairness' Doctrine", highly coordinated attacks against talk-radio sponsors (a Recent example is Media Matters and Rush Limbaugh-- Google it).
The actual question is: "Why don't you Christians just shut up?"
Regardless of your mis-characterization of reality, I agree with your position on the First Amendment. The best solution to bad talk is more talk. In that, I am with you, Mr. Smith.
I have had this personally
I have had this personally said to me many times. Theists have always attempted to muzzle criticism and anyone that dares to present facts instead of myths. For example, what do you think blasphemy laws are for? Ireland has recently passed such a law, yes in the 21st century, 16th century thinking prevails.
The rethugnicans have done more to destroy the constitution of the USA than all of the "liberals" who have ever lived. Remember, it was George W. Bush who established the "free speech zones" where detractors were forced into fenced enclosures far from where they could bee seen or heard by the media. It was during his watch that the "Patriot Act" was passed and illegal wiretaps, warrant-less searches and seizures and spying upon Americans were made "legal".
One of the great failures of the Obama administration is that these things have not been corrected. But he could be "W"'s chosen successor. I don't know why the Republicans are running anyone against him. No one could be doing better for them.
"When is this sentiment ever
"When is this sentiment ever espoused? Who is saying this ti atheists" Ask most atheists that have spoken against religious ideals and they'll tell you they've heard it. You could also just throw it in a search engine and you'll find lots of examples. As far as being muzzled, you do realize that for a long time many stares had (and some still do) legislation on the books to keep atheists from holding public office, or serving on juries.
Atheists who attack the core
Atheists who attack the core of a person's being, their self-identity, should expect to receive rebuttal. I do not think that a serious rebuttal includes any form of "shut up." Western religious leaders would more likely want to, and strive to, bring the non-believer into their 'flock' and convert them to believers. This would seem more likely to me. Shutting the detractors down is the exact opposite.
Now, I would not be surprised to see many "claims" of being told to "shut up", but in my personal experience, atheists commonly use less-than-honest means to advance their cause.
As for states' laws banning atheists from holding public office, I would like to ask you to cite the laws/states that have/had such laws.
Well, we could start with
Well, we could start with South Carolina Article 17 SECTION 4. Supreme Being.
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution. http://www.scstatehouse.gov/scconstitution/a17.php
We could also go with Arkansas Article 19 Section 1: Atheists disqualified from holding office or testifying as witness.
No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court. (thought this one could be read as discriminatory to certain religious beliefs as well)
http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/Summary/ArkansasConstitution1874.pdf
Tell me, exactly what "less
Tell me, exactly what "less than honest" claim is used by atheists? If you want lass than honest claims, I have hundreds of examples taken directly from the bible.
If truth in advertising applied to religion, they would all disappear in a week.
States barring atheists from holding public office? Texas is one. Others are North and South Carolina, Arkansas, and Tennessee. Run a search engine check on it. Aren't facts a bitch? They refuse to change just because you don't like them.
Double post.
Double post.
Hey everybody, before I state
Hey everybody, before I state my opinion on this matter, let me just introduce myself a little bit. I'm a Christian, and I believe that the sanctity of marriage and sex is intended for a man and a woman. However, this by no means that I approve of the bullying of homosexuals. In fact, one of my dear friends, Brian Cook, is a homosexual. Like Jason said, there are a lot of "pseudo-christians" out there who think what they're doing is justified, but truly it isn't. In fact, the Bible says that as Christians, we are meant to love the sinner, but not the sin. Christians who bully homosexuals are wrong, persecuting and bullying a group of kids who willingly turn the other cheek is also wrong. I'm sorry for Dan Savage's suffering at the hands of those who claim to know the Bible, and I apologize for that, but that does not necessarily give him the right to attack the many innocent for the doings of the few guilty.