Dan Savage stands by his statement that anti-gay passages in The Bible are bullish**.
According to CNN.com, while It Gets Better creator Dan Savage called some of the anti-gay passages in The Bible “bullish**” while speaking to a group of high school students about ending bullying.
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.”
Many students reportedly felt Savage was attacking them as Christians, but Savage maintains that the attack was specifically on those who are against anti-bullying programs that try to prevent bullying against gay students based upon the foundation that The Bible calls homosexuality a sin.
What do you think? Was Savage out of line speaking like this in front of high school students? Or are his comments being used as just another way to dismiss Savage because of his sexuality?
About The Good Feed Blog Editors
I think what a lot of people are forgetting is that Savage wasn’t addressing a room full of adults- his equals- he was addressing a room full of teenagers, kids. And, I’m sorry but there’s one word for an adult who would call a kid a “pansy-ass”- and that word is bully.
I just listened to the clip and there was lot of cheering from those poor kids he “bullied.”
So because some were cheering his insults to others, that makes it okay?
Easily the stupidest line of reasoning I’ve seen in quite some time.
Oh, you must’ve missed the “calling the Bible BS is bullying” line of reasoning, then. I thought that was the new standard for poor reasoning.
I don’t know about others, but that hasn’t been my argument at all. Call the Bible whateverthehell you want. But I fail to see how an adult hurling personal attacks at kids (and last I checked “pansy-ass” fell under the header of personal attacks) isn’t bullying.
Wait…using profanity and advising the use of birth control is “over the heads” of teens? I don’t know what sort of high school this guy is teaching at but where I went to school there were *a lot* of teen pregnancies, some of them probably unintended. If they’re having sex, surely the concept of using birth control isn’t over their heads. I admit I grew up in a rather conservative and religious household where swearing was not acceptable, but even I had sort of accepted the fact that people use profanity/criticize religion. Maybe I was just jaded as a teen, but I think that it’s good for young people to encounter ideas that they might find offensive and learn how to deal with them–rather than pretending that they don’t exist.
“. . . it’s good for young people to encounter ideas that they might find offensive and learn how to deal with them–rather than pretending that they don’t exist.”
This is exactly the idea that religious people I interact with in real life don’t understand. They can’t be negotiated with or reasoned with if you say something they percieve as being ‘unchristian’ or ‘anti-christian.’ Science has proven what I and many others have known for a long time: Fundamentalists lack analytical abilities. I find that they tend to have knee-jerk, emotional reactions. The focus on these kids should not be to make Dan Savage apologise for his comments, it should be to encourage them to think for themselves and interpret what someone says rather than hearing a swear word and assuming the rest is bad.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=losing-your-religion-analytic-thinking-can-undermine-belief
It is pointless to argue with people of faith. That is why it is faith. They believe what they believe, and you are not going to change their mind. So just disagree with them and move on. But it is wrong and classless to insult them and assume they are inherently evil or stupid. I believe Dan Savage sees them that way, or else why would he be so ugly to them? As long as they don’t hurt anyone, they have a right to believe what they want, and they don’t need to be bullied and insulted by Savage or anyone else. These poor kids were ridiculed for what they believe, not for anything they have done or may never do. I am not religious at all, but I cherish liberty, and individual rights for everyone. Even for those whose beliefs I disagree with. His message would have been far more effective, if he had discussed the issue in that context instead. He screwed up.
But Donna, is it possible you are also describing, the quintessential new world liberal, as well as a religious fundamentalist? I find when arguing with a liberal, most also seem to lack analytical abilities. However, their lack of analysis and tolerance is for people who disagree with them on politics, rather than religion. Liberalism has changed drastically over the last three decades. I know, because I lived through it and witnessed it. Liberalism use to be about open mindedness, and tolerance, not just for people who look different, but for people believe different, even political differences. Not any more. I am now a conservative, and I am about as non confrontational as one gets. I am also kind and considerate of the rights and property of others. I respect opinions, even when they are diametrically opposed to mine. I do not hate people for disagreeing with me. But the hate that has been flung at me for disagreeing with them, deeply saddens me. I know that all liberals do not fall into this trap, as I know that all conservatives are not free of those same misguided attitudes. However to me, arguing with a liberal leftist, is like arguing not with someone of religious faith, but with someone of political faith. It is pointless. However, now I fear that the incivility is growing on both sides, the uglier things get. Conservatives in many cases are now following suit.
I will make a point about this web site though. I know this site is mostly liberal, but I routinely come to this site and state my opinion. I find most people to be reasonable and respectful even to me as a conservative. The civility on this site is a testament to the caliber of participants, and to those who monitor such comments. It is refreshing.
When their beliefs result in people like “you” being disenfranchised, harmed, discriminated against, hated and murdered (all of which are products of certain sets of beliefs), I think it’s reasonable to call those beliefs “evil” to that extent.
Am I wrong? Or is it ok to hang gay people because they’re gay (a product of the Iranian brand of Islamic belief), or ok to burn women as witches (a historical activity carried out on the basis of Christian beliefs), or to deny women equality to men (something that modern day beliefs the world over seem to support, see the Catholic Church for one)?
Not evil? Ummm… Maybe not Nazi Germany style evil (though there’s still some of that going around due to “beliefs”, see the Lord’s Resistance Army as an e.g.), but still evil in my books.
How about your books? Do tell…
As for “conservatives,” if they want to maintain their unfair advantages just because that’s historically been the case and it would “liberal” to change this (consider Southerners and their “conservative” beliefs about race and who should go to which prom), well they can BLOW ME. They would be well advised to accept the fact that nowadays, we’re all equal before the law and are socially equal. To the extent they stand in opposition to this, they are simply in error. Depending on how they choose to oppose the change, they may be evil. In any event, they are always wrong. All men (read humans) were created equal. That’s a more reliable guide to what’s right nowadays than some of the more obscure rules of 2,000 year old book.
The Wet One
Unfortunately what we need to learn from this is acceptance. From the other side of the fence, this guy and his students have no idea what it means to grow up gay and be bullied everyday. The nature of Dan Savages speech may have been inappropriate to some, but we must not forget about free speech. If it is okay to have religious affiliations openly not approve of lifestyle choices (which they do), then why can’t we have someone life Mr Savage speak his own views to students about these issues?
The idea of this ass mentioning birth control as offensive mad me laugh…. I obviously know what side this teacher is on since he seem to object to talking about that issue. In some schools, teenagers aren’t allowed to learn about birth control, where else are they to hear positive messages?
The only way to help with issues like this is through EDUCATION, which Dan Savage is certainly doing a great job with, keep it up.
I’ve loved Savage’s work for decades. I’ll go with this Huff Po quote from John Shore,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-shore/dan-savage-and-the-truth_b_1463390.html?ref=gay-voices&ir=Gay%20Voices
“P.S. What immediately become a meme amongst Dan’s critics is that those who walked out of his talk felt bullied by him. But that’s impossible. People get bullied because of who they are: how they look and act, what they say and do. Perceived as being in some critical way weak or lacking, victims of bullies are selected for persecution; they are pulled from the pack before being pointedly and repeatedly victimized. The people who walked out during Dan’s talk were not separated from their peers by anyone. They were content to do that themselves. They were not frightened or cowed. They were offended. They felt that by disparaging what amounts to their God, Dan had transgressed beyond their capacity for toleration. And they were pleased to show their intolerance of Dan’s words by protesting against them in the manner they did. Theirs was not an act born of suffering. It was a proud show of disdain.”
So… adults are allowed to call children vulgar names now? As long as they’re on the “right” side? Is that the takeaway? Because Dan Savage was a victim of bullying, he’s allowed to turn around and push around somebody else?
If this had been a room full of adults, it would be a different situation. Hell, I’d probably call them pansy-asses (and probably some other stuff) too. But it wasn’t.
As far as I can see, people are giving Savage a pass on this because he’s done some worthwhile stuff in the past. Or maybe it’s because he’s gay, I don’t know. It wouldn’t surprise me, after all he was allowed to get away with his rampant biphobia for that reason.
John Shore’s comments would only make sense if a) being Christian does not count as “who they are”, b) speaking specifically about Christians and their religious text does not count as being “pulled from the pack before being pointedly and repeatedly victimized”, c) intentionally offending someone does not count as bullying, and d) walking out of a disparaging speech about one’s faith amounts to intolerance.
Yet being Christian does define for many people who they are, specifically targeting Christians does count as singling them out, intentionally offending someone does count as bullying, and walking out on someone deliberately insulting you is hardly intolerance.
As I stated on my blog when I wrote about this, if you want to stop bullying, you cannot do it by bullying other people or condoning it when it is done to a group you do not like.
More Christian Persecution Syndrome. They make up some 80% of the population (and a greater percentage of state and federal elected officials) and yet they’re constantly being persecuted.
Bullshit.
And the intolerance wasn’t the act of walking out, the intolerance is found in the idea that some groups (i.e. religious organizations and individuals therein) should be exempt from anti-bullying legislation because of their deeply held religious beliefs.
So, do you often make up fake syndromes when you want to launch ad hominem attacks?
Pardon me, Christian Persecution Complex, and a spot of Googling on your part (I know, it’s a bit much effort to expect from you) would have informed you both of the more common term and as to its provenance.
Do you know what ad hominem means? Because you’re using it wrong. You’ll see that this response contains something a bit closer to an ad hominem, albeit not in the context of a logical argument which is where one is more likely to see such a characterization.
Let me help you out with a definition here:
From wikipedia:
An ad hominem is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.
In this instance you clearly pointed to a made up “complex” supposedly held by the person making the argument (i.e. a belief of the person making the argument) in order to try and negate the point they were making without actually addressing that point. That is literally an ad hominem.
Let me know if I can set you straight on anything else.
You
Thanks, I wish I had you around when I used to teach formal logic. Here’s my attempt at explaining it; let me know how I did.
So first you need a logical argument. Let’s start by reframing the argument in standard modus ponens.
If you intentionally offend someone you are bullying that someone.
Dan Savage intentionally offended his audience.
Therefore Dan was bullying his audience.
To make an ad hominem argument I might counter with the following:
Jacobtk is a Christian, so of course he’s going to stick up for these students and say Dan bullied them. Therefore Dan wasn’t really bullying his audience.
Rather than countering the claim that offending someone is bullying, I attack the Jacobtk’s motivation for making the argument. That is what constitutes an ad hominem argument.
But that wasn’t my argument. My argument is that the idea that “intentionally offending someone does count as bullying” is bullshit. That is, I’m denying his premise, not his conclusion. That’s different than an ad hominem argument, I hope you can now see.
As for the comment about CPC/CPS, that was meant to be a general observation. There is a strain of Christianity in the US that believes itself to be constantly under attack, hence ideas like the “war on Christmas” and the offense taken when someone wishes “Happy Holidays” rather than “Merry Christmas.” These Christians view themselves as a persecuted minority, despite the general population as well as elected officials overwhelmingly identifying as Christian. I’d be more sympathetic to their concerns if they weren’t simultaneously trying to practice their religion on me and deny me the right to practice another religion or none at all.
Nickmostly,
I clearly know what an ad hominem attack is, and that’s why I applied it correctly when I pointed to your use of your made up complex/syndrome.
You are now attempting to “clarify” your way out of your original statement.
The comment I responded to began with the statement:
“More Christian Persecution Syndrome.”
This was stated in direct reply to some else’s comment. It’s difficult to believe this isn’t patently name calling (unless you’re suggesting that the having this made up condition is positive?).
You are now claiming that the bulk of your argument wasn’t actually the name calling that you opened up with but some other points. If this is true, why did you lead with the name calling?
So if you criticize a few lines from a book that I really like, say The Tale of Genji, does that mean that you’re attacking me? I might respond by defending the book, but calling it a personal attack on me seems to be a bit of a stretch.
how is calling somebody a “pansy-ass” NOT a personal attack?
For the record, I don’t give a rat’s rear that he called the Bible bullshit. Or anything else he said about Christianity. I care that he, an adult male, thinks hurling insults at children that disagree with him is an acceptable behavior.
And for once I’d like to see this idiot actually called on HIS bullshit.
Watching the video, I’m pretty sure that the walkout was planned a priori. It was too quick and too quiet to be spontaneous. Dan is absolutely right on this issue and his choice of language was deliberate, edgy without being offensive (to anyone but the most lily-livered). The one thing he probably shouldn’t have done was even acknowledge the people who walked out, certainly shouldn’t have called them names, but he lost his temper. Did he bully them though? No way. Losing your temper and letting something slip isn’t bullying. I don’t think any single incident can properly be called bullying; anyone can handle being picked on, or even beaten up, once. Bullying is so destructive because it is repeated, systematic and unrelenting. It happens again and again, so you dread entering the situation where it might happen again.
Having been hunting and watching for relevant video, and not just a few snippets that fit news coverage: I have to agree – there seems to have been “A Priori”!
I was also struck by comments by some journalists, who pointed out that the kids were there to listen and learn about Journalism. That means listening, recording and commenting after the fact.
By walking you it seems these kids and their teachers made a poor point – apparently U.S. Christians can’t be journalists.
My Favorite Bible Quotes – On YouTube.
Why is Dan Savage speaking at a journalism seminar? Apparently the U.S. has no real journalists.
Boo hoo, grow up, this is adult life where people call the Bible bullshit and call out bullies who do become pansies once they get the same thing they dish out. You may not agree with how it was presented but that is what kids respond to today, and they know it. I’m sure any gay kid who has ever been beat up or bullied when their bully is reciting Bible verses in the process is going to resent the Bible and most other forms of organized or unorganized religion if their exposure to it has been with pain and violence and would certainly relate it to bullshit.
“call out bullies who do become pansies once they get the same thing they dish out”
- You’re assuming that they have engaged in bullying themselves and your assumption is only based on their religious identity. What exactly have these individual kids “dished out”?
I caught that one too. I think it is called Christian Bashing.
I believe it is inappropriate to walk out of a talk for any reason.
If what the speaker is saying is truly atrocious, then it should be patently obvious and he will never be believed. You have nothing to fear, they’re obviously wrong, so why bother making a scene?
But when you disagree with someone you can always benefit from finding out why they think the way they do. It will help you to convince others who may be on the fence, and help you to see the cracks and inconsistencies in your opponent’s arguments. You have much to gain by staying, and little reason to leave, so why not stay?
You’re assuming those kids saw Savage as “an opponent” in the first place. It’s entirely possible (perhaps not entirely consistent, but possible) for someone to be pro-GSM (Gender/Sexual Minority) and Christian.
If he’s not an opponent, why are you walking out?
The act of walking out implies an adversarial relationship on the topic being discussed.
My comment had nothing to do with whether or not someone can be pro-GSM and Christian simultaneously and everything to do with what motivates a person to walk out “in protest” on a speaker in the first place, regardless of the topic being discussed.
“If he’s not an opponent, why are you walking out? The act of walking out implies an adversarial relationship on the topic being discussed.”
So what would he be if you agree with him on bullying but disagree on Christianity? Can’t you disagree with an ally on one topic without making him an opponent in regards to everything else?
Certainly, you’re the one introducing the binary, not me.
The same person can always be an opponent on one topic and an ally on others. The words “opponent” and “ally” apply to stances, not to people.
These students agreed with Dan on bullying, but not on religion. That doesn’t mean they viewed him as an opponent. The topic of the speech was bullying, not religion. The anti-bullying movement is something that is an an opportunity to bring people together and to increase tolerance for those that are perceived as different. Dan chose to use it as a platform to take a swipe at religion (one specificlly) and then use anti-gay slurs against a group of teens who were offended. How ironic.
Simply walking out was a pretty appropriate response in comparison to how college students usually respond to conservative speakers that they disagree with.
I don’t really understand what you’re trying to get at here.
I think part of the problem might be my background. I’ve been on some form of debate team for over a decade now, and I’m currently in law school. I’m used to having disagreements with “opponents” who will be “allies” when another subject is brought up.
I’ve never gained anything by walking out on someone that clearly was an opponent on a certain issue. I have, however, learned quite a bit by paying attention to what they had to say so that I could understand the thinking behind it. This has allowed me to make more powerful arguments in the future and to better get my points across.
All I am suggesting is that the students may have been better off staying and paying attention than by walking out. I don’t understand how “college students” and “conservative speakers” came up, but I suspect you are trying to have an argument with points that I’m not making.
Staying, and not walking out, can also convey acceptance instead of a real concern to avail oneself of the information for future debate. I find the best way to combat idiocy on parade, is to render it irrelevant. Walking out and not giving foolish diatribes credibility, can sometimes be the best medicine. People have a right to speak, but they do not have a right to force one to listen, lest that person’s behavior be branded inappropriate. It is a very appropriate. What if no one was willing to listen to Hitler? What if everyone had just walked away? I am by no means equating this. I just wanted to pick an example that is obvious in its point.
If my priest decided to insult homosexuals and state its sinfulness, do you expect me to sit there and listen? Do you think it would be inappropriate for me to walk out? I would certainly walk out. I may never go back. I know some very dear gay people in my life, and I know that they are often some the most decent people I know.
I too, would have walked out of the lecture by Savage. Not because I believe that the bible is right about homosexuality, because it is not. I would have walked out because his comments were arrogant in the nature of their delivery, and showed no respect for the beliefs of other people. Ironically, it is so often the disrespect for the beliefs and lifestyles of others that leads to bullying in the first place. He did not help himself.
First, Godwin’s Law!
Second, I think reverence is overrated. If you think an idea is ridiculous, by all means ridicule it. Christopher Hitchens put it best: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY8fjFKAC5k
Satan and his servants will NOT appear to the majority of the world or “Church” as angels of darkness, but they will appear as angels of light, inasmuch as they will tell the people what they want to hear.
“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths.”
“So then, you will know them by their fruits.
And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their deeds.”
Do you really believe reciting scriptural mumbo jumbo is going to appeal to anyone who doesn’t already believe in the Christianity myth? I mean, if I started quoting the Quran to you, it would be rather daft of me to expect you’ll run out and convert to Islam. It’s part and parcel of the delusion, this belief that non-Christians believe in the scripture but have turned away from it for selfish reasons rather than because they see it as the scrawling of a superstitious, scientifically ignorant, and predominantly illiterate tribe of desert dwellers.
No, will scarlet’s right. I admit it, I really do just want to have my “ears tickled.”
When I hear lots of Bible quotes tossed in my direction, I’m reminded of another quote about how “even the Devil can quote scripture.”
Reminds me also of a bumper sticker I saw recently: “When the Rapture comes, can I have your SUV?”
Labeling Dan’s talk as bullying is completely over the top. The teens shown leaving the session in the video appeared to be making a statement of conscious choice – despite their little teen brains. A good teacher would then discuss the event openly next day in class, and just maybe a learning moment would erupt for all involved.
I don’t see any tears being shed for non or different faith teens as they have to sit through the smarm of Christian teachings and beliefs, day in and day out. In what other context would we allow a belief system to openly attack the core of young people? It delights me that cheering and applause was the most visible response to the calling out of the bullshit.
And in a journalism gathering no less. The horror!
“just maybe a learning moment would erupt for all involved.”
- Interesting. Dan would obviously learn nothing since he would not be in the class for the open discussion, but what do you think the other teens that agreed with Dan’s ridiculing attack would/should have learned?
That some people are more equal than others.
That Santa Claus does not have a toy shop at the North Pole…and that critical thinking is the poison for superstitions.
One should be able to see the difference between critical thinking and calling names.
You expect someone who wrote “despite their little teen brains” to know that difference?
Point taken.
You must be opposed to statements of fact. Yes, my editorializing with the use of the word “little”, when I really should have said “tiny” was ill conceived – the alliteration I was striving towards was totally botched.
You can Google as easy as I can, so I suggest you try: adolescent brain, pruning, “use them or lose them”, and relate these to critical thinking skills, teaching methods, and the current dominant teaching of unicorn existence in schools. Then look at the morality of an ideology that frames homosexuals as sinners. Weight all of the above against the egregious act of name calling, and then prioritize your outrage accordingly.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say about adolescent brains and the demeaning term “little brains”. Clearly you were not referring to underdevelopment or critical thinking abilites. Was that an attempted excuse for your hypocricy about name-calling? Are you familiar with the term “hypocricy”? Perhaps you could try to Google it.
Thanks to the unconditional support from the Christian Right and the publicity given them by Faux News, these kids have learned a valuable lesson indeed: any time someone says something you find offensive, you should cry “bully!”
And everyone will rush to your defense, never questioning whether any actual bullying occurred. Good lesson. It will serve them well in life. And they’ll be better, more objective and honest journalists for knowing when to run and hide from a story.
“any time someone says something you find offensive, you should cry “bully!”
- as opposed to crying “racist!” “sexist!” or other accusation? Its a tactic that should seem quite familiar to liberal activists.
I remember some years ago a very funny media exchange.
UK radio presenter called James Whale, who was seen as a shock jock and very blunt, direct and he would even say people were being stupid during call in shows and cut them off.
A TV producer thought it would be funny to put James Whale in a live discussion and invited the Chairman of “The Polite Society” to take part – they were just waiting for the sparks to fly.
The TV host was non plussed when they asked “The Polite Society” chairman if James Whale was rude – and the answer was “No”! He’s Direct, Challenging, Makes his Point, Tells you when he Disagrees and Why, and he tells you what he will do about it – he’s ever so polite and clear.
It was one hell of a TV show, but not what anyone expected.
Calling a spade a spade is polite – calling it by another name is often confusing and even disingenuous.
If you watch the whole video, rather than the clip shown here, it becomes clear very quickly that he isn’t actually being particularly offensive. Aside from the word ‘bullshit’, all he’s saying is that the bible doesn’t always get it right, and here are some examples of when it’s been wrong. It is after they have left that he says, in more offensive terms, that it didn’t take much for them to leave, considering the abuse that gay and lesbian students are expected to suffer.
Also, many of those students clearly stood up and started leaving as soon as he said, ‘I’m going to talk about the bible’, which really isn’t an offensive statement.
Personally, I found the suggestion that you would only protect your gay students out of obligation quite offensive.
An undiplomatic and counterproductive way to present his ideas, but I wouldn’t call his remarks bullying against Christians.
Part of the fuss is that he said out loud what a lot of people feel about passages in the Bible not being applicable to present-day society. If there are things you disagree with in today’s version of what is commonly called the Bible, then you have a right to say so.
American Christians generally don’t refer to the dietary restrictions in the Bible as “bullshit,” but they regularly disregard them. Every time you eat bacon or a cheeseburger (or worse, a bacon cheeseburger!) you are saying that you don’t have to follow everything the Bible tells you to do.
The good news is that historically the Bible has been pretty malleable. Just retranslate a few passages, ignore the portions you don’t like, and keep going. Christianity has been doing that for 2000 years, which is one of the reasons for its long-term success as a religion.
Dan, Dan Dan…this is why you get glitter bombed. Not only do you resort to calling some teenagers names, but you have to call them “pansy-asses?” Really? Pansies? Way to use a term that calls into question their masculinity as an insult.
That being said, whoever arranged for Dan Savage to talk to these teenagers had to know what they were in for. Tact isn’t exactly in his repertoire. And while I think that calling them names was taking it a step too far, what he said about the Bible wasn’t a problem. Firstly, calling a religious doctrine bullshit is entirely different to attacking the individuals who practice that religion. Secondly, and more importantly, if you look at that quote you’ll see that he didn’t even say the entire Bible is bullshit. He said, specifically, the bits that are anti-gay are bullshit. Heck, there are gay Christians who agree with him, though they might not use that exact term.
Correction: Mr Savage called a large number of references within the Bible “Bull Shit” – He made reference to one passage in The Bible (He did not state edition or Christian Denomination) that related to homosexuality – Leviticus – I presume 18:12 – and he also makes reference to Timothy and Romans too on that subject.
He also mentions Bull Shit and the Bibles Relationship to;
1 ) Shellfish (Not eating of),
2 ) Slavery (Promotion of),
3 ) Dinner (content of and timing of),
4 ) Farming (control of crop planting and for those who plant crops side by side, execution of),
5 ) Menstruation (Supposed Filthy nature of),
6 ) Virginity (protection of and for none virgins murder of)
7 ) Masturbation (male seed, spilling of)
His references do cover both new and old testaments.
He of course could have addressed the promotion of genocide, infanticide, taking of property by force and a number of other issues that are seen as socially and even legally relevant, and which are all legislated against under federal and state law.
Mr savage also addressed such matters as Slavery in The Bible (Generic Edition again) with reference to Paul – and how many Colonial Americans and post Colonials waved bibles as Justification for Slavery!
I understand that the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution does not allow Slavery, but it does not prevent people justifying Slavery using The Bible, in any version or from any theological perspective.
Mr savage was most fair in dealing with the Bible and it’s messages, which some state and believe to be unalterable, and did raise the question as to why State Legislators would be addressing the Legal Implications, and legal protections of, None Virgin Females who still remain at risk of summary execution by Blunt Force Trauma during or shortly after the wedding party is over.
Mr Savage did make it clear that people “Choose” what they believe in The Bible – and I note he does make it clear that choice is a matter he will discuss widely, openly and completely – as he does here!
If some wish to claim Religious Rights to Discriminate and want that allowed by law – they really do need to claim all the rights and even the obligations they own religiously under The Bible, and not just the ones that are convenient – else it smacks of political opportunism – and in the USA that does raise the issues of separation of Church (All Churches and Religious denominations – not solely Christians) and State.
The section of the presentation which is seen as so controversial last 3 minutes and 21 seconds. I understand that in total the presentation was just under the allotted 90 minutes.
It is interesting to hypothesis that some 95% of what was said was so UN-noteworthy – or maybe someone is waiting to publish his views on the Qua-ran – and Mr Savages take on the Paternity and Obesity of a chap called Buddha.
Also, for the record, as an adherent of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I find all this religious blather by these pagans repellent. I would just walk out on the whole darned world, but I have a right to stay here, be heard and worship His Noodly Goodness just as much as any other religous person.
If they dare tread on me, you can bet I’ll whack them upside the head with a frozen lasagna and put them and their rotten meatballs in their proper place.
On that note, may you be blessed by the touch of His Noodly Appendage this day.
Ramen
Ramen brother! I believe we should spread the word of the FSM and let others be touched by his Noodly Appendage. I once tried to convert a preacher who stood on a street corner of my college campus every day, and offered him a package of chicken flavor Ramen in the name of peace. He did not accept this offer, and instead was horrified by our religion. He said that we were worshiping a false idol and took particular offense to the word “Monster” in the name of our god. He also did not like the idea of our heaven. Oh, what a silly pagan. I hope one day he realizes how wrong he is and can embrace the Flying Spaghetti Monster and be touched by his Noodly Appendage.
Ramen
But firing up the outrage and umbrage machine is so fun!
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/05/christians-gays-and-bullying
I would have dragged Dan’s arse down off that stage and kept him there. He is a zero-grace moron with little-to-no regard for anyone but Danny. Very typical garbage. He is worthy of NONE of this feeble attention.