Comment on Entry: Dan Savage bullies student audience, authored by Ron Hebron
1. When someone can't find better descriptors or ways to explain their views than to swear and call people names, it belies their lack of intelligence.

But it's OK when Leftists rant and swear. As long as it is in the politically correct direction.

Bruce will condemn the swearing, and then justify it it in some way.

Posted by Jeff B. at April 30, 2012 09:05 AM
2. Savage = scumbag.

Posted by Hinton at April 30, 2012 09:13 AM
3. how is this A-hole given a forum to spout his filth and hate,and lucky for us we have a POTUS that associates with this clown.Now i understand why the hildabeast is finally proud of her country.

Posted by jtm371 at April 30, 2012 09:17 AM
4. I agree with Dave Ross (KIRO-FM 97.3, 09:00 - 12:00), this was a journalism group. Despite personal beliefs on aspiring to major in journalism must discount this type of rhetoric and look at the whole forest instead of a few trees. :)

Posted by Duffman at April 30, 2012 09:40 AM
5. Savage has a chemical imbalance, makes my skin crawl and is a bonafide hater. If the RNC were smart, they would highlight his ads with his hate speech loaded with false allegations. He's right down in the gutter with Sharpton and the other radical leftist surrogates.

Before he opened his piehole, I found the Stranger somewhat entertaining.

Posted by KDS at April 30, 2012 09:45 AM
6. #4 - In deference to Dave Ross - It appears that there are more than just a few trees out there spouting the hate/offensive rhetoric in a veiled attempt to distract from the real issues and the referendum on Obama. The numbers of "bad trees" are making the whole forest look diseased.

This is and will continue to be the dirtiest POTUS reelection campaign on record.

Posted by KDS at April 30, 2012 09:52 AM
7. Ultimately, liberals always revel themselves.

Do the happy dance that Savage did .. during election ugliness ... while bullying is in the spotlight ... in the middle of the 'war on women' ... and ALL sanctioned by the Obama white house.

That's a delicious campaign ad waiting to happen.

Thanks, Dan. WE always knew you were a selfish, sanctimonious, hypocritical ass. Now the rest of America does too.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at April 30, 2012 10:35 AM
8. "The Loving Left" strikes again.

With encouragement like that, who needs put-downs?

Posted by Monterey at April 30, 2012 10:53 AM
9. Anti-Bulling Bully Bullies Christians and the Anti-Bullying Community Remains Silent
Like all bullies, Savage is a coward.

I just love ironic tipping points of the sanctimonious.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at April 30, 2012 11:03 AM
10. Dan Savage is a moron and a clown to boot. As if I needed to point that reality out.

Posted by Rick D. at April 30, 2012 11:05 AM
11. The first time I heard of Dan Savage he reportedly danced with outgoing governor Mike Lowry while dressed in a white wedding gown at Gary Locke's first governor's inaugural ball. Birds of a feather...

With all due respect to the above commenters, Dan Savage is far lower than just a coward, moron, bully, clown, selfish, santcimonious, hypocritical ass, hater, A-hole and/or leftist. He is a genuinely evil, vile pervert who preys on children an poorly-educated, morally-deficient young people. I'd like to think that there will be a special place in hell for putrilage like Savage.

And to you leftists out there...Mike-Boy, dork, Tensor, Bruce, Dimo Child, etc. Care to weigh in on Savage?

Posted by Saltherring at April 30, 2012 12:20 PM
12. So, at any point did it occur to Tuttle to stand up and say, "hold it;" or did he just sit there on his thumb and allow the "inappropriate sexual innuendo" to continue?

Posted by jj at April 30, 2012 12:41 PM
13. http://www.calltoawareness.blogspot.com/2012/04/dan-savage-and-bible.html

Dan Savage has no clue what the Bible teaches about slavery. He cannot make the distinction between prescriptive and descriptive laws, and God's temporal and specific commands, versus general fixed ones. Why is this? Because he has no desire to learn what the Bible actually says, he just knows that the Bible condemns sex between people of the same gender, and he does not like that particular doctrine. Rather that listen to a raunchy sex columnist, why not learn from Paul Copan, Daniel B Wallace, Tom Gilson, and Crag Blomberg who are all actually knowledgeable in this area?

Posted by Eric Miller at April 30, 2012 01:06 PM
14. It's telling that no one here is even trying to rebut the substance of Savage's comments.

His speech was "a pointed attack on Christian beliefs"? Do you mean his attack on slavery? His attack on stoning non-virgin brides to death? Or his attack on the belief that it's a sin to be gay?

I agree that Savage shouldn't have called the students a name, and he promptly apologized for doing that. But bravo to Ron and SoundPolitics for taking the lead in opposing name-calling!

Posted by Bruce at April 30, 2012 01:20 PM
15. The model of 'tolerance'. But it's okay that he treats people terribly (remember when he deceived a presidential campaign about being a supporter and then licked all the doorknobs with cold virus germs?). He votes correctly. That is all that matters.

Posted by Monterey at April 30, 2012 02:24 PM
16. @14, as predicted @1,

Of course there is ridiculous stuff in the bible. As far as I have read, it is not a literal document. But that's no reason to impugn someone's religious beliefs and call them names.

Note how when this happens on the Left and there is an insincere apology (does anyone think the habitually caustic Savage takes his apology seriously?) all is suddenly happy and right again in the world. Whereas had this been Rush Limbaugh, the calls for his ouster would continue and to be sure, that's exactly what happened with Fluke.

A prime reason not to vote Left is the utter hypocrisy and unfairness in everything they do.

Posted by Jeff B. at April 30, 2012 03:12 PM
17. Jeff, Savage didn't "impugn someone's religious beliefs". I challenge you to show where he did.

He did say there was some bull* in the bible; you say there is ridiculous stuff there. I prefer your language but the substance is the same.

But I'm glad you don't take the bible literally. We agree on something.

Posted by Bruce at April 30, 2012 03:38 PM
18. Maybe he should also have taken the Quran to task for their treatment of homosexuality. Well, maybe not. He would be put on a hit list or something for that. Ad yet he paints Christians as the bad guys. Amusing.

Posted by katomar at April 30, 2012 03:45 PM
19. Bruce obviously knows as little about the Bible as he does anything else. Stoning was practiced under Old Testament law which was superceded by Christ's death and resurrection. We are now under the New Covenant, where sinners (all humans) can repent of their sins, confess Jesus Christ as Savior, receive his grace and upon death, enter and live forever in the Kingdom of Heaven. Remember also that repentance is not just confessing sin, but turning from sinful activity.

And yes, sex outside marriage is sin. All homosexual sex is sin, and that is why Dan Savage hates God's Word and God Himself. He knows he has no hope of heaven and as such, curses God.

If you want the New Testament chapters and verses on homosexuality, Bruce, I can provide them.

Posted by Saltherring at April 30, 2012 03:49 PM
20. Bruce: It's telling that no one here is even trying to rebut the substance of Savage's comments.

False. There is nothing "telling" about this. The point is about Savage being a terrible bully -- which is nothing new, he's always been a bully -- and whether what he says is true or a lie, it's still bullying.


I agree that Savage shouldn't have called the students a name, and he promptly apologized for doing that.

First, you agree he was a bully. So that's really the whole point right there. (Name-calling does not make one a bully, but name-calling minors when they do something you dislike, in order to publicly humiliate them, while you're in a position of authority over them? Yes, that's bullying.)

Second, no, he offered no serious apology, no.


Savage didn't "impugn someone's religious beliefs"

False.


I challenge you to show where he did.

Um, where he said that what the Bible "says about gay people" is "bullshit." That directly impugns the religious beliefs of every Christian who believes what the Bible says on that topic. Please be serious.


And yes, as Saltherring and others point out, Savage is extremely ignorant about Christianity. But it's irrelevant. Savage can be ignorant, and not be a bully. He can be educated, and not be a bully. The fact that he is ignorant is irrelevant to the fact that he is a bully.

Posted by pudge at April 30, 2012 04:35 PM
21. Sorry, trolls, This isn't the place for Bible commentary. This is about the bully being paid to bully by Journalism Education Association and the National Scholastic Press Association.

Posted by Ron Hebron at April 30, 2012 05:24 PM
22. the teachers must have been living under a rock if they didn't know Dan Savage is a vulgar proponent of exploitative sex....his column should be x rated...he's an opportunist...why would they invite a porno-potty-mouth like Dan Savage to speak to high school students. and, yes, he's a bully, it's the orwellian world of "anti-bullying" where if you even ask the question "why" or say something like "how do you know that's true?" you will be threatened for daring to ask a question, threatened by the most politically correct..."Little Pink Guards"

Posted by eva at April 30, 2012 06:47 PM
23. Your mistake here was in referring to Savage as an adult.

Posted by Kato at April 30, 2012 07:35 PM
24. Todays students must be more mild mannered. My graduating class would have have heckled that d-bag off the stage in 2 minutes.

Not all bullies are evil. Some of us retired bad teachers that the unions would otherwise protect and kept agenda proned liberals like Savage from infiltrating the ed system.

Also if you want to make a target out of anyone in school, just tell the other kids NOT to pick on them. Oh- to be young again!!!

Posted by Andy at April 30, 2012 07:41 PM
25. Ever notice that with Leftists like Savage, there is a little more of their hostility, before they assure us that will lead to tolerance. A little more of their redistribution before they assure us that will lead to equality. A little more racism before they assure us that leads to color blindness. Etc.

As long as that Hostility and Bullying is of the Leftist brand (oh and by the way, that comes with a lucrative speaking fee for Dan) it gets swept under the rug.

Posted by Jeff B. at April 30, 2012 08:21 PM
26. And what is it with Leftists and penis envy?
Remember Anthony Weiner? Now Dan Savage and his partner's Speedo? Paging Freud!

Hey Dan, no one wants to hear about your sex life! Keep it in your pants until you get home like the rest of us. Everyone likes sex, but the rest of us normal people don't feel the need to impose that on an auditorium full of teenagers attending a lecture on bullying.

Posted by Jeff B. at April 30, 2012 08:29 PM
27. Eva gets it right. Who doesn't recognize Savage's name and his well-known, media-publicized lewd and anti-Christian agenda? I blame school officials for turning this turd-tongue loose on marginally-educated high school kids. Sounds like someone besides Savage has an agenda.

Posted by Saltherring at April 30, 2012 08:56 PM
28. Jeff B:

Yes, we all like sex, but not pervert style like Savage. There is a reason God burned Sodom and Gomorrah with fire.

Posted by Saltherring at April 30, 2012 09:00 PM
29. So, at any point did it occur to Tuttle to stand up and say, "hold it;" or did he just sit there on his thumb and allow the "inappropriate sexual innuendo" to continue?
Posted by jj at April 30, 2012 12:41 PM

Some youths were so distraught and disturbed by Savage's words that they literally walked out of the event. It was at that point -- after they left and were visibly offended -- that the founder of the "It Gets Better" campaign referred to them as "pansy asses."

So what would have been appropriate jj?
A hook around his neck to pull him off stage?
A yelling match with the rude guest?
An altercation with a 'man' who clearly has few considerations of proper behavior and who relishes the attention of the conflict he causes?
What exactly would you do to deprive the attention whore if his addiction fix?

Jeff, Savage didn't "impugn someone's religious beliefs". I challenge you to show where he did.

He did say there was some bull* in the bible; you say there is ridiculous stuff there. I prefer your language but the substance is the same. - Posted by Bruce at April 30, 2012 03:38 PM

Dan Savage Bullies Christian High School Students In His Anti-Bullying Campaign

And you can view the "anti-bullying" tirade here. Complete with calling the "Bible people" a bunch of "pansy asses."


Anti-bullying icon bullies students with obscenity-laced anti-Christian rant

"I thought this would be about anti-bullying," Tuttle told Fox news. "It turned into a pointed attack on Christian beliefs."

"It became hostile," he said. "It felt hostile as we were sitting in the audience - especially towards Christians who espouse beliefs that he was literally taking on."


BULLY BACK: Columnist Dan Savage stands by comments on 'bulls**t in the Bible'...

So Bruce, I guess Christianity and the bashing of it is in the eye of the beholder, eh? Kinda like the "choice" of murder in the womb vs pregnancey, eh? It certainly explains why you and the sycophant apologists don't see any bashing, eh Mizaru, Kikazaru and Iwazaru?

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at April 30, 2012 09:10 PM
30. Mr Savage has a fundamental ignorance and cluelessness about church history, and about present-day Christians.

At the same time, I feel very sorry for him, he sure has a lot of chips on his shoulder.

First, in Roman times, the early Church had a very strong presence of slaves. One of the church's main uses of funds was to help slaves buy freedom.

Second, there are plenty of people who have used the bible in one way or in another way. In the slavery era of America, Mr Savage chooses to ignore the role of Christians in the abolitionist movement. No church, no abolition.

Third, today, there are many Christian organizations working to end slavery.

As to sexuality: this is where we have to feel very sorry for Mr Savage because he seems to have no other filters for making sense of the world. Everything seems to be sexualized in his point of view.

I guess what I would suggest is the Journalism conference provide a venue for some alternative points of view like the ones above to be presented.

I have no doubt there are some groups of people who are using the bible to brow-beat people who are in favor of condemning homosexuality, and some groups that use the bible to condone homosexuals. There are two sides to everything, except in Savageland.

His "apology" was so sarcastic, I don't think anyone should take it (or him) seriously.

Posted by commentator at April 30, 2012 09:19 PM
31. For more context, here's Mr. Savage giving marital advice, in the Seattle PI Big Blog. This is real, people:

"It's no secret that Dan Savage, Seattle's best-known sex columnist, has reservations about monogamy. Anyone who has read a few of his syndicated Savage Love columns knows he thinks infidelity can be good for a marriage, as long as couples are honest with each other and establish boundaries.

Savage and his husband Terry Miller recently opened up to the New York Times Magazine about how their marriage works. (Not to mention why Arnold Schwarzenegger's didn't.)

"You assume as a younger person that all relationships are monogamous and between two people, that love means nothing can come between you," Miller said. "Dan has taught me to be more realistic about that kind of stuff."

More from the magazine article:

It was four or five years before it came up," Miller said. "It's not about having three-ways with somebody or having an open relationship. It is just sort of like, Dan has always said if you have different tastes, you have to be good, giving and game, and if you are not G.G.G. for those tastes, then you have to give your partner the out. It took me a while to get down with that."

When I asked Savage how many extramarital encounters there have been, he laughed shyly. "Double digits?" I asked. He said he wasn't sure; later he and Miller counted, and he reported back that the number was nine. "And far from it being a destabilizing force in our relationship, it's been a stabilizing force. It may be why we're still together."

Posted by Monterey at May 1, 2012 12:05 AM
32. The difference between Dan Savage and Dawn Eden

It was quite a Sunday. I went from a book signing for my friend Dawn Eden, a brilliant Catholic writer and chastity advocate, to watching (on YouTube) as Dan Savage harangued a group of students about the "bullshit in the Bible." Talk about the two Americas.

... Savage, a man whose toxic self-hate virtually oozes out of his pores, was addressing a group of high school journalism students -- at, um, a Christian school -- when, as is usually the case, his congenital hatred flooded his corpuscles and he began to rant. The Bible is wrong about shellfish and slavery, he announced, and therefore it is wrong about homosexuality. A bunch of kids walked out, and it is now a big scandal.

... At this point I could offer a comparison between the enslaved and enraged Savage (who is a wonderful advocate for marriage; he's only cheated on his partner nine times) and the free and joyful Dawn. But I actually feel sorry for Savage -- and for the gay community, which has to suffer him as a representative. Because the truth is, gay kids do get bullied in school, and the change in consciousness and seriousness about the issue that, yes, Savage and others have initiated is valuable and worth encouraging. Somewhere out there is a kid who won't take his life tonight, and Savage may be responsible for that.

Yet the same righteous fuel that made Savage launch his anti-bullying campaign seems to also work as a poisonous toxin. ... Dan Savage cannot stand the idea that there is one person in this world who disagrees with him about homosexuality. Even people who think that homosexuality is innate and have no problem with civil unions but maintain that there is a difference between the male body and the female body are haters, outcasts, intolerant. He won't rest until the last holdout is showered in condoms.

... When I saw the video of Savage attacking the Bible and bullying his audience, I immediately thought of Big Brother. Savage's image, broadcast on what looked like a JumboTron, was cold, harsh, punitive. It was the book "1984" and he was our dictator announcing time for Two Minutes Hate. And the subject was the Christian. Contrast his granite visage with the smiling, almost carefree faces of the kids who were walking out.

Indeed, their faces were like Dawn Eden's. They didn't seem outraged or offended as much as bemused and bored. They've heard it before. It is the unchanging, utopian-demanding screed of the liberal in desperate need of therapy. Perhaps he needs to read Dawn Eden's books.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at May 1, 2012 10:00 AM
33. Someone start the stopwatch. If he keeps it up he will have his own show on MSNBC in no time.

Posted by Smoley at May 1, 2012 10:41 AM
34. Oh boy. I don't care for Savage's politics, but his point here is far more valid than Ron or some of the commentors want to acknowledge. A few points:

1) It doesn't matter if *you* (and *you* know who you are) don't see the Bible as a literal document, or you see differences in various types of laws. The fact is a lot of Christians (and I live in Virginia now, where a lot of them live) do view the precepts about homosexuality as literally true because it is in the Bible. You can argue that they're wrong, but that would be an example of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. These people still act on these statements as if they are acting on the literal received word of God through his instrument The Bible.

2) These same Christians who claim to believe in the formal truth of this one law do frequently do so while eating blue crab boils and bacon cheeseburger, ignoring other laws right down the page from the ones they want to enforce.

3) While he certainly wasn't civil (and I don't condone this incivility), but Savage's central point was "I have a right to defend myself, and to point out the hypocrisy of people who justify anti-gay bigotry by pointing to the bible and insisting we must live by the code of Leviticus on this one issue and no other." If this is an attack on someone's religion, then it is an attack on a religion that is hypocritical. We live under the Constitution, where pointing this out is protected speech, no matter how uncivil.

4) Lastly, I do agree with commentary's that the Biblical prohibitions are of a different time than the world we live in today. That point, however, argues even more in favor of Savage. The fact that people get their morals from an anachronistic set of rules (assuming for a second that the Bible is indeed not the literal word of God") and then vote on them is at least very strange to the non-believers in the world, if not downright ludicrous. That these people then use one or two of these rules (often out of context and without any awareness of the subtleties lost in translation) while ignoring others certainly can be equated with the abuse of the Bible in favor of slavery. That some people use their religion to do good works doesn't take away from the fact that a loud minority (at least) also used the same Biblical texts to justify doing evil things. Saying some used the same book to do good works doesn't excuse the (mis)use by the evil-doers.

In the end, I think that Christians who do believe in a non-literal use of the Bible and do realize that it is hypocritical to pick and choose the laws that you're going to treat literally to call out those that do so. That is really all that Savage was doing there, and it's a crying shame so many Christians found that offensive.

Posted by AnonyMLA at May 1, 2012 02:26 PM
35. Compare Savage's bullying tactics with the Occupy movement today. See the common thread? For these Leftists, violence, bullying, destruction, hedonism, cheating, etc. is all within bounds. This is ingrained in their philosophy.

They don't even know the word persuasion. Because if you don't bow down to their ideas immediately, they will shout you down, or bash the glass of your shop door in, or suggest as demo kid did here in the comments that you commit suicide.

Leftism is an ugly and intolerant philosophy at the core.

Posted by Jeff B. at May 1, 2012 02:28 PM
36. At 34. No it does not favor Savage's argument, because he concedes his argument in that he needs to bully it down the throats of his audience. If he instead used persuasion and simply made the case for why it is wrong to be intolerant of people because of their sexual views, that would be far more powerful.

Instead, he's effectively fighting intolerance with intolerance which fans the flames and distracts from the more important truths of homosexuality. If I was gay I would be outraged to have this guy speaking on my behalf, just as if I was black I'd be outraged to have Al Sharpton speaking on my behalf.

The only way we will ever get rid of intolerance and racism is to demonstrate through example that there is simply nothing to gained from intolerance and incivility towards our fellow man.

Note that with class warfare rhetoric, race grievance mongers, and angry gay bullies like Savage, the Left as usual takes us further away from their own stated goals of equality, tolerance and diversity.

That's why they call them Useful Idiots.

Posted by Jeff B. at May 1, 2012 02:36 PM
37. As a reformed Christian who considers the Bible to be the infallible and inerrant word of God, I find it so sad that our entire society has fallen so far away from teaching proper Christian doctrine as to know that the law regarding homosexuals no longer applies to us. The moral law - that is, the ten commandments, and the imperatives in the new testament - do apply to us, but we follow it out of love, not out of requirement. When Jesus said "it is finished.", He meant it.

That said, it doesn't make homosexuality OK. Romans 1 makes this quite clear, as does 1 Corinthians (if I recall correctly) and a couple of other places in the New Testament as well.

I wish that nominal Christians would crack their Bibles open and get doctrine and be solid in their faith. :(

Posted by Andrew Brown at May 1, 2012 10:12 PM
38. Invite a scat-eating degenerate to speak at your event?

The results are predictable.

Posted by Attila at May 2, 2012 05:29 AM
39. For the deaf and certainly dumb (read STUPID) apologists (read LIARS):

Dan Savage Savages the Bible, Christianity and the Pope

Should we be surprised when a gay activist famous for his bawdy sex column and known for his glorification of promiscuity attacks the Bible, ridicules Christian morality, and mocks the Pope in the lewdest of terms? Not at all.

Dan Savage: America Has a 'Christianity and a Bible Problem'

Editor's Note: Due to the nature of Dan Savage's comments, there are some potentially offensive words included in this story.

The media have been glossing over militant gay activist Dan Savage's brutal war on Christians during a talk at Elmhurst College last week. Conservative activist Peter LaBarbera claims he was removed from the "It Gets Better" founder's event after LaBarbera expressed his Christian views, and attempted to question Savage about his vile attack on conservative presidential candidate Rick Santorum.

... According to LaBarbera, Savage wasn't afraid to make uncouth slurs about the pope and Catholicism either. "He said the pope is projecting, which translates to the pope is secretly gay," said LaBarbera. "He said the pope believes once gays marriage is widespread then all people will forget which hole sh*ts babies."


Savage Speech Reveals Double Standard

In addition to pushing to redefine marriage in different states around the country, homosexual activists have spent the last year or two pushing for censorship of free speech under the guise of "anti-bullying" campaigns.

... This is a perfect example of the anti-bullying campaign double standard. While homosexual activists contend that anti-bullying laws should protect people who practice homosexual behavior from hearing the negative opinions of others regarding that behavior, and shield them from the Bible's teaching on the subject, activists like Savage (and many others) want to be free to call Christians names and debase and mock the Bible. Savage's hypocrisy was even more egregious than typical student to student speech because he is an adult who used his position of authority to vilify kids who disagreed with his anti-biblical views, but had no way of responding.

Savage's rant demonstrates that he and his colleagues want Constitutional protection to offend and criticize people of faith who believe homosexual behavior is harmful, but are pushing for laws that criminalize any speech they find offensive.

So, PLEASE keep up The Great Scum Defense Project. It does so much to cement your credibility and bona fides as "caring", "TOLERANT" liberals ... and AGAIN confirms to the rest of us that the JACKASS was perfectly chosen as the symbol of your ideology.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at May 2, 2012 09:52 AM
40. I don't think he's fit to speak to a doorknob, but a lot of students at that age (probably including some that walked out) aren't much brighter than one themselves.

I don't know what Savage's first mistake was, but he probably made many by the time he got to the point of thinking that public schools are an appropriate place to either attack or endorse any religion. It should be plain as day now (sadly) that any given community just isn't mature enough to be able to handle discussions whatsoever regarding religion and public education.

Whoever invited him, and whoever attended certainly wanted some level of drama to result. They got it, now move on.

Posted by Brian at May 2, 2012 10:42 AM
41. Dan Savage's apology was insincere and contradictory. Even Perez Hilton, repudiated his actions. Not one word from the President though - no surprise either. Upon close examination, it is easy to see through Obama's rhetoric which is narcissistic and divisive propaganda-right out of the same playbook that Chavez, Castro and other successful dictators use.

They can easily be described as two peas in a pod


Posted by KDS at May 2, 2012 12:30 PM
42. Should any President be expected to comment on every minor thing that attracts the slightest public attention?

I'm not a fan of Obama's, but how can anyone seriously expect a President to do something like that for every (truly) minor incident?

Posted by Brian at May 2, 2012 12:40 PM
43. 'Face of Progressive Hate?' Gay Rights Activist Dan Savage Goes on Graphic Rant About Homosexuality & the Pope
"What the pope is saying is that the only thing that stands between my d*** and Brad Pitt's mouth is a piece of paper."


PLEASE, keep up The Great Scum Defense Project. It does so much to cement your credibility and bona fides as "caring", "TOLERANT liberals ... and AGAIN confirms to the rest of us that the JACKASS was perfectly chosen as the symbol of your ideology.

What Dan Savage Doesn't Know about the Bible and Slavery

During an April 13 keynote speech delivered to thousands of people attending a high school journalism conference in Seattle, "anti-bullying advocate" Dan Savage launched an expletive-filled tirade against Bible, stating that people should "learn to ignore the bulls--t in the Bible" about homosexuality because "we have learned to ignore the bulls--t in the Bible about shellfish, about slavery, about dinner, about farming, about menstruation, about virginity, about masturbation."

PLEASE, keep up The Great Scum Defense Project. It does so much to cement your credibility and bona fides as "caring", "TOLERANT liberals ... and AGAIN confirms to the rest of us that the JACKASS was perfectly chosen as the symbol of your ideology.

*Yes, I meant to say it TWICE and yes, I will continue to pound your lies, hypocrisy and cowardice.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at May 2, 2012 12:44 PM
44. Andrew Brown is correct. Self-proclaimed 'theologists' like commenter 34, who pretends to have all the answers, are nothing more than simple-minded fools.

Any non-Christian who offers his opinion as to what the Bible says on a given subject is as reliable as Eric Holder attempting to interpret the U.S. Constitution.

Posted by Saltherring at May 2, 2012 01:39 PM
45. AnonyMLA: These same Christians who claim to believe in the formal truth of this one law do frequently do so while eating blue crab boils and bacon cheeseburger, ignoring other laws right down the page from the ones they want to enforce.

As others have pointed out, you're misinformed. If this were only an Old Testament Law, you'd have a point. But it's not, so you don't.

Romans 1 isn't the only part of Romans. Later in the book, Paul points out that everything is lawful to him, but not everything is profitable to him. Basically, a Christian won't go to hell because of homosexuality: that would be the Law. But that doesn't mean homosexuality is good or right. And Paul also points out many other sins in Romans 1, and all of us here are guilty of some of them. So when I say homosexuality is a sin, I am not condemning anyone, because I take it from a passage that also directly implicates me and everyone else I know.

But I know how to read. And I even know how to read Greek (not great, but probably as well as anyone here). And there's no justification within the text to say that Paul isn't saying homosexual sex is a "shameless act" and an "error." You don't have to like it, but it's extremely clear. This isn't the Law, and you and Savage just show your ignorance by conflating it with eating shellfish and pig.

Your bizarre attacks on people who you think unintelligently interpret the Bible differently from you do won't hold water here. I know a lot more about the Bible and its text and its subtleties than you do. You just look foolish by pretending to look down your nose at my superior knowledge and understanding.

Savage's central point was "I have a right to defend myself, and to point out the hypocrisy of people who justify anti-gay bigotry by pointing to the bible and insisting we must live by the code of Leviticus on this one issue and no other." If this is an attack on someone's religion, then it is an attack on a religion that is hypocritical.

Again, you and Savage are simply ignorant here. More importantly, though, it's not a justification for Savage's bullying. The people walking out were not attacking him. He was simply being a bully.


We live under the Constitution, where pointing this out is protected speech, no matter how uncivil.

No one says he didn't have the right to say it. You're not making a point.


The fact that people get their morals from an anachronistic set of rules (assuming for a second that the Bible is indeed not the literal word of God") and then vote on them is at least very strange to the non-believers in the world, if not downright ludicrous.

But more importantly, those non-believers are being completely hypocritical. How is it somehow ludicrous to vote based on my belief in a certain set of rules, but it's OK for you to vote based on your belief in some opposing set of rules? It's nonsense on the face of it.

So you can vote based on your secular belief that a woman should have the right to kill the living human organism in her womb, because that belief isn't based on the Bible, but I can't vote that she should not, because my belief (in part) is based on the Bible? That's just retarded.


That is really all that Savage was doing there, and it's a crying shame so many Christians found that offensive.

You're just lying. First, he didn't simply attack hypocrisy: he said the Bible is bullshit. Second, he was bullying children who did nothing more than refuse to sit and listen to an ignoramus attack their Bible.

You are obvious lying to claim he didn't do this, and it reveals that you have an agenda.

Posted by pudge at May 3, 2012 08:38 AM
46. Brian: Should any President be expected to comment on every minor thing that attracts the slightest public attention? I'm not a fan of Obama's, but how can anyone seriously expect a President to do something like that for every (truly) minor incident?

The point is that he only seems to come to the defense of people who are on his ideological side.

I can expect a President to not be so nakedly partisan when pretending to be the leader of the whole nation, yes.

Posted by pudge at May 3, 2012 08:39 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?