Saturday, April 28, 2012

The gays' Final Solution to the problem of bullying

Dan Savage is the head of the "It Gets Better" Campaign (owned by "Savage Love, L.L.C."--surely that's not a double entendré) and a sort of Oberstürmfuhrer of the Tolerance Police, which is trying to intimidate religious people into abandoning their religiously-based moral beliefs and threatening them with legislation that would restrict their Constitutional right to free speech.

Here is Mr. Savage (there is a Mrs. too, only he's a Mr.) at the podium eggsplainink how ze Bible iz evil und how ze üntermenschen (in ozer verds, ze Kristians) should be dealt vis.


Mr. Savage is very clear on what he thinks is the Final Solution to the problem of bullying.

As you can see, it's punctuated by some of the high schoolers that were there at the National High School Journalism Conference, sponsored by the Journalism Education Association and the National Scholastic Press Association, leaving during his speech, apparently out of protest.

Zey vill be dealt vis later.

Among other things, Savage writes a sex advice column called "Savage Love." Here is an account of Mr. Savage's message (From the Wikipedia article):
The openly gay author uses the column as a forum for his strong opinions that reject conservative views on love, sex, and family. He generally encourages advice-seekers to pursue their fetishes, so long as activities are legal, consensual, safe, and respectful. The tone of the column is humorous, and Savage does not shy away from using profanity. The cornerstone of his sexual ethics is consent; he is thus strongly opposed to bestiality, child molestation, and rape. He speaks out against incest and social inequality, too. Though Savage encourages sexual experimentation, he does not encourage carelessness. He frequently uses his position to promote safer sex and awareness of AIDS.
We're so glad he speaks out against incest. We're just wondering what he thinks of consensual incest.

I'm sure we can all agree that this is just the man we need speaking to the nation's schoolchildren. They won't know how to read and write, but buddy, they'll know how to pursue their fetishes.

Achtung.

65 comments:

Singring said...

In Germany, we have a rule in debating: Anyone who compares an opponent to Nazis or their position to teh Holocaust has lost the argument and is pretty much done in public discourse.

You know, Martin, every once in a while you cross a line. Like today. If you have any kind of human decency at all, you do not euqte a gay activist with the SS. You just don't. And you especially don't equate gay activism to the Final Solution.

You. Don't.

Nowhere in that video you posted does Mr. Savage advocate violence against Christians. In fact, where does he say anything about the Bible that is untrue?

So I'm just asking you, out of basic human decency, to remove this post before you realize what you've done and save yourself and every other anti-gay conservative a lot of embarassment.

Lee said...

What comparison should we use when someone's opponent is, you know, like a Nazi?

Singring said...

'What comparison should we use when someone's opponent is, you know, like a Nazi?'

In what way is Mr. Savage 'like a Nazi'?

In what way is he like someone who led millions of men, women and children first to cattle cars on trains and then to gas chambers? In what way is he like someone who started a world war that cost most countries in the world millions of young lives?

Have you ever been to an extermination camp, Lee? To you have even the faintest clue of what the Nazis wrought in Europe?

In what way is Mr. Savage - or any gay rights activist - like that?

Or does it just give you kicks to trivializing the horrors of Nazi Germany while at the same time feigning disgust over them?

Lee said...

> In what way is Mr. Savage 'like a Nazi'?

Reading is fundamental, Singring. Where did I say Mr. Savage is like a Nazi? Or imply it?

You said, quote, "Anyone who compares an opponent to Nazis or their position to teh Holocaust has lost the argument and is pretty much done in public discourse."

I'm simply challenging your statement. How does one characterize someone who's like a Nazi, if you lose the argument just by observing that fact?

Singring said...

'I'm simply challenging your statement. How does one characterize someone who's like a Nazi, if you lose the argument just by observing that fact?'

So then you agree with me that Martin is way out of bounds here, rather than tacitly approving of this screed? I'd just like to hear you say it, from one decent human being to the other.

As to your (specious) point: In Germany, we generally don't debate people who are *actually* like Nazis. In fact, in Germany you can be arrested just for denying the Holocaust, never mind advocating a new one. If we come across someone who seems to *actually* be like a Nazi, we put them to trial and if they turn out to *actually* be like Nazis, we lock them up.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

Over there, you had the Third Reich, a political regime, and Adolf Hitler, who was a tyrannical dictator. Over here, all we ever had was Hogan's Heroes, a TV show, and Col. Klink, a buffoonish prison camp administrator--not to mention the ridiculous Major Hochstetter of the SS.

I didn't have Hitler in mind when discussing Savage, but Col. Klink and Maj. Hochstetter. If that bothers your German conscience, then I'm afraid that's not my problem.

Maybe you all should have been making hit comedy TV shows like we were rather than trying to take over the world.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

And by the way, you're getting all moralistic on us again, which as I keep pointing out, is rather ironic given the moral subjectivism you are always spouting on this blog.

When you refer to "out of bounds," are you referring to some kind of moral boundaries, or are you refer to your feelings again?

Singring said...

'Over there, you had the Third Reich, a political regime, and Adolf Hitler, who was a tyrannical dictator. Over here, all we ever had was Hogan's Heroes, a TV show, and Col. Klink, a buffoonish prison camp administrator--not to mention the ridiculous Major Hochstetter of the SS.'

I know Hogan's Heroes. It's even been on German TV. But when we bring up the Third Reich or the Final Solution, we don't think sitcom. We think extermination camps.

But apparently when you reference the Third Reich or the Final Solution, you're thinking 'Hogan's Heroes'? And you expect your readers to do so as well, because obviously a camp 70s sitcom is the first thing that comes to mind when a gay activist is compared to an Obersturmfuehrer? I'm sure Yad Vashem would be thrilled to hear this.

And you teach children?

Goodness me.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

There you go getting all moralistic on us again.

If my country had built extermination camps like yours did, then I guess I would get upset whenever someone brought it up. But we didn't and I'm not.

I guess that's part of your country's punishment for doing it in the first place: you've got live with campy American sit-coms making fun of you.

What might help is getting a sense of humor (something I've heard is a little more difficult over your way). One thing I would suggest is watching campy American sit-coms.

Singring said...

'If my country had built extermination camps like yours did, then I guess I would get upset whenever someone brought it up. But we didn't and I'm not.'

Oh, so now you just 'brought them up', did you? You didn't associate them with someone you don't agree with politically? Never! Of course not!

You just go on ahead and yuck it up about Auschwitz and Bergen-Belzen and then (at least you're consistent, I'll give you that) respond to criticism by making childish 'my country is better than yours' remarks.

I wonder how your students are supposed to learn anything from someone who is obviously less mature than them?

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

I'm still confused as to how I'm supposed to take your comments here. You'd almost think that you're accusing me of being ...

... wrong.

KyCobb said...

Martin,

"Mr. Savage is very clear on what he thinks is the Final Solution to the problem of bullying."

Can you tell us what it is, because he didn't mention it in the clip. Based on what he said, it apparently involves subjecting people to the horror of being called "pansy-assed."

Anonymous said...

The "Hogan's Heros Defense"....I wonder if that is in one of Martin's logic books.

Martin Cothran said...

I realize that it is hard for the Tolerance Police to see their own buffoonishness. And it is probably a political crime for me to point it out.

I shall go into hiding.

Lee said...

> In fact, in Germany you can be arrested just for denying the Holocaust

Nothing like freedom of speech, I always say. But then, Germany has a proud history of arresting people.

Lee said...

Martin, Singring is too polite to come out and say it, but the reason you can't use the Nazi tag on people you don't like is because the Left already has a copyright on that strategy.

You know... e.g., Bushitler.

So either cease and desist, or send the requisite nickel to the Lenin is Alive Foundation Fund (LAFF), and help pay for the next LAFF riot.

Lee said...

> Can you tell us what it is, because he didn't mention it in the clip. Based on what he said, it apparently involves subjecting people to the horror of being called "pansy-assed."

Isn't that what bullies do?

Daniel said...

Martin,

If you had had an opportunity to speak to Mr. Savage after that presentation, what would you have said in response to his “discussion” of the Bible?

Sincerely,
Daniel

KyCobb said...

Lee,

"Isn't that what bullies do?"

Bullies torment their victims relentlessly. Savage merely engaged in some mockery, pretty much the same as Martin's comments about Savage in this post. Its not like Savage is going to be hanging out in those kids high schools tormenting them for being fundamentalists every day.

Lee said...

> Bullies torment their victims relentlessly.

Well, those who walked out refused to sit there and be tormented. But that doesn't change what Savage was trying to accomplish, does it?

Martin Cothran said...

Daniel,

I would have first asked him how he justified the standards by which he critiqued the Bible and pointed out that the ethics he was using in doing so were Christian ethics.

Singring said...

'I would have first asked him how he justified the standards by which he critiqued the Bible and pointed out that the ethics he was using in doing so were Christian ethics.'

Um. No.

He was pointing out the hypocrisy of Christians who do not obey most of the commandments in Leviticus, but then base their opposition to gay rights on a commandment in Leviticus.

Or do you advocate the stoning of non-virgins on their wedding night?

So he was indeed critiquing the Bible using Christian ethics.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

Upon what moral standard is hypocrisy wrong?

Singring said...

'Upon what moral standard is hypocrisy wrong?'

In this context it doesn't matter one whit what I think about hypocrisy. It matters what *you* think about hypocrisy.

If you think hypocrisy is wrong then how do you respond to the fact that Christians by and large no longer live by the rule that a non-virgin must be stoned on her wedding night, whereas some of those same Christians condemn homosexuality based on a verse from the same book of rules?

KyCobb said...

Lee,

"Well, those who walked out refused to sit there and be tormented. But that doesn't change what Savage was trying to accomplish, does it?"

What do you think he was trying to accomplish? I thought he was trying to point out the contradictions inherent in the fundamentalist mindset. You think using the word Bullsh*t is "torment"?

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

So you are or are not arguing that my post fails to meet some moral standard? And if not, then what exactly are you charging?

Daniel said...

Martin,

"I would have first asked him how he justified the standards by which he critiqued the Bible and pointed out that the ethics he was using in doing so were Christian ethics."

In what sense was he using Christian ethics? Please elaborate. Thanks. :)

Sincerely,
Daniel

Lee said...

> What do you think he was trying to accomplish?

My opinion? He was trying to bully the students who were leaving into staying.

> I thought he was trying to point out the contradictions inherent in the fundamentalist mindset.

By calling them names?

> You think using the word Bullsh*t is "torment"?

You might feel differently about it if it had been a Baptist calling atheist students names.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

"You might feel differently about it if it had been a Baptist calling atheist students names."

I'm all for vigorous debate; why do you think I post here? What I oppose is isolated students being relentlessly hounded for being different in schools. Look at those students as they were walking out on Savage. They didn't feel harassed or isolated; they were quite pleased with themselves to be standing up for their beliefs with a large group of their peers.

Martin Cothran said...

Daniel,

He spends more time on the slavery issue than any other and takes the same position that Christians have taken since the early centuries of the Church: it's wrong.

The abolitionist and civil rights movements were both driven primarily by Christian church members and Christian ministers.

Savage lives and grew up in the culture that resulted from these movements.

Where else could he have gotten them?

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

And if you don't believe in an absolute moral standard and yet you are trying to hold me to one, then isn't that attempt itself hypocritical?

Singring said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Singring said...

'So you are or are not arguing that my post fails to meet some moral standard? And if not, then what exactly are you charging?'

So now we are back to my criticism of the tone of your post, like the good old ping pong ball?

I elaborated my objection to your post.

If you hink its morally fine to liken a gay activist calling a Christian student walk-out 'pansy-assed' to the killing of approximately 12 million men, women and children in the Final Solution, then frankly I don't think we'll ever see eye to eye on any moral issue of significance, sorry. That's all I'm going to say on that subject.

'And if you don't believe in an absolute moral standard and yet you are trying to hold me to one, then isn't that attempt itself hypocritical?'

Say it with me Martin, it's not that hard:

On this issue it doesn't matter what I do or don't think is moral for whatever reason.

YOU wrote a blog post likening Mr. Savage to a member of the SS for what he said in that video, YOU think his criticism of the Bible is unfair, so YOU have to justify why you think its wrong to point out the hypocrisy of many Christians when it comes to Leviticus and homosexuality - so wrong, in fact, that you think its ok to call a person who points this out a Nazi.

All of this assumes that YOU think that hypocrisy is (always and objectively) morally wrong. If you don't, then you're off the hook. But that would make you a moral relativist/subjectivist, wouldn't it? Awkward, to say the least.

If you do think hypocrisy is (always and onjectively) morally wrong, then its up to you to explain where Mr. Savage is wrong in his criticism and Christians are not actually behaving hypocritically. So wrong that it justifies you writing that post.

This is a question of YOUR moral consistency and it has nothing to do with what I or anyone else thinks is moral, so stop trying to push it off on others.

When a governor stands up and says 'I am a man who thinks hypocrisy is always wrong and that the death penalty is also always wrong!' one day and then signs off on the execution of a prisoner the next, then he can't just defend himself by saying: 'Well, what is your moral standard for criticizing me anyway?!'

A logician should really be able to pick that up, no?

Lee said...

> What I oppose is isolated students being relentlessly hounded for being different in schools. Look at those students as they were walking out on Savage. They didn't feel harassed or isolated; they were quite pleased with themselves to be standing up for their beliefs with a large group of their peers.

Your oddly constrained definition of bullying has a couple of interesting corollaries.

You are suggesting it isn't really bullying if the attempt to bully did not succeed. Standing up to a bully means that there was no bullying in the first place. Behaving like a bully doesn't make you one because you have to be good at it.

You are also implying that because some students stood up for their beliefs, that there were no other students with similar beliefs who were too intimidated to leave. Whether there were is speculative, but it is also speculative to assume there weren't.

You are also suggesting that it isn't really bullying unless those being bullied are "relentlessly harrassed." Nobody could ever be bullied upon first encounter with a bully, because relentlessness has not yet been established.

Your constructions take an oddly tendentious direction. It's almost as if there was, you know, a double standard.

I would bet a $100 that if the speaker had been a devout Baptist who condemned homosexuality as a sin, and denounced those leaving as "pansy a**es", you would not be so dismissive, and we would not be hearing any defense of a "vigorous debate."

One Brow said...

Dan Savage has since apologized for the name-calling, by the way. He acknowledges is was wrong to call the students "pansy-assed".

Also, unless the claim is that only Christian societies have declared slavery wrong, I don't think it makes sense to say Christian ethics are responsible for saying slavery is wrong (especially since Chritians were on both sides of the slavgery debate here in the US).

Lee said...

If your tolerances for what constitutes an apology are sufficiently loose, then yes, Savage apologized.

Savage: "I would like to apologize for describing that walk out as a pansy-assed move. I wasn’t calling the handful of students who left pansies (2800+ students, most of them Christian, stayed and listened), just the walk-out itself. But that’s a distinction without a difference — kinda like when religious conservatives tells their gay friends that they ‘love the sinner, hate the sin. They’re often shocked when their gay friends get upset because, hey, they were making a distinction between the person (lovable!) and the person’s actions (not so much!). But gay people feel insulted by ‘love the sinner, hate the sin’ because it is insulting. Likewise, my use of ‘pansy-assed’ was insulting, it was name-calling, and it was wrong. And I apologize for saying it."

Whether he really apologized, or just used the occasion of his apology to score more polemic points, is debatable. My contrition meter isn't registering very many clicks.

And tt does not change the fact, nor does it seem to have occurred to his supporters, that the behavior he engaged in is the same stuff he was there to speak out against -- namely, bullying.

> Also, unless the claim is that only Christian societies have declared slavery wrong

Do they get any points for being the first?

One Brow said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
KyCobb said...

Lee,

I understand, with you its always the magical balance fairy. What Dan Savage said is exactly like an isolated gay student being relentlessly harassed day after day at school. Got it.

Lee said...

> I understand, with you its always the magical balance fairy. What Dan Savage said is exactly like an isolated gay student being relentlessly harassed day after day at school. Got it.

Would you just please admit, for crying out loud, that Dan Savage engaged in bullying, the same thing he was supposed to speak against?

How hard is it to get a liberal to admit the obvious? It can take a long time.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

I simply can't see the world the same way you do. Its beyond me how you can watch that video and think its exactly the same thing as an isolated student be relentlessly harassed day after day. Apparently, even though those fundy high school students were surrounded by supportive fellow believers, their poor nerves are so sensitive they cannot be subjected to even the mildest criticisms of their beliefs.

Lee said...

Breitbart called my attention to an article posted at a site of which, according to Breitbart, Dan Savage is the editorial director. The article is entitled, "Why All the Smashy-Smashy? A Beginner's Guide to Targeted Property Destruction."

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/05/02/why-all-the-smashy-smashy-a-begininners-guide-to-targeted-property-destruction

The article justifies the use of vandalism to intimidate businesses. "Hurting businesses where it counts—their pocketbooks—is a way to get their attention. When the ELF (which isn't really an organization, more an ideology, but whatever) burns down a ski resort or an SUV lot, they're causing damage that hurts the bottom line in some way."

Bullying, taken to another level.

Mr. Savage is some poster child for an anti-bullying campaign, is he not?

Lee said...

> Apparently, even though those fundy high school students were surrounded by supportive fellow believers, their poor nerves are so sensitive they cannot be subjected to even the mildest criticisms of their beliefs.

In your world, it isn't bad behavior that is bad, it's how the behavior is perceived. The same behavior that might provoke a teenaged homosexual to cry is okay so long as it is directed not at him, but at young Christians who serve as the target of your ridicule -- as you perceive them as more than capable of withstanding it.

So Savage is justified somehow, because his bullying is ineffective. So long as liberalism is served by it.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

Like I said, we live in alternative universes. In yours, a large group of fundys proudly walking out on a single speech critical of their beliefs are exactly the same as a lone LGBT student being relentlessly harassed every day. I simply am not capable of seeing the world the way you do.

Lee said...

> Like I said, we live in alternative universes.

No question.

In your world, a bullied Christian student is simply an object for even more scorn and ridicule. E.g., "the horror of being called 'pansy-a**ed'" (which apparently *is* a horror if directed at a gay), "quite pleased with themselves," "their poor nerves are so sensitive", it's not bullying but just a little "mockery".

In my world, things are simple. Bad behavior is bad behavior. A bullying adult is a bullying adult. A bullied child is a bullied child. Bad stuff. Particularly when it's adult on child, as adults are supposed to behave like role models and authority figures, and some kids take them as such even when they shouldn't.

In your world, we get to play God. You can glance at a teenager in a video and be the judge and final arbiter about whether, on the inside, he feels hounded and isolated, or proud and pleased with himself.

You spoke of me and my "magic balance fairy?" Have I ever mentioned your fondness for projection?

One Brow said...

Likewise, my use of ‘pansy-assed’ was insulting, it was name-calling, and it was wrong. And I apologize for saying it."

Lee, I can see why you aren't sure if that was an apology. It's so wishy-washy, it might have been said by a pandering politician [\sarcasm].

Seriously, explaining why what you did was wrong is not diminish an apology. Neither does making a rhetorical point while you apologize. Savage did not try to justify or diminish his use of the term, he highlighted why it should not be diminished or justified.

My contrition meter isn't registering very many clicks.

I suspect that it will not until Savage agrees with you politically.

And tt does not change the ... bullying.

I agree, he engaged in the behavior he was speaking out against. Savage also agreed. Even KyCobb agrees, by referring to it as a difference in degree, although he seems reluctant to say that outright. On the other hand, you can't even acknowledge that there is a difference in degree. You both seem so caught up in opposing each other that you miss that you both basically agree here: Savage's name-calling was wrong, but not nearly as wrong as what happens in high schools every day.

Do they get any points for being the first?

If the game was "who's first" possibly (although Japan has a claim to that, as well, and the issue is murky because many countries went back and forth). However, the game was "only Christian ethics could have informed Savage that slavery was wrong". First is irrelevant in that game.

One Brow said...

Breitbart called my attention to an article posted at a site of which, according to Breitbart, Dan Savage is the editorial director.

Is there any reason to think this is true? He's obviously a featured columnist, and probabgly edits his own column, but I didn't see any evidence for editorial director. Since the source is Breitbart (famous for several cases of misleading and deceptive practices), and Savagte seems to have no connection to the anachist movement, I amn skeptical Savage saw that article before it was printed.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

"he feels hounded and isolated"

I can certainly understand how all those students walking out en masse felt isolated. Just how many christians do you need surrounding you so that you don't feel isolated Lee, a thousand?

"Particularly when it's adult on child, as adults are supposed to behave like role models and authority figures"

Savage's speech certainly would've been inappropriate for small children. But these were high school students, aspiring journalists, at a conference. He talked to them like they were adults. You see that as bullying, and I see it as treating them seriously. I don't think high schoolers mature enough to attend a conference have to be treated like five year olds to protect their feelings.

Lee said...

> Lee, I can see why you aren't sure if that was an apology. It's so wishy-washy, it might have been said by a pandering politician [\sarcasm].

OneBrow, I want to apologize for the time I called you a three-toed, dung-bathing tree sloth with a bad case of acne. Of course, I wasn't really calling you that, but only your position. But that's really a distinction without a difference -- kinda like the time you explained to conservatives that they're wrong. But conservatives feel insulted when they're told their wrong, because it is insulting. Likewise, my use of ‘pimple-puss’ was insulting, it was name-calling, and it was wrong. And I apologize for saying it.

Now, don't you feel convinced that I'm sincere?

Firstly, I have a hard time understanding why, as a moral principle, it is wrong to hate the sin and love the sinner. That's what Jesus does. Even when someone has committed a horrible crime and must be punished, do we, as a society, mete out that punishment out of anger, hatred, or spite? Or sorrowfully, out of necessity?

> Seriously, explaining why what you did was wrong is not diminish an apology. Neither does making a rhetorical point while you apologize.

Apologies come in more than one form, but they're not really apologies when they are made in the form of an attack. That sounds more like an attempt to establish a justification for what was said or done, than a show of contrition -- to establish a moral equivalence between Savage (who behaved poorly) and the students (who showed only the poor judgment of attending Savage's lecture).

But it's subjective and mileage varies. And it doesn't really matter what I think, but only what the insulted parties think -- in this case, the kids. I said my contrition meter wasn't registering very many clicks, but that's another way of admitting maybe I'm not being fair.

> I suspect that it will not until Savage agrees with you politically.

You're entitled to your opinion, too.

> I agree, he engaged in the behavior he was speaking out against.

It's so nice to hear you say that.

> Savage also agreed. Even KyCobb agrees, by referring to it as a difference in degree, although he seems reluctant to say that outright.

KyCobb seems capable of speaking for himself, even if not very convincingly at times.

> On the other hand, you can't even acknowledge that there is a difference in degree.

Mois?

> You both seem so caught up in opposing each other that you miss that you both basically agree here: Savage's name-calling was wrong, but not nearly as wrong as what happens in high schools every day.

I never said it was as bad. Savage is not their teacher, so they don't have to deal with his attitudes every day, so the frequency is less. There was no physical threat, so that element is missing. So of course Savage's bullying was different in degree, but it wasn't different in type. All we can say is, we're grateful that Savage doesn't have the opportunity to make these kids' lives miserable on a daily basis. From what we've seen, he just might take advantage of such an opportunity.

> First is irrelevant in that game.

I think setting a good example for the world was a good thing, and being the first to set it probably had some value. Britain set such an example for the U.S. and I don't think it was for naught.

Lee said...

> I can certainly understand how all those students walking out en masse felt isolated. Just how many christians do you need surrounding you so that you don't feel isolated Lee, a thousand?

Just how you know what an individual teenager is thinking is a source of wonder for me. When you start turning water into wine, please send me a note, I want to be there, and I prefer a nice Cabernet.

Lee said...

>> Breitbart called my attention to an article posted at a site of which, according to Breitbart, Dan Savage is the editorial director.

> Is there any reason to think this is true?

Well, I went to the web site, and you can too, I posted the URL. It does indeed appear that Savage is the "editorial director." See:

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Page?oid=21244

So that part of it is true.

> He's obviously a featured columnist, and probabgly edits his own column, but I didn't see any evidence for editorial director.

Well, now you do.

> Since the source is Breitbart (famous for several cases of misleading and deceptive practices), and Savagte seems to have no connection to the anachist movement, I amn skeptical Savage saw that article before it was printed.

He may not have seen it, but then, he would not have functioned very well as the editorial director, would he?

As for Breitbart's misleading and deceptive practices, perhaps they would fit right in with the mainstream media, who just recently edited Zimmermann's videotape in an attempt to make him look like a bigot.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

"Just how you know what an individual teenager is thinking is a source of wonder for me."

Are you on the autism spectrum Lee? Because most of us can pick up clues from facial expressions. People who are laughing and smiling generally aren't feeling bad. Also you may be confused about the meaning of the term "isolated." It means the opposite of "surrounded by friends and compatriots."

Lee said...

> Are you on the autism spectrum Lee?

An interesting comment, coming from someone who has emphasized several times that he simply cannot see the world from my point of view.

One Brow said...

Lee,

Thanks for the editorial page link. I don't think any individual editor can read every article on slog (otherwise they would not need so many editors), not even the editorial director. However, it does show Savage is at least somewhat comfortable with anacharists.

Of course, I wasn't really calling you that, but only your position.

Savage acknowledges it was wrong either way.

But that's really a distinction without a difference -- kinda like the time you explained to conservatives that they're wrong. But conservatives feel insulted when they're told their wrong, because it is insulting.

Do you think there is a difference between being told "you are wrong on this issue" and "your entire life is an affront to God"? Because your parallel seems quite bizarre to me. Now, if I made some argument that "as a heterosexual male, you are a deviant pig who deserved to be branded with hot irons, but I still love you", then you would have a parallel case.

Likewise, my use of ‘pimple-puss’ was insulting, it was name-calling, and it was wrong. And I apologize for saying it.

Now, don't you feel convinced that I'm sincere?


I honestly don't remember you ever calling me that. But if you apologized in such a manner, I would believe it.

Firstly, I have a hard time understanding why, as a moral principle, it is wrong to hate the sin and love the sinner.

Homosexuality is a fundamental part of a person's identity in a way that murder or religious conviction is not.

That's what Jesus does.

There are many ways Jesus get interpreted. Much like homosexuality, Jesus was silent on slavery. It was Paul who supported slavery and condemned homosexuality. Do you stand by Paul on both slavery and homosexuality, or do you just stand by him on homosexuality?

Or sorrowfully, out of necessity?

I agree.

That sounds more like an attempt to establish a justification for what was said or done,

An explanation is not necessarily a justification.

... to establish a moral equivalence ...

Savage claimed no moral equivalence.

KyCobb seems capable of speaking for himself, even if not very convincingly at times.

KYCobb, you, and I are all human, and we all let our tribalism color our language and shade our meaning too much at times.

Mois?

You had not done so before this response.

So of course Savage's bullying was different in degree, but it wasn't different in type.

As I said, you and KyCobb agree.

From what we've seen, he just might take advantage of such an opportunity.

YOu could say that about anyone that you have seen very little of.

I think setting a good example for the world was a good thing, and being the first to set it probably had some value.

I don't think Japan in the 1200s had ever heard about Iceland, so I don't think Iceland's decision about a century earlier had much effect on Japan. However, if you have evidence to the contrary, I'm all ears.

Britain set such an example for the U.S. and I don't think it was for naught.

I don't deny the value of a good example, but that's different from saying only Christians could set that example.

Lee said...

> Thanks for the editorial page link. I don't think any individual editor can read every article on slog (otherwise they would not need so many editors), not even the editorial director. However, it does show Savage is at least somewhat comfortable with anacharists.

If, during his tenure at National Review, William F. Buckley, Jr., as editor-in-chief, had permitted such an article to appear in his magazine, the "Nazi!" catcalls would have never ceased.

> Do you think there is a difference between being told "you are wrong on this issue" and "your entire life is an affront to God"?

Nobody is saying that anyone's entire life is an affront to God.

> Now, if I made some argument that "as a heterosexual male, you are a deviant pig who deserved to be branded with hot irons, but I still love you", then you would have a parallel case.

If that's what you think, then I'm afraid you're not up on your Christian theology. You could look at it at least two ways, and there is probably some truth to either way.

The first thing that comes to my mind is that there may be better ways of telling someone he is sinning than to call him a pig.

The second thing is that we are all deviant pigs in our own way. We don't earn our way to Heaven; we have already earned our way to Hell. The most moral, upright, devout, pious Presbyterian pastor or Catholic priest on the planet has already earned his way to Hell. Mother Theresa earned her way to Hell.

Jesus came to earn their way out. By grace we are saved. Not works.

This puts homosexuality in the same boat as any other sin. (Just so gays don't feel like the Lone Ranger, heteros can commit sexual sins too.) At the end of the day, probably no sexual sin is as bad a sin as pride, or envy, or malice. I've committed worse sins. I wish the worst sin I ever committed was only as bad as acting on a sexual attraction to another man.

We can't live a sinless life, but that does not mean we have to grow comfortable with our sins and revel and even glory in them.

Anyhow, it's hard to state that position in quick, catchy sound bites, so it's easy for the Christian position to be caricatured as hate.

> As I said, you and KyCobb agree.

I've seen little evidence of that. If you're right, then maybe it's because KyCobb would rather eat glass than admit I'm right about anything, and this often makes him deny the obvious.

> I don't think Japan in the 1200s had ever heard about Iceland, so I don't think Iceland's decision about a century earlier had much effect on Japan. However, if you have evidence to the contrary, I'm all ears.

I'm just wondering what the difference was between being a Japanese serf and a Japanese slave.

Lee said...

I want to add this: I've spent most of my life as a working Classical musician. If I hated gays, or had any trouble getting along with them, I would have gotten a lot fewer gigs over the years. In fact, I would have probably lost most of the better gigs -- an awful lot of mainstream Protestant organists and music directors are gay, and they always play the best music. I respected them; they respected me, or at least gave me that impression. I've even played for AIDS benefits.

However, I don't get to define the nature of sin, or what qualifies as one. I'm not the authority. The Bible is.

One Brow said...

Lee said...
If, during his tenure at National Review, William F. Buckley, Jr., as editor-in-chief, had permitted such an article to appear in his magazine, the "Nazi!" catcalls would have never ceased.

Meaning, since others engage in inaccurate and unfounded associaitons, it OK for you? If not, why was this relevant?

Nobody is saying that anyone's entire life is an affront to God.

Yet, you dispute this on the very comment.

If that's what you think, then I'm afraid you're not up on your Christian theology.

The difference being niceness of words? Burnming in hell is so much nicer than branding with hot irons?


... better ways of telling someone he is sinning than to call him a pig.

A difference in tone, not sentiment.

We don't earn our way to Heaven; ...

However, according to many believers, we can assure our way to hell by engaging in certain behaviors. More to the point, if the behaviors of homosexuality were not worse than other behaviors, they wouldn't be singled out for being worse. Praying in public is sinful, but no one is trying to enforce a no-praying-in-public law.

This puts homosexuality in the same boat as any other sin.

Yet, homosexuality gets singled out for denial of benefits and even imprisonment/execution by Christians. If you really believed homosexuality was no worse, why oppose gay marriage, and try to "convert" gay people?

... so it's easy for the Christian position to be caricatured as hate.

ZPrideful people are allowed to get married to the person of their choice. Gay peple are not, becasue in practice, Christians treat being gay as more deviant than being prideful, despite what you have said here.

If you're right, then maybe it's because KyCobb would rather eat glass than admit I'm right about anything,

That seems to go both ways.

I'm just wondering what the difference was between being a Japanese serf and a Japanese slave.

You mean, you didn't wonder about the diference between the Icelandic slave and the Icelandic serf?

However, I don't get to define the nature of sin, or what qualifies as one. I'm not the authority. The Bible is.

Do you think slavery is sinful? Can you point to a Bible passage that defined that for you?

Lee said...

> Meaning, since others engage in inaccurate and unfounded associaitons, it OK for you? If not, why was this relevant?

I didn't say such associations would have been inaccurate or unfounded. That's your position, not mine.

Buckley took criticisms of that nature seriously enough that he fired one of his editors who had been with him for more than twenty years, a personal friend, because in his judgment the writer swayed a little too close to anti-Semitism. I'm not going to look it up, but if memory serves, I think Abe Rosenthal was the one who pointed it out, and Buckley apparently agreed.

>> Nobody is saying that anyone's entire life is an affront to God.

> Yet, you dispute this on the very comment.

How so?

> However, according to many believers, we can assure our way to hell by engaging in certain behaviors.

Are you really going to play that game? May I quote atheists you disagree with and credit you with their sentiments? Come on.

Jesus was asked, was there an unpardonable sin, and what was it? Jesus replied, homosexuality. Just kidding. Jesus replied, it is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. I'll be honest: I don't know what that means. But it doesn't mean homosexuality. At least not per se.

One of the interpretations I have heard of that phrase, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, is that it means when someone holds bad to be good, and good to be bad -- and knowing full well what they are saying. I think devil-worship would apply here.

Martin seldom comments on any of my posts, but I would appreciate knowing the Catholic take on that.

But bear in mind that Catholics believe a lot of things Presbyterians (i.e., me) don't. Catholics divide sins into different categories, i.e., venal and mortal. I'm not an expert on that either. I can't answer for what Catholics think will send someone to Hell.

But as I said in the earlier post, we are all Hell-bound. The only way out is to repent of sin and bow your knee to the Lord. I have complete confidence that there are many homosexuals in Heaven. There is even at least one thief in Heaven, the fellow who hung on the cross next to Jesus. "This day, thou shalt be with me in Paradise." The Lord spent his time on Earth with the rabble. The harlots. The moneylenders. The beggars. The last shall be first, the first shall be last. If someone believes a homosexual cannot make it to Heaven, he is more akin to a Pharisee than a Christian. Someone enamored of his own bloody righteousness is the one treading on thin ice. Blessed are the poor in spirit.

> That seems to go both ways.

Maybe. Or maybe you just don't know me very well.

> Yet, homosexuality gets singled out for denial of benefits and even imprisonment/execution by Christians.

I would characterize this issue differently. I would say, homosexuality gets responded to because its proponents are trying hard to mainstream it as a respectable thing. Since we believe that's a sin, we can't make a truce on that subject. As I said, we don't get to set the moral bar.

> You mean, you didn't wonder about the diference between the Icelandic slave and the Icelandic serf?

Since I don't know anything about Iceland of the 12th century, I can only speculate.

> Do you think slavery is sinful? Can you point to a Bible passage that defined that for you?

Not directly. But indirectly, I can. Because humans are depraved (that is Biblical), it follows that they cannot be trusted with owning another person. We (Christians) are indeed slaves to Christ. If Christ is your master, slavery loses its sting.

One Brow said...

I didn't say such associations would have been inaccurate or unfounded. That's your position, not mine.

You don't think calling someone a "Nazi" for an article supporting anachism is inaccurate or unfounded?

Are you really going to play that game? May I quote atheists you disagree with and credit you with their sentiments? Come on.

I can do Bible quotes that the believers use, which have to be carefully interpreted to say something else. You have no such resource to use on me. When Paul says fornicators can not inherit the Kingdom, he is tying certainty of hell to specific behaviors.

I can't answer for what Catholics think will send someone to Hell.

I was raised Catholic, and I can tell you not all Catholics agree on how to interpret Church teching on that. One nun told me heaven and hell were the same place.

If someone believes a homosexual cannot make it to Heaven, he is more akin to a Pharisee than a Christian.

OK. Homosexuals come across many Christians who do not share that view.

Maybe. Or maybe you just don't know me very well.

I only know of your posting on this blog.

I would characterize this issue differently. I would say, homosexuality gets responded to because its proponents are trying hard to mainstream it as a respectable thing.

Getting drunk has been mainstreamed. Not giving to charity is mainstreamed. Praying in public is mainstreamed. Saying homosexuality can't be mainstreamed is treating is as being more serious than any of these sins.

Since we believe that's a sin, we can't make a truce on that subject. As I said, we don't get to set the moral bar.

Since so many sins are mainstreamed, why is this sin, in particular, one that can not be?

Since I don't know anything about Iceland of the 12th century, I can only speculate.

My point was that you immediate reaction seemed to be focused on diminishing the difference in the non-Christian country.

Not directly. But indirectly, I can.

So, if homosexuals can point to passage that can be interpreteed to indirectly support their relationships, you would acknowledge that as sufficient justification to disregard the passages that directly oppose it? Or, do you treat slavery adn homosexuality differently in that regard?

Lee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lee said...

> You don't think calling someone a "Nazi" for an article supporting anachism is inaccurate or unfounded?

It is not necessarily unfounded. If I run the editorial content of a magazine that publishes an anti-Semitic diatribe, whether I have read the article of not, I'm responsible. If it happens once, people are entitled to raise their eyebrows. If it happens repeatedly, the Nazi reference is sure to come up. Maybe it should. Buckley was certainly aware of it. He was called a Nazi on an occasion or two; he just wanted to make sure he hadn't earned it.

> When Paul says fornicators can not inherit the Kingdom, he is tying certainty of hell to specific behaviors.

Context is important. Paul goes on to say, "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

So ultimately it is the lack of repentance that leaves a fornicator in his condemned state.

> Getting drunk has been mainstreamed. Not giving to charity is mainstreamed. Praying in public is mainstreamed.

I must have missed it when my church agreed with the popular culture that it is okay to be drunk. Or not give. (About the praying? I don't know, I'll have to take that under advisement.)

> ...Or, do you treat slavery adn homosexuality differently in that regard?

As far as I know, there are no passages in the Bible directly saying good or bad things about slavery as an institution. Slavery is regarded simply as a fact of human existence.

As an aside, I'm not so sure we can feel superior. We may not call it slavery, but we round up young men for smoking weed, throw them in prison, and expect them to work. We slap alimony and child support on young men to the degree that if they miss a payment, it becomes a criminal charge and they're thrown in prison. If that's not slavery, it seems like it's in the same ballpark.

Back to the subject... There are direct passages saying bad things about homosexuality. So the indirect passages would have to be pretty convincing.

> Saying homosexuality can't be mainstreamed is treating is as being more serious than any of these sins.

Bottom line is that sin cannot be accommodated; it must be repented. It must be confronted.

If I were to show up drunk at church, or my wife were to complain that I spend much of my time in a drunken stupor, I would get a visit from the elders and asked to repent. If I were to repent and afterwards maybe stumble once in a while but then correct my course again, they would be in my corner trying to help me. But if I stubbornly refused to change my habits, I would face church discipline, and ultimately would face excommunication.

There are worse sins than drunkeness, too. But at some point, the refusal to accept church discipline itself becomes a sin, and perhaps a worse sin than the original infraction. Worse even would be if I were to argue that drunkeness is not a sin at all, and therefore the elders themselves were wrong to discipline me.

And worst of all would be to use my dissension as a way to split the church.

So the crux of the issue with homosexuality appears to be that its apologists think it is an affront for it even to be thought of as a sin, and that alone is sufficient to say that the church practices hate. Is that a fair summary of your position?

And a summary of my position is that sin cannot go unacknowledged and unconfronted. It cannot be mainstreamed and glorified, at the risk of turning it into a bigger sin than it already is.

One Brow said...

Lee,

The article linked to in Slog is not anti-Semitic, it is pro-anarchy.

As you point out, there are worse sins than drunkenness. So, not all sins are equally bad. Homosexuality is considered to bad for no discernable reason. The passages don't say worse things about homosexuality than about mixing cotton and wool.

Making a provision to convert a temporary slave to permanent slavery, by saying that is the only way such a person can stay with their wife and children, is condoning and approving of slavery.

We agree largely on the criminal justice system, it seems.

Is it an affront to consider interracial marriage a sin? Would a position against that be enough to say the church practices hate?

Lee said...

> The article linked to in Slog is not anti-Semitic, it is pro-anarchy.

The point is, I think editors can be held responsible for articles advocating outrageous viewpoints even if they don't share them, or even if they hadn't read the articles in question.

> Homosexuality is considered to bad for no discernable reason.

That's a matter of opinion.

> We agree largely on the criminal justice system, it seems.

I've known that for some time.

> Is it an affront to consider interracial marriage a sin? Would a position against that be enough to say the church practices hate?

I don't know how the church, any church, came to that conclusion from reading the Bible. Somebody would have to show me where and how the Bible condemns interracial marriage, directly or indirectly.

The Mosaic law was opposed to marrying foreign women, but for reasons having little to do with race or ethnicity. They wanted to preserve their religion and culture, and were surrounded by Baal, Moloch, and Asherah worshipers. They saw intermarriage as a potential source of grief for the culture. There are many Old Testament stories conveying this truth. E.g., Solomon's turning away from the Lord because of his foreign wives and concubines; King Ahab marrying the Baal-worshiping Jezebel, etc.

But interracial marriage per se seems fine. Ruth (as in the Book of Ruth) was from Moab and, upon the death of her Israelite husband, went with her mother-in-law Naomi to live in Judah. Ruth fully and sincerely adopted Naomi's faith, and was rewarded by snagging herself a well-to-do big shot Judean husband, Boaz. They became (I forget) either the grandparents or great-grandparents of David.

One Brow said...

I agreed that Savage was likely comfortable with anarchists, based on that article.

What can be discerned is a matter of opinion?

If you are relying on interpretation, than there are many reasonalbe interpretations of Paul's Greek that are not condemnatory fo homosexual behavior by people who are homosexuals. You allow your prior disinclinaiton against slavery and racism to color your understandings; so does your inclination to disapproving of homosexuals. This is not meant as an aspersion or a fault of you have, outside of your generally being human. I do the same thing.

Lee said...

> If you are relying on interpretation, than there are many reasonalbe interpretations of Paul's Greek that are not condemnatory fo homosexual behavior by people who are homosexuals.

It would get down to specifics. I know there are gay-friendly, feminist-friendly, you-name-it friendly translations of the Bible. I'm interested in what Paul had to say, not what modern folks wish he'd said. I'm certainly not an authority, but if there are criticisms in the way, say, the NAS translates it, I'm all ears.

One Brow said...

Lee,

Have you been to this site?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hommarrbibl.htm

The great thing aobut interpreting a dead language is that there is typically no one correct translation.