No- he’s insulting them for their reaction to his statement. Still a bad idea.
I agree with Savage here 100%.
On the one hand, I agree that he shouldn’t have called the walk-outs “pansy-ass” on a practical level. On the other hand, I still think he’s totally right. I don’t like the idea that we need to give religion this undue level of respect – like we can’t call it out for the inconsistent garbage that it is… as if it would be ludicrous for me to call someone insane if they still believed in Santa Claus by the time they were 20 and seriously thought that that belief gave them the right to impinge on the lives of others in a profound way.
It gives Christians a false sense of legitimacy by treating it as an “equally-valid” stance.
However, calling people’s religion bullshit rarely seems to do any good. It just makes them more defensive. I’m not sure there’s a good way to convince someone that their deep-seated belief system is gobbleygook.
After being the victim of religious zealotry for his entire life, I can understand why Savage said what he did. And he’s right. But he didn’t win himself any friends and he certainly didn’t give the youngsters any winning arguments to take back to school.
He got us talking, as well as all these kids’ parents. I think he succeeded perfectly.
You think this would have had more impact if he didn’t offend.
Marley23:
Not everybody.
Leaving aside the delivery, it’s an incredibly lame argument.
The the bullshit in the Bible about shellfish, about slavery, about dinner, about farming, about menstruation, about virginity and about masturbation are all in the Old Testament. They are "ignored’ because they do not apply to Christians.
The bullshit about homosexuality is in the New Testament and is explicitly directed at Christians.
Arguing that these things are equivalent, and that because the OT gets ignored it’s OK to ignore bits of the NT is incredibly weak.
My sense of tact must be broken, because I sincerely can’t see what was so offensive in what he said. The two most objectionable things were 1) “pansy-ass”, as others have mentioned, and 2) using “bullshit” in a formal setting in front of high schoolers.
But on his main point…what was offensive or objectionable? His approach seems more pragmatic and “bipartisan” (so to speak) than most such discussions about religion and homosexuality. I mean really, what’s going to reach more people: “You should give up your religion entirely because it’s stupid and fake and racist and homophobic, so there” (the usual approach), or what Savage said: “Hey, keep your religion, and let’s just agree to quietly ignore this bad part, as we’ve come to ignore these other parts.” Savage’s seems like a much more religion-friendly, effective, and practical stance to me.
I think Savage is just the mirror image of Rush Limbaugh. He’s not trying to convince anyone - he’s just talking to the people who are already convinced and telling them they’re right. And part of that is demonizing the enemy - part of “us” being right is “them” being wrong.
If Savage had wanted to get the message out he would have said that the biblical prohibitions against homosexuality are in the same category as the prohibitions about dietary laws. Most Christians believe, based on their interpretation of the Bible, that these prohibitions are no longer in effect - so they have no biblical reason to oppose homosexuality.
But expressing this idea as “ignore the bullshit in the Bible”? That’s just stupid. That’s being deliberately insulting to Christians.
A false equivalence. It’s the homophobic side that is “demonic”; that spends its time hurting and killing people out of sheer malice. Any honest description of them is going to "demonize"them, because they are the bad guys here.
How often has being polite ever convinced people bigotry was wrong? It’s mostly the loud, in-your-face people who have pushed civil rights forward. “Be polite” is just code for “don’t make a scene so we can ignore you”. And as Rodgers01 points out, he was being restrained in his criticism.
Sorry, but that is flat out wrong.
The Old Testament passages on homosexuality are routinely quoted by bigots.
As for the NT passages, they are few (and arguable), and either list it as one of of a list of bad acts (included amongst fornicators, the greedy, drinking, etc) or as something that results from bad behaviour such as idolatry.
A rather detailed analysis of the NT on homosexuality can be found here:
http://www.westarinstitute.org/Periodicals/4R_Articles/homosexuality.html
Colossians is a letter of Paul’s. Some scholars think it was actually written by one of his disciples, as the language was somewhat different. Others think it was written when Paul was in prison in Rome. Be that as it may, Chapter 3 has stuff on slavery. I’ll quote it in context: 15 Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. 16 Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts. 17 And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.
Instructions for Christian Households
18 Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
19 Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.
20 Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord.
21 Fathers,[c] do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged.
22** Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. 25 Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for their wrongs, and there is no favoritism. **
4 Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven. 2 Devote yourselves to prayer, being watchful and thankful…
Generally speaking, the Bible is not a book about homosexuality. There are a total of 7 clobber passages against homosexuality in the Bible, none of which are in the Gospels. Cite. Jesus says nothing about homosexuality and nothing about abortion. But he did speak leniently of despised groups, one of which were eunuchs. Interestingly, the quote is from Matthew, who usually adds softeners to Jesus’ prescriptions, at least when compared with Mark. Not this time though. I’ll quote in context: the passage from Matthew starts with Jesus’ prohibition of divorce, softened with an exception for adultery. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
10His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
11But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
12For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Get that last part? Some eunuchs are born that way, some are made that way by others, and some do it to themselves. Those who do it to themselves, do it “…for the kingdom of heaven’s sake”. Remember that eunuch’s were reviled in that particular community. And yet Jesus puts the best possible gloss on guys who cut off their own 'nads. I dunno: that sounds rather queer-friendly to me. [1]
But maybe I’m confused: I’ve read a number of discussions of the Bible and homosexuality and I rarely see Matthew 19:12 brought up. Traditionally, the passage is interpreted as referring to priestly celibacy. But it doesn’t really say that now, does it?
[1] No, I’m not making the Christ-is-gay argument. I’m claiming that he had a girlfriend but was tolerant of misfits or outsiders who did little harm and intolerant of the sanctimonious.
No, you it isn’t it is objectively true and easily provable.
And how does this contradict my claim that the bullshit in the Bible about shellfish, about slavery, about dinner, about farming, about menstruation, about virginity and about masturbation are all in the Old Testament?
Oh, that’s right. It doesn’t.
And how does this contradict my claim that the bullshit in the Bible about shellfish, about slavery, about dinner, about farming, about menstruation, about virginity and about masturbation are all in the Old Testament?
Oh, that’s right. It doesn’t.
"Arguable is about the worst of the weasel words. Anything is arguable. It;s a meaningless assertion.
And how does this contradict my claim that the bullshit in the Bible about shellfish, about slavery, about dinner, about farming, about menstruation, about virginity and about masturbation are all in the Old Testament?
Oh, that’s right. It doesn’t.
So in short, what I posted is flat out wrong, but everything that you posted actually supports it. :rolleyes:
The Biblical bullshit about shellfish is definitely Old Testament all the way. As has already been pointed out, the Biblical bullshit about slavery can be found in both testaments.
I think “arguable” is supposed to be taken to mean “you can construct a valid, if not necessarily sound argument that a reasonable person would fairly consider the premises of to the contrary.” (Valid assuming the law of charity, of course).
Though I agree on everything else (and don’t really think most of the NT cites are arguable by my definition).
He’s not arguing that your list isn’t in the OT, but the contention is with your assertion that because it’s in the OT all Christians ignore those guidelines. The most often quoted passage dealing with homosexuality is in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, so the argument that all of the OT is ignored by Christians isn’t supported by their OT-quoted biblical justification for the stance against homosexuality.
Everyone does the cafeteria thing, to some extent - even non-religious people pick and choose from the non-religious rules imposed on them (i.e. when they feel it’s important to obey posted speed limits or break them just a little, or when it’s OK to bend the rules, or when they feel they are an exception to them etc.). It’s just human nature.
The thing that sets literalist fundies apart is not their strict observance of any over-arching rule set, but rather: They just think their cherry-picked set of whatever is somehow definitive, and/or they are in denial that they are in fact cherry-picking.
The main argument is over what activity Paul was talking about. He used the word arsenokoites, which was an uncommon term. There were terms in use at the time which meant homosexuals but Paul didn’t use them. So there’s a valid argument that he used the term arsenokoites to identify something else, like perhaps a male prostitute or a man who had sex with boys or a man who engaged in anal sex or a man who raped other men.
Nonsense. Savage has far more class than Rush ever could (which I know, is not saying much), but also he readily admits error when it’s pointed out to him.
Because, you strangely angry person, the fact is that the old testament passages are still quoted by bigots, yet these same bigots do eat shellfish, wear mixed fabrics, etc. Hence Savage is fair enough to point out that contradiction.
And it is then fair to point out that the NT passages that are used to condemn homosexuality are either of “arguable” interpretation (with cite given why) or also, like the OT passages, refer to it as one amongst a list of other sins which people are happy to give a pass to.
So, just to recap…you’re flat out wrong. Hope that helps, let us know if I need to go into further detail.
Fair enough, I think I skimmed too much or I would have caught that.
Fine then: Blake, I do not agree 100% with everything else.