Comments

1
I could save this fucking marriage in a heartbeat, god damn it, if I could just choke the fucking bitch, huh, Bradley?

Jesus appeals to people who desperately hope he really exists so he can save them from themselves. But he never does.
2
I think the universe is sending me a message that I'm supposed to have a heckling party for this Fireproof movie. Not 5 minutes ago, I just saw a commercial saying that I could watch it OnDemand for free, and now this...
3
I hope he cleared his browser history.
4
Will the whole ironic t-shirt thing never end?
5
Good old Kirk Cameron, and his wild, bug eyed love of Jesus.
6
Looks like Dan has just discovered how to photoshop. How cute.

There's no way that's a real photo. Grow up Dan! There are many who live up by their morals and who cherish the nuclear family you seem to want to see in shambles.
7
@6: Click the link. If it's fake, it's not Dan's work.

Speaking of growing up, though...
8
Yeah sure, @6, its not like mug shots are publically accessible or anything...
9
Predictable: that anyone who loves marriage, rather than the person to whom they're married, is in for trouble - suffering it or making it, either way.
10
@6: Sorry for stating the obvious, but if this guy is under arrest for strangling his wife, that's one nuclear family that's already in a shambles.
11
@8 not when they're Stranger staff.
12
Well said, RainMan @ 10.

Divorce is destroying the nuclear family, not Dan Savage @ 6.
13
Oh, I'm sure he *hearts* his marriage just fine; the problem is that she just WON'T FUCKIN LISTEN!!
14
He's pretty hot for a wife strangler.

Just sayin...
15
Q: What do you say when your wife has two black eyes?

A: Nothing, you already told her twice.
16
loveschild is a troll, and not a particularly intelligent one, either. you gotta long way to go before you match the ur-troll, ecce homo.
17
Quick! Get the Promise Keepers on the phone, they need to teach Mrs Gellert her proper place so Bradley doesn't have to!
18
Religion is such a waste of time.

Waste. Of. Time.
19
Hey, he's in fucking Florida. 'Nuff said.
20
Those wacky breeders!

What will they do next??
21
Wow.

This shit gets better and better every day.

Thanks, Dan.
22
For me, the cherry on top has to be the guy's occupation: financial consultant.
23
the 'loving marriage or your wife' comment gave me a new perspective on conservitive marriage.

While traveling, with my female travel partner, she (I'm a girl too) referred to me as her wife while I was in the bathroom at a hostel. This middle age drunk guy was hitting on her while his drunk wife was off in the group being social and their two JR high age kids were running around. I came back from the bathroom, shed introduced me as her wife and I didn't miss a beat; and followed along. He got very bewildered and was very emphatic about how two BEAUTIFUL young Girls could TOGETHER. He discounted any sort of love we could have had.

We are just friends. 2 girls who have lived with each other for 4 years, shared a room while doing seasonalwork together in Alaska (bartending) for 2 summers (me, her and her bf), traveled in Euro for 3 weeks, one month in central America and we still have NEVER had a fight.

We were meant to be in eachothers lives forever. This compared to what this man said about our marriage* makes me wonder how close he and his wife are? Is there not an underlying unbreakable friendship??

*A few years ago at a very drunken NYE party we lovingly/jokingly had our reverend of the universal life church marry us.
24
He's cute. Now that he's known as the "Christian" strangler, I bet all kinds of women want to jump his bones. Sad.
25
Oh Loveschild, do you ever tire of being wrong?
26
AWESOME! I hope they keep the shirt on him in jail and some nice large felon can marry him - since he's a fan and all.
27
@18 - No, it isn't. It's just that religious people actually leading good lives and NOT being insane doesn't make for exciting news, so it doesn't tend to get covered.

The press has a funny way of focusing on the worst elements of society in order to sell papers. Sorry, Stranger, but it's true.
28
But Teresa...

Religious people leading good lives -- or not, as the case may be -- are always crediting their religiousness for their virtues, as if... what's the phrase again? Oh, right: As if there's no morality without religion. That's why immoral religious people are inherently newsworthy. Sorry, Teresa, but it's true.
29
Exactly! You can't have it both ways. If churches are going to take credit for teaching their congregants who act like reasonable people their morals, then they also have to take responsibility for clearly failing to teach idiots like the guy in the above mugshot who obviously identifies himself with religion (at least via his wardrobe choices) ANYTHING useful to get through life without being a complete douche.

I swear to whatever deity is in vogue at the moment, Dan, not everyone in a het marriage is screwing it up this much. Goes without saying that if het marriage can contribute such failures to the world as the above that citing any sort of religious or moral objection to gay marriage is the very definition of out-of-touch insanity.
30
@ Dan - That's two separate points, though. Crediting your religion for your morality is very different than saying there IS no morality without religion.

I was raised Catholic. I no longer practice, but not due to any falling out with the church. It just stopped calling to me. Anyway, I was never taught that people who aren't Catholic are amoral. Granted, every religion believes that their path is the "best" path. Of course they would. That's what faith is. And if you're behavior and morality is founded in something like a religion, and you're doing good things, why wouldn't you be proud of it?

I appreciate that very often the press makes special effort to point out hypocrisy to make a point. I'm not saying I don't agree with that. I think hypocrisy is worse than out and out evil, honestly, because it's more insidious. But with what you just said: "Religious people leading good lives -- or not, as the case may be -- are always crediting their religiousness for their virtues, as if... what's the phrase again? Oh, right: As if there's no morality without religion", you're painting all religious people with the same fundamentalist brush, and that's not fair.

Not all religious people are fundamentalists, or hypocrites, or crazy, and I think that the insistence on framing them solely in those terms plays a huge role in the lack of intelligent debate between the religious and the secular in this country. It bothers me that a lot of my fellow liberals pat themselves on the back for their tolerance....so long as everyone sees everything from their world view. Otherwise, you're "backwards" and wrong.
31
Teresa (@30) - I think there's a further differentiation to consider. Perhaps this is just a matter of language, but I think there's a huge difference between those people who have found religion and "Religious People." You may have been raised Catholic, but I highly doubt that you make that announcement as part of your everyday identity. It may guide you every day in a personal way, and I agree that you should not be cast in with the crazies because of that. However, if a person starts presenting his or her religion as part of their public personal, using religion to prove arguements on morality, doling out right and wrong by cherry-picking passages from a best-selling book with contradictory passages... well, anyone that falls into that category gets to be called a "crazy hypocrite". Then again, anyone who loudly declares that I'm living my life incorrectly without even meeting me falls into that classification, whether they cite religion or not.
32
@31 - it's funny, because I DON'T consider myself religious. I'm not. I believe in God, and I think I'm still on the search for how best to express that believe and love, but it hasn't been a primary concern for me in a long time. However, what I'm saying is that the distinction should always be between religious people and fundamentalist people. People shouldn't USE the term "religious" erroneously.

Also, when saying "religious", to what religion are people referring? It seems that people SAY "religious" when they really mean Christian, and they should just have the balls to say Christian, or Muslim, or whatever, and be that specific when referring to an incident, instead of trying to make whatever they're trying to say apply to "everyone" when that's not really what they mean. Also, they might even say "Christians" do XY and Z. But people are aware that not all Christians are the same, right? That Catholics aren't Baptists aren't Born Agains aren't Lutherans aren't Presbyterians, right? I just think people need to be specific when making their arguments, too, as opposed to using a blanket term like "religious." Again, throwing the whole of world religions under the bus, when that's not what was intended at all. And if it IS what was intended, I think that's wrong.

It is a language thing. But language is very important - especially when talking about different groups of people.

Also, just to get back to the topic of het marriage for a second - I would hope it goes without saying that not all heterosexual monogamous couples are this horrible (or contain one horrible element the way this one did in this douchebag husband), but maybe it doesn't. So there, I've said it. :)
33
Hey, I'm a Catholic. We drink the blood of Christ. If that isn't crazy, I don't know what is. But the reason I don't call myself a "religious person" or even a "Catholic person" in an arguement about morals is because I'm not drawing on my religion to make my arguements. I don't justify not killing because it was written on a tablet. I justify not killing because I'm a sane human being. I don't need to cite references to any religion to make my points because the base-line morality of all religions is a common factor. It seems that the differences between individual religions are only laundry-lists of exclusionary passages that people fall back on to make their arguements.
34
@33 - that makes sense. The only thing I'd say about that is that I'd venture a guess that those morals that you now see as sane and can argue from an objective, human standpoint were originally introduced to you through Catholicism.

People outgrow the need for their parents when they learn to think for themselves and maneuver in the world on their own. SOME people remain tied to their parents' proverbial apron strings. However, in both cases, the role of parents in giving their children a solid foundation and tools for starting out in the world is just as important. Some parents are controlling, and don't let their children grow up. Other parents give their kids values then let them go, hoping that they won't stray too far from what they've been taught. However, children need parents.

Now, replace the word "parents" with "religion." And while I'm sure many people reading this would say they don't "need" religion, I would argue that it paved the way for a lot of what currently makes up their beliefs. Whether it has made them pro or anti religion - just as many children rebel against their parents by doing the exact opposite - its importance can not be downplayed, or cast aside, or chalked up to stupidity. Religion has been around for too long for there to be nothing to it or nothing good about it.
35
Teresa, I'm not religious, neither were my parents, nor my grandparents. Nobody in my family has ever choked another family member. We are all fine, upstanding members of society.

Throughout history, religion has been a source of fighting, torture, wars, murders, genocide, etc. It's divisive, creating more us against them than just about any other human invention.
36
I can't buy that, @34. The idea that religion introduced morality (either personally, or in a broader historical sense) is preposterous. Even your comparison to parental influence seems suspicious to me. I think that we're all born with an internal moral compass. Everything that comes after that is what perverts us.
37
Breeders, the best God has to offer?
38
@Loveschild
Do your research.
http://www.hcso.tampa.fl.us/pub/default.…
39
@35 - people have done those things in the name of religion, sure. They've also done those horrible things in the name of country and nationalism, or in pursuit of greater wealth, and yet I'm sure you wouldn't be too keen on abolishing governments or economics for the sake of mankind. Putting all the horrors of human history solely at the foot of religion is ridiculous.

Again, I'm not, nor have I ever said or believed that one CAN'T be moral without religion. In fact, those are the words I felt Dan was trying to put in my mouth (and in the mouths of all people who concern themselves with religion) @28, and I refuted @30. I'm sure you're an awesome person, and your family was able to raise you just fine without practicing a religion, and that's great.

The only thing that I wanted to get across in all of this is that people shouldn't discount religion out of hand. It just seems to me that people who aren't religious or don't believe in God at all, or whatever, REFUSE to see what good can come out of religion, much in the same way religious fanatics can't be reasoned with. They insulate themselves against religion and only talk to people who think like they do, and even when someone like me clearly states above that "Crediting your religion for your morality is very different than saying there IS no morality without religion." I still get comments like the one from Rob in Baltimore saying "I'm not religious, neither were my parents, nor my grandparents. Nobody in my family has ever choked another family member. We are all fine, upstanding members of society." No one said you weren't, Bob. Least of all, me. But it seems like you were so upset by my speaking favorably about religion that you didn't read what I wrote. This is why I make comments like this when I can.

What I was trying to say is that the influence of religion is such that it affects us even when people don't practice. Your family wasn't a religious family. I wonder if we went back far enough if there WAS someone who was religious, then broke with it, then leading your family to teach and live by their morality in a different way? Religion shaped you SOMEHOW. Doesn't mean it made you religious.

@36 - I wasn't going all the way back to the VERY beginning when I said what I said, as that would turn into a "What came first? The chicken, or the egg?" discussion. I don't think organized religion INTRODUCED morality, but I think what religion has tried to do over time is explain WHY that innate morality exists. I've always thought of religion as the science of the soul, I guess. Because while science can figure out how things work, it doesn't concern itself with why. Religions do. And that might be a priority for you or not, but I don't think the pursuit of that is inherently problematic or wrong. It's a study that asks different questions, which is why I don't understand people's insistence in keeping the two separate. I don't think "science" and "religion" are mutually exclusive. One of my favorite Einstein quotes is: "Religion without science is blind. And science without religion is lame."
40
It's pretty weak when atheists resort to silly (if sad) stories like this to prove that God doesn't exist. Especially when the God you're objecting to is the God of Jesus Christ. The whole point of Christianity is that we are sinners who need God's help, both to know what is the right thing to do and to have the fortitude to will to do it. Yet even then we know that we are only becoming holy, in fits and starts, and with many detours and uturns and deadends on the way. As Kirkiegaard put it, in this life, "We always only on the way." And that no doubt is why Jesus taught his disciples to pray, "Father, forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." Forgiveness is the only way to manage human relationships in a world like ours.

That, I think, is one of the key issues everyone seems to miss. Christians, to the extent we are actually following Christ, know that we are weak, sinful, prone to error, misjudgment, selfishness and host of other sins. We know, too, that, as surely as we may know God and know things about God that are true, we are but looking through the glass darkly (as St. Paul says). This gives us a sensibility based on humility and a spirit focused on charity. We therefore look at a situation like the one in this story as a tragedy, not an occasion to heep scorn on those whose religiious beliefs we may (or may not) share.

But go on, atheists. If you truly are better, smarter, and more perfectly moral than Christians and other religious people, then I am sure one day soon we'll see things like atheist domestic violence clinics, atheist orphanages, atheist social services, atheist hospitals and hospices, atheist schools, atheist soup kitchens, and the like. There are a lot of hurting people out there, especially these days. Might I suggest that now is a particularly good time to stop blaming Christians for society's ills and get to work solving them?
41
Teresa, I'm not upset by your speaking about anything. It's free country. Disagreeing doesn't equal anger.

Morals evolved with people. We survived as a species because of our social nature, much like other primates do with in a group. The group benefited by getting along, and working together. At some point people starting wondering things about our origins, the creation of earth etc. Lacking any real knowledge, they just started making things up.

As human society and civilization grew, people went from having alpha males, to having leaders, kings, etc, but they had to find a way to manipulate the public. They need the people to acquiesce, so then religion took on the role of scaring people into compliance with whatever world view any particular leader had.

If you look at the Bible it is full of horrible, horrible moral guidelines. It's just that people now choose to ignore those, and cherry pick what they want to follow because our moral compass has nothing to do with religion. If we actually followed the Bible we would have one of the most barbaric, brutal, immoral societies in existence.

42
Teresa Jurismo, same for the millions of gay folks that the press ignores in favor of the ostentatious. Been happening for many years. That is why it's so difficult for the heteros to relate to us overall.
43
Rob in Baltimore, so well put. There is a place in my heart for God but not for the members of organized religion who try to use their power and influence to reach their own self-absorbed goals. People who follow the teachings of their pope/pastor/rabbi etc without taking the time to think about the moral issues, considering both sides, and reaching their own heartfelt conclusions are no more than sheep following the shepherd [hey - that analogy works, just read the bible!]. I know that doesn't apply to all those who claim to be religious but my guess is that it applies to many.

God is in my heart, not in the pulpit.
44
@42 - that's so funny, because I was actually going to use that as an example! It's true. I've had so many of my gay friends (the guys in particular, though my lesbian friends have some issues, too) tell me they resent the fact that the only examples of gay people that are "palatable" on TV are the flaming gays. Like Jack on Will and Grace, for example. That it's rare that you see just average gay people who are living their lives and not just hooking up at clubs. So, yes, it is a bit like that. Neither group necessarily wants one extreme representing them in the media.

@41 - "Teresa, I'm not upset by your speaking about anything. It's free country. Disagreeing doesn't equal anger. "

That's good to know! :) It's hard to tell how upset people are via intarwebz. And the rest of what you said makes complete sense. I'm not trying to disprove evolution, here. I guess I just see religion as yet another way to explore how and why we're here, that's all.

However, it's also interesting that you do cite the Bible, and that most people who have a problem with "religion" seem to only have a problem with Christianity. Is it because Christianity is so popular? Or do you think that Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, or Taoism (or *gasp* Scientology) are better at "getting it right?"
45
Ted @ 43,

Well put. I would add, this being my perspective, that I find God in the hearts of others as well.
46
@44, I've a deeply skeptical side and am not religious. I don't really have a major problem with Christianity, but it's my least favorite religion. And yes, it's essentially because it's the most popular, not because I think the others are necessarily doing a better job of it.

I've been inundated with Christian beliefs too many times. Massive overkill. I know relatively less about other religions due to less exposure. So although I'm not interested in signing up for any religious faith, I'm more engaged when hearing about a belief with which I'm not already intimately familiar. At least I'm learning something new, whether I agree with the ideas or not.
47
Addendum:

Actually, it does seem to me that Jainism has a better track record than any other major religion I can recall. I’m not becoming a Jain nun, but I do have respect for that. If any religion is “getting it right”, it seems Jainism is a top contender. It seems to be one of the rare few that doesn’t espouse nonviolence while periodically hacking people to pieces.
48
people really need to get a life and stop believeing everything you read. this has nothing to do with one's religious beliefs...even though, yes, the Tshirt does represent the movie. It is ironic that he was wearing the shirt but it's just a shirt. He didn't strangle his wife...she is dilusional and has serious problems... i wouldn't put it past her if she was the one to strangle herself and blame Brad for some sort of "poor me" complex she has.
Don't be so quick to judge...especially if your'e going to talk religion.
49
Teresa, I cited the Bible because Christianity is the dominant religion in this country, and because they continually want to use the government to impose their cherry picked version of their religion on the rest of us. For us gays, fundamental Christianity is a bigger threat than Al Qeada. We don't have Al Qeada members in the government working to outlaw us, but we do have Christians doing so as we speak. You could substitute just about any other religion, and scripture though.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.