Friday, December 5, 2008
Religion No Mob Veto
Posted by Dan Savage on Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 9:15 AM
Except, of course, on the issue of gay marriage—then you're free to assemble your own mob and veto the constitutional rights of a tiny minority. And if that tiny minority group decides that it's had enough and takes to the streets to protest your actions, then you point at a few isolated incidents where someone may have crossed the line and claim that you're the ones who are actually being persecuted.
No Mob Veto = bullies who got their noses bloodied acting like the whiny-ass crybabies they really are.
Share via
1
I'm calling on the Straight Community to protest all showings of "Milk" -- who was a sexual harasser.
Let's create a Mob to make the streets safe for straights again!
End the violence...stop the harassment!
Let's create a Mob to make the streets safe for straights again!
End the violence...stop the harassment!
2
You mean the same assholes that claim they're a persecuted minority whenever anything doesn't go their way, like not being able to force us to pray or inserting their fairy tales into the scientific community? What a shocker!
4
Let's hope they spend lots and lots more money on more of these expensive, full-page ads that no one will notice, read, or understand...
5
Let's hope they spend lots and lots more money on more of these expensive, full-page ads that no one will notice, read, or understand...
6
Seems like a pretty innocuous, even-handed request: Let's keep it civil and not foment hate. These aren't haters who signed this, and they're not claiming they were persecuted.
This misdirected, over-the-top outrage is getting tiresome.
This misdirected, over-the-top outrage is getting tiresome.
7
Civil? I'll keep it civil when dumbass religious fucks stop lying in the media about gays and lesbians in order to make our lives more difficult.
Blessings.
Blessings.
8
People like Dan and Balt-O-Matt who take militant, confrontational positions on issues rarely bring about social change, but...
...they keep up the pressure on those who do. Dan and Balt - you're being jerks. Keep up the good work.
...they keep up the pressure on those who do. Dan and Balt - you're being jerks. Keep up the good work.
9
Sounds like a character - No-Mob-Vito - from The Sopranos.
Well, may I have impure thoughts about your religions, your proselytizing, your contentious certitude about what's acceptably proper and what's not? Sorry to tear holes in your smug complacency but when you attempt to sway the mob yourself, you may expect a pout or two from those you dismiss as somehow "unfit".
Well, may I have impure thoughts about your religions, your proselytizing, your contentious certitude about what's acceptably proper and what's not? Sorry to tear holes in your smug complacency but when you attempt to sway the mob yourself, you may expect a pout or two from those you dismiss as somehow "unfit".
10
rjh: you are naive. they're trying to make it sound like there's a problem with gay violence. there isn't. classic accuse the victim of the crimes the perp is doing and then claim self defense. and did you notice the threat at the end?
11
I would have been impressed by this if the last paragraph had said something like "despite our fundamental disagreements with one another, we announce today that we will stand shoulder to shoulder to defend any house of worship and any gay or lesbian person from violence, regardless of the cause that violence seeks to serve.
In other words, if it had been about recognizing the different stances of both sides of the debate and acknowledging that both sides have a right to free speech and that both sides have done inappropriate things at times.
As it is, it just comes across as more put-upon victimhood from religious folks. It makes it sound like most of the efforts to protest Prop 8 could either be classified as "violence or intimidation" or "anti-religious propaganda".
In other words, if it had been about recognizing the different stances of both sides of the debate and acknowledging that both sides have a right to free speech and that both sides have done inappropriate things at times.
As it is, it just comes across as more put-upon victimhood from religious folks. It makes it sound like most of the efforts to protest Prop 8 could either be classified as "violence or intimidation" or "anti-religious propaganda".
12
#8: "No-Mob-Vito - from The Sopranos. "
Why does SLOG allow ethnic discrimination against Southern Europeans in its comments?
Here's anther question.
Sarah Palin was chastised for saying Africa is a country. Well, if it's not, why do people call themselves "African-Americans"? People call themselves "Irish-Americans" not "European-Americans"...so shouldn't black people call themselves "Kenyan-Americans" or "Rhodesian-Americans"?
Why does SLOG allow ethnic discrimination against Southern Europeans in its comments?
Here's anther question.
Sarah Palin was chastised for saying Africa is a country. Well, if it's not, why do people call themselves "African-Americans"? People call themselves "Irish-Americans" not "European-Americans"...so shouldn't black people call themselves "Kenyan-Americans" or "Rhodesian-Americans"?
14
Just because you and your friends organized and showed up and all railed and screamed, that doesn't mean you get your way.
15
Dan - I am 100% with you on the end goal, but on the tactics - I think you hold the moral high ground when you target the specific donors to Yes on 8. When you target an entire religion, you hit the slippery slope. And yes - I know the senior church leaders organized this and the majority of members supported it. But your comments show that not all members did. Guilt by association tactics will not be as effective as targeting guilt by action donors.
Hey - I empathize. But to maximize the public backlash against the church stance on 8, don't allow them to appear to be innocent martyrs. Target the big donors specifically for their public square action. Many of these donors- ahem - just happen to be Mormon....
Just my $.02 but I want to see our side win sooner rather than later. We need to be smart about it.
Hey - I empathize. But to maximize the public backlash against the church stance on 8, don't allow them to appear to be innocent martyrs. Target the big donors specifically for their public square action. Many of these donors- ahem - just happen to be Mormon....
Just my $.02 but I want to see our side win sooner rather than later. We need to be smart about it.
16
I wondered what the SLOG would say about this ad when I saw it in this morning's NYT. On the one hand, the Mormon hate is getting tiresome. You want to do something? Get on the No to Prop 8 group's case and overthrow that sorry "leadership". Seriously-- it was theirs to lose and they did a great job of f'ing up what should have been a no brainer. On the other hand, the people who signed the letter? Not the ecumenical spiritual guides I respect. Had Sojourners joined in on this, I might have given it some credence, but as it is? It's no better than the UAW ad that preceded it.
17
It's a sad corollary that firebrand tactics always get Bill Donohue a place in the conversation. This dumbass No Mob Veto thing is his and his cronies' way of saying "thanks for pullling this down to the level where we can reach you, and bwahahaha."
19
@12 - Could it be because most African-Americans, being the descendants of slaves taken from several different countries, have no clue where they come from, whereas most whites/European Americans do?
And seriously, are you really using this as a justification for someone not knowing the difference between a country and a continent?
And seriously, are you really using this as a justification for someone not knowing the difference between a country and a continent?
21
Why am I completely unsurprised to see the Whiner-In-Chief, that asshole Bill Donohue, is one of the first signatories to this particular bit of crybaby advertising?
22
Did you see the HRC's response to the ad? While the ad had a few issues, HRC's response was just plain strange. We just did an article about it, as well as the ad itself, here: http://voiceofrevolution.askdrbrown.org/…
23
Gay tantrums after Prop 8 =
bullies who got their noses bloodied acting like the whiny-ass crybabies they really are
bullies who got their noses bloodied acting like the whiny-ass crybabies they really are
24
The grace and poetry of your studied and educated responses are enough to influence everyone into agreeing with your viewpoint - well done!
Look at the words you are writing Dan, and tell us who is the one spreading hate.
Look at the words you are writing Dan, and tell us who is the one spreading hate.
25
Doug Laycock, one of the signatories of this letter, is actually a pretty good guy and has argued cases at the Supreme Court that readers of this blog would approve of.
I think it is possible to read this statement in several ways. A conservative reading of it would just say that violence is wrong and should be curtailed. A liberal reading of it would seem to mean that people shouldn't speak out against the Mormons. I suspect that the people who signed it subscribe to a variety of beliefs along that spectrum. I don't think it is fair to say that they all intend the more liberal reading of it.
I think it is possible to read this statement in several ways. A conservative reading of it would just say that violence is wrong and should be curtailed. A liberal reading of it would seem to mean that people shouldn't speak out against the Mormons. I suspect that the people who signed it subscribe to a variety of beliefs along that spectrum. I don't think it is fair to say that they all intend the more liberal reading of it.
26
Protesting in the streets is reasonable and to be respected. It would be as anti-democratic to deny this right as denying the right of people to vote their conscious.
Violence (bomb and anthrax threats) at churches and harassment of church goers at their houses of worship is not reasonable and not to be respected. Blacklisting to threaten individual's livelihood is despicable. Threatening and violent anti-religion behavior was wide spread in the wake of the passing constitutional amendments defining marriage in California, Arizona and Florida.
Violence (bomb and anthrax threats) at churches and harassment of church goers at their houses of worship is not reasonable and not to be respected. Blacklisting to threaten individual's livelihood is despicable. Threatening and violent anti-religion behavior was wide spread in the wake of the passing constitutional amendments defining marriage in California, Arizona and Florida.
27
I find it funny that religious groups are playing the victim card, and are surprised that these protests are taking place. Religious groups are such hypocrites and are usually at the forefront of contemptible behavior. If I recall, several large religious organizations protested McDonald's, Ford, Disney, Pepsi, and numerous other companies because they started providing same-sex health benefits. All over Health Benefits! Seriously?? How is that not blacklisting and threatening people's livelihood? Oh, but it’s in the name of religion so it’s fine. Seems to me like a typical case of the holier than thou religious rhetoric - “Do as I say, not as I do"
Most Commented on Slog
-
WTF? by Dan Savage
-
Your Wife Died Alone... by Dan Savage
-
Meanwhile in Vancouver by Dan Savage
-
Is Your Teen Out of Control... And Smoking Hot? by Dan Savage
-
PETA vs. Thanksgiving by Dan Savage
-
Health at Every Size by Dan Savage
-
Boy-Nerds Offended by Cootie-Ridden "Girl" Movie by Paul Constant
-
The Democrats Have 60 Votes in the Senate for Health Care Reform by Jonathan Golob
-
The Cost (and Fear) of Dying by Anthony Hecht
-
SL Letter of the Day: Hot For Twinks by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (28) RSS