Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, March 25, 2009
Religion There Is No Morality Without Religion
Posted by Dan Savage on Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 9:30 AM
A Lansing Township pastor accused of possessing child pornography has resigned from his church and faces up to seven years in prison. Lloyd M. Hall Jr. last week submitted his letter of resignation to Plymouth Congregational Church, where he had served for about seven years, said Jim DeLine, a spokesman for the church.The church's board of trustees met Sunday morning and decided to accept 69-year-old pastor's resignation, DeLine said.
1
that's particularly surprising because the congregationalists are such liberal christians they're practically unitarian.
and here i thought only the catholics and the fundies were into raping babies.
and here i thought only the catholics and the fundies were into raping babies.
3
When religion depicts all homosexual people as pedophiles, it's ignorant, hateful, and deplorable. Deserving of condemnation.
When a homosexual paints all religious people as pedophiles, it's daring, bold, and courageous. Deserving of publication.
At face value, it seems like a "rubber versus glue" argument.
What then of those Protestant faiths that have been opening their ranks to homosexual ministers? Are they pedophiles because they are homosexuals or because they are ministers?
When a homosexual paints all religious people as pedophiles, it's daring, bold, and courageous. Deserving of publication.
At face value, it seems like a "rubber versus glue" argument.
What then of those Protestant faiths that have been opening their ranks to homosexual ministers? Are they pedophiles because they are homosexuals or because they are ministers?
5
Wow lenny, that is quite a jump. All he did was quote a news article and suggest there is no morality without religion.
It is you that makes the bold statement about "all religious people" get a grip and stick to the facts.
It is you that makes the bold statement about "all religious people" get a grip and stick to the facts.
6
This is so enlightening.
Someone associated with religion does something bad and Dan tells us about is because, after all, all religion is obviously bad.
Jonathan calls that specious reasoning.
Perhaps he can explain it to you- after all, why have a big brained brilliant scientist on staff if he can't help you avoid making an ass out of yourself every once in a while?
here is a link, it is post #28:
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Comme…
Someone associated with religion does something bad and Dan tells us about is because, after all, all religion is obviously bad.
Jonathan calls that specious reasoning.
Perhaps he can explain it to you- after all, why have a big brained brilliant scientist on staff if he can't help you avoid making an ass out of yourself every once in a while?
here is a link, it is post #28:
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Comme…
8
dan's goal seems to be to discredit religion. atheists like to do that. they get tired of being bullied by the religious in this country, so they snark. i don't blame them. it's not necessarily constructive or fair to those who are decent religious folks, but it's still perfectly understandable.
12
8
So it would be understandable if some kid who has had an abusive experience with some homosexual somewhere sometime engaged in a little gay bashing to let off some steam? And we shouldn't blame them?
So it would be understandable if some kid who has had an abusive experience with some homosexual somewhere sometime engaged in a little gay bashing to let off some steam? And we shouldn't blame them?
13
Well, given the fact that Dan can generally post at least one, if not multiple entries for "TNMWR", "YPW", and "O,TWKWACB" - often with multiple citations - each and every DAY, then it's not too much of a stretch to conclude that organized religion has quite a messy enough house of its own to clean up before it should go around pointing fingers with regards to "who's more moral" or whatnot.
And really, WHERE - please post citations - has Dan EVER depicted or stated that "all religious people as (are) pedophiles"? That's simply an unsupportable conjecture on your parts @3 & @6: YOU'RE the ones projecting the specious assertions into Dan's posts, without any proof that Dan has ever actually made such claims.
FAIL.
And really, WHERE - please post citations - has Dan EVER depicted or stated that "all religious people as (are) pedophiles"? That's simply an unsupportable conjecture on your parts @3 & @6: YOU'RE the ones projecting the specious assertions into Dan's posts, without any proof that Dan has ever actually made such claims.
FAIL.
15
Hey, Lenny: maybe those Protestant churches that have been opening their ranks etc. should be blowing their own horn, and getting into the public argument, rather than sitting silently by while their coreligionists fling big handfuls of shit on gays and those who support their rights?
Go on, tell us: who are they? Why aren't they saying anything? The only one I know of is the Episcopalians, who have a gay archbishop now; but I only hear them arguing amongst themselves about whether that's OK or not. I don't hear a lot of Episcopalians standing up and saying "I'm an Episcopalian, and I think Mark Driscoll is reprehensible" or even "I'm an Episcopalian, and I support gay marriage". That's what I'd like to hear.
Until then, I think Dan pointing out a few of the countless episodes where Christian morality fails miserably is a good thing.
Go on, tell us: who are they? Why aren't they saying anything? The only one I know of is the Episcopalians, who have a gay archbishop now; but I only hear them arguing amongst themselves about whether that's OK or not. I don't hear a lot of Episcopalians standing up and saying "I'm an Episcopalian, and I think Mark Driscoll is reprehensible" or even "I'm an Episcopalian, and I support gay marriage". That's what I'd like to hear.
Until then, I think Dan pointing out a few of the countless episodes where Christian morality fails miserably is a good thing.
16
12, that's not a valid analogy and you know it. "dan has a bad experience with religious oppression so he sets a church on fire." now you have an analogy to gay bashing. but he hasn't done any such thing, has he?
17
What our articulate friend @7and10 is pointing out is that by featuring only corrupt Youth Ministers etc Dan creates a false impression about how pervasive corrupt behavior is.
Given the huge numbers of people associated with religion, @13, it is not at all surprising or informative that Dan can find an example every few days.
Taking examples of poor behavior by a few members of a group and extrapolating out to condemn all members of the group is the foundation of bigotry and prejudice.
It is a common tactic; used by the KKK to inflame hatred against blacks and by Nazis (yes- NAZIS!) and other anti-Semites to build hatred of Jews, for just a few examples.
It would not be hard, for example, to find an example every day or so somewhere in the country of a black male raping a white woman. Dan could feature those stories in lurid detail and call it "Mandingo Watch" and build outrage among the credulous readers of slog about the menace black men pose to our women. Or better yet Dan could find and highlight examples of white yuppie gays raped in prison and jail by black men and stir up anger. It would be no different, just a different target.
If David Duke or the Aryan Nation ran a web site like that targeting blacks the Southern Law Center would be all over him. (they probably do and are, come to think of it) But because Dan is careful to target Christians he gets away with it.
Given the huge numbers of people associated with religion, @13, it is not at all surprising or informative that Dan can find an example every few days.
Taking examples of poor behavior by a few members of a group and extrapolating out to condemn all members of the group is the foundation of bigotry and prejudice.
It is a common tactic; used by the KKK to inflame hatred against blacks and by Nazis (yes- NAZIS!) and other anti-Semites to build hatred of Jews, for just a few examples.
It would not be hard, for example, to find an example every day or so somewhere in the country of a black male raping a white woman. Dan could feature those stories in lurid detail and call it "Mandingo Watch" and build outrage among the credulous readers of slog about the menace black men pose to our women. Or better yet Dan could find and highlight examples of white yuppie gays raped in prison and jail by black men and stir up anger. It would be no different, just a different target.
If David Duke or the Aryan Nation ran a web site like that targeting blacks the Southern Law Center would be all over him. (they probably do and are, come to think of it) But because Dan is careful to target Christians he gets away with it.
18
@ 15 - Hello, that's what I do on my blog all day. When I should be working. You should visit some time.
19
Oh and @ 17-
It's a common tactic used by everyone all the time. Sure, Dan's biased. Sure, it can be really annoying and sometimes offensive to those of us who ARE Christian and AREN'T bigoted douchebags. But the fact is that the loud-mouthed fundamentalist, evangelical, gay-bashing, abortion-hating Christian leaders in the United States paint themselves, and by proxy all of Christianity (at least the Christians whom they deem to be Christian) as morally righteous, while they paint people like Dan (read: gay people, particularly the ones who are married with children) as morally repugnant.
I don't necessarily agree with this tactic all the time, but I do think it is a fair argument to these people who claim that believing in and practicing a specific version of Christianity is the only way to be a good person. Dan's just showing that these people are as fucked up as everyone else is. In a really, really biased, sometimes douchy way.
It's a common tactic used by everyone all the time. Sure, Dan's biased. Sure, it can be really annoying and sometimes offensive to those of us who ARE Christian and AREN'T bigoted douchebags. But the fact is that the loud-mouthed fundamentalist, evangelical, gay-bashing, abortion-hating Christian leaders in the United States paint themselves, and by proxy all of Christianity (at least the Christians whom they deem to be Christian) as morally righteous, while they paint people like Dan (read: gay people, particularly the ones who are married with children) as morally repugnant.
I don't necessarily agree with this tactic all the time, but I do think it is a fair argument to these people who claim that believing in and practicing a specific version of Christianity is the only way to be a good person. Dan's just showing that these people are as fucked up as everyone else is. In a really, really biased, sometimes douchy way.
20
17, Um Will, Again, please point out where anyone said these examples were typical. That you imaging that it is being said, isn't the same as someone actually doing so. Also, Will, quite often, there are good youth pastors included in YPW for balance.
by featuring only corrupt Youth Ministers etc Dan creates a false impression about how pervasive corrupt behavior is.
17, Um Will, Again, please point out where anyone said these examples were typical. That you imaging that it is being said, isn't the same as someone actually doing so. Also, Will, quite often, there are good youth pastors included in YPW for balance.
21
@19
"I do think it's a fair argument"
No, it's not an argument. It's a fallacy. Several of them.
Sweeping generalizations, "tu quoque," and ad hominem, to name a few.
You can't reply to a fallacy with another fallacy and call that an argument.
"I do think it's a fair argument"
No, it's not an argument. It's a fallacy. Several of them.
Sweeping generalizations, "tu quoque," and ad hominem, to name a few.
You can't reply to a fallacy with another fallacy and call that an argument.
22
@15 The Right Reverend V. Gene Robinson
IX is Bishop of New Hampshire.
The Anglicans only have two archbishops, both are in England and are not any more gay than the average Englishman.
IX is Bishop of New Hampshire.
The Anglicans only have two archbishops, both are in England and are not any more gay than the average Englishman.
24
23, Right here:
Again, you imagining that this is being done, doesn't mean that it is. It's only in your head.
Taking examples of poor behavior by a few members of a group and extrapolating out to condemn all members of the group is the foundation of bigotry and prejudice.
Again, you imagining that this is being done, doesn't mean that it is. It's only in your head.
25
@24
I noticed you avoided my question.
The pull-quote you cite states a general principle.
Please point out where anyone said that anyone said these examples were typical.
I noticed you avoided my question.
The pull-quote you cite states a general principle.
Please point out where anyone said that anyone said these examples were typical.
26
The only "fallacy" being conducted here is by those who "extrapolate" an interpretation of Dan's postings, where in point of fact, no such extrapolation has been suggested.
Pointing out specific instances where religionists have failed to heed their own moral code is just that: citation of examples. At no point has Dan ever stated that these examples represent the actions, beliefs, or positions of ALL Christians - I defy you to present a single example of such an assertion on his part - and he has generally left it up to individual readers to glean whatever conclusion they choose from them.
The fact that YOU choose to perceive them as a blanket condemnation of ALL believers says far more about the tenuousness of your own beliefs, than it does about Dan's.
Pointing out specific instances where religionists have failed to heed their own moral code is just that: citation of examples. At no point has Dan ever stated that these examples represent the actions, beliefs, or positions of ALL Christians - I defy you to present a single example of such an assertion on his part - and he has generally left it up to individual readers to glean whatever conclusion they choose from them.
The fact that YOU choose to perceive them as a blanket condemnation of ALL believers says far more about the tenuousness of your own beliefs, than it does about Dan's.
27
@25
"When a homosexual paints all religious people as pedophiles, it's daring, bold, and courageous. Deserving of publication." lenny@3
"When a homosexual paints all religious people as pedophiles, it's daring, bold, and courageous. Deserving of publication." lenny@3
28
You guys are right. I want to retract my statement at #3. I was just shooting my mouth off and maybe missed the point of this column. I think I was reading too much into it and trying to see deeper patterns where it's really nothing more complex than hate begetting hate.
That's what I get for drinking at work.
@20 "quite often, there are good youth pastors included in YPW for balance."
That's an AWESOME point! Next time, Dan lists some Gen-X Christian kid alongside two or three convicted child-molestors (with no distinguishing separation), I'll be sure to forward the article to show him what good balance he's providing to this "argument."
That's what I get for drinking at work.
@20 "quite often, there are good youth pastors included in YPW for balance."
That's an AWESOME point! Next time, Dan lists some Gen-X Christian kid alongside two or three convicted child-molestors (with no distinguishing separation), I'll be sure to forward the article to show him what good balance he's providing to this "argument."
29
25, Oh so now you are going to play word games, rather than stand by what you said? Fine.
For the sake of argument, lets say you are right. Who is doing this?
For the sake of argument, lets say you are right. Who is doing this?
Taking examples of poor behavior by a few members of a group and extrapolating out to condemn all members of the group is the foundation of bigotry and prejudice.
31
26
Usually examples are cited to illustrate or prove a point. What point is Dan making? Or is he just throwing random meaningless tidpits of salacious gossip out there to fill space.
Usually examples are cited to illustrate or prove a point. What point is Dan making? Or is he just throwing random meaningless tidpits of salacious gossip out there to fill space.
32
30, Oh, now it time for you to become evasive.
You said:
Again, who is doing this? Why can't you answer to your own words? Very telling.
You said:
Taking examples of poor behavior by a few members of a group and extrapolating out to condemn all members of the group is the foundation of bigotry and prejudice.
Again, who is doing this? Why can't you answer to your own words? Very telling.
34
33, The only person who seems to be doing it is you. You can't seem to find where anyone else is doing it.
38
Lenny retracted his statement at 28. Like the rhetorical coward he is.
So to recap:
SOME Christians depict all homosexuals as pedophiles. This is deplorable.
SOME homosexuals depict all Christians as pedophiles. This, too, is deplorable.
Now, in Dan's defense, he never STATED the latter. He tap-danced around it in a way that would be (barely) legally defensible. He's a writer. He knows what he's doing.
Kind of like when tabloid news states outrageous shit with a question mark after it.
For an example, "Dan Savage Attempting to Smear All Christians as Pedophiles?"
See. I didn't STATE that. I just floated the question out there. If you think I said that, it's all in your head. John Stewart taught me that trick.
So to recap:
SOME Christians depict all homosexuals as pedophiles. This is deplorable.
SOME homosexuals depict all Christians as pedophiles. This, too, is deplorable.
Now, in Dan's defense, he never STATED the latter. He tap-danced around it in a way that would be (barely) legally defensible. He's a writer. He knows what he's doing.
Kind of like when tabloid news states outrageous shit with a question mark after it.
For an example, "Dan Savage Attempting to Smear All Christians as Pedophiles?"
See. I didn't STATE that. I just floated the question out there. If you think I said that, it's all in your head. John Stewart taught me that trick.
39
The point is, as I believe a certain teacher with whom you may have some passing familiarity would have put it:
"He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone",
Or, more succintly:
"Judge not, that ye be not judged".
"He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone",
Or, more succintly:
"Judge not, that ye be not judged".
40
@39, Oh, how I wish more Christians would follow that mantra.
Well, I mean I wish everyone would, but I do find it particularly hypocritical for Christians to go around being judgy judgersons all the time when their "personal lord and savior" specifically said not to. A few times.
Well, I mean I wish everyone would, but I do find it particularly hypocritical for Christians to go around being judgy judgersons all the time when their "personal lord and savior" specifically said not to. A few times.
41
38, Um, Lenny please point out where it was even posed as a question? Please show where it has been "tapped dance around". All that was done was a true story about a pastor who was arrested for having child pornography.
42
Oh, and since when do credible news reports of resignations, firings, public condemnations, and convictions for crimes committed constitute "meaningless tidpits of salacious gossip"? Gossip would imply the reports lack veracity or credibility, which in the case of every example Dan has ever cited from the public record is flat-out incorrect; they ALL are completely and verifiably factual.
Sorry but - FAILX2
Sorry but - FAILX2
43
@40:
Well, many of them also believe "their personal lord and savior" was a blonde-haired, blue-eyed, English-speaker of Aryan descent, so there you go.
Well, many of them also believe "their personal lord and savior" was a blonde-haired, blue-eyed, English-speaker of Aryan descent, so there you go.
44
Kip, you're right, I should have said "bishop", and my screwup is especially sad as I have actually touched an Episcopalian bishop, who confirmed me in the church back in 1833 or whenever it was. Didn't take, possibly because we had only been Episcopalians for a year, having come from the Presbyterians (less than a year) and before that the Catholics (my first decade or so). My parents had a mixed message, and Episcopalianism was their compromise. Now of course I am a godless heathen.
And Jocelyn, I do read your site fairly often, and think it's fantastic. You're doing a wonderful thing. If there were more like you, the Wildmons and Phelpses and Driscolls of this world would lose a lot of traction. I'd like to see you on the news shows sometime.
And Jocelyn, I do read your site fairly often, and think it's fantastic. You're doing a wonderful thing. If there were more like you, the Wildmons and Phelpses and Driscolls of this world would lose a lot of traction. I'd like to see you on the news shows sometime.
45
Rob, I'll try to clarify.
The question mark is just a rhetorical tactic. It's used all the time. It was the example I chose of how writers avoid accountability. There are many other ways.
Dan's method is different. Subtler, but just as effective. He's not listing pedophiles. He's listing CHRISTIAN pedophiles. Sure, there's no direct association stated, but the exclusion of, say... atheist pedophiles, is the indicator of what he's doing.
We can argue the difference between implication and inference all day. Until we see a statistical breakdown of pedophiles by religion, sexuality, employment, etc, we are left with the examples given. And those examples have clear and intentional patterns. Hateful patterns, I argue.
Oh, wait... the patterns are inferred, right? And the title "Youth PASTOR Watch" is just in my imagination, too. Along with "And They Will Know Us As CHRISTIANS..."
Am I also the only one who sees the selective use of bold-face in the articles?
This is hate begetting hate. It's based neither on religion or sexuality. It's just hate. Defend it all you wish, just don't accuse others of being haters (Dan does that, not you).
The question mark is just a rhetorical tactic. It's used all the time. It was the example I chose of how writers avoid accountability. There are many other ways.
Dan's method is different. Subtler, but just as effective. He's not listing pedophiles. He's listing CHRISTIAN pedophiles. Sure, there's no direct association stated, but the exclusion of, say... atheist pedophiles, is the indicator of what he's doing.
We can argue the difference between implication and inference all day. Until we see a statistical breakdown of pedophiles by religion, sexuality, employment, etc, we are left with the examples given. And those examples have clear and intentional patterns. Hateful patterns, I argue.
Oh, wait... the patterns are inferred, right? And the title "Youth PASTOR Watch" is just in my imagination, too. Along with "And They Will Know Us As CHRISTIANS..."
Am I also the only one who sees the selective use of bold-face in the articles?
This is hate begetting hate. It's based neither on religion or sexuality. It's just hate. Defend it all you wish, just don't accuse others of being haters (Dan does that, not you).
47
45, Lenny, that is not what is being done. Again, it's never been said, or even implied that all Christians are pedophiles by these posts.
To spell it out for you, the point is that being religious doesn't always equate to being moral, and inversely, being non-religious doesn't equate to being immoral. People can be moral or immoral regardless of their religious status.
So many right wing Christians use the "No morality without religion" argument to push their views into the government, to put prayer in schools, the10 commandments in courthouses, etc. This series of posts is to point out the flaw in the right wingers arguments about religion being a requirement for morality. There's nothing more to it.
To spell it out for you, the point is that being religious doesn't always equate to being moral, and inversely, being non-religious doesn't equate to being immoral. People can be moral or immoral regardless of their religious status.
So many right wing Christians use the "No morality without religion" argument to push their views into the government, to put prayer in schools, the10 commandments in courthouses, etc. This series of posts is to point out the flaw in the right wingers arguments about religion being a requirement for morality. There's nothing more to it.
48
Rob, thank you for spelling it out.
I am aware of evangelical religious homophobia. I find it distasteful, meddlesome, and unintelligent.
If that alone is justification for using the SAME tactics to smear religious people, I disagree. I find it just as distasteful, meddlesome, and unintelligent.
In pointing out the hypocrisy of religion, Dan has descended to the same level of hateful generalizations.
To defend this behavior is the childish equivalent of blurting out "Well, THEY STARTED IT!!!"
I am aware of evangelical religious homophobia. I find it distasteful, meddlesome, and unintelligent.
If that alone is justification for using the SAME tactics to smear religious people, I disagree. I find it just as distasteful, meddlesome, and unintelligent.
In pointing out the hypocrisy of religion, Dan has descended to the same level of hateful generalizations.
To defend this behavior is the childish equivalent of blurting out "Well, THEY STARTED IT!!!"
49
Actually @45, yes, you ARE the only one who sees BOLD FACE in the titles, since no such bold facing of said titles ever in fact occurs. The titles are:
"Youth Pastor Watch"
"There Is No Morality Without Religion"
"Oh, They Will Know We Are Christians By..."
Not a bold face in the bunch. Google each of the above with "Slog" preceding and tell me I'm wrong.
"Youth Pastor Watch"
"There Is No Morality Without Religion"
"Oh, They Will Know We Are Christians By..."
Not a bold face in the bunch. Google each of the above with "Slog" preceding and tell me I'm wrong.
50
49
Chris, you moron.
Did you read the post?
It said 'bold face in the articles.
YOU'RE WRONG.
And Stupid.
Chris, you moron.
Did you read the post?
It said 'bold face in the articles.
YOU'RE WRONG.
And Stupid.
51
@48:
So, better to just ignore the blatant hypocrisy of religious zealots who seem to be unable to practice what they preach, who feel compelled to condemn in others actions they seem to find perfectly acceptable when done by themselves? Not buying it for a moment.
Sorry, but burying ones head in the sand, and trying to go through life blithely pretending such crimes never occur simply because it might APPEAR that such acknowledgment represents some sort of rhetorical "tit-for-tat" isn't a particularly compelling argument for doing so, in my view.
So, better to just ignore the blatant hypocrisy of religious zealots who seem to be unable to practice what they preach, who feel compelled to condemn in others actions they seem to find perfectly acceptable when done by themselves? Not buying it for a moment.
Sorry, but burying ones head in the sand, and trying to go through life blithely pretending such crimes never occur simply because it might APPEAR that such acknowledgment represents some sort of rhetorical "tit-for-tat" isn't a particularly compelling argument for doing so, in my view.
52
Sigh... you're right COMTE. It's not in the titles, it's in the text. My bad.
I retreat from this argument having been scolded for a technicality.
No, wait... I said "articles." I'm good there. You're not right, COMTE. My bad.
Sloggers... you rock. Christian, gay, or otherwise. I love you all.
I retreat from this argument having been scolded for a technicality.
No, wait... I said "articles." I'm good there. You're not right, COMTE. My bad.
Sloggers... you rock. Christian, gay, or otherwise. I love you all.
53
@50:
Did YOU read the post?
"Oh, wait... the patterns are inferred, right? And the title "Youth PASTOR Watch" is just in my imagination, too. Along with "And They Will Know Us As CHRISTIANS..."
FAILUS MAXIMUS MORONUS
Did YOU read the post?
"Oh, wait... the patterns are inferred, right? And the title "Youth PASTOR Watch" is just in my imagination, too. Along with "And They Will Know Us As CHRISTIANS..."
FAILUS MAXIMUS MORONUS
54
A couple of things. The Plymouth church is not a member of the UCC, that's the progressive Congregationalists. They are NACCC, which tends to be more conservative, and is officially apolitical, so this is not an activist gay friendly church.
Regardless, as others have noted, there are people of shoddy moral character in every corner of life,of every sexual orientation, and in every religion. It is appropriate for public figures like Dan to call the church on its moral hypocrisies because so many corners of the church are so quick to make bigoted and condemning statements about us LGBT folks, and about Dan in particular.
As an openly gay mainline clergy person, I've had to deal with a healthy dose of hate through the years, so I can relate a bit. I try to be quick to cry foul when my colleagues twist scripture into something hateful and condemning and I'll admit to experiencing inappropriate, but momentarily wickedly schadenfreude when a conservative leader is exposed as a blatant hypocrite. I'm no angel, but don't claim to be.
I don't know the whole situation with this pastor, but he clearly seems to have had child pornography on his computer. As either one who made or acquired child pornography, the Reverend is a criminal and an exploiter of the most vulnerable in our society--children. I don't know if this guy is progressive or conservative, though one gets a conservative vibe from the church website. Regardless, the church, like society, must be vigilant in bringing to justice those who would exploit children. This guy is dangerous and shouldn't have access to any position that would endanger others.
Yes, Dan sometimes gets snarky when stuff like this happens...but then who can blame him? Heaven knows how much hate mail Dan gets from churchy folk with blinders on their brains and a fear and hatred of people who challenge their rigid views. I don't think Dan is being self-righteous when he exposes the sexual wrongs of church folk...he's RESPONDING to self-righteousness with a bit of humanist/secularist/atheist righteous indignation...and again, who can blame him?
Keep it coming Dan...eventually I hope some of us crazy liberal Christians can pleasantly surprise you.
More...
Regardless, as others have noted, there are people of shoddy moral character in every corner of life,of every sexual orientation, and in every religion. It is appropriate for public figures like Dan to call the church on its moral hypocrisies because so many corners of the church are so quick to make bigoted and condemning statements about us LGBT folks, and about Dan in particular.
As an openly gay mainline clergy person, I've had to deal with a healthy dose of hate through the years, so I can relate a bit. I try to be quick to cry foul when my colleagues twist scripture into something hateful and condemning and I'll admit to experiencing inappropriate, but momentarily wickedly schadenfreude when a conservative leader is exposed as a blatant hypocrite. I'm no angel, but don't claim to be.
I don't know the whole situation with this pastor, but he clearly seems to have had child pornography on his computer. As either one who made or acquired child pornography, the Reverend is a criminal and an exploiter of the most vulnerable in our society--children. I don't know if this guy is progressive or conservative, though one gets a conservative vibe from the church website. Regardless, the church, like society, must be vigilant in bringing to justice those who would exploit children. This guy is dangerous and shouldn't have access to any position that would endanger others.
Yes, Dan sometimes gets snarky when stuff like this happens...but then who can blame him? Heaven knows how much hate mail Dan gets from churchy folk with blinders on their brains and a fear and hatred of people who challenge their rigid views. I don't think Dan is being self-righteous when he exposes the sexual wrongs of church folk...he's RESPONDING to self-righteousness with a bit of humanist/secularist/atheist righteous indignation...and again, who can blame him?
Keep it coming Dan...eventually I hope some of us crazy liberal Christians can pleasantly surprise you.
55
Oh for FUCK'S SAKE, Comte...
I wasn't talking about boldface in my post. I was talking about boldface in the articles.
I can't type boldface. I can only type ALL CAPS to make emphasis.
You're lost in the fucking details, mincing words, and trying to win an argument based on stupid technical fouls.
Generally, I make it a point to never directly insult another Slogger (apart from staff), but you... YOU....
You're alright, man... Sorry. I got a little heated there.
Say, come up with another clever way to say "FAIL." That shit cracks me up.
I wasn't talking about boldface in my post. I was talking about boldface in the articles.
I can't type boldface. I can only type ALL CAPS to make emphasis.
You're lost in the fucking details, mincing words, and trying to win an argument based on stupid technical fouls.
Generally, I make it a point to never directly insult another Slogger (apart from staff), but you... YOU....
You're alright, man... Sorry. I got a little heated there.
Say, come up with another clever way to say "FAIL." That shit cracks me up.
56
53
Don't be so hard on yourself, Chris, it's not in your head. It couldn't be, that space is full of shit.
And @50 was wrong to call you a moron.
That is so unfair.
To actual morons.
Don't be so hard on yourself, Chris, it's not in your head. It couldn't be, that space is full of shit.
And @50 was wrong to call you a moron.
That is so unfair.
To actual morons.
57
@ 46, the point is this.
Savage was once told that "there is no morality without religion" by some fundie. Another one told him that "every child deserves a mother and a father."
He uses these posts to show the absurdity of these statements. Many religious people aren't the least bit moral. Many children being reared by heterosexual couples are abused and neglected. Using either of these arguments to make a case against gay adoption or gay marriage are demonstrably false, and all these articles (and the YPW ones as well) prove that. They aren't blanket condemnations of all religion, nor are they anti-straight parenting.
I hope knowing the background helps you appreciate where these come from.
Savage was once told that "there is no morality without religion" by some fundie. Another one told him that "every child deserves a mother and a father."
He uses these posts to show the absurdity of these statements. Many religious people aren't the least bit moral. Many children being reared by heterosexual couples are abused and neglected. Using either of these arguments to make a case against gay adoption or gay marriage are demonstrably false, and all these articles (and the YPW ones as well) prove that. They aren't blanket condemnations of all religion, nor are they anti-straight parenting.
I hope knowing the background helps you appreciate where these come from.
58
Attention, everyone:
I am sad to see this argument has degraded to name calling. Please consider chilling out. Thanks.
Oh, and @54- Not Shy in Chi? Are you in Chicago? I'm moving there in September and will be looking for a Church. For some reason yours sounds appealing.
I am sad to see this argument has degraded to name calling. Please consider chilling out. Thanks.
Oh, and @54- Not Shy in Chi? Are you in Chicago? I'm moving there in September and will be looking for a Church. For some reason yours sounds appealing.
59
@57 I hear you and appreciate the point. I've been reading these columns for a while now and know their origins.
But why can't Dan tell us some stories about happy gay couples leading good lives and raising well-adjusted children?
I would LOVE to read those stories. I imagine other readers might agree.
Instead, we get these luridly detailed, true-crime horror tales with sanctimonious titles.
How does THAT further the cause of acceptance?
Dan? I love you, man. You can do better than this.
But why can't Dan tell us some stories about happy gay couples leading good lives and raising well-adjusted children?
I would LOVE to read those stories. I imagine other readers might agree.
Instead, we get these luridly detailed, true-crime horror tales with sanctimonious titles.
How does THAT further the cause of acceptance?
Dan? I love you, man. You can do better than this.
60
@57 I hear you and appreciate the point. I've been reading these columns for a while now and know their origins.
But why can't Dan tell us some stories about happy gay couples leading good lives and raising well-adjusted children?
I would LOVE to read those stories. I imagine other readers might agree.
Instead, we get these luridly detailed, true-crime horror tales with sanctimonious titles.
How does THAT further the cause of acceptance?
Dan? I love you, man. You can do better than this.
But why can't Dan tell us some stories about happy gay couples leading good lives and raising well-adjusted children?
I would LOVE to read those stories. I imagine other readers might agree.
Instead, we get these luridly detailed, true-crime horror tales with sanctimonious titles.
How does THAT further the cause of acceptance?
Dan? I love you, man. You can do better than this.
62
Oh, Lenny, Lenny, Lenny - that's your BEST excuse? You can't type bold face?
Oh! See what I just did there? Wow, it's like magic! Amazing! Doesn't it just boggle your mind? Maybe someday, if you're really, really nice, I'll let you in on the incredible secret! But, I mean really nice, not just pretend nice.
But, back to the point at hand.
Did you your did you not type the following:
"Oh, wait... the patterns are inferred, right? And the title "Youth PASTOR Watch" is just in my imagination, too. Along with "And They Will Know Us As CHRISTIANS..."
You see Lenny, when people use the word "title" I generally take that to mean the, you know, title, unless somehow the word has suddenly changed its meaning in the last couple of hours or so.
And hey you-all, love the name-callin' - it gladdens my lil' ole' heart to see just how readily you are to debase your rock-solid arguments with ad hominum attacks, really classy there.
For now I think I'll designate this one as:
FAIL - EPIC SCALE
Oh! See what I just did there? Wow, it's like magic! Amazing! Doesn't it just boggle your mind? Maybe someday, if you're really, really nice, I'll let you in on the incredible secret! But, I mean really nice, not just pretend nice.
But, back to the point at hand.
Did you your did you not type the following:
"Oh, wait... the patterns are inferred, right? And the title "Youth PASTOR Watch" is just in my imagination, too. Along with "And They Will Know Us As CHRISTIANS..."
You see Lenny, when people use the word "title" I generally take that to mean the, you know, title, unless somehow the word has suddenly changed its meaning in the last couple of hours or so.
And hey you-all, love the name-callin' - it gladdens my lil' ole' heart to see just how readily you are to debase your rock-solid arguments with ad hominum attacks, really classy there.
For now I think I'll designate this one as:
FAIL - EPIC SCALE
63
62
Chris,
Lenny went out of his way to be civil, obviously a waste of time and also obviously he has never read your shit or he would have known not to bother, but he tried really hard and gave you several chances and you used them all to demonstrate what a sad little prick you are. It is not the trolls that ruin slog, it is the regular named assholes.
Chris,
Lenny went out of his way to be civil, obviously a waste of time and also obviously he has never read your shit or he would have known not to bother, but he tried really hard and gave you several chances and you used them all to demonstrate what a sad little prick you are. It is not the trolls that ruin slog, it is the regular named assholes.
65
@64- you know you're making those of us who agree with you not want to agree with you anymore, right?
66
You mean, your argumentative foundation is predicated on whether you LIKE me or not?
If the foundation is solid, then why should you CARE about anything else?
If the foundation is solid, then why should you CARE about anything else?
69
@68:
I never mix up my pills - they're all in color-coded containers for precisely that reason.
Try harder.
I never mix up my pills - they're all in color-coded containers for precisely that reason.
Try harder.
71
@66 - It doesn't matter how solid your foundation is if the shit you've built on top of it is a bunch of douchebaggery.
@67 - Hi Kim! Thanks! :)
@70 - Yay! Could I entice you to take a look at my blog and perhaps shoot me an email (the address is on there) as to where this church is?
@67 - Hi Kim! Thanks! :)
@70 - Yay! Could I entice you to take a look at my blog and perhaps shoot me an email (the address is on there) as to where this church is?
72
So, in your mind the argument is irrelevant, if the framer doesn't meet with your standards of approval?
Yes, well. How perfectly Christian of you...
Yes, well. How perfectly Christian of you...
73
Well, yeah, I am a Christian, but that's kind of irrelevant. In my opinion, you don't judge a person by what they believe, but on the quality of their character.
So, um, epic FAIL.
So, um, epic FAIL.
74
On fallacies:
It has always seemed to me that the point of these posts is to falsify the absolute positive claim, "there is no morality without religion" with a single 'black swan' - a single piece of contradictory evidence that demonstrates that the (again, absolute positive) statement which titles the post is incorrect. But to actual falsify the statement "there is no morality without religion", what you'd need to show is _morality without religion_; whereas Dan keeps showing _religion without morality_.
This is perhaps slightly more clear if we reconstitute the hypothesis as "if morality, then religion" (or, "if no religion, then no morality"). Contradicting this statement requires (no religion) AND (yes morality).
What Dan keeps showing is (religion) AND (no morality) - which is interesting, but beside the implied point of the post. In fact, contradicting the hypothesis requires a positive post, showing an atheist acting morally.
Unless I'm making some logical mistake myself, which is entirely possible - thoughts?
It has always seemed to me that the point of these posts is to falsify the absolute positive claim, "there is no morality without religion" with a single 'black swan' - a single piece of contradictory evidence that demonstrates that the (again, absolute positive) statement which titles the post is incorrect. But to actual falsify the statement "there is no morality without religion", what you'd need to show is _morality without religion_; whereas Dan keeps showing _religion without morality_.
This is perhaps slightly more clear if we reconstitute the hypothesis as "if morality, then religion" (or, "if no religion, then no morality"). Contradicting this statement requires (no religion) AND (yes morality).
What Dan keeps showing is (religion) AND (no morality) - which is interesting, but beside the implied point of the post. In fact, contradicting the hypothesis requires a positive post, showing an atheist acting morally.
Unless I'm making some logical mistake myself, which is entirely possible - thoughts?
76
Yes, of course you do. Because that allows you to maintain your smug, morally superior sanctimony, so that you can then dismiss the argument, regardless of its other merits, simply because you don't like the "character" of the person making it.
"That person is such a douchebag", you say to yourself, "therefore, I can completely disregard anything they say, even if it makes sense, is logical, or proves the point."
I would expect nothing less, frankly, since apparently, your Messiah's admonition to "judge not, etc., etc." has fallen on completely deaf ears.
But then, Christians have a tendency to ignore so many of Yeshua's admonitions, whenever they find them inconvenient, don't they?
"That person is such a douchebag", you say to yourself, "therefore, I can completely disregard anything they say, even if it makes sense, is logical, or proves the point."
I would expect nothing less, frankly, since apparently, your Messiah's admonition to "judge not, etc., etc." has fallen on completely deaf ears.
But then, Christians have a tendency to ignore so many of Yeshua's admonitions, whenever they find them inconvenient, don't they?
77
You know, COMTE, it's possible to agree with someone and find them completely repugnant. I am experiencing this sensation right now. It's very strange.
But you're trying to raise yourself above human nature here. There's no point having a douchebag on your side, because a douchebag is never going to change anybody's mind. He is (read: you are) only going to piss people off. If you want to promote your ideas, which are good ones, you might want to consider evolving some pragmatism. Thanks.
But you're trying to raise yourself above human nature here. There's no point having a douchebag on your side, because a douchebag is never going to change anybody's mind. He is (read: you are) only going to piss people off. If you want to promote your ideas, which are good ones, you might want to consider evolving some pragmatism. Thanks.
78
See, your problem Jocelyn, is you actually BELIEVE you CAN change anyone's mind on this subject.
Nobody who has already formed an opinion on this particular issue, whether they've done so via a completely rational examination of the facts, or whether they've simply unquestioningly absorbed whatever primitive superstitions have been foisted on them by their parents or pastors, is ever going to come over to the other side on this one. So, the fact that you naively think that's even a remote possibility already puts you at a distinct rhetorical disadvantage.
I don't CARE if you agree with me or don't; I don't care if you like me or not; my only concern is to continue to point up the complete and utter idiocy of this belief system, in all its illogical, hypocritical, self-contradictory, faith-based glory, using every rhetorical device at my disposal, including ridicule, humiliation, cajoling, snarkage, and yes, even general douchebaggery, if that's what it takes.
Pissing people off is what it's all about, because when people get angry, they lose the capacity to stay focused on-message, and gradually retreat to that ancient reptile-brain response that invariably results in their ranting and screaming and calling you names and telling you to go fuck yourself, at which point any credibility they may have potentially built up over the course of an argument is washed completely down the drain, and they show themselves for what they truly are: sanctimonious, self-absorbed, intellectual feather-weights, for whom rampant, unmitigated hatred of their opponent becomes the only means of expression left to them once the paper-thin veneer of civilized behavior has finally crumbled away completely.
In this type of dialectic, where you can't actually WIN the argument (i.e. convince your opponent of the correctness of your position) because they're never going to relinquish their own, you can only make THEM LOSE by pushing them into destroying their own rhetorical house-of-cards of their own accord.
Which , as the above examples clearly demonstrate, isn't all that terribly difficult to do, if one is willing to take a few minor hits in the name of douchebaggery.
More...
Nobody who has already formed an opinion on this particular issue, whether they've done so via a completely rational examination of the facts, or whether they've simply unquestioningly absorbed whatever primitive superstitions have been foisted on them by their parents or pastors, is ever going to come over to the other side on this one. So, the fact that you naively think that's even a remote possibility already puts you at a distinct rhetorical disadvantage.
I don't CARE if you agree with me or don't; I don't care if you like me or not; my only concern is to continue to point up the complete and utter idiocy of this belief system, in all its illogical, hypocritical, self-contradictory, faith-based glory, using every rhetorical device at my disposal, including ridicule, humiliation, cajoling, snarkage, and yes, even general douchebaggery, if that's what it takes.
Pissing people off is what it's all about, because when people get angry, they lose the capacity to stay focused on-message, and gradually retreat to that ancient reptile-brain response that invariably results in their ranting and screaming and calling you names and telling you to go fuck yourself, at which point any credibility they may have potentially built up over the course of an argument is washed completely down the drain, and they show themselves for what they truly are: sanctimonious, self-absorbed, intellectual feather-weights, for whom rampant, unmitigated hatred of their opponent becomes the only means of expression left to them once the paper-thin veneer of civilized behavior has finally crumbled away completely.
In this type of dialectic, where you can't actually WIN the argument (i.e. convince your opponent of the correctness of your position) because they're never going to relinquish their own, you can only make THEM LOSE by pushing them into destroying their own rhetorical house-of-cards of their own accord.
Which , as the above examples clearly demonstrate, isn't all that terribly difficult to do, if one is willing to take a few minor hits in the name of douchebaggery.
79
COMTE, I realize that the rabble-rousers on the other side will not have their minds changed. The average person, however, often will. I've been involved in discussions that changed my mind on things, or at least set in motion a chain of events that lead to a mind change.
For example, I went to Catholic school for twelve years and the propaganda I received there lead me to be staunchly anti-abortion. But, when confronted with a reasonable argument from the other side, I began to see that being pro-choice was much more of a "pro-life" position. I have also changed some other people's minds on this subject and others.
The point is, the average guy is not, necessarily, a big-headed, closed-minded jerk. Many people are open to reason. There's no reason to assume otherwise. I mean, if people didn't change their minds once in a while, then nothing new would ever happen.
Maybe you do have a point, though. I mean, I don't think you would be the ideal candidate to be a central representative of a cause, but if people like you are on the sidelines arguing with the nut-bags on the other side, it frees up the civil people among both sides for meaningful discourse.
For example, I went to Catholic school for twelve years and the propaganda I received there lead me to be staunchly anti-abortion. But, when confronted with a reasonable argument from the other side, I began to see that being pro-choice was much more of a "pro-life" position. I have also changed some other people's minds on this subject and others.
The point is, the average guy is not, necessarily, a big-headed, closed-minded jerk. Many people are open to reason. There's no reason to assume otherwise. I mean, if people didn't change their minds once in a while, then nothing new would ever happen.
Maybe you do have a point, though. I mean, I don't think you would be the ideal candidate to be a central representative of a cause, but if people like you are on the sidelines arguing with the nut-bags on the other side, it frees up the civil people among both sides for meaningful discourse.
80
That may be so, but you're not going to generally find that sort of person hanging out in the Comments Section of SLOG.
82
Judging from the quality of what, even under normal circumstances, passes for discourse around here, I seriously doubt it.
SLOG simply isn't designed for such a salon-like tête à tête, not so long as individuals can't be held accountable for whatever inane garbage they decide to anonymously spew. Until TPTB elect to institute some sort of registration system (unlikely, since the sole purpose of SLOG is to drive eyeballs-to-ads, and nothing does that quite so effectively as ersatz controversy), it's just the hordes of slavering visigoths versus those of us who enjoy taunting them.
SLOG simply isn't designed for such a salon-like tête à tête, not so long as individuals can't be held accountable for whatever inane garbage they decide to anonymously spew. Until TPTB elect to institute some sort of registration system (unlikely, since the sole purpose of SLOG is to drive eyeballs-to-ads, and nothing does that quite so effectively as ersatz controversy), it's just the hordes of slavering visigoths versus those of us who enjoy taunting them.
85
There's a lot of us who read Slog, but don't post much. We're not here to troll, or to argue. We're here because there are frequent gems - sometimes diamonds - in the pile. Sometimes you have to dig through a lot of trollshit to get to them, but they're usually there. Simply because I don't post a response doesn't mean I didn't think about a post, have a visceral response to it, perhaps even change my mind because of it.
86
Um, I forgot to actually make my point at the end of my post. My point is that you can't judge the open-mindedness and cognitive ability of Slog's readers by the quality of the dialog. A large number - quite probably a majority - of the readers either post very seldom or not at all.
87
Right, they don't like to get their hands/keyboards dirty, but they enjoy the visceral response of watching others do it on their behalf.
You would have made a lovely spectator at The Coliseum, no doubt about it.
You would have made a lovely spectator at The Coliseum, no doubt about it.
92
87
You may be right.
They sometimes brought baboons into the Coliseum to be slaughterd by the gladiators.
You may be right.
They sometimes brought baboons into the Coliseum to be slaughterd by the gladiators.
93
@90:
The point being, anyone who HASN'T formed a solid opinion on a subject such as the one we've been discussing by this point in their lives is simply too timorous to have developed even a basic sense of conviction in their own principles. In political and religious parlance (and in advertising) these people are referred to as "sheep", and they can be led willy-nilly in whatever direction the wind happens to be blowing at any given time.
So, when it comes to an issue of this importance, if you don't know which side of the fence you sit on by now, you're likely to never know; and I really can't abide fence-sitters.
91:
Nooooo, it's the blue pills in the morning, and the yellow and black ones at night - I know how to read a 'sript, and my doctor, surprisingly, has excellent cursive skills.
92:
The gladiatorial games were also noted for pitting experienced fighters against political and religious dissidents, convicted criminals, mental and physical defectives, prisoners-of-war, the occasional unsuspecting spectator, and even an emperor himself (Commodus - although it should be noted his combats were always rigged in his favor). Ironically, a good gladiator was so highly valued by his owner that they made a concerted effort to keep them alive and in good fighting condition for as long as possible; hence the tendency to pit them against sub-par opponents. In point of fact, in most typical combats, the one participant LEAST likely to be seriously injured or killed was the gladiator themselves.
But, in any case it was all done for the amusement of the masses, and of those who may have objected to the practice on moral principles, very few had the temerity to defy the public craving for blood-sport, so they went along, even when they knew it was the wrong thing to do.
More...
The point being, anyone who HASN'T formed a solid opinion on a subject such as the one we've been discussing by this point in their lives is simply too timorous to have developed even a basic sense of conviction in their own principles. In political and religious parlance (and in advertising) these people are referred to as "sheep", and they can be led willy-nilly in whatever direction the wind happens to be blowing at any given time.
So, when it comes to an issue of this importance, if you don't know which side of the fence you sit on by now, you're likely to never know; and I really can't abide fence-sitters.
91:
Nooooo, it's the blue pills in the morning, and the yellow and black ones at night - I know how to read a 'sript, and my doctor, surprisingly, has excellent cursive skills.
92:
The gladiatorial games were also noted for pitting experienced fighters against political and religious dissidents, convicted criminals, mental and physical defectives, prisoners-of-war, the occasional unsuspecting spectator, and even an emperor himself (Commodus - although it should be noted his combats were always rigged in his favor). Ironically, a good gladiator was so highly valued by his owner that they made a concerted effort to keep them alive and in good fighting condition for as long as possible; hence the tendency to pit them against sub-par opponents. In point of fact, in most typical combats, the one participant LEAST likely to be seriously injured or killed was the gladiator themselves.
But, in any case it was all done for the amusement of the masses, and of those who may have objected to the practice on moral principles, very few had the temerity to defy the public craving for blood-sport, so they went along, even when they knew it was the wrong thing to do.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Putting It In by Dan Savage
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
Meet the UW "Swagga Suit" by David Schmader
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (93) RSS