Thursday, May 3, 2012
Homo / Religion The "Manufactured Outrage" Over Savage's Comments
Posted by Christopher Frizzelle on Thu, May 3, 2012 at 11:24 AM
Amanda Marcotte's piece in Slate today is called "Accurately Describing the Bible Is Not Oppression." If you've been following the bullshit, you should read it.
1
I must say, this is the best publicity Dan's received since IGBP - I know he'll put it to good use, he (almost) always does.
2
As always, wait for the flood of never-before-seen commenters posting:
1. The Bible does not really say X. Because the original Hebrew / Greek word (or word order) REALLY means Y but it is often incorrectly interpreted as X by hundreds and hundreds of years of other people who did not really understand ancient Hebrew / Greek. And God / Jesus cannot be bothered to issue an errata sheet.
2. While the Bible really does say X it is only in the context X and Y and Z and is meaningful only in X and Y and Z are so onerous that no one would every do just X because it would also require them to do Y and Z. And God / Jesus knew that no one would ever selectively quote the Bible or quote it out of context.
3. While the Bible does say X it is not applicable today because that was in the Old Testament and Y in the New Testament means that that particular part of the Old Testament is no longer applicable (but all the other parts are).
4. While the Bible does say X and says it in the New Testament that does not mean X because that was a parable and you have interpreted it wrong and Jesus couldn't be bothered to make his parables unambiguous.
5. Claim oppression / bullying / haters-gonna-hate and how you'll pray for them and their sinful prideful wayful ways.
Did I miss any?
1. The Bible does not really say X. Because the original Hebrew / Greek word (or word order) REALLY means Y but it is often incorrectly interpreted as X by hundreds and hundreds of years of other people who did not really understand ancient Hebrew / Greek. And God / Jesus cannot be bothered to issue an errata sheet.
2. While the Bible really does say X it is only in the context X and Y and Z and is meaningful only in X and Y and Z are so onerous that no one would every do just X because it would also require them to do Y and Z. And God / Jesus knew that no one would ever selectively quote the Bible or quote it out of context.
3. While the Bible does say X it is not applicable today because that was in the Old Testament and Y in the New Testament means that that particular part of the Old Testament is no longer applicable (but all the other parts are).
4. While the Bible does say X and says it in the New Testament that does not mean X because that was a parable and you have interpreted it wrong and Jesus couldn't be bothered to make his parables unambiguous.
5. Claim oppression / bullying / haters-gonna-hate and how you'll pray for them and their sinful prideful wayful ways.
Did I miss any?
3
Porno Pete is STILL stomping his feet, flailing his hands and throwing himself on the floor over this. AND IT'S NOT HIS FAULT, DAMMIT! WHY OH WHY WON'T THE AMERICAN PEOPLE JUST LISTEN TO HIM!
It's telling that Porno, Barber, et al, have to include the name Dan Savage or Joe Jervis in their article to get attention. Whatev, nutjobs.
http://americansfortruth.com/2012/05/03/…
It's telling that Porno, Barber, et al, have to include the name Dan Savage or Joe Jervis in their article to get attention. Whatev, nutjobs.
http://americansfortruth.com/2012/05/03/…
4
@2 you forgot the "I really liked Savage and supported gay rights, until now" folks. They also tended to pray for him as well.
5
@1 - I'm sure the folks at MTV are fucking thrilled. I'm sure his show ratings will skyrocket.
Also, the fainting couch routine is fucking gold.
Also, the fainting couch routine is fucking gold.
6
@2 I think you're giving that crowd too much credit. The comments on other sites I read were more like, "I've read the Bible countless times and no where does it even mention slavery." (Except with more grammar and spelling errors.) Just, outright lies and unabashed ignorance.
8
Please allow me to introduce myself.
I'm a man of wealth and taste.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ckuXx64a…
9
I think Marcotte's ideas about what right-wing christianists are trying to do with this also apply to their efforts to make women's health rights a religious issue.
10
Would be great if someone would go through and catalog everything in the New Testament that Christians currently ignore.
12
Thanks @4 @6. I'll work on an updated version for the next time something like this comes up. And you know that there will be a next time.
13
Funny comment from the comment section after the article:
The religious right and Dan Savage need each other like one gay cowboy needs another gay cowboy.
14
@12 I've been thinking about the how Christianity slavery debate. So if the bible was against slavery, does that make America a non-Christian country when it was founded? By abandoning biblical laws are we getting closer to the original America?
15
@7, Hah! I know. This is getting more air time than Newt Gingrich dropping out. It's more than a little absurd.
16
@15 I guess you could read it as a good thing that stupid news in better then truly horrifying news.
17
The tactic author Marcotte is describing is used across the board -- claim that a political position is part of a religious belief and that religious beliefs may not be questioned or criticized without it being an attack on the believer. Presto! Anybody who doesn't agree to capitulate to your position is persecuting you.
18
@6
I just weant to biblegateway.com, an online concordance, and entered a search for the term slave. I got 65 hits. As you note, people who say "I've read the Bible countless times and no where does it even mention slavery" are either lying, ignorant, incapable of using a concordance, or all three.
I just weant to biblegateway.com, an online concordance, and entered a search for the term slave. I got 65 hits. As you note, people who say "I've read the Bible countless times and no where does it even mention slavery" are either lying, ignorant, incapable of using a concordance, or all three.
19
@18- Or they're reading the translation where the word "slave" has been replaced with "worker". I'm told it exists.
20
@18
That must make Exodus interesting; instead of the story of the Hebrews leaving slavery in Egypt, they become a bunch of disgruntled workers going on strike!
That must make Exodus interesting; instead of the story of the Hebrews leaving slavery in Egypt, they become a bunch of disgruntled workers going on strike!
21
@10 you can't list exactly what christians ignore because there are so many flavors. However http://www.evilbible.com/ does a good job of cataloging the things that often get overlooked/ignored/explained away.
22
@10 you can't list exactly what christians ignore because there are so many flavors. However http://www.evilbible.com/ does a good job of cataloging the things that often get overlooked/ignored/explained away.
24
You can re-translate the Bible to change the word "slave" to a more morally-neutral sounding "worker," but that doesn't change the fact that 150 years ago American slave owners were all waving Bibles over their heads and claiming that God's word justified their monstrous abuse of black people.
God's word is inerrant and unchanging, that's why we have to revise the translation every few decades to make it sound more politically correct.
God's word is inerrant and unchanging, that's why we have to revise the translation every few decades to make it sound more politically correct.
25
Christians are fragile, thin-skinned creatures, terrified that their creaky egg-shell world will collapse if anyone dares to criticize their bizarre set of superstitions, fairy tales & voodoo.
And speaking of fairy tales, couldn't you guys at least come up with a good one? I mean, the Virgin Mary ...you're kidding, right?
And speaking of fairy tales, couldn't you guys at least come up with a good one? I mean, the Virgin Mary ...you're kidding, right?
Comments (25) RSS