Live Q&As

So your premise is that because others are doing worse, Savage gets a pass?  I don't think so.  That is pretty much the opposite of ethical behavior, and avoids taking responsibility for one's actions, which is what bullies do all the time.

That said, you are certainly right about the relative dangers and difficulties faced by gay people compared with straight.  And that has nothing to do with where one stands on gay sex, public policy related to gay people, etc.  It's about keeping people safe, regardless of their sexuality, and that MUST be something we can all agree on.

Although you may be overstating it a bit, I basically agree with your charcterization of his actions...and does he!  To be fair to Savage, he blogged about the fact that what he did was " insulting, name-calling and wrong".  If we are going to discuss this, that too has to be a part of the conversation.

In fact, how many of us, when reflecting on texts and tradiitons that have been used to cause so much pain, could turn around that fast and take responsibility for lashing out? 

So, did he bahave badly? Yes.  Did his model the very behavior against which he fights?  To be sure.  But he also models how to accept responsibilty for his own bad behavior.  I REALLY don't like how Dan Savage spoke to those kids, but I sure appreciate his self-critical awareness.  Pretty impressive, if you ask me.

Show me a rich and durable text, and I will show you one which contains competing and even contradictory views -- from the Bible to the US Constitution.  That complexity is what assures the long-term relevance of the document.

As to why we ignore some parts and not others, that's because reading any text is as much about the reader as it is about the document they read!  If Mr. Savage truly understood that, he could avoided his entire rant about the BS in the Bible, and simply asked people to think about the price that other people pay for any particular reading.

Depends upon who you ask.  I am not Christian, but it seems to me that for people of any faith, whose faith teaches the literal and inerrant meaning of the scripture they follow, if you attack the text you attack them and their faith. 

Since even the most Orthodox of Jews do NOT relate to the Hebrew Bible in that way (and there are plenty of Christians and Muslims who do not either), it is not a problem if Jewish tradtion.

It is bullying to the extent that Mr. Savage used a position of power to denigrate a faith that is deeply held by members of his audience.  He did not invite them to reflect on a text, the cost of reading it in specific ways, or any other constructive pursuit.  He resorted to name-calling and profanity.  It was wrong and he has said so himself.

As to how different faiths handle their reltionships with the Hebrew Bible, that's more than we can do here.  suffice it to say though that it would be helpful for all readers of any text, but especially a religious text about which they care, tend to read in ways that confirm who and what they already are.  That's always a poor way to read, and something which all readers -- fundamentalists, conservatives, liberals, etc. could do better with.

I can't answer for Dan  because I am not him.  But I will take two guesses, based on what I know about him and how I think I might respond were I in his shoes.

First, he is an advocate and a provocatuer.  That means that he has a predispostion for doing things to the extreme, in ways that may often generate more heat than light.  Of course, were he not possessed of that kind of personality, he might never have worked to create the "It get's better" project.  And however one feels about gayness, you have to respect a project which encourages people not to give up on themselves and reminds them that they are not alone.

Second,  the more one struggles against something, the more the thing rubs off on them.  Savage fights against what he sees as hateful (we do not always agree about what qualifies), and the haters against whom he fights actually deepen his own hateful impulses.  Of course, within hours, he managed to offer an apology for the style, if not the content, of his remarks. 

I am curious, do you think that astro-physics can be reduced to "twinkle, twinkle little star"?  Probably not.

Reducing any tradition to a single thing e.g. Chrisitantity to martyrdon, is never wise, and almost always done to the commenters rhetorical advantage.  In other words, don't do that.

And unless you yourself like being martyred, don't suggest it for others.  In fact, even if you do, don't suggest it for anyone but yourself.

Since those rules guide my life, and we have not one, but two freezers in our home, I can tell you that it's about much more than personal hygene.  I do appreciate that especially for Jews who choose not to observe those laws, it feels good to imagine that they are no longer necessary. 

I guess for me, the necessity of such laws, and the decision to observe them or not comes for all of us, from the inside out.  I feel genuinely compelled and commanded to observe the rules I observe, so that is what I do.  They add meaning, purpose, and ethical value to my life.  That is why I can imaging a God who wants me to keep those laws.

I don't know that reaching my conclusions is important, but asking what practices add meaning, purpose, ethics, etc, to our lives -- THAT is crucially important.

Your claim is so backwards, it isn't even backwards!  And all I can say is that I hope the irony of using classically gay-bashing presumptions about denying who is in power and the right to speak The Truth to those who need to hear it, isn't lost on you.

Thanks for adding evidence to my earlier claim that we all run the risk of becomming that which we most oppose.

I think that like many public speakers, Mr. Savage had many agendas when he stepped up to the mic -- some of which he was probably aware and others less so.  I knwo that's certainly true for me when I speak, whether it's a group of 10 or 1,000, or on TV.

I certainly agree that dehumanizing another person because you disagree with one, or even many, aspect of their life is always wrong.   It's wrong when it's done to attack gay people, and it's wrong when it's done to attack believers who read the Bible as prohibiting homosexual sex. 

So your insight here is that he is right because he agrees with you?  That's the whole problem!  If the category called "right" is always limited to that with which we already agree, or how we personally live, then life will be forever mean and hostile.  All that will change is who abuses whom.

You are correct that his attack was not on the entire Bible, but for the people I assume he most wanted to reach, that distinction is meaningless.  At some point, Savage, like all the rest of us, has to decide whether he wants to rain down Truth upon the rest of us, or actually engage the people who need to hear him most.  The latter is less fun, but far more productive.

You ask in such measured, frank, honest ways that truthfully, what I think is almost unimportant.  I jsut wish that people could learn from your approach.  Thank  you.

But since you asked, I would say that all reading is selective and the issue is what each reader is selecting for.  Also, do YOU really believe that all readers of the Bible who conclude that gay sex is prohibited are simply haters?  I doubt that.

Seems to me that we need to read as we most honestly can, and then be prepared to admit that no matter how much we may claim otherwise, there is never only one way to read a great text.  If there were, it wouldn't be so great.

I don't think that Americans should be legislating based on the Bible.  It's not that I don't believe in the Bible -- I do, at least as it is understood in traditional Jewish thought.  And to be sure, my understanding is also influenced by other great tradtions as well.  But there is a world of difference between choosing policy, based on my faith, for my life, and imposing my faith on others.

I believe that one's faith can, and probably should, influence their views about all of life, not simply private life.  But influence is not power, and retaining people's right to choose about as much as possible in their lives, is one of the things which has made this country great.  And anything less will render us one more dangerous theocracy in which people invoke God to prove what they wanted anyway, no matter who it harms.

I don't want to live in THAT country.  Actually no one does, unless they believe that they, and they alone, speak for God.  And if they fall into that category, then no matter how much such people claim to believe in God, the only god in whom they really believe is themselves.