Ben you are giving a reason to "challenge beliefs". What I asked was why you would focus on "challenging beliefs" in itself. If that is the reason you give you should say,"School should encourage intelligent thinking" not "School should challenge beliefs."

As for:
"And so it is with those who use the Bible to justify bullying homosexuals. They're every bit as crazy."

May I ask two questions. One is how do you define bullying? Is saying "homosexuality is immoral" an example of bullying?

The other is, why is it suddenly discovered that homosexuals are the victims of bullying? Are other people in school somehow not the victims of bullying?

Who, exactly, are the pansies in all this? Might it be the people who are trying to silence even the most sincere and loving Christian statements about homosexuality, because even that hurts their tender feelings?

Anthony, can you show me a pattern of Christians demanding that anti-bullying rules contain an exception allowing for bullying motivated by religious faith? If not, you employed a classic straw-man argument.

You say you like Savage and the way he makes his points. Tell me, Anthony, do you find Ann Coulter persuasive? Neither one can persuade me of anything with their obnoxious, insulting styles. In both cases, people who are already inclined to agree with them think they're great, but I assure you they don't win people over. They serve up red meat for those who are already on their side, but they contribute little of value to the conversation.

These are not the kind of people who should be invited to speak in schools.

(I wrote this up last night, so it may be a little behind the times on the arguments. For whatever reason, I'm having trouble logging on to thepoint from home).

Gina:

People are conflating two separate issues here, I think. One is Savage's use of profanity, and the other is his "attack" on Christian beliefs.

Savage could have made the same points, using milder language. Let's say we substitute "crazy stuff" for "bullsh**" and "thin-skinned" for "pansy-a**ed". His statement becomes:

"We can learn to ignore the crazy stuff in the Bible about gay people, the same way we have learned to ignore the crazy stuff in the Bible about shellfish, about slavery, about dinner, about farming, about menstruation, about virginity, about masturbation. We ignore crazy stuff in the Bible about all sorts of things. "

This re-phrasing certainly would have been more courteous, but I don't think it'd win him many more friends, since he'd still be challenging people's religious beliefs. And saying "don't speak against my religious beliefs" isn't about courtesy, but about political correctness.

In short, I think that mostly people are bothered by Savage's lack of political correctness, rather than his lack of courtesy. It's the accusations of hypocrisy and the challenges of Biblical justification for bullying that win Savage most of his enemies, not whether he uses swear words.



Jason asks,
"Why is "having your beliefs challenged" an important part of a good education, Ben?"

If you never have your beliefs challenged, you can't learn how to defend them or how to think clearly. It's the reason we have debate teams, logic classes, and teachers who ask their students questions that are designed to make them think.

Having your beliefs challenged is an essential part to learning critical thinking. And in particular, having *your* own, personal beliefs challenged teaches you how to respond to words that you don't like, but are nonetheless true. Do you change your beliefs, even though it's uncomfortable? Or do you ignore it?


Jason also asks,
"In any case, Ben, could Mr, er, 'Savage' please explain if he intends to justify the absolute viciousness of gay lobbiests toward anyone with same sex attraction-or who they think has this-who does not wish to identify with 'gayness'?"

Err, I dunno. Ask him yourself?



Ellen says,
"However, calling someone else's written holy text "bullshit" won't win anyone over to your side of the argument. Sure, you might get some attention, but I doubt many people will take the time to consider your points of argument."

To be fair, he didn't say that the entire Bible was "bullshit", but talked about stuff *in* the Bible, particularly some laws and moral standards.

Do you disagree with him? I mean if, say, Canada adopted laws to let you stone non-virgin brides, if they exiled any couple who had sex while the woman was menstruating, if they outlawed interest and clothes made of multiple fabrics - you'd say that was kinda crazy, right?

And so it is with those who use the Bible to justify bullying homosexuals. They're every bit as crazy.

If this were really the only thing out of Leviticus that Christians pay attention to, and if Leviticus were the only place where homosexual activity were condemned, I might consider it a good point. But of course, both parts of that are false.

Just looking at Leviticus 18 (where the prohibition on homosexual activity is stated), I believe that's the only place in the Bible where incest and bestiality are forbidden. I haven't heard any Christians suggesting those are outmoded prohibitions.

Romans 1 is a very clear condemnation of homosexual activity among both men and women (Leviticus doesn't bother to talk about lesbianism). 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 includes homosexual practice among a list of offenses that are incompatible with godliness. The glory of Christianity, though, is that it teaches that none of us is locked into our sinful lives if we are redeemed by Christ.

I do think that some Christians call out homosexual practices for special condemnation, and slide over other sins (when's the last time you heard a TV preacher railing against greed or slander, to pick two from the 1 Cor 6 list?). And our divorce culture is at least as damaging to the institution of marriage as "gay marriage" is. That's not to say that we should ignore the gay challenge. It is, however, to say that we need to be careful to pull the log out of our own eye. Not to mention that "speaking the truth in love" is especially important when the other side is being vitriolic.

Steve, the code Christians are expected to live by is stricter in sexual matters then the code of Leviticus. Torah permits polygamy and says nothing about "not looking".

In any case the proscribing of homosexuality is clearly repeated in the New Testament. The fact that goyim are not required to circumcise, keep the sabbath or keep kosher is also made clear in the New Testament.

Gina beat me to blogging about D.S.'s colorful discussion. However, his diatribe highlights the necessity for Christians to be steeped in Scripture. Regarding slavery issue, the Bible condemns it: read 1 Timothy 1:9,10.

I remember that in a section of "City of God," Augustine discusses the issue of the Bible seemingly being pro-slavery. However, the issue was to give the power to do good by honoring God, and dignity to the men, women, and children who were enslaved. (I'll try and find the section later.)

"I have a right to defend myself, and to point out the hypocrisy of people who justify anti-gay bigotry by pointing to the Bible, and insisting that we must live by the code of Leviticus on this one issue, but no other."
Here Savage has a solid point. If we simply pick the parts of OT law that make our point and ignore the rest with no clear explanation of why we believe some parts of it to be perpetually imperative and other parts as only culturally relevant in ancient times (i.e. no longer applicable), then we make ourselves easy targets for valid accusations.

"I wasn't attacking the faith that I was raised"-just the idea that it should have a meaningful effect on anyone's life.

And what is it with "anti-gay" bullying? Do they now have a monopoly on being bullied for some reason?

“I wasn't calling the handful of students who left pansies (2,800+ students, most of them Christian, stayed and listened), just the walkout itself."

"I was not attacking the faith in which I was raised,” I was attacking the argument that gay people must be discriminated against—and anti-bullying programs that address anti-gay bullying should be blocked (or exceptions should be made for bullying “motivated by faith”)—because it says right there in the Bible that being gay is wrong."

He apologized...time to move on with life.

I can't say, as well, that I disagree with a single thing that he said at the journalism convention - including what he said to the kids that walked out.

I've always liked Dan, and his way of being outspoken to get his point across. I met him when he came to PSU a year and a half ago, I went to his lecture with some friends and got to shake his hand and talk to him for a few minutes. He commended me on being an ally, and told me to "keep up the good work". He really is a nice guy.

.
"Would someone mind pointing out the bullying?"

I'm always eager to point out what you've missed, old friend. ;-) Dan Savage himself points it out: "So, you can tell the Bible guys in the hall that they can come back now, because I'm done beating up on the Bible (crowd cheers, Savage pauses)." He obviously wasn't beating up on the Bible, but rather on those who believe the Bible. And the following sentence, with its reference to "on the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the Bible," makes it clear that "push back" means "to beat as you have been beaten."

"but it won't win you the culture war."

I'm concerned that this doesn't say "but it won't win **us** the culture war," yet I'm not too certain how much significance to attach to your choice of pronoun, Ben.

And I'm fascinated by an asymmetry: the Qu'ran and the Hadith both call for homosexuals to be killed, and this teaching is explicitly followed in Muslim countries. (I feared for the life of a co-worker who is a dear friend, when he accepted a short assignment in Saudi Arabia.) Yet the Bible, and Christians, are always the target of gay activists like Dan Savage, in a country where the "beatings" come in the form of denial of benefits - not death. Why are gay rights activists so unconcerned about the lives of those like them in other countries who are denied not the right to marry, but the right to life?

"Savage made solid points."

I read the transcript thoughtfully, per your request, and I didn't see any. I saw atheist talking-points that have been effectively refuted over and over, but I didn't see anything solid. Perhaps you can turn the tables, and show *me* what *I* missed . . . ?

Ellen the concept, "having your beliefs challenged" is adulating destruction for it's own sake. What purpose does "having your beliefs challenged serve? It can't be it's own purpose.

And in any case no one sends their children to school to have their beliefs challenged and few go to school themselves for that purpose. "If having your beliefs challenged" is considered an "important part of education" then in fact teachers are thieves, liars, and swindlers, who take pay for goals contrary to what their employer intended.

.
There are some who enthusiastically resonate to such words like a plucked string, only an octave lower.

I also believe that having one's beliefs challenged is a good thing. It's good to be able to discuss, debate and defend one's beliefs.

However, calling someone else's written holy text "bullshit" won't win anyone over to your side of the argument. Sure, you might get some attention, but I doubt many people will take the time to consider your points of argument.

In any case, Ben, could Mr, er, "Savage" please explain if he intends to justify the absolute viciousness of gay lobbiests toward anyone with same sex attraction-or who they think has this-who does not wish to identify with "gayness"?

Why is "having your beliefs challenged" an important part of a good education, Ben? Is that why people(rather naively) vote for school taxes and pay for tuition?

If you'd read the second piece I linked to, Ben, you'd have seen that I actually make a distinction between political correctness and courtesy.

I thought Savage was calm and, with the exception of his (mild) profanity, well-spoken. Would someone mind pointing out the bullying?

You can slam Savage for his strong language, if you like, but it won't win you the culture war. Some kids will still listen to what he has to say, digest it, and change their minds. Savage made solid points.

Also, can I point out the irony in y'all here wanting *more* political correctness? I think that having your beliefs challenged is an important part of a good education.. and political correctness is one of the things holding education back in this country. Kids should learn how to listen to something they don't like to hear, ponder it rationally, and see if there's truth in it.. even if they don't like the way it was said or who said it.


I transcribed this section of his talk below (taken from a video at Fox News). Please read it thoughtfully.



http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/anti-bullying-speaker-curses-mocks-christian-teens.html

Dan Savage says:

"We'll just talk about the Bible for a second. Uhh, people often point out that they can't help with the anti-gay bullying, because it says right there in Leviticus, it says right there in Timothy, it says right there in Romans, that being gay is wrong. (a girl walks out).

We can learn to ignore the bullshit in the Bible about gay people, the same way (the crowd cheers), the same way we have learned to ignore the bullshit in the Bible about shellfish, about slavery, about dinner, about farming, about menstruation, about virginity, about masturbation (more kids start walking out; the crowd cheers more). We ignore bullshit in the Bible about all sorts of things. The Bible is a radically pro-slavery document. Slaveowners waved Bibles over their heads during the Civil War, and justified it.

The shortest book in the New Testament is a letter from Paul to a Christian slaveowner to his Christian slave. And Paul doesn't say "Christians don't own people"; Paul talks about *how* Christians own people. We ignore what the Bible says about slavery, because the Bible got slavery *wrong*.

Sam Harris, in a letter to "A Christian Nation", points out that the Bible got the easiest moral question that humanity has ever faced, wrong: slavery. What are the odds that the Bible got something as complicated as human sexuality wrong? One hundred percent.

The Bible says that if your daughter isn't a virgin on her wedding night, if a woman isn't a virgin on her wedding night, "she shall be dragged to her father's doorstep and stoned". (Savage shrugs, pauses). Callista Gingrich lives. (crowd laughs)

And there is no effort to amend state constitutions to make it legal to stone women to death on their wedding night if they're not virgins - at least, not yet. We don't know where the GOP is going these days (crowd laughs).

People are dying because people can't clear this one last hurdle. They can't get past this one last thing in the Bible about homosexuality.

Umm.. (*pause*). One thing I want to talk about.. heh. So, you can tell the Bible guys in the hall that they can come back now, because I'm done beating up on the Bible (crowd cheers, Savage pauses). It's funny, as someone who's on the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the Bible, how pansy-assed some people are when you push back. (crowd cheers again)

(*pause*). I apologize if I hurt anyone's feelings. But, I have a right to defend myself, and to point out the hypocrisy of people who justify anti-gay bigotry by pointing to the Bible, and insisting that we must live by the code of Leviticus on this one issue, but no other."

Yeah, "Dan Savage upsets Islamic high school journalists" just ain't gonna happen, because bullies only pick on those they know won't fight back.

Which proves, of course, that bullies are the *real* pansies.

Maybe PFM should start the "It *Doesn't* Get Better - In This Life, Anyway" Project, based on Matthew 5:11-12.

Here's a good commentary:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/29/Exclusive-Rabbi-Blasts-Savage-Anti-Christian-Rant-Westboro-of-the-Left