There are advocates for anti-bullying that do far better than this. They use the bible, they don't attack it. Its far easier to show that those who engage in bullying and hate are doing acts explicity against the bible in far more clear, concise, and unrefutabble terms than any of the passages used to against homosexuals .Its realtively easy to challenge the few clobber verses, but what is better is to focus on the message of the New Testament, of the basics of Christiantiy: love and kindness. If he had focused on the elements of the bible that reinforce the anti-bullying message, he would have been a far better advocate. Maybe he got the self pleasure of venting his own intolerance, but he did no service to his cause.

State_College_Arsonist: Reinforcing the us vs them paradigm probably isn't the best way to foster good relations between hardline religious types and homosexuals.

No it's not. And I've shook hands with Dan many years ago (when trying to get a job at The Stranger) and Ru Paul too at a Pride Parade. I'm straight, but I don't judge. Dan has done a lot of stuff like this so I'm curious if that rant was on purpose rather than just being pissed off. Either way he could have spoke his mind in another way than just to put more gas on the fire.

incrdbil: There are advocates for anti-bullying that do far better than this. They use the bible, they don't attack it. Its far easier to show that those who engage in bullying and hate are doing acts explicity against the bible in far more clear, concise, and unrefutabble terms than any of the passages used to against homosexuals .Its realtively easy to challenge the few clobber verses, but what is better is to focus on the message of the New Testament, of the basics of Christiantiy: love and kindness. If he had focused on the elements of the bible that reinforce the anti-bullying message, he would have been a far better advocate. Maybe he got the self pleasure of venting his own intolerance, but he did no service to his cause.

On the other hand, it would be a bit hypocritical of an atheist to make a bible-based argument.

firefly212: incrdbil: SilentStrider: They deserve to be mocked.

Ah, nice to join the in crowd in approved prejudice isn't it?

He enaged in the behavior he condemns. If he wants to deliver an anti-bullying message, then don't engage in abusive bullying behavior. Even if he hates Christians with a passion, if he wants to fight bullying behavior, he should try not to hand his opponents an easy to use sound bite to use against him. There's also the merit of avoiding being a hypocrite by taking the high road.

Ya, because it's bullying to call out bullies for bullying.

So, those who peaceably left a meeting as he insulted and attacked their religion are bullies? He know they each and everyone had personally bullied someone? I'm amazed at his audience pre-screening process.

God-is-a-Taco: Nothing bad in the speech I watched, really.

"Pansy asses" was maybe a little too much for a professional setting, but its an understandable reaction to see the targeted audience (religious people) walking away and refusing to hear your voice.
Maybe when they get older they can walk away from things like debt ceiling debates.

Just to be clear, it's not "Pansy asses" it's "how pansy assed some people react". He is not calling them pansy asses, he is calling their reaction "pansy assed".

truthseeker2083: So they can dish it out, but they can't take it? Pansy asses!

You see, this is interesting. Because never in my life have I ever directed a bullying comment at a gay man or woman. One of my roommates is a lesbian, she and her girlfriend are perfectly happy and her girlfriend is one of the nicest people it's ever been my pleasure to know in life, one of my mother's closest friends is a gay man, and a couple of my dearest friends in life are gay men - one of whom I have known and been friends with for close to 20 years.

I also happen to be devoutly Christian. I believe in God, Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior, and yet, I do not recall reading anywhere in the Bible that Savage says I can ignore where Jesus tells me it's okay to hate anyone, regardless of who they sleep with. I do recall reading several times that God (or rather, Christ) is the only one qualified to judge and so I leave that task to God and simply try to love people as they are.

For the record, I am neither conservative (Republican) or liberal (Democrat). In point of fact, I strongly believe both parties are equally corrupt and self-serving and that neither party has the nation's best interest in mind, nor have they in my lifetime.

And for the record, if the article is factual and Savage did, in fact, turn an anti-bullying speech into an attack on my personal faith, I would have quietly gotten up and walked out of Savage's blatantly attacking, mocking, offensive speech as well. One of the very great freedoms we possess in this country is the freedom not to listen to or look at that which offends us. While I support Savage's efforts in the "It Gets Better" campaign wholeheartedly, I never support or defend anyone becoming what they proclaim to fight against or despise. Kind of defeats the purpose of everything he's accomplished, in my opinion.

I do not insult gays, Muslims, atheists, people whose god is a doorknob (nor do I tolerate others tossing such insults in my presence)... but I should not be expected to tolerate being insulted under the guise of "this guy is madder than hell and shouldn't have to take it anymore" either. The fact that I am Christian and actively distance myself from those who proclaim Christianity but do not live it does not make me a pile of shiat while Dan Savage is being an asshole.

fanbladesaresharp: Dan has done a lot of stuff like this so I'm curious if that rant was on purpose rather than just being pissed off. Either way he could have spoke his mind in another way than just to put more gas on the fire.

Did you guys watch the same video as I did? I didn't see anything approaching a rant. I saw a logical argument, followed by two snide-but-relevant comments. Not a rant in sight.

Rambino: incrdbil: There are advocates for anti-bullying that do far better than this. They use the bible, they don't attack it. Its far easier to show that those who engage in bullying and hate are doing acts explicity against the bible in far more clear, concise, and unrefutabble terms than any of the passages used to against homosexuals .Its realtively easy to challenge the few clobber verses, but what is better is to focus on the message of the New Testament, of the basics of Christiantiy: love and kindness. If he had focused on the elements of the bible that reinforce the anti-bullying message, he would have been a far better advocate. Maybe he got the self pleasure of venting his own intolerance, but he did no service to his cause.

On the other hand, it would be a bit hypocritical of an atheist to make a bible-based argument.

Not when speaking to believers of a religion to follow their own teachings. I think its far more clear that hate and bullying is against the bible that the claim that homosexuality is a sin. Even if the listener is convinced tha homosexuality is a sin, the bible can be used to argue that hate towards that person is sin as well.

Aigoo: if the article is factual

No need to wonder. Link to video has been posted.

In this case, you can supplement faith with facts.

rwfan: God-is-a-Taco: Nothing bad in the speech I watched, really.

"Pansy asses" was maybe a little too much for a professional setting, but its an understandable reaction to see the targeted audience (religious people) walking away and refusing to hear your voice.
Maybe when they get older they can walk away from things like debt ceiling debates.

Just to be clear, it's not "Pansy asses" it's "how pansy assed some people react". He is not calling them pansy asses, he is calling their reaction "pansy assed".

Ah, now semantics. Nice to see every bully excuse in the book coming out as if on cue.

incrdbil: Rambino: incrdbil: There are advocates for anti-bullying that do far better than this. They use the bible, they don't attack it. Its far easier to show that those who engage in bullying and hate are doing acts explicity against the bible in far more clear, concise, and unrefutabble terms than any of the passages used to against homosexuals .Its realtively easy to challenge the few clobber verses, but what is better is to focus on the message of the New Testament, of the basics of Christiantiy: love and kindness. If he had focused on the elements of the bible that reinforce the anti-bullying message, he would have been a far better advocate. Maybe he got the self pleasure of venting his own intolerance, but he did no service to his cause.

On the other hand, it would be a bit hypocritical of an atheist to make a bible-based argument.

Not when speaking to believers of a religion to follow their own teachings. I think its far more clear that hate and bullying is against the bible that the claim that homosexuality is a sin. Even if the listener is convinced tha homosexuality is a sin, the bible can be used to argue that hate towards that person is sin as well.

Oh please. "I don't believe in your Bible, but here is how I think you should believe in your Bible" is about as ineffective of an argument as possible.

Faith-based arguments are only persuasive if they are, you know, based in faith.

So in order to sell the bible argument Savage would have to project faith, which would make him a hypocrite. He made an honest argument - and, IMO, a very powerful argument. I have no doubt that he changed several minds that day.

incrdbil: There are advocates for anti-bullying that do far better than this. They use the bible, they don't attack it. Its far easier to show that those who engage in bullying and hate are doing acts explicity against the bible in far more clear, concise, and unrefutabble terms than any of the passages used to against homosexuals .Its realtively easy to challenge the few clobber verses, but what is better is to focus on the message of the New Testament, of the basics of Christiantiy: love and kindness. If he had focused on the elements of the bible that reinforce the anti-bullying message, he would have been a far better advocate. Maybe he got the self pleasure of venting his own intolerance, but he did no service to his cause.

Because clearly there should be no other arguments other than bible based arguments. Why DO we study anything other than the bible? I just can't understand it.

Aigoo: blah

That's quite a rousing little speech, Meryl Streep, but I'd suggest that your fellow Christians who work tirelessly to deny rights to their fellow human beings, or even make being gay a capital offense, do a lot more damage to your faith's reputation than Dan Savage ever will.

Rambino: Aigoo: if the article is factual

No need to wonder. Link to video has been posted.

In this case, you can supplement faith with facts.

Aye, hadn't got that far down in the thread yet. Saw Fox News and hence the "if it is factual" because we all know how truthful Fox typically is.

This just in, Bert: Gay men can be catty.

/reads savage with co-workers.
//we take bets on what kind of mood he's in when responding to the letters.

incrdbil: Ah, now semantics. Nice to see every bully excuse in the book coming out as if on cue.

Dude, seriously, get to a dictionary. He didn't bully anyone. Watch the video, check your definitions. The only one saying he bullied anyone is you and a Fox News editor. The thing you claim happened isn't supported by the evidence. Look up what bullying is and you'll see this.

cretinbob: He's going to end up jacking it in San Diego

But at least he will use alternating grips.

Rambino: incrdbil: SilentStrider: They deserve to be mocked.

Ah, nice to join the in crowd in approved prejudice isn't it?

He enaged in the behavior he condemns. If he wants to deliver an anti-bullying message, then don't engage in abusive bullying behavior.

Jesus farking christ. Talk about false equivalence.

No rational being could call Savage's behavior here "bullying."

So you can't overcome your inherent bias to entertain there may be another viewpoint. Its understandable really--a lot of anger has built up, and there's a hatred of Christianity that many peope can't bring themselves to admit, because acknowledging a general hatred for a group of people can be disturbing--which is why people turn to justifications, rationalizations, stereotypes, ways to label what they feel or do as acceptable.

Was his behavior the most extreme, scarring, or violent of bullying behavior?. Of course not, not at all. Many stayed and listened to his message I'm sure, even if they were offended by his insults. Still, resorting to a fragment of the behavior he wants ot condemn undermines his message--and his message is important, and he should have done better in its delivery.

incrdbil: rwfan: God-is-a-Taco: Nothing bad in the speech I watched, really.

"Pansy asses" was maybe a little too much for a professional setting, but its an understandable reaction to see the targeted audience (religious people) walking away and refusing to hear your voice.
Maybe when they get older they can walk away from things like debt ceiling debates.

Just to be clear, it's not "Pansy asses" it's "how pansy assed some people react". He is not calling them pansy asses, he is calling their reaction "pansy assed".

Ah, now semantics. Nice to see every bully excuse in the book coming out as if on cue.

Quoting someone accurately is not semantics. Misquoting and deliberately taking quotations out of context is deception.

incrdbil: So you can't overcome your inherent bias to entertain there may be another viewpoint.

Ok, now you just trollin'.

rynthetyn:
That works with some people, but there comes a point where you have to take the gloves off.

So there are times it is justifiable to use bullying behavio then? Is that your position on the anti-bullying message?

incrdbil: acknowledging a general hatred for a group of people can be disturbing--which is why people turn to justifications, rationalizations, stereotypes, ways to label what they feel or do as acceptable.

Explain how that doesn't apply to Christian hatred of homosexuals.

foo monkey Tolerance goes both ways.

got in a mini-flamewar over Dan's A-Whoring a week ago, when it comes to pissy Seattle columnists who are expert Trolls he'll never unseat Emmett Watson...

The Why Not Guy: Aigoo: blah

That's quite a rousing little speech, Meryl Streep, but I'd suggest that your fellow Christians who work tirelessly to deny rights to their fellow human beings, or even make being gay a capital offense, do a lot more damage to your faith's reputation than Dan Savage ever will.

You'll get no argument from me that the number one problem with the church is its members. I've said that for years.

The same truth applies all around, though: you cannot convince any person to see reason when there is a highly emotionally-charged issue involved. At least 75% (and most likely a great deal more) of those who call themselves Christians have even less understanding of God than most atheists. At least the atheist understands that mankind has a brain and the capacity to apply logic and reason and does so. Many - even most - of "[my] fellow Christians" have been deliberately taught not to use the brains God gave them and the capacity to reason they were born with because to do so challenges those in power in the Church.

Sadly, corruption isn't limited to politics. Why do you think there's that passage about Jesus getting pissed off, deliberately going out and making a whip, and coming back in and tearing up the Temple?

Just as sadly, you can't force a man to see the sunlight unless you can coax him out of his cave. The idea is to get him to come out willingly, and sometimes, that takes time. ;)

Rambino: fanbladesaresharp: Dan has done a lot of stuff like this so I'm curious if that rant was on purpose rather than just being pissed off. Either way he could have spoke his mind in another way than just to put more gas on the fire.

Did you guys watch the same video as I did? I didn't see anything approaching a rant. I saw a logical argument, followed by two snide-but-relevant comments. Not a rant in sight.

Not sure but eh....guess it's a POV thing. He can go on some serious rants, having read a lot of his writings. He could get testy even in the middle of what should be safe ground for him. Hate to say it but he at times comes across as a Rush Limbaugh type for the gay community; as in always stiring up trouble for no good reason. Or he was drunk out of his mind when writing. Who knows. I actually think he's a nice guy. Engaging, but he pushes it, and that grates a lot of people.

Hard to know without seeing a video / transcript of the speech what exactly happened. BUT--

These were individual Christian teenagers... Some of y'all are committing a pretty major sin --

Which is to lump all Christians together. Did John and Jane, Christian kids who were sitting at the conference, ever attack homosexuals? We don't know.

But it does Seem that the speaker attacked them and their beliefs by telling them "to ignore all that shiat in the bible" (paraphrased). That's really stupid, and out of line.

And a grown man calling a bunch of teenagers pansy-asses?

Sure...if this was an adult talking to adults, maybe that would have been okay. But otherwise, it just shows a lack of maturity and is really, really stupid. Sommmmmebody's got insecurity problems.

"They already scream and spit and beat and kill people for who they love."

Seriously, calm the fark down. Who's "they." Were "they" the kids that this guy was cursing at? No. Does "they" include most Christians? Hellllllllll no. Go to a Westboro Baptist protest, and the majority of Christians there are protesting Against the WBC dudes, not with them.

The Christian community has a huge continuum of beliefs, and maturity, and kindness (or lack thereof) wrt to expressing those beliefs. It goes all the way from total acceptance, performing Christian marriages, etc., to being against gay marriages but otherwise showing basic kindness and respect homosexuals, to being the WBC guys.

If you judge the Christian right by the ones who 'spit and beat and kill,' you are just as wrong as those who judge the gay dudes in leather who hump children in the park. (the percentage of gay dudes who do the former is probably equivalent to [if not higher than] the percentage of Christians who 'kill' teh gays.])

The whole approach of "well, Christians will never be cool with us anyway, so lets curse at their children" is wrong as wrong can be. It's self-defeating, ineffective, based on stereotypes and prejudices, and pointless.

incrdbil: firefly212: incrdbil: SilentStrider: They deserve to be mocked.

Ah, nice to join the in crowd in approved prejudice isn't it?

He enaged in the behavior he condemns. If he wants to deliver an anti-bullying message, then don't engage in abusive bullying behavior. Even if he hates Christians with a passion, if he wants to fight bullying behavior, he should try not to hand his opponents an easy to use sound bite to use against him. There's also the merit of avoiding being a hypocrite by taking the high road.

Ya, because it's bullying to call out bullies for bullying.

So, those who peaceably left a meeting as he insulted and attacked their religion are bullies? He know they each and everyone had personally bullied someone? I'm amazed at his audience pre-screening process.

If your religion is full of bullies and someone calls it out for being so, and you get all pissy and walk out because of it, then ya. I'm not really seeing a whole lot of op-eds penned by these phantom moderate christians who aren't bullying douchebags who try to use the government to strongarm their brand of theocracy into law... so here's the fair deal, if you speak out against the hijacking of christianity by extremist d-bags like Focus on the Family and the like, then I will certainly not consider you to be a bully... but if you brand yourself a Christian, then sit idly by while your fellow self-proclaimed Chrisitians use their farked-up interpretations to justify killing in the name of the lord, and all the lesser ways of subjugating the evil-doers to their religion by way of the threat of jail... then I'm going to assume you're with them. If you don't want everyone to think that Christianity is one giant, hateful, Taliban-like bloc, then try standing up every once in a while like the supposed voice of reason everyone claims to be in this thread.

A million moderates who say jack shiat about how organizations like FoF, NOM, and others are perverting Christianity into a religion all about who it's ok to hate instead of who we should love... but you guys are all to happy to pile on to someone who calls everyone (including the phantom moderates) out as being a bunch of dickbags.

Teens who were there who were, a.) Christians, and b.) tolerant of GLBT folks, are likely to have changed which in response to the speaker?

I'll honestly be surprised if one of Rush's next rants is about "that hate-mongering homo", cause, you know, that's so much better than saying someone's behavior is pansy-assed.

The thing I find funniest about some of these comments, is that when I went through my anger management course ( finished 3 weeks ago) it was impressed upon all of us that, when attempting to argue a point, to show your dissatisfaction with the actions, and not attck the person for their actions. Now, my phone's being goofy, and won't play the video, but Notabunny, and the others who have, lead me to believe that is exactly what Dan did. Was pansy ass a bit much for a speech about it gets better? Maybe. Does that make him a militant gay? I've seen way too many of those to say yes. And does it make his point, or the point of it gets better any less valid? NO.

sweatybronson: Hard to know without seeing a video / transcript of the speech what exactly happened. BUT--

These were individual Christian teenagers... Some of y'all are committing a pretty major sin --

Which is to lump all Christians together. Did John and Jane, Christian kids who were sitting at the conference, ever attack homosexuals? We don't know.

But it does Seem that the speaker attacked them and their beliefs by telling them "to ignore all that shiat in the bible" (paraphrased). That's really stupid, and out of line.

And a grown man calling a bunch of teenagers pansy-asses?

Sure...if this was an adult talking to adults, maybe that would have been okay. But otherwise, it just shows a lack of maturity and is really, really stupid. Sommmmmebody's got insecurity problems.

"They already scream and spit and beat and kill people for who they love."

Seriously, calm the fark down. Who's "they." Were "they" the kids that this guy was cursing at? No. Does "they" include most Christians? Hellllllllll no. Go to a Westboro Baptist protest, and the majority of Christians there are protesting Against the WBC dudes, not with them.

The Christian community has a huge continuum of beliefs, and maturity, and kindness (or lack thereof) wrt to expressing those beliefs. It goes all the way from total acceptance, performing Christian marriages, etc., to being against gay marriages but otherwise showing basic kindness and respect homosexuals, to being the WBC guys.

If you judge the Christian right by the ones who 'spit and beat and kill,' you are just as wrong as those who judge the gay dudes in leather who hump children in the park. (the percentage of gay dudes who do the former is probably equivalent to [if not higher than] the percentage of Christians who 'kill' teh gays.])

The whole approach of "well, Christians will never be cool with us anyway, so lets curse at their children" is wrong as wrong can be. It's self-defeating, ineffective, based on stereotypes and preju ...

Catch me about being just as wrong when there are gay preachers who succeed in pushing for genocidal laws against Christians. You people say farking nothing while these extremists hijack what you proclaim to be a moderate and good faith and turn it into a venom and bile spewing hatefest, but you're all over it as soon as someone calls you out for it.

Welp, as you can see, Fox News has shown us the light, yet again. We should all go back to bullying people because not bullying the weak and helpless is clearly a tool of the devil (and to a lesser but no less significant extent, teh ghey).

And the meek shall inherit the sucker punch. So sayeth the Lord.


Though, more seriously, I've never been particularly fond of the "it gets better" campaign anyway- largely because it promises Pie in the Sky.

It doesn't always get better. And there are more and much better reasons to maintain a sense of dignity and self-respect than some unrealistic hope that life will stop pelting you with lemons some day and start pelting you with hookers and beers.

In fact, hoping for better treatment down the line because life sucks right now sounds like a suspiciously Christian attitude towards life's problems. So I really can't see what these people are at odds over.

Pansies.

Ah, the classic reactions. "You are trolling. The 'facts' speak for themselves". Many of you can't handle that Dan had a bad moment. It happens. He could have handled it better.

Sometimes, the speakers for 'your side' screw up. Sometimes, standard bearers for a cause do wrong. More harm is done to a cause by the rigid denial of any possible fault or error. the excuses and reactions I see here really indicate this, as they fall into the classic excuses for the thing he is opposing. "They deserved it. This is what all of them are like. He really didnt insult them, he just made an observation".

He is not completely discredited as a speaker for this cause. The message he wanted to present hasnt been invalidated. He simply had a human failing, and squandered an opportunity. He could have approached the challenge in a far more positive and effective fashion.

If you can't even bring yourself to admit that is a possibility, that he might have some fault here, you may need to examine your own intolerances.

As a side note, anyone who considers saying "pansy-asses" to be "cursing out" is a farking pansy-ass.

Link to video, y'all. No need to guess about what happened: Link

wademh: Teens who were there who were, a.) Christians, and b.) tolerant of GLBT folks, are likely to have changed which in response to the speaker?

Probably neither, but hopefully (a).

Well, in all fairness to Mr. Savage, Christians are complete dumbasses.

incrdbil: Ah, the classic reactions. "You are trolling. The 'facts' speak for themselves". Many of you can't handle that Dan had a bad moment. It happens. He could have handled it better.

Sometimes, the speakers for 'your side' screw up. Sometimes, standard bearers for a cause do wrong. More harm is done to a cause by the rigid denial of any possible fault or error. the excuses and reactions I see here really indicate this, as they fall into the classic excuses for the thing he is opposing. "They deserved it. This is what all of them are like. He really didnt insult them, he just made an observation".

He is not completely discredited as a speaker for this cause. The message he wanted to present hasnt been invalidated. He simply had a human failing, and squandered an opportunity. He could have approached the challenge in a far more positive and effective fashion.

If you can't even bring yourself to admit that is a possibility, that he might have some fault here, you may need to examine your own intolerances.

The thing is, some of us genuinely believe it's not a screw up. Christianity is getting hijacked by a bunch of extremist twatrockets who are anti-gay in every sense, from hospital visits, through armed service, through marriage, through even genocide... and 99 percent of the self-professed Christians are neither saying, nor doing, anything to stop it. Whether you're saying nothing because you're afraid or because you agree, you're a pansy ass if you don't stand up and talk about how Christianity is not really this hatemongering, genocidal farked up clusterfark. If you guys would as rapidly attack idiots like Dobson and Robertson as you do people like Savage, nobody would have a beef with you... as it stands though, you guys are relatively silent for the hate speech, and good and loud (as this thread shows) whenever someone calls you a pansy ass for sitting on the sidelines watching people use the word of Christ like a bludgeoning tool. Here's a hint, if the only people you're willing to vocally stand up to are the people already getting kicked around by the hateslingers, you're a pansy ass mofo.

incrdbil: Ah, the classic reactions. "You are trolling. The 'facts' speak for themselves". Many of you can't handle that Dan had a bad moment. It happens. He could have handled it better.

Sometimes, the speakers for 'your side' screw up. Sometimes, standard bearers for a cause do wrong. More harm is done to a cause by the rigid denial of any possible fault or error. the excuses and reactions I see here really indicate this, as they fall into the classic excuses for the thing he is opposing. "They deserved it. This is what all of them are like. He really didnt insult them, he just made an observation".

He is not completely discredited as a speaker for this cause. The message he wanted to present hasnt been invalidated. He simply had a human failing, and squandered an opportunity. He could have approached the challenge in a far more positive and effective fashion.

If you can't even bring yourself to admit that is a possibility, that he might have some fault here, you may need to examine your own intolerances.

I'll direct you back up to my last post, the one that starts off about rush. No one here has said that pansy-assed behavior was justifiable in that venue, (though many think it, I'm sure) most of Dan's rational defenders are simply trying to point out that Fox has once again skewed facts and sensationalized something otherwise mundane.

rynthetyn: Aigoo: The Why Not Guy: Aigoo: blah

That's quite a rousing little speech, Meryl Streep, but I'd suggest that your fellow Christians who work tirelessly to deny rights to their fellow human beings, or even make being gay a capital offense, do a lot more damage to your faith's reputation than Dan Savage ever will.

You'll get no argument from me that the number one problem with the church is its members. I've said that for years.

The same truth applies all around, though: you cannot convince any person to see reason when there is a highly emotionally-charged issue involved. At least 75% (and most likely a great deal more) of those who call themselves Christians have even less understanding of God than most atheists. At least the atheist understands that mankind has a brain and the capacity to apply logic and reason and does so. Many - even most - of "[my] fellow Christians" have been deliberately taught not to use the brains God gave them and the capacity to reason they were born with because to do so challenges those in power in the Church.

Sadly, corruption isn't limited to politics. Why do you think there's that passage about Jesus getting pissed off, deliberately going out and making a whip, and coming back in and tearing up the Temple?

Just as sadly, you can't force a man to see the sunlight unless you can coax him out of his cave. The idea is to get him to come out willingly, and sometimes, that takes time. ;)

How about you start criticizing the bigots within Christianity just as loudly as you're criticizing Dan Savage? It's one thing to come on Fark and criticize bigoted Christians, but it's another thing all together to call them on their bigotry to their faces. When your pastor says anti-gay rhetoric, do you call him on it? When your church friends use bigoted language, do you make it clear that you think they're wrong? The American church is not going to change until people within the church speak up and stop allowing the bigotry to go unchallenged.

What if the pastor at the local church is a gay? Certain denominations have them you know? But don't let that get in the way of your bigoted opinion that all church services are nothing more than hour long gay hate festivals.

/atheist
//hasn't been to church since the sixth grade

Okay... almost no-one