Michigan:

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.

93 replies on “There Is No Morality Without Religion”

  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.

  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?

  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.

  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…

  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?

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  20. 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.

  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.

  24. 23, Right here:

    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.

  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.

  27. @25
    “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.”

  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?

    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.

  32. 30, Oh, now it time for you to become evasive.

    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.

  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.

  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”.

  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.

  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

  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.

  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.

  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).

  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.

  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!!!”

  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.

Comments are closed.