Dear Mr. Savage,
I am the “Bud Bundy,” “secret communiss,” “douchebag”or so called by your readers of the Nov 28 Youth Pastor Watch. I never heard of you until someone sent me a link to your blog featuring my face. I do wonder what inspired you to add me to the lineup (care to share?). As most of your readers concluded there is guilt-by-association implied. I laughed out loud at some of the comments… people never surprise me. After reviewing your blog I was reminded why I do what I do. I don’t know who hurt you in the past that made you feel empowered to only report evil things youth pastors do, but I forgive you for adding my face to your lineup. I hope you will keep watching what God does in my life and see that not every pastor is a homophobic, narrow-minded, right-wing freak. I love to help my gay friends learn about the life transforming love of Jesus for all sinners. I am happy to admit I am wrong, when I am. I also criticize my right-wing representatives when they drop the ball.
Maybe sometime you will pause long enough to listen and hear people for who they are rather than the box you assume they fit in. Though I have never been a sex offender I am a sinner like those other pastors and I need God’s forgiveness for my sin too. Have you ever counted how many times you have sinned against God? You may consider thinking about the consequences for your actions and repenting when you see the error of your ways. All I request is that you add a line in your “We Regret These Errors” article and apologize for implying that my conduct is as evil as the other men simply because I’m a youth pastor. I am not holding my breath but like I said people never surprise me.
Your fellow human,
Jonathan
Dear Jonathan,
I started including the odd—as in “occasional,” not “strange”—item about a youth pastor who did something right, or did something praiseworthy, or did something neutral, to offer some balance. You and a handful of other good, upstanding, decent youth pastors have appeared in YPW precisely so that all the posts aren’t “only… evil things youth pastors do.” Typically a “good” youth pastor makes it in because a story about him turned up on the same day as a story about a bad youth pastor. You’re not the first “good,” or neutral, youth pastor item to appear in YPW.
I started these YPW posts to make the point that, despite what you hear from religious folks, the simple fact that someone is publicly religious is no guarantee that he or she is a good, safe, trustworthy person. As a non-religious person myself, I get tired of being told that there is no morality without religion; it seems to me that there is tons of immorality out there with religion, from rapist youth pastors to jihadists flying airplanes into buildings. People have complained that my YPW posts weren’t fair: some youth pastors are good people! So… I started nodding toward that, toward the good ones, by watching good ones like you. There was no implication that your actions were evil. In fact, you’re in there to exonerate, by proxy, all your fellow “good” youth pastors everywhere.
No one dropped a church on my head when I was a child. But as a gay man I get sick of being lectured about morality by people who can’t seem to keep their co-religionists from raping kids. Funnily enough, I settled on youth pastors because I didn’t want the flow of posts to overwhelm the blog. When I was posting items about pastors—youth and otherwise—there was just too many stories. Focusing on youth pastors was meant to show a little restraint.
Finally, I’m sorry about the personal insults in the comments thread. Commenters on blogs can be real assholes. I get it in the teeth from ’em all the freakin’ time.
All the best,
Dan
P.S. Not homophobic? That’s terrific! Tell me: is my relationship—14 years with the same guy, one adopted kid (adopted at birth, 10 now, thriving)—a sin? Is it something that I need to repent for? Do you support marriage rights for your fellow human beings who happen to be gay? (Civil marriage rights, not religious marriage rites?) And do you support the right of same-sex couples to adopt children?
He may not be a molestor, but he is seriously brainwashed. Better questions would be about evolution, DNA, death penalty, and the host of other religions that call him a heretic and heathen. And who does or doesn’t get into his imaginary heaven? Hindus? Jews? Muslims? Buddhists? What about Dinosaurs? Did Adam and Eve, imaginary characters, romp hand in hand with T-Rex, a once real animal? Brainwashing children in a religion should be against the law. What makes him correct and all those other billions of people incorrect? It certainly isn’t the facts. I know what his answer is. The Bible. The Bible is clearly wrong on so many levels. But that’s always their answer. I hope he can one day free himself from a religion that has a long bloody history of being wrong, wrong, wrong. The universe is so much more beautiful and wonderous than he will ever know if he doesn’t.
You make good points, Dan, but I think Jonathan has a very good reason to be pissed off. You should have made a distinction, or not included him at all.
That being said, Jonathan also sounds really annoying.
too lazy to google my own grammar, but shouldn’t it be Civil marriage ‘rights’ and religious marriage ‘rites’?
Looking back at the original YPW, Dan, it sure does look like the intention is to show all 3 YP’s as potentially criminal. If you included the 3rd to showcase how not all YP’s are sexual predators, why not make some distinction to that effect other than what members of his church say about him?
Wouldn’t you be mad as hell if a website listed prominent gay adoptive parents accused or convicted of being sexual predators (which I realize is probably a nonexistent or at least very small number of people, but bear with me for the sake of analogy) and then included a picture of you along with statements of how great the gay community thinks you are as a gay parent? Isn’t there an obvious implication of associated guilt without posting some disclaimer?
Why the need to go all typical Dan Savage gay rights activist on him in the P.S.?
@5 cause Dan likes confrontation unless it hits too close to home
After reading the original post over and over I too could not figure out why the last one was included. I think there was a potential joke, sarcasim, irony, etc. that is completely lost on me.
In regards to your P.S. he already answered it with:
I’d love to see his reply, if there ever is one.
@7: but dude also said –
“Though I have never been a sex offender I am a sinner like those other pastors and I need God’s forgiveness for my sin too.”
So, he’s a sinner too… I think he’s saying everyone sins not that it’s a sin to be gay.
It was rather considerate of you to so thoroughly explain the intent behind this post and the YPW posts in general, Dan. And your P.S. was no less confrontational than his “I love to help my gay friends learn about the life transforming love of Jesus for all sinners” line. Well done.
I see that therapy for your bullying issues hasn’t had much effect yet.
I agree with everything @2 said.
it’d help if the original rude commentors read the blog in question instead of just looking at the pictures (and if this YP could distinguish a joke from a real admonisment). then it seems pretty obvious he put in two pedos and one dude doing something good. but, blog commentators need their food chewed for them.
Dan – Nicely done. Please share his reply
Dan, sometimes I wonder if you realize that you’re not really educating anyone that “the simple fact that someone is publicly religious is no guarantee that he or she is a good, safe, trustworthy person.” As this pastor points out, Christians see everyone as a sinner – and have no doubts that the potential for being bad, unsafe, and untrustworthy is in the people all around us. These YPW posts aren’t news, just a joke that might have been funny the first time but has long lost its point.
I’ve often wondered if the point you make later – “But as a gay man i get sick of being lectured about morality by people who can’t seem to keep their co-religionists from raping kids,” isn’t what this is all about. You do realize, of course, that you’re being a bigot. You aren’t responsible for the actions of all gay people, either.
I thought your response letter was great, Dan. But, folks are correct that in the original post you should have said something a little like “and now for a Youth Pastor that doesn’t enjoy raping little children… see they’re not all bad!”. I’d be a little upset if I were this guy…
@15 – Christians see everyone as a sinner? Bullshit.
The entire premise behind modern American “pop Evangelical movement” (if you’ve been paying attention at all, or actually KNOW any of these people) is that Christians are good people who can condemn heathens for their sins all day long and wish them a fiery road to hell, but as long as they themselves go to chuch, they’re happy sinless ass-hats (how could they do anything wrong? God is on THEIR side!)
I would have NO problem with Christians if they wanted to fix their own sins, and leave mine the fuck alone. Alas, it is my gay sins that concern them.
And Dan, these people are totally homophobes – is this even a question? If I tried to convert every Christian I know into a heathen, or didn’t want the government to respect “Christian marriage” I’d be called (appropriately, and accurately) a Christiaphobe. I don’t think it takes beating Christians up to deserve such a title.
Yeah, the original post is totally misleading since you fail to make a distinction between him and the actual sex offenders. A one sentence explanation would have sufficed. Either way, I do find your testy email exchanges with people to be quite entertaining!
It’s called lip service.
@17:
If you want to cherry-pick your Christians who think they are without sin for your bigotry, let others cherry-pick gays who molest kids for theirs.
sorry ya’ll, I found Dan’s intent to be very obvious in the original post. with a little thought, I think the point is clear. And sometimes a little thinking is good.
more evidence that Slog should close posts to commenting
Well, Coom-bye-yah, that was fun to read! Thanks, Dan. Seriously.
If Christians want to believe homosexuality is a sin, that is their right, but please don’t try to use the government to make me live by your religion’s rules.
Nobody is going to force Christians into gay marriages, and they shouldn’t try to force me into straight nuptials. (or into a life of celibate solitude because my love life upsets them.)
If Christians spent half the time going after clergy members who prey on defenseless children, as they do blocking the rights of consenting adult homosexuals, there were be no need for YPW.
As it is, Christians cherry pick what they want to follow, and ignore what they don’t. It seems the process in choosing what to follow is based on what can be used to attack people whom Christians don’t like.
@ 15, there are Christians out there who believe that their religion is a requirement for morality. In their eyes, we might all be sinners, but non-Christians are hopelessly immoral. In this view, non-Christians cannot possibly be genuinely good people. Thankfully, not all Christians hold this view, but they are out there and they tend to be outspoken. I imagine that this claim to a moral monopoly is what Dan is trying to address.
He’s not a bigot for trying to point this out. He’s not saying all Christians are raping pedophiles. How I see it, he’s just saying criminality is truly universal and that religion doesn’t necessarily confer the magical moral powers some people claim it does.
@25:
You don’t need to think all Christians are pedophiles to be a bigot, and that’s not what I said, or even implied. Picking youth pastors, or Christians, or whatever group he wants and highlighting criminal acts only within that group is bigoted, and inspires bigotry. Because Dan’s work gets spread primarily to people who are outside those groups, my point is that TPW doesn’t change any minds, just reinforces prejudice (not that Christians are some oppressed minority). See #17 for an example.
@20. I’m not “cherry-picking” bigoted Christians. I grew up in the fundamentalist South, where VIRTUALLY ALL of the evangelicals I knew were ASSHOLES. So that I didn’t characterizing all Christians as assholes, I was specific to refer to these “Christians” as “pop Evangelicals”. (whether or not this is actual Christianity is open for debate). I would without hesitation go so far as to argue – based on extensive interaction with these people – that the “do as you want, just condemn everyone else” premise of this movement is the primary reason behind its success.
Granted, I have since met some respectable (=tolerable) Christians (none of them Evangelicals), but when I do meet the occasional Evangelical, they’re like all the others I once knew.
The difference between me (the gay) and them (the evangelical tossers) is that I think that Christians have fundamental rights to their beliefs (idiotic though they are), and am not going to try to convert them or get the government to deny them rights. That they do not extend the same courtesy to me is evidence of who is the better people.
@27:
I bet you even have some Christian friends! How open-minded of you.
Fuck that, I’ll be the bigot. I’m so fucking sick of religious people that I could puke – one of those good Linda Blair type pukes too. I don’t think there is a whinier, bitchier, more annoying group on Earth – and yes, that goes for the vast majority of them. Is it right that I’m a bigot? Probably not, but at some point you fucking get what you deserve and those non-bigoted religious folks just can’t make up for (if they even try) the rest of the worthless bunch.
I love Dan Savage and I don’t care who knows it!
Please please PLEASE post his reply. Or better yet, perhaps Mr Good YP is readingand cares to take on the infamous Slog Commenters?
(someone should tell him about the Chelsea girl from a few months back)
@28. Actually, I can’t think of any one of my close friends who attends church more than infrequently (and then, reluctantly).
It does disappoint me, though, that there are decent Christian people out there who are so seemingly content to let bigots and homophobes be the public face of their religion in this country.
@29:
Thank you for owning it for Dan & the Commenters.
> When I was posting items about pastors—youth and otherwise—there was just too many stories. Focusing on youth pastors was meant to show a little restraint.
I will vouch for this. I recently sent Dan a story about a pastor, and his underage son, of whom it is not clear if either is or was a “youth” pastor, who stand accused of drugging and then filming sex with students at a religious college.
Dan replied “yeah but he is not a *youth* pastor” and so the story sits…
@ 26, good point. I’ve been offended by an anti-illegal immigration group that continuously posts any crimes committed by Mexican immigrants in an attempt to vilify an entire group of people. I can certainly see the parallel, although I don’t really feel the same way about what Dan Savage is doing. As you mentioned, Christians aren’t an oppressed minority and although his generally one-sided posting can conceivably increase the verbal flak they’re receiving, it’s highly unlikely anyone’s going to end up beaten or dead because of it.
So, yes, it’s at the very least biased/potentially inflammatory and Dan won’t be up for a Nobel Peace Prize any time soon. I don’t actually mind. I tend to be civil, but for that very reason no one’s going to give me a column. It’s a good call: my column would be dull as hell. People have sharp teeth and like folks who are willing to do the baring for them. He does it well and doesn’t target people at risk. He isn’t always fair, but he’s a strong voice that accurately represents the thoughts/opinions of a certain demographic. That’s a service in itself.
http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/thread…
If you do a search for Dan’s SLOG entries, you’ll find quite a few involving young pretty boyish types. Listening to his podcasts, you’ll hear an interest in the sex lives of young people that’s just a bit more keen than those from other callers. And if you can see this charade for what it really is, you’ll see it’s a sublimation of Dan’s two greatest demons; his love for young boys, and his Catholic guilt. That he wold stand as ‘our hero’ while simultaneously epitomizing the stereotype of the homosexual pervert. It’s so sad.
@34:
Yup, I pretty much agree – the world would be a duller place without Dan Savage, and obviously I read his work religiously. I just hope people realize that he’s entertainment, and only the truly bitter, repressed, passive-aggressive types would actually depend on him to represent their viewpoints in public discourse.
@37. So if pro-gay viewpoints are just “entertainment,” what about the viewpoints of the bigoted religious establishment that Dan’s railing against? Is Rick Warren’s homophobic church producing mere “entertainment”? Would “only the truly bitter, repressed, passive-aggressive types would actually depend on [Warren] to represent their viewpoints in public discourse”?
@9 He’s saying that being gay is a sin and he’s saying that he is a sinner. I googled his new church and it is part of the Prebyterian Church in America, which a very conservative denomination. They do not let women serve as minister or any ordained leadership position. So, based on that information I highly doubt he’s going to see being gay as fine and dandy.
@38:
I didn’t say all “pro-gay” – whatever that is – viewpoints are “just” entertainment, but you know that. And I think better parallels are Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter. And yes, they are, and yes, they would.
@ 37
He wouldn’t be my pick to represent my voice as a whole in public dialogue, but he does represent a part of it. Years ago, I made a conscious choice to go the route of tact and reconciliation. This seemed the most productive approach for me to take. Yet I do get pissed off and occasionally feel overly-restrained by my nearly compulsive need to see the other side. I’m glad Dan is willing to take the gloves off because I think a lot of what he says needs to be said, even if it’s sometimes slanted and/or aggressive. It lends a sort of balance.
@ 39
As this is anecdotal, I expect you to take it with a grain of salt, but at least in my experience, Presbyterian churches are rather mild-mannered and open-minded in practice if not official policy. In fact, my grandparents left their previous non-Presbyterian church for its lack of tolerance, selecting the one I grew up with for its general understanding. They weren’t trailblazers in any sense, but they focused on community and “loving thy neighbor” more than anything else.
“Presbyterian churches are rather mild-mannered and open-minded in practice if not official policy.”
This has been my experience, too.
ohhhhhhh, Bud Bundy is CUTE!!
@41 & 42
I would generally agree with this statement too “Presbyterian churches are rather mild-mannered and open-minded in practice if not official policy.” I was raised a Presbyterian preacher’s kid, however, the PCA is not generally tolerant they are a more fundametalist in belief. The PCUSA is the more tolerant mainstream version of Presbyterianism.
@31 – Speaking as a Christian, it frustrates me too that the more tolerant, open-minded, decent, and progressive among us are not the face of Christianity in this country. I have no problem condemning fundamentalist bigots for what they really are.
But (to use a crappy analogy that is the best I can do on almost no sleep this week) one voice or even a few cheering for the oppostion in a stadium full of people screaming at the tops of their lungs for the home team doesn’t make an impact. Sure the people right next to you hear, but no one else does.
Unless the more open-minded and progressive denominiations – like the PCUSA, ECUSA, ELCA, UCC, etc. make a concerted effort to show that Christians aren’t hateful, intolerant, judgmental people, that’s the impression that non-Christians are going to have because the fundamentalists and evangelical right have the sense to use the media to their advantage.
@ 44
Thank you, I never knew that. I guess it’s probably safe to assume the church I grew up with was PCUSA.
@Dan, 17,24,27,29,31 and any others I missed.
1) As an evangelical christian first I write to appologize. I am so deeply sorry for the bigoted cruelity you have recieved by my fellow Christians. You are right to your anger towards us, we (I speak collectively) do miss use scripture and wield it as a weapon. We are fools who don’t want to deal with our own sins, we find it easier to point at others. Essentially we are bullies, and are deserving of your anger and rage. For this I am deeply sorry.
2) Thus, I am not content to sit by while others condemn you. I do engage, my style is one on one. I use the Bible, because it is imoral to quote scripture without its context, and the intended audience. Sometimes I get cursed to hell, other times I cause people to stop and think.
3) Based off my personal Bible study, meditation and prayer I believe no ones sexuality is a sin. Our sexuality is a gift from God, and all are reflections of God’s triuneness (if thats even a word) and the intimacy that exisits between the three. Thus, I, Kim McGarry am heterosexual, and Dan Savage is gay, because that is what God designed us to be. Why else does it feel so perfect when we fall in love, like our souls are at home?
4) Lastly. No, Dan you don’t need to repent of your 14 wonderful years with your boyfriend. No, you don’t need to repent of the magical gift of parenthood. I am sure you and your boyfriend are great, albiet human, parents. Yes, I believe in your moral right to marry, and to have it legally recognized. (Down with DOMA and DADT) Yes, I believe you have every right to adopt.
Again, I am truly sorry!
kim
I totally agree with @45 and would like to add that I (as a Christian) can’t control what Rick Warren, et. al. say any more than you can control the words of anyone else. We aren’t “letting” them do anything–we write in protest, state our opinions in public places, but the Rick Warrens of the world have the ear of the press in a way the average Christian does not…and try not to hassle Dan too much. He’s the one that convinced me that gay marriage will not actually bring about Armageddon:)
@48 The Rick Warrens of the world have the ear of the press because they have a HUGE following. Why don’t the anti-Warren Christians have such a following?
@49 I’m not sure it’s just because he has a huge following. I think it’s also because he stirs up controversy. Middle of the road people don’t provide interesting news. However, that’s a really, really good question. Food for thought.