13 responses

  1. Gene in L.A.
    August 13, 2012

    I have to say I don’t understand the title of your article. I don’t see anything quoted in it that seems to suggest moral relativism; nor do I see moral relativism as in any way bad. In fact, I believe all morals are relative. We create them. About some many of us agree and about others we disagree; but there is no morality inherent in nature. Without the human mind there are no morals at all.

  2. Gus
    August 14, 2012

    Gene in LA must be anti-Christ…LOL

  3. William
    August 14, 2012

    Scott Lively has described himself as knowing probably more than anyone else in the world about homosexuality. In fact he is pig ignorant. Being now in his mid-fifties, he said that when he was born, homosexual behaviour was illegal in every country in the world except perhaps Sweden.

  4. Keppler
    August 14, 2012

    Actually, the most telling comment in Lively’s screed is this one:

    “Or is David Barton’s entire career being destroyed and all of his years of working tirelessly to advance the cause of Christ in American society being retroactively invalidated….”

    Is the role of an historian to “advance the cause of Christ in America?” Is that really what historians are supposed to do?

  5. Blake
    August 14, 2012

    One faux historian standing up for another’s “different takes on the underlying facts and context” of history. They must constantly be left in wonderment as to why people spend years getting advanced degrees in history.

  6. Priya Lynn
    August 14, 2012

    Keppler and Blake, Barton has at one time said “I’m no historian” and then later referred to himself as a historian. Whether or not he considers himself a historian is apparently determined by whichever stance is most useful to him at the time in advancing his lies.

  7. Tor
    August 14, 2012

    Piffle, Scott. Since when is criticism of one’s work equated with personal attack? Shoddy scholarship is shoddy scholarship, revisionism is revisionism and lies are lies.

  8. Aaron
    August 14, 2012

    In contrast to Mr. Lively I would like to say that BTB has been one of the kindest gay news sources I have come across when it comes to religion. The blog has consistently highlighted pro-gay religious people and taken an even-handed approach to discussing difficult issues like whether it is sensible for pro-gay people to give to organisations like the Salvation Army. I just wanted to take a moment to thank the writer’s for their kindness; obviously mainstream religion has done little to endear itself to the glbt community.

  9. Pacal
    August 14, 2012

    So Scott Lively believes that when he was born Homosexual behavior was illegal everywhere except perhaps Sweden. To mention one huge exception France under the code Napoleon had de- criminalized same sex behavior more than a century before he was born. In Brazil homosexual behavior has ben legal sincec 1830, when they adopted a version of the Code Napoleon. homosexual conduct has never been criminalized in China. Denmark decriminalized Homosexual conduct in 1933. Homosexual conduct has been legal in Iceland since 1940.

    In Italy Homosexual conduct has been legal since 1870. Aside from a brief period in the late 19th century, (1870-1880) when Japan adopted some European laws. Homosexual conduct has never been illegal in Japan.

    Poland has not had anti-homosexual conduct laws since 1932.

    I could go on.

    Lively is ignorant.

  10. Gene in L.A.
    August 14, 2012

    No, Gus, I’m not anti-Christ, nor am I the Antichrist. Jesus had some wonderful teachings. I’m anti-church, but that has nothing to do with my post. All I said was that morals are man-made. They are.

  11. Ben
    August 14, 2012

    This Lively piece was awesomely entertaining, but not nearly as much as the one he posted a few years ago warning about the consequences of repealing DADT.

    He carefully analyzed the risks and concluded that gays would form secret cabals within the military, that the presence of gays would drive out normal, patriotic soldiers leaving a gay-dominated force, and that the gay cabals would then seize control of the Pentagon. At this point, he implies that the gay-controlled military would be in a position to dominate or overthrow the US government and use the US arsenal to threaten the world, presumably to force the planet to accept sodomy.

    It really has to be read to be believed. A year and half since the repeal vote, he has not posted any updates on how the gay coup d’etat is shaping up.

  12. Ryan
    August 15, 2012

    Gene, the term “moral relativism” doesn’t mean what you think it means. Sure, I agree morals are a man made concept and that they fluctuate by society. But that’s not what this post is referring to. This post is accusing Lively (who presumably thinks lying is morally wrong and a sin) of temporarily suspending the moral wrong of lying if it helps combat the greater “moral wrong” of homosexuality. Meaning, his own morals are relative to themselves, not to others.

  13. werdna
    August 15, 2012

    Actually I think Gene is quite correct about the meaning of “moral relativism.” Lively might more accurately be accused of inconsistency or hypocrisy, if we had any reason to think he places any value on being truthful in the first place.

Leave a Reply




Back to top
mobile desktop