Comments on: Scott Lively: Moral Relativist

By: werdna

werdna — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 17:51:50 +0000

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.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 08:06:25 +0000

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.

By: Ben

Ben — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 03:43:59 +0000

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.

By: Gene in L.A.

Gene in L.A. — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 01:34:12 +0000

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.

By: Pacal

Pacal — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 01:01:34 +0000

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.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 23:18:07 +0000

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.

By: Tor

Tor — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:33:35 +0000

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.

By: Priya Lynn

Priya Lynn — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 15:27:03 +0000

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.

By: Blake

Blake — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 15:21:04 +0000

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.

By: Keppler

Keppler — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:39:59 +0000

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?