It’s amazing how audience dictates the comment section of a blog and how each handle discourse. I posted my Dan Savage blog post on this blog and on my Times Union blog. Interestingly, I posted my blog post on Facebook. On Facebook, the conversation was civil, exchanged differing views, offer opposing ideas, and generally mild. On this blog, there were no comments about the post.
On my Times Union blog, it was a different story with over 55 comments. Most of the posts were critical of the fact that I spoke out against Dan Savage. Most of the commenters thinking revolved around the fact that Savage represented a community who has been unfairly oppressed by religious conservatives. Thus, my critique of Savage’s comments about the Bible being ‘bullshit’ and how he misunderstood slavery in the Bible were not apropos. Despite the fact that I deplored gay-bashing and Bible beating any group, it seems that many commenters believed Savage’s comments were just and called for. Many of the blog comments were attacks against Christianity in general, how religion is narrow-minded, and even some personally attacked me.
Rabbi Brad Hirschfield (author, radio and TV talk show host), led a Q&A for the Washington Post, commented on Dan Savage. The Rabbi wrote “You Don’t Have To Be Wrong For Me To Be Right: Finding Faith Without Fanaticism” and offers some important insight when he commented on a reader’s question/statement on the Dan Savage story:
