"For the Bible Tells Me So" is a feature documentary about the intersection of religion and homosexuality in America today. Seen through the eyes of five conservative Christian families with gay children, the film highlights their efforts to successfully and peacefully reconcile family and theology. In addition, "For the Bible Tells Me So" interviews prominent Judeo-Christian scholars to reveal that Church-sanctioned anti-gay bias is based almost solely upon significant (and often malicious) misinterpretations of the Bible.
I know that this isn't a class about religion, but I think this is a really fascinating documentary that many of you may be interested in, particularly after our talk with Dan.
This documentary is not just for people of Jewish or Christian beliefs; I'd recommend it to anyone desiring and willing to think critically about the relationships between homosexuality, religion, prejudice, and public policy in America.
This reminded me of a question I had for you all interested in Dan Savage's use of the Bible in his lecture last Tuesday. While he maintains a good point (if we can forget x, y, and z in the BIble, why not the part about homosexuals), he did quite a bit of Bible bashing. I'm not a religious person (and in fact did enjoy some of the things he had to say about Tony Perkins and the like), but I wondered if the hostile way in which he approached religion was necessarily the most effective way of communicating his point. Continually referring to Tony Perkins as a "bat-shit crazy douche-bag," was Savage really practicing what he was preaching? I know I have the same feelings about Tony Perkins, but to use those feelings as a launch-pad for a reasonable argument may have been counterproductive.
ReplyDeleteRush, I had some similar thoughts on that matter. I mean, you can't kill everyone in the opposition so some bit of wooing and compromise is necessary (some bit, this is highly qualified). I kind of decided that 1st) being straight, we are outside observers who, while perhaps not neutral, cannot possibly have the emotional investment he has. 2nd) There are some radicalized segments that is pointless to attempt to work with, so why not use them as a platform to build on? 3rd) While this doesn't necessarily excuse the excessive and general bashing that often occurred, his statement "Go talk to the people who are hiijacking your religion," was an exceptionally good point. Why is it that negativity is always so ambitiously good at grabbing the megaphone?
ReplyDelete