It looks like they won't have Jerry Falwell to kick around anymore although that probably won't stop some people.
Political millstone or inspirational leader; man of God or sinner? Whatever his legacy the folks on the other side of the political aisle sure liked to use Falwell whenever they wanted to broad-brush the Republican Party as some monolithic fundamentalist movement bent on imposing a theocracy in the United States.
As if that were even the case.
The one interesting thing will be how the Reverend's passing will play out tonight during the Republican Presidential debate. My word of advice to the ten GOP presidential hopefuls is try not to dwell too long it. Better yet, don't bring it up at all.
It's not like this is a Senate race in Minnesota.
I read a brief discussion of his death. Falwell introduced, for better or worse, religion into the public discourse. People are saying his efforts was responsible for the conservative revolution in the mid90s and some say the 80s (aka Reagan years).
Whenever I saw and listened to him, I never heard the do this or else that you would expect after reading the left commentary.
I'll miss the young guy.
Posted by: swatter on May 15, 2007 03:19 PMI'm sure that most members on a far left vote for Democrats, but the media rarely makes the same connection of Democrats to socialists/communists the way they did with Falwell and fundamentalist Christians to Republicans.
Posted by: Palouse on May 15, 2007 03:30 PMI don't wish him harm or celebrate his death but I don't mourn his passing more than I would anyone else's.
Posted by: solong on May 15, 2007 03:35 PMThink what you want.. he said some really dumb things, but he gave back a great deal.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 15, 2007 04:31 PMA fundamentalist Christian myself, I found some of his positions to be ludicrous and embarrassing (the Teletubbies diatribe comes to mind). But, unlike the "bigots and fools", I recognize the value he brought, both in terms of his religious work and the expanded dialogue he brought to the political process by encouraging people of faith to express their views in the public arena.
It's not a faith if you don't live it in every aspect of your life. Falwell championed that; and all the antireligious bigots and fools in the world won't have the impact on society that this man did.
Posted by: sro on May 15, 2007 04:39 PMYup unlike say the Christians who celebrated the death of Saddam and the various terrorists we offed. Not to mention supporting the death penalty.
The fact is that there are some people the world is better of without. While I do sympathize with Falwell friends and family, he was a hateful ignorant bigot who supported apartheid, blamed those he disagreed with for 911, and often appeared giddy at tragedy.
Posted by: Giffy on May 15, 2007 04:41 PMI always thought Apartheid was really bad, but look at the country now. We repalced one very bad system for another! It's Apartheid all over again.
And let's not for get (shall we) Falwell was just human. Just like Clinton, GW, Jackson and so on.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 15, 2007 04:47 PMYeah, because they're the exact same things to a mental midget like yourself.
How's about you stfu at least until the body's cold, kay?
Posted by: jimg on May 15, 2007 04:59 PMAlso, Don, a man of God is still a sinner who needs forgiveness from God, and thank God that he sent Jesus for us to be redeemed in his precious blood. No matter how many flaws Falwell had, he was a forgiven man. Remember that.
Army,
Having traveled to and studied South Africa, I can say that the majority is better off today. The small white majority has lost some wealth and power, but the bulk is better off. Supporting Apartheid is tantamount to supporting Saddam's government...
Jimg,
nice argument. Falwell did nothing but demonize those that did not share his narrow fundamentalist view of the world. That in my book makes him someone who I will not mourn.
Posted by: Giffy on May 15, 2007 06:25 PMPresents and interesting situation. Seems to show that some people live in dreaded fear of certain religions and kiss their collective asses. Those they aren't afraid of they scorn.
I am curious though Giffy. Did he cast spells upon those souls, and they suffered eternal hell because they didn't agree with HIM????
If not, then they just didn't agree......
Posted by: chris on May 15, 2007 06:40 PMThus, the real news story is not his death, but the range of negative reaction from wink, wink of the polished Leftstream talking-heads, to the outright vitriol on the Nutroots.
If there is a Devil, it would be Falwell.
Posted by: John Bailo on May 16, 2007 12:36 AMJust curious, what would you call Osama Bin Laden or Hitler?
Posted by: WVH on May 16, 2007 12:45 AMRot in Hell, perverts.
Posted by: Independent voter on May 16, 2007 02:51 AMthen compare those comments to the treatment of a Sharpton's or another prominent liberal's passing. or the passing of any another (but Christian) leader's passing.
one will be deified & get a rotunda lying-in-state display. another may get the dog's lifted leg on hyrant even in death.
may he rest in peace. whether i followed his views or not. waaaaay much more value added to society in his life than a Hollywood starlet type's passing--as cold as that sounds.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on May 16, 2007 06:46 AMTo me that makes him no different from the leaders of the Taliban, or Saudi Arabia, or any other theocratic state. If he prayed to Allah most people would have called him a terrorist. I am just thankful that Falwell never got that much power, but I have no doubt that if he did he would do the same. He has said as much.
Posted by: Giffy on May 16, 2007 07:44 AMhttp://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/05/the_anger_of_the_left.html
Posted by: JDH on May 16, 2007 08:18 AMComment at #25 still applies, Giffy.
Posted by: swatter on May 16, 2007 08:32 AMHopefully by the time the young person leaves high school, this elementary lesson will be learned so that his mind will not display the irrationality I'm seeing in some of these comments.
Lets consider some of them with a just application of even loose standards for truth:
Falwell was a confirmed bigot.
Posted by: solong on May 15, 2007 03:35 PM
Defining terms is necessary here:
BIGOT: A person who is utterly INTOLERANT of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
INTOLERANT: not TOLERATing or respecting beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc., different from one's own, as in political or religious matters; bigoted.
TOLERATE: To allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; permit.
To be a true claim, we would have to have evidence that Falwell took actions to end practices or existences. Merely believing that something is wrong, and even speaking this belief does not equate to using the force necessary to be a bigot.
Falwell was an anti gay - obsessed with the topic.
Posted by: Essex Hemphill on May 15, 2007 03:36 PM
Again, terms would need to be defined. What is "anti-gay?" Did he kill people who claimed they had engaged in certain sexual acts? Did he imprison them? What does "anti" mean in this claim? Again, if by "anti" it meant he believed certain sexual acts to be wrong, then so what? If a person believed that cropping dog ears was wrong too does that somehow make them anti-veterinarians?
And obsessed? Has an analysis of his speaking been conducted to reach this conclusion? Or are people combing through decades of near-daily speaking opportunities to comb out some examples of commentary on homosexual acts? If that is the case wouldn't the one who ignored millions of words of speeches to focus on a few statements be the one obsessed?
he was a hateful ignorant bigot who supported apartheid, blamed those he disagreed with for 911, and often appeared giddy at tragedy.
Posted by: Giffy on May 15, 2007 04:41 PM
Again, define terms. Hateful? Why do Al Sharpton and Larry Flynt give him high marks for being an agreeable person?
Ignorant? Where is the evidence? Anyone Giffy disagrees with is ignorant? If you are still hung up on the homosexual act beliefs, can you prove that homosexual acts are not wrong? Until that proof is offered, it wouldn't be "ignorance" but a difference of opinion.
Blamed those he disagreed with for 911? First, I'm not convinced there is evidence of this claim, and I would wonder about the context of some small phrase. But some people believe that human activity they disapprove of is responsible for global warming. Maybe it is; maybe it isn't but we would need to argue over the facts not the motive of the person making the claim. Again, it would be a difference of opinion rather than lying or rejection of fact.
Falwell did nothing but demonize those that did not share his narrow fundamentalist view of the world.
Posted by: Giffy on May 15, 2007 06:25 PM
Define "demonizing." Make sure it doesn't apply to the quote itself, however.
Falwell represented a false, commercialized religion that had nothing to do with Faith, or Jesus, and everything to do with Money.
If there is a Devil, it would be Falwell.
Posted by: John Bailo on May 16, 2007 12:36 AM
Evidence? I presume the writer has heard Falwell preach regularly and can supply evidence that each of these astounding claims are true? Ironic to me that someone who isn't sure whether or not there is a devil is an expert--not only on what Falwell taught--but on what he should have been teaching.
His advocacy actions and followers made life worse for many many people. Whether it was adding legitimacy to a racist oppressive state, arguing that AIDS was gods punishment, or blaming his fellow Americans for terrorist attacks, Falwell's life resulted in millions of gay, lesbian, atheist, really any non-fundamentalist Christians, Americans suffering.
Posted by: Giffy on May 16, 2007 07:44 AM
Falwell helped continue oppression.
Posted by: Giffy on May 16, 2007 08:59 AM
Finally, we get to a claim with some vaguely referenced evidence. The writer wants us to believe that Apartheid was legitimized by Falwell. I guess I would need to know what counts as "legitimizing" because many people do many things, but they don't all rise to the level of "causing" something as bad as Apartheid. Be careful how you define "legitimized" because using too soft of a definition would mean Falwell also legitimized Hustler magazine by his public relationship with Larry Flynt. And how did Falwell "help continue the oppression?" Did he send money? Did he pass out ammo? Strong claim for so little evidence.
"Arguing," "blaming" are the same things as holding beliefs and speaking them. It is wrong and illogical to oppose the act of arguing or blaming. The right approach is to contest the claims and let truth prevail. If arguing something that is wrong is wrong and causes suffering, then by all means lets start jailing people for disagreeing with . . . um, with who? With Giffy? Anyone who argues against Giffy please report to jail for being ignorant. Your reeducation will commence immediately.
How is it that those who most stridently believe that truth is elusive and that prejudice should therefore be the highest possible crime are not willing to apply that standard to their own claims about Falwell?
That being said here is the Falwell quote regarding 9/11
http://www.actupny.org/YELL/falwell.html
He reiterated that view recently
http://www.americablog.com/2007/05/cnn-just-last-week-falwell-reiterated.html
As for apartheid, he supported the South African government. Because of his cloat among Christians and political types that both makes it easier for others to support it and in fact encourages those who view him favorably to accept it. No different then a celebrity endorsing a car.
Just to be clear I do not think Falwell is a criminal, should be jailed, or even harmed. However I do think that the world is better of without him in it.
But I will stick to his general influence and stay away from personal attacks. Fallwell was partially responsible for making the R's more activist in the legislative sphere on the subject of social conservatism. He helped move the R's from defending separation of church and state while maintaining their religious values to attempting to promote religion and attempting to enforce moral conformity on all via the law. He thus helped to expand the scope and power of the Federal government, in violation of limited government Republican principles.
His activism is a major reason that the R's are in such a difficult position these days. He took them far to the social conservative right, and in so doing alienated them from the mainstream. His efforts alienated small "l" libertarians in the GOP, and greatly contributed to Libertarian Party growth.
He gained power by inflaming the anti-liberty attitudes of religious conservatives. Goldwater was one of the few R's who could stand up to his ilk.
Because of Fallwell, the cause of Liberty has been set back many years.
No personal attachks, eh? Except for your parting shot?