Opinions Re:Jerry Falwell

[Mark Ingram]

Not really interested in your opinions regarding the Rev. or his views: I don't believe that any of us is going to convince anyone else to change his opinions there.


What I am interested in is this:

Less than 24 hours after his heart stopped beating the attack dogs have been released. Anderson Cooper was the first one whose sound bites I heard this morning. It seems a little *too* disrespectful to be kicking the man less than a day after his wife became a widow, especially considering that all he ever really did was to express an opinion. Even with Ronald Reagan they waited until after he was in the ground.

[jeffscreamedcorn]

Mark, you make a point, but Jerry was never very concerned about how his comments hurt other members of our society. Everyone has the right to say and believe whatever, but cats like Jerry specifically inserted themselves into our government, and therefore influenced laws conforming to his views of morality, and that is plain un-American. As a non-religious Jew, I found him offensive. Consider these foul vile things he said about certain of our fellow citizens - our friends and neighbors:


*
On Martin Luther King Jr.: "I must personally say that I do question the sincerity and nonviolent intentions of some civil rights leaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Mr. James Farmer, and others, who are known to have left-wing associations."
*
On Martin Luther King Jr., four decades later: "You know, I supported Martin Luther King Jr., who did practice civil disobedience."
*
On public education: "I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again, and Christians will be running them."
*
On the separation of church and state: "There is no separation of church and state."
*
On feminists: "I listen to feminists and all these radical gals. ... These women just need a man in the house. That's all they need. Most of the feminists need a man to tell them what time of day it is and to lead them home. And they blew it and they're mad at all men. Feminists hate men. They're sexist. They hate men; that's their problem."
*
On global warming: "I can tell you, our grandchildren will laugh at those who predicted global warming. We'll be in global cooling by then, if the Lord hasn't returned. I don't believe a moment of it. The whole thing is created to destroy America's free enterprise system and our economic stability."
*
On Bishop Desmond Tutu: "I think he's a phony, period, as far as representing the black people of South Africa."

On Sept. 11: "The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way—all of them who have tried to secularize America—I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.' "
*
On AIDS: "AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals."
*
On homosexuality: "I believe that all of us are born heterosexual, physically created with a plumbing that's heterosexual, and created with the instincts and desires that are basically, fundamentally, heterosexual. But I believe that we have the ability to experiment in every direction. Experimentation can lead to habitual practice, and then to a lifestyle. But I don't believe anyone begins a homosexual."
*
On Islam: "I think Mohammed was a terrorist. I read enough of the history of his life, written by both Muslims and non-Muslims, that he was a violent man, a man of war."
*
On Jews: "In my opinion, the Antichrist will be a counterfeit of the true Christ, which means that he will be male and Jewish, since Jesus was male and Jewish."

[Mark Ingram]

I'm not really interested in debating the demerits of Mr. Falwell's life/opinions, etc.

I am really more interested in your opinion about whether it is appropriate to attack a dead parson (who, by virtue of being dead, will never be able to defend himself) in print, on the internet, on tv or the radio, or any other way.

And, if it is OK, is there an appropriate waiting period? You know, human decency, respect for the dead (if not his opinions), that sort of thing.

For the record: I have never contributed to Falwell or any organization he is associated with. I have never seen his tv program. I've never been to his university. There are many issues I disagreed with him on but, mostly, I made it a point to not pay too much attention to him and think for myself.

[jeffscreamedcorn]

Mark,

I guess I misunderstood your point. However, I'd say it's fair game in the sense that Jerry, by virtue of his celebrity, repeatedly used the public forum (media, etc...) to attack people who, while not dead, none the less had no practical way to defend themselves against his vitriol, anymore than if they were actually dead.

Jeff

[Mark Ingram]

Jeff,

I can agree with you that the comments about MLK (assuming they were made after his death) were out of line. I am not going to comment on the rest of Falwell's remarks unless you really want to go there. I think we could argue for days on the definition of "practical way to defend" and who has it, and we would not accomplish anything. I already stated that I have never been a Falwell-ite and I don't want to become his apologist now.

I still belive that attacks on a recently deceased person (regardless of their political/social views or position in life) are tasteless, classless, totally inappropriate. They debase not only the attacked person, but also the attacker and everyone who hears. If Falwell did that (I have no reason to believe otherwise, I just haven't researched it myself) it still doesn't make it right or acceptable. If I were to condone the attacks on Falwell now I would, by default, also condone the attacks Falwell made while he was alive.

I also think there is a difference between opinions based on principles or the Bible or Koran (or is it Quran) and opinions based on whatever happens to make me happy or comfortable.

YMMV :)
Mark

[casey73]

Jeff - Please show me in our U.S. Constitution the clause that guarantees we wont' be offended by someone else's opinion. If that were the law of the land, that academic giant Rose O'donnel would have been lynched long ago right next to always jolly, Micheal Moore. I won't go into how deeply I detest those two people, but I begrudingly defend their right to be openly foolish AND offensive. Your list does not impress me. It can be done with just about any public figure. Sorry if my reply is even mildly offensive, but you've hit a nerve.

[Slobrain]

Casey,
Why talk bad about Michael Moore? All he did was try to let the US public know what is going on with our current PIP even though most already see it anyway. He does have a right to his comments and views just like any one else!

SLO

[bob p]

Michael Moore has the right to say anything he wants to say, and I have the right not to listen, not to pay to see his movies, and to change the channel when I see him on TV.

you could replace his name with anyone else's name and the results should be the same.

in regard to when its fair to attack a public figure, my answer would be: Dead or alive, any time that someone feels the need. living in the spotlight is the result of making the decision to have a public life. people who live in the public eye made the decision to live that way of their own free will, so they are welcome to both the good and the bad that comes with their decision.

I think we pay too much attention to the Media Circus. who really cares? the majority of TV programming is designed to satisfy the minds of people whose minds are easily satisfied. you can believe what is on TV, you disbelieve what is on TV, or you can make the decision not to bother watching it.

[Brad1]

I agree with Bob (Doritos). Most of the media (watch Lost at 8pm) is NOT worth paying attention to (zoom ZOOM zoom)

It's brainwashing us (Britney Spears Exposed) into mindless automatons! (Anna Nichole's Last Days)

TURN OFF the TV (Sony DLP widescreen HDTVs now available at Best Buy) and turn OFF the brainwashing!

I'm glad I'M not affected!! (Can you hear me now?)

Brad1:D

PS. I'm GLAD those people are in the spotlight. They show us how NOT to be evil morons by comparison!

[jeffscreamedcorn]

Jeff - Please show me in our U.S. Constitution the clause that guarantees we wont' be offended by someone else's opinion. If that were the law of the land, that academic giant Rose O'donnel would have been lynched long ago right next to always jolly, Micheal Moore. I won't go into how deeply I detest those two people, but I begrudingly defend their right to be openly foolish AND offensive. Your list does not impress me. It can be done with just about any public figure. Sorry if my reply is even mildly offensive, but you've hit a nerve.Casey - I won't defend the opinions of Rosey or M.M. one way or the other, but like you, I defend their right to say what they will. That's the point - while Mark may think that it's distasteful to speak ill of the dead, others may personally feel it's warranted. So be it.

[casey73]

Casey,
Why talk bad about Michael Moore? All he did was try to let the US public know what is going on with our current PIP even though most already see it anyway. He does have a right to his comments and views just like any one else!

SLO

Ummmm........I think that's what I said. I was only pointing out that Jeff's list of Jerry Falwells comments that offended him (Jeff) was something that could be done with any public figure. Jeff can choose to be offeneded by the long list of Falwell's remarks. You know, pro-choice. Choose to be offended or choose to ignor. So Slo, thank's for re-stating the obvious.


And, for the record, in my hopelessly uninformed, myopic opinion, Moore and O'Donnell are two extremely overweight, overhyped know nothings. To his credit, Micheal Moore is a skilled director, but that does not mean he has a monopoly on the truth. He is skilled a manipulating half truths to convince gulible people that we are all being duped by _______(fill in the blank). Rosie is just fat and loud.

[RickyD]

Falwell was a famous public figure because of his real accomplishments. He was also given to making outrageous statements. I don't defend him; he needs no defense, now. He's facing God's judgement. And I am certain he would agree that a man is known by his works.

As are we all. Our society does not embrace those who attack the defenseless. We don't respect one who shoots a man in the back. Or strikes a woman or child. Or kicks a dog. Or speaks ill of the dead.

I don't think any of the critics of Falwell were using this forum to criticise him during his life, so how about a decent restraint now that he's gone?

[spiffpeters]

Mark, it is generally disrepectful to attack a person within hours of their demise. Generally.

Falwell on the other hand lived a life in the public square, had a seat at the table of public debate and fought for his voice to be heard regardless how mean or disrepectful of others he may have been.

The Falwell family lost a husband, father, grandfather and so on, and for these family members it is a tragedy no doubt.

I wonder why persons questioned the way Falwell has been remembered within hours of his death, yet no one seemed to be able to bring forth the same question when Anna Nicole Smith passed away. She wasn't getting complimentary press either. Did she deserve her end more than Falwell?

As I stated previously, it is generally excepted that one should wait an appropriate period of time before negative commentary be expressed about the deceased. Public personalities can be the exception.

[RickyD]

Mark, it is generally disrepectful to attack a person within hours of their demise. Generally.

Falwell on the other hand lived a life in the public square, had a seat at the table of public debate and fought for his voice to be heard regardless how mean or disrepectful of others he may have been.

The Falwell family lost a husband, father, grandfather and so on, and for these family members it is a tragedy no doubt.

I wonder why persons questioned the way Falwell has been remembered within hours of his death, yet no one seemed to be able to bring forth the same question when Anna Nicole Smith passed away. She wasn't getting complimentary press either. Did she deserve her end more than Falwell?

As I stated previously, it is generally excepted that one should wait an appropriate period of time before negative commentary be expressed about the deceased. Public personalities can be the exception.

It's a free country. Say what you want, make any exceptions you want. If it seems OK to you, that's good enough. For you.

Nobody has anything new to say about Smith or Falwell. Let them both rest in peace.

[Mark Ingram]

Mark, it is generally disrepectful to attack a person within hours of their demise. Generally.
I'm with you right up to that word 'generally'. It is *always* disrespectful to attack a person within hours of their demise.

Also, Falwell's controversial comments were (to the best of my recollection) always based on his belief system, the Bible, and always about behaviors, not individuals. The attacks brought within hours by those tasteless, classless individuals were all personal, all attacks on Falwell, not his principles. And all were made by individuals whose greatest skill is looking good for the TV camera and whose greatest accomplishment is reading from the teleprompter.

As far as the late Ms. Smith:
I don't recall hearing any comments about her that were as vicious and hateful as the ones about Falwell. I admit that I expended considerable effort to avoid media coverage of the sad circus surrounding her death and the guardianship of her daughter. If she has done anything like founding a university or leading a political movement please inform me and I will give her the respect those accomplishments deserve. If her biggest accomplishments are her domination of tabloid-TV (more attention than I have ever gotten, by the way) then I have no comment to make.

And, no, I don't feel she deserved to die from drug overdose any more than Falwell deserved to die of heart disease. And neither of their lives deserved attack within hours of death.

Last comment: There *is* a difference between attacking a person and arguing against a person's publicly-expressed opinions. Example - If you disagreed with my (hypothetical) opinion that Australia does not exist because I have never seen it for myself that's one thing. Disagreement over ideas or opinions is valid and acceptable. But to say I am a poop-head because you disagree with me is totally unacceptable.

[spiffpeters]

Good points Mark. And I agree with you. Generally.

Falwell was a force in public opinion and policy. I am a secular, populist. I see little good that comes from a non-secular, elitist society. State sponsored religious activity (AKA faith based initiatives) and tax policy geared to benefit the few are the antithesis to the American dream that most people embrace. Fair and balanced?

Falwell was instrumental for injecting religion into politics. And for that he rightfully should be scorned for generations to come. All we need do is look at Afgahnistan, Pakistan and India to see what happens when religion either takes over the government or wants to take over the government.

It wasn't even until the early fifties that we added 'Under God' to the pledge of allegiance, thanks to Joe McCarthy. And the Pledge of Allegiance was commposed by a radical socialist, Francis Ballard. Not hardly the typical all American figure.

Regardless, I'm sure Falwell is experiencing a grand existance at the side of the god he worshipped and we here on earth should not worry nor feel sad for him. I feel bad for his family, but isn't he in a better place now?

[jeffscreamedcorn]

Also, Falwell's controversial comments were (to the best of my recollection) always based on his belief system, the Bible, and always about behaviors, not individuals. While it might be true that Jerry didn't go after individuals (I don't know that that's true, but I'll take your word for it), when he judges and condemns whole classes of people based on their beliefs, it is none the less taken by the individual members of those groups as an attack on their individual character. Look, I'm a Jew - if Jerry said Jews were inferior, or cheap, or had big noses, or were the killer's of his lord, even without naming me individually, I'd certainly take that as a personal attack. While i don't know that he ever said that about Jews, he absolutely went after Muslims, Gays, Liberals, Secularists, etc. That is offensive to me. I've read the bible - to use that as an excuse for intolerance, prejudice, and bigotry is wrong. Death does not grant Jerry a pass for his hurtful, unjustified and despicable comments toward his fellow humans.

[spiffpeters]

Jeff, Falwell wasn't an open practitioner of christian values. If what he preached and promoted passes for christian values, then perhaps we best give the christians the same once over that we currently are giving the Muslims.

Hate and intolerance were his calling card. While I don't have a recollection of him attacking an individual, attacking a group is effectively calling out those members that consider themselves members of that group. To anyone that disagrees, I would ask them to re-read the previous paragraph and tell me they don't take offense. If they do, then they're hypocrites.

You can't go around calling groups of people names and showing disdain for them all the while hiding behind the convictions of your religious values and beliefs and not expect a reaction. Falwell failed to show respect and dignity while he lived towards those he judged immoral, so I'm not sure why those he attacked should not reciprocate.

[Mark Ingram]

First let me say 'Thanks' for putting some thought into your reply rather than automatically engaging the flame-thrower when someone disagrees with you. The more people that think before they type, the better.


Good points Mark. And I agree with you. Generally.
Aargh!!! That word again!!! ;)


Falwell was a force in public opinion and policy.
I certainly can't argue with this.


I see little good that comes from a non-secular, elitist society. State sponsored religious activity (AKA faith based initiatives) and tax policy geared to benefit the few are the antithesis to the American dream that most people embrace.
If you say that you want to eliminate from society people who blow up innocents in the name of religion I agree with you totally. The problem is how to detect those people before they kill someone. However, if you want to purge public life of people who believe is something beyond what they can see/touch/hear/taste/smell, you are as bigotted and oppressive as the mullahs calling for your death simply because you are American or communist leaders who are (in)famous for killing millions because they had religious views.


Fair and balanced?
I thought we were talking about Falwell, not FOX. ;)


(Falwell) rightfully should be scorned for generations to come. All we need do is look at Afgahnistan, Pakistan and India to see what happens when religion either takes over the government or wants to take over the government.
To curtail Falwell's freedom of speech because he was a religious leader is bigotry in the extreme. And comparison of Falwell to the Taliban is either willfully ignorant or self-deceptive.

It wasn't even until the early fifties that we added 'Under God' to the pledge of allegiance, thanks to Joe McCarthy.
Yeah, so what? The Pledge if Allegiance is not now (and never has been) mandatory. I agree with his goal (stave off Communism) though his methods did more harm than good. It is interesting to note that, as feared as he was, he never was able to indict/convict anyone.


And the Pledge of Allegiance was commposed by a radical socialist, Francis Ballard. Not hardly the typical all American figure.
I've never heard this before. I'll research it for myself.

I'm especially interested in hearing why you feel that people of faith are dangerous (or is it merely 'undesirable'?) to society.

[Mark Ingram]

While it might be true that Jerry didn't go after individuals (I don't know that that's true, but I'll take your word for it), when he judges and condemns whole classes of people based on their beliefs, it is none the less taken by the individual members of those groups as an attack on their individual character. Look, I'm a Jew - if Jerry said Jews were inferior, or cheap, or had big noses, or were the killer's of his lord, even without naming me individually, I'd certainly take that as a personal attack. While i don't know that he ever said that about Jews, he absolutely went after Muslims, Gays, Liberals, Secularists, etc. That is offensive to me. I've read the bible - to use that as an excuse for intolerance, prejudice, and bigotry is wrong. Death does not grant Jerry a pass for his hurtful, unjustified and despicable comments toward his fellow humans.

I am not the expert on what Falwell said or did during his life. My *impression* is that he addressed issues, not individuals. It is also my understanding that the basis for his belief system was the Bible.

If Falwell was critical of Jews over the death of Jesus then Falwell was ignorant and wrong for that statement(s). The truth is that Jesus died at Roman (i.e. European) hands, with the aid of Jewish religious leaders. And if those individuals had *not* done those deeds, there would be no Christianity today. Falwell owes his religion to murderous Romans and abetting Jews. And, as far as I know, all those folks are dead now. No one living today had any part or responsibility in the crime. "Cheap" is just a word that bitter people use do describe frugal or prudent people. The entire world should learn from jewish people when it comes to money. You don't come to control the world's diamond trade by being stupid with your money.

Concerning "Muslims, Gays, Liberals, Secularists, etc.": It was his right to say what he chose (and yours to be offended by it) and I am sure he felt he could justify his position with the Bible rather than his own opinion or what was comfortable or easy for him.

And one could certainly rightly argue that he did not always choose language that was the most diplomatic. And another would be just as right in arguing that the media was, to a large degree, targeting him (and other Christian leaders), over-reacting to the least non-enthusiastic comment. It is certainly your right to form your own opinion, your right to express your opinion, your right to like/dislike whomever/whatever you choose. As long as you don't seek to curtail my similar rights, and don't try to tell me what I can or can't teach my children, you and I will get along just fine.

I am a little concerned that the casual reader of this thread will perceive me to be a Falwell supporter/defender. I most certainly am not. My original purpose for this thread was to find out whether y'all thought it was OK to attack Falwell (or any other public figure) so viciously mere hours after their death.

[spiffpeters]

"However, if you want to purge public life of people who believe is something beyond what they can see/touch/hear/taste/smell, you are as bigotted and oppressive as the mullahs calling for your death simply because you are American or communist leaders who are (in)famous for killing millions because they had religious views."

I have no quarell with persons that possess fundementalist interpretations of their particular faith. But I do take exception when they attempt to interject their values on the populace at large. Whether they be muslims or southern baptists. Religious values can certainly guide ones personal decisions, but when one is elected to represent a segment of society (congressional districts or a nation) one must adhere to the laws and the will of those being represented.

Government should and needs to protect the right to practice ones religious beliefs. The inverse however is not true. Religion litmus tests should not be a somponent of state/federal law. If this was a nation composed of not only christians, but one particular sect (Catholic, jew, lutheran, LDS, southern Baptists.....) then religion could play a role in state/federal law and policy.

I think the current examples of the systemic conflicts of the Sunni's and Shiites in Iraq and the Taliban's ruthless enforcement of their particular brand of fundementalist Islam serves as a very good example of the fate that awaits America should we follow the path of religion based politics.

Freedom of speech is not free speech nor popular speech. Falwell was popular in the South. I'd asked Northeaster Jews or Northwestern Catholics if his message or tactics resonated for them.

In short, I don't care what religion one practices so long as they do not try to impose it on me, whether through public policy or law.

BTW, Francis Bellamy (not Ballard) authored the Pledge. My bad.

http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm

[Mark Ingram]

But I do take exception when they attempt to interject their values on the populace at large. Whether they be muslims or southern baptists. Religious values can certainly guide ones personal decisions, but when one is elected to represent a segment of society (congressional districts or a nation) one must adhere to the laws and the will of those being represented.

"the will of those being represented"...
Since when did any federal-level politician consider the will of those he represents anything more than the merest of suggestions? (this is partly tongue-in-cheek, but only partly)

"adhere to laws"...
Agreed. In fact, *most* laws today (in the US) conform to some degree with Christian philosophy. Such things as the legalization of homosexual marriage in some states but not others seems to indicate that the people of the states do have a voice. And the march toward a totally secular (without influence from any religion) society does not preclude protestations from religious folk.


"Religion litmus tests should not be a somponent of state/federal law."
Agreed. Are there any religious litmus tests in federal law? I honestly can't think of one.

I also believe that laws protecting people groups based on behavior are wrong. Basically, anything a person cannot change about themselves deserves protection against discrimination. Volitional actions do not.


"If this was a nation composed of not only christians, but one particular sect (Catholic, jew, lutheran, LDS, southern Baptists.....) then religion could play a role in state/federal law and policy."
Ha! This assumes you could get three Christians to agree on anything.


"I think the current examples of the systemic conflicts of the Sunni's and Shiites in Iraq and the Taliban's ruthless enforcement of their particular brand of fundementalist Islam serves as a very good example of the fate that awaits America should we follow the path of religion based politics."
If Christians, Jews, Budhists, etc, had an analog to Sharia law I could agree with this statement. If every religion had issued a religious decree stating that all its adherents were to 'kill all Americans and their friends wherever they were found' you would have a good point.

"Falwell was popular in the South. I'd asked Northeaster Jews or Northwestern Catholics if his message or tactics resonated for them."
I wonder why people who hate Falwell can't/won't/don't follow the same advice they give to Christians concerned over the presence of porno on the TV and Web: 'Turn the damned thing off!'

For the record, I am a Christian, I do live in the South, and I probably never saw more than 60 minutes of Falwell my entire life (I'm in my 40's) unless the media were bashing him.

I'll research that Pledge of Allegiance thing. It might make for an interesting thread later.

[spiffpeters]

I'll agree that *many* laws adhere to Christian values. Most laws do not. I do not have a problem with whatever version of the ten commandments one decides to adhere to. They're just good, common sense principles.



"Religion litmus tests should not be a component of state/federal law."

There is a concerted effort to get people with religious convictions into positions of national influence. I can't speak to Liberty University, but Pat Roberts Regent University has publicy stated that their goal is to embed their graduates into positions of influence, whether it be government (at least 150 Regent graduates current work in the Bush admin, and considering they are a third tier law school one has to question what merits qualify these persons for their positions. Monica Goodling was in a position of extraordinary power in the DOJ and certainly a more qualified person could have been found) or private industry. Private sector is one thing, but to embed zealots into our democracy is dangerous.

"Ha! This assumes you could get three Christians to agree on anything."
That was my point. What sect of Christianity should be the de facto standard? We see the strife and violence between the two main sects of the Muslim faith. I'm not convinced that when it push comes to shove that ANY religion is immune to violence in order to survive.

"If every religion had issued a religious decree stating that all its adherents were to 'kill all Americans and their friends wherever they were found' you would have a good point."
True. And the fundamentalist Muslims that call for death and destruction of non-believers is a major problem and one that seems unique to Islam. Regardless, many wars have been fought, many people have died because of a god.


"I wonder why people who hate Falwell can't/won't/don't follow the same advice they give to Christians concerned over the presence of porno on the TV and Web: 'Turn the damned thing off!'"

Offensive media is generally passive. You may elect to ignore it. I find Howard Stern offensive and shrill, and I don't listen to him (well, I don't now and did not when he was on free airspace). Conversely, Falwell was not a passive presence. He was very active in building a base of active followers that want to use government as a means towards further enabling their religious values in America.

When it comes to matters as personal as sexual orientation, income, political affiliation and/or religion, I have a 'Don't ask/Don't tell' policy. So long as everyone practices their personal convictions in a manner that doesn't impact me, and vic-a-versa, we should all be content.

But as for being disrespectful of Falwell in the hours following his death, his attacks on September 12th, 2001 against so called heathens in America were just as harmful to alot more Americans.

I was in shock, disbelief and terrible grief for at least a week following 9/11 and to hear Falwell get up there the day after and point the finger of blame at my fellow American's was disgusting, disrespectful, counter-productive and divisive.

[jeffscreamedcorn]

It is certainly your right to form your own opinion, your right to express your opinion, your right to like/dislike whomever/whatever you choose. As long as you don't seek to curtail my similar rights, and don't try to tell me what I can or can't teach my children, you and I will get along just fine.
And there's the problem with Jerry - he sought, through political action, to influence our government (laws and policies) to shove his point of view on all of us. That goes far afield of simply exercising ones right to express a personal opinion.

I am a little concerned that the casual reader of this thread will perceive me to be a Falwell supporter/defender. I most certainly am not. My original purpose for this thread was to find out whether y'all thought it was OK to attack Falwell (or any other public figure) so viciously mere hours after their death.You reap what you sew. Dying doesn't erase one's deeds - good or bad.

[Mark Ingram]

And there's the problem with Jerry - he sought, through political action, to influence our government (laws and policies) to shove his point of view on all of us. That goes far afield of simply exercising ones right to express a personal opinion.
How do Falwell's actions differ from those of the homosexual lobby, or socialists/liberals? Or, for that matter, big oil or big business? Except the source each group draws on for influence in its actions.

You reap what you sew. Dying doesn't erase one's deeds - good or bad.
All us who are still drawing breath would do well to remember this.

[Mark Ingram]

I'll agree that *many* laws adhere to Christian values. Most laws do not.
Here I disagree. The majority of the principles embodied in our laws *are* found in the Bible. I'm sure a non-extremist Muslim would also find much of our laws' principles in the Koran also. The same can be said of the Sikh faith and probably of Budhism and Hinduism also. It's when you get to the details of how to get from here to the after-life that gets people worked up. And there is only one faith that I know of where it might be acceptable to leave the faith for another one (or none at all).


There is a concerted effort to get people with religious convictions into positions of national influence.
There is a conserted effort of people of *all* convictions to get into positions of influence.


Monica Goodling ... embed zealots into ...
Don't know who Monica Goodling is, but I will find out and get back to you. Also I would like to get you to define 'zealots' - it seems a fairly inflammatory term and we should get it clarified before we discuss it.


Offensive media is generally passive. You may elect to ignore it. I find Howard Stern offensive and shrill, and I don't listen to him (well, I don't now and did not when he was on free airspace). Conversely, Falwell was not a passive presence. He was very active in building a base of active followers that want to use government as a means towards further enabling their religious values in America.
Falwell had the same tools as Howard Stern, satellite radio excepted. Falwell was in it to save people (and the nation) from eternal damnation. Stern is in it to get people (and the nation) to listen so that advertisers will give him more money. The 'Off' button works as well with Falwell as it does with Stern.

When it comes to matters as personal as sexual orientation, income, political affiliation and/or religion, I have a 'Don't ask/Don't tell' policy. So long as everyone practices their personal convictions in a manner that doesn't impact me, and vic-a-versa, we should all be content.


I don't recall what any leader, religious or not, said on 9-12-01. If he said the things you suggest he was certainly out of line. That still doesn't make it OK to trash him before rigor mortis has a chance to set it. Jeff (of the CreamedCorn fame) mentioned sowing and reaping. We all (including me) need to remember that we all are sowing all the time. And what, exactly, did Mrs. Falwell sow to deserve what she certainly endured in the hours following her husband's death?


The Pledge: According to the article you linked to "In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge."

I wonder why Sen. Joseph McCarthy always gets blamed for those words "under God"?

Maybe its a (whispered voice) conspiracy! (insert ominous chord here)

I know, the Communists (Cuban, Chinese, and Russian) worked together to blame the Knights of Columbus, but the Pope intervened!

(It's a lot easier to type with my tongue in my cheek then it is to talk ;) )

[spiffpeters]

Mark, I never said McCarthy was blamed for the insertion of 'under God' into the pledge of allegiance. Haven't heard anyone make that claim. McCarthy certainly created the atmosphere where one had to prove not only that they were an American but a good American. Seems the Soviets of that era pretty much expected the same from their citizens. Granted, American's would not be whisked off to some Siberian gulog, but it would have been social and professional suicide to not demonstrate your patriotsim. Not the hallmark of a free nation, IMO.

From Merriam-Webster:
a zealous person; especially : a fanatical partisan <a religious zealot>

I'm not aware of such a concentrated effort to embed Christians into influential government and private sector positions having happened in recent times. Usually people seek these positions of power for their own purposes, good or otherwise. But to have an organization actively engaged in infiltrating the federal government with their disciples is more than a little disturbing. I guess if you're a southern baptist this is acceptable since these are the folks making policy in the next generation think the same as you do (not you Mark). If you're catholic, jew or protestant, you'll likely find that you even less representation at the table than you currently have.

Falwell is not the same as Stern. Stern is entertainment. He has a following that enjoys his schitck. Falwell has a devote following that not only listens to him but lives their lives according to his sermons. Stern is for fun. Falwell is a compass. Big difference.

On the broadcast of the Christian television program "The 700 Club," Falwell made the following statement:

"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'"

Jerry Falwell, Sept 12th, 2001 on the 700 Club

I wonder how his followers reacted when they heard who was partly responsible for the attack on the previous day? Where was Falwell's sense of decency and respect then? I remember being in shock that day and the incredible sorrow I felt for the people that were posting pictures of loved ones, against all hope, that these missing loved ones might still be alive. The utter cruelty and divisive language Falwell used simply to score points with his base was beyond vile.

Monica Goodling - Took the fifth long before she was even subpoenaed. She testified just a couple of weeks ago before a congressional investigative committee. She was anointed with extraordinary powers by the AG (Alberto Gonzales) for hiring and firing Department Of Justice attorneys. Her qualifications? Worked on Bush's re-election campaign and was class president at Regent University (which by the way wasn't even an accredited law school when she was a freshman there).

By her own admission she hired some individuals based on their political affiliation (republican). I don't believe that any congress person asked her if she asked any of the applicants about their faith or denomination. Regardless, this alone is a federal offense. But since she had limited immunity and she "didn't mean to cross the line', she'll probably not suffer any legal consequences.

There are hundreds of thousands of laws on the books. Municipal, county, state and federal. Laws regulating sound levels from a residence, or gun control, or transporting of stolen goods over state lines have no basis in christian values. Adultery isn't a crime. Playing your stereo too loud at 11:30 PM is, even though there is no theological basis. There are a ton of laws regarding the operation of a motorized vehicle, employee's, running a publicly traded company, IRS, selling new/used cars.....

"it seems a fairly inflammatory term"

So is bigot. But I ignored it until now. Here is what you said to me:

"However, if you want to purge public life of people who believe is something beyond what they can see/touch/hear/taste/smell, you are as bigotted and oppressive as the mullahs calling for your death simply because you are American or communist leaders who are (in)famous for killing millions because they had religious views."

I do not want to purge people of faith that are involved in public service. Their faith informs them and guides them in their peronal lives. But the rule of law, not their beliefs, which I have established is least likely to be based on christian values, should be every public servants guide. The law is documented and can be consistenly administered and enforced regardless if you have a jew, muslim, catholic, baptist or athiest serving the public.

I've enjoyed reading your posts and responding over the past several years Mark, and I respect what you have to say. On this issue, and some of the subordinate items we will likely not come to any significant agreement. Regardless, I do look forward to your comments in this thread and of course other threads.

I hope you read this post knowing full and well that I mean no one harm or desire anyone to be put at a disadvantage.

[jeffscreamedcorn]

The Pledge: According to the article you linked to "In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge."

I wonder why Sen. Joseph McCarthy always gets blamed for those words "under God"?
McCarthy was tangental to adding "under God" to the pledge. Those words were specifically added to draw a contrast to Communist Atheism.

[Mark Ingram]

Mark, I never said McCarthy was blamed for the insertion of 'under God' into the pledge of allegiance.

Actually, you did: "It wasn't even until the early fifties that we added 'Under God' to the pledge of allegiance, thanks to Joe McCarthy." is your comment found here (http://music-electronics-forum.com/showthread.php?t=2997)



From Merriam-Webster:
a zealous person; especially : a fanatical partisan

Also from Merriam-Webster:
zeal·ous :
filled with or characterized by zeal : marked by fervent partisanship for a person, a cause, or an ideal

Sounds like a lot of people who post in this forum...


So is bigot. But I ignored it until now. Here is what you said to me:
I did say *IF*

I do not want to purge people of faith that are involved in public service.
Then it doesn't really apply to you, does it?

I do not want to purge people of faith that are involved in public service.
But you have expressed misgivings about Christian organizations seeking to elect people favorable to their causes. How is this different from big business giving millions of dollars to get its favorite candidates elected? Or any other special interest group (gays, gun-control advocates, enviro-activists, etc) seeking to elect people sympathetic to their causes?


But the rule of law, not their beliefs, ... should be every public servants guide.
Please list some example of elected officials acting in accordance with Christian values (or Muslim or Jewish or Budhist or any other faith system) that violated laws. Please limit it to the federal level or the state of Texas, since my local knowledge is limited to Texas.


which I have established is least likely to be based on christian values
No. You asserted. 'Established' would require citing a few examples.


I've enjoyed reading your posts and responding over the past several years Mark, and I respect what you have to say. On this issue, and some of the subordinate items we will likely not come to any significant agreement. Regardless, I do look forward to your comments in this thread and of course other threads.

I hope you read this post knowing full and well that I mean no one harm or desire anyone to be put at a disadvantage.
I agree with you that neither of us are unlikely to convince the other to change his opinion. This has been an interesting, engaging discussion, even though it has strayed far from my original intent. I do respect your right to you own opinions (even if I disagree with some of them) and I respect you for your ability to express yourself flamelessly. You're a cut above the average internet poster.

It's been a good mental workout. Thanks.

[Mark Ingram]

McCarthy was tangental to adding "under God" to the pledge. Those words were specifically added to draw a contrast to Communist Atheism.

The article that Spiff cited stated that the Knights of Columbus ran the campaign to get 'under God' added. I haven't had time to research the issue further or to research the person/organization that published the article.

In a World History course I took (in the pursuit of my B.Sc.) the instructor (from Trinidad, don't know if that is significant or not) was *rabid* in his condemnation of Joe McCarthy, to the point of bringing to class a 1952 $5 bill to show us that "In God We Trust" was not there before Sen. McCarthy held his reign of anti-Communist terror. That instructor was so vehement that it almost made me pro-McCarthy. Almost...

[spiffpeters]

"Rush, Hannity, Savage, Snow, Bush, Cheney, Rice, O'Rielly, Hume, Krystal, Coulter are skilled at manipulating half truths to convince gulible people that we are all being duped by _______(fill in the blank)."

Just keeping it fair and balanced.

[jeffscreamedcorn]

The article that Spiff cited stated that the Knights of Columbus ran the campaign to get 'under God' added. I haven't had time to research the issue further or to research the person/organization that published the article.

In a World History course I took (in the pursuit of my B.Sc.) the instructor (from Trinidad, don't know if that is significant or not) was *rabid* in his condemnation of Joe McCarthy, to the point of bringing to class a 1952 $5 bill to show us that "In God We Trust" was not there before Sen. McCarthy held his reign of anti-Communist terror. That instructor was so vehement that it almost made me pro-McCarthy. Almost...
The Knights of Columbus were mighty lobbyist, but the bigger advocate was Eisenhower.

[spiffpeters]

Free speech isn't always popular nor polite.

Falwell reaped what he sowed. As for his loved ones, I wonder if they complained to him about his insensitivity to groups he regularly maligned. And I wonder if his wife and offspring complained about the financial autonomy his public persona afforded them?

[jeffscreamedcorn]

I don't think any of the critics of Falwell were using this forum to criticise him during his life, so how about a decent restraint now that he's gone?
I'm new to this forum, but I've been and vocal critic of Falwell and his ilk since I was a teen (just turned 50). I view Jerry as a divisive force in society, and to the extent that he continues to be influential beyond his death, I will continue to speak out against his Ideology.

[spiffpeters]

"Mark, I never said McCarthy was blamed for the insertion of 'under God' into the pledge of allegiance.
Actually, you did: "It wasn't even until the early fifties that we added 'Under God' to the pledge of allegiance, thanks to Joe McCarthy."

You are correct, I did say thanks to Joe McCarthy. While he wasn't directly involved in inserting 'under god' into the pledge, he was responsible for creating the atmosphere where one had to demonstrated their patriotism and Christian values. Anyone that failed to show both their patriotism and religious faith were in danger of being branded a communist. The 'under god' part of the pledge seemingly was meant as a affirmation of ones faith, but also as a means of inoculating grade school children that might have come from non-faith/non-practicing households.

The pledge is a relatively recent part of our culture. Our great grandparents never said it in school.

I'm not suggesting that the pledge is bad, but I do wonder what kind of country expects one to pledge allegiance to it? I pay my taxes, obey the laws, and mind my own business. I don't force my views or values on others. I would certainly defend this country if it came under attack. I take my hat off and place my hand over my heart during the national anthem. I cheer for America at the Olympics, world cup and Iraq.

In short, I don't feel I need to publicly proclaim my allegiance to this country via a pledge. I prove it every day, as do most persons, by my actions and deeds. Besides, talk is cheap. Anyone can recite the pledge but meaning it is another matter. I wonder how many times those 19 hijackers said the pledge of allegiance?

Any way, back to the OP. One could argue that it is simply improper to speak ill of the dead regardless how long they have been deceased. So accordingly, we should not be speaking poorly of anyone that has passed on.

[Mark Ingram]

...but also as a means of inoculating grade school children that might have come from non-faith/non-practicing households..
I agree with the innoculation assessment. It's kind of like Mao's Little Red Book, only people who refused to say the pledge don't get locked up or tortured. I like the idea of a 'marketplace' for ideas, religious or otherwise. Restricting access to particular 'vendors' is where problems arise. I also believe the majority in a community has the right to determine standards for what is acceptable in public spaces. In other words, "Not in my backyard. The next town, maybe..." I have the right to control my environment, but not the right to eliminate your freedom of choice.


Any way, back to the OP. One could argue that it is simply improper to speak ill of the dead regardless how long they have been deceased. So accordingly, we should not be speaking poorly of anyone that has passed on.
And I *do* believe that speaking poorly of any person (not their behavior) is always a bad thing.

[spiffpeters]

"And I *do* believe that speaking poorly of any person (not their behavior) is always a bad thing."

I agree that it is bad form. However, I do have my flaws, and occassionally breeching social decorum is one of 'em.

Thanks for not firing up a flame thrower. It's refreshing to be able to disagree without making or having to defend against personal attacks. I hope you have a nice weekend.

[Mark Ingram]

"And I *do* believe that speaking poorly of any person (not their behavior) is always a bad thing."

I agree that it is bad form. However, I do have my flaws, and occassionally breeching social decorum is one of 'em.

Thanks for not firing up a flame thrower. It's refreshing to be able to disagree without making or having to defend against personal attacks. I hope you have a nice weekend.

Likewise, thank you for not scorching me. Sorry if I got a little more abrasive than I needed to. When you believe strongly in something it is easy to get worked up. I tried to avoid that and I believe you did too. Thanks