Jerry Falwell Has Died
UPDATED by MvdG
Americans United issued a statement on the death of Jerry Falwell; Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United:
“Jerry Falwell politicized religion and failed to understand the genius of our Constitution, but there is no denying his impact on American political life. He will long be remembered as the face and voice of the Religious Right.
“Falwell manipulated a powerful pulpit in exchange for access to political power and promotion of a narrow range of moral concerns. I appeared with him on news programs dozens of times over the years and, while I disagreed with just about everything Falwell stood for, he was a determined advocate for what he believed.
“Falwell reached his apex of power in the 1980s. Since then, leadership of the Religious Right has passed to James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Tony Perkins, Donald Wildmon and others. However, Falwell remained influential in politics, with Republican presidential candidates seeking his support this year.
“Americans United extends its condolences to members of Dr. Falwell’s family, the congregants of Thomas Road Baptist Church and the students and staff of Liberty University.â€
Agreed, agreed and agreed.
A loss to many: may God bless his soul. I am a Christian myself and can honestly say that I did not agree with much Falwell said. He was, firstly, too right-wing for me and, secondly, he used God a bit too much; and I’m not talking about in Church. Thirdly, he was a bit too anti-everything for me.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
80 Responses to “Jerry Falwell Has Died”
That we have a right do and say some things does not always make doing and saying them responsible or a positive contribution.
The problem I have with the demonization of Falwell has nothing to do with any support for the man or his positions. I found many of his beliefs and statements to be repugnant. But I get concerned when I see so many in our body politic willing to elevate ideological differences to such an extreme level of demonization that it seems to me that violence is not far off.
I’m not saying this about you, Elrod, but going through some of the comments on this thread about Falwell, I am struck by teh degree to which the nature of the hatred directed towards him seems easily applied to just about any ideological opponent. Look at how cosmoetica or Chris go beyond merely condemning Falwell to note the existence of others they find just as bad. And at the point that those ideological differences are considered to be so overwhelmingly important as to characterize anyone who holds those viewpoints as things like “scum”, is it really possible to have civil debates any more?
My concern is that many of Falwell’s enemies are just as filled with hatred, intolerance, and the potential for violence and repression as they claim he was. They are even more dangerous because they cloak themselves in the trappings of tolerance and liberalism, deceiving even themselves about the implications of their advocacy.
My biggest concern is that the discussions surrounding Falwell’s death indicate that the scenario of violence being used to target dehumanized ideological opponents used in Orson Scott Card’s book Empire might not really be so far off.
Yes, this is the problem. At the point that mere ideological differences are enough to deem someone “dangerous”, “scum” or “uniquely evil and cruel”, doesn’t it become justifiable (even imperative) to eliminate such people?
That is the danger inherent in the loss of perspective and tolerance for ideological difference. Exaggerating the impact of an opponent justifies exaggerating the threat they pose. Exaggerating that threat in turn justifies attempts to repress or even kill them.
That’s the mental process that produced Eric Rudolph. And now many on the left seem to be treading the same path, only they are deluding themselves that they are immune from it because they claim to be representing tolerance and diversity.
The reason I said Falwell was uniquely evil was because of his influence on American political culture. He wasn’t just a two-bit bigot from the Southside of Virginia. He single-handedly converted the Republican Party into, what John McCain once aptly described, an “agent of intolerance.” He had enormous influence in this country and used it to denigrate gays, the anti-apartheid movement, Jews, non-Fundamentalists, and the victims of 9/11. I’m sure there are many others on the list too. The problem with him was that he was influential; his philosophy was certainly no more evil than other right-wing fundamentalist preachers. The difference was that he turned his bigotry into a political movement and used it to further an extremist agenda that non-Christian Fundamentalists like me find frightinening. He didn’t “order anybody’s death” nor did he have to in order to qualify for “uniquely evil” status in American political discourse. Although to be honest, his denigration of AIDS victims gave cover to the Reagan Administration to drag its feet on research funding. I’m not comparing him Osama bin Laden or Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin. I’m comparing him to other late 20th century American political figures. I’m merely saying that he is one of the most powerful forces behind the religious right in recent American history. And I make no apology for stating that the religious right is repugnant to the core and has virtually no redeeming value.
Lejustmilieu,
You are incorrect about Falwell’s “recent softening.” Watch this: he defended the basic point he uttered on 9/11 about “God’s protective shield” just last week. He was only remorseful because his comments were too embarrassing for the White House after 9/11. He was just as hateful as ever right up to the end.
http://www.americablog.com/2007/05/cnn-just-last-week-falwell-reiterated.html
Jason – don’t act like the left alone does this- Holly just characterized Chomsky as evil a minute ago. If you listen to AM radio the right regularly demonizes Cindy Sheehan, Al Franken and Michael Moore.
The difference with Falwell was that he had a loyal following that were heavily influenced by whatever he said. So, if he condemned homosexuality as unfit for God’s eyes or proclaimed that 9/11 was the result of too many years of liberalism- he created a much more divisive atmosphere. I’m not going to trash a dead man, but I thought a lot of what he said was just plain irresponsible.
I don’t claim anywhere that “the left alone does this”.
I listen to quite a lot of right-wing talk radio but it nonetheless does seem to me that the left does MORE of the demonization and hate. Perhaps that is just because I personally receive massively more abuse from the left when I disagree with them than I do from the right when I disagree with them. In short, if some of you think my perceptions are skewed, you might be right, but part of the reason might be looking back at you from the mirror. :+)
I agree that Falwell’s comments were frequently hateful, intolerant, irresponsible, and repugnant.
What I cannot agree with is the idea that finding something to be hateful, intolerant, irresponsible, or repugnant justifies demonization, stereotyping, or dehumanization. I’ve seen hate directed towards “the religious right” that looks to me pretty much the same as Falwell’s hate directed towards gays.
WOW! Wonder how the Minister Louis Farrakhan will be treated in the TMV comments thread once he passes? Some people think Falwell and Farrakhan are from the same mold albeit different religions (although I feel Falwell was more powerful and influential than Farrakhan can ever be).
Welll, Farrakhan hates Bush, which makes him “good people” in the eyes of some around here. :+)
But to get back on topic, I couldn’t stand Jerry Falwell. But calling him evil I can’t. Hateful, yes. Negatively divisive, yes. Evil… no.
I hate Bush too. Why? Because “what’s so special about dumb ol’ Texas anyway” (Spongebob Squarepants reference).
Oh I think Louis Farrakhan is evil too. His influence is much smaller however.
Jason,
What’s the difference between being hateful and evil? Just curious.
Jason is the voice of reason here. He’s said everything I wish to say, so much so that it deserves to be read again:
To quote Stanislaw J. Lec:
AND,
To quote Edna St. Vincent Millay:
Respect and Critical Analysis don’t have to be mutually exclusive.
I’m not sure. I’m also not sure it’s relevant. Whether you want to use the term “hateful” or “evil” to describe Falwell isn’t the point. The problem I have is with how some want to react to that which they see as “hateful” or “evil”. When they react by mirroring that which they condemn, it’s hypocritical, in my opinion. And when they react by cheering for death or demanding its utter exclusion, then I think its dangerous.
I think the obligation of thinking people that care about liberty is to tolerate even the ideologically intolerable. The responsible reaction to “hateful evil” is to rebut it, not to kill its believers, wait for them to be killed, ask for them to be killed, or cheer their death.
Holly as right-wing? Why? Simply because she doesn’t hate the war?
A militantly pro-choice, militantly gay rights, openly lesbian, openly athiest, etc., as the poster child of the right? If that is so, then I don’t EVER want to hear about the right not being an ‘open tent’ movement again!
The religious right rose up as the PERCEIVED heathen Godless took to the streets of America with their social agenda of Godlessness. The rise of the religious right was in direct opposition to a movement in this country that was taking us where this group did not want to go.
It is what happens in democracy.
If gun control becomes a movement then anti gun movement will swing into force.
When it was a moral issue then the force activated to oppose it was Christians/religion. It is the way Democracy works and it is the way democracy stabilizes itself and attains balance.
It will always happen as long as our form of government thrives.
When the far left screams….the far right neutralizes their screams. Its a harmonious balance. The rest of us live somewhere in the middle, content with what is because what could be is far worse. It is why we all Love America no matter which side of center we stand on.
jason- If you listen to talk radio and still think the left uses more demonization and hate, maybe you just don’t notice it as much, when it comes from your side. The only reason that right wing talk radio shows have millions of listeners, is because there’s a large audience that agrees with Rush and Sean when they bash liberals.
Farakkhan is not a lefty-he’s a muslim extremist who hates just about everyone. I highly doubt that anyone here sides with him just because he hates GW Bush. Just like I wouldn’t accuse anyone on the right here with siding with Timothy McVeigh because they also hate Janet Reno. Both assertions are patently absurd.
Perhaps we should all take our cue from Larry Flint:
Jason,
Maybe you aren’t familiar with how the Khmer Rouge came to power in Cambodia. I’ll forgive your ignorance on this topic, since it’s not really a popular one in the Western media.
“Holly as right-wing? Why? Simply because she doesn’t hate the war?”
——————————————
According to the moonbat left, yes.
BTW, not that it matters, but I thought Holly was Jewish.
Jason said:
“The problem I have is with how some want to react to that which they see as “hateful†or “evilâ€. When they react by mirroring that which they condemn, it’s hypocritical, in my opinion”
There is a difference, IMO. Personally despising someone because you find them full of hate is not hypocritical, as long as you’re hating the individual, who hates a whole class of people. Falwell has contributed to, and justified in others, an aura of hatred against millions of ordinary Americans. Hating him is not hypocritical, hating all Christian fundamentalists, or even all of his supporters, would be. Cheering for his death? Nah, why bother. But I will not be cowed into saying I find it “sad”. I do not, in my opinion a bad man died, and therefore I will not in any way miss him. He never respected those millions who disagreed with him or didn’t live (his) “right” way, never gave them that measure of decency that is now being demanded for him, so though I wasn’t calling for his death (the way Pat Robertson did for Supreme Court justices) and will not party as a result, I will never say that the world is poorer for his passing.
# Jason Steck Says:
May 15th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
I think it is a sad statement when the best response that many can come up with towards intense ideological disagreement is to openly hope for their opponents to die.
I feel bad for his family, but his ideology was put into action, and that was a personal threat to me. Therefore when someone that threatens my freedom to live as I see fit (within reason mind you), ANYONE that does so can kiss my a$$, nor do I hold my tongue out of fake respect for the dead. I’d rather be honest about how I feel than lie, which is something too many people do out of this “respect” you talk of. Respect is earned, and he voided that loooooonnnnngggg ago with those that know better.
I think, Kim, that Jason already acknowledged that he knows sometimes it’s harder to see it from your own side. Will you acknowledge the same?
kritter, don’t assume that because I listen to right-wing talk radio that they reflect my “side”.
I listen to it for two reasons:
1) lack of political talk radio alternatives
2) I like listening to arguments that I disagree with
I recognize that right-wing talk radio is often filled with vitriol. I used that point not to say right-wingers are not vitriolic but to emphasize how surprising it is to me that even as hateful as right-wingers often are, left-wingers seem easily and consistently able to exceed that level of hate. And they seem able to do so while cloaking themselves in claims of tolerance and respect — its downright Orwellian.
Just a reminder: I’m a Jewish center-left Democrat. I do detest some left-wing figures just as I detest some right-wing figures.
Jason- I think its about even. The left are angry and condemn the right’s intolerance- I think with Falwell the saying should be “you reap what you sow”. He was an agent of intolerance who had no trouble judging who would be damned to Hell for eternity- so why would he not expect to not be judged in return? What are the “damned’ supposed to do? Accept it as a difference of opinion out of liberal ideology?
Centrist Dick Polman has a column that has a great quote on Falwell-and one that I agree with in totality:
“After Falwell died yesterday, the ’08 Republican candidates jockeyed predictably for the honor of being the first to praise his fine work and pander to Falwell fans in GOP primary states. The winner for quickest email – no surprise – was John McCain, who extolled Falwell’s contributions to “faith and country.â€
But, at the risk of disrespecting the deceased, I’ll offer a counter-assessment from Marc Tanenbaum of the American Jewish Committee. Tanenbaum, who had met frequently with Falwell, said this to me 20 years ago:
“Mr. Falwell has been a polarizing figure in American life. He is talented, but I don’t think he understands the fragile nature of pluralism. You can’t constantly hammer away that the opposition is aligned with Satan, and not expect to weaken the democratic center. That’s murderous rhetoric.â€
I would completely agree with this quotation. I would extend it also to include those who hammer away that their opposition is all “racist”, “sexist”, “homopohbic”, “genocidal” or other secular versions of absolute condemnation.
How long and how far does this absolute license extend? I mean, how much hate is justified by claiming that it is just a response to hate? Is “well, they started it” really the height of aspiration you have for the quality of political debate?
Holly – sorry about the mis-characterization. I know by heritage you are Jewish, but somehow I thought you had mentioned that from a belief standpoint you were an atheist. I hope I didn’t offend.
That said, I would think you had to find it amusing to be held up as the example of an intolerant, reactionary right-winger.
Jason: ‘At the point that mere ideological differences are enough to deem someone “dangerousâ€, “scum†or “uniquely evil and cruelâ€, doesn’t it become justifiable (even imperative) to eliminate such people?’
Uh, not unless you’re a psychopath. Most people can separate the scum from the good in their life, but it doesn’t mean one must eliminate them, Don Steck.
The diff between hateful and evil is simple. The hateful hurt only themselves. It’s when that hate is released outwards that it becomes evil.
There is also a difference between the kind of bile a Falwell and a Farrakham represent, just as racism from blacks and whites are different. A Falwell is someone whop comes from a place of privilege, by virtues of his skin color, so when he looks down his nose with hate, it’s from a power position. When a Farrakhan looks at hate w someone- or a Sharpton, or Jesse J, it’s from a position often of having been stepped on. This does not dismiss Farrakhan;s bile, Sharpton’s charaltanry and scams, nor Jackson ambivalence, but there is a difference. White supremacists hate out of a personal fear of some unnameable force, whereas blacks who are bigots hate because they’ve been shat on. The end results may be indistinguishable, but that does not mean one should not note the different starting points.
There is a diff between naked hate, and hating the hater. I prefer the Oscar Wilde approach- mock all the idiots. Nothing, and I mean nothing, leaves someone who is wrong feeling shittier than depantsing them in public, and laghing at them. It’s actually fun- be it a left or right wing nut.
Or even a moderate nut.
That all said, what else is POlitical Correctness but Fascism, and the desire to shut the other side up? Take pornography- since someone mentioned Larry Flynt. Far left Feminazis have been even more despicable and hate filled at railing against women in the biz, as if a porno star needs some dumb Feminazi like Andrea Dworkin telling them the best way to live. The Dworkins of the world are every bit as sick and twisted as Falwell.
Call spades spades.