The Left and Falwell
The Populist (EDITED) on the reaction of some ‘progressives’ (bloggers and commenters) on Falwell’s death yesterday:
I just want to say that I am disgusted by the vile hate and nastiness, that I have been reading on the Liberal Blogs. You idiots ought to be ashamed of yourselves! I didn’t care for Falwell either, because I am somewhat of a Fundamentalist, Albeit, a more progressive one, Christian, and Falwell walked away from Fundamentalism, and rejected the King James Version of the Bible as a antiquated version of the Bible, and gravitated towards the evangelical movement. For some very good reasons, I feel. Further more, He embraced the ecumenical movement, Which true-blue Fundamentalists reject as not scriptural. Of which I agree. However, to bash a dead man to the point of just being vile, is just plain disgusting and wrong, and totally reprehensible. I’m ashamed of the blogging community, you guys are just wrong. and I’m quite frankly embarrassed to be a part of this. My Point is this, Just because you don’t like someone or disagree with his Political stance or Religious Beliefs, it does not give you a license to be uncivil and asinine.
I agree completely: some of the comments I read were highly insensitive, rude and, yes, even hateful. Ironically enough, that’s exactly what those same people say about Falwell.
Many of them are not much ‘better’ than Falwell: they are just two sides of the same coin.
74 Responses to “The Left and Falwell”
The KJV is not only antiquated, it’s a several hundred year old translation into English from Latin which was translated from Greek which was translated from Hebrew. In other words, it’s full of errors.
“Many of them are not much ‘better’ than Falwell: they are just two sides of the same coin.”
I’m not completely defending the commentators, having not seen their comments and not knowing their minds, but I think that saying that Falwell’s hate and the hate towards Falwell are two sides of the same coin is not correct. Falwell is an individual that many consider evil, and therefore they hate. Falwell preached hatred not towards an individual, but towards huge sections of the population. Saving the huge distances between one case and the other, I can hate Hitler and not “the other side of the coin”. Now then, I wouldn’t be surprised if many of those celebrating also hate Christian Fundamentalists as a whole. In THAT case I would agree that they are hypocritical and just the other side of the coin.
Holly don’t say that! I just bought my very first Bible and it’s the KJV (the only one the store had with both Old and New testament in English). The thing cost me a good 23€, I’d like to think it’ll teach me SOMETHING!
Exactly.
I think Atrios handled it best.
But I knew the comment fishing was going to happen sooner rather than later.
And MVG, wherever you planned for that link to point, it didn’t.
Read Larry Flynt’s comments on Falwell’s passing.
Lynx,
The KJV is more poetic than many of the other versions so you may enjoy it for that reason.
I think you’re logic (and I think, you’re understanding of Falwell) is flawed here:
First of all, I keep hearing people say that Christians should “hate the sin, love the sinner” but that Falwell didn’t do so. Well, I was not a fan of his and so I’ll stand corrected if someone shows me quotes from him where he really did show that he ‘hated the sinner’, but my understanding of him was that he took a hard line against sin- but not because of hate. What is frustrating is that for people who don’t believe, I guess it sounds like someone hates someone else if he says that he believes that person is in danger of eternal damnation because of his behavior. And of course, the stickiest issue is homosexuality because many Christians believe that people who practice it are engaging in sin and if you believe that being homosexual is an identity rather than a behavior then you could say that the Christians are condemning the people rather than the act.
What I’m getting at is that to some degree, I think that the ‘hatred’ is a misunderstanding of what Falwell preached. (Again though, I’m not thoroughly familiar with all that he said and even what I do know of it I often have disagreement with).
And then there’s the comparison to Hitler: quite over the top, even if you didn’t mean it as a direct comparison of how ‘evil’ each man was.
And finally, I don’t really see the difference in extending hatred toward a whole group instead of just the leader of the group. Why shouldn’t we instead ask that the critics of Falwell also practice what they preach: tolerance. Why can’t they also be asked to “condemn the sin but love the sinner”, by stating their dissent from Falwell’s viewpoints without resorting to damning him to hell?
What is amazing is the speed with which this was politicized-by the Right. The man was barely pronounced dead before the hunt was on for something, anything, to smear the Left with.
I don;t see any respect in using the recently departed like a political bludgeon.
The morally indignant should consider leading by example.
That’s classic. Even when the left is found being vicious, its still the right’s fault!
“The man was barely pronounced dead before the hunt was on for something, anything, to smear the Left with.”
“The man was barely pronounced dead before the left began to smear him”.
There, I fixed that for you, free of charge.
Let’s start at the true beginning of events…….could the “hunt” have even taken place had the animals not been out and about?
Jumping on the “reaction” while ignoring the “action”……
Jason-
Viciousness is topic A.
Politicizing a man’s death is topic B.
I don’t condone either A or B, and I claimed no cause and effect between the two.
True respect for a man’s passing would have been shown by a pause in political score keeping and score making.
Doma,
But you chose to criticize B, not A which occurred first.
And I seriously doubt that domajot would be prepared to apply this standard of condemning all political uses of a person’s death across the board. I remember the Wellstone funeral.
BTW, as I mentioned in a comment over at MvdG’s blog, I don’t particularly like the score keeping mentality either. But I think a lot of people on the right are fed up with the criticism of “right wing hate speech” from people who launch some incredibly hateful screeds themselves. And we wish that moderates would stop blaming only the right, or criticizing the right wingers for pointing it out on the left. If moderates would hold both sides accountable we’d all be a lot better off.
and now that I can get in here…. I think some of you missed my point. and that was…. Give the DEAD MAN A BREAK! Yeah, he was, in some respects an idiot. and a parrot for a political movement. But cripes, the dude is DEAD… you’d think that the blogging community would show a LITTLE respect… I guess that went out with the 8-track…
Thanks to Michael van der Galien for linking…
-Chuck
i guess I don’t see any evidence of him “loving the sinner”. Blaming 9/11 on his enemies and equating any behavior that he judged to be against the teachings of his fundamentalist religion as Satanism hardly qualifies.Nor does blaming the Aids epidemic on homosexuals. He was a controversial, divisive figure who did quite a lot to destroy the middle in American politics.
Hey, kritter, do you find all examples of people who blamed their political/social enemies for 9/11 equally contemptible, or is your objection here only when it was applied to Falwell’s enemies ?
Folks keep talking of the hypocrisy of those who are preaching their hatred of Falwell now. To those I would like to say this, I hated him in life. I hated what he stood for, the ignorance and the intolerance and his undeniable ability to spread it to others. Now that he is dead, it would be hypocritical of me turn the other cheek and play nice. What, did my feelings about his actions and statements lose their meaning now because he’s dead?
We have people that wouldn’t walk across to the street to piss on the man if he were on fire when he was alive being soft and nice to him now that he’s dead, when for the first time ever their words can have no possibility of hurting him. THOSE are the hypocrits. I refuse to retract my disgust of the man simply because the inevitable happened to him.
> That’s classic. Even when
> the left is found being
> vicious, its still the right’s
> fault!
And it’s “no, the Right was politicizing this and was hateful, not the Left” [sic], etc.
CS =
1.
I expected some nastiness after Falwell’s death, because he brought so much nastiness into the public square. Despite your tortuous apologistics, that was the net effect of his public statements.
2. I was surprised by the speed with which private comments were politicized to represent THE LEFT, and I noted the lack of leading by example.
==============
I didn’t like Falwell or his type of religiosity. I will not feign sorrow at no longer hearing his voice.
I wish his family and friends strength in their sorrow and peace in the aftermath.
Sam,
The hypocrisy is the hatred itself. If the objection to Falwell is that he hated people who engaged in certain behaviors, then why is OK to hate Falwell rather than just hating his actions?
Kim,
I’m stretching a bit for an analogy here, but if one of my kids was smoking crack I would speak to him/her in the strongest possible terms, warning of the path that this would likely take him/her on. I would do so out of love and concern, not hatred or a desire to make hurtful comments.
That’s not to say that I think that Falwell’s rhetoric was appropriate or helpful, but I can understand it in that context rather than assume that he was hate-filled.
Yolanda King has died. Worry about a member of the King family more than the Teletubby hater.
CS- I guess I don’t see him that way at all. I do believe that he was sincere in wanting to end abortion and probably believed that homosexuality was against God’s laws, but feel he used religion and the threat of damnation in a cynical way- to get back at his political/religious opponents not out of love- its just too much of a stretch. He came out against the sanctions against apartheid- which ended up actually working.
Jason- I think 9/11 should be blamed on the terrorists that flew the planes, and to a lesser degree those who didn’t take the warnings seriously.
Kim,
What I don’t understand is why someone would view a religious leader (whom one does not agree with) making a statement about damnation as a threat. If you don’t believe that the religious leader has the religion right, then how does that threaten you at all? Particularly for atheists…if you don’t believe in hell, then how is it damaging to you at all if someone else says that he thinks you are heading there? LOL
It may not be a good way to win friends and influence people, but when left wingers say that a right winger has threatened them with damnation it makes no sense. If you view that as a threat, then you’d have to believe that the religious leader actually has God’s ear and can order you to hell or something.
The only way I can logically see the complaint is that on rare occasions, the fanatical followers of a religious leader who preaches that way might take matters into their own hands and think they have the right to harass or take a life. Of course, I agree in the strongest possible way with concern over that- but I can’t agree at all with the left wingers who complain “ooh, he threatened us!” if a religious leader makes a statement about a particular practice or action being sinful in the eyes of the church.
CS, just a small note. Yes, the Hitler thing was extreme, and I hesitated to write it because I generally hate those comparisons. It bears repeating, I in NO WAY, think that Falwell was like Hitler, it’s absurd. I don’t want to conflate the two in any way. I just wanted a clear example of how you can hate an individual who is known for his hatred of groups without being just like him.
As for him not hating people but sin. I dunno, if you take this:
“..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 try to secularize America…I point the thing in their face and say you helped this happen.”
He didn’t say “homosexuality” he said “the Gays”, he didn’t say “abortion” he said “abortionists” and he didn’t say “feminism” (since when is that a sin anyway?) he said “feminists”. It sure sounds like hating the people to me, but who knows.
Oh and isn’t killing a sin? Because if his whole bit was sinning:
“We visit prisoners on death row, and some of them are saved, but we believe their sentences should be carried out because they have a debt to societyâ€
I actually agree, but then I’m not a Christian.
“Hey, kritter, do you find all examples of people who blamed their political/social enemies for 9/11 equally contemptible, or is your objection here only when it was applied to Falwell’s enemies ?”
If they had no relationship with what happened, yes. Falwell’s assertion, which Robertson quickly agreed with, is ludicrous, yet think how many of the faithful believed him due to his position as a leader of their faith. That in my eyes, makes it especially despicable.
wow.
so where was all this public outcry over the bad things said about saddam when he died?
pfff. whatev. falwell was a monster. responsible for the personal hells of many many people the country over.
he certainly deserves no “consideration”.
no joy. just relief. good riddance.
Ward Churchill blamed the victims themselves, calling them “little Eichmanns” and arguing that their deaths were good because they were symbols of capitalism.
Noam Chomsky has blamed the United States government, arguing in effect that attacks like 9/11 are appropriate and proper responses when people disagree strongly with U.S. policy.
Both of these people are extremely influential on the political left, roughly on the same numerical scale as Falwell and Robertson on the right.
Well CS, here’s the difference. My hatred of that prick started when I realized even though it doesn’t affect him one bit, he wants legislation on the way other people are living their lives. You may think its childish but he started it. Guys like him always do, then its on from there.
There are plenty of whacky fundies out there, and I think every one of them are utter retards even the ones related to me. But they keep it where it belongs. Around the dinner table, in their homes and churches, at social gatherings of like minded folks. That I can respect. Falwell didn’t and wouldn’t. The country had to be like him and anyone who wasn’t was worthless.
Jason- Ward Churchill is not an influential leader of the left. The only reason anyone even knows who he is, is because Bill’O and Hannity booked him for their shows so they could torpedo the left with him. Most Democrats/liberals probably don’t even know who he is. There’s no way you would convince me that he’s anything but a fringe wingnut, certainly he lacks the influence that Falwell and his ilk still have. Chomsky is a little better-known, but there are some on the right who agree with him Ron Paul made pretty much the same argument. I actually do think that our policies have led to what happened, but I’m not blaming those who made them who were focussed on winning the Cold War and missed the looming problem of Islamic extremism.
Neither of those guys is anywhere near as influential as Falwell. Do you see Obama trucking to see Chomsky to get his blessing for the nomination? Does Hillary consult Churchill on the war? Yet, McCain went to make peace with Falwell, because he realized that he lost the SC primary by referring to him as an “agent of intolerance”. Yesterday he was the first to send condolences-referring to him as a man who loved country and his faith.
Ward Churchill is extremely influential on the political left???
On what planet?
I don’t recall Clinton inviting him to the Whitehouse, (or getting his opinion on Supreme Court nominess).
As a matter for fact, hardly anyone in America that doesn’t visit right wing blogs has ever heard of the guy.
Lynx,
I feel I’m in an awkward position: I don’t want to defend what Falwell said in that statement. But I do think your criticism of it (on the basis of using terms for certain groups of people) is inaccurate. He used the phrase “who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle,” and that makes quite a difference. The argument that I’m making is the same as when someone on the left criticizes the ‘religious right’ and they’re specifically referring to conservative Christians who have politicized their religion. If you were to criticize that group of people, you would be referring to those particular people who are engaging in those actions, just as Falwell is saying that he felt there was fault in certain groups who were “secularizing America”.
Again, I certainly don’t agree with his statement of that having ANYTHING whatsoever to do with 9/11, but I don’t see it as an example of hating the sinner. For one thing, he qualified it so that he wasn’t even talking about all gays (just as you might qualify a statement about the religious right by saying that you aren’t including all Christians), and also, he went on to describe that it was their attempts to remove religion from America that was the problem.
I don’t really follow you on the murderer part. Most Christians do believe that paying a debt is part of forgiveness (Catholics, for example, do penance). I guess a purist, evangelical view might be that since Christ “payed the price for sin” that we shouldn’t have to do that, but the point is that we also have to pay our debts to our fellow man when we’ve wronged them. Those are two separate issues: a Christian can believe that a sinner’s eternal sentence has been commuted but his earthly one has not.
Perhaps this is an appropriate time to remember an old joke.
What do Jerry Falwell and Ozzy Osborne have in common?
Both got rich making Rock & Roll look evil.
He is widely cited in academia and commands exorbitant speaking fees in his appearances before leftist political forums. From where I live and work, Churchill and Chomsky are FAR more influential than Falwell or Robertson. In fact, anyone who’s a believing Christian in academia usually feels compelled to hide it, lest they be denied tenure. Anyone who believes in the dogmas of Chomsky and Churchill will usually advertise it as much as possible.
There, that fixed it.
Unless of course you’d care to support some of these assertions.
cute. dishonest, but cute.
These are the people to call if you want Ward Churchill to speak to your organization.
Notice is hectic schedule.
“From where I live and work, Churchill and Chomsky are FAR more influential than Falwell or Robertson.”
Lol, that doesn’t make him more influential to the population at large. Not by a long shot. Falwell had the ear of the leaders of this country to a degree that Churchill and Chomsky never will. As pointed out actual political lawmakers and presidents curried his favor.
The crackpots on the far left run in tight little orbits of cult followings while the crackpots on the far right sell millions of books and lunch with the powers that be. To me this shows that there is a much smaller gap between the crackpots on the right and “The Right” in general.
So asking you to support your claims is dishonest?
Never heard of Ward Churchill btw until these boards btw. I’m a leftie I suppose and I read more political issues than most. I fail to see how a guy I have missed these last few years goes in the same sentence as Falwell.
Regardless of whether we may bicker about the degree of their influence, Churchill and Chomsky did do the same as what was claimed to be contemptible from Falwell — blame 9/11 on people other than the perpetrators. So why are you scrambling for excuses to avoid condemning it equally?
Sam -
And the Left doesn’t have the same? People who want to tell me what to eat, how much to weigh, how to raise my children, when sex education for them should start, if I can carry a gun, if I can defend myself, what my health care choices should be, etc.
You seem to need to hate those who disagree with you, rather than just disagreeing with them.
AR – The Right of Falwell and the RR are also telling what you should do. This isn’t the Right of Goldwater. From an Arizona newpaper.
http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special25/articles/0531goldwater2.html
If Goldwater was alive I’d guess he would be civil, but he would kiss Falwell’s dead ass like some. The Moonbats are just saying what the grandfather of Conservatisms said in the end.
Well AR I don’t like those bastards either. Thats why I’m in the middle. I’d like to take horsewhip to every “Please think of the children” soccer mom type that wants us to baby proof the world so kids can grow to 18 without ever having to learn about real life before they’re shoved out into it. Who says I have a duty to run if someone intrudes in my home.
My dislike is reserved for anyone who thinks they get to intrude into my life on matters that don’t concern them. Falwell totally embodied that.
not these days.
people should stop framing political discussions with the definitions of ten years ago.
the right wants to control everything you do that’s not “moral”.
ironically enough, it was the all-inclusive “politically correct” everyone gets an equal voice culture fomented by “the left” that allowed these hatemongers and morons to not disappear.
fundies. hate-peddlers. IDers. flat-earth people. people that say “intolerance of intolerance is hypocrisy”.
all the same. all worthless.
Well, there are a million things in this comment trail, so I will just go back to my reaction on the news of Falwell’s death. It was essentially this:
“YAY! Oh no, I shouldn’t have thought that. That is completely inappropriate and wrong to think when someone dies. At least I didn’t say it out loud and it gets to be one of those stupid things that goes through your head that is wrong and inappropriate and no one ever knows. At the same time, he really did do a lot of damage to this country with using God as a political bludgeon and attacking millions of Americans for being gay. I take back the ‘yay!’, since that was truly wrong, but I can’t say America was better off for having him participate in its political life. Still, it’s best to simply remain silent. If you can’t say something nice, don’t speak.” And then I read his bio and was reminded how much he did mean to a lot of decent people whom I disagree with often, but not always. He also did some good non-political work as well, so my thoughts changed some. “Well, I will feel sorry for all the people he did help, even though he possibly hurt even more. But, you know, in the end, I’m supposed to respect all people, even people who are messed up. And I will pay him that respect at least.”
And that’s where I probably remain. Falwell did a lot of harm to Americans. I wonder how many gay teens have committed suicide partly as a result of the ostracization and hatred they feel from people all around them, and he was a leader of this hatred. But in the end, he was a flawed human being like all of us, and I will pay my respects by being silent for a few days. All people deserve that much. And then if someone asks me what I think, I will say, but not until then.
And that’s my take.
Well, if you want to read what may be the worst vitriol on Falwell you’d really have to read what that noted leftist Christopher Hitchens had to say.
Just a taste.
More here.
I find it interesting that the concept of ‘hate’ is bandied about.
Falwell was an ass, and to not be sorry he’s dead is simple reality. Hell, there’s the whole philosphiocal conundrum about if China fell off the planet. How many people here, or at large, who had no ties to that billion + nation, would do more than wring there hands and utter a few maxims?
Let’s be serious- NONE of this is of any great consequence.
As for Churchill- no one knew of him till Right Wing nuts dredged him up, and one date- this November, in a year is hardly a show of how in demand or influential he is. And he’s not even a real Indian! And Chomsky is an odd little man- he reminds me of someone with Alzheimer’s, or logorrhea. Yes, he’s a Leftist with delusions, but only Ivy Tower intellectuals revere him.
I didn’t hate him, just like I don’t hate cockroaches. But if I see one dead on the floor, I do not mourn. Get real people- not a one of these trio is someone anyone in fifty years will give a damn about- Father Coughlin, anyone?
so, Jason -now you’re backing off your assertion that Ward Churchill is more influential than Falwell or Robertson? There are at last count 100 million evangelicals. How many do you think look to Churchill as their moral guru? I’d wager more on the right know who he is than on the left., because nuts like him galvanize the right-wing base. What is terrible about what Falwell said is that gays and lesbians have NO responsibility for 9/11. Chomsky’s point that US policy led to it at least has some relationship to reality. Our Cold War policies did put us in bed with some unusual partners and it is true that the extremists hated our presence in S.A. and our alliance with Israel. But that doesn’t mean I blame those who were concentrating on the CW.