Death of Falwell

by on

Via columnist/blogger Ryan Sager: "The Republican presidential candidates have started to weigh in on the death of Jerry Falwell, noted bigot."

32 Comments for “Death of Falwell”

  1. posted by Randy on

    Oh good lord. Now we have to listen to every candidate praise him, and every news segment touting his successes over the years. My prediction: Only 1 news story in five will even mention his hatred of gays, and that every candidate, left and right, will call him a ‘true’ man of God.

    Because, you know, you need to court every wingnut out there….

  2. posted by Brian Miller on

    Dr. Paul Cameron, please take note: overt heterosexuality leads to an early demise! 😉

  3. posted by Greg Capaldini on

    Randy, I checked five online news sources, none of which skirted the issue as you predicted.

  4. posted by Pappy McFae on

    For my part, I am very glad to hear that he is gone. Now Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and the hyper-hypocrite Haggard need to follow him to his much deserved place in the lower reaches of hell as described by Dante!

    While I am sure that he will be eulogized as a saint by many, there are just as many people (if not more) that will continue to condemn him as both a hypocrite and charlatan; for he was definitely both!

    Also, the Yahoo news story (which is how I found out about it) was amazingly frank and fair about Scary Jerry and his seeing gays everywhere he looked. From Tinky Winky to SpongeBob Squarepants, Scary Jerry saw gays everywhere he looked. From my experience, that means he saw a gay every time he looked into the mirror.

    Good riddance to bad rubbish! Rest in Pain, you asshole!

  5. posted by Xeno on

    Well this lightens up the rest of the day. Now if only James Dobson ended up in a plane crash.

  6. posted by Randy on

    Thanks, Greg! Maybe the news isn’t so blind!

  7. posted by Timothy on

    I don’t think Falwell will be eulogized as a saint. The time when Falwell’s brand of say-anything do-anything as long as it’s anti-gay has passed. Now, as Tommy Thompson has shown us, Republican candidates have to be careful not to appear to be in favor of firing gay workers.

    Even Falwell himself shifted on gay issues some. In August 2005 he stated that employment and housing were “basic rights, not special rights” and that he was in favor of civil rights for gay men and women. And his voice has been very absent – as has been most big name religious leaders – in the battle over non-discrimination this year.

    Naturally at the time of his death most politicians – well, most decent folks in general – will look for something positive to say. And there are things that can be said. He was a leader, he was charismatic, he was direct, he did act out of his faith, and we can all admire or respect those characteristics. And of course we all wish his grieving family and friends peace and comfort.

    History will probably not be very kind to the man, but at this moment most folks will be gracious and generous in their characterizations. And I certainly won’t fault them for that.

  8. posted by Jorge on

    I’m with Giuliani. I don’t mourn the death of enemies.

    Ummmm… actually I meant the reverse. I don’t enjoy death. But he was an enemy, there’s no reason to pretend he wasn’t. He deserves the respect of an enemy, and naming who he was is part of it.

  9. posted by Lori Heine on

    Whew! Let the endless, ad nauseum eulogizing begin.

    My main reason for discomfort with Falwell was that he gave the Christian faith — which just happens to be my faith — a black eye nearly every time he opened his mouth.

    Did he say some good things, too? Of course he did. I guess it says something for the discourse in this country’s having budged a fraction of an inch toward maturity that his supporters will quote the more-benign things he said instead of the truly vile ones.

    I don’t hesitate to criticize my fellow GLBT’s when I believe that they’re behaving in a manner that brings discredit upon our community. I would be considerably less than fair if I didn’t take my fellow Christians to task when they make Christianity look bad.

    With people like Falwell for friends, I shudder to think who our enemies might be.

  10. posted by Clyde on

    None of the commentators on this board before me have noted that Jerry Falwell was also a segregationist racist. He reversed himself on racism, but never reversed himself on homophobia. The media reports are tending to portray him favorably, omitting his prejudices. This is one reason why I don’t like the media. It’s not objective.

  11. posted by Canon Richard T. Nolan on

    How can one comment appropriately upon the death of someone who embodied a perversion of the heart and mind of Christianity?

    RTN (retired, West Palm Beach)

    http://www.nolan-pingpank.com

  12. posted by Michigan-Matt on

    Wow, so many closeted gay Christianists here suddenly believing in God and an after life while still wishing the worst for one of religion’s 20th C voices? Is this a verifiable conversion or just convenient rhetorical excess?

    I never liked JF for what he did to the moderate, progressive GOP of the 1970s… he gutted it, he brought to the GOP rank and file a type of social conservative stereotype who has been unyielding, uncompromising and see’s a value in absolute principles leapfrogging from the pew to the political trail.

    I didn’t like JF or PatRobertson or dozens of other ReliRight types inside the GOP. But not because I drink the GayLeftBorg’s kool aid and practice BushDerangement… it’s because of what the Moral Majority did to the GOP.

    And MoveOnOrg and CodePink are doing the same to the Democrat Party… and ActUp and the VictimCard proponents in the GayLeft have been doing for all gays.

    The extremes are not virtuous; they are a pox on the body politic.

  13. posted by Richard J. Rosendall on

    Falwell played a role in hijacking the GOP for the religious right, but he had lots of help. Like Pat Robertson, his continued prominence in the media in recent years was due largely to the laziness of the media, not to his still being a leading figure within Christianist circles.

    I did not do a survey of news reports last night, but I did watch CNN and they most certainly did not whitewash his bigoted record. While they included people who praised Falwell, they also had Mel White and Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens was particularly brutal, saying that Falwell exemplified how the most extraordinary bigot can thrive in America as long as he calls himself Reverend.

    As to ACT UP, it has been defunct for practical purposes for years. And the gay left has not done anything to “all gays,” because non-leftist gays (including IGF contributors) have been expressing alternative views and pursuing alternative approaches for decades, with productive results. (If you think the typical gay rights lobbyist in statehouses across the country is a leftist ideologue, you don’t know the nature of the business.) You should not give the left so much credit.

  14. posted by Jimbo on

    I have mixed feelings on Jerry Falwell’s passing. After 28 years of Christian conservative organizing, the movement has little to show for. Abortion is still the law of the land. Sectarian prayer is still banned in public schools. Sodomy laws are only a memory. The GOP is starting to show signs of rebellion against the Christian Right.

    Rev. Falwell did come around a little bit on gay rights within the past couple of years. I haven’t seen any whitewash on him on any tribute about his life. All of his loopy statements (and the 1 coo-coo for cocopuffs one (the 9-11 thing)) has been duly noted.

  15. posted by Last Of The Moderate Gays on

    I came across this posting, and I think it sums up my feelings, as well:

    http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2007/05/15/reflecting-on-falwells-passing/

  16. posted by Brian Miller on

    Let’s face it — Falwell wouldn’t have been able to “hijack” the GOP if a majority of Republicans didn’t support his agenda — just like Democrats wouldn’t have been able to support DOMA and the FMA if a large proportion of Democrats weren’t homophobic.

    One of the more amusing aspects of the late “Reverend” was how furious he’d get at Fred Phelps’s anti-gay picketing. It wasn’t because he disagreed with Phelps’s message — rather, Falwell was just annoyed at how blunt and rude Phelps was at conveying it.

    When Phelps went on about “the anal blood of fags drowning America,” Falwell “only” gassed on about “perversion.” They were two sides of the same coin — Falwell simply used prettier language.

    The disappearance of Falwell’s voice from America’s national conversation does not impoverish the body politic in the slightest — it simply means a smidgeon less religious mysticism adding more noise to discussions that should be based on reason and facts rather than irrational “strongly held beliefs” about the “inferiority” of certain sorts of people.

    That is worth a small celebration — or not, considering all the other willing voices ready to step up and take Falwell’s place as a Master Maven of Mysticism.

  17. posted by Timothy on

    Brian, to be fair, you can’t really claim that Democrats supported FMA – only two Democrats in the Senate voted in favor. By those standards it would be more honest to claim that Republicans opposed it – three times as many (six) voted “no”.

    While I don’t seek to idolize Democrats (their fiscal policies often seem drafted by Mother Goose), I think we can honestly say that as a party they opposed the FMA.

    As for the difference between Falwell and Phelps, I think Falwell actually believed some of his own hype about how he “loved” the sinner. Falwell never came to understand that seeking to destroy someone’s life wasn’t the same as loving him. Phelps just makes no pretenses.

  18. posted by Brian Miller on

    you can’t really claim that Democrats supported FMA

    Besides ignoring the House (where far more than two Democrats supported the FMA), there was no sanction whatsoever — at any level of the Democratic Party — against those supporters.

    Contrast that to the Libertarian Party, which ejected one of its incumbent candidates in VT’s statehouse back in 2000 for opposing the civil unions bill.

    I think we can honestly say that as a party they opposed the FMA.

    A majority of them voted against it — but as a party, they didn’t do much to oppose it. Their opposition was muted at best, and their membership who strongly supported the legislation did so without any sanction — even a verbal slap on the wrist — from their party leadership or membership.

    I think Falwell actually believed some of his own hype about how he “loved” the sinner.

    I’m sure Phelps believes his hype about how “God hates America” too. Belief in deranged, immoral positions doesn’t make those positions any more valid — nor does it make their adherents any less immoral.

  19. posted by Timothy on

    Brian,

    You are claiming that the Democrat Party SUPPORTED the FMA.

    They voted 159 to 34 in the house and 40 to 2 in the Senate against the FMA. There is almost no question that the party leadership twisted arms to be certain that the FMA would have fewer votes in the Senate than its previous incarnation.

    Yet you claim that they SUPPORTED it. Surely you are just caught up in the argument and don’t really believe that, do you?

  20. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    I would base Democrats’ support of it on this simple example; two prominent Democrat activists, Hilary Rosen and Andrew Tobias, openly supported and praised those who publicly supported the FMA.

    That is a leader of an avowed Democrat lobbying group, who has specifically stated their goal is to support and elect Democrats, and the treasurer of the Democrat National Committee.

    Even more ironically, they’re both gay.

    The Democrat Party supports the FMA. They simply thought it was more politically-advantageous to oppose a meaningless vote. Furthermore, as the majority of them argued, the reason they voted against it this time was not because they were pro-gay marriage, but because they believed that DOMA (which they supported) and state and local amendments and ordinances they supported were sufficient.

    How the Democrat Party truly views gays is exemplified by the fact that the DNC is being sued for discrimination and harassment; they claim to be “supportive”, but have no trouble abusing and discriminating against their gay employees.

  21. posted by Brian Miller on

    You are claiming that the Democrat Party SUPPORTED the FMA.

    No I’m not. Here is my exact quote:

    Democrats wouldn’t have been able to support DOMA and the FMA if a large proportion of Democrats weren’t homophobic.

    A large number of Democrats in the House and Senate (over 30) supported the FMA with absolutely no sanction or penalty from their party leadership.

    One suspects that if 30 Democrats had supported a bill to reintroduce segregation, or relegalize slavery, that the Democratic leadership would have smacked them down quite hard — yet prominent Democrats including Stephanie Herseth were able to support FMA without a peep from Howard Dean or other Democratic power-brokers.

    If you’re going to come after me screaming about accuracy, at least have the courtesy not to misquote me or misrepresent my position. Thanks!

  22. posted by Timothy on

    Well actually Brian that wasn’t your exact quote. You left out the “just like” part – ya know the part that compared Democrat support for the FMA to Falwell’s influence on the Republicans?

    Let’s face it — Falwell wouldn’t have been able to “hijack” the GOP if a majority of Republicans didn’t support his agenda — just like Democrats wouldn’t have been able to support DOMA and the FMA if a large proportion of Democrats weren’t homophobic.

    But okie dokie. I’m glad, nonetheless, that your position as you are stating it now seems to be a little more alligned with reality.

    I still don’t think 36 is a “large number”, but you can if you like. That is, I guess, subjective. And I agree that racism would have not been tolerated even to that level.

    But I guess what is disappointing to me is that this site could be a valuable exchange of ideas. Instead it seems to be more of a tool for partisan fury and hypebole. And many of the attacks are personal – Democrats against Republicans, Republicans against Democrats, and Libertarians against both. It seems to me that the worst aspect of partisan affiliation is most frequently demonstrated on these pages.

    And any extreme or wild exageration that is challenged is only met with symantics or spin. It’s sad. This really could be a great place to come and learn.

    But instead it’s mostly hyperbole, exaggeration, and sometimes outright lies. And everyone seems happy with that. Just lobbing bombs back and forth.

  23. posted by dalea on

    One problem in looking at this situation is that the Republicans, like the Libertarians and Greens, are parties with some sort of ideological bent. And all have some methods of enforcing their ideological standards.

    The Democrats, however, are not an ideological party. They tend to be a coalition of various interests, tendencies and identities. So, in evaluating Democrats one needs to use different concepts and methods.

    I find that the Republicans, Libertarians and Greens are like corporations. They have a central product to sell. Which obligates the whole group to march in unison. And to crack down on dissent.

    The Democrats are like a swap meet. Every one present has some agenda. They seek out those who have similar agendas to form coalitions. And they trade with people who have concerns that are only vaguely related to their own. In short, they form a coalition, in which people with wildly different interests work to advance the organization. Doing so will ultimately advance their own concerns.

    Black people spent a long time in the Democratic coalition before they got what they wanted. Ultimately they got it. And so it is for gay people. We work in tandem with people who do not 100% agree with our goals. Hell, they are against our goals right now. But still we work with them. Sooner or later we win.

    If you check out a major progressive Dem site like DailyKos, and see the process. They supported Stephanie Herseth not because she was good on all issues. But because she was the most progressive type who could win in that particular district. It is her vote for organizing the House that counts for gay people, not her vote on gay issues.

    It is interesting that DailyKos more or less bans ideology driven posting. And welcomes all progressives to post pragmatic ideas. No theory, only practice.

    Additionally, Kos himself identifies as a ‘Libertarian Democrat’. He extends the analysis of government used by the LP to corporations.

  24. posted by Alex on

    He was reported calling Rev. MLK a communist in the 1960’s (later invoking him as a model for the abortion fight). He decried the Broxn vs. Borad of Education decision as disatrous and signalling the end of the white race. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was, evidently, often referred to as the Civil Wrongs Act. Liberty University was started as a place for white students to study without the taint of black students.

    The most interesting quote was part of his denunciation of MLK: Preachers should be in the business of saving souls not politics.

  25. posted by ETJB on

    “Contrast that to the Libertarian Party, which ejected one of its incumbent candidates in VT’s statehouse back in 2000 for opposing the civil unions bill.”

    (1) No third party is a meaningful choice under our current electoral system.

    (2) The LP oppose civil rights laws.

    (3) The LP CA did not punish its candidates that supported the gay marriage ban.

  26. posted by Marc on

    Falwell is reason one why the separation of church and state (and I know – it is not actually stated as such in the Constitution) should be adhered to in even just a generalized principle. People are lauding Falwell’s creation of the Moral Majority and the inclusion of churches into politics, but that hardly merits the accolades. We are even more now than ever a nation divided, and Falwell’s faux moral values nonsense is a large part of the problem. It already has been stated that Falwell’s past includes many negative comments against blacks, and, so it should come as no surprise that he moved onto gays as an easy whipping boy. Falwell may have achieved at rousing the masses, but his divisive, condescending preaching has done little to promote the idea of a Christian.

    Wonder if the Devil knows what kinda hell he is in for now that Falwell is down there? I’ll give him a month before he takes over.

  27. posted by Randy on

    Marc: “Falwell may have achieved at rousing the masses, but his divisive, condescending preaching has done little to promote the idea of a Christian.”

    Possibly. Or maybe his preaching created a new idea of a “Christian,” one that is pretty much all about politics and hate. And this new type of Christian gave him tons of money.

  28. posted by Brian Miller on

    The LP CA did not punish its candidates that supported the gay marriage ban.

    Other than by decertifying them in the race.

    As I’ve mentioned to you countless times, ETJB, your repeating of a lie certainly doesn’t make it true.

    You need to work on getting some new talking points from the Democratic Party!

    maybe his preaching created a new idea of a “Christian,” one that is pretty much all about politics and hate.

    I don’t think that’s a new idea, frankly. A great deal of the history of the Christian movement has been one of politics and hate — just ask medieval European thinkers, or residents of Nigeria’s Anglican province, or 19th century American slaves.

  29. posted by Last Of The Moderate Gays on

    Dalea, I laughed so hard at your last post, I nearly fell out of my chair.

    “I find that the Republicans, Libertarians and Greens are like corporations. They have a central product to sell. Which obligates the whole group to march in unison. And to crack down on dissent.”

    Exactly like the Democratic Party:

    http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0506monedit-quickhit-Maceachern07.html

    Sorry, but in many ways, the Democrats are worse than the Republicans. At least most of them are honest about not supporting gay rights, unlike the Democrats, who find it very lucrative to take our contributions and then manage to do next to nothing of any real substance.

    That Kool Aid you’re drinking must be very powerful stuff . . .

    Face it, BOTH parties have failed. It’s time for a change.

  30. posted by ETJB on

    “As I’ve mentioned to you countless times, ETJB, your repeating of a lie certainly doesn’t make it true.”

    Fact: I contacted the LP of California when the anti-gay ballot measure was being decided and asked them about the fact that the most of their candidates supported the measure.

    Their official reply was; no party can control what it candidates believe on every issue. So much for the ‘party of principle.’ They did not tell me that they de-certified any of their candidates for taking this position.

    Basically their response was, yeah they are supporting the anti-gay measure, but we really not care. This is not a lie. This is not a ‘talking point’ from any political party. This is the truth.

  31. posted by dalea on

    My point was, Last of the Moderate Gays, that there are Democrats worth supporting because they will support us. Sadly, there are fewer worthy Republicans every year. But there tend to be more worthy Democrats. Not every Democrat is a friend, indeed many are not. But because of the nature of coalition building it is possible to work with them, and get their support.

    In the long journey of gay and lesbian people, we started on the local level with cities and towns. Most of the votes we got there were from Democrats. Not all, but most. As the struggle moved to the state level, again most but not all, of our votes came from Democrats. Same at the National level.

    So, I do not find what you do. Perhaps you would explain further.

  32. posted by Last Of The Moderate Gays on

    dalea:

    I was merely taking you at your own words. You said,

    “The Democrats, however, are not an ideological party.”

    Try telling that to a Democrat who is pro-life, or who is not an extremist on environmental issues, or who is for reigning in the excesses of the trial lawyers.

    To believe that the Democrats are not every bit as rigid on the issues (and in dealing with those who disagree with them) as their Republican counterparts is simply to be living in fantasy land.

    Granted, a larger percentage of Democrats are prone to supporting gay rights measures, but when it comes to the national arena (and all party politics flow from above), they have a far more ominous and sinister record, a la John Kerry, who, as you might recall, ran as far away from gay rights as he could in the last presidential election (just as scuzzy old Clinton did in his years in the Oval Office).

    As many on here have pointed out, the Democrats LOVE to whisper sweet nothings in our ears and pass some minor “feels good but does nothing” legislation (when they don’t outright lie and reverse course on important legislative votes), all while they are voraciously accepting our money.

    I agree with you when you say that there are Democrats who are worth supporting, just as there are Republicans, Libertarians, etc. But, as I said before, it’s becoming more and more apparent that BOTH parties have failed. Frankly, if either party trots out the same old same-olds, I’m voting for a third-party candidate.

Comments are closed.