Falwell dead...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rae Vynn @ May 24 2007, 05:52 PM) [snapback]449416[/snapback]</div>

I agree, he does not. Mentioning Falwell and Lincoln in the same breath is a secular humanist blasphemy. My use of that quote was intended to be ironic. Falwell "belongs to the ages" in the same sense that other wrong-headed figures who were big in their own time (like the two almost-forgotten ones I mentioned) do: they "belong to the ages" only in that they are dead. Lincoln belongs to the ages because he will serve as an aspirational example for human beings as long as there exist humans who need to aspire.

 

Lincoln was a brilliant man. But let's not rate him too highly: He was a racist who favored sending the freed slaves back to Africa. He believed it was morally wrong to enslave people, but he did not believe that Africans were fit to live in America as free people, and he did not believe they were competent to vote. He favored bringing the southern states back into the Union, and restoring the governing of those states to the same wealthy planter class that had previously held slaves and had taken the south out of the Union in the first place. He strongly opposed allowing slavery into the newly-acquired territories, but he made it clear that if the south would remain in the Union, it could keep its slaves. In the end, he cared little for the rights of the human beings living under the yoke of slavery, and when he did issue the Emancipation Proclmation, it only freed slaves in the rebel states, and it did so more to provide a legal means for invading northern armies to deprive southerners of a valuable asset, than to secure freedom for enslaved people.

Lincold declared over and over that he cared far more for the Union than for the rights of slaves. Had the south been willing to accept a Republican president, as the North had accepted years of Democratic presidents, Lincold never would have interfered with slavery.

A brilliant man, but far from a moral example. In the end, a politician like all politicians.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ May 17 2007, 04:08 AM) [snapback]444051[/snapback]</div>

He made friends with people who first thought he was their enemy. You don't find it interesting that he was friends with Jesse Jackson, Larry Flint and others who disagreed with his positions as much as you do?


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ May 17 2007, 04:08 AM) [snapback]444051[/snapback]</div>

"Hate speech" is simply speech liberals don't like.

Falwell is noteworthy because he helped mobilize a large segment of the population that was not politically active, and in so doing, helped increase the health of the republic. It is good to have more voices, not less, in the public dialog. Prior to the Moral Majority, the only religious voices heard in the political realm were the liberal ones.

I disagreed with Falwell in many different areas, including his theology and the linking of certain political views with moral views. But I would never say that I was glad he, or anyone else in the American body politic, was dead. We are simply better than that.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ May 26 2007, 01:52 AM) [snapback]450275[/snapback]</div>

Sure, Falwell "helped mobilize a large segment of the population that was not politically active"- racists and bigots. Go back and read Jack Kelly's story of fighting poverty in the South, and Falwell's efforts to drive a wedge between blacks and whites in order to empower himself. And when those racist strategies were no longer acceptable for a religious person decades later, he played on the fears of fundamentalist Christians by attacking their favorite enemy- the homosexuals. No, hate speech isn't "simply speech liberals don't like"- hate speech is attacking gays, blacks, anyone who is not like you in order to rile up your base. Falwell never did anything "noteworthy". The only reason that he had the influence that he did was that for too long the media, infatuated with anyone who says things that are controversial, continued to give him a bully pulpit on CNN, etc., and made him to be the representative voice of Christianity.
Not only did Falwell commit immense harm against the groups of people that he attacked over the years; he probably did, as I said before, the greatest harm against American Christians- far more than the "secular liberals". If you listen to the leaders of the evangelical Christian organizations these days, they are talking about the environment, fighting poverty, etc., and trying to undo decades of damage to their reputations caused by the likes of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Jim Bakker, et al. Is it "good to have more voices, not less, in the public dialog"? Sure, a diversity of voices is good, and all voices have a right to be heard. But I regard Falwell's "voice" on the order of the voices of the Ku Klux Klan and the skinheads- voices that are best drowned out by reasonable voices.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ May 25 2007, 10:52 PM) [snapback]450275[/snapback]</div>

That is simplistic, glib, and not true. Hate speech is speech that promotes hatred against a group or class of people.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ May 26 2007, 01:52 AM) [snapback]450275[/snapback]</div>

No, actually, I don't. I find that (if it's true), confusing, but not particularly interesting. I cannot separate what a person does from the person.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ May 26 2007, 01:52 AM) [snapback]450275[/snapback]</div>

That's probably what that whole illusion of separation of church and state is about...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ May 26 2007, 01:52 AM) [snapback]450275[/snapback]</div>

Sad that you believe that.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ May 26 2007, 01:52 AM) [snapback]450275[/snapback]</div>

One point of agreement. But I am glad his speech is.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ May 25 2007, 08:55 PM) [snapback]450140[/snapback]</div>

Very good point. It should be noted that the move against slavery also helped the Union ally itself awith England, as England would have rather supported the Confederacy.

 

Christopher is a pompous arse but he hit the bullseye here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkAPaEMwyKU

 

Falwell once told MSNBC's Tucker Carlson that if he were a lawyer, he too would argue for civil rights for gays. "I may not agree with the lifestyle, but that has nothing to do with the civil rights of that ... part of our constituency," Falwell said. When Carlson countered that conservatives "are always arguing against 'special rights' for gays," Falwell remarked "that equal access to housing and employment are basic rights, not special rights. "Civil rights for all Americans, black, white, red, yellow, the rich, poor, young, old, gay, straight, et cetera, is not a liberal or conservative value. It's an American value that I would think that we pretty much all agree on." :mellow: :huh: :blink: