RSS Feed
Bookmark to:
Admire him or revile him, the Rev. Jerry Falwell’s role in American history will reverberate long past his death Tuesday at the age of 73.
|
|
|
62 Responses to “Admire him or revile him, the Rev. Jerry Falwell’s role in American history will reverberate long past his death Tuesday at the age of 73.”
TrackBack URL
Good Riddance.
Kind of amazing really when you stop to think of it. Liberals love an anything goes attitude where everyone can say and do as they please EXCEPT when they say something liberals don’t like. When they hold an opinion that differs from their own. And then they are mean as snot. Witness the above two word statement from Toasted.
This man was too preachy for me but I respect his right to hold his views. God Bless him and may he rest in peace.
You say say what you like, as Mr. Falwell did do. Don’t be surprised though to be labeled the ‘American Taliban’ when you do so. Free speech works both ways.
You can label me anything you like Toasted….I know how you liberals feel about terrorists. Doesn’t scare me. We believe in free speech no matter how much we might disagree with it or even be offended by it. Free speech is what this country is made of. Get over it.
4,
5, Tofu, having sex with terrorists again?
1- Interesting quotes, Tofu…
And they clearly show that there are not so many strong differences between christian and muslim fundamentalism… the christian fundamentalists have only chosen to stone with propaganda instead of stoning with stones…
PS: “AIDS is not just God’s punishment for homosexuals; it is God’s punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.”
Jerry, wherever you are… you have now the opportunity to see whether you bet on the right horse. The big dude will tell ya, what kind of thinking is appreciated and which not.
I honestly can’t think of anything nice to say about Falwell.
9. And you know what they say if you can’t find anything nice to say don’t say anything at all.
11. I’ve resisted making any jokes. Consider it my tribute.
While I don’t agree with most of what he has said, I feel I have little moral high ground to critique the man as others in this thread.
I would take the bet that the man has done more good in the world than the folks disparaging him in this thread.
I would take the bet that the man has done more good in the world than the folks disparaging him in this thread.
I would take the bet that the man has done more harm in the world than the folks disparaging him in this thread.
My personal favorite Falwell quote: “Christians, like slaves and soldiers, ask no questions.”
AKD, still having sex with terrorists?
“I would take the bet that the man has done more harm in the world than the folks disparaging him in this thread.”.
I would take that bet. He was no saint for sure, but not nearly as bad as what folks here are demonizing him as. That is proof in and of itself of what I said. Don’t you think how your are demonizing him here is just as bad if not worse than some of the things he has done? Is there really a difference? I don’t think so.
The truth of the matter is the thing that really peterbs the left about Falwell his that he got many Christians involved in government again. They swung hard right when they did, which eneded the lefts thirty year dominence of the government.
“My personal favorite Falwell quote: “Christians, like slaves and soldiers, ask no questions.”
He was right. But how is that relevant? How does a factually true statement such as this demonize him, like you are trying to do? Such a candid statement seems to do just the opposite.
Don’t you think how your are demonizing him here is just as bad if not worse than some of the things he has done? Is there really a difference? I don’t think so.
Let’s see Ted. Falwell said that AIDS and the 9/11 attacks are God’s punishment for a society that tolerates homosexuals (along with other groups, of course, but he seemed particularly obsessed with homosexuality), e.g., “Homosexuality is Satan’s diabolical attack upon the family that will not only have a corrupting influence upon our next generation, but it will also bring down the wrath of God upon America.” Describing recent terrorist attacks more generally, he stated “God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.” Obviously, if I went on a site like, I don’t know, Right Voices, and said the same thing, I’m pretty sure someone would “demonize” me. Oh, but I guess that criticizing hate speech on a blog is “just as bad if not worse” than hate speech. Ah…the “Right.”
The comments about homosexuals are the most troubling. Listen to the rhetoric: “[homosexuals are] brute beasts…part of a vile and satanic system [that] will be utterly annihilated, and there will be a celebration in heaven.” Now, what if we replaced “homosexuals” with “blacks” or “jews”? Does the rhetoric sound familiar? If Al Gore said that “[Jews are] brute beasts…part of a vile and satanic system [that] will be utterly annihilated, and there will be a celebration in heaven,” would you be writing posts attacking people for “demonizing him?”
The truth of the matter is the thing that really peterbs the left about Falwell his that he got many Christians involved in government again.
No. It’s pretty much the Hitler-esque hate speech that perturbs me. Is Falwell’s blaming homosexuals for terrorist attacks so different from Hitler’s blaming Jews for Germany’s economy? We’ll never know how much violence against homosexuals was carried out by people stupid enough to be convinced by JF’s warnings of doom and destruction. Keep in mind: Falwell was a person who people actually listened to, not some crank with a blog. This made his remarks as dangerous as were ignorant and hate-filled.
Such a candid statement seems to do just the opposite.
I wasn’t using this to demonize him. He demonized the hell out of himself with the other quotes.
16. AKD, still having sex with terrorists?
Nope, PCD. Your wife’s been giving me all I can handle.
Oh, the quotes from post 18 can be found ici.
“Oh, but I guess that criticizing hate speech on a blog is “just as bad if not worse” than hate speech. Ah…the “Right.””
That’s the point- it wasn’t hate speech. That’s what you are missing here. Care to show me where he said he “hates” homosexuals in that quote?
“No. It’s pretty much the Hitler-esque hate speech that perturbs me. Is Falwell’s blaming homosexuals for terrorist attacks so different from Hitler’s blaming Jews for Germany’s economy? “
Yes- completely different, because he didn’t blame homosexuals for the terrorists attacks at all. He blamed our society. You completely misstated what he said, and I would assume intentionally.
This is the hypocicy.
““[homosexuals are] brute beasts…part of a vile and satanic system [that] will be utterly annihilated, and there will be a celebration in heaven.”
I would like to see the source for this entire quote. If he said what is implied by the way the quote is hacked, then it was an unChristian thing to say for sure. Forgive me if I have my doubts though, as I see the hack job you’ve done with his other quotes.
In either case, as I said I do not agree with his tactic, nor his religious approach. Christians are, in many cases, their own worse enemy. I am not defending him at all, but am enjoying having fun pointing out the hypoicisy of his detractors.
That’s the point- it wasn’t hate speech. That’s what you are missing here. Care to show me where he said he “hates” homosexuals in that quote?
This is one of the sillier things I’ve seen posted here. Even if the word “hate” is absent, a remark can still be hate speech. The term descibes speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, etc. Based on your remark, calling someone a n***er wouldn’t be hate speech. Neither would a KKK speech that calls for the death of Jews, so long as the word “hate” is absent. Show me where any speech code, any attempt to define hate speech in the US or any other country specifices that the word “hate” must be present.
Yes- completely different, because he didn’t blame homosexuals for the terrorists attacks at all. He blamed our society. You completely misstated what he said, and I would assume intentionally.
Here’s one quote (all from the site linked above):
“Homosexuality is Satan’s diabolical attack upon the family that will not only have a corrupting influence upon our next generation, but it will also bring down the wrath of God upon America.”
OK, No mention of terrorists yet, but apparently homosexuals are going to bring the wrath of God upon America. We better do something about them quick!!
Here’s another (stated, famously, after 9/11):
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.”
Well, there’s a case where he’s blaming homosexuals directly (as well as a number of other groups—I guess that Hitler also had communists, the handicapped, and gypsies).
Here’s another (on AIDS this time):
“AIDS is not just God’s punishment for homosexuals; it is God’s punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.”
Ok, in this one it is both homosexuals and society that are to blame. If homosexuals are themselves the cause of God’s vengeance, presumably we ought not to tolerate homosexuals. If a society that tolerates homosexuals is the cause of God’s vengeance, presumably we ought not to tolerate homsexuals. See how that works.
If toleration imperils society, we ought to be less tolerant (unless we want to see society destroyed, as Falwell could be fairly certain that even his most deluded fans probably did not). How is this not a call for intolerance? Similarly, Hitler argued that those who tolerated the corrupting influence of “Judeo-Bolshevism” were as guilty as the Jews and the commies.
Or, the KKK, as is well documented, was even harder on interracial couples than on blacks alone. While they’d just lynch blacks, a white man married to a black woman would often be tortured and castrated first. I guess that someone that “tolerates” that sort of thing is even more to blame than the individual being tolerated.
The idea is to breed a group of people who hate because they’re afraid not to hate.
I would like to see the source for this entire quote. If he said what is implied by the way the quote is hacked, then it was an unChristian thing to say for sure. Forgive me if I have my doubts though, as I see the hack job you’ve done with his other quotes.
Here’s a link about how he denied saying it, was proven to have said it (on tape) and lost 5,000 in the process.
Show me where I’ve “hacked” the other quotes, Ted. What is Falwell really saying?
I am not defending him at all, but am enjoying having fun pointing out the hypoicisy of his detractors.
You haven’t suceeded in doing so. Hypocrisy means practicing the opposite of what you preach. Show me where there’s any hypocrisy in criticizing Falwell’s hate speech.
AKD, your problem is that your gayness is a prism you see everything through. If people don’t agree that being gay is the greatest thing since the wheel, you hate them and call their disagreement hate speech solely because you hate being disagreed with.
PCD, I’m not gay. I think that you’re mixing me up with other posters. Also, your post has no real content.
AKD, stop smoking the bong, too. I was plain enough. You are a gay blade and just abput every post you have to push your homosexuality into our faces. You are more of a gay partisan than Barney Frank is.
25. Whatever. You’re a joke, gay or straight. How is anything that you’ve written a response to the Falwell thread?
26, I am dismissing EVERYTHING you say about Falwell because you see only gay is great. Falwell didn’t believe gay is great, therefore you have to trash Falwell every chance you get.
A dismissal isn’t an argument; you clearly lack the latter.
If you’re so totally stupid that you don’t understand why there would be a problem with what Falwell said, then you’re clearly a lost cause.
Pathetic.
29, AKD, you are too blinded by your homosexual agenda.
I hate fags. so there!
gonna make me go to rehab?
I’d kill everyone of them, if I knew I could get away with it!
30. Well, at least you’re honest.
I love it that I can be attacked on this site for criticizing hate speech; yet, when TP says that he hates and would like to kill homosexuals, all of the righteous members of RV remain silent.
The very picture of right-wing hypocrisy.
I may not be a perfect human being like yourself AKD but I’m not prejudice in any way. I have my own personal belief system and as long as people don’t hurt other people I don’t care what they do.
I have never attacked anyone’s sexual preference nor will I ever. I am not a hypocrit and don’t appreciate the blanket attack.
AKD, I think TP was baiting you, and you fell for it. Actually, it is not hard to get you to fall for anything.
33. I am not a hypocrit and don’t appreciate the blanket attack.
So, again, you post to criticize me (for believing myself to be “perfect”) while you say nothing to criticize a person who declared a desire to “kill fags.” Typical. That’s a great “belief system” you’ve got there.
34. PCD, do you understand that you never make an argument? You call names, accuse me of being a terrorist or of being gay (like Falwell, you’re probably too stupid to know the difference), but never present anything close to a supported position. This is why I argue with Ted, Peejz, and FAO and I just blow idiots like you off. You’re nothing. Morons like you are hurting America.
No, liberals like you hate America and stop at nothing to destroy it.
We all know that if there is a “gay” view on any subject, you come in to express it and denounce all who disagree. Wear your reputation well.
35. Gee you don’t sound like you are blowing anyone off but rather responding. Who is the hypocrite? Your 10,000 words long posts are unbelievable boring and frankly I’m surprised anyone takes the time to read them and respond.
It’s morons like you that are hurting America. Go somewhere else if you don’t like it here.
37. Wow, BonBon. Not only are you a hyppocrite (and as incapable of making an argument as PCD), you don’t even seem to be bright enough to know what the term means.
I’m sorry you don’t enjoy my longer posts—have you considered the possibility that your mind has become so enfeebled by bad daytime television (and, I suspect, fatty foods) that you’re only capable of grasping whatever’s plastered on the bumper of the SUV in front of you?
Here, again, is what I’ve been arguing. Try to follow along (everything is bumper-sticker size for your convenience—you don’t have to read it in one sitting):
1. Jerry Falwell blames terrorist attacks and AIDS on a vengeful God who blames America for tolerating homosexuals.
2. I criticize this Hitler-esque hate speech.
3. RV (in the form of Ted) attacks me for being “just as bad if not worse.”
4. Some dimwit posts about wishing he could kill all of the fags.
5. RV collectively doesn’t say a word.
6. I comment on this.
7. Sweet, gentle BonBon immediately attacks me for thinking I’m “perfect.” She(?) still makes no mention of the actual hate speech.
8. Unsurprisingly, friendless, hate-filled moron PCD has nothing to add but angry non-sequiturs.
So here’s my question: I’m fine with being attacked (clearly I get a kick out of it, though I’d prefer better competition), but why is it that when TP posted actual hate speech on this site, you all scurried back to your little rat holes but when I criticized it you attacked me?
Just wondering.
I generally stay away from commenting on hate speech. TP, whoever he/she is should not have said what they said but you do not see me posting hate speech. I am no hypocrite.
I do not appreciate being told I’m not too bright thank you very much. I’ve worked hard in my life using common sense and street smarts to get me through the tough times and where I am today. If that doesn’t fit your view of Republicans or conservatives so be it. I am what I am.
One more thing. Try to remember that not all of us have been blessed with the fortunes of life. Some have had to work harder just to stay ahead of the game without taking handouts. We’ve done it and proven it can be done. We don’t need insults and slaps on the face by people of privilege. Liberals often do this and it’s belittling and insulting.
I generally stay away from commenting on hate speech.
Then maybe you should also stay away from commenting on criticisms of it. Otherwise, it’s hard not to assume that you’re tacitly supporting it. Also, I suspect that if I said that all U.S. soldiers are “brute beasts…part of a vile and satanic system [that] will be utterly annihilated, and there will be a celebration in heaven,” you’d probably comment.
I wasn’t joking when I said that I appreciated TP’s honesty. I know that a lot of the posters here probably feel the same way about homosexuals, even if they blush when someone says it at a dinner party. PCD seems to think that calling me a “gay blade” and a “terrorist” are effectively equivalent, etc.
We don’t need insults and slaps on the face by people of privilege.
Don’t assume I came from any sort of privilege. Peejz already pegged me as “new money/no money”—it’s dumb to derive much in the way of consequences from this, but the remark itself is accurate enough. I’m doing alright for myself now, but I’m a long way from being from an upper (or even middle) class background.
Both democrats and republicans are for government handouts, BonBon. The only difference is that most democrats think that they should go to needy families (which is going to be pretty difficult if this stupid immigration bill survives) while most republicans think that they should go to corporations. I don’t like the democratic party much at this point, but I’ll side with them before I side with the republicans because I haven’t forgotten where I come from.
If you want to read about the relationship between democrats and republicans, class, and the notion of the self-made man as it’s played out today, read Thomas Frank’s “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” Of course you’ll hate his politics, but as far as pure history goes, he gets it right.
Actually, other than government contracts to build things like bridges to nowhere, there are few if any handouts to corporations. There are tax breaks and incentives that allow the corporations to actually keep the money that they EARN. While I will agree that some CEOs make an exorbitant amount of money, that’s the result of the board of directors not negotiating better contracts. Why do liberals scream about CEO compensation, but not about what athletes, musicians or actors make? Michael Jordan was making over $50 million a year back in the early 90s. The last two years of the series “Friends”, the cast was getting $1 million per episode each. Other than the production staff, exactly how many jobs did that money create? Whenever the government allows a corporation to keep money that it earns, the corporation reinvests that money into new technology, (Why is it so hard for liberals to believe that, given the proper economic incentives, companies will produce cleaner energy sources?) more facilities (New factories equal more jobs.) and other things that produce goods and services as well as the jobs that go with them. The truth is while liberals deride companies for being greedy, they seem to fail to understand that if the companies are greedy, they are not going to sock their profits away in a Swiss bank account, they’re going to reinvest them in a way to make even MORE money. Some people think that companies have an unlimited supply of cash, but that’s only true as long as they’re allowed to earn an unlimited supply of cash. They have to earn before they can pay it in taxes.
Whenever the Government gives out handouts to the poor, far too many people look at it as a lifestyle instead of a stop gap measure to help them through a rough patch. I hate to think about all of the high end electronics that I used deliver to the housing projects in Pa, NJ, and Delaware when I was working in Rent to Own. I used to watch welfare mothers pushing shopping carts full of meat and other groceries paid for with FOOD STAMPS. They were eating better on food stamps than I was working 50 - 60 hours a week. I had one customer who had never held a job, and said that because she was diagnosed with scoliosis as a child, she would lose money from her SSD and welfare checks (she had three illegitimate kids), so why should she work? Do you think that woman was ever going to get ahead? Or do you think she was going to remain a drain on the taxpayers for the rest of her life like her mother, who hadn’t had a job in over 20 years, had become? What about her 3 illegitimate children? The taxpayers had funded this girl’s education to include community college classes in data entry and other clerical skills, so she wasn’t unskilled, just making more on welfare than an entry level position would pay and receiving free food, and rent courtesy of the US Taxpayers. Where was her incentive to actually go out and work? Let’s get something straight, I have NO heartburn with the goverment giving people a hand up, I honestly wish there were more continuing and adult education programs available, but I am steadfastly against government welfare becoming a lifestyle option.
I’ll agree with the last remark (about welfare becoming a lifestyle), but I think that your rendering of the relationship between corporations and government is completely mistaken. Maybe the Falwell thread isn’t the perfect place for this, though.
Regardless, when we live in a country where the movement between elected office and CEO (or other high-ranking corporate position) has become commonplace (will all connections intact), the idea that government regulation and corporate success is a 0/sum game seems pretty outdated.
You write:
(Why is it so hard for liberals to believe that, given the proper economic incentives, companies will produce cleaner energy sources?) more facilities (New factories equal more jobs.) and other things that produce goods and services as well as the jobs that go with them. The truth is while liberals deride companies for being greedy, they seem to fail to understand that if the companies are greedy, they are not going to sock their profits away in a Swiss bank account, they’re going to reinvest them in a way to make even MORE money
It’s hard because anyone who pays attention sees that it doesn’t always (or even often) work that way. Companies make money and they lay off huge numbers of workers, slash benefits, or move out of the country. When the workers fight back by unionizing, they look to the govt. for support. A company might make a profit, but it can still suck a town dry (as Wal-Mart is famous for and why about half of their new openings have been getting tied up with protests and legal battles).
A more full example: In my hometown, a huge agri-business dairy is moving in. The community (an entity that conservatives usually pretend to support) fought tooth and nail to keep it out, but because of some of Bush’s business-friendly legislation (fully supported by Gov. Taft), the community no longer has this right. I’m sure that the appearance of this “farm” will create some low-paying jobs, but it will also make the town smell like crap (google “shit lagoon,” if you’re curious), triple the amount of traffic on already overtaxed roads, diminish the air quality, and probably turn the place that I grew up into another midwestern ghost town. All of this is made possible by a government that has decided that the interests of big business are more important than the interests of real communities. Maybe you don’t consider this a “handout”—it seems unjust, regardless.
I’m sure you’ve seen this before: “A conservative is someone who believes that corporations should be able to make decisions that effect millions of people but that a woman should not be able to decide what to do with her own body.” Cases like I described above are a good indication of this fact.
One more thing: The town that I’m from is probably 60% republican—they’ve been voting for (thankfully, gone) Taft and Bush and now they’re freaking out over how they’ve been betrayed. It’s terrible what it takes to open some people’s eyes.
44, AKD, you are so sacntimonius, arrogant, and self-deluded, that nothing will open your mind or eyes.
You, your self resort to put downs to BEGIN arguments. You are hypocritical about that. I think you are one one that is friendless and project your psychological problems on everyone else. In fact, I just got back from a little friendly dragracing with my friends.
Why don’t you and Tofu rent a seedy motel room for the night?
And you know it’s really odd how dems think their business taxes work for the people. Maryland is one of the least business friendly state, ranking somewhere around 47 or 48. Aside from the Balt/Wash metro area where there are alot of state and federal employees, business has fled in the last 40 years that dems have been in charge. Even Walmart which was going to open a call center/superstore in the poorest county in our state was ousted. That county lost 1500 job opportunities because of that.
The industrial park in my hometown has huge warehouse buildings that are vacant and falling down from neglect. The only jobs are support services such as phone, power and a couple of grocery stores and restaurants. The town was one of the fastest growing and now is one of the fastest in decline. There is a growing population of Balt/DC welfare recipients moving there as it is a bit cheaper to live. The schools have drug and gun problems beyond belief for a small town.
Yeah, I’ve had a front row seat to the destruction democrats policies leave on society. AKD, my hometown would love to have that agri business. There are alot of unemployed farmers who could use the money.
my hometown would love to have that agri business.
Well, it’ll poison the water and the air and a lot of kids will develop asthma, the property values will drop precipitously, and everything will smell like shit, so I wish that you could take it. I also wish that my town hadn’t lost the right to decide its own future.
I got an idea AKD. Why don’t we all just get rid of every business, fend for ourselves and let the government give us our money. Wouldn’t that be great?
48. No, BonBon, that would be stupid. How about we get rid of the minimum wage, youth labor laws, all environmental regulation, and monopoly restrictions and give big business free reign.
Why don’t you think before you write?
49, She does think, but you don’t! AKD, you aren’t a professor in a classroom. We do not conform to your rules. Why are you so stupid? Is it that you are so frustrated with the lack of control and power you have in rela life that you come here to exact somesort of revenge?
AKD, you add very little to any debate except for lefty snarkiness.
Thanks PCD. Some of these lefties just go on and on making no sense whatsoever. I often think anarchy is what they are shooting for.
50, 51.
Neither of you ever develop an argument. I can only conclude that you’re too stupid to be capable. Sad.
52. Hate speech? So sad. But you see it’s not that we can’t develop an argument, it’s that you simply refuse to look at the other side. Things are never just one sided. Liberals such as you prove that they are the most close minded individuals around. If you don’t agree you shut us out.
53, BonBon, hate speech by a homosexual advocate means that you disagreed with them and they can’t refute you.
I, for one, am tired of AKD’s crap. How far does he have to go before he gets the same timeout shitto got?
I’ve thought of the same thing. No matter what argument any of us have put forth it’s rebuffed with long diatribes and links to liberal biased sources. I used to see the same kind of thing at the university. The refusal to acknowledge they could be wrong. We also see it in the leadership and no matter that the polls are showing their approval rating as low as Bush they don’t get it that it wasn’t about the Iraq war.
Hate speech? So sad.
Calling you stupid (besides being true) is not hate speech. Look it up, moron.
But you see it’s not that we can’t develop an argument, it’s that you simply refuse to look at the other side.
Show me one “argument” you’ve developed (that is, a carefully reasoned progression from premises to conclusion). Let’s have it.
56, AKD, you aren’t a professor, and this IS NOT YOUR CLASSROOM. If you can’t behave, you’ll have to leave. You have no right to order ANYONE around.
I’ve simply made an observation: You’re too dumb to develop an argument. You just keep proving me right, stupid.
58, no, gay bait, you are making demands not observations. You are a jerk, and saying that maligns all jerks in hte world. All you are here for is to pick fights. You can stuff all the other crap as you are trying to bully BonBon over the Internet. I’m not going to let that happen, bozo.
I can make damn good argument when I’m motivated. You, punk, do not motivate me.
Thanks PCD….sometimes I’m utterly tongue tied by people like AKD.
60, BonBon, that is what cretins like AKD count on. They have to feed their superiority complex and they also project their faults upon others. I really think AKD is a closet homosexual who is in dire need of a shrink, a straightjacket, and a rubber room.
59. Gay bait?
I guess now I understand why you can’t develop a coherent argument, PCD—you’re some fat little sixteen year old sitting at his computer trying to sound tough. This explains why you have so little to say: You still have a lot of “growing up” to do. Listen, go outside, ride your bike. You’ll lose a few pounds and the other kids will quit picking on you. 
No need to thank me. The advice is free.