In terms of criminal liability, that's a matter for the police and the courts. In terms of moral liability - yes, they should be held accountable.

 

Let me ask you this - if you say to friend A that you don't like person B and your friend then beats B up, are you, at least in part, accountable for that? I certainly would feel guilty in that situation.

 

Rob

I dont really think so. I didn't like Saddam Hussain, but that doesn't mean i was responsible for his hanging. I don't like Jeff Gordon, but I don't feel responsible for the beer cans that are thrown at him. People have to use common sense, and we have free speech in this country.

As an Australian, I have not experienced what Jerry Falwell may have done or influenced. However, the essential point that I believe Nick is saying, I agree with.

 

The man is dead. He has a family and friends who loved him (I believe). At this point in time, when they are grieving, it is unkind and inconsiderate to be denigrating him. He was denigrated while he was alive and he'll be denigrated in the future -- let's leave a window open out of respect for a human being who lived, loved and died.

Thank You Graeme

Nick, you didn't like Saddam Hussein, but you didn't preach hatred towards him. You didn't give people moral empowerment to take his life. You didn't say anything to further inflate the feelings of anger and hatred people already had for him. And even if you did, you're not in a position to influence the beliefs or behaviours of others.

This man positioned himself as a voice of moral authority. He had people who followed his preachings. He may not have been responsible the first time someone was beaten or killed because of his words, but by continuing to use increasingly inflammatory words it was clear that he wasn't exactly condemning that action. He knew that when he spoke, people listened. He knew that people were likely being beaten or killed because of his teachings. He continued to teach.

If he had been a Muslim and Christians were being beaten or killed because of his words he would have spent a considerable amount of time in jail in America.

Nick, you didn't like Saddam Hussein, but you didn't preach hatred towards him. You didn't give people moral empowerment to take his life. You didn't say anything to further inflate the feelings of anger and hatred people already had for him. And even if you did, you're not in a position to influence the beliefs or behaviours of others.

 

This man positioned himself as a voice of moral authority. He had people who followed his preachings. He may not have been responsible the first time someone was beaten or killed because of his words, but by continuing to use increasingly inflammatory words it was clear that he wasn't exactly condemning that action. He knew that when he spoke, people listened. He knew that people were likely being beaten or killed because of his teachings. He continued to teach.

 

If he had been a Muslim and Christians were being beaten or killed because of his words he would have spent a considerable amount of time in jail in America.

I don't know about that, Rob...Louis Farrakan hasn't been to prison yet, and he incites hatred and violence against whites and Jews on the regular. So do Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Believe me, if there was something the government could have nailed him on, they would have.

I know you weren't CJ....and I know what you mean about what he seemed to stand for. I was just making a point that if we as a community expect to be able to demonize people like Falwell and Phelps, then we have to hold ourselves to a higher standard. I can't even begin to imagine what Falwell's family must be going through right now. Not only did he pass suddenly, but they're having to watch and listen as people gloat and celebrate like lunatics about this. I mean, we should be able to rise above what we hated about Falwell.

The "standards" issue is why I feel it's bad to celebrate Falwell's death; If we do so we are, in essence, doing what we accuse him of.

On the other hand, when (hopefully soon) Fred Phelps kicks the bucket, I will indeed celebrate, due to the different nature of his behavior. (Much as I'd celebrate if Osama Bin Laden ate a missile).

As for rising above the hatred, that's a two-edged sword. I'm sure the friends and relatives of the thousands who died on 9-11 really appreciated Falwell using the deaths of their loved ones to blame gays and feminists. In other words, I certainly won't be doing it myself (and disagree with it) I can sure understand why so many are celebrating Falwell's death. He bought it on himself, via his own actions and words.

I don't know about that, Rob...Louis Farrakan hasn't been to prison yet, and he incites hatred and violence against whites and Jews on the regular. So do Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Believe me, if there was something the government could have nailed him on, they would have.

Nick,

Please recognise the difference between legal culpability and moral culpability. He may not have been legally culpable for his words, but there is little doubt that he was certainly morally culpable. Further, I guarantee that several law enforcement agencies would have been investigating him had he been a Muslim spouting hatred against Christians, all of them desperately searching for a way to shut him up and put him away. However, he was just another homophobe, so why go to all the effort of looking too closely at his words and actions.

I'm not sure if I believe in Heaven or Hell, but if they do exist then he's certainly headed for the latter - and if he somehow makes it into Heaven then it's not a Heaven I want to go to.

Rob

I know you weren't CJ....and I know what you mean about what he seemed to stand for. I was just making a point that if we as a community expect to be able to demonize people like Falwell and Phelps, then we have to hold ourselves to a higher standard. I can't even begin to imagine what Falwell's family must be going through right now. Not only did he pass suddenly, but they're having to watch and listen as people gloat and celebrate like lunatics about this. I mean, we should be able to rise above what we hated about Falwell.

 

The "standards" issue is why I feel it's bad to celebrate Falwell's death; If we do so we are, in essence, doing what we accuse him of.

On the other hand, when (hopefully soon) Fred Phelps kicks the bucket, I will indeed celebrate, due to the different nature of his behavior. (Much as I'd celebrate if Osama Bin Laden ate a missile).

 

As for rising above the hatred, that's a two-edged sword. I'm sure the friends and relatives of the thousands who died on 9-11 really appreciated Falwell using the deaths of their loved ones to blame gays and feminists. In other words, I certainly won't be doing it myself (and disagree with it) I can sure understand why so many are celebrating Falwell's death. He bought it on himself, via his own actions and words.

True, to a degree, but we can do so much better than the example he set.

I don't know about that, Rob...Louis Farrakan hasn't been to prison yet, and he incites hatred and violence against whites and Jews on the regular. So do Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Believe me, if there was something the government could have nailed him on, they would have.

 

Nick,

 

Please recognise the difference between legal culpability and moral culpability. He may not have been legally culpable for his words, but there is little doubt that he was certainly morally culpable. Further, I guarantee that several law enforcement agencies would have been investigating him had he been a Muslim spouting hatred against Christians, all of them desperately searching for a way to shut him up and put him away. However, he was just another homophobe, so why go to all the effort of looking too closely at his words and actions.

 

I'm not sure if I believe in Heaven or Hell, but if they do exist then he's certainly headed for the latter - and if he somehow makes it into Heaven then it's not a Heaven I want to go to.

 

Rob

I understand the difference between legal and moral, and if that's the case, he has something to answer for. But I don't think it's fair to say that he should be held accountable for the actions of people who took his sermons and made them out to be what they wanted them to be. Unless he said, even in a round about way, to kill or bash gays, then he isn't morally responsible beyond the fact that he misrepresented the word of God by saying that gays weren't accepted.

He is if he didn't condemn the actions of those who followed his words and preach that violence is wrong. He preached hatred, gave people the moral authority to express that hatred and did nothing to condemn those actions other than, on occasion, to distance himself. If you pull the pin from a hand-grenade and let it go, you've got to expect an explosion. He pulled the pins and then stood back to watch the results.

He is if he didn't condemn the actions of those who followed his words and preach that violence is wrong. He preached hatred, gave people the moral authority to express that hatred and did nothing to condemn those actions other than, on occasion, to distance himself. If you pull the pin from a hand-grenade and let it go, you've got to expect an explosion. He pulled the pins and then stood back to watch the results.

But that goes back to individual responsibility...I still haven't seen any instance where he said it was okay to be violent against gays. I agree that he was irresponsible with his words, but a lot of people are. Would you say the same is true of people who call President Bush a murderer and a Nazi? A lot of them have very public platforms. If something happens to him, heaven forbid, would you say that those people are morally culpable? I don't.

But that goes back to individual responsibility...I still haven't seen any instance where he said it was okay to be violent against gays. I agree that he was irresponsible with his words, but a lot of people are. Would you say the same is true of people who call President Bush a murderer and a Nazi? A lot of them have very public platforms. If something happens to him, heaven forbid, would you say that those people are morally culpable? I don't.

Nick, it's very different. He stood before his congregation - people who relied on him to preach the word of God - and preached hatred towards specific groups. As a result of his words, some of his congregation felt morally empowered to take action. They assaulted and killed because they believed that he was telling them that it was acceptable in the eyes of God for them to do so. If he didn't want them to hold that belief he could easily have condemned their actions, spoken out against the violence, preached hating the sin but loving the sinner. He didn't. He preached hatred and his words led to violence.

A lot of people have public platforms, yes, but how many of them are aware that people are turning to violence as a result of their words? How many of them are endorsing that violence by continuing to preach the same words without preaching against violence? He brought misery to countless innocent people. He exploited situations such as 9/11 to further promote hatred knowing that a situation as emotive as that one would almost certainly provoke violence - people were looking for someone to blame and he offered them targets.

His words went beyond being merely irresponsible - they were evil. He was a vile, vicious, hate-filled man and the only thing that saddens me about his death is that his legacy of hatred will live on and, in time, others will step up to take his place. I can only hope that he is now paying for the suffering he brought to others.

But that goes back to individual responsibility...I still haven't seen any instance where he said it was okay to be violent against gays. I agree that he was irresponsible with his words, but a lot of people are. Would you say the same is true of people who call President Bush a murderer and a Nazi? A lot of them have very public platforms. If something happens to him, heaven forbid, would you say that those people are morally culpable? I don't.

 

Nick, it's very different. He stood before his congregation - people who relied on him to preach the word of God - and preached hatred towards specific groups. As a result of his words, some of his congregation felt morally empowered to take action. They assaulted and killed because they believed that he was telling them that it was acceptable in the eyes of God for them to do so. If he didn't want them to hold that belief he could easily have condemned their actions, spoken out against the violence, preached hating the sin but loving the sinner. He didn't. He preached hatred and his words led to violence.

 

A lot of people have public platforms, yes, but how many of them are aware that people are turning to violence as a result of their words? How many of them are endorsing that violence by continuing to preach the same words without preaching against violence? He brought misery to countless innocent people. He exploited situations such as 9/11 to further promote hatred knowing that a situation as emotive as that one would almost certainly provoke violence - people were looking for someone to blame and he offered them targets.

 

His words went beyond being merely irresponsible - they were evil. He was a vile, vicious, hate-filled man and the only thing that saddens me about his death is that his legacy of hatred will live on and, in time, others will step up to take his place. I can only hope that he is now paying for the suffering he brought to others.

Are you sure that members of his congregation committed hate crimes? Is there some kind of record of this? Maybe some people who saw him on TV did so, but again, Keith Oberman preaches hate against President Bush and Senators and Congressmen and Women do the same. They have committed viewers, too and people who hang on their every word. So do Rush Limbaugh and Shawn Hannitty. They preach hate against Democrats all the time. Would you call all of them evil too? Or are they just saying what they really feel? I agree that Falwell's comments against gays were unforgivable, but he's not responsible for another's actions.

Are you sure that members of his congregation committed hate crimes? Is there some kind of record of this? Maybe some people who saw him on TV did so, but again, Keith Oberman preaches hate against President Bush and Senators and Congressmen and Women do the same. They have committed viewers, too and people who hang on their every word. So do Rush Limbaugh and Shawn Hannitty. They preach hate against Democrats all the time. Would you call all of them evil too? Or are they just saying what they really feel? I agree that Falwell's comments against gays were unforgivable, but he's not responsible for another's actions.

Tell me - with those people you're talking about who also preach hatred - how many of the people who follow their words have killed as a result? How many of them have gone out and tried to beat up President Bush? If there is a possibility that one might have and they've continued saying the same things then they are just as bad.

However, there is a big difference between a television personality or an entertainer talking about how a specific individual is deserving of hatred and a person in a position of religious authority preaching hatred against groups and citing religious quotations to support their views. Preachers are so called because they preach the word of God. When you listen to a preacher and he tells you that God hates gays, that gays deserve to suffer, that gays are responsible for a multitude of sins, you are perverting that person's religious beliefs to your own ends. You are inciting them to hatred.

It is naive to think that if you preach hatred from the pulpit that the people who hear your words will not feel justified in their own hatred and empowered to act upon it. No, he didn't force anyone to violently beat or murder anyone else. No, he didn't order murders or beatings. He did, however, provide the moral justification for those beatings and murders and did not, as any responsible person should, preach against violence when he had good reason to believe that his words might possibly be at least a factor in said beatings or murders.

This isn't about a man endorsing crimes or inciting crimes - it's about a man preaching hatred that likely resulted in crimes and doing nothing to counter the negative effects of his words. For that he is deserving of scorn and disgust.

I agree with your last statement to a degree....if that's how someone feels, then fine. But it's tasteless to gloat over his death....the original point of my blog entry

I agree with your last statement to a degree....if that's how someone feels, then fine. But it's tasteless to gloat over his death....the original point of my blog entry

I completely agree with you - but nor should it be implied that his death is a cause for mourning. I feel sympathy for his family, but nothing more than that.

I agree with your last statement to a degree....if that's how someone feels, then fine. But it's tasteless to gloat over his death....the original point of my blog entry

 

I completely agree with you - but nor should it be implied that his death is a cause for mourning. I feel sympathy for his family, but nothing more than that.

I think it's a cause for mourning for his family and friends. Unfortunately, they have to see the ugly side of people who have no respect for what they're going through right now

Though I don't really feel like rejoicing or mourning, I doubt the sincere sympathy from the "gay community" would deeply touch his family. Let us not argue over this bigot, that's what he would have loved!

Though I don't really feel like rejoicing or mourning, I doubt the sincere sympathy from the "gay community" would deeply touch his family. Let us not argue over this bigot, that's what he would have loved!

I don't thnk sympathy is necesarry either, unless someone actually feels it. I just don't want to see people lowering themselves to the level of gloating and cheering for his death, because that also gives him what he would have wanted.

I honestly think that people get what they deserve. Falwell's verbal gay bashing and the like warrants such behavior. I don't think its low or cold in heart to act the way that "this person" has. I think its a natural reaction and an honest one. People are free to have opinions of other people in life and in death. So what if its perceived as low. If Falwell can say people with aids deserved it or gay friendly ministries will be anhialated and sent to hell along with all of what they accepted. I think that deserves a comment just a cold - you get treated according to your own actions or speech.

Its not exactly what he wants - he doesn't want anything he's dead. There's nothing left of him other than his extreme views guided by a clouded way to be what is called Christian. Also, his family has been hearing it ever since he became part of the public. They have fallen under that kind of scrutiny - maybe you should care about what they've went through while he was alive. It can't be any worse than after his death.

The liklihood of Falwell's family reading a GA blog is also slim so I think you're blowing the comments made way out of proportion.

Krista

Buh-bye

I have some thoughts on this. The main one is that everyone is over-simplifying their characterizations of him. Of course it's ridiculous to say he was "evil" and leave it at that. It's just as ridiculous to say he was "good" and stop there. "Good" and "Evil" seldom, if ever, exist in pure forms in every day life. Regardless of how politically correct/popular, or how maligned someone is, the truth is if they were that successful, chances are they'd grown to believe their own message.

I have little doubt that Hitler and Bin Laden and any other name you care to mention did/do believe that they were/are accomplishing some good. Of course I don't agree with them, and of course I and, most people it seems, think that they're very wrong, but that's all irrelevant. The point is they probably believe(d) it. You're not evil (by any definition I'd use anyway) if you believe your actions to be at least partly good. Thus I'd never presume anyone past, present, or future "evil" with the exception of Satan. I'd believe this regardless of a religious belief system. The point, in my mind, is that morality is not objective, and nothing is ever black and white, it is instead objective and relative.

Anyway my purpose is not to compare Falwell to Hitler or any other traditionally percieved "evil" person, but to instead point out that I think it's a jump to label anyone as evil, and certainly a jump to label someone who so obviously had powerful beliefs about the goodness of his mission (regardless of whether or not it was actually "good") as "evil".

That said however, he was an extremist, and extremists of any kind are generally subject to both more praise and more castigation. Personally I find extremism and absolutism to be highly dangerous as well as distasteful. I of course happen to think that his rhetoric on gays and equal rights was completely screwed up and awful. I agree that much of the "bad" that happened can indeed be linked to his words. I also happen to think that in order for society to advance (at least in the direction that I want it to) people like him definitely do need to die off. Indeed as soon as I found out about his passing I pondered the very same thing "good, that whole closed-minded, absolutist bunch need to die out so that gradually their message will be silenced."

That's not to say that I think any of them are "evil". All I'm willing to say is that I disagree with them and that I'm pulling for me and my side. Thus, from a purely logical, cold, rational stand point of course I want them removed one way or the other, and I certainly won't cry if they go out peacefully of natural causes at an advanced age. I'd have thought it distasteful to go around rejoicing too, but make no mistake I'm glad that one more hinderence has been removed from my agenda.

With regards to Falwell I'm (very slightly) conflicted anyway. As Nick pointed out he led many people to God, and my personal beliefs are in line with seeing that as a good thing. However, I find that (according to my view) his social positions were much more destructive and the "good" he did could have been accomplished in a different way or by someone else entirely.

Who's to say my opinions, beliefs, and agenda are "good"? Well I am of course, but from a detached perspective I certainly wouldn't think it fair for me to use my own opinion as support for the virtue of...my own opinion. "Good" and "evil" just aren't boxes you can neatly place people in. However, Falwell was an enemy to my views and while I wouldn't be so condescending as to assume that, from a detached perspective, my views are any more or less noble than his, I definitely am glad that one more enemy is gone.

Though I don't really feel like rejoicing or mourning, I doubt the sincere sympathy from the "gay community" would deeply touch his family.

Yes, exactly! Of course he and his family couldn't care less what a bunch of gays think, in the same way that I couldn't care less what a bunch of socially conservative, fundamentalists think. To me their whole view on life is so alien, and disagreeable that frankly their opinion just doesn't matter. And I have no doubt that they feel the same about us.

I'd also like to point out that I think it's a bit unlikely that they're even recieving a very notable amount of flax (and as I said the opinions of those saying it shouldn't matter to them in the first place). I would think that their congregation is flocking around them and offering plenty of support, and that the majority of detractors are being tasteful and keeping their mouths shut. Besides, lets face it for all their frequent cries of being persecuted the conservative, Christian movement is alot larger, stronger, and more cohesive than the gay community.

I honestly think that people get what they deserve. Falwell's verbal gay bashing and the like warrants such behavior. I don't think its low or cold in heart to act the way that "this person" has. I think its a natural reaction and an honest one. People are free to have opinions of other people in life and in death. So what if its perceived as low. If Falwell can say people with aids deserved it or gay friendly ministries will be anhialated and sent to hell along with all of what they accepted. I think that deserves a comment just a cold - you get treated according to your own actions or speech.

Exactly again! Regardless of whether or not I agree with the criticism or the way it's vented, and for the record I definitely disagree with the majority of the criticism I've read on here and similar sources, I definitely think that it comes with the territory plain and simple. If you're going to be a very public, very adament extremist of any kind you're GOING to recieve harsh, often inaccurate criticism, and while I think it's unfair and tasteless, and won't be doing it myself, I definitely think that comes with the game.

SO:

-I don't think he was "evil"

-I think he meant well and did some "good"

-I strongly disagreed with his social stances

-I'm glad his threat is gone

-I do think it's tasteless to rejoice and won't be doing it myself

-I don't think our opinions do, or should, matter to him (if he were still alive) or his family

-I think it's perfectly acceptable and expectable that some people WILL be harsh, mean, and tasteless given the extreme and public nature of his character.

Just my long-winded opinion

Take care and have a great day all,

Kevin

P.S. I really respected the way you presented your opinions, Nick. I thought it was extremely sensible, and very kind and compassionate. It's a great pity that others aren't as thoughtful and caring.

Though I don't really feel like rejoicing or mourning, I doubt the sincere sympathy from the "gay community" would deeply touch his family. Let us not argue over this bigot, that's what he would have loved!

Salut Fran

You have to remember that, although the American "founding fathers" understood about the need to keep religion separate from government, a large percentage of the people who actually settled the U.S. back in the 1600s-1700s were religious refugees. Some were more moderate and tolerant, such as the Quakers, and some were Catholics from southern Europe. However, a great many were Huguenots (from France), Palatines (from Germany), and other Calvinist Protestant types, who were the ancestors of today's American religious fundamentalists.

I mean "ancestors" metaphorically as well as literally. It's not much of an exaggeration to say that the majority of today's Americans have some of those people in their family trees somewhere. Although most Americans may not hold those specific fundamentalist religious beliefs, the underlying cultural and psychological traits have carried through to America's current, mostly-unconscious belief system: judgmentalness, shame, a certain harsh approach to oneself and others, deep feelings of not being worthy, that life means working your butt off for very little and that's all you deserve ... and especially a very uneasy relationship with sexuality and death. It is a very fear-based way of living.

Thus, the strong religiosity that Americans display does not astonish me at all. And by "religiosity", I don't mean being spiritual and adhering sincerely to the way of life taught by one's religion; I am referring to an overall sentimental attitude toward things religious.

(And I have also been told by my European and UK friends that Americans are an incredibly sentimental bunch of people anyway. Sentimentality makes for a certain mental and emotional weakness on the part of people who function that way.)

Kitty

Thus, the strong religiosity that Americans display does not astonish me at all. (Americans are an incredibly sentimental bunch of people anyway. Sentimentality makes for a certain mental and emotional weakness on the part of people who function that way.) Kitty

Wow Kitty You are a very clever person !. I quite agree with you about the reasons you evoke. Through the forums and the stories of GA, I learnt to better understand and appreciate the feelings of my friends in USA. My comment was just the expression of my amazement. Its funny that I found the same religiosity and sentimentality in a lot of the stories, for instance how DK describe the life of Davey as the son of a preacher in DO.

And as a liberal Jew, who had to fight against the jewish fondamentalists in his early life (I married a christian !) not to talk about homophobia, I always appreciate your wise way to answer my often aggressive comments.