...the American "founding fathers" understood about the need to keep religion separate from government

Europe had made the mistake of mixing religion and politics since the first city states. The Protestant VS Catholic scrimmages in Central Europe dominated that continents history for centuries. When they had a war, it was a real hate-fest: the First War, the Second war, the Third War, the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, the Fourth through the Eighth Wars, the Thirty Years War, the Hundred Years War and so on. Only in recent decades have we seen an easing of tensions in Northern Ireland which is a relic of those long, sorry conflicts.

Some scholars say that Islam mixes some of the worst aspects of religion and politics into the cultist, xenophobic, militant mess that tolerates no rivals from Algeria to the Philippines.

One of the reasons that America works is that religion and politics have been fundamentally disconnected and that the power of goverenment can not be used to oppress nonbelievers or infidels (in theory). Seperation of church and state has been one of the prime factors that has lead to the long term stability and prosperity that the United States has enjoyed.

Almost everywhere else in the world different religious factions constantly struggle for economic, military and cultural dominance. Nowhere else in the world is this better illustrated by the current situation in Iraq. In the absence of a strong, central power like Saddam who killed thousands to keep order, Iraq has decendended into anarchy with fighting along religious (Sunni, Shia) and ethnic (Kurdish) lines with a dozen smaller factions that go with the flow.

Starting during the Industrial revolution, the Western Democracies (or countries that were headed that way) have all followed the lead of the US and have become more and more tolerant of minority religions. Religious tolerance has become a cornerstone of democracy and a hallmark of an advanced and prosperous culture.

In the 1980s when Falwell and his followers began to make noises about making America "a Christian Nation" again, educated people everywhere saw this as populust pablum and potentially a huge step backwards.

The United States has never been a Christian nation. In fact, unless we bastardize the constution (which seems to be fashionable), the United States was specifically designed from the very beginning NOT to be a Christian nation.

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

You say that people get what they deserve, and I can see your point, but let's look ahead...

When it's time for one of the people who are at this moment openly spewing hatred and celebrating the death of another human being, will they deserve the same thing? If someone celebrates their death, will it be okay because they did it when Falwell died? We can't expect what we aren't willing to give up.

 

Buh-bye

James,

I'm sure that this post was made in a moment of poor judgement, so I'll overlook it and look for something more intellegent from you down the list from here.

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.

 

I can understand why they'd feel that way, Kevin, but it really brings down the entire gay community when someone acts that way. That's my opinion, anyway

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

I wonder what our world would be like if there was no religion. A lot of people say it would be a better place for us all, but I definitely don't agree with that. I call myself a Christian, and I know that there's people all over the world who feel like Christianity is evil. There's a lot of Christians who call Islam the evil religion.

Personally, I don't think Islam is evil, and I certainly don't think that Christianity is evil by any means. I do agree that there are evil Christians and evil Muslims, or at least evil people who claim to be those things. I also think there are a lot of people in our government who feed off of religious groups and feed them a lot of BS in return.

I'd definitely like to see religion and government seperated completely, but as long as there's a Christian voter base, politicians on both sides are going to cater to them and impose values on others that might not have those same beliefs.

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.

As a liberal Christian (Baptist no less) I know I'm going to be in for a long hard fight, too. :2hands:

...the American "founding fathers" understood about the need to keep religion separate from government

 

Europe had made the mistake of mixing religion and politics since the first city states. The Protestant VS Catholic scrimmages in Central Europe dominated that continents history for centuries. When they had a war, it was a real hate-fest: the First War, the Second war, the Third War, the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, the Fourth through the Eighth Wars, the Thirty Years War, the Hundred Years War and so on. Only in recent decades have we seen an easing of tensions in Northern Ireland which is a relic of those long, sorry conflicts.

 

Some scholars say that Islam mixes some of the worst aspects of religion and politics into the cultist, xenophobic, militant mess that tolerates no rivals from Algeria to the Philippines.

 

One of the reasons that America works is that religion and politics have been fundamentally disconnected and that the power of goverenment can not be used to oppress nonbelievers or infidels (in theory). Seperation of church and state has been one of the prime factors that has lead to the long term stability and prosperity that the United States has enjoyed.

 

Almost everywhere else in the world different religious factions constantly struggle for economic, military and cultural dominance. Nowhere else in the world is this better illustrated by the current situation in Iraq. In the absence of a strong, central power like Saddam who killed thousands to keep order, Iraq has decendended into anarchy with fighting along religious (Sunni, Shia) and ethnic (Kurdish) lines with a dozen smaller factions that go with the flow.

 

Starting during the Industrial revolution, the Western Democracies (or countries that were headed that way) have all followed the lead of the US and have become more and more tolerant of minority religions. Religious tolerance has become a cornerstone of democracy and a hallmark of an advanced and prosperous culture.

 

In the 1980s when Falwell and his followers began to make noises about making America "a Christian Nation" again, educated people everywhere saw this as populust pablum and potentially a huge step backwards.

 

The United States has never been a Christian nation. In fact, unless we bastardize the constution (which seems to be fashionable), the United States was specifically designed from the very beginning NOT to be a Christian nation.

Good thing we aren't a Democracy. We'd be under the law of the Holy Bible by now if we were I don't mind living by those laws in my personal life, but I'd never want to impose them on others.

Yo! Nick

How does the saying go. The road to hell is paved with good intention.

Now as a self proclaimed atheist I don

But we have to ask ourselves how all of that hatred does anything for us, besides, as you say, consume us. I'm sorry to sound like the bad guy here, but if I want to hold guys like Robertson, Falwell and Fred Phelps accountable for their actions, don't I have the obligation to exist on a high plane than they do? So far, all I've seen out of people in this community is the same kind of behavior they love to bitch about when they see it on display from the radical right. That makes it really hard for me to take anything they say seriously, and it really makes me wonder what's really in people's hearts.

Maybe what we're really saying is we're happy we don't have to listen to him anymore.

I'm not sure but I don't think that anyone said they wished him dead.

I don't think anyone said his death was gods retribution for all the nutball things he said.

I do believe that most of us are pretty tired of it though, I know I was.

So when I say that I'm not sorry he gone I'm really talking about the awful things he said about me,

and you, and other fine people he didn't know.

Will I forgive him? There is nothing to forgive, lets be real, he was a foolish old man that said hurtful things, nothing more nothing less.

Maybe what we're really saying is we're happy we don't have to listen to him anymore.I'm not sure but I don't think that anyone said they wished him dead.

I don't think anyone said his death was gods retribution for all the nutball things he said.

I do believe that most of us are pretty tired of it though, I know I was.

So when I say that I'm not sorry he gone I'm really talking about the awful things he said about me,

and you, and other fine people he didn't know.

 

Will I forgive him? There is nothing to forgive, lets be real, he was a foolish old man that said hurtful things, nothing more nothing less.

That might be what people are saying, but if you read other blog entries, that sentiment has been eclipsed by vile hate speech expressing joy at his passing.

Not only have some people on this website wished him dead, but they also wished Pat Robertson dead. I'll happily send you the link to prove my point.

I agree with that statement, but they still gloated about a mans death.

All you had to do was ignore him. I mean, everyone already knew all about him and the crazy things he said. No one in the media took him seriously anymore. Did you still take him seriously?

I don't deny that he said awful things about a lot of people, but that doesn't mean we have to lower ourselves to his level. That's exactly what a lot of people did.

If that's how you feel, then that's fine. I think it's healthier to forgive someone than it is to hold in to the bitterness forever, but that's a personal choice. I can definitely see how that would help a lot of members of this site, though.

The thing that gets me is that we're talking about a man who isn't living anymore. He died. He stopped breathing. How can anyone take enjoyment in knowing that his life ended? We're all living, breathing people. It's nonsensical that people on this board or anywhere in our society can be so hatefilled and angry that they'd celebrate the end of another man's life. I'm definitely more dissapointed in some than others, but in the end, I guess we all have to live with ourselves and our actions.

Hey

Maybe what was said was out of honesty? It is honest and rational to say things like that. That could have been in an heightened emotional state of mind. To wonder if what they said came from the heart isn't for you to say or for you to condemn them for. When you start defining what is beneath or above your moral code of living it comes across as being a personal attack or preachy.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't enjoy people rejoicing over someone's death probably about as much as you do, but I won't condemn them or think lowly of them for doing so. As I see it as nothing more as an honest expression for a person who they felt personally attacked by every time he opened his mouth. I think expressing your opnion is fine as long as you can look the other direction and not put others people down when they do the same, wait until you can step away from what was said and discuss it with a level head. Sometimes your posts and the posts of others here didn't seem that way. Even my own post could be looked at as being dripping with hate for Jerry Falwell.

Krista

Hey

 

Maybe what was said was out of honesty? It is honest and rational to say things like that. That could have been in an heightened emotional state of mind. To wonder if what they said came from the heart isn't for you to say or for you to condemn them for. When you start defining what is beneath or above your moral code of living it comes across as being a personal attack or preachy.

 

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't enjoy people rejoicing over someone's death probably about as much as you do, but I won't condemn them or think lowly of them for doing so. As I see it as nothing more as an honest expression for a person who they felt personally attacked by every time he opened his mouth. I think expressing your opnion is fine as long as you can look the other direction and not put others people down when they do the same, wait until you can step away from what was said and discuss it with a level head. Sometimes your posts and the posts of others here didn't seem that way. Even my own post could be looked at as being dripping with hate for Jerry Falwell.

Krista

I see what you're saying, Krista, but the same people act disgusted when someone like Fred Phelps and his family do it. How can they expect to be taken seriously when they say Phelps and his group are evil if they've done the exact same thing? I don't see it as being preachy...I see it as being realistic. I think lowly of Fred Phelps for what he does, I thought lowly of Falwell's opinions and I don't think Pat Robertson has admirable views of gays and womens rights, but that's where it stops. When we start doing the things we demonize others for, it makes us just as bad, and I'm not giving a free pass to anyone who does it, friend or not.

But we have to ask ourselves how all of that hatred does anything for us, besides, as you say, consume us. I'm sorry to sound like the bad guy here, but if I want to hold guys like Robertson, Falwell and Fred Phelps accountable for their actions, don't I have the obligation to exist on a high plane than they do? So far, all I've seen out of people in this community is the same kind of behavior they love to bitch about when they see it on display from the radical right. That makes it really hard for me to take anything they say seriously, and it really makes me wonder what's really in people's hearts.

I didn't read people's reactions in your thread the same way you do. Not leaving oneself consumed by hatred doesn't mean that you have to stand patiently that these conservative/ bigots/ whatever-you-deem-good-to-label-them-as' hearts change. I don't rejoice over anybody's death (plus I doubt dying of a heart attack at 73 is a sure sign of God's hand punishing the wicked), but standing up to them and having an in the face approach don't mean you let yourself being eaten by hatred. And trying to exist on a higher moral plane as those you disagree with is a noble ambition, but that leaves room for humor (I'm thinking of James' Teletubbies joke) and detachment. If in the end, once we die too, we may have made a few changes so the world is a better place FOR ALL, I think it will have been worth it. (Yeah, I was a boy scout and church-goer; it leaves some imprint ...)

Nick, I'd have to say that you're looking at it from a traditional Christian point of view, and for the most part, I completely agree with you. I personally believe that when you die, all sins/wrongdoings have been paid for. I take no pleasure in rejoicing in his death, as it is not for us to judge him. But we have to remember the people who are celebrating arent looking at it through the Christian perspective.

I'm not mourning his death, but personally i dont really feel any grief for his family. i'm sure they're going through a rough time, and the people who are celebrating certainly dont help things, but me personally, i didnt pay that much attention to him when he was alive, so i cant say im crying over his death.

I will say that I'm glad that he cant spread any more hate, but i agree he did do some good for his people.

Will there be others of his kind? yes, of course. there will always be people who hate, and i'm sure his hate message DID inspire others to hate as well. But, the people who do already had the predisposition to hate in the first place. he may have lighted the fire, but if he hadnt, someone else would have.

I dont know if all that makes sense, but i wanted to put in my two cents, and let you know you arent alone in your thinking.

Rereading my reply as I check wrathofmagneto's one, I think it is confused, so I'll go with unrelated statements, which may be as confusing in the end, but intended to be less so.

*You may disagree with people's acts or thoughts without hating them.

*Arguing/ fighting cannot be avoided to be on a higher moral plane It also brings improvements.

*In-the-face rhetoric can be used by good people.

*Humor can be seen as disdain; often it is a way to tell things, which is better than grabbing a gun from a traditional moral point of view.

*Whether or not there is an afterlife, it's what is done on this earth that counts for mankind.

yes, of course. there will always be people who hate, and i'm sure his hate message DID inspire others to hate as well. But, the people who do already had the predisposition to hate in the first place. he may have lighted the fire, but if he hadnt, someone else would have.

Not absolutely certain that I agree with this. The fact that we would be innately evil or good... Nah. Being brought up in a rhetoric of hatred helps a lot to become hateful. We all have to make choices at some point.

OK, I'll come down from the pulpit now.

But we have to ask ourselves how all of that hatred does anything for us, besides, as you say, consume us. I'm sorry to sound like the bad guy here, but if I want to hold guys like Robertson, Falwell and Fred Phelps accountable for their actions, don't I have the obligation to exist on a high plane than they do? So far, all I've seen out of people in this community is the same kind of behavior they love to bitch about when they see it on display from the radical right. That makes it really hard for me to take anything they say seriously, and it really makes me wonder what's really in people's hearts.

I didn't read people's reactions in your thread the same way you do. Not leaving oneself consumed by hatred doesn't mean that you have to stand patiently that these conservative/ bigots/ whatever-you-deem-good-to-label-them-as' hearts change. I don't rejoice over anybody's death (plus I doubt dying of a heart attack at 73 is a sure sign of God's hand punishing the wicked), but standing up to them and having an in the face approach don't mean you let yourself being eaten by hatred. And trying to exist on a higher moral plane as those you disagree with is a noble ambition, but that leaves room for humor (I'm thinking of James' Teletubbies joke) and detachment. If in the end, once we die too, we may have made a few changes so the world is a better place FOR ALL, I think it will have been worth it. (Yeah, I was a boy scout and church-goer; it leaves some imprint ...)

I think that this was one of the best replies in this entire thread. I definitely agree with your assertion that standing up to hate and having an in the face approach doesn't mean that someone's consumed with hatred, but in my opinion, it's almost impossible to say that anyone rejoicing in Falwell's passing was standing up to him. As Eric so eloquently stated in an earlier post, he's not here. He's dead, so the point is moot.

But, we're still here, and there are those who judge our every action. Not that I think other people's opinion of us should be the impetus behind doing the right thing. We should always strive for that standard, because as you said, we have a roll in making this a better place for ALL.

Nick, I'd have to say that you're looking at it from a traditional Christian point of view, and for the most part, I completely agree with you. I personally believe that when you die, all sins/wrongdoings have been paid for. I take no pleasure in rejoicing in his death, as it is not for us to judge him. But we have to remember the people who are celebrating arent looking at it through the Christian perspective.

 

I'm not mourning his death, but personally i dont really feel any grief for his family. i'm sure they're going through a rough time, and the people who are celebrating certainly dont help things, but me personally, i didnt pay that much attention to him when he was alive, so i cant say im crying over his death.

 

I will say that I'm glad that he cant spread any more hate, but i agree he did do some good for his people.

 

Will there be others of his kind? yes, of course. there will always be people who hate, and i'm sure his hate message DID inspire others to hate as well. But, the people who do already had the predisposition to hate in the first place. he may have lighted the fire, but if he hadnt, someone else would have.

 

I dont know if all that makes sense, but i wanted to put in my two cents, and let you know you arent alone in your thinking.

I agree with almost everything you had to say here, but there's a couple things I'd like to address.

I think it's natural for me to look at everything from a traditional Christian point of view, but I'd like to think that in this case, I'm looking at it from a human point of view. I mean, yes, while I believe that God's will reigns in every aspect of our lives, I hope that our nature as human beings and the inevitability of our own death would make us think a lot deeper about the sanctity of anyone's life and what it means when life comes to an end.

When Saddam was executed in December, I was shaken up for him and for his family. At the same time, I was (and still am) disgusted by the hundreds of thousands that he ordered killed, but a life is still a life. Once you're born, your life is what it is, and I find it hard to cope with the shallow attitude that some display at the end of someone elses life.

The other thing I wanted to say was that your point about some people being predisposed to hate is a good one. I really think that a lot of people have a natural tendacy to hate and show scorn for things they don't understand, and it only takes a little bit of affirmation from someone like Falwell to help nurture that hatred.

Rereading my reply as I check wrathofmagneto's one, I think it is confused, so I'll go with unrelated statements, which may be as confusing in the end, but intended to be less so.

*You may disagree with people's acts or thoughts without hating them.

*Arguing/ fighting cannot be avoided to be on a higher moral plane It also brings improvements. *In-the-face rhetoric can be used by good people.

*Humor can be seen as disdain; often it is a way to tell things, which is better than grabbing a gun from a traditional moral point of view.

*Whether or not there is an afterlife, it's what is done on this earth that counts for mankind.

yes, of course. there will always be people who hate, and i'm sure his hate message DID inspire others to hate as well. But, the people who do already had the predisposition to hate in the first place. he may have lighted the fire, but if he hadnt, someone else would have.

Not absolutely certain that I agree with this. The fact that we would be innately evil or good... Nah. Being brought up in a rhetoric of hatred helps a lot to become hateful. We all have to make choices at some point.

 

OK, I'll come down from the pulpit now.

I agree 100% with your point that arguing/fighting brings improvements.....that's one of the reasons I made this thread. No matter what side of this issue people come away from this on, we're all better off for having this conversation. Maybe in that respect, Jerry Falwell had a positive impact on the group of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered and straight people that make up the Gay Authors Community

Heya, I happened to see this and I know that my comment will get lost in the multitudes, but umm...

Ever think that maybe some of us don't have the same morals you do?

In my world, there is no God. This man twisted something dear to a group of people in order to get them to believe his lies. He was a reprehensible, evil, terrible person. He is, indirectly, responsible for things as bad as murder. Yes, I take it that far, because his ranting led to people thinking it was okay to harm someone if they were queer.

In my world, where there is no God, if you're a f**kup of that low quality then you deserve to die. End of story. I won't kill you because I don't believe I have that right. I will, however, dance on your grave and piss on your headstone.

When the next one falls over dead, I'll laugh at them, too. Leading people to The Lord, you say... what kind of a God do you worship? The God he worshipped was responsible for AIDS and hatred. I'm thinking you don't worship the same one.

Heya, I happened to see this and I know that my comment will get lost in the multitudes, but umm...

 

Ever think that maybe some of us don't have the same morals you do?

 

In my world, there is no God. This man twisted something dear to a group of people in order to get them to believe his lies. He was a reprehensible, evil, terrible person. He is, indirectly, responsible for things as bad as murder. Yes, I take it that far, because his ranting led to people thinking it was okay to harm someone if they were queer.

 

In my world, where there is no God, if you're a f**kup of that low quality then you deserve to die. End of story. I won't kill you because I don't believe I have that right. I will, however, dance on your grave and piss on your headstone.

 

When the next one falls over dead, I'll laugh at them, too. Leading people to The Lord, you say... what kind of a God do you worship? The God he worshipped was responsible for AIDS and hatred. I'm thinking you don't worship the same one.

Actually, I don't know for sure which God Falwell worshiped. I get the feeling we worshipped the same God, but only he knows how he interpreted the scripture and the depths of his faith. My faith isn't based on what good things and what bad things happen in this life. I accept all things as working according to His perfect will, and that's the best way for me to sum it all up. I can't speak for Jerry Falwell in that regard, but I do know that he had a message of salvation through the blood of Christ, and that's only a good thing, in my opinion.