Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite is professor of theology at Chicago Theological Seminary and senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. She was president of CTS from 1998-2008. Her area of expertise is contextual theologies of liberation, specializing in issues of violence and violation. An ordained minister of the United Church of Christ since 1974, the “On Faith” panelist is the author or editor of thirteen books and has been a translator for two translations of the Bible. Her works include Casting Stones: Prostitution and Liberation in Asia and the United States (1996) and The New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Translation (1995). She edited and contributed to Adam, Eve and the Genome: Theology in Dialogue with the Human Genome Project (2003).
Close.
Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite
Professor, Chicago Theological Seminary
Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite is professor of theology at Chicago Theological Seminary and senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. She was president of CTS from 1998-2008.
more »
If religion is the combination of spiritual and derived temporal actions, how can one prech the Gospels and not ponder the directions, good or bad, that political beliefs take us. If conservative concepts and finances bring people out of poverty, through their feeling of self interest, and inspired drive for good, is not this theresult of religious life.
Muslim religion is the archetipical ancient example of religion and actions (moral Majority), before we can critisiz Jerry Falwell
You noted Mr. Falwell may have been sincere but also that sincerity is not enough. I think it, along with faith are hightly overrated. Hitler was sincere!
Well, Tday, a problem with 'absolutes' is, that just because you *say* something's an absolute, doesn't mean it *is* in any real way.
And maybe that runs right to the root of what causes such insecurity on the part of the Christian Right that they seek such domination. Like any good ever comes of *that* sort of thing, even if the sense of certainty is appealing to some.
What we say about politics, I also think applies to matters of spirit: Those who sacrifice freedom for a little security shall receive neither.
"It's amazing for me to see that so many people have written negatively about Jerry Falwell. I especially find even more amazing that majority of the people that have responded have never met him in person or even heard him when he spoke in person."
I never met Hitler in person, neither did I hear him speak in person, yet I am free to spit on his nefarious memory. I'm sure there were people in Hitler's inner circle who adored him. He even had a girlfried. So what?
Lardbags Falwell was responsible for untold pain and damage to gays and lesbians in this country; he stalled the progress on HIV research; he has created hordes of creationist ignoramuses who will choose superstition over rational thinking, and who are responsible for the intellectual and scientific decline of this country. All in the name of some medieval, narrow-minded, and authoritarian notion of "morality" that he concocted to manipulate the masses and fill his pockets.
I don't need to know him *personally* to despise him and his legacy. Many deranged and totalitarian leaders have been very charismatic, after all. It's a character trait known as sociophathic charm.
A world without absolutes (sorry, not enough room here to list all..nor enough bandwidth over the internet, also):
1+2=4
'Hey, go ahead and be crass and obscene in comments about Condoleeza Rice and Laura Bush..it doesnt hurt anybody'
Fathers, go ahead and pick up that mens magazine...Mothers, go ahead and strike up an affair with the milkman. Your kids will be ok. Besides, whats all this stuff about marriage.?Thats just old fashioned..at its peak in success around the time the US reached its zenith in strength and overall character and positive values. But we can live without that. We are enlightened free-thinkers now. Why, they did the same in ancient Rome..didnt they??
lepidopteryx:
Trust me those are some of the things that I didn't agree with Falwell on. I myself don't believe that a woman's place is in the bed or the kitchen. I don't agree with the fact that Falwell said that the reason for the 9/11 attacks were the results of LGBTs, feminists, etc. My personal opinon was that comment was based on his belief that this country was being punished for the sins that had been committed. It's not just what Falwell was saying it what many tele-evangelists were saying at the time. Falwell just took it too far, by singling out specific groups as the reasons for the attacks. He WAS wrong for that, but he was just saying what was on his mind. Which is his first amendment right, something this country prides itself on. What do you do, do you take away the first amendment or let the person have their personal opinion?
Gaby, I'm sorry, the man taught more Americans to hate homos than anyone in U.S. History. Its really too bad there is no hell so he can't be cooking for eternity. I can't wait for him to get in the ground so I can dance a jig on his grave. I hope he rots for a long time.
One thing that terribly concerns me about the discussion of absolutism and the polarization that seems to pervade our society, is the extent to which individuals allow themselves to adopt such black/white, right/wrong attitudes. It's also amazing to me how effectively many of these "absolutists" (best word I could come up with that covers the entire spectrum of political leanings) shout down others as relativists who see complexity where complexity exists.
It seems that the abundance of available information at our fingertips has had the opposite effect of making many people intellectually even lazier...
Just because people WANT to polarize the discussion, and create only diametrically opposed sides to every issue does not mean we have to accept their framing.
How much blame should we really heap on a man like Jerry Falwell?
Lynn, while you are correct about the media spinning its stories, Falwell was unique in that he nearly always told his own story via the media. He also was often the guest of friendly media outlets who allowed him to make his points. His opinions were perfectly clear and required very little spinning-- that didn't make them any less appalling.
You're right that he wasn't perfect, nor am I. But he consciously chose to espouse views which many took seriously and he should absolutely be judged on the basis of that aspect of his life. That he was a "hands-on" chancellor of a school which reflected those same opinions and beliefs does not reveal a different or better side.
What "absolutes" are you suggesting we follow?? And just who defined these "absolutes"? And why are your preferred absolutes and more absolute than the next persons preferred absolutes?
While I'm sure that Jerry did do some good things for people in his life, he will forever be remembered the for his stupid and thoughtless things that he said, and I dare say, believed.
Ms. Thistlewaite is correct, "absolutes" are what foster the conflicts in the first place.
Lynn:
There may have been more to Falwell than his public persona, but when you display yourself to the public in a certain manner, you have to expect to be judged by the public based on that display. When he made his comment about 9/11 being the result of pro-choice people, BGLT people, feminists, etc., how exactly would you expect this prochoice, feminist, pagan to respond? "Gee, Jerry, you're right. This is all my fault. I'm going to convert right now and donate my life savings to the 700 Club, then go apologize to my ex for refusing to obey his every whim and beg him to take me back so that I can assume my proper place under his thumb." Don't hold your breath for that one unless you look REALLY good in blue.
I was not much of a fan of Falwell. My reasoning is that he was a man who had a platform upon which to use his influence, and from where he could direct a great deal of resources and energy. In my opinion, he chose to use that platform to promote a political party and to reinforce a number of negative and dangerous stereotypes.
He came in the name of religion, spoke strongly about abortion, but seemed to pay little heed to ameliorating or recognizing the core issues which cause many to choose abortion. He could have focused his efforts on battling the issue from another front, one on which he could have had great impact. He chose to jump into the political volleyball game which benefits only those playing, at the cost of those suffering. Is that the benefit of absolutist beliefs?
He railed against homosexuals and the evils they represent. When did he become the judge and jury of anything? His message consistently blamed them for the breakdown in family/society/etc. Sorry, that's a cop out to addressing the real problems families face.
As for his staunch "conservatism" and demonization of "liberals"... honestly, are those designations useful for anything but bashing one another anymore? More benefits of the absolutists view of the world.
It's amazing for me to see that so many people have written negatively about Jerry Falwell. I especially find even more amazing that majority of the people that have responded have never met him in person or even heard him when he spoke in person. The only thing that you hear and read is what you see in the news. We all know that the media will spin a story, how they want to. Everyone here seems to be bashing Jerry for firmly standing up for his beliefs. Yes there are things that can be said about the way that he delivered his messages and statements.
He was passionate about what he said, when he spoke. He was resolute. He was unwavering and he knew what he was saying. There are many times I that I can remember him speaking and stating that he didn't care who he offended. He didn't care as long as the truth was told. That's what he did, he told the truth from his point of view.
That was the media side of Jerry. You all never saw him outside of that. How many of you can attest to the fact that as much as he was in the spotlight that he was the most approachable person that you will ever encounter. Ask any of the students that attend Liberty, how many times have they seen his black Suburban riding around campus or seen him walking around campus. (As far as I know there aren't too many college chancellors that interacted with the students like he did). It's a wonder that he wasn't blind from all the pictures that he took with students. None of you can say that you've seen the sadness/compassion in his eyes during a memorial service for one of the school's alum that was killed in Iraq. Not one of you can say that you always knew that he was somwhere down the corridor because you could hear his laughter down the hall. There was always a chance of passing Jerry in the Courtyard. All of his students share the same joke as to how they can tell you Jerry's story better than they can their own because they have heard it so many times. Not one of you knows the prankster he was.
I'm not saying that I agreed with everything that he said. Being that I am mostly liberal and I am a Democrat, while he was a conservative Republican. What I am saying is that instead of trying to put him down for the person that he was in the media, understand that was only one part of Jerry Falwell. He like everyone on this planet has things about them that not everyone will agree with. He was a human and nobody is perfect.
And to all of you who say that we the people that knew him, don't remember the things that he said. We do remember them, but we remember that there was a lot more to Jerry Falwell than his comments.
"The world can no longer afford the kind of absolutist religion and politics Rev. Falwell helped to popularize."
Perhaps not the exact flavor that Dr. Falwell espoused, but you wish to throw out absolutist religion altogether?
Dr. Thistlethwaite, without the kind of absolutist conviction you decry I venture to say that your beliefs are nothing but a convenient modus operandi which you can employ when you see fit and discard when hindering you. Really, religion (here, anyone's belief about "life, the universe, and everything") that's devoid of absolutist conviction is empty and worthless.
"The human race is definitely richer for his passing.."
"Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind"
So much drivel written here. Its tragic this generation is so eager to slide in to a morass of barely intelligible spiels and rants. As counterpoint -please read John Donne's timeless words that have inspired many to seek higher ground:
All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated; God employs several translators; some pieces are translated by age, some by sickness, some by war, some by justice; but God's hand is in every translation, and His hand shall bind up all our scattered leaves again for that library where every book shall lie open to one another.. No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
>>Sincerity is not enough. The world can no longer afford the kind of absolutist religion and politics Rev. Falwell helped to popularize. It will literally be fatal.
With all due respect, quite the contrary, Ms. Thistlthwaite. The world can no longer afford the erroneous human thought that there are no absolutes. Jerry Falwell may or may not have crossed the line in the way he 'popularized' anything regarding conservatism and morality, but which of any finger-pointer in this thread has never crossed a line that was questionable? One mans frailty is not the issue here. We all subscribe to that disease. The deceit that the adversary pours out upon the earth, for instance, in regard to questioning the sanctity of marriage and even what it pictures spiritually, are all ploys that are working very well, but will eventually be the downfall of mankind. Unless, mankind wakes up and recognizes that there really are absoultes, there is where the fatality will lie.
Mike Randall posted: "today's liberals ONLY believe in the First Amendment for THEMSELVES. Everyone else can go to hell"...
I am a flaming liberal and a CHRISTIAN who believes in the First Amendment for EVERYONE.
The trouble is that the Christian Right/Moral Majority/Neo-cons (whatever term you want to use) is not MERELY exercising their right to free speech. They are actively trying to legislate the lives of people they don't know, and would not aquaint themselves with anyway through the political system, and over issues that have little or NO impact on themselves.
I could not have agreed more when Jason posted above: "liberal thinking deals more in reality and empathy, while conservative thinking deals more with a perceived ideal that that they wish to be reality."
Mike Randall:
As I have said before, Jerry Falwell made a career and a sh1tload of money fostering hatred against people like me and many of my friends and family. I had no respect for him when he was alive, and I don't feel that I owe him any now that he's dead. He was a hateful SOB and I will not miss him in the least.
Mike Randall sez: Rev. Falwell has been dead less than 12 hours and some of you have consigned him to hell, compared him to Satan and Hitler, rejoiced in his death, attacked him and slandered.
It makes more sense to speculate on someone who put themselves in the public eye and is actually dead, than for him to have heaped the speculative judgement and hate on faceless strangers who are alive as he did!
Falwell's defenders couldn't seem to remember the horrible things he just kept saying and doing when he was still *alive to remind them* a few times a year what an ignorant and mean-spirited bigot he was again and again, what makes anyone think they'll start remembering *now?*
Think the habits of recontextualizing might stick a while, though.
To Norrie Hoyt. I'm sure Rev. Falwell treated people much better than you do. You obviously know very little about the man.
To the dubious Scooter Libby. You might want to go easy about banishing people to hell. We ALL, including you, will face our Maker one day...and you might learn a little humility early.
I'm amazed -- but not surprised again -- at the bitterness, venom and poison pens of today's liberals. Whether it's on college campuses or elsewhere, today's liberals ONLY believe in the First Amendment for THEMSELVES. Everyone else can go to hell -- as many of you have said so meanly on these posts.
Ha! I'm not a leftist. I despise socialism, just not as much as I despise lying religious lardbags who spread ignorance and contribute to the dumbing down of America.
Reading your plethora of posts, I realise -its people like you who are causing the left to implode. Free thinking has lost its verve and vocabulary and become a hopeless sniveling rant of excess..
"If you think based on the evidence that Falwell was a hater and was evil, so be it. It's a free country, you can think what you want. If you think that posting your own hateful contempt for the man on the day of his death makes any of you any better than him, you are mistaken."
Well, it's a free country so I can also SAY what I want as long as it doesn't incite sedition... And I say I'd be happy to dance on his grave. He did nothing but spread the corruption of Christianity, superstition, bigotry, ignorance and stupidity. He is responsible for untold deaths and pain among gays and lesbians due to his ignorant, bigoted preachings. He also made millions while performing such disservice to humanity.
What, all that is going to be undone because his lardy carcass finally exploded? Please-- he may not have Hitler's resume, but he was an evil man, a false prophet, and a disgusting sociopath.
As any Buddhist will tell you, death is essentially an illusion. Though a change of state, it changes nothing of significance, just as the change of water from ice to liquid to steam changes nothing of significance with respect to the water molecule.
I felt the same way about Jerry Falwell ten minutes before I learned of his death and ten minutes after. There was no reason for me to change what I thought of him because of that event. And no reason to change what I say about him.
The liberals posting here seem to be as intolerant of others as they claim Falwell was. I guess it only depends on your point of view as to who you believe is intolerant.
Pathetic. I wonder how many of you posted your good riddance messages to al-Zarqawi, Abu Nidal or Sadamm Hussein on the day of their passing.
Personally, I never cared for Falwell. But when Bin Laden himself meets the reaper I won't post such evil wishes for that man's eternity.
If you think based on the evidence that Falwell was a hater and was evil, so be it. It's a free country, you can think what you want. If you think that posting your own hateful contempt for the man on the day of his death makes any of you any better than him, you are mistaken.
Seriously all, we can be a better people than this. Right?
It is fascinating to read the comments that have been posted about Rev. Falwell. These comments -- from Leonard Kliss, Jay Daniel, Larry Powell, Munchkin, Christopher in Memphis, Tom, Gutenburg, Maurice Beck, Dave and Norrie Hoyt -- are a window into the soul of liberalism today in America. Rev. Falwell has been dead less than 12 hours and some of you have consigned him to hell, compared him to Satan and Hitler, rejoiced in his death, attacked him and slandered.
It may pain you deeply, but Rev. Falwell did more good for others in his life than you would do or could in five lifetimes. He ministered to and helped alcoholics, he ran a home that helped unwed mothers, his church assisted people who were in poverty. I am saddened at the viciousness and venom of your comments -- but not surprised in the least. Next time, at least let his body get into the grave before you dance on it. Hopefully, some day, you will learn how to treat other people.
I have little use for Falwell, but as a doctor, might I point out that "absolutism" and belief that only your rigid point of view is correct has more to do with psychology than religion?
At least Falwell, even if he thought I might go to hell, was polite about it and I know he would be praying for me, not exhorting those in his church to throw bombs and kill me.
Dr. Thistlewaite, why do Americans think syncretism is valid. Either one believes what he or she believes or not. The truth of the matter is most religious people have political views. Religion is not just some thing we do to appear, it should stir us to live our lives according to the tenets we believe and that is what Mr. Falwell did and what you in kind are doing, you see things differently.
I hold a conservative Christian viewpoint and I believe justice is often overlooked in many Christian circles, but if one were to truly look at the teachings of Jesus, it called for those who have to share with the have nots. I give of my time and money when available to those who are less fortunate, but at the same time morality cannot be redefined to fit "our" comfort zone. I remember Jesus' words to His followers in the book of the Acts of the Apostles, ...and you will receive power with the Holy Spirit comes upon and you shall be My witnesses. When we agree with God and choose to submit to "His" standard, He will provide us with the power to do what in our natural state we cannot do. Jeryy was a man for the time, and when the time was up, so was the Moral Majority. I think it could be said, as a nation, we were not and have not been "united" for some time.
Absolutist religion is not the problem. The problem is that people like Ms. Twit-wald don't recognize that some things are absolute. She sits in her office writing emails while others die for her absolute right to sit in her office and pontificate. What happens when everyone thinks like her? That's when she will be wearing a Hijab and loving it, I am sure.
Rev. Thistlethwaite's comment that [she] "hope(s) that the country repudiates the mixing of religion and politics" is awfully disingenuous. Was it really Fallwell who introduced this and is it really a bad thing? What about Niebuhr and MLK Jr? They didn't mix politics and religion? You see, I thought the knock on Billy Graham is that he didn't try to influence political movements (Niebuhr again). Or is this mix only bad when it is politics and/or religion you disagree with. You're lack of graciousness toward Fallwell is telling. I'll certainly not defend his baptist dispensationalism or many of his political stances and he certainly was apt to put his foot in his mouth. But I do think Fallwell sincerely loved people (liberals included) and believed the best thing anyone could do was repent of their sins and become a born-again christian. Maybe he was wrong, but Phelps he wasn't.
And let's not forget that political chauvinism goes both ways. In the recent NYT profile of Riverside they mentioned that they were looking for a politically progressive pastor, political conservatives need not apply. I find liberal christians at least as politically involved as evangelicals - and the handwringing by Rev. Thistlethwaite hypocritical.
>Many traditional Chritian doctrines taught that Jewish people >were responsible for "deicide".
Which confession was this in?
>Martin Luther, the great Protestant reformer of Germany, was >a virulent anti-Semite.
So was Woodrow Wilson. What's your point?
>Allow me to clarify...Anti-semitism was reinforced by a >stultifylingly conservative strain in Christian theology. It has a >long and sullied history in many traditional, conservative >teachings.
This is backwards. There was a continental version of fundamentalism (defined as a reaction against modernism) that mixed their religion and politics. There absolutims was so great that it motivated them to plot the assassination a political leader (Hitler). Read up on Bonnhoffer and the confessing movement. The reaction against modernity and cultural christiantiy (i.e. liberalism) took two basic paths. Fundamentalism and neo-orthodoxy.
I am a life long Republican executive. I wish to thank Rev. Falwell, Mr. Rove, and others for helping to creating the environment for building my personal wealth. While our nation was focused on Teri Schivo and the Ten Commandments a number of SEC regulations were relaxed, my taxes were reduced, EPA oversight of my factory declined, and I was able to get wage concessions from my employees while raising my prices. I cannot remember better times. I strongly support our country's preoccupation with Family Values since the value of my family has skyrocketed. We must keep the national debate focused on morality until I retire.
>>>But these attitudes grew up in an overwhelmingly theologically liberal climate where the authority of Scripture and the historical Christian creeds had been either watered down or rejected outright.<<<
Many traditional Chritian doctrines taught that Jewish people were responsible for "deicide". This was the teaching of the Catholic church, which many Nazis, including Hitler, professed belief in. During the Nazi rule, they were never excommunicated from the Church. Martin Luther, the great Protestant reformer of Germany, was a virulent anti-Semite.
Allow me to clarify...Anti-semitism was reinforced by a stultifylingly conservative strain in Christian theology. It has a long and sullied history in many traditional, conservative teachings. The Nazis tapped into this and, by all accounts of private notes, sincerely believed it as well. Granted, the main thrust of Nazi anti-Semitism was based on pseudo-science and hair-brained political conspiracy theories, but there is no doubt that it drew from a dark side to tradional religious teachings that were in no way liberal.
Dr. Brooks states an obvious truth when she says "we can no longer afford the kind of absolutist religion and politics Rev. Falwell helped to popularize". Perhaps she could better serve mankind, however, if she spent her time preaching the same ideals to radical groups in the world like the Islamic Jihadists, Al Qaeda, Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas and others actively engaged in terrorism under the name of religion, instead of preaching to the choir. Such extreme and growing fanaticism is the single greatest threat to world peace and security, not diversity of opinion and polarization of politics and in the United States, as distasteful as it is.
The so-called "Rev" Falwell is only the latest in a unbroken line of hate-filled voices leading back to that hellenized monster, Paul of Tarsus. One need only read 1Cor1 to understand its core anti-intellectualism.
Unfortunately, the Xian mythos lives on. As Nietzsche says, "the light of the stars takes time" -- the cultulral event that is God's death has not yet penetrated the entire ethos which slew him about 200 years ago.
Falwell's vile mind no longer churns out Xian lies. He has returned to the abyss of silence out of which to our harm he emerged.
It always amazes me how people with "Religious" degrees miss the point of Jesus Christ when he said "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword..." Which in the context of his peaceful life obviously meant DIVISION, not violence."
He came to divide the sheep from the goats. Every comment on here reveals which one you are. The goats are the ones who reject the One True Living God, Jesus Christ. Why? Because you want to live YOUR way. You want to be your own God. That is a sin worthy of hell for all the souls that you decieve as you try to justify your sin.
As for the comment about being as dangerous as the terrorists, that is the most ignorant statement I've ever heard. Our founding fathers mixed politics and religon all the time, no one was beheaded or sucide bombed either. Quit listening to all the propaganda from the left wing haters, their way leads to death. I want you to have life and more abundantly through Jesus.
OK, rage on goats, you can't change the Truth.
For those who want to really know God, trust with all your heart in Jesus and you will see what I'm talking about. HE IS ALIVE!
>>>Look at the theology which prevailed in Germany prior to the Nazi regime: it was quite the opposite of absolutist, confessional, Bible-believing religion.<<<
And then Anonymous responded:
"Prior to the Nazi regime and during it, stutifylingly religous attitudes professing belief in Christianity prevailed. It provided a lot to the anti-Semitic backdrop in Germany during the 30s and 40s. Your statement is historically inaccurate."
Anonymous, I agree that there were undoubtedly "stultifying" anti-Semitic religious attitudes, and that these were espoused by professing Christians. But these attitudes grew up in an overwhelmingly theologically liberal climate where the authority of Scripture and the historical Christian creeds had been either watered down or rejected outright. Therefore I stand by my original statement, though I thank you for giving me an opportunity to clarify.
I suggest we appoint you to be the ambassador of peace to the great religion of Islam. After all, Muhammed wasn't a terrorist, some of his followers are just misguided. We need someone like you to have a friendly chat with them. I'm sure that you would receive a warm welcome in Saudai Arabia or Afghanistan or other such peaceful places. I hear that they have a really great record on human rights and are extremely kind to women. So please go and vist with them, but don't forget your veil. Sarcasm aside Dr. Brooks, if you knew anything at all about "the peaceful religion of Islam" you would know that Muslim scholars do not shy away from teaching that a Holy War to spread the one true faith of Islam is the very essence of their religion. If they can do it why can't Falwell?
The difference between a liberal and a conservative is more than the us vs. them mentality that conservatives foster, it is more about the idea that liberal thinking deals more in reality and empathy, while conservative thinking deals more with a perceived ideal that that they wish to be reality.
History has taught us otherwise. We cannot make things they way we want them to be. Changes come along, and we, as human beings must adapt to them and evolve, or die trying.
As science and technology have advanced, we have come to learn more about the very things once feared and demonized: Islam, homosexuality, abortion, etc. Now, the world realizes there is more to understanding humanity and civilization than just our beliefs.
You may have your opinions and that is fine. The polization is fine too. But conservatives cross the line when you try to prevent people from living their lives as equals because you feel your "way if life" is better. Nobody is questioning your right to state your views. What we are questioning is your perceived right to force your views upon those you do not agree with you.
I suggest we apoint you to be the ambassador of peace to the peaceful religion of Islam. After all, Muhammed wasn't a terrorist, some of his followers are just misguided. I'm sure that you would receive a warm wlecome in Saudai Arabia or Afghanistan. They have a great record on human rights and are extremely kind to women. So please go and vist with them, but don't forget your veil. Sarcasm aside Dr. Brooks, if you knew anything at all about "the peaceful religion of Islam" you would know that Muslim scholars do not shy away from teaching that a Holy War to spread the one true faith of Islam is the very essence of their religion. If they can do it why can't Falwell?
We don't like Falwell's brand of truth because of what it led to: hatred and intolerance. How can you reach any person or group when you shake your finger at them and threaten them with fire and brimstone? Hmmm? Do you think that Jesus would try to convert Mohammed by calling him a terrorist?
If being morally superior means adding fuel to the fire of today's war-thirsty society, then send me down to the lepers, harlots and Sodomites. If you think you can condemn those who live outside of your idea of morals and principles and feel no backlash from it, you are sorely mistaken. Mr. Falwell has simply reaped what he has sown.
"The world can no longer afford the kind of absolutist religion and politics Rev. Falwell helped to popularize."
Bull! The world, as this Lady Reverend would have us believe, isn't the end to all ends. The "world" of no absolutes is fatally flawed. There are absolutes! We would all be much better off living by codes that are indeed black and white and not the gray, wishy/washy muddle of situational ethics.
While not a great follower of Dr. Falwell's, I always applauded his moral compass - God!
>>>Look at the theology which prevailed in Germany prior to the Nazi regime: it was quite the opposite of absolutist, confessional, Bible-believing religion.<<<
Prior to the Nazi regime and during it, stutifylingly religous attitudes professing belief in Christianity prevailed. It provided a lot to the anti-Semitic backdrop in Germany during the 30s and 40s. Your statement is historically inaccurate.
Falwell used rigid, irrational dogma as cover for his screeds against gays, humanists, and liberals. Lending support to racism during the civil rights struggle of the 1960s, he also adamently supported apartheid in South Africa. Falwell continued his tradition of opposing civl rights by playing to homophobic bigotry.
Accusing gays of being "vile", of AIDs being a plague from God against gays, and stating homosexuals and some civil groups helped cause 9-11 is enough to reveal his legacy as being a hateful one. He will be regarded in history right along side other relgious demagouges like Father Charles Coughlin.
All Comments (86)
antitwilight hencoop mykiss arylamino tussilago ignominious subboreal centroacinar
Archdiocese of Brisbane
http://chuckfrazierchevroletgmc.com
December 17, 2007 6:54 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 17, 2007 06:54
If religion is the combination of spiritual and derived temporal actions, how can one prech the Gospels and not ponder the directions, good or bad, that political beliefs take us. If conservative concepts and finances bring people out of poverty, through their feeling of self interest, and inspired drive for good, is not this theresult of religious life.
Muslim religion is the archetipical ancient example of religion and actions (moral Majority), before we can critisiz Jerry Falwell
November 20, 2007 6:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 20, 2007 18:29
You noted Mr. Falwell may have been sincere but also that sincerity is not enough. I think it, along with faith are hightly overrated. Hitler was sincere!
May 17, 2007 5:12 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 17, 2007 17:12
Well, Paganplace...
Take care in your 'problem with absolutes' world, my friend.
Many other civilizations embraced the same, convoluted free thought and the are etched in the pages of history as once strong...made weak.
May 17, 2007 1:21 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 17, 2007 13:21
Well, Tday, a problem with 'absolutes' is, that just because you *say* something's an absolute, doesn't mean it *is* in any real way.
And maybe that runs right to the root of what causes such insecurity on the part of the Christian Right that they seek such domination. Like any good ever comes of *that* sort of thing, even if the sense of certainty is appealing to some.
What we say about politics, I also think applies to matters of spirit: Those who sacrifice freedom for a little security shall receive neither.
May 17, 2007 1:42 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 17, 2007 01:42
AJ! There you are! I see you are still expressing your free speech rights.
May 16, 2007 9:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 16, 2007 21:36
"It's amazing for me to see that so many people have written negatively about Jerry Falwell. I especially find even more amazing that majority of the people that have responded have never met him in person or even heard him when he spoke in person."
I never met Hitler in person, neither did I hear him speak in person, yet I am free to spit on his nefarious memory. I'm sure there were people in Hitler's inner circle who adored him. He even had a girlfried. So what?
Lardbags Falwell was responsible for untold pain and damage to gays and lesbians in this country; he stalled the progress on HIV research; he has created hordes of creationist ignoramuses who will choose superstition over rational thinking, and who are responsible for the intellectual and scientific decline of this country. All in the name of some medieval, narrow-minded, and authoritarian notion of "morality" that he concocted to manipulate the masses and fill his pockets.
I don't need to know him *personally* to despise him and his legacy. Many deranged and totalitarian leaders have been very charismatic, after all. It's a character trait known as sociophathic charm.
May 16, 2007 4:40 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 16, 2007 16:40
A world without absolutes (sorry, not enough room here to list all..nor enough bandwidth over the internet, also):
1+2=4
'Hey, go ahead and be crass and obscene in comments about Condoleeza Rice and Laura Bush..it doesnt hurt anybody'
Fathers, go ahead and pick up that mens magazine...Mothers, go ahead and strike up an affair with the milkman. Your kids will be ok. Besides, whats all this stuff about marriage.?Thats just old fashioned..at its peak in success around the time the US reached its zenith in strength and overall character and positive values. But we can live without that. We are enlightened free-thinkers now. Why, they did the same in ancient Rome..didnt they??
May 16, 2007 2:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 16, 2007 14:59
Lynn:
He has every right to say it. Even David Duke has the right to spew his verbal diarrhea. And I will not grieve when that a$$wipe is dead either.
I just find it odd that so many people express surprise that those of us he verbally attacked are not sending flowers.
May 16, 2007 2:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 16, 2007 14:42
lepidopteryx:
Trust me those are some of the things that I didn't agree with Falwell on. I myself don't believe that a woman's place is in the bed or the kitchen. I don't agree with the fact that Falwell said that the reason for the 9/11 attacks were the results of LGBTs, feminists, etc. My personal opinon was that comment was based on his belief that this country was being punished for the sins that had been committed. It's not just what Falwell was saying it what many tele-evangelists were saying at the time. Falwell just took it too far, by singling out specific groups as the reasons for the attacks. He WAS wrong for that, but he was just saying what was on his mind. Which is his first amendment right, something this country prides itself on. What do you do, do you take away the first amendment or let the person have their personal opinion?
May 16, 2007 2:15 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 16, 2007 14:15
Ghostbuster,
I don't think I'll hang around for this discussion. Reading some of this stuff makes me nauseous.
Hopefully, they'll take it of the board soon.
Stay well, my friend.
May 16, 2007 12:57 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 16, 2007 12:57
Justin,
I truly hope that nobody despises you like that!
I can dislike things, but I am imcapable of hate.
I did not like many things Fallwell stood for, but what people are writing here is scary to say the least.
May 16, 2007 12:54 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 16, 2007 12:54
Gaby, I'm sorry, the man taught more Americans to hate homos than anyone in U.S. History. Its really too bad there is no hell so he can't be cooking for eternity. I can't wait for him to get in the ground so I can dance a jig on his grave. I hope he rots for a long time.
May 16, 2007 12:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 16, 2007 12:22
Hey Gaby,
Remember what we were talking about last week? Talk about foreboding...
I can feel the anger coming through my computer screen too. It's not all hate though. Some of that is pain, I guarantee it.
GB
May 16, 2007 12:17 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 16, 2007 12:17
I am truly amazed what hatred is being spewed in light of Falwell's passing.
Truly, reading some of the posts made my hair stand up and gave me the chills. I can actually feel the hate coming though my screen.
The man is in another dimension now. Let it rest!
May 16, 2007 11:27 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 16, 2007 11:27
MARCS, and Dr. Thistlewaite,
One thing that terribly concerns me about the discussion of absolutism and the polarization that seems to pervade our society, is the extent to which individuals allow themselves to adopt such black/white, right/wrong attitudes. It's also amazing to me how effectively many of these "absolutists" (best word I could come up with that covers the entire spectrum of political leanings) shout down others as relativists who see complexity where complexity exists.
It seems that the abundance of available information at our fingertips has had the opposite effect of making many people intellectually even lazier...
Just because people WANT to polarize the discussion, and create only diametrically opposed sides to every issue does not mean we have to accept their framing.
How much blame should we really heap on a man like Jerry Falwell?
May 16, 2007 11:24 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 16, 2007 11:24
Lynn, while you are correct about the media spinning its stories, Falwell was unique in that he nearly always told his own story via the media. He also was often the guest of friendly media outlets who allowed him to make his points. His opinions were perfectly clear and required very little spinning-- that didn't make them any less appalling.
You're right that he wasn't perfect, nor am I. But he consciously chose to espouse views which many took seriously and he should absolutely be judged on the basis of that aspect of his life. That he was a "hands-on" chancellor of a school which reflected those same opinions and beliefs does not reveal a different or better side.
In my opinion.
May 16, 2007 11:10 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 16, 2007 11:10
To Greg Adams and TDAY.....
What "absolutes" are you suggesting we follow?? And just who defined these "absolutes"? And why are your preferred absolutes and more absolute than the next persons preferred absolutes?
While I'm sure that Jerry did do some good things for people in his life, he will forever be remembered the for his stupid and thoughtless things that he said, and I dare say, believed.
Ms. Thistlewaite is correct, "absolutes" are what foster the conflicts in the first place.
May 16, 2007 11:06 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 16, 2007 11:06
Lynn:
There may have been more to Falwell than his public persona, but when you display yourself to the public in a certain manner, you have to expect to be judged by the public based on that display. When he made his comment about 9/11 being the result of pro-choice people, BGLT people, feminists, etc., how exactly would you expect this prochoice, feminist, pagan to respond? "Gee, Jerry, you're right. This is all my fault. I'm going to convert right now and donate my life savings to the 700 Club, then go apologize to my ex for refusing to obey his every whim and beg him to take me back so that I can assume my proper place under his thumb." Don't hold your breath for that one unless you look REALLY good in blue.
May 16, 2007 10:57 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 16, 2007 10:57
I was not much of a fan of Falwell. My reasoning is that he was a man who had a platform upon which to use his influence, and from where he could direct a great deal of resources and energy. In my opinion, he chose to use that platform to promote a political party and to reinforce a number of negative and dangerous stereotypes.
He came in the name of religion, spoke strongly about abortion, but seemed to pay little heed to ameliorating or recognizing the core issues which cause many to choose abortion. He could have focused his efforts on battling the issue from another front, one on which he could have had great impact. He chose to jump into the political volleyball game which benefits only those playing, at the cost of those suffering. Is that the benefit of absolutist beliefs?
He railed against homosexuals and the evils they represent. When did he become the judge and jury of anything? His message consistently blamed them for the breakdown in family/society/etc. Sorry, that's a cop out to addressing the real problems families face.
As for his staunch "conservatism" and demonization of "liberals"... honestly, are those designations useful for anything but bashing one another anymore? More benefits of the absolutists view of the world.
May 16, 2007 10:51 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 16, 2007 10:51
It's amazing for me to see that so many people have written negatively about Jerry Falwell. I especially find even more amazing that majority of the people that have responded have never met him in person or even heard him when he spoke in person. The only thing that you hear and read is what you see in the news. We all know that the media will spin a story, how they want to. Everyone here seems to be bashing Jerry for firmly standing up for his beliefs. Yes there are things that can be said about the way that he delivered his messages and statements.
He was passionate about what he said, when he spoke. He was resolute. He was unwavering and he knew what he was saying. There are many times I that I can remember him speaking and stating that he didn't care who he offended. He didn't care as long as the truth was told. That's what he did, he told the truth from his point of view.
That was the media side of Jerry. You all never saw him outside of that. How many of you can attest to the fact that as much as he was in the spotlight that he was the most approachable person that you will ever encounter. Ask any of the students that attend Liberty, how many times have they seen his black Suburban riding around campus or seen him walking around campus. (As far as I know there aren't too many college chancellors that interacted with the students like he did). It's a wonder that he wasn't blind from all the pictures that he took with students. None of you can say that you've seen the sadness/compassion in his eyes during a memorial service for one of the school's alum that was killed in Iraq. Not one of you can say that you always knew that he was somwhere down the corridor because you could hear his laughter down the hall. There was always a chance of passing Jerry in the Courtyard. All of his students share the same joke as to how they can tell you Jerry's story better than they can their own because they have heard it so many times. Not one of you knows the prankster he was.
I'm not saying that I agreed with everything that he said. Being that I am mostly liberal and I am a Democrat, while he was a conservative Republican. What I am saying is that instead of trying to put him down for the person that he was in the media, understand that was only one part of Jerry Falwell. He like everyone on this planet has things about them that not everyone will agree with. He was a human and nobody is perfect.
And to all of you who say that we the people that knew him, don't remember the things that he said. We do remember them, but we remember that there was a lot more to Jerry Falwell than his comments.
May 16, 2007 10:15 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 16, 2007 10:15
"The world can no longer afford the kind of absolutist religion and politics Rev. Falwell helped to popularize."
Perhaps not the exact flavor that Dr. Falwell espoused, but you wish to throw out absolutist religion altogether?
Dr. Thistlethwaite, without the kind of absolutist conviction you decry I venture to say that your beliefs are nothing but a convenient modus operandi which you can employ when you see fit and discard when hindering you. Really, religion (here, anyone's belief about "life, the universe, and everything") that's devoid of absolutist conviction is empty and worthless.
Anything else is intellectual suicide.
This is fluff. Please spare us.
May 16, 2007 10:09 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 16, 2007 10:09
Please consider these two opposing statements:
"The human race is definitely richer for his passing.."
"Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind"
So much drivel written here. Its tragic this generation is so eager to slide in to a morass of barely intelligible spiels and rants. As counterpoint -please read John Donne's timeless words that have inspired many to seek higher ground:
All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated; God employs several translators; some pieces are translated by age, some by sickness, some by war, some by justice; but God's hand is in every translation, and His hand shall bind up all our scattered leaves again for that library where every book shall lie open to one another.. No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
May 16, 2007 9:09 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 16, 2007 09:09
Ms Thistlethwaite mentions:
>>Sincerity is not enough. The world can no longer afford the kind of absolutist religion and politics Rev. Falwell helped to popularize. It will literally be fatal.
With all due respect, quite the contrary, Ms. Thistlthwaite. The world can no longer afford the erroneous human thought that there are no absolutes. Jerry Falwell may or may not have crossed the line in the way he 'popularized' anything regarding conservatism and morality, but which of any finger-pointer in this thread has never crossed a line that was questionable? One mans frailty is not the issue here. We all subscribe to that disease. The deceit that the adversary pours out upon the earth, for instance, in regard to questioning the sanctity of marriage and even what it pictures spiritually, are all ploys that are working very well, but will eventually be the downfall of mankind. Unless, mankind wakes up and recognizes that there really are absoultes, there is where the fatality will lie.
May 16, 2007 8:55 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 16, 2007 08:55
Mike Randall posted: "today's liberals ONLY believe in the First Amendment for THEMSELVES. Everyone else can go to hell"...
I am a flaming liberal and a CHRISTIAN who believes in the First Amendment for EVERYONE.
The trouble is that the Christian Right/Moral Majority/Neo-cons (whatever term you want to use) is not MERELY exercising their right to free speech. They are actively trying to legislate the lives of people they don't know, and would not aquaint themselves with anyway through the political system, and over issues that have little or NO impact on themselves.
I could not have agreed more when Jason posted above: "liberal thinking deals more in reality and empathy, while conservative thinking deals more with a perceived ideal that that they wish to be reality."
Reality and empathy...I'll choose them.
May 16, 2007 8:42 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 16, 2007 08:42
If you missed it, check out the post by Jacob Jozevz et al.
Can't you just picture this guy on a computer at the library? It made me laugh!
Rot in hell Jerry, you tool of ignorance!
May 16, 2007 8:41 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 16, 2007 08:41
Mike Randall:
As I have said before, Jerry Falwell made a career and a sh1tload of money fostering hatred against people like me and many of my friends and family. I had no respect for him when he was alive, and I don't feel that I owe him any now that he's dead. He was a hateful SOB and I will not miss him in the least.
May 16, 2007 8:40 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 16, 2007 08:40
Mike Randall sez: Rev. Falwell has been dead less than 12 hours and some of you have consigned him to hell, compared him to Satan and Hitler, rejoiced in his death, attacked him and slandered.
It makes more sense to speculate on someone who put themselves in the public eye and is actually dead, than for him to have heaped the speculative judgement and hate on faceless strangers who are alive as he did!
May 16, 2007 8:18 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 16, 2007 08:18
Falwell's defenders couldn't seem to remember the horrible things he just kept saying and doing when he was still *alive to remind them* a few times a year what an ignorant and mean-spirited bigot he was again and again, what makes anyone think they'll start remembering *now?*
Think the habits of recontextualizing might stick a while, though.
May 16, 2007 2:30 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 16, 2007 02:30
To Norrie Hoyt. I'm sure Rev. Falwell treated people much better than you do. You obviously know very little about the man.
To the dubious Scooter Libby. You might want to go easy about banishing people to hell. We ALL, including you, will face our Maker one day...and you might learn a little humility early.
I'm amazed -- but not surprised again -- at the bitterness, venom and poison pens of today's liberals. Whether it's on college campuses or elsewhere, today's liberals ONLY believe in the First Amendment for THEMSELVES. Everyone else can go to hell -- as many of you have said so meanly on these posts.
May 16, 2007 12:09 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 16, 2007 00:09
Ha! I'm not a leftist. I despise socialism, just not as much as I despise lying religious lardbags who spread ignorance and contribute to the dumbing down of America.
May 15, 2007 11:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 15, 2007 23:52
Adios:
Reading your plethora of posts, I realise -its people like you who are causing the left to implode. Free thinking has lost its verve and vocabulary and become a hopeless sniveling rant of excess..
May 15, 2007 11:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 15, 2007 23:41
"If you think based on the evidence that Falwell was a hater and was evil, so be it. It's a free country, you can think what you want. If you think that posting your own hateful contempt for the man on the day of his death makes any of you any better than him, you are mistaken."
Well, it's a free country so I can also SAY what I want as long as it doesn't incite sedition... And I say I'd be happy to dance on his grave. He did nothing but spread the corruption of Christianity, superstition, bigotry, ignorance and stupidity. He is responsible for untold deaths and pain among gays and lesbians due to his ignorant, bigoted preachings. He also made millions while performing such disservice to humanity.
What, all that is going to be undone because his lardy carcass finally exploded? Please-- he may not have Hitler's resume, but he was an evil man, a false prophet, and a disgusting sociopath.
May 15, 2007 11:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 15, 2007 23:09
Ghostbuster,
As any Buddhist will tell you, death is essentially an illusion. Though a change of state, it changes nothing of significance, just as the change of water from ice to liquid to steam changes nothing of significance with respect to the water molecule.
I felt the same way about Jerry Falwell ten minutes before I learned of his death and ten minutes after. There was no reason for me to change what I thought of him because of that event. And no reason to change what I say about him.
May 15, 2007 10:47 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 15, 2007 22:47
The liberals posting here seem to be as intolerant of others as they claim Falwell was. I guess it only depends on your point of view as to who you believe is intolerant.
May 15, 2007 10:39 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 15, 2007 22:39
Mike Randall,
"Hopefully, some day, you will learn how to treat other people."
Hopefully, in whatever world he's landed in, Mr. Falwell will learn how to treat other people better than he did in his lifetime on earth.
May 15, 2007 10:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 15, 2007 22:36
Pathetic. I wonder how many of you posted your good riddance messages to al-Zarqawi, Abu Nidal or Sadamm Hussein on the day of their passing.
Personally, I never cared for Falwell. But when Bin Laden himself meets the reaper I won't post such evil wishes for that man's eternity.
If you think based on the evidence that Falwell was a hater and was evil, so be it. It's a free country, you can think what you want. If you think that posting your own hateful contempt for the man on the day of his death makes any of you any better than him, you are mistaken.
Seriously all, we can be a better people than this. Right?
May 15, 2007 10:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 15, 2007 22:31
It is fascinating to read the comments that have been posted about Rev. Falwell. These comments -- from Leonard Kliss, Jay Daniel, Larry Powell, Munchkin, Christopher in Memphis, Tom, Gutenburg, Maurice Beck, Dave and Norrie Hoyt -- are a window into the soul of liberalism today in America. Rev. Falwell has been dead less than 12 hours and some of you have consigned him to hell, compared him to Satan and Hitler, rejoiced in his death, attacked him and slandered.
It may pain you deeply, but Rev. Falwell did more good for others in his life than you would do or could in five lifetimes. He ministered to and helped alcoholics, he ran a home that helped unwed mothers, his church assisted people who were in poverty. I am saddened at the viciousness and venom of your comments -- but not surprised in the least. Next time, at least let his body get into the grave before you dance on it. Hopefully, some day, you will learn how to treat other people.
May 15, 2007 10:15 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 15, 2007 22:15
I have little use for Falwell, but as a doctor, might I point out that "absolutism" and belief that only your rigid point of view is correct has more to do with psychology than religion?
At least Falwell, even if he thought I might go to hell, was polite about it and I know he would be praying for me, not exhorting those in his church to throw bombs and kill me.
May 15, 2007 9:25 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 15, 2007 21:25
Wow! Such chivalry! HarK!
May 15, 2007 9:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 15, 2007 21:20
Dr. Thistlewaite, why do Americans think syncretism is valid. Either one believes what he or she believes or not. The truth of the matter is most religious people have political views. Religion is not just some thing we do to appear, it should stir us to live our lives according to the tenets we believe and that is what Mr. Falwell did and what you in kind are doing, you see things differently.
I hold a conservative Christian viewpoint and I believe justice is often overlooked in many Christian circles, but if one were to truly look at the teachings of Jesus, it called for those who have to share with the have nots. I give of my time and money when available to those who are less fortunate, but at the same time morality cannot be redefined to fit "our" comfort zone. I remember Jesus' words to His followers in the book of the Acts of the Apostles, ...and you will receive power with the Holy Spirit comes upon and you shall be My witnesses. When we agree with God and choose to submit to "His" standard, He will provide us with the power to do what in our natural state we cannot do. Jeryy was a man for the time, and when the time was up, so was the Moral Majority. I think it could be said, as a nation, we were not and have not been "united" for some time.
May 15, 2007 8:58 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 15, 2007 20:58
Hitler, like Jerry Falwell, was sincere, and kind to dogs and children.
May 15, 2007 8:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 15, 2007 20:48
Alan Jacobs,
If I become a Family-values Republican, can I work for you so that I too, can provide for the value of my family?
May 15, 2007 8:25 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 15, 2007 20:25
Absolutist religion is not the problem. The problem is that people like Ms. Twit-wald don't recognize that some things are absolute. She sits in her office writing emails while others die for her absolute right to sit in her office and pontificate. What happens when everyone thinks like her? That's when she will be wearing a Hijab and loving it, I am sure.
May 15, 2007 7:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 15, 2007 19:59
Rev. Thistlethwaite's comment that [she] "hope(s) that the country repudiates the mixing of religion and politics" is awfully disingenuous. Was it really Fallwell who introduced this and is it really a bad thing? What about Niebuhr and MLK Jr? They didn't mix politics and religion? You see, I thought the knock on Billy Graham is that he didn't try to influence political movements (Niebuhr again). Or is this mix only bad when it is politics and/or religion you disagree with. You're lack of graciousness toward Fallwell is telling. I'll certainly not defend his baptist dispensationalism or many of his political stances and he certainly was apt to put his foot in his mouth. But I do think Fallwell sincerely loved people (liberals included) and believed the best thing anyone could do was repent of their sins and become a born-again christian. Maybe he was wrong, but Phelps he wasn't.
And let's not forget that political chauvinism goes both ways. In the recent NYT profile of Riverside they mentioned that they were looking for a politically progressive pastor, political conservatives need not apply. I find liberal christians at least as politically involved as evangelicals - and the handwringing by Rev. Thistlethwaite hypocritical.
May 15, 2007 7:25 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 15, 2007 19:25
Thank you Ms. Brooks for your fine column, but no need to pull your punches because the lardball is dead.
May 15, 2007 7:15 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 15, 2007 19:15
>Many traditional Chritian doctrines taught that Jewish people >were responsible for "deicide".
Which confession was this in?
>Martin Luther, the great Protestant reformer of Germany, was >a virulent anti-Semite.
So was Woodrow Wilson. What's your point?
>Allow me to clarify...Anti-semitism was reinforced by a >stultifylingly conservative strain in Christian theology. It has a >long and sullied history in many traditional, conservative >teachings.
This is backwards. There was a continental version of fundamentalism (defined as a reaction against modernism) that mixed their religion and politics. There absolutims was so great that it motivated them to plot the assassination a political leader (Hitler). Read up on Bonnhoffer and the confessing movement. The reaction against modernity and cultural christiantiy (i.e. liberalism) took two basic paths. Fundamentalism and neo-orthodoxy.
May 15, 2007 7:14 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 15, 2007 19:14
I am a life long Republican executive. I wish to thank Rev. Falwell, Mr. Rove, and others for helping to creating the environment for building my personal wealth. While our nation was focused on Teri Schivo and the Ten Commandments a number of SEC regulations were relaxed, my taxes were reduced, EPA oversight of my factory declined, and I was able to get wage concessions from my employees while raising my prices. I cannot remember better times. I strongly support our country's preoccupation with Family Values since the value of my family has skyrocketed. We must keep the national debate focused on morality until I retire.
May 15, 2007 6:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 15, 2007 18:52
>>>But these attitudes grew up in an overwhelmingly theologically liberal climate where the authority of Scripture and the historical Christian creeds had been either watered down or rejected outright.<<<
Many traditional Chritian doctrines taught that Jewish people were responsible for "deicide". This was the teaching of the Catholic church, which many Nazis, including Hitler, professed belief in. During the Nazi rule, they were never excommunicated from the Church. Martin Luther, the great Protestant reformer of Germany, was a virulent anti-Semite.
Allow me to clarify...Anti-semitism was reinforced by a stultifylingly conservative strain in Christian theology. It has a long and sullied history in many traditional, conservative teachings. The Nazis tapped into this and, by all accounts of private notes, sincerely believed it as well. Granted, the main thrust of Nazi anti-Semitism was based on pseudo-science and hair-brained political conspiracy theories, but there is no doubt that it drew from a dark side to tradional religious teachings that were in no way liberal.
May 15, 2007 6:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 15, 2007 18:48
Dr. Brooks states an obvious truth when she says "we can no longer afford the kind of absolutist religion and politics Rev. Falwell helped to popularize". Perhaps she could better serve mankind, however, if she spent her time preaching the same ideals to radical groups in the world like the Islamic Jihadists, Al Qaeda, Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas and others actively engaged in terrorism under the name of religion, instead of preaching to the choir. Such extreme and growing fanaticism is the single greatest threat to world peace and security, not diversity of opinion and polarization of politics and in the United States, as distasteful as it is.
May 15, 2007 6:45 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 15, 2007 18:45
"Theology is a subject without an object."
The so-called "Rev" Falwell is only the latest in a unbroken line of hate-filled voices leading back to that hellenized monster, Paul of Tarsus. One need only read 1Cor1 to understand its core anti-intellectualism.
Unfortunately, the Xian mythos lives on. As Nietzsche says, "the light of the stars takes time" -- the cultulral event that is God's death has not yet penetrated the entire ethos which slew him about 200 years ago.
Falwell's vile mind no longer churns out Xian lies. He has returned to the abyss of silence out of which to our harm he emerged.
Amen.
eye-of-horus
May 15, 2007 6:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 15, 2007 18:36
It always amazes me how people with "Religious" degrees miss the point of Jesus Christ when he said "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword..." Which in the context of his peaceful life obviously meant DIVISION, not violence."
He came to divide the sheep from the goats. Every comment on here reveals which one you are. The goats are the ones who reject the One True Living God, Jesus Christ. Why? Because you want to live YOUR way. You want to be your own God. That is a sin worthy of hell for all the souls that you decieve as you try to justify your sin.
As for the comment about being as dangerous as the terrorists, that is the most ignorant statement I've ever heard. Our founding fathers mixed politics and religon all the time, no one was beheaded or sucide bombed either. Quit listening to all the propaganda from the left wing haters, their way leads to death. I want you to have life and more abundantly through Jesus.
OK, rage on goats, you can't change the Truth.
For those who want to really know God, trust with all your heart in Jesus and you will see what I'm talking about. HE IS ALIVE!
May 15, 2007 6:35 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 15, 2007 18:35
Above, I wrote:
>>>Look at the theology which prevailed in Germany prior to the Nazi regime: it was quite the opposite of absolutist, confessional, Bible-believing religion.<<<
And then Anonymous responded:
"Prior to the Nazi regime and during it, stutifylingly religous attitudes professing belief in Christianity prevailed. It provided a lot to the anti-Semitic backdrop in Germany during the 30s and 40s. Your statement is historically inaccurate."
Anonymous, I agree that there were undoubtedly "stultifying" anti-Semitic religious attitudes, and that these were espoused by professing Christians. But these attitudes grew up in an overwhelmingly theologically liberal climate where the authority of Scripture and the historical Christian creeds had been either watered down or rejected outright. Therefore I stand by my original statement, though I thank you for giving me an opportunity to clarify.
May 15, 2007 6:34 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 15, 2007 18:34
"The world can no longer afford the kind of absolutist religion and politics Rev. Falwell helped to popularize. It will literally be fatal."
I wonder if the author would like to take this up with the followers of the Mad Prophet of the Eighth Century?
May 15, 2007 6:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 15, 2007 18:29
I suggest we appoint you to be the ambassador of peace to the great religion of Islam. After all, Muhammed wasn't a terrorist, some of his followers are just misguided. We need someone like you to have a friendly chat with them. I'm sure that you would receive a warm welcome in Saudai Arabia or Afghanistan or other such peaceful places. I hear that they have a really great record on human rights and are extremely kind to women. So please go and vist with them, but don't forget your veil. Sarcasm aside Dr. Brooks, if you knew anything at all about "the peaceful religion of Islam" you would know that Muslim scholars do not shy away from teaching that a Holy War to spread the one true faith of Islam is the very essence of their religion. If they can do it why can't Falwell?
May 15, 2007 6:27 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 15, 2007 18:27
The difference between a liberal and a conservative is more than the us vs. them mentality that conservatives foster, it is more about the idea that liberal thinking deals more in reality and empathy, while conservative thinking deals more with a perceived ideal that that they wish to be reality.
History has taught us otherwise. We cannot make things they way we want them to be. Changes come along, and we, as human beings must adapt to them and evolve, or die trying.
As science and technology have advanced, we have come to learn more about the very things once feared and demonized: Islam, homosexuality, abortion, etc. Now, the world realizes there is more to understanding humanity and civilization than just our beliefs.
You may have your opinions and that is fine. The polization is fine too. But conservatives cross the line when you try to prevent people from living their lives as equals because you feel your "way if life" is better. Nobody is questioning your right to state your views. What we are questioning is your perceived right to force your views upon those you do not agree with you.
May 15, 2007 6:25 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 15, 2007 18:25
I suggest we apoint you to be the ambassador of peace to the peaceful religion of Islam. After all, Muhammed wasn't a terrorist, some of his followers are just misguided. I'm sure that you would receive a warm wlecome in Saudai Arabia or Afghanistan. They have a great record on human rights and are extremely kind to women. So please go and vist with them, but don't forget your veil. Sarcasm aside Dr. Brooks, if you knew anything at all about "the peaceful religion of Islam" you would know that Muslim scholars do not shy away from teaching that a Holy War to spread the one true faith of Islam is the very essence of their religion. If they can do it why can't Falwell?
May 15, 2007 6:25 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 15, 2007 18:25
We don't like Falwell's brand of truth because of what it led to: hatred and intolerance. How can you reach any person or group when you shake your finger at them and threaten them with fire and brimstone? Hmmm? Do you think that Jesus would try to convert Mohammed by calling him a terrorist?
If being morally superior means adding fuel to the fire of today's war-thirsty society, then send me down to the lepers, harlots and Sodomites. If you think you can condemn those who live outside of your idea of morals and principles and feel no backlash from it, you are sorely mistaken. Mr. Falwell has simply reaped what he has sown.
May 15, 2007 6:16 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 15, 2007 18:16
"The world can no longer afford the kind of absolutist religion and politics Rev. Falwell helped to popularize."
Bull! The world, as this Lady Reverend would have us believe, isn't the end to all ends. The "world" of no absolutes is fatally flawed. There are absolutes! We would all be much better off living by codes that are indeed black and white and not the gray, wishy/washy muddle of situational ethics.
While not a great follower of Dr. Falwell's, I always applauded his moral compass - God!
May 15, 2007 6:14 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 15, 2007 18:14
>>>Look at the theology which prevailed in Germany prior to the Nazi regime: it was quite the opposite of absolutist, confessional, Bible-believing religion.<<<
Prior to the Nazi regime and during it, stutifylingly religous attitudes professing belief in Christianity prevailed. It provided a lot to the anti-Semitic backdrop in Germany during the 30s and 40s. Your statement is historically inaccurate.
Falwell used rigid, irrational dogma as cover for his screeds against gays, humanists, and liberals. Lending support to racism during the civil rights struggle of the 1960s, he also adamently supported apartheid in South Africa. Falwell continued his tradition of opposing civl rights by playing to homophobic bigotry.
Accusing gays of being "vile", of AIDs being a plague from God against gays, and stating homosexuals and some civil groups helped cause 9-11 is enough to reveal his legacy as being a hateful one. He will be regarded in history right along side other relgious demagouges like Father Charles Coughlin.
May 15, 2007 6:14 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 15, 2007 18:14