Another homophobe dies - good riddance! (my comment) - Peter

WASHINGTON - US evangelist Jerry Falwell, who helped turn the religious right into a powerful political force and fired controversy with his battles against abortion and homosexuality, has died aged 73.

He was found unconscious in his office at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia, and was pronounced dead at a nearby hospital just over an hour later, said Dr Carl Moore, his personal physician.

The evangelist, who had a history of heart problems, had no heartbeat when he was found by colleagues, Moore said, adding he apparently died of a heart rhythm abnormality.

Falwell's increasing influence in the 1970s and 1980s coincided with the rise of the US religious right, whose votes helped send conservative Republicans including Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush to the White House.

Fond of quipping that the Bible referred to "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," Falwell provoked a storm of protest when he said gays, lesbians and health workers who provide abortions were partly to blame for the September 11 attacks.

"I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians ... all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say: you helped this happen," he said.

Reactions to Falwell's death reflected the bitter divide over his views, and over the role of religion in political life in the United States.

President Bush said he was deeply saddened by Falwell's death, calling him "a man who cherished faith, family and freedom."

"Jerry lived a life of faith and called upon men and women of all backgrounds to believe in God and serve their communities," Bush said in a written statement.

Another leading evangelist, Pat Robertson said: "Jerry's courage and strength of convictions will be sadly missed in this time of increasing moral relativism."

Ellen Johnson, president of American Atheists, said Falwell was "instrumental in galvanizing millions of American evangelicals into an intolerant, sectarian and authoritarian political movement."

"Gays, women, secularists, civil-libertarians and other groups who did not fit into his plan to construct 'One Nation Under God' were stigmatized and attacked." she said.

Born on Aug. 11, 1933, Falwell said he was "born again" on Jan. 20, 1952, the day he converted to Christ while at Lynchburg College.

He founded the Thomas Road Baptist Church in his hometown of Lynchburg in 1956 and went on to found Liberty University in 1971 -- a conservative center of higher learning.

In 1979, he started the Moral Majority organization, which became a major vehicle for getting out the vote for the Republican Party.

He disbanded the Moral Majority in 1989 but it was resurrected as The Moral Majority Coalition, with an explicit political purpose, after Bush's re-election in 2004.

"He became a leading voice by the time of Ronald Reagan's emergence in 1980 and the whole concept of family values was adopted by the Republican Party," presidential historian Douglas Brinkley told Fox News.

"His influence in politics was very real because he helped politicize evangelicals and other religious groups, the right side of the Southern Baptist Convention ..."

With his gray hair and heavy jowls, Falwell was a familiar face on the televangelist circuit.

He saw evil in a once-great America that he believed was in an advanced state of decay. He even went after a character in the hit children's TV show the "Teletubbies," saying the purple Tinky Winky character donned pro-gay symbols, including a triangle.

"I think that in the early 1960s when Bible reading and prayer were expelled from the public square, I think that was a move in the wrong direction, it was a move towards secularization," Falwell told Reuters in February.

What a surprise. I didn't know he had a heart. Well, R.I.P. anyway.

Edited May 16, 200719 yr by farang prince

While OP did not relate this thread to Thailand, it certainly has much relevance to the current debate of making Buddhism a "national religion".

The U.S. Supreme court has stopped religionists every time they try to get their foot in the door in their maintenance of the constitutional principle of "separation of church and state".

Thai constitution writers should take heed of the lesson they can learn from America's two hundred year fight to remain secularized in the face of constant efforts of religionists to put their dogma into government.

The current government under George Bush has done so much harm when they make decisions for the people based on religious dogma, such as stem cell research, abstinence as a control measure in the fight against HIV, attempts to overturn abortion rights by slowly eroding doctors ability to help pregnant women, etc.

While Buddhism doesn't seem to be as intolerant as Christianity, the Turks are presently fighting the same battle.

Surely the Thai constitution drafters are aware of the Irish civil war based on religious differences, the Iraq and other middle-east conflicts based on Sunni vs. Shiite Moslem's, and then do I need to get into Bosnia, Mogadishu, even the south of Thailand to make my point.

In my view, most of man's inhumanity to man has been done under the guise of religion. Thai constitution drafters beware!!

While OP did not relate this thread to Thailand, it certainly has much relevance to the current debate of making Buddhism a "national religion".

The U.S. Supreme court has stopped religionists every time they try to get their foot in the door in their maintenance of the constitutional principle of "separation of church and state".

Thai constitution writers should take heed of the lesson they can learn from America's two hundred year fight to remain secularized in the face of constant efforts of religionists to put their dogma into government.

A very skewed view of USA history, IMO. At one time, the USA was much like Thailand is today.

Buddhism, the de facto State Religion of Thailand Today

As I live in Thailand, I am continually and mildly surprised how Buddhism is really the de facto state religion by virtue of actual practice (the King, by the constitution, must be Buddhist; public transportation reserves specific seating for monks, church and state work actively together in the use of Wats for public functions and purposes, Buddhist monks teach in state universities and colleges, state institutions adopt Buddhist symbols as insignias, the king leads the country in Buddhist ceremonial occasions, etc.) Right up until the 1960's, Buddhist wats and monks were at the forefront of public education--often the wat also being the local school for children. Even today, in the state schools "secular" and "religious" education is completely integrated. This is all proper, in my thinking, because after all, the country is 95% Buddhist.

Christianity, the de facto State Religion of Yesteryear in the USA

This identical situation existed in the USA from its inception until early in the last century. Because that country was also overwhelmingly Christian, the institutions "mixed" frequently, and at high levels. Reading some of the early politicians' and government figure speeches is like reading fiery evangelist oratories. "Secular" and "religious" education was as much integrated as Thailand's has ever been. The Bible was a primary textbook in the schools, usually taught by the local minister in the church building. The New England Primer, used throughout the colonies and early states, basically told the Christian Gospel catechism as it started out, "A: In Adam's fall, we sinned all."

In the 1950's, my public school distributed (courtesy of the Gideons organization) Bibles to all 5th grade students. This wasn't the Bible belt, either--it was in the north. At Christmas, several of my elementary and Junior High teachers who I presumed were Christians, used the opportunity to tell the full story of Christian redemption to their students. This was all normal and acceptable, because of the vast predominance of Christianity.

The Secularization of America

Thus, the 20th century began to see the unprecedented secularization of America, rather than "standing against the religionists" or "stopping the religionists" who are supposedly trying to force Christianity into the social fabric as ProThaiExpat tries to skew it.

Particularly since the mid-20th century, America has seen a huge influx of other faiths due to immigration. It has also seen a shift in a large part of its population to non-religious traditions and philosophies. In reality, the "religionists" have been simply trying to fight for the status quo of nearly two centuries of American religious/political tradition, rather than introducing something new and insidious into the American society. Whether right or wrong, that's up to you. IMO I believe a greater sensitivity to a more pluralistic society is a healthy thing.

Skewing History to Support a Point

What I object to, is the poster trying to skew American history to support his point. Nevertheless, I do agree with his bottom line: to have a de facto state religion is fine if the population supports it. To codify the practice introduces new problems concerning religious freedom and even weakens king's own role as the "Protector of All Religions" in Thailand. This has been the king's duty since the Siam King Narai since 1688. May it continue to be so.

Another homophobe dies - good riddance! (my comment) - Peter

I agree---the world is a little better off today in the absence of such a poisonous person.

Neil

Another homophobe dies - good riddance! (my comment) - Peter

I agree---the world is a little better off today in the absence of such a poisonous person.

Neil

Personally i think it is disgustring celebrating anyones death you should be ashamed of yourself

Another homophobe dies - good riddance! (my comment) - Peter

I agree---the world is a little better off today in the absence of such a poisonous person.

Neil

Personally i think it is disgustring celebrating anyones death you should be ashamed of yourself

Do you really mean anyone's?

Hitler?

Pol Pot?

To many people, myself included, Jerry Falwell was a force of hatred, ignorance, and evil. For many of us, it is only human to certainly not be at all sad about his death.

Not all of us can be Mother Theresa, you know.

Edited May 16, 200719 yr by Jingthing

Another homophobe dies - good riddance! (my comment) - Peter

I agree---the world is a little better off today in the absence of such a poisonous person.

Neil

Personally i think it is disgustring celebrating anyones death you should be ashamed of yourself

Do you really mean anyone's?

Hitler?

Pol Pot?

To many people, myself included, Jerry Falwell was a force of hatred, ignorance, and evil. For many of us, it is only human to certainly not be at all sad about his death.

Not all of us can be Mother Theresa, you know.

What part of anyone do you not understand?As to his viewpoints i confess im not entirely sure off however and i repeat you come across as being a nasty mean little man wishing death upon anyone

I suppose you are a total pacifist then. Think what you like.

BTW, if you are admitting that you wouldn't have been pleased with Hitler's death, I am wondering what kind of man you are. Myself, if I could have, I would have killed Hitler myself. Some people just deserve to die. Thats the real world for you, mate.

Edited May 16, 200719 yr by Jingthing

Now for an opinion of a totally pacifist Christian gay teacher in Thailand....

Nobody should be dancing on Jerry Falwell's grave, but as a spokesman for a gay organization said earlier today in the news, while we extend our sympathy to Falwell's family and friends, we must not forget (my words now, paraphrasing) the relentless tirade and ungodly crusade that Falwell launched against homosexuality, abortion, and other sexual issues.

Yes, there's a lesson to be learned for us in Thailand. While I respect Toptuan's point of view, I could write 7 paragraphs refuting his points. The government of the USA has been essentially secular, ever since it was founded primarily by deists, not Christians. The real religion of the State in the USA is not secular humanism, but civil religion, worshipping the State above Jesus, Moses, Buddha, Zoraster, Babu'allah, et al.

Likewise, my condolences to his family and friends. And to Pol Pot and Idi Amin's family and friends. My condolences to the family and friends of the terrorists in southern Thailand.

Thank God I live outside the homophobic USA, in the more tolerant Kingdom of Thailand.

I for one am kinda sad the old ###### is gone ....

He gave us a great example of a bigotted idiot to unite against!

I for one am kinda sad the old ###### is gone ....

He gave us a great example of a bigotted idiot to unite against!

No worries. There are lots more of his mold.

To be clear, I am not into dancing on anyone's grave either. Just not so hypocritical as to act sad over the death of a really bad dude, just because he is also a human and has family and friends. Interestingly, I saw a recent interview with this villain where he said he was hoping God would bless him and grant him another 30 years of life to finish off his "good" works. God has spoken. Ha!

Edited May 16, 200719 yr by Jingthing

I couldn't stand Jerry Falwell, or most of things he claimed to stand for, but anyone who disliked the Teletubbies so vehemently, couldn't be all bad in my book. BTW, it's a commonly printed fallacy that the US constitution provides for the separation of church and state. While it stetes that the government shall "make no religion" or something like that, the actual separation concept originated with Thomas Jefferson in letters to church elders. Whichever, the separation seems the best prescription for the citizenry.

It matters not whether one finds the the actual words "separation of church and state" in the constitution or in the rulings of the supreme court, which makes the constitutional law of the land through its rulings. A concept often referred to as the "living constitution".

Most who don't agree with a supreme court ruling attac, the court for being "activist judges" making law that is not in the constitution. Thus social and religious conservative hope to someday have the court "packed" with judges that will allow prayer in schools, overturn Roe v. Wade, restrict marriage to same sex couples, rid the country of "equal opportunity" laws, allow federal funds to finance religious prostelization, rid the country of pornography and free speech that doesn't conform to Christian teachings.

It matters not whether one finds the the actual words "separation of church and state" in the constitution or in the rulings of the supreme court, which makes the constitutional law of the land through its rulings. A concept often referred to as the "living constitution".

Most who don't agree with a supreme court ruling attac, the court for being "activist judges" making law that is not in the constitution. Thus social and religious conservative hope to someday have the court "packed" with judges that will allow prayer in schools, overturn Roe v. Wade, restrict marriage to same sex couples, rid the country of "equal opportunity" laws, allow federal funds to finance religious prostelization, rid the country of pornography and free speech that doesn't conform to Christian teachings.

Actually if the words '"separation of church and state" had appeared in the constituion it would have made a big difference, as it would have required the government to actively insulate itself against religous influences as opposed to merely requiring that "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", as the first ammendent stipulates.

Edited May 17, 200719 yr by kdvsn

You have put your finger on the key element in trying to determine what is meant by language used in prior times. People who cite the bible for authority, interpret bible words as they choose and clearly, the Supreme Court interpreted "establishment of religion" to mean separation of church and state, which is what the area of constitutional law we are discussing is called.

Another thorny issue where prior language interpretation is key is what the "right to bear arms" means. Does it refer to a "duly constituted militia" having the right to bear arms or as the NRA maintains, every citizen has the right to bear arms.

Edited May 17, 200719 yr by ProThaiExpat

Not that everything in this Gay in Thailand forum has to relate to Thailand, but the Thais are writing a new constitution as we write, so

The most sublime sentence in American literature is the First Amendment, which was written by Jefferson and his associates. Within a short time, the Supreme Court interpreted it as 'a great wall of separation of church and state.' Thailand could benefit its people by not making Buddhism a state religion in its new constitution.

The danger of folks like the late Jerry Falwell in politics is what ProThaiExpat refers to in post #15 - a relentless drive by religious fanatics to legalize their bizarre interpretation of fundamentalist faith upon all the citizens of a diverse nation. Gays in Thailand should not assume that something similar could never occur here. Stranger things happened here last year, though unrelated to gay rights.

It matters not whether one finds the the actual words "separation of church and state" in the constitution or in the rulings of the supreme court, which makes the constitutional law of the land through its rulings. A concept often referred to as the "living constitution".

Most who don't agree with a supreme court ruling attac, the court for being "activist judges" making law that is not in the constitution. Thus social and religious conservative hope to someday have the court "packed" with judges that will allow prayer in schools, overturn Roe v. Wade, restrict marriage to same sex couples, rid the country of "equal opportunity" laws, allow federal funds to finance religious prostelization, rid the country of pornography and free speech that doesn't conform to Christian teachings.

Actually if the words '"separation of church and state" had appeared in the constituion it would have made a big difference, as it would have required the government to actively insulate itself against religous influences as opposed to merely requiring that "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", as the first ammendent stipulates.

Actually, when Thomas Jefferson talked about a wall seperating church and state he was talking about his concern for the state meddling in the affairs of religion and not vice versa. He was concerned the state would co opot a religion and use it as a pulpit to deliver the states dogma. Not unlike what some are trying to achieve in Thailand now with Buddhism.

Suffice to say, which ever side of the "wall" you try to climb over from, any mix of religion and government creates steps, whether small or large, toward oligarchy, which in my view is the antitheses of freedom. Dogma, whether religious or dictator originated restricts freedom and once you start to restrict freedom, you are on the way to a totalitarian state, whether controlled by religion like in Iran, by the military in Myanmar or by a dictatorship as in North Korea.

What part of anyone do you not understand?As to his viewpoints i confess im not entirely sure off however and i repeat you come across as being a nasty mean little man wishing death upon anyone

I'm with you, man

report to moderator that post

Jerry Falwell, a Baptist in America, wanted to force his group's totally dishonest interpretation of homophobia upon everybody in America, which still had states like Texas where every form of homosexual intercourse was a crime. The fundamentalist dogma against gay sex had no authority in New Testament Scriptures, and the Old Testament rules against gay sex had long ago been abandoned by most Jewish groups.

You do not jump into a taxicab in Texas and casually mention to the driver that you have a boyfriend.

Actually, when Thomas Jefferson talked about a wall seperating church and state he was talking about his concern for the state meddling in the affairs of religion and not vice versa. He was concerned the state would co opot a religion and use it as a pulpit to deliver the states dogma.

100% TRUE

btw, he was very educated person, with huge (huge-huge) library of religious manuscripts.

Which means, he was also very religious person, and yet - he insisted on separation...

I think that was a major idea behind it - to protect and avoid religious fanatics and new prophet-yahoos from state.

Brilliant, indeed.

Not that everything in this Gay in Thailand forum has to relate to Thailand, but the Thais are writing a new constitution as we write, so

The most sublime sentence in American literature is the First Amendment, which was written by Jefferson and his associates. Within a short time, the Supreme Court interpreted it as 'a great wall of separation of church and state.' Thailand could benefit its people by not making Buddhism a state religion in its new constitution. .

Looking back at it >200 years leater it might seem to be a short time before the Supreme Court opined that way, but the phrase "wall of separation" comes from Jeffereons's writings of 1801 but it was never codified into law and it took 77 years before the Supreme Court weighed in on the matter. The first Supreme Court ruling that made reference to it was Reynolds vs. Uninted States in 1878 which was a case where a convicted bigamist was seeking his conviction to be overturned of the basis of several arguments, including the argument that Jeffereson's concept of "separation of church and state" was one and the same as what the first ammendment said and hence it followed meant that bigamy should be allowed if one's religion permitted it. Reynolds (the bigamaist) lost the case.

Jerry Falwell, a Baptist in America, wanted to force his group's totally dishonest interpretation of homophobia upon everybody in America, which still had states like Texas where every form of homosexual intercourse was a crime. The fundamentalist dogma against gay sex had no authority in New Testament Scriptures, and the Old Testament rules against gay sex had long ago been abandoned by most Jewish groups.

You do not jump into a taxicab in Texas and casually mention to the driver that you have a boyfriend.

Make it easy - he was a clown, show-off illiterate clown.

But, he was also pretty rich clown, yeah ?

As PeaceBlondie has posted, Jefferson was a Deist as so many of our "founding fathers" were. Having a large library of religious works does not make him a Christian or a religionist.

I am a baptised Episcopalian but I am not a Christian now. My daughter was a Catholic tried and true until her college days, and much to my delight, she is a Deist now. A teflon Catholic if you will.

So if you have Jefferson writings from his early days that suggest he was a Christian or whatever, fine, but it is his later years that persuade me.

As PeaceBlondie has posted, Jefferson was a Deist as so many of our "founding fathers" were. Having a large library of religious works does not make him a Christian or a religionist.

I am a baptised Episcopalian but I am not a Christian now. My daughter was a Catholic tried and true until her college days, and much to my delight, she is a Deist now. A teflon Catholic if you will.

So if you have Jefferson writings from his early days that suggest he was a Christian or whatever, fine, but it is his later years that persuade me.

You lost the point, completely. I ment - smart man decided to separate according to his indepth knowledge. kapish ?

Few things to clarify :

>> baptised Episcopalian but I am not a Christian now >> Who is Episco ? Armenian or Italian historical person ? Never heard about him.

>> Catholic turn to Deist through college days - What happened in college, and what is it Deist ? Sounds German to me, seems it got nothing to do with Christianity, if it makes you so happy ("to my delight")

Oleg, since you asked, and I have a BA in the Christian religion, I'll try to explain.

Episcopalians are the American version of the Church of England. Nothing to do with Armenia or Italy, except through Canterbury and Rome.

Deists are not Christians; they just believe there's a God who started everything but hasn't interfered in human affairs for at least 10,000 years.

The founding fathers of the USA (Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Washington) were almost completely deist, not Christian.

Back on topic: yes, the purpose of the First Amendment was primarily to dis-establish the established churches of the colonies, and get churches from being supported by tax money. But the sentence also guarantees absolute religious freedom, as well as freedoms of press, speech, petitioning the government for redress of grievances, etc.

In the year 2550, it is difficult to imagine that the current framers of the new Thai constitution would be homophobic, or opposed to freedom of religion, press, speech, etc. Let's hope they aren't.

As PeaceBlondie has posted, Jefferson was a Deist as so many of our "founding fathers" were. Having a large library of religious works does not make him a Christian or a religionist.

I am a baptised Episcopalian but I am not a Christian now. My daughter was a Catholic tried and true until her college days, and much to my delight, she is a Deist now. A teflon Catholic if you will.

So if you have Jefferson writings from his early days that suggest he was a Christian or whatever, fine, but it is his later years that persuade me.

You lost the point, completely. I ment - smart man decided to separate according to his indepth knowledge. kapish ?

Few things to clarify :

>> baptised Episcopalian but I am not a Christian now >> Who is Episco ? Armenian or Italian historical person ? Never heard about him.

>> Catholic turn to Deist through college days - What happened in college, and what is it Deist ? Sounds German to me, seems it got nothing to do with Christianity, if it makes you so happy ("to my delight")

What part of anyone do you not understand?As to his viewpoints i confess im not entirely sure off however and i repeat you come across as being a nasty mean little man wishing death upon anyone

I'm with you, man

report to moderator that post

Go ahead and report me if you will.

Do either of you even know about the "works" of Jerry Falwell?

How he raised his large financial empire based on inciting hate?

He was not a private man. He was a public hater, and if his life and death generated lots of "blowback" you shouldn't be so quick to judge.

To this day, it is appropriate to condemn the dark actions of the Spanish inquisition. Perhaps you think we should give Jerry Falwell a few days to be buried before condemning this modern day inquisitor.

I would now like to cite the well known anti-theist writer Christopher Hitchens on the death of this dangerous man who caused so much damage to America, and his legacy will continue to do so. His words are stronger than mine, but you get the idea:

Faith-Based Fraud

Jerry Falwell's foul rantings prove you can get away with anything if you have "Reverend" in front of your name.

By Christopher Hitchens

Posted Wednesday, May 16, 2007, at 12:46 PM ET

The discovery of the carcass of Jerry Falwell on the floor of an obscure office in Virginia has almost zero significance, except perhaps for two categories of the species labeled "credulous idiot." The first such category consists of those who expected Falwell (and themselves) to be bodily raptured out of the biosphere and assumed into the heavens, leaving pilotless planes and driverless trucks and taxis to crash with their innocent victims as collateral damage. This group is so stupid and uncultured that it may perhaps be forgiven. It is so far "left behind" that almost its only pleasure is to gloat at the idea of others being abandoned in the same condition.

The second such category is of slightly more importance, because it consists of the editors, producers, publicists, and a host of other media riffraff who allowed Falwell to prove, almost every week, that there is no vileness that cannot be freely uttered by a man whose name is prefaced with the word Reverend. Try this: Call a TV station and tell them that you know the Antichrist is already on earth and is an adult Jewish male. See how far you get. Then try the same thing and add that you are the Rev. Jim-Bob Vermin. "Why, Reverend, come right on the show!" What a fool Don Imus was. If he had paid the paltry few bucks to make himself a certified clergyman, he could be jeering and sneering to the present hour.

Falwell went much further than his mad 1999 assertion about the Jewish Antichrist. In the time immediately following the assault by religious fascism on American civil society in September 2001, he used his regular indulgence on the airwaves to commit treason. Entirely exculpating the suicide-murderers, he asserted that their acts were a divine punishment of the United States. Again, I ask you to imagine how such a person would be treated if he were not supposedly a man of faith.

One of his associates, Bailey Smith, once opined that "God does not hear the prayers of a Jew." This is one of the few anti-Semitic remarks ever made that has a basis in fact, since God does not exist and does not attend to any prayers, but Smith was not quite making that point. Along with his friend Pat Robertson, who believes in secret Jewish control of the world of finance, and Billy Graham, who boasted to Richard Nixon that the Jews had never guessed what he truly thought of them, Falwell kept alive the dirty innuendo about Jews that so many believing Christians seem to need. This would be bad enough in itself, and an additional reason to deplore the free ride he was given on television, if his trade-off had not been even worse.

Seeking to deflect the charge of anti-Jewish prejudice, Falwell adopted the cause of the most thuggish and demented Israeli settlers, proclaiming that their occupation of the West Bank and Gaza was a holy matter and hoping that they might help to bring on Armageddon and the return of the Messiah. A detail in this ghastly narrative, as adepts of the "Left Behind" series will know, is that the return of the risen Christ will require the mass slaughter or mass conversion of all Jews. This consideration did not prevent Menachem Begin from awarding Falwell the Jabotinsky Centennial Medal in 1980 and has not inhibited other Israeli extremists from embracing him and his co-thinkers ever since. All bigots and frauds are brothers under the skin. Trying to interrupt the fiesta of piety on national television on the night of Falwell's death, I found myself waiting while Ralph Reed went all moist about the role of the departed in empowering "people of faith." Here was the hypocritical casino-based Christian who sought and received the kosher stamp from Jack Abramoff. Perfect.

Like many fanatical preachers, Falwell was especially disgusting in exuding an almost sexless personality while railing from dawn to dusk about the sex lives of others. His obsession with homosexuality was on a par with his lip-smacking evocations of hellfire. From his wobbly base of opportunist fund raising and degree-mill money-spinning in Lynchburg, Va., he set out to puddle his sausage-sized fingers into the intimate arrangements of people who had done no harm. Men of this type, if they cannot persuade enough foolish people to part with their savings, usually end up raving on the street and waving placards about the coming day of judgment. But Falwell, improving on the other Chaucerian frauds from Oral Roberts to Jim Bakker to Ted Haggard, not only had a TV show of his own but was also regularly invited onto mainstream ones.

The evil that he did will live after him. This is not just because of the wickedness that he actually preached, but because of the hole that he made in the "wall of separation" that ought to divide religion from politics. In his dingy racist past, Falwell attacked those churchmen who mixed the two worlds of faith and politics and called for civil rights. Then he realized that two could play at this game and learned to play it himself. Then he won the Republican Party over to the idea of religious voters and faith-based fund raising. And now, by example at least, he has inspired emulation in many Democrats and liberals who would like to borrow the formula. His place on the cable shows will be amply filled by Al Sharpton: another person who can get away with anything under the rubric of Reverend. It's a shame that there is no hel_l for Falwell to go to, and it's extraordinary that not even such a scandalous career is enough to shake our dumb addiction to the "faith-based."

Edited May 17, 200719 yr by Jingthing

To come back to the original point, I, for one, make absolutely no apology for being glad at Falwell's death. It would be pure hypocrisy to regret the death of such a poisonous person. I can think of others whom the world would be better off without, Robert Mugabe for example. Nor would I extend my sympathies to his friends and family, who have made out like bandits (literally) on the back of his rape of Zimbabwe and the deaths of so many of its people. I am not suggesting that Falwell was in Mugabe's league, but simply using Mugabe as an example to argue against the mealy-mouthed idea that one should not wish anyone dead---he richly deserves death.

On the separation of church and state in the US, I believe that Jefferson and other founding fathers were influenced to prohibit the establishment of a state religion by the example of Britain and other European states. The problem was not religious fanatics, but the effect of an established religion on public life. In Britain, parliament and the monarch were subject to religious tests, with the result that most significant public offices were restricted to protestants. Even worse, religious differences had contributed to much repression and a number of civil wars, very recently as far as Jefferson was concerned, eg. the mid 1700s battles between the catholic Stewarts and their protestant descendants on the throne.

Having spent about 25 years in each country, the US and the UK, I am struck by the the current contrast. In Britain, still nominally with an established religion, the effect of religion on government is almost nil. As has been said, Britain is a post-religious society (with the notable exception of some Muslim immigrants). In the US, on the other hand, without an established religion, christianity, or rather an odd fundamentalist strain of it, has a marked effect on public policy. Ironic.

Neil