The Ugly Un-American: A Eulogy to Jerry Falwell
Posted by Ray Church on 05.16.2007
If you’re looking for a glowing eulogy to Jerry Falwell, you’re not going to find it here.
If this column appears a little short, it's for the same reason I haven't been able to post regularly for the past few weeks. I'm neck deep in writing exams, so even thinking about writing a column is procrastination at the moment.
This column will come off as incredibly self-righteous and insensitive. I'm sure if you've been reading eulogies to Jerry Falwell this week, you've had your fill of comments like he's a man who "cherished faith, family and freedom" (George Bush) or "Dr. Falwell was a giant of faith and a visionary leader and he, as a man, has always been a man of great optimism and great faith" (Ron Godwin, executive vice president of Liberty University).
Or maybe not. The media has been fairly honest about Jerry Falwell, acknowledging that he was, at best, a divisive figure. You won't even get that from me.
Falwell was a raving lunatic given a megaphonefor his sickening subversion of the teaching of Jesus Christ. He was a propagandist, who hijacked a message of peace and turned it into a message of intolerance and hate.
So here is a eulogy to Falwell in his own words.
Falwell's stupidity can be witnessed as far back as the 1950's, where, like many preachers from the South, Falwell was an active opponent of the civil rights movement and supported the racial segregation of African Americans. In 1958, he said:
If Chief Justice Warren and his associates had known God's word and had desired to do the Lord's will, I am quite confident that the 1954 decision [Brown v. Board of Education] would never have been made…. The facilities should be separate. When God has drawn a line of distinction, we should not attempt to cross that line.
He would eventually cross that line, calling racial minorities "God-ordained minorities who do indeed deserve minority status", mainly as a way to explain why homosexuals were not, in his eyes, minorities.
And it was to homosexuals that his intolerance came to the fore. People may remember the article his magazine, the National Liberty Journal, outing Tinky Winky, the purple Teletubby, as being as representative of the homosexual agenda. (I'm so shocked he didn't go after Burt and Ernie). Falwell disavowalled any involvement in the article, but it was far from the worst statement he made about homosexuality.
AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals. To oppose it would be like an Israelite jumping in the Red Sea to save one of Pharaoh's charioteers . . . AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals."
In fact, God's wrath was a common theme for Falwell. The idea that inheriting ministries from corrupt "Men of Faith" like James Bakker didn't seem to incur God's wrath seemed to escape him, but some how he seemed to see God's wrath in the strangest of ways, such as his reasoning behind the events of 9/11.
The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this (the destruction of 9/11) because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way—all of them who have tried to secularize America—I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."
So, 9/11 was God's wrath on a nation that allows abortion, but don't think that Falwell was soft on Islam. In fact he drew a straight line from Mohammed to the terrorists.
I think Muhammad was a terrorist. I read enough by both Muslims and non-Muslims, [to decide] that he was a violent man, a man of war.
And I know that some readers may be accepting that slandering little comment as fact, so let me display the hypocrisy of that statement with Falwell's own words.
You've got to kill the terrorists before the killing stops and I am for the President—chase them all over the world, if it takes ten years, blow them all away in the name of the Lord.
Yup, because if you want to contrast the teachings of with the "Seal of the Prophets" (Mohammed) the teachings of "The Prince of Peace", you've got to "blow them away in the name of the Lord".
Falwell's grasp of Islam is, perhaps, forgivable as brute ignorance, but his ignorance of the bible was sickening. Take his critique of Jimmy Carter's actions.
(Jimmy Carter's) message of peace and reconciliation under almost all circumstances is simply incompatible with Christian teachings as I interpret them. This 'turn the other cheek' business is all well and good but it's not what Jesus fought and died for. What we need to do is take the battle to the Muslim heathens and do unto them before they do unto us.
The man, apparently, needed to actually read the bible he bashed people with.
Falwell did understand conservative politics, however, and his use of the bible was, at best, thinly disguised apologetic for his true religion and, at worst, propaganda dressed in the sheepskin of religion.
Somehow his bible held views on labor unions:
Labor unions should study and read the Bible instead of asking for more money. When people get right with God, they are better workers
On public education:
I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!
And on how sexuality relates to political allegiance:
The fact that Marc Cherry's a gay Republican means he should join the Democratic Party
Falwell's religion was thinly disguised materialism. It had nothing to do with God, or Jesus, or spirituality, and everything to do with money. As one of his ghost writers once reported him saying:
Thank God for these gay demonstrators. If I didn't have them, I'd have to invent them. They give me all the publicity I need.
If the American Atheists Society or Saddam Hussein himself ever sent an unrestricted gift to any of my ministries, be assured I will operate on Billy Sunday's philosophy: The Devil's had it long enough, and quickly cash the check.
Of course, I am just as hypocritical as Falwell. For all his sins, I have been just as sinful in pointing out his sins, so let me finish by quoting from the bible he used as a weapon of intolerance.
For the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: 'This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me; in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.
Shut the Hell Up Award
There are so many things I've wanted to comment on in the last two weeks, so just a few quick pointers. Ray Robinson's "Everything Old is New Again" recycled an old Republican talking point… opposition to the war = appeasement of Hitler. It's old, it's tried, it's been found wanting. If you want a straight forward response to it, explain to me how supporting the war is not the equivalent of appeasing Hitler, it all depends on who you believe represents Hitler in this story.
Two Republican debates have come and gone, and almost everyone of the representatives have said things I think disqualify them, be it McCain chasing Bin Laden to the gates of hell, three Republicans not believing in Evolution or Giuliani and Romney trying to explain how they can oppose abortion and donate to pro-abortion groups. Ron Paul = last man standing?
And, of course, there's Dick Cheney screaming threats at Iran when he can't walk through the streets of Baghdad without a massive flak jacket.
OK, so pay attention to the wording of that question. "Did Bush Know About the 9/11 Attacks in Advance?" I would have a hard time answering that question as a yes or no question, as we know, as fact, that the Whitehouse had received warnings about a potential attack in advance. So did he, or the CIA, know about the attacks? Yes or no. Hurry up, answer.
It's a stupid question, because it allows people to interpret it in so many different ways and then have to limit their answer to yes or no. And that means, you guessed it, that pundits will interpret what they think it means and say that that is what Democrats think. Here's your run down…
Bill O'Reilly: "35% of American Democratic voters believe President Bush knew about the 9-11 attacks in advance and allowed them to happen " (emphasis added)
Rush Limbaugh: "35% of this country's Democrats think that there was a government conspiracy " (emphasis added)
Michael Medval: "a stunning 61% of Democrats believed that the President of the United States may well have collaborated in the murder of 3,000 of his fellow citizens" (where did the 61% come from? Adding the not sure column in as well)
And good old Jonah Goldberg: "So, 1 in 3 Democrats believe that Bush was in on it somehow, and a majority of Democrats either believe that Bush knew about the attacks in advance or can't quite make up their minds."
So here's a statistic for you, and I'm pretty sure on this one. 100% of Bill O'Reilly, 100% or Rush Limbaugh, 100% of Michael Medval and 100% of Jonah Goldberg either do not understand that the question was misleading, or are willfully misrepresenting the views of Democrats in America.
And for the record, 1 in 7 Republicans also answered yes to that question, which means about 15% of Republicans are about as crazy as the Democrats supposedly are. Or maybe just that 1 in 7 Republicans interpreted the question in the same way.
STAY CURRENT