I’ll have more to say about Jerry Falwell tomorrow or Thursday, but I can’t not say this now:
I am deeply saddened that bloggers whom I like, admire, respect and even adore are rejoicing at the passing of this extraordinarily influential and deeply divisive figure. I’m not asking for grief that isn’t genuine, and I’m not asking folks to offer false paeans. I’m certainly not asking folks to refrain from thoughtful and deserved criticism. But the voices I’ve heard that speak cheerfully of Falwell being in hell — they make me ashamed. I don’t want Osama Bin Laden dead. I don’t want Charles Manson dead. I don’t want George Bush dead. I don’t want those who kill chinchillas dead. And I don’t want any of them in hell when they are called from this earth.
I realize that I frequently come across as sanctimonious and holier-than-thou. (At one blog today, when I shared this view a blogger whom I greatly admire called me a “simpering, sanctimonious little prick.”) But honestly, after prayer and reflection this afternoon, I still think it is always shameful to rejoice in the death of another human being, be it Jeffrey Dahmer or Adolf Hitler or al-Zarqawi or whoever is your personal villain.
Do I believe there’s a hell? Reluctantly, I do. I believe there’s a hell because Scripture and tradition says there is, and because I believe God gives us the free will to turn away from Him. But I also reserve the right to believe and pray that hell is absolutely empty. I pray that every last creature on this planet will live eternally in paradise. I pray that prayer every danged day.
I won’t ban you or delete your comments if you thrash me here, but whatever the provocation, do not use my comments section to launch personal attacks on other bloggers elsewhere, even those who today have indulged in the decidedly unfeminist sport of attacking the size of my genitalia!
You got yourself a deal, Hugo. I am sorry someone wrote that about you, though.
This might cheer you some:
Sylvia rules.
Aieee! I just saw where and who.
I’m not getting in the middle of that one. No way. I like both of you too much. I hope it’s resolved amicably soon.
Even in death, he’s divisive. Terrific.
Well, he was certainly divisive. I am still trying to figure out whether he did Christians a disservice by introducing hate speech into politico-religious discourse, or whether, in motivating the Christian left to “counterattack,” he allowed us to raise more awareness of the spiritual discourse we should be having in this country. Even though I don’t wish death or hell on anyone, I do think that we need to evaluate fairly what his activities have wrought in our country. And I think we can all agree that those activities weren’t always what we’d call loving, kind, or forgiving.
I don’t see anything wrong with celebrating that the man’s voice has been silenced, because it was a voice in dire need of silencing, but I definitely understand your dismay at the widespread celebration of his death. I don’t quite understand it, either. I’m not sad that he’s dead, but I see no reason to be happy about it either. He had a family and friends, people who cared about him, and they are undoubtedly hurting today. There’s no reason to be happy about suffering.
The liberal blogosphere has a habit of doing this, too. I stopped reading several blogs when they laughed at and mocked Rush Limbaugh for having a drug problem. Yeah, the man is as odious as they come, but if you think a drug problem is ever something to laugh about, you might want to take a very close look at your “liberal” principles.
I want Osama bin Laden dead. Manson’s death is long overdue. My only regret in Adolf Hitler’s death is that it came decades too late to save millions of innocents.
I cannot for the life of me fathom how anyone of goodwill can put George Bush or Jerry Falwell in the same category as those three. Has society really deteriorated to the point where no one can distinguish our enemies from people of goodwill with whom we simply disagree?
Nancy said it best: She believes Falwell was in heaven and regretting many things. Some day, the same would be said of me — hey, I already regret many things and won’t have to wait to get to heaven.
I have severe problems with Falwell and some of the things he promoted, but I hope for the best for him and for all of us.
I too reluctantly believe that there is a Hell, but I hope that God’s will that all be saved will, somehow, be done. Like a Straczynski story, I hope that God has something planned that will leave us all amazed and praising Him — and all in Heaven!
Amen, Hugo. As much as this liberal secularist despised his hate-mongering, I never wished the man death or torment (though I have to admit that I wished many times that he would either shut up or be ignored). I was turned off by some of the “Falwell in Hell” posts I read around the liberal blogosphere today.
There is one huge difference, though–when Falwell condemned someone to eternal torment, he meant it and believed it; when an atheist like Amanda Marcotte associates Falwell and Satan, she’s using hell as a rhetorical device to point out the man’s hypocrisy, or at least the inconsistency between his teachings and those of his religion.
“I want Osama bin Laden dead. Manson’s death is long overdue. My only regret in Adolf Hitler’s death is that it came decades too late to save millions of innocents.”
I second Xrlq. Forgive me, Hugo, but I think there are exceptions to the death penalty. Defining those exceptions is tricky, but in an extreme case like Hitler’s, I don’t blame people who were happy at the news of his death.
I agree with you on Jerry Falwell, though. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Just because he blamed 9/11 on feminists and gays (I still can’t believe he said that) and condemned people to hell, doesn’t make it okay for others to do the same. I think Ghandi said it best, “You must be the change you wish to see in the world.”
Xrlq, to the women, immigrants, gays, and other marginalized groups Falwell attacked, blamed, and negatively influenced government policies directly affecting, it wasn’t just a matter of “simple disagreement.”
That’s the problem. That’s where the rage comes from. It’s justified. It may not be in line with my personal values to shout “Yippee!” and throw a “Falwell’s Dead!”-themed party, but I sure can understand why some would want to.
Calling him a person “of goodwill” is really, really stretching it.
Thinking more about my initial comment, I realize that killing people (Hitler, etc.) to prove that killing people is wrong is hypocritical, given that I quoted Ghandi. BUT… I believe that there are extreme exceptions. When someone’s ruthless actions threaten the lives of numerous innocents (Manson, etc), sometimes the only solution is to kill them. My marine friend calls this the “force continuum.” I think we make a terrible mistake in assuming that extreme cases, like Osama, can be reasoned with using pacifist strategies. In 99% of cases, though, I stand by Ghandi’s words.
I’ve never been a Falwell fan. The man wasn’t even that relevant any more, but the way some are talking about it, he was public enemy #1. It seems that there are some who allowed him to take a lot of their pyschic energy. How sad!
I pray for the repose of Jerry Falwell’s soul, and the comfort of his friends and family. I also pray that the good he tried to do lasts, and the harm fades as soon as possible.
I just have one further comment we should never wish harm or suffering on another person, and I try not to. I disagree with people who do express glee at the death or suffering of another person. The internet, unfortunately, lends itself to the expression of this kind of glee. Both liberals and conservatives indulge; when Rachel Corrie died, conservative posters in a forum I frequent suggested (among other things) billing her parents for the cost of cleaning the bulldozer.
Trying to decide whose politics go with this kind of hate misses the point. We cannot do anything about the presence of hate, but we can choose not to add to it.
Peace.
i agree Xrlq and Mermade, as the radio in macys would put it, “there’s always an exception to the rule.” but falwell seems far from being an candidate for that that exception.
very sad though that many people choose to react that way. at least falwell had the good sense to at least put out an apology to the lesbian and gay communities for some of this behavior: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/14/Falwell.apology/
…maybe you’d ought to “protect” your “bits”? at 1 AM, this sounds funny to me.
“I apologize if I offended” (or, in Falwell’s case, the even vaguer and more evasive “. . . if I left that impression”) always signals a nonapology.
Calling it an apology does not make it one. If I were to blame you for September 11, and then later I called–no, not you personally, but CNN–and said “Gee, gosh, no, I only blame the terrorists, not that person I’m always calling a hellbound sinner on television, theverycold, at all–but I do apologize if I left that impression with her!” it would probably fall way short of a true apology to your ears. I just don’t think it’s an apology I’d accept very easily myself.
Better than nothing, perhaps, and then again perhaps not. Perhaps he only called CNN in response to the public outcry.
He’s dead now, and I can’t say I’m very sorry, because he had a good long run and caused truckloads of trouble for many innocent people during it. But I did still have one or two cringe reactions to some of the things people had to say about him in the wake of his death, so in that respect, I sympathize with Hugo. I’m not as good a Christian as he is (I remain positively gleeful that Ted Bundy is dead, for example, and the only complaint I have about Hitler’s death is that it didn’t occur soon enough), but I can’t bring myself to gloat over Jerry’s departure.
Shorter Ilyka: “Of course I can disagree civilly with people of goodwill, but anyone who disagrees with me on an issue I feel strongly about is not a person of goodwill.”
Does scripture say there’s a hell? I’m in some doubt about this, if hell is to be understood as a place of eternal punishment. Neither the OT “sheol” or the NT “gehenna” have much to do with the Hell familiar from medieval tradition. But I’m a novice at these debates, brother, just mildly interested….
Jesus himself referenced Hell in one of his parables.
I hear you Hugo.
When Saddam Hussein was executed I search the web for articles, vids, etc., and came across the vid of the hanging. Yeah, I watched it and frankly I’m glad I did because I reacted in a very unpredictable way: I couldn’t understand what Saddam was saying (I don’t speak Arabic) but when I saw the look in his eyes I got a sick feeling in my soul. Here I was, looking at a fellow human being who was about to be exectued/murdered, and I could see the fear, vulnerability and yes, humanity in his eyes. No matter how despicable, barbaric, etc., a person is, at some level they are still human. I felt sincere pity for Saddam and remorse for his execution.
I’m very torn about the death penalty, even in cases like Hilter, Saddam, et al.
Hugo, your protest at our supposedly shameful behavior would be a lot more powerful and effective if you actually engaged us in conversation (as we’ve been trying to do with you on Feministe) rather than responding by posting a brief essay on your opinions, directed at no one in particular.
People have been responding to your criticisms and you ignore their responses, perhaps because you’re not able to refute them.
Once again, I challenge you to show me where someone has gone beyond expressing relief/happiness that Falwell is out of this world to arguing that he lacked inherent human dignity. Quote someone rather than generalizing and shaming everyone.
You are coming across as incredibly sanctimonious and and not very logical right now.
I cannot for the life of me fathom how anyone of goodwill can put George Bush or Jerry Falwell in the same category as those three.
George Bush has clearly, by the very most conservative estimates, killed more people than Manson ever did. Possibly more than bin Laden has been able to, I’m not sure there. He’s way behind Hitler though. And no, I don’t wish Bush dead. In the ICC, on trial for his crimes, yes. Dead, no.
I couldn’t care less about Falwell’s death, though I admit to cheap Bloom County based jokes on the issue. (I would be extremely suprised if anyone close enough to Falwell to be offended ever saw any of them.) If I thought Falwell’s death would end or decrease the amount of sexism, racism, homophobia, and prejudice based on religion, I’d be happy he died. But I doubt it will. There are others waiting to take up his position. So, really, it’s too bad he didn’t live longer, but I feel more sorry for Bush’s victims–and Falwell’s–than I really do for Falwell himself.
PS: I’m an atheist. I believe that Falwell simply exists no more. But as for what I hope is happening to him…I hope that the Goddess is giving him a good dressing down and making him understand what he did wrong in his life and what evil it caused. And letting him know what he did right and what good came of it. A life review without excuses or mental defenses, followed by a time to apologize and make restitution with his victims. And a time for others to apologize to him for the wrongs they did him (his father comes to mind). Finally, a time to learn and go on to a better world for all. /fantasy
I’m one of the vitriolic posters on one of the blogs I know you read. I respect your opinion, Hugo, even as I often disagree with it. You have the solace of a belief that says even sinner’s get a chance for redemption. You also have the reluctant belief in a hell that (I’m guessing) means eternal damnation and suffering. You, being a good and kind person, don’t wish that on anyone. That says a lot about you, and it is to your credit.
I don’t follow those beliefs. I don’t believe in a heaven that says that for all of Falwell’s hatred of humanity, if he believed Christ was his savior, he could spew all the hatred and bigotry he wants and still enjoy an afterlife of peace, love, and wonder. I don’t believe in an eternal hell, either, or perhaps I’d falter before wishing someone — even someone as cruel and intolerant as Falwell — into it.
I do believe that what we have is our one life on earth where we will be judged by those whose lives we impact. I do believe that, in death, we have only the judgment of those same people for our legacy. Falwell earned the enmity of many good, kind, just people in this country who simply wanted to live their own lives, and live them in love. Falwell has earned the condemnation he is receiving on the works of his life. If his living longer would have meant him seeing the error of his ways and preaching love instead of hate, then I would have wished for his long, long life. But since he saw fit to be cruel and intolerant all of his days, that those days on earth have ended, I can only see as a good in the world.
I’m just trying to correct the way that conservatives use the taboo against speaking ill of the dead to whitewash history. For the sake of the living, we cannot allow people to pretend that Falwell was anything but a nasty bigot who helped start a social movement that hurts people every day. And, when it comes to gay bashing and abortion clinic terrorism, kills people on a regular basis. Not to mention the Bush administration’s very existence. Bush lost by a thin enough margin in 2000 to steal the election and won by a thin margin in 2004, all because hate-mongerers like Falwell stir up resentment against women and gays and turn them out to vote. 600,000+ dead Iraqis who were, unlike Falwell, not famous bigots as a general rule have him to thank, in part, for their early demise.
But we don’t speak ill of the dead and that will be used to whitewash that nasty history of this country that has lead us to where we are.
For what it’s worth, I never said I wanted Falwell dead. I just reminded people of two major things: 1) Falwell was always using the spector of hell to generate hate against people and 2) He blamed the ACLU (in part) for 9/11. Yes, I was funny about it. I think the people that Falwell personally had a hand in oppressing—the women, gay people, non-theocrats, anyone who loves freedom, you know, my audience—deserves to laugh at him after every evil he’s dished out to us.
i’ve said it elsewhere, and i’ll repeat it wherever anybody cares to have me speak on the matter; in a just world, falwell’s eulogy would consist of the words “we should not speak ill of the dead. let’s have a moment of silence.”, and nothing more.
xrlq, he may not have been a genocidal maniac (i said may not, and i’ll leave it at that), but how anybody who’s read his words could ever mistake him for a man of good will quite escapes me.
Falwell, to me, was one of the leaders in blurring the separation of church and state that seems so commonplace today. Obviously a lot of people gladly jumped on that bandwagon, including politicians who pandered to that “base,” so Fallwell certainly didn’t do all of the damage by himself. But it’s very long-term, since it’s become such an accepted part of the political process. Falwell’s death does little to change that fact, for it’s a legacy that’s grown beyond one person.
Pip, I agree completely that the NT notion of gehenna bears little resemblance to the hell of Dante. And frankly, I am fond of hell as envisioned by Lewis in The Great Divorce — as a self-chosen dreary city, not unlike foggy London.
Mostly Normal, to me wishing someone to be in hell is ipso facto evidence that one doesn’t see him as a worthy human being. I perhaps didn’t make that clear in my comments at the other blog.
I have to say, I’m disappointed to see that you’re still not getting why you were addressed the way you were addressed at my blog, Hugo. You came in with guns blazing, and ticked a lot of people off with the sanctimony and the insistence that we be kind and generous (like good little girls) toward someone whose existence on this planet did far more harm than good — toward someone who was using his vast political and social power to actively do harm to the sorts of people who read my blog.
As I noted there, several people had commented that glee was inappropriate, but they did so without the lecturing and the dramatics and the pearl-clutching that you engaged in.
It’s apparent, though, that you are taking the ironic comments of people who don’t actually believe in hell far too seriously. Because you believe in a literal hell — as did Falwell, who publicly stated again and again that people like me were going to spend eternity in that literal hell that he and you believe in. And he worked to hasten that trip for many, with his opposition to reproductive rights and accurate sexual health information.
So pardon me for not squeezing out any crocodile tears for his passing.
Though why my post was apparently the sole target of your self-righteous high dudgeon escapes me.
Falwell aside, why in the world would your theology include a hell if it were to be (even possibly) empty? Why have the threat of eternal punishment at all? If god created a hell to be empty, he’s not only mysterious, he’s incomprehensible.
As far as rejoicing in somebody’s death–we sometimes are very saddened by somebody’s death, even somebody we didn’t know (whether or not we believe in god and heaven). We can be sad that a person is no longer in the world to do the good that she does, for instance. Given that, it makes sense to me that we could be happy about somebody’s death just as easily–I’m happy he’s dead inasmuch as he can’t spew his hatred any longer. Seems to me that Christians who don’t spew hate ought to be glad on some level that he’s dead because he certainly gave Christians a bad name.
Divisive? He was a jerk who preached hatred and divisiveness itself. I say good riddance, and I’m happy there is one less jerk in the world, just as I am saddened when a person who does a lot of good in the world dies.
Folks, as I said, I’ll have more on this another day.
But Zuzu, I have to say I like the imagery from your comment. If I could come in with my guns blazing whilst simultaneously clutching my pearls, I am indeed more capable of negotiating complex gender roles than I had imagined!
I’ll refrain from dancing on his grave, but as a friend of mine said last night, “his life was far more of a shame than his death.”
I cannot for the life of me fathom how anyone of goodwill can put George Bush or Jerry Falwell in the same category as those three. Has society really deteriorated to the point where no one can distinguish our enemies from people of goodwill with whom we simply disagree?
Sorry for the double post, but I just saw this, and I’ve got to say, it’s about the most offensive thing I’ve read today. To you it’s a simple disagreement with George Bush, perhaps, but to millions of Iraqis it’s a matter of life or death. Seeing Bush as a “person of goodwill” with whom you simply disagree betrays a profound lack of empathy for the suffering of your fellow human beings.
As for Falwell, I wouldn’t lump him in with mass murderers like Bush or Reagan, but he was not a person of goodwill. The hatred that was in his heart was apparent to anyone who read or heard his words. I don’t know where he is now, and I don’t care, I’m just happy we’re finally rid of him.
That people are gleefully celebrating over a man’s death is, unfortunately, not terribly surprising. But one thing that I think is getting missed in all of this is that Falwell’s influence had already been waning for at least fifteen years. He seemed to be a lightning rod for liberal commentators and bloggers to get mad about every time he opened his mouth, but thankfully his influence within Christianity (and by extension, the US government) has really been on the decline for a very long time (even in his own interviews, the number of Christians who he claimed to speak for diminished dramatically over the years). Though you likely wouldn’t notice it from most news coverage, a large number of conservative Christians had tired of him long ago.
OK, I’ll be the cat.
What was so offensive about Falwell’s 9/11 comments?
They seem to rest on two very common beliefs. (Common to almost all religious people, not just Christians or even monotheists, although I use “God” in my post.)
1) God influences events so that good wins in the end. (Very few people would be offended if I said “The South lost the War because slavery was an abomination, and so God caused them to have bad luck and bad leadership at key points.”)
2) Homosexuality is offensive to God.
OK, I know lots of you disagree with #2–but something like 95% of the God-believers in the world’s history have believed it. That seems to put it in the category of “common errors”, not “unique bigotries”.
What was so offensive about Falwell’s 9/11 comments?
Because feminism and support of civil liberties is *just like* owning other human beings as chattel. Falwell blamed 9/11 on a far bigger crowd than LGBT people.
Also, it is nauseating beyond belief to suggest that someone’s conscious act of terrorism is the fault of innocent people.
I’m not sorry he’s dead, I’m actually quite happy. He was (by my non-Christian standards) a terrible person, and the world is a better place today then it was yesterday because he is no longer in it. While it sucks for his family that he is dead, I feel no need to be polite about someone who made a living (and a fat one at that) off discrimination, lies, and oppression of gay people. He was a rotten person and if there is a Christian hell, he seems to deserve a proper place in it. I don’t see anyone mocking his family members, who are the true victims of his death, but I’m not going to whitewash the fact that myself and others like me were the victims of his hateful life… which is thankfully over.
However I do agree that “Jerry Falwell is dead” parties are tacky. I’m saving up my tactless death-related party plans for the death of Fred Phelps. When that day comes, screw classy. That fucker deserves a big-assed party.
Xrlq:
If we suspend civility and decency for our “enemies”, then we’ll spend a lot of time behaving uncivilly and indecently. Apart from anything else, declaring that our “enemies” don’t deserve civility, dead or alive, asserts our right to unlimited judgment.
Zuzu:
Nobody asks you to like what Falwell did in life. I mainly regret that he did not have more of a chance to learn, gain perspective, and change his views, which did a lot of harm.
But I get really tired of reading filth from the “right” about people like Rachel Corrie, and the only way I know to end it starts with promoting civility. We won’t get the people who despised everything people like Rachel Corrie and Andrea Dworkin stood for to change their views, but we can encourage civil debate. And that, for me, means promoting civil responses to other people’s deaths where I can. And I can choose the manner in which I will respond to Jerry Falwell’s death.
I immediately thought of this line: Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live? (Ezekiel 18). I grieve that Falwell took such divisive stands. I grieve the ill words he spoke “in God’s name.” I wish he would have come to face his errors and truly repent before passing on. But I will not rejoice that any human life has ended. In fact, I would argue (if I had more time) that celebrating any death only makes us the poorer.
Since so many have been speaking of hell, Hugo – have you read Randy Klassen’s “What Does the Bible Really Say About Hell?” It’s not as extensive as a lot of other books on the subject, but he’s a Mennonite, so you have that connection. He pushes back pretty hard against the Dante Hell. To sum up his thoughts, hell is probably more of a possibility of eternity, but not necessarily so. As long as one chooses to reject the free gift of grace, then one is allowed to reside in hell, for all of eternity should they desire. But God’s grace is just as sufficient on this side of death as on the other, so the door to Life is always open.
Oh, and hell probably isn’t all fire and cold coffee and devils with pitchforks and eternal Kenny G Muzak. The biblical imagery is all metaphorical, and our interpretations often flow through Dante and the Middle Ages and The Far Side. What it might be like isn’t really obvious; it’s just the opposite of “Good.”
I find it very interesting that you’re equating Jerry Falwell, wealthy, powerful and extremely influential leader of the religious right, with Rachel Corrie, who had neither wealth, power nor influence.
And please spare me the civility lecture. How, exactly, does taking delight in the fact that a tremendously damaging and evil person has been removed from the world at the ripe old age of 73 after a lifetime of spreading hate (and backing it up with political action) compare with the pancake jokes made about the manner of Rachel Corrie’s death?
Well said, Hugo. That’s all I’ve got to add at this point. Thanks again for your posts.
I think that Jerry Falwell was a horrible person and I can understand why people would be glad he was dead. I’m not going to celebrate anybody’s death or say that I hope they’re burning in Hell or that I wish there WERE a Hell to accomodate that particular wish, but, again, I can see where people are coming from.
I think the tone of your comment over at Feministe was pretty severe, Hugo, even though some of the comments there bothered me, too. My friend passed away last week, and it’s to soon for me to be jumping up and down about someone else kicking the old bucket.
But I’m not afraid to speak ill of the dead. It’s important to tell the truth and not whitewash history, as Amanda said, out of “respect.” I’m sorry to Jerry Falwell’s family and my heart goes out to those who loved him. I was not one of them. I’m sorry he squandered his life away with so much hatred and bigotry. And I hope he rests in peace.
When we rejoice in the death of an evil person, one who actively worked every day of his life in ways that harmed others, we rejoice not in death itself but that in they will no longer continue doing harm. I’ll be glad when Osama Bin Laden dies not because I ghoulishly rejoice in death but because it means he will plan no more attacks, and because no more people far more worthy than he will die at his hands. Would it have been nice if Falwell had stopped actively damaging our society and hurting in people in a way other than death? If he had repented of his evil and sincerely apologized to all those he harmed, or if our society had developed to a point where his position was so marginal he could no longer get any public attention? Sure, that would have been preferable, because even the death of evil people brings bad along with good. But I believe his death is preferable to even one more day of his life as it was.
And I think you need to recognize the context of people’s “hopes” that he is in hell. To many in the progressive blogosphere, hell is a fable, a myth, and their comments about it in terms of Falwell’s are more a hope that he somehow find out in death how incredibly wrong he was in life.
2) Homosexuality is offensive to God.
OK, I know lots of you disagree with #2–but something like 95% of the God-believers in the world’s history have believed it.
But believed homosexuality and feminism are so unusually offensive to God as to require the deaths of thousands of innocent people as punishment? Surely, even for those who consider homosexuality offensive to God, it should be more on the order of the level of offense of something like gossip or masturbation than something like slavery?
(And, just to be clear, I’m not rejoicing in Falwell’s death or wishing him in hell, just finding his statement after 9/11 seriously wrong-headed.)
OK, I know lots of you disagree with #2–but something like 95% of the God-believers in the world’s history have believed it.
Please consider actually reading up on religious history before pulling statistics out of your ass.
However I do agree that “Jerry Falwell is dead†parties are tacky. I’m saving up my tactless death-related party plans for the death of Fred Phelps. When that day comes, screw classy. That fucker deserves a big-assed party.
If someone’s funeral deserves to be picketed by a whole diverse Love Parade of fags, dykes, trannies, drag queens, leather daddies, twinks, bears and other folks who believe that we’re all human and God (if he exists) hates none of us, that evil bastard’s funeral would be the one.
I’m not in the least surprised to find the left dancing for joy, myself.
I’m not in the least surprised to find the left dancing for joy, myself.
Cue the hypocrisy!
Dianne,
Your fantasy:
“I hope that the Goddess is giving him a good dressing down and making him understand what he did wrong in his life and what evil it caused. And letting him know what he did right and what good came of it. A life review without excuses or mental defenses, followed by a time to apologize and make restitution with his victims. And a time for others to apologize to him for the wrongs they did him (his father comes to mind). Finally, a time to learn and go on to a better world for all”
…is a perfect, healthy interpretation of the Christian/Catholic doctrine of purgatory, which is where I personally believe Falwell is right now. Not suffering eternally, not suffering temporarily for the sake of vengeance, but the life-giving combination, painful and freeing both, and likely taking a long time–given that eternity is outside of our time– of facing the truth of the terrible damage he did and making amends for it. Which to me includes interceding for those on earth he hurt as well as exchanging apologies and eventually forgiveness with those beyond this plane…As I think I and everyone will do someday.
Thank you for saying it so beautifully; the fact that you don’t believe it yourself, IMHO, just points out how much our spirits cry out for that combination of accountability and reconciliation, which gets stretched to the limit in the case of seriously evil and damaging behavior like his and some of the others that have been mentioned.
I am not happy this man is dead.
But I am relieved. And it is such an overwhelming sense of relief to know that one less person is in the world who believes that I am not human.
But I am not happy he is dead. I would be happy had he woken up one day and stopped his hatred, his lies and his agenda, but that did not happen.
Although he will no longer be able to continue to spread his hatred, his hatred will spread itself like an evil virus for many years to come. And so I do not dance and I do not sing.
I am not sad that he is dead, although I am sad for those that did love him, as my feelings about his message are utterly irrelevant to those who loved and lost. They only know that this man is now gone, possibly forever, and that he leaves a hole in their lives and their hearts.
After all, part of what makes us human is the capacity to love when reason tells us to turn aside. Perhaps I would be sadder if Mr. Falwell had understood this and took it to heart. I know that I would be much happier if he had.
You’re right on, Hugo. It’s time for the self-styled enlightened among us to practice what we preach. This kind of hatred does not belong in the kind of society we want to create.
I’ll echo the others who have said that Falwell was not just somebody we disagree with; through his Moral Majority work and his preaching of hate, he managed to help do actual harm to the world. If Falwell hadn’t brought the evangelical church into the state, would Reagan and Bush have been elected? Would so many Christians try to vote against gay marriage at the expense of the issues– like world hunger– that Jesus commanded us to focus on? I think not. There is a REASON for all this anger– Ilyka said it best, but I believe that all the vitriol directed at Falwell is well-deserved.
That said, I hope Jesus greets him at the Pearly Gates and takes him to his new mansion…and that his neighbors are a lesbian feminist couple on one side, and a Palestinian Muslim family on the other.
Speaking of goodwill, the “shorter” construction so often abused on the internet is seldom evidence of any, given that it’s really just a juvenile way to strawman your opponent.
Nice try, but I didn’t say what you’re saying I did.
“Mostly Normal, to me wishing someone to be in hell is ipso facto evidence that one doesn’t see him as a worthy human being.”
Worthy of what? Clarify yourself. Worthy of life? Again, who said he wasn’t worthy of living? Give me any quote. You still have yet to do that.
As far as I can tell from the comments, I’m the only person on the Feministe thread who actually believes that hell exists, and I never said I wished he were there. So who are you even talking about??
You are preaching to an audience that doesn’t exist: an audience of people who believe in hell and pray that Jerry’s burning in it. Honestly, man, it’s ridiculous.
“to me wishing someone to be in hell is ipso facto evidence that one doesn’t see him as a worthy human being.”
Also, not to be a douche, but don’t throw in “ipso facto” if you’re not going to use it correctly. You use “ipso facto” when describe a thing which is self-evident, not to describe one thing that you are arguing is evidence of another thing.
zuzu:
The comparison of Rachel Corrie and Jerry Falwell would infuriate a lot of conservatives just as much as it appears to upset you. In fact, they do have two things in common: they tried to do good according to their lights, and they both belonged to the human race, with friends and family who loved them. For that reason, many people see personal attacks on them as indecent, uncivil, and an invitation to respond in kind.
If you don’t care about civility for its own sake, consider this: if you consider (as I do) the “left” (anti-war, anti-racist, pro-gay rights, pro-women’s rights) correct on most issues, then we have a critical advantage in rational debate. Facts and logic do move political debate in a democracy; notice how the exposure of unjust convictions over the past decade have stalled the pro-capital punishment movement. Because I consider Rachel Corrie right and most of what Jerry Falwell advocated for wrong, I insist on civility because I want to give people a chance to hear the truth.
I’m a little bit suprised that at Feministe not one person said that what you quote the other blogger as saying about you was inappropriate. I think you overreacted to them initially, but at the same time, some of the invective directed your way in that thread is unwarranted. And no one has said it isn’t, and that makes me question where their hearts are at. I know we can’t name names in this thread, but I’d like to.
Do you ever think there’s a masochistic streak to how you blog and interact with other bloggers? I think in some ways you invite criticism, almost reveling in it. Lately you have been more aggressive in your insistence that there is one right way to do things, almost as if you are trying to spark a confrontation thanks to your latter-day puritan beliefs. I agree with 90% of what you say, I am a vegetarian moving towards being full vegan, but at times, you seem to enjoy taking the hardest possible path and then asking everyone to follow if they want to have all the wonderful things you have.
Just something to think about.
I really like all the book reviews you’re doing! Keep at it! I’m buying the books as you recommend them!
Mostly Normal, for whatever reason, you’re always getting stuck in my spam folder. Sorry.
Re ipso facto:
I am quite comfortable, in vernacular speech, consciously misusing conventional English and Latin grammar. I say things like “that begs the question..” when it doesn’t meet the classic standard of “begging the question.” I say “I could care less” when I ought to say “I couldn’t care less” and so forth. And gosh, you should see the fun I have with “prima facie evidence”!
Comments I leave on other people’s blogs are written in the demotic; what little academic writing I do is held to a much higher standard.
I still think it is always shameful to rejoice in the death of another human being, be it Jeffrey Dahmer or Adolf Hitler or al-Zarqawi or whoever is your personal villain.
Amen.
I occasionally allow myself to indulge in this vice; but, even when I do it, I know it to be wrong, and I feel guilty for doing so.
I am not sad that Reverend Falwell is dead. Indeed, I long considered him to be my enemy. But that does not make the rejoicing any less ugly.
XRLQ: I think it’s entirely reasonable for members of the gay community to have perceived Rev. Falwell as our enemy. Whether it is appropriate to rejoice at the death of an enemy is another question entirely.
Really? Do you have a transcript of some speech where Falwell called for 6 million gays to be exterminated? Or a tape of the time he ordered terrorists to fly planes into buildings in the Castro District? Or at least ordered a few murders of prominent gays here and there in hopes of starting a sexual orientation war?
If you’ve got any such evidence, I’d be interested in hearing it. Otherwise, calling the guy an “enemy” in the sense of Hitler, bin Laden or Manson is beyond offensive.
Bit disingenuous there, Xrlq. Why does “enemy” have to be on the scale of Hitler to count?
Zuzu, I never said you have to be an enemy on the scale of Hitler to be considered an enemy. I did suggest, however, that you have to be an enemy on the scale of Hitler to warrant comparison to … oh, I don’t know … Hitler???!!! As to what constitutes an enemy more generally, I’d say the person has to be motivated by animus against the person, as opposed to merely objecting to conduct that another person believes unobjectionable. If you hate the sin but love the sinner, you may piss the sinner off in a big way, especially if he has a good-faith believe that his perceived sin isn’t a sin after all, but you’re not his enemy. If you hate the sinner and the sin (or, in the case of racism, hate the individual without any pretense of there being a sin), you are.
In Falwell’s case, I hear a lot of obnoxious shrieking in this thread about how mean and eeeevvvvil the guy supposedly was, but I don’t see anyone producing a shred of evidence that the guy wished ill on anyone. At most, I see a spirited disagreement over what conduct should or should not be be classified as a sin. Big difference. If everyone who disapproved of anything I consider unobjectionable were considered my “enemy,” I’d have nothing but enemies in the world, and the very word “enemy” – along with the Biblical directive to love them – would lose any meaning whatsoever.
Speaking of enemies – the real kind, that is – get a load of what the real enemies of gays think about Jerry Falwell.
I did suggest, however, that you have to be an enemy on the scale of Hitler to warrant comparison to … oh, I don’t know … Hitler???!!!
Too bad the person you were responding to didn’t make that comparison.
Speaking of enemies – the real kind, that is – get a load of what the real enemies of gays think about Jerry Falwell.
Fred Phelps went off the deep end long ago – now he’s just an aging media whore desperate for another few minutes of attention. His “God Hates Everybody” schtick has worn thin. And if we’ve got Hitler and bin Laden in the mix, it’s worth pointing out that neither Phelps nor Falwell have actually killed anybody nor ordered their death. Their weapons are words and rhetoric – the actual killin’ is left to the folks who take their message very literally and try to put it into action (e.g. Eric Rudolph)
Falwell, while not as directly hateful, is nevertheless highly deserving of the batshitinsane label along with Phelps.
I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to deem Falwell an enemy of gays.
On what basis? Because he believed the Biblical passages that label homosexuality a sin? By that reasoning, all evangelical Christians, all Orthodox Jews and all Muslims of every stripe are “enemies” of each other, and of just about everyone else.
Xrlq,
I know I’m late to this party, but sincerely believing something does not make one less of a horrible person. Sure, Falwell sincerely believed all the stuff he preached (and his rhetoric did incite violence against gays and women, even if he didn’t actually commit that violence himself), but that doesn’t make the stuff he believed or his words any less repugnant. And it doesn’t make him any less of a great big giant asshole in the eyes of those of us he directed his hate and bigotry toward. And not to continue the Hitler/Bin Laden comparison, because Falwell definitely did not reach that level of awful, but those guys also sincerely believed in the stuff they said/did, and are still generally considered to be two of the worst people to ever live.
That isn’t saying that I, personally, would revel in his death or wish him in hell, because I don’t believe in hell in the first place and I can’t think of anyone that I would actively wish death on. But I can certainly understand why others would, at minimum, be relieved that he is no longer in this world to continue spreading his message of hate. And I also understand comments like Amanda’s and other athiests as merely pointing out the hypocrisy of someone with Falwell’s stated beliefs acting as he did in this life.
Surely, even for those who consider homosexuality offensive to God, it should be more on the order of the level of offense of something like gossip or masturbation than something like slavery?
Lynn,
If you asked me what offenses should be serious vs less serious, I would agree with you. But I can easily see why another Christian might disagree. Sexual offenses seem to be generally considered extremely serious in both the Torah, and in the New Testament. And slavery seems to be in the “not a great idea, but OK” category.