Falwell Dead

[Nilsen]

Originally posted by 68Hawk
Considering my thingy to the left says Denver, CO, its just a stupid question.

Or a lame crack, either way its nothing new.

To answer directly:

No my son, I live in Colorado!

I guess the "Denver, CO" really SHOULD give you away

[Elfie]

If you want to pass laws solely because of a religious text then you are arguing for a theocratic government, and can have it over my dead body

When I do vote, I vote according to my conscience and my beliefs, religious and otherwise. Are you saying that by my act of voting, that I am arguing for a theocratic government and therefore shouldn't vote?

Falwell was ignorant of the principles of secularism, and thus he was a T**D Sandwich.

Falwell stood up for what he believed in, regardless of the criticism and hate that was directed his way. That's something the vast majority of people in this world don't have the courage to do. Falwell didn't just talk the talk when it came to his Christian beliefs, he also walked the walk. Like Seagoon, I don't personally agree with him getting involved in politics but Seagoon and I won't have to answer for Jerry's actions, only Jerry will.

I seriously doubt that a man with Jerry Falwell's knowledge of not only biblical teachings, but also about the world itself was hardly ignorant of the prinicipals of secularism. He just didn't believe in secularism like you do, but I guess that makes him a **** Sandwich eh?

[Elfie]

Originally posted by Nilsen
I guess the "Denver, CO" really SHOULD give you away

Not everyone lists their *real* location.

Maybe he does live in Denver...maybe he doesn't.....

[68Hawk]

Originally posted by Elfie
Are you saying that by my act of voting, that I am arguing for a theocratic government and therefore shouldn't vote?

Falwell stood up for what he believed in, regardless of the criticism and hate that was directed his way.

I seriously doubt that a man with Jerry Falwell's knowledge of not only biblical teachings, but also about the world itself was hardly ignorant of the prinicipals of secularism. He just didn't believe in secularism like you do, but I guess that makes him a **** Sandwich eh?

First off, if you want to vote for something because the bible says so, it is your right, even though that methodology disgusts me.  I never said anything about precluding you from voting, and if you think I did you should read more carefully.  

I was speaking more about proposing and arguing for a law than the individual citizen's decision making process in the vote, but you know it really does go together.  If we were to vote on a new law making murder illegal (again) then we should ask ourselves not what the bible says but whether Jesus would agree with our reasoning.  I've got to believe that Jesus was wiser than to resort to the argument of, 'because I said so".

On the 'benevolence' of Falwell:

First let me say that I respect strength of conviction.  Still, his strength of conviction led him to argue that others should not have the same rights and privileges as himself because they did not share his ideology.  Hitler had a strong conviction in his ideology, should we respect and exalt him for it?  Absolutely not, because his ideology was dangerous to others around him, and disrespectful (to say the least) of the rights of his fellow human beings.  Falwell was really no different animal, though there is an obvious difference of degree/ferocity.  Stalin and Mao come to mind too as champions of ideological convictions at the expense of society.

If he truly did understand secularism and how it helps us coexist, and decided to work against it because of his ideological convictions, then his legacy becomes all the more heinous.  I really don't care what he decided to preach on Sundays from his pulpit at his self created 'institution of higher learning', but he has no right to directly inject HIS ideology into OUR government.  For him to argue, 'Jesus would agree with us because this makes good, logical sense' would have been entirely appropriate.  He chose instead to argue that the law and everyone else should follow his ideological beliefs because he cannot himself play well with others.  

The sooner we as a world get over these clowns, the sooner we can all, maybe, live in peace.  Falwell=Hitler=Stalin=Mao=Osama bin Laden in terms of benevolence.  None should be respected.  All were/are nothing but attention grabbing potatos throwing tantrums, and they all condemned the world to take a giant bite out of a T**D sandwich.  

Luckily in this country enough people knew Falwell was a joke and he never amassed more political power than he did.  

Lucky for us all.

[storch]

Originally posted by Chairboy
Considering the level of care that went into his post, your reply seems to be a bit lacking.  I'd like to hear a serious rebuttal to his points, if you can offer it.

my response is sufficiently adequate for that level of tripe.

[Elfie]

I never said anything about precluding you from voting, and if you think I did you should read more carefully.

It was simply a question, nothing more.

First off, if you want to vote for something because the bible says so, it is your right, even though that methodology disgusts me.

I vote according to my beliefs, those beliefs are in fact based on biblical teachings. You also vote according to your beliefs, which seem to be based on secularism, would that not also be *disgusting*, or is it only disgusting when someone votes according to their religious beliefs?

I was speaking more about proposing and arguing for a law than the individual citizen's decision making process in the vote, but you know it really does go together. If we were to vote on a new law making murder illegal (again) then we should ask ourselves not what the bible says but whether Jesus would agree with our reasoning. I've got to believe that Jesus was wiser than to resort to the argument of, 'because I said so".

According to biblical teachings, Jesus was the Son of God. In His teachings he repeatedly references His Father's laws for us. The Bible says, thou shalt not kill. It doesn't really give us a reason for not killing, other than obedience to Him.

First let me say that I respect strength of conviction.

In Falwell's case, you obviously don't respect the strength of conviction evidenced by the rest of what you wrote in that paragraph.

Falwell=Hitler=Stalin=Mao=Osama bin Laden in terms of benevolence.

That is just rediculous. The last 4 killed many people for their convictions, name one that Falwell killed.

Apparently, it's ok for secularists to force their views on the rest of us, the very thing you appear to despise Falwell for.

I'm done defending a man that did far more good than any of us here will ever do. I also refuse to judge the man for his mistakes. The Bible tells us, judge not lest ye be judged. Why would the Bible tell us that? Maybe because each and everyone of us has made mistakes?

[68Hawk]

I don't vote for something because secularism tells me to.  Secularism is not dogmatic as a lot of people continually insist.  I vote for things because I think they make sense.  Obviously we all have grounding for our beliefs.  Sure you're belief system is based in Christian theology, but that doesn't mean you need to rely on Christian theology as the justification for how you vote.  I wouldn't ever ask you to disregard your principles, but I only ask that you justify them with more than religious doctrine.

Ok, so the collected and somehow immutable work of two thousand years claims the 'because I said so'  argument trumps.  Sure, I honestly don't really care.  If thats really how the historical figure of Jesus felt, he needed a little bit of a logic check too.  Take that as you will.  It just cracks me up when grown adults subscribe to such paternalism.

I respect strength of conviction, but not how most people manifest it.  It can be argued that overzealous conviction is only a bad thing.  We cannot be so sure of ourselves that we are not open to others arguments.  You accuse me of doing that, but you are missing what I'm saying.  And I am listening, but you're just not brining an argument that doesn't fall back on dogmatic evidence.

I've never seen anyone able to link Hitler to an actual murder, nor for that matter to an order for the Holocaust.  Others acted in his name, but he was equally guilty for inciting them.  I'm glad that Falwell didn't get to power so that you can mistake the historical comparison.  What would have happened if his theology had differed from yours and he forced it on you?  Would you be defending him and speaking so highly of his love and compassion?  I doubt it.  

I stand between our constitution and all who would try to bring down its spirit of tolerance (admittedly not always manifest in the American psyche).  Please note that I also stand between you and those who would force their religions on you.  You may claim that righteous government is your religion, but there is a point where we all must realize we begin to impinge on others.  You don't have the right to take your religion past that point.  Neither do I, and I wouldn't want to.  I wouldn't want to pass a law that says you can't practice your religion in the privacy of your church any way you like it.  Don't try to tell me that I can't sit around in the privacy of my own living room with a lady friend and watch a porn if I like it.

Falwell couldn't see that there is more to the world that himself and his god.  He got a bunch of Christians worked up, convinced that they were somehow better than the rest of society (dissenting Christians included in that rest) and he cobbled them into a dangerous political force that answered his call.  We're lucky he didn't have more followers than he did.

You say judge not, but what of accountability?  We all make mistakes, for sure, but we must also be held accountable for our mistakes.  Falwell died a rich, fat old man, with people talking about how much he loved people.  Its a very convenient and easy way to look at him, just as it is easy to only see Hitler as a lunatic.  History will hold him accountable.  

I'd wish for him to rot in Hell, but I don't want him screwing it up before I get there.

[BTW]

I think its pretty clear what the goal here is, and I hope people remember it in 2008. It's not to give the Bible its appropriate place, its to assure its considered as an unimportant metaphor. The hatred in this thread is only a glimpse of the vileness of those that smile sweetly and covet darkness (IMO).

[68Hawk]

Don't throw it out, just back it up with something more concrete, more applicable to the rest of us.

[Elfie]

I'd wish for him to rot in Hell, but I don't want him screwing it up before I get there.

I think it's a pretty safe bet that Jerry Falwell isn't in Hell waiting for you, or that Hell is a fun place to be.

The hatred in this thread is only a glimpse of the vileness of those that smile sweetly and covet darkness

You are correct, there is a lot of hatred in this thread, mostly by folks that think religion is somehow inherently bad. There is no hatred being spewed by any of the folks in this thread that are religious.

[68Hawk]

I think its a pretty safe bet that I don't believe in the concept of hell, or of prime evil for that matter either.

Organized religion of the type Falwell sought to promote is inherently bad.  No real good can come of it, save a few small trifles that are heavily negated by the very dangerous aspects of organized and politicized religion.

So anyone who says something you deem to be hateful is not religious?  I'd bet there are some on this thread that would take exception to that.  You seem to show that dangerous good-evil fallacy that made Falwell so constrained in his world view.  I admonish you in only a friendly way to take a peek out of your box from time to time.

[Elfie]

So anyone who says something you deem to be hateful is not religious?

Read again what I said.

You seem to show that dangerous good-evil fallacy that made Falwell so constrained in his world view.

Oh yeah....I'm real dangerous alright.

I admonish you in only a friendly way to take a peek out of your box from time to time.

Maybe we should all practice what we preach.

[68Hawk]

Originally posted by Elfie
There is no hatred being spewed by any of the folks in this thread that are religious.

I read it again, whats your point?

Remember that danger does not always come in the form of physical violence.

You're right, we should all practice what we preach.  I jump my head in and out of many different boxes.  I have friends who are retired.  I have friends who are 18.  I have friends of all religions and some of which who come from across the planet.  I have friends who are in the military.  I have people I know who are crackheads.  I have one friend working with a company consulting on Spiderman 4.  I have friends who haven't done anything with their lives since high school.  I have friends who are computer geniuses whose setup put my command center to shame.  I have friends who own trebuchets (hes got two).  I have long hair, yet I hang out with gun toting rednecks.  (I kinda are one).  

Still, we ALL have our boxes that form around our heads.  We must all remember this.  If Falwell could have been capable of at least acknowledging the validity of other's boxes, he would have gotten some credit from me.

Whatever happened to reverends like MLK?  We always have to shoot the good ones, damn shame.

[Elfie]

If Falwell could have been capable of at least acknowledging the validity of other's boxes, he would have gotten some credit from me.

There are some beliefs that all of us have (they vary according to each of our belief systems), that are NOT debatable.

For example, for me, abortion is wrong. The Bible tells us that God knows us from the moment of conception. God knows us even then and loves us. Killing a fetus is killing one of God's children. I can't even acknowledge the pro-choice side of this issue because the *choice* doesn't start when the woman is already pregnant. The choice starts when 2 people first choose to have sex, then again when they choose to have unprotected sex. All abortion does is allow people to be irresponsible.

I read it again, whats your point?

In this thread at least, the folks spouting hatred towards Falwell are those that do not have religious beliefs. (Is that clearer?)

Yes, I know there are some folks that call themselves Christians that also spout hate. The folks from Westboro Baptist Church (? I think that's the name of the church) in Kansas come to mind.

[68Hawk]

Yeah I think you're right about the name.  I  cheered the veterans as I watched the video of them chasing those freaks away from Walter Reed.

A perfect example of the potential danger of uncompromising 'truths'.

I wouldn't ever force anyone to have an abortion, so why should someone else be able to force me not to have one?  I actually believe the soul of that child would just wait for another host, and would not be wasted.  Would it be right to prevent a crack potato from aborting that child and giving it a chance at a family that would see it well educated and cared for?

In this thread at least, the folks spouting hatred towards Falwell are those that do not have religious beliefs. (Is that clearer?)

I understand what you are saying, but I'm saying many of the people you are labeling might consider themselves religious.  I'm not, so I really don't care, but that might offend their beliefs to declare them devoid of religion.  I could find many examples of Falwell spreading 'hatred' as defined from something other than his perspective, but I wouldn't say that makes him un-religious.

One could claim that uncompromising intolerance itself is un-Christian.

Someone else could claim that uncompromising intolerance is the essence of Christianity itself (as practiced in doctrine, not talking about the actual teachings).

Some could say that the Westborogh freaks are the truest Christians because they refuse to compromise with the rest of society about anything.  I don't agree with this at all, but the argument could be made.  

We all have to live together, so we all have to respect each other and each other's beliefs.  We should only be intolerant of intolerance itself.