Farewell to Jerry
You've no doubt heard that Jerry Falwell died on Tuesday, so I guess the testimonials are rolling in somewhere (though I'm not bothering to look for them). As much as I wish it were otherwise, you've got to admit that he was influential (although, as Don points out, not so influential that he actually had a place in the current White House power structure--too bad MSNBC wasn't so well informed). He was in the forefront of bringing religious conservatives into politics, and regrettably, we see the fruits of his labors all around us today. I was looking forward to the Republican presidential debate earlier tonight in South Carolina to see which candidate would most wrap himself in Falwell's legacy, but oddly, moderator Brit Hume asked the candidates not to take time during the debate to talk about the subject. Perhaps he feared that it would just turn into a free-for-all of one-upsmanship, and he might've been right. But no matter how beloved Falwell may have been among evangelicals, he was a polarizing figure in the culture at large. Although it might help with primary voters, embracing Falwell wouldn't be a wise move to win over voters in the general election.
Falwell's most recent controversy (I'd call it a gaffe because of the negative reaction he got, but he knew what he was saying, and he said what he meant) concerned his reaction to September 11, which he said was caused by God's anger at gays, feminists, the ACLU, or any group he felt like scapegoating. Although Falwell apologized, John Aravosis points out that he repeated the statement as recently as last week. I never heard anyone challenge him on the details to this (though I didn't follow Jerry Falwell obsessively, so it's possible that I missed it), but I would've loved to see someone take him through the logic of that belief. If God was punishing the United States for its sins, wouldn't that make the hijackers agents of God? And if that's the case, how exactly did Falwell's view of the terrorists differ from their own view of themselves and their actions?
posted by Doug @ 2:43 AM
5 comments
5 Comments:
I have often wondered about his statements concerning September 11 as well. I must admit to not being a fan of Falwell (that's about the kindest way I can say it), but I often wondered about the logic behind that remark. If his premise was correct, didn't that actually make the terrorists' acts a good thing?
Those remarks are consistent with the common view that God rewards and punishes our behavior (the ultimate Skinnerian Behaviorist actually). So, any punishment or reward can be seen as a good thing, because it is helping to shape or better our behavior. I think he would have agreed with your logic that it was a good thing in the end.
I too have long puzzled over the logic and spiritual basis for Falwell's remarks. We could also include in this discussion Pat Robertson's remarks suggesting the assassination of Hugo Chavez while we're at it, because I suspect they come from a similar place. My best guess is that these fellows are so convinced of their own closeness to the mind of God that they have confused their own likes, dislikes, tastes, and opinions with those of God. Where I come from, we call that hubris, and it can be an ugly and dangerous thing, no matter what your official religious affiliation or belief system may seem to be.
Not that I ever heard him say this, but I wonder if his logic (in the spirit of benefit of the doubt to the dead guy) is more about God not being willing to protect America as He usually would. That way, the terrorists aren't so much His agents as they are no longer being held off by the divine shield or whatever. that's as good as i can figure-- at least has an old testament ring to my ears.
The idea of Falwell as Old Testament shouter makes perfect sense to me--his Jesus appears to be the Jesus of Mel Gibson, the Jesus of pain and suffering and vengeance and violence. It's as if he never even bothered to read the New Testament. Maybe he thought it was too "gay."
Post a Comment
<< Home