Well, that didn’t take long!
When I read the news that the Rev Jerry Falwell, founder of the Moral Majority in the 1970s, had died, I wondered whether some of our friends on the left would mention it politely, ignore it completely, or launch into a hate-filled diatribe.
I didn’t have to wait long:
-
The gates of hell swing open and Satan welcomes his beloved son
0 Comments Published by Amanda Marcotte May 15th, 2007
Guess god liked the ACLU better after all.
I don’t think very highly of our 39th President, and he is rather elderly, so his passing could reasonably occur sometime soon. I wonder what the reaction of our friends on the left would be if conservatives published notifications of Jimmy Carter’s death, when it occurs, with some sort of reference welcoming him to Hell?
That, of course, won’t happen; conservatives simply have more class.
________________
Update: 3:00 PM EDT — You’ve really got to visit our good hearted, charitable friends at Pandagon’s comments for Miss Marcotte’s post. I’m sepecially fond of tzs‘
after watching Falwell I know know why the Romans threw the Christians to the lions,
and MikeEss’
I’m GLAD that rotten old asshole is dead. If there really WAS a god, and REALLY cared about all the hell humans go through, he/she would call a whole bunch more of Falwell’s buddies back “home†too…
I hope Falwell burns in hell…
________________
Update: 10:15 PM EDT — And the hits just keep on rolling in!
God To Dead Jerry Falwell; Go to Hell… Now!!
by Rob Kall
God To Falwell; Go to Hell… NOw!!
Jerry Falwell, one of the most despicable abusers of the teachings of Jesus and the earnest faith of religious Christians, a foul, mean-spirited power hungry neanderthal who sought to set back civilization has been called to meet his maker. I have no doubt, he will join the other racists, bigots, homophobes, war mongers, greedy money-grubbing corporatists and holy rolling religious hypocrites he supported, encouraged and empowered. . . .
If any soul is a candidate for hell, this man fits the profile.
There’s something kind of strange about Mr Kall complaining that the Rev Falwell was “mean-spirited,” and then wishing that he go to Hell.
And then there was the one I really didn’t expect, the comment thread on The Liberal Avenger.
I’ll admit it: I just don’t understand this. Our friends on the left did not like Jerry Falwell very much, but he’d been mostly retired from politics, and now he has gone to his reward; for our friends on the left, Mr Falwell is no longer any threat to them. They knew (Mr Kall, especially, as he admitted) that they could simply let Mr Falwell’s passing away be marked with silence, and not harm their own cause. Yet they deliberately chose to dance at his passing, with many hoping that he heads straight for Hell — all the while accusing Mr Falwell of not being a good, “real” Christian. Is hate so sweet to them that they would cheapen their own words, their own causes, and make complete fools of themselves, just to get a parting shot in at a man who can no longer feel their anger?
From commenter Craig, at 3:16 PM today, on The Captain’s Quarters:
I saw a fitting comment on some blog today. It said, “It’s funny how liberal atheists suddenly believe in hell when someone they hate dies.”
It’s funny, no, strike that, it’s just plain sad that so many liberal atheists believe in Hell when they want someone to go there.
And these (our friends on the left) are the people who will stand there and say, with a straight face, that they’re all about compassion. They “careâ€. They’re “tolerantâ€. All of the usual talk they do. Yet when it comes time to show you that “careâ€, that “compassionâ€, that “toleranceâ€, it’s nowhere to be found.
Apparently tolerance and compassion does not extend to divergent views.
That our friends on the left disagreed with most of Mr Falwell’s views is obvious, and they certainly have every right to express their opposition. But the man is dead now, and he can’t do one more thing to harm the causes of the left. I never really expected them to praise Mr Falwell, but expected (mostly) that they’d let his death pass in silence. Guess that I was way wrong about that one!
____________________
Update: 11:25 PM EDT: Kudos to Gordo of Appletree, someone who didn’t like many of Dr Falwell’s positions, who referred to Miss Marcotte’s original as Winner of the Christopher Hitchens Award for this week’s least charitable obituary.
Brian:
That’s nothing. Check out Fark. Last I checked, they were up to 300+ comments, and I’d say less than 10 were even close to being civil.
Then check out the DU….same stuff.
That’s the left’s “compassion” on full display, I tell ya’.
You beat me to the punch on this one…I was going to post something like this later tonight. Ah, well. =/
15 May 2007, 2:11 pmBrian:
Guess I wasn’t the only one thinking of it. Bunch of other bloggers are watching the libs fap over this one.
15 May 2007, 2:16 pmYorkshire:
I thought the Left would rejoice in this, I just wondered how quick. It seems not long at all. Can’t we all just get along?
15 May 2007, 2:25 pm(said with tongue planted firmly in cheek)Jesurgislac:
That, of course, won’t happen; conservatives simply have more class.
Yeah, right. If conservatives had any class, you wouldn’t be trying to compare a globally-respected elder statesman like President Carter with an evil-minded religious bigot who claimed on September 14 that he really believed the terrorist attack on September 11 was caused by “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.’”
Conservatives with class would never dream of denigrating President Carter by comparing him with a man as small-minded, stupid, and bigoted as Jerry Falwell. But then, conservatives appear never to have been able to quite cope with the fact that although four out of the last six Presidents were Republican, the only two Presidents who have achieved any reputation other than criminal or senile, are both Democratic: Carter and Clinton.
15 May 2007, 2:25 pmJesurgislac:
Examples of Dana’s conservatives with class.
15 May 2007, 2:38 pmJaxebadt:
The thing is, Fark isn’t really that liberal. The posters there just don’t like theocrats all that much. Save for bevets and walkingtall.
15 May 2007, 2:38 pmThe gates of hell swing open and Satan welcomes his beloved son at Pandagon:
[...] 1 Common Sense Political Thought Trackback on May 15th, 2007 at 2:03 pm [...]
15 May 2007, 2:44 pmAmanda Marcotte:
Fascinating—aren’t you one of the people that joined in the lies about me to run me out of my job? At least I’m honest. Falwell was a bigot, and if there was a hell, he’d roast in it. I’m not nice to people who assault my basic rights for no reason, no.
15 May 2007, 2:52 pmJesurgislac:
Classy conservative Sharon jeers at dying woman for being “snobbish” (read: not being Republican).
15 May 2007, 2:52 pmJesurgislac:
Classy conservative Art Down spews vitriol at Diamonte Driver, dead before his 13th birthday, and his mom.
15 May 2007, 2:57 pmJesurgislac:
Classy conservative George W. Bush mocks woman about to be executed: “‘Please,’” Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, ‘don’t kill me.’”
15 May 2007, 3:01 pmDana Pico:
Miss Marcotte wrote:
Actually, I said it was a bad idea for John Edwards to hire Mrs McEwan and you, but I didn’t try to “run (you) out of (your) job.” My point was that the two of you had been hired for the talents you had blogging, into positions which would really compromise your ability to express your opinions in the manner which gained you your wide audience. Perhaps you don’t see a difference there, but I do.
15 May 2007, 3:11 pmDana Pico:
J, Governor Bush shouldn’t have mocked Miss Tucker, and I’ve never said that it was acceptable for him to do so.
15 May 2007, 3:13 pmDana Pico:
Miss Marcotte also wrote:
So, why say anything at all?
I admitted that I don’t think much of Jimmy Carter — which means that, when he passes away, I’ll probably say nothing about it.
15 May 2007, 3:15 pmJesurgislac:
Classy conservative Dean Esmay mocks the death of a 23-year-old woman crushed by a bulldozer.
15 May 2007, 3:16 pmJesurgislac:
Dana: Governor Bush shouldn’t have mocked Miss Tucker, and I’ve never said that it was acceptable for him to do so.
You just claimed that conservatives have too much class to do that kind of thing. Yet I can find you link after link of these classy conservatives mocking the recently dead, the dying, and the bereaved. Bush is just one example of these classy conservatives.
15 May 2007, 3:17 pmJesurgislac:
Dana; I admitted that I don’t think much of Jimmy Carter — which means that, when he passes away, I’ll probably say nothing about it.
And you certainly won’t look for and pick up the first prominent right-wing blog to spew vitriol all over President Carter and his achievements after Carter’s death. Or criticize them for not behaving as “classly” as you claim conservatives ought to do… since in truth, they will be behaving as conservatives do.
15 May 2007, 3:28 pmSharon:
I linked to your post Dana and added some thoughts of my own about it.
Jes, I didn’t “jeer at a dying woman” for being snobby. I jeered at the wife of a political candidate who prides herself (and her husband’s campaign) on the idea of being one of the “little people.” Please try to get your mischaracterizations right for a change.
15 May 2007, 4:20 pmSharon:
And you certainly won’t look for and pick up the first prominent right-wing blog to spew vitriol all over President Carter and his achievements after Carter’s death. Or criticize them for not behaving as “classly†as you claim conservatives ought to do… since in truth, they will be behaving as conservatives do.
Jes, you will rarely find conservative blogs acting as stupidly viscious as liberal ones do. You pick out a few conservatives, misquote them, then call that the same thing as saying Jerry Falwell is Satan’s son. It’s unbelievably juvenile.
15 May 2007, 4:22 pmSharon:
Classy conservative Dean Esmay mocks the death of a 23-year-old woman crushed by a bulldozer.
Where’s the mocking? That he reprinted what someone else wrote? That he said it was “ironic” that she was killed by a bulldozer while protesting against Israel? Your losing it, Jes.
15 May 2007, 4:26 pmDana Pico:
Spew vitriol? I certainly did review his book, Palestine; Peace, not Apartheid, in three sections (Part 1, Part 2 and Conclusion), which I found to be neither reasonably balanced nor really very good. I don’t think he was a good president, and I think that he’s been, as Joshua Muravchik characterized him in an article in Commentary, Our Worst Ex-President.
But that doesn’t mean that I will jump for joy when he passes away, or, as MikeEss did concerning the Rev Falwell, hope that he burns in Hell.
15 May 2007, 4:52 pmnk:
“Potty-mouthed cuckoo revels in Reverend’s death”. In other news, “Coyotes bay at moon”.
15 May 2007, 6:26 pmJaxebadt:
Yeah,Dana, that’s some rotton stuff Carter’s been doing since he left office… building houses for poor people, getting involved with his community, helping mediate peace talks… yeah… why can’t he be a good person like Jerry Falwell and just insult feminists?
15 May 2007, 6:27 pmJesurgislac:
But that doesn’t mean that I will jump for joy when he passes away
And will you pick up the first right-wing blog that hopes he’s burning in hell and note it as an example?
I doubt it: any more than you picked up on Sharon mocking a dying woman for being snobbish, or Art Downs pouring vitriol on the memory of a dead child and his bereaved mother. Sharon and Art are conservatives, and evidently, whatever conservatives do - no matter how they mock or deride the dead and their bereaved - you consider that to be classy behavior.
15 May 2007, 7:03 pmJesurgislac:
Comment gone to spam queue.
15 May 2007, 7:04 pmRovin:
One DUer had to say it:
The next fifteen post ripped her a good one and continued to spew the hate.
Jes can cherry pick all the conservative statements that are otherwise distasteful, but the vileness your extreme buds on the left are a sad tribute to how far many have lost the respect for human life, even in death. Sad indeed.
Oh, and your liberal buddys over at Liberal Avenger sets a nice tone for disscussion. NOT.
15 May 2007, 7:41 pmJaxebadt:
Jovin,
Just to be clear, you are saying that despite what the clear facts reveal about those right-wingers that Jesurgislac quoted, liberals are still worse?
15 May 2007, 7:45 pmHarry Arthur:
…evil-minded religious bigot who claimed on September 14 that he really believed the terrorist attack on September 11 was caused by “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.’”
For which upon reflection, he subsequently apologized, and which he described himself as one of the stupidest most ridiculous things he’d ever said, and which he characterized as wrong.
The fact is that it really doesn’t matter which side of the isle one observes, there are plenty of examples on both sides of stupid statements. I can’t see that trading link for link accomplishes anything but to prove conclusively that gross thoughtlessness and stupidity are human traits we all share from time to time.
Whether Rev Falwell said some stupid things in his life, and he by his own admission did, is really immaterial. This does illustrate clearly why we seem to have a major problem with civil discourse in our country at this point.
I also find it more than ironic that some of those commenting on Rev Falwell’s eternal destination seem to lack the personal introspection to consider their own.
15 May 2007, 8:23 pmArt Downs:
I hear there was a pig-roast in Hell when Molly Ivins died.
15 May 2007, 8:52 pmpgwarner:
Harry Arthur said…
I could not agree more. The level our discourse now consists of the zinger, the personal insult. There is no desire to exchange ideas. We set up straw men and tear them down. I would suggest it is a form of self abuse. In the Political/Power arena it is an unfortunately a cheap and effective tool to maintain and garner support.
Harry Arthur further explained….
This is the old admonition to judge not that is so often misapplied. In this case it is spot on.
15 May 2007, 9:18 pmDana :
I didn’t like Mrs Ivins, either, but Art’s comment was uncalled for.
15 May 2007, 10:11 pmDana:
J asked:
I just might — assuming that there is one.
Mrs Edwards is not above criticism, simply because she is ill, if she does something scummy. But that’s hardly celebrating her death (which hasn’t happened yet) or wishing that she burn in Hell. And this is what Sharon said about Mrs Edwards when it was announced that her cancer had returned:
The debate concerning the death about Diamonte Driver is one about socialized medicine, and how our own socialized medicine system (Medicaid) didn’t help him — in large part because it pays so little that his mother cound not find a dentist willing to accept Medicaid patients when his brother needed several extractions.
15 May 2007, 10:17 pmThe Liberal Avenger:
The Falwell 9/11 quote:
15 May 2007, 10:22 pmThe Liberal Avenger:
Dana:
I really think you should repost Sirk’s illustration on this thread. It proves how evil we liberals are.
15 May 2007, 10:24 pmDana:
Why, yes, LA, Mr Falwell did say that. If memory serves, he also apologized for the remark, saying it was one of the stupidest things he ever said.
15 May 2007, 10:25 pmDana:
LA wrote:
LA, I’m sure that people can follow the link over there and view it if they wish. Your second sentence speaks for itself.
15 May 2007, 10:28 pmThe Liberal Avenger:
Does his comment resemble in any way the thoughts that entered your own Christian mind on that terrible day?
15 May 2007, 10:29 pmDana:
No, LA, that part never crossed my mind that day.
I remember everything about that awful day: where I was, what I was doing (supervising a concrete pour on a school job), the jobsite inspector who was frantic because his father worked in the World Trade Center (his father was OK), taking time out to watch television. Blaming our rotten culture for the attacks never crossed my mind.
15 May 2007, 10:35 pmpgwarner:
LA Stated….
Christian=Hate, quick that. I suppose your thoughts were “Finally, we had it coming for the bad things we have been doing to those wonderfully kind Muslim extremists!� I know, I know all extremists are equal, all those Southern Baptist grannies strapping those bombs on.
Righteous Indignation is wonderful; we certainly are farther along the road for it. “I know you are but what am I†is constructive. Or is it?
15 May 2007, 10:52 pmpgwarner:
LA, it maybe routine in this world to justify your action by the actions of another. “I can be a tasteless jerk because he was a tasteless jerk.†“Gosh teacher, he hit me first!†Yes routine, but is it effective?
15 May 2007, 11:01 pmDana:
President Bush is 61 years old, and in pretty good health; the normal assumption is that he’ll be many years out of office and no influence on policy when he finally goes to his reward. One wonders what our friends on the left will say when Mr Bush passes away.
15 May 2007, 11:20 pmJackGoff:
I’m still waiting for someone to answer me why Falwell’s handling of the Matthew Shepard killing or any other anti-LGBT hate crime deserves anything other than derision. Of course, when he was alive and spouting the same hate rhetoric, you all still welcomed him into your vile movement. Speaks volumes that you did so, and yet gasp in indignation when we liberals do not celebrate a life so devoted to hate. All of which, of course, leads me to believe that you so-called Christians would rather piss on Jesus’ philosophy so you can piss on your fellow human beings as well. And heaven forfend we evil libruls call you out on it.
15 May 2007, 11:58 pmThe Infidel Sage:
Excellent post, and one that we’ve been covering as well. The naked hatred, bitterness and downright ugliness is always just below the surface of the slimy pool of Leftist ideology. With the slightest ripple, the bottom gunk quickly bubbles to the surface for all to see. Angry and ultimately pathetic people who cling to nonsensical and twisted ideologies and isms that only undermine the society and nation in which they live. A very sad thing to see today.
16 May 2007, 1:04 amSirkowski:
Would you like to suck the stiff penis of his decomposing cadaver Dana?
16 May 2007, 1:26 amblubonnet:
Sirk, good God, that was nasty.
16 May 2007, 2:09 amDana:
Mr Goff, you are attempting to link everything Mr Falwell ever said with every other conservative voice; it won’t wash.
The state of Wyoming treated Mr Shepard’s killing precisely as it should have: the killers were arrested, charged with murder, found guilty via the proper legal system, and sentenced to life in prison — and no one who writes here has ever said that was improper.
16 May 2007, 6:23 amDana:
Sirk, it’s rather telling that someone who is so supportive of homosexuality and homosexual rights would suggest that a homosexual act is personally degrading.
16 May 2007, 6:25 amJesurgislac:
And this is what Sharon said about Mrs Edwards when it was announced that her cancer had returned:
Yes, I remember it well: Sharon said:
16 May 2007, 6:34 amJesurgislac:
Dana Says: it’s rather telling that someone who is so supportive of homosexuality and homosexual rights would suggest that a homosexual act is personally degrading.
Actually, what’s “telling”, Dana, is that you assume that what’s degrading about Sirk’s insult is the homosexual aspect, not the necrophiliac aspect. I take it that you would not see it as degrading if Sirk had invited you to perform oral sex on the dead decaying body of a woman, because that would be normal…
…in your world, maybe.
Not in mine, where sex between adult humans is normal and ought not to be assumed to be degrading to either partner, but necrophilia is… creepy.
(I consider both Sirk’s insult and your response to it over-the-top offensive, by the way.)
16 May 2007, 6:38 amJesurgislac:
Dana: The debate concerning the death about Diamonte Driver is one about socialized medicine
Art Downs claims it’s all about Diamonte Driver’s mother’s sex life, however:
You consider this outpouring of vitriol against a bereaved mother, or Sharon’s mockery of a dying woman, to be “classy” behavior?
16 May 2007, 6:41 amJackGoff:
no one who writes here has ever said that was improper.
And that was completely not the point of my post, but good job at arguing disingenuously.
16 May 2007, 6:45 amSharon:
Jes, I consider Lizzie Edwards to be a stuck-up bitch because of her behavior. That has nothing to do with my sympathies for her and her family over her cancer. If/when she dies, I won’t be posting about how gleefully Satan is embracing his spawn at the gates of Hell.
When Ann Richards died, the worst I said about her was that she was “a controversial figure.” When Molly Ivins died, I said she was a thorn in the side of every Republican politician in Texas. In other words, there are ways to state your opinions about a controversial person when they die without going into the sort of vile, disgusting hate speech so prevalent on the left. Atrios actually had a post I thought was well done in that it acknowledge the controversy surrounding Rev. Falwell but went on to point out that his loved ones were sad and mourning. Of course, I’m still waiting for the lefty blogger who acknowledges that Falwell built a home for unwed mothers, many Christian elementary schools, and a home for alcoholics, so it isn’t like he didn’t “care” about other people.
And Matthew Shepard was killed because of a bad drug deal, not because he was gay, Jes. Or did you miss that when you were looking for links to support your positions?
It’s so hard when the facts don’t back up your prejudices, Jes.
16 May 2007, 6:55 amJesurgislac:
Sharon: Jes, I consider Lizzie Edwards to be a stuck-up bitch because of her behavior.
Rubbish. You’re calling her a “stuck-up bitch” because she’s the wife of the current front-runner of the Democratic candidates for President. Your faked sympathy for her and her family is vomit-inducing now we know you’ll gleefully mock a dying woman because of a neighborhood dispute. And Dana thinks this behavior is classy!
And Matthew Shepard was killed because of a bad drug deal, not because he was gay, Jes.
Oh, you’ve swallowed down that homophobic lie whole too, have you?
16 May 2007, 7:37 amJesurgislac:
It’s so hard when the facts don’t back up your prejudices, Jes.
And you should know. Pardon me if I restrain my sympathy for that hard place you’re in, absent facts, with nothing but prejudices.
16 May 2007, 7:40 amDana:
Jesurgislac wrote:
Fact is that I “know” Sirkowski reasonably well from The Liberal Avenger website — and knowing him, I knew what he meant.
If you haven’t visited this thread on that fine site, you wouldn’t have known that Sirk drew a cartoon showing Dr Falwell being sodomized in Hell.
That’s SOP for Sirkowski.
16 May 2007, 7:47 amJackGoff:
Oh, you’ve swallowed down that homophobic lie whole too, have you?
Just a spoonful of bigotry helps the mendacity go down.
16 May 2007, 7:55 amDana:
J wrote:
Well, that’s the story the killers have told, now that they’re safely behind bars. Is it true? I guess only God and the killers really know.
But, the fact is that it doesn’t matter. The killers were tried for murdering a person, a human being. They weren’t tried for murdering a homosexual man, and they weren’t tried for killing someone in a drug deal gone bad; they were simply tried for murder. Mr Shepard’s murder was given the proper concern and respect from the state because he was a person, a human being, and no one either more or less than Sharon or you or me.
I’d think that would be the way you’d want it.
16 May 2007, 8:16 amDana:
Mr Goff wrote:
The only thing I can tell you was that I was pleased that the state of Wyoming handled Mr Shepard’s murder (and the state of Texas handled James Byrd’s murder) properly: the killers were tried not for hate crimes against minority victims, not for having done something peculiarly outlandish and horrible, but with the respect that the victims had been living human beings, just people, the same as you and me.
I don’t recall what Dr Falwell said at the time. He certainly disapproved of homosexuality, believing it to be a sin against the laws of God; that’s pretty much straight from the Bible, a book he professed to believe as a Baptist minister. But tell me, did he say that Mr Shepard’s killers should be set free because Mr Shepard was homosexual?
16 May 2007, 8:21 amJackGoff:
Argh! Again, the killers were not the point. The point was the rhetoric utilized by the likes of the very man you defend was testimony that, in fact, Shepard deserved to die whatever death he had been given, and guess what the reason given by Saint Jerry was.
I don’t feel any particular reason to mince my words regarding a man so devoted to flagellating people with his own.
16 May 2007, 8:21 amnk:
For my part, I’m going to bookmark Sirkowski’s drawing and use it every time there’s a discussion about same-sex marriage, the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, or anti-gay discrimination laws. There’s a world of difference between tolerance and acceptance of fellow human beings and granting human rights to feces-flinging filthy little shaved monkeys like Sirkowski.
16 May 2007, 8:47 amDana:
Mr Goff missed the point:
That’s just it, Mr Goff: no one is defending Jerry Falwell here. The point is that conservatives aren’t calling for people whose beliefs they dislike to burn in Hell, that conservatives aren’t out dancing on people’s graves.
Dr Falwell had a right to his opinions, just as you do, and just like I do. But he’s gone now, dead and awaiting burial. Y’all do your cause a disservice by being as hateful as you claim Dr Falwell was.
16 May 2007, 8:49 amJackGoff:
Ah, “the one mustn’t bully the bully” critique. What you want from us isn’t civility. You want complacence.
16 May 2007, 8:55 amsharon:
Rubbish. You’re calling her a “stuck-up bitch†because she’s the wife of the current front-runner of the Democratic candidates for President.
If by this you mean that Lizzie Edwards gained notoreity (and therefore, any churlish remarks she made were news) because of her husband’s presidential campaign, then that is why I noticed it. But honestly, I’d consider Lizzie Edwards to be a stuck-up bitch if she were my next door neighbor and behaved the same way, with or without cancer.
Your faked sympathy for her and her family is vomit-inducing now we know you’ll gleefully mock a dying woman because of a neighborhood dispute. And Dana thinks this behavior is classy!
There was nothing fake about my sympathy for her cancer. But by assuming, as you do, that she is immune from criticism because she has cancer, you are falling into the trap that some claimed was the point of Edwards announcing his wife’s cancer–that he was using it as a device to deflect any criticism of his crackpot ideas. Using one’s tragedies for political effect is far more despicable than pointing out that churlish behavior is churlish regardless of one’s health.
But, as Dana pointed out, your mischaracterizations of my comments on other threads isn’t the point here. The point is that for some reason that’s unfathomable to me (and Dana), liberals can’t let a political enemy die without spitting on their grave. Michelle Malkin wrote a whole book on that behavior: Unhinged.
16 May 2007, 9:02 amDana:
Mr Goff wrote:
Well, perhaps you can tell me just what good you are accomplishing.
Mr Falwell is dead; he can’t hear a word you are saying, so you aren’t harming him. That only leaves doing this for yourself. Are you elevating yourself? Are you making yourself a better person? Are you persuading people who might have been neutral about Dr Falwell that your positions are the correct ones? Are you raising the level of discourse?
So many of the people who are celebrating his death have proclaimed him to be hate-filled, but are doing so with hateful comments. Please, tell me how you have risen above the level you claim Dr Falwell used.
16 May 2007, 9:02 amsharon:
Ah, “the one mustn’t bully the bully†critique. What you want from us isn’t civility. You want complacence.
No, what we want is maturity, something sorely lacking from so many lefty sites. It’s one thing to accurately quote Falwell and state your disagreement. It’s another to picture him being sodomized by Satan.
16 May 2007, 9:03 amJesurgislac:
Sharon: There was nothing fake about my sympathy for her cancer.
You are either lying or you are inhuman.
If you had felt real human sympathy for Elizabeth Edwards and her family, you would not have been able to write, about a dying woman:
(I got this from your own blog, which I normally don’t read, because I’ve noticed that you’re far more blatant about your hatred there where you can freely delete comments and criticism.)
Given your track record, my usual guess would be that this is just the usual lies: but if you’re seriously claiming that accusing a dying woman of being “snobbish” and calling her a “stuck-up bitch” means you’re sympathetic towards her, her impending death, and her soon-to-be-bereaved family, than you are inhuman: you have no idea of what sympathy means.
16 May 2007, 11:26 amJesurgislac:
Dana: Mr Falwell is dead; he can’t hear a word you are saying, so you aren’t harming him.
But Elizabeth Edwards is still alive. So, Dana, why your haste to defend Jerry Falwell - who is dead - while ignoring Sharon’s hate-filled insults at a dying woman? Do you think it’s classy behavior to call a woman dying of cancer a “stuck-up bitchâ€?
16 May 2007, 11:31 ampgwarner:
Dana stated..
and Jack sarcastically offered…
The answer is YES! when you write with crayons and start off with a vile insult and slap someone in the face you should expect that your message, if there ever was one, to get lost. Jack, LA, Sirkowski know this of course. You are doing it only to be hurtful.
Falwell considered my faith, Catholicism, to be a cult, though he at times feigned mutual support when it suited him. His view and treatment of Jews and Israel was disingenuous at best. He said the Harry Potter series was the work of the devil. I was not a fan. I also will not be eulogizing him. It does no good for me to take juvenile, bathroom graffiti, potty talk shots at him. I will not be doing that either if by chance I outline Jackson or Sharpton.
Finally, to bring in what I would say is a related post Sharon made at her site, Hysteria over Internet Anonymity, last week. I agree that there is a security issue regarding putting your real name out here. There is also a tendency to hide behind a pseudonym and sling crap, the equivalent of writing on the bathroom walls. There is no need to regulate it or demand some silly accountability like O’Rielly wants. Let’s just acknowledge it.
16 May 2007, 12:01 pmpgwarner:
Dana stated..
and Jack sarcastically offered…
The answer is YES! when you write with crayons and start off with a vile insult and slap someone in the face you should expect that your message, if there ever was one, to get lost. Jack, LA, Sirkowski know this of course. You are doing it only to be hurtful.
Falwell considered my faith, Catholicism, to be a cult, though he at times feigned mutual support when it suited him. His view and treatment of Jews and Israel was disingenuous at best. He said the Harry Potter series was the work of the devil. I was not a fan. I also will not be eulogizing him. It does no good for me to take juvenile, bathroom graffiti, potty talk shots at him. I will not be doing that either if by chance I outline Jackson or Sharpton.
Finally, to bring in what I would say is a related post Sharon made at her site, Hysteria over Internet Anonymity, last week. I agree that there is a security issue regarding putting your real name out here. There is also a tendency to hide behind a pseudonym and sling crap, the equivalent of writing on the bathroom walls. There is no need to regulate it or demand some silly accountability like O’Rielly wants. Let’s just acknowledge it.
16 May 2007, 12:05 pmpgwarner:
J, Dana’s point is, I believe, is that those comments can’t hurt Falwell but they diminish us, specially the ones that say the hurtful things.
You know when people all went around armed, people we sure a lot more polite. Words were of more consequence. (That one was for Mr.Downs)
16 May 2007, 12:13 pmJackGoff:
they diminish us, specially the ones that say the hurtful things
Only in a world where intolerance is something to be respected and tolerated.
You know when people all went around armed, people we sure a lot more polite. Words were of more consequence.
You mean that time when lynchings were much easier and speaking out against oppression got you shot? Yeah, those were fun times, I’ll say!
16 May 2007, 12:23 pmJesurgislac:
pgwarner: J, Dana’s point is, I believe, is that those comments can’t hurt Falwell but they diminish us, specially the ones that say the hurtful things.
And my point is that Dana doesn’t appear to give a damn about this kind of attack when the victim is a dying woman who is being attacked by Sharon, and others, because she’s married to the current Democratic front-runner for President.
So do you think Dana just doesn’t care about Sharon “diminishing herself” in this way? Or that Dana thinks that a vicious attack on Elizabeth Edwards over a neighborhood dispute is perfectly appropriate, while condemnation of Jerry Falwell for his many misdeeds is somehow… not.
16 May 2007, 12:27 pmJesurgislac:
Dana, comment gone to spam queue.
16 May 2007, 12:27 pmpgwarner:
Jack said….
No, I did not say or mean anything of the kind. That is your “straw man”, you deal with him.
Jack says…
No, respectfully, hate and resentment diminishes a person. Please do not mistake what I say as condoning intolerance. I feel quite the opposite, but you already knew that.
16 May 2007, 12:35 pmDana:
Mr Warner wrote:
“Civilized men are more impolite than savages, because they know they can be discourteous without getting their skulls split, as a general thing.” — Robert E Howard, The Tower of the Elephant.
16 May 2007, 12:44 pmJackGoff:
pgwarner ludicrously says:
Yet also maintains the validity of:
Who can I hurt by saying Falwell deserves whatever afterlife a just God would give him if it doesn’t hurt Falwell? Why do you have a vested interest in being worried about me being happy a hateful bigot is no longer spewing his vitriol? Is it because you have a problem with me refusing to accept his intolerance as good and tolerable? That’s the only thing I’m getting from your argument.
None of this is about civility, as I said. Falwell had his shot at deserving civility. He failed. Thems the breaks.
Oh, so you didn’t advocate a return to the days when handguns and concealed weapons were the norm, an era which, not so coincidentally, was also an era of violent vigilantism, mostly directed at people who weren’t White Anglo Protestants.
16 May 2007, 12:47 pmblubonnet:
While honoring polite discourse, here we are, honoring someone who is impolite beyond comprhension, hateful, and promoting death in the name of God (?). The irony.
Why should we lie about the fact that he was a theocratic sleazeball, because he’s dead now?
I think, that in the form of traditionalism, it makes for dishonesty, by honoring him.
I’m not necessarily for speaking disparagingly about the dead particularly, if only for his family, who may or may not be bigoted idiots, but, we’re already here in this discussion.
To pretend he was great, is just dishonest.
Being honest is a religous principle (as well as secularist), a reminder to all you professed Christians, who are supportive of this aberration of a human being.
16 May 2007, 1:03 pmChris:
Though I was never a fan of Falwell, his death or that of anyone should not be celebrated. It’s disgusting what those from the Neo-Left have been doing since the news came out. This, however, is not surprising due to what we saw after Regan died. Reading what they have posted on sites like those you linked to and many others only shows what happens when too many spoiled children have too much time on their hands.
16 May 2007, 1:27 pmpgwarner:
Jack, I would address your points, unfortunately you keep going in directions I never went in. I never said you should accept intolerance. I never accused you of being a bigot. I do accuse you of using vitriol. That is my point and the only thing you need get, I respectfully submit. All the “spewing” as you put reduces all of this into meaningless name calling. I am sorry, I do not doubt you don’t get it. I think you have me mistaken for somebody else. I belong in another pigeonhole perhaps? I think if you and I are just a little more civil to each other we might find more common ground. Pollyanna you might say? Well yes, but even Bono and Jessie helms were civil and look what happened. (and no, I am not Jessie Helms)
Scroll back a little. I am no fan of the Reverend and people of his ilk. My purpose is not to defend him, nor try to balance his good or bad behavior.
As far as my tongue-in-cheek comment regarding guns goes, it was an attempt at humorous analogy and a playful poke at Mr. Downs. My goodness, I guess if you try hard enough you could tie me to the Lindbergh kidnapping.
16 May 2007, 1:33 pmpgwarner:
Jack, I would address your points, unfortunately you keep going in directions I never went in. I never said you should accept intolerance. I never accused you of being a bigot. I do accuse you of using vitriol. That is my point and the only thing you need get, I respectfully submit. All the “spewing” as you put reduces all of this into meaningless name calling. I am sorry, I do not doubt you don’t get it. I think you have me mistaken for somebody else. I belong in another pigeonhole perhaps? I think if you and I are just a little more civil to each other we might find more common ground. Pollyanna you might say? Well yes, but even Bono and Jessie helms were civil and look what happened. (and no, I am not Jessie Helms)
Scroll back a little. I am no fan of the Reverend and people of his ilk. My purpose is not to defend him, nor try to balance his good or bad behavior. As far as what Falwell did or did not do, does justify our behavior. That is a kindergarden principle for pity’s sake.
As far as my tongue-in-cheek comment regarding guns goes, it was an attempt at humorous analogy and a playful poke at Mr. Downs. My goodness, I guess if you try hard enough you could tie me to the Lindbergh kidnapping.
16 May 2007, 1:37 pmpgwarner:
Dana, a Conan quote? Well, okay…..but show me a civilized man, my friend. Oh, besides me and you!
16 May 2007, 1:46 pmpgwarner:
Dana listed
Gosh, I am obtuse, I get the quote now! Sorry!
16 May 2007, 1:50 pmcoulterfan:
Wherever you believe Falwell ended up, it certainly can’t be argued that he never ACTED like the Christian he professed to be. You know “Judge not lest ye be judged”, the admonition against behaving like the Pharosees, the beatitudes (I don’t remember one that said, “Blessed be the smug and self-righteous”), etc, etc. . .
You may not like Carter, but his humility and his helping the poor (the Carter Center, Habitat for Humanity, etc) is MUCH more in line with Christ’s teachings. . .
16 May 2007, 1:55 pmpgwarner:
J stated
J, I really don’t think you believe Dana and Sharon are that one dimensional. Even if you do, I can’t speak for them. I was only addressing that one statement of his.
My personal opinion of Dana and Sharon from my brief exposure to them is that they are caring people just as I think you are.
16 May 2007, 2:02 pmpgwarner:
Dana I seem to have a post gone to spam?
16 May 2007, 2:05 pmJesurgislac:
I really don’t think you believe Dana and Sharon are that one dimensional
We’re discussing when it’s acceptable to attack someone.
Dana says “conservatives have more class”: he’s recently witnessed Sharon viciously attacking a dying woman over a neighborhood dispute: so is he saying that this is his idea of classy behavior?
16 May 2007, 2:08 pmcoulterfan:
Let’s not forget, either, that RUSH LIMBAUGH was mocking the Coretta Scott King funeral ON THE AIR WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING! He was also mocking her personal legacy, just as he did with ‘Senator Welfare’ (Wellstone).
Falwell was PROUD of being a hateful bigot, why shouldn’t that be discussed? Although I would never presume to judge another’s soul (unlike Falwell, who never missed an opportunity to judge Clinton and other liberals), Falwell certainly never BEHAVED in a Christ-like manner.
16 May 2007, 2:08 pmChris:
Limbaugh, as I remember, was mocking how the Democrats turned the Wellstone Funeral into a party Presidential rally (which they did). He also dared to speak up about how the race-baiters used the King funeral to spew their anti-white venom for their own gain.
Please do not omit inconvenient facts from this point forward.
16 May 2007, 2:32 pmblubonnet:
That turned out to be a grand distortion. Like we should be surprised out of the blow-hard liar Limbaugh?
There was mention at the funeral, which may have been better left unsaid, but it was blown waaaaay out of proportion by the right wing professional liars. That is the real scoop. The latter is what those that were there had to say.
16 May 2007, 2:39 pmChris:
I did, however see a lot of the coverage of the funeral and what was done there. Limbaugh may have been too nice that day.
16 May 2007, 2:43 pmJesurgislac:
Chris: Limbaugh, as I remember, was mocking how the Democrats turned the Wellstone Funeral into a party Presidential rally
Which was, as everyone who was actually there reports, a complete lie.
I did, however see a lot of the coverage of the funeral and what was done there.
So, you weren’t actually there: you were just suckered by the right-wing media’s coverage of the funeral.
16 May 2007, 2:50 pmJesurgislac:
From someone who was at the funeral for Wellston:
16 May 2007, 2:52 pmJesurgislac:
he’s recently witnessed Sharon viciously attacking a dying woman over a neighborhood dispute
A neighborhood dispute that isn’t even Sharon’s neighborhood, moreover. Sharon has no call to mix in: she’s doing so because Elizabeth Edwards, whom she wrote a faked-up sympathy post about, is married to a Democratic candidate for President.
Jerry Falwell spent 30 years making hateful, evil Phelps-like comments about anyone who wasn’t a fundamentalist Protestant like him. (As someone on another blog pointed out, the biggest shock for Falwell at the Pearly Gates is going to be discovering that St Peter’s a Catholic.) Dana thinks that for people who were attacked by Falwell when he was alive to make negative comments about him now he’s dead isn’t “classy”, and holds up conservative behavior as “classy”.
Examples of such conservative behavior include Art Downs trashing a bereaved mother, and Sharon trashing a dying woman.
So perhaps it’s just men Dana thinks deserve nil nisi bonum? Attacking women, as Falwell, Art Downs, and Sharon have all done, is perfectly classy?
16 May 2007, 2:58 pmChris:
Jesurgislac:
Right wing media? All I needed was to see the live coverage. I doubt C-Span was part of your “Right-Wing media.”
You, obviously, fell for the left-wing spin on in the aftermath of the event.
16 May 2007, 3:03 pmJesurgislac:
Chris: Right wing media? All I needed was to see the live coverage.
So, you’re saying you watched the funeral live, on TV, for four hours, as it happened - and that’s what you’re basing your judgement on? Then you know Limbaugh was lying…
You, obviously, fell for the left-wing spin on in the aftermath of the event.
Nope. I decided to believe the witnesses who were there, rather than Republicans who were desperately trying to spin an entire event from news clips a few minutes long.
16 May 2007, 3:08 pmChris:
Jesurgislac:
It seems you were there and thus lending less validation to my theory of you falling for the aftermath spin. This would only mean that you are either trying to spin this on your own or failed to see through what the Wellston funeral turned into because you were with too many like-minded people to employ critical thought — or at least as much critical thought you put into hammering Limbaugh for his comments.
I’m not one to defend him, Limbaugh did seem to exaggerate a bit on the lack of sympathy he expressed, but he wasn’t as hard on them as some of the commentators later in the day.
16 May 2007, 3:09 pmChris:
“What happens at the Wellstone Funeral stays at the Wellstone funeral?”
16 May 2007, 3:14 pmblubonnet:
So, Chris, how long was the ” political rant” at the funeral, if that is what it was? Which I doubt. How long did you watch it? Being a right-winger, I’m doubting you spent much time watching a funeral of someone you disapproved of. The fact that those there found it beautiful, despite the political moment, says alot. Incidentally, even the Left that were there, thought that moment was best left out, but it did not over-ride the rest of the funeral.
How can you even use Limbaugh as anything but a source for jokes. He’s been shown over and over to lie shamelessly. The man is full of hot air. He’s repulsive, because he’s a lying pig! It’s surprising that anyone takes that asshole seriously at all.
16 May 2007, 3:21 pmJesurgislac:
No, Chris, I wasn’t at the Wellstone funeral.
But, I noticed when reading accounts of it afterwards, that the people trashing it were all people who hadn’t actually been there. (And, Dana, were initially all from conservatives eager to speak ill of the dead. Classy behavior?)
The eye-witness accounts of the funeral told a completely different story.
I am asking you whether you were watching all four hours of the live feed on C-Span, or whether you base your judgement on the news-clips showing a few minutes of a four-hour event. Which?
16 May 2007, 3:21 pmcoulterfan:
Inconvenient facts, huh? Limbaugh GROSSLY distorted everything about both funerals and mocked those in attendence, claimed that ‘there was no grief’ (did you SEE the family members?!?!), etc. This is not even mentioning how elated Limbaugh appeared to be over Wellstone’s death. . . Don’t pretend that Reagan’s funeral had no mention of his political legacy by his FRIENDS and FAMILY! C’mon, these were all very political individuals, with strong political beliefs. To mock a funeral which reflected on their politics and to mock their legacies is unconscionable!
Meanwhile, Falwell supported apartheid, was opposed to women’s rights and racial integration, blamed America first for the attacks of 9-11, religiously judged those with whom he disagreed, was decidedly NON-CHRISTIAN in words, hate, and action. ETC, ETC. He and his negative impact on society will not be missed at all.
He was not a good man, not a good Christian, and will have to answer for the venon he’s spewed for all these years.
16 May 2007, 3:36 pmEric:
I was driving across Wisconsin, channel surfing on the radio, when I heard the news. The source was a left wing radio station in Madison, and the host was gleefully contemplating the notion that Falwell was, at that very moment, being “bitch-slapped” by St Peter. Somehow, this came as no surprise to me at all.
16 May 2007, 3:43 pmEric:
I LIVE in Minneapolis, and the reaction to the Wellstone
16 May 2007, 4:06 pmRallyfuneral was nearly universal - universally negative, that is. Trying to spin this and “blame” it on Limbaugh or anyone else is just BS.Eric:
True, but at least it was about someone who’s been dead for some time. And it was funny to boot. If the left wingers could put aside their rabid hate for one second, perhaps they could at least manage to be witty in their attacks. I mean, one could have pointed out that he died from being too fat, that he “kicked the Bucket”, and not one from Kentucky Fried Chicken, either. Although I suppose it is at least a bit amusing that the same people who generally sneer at any sort of religious concepts are now wishing and hoping that Hell is real, so that Falwell can endure endless torment there.
16 May 2007, 4:16 pmJesurgislac:
Eric: I LIVE in Minneapolis
I wonder if this is a lie
and the reaction to the Wellstone Rally funeral was nearly universal - universally negative, that is.
as well as this?
16 May 2007, 4:22 pmcoulterfan:
>>I LIVE in Minneapolis, and the reaction to the Wellstone Rally funeral was nearly universal - universally negative, that is. Trying to spin this and “blame†it on Limbaugh or anyone else is just BS.
16 May 2007, 4:39 pmcoulterfan:
I also live in Mpls and this is unabashedly FALSE! Most people thought that one speech perhaps went too far, but remember that this speech was given by a VERY EMOTIONAL best FRIEND during the final days of a heated political campaign!
Yet, the Republicans RAVAGED him and won the election (Wellstone, BTW, was ahead in the polls when he died). Now, WHO is classless?
Furthermore, I thought the whole point was “If you don’t have anything nice to say, then ignore (Falwell)”! Limbaugh’s GLEE over Wellstone’s death and the Republican party’s willingness to use the funeral to create a public backlash was disgraceful.
Not to mention, Wellstone (despite being Jewish) was MUCH more Christ-like than Falwell. It’s no surprise to me that those who sow hate, reap hate.
16 May 2007, 4:40 pmJesurgislac:
Furthermore, I thought the whole point was “If you don’t have anything nice to say, then ignore (Falwell)â€!
No; Given that Art Downs’s attack on a bereaved mother, and Sharon’s attack on a dying woman, and indeed Limbaugh’s attack on the bereaved after the Wellstone funeral, are all, to Dana, examples of “classy” behavior, the whole point is that it’s classy to attack black people, Democrats, and women.
But it’s not classy to attack a white male conservative like Jerry Falwell.
That’s the point Dana’s making here, and making quite effectively.
I’m just not seeing what the virtue in being “classy” is.
16 May 2007, 5:01 pmEric:
Nope. The general reaction was quite negative, including most of the Letters to the Editor the following day in the local paper. It left a bad taste in a lot of people’s mouths, including many centrists and moderate Democrats. Several politicians were so disgusted they left early, including then-Governor Jesse Ventura. The negative reaction was genuine and spontaneous, and certainly didn’t need to be “spun” by Rush or anyone else.
16 May 2007, 5:13 pmEric:
Not to mention, Wellstone (despite being Jewish) was MUCH more Christ-like than Falwell.
16 May 2007, 5:22 pmblubonnet:
Eric, so, your living in Minnesota, what sources do you have for deciding which opinion to take seriously for the “reaction of the Wellstone funeral”? LIMBAUGH??? My bet is that if it wasn’t Limbaugh, it was of his ilk, which are all over the GD radio, that were trashing the funeral of an honorable man, which is where your worthless opinion came from. (And you Righties say we have a liberal media.) The aftermath of the funeral, with the right wing dominated airwaves, are what was shamefully used as a political tactic of the REPrehensible party, lying about its degree, and the effects of the political moment.
On the other hand, if the departed was a fisherman, his life, his love, his joy, would it not be appropriate to bring it up at his funeral, the life in which he shared that joy with others, possibly, a fishing expedition with friends? To bring it up, when it was his life, would not be inapproprate.
16 May 2007, 6:10 pmblubonnet:
Oh, Eric, you can find Jesse Ventura on the list of 911 truthers.
16 May 2007, 6:38 pmcoulterfan:
Hey, Eric. What did Jesus say about abortion? What did he say about homosexuality? NOTHING?!?!? That’s right, they are not mentioned in the new testament ONCE!
What did Jesus say about adultery (including divorce)? What about capital punishment? Well, He called adultery ‘an abomination’ and spoke out vehemently against capital punishment (something Falwell supported) TWICE- not to mention that He was a victim of capital punishment, as well!
16 May 2007, 7:15 pmcoulterfan:
Hey, how many of the Republican candidate for President in ‘08 have been divorced and have committed this grievous sin which Jesus deemed WORSE than homosexuality (even Falwell acknowledged that Biblical teachings PROHIBIT divorce)!?!?!?!?
How about Wellstone, did he ever divorce? What about Carter? Clinton, Obama, Edwards? Did any of them ever divorce?
Hey, and don’t forget that Guiliani opposes ANY restrictions on abortion (Clinton favors banning partial birth if an exception is made for health of the mother) and Romney (up until recently) was also pro-choice (and he may flip-flop yet again in the general election)!
16 May 2007, 7:25 pmcoulterfan:
Jesus on divorce: Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18; Matthew 19:3-10; Acts 15:19-20; do you need more?
Jesus on capital punishment: John 8:7; Matthew 5.
Although abortion was prevalent during biblical times, it is not mentioned in the New Testament at all (it is mentioned in the Old, but so is stoning a woman to death the mandatory sentence for the sin of adultery). Likewise, there were gay individuals during Jesus’ time, but they are again not mentioned by Him. Furthermore, homosexuality is a passing reference in the Old Testament, much the same way as it forbids masturbation (hence the Catholic prohibition on that as well). I myself, unlike Falwell and his ilk, will let God be the judge- “lest not yet ye be judged”
16 May 2007, 7:35 pmnk:
“Hey, Eric. What did Jesus say about abortion? What did he say about homosexuality? NOTHING?!?!? That’s right, they are not mentioned in the new testament ONCE!”
He also didn’t say anything about sadomasochism, coprophagia, zoophilia, pedophilia and necrophilia. Any conclusions you care to draw from that?
He did say, “I did not come to change the Law but to fulfill It”. The Law being the laws of Moses from the Pentateuch. And those Books do have a thing or two to say about homosexuality and abortion.
16 May 2007, 8:10 pmDana:
Blu wrote:
But that’s just it, Blu: we are not honoring the Rev Falwell; that was never part of the original post. This post was about the hate being spewed by our friends on the left, all the while decrying Dr Falwell as hateful. Had there been simple silence on the left to greet his demise, I doubt that I’d have written anything about him.
16 May 2007, 8:21 pmDana:
J wrote:
Now, why would you “wonder” that?
I’ve “known” Eric for ten years, since debates on the old New York Times bulletin boards on AOL. He has mentioned living in Minnesota many, many times (and is a fan of the wretched Minnesota Vikings). Due to business, he does split time between Minnesota and California these days.
I do not recall any specific mention that he lived in the city of Minneapolis, but it’s hardly out of the question for someone who lives in the state of Minnesota.
16 May 2007, 8:29 pmDana:
J wrote:
I don’t suppose that it has occurred to you that the people who were there were partisans.
I saw the news clips, too, and it sure looked like a political rally to me. Those clips were, obviously, not the whole funeral, but they were certainly part of it.
And, of course, we had the kook left “speculating” that Senator Wellstone was really assassinated by the evil Bush Administration. A Google search for “Wellstone” and “assassinated” turned up 20,600 hits.
16 May 2007, 8:39 pmDana:
Coulterfan wrote:
Time to get out that New Testament, CF: Homosexual conduct is mentioned, in entirely condemnatory verbiage, in Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Galatians 5:19-21; and Ephesians 5:5. (The latter two are a general condemnation of all sexual immorality.) Acts 15:20, documenting the Council of Jerusalem, notes the three Jewish restrictions that are to be imposed on Christian converts from the Gentiles, one of which is “illicit sexual union,” which meant all of the sexual unions forbidden by Old Testament Mosaic law.
You are quite correct about Jesus condemnation of adultery and divorce. Capital punishment is not forbidden.
16 May 2007, 8:55 pmpgwarner:
Our Lord was referring to fulfilling the prophesies regarding him being the Messiah for goodness sake. The fulfillment of the law is to love one another. Getting into that love word again. Maybe, just maybe, Jesus did not spend very much regarding homosexuality because he did not see it as the big threat it is. Maybe, just maybe, he did and it was not put into the New Testament for sake of time. Maybe, just maybe, he knew there would be those who had to be know-it-alls and literalists and he wanted to provide the rope. In any event it is a struggle to make that leap. That said, he certainly was not for it, nor did he condone it.
Why, tell me why somebody, does every thread wind its way around to abortion, homosexuality and capital punishment? Is this what the fuzz in our navel is made of?
16 May 2007, 9:07 pmpgwarner:
I guess it is tool late now, but I was being scarcastic.
16 May 2007, 9:14 pmblubonnet:
Okay, Dana, I didn’t mean to refer to you being defensive of him. I’m just saying, he’s not particularly worth defending. I guess I’m defending our right to be disrespectful of him, but I guess that makes me somewhat hypocritical, because I’m not one to support bashing deceased people, but him being part of Reagan’s supportive force, getting Reagan into office, and knowing about the death squads during his tenure, and some other horrible things that caused deaths that Reagan was part of, well….?
If Bush died, knowing his legacy of multiple war crimes, and being responsible for thousands of deaths of innocnet human beings, I would not hesitate to speak negatively of him. In fact, if Bush died today, I believe that it would be the only time in our US history, that half of the population would actually celebrate. I believe that.
16 May 2007, 10:21 pmSharon:
You are either lying or you are inhuman.
Nope, neither. I sincerely meant that I was sorry to hear about her cancer. But as I’ve said, having cancer doesn’t make her immune from criticism when she puts herself in the middle of public debate.
(I got this from your own blog, which I normally don’t read, because I’ve noticed that you’re far more blatant about your hatred there where you can freely delete comments and criticism.)
Well, it’s a lie that you don’t read my blog. I’ve caught you mentioning things here that I only published on my blog. And I don’t “hate” Lizzie Edwards but she is a hypocritical snob. Yes, I am more blunt on my blog, but that’s because it is my blog. BI notice you do NOT quote where I say that her neighbor is a much nicer person than I am. Of course, I wouldn’t put up with her ad hominem attacks any more than I put up with yours.
And, oddly enough, I haven’t deleted a single comment (other than spam) since you quit commenting. I guess that says a lot about the people who comment. It’s much nicer!
Given your track record, my usual guess would be that this is just the usual lies: but if you’re seriously claiming that accusing a dying woman of being “snobbish†and calling her a “stuck-up bitch†means you’re sympathetic towards her, her impending death, and her soon-to-be-bereaved family, than you are inhuman: you have no idea of what sympathy means.
Being sympathetic with her cancer has nothing to do with her snobby bitchery, Jes. I mean, if YOU had cancer, I’d still call you a bitch if you behaved as she did. The two things (her snobbery and her cancer) are separate. But I understand why you don’t want to separate them just as the Edwardses were accused of doing. You don’t help them at all by making these sorts of arguments.
Do you think it’s classy behavior to call a woman dying of cancer a “stuck-up bitch�
I didn’t call a woman dying of cancer a stuck-up bitch. I called a politician’s wife who unreasonably attacked her neighbor as a stuck-up bitch.
Only in a world where intolerance is something to be respected and tolerated.
But the left is tolerant of all sorts of intolerance. It just depends on if it is the sort of intolerance of which they approve.
16 May 2007, 10:44 pmcoulterfan:
>>Capital punishment is not forbidden.
According to MANY biblical scholars it is. Just because it’s not convenient or unpopular doesn’t mean that there’s STRONG evidence when Jesus’ words are taken LITERALLY (’Let he who is without sin cast the first stone’ & ‘You have heard it said, ‘an eye for an eye’. . .if your brother smites your left cheek turn to him the right’.)
>>He did say, “I did not come to change the Law but to fulfill Itâ€. The Law being the laws of Moses from the Pentateuch. And those Books do have a thing or two to say about homosexuality and abortion.
Yes, and they ALSO condemn masturbation and sex for gratification (without the purpose of conception, including oral and anal sex), which puts those on the same level as homosexuality. It also condemns eating cloven animals (like pigs) and other ‘unclean’ animals. Again, adultery (including ANY divorce) was EXPRESSLY condemned by Jesus. The old testament made it clear that the penalty for a woman committing adultery was stoning her to death in the public square. However, Jesus STOPPED such a stoning (not fulfilling the Old Testament law) and said ‘let he who is without sin cast the first stone’.
This is not even mentioning how Jesus condemned piety, self-righteousness, the wealthy, the Church leaders, etc. Read the sermon on the mount, read the Beatitudes and tell me whether Falwell fits the example Christ was setting.
I do not judge others (including homosexuals) because it is not my place to do so. Straight couples are FAR from perfect (witness the rates of domestic violence, divorce, child abuse, chemical abuse, etc). Why would a law-abiding, loving, committed and Christian gay couple be condemned while a serial adulterer (like Rush Limbaugh) with chemical dependencies (Limbaugh), sex without procreation (Limbaugh), hatred for those of different cultures and races (Limbaugh), etc be ’saved’?
16 May 2007, 10:53 pmSharon:
Being honest is a religous principle (as well as secularist), a reminder to all you professed Christians, who are supportive of this aberration of a human being.
Then blu must back me up for saying Lizzie Edwards was a stuck-up bitch. I was just being honest.
Blu, as the other trolls here have missed the point, I wonder what you would think if I wrote a vitriolic post when Jimmy Carter dies that he’s burning in hell with his father Satan (because of his various inappropriate remarks about Israel, the U.S., Republicans, George W. Bush, people who disagree with him, etc., etc.,)? What if I drew a cartoon of Jane Fonda getting screwed by Satan? Would that be appropriate because it’s “honest”?
Look, I didn’t like Molly Ivins, either what she wrote or in person. But it would have been inappropriate to bash her upon her death just because she said a lot of nasty, hateful things in her columns. And, as I’ve said, pointing out what you disagreed with Falwell about is one thing. Atheists hoping he rots in hell is, well, amusing.
Wherever you believe Falwell ended up, it certainly can’t be argued that he never ACTED like the Christian he professed to be. You know “Judge not lest ye be judgedâ€, the admonition against behaving like the Pharosees, the beatitudes (I don’t remember one that said, “Blessed be the smug and self-righteousâ€), etc, etc. . .
Actually, he did an enormous amount of charity work and, as I stated before, built homes for unwed mothers and alcoholics and many elementary schools. That you disagree with things he said doesn’t diminish the areas in which he did act out his faith.
You may not like Carter, but his humility and his helping the poor (the Carter Center, Habitat for Humanity, etc) is MUCH more in line with Christ’s teachings. . .
This would have been an argument in Carter’s favor before he appointed himself foreign diplomat and chief critic-at-large of the Bush administration. He’s made himself rather small since then, and definitely missed a few of the Apostle Paul’s admonitions for love among Christians.
J, I really don’t think you believe Dana and Sharon are that one dimensional. Even if you do, I can’t speak for them. I was only addressing that one statement of his.
Actually, J does it to get attention. She’s ignored at home. Poor thing. I feel sorry for her.
We’re discussing when it’s acceptable to attack someone.
No, I think we were discussing when it is acceptable to criticize someone. No one on this side has said criticizing Falwell is wrong. What we object to is the bizarre extremism from the left.
Dana says “conservatives have more classâ€: he’s recently witnessed Sharon viciously attacking a dying woman over a neighborhood dispute: so is he saying that this is his idea of classy behavior?
It’s not Dana’s place, Jes. And I didn’t say anything about the dying woman. I criticized the behavior of a presidential candidate’s wife. If Lizzie didn’t have cancer, you’d have some other excuse for why criticizing her was wrong, so that fig leaf just shrunk.
16 May 2007, 11:01 pmSharon:
A neighborhood dispute that isn’t even Sharon’s neighborhood, moreover. Sharon has no call to mix in: she’s doing so because Elizabeth Edwards, whom she wrote a faked-up sympathy post about, is married to a Democratic candidate for President.
Lizzie Edwards is the wife of a presidential candidate. She went to a public forum and bashed her neighbor for no good reason. She was clearly trying to impress the audience and the press with her “concern” against her neighbor. But the fact is, she wasn’t concerned about her neighbor other than the fact he’s a Giuliani supporter. If she’d actually been concerned, she would have called the police and filed a report.
It is my business when politicians and their wives place themselves in the public spotlight, Jes. We aren’t talking about somebody living in another town that I heard about the dispute third hand. If your attitude is that we can only discuss things of which we are intimately involved, then that should shut you up on anything in the U.S., including President Bush. Of course, then you wouldn’t be sticking your big feet in your mouth all the time and it just wouldn’t be fun not calling you out on it.
Dana thinks that for people who were attacked by Falwell when he was alive to make negative comments about him now he’s dead isn’t “classyâ€, and holds up conservative behavior as “classyâ€.
We’re not talking about “negative comments” here, Jes. We’re talking about the most bizarre, unhinged vitriol imaginable at the death of a man. Nobody here has said Falwell was above criticism. But the sort of idiocy that leads to the comments and pictures from the left are uncalled for.
Examples of such conservative behavior include Art Downs trashing a bereaved mother, and Sharon trashing a dying woman.
Keep repeating your stupidity long enough and I guess you hope someone will believe it.
16 May 2007, 11:16 pmcoulterfan:
>>Jimmy Carter dies that he’s burning in hell with his father Satan (because of his various inappropriate remarks about Israel, the U.S., Republicans, George W. Bush, people who disagree with him, etc., etc.,)
First off, do you think that this WON’T happen? That nutcases on the Right won’t dance on Carter’s grave and say that he’s gone to hell? You can’t judge every liberal by what the attention-craving ones say anymore than I can judge every Conservative by what loonies like Coulter, Limbaugh, or for that matter Eric Rudolph, Ted Nichols, etc say.
Secondly, there is a distinct difference in criticizing political beliefs like Carter has done (and there are MANY on the Right who agree with his positions including his criticisms of Bush) and being a ‘false prophet’ like Falwell. Witness his vitriol (and outright lies) about Clinton and contrast that with how adulters on the Right were treated by him (like Gingrich and MANY others). How could he pretend to KNOW everyone’s heart and WHO MADE HIM THE JUDGE?
Falwell blamed gays, feminists, the ACLU, etc for 9-11 and repeatedly said that they were doing the work of satan. There are some on the left who think that Bush is doing satan’s work, but they are NOT legitimized (and do NOT include Carter who has legitimate political differences and doesn’t merely call others ‘evil’) Bush’s wife Laura and mother Barbara are pro-choice, but did Falwell call them ‘abortionists’? Did THEY and Condi Rice (also pro-choice and pro-gay rights), help 9-11 happen? His smug, self-righteous arrogance were decidedly UN-CHRISTIAN! Carter, in contrast, is VERY humble and makes no pretense of religiously judging others. More like Bush , Reagan, Clinton, etc- Carter is only exercising his freedom to state his beliefs without condemning others. Billy Graham had his own (Democratic) political views which he frequently stated, but he did not pretend to speak for God while doing so.
You may not like Carter for disagreeing with Bush (like the VAST majority of Americans), but I doubt you can find a quote where he calls his political enemies ‘evil’, ‘hellbound’ etc.
16 May 2007, 11:39 pmJackGoff:
Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Galatians 5:19-21; and Ephesians 5:5. (The latter two are a general condemnation of all sexual immorality.) Acts 15:20
Again with the disingenuousness. Seems SOP around here, to borrow a phrase. Those documents were the words of Jesus?
16 May 2007, 11:48 pmblubonnet:
Falwell was wealthy, so he should have helped in those areas he did. And I don’t think it broke him financially.
Carter, is merely telling facts that the MSM won’t tell, considering how much Zionism rules, under the radar, and the history of it, which isn’t pretty. Carter merely trying to tell the other untold side of it, gets the stamp of the damned by that MSM that is already slanted in that direction. Especially by the right wing who are products of that MSM. (Sigh, I get tired of saying that over and over again too.) Carter has not promoted hatred, he has saved many lives, and has been very charitable, like a wealthy man should be too.
Too bad Falwell had to promote hatred of people who have to live through the pain of being gay. When you consider how high the percentage of suicides are, about 30%, among gays, you have to know that there was not a choice to be this way, for the gay and lesbian, and transgendered. If you believe in God, you should know that it was God’s choice. I say it was Nature’s choice, same thing. The man Falwell, only contributed to the pain of these folks, which is what makes them commit suicide. We all need to accept and respect them. His hatred was unGodly, and he was no actual representative of God, in my opinion.
I would not like it if there was a hate fest over one our our adored ones from the Left either, Sharon, but getting people killed has not been something anyone I can think of offhand, from the Left promotes. Promoting peace more often is our agenda. And helping people be self sufficient, when impoverished.
Sharon, if you’re going to say something about somebody, why don’t you say things that are true, instead of: “Poor thing, she needs attention, she’s ignored at home”. Show some integrity.
Another thing, I don’t think any of us have any right to claim to know what God’s intentions are, like God is a fella on a cloud. I think God is unfathomable, by our gross bodily senses, or our standard mental capacity. I think that was the main problem, the arrogance of Falwell’s foibles, thinking, or saying he had it all figured out. Repulsive arrogance.
Also, I think the burden of church and its self-depricating cultivating and the burden of worrying if we will have to go to the fire bath, when children, and the guilt we carry by merely being human, and having a God given sexuality, and actual anger, and we’re supposed to “love Jesus, and God” when in reality, love comes from genuinely knowing and care growing and faced with the impossibility of truly feeling the “love” we were supposed to feel, without, really being able to think it through as to why it all made us uncomfortable, after all, you’d better not think that much because, if you do too much thinking and then, you face the fact that maybe you really question if Jesus is the “son of God” and…GASP…what if you don’t? The fire bath, forever and ever. Is that a fair, kind and loving God? Sounds more like an evil temper tantrum that some adolescent with too much power would inflict. Sorry, but that is not my God. God is love. You know God, when you feel love.
16 May 2007, 11:54 pmSharon:
First off, do you think that this WON’T happen? That nutcases on the Right won’t dance on Carter’s grave and say that he’s gone to hell? You can’t judge every liberal by what the attention-craving ones say anymore than I can judge every Conservative by what loonies like Coulter, Limbaugh, or for that matter Eric Rudolph, Ted Nichols, etc say.
If Jimmy Carter gets the same sort of nasty treatment from the right that Ronald Reagan and Jerry Falwell’s deaths (as well as the attempted assassination of Vice President Cheney) got from the left guess what? I’ll condemn that, too.
I’m not going to say there aren’t loonies on the right that will dance on Carter’s grave. But somehow, that doesn’t have the same resonance as a depiction of Falwell as Satan’s spawn.
Secondly, there is a distinct difference in criticizing political beliefs like Carter has done (and there are MANY on the Right who agree with his positions including his criticisms of Bush) and being a ‘false prophet’ like Falwell.
Carter’s behavior isn’t just criticism of politics. He’s basically called various Republicans cowards and blamed Israel for all the conflict in the Middle East. Dana reviewed the latest Carter book if you need to read it. And Carter is a petty, vindictive man (witness his behavior at the Reagan funeral), so, please, spare me the “he’s such a good Christian” crap.
But don’t let’s discuss Carter personally, ok? The point was that if people from the right behave upon Carter’s death as people on the left have over Falwell’s death, there will be so much pearl-clutching from the moonbatosphere that it will be unbelievable. And it’s pretty hard to find comments that rival what Pandagon had going.
Again with the disingenuousness. Seems SOP around here, to borrow a phrase. Those documents were the words of Jesus?
We have a tiny fraction of what Jesus actually said, Jack. But it’s safe to say that the words of Paul, Peter, and other disciples are the principles upon which Christianity is based. That’s the reason there is a New Testament, after all.
Falwell was wealthy, so he should have helped in those areas he did. And I don’t think it broke him financially.
What does that have to do with anything? We now measure whether someone did good or lived up to their ideals based on the percentage of their income they used? That’s a rather bizarre measure.
Carter, is merely telling facts that the MSM won’t tell, considering how much Zionism rules, under the radar, and the history of it, which isn’t pretty. Carter merely trying to tell the other untold side of it, gets the stamp of the damned by that MSM that is already slanted in that direction. Especially by the right wing who are products of that MSM. (Sigh, I get tired of saying that over and over again too.) Carter has not promoted hatred, he has saved many lives, and has been very charitable, like a wealthy man should be too.
And I hear there’s a YouTube video of him with Bigfoot, blu. Better go link to it, quick!
I would not like it if there was a hate fest over one our our adored ones from the Left either, Sharon, but getting people killed has not been something anyone I can think of offhand, from the Left promotes. Promoting peace more often is our agenda. And helping people be self sufficient, when impoverished.
Oh, come on, blu. I gave several examples of over the top rhetoric from your side of people who wanted Republicans killed or thought killing Republicans would be a good thing. Just go look up Bill Maher, Alec Baldwin, Nina Totenberg, Julianne Malveaux for starters. Hell, Michelle Malkin has a book filled with examples of leftwing hate speech. So, please, don’t tell me leftwingers are about peace. You been to a lefty peace march lately? If that’s peace, it’s only the 1984-style.
Sharon, if you’re going to say something about somebody, why don’t you say things that are true, instead of: “Poor thing, she needs attention, she’s ignored at homeâ€. Show some integrity.
It’s pretty funny that you have the audacity to say this to me after the literally hundreds of ad hominem attacks Jes has lobbed at me. Why don’t you spend your time asking it to show some integrity?
Another thing, I don’t think any of us have any right to claim to know what God’s intentions are, like God is a fella on a cloud. I think God is unfathomable, by our gross bodily senses, or our standard mental capacity. I think that was the main problem, the arrogance of Falwell’s foibles, thinking, or saying he had it all figured out. Repulsive arrogance.
That’s your theology, blu, and the great thing about America is that you’re welcome to it. That Falwell didn’t agree with your take is just another option. Again, I’m not defending various things Falwell said. But the idea that SCREAMING?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! in comments sections about how much emotion one is willing to waste on a dead guy is really classless.
17 May 2007, 12:11 amJesurgislac:
Sharon: It is my business when politicians and their wives place themselves in the public spotlight
It’s your business to call a dying woman, for whom you briefly professed a hypocritical sympathy, a “stuck-up bitch”? How much do you get paid for each insult?
We’re not talking about “negative comments†here, Jes. We’re talking about the most bizarre, unhinged vitriol imaginable
As when Art Down trashes a recently-bereaved mother, or you trash a dying woman? Ms Driver, who lost her son, had done Art no personal harm: Elizabeth Edwards, who is dying of cancer, has done you no personal harm and you’d claimed (falsely, as we now know) to feel personal sympathy towards her and her family: but Jerry Falwell devoted a long political career to doing harm to others.
You’re pretending that when Art trashes a poor woman of whom he knows nothing but that she just lost her son, or that when you pour vitriol on a dying woman because she objects to having her neighbor wave guns around near her children, it’s somehow justified, but angry joy that Falwell’s career of harming others is now at an end is somehow not justified.
You notice that I’m not calling Dana on the posts he’s made about the Edwards’ recently. That’s because Dana has stuck to attacking the Edwards’ on a political level, which is fair enough. You chose to attack Elizabeth Edwards personally. Now you appear annoyed and upset - and, par for the course, accuse me of lying because I’m pointing out what you said. Don’t you ever get tired of this pattern? Don’t you ever feel you should just take responsibility for what you write, and admit that if you want to argue it’s wrong to insult Jerry Falwell now he’s dead, it was wrong of you to insult Elizabeth Edwards while she’s dying?
17 May 2007, 3:31 amJackGoff:
But it’s safe to say that the words of Paul, Peter, and other disciples are the principles upon which Christianity is based.
Then, call it Pauline Christianity. Also, you are mistaken if you think the documents traditionally attributed to Paul are all indeed written by Paul, some not existing until 150 CE.
Regardless, you admit you aren’t Christians, per se, just followers of a doctrine mutually agreed upon by a bunch of dudes in the 4th century.
17 May 2007, 6:34 amSharon:
It’s your business to call a dying woman, for whom you briefly professed a hypocritical sympathy, a “stuck-up bitch� How much do you get paid for each insult?
This is the latest example of how when Jes gets stuck on stupid there’s little to be done. Lizzie Edwards is the wife of a presidential candidate who used her notoreity to bash her neighbor. The purpose of even mentioning him was not to find a solution to the “problem.” It was to make political hay of something she thought would help her. Because she is a presidential candidate’s wife, what she says is news, and we all get to comment on that.
As when Art Down trashes a recently-bereaved mother, or you trash a dying woman?
Neither Art nor I wish for liberals to burn in Hell or be sodomized by Satan, Jes. Pointing out inconvenient facts about behaviors isn’t “trashing” them. And Lizzie Edwards deserves sympathy for her cancer but not her poisonous rhetoric. The difference is that calling Edwards a “stuck-up bitch” does not rise to the level of wanting people to rot in Hell. But I don’t really expect someone who can’t get their facts straight to understand that.
You’re pretending that when Art trashes a poor woman of whom he knows nothing but that she just lost her son, or that when you pour vitriol on a dying woman because she objects to having her neighbor wave guns around near her children, it’s somehow justified, but angry joy that Falwell’s career of harming others is now at an end is somehow not justified.
I’m not pretending anything, although your mischaracterizations of others’ opinions could be classified as pretending. To say Driver’s mother was negligent or that Lizzie Edwards is a snobby bully may anger you–you clearly have a bizarre definition of what is ok in political discourse–but it doesn’t rise to the same level as the idiot comments given by liberals to Falwell’s death.
You chose to attack Elizabeth Edwards personally.
I attacked Lizzie for things she said, Jes. If that’s personal, then so be it.
Now you appear annoyed and upset - and, par for the course, accuse me of lying because I’m pointing out what you said.
I’m neither annoyed nor upset by your temper tantrums. But your continued attempt to frame the debate as being about a dying woman–as though Lizzie Edwards is just some random person on the street–rather than the speech of a presidential candidate’s wife is disingenuous and dishonest. But let’s face it, Jes. This is your normal routine. You’ve been called on it repeatedly. You can’t win a debate straight up–you ran from discussions about socialized medicine, Diamonte Driver’s death, etc.–so you resort to mischaracterizing positions. It’s as though you have a bad magic act and think blaming the audience will make them not notice how bad you suck. But that’s not true. You’ve been called on this repeatedly.
Then, call it Pauline Christianity. Also, you are mistaken if you think the documents traditionally attributed to Paul are all indeed written by Paul, some not existing until 150 CE.
This isn’t the place for a debate on the founding documents of Christianity, Jack. I’m well aware of the history of the New Testament and, in fact, there have been any number of good and interesting books written on the subject of how we got the Bible we have today. Suffice it to say, none of the works of the New Testament were written by Jesus, and almost all of them were not written until many years after Jesus’ death. This doesn’t make the ideas, theologies, and principles expressed in these documents any less important just because they weren’t written within the lifetime of the Savior. We do know that Christianity evolved from a handful of men in the First Century to a worldwide phenomenon as we have it today. During the millenia that followed Jesus’ death, Christian leaders have had to find answers to any number of issues that Jesus never spoke about, but about which we can make various conclusions based on what He did say.
Again, if you think that the fact Christianity is based on the writings of people who weren’t around when Christ walked the earth somehow negates the points they make, it just shows your ignorance of Biblical history. But this isn’t really the place for that debate.
17 May 2007, 7:03 amcoulterfan:
>>You are quite correct about Jesus condemnation of adultery and divorce.
Okay, just to be clear. When did Falwell ‘point his finger at’ the adulterers and the divorced for 9-11? Did he state on MANY occasions that they were also going to hell?
Was it really his place to judge others? Are you surprised that those he said were going to hell are now saying that he himself is in hell? How do YOU respond when the likes of Muslim radicals (who think we are all infidels) die? Are you appaled when others suggest that Al Queda members are ‘burning in hell’?
17 May 2007, 7:56 amJesurgislac:
But your continued attempt to frame the debate as being about a dying woman–as though Lizzie Edwards is just some random person on the street–rather than the speech of a presidential candidate’s wife is disingenuous and dishonest.
Oh, bovine faeces, Sharon! Of course the fact that Elizabeth Edwards is married to the current Democratic front-runner for the next President is why you’re attacking her. If she were your neighbor, just a woman living next door to some fruitcake who flourishes guns at trespassers, you might even be sympathetic to her neighborhood problems, at least until she admitted she was going to vote Democratic.
Elizabeth Edwards is dying. You know it. You even pretended to be sympathetic about it. Now you’ve dropped that pretense and are showing your true feelings about her. And you seem to think this vitriol towards a dying woman is on a different moral plane from vitriol towards a dead man. I can’t decide which is more repellent: your lack of human feeling, or your blatant hypocrisy.
17 May 2007, 8:22 amsharon:
She’s a prominent figure, Jes. That’s what makes her dispute with her neighbor news. This isn’t about her cancer. It’s about her status as the wife of a presidential candidate. She made very inappropriate remarks about her neighbor, a man who, by all accounts, is well-liked in the community and has never had any problems with his neighbors before the Edwards built their multiplex next to the property that’s been in his family for generations. The fact is, Lizzie was rude and churlish and attempted to use a disagreement with her neighbor to blast him (and by extension, all gun owners) as unstable.
Again, I am very sympathetic with the Edwardses about her cancer. I’m not sympathetic at all when the wife of a presidential candidate is churlish. And, btw, yes, there is a difference between condemning the behavior of a living woman with depictions of a dead person rotting in Hell. Interesting that you don’t see the difference.
BTW, Jack, if you are actually interested in the early history of the Church, Bart Ehrman has a couple of excellent books on the subject: Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why and The Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. There’s some overlap, but both books are quite fascinating. Sorry, for some reason I can’t put in the links atm.
17 May 2007, 8:51 amJesurgislac:
The fact is, Lizzie was rude and churlish and attempted to use a disagreement with her neighbor to blast him (and by extension, all gun owners) as unstable.
The fact is, Sharon, you have no idea what happened. You weren’t there. You saw a news report of a dispute between neighbors, and decided to take the opportunity to spew some vitriol over a dying woman whom you had earlier pretended to feel sympathy for.
This isn’t a big political issue. You can’t pretend that it’s a matter of principle for you. You just decided that it would give you a happy buzz to call a woman dying of cancer a “stuck-up bitch”.
Again, I am very sympathetic with the Edwardses about her cancer.
Why keep repeating this lie? Do you expect us to believe that your way of expressing sympathy towards cancer victims is to call them vile names?
17 May 2007, 8:58 amsharon:
There’s no reason to dispute the news reports of what happened. Edwards hasn’t denied that she said what was reported.
And, yes, it is a “big political issue.” John Edwards has made his wholesome, normal, loving, family an issue in this campaign because he talks frequently about the compassion he has for people. It’s difficult to square Mr. “Two Americas” with his snobby wife who looks down on her neighbor because she doesn’t like the way he keeps up his property.
And, frankly, Edwards even made his wife’s cancer a campaign issue by bringing it up in a press conference. There’s no lie in feeling badly for someone who is sick. But as I stated before, it doesn’t excuse her churlish behavior. You don’t have to agree. Maybe you think being a jerk when you have cancer and your husband is a presidential candidate is ok. That’s your opinion. But I don’t see how her cancer relates to her nasty behavior.
17 May 2007, 9:51 amsharon:
Comment in moderation, Dana.
17 May 2007, 10:10 amEric:
That’s like saying “What sources do you have for saying the winters in Minnesota are cold?”.
Blu, I live here. I read the local paper, and catch the local news. The reaction to the Wellstone
17 May 2007, 10:13 amfiascofuneral was strong, immediate, and, overall, quite negative. Even many local Democrats were pissed off, if nothing else but for the perception that turning a funeral into what many perceived as a political pep rally was tacky and in bad taste, and thus a liability to the Democrat Party’s efforts as a whole, especially a mere week before the 2002 election.Eric:
I don’t think he said anything specifically about cloning. Or Nazi death camps, for that matter. What’s your point? Only a moral moron could read the Gospels and conclude that Jesus wouldn’t have found executing an unborn baby by sucking out its brains WHILE IT WAS STILL ALIVE AND CONSCIOUS to be anything but monstrous and abhorrent.
17 May 2007, 10:20 amcoulterfan:
>>I don’t think he said anything specifically about cloning. Or Nazi death camps, for that matter. What’s your point? Only a moral moron could read the Gospels and conclude that Jesus wouldn’t have found executing an unborn baby by sucking out its brains WHILE IT WAS STILL ALIVE AND CONSCIOUS to be anything but monstrous and abhorrent.
Well, that may be, but He also made it clear that the death penalty was abhorrent, as is divorce, etc.
Remember, now, that the Republican frontrunners (Guiliani and maybe Romney depending on the direction of the wind) are also pro-choice. As are Laura Bush, Barbara Bush, Condi Rice, Christine Todd Whitman, etc. Guiliani, McCain, Limbaugh, Gingrich, Ralph Reed, and MANY other Republicans are divorced (as well as many Dems)- according to the New Testament, this is FAR worse than being gay. You, I, and Jesus might find abortion abhorrent (as I and Jesus do the death penalty), but it is not up to me to judge them. They will have to answer for their own beliefs and, most importantly, their ACTIONS! Unlike Falwell, I don’t have the smug, self-righteous ability to speak for God!
17 May 2007, 10:57 amEric:
Well, Clinton certainly was on very familiar terms with the sin of adultery …
17 May 2007, 10:57 amDana:
Coulterfan wrote:
Well, it certainly won’t happen here!
But no, actually, I don’t think that there will be very much of that. I can’t say none, as in zero, but I don’t see most conservatives doing that.
17 May 2007, 10:58 amDana:
Coulterfan wrote:
May I take it that you believe people who do (figuratively) “dance on (someone’s) grave and say that he’s gone to hell” automatically qualify as “nutcases?”
17 May 2007, 11:00 amEric:
Well, let’s do just that. Specifically, the following passage:
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
Isn’t that a pretty accurate description of the hate being directed against the late Rev Falwell … ?
17 May 2007, 11:10 amsharon:
Remember, now, that the Republican frontrunners (Guiliani and maybe Romney depending on the direction of the wind) are also pro-choice. As are Laura Bush, Barbara Bush, Condi Rice, Christine Todd Whitman, etc. Guiliani, McCain, Limbaugh, Gingrich, Ralph Reed, and MANY other Republicans are divorced (as well as many Dems)- according to the New Testament, this is FAR worse than being gay. You, I, and Jesus might find abortion abhorrent (as I and Jesus do the death penalty), but it is not up to me to judge them. They will have to answer for their own beliefs and, most importantly, their ACTIONS! Unlike Falwell, I don’t have the smug, self-righteous ability to speak for God!
Isn’t this a great country we live in where things like being divorced doesn’t disqualify a person for elected office? It’s a great country!
And the idea that you can’t “judge” another person because of his/her behavior is a misstatement of the moral because of course, you make judgements about behavior all the time. Whether you are asserting that being divorced makes one less qualified to speak on family issues or that not having military experience makes one unqualified to discuss the war and military issues in general, you and I (and every other person on this planet, pretty much) make judgements all day long. And that’s a normal thing for people to do.
Of course, societies also make judgements when they pass laws or state which behaviors are to be banned, tolerated, accepted, or embraced. Welcome to democracy!
17 May 2007, 11:23 amEric:
Not so. The text is, at best, ambivalent. Even in the case of the two thieves who were executed alongswide Him, while the one was promised entry into Paradise, at no point was it stated that their death sentence itself was either unjust or immoral. On the other hand, putting a perfectly innocent baby to death using extreme cruelty, as is the case in Partial Birth Abortion, is about as UN-Christian an act as it is possible to imagine.
17 May 2007, 11:24 amJackGoff:
During the millenia that followed Jesus’ death, Christian leaders have had to find answers to any number of issues that Jesus never spoke about, but about which we can make various conclusions based on what He did say.
And you know, damnedest thing, but no one seems to ever quote what Jesus said about homosexuality.
But, getting back on track, throughout this entire argument, there has been the same “concern” for how hurtful we look, without focusing on being concerned as to how Falwell looked. Thus making this entire argument about us and not what it was originally, about the ludicrous idea that Falwell deserves any measure of respect (as symbolized by our gracious silence). Sorry, but due to policies put forth and championed by this unspeakable bigot, people I love have perished, and in horrible fashion. I’m sure you would feel okay at a person feeling vindicated at the execution of someone who killed one of their family members. Oh, but that supports one of your little causes, so that’s different.
Very good obfuscating on all of your parts. Bravo.
17 May 2007, 11:43 amJackGoff:
Relegated to the spamulator, I guess. I love how this is now about the Clenis, as it always is.
17 May 2007, 11:46 amJackGoff:
The best part is, Sharon, that if you wish to go upon the authority of those men who decided Christian faith by fiat, there’s a large amount of dead people who were silenced because of that fiat. Hilarious, even, given the declarations from on high that come straight out of dedication to that fiat.
But then, when you’re making the Holy Omelette of Mother Church with Signs Rising, you’ve got to break a few eggs, I guess.
17 May 2007, 11:53 amsharon:
Actually, the best part is that you actually think that your philosophies–whatever they are–are somehow more civilized. The Greeks had a word for that, too: hubris.
17 May 2007, 1:01 pmJackGoff:
Key is, true philosophy isn’t a fiat, but a dialectic.
17 May 2007, 1:16 pmDana:
Mr Goff wrote:
No, Mr Goff. Coulterfan wrote that homosexuality is not mentioned in the New Testament even once; I noted several places in the New Testament where such occurs.
The closest that we have in the documented words of Jesus in Matthew 5:17:
That means that the Mosaic laws remained in force. When the Apostles were presented with some resistance from Gentile converts to Christianity to the imposition of Judaism first, the Apostles decided that circumcision would not be required of the Gentile converts, nor would most of the dietary laws. In Acts 15:20 the minimum restrictions were put forth: avoid meat offered in sacrifice to idols, do not eat meat from animals which had been strangled, and the Moasic laws concerning illicit sexual activity were retained.
If there is “disingenuousness,” it is the claim that, well, the Bible doesn’t really prohibit homosexual activity. Sorry, but that’s pure wishful thinking, on the part of people who wish the Bible said different things than it does. People are, of course, free to not believe that the Bible is the word of God, or to not be Christian, but trying to pretend that the Bible says something it doesn’t. or doesn’t say something that it does, is, in effect, lying to onesself.
17 May 2007, 1:56 pmDana:
Mr Goff wrote:
The Letter to the Hebrews is generally considered not to have been written by Paul, as it was originally attributed, and there are some stylistic questions which suggest a couple of others (I’m at work, can’t look them up at the moment) might have had the work of one of St Paul’s associates, but the majority date to between 57 and 63 AD.
Am I to assume from your use of “CE” that you are not Christian?
17 May 2007, 2:04 pmJackGoff:
I was more referring to the Pastoral Epistles. The letters “from Peter” share the same authorship problem.
Either way, if what was argued was that the New Testament did not say homosexuality was wrong, that is incorrect. I thought that the argument was that Jesus had said that it was wrong.
Jesus did say he did not come to abolish Mosaic Law, but have you read Mosaic Law? There’s stuff in there you would never dream of following. Why the cutting and pasting then into your own faith? Just accept what you want and leave the rest?
Again, I know that this is where Paul is supposed to clear things up for the non-Jewish Christians, but as I said, you might not want to say you follow Christ, but the Pauline Depiction of Christ. If Christ was arguing under the limits of Jewish law, how can you utilize him without paying heed to Jewish Law, meaning all of it?
Specifically, if you’re allowed to assume Jesus’ motivations and beliefs without much evidence (other than one, extremely vague and complicated statement), why aren’t we allowed to do the same?
Oh, and I’m a recovering Christian.
17 May 2007, 2:35 pmDana:
Mr Goff wrote:
Since you’re new here (and we hope that you continue to return), I guess I should explain the anti-Spam software.
There is a moderation queue; if you hit that, you see the “Your comment is awaiting moderation” message. And then there is the Akismet anti-Spam program; if your comment just flat disappears, it’s been picked up as spam.
I review the spam queue fairly frequently, which I have to do, because once more than fifty spam get caught, I cannot review and release #51 on. I usually catch it before the threshhold, but not always — especially overnight. Some comments caught in the spam queue have been lost, and I mistakenly deleted one of J’s about a month ago.l
As Jesurgislac and Blubonnet can tell you, no one is censored here other than spammers. (Once, many months ago, I did censor one comment, when someone tried to use the comments to “out” a supposedly closeted homosexual politician. But that’s the only time I have done so.)
17 May 2007, 3:14 pmDana:
Mr Goff wrote:
Actually, as best we can tell, Paul’s epistles were written before the Gospels. The majority of Biblical scholars put Mark at about 65 AD, and Matthew, Luke (and Acts) at between 70 and 75 AD. John’s Gospel is normally dated between 90 and 110 AD.
Every word we have from Jesus himself is viewed through the filter of observers; if Jesus ever wrote as much as a single word on paper, it has long vanished. Christians hold that the various books of the Bible were divinely inspired, and that the selection of some, and exclusion of other books was guided by the Holy Spirit.
17 May 2007, 3:27 pmJackGoff:
Paul’s epistles were written before the Gospels.
True, but then again, Paul never interacted with Jesus the philosopher, or Jesus the Man, so if you’re saying you are followers of Christ, there’s apparent contradiction between the stated goals of Jesus and the stated philosophy of Paul, namely that one says Mosaic Law is not refuted, and one says it is for certain people. Logically, these interpretations cannot both be valid.
Thus, you have to pick between the Pauline depiction of Christ and the vague, not well-formed figure presented by the Gospels.
All of this going to the point that, divinely inspired or not, the Bible is not readily definable in terms of its fiats, unless you specifically decode who you’re going to believe for the moment and stick with it.
As to homosexuality, one could argue that neither source says it is okay. However, contrary to what Sharon believes, “Judge not lest ye be judged”, when put into action, does not entail that you have the right to judge actively, only passively. When placed into action, Jesus condemns the priests who would stone a prostitute by placing the caveat on them “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” There is no modifier there. Not the “same sin” or not “this sin” or “that sin”. Just “sin”.
Needless to say, Falwell was an active judge. He proactively pursued legal measures that helped bring about, among other things, the silence in the 80s against the AIDS epidemic, the de facto ban on research, and the scare amidst the public that spread disinformation, further negatively impacting sufferers. He cast plenty of stones, and many people have been grossly affected by them.
Thus, I passively judge him worthy of derision. I’m not actively attempting to make him or anyone else suffer pain and anguish. I’m being much more civil, and yes, Christian, than he ever was.
Then again, I don’t believe in any God whatsoever, so I tend to look at the Bible as a literary work worthy of philosophical and historical study. I don’t, however, feel that it maintains academic integrity to the point where it is a valid source for any scrutiny of current society, and for that, we need other methods of inquiry that do not involve divine command theory.
17 May 2007, 3:52 pmDana:
Mr Goff wrote:
But that’s just it, Mr Goff: Jesus did appear to Paul, and interact with him, on the Damascus road. Now, since you don’t believe in Christianity, you aren’t going to accept that, but that’s part of te belief of Christians.
One of the better explanations came on the series Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Odo was asking Major Kira about her religion, and she responded, “That’s the part you don’t understand. Without faith, no explanation is possible; with faith, no explanation is necessary.”
17 May 2007, 5:04 pmJesurgislac:
Dana: Jesus did appear to Paul, and interact with him, on the Damascus road.
Or so Paul claimed. There were no other witnesses.
One may believe in Christianity, and try to live as a Christian (not your own dessert-cart version of religion) and still believe that Paul probably had an epileptic fit.
17 May 2007, 6:07 pmJesurgislac:
Dana: As Jesurgislac and Blubonnet can tell you, no one is censored here other than spammers.
I confirm this. I can’t say Dana and I agree on much, but I thoroughly respect his determination to have his blog be a place where everyone gets to have their say, even the people who strongly disagree with him and frequently criticize him.
17 May 2007, 6:11 pmSharon:
Why would a Christian believe that?
I love Jes’s sudden conversion to the “only events witnessed by 2 or more people” count philosophy. It’s hilarious.
17 May 2007, 6:12 pmJackGoff:
I wasn’t complaining about being censored. I was unaware of the procedures and I was sort of laughing at the oblique reference to the Clenis, without which, no conservative argument could be complete.
Why would a [person who believes in my brand of] Christian[ity] believe that?
Fixed your typo, Sharon.
17 May 2007, 6:18 pmSharon:
There weren’t any typos. Oh, I guess you meant the way liberals selectively edit speech. We’ve already got Jes to do that.
17 May 2007, 6:24 pmJackGoff:
Okay, I clarified your statement to actually make sense outside of your skull. Happy?
17 May 2007, 6:35 pmJackGoff:
I do like that that chestnut is now your tag line.
I would say that logic and inquiry are better suited to answering ethical questions, following the utilitarian calculus with a little bit of natural law thrown in (Cicero’s natural law, mind).
Then again, faith can have a logic all its own. Though, it’s definition of truth and the rigor that determines it tends to fluctuate wildly.
17 May 2007, 7:35 pmJackGoff:
I should say between religions, that is, or more specifically, between varying shades of followers of divine command theory.
17 May 2007, 7:38 pmSharon:
Okay, I clarified your statement to actually make sense outside of your skull. Happy?
Shorter Jack: I can’t make an effective argument so I’ll just make ad hominem attacks.
17 May 2007, 8:13 pmDana:
Just as a housekeeping function, since Sharon started a second Jerry Falwell thread, I’m going to close comments to this one; it’ll be easier to follow arguments and comments if they are all in one place.
17 May 2007, 10:13 pmCommon Sense Political Thought » Archives » Amanda Marcotte, RIP:
[...] It is certainly true that I disagreed with 99.44% of what Miss Marcotte published during her too-brief life, but I respected her as a bloggess, and don’t think it appropriate to speak ill of the dead. I extend my sincerest condolences to her family. She is survived by Molly and Dusty: [...]
18 May 2007, 11:31 pmPandagon :: The gates of hell swing open and Satan welcomes his beloved son :: May :: 2007:
[...] Common Sense Political Thought May 15, 2007 at 2:03 pm [...]
13 November 2007, 7:40 pm