"[I]f Chief Justice Warren and his associates had known God's word and had desired to do the Lord's will, I am quite confident that the 1954 decision would never have been made ... The facilities [for the races] should be separate. When God has drawn a line of distinction, we should not attempt to cross that line."

Good riddance.

Weird.

These aren't even people who thought Falwell was a good man.

Fundamentalist cleric Jerry Falwell died today, age 73.

"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen."
Jerry Falwell on 9/11.

My second thought: "...Not Fred Phelps? Damn."

I know, I know. I'm not a nice person.

"I listen to feminists and all these radical gals - most of them are failures. They've blown it. Some of them have been married, but they married some Casper Milquetoast who asked permission to go to the bathroom. These women just need a man in the house. That's all they need. Most of the feminists need a man to tell them what time of day it is and to lead them home. And they blew it and they're mad at all men. Feminists hate men. They're sexist. They hate men - that's their problem."

(Wow. I don't think I'd ever realized before that Falwell was a rape advocate, but I suppose it fits with the rest of his positions well enough.)

"The ACLU is to Christians what the American Nazi party is to Jews."

"If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being."

I suggest a bit of quiet warfare on our parts: anywhere we see Falwell's praises being sung, insert these quotes, and any others that people feel like digging up as well. In the interests of "fair and balanced coverage," let's make sure that Falwell gets remembered for everything he did.

He made it his vocation to try to rip the fabric of American society apart in order to redo it in his own image, and we owe him nothing but disgust and contempt for that.

And Nicole? I am a nice person. Imagine what I might have said were I not.

Quite possibly the best writing H G Wells ever did was in a short story about the (almost) Christian Judgement Day, in which God raises you up to his face so He can whisper all the truly embarrassing things you did in your life into your ear.

If you're a terrorist motivated by a non-Christian religion, it might start to look like a target for a decapitation strike.

(And if you're a fundamentalist non-Christian cleric, you're probably praying nobody tries it.)

(Snarkiest reason and the one I'm least proud of? "Rejoicing that someone's dead? It's something Fred Phelps would do.")

So, do I feel sorrow? No. I do feel a certain sense of relief and some little wistfulness that a man with so many gifts made such poor use of them.

However, I can certainly see why many people feel as if a ten ton weight has dropped from their shoulders and hearts and I won't condemn them for it. Not one tiny bit. I have had the blessing of not belonging to one of his target groups in any meaningful way. I will not say that the people who he tried to opress should not rejoice that their opressor is gone.

Lee at 13, Oh, how I approve of what you're saying - truth is so important!

Bruce at 16, I had no idea that H.G. Wells had visited my personal hell. (Purgatory is having to watch the Mr. Bean movie again - all that social embarrassment.)

My second was, may God have mercy on him, as may He on all of us. I don't think I've done the damage to society that he has (though I am still young and not dead - there's still time!), but I'd hate to find that there was a line beyond which mercy did not apply.

Like Margaret, I try not to rejoice at death, even the death of someone who has done such profound harm. Nor am I glad that he is no longer doing that harm, because his ghost may still haunt America for some time.

I do understand, however, how others may differ from my views.

Requiescat in pace.

Isn't there such a line, in the minds of Falwell's ilk? You can be the most moral and the kindest person on Earth, but, if you were a man who loved men, or a woman who loved women, or if you loved freedom of speech more than you loved burning books you disapprove of, or if you believe in beings other than God, or if you believe in no Supreme Being, you know where you'll wind up. (Ever seen the Twilight Zone's 1986 episode Dead Run, based on a Greg Bear story?)

Oh, and by the way, abi, you've made the world a better place, not worse.

As I said, I'm still young, and not dead yet. There is still time to turn to the Dark Side.

But I can feel nothing but relief and hope at the news that such an evil, hate-filled little man is dead. Hope that his evil died with him, relief that he is no longer around to sway others to hatred.

I try very hard not to rejoice in the death of any human being (though I have done it - Pol Pot and Idi Amin, I'm looking at you), because I really think it makes me no better than they to act in such a manner.

Still, to my shame, my heart is lighter this morning.

So, am I sorry he's dead? Yes, because he died too soon.

Simply avoid creepy old men with bad teeth who keeping going on about this or that being your Destiny.

Simply avoid creepy old men with bad teeth who keeping going on about this or that being your Destiny.

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/214305

But I have to agree with this livejournal post; the Christian right isn't one person, it's a lot of people, and they'll find other people to tell them to believe odious things.

I concur. We can hate the man's actions, hate his words, and hate what he stood for.

But we can do it without adopting his gleeful lack of mercy and his joyous resignation of others to hellfire and damnation.

Sarah

So... love the sinner, hate the sin? *g*

I don't know anything about Falwell's personal theology, even whether he had one or not, but I do know that a significant segment of the Fundamentalist Christian population believes in the Calvinist notion that whether you are damned or saved is inherent in you from birth, decided by God long before. This, of course, gives them license to do anything they want to those who are damned, since nothing can change that.* I've always thought this was a very strange perversion of Christianity.

* Somehow they manage to ignore the point that they have no evidence that they're among the Saved. The logic seems to be that if you act like one, you must be one.

Goodness, no! I feel no compulsion to love, like, respect, listen to, or otherwise tolerate Falwell or his ilk.

I just try to despise them without *becoming* them.

(insert some quote about monsters and abysses...abbesses?...abyssim? here)

In one pit, reeking with self-righteousness,
I found a new arrival, soles aflame.
He stank of sanctimony; waves of smugness

Wafted (with disturbing lack of shame)
And blocked my nose. 'Tell me,' I choked through tears,
'Who are you, punished here? What is your name?'

'Falwell,' intoned the voice into my ears,
'Who should be king among the saved in heaven!
My enemies brought me low. Pagans and queers

told lies upon lies, seven times seven.
Those feminists (and -- but of course -- the Jews),
Not being pleased enough with 9/11,

Forcing themselves into the nightly news
So that their loathesome blasphemies are told
Like unto running sores that weep and ooze,

Condemned me when 'tis I alone who hold
the right to judge. They will be damned together!
They, THEY will someday suffer sevenfold!'

Removing from my cloak a dainty feather,
I tickled Falwell's feet, and so his howl
Followed me and Virgil through the nether.

"Get thee to a gunnery."

Please realize that those of us dancing in the aisles may not agree with you, but we (well, I at least) admire the strength it must take to extend your definition of humanity even to this one.

I've come to believe that no matter how great and varied the potential of a person may be at the beginning of life, there are some paths that, once taken, cannot be retraced, that some outcomes cannot be undone, and that at some point, the sinner and the sin* can become part of one thing. And we who remain on the this side of the darkness have to to find a way to deal with those people who willfully pass over into it.** If it takes rejoicing in their downfall to keep us motivated in resisting them, so be it.

* I'm using the term 'sin' for rhetorical reasons; it's not one I find has much meaning in my own view of things.

** The only reasonable definition of 'evil' I've ever found is 'the act of consciously, intentionally, or negligently causing harm to others, with no intention of redress or restitution." There are a lot of things that make the evil greater: taking pleasure in the harm done, or causing harm for its own sake, for instance, but, see Hanah Arendt, sometimes the greatest evil is characterized by causing great harm for trivial ends.

No hell in the Old Testament, and iirc, it's pretty vague even in the New.

From what I've heard, Falwell was a rather nice guy in person. I hope he's given a detailed overview of the effects of what he's recommended. From the point of view of the people who's suffering he's contributed to.

I may be one of the very few who are ambivalent about his death. He'd become such a bad example, and I believe more and more people were getting revolted by his views.

Between the time that the owners of the Teletubbies sent a cease&desist to walmart, and filing a lawsuit, Falwell stepped in to start the Tinky Winky is gay slander campaign. At that time, walmart was selling counterfeit Teletubbies, called "Bubbly Chubbies" that they had designed and contracted to be made in China.

My hope is his legacy will be his tens of thousands of sheeple followers miserably trying to someday explain to their more enlightened children & grandchildren how they could have followed such an awful person and his creed.

Jerry Falwall was an object lesson in hypocrisy, venality, and demagoguery.

When I heard the news of Falwell's death, the words that popped out of my mouth unbidden were "Oh, good!" That may have been a sin, but I'm not going to compound it by claiming that I had a more seemly reaction.

I admire people who achieve seemly reactions on their very first try.

(Sorry.)

I am deeply annoyed that he didn't get exactly what he deserved prior to his demise -- but then, so few of us do.

My regret is that his death was much more merciful than the one he seemed to desire for those with whom he disagreed.

You have to remember I've been out of the US for 14 years now. It's a lot more theoretical for me, a lot less in my face. And rejoicing in death just isn't my particular bent.

My failings lie elsewhere, and I will not confess them here.

My first reaction to his death was the uncharitable thought that it came at a point where he no longer wielded any real influence on the American Christian Conservative Movement. Perhaps I can rescue it with: What a shame that when he had considerable power to improve people's lives, he didn't.

I realize this all sounds very Spiderman. Obviously, as his life shows, despite having the means, he wasn't under any obligation to make the world a better place. No one is forced to. People do choose to for all sorts of reasons though. So I'm not condemning him. It's just that, in this case, it's a little sad.

(Imagine, for example, if he had said in the '80s that it is the right and Christian thing to do to take care of our poor, or to make sure everyone has access to competent, affordable health care?)

To drop several levels of importance, it's like listening to your public radio station all the time, having the means to contribute, then not contributing. You don't have to. Chances are really good the station will survive without your contribution, but it's just a little sad.

Also, it's totally possible that he honestly thought he was making the world a better place by systematically marginalizing those who didn't look or think like him. If so, it's too bad that he didn't take a look every once in a while to see how he well he was (or wasn't) doing on that whole world improvement thing.

Our toast over dinner yesterday evening was "To Jerry Falwell -- may he meet God."

And as I wrote to my mother, after a few minutes' reflection, "May he experience true forgiveness." It's what I hope for myself, so I can't really hope Falwell gets anything different.

#28 Serge: No effing way. Never.

Serge, don't tempt fate! The better you are, the worse you get once your eyeballs change to a sinister color. Dark Abi's not a force I want to face.

If this sort of story-logic applied out in the world, then Falwell must have been a very, very good person sometime before he turned. Perhaps as a toddler.

Falwell was nothing more than a mullah in a badly-fitting Western suit.

There was an almost "fair and balanced" obit of him in a legitimate newspaper - the Times (UK):

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article1795451.ece

I respect the views of those who don't want to speak ill of the dead (since the dead can't reply), though I would ask them what they said on the death of Pol Pot (no, I'm not comparing Falwell to Pol Pot, just asking about the principle).

• Jerry Falwell, Moral Majority Founder, Dies at 73
• Yolanda Denise King, Daughter of Rights Leader, Dies at 51
• Thomas Curry, 74, Officer Hit in Infamous Shooting, Dies
• Robert S. Oelman, 97, Chief Who Led NCR to Automation, Dies
• Kate Webb, War Correspondent, Dies at 64
• William Becker, 85, Creator of Concept of Motel 6 Chain, Dies
• Stanley Holden, 79, a Dancer and Prominent Ballet Teacher, Is Dead
• Bernard Gordon, Screenwriter, Dies at 88
• King Malietoa Tanumafili II of Samoa Dies at 94
• John K. Lattimer, Urologist of Varied Expertise, Dies at 92
• Leonard Eron, 87, Is Dead; Researcher on TV's Tie to Violent Conduct
• Alfred D. Chandler Jr., a Business Historian, Dies at 88
• Lesley Blanch, 102, a Writer and Traveler, Dies

All but two say "dies". The two that say "is dead" are both of people who were pretty obscure to be the focus of media bias.

The other newspapers I've looked at (Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Newsday) just give names and descriptions in their obituary headlines.

May his family and friends find peace with their grief. My sympathies go out to them at this time, for it cannot be easy for them. It's never pleasant to know someone you truly loved was disliked by the greater number of people who knew them, or knew of them[2]. May they be granted a measure of peace.

I find I hope his next life is happier than the past one must have been. It can't be pleasant to carry around so much hatred for others.

[1] Personal belief. No guarantees given that this will prove to be accurate, as so far, I appear to be immortal.
[2] Certainly my grandfather didn't enjoy his mother's funeral, particularly when all her grandchildren were swapping stories of what a cast-iron bitch she'd been during her lifetime.

I guess the more mature and enlightened attitude to have on the death of someone like Pol Pot is, "Good thing he's gone and can't do any more damage; too bad he couldn't have been a decent human being". Maybe after a few more lifetimes I'll be that mature; it's not something I can muster when needed this time around.

Ever have to stomp a scorpion to keep it from stinging you? The relief at not having to undergo the resultant pain usually comes out in odd ways like "Serves you right, you evil little invertebrate!", when you know very well the scorpion is only doing what it's evolved to do. My reaaction to Falwell is a lot like that.

The best I can say of Falwell is that I am no more happy at his death than I would be at the death of Robert Mugabe.

Former president Jimmy Carter once said Falwell "in a very Christian way ... can go to hell."

I do think, apart from the ingrained teachings which keep me from rejoicing at my enemy's pain, that it's good to be reminded that evil men die in every generation, and are replaced in the next (although with new and different details).

(Going now to see if I can wash off the passive voice).

But I'm not sure I'm Galadriel-scale. I think the best I get is "many will like me and be mildly glum".

Some churches may fear being called liberal for doing the right thing, but some won't do the right thing because he convinced them that money and power were more important in the Greater Scheme of Things. (When you get shown the cities of the world, and offered power over them, you're supposed to say 'no', and Falwell and Cheney and Rove didn't. 'By their works you shall know them.')

@78, re (2), that sounds more like Arminianism. They believe that to be saved, a person must have faith. A person can turn down salvation through their lack of faith (and the lack of faith can be shown by a person's actions)

Calvinists believe the people God picks to be saved will eventually have faith, they have no option to turn it down. Faith isn't a condition of salvation, its handed out by God as a means to be saved. No action can make someone elect or make them unelect. Their actions/belief are caused by their status of saved or not. (See "unconditional election" and "irresistible grace").

That sounds like something from the low-budget version of LoTR.

"Sorry, dear, but we've got funds just for one ring and one nazgul."

"You're right. Guys, can you slouch down a bit more?"

I couldn't, at first think of anything to say.

For irony, he had recently said he expected to be around for some time yet, as he had been praying to God for another 20 years to do His work.

Perhaps his prayer was answered.

I do think his ending is Shakespearean, in that the Evil men do lives after them, while the good is oft interred with their bones.

His embrace of blacks is going to be forgotten, and his continued questioning of the motives of those who were for civil rights will be cradled to the bosom of those who don't want to accept them as equals.

He did more than any other I can think of to make the present return to active religiosity in the public sphere, and his flavor of it is repellant.

But he's gonna be shocked, St. Peter is a Catholic. :)

More, as any impression of God I can keep is one whose love and mercy passeth all understanding, Falwell will be allowed into heaven.

If he can see it for heaven, for I can't really see any denied the presence of God, unless they deny it, so his fellow souls may cause him to think he is someplace else.

How violently he feels this may be the difference between Purgatory and Hell.

"God answers every prayer. Sometimes, the answer is 'No.'"

I have blogged. I am most thankful to this thread and Slacktivist's for giving me a maze of twisty passages, none alike, to enrich the bloggage. And I have attempted to perpetuate Andrew Plotkin's meme therein.

Splutter!

All Things Considered, May 16, 2007 · David Kuo, the former deputy director of the office of faith-based community initiatives in the Bush administration, says that the Rev. Jerry Falwell's most enduring and most troubling legacy is that he almost single-handedly blurred the line between Christianity and conservative politics — to the detriment of both. Kuo is the author of Tempting Faith.

'Tis a shame to christianity, such awful hate as his,
Hating gays and civil liberties and women who use 'Ms.,'
Blaming victims for September, thinking schools should segregate.
Oh the fascist and abominable vigor of his hate.

Quite a deal of pains he'd taken to keep folk from getting laid,
Finding Tinky Winky suspect for his purple-colored shade,
Thinking AIDS the wrathful vengeance of a god always irate.
Maybe now he'll face some justice for the violence of his hate.

I do wonder what awaits him, buried under several feet.
Could be demons will torment him in the cold and in the heat.
Maybe nothingness surrounds him, and with time to ruminate
He can curse the god he dreamed up in the passions of his hate.

(Which, at the time, was using the full powers of a police state to clamp down on the anti-apartheid movement, while assuring foreign audiences that the very word "apartheid" was passé and of course political reform would be coming Real Soon Now.)

(I smiled the day Milosovich died, myself)

Matthew, #84: My comment at #79 applies here as well. You're talking about the equivalent of a flowchart decision box from which both branches immediately reconverge.

Terry, #87: For irony, he had recently said he expected to be around for some time yet, as he had been praying to God for another 20 years to do His work.
Y'know, if I were the sort of person who believed in God-directed omens...
One does wonder how the people who do believe in God-directed omens can get so many events which (if one is of that mindset) are VERY CLEAR messages that God is Not Happy With You, and still utterly fail to take the point.

abi, #91: Tom Smith beat you to that joke about 15 years ago. Still funny, though!

Emma, #104: It's only morally wrong if you're a Christian yourself (or a follower of some other faith which specifically says so). Not that this has ever been known to stop Mssrs. Falwell & Robertson, or any of their followers.

But I am glad he's dead -- "he" being the Jerry Falwell persona who has been such a nexus of hate and viciousness and ugliness for so long. I don't mourn that persona, and I won't pray for him. But somewhere in the unknown and unknowable state between here and there is a lost, frightened being who was once the human Jerry Falwell, naked before his God, as I will be too, one day. Him I can pray for.

*jaw dropping*

Take the Quiz!

"Did you you know that Pat Buchanan's father died in a concentration camp?"
"Really?"
"Really. He fell off his guard tower."

What's with Pat these days? (On second thought, forget I asked.)

The only reason you don't owe me a new keyboard is that, while susceptible to coffee, it is imprevious to pretzels. On the other hand, the screen is a mess.

It's only morally wrong if you're a Christian yourself

Although I wasn't terribly clear about it, this is why I said, essentially, that for me it was a matter of spiritual enlightenment. Not being a Christian myself, the moral aspect actually didn't occur to me.

It's not so much that I'm any sort of practicing Buddhist as that I'm a follower of archy.

Much as I love "Bubba Hotep", I think Bruce Campbell is overkill for the low budget version of LOTR*. This should be made as a fanflick, like "Star Wreck". That way we can really have abi play Galadriel. I believe a budget of $11.98 should be sufficient, unless we, like, actually have to pay somebody.

* I'm talking really low-rent here. All we can afford is a naz.

Lee @ 107

It's only morally wrong if you're a Christian yourself

Which is why I said before that it was a matter of spiritual enlightenment for me, as in "many more lifetimes to go." Not being a Christian, the moral aspect didn't occur to me.

Not that I'm any sort of practicing Buddhist as that I'm a follower of archy

she said, "My second and third thoughts weren't charitable, either."

When a man has condemned all you are and encourages others to do the same, and then wraps his bigoted opinion up in so called holy writ, it's hard not to be a little glad he isn't able to bellow his ignorance and hatred anymore. In the end we both agreed that it's a good thing we're not in charge of the afterlife.

'Now at any rate he is as bad as an Orc, and just an enemy. He deserves death.'
'Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.'

('All right then,' said Frodo, 'But I still would like to give the asshole a good punch in the teeth.'
'Well,' Gandalf agreed, 'In that case, I'd be glad to give you a boost.')

-- Shepherd, isn't the Bible kind of specific about killing?

-- Very specific. It is, however, somewhat fuzzy around the area of kneecaps.

As for Falwell, when I stomp the occasional bug in my kitchen, I inwardly declare "May you go to a better place." Not sure I could wish that for him, without a lot of karmic scrubbing first.

But if you rile her, is the result Nightmare Abi?
No. The last time I was really, really angry - about a year and a half ago - I just got very, very quiet and very, very still. Somehow the precise, careful way I phrased my deliberately innocuously comments was a little alarming.

Confirmed grumps came by to have their usual rants, took one look at me, and walked away.

But seriously. Overall, I think that this is the best way to deal with this matter. If we are alive so long as we are remembered, let's forget him. If he spread hate, let's laugh instead.

What we have here is melancholy elephants

That leads to such a trainwreck of mental images that I'm not sure I can even begin to describe them.

Not half as shocked as he's gonna be when he finds out Jesus is a dark-skinned, Jew.

(This possibly blasphemous thought brought to you by Folgers coffee.)

"In my father's house are many mansions. If it were not so, I would have told you..."

That said, I can't say I'm sorry he's gone. If that makes me a bad person, I'm sure I'll eventually pay the karmic debt.

"In my father's house are many mansions. If it were not so, I would have told you..."

That said, I can't say I'm sorry he's gone. If that makes me a bad person, I'm sure I'll eventually pay the karmic debt.

I hope Falwell has 1000 incarnations as a cockroach.

I just say "Kali Om."

It's a very abstract question, though. I'm never going to be in charge of the afterlife, as far as I know.

I do think he's in Hell, for reasons of the afterlife being a product of what you've spent your life thinking about and working towards it being. (This is, I believe, iterated by Terry Pratchett, but I know I've seen it somewhere else, too.) Few have ever donated so much of their energy to the idea of the Christian Hell. Imagine Phelps' surprise... he is one of the others who've done that.

abi @ 89: You win the Internet.

We need the low-budget LOTR. YouTube it!

But I'm glad evil men don't live forever.

I conclude that in Discworld, the afterlife is a combination of what you believe and what you deserve. So, yeah, hell. Or purgatory for a good long time, anyway.

Well, there certainly is enough talent in these parts that it could be made. Of course abi would have to play Galadriel. The very idea reminds me of a film adaptation I once saw of Tom Stoppard's Fifteen-minute Hamlet. Yes, think of the whole plot of that play compressed within 15 minutes and acted out by, to put it generously, very amateurish RenFaire players. Then the lights come on in the movie room and Shakespeare himself is beind the projector, and groans when his noble sponsor asks for further cuts. Which result in the 5-minute Hamlet.

"And now, we shall perform it ....backwards!"

Ah, the Reduced Shakespeare Company, always taking things one step farther than was really necessary. Highlights include Ophelia un-drowning by spitting water all over the audience, and the ghost of Hamlet's father saying "oob!"

(Meanwhile, it'd be interesting to see a worldcon masquerade where one entry would be LoTR in 5 minutes. The logistics would be quite awesome.)

There was a "Friends" in ?2 minutes? I think, that just had the characters stand in a row saying their lines.

Treebeard could probably be reduced to a big tall guy saying "Baroom" at one point, then "Dont be hasty" a bit later. It would be interesting.

As for the afterlife, though I don't quite believe in it, I think the most effective version would be karmic rehabilitation via a lot more lives, rather than divine retribution -- providing that some hidebound types *can* ever change.

Sidenote on Nightmare Abbey: When I Googled it to check my dim memories of this Thomas Love Peacock novel, it popped up along with his other classic, Crotchet Castle. Sounds just right for the Making Light crowd!

Alas, people like Falwell and Pat Robertson have collected a huge following, in the tens of millions, and it's this massed group which is the greater concern, because the petty anger and fallacies of a single man can be magnified ten-thousand-fold by the actions (and votes) of those who hold that man in high esteem.

Now, most of these people are not bad people. Even Falwell himself was probably not a "bad" guy. Nearly all the terrible things that have been wrought throughout history are the result of people trying to do good; as they see it.

But herein lies the rub, because what one person sees as good, another person sees as being very, very bad. And thus the road to Hell becomes paved with good intentions, and Falwell's legacy as a Christian does tremendous harm to the overall legacy of Christ Himself; at least here in the United States.

Were it that all televangelical protestants ceased and desisted. Jesus doesn't need used car salesmen!

Are you of the opinion that bad people are vanishingly rare? I think people who believe, for example, that Jews are a scourge upon the world and must be exterminated for the good of the Master Race, even if they really, truly believe that, and really, truly believe that by blowing up shuls they're making things better, are bad people. Evil, in fact. Their true belief does not excuse them.

Conversely, the KKK considers me and those like me evil, a subtype called a "race traitor," among other things. This doesn't actually prove that good and evil are subjective categories, because of course one of us is actually right (me), and the other side is Just Plain Wrong.

I don't think Falwell had even the bad excuse of true belief. He waffled and lied too much for me to buy that. I don't think he was one of those vanishingly rare B-movie villains, either: he was simply indifferent to any harm he might be causing, because only his insatiable prideful gluttony (for money, fame, and power) mattered to him.

For my money, that's a bad person.

The KKK would also consider me a race traitor, seeing as how I am of Germanic Scandinavian stock and my wife is of undetermined, incredibly beautiful "dusky" stock. It was something of a scandal in my family when I got married. And I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a little proud of that.

Anyway, when I think of truly "bad" people, I think of people who deliberately do things they know beforehand are going to be heinous and destructive and ruinous to the innocent, but they simply do not care, suffer not a pang of guilt, and/or relish the idea of causing harm.

The kid who went and shot up the Virginia Tech campus is someone I would qualify as "bad" in this way. He was on a self-determined blood mission; a reaper in his own mind seeking to rip down other peoples' faceless lives in some kind of twisted 'revenge' fantasy.

Falwell? Like most televangelicals I think he started out with good intentions in his heart. Unfortunately he wound up more like Jim Bakker than Billy Graham, becoming a shame and a farce and a joke to everyone not part of his true-believing flock. The power and the money and the prestige seem to truly have gone to his head, and he has uttered some truly awful things in his day. Things I have to wonder if, now that he has moved on, he might like to recant?

But to my knowledge Falwell was never directly responsible for the ending of human lives. This did not seem to be a man who relished the idea of other humans in anguish or pain. I think his attempts to discern the blackness and whiteness of the world (no pun reference to his younger years) made him blind to the fact that Christ preached love for the sinner while at the same time railing against sin itself. I believe Falwell allowed his innate loathing of sin, as defined in his religion, to translate into a direct loathing of the sinful; which to my mind is the grandaddy of all honey traps which await all of us who are modern monotheists.

Because once you begin to hate people personally for their sins I think that's an instant trip to a place of hypocrisy; and televangelicals are perhaps America's best-known and ironically celebrated hypocrites. (e.g: Bakker, Swaggart, et al.)

But even being a colossal hypocrite doesn't make you "bad" in my book. It makes you foolish and not worthy of serious trust, but it doesn't mean I think you're evil.

Child rapists? That's evil.
Rapists in general? Also evil.
Cold-blooded murderers? Evil.

Racists and Bigots? I think there is a line here in that anyone who is bigotted or racist without acting on their bigotry and racism, is simply ignorant and in dire need of either exposure, or some form of human tenderness that can touch the core of their rage; rage which is almost always rooted in some lack of self-worth. But the instant a racist or bigot allows their feelings to bring them to act against their fellow humans, through hurt and rape and murder and burning churches or whatever, then, that is evil of a stark and terrible type.

In short, I think "bad" for me often comes down to what people directly do with their actions and their desires; actions which are directly harmful or slaying to the innocent around them.

Falwell doesn't qualify for me. He was an embarrassment to every Christian and I am glad none of us will have to read or hear about his moronic spoutings-off anymore. But who among us has not been somewhat moronic at times? Who are we to judge Jerry and say he was a Bad Person? He just happened to be someone who got on TV and in front of the microphone a lot. His foibles and strange ideas and other lamentable concepts were put on full public display.

That millions of Americans set this flawed, hypocritical man up on a pedestal and took his word as Absolute Truth? Now, that's a whole discussion all by itself, and goes into group psychology and mob mentality and all the crazy and awful and, yes, evil things humans do in masses which they would literally never do individually.

All of the above, is, of course, just my opinion. I'm not saying it's the right one. It's just mine.

As defined on the radio (NPR's Science Friday), Sevareid once said something to the effect that "problems come from solutions." What's meant is that somebody tried to fix something, and that led to more problems.

Maybe the law of unintended consequences hadn't been formulated when Sevareid issued his edict.

Anyway, I suspect that Falwell saw a lack of Christianity in America and tried to fix it, but his (nasty, mean-spirited, bigoted) methods led to serious and divisive problems he hadn't foreseen.

I'm not sure if you meant "these people think 'the sinful,' as they define them, will be going to hell," or "these people think 'the sinful' will be going to hell and that they themselves will be going to heaven," or even "these people think that they are sinful and are going to hell themselves," but I'd like to point out that if you think that God in his/her/its wisdom does that particular bit of deciding, that is probably a moot point. (I, for one, am really glad that I don't have to decide that for others.)

Bruce @ 68: Ever have to stomp a scorpion to keep it from stinging you? The relief at not having to undergo the resultant pain usually comes out in odd ways like "Serves you right, you evil little invertebrate!", when you know very well the scorpion is only doing what it's evolved to do. My reaction to Falwell is a lot like that.

But people didn't evolve to cause pain to each other.

Jonathan @106: So many of his moral peers are still alive and doing such harm that the loss of his life hardly seems something of substance.

Did you mean that that in terms of "his bigoted work will be continued, and I didn't know him personally, so I am personally not mourning the man himself?" Otherwise, it seems a little sad...I'd like to think that everyone's life has a little something of substance.

Lizzy @ 108: That is an excellent sentiment, as well as a nice sentence.

"Clark, my faith was my own. I brought it into your life so that you could have a foundation fr making your own choices."

But people didn't evolve to cause pain to each other.

Perhaps not, but some people are broken in ways that have the same effect. They have denied or abrogated their connection to other human beings (or to some number of them), and by their actions they have caused great pain and suffering.

I will ask here the questions I always ask when someone seems to be drawing a very hard line between actions and desires.

Is the person who hires an assassin to kill his enemy a bad person? He hasn't actually done anything directly; does he share the responsibility for that death, or does it all fall upon the assassin himself?

What about the man who stands at the back of an angry mob and shouts, "Kill him!" -- and they do? Again, he hasn't taken any direct action against the target; the most he's done himself was to focus the mob's rage. Does he share responsibility for that death?

You can probably figure out that my answer to both of these questions is yes, he is responsible. And this is why I consider Falwell to be a bad person.

Jerry Falwell wanted me, and thousands of people like me, dead. He wasn't willing to sully his own hands with our blood, oh no -- but he was more than happy to say things which would encourage other people to do his dirty work for him. Look at the infamous 9/11 quote, said only days after the event to a nation still deep in the throes of shock and rage. Can you honestly say that this was NOT intended to suggest that yes, here are some handy targets upon which to vent your grief and fury? And do you think for one minute that if his followers had risen up in an angry mob and killed a few dozen (or a few hundred, or thousand) of all those people he "pointed his finger at", that he would NOT have privately rejoiced at each and every one of those deaths?

I wonder, sometimes, if some people didn't do exactly that. We heard stories about violence directed at people who had brown skin (and how the people doing it weren't any too careful about distinguishing Muslims from Hindus, or Latinos, or even dark-skinned Jews), and that this was a "reaction" to 9/11. But how many gays and pagans and Planned Parenthood workers may have been attacked or killed because of that statement, and the connection simply got lost because they weren't brown?

Jerry Falwell was a man who used good as a cover for doing things that even he had to realize were evil. He was not a good person.

I will ask here the questions I always ask when someone seems to be drawing a very hard line between actions and desires.

Is the person who hires an assassin to kill his enemy a bad person? He hasn't actually done anything directly; does he share the responsibility for that death, or does it all fall upon the assassin himself?

What about the man who stands at the back of an angry mob and shouts, "Kill him!" -- and they do? Again, he hasn't taken any direct action against the target; the most he's done himself was to focus the mob's rage. Does he share responsibility for that death?

You can probably figure out that my answer to both of these questions is yes, he is responsible. And this is why I consider Falwell to be a bad person.

Jerry Falwell wanted me, and thousands of people like me, dead. He wasn't willing to sully his own hands with our blood, oh no -- but he was more than happy to say things which would encourage other people to do his dirty work for him. Look at the infamous 9/11 quote, said only days after the event to a nation still deep in the throes of shock and rage. Can you honestly say that this was NOT intended to suggest that yes, here are some handy targets upon which to vent your grief and fury? And do you think for one minute that if his followers had risen up in an angry mob and killed a few dozen (or a few hundred, or thousand) of all those people he "pointed his finger at", that he would NOT have privately rejoiced at each and every one of those deaths?

I wonder, sometimes, if some people didn't do exactly that. We heard stories about violence directed at people who had brown skin (and how the people doing it weren't any too careful about distinguishing Muslims from Hindus, or Latinos, or even dark-skinned Jews), and that this was a "reaction" to 9/11. But how many gays and pagans and Planned Parenthood workers may have been attacked or killed because of that statement, and the connection simply got lost because they weren't brown?

Jerry Falwell was a man who used good as a cover for doing things that even he had to realize were evil. He was not a good person.

That's not evil, that's insanity, even if the result was just as horrific.

That's not evil, that's insanity, even if the result was just as horrific.

You're sure of that? You're sure that you can tell the difference in this case? In most cases? In all cases?

I don't think we know enough about the mind to say what insanity is*. It's very tempting to say that attitudes and behavior that we don't understand or think are aberrant in some way are necessarily insane, but how is that any less arrogant and more informed than the statement that those attitudes and behaviors are evil?

Is the difference that we can treat insanity? Well, we can't, at least not that kind. We don't know why it occurs, we don't know how to treat it effectively, and there are a number of dead psychiatrists who thought they could and whose deaths at the hands of their patients attest that they couldn't.

What do you do with someone who intends harm to others, and who cannot be convinced or cajoled or treated not to? You stop that person from doing so. You do it humanely if you can, but that's not the highest priority. I don't kill scorpions indiscriminately either, but if I can't keep them away from me any other way, that's what I do.

* And it's primarily a legal term in most contexts anyway.

Hoping I'm not struck down by Godwin's Law, from all the evidence I've seen, one major touchstone for 'evil', Adolf Hitler, after his WWI military service** never actually killed anyone. He was quite physically squeamish about seeing death & suffering, from reports.

He had other people to do that for him.

Stalin I'm less sure about.

See also the backstory of The Fisher King

Evil vs Insanity? Whoa. That's a whole barrellful of large & vigorously wriggling worms. Certainly at my very worst of times I've skated close to homicide &/or suicide; I wonder what the verdict would have been?

* There are many ways of speeding or encouraging death, by denying health care, for instance, or other persecutions; plus there's causing or contributing to disablement and suffering short of death.

** Starting a war is: "the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." (Nuremberg judgement)

Lee @ #166: You make some good points! In the case of the assassin and the man who hires an assassin, I'd say blame falls equally on both heads, because while the man doing the hiring might not actually pull the trigger, the desire for murder is truly in his heart and he has (we assume) taken direct action towards this goal by putting out money for the hiring of said assassin. In essence, he's one step removed from the trigger, but it's a mighty small step.

The man at the rear of the mob is a tougher question. Mob dynamics have been a fascinating subject for psychologists of all stripes, and in some respects the actions of a mob can be deemed temporary insanity. I think there is a difference here though in that those at the front of the mob actually doing the killing are still making an individual choice. The man at the back really has no control over the people at the front. Yes, the bloodlust might be in his mind and heart, but unless his hand is actually on the weapon that sheds life, I think the wrong done by the man in the back is small compared to the huge wrong of the people at the front who commit the actual murder.

Lee, since I am a relative newbie I am not sure what you mean by "me and thousands of people like me", so I will need a little explanation there. I also cannot recall Falwell requesting or inciting the actual murder of anyone; though again I have not followed Falwell closely enough to be aware of every single one of his quotes.

I think Falwell's post-9/11 comments were the unfortunate mouthings of a man who was desperately trying to remain relevant. He knew that there are a great many Americans who do believe that the U.S. enjoys special divine protection; provided that the U.S. remains a "godly" country. An attack like 9/11 brought a shadow of doubt across the hearts of all Americans, and Falwell obviously wanted to provide a context for everyone who might ask, "Why has God allowed this?" What Falwell failed to see is that he, and just about every other televangelist going, is as much a part of the "problem" as any other group. If America did enjoy any sort of divine protection, it was removed as much for the hypocrisy and fallen nature of Christ's self-appointed used car salesmen as it was for gay marriage or womens rights.

I also cannot recall any specific instances where anyone attacked women, gays, Planned Parenthood workers, etc, following 9/11. We saw some isolated redneck reaction (e.g: man attacks Sikh in turban assuming he is a "terrorist Moslem!") but I don't recall an upsurge in hate crime specifically directed at the groups you named. I am sure boatloads of people agreed with Falwell to varying degrees, and in my religious circle Falwell's raving was universally denounced as whacko. But if Jerry's comments lead directly to the deaths of any gays, women, etc, and this is on record, (e.g: "Jerry said the gays gave us 9/11, so I killed the damned f*****!") then I would be interested in seeing some links. Not saying it did not happen, I just don't know of specific cases where it did.

Pat @ #169: I agree with Bruce in #170. I would add that I have no doubt the shooter was disturbed; the thing is I doubt he was disturbed to such a degree that he had literally lost his grasp on reality and any semblence of right and wrong. I think he was fully aware of the fact that shooting innocent people was not only against the law, but morally heinous; I think he was just so far gone in his own isolated world of hate that he stopped caring and needed blood to satisfy his darkness. I think this is true of many "spree shooters", and it does not spare them (in my mind anyway) the full judgment for their crimes.

Epacris @ #171: I think we enter a realm adjacent to the assassin argument, where national leaders are concerned. In this case, I think the vast brunt of judgment lies squarely on the shoulders of said leader, because the majority of people he/she commands have no choice in whether or not to go along with that leader's desires. This is why I don't think you could blame the average Wehrmacht troop for 'war crimes' because a great many Wehrmacht were simply under orders and were duty and honor-bound to follow those orders; even if the guy at the top of the Reich was as close to evil as you can get.

One other note: I sometimes wonder if the cabal surrounding Hitler was not more evil than Hitler himself. Certainly folks, such as Goebbels, strike me as being at least as noxious and nasty as Hitler himself, and they exploited Hitler's rise to begin effecting their own particular brand of terror on the world around them. Ditto for Lenin/Stalin and Mao and the other great totalitarians of the 20th century. They were enabled by a good many hangers-on who enjoyed power and influence without actually being the man at the top.

When religion enters the mix, as either motivator or excuse, things get even scarier. Doesn't the KKK have pseudo-religious trappings? When last night's Walter Cronkite special got to the church bombing that killed the young black girls back in the '60s, I couldn't help but think of mosque bombings in Iraq, along with so many other insane crusades and vendettas.

If we are the most collective and "cooperative" sentient species on Earth, we're also horribly subsceptible to "the madness of crowds." That madness claimed Falwell, and he helped pass it on. (I wonder if some SF optimist has written about a spreading plague of sanity -- or is that what it means to be post-human?)

Not altogether cheerful, I remember.

In general, I'm going along with Lady Sisyphus' comments, also PublicRadioVet's remark @153 about Falwell's followers, and Nenya @143 when she(?) says "As long as he was alive, there was a chance (however slim) that he would repudiate his earlier nastiness" – I had the same disappointment hearing of Khomeini's death, because no-one else would have the authority for his convinced followers to rein back on what he'd said.

Apropos of Margaret, Baroness Thatcher's funeral (@ 53, 56): have you ever seen the late, great Ian Richardson as PM Francis Urquhart in the opening scene of The Final Cut (last in the House of Cards trilogy)?

Not altogether cheerful, I remember.

In general, I'm going along with Lady Sisyphus' comments, also PublicRadioVet's remark @153 about Falwell's followers, and Nenya @143 when she(?) says "As long as he was alive, there was a chance (however slim) that he would repudiate his earlier nastiness" – I had the same disappointment hearing of Khomeini's death, because no-one else would have the authority for his convinced followers to rein back on what he'd said.

Apropos of Margaret, Baroness Thatcher's funeral (@ 53, 56): have you ever seen the late, great Ian Richardson as PM Francis Urquhart in the opening scene of The Final Cut (last in the House of Cards trilogy)?

(Would say more but must go search the Master Gardener's sale for a better selection of peppers than I've so far found).

(Would say more but must go search the Master Gardener's sale for a better selection of peppers than I've so far found).

(I wonder if some SF optimist has written about a spreading plague of sanity -- or is that what it means to be post-human?)

John Brunner: "The Stone that Never Came Down"

That's one way of being post-human; one I think us old-style folks have to hope is the one that wins the Darwinian competition.

I hope you were merely writing carelessly when you appeared to agree with Falwell that God might have removed divine protection from a nation for giving me, and many of the other people here, and millions you will never know, the same rights that you take for granted as a heterosexual male.

If so, please think a little more carefully: you've fallen into a rhetorical trap that has the effect of reiterating the idea that decency and human rights are something a nation will and should suffer for respecting.

Being told that hypocrisy is "as much" a moral failing as feminism does not warm the cockles of this feminist's heart.

You know, this is starting to sound an awful lot like the posts of someone who recently was banished by Our Hostess. And even the structure of the nom-de-blog is quite similar. I may be wrong. I may be right.

If honesty is sanity, include the story "The Devil's Children" by Spider Robinson.

If it's the same person, and he's learned the rules of discourse here, then he's welcome. If he's not, but is behaving the way we are all required to to hang out here, well, then, he's welcome.

Consider, which is more evil: to kill a person quickly and relatively painlessly, or to torture someone to death in great pain over a long period of time? Or even to torture psychologically so as to induce great terror without pain?

The closest I know of to an absolute moral principle is: "Do not treat conscious beings as objects." Evil is acting as if another human being were an object, to be used as you see fit. On that basis, it doesn't matter that Falwell didn't commit the acts he condoned, and it doesn't matter much that he didn't specifically call for anyone's death. He deliberately gave his followers both permission and excuses to commit evil, to treat human beings as less than human. This, in itself, is great evil.

At a certain point, if a troll doesn't troll, then it's not a troll. We are judged not by what we are, but by what we do.

(Mind you, my troll sensors aren't calibrated to the same standards as others' here.)

Vicki 182: Hear, hear.

Bruce 187: Hear, hear.

(*) Cut to shot of Mister Spock, his face bathed by blue light while we hear the device's squeaky chug-a-chug sound.

(**) Darn my being a card-carrying member of the ACLU.

I call bullshit. Of course people have a choice. Even in the military, you have a choice. In some armies, if you fail to obey an order which seems to you to be morally monstrous, you'll probably end up dead. But you have the choice, extreme though it is. If you are a civilian in the United States, listening to George Bush or Dick Cheney (you said "leaders") of course you have a choice in what you do. Don't be ridiculous.

I don't think you could blame the average Wehrmacht troop for 'war crimes' because a great many Wehrmacht were simply under orders and were duty and honor-bound to follow those orders.

You can blame them. You must blame them. You may pity them. You may, perhaps, forgive them, if you can. But you must blame them, or "We are at war" will continue to excuse all manner of inexcusable behavior, up to and including torture. See many posts on this blog for further elucidation.

You can blame them. You must blame them. You may pity them. You may, perhaps, forgive them, if you can. But you must blame them, or "We are at war" will continue to excuse all manner of inexcusable behavior, up to and including torture. See many posts on this blog for further elucidation.

See also the Nuremburg trials, which I seem to recall (from discussions in various places, including this one) established that 'following orders' is not a sufficient excuse for criminal acts, and the higher the rank, the less it can be used as an excuse.

Do not put words into my mouth. I did not say that the Virginia Tech's shooter was insane because his actions were beyond comprehension. I said he was insane because he had a past history of certifiable mental illness.

I would never say that all aberrent behaviors are insane: Klebold and Harris, the Columbine killers, weren't psychotic, but they committed horrific acts. Neither Ted Bundy nor John Wayne Gacy were insane, either. I do not understand what could drive someone to commit such incredibly horrible acts, but I do not count it as insanity, either.

As far as what to do with insane people who present a danger to themselves or others? You put them in institutions. You may not be able to cure them (but they really have made great strides with medication) but you can keep them from hurting others. One of the reasons the Virginia Tech shooter was not hospitalized is that Virginia has one of the toughest commitment laws in the country.

I still maintain that severe mental illness affects moral culpability. Psychotic people think and believe things about the world and themselves that they don't when they are well.

I am not a psychiatrist. But Cho Seung-Hui's statements like "you decided to spill my blood" and "you forced me into a corner" seem to me to be as supportive of a reading of severe paranoia as they are simply evil, especially given his past.

Regarding Falwell, at the very least, he used his God-given talents in pursuit of power and with little regard for the ways in which he harmed others. And on more than one occasion he lied about what he had said or done.

I don't dance on his grave -- I am saddened by the fact that he didn't change before he died. What a waste: all that talent, that gift for persuasion, used in a way that made the world an even more broken place than it already is.

My apologies for misstating your position. I happen to believe myself that most evil is insane; that doesn't mean that we know how to cure it. Yes, we should put such people in institutions, my concern is how often we let them out again with no good reason for believing they won't commit such acts again.

As for medication, as I've said before, this isn't anywhere near as effective an option as many would have us believe. It's especially ineffective when we leave it to the patient to ensure that the medication is taken, given that the side-effects are often unpleasant enough to make the patient go off the meds just to avoid them.

Vicki @ #182: I thought I gave myself the caveat when I noted that my religious peers and I unanimously agreed that Falwell's 9/11 quotes were batty. But for the record, I do not think gays "caused" 9/11. Nor do I think feminists "caused" 9/11. I'm not trying to lend credence to Falwell. Again, I think Falwell was desperate to provide context for people thrown into confusion by 9/11, while at the same time re-inserting himself into the national dialogue. It's a shame he had to say such things while proclaiming himself a Christian in the process. It was an embarrassment to every true Christian IMHO.

Now, I do believe that the U.S. has, historically, enjoyed a degree of divine intervention, in that we have survived several great upheavals (1776, 1812, 1860-1864, 1941-1945, the 1960's...) that might have destroyed other nations, and yet somehow we stayed more or less intact. But then I don't think this divine umbrella somehow vanished on 9/11, either. God apparently "let" our entire Pacific fleet get ripped to shreds by the Japanese. God "let" the Civil War happen. And so on and so forth.

Bad things happen to good people, and good countries, all the time. It doesn't mean God has removed Himself from the equation out of spite; which is, essentially, what Falwell seemed to be saying in the wake of 9/11, and which I disagree with absolutely.

Bruce @ #187: Those are some great points, but in Falwell's case I have to wonder at what stage Falwell's collective guilt ends and the individual guilt of his True Believers begins?

Lizzy @ #191: I am afraid we're just going to have to disagree here. Soldiers under sworn oath are not allowed the same latitude that ordinary civilians are allowed. It's not fair to blame them for going to war under a bad leader or for a bad cause. I don't blame the Wehrmacht for fighting titanically against Allied troops. They were fighting for their country as much as Tommies and GIs fought for theirs. Especially in the late stages of the war, when it started to become clear that Nazi Germany was about to be obliterated.

PJ in #192 made a good point in that the higher you go in the pyramid, the more culpable you become in any postbellum war crimes trial. Nobody at the top echelon who survived the fall of the Reich could claim innocence, and rightly so. It was the top echelon that was the most responsible for enforcing Hitler's vision, exploiting it for their own gain, feeding it with their own desires, etc. But your typical 18-year-old Jerry down on the line? He's not guilty of anything other than being brave enough to pick up a rifle for his country; something even most Allies on the other side could (and did, and do) ultimately respect.

The few times I think exceptions to this can be (and have been) made, are when specific instances of true heinousness are brought to light in the aftermath of the war. Some of the officers and enlisted who worked the death camps come to mind; men who really did not have policy control within the Reich, yet who were shown beyond a shadow of a doubt to have delighted in the slaughter of Jews and who went above and beyond mere "duty" in prosecuting their orders to effect the Final Solution.

Ultimately, I think it's too convenient for any civilian to pass judgment on anyone who has served in the military, regarding duty versus conscience. Unless you have sworn the oath yourself and worn the uniform, you don't know the intricacies and paradoxes of the position a soldier can be in. Absolute black/white moral judgements too often fail to consider the contexts of actions, the restraint shown, the terrible toll exacted on men and women who must make choices between the lesser of two evils, etc.

But in regards to Falwell and wasted and misused talents, I agree 100%!

... since I am a relative newbie I am not sure what you mean by "me and thousands of people like me", so I will need a little explanation there.

I am a liberal, a pro-choice woman, and a pagan. I am also straight, but do not see anything morally wrong about homosexuality, as I do not subscribe to the religion which is the source of those "moral" objections. There's a lot of overlap between those 4 groups, but by the time you count everyone who falls into at least one of them, you're probably into the hundreds of thousands -- maybe even the millions -- not just the thousands that I said originally.

I also cannot recall Falwell requesting or inciting the actual murder of anyone; though again I have not followed Falwell closely enough to be aware of every single one of his quotes.

To be strictly fair, there were several other options that Falwell would have considered acceptable for me*. First and foremost would have been voluntary conversion to his belief system... but that was never going to happen. Mindwipe and/or forcible reconditioning, to make the conversion genuine though not voluntary, would have been the next best. Next would have been the complete overthrow of the Constitution and the installation of a Christianist government, under the laws of which I would have been only property and without civil rights or citizenship. Terrorizing me into being afraid to speak about my faith and my opinions would certainly have been a strong option. Only if all of this failed would my death have been preferable to the alternative of just LETTING ME LIVE AND BELIEVE DIFFERENTLY FROM HIM.

If you listen to the rhetoric of the Christianist Right, one thing becomes rapidly obvious: they are very, very good at using code words and phrases to express concepts which would otherwise be completely unacceptable. One early and fairly clumsy example was the use of the phrase "justifiable homicide" as a cover for advocating the murder of abortion providers and those who associate with them. Of course you cannot recall Falwell directly requesting or advocating my murder; he was a master of the art, and (with the exception of that 9/11 quote) it's all buried in code -- things that you, from the outside, are intended to take at face value, but which are clarion calls to the Faithful.

If America did enjoy any sort of divine protection, it was removed as much for the hypocrisy and fallen nature of Christ's self-appointed used car salesmen as it was for gay marriage or womens rights.

Please tell me that you didn't mean that the way it sounds -- that what you meant to say was, "it was for the hypocrisy and fallen nature of Christ's self-appointed used-car salesmen, NOT for gay marriage or women's rights."

I also cannot recall any specific instances where anyone attacked women, gays, Planned Parenthood workers, etc, following 9/11.

I don't either... but was anyone even thinking about the possibility? Women and gays, after all, are attacked regularly, and absent the attacker being (1) caught and (2) stupid enough to CLAIM Falwell's words as his inspiration, no one would ever make the connection. Clinic workers and known pagans are routinely victims of relgious terrorism (ranging from petty vandalism and harassment to assault and murder), although their absolute numbers are smaller. The only way to tell whether this sort of thing actually happened or not would be to do fairly heavy statistical research and see if there was a spike in the number of attacks on members of those groups in the weeks following 9/11 -- and then further research to rule out coincidental causes. It's the sort of thing that will never be done because no one thinks it's an important enough question to be answered.

* Again, I note: When I say "me", I don't mean myself as a person, but me as a representative of those groups he hated. I was the same kind of demonized non-person to him that the Iraqis have become to many Americans.

The people I know who are most adamant that "I'm just obeying orders" is no excuse for illegal or immoral behavior are in fact either active military or veterans. I include my father in this.

Fighting for your country in a time of war -- even a war of aggression, such as Germany waged in W.W. II -- I do not find morally objectionable. Killing entire villages of innocent civilians and depositing them in mass graves, as some German soldiers did, I do.

I pity the soldiers involved, really, I do. But I still find them morally responsible for their actions.

Faren @ #175: That's a fascinating idea, and certainly meaty SF or even F material IMHO. Although I suspect any SF or F writer worth his or her salt would have to admit that breeding insanity out of the human race or curing us forever of our potentially violent mentalities and eccentricities would probably make us dreadfully boring as well as dreadfully safe. Sometimes, it's the nuts who make the world fun. But that's a whole other Oprah.

ObSF: C.S. Friedman, This Alien Shore. It's not much of a spoiler to say that lbh unir gb or vafnar gb or n ulcrefcnpr cvybg (it's revealed pretty early in the book), but enough of one that I rot13'd it just to be safe. The Madness Season also deals with how deviant or insane behavior may sometimes be necessary to the survival of a society, or a species. Or perhaps a group of species, it's not entirely clear jurgure be abg Qnrgeva fubhyq or pbafvqrerq gur fnzr fcrpvrf nf abezny uhznaf. (Incidentally, do any other common English words form a rot13-pair with another common English word?)

All knowledge is contained somewhere on ML.

Thank you. I need to take a pain reliever now.

in Falwell's case I have to wonder at what stage Falwell's collective guilt ends and the individual guilt of his True Believers begins?

The True Believer's guilt begins precisely at the point where he or she acts on the ideas that Falwell promulgated. Falwell's guilt does not end there because he's partly responsible for those actions. Guilt is not monolithic.

There was a story on NPR a week or so ago about a class at West Point that is intended to teach cadets about morality in warfare. The faculty thinks well enough of it to push it, but because it is an elective, cadets need not take it, and the class is only half-full. I think this shows that officers with combat experience* understand the need for an individual moral stance, but the incoming cadets do not. I also think this argues for making the course mandatory.

* like the officer teaching it, a captain who's been in combat in Iraq.

Lee @ #199: Yes, you understood the concept of my "used car salesman" comment. My apology if it was worded in such a way as to convey that I sided with Falwell; because I did not.

"Civilians who have never earned a uniform" are, collectively, the bosses of the military. It is our duty as a citizen body to take due care over how our troops are deployed, and to judge the military on its actions, good and bad. That's the way in the United States - the military is under civilian control.

Anything else invites tyranny, dictatorship, and military coups. So maybe roll back the contempt for civilians a bit in your comment?

Nobody gets more upset than the troops when it is found that other troops have done criminal wrong.
Sometimes. Sometimes ranks close and asses are covered. Soldiers are human too, and value unit cohesiveness over civilian oversight (as in your own comments above).

Ideally, yes, I agree that the troops should be the first to censure criminality. And many times it does occur. But not always.

Sigh

What I get mad at are civilians who have never darkened the doorway of a recruiter, telling everyone who has served or is serving in Iraq that they're all mercenaries and war criminals. I've seen too much of that these past four years. It's patented ivory tower logic, and it makes me very angry.

I also am dismayed that the Abu Ghraib scandal, as far as I can tell, didn't seem to affect the public careers of anyone over the rank of Sergeant.

A civilian who is telling everyone who has served or is serving in Iraq that they're all mercenaries and war criminals is as wrong when (s)he is worthy to join your Super Sekrit Band as when (s)he is incapable of learning to salute with individual tuition and an instructional video.

If someone is wrong, they're wrong. Skip the elitism - it gives the impression that you discount civilian oversight out of hand. And that is the first step to being, if not a mercenary or a war criminal, at the very least a threat to the good order of the nation.

I've lived my entire life in the noise impact zone of Ft. Lewis. I've got relatives who are career military (Navy, Army, and AF). Don't tell me I lack information to make informed statements about the military, and about soldiers as individuals.

Having served gives you experience of the Army to which I am not privy; having coped with the long-term social impact of a large military base equally gives me experiences which you do not share.

My compliments to you and your father on your service, BTW.

Abi @ #212: my apology if I sound elitist, I am just jaded. I sometimes attend class at Seattle Central Community College which is (in)famous for bashing the military and beating up on recruiters. I've had my fill of empty-headed little college poseurs who think they know everything and abuse servicemen as if it's their right; as if they're the ones who know anything about honor or courage or sacrifice. So lame. And I am sorry if my anger over these abuses has crept into this thread. I'm going to try to move on, since this thread is about Falwell, and I really did not intend to launch off onto such a big tangent.

I also agree with the spirit of your post, in that the strength or weakness of an argument often has nothing to do with the person doing the arguing. If your point is strong, it's strong on its own merits.

JESR @ #213: I'm somewhat confused, can you please indicate where I specifically said that you personally lacked experience with which to make informed statements about the military?

Kind of reminds me of the 'C' student in the Oval Office.

Kind of reminds me of the 'C' student in the Oval Office.

I hope everyone realizes that I have not tried to say otherwise.

as if they're the ones who know anything about honor or courage or sacrifice.
Irrelevant, as I've said twice before.

Really, are you hearing yourself? Do you talk like this to them, and then expect them, a bunch of cocksure college students, to listen to a word you say? You've even got me hacked off, and I agree with you.

We're arguing that we also get to criticize the guys in the Pentagon who are busy breaking things they don't own because they can't, for whatever reason, speak the truth to their C-student draft-dodging boss.

It hasn't escaped notice that the generals who told Bush what was needed in Iraq, and retired or were fired, were also correct in their estimates. Bush says he listens to his generals, but he doesn't seem to hear them unless they agree with him.

(This is why some of us get unhappy when we're told that we should go along with Bush's plans because 'he's the commander-in-chief'. He doesn't command civilians.)

PJ @ #218: I am willing to concede that the denizens of the Pentagon are wide open for policy criticism, as there can often be a lot of bleed-through between what the White House is doing and what the Pentagon is doing.

I'm just saying that it's not fair to give Private Fuzzy guilt trips for deploying to Iraq with his unit. The immorality of the Iraq war should be laid at the feet of men far, far above Private Fuzzy in the chain-of-command. Men in the White House, in Congress, in the Senate, perhaps in the Pentagon. But no lower.

Here it is: recruiters abused by SCCC students.

You indeed said no such thing. But the military is there to serve the People too, which is what I myself was talking about. I'd rather not have the real issue shifted. In fact, I have zero interest in pursuing this exchange. You may see it as a victory if you so choose. I personally think it'd just be a waste of time for me.

You're right. I should give up. PRV is a classic Heinleinian military supremacist, and either doesn't hear or doesn't care about the contempt for civilians that oozes from his every post.

He's "us" and civilians are his "them", grudgingly granted the rights he is sworn to protect, but not really worthy of them.

And he wonders why people react badly to him.

I have never served in the military; I never will, but I am glad to know that this makes me incapable of honour, courage, or sacrifice. I am glad to be disabused of the illusion that I might be any of thise things. Thanks for making this so clear.

serge @ #225: I see no "victory" or "defeat" on these threads, it's all just conversation.

Fragano @ #227: college students who physically and verbally abuse and then drive off military personnel under threat of violence are hardly displaying what I'd call honor or courage. And unless you yourself identify as a college student who physically and verbally abuses recruiters or other military personnel, I am surprised that you would be offended.

Everyone has the right to criticize the military, whether or not they or anyone else in their family have served. Ditto, whether or not their criticisms are fair or well-informed.

If these students in Seattle said stupid things, well, they said stupid things. It's regrettable, but it's not an affront. The military is not uniquely privileged to not have people say stupid things about them.

If some of those students roughed up recruiters, they were at fault for harassment and (possibly) assault. That's all. They were no more and no less at fault than they would be if they'd taken the same actions against anyone else.

We are all citizens of the republic, and we have an explicitly civilian government. Americans are not obliged to make obeisance to representatives of our military. Historically we have always accorded them respect, and been mindful of their sacrifices. The only way this war differs from any of our previous wars is that the Bush administration is denying our dead their full public honors and recognition. As far as I know, that is the only consistent pattern of disrespectful behavior that's been aimed at our troops.

You say, "It's not fair to give Private Fuzzy guilt trips for deploying to Iraq with his unit." No kidding? Lots of things in this world are unfair, and lots of people have to hear things they shouldn't. What I want to know is who Private Fuzzy was, who guilt-tripped him, exactly what they said on what occasion (with locations and dates, if possible), and how Private Fuzzy says he felt about it when they did. I want his reaction, not yours.

I want to know this because what you're saying is starting to resemble the standard canting mythology about how Vietnam vets were booed and spat on when they returned home -- which, after decades of investigation, has been thoroughly demonstrated to have never happened.

Over the last several years I've seen quite a few soldiers in uniform in civilian venues. Most were traveling. A few were guarding train stations or airports. What I haven't seen is anyone giving them grief.

You know what else I haven't seen? I haven't seen anyone giving our troops grief for reporting to their units and heading off to Afghanistan or Iraq. Sympathy, yes. Concern, yes. But I haven't seen a particle of harassment or guilt-tripping. Pray forgive my disbelief, but unless you provide specifics, I'm very much inclined to regard it as mythological.

And if some students in Seattle made dumb remarks, what of it? Students do that. If having to listen to dumb student remarks were an extraordinary injustice, everyone who teaches undergrads would qualify as a martyred saint.

We now return you to the Falwell meme. I assume 100% responsibility for getting us off it.

Sorry, all.

If I were a student on that campus, the next time I saw Sgt. Due I'd go straight up to his table and say "First of all, let me say that I respect you, your service, and the sense of duty that keeps you sitting here against opposition, and brought you BACK here after being subjected to violence.

"Second, I'd like to say that I oppose the war in Iraq, the military's homophobic policies, and the law that forces this college to allow the military to recruit here on pain of losing their funding.

"Third, and most importantly, I abhor the use of violence to enforce opinions that agree with mine; I feel it dishonors me as a holder of those views and as a student at this school, and while I can't undo what others did, I offer my profound apology on behalf of my misguided or malicious fellow students who participated."

And if he listened to all that, I'd leave him a plate of my famous Black Hole Brownies of Death.

See, the main wrong that was done there was personal wrong. Yes, it's wrong to use violence to make your views known, but in that case the violence had one specific target: Sgt. Due and the other recruiter (who was not named in the article). And they're the ones to whom the apology is owed.

(I admit, however, that I wasn't that thoughtful, that articulate, or even that good a baker in college.)

I'm a currently serving Sergeant, U.S. Army Reserve. Based out of Fort Lewis, WA.

I work in Seattle, though, and go to school at SCCC when schedule and finances permit. Capitol Hill has seen several incidents of military and recruiter harrassment, much of it based out of SCCC. Again, if my ire over the bad behavior of certain Seattle area students and adults has bled too much into this thread, my apologies.

And for the record, I'm 100% opposed to the gay policy in the armed forces. It is a ridiculous policy and helps the military mission not one iota. And I am not alone. Lots and lots of us hate "Don't ask don't tell" and long for the day when this policy is tossed into the dustbin. Who cares who people sleep with? If they are professionals when they are on the clock, and can be professionals in a firefight, that's all that matters to me!

I was not trying to convey that civilians have no honor nor courage. Just these particular college students in the case of SCCC.

And I think it's required by (non-military) honor.

If the attitudes I've seen in your posts aren't representative, good. Because even when I agreed with you, I felt that you were in contempt of me because I am a civilian. You actually managed to turn my initial respect for you into dislike by your tone. Nor was it just me - Fragano and Teresa, both sensitive to the nuances of tone and phrasing, agreed.

That's a thing that builds walls, not bridges. Your might want to look to that.

And yes, re-reading what I wrote, I can see why civilians would be off-put by a lot of it. It smacks of having a chip on the shoulder, which I suppose I do.

My only defense is that I apologized several times before this for letting my ire over what I have seen happen here in the Northwest bleed into this tangent about the military.

For you, Fragano, and Teresa, I offer that same apology again.

The closest I know of to an absolute moral principle is: "Do not treat conscious beings as objects."

That depends on circumstances. When I'm in a hurry to get somewhere, I treat conscious beings and mailboxes the same way: objects not to bump into. I don't see it as absolutely evil to refrain from stopping and greeting each person I pass.

If I want to look at the screen on my phone on a bright sunny day, I might well hold it in another person's shadow, treating him purely as a sun-blocking object (e.g. while we're waiting for the light to change). I don't see how using a part of his shadow is evil or immoral.

There was a time in my life when I was suspicious of people in uniform just because they were in uniform. I grew out of it, largely because I've been fortunate enough to meet some truly fine examples of soldiers who illustrate the concepts of duty and honor by their actions in all venues. Nowadays, when I run into an asshole in a military uniform, I know very well that there are a lot of other people in uniform who would agree with me that he's an asshole -- and you have no idea how much difference that makes.

The one group for which I still retain that suspicion is those who talk about the military as if it were some kind of Elite Club, looking down their Elite Noses at the civilians who aren't good enough or moral enough or right-thinking enough to be members. And Teresa and abi are right -- that is exactly how you've been coming across.

A lot of the people who post here have developed the habit of thinking very carefully about how they phrase things, because they know that these things matter. I'm guessing that you have not had much experience in online venues where this is the case. But it's a skill which can be learned (I did, though I didn't learn it here), and it's one you're going to need if you don't want to keep igniting firestorms and having to apologize for miscommunications.

Not quite what was meant, I think.

I do think that the idea was not to treat people as [disposable, unthinking] objects, or, don't treat them like something to be used up and thrown away.

By that standard, what you were doing was okay.

He's apologized, not once but several times. He hasn't been acting the piñata, and treating him like one is beneath this community's standards.

IMHOOOC, NTSOTHPAA.

I saw it done by John Houseman's American Theater Troop.

After the five minute, they did the 30 second.

Hamlet comes out, in front of the curtain, "To be, or not to be... Ah, what the hell," stabs himself and falls off the stage.

Shadow (#138): I saw them do the first perfomance of the complete works, abridged. I miss them at the faire, esp. the season they did an imrpov gig for fifteen minutes on the Witches' Wood stage. Often composed of in-jokes (my favorite was the nap. They got in the stage, stretched out (with stomachs for pillows) and "went to sleep" After about half the time, Adam lifted his head, said, "it doesn't get any better than this" and went back to sleep. We sat in rapt attention).

All: In the interest of collapsing this whole military discussion back into a thread where it's a little more pertinent to the discussion and not so blaringly O/T, I refer everyone to here.

When I'm in a hurry to get somewhere, I treat conscious beings and mailboxes the same way: objects not to bump into.

No, treating them as objects would mean you wouldn't care about bumping into them as long as you didn't get hurt. I'm not a lawyer; what I stated is a moral principle, not contract law, where the letter is more important than the spirit.

P J, yes, that's what I was talking about. Seth, I think P J is right, you're talking about the same thing I was talking about.

To the point, eh?

"Tastes just like chicken!"

Yes, that's what I meant, thanks. My reading of Kant is far back in the mists of time, was never very extensive, and was not conducive to my spending any time googling his ideas. So I didn't want to name names without checking that I was talking about it all intelligibly.

I just thank the Prime Purpose I didn't have to read Kant in German.

—The Space Child's Mother Goose

(CONSCIENCE: Is this a little sick?
CHRISTOPHER: Yep. More than a little.
CONSCIENCE: OK. Just checking.)

GAY CARTOON CHARACTERS MOURN FALWELL

"Eh-oh. Sad, sad." Was all Tinkie Winkie could say.

"She was a bitch, but she was great at getting us out in front," said Spongebob Squarepants, referring to the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, who made his Ascension this last Tuesday. Squarepants and other gay cartoon characters gathered in San Francisco Thursday to discuss the impact Falwell had on their careers, and to name a marketing successor.

"Face it," said Barney, another gay cartoon icon of the past. "He put food on my plate for years after all those brats were sick to death of me and my purple skin, Honey." The Penguins from the 2006 film "Happy Feet" also expressed sadness at Falwell's passing. They had only lately hopped on the publicity bandwagon after their film was declared "homo-tolerant" by Falwell in 2006. "Well, at least we're woolly, that's all I can say," said one spokespenguin. "We're young, and we can dance, not like that lumpy prehistoric Divine over there."

Squarepants was quick to come to Barney's defense, calling the penguins "tarts in cheap suits". At that point, this reporter started to feel queer and had to step out for a little fresh air. When I returned, the penguins were mixing Cosmos for the group. They quickly settled on Michael Medved as their publicity coordinator, having agreed that James Dobson was just too mean ("like Joan Crawford on meth", according to Velma, of Scooby Doo fame), and Pat Robertson could never be taken seriously with "that cute little Keebler Elf face of his."

The group was working on details for a press conference to announce the successor when Spongebob broke down and started shooting bubbles out of his butt. "Eh-oh," said Tinkie. I couldn't agree more.

Yes!

Probable, possible, my black hen.
She lays eggs in the relative when.
She never lays eggs in the positive now,
because she's unable to postulate how.

----Space Child's Mother Goose.

Are we gonna keep this up? Why or why not?

Probably with egg-related puns and, before you know it, their growth will be explosive, downright egg'spunential.

LEAR: Love me!
DAUGHTERS: No!
ENSEMBLE: *dies*

Hey, diddle, diddle,
Distribute the middle;
The premise controls the conclusion.
The disjunctive affirms
that the Diet of Worms
is a Borbetomagic confusion.

BOOM!
CRASH!
CALIBAN & ARIEL: Boo!
CREW: Eek!
MIRANDA: Wow!
FERDINAND: Yowza!
ANTONIO & ALONZO: Sorry!
PROSPERO: That's OK.
exeunt omnes

This is the hen...

[much rejoicing]

*I am unrepentant.

... Are we gonna keep this up? Why or why not?

I think I'm tapped out. The book's at home; I have no idea where, and I don't remember any others just now. But thanks for that shot of nostalgia. I think I was 9 or 10 when I first read that book. Maybe younger.

PISTOL: An oath!
HENRY: Arrows!
DAUPHIN: Oh, Crap!
HENRY & KATHERINE: Marriage!
CHORUS: 2 Seconds Early!

"The koala-tee of mercy is not strined"

"The koala-tea of mercy is not strained"

I would think that almost anything to do with koalas would be Strined.

is not strain'd
But droppeth from the heavens like a gentle rain

doesn't get my hair wet.

Orsino: I've come to love thee, o my wondrous boy!
Viola: My lord, I have befool'd thee, I'm a girl.
Orsino: Thank God!
Olivia: I've come to love thee, o my wondrous boy!
Sebastian: I am a boy.
Olivia: Thank God.
Feste: When that I was a little tiny boy.

Exeunt omnes

This is the theory that Jack built.

This is the flaw that lay in the theory that Jack built.

This is the mummery hiding the flaw that lay in the theory that Jack built.

etc.

Side note: 2 of the 4 dedicatees are named Stubbs -- but Harry didn't know anything about it when I asked, so I guess it was coincidence.

Ring up for you: *ding*

This is Jack, who the house was built by.
This is Jack, who the house that the grain lay in was built by.
This is Jack, who the house that the grain that the rat nibbled lay in was built by.
This is Jack, who the house that the grain that the rat that the cat killed nibbled lay in was built by.

And if that doesn't pop your stack (read it out loud to someone and it will pop theirs), try

This is Jack, who the house that the grain that the rat that the cat that the dog that the cow with the crumpled horn that the maiden all forlorn milked tossed chased killed nibbled lay in was built by.

I do not believe there's anyone who can just read that sentence, much less hear it spoken, and understand it. Decipher it? Sure. Process it through normal linguistic channels? Nahh.

Bomb Plot Thwarted at Falwell's Funeral
Student Arrested With Homemade Bombs, Three Other Suspects Sought

"A small group of protesters gathered near the funeral services to criticize the man who mobilized Christian evangelicals and made them a major force in American politics -- often by playing on social prejudices.

A group of students from Falwell's Liberty University staged a counterprotest.

And Campbell County authorities arrested a Liberty University student for having several homemade bombs in his car.

The student, 19-year-old Mark D. Uhl of Amissville, Va., reportedly told authorities that he was making the bombs to stop protesters from disrupting the funeral service."

Antony: I love you! (Dies.)
Cleopatra: I love you! Pass the asp. (Dies.)
Octavius Caesar: Excellent funeral. Now back to Rome.

Double drat, that was supposed to read "Ring up one for you: *ding*". Well, I guess it makes almost as much sense.

Duke: I like to disguise myself so I can deceive and manipulate people.
Angelo: I'm a puritanical hardass.
Isabella: Oh, please spare my brother!
Angelo: Only if you gratify my lusts!
Duke: AHA!
Angelo: Oops.
All: Time to get married!

(All: Hey, if this is Vienna, how come we all have Italian names?)

I am laughing. It's a guilty laugh. But I am laughing.

Vincentio, where are you?

I was always impressed at the way Henson's Muppets could teach anything with their songs, even philosophy. Remember that great one that goes "Phenomena, na, na, na, nana, phenomena, na, nana, na"?

Kate: Make me.
Petrucchio: My pleasure!
[curtain]