On Jerry Falwell
I would feel somewhat remiss if I didn't say a few words about the passing of Jerry Falwell. There has been a little discussion over on Jeff's blog about whether Falwell was an evil man, and my own feelings about Falwell need more than a blog comments page to flesh out.
First off, I think it is completely wrong to exult in the death of any but the most heinous individuals. My first reaction upon hearing of Falwell's death was sorrow and sympathy for his family. (My second reaction, of course, was to think back on some great Slant articles Falwell inspired, but really, who would expect anything else from me?)
On to the larger question, though: was Falwell an evil man? Over on his blog, Jeff states that he was not, and I am inclined to agree. Pierce counters by stating, truthfully, that Falwell "appealed to people's most base and irrational tendencies in order to subvert social and academic progress". Of course, to Falwell and his followers, social and academic progress are worldly evils, temptations by the devil that drag us further away from a loving (angry? jealous?) God (sorry for the adjectival confusion, but that one has always vexed me). Evangelicals of the Falwell variety would likely support this contention by pointing to the opening books of Genesis, when humankind's thirst for knowledge is precisely what gets us kicked out of Eden. They would probably also cite various passages in the Bible that I'm too lazy to look up that can be interpreted to support Falwell's views on feminism, homosexuality, Jewish people, etc. Point being, they fervently believe that the course they outline will make people better off. I guess the real question then becomes: where do we draw the line between evil and misguided? That's not a question I'm even remotely prepared to answer.
Regardless, I personally think that Falwell did far more harm to Christians than he did to anyone else. His role in the politicization of Christianity cannot be overlooked, and in my opinion cannot be seen as anything other than damaging to a generally beautiful religion. Ultimately, his legacy will likely, ironically, be as a blight on the very religion he followed. It's not a legacy I would want.
Song lyric of the day:
"Waiting for your modern messiah
To take away all the hatred
That darkens the light in your eyes"
- Disturbed, Liberate
First off, I think it is completely wrong to exult in the death of any but the most heinous individuals. My first reaction upon hearing of Falwell's death was sorrow and sympathy for his family. (My second reaction, of course, was to think back on some great Slant articles Falwell inspired, but really, who would expect anything else from me?)
On to the larger question, though: was Falwell an evil man? Over on his blog, Jeff states that he was not, and I am inclined to agree. Pierce counters by stating, truthfully, that Falwell "appealed to people's most base and irrational tendencies in order to subvert social and academic progress". Of course, to Falwell and his followers, social and academic progress are worldly evils, temptations by the devil that drag us further away from a loving (angry? jealous?) God (sorry for the adjectival confusion, but that one has always vexed me). Evangelicals of the Falwell variety would likely support this contention by pointing to the opening books of Genesis, when humankind's thirst for knowledge is precisely what gets us kicked out of Eden. They would probably also cite various passages in the Bible that I'm too lazy to look up that can be interpreted to support Falwell's views on feminism, homosexuality, Jewish people, etc. Point being, they fervently believe that the course they outline will make people better off. I guess the real question then becomes: where do we draw the line between evil and misguided? That's not a question I'm even remotely prepared to answer.
Regardless, I personally think that Falwell did far more harm to Christians than he did to anyone else. His role in the politicization of Christianity cannot be overlooked, and in my opinion cannot be seen as anything other than damaging to a generally beautiful religion. Ultimately, his legacy will likely, ironically, be as a blight on the very religion he followed. It's not a legacy I would want.
Song lyric of the day:
"Waiting for your modern messiah
To take away all the hatred
That darkens the light in your eyes"
- Disturbed, Liberate
1 Comments:
A few friends you know and I had a rather lively email debate about this. I concur that, except for the most heinous individuals, we should be gracious to the memories of the deceased rather than needlessly attack them posthumously. I'm not saying we should rewrite their life to slant more favorably than it should, but I've read a few obituaries for Rev. Falwell by major media sources that I would *charitably* define as biased. I felt they focused on his work as an agent of intolerance -- even quoting sources who expressed joy at his passing -- rather than speaking about what he or his supporters might consider to be his achievements as is more the norm for obituaries.
On this point, I was swayed by the counter-argument that I misframed what I considered Falwell's "achievements" because of my own lens with which I view the world. If you're a Falwell supporter, being an agent of intolerance to gays, atheists, etc. may well count as a notable achievement. Perhaps it's not attacking him posthumously at all to call him intolerant, as that's not even really a matter of debate (though his supporters might contest the specific word choice). It's only a matter of debate whether said intolerance was "evil." And I doubt anyone could come to any resolution on this point anyway, since Falwell's supporters freely admit they have a different definition of evil than his opponents -- and, in some cases, a different arbiter of evil as well.
Post a Comment
<< Home