Jerry Falwell dead at 73 by Geezer

Damn gay Teletubbies and their rock music.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 17, 2007 4:21 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"They’re just glad he’s dead so that they can be free of the burden of the possibility that he might occasionally make brief appearances in the news and say something they don’t agree with or find offensive." Yes, you can be glad that someone died and is no longer spewing hate, and still not hate them.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 17, 2007 4:26 PM

What are talking about? Jerry Falwall never spewed any hate. He was just seeking relief from homosexuals.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 17, 2007 4:30 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Now I know you're kidding.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 17, 2007 4:56 PM

What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, I guess.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 17, 2007 5:13 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Nowhere did anyone have anything against Falwell except for what he did. And I supect if he stopped his hate-mongering people would have been OK with him.

But look for Falwell quotes (they're currently all over the internet) and you'll find him condemning people not for what they personally have done but because of what they are (or what he thinks they are).

See the difference? One - Falwell - condemns whole categories of people without any specific knowledge. The other - the posters here - have an issue with the specific actions of one person.

I suppose you won't see that though. You seem pretty stuck on Falwell. And you keep insisting he just had a different set of beliefs and never preached hate. As if he never called for the death of anyone (he did, at least twice).

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 3:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I suppose you won't see that though. You seem pretty stuck on Falwell. And you keep insisting he just had a different set of beliefs and never preached hate. As if he never called for the death of anyone (he did, at least twice).

I see more then you think. I suppose the only way that some of you will ever believe that I don’t agree with Falwell will be for me to espouse a hatred of the man. And that’s more disturbing to me then one man spewing hate. But then again, Falwell never had much impact on my life. He was just some guy with an abrasive opinion, like Howard Stern or dozens of other such people I routinely ignore. What would lead me to have any kind of passionate condemnation of him anyway?

But yes, Falwell basically had a different set of beliefs. And as far as whether those beliefs were tantamount to preaching hate - I suppose we have to look at what that means. As I remember it, you have a certain set rather generalized opinions about Americans. Americans are “ugly and hateful.” Americans are the most defensive wall-off group of people in the world. And there’s probably stuff I missed. These are your thoughts about an entire group of people. Now I’m sure you won’t see this is as spewing hate, anymore the Falwell would have described his own words that way. I beleive Falwell once said that he hated the act of homosexuality, not the homosexual.

I think Falwell had a political view of the world that led him to be a little too overly critical of certain groups of people, but then in my opinion, you have a political view of the world that leads you to be a little too overly critical of certain groups of people. If I’m supposed to hate people with these kinds of opinions, I’m going to be hating a lot of people.

Now don’t get me wrong, I understand exactly where you’re coming from. I mean someone has got to point out how far America has drifted from the path of righteousness, right? You’re just saying what needs to be said. After all, Americans are running the streets of America in droves like they own the place. That’s just un-American.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 6:10 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

When you call for someone or a group of someones to be killed it's hate speech. Not for god to take them home, or for them to leave this world, but for Bush specifically to 'blow them away in the name of the lord'. (just one example.) THAT'S what I have against Falwell, and which you consistently ignore. Or maybe you don't think that that's hate speech when Falwell says it, or says it in the name of religion.

I have my criticisms of the US and USers but please find me a quote where I say they, or anyone, should be killed.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 7:44 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
he wasn't just a religious fundamentalist, he was a DANGEROUS religious fundamentalist who had tangible effects on peoples' lives.

Bingo.

Make yourself a threat to me personally, and I think it's a given i ain't gonna like you and your ilk very much.

The other side of the coin ain't my problem, when a man lays threat against me because of my beliefs, and encourages others to act on it cause he's too much a pansy to do it himself, welll....

Again, good riddance.

Quote:
Would you want members of Falwell's family stumbling across the crass comments found in this thread?

Fine, let em, and let Hitlers descendants whine about me flaming him too, and Stalins, and Abe "the monster" Lincolns, for that matter, I don't really care what they think of me.

Everyone's got a right to an opinion even if others find it offensive, but it crosses the line when one encourages violence against those who DON'T hold that opinion, and Falwell is gonna take a posthumous roasting for it, same as him and his ilk take from me while still kicking - this means YOU, Dobson, you fucktard.

(not firefly Dobson, mind.)

And for the record, do I, did I, hate him ?

Damn right, and Dobson, and Esso, and Baker, and Swaggart, and all the rest of these goons who think me and anyone who believes as I do should be purged from the earth to make room for true believers in what they believe.

Does it mean I hate all of that belief ? hell no, but when someone makes a direct threat against me because of my own beliefs, encouraging force and violence, it's morally RIGHT to despise them.

Think you'd be fond of me if I, say... advocated bringing back the practice of feeding christians to the lions, for example ? and meant it 100% seriously ? and tried to get the govt to throw it's legal weight behind it ? and pounded the message on TV all damn day ?

Wouldn't like that much, would you ?

Good flaming riddance to him, and may the rest of those hate-spewing scum follow him soon.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 8:15 AM

PIRATECAT

I thought old Jerry was alright. I never thought he was all that bad. Well maybe the teletubby thing was over board. The only knock I ever heard were from people who worked for him said he was tight on raises and alittle forgettable on owed services.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 8:41 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Now if some bigwig ayatollah were to call for someone to blow away Bush in the same of Allah, I'll bet Finn would get a might tetchy. Prolly want to nuke 'em all to hell.

That's what comes of not having perspective. Or insight into one's definitions.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 10:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
When you call for someone or a group of someones to be killed it's hate speech. Not for god to take them home, or for them to leave this world, but for Bush specifically to 'blow them away in the name of the lord'. (just one example.) THAT'S what I have against Falwell, and which you consistently ignore. Or maybe you don't think that that's hate speech when Falwell says it, or says it in the name of religion.

I have my criticisms of the US and USers but please find me a quote where I say they, or anyone, should be killed.

I don’t think its hate speech when anyone says it. The “group of someones” Falwell was talking about blowing away weren’t innocent dough-eyed little children and baby seals. Falwell was talking about terrorists who kill Americans. Strange that you left that little bit out. I’m not going to say that I thought his comments were intelligent, but they aren’t hate speech and it strikes me as dishonest to portray it that way.

Since these nine words taken out of context are what you claim to have against Falwell, it begs the rhetorical questions: how much of this hate that Falwell is accuseds of spewing is really his own words or just the spin put on them by his critics?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 10:36 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Saffr.. err.. Finn,... please, now you're just embarrassing yourself.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 11:13 AM

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=21366

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Now if some bigwig ayatollah were to call for someone to blow away Bush in the same of Allah, I'll bet Finn would get a might tetchy. Prolly want to nuke 'em all to hell.

That's what comes of not having perspective. Or insight into one's definitions.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
There ARE some people I fantasize about being slowly eaten by ants... eyes first...* . But our actions aren't sanitized or forgiven by pure motives** especialy if you're on the receiving end.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 11:24 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn,

See, now you're excusing hate speech because someone else started it first. Hypocrititcal much?

PS In fact, you'll not find me called for anyone to be killed, for any reason. On the hate speech meter, I fall well below 'Falwell'.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 11:27 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
There ARE some people I fantasize about being slowly eaten by ants... eyes first... But our actions aren't sanitized or forgiven by pure motives especialy if you're on the receiving end

Did you catch the "but" in my statement? Apparently not! Because you clearly didn't understand my point that being "righteous" is no excuse for making other people suffer! That includes me, Finn, you, and Falwell.

So thanks for proving that I've been very consistent and for also demonstrating that you don't have friggin' clue as to what other people are saying. No matter than you must have spent about five hours hunting up that quote so you could take it out of context.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 11:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
See, now you're excusing hate speech because someone else started it first. Hypocrititcal much?

I’m not excusing anything. It’s just not hate speech. And not going to be, regardless of how many time you accuse it. Hate speech is bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group. Terrorists attacking your country do not qualify, and suggesting that they should be killed is a not uncommon practice when dealing with terrorist attacking your country. This isn’t difficult. It doesn’t take a rocket scientists to understand these things.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 12:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
There ARE some people I fantasize about being slowly eaten by ants... eyes first... But our actions aren't sanitized or forgiven by pure motives especialy if you're on the receiving end

Quote:

Did you catch the "but" in my statement? Apparently not! Because you clearly didn't understand my point that being "righteous" is no excuse for making other people suffer! That includes me, Finn, you, and Falwell.

So thanks for proving that I've been very consistent and for also demonstrating that you don't have friggin' clue as to what other people are saying. No matter than you must have spent about five hours hunting up that quote so you could take it out of context.

See the difference now?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 1:25 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

No.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 1:40 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Hate speech is bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group." Or member of a religion? You see, Falwell didn't espouse trials, convictions and due process. What he espoused was to 'blow them away in the name of the lord'. In other words, wipe groups of people off the map not for anything they've done but for what they are.

But that's Bush's approach as well - kill people first on suspicion - and I know you're OK with that as well.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 2:05 PM

What Falwell said was pretty stupid, but you've now crossed the line to being even more stupid. You can't tell the difference between terrorists and a religious group, and you're obviously very invested in the hate. There's nothing I can do for you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 2:31 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

What Falwell called for was indiscriminate killing - no charges, no trial, no jury, no verdict. Just that Bush should 'blow them away' at his discretion. That's beyond stupid. And it's not very Christian-like either.

But you can't see that because you would support all manner of hate as long as it comes under the cover of YOUR religion. Yes, you came out of the closet along time ago when it comes to killing - it's OK as long as your OK with it. Sweet religion you got there.

PS And you have yet to find a quote of mine where I say ANYONE should be killed. So I guess it's true - the person who doesn't have an issue with a hate-monger would be - yes, another hate monger.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 2:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But you can't see that because you would support all manner of hate as long as it comes under the cover of YOUR religion. Yes, you came out of the closet along time ago when it comes to killing - it's OK as long as your OK with it. Sweet religion you got there.

Yeah, and I bash baby seals in the head and talk in the theater. Is it possible for you to disagree with anyone honestly? You’re glad Falwell is dead because of 9 words he said which you’ve taken out of context and now you’re accusing me of condoning mass murder, I guess. Like I said, you’re obviously very invested in the hate, and a very insecure person.

PS, I didn’t look for any, nor do I intend to. Unlike you, I don’t demonize or hate the people I disagree with.

mmbah bye

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 3:18 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn,

Is it possible for YOU to debate anything honestly?

I invited you to take a look at the many Falwell quotes available and cited that one merely as an example (and I pointed out it was just one example). There's plenty more of that because Falwell was a hate-filled guy. It's what he preached. You're more than OK with that, you defend it. What does that make you?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 3:29 PM

Because it has now been three days, I think I shall respond in kind.

SignyM:
Do you agree that to hate Falwell because Falwell hated homosexuals is counter-productive? Do you not become that which you hate? I quoted your posting from the Dead Terrorists thread because this thread on Falwell lead me to draw some interesting conclusions. A number of Posters in the Dead Terrorists thread condemned the perceived relief other Posters drew from the death of al Zarqawi. This thread on the death of Falwell has been a complete 180. Why do you suppose that is? Perhaps we are so completely locked into our partisan prisons that there can be no middle ground. Perhaps Posters feel more sympathy for a man who murdered people than they do for one who called for murder. Perhaps their convictions are not as set in stone as they think they are.

Rue:

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
reposted as the thread has gone on -

For the record I have my own personal philosophy that's not NT. Insofar as Falwell preached hate I thought he poisoned humanity. And while I don't and didn't hate him personally I'm relieved he's no longer spreading his message. If he had simply stopped preaching rather than dying that would have worked for me as well.

So you did not have a problem with the messenger, just the message. You think the message will change now that he's gone?

I would very much like an answer if you please.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
This is what you said: "Some Posters even gave reasons for their hate ... " And yet, only one poster said they hated Falwell. Just one. The math is very simple.

Now you want to argue semantics, well okay.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Almost no one here used the word hate.

Actually a majority of the Posters in this thread used the word hate which means your statement was erroneous. Not in your opinion though because you changed the meaning to Posters specifically stating that they hated Falwell, kudos. Another in a long line of goalpost shifts which you have slickly perpetrated in this thread IMHO. Up to and including the following,

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But that's Bush's approach as well - kill people first on suspicion - and I know you're OK with that as well.

I'll give credit where credit is due though. How you manage to slam Bush in EVERY thread, no matter the original topic, shows real commit(ed)ment.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 3:42 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

BDN

When most people used the word hate they were talking not about how they felt about Falwell but about Falwell's message being one of hate. Only one person said they hate Falwell. I actually knew you were going to say this, so a while ago I copied up a bunch of quotes where people used the word 'hate':

this man who spread so much distrust and hate
Big difference between "not agreeing" and the hate-mongering he was responsible for
Fallwell ... used the faith of others to push his agenda of hate
First he'd say something unabashedly hateful
Insofar as Falwell preached hate

As far as I'm concerned you don't know how to read.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 3:47 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

I call this "words of an idiot" -

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

God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.
-- Rev Jerry Falwell, blaming civil libertarians, feminists, homosexuals, and abortion rights supporters for the terrorist attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2001, to which Rev Pat Robertson agreed

The ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this.
-- Rev Jerry Falwell, blaming civil libertarians for the terrorist attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2001, to which Rev Pat Robertson again agreed, quoted from AANEWS #958 by American Atheists
And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. 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."
-- Rev Jerry Falwell, blaming civil libertarians, feminists, homosexuals, and abortion rights supporters for the terrorist attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2001

I put all the blame legally and morally on the actions of the terrorist, [but America's] secular and anti-Christian environment left us open to our Lord's [decision] not to protect. When a nation deserts God and expels God from the culture ... the result is not good.
-- Rev Jerry Falwell, backpedaling amidst criticism of his statement blaming civil libertarians, feminists, homosexuals, and abortion rights supporters for the terrorist attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 200

I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!

AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.

The idea that religion and politics don't mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country.

It appears that America's anti-Biblical feminist movement is at last dying, thank God, and is possibly being replaced by a Christ-centered men's movement which may become the foundation for a desperately needed national spiritual awakening.
-- Jerry Falwell

The Jews are returning to their land of unbelief. They are spiritually blind and desperately in need of their Messiah and Savior.

Grown men should not be having sex with prostitutes unless they are married to them.
-- Jerry Falwell, on CNN's Crossfire, May 17, 1997

We're fighting against humanism, we're fighting against liberalism ... we are fighting against all the systems of Satan that are destroying our nation today ... our battle is with Satan himself.

Billy Graham is the chief servant of Satan.
-- Rev Jerry Falwell (attributed: source unknown)

The ACLU is to Christians what the American Nazi party is to Jews.
-- Rev Jerry Falwell (attributed: source unknown)

I am such a strong admirer and supporter of George W. Bush that if he suggested eliminating the income tax or doubling it, I would vote yes on first blush.

I believe that global warming is a myth. And so, therefore, I have no conscience problems at all and I'm going to buy a Suburban next time.

It is God's planet - and he's taking care of it. And I don't believe that anything we do will raise or lower the temperature one point.

Textbooks are Soviet propaganda.

The whole global warming thing is created to destroy America's free enterprise system and our economic stability

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.

The argument that making contraceptives available to young people would prevent teen pregnancies is ridiculous. That's like offering a cookbook as a cure to people who are trying to lose weight.

---- plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose

Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre, Owner of a too big Turnippy smelling coat with MR scratched in the neck (thanks FollowMal!)

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 3:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
You're more than OK with that, you defend it. What does that make you?

I guess it makes me someone who isn’t willing to find gratification in the death of a person simply I disagreed with him. I defended him; because he never really did anything wrong enough to find pleasure in his death or to mock him on his deathbed. I just disagree with what he had to say. I wish you could understand that, but I think you’re too consumed with your own inflexible and intolerant political views. And I also think that the idea of finding compassion for a conservative Christian leader is very threatening to you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 4:16 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"I also think that the idea of finding compassion for a conservative Christian leader is very threatening to you."

As much as I disagreed with Pope John Paul II I was deeply saddened by his death. He was, I thought, misguided but sincere in his efforts. I have similar feelings for Billy Graham who seems to have acquired a genuine love of humanity and some humility in his old age. So yes, I know how to disagree with a position but respect and feel compassion for the person.

Falwell ??? Beyond disagreeing with his position, the guy was a hate-filled nutcase. And he spent his life exhorting others to go thou and do likewise.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 4:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
As far as I'm concerned you don't know how to read.

I'm a selective reader, much like yourself.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 6:52 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
.... which you’ve taken out of context and now you’re accusing me of condoning mass murder

Finn, sa I recall you HAVE condoned mass murder. It's just that those you want to murder are not 'people' in your mind, so it's OK.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 6:59 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Do you agree that to hate Falwell because Falwell hated homosexuals is counter-productive?

I have come to realise that all hate is counterproductive. We often hate that which we fear. ETA: However, there is a HUGE difference between silently fantasizing about someone getting their just reward (while recognising that is a bd thing) and actively promoting hate and intolerance on a national platform. And if you try and argue that they're THE SAME :rollyeyes: then you have just committed the fallacy of slippery slope.

Quote:
I quoted your posting from the Dead Terrorists thread because this thread on Falwell lead me to draw some interesting conclusions. A number of Posters in the Dead Terrorists thread condemned the perceived relief other Posters drew from the death of al Zarqawi. This thread on the death of Falwell has been a complete 180. Why do you suppose that is? Perhaps we are so completely locked into our partisan prisons that there can be no middle ground. Perhaps Posters feel more sympathy for a man who murdered people than they do for one who called for murder. Perhaps their convictions are not as set in stone as they think they are.

Perhaps they don't like hypocrites who cloak their venom with a religion of compassion and forgiveness. Like treacle on poison.

Quote:
Actually a majority of the Posters in this thread used the word hate which means your statement was erroneous. Not in your opinion though because you changed the meaning to Posters specifically stating that they hated Falwell, kudos. Another in a long line of goalpost shifts which you have slickly perpetrated in this thread IMHO. Up to and including the following,

Maybe you should rename yourself big damn bonehead bc this is the second argument in this thread that you seriously flubbed. BTW I don't hate you. You just made me giggle.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 8:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn, sa I recall you HAVE condoned mass murder. It's just that those you want to murder are not 'people' in your mind, so it's OK.

It makes it easy to hate people you don't agree with if you concoct lies about them, doesn't it?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 10:10 PM

SOUPCATCHER

Falwell's group, the Moral Majority, spread a tremendous amount of information via mailings. They hit their high water mark pre-widespread-internet-usage. In that time period, putting together an effective mailing list of thousands of households (hundreds of thousands?) was extremely difficult and time consuming.

It is fascinating, for me, to read some of the early mailings that Falwell's group was sending out. Here's a link to a transcript of a brochure, aimed at public school children, that the North Carolina branch of the Moral Majority was distributing in 1981.
http://www.progressivehistorians.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1443
A few of these "Don'ts" are just good common sense but many of them are aimed at trying to keep children from any type of speculation (and it's funny how they are so against science-fiction). You can get a feel for the kinds of children that the Moral Majority were hoping to raise, those that accept without question what their spiritual leaders tell them.

It also reminds me vividly of the general perception of the US government that was present in the denomination I grew up in. During the seventies it was accepted fact (gospel, if you will) that a good Christian should stay as far away from politics as possible. That you only rendered unto Ceasar that which was Ceasar's, but you never actually worked for Ceasar if you could avoid it. It was also accepted, though not discussed with outsiders, that the government would be the agent of persecution of the faithful during the time of troubles.

That view was radically altered by Falwell (and other charismatic evangelical leaders) over just a short span of time. So radically altered that the focus shifted to coopting the power of the United States government to convert people to Christ. The perception changed from the government as necessary evil to be tolerated to the government as an entity instrumental in spreading evangelical Christianity.

Vectors. The vector that Falwell was on, and trying to move the country towards, was a seventeeth century combination of church and state. The full power of the United States working to convert the world to Christianity, and destroying those who resisted.

Falwell: rock throwing villager writ large.

edit to add: The true danger that Falwell represented was as an authority figure who gave the green light to the crazies. It's not an accident that the rise in Christianist terrorism that the United States experienced (abortion clinic bombings and assassinations a la Eric Rudolph) followed closely the exhortions of Falwell and others concerning the evils of abortion and homosexuality. Falwell never committed hate crimes or terrorism himself but his message gave legitimacy to these harmful actions.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 19, 2007 2:43 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Finn, as I recall you HAVE condoned mass murder. It's just that those you want to murder are not 'people' in your mind, so it's OK.-Signy
It makes it easy to hate people you don't agree with if you concoct lies about them, doesn't it?-Finn

How about...

Quote:
Yes the US has invaded many countries in the last 100 years, so what? How many of those countries remained independent or became independent with free governments follow US invasion?

Damn few. But you kind of gloss over all that collateral damage, which amounts to several million people killed over the past 50-some-odd years, not counting WWII and the Korean War. Why?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 19, 2007 4:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Damn few. But you kind of gloss over all that collateral damage, which amounts to several million people killed over the past 50-some-odd years, not counting WWII and the Korean War. Why?

Points for desperation, but no dice.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 19, 2007 5:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
I quoted your posting from the Dead Terrorists thread because this thread on Falwell lead me to draw some interesting conclusions. A number of Posters in the Dead Terrorists thread condemned the perceived relief other Posters drew from the death of al Zarqawi. This thread on the death of Falwell has been a complete 180. Why do you suppose that is? Perhaps we are so completely locked into our partisan prisons that there can be no middle ground. Perhaps Posters feel more sympathy for a man who murdered people than they do for one who called for murder. Perhaps their convictions are not as set in stone as they think they are.
Perhaps they don't like hypocrites who cloak their venom with a religion of compassion and forgiveness. Like treacle on poison.

So Falwell was a radical christian who interpreted the bible his way. Much like al Zarqawi was a radical muslim who interpreted the Koran his way. So why is one more hate-worthy in your opinion than the other?

Quote:
Maybe you should rename yourself big damn bonehead bc this is the second argument in this thread that you seriously flubbed.

In your not so humble yet slighty slanted opinion.

Quote:
BTW I don't hate you. You just made me giggle.

You sure it wasn't just gas?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 19, 2007 5:54 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
So Falwell was a radical christian who interpreted the bible his way. Much like al Zarqawi was a radical muslim who interpreted the Koran his way. So why is one more hate-worthy in your opinion than the other?

But that's not my opnion. Did you see anywhere in this thread where I said I hated Falwell? What I said about Falwell- "I'm glad he's not around mucking up other people's lives", was perhaps a bit less harsh than what I said about al Zarqawi being killed, which was "It's about time." I should not have said that about either but at least I'm consistent in identifying hate-mongers of any stripe. What about you?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 19, 2007 6:13 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
But you kind of gloss over all that collateral damage, which amounts to several million people killed over the past 50-some-odd years, not counting WWII and the Korean War. Why?- Signy

Points for desperation, but no dice. - Finn

What's the difference between killing 3,000 civilians for political or military gain, or killing 3,000,000? Beside the number, I mean? One you find abhorent the other excusable.

This is where your definitions gets you in trouble. Because you don't believe in killing people... except that people are more people-like when they're innocent (and the more innocent the better, like the unborn) and besides it's not really killing if we had a good enough reason even if they were innocent.

But if you were to stand before the Almighty (assuming you believe in such) and He were to ask you for your rationale for excusing and condoning the killing of millions, what would you say? "We didn't mean to"? "We had good reasons"? "We were defending you"? "Oops"? The innocent peeps- women, children, and your very favorite person: the unborn- are just as dead. So what is that? Serial manslaughter? You didn't learn lessons from the first 1,000,000 times? You're still making excuses?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 19, 2007 6:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
What's the difference between killing 3,000 civilians for political or military gain, or killing 3,000,000? Beside the number, I mean? One you find abhorent the other excusable.

Nope, that’s your imagination. Specifically crafted to protect your views from other people’s opinions. After all, as long as you can imagine the people you disagree with as mass murders, it’s easier to dismiss them in favor of your own views, isn’t it?

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
This is where your definitions gets you in trouble. Because you don't believe in killing people... except that people are more people-like when they're innocent (and the more innocent the better, like the unborn) and besides it's not really killing if we had a good enough reason even if they were innocent.

But if you were to stand before the Almighty (assuming you believe in such) and He were to ask you for your rationale what would you say? "We didn't mean to"? "We had good reasons"? "We were defending you"? "Oops"? The innocent peeps- women, children, and your very favorite person: the unborn- are just as dead. So what is that? Serial manslaughter? You didn't learn lessons from the first 1,000,000 times? You're still making excuses?

What a load of self-righteous crap. In your eyes the innocent and the guilty are the same. That’s pretty much how Zarqawi and bin Laden saw it to, by the way. They didn’t draw a distinction between innocent and guilty.

A woman who kills her rapist in defense is a murderer? Because the actions of the rapist cannot be used to draw any distinction between the rapists and any other guy walking the street.

A man who kills someone attempting to kill him or his family is a murderer? Because the actions of the killer cannot be taken into consideration.

If a boy runs out into traffic and gets hit by a truck. Is the truck driver a murderer?

That is twisted.

Oh, and I also remember you saying that you won't draw a distinction between a murderer and new born child. At the time, I thought I was just misunderstanding you, but it's clear now that I was not.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 19, 2007 7:32 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Finn, have you ever read the Onion article of the interview with God? In which he expressed how pissed He was that the ONE law (as in the current translations) that he thought he made unamiguous Thou shall not kill is the one we fuck up over and over in the name of righteousness? Or, if you don't like the current translation, what about the teachings of the NT and the example of Jesus? If anyone is guilty of a load of self-righteous crap it's you.

Quote:
In your eyes the innocent and the guilty are the same. That’s pretty much how Zarqawi and bin Laden saw it to, by the way. They didn’t draw a distinction between innocent and guilty.

No. First of all in their eyes we are ALL guilty. They simply draw their lines in ways you don't accept. Like you and like al Zarqawi- I draw distinction between innocent and guilty. But it's not for the purpose of taking life. If anyone is LIKE al Zarqawi it's you. Because- unlike al Zarqawi and unlike YOU- I in no way justify killing people for any reason except self defense or the defense of others. And there are true accidents that simply could not have been prevented. You justify killing people for the same reason al Zarqawi did: in the name of morality. Or democracy. Or capitalism. Or for whatever cause allows you to kill more people that you save. And you have defended the killing of thousands of innocent people just for that very reason. Who made you God that you feel justified in taking a life? Multiple lives? Hundreds of thousands of lives? Or condoning killing?

Quote:
A woman who kills her rapist in defense is a murderer? ... A man who kills someone attempting to kill him or his family is a murderer?

No. Why, oh why are you so thick-headed? That is self defense.

Quote:
If a boy runs out into traffic and gets hit by a truck. Is the truck driver a murderer?

If the truck driver was driving drunk and and has already "accidentally" killed 1000 boys with his truck while driving drunk, it damn well is. That's the situation that I find you defending.

Quote:
Oh, and I also remember you saying that you won't draw a distinction between a murderer and new born child. At the time, I thought I was just misunderstanding you, but it's clear now that I was not.

As far as the right to a life- no, I DON'T draw a distinction. But would I give them the same access to society at-large? Of course not.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 19, 2007 7:55 AM

So you would never have supported America’s action in WWII, because to do so would be condoning mass murder. But by not supporting America’s action in WWII, you are essentially giving the pass to Nazi’s Germany’s extermination, and to do so would be to condone mass murder.

This fundamentalist view that you have is not only illogical and naïve, but insulting and disturbing, because it allows you to condemn anyone you don’t agree with as evil. I’ve spoken with fundamentalist before and it’s usually pointless to discuss anything with them. You won’t consider any opinion or point I have, instead you’ll simply interject the opinions and points you want me to have. Anything I saw will be used to justify this idea that you have that I am a mass murderer. This is what I mean by hating people because of their opinions. In your eyes, I’m evil, not because of my actions or the opinions that I hold, but because of the opinions you attribute to me. You’ve created this image of the mass murdering Finn, not me. And that is hate. And you really can't discuss anything with people like that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 19, 2007 8:00 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
So you would never have supported America’s action in WWII, because to do so would be condoning mass murder.

No, I consider that legitimate and successful "defense of others."

Finn- Can I ask you to consider something? Is it possible to imagine the most heinous criminal possible without thinking of the death penalty? Is it possible to divide the concept of "guilt" from the concept of death? Or are the two so inextricably linked that you can't imagine one without the other? Have you created a sliding scale of humanity based on "innocence"?

And what about the ones that you KNOW are innocent who're killed in war? The ones who got in the way of bigger concerns? Have you created another sliding scale of humanity based on convenience?

BTW- how do you consider my views "fundamentalist"? I think that they're not only consistent with each other but with reality. And you keep tagging yourself as a "mass murderer". I haven't said you were. What I'm saying is that your lack of insight causes inconsistencies within your own belief system.
------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 19, 2007 8:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn- Can I ask you to consider something? Is it possible to imagine the most heinous criminal possible without thinking of the death penalty? Is it possible to divide the concept of "guilt" from the concept of death? Or are the two so inextricably linked that you can't imagine one without the other? Have you created a sliding scale of humanity based on "innocence"?

And what about the ones that you KNOW are innocent who're killed in war? The ones who got in the way of bigger concerns? Have you created another sliding scale of humanity based on convenience?

You already know the answers to these questions. The only thing I care about is killing millions of people. My only regret in life is that there are only six billion people to kill.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
BTW- how do you consider my views "fundamentalist"? I think that they're not only consistent with each other but with reality. And you keep tagging yourself as a "mass murderer". I haven't said you were. What I'm saying is that your lack of insight causes inconsistencies within your own belief system.

Oh it doesn’t get much more fundamentalist then you. You’d have made Falwell proud. So intolerant and inflexible in your “fundamentals” that you’ll condemn someone as evil for not following the way of righteous.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 19, 2007 8:19 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Finn, why do you so bitterly keep putting words in my mouth? The only thing I'm accusing you of is excessive righteousness. And believe me, I'm not about to use THAT as an excuse to have you killed, or to call upon God or others to do it for me!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 19, 2007 8:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn, why do you so bitterly keep putting words in my mouth? The only thing I'm accusing you of is excessive righteousness. And believe me, I'm not about to use THAT as an excuse to have you killed, or to call upon God or others to do it for me!

Bitterly putting words in your mouth.

“What's the difference between killing 3,000 civilians for political or military gain, or killing 3,000,000? Beside the number, I mean? One you find abhorent the other excusable.”

Evidently, I have no problem with the death of millions of people, unqualifiedly. I'm sure I never said that so, clearly those words come from someone else. You’re whole point was to insult me with vindictive personal attacks because you don’t like the fact that I’m not willing to join in with hating Falwell on his deathbed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 19, 2007 8:42 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Evidently, I have no problem with the death of millions of people, unqualifiedly

No, evidently you have no problems qualifying death as justified or excusable

Quote:
You’re whole point was to insult me with vindictive personal attacks because you don’t like the fact that I’m not willing to join in with hating Falwell on his deathbed.

No, my point was that you have a very inconsistent view of what's "right" and what's "wrong", and which way it wobbles depends on whether or not you agree with a person's underlying motives. And yes, to the best of my recollection you HAVE defended invasions and other "interventions" which have clearly killed many innocent people which were not at all defensive. Time permits, I will go look them up and either find out I was wrong - in which case I owe you a huge apology for busting your chops over a mistaken perception- or I find out that I'm right.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 19, 2007 9:04 AM

KHYRON

This whole thing reads like a smear campaign against Finn. Finn doesn't like the way people reacted to Falwell's death, so Sig tries to undermine his opinion by pointing to unrelated topics where Finn's viewpoint is unpopular.

So what's your strategy, Sig? Harp on about Finn's attitude towards American interventionism until he's bored and leaves or he's seemingly so discredited in the eyes of other posters that they'll ignore his objections and continue expressing their dislike of Falwell? That way they could do it in peace until they feel they have sufficiently expressed their moral superiority, without being made to feel guilty about it.

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 19, 2007 9:09 AM