Osama bin Falwell

When maintaining a national consensus is a matter of life and death, as it is now, there's an urgent responsibility, I think, to police the debate: to come down hard on those who, given the very difficult challenges ahead, take occasion to make matters worse and the challenges harder for everyone. This policing is especially useful when applied to the fringe of one's own political tendency. When a voice from the left rises to decry some outrage on the left, it carries more weight than the same message out of the mouth of someone from the right. In an exemplary recent online column in the New Republic, for example, editor Peter Beinart called on the forces that have been turning up to protest at IMF and World Bank meetings to cease and desist for the duration, lest they give aid and comfort to the enemy (my usage here is not metaphorical).

In the same spirit of political hygiene, let us turn our attention to the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the Rev. Pat Robertson, hitherto stalwarts of the Christian Right, and their remarkable televised colloquy September 13, two days after the attack on the United States.

The setting was Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network cable show, The 700 Club. There, after a general discussion of the horror of the attack, and the possible horrors to come should God allow them to continue to be visited upon the United States, Falwell turned spontaneously to the matter of the cause of the Almighty's withdrawal of His protection: "The ACLU's got to take a lot of the blame for this," he said. Robertson replied, "Well, yes." Apparently that was sufficient affirmation to get Falwell rolling. He continued: "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.' " To which Robertson replied: "Well, I totally concur."

Well. In statements they subsequently issued in response to the right and proper furor that greeted their exchange, not least from conservative Christians, both men insisted that Falwell's diatribe had been taken out of its proper context, namely, a theological discussion of the consequences of ignoring God's wishes.

But as will be clear to anyone who takes a look at the full transcript, which People for the American Way posted on its website, neither that organization in publicizing the comments nor the news organizations reporting on them took anything out of context. Falwell himself, unbidden, made the leap to blame, and Robertson seconded the sentiment. Of course, these men are not just preachers. They are political figures, and partisan ones. Robertson has sought the GOP presidential nomination, and Falwell has been a prominent conservative sounder-off on matters of policy and politics since the 1970s. They have been taken seriously in GOP circles–their views given a hearing, their support courted–even by those who do not share their particular perspective, now so flagrantly on display. This must stop.

I will leave to others the theological parsing of the views Falwell espoused and Robertson seconded. Let's confine this discussion to their political effect. Falwell, in his September 17 statement, insists that he "was blaming no one but the terrorists for the terror, but . . . chastising us, the Church, for a generation of departure from God." This is a lie on its face, since he precisely and specifically laid blame for the horrendous violence at the doorstep of the particular group of Americans suggested by his list. Robertson himself, backpedaling furiously to distance himself from Falwell, now admits as much, calling Falwell's remarks in a September 17 press release "a political statement of blame directed at certain segments of the population that was severe and harsh in tone" and, not having "fully understood" Falwell's comments at the time (he understood them well enough to say, after "I totally concur," "and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government"), he now thinks they were "totally inappropriate" though he has not said he thinks they are false.

As for Falwell's supposed chastisement of Christians, the entire burden of his message on The 700 Club was to draw a distinction between a Godly "us" and a faithless "them." In Falwell's telling, it is not the prayers of "us" that are deficient. It is the sins of "them." For him, the proposition that "we are all sinners" is purely formal. It's not for the sins of everyone that "we" are being punished. If it were a matter of "us," we would be safe; the sins of "them" are what's fatal. And they are fatal not only to "them" (which would be just, in this view) but also to "us." Were it not for the presence of "them" among "us," the safety of "us" would not be in question. "They" have, in effect, attacked "us." In its designation of an enemy, this is political.

For Falwell, this group is the Other. They have nothing in common with him, nor he with them. They are certainly not fellow Americans, much less people he regards as his equals in their humanity.

What to do about "them"? Well, by Falwell's own terms, it is quite clear that "they" cannot go on as "gays and lesbians," secularizers, "feminists," etc., without imperiling "us." There is simply no place for anyone meeting these descriptions in Falwell's body politic, because they are a threat. It is quite clear that if "they" were extirpated, "we" would once again be safe, and that short of "their" extirpation, "we" are not safe.

Now, as it happens, with one very important qualification, this is quite close to the way Osama bin Laden looks at the world. For bin Laden, if "they" were extirpated–Americans, that is–his "we" would be not "safe" first and foremost, but rather victorious. In relation to what to do about the enemy, the distinction between safety (Falwell's ultimate goal for this earth) and victory (bin Laden's goal) is the distinction between destroying the World Trade Center and venomously spouting off to Pat "I totally concur" Robertson.

That's an important distinction to keep in mind. It's why we have to kill bin Laden, but why we can live with Jerry Falwell. Jerry Falwell is the bourgeois bin Laden. Bin Laden, in pursuit of glorious victory, is prepared to risk death to kill us. Falwell, who seeks only to advance his career in safety, is certainly unwilling to risk death or act on his desire to be rid of "them." He is merely disgusting and offensive. Thank God, one might add.

His "mistake," he continued in his statement, "was doing this at the time I did it, on television, where a secular media and audience were also listening." There's the problem: "They" were listening. Yes, we were–the "we" who know, especially in this hour of danger, but no less, really, in the brighter hours we hope are ahead, that we are all part of "we." Even Jerry Falwell–who, if he truly comes to regret his statement, should do us all the favor of taking a vow of silence for the duration of the current struggle.

Contributing editor Tod Lindberg is editor of Policy Review and a research fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Interesting. So Roberstons says Falwell is a not just a monster for saying these things, but a liar for denying he meant to blame Americans? And Robertson is admitting at the same time he doesn't understand positions he endorses? I wonder what Falwell would now say about Robertson? These two were friends, right? The drama.

The question is, why is the PAW monitoring religous broadcasts?

Are they looking for dirt on the Christians?

This issue is nothing more than an attempt by the Marxist left to link the hatred of Islamic fundamentalist with the alleged intollerance of Christians.

We're supposed to conclude that Christains discussing their religous ideas are just as dangerous as Arab Muslims who kill thousands of people.

I can't stand the Weakly Standard. They hate Falwell and Robertson because they blame them for killing the Presidential hopes of their beloved McCain.

Falwell and Robertson messed up but so does everyone else from time to time. If anyone really gave a rip about the feelings of the gays, ACLU or feminists etc...they wouldn't keep repeating the words. They point is they are seizing this to score political points and are unwilling to accept a sincere apology.

Falwell and Robertson are boobs. However, I do agree that the ACLU and PFAW are enemies of America ... just not in a religious way. Norman Lear and the American Communist Litigators Union have done more to promote ideas and policy that have wreaked havoc on this country ... including the promotion of atheism as the official state religion ... and political correctness as our ten commandments.

While Falwell and Robertson make some interesting remarks, I have yet to see them demand the deaths of all infidels. Let's dump on them when it's proper, and I think it is in this instance, but let's also keep this in proper perspective.

Comparing these two to Laden deminishes what Laden really is. He just masterminded the extermination of five thousand of our citizens and demand the rest follow quickly. Falwell? Robertson? They are way off base, but they're no Laden.

Falwell and Robertson are still what John McCain defined them as last year at this same time: The right's equivalent of Louis Farrahan and Al Sharpten!
These two nincompoops are, IMHO, the two biggest detriments to attracting new converts to Christianity or bringing lost sheep back to the fold. Their message of hate for anyone who does not share the same Old Testament image of a cruel, wrathful, unforgiving God unfortunately resonates across the conservative spectrum and frightens good people from our cause!

You should be interested to know how Robertson backpedaled when questioned about this on Fox. He didn't come across very well because he was trying to extricate himself and Fallwell to the point of doublespeak. However, having said that, there are still many of us who believe America is in a state of complete moral decay. I know many libertarians who don't believe in religion, morals, or rules of any kind, but it cannot be denied that since we lost our moral way, everything has gone to hell in a handbasket. There was a time in America that groups like NAMBLA would not have been allowed to exist. There was a time in America that the Boy Scouts were revered and not demonized and cast out of public institutions. There was a time in America that one could tell a woman she looked nice and not get charged with sexual harrassment. There was a time when addictions were considered weaknesses, and not "illnesses". And if a person died from an addiction, it was their own fault. There was a time when murdering babies was not considered a "right" worth fighting for. Like it or not, this country was founded by God fearing men, who considered the rights they wanted Americans to have to be God given. America used to be a mightier nation when the majority still believed in God and followed His laws. Sorry, but having no rules is just as bad as having too many.

When maintaining a national consensus is a matter of life and death, as it is now, there's an urgent responsibility, I think, to police the debate....

I wonder if mr lindberg tried to "police" the anti-President Bush comments that were made by his fellow journalists as vigorously as he is trying to "police" the comments of Mr. Falwell.

I can't stand the Weakly Standard. They hate Falwell and Robertson because they blame them for killing the Presidential hopes of their beloved McCain.

The WEAKLY STANDARD does suck. Bill Kristol sucks. And Fred Barnes sometimes sucks too. I also happen to think McCain, Falwell and Robertson suck ... as well as the author of this article.

"We're supposed to conclude that Christains discussing their religous ideas are just as dangerous as Arab Muslims who kill thousands of people." Actually, if they were being consistent, they'd have to distinguish between the vast overwhelming majority of Christians and an extermist minority. And, again, assuming consistency, I'd expect to hear the counter that "All Christians share collectice responsibility for these remarks unless and until they publically renounce them in the strongest possible terms". But that assumes consistency. And in either case, it's a descriptive claim about what consistency would require and not an endoresment of either position.

When maintaining a national consensus is a matter of life and death, as it is now, there's an urgent responsibility, I think, to police the debate:

In other words, a restriction of free speech? Is Falwell really more dangerous than the author who suggests that Falwell should not have the right to say what he said?

Shalom.

Hi goodieD, You speak with great passion and I know these are topics close to your heart. We disagree on some questions about morality -- I remember an early long thread on censorship, but maybe there would be some shared values on other topics. For example, I take it we both think the institution of slavery was wicked and evil. And I take it we both think it was a travesty that women could not vote until early this last century. Laws forcing businesses to exlude people based on skin color (ie, State forced segregation) might be another one where we agree. So it's hard for me to see what the "moral trajectory" is for the country. We did a lot of really wicked things that we don't do anymore. Maybe we do wicked things now we didn't do then. Hard to really be cofident that there's some sort of scale for making comparisions in "quantity of wickedness". What are your thoughts?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.