Join 3,442 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Jerry Falwell kisses the Christian Coalition goodbye!
December 6, 2001 5:52 AM   Subscribe

Jerry Falwell kisses the Christian Coalition goodbye!

Hallejuah!
posted by pooldemon (29 comments total)

 
You are aware that Pat Robertson is a different person than Jerry Falwell right?
posted by revbrian at 5:59 AM on December 6, 2001


Doncha mean Pat Robertson? I know. I can hardly tell the two of them apart either.

Roberta Combs has been head of the South Carolina chapter of the Christian Coalition. On the surface it looks like Pat Robertson leaving is a good thing for those of us tired of religious zealots forcing their will on the masses. However this might actually be a bad thing. It could breathe new energy and life into the group. Also, what's hurt Robertson's efforts over the years is the fact he spread himself too thin. His backing off the lion's share of his responsibilities means other younger people will step in to carry the torch. History will decide, but my premonition is it's gonna get worse before it gets better.

Hopefully, Robertson's dragged the coalition too far down with his own pride for anyone else to be able to remedy, but this might be the best decision he's ever made.
posted by ZachsMind at 5:59 AM on December 6, 2001


I was just so excited...doh! Pat Robertson it is. Matt, could you change the link?
posted by pooldemon at 6:07 AM on December 6, 2001


When in a foul mood I would turnon the 700 Club and listezn to that dunderhead. He seemed always more interested in the stock market than in god or other lesser things. He has a law degree from Yale. But then Bush also graduated from Yale. (yes: clinton did too and was a lawyer at one time)...
posted by Postroad at 6:16 AM on December 6, 2001


"Pat was the only real reason the group existed. And it can't exist without him."

I'm wondering if you couldn't replace the "Pat" in that sentence with "Bill Clinton."
posted by straight at 6:18 AM on December 6, 2001


Actually I kinda hope Matt doesn't change the link. For one, it'll make revbrian's post and mine make absolutely no sense. Secondly, it's a successful mistake. I mean, there really isn't a lot of difference between Robertson and Falwell. Both men share similar views and both have built a media empire by manipulating the good intentions of pooly-informed, devout followers of a religion so terribly maligned and twisted, it's a wonder there aren't more aetheists. The souls of some selfish bishops and monks of The Dark Ages are alive and well in the vessels of people like Falwell and Robertson.

The good intentions of people throughout history (Moses, Jesus, Muhammed, Ghandi) are often used by selfish men for selfish purposes. Don't get me wrong. I'm not knocking religions themselves. I'm knocking what people like Falwell do to them. The fault lies not in the stars, but in ourselves.
posted by ZachsMind at 7:15 AM on December 6, 2001


Today the coalition is broke and is widely believed to have fewer than two million members. Most political experts say that whatever its earlier political accomplishments it played just a marginal role in the election last year.

Except in terms of long-term influence (sigh).
posted by raysmj at 7:26 AM on December 6, 2001


I'm not knocking religions themselves. I'm knocking what people like Falwell do to them.

Once you have people believing in a fiction, you can lead them to do anything.
posted by mischief at 7:29 AM on December 6, 2001


[Once you have people believing in a fiction, you can lead them to do anything.]

The kind of people who blindly follow religion are far more dangerous without religion than they are with it.
posted by revbrian at 7:33 AM on December 6, 2001


revbrian: I dunno. Blindly wander the universe rather than having a clearly defined, if erroneous, purpose might actually be much better. I mean there aren't alot of militant agnostics but from the Christian Coalition to the Taliban there are lots of examples of how religion is bad. Maybe if these blind followers would limit themselves to watching professional sports or something. We haven't seen a baseball vs. football jihad yet, so that might be safe.
posted by shagoth at 7:38 AM on December 6, 2001


I know quite a few people whose religious conviction is about all that stops them from being violent. I'm of the belief that there is no blanket solution, everybody needs different things. Just because religion isn't right for one person doesn't mean it's wrong for another.
posted by revbrian at 7:45 AM on December 6, 2001


shagoth: Can't think of any militant agnostics, but then again, isn't an agnostic basically someone who can not make up their mind? I can think of at least one militant atheist: Stalin.

I never liked these Christian PAC's. The end result was to just reduce Christians to just another political group to appease. Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson wrote a book a few years ago on why the Moral Majority and the Christian Colation have failed.
posted by internal at 7:59 AM on December 6, 2001


Once you have people believing in a fiction, you can lead them to do anything.
There's a lot of us who think aetheists like in their own little fictional world.
posted by jmd82 at 8:09 AM on December 6, 2001


may bad, 'like' is supossed to be 'live'
posted by jmd82 at 8:10 AM on December 6, 2001


Once you have people believing in a fiction, you can lead them to do anything.

Today's science was just fiction a mere 100 years ago...
posted by mkn at 8:29 AM on December 6, 2001


Once you have people believing in a fiction, you can lead them to do anything.

I don't know.

I dislike organized religion anything. Still, I think it's important to try to respect whatever faith people can manage. I look at people who have a well-developed spiritual component in their life, and most seem to be happier and more content. What's the point of trying to mess with that?

Some might say ignorance is bliss, but who's to say their ignorance means they're wrong?

Personally, I'm an agnostic, so I'm more than willing to accept that whatever somebody believes might be based on wishful thinking more than observed reality. However, I'm not sure that you automatically make the leap that because somebody believes in something that is not true, they will automatically or even easily be made to believe or act to some further extreme.

Certainly, you can find more than enough examples that would seem to support your premise, but I suspect that's humanity's tendency to hate the other or different rather than the fact that somebody will accept one thing means they will accept another. Like I said, a group of anything is bad. Personal faith, even if it's a lie shared by many people seems pretty good to me.
posted by willnot at 8:29 AM on December 6, 2001


internal: agnostics may be people who simply don't care to decide if there is a god or not -- they may think the question is irrelevant. it's not necessarily a question of indecision, but it may be nondecision.
posted by moz at 8:36 AM on December 6, 2001


There's a lot of us who think aetheists like in their own little fictional world.

how reassuring! for you, at least.
posted by mcsweetie at 8:45 AM on December 6, 2001


Some political experts and critics of the coalition said Mr. Robertson's resignation in all probability sounded the death knell for the faltering group.
From the writer's lips to god's ears. I hope so!
posted by aacheson at 8:50 AM on December 6, 2001


God does exist-I had to prove it in my metaphysics final exam at NC State.

There is nothing wrong with any group getting together for political purposes, whether Christian, Libertarian, Democrat, etc.


But you knew that already.

(I am a Democrat).
posted by bunnyfire at 8:58 AM on December 6, 2001


John has a box. John's dad gave him that box and told him that it had the most delicious cheese in it. Sally doesn't think that there really is cheese in that box, so John asks me what I think. I tell him that I can't say one way or the other unless I can see what's in that box.
posted by chason at 9:08 AM on December 6, 2001


God does exist-I had to prove it in my metaphysics final exam at NC State.

Please share.
posted by Dirjy at 10:24 AM on December 6, 2001


God does exist-I had to prove it in my metaphysics final exam at NC State.

"I refuse to prove that I exist", says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But", says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that", and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
posted by chuq at 10:31 AM on December 6, 2001


"Oh my, that was easy," says Man, and for his next trick, goes on to prove that black is white and gets killed at the next zebra crossing.
posted by bradlands at 11:39 AM on December 6, 2001


Not only wasn't it Falwell (if there is a god it may read Dickens) in the article, Falwell himself left the CC some time ago. There were rumors of some reconciliation between him and queers as well, or at least civil meetings reported in the NYT, but his actions in the last few weeks seem to show not much has changed.
posted by retrofut at 12:02 PM on December 6, 2001


agnostics may be people who simply don't care to decide if there is a god or not -- they may think the question is irrelevant. it's not necessarily a question of indecision, but it may be nondecision.

I'll add refusal to take a position because of lack of collective knowledge on the subject. Its pretty pathetic to be pigeonholed into being a theist or an atheist. Accepting either means accepting assumptions, baggage, etc.
posted by skallas at 2:29 PM on December 6, 2001


If there is a God, and He calls some things sin, and someone claims to be a follower of Him, why do people expect His followers to call good what He calls evil?

Can't have it both ways. If you disagree with God on something, it doesn't change how God feels about it.

Now that doesn't give anyone the right to be rude to gay people, adulterers, fornicators, murderers, and gossips, but I daresay those of you who do not choose to follow God are unfair when you pillory Christians for agreeing with God when He says that gay sex, unmarried sex, extramarital sex, murder and gossiping are displeasing to Him.

I myself went to my senior prom with a gay person. I have known (and liked) lots of gay people. But as a Christian I cannot agree with the lifestyle.

And neither can Falwell.
Not that I always agree with him either.......
posted by bunnyfire at 4:05 PM on December 6, 2001


The problem, bunnyfire, is that God is a tough get for talk shows, so few people have heard God directly. Various representatives abound, but as they are merely human or the products of humans (such as books), the accuracy of their pronouncements is uncertain.
posted by NortonDC at 4:35 PM on December 6, 2001


well, I rely on the Bible and the Holy Spirit myself......

But I have to admit....... the idea of God on the David Letterman Show....hmmmm.........
posted by bunnyfire at 5:00 PM on December 6, 2001


« Older You've got some nerve- again. ...  |  Shedding Writer's Block... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments