Jerry Falwell dead.

That's not what I'm saying at all. By all mean, keep at it if you want. But right now, you guys are doing little better than the classic "is too" "is not" "is too" "is not"...Ok, I think Falwell was an evil man for condeming people who had never done a thing to him or his family. He's left us a legacy of evil that will take us generations to get rid of.But to someone like buzsaw, what I call evil he calls good.In order to have a good debate, we first at least must start somewhere where we can agree. If you guys want this to be more effective, why not argue over *why* Falwell did more damage than good? Instead, you guys have been throwing back and forth "is too" "is not" "is too" "is not"...But again, by all means ignore me if you want to continue with it. Have at it.

---

We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current.

​

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Good point Taz. I see what you mean. I wish there was a better discusion on in the bigfoot thread, but it's kinda gone downhill in terms of science evidence, more into humor.Latertz

He advocated most of the principles that most if not all of the founders and the majority of Americans believed and practiced the first two centuries of our history which were Biblical principles.
You appear to be implying that the founders and majority of Americans in the history of our nation were evil. Further you are implying that these principles are what you and coming generations must work to get rid of.Likely the secularist dictator murderers who ruled the the Communist block nations via rod of iron violence and who last century outlawed the Bible and murdered a hundred million of their own citizens would agree with you that the Biblical principles Falwell advocated should be gotten rid of.Btw, slavery is a practice that, until Americans outlawed it nearly a century and a half ago, has been a practice to some degree, common to most cultures of mankind ever since the recording of history began.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

I'm not implying it. I'm saying it. Slavery is evil. Segregation is evil. Sexism is evil. If you want, I can provide a list several pages long that our founding fathers thought good but we now generally accept as evil. Well, take a look at slavery, for example. It took a civil war of many long years to get rid of. Take a look of segregation. It took many years of hard work for people to get rid of it. Women's rights also come to mind. So Buz, since the nazis were health freaks, do you advocate we all try to get as fat as possible? The nazis were environmentalist freaks, so do you advocate we do everything we can to trash our environment? Yes, and it's still evil no matter what excuse you want to bring to the table.See what I mean, Buz? You and I operate on completely different frequencies. So, I will have to say that I agree to disagree with you. You want to see Falwell as some kind of saint, fine. You have your right to free speech, and I have mine.

---

We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current.

​

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Fair enough, Taz. Take care.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

Here is a letter by a book author who quotes Rushdie. (My Bad

Dear Reverend Falwell,

​

I am writing this letter to you because I believe that you have misread the message of Jesus Christ.

​

Please accept my apology for the letter being so long, but the subject is a very serious one and can not be covered in just a few sound bites or faith based statements.

​

I know we are both in agreement that all Americans are entitled to their opinion on matters of religion. That, after all, is the American way. Our founding fathers made that very clear. I do believe, however, that when religious beliefs such as yours influence governmental decisions that in turn directly influence both national and geopolitical events, as they have, these beliefs call for rigorous and critical examination.

​

Your fundamentalist form of Christian religious belief has had a direct impact on the entire world stage from the smallest villages to the largest cities, and we are seeing consequences that often adversely affect human lives. People are suffering. Lives are being destroyed. Families are being torn apart. Many are dying.

​

We Americans of all beliefs have traditionally assumed that it is the manifest destiny of our country is to be a shining light to the world. We have seen ourselves as the sole possessors of the moral high ground. In the last century this grew out of the country’s involvement in the First and Second World Wars and their aftermath and also the resistance to and ultimate victory over international communism. Now, since the collapse of international communism, this assumption is being called more and more into question. The culture within as well as the culture we export abroad is being viewed throughout the world in negative terms. Some, like you, say it is solely the result of secular forces destroying traditional American values. I agree, but I say it is more than that. It is also the result of the influence of your own Christian fundamentalist religious belief.

​

The fundamentalist Christianity that you preach has shut down the American mind. You and your fellow evangelical Christians are responsible for what Salmon Rushdie speaks of when, as I quote him on the first pages of this book, he says:

​

"It has perhaps never been more important for the world's voices to be heard in America, never more important for the world's ideas and dreams to be known and thought about and discussed, never more important for a global dialogue to be fostered. Yet one has the sense of things shutting down, of barriers being erected, of that dialogue being stifled precisely when we should be doing our best to amplify it. The cold war is over, but a stranger war has begun. Alienation has perhaps never been so widespread . .”Edited by Phat, : correctomundo

Why would Salman Rushdie quote himself and talk about himself in the third person?*ABE*In fact the reference appears to be to an essay Rushdie had published in the Times book review section about an international PEN congress wntitled 'The PEN and the sword'.This doesn't seem consistent with the letter being written by Rushdie, neither do all the references to the writer being an american.*ABE*TTFN,WKEdited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

You should let people know that Salman Rushdie is not the author of the letter, but that the letter only contains a quote from Rushdie.If you go to the source of the quote (Salman Rushdie: The Pen and the Sword) you'll see that it was drawn out of context and wasn't about fundamentalism as the letter's author implies. It was a lament that fewer foreign literary works are available in America as compared to the rest of the world. The only object of criticism is a veiled reference to George Bush ("...under the thumbs of leaders who seem to think of themselves as God's anointed and of power as their divine right...").--Percy

So where did this letter come from?
Who wrote it?

Your choice of background coloring is giving me a headache.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

My Bad! The letter was written by a book author whose name I cannot find...and who quoted Rushdie....out of context, as Percy adds! I did change the background for you though, Taz! I am not totally heartless.

Though the quoted material was taken out of context, I find it hard to imagine Rushdie is sympathetic to religious fundamentalism, given all the hullabaloo from fundamentalist Muslims over his novel The Satanic Verses and his recent knighting. People have been murdered just for translating the work.

So I'm digging this post out of the graveyard because I was just watching a documentary called "Maxed Out" about personal debt, credit cards and preditory lending practices.It's pretty nasty what's going on out there.Anyway, about two thirds of the way through, we get a clip of Falwell preaching and he says (paraphrasing) - "Sometimes I counciling couples about their financial troubles and I tell them to bring me a budget, and if I don't see tithing as the top of the list I know there's a problem. If you aren't giving up 10-20% of your money to the church, how do you expect God to help you. And those people come back to me later and say, I don't know how it works, but it worked"So basically, people up to their eyeballs in debt come to this "religeous leader" for help and he takes up to 1/5 of their money.Evil evil evil evil evil evil evil evil evil evil evil little bastard.

No wonder they argue for lower taxes. They don't want the gov't to get what they think is theirs.Furthermore, what good is money to god?