>You state, Tamar, that Falwell was not a good man, because he caused division in America. What you are claiming then, is that by your yardstick, a man is 'bad' if he causes division and 'good' if he does not. Divisiveness, then, becomes a litmus test for determining goodness or evil.

Divisiveness is bad in a sieged city, when the good thing for the besieged people would be to stand as one. Now since I don't see any enemies at the gate (unless you count the acquiring end of a pipeline as a gate), it's not divisiveness per se, but the question of division over what, over which causes.

My test is not "causes division", but rather "improves the human condition or not". We can go into fine details over "improves", but generally I'd go with "more benefits for more people".

Sowing and spewing hatred over lifestyles, condemning anyone who doesn't subscribe to your school of thought, and specially "send me your money and you'll be the good guys" ranks incredibly low in my books, in the neighborhood of ambulance chasers, insurance, payday loan and credit card issuers.

p.s. And I'm still not quite used to the usage of present tense in the titles like this... I see that he dies for a few days already. It's becoming a habit, perhaps?