>When we dare to attempt to define 'good' we must first ask, "By whose yardstick?" Failure to do this has been the cause of real confusion in America with regard to the constant and violent clash between the 'left' and the 'right' in our society.
>
>It can be observed that those on the 'right', such as Jerry Falwell, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Pat Robertson, (the list goes on ....) generally ascribe to a conservative code of morality and ethics which derives its direction from the Judeao-Christian foundation, as shaped and molded by the Bible.
>
>Those on the left, (i.e. Grorge Soros, Ted Kennedy, Alan Combes, Nancy Pelosi, etc) with liberal leanings, have embraced a concept of 'goodness' that departs drastically from the strict adherance to Judeo-Christian leanings, at least from a literal interpretation of the Bible as 'the Word of God' to be obeyed in an empirical sense.
>
>Because the root of the differences between these two camps is idelogical, and even religious or spiritual in nature, the chasm bewtween the two becomes nearly impossible to bridge.
>
>When we examine a man, such as Jerry Falwell, in an attempt to determine if he was a 'good' man, we must first ask ourselves which yardstick are we using?
>
>The definition of 'goodness' is filtered through the respective mindset of the hearer and means drastically different things, depending on your cultural (ie. ethical, moral, spiritual, idelogical, poltical, philosophical, ... you choose the term) leanings.
>
>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.
>
>Whether your 'yardstick' stands up to scrutiny, I will leave for you and the other members of this forum to decide. What I will do, however, is point out that Falwell, by being divisive, was adhering to the dictates of his religion as he saw it.
>
>As for diviseness, Falwell followed good example. Note the words of Christ:
>
>Matthew 10:34 (New King James Version) “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword."
>
>Christ knew that His message (ie. self-denial, righteousness, holy living, strict obedience to the scriptures, etc.) was not going to be embraced by society at large, and that the intrduction of the gospel into human society would cause drastic and violent diviseness. Yet He introduced it nonetheless.
>
>So by your yardstick, Christ was not a 'good' man.

Didn't Christ instist that religion and secular things be separated? All that "Render unto Caesar.." business? Fallwell insisted that they be merged and that secular powers be regulated by the religious right. If we accept Jesus as a good man, then what does this say about Fallwell?