>>> He latched on to the things that he favours. I didn't hear him say that the towers were destroyed and thousands killed because he (Fallwell) and his friends and followers are infidels, nor did I hear that it was because women wear short sleeves and are allowed to go to school. Once again, the bottom line is that Fallwell chose to spread hate regarding his own pet biases. Terrorist dogma has nothing to do with it. This is on him and him alone.
>
>>> Besides he attributed it to the fact that God was angry, not the terrorists.
>
>I hear ya! However I would insert the word "believes" in lieu of "favors". And I would hesitate to call deeply-held moral convictions as pet biases.

I guess the words one uses depends on one's own pet biases, sorry, beliefs. ;)

>
>I only wonder what you mean by spreading hate. Are you saying that because Falwell believed that the 9/11 attack was a punishment of God, that was spreading hate?

I'm saying that standing up in front of the world and his own followers and directly blaming it on gays is spreading hate and in fact, should be seen as incitation (is there such a word?)

>Again, I am not defending any wrong actions (or beliefs) on Falwell's part. I am only saying that his pronouncements were in line with his (and many Christian's) belief system. It seems to me that his pronouncement was more of a "See I told ya it was going to happen, but you wouldn't listen."

Makes no difference. If somebody believes that blacks or jews or aboriginals are inferior, and gets up in a public forum and blames horrible things on them, then I doubt anybody would be arguing that it is not 'spreading hate' just because the speaker believes it. The fact that somebody believes something does not mean that he can't be accused of spreading hate.

It is one thing to believe in whatever 'mythology' one likes. It is wholly another thing to use that belief as a bludgeon to cause harm to other people who do you no harm. When Fallwell said what he said, he was essentially saying the same thing about gays that terrorists say about folks like Fallwell. That they are infidels and unworthy to live amongst the faithful.

>Many Christians do believe that God is (was) angry with the immorality in America (especially since America has had the benefit of the gospel since its inception). This notion is in line with normal Christian belief. And quite often throughout the Bible, God used ungodly nations to punish immorallity (read about the
>conquests of the Babyaonian king, Nebuchadnezzar, for example).

No doubt many Christians do believe it. That is a sad but true fact. Just as Muslims believe that Fallwell is an infidel. Does that give Mullahs the right to incite their followers by condemning Fallwell and his followers, not to mention America? Personally I don't think so, but if it's ok for Fallwell then it should be just as acceptable for others who believe differently.

>Jeremiah 25:9
>Behold, I will send and take all the families of the north,’ says the LORD, ‘and Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, My servant, and will bring them against this land, against its inhabitants, and against these nations all around, and will utterly destroy them, and make them an astonishment, a hissing, and perpetual desolations.
>Jeremiah 25:8-10

>Ezekiel 26:7
>“For thus says the Lord GOD: ‘Behold, I will bring against Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses, with chariots, and with horsemen, and an army with many people.
>
>
>>> I just don't see any excuses being acceptable for this sort of behaviour - especially carefully picking and choosing how one might like to interpret terrorist pronouncements.
>
>It's amazing to me that you can pronounce certain behavior as inexcusable and berate Falwell for doing exactly the same thing. It all goes back to what you are willing to
>call good and what you see as evil.

Sorry, I think I missed something here. What I accuse Fallwell of is spreading hate. I don't recall condoning that activity for anybody.