Personally, I think Jerry Falwell, with all his good intentions, was disastrous for the political system of this country. Having written that, I also think it is plain wrong how it is politically acceptable to say such mean negative things about christianity and christians that could NEVER be said about any other group. If such things were openly stated about liberals, gays, republicans, or any other group, it would slammed on every news station as unacceptable. Discussion and debate are healthy, personal vicious attacks are destructive.



>>> How about sexual orientation? How many of his staff do you figure are gay?
>
>Ah ... now you are talking a different story. Most mainstream Christians have maintained since the beginning, that God has extablished laws and commandments that must govern sexual behavior. I know this is an extremely volitile subject, and has become more so in the last several decades. There are several social (Christians call them moral) issues that Christians maintain strong views on that have increasingly gone against the grain of modern society.
>
>These include hosexuality, abortion, prayer in schools, separation of church and state, etc. The fact that Christians have come under fire of late is because society is changing. Christians have maintained the same belief system since the Apostle Paul derided homosexuality in the first chapter of his letter to the Romans in the 1st century A.D.
>
>I admit that Falwell and other Christian leaders have come down very strongly on some of these issues. It is because they are seen as behaviorial choices. I was defending Falwell against what appeared to be slanderous accusations against his view toward blacks and other minorities.
>
>
>>> Look, bluntly, the bottom line is that he stood (or sat, I suppose) in front of the world and declared that the towers were destroyed and thousands killed, directly because of gay people (and others). That is an incitement for his followers. That is on record. It is who he was. I can't see any reason for anyone to apologise for believing (and saying) that someone who spreads hate as a normal part of his evangelism, is not a good man.
>
>I understand how you feel and agree with you in principle. However, to put this more into context, I can see how Falwell arrived at this conclusion. I remember hearing, shortly after 9/11, when America was asking "WHY!?", that an Islamic group stated publicly that one of the reasons Muslims hate America, and one of the justifications for the attack, is because of America's corruption. They see the western way of life, with its sexual depravity and ungodly (i.e. secular) mindset as an unwanted and highly negative invasion of their culture.
>
>Well, guess what. This is the same message that Christian leaders have been trumpeting for decades. For years, Christian leaders have been saying to America, "If you keep up this kind of behavior, God will punish." (I remember one leader, 20 or so years ago, stating that if God didn't punish America, he would owe an apology to Sodom and Gomorrah. I chuckled at the time. In hind sight, it is kind of sobering.)
>
>So Falwell's conclusion, as muddy as it may have been, was gounded somewhat in fact. Along comes a terrorist group who "punishes" America for its moral failings. You can see how a Christian leader such as Falwell would arrive at his conclusion. We may disagree, but he is entitled to his opinion, which, by the way, was handed to him on a silver platter by the Muslim pronouncement.
>
>As the internet, TV and Hollywood movies spread like a flood across the world, Muslims feel they have to do something to combat the tide. While Christians merely stand in their pulpits and denounce the behavior, Islamists do something about it.
>
>I know that this view is rather simplistic, and that there are many other reasons why Muslims hate the west (including Israel), at least we can see how Falwell, latching onto this one facet of the issue, would come to the conclusions that he did.