(Warning: this post is a little more emotional than the norm here.)
Most atheist blogs, plus Christopher Hitchens on TV, have, naturally, denounced Falwell as the hateful bigot he was, instead of “a great man”, like most religious right conservatives keep parroting. The backlash from the latter has been seen, too: whether on TV against Hitchens (again), or in comments on atheist blogs, many people keep saying things like: “you might have disagreed with the man, but he’s just DIED, dammit. How can you be happy about it, you heartless monster? No matter what he did, his family and friends surely miss him. You atheists are really unfeeling, cruel monsters, speaking ill of a decent man, simply because you disagreed with him.”
It’s the old “dying turns people into saints” thing.
Let me see if I can make you at least begin to understand.
Now, I’m not saying Falwell was a child molester, but imagine — just pretend — that it was actually a well-known child molester1 who’d just died.
Would you, perchance, be saying things like:
- “yes, he did some bad things, but his death is still a loss to the world.”
- “you’ve got to consider the feelings of his family and friends first.”
- “he might have been wrong about a couple of things, but the main thing is that he was always true to his convictions, to the end.”
- “if you speak ill of him — even if you were one of his victims — you are still a heartless, hateful monster. The man’s died, dammit!”
Now… would you say such a thing about a child molester? Just because he died? Would he turn into a good, decent man, just because he is no more, he’s ceased to be, he’s expired and gone to meet his maker, he is a late child molester2, and all that?
The answer is probably no.
Now, what if, in addition to being a child molester, he had also been a reverend? Would you think differently of him?
If so, sorry to say, you’re both naïve, and a hypocrite, because you let anyone fool you, no matter his actions, just because he says “God” and “Jesus” often. Which, actually, is what many Americans do, sadly.
Now, as I said, Falwell wasn’t a child molester. But he did what he could, he did everything in his power — and succeeded, in many ways — to make life a living hell for many, many more innocent people than any child molester could ever victimize in his entire natural life. Falwell was a bigot. An agent of hate, of intolerance, of sexism, racism3, homophobia and fundamentalism. He spent his more than 70 years trying to make the world a worse place, trying to make life worse for a great number of people. It was not enough for him to hate them because of his bigotry; no, he had to convince half of America that the imaginary God they believe in also hated those people.
Is that forgivable? Or forgettable? Just because he died? Does death really turn a hateful monster into a saint, or at least a “harmless”, “worthy of respect” human being?
I don’t think so. People shouldn’t forget or forgive what this disgusting little man did, because there are others waiting in line to take his place this very moment. The battle against fundamentalism and intolerance is far from over… and far from won.
- avoided Godwin’s Law! Yes!
[↩] - couldn’t resist a Monty Python reference here. Sorry. [↩]
- yes, that too. He opposed the civil rights movement at the time, though he tried to hide that fact much later. [↩]
Related posts:
Subscribe to this blog
Wow. I can’t believe when reading that I though “you should have used Hitler as an analogy!”.
Good point as always though.
People used to celebrate when tyranny was overthrown.
IE the American Revolution.
Tyranny now is hidden for the most part.
IMO, we have enough brains to figure out if someone is a major problem in our society. KKK?
The battle you speak of doesn’t look like a battle that WILL be won. As long as people are willing to give their lives for others will, there will be others telling them it’s wrong.
Both are born every day I’m sure.
I think it distasteful to celebrate the death of Jerry Falwell, even as an atheist. I am a humanist, and therefore any human death is not worth celebrating in my opinion.
I’ll say he was a monster. I’ll say he was a bigot. I’ll say that our society will be paying for his works for years to come. But I won’t say “I’m glad he’s dead.” This isn’t about vapidly deciding that he’s suddenly a wonderful person because he’s dead now. It’s simply basic humanist mores. I know not all atheists are humanists but many are.
But refusing to celebrate someone’s death doesn’t mean I must celebrate their life. Jerry Falwell was a wicked, hateful, bigot. I’m glad he can do no further harm. But I’m sad he had to die for that to happen.
Not that he was right, but… lets look at examples of his intolerance for a minute.
If you truly believe something to be wrong what is the issue with being intolerant of it?
This entire site is intolerant of Christianity. In fact, I would say it is often hateful toward them. That said, if that is correct, this post would make you a bigot unless you would joyfully accept the same things being said about you.
No Way, you are employing a bit of slight of hand to say the least and to be overly polite about it. Pointing out that a barn is red instead of green, especially when it is of course red, is not an example of being intolerant of green. It is however an example of letting reality determine truth.
By omiting the connection to reality, to truth, you deny any meaning to the term “intolerance” and as such necessitate that your argument fails.
TXStorm,
Your post is right on… unfortunately neither you nor I are well equipped to speak of reality or truth. But, thanks for being overly polite.
Well I would ask that you set aside the gross and profound arrogance and only assume that you yourself are incapableof describing the more more simple aspectsof reality. I cannnot lie and pretend that I am unable to do likewaise..
Gross and profound Arrogance?
That’s beautiful. Even made me smile and it’s rare that an insult does that. Only one arrogant enough to think of any truly meaningful part of reality as “more simple” would see the humble acceptance that we don’t know as arrogant.
color of barns? Seems we have seen these analogies a while back on this same site. That posters questions weren’t answered either.
BTW, we can just stop. You are obviously a very intelligent person and should not feel any need to defend yourself or to correct any mistakes that may exist in my opinion of you.
No insult present or implied, simply a statement of fact about your assumption that I cannot speak of that which is true and certain knowledge. You have no knowledge whatsoever of my experience or my abilities, especially those so mundane as those you dismiss. Therefore your assumption of omniscience is profound and arrogant, making the observation made wholly accurate, nothing more.
Humilty does not require denying what one actually knows, only not pretending to know what one does not. So for instance were you interested in humility you would have refrained from presuming that you know all of my own experience, my abilities, and my knowledge. Do I need to point out that you chose another path entirely?
I do not care about your opinion of me, especially as you have explicitly stated that you have no interest in knowledge or reality. I choose to refute your insults and false assertions for those who read but do not post. Believe what you will, ignore questions, analogies, and refutations all you like, but know that there are many who do not post but who do read who appreciate the use of reason including the refutations and noting of the absence of answers to key questions. It is telling…
Sorry, but my statement doesn’t require a knowledge of you in any way, only of the human condition. There are things you think you know that I simply disagree with the assertion that you know them. It is simply a matter of what you require as evidence.
Your claim was that I as an individual cannot speak of reality, yet I do this every day of my life, and will continue to do so. Pretending that I am incapable of this because I am human in no way disproves your presumptions of omniscience and the profound arrogance, necessarily based in equally profound ignorance, upon which your entire posts depend.
Rather than presuming that you know my life and my abilities better than I, rather than engaging in ad hominem, why not offer something on topic and constructive?
I set the highest possible standards for evidence, and yes I understand that this is where we disagree, but that you choose something else entirely in no way changes the nature of reality, or of knowledge. Do not continue to make the mistake of assuming you alone know all and therefore wherever reality disagrees with you, reality must be mistaken. Reality is always right..
[quote post="263"]I set the highest possible standards for evidence, and yes I understand that this is where we disagree, but that you choose something else entirely in no way changes the nature of reality, or of knowledge. Do not continue to make the mistake of assuming you alone know all and therefore wherever reality disagrees with you, reality must be mistaken. Reality is always right..[/quote]
Yes, this is where we disagree. I simply do not think that you come close to setting the hightest possible standards for evidience.
Neither of our choices as to what constitutes “proof” can have any impact on reality.
“Do not continue to make the mistake of assuming you alone know all and therefore wherever reality disagrees with you, reality must be mistaken. Reality is always right..” Give me a F’n break!!! Only an idiot would assume that that is true could be mistaken. Never have I claimed to know all. Throw your F’n logic books away and go experience life until you get some real understanding of it.
BTW, if you want to argue that I don’t know anything of your experience to this point, save it. All that means it that you didn’t through your F’n logic books away. Instead, tell me what you have experienced that makes my observations inadequate.
Ah, more presumptions of omniscience… lovely. I have and continue to experience life daily. I will not explain nor justify my life to you, especially as it has no bearing on the topic of the thread, but that does not change the fact that I have this far lived a very interesting and quite varied life. Your assumption that anyone who can employ sound reasoning must never have lived is simply a silly and false one.
BTW the tactic you are employing is a rather simplistic one which sets yourself up as the only judge for what counts as “experience” and what counts as “truth.” Here is where we truly differ, for as I noted rather than setting a standard of proof as you have, as merely agreeing with some personal desired conclusion, I choose to allow reality to determine truth. Only when a statement agrees with that which actually is, can it be deemed to be true. With that, I am going to leave off this as it appears to me that you are merely trolling as you offered nothing so far but personal attacks and bold baseless proclamations.
Experiencing something, and making your decision on what it was you experienced, does not mean that your understanding of that experience is correct any more than reading a sentence means that you understand it. If you mis-interpret a sentence or a given life experience you have missed “reality” and misunderstood “truth”. To presume that your interpretation of anything beyond the most simple of things is “reality” or “truth” is simply ego.
I do not claim to understand what counts as experience or truth. I wish I did but I don’t think so.
I think the statement “Only when a statement agrees with that which actually is, can it be deemed to be true.” should be more properly worded as “Only when a statement agrees with my personal interpretation of what I have actually experience will I deem it to be true.” Which, by the way, is exactly what the religious fanatics should be saying. (I find if funny how the arguments of those on either extreme are basically the same).
please understand that TXStorm had been banned.
I do not want future readers to think that he choose not to respond because he was defeated or believes he is wrong. I wish to make it clear that I do not think he would have backed down yet (or ever) and nobody should draw any conclusions from a lack of a response on his (or her, not sure) part.