Falwell, for all his intent, does not speak for Republicans or the Republican party. He can create all the movements and commitees he likes, it doesn't change the fact that many of us conservatives view him as a nut.

I could start a national organization proclaiming me the head of internet based values: that doesn't make it so.

So let him do his craziness, just don't blanket the rest of Republicans as his misguided sheep. And I promise I wont label liberals as followers of David Duke. Sound like a deal?

I didn't blanket Republicans, I referred to Evangelicals. The only reference to Republicans were in the news article which I simply quoted in it's entirety. And while I agree Falwell is a nutcase (wasn't he the one who said God let 9/11 happen because of all the homos and abortionists ?), he does have probably a million or so followers at least, and who knows how many will join this new group.

If a significant majority of evangelists support him, then I guess he could be representative of evangelists. If not, then might as well say that the terroristic Muslims who hate Jews represent the entire group who criticizes Israel. Also, if none of that is unconstitutional, then what's the problem?

He can claim and try to do anything he wants. His rights are no more, nor less than yours. But that does not mean he will suceed. Falwell is an honorable, if misguided man. And 10% of the electorate is not going to set public policy. If you are going to be scared of Falwell leading the direction of the country, then we can profess profound fear that the communist would lead it if a democrat was elected. Both scenarios are mere hyperbole.

Dr. Guy, I live in Virginia where Falwell and Robertson are both based. They do know how to get things done, and I have seen them change public policy on the local level. Misguided or not, people listen to him. I even know someone who worked on his presidential campaign, if you're old enough to remember that far back.

People listen to David Duke, that doesn't make me think that he will influence American policy. I think you're kinda jumping the gun here and stirring up things that aren't really that big.

Reply #5 By: Psikotik - 11/10/2004 3:53:06 PM Dr. Guy, I live in Virginia where Falwell and Robertson are both based. They do know how to get things done, and I have seen them change public policy on the local level. Misguided or not, people listen to him. I even know someone who worked on his presidential campaign, if you're old enough to remember that far back

On a local level I'd have to say he might be able to do something. But VA is not the entire US. And there aren't enough nut-jobs that buy into his evangelical BS to make what he's talking about possible.

d3adz0mbie (your name is hard to type ) - Not near as many people listen to David Duke as listen to Falwell and others like him. That isn't a fair comparison. But If I remember right even a rascist like Duke was able to get enough support to run for office.

drmiler - Are you old enough to remember the Moral Majority and the reasonable bit of influence they had during their heydays in the 80's? It's trying to make a comeback, but with the country divided and polarized (which it wasn't under Reagan). Look at hot issues like gay marriage, even just here on this site there's tons of posts and venom flying around. People calling each other bigots, homosexuality being compared to bestiality. This is the kind of environment a movement like this could gain a foothold and make significant inroads into the mainstream on a national level.

Reply #8 By: Psikotik - 11/10/2004 4:13:39 PM d3adz0mbie (your name is hard to type ) - Not near as many people listen to David Duke as listen to Falwell and others like him. That isn't a fair comparison. But If I remember right even a rascist like Duke was able to get enough support to run for office. drmiler - Are you old enough to remember the Moral Majority and the reasonable bit of influence they had during their heydays in the 80's? It's trying to make a comeback, but with the country divided and polarized (which it wasn't under Reagan).

I'm probabably as old as you, or older (49). The moral majority will NOT happen again. I'll reuse something I wrote on a different topic. Only 22% of the voting public claimed they made their decision on moral grounds. Which means LESS than 1/4 of americans (at least those that voted) thinks that what your talking about is important. Last time I looked 25% isn't enough. And while I'm thinking about it. Name one thing that the *moral majority* accomplished that is still in effect today.

Just call me zombie if you like.
I see your point. I just think that realistically, the religious right has far less power than people are giving them credit for.
The issue of gay marriage isnt actually about gays in this past election cycle. It's actually about the definition of marriage. Many married couples want marriage defined as between a woman and a man. Many married couples backing this definition are also supporters of civil unions for homosexuals, a completely different issue.
As for people comparing homosexuality to beastiality, they have a minor point at some basic, moral level. The majority of citizens do follow some off-shoot of Christianity, and do label homosexual acts as sinful. But to make the point the go overboard; homosexuality is to beastiality as lying is to beastiality - its all sin from the Christian perspective. Its uncalled for to use these tactics, it would be like me admonishing my children for telling a white lie by comparing them to rapists.

What so many followers ofthe Christian faith have forgotten, is to love the sinner, hate the sin. Christs teachings are, in the end, all about love. Loving God, loving each other, and loving yourself. So often this gets confused. People think hating homosexuality as a sin means hating homosexuals. Nothing could be farther from Christianities teachings. Christ himself spent time all sorts of sinners, not to condemn THEM, but to accept them as people he loved, people that he would die for.
And thats the question I cant help but ask whenever I see someone hating someone for their sin. Instead of hating them, shouldnt you follow Christs example and be willing to sacrifice for them? Even die for them?

Ok drmiler, you got me in the age dept, I'm 36 . And I agree that the the Moral Majority didn't have long-lasting effects, but in their time they were able to stifle and intimidate a lot of people/companies that didn't agree with them. And again this is a different environment now with with a more polarized society in which the potential for long lasting effects are higher. Bush and Congressional Republicans (and some Dems, I'm not blaming it all on Republicans) are already talking gay-marriage ban again (which if memory serves you are for).
And it also empowers these groups when the President say things like:
"What I found interesting is the Baptist form of church government was a model of democracy even before the founding of America." -- Remarks Via Satellite to the Southern Baptist Convention 2002 Annual Meeting, 11 June 2002
"Justice and cruelty have always been at war, and God is not neutral between them. His purposes are often defied, but never defeated." -- Radio Address to the Nation, 30 March 2002
"Since America's founding, prayer has reassured us that the hand of God is guiding the affairs of this nation." -- Address to National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast, 16 May 2002

On a local level I'd have to say he might be able to do something. But VA is not the entire US. And there aren't enough nut-jobs that buy into his evangelical BS to make what he's talking about possible.

What can a little hammer do to huge pile of rocks?

It could knock off a critical rock then the whole thing could come crashing down. That is something we should keep a eye on and make sure it don't "knock off a critical rock" and cause a massive paradigm shift.

zombie- That was an honest and well written answer from the Christian perspective. I haven't seen much of the "Hate the sin, Love the sinner" attitude around here and it is refreshing. While I humbly disagree with you (what can I say I'm a bleeding-heart liberal), I can appreciate your views. Thank you for presenting them in a reasoned manner. I have to give you an insightful for that one.

It's too late to tell us you told us so, it has already happened. It happened about 230 years ago. America's basic laws were founded in Christian morals. They were begot from the Ten Commandments, then expanded upon. I'm sorry to have to tell you this. LIGHTEN UP. The far right will never, ever have the amount of power you fear they might. Most people understand morals, live by them, consciously or not. There are not enough zealots out there to pass law. Taking the extreme approach with any law will never work in this country, so don't worry yourself. The same goes for the far left. The extremes are too much for the majority of the populace. It's actually a waste of breath to analyze.

Sorry Falwell, but you gained nada in this election. Despite some chest - thumping, the nation won't be returning to Christian values any time soon, though I wish it would.