orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (12/03/85)
Has anybody noticed the typical double standard applied by the media?
We all know that the fact that Louis Farrakhan, an anti-semite,
supported Jesse Jackson was a source of great contention and howls
of indignation: when would Jackson disavow Farrakhan?
He did of course disavow Farrakhan and apologize for antisemitic
remarks in a very emotional speech at the Democratic National
Convention.
But did anybody ever ask when Ronald Reagan was going to disavow
Jerry Falwell? After all, as Farrakhan had worked to bring
Jackson votes, Falwell worked and helped bring Ronald Reagan
some 74% of the Fundamentalist vote. Did we hear any pundits
calling for Reagan to disavow Falwell? Do we now?
Of course not.
Just as the Reagan administration could have its present Attorney
General allowed to forego mortgage payments for some 30 months
with scarcely a slap on the wrist, could have the Secretary of
Labor resign after being indicted, could have Anne Burford
arranging sweetheart deals with polluters, could refuse to
pay the payments to the disabled required by Congress and lower
courts for two years and who gets accused of "scandal"?
Geraldine Ferraro.
Again, *I* will ask the question the media pundits refuse to ask:
when will Ronald Reagan disavow Jerry Falwell?
tim sevener whuxn!orbark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) (12/06/85)
Tim Sevener asks: > Again, *I* will ask the question the media pundits refuse to ask: > when will Ronald Reagan disavow Jerry Falwell? I will answer his question with a question: Why *should* Ronald Reagan disavow Jerry Falwell? No hearsay evidence, please.
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (12/06/85)
> [Tim Sevener] > Has anybody noticed the typical double standard applied by the media? > We all know that the fact that Louis Farrakhan, an anti-semite, > supported Jesse Jackson was a source of great contention and howls > of indignation: when would Jackson disavow Farrakhan? > He did of course disavow Farrakhan and apologize for antisemitic > remarks in a very emotional speech at the Democratic National > Convention. > > But did anybody ever ask when Ronald Reagan was going to disavow > Jerry Falwell? After all, as Farrakhan had worked to bring > Jackson votes, Falwell worked and helped bring Ronald Reagan > some 74% of the Fundamentalist vote. Did we hear any pundits > calling for Reagan to disavow Falwell? Do we now? > Of course not. > [Stuff Omitted] > Again, *I* will ask the question the media pundits refuse to ask: > when will Ronald Reagan disavow Jerry Falwell? ------ Come on Tim. You're comparing apples and oranges. A right-wing equivalent to Farrakhan would be a racist organization such as the KKK. Jerry Falwell may be a narrow minded zealot trying to force feed the rest of us with his rather peculiar ideas, but he does not preach racism. I personally considered Reagan's relationship with the religious right my main reason for voting for Mondale. But Falwell is not in the same league with Farrakhan and the KKK. Falwell may be a greater threat than Farrakhan, but only because of the greater degree of his support. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
dave@cylixd.UUCP (Dave Kirby) (12/06/85)
In article <413@whuts.UUCP> orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >Has anybody noticed the typical double standard applied by the media? >We all know that Louis Farrakhan... supported Jesse Jackson... >He did of course disavow Farrakhan... >... >When will Ronald Reagan disavow Jerry Falwell? You will have to wait until Falwell does something as politically embarrassing to Reagan as Farrakhan did to Jackson. I thought for sure Falwell's self-appointed ambassage to South Africa would be the last straw, but apparently Falwell's support for the Apartheid government does not embarrass Reagan. Hmmm.... ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Kirby ( ...!ihnp4!akgub!cylixd!dave) (My opinions are generally embarrassing to everybody.)
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (12/09/85)
> > [Tim Sevener] > > Again, *I* will ask the question the media pundits refuse to ask: > > when will Ronald Reagan disavow Jerry Falwell? > ------ > Come on Tim. You're comparing apples and oranges. A right-wing > equivalent to Farrakhan would be a racist organization such as the > KKK. Jerry Falwell may be a narrow minded zealot trying to force > feed the rest of us with his rather peculiar ideas, but he does > not preach racism. I personally considered Reagan's relationship > with the religious right my main reason for voting for Mondale. > But Falwell is not in the same league with Farrakhan and the KKK. > Falwell may be a greater threat than Farrakhan, but only because > of the greater degree of his support. > -- > Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan I suppose I would have to agree that Falwell is not explicitly racist anymore, although 20 years ago he was in the forefront of those opposing desegregation. I believe this is because Falwell now believes that being avowedly racist is no longer palatable. Possibly Falwell has genuinely changed his convictions - that is hard to say since Falwell is an out and out liar. (Case in point: Falwell was successfully sued for $5000 when he offered $5000 on TV for anybody who could prove that he had attacked a gay preacher. The very next day somebody obtained the videotape in which Falwell attacked a gay preacher, filed a suit in court and won. I find it incredible that Falwell should be willing to lie so brazenly:on TV when the evidence of his lying was so well-documented!!) But regardless of precisely how *awful* Falwell is, and I think that encouraging book-burnings, hatred towards gays, the current regime in South Africa, supporting Marcos after he probably assassinated his major opposition, and so forth is bad enough to totally oppose, the question still remains: why hasn't the media asked when Reagan will *disavow* Falwell? It seems this is related to the media's reluctance to point out Reagan's horrendous positions on civil liberties. Except for the NYTimes and NPR the local papers around here have scarcely mentioned Meese's incredible statements that the Bill of Rights do not apply to the states, that the fact a suspect is arrested is proof enough of their guilt (they wouldn't be arrested unless they were *guilty* said Meese!!!). The media have scarcely mentioned the denial of visas to travel to Cuba under the pretext that such travel is a violation of the *economic* embargo against Cuba. (when will this also be invoked against citizens traveling to Nicaragua?) Reagan's administration originally planned to give many government employees lie detector tests, and wished to force them to give an oath saying they would not divulge anything they had learned in government even after leaving the government, for the rest of their life if the govt wanted. (fortunately Congress shot this idea down) In line with this the Reagan administration has just successfully prosecuted Samuel Morrison for publishing Defense Dept. photographs even while admitting that it revealed absolutely nothing to the Soviets, but only informed the rest of the world. This puts all whistleblowers on notice that they can be prosecuted if they reveal "secret" details of wasted money on govt contracts. This is related because the views of Falwell and his fundamentalist followers are a direct threat to freedom of speech in this country. tim sevener whuxn!orb
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (12/09/85)
> Tim Sevener asks: > > > Again, *I* will ask the question the media pundits refuse to ask: > > when will Ronald Reagan disavow Jerry Falwell? > > I will answer his question with a question: > > Why *should* Ronald Reagan disavow Jerry Falwell? > > No hearsay evidence, please. For the same reason that the media pundits kept asking when Jesse Jackson would disavow Louis Farrakhan: because Falwell gave Reagan political support, because Reagan has closely associated himself with the fundamentalists like Falwell by speaking numerous times at Evangelical breakfasts, like the one held before the Republican National Convention (for the express purpose of influencing that Convention), because Falwell and fundamentalists conducted a voter registration drive to recruit new fundamentalist voters for Reagan. Reagan has endorsed the political aims of the fundamentalists for prayer in schools, government subsidies to private religious schools,etc. As a result of Falwell and other fundamentalists' support of Reagan, he achieved well over 70% of the fundamentalist vote. If it can be asked why Jesse Jackson hadn't disavowed Louis Farrakhan until the Democratic National Convention when Farrakhan brought Jackson black votes and black campaign workers, it can be asked why Reagan has yet to repudiate Falwell with Falwell's political support via votes, campaign workers in the last election, and $$$$$$$. What's good for the goose is good for the gander! tim sevener whuxn!orb
rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (12/10/85)
Tim,
your continued use of fundamentalist to mean both evangelical and
fundamentalist needs some correction. I wish you would research
the terminology you are using and elucidate the differences for us
as I don't have the time right now.
Thanks,
Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (12/12/85)
> > I will answer his question with a question: > > [Andy Koenig, I think] > > Why *should* Ronald Reagan disavow Jerry Falwell? > > > > No hearsay evidence, please. ------- > [Tim Sevener] > For the same reason that the media pundits kept asking when Jesse > Jackson would disavow Louis Farrakhan: because Falwell gave Reagan > political support, because Reagan has closely associated himself > with the fundamentalists like Falwell by speaking numerous times > at Evangelical breakfasts, like the one held before the Republican > National Convention (for the express purpose of influencing that > Convention), because Falwell and fundamentalists conducted a > voter registration drive to recruit new fundamentalist voters for > Reagan. Reagan has endorsed the political aims of the fundamentalists > for prayer in schools, government subsidies to private religious > schools,etc. ----- Oh, there you go again, Tim. Your answer seems to be that Reagan should denounce Falwell because Falwell takes the same positions as Reagan! Brilliant! Why not just ask Reagan to denounce himself? (And, of course, Nancy, too.-) My God! Influencing the convention. Recruiting voters. What horrible crimes! ----- > If it can be asked why Jesse Jackson hadn't disavowed Louis Farrakhan > until the Democratic National Convention when Farrakhan brought Jackson > black votes and black campaign workers, it can be asked why Reagan > has yet to repudiate Falwell with Falwell's political support via > votes, campaign workers in the last election, and $$$$$$$. ------ To repeat, Jackson was asked to denounce Farrakhan solely because of Farrakhan's racist statements. You have yet to demonstrate why REAGAN should denounce Falwell. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
pmd@cbsck.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) (12/13/85)
>Tim, >your continued use of fundamentalist to mean both evangelical and >fundamentalist needs some correction. I wish you would research >the terminology you are using and elucidate the differences for us >as I don't have the time right now. >Thanks, >Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb} "Fundamentalist" is a pejorative term. As such, it serves a purpose which and accurate elucidation of the distinction would thwart. -- Paul Dubuc cbsck!pmd \/-\ /\-/
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (12/14/85)
> Tim, > your continued use of fundamentalist to mean both evangelical and > fundamentalist needs some correction. I wish you would research > the terminology you are using and elucidate the differences for us > as I don't have the time right now. > Thanks, > Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb} You have a good point, Bob. Just as it is invalid to talk of either all Arabs, all Jews, Germans or any other group, so it is invalid to talk of "all fundamentalists". Actually there are many fundamentalist Christians who totally disagree with the policies supported by Falwell, including Billy Graham. Sojourners magazine is a Christian magazine which also includes articles by Billy Graham and other fundamentalists as well as various Christian denominations which take a stand against war and violence by both West and East, both right and left. Sojourners sponsored a demonstration by these groups in Washington which (per usual) attracted little media attention protesting both the terrorist violence of the contras in Nicaragua and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. However out of the fundamentalists there are many influenced by Falwell who were persuaded to vote for Reagan through Falwell's endorsement. I used the blanket term "fundamentalist" as a shorthand for this group, which was not fair to other fundamentalist Christians who have been conscientious objectors opposed to War, and opposed to violence of all sorts and racism. I will be more careful in the future. tim sevener whuxn!orb
lazarus@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Andrew J &) (12/16/85)
"Fundamentalist" is not at all pejorative; it is used by fundamentalists themselves and refers to a literal belief in the Bible. Evangelist and evangelical are not equivalent to fundamentalist; they imply dissemination of Christian thought. Fundamentalist may just seem pejorative because of the particular political beliefs of some of its most visible examples. andy
pmd@cbsck.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) (12/16/85)
>"Fundamentalist" is not at all pejorative; it is used by fundamentalists >themselves and refers to a literal belief in the Bible. Evangelist and >evangelical are not equivalent to fundamentalist; they imply dissemination >of Christian thought. > >Fundamentalist may just seem pejorative because of the particular political >beliefs of some of its most visible examples. ... and the way it is used by those who style themselves as the enemies of those political beliefs. Come now. When you hear someone called a "fundamentalist" do you precieve it as a complement (or even as being neutral)? Are those so labeled being cast in a favorable light? The very definition of "pejorative" has to do with what "seems" derogatory as opposed to its orininal connotation. I undertand that, in the strictest sense, the term "fundamentalist" is not inherently derogatory. But the popular use is its pejorative sense. Call someone a fundamentalist and others automatically pick up the stereotype. >andy -- Paul Dubuc cbsck!pmd \/-\ /\-/
mahoney@bach.DEC (12/16/85)
---------------------Reply to mail dated 12-DEC-1985 06:26--------------------- >------ >To repeat, Jackson was asked to denounce Farrakhan solely because of >Farrakhan's racist statements. You have yet to demonstrate why >REAGAN should denounce Falwell. >-- >Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan What do you call Mr Falwell's views on South Africa and the Bishop Tutu? Personally I thought they were racist and stupid. Now do you just call them stupid well then just for the stupidity of what he said Reagan should disavow him. (I don't have the quotes on me right now but if neccesary I will go to the library and look them up). The group I feel the sorriest for in all this are the Fundementalists. I have heard and talked to Fundementalist who believe that Jerry Falwell is quite simply power hungry. I do not think, though I have have no proof, that the majority of the Fundementalists agree with Mr Falwell. The Moral Majority is not all the Fundementalists which is what most people in this country believe. Brian Mahoney "Another liberal run rampent"
kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) (12/17/85)
In article <1476@ihlpg.UUCP> tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) writes: >To repeat, Jackson was asked to denounce Farrakhan solely because of >Farrakhan's racist statements. You have yet to demonstrate why >REAGAN should denounce Falwell. Falwell has made many rediculous statements that offends sections of our society. His annoucement that AIDS is a punishment by God leveled against the homosexual community is a good example. Anyone that disagrees with Falwell is attacked as being an immoral anti-american. The type of intolerance expoused by Jerry Falwell is the same as that of Farrakhan. The only difference between to two religious leaders is the color of their audience and the objects of their hate.
rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (12/17/85)
While no particular fan of Mr Falwell, why is it that when his
name appears in print it must be qualified by the adjectives
"Right Wing, Fundamentalist Rev. Jerry Falwell" ?
When we see Ted Kennedy's name printed it is "Senator Ted Kennedy."
To be fair, why not "Left Wing, Liberal Senator Kennedy" ??
Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}bnapl@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) (12/18/85)
In article <uscvax.102> kurtzman@usc-cse.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) writes: >Falwell has made many rediculous statements that offends sections of our >society. His annoucement that AIDS is a punishment by God leveled against >the homosexual community is a good example. As a minister of the Gospel, Falwell is called to speak God's truth to a unbelieving world. You may not want to believe that disease (AIDS) is a result of man's sinful condition, but clearly Falwell does and is compelled to remind the world of this. >Anyone that disagrees with >Falwell is attacked as being an immoral anti-american. The type of >intolerance expoused by Jerry Falwell is the same as that of Farrakhan. The >only difference between to two religious leaders is the color of their >audience and the objects of their hate. I have never heard Falwell attach anyone as anti-american simply because they disagree. Indeed, Ted Kennedy was received rather warmly at Liberty Baptist College when he was there to speak. Kennedy and Falwell certainly disagree politically, but I don't think he would consider the Senator anti-american. You've been reading too much of what the liberal press says Falwell believes rather than listening to what he really says. -- / / / Tom Albrecht Burroughs Corp. ===/ / /=== ...{presby|psuvax1|sdcrdcf}!burdvax!bnapl ===/ / /=== ===/ / /=== / / / "We apologize for the inconvenience"
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (12/19/85)
> > While no particular fan of Mr Falwell, why is it that when his > name appears in print it must be qualified by the adjectives > "Right Wing, Fundamentalist Rev. Jerry Falwell" ? > > When we see Ted Kennedy's name printed it is "Senator Ted Kennedy." > > To be fair, why not "Left Wing, Liberal Senator Kennedy" ?? > > > Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb} why not? And why not say: "right-wing reactionary President Reagan"? That would be saying it like it is. I am not embarrassed to call myself a liberal or leftist. tim sevener whuxn!orb
kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) (12/19/85)
>To repeat, Jackson was asked to denounce Farrakhan solely because of >Farrakhan's racist statements. > >Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan Actually, Jackson was asked to denounce Farrakhan for two reasons: 1) Farrakhan's racist statements. 2) Jackson is black. The call for Jackson to denounce Farrakhan, while not necessarily racist in motive, had racist overtones. A similar event occurred in LA when people started demanding that Tom Bradley denounce Farrakhan. It was a deliberate attempt by republican forces in this state to make Tom Bradley look bad. In case you don't know about California politics, Tom Bradley (democrat, black, mayor of LA) barely lost the governorship to George "Duke" Dukmejian (republican, white). The margin of victory for Duke was the same as the percentage of democrats that said they could not vote for a black man. In short, the last election was decided in large part due to racism. With another election coming up, and Bradley not yet having announced the political dirty tricks and smear campaigns are starting.
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (12/19/85)
> > >"Fundamentalist" is not at all pejorative; it is used by fundamentalists > >themselves and refers to a literal belief in the Bible. Evangelist and > >evangelical are not equivalent to fundamentalist; they imply dissemination > >of Christian thought. > > > >Fundamentalist may just seem pejorative because of the particular political > >beliefs of some of its most visible examples. > > ... and the way it is used by those who style themselves as the enemies > of those political beliefs. Come now. When you hear someone called a > "fundamentalist" do you precieve it as a complement (or even as being neutral)? > Are those so labeled being cast in a favorable light? > > The very definition of "pejorative" has to do with what "seems" derogatory > as opposed to its orininal connotation. I undertand that, in the strictest > sense, the term "fundamentalist" is not inherently derogatory. But the > popular use is its pejorative sense. Call someone a fundamentalist and > others automatically pick up the stereotype. > > >andy > -- > Paul Dubuc cbsck!pmd \/-\ Maybe the bad associations with the term "fundamentalist" comes from the absurdity of their claims. When fundamentalists say they take the Bible "literally" and then go on to launch ridiculous attacks on known facts of science such as evolution, they look pretty absurd. Do fundamentalists take Christ's admonition to "preach the Gospel in the four corners of the Earth" as evidence for a flat Earth? Why not? Do they take the Bible literally or not? Or how about this passage from Joshua 10:13: "Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon, and thou Moon in the valley of Ai'jalon." And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stayed the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day. This passage and others were used by fundamentalists who took the Bible literally as late as 1893 to argue that the *SUN* moved around the Earth and the Earth stayed still. Currently similar absurdities are being hurled as "refutations" of evolution. Is it any wonder such beliefs incur ridicule and pejorative associations? tim sevener whuxn!orb
stim@fluke.UUCP (Randy Stimpson) (12/19/85)
In article <438@whuts.UUCP> orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >> Tim, >> your continued use of fundamentalist to mean both evangelical and >> fundamentalist needs some correction. I wish you would research >> the terminology you are using and elucidate the differences for us >> as I don't have the time right now. >> Thanks, >> Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb} Fundamentalist has both broad and narrow denotations. In the broadest sense it refers to those Christians which believe the Bible to be infallible or a least have a very conservative approach to the scriptures. This definition includes most evangelicals. More and more though fundamentalism is taken to mean the Electronic Church (which many fundamentalist deeply regret), and those that totally embrace the materialistic and militeristic ideals of right wing america -- so much for not being "conformed to the pattern of this world", Romans 12. The distinction between Evangelicals and Fundamentalists is diminishing. Pre-civil war Evangelicalism was quite distinc from Fundamentalism. They were without doubt social activists. Finney (an Evangelist) practically equated social action with repentence. The Evangelicals were the driving force behind the abolition of slavery. They were actively involved in smuggling slaves though the underground railroad -- they practically were the underground railroad. One Evangelical college even boasted that they had never lost a free slave to the athorities. Paradoxically the Evangelicals even spearheaded the feminist movement. Fundamentalists generally tended to condone slavery at that time and were not equated with social activism. [tim sevener] >is invalid to talk of "all fundamentalists". Actually there >are many fundamentalist Christians who totally disagree with >the policies supported by Falwell, including Billy Graham. >Sojourners magazine is a Christian magazine which also includes >articles by Billy Graham and other fundamentalists as well as >various Christian denominations which take a stand against >war and violence by both West and East, both right and left. While there are fundamentalist that contribute to Sojourners this is not to say that they are fundamentalist. Many of the refer to themselves as "X-fundamentalist" of "new fundamentalist." It's actually kind of hard to put your finger on what kind of Christians the Sojourners are. They seem to attract Christians from liberal, conservative, fundamentalist, evangelical, and catholict traditions; and other things like menonites, quakers, pentecostals and who knows what else. I think they would most closely identify themselves with pre-civil war Evangelicals. They generally refer to themselves as radical evangelicals -- after the tradition of Finney, or as belonging to the new abolisionist (of nuclear weapons) movement. They are definately one of the most interesting Christian groups out there. Wall Street Journal reported them as having an "influence on U.S. policy in great disproportion to there numbers." Randy Stimpson
john@cisden.UUCP (John Woolley) (12/20/85)
In article <32@decwrl.UUCP> mahoney@bach.DEC writes: > What do you call Mr Falwell's views on South Africa and the Bishop >Tutu? Personally I thought they were racist and stupid. > > (I don't have the quotes on me right now >but if neccesary I will go to the library and look them up). Now I'm hardly a big fan of Jerry Falwell's, but *racist*? Come on. If anyone has an actual racist quotation from Falwell, at least in the last ten years, I'd love to see it, along with information as to where it came from. Criticising something a black man says, even calling that black man stupid, is not racism. It's only racist if the reason for your disliking or denigrating him is that he's black. I'm concerned not because I like Falwell, but because it seems he's on the receiving end of a lot of inaccurate hearsay. The quote about God not hearing Jews' prayers is an example : Falwell never said it -- he's a Zionist, from what I can tell -- but there were an awful lot of people, including some in this discussion, who were willing to repeat the rumour that he had said it, and discount him because of it. I saw Falwell and Jesse Jackson on _Nightline_ a couple of months ago, and he sure seemed anything but racist. Stupid, perhaps. There's a recent biography of Falwell out, written by a Catholic Indian named Dinesh D'Souza, who isn't particularly friendly to Falwell, but doesn't think he's a racist. Please do go to the library to "look them up", and tell us what you find. -- Peace and Good!, Fr. John Woolley "The heart has its reasons that the mind does not know." -- Blaise Pascal
ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) (12/20/85)
>In article <1476@ihlpg.UUCP> tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) writes: >>To repeat, Jackson was asked to denounce Farrakhan solely because of >>Farrakhan's racist statements. You have yet to demonstrate why >>REAGAN should denounce Falwell. >Falwell has made many rediculous statements that offends sections of our >society. His annoucement that AIDS is a punishment by God leveled against >the homosexual community is a good example. Anyone that disagrees with >Falwell is attacked as being an immoral anti-american. The type of >intolerance expoused by Jerry Falwell is the same as that of Farrakhan. The >only difference between to two religious leaders is the color of their >audience and the objects of their hate. Apparently the author of this reply is unable to distinguish between a demonstration and an opinion. Every statement in the above paragraph may indeed be true, but it contains not a single shred of supporting evidence. What do I mean by supporting evidence? For starters, how about proving that anyone that [sic] disagrees with Falwell is attacked as being an immoral anti-american? Attacked by whom? How do you know? And so on.
pmd@cbsck.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) (12/20/85)
>Maybe the bad associations with the term "fundamentalist" comes from >the absurdity of their claims. When fundamentalists say they take >the Bible "literally" and then go on to launch ridiculous attacks on >known facts of science such as evolution, they look pretty absurd. Yea, any majority and make a minority look foolish, even if that minority is right about some things. I'm not a true believer in evolution myself. To say that in the face of this flag waving assertion gets me slammed as a fundamentalist, I suppose, even though I don't consider myself one. I would agree with you that there are some ridiculous attacks made on evolution, but you seem to charactarize attacks on evolution as ridiculous (without argument, even). From my perspective, all I see is one-sided ignorance in such a claim. Your assertions are as bad as the fundamentalists (not all, but some) who make sweeping generalizations and characterizations of people who hold views to which they are opposed. It's not only some fundamentalists who criticize evolution. But again, to make such distinctions takes some of the effectiveness out of the bashing you can do against people with terms like "fundamentalist". >Do fundamentalists take Christ's admonition to "preach the Gospel >in the four corners of the Earth" as evidence for a flat Earth? >Why not? Do they take the Bible literally or not? >Or how about this passage from Joshua 10:13: > "Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon, and thou Moon in the > valley of Ai'jalon." > And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed until > the nation took vengeance on their enemies. > Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stayed > the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for > about a whole day. > >This passage and others were used by fundamentalists who took the >Bible literally as late as 1893 to argue that the *SUN* moved >around the Earth and the Earth stayed still. >Currently similar absurdities are being hurled as "refutations" >of evolution. So everyone who calls herself a fundamentalist Christian must hold these beliefs? See what wonderful things you can do with pejorative terms? Dig up enough examples like this (no matter if they represent a minority of those who call themselves fundamentalists) and pretty soon a word people have chosen to describe their beliefs becomes equated with beliefs most people regard as foolish. Then all you have to do to make someone look like a fool is use the term "fundamentalist" on them (That's what they've been calling themselves, isn't it?). So, now, don't forget that the "fundamentalists" who disagree with Tim Sevener's opinion are all flat earthers and it makes any difference of opinion with them seem weighted on his side--no matter what the issue. >Is it any wonder such beliefs incur ridicule and pejorative associations? > tim sevener whuxn!orb No, it isn't any wonder. Especially when the ideological enemies of such people help to keep those associations alive and stretch them to cover people who don't deserve to be associated with such beliefs for the sake of their own looking good by contrast. Enough said, -- Paul Dubuc {ihnp4, cbsogd}!cbsck!pmd The true light that enlightens everyone was coming into the world ... John 1:9
kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) (12/21/85)
In article <2274@burdvax.UUCP> bnapl@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) writes: > >As a minister of the Gospel, Falwell is called to speak God's truth to a >unbelieving world. You may not want to believe that disease (AIDS) is a >result of man's sinful condition, but clearly Falwell does and is compelled >to remind the world of this. It is one thing to believe that disease is the result of man's fall from grace. It is quite another to believe that God has targeted the homosexual community with a virus to kill them all. If this is what God has done then the maltheists on net.religion might be right. This pronouncement by Falwell sounds more like homophobia than the act of a loving God that died for our sins. This conclusion does not sound like Good News (Gospel). >I have never heard Falwell [attack] anyone as anti-american simply because >they disagree. That is funny. I have. I never miss an opportunity to see him "debate" an opponent. Part of his tactic is to act superior and smug, cast doubt on the fidelity of the opponent to God or country, and end just before saying the person is anti-american or heathen. If you require him to say "you are an anti-american" then maybe you never have heard the attack. All I require is for him to continually question the opponents patriotism. >Indeed, Ted Kennedy was received rather warmly at Liberty >Baptist College when he was there to speak. Kennedy and Falwell certainly >disagree politically, but I don't think he would consider the Senator >anti-american. Could Falwell get away with calling Kennedy an anti-american directly? I think he would lose credibility if he did so. By debating Kennedy and not attacking him directly, Falwell gains credibility. Instead of looking at this one instance, look at his actions in general; listen to what he says to people he feels he can attack with impunity. >You've been reading too much of what the liberal press says Falwell >believes rather than listening to what he really says. Wrong. I watch Falwell whenever I can catch him on a talk show. The next time he is on Phil Donohue watch the smarmy way he questions the godliness or patriotism of those that disagree. I also try to watch his Sunday television program at least once a month. I am always amazed at how a good 30 to 45 minutes of his TV religion hour is dedicated to fund raising and non-religious matters such as patronizing patriotism. You should watch that program and listen to him cast doubts on the fidelity of people with opposing points of view.
kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) (12/21/85)
In article <1996@akgua.UUCP> rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) writes: > >While no particular fan of Mr Falwell, why is it that when his >name appears in print it must be qualified by the adjectives >"Right Wing, Fundamentalist Rev. Jerry Falwell" ? > >When we see Ted Kennedy's name printed it is "Senator Ted Kennedy." > >To be fair, why not "Left Wing, Liberal Senator Kennedy" ?? To be fair, I have never seen Falwell's name appear with the appelation "Right Wing". But I don't doubt that it has since the phrase is equivalent to "conservative". I have seen him referred to as "conservative, fundamentalist" -- both of which he is proud to be. I have seen "Left Wing" appear next to Kennedy's name. I have also seen "Liberal democrat". I have even seen Kennedy referred to as a "socialist". I don't think you are a very observant reader of the press. Falwell is usually referred to as Rev. Jerry Falwell. Kennedy is usually referred to as Sen. Ted Kennedy (D. Mass.). Hey, to be fair, why don't they refer to Falwell as Rev. Jerry Falwell (Baptist, Va.).
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (12/24/85)
> [Me] > >To repeat, Jackson was asked to denounce Farrakhan solely because of > >Farrakhan's racist statements. --------- > [Stephen Kurtzman] > Actually, Jackson was asked to denounce Farrakhan for two reasons: > > 1) Farrakhan's racist statements. > 2) Jackson is black. > > The call for Jackson to denounce Farrakhan, while not necessarily racist in > motive, had racist overtones. > > A similar event occurred in LA when people started demanding that Tom > Bradley denounce Farrakhan. It was a deliberate attempt by republican forces > in this state to make Tom Bradley look bad. In case you don't know about > California politics, Tom Bradley (democrat, black, mayor of LA) barely lost > the governorship to George "Duke" Dukmejian (republican, white). The margin > of victory for Duke was the same as the percentage of democrats that said > they could not vote for a black man. In short, the last election was decided > in large part due to racism. With another election coming up, and Bradley > not yet having announced the political dirty tricks and smear campaigns are > starting. ------- There is no doubt that asking Tom Bradley (or Harold Washington in Chicago) to denounce Farrakhan is racially motivated. Tom Bradley never had anything to do with Farrakhan. The only connection is that Tom Bradley is black. You are right on target here. Jesse Jackson's case, however is quite different. Jackson's close association with Farrakhan during Jackson's presidential campaign makes such a request quite reasonable. No doubt SOME of the requesters were racially motivated, but that does not make the request any less proper and right. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
john@cisden.UUCP (John Woolley) (12/27/85)
In article <451@whuts.UUCP> orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >Do fundamentalists take Christ's admonition to "preach the Gospel >in the four corners of the Earth" as evidence for a flat Earth? >Why not? Do they take the Bible literally or not? O, golly, this gets tiring. There's nothing at all in Christ's words about "corners of the Earth". You made it up, or misremembered it, or (most likely) heard somebody misquote it and repeated it without checking because it fit your stereotyped view of Christ. You know, I'd be really embarrassed if people kept catching me in misquotations. Christ said this, Falwell says that, Meese says something else. Your credibility is really going on the rocks. -- Peace and Good!, Fr. John Woolley "The heart has its reasons that the mind does not know." -- Blaise Pascal