My "Meet the Press" letter about Falwell and today's show.

[Buddyblazon]

Did I go overboard with this letter?:

To Whom It May Concern,

Great line up on this mornings show. I am a devout agnostic (wait for it…wait for it). I attended church regularly up to about 13. At that point, a zealot like Falwell so scared the daylights out of me, that I decided to avoid organized religion. I still worship God in my own way. I am ACTUALLY quite moral, and ACTUALLY practice morality in everyday life, as opposed to the tele-evangilists that seem to always get dragged down by scandal and massive corruptness. And as each immoral, hypocritical event piles up in the pious pot of these people, I realize I made the right decision in taking my self imposed sabbatical.

This does not mean that I don’t want to hear what self-proclaimed “religious” people have to say. I just don’t want them threatening me with fire and brimstone, and testifying how great their own personal accomplishments, and how they are much more devoted to God then the lower life forms in the pews.

Today, Falwell demonstrated the EXACT reason that many of the spiritual have been pushed away from religion. He felt like he had to speak longer than everybody, louder than everybody, and when other speakers were asked for their opinions, OVER everybody. He REFUSED to let Sharpton speak without interruption. At the end, when Sharpton was asked his opinion, and had the camera, Falwell not only would NOT let Sharpton speak alone, he stuck his fat little fingers into the shot…RIGHT IN FRONT OF SHARPTON’S FACE! If I had been Al, I would’ve bit his hand. A la Lecter.

I do hope indeed someone can forward this to Jerry, as they are words I have wanted to say to him for so many years. Falwell is SO self righteous, so sure of his opinion, that he believes it entitles him to be rude. Well, guess what, Jerry, people like you have turned off millions of people to organized religion. I can assure you that I am actually much more Jesus-like than you. I do not interrupt people. I listen to everyone’s opinion. And MY ten commandments don’t have A)’s and B)’s following each rule. No…I truly believe in “Thou Shall NOT Kill”. NOT…”Thou Shall NOT Kill, but exemptions for the following situations”. And I actually stand against greed. I don’t know if I can say the same for you. How come your God is always broke? If he is indeed so omnipotent, than why does he need so much money, if any at all? And why is it that you are so wealthy? Does God give you a commission? How many points? Or is it just a loan? You ARE a hypocrite. You talk about how everybody is wrong. Yet the fact that Jesus lived in financial poverty, but spiritual abundance, seems to elude you. He didn’t need a church. He spoke from the hill sides. He didn’t wear thousand dollar suits. And you pass judgment on everyone. Jesus passed judgment on NO ONE. He went among the lepers. The prostitutes. The criminals. And he loved them all. Your actions seem to shout, “I have the inside tract. I am allowed to say who passes through the pearly gates, who burns in flames. What Jesus actually practiced means nothing, because I have worked hard and MADE myself the new chosen one.”

If you ever have the opportunity to be included in another great panel as today, please do us all a favor. Let the other invitees speak, and keep your piehole shut. You show no respect for your fellow man, and it makes you look like a blow hard, and un-Jesus-like.

Thank you to the rest of the respectful, thoughtful, and intelligent attendees. The only thing I didn’t agree with was the fact that none of you politely asked Falwell to stop speaking out of turn and stop sticking his hand in Sharpton’s face.

Thank You,

XXX XXXXXXXX

[PROGRESSIVE1]

1. kick

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. Jesus had a name for people like Falwell

he said that Christians weren't supposed to make a big show of their religion.

[flordehinojos]

3. I did not see MTP (I stopped wathching news&politcis programming the

morning of Nov.3rd when Kerry conceded. I do think that if Falwell was so anxious that he had to talk over and above everyone else, then everyone else must have been scoring some good points...and, if he would not let Sharpton talk ... then Sharpton must have been scoring lots of points.

During the democratic primaries ...when there were 9 democratic contenders... my heart picked sharpton out of the rest each and every time they debated each other.

[0007]

11. As soon as Thomas Kean started talking I bailed.

But you do have a point about the other's scoring points and maybe that's why Falwell had to hog the floor. But fuck, he's a hog anyway so what else is new?

[bahrbearian]

4. Did you notice that Falwell was sitting on his Bible?

He was about a foot taller then Sharpton.

[shuffnew]

10. Interesting observation, sitting on a bible...

it must be the ego thing... recall how the media had to doctor up the podium height to make Bush appear to be the height of Kerry in the debates?

A visual tactic to imply equal to or greater than strength?

[Mabus]

5. No way did you go overboard

In fact, you were very christ-like. Thank you for sharing your letter. You spoke for many of us and now I feel compelled to do my own.

I saw the chubby little fingers of Falwell intrude into Sharpton's face. He's actually pretty quick with his hands. He reacted so quickly when the camera went off him you'd think he was trying to grab someone's wallet.

[ginnyinWI]

6. Falwell is a Pharisee,

and hopeless--I wouldn't waste time on him myself.

He is the type of person Jesus complained about: "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows' houses, even while for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you shall receive greater condemnation...you travel about on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves...you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others...you clean the outside of the cup and the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence." (from the book of Matthew, Chapter 23)

As you can see, this has been going on for thousands of years.

[newscaster]

8. I just want to know why....

when the debate turned to abortion.....it was men speaking and making judgments?
Why was a woman not there to give her side of the issue?

[checks-n-balances]

13. Because women are rarely included in church leadership positions

the ordained ones, i mean...

Believe me, if they had been thoughtful enough to include any women, they would probably have been from the right wing anyway.

[0007]

26. How come we waited until 1922 to give her the right to vote?

Now we want to take away her right to make a choice.

[NurseLefty]

29. A bunch of men talking about what a woman can do with her body!

That made me MAD. :mad: :grr: :nuke:
It was the first time I watched MTP since before the election. Russert is giving in to the RW agenda. Ya think he'd mix it up with actually having a real live woman there, especially since it was a given that abortion would come up. But, nope. Typical.
I watched because I wanted to see Al Sharpton raise some hell. He made good points but could have been stronger.
One point sorely missing: Why is it that the right wing cares so much for the fetus, but does not give a rip for the child after it's born?

[MuseRider]

7. I like it

and like you experienced first hand these people and had the living daylights scared out of me.

I try to live my life in the same terms you wrote about and do not feel that living like that is anything special. It is a humane way to live. I am spiritual but no longer religious.

These are not "men of God" they are "Ad men for God" and I, for one, do not think that God needs them. I seriously doubt he is really speaking to them.

I love your letter. I do not think it is over the top.

[Buddyblazon]

9. What I find amazing....

is that people need a book to tell them to treat people with respect. To not kill one another. To not cheat on your spouse. To help the poor.

If you need a book to tell you that, you don't get it. You are mostly likely an immoral person to begin with. Tales of fire and brimstone are the only things that keep these people from being bad?

Yep...those people would be Pharisees.

[MuseRider]

12. To me it isn't

that they need a book, the book and rules are fine but you are right it does seem amazing. To me the amazing thing is the need to be told how to do it and the constant need for community reinforcement. My time in church was social time but for a lot of people it was time for reinforcement. Blew my mind!

For me it is a far better thing to live this way because I choose to and I do struggle with some of it all the time (I can be terribly judgmental) but I am doing it. To have to be told to do it and how to do it and have it reinforced constantly by others approval or disapproval just seems terribly flawed to me. I am willing to admit that I just may not understand. I know many good people who attend church without fail who I think would be good people if they didn't so who really knows. The whole thing does not work for me, I tried over and over but not again.

[tuvor]

14. Count me in as a Christian who unashamedly hates falwell

From Matthew 7:

Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

[Bake]

31. I'm with you.

Falwell needs to "meet Jesus" face to face, and the sooner the better. He is a cancer on the body of Christ, and needs to be excised.

Bake

[SharonAnn]

34. Barry Goldwater said this about Falwell and the Religious Right

Quotes from Goldwater:

"Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's ass."

"I don't have any respect for the Religious Right."

"A woman has a right to an abortion."

"The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others,"

"I am a conservative Republican," he wrote in a 1994 Washington Post essay, "but I believe in democracy and the separation of church and state. The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process."

And, when Sandra Day O'Connor was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1981, some Religious Right leaders suspected she might be too moderate on abortion and other social concerns. Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell told the news media that "every good Christian should be concerned."

Replied Goldwater, "Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's ass."

A few years later he told The Advocate, "I don't have any respect for the Religious Right. There is no place in this country for practicing religion in politics. That goes for Falwell, Robertson and all the rest of these political preachers. They are a detriment to the country."

In 1994 he told The Los Angeles Times, "A lot of so-called conservatives don't know what the word means. They think I've turned liberal because I,, believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That's a decision that's up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right. It's not a conservative issue at all."

Goldwater, an Episcopalian, had theological differences with greedy TV preachers. "I look at these religious television shows," he said, "and they are raising big money on God. One million, three million, five million - they brag about it. I don't believe in that. It's not a very religious thing to do."

But Goldwater was also deeply worried about the Religious Right's long-term impact on his beloved GOP. "If they succeed in establishing religion as a basic Republican Party tenet," he told U.S. News & World Report in 1994, "they could do us in."

http://liberalslikechrist.org/about/goldwater.html

[Nordic]

15. you can write to Fallwell

at his website

http://www.falwell.com/?a=contact

I did it. I felt very gross and dirty. You'll want to take a shower, even after you rant at him.

I fucking hate that guy

[The Flaming Red Head]

17. Now he's going to hit you up for money

You never get rid of them. Talking to anyone on the Christian Right is like catching herpes, they just keep coming back no matter what you do.

[Nordic]

18. I'm good at getting rid of people

I make sure they never want to speak to me again.

It ain't pretty. :)

[The Flaming Red Head]

19. I bet, I can corrupt you before you can save me (favorite line)_

Get's rid of Mormon Missionary boys, they can't pedal away fast enough. Once one came back and though, and that was a bit of a problem, after a while.

[Nordic]

21. oh my god that's fucking hilarious

especially coming from "flaming red head".

I can only imagine. :)

Dem missionary boys IS boys after all.

[karlrschneider]

16. There are many atheists and agnostics who are more Christian than

the majority of these "Jesus on the sleeve" pontificators. The hypocrisy is mind-boggling.

[Olden Slow]

20. Jerry Falwell (unwittingly) backs gay marriage!

On Meet The Press, Sunday Nov. 28, 2004, the Rev. Jerry Falwell said in regards to marriage in general and gay marriage specifically that we (the USA) should keep the same standard that we have for the last "6000 years".

I agree wholeheartedly.

As we (again, the USA) are a country with immigrants from all over the world, we can be fairly well assured that we have descendants of almost every culture known to man, including many that recognized the validity and usefulness of polygamous and group marriage as well as recognizing gay marriage.

Only halfway of those 6000 years, about 1000 b.c. or so, the most Macho society possible was at their height in Sparta, a completely militarized state. Oddly enough, they had no problems with homosexual marriage - recognized by the state, don't you know - and they didn't think there was enough to worry about troop-morale-wise to even consider "don't ask - don't tell" as effective, useful, or needed policy.

The word 'marriage' has Latin roots. It comes from the root 'maritus' (a husband) which has at it's root 'maris' which is a synonym for 'mas' - that is, 'a man'...doesn't seem to me that linguistically there is a call for marriage to be "one woman, one man" - rather it seems that as long as there is a husband in the union, anything goes! (Sorry, lesbians...) The Romans (it's their word, remember) recognized marriage between men - true, they were ridiculed, but it was legal.

If we go all the way back 6000 years, as Rev. Falwell would have us do, we can find as many definitions of 'marriage' as there are civilizations. Some accepted any and all forms, some restricted marriage to the aristocracy, not allowing marriage in the middle and lower classes at all - let alone male/female only. I don't know, but would be willing to bet, that there were civilizations that didn't even have a word for marriage, let alone boundaries of who was eligible to join the club.

I am certain that the Rev. Falwell is aware of this, but it seems opposed to what he espouses. So what did he really mean? The USA has been a country for less than 250 years. Jesus has only been gone 2000 years. Could he possibly be going back to the "beginning of time" as expressed in his belief of what the bible says? Genesis? The one in which there is a dispute over whether there was a first wife (Lilith, according to Rabbinical lore and Moslem theology) of Adam? Adam, a possible bigamist (there were no divorce lawyers then...) who 'begat' the first murderer, Cain? Are these the family and marriage values Rev. Falwell are holding up as the examples of "the way it should be"?

It's time to put the bible down long enough to realize that marriage is a *legal* entity, for the state to know who considers themselves a legal 'partnership' - and we know that the law holds no restrictions to the number or the sex of people involved in a legal partnership. "Faith" is *not* a legal concept. If your "faith" does not recognize same-sex or multiple partner marriages, so be it. No problem. Don't allow it in your church or your house. That's your decision and I would never think of trying to stop you from living out your belief system - *as long as you don't harm anyone by following those beliefs*. Charles Manson is a bad person...but *not* because he had multiple common-law 'wives' or had religious beliefs that were 'out of the norm'; he's a 'bad person' because he plotted and had his followers carry out multiple *murders*. If he had stayed at Spahn Ranch, kept to himself and enjoyed the company of those surrounding him, we wouldn't even know his name.

One of the bedrocks of the Constitution is the protection of the minority against the majority - especially when the majority is having a knee-jerk reaction on an emotional level to a subject that doesn't affect them directly. If Bill and George or Ann and Laura decide to live their lives together and want the state to officially recognize their union, it doesn't affect me, or you, or anyone but them and their immediate families - and it's no one else's business. The state should not look to the passages of any religious tome to decide which way the state should fall on this issue - the individual citizen's right to live their life the way they see fit is the only criteria they should use. "The Peepul spoke at the ballot box" is touted erroneously - there is no basis for allowing a ban on gay marriage in our constitution. In fact, Article IV, Section 1 says “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof" followed by Section 2, Clause 1 which says "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States" could be interpreted to say that gay people have the same rights as any other citizen in any other state - including the right to marry whoever they want to. And, let us not forget the amendment to Article IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people". The *only* amendment I could find that might reflect negatively on the idea of gay marriage is Article XIII, where it says in Section 1 "Neither slavery nor *involuntary servitude*...shall exist within the United States..." - which is the definition of 'marriage' I have heard described by married people on more than one occasion. (That's a joke, son...lighten up...)

Article XIV, Section 1 is even clearer: "...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..." The only question that would seem to remain is: Is 'marriage' a privilege? Discuss among yourselves.

We need look no further than the results of Article XVIII (Prohibition) to see a graphic example of what can go wrong when the state tries to legislate 'morality' onto it's citizens.

Thank you, Rev. Falwell - I'm glad to see you've come over to our way of thinking on the whole marriage issue. It's great to know that a couple of straight white guys like you and I (I am assuming on your part...) can support our gay brothers and sisters in their struggle to achieve the same benefits of the society, in which they contribute so much, that you and I hold dear - Freedom to associate with whom one chooses, the right to think differently then the next person, believe in the faith of one's choosing.

Tim Coney
Medford, OR

[mrdmk]

25. Welcome to D.U. Olden Slow

Nice post! I will be fact checking your information here, very interesting!

[Olden Slow]

30. Thank you for the welcome

Let me know if I'm off on something.

[sundancekid]

32. kick. way to take it to them ... welcome to DU & enjoy your stay here

[Catchawave]

22. It's a wonderful letter!

You wrote for many of us.

[joanski01]

23. You letter is excellent.

It sure speaks for me. That hand in Sharpton's face really made me mad. Falwell is a POS.

Some of Al Sharpton's comments that I remember were: He told Falwell that what he disagreed with him about was trying to make everyone belive and do as he does. He said "Even God gave us a choice of going to heaven or hell". Al said that Jesus stopped the stoning of the woman who had committed adultry, while you would have condemned Jesus for doing so. And when they all were arguing when Timmy wanted to go on break, Tim said "peace, peace, peace everyone". Al said, even as the screen was blacking out, "Don't say peace, there is no peace".

[MattWinMO]

24. You shouldn't base the decision to be a Christian...

On Jerry Falwell or anyone else like him. You shouldn't judge Christianity just by some of its followers.

[lumpy]

27. "My uncle's a fat little preacher.

He saves little girls from bad sin. He'll save you a blonde for a dollar. My God how the money rolls in. etc." This old ditty always comes to mind when I see Falwell.

[peekaloo]

28. Thank you for sharing your excellent letter.

I lost my temper today when Sharpton was accused of supporting slavery by Foulwill's fellow Nazi panelist.

[lgardengate]

33. Actually Jesus Did judge....

He told people who came to him for healing (and who were healed) to go on there way and stop sinning.

Told the women cought in adultry to "go and sin no more". etc
Jesus forgave,yes, but he told people to leave there "lives of sin".

and not to defend Falwell but Everyone on those shows talks over everyone else.Dems and Repubs do it constantly.

[DireStrike]

36. That's not really judging though.

More like advice. It's not focused on the person, or the type of life they live... it can be called "judgement" I guess, but only if what you're judging is all of humanity.

[__Inanna__]

35. And Sharpton owes Falwell a steak dinner

Great letter, and good going Buddyblazon! I share your anger in this whole thing.

I haven't heard this mentioned, but what stood out for me (in addition to the obvious you all mention) was Falwell telling Sharpton he'd promised him a steak dinner. Then Sharpton said I know and you'll get your steak dinner. Then Falwell got this look like, Yeah Riiiiggghhhttttt!, and said he'd been waiting three weeks and hadn't gotten it yet. Is this person for real? I don't think he needs any steak dinner. He should donate it to someone who is hungry and needs to put on some weight.

Youza ! The whole thing made me angry (missed the first half hour), and I just find people like Falwell to be so scary. At least there were two reasonable people on the panel. I don't have a problem with someone being a Christian, unless they are of the Falwell ilk, but he won't be happy until we're all thinking as he'd choose.

[paulk]

37. what upset me most about the show

was that MTP had two extreme right wing X-tians (Falwell and The Southern Baptist with the Confederate flag tie) and two liberals, Sharpton and theSoujernor editor - a 50 - 50 split in representing opposing points of view.


This legitimizes Falwell and his ilk, because it's not a 50-50 split. Falwell and his fascist religion don't even represent a majority of Republicans, much less the country as a whole.


Falwell is on the fringes, and should be presented that way by MTP.