Yes, Falwell received SOME criticism, but he is still trotted out on talk show after talk show to give his opinions on any number of social or political topics. Farrakhan has been absolutely marginalized from mainstream media. Louis Farrakhan, for instance, would never be invited on “Talk Back Live” to give his “insights” into the coming congressional election. Falwell is on shows like this all the time. Why aren’t Christian bigots shown the same door as the Nation of Islam?
—Why aren’t Christian bigots shown the same door as the Nation of Islam?—
Duh?
perhaps Falwell is eaten up with jealousy because HE can’t issue fatwas and get folks to stalk his adversaries, a la Salman Rushdie.
I’m sure he would if he could (come to think of it, I believe there are a few gay bashings that could be laid at his door, in a fatwa sort of way.)
It is certainly “unhelpful” to say the least, to have a moron of his ilk inflaming a populace who evidently have little to do other than riot when displeased (query:which of the five dead stood up and SUPPORTED Falwell’s position–or was this something like the way they riot in the city that WINS the sporting event…)
On the love/hate thing, can we outdo Machiavelli? His take:
In statecraft, if you must choose between being feared or being loved, choose fear–people will invariably screw those they love to keep those they fear off their backs (I paraphrase.)
Do you believe that making babies the only way love is expressed?
It must be generally recognised that evangicals like Falwell, Robertson, and Graham are in no way typical of Chistians in the USA or anywhere else, but it surprises me that volatile people like the Ayatollah Khomeini should have wasted a fatwa against the likes of Rushdie and not against individuals who actually intend to harm muslims.
While I can’t defend what Falwell said, how is this riot his fault?
The article states:
Muslims are protesting what Falwell says (quite rightly, in my opinion), some of their other enemies take the opportunity to attack them, the police kill a couple and each group kills one of the other group.
Non-Christians kill each other in a street riot that starts as a protest over a Christian labelling the founder of the religion of one group as violent. Does anyone else find this a trifle ironic?
Sort of like protesting for peace by starting a riot.
Muhammed strikes me as being more of a military leader than Jesus, which might be part of Falwell’s rather ill-considered point, but violence between Hindus and Muslims in India pre-dates Jerry Falwell by quite a bit.
Incidentally, does anyone have a cite of what Falwell actually said? A complete transcript?
Regards,
Shodan
Please, Shodan, show me where I said it was his fault.
Wow, after over 20 posts calling Falwell a bigot, smearing all religious fundamentalists, and generally toeing the PC line, we finally get a post which asks for a cite of precisely what Falwell said.
The fight against ignorance goes slowly indeed.
Jomo, step 1 would be to quote Falwell calling Muhammad a terrorist. Step 2 would be to show that he’s wrong. End of debate.
No, Daoloth, you did not say that the riot was Falwell’s fault. My apologies for implying that you did.
I guess my objection would be to the implication that the riots were sparked by Falwell’s comments, rather than by the usual Hindu-Muslim antipathies.
I suppose a better headline would have been “Protests over Falwell remarks turn into Hindu-Muslim rioting”.
If that helps.
Regards,
Shodan
WRONG, emarkp, step 2 would be to show that he’s right. If someone is going to make an asinine allegation about another religion, then it is incumbant upon that person to actually PROVE it.
Muhammed was a military leader who killed other people to promote his vision of a religion he had created. Sounds like Bin Ladin to me.
Can you prove that Muhammed “created” Islam? And, praytell, what religion did bin Laden create?
Shit like this makes the Baby Jesus puke His holy little guts out.
quote:
Originally posted by BeatenMan
Muhammed was a military leader who killed other people to promote his vision of a religion he had created. Sounds like Bin Ladin to me.
Can you prove that Muhammed “created” Islam? And, praytell, what religion did bin Laden create?
- Muhammed was a profit and for the most part the most important and last of the profits. The final version as you would say.
- bin Laden, you are right he did not create a religion he is simply coping Muhammed.
- You are not going to deny muhammed and bin ladin both killed lots of people to promote Islam. I would say its a proven fact no need to argue.
- I hate all these stupid religons. Im not some fundie pro jesus idiot.
- I hate (not p.c.) people who kill for god.
It’s prophet not profit
posted by: Diogenes the Cynic
It’s prophet not profit
Your 96% percent correct. The rest is gods money.
There’s a 4% house vig.
Did I mention that Falwell molests collies?
Bleemin’ idiot.
It’s not like Falwell ever said anything like THIS about the Muslims (earlier versions were even nastier):
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0042/0042_01.asp
So what’s their problem?
My main problem is with Falwell’s choice of words. Are all violent military leaders now “terrorists?”
Moses, Joshua and David were all military leaders who, unlike Mohammed, slaughtered women and children. Were they “terrorists?” (IMHO the answer is yes.)