We’ve already got a Pit thread and a MPSIMS thread going, but a public-political figure like the founder of the Moral Majority deserves a GD thread upon his demise.
Was Falwell’s public career good or bad for America?
What role did he play in the political rise of the religious-conservative right? Would it have happened the same way without him?
How does he compare to other modern American religious-political evangelists such as Robertson, Bakker, Dobson, etc.?
How does he rate as a religious, as distinct from a political, leader?
I think Falwell was essentially a good thing for America, being a polarizing figure he helped a generation define what was and was not important to them. He and others like him sparked a debate about what Christian values mean in the public forum. Many Christians found his message to be abhorrent, Christians who might not have thought of it otherwise. I don’t really know what good or not his organizations have done for the larger community in the nation.
I’d say bad for anyone who isn’t a fundamentalist Christian. As a Catholic I feel his open intolerance and views have given people cause to demonize all of Christianity.
He played a significant role. He founded the Moral Majority. Would it have happened in the same way without him? No. It still would have happened though. Falwell is one of the most prominent leaders of a “megachurch” who became politically active. But Pat Robertson was out there too, and arguably more prominent. Robertson started the Christian Coalition, the Christian Broadcasting Network, and has been instrumental in the rise of the Southern Baptist convention.
Billy Graham was also out there too, Graham is more of a traditional evangelical in the vein of the evangelists of the Second Great Awakening (1800-1830s) and has never been near as politically active as Robertson or Falwell.
Falwell was a prominent leader of a large movement that had several leaders, so individually taking him out of history doesn’t change things drastically.
I think Robertson comes off as being a bit more palatable to the rest of the country. Falwell may have been the least acceptable of any of them, he was the least acceptable to me, for example.
Graham is probably the most widely respected modern evangelist, he predates Falwell and Robertson, is the most prominent Southern Baptist, and has remained politically uninvolved to a degree (he’s a registered Democrat who says he doesn’t vote based on party affiliation) so he hasn’t polarized people like Falwell has.
Pretty significant, in the vein of Jonathan Edwards, Joseph Smith, Peter Cartwright and et cetera. Many people already consider him to be a significant figure in the “newest Great Awakening.”
I see Falwell more as a political figure than a religious figure. For all his declarations on religion, anytime there was a divide between religion and politics, he always chose politics. And his impact was pretty much all political - he didn’t really change anything in American religious life but he led some major changes in American political life.
He pushed, more than anyone, the notion that the political climate in Washington ought to be heavily infused with religious dogma. Such a notion spits on our Constitution and dances on the graves of patriots who struggled for government free of the oppression of a single ideology.
He was a horrible American, and I’m glad he’s finally gone. In the coming weeks, when I have little doubt that huge discrepancies in his organizations’ financial records will come to light, his legacy will be deservedly and permanently tarnished.
I think he’s been a major negative influence in American politics, so I’d say he was bad for America. His message was intolerance and bigotry, not exactly what I’d call Christian virtues. I think he personally was responsible for the mobilization of a great many voters from the religious right, and the so-called moral majority made possible the Gingrich revolution and subsequently the 2000 and 2004 elections becoming close enough for Bush to steal. His influence will be long lasting until the Bush appointees to the Supreme Court are outnumbered by more progressive justices to be appointed in the future.
As a religious leader, I disagreed with his philosophy. I see God as a loving and forgiving God, he saw God as being much more judgmental, looking to smite America, for example, with the 9/11 attacks as a consequence of becoming tolerant of gays.
i don’t wish for anyone to die. However, if someone has to then Falwell is a pretty good choice.
His basic nature was evil. Almost immediately after the WTC attacks he blamed them on gays, feminists and lesbians. Sure he apologized later, but his first reaction was evil.
I’m glad he lived long enough to have to repudiate his racism. I’m sad he didn’t live long enough to have to repudiate his homophobia.
He was a man who imagined heaven celebrating as churches that welcomed gay people were “annihilated.” He taught people to worship a monster, and hence to become a little more monstrous themselves.
I have to give him credit for mobilizing voters who had felt marginalized, which is after all an essential ingredient to democracy. Unfortunately, I find his theology and politics repugnant, and the resulting policies he’s advocated do not help the U.S. in the long run.
His primary legacy will probably be his role in engineering the political rise of the Religious Right in the 80’s. His importance to that movement had greatly diminished by the time he died, and now I think the movement itself is receeding as well. I don’t think he will stand as a significant historical figure. He was, for a time, one media face in a sea of them. People in living memory will remember him as a guy they saw on TV. After that, he’ll fade into historical obscurity.
A 70 year old who watched Teletubbies and saw gaydom. He saw evil in the most benign and ascribed gods wrath as the reason for natural disasters. Apparently he believed god talked to him. Told him a hurricane in New Orleans was god getting back at the evil people there. Then 911 was god reacting to gays,and sinners. I do not like his god and I did not like him. Show me a religious man with 2 suits ,I will show you a hypocrite. Show me one that has gathered enormous wealth and I will show you a bald face liar and hypocrite is too small a word to describe their wrongs
Falwell’s church and organization has solicited donations for more than 40 years, and as a non-profit, it must have enormous cash assets. Who gets this? Will it be a replay of Howard Hughes-with dozens of entities vying for the estate? i’m sure brother Falwell had some smart lawyers-but I’ll bet there are substantial estate taxes to be paid.
I always picture some poor widow in W. Virginia, sending her SS check to that guy…so sad.
True, you may not hear quite so much about the Moral Majority, Ralph Reed, et al as you once did, but that doesn’t mean their influence has diminished. Look at the current slate of Republican candidates and you’ll find that they have to continue to appeal to the Rabid Right. It is the firebreathers that vote in primaries, lick envelopes, and contribute. The old-school Countryclub Republicans of the Eisenhower era may vote in the general election, but the candidates almost always court the extreme fringe first. To the extent that they (the radicals) influence the primaries (and separate the wheat from the chaff), they play a big role in the political equation.
Maybe it is just wishful thinking. I can’t really put a finger on exactly why I feel this way other than just a general sense of a gradual public disenchantment with the movement. I think the Schiavo debacle damaged them quite a bit, I see more acceptance and tolerance of GLBT people in the culture and I’ve noticed the recent commercial success of books by Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and even Bart Ehrman which challenge long held assumptions about religion and its role in forming morality. I don’t think that self-identifying as non-religious is seen as being quite so transgressive as it was even ten years ago.
I think the internet has helped as well in that regard.
This gay, coke-snortin’ preacher, whose name I’ve already forgotten, and who was featured in the documentary Jesus Camp, was supposed to be the main leading light of the politically-involved evangelicals, and I don’t think I’d ever even heard his name before his troubles.
Much different than Falwell, Robertson, and that crew in the 80s.
Now, that could be a sign that the movement is on the wane, or it could be a sign that it’s already burrowed into the mainstream to such an extent that they don’t need these these high-profile individuals to push their agenda through anymore.
The increasing disgrace of George W. Bush and everyone who hitched their wagon to him is an encouraging sign, though.
Apologized my ass. I heard a rebroadcast of his “apology” yesterday. He basically said, “I didn’t mean to say it was the Gays, Libruls, and Other Undesirables fault” but that “Libruls, Gays, and Other Undesirables created and encouraged the conditions for it to happen”.
Are there any statistics as to whether the proportion of traditional evangelical Protestants or traditional Catholics in the American population (as distinct from the more liberal sort of Christian who believes even non-Christians can be saved) is on the rise, or on the decline, or holding steady?
But those seem to be local polls – are there any national ones, and more recent?
Also, has there been any recent change in the attitude of traditional believers WRT the public sphere? Do more of them believe (as they once did) that Christians should avoid politics as an occasion of sin, or that God wants them to be politically engaged? Does anybody know?
Up through the 1950s America was a Godly country by Falwell’s standards – but bad things happened to America nevertheless. Why did God not shield us from the Depression or the Dust Bowl or Pearl Harbor? Somebody should have called Falwell on that.