When is McCain going to disown Falwell?
April 30th, 2008 at 07:50am Pat Cunningham
I don’t mean to dance on the Rev. Jerry Falwell’s grave, but I have to wonder why John McCain has yet to explain exactly why he embraced the infamous TV preacher when it was widely known that Falwell had blamed America for Sept. 11 (a verbatim reminder of which is PROVIDED by Chuck Sweeny this morning on his blog).
When McCain first ran for president back in 2000 as a maverick Republican who suffered fools badly, he denounced Falwell and the Rev. Pat Robertson as “agents of intolerance” and faulted George W. Bush for being too friendly with them.
But as the saying goes, that was then, and this is now. When McCain decided to run for president again this year, he cast himself as less a maverick and more a reliably conservative Republican. Accordingly, he made up with Falwell and Robertson and even deigned to deliver the commencement address at Falwell’s Liberty University (see photo above).
This was despite Falwell’s well-known record of outrageous utterances, not the least outrageous of which was the aforementioned blaming of America for 9/11.
Here are few others:
Back in the ’80s, after Southern Baptist Convention President Bailey Smith told a Religious Right gathering that “God Almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew,” Falwell offered an identical view. “I do not believe,” he told reporters, “that God answers the prayer of any unredeemed Gentile or Jew.”
Also in the ’80s, Falwell lost a lawsuit that stemmed from his having condemned the gay-friendly Metropolitan Community Churches as “brute beasts” and “a vile and Satanic system” that will “one day be utterly annihilated and there will be a celebration in heaven.” His attorney, without any disagreement from Falwell, said the Jewish judge in the case was prejudiced against Christians.
In 1993, despite his promise to Jewish groups to stop referring to America as a “Christian nation,” Falwell gave a sermon in which he said, “We must never allow our children to forget that this is a Christian nation. We must take back what is rightfully ours.”
In 1999, Falwell told a pastors’ conference in Kingsport, Tenn., that the Antichrist prophesied in the Bible is alive today and “of course he’ll be Jewish.”
John McCain has never renounced, rejected or disowned these and countless other bigoted statements made by Falwell — at least not since he decided that the road to the Republican presidential nomination ran through the precincts of the Religious Right.
Nor have the media made nearly the fuss over McCain’s relationship with Falwell (and other such crackpots) as they have over Barack Obama and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright?
Falwell’s dead now, but his hateful legacy lives on. And John McCain says nothing about its poisonous effect on America.
Entry Filed under: Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Jeremiah Wright, John McCain, Barack Obama
26 Comments Add your own
1. Menlo Bob | April 30th, 2008 at 8:33 am
That’s pretty funny–disown a dead man. No telling where the apology requirements would end.
While Falwell was living McCain did denounce Falwell. And Falwell apologized for his foolish 9/11 statements, Rev. Wright continues to hold to his foolish statements–and he’s still living.
What would be the point of having different religions if everyone accepted everyone else’s beliefs? Because you have a different opinion doesn’t automatically mean you hate the other. Democrats, to some degree, assume hatred and racism are synonyms for disagreement.
2. Kaus | April 30th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Falwell vs. Wright
1. Did McCain put 29,000 bucks in the offering plate at Falwell’s church?
2. Did McCain attend Falwell’s church for 20 plus years?
3. Did McCain right a book about Falwell, about how Falwell was a mentor and part of the family?
3. Tom McMahon | April 30th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Obama is toast, thanks to Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
4. ROTStar | April 30th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Falwell and Robertson’s comments were disgusting and indefensible, but I will repeat here what I said on the Sweeny Report — different context and different evils — Reverend Wright blamed America for being global terrorists. The passages Chuck quoted about 9/11 blamed Americans for affronts to God.
You understand that don’t you? They are really not the same thing.
Additionally they knew they were indefensible and as such they apologized. Compare the following:
The Reverend Wright at the National Press Club:
While I agree with Chuck that they are all nut jobs, do you really believe they are accurate comparisons? (Falwell, Robertson, and Wright).
Global terrorist murders getting what we deserve versus sinners suffering the wrath of God — very different meanings. Both wrong in my opinion, but both different.
David
5. Pat Cunningham | April 30th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
“(S)uffering the wrath of God”? I love it when some people claim to know just when and why God has delivered a dose of wrath on humankind. We’ve got religionists running all over the place pretending to know the will of God. Many of them also claim that it’s the will of God that we send them money. When’s God gonna hit these con artists with some of his wrath? Such a consequence might even make me a true believer.
6. ROTStar | April 30th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Pat, I agree completely! Worse yet they have been doing the same thing for centuries!
However that doesn’t deflect from the clear differences in the comments of Wright and Falwell/Robertson.
David
7. Pat Cunningham | April 30th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
By the way, I wouldn’t be bringing up this irrelevant McCain-Falwell stuff were it not for the fact that it riles those of you to whom the issue of the Rev. Wright is soooo important. Isn’t it time for all of you to switch back to that other pressing matter, flag lapel pins? Or how about Obama’s middle name? That’s pretty important, too. After all, if he’s not really a Muslim, why hasn’t he changed his name? And haven’t we all heard that he took his oath of office with his hand on the Koran rather than the Bible? I can guess which side you people would have taken in the presidential campaign of 1800, when the Religious Right of that time warned America that Thomas Jefferson was an atheist.
8. Kaus | April 30th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Pat, you forgot that we also think Obama is a marxist.
9. ROTStar | April 30th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Again Pat I agree with you on some things, however Obama has been running on his superior judgment, something he may be lacking. As Mort Kondrake said yesterday:
That still doesn’t deflect from the clear differences in the comments of Wright and Falwell/Robertson.
David
10. Menlo Bob | April 30th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Taking the oath on a Korean Bible? Hadn’t heard that one before.
11. Pat Cunningham | April 30th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
No, Bob. The Korean Bible probably is the one the Rev. Sun Myung Moon uses.
12. Menlo Bob | April 30th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
The Washington Times? Hot damn…give me the oath.
13. Kaus | April 30th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Pat, Thomas Jefferson was a deist…not an atheist….and he was a slave owner, how nice.
14. Pat Cunningham | April 30th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
I never said he was an atheist, Kaus. The religious wackos of 1800 said he was.
15. Menlo Bob | April 30th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
I seem to remember reading Jefferson’s Deist Bible. The deist most frequently mentioned in it was a Jewish fella that got his start as a carpenter. In fact it was the only guy Jefferson got around to. I forget the name of this particular deity.
16. Pat Cunningham | May 1st, 2008 at 6:39 am
What’s your point, Bob?
17. redrover | May 1st, 2008 at 11:06 am
There’s something more to this endless Wright-Obama controversy than whether Obama is fatally flawed by his having attended a church run by Rev. Wright and had gotten to know, personally, his pastor, and it’s not very pretty.
QUESTION:
How can the press continually revisit this relationship and its alleged deleterious consequences without questioning McCain’s close relationships with religious bigots like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, John C. Hagee, and the various kloset krackpot klansmen at Bob Jones University?
ANSWER:
Because this is NOT about potential presidents who are associating with clergymen whose views are offensive to most people. It’s about, and ONLY about, putting two cheeky, uppity Negroes back in their places.
Take a good look at what Wright did as an idealistic young man, despite the disadvantages that he certainly experienced because of his racial background:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Wright#Education_and_military_service
Compare that with the (at best non-distinguished) records of the sleazeball, holy-roller bigots and parasites that McCain kisses up to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell#Personal_life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Robertson#Life_and_career
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hagee#Biography
The outrage over Obama and Wright reminds me of the outrage, years ago, over another cheeky Negro, Muhammad Ali.
When are we as a nation going to get past this crap? I have no strong feelings for Obama as a politician. He is way too connected with the corporate agenda to suit my tastes. And Rev. Wright is an instrument of a religion, Christianity, that I have no use for.
But I resent the way they are both being treated because it is really all about their both being just too damn black to be acceptable to the white racist majority that still rules the roost in this country.
18. Kaus | May 1st, 2008 at 11:47 am
Ah…the race card finally pulled from the deck. Ding ding ding!
19. Kaus | May 1st, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Obama is a marxist Redrover….you should really vote for the guy.
20. Pat Cunningham | May 1st, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Kaus: If Obama and the Democratic politicians who generally agree with him on the issues are Marxists, what does that say about the American people, most of whom favor Democrats over Republicans?
As I’ve told you before, Kaus, you’re commie-baiting act is soooo 1950s. The only people still riding that hobby-horse are the hopelessly incurable right-wing extremists.
21. Kaus | May 1st, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Pat, if I’m the last man standing, I say “let them eat cake”. I have a feeling most of my eastern european ancestors would agree with me.
22. Pat Cunningham | May 1st, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Your Eastern European ancestors knew absolutely nothing about American politics circa 2008. You don’t know much about it either.
23. redrover | May 1st, 2008 at 5:30 pm
I must confess that what Kaus has often suggested is all too true:
I am a Marxist.
And Harpo is my favorite!
24. Pat Cunningham | May 1st, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Rover: Wouldn’t it be nice if Kaus were to do an extended impersonation of Harpo? If you catch my drift. Instead, all we get is a hybrid impersonation of Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, G. Gordon Liddy and some of the semi-literate callers I had to endure for three hours the other day on talk radio. Man, am I glad I’m not in that business anymore. In my old age, I don’t suffer fools as gladly as I once did.
25. Kaus | May 1st, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Pat, I’m pretty sure you don’t want me to go away. In fact, you deliberately post your truthiness just to entice guys like me to say something. I think it is pretty hysterical that you are willing to go all the way to the end with Obama, regardless of what we find next on this guy.
26. redrover | May 3rd, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Pat (Sir):
Even if Kaus and his alter egos were to stop talking, they would never come close to impersonating Harpo Marx.
Harpo was mute, but also funny and full of love, sweetness and joy.
Kaus and his role models, on the other hand, are scary, and full of intolerance, bitterness and resentments.
Despite their unhappiness, they cling to their dysfunctional world views because, well, misery just LOVES company.
At least, that’s the way I see it.
Some years ago, I came across something that, I still think, offers a pretty good explanation of the epidemic of semi-literacy that you referred to.
“The organized political, social, and religious associations of our time are at work convincing the individual not to develop his convictions through his own thinking but to assimilate the ideas they present to him. Any man who thinks for himself is to them inconvenient and even ominous. He does not offer sufficient guarantees that he will merge into the organization.
[…]
Man today is exposed throughout his life to influences that try to rob him of all confidence in his own thinking. He lives in an atmosphere of intellectual dependence, which surrounds him and manifests itself in everything he hears or reads. It is in the people whom he meets every day; it is in the political parties and associations that have claimed him as their own; it pervades all the circumstances of his life. ”
– Albert Schweitzer, Out of My Life and Thought, 1931.
I heartily recommend reading the entire piece here at:
http://www1.chapman.edu/schweitzer/sch.reading3.html
.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed