Dark Christianity
.::: .::..:.::.:.
Back May 21st, 2007 Forward
dogemperor [userpic]
Emphasis Shifts for New Breed of Evangelicals


A decent article - prompted by Jerry's death I reckon - on where Evangelicals in general seem to be going.

From The NYT
May 21, 2007

The evangelical Christian movement, which has been pivotal in reshaping the country’s political landscape since the 1980s, has shifted in potentially momentous ways in recent years, broadening its agenda and exposing new fissures.

The death of the Rev. Jerry Falwell last week highlighted the fact that many of the movement’s fiery old guard who helped lead conservative Christians into the embrace of the Republican Party are aging and slowly receding from the scene. In their stead, a new generation of leaders who have mostly avoided the openly partisan and confrontational approach of their forebears have become increasingly influential.

Typified by megachurch pastors like the Rev. Rick Warren of Saddleback Church in Orange County, Calif., and the Rev. Bill Hybels of Willow Creek Community Church outside Chicago, the new breed of evangelical leaders — often to the dismay of those who came before them — are more likely to speak out about more liberal causes like AIDS, Darfur, poverty and global warming than controversial social issues like abortion and same-sex marriage.

But the conservative legacy of the religious right persists... )

Current Mood: thoughtful
dogemperor [userpic]
Larry Flynt: My friend, Jerry Falwell


This LA Times commentary from Larry Flynt is excellent. Here's an excerpt:

After several years of listening to him bash me and reading his insults, I decided it was time to start poking some fun at him. So we ran a parody ad in Hustler — a takeoff on the then-current Campari ads in which people were interviewed describing "their first time." In the ads, it ultimately became clear that the interviewees were describing their first time sipping Campari. But not in our parody. We had Falwell describing his "first time" as having been with his mother, "drunk off our God-fearing asses," in an outhouse.

Apparently, the reverend didn't find the joke funny. He sued us for libel in federal court in Virginia, claiming that the magazine had inflicted emotional stress on him. It was a long and tedious fight, beginning in 1983 and ending in 1988, but Hustler Magazine Inc. vs. Jerry Falwell was without question my most important battle.

We lost in our initial jury trial, and we lost again in federal appeals court. After spending a fortune, everyone's advice to me was to just settle the case and be done, but I wasn't listening; I wasn't about to pay Falwell $200,000 for hurting his feelings or, as his lawyers called it, "intentional infliction of emotional distress." We appealed to the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, and I lost for a third time.

Everyone was certain this was the end. We never thought the U.S. Supreme Court would agree to hear the case. But it did, and though I felt doomed throughout the trial and was convinced that I was going to lose, we never gave up. As we had moved up the judicial ladder, this case had become much more than just a personal battle between a pornographer and a preacher, because the 1st Amendment was so much at the heart of the case.

To my amazement, we won. It wasn't until after I won the case and read the justices' unanimous decision in my favor that I realized fully the significance of what had happened. The justices held that a parody of a public figure was protected under the 1st Amendment even if it was outrageous, even if it was "doubtless gross and repugnant," as they put it, and even if it was designed to inflict emotional distress. In a unanimous decision — written by, of all people, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist — the court reasoned that if it supported Falwell's lower-court victory, no one would ever have to prove something was false and libelous to win a judgment. All anyone would have to prove is that "he upset me" or "she made me feel bad." The lawsuits would be endless, and that would be the end of free speech.

Everyone was shocked at our victory — and no one more so than Falwell, who on the day of the decision called me a "sleaze merchant" hiding behind the 1st Amendment. Still, over time, Falwell was forced to publicly come to grips with the reality that this is America, where you can make fun of anyone you want. That hadn't been absolutely clear before our case, but now it's being taught in law schools all over the country, and our case is being hailed as one of the most important free-speech cases of the 20th century.

The whole article is worth a visit.

dogemperor [userpic]
Gingrich says Falwell's followers are victims of the discrimination they promote against others

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY [info]navytron89) From[info]americablog

Because there is never a shortage of hypocrisy among GOP leaders, Newt spoke about values this weekend at Falwell's college. Gingrich accused those who disagree with the theocrats of doing just what the theocrats are doing. Gingrich claimed that religious people were discriminated against in America. He said that at an institution whose leader, Jerry Falwell, took the lead in discriminating against other Americans. That's a strategic device used by the right wingers. They accuse others of doing exactly what they do. In reality, the theocrats are among the worst haters in America:
"In hostility to American history, the radical secularists insist that religious belief is inherently divisive," Gingrich said, deriding what he called the "contorted logic" and "false principles" of advocates of secularism in American society.

"Basic fairness demands that religious beliefs deserve a chance to be heard," he said during his 26-minute speech. "It is wrong to single out those who believe in God for discrimination. Yet, today, it is impossible to miss the discrimination against religious believers."
Basic fairness demands that religion not be used as a weapon against other Americans. And, it is wrong to single out anyone for discrimination. But that's what Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson and Newt all do. Frank Rich summed up Falwell's legacy of hate in one well-written sentence:
Mr. Falwell was always on the wrong, intolerant side of history. He fought against the civil rights movement and ridiculed Desmond Tutu’s battle against apartheid years before calling AIDS the “wrath of a just God against homosexuals” and, in 1999, fingering the Antichrist as an unidentified contemporary Jew.
But, Falwell and his followers are the victims according to Gingrich. Newt's not just a notorious adulterer, he's a notorious panderer.

Ok and now for my comments: Why is Nitwit Gingrinch allowed in public? 

If  Falwell and his followers were victims, where is the evidence Newt? 

All I see is a bunch of hypocritical bastards who want to re-write America and the world in a so-called Christian place which has nothing to do with the teachings of a prophet who may or may not be the "Son of God".

These are people who demand blind obediance in the name of their "GOD" and will do anything including commit acts of violence to get their way. The values that they extoll are for a so-called fantasy realm called heaven, while pushing us away from the goodness of the here and now, by falsely sacrificing ourselves to a supernatural being who may or may not exist. 

If he does exist why does s/he/it leave us struggling to fight each other daily without a reasonable answer(s) or direction based on a doctrine of lies written by a bunch of dead priests who've exploited people through out history. 

No Newt; you're pandering to latest batch of fascist "christian" scum who are no better than the Nazis of WWII. So it tells us alot about your true character and the fact you'd make a deal with the most evil people in the world to win the Presidency and damn us all to a fascist republic which has nothing to do with Christianity or Jesus.     

location: Fallon, NV
Current Mood: infuriated
Current Music: Juno Reactor-Hotaka
Back May 21st, 2007 Forward