Television Evangelist Falwell Dies at 73

Aren't Churches who participate in politics supposes to lose their tax-exempt status?

That would shut down a whole lot of African-American churches . . . not to mention ruining Democrat photo ops during campaigns.

I treasure the separation of Church and State more than any one religion.

What Falwell did crosses that line, IMHO.

What Churches preach for Dems and are partisan towards Dems? I can't think of any.

34.3

Kerry Seeks Support in Black Churches, Talk of Faith, Politics Well Received

There is a difference between a candidate speaking in a church and the preacher/Priest/Rabbi/Iman encouraging particular votes.

One gets a church out of their tax-exempt status.

34.5

Perhaps you didn't have time to read the article. It explains that John Kerry addressed the parishioners from the pulpit on a Sunday and the final sentence in the article said that the churches minister endorsed Kerry.

I have a problem with the endorsing bit, but no issue with candidates speaking in a Church, so long as time is given to others as well.

But I will say that comparing a minister of a small church to Falwell's hold on several presidents is a bit extreme.

34.7 . . . then we could talk about Rev. Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson.

You will not find the separtion of Church and State in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Declaration Independence. The truth is President Thomas Jefferson had sent a letter to the the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, in order to answer their question as to why he had not promoted national days of thanksgiving or fasting. Jefferson replied by saying the following "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" thus building a wall of eternal separation between Church & State.". This means that the federal government could not mandate any religion above the other.

You can read the complete account of the exchaning of letters here: http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=9

You can read Jefferson's letter here:http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpost.html

What churches do Sharpton and Jackson lead?

hmmmm

Main Index > Cases and Codes > U.S. Constitution > First Amendment

U.S. Constitution: First Amendment

First Amendment - Religion and Expression

Amendment Text | Annotations

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

pretty clear to me..

Is our country any better since the American Taliban: Falwell, Dobson and Robertson got into bed with the Rethuglicans?

@Zach

Great links, thanks!

I do think Treaty of Tripoli the predates the letters you speak of, and there the gov't actually ratifies a statement that shows the US is not founded from religious teachings...

(read article 11) or google Treaty of Tripoli

In regards to what tschreck posted: The purpose of the first amendment is to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination. Jefferson said so himself in a letter to Benjamin Rush:

[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly. (Jefferson, Writings, Vol. III, p. 441, to Benjamin Rush on September 23, 1800.)

ok Zachary-

now connect the dots with me..

lets for fun use establishement. the first amendment says, exactly as you have written above.

to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination

now, consider the actions of the departed.. he used his pulpit to help elect a president.. correct?

he also met often with presidents to help guide their policy and decisions.. correct?

seems to me as though we have a pattern of religion (a particular denomination) doing all they can to further their own agenda through direct intervention in the political process.

now if that does not violate the spirit of the constitution, i don't know what does.

when one religion starts to take governmental power, it serves to have a chilling effect on the practice of other religions. that sir, violates the constitution.

Oh, please. The fact is that "religious organizations" have always sought to be engaged in the political spectrum.

Is it any different from a president being a religious person? Hell no.

Your example is absurd. Christians have as much right to partake in the government of this Country as anyone else.

Read the Constitution and the cases interpreting the Establishment Clause and you may learn a thing or two.

no one has argued that religious people are not enfranchised.. the point is that creating laws based on particular religious beliefs are contrary to the idea of freedom of religion. just because religious organizations have always sought to gain political favor does not make them right.

making laws that favor one religion over another serves to elevate that particular religion over others and directly conflicts with the establishent clause.

like i said before, practice your own relion until the cows come home.. attempt to restrict mine and you'll get fight every time.

i love lawyers, they tastle like chicken.

TS, you mix and match, not a good idea.

the point is that creating laws based on particular religious beliefs are contrary to the idea of freedom of religion

Why? If a particular religious belief (Thou Shalt Not Murder, etc) is a good thing, why should a government, any government, not pass a law "based on" that belief. Merely because it is part of a religion does not make it off limits.

making laws that favor one religion over another serves to elevate that particular religion over others and directly conflicts with the establishent clause.

That's what I said. Now, tell me, what laws did Falwell pass that favored one religion over another?

I can wait until doomsday and you will have no answer as Falwell, NEVER an elected official, "passed" no laws, period.

Are you saying he cannot seek to have laws passed that favor one religion over another? If so, you are wrong. He certainly has that right. Whether or not such a law, if passed by the appropriate governing authority, is constitutional is another whole dish. But Falwell, just like any other person in this Country, has the RIGHT to seek to alter the laws of this Country.

Finally, how did Falwell attempt to "restrict" your religion? Again, I await your response, with specific examples. Homosexuality, last I looked, ain't a religion. Neither is being a Liberal, though many act like it is.

And that's not chicken you're tasting, it's your own foot.

But all is forgiven

I find that tenant of Christianity fascinating, that one can say heinous things and promote hate, but just simply accept Jesus and get to be in heaven.

If Falwell is in heaven, but many virtuous non-Christians I know don't make it, that would be a very unjust place, IMO.

and this:

Unfortunately, in the case of non-Christians, virtuous or not, unless they accept Christ and the gift of Grace, they don't have a hope.

is why I could never ever be a Christian...I know many non-Christians and people of other faiths who put alleged Christians to shame with their good acts and way of living.

I also no many non christians that put to shame christians.

But if you do believe in hell, you are definitely immature and childish.

Actually, the road to hell is paved with liberalism and homosexual activity and glee after learning that a good man has died. God rest his soul.

proof that man is not evolving.

at all..

:-(

Actually, the road to hell is paved with liberalism and homosexual activity and glee after learning that a good man has died. God rest his soul.

Wow, that was tremendously insightful and well substantiated. Life is so much clearer now. It's an epiphany...

Although I am unclear as to what exactly happens in Hell. Are there a bunch of liberals and gays? Is it just an amped up disco kind of thing?

And if Jerry Falwell's in heaven - you can have it.

Actually, the road to hell is paved with liberalism and homosexual activity and glee after learning that a good man has died. God rest his soul.

I could have sworn that there was something in the bible about not judging others.

Still it never stopped Falwell, so keep up the good work - you too could become a televangelist hatemonger!

Actually, I hope Heaven is a bit like August National, and Hell is a bit like Bobby Jones Golf Course in Atlanta.

LOL.

Wmo if the likes of Jerry Falwell are what's waiting for us up in heaven, then heck I'd rather be in hell with my friends.

Let's have a drink on this. To all of you gay-bashers, bottoms up!

Frankly, have never understood gay bashers. What the hell do they care who does what, to whom, and where.

Never made sense to me.

And I agree, I sure as hell don't want to see Falwell where I am going.

So, those who believe in religion, any religion, cannot seek to influence the government?

Man, so much for a democracy, eh?

well thanks for the holier than thou lecture bodhii.

i don't know who we could get along without you.

falwell won't burn in hell..

he'll rot in the ground like the rest of us. some of your right wingers will one day be surprised to find out that there is no heaven and there is no hell.. only a cold hole in the ground.

I hate when I have to agree with Bodhi1... :)

well thanks for the holier than thou lecture bodhii.

You are welcome.

This is for, at least I thought, I higher form of discourse. I may be mistaken.

That's okay,Bodhi1, we forgive YOU-

I missed where Bill Clinton preached intolerance and hatred, as Falwell did. Could you please give examples?

I see little "glee" in these comments, but comments on a man who devoted his life to increasing hate and intolerance in the world. I refuse to forget the terrible things this man said simply because he is no more.

TJG, you missed my point. My point is that, while I don't like Bill Clinton and think he is a dirty, lying scumbag sex-offender, I will not feel any pleasure at his passing, let alone take the time to voice my pleasure in snide, despicable comments like you can see above.

I find it classless.

Do you feel pleasure at the passing of Iranian mullahs? Insurgents? They, like Falwell, are just people. So was Saddam, and I bet you were happy at his death.

while I don't like Bill Clinton and think he is a dirty, lying scumbag sex-offender,

i love it when the self rightous make up "facts" to support their case.

i could not find mr clinton in the sex offender database. so what other "facts" have you been conjuring bodhi? i guess it does not matter though.. keep repeating yourself and sooner or later you might even believe what you say is true. it's the conservative way!

Do you feel pleasure at the passing of Iranian mullahs? Insurgents? They, like Falwell, are just people. So was Saddam, and I bet you were happy at his death.

Well, here is the article announcing Saddam's pending execution. And another of the same vein. Here is a comment I made concerning the video of Saddam being hanged:

Not saying you shouldn't be able to see it. Just saying that it shouldn't be presented in such an aloof manner. Maybe reference the website corresponding to the news channel for the video, for those who want to see it.

So, no gleeful statements about his death. I wasn't sorry he died, but I didn't "take the time to voice my pleasure in snide, despicable comments like you can see above."

Also, are you honestly comparing Jerry Falwell to Saddam? How can you expect to be taken seriously?

keep repeating yourself and sooner or later you might even believe what you say is true. it's the conservative way!

Yeah, cause we all know Clinton was clean as a whistle. Never had any improprieties on his record.

bodhi-

you did say exactly that clinton was a sex offender.. i only pointed out that you are once again fabricating evidence. you would make a great hollywood cop.

so you can keep on making @!$%# up, and people will continue to call you on it.

living in a kookaid fantasy must be awesome.

Sorry.

Such a shame he can't take

Or it could be that a great deal of comments in this thread are inflammatory, violate the CoH or have no value.

This is nothing to do with right wing politics

Its clearly a religious thing!

The man made money out of religion

Cut out the middleman pray direct the middleman wants your money

bodhi-

for once you are correct.

suggesting that someone is burning in hell might well be inflammatory

you finally made a funny! hehe

bodhi-

for once you are correct.

suggesting that someone is burning in hell might well be inflammatory

you finally made a funny! hehe

Be careful tschrek !
He's got CoH loaded in the lable maker !

Mykola Bilokonsky

I'd like to thank Steve Watts for being eternally reasonable

Steve Watts

.- For all his hot air,

Yes,his ability to to be diplomatic is the making of legend.

Excellent advice Steve

Yes,his ability to to be diplomatic is the making of legend.

I think my sarcasm detector might be on the fritz, because I have no idea if that was sincere or a dig. Uhh... thank you?

I have no idea if that was sincere or a dig-

Therein lies the beauty of it-

Well, I do think it's important not to let the media whitewash him the way they whitewash all the other scumbags that die. I'm a little taken aback at the exuberance of the celebration here, but yeah. I dunno that it's ok to just not say anything so people who respected him don't get their feelings hurt. If they respected him, in my opinion, they were obviously not informed as to the nature of his teachings and the hypocrisy which he so tenderly embraced.

That said, I do agree that this is hardly cause for a celebration.

I'm not suggesting people must be silent about his life's work or how it may have affected us.

I'd just prefer that those who advocate rationality remain...rational.

yep and say thank you for help empty their pockets

amen

Here's what good it does to "bash" him: we recall how injurious he was and in what particular ways and we remember how bad it was and the pain it caused, like a bad hurricane, and we think about how to clean up the damage done and watch and prepare for similar disasters.

Mykola, no one is saying that you have to spare the feelings of those that respect him. And it is possible to respect someone and not agree with their opinion. I have a lot of respect for people on NV, even though I disagree with the majority of opinions here. Furthermore, to show that respect, I try not to insult them or belittle them because I disagree with what they have to say or their opinion. I may not always succeed, but at least I try. I do feel it is ironic that those that lambast him for his hatred and hypocrisy are doing the exact same. And that is the point being made. Is it truly necessary to bash him the way people feel he bashed others?

Annasmum:

Good point. People in glass houses, and all that.

Badkungfu, there is another version of the saying you were quoting which goes, "If you can't think of something nice to say, come sit by me." :-)

The negative sentiment being expressed on NV isn't anything Falwell hasn't heard himself already. It wouldn't surprise him and he wouldn't expect it to be contained because he's dead. He courted criticism with his agenda and chose to ignore it in life. I doubt he'll mind if it continues. Why should his detractors suddenly be hypocritical?

Jerry Falwell preached intolerance in a country which prides itself on the opposite. Even if the sanctimonious criticism of his detractors takes hold on NV, it won't in the 'real' world.

Kathleen, I agree but there is a difference between being a detractor and dancing on someone's grave.

Say whatever you like about the guy's beliefs or their affects, I just don't see the point in bashing just to tweak his supporters. It's tasteless, and definitely not going to win friends or influence people.

that's not my problem, that same moral majority were some of the people that he conned money off of in the name of religion

that's not my problem, that same moral majority were some of the people that he conned money off of in the name of religion

It never ceases to amaze me that congregation members are perfectly happy to have millionaire ministers.

If hell exists of course, the Jews invented hell and the Christians and muslim are scared that they might go there. I belive in faries and goblins its much more saner too, there's more proof they exist.