Somehow, something tells me that no conservative will ever repudiate the Jesus-Freaks. I don't know why they even lean on those people. . . they can be so objectively pro-fascist, among other things.

But you are exactly right, and conservatives are right too(in this case on ANSWER): those ANSWER people are nutty...let's hope they vanish.

I don't think I've ever posted on the Christian right. But in answer to your question, Sean-Paul, rest assured that I have little use for Falwell or Robertson -- and I definitely reject the notion that national disasters are God's punishment.

Is that what you're after? It's not like I'm attending their events, after all.

Sean-Paul,
the professor has some very liberal views on abortion, etc.. he isn't your typical "conservative". Falwell is a moron and i have to give this Bush his due.. he has squelched the christian right and made them a side issue. unlike pappy. i look forward to an end of religion in government.

Terry,
i guess you were wrong.

Well, it took me about 2 minutes to find this in Instapundit archives for the week following September 11, 2001:

PAT ROBERTSON isn't just an idiot because he endorsed Jerry Falwell's dumb remarks. As Colbert King points out, Robertson is partners in a gold-mining venture with Liberia's Charles Taylor, a murderous thug who ought to be standing next to Slobodan Milosevic in a war crimes tribunal. Come to think of it, "idiot" is too kind a word, isn't it? Pat, you're worse than the money changers in the temple. Whatever you say about them, they weren't partners in slavery and murder.

Hard to believe you have missed the almost universal conservative condemnation of Falwell and Robertson. Here's Buckley, for example:
http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley091801.shtml

Certainly I've seen many on the libertarian right (the real ones) condemn Falwell and the like. It really depends on which part of the "right" you're talking about.

However, I'm not sure there's much equivalence with A.N.S.W.E.R. - who were savvy enough to pick the right moment to lead anti-war rallies, but who no one actually listens to. It's not as if they have their own TV station or a lot of their ilk in Congress, let alone the ear of the White House. Hell, no one had even heard of them until last autumn. I bet George Bush knew who Jerry Falwell was, though.

One of the wrong conclusions of the Left (and sometimes the Middle) is that all Christians are followers of Falwell or Robertson, as if we had some kind of Christian Pope.
Which we don't.
One of the key differences we have with the Catholics is the Individual Covenant with God and one's right to read and interpret the Bible as one deems correct as guided by one's conscience, whereas the Catholics rely on their priests to intervene and intercede for them accordingly.
While Falwell and Robertson and even Franklin (and Billy) Graham have large followings, none of them have the authority to speak for all Christians or even all Protestants.
And Mark Harden is correct, the "Christian Right" lost no time in condemning and distancing themselves from Falwell's assissine and judgemental remarks.

Using ANSWER as the answer to right wing prayers is wrongheaded, in my opinion. ANSWER stepped back from direct leadership sometime ago back in the fall. Since that time, those in the know...the mainstream folk have been tuning in to others, like United for Peace. But ANSWER did some good stuff that I can't condemn them for. They were the ones who intially had the organizational skills to make an anti-war statement that would be heard. Since that time, others have taken the microphone (United for Peace among them) and ANSWER has become just one of many groups opposed to unilateral war upon Iraq.

If you had written this or Glenn had written this in the fall, I'd have agreed with you. In fact, at the time, I wrote about how it was that the left and those opposed to war...libertarians, had to build a movement of their own, because of the baggage the right wing would attach to ANSWER.

ANSWER is entitled to demonstrate and organize against US action. They should be applauded by those who otherwise would have sat on their asses and bitched, rather than doing something about it. While I don't agree with most of ANSWER's ideological positions, I wholeheartedly approve of how they've brought organizational known-how and attention to what is now a global US problem. I can't say the same for Jerry Falwellj's issues and actions, and I don't imagine Glenn Reynolds can either. The two don't equate.

L

A quick search turned up:

"JERRY FALWELL may be a prototype Idiotarian, but Clayton Cramer explains how his dumb comments can cause deaths in India."

http://www.instapundit.com/archives/004623.php

"EUGENE VOLOKH RESPONDS TO JERRY FALWELL, whom longterm readers will recall was a prototype for the term "idiotarian."

http://www.instapundit.com/archives/004623.php

"What bloggers are more than anything, I think, is anti-idiot. That makes life tough for Noam Chomsky, Cornel West, and the Revs. Falwell, Robertson, Jackson, & Sharpton, for reasons that transcend traditional partisanship and ideology."

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=2091

"There you have it. As Chapman notes, some of our own American critics, (like Jerry Falwell and Michael Moore?) don't get this. But in all honesty, they have more than a little in common with Osama bin Laden."

http://www.instapundit.com/oldarchives/2001_09_09_instapundit_archive.html

There is much more where he quotes / links other people denouncing Falwell & Co.

Regards / GulGnu

-Stabil som fan!

ANSWER are extremely insignificant in numbers; the Workers World Party has never gotten more than about 30,000 votes for its presidential slate. That said, the impression given by their command of the platform at Saturday's DC demonstration (I understand SF was different)was a major setback for any proponent of a patriotic anti-war message. There IS an "anti-American left", and ANSWER, the IAC and the WWP are among its leaders. Putting aside guilt-by-association arguments, there's a real presentational problem with having the C-SPAN'ed image of this event include guys with keffiyehs round their necks trying to lead the crowd in chants of "Allahu Akbar". This will not work as outreach to the American people.

"But ANSWER did some good stuff that I can't condemn them for."

Most people do "good stuff you can't condemn them for", regardless of political affiliation. Not all people avocate introducing a communist dictatorship, though. Not all people stand up for Tianamen Square. Not all people stand up for the North Korean regime. Not all people stand up for Slobodan Milosevich. Not all people are invited to hold speaches in front of the Iraqi national assembly. That the left won't let this get in the way of not only cooperation, but even subordination based purely in convenience and not distress, speaks volumes about their morality, their goals and sense of belonging. 'Mainstream'? - pah!

As for the supposed 'disconnect' between ANSWER and the rest of the left, they sure weren't disconnected from the big mall rally held last Saturday...

As for 'the right' capitalizing on it - sure. This is the attack-ad raw material political consultants everywhere dream of.

Regards / GulGnu

-Stabil som fan!

TO: Agnostic
RE: Condemnations Anyone

"If you do not, and if you don't do it as loudly as I do, you are no better than those from ANSWER and the Radical Religious Right." -- Agnostic

Let's see here.

Falwell and Robertson et al, is as bad as ANSWER?

Interesting comparison that.

ANSWER supported the Tienamen Massacre.

ANSWER supports North Korea's gulag.

ANSWER supports Castro's HIV+ concentration camps.

ANSWER hates America and it's Bill of Rights.

The RRR sent thousands of tons of food and medical supplies along with doctors and other medical/logistical professionals to Rwanda in '94.

The RRR opposes massacre, especially of babies.

The RRR supports the Constitution of the United States and loves this country.

And you claim the two are 'equivalent'?

What kinda crayon are you smoking?

It must be one of those NEW colors I haven't tried.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. How much money and aid and time did you give for Rwanda in '94?

TO: Jennie Taliaferro
RE: Lock-Step Mentality

"One of the wrong conclusions of the Left (and sometimes the Middle) is that all Christians are followers of Falwell or Robertson, as if we had some kind of Christian Pope." -- Jennie Taliaferro

Good points.

Most people who call themselves Christians don't spend a lot of time with either of them.

Indeed, I suspect that as with ANSWER/WWP, they think that Christians think in lock-step too. Just like in those bad old days before the Reformation. But things have changed and instead of relying on some priest to tell the peasants what to think, most Christians these days know how to read and read their Book for themselves, thrashing out their understanding between themselves and God, as the Spirit moves them.

I get the impression that 'Agnostic', and a few others around these parts don't care much about that. If someone calls themself a "Christian" it's poison. Lock-step. Mentally deficient. You know....

....morons.

What was it that one character said, They can't wait until there is no religion in government?

Truth be told, you can probably trust a bona fide christian to do the right thing in 90% of their decisions than you can trust anyone else. [Note: That's because that guy is very much concerned that he's got to answer to the Big Boss for everything he's done here.

And the Big Boss can be real harsh, if He has a mind too, "No soup for YOU!"

Fear can be a great motivator.]

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[God builds his temple in the heart on the ruins of churches and religions. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson]

Saying "the RRR supports the Constitution" may be a bit much. Anyone who thinks Robertson and Falwell would express the slightest regret if the United States threw out the First Amendment and adopted Christianity as an official state religion obvious hasn't watched much "700 Club". :)

Also, Robertson was a strong supporter of apartheid South Africa (because of the ANC's flirtations with communism).

Ya know, I started to say some shit, but I noticed that GulGnu and Chuck(le) had commented.

[toss]

That's willie peter.

Have fun. They've already kicked your ass.

I’ll just torch the remains.

What an idiotarian.

This isn't really about "obsessing over the contents of Instapundit." Anybody with the most vague familiarity with the site would consider it a "no-brainer" that Reynolds would vehemently disagree with Robertson's and Falwell's remarks.

Basically, your "challenge" was about as dippy as saying "now let's hear Michael Moore condemn corporate greed -- come on, Michael, we're waiting!". :)

TO: Agnostic
RE: How Dumb Can You Get?

"I've been informed how dumb I am because I don't obsess over the contents of Instapundit." -- Agnostic

Glenn isn't calling you 'dumb' because you don't obsess over his 'content'.

He's implying you're dumb because you don't do your research.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Sorry to see the Agonist following the no-think crowd in attacking ANSWER with various lies. "I condemn ANSWER without any qualifications" says Agonist --- and also without any reason.

That's for the best because making specific accusations instead of vague slurs always works against you when you are flaming.

TO: Dan
RE: Watch It!

"Saying "the RRR supports the Constitution" may be a bit much. Anyone who thinks Robertson and Falwell would express the slightest regret if the United States threw out the First Amendment and adopted Christianity as an official state religion obvious hasn't watched much "700 Club". :)" -- Dan

Apparently you don't.

I did. Daily back when I had the time. It had a great source of news outside of what the so-called major media provided. Occassionally, I'd stick around to see other segments, when coding didn't require my undivided attention.

I suspect you "project", Dan, when you say you think that Robertson and his like would not hesitate to toss the Constitution.

After all...

[1] I've watched his show, apparently a lot more than you have. And I never saw anything that indicating such as you claim.

[2] I know what I'm talking about in defending the Constition of the United States against all enemies, foreign AND domestic. He wouldn't stand a chance against me and mine. And neither would WWP or you for that matter.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[God is alive....and airborne-ranger qualified. And so am I.]

AVEDON says there's no equivalence between ANSWER and the religious right. That's right. The RR, whether one agrees with it or not, does represent many millions of Americans and if AVEDON accepts the principles of democracy he cannot reasonably object to the fact that they have a voice in Congress. But they have never held the leadership of American conservatism and do not pretend to speak for it. ANSWER is a minuscule group which represents practically nobody, yet they have seized the leadership of the antiwar movement and created an image for it - anti-American, totalitarian, fascist,anti-Semitic. The antiwar movement has let them get away with this with hardly a murmur of protest. The clueless respondents to this post think it's great that ANSWER organizes such great rallies and do not notice that every such rally turns people against them.

TO: dawson
RE: Hmmmm

"ANSWER is a minuscule group which represents practically nobody, yet they have seized the leadership of the antiwar movement and created an image for it - anti-American, totalitarian, fascist,anti-Semitic. The antiwar movement has let them get away with this with hardly a murmur of protest. The clueless respondents to this post think it's great that ANSWER organizes such great rallies and do not notice that every such rally turns people against them." -- dawson

Sounds like a great plot line for John le Carre's next novel...

....the RRR infiltrates WWP, forming ANSWER which subbourns the anti-war movement, turning everyone against the righteous Communists.

If John doesn't want the idea, maybe Oliver Willis?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Oratory: A conspiracy between speech and action to cheat understanding.]

>>>But as I condemn ANSWER will you of the Right condemn people like Falwell and others of his religious extremist ilk who say that the United States' immorality made us deserve 9/11? <<<

Sure. No problem. Easy.

Um, was that supposed to be difficult for me to do?

Conjecture: the right decouples itself from its extremists better than the left does. Example: the blogosphere's gleeful crucifixion of Lott vs the ongoing waffling of folks like O Willis over ANSWER.

Challenge Dr. Reynold's regarding the RRR? Sheesh -- even us 'Freak's over at blogs4God.com know that's a no brainer.

I subscribe the philosophy that any condemnation of wrong that continues with "...but will you on the other side also fulfill xyz of my own defining?" is not a sincere condemnation at all, but political opportunitism. If something is objectively wrong, then it is worth denouncing in and of itself. Failures by the other side can be addressed separately, so as to permit the appropriate corresponding debate on the merits, and reduce any appearance (real or imagined) of partisan subjectivity.

That said, conservatives and other non-leftists DO denounce the nuts in their own rank, as other posters here have well demonstrated.

The libertarian right, the countryclub right, the neoconservative right, and some of the Christian right may have firmly and permanently distanced themselves from Robertson and Falwell (as well as other loonies, ie., whichever of the rapture Christians who are not connected with Falwell or Robertson).

However, George W. Bush has not. He said a little something when R&F went all crazy and drew some heat, but it was not a permanent break and he's been mending fences since. Same as with the neo-Confederates. There's a real sick, nutty streak in the American right wing and Bush is far too close to that bunch.

The Agonist is a self-proclaimed war-hawk so on what basis exactly does he feel he can apologise on behalf of an antiwar group? That's like David Duke apologising for Martin Luther King's "racism".

"But as I condemn ANSWER will you of the Right condemn people like Falwell and others of his religious extremist ilk who say that the United States' immorality made us deserve 9/11?"

Sure. More than a year ago. Not that I ever went to any of their meetings or gave them money or anything.

James

Here is one of my condemnations of Falwell; this one was three days after the attack. Also this ("Falwell truly revealed his soul that day, and it is black indeed."), and this and this...

In fact, I don't think I've ever said anything complimentary about Falwell, but I've sure dissed him a lot.

Well, so much for that; seems you've got it set up to strip all HTML out, so none of my links worked.

I condemned Falwell three days after the attack, here:

http://denbeste.nu/entries/00000732.shtml

And also these times:

http://denbeste.nu/entries/00000755.shtml
http://denbeste.nu/entries/00000800.shtml
http://denbeste.nu/entries/00001185.shtml

And in general:

http://denbeste.nu/cgi-bin/perlfect/search/search.pl?p=1&lang=en&mode=all&q=Falwell

Boring. Straw Man. And startling lack of scholarship on your part.

For what it's worth, I'd cheerfully see Robinson and Falwell shot for their theocratic, homophobic, racist and misogynstic views. I'm as robustly 'right-wing' as you could care to find (although I'm actually a militantly atheist, minarchist libertarian).

All the debate's on the Right now. The Left is too busy fisting itself to notice. Just grow up, for fuck's sake.

Damn!

GulGnu, Chuckle, Den Beste have posted. Game Over. That's what I get for watching TV.

To those of you out there, who somehow believe that Jerry Falwell represents mainstream conservatives, or even mainstream Christians, or that his remarks back in September of 2001, were condoned by any, including the president, need to get out more, and read something besides your own *known* group-think. As a start, Google:

"Timothy George" "Jerry Falwell"

Note the date of the WSJ article:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=95001185

http://www.mttaborumc.org/sermons/20010923.html

There are more. Read. It's good for you.

Would that Rushdie, Hitchens, et al, were as successful with the lefty loons, as the right has been with Falwell.

Geez, what a mess. Let's lay off Sean-Paul....no, he didn't know IP very well, but all in all, he's been an honest interlocutor with me. Cut the boy some slack, here.

This post is proof that all you need to do to beat a liberal in honest debate is let them speak.

TO: a libertarian
RE: Target!!!

Cease fire.

Gunner. Target archive/000 457.
Loader. Load Willie Pete.

Fire!

On the WAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYY!

WHAM

Driver. Head for next area of operations.

Loader. Reload HEAT!

Out here....

Wes,

yep, I was wrong :0)

Sean-Paul,
looks like you've picked up an interesting freeper.

I don't feel that ANSWER and the Terrible Two are good correlations with each other for the following reasons:

ANSWER has not had any of it's senior members (while they were members) be regular dinner guests at a sitting president's home.

ANSWER is virtually unknown to the majority of peace activists, and even less well known to the broader left.

ANSWER's policies and political leanings aren't shared in their reprehensible bulk even by the Green party, which is about as far left as mainstream political debate ever veers. (You can say what you like about Greens, but they'll denounce any murderous dictator you care to name.)

OTOH, the Terrible Two support policies that sooner or later find their way onto the lips of the most powerful Republicans in office. And Falwell has been a long time friend of the Bush family.

While the mainstream right wing may say they dislike them, they rarely muster enough distaste to vote against Republicans that share Falwell's opinions.

While the 'religious mainstream' Republicans try to distance themselves from Robertson and Falwell, they can't ever seem to name more than one or two points of public policy on which they disagree with them.

I lived the fundy life, I drank the Kool-Aid and recovered. And a theocracy is precisely what they intend this country to be.

There is no equivalence in my mind between someone who goes to a rally to affirm a principle they believe in without caring about the powerless group that organized it, and someone who consistently votes for supporters of policies forwarded by those they claim to despise.

The only real reason that many conservatives seek to distance themselves from the vote getting machine that is the 700 Club is that they know it makes them look bad. In fact, the Robertsons and Falwells of the world are well within the range of tolerance for anyone who voted for GWB knowing of his connection with them. Same for those that vote for the rest of the Rabid Rightists like Lott, DeLay, etc.

Because they know deep down that the Republican political agenda pitched to the public without the support of socially retrograde policies (packaged as 'morality') doesn't stand a chance in hell of winning a national election. They're in bed with the bigots, they're in bed with the Christian Nationalist wackjobs, and they couldn't care less as long as it squeaks them in the door.

"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
- George Washington; Treaty of Tripoli, 1796

Gotta hand it to Sean-Paul, unlike some of his leftyblog counterparts, he takes his medicine like a man. In my book, better counterpart to ANSWER would be KKK. Don't laugh, they sympathize with Islamofascists too. Maybe ask speakers & rally attendees if they would like to join them in condemning war?

nice article, keep up the good work. lookup zip code