For Jerry Falwell, it depends on what the meaning of ‘Christian’ is

August 10, 2005

You can always count on TV preacher Jerry Falwell to know exactly how to bring people together.

Falwell recently urged his followers to “vote Christian in 2008,” and to help drive the point home, sent what’s left of his supporters an “I Vote Christian” bumpersticker.

In a fundraising letter, Mr. Falwell wrote that he hoped “to utilize the momentum of the sweeping conservative mandate of the November 2, 2004, elections to maintain a faith and values revolution of voters who will continue to go to the polls to ‘vote Christian’ and call America back to God.”

The Anti-Defamation League isn’t happy with what it sees as Falwell urging voters to disciminate based on religion.

Abraham Foxman, the Anti-Defamation League’s national director, said Falwell’s statements are “directly at odds with the American ideal and should be rejected.”

“Understanding the danger of combining religion and politics, our founding fathers wisely created a political system based on individual merit and religious inclusiveness,” Foxman said.

Falwell said he’s been misunderstood.

Falwell told The News & Advance of Lynchburg Tuesday that his statement was misunderstood.

“What I was saying was for conservative Christian voters to vote their values, which are pro-life and pro-family,” Falwell said. “I had no intention of being anti-Jewish at all.”

In other words, it apparently depends on what the meaning of “Christian” is.

Still, if Falwell expects to get the benefit of the doubt, and he wants us to believe he doesn’t support discrimination, he’s going to have to hope we forget his record.

* In 1980, for example, Falwell told reporters, “I do not believe that God answers the prayer of any unredeemed Gentile or Jew.”

* In 1984, after losing a contractual lawsuit with a critic, Falwell’s lawyer appealled, arguing that the the Jewish judge in the case was prejudiced.

* In 1994, Falwell’s newspaper ran an article calling TV preacher John Hagee a heretic for saying Jews can be saved without accepting Jesus.

* In 1999, Falwell told a pastors’ conference that the Antichrist prophesied in the Bible is alive today and “of course he’ll be Jewish.”

And now he’s arguing that his “vote Christian” message shouldn’t be seen as discriminatory. That Falwell, he’s so misunderstood.

Falwell is such a clown. I can’t believe Bush and Rove still talk to this guy. It’s an embarrasment to all of us.

  • Falwell is indeed well-suited to be a Republican. So many code-words with meanings outside of conventional usage.

    “Pro-family”: means you hate gays
    “Pro-life”: means you want the State to have control over a woman’s reproduction
    “Conservative Christian”: means go along with the GOP in everything they do no matter how horrid in the vain hope that they will actually give your self-styled “religious” “leaders” some political power. Believing in God or Jesus is optional, so long as you don’t dare question the leadership you’ll be saved. Praise Jesus!

  • Ooh wait, I forgot.

    As far as I know, based on these definitions, Falwell is indeed not being anti-Jewish. What Jew would want the odium of being associated with such values as Falwell approves? If anything, Falwell is being anti-conservative Christian.

  • Question: wasn’t the government going after black church’s tax-exempt status for getting political? Is Jerry Falwell a 501(c)(3)? Wasn’t the IRS sent after the NAACP for being political? For once, the WSJ was on the right side, and the fact was that the NAACP was simply condemning Bush policy:

    “But in an address to the NAACP’s 95th annual convention in July, Mr. Bond apparently crossed a far more consequential line. According to the IRS, Mr. Bond explicitly ‘condemned the administration policies of George W. Bush,’ which is a no-no if your organization is tax-exempt and wants to stay that way.â€?

    The NAACP is working for a specific goal, and I think they have a right to criticize policy that is contrary to that goal. But to advocate against non-conservative Christians seems much more blatantly political—the difference between saying “policy x is not in your interest� and “only people of your religion are acceptable as your secular government leaders.�

  • Democrats are more in line with Christ’s teachings, I guess Falwell was saying “vote Democrat”, right?

  • Ed,
    Of course Augustine of Hippo reasoned from the bible that it was okay to forcibly get people to accept Jesus. Which makes sense: what does it matter if I rip out someone’s fingernails with slivers of bamboo if it leads him or her to be saved?

    Lots of contradictions and ambiguities, which is why I’m convinced that religion is the worst catastrophe anyone has ever inflicted on our world.

  • Who cares, anyone who listens to Farwell is already voting republican, who’s mind is he trying to change ??

  • Speaking of the recent Supreme Court decision regarding their newly discovered interpretation of “eminent domain” ( Kelo v. City of New London)…. Most big cities have whole blocks of pricey downtown property devoted to the physical plants of large, old churches and even cathedrals. That land is held tax-free. Wouldn’t it make sense (enhance the public good) if that property were to be seized and turned over to private developers for construction of tax-generating office towers, thereby significantly relieving the tax burdens on our cities?

  • As much as I detest Falwell, and fundamentalism (for that matter, religion) in general, I think the ADL is off-base here. Of course Falwell and the religious right want to encourage conservative Christians to vote to put as many other conservative Christians into office as possible, so as to advance their frightening agenda. That may be a goal that many of us do not view as desirable, but it is certainly not “discrimination” in any objectionable sense, nor is it specifically anti-Jewish. As much as we may hope to steer the course of American politics away its unsettlingly conservative course, jumping on the bandwagon with these specious arguments does not aid the credibility of our cause. It only serves to reinforce the victim complex that the religious right already plays up to its constituency.

  • conservative Christians into office as possible, so as to advance their frightening agenda. That may be a goal that many of us do not view as desirable, but it is certainly not “discrimination” in any objectionable sense, nor is it specifically anti-Jewish.

    Would it be okay if the bumper sticker said, “Only vote for someone that believe Jesus Christ is the son of God and died for our sins.” -or- “People who don’t believe in our saviour the Lord Jesus Christ are unfit to govern.” I’m not saying any governmental action is required, but it is not a topic that should be avoided so as to not sound embolden their victim status is wrong. People who want to be victims will find ways to be victims. People who are offensive/discriminatory should be called out as such.

  • FiatLex,

    I think your argument ignores the phrasing of the bumper sticker AND Falwell’s demonstrated willingness to engage in intentionally un-Christian activities and language, and then to at least dissemble if not outright lie about it. He is one who should NOT be given the benefit of the doubt regarding this incident regarding EITHER his intent OR the legitimate and reasonable reactions of certain segments of our society.

    Specifically, notice how the bumper sticker reads: “Vote Christian in 2008” — this can only be read to mean he thinks ONLY Christians are worthy of support at the ballot box. How arrogant! How racist! How stupid!

    How differently would we react if, instead, the bumper sticker read as:

    “Christians – Please Vote in 2008”

    OR

    “Christians – Be Christ-like in 2008”

    Falwell is not imploring us to be Christ-like. In fact, as Christ had no use for the Pharisees and those who use the temple for crass political purposes, Falwell is being decidedly un-Christ-like.

    And no matter how Falwell, the right-wing radicals, and all of their supporters and apologists try to spin it to the contrary, in the eyes of most true Christians — and even the unreligious but still morally principled people — the ends NEVER justify the means. THAT is what Falwell & Co. fail to grasp let alone practice — and that is what makes this latest tactic so repugnant and morally reprehensible.

  • Yes, frankly, I think those bumper stickers would be just fine. The democratic process is all about discrimination, which, let’s recall, is not always a bad or illegitimate thing when undertaken by private citizens. Voters choose representatives whose views best align with the values, policy preferences, and prejudices of the majority. We may well disagree with those values, but there is nothing improper in the least about encouraging Christian voters to put more Christians into office, thereby advancing the secular aspect of the Christian agenda (pro-life, anti-gay rights, etc.). Falwell’s comments were no more discriminatory against Jews than my own voting for, and encouraging other people to vote for, John Kerry were discriminatory against Republicans. In a literal sense, perhaps, discrimination is being practiced in both cases, but that is an inevitable, and desirable, aspect of any system that requires us to make value judgments.

  • FiatLex,

    Not to belabor the point, but your example of voting for Kerry is being “discriminatory against Republicans” is absurd. Falwell wants us to vote for Christian candidates SOLELY because they are Christians, which by the force of logic means he does not want us to vote for non-Christians SOLELY because they are non-Christians — regardless of the skills, experience or any other qualifications of those who happen to be in one group or the other. Virtually every state has laws that prohibit discrimination by the government AND private enterprises against someone on the basis of their religious orientation or race — and Jews are universally considered to be a separate race from Caucasians.

    Falwell is NOT a private citizen in his capacity under discussion here. His organization is tax-exempt (whether as a 501(c)(3) or some other category under IRC Section 501(c)), and is subject to a myriad of anti-discrimination laws at both the federal level and under Tennessee law.

    The fact that we vote for a candidate who just happens to be a Christian is subtly but profoundly different than advocating the position that only Christians are acceptable as cadidates at all. Worse, it implies that such candidates if elected MUST function as a Christian, whether that would be consistent with or in violation of his duties as an elected official. For example, would it be acceptable for a candidate to promise that he would not enforce abortion laws because he has a religious objection — and then follow through if elected? Of course that is not acceptable, except to Falwell and others of his ilk.

    To paraphrase JFK: “I will not be a Catholic who happens to be President; rather, I will be a President who happens to be a Catholic.” In other words, his religion would remain a private matter for him, and it would neither be forced down the throat of all Americans nor would the Bible trump the Constitution. All I want from Falwell and BushCo and all the right-wing radicals — and for Roberts if he is confirmed as a SCOTUS Justice — is the same thing.

  • I wish someone could explain to me why
    evangelical Christians are always quoting
    from the Old Testament instead of following
    the teachings of Jesus.

    Let’s really lay it out here. Don’t most
    evangelical Christians really believe
    that a figure like Jesus is a “girlie
    man?” A guy that preaches kindness,
    peace, forgiveness, gentleness,
    care for the unfortunate, honesty,
    humility et al – isn’t this man really the
    antithesis of what these radicals
    admire? Don’t they really want a
    Jesus that can beat up gays, stomp
    on poor people and other lazy louts,
    put women in their rightful place,
    attack other countries, and generally
    act like a bully?

    I wish someone, also, could reconcile
    the arrogant, vindictive, jealous, autocratic,
    tyrannical, violent and insensitive god of
    the Old Testament with the father that
    Jesus preached about.

    Anyone who can get through Leviticus
    without being absolutely disgusted and
    appalled by that god has got to be an
    evangelical Christian. Or a Republican.
    If you haven’t read it, do so.

  • Analytical Liberal,

    Dictionary.com defines “discrimination” as “Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice.” So, fair enough, perhaps advocating for Kerry as an individual does not fit within this definition, but what about a statement such as, “Always vote for Democrats,” or “Always vote for pro-choice candidates”? Certainly those statements make distinctions between candidates on the basis of their membership in a class or category, and “discriminate” against individuals who do not fall in that class. I can’t see why it makes a difference that Falwell is advocating a distinction based on membership in a religious group rather than some other broad social group like Democrats or pro-choice candidates.

    I’m not persuaded by your argument that the fact that Falwell’s 501(c)(3) organization is subject to state and federal anti-discrimination laws has any bearing on this issue. To the best of my knowledge, those laws prohibit the organization from discriminating only in the employment of individuals on the basis of race, religion, etc. If there are any laws that restrict such an organization’s ability to support a particular class of candidates, be they Democrats, Christians, environmentalists, Caucasians, or any other group, I am not aware of those laws, and I would think that they would probably violate the organization’s First Amendment right to free speech, particularly given the undeniably political nature of the speech in question.

    Also, let’s be clear about who is engaging in this alleged anti-semitic discrimination: is it Falwell himself, or the Christian voters he is trying to persuade? The linked article is unclear on this question, but CB characterizes the objection as “The Anti-Defamation League isn’t happy with what it sees as Falwell urging voters to disciminate based on religion.” Are you suggesting that an individual voter, by going to the polls and voting for a candidate on the basis of that candidate’s profession of Christian faith, is committing an act of illegal (or even improper) discrimination, even if the voter’s choice is based SOLELY on the fact of the candidate’s Christianity? The wall of separation between church and state, even expansively envisioned, was never intended to deny a citizen the right to vote for a candidate who shares his or her values, even when those values are based on religious belief. (On a side note, the late John Rawls argued precisely that; his view was that political decisions at all levels, including candidates seeking election and individual voters choosing a candidate, should be made on the basis of a limited sphere of “public reason” that excludes the broader realm of “comprehensive” moral and religious value. Rawls argued that this distinction is inherent in the concept of democracy itself, but I personally think he was a bit naive in his assumption that political preferences are severable from moral or religious views.)

    “Worse, it implies that such candidates if elected MUST function as a Christian, whether that would be consistent with or in violation of his duties as an elected official. For example, would it be acceptable for a candidate to promise that he would not enforce abortion laws because he has a religious objection — and then follow through if elected?”

    I don’t see how this is particularly problematic for a Christian candidate; all elected officials are to some degree beholden to the interest groups who campaigned for their election. If this is unsettling, it is a systematic problem that applies to all officials who benefited from the support of some interest group. Also, you seem to be conflating the issues of a candidate’s campaign platform and performance in office. If an elected official refuses to perform his legal duties on the basis of a religious or moral objection, there are adequate remedies for that (impeachment, being voted out of office, or the filing of a lawsuit seeking to compel the official to act come to mind as a few examples). Moreover, I see nothing in Falwell’s statement that calls for any Christian candidate or official to violate the law or fail to execute the duties of their office. Let’s not let our own prejudices and misgivings about the religious right lead us to accuse them of outrages they haven’t yet committed.

    • Comments are closed.