Spitting on Falwell’s grave – before it’s even dug

I certainly was no fan of the Rev. Jerry Falwell. While I recognize his contributions, I think he was greatly, often comically wrong on many issues from Tinky Winky to 9/11. But I am disgusted by the vile reactions that so many were willing to indulge in after his death Tuesday.

Falwell’s heart had barely stopped beating that morning when groups opposed to the televangelist’s politics issued statements all but popping the champagne corks. American Atheists, Inc., after a perfunctory nod to the “grief of friends of relatives,” said it’s glad he’s headed for the nonexistent afterlife because he “worked against many of the key values underpinning our secular American democracy.” The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force lambasted him as “someone who used religion to divide rather than unite our nation” – which probably could be said about some people the Task Force agrees with, too.

The instant, pile-on nature of those responses was tacky and tasteless, but still they represented legitimate comment – unlike what appeared on an Enquirer blog (not this one) Tuesday afternoon, in response to a post simply asking for reaction to Falwell’s death. Dozens of readers posted such thoughtful epithets as “a Christian Hitler,” a “freak,” “a cancer,” “a boy-toy for satan” (sic). One commenter wished for more deaths: “Now if the other 20 or so Christian Bigot Powerbrokers would finally kick the bucket we’d be in good shape.” Well now, there’s religious tolerance for you. (I’m not going to link to this blog, or any of the others nationwide that had similar “discussions”; if you want to go slumming, find it yourself.)

The problem is, there’s plenty of room – and a real need – for intelligent, informed discussion about Falwell’s career and how he helped change the political dynamics in this nation, for good or ill. He was instrumental in the emergence of what is generally called the “religious right” – which is nowhere near as monolithic, simple-minded or easily defined as its opponents seem to believe. And certainly, you could argue he inspired greater political participation by some on the left as well as the right who traditionally had shied from the public arena. Instead, we got a bunch of he’s-evil-and-I’m-glad-he’s-dead nyah-hyah that seemed to be a proxy for a deeper anti-evangelical hostility.

Think about this: If the subject Tuesday had been another controversial minister such as the Rev. Al Sharpton, God (hey, deal with it, American Atheists) forbid, how would we regard advocacy groups that jumped to smugly gloat about his passing? And if that Enquirer blog had been politically incorrect enough to enable a bilefest of comments on Sharpton the way it did on Falwell, what would we think about those who exploited that venue to spew their acrid rants? We’d think they were hateful, mean-spirited bigots. Enough said.