salimma's Journal: Jerry Falwell and the Gospel

It seems that Jerry Falwell is in breach of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, specifically as described in the Gospel according to St. Matthew, Chapter Five, Verses 39 and 40:

• 39: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
• 40: And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.

The breach was in the case of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, which went against Falwell and established the right to parody famous people.

Or maybe the establishment of the right itself is Falwell's turning the other cheek? Someone familiar with the case, please enlighten me; Falwell is not a major public persona in the United Kingdom so I am unfamiliar with the flow of events. Really God works in mysterious ways...

I believe

[GMontag]

I believe that this is not a full listing of Falwell's sins.

Part of what was going on with Hustler vs. Falwell was they made a parody liquor ad that had Falwell as a spokesman. It included much nastyness including slurs against Falwell's mother.

Falwell sued, forgot where in the US and eventually lost, further defining civil law in the US that famous people can be parodied, i.e., satire as protected speech. I am not sure what happened on the specific issue of Falwell's mother, as she was not a famous per

Re:I believe

[salimma]

I believe that this is not a full listing of Falwell's sins.

Most people outside the USA probably heard about him mostly after his faux pas [cnn.com] blaming gays and liberals for the 9/11 attacks.

I just found out about the specific Campari ad that Falwell sued Hustler for, it is indeed in bad taste. Good point on his mother - perhaps she did not bring a lawsuit since she was not named directly, or they both decided it is just going to bring bad publicity?

BTW, I never remember "turning the other cheek" meaning

Re:I believe

[GMontag]

Please don't take it seriously :)

Whew! Thought we had lost you to the other side for a moment there :-)

Re:I believe

[ces]

Whew! Thought we had lost you to the other side for a moment there

I don't know that disliking Falwell exactly qualifies one as being a member of the "other side".

I think a lot of people with libertarian leanings are somewhat uncomfortable with the religious right.

Re:I believe

[GMontag]

I don't know that disliking Falwell exactly qualifies one as being a member of the "other side".

It was not the target of the ire I was commenting on, but the illogic used, i.e., bastardization of "turning the other cheek". That illogic turned out to be a joke, as you have already read in this thread.

Now I am completely lost as to where you are coming from.

Re:I believe

[ces]

Now I am completely lost as to where you are coming from.

It was the vodka talking, yea that's it. ;-)

I did follow the joke and your point about bastardizing "turning the other cheek".

I have run across those who believe that if you oppose Falwell and the sort of policies he advocates you must support NAMBLA and the ultra-radical feminists.

I find plenty to agree with conservatives on and even agree there needs to be a bit more morality in everyday life. However as someone with strong libertarian leanings

Re:I believe

[GMontag]

I have run across those who believe that if you oppose Falwell and the sort of policies he advocates you must support NAMBLA and the ultra-radical feminists.

LOL, well I am one of those that sees Falwell and his peers to be a bunch of Fascist leaning authoritarians, like Pat Buchanan. They don't wan limited government, they want a police state with a church. As opposed to the hard left that wants a police state with an outlawed church.

Re:I believe

[ces]

LOL, well I am one of those that sees Falwell and his peers to be a bunch of Fascist leaning authoritarians, like Pat Buchanan. They don't wan limited government, they want a police state with a church. As opposed to the hard left that wants a police state with an outlawed church.

Sounds like you and I are very much in agreement on this.

Amazing how alike those on the far right and far left are.

Re:I believe

[ces]

Indeed not. I am just humourously taking a poke at Falwell. It just seems like something he would do, berating people for being un-biblical. Please don't take it seriously.

Carful poking fun at Falwell, he might sue you for libel and slander. ;-)

Re:I believe

[elmegil]

He's still at it [chillingeffects.org], apparently having learned that you have to use copyright law to really abuse people :-)

As for turning the other cheek, there's some analysis here [20m.com], particularly "At a closer look this passage deals with how one must respond after being insulted. This is not a passage dealing with what one must do when being physically attacked and having one's life being threatened." that is in close correspondence to other analysis I've read but can't find offhand. Basically, when talking about "turning

Re:I believe

[salimma]

He's still at it, apparently having learned that you have to use copyright law to really abuse people :-)

Things we learn [factnet.org] from the Scientologists....

As for the lawsuit, it could be argued that being portrayed having incest might result in bodily harm from people who did not get the joke. Or have adverse effects on his televangelist operations...