PeterDavid.net

Viewed without comment. (Oh crap, that is one, isn't it?)

Eww, no! I'm still a little grossed out that Monica had "fun" with Clinton. I don't even want Bush having sex with his own wife for fear that he'll spawn again.

Yay! I needed a new icon! Thanks! :)

If it means Bush booted out of the White House, I'd give him a blowjob myself.

Wow. That pretty much says it all.

That sign shows a very limited understanding of what an impeachment actually accomplishes.

"That sign shows a very limited understanding of what an impeachment actually accomplishes."

Actually, the sign shows a perfect understanding of how the government has allowed itself to conduct business in the last decade plus. Have a fling with an intern, we will turn over all stones to find what it was all about. Send innocent people to get killed for your own agenda's, and we'll let you testify off the record about any improprieties. Take this country to the next level of "big brother is watching", and turn a blind eye to the spit in the face on our freedoms. So yes, the sign applies the logic of government for out times...

Isn't that woman wearing a blue dress over her jeans? :-)

If I were told that the action would not only lead to Bush's impeachment, but his conviction on those impeachment charges -- and I were told this, I don't know, 2 years ago or so. I would have seriously considered getting down on my knees.

But since the process would take a year anyway, it's just not worth it anymore. Might as well just wait it out.

And I'm straight -- just to make that clear.

It seems that may be the only way to get Mr. Bush out of office. It's to bad that if something like that did happen, we would probably never know about it. And if the story were about to get out in to a 'legitimate' press source, some one may be rendered to avoid that.

Somebody get that signholder a cigar! (I'm led to believe that was also part of the...deal)

But seriously, you mustn't let the desire to trim the Bush make suckers of you.

Looks like the signmaker ran out of room for the full message:

"WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE GIVE BUSH A BLOWJOB AND THEN GET HIM TO LIE UNDER OATH ABOUT IT SO WE CAN IMPEACH HIM!"

Shoulda got a bigger piece of cardboard -- or written smaller at the outset.

J.

The sign disappoints me, but it doesn't surprise me.

Bush will go down (pun intended) into history as one of the worst Presidents, while Clinton will be remembered as a good one (if not a great one).

The bruhaha over Clinton's sexual pecadillos will be remembered mostly as pettiness and hypocritical opportunism from his adversaries, the same ones that would take the power and produce Bush.

Eventually reason prevails, if only in the History books.

without going into my opinions of any president, i tend to agree with an opinion expressed in an issue of Neil Gaiman's Sandman in which Richard Nixon said (and this is an approximate quote without my reference in front of me)

"While you're in office you'll be the worst president in history until you're out of office, then it's some other asshole's turn."

in other words, we'll hate the next guy as much as we hate this guy.

Note for the record and the sake of full disclosure that I have no real faith in any of our politicians to give a shit about much but thier own poitical power anyway, so take the above with however large a grain of salt you require.

Well sure, Clinton got impeached for lying under oath - but hasn't Bush committed plenty of his own crimes? Isn't violating the FISA law with the illegal wiretaps, which he's admitted to, enough to impeach the guy? I'm just asking...

Here's something else offered without comment... well, at least for now:

Jerry Falwell dead at 73.

Yup, Falwell is dead. At last Tinky-Winky can rest easy...

Hey, speaking of blowjobs, Fox News is giving one to the late Jerry Falwell right now, vis a vis their coverage of his passing...

Falwell's dead, but his legacy, agree or disagree with it (put me down as the former) lives on.

All I can say about him and his breed is that for proponents of a faith that preaches charity, their biggest donations seemed to be to themselves. Smug so and so doesn't look like he missed any meals.

Would it be terribly crass of me to say that I think Jerry Falwell is in for a big surprise on the other side?

Would it be terribly crass of me to say that I think Jerry Falwell is in for a big surprise on the other side?

He might be, but I'm sure not.

"Would it be terribly crass of me to say that I think Jerry Falwell is in for a big surprise on the other side?"

A Wiccan arrives in the afterlife. Her guide takes her through a door to a hallway with thousands of doors on either side. As they walk past each door, she looks inside to see various afterlives being lived out.

While passing one door, she sees signs that say "QUIET ZONE". Her guide won't open the door to look inside, and keeps her from speaking or making any noise.

After they are through the Quiet Zone, she asks "What was that all about? Every other door was open."

Her guide replies "That's the Christian's room. They think they're alone here."

Although Mr. David should, and probably will, start a separate thread on Falwell's passing, I might shock you by the following statement:

You should all shed a tear for his limited, mis-aimed and sad life.

I always believed a tenet of Christianity of any stripe was that one should seek to see that little bit of God that's in every human. Falwell couldn't see that bit of God in gays, lesbians, doctors, liberals and a lot of other people. He led an impoverished life.

And he really believed it. He wasn't a con man like many televangelists. No one has ever found him fondling hookers or choir boys. He really believed and practiced what he preached...may God have mercy on his soul.

That is funny joke.

Though, to be completely fair, it's not only Christians, but all Abrahamic religions that consider themselves the only and ones that will be saved.

Fallwell---

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Burn in hell Falwell, burn hot, burn bright

I gotta say, Larry Freaking Flynt is showing more class than some of the folks here: http://www.accesshollywood.com/news/ah5356.shtml

Damn guys, way to make the Extreme Right look like the sane ones there for a minute.

Jerry Falwell was a deeply flawed individual, he made statements and took stands I rarely agreed with and he was one of my least favorite examples of a "Christian" in modern times. Nevertheless, he wasn't a Hitler, Pol Pot, Osama Bin Laden or Vlad The Impaler. The fact that there are posters here that are celebrating and enjoying the man's death says a whole hell of a lot more about about the failings of humanity then much of what he stood for.

Did I like him? No. Did I agree with him? No. Would I agree that he may be facing a judgment in death that may surprise him and his followers? Yes. Would I celebrate and enjoy the fact of his death? Hell no. This kind of display of what's worst of humanity is the kind of thing that many who are engaging in it now would chastise and demonize The Right and the Bushies for.

Nevertheless, he wasn't a Hitler, Pol Pot, Osama Bin Laden or Vlad The Impaler.

Regardless, I wouldn't wish the Robertsons, Falwells, and Phelps of the world on any of those.

I quietly cheer his passing because Falwell preached hate, discrimination, and more, and those are things that the world can do without.

But that's supposedly a display of the worst of humanity? Then so be it

At least I'm not the one claiming the gays are responsible for 9/11, or that a world leader should be assassinated in the name of God. Or, if you want to involve politics, writing off the deaths of tens of thousands of innocents as 'collateral damage'.

So, no, I don't consider myself on the level of the Right or Bush & Co.

I don't even want Bush having sex with his own wife for fear that he'll spawn again.

TOO LATE!

Falwell's dead, but his legacy, agree or disagree with it (put me down as the former) lives on.

Actually Manny, I think you mean the latter. The former here would be "agree" and your subsequent remarks suggest you don't have a high opinion of the man.

You should all shed a tear for his limited, mis-aimed and sad life.

Thomas, I might be sad for him if his actions had not made the lives of so many others so miserable. Considering how he helped to make intolerance acceptable for people who consider themselves Christians and gave Christianity as a whole a bad name, to name just two things, I'm primarily happy that he's no longer around to screw up the world. I don't know what happened to make him the way he was. If I did I might pity him, depending on what it was. Since I don't, I just feel that this world is better off. I won't wish eternity in hell on him, though, nor would I wish it on anybody.

A Wiccan arrives in the afterlife...

Yeah, I like that punchline. If more Christians kept their mouths shut about any beliefs they may have that they, and only they, are going to get into heaven, non-Christians might be more inclined to listen to them.

To play devil's advocate (and the identity of the "devil" I'm defending here makes that a bit ironic), I don't think all Christians are agreed on what exactly happens to those who don't get into heaven. Whether it's hell by default, or whether it's something like limbo or purgatory, or whether it's something entirely different that isn't actually as excruciating as eternal torment but rather just being separated from God. So if you hear somebody saying they think only people like them will get into heaven, they may not necessarily be saying that people unlike them will all go to hell.

Microsoft Encarta defines deism as: "a belief in God based on reason rather than revelation, and involving the view that God has set the universe in motion but does not interfere with how it runs."

That's about as good of an encapsulation of my spiritual beliefs as you're likely to find. I mention that by way of making clear that I do not subscribe to any religion and have no interest in proseletyzing.

Nevertheless, I believe it is unwise to second-guess God's will when it comes to who will or will not be saved (assuming the Heaven/Hell dichotomy is indeed the model upon which the afterlife is based). If there is a God -- and I am confident that there is -- He is to us as we are to amoebas. Claiming to know the mind of God is, at best, a hubristic conceit.

Falwell's fate upon leaving this mortal coil may well indeed been markedly different than he expected. As may yours, mine, and everyone else's. My suggestion to some of you? Don't be so smug.

If you're an atheist, there is still a reason not to take glee in Falwell's death: because it's really, really, rrreeeaaalllyyy tasteless, crass, and revealing of poor character. As Jerry Chandler already pointed out, Falwell wasn't a tyrant or a mass murderer. He was a man with beliefs with which many of us here disagree passionately (myself included), but that is no reason to take glee in his passing.

Some of you really need to do some growing up.

Nevertheless, I believe it is unwise to second-guess God's will when it comes to who will or will not be saved (assuming the Heaven/Hell dichotomy is indeed the model upon which the afterlife is based). If there is a God -- and I am confident that there is -- He is to us as we are to amoebas.

I'd contend that being more advanced than another life form does not give one the right to do anything one wishes to that inferior life form. I don't assume that I know, as others here seem to, where Falwell will end up or if he even still exists in any form. But there are some things that could happen to him which I would consider wrong, whether they're God's will or not.

Btw, who's to say that just because we're smarter than amoebas, it means we're morally superior? I mean, have you ever known an amoeba to have sociopathic tendencies or to wish ill on something else? They live pretty simple existences, don't they? So who's to say that God has a better sense of right and wrong than some human somewhere? Not necessarily me...but somebody. Who's to say that God's sense of right and wrong is perfect, that he's never made a mistake when passing down sentence?

As Jerry Chandler already pointed out, Falwell wasn't a tyrant or a mass murderer. He was a man with beliefs with which many of us here disagree passionately (myself included), but that is no reason to take glee in his passing.

What if a KKK member died, Bill? What if it was somebody who had never taken part in a lynching or committed any crimes, but who absolutely despised black people and who enthusiastically applauded whenever he heard that a black person HAD been lynched or gruesomely murdered? What if it was somebody who spoke to other, impressionable, people and convinced them to believe as he did, and stopped *just* short of encouraging them to go out and assault black people? What if he fanned the flames of hatred?

Would you also say that there would be no reason to take pleasure in the passing of this KKK person?

Falwell, as far as I know, didn't break any laws. He was still able, however, to do a helluva lot to screw up the world. Also, if you consider Bush a mass murderer, it's worth noting that Falwell was one of his cheerleaders and famously said that we should "Blow (the terrorists) up in the name of hte Lord!"

Here are more Falwell quotes:

"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped (9/11) happen.'"

Elaborating, he said:

"I therefore believe that that created an environment which possibly has caused God to lift the veil of protection which has allowed no one to attack America on our soil since 1812."

Here`s the link:
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/14/Falwell.apology/

Would you also say that there would be no reason to take pleasure in the passing of this KKK person?

Yeah, I think it's wrong to take pleasure in another person's death. It's something I am probably guilty of but I don't kid myself into thinking that it is in any way ennobling.

It also potentially puts you in the awkward position of looking worse than the object of your hatred. I don't recall Falwell gloating over the death of a political opponent. Maybe he did. If so, you're only as bad as he is. Was.

But who wants to be as bad as Jerry Falwell?

I say there's absolutely no good to come from such behavior and considerable harm, at least to one's own honor. I'm not saying your feeling are alien or something only a bad person would feel. We all have bad feelings. But you should rise above them.

I don't know about Falwell, but his friend Pat Robertson has prayed for Supreme Court Justices to die so that they could be replaced with more conservative ones.

But you're right. I should not be sinking to the level of Falwell, Robertson, and the rest.

Jerry Falwell said some things.
No one denies that.
Some of those things could be fairly out there.
Not many will deny that.
Jerry Falwell is dead.
No one denies that.
His family and friends are in pain due to that. As my in-laws prove all the time, no matter how large an unpleasant person you are, your death will bring sadness to someone.
Pulling out quotes, no matter how well known, to prove that this man's death is a good thimg places you in the same boat that he was in, that being the boat full of people who have to speak ill of others in an overloud voice to make themselves feel important.

Have some respect, people.

as to Falwell -

my two cents - i think he was an asshole with some pretty screwed up ideas.
But I neither relish nor mourn his death. It's just an event that happens to be in the news because he was famous.

We're all just human here folks - some of us making crude comments because someone died whom we feel did more harm than good, others villifying those comments for what we perceve as lacking compassion. And most of us who'd probably get along if we had a more complete understanding of each other than what we see in these little blurbs of opinion.

if Falwell and Flynt could respectfully agree to disagree - why can't we?

Wow. Just wow.

Talk about some rather crass words and opinions. Would any of you really want someone talking about you in this manner after you died? Really makes me rather ashamed to be associated (even in the loose manner that we are) with some of the people around here. What happened to a little common decency? What happened to the "caring" attitude that is supposed to be espoused by the "liberal" contingent of the political spectrum. You may have disagreed with the man about his stance on some issues, but wishing him to burn in Hell for eternity for those stances?

I didn't agree with stuff that he said, heck, I don't agree with stuff that lots of people have said, but I don't want to suffer for eternity for 'em.

Really guys and gals, some of this is just so over the top and uncalled for. I'm off my soapbox, flame away if you wish.

I try not to take pleasure in Jerry Falwell's death, or anyone else's. But I didn't like him. I don't like bigotry or intolerance, I don't much like religion and especially not religious fanatics. I fell he did more harm in the name of Christ's love than he did good. Still, he was trying to be good, even in his own narrow minded "my way or the highway" mentality.

However, I LOVES me some schadenfreude. Between Gonzales and Wolfowitz and Kathleen Sebelius, I hope Bush's butt is clenched tighter than the spin on Cheney's popularity polls.

Posted by: Rob Brown at May 15, 2007 10:15 PM

I'd contend that being more advanced than another life form does not give one the right to do anything one wishes to that inferior life form. I don't assume that I know, as others here seem to, where Falwell will end up or if he even still exists in any form. But there are some things that could happen to him which I would consider wrong, whether they're God's will or not.

Rob... you seem like a nice guy. But -- were you high when you read my last post? Seriously. Were you high or something? Because your response is a complete non-sequitur.

My post was pretty clear, Rob. I posited that we cannot know the mind of God anymore than an amoeba can know the mind of man. If I'm right -- and I think I am -- then it stands to reason that we cannot know what fate was in store for Falwell in the Great Beyond, nor can we know what fate is in store for ANY of us. It is hubris to believe otherwise.

Think for a moment, Rob. The logical implication, which I didn't spell out because I didn't want to insult anyone's intelligence, is that it is also hubristic to believe that one's preferred construct of God and the afterlife confers any moral superiority. Any belief in God, including my own, is a crapshoot and therefore it behooves ALL OF US to show some humility.

Posted by: Rob Brown at May 15, 2007 10:15 PM

Btw, who's to say that just because we're smarter than amoebas, it means we're morally superior?

Again... were you high when you wrote this? I never said anything about anyone or anything being morally superior!

Posted by: Rob Brown at May 15, 2007 10:15 PM

What if a KKK member died, Bill?

No, Rob. No dice. I will NOT follow people down every single goddamn rabbit hole tonight. Bottom line: I abhor the KKK and everything they stand for. But I refuse to take pleasure in anyone's death. Why is that so hard to understand???

Rob, as soon as I hit the submit button on my last post I regretted it.

I don't think you're stupid and I'm sorry for ragging on you like that.

It's just frustrating to make what I believe is a simple point and then have to chase down and correct interpretations that, to me, bear zero resemblance to what I wrote. But maybe the fault is mine. Maybe I'm a much shittier writer than I like to believe.

Again, sorry.

Posted by: mike "shaggy"g at May 15, 2007 10:40 PM

And most of us who'd probably get along if we had a more complete understanding of each other than what we see in these little blurbs of opinion.

Wow.

Very, very, very well said. I couldn't possibly add any more to that, other than to say, "Amen."

So... amen!

I'm not sure I take pleasure in Falwell's passing - it's more a sense of relief, like "Whew! He can't cause any more damage..." The problem is, there's always someone worse waiting in the wings. I think Pat Robertson was worse than Falwell, James Dobson worse than Ralph Reed, Tom DeLay worse than Newt Gingrich, and so on... It never really gets any better for either "side" - the players just change.

Would any of you really want someone talking about you in this manner after you died?

If I said some of the things Falwell did over the years, then I would at the very least expect it.

What happened to the "caring" attitude that is supposed to be espoused by the "liberal" contingent of the political spectrum.

Is that anything like the "compassion" that conservatives boasted about just a few years ago? I wouldn't exactly describe liberalism in general as 'caring', nor would it apply to conservatives.

But, as a self-proclaimed liberal, this wouldn't be the first not-so-liberal position I hold, nor will it be the last.

I've commented before here that I have a '@#$% List' of those who get my eternal gratitude for kicking the bucket, those that the world is better off without, and Falwell was one of those on the list. It is what it is.

Did colbert steal your freedom clock peter?

So, no, I don't consider myself on the level of the Right or Bush & Co.

One of the arguments against Bush and his crew's "interrogation" techniques is that we, the Americans, the Good Guys, should have a better moral standard then those we condemn for acts of torture. Many here condemn the actions of Bush and crew by pointing out that doing wrong is wrong no matter who does is or what their stated excuse for their actions.

Same thing here. Expressing unbridled glee at the death of a person because of their political or religious beliefs VS your own is what I expect from political vermin like Coulter, O'Reilly and Savage. It's equally distasteful when directed at someone in their camp by the "other side."

Would you also say that there would be no reason to take pleasure in the passing of this KKK person?

I would not miss the person or shed a tear at their passing. I would also not express glee that the person died. As I said, I leave that kind of thing to the Coulters of the world and those of minds like hers.

I don't know about Falwell, but his friend Pat Robertson has prayed for Supreme Court Justices to die so that they could be replaced with more conservative ones.

And how many here who condemned Robertson as a bad person for such statements now act and speak much as he did.

But you're right. I should not be sinking to the level of Falwell, Robertson, and the rest.

Bingo!!

Look, I'm not saying that we're not going to have thoughts like these. I was at work pulling some overtime when the news broke. I was tired and cranky cause I hate getting up early enough to work dayshift and my first thought on the subject was... less then kind.

My second thought was that I don't want to be that kind of person and I put that garbage out of my head. I dislike when the Right Wing @$$e$ out there make such public statements and I feel that they're scumbags when they do. I have no desire to emulate their stupidity.

We're all going to think things like that from time to time. The worst of our nature will always rear its ugly head. But I would prefer to leave the displays of that kind of thing to the professional and practiced scum balls like Savage and Coulter and not practice it myself.

A few more blow jobs would go a long way to solving a lot of the world’s problems - I was just writing something about that on my blog the other day.

Kate said she visualises Falwell arriving in front of the Big Guy's throne:

"Jerrry - you got a lot of 'splaining to do!"

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at May 16, 2007 01:09 AM

We're all going to think things like that from time to time. The worst of our nature will always rear its ugly head. But I would prefer to leave the displays of that kind of thing to the professional and practiced scum balls like Savage and Coulter and not practice it myself.

And I believe I speak for most here when I say that we're glad that you, having the job you do, feel that way.

I, myself, had a strange thought. What if Jerry Falwell is reincarnated as my kid? At least I could hardly teach him worse than what he spewed in this last life of his.

-Rex Hondo-

PS- As for the original subject of the thread, "Not it!"

Jesus. I was really sleep-deprived yesterday and it affected me WAY more than I thought. I re-read my first post in response to Rob Brown and it reads like some kinda psychotic breakdown.

Yikes.

Look, I stand by what I said originally about Falwell's death, but maybe I didn't express my thoughts as well as I could have. To put them more concisely and clearly:

1. No one truly knows the mind of God. No one. Announcing that Falwell will burn in Hell is as conceited as Falwell's certainty that gays will do the same. I suspect that we're all in for a surprise in the afterlife.

2. Publicly expressing joy about the death of one with whom you disagreed is hateful and petty. It doesn't matter whether you're on the secular left or the religious right: hate is hate, no matter how you dress it up.

3. I abhor Falwell's views. I believe he was a hate-monger. I nevertheless take no joy in his passing. The two views are not mutually exclusive.

I take no pleasure in the passing of someone whose major crime was having opinions with which I disagreed. Everyone has loved ones, friends, etc., and the knowledge that *someone* out there is grieving his passing precludes me from thinking much beyond, "Oh well."

PAD

PAD's approach to this is correct, I think. It is degrading to exult in Falwell's death. It's very easy to take the approach Falwell, Robertson and many others did - proclaiming that a particular death is God's punishment for something (per Falwell, homosexuality, abortion rights, not voting the GOP ticket, etc., per his opponents, being a self-righteous jerk) - but what many of us most disliked about him is completely validated by adopting his rhetoric. If his God exists, Falwell is being rewarded, or otherwise, without our input.

This isn't very much connected with Jerry Falwell, but PAD's determination to maintain the high road raises an interesting question. How bad does someone need to be for us to feel comfortable joking about his death - or, looking at it from a different side, how much time must pass before it's OK to joke about it? In the first case, most of us think its fine to mock Hitler or Ted Bundy - They were just that wicked. In the second case, there are a lot of jokes about Abraham Lincoln's visit to Ford's Theater which don't seem to upset very many people. It's all pretty complicated, but erring on the side of civility seems like a good idea.

I don't feel much sorrow for Falwell's death. To paraphrase John Byrne's MAN OF STEEL, "Yes, I feel sorry for him. I feel more sorrow for his victims." Falwell transformed much of American religion into a club, to attack and destroy anything and anyone they disagreed with. Feminists and gays were evil, and the separation of church and state should be replaced with their version of Christianity.

For a great read that includes a lot on Falwell, I highly recommend the book RELIGION GONE BAD by Mel White (who was a member of the religious right before he came out as a homosexual). White not only traces the outrages of fundamentalist evangelicanism, but also its origins and how to fight them by inclusion and demonstration. (White -- who is still religious after coming out -- sought reconciliation, not separation; he attended Falwell's church each Sunday, hoping to change minds through example instead of difference.)

"In the second case, there are a lot of jokes about Abraham Lincoln's visit to Ford's Theater which don't seem to upset very many people. It's all pretty complicated, but erring on the side of civility seems like a good idea."

A line variously attributed to Carol Burnett, Lenny Bruce and Woody Allen is "Comedy is tragedy plus time." Right now, doing jokes regarding 9/ll would be unthinkable. But once upon a time doing jokes about the Titanic or the Hindenburg would likewise have been unthinkable. Now people can wear t-shirts that say, "The ship sank; get over it" with impunity, and WKRP's Les Nessman, in watching turkeys plummeting to their deaths, can cry out, "Oh, the humanity!" and get huge laughs, even though on the surface equating a terrible human tragedy with turkeys "hitting the ground like bags of wet cement!" simply isn't funny.

If Osama bin Laden's head turns up tomorrow, I'm not going to give a damn about anything other than, "Good, the bastard's dead." But Falwell? I just don't see the point.

PAD

JamesLynch's post does not go too far. Declining to mourn someone you dislike is a very different thing from exulting in his death. If one is religious, the prospect that Falwell's judgment will be just should be satisfactory; If one is not, the fact that he is gone should be enough.

I agree that it is wrong to take pleasure in the death of another human being, but I did feel a twinge of Schaudenfreude when I heard about Falwell. I'm not proud of it, but at least I'm honest about it.

I know it is considered poor taste to speak ill of the dead, but Falwell was a con man who preached hate and used religion to bilk people out of millions of dollars so that he could live the high life. He as a despiccable human being, but a human being nonetheless, so I will try to say something postive about him.

Um.

Once his corpse is buried, he'll provide nurishment to countless worms, bacteria, and fungi.

Sorry, that's all I got. When he exploited the deaths of the 9/11 victims to advance his own agenda of hate, I lost the last vestiges of respect I had for him as a carbon-based lifeform. I'm sure someone loved him and misses him, but I can't pretend that I think he was something he was not, that being a decent human being. If there is a hell, I'm sure a 10th circle was added in the 20th century for the televangelists.

So, while I offer my condolences to his family and friends, in my gut I still feel the world is a better place without him.

Jeffrey: "In the second case, there are a lot of jokes about Abraham Lincoln's visit to Ford's Theater which don't seem to upset very many people. It's all pretty complicated, but erring on the side of civility seems like a good idea."

PAD: A line variously attributed to Carol Burnett, Lenny Bruce and Woody Allen is "Comedy is tragedy plus time."

On the other hand, Johnny Carson often said that even over 100 years later, jokes about Lincoln always bombed on stage, because it's still "too soon".

As for the sign about Bush getting a BJ, it's not really new. I've seen similar signs like that on the news and the web for the past 3-4 years.

It probably is too late to hope that enough of the republicans in Congress could be weened off the Kool-Aid in order to make an impeachment and removal of the decider (or his he the conductor now?) possible. Our only recourse now is to wait out the remaining 19 months and let history be the final judge.

One of the arguments against Bush and his crew's "interrogation" techniques is that we, the Americans, the Good Guys, should have a better moral standard then those we condemn for acts of torture.

So... we're comparing the reaction to the death of a moral hypocrits to torture?

Isn't that about on the same level as those who say it's ridiculous to compare Bush to Hitler?

As Den just said, I'm at least honest in my views of Falwell. I'm not claiming any sort of moral righteousness that should place me above such thoughts.

But that's the sort of righteousness that Bush, Falwell and others espouse when they're just full of it.

I don't go around every day saying "Yep, he's going to hell, she's going to hell, that group of people are going to hell just because the Bible dropped a line here and there saying something they did is bad". Which is how Falwell lived his life by trying to force his brand of religion down our throats.

Just like I think Bush & Cheney have also now earned themselves a spot somewhere near where Falwell will spend eternity, based on their actions during this administration.

All that abuse of power and religion... the irony that it's deserving of a trip to Hell is telling.

Yolanda Denise King, eldest child of Martin Luther King Jr., also passed away late last night at the age of 51.

Den - Johnny Carson would have known what jokes worked, but it's obvious that the sharpness of any distaste for Lincoln jokes has declined after 142 years. I'm a little surprised that Hitler jokes are sometimes considered not-too-distasteful. Perhaps the feeling of connection to recent history has declined in recent times. This is completely changing the subject, I suppose, but I think two areas of thought about Hitler are disturbing: 1. People see the events of WWII as long ago and unconnected to our world: I don't agree, and I think being unconcerned with such an important event is irresponsible. 2. (This one is very hard to express clearly) The Holocaust is seen as a single, unrepeatable anomaly - an evil beyond humanity, done with, and never to be repeated. It was done by real people, could happen again, and shouldn't be marginalized. Hitler was not something outside of Homo Sapiens, but rather an expression of the worst in the species. If we see him as an unrepeatable freak of nature and history we are unprepared for future atrocities - also by monstrously evil, but still human, people.

One of the cruelest ideas that "Christians" like Falwell supported was that whoever disagreed with their narrow-minded views would be eternally punished in Hell. I can't bring myself to wish that much torment to anyone.

I don't feel happy nor sad that he died. What makes me sad is that Falwell's poisonous ideas are still very much alive, and new defenders of bigotry and hatred will raise to take his place.

"Actually Manny, I think you mean the latter. The former here would be "agree" and your subsequent remarks suggest you don't have a high opinion of the man."

D'OH!!!! Ya got me!!!

Just gotta clarify, I won't celebrate or exult in the death of the flawed individual. All manner of bad karma there. For better or worse, he believed the ideological sewage that he spouted.

I will, however, take a HUGE freakin' degree of joy that at least one prominent hate monger is no longer polluting the airwaves. I will also find humour in his probable shock in where he ends up.

To paraphrase Dan St. Cloud in his "Afterlife Allstar Game", "Also here in Hell, Jerry Falwell, and boy does he look surprised!"

Falwell spent most of his time spouting fear and hate. He used political influence in attempt to shape policy to suit his fear and hate.

"Actually Manny, I think you mean the latter. The former here would be "agree" and your subsequent remarks suggest you don't have a high opinion of the man."

D'OH!!!! Ya got me!!!

Just gotta clarify, I won't celebrate or exult in the death of the flawed individual. All manner of bad karma there. For better or worse, he believed the ideological sewage that he spouted.

I will, however, take a HUGE freakin' degree of joy that at least one prominent hate monger is no longer polluting the airwaves. I will also find humour in his probable shock in where he ends up.

To paraphrase Dan St. Cloud in his "Afterlife Allstar Game", "Also here in Hell, Jerry Falwell, and boy does he look surprised!"

Falwell spent most of his time spouting fear and hate. He used political influence in attempt to shape policy to suit his fear and hate.

Sorry 'bout the double post. Cheap PC in the driver's room in Vancouver. Microsoft Culpa.

I take no pleasure in the passing of someone whose major crime was having opinions with which I disagreed.

Class act.

without going into my opinions of any president, i tend to agree with an opinion expressed in an issue of Neil Gaiman's Sandman in which Richard Nixon said (and this is an approximate quote without my reference in front of me)

"While you're in office you'll be the worst president in history until you're out of office, then it's some other asshole's turn."

in other words, we'll hate the next guy as much as we hate this guy.

Unless the next guy is as incompetant, arrogant, crony-loving, and autocratic as this chump, I seriously doubt he will be as hated as much as Bush.

"how much time must pass before it's OK to joke about it?"

Yesterday I saw a Washington Mutual commercial where one of the old fashioned bankers said they knew who was on the grassy knoll in Dallas. I know a lot of people that would think that was exceedingly poor taste. It's not a question of the passage of time.

"It's not a question of the passage of time."

Sure it is. Nothing in your example shows that it isn't.

In the last few years I've seen several JFK assassination jokes that I thought were funny. Your friends may not like them, but they don't speak for everyone. At one time they *did* speak for everyone as nobody would even have attempted those jokes five or even ten years after the assassination.

Is everyone is going to like jokes about the death of JFK? No, but a lot more like those jokes now than did twenty years ago. Twenty years from now, even more people will be OK with the jokes.

Jason, sorry, I mistyped. I meant to put in, "It's not JUST a question of the passage of time."

Sorry.

Unless the next guy is as incompetant, arrogant, crony-loving, and autocratic as this chump, I seriously doubt he will be as hated as much as Bush.

Yeah. Nowadays most just politicians cause boredom and a sort of low-level distaste. The guy needs to be something special to provocke the sort of visceral hatred directed at Bush.

I don't remember any US President being so hated since Nixon. Clinton and Reagan were intensely disliked by people in the opposite side of the political spectrum as they were, but not to the level Bush is.

I actually have this on a button...

Sure it is. Nothing in your example shows that it isn't.

"We could go back to Dallas, 1963, stand on the grassy knoll and shout 'Duck!'" - Kryten, "Timeslides", which aired in December 1989, a 'mere' 25 years after JFK's assassination.

Probably not the first 'grassy knoll' joke, but one of the best, imo.

And then Red Dwarf would later base a whole episode around JFK's assassination and changing history.

But is it merely the passage of time? Yes and no.

Yes because time heals all wounds, as it were. But also no because it also depends on the butt of the joke.

Take South Park and the whole Steve Erwin bit and how much flak they took. Same for Bill Maher and that costume party he went to.

Replace Erwin with Hussein right after Hussein's hanging and I bet nobody bats an eye, at least in most of the world.

Jesus. I was really sleep-deprived yesterday and it affected me WAY more than I thought. I re-read my first post in response to Rob Brown and it reads like some kinda psychotic breakdown.

There was a difference? I didn't notice one. Anybody else? Guys?

So... we're comparing the reaction to the death of a moral hypocrites to torture? Isn't that about on the same level as those who say it's ridiculous to compare Bush to Hitler?

Yes and no. I'm not comparing the acts themselves as much as the mindset behind them.

Those here who have condemned Bush for his torture policies have done so by pointing out that his actions portray America to the world as no better then the terrorist by acting in a manner that America condemns others for. If America tortures prisoners, then America is acting in a matter no better then its opponents in this war. The moral high ground is lost and the ability to condemn or speak on the subject is weakened considerably.

The same thing holds true here. The same people who condemn Bush over his "interrogation" policies are the same people who condemn Coulter, Savage, Robertson, etc. for praying for another's death, suggesting that assignation would be a good idea or actively expressing glee that someone "got what they deserved" by dieing when all the other person was truly guilty of was thinking, believing or speaking in a manner that was politically or religiously at odds with what they felt was right.

If you engage in the exact same thing, how are you any different or better then Coulter or Robertson? Falwell was, in my eyes, deeply flawed. He was not however a murderer, torturer or fascist dictator. He simply spoke what he believed. I may have expressed outrage at it from time to time, but he had a right as an American to think and speak as he wished. For that matter, so do you, Coulter, Savage and Robertson. You all have the absolute right to express glee and joy at the death of and idea of afterlife suffering of someone who you politically disagreed with on the day or week of their passing. Others have the right to point out that "birds of a feather...

I'm not claiming any sort of moral righteousness that should place me above such thoughts.

Nor am I. I admitted that my first thoughts at the news were less the decent. The difference between myself and a Coulter or Savage though is that I actually look at what I'm thinking and determine whether or not I want to be that scummy. Actually, I'm sure they do as well. They just come up with a different answer.

I'm not going to condemn someone for their first thoughts on a subject. It's just where they chose to go with those first thoughts that shows their character. It's a bit like stealing. I doubt that there's a person here who hasn't thought at least once in their life, if only for just a fleeting second, that they could get away with slipping off with something they really wanted but couldn't afford or maybe driving off at the pump. What separates the decent folks from the not so decent folks is whether they act on that thought or whether they chose to kick it back down.

I'm not even going to just condemn people for just their first words on a subject. We've all said something that we thought the wiser of a few minutes or hours later. What separates some people from others is whether or not they decide that what they said wasn't appropriate or not and whether or not they learn from their past statements and retractions.

Yesterday I saw a Washington Mutual commercial where one of the old fashioned bankers said they knew who was on the grassy knoll in Dallas.

Duh, everybody knows that by know. It was Lister, Rimmer, The Cat, Kryten and JFK from an alternate future.

I think one thing with jokes about death are that they're actually kind of generic. Some of the jokes in film, TV and standup about historical figures and their deaths are almost in the vein of insert-name-here types of jokes. Another thing is that most of the jokes are more about death and the shock of death rather then about whether or not the historical figure deserved it or whether or not the were suffering in the afterlife. Then of course you get to the subject of violent bastards like Hitler. Izzard killed with a line about Hitler's Honeymoon death. I doubt many would argue against joy in Hitler's death at the time of his death or now because of the nature of his crimes and because of the war he was waging. I also doubt that many would argue that Hitler is spending his afterlife in Hell. However, much as with Bush, Falwell was no Hitler.

Damn you Craig J. Ries, you beat me to the Red Dwarf example. A pox on you and DVD collection!!!

For the record, I chose my words very carefully in my "in for a big surprise" post. I specifically wanted to avoid sounding like I was consigning him to the pit, which is a decision I don't get to make.

I was thinking more of Falwell showing up in Heaven and being greeted by, say, Liberace and Susan Sontag, with Albert Einstein and Mohandas Gandhi having a conversation nearby. Y'know, being immediately confronted by the presence of people he was sure would be excluded because of what they believed or how they behaved.

Someone upstairs in this thread made a comment about Falwell's thinking that voting anything other than GOP is against God's will, (I think it was Jeffrey Frawley) and I have to wonder about something. If voting for the GOP is with God's will, then, I have to ask, what the heck do people in other countries do?

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at May 16, 2007 01:21 PM

There was a difference? I didn't notice one. Anybody else? Guys?

You suck. You really do.

Paul1963,

Your comments weren't really a major thing on my radar as much as those that expressed glee. Moreover, my initial comments weren't directed solely at those comments here. I was working overtime as security for a function at the Library of Virginia when the news broke. There were lots of people from lots of different backgrounds around me for quite a few hours. On the drive home, I channel surfed the XM and listened to bits a pieces here and there as well. The comments I was hearing all day were disgusting.

The comments from strangers, passers-by and people calling in to chat shows were one thing. I have no idea how some of them have expressed their views on other topics and events. The ones I found particularly disgusting were from those who's comments on other topics, especially those directed at imbeciles like Coulter, I was familiar with.

You either stand for a principle or you don't. You either believe something is wrong or you don't. You cannot claim that something is wrong when done by someone who is your political, ideological or religious opposite and then declare that it's fine and dandy to do yourself while excusing it as just being honest. The sad thing about the quality of character in a Coulter, Savage, Robertson, Beck, Falwell, etc. is that they likely believe some of what they're saying as well. I'm sure that they really are vile enough and low enough to enjoy the death of someone they don't like and to express glee at the passing of someone who dared to stand on the other side of the political fence as them.

If you condemn them or question their humanity for such actions and statements, what does that say about those who now do the same thing? Are Coulter and Savage better people then some of their critics because they're merely human pond scum while their critics are both human pond scum and first class hypocrites? I'd like to think not, but the words being uttered and written by many in the last twenty-four hours tend to confirm the worst of their critics.

"I'm a little surprised that Hitler jokes are sometimes considered not-too-distasteful. Perhaps the feeling of connection to recent history has declined in recent times."

A lot of people forget that when the film "The Producers" originally debuted, Mel Brooks took a TON of heat. WW II was only two decades prior, and having a funny Nazi (the playwright) and singing and dancing Hitlers was considered really pushing the envelope. Watching the more recent musical and film thereof, one of the reasons it's not quite as effective is that the passage of time has removed the sting of the spectacularly bad taste involved in making a Hitler musical.

Legend has it that when "The Producers" premiered, people really DID walk out of screening during "Springtime for Hitler" because they just couldn't take it. Brooks was accused of diminishing the evil of Nazism by turning them into figures of fun; his response was that he in fact hated Nazis so much that making fun of them was his way of dealing with that hatred.

PAD

Mel Brooks also took a lot of heat for Blazing Saddles.

Sadly, despite the fact that it skewers racists mercilessly, that movie wouldn't even get made in today's climate.

Brooks was accused of diminishing the evil of Nazism by turning them into figures of fun; his response was that he in fact hated Nazis so much that making fun of them was his way of dealing with that hatred.

He's also made a good point since then, which is that the way to combat demagougery is not with more demagougery, since the dictators (or whatever) are better at it than you are; instead, you fight them by making them look ridiculous, so it's harder for people to take them seriously. (Especially because those of that stripe are notorious for not having senses of humor about themselves--however angry people got at the time, Hitler would have been even angrier.)

Brooks said at the time of the musical that he only got one complaint about the Nazi material, and that was from someone who seemed to have misunderstood it.

He's also made a good point since then, which is that the way to combat demagoguery is not with more demagoguery, since the dictators (or whatever) are better at it than you are; instead, you fight them by making them look ridiculous, so it's harder for people to take them seriously.

People seemed to have understood this just fine when Hitler was actually alive and very much a threat. Look at what the 3 Stooges and Bugs Bunny did to the bastard.

I wonder if there were any complaints about Hogan's Heroes? The nazis were not only stupid but, in a few cases, kind of lovable (though I guess Sgt Schultz was never portrayed as a nazi so much as just a regular soldier and even Col Klink had moments where I thought he revealed a distaste for the German regime...or at least, that's what I remember from watching it as a kid.

While I don't always appreciate Mel Brooks's sense of humor, his approach in "The Producers" was extremely bright. Making the atrocious ridiculous is one thing; Making it sympathetic is entirely different. It is widely reported that Werner Klemperer (like his father, Otto, a Jewish refugee from Germany in 1933) agreed to play Colonel Klink in "Hogan's Heroes" only after being assured that Klink would never succeed or even appear competent. John Banner, who played Sergeant Schultz, was an Austrian Jew who had been interned in one of the earliest concentration camps, and he might well have had similar demands. I still think the show was in poor taste and rarely funny, but it didn't lend any dignity to the Nazis.

I wonder if there were any complaints about Hogan's Heroes?

I'd say that there likely were. My great aunt never watched that program and reviled the concept of it. She couldn't figure out what could be slightly funny in anything set in the German POW camps of WWII.

God help you if you mentioned liking the show around her. After ten minutes of lecture, you almost wished you had never heard of the show.

I've never understood the indignant have-some-respect-for-the-dead admonishment. As corpses (as in life) people should get the level of respect they earn and have shown to others.

So as far as Falwell is concerned, I am glad he's gone. And just hope whoever follows him isn't worse.

PAD: Everyone has loved ones, friends, etc., and the knowledge that *someone* out there is grieving his passing precludes me from thinking much beyond, "Oh well."

PAD: If Osama bin Laden's head turns up tomorrow, I'm not going to give a damn about anything other than, "Good, the bastard's dead."

There are lots of people who would grieve Bin Laden's passing. So why shouldn't you be precluded from thinkin much beyone "Oh, well" for him?

I don't think how I feel about someone dying should be based on how someone else feels about them. Sympathy for those who grieve, hmm, perhaps. But for the departed, if they were someone I disliked as much as Falwell? Glad to see 'em gone. Wish it had been sooner.

Reap what you sow, Jerry.

I've never understood the indignant have-some-respect-for-the-dead admonishment.

It's not a matter of showing respect for the dead. It's a matter of having respect for one's self.

I will not step forward and praise the man. I will not discuss his good points only in the week of his passing. I will not claim that he was a good man for his cause and an honest defender of his beliefs. I will not suddenly cease discussing what I see as his failings or the things I found reprehensible about him in the foreseeable future. And I will not for one moment mourn his passing.

However, there is a difference between that and publicly stating great joy and enjoyment in the man's death. Both may be seen as honest, but the one is far more crass then the other ever will be. And there's the nut of the matter. How low do you want to go? Do you want to be a Coulter, Savage or O'Reilly or do you want to be better then those that you condemn.

That's something I always find to be an ironic failing of many fans of heroic fiction. We get together on BBs. blogs, conventions and in other social gatherings and talk about the higher, nobler spirit of mankind and discuss what we see as the ideals to live by. Most boards that are frequented heavily by comic, sci-fi and fantasy fans have a high ratio of posts denouncing some of the shriller and nastier voices on the Right over larger issues (Iraq) and smaller issues (taking glee in someone's death or the prospect of their death) everyday. So, do many of those fans who speak so highly of ideals, personal integrity and nobler aspirations while condemning the failings of others take the opportunities to prove that they actually are better then those they condemn? No, many of them instead embrace the very nature they condemn in others. Just as many on the left are doing now with Falwell's death.

I'm not going to claim to be anything close to perfect or a saint, but I do try to not be that which I condemn. If I catch myself doing or saying something for which I have condemned another for, then I tend to reevaluate whether there was validity in that persons position or whether I need to knock off being a hypocrite or scumbag myself. In this case, I looked at my first thoughts on Falwell's death, looked at my thoughts and feelings about the comments of the most vile on the right and chose the path that was better then theirs. I will not take joy in the death of a man who's only failing, to my POV, was that he was politically and ideologically opposed to me. He wasn't a Hitler, Pol Pot, Bin Laden or Third World Warlord. He didn't march on cities, towns and villages and commit genocide. He didn't round up people who he deemed inferior and march them into gas chambers. He never once, to my knowledge, masterminded the death of 3000 people from a single terrorist act. He merely spoke views that were in opposition to my own.

For that I will not express joy or glee in his passing or his possible fate in the afterlife. If you wish to count Ann Coulter, Savage and Bill O'Reilly as your spiritual contemporaries and role models, that's fine by me. Just don't act surprised if people call you on your use of Coulterisms when you act publicly as she would or point out the total hypocrisy in your statements against others you don't like acting as you do.

Reap what you sow, Sean.

Bill Mulligan asked: "I wonder if there were any complaints about Hogan's Heroes?"

When I was in college, I remember someone painted both Hogan's Heroes and M*A*S*H with the same "make fun of war" brush, and said they were, therefore, beneath contempt. I countered (and I believe others did, too) that while he may have had a point regarding the former, he was off base concerning the latter. M*A*S*H mocked many things about the military, such as officious officers or ridiculous regulations- things real soldiers have probably been doing ever since armies existed- but it never made the Korean war (or war in general) a punchline.

As to Hogan's Heroes, Werner Klemperer, who escaped from Nazi Germany (or one of its satellite nations, I forget the exact details) was adamant that Col. Klink never win. I believe he once said that if Klink ever came out looking good (at least in comparison to Col. Hogan and the other POWS; he couldn't help but look good compared to the SS characters), he'd have left the show. Perhaps playing an incompetent German officer (and probable Nazi party member) was his way of "getting back" at the Nazis.

As to Falwell's death, part of me hopes that if there's an afterlife, it'll be one of those Twilight Zone type "you get what you deserve" environments, where his harmful actions and attitudes come back to bite him on the ass. On the other hand, another part of me hopes that if there is an afterlife, it's the kind where his negative traits have been expunged, and he's no longer burdened by bigotry, prejudice and hate.

As to the original subject of the thread, Clinton's impeachment was a sideshow of ridiculous and costly partisan posturing. Having an affair (and lying about it) was wrong, but it ain't anywhere near high crimes and misdemeanors. What Bush and Cheney have done is far worse. Both deserve to be impeached.

And convicted.

Rick

I wonder if there were any complaints about Hogan's Heroes?

When I was in high school, I remember my mom saying that one of my parents' friends detested the very premise of the show. At the time, I thought that was rather an absurd, extremist reaction.

That is, until I met the man. It turned out that he was a WWII vet. He didn't see action in Europe though; he was a survivor of the Bataan Death March. After talking with him a while on the street purely by chance (I was home from college and wearing my fraternity letters. He was out raking his yard and saw me. It turned out we belonged to the same frat), I completely understood why he wouldn't find a wartime prison camp a place for comedy.

There's a reason why Fred Phelps is universally considered such a sorry excuse for a human being. It's because he pickets the funerals of people who have died, exploiting the suffering of those who loved them for cheap political points and to make himself feel important. He's a troll with ambition.

If, by some happenstance, he one day actually pickets the funeral of someone who was a rotten person in life, who will be missed only by his family...it won't Make. Any. Difference.

Look, as I've said, I'm not spotless clean on this, though I would hope that my standard on whose death elicits glee in me does not include those who merely disagree with me and sincerely want to change the world through legal means. I understand how those who are acting this way feel. But even the worst regular poster on this board is better than that.

That is funny joke.

Though, to be completely fair, it's not only Christians, but all Abrahamic religions that consider themselves the only and ones that will be saved.

If by saved you are referring to some kind of afterlife, my understanding is that Judaism establishes no belief in an afterlife. On an episode of Northern Exposure, a priest asked Joel how the Jews tolerate in life the idea of absolute void after death, and he said he avoided thinking about it.

To play devil's advocate (and the identity of the "devil" I'm defending here makes that a bit ironic), I don't think all Christians are agreed on what exactly happens to those who don't get into heaven. Whether it's hell by default, or whether it's something like limbo or purgatory, or whether it's something entirely different that isn't actually as excruciating as eternal torment but rather just being separated from God. So if you hear somebody saying they think only people like them will get into heaven, they may not necessarily be saying that people unlike them will all go to hell.

Dante was Catholic, which follows a strict adherence to canon, and at least for his time rewards and punishment were not so much issued in the afterlife as the dead continued to behave as they did in life. All of the tortures in the Inferno? Those were meant to represent what we who are guilty do to ourselves while we are alive. There's nothing stopping the damned from going purgatory to transform their behavior if they choose. There are simply people who are relentless in their behavior.

Btw, who's to say that just because we're smarter than amoebas, it means we're morally superior? I mean, have you ever known an amoeba to have sociopathic tendencies or to wish ill on something else? They live pretty simple existences, don't they? So who's to say that God has a better sense of right and wrong than some human somewhere? Not necessarily me...but somebody. Who's to say that God's sense of right and wrong is perfect, that he's never made a mistake when passing down sentence?

That was Job's challenge to God, was it not? And God never said Job was wrong -- He said Job was as right as any of the men among him but still invoked His privilege as God to do as He pleased. And Job bowed to God, as God bet Satan he would. Job's grace in bowing to the God that arbitrarily allowed him to be punished (and in contrast, as Jung pointed out, God's lack of grace) is more pronounced when you remember the pre-Christian God offered no afterlife.

I was thinking more of Falwell showing up in Heaven and being greeted by, say, Liberace and Susan Sontag, with Albert Einstein and Mohandas Gandhi having a conversation nearby. Y'know, being immediately confronted by the presence of people he was sure would be excluded because of what they believed or how they behaved.

As far as Falwell wouldn't tolerate heaven as you present it, he might choose to serve God hell -- as the Muslim portrayal of Satan seems to do. In the Muslim version of the fall, Satan doesn't refuse God's command to bow to man because it's beneath him, but because Satan is God's biggest fan.

Here's my final thought on Falwell: I think he was a despicable person. I'm sorry, but I can't suddenly change my opinion or pretend it doesn't exist just because he's dead. It's not that I want to go and dance on his grave, but I just can't force myself to feel bad about his demise either.

As for Hogan's Heroes, I never thought the movie was in poor taste, precisely because it always made the Nazis look foolish and inept. As Steven Spielberg once said, you can never go wrong with Nazis as villains.

Posted by: Bill Myers at May 15, 2007 11:15 PM

Rob, as soon as I hit the submit button on my last post I regretted it.

I don't think you're stupid and I'm sorry for ragging on you like that.

Thanks for apologizing.

For the record, no, I wasn't high, I was just taking you literally. You had said:

"Nevertheless, I believe it is unwise to second-guess God's will when it comes to who will or will not be saved (assuming the Heaven/Hell dichotomy is indeed the model upon which the afterlife is based). If there is a God -- and I am confident that there is -- He is to us as we are to amoebas. Claiming to know the mind of God is, at best, a hubristic conceit."

The first sentence says it is unwise to second-guess God's will. I took this entire paragraph to mean that it was not only impossible to know the mind of God, but also that we shouldn't question God's decisions, since that is what "second-guessing" means. And that's why I wrote what I wrote, not because I'd decided to partake of any controlled substance.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at May 16, 2007 09:37 AM

One of the arguments against Bush and his crew's "interrogation" techniques is that we, the Americans, the Good Guys, should have a better moral standard then those we condemn for acts of torture.

So... we're comparing the reaction to the death of a moral hypocrits to torture?

I agree with Jerry's explanation.

I also feel like mentioning one other thing...

There have been times I haven't been tolerant, or when I've wanted revenge, or when I've been judgmental. I haven't always been that great a person, I acknowledge that. In fact, there have been times where I've been a total douchebag. I acknowledge that with no small amount of shame and disgust with myself when I remember what I did. Am I, therefore, cut from the same cloth as Falwell?

Perhaps there are some similarities. Perhaps too many for me to claim the moral high ground, I don't know. There is, however, one major difference between myself and Falwell: even though both of us have acted like jerks in the past, only one of us has ever claimed to be a devout Christian who was committed to always doing exactly what Jesus would have wanted of him.

If Falwell insisted on calling himself a Christian, he should have tried his damndest to act like Jesus. He should have asked himself every single day "What would Jesus do?" From all indications, he didn't. Jesus said to forgive your enemies, to turn the other cheek, or to at least try. Instead of trying to forgive the perpetrators of 9/11, instead of turning the other cheek, Falwell called for blood (which is also a violation of "Thou shalt not kill" which, although Jesus didn't bring that particular commandment to Earth, I'm quite sure it got his full endorsement). Not only did Falwell want revenge, he said so on national television. Not only did he recommend killing them, even though the Bible makes it pretty clear that killing is verboten, but he said it should be done "in the name of the Lord." As far as I know, he never went in front of a camera and said "I really regret saying that. Revenge and killing is not what the Bible teaches us, it is not what God wants, and I am truly sorry for my outburst." No, he stood by his statement. As far as I know.

I'm not saying that it was wrong to want revenge after 9/11. It's completely understandable. But somebody calling himself a Christian should have at least made an honest attempt to fight his desire for vengeance. To all appearances, Falwell made no such attempt.

Jesus also taught people not to be judgmental or intolerant. Hell, Jesus hung around with lepers and prostitutes and accepted just about anybody who approached him. If people didn't approach him, Jesus certainly didn't give fiery speeches about how certain people were abominations and would deservedly suffer in hell for eternity. He told people "judge not, lest ye be judged." And what did the Reverend Falwell do? He judged. He judged all kinds of people. You only need to look at the quote in my last post to see him judging his ass off.

So yes, both Falwell and myself at one time or another may have wished ill on other human beings. Yes, both Falwell and myself might have been intolerant at one time or another. Yes, both Falwell and myself may have even intentionally caused anguish to somebody who did not deserve it. Yes, both Falwell and myself may have judged others when we shouldn't have.

Falwell, however, was supposed to be a Christian, and Christian teachings forbid acting the way he did. So even though both Falwell and myself have been jerks in the past (and I truly hope that after it's all tallied up, it'll turn out that I've been less of a jerk overall than him), Falwell's a much, much, much bigger hypocrite than I could ever be. Anybody who claims to be a Christian and doesn't even TRY to adhere to Christian teachings is a hypocrite, I firmly believe that. I also feel that way about all the Christians who are pro-death penalty, btw. They're in favor of criminals being killed and yet they claim to hold the Bible sacred, despite the Bible saying it is unacceptable to kill? Pick one or the other, people. You can't have both.

RE: How soon is too soon to tell a joke about something bad?

Well, I'd say that there isn't any real formula that covers all jokes in all circumstances. It depends on the audience, the timing, and how funny the joke is to begin with.

Harkening back to a previous thread about "appropriate" work conversation, I know for a fact that, working in a health care environment, there are conversations and jokes on a regular basis that would never fly in, say, an office environment. For many people, humor is a way of coping with practically having the Grim Reaper as a coworker. I can only imagine what the conversations are like on the job for Jerry Chandler.

-Rex Hondo-

Sean Martin: Sympathy for those who grieve, hmm, perhaps. But for the departed, if they were someone I disliked as much as Falwell? Glad to see 'em gone. Wish it had been sooner.

Jerry Chandler: ...And I will not for one moment mourn his passing. However, there is a difference between that and publicly stating great joy and enjoyment in the man's death. ...
... For that I will not express joy or glee in his passing or his possible fate in the afterlife.

Yes, Jerry, I am glad he is gone. Yes, I wish he had been removed from the world's stage earlier so that he would have done less damage. Yes, I disliked the man.

But note that I didn't use stronger terms like hated or detested. And I certainly never said that I was taking "great joy and enjoyment", or "expressing glee".

I disliked him for a variety of reasons. I'm glad he's gone. And (the main point I was making) I won't change the opinion I express about him just because he is dead.

As for my feelings about him dropping me somehow to his level, I never wanted to tell him how to live his life. I just want him not to tell me how to live mine. He dislikes me because of what I AM. I dislike him because of what he wants to do to me.

To me, that is a VAST difference.

Posted by: Rob Brown at May 17, 2007 12:53 AM

The first sentence says it is unwise to second-guess God's will. I took this entire paragraph to mean that it was not only impossible to know the mind of God, but also that we shouldn't question God's decisions, since that is what "second-guessing" means.

Fair enough. I did indeed misuse the term "second-guessing." As I feared, it was not your interpretation that was to blame. I did a poor job of expressing myself. It was therefore really shitty of me to cast aspersions on your reading skills, and again I profusely apologize.

It's like this: I'd never tell anyone to "submit to God's will" or advise them not to "question God's will" because I don't believe any of us can know His will. For that reason, I would instead advise people not to claim that they know who will or will not be damned (assuming, again, that damnation is one of the options in the afterlife, and I don't know that it is). I believe it was Susan B. Anthony who observed how conveniently those who claim to know the will of God interpret that will in a way that is consistent with their personal biases. I believe Jerry Falwell did so. I also believe that those who declare that Falwell is in for a surprise in the afterlife are doing the same thing. In other words: if one doesn't want to be like Falwell, then don't be cheering for him to Burn, because that was Falwell's shtick.

Posted by: Rob Brown at May 17, 2007 12:53 AM

I also feel that way about all the Christians who are pro-death penalty, btw. They're in favor of criminals being killed and yet they claim to hold the Bible sacred, despite the Bible saying it is unacceptable to kill? Pick one or the other, people. You can't have both.

Actually, it's not as cut-and-dried as that. In some English translations of the Bible, the commandment reads "you shall not murder." This actually makes more sense in the context of other portions of the Bible, such as in Deuteronomy where God is said to have allowed the Israelites to wage war and to have given them instructions on warfare. Many biblical scholars believe "you shall not murder" is a more accurate translation for that reason.

Posted by: Mike at May 16, 2007 10:07 PM

That was Job's challenge to God, was it not? And God never said Job was wrong -- He said Job was as right as any of the men among him but still invoked His privilege as God to do as He pleased.

I had forgotten he'd said anything like that, Mike. If so, it kind of sticks in my craw since it seems very much like saying "might makes right."

Also, I've heard many adjectives like "infallible" used to describe God, the belief among those who describe him as such being that because of his infallibility, he knows best and we should do what he says. It's been a very long time since I read Job, so I'll have to ask: is there a point in that story where God admits that perhaps he isn't infallible?

Posted by: Sean Martin at May 16, 2007 08:36 PM

I've never understood the indignant have-some-respect-for-the-dead admonishment. As corpses (as in life) people should get the level of respect they earn and have shown to others.

It's the same principle as not kicking somebody when they're down, I think.

Nobody's telling you what to think about him, certainly nobody's suggesting you sing the man's praises. They just feel that there's something wrong with gloating about the death of a human being, whatever kind of person they were. That being said, I looked at your earlier posts and you don't appear to be doing that. There's nothing wrong with simply saying "Good, he's dead," as far as I'm concerned. (Long as you're not, you know, at his funeral when you say it or anything...)

> "I therefore believe that that created an environment which possibly has caused God to lift the veil of protection which has allowed no one to attack America on our soil since 1812."

I'm sure that comes as a great comfort to the people at Pearl Harbour. I guess they must have been godless heathens to merit that little set-to in '41?

>... that the way to combat demagougery is not with more demagougery, since the dictators are better at it than you are; instead, you fight them by making them look ridiculous, so it's harder for people to take them seriously.

I guess Mack Reynolds agrees, because he had one Section G story where its operatives topple a planetary government by subjecting it to open ridicule.

Posted by: Bill Myers at May 17, 2007 06:42 AM

Actually, it's not as cut-and-dried as that. In some English translations of the Bible, the commandment reads "you shall not murder." This actually makes more sense in the context of other portions of the Bible, such as in Deuteronomy where God is said to have allowed the Israelites to wage war and to have given them instructions on warfare. Many biblical scholars believe "you shall not murder" is a more accurate translation for that reason.

I see. Oy. It's troubling to think what can happen when a single word is translated the wrong way.

The thing that occurs to me is that Jesus didn't seem particularly hawkish. So if a Christian is basing his or her faith primarily on the New Testament instead of the Old (which I recall Lenny Briscoe describing as "blood and guts" in one "Law & Order" episode), should they sometimes be pro-war, or should they be more pacifistic?

I'm also curious as to whether the death penalty could be considered murder or not, whether you can distinguish between murdering somebody and executing somebody. It's more or less the same thing: you have somebody helpless, at your mercy, and you take their life. Is there a significant difference?

I'm sure that comes as a great comfort to the people at Pearl Harbour. I guess they must have been godless heathens to merit that little set-to in '41?

Yeah, must've been. Also, Hawaii is one of the "freak states." (Simpsons quote there, not Falwell.)

When I read that, I thought "Why did God supposedly start protecting the United States only AFTER the War of 1812? Did it deserve to get attacked back then as well?"

"There are lots of people who would grieve Bin Laden's passing. So why shouldn't you be precluded from thinkin much beyone "Oh, well" for him?"

Well, two reasons:

First, his own family has publicly disavowed him.

Second, he masterminded the deaths of over 3000 people and, if he has the opportunity, will mastermind the death of more.

There IS such a thing as degrees.

PAD

PAD - I agree that Bin Laden's passing wouldn't choke me up at all. When (if) he is caught or obliterated I'll be very glad BUT it's a fact that he has millions of admirers who think the same thing about our leaders. Sure - I think they're (mostly) wrong, but they're out there. The restraint you recommended at the start of the string is a good idea even in discussing characters far worse than Jerry Falwell, because our joy at their deaths is likely to harden the hearts and wills of their followers. As an example, if during World War II it had been possible to kill Hitler and induce his successor to surrender, it might have been counterproductive to exult before the deal was made. That's just the most extreme example I can imagine: Anyone should understand why we'd feel justified in our celebration, but it could still do us harm.

Well, I see what you mean, and don't want to ridicule it. This is much more a tactical than an ethical problem.

I had forgotten he'd said anything like that, Mike. If so, it kind of sticks in my craw since it seems very much like saying "might makes right."

Also, I've heard many adjectives like "infallible" used to describe God, the belief among those who describe him as such being that because of his infallibility, he knows best and we should do what he says. It's been a very long time since I read Job, so I'll have to ask: is there a point in that story where God admits that perhaps he isn't infallible?

As a pre-Law & Order debate, the specifics of the Book of Job are very esoteric to a modern reader and dense to parse through. I just remember God telling everyone to lay off of Job, then giving Job a taste of what it means to create and maintain the universe, and Job bowing to God. It was only pointed out to me that "might makes right" is the only interpretation of God's response that resembles any sense. If God is infallible (again, Jung pointed out that Satan may have demonstrated that grace is beyond God where such a limitation of God was not demonstrated before -- think perhaps of the desolation of the Q-continuum) it's from His privilege, not His reason.

Dante said the angels sing the laughter of the universe, which is halleluJah, and Chesterton said angels fly because they take themselves lightly. Reason is not all things to any of us -- and what is our model of God but (He who is responsible for) that which is all things to us?

When (if) [bin Laden] is caught or obliterated I'll be very glad BUT it's a fact that he has millions of admirers who think the same thing about our leaders. Sure - I think they're (mostly) wrong, but they're out there.

The admirers you are referring to celebrate martyrdom. Your qualification does not apply.

Posted by: Bill Myers at May 17, 2007 06:42 AM

Actually, it's not as cut-and-dried as that. In some English translations of the Bible, the commandment reads "you shall not murder."

What it says in Hebrew is: 'lo tirtsach,' which means: 'do not commit murder,' assuming the word in hebrew today has the same meaning as it did back then. The text doesn't say: 'lo taharog' which means 'do not kill.'

----------

"The thing that occurs to me is that Jesus didn't seem particularly hawkish. So if a Christian is basing his or her faith primarily on the New Testament instead of the Old (which I recall Lenny Briscoe describing as "blood and guts" in one "Law & Order" episode), should they sometimes be pro-war, or should they be more pacifistic?"

There's a tradition in Christianity of presenting Jesus and the New Testament as more flexible, forgiving, compassionate, peaceful than the Old Testament/Judaism. I have no way to judge how much truth there is in that claim. The Old Testament has many gradients, layers and attitudes, and, according to modern interpretation, several different sources.

The character of God as presented in the Old Testament is very complicated and problematic, especially in the New Testament. There were Jewish interpreters who said that the story of Job is a fable that never really happened but is used to illustrate a point.

"I'll have to ask: is there a point in that story where God admits that perhaps he isn't infallible?"

Not to the best of my knowledge. I think he tells Job that he (God) is beyond Job's understanding.

-------------

"to be completely fair, it's not only Christians, but all Abrahamic religions that consider themselves the only and ones that will be saved.

If by saved you are referring to some kind of afterlife, my understanding is that Judaism establishes no belief in an afterlife. On an episode of Northern Exposure, a priest asked Joel how the Jews tolerate in life the idea of absolute void after death, and he said he avoided thinking about it."

I'm a secular Jew, so I can't say anything for certain.

To the best of my knowledge the idea of the afterlife does exist in Judaism, although I don't think it is mentioned in the Old Testaments. It is not as important as it is in Christianity.

In any case, Judaism does not really have the concept of salvation. It does not believe that you have to be Jewish in order to be rightuous. Judaism does not seek to convert non-Jews. According to Judaism non-Jews are only required to follow the 7 commandments knows as the 7 commandments of the sons of Noah. I think these are the 7 of the tenth commandments except: you shall have no God but me; you shall make no idol; keep the Sabbath.

"To play devil's advocate (and the identity of the "devil" I'm defending here makes that a bit ironic), I don't think all Christians are agreed on what exactly happens to those who don't get into heaven. Whether it's hell by default, or whether it's something like limbo or purgatory, or whether it's something entirely different that isn't actually as excruciating as eternal torment but rather just being separated from God. So if you hear somebody saying they think only people like them will get into heaven, they may not necessarily be saying that people unlike them will all go to hell.
Dante was Catholic, which follows a strict adherence to canon, and at least for his time rewards and punishment were not so much issued in the afterlife as the dead continued to behave as they did in life. All of the tortures in the Inferno? Those were meant to represent what we who are guilty do to ourselves while we are alive. There's nothing stopping the damned from going purgatory to transform their behavior if they choose. There are simply people who are relentless in their behavior."

To the best of my knowledge based on my very limited studies on the subject and having read a while back the first 100 cantos of Dante's Divine Commedy (not as funny as I expected), according to medieval Christian theology the damned cannot decide to go from hell to purgatory. Hell and purgatory are places of punishment. Dante described the pubishments as fitting the crimes of the sinners in life. There's a place in Dante's hell dedicated to non-Christians who were nevertheless rightuous.

Mike: It is true that many - not all, I'm sure - of Bin Laden's admirers celebrate martyrdom. Quite a few of them would prefer that someone else experience the joys of martyrdom. That doesn't change the fact that extreme exultation in his demise could cause increased attacks on us. Of course he is a bad man; I wouldn't suggest we're anything like him: I would just prefer to minimize the chance of his people getting in touch with my people in the worst possible way.

>It's troubling to think what can happen when a single word is translated the wrong way.

Not just a word. A Canadian company got nailed for millions because of one extra comma in a contract which [as written, instead of as intended to read] allowed the people they contracted with to break the contract years early and renegotiate at far more advantageous terms.

Now consider the Bible and the centuries which have passed and the number of translations and interpretations and ...

Rob Brown -
There is, however, one major difference between myself and Falwell:

This was the point I was really trying to get to, but never actually arrived at.

It's more or less the same thing: you have somebody helpless, at your mercy, and you take their life. Is there a significant difference?

If not, there can be no argument for any kind of euthanasia. It would also seem to preclude any kind of military action that was not a cut and dried self defense action.

I'm not for the death penalty but I think there is a lot of difference, just as kidnapping a person is wrong but taking a kidnapper and forcing them to live in a prison is not.

"It is true that many - not all, I'm sure - of Bin Laden's admirers celebrate martyrdom. Quite a few of them would prefer that someone else experience the joys of martyrdom."

The ideology of Bin-Laden's followers views martyrdom as desireable. What they feel deep in their heart when someone dies is an open question. Regardless, the kind of martyrdom they prefer is the kind where they die killing others, and not when they are killed by their enemies. Althugh that too is martyrdom (in Arabic: Shuhada -- martyer-Shahid).

"That doesn't change the fact that extreme exultation in his demise could cause increased attacks on us."

Once you killed him, the fact that you also celebrated his death is the least of your or their problem. They already hate you and want vengeance.

Only recently the US killed an Al-Quaida guy in Afghanistan, and a few days later the Brigades of the Shahid X were making threats of revenge.

It is also likely that they assume you are celebrating the death regardless of what you actually do, since they celebrate deaths of their enemies.

However, celebrating someone's death in a public way is, in my opinion, in bad taste. So, aside from a quiet good riddance I would keep the chapagne in the fridge.

Of course he is a bad man; I wouldn't suggest we're anything like him: I would just prefer to minimize the chance of his people getting in touch with my people in the worst possible way."

"And just hope whoever follows him isn't worse."

While I can agree with that on principle, it's a different era now than when Falwell first came on the scene. Also, anyone who tries to fill the void he left(don't make a fat joke, don't make a fat joke...) will be seen by many as trying to be another Falwell. I really think it'll be a long time before we see another of his ilk rise the way he did.

The whole "Thou shalt not kill" thing always bothered me. Most people take it to mean kill PEOPLE, but word guy that I am, I'd point out it doesn't SAY people. So, you can't kill animals for food. I'm not going to get into the whole vegetation-as-food thing in case anyone's eating while reading this. Thou shall not commit murder--now THAT makes sense. Except for the whole eye for eye bit, and God showing people how to win wars and things.

" practically having the Grim Reaper as a coworker."
Rex, I read that, and an entire comedy sketch burst into my head, where the Reaper never refills the coffee pot, always moans and complains and is a general know it all who whines a lot. Come to think of it, I think I work with Death now.

Quite a few of Bin Laden's followers aren't in much of a hurry to be martyred. Perhaps they aren't true believers, or perhaps they prefer to live on as strategists for the present. Other than that, I have no disagreement with Micha. We can't, won't and shouldn't make friends with these people, but there are some provocations we would be wise to avoid.

Now consider the Bible and the centuries which have passed and the number of translations and interpretations and ...

I really have to recommend again a book I mentioned long ago in another thread, Bart D. Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. Great book that just gets into the hows and whys without attacking anybody, their faith or their lack of same.

Mike: The admirers you are referring to celebrate martyrdom. Your qualification does not apply.

"Our" side celebrates martyrdom, too. Perhaps not in the form of suicide bombers (although Battlestar Galactica provided a very nice example of where we'd most likely be all for them) but we certainly praise those who give their lives for what we percieve as a higher cause.

Certainly, you're not suggesting you don't support our troops! (gasp!)

PAD: Well, two reasons:

First, his own family has publicly disavowed him.

Second, he masterminded the deaths of over 3000 people and, if he has the opportunity, will mastermind the death of more.

There IS such a thing as degrees.

Absolutely agree there are degrees. And that they can lead to fine distinctions in one's beliefs that might make the beliefs appear inconsistent.

I just thought it interesting that you'd start by saying "the knowledge that *someone* out there is grieving his passing precludes me from thinking much beyond, 'Oh well.'", make an "exception" (yes, the first part was specifically about Falwell and perhaps shouldn't be taken to be a general statement) for Bin Laden, and then qualify that because his family disavowed him as if non-family aren't *someone*.

Granted, I don't always succeed at being consistent in my beliefs. Or at least fail to express them well enough to avoid them seeming inconsistent. Devil in the details.

[Fixing italic tags since I don't want to mis-represent anyone or confuse on who said what.]

PAD: Well, two reasons:

First, his own family has publicly disavowed him.

Second, he masterminded the deaths of over 3000 people and, if he has the opportunity, will mastermind the death of more.

There IS such a thing as degrees.

Absolutely agree there are degrees. And that they can lead to fine distinctions in one's beliefs that might make the beliefs appear inconsistent.

I just thought it interesting that you'd start by saying "the knowledge that *someone* out there is grieving his passing precludes me from thinking much beyond, 'Oh well.'", make an "exception" (yes, the first part was specifically about Falwell and perhaps shouldn't be taken to be a general statement) for Bin Laden, and then qualify that because his family disavowed him as if non-family aren't *someone*.

Granted, I don't always succeed at being consistent in my beliefs. Or at least fail to express them well enough to avoid them seeming inconsistent. Devil in the details.

Posted by: Sean Martin at May 17, 2007 12:56 PM
"Mike: The admirers you are referring to celebrate martyrdom. Your qualification does not apply.

"Our" side celebrates martyrdom, too. Perhaps not in the form of suicide bombers (although Battlestar Galactica provided a very nice example of where we'd most likely be all for them) but we certainly praise those who give their lives for what we percieve as a higher cause.

Certainly, you're not suggesting you don't support our troops! (gasp"

Yes and no.

Yes, westerners also admire self sacrifice.

No. There is a specific rhetoric among radical Islamists stating literally that the cowardly westerners love life hile the Islamists love death.

Presumably they should be happy at the opportunity to die, and their families should rejoice and encourage others to do the same. While westerners feel sad for the death while admiring the sacrifice.

Again, we can't be certain if the followers and relations of a shahid are really not sad for his death or is it that just the facade that is expected of them.

I suggest that anyone who is an absolutist on the issue of "they are suicide bombers, and they are not; They celebrate suicide bombing, and we do not" should research Colin P. Kelly, Jr., one of the first acclaimed American war heroes of World War II. He was widely hailed for flying his disabled B-17 into the Japanese battleship "Haruna." He was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for this heroic deed. As it turned out, the report was mistaken: after bombing the aircraft carrier "Ashigara" his plane was critically damaged by a Mitsubishi Zero-sen. After piloting his B-17 until all of his crew had bailed out, he ran out of time, and the craft exploded in the air, killing him - an act that was at least as heroic as the mistaken account. So, although he was definitely not a suicide bomber, the supposed act met with huge acclamation here in the United States. Demonizing the enemy until he cannot be recognized as our species makes it very difficult to deal with or predict.

Jeffrey, there's an obvious flaw in your story, inaccurate report notwithstanding...today's suicide bombers are healthy, whole, hale individuals that are targeting civilians. The pilot that steers his critically damaged aircraft into an enemey military target is probably not going to make it back to base, anyway, nor is his plane. He knows or thinks his own death...already risked and currently in a combat situation...is imminent, so he may as well carry out his mission...inflict damage/casualties to the enemy...if he can.

Comparing the acts of a soldier to those of a terrorist in this case are totally inappropriate. There's simply no similarity at all between the two, other than that they both involve an individual willing to immediately end his life in an effort to kill someone else. But that's like saying both Earth and Mars are planets. Factually true, but it doesn't even begin to explain the differences that exist between the two.

To the best of my knowledge based on my very limited studies on the subject and having read a while back the first 100 cantos of Dante's Divine Commedy (not as funny as I expected), according to medieval Christian theology the damned cannot decide to go from hell to purgatory. Hell and purgatory are places of punishment. Dante described the pubishments as fitting the crimes of the sinners in life. There's a place in Dante's hell dedicated to non-Christians who were nevertheless rightuous.

The Divine Comedy is 100 cantos long. My understanding is that the term comedy was first established as a basic distinction from tragedy.

As far as Dante explicitly said God would forgive Satan immediately if he were truly contrite, there was no divine punitive agenda in the establishment of hell. The simple definition/purpose of hell is to accept those who are denied the ecstacy of paradise, and the environments are established by the residents. As far as the souls of the damned are monstrous, the severer neighborhoods in hell are simply their natural environment.

Dante kept emphasizing how the glutenous, the lustful, the wrathful did not relent in indulging in their appetites, how the contagious, incendiary nature of theft fed the thievish fire, how the fortune-tellers' heads twisted (their tears streaming into their own asses) was a direct result of their intolerance of uncertainty, how the lack of identity of the fraudulent fed their own polymorphism -- he presented the damned suffering more from their own compulsive behavior than the disapproval of some divine parole arbiter. Heaven and hell just doesn't seem like the life and death issue Dante's audience took it as.

When (if) [bin Laden] is caught or obliterated I'll be very glad BUT it's a fact that he has millions of admirers who think the same thing about our leaders. Sure - I think they're (mostly) wrong, but they're out there.

The admirers you are referring to celebrate martyrdom. Your qualification does not apply.

Mike: It is true that many - not all, I'm sure - of Bin Laden's admirers celebrate martyrdom. Quite a few of them would prefer that someone else experience the joys of martyrdom. That doesn't change the fact that extreme exultation in his demise could cause increased attacks on us.

As far as the reservations against celebrating the death of Falwell explored here have nothing to do with decreasing the prospect of terrorist retaliation from offended Christians, your qualification still does not apply.

Except for the whole eye for eye bit...

Was that not Hammurabi?

"Our" side celebrates martyrdom, too. Perhaps not in the form of suicide bombers (although Battlestar Galactica provided a very nice example of where we'd most likely be all for them) but we certainly praise those who give their lives for what we percieve as a higher cause.

Certainly, you're not suggesting you don't support our troops! (gasp!)

Our troops are not recruited as martyrs, as suicide bombers are. Our troops are not samurai who live for the prospect of sacrificing their lives in fidelity to a holy trust. The military as I knew it probably would have screened people like that out as too Holden-Caulfieldish, since it enjoyed the prestige of its members having a death-rate lower than the corresponding demographic in the civilian world.

"The Divine Comedy is 100 cantos long. My understanding is that the term comedy was first established as a basic distinction from tragedy."

You are correct on both counts. I was confused. only read 100 pages. However, I believe you are giving Dante a modern interpretation that does not fit the perception of 13th century catholics of heaven and hell. There certainly is a creative vale in such an interprtation, if you want to pursue it. But if you are reading it as a historical text you have to understand how Dante and his audiences understood it. If you could proove that your interpretation corresponds to the perceptions of 13th century people, that would be an impressive acheivement in the field of history. I know of two cases in which historians were able to show that other historians were reading texts incorrectly, and attributing to medievals concepts that were not their own. But it requires hard work to acheive something like that.

"Heaven and hell just doesn't seem like the life and death issue Dante's audience took it as."

Although I was told that some of Dante's contemporaries thought he actually has seen hell, I think we can assume that the hell he was describing is based on the ideas common in his time + his own literary talent.

Bobb Alfred: No, Colin Kelly wasn't a suicide bomber - but when Americans thought he was, they thought that was a great thing. That's the only point of that story. The real events of his death are every bit as heroic as any of the false stories. This isn't about him, but the reaction of an inflamed and enraged populace shortly after Pearl Harbor. Given enough rage at the enemy, a wide range of actions contrary to our self image may be applauded.

As far as Dante explicitly said God would forgive Satan immediately if he were truly contrite, there was no divine punitive agenda in the establishment of hell.

However, I believe you are giving Dante a modern interpretation that does not fit the perception of 13th century catholics of heaven and hell. There certainly is a creative vale in such an interprtation, if you want to pursue it. But if you are reading it as a historical text you have to understand how Dante and his audiences understood it. If you could proove that your interpretation corresponds to the perceptions of 13th century people, that would be an impressive acheivement in the field of history. I know of two cases in which historians were able to show that other historians were reading texts incorrectly, and attributing to medievals concepts that were not their own. But it requires hard work to acheive something like that.

From an article edited by a retired seminary dean and aproved by a retired archbishop:

Heaven & Hell in the Afterlife: Roman Catholic and Protestant Understanding:

...nowhere in the original language of the Bible does the Calvinistic idea occur of a place of "hellfire" torment, created especially by God so He can punish those he judges for eternity. Why would a God who loves us unconditionally torment us for eternity, because of an equally unbiblical notion of Divine Justice? In fact nowhere in the Bible does it explicitly state that it is God that punishes the sinners. If you put your hand in the fireplace, is it the fire's intention to punish you? Or is the torment you experience caused by your own foolish action? It is merely the nature of the fire to burn your unprotected skin.

Calvin came 200 years after Dante. If one of us is attributing to medievals concepts that were not theirs, it ain't me.

I suggest that anyone who is an absolutist on the issue of "they are suicide bombers, and they are not; They celebrate suicide bombing, and we do not" should research Colin P. Kelly, Jr., one of the first acclaimed American war heroes of World War II. He was widely hailed for flying his disabled B-17 into the Japanese battleship "Haruna."

You have to go back 60 years for an example of a American who did not lose his resolve to fight in the face of doom to establish a relationship between Americans and those who actively recruit martyrs. Your example is too obscure to even qualify as a "Where's Waldo?" puzzle.

Jeffrey, you've been quiet until you started very recently to jump at every prospect of hypocrisy. Have you noticed some kind of dramatic upsurge in hypocrisy in Peter's comments sections or are you going for some kind of dramatic effect, like a staggering James Brown inciting his audience with his renewed vitality?

Mike: I really don't care that you consider Colin Kelly obscure. I don't find him so. My use of his example is just to put the lie to the idea that Americans don't have it in them to applaud suicide bombing. It's beyond question that some here do, and that some are perfectly willing to commit homicide bombings, if not the suicide variety. As to your perception that I am driven to attack whatever I think hypocritical, and that is my primary focus here, consider my several comments about your posts: I didn't call you a hypocrite - rather, I thought your posts were bizarre and incomprehensible. That's a different thing entirely.

I am suspicious of your belief that there was no widespread 13th Century Catholic belief that God punished sinners with Hell, but will need to look into it further. Your citation of a retired (modern) seminary dean's view of the matter is just that: the view of a 20th Century theologian - perhaps accurate as to 13th Century mores, or perhaps a summation of his own modern understanding, seven centuries later. I'll see what I can find about the views of the church and the public at the time. My current u