He tried to dictate to others how to live their lives.

It all depends on your worldview. If you believe that truth is something relative to the individual and not a matter of eternal consequence, you have no imperative to preserve truth or believe anything other than what is most comfortable.Inherent in the concept of truth is its exclusivity, and this is something that people of a more liberal worldview cannot accept. What replaces truth is tolerance. Tolerance of anyone except the intolerant. (Yeah, it really doesn’t make sense.)

Now, I wouldn’t call that worldview and the resulting lethargy and inconsistency virtuous.

Jerry believed with all his heart that man was created by God for his glory. That man sinned against God creating a separation between them. He believed that Jesus died in our place. He preached what Jesus preached “”I am THE way, THE truth, and THE life. NO man cometh unto the father but by ME.”" (My emphasis.)

This is not popular, but this belief compells us to tell others. So that they may reconcile their sinful condition and accept Jesus’s sacrafice…his gift.

He told people what the Bible preaches about how they should live their lives.

I do not find that a bad thing.

Cordially,
Clifton

You didn’t respond to my original statement. You just gave a pre-programmed diatribe about Falwell’s virtues while making a blanket indictment of all those with a “”liberal”" worldview.

I do not dispute that Falwell dedicated his life to spreading his views on God and Jesus. That much is clear. What I said is that he tried to impose this belief system on others. It’s fine to have faith in your religion, even to spread the word as much as you want. But Falwell used the church as a mult-million dollar bankroll to gain political clout and try to make religious ideas into law. This is simply unconstitutional — America is very clear about separation of church and state. There is no room for religion in government. Surely you do not dispute this point. And if you do — well, perhaps that is why you find your beliefs to be so “”unpopular”", as you say.

I responded directly to your statement. I identified your claim and I countered it with my own. I attempted to explain away your definition of Jerry Falwell’s behavior with one of my own. That is the only way I could have responded.Ironically enough, it is your statement that lacks any meaningful response to what I stated. Instead, you cleverly side stepped everything I said while accusing me of hashing out a “”pre-programmed diatribe”". There is a term for that. It’s called “”ad hominem”". In other words, attack the person, not the argument.

Now, keeping that in mind, I don’t really owe you a response. You completly evaded my argument by denying its existence. However, to show my good faith I will respond to your statement anyway.

You claim he wanted to make his own religous ideas law. In order to address this properly we’re going to have to be a little more specific.

What “”religous ideas”" did Falwell wish to be protected  by law?

1. The sanctity of life. Falwell believed, as most Americans believe, that a fetus is a human life and worthy of protection under the law. He was influential in bringing to light partial birth abortion which was finally banned by the supreme court this past month.
2. The definition of the family. Falwell belived (again, as most Americans believe and do demonstrate by their votes whenever they are given an opportunity) that marriage is only valuable and meaningful if it is protected against dillution by those promoting an “”alternative lifestyle.”" Now, I actually slighltly dissagree with him on this point. I don’t dissagree that acknowleding homosexual marriage threatens the family as a whole, but I do dissagree as to whose responsiblity it is to defend that. I believe the issue should be decided on a state level. Unfortunately, the will of the people has been overturned numerous times on this by judges who care more about their own agenda than about the will of the people. So I can see why a marriage constitutional ammendment might be neccessary…if only to give the power to define marriage clearly and definitely to the states.
3. Falwell observed the increasingly hostile environment towards Christianity in this nation and he wanted to protect it. Not by passing laws that force anyone to be a Christian or to go to church or do anything religious. That would have gone directly against his teachings. What he did want was for our freedom to worship, our freedom to be followers of Christ to be uninfringed. When he saw Bible Clubs being barred from using public property while Islamic clubs continued to meet, he raised awareness and tried to secure our equal right under the law. Etc etc. Ad infinitum.

These three examples are hardly the dictation of how people should live. Nor do they represent trying to use the law to impose religious beliefs on all Americans. They are important issues to all Americans, religious and non-religous.

I’ve given you three examples, I ask you to give me three.

A statement is only as good as the evidence that can be offered in its support.

Clifton