Falwell and Coulter: A match made in one of two places
So, as you all undoubtedly know, because you've been keeping up in the news, the Reverend Jerry Falwell has shuffled off this mortal coil. Some people have chosen to take the high-road and say that, though they will not be mourning, they are not happy about his passing either. I say good riddance, you bastard, and I do so un-apologetically. I will not be respecting the dead. I will not say, "well, I didn't agree with him," because, while I didn't, I also thought the man was a dick and I continue to think so and I think that's the real point. It's honorable to turn the other cheek when someone strikes you (incidentally, Falwell's opinion on that matter: "This 'turn the other cheek' business is all well and good but it's not what Jesus fought and died for") but when that person tries to convince others to strike you (and not just you) as well
[*Long, David Foster Wallace-esque footnote (skip it if you'd like): There's two important things to note about turning the other cheek. 1) It makes perfect sense if you're religious, because your body is only temporary, but your soul is intended on being eternal. So, if someone beats you physically, they are not beating you spiritually unless you retaliate. However, if you do not believe in a more eternal you, then your physical self being killed, beaten or oppressed is all there is. 2) It only really works for yourself. I couldn't, say, turn the other cheek for someone else (e.g. Darfur). Nor would I expect someone who was being oppressed to say, "hey, Chris. No, don't help me. Turn the other cheek. I am." We don't turn the other cheek to disease and a mongoose wouldn't turn the other cheek to a snake, so why are we expected to? I say that if you believe that the material world is the only world, you have an obligation to yourself and to others to, in fact, not turn the other cheek.
Now, this line of reasoning sounds eerily similar to that of right wing nutjobs who want to turn the Middle East into a sea of glass. Indeed, it sounds like it could easily lead to the next sentence of the aforementioned Falwell quote, "What we need to do is take the battle to the Muslim heathens and do unto them before they do unto us." However, what these fail to take into account is that many of the people killed, tortured or imprisoned are totally innocent. This is unacceptable, of course (to clarify an obvious point, I'm not opposed to a war on terror, no person in his right mind should be, but I'm opposed to the way it's being carried out). Falwell's quote is particularly ridiculous because of that word "heathen," which explicitly states that he believes their religion is wrong while his is right. And if Falwell's is right, then point 1 above applies. In other words, if he's going to heaven, killing a killer should be the last thing on his mind since God will have his eternal judgment.]
it's not honorable anymore, it's stupid. I say fuck you, Falwell. It couldn't have happened sooner.
Anyway, Ann Coulter (whom I would also not be respectful of, should she pass away), has written a "touching" memorial of the man that you can read here. It's titled "Jerry Falwell: Say Hello to Ronald Reagan," which is a fine title for Coulter because she clearly thinks they're both in heaven, but I love it anyway, because I'm thinking about Huey Friedman's speech in the first episode of The Boondocks where he talks about Ronald Reagan being the fucking devil. And the rest of the article really isn't any different. Ann Coulter has become a parody of herself.
Take this little section:
"Actually, there was one small item I think Falwell got wrong regarding his statement after 9-11 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 this happen."'
First of all, I disagreed with that statement because Falwell neglected to specifically include Teddy Kennedy and 'the Reverend' Barry Lynn."
Now first of all, as a joke
[**and Coulter loves to think of herself as a comedienne, even if she'd probably object to the use of the "feminist" word. Consider her on Fox news, after that whole "faggot" thing, where she said "I think it's a little unfair to compare my joke, which got a lot of laughs...." Notice the way she obviously made a note of how many laughs she got, the same way that Carlos Mencia does in defending himself against allegations that he steals jokes]
it tanks, because it's a shoddy set-up. When she says "I disagree with" we know that she's going to come around with a zinger that basically says Falwell didn't go far enough. But her objection wasn't a disagreement, it was an agreement "but also I think...," so the whole thing doesn't work. Anyway, that objection aside, that's exactly what I would have had her saying had I written a satirical piece in her voice.
It's this gross ignorance of facts; this blindly firing at the "liberal menace" and instead hitting a nun. Ted Kennedy helped to cause an attack that killed thousands? Really? How, you crazy bitch? And more importantly, what does that say about your own personal messed up version of a god who would enact his vengeance on a man being killing a bunch of innocent people?
Or look at this quote on Falwell's godliness: "Like Christ ministering to prostitutes, Falwell regularly left the safe confines of his church to show up in such benighted venues as CNN." Not at all similar, Coulter, but I could see you thinking they were. I just don't see how anyone literate enough to write those words would not be literate enough to understand that they don't goddamn work as a sentence. It sounds like something that maybe Principal Blackman would say, but not a real person.