Two Posts by Chris Crain

The first, on the Uniting American Families Act, takes a well-deserved poke at Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and the Democrats in general. (Crain does point out those Democrats who are paying more than lip service to "everyone should be equal," but they are appallingly few.) I'm finding an increasing number of gay bloggers, not all on the right, who have lost patience with the front-runners and the Democratic leadership. As is so often the case, I'm willing to go much farther than Crain: I'm not interested in platitudes. I want some support for gay issues at the top of the Democratic party, by which I mean Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Pelosi, Reid. These are the people who are articulating policy.

The second, "Hate was not a Falwell Value," I find more problematic. After reading it twice, it seems about evenly divided between a sort of liberal political correctness (with roots in "nice" behavior) and a slam, albeit muted, at the left.

I don't disagree with Crain at all that most Christians, even those who were followers of Falwell, are basically decent people. I think most people are basically decent, if easily confused. I know many Christians of all stripes, including relatives, and they are, by and large, generous, hospitable, charitable people who are, as often as not, willing to live and let live.

I think Crain's first error is in thinking of Falwell as a religious leader, which is a position I left quite some time ago: he was a politician, the same way Pat Robertson is a politican, the same way the Pope is a politician, the same way many who drag religious doctrine into the political arena are politicians. The question of personal belief in this instance becomes a sidebar. If your religion dictates that you discriminate against certain others because of what they are, you're still a bigot. And if you capitalize on those beliefs to build your influence on public policy, you're still a politician, whether you believe what you're preaching or not.

Crain says,

My best guess, having watched Falwell for years, is that like so many other fundamentalist Christians, he overreacted with fear and worry to all sorts of societal change — some legitimately bad, some good and some neutral — by retreating to his Bible for solace and guidance.

I think some history is in order here. Many people retreat to their faith for solace and guidance when times are difficult and confusing. I do, and I'm not particularly observant otherwise. Not many of them, however, come back and use their faith as a weapon against those whose opinions differ, which is what Falwell did from the beginning. For an overview of Falwell's beginnings, see this post at Orcinus. Mark Graber has a more precise post at Balkinization:

The main issue, of course, was racial segregation. For more than a decade, Falwell rose to power by preaching that Brown v. Board of Education, related judicial decisions, and anti-discrimination laws were abominations to the Lord.

Maybe I'm missing something, but to say that someone whose career began and ended with calling the "other" -- Blacks, pro-choice advocates, gays, Muslims -- an "abomination" was not a hater strikes me as disingenuous. (Remember, Falwell was the first person to say publicly that 9/11 was America's fault because America was allowing things he didn't agree with.) If your rhetoric is about dehumanizing others and calling down the wrath of your god on their heads, that seems pretty hateful to me. (For a telling look at Falwell's rhetoric, see this piece by Max Blumenthal at The Nation.

OK, so maybe Falwell didn't drown kittens. And your point is?