Divine Justice for Jerry?

Today we're going to look at bigotry, closed-mindedness and hatred of other human beings...from both sides of the political aisle.

As you know, Jerry Falwell died this week. Rarely has there been a more polarizing figure in American life, especially one who supposedly spoke for Jesus. Falwell, more than anyone else, helped deliver the formerly apathetic evangelical vote into the Republican party, giving that party a strong theocratic base. Of course, Falwell himself showed far less sympathy than Jesus ever did. Whether it was blaming homosexuality and abortion for September 11, equating Jews with the Antichrist, supporting apartheid in South Africa, equating fundamentalist beliefs with political acceptability and doing anything possible to smite gays, Falwell became a catalyst for bigotry and prejudice that has germanated in numerous other religious movements and figures.

Now I try not to speak ill of the recently dead and it takes a lot to startle me. But I was blown away by the venemous vitriol to Falwell's passing by the liberal blogs and many of the message boards on places like The New York Times. Here's a sampling:

• "He’ll be remembered as a hatemonger who helped destroy the Republican Party and his work to try to destroy the entire country. Falwell was neither moral or the majority.
  Long may he burn…."
• "Falwell occupied one end of a dark spectrum, Osama at the other end. Believe it or not, they share the same ideology “hate and kill that which is not part of you.”
• "I am trying HARD not to be happy that he is dead, because he was such a sick delusional psycho….preaching hate, creating division, & generally just a power hungry VERY deluded person…. I say good riddance!"

Well, well. You can look at DailyKos, HuffingtonPost and numerous other blogs and message boards for more rejoicing and insults far worse than these. Now I certainly didn't like Falwell either, but the blind hatred and intolerance I'm seeing from liberals is equally as bad as anything Falwell ever said.

Even though Falwell was a bigot and hatemonger, at least he didn't embezzle, cheat on his wife and family or do anything as morally wrong as the Jim Bakkers, Jimmy Swaggarts and Ted Haggards did. Falwell at least practiced what he preached and didn't stray from his version of the Bible (as wrong as I think it was) and his ultimate judgement and resting place will be decided by God (if that's what you believe).

His passing should be a final reminder that morality does not equal ethics, and blind hatred of other people and beliefs will continue on the right and the left.

More Info:

Chris Hitchens, an atheist, wishes hell exists for Falwell.

NY Times messageboard on Falwell's death

Karl Rove: It's Business, Not Personal

It's not well-known -- but not a secret -- that Karl Rove's stepfather and the man who raised him was gay. If you're surprised that the man who has so often resorted to anti-gay prejudice to win elections for his clients has a father who came out of the closet, don't be. Whether it was insinuating Ann Richards was a lesbian and she would appoint homosexual activists to her cabinet, or using anti-gay marriage amendments to drive get out the vote efforts for fundamentalists in 2004, Rove likely believed his efforts were business-related, not based on his personal beliefs. Just like Michael Corleone, he was able to separate the business and personal to do his job. Rove had a good relationship with his stepfather (who was very aware of his stepspon's actions) and had no problems accepting his lifestyle.

The same book stated that Rove was agnostic and raised in a non-religious home. Now a slightly larger bombshell drops that Rove is actually a confirmed atheist. Again, Rove's devotion to the Christian evangelicals is for business reasons, although it would be VERY interesting to see how they interpret this news.

We may have a black president, female president or Jewish president in my lifetime, but I doubt America would ever elect an atheist. We are far too moral of a country to ever have the tolerance to accept someone who has no faith. How ironic.

Rocket Gun for Hire

Roger Clemens has become baseball’s Man With No Name. Like Clint Eastwood, Clemens is an iconic Gun For Hire who drifts from town to town to assist whichever ball club offers him the most money. Like Eastwood, Clemens is the best at what he does, mowing down baffled hitters with a split-fingered shooter of ruthless efficiency. And when the season is over and his work is done, he collects his paycheck and wanders off, ready to offer his services to the next town that can ante up for him.

I actually don’t have a problem with Clemens becoming a mercenary in the twilight of his baseball career. If he can find a ballclub willing to pay for his services and he produces, more power to him. And Lord knows the Yankees could use him. New York has a pitching staff that resembles a MASH unit with a collective age that is almost AARP eligible. Not to mention an ERA that is worse than Tampa Bay’s.

The only thing I object to is Clemens’ self-professed desire to work for a team that will give him a shot at the World Series. That is bunk. Clemens signed with New York over Boston and Houston because they gave him the most money and a chance to start right away (which would also give him more money). Prorated for a June 1 beginning, Clemens will make $28 million a season, eclipsing Alex Rodriguez’s $27 million salary. The signing puts the Yankees another $7.5 million in the hole on luxury tax issues. Clemens will also enjoy the perks the Yankees said they would never give him last year, including private travel apart from his teammates and not having to accompany the team on road trips if he doesn’t want to. So much for Brian Cashman’s pledge to make the Yankees younger and more of a team.

Even though the Red Sox have a more recent World Series victory and are 5 ½ games in front of New York right now, Red Sox diehards will always have a serious case of Yankee Envy. The mood up here is a “Who needs him anyway?” attitude, mired in the perennial Boston sour grapes. I advise all Sox fans to just wait until next year, when Schilling’s contract is up and Clemens’ services are for hire again. Who knows where the gunslinger may turn up next spring?

Our Princess-Free House and Daughter

Like parents with young children everywhere, we belong to the Disney Movie Club and our house is stocked with Disney DVDs. Finding Nemo? Check. Toy Story? Check. Cinderella?

Nope, no Cinderella. And no Sleeping Beauty, Little Mermaid or Snow White either. To promote my young daughter’s long-term self-esteem, we are keeping our house princess free.

If you look at the classic Disney titles I’ve mentioned here, they all involve a princess heroine. And this heroine is the most passive and dependent person in the entire movie, who is unable to do much of anything until she finds a prince, gets married and lives happily ever after in a land of sunshine and unicorns. How sexist and antiquated, especially in 2007 when women are running countries, curing diseases and (too) slowly become CEOs of leading international companies.

I don’t blame Disney for this. Many of these movies were made decades ago when a woman was expected to stay home, raise the children and have a warm dinner waiting for her husband, who she also relied on for money. Women rarely went to college or had any chance of careers outside of teaching or administrative work. Thankfully this era has passed, but way too many women today (especially those with less education or poor role models) still consider their lives incomplete unless they’ve found a rich man.

But the films, which of course are well-made classics, have remained and now the princess bridal gowns and the chance to have a princess wedding in Disney World. It goes beyond Disney too. Mattel now has a Princess Barbie line, and lots of hotels and restaurants have “princess packages” for girls under 10.

Do I sound like an overreacting ultra-feminist? I probably do, but even if this is a phase young girls will grow out of, I’m leery of my impressionable young daughter being marketed a lifestyle where nothing is more important than marriage and good looks. Girls today have enough bad role models with Britney Spears, the Pussycat Dolls and Paris Hilton already. Right near us in Natick, Massachusetts is a Club Libby Lu, a store billed as a girl’s secret club where girls can get makeovers, clothes (miniskirts and tube tops appear to be popular) and “have their own princess party!!!” The store’s target market? Five- to 12-year-olds.

So for as long as possible, my wife and I are keeping our house princess-free. As for Disney, they got the message in the 1990s and recent movies like Aladdin and Pocahontas feature independent women who don’t run away with a man to live happily ever after. Even better is Mulan, where the heroine is told girls need to stay at home and subsequently disguises herself as a boy to lead an army and save her father. Curiously, Mulan appears in the Princess line in a kimono, which she hated wearing in the movie because she was told that’s what women had to wear.

And when someone recently told my daughter she was a princess she said, “I’m not a princess! I’m a big girl!!” I have already congratulated myself on my parenting.

More Info: A feature in The New York Times on this subject (subscribers only - bleah)