« Giulianism and the GOP | Main | Talent on the Military »

Falwell vs. MLK

16 May 2007 10:32 am

Via Matt, here's Michelle Goldberg on Jerry Falwell:

It's hard to believe now, when evangelicals and fundamentalists make up the most organized bloc in American politics, but before the Moral Majority a person's churchgoing habits didn't tell you much about how they voted, and politicians weren't expected to make lavish displays of their piety. The notion of church/state separation, now widely regarded by Republicans as part of a devious war against Christianity, was a widely shared principle. Falwell himself once denounced preachers who got involved in governance, though not out of devotion to a secular republic: As a committed segregationist, he decried the work of Martin Luther King Jr, saying, "Preachers are not called to be politicians, but to be soul winners."

Two points. First, before the 1970s, whether a person went to church didn't tell you that much about their voting habits, but where they went to church certainly did. Is the separation of church and state really more imperiled today than it was in, say, the 1920s, when Catholic Democrats and Republican Protestants did battle over whose interpretation of Christian teaching on alcohol should be the law of the land? Or in 1900, when William Jennings Bryan, he of the "Social Gospel", ran for President against William "let's Christianize the Filipinos" McKinley? Seriously?

Second, isn't it a little weird that Michelle Goldberg basically seems to agree with Jerry Falwell's critique of Martin Luther King?

Comments (6)

Mitt Romney's dad ran for president, and his religion really wasn't much of an issue, if the sources I've been reading are correct. (I'm not old enough to remember, and am open to being proven wrong). Today, many people think that Mitt's religion is a disqualifier for GOP primary voters.

You are probably correct that things were different in 1920, or in other contexts, such as 16th-century Spain. But if the issue is, as Cottle writes, did Rev. Falwell's efforts led to an era where politicians are "expected to make lavish displays of their piety," and was this a change from the pre-Falwell era, the answer is surely "yes."

Isn't Goldberg actually objecting to the ubiquity of ostentatious religious affiliation as a required plank in a politician's platform (a phenomenon which she rightly or wrongly attributes to the Moral Majority)? Objecting to the modern political necessity of identifying oneself with some religious movement isn't necessarily the same as rejecting wholesale the presence of religious figures in political life.

So do you think that Falwell opposed King on procedural grounds (pastors should save souls and shut up about everything else) or on substantive ones for which the procedural grounds were a stalking-horse? He was an open supporter of segregation (and of apartheid), so my guess is the argument--which was made by all kinds of white right-wingers--was in bad faith. Likewise, I suspect bad faith from liberals who just want (conservative) preachers to butt out of reproductive law. But calling them hypocrites doesn't exactly absolve Falwell or any others of their hypocrisy. After all, it wasn't liberals by and large who came up with separation grounds to oppose something as basic as civil rights.


The NeoCon's revisionism on MLK is a joke.

MLK was a radical leftist who hated the white race with a passion.

See:

Myths of MLK
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/epstein9.html

.

buy cheap online prescription viagra

thoracicohumeral sagaciously dotal echoingly kootcha advanced dynamics illuminist
http://tx.waterdata.usgs.gov/ >NWISWeb Data
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/dfs/docs/FC/fc_e.asp