How Not to Criticize Jerry Falwell

While we wish R.I.P. to Jerry Falwell, it's also legitimate to debate his legacy.  I have at best mixed feelings about Falwell, who I personally think emphasized some important values but was highly selective among Christian teachings, and who made some truly despicable public statements (blaming gays for 9-11, peddling videos accusing Bill Clinton of drug-related murders).  [MODIFICATION: I should not downplay Falwell's leadership against abortion, and I should say "very important values" and simply "mixed feelings."] However, this editorial in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune makes criticisms of Falwell that would earn it an F from me in a college (maybe even a high-school) persuasive writing course:

One did not have to believe in the Rapture to see that, under Falwell's leadership, huge numbers of Christians disappeared from mainstream U.S. politics. . . .

Even now, almost two decades after the Moral Majority was disbanded, Christians are divided about their proper role in the public square. Instead of helping them see what they had in common -- as, for example, Billy Graham has done for many -- Falwell urged them to focus on the issues that drove them apart. It's hard to see what's moral about that.

The Rapture thing is cute, but I have no idea what the editors are talking about, since Falwell is known for bringing fundamentalist Protestants into the mainstream political process, from which they had separated themselves for decades.  Indeed, the usual criticism is that they've inappropriately taken over one of the two major political parties, not that they've "disappeared" from major-party politics.  As for the ensuing paragraph about divisiveness, I'm now awaiting the Star-Trib editorials saying it's immoral for Christian clergy to denounce the Iraq war as unjust, since that's an issue that "dr[ives] Christians apart."  Or that it's immoral to denounce cuts in anti-poverty programs or in taxes on the rich, since Christians disagree about those matters too.

People in public debate find endless ways to try to avoid having to take on the merits of their opponents' religiously motivated positions,  Of course, the editors would have avoided these mistakes if they'd simply read RIck's great "Religion and Division" piece.

Tom