I'm not your friend anymore!

I'm encountering an interesting phenomenon these days on Facebook. I enjoy the popular social networking site, although I don't spend nearly as much time on it as I used to, because it appeals to my interest in keeping up with friends old and new and especially finding long-lost friends from college, high school, and before (a trait for which some have criticized me in the past, for whatever reason). In fact, my girlfriend and I had dated briefly in high school but had no contact thereafter until Facebook brought us back together after 26 years, and I'm so grateful for that.

But the "interesting phenomenon" to which I refer is being "dumped" by erstwhile friends after posting something that pertains to my liberal viewpoints -- which, I might add, I seldom do. But when I do ... hoo boy, do I hear about it.

Just yesterday on Facebook, I linked to a hilarious post by our old blogfriend Gen. J.C. Christian of the blog "Jesus' General." The post, on which I stumbled more or less by accident (not having read "Jesus' General" as much as I'd like lately), was a satirical eulogy of Jerry Falwell ostensibly written by the infamous object of Falwell's scorn, Winky Tinky of the Teletubbies. I heard back from one of my old high school friends simply asking me, "Why are you such a basher?"

Well, I hadn't really considered myself much of a "basher" -- maybe here at Blast Off! in my "blog persona" as Sinfonian, but in meatspace, not really. Then I saw that said friend had de-friended me from Facebook, so I felt free to reply in detail:

Well ..., I was debating about whether to reply with the short, funny version or the long, detailed version, but since you apparently dropped me as a FB friend over this, I'll go with long. You weren't the first to dump me on FB over politics, and I'm sure you won't be the last. So much for open-mindedness; pity people take these things personally.

I don't really consider myself a "basher;" in fact, I posted this because it's hilarious. But, for now, I'll go with the label.

I'm a "basher" because I've seen how the Radical Right has destroyed so much of this country. How the hate and distrust of people who are "different," whether gay, non-Christian, African-American, etc., and so on has created a nation where people actually defend their "right" to openly take assault weapons to presidential appearances. How the people who by all rights SHOULD be most tolerant, based on their professed beliefs, are usually the LEAST tolerant.

So, yeah, I'm perfectly willing to "bash" people who are hypocrites. People who, for example, pray for the death of the president, as a pastor recently has done. Or, in this case, a nationally-renowned pastor who publicly blamed 9/11 on "the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively ... Read Moretrying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way...." That kind of attitude is abominable, and living in Florida, I see it far too often.

So I guess posting a piece that I didn't even write here somehow justifies being labeled a "basher" and chided for my opinions. As I said above, I'm just sorry people take this so personally. Many of my friends, on Facebook and otherwise, have ideologies different than mine; I choose not to denigrate them for their views and instead maintain the friendship. Even my girlfriend is a Republican, and somehow we survive. I'm sorry to have offended you and anyone else affected.

This isn't the first time this sort of thing has happened. It's not even the first time in the last couple of weeks: one old high school friend, who since has become an evangelical Christian, explained to me a short time ago in no uncertain terms that she would not stand for my "bashing [her] brothers and sisters in Christ" because of a Facebook post (referring to Blast Off!) wherein I referred to the pro-prayer forces in Santa Rosa County as "radical Christianists." She then dumped me from her Facebook friend list. (Hmmm ... maybe I really am a "basher.")

I'm sorry to lose friends over politics. I guess ultimately it's inevitable, but it's hard to hide my opinions permanently on a forum (Facebook) that is so personal. However, my sorrow comes more from the idea that people would take such things so personally; I acknowledge my differences from many of my friends, even those who proudly display "McCain-Palin" or "Bush-Cheney" stickers on their cars. We disagree, even debate, but that doesn't make them my friends any less.

I really do have a lot of Republican friends. My girlfriend is a Republican. Nearly everyone in my family is Republican. Most of my Republican/conservative friends -- well, those who know about this sucky blog -- tell me they enjoy reading the blog now and then, and occasionally they even comment here. Good -- I welcome dissenting opinions. But I'm never going to apologize for my sincerely-held beliefs and opinions ... nor will I ever ask my friends to do so.

People who publicly wear T-shirts proclaiming "Islam Is The Devil," though ... well, that's an entirely different story altogether ....

UPDATE (11:42 am 9/1/09): Just saw that one of my Facebook friends posted her response to a poll, "Which of these candidates would you vote for if there were a 2008 Presidential Election Do-Over?" She answered Mike Huckabee, commenting, "This is who I voted for in the FIRST place!!" Now, I wouldn't even think of defriending her (although I might think of recommending professional help for her obviously delusional behavior).

(Just kidding!)

At the intersection of religion and free speech: Liberty University and the College Democrats

There's an interesting juxtaposition in national and local (northwest Florida, a/k/a America's Taint™) news this morning with regard to the First Amendment. While the Amendment's text guarantees freedom of and from religious expression and freedom of speech, the two aren't always synchronous. And two news stories are bearing that out today.

The first* comes from Lynchburg, Va., where Liberty Zombie Jerry Falwell University has denied its College Democrats club the right to exist.

Officials at the private Lynchburg school, which was founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell, said they made the decision after receiving complaints from trustees, parents and donors.

"They really are great kids and good friends of mine," said Jerry Falwell Jr., who became the school's chancellor after his father died in 2007. "It's just an issue of what Liberty's mission is."

[...]

Diaz was informed in a May 15 e-mail from Student Affairs Vice President Mark Hine that the club, which has about 30 members, will no longer be able to use Liberty's name or be eligible for funding because of the party's stand on abortion rights and gay rights issues.

Mathew D. Staver, dean of the university's school of law, said Liberty recently came up with new guidelines for all student groups. On May 15, a campuswide review began. The recognition of only the Democratic club has been revoked. Staver said the students can continue to meet in certain locations on campus, and school officials have encouraged them to find a parent organization that supports a "pro-life, pro-family" platform.

Maria Childress, the club's adviser and an administrative assistant at the school, said she is trying to appeal the decision to Falwell.

Katie Naranjo, president of the College Democrats of America, said, "It's astonishing that in the 21st century an institution for higher education would demand a student group be thrown off campus for their political views."

First of all ... Mathew Staver ... I've heard that name before ...

Right! Staver is representing the woman who wants to uphold Florida's ban on same-sex adoptions. And he got smacked down by a state appeals court last week. Poor guy. But at least he's consistent in his bigotry.

Anyway, granted, Liberty is a private institution, and as such they pretty much can do what they want (although, since they accept federal funds for financial aid, they cannot discriminate on the basis of race, gender, etc., unless they disavow that funding like Hillsdale College has done). And, frankly, students who go to Liberty have to expect that if they are Democrats or have non-conservative political beliefs, they might not be in a friendly environment. But still, this is different than, say, outlawing dancing at Bob Jones University or even the anachronistic rules at Pensacola Christian College. This is direct censorship of opinion. Yet, because it's a private entity, it may very well be legal.

But it certainly doesn't bode well for receiving an even nominally well-rounded education at Liberty University. Ironic, given Chancellor Falwell's statement last fall: "My father always said you can disagree without being disagreeable, and that’s the message we’re trying to teach these kids [...] We’re all part of the same LU community." That's a pretty intolerant community, eh, Chancellor? I mean, even an official of the LU College Republicans acknowledged the benefits of having a College Democrats chapter there, when she said in April:

“You can’t have College Republicans debating each other,” [College Republicans Public Relations Director Melinda] Zosh said. “Now we can have an open forum where the College Republicans and the College Democrats can debate the issues.”

Zosh thinks it is important to have both a College Republicans and a College Democrats on any academic university.

“I think it’s great for students to have opportunities to explore different viewpoints,” Zosh said. “Having this kind of forum will help prepare students for the world they will go into after they graduate.”

Which brings us back to Liberty's mission. Recall that Chancellor Falwell said that the decision to force the College Democrats to disband is "just an issue of what Liberty's mission is." So, what is that Mission?

To develop Christ-centered men and women with the values, knowledge, and skills essential to impact tomorrow’s world. The mission is carried out for resident students through a rigorous academic program and structured social environment. It is carried out for external students in a comparable academic program but without the structure of the resident community.

Are they now saying Democrats can't be Christians? Or that Christians can't be Democrats? (They'd probably agree with the latter, actually ...) Is it really possible to imbue the "values, knowledge, and skills essential to impact tomorrow's world" by exposing students to only one ideological perspective? Perhaps that's what LU wants to do, but I don't think that strictly follows the letter of the Mission.

Let's drill down further, to the Aims by which the university seeks to accomplish its mission. (Note how they number the introductory phrase. Remedial outlining, anyone?)

1. In support of its Philosophy and Mission, Liberty University seeks to develop the whole person by providing its students with intellectual and cultural pursuits that:
2. Contribute to a knowledge and understanding of other cultures and of international events.
3. Promote an understanding of the Western tradition and the diverse elements of American cultural history, especially the importance of the individual in maintaining democratic and free market processes.

[...]

6. Convey the different ways of acquiring knowledge in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences.
7. Enable them to engage in a major field of study built on a solid foundation in the liberal arts.
8. Explore the moral dimensions and ethical implications in the disciplines offered by the University.

[...]

11. Cultivate a sensitivity to the needs of others and a commitment to the betterment of humanity.

I'm not going to comment on the irony of a radically rightist university desiring to "cultivate a sensitivity to the needs of others ..." (and yeah, I see the bit about "free market" in there to appease the Randians), but there is a lot of language in those Aims about diversity and exposing students to different viewpoints. Thus, it seems misguided, even hypocritical, for Falwell to cite the university's Mission as the reason for this kind of viewpoint discrimination, this blatant violation of academic freedom.

Finally, you shouldn't miss what I think is the ultimate driving force in this decision. As quoted above, the university experienced pressure from "trustees, parents, and donors." Oftentimes, those categories overlap, and I assure you as a longtime university fund raiser myself, if the institution gets a lot of complaints from donors and threats to withhold future gifts, that has a powerful effect on the institution's decisionmaking process. I believe that's exactly what's happened here, and as a result, Liberty's students, liberal and conservative alike, are going to be deprived of a big part of the educational diversity the university's own Mission promises.

---

* I'll post on the second, local story later this afternoon. Related post is now available.

Let's play Celebrity Political Compass!

Remember a few months ago when I showed you the Political Compass, which placed nearly every 2008 presidential candidate on the right half of the ideological spectrum?

Well, this morning I found the following chart, based at least in part on the same concept:


But the interesting thing is where certain celebrities and political figures purportedly fall on that chart. Check this out:


My favorite part here is how Jerry Falwell is right next to Osama bin Laden.

But who's the fascist next to Bill O'Reilly? (No, not Reagan ... the other fascist.) Mussolini? Tito? And Thomas Jefferson between Ted Nugent and the Unabomber? Um, I don't know about that one ...

And what the fuck is Adam Sandler doing on this chart? How incongruous.

Anyway, have some fun with it ... images link to their sources.

But I thought all terrorists had brown skin?

A Liberty University student has been arrested on suspicion of preparing a bomb-fest at Jerry Falwell's funeral.

The student, 19-year-old Mark D. Uhl of Amissville, Va., reportedly told authorities he was making the bombs to stop protesters from disrupting the funeral service.

The only protestors I heard about were the Gang of Fucktards from Fred Phelps' "church."

So, it's the Falwells vs. the Phelpses. Take your pick. Lucky that noted Christian Mark Uhl was there, huh?

I sure hope "None of the Above" is a choice.

UPDATE (10:06 pm 5/22/07): Spelling of the student's name has been corrected.

A touching tribute

This one is milk-out-the-nose funny.

From Democratic Underground, "Teletubbies send condolences to Falwell family."


(h/t to Eschaton commenter QuentinCompson)

Now Falwell finds out whether he was right

Wow -- see what happens when I'm in a meeting for the afternoon and away from the news?

The Rev. Jerry Falwell, the television evangelist who founded the Moral Majority and used it to mold the religious right into a political force, died Tuesday shortly after being found unconscious in his office at Liberty University. He was 73.

Atrios makes some great points about Falwell's opinions during his life. Who can forget Falwell's immortal words, "AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals"?

And what about his commentary on 9/11?

Television evangelists Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, two of the most prominent voices of the religious right, said liberal civil liberties groups, feminists, homosexuals and abortion rights supporters bear partial responsibility for Tuesday's terrorist attacks because their actions have turned God's anger against America.

"God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve," said Falwell, appearing yesterday on the Christian Broadcasting Network's "700 Club," hosted by Robertson.

"Jerry, that's my feeling," Robertson responded. "I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror. We haven't even begun to see what they can do to the major population."

Falwell said the American Civil Liberties Union has "got to take a lot of blame for this," again winning Robertson's agreement: "Well, yes."

Then Falwell broadened his blast to include the federal courts and others who he said were "throwing God out of the public square." He added: "The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe 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.' "

And now, of course, he presumably knows (or knew) ... the rest of the story.

I always learned that if you can't say anything nice about someone, don't say anything at all. So I'll stop there, and let Falwell's own words speak volumes.

UPDATE (4:34 pm 5/15/07): And didja see who was first out of the gate in making statements of condolence?

Sen. John McCain, [Liberty University's] commencement speaker last year, said Tuesday that his prayers were with Falwell's family.

"Dr. Falwell was a man of distinguished accomplishment who devoted his life to serving his faith and country," McCain said.

STFU, Saint John.

Newt and Jerry, sittin' in a tree ...

If ever two wingnuts deserved each other, it's Newt Gingrich and Jerry Falwell.

Newt Gingrich's admission of an extramarital affair as he pursued President Clinton's impeachment in the Monica Lewinsky scandal has won praise from another conservative Christian leader: the Rev. Jerry Falwell.

It's also helped to gain Gingrich an invitation to deliver the commencement address at Falwell's Liberty University. Gingrich is considered a possible Republican presidential contender, although he has not announced any intention to run.

In an interview with Focus on the Family founder James Dobson that aired Friday, Gingrich admitted to the affair in 1998. In 2000, he divorced his second wife, Marianne, after his attorneys acknowledged his relationship with Callista Bisek, a former congressional aide now his wife.

"He has admitted his moral shortcomings to me, as well, in private conversations," Falwell wrote in a weekly newsletter sent Friday to members of the Moral Majority Coalition and The Liberty Alliance. "And he has also told me that he has, in recent years, come to grips with his personal failures and sought God's forgiveness."

Remember, kids, it's okay if you're a Republican. Yes, you can pretty much do anything you want, up to and including murder, so long as you aren't found, in those immortal words, with a live boy or a dead girl* (right, Mark Foley?).

Falwell, of course, is a shrewd judge of character (as long as you're a Republican):

Falwell, in his newsletter, said he has usually been able to tell when a man who has experienced "moral collapse" was genuinely seeking forgiveness. "My sense tells me that Mr. Gingrich is such a man," he wrote.

"I well remember the challenge we evangelicals faced in 1980 when our candidate, Ronald Reagan, was the first presidential candidate who had gone through a divorce. We wisely made allowance for God's forgiveness and America was the beneficiary of this historic champion," Falwell added.

Falwell "usually" can recognize "moral collapse." I presume his warranty doesn't extend to mirrors.

Last word: I heard that ABC is planning a sitcom based on the GEICO cavemen, from their ads. I think Jerry and Newt would be perfect in the roles of the madcap cavemen. Their attitudes fit the part like a glove.

* See, e.g., "Joe Scarborough Exception."