A NewsBusters reader sent us an MP3 clip of an ABC News radio report from the afternoon of May 15 by "Nightline" host Terry Moran. In it, Moran boils down the late Rev. Jerry Falwell's clerical career and political activism to one extreme soundbite from shortly after 9/11.
Moran left unmentioned that Falwell later clarified his statements to reflect more accurately his belief that God lifted the "curtain" of His protection to allow 9/11 to happen, and closed his report emphasizing Falwell as a marginalized political actor:
MORAN: In 2001, just two days after the 9/11 attacks, Falwell infamously and appallingly blamed the mass murder not on terrorists...
FALWELL sound bite: The pagans and the abortionists...
MORAN: ...but on his liberal enemies in an appearance on the Rev. Pat Robertson's TV program.
FALWELL: ...alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who try to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say you helped this happen.
MORAN: Falwell later apologized for those comments, but they shocked many Americans and helped to push him further to the margins of the political world he once dominated.
Yet hours later on "Nightline," Moran managed to show a more complex picture, including airing an interview with Fallwell apologizing for his 9/11 comments and explaining his theology in light of Scripture. Moran also noted that Falwell thought his greatest and lasting legacy was Liberty University, a school he founded eight years before the Moral Majority:
MORAN: ...And then, in 2001, just two days after the 9/11 attacks, Falwell infamously and appallingly blamed the mass murder not on terrorists...
FALWELL sound bite: 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 try to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say you helped this happen.
MORAN in an interview with Falwell: Falwell later apologized for those comments, and he told me he was simply trying to express what for him is a Gospel truth. God judges sinners.
FALWELL to Moran: That key verse is Proverbs 14:33. "Righteousness exalteth a nation. Sin is a reproach to any people." That is what I was referring to. I didn't say it the way I meant it. And it did anger some people and the press gave great, I left myself open.
MORAN: Do you regret it?
FALWELL: Oh, sure. I don't like to ever say something that doesn't totally reflect what I believe.MORAN: And after all the controversy, it was Liberty University that Falwell poured his heart into in his final years. A hundred and eighteen thousand people have graduated from Liberty so far in a school made in Jerry Falwell's image.
FALWELL: We've got 23,000 students at Liberty University and no alcohol, no drugs, no tobacco. No co-ed dorms. We catch a boy in a girl's dorm, we shoot him. Or make him wish we had.
MORAN: Pastor, political titan, educator, controversialist. He was hated by many. Admired by many. Along with all the fire and brimstone, all the words that seared and divided, Jerry Falwell kept on smiling. Maybe that was his secret...
A brief radio obituary has obvious time constraints that a full story on "Nightline" does not, but that doesn't excuse Moran's biased radio item when the ABC veteran could have given radio listeners a more balanced thumbnail sketch.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I just don't understand why h
May 16, 2007 - 11:34 ET byI just don't understand why he would have apologized for what he said after 9/11. He was correct. We have to expect some judgment to come upon our nation, when our nation allows ramped homosexuality and abortion, along with other anti-Christ behavior.
God will not be mocked.
Debra...
Oh, I'm confident Moran will be consistent..
May 16, 2007 - 11:44 ET by Gary HallOh, I'm confident Moran will be consistent.. and treat others just as fairly. When Bill Clinton passes on, surely Moron will honor his passing by saying: We will always remember our greatest president by the class act he lived in the higest office of our land: "Hey baby.. know what I'd like to do with this cigar?"
Libs
May 16, 2007 - 12:05 ET by iveseenitallMoran exemplifies the "liberal". The dirty, hate-filled b@#$#@ds can't leave anyone who disagrees with them alone, even in death. They are disgusting individuals.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
So how long have you've bee
May 16, 2007 - 12:21 ET by ChriswelLDebra:
So how long have you've been working for the Ron Paul campaign?
Iraq don't forget Iraq!
-cs™
ChriswelL??? Ron Pa
May 17, 2007 - 08:32 ET byChriswelL??? Ron Paul??? Do you mean, Tom Tancredo?
9/11 was God's judgment?
May 16, 2007 - 12:27 ET by RJ9/11 was God's judgment? You get more freaky every day, Debra.
I'm sure the family and friends of those killed that day would be highly insulted if you were to tell them that to their face. I know I would.
Do you know anything about God ?
May 16, 2007 - 15:29 ET by tumbler_2007Debra, for all her prejudice, hits on something (slightly).
First, God has to PERMIT something to happen, or it cannot happen. Maybe that's why earth hasn't been destoyed by a massive meteor or something like that.
Therefore, God simply could have interfered with the evil-doers of 9-11; yet He did NOT. Many people including innocent ones, died in order for us to hear the Wake-up Call.
Second; New York City is not Nineveh; but for a long time it's come close to that. All of us who deplore Liberalism and corruption in high places ought to know how badly NYC was needing a wake-up call. Nowhere is the pursuit of wealth more concentrated on earth, than that city. NYC has been the site of most American financial scandals. The abuses of the Left, too. "Vagina Monologues" and various more stupid & dirty shows on Broadway. This is the place where shit and urine are called "art" by the connoisseurs ! Gnu dung, wasn't it? Smeared on a Virgin Mary portrait ? (Debra won't object much.) Mafia and drug traffic, incredible danger after dark, everywhere?
Has there even been a real day of reckoning for the Big Apple yet ? Maybe not. Only about 3,000 people were killed there. Out of numberless hordes of inhabitants. The biggest killing was really the two towers over the place, symbolic of human pride and modern miracles. Is it possible they offended God somehow, like the Tower of Babel did in the OT ? Could be.
We'll see more objections, presently. About how God is never so barbarous or callous about human life. Yet we know by the Bible's words that God consented to the agonizing death of His own beloved Son on a cross; in order to bring grace to us. Grace and forgiveness without end. We shouldn't be appalled by death staring us in the face. God allows it. Even we allow it, by giving senseless women the "right to choose."
Debra is prejudiced!?! And
May 16, 2007 - 15:38 ET by NL207Debra is prejudiced!?! And the pot calls the kettle?
"only about 3,000 people were killed"?????
May 16, 2007 - 15:40 ET by RJ"only about 3,000 people were killed"
Wow, Tumbler, every time I think you've hit your nadir of stupidity, you find a way to go even lower. You really are an ugly, demented old man.
do you know of others killed ?
May 16, 2007 - 16:08 ET by tumbler_2007I concede my ugliness; but what about yours ? Your Lying at every opportunity ?
Only 3,000 roughly died on 9-11; a fact. If God were to allow it, maybe 50,000 had died. Does this bother you, my matter-of-fact reporting ? Tough shet, Jughead.
In a city where maybe 25 million go to bed at night (haven't seen the latest population tally) a loss of 3,000 is bad news, but not by wartime standards. Look at Iraq; we agree, don't we ? Our dead are all individually lamentable. But hardly what you could have expected.
My nadir is infinitely higher than your zenith, little pointy head.
"only about 3,000 people"
May 16, 2007 - 16:16 ET by RJ"only about 3,000 people"
Filth is the word for you, Tumbler. Miserable, ugly, demented filth.
Only 3,000 people killed...so
May 16, 2007 - 16:19 ET by LeonOnly 3,000 people killed...sounds like the right's rhetoric for why Iraq isn't so bad. Only 3,000 American soldiers have died in Iraq, how many died storming the beaches of Normandy? How many died in WW2?
That argument's made by BD and the like all the time on this website and I don't see you complaining then RJ
Wrong again, Leon. Read the thread.
May 16, 2007 - 16:38 ET by RJWrong again, Leon. Read the thread. You're taking the figure out of context and spewing more of your pointless, ill-informed taunting.
Filthy Tumbler was ranting that as a punishment from God, 3,000 wasn't such a high number, and that because it happened in NYC, it wasn't such a great loss.
Hrm...
May 16, 2007 - 20:28 ET by Mr. BishopOut of the 3000 people that died in New York, how many of them applied for work, interviewed for work, or were hired for a job -- knowing there was a good chance they could die?
Your comparison is nonsense. You don't accept that a war is going well because only 3000 people, who knew full well they could die when they enlisted, died. The 3000 people in New York did not apply for a job, with that kind of understanding. Their familes, did not know that could happen to them. The familes and the people, that enlist in the Armed Forces, know full well that there is always a risk they can die. Those that enlist in the military, know full well, they can be called up for a war. When they're not at war -- they're training for a war.
So, don't try and sound intelligent on the issue of the miltary and historical context of war body counts -- you'll embarass yourself more.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
So NYC is a city doomed to
May 16, 2007 - 15:41 ET by balboaSo NYC is a city doomed to God's wrath because it's so liberal?
Hey RJ, pleased we agree on s
May 16, 2007 - 15:43 ET by artwhiteHey RJ, pleased we agree on something! As an NYPD officer who lost friends and colleagues on that blighted day I get enraged when I hear ignorant statements like Falwell's. Not as enraged as when I hear of Rosie and her cronies bleating inanitites about 9/11 but enraged all the same.
As someone who spent a lot of my childhood in Europe, I know first hand that the 'blame one's own country' mentality is not a US disease, and from my observations certainly not a liberal one either. I've often wondered why so many of us do this reflexively and I 've come to think that it's mature and responsible. We realise that even at the state level, as with our own individual selves, most problems are rooted at home not brought on by outsiders. A poor person or a poor country has only itself to blame, and a corrupt person or country also.
Sorry about your friends and colleagues, artwhite
May 16, 2007 - 15:52 ET by RJI'm truly sorry about your friends and colleagues, artwhite.
I'm not sure what you're saying. It's "mature and responsible" to blame oneself? We (perhaps through God's judgment) are to blame for 9/11?
Thanks for your compassion RJ
May 16, 2007 - 23:20 ET by artwhiteThanks for your compassion RJ.
What I meant was that I think it's natural to look at one's own self, or the back yard say as an analogy for one's society, when bad things happen. I think the terrorists are evil, worthless scum. I also think that our support of Israel, even though it's right, has made us even more enemies than we'd have just for the being thr preeminent nation in the world. I also think taht weve made some foreign policy misjudgements over the years that have emboldened our enemy's rhetoric.
PS I don't follow any religon, though I was raised as a Christian, amd therefore don't believe in God's judgement.
It is not mature to automatic
May 17, 2007 - 00:04 ET by zfIt is not mature to automatically blame yourself (or your country) for your problems. Maturity comes from analyzing different situtations, observing the facts and realizing when something really is your fault or not. Mindlessly repeating any mantra (whether it's "I'm always right" or "I'm always wrong") is inherently *immature.* Self-recrimination is often a crutch. If you blame everything on yourself it means you don't have to dirty your hands by pointing fingers, risk anger or getting your feelings through criticizing someone who might criticize back, or standing up against someone when they're wrong. Much safer to hide away and not risk geeling guilty over hurting someones feelings.
As for it being natural, well, I can count the number of people I've met who blame their problems (justified or not) on themselves on one hand. Seriously, when have your ever seen a liberal blame a problem that is actually their fault on themselves? (It certaintly hasn't happend when they are responsible for a bad economy, high crime rates or their own immorality.)
And whether "most" problems are peoples own fault is at best a blanket generalization. For some people yes, but for others no. Believe it or not, there are good people who through the whimsy of fate or whatnot have problems that are the result of outsiders and are not their fault at all. It's a mixed bag, and certainly not possible to quantify with terms like "most", "many," "all", etc.
And if you do something good and bad things happen to you, the fault is on those who couldn't or wouldn't see what good you were doing and decided to use violence and harm because they felt better counteracting your good with bad and too infantile to respond with anything but anger and ignorance.
I don't mean to be so harsh on you, artwhite, but there was a little bit of the "don't offend anyone" mentality in what you were saying and that I find in liberals and it's increasingly becoming annoying.
"Most problems are rooted at home, not brought on by outsiders
May 17, 2007 - 08:49 ET by RJFurther, zf:
Of course we've made mistakes, as artwhite says. You can't be involved with the world and not have that happen. And it's good to constantly evaluate our positions. But...
"Most problems are rooted at home, not brought on by outsiders"
This is a starkly liberal philosophy. It can also be summed up as being analogous to battered women or children who think that if they behave better they won't be beaten again.
Hardly the "mature and responsible" thinking claimed by artwhite.
The battered woman fell for t
May 17, 2007 - 09:34 ET by artwhiteThe battered woman fell for the brute. If she didn't leave him the first time he exhibited his violence towards her she holds some responsibility if he carries on hurting her. Obviously we have to hold very different standards for children.
I never said that the US brought 9/11 on ourselves, I merely posited that looking at one's own role in an event is natural and mature, and something practised by conservatives.
RJ why do you constnatly use the liberal slur on me? I realise I'm not an extremist like yourself with predictable ideas but I'm no liberal. I guess you feel a hero like Guiliani isn't conservative enough to lead the Republican party.
Liberal slur?
May 17, 2007 - 09:51 ET by RJLiberal slur? Did I call you a liberal? No. I said that was a liberal statement, and it is. Interpret it as you wish.
(Amusing aside: Tucker Carlson, clearly no conservative, also feels it necessary to state every day that he's a conservative. ;^> )
What is not open to interpretation is my calling the concept of blaming oneself analagous to battered women and children. It is neither mature, natural, or conservative to claim that "most problems are rooted at home, not brought on by outsiders."
As for Rudy, he's a social liberal. I'm not surprised that you, apparently, worship him.
So does Tumbler
May 18, 2007 - 08:18 ET by RJTumbler also feels the need to proclaim his "conservatism" nearly every day.
"Methinks the lady doth protest too much" (or however it goes...)
WOW. Just, WOW.What color i
May 16, 2007 - 12:32 ET by balboaWOW. Just, WOW.
What color is the sky in your world?
My sky is blue, here today. H
May 17, 2007 - 08:39 ET byMy sky is blue, here today. How about yours, balboa?
Debra, are you saying that Go
May 16, 2007 - 14:56 ET by GalvanicDebra, are you saying that God took the side of the Islamic terrorists because of our sinful society? If so, then bin Laden is right, no?
Hi Galvanic,The Bible tells o
May 17, 2007 - 08:53 ET byHi Galvanic,
The Bible tells of times that God allowed the enemy of His people to prevail, due to sin on the part of God's people. It did not mean that God sided with the enemy of His people; it simply meant that He allowed harm to come to His people. He would always deliver his people from the enemy.
--But, I ask you, is a nation who has turned its back on God, God's people? Or is this a nation that is being largely sustained by God, due to the fact that many of God's people live here? And how has this nation responded to 9/11? Has America turned back to God? Or has she even further embraced that which is evil in His sight? The answers to these questions make you wonder when a plane flies over-head, doesn’t it?
One needs to realize that not all of the people, who died that day in those towers were God's people. I will tell you this; no one died that day and went to hell by accident. Those who were God’s went to heaven.
Many people cried out to Jesus just before they died, like the thief on the cross -they are with Him now. And I would assume that some people in those buildings were true believers before that day.
We need to keep in mind, that though we prosecute murderers, no one dies one second before he is scheduled to die. God is not up there going, "Oops." How we will die (or leave this earth if it is by the rapture) and what pain we will live through, is the question.
Debra...
Debra joins the filthy Ward Churchill, Bill Maher
May 17, 2007 - 09:37 ET by RJDebra joins the camp of the filthy Ward Churchill, Bill Maher, Tumbler, and others who blame America.
Debra,I'm not sure, but I t
May 16, 2007 - 15:52 ET by Dave RDebra,
I'm not sure, but I think you are precipitously close to going over the edge with this one.
Dave, You are talking to a wo
May 17, 2007 - 09:19 ET byDave,
You are talking to a woman who lived through some of the worse pain imaginable. And yet, I still say, that God does not say, "oops."
Pain, illness, death, is all caused by sin. And it is not always the sin of the person who is inflicted. Look at the children who died that day in the towers. Look at a wife who contracts AIDs due to a bi-sexual husband.
And then, there is illness and pain and death that just comes from living in a sinful world that was cursed the day man first sinned.
I do not believe that God 'zaps' His people with pain and illness, like, "Take that, you sinner!!!" I do believe that He sends plagues on the wicked, and allows some of His own and even children, to be inflicted. And it is a fact that God judges nations who turn their back on Him --and such does affect His own.
The reason that I share this with you, is that I want to make clear that I am not a person who has never experienced pain, talking out of my tush. I thank God all the time, for not taking me from my children who need me; and I smile straight from my heart, when I think of the good that God brought out of it all.
Debra...
Ken - I'm so glad you have
May 16, 2007 - 12:06 ET by Dee BunkKen - I'm so glad you have this exact quote. I saw it on Nightline and was still "appalled" myself. Why does Moran say, "Falwell infamously and appallingly blamed the mass murder not on terrorists..." aren't infamously and appallingly opinions? I didn't like what Falwell orginally said either, but it's the same thing that the liberals said and still say today. They feel we brought this on ourselves because of our sins. They just see different sins then Falwell (kind of ironic when you think about it. Falwell agrees with the terrorists on many of our moral sins but does not justify the violence. The liberals see different sins than the terrorists but justify their violence). Why doesn't Moran find liberals comments "infamous and appalling"? Has anyone ever heard any MSM apply those adjectives to a liberal's comments that we brought this on ourselves?
People like Moran are disinge
May 16, 2007 - 12:57 ET by iveseenitallPeople like Moran are disingenuous, immature, souless liberals. The entire coverage of Falwell's death makes this clear to anyone with an ounce of logic and honesty. Like him or not, Falwell did much good work in his life, but from the "journalism" of people like Moran , Sawyer and the rest you'd think he was the devil because he dared to have a point of view which differed from theirs. Liberals are not liberal; they are close-minded. Ironically, this is what they accuse Falwell of having been. Sickos!
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
Excellent points Dee Bunk
May 16, 2007 - 14:01 ET by SportPoliticsExcellent points Dee Bunk.
I would tend to disagee only in the sense that the liberals claim (just for convenience and not in the Balkans - etc.)the same US foreign policy whines of bin laden. So they see different "sins" than Falwell, they see another third of the terrorists complaints.
1. opressive dictatorial middle eastern governments
2. USA cooperatively buying oil from them
3. USA decadence
I find that Falwell is correct in the material sense, and that the legalized "sins" he mentions outline in large part the policy positions of the left that not only inflamed the terrorists and supported their stance about their own Middle Eastern governments they war against, and our lifestyles, but issued rules and regulations on our protective services, while not allowing offensive attacks against the enemy that had declared up on us, and even today agree with the enemies rhetorical distortions concerning "puppet governments" of the USA.
The left doesn't have a solution, and largely contributed to the problem. Falwell was not incorrect.
Iveseen and sport - I agree
May 16, 2007 - 15:15 ET by Dee BunkIveseen and sport - I agree and I think you guys make similar points. Falwell's statement is more consistent and in line with what he believes and is also less offensive because he doesn't justify any non-peaceful ways of advocating his beliefs. The liberals blame America for violence when we intervene (Iraq and Afghanistan) and blame us when we don't (Darfur, Balkins etc...). It truly is a blame America first mentality.
It is sad because even though I don't agree with Falwell's religious methods and interpretations (I prefer a Bill Bennett type approach), he never advocated any violence that I know of and he was a decent man. He gave up a career in Professional baseball where he could have become rich and had a lot more fun if he was disingenuous and only in it for fame and fortune. He also built homes for unwed mothers and alcholics (who would be sinners in his eyes). He also gave up the limelight when he felt that he was doing more bad than good with his public statements.
I don't believe he would shun or disrespect gay people either, but he did come across that way. It was mostly the media's doing that he was perceived that way. The media don't understand the difference between disagreeing or not liking a behavior and disliking individuals. They think that because some people (probably Democrats) threaten Gay people that everyone who disagrees with it on a spiritual level would also.
Yes, because they hate Bush
May 17, 2007 - 06:37 ET by SportPoliticsYes, because they hate Bush, with a passion, and can barely contain it.
I have always liked Falwell, and unless the libs produce something, I don't have a problem at all with him. I got the impression that he's a very nice guy, and now I find out he has a 20,000 student University he got going, the libs should be thrilled with him.
I was also surprised at how nice - I think it was Billy Graham's son - was on H & C. Colmes was attacking him and he didn't even notice and was very kind in return.
Remember, the terrorists are
May 17, 2007 - 00:08 ET by zfRemember, the terrorists are bothered more by the fact that we don't maim, kill and persecute those who perputate the "legalized sins" than by the fact that they exist in the U.S.A in the first place.
Oh, come on. Everybody knew t
May 16, 2007 - 12:48 ET by ferrarimanf355Oh, come on. Everybody knew this was going to come up. This isn't liberal media bias, this is just covering all of the angles. And did anyone believe that half-hearted apology, anyways?
Uzumaki/Ayanami '08. Because a ninja and an Eva pilot can govern the nation better that what we have now...
ferrari - read my comment a
May 16, 2007 - 12:54 ET by Dee Bunkferrari - read my comment above. How is what Falwell said different from the liberals who say we brought this on ourselves? They haven't even attempted to apoligize.
Dee Bunk
May 16, 2007 - 13:31 ET by SportPoliticsThe color of the Balboa sky is a foreign karma cream blowback mountain.
I don't know that the 60's sex drug and rock and roll culture didn't distract the policy establishments from a better use, even if you give the liberals stance of foreign policy problems a look. The very same gay baby murderers have never articulated a foreign policy any different. All they have ever done is whine about what is.
Wasn't it the very same who made us burn oil instead of making nuclear power our electric base. Didn't they demand we stop drilling around the USA, and in fact still do. Aren't they the same who demanded, as they murdered babies, that foreign corrupt dictators shall not be assasinated - and wasn't bin laden complaint with those very same dictators ? Doesn't the homo abortion left claim "propping" middle east dictators is wrong - same thing bin laden says to justify his attack, while never explaining what other tact could be used ? Assasination is wrong, sanctions are wrong, I guess even buying the oil is wrong. The libs never say what is right.
I personally don't find what Falwell / Debra said much different than what the left has done and said in effect- and I find the that result is support of the attack. Isn't it the very same sinful left that told us we can't shoot binny in his lair ? YES
They have foiled and thwarted every attempt at protection pre-911 - from their Church Commission and Wall - to making certain all sort of illegal aliens and foreigners of bad nature come and stay here. Falwell WAS NOT incorrect, even by earthly evidentiary standard.
In a stange fashion and form, it appears that the 60's abortion sex and all the rest movement has made massive contribution in the real world to the blowback. Certainly they contributed to travel and vacation and enjoying all the fruits of massive oil use even if they complained about the price.
I understand the pressure applied to make Falwell recant, but when I examine his comment in a material instead of spiritual light, I don't find him off the mark.
At this point I'd like to hear from the da**ed whining left - what foreign policy should have been in place instead of what was. That is something I do not believe they will EVER answer.
Sport - I agree that what Deb
May 16, 2007 - 15:56 ET by Dee BunkSport - I agree that what Debrah says isn’t much different from many on the left, but I find both equally appalling. At least as it’s stated. Do you really believe that something should come down on innocent people because our nation allows “rampant homosexuality and abortion?” First, off the bat, there is a huge difference between abortion and homosexuality, but our government’s position on them would not be what God is concerned with – he is concerned with the individuals. He gave us free choice because obedience without choice is meaningless. When it comes to homosexuality that is a sin like any other. It has no special significance and is not even singled out in the 10 commandments. There are many sins that are not spelled out in the 10 commandments and that is just one. That would fall more in line with not taking care of your body by drinking, smoking or eating too much or not obeying laws like speeding or wearing a seatbelt. We all have a propensity to commit different sins and it is our job to worry about our own and not those of others unless they harm others. Abortion is way different than homosexuality because it harms an innocent life and that life should have protection from the government.
Now if you believe that God wanted to show ALL of us sinners a lesson, by the attacks then you would have to believe that the radical Muslim religion was the one he wanted us to follow as they were the messengers.
Other than those differences, I think you make excellent points Sport. I think it’s unfortunate that they are lost on many people because you come off so harsh sometimes (I loved your post above this one). I really think you are not likely to condemn the individual either but it comes across that way. I’m sure if you had a good friend or relative who told you they were gay, you wouldn’t stop loving them. There is a huge difference between criminalizing homosexuality and disagreeing with encouraging it by giving special rights.
Yeah I can be combative
May 17, 2007 - 07:03 ET by SportPoliticsYeah I can be combative, I know, and seem too harsh. Oh well, but let me try to answer.
I do not think that something should come down on innocents because of abortions or societal promiscuity or "sins". I do however think that as the "revolution" of the 60's blossomed, it had consequences, and I believe those consequences are related to 911.
I don't think or claim to believe that God's hand reached out and smited the USA. I think for my political life, I don't have the - shall we say - authority or understanding to justify myself claiming such a thing, nor to attempt to negate anothers claim, except by examining "the material world".
Therefore, I make my analysis based up on the relationships and actual events and laws and policies that were related to " the 60's revolution " and came from it - and how those affected our CIA, our domestic immigration and law enforcement and FBI rules, and our foreign policy and rules there ( like the idea that ANY innocents dying is not worth it his wives and children were innocent victims not accomplices etc, etc,- therefore Bin Laden's camp must not be raided ).
So, for me, I quite understand that the religious or theological positions induce many active often combative opinions, and I would rather not base my arguments on those I may or may not have - and that may change more readily. How about a more direct relation - the general direction of those policies and how they stopped the dot connecting, stopped the taking down of Bin Laden and the terrorists - how they prevented association with "bad foreign players that could infiltrate" - (probably because for instance - those would be people that wanted to "judge and murder" gays = something the policy left couldn't swallow - as they moved for more freedoms and less predjudice in that area -etc. DEM >" We cannot allow our agency to work with those people, they're everything our 1964 civil rights act has tried to change in the world !" - I mean you can just imagine...)
I don't reject anyone because of their sexual preference, wether or not they are a relative, nor for their religious or non-religious beliefs. I can use the standard ideas for a judgement about them. Same way with abortion. Gosh, if I was aborted I wouldn't be here, and I take offense to that, and realize - hey it's murder. I frankly don't need a preacher or a Bible to tell me, nor anyone, we're talking pure survival instinct, granted learned from personal family experience and some 6th grade biology classes.
So, that's the same way I approach the Falwell comment. How does what he is saying relate to my knowledge and understanding of real world occurrences. That's my approach.
So, when you said you take offense to how he stated it ( or how I sometimes come across), I understand that, and agree your position is reasonable, and frankly believe I understand the other commentary of that nature in this thread.
MORAN: ...And then, in 2001,
May 16, 2007 - 12:51 ET by general companyOf course he does - what do
May 16, 2007 - 12:56 ET by Dee BunkOf course he does - what do you think that he was greeted by virgins who changed his mind?
Doubt it was virgins, probabl
May 16, 2007 - 13:21 ET by general companygeneral - Oh - I guess you
May 16, 2007 - 14:22 ET by Dee Bunkgeneral - Oh - I guess you are talking about Moran and that we should be glad that he still believes that the terrorists were to blame. Yeah - you are right. He is such knucklehead it won't surprise me if he starts believing the government did it.
That's right, Moran. I should
May 16, 2007 - 15:47 ET by general companyThat's right, Moran. I should be clearer,,,
Doh...I'm sure he meant to ad
May 16, 2007 - 13:02 ET by TruthMongerDoh...I'm sure he meant to add that Rosie infamously and CORRECTLY blamed the mass murder on THE PRESIDENT BUSH'S "CONTROLLED-DEMOLITION-BECAUSE-FIRE-CAN'T MELT-STEEL" CONSPIRACY...
ABC Radio is as big a joke as
May 16, 2007 - 14:41 ET by TEABC Radio is as big a joke as ABC so-called "News". Has anyone else ever listened to one of the "reports" of a kook on ABC Radio named Vic Ratner? I've never heard a thing from that fool that wasn't an absolute press release from the leftist kook fringe.