|
Besieged by critics, and looking pretty damned nasty, the Reverend Falwell became apologetic. Well…sort of. A few days after teeing off on the laundry list of his life-long enemies, Falwell claimed that his comments were made "during a theological discussion on a Christian television program [and they] were taken out of their context and reported, and that my thoughts -- reduced to sound bites -- have detracted from the spirit of this time of mourning." Like the politician who tells a racist joke and then claims he didn't know he was being recorded, Falwell claimed his words were meant only for Christian true believers, and not for the public at large. That excuse doesn't change the nature of his comments. Flash forward nearly 13 months: On the October 6th edition of 60 Minutes, the Reverend Falwell told CBS' Bob Simon: "I think Mohammed was a terrorist. I read enough by both Muslims and non-Muslims, [to decide] that he was a violent man, a man of war. In my opinion, Jesus set the example for love, as did Moses, and I think Mohammed set an opposite example." In short order, with protests mounting against him both at home and abroad, Falwell claimed that he was a victim of sound bite journalism - the culprit being that Satanesque excuse for a journalist, Bob Simon. Let's get one thing straight here. The Reverend Falwell is no victim. His situation is in no way comparable for example, to the time Connie Chung ambushed New Gingrich's unsuspecting mother and got her to say some nasty stuff on network television about Hillary Clinton. The Reverend Falwell is television-savvy, having been a guest on more programs in a year than most all other religious figures put together will appear in a lifetime. On his website, the Reverend often informs the faithful of his upcoming talking-head appearances. Playing the "I was tricked" card, the Rev. Falwell told WORLD, the weekly evangelical news magazine, on October 9, "I should have known" that CBS would use the comments "to stir up conflict and animosity." It wasn't that his comments that were hateful, the Reverend seemed to be was saying. It was the fact that CBS would use them that was the problem! According to Marvin Olasky, WORLD's editor-in-chief, Falwell said that Simon "had called him back once the uproar began, fishing for more, and that he had complained about CBS extracting from 1 1/2 hours of interview tape that divisive side remark. 'I believe you exploited me and took advantage of me as a person,' he told Mr. Simon, who quickly got off the phone," Olasky reported. Olasky rushed to Falwell's defense and in his World column he declared Simon to be "a bigot." Olasky claims that the segment on 60 Minutes was meant to focus on Christians and Israel, not Islam, "but Mr. Simon in passing asked Jerry Falwell if he thought Muhammad approved of violence, and Mr. Falwell fell into the trap. CBS then promoted 60 Minutes with the 'terrorist' sound bite, in full knowledge that it was incidental to the thrust of the piece. The evident goal: Hype the program, build the audience, and never mind the lack of context." The Rev. Falwell has made a career out of shooting off his mouth. It is only during these past few years that his remarks have become part of the greater public discourse and in doing so he had drawn a great deal of negative attention to himself. Claiming as he did that the television figure Tinky Winky was gay was one thing - laughable for its utter absurdity - but branding the head of a religion a terrorist is a much more serious matter. On October 11, Canadian Press reported that at least five people were killed in Hindu-Muslim rioting and police gunfire in western India. According to Canadian Press, "The violence erupted during a general strike to protest remarks" by the Reverend Falwell. In Iran, to get that country's support for a tough UN resolution against Iraq, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said he regarded Falwell's comments "as much an insult to me as a Christian as they are to Muslims." On Saturday, October 12, the Reverend Falwell issued an apology. According to Reuters, the Reverend Falwell said he meant no disrespect to "any sincere, law-abiding Muslim." In a prepared statement the Reverend Falwell said: "I sincerely apologize that certain statements of mine made during an interview for CBS's 60 Minutes were hurtful to the feelings of many Muslims." As the editor of The Data Lounge pointed out on October 9, there has been a string of anti-Muslim comments from fundamentalist preachers: "Pat Robertson… called the Prophet Muhammad "a wide-eyed fanatic" and "a killer" and denounced Islam as "a monumental scam." Franklin Graham, son of evangelist Billy Graham, claimed that Islam is "a very evil and wicked religion." The Reverend Jerry Vines, past president of the Southern Baptist Convention, told an audience of several thousand listeners at its annual conference that the Prophet Muhammad was "a demon-possessed pedophile." So how sincere was this latest Falwell apology? Well, the Reverend himself is not publicizing his comments or his apology as the issue wasn't mentioned at his official website (http://www.falwell.com). Blaming the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the U.S. on his political enemies, and calling Muhammad a terrorist is pure unadulterated Falwell. The Reverend drops a rhetorical bombshell; eventually realizes the damage he's done; and slips into full spin mode. As with most demagogues, instead of accepting responsibility for his offensive comments, he then claims to be a victim. And if that doesn't work, he is ultimately forced to issue an apology. And while the Reverend Falwell's latest remarks will certainly add to his legacy of hate, Marvin Olasky's sprint to his defense indicates that the Reverend will no doubt maintain his good standing amongst some of the brethren. |
Foot in mouth disease: Once again the Rev. Jerry Falwell misspeaks