Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The Worldnutdaily is fuming about some comments made by Christopher Hitchens on CNN last night. I watched it when he was on and I was practically cheering. Hitchens may be way off base when it comes to Jefferson and his religious beliefs, but he has Falwell nailed. Long excerpt below the fold.
Asked if he thought Falwell were in heaven, Hitches, a contributing editor to Vanity Fair, replied: "No. And I think it's a pity there isn't a hell for him to go to."In answer to the question of what stirred such vitriol in his heart, Hitches said: "The empty life of this ugly little charlatan proves only one thing, that you can get away with the most extraordinary offenses to morality and to truth in this country if you will just get yourself called reverend. Who would, even at your network, have invited on such a little toad to tell us that the attacks of September the 11th were the result of our sinfulness and were God's punishment if they hadn't got some kind of clerical qualification?"
"People like that should be out in the street, shouting and hollering with a cardboard sign and selling pencils from a cup," Hitchens continued. "The whole consideration of this - of this horrible little person is offensive to very, very many of us who have some regard for truth and for morality, and who think that ethics do not require that lies be told to children by evil old men, that we're - we're not told that people who believe like Falwell will be snatched up into heaven, where I'm glad to see he skipped the rapture, just found on the floor of his office, while the rest of us go to hell."...
Hitchens even questioned whether Falwell believed anything he said and preached.
"He woke up every morning, as I say, pinching his chubby little flanks and thinking, I have got away with it again," he said.
"You think he was a complete fraud, really?" asked Cooper.
"Yes," said Hitchens. "I think he was a conscious charlatan and bully and fraud. And I think, if he read the Bible at all - and I would doubt that he could actually read any long book of - at all - that he did so only in the most hucksterish, as we say, Bible-pounding way.
Hitchens concluded: "Lots of people are going to die and are already leading miserable lives because of the nonsense preached by this man, and because of the absurd way that we credit anyone who can say they're a person of faith."
Agree with every word of it.
Comments
That was awesome, a perfect statement and conclusion to Falwell's life.
Hitchens causes my head to spin at how fast he can get me to go from complete agreement to complete disagreement on a variety of issues. This is one in which I agree.
Posted by: Robert | May 16, 2007 12:34 PM
Dare I suggest that perhaps Hitchens is living in a fantasy land? I'm thinking of this passage:
"He woke up every morning, as I say, pinching his chubby little flanks and thinking, I have got away with it again," he said.
"You think he was a complete fraud, really?" asked Cooper.
"Yes," said Hitchens. "I think he was a conscious charlatan and bully and fraud. And I think, if he read the Bible at all - and I would doubt that he could actually read any long book of - at all - that he did so only in the most hucksterish, as we say, Bible-pounding way."
It is a moderately serious form of self-delusion to imagine that no human being can believe things as absurd as what Falwell said he believed, or at least no human smart enough to become a national figure. The world is a much more absurd place than that.
Posted by: Chris Hallquist | May 16, 2007 12:43 PM
Smart enough to become a national figure?
Paris Hilton is a national, nay, international figure.
Posted by: Doc Bill | May 16, 2007 12:46 PM
The capacity for self delusion is only as [un]limited as the imagination.
Sometimes our imaginations run away with us.
Sometimes we don't let our imaginations run away far enough to catch up to the truth.
Like random data , you look for some presumed underlying function, but you are really just poking around blindly.
immorality is when you expect others to unwillingly bear the burdens of your imagination.
ding dong the jerk is dead!
Posted by: george | May 16, 2007 12:57 PM
I also did a double take on the "did he believe what he said" exchange. I think Hitchens grossly underestimates the human power for self delusion and their ability to hold to a wacky set of beliefs. There may be some political advantage to painting the wackjobs as secretly disingenuous, but I don't think it's often accurate.
But the point about what the mainstream press lets people with "Reverend" in front of their name say is dead on. I assume that's partly from fear of being told that they are repressing someone's deeply held religious beliefs. While I'm all for civility, there has to be limits on what "well that's my religious belief" can defend.
Posted by: Barron | May 16, 2007 12:57 PM
There's now a Facebook group for anyone interested on this subject, "I'm not sad that Jerry Falwell is dead":
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2351369936
Posted by: Daniel Morgan | May 16, 2007 12:58 PM
I don't think it's fair to question that he (Falwell) believed his own bullshit either. He almost certainly did. To suggest otherwise smacks of the old "no atheists in foxholes" chestnut. Making comments like that doesn't get us anywhere.
Posted by: Jordan | May 16, 2007 1:12 PM
I think it's a perfectly fair question. In light of the many lies he told to justify his claims (which I've documented previously) and in light of statements he made to Mel White about how he loves the gay rights folks because without them he wouldn't have a platform, I think there's a strong case to be made that Falwell was a pure charlatan who didn't believe a word of what he said.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 16, 2007 1:29 PM
"because of the absurd way that we credit anyone who can say they're a person of faith."
Like we give credit to those of faith who believe in evolution? Hitchens was vitriolic, and it was no leap to say that he despises all religion. He's a worse example of an anti-religious commentator than Dawkins, and maybe even PZ.
How can you not criticize the tone of this man's commentary? Especially when one post earlier you praised a kid-gloves approach to religion?
Because it was just Falwell? I guess nobody listens to him, so it's okay to ridicule... What Kenneth said, about how it's bad to criticize a reverend because he's a sympathetic figure--the man just died. How is he not sympathetic, and how is this not an example of what you and Kenneth say are bad tactics?
Posted by: David | May 16, 2007 1:29 PM
In answer to David:
Falwell was an evil man. He was a racist, an anti-semite, a persecutor of gays and secularists. He was a liar.
That's how he was not sympathetic. I don't think that it's bad tactics to come down hard on such a person.
BTW, who is Kenneth?
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | May 16, 2007 1:51 PM
David wrote:
Yes, I think he probably is. But the problem with all three of them is not that they're always wrong about religion but that they apply their criticisms too broadly. When they limit their criticism to ignorant bigots and frauds like Falwell, I am in full agreement with them. It's when they apply that same criticism to all religious people that I object. I simply know too many intellingent, reasonable religious people, most of whom find the Falwells and Robertsons of the world as appalling as I do. And I see no point in grouping them together under the label of "religious." We must distinguish here.
I didn't say anything about a kid-gloves approach to religion. His tone here is justifiably applied. I just don't think it applies to those religious people who are not like Falwell.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 16, 2007 1:53 PM
So he died. He was a hate-mongering asshole in life (remember the "Moral Majority"?). That makes him a dead hate-mongering asshole now. We should all be overcome with grief? And damn right, it's ok to ridicule.
Posted by: alice | May 16, 2007 1:58 PM
Ed wrote:
I don't know, Ed. I'm in the position of having actually met and spoken with the man and have long thought that Falwell actually believed what he wrote and spoke. Deluded he may well have been, but in person the man absolutely reeked of sincerity as well as being, in person, a genuinely warm and likeable guy. Kind of difficult to square with his intolerant and prejudiced belief system, but there it is...Posted by: bill snedden | May 16, 2007 2:03 PM
It seems to me that religious persons who "believe" in evolution are given credit because of their stand on science, not the particulars of their faith.
And certainly all religion isn't equal. For instance, at another set of blogs, I'm starting to see posts asking people to respect the many moderate Muslims out there. Doing so does not contradict and in fact is perfectly consistent with heaping criticism on radical Islamicists. People are allowed to distinguish among people of faith, criticizing some and praising others.
So Falwell died - automatic sympathy right? Nah. Everyone dies. I reserve my sympathy for the living who suffer.
Posted by: Anna Z | May 16, 2007 2:04 PM
Bruce,
Check the post previous to this one.
Ed,
I agree that all religious people aren't like Falwell, certainly, and I see your broader point.
But I would still ask: isn't Falwell a sympathetic character to a lot of people right now? Following the spirit of Ken's words, isn't Hitchens just going to anger people and turn them off to religious criticism (or even criticism of Falwell)?
I hope it's the opposite, but...
Posted by: David | May 16, 2007 2:09 PM
You can watch a video of Hitchen's CNN appearance elsewhere on Science Blogs, over at the Chimp Refuge:
http://scienceblogs.com/bushwells/2007/05/hitchens_on_falwell_via_cnn.php
I've read the numerous comments here and elsewhere, but I still don't know whether Falwell was confused but sincere, or half fraud and half confused-sincere, or total fraud. I will, though, point out that the half-fraud / half-sincere possibility isn't getting any mention, suggesting maybe an artificially polarized or oversimplified debate. Several have wisely cautioned us not to underestimate human capacity for self-delusion. That must also be coupled with a warning not to underestimate human capacity to be deeply sincere one moment and a total B.S. artist the next.
I wouldn't be too confident in _any_ of the possible opinions here. And there is some risk of tactical problems when calling a half fraud a total fraud in a public debate.
Posted by: Emory | May 16, 2007 2:13 PM
To me, David, what you are saying is that Hitchens shouldn't speak the truth because it might anger people.
If people turn off to religious criticism because of what Hitchens has said, they weren't going to be open to it in the first place.
What you've effectively said is "Won't Hitchens religious criticism turn people off to religious criticism?" - What then, would turn them on to it?
Posted by: cephyn | May 16, 2007 2:18 PM
David wrote:
I won't speak for Ken, but I emphatically do not take the position that we should play pretend to assuage someone's feelings. I genuinely do not think that evolution conflicts with religious belief, only with certain types of religious belief; in other words, I think the hardcore anti-theists are wrong, not that they're right but being impolitic.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 16, 2007 2:19 PM
Even if he's right, I personally have to wonder a little bit how much Hitchens is serious and how much he's just trolling. I'm not using "trolling" in a derogatory way, here. I'm just saying that I think in the past, before his neoconservative and neo-atheist phases, I've perceived Hitchens to go intentionally overboard in criticizing certain religious leaders in order to (charitably) make people think or (uncharitably) get more attention. Does no one remember his previous job as official Catholic devil's advocate?
Posted by: Coin | May 16, 2007 2:22 PM
Thank you for clarifying, Ed.
Posted by: David | May 16, 2007 2:29 PM
Cephyn,
I was just evaluating Hitchens' speech in light of Kenneth Fair's comment, in "Ken Fair Hits the Nail on the Head," which Ed had highlighted.
I fully agree with what Hitchens said, and am glad he said it.
Posted by: David | May 16, 2007 2:33 PM
Falwell was always a sympathetic figure to people on his side. That won't change. He's getting the usual media "say nice things" treatment now and getting much more sympathy than he ever deserved/earned. Hitchens is the skunk at the garden party and was, pretty much, accurate (barring my comments about delusion).
Falwell was unpleasant, mean spirited, harmful to civil society, and, IMHO, harmful to religious faith. Everytime he was held up as a "good Christian" he debased the faith. I genuinely tried to find sympathy for him and his people. I just can't. I tried to find some redeeming feature in the man and I just can't. There are limits to my compassion. I'm not dancing for joy, I'm not happier with him gone, but I have no compassion for the man.
Posted by: Barron | May 16, 2007 2:41 PM
There was a clip on NPR this morning where Farwell said that yes, he frequently said outrageous thing just to get people's attention.
So, yes I do not thine he believed much of what he preached.
Posted by: Ferrous Patella | May 16, 2007 3:25 PM
Here is one concrete proof of Falwell being a liar. On today's Fresh Air, Terry Gross play an interview with Falwell from 1986. Terry Gross asked him a question based on Falwell being absolutely convinced and unchanging in his beliefs, why did he change on civil rights. Falwell said nothing about 'the children of Ham' like he would have in the 1950's and 1960's. He replied that the south was segragationist at that time and that his church was one of the first in Lynchburg to minister to blacks.
At that time, Falwell was a very vocal supporter of Botha's regime in South Africa.
Ask me why I feel joy for his passing. The sad thing is this, all of the bad will not be reversed simply because he is dead.
Posted by: Janine | May 16, 2007 3:39 PM
Stop it, World Net Daily -- you're too funny! See their story Falwell leaves legacy for 21st century. Incredibly, this story is apparently intended to paint a positive portrait of a man whose public pronouncements were one foot-in-mouth inanity after another, as the article reminds us.
And in Falwell honored as giant figure in 'culture war', we have the Republican hopeful bandwagon, with Huckabee, McCain and Romney praising the Great Moral Majoritarian:
"He was one of Christendom's great leaders who stood by his convictions and never lost his common touch," Huckabee said. "Many did not know about his sense of humor and compassion for people from all walks of life."
"Dr. Falwell was a man of distinguished accomplishment who devoted his life to serving his faith and country," McCain said.
Another presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, said, "An American who built and led a movement based on strong principles and strong faith has left us."
"He will be greatly missed, but the legacy of his important work will continue through his many ministries where he put his faith into action," Romney said in a statement. "Ann and I have had the honor to talk and meet with Reverend Falwell and get to know him as a man of deep personal faith and commitment to helping those around him. He will be forever remembered."
President Bush said he and First Lady Laura Bush were "deeply saddened by the death of Jerry Falwell, a man who cherished faith, family, and freedom."
Posted by: Daniel Murphy | May 16, 2007 6:25 PM
I don't know much about the guy, but it is often the zealots who are the most dangerous precisely because of the fervent, single-minded sincerity of their beliefs, so it wouldn't surprise me at all to find out he believed what he said. Not that we're ever likely to know.
Those quotes from the politicians about him are sickening.
Posted by: Matthew Young | May 16, 2007 6:44 PM
Assuming, of course, that what you say about him is accurate. But I trust y'all.
Posted by: Matthew Young | May 16, 2007 6:45 PM
As Bart Simpson said admiringly of Springfield's fashion nag: "He's such a bitch!"
Posted by: Grumpy | May 16, 2007 8:27 PM
I have, in the past few weeks, read one progressive after another piling on Hitchens, and criticizing him upon the publication of his new book. It seemed an obvious, and almost frantic, attempt to achieve some distance between progressives and the latest icon of atheism (or anti-theism).
Now, many of the same are oddly silent or restrained in the aftermath of the death of a man who arguably did more to set back progressive social change than almost any individual in a generation or so. I'm not sure if this is out of respect, fear, or both.
And I hear the refrain that "now is not the time" to discuss Falwell's real legacy. It's a familiar one, heard after Reagan's death and after 9/11. It ensures that -- in the case of people like Falwell and Reagan -- the right has ample time to embed their hagiographic portraits of this man, and that any truth telling that might take place won't happen until days later; when almost no one is listening.
At least Hitchens is speaking truth to power while people are still listening. I don't see much of that from progressive bloggers. But maybe they don't want to offend potential voters.
Posted by: Terrance | May 16, 2007 11:32 PM
Although I haven't had too much contact with Falwell, I get the strong impression that he was what Robert Altemeyer refers to as a 'Double High' (scoring highly on both Right Wing Authoritarian and Social Dominance scales). This would have being both willing to be dishonest and manipulative, as well as genuinely believing in his bigotry. Not so much a 'fraud' as the nastiest form of morally-corrosive end-justifies-the-means true believer.
Posted by: Hrafn | May 17, 2007 1:58 AM