The Banality of Evil: Thoughts on the death of Rev. Jerry Falwell

I followed the local news coverage of the death of Rev. Jerry Falwell with interest. I became involved in social justice work in the early 80s because of my association with the Catholic Worker movement and liberation theology.

I thought that the coverage was fairly sympathetic towards Falwell, although there was acknowledgement of Falwell as a controversial figure. However, most of the coverage painted Falwell as a saintly figure, despite his “occasional” harsh statements. Religion editor for the GR Press Charles Honey said, “Falwell was hard to like, but had good side too.” The article the Press ran the day after Falwell’s death spoke to area folks who knew him. Katie Feenstra, GR native and WNBA basketball player said, “To us, he wasn’t this famous person. He was a simple man and a great Christian. I can’t say a bad word about him because he was so giving and would help students any way he could.” Another person who spoke favorable about Falwell was local businessman Harvey Gainey, a longtime board member at Liberty University, and said of Falwell he was “a great voice for morality in America.” I take issue with these reflections on Falwell and want to address his legacy.

The late Hannah Arendt in reporting on the trial of former Nazi Adolf Eichmann in 1962 coined the phrase “the banality of evil.” Arendt said she was struck by the person of Eichmann, someone who came across as a decent man, a family man, someone who seemed quite respectable. Yet, Eichmann was the person in charge of overseeing the Nazi concentration camps. Before you assume that I am equating Falwell with Eichmann, let me just say that I am not. What I am trying to point out that even people who commit the most heinous atrocities can love their own people and commit acts of kindness. That, according to Arendt, is the banality of evil. It would be easily for us to think of a Nazi as always cold hearted, just as we imagine people who commit torture, rape or other violent crimes. However, rarely is this the case. There is more grey in the world that what we might like at times. Do you honestly think that KKK members are mean and discriminating all the time? Most of them are no doubt good family members. Charles Honey concluded his May 19 Religion column on the death of Falwell by saying “Surely Falwell was neither saint nor hateful man. You may agree or not agree with his convictions and methods. But few of us are in a position to judge his heart.” I, for one, am not interested in judging his heart, but I have no problem judging his actions.

Much of the recent coverage of Falwell has either focused on his strong stance against homosexuality or his post 9/11 comment, but little has been said in the mainstream media that provides a larger context for the influence that Falwell had in American politics. According to Falwell’s biographer D’Souza, Falwell did not found the Moral Majority, he was asked to head up this new entity. Falwell was approached by right-wing organizers Paul Weyrich and Richard Viguerie in 1979. This small group was intent on organizing the religious right around issues like abortion and pornography so as to influence the 1980 GOP platform. These guys had been working for years on building databases on voting blocks and needed the religious right to propel the GOP to victory in 1980. Weyrich thought that this new venture should have something to do with a “moral majority.” Shortly after this meeting the Moral Majority was founded with three separate entities – a political lobby, a Political Action Committee, and the Moral Majority Foundation. According to sociologist and author Sara Diamond, “One of Falwell’s primary functions was the publication of the Moral Majority Report. The first edition, in January of 1980, was sent to 77,000 people; by October 1980, the circulation leapt to 482,000.” We all know the outcome with Ronald Reagan winning the White House. One of the goals of this new right political movement was to overturn many of the political gains of the 1960s and 70s. Falwell, was now the de-facto White House “spiritual advisor” and had great influence on public policy. Once the huge mailing operation was established, the Moral Majority joined the surging religious right broadcasting apparatus, which gave Falwell even more exposure.

Since much was made of Falwell’s public criticism of homosexuality, let’s begin by looking at that issue. As part of the vast religious right network, Falwell helped organize “Family Forums” that coincided with the Democratic and Republican conventions in 1984. The anti-gay message was central to these forums. Falwell, in a 1987 fundraising letter, accused the US media of being “gay influenced” and that politicians were covering up the truth about AIDS and that “gays were going out of their way to donate blood three times more often than other citizens because they know they are going to die – and they are going to take as many people with them as they can.” (Diamond, “Spiritual Warfare,” 1989) Falwell also said “AIDS is not just God’s punishment for homosexuals; it is God’s punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.” Now, think about what these kinds of statements mean. Think about what kind of climate they create that allows for people to act out violently against the gay community or people who are HIV positive. Falwell may not have ever physically attacked someone for being gay or tolerating gays, but he certainly gave people a green light to do it. The same can be said for Falwell’s stance on reproductive rights and abortion. The Reagan administration would never have been able to accomplish what they did with attacking the Pro-Choice position if it were not for the influence and reach of Falwell and the Moral Majority.

Falwell was also actively involved in promoting US foreign policy. He was a supporter of the Reagan wars in Central America in the 1980s and endorsed the nuclear arms build up believing it was a sign on the “Second Coming of Christ.” Falwell took this position on nuclear weapons in pamphlet he circulated that was entitled “Nuclear War and the Second Coming of Christ,” a pamphlet that promoted the idea that nuclear weapons were not a bad thing, rather a sign that the end was near and should be embraced by Christians. Falwell believed in the theological notion of the “tribulation” and read the signs of the times in apocalyptic language.

The foreign policy matter that Falwell was most supportive of was the unquestionable backing of the State of Israel. In 1979, Falwell said “To stand against Israel is to stand against God.” Like much of the evangelical right in the US, Israel was a necessary ally because of its biblical status. According to article in the Christian Century “When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited Washington this past January (1998), his initial meeting was not with President Clinton but with Jerry Falwell and more than 1,000 fundamentalist Christians. The crowd saluted the prime minister as “the Ronald Reagan of Israel,” and Falwell pledged to contact more than 200,000 evangelical pastors, asking them to “tell President Clinton to refrain from putting pressure on Israel” to comply with the Oslo accords.”‘ Again Falwell did not shoot any weapons or bulldoze any houses, but he certainly played a role in perpetuating US policy that meant continued brutality against Palestinian civilians.

The only foreign policy angle that was reported on with Falwell’s death was his statement after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks where he said “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 try to secularize America – I point the finger in their face and say, ‘You helped this happen.” The Associated Press story says that Falwell apologized for that comment after the White House “rebuked” him. The statement alone is disgusting, but more importantly it contributed to a lack of discussion and clarity on why people flew planes in the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. In other words, it contributed to greater public conformity to the administrations’ plan to invade and occupy Afghanistan and Iraq. In addition, there was no real mention in the coverage of Falwell’s death that he was zealously anti-Muslim. Falwell, himself stated “I think Muhammad was a terrorist. I read enough by both Muslims and non-Muslims, [to decide] that he was a violent man, a man of war.” This certainly contributed to the anti-Muslim sentiment that was throughout the US both before and after 9/11.

To those who have the same theological values as Jerry Falwell it is not surprising that he was well liked. He was a highly motivated and committed man by all accounts. That the major media in this country and in Grand Rapids did not provide a more honest assessment of his influence in faith and politics does a dis-service to us all. More importantly, to not acknowledge the role he played in promoting hate, discrimination and human rights violations is an example of the banality of evil.

Related Posts:

1. Local Individuals Connected to Jerry Falwell
2. GR Press runs AP story on the death of Jerry Falwell
3. Locals recall side of Falwell overshadowed by his politics
4. Sanitizing the Death of Ford, What the Media isn’t telling us
5. Commentary: Thoughts on Nonviolence

Tags: grand rapids, history, media, michigan, religion, religious right