I find it unendingly funny that a "wing-nut" like Jerry Falwell can make a stupid comment that we don't even notice, but people in lands on a completely different part of the planet find the comments important enought to RIOT about!! For Christ's sake, go home and have a beer or something, ya know?

Hey, after you're born, you have access to guns for defense, so it's all fair then.

aak! one of mohammed's wives was a jewish widow! all he was doing was spreading his beliefs, which is a whole lot better than the murdering, sundering, raping xtians did.

oh man. don't get me started....

who the fuck listens to jerry falwell anyway? gross.

"who the fuck listens to jerry falwell anyway?"

apparently muslims in india.

one would think that people in india have more important things to worry/riot about like global warming or micky d's...

Hmm... the Muslims did plenty of murdering (and I doubt they all refrained from raping -- I don't know what "sundering" refers to, though) when they were, um, "spreading (their) beliefs." Just because other people did it too doesn't mean they were perfect angels. Not every nation they "converted" were too happy about it. I can't think of a major religion that hasn't taken to the sword every now and then, except maybe for Buddhism.

That being said, Falwell needs to shut his yap. His dumbass remarks aren't helping matters, and they sure aren't helping sell Christianity. "Convert to Christianity and you get to insult everyone else's religious figures!" Great marketing campaign. I guess it really makes 'em yuck it up in his studio. I can't believe he gets any respect from anyone, but I guess once you're a teevee celebrity you get to be a Spokesperson for life. It's as good as a degree from Harvard.

Not that Falwell's not an idiot, but does no one else see the irony of Muslims taking to the streets and killing people to protest their prophet's portrayal as a "violent person"?

we're not talking about "muslims," sweetie. go read the article before you vent. he's talking about mohammed. one guy. mohammed. who was a warrior but not a psycho, and would've been aghast at the shit that's going on today. and falwell is calling a kettle black, and that's what pisses me off.

I guess I'm missing something here. The Moslems have imams calling for our deaths / inslavement on a daily basis and yet we don't riot. But Falwell says something about 1/2 as offensive, some whackjob gets his local cult members hopped up enough to break the furniture and its Falwell's fault?

Let's buy some clues around here.

I'd give my opinion but it doesn't matter since I'm one of those atheist, pro-choice, pro-gay rights people that caused 9/11 to happen.

Bad me, bad!

"Conquerer" would be a better description of Mohammed.

As for Moses "bringing love", I think the Egyptians would disagree, especially any one of them who had a son. The people of Canaan might have some issues with that one too.

And I have to echo some previous sentiments...why the hell are these Indian Muslims paying any attention to what Falwell says? We barely pay attention to him in the states, he has to make an ass out of himself to get any airtime. Falwell may be an idiot, but I can't hold him responsible for what bigger idiots 10,000 miles away do when they hear his words.

>

?? Yes, Falwell was talking about one guy, but the article was about "muslims" who rioted. This is from the article:

"The trouble started when a group of Muslims took to the streets and were challenged by Hindus."

Muhammad spread his beliefs at the head of an army. He was a ruler as well as a prophet. True, I believe during his life he concentrated on his fellow Arabs -- though he did waste some Jews who got in his way. It was after his death that the Arabs started to spread into Persia and Egypt, and then further into India, Europe, etc....

All this is really apropos to nothing. The only thing I objected to -- if it can even be called an objection -- is the bringing into the discussion the subject of supposedly "sundering, raping" Christians. I don't believe that Christians really had a decent chance to do any sundering or raping or what-have-you until Justinian converted and made Christianity the state religion of Rome. (That was sometime in the fifth or sixth century AD, I think -- I am very bad at dates.) Still, the real sundering and raping didn't get underway until the Middle Ages, and with the Muslims directly not until the Muslim Empire had been in control of the so-called holy lands (and parts of Europe) for quite some time. This quite frankly was something which Muhammad never had to deal with, since Christianity was widespread in the Middle East in his day. His own relationship with Christians of his time seemed to have been cordial, more or less -- more so than with the Jews, wife or no.

In any case, early Christianity, pre-Justinian, was spread by proselytizing and example, and the preferred model up to at least Augustine was the world-denying hermit, not the warrior for Christ. That came later. But Islam was from the first a more "world-involved" religion, whose leader not only did not turn away from the "wicked, sinful world," but actively embraced having something to do with it. In those days and in that culture that didn't just mean being a politician and pious person but a warrior.

I don't particularly care to be called "sweetie," by the way. And I wasn't venting.

"Jerry Falwell gets people killed today -- but they were already born, so I suppose it's OK."

I'm surprised to see this said by someone who usually is so sensible, but this is dumber than anything I've ever heard Falwell say. What he said in this context about Muhammad appears to be not far from the truth. And in response to this factual assessment, a bunch of Muslims in India stage a riot. And that's Falwell's fault?

Imagine that Falwell led a bunch of Virginia Baptists in a riot, in which several people got killed. Inconceivable, I know, but imagine it. And imagine that he did so in response to any one of zillions of hateful statements made by Muslims about America or Christians. Would your response be: "Muslims killed some Christians again?" Give me a break.

Andrea,

Constantine was the Roman Emperor who converted to Christianity, he did so in the 4th Century.

"Ben",

Even in context, "terrorist" doesn't really apply to Mohammed. As the modern concept of terrorism didn't really exist back then, and his actions were probably no different than any of the other warlords and rulers of the area at that time.

Ben, my sarcasm detector is off the charts on VodkaPundit's line.

No one with two brain cells to rub together would believe Falwell responsible for rioting in India. At the same time, I suspect the urge to ridicule Falwell every time his name is mentioned is a strong.

Gark! Thanks, Ben. I get those Roman emperors mixed up.

VP, as with Robin, I speak as a tortured, conflicted, admirer. But one more sophomoric, vindictive, idiotic remark like that, sarcastic or not, and you will merit a fisking the likes of which you don't want to know. Now, go back to your wine, your wife, your babymaking, your ultrasound, your unborn baby kicking, and come back to us in about a year prepared to grovel on your knees and kiss Jerry's body parts and beg his forgiveness. Andrea, Ben, great stuff!

andrea, i meant the "sweetie" genuinely. you know i love you, i was trying to tone down my own bitchiness. besides, i owe you drinks.

i was opposing falwell calling mohammed a terrorist when the crusaders were *infinitely* more terroristic. you're right, it was a completely different time period, and perhaps calling them xtians was an overstatement on my part, as the majority of the crusaders were certainly not ideal christians. you should read some of the firsthand accounts of the crusades. they killed every jew, muslim, and most non-european christian in their path. if a walled city didn't open for them to eat and sleep, because previous crusading groups had raped the women, they'd burn it to the ground, incinerating all within. they sliced pregnant jewish women apart. didn't ask if a middle eastern person his religion before hacking, so they killed converted christians in prayer. horrible things that, well, make me agnostic, but also cringe at my mother's pride at being a christian.

the anger and frustration wasn't meant to be directed at you. (can i call you sugar instead?) falwell makes me want to punch something. mostly for the reason andy mentioned, but he just keeps getting deeper and deeper into it.

This link to a story from Times of India casts doubt on the whole idea that Falwell's remarks were the reason for the riot. The rioting is evidently more rooted in an ongoing power play in local politics.

Just call me Andrea, or even Andy. Anyway -- of course, it is foolish for Falwell or anyone to call Mohammad a "terrorist" -- as the profession, such as it is, is an invention of these modern times. (I think the first terrorist groups started in the nineteenth century, with the development of various anarchic and other societies in Europe.) Mohammed was a political leader and a warrior, and while the Arabs did conquer by the sword, they weren't sly cowards about it, and often as not their reign was an improvement over whoever had previously ruled -- at least for a while. Nor, might I say, were the Christians during the Crusades -- they may have been bloodthirsty killers etc., but they didn't go live among the people they meant to slay, pretending to be their friend, eating their meals, and son on -- at least they came at them more or less openly. The thing about terrorists is that they don't do what they do openly.

Anyway, Falwell is a fool, and the media focuses on him because they like the way they think he makes Christians look buffoonish; as well, other cultures don't understand the fact that most Americans think Falwell is an idiot -- they see him as a religious leader (since they see everything through the prism of religion), so they figure that when he says something uncomplimentary about one of their religious beliefs, they figure it's official pronouncement.

However, I am not about to say that Falwell or anything else "causes" these people to go off their rocker. The time is past where I am willing to give people the benefit of the doubt and say "It's our fault, we should be more understanding and not say/act/do these things that upset them." The hell with that -- I might as well say that the darkies need the strong hand of the white man to control them. Screw that -- they are responsible human beings, let them figure it out or burn.

Rrrr!

I think this post is a bit unfair. Falwell may or may not have a point, but he did NOT "get people killed". Plus an unnecessary swipe at abotion opponents. The statement is unfair and belittles the usually high standards of this blog. To blame Falwell for the actions of idiots in India is about as apt as blaming Americans for Sept 11.