Jerry Falwell's Grip

The nuclear-mouthed Baptist preacher Jerry Falwell perhaps thought his comments earlier this month?calling the prophet Mohammed a "terrorist" on 60 Minutes?would only cause some heartburn for him far beyond these shores, in Muslim countries where furious protests erupted. Maybe the guy wasn't resting easy upon seeing the response, but at least he could assure himself that the angry mobs were far from home.

In light of his well-known sentiments on both homosexuality and Islam, however, this past weekend Falwell had to tolerate the presence of people who surely are among his worst nightmares, right in his own backyard of Lynchburg, VA: gay Muslims. Specifically, the group called Al-Fatiha, a gay and lesbian Muslim organization, along with the gay former Falwell buddy Rev. Mel White, as well as gay Christians in White's interfaith Soulforce, descended on Lynchburg, going door-to-door with fliers aimed at countering Falwell's hate. About 150 of the protesters picketed in front of Falwell's 4000-seat Thomas Road Baptist Church on Sunday. Thankfully, they provided at least some form of visible resistance in this country to Falwell's dangerous rantings of late.

There was an idea out there that Falwell, having seemingly deteriorated over many years, had become somewhat marginalized even among the religious-right crowd. I should know because I've offered that very opinion in this column in the past, and certainly since his infamous charge last year blaming gays and lesbians and feminists for the Sept. 11 attacks, which even had such bile-spewers as Bill Bennett spitting on him and running for cover. But now that Falwell has caused rioting in India that led to at least five deaths with his "terrorist" comments, his impact surely can't be easily sloughed off.

Actually, according to American University Islamic studies professor Akbar Ahmed, Falwell's now being conflated with George W. Bush himself in places like Pakistan?yes, just what we need right now.

"Pakistanis are feeling that their prophet was under attack, Islam was under attack and both these attacks were coming from the United States and these are supposed to be men of God," Ahmed observed on NPR two weeks ago, regarding Falwell's comments. "What I am saying is that in Pakistan, very few people would make the distinction of what, say, Falwell is saying and what President Bush is saying. Remember, they don't make too much of a difference between an official position and an individual position, because many of these countries are run by military strongmen so that the official position and the private position are more or less intertwined."

Ahmed told The Washington Post a few weeks ago that Falwell's comments contributed to religious candidates picking up more than 50 seats in Pakistan's elections, held that week (they were expected to get maybe four or five seats). With the protests mounting across the Muslim world, Falwell offered a tepid apology a couple of weeks ago, but as usual he blamed CBS for taking his quotes out of context. (Just how do you take "Mohammed was a terrorist" out of context?)

The fact that Bush, as well as many conservative politicians and commentators, didn't have the dignity or guts to condemn Falwell's remarks?though many conservatives demanded that Islamic leaders worldwide condemn the violent rhetoric of Muslim extremists after Sept. 11?obviously doesn't help to create a distinction among Muslims in such countries. One of the few to speak out was former Newt Gingrich aide and Washington Times editorial-page editor Tony Blankley, who noted that "just as many of us have pointedly observed how few Muslims came out to condemn Osama bin Laden after his murderous attacks on America, I feel obliged to point out how few American conservatives have come out to condemn Mr. Falwell's statement." For many of the conservative commentators, at least, the reason seems to be pretty clear: they agree with Falwell.

Read some of their newspaper columns or, for more red meat, venture over to the sites of some of the well-known online right-wing pundits. You'll see commentary not much different from Falwell's. They may not be so blunt as to call Mohammed a terrorist, but they nonetheless smear much of Islam as hateful and violence-inciting?as if Falwell's and other Christian leaders' words aren't exactly that. Here was James Taranto at The Wall Street Journal's online Opinion Journal on Falwell's remarks and the response: "Certainly Falwell's use of the term 'terrorist' is unfortunate? But if Falwell characterizes Islam as a violent religion and Muslims respond by taking to the streets, rioting and killing people, aren't they sort of making his point?" (Really cute, isn't he?)

For the President, however, the greater force that keeps him silent is politics. According to Falwell himself in the same 60 Minutes report, Bush is practically at his beck and call, now allowing Falwell to manipulate foreign policy decisions. "[W]hen President Bush called on Israel to withdraw its tanks from Palestinian towns on the West Bank [last April]..." Bob Simon reported on the news program, "Falwell shot off a letter of protest to the White House, which was followed by 100,000 e-mails from Christian conservatives. Israel did not move its tanks. Bush did not ask again."

Some people (as I said, I was among them) like to think that Falwell's followers, and thus his power, are dwindling a great deal as he gets more wacky, as if those followers are actually making decisions based on reason rather than religious dogma. True, much of the media, mainline Christian denominations, liberals and moderate conservatives deem Falwell a bit unhinged these days. The National Council of Churches, which represents 36 Protestant denominations, strongly condemned his latest remarks. But they've never been among his troops anyway. As long as Falwell has somewhat of an organized following among the 70 million-or-so-strong evangelicals, he'll have a grip on the Republican Party?and on this White House. In a piece in Newsday last week, political scientist L. Sue Hulett, editor of the book Christianity and Modern Politics, laid it out pretty clearly.

"While the precise size of his audience is hard to measure, it is big," she noted. "While Falwell has slipped in popularity, even with the apology, two things militate against a drastic or complete erosion of Falwell's position as a leader of Christian hard-core conservatives. First, conservatives rarely take instruction on principles and values from liberal churches. Second, while there are many respected mainline voices, the fact that there are many voices and that these divide over so many issues?including Christian doctrine, religion's role in the public square and ways to accommodate secular culture?reduces the ability to wrest away Falwell's remaining following...

"So it might be premature to write off Falwell's influence altogether over the most conservative of Christians who still rally to the call of a moral renewal in American culture."

And these days, at least sometimes, as goes Falwell, so goes the presidency and America itself in world politics. Pretty chilling.

Michelangelo Signorile can be reached at http://www.signorile.com