Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuxl.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!orb From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, Jerry Falwell and Reagan Message-ID: <865@whuxl.UUCP> Date: Mon, 9-Dec-85 10:11:58 EST Article-I.D.: whuxl.865 Posted: Mon Dec 9 10:11:58 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 11-Dec-85 22:23:38 EST References: <63@yale.UUCP> <39000027@ISM780B.UUCP> <413@whuts.UUCP> <1467@ihlpg.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany Lines: 59 > > [Tim Sevener] > > Again, *I* will ask the question the media pundits refuse to ask: > > when will Ronald Reagan disavow Jerry Falwell? > ------ > Come on Tim. You're comparing apples and oranges. A right-wing > equivalent to Farrakhan would be a racist organization such as the > KKK. Jerry Falwell may be a narrow minded zealot trying to force > feed the rest of us with his rather peculiar ideas, but he does > not preach racism. I personally considered Reagan's relationship > with the religious right my main reason for voting for Mondale. > But Falwell is not in the same league with Farrakhan and the KKK. > Falwell may be a greater threat than Farrakhan, but only because > of the greater degree of his support. > -- > Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan I suppose I would have to agree that Falwell is not explicitly racist anymore, although 20 years ago he was in the forefront of those opposing desegregation. I believe this is because Falwell now believes that being avowedly racist is no longer palatable. Possibly Falwell has genuinely changed his convictions - that is hard to say since Falwell is an out and out liar. (Case in point: Falwell was successfully sued for $5000 when he offered $5000 on TV for anybody who could prove that he had attacked a gay preacher. The very next day somebody obtained the videotape in which Falwell attacked a gay preacher, filed a suit in court and won. I find it incredible that Falwell should be willing to lie so brazenly:on TV when the evidence of his lying was so well-documented!!) But regardless of precisely how *awful* Falwell is, and I think that encouraging book-burnings, hatred towards gays, the current regime in South Africa, supporting Marcos after he probably assassinated his major opposition, and so forth is bad enough to totally oppose, the question still remains: why hasn't the media asked when Reagan will *disavow* Falwell? It seems this is related to the media's reluctance to point out Reagan's horrendous positions on civil liberties. Except for the NYTimes and NPR the local papers around here have scarcely mentioned Meese's incredible statements that the Bill of Rights do not apply to the states, that the fact a suspect is arrested is proof enough of their guilt (they wouldn't be arrested unless they were *guilty* said Meese!!!). The media have scarcely mentioned the denial of visas to travel to Cuba under the pretext that such travel is a violation of the *economic* embargo against Cuba. (when will this also be invoked against citizens traveling to Nicaragua?) Reagan's administration originally planned to give many government employees lie detector tests, and wished to force them to give an oath saying they would not divulge anything they had learned in government even after leaving the government, for the rest of their life if the govt wanted. (fortunately Congress shot this idea down) In line with this the Reagan administration has just successfully prosecuted Samuel Morrison for publishing Defense Dept. photographs even while admitting that it revealed absolutely nothing to the Soviets, but only informed the rest of the world. This puts all whistleblowers on notice that they can be prosecuted if they reveal "secret" details of wasted money on govt contracts. This is related because the views of Falwell and his fundamentalist followers are a direct threat to freedom of speech in this country. tim sevener whuxn!orb