Something I find increasingly troubling is the ease in which people refer to the fact that someone has died as being a good thing or that they are glad that it has happened. Jerry Falwell, a lightning rod of controversy, died last week, and while I don't think I ever agreed with any of his vitriolic statements that were racist, homophobic, and just plain awful, I can't say that I'm "glad" that he's dead.
Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but I feel that death is too sacred of an event, if that's the right terminology, to actually partake in any sort of frivolity from the fact that it has happened to someone who is actively disliked. I also find it hypocritical to say, if one subscribes to the notion that death is something that can be wished upon someone and celebrated after it occurs, that some deaths are off limits while others are more than fair game. For instance, in this country September 11, 2001 is so ingrained into the psyche that any criticism is off limits, and, yes, I'm referring to Ann Coulter's hideous remarks regarding the deceased spouses of the "widows" she slandered in her latest salvo against the left. These people were victims of a crime, and no one is arguing that, but to posit that it's unacceptable to make any sort of disparaging comments, not just about the victims but also of the day itself, while openly embracing the death of someone from the other side of the aisle is absurd. Were all of the victims of that day truly innocent people? Who knows, but what I do know is that Jerry Falwell wasn't a serial killer, mass-murderer, or brutal dictator known to have slaughtered millions of people. No, he wasn't any of those things at all. He was simply a man with a limited vision of the world that was misguided by religion and an open proponent of hatred and intolerance all in the name of God. Does that mean his death should be celebrated? Probably not.
1 comment:
You're a good man, Charlie Brown.
Post a Comment