Jerry Falwell’s Wife on John McCain, Evangelical Voting | Newsweek Religion

‘If He Were Here, It Would Be Different’

Newsweek Web Exclusive

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

SPONSORED BY

Happily?
I think you don't have much of a choice. It has to be one or the other, and I would prefer him. And I'm sure that would be Jerry's choice as well.

It's interesting to me that your husband—who was such a major figure—didn't bring his work home.
We talked about things, and I would say, "You shouldn't have done this" or something. But I really was not into it very much. When he came home he was just always with the children. He didn't want to bring it home.

Billy Graham's wife, the late Ruth Bell Graham, spoke openly about how difficult it was to raise children with their father away so much of the time. Did you find it difficult?
Jerry always made a thing about coming back at night, even if it was two o'clock in the morning. The children saw a lot of their dad. He would make it work. We decided when we first got married, if we had children, they wouldn't be secondary to anything. Jerry let the children decide where they wanted to go for their birthdays. When he was a little boy, Jonathan said he wanted to go to New York. So Jerry got a limousine, and they went to New York and ate at McDonald's.

When he was at home, was there anything he liked to do especially?
He could find a ballgame on television every hour of the day. He loved sports, absolutely loved sports.

Has writing the book helped you through the grieving process?
It makes me cry every time I read it. I've read it three times. It's so bad coming home at night, with nobody here. Jonathan realized that; he arranged for somebody to be here at night. I have not been alone at night. Jonathan will call and he will not go to bed before he's made sure that I've got somebody with me. He's arranged that, and it's helped a lot. You come in sometimes, and I don't have anything to do. It's very difficult.

"The second two were also well thought out, but are matters of perspective than fact. In answer to your statement about some fantasy reward after death: while it is true that all you can see is that people's bodies go into the ground and decay, you cannot be so certain (and no one really can as far as we know) about whether or not they have a soul or get a reward or not. You cannot prove or disprove something you HAVEN'T seen; that flies in the face of "basic logic." "

You are welcome to think that there is something after death. But without irrefutable proof (and the burden lies with the affirmative, that there IS something after death), the negative is the default. That is what I have always be taught (and had confirmed by many top flight scientists, some of whom were devoutly religious). It is part of the same reason that the burden of proof lies with the those who say that God is a fact as opposed to belief. Of course it is not science's place to prove or disprove God or religion. That is why when someone says that I need to disprove God, I remind them that the burden lies with those who claim God, not with those who reject it. But that, IMO, I do nto care if they do or do not believe. Just that I demand they respect my right to disagree with them. I have no problem with people believing in God, or Jesus, or other religions as long as they do not try to force US laws to follow thoe beliefs. Especially since other religions often disagree on what "God" actually wants.

As for your final paragraph, wwJd? Is Die and Decay, like everybody else...clever :), but people who make that statement assume (maybe correctly, maybe not) that he is in some fashion still alive.. So a better question to ask yourself if asked this would be: What would Jesus do... if he were still alive? "

I actually do understand that distinction. And my answer would be: "Assuming that he actually even existed (which I am not sure about), and since he was supposedly a believing and practicng Jew, he would condemn those who worship him as blasphemers. As for what the writers of the books that the church decided to include as accept as valid, state that he said or stood for. I reject them completely so cannot make any assumption that they represnt what he wold have done or said.

"More importantly than this though, thanks for trying to do what is right for it's own sake. I wish everybody would do that. It'd make life a lot easier for everybody. Shalom."

Thank you.

Member Comments

- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: WhiteValleyCreeper @ 06/17/2008 9:59:42 AM

I still remeber the "9-11 was the supported work of pagans, gays, lesbians, and liberal feminists" comment as if it were yesterday. I'm a 26 year-old Wiccan and I was deeply offended. This man SHOULD NOT be remebered as a holy person. The man should be remebered as a paranoid and bigoted preacher of intolerance...
A RELIGION WHOSE CREED SPREADS HATE IS NOT A RELIGION.
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 06/17/2008 9:33:20 AM

"There are over 300 prophecies concerning Him in the Old Testament--including the way He would die,"

Actually, no there are not. Those alleged "prophesies" are intentional mistranslations of the Hebrew by his followers. The references that are quoted have be proven to be about others. Yes otherS. The TaNaKH (the correct term for the "old" testament) says absoutely nothing about Jesus.
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 06/16/2008 2:40:46 PM

"The second two were also well thought out, but are matters of perspective than fact. In answer to your statement about some fantasy reward after death: while it is true that all you can see is that people's bodies go into the ground and decay, you cannot be so certain (and no one really can as far as we know) about whether or not they have a soul or get a reward or not. You cannot prove or disprove something you HAVEN'T seen; that flies in the face of "basic logic." "

You are welcome to think that there is something after death. But without irrefutable proof (and the burden lies with the affirmative, that there IS something after death), the negative is the default. That is what I have always be taught (and had confirmed by many top flight scientists, some of whom were devoutly religious). It is part of the same reason that the burden of proof lies with the those who say that God is a fact as opposed to belief. Of course it is not science's place to prove or disprove God or religion. That is why when someone says that I need to disprove God, I remind them that the burden lies with those who claim God, not with those who reject it. But that, IMO, I do nto care if they do or do not believe. Just that I demand they respect my right to disagree with them. I have no problem with people believing in God, or Jesus, or other religions as long as they do not try to force US laws to follow thoe beliefs. Especially since other religions often disagree on what "God" actually wants.

As for your final paragraph, wwJd? Is Die and Decay, like everybody else...clever :), but people who make that statement assume (maybe correctly, maybe not) that he is in some fashion still alive.. So a better question to ask yourself if asked this would be: What would Jesus do... if he were still alive? "

I actually do understand that distinction. And my answer would be: "Assuming that he actually even existed (which I am not sure about), and since he was supposedly a believing and practicng Jew, he would condemn those who worship him as blasphemers. As for what the writers of the books that the church decided to include as accept as valid, state that he said or stood for. I reject them completely so cannot make any assumption that they represnt what he wold have done or said.

"More importantly than this though, thanks for trying to do what is right for it's own sake. I wish everybody would do that. It'd make life a lot easier for everybody. Shalom."

Thank you.