I agree, when you put yourself in the public light you become what (typically) your opponents say about you, and what the media chooses to print/air. Clinton will forever be know as the guy who had an affair while in the White House and lied about it, regardless of anything else he ever did. Why? Because of the media circus.When you're someone in the public light, the effects of what you is what people notice, which isn't always proportional to what you invest your time in. Say, a President can spend all his time working on fixing health care, but in the end his election can be determined by the state of the economy, or what he chose to do with foreign policy, or any number of other issues. When you choose to step into the public light, like with Falwell, those are the sorts of things you have to accept. KF
But that doesn't make it right, media spotlight or not. Should every man be judged by the most foolish things he has ever done or said? No, I don't care if he is President, or a bum.
The vast majority of people listened to him for uplifting messages of faith, hope, and love. And 99.9% of the time that is what they got. Taking a few quotes and acting as though this guy is some sort of Antichrist is a crazy leap to put it lightly. He did not take every chance to speak his most extreme of beliefs but typically fell back upon the "Faith, Hope and Love" sermons that are common on "The 700 Club". He was not a proto Fred Phelps which how you are descibing him.I don't care how much good you do for people with fundraising, the spreading of ideas like those that he spread just can't be made up for. Ideas are dangerous, whether we like it or not.
An often cited, but seldom sourced argument. It was a Time Magazine article from 1985 after he visited South Africa. He said he opposed Apartheid, however did not agree with economic sanctions of divestment as he felt that would it would be counterproductive. He hoped that Botha would dismantle Apartheid because he felt that the alternatives were even worse (Soviet backed revolution or an even more repressive "Draconian" white-niche government). Though he did urge investment, but that hardly makes him "Pro-Apartheid".This guy was pro-apartheid, need I say more?
*Edit*
Allow me to clarify, upon further review, both Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher both also opposed U.N. Sanctions against Apartheid up until I think it was 1987 when Thatcher began to impose them. Before that she called them "immoral". Also, both the U.S. and England had huge investments in South Africa, billions of dollars worth of U.S. investments were there. Jerry Falwell was just being a flunky to his conservative agenga and his good buddy Reagan.