Would Rev. Marshall have agreed with his son?

Hi Eric,

I apologize for my delay in answering, but this required a more thoughtful response than may be usual for IMDb, and I wanted to have the time to answer properly.

First, while I appreciate your remarks in your opening paragraph above, please, my friend, there is no need to worry over it. Lord knows, we all say things in the heat of the moment, or in the grip of some fervid idea, that may be ill-considered and which, upon sober and generous reflection, we regret. We forgive and go forward, and I have certainly caused you some angst as well.

Which is perhaps a good jumping-off point to answer your inquiries about the three comments I made in my previous posts, which you requested I address: the business about Sr. giving Jr. a "dressing down", the "72 virgins" remark, and about Mrs. Marshall perhaps not having raised her son in his father's spirit.

In all honesty, I must say I think you're reading way too much into what were, in each case, merely brief, throw-away lines: all three were nothing more than quick, albeit possibly weak, attempts at humor, quick quips meant to signify nothing, certainly nothing serious or reflective of anything mean or personal. Thus, the "dressing down" remark was simply in keeping with my asking whether Marshall Jr.'s views were at variance with his father's, and if so, would his father have chastised him about them in the hereafter: a joke; a poor one, perhaps, but that's all. Similarly with the "72 virgins": yes, obviously, a reference to Islam, but certainly not an inference that Marshall was a terrorist of any sort; merely, again, a somewhat off-point joke inferring that maybe when Jr., as an evangelical Christian, got to Heaven, he would find that Islam was the "true" faith after all. That was all it meant, period. (I must admit that comment was influenced somewhat by the film South Park -- The Movie, in which the late Kenny, at the end, is permitted to ascend into Heaven, where he finds 72 virgins waiting for him -- but with no reference to terrorism, or this being a reward for killing infidels.) Lastly, the comment about Patricia Marshall was, once again, meant un-seriously, though I take issue with your characterization of it as questioning her "parenting skills". Not so, and I don't think I said or inferred that. While the comment may have been flippant, it stemmed from my basic question as to whether Jr.'s views were a reflection of his father's, and that if not, perhaps Mrs. Marshall should have instilled more of the father's approach to Christianity in their son. You may think the comment inappropriate, but it certainly was not intended as a slur on her abilities as a mother, and I honestly don't think that can be legitimately inferred from what I wrote.

Now, while I think you took these remarks as serious attacks, as it seemed (and still seems) to me they clearly are not, I regret that I caused insult to you, or to your sense of fair play. I think that when read in what I still believe to be their plain context, the remarks are obviously in jest -- smart-alecky, perhaps; in poor taste, very possibly; or just not funny -- any such criticism would be a legitimate matter of opinion. But comments to be somehow taken seriously, or to infer some dark motive or accusation? No -- decidely no. And I want to assure you and anyone else who may stumble across these posts of that.

Next, I want to offer an apology to you, because you make a very valid point in criticizing my statement that I do not want a debate on Marshall Jr.'s views, only to question whether they were in line with his father's teachings -- whereupon I proceed to attack those views in my own comments. You're quite right, this is unfair and hypocritical of me, and while the particulars of either man's views are somewhat secondary to my central question, it's true that I moved into territory wherein I was freely attacking Jr.'s views. Therefore, discussing these (and his father's) in themselves is a perfectly legitimate response. And, I suppose, given the nature of my thread question, getting into a discussion of the substance their beliefs -- as opposed to simply a description of them, to satisfy the narrower thread question -- is inevitable. Point is, your criticism of me in this regard is absolutely legitimate, and I regret straying into territory I had specifically abjured discussing.

One thing, however: I did not say that my criticisms of him were "rooted in" the secular. I was criticizing Jr.'s forays into the secular world of textbooks, etc., but only as part of my overall criticism of him for many of what seem to me to be intolerant, indeed un-Christian views and actions.

A concern of yours seems to be that, regardless of a particular minister's views, if someone found their way to salvation through such a person's teachings or work, then one must at least acknowledge the minister's faith or devotion to Christ, even if you disagreed with his general political or even religious outlook. (This is a paraphrase, but I hope a reasonably accurate one.) Fine, but I did not question this premise, or even raise it, for the simple reason that it is irrelevant to what I was trying to discuss.

Now it may be well and good to say that Marshall Jr. may have engaged in charitable actions in his career. I would hope so: that is supposed to be in the very nature of Christianity. But that is a very different thing from what I was speaking of when I questioned his concept of "Christian charity". To me, that is not something merely to be narrowly construed as meaning that one fed or clothed poor people, for example. It is also one of overall attitude toward others. It is in this that I found many of Jr.'s actions and statements uncharitable, and indeed, un-Christian. His idiotic statement that 9/11 was God's punishment for assorted "sins" (of his own definition) was in no wise a Christian, let alone charitable, thing to say. And many other of his actions and statements seem to fall into a similarly narrow, bigoted set of views that do not coincide with any concept of Christianity I believe in...though there are without question many narrow-minded, bigoted "Christians" who would be most comfortable with such statements.

Nor did I question the sincerity of Marshall's beliefs. On the contrary, his sincerity was very much part of the problem. Had he been a fraud, just scamming money from people (a la Bakker), he wouldn't have had to be taken seriously, or been such a force for what I regard as false and even blasphemous views. "Sincerity" is irrelevant here. Honesty is not.

The overall problem I have is that, to me, religion is an entirely personal matter. I do not care what another's beliefs are, except insofar as they may threaten my freedom. To me, everyone is free to worship their God in whatever manner they wish, short of committing violence or harming others, which in any case I do not accept as true worship.

Unfortunately, there are millions of people in this world who insist, to whatever degree and however overtly, that theirs really is the only true religion, and that all others are invalid, if not blasphemous. But whereas an Islamic terrorist, say, would overtly state that the practitioners of all other religions are infidels who must be killed, such a lunatic would at least be being honest and up front -- he hates you, and wishes to destroy you and your beliefs. But, especially in the West, many preachers try to disguise their religious intolerance by claiming that they love all men, while subtly saying that they want to lead them into the "true" religion -- which is, of course, their version of Christianity. In short, they lie and mislead, in themselves violations of Christ's teachings. Just a few minutes ago, while writing this, I was interrupted by an interview with an evangelical minister in NYC who stated that while "we" love Muslims, we hate -- his word -- Islam as it is not a "true faith". This is as intolerant and anti-Christian a belief as one could find, but it was -- in part at least -- honest.

Similarly, many "Christian" ministers ardently profess a commitment to Zionism and the Jewish people. But in my experience much of this stems from criticism, begun during the 1980 presidential campaign, of evangelicals as anti-Semitic, based on plainly anti-Semitic statements by some right-wing preachers who supported Ronald Reagan. This became political in nature, as the Reagan campaign needed to distance itself from such sentiments while not losing these people's support. So soon after, many began using the phrase "Judeo-Christian" where before they had said only "Christian", and routinely vowed their support for Israel. But I simply do not believe many of these people. To me, it's clear that many are only professing to "love the Jews" -- that they in fact still hold Jews in disfavor for religious or other reasons steeped in their own bigotry, and that their statements to the contrary are for public consumption only. In any event, many claim to hold the Jewish people sacred only because they expect that at the Second Coming the Jews will all be converted to Christianity -- thereby revealing their inherent disregard and disrespect for Judaism.

In short, I distrust many people who routinely proclaim themselves, loudly and repeatedly, "Christians". In my experience most such people believe themselves to be possessed of the one and only truth, the one true path to God, and have feelings ranging from pity to contempt to hatred for others of different relgious beliefs -- whether they try to disguise these feelings by falsely claiming otherwise, or are at least open about them. Even the most sincere and honest of such people, I have found, usually deal with others who disagree with them in a condescending manner, as if the other person was too lost or confused to realize the truth only they and their co-religionists possess. Because I hold religion to be something personal and not something to be forced upon others -- in whatever guise, in whatever field -- I am distrustful of anyone who regularly proclaims his faith, the greatness or absolute truth of it, in contrast (stated or unstated) to all other faiths, and who uses that faith to foist his own version of the world -- especially the secular world -- upon others, always under the false colors of seeking only "truth" and "fairness".

It strikes me, from what I have learned of Peter Marshall, Jr., that his was an exclusionary, even pernicious perversion of real Christianity. I don't really care much whether he helped people find a way to God -- Marshall's own, most certainly. If he did charitable works in helping the sick, the poor, the lost, well and good, and all credit to him. But that is no more than what he, as a supposed servant of God, should have been doing. It cannot erase or even mitigate the un-Christian statements and actions he took to force his versions, not only of religion, but of facts unrelated to his knowledge and calling, on unsuspecting others, then to compound his deeds by lying about them -- saying, for instance, that his "corrected" history texts were only balancing the record, not slanting it to his own beliefs. (This is much like the situation in Pennsylvania a few years ago, where a court overturned the efforts of fundamentalists to compel the teaching of "intelligent design" as a science course in the public schools. I was most pleased to read that the judge denounced the witnesses on the side of forcing this religious mythology into the curriculum as having lied when they claimed that "intelligent design" was not at all like "creationism" or "creation science". Of course, they are exactly the same thing, merely renamed to dishonestly promote a religious belief as something it isn't. It was explicitly un-Christian, the judge pointed out, to lie under oath, especially an oath sworn before God, therby emphasizing the irreligiousness of supposedly religious people, who resort to lying when it suited them to promote their own beliefs.)

By the way, while the obituary of Marshall in The Washington Post was certainly not an exhaustive, all-encompassing treatment of his life -- and never professed to be; nor did I; and what such article, anywhere, ever is? -- your sneering dismissal of its validity merely because it was in a "liberal" paper is ridiculous and beneath you, Eric. Incomplete it may have been, but I note that though you tried to cast aspersions on its accuracy by attacking the paper, you did not explicitly accuse the paper of lying. I have no reason to believe that the facts stated in the article are inaccurate or out of context, and neither do you. What, would the hagiographic obit from his devoted family, devoid of any real facts or information, be a more trustworthy source?

In closing on this note, I want to emphasize that I never claimed to have all the information on either of the Marshalls' beliefs or work in full -- and frankly, for purposes of the discussion I initiated, this was not necessary. From what I have read, the essentials of Jr.'s work and beliefs seem clear enough, at least for such a limited discussion. I was interetsed only in whether they were in keeping with the image of Sr. as depicted in the movie. I explicitly stated that "if -- if" Sr.'s views and approach to faith were in real life as they were depicted in the film (allowing for the usual Hollywood alterations), then they would seem to have been at odds with much of what his son said and did. I didn't know, and don't pretend to, and I don't think anyone can ever know with certitude, what the father would have thought of the son's beliefs. In posing this question, I was hoping to find out more about both men that might help illuminate the issue. So far, I have found nothing.

But I have taken time to consider the premise of Marshall, Sr.'s views as expressed in the film, to think about his background, his origins, his education and the rest, and to draw some possible -- possible -- conclusions. In thinking about these things, it occurred to me that perhaps Sr.'s views may not have been so very different from his son's after all, and it is this thought that leads me to a final statement. Sr. came from a background steeped in, among other things, virulent anti-Catholicism, common in Scotland for hundreds of years, including Peter Sr.'s lifetime. He was educated at a fundamentalist college. While he might have been outwardly "modern", he may well have held narrow religious beliefs that were not truly tolerant of other faiths, much as we see in many of today's self-proclaimed "Christians". Even the film never shows him with ministers of other faiths -- Catholics or Jews -- nor does he ever make statements embracing the equality of all faiths, or of all men before God irrespective of their faith -- or lack of one. It seems to me that, had he lived, Marshall Sr. would surely have jonied that group of Protestant ministers who in 1960 questioned John Kennedy's qualifications for office based solely on his Catholicism. Even people such as Norman Vincent Peale and Billy Graham, among many others -- including Martin Luther King, Sr. -- believed Kennedy's religion disqualified him for the White House. Their basic views were not at variance with Peter Marshall's, so I'm sure he would have made common cause with them -- at least, it's a very good bet he would have (or at least shared such views, even if his position as Senate chaplain may have made it impolitic for him to publicly associate with the group). Kennedy, of course, answered the ministers in his speech to them at Houston in September, 1960, Peale, among a few others, saying he had "been stupid" to have joined the group. But I feel certain, however unprovable my belief may be, that Peter Marshall Sr. would have shared these anti-Catholic views. Whether he had the capacity to truly outgrow them, or any of the other narrow prejudices of his upbringing and education, is largely a matter of conjecture.

And so, as I pondered this aspect of the matter anew, more and more I came to the conclusion, in answer to my own question, that, unfortunately, yes -- Marshall Sr. probably would have approved of Marshall Jr.'s beliefs and actions, beyond the normal support a father may give his son. But if I'm right, then that support, that agreement, would have been the product, not of Christian love for all mankind, not of acceptance of others' beliefs and a willingness to see that others may have an equally valid path to God, not of a true generosity of spirit that sees charity not merely as feeding a starving man, but in respecting that man's beliefs. It would instead have been the poisoned product of a dishonest, bigoted individual who resorts to lies and misrepresentations in order to force his own opinions on unsuspecting others through false approaches -- the methods of Satan, if you will.

So, I must regretfully say that I'm sorry, Eric. You are a good man and an honest one, in earnest about your faith and the Word of God, generous and free of prejudice toward others. But I believe that far too many men who call themselves Christians are not of such character, whatever they may outwardly profess. I believe that many such persons spread wickedness and deceit and are intolerant of others, even despise them. It is not simply the extremists who protest at military funerals and preach hatred of others of God's children, or the frauds who are in religion for the money or power, bilking thousands out of their money to build proud towers to themselves under the guise of praising God. The lies and deceit also come from those who seek political and social influence under false pretenses. Their crimes against true Christianity -- against true Christians, those millions who seek only to find God in their own hearts, and not to hurt or harm others, or force their beliefs on them -- cannot be denied or forgiven simply because they can be weighed alongside modest acts of physical charity, or the help they may have given to those in distress; for as I said these are no more than the true minister's calling. It is those many who seek secular wealth and secular power, under the guise of posing as men of honest and open spirituality, who are the false prophets...and who, I believe, will, when they pass from this Earth, discover that all their worldly power and goods will not save them from an accounting for the misdeeds they committed in the Lord's name. And I believe Peter Marshall, Jr., falls into this category of men.

I'm afraid, my good and decent friend, you and I will just have to agree to (mostly) disagree.

[deleted]