The Billy Graham Library

[dubone]

I find it interesting and sad that there is little intellectual consistency from those that would demand a society without bigotry and hatred, yet find a hatred of Christian beliefs to be acceptable. Just swap out some words and analyze whether those statements expecting Christians to drop controversial beliefs are bigotted. It is equivalent to saying, 'well, gays are okay only if they leave out the sex', or 'Hindus are okay only if they leave out the polytheism'. I do find it bigoted to say that Graham was 'bad' because he believes in hell and sin. Somehow, he would only be good if he eliminated all the controversial parts of his faith.

Harmony between Jews and Christians, between Gays and Christians, between Blacks and White, between Jews and Muslims, between Men and Women (whatever) is not to eliminate the controversial parts or the parts that make us different. (Else we end up as just one big homogenous society of omnisexual unitarians. ) We can respect people from another group, but not demand that they give up everything about themselves.

Note, that I agree there are horribly unkind Christians, as there are horribly unkind people of all types. Even if some extreme members of a group don't respect others, it can't be considered a virtue to not respect members of that group back.

Anyway, Billy Graham believes in the sinfulness of mankind, the salvific nature of faith in Christ, and the torment of those without it. But guess what folks, that is what most Christians have believed for a couple millenia. As I said, some have still been horrible people, but others have tried to manage a path where they still believe that but also befriend and respect those people who don't. The fact that Graham preaches about sin, hell, heaven, and Jesus but still has sought to respect others in a diverse world, befriending Jews, Gays, Clintons (joke) should hopefully gain him some respect back.

Think of people going to the Pride thread and writing mean things about Gays. That is pretty darned rude. But a thread on a highly respected Christian minister has the man torn apart as a segregationalist hater that while still bad, just isn't as bad as other Christians.

I know that primates have a hard time trusting others outside of their group, but the act of trying does make us more civilized.

(EDIT: I'm extrapolating a bit from some words in this thread, as there are certainly not that many anti-Christian and anti-Graham comments in this thread specifically. But I guess it just touched off a couple of thoughts I have had in general .)

[Charlotteman]

I don't hate christians. I don't hate anyone.

I don't respect christian beliefs, but I respect the christian him/herself as a human being. I would fight to my death to protect anyone's choice of beliefs.

So what if christians have believed this stuff for millenia. Slavery was totally normal for millenia as well. So was the subjugation of women, and persecution of gays and Jews.

As far as calling Graham a bigot because he believed in heaven and hell, if you reread my posts you'll see that I said no such thing. I said I found his use of fear and intimidation of hell to achieve power over people to be abhorant. Challenging and confronting ideas as I did is not bigotry. Bigotry is when someone is hated for something that he is: i.e. black, gay, Jewish, etc, not something he believes, i.e. Christianity, Islam, etc.

If I am being referred to as a primate or uncivilized or tribal, then so be it. I tend to think of myself as a challenger of convention.

[elvigy]

I find it interesting and sad that there is little intellectual consistency from those that would demand a society without bigotry and hatred, yet find a hatred of Christian beliefs to be acceptable. Just swap out some words and analyze whether those statements expecting Christians to drop controversial beliefs are bigotted. It is equivalent to saying, 'well, gays are okay only if they leave out the sex', or 'Hindus are okay only if they leave out the polytheism'. I do find it bigoted to say that Graham was 'bad' because he believes in hell and sin. Somehow, he would only be good if he eliminated all the controversial parts of his faith.

Harmony between Jews and Christians, between Gays and Christians, between Blacks and White, between Jews and Muslims, between Men and Women (whatever) is not to eliminate the controversial parts or the parts that make us different. (Else we end up as just one big homogenous society of omnisexual unitarians. ) We can respect people from another group, but not demand that they give up everything about themselves.

.....

(EDIT: I'm extrapolating a bit from some words in this thread, as there are certainly not that many anti-Christian and anti-Graham comments in this thread specifically. But I guess it just touched off a couple of thoughts I have had in general .)

[dubone]

I am not calling names by the scientific fact on primates, I just mean that the primate in all of us humans tends to identify groups we like and don't like. I know it is very hard not to isolate groups we don't like, especially groups that have decided not to like us as a group. I'm just trying to highlight that the virtue is to respect people of other groups, as that is the only way to have a harmonious society. Seriously, my point was to not disrespect others... so I wouldn't end it by calling names .

I absolutely agree with you elvigy that American Christianity has evolved into a very unlikeable sort. I don't like it myself, and actually try to associate as little as possible with them. I lived most of life in other countries where there is significantly more mutual respect among different religions and different worldviews and I personally find it more fulfilling to be friends with people who think differently from me. I see our society polarizing, which makes both sides lash out defensively. I'm not trying to say 'poor poor christians' or anything. But I find that there is no end to the cycle of hatred or benign dislike if open season is declared on christians in retaliation for real or perceived wrongs. (Within the Christian world, many are trying to end the open season on gays.)

Charlotteman, I know what you are saying, and my 'edit' was intended to say that my words are about the overall cultural phenom, and was definitely an over-reaction to the words in this thread. But I didn't revise my words when I realized the over-reaction because I think it is important to say.

This library is a completely silly thing for people who aren't christians or don't think much of Billy Graham. But for people who do have the same faith as Billy Graham find him to be a good man who tried very hard to be a good representative for that faith. It just seems unfriendly to bring him down in a thread about honoring him. If it was a thread on Falwell, I'd also find it a bit unfriendly to bring him down, too. If it were a thread on Pride, or on the Hajj, or on an exciting new Tandoori restaurant, it would be unfriend to bring down gays, muslims or indians. I guess I'll just leave it at that.

[Charlotteman]

I do have to fight my knee-jerk reaction to the Christian label. It's a flaw in my character, but one that I feel was caused by being belittled, condemned and outcast by some very loud voices in the Christian community, with very very few Christian voices speaking out on behalf of me and other gays.

[jednc]

When I lived in the South not one day went by that I wasn't told I was going to hell---- by a christian at work, or in the neighborhood, in professional organizations, even by clerks in the grocery store, you name it. Interesting I was never harrassed by a Buddist or a Jew or a Hindu or an atheist~~~

Back about 1980, fundamentalist christianity declared war on gays. All right-wing movements have designated enemies. We were a convenient enemy for them. Easy to rile up their undereducated masses by mention of queers. When someone declares war on you, you had better take it damn seriously.

[Charlotteman]

With the first paragraph all I'd pose, is this question. Perhaps the only group that cared about what happened to your soul were the Christians? If they believe homosexuality is a sin, why wouldn't they try to save you?

The second paragraph certainly makes it sound like you are disparaging all Christians..."easy to rile up their undereducated masses". I'd certainly have taken your arguement more seriously if you hadn't done the very thing you claim Christians have done to you...generalize and stereotype.

[dubone]

Christianity is a western religion, so there is a concept of good and bad and that people can choose good or bad (this is boiling it down quite a bit too simplistically, sorry). Our society has gone through tremendous change in the last half century. There were all sorts of cultural revolutions. The Establishment in all areas of society had quite a panic and developed a reactionary way of dealing with it. The churches started to wage a cultural war against what it saw as sinful changes brought on by feminists, gays, people living together, people having abortions.

But the reason for this was that early Christian thinking was developed with a heavy ascetic emphasis, and has centered pretty heavily on chastity for a very very long time. In 300 AD when Augustine was the setting the tone, he not only thought gay sex was bad (I'm guessing, as I don't know if he even addressed it), but he thought that straight sex was bad, even WITHIN marriage. That thinking extended on for centuries and developed into a celebate priesthood, beliefs in the catholic church against contraception, and modern-day christian horror about pretty much everything sexual. It does seem silly to most people in this day and age, including most christians, but the fact is that it is a philosophy that seeks to elevate the soul by pursuing higher and better things, and less about base and carnal things.

The problem is, that many people don't really try to become more virtuous or pursuing good things. But they are mighty vocal about being opposed to bad things (usually just in other people and not themselves). Other people are rightfully put off by that opposition, as christian definitions for sin almost certainly includes something you just finished doing.

Anyway, Graham did spend time saying what he believed was sinful, but instead of outright judging people, he simply left it to those people to do differently, preaching to the personal conscience of the people who listened to him rather than indicting the people in general society. But still there were some larger social issues he focused on politically. Rather than going with stuff like trying to Christianize the government (Falwell and Robertson) and spitting bile at gays and feminists and abortionists (like Falwell and Robertson and every a_hole with a megaphone on street corners), he used his voice to speak against larger evils like communism, segregation, apartheid, etc. While much of white america was spitting venom at black civil rights leaders, Graham was helping Martin Luther King get out of jail.

Billy Graham has been quite ground breaking for evangelical thinking, in offering up respect for people of other faiths. Even though he said he was worried about jewish control of media to Nixon, he has been a friend of jewish leaders, has not called for conversion of Jews to Christianity, has been in support of a Jewish State in Israel and has profusely apologized for saying even what he did. He also said he 'respects other paths to God', which is highly controversial among evangelicals. That means he is mildly universalist in his beliefs, not saying people of other religions are 'going to hell' as you might expect an evangelical to say. He even left Bob Jones as being a place that was too rigid and sectarian in exchange for Wheaton, which is a fairly well respected and more moderate (non-fundamentalist) christian college, so that reveals a bit of how he allowed his beliefs to be shaped.

I'm not baptist and am generally indifferent to Billy Graham. But the fact is, he is probably the least controversial figure in evangelical christianity. If he is a considered a bad person (or a no-good person), then it just makes me worry that the rift is irreparable.

[Miesian Corners]

Throughout his career, Graham has had many critics. Fundamentalists accused him of "ecumenical evangelism," that is, supposedly corrupting his message by accepting help and support from "pseudo-Christians". Liberal Christians often thought that he cared too much for evangelism and not enough for helping to ease the social ills of society. Some also attacked the crusades themselves for being mechanical spectacles which moved people through emotionalism and left little in the way of results. Some evangelists felt he was too close to rulers and men of power who used him to increase their own legitimacy. These criticisms became particularly persistent in the mid-1970s because of Graham's friendship with Richard Nixon. Graham stated that he felt his primary task (his calling from God) was to preach the Gospel, and he would accept help from anyone who did not place restrictions on his message.

While not exactly a trailblazer in terms of social outreach, Graham has been at the forefront of preaching a messagae of tolerance and unconditional love. His means of doing this (crusades) is not my cup of tea, but by and large, he speaks a very powerful and positive message. If he has a downfall, it would have to be his chidren, Ruth and Franklin, who routinely spout bigoted diatribes that would NEVER pass their father's lips.

[voyager12]

If he has a downfall, it would have to be his chidren, Ruth and Franklin, who routinely spout bigoted diatribes that would NEVER pass their father's lips.