Ship of Fools: Forget Fred it's Franklin who has real influence.

Thread: Forget Fred it's Franklin who has real influence. Board: Hell / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005607

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

I can't stand Franklin Graham. I had mixed feelings about his father but at least Billy's focus was bringing people to Jesus while Franklin and his sister seem focused on hating people and trying to turn back the clock.

This article about backlash against a Wells Fargo ad featuring a lesbian couple caused him to start a boycott of the bank. The Ad is so beautiful it made me cry and it just points up how heartless Graham can be.

His sister Anne Graham is just as bad. She gave a very famous sermon after 9-11 where she blamed it all on things like no prayer in schools and Dr. Spock's emphasis on talking to children who misbehave rather than beating them with sticks. In that sermon she gleefully told of Graham's son [sic] committing suicide[sic] as though that proved all his child rearing advice wrong. (Actually his grandson with schizophrenia jumped off a building during a psychotic episode.)

She's one of those women who preaches all the time while simultaneously speaking out against women pastors because that's not biblical ya'know.
[Mad]

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Yeah, he makes me want to puke.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
This article about backlash against a Wells Fargo ad featuring a lesbian couple caused him to start a boycott of the bank. The Ad is so beautiful it made me cry and it just points up how heartless Graham can be.

I hadn't seen this before -- I so glad my checking, savings, and one credit card are with Wells Fargo.
[Smile]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

That sort of religion makes us require a heaven. Because people like him are bent on making this world a hell.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Wells Fargo is headquartered in San Francisco, so they are quite liberal in their outlook. As for Franklin, some of the enemies you acquire are a good thing to acquire.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
That sort of religion makes us require a heaven. Because people like him are bent on making this world a hell.

Yeah, but according to this Christianity thing buggers like him are going to be in it.

It's the sort of religion that makes us require a Purgatory.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Twilight wrote:

quote:
In that sermon she gleefully told of Graham's son [sic] committing suicide[sic] as though that proved all his child rearing advice wrong. (Actually his grandson with schizophrenia jumped off a building during a psychotic episode.)

Just to be clear, you meant to say Spock's offspring commiting suicide, right?

[ 23. August 2016, 14:51: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

Yeah, Stetson, thank you. Preview post will never make-up for old age.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I mentioned this to my brother, who works for Wells in the marketing department. He says:

Yes – that’s my ad we did last year. The Franklin Graham boycott gave this work even more visibility and elicited some amazing supportive comments on social media. A big deal for us at Wells Fargo and for the marketing team.

I didn't know that! So I am sure Franklin will be pleased to know that it is quite a feather in my brother's cap.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's the sort of religion that makes us require a Purgatory.

Thinking about some of the types who have aligned themselves to Christianity over it's 2000 yr history often makes oblivion feel far more appealing than heaven.

Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :

Franklin is systematically destroying his father's legacy. He should be ashamed--but of course, he isn't. I only hope the rumours of his father's poor health are true so that he's not aware of what his son is doing.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Franklin Graham lacks a critical voice in his ear, which his father had in Rev. Grady B Wilson. The impression I get is that Wilson acted as chaplain to Graham and wasn't afraid of him.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

Billy was a man of integrity. I didn't agree with him on everything, but he had integrity and the courage to switch sides when he realized he was wrong (e.g. his stance on segregation/MLK).

Anne used to be a fairly clear thinker and a remarkably good preacher-- very reminiscent of her dad. But in the last few decades she's gone increasingly off the rails. I have no idea why, but she seems to have hitched her wagon to the wackadoodle wing of the evangelical camp.

I really haven't seen much in Franklin I can respect or admire from day 1. It all seems like hanging on to daddy's name, as best as I can tell.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

His name, but very little else about him that matters.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

I grew up respecting Billy Graham. Watched his crusades on TV. Read some of his books. I think the only serious problem I had with him was his being too close to political power, like having a relationship with US presidents. Other people have made the same observation.

Interesting (to me) story I read, long ago: BG spent some time with JFK, and told him about the Second Coming, probably the Rapture, etc. Reportedly, JFK said "Does my [RC] church believe that?" BG said yes. JFK said "That's wonderful, that's wonderful".

BG also told people who came forward at his rallies to go back to their *own* churches. He wasn't trying to make everyone like him. (Baptist? I forget.)

One thing I do like about Franklin: He ditched the word "crusade" for "festival". Given what he thinks of Muslims, it probably wasn't to respect their feelings. Maybe he just wanted to shake things up, a bit, or not be like his dad. But at least the "crusade" title is gone.

I didn't know about his sister's beliefs. [Frown]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

One more BG story: He loved to golf, and asked his wife if there'd be golf in Heaven. Ruth answered "If not that, then something better".
[Smile]

(Which meshes nicely with CS Lewis's comment that asking if Heaven includes sex is like a child asking if sex includes chocolate. It's the best pleasure the person knows.)

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Billy was a man of integrity.

He's still alive - 97!

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
One more BG story: He loved to golf, and asked his wife if there'd be golf in Heaven. Ruth answered "If not that, then something better".

Adrian Plass believes that heaven has to be at least as good as scoring a century against Australia at Lord's. (Test Matches are already a taste of eternity, especially on a hot afternoon when the pitch isn't helping the bowlers and the batsmen are trying to keep in at all costs).

[ 24. August 2016, 07:44: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Baptist Trainfan--

[Biased]

Oh, that's that strange little game called "cricket", right? [Biased]

Well, since it takes place at *Lord's*, it will probably be a sport in Heaven. (Or in Purgatory, for the test matches!)

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

My wife, who is Uncivilised, would place it in a far lower category than that, beyond any thought of redemption.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
BG also told people who came forward at his rallies to go back to their *own* churches. He wasn't trying to make everyone like him. (Baptist? I forget.)

Yes. His wife Ruth, though, was the daughter of Presbyterian missionaries to China, and she remained Presbyterian throughout her life.

I tend to echo what cliffdweller said. I'll admit I may be a little biased—I've known various members of the Graham family (though not Billy, Ruth or Franklin) in earlier periods of my life, and there are a few members of the family I still see and enjoy catching up with from time to time, and for whom I have a great deal of respect. Perhaps that makes me want to defend them a bit, or perhaps it just gives me a picture of them beyond just what the public sees.

In any event, yeah, what cliffdweller said.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Franklin is small beer.

It's those heathen who don't appreciate cricket, especially in the divine 5 day Test format, who we need to worry about.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I grew up respecting Billy Graham. Watched his crusades on TV. Read some of his books. I think the only serious problem I had with him was his being too close to political power, like having a relationship with US presidents. Other people have made the same observation.

Including Billy himself-- which again, is one of the things I respect and admire about him-- the ability to take criticism, consider it prayerfully, and change.

This is what is lacking perhaps more than anything in Franklin. The man certainly hasn't suffered from a lack of thoughtful, appropriate critique-- he's just chosen to be completely deaf to it.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I'll admit I may be a little biased—I've known various members of the Graham family (though not Billy, Ruth or Franklin) in earlier periods of my life, and there are a few members of the family I still see and enjoy catching up with from time to time, and for whom I have a great deal of respect. Perhaps that makes me want to defend them a bit, or perhaps it just gives me a picture of them beyond just what the public sees.

In any event, yeah, what cliffdweller said.

Interesting! I don't know how much you can share online, but within those boundaries, is Anne one of those you're in contact with? What is your take (if you're able/willing to share) on what appears to be a dramatic post-9/11 shift towards extremism?

As an observer and not a confidant, Anne seems a lot like Beth Moore-- both are effective teachers and women of prayer, and both know their Bible backwards and forwards. When they stay within their bailiwick they're great. But both have this disturbing tendency to veer off into political & social mostly dead-horse issues where they are seriously uninformed. Instead of taking the same thoughtful, careful work they use research biblical exegesis they seem to rely on, well, again, the wackadoodle science-denying wing of evangelicalism. So they'll pop off ridiculously disproven theories of homosexuality, Islam, you name it. And because they take the biblical study part of their work seriously, that tends to lend credibility to their wackadoodle political/social stuff, making it all the more damaging.

Any of that strike you as accurate or comment-able? (Feel free to ignore if this takes you into uncomfortable areas to comment on)

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It's those heathen who don't appreciate cricket, especially in the divine 5 day Test format, who we need to worry about.

What about this who like T20, then? Are they within or beyond the Pale?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

It is acceptable to appreciate the 5-day Test format and other versions of cricket. Indeed, even other sports entirely. But, not liking Test Matches is definitely beyond the pale.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Was it Billy Graham who apologized (or at least recognized) that he'd mistaken the American Dream™ for the Kingdom of God™?

-- I sort of get the admiration of Billy eventually seeing he was wrongo about bigotry and segregation, but seeing as someone like him, who'd already led people gloriously and righteously into such A Really Bad Sin, is an apology really enough? Did he do anything tangible? Donate to organizations promoting integration? Combatting racism? Or was it just an apology? -- or maybe the "works" thing just isn't relevant when you're so damn grace filled. [Projectile]

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

Anne Graham Lotz has written a book called, The Daniel Prayer in which she states that God has turned his back on the United States because of 3 big sins; legalized abortion, abandoning Israel, and gay marriage.

However you feel about these dead horses, I have never liked the idea of God as a patriot who likes some countries and not others. I think this reflects a trait in all the Grahams that confuses the terms American and Christian.

At a gut level I dislike Anne more than Franklin because I think there is an element of hypocrisy in all fundamentalist women preachers. They're quick to tell you that women ministers are wrong, simply not biblical, but they want to preach so they get around the issue by not actually standing behind a pulpit in a church but rather speak to ten thousand in football stadiums.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

cliffdweller, I'd rather not share more than I have already done online, but I can say that I think any comment I might have on what you said wouldn't rise much above speculation.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

BG did change, but even where he did not change. There were clashes with UK theologian John Stott. Stott believed the Gospel involved preaching and social action and also was annihilationist on the matter of Hell. BG did not believe social action and held an eternal damnation view on Hell.

Despite theological differences JS and BG supported each other's ministry.

Shame this view of supporting people you argue with is not held by Son-of-Billy. Just the opposite.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

-- I sort of get the admiration of Billy eventually seeing he was wrongo about bigotry and segregation, but seeing as someone like him, who'd already led people gloriously and righteously into such A Really Bad Sin, is an apology really enough? Did he do anything tangible? Donate to organizations promoting integration? Combatting racism? Or was it just an apology? -- or maybe the "works" thing just isn't relevant when you're so damn grace filled.

I think you may have BG confused with someone else. To my knowledge, Billy never promoted or did anything remotely closely to "led people gloriously and righteously into into such A Really Bad Sin." What he did do for a period of time was pretty much what most white evangelical pastors were doing at the time-- say nothing, and when in the South, conform to the legal & social custom of segregation.

And yes, when he repented, he absolutely did something tangible-- and early on. He was one of the first and certainly the most prominent white evangelical to embrace MLK-- giving him a speaking slot in his (unfortunately named) crusades. In 1953 he broke state law to personally physically break down the rope barrier separating whites from blacks in the Tennessee stadium where his crusade was held (tellingly, he was not arrested or prosecuted as MLK would be in similar circumstances). He integrated his staff by the mid 1950s. So yes, I would say definitely tangible action.

So, to summarize:

Billy:
1. Follow common practice in conforming to/being silent re sinful cultural norms (segregation)

2. Thoughtful rebuke (by MLK)

3. Quick and meaningful turn-around (tearing down barriers)

Franklin:
1. Go well beyond common practice in promoting/advocating sinful cultural stereotypes (vilifying gays, Muslims, immigrants)

2. Thoughtful rebuke (by a whole host of evangelical leaders)

3. *crickets*

[ 25. August 2016, 00:47: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I was always a bit ambivalent about Billy, but then I attended and was involved in his last tour of the UK (I think), in 1984.

What I saw there was someone who was simply providing an opportunity for people to make a stand. He never bullied people or told them what they needed to believe, just preached a standard gospel message, and allowed people to respond (without music as well).

All I have heard since then has supported a positive view of him. I might disagree with him in some areas of theology, but that is not unusual. He is a man I can respect.

Most of what I have heard of Franklin - coming later and so in a different time, a different culture - is that he is a fundamentalist jerk, not having learnt from his fathers humility and tolerance. I have also heard his son-in-law (name escapes me), and was less than impressed there too. I think the problem is, the evangelical circles in which the family live tend towards the more extreme, which is unfortunate.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

This is an interesting blog. I was wondering whether Billy and Mel White (who ghost wrote for Billy Graham) still got on after Mel came out of the closet. Interesting that Mel claims that (he thought) that Billy ignored his requests to meet, but it turned out that the requests never got as far as Billy himself, and it was people in his association who didn't let them get through.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

White's last sentence in the article is: "I guess we tend to give Billy Graham the benefit of the doubt, don’t we. It’s easier to blame somebody else."

Billy Graham had that megachurch vibe going for him during his crusades. Huge groups of people, a good looking speaker with the requisite booming, southern cadence to his voice, and usually very emotional music. Something about him always reminded me of Charlton Heston, who I also disliked, but those same qualities made him very effective with thousands of people. I don't doubt he was called to his ministry and is sincere in his beliefs. It's just a shame he became so involved in politics. Is that ever good for a religious man?

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It's those heathen who don't appreciate cricket, especially in the divine 5 day Test format, who we need to worry about.
What about this who like T20, then? Are they within or beyond the Pale?

They've been led astray by the great deceiver.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
One more BG story: He loved to golf, and asked his wife if there'd be golf in Heaven. Ruth answered "If not that, then something better".
Adrian Plass believes that heaven has to be at least as good as scoring a century against Australia at Lord's. (Test Matches are already a taste of eternity, especially on a hot afternoon when the pitch isn't helping the bowlers and the batsmen are trying to keep in at all costs).

Cricket IS heaven. Winning all the time would be HELL. I look forward to the 1st SCIS 11 coming to Lord's.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Winning is fine. One sided matches are Hell. So long as it goes to the last session and the margin is closer than four wickets or fifty runs I'm happy.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
It's just a shame he became so involved in politics. Is that ever good for a religious man?

IMO it is absolutely fatal. The only clergyman who did good by going into politics is perhaps Martin Luther King. (Can it be argued that Dietrich Bonhoeffer really went into politics?) Significantly, both men were murdered. Perhaps the only successful path is the martyr's.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

I don't see how there can be any question but that Bonhoeffer was political.

There are 100s of examples, at least on this side of the pond, of politically involved clergy-- some good, some horrible. In the end, it tends to depend entirely on whether you agree with them. No matter how much we might decry "politicizing the gospel" it's been my observation that when preachers reinforce our political views they're "courageous and prophetic"-- it's only when they say something we don't like that they're "meddling" and "crossing a line." Billy was wrong when he was silent about segregation-- and was right when he "got political" and took a stand against it. And yes, the same sorts of criticisms that are leveled against Franklin were leveled against Billy when he did. And yet, there IS a difference.

The thing is, the gospel IS political. "Jesus is Lord" is a political statement. Jesus is asking for our total allegiance, which means every area of life, including the political. There's no way we can do our jobs of discipling believers w/o mentioning politics.

And yet... it's incredibly fraught. Horrible examples abound-- Franklin's just one of the more visible ones.

So I think we (preachers) HAVE to enter the political realm-- it's part of our job-- but we must do so very, very carefully. Some of the guidelines I try to follow:

1. Choose your battles very very carefully. Making political statements will cost you-- a lot. That's OK-- that's what influence is for. But you can't draw from the well of good will every week. You need to pick and choose what you'll spend your precious political capitol on, and do it carefully. Make sure it's worth what it's going to cost you.

2. Do it prayerfully. Do your homework-- biblically, economically, politically, etc. Listen to others-- particularly those who disagree with you.

3. Make a clear distinctions between "thus saith the Lord" and "this is what I think." Our roles get blurred, so we need to be explicit about this.

4. Make a clear distinction about what is/is not our area of expertise. Most trained pastors are also not trained psychotherapists, sociologists, economists, politicians and health care professionals. They might be two of those things-- rarely three, never all of them. Make it clear when you are speculating beyond your area of expertise, and refer to those in other fields with greater knowledge.

5. Model "intellectual hospitality"-- civil discourse. Model a way of having good, honest debate while still listening, respecting, and valuing those who disagree.

6. Be sure to care for people. Try to see what is lying behind the issue-- what fears, misconceptions, misapprehensions? What is driving the debate. Listen not just to people's opinions but to their stories.

7. Continue to bring it back to what we agree on- what unifies us-- our common faith.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Washington POST columnist E. J. Dionne calls for religious leaders to step forward and lead us.

Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Cricket IS heaven. Winning all the time would be HELL. I look forward to the 1st SCIS 11 coming to Lord's.

Mr. Theodore Castwell

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

There are voices crying in the wilderness. Nadia Bolz-Weber. Shane Claibourne. Tom Sine. Jimmy Carter.

But they're preaching discomfort and dis-ease and the narrow way. If you're not in the desert seeking them out, you'll miss the call.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
]IMO it is absolutely fatal. The only clergyman who did good by going into politics is perhaps Martin Luther King. (Can it be argued that Dietrich Bonhoeffer really went into politics?) Significantly, both men were murdered. Perhaps the only successful path is the martyr's.

No, there are others. Tommy Douglas was a Baptist minister who was premier of Saskatchewan, bringing government sponsored health care to Canada, and a whole whack of social gospel principles to bear on the Canadian context. Most of which we continue to a degree, notwithstanding neoliberal privatization ideologies. Several other clergy have also been in politics in Canada, Father Bob Ogle was an MP, until JP-2 banned clergy from politics. Another fine man.

So perhaps in the American context, political involvement and faith don't mix? They may well elsewhere. Perhaps the difference is about true people of faith, who don't misguidedly misuse religion as part of the boarding pass to office.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I'm afraid Mike Huckabee has spoiled the well for Americans for our generation.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

So perhaps in the American context, political involvement and faith don't mix? They may well elsewhere. .

They mix well here, too, it's just they get drowned out by the Huckabees and the Robertsons. But, as Doc Tor noted, there are some outstanding examples, worthy examples.

I think separating the two is problematic-- it makes our faith too isolated, without real-world implications. We need to be willing to get our hands dirty in the dirty, dirty business of politics if we want to do the work of the Kingdom-- because the Kingdom is all about the real lives of real people who live in the real world-- which is all impacted by politics.

But it is fraught with danger. It's hard for any of us to do it well. So we do well to do it "with fear and trembling"-- with prayer, and with humility. And yes, with:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Perhaps the difference is about true people of faith, who don't misguidedly misuse religion as part of the boarding pass to office.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Aha! I knew there was someplace in SoF I needed to post this. An article from HARPERS about the need for Christian thinkers in the political process.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

-- I sort of get the admiration of Billy eventually seeing he was wrongo about bigotry and segregation, but seeing as someone like him, who'd already led people gloriously and righteously into such A Really Bad Sin, is an apology really enough? Did he do anything tangible? Donate to organizations promoting integration? Combatting racism? Or was it just an apology? -- or maybe the "works" thing just isn't relevant when you're so damn grace filled.
I think you may have BG confused with someone else. To my knowledge, Billy never promoted or did anything remotely closely to "led people gloriously and righteously into into such A Really Bad Sin." What he did do for a period of time was pretty much what most white evangelical pastors were doing at the time-- say nothing, and when in the South, conform to the legal & social custom of segregation.

And yes, when he repented, he absolutely did something tangible-- and early on. He was one of the first and certainly the most prominent white evangelical to embrace MLK-- giving him a speaking slot in his (unfortunately named) crusades. In 1953 he broke state law to personally physically break down the rope barrier separating whites from blacks in the Tennessee stadium where his crusade was held (tellingly, he was not arrested or prosecuted as MLK would be in similar circumstances). He integrated his staff by the mid 1950s. So yes, I would say definitely tangible action.

So, to summarize:

Billy:
1. Follow common practice in conforming to/being silent re sinful cultural norms (segregation)

2. Thoughtful rebuke (by MLK)

3. Quick and meaningful turn-around (tearing down barriers)

Franklin:
1. Go well beyond common practice in promoting/advocating sinful cultural stereotypes (vilifying gays, Muslims, immigrants)

2. Thoughtful rebuke (by a whole host of evangelical leaders)

3. *crickets*

He also stood bail for MLK. Whilst Billy was political, he / the Foundation never explicitly supported a political party. The Foundation only came out for the GOP when Franklyn took over and endorsed Mitt Romney.

IMO, Franklyn wouldn't be the highest paid CEO of a US based Christian aid organisation if he didn't have a more famous dad. He certainly didn't get the job on merit.

Tubbs

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

Absolutely. It's a shame.

Billy, btw, despite his cozy relationship with Nixon and Reagan-- lifelong Democrat.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Absolutely. It's a shame.

Billy, btw, despite his cozy relationship with Nixon and Reagan-- lifelong Democrat.

A Southern Democract. Which essentially was a Republican who couldn't forgive Lincoln.
His relationship with Nixon is a bit of a stain.

[ 02. September 2016, 15:19: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A Southern Democract. Which essentially was a Republican who couldn't forgive Lincoln.

That is a massive overgeneralization. True of many (most of whom became Republicans in the Reagan era), but not true of many others.

I say this as a lifelong Southerner and a lifelong Democrat who comes from a long line of lifelong Southern Democrats.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A Southern Democract. Which essentially was a Republican who couldn't forgive Lincoln.
That is a massive overgeneralization. True of many (most of whom became Republicans in the Reagan era), but not true of many others.

I say this as a lifelong Southerner and a lifelong Democrat who comes from a long line of lifelong Southern Democrats.

Generalisation, yes. Massive? No. The reason the south became Democratic was Lincoln being Republican. Full stop.
Yes, some progressed with the times, some did not and some are in-between. IMO, you cannot drop Democrat in the south without qualifying what that means in the particular case.

Overgeneralise? Can one undergeneralise?

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Generalisation, yes. Massive? No. The reason the south became Democratic was Lincoln being Republican. Full stop.
Yes, some progressed with the times, some did not and some are in-between. IMO, you cannot drop Democrat in the south without qualifying what that means in the particular case.

But you didn't really qualify what "Democrat" means in the Southern context. You took what it could mean—and admittedly likely meant 60+ years ago, but is much less likely to mean now—and put it forward as if that's what it does mean.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

It was more a reaction to cliffdweller mention of Graham being a Democrat to imply something the term didn't mean that I was addressing. So, though I may not have been clear, I was using it contextually.
And yes, the way I phrased it tarred some good people, it was a generalisation. I am not certain I am prepared to apologise for it though.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

From my perspective, it did more than "tar some good people." It suggested that what may have been true decades ago can still safely be assumed to be true of Democrats in the South today. That simply is not the case.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It was more a reaction to cliffdweller mention of Graham being a Democrat to imply something the term didn't mean that I was addressing. So, though I may not have been clear, I was using it contextually.
And yes, the way I phrased it tarred some good people, it was a generalisation. I am not certain I am prepared to apologise for it though.

Your point about the historical shift that has happened in the South re: the Democratic party is well taken, however, I don't think it fits with Graham (just a reminder: I'm talking about
Billy Graham here). I'm fairly certain Billy is and was a Democrat in the context in which we normally think of it-- i.e. progressive social policies, and particularly the 1960s civil rights movement (when many Southern Democrats left the party) given his close relationship with MLK.

As I said before, with Franklin Graham we're talking about something else all together.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Graham's daughter Anne pontificates about 9-11. I am very impressed at the powers that gay people have. Why don't they wear spandex and fight crime, if they have such amazing gifts?

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I know that the media will pick photos which make the target look in a particular way, but she does look as if she spends her time thinking nasty thoughts, not being in communion with God*. The lines look more permanent than the chosen expression.

*Or not the one I know about. The one she thinks is such a mean-minded vindictive piece of work as to take out the innocent for a few people's minor peccadilloes, maybe.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

The look captured is irrelevant. She is ugly where it counts; on the inside.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Graham's daughter Anne pontificates about 9-11. I am very impressed at the powers that gay people have. Why don't they wear spandex and fight crime, if they have such amazing gifts?

I'm more impressed at God's willingness to use Muslims.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I know that the media will pick photos which make the target look in a particular way . . . .

I think you can stick with this.

Meanwhile, am I the only one who thinks it odd that this article goes on and on about what Anne Graham Lotz said, but fails to provide a single actual quote? We're told she "did an interview recently," but we're not told when, where or with who. We're told what the writer says she said, but not what she actually said in such a way that we can assess it on our own.

I've read some accounts of the May interview that I assume this article is referring to. What I've seen reported matches some but not nearly all of what's in this article, which makes me wonder just how much this writer is drawing on older (also unidentified) interviews, or perhaps just how much this writer is putting his own spin on what she said, taking it further than she did, and regurgitating what has circulated and been embellished upon on the internet for years.

To be clear, the actual quotes that I have seen express ideas I completely disagree with and that need to be challenged. But this is, at best, shoddy journalism. I truly have no clue how much of what's in this article can be trusted.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Nick--

That happened with Cat Stevens and his purported comments about Islam and terrorism (?), many years ago. I noticed, at the time, that there weren't actual quotes. Turned out he never said what was reported.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

To be clear, the actual quotes that I have seen express ideas I completely disagree with and that need to be challenged. But this is, at best, shoddy journalism. I truly have no clue how much of what's in this article can be trusted.

Yes, it's disheartening how crappy religious reporting in particular has become. I want to blame the lazy journalists but I think it's probably more to do with bean counters squeezing budgets.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

...gone the way of commas, real copy-editing by a trained human being, fact-checking...
[Frown]

[ 13. September 2016, 06:33: Message edited by: Golden Key ]

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

Why should anyone expect "religious reporting" of any quality from some random website like the Greenville Gazette?

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0