Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

Lady Florida.

Billy Graham has died

Recommended Posts

You’re proving the point...you’re not offended by what Billy Graham said you’re offended by what the Bible says. And that’s ok.

 

Eye rolling emojis also aren’t generally seen as respectful, FYI. So obviously our interpretations of respectful are different. I’ll leave it at that.

 

ETA no glaases while typing on small phone

 

So you believe that the Bible preaches anti-Semitism?  I find that hard to believe as Jesus was Jewish.

 

 

Or you agree that women should remain silent.  Do you cover your head or do you feel I look like a terrorist for covering mine and following the example of nearly every Biblical woman?  Do you eat pork or do you believe that a dream made everything OK?   Do you believe that a rape victim should have to marry her rapist?  Do you believe in stoning adulterers?? All Biblical.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess is that there weren't enough nasty things to say about Billy, and his son is a better target.

 

No -- for me anyway, it's not that at all.  I have a lot of respect for Billy Graham.  As others said, he had flaws, and his were probably more noticeable because he was a high profile figure.  But, he accomplished a lot of good, and his heart really seemed to be oriented toward Jesus.  He had humility.  And as I mentioned before, he seemed to have the respect from presidents from both parties, which says a lot.

 

His son, unfortunately, is very different.  He is conniving and extremely political and vocal about it, and the good he is accomplishing is overshadowed by a lot of bad stuff.  He has hurt the Christian faith in America tremendously.  And because of all of that, a lot of people naturally think of him now when they hear anything about his father.  It is a sad connection to make, but there you go.

 

I won't go into anymore details about him, but wanted to briefly respond to your comment.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You’re proving the point...you’re not offended by what Billy Graham said you’re offended by what the Bible says. And that’s ok.

 

Eye rolling emojis also aren’t generally seen as respectful, FYI. So obviously our interpretations of respectful are different. I’ll leave it at that.

 

ETA no glaases while typing on small phone

 

I agree with her and I'm Xian. I'm not offended by what the Bible says, but I clearly don't think it says the same thing you do.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have good memories of BG, watching him on TV as a kid. Just as I am is very comforting to me because of that.

 

I think he did a lot of good and he tried to do his part in God's Will. He was sometimes wrong, very wrong. He acknowledged a lot of those wrongs and I give him credit for that.

 

 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:001_rolleyes:

 

:001_rolleyes:

Ugh.  Really?   Anne Graham Lotz (whose books I read years ago and enjoyed) used to talk about her Daddy being against her preaching/teaching because she was a woman.  Is that Biblical?? Yup.  Is it still offensive to me as a woman.... yup.  And quite frankly, unless she's changed in the past 20 years, she would do a far better job running the BGEA than her brother.  

umsami.....

 

I was just literally responding to what you wrote. Maybe I misunderstood? I'm not commentating on whether I think its Biblical or not.  You said you thought it was Biblical.  And that it was offensive to you.  That's all I was trying to highlight.  To me it sounded like you are offended by the Bible, not necessarily by Billy Graham. Maybe I misunderstood?

 

I completely expect the Bible and therefore its teachers to sometimes offend those who don't follow Christ. I hope that doesn't sound weird or offensive. Its not meant that way- at all. 

 

I'm really not looking for a debate on his theology. Or anyones theology. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with her and I'm Xian. I'm not offended by what the Bible says, but I clearly don't think it says the same thing you do.

 

I think you misunderstood my post.  I was not commentating on or interpreting anything.  Neither the Bible or Billy Grahams teachings.  Or my own personal beliefs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you misunderstood my post.  I was not commentating on or interpreting anything.  Neither the Bible or Billy Grahams teachings.  Or my own personal beliefs. 

 

then your accusation to umsami doesn't make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

then your accusation to umsami doesn't make sense.

 

I think we are misunderstanding each other. 

I wasn't making an accusation rather an observation- that, to me, is indicative of a larger dynamic. And yes, I'm probably being clumsy in my speech.    

 

As someone said upthread, "It appears the most offensive thing about Billy Graham was that he was a Christian".  That was what I was trying to touch on....

 

For an unchristian person, I would expect that Billy Graham said a lot of things that were offensive. Why?  Because, if you don't believe in the Bible, there are about 1001 potentially offensive things that are taught.  Creation. Original Sin. Sacrifice. Laws/Commandments. Forgiveness. Atonement. Miracles. The Holy Spirit.

 

But if Billy Graham was simply preaching the Bible, then people's issues are really more with broad Christianity and with God- not so much the preacher man. As in 'don't blame the messenger'.

 

That's all.  

 

It's ok. It really is. I'm not upset or remotely looking for a fight and think some might be misreading my tone a bit. And that's ok. Things have been tense in our world and we are all a bit fraught. 

 

Another reason why, I'll miss Billy Graham. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you believe that the Bible preaches anti-Semitism? I find that hard to believe as Jesus was Jewish.

 

 

Or you agree that women should remain silent. Do you cover your head or do you feel I look like a terrorist for covering mine and following the example of nearly every Biblical woman? Do you eat pork or do you believe that a dream made everything OK? Do you believe that a rape victim should have to marry her rapist? Do you believe in stoning adulterers?? All Biblical.

I’ve really lost your point. Should we list out all the things that we disagree with in a holy text when a prominent figure in that religion dies? Does that sound like something you would enjoy to be on the receiving end of? With eye roll emojis thrown in? Under the banner of “respect?â€

 

Surely you could pause for a moment and consider your posts more carefully.

 

And I would like to clarify that I feel several people did attempt to handle their personal feelings respectfully. Others didn’t at all. But for everyone there was at least one comment on things he did that weren’t wrong, they were just him living out his Christian faith.

 

That is what my one sentence response was about.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quoting is not working for me right now, so....

 

8circles....I started to love the old gospel songs because of his TV crusades.  The Gaithers?  Much more peppy and fun than the slow paced organ backed hymns we sang in the Presbyterian church.   When I finally went to a church with contemporary worship, I was so so happy.  Unfortunately, the church of my youth didn't get a contemporary service until years after I left.  

 

 

LariaB....maybe we misunderstood each other  I'm sorry.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears that most offensive thing about Billy Graham is that he is a Christian.

To me the most offensive thing about him was his ugly, vicious anti-Semitism. That he claimed regret when caught (after denying he had ever spoken that way) did not make me feel safer or more respected as a Jew around his admirers.

 

Much less visceral is my offense at his approach to 'sharing the word'. I have great respect for many Christians and how they embody and share their faith, but none at all for the patronizing, saccharine, (in my eyes) false production I saw from him and his ilk.I

 

It is distressing to have the negative feelings share here dismissed as anti-Christian when they have been clearly naming specifics that are not true of Christianity as a whole. (That distress is the only reason I am posting here. I understand that what looks large to me is trivial to those more in alignment with his less offensive qualities and I am very sorry for your loss.)

  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No -- for me anyway, it's not that at all.  I have a lot of respect for Billy Graham.  As others said, he had flaws, and his were probably more noticeable because he was a high profile figure.  But, he accomplished a lot of good, and his heart really seemed to be oriented toward Jesus.  He had humility.  And as I mentioned before, he seemed to have the respect from presidents from both parties, which says a lot.

 

His son, unfortunately, is very different.  He is conniving and extremely political and vocal about it, and the good he is accomplishing is overshadowed by a lot of bad stuff.  He has hurt the Christian faith in America tremendously.  And because of all of that, a lot of people naturally think of him now when they hear anything about his father.  It is a sad connection to make, but there you go.

 

I won't go into anymore details about him, but wanted to briefly respond to your comment.

 

My point was that this thread was about Billy Graham, but it has turned into a thread about Franklin instead.  People should be able to talk about one without it turning into talk about the other.  At a funeral or wake, people talk about the person who has died, not their good-for-nothing children - obviously this is different, with room for differing thoughts on the person's life.  But the two men are not interchangeable and who the son turned out to be has nothing to do with who the father was

 

I don't need to be educated about what kind of a person Franklin is.  That's not the point either.  

Edited by marbel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These days if you disagree with someone or something you are immediately accused of hating them or it. It seems to be that way in everything now.

 

ETA I think this is why it seems impossible to have a reasoned debate about anything anymore because as soon as you disagree you are deemed to be showing hate. I for one am sick of it.

 

Um, it seems to me that the people who think BG was some sort of evil man are the ones being one-sided here.  The language has been pretty extreme, and I would say hateful without using any hyperbole from at least one poster.  

 

No-one from what I can see thinks he, or anyone else, was a paragon of perfection, or said anything hateful about anyone.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we are misunderstanding each other. 

I wasn't making an accusation rather an observation- that, to me, is indicative of a larger dynamic. And yes, I'm probably being clumsy in my speech.    

 

As someone said upthread, "It appears the most offensive thing about Billy Graham was that he was a Christian".  That was what I was trying to touch on....

 

For an unchristian person, I would expect that Billy Graham said a lot of things that were offensive. Why?  Because, if you don't believe in the Bible, there are about 1001 potentially offensive things that are taught.  Creation. Original Sin. Sacrifice. Laws/Commandments. Forgiveness. Atonement. Miracles. The Holy Spirit.

 

But if Billy Graham was simply preaching the Bible, then people's issues are really more with broad Christianity and with God- not so much the preacher man. As in 'don't blame the messenger'.

 

That's all.  

 

It's ok. It really is. I'm not upset or remotely looking for a fight and think some might be misreading my tone a bit. And that's ok. Things have been tense in our world and we are all a bit fraught. 

 

Another reason why, I'll miss Billy Graham. 

 

Umsami is not a Xian. You cannot expect her to use the proper lingo to fit your worldview/religion. Biblical has more than one meaning. 1) it is in the Bible. 2) it's what the Bible says/means.

 

If you read the words of someone who is not a xian without graciousness to understand what they are actually saying it comes across as a "gotcha". That's what it sounded like to me. Umsami was not making a statement about xianity, but about BG.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me the most offensive thing about him was his ugly, vicious anti-Semitism. That he claimed regret when caught (after denying he had ever spoken that way) did not make me feel safer or more respected as a Jew around his admirers.

 

Much less visceral is my offense at his approach to 'sharing the word'. I have great respect for many Christians and how they embody and share their faith, but none at all for the patronizing, saccharine, (in my eyes) false production I saw from him and his ilk.I

 

It is distressing to have the negative feelings share here dismissed as anti-Christian when they have been clearly naming specifics that are not true of Christianity as a whole. (That distress is the only reason I am posting here. I understand that what looks large to me is trivial to those more in alignment with his less offensive qualities and I am very sorry for your loss.)

 

Eliana, I think you've explained it very well and I share this view as well, even as a xian, when I actually think about who he was. 

 

I don't think you've been disrespectful and I don't hear criticism of xianity. Thank you for sharing your perspective.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quoting is not working for me right now, so....

 

8circles....I started to love the old gospel songs because of his TV crusades.  The Gaithers?  Much more peppy and fun than the slow paced organ backed hymns we sang in the Presbyterian church.   When I finally went to a church with contemporary worship, I was so so happy.  Unfortunately, the church of my youth didn't get a contemporary service until years after I left.  

 

 

 

Oh, the Gaithers... Not really my thing anymore but they feed me like comfort food sometimes. My parents still spend hours watching their concerts. I knew that DH was a keeper when he could spend all day with my parents, listening to the Gaithers, and not lose his mind.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quoting is not working for me right now, so....

 

8circles....I started to love the old gospel songs because of his TV crusades.  The Gaithers?  Much more peppy and fun than the slow paced organ backed hymns we sang in the Presbyterian church.   When I finally went to a church with contemporary worship, I was so so happy.  Unfortunately, the church of my youth didn't get a contemporary service until years after I left.  

 

 

LariaB....maybe we misunderstood each other  I'm sorry.

 

I was in Myrtle Beach with 2 of my very dearest girlfriends from my growing up years.  We were sitting at a seafood restaurant trying to decide what to do with our day.  The food took forever to get to us, so one of my friends (who is more outgoing with strangers than I am) struck up a conversation with the older two couples sitting at the table next to us.  They were probably mid-70s.  

 

Anway, they told us they were in town for a Gaither concert.  I think we scared them because ALL 3 of us squealed in delight and exclaimed at the same time, "They GAITHERS are in town?"

 

We all grew up with the Gaithers' music in our homes.

 

They then told us that another two couples had planned to come along but couldn't because of health issues, and wondered if we would like their tickets to come for that evening's performance.  

 

I think they were so happy to have someone use the tickets.  We sat with them since the tickets had assigned seats, and we all sang along and had the best evening with new found friends.

 

I am quite sure we were the youngest there!  

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was in Myrtle Beach with 2 of my very dearest girlfriends from my growing up years.  We were sitting at a seafood restaurant trying to decide what to do with our day.  The food took forever to get to us, so one of my friends (who is more outgoing with strangers than I am) struck up a conversation with the older two couples sitting at the table next to us.  They were probably mid-70s.  

 

Anway, they told us they were in town for a Gaither concert.  I think we scared them because ALL 3 of us squealed in delight and exclaimed at the same time, "They GAITHERS are in town?"

 

We all grew up with the Gaithers' music in our homes.

 

They then told us that another two couples had planned to come along but couldn't because of health issues, and wondered if we would like their tickets to come for that evening's performance.  

 

I think they were so happy to have someone use the tickets.  We sat with them since the tickets had assigned seats, and we all sang along and had the best evening with new found friends.

 

I am quite sure we were the youngest there!  

 

Oh, what a great story! LOVE IT.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, the Gaithers... Not really my thing anymore but they feed me like comfort food sometimes. My parents still spend hours watching their concerts. I knew that DH was a keeper when he could spend all day with my parents, listening to the Gaithers, and not lose his mind.

 

That is pretty much me too.  I dont' listen to them on my own, but they are a comfort of "home" because my parents loved them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point was that this thread was about Billy Graham, but it has turned into a thread about Franklin instead.  People should be able to talk about one without it turning into talk about the other.  At a funeral or wake, people talk about the person who has died, not their good-for-nothing children - obviously this is different, with room for differing thoughts on the person's life.  But the two men are not interchangeable and who the son turned out to be has nothing to do with who the father was

 

I don't need to be educated about what kind of a person Franklin is.  That's not the point either.  

 

Ok, I understand.  I was more trying to explain why I thought the son's character was coming up in this thread at all.  I guess it's just such a strong connection that automatically takes place in people's minds as a result of the contrast of character between father and son.  I wasn't really justifying the change in direction, just giving my thoughts on why it was happening.

 

I'm sure no one here would be going in that direction if they were actually at the wake or funeral.  

 

(Didn't mean to offend you.)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me the most offensive thing about him was his ugly, vicious anti-Semitism. That he claimed regret when caught (after denying he had ever spoken that way) did not make me feel safer or more respected as a Jew around his admirers.

 

Much less visceral is my offense at his approach to 'sharing the word'. I have great respect for many Christians and how they embody and share their faith, but none at all for the patronizing, saccharine, (in my eyes) false production I saw from him and his ilk.I

 

It is distressing to have the negative feelings share here dismissed as anti-Christian when they have been clearly naming specifics that are not true of Christianity as a whole. (That distress is the only reason I am posting here. I understand that what looks large to me is trivial to those more in alignment with his less offensive qualities and I am very sorry for your loss.)

This. He denied the things he said, calling Nixon's aide a liar, until the tapes came out. Then, suddenly he was embarrassed and falling all over himself to apologize and he didn't really feel that way, he was just going along with what Nixon said... What kind of spiritual advisor would do that? Not to mention his proposal to Nixon that he commit war crimes in Vietnam and kill a million people. And the fact that by passing on the mantle to his vile son and not condemning his words and actions, he indicated to his followers that Franklin had his blessing and support to do what he's done.

Everyone has good in them and everyone has bad in them. To pretend that someone was a saint just because they're dead does history no favors. If we can't look at the departed as whole individuals, warts and all, we do a disservice to ourselves.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This. He denied the things he said, calling Nixon's aide a liar, until the tapes came out. Then, suddenly he was embarrassed and falling all over himself to apologize and he didn't really feel that way, he was just going along with what Nixon said... What kind of spiritual advisor would do that? Not to mention his proposal to Nixon that he commit war crimes in Vietnam and kill a million people. And the fact that by passing on the mantle to his vile son and not condemning his words and actions, he indicated to his followers that Franklin had his blessing and support to do what he's done.

Everyone has good in them and everyone has bad in them. To pretend that someone was a saint just because they're dead does history no favors. If we can't look at the departed as whole individuals, warts and all, we do a disservice to ourselves.

I don’t think anyone in this thread has even remotely suggested that Billy Graham was “a saint.â€

 

Everyone seems to be acknowledging that he had some serious flaws.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite sure none of us have heaven all figured out.

Oh I agree..makes it even more fun to look forward to.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked Billy Graham. My husband & I attended one of his crusades in Nashville many years ago & enjoyed it. I am happy he was able to live such a long life and have such an amazing impact on so many people. He did a lot more good than bad, and I can only pray at the end of my life I will also have contributed more than I consumed.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked Billy Graham. My husband & I attended one of his crusades in Nashville many years ago & enjoyed it. I am happy he was able to live such a long life and have such an amazing impact on so many people. He did a lot more good than bad, and I can only pray at the end of my life I will also have contributed more than I consumed.

 

 

Words to live by.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, it seems to me that the people who think BG was some sort of evil man are the ones being one-sided here.  The language has been pretty extreme, and I would say hateful without using any hyperbole from at least one poster.  

 

No-one from what I can see thinks he, or anyone else, was a paragon of perfection, or said anything hateful about anyone.

 

I agree with you and I thought that was what I was saying but maybe I didn't express it well.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you and I thought that was what I was saying but maybe I didn't express it well.

 

Or I didn't read it well.  It's not hard to misinterpret written conversations, I'd say.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You missed the point then.

What was the point then?

 

The article was a negative opinion piece.

 

What, he should have a SJW instead?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My dad became a Christian in college because of a Billy Graham book, plus a roommate named Jonas.  My world is different because those two people were in it.  

 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting read. Sutton appears to assume to know what God's stance is on environmental issues.

This and and he said Graham was against civil rights focusing on changing laws rather than changing hearts. I agree with Graham on this. Laws are a prison. It cages people from acting on their hatefulness but does nothing to change their hearts. I get changing laws, in some instances it is absolutely warranted. However, yelling, forcing and bullying people into submission and quietness is terrifying. It often just adds to hardening hearts. You never know what is lurking beneath the waters. Heart change is the only change that matters at the root. I am glad BG understood this and did what he could. If we all worked so tirelessly to change the hearts of those around us the world would be such a better place.

Edited by nixpix5
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Eliana for your post. As usual, you are able to express my own feelings and thoughts in a way that I'm not good at doing.

 

Those who think everyone who didn't like Billy Graham because we're anti-Christian aren't seeing what we didn't like about him. Many of us have loved ones who are Christian. Many of our Christian loved ones do not espouse the views he did, though I'm sure some non-Christians here have relatives who do. It's not his religion we're against. It's how he practiced it. It's his hypocrisy we find unpalatable.

 

 

This and and he said Graham was against civil rights focusing on changing laws rather than changing hearts. I agree with Graham on this. Laws are a prison. It cages people from acting on their hatefulness but does nothing to change their hearts. I get changing laws, in some instances it is absolutely warranted. However, yelling, forcing and bullying people into submission and quietness is terrifying. It often just adds to hardening hearts. You never know what is lurking beneath the waters. Heart change is the only change that matters at the root. I am glad BG understood this and did what he could. If we all worked so tirelessly to change the hearts of those around us the world would be such a better place.

 

I'm going to guess you and most of the people who frequent WTM were not alive when segregation was legal and people were fighting to keep it legal. There are only a handful of us here who remember those laws and we were kids, but surely you studied them in history classes at some point. If not, hopefully you educated yourself to fill in the gaps, as we all tend to do. 

 

Do you really and truly think segregation would have ended when it did if not for laws? Yes, the bus boycott had an effect on the bus system's bottom line but the segregation really only ended when a federal court ruled that it was illegal. How long do you think it would have taken for black children to be welcomed, or at least accepted in "whites only" schools if not for forced busing? 

 

The saying is that you can't legislate morality but often it turns out you can and you should.

 

Who today, besides white supremecists think it's moral to have whites only water fountains and to deny service to someone because of the color of their skin? Who today but the most bigoted still thinks interracial marriage is immoral? The laws came first, the acceptance that it was the right thing to do came later. The thought that it's horrifying to think forced segregation was once legal only came several generations later. I'm not saying race relations are fine but people sitting on a bus today with people of every color sitting where they want don't think anything of it. Kids in school with kids of other races don't think anything of it. But it took laws or the striking down of segregation laws to get there. It took years of enforcing laws for people to stop fighting against it. How long would it have taken for "heart change" if not for those laws. Would it have been worth waiting for that to happen? I doubt any person of color would say yes, we should have been kept out of your bathrooms and restaurants and hotels and schools, and, and, and, until you decided you wanted us there.

 

That can be applied to more than just civil rights, but it's the one you said you agreed with Graham on, so it's the one I used. 

 

 

Edited by Lady Florida.
  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Do you really and truly think segregation would have ended when it did if not for laws? Yes, the bus boycott had an effect on the bus system's bottom line but the segregation really only ended when a federal court ruled that it was illegal. How long do you think it would have taken for black children to be welcomed, or at least accepted in "whites only" schools if not for forced busing? 

 

 

 

No, I think laws are necessary many times as nixpix5 pointed out but if we just have laws and do not change the hearts of the people we may end up with people whose only restraint is external and fragile - the law and who have little internal structure governing their actions. 

People always find ways around the law or take the risk to be punished by the law. But if you believe stealing is wrong, you will have an internal conviction not to steal which is more powerful than any law.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, yelling, forcing and bullying people into submission and quietness is terrifying.

 

Who are you referring to who yelled and forced and bullied people into submission and quietness? You used Civil Rights in your post so maybe I'm hyper-focusing on that and it isn't what you mean.

 

However, if you read that article you would have read that he thought MLK, Jr. should have pulled back. King wasn't yelling or forcing or bullying anyone into anything. He practiced, and encouraged his followers to practice civil disobedience. He petitioned the government for changes in laws. He asked that  African Americans be guaranteed their rights as Americans. But that was too much for Graham.

 

Once leaders like Martin Luther King Jr began practicing civil disobedience and asking for the federal government to guarantee African Americans’ rights, Graham’s support evaporated.

Within days of the publication of King’s famous 1963 Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Graham told reporters that the Baptist minister should “put the brakes on a little bitâ€.

He criticized civil rights activists for focusing on changing laws rather than hearts.

Edited by Lady Florida.
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Eliana for your post. As usual, you are able to express my own feelings and thoughts in a way that I'm not good at doing.

 

Those who think everyone who didn't like Billy Graham because we're anti-Christian aren't seeing what we didn't like about him. Many of us have loved ones who are Christian. Many of our Christian loved ones do not espouse the views he did, though I'm sure some non-Christians here have relatives who do. It's not his religion we're against. It's how he practiced it. It's his hypocrisy we find unpalatable.

 

 

 

I'm going to guess you and most of the people who frequent WTM were not alive when segregation was legal and people were fighting to keep it legal. There are only a handful of us here who remember those laws and we were kids, but surely you studied them in history classes at some point. If not, hopefully you educated yourself to fill in the gaps, as we all tend to do.

 

Do you really and truly think segregation would have ended when it did if not for laws? Yes, the bus boycott had an effect on the bus system's bottom line but the segregation really only ended when a federal court ruled that it was illegal. How long do you think it would have taken for black children to be welcomed, or at least accepted in "whites only" schools if not for forced busing?

 

The saying is that you can't legislate morality but often it turns out you can and you should.

 

Who today, besides white supremecists think it's moral to have whites only water fountains and to deny service to someone because of the color of their skin? Who today but the most bigoted still thinks interracial marriage is immoral? The laws came first, the acceptance that it was the right thing to do came later. The thought that it's horrifying to think forced segregation was once legal only came several generations later. I'm not saying race relations are fine but people sitting on a bus today with people of every color sitting where they want don't think anything of it. Kids in school with kids of other races don't think anything of it. But it took laws or the striking down of segregation laws to get there. It took years of enforcing laws for people to stop fighting against it. How long would it have taken for "heart change" if not for those laws. Would it have been worth waiting for that to happen? I doubt any person of color would say yes, we should have been kept out of your bathrooms and restaurants and hotels and schools, and, and, and, until you decided you wanted us there.

 

That can be applied to more than just civil rights, but it's the one you said you agreed with Graham on, so it's the one I used.

I agree. I recall reading that it took until 30 years (!) after the law allowed interracial marriage for a majority of adult Americans to think it was ok. Just think of all the people denied the right to marry (and live where they wanted) had we waited for people’s hearts to change.
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If any of you would like to take a look at some local-ish, NC coverage on Rev. Graham, this is a good site:

 

http://www.wral.com/billy-graham/17361025/?navkeyword=Billy+Graham+

 

My mom asked me if I would be watching the processional.  Um, no Mom, I am not going to park a mile away, walk to a location, and stand there for an hour waiting for a car to drive by.

 

Besides, I am blissfully out of town visiting my college boy.

 

I did look a little online, but I couldn't watch the full 1.5 hours of cars driving down the road.  

 

Kind of glad I am out of town this weekend, it was very hard to get around in Charlotte yesterday I was told.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My mom asked me if I would be watching the processional. Um, no Mom, I am not going to park a mile away, walk to a location, and stand there for an hour waiting for a car to drive by.

 

Besides, I am blissfully out of town visiting my college boy.

 

I did look a little online, but I couldn't watch the full 1.5 hours of cars driving down the road.

 

Kind of glad I am out of town this weekend, it was very hard to get around in Charlotte yesterday I was told.

I watched about two minutes, just because the feed was there when I checked the news. I turned it off because, well, it was boring, but also because the idea of helicopters following a funeral procession seemed disrespectful to me. I know he was a public figure, but not all of his family is. I know I think of these things since my parents died, whereas before that might not have occurred to me. I hope they have had some private time as a family.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...