Jump to content
IGNORED

Billy Graham Dead at 99


Cleopatra7

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, ophelia said:

Never heard of this rule before and it sounds insanely stupid.

Just another proof that all these manly man fundies who want to rule the world are actually crybabies in suits. 

I never of this "rule" either until Pence become VP.  I saw an article about it (Christian publication, of course) that supported it as a good idea for married couples to be "accountable" to each other but seriously, what does it say about the guy and his ideas about women?   About his religious organization and their ideas about women? 

I agree, crybabies in suits.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

My dad kind of followed a variant of it. We're from a small town so he didn't want people to gossip and hurt my mom. If a wo man was alone and was in his office the door was ALWAYS open. Of course this also protected him against any false accusations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, EmiGirl said:

My dad kind of followed a variant of it. We're from a small town so he didn't want people to gossip and hurt my mom. If a wo man was alone and was in his office the door was ALWAYS open. Of course this also protected him against any false accusations. 

This is how I've always looked at that rule. It's what my husband does at work--he's a teacher, and if he has to talk to a student alone, the door is always wide open and he makes sure to stay in plain view of the hallway outside. Of course, that goes for male and female alike, he doesn't differentiate.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Granwych said:

I want to read Christopher Hitchens' book on Mother Teresa even though I know Il'' be majorly disillusioned.

Hitchens did a TV version of his book on Mother Teresa, though it never aired in the US for obvious reasons. You can find it on YouTube though. I think it’s called “Mother Teresa: Hell’s Angel.” The accusations against her can be summed up as follows:

1. She and her sisters used substandard care for the people in her facilities (not using the most basic painkillers for the dying, reusing dull needles, not using a washing machine for cleaning soiled laundry, tying disabled people to beds) even as she got the best Western medicine when she got sick.

2. Knowingly receiving money from shady characters, like the Duvalier family and the Savings and Loan guy whose name escapes me.

3. Fetishizing poverty without doing anything to make poor people be less poor.m, especially with regard to her anti-abortion/anti-contraception views

4. Not being transparent about the financial details of the Missionaries of Charity. The MCs are probably one of the richest religious orders in the world, but no one knows how the money is spent. Ex-sisters have said that the order will let donations, both of money and medical equipment, from rich Westerners just go to waste in storage facilities because the Mother Teresa’s fetishization of poverty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Loveday said:

This is how I've always looked at that rule. It's what my husband does at work--he's a teacher, and if he has to talk to a student alone, the door is always wide open and he makes sure to stay in plain view of the hallway outside. Of course, that goes for male and female alike, he doesn't differentiate.

 

The Pence publicity has kind of given this "rule" a misrepresentation and a bad feel -- no, don't attack me. I do understand the issues.

There is a form of it, like @EmiGirl and @Loveday describe, that I would just call - doing the right thing (whether you are male or female). Some interactions, such as the teacher/student ones described above, are better for everyone if they are not too private. IMO This statement applies to male:female, female:male, same gender, etc. Wiser to protect everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, ophelia said:

Never heard of this rule before and it sounds insanely stupid.

It is insanely stupid. These people are paranoid misogynist asshats.

This is, BTW, the "rule" that Pence cites in refusing to dine alone with a woman:

Quote

Times have changed, and so has the rule, meaning that today a righteous man must think about how to avoid female company even in scenarios that don’t involve a honey trap. But the jezebel mentality persists. “For one thing, if I’m meeting with a woman, then there’s a temptation that maybe it could be something more,” Will [Graham's evangelist grandson] said, when asked why dinners posed a risk. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/22/2018 at 5:58 PM, LilMissMetaphor said:

I know.  There are always exceptions.  My dad was born in rural Calvinist Holland in 1940.  Still expected all his daughters to sign up for shop classes and take mechanical aptitude tests along with the boys...and going to university wasn't even a choice, we had to :), no SAHDs happening in our family.  But I still think your average man, even if personally inclined to see woman as his natural equal, may still be swayed negatively towards chauvinism by cultural conditioning (depending on the era he's born into and society he's surrounded by.)   

 

I agree with you that it's probably not the norm back then. 

As of 2015, per the census, 88% of people graduated high school and about 60% have postsecondary education of some type, but just 33% have a bachelor's degree or higher and just 12% listed as having a master and/or doctorate. In 1940, per the census, the rate of bachelor's or higher was just 4.6%. It's increased since, slowly, but even in the 1950s and 60s, most people were not getting an a college degree. I didn't look at the rates of men to women, but I would figure that more men than women received a bachelor's or higher back in the 40s and 50s (it's about even as of 2015).

I mean, that's great YOUR (general your) family insisted their children go to college and I am glad. However, let's be a little more realistic that most people in the past were less likely to attend in general. Let's also not pretend that most men of the past weren't quite misogynistic by today's standards. 

None of this said to defend Billy Graham at all. Only said to note that back in the time period we are discussing, if you went to college, you were the minority. You still are if you are get a bachelor's or higher. None of this means Billy Graham wasn't kinda (okay, more than kinda) an asshole. His son seems like bigger asshole though. 

Also to those who swear Billy Graham was already dead. I thought he was already dead a few years ago and was surprised to hear he was still alive. It's one known Mandela effect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dairyfreelife said:

Let's also not pretend that most men of the past weren't quite misogynistic by today's standards. 

Yup, that's what I was saying.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Loveday said:

This is how I've always looked at that rule. It's what my husband does at work--he's a teacher, and if he has to talk to a student alone, the door is always wide open and he makes sure to stay in plain view of the hallway outside. Of course, that goes for male and female alike, he doesn't differentiate.

 

That is recommended to teachers and other school staff not only to protect the staff member, but to protect the students. But I don't see it as a "variation" on the Graham rule. It does not discriminate based on gender and it does not require the teacher (or pastor) to avoid meeting with anyone. Those who practice the Graham rule that I have encountered do not care if the door is open or closed, they are not going to be in the room with the person and it only applies to women. My departmental co-worker was not the only man in the building at Christian school who lived by the Graham rule; he was just the only one I had to deal with on professional matters. It literally meant, for these men, that if a female student wanted to come ask a question on their plan period when they were alone in the room, she could not come in unless she brought another student or staff member with her. Didn't matter if the door was open. Those teachers were not going to be in a room alone with a female colleague or student. Male students, on the other hand, were free to come and go whenever. That is a far cry from leaving the door open for transparency. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, louisa05 said:

That is recommended to teachers and other school staff not only to protect the staff member, but to protect the students. But I don't see it as a "variation" on the Graham rule. It does not discriminate based on gender and it does not require the teacher (or pastor) to avoid meeting with anyone. Those who practice the Graham rule that I have encountered do not care if the door is open or closed, they are not going to be in the room with the person and it only applies to women. My departmental co-worker was not the only man in the building at Christian school who lived by the Graham rule; he was just the only one I had to deal with on professional matters. It literally meant, for these men, that if a female student wanted to come ask a question on their plan period when they were alone in the room, she could not come in unless she brought another student or staff member with her. Didn't matter if the door was open. Those teachers were not going to be in a room alone with a female colleague or student. Male students, on the other hand, were free to come and go whenever. That is a far cry from leaving the door open for transparency. 

What a *swell* way to keep the women in their place. 

And I’m  well aware that my dad’s attitude was not the rule. I just wanted to give *him* props for equipping *all* his kids for the best life possible.

BDJB told me about the Graham Rule, simply explaining that it would eliminate the possibility of Graham being falsely accused.  I wonder if my dad ever considered that the rule would be used to exclude women.  Hard to say. I used to think BDJB was a straight down the line, conservative Lutheran. Maybe he was more of a freethinker than I imagined. Or maybe pockets of L’ism have gone loony.  Other pockets have women distributing the Communion elements and reading from the lectern, so....there’s that. Unheard of in my youth  

Sorry to threadjack. Just had to see my dad mentioned as a possible freethinker, in “ink.”

;-)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having an open door policy for everyone (male/female students, teachers, leaders, congregants, whoever) when meetings happen in a space where one has authority over the other is smart. It keeps the person with authority and the person without authority safe (from harm, from accusation, from rumors). It's a good plan in general, as long as it's not selectively enforced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a great assessment of Billy's legacy, specifically as it concerns his son Franklin....

Quote

Billy Graham was an amazing evangelist and brought evangelism into modern America making the Grahams a household name. He believed that God was not a part of any political party.

The saying goes, “the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.” Where Franklin Graham is concerned, he not only fell very far, but rolled down a hill, through a steaming pile of horseshit, and stunk up the entire orchard. His father preached that God is love. He preached about faith and hope. Franklin is a political hack who preaches the fear of Muslims and hate for homosexuals.

Franklin Graham used the Bible to help Donald Trump win the white evangelical vote. He once proclaimed that Barack Obama wasn’t a Christian, but rather an undercover Muslim. Franklin seems to make no apologies for his words being no where near to the truth of scripture.

He, along with the Falwell family, have turned evangelicalism into a right-wing, hate spewing enterprise from what was once so deeply spiritual.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@47of74, per an NPR interview, some people believe that Billy’s later and more extreme writings were really written by Franklin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, my first thought when I heard Billy died was "Oh great, now Franklin is going to be even MORE insufferable."  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[mention=21952]47of74[/mention], per an NPR interview, some people believe that Billy’s later and more extreme writings were really written by Franklin.


Yeah it wouldn’t surprise me that Franklin ghost wrote Billy’s later writings and used his father’s name to spread hate. If that was the case Franklin is even more of a douche cannon fornicate stick jerk dipshit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/22/2018 at 5:47 PM, louisa05 said:

 The first thing I think of regarding Billy Graham is the misogynistic and abhorrent "Billy Graham Rule". Mike Pence has brought it to the forefront again. For those who don't recall, it is the practice of a married man never being alone in any setting whatsoever with a woman other than one's spouse.

Not true. It was a personal rule about not *socialising* alone with another woman while he was on the road away from his wife. It didn't mean he could never have a conversation with a woman, it just meant he wouldn't be taking a woman to dinner alone. I think it just means protection for him and the woman, rather than discrimination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Hane said:

@47of74, per an NPR interview, some people believe that Billy’s later and more extreme writings were really written by Franklin.

I think that's probably true. I can't remember where I read it, but Billy himself and others said that he became more tolerant as he aged. He spoke about meeting with people from other faiths and getting along with them, whereas in his early days he would have considered even talking to them as bordering on heresy.

People have talked about him being more moderate, but I think that depends on what you mean. He was definitely not moderate in his faith; he firmly believed the Bible and never deviated in his preaching. He was morally very conservative. But he was moderate in the sense of wanting to be all things to all people for the sake of having an opportunity to preach. He met with presidents regardless of whether or not he agreed with their political stance, because he was attempting to talk about faith with them, not endorse their policies. I think that's why he didn't criticise often. He wasn't trying to influence their social attitudes, but to turn them to Jesus. I don't know if this is how he would explain it, but I see it as, the evangelist (Billy) presents the faith, and then the social justice and change issues come under discipleship, which would be done by the church pastor/teacher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm kinda amazed at how people try to excuse him. The guy was a fundie. He was a "nice," charismatic fundie, but still a fundie. Was he against racism? Sure, but I would point out that even PP has a multi-racial congregation. It's a pretty low bar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On February 21, 2018 at 7:27 PM, Gnomewizard said:

I may be alone but I am not sad by his death and I am worried by the saint status he is given, people would be wise to not put him on a pedestal. The world has not lost a hero or a messenger of jesus. The world has lost another religious bigot and messenger of hate. May he rot in hell.

You're not alone.  I don't believe in hell but wouldn't shed a tear if he comes back as a gay man (and due to my beliefs on time, that could mean him coming back as a gay man during the 40s/50s).  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BobTheWalrus said:

He wasn't trying to influence their social attitudes, but to turn them to Jesus.

Except by "turning them to Jesus" he would also be changing them to more conservative, republican politics. He wasn't exactly trying to turn them to the Jesus that welcomed gay people with open arms. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/billy-graham-leaves-painful-legacy-lgbtq-people-n850031

 

Quote

Graham was perhaps the most important figure foundation-builder for the evangelical coalition that came together in the late 1970s as the Christian Right,"


:

Quote

 

This was a man who, advocates argue, may not have been extremely outspoken on LGBTQ people, but he left behind an institutional apparatus that has done structural damage to the community.

His organization, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, is part of that institutional apparatus. Now spearheaded by his son Franklin Graham, it has provided a platform for virulent homophobia and support for anti-LGBTQ initiatives.

 

Later he did admit that he shouldn't have gotten so involved in politics, but the damage is still done. Graham helped pave the path to the America we now have where evangelicals rise up in support of a monster just because he promises them the power they want. 

From what I can tell he never changed his mind on gay people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not true. It was a personal rule about not *socialising* alone with another woman while he was on the road away from his wife. It didn't mean he could never have a conversation with a woman, it just meant he wouldn't be taking a woman to dinner alone. I think it just means protection for him and the woman, rather than discrimination.


No. It included any setting. And the men I know who use it apply it to any setting and any unrelated female. It doesn’t mean no conversations ever. It means someone else must be present. It is the Duggar chaperone for courtship rule applied to all of life. And, yes, it can easily become discriminatory in the workplace.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is Billy Graham's rule:

Quote

We pledged among ourselves to avoid any situation that would have even the appearance of compromise or suspicion. From that day on, I did not travel, meet or eat alone with a woman other than my wife. 

When men follow this rule it cuts down on jobs and opportunities for women. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, formergothardite said:

When men follow this rule it cuts down on jobs and opportunities for women. 

Exactly. When Mike Pence hired a chief of staff, no women need apply as he may have to travel, dine or meet alone with the person in that job. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if any DC-area fundies have made the trek to Capitol Hill today to pay their respects to Billy Graham in the Capitol Rotunda? They could combine it with a visit to the Museum of the Bible!

 If Joshie Duggar still worked nearby he'd be all over that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@HereticHick, yep, I agree Joshley would totally be there at the Capitol.  And with Anna plus kids in tow as well. 

On 2/27/2018 at 9:51 AM, Terrie said:

I'm kinda amazed at how people try to excuse him. The guy was a fundie. He was a "nice," charismatic fundie, but still a fundie. Was he against racism? Sure, but I would point out that even PP has a multi-racial congregation. It's a pretty low bar

Never cared for evangelists in general, but did think of Rev. Graham as one of the "nicer" ones.   Had no doubt that he lived by a strong moral code and while he could be moderate on some issues and bucked his fundie peers over race, overall I thought back even in my young, idealistic days that his involvement with presidents and politics blurred the separation of church and state in government and was not comfortable with that.   So I had mixed feelings about him.  On one hand he did take a stand on racism but on the other hand, he did some real damage.

Here's an interesting article from the Guardian about this and I think it's spot on: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/21/billy-graham-wrong-side-history

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.