Graham is a registered Democrat* who refused to join Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority in 1979, saying: "I'm for morality, but morality goes beyond sex to human freedom and social justice.”
Graham has had a personal audience with every sitting United States President since Harry S. Truman.
Born with little means on a dairy farm, Graham became president of Northwestern College at age 30. He turned down a $5M contract from NBC to continue his touring revivals, and has been careful to take reasonable compensation far below what other television evangelists would later receive.
He took bold steps such as opposing segregation during the 1960s and refused to speak to segregated auditoriums, tearing down ropes that organizers had erected to separate the audience. He told audiences "There is no scriptural basis for segregation.” Graham paid bail money to secure the release of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., from jail during the 1960s civil rights struggle; he invited King to join him in the pulpit at his 16-week revival in New York City in 1957.
During the Cold War, Graham became the first evangelist of note to speak behind the Iron Curtain, addressing large crowds in countries throughout Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union, calling for peace. During the Apartheid era, Graham consistently refused to visit South Africa until its government finally allowed attending audiences to sit desegregated. His first crusade there was in 1973, during which he openly denounced apartheid.
Graham has made anti-semitic comments about the Jewish people having too much influence on the media. He subsequently met with and apologized to Jewish leaders. While these remarks stained his credibility, he also won support from Jews because of his longtime support of Israel and his refusal to join in calls for conversion of the Jews. He was honored by the American Jewish Committee with its National Interreligious Award for his efforts on behalf of Jewish-Christian relations; the committee called him one of the century's greatest Christian friends of Jews.
Warren has been anything but a friend to Jews.
Graham has won awards for public service and for work on behalf of children and race relations.
Rick Warren is a bestselling author who has not been a friend to civil rights. While he has made admirable efforts towards poverty and environmentalism, he has focused significant attention, unlike Graham, to his anti-choice and –gay marriage positions. Warren equates pro-choice to denial of the holocaust.
Graham has been criticized by evangelists for being too supportive of gay rights and for not taking a stand on homosexuality being a sin:
“Graham even finds it difficult to take a truly Christian position on moral issues. When in Portland for the aforementioned 9/92 Crusade, Graham had the unique opportunity to declare that homosexuality is sin. He was asked about his position on Oregon's upcoming (11/92) statewide referendum that would declare homosexuality abnormal, and would thereby prohibit government support of it. Rather than giving a clear answer from the Bible, Graham played the politician:
‘I find it is emotional, with strong arguments on both sides of the issue. I intend to stay out of national and local politics while here. God loves all people whatever their ethnic or political background or their social orientation. ... Christians take opposing views on many issues ... those on both sides of the issue must love each other. ... I never speak against other groups.’
On the 12/22/94 Larry King Live Show, Graham also said that he believed that homosexuals are born with a tendency toward homosexuality; i.e., in the genes.
Concerning the issue of abortion…Graham said “there are occasions when abortion is the only alternative.”
Warren publicly supported Proposition 8. He has stated that homosexual behavior is not a natural way of life and and that gay marriage is not a civil right.
While Graham has refused to proselytize to Jews, and has said that while he disagrees with atheists, he respects them and says that believing in God isn’t necessary for kindness and compassion, Warren infers otherwise in explaining that brutal dictators such as Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot were all atheists.
Warren claims the only difference between him and Focus on the Family founder James Dobson is "it's a matter of tone." This is regrettable, since Dobson says "tolerance and diversity" are "buzzwords" that are part of a hidden agenda to promote homosexuality.
Dobson believes that bills expanding the prohibition of sexual orientation-based discrimination will lead to a situation where, "every woman and little girl will have to fear that a predator, bisexual, cross-dresser or even a homosexual or heterosexual male might walk in and relieve himself in their presence." Some gay rights activists have expressed fears that Dobson's ultimate goal is to pressure lawmakers into completely outlawing homosexuality and believe Dobson may wish to reinstitute the Old Testament death penalty for homosexual activity.
So. I think there’s a substantial difference between a friendship with Billy Graham and a choice of Rick Warren to give the inaugaral invocation. And I find it interesting that such comparisons are being dredged up. When all else fails, blame Hillary, I guess.
*Note: all material obtained from Wikipedia unless noted otherwise.
46 comments:
Great post...here was my post on Warren, back during the campaign.
I don't like him any more now either.
Thanks, Daisy! I commented on that post way back when. An excellent post BTW. I just had one quibble re the pay grade answer, which I felt was inaccurate, legally speaking.
Thanks for the research.
Given Obama's choices of
-Rev. Jeremiah Wright
-Rev. Rick Warren
-the white pastor that succeeded Wright (name?),
I conclude that Obama has a tin ear for religion. He grew up in at least two non-religion generations. I suspect he's never made heads or tails of it all, and has not yet found his own moral platform.
let me rephrase that:
he grew up in two generations of non-religious households.
Bill's son, Franklin, on the other hand. Whacked.
That should have read "Billy" not "Bill"
JZ -- hard to say. My own instinct is that whether Obama's moral platform is religious or spiritual, it is separate from his political decisions, which he compartmentalizes from his moral views and calculates purely based on perceived expediency. I think he liked Wright personally, didn't subscribe to everything he said, but chose his church for credibility with a certain constituency. And same with Phleger and Warren. So I don't see a confusion there, but the overarching principle of realpolitik.
The problem is that religious nutbags have enormous political power in this country. If HRC had been elected she no doubt would have picked Graham or some equally objectionable person to be at her inaugural. And let me be clear, I don't see a whisker of difference between Graham, Dobson, Falwell or Warren. They all suck, they all have no business being anywhere near political dialogue. They are the problem, and parsing their teeny, tiny differences in an attempt to say HRC is all good and BHO is all bad is, to my mind, pointless. HRC herself has caved to the religious right on numerous occasions, nobody's hands are clean, The problem isn't Rick Warren, the problem is that these people have to be catered to on any level.
Really great post.
Hey, could you email me?
hobostripper at gmail...
Thanks!
Oh, nevermind, I found your email addy. Sorry for the comment interruption.
Another excellent post. One of Graham's last crusades was in my city, and I was the editor on our overwhelming coverage, which included a tab insert. He had a simple message that was almost hypnotic: You are forgiven and loved.
I agree there's a great difference between him and Warren.
Obama's family did have a religious background. His mother's parents were born into Protestant churches, and they attended a Unitarian Universalist church in the Seattle area when his mother was a teenager. As a UU, I can attest that his mother would have learned about the world's major religions.
SMMO: "They are the problem, and parsing their teeny, tiny differences in an attempt to say HRC is all good and BHO is all bad is, to my mind, pointless."
If you think that's what this "attempt" is, you're not reading the post I wrote. I was going to put in a footnote saying: this is nothing more nor less than a distinction between social relationship with Graham and choosing Warren for the invocation. It is not a global statement about overall merit. Then I figured that would be insulting my readers' intelligence.
Also, if you don't find the differences laid out in the post compelling, keeping in mind the initial caveat that I strongly disagree with both these pastors' social views and my oft-stated views about combining religion and politics, not sure what else to say.
Lia and Suzie --thanks!
Suzie -- interesting background on Obama. It does seem that religion is an important part of his life.
@Susie,
The UU attendance of Obama grandparents fits with the whole picture. I don't claim any UU understanding beyond attending one service and reading their basic literature. It seems to be not a faith in higher powers, but a survey course in world religions, pop culture, current politics. Do you consider UU to be a religion?
Given that Graham gave the invocation at Bill Clinton's inaugural, I'd say it was more than a social relationship. I'd say it was a political one.
What, then, is the merit in claiming a distinction between social relationship with Graham and choosing Warren for the invocation.? What is the point? What do we learn from this difference?
The point in bringing up Graham WRT to HRC isn't "it's all Hillary's fault" but to point out that Presidents have to kiss this particular ass, all of them.
Question for PUMA's - why, if picking an evangelical to give the invocation is a horrible thing (and to be clear, I think it is) is picking an evangelical to be Vice President not a horrible thing?
SMMO: "What, then, is the merit in claiming a distinction between social relationship with Graham and choosing Warren for the invocation?"
Because precision is important. It's not an equivalent offense. Sure, Presidents kiss evangelical ass, but not all evangelical ass is equivalent.
If your question to PUMAS was meant to include me -- first, I don't identify as a PUMA. My vote was based on my view of the merits, rather than a protest (for more discussion on this, see earlier posts).
Next, since I've mentioned in a number of posts that I have grave differences with Palin on social policy, I would think you'd be aware that she would not be my idea of a great VP. She deserves respect as an accomplished woman and as a human being. That's not the same thing as launching a fan club.
SMMO - Billy Graham has been in every White House since Eisenhower (IIRC). In all that time no on knew his political party. Suzie is absolutely correct about Franklin's mission so-to-speak. No one even knew his political party until recently.
As a recovering Fundie, I am very aware of the various flavors of evangelicals. And Graham and Warren are not in the same league. Warren sugarcoats bigotry. Butter wouldn't melt in his mouth while he stabs you in the back.
Billy Graham has lead a simple life, with one message. His son, Franklin, on the other hand, is everything his father is not and equal in my eyes to Robertson, Falwell, Warren, et al.
Here is an interesting article from 2006. To me it tells me everything I need to know about Franklin Graham. That he would even consider going against his mother's wishes as to where she wanted to be buried speaks volumes.
Octom, speaking of religious matters... happy holidays!
Bluelyon: very interesting article. I didn't realize how close a friend Patricia Cornwell was to Billy and Ruth. And yeah, Franklin seems quite the loathsome character.
Tobias -- thanks and same to you and everyone else still here!
JZ: "Unitarian Universalism is a liberal religion that encompasses many faith traditions." -- This comes from the UU Association's Web site at http://www.uua.org/visitors/beliefswithin/index.shtml
Some UUs believe in a higher power or many deities. Others don't. Before they merged in 1961, the Unitarians and Universalists had a history stretching back centuries.
"Because precision is important. It's not an equivalent offense. Sure, Presidents kiss evangelical ass, but not all evangelical ass is equivalent."
Not to many atheists or even many social liberals who see the fact such ass needs to be kissed in the first place as a sign the US government still privileges Christianity...especially the Protestant variants over all other religions, spiritual beliefs, or those who do not believe.
Unfortunately, this has given too many religious right members the idea that they have the right to use government sponsored fora to foist their religious beliefs down everyone else's throat while marginalizing those with differing beliefs...especially atheists.
This betrays the very pluralism necessary in a nation with an increasing diversity in many areas....including in the area of spiritual and/or religious beliefs...or atheism.
Bluelyon, thanks for the article. I have long disliked Franklin and very much wanted Anne Graham Lotz to be BG's heir apparent. Unfortunately, Billy was too traditionally fundamentalist to go for that. :(
There was a great 60 Minutes piece on Anne. She is obviously the one who inherited her father's gift for oratory, while Franklin is a big damn snooze.
And yes, I agree that BG was a modest, simple man. Except for not making Anne the head of the Billy Graham Association, I did admire him.
Franklin is a shit.
Franklin won. Ruth is buried at the library.
Shit. They just couldn't give it to her, could they?
Hey there!
Rick Warren has a PHENOMENAL ministry organization... I vehemently disagree with the language he has used to present his position on gay marriage and I think that he realizes that he needed to frame his position differently.
With that said...his foolish manner in addressing his beliefs of what God has said about gays/lesbians DOES NOT (in my mind) cancel out everything that his ministry has accomplished.
Perhaps that is what Obama's advisors believed when they decided to include Rick in the ceremony.
{shrugs}
Lisa
Welcome, Lisa! It is great to see you here.
I agree, it doesn't cancel out the good. But the good doesn't excuse the bad, either -- and IMO, the bad isn't just unfortunate terminology.
I am with Exholt that there is no celebrating the church-state tangle here, but I think if a pastor was to be chosen, there are other choices who've embraced humanitarian goals and also been less offensive to human rights.
Great takedown, Octo. To say the two are the same is ridiculous. Thanks for this.
To say the two are the same is ridiculous.
Graham and Warren are the same. Because as much as they profess this mission or that charitable cause or even to make themselves rich and famous and powerful ultimately they have one goal:
TO MAKE PEOPLE CHRISTIANS.
To go all the way back to the first sentence of the OP:
I'm not sure why the Clinton’s friendship with Billy Graham is being compared to Obama’s picking Rick Warren to give the invocation at his Jan. 20 inauguration
You're a smart woman Octo, why ask questions you know the answer to? Because they both want to make people Christians. Because HRC and BO will be compared forever, and I'm not sure that's a bad thing.
Hey, look, a quote from Graham's Wiki entry you didn't mention:
"In a speech January 16, 1991, Billy Graham declared: "There come times when we have to fight for peace." He went on to say that out of the present war in the Gulf may "come a new peace and, as suggested by the President, a new world order."
(Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
with the cross of Jesus going on before. )
SMMO,
I did not say I agree with, endorse, or support either of them. As a feminist I would think the fact that I *oppose* both of them would be a foregone conclusion. That doesn't mean it's not intellectually dishonest to pretend their positions are identical.
What Amber said.
I'm not sure two adult people could have identical positions. What is intellectually dishonest is to pretend that evangelical, missionary Christians with a taste for the spotlight aren't, at the most important level, the same. Feminists praising Billy Graham, of all people, to score a hit on Obama is gross.
For missionaries charity work is, as charity often is, a cover-up. Their mission is to convert people to Christianity. The other stuff is to make that palatable. The same way that nice rich ladies like Cindy McCain and Carolyn Kennedy use a tiny little portion of their obscene wealth to sanitize their image. Not impressed.
To return to an earlier issue mentioned by JZ: Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, had her funeral in the First Unitarian Church in Hawaii. That makes me think it's possible that the grandparents who raised Obama remained UUs, although I can't find evidence one way or another.
Agreed completely - Graham and Warren are both evangelical, but they're a very different kind of evangelical. I'm a leftist atheist so I don't like either of them, but there's no denying that Graham at least seems to genuinely WANT to do good (though I disagree with him about what it means to do good on almost every level), whereas Warren is an awful, awful man who clearly missed the "love your neighbor" part of the Christian message.
SMMO, I'm baffled by your responses here. I didn't get any attempt to bestow a feminist stamp of approval on Graham from Octo's post at all, what I got was a nuanced attempt to say that, although all American politicians have to play ball with the Religious Right to a certain extent, not all religious leaders are created alike. If one has to associate with some of them (and let's face it, if one wants a successful career in politics in this country one really does have to), surely it's better to associate with the more benign ones than with the ones who actively WANT to hurt people.
I've been an atheist my whole life, and as a Brit I find the overt religiosity of American politics wierd and alarming. However, like I said, the situation is that politicians have to throw bones to the religious majority if they want to get anywhere. I don't like it, but there it is. They still have some choice over which specific religious figureheads they associate themselves with, though, and some religious figureheads really are more problematic than others. Warren is dangerous. I'm genuinely baffled as to how anyone couldn't see the distinction between him and someone like Graham.
(Again, I'd prefer to just not see any overt religious influence in politics at all, but sadly that doesn't seem to be an option.)
CS -- excellently put as always. Yeah, the reality -- and that's what I like to deal in -- is that there are certain boxes you have to check to play presidential politics. And so at that point, it's irrelevant if at one level they are "the same" because that's the box you have to check in the first place.
Once you accept that-- and as an intelligent person, hopefully you do, SMMO -- then the shades of grey do come into play. Because intelligent people who live in the real world need to get: give me the strength to accept what I cannot change, the will to change what I can, and the intelligence to know the difference.
Per Wiki, Graham once said, "I fully adhere to the fundamental tenets of the Christian faith for myself... but as an American, I respect other paths to God." His refusal to proselytize to Jews, in particular, differed from the Southern Baptist Convention.
From Billy Graham's website:
http://www.billygraham.org/LFA_Article.asp?ArticleID=79
We want to assure you that any willing person can be liberated from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ; see 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, especially verse 11. If your loved one is not yet willing to seek freedom from homosexuality, or seems unable to find it, then you should pray earnestly for his or her release.
Rick Warren is dangerous. Billy Graham is also dangerous. Rick Warren probably doesn't exist, doesn't have the power and influence that he has, without the efforts of Billy Graham. Because Billy Graham has polished his act more, toned down some of his rhetoric, does not mean he is any less dangerous than Rick Warren.
SMMO, for one thing, that website is put together by staff and it is unclear whether it's managed by Billy or by Franklin Graham (see the biographies section). Per above, Franklin and his father are quite different.
Secondly, nobody here is disputing (and I went on record with my views in the second sentence of this post) the odiousness of any evangelist's views as to social policy issues.
Elsewhere on that site, which again based on Graham's admitted low-tech ways, probably isn't managed by him, it says about gay people: "It is important to realize that God loves you deeply and does not condemn you". That contrasts with the views stated by Warren.
The point here, again, is not that Graham's a saint or that he isn't like Warren in some fundamental ways. But that he's far preferable to a majority of social liberals in many other important ways.
But that he's far preferable to a majority of social liberals in many other important ways.
If you and others think it is important that Graham is more polite about the fact that gays and Jews are going to burn in hell that's fine, but I haven't seen one thing here or anywhere else that convinces me there are any substantive differences between them.
OK, let's agree to disagree here.
Feminists praising Billy Graham, of all people, to score a hit on Obama is gross.
I don't believe anyone here is *praising* Billy Graham.
One more point, not that any of the others have been addressed.
When Billy Graham made his remarks about Jews and the media he made them to Richard Nixon. Speaking his truth to power. There are religious people who fight for social justice - BG is not one of them. The former put social justice at the forefront, and proselytizing in the rear. BG does the opposite. He is on the Warren/Dobson/ continuum, part of the great swindle of secular American politics.
Amber, Graham has won awards for public service and for work on behalf of children and race relations. sounds like praise to me.
SMMO: “One more point, not that any of the others have been addressed.”
That’s both petulant and inaccurate.
Your points were the following, and were addressed as follows:
1) “Equally objectionable”: addressed by me, Amber, Cassandra, Daisy, Bluelyon, Suzie in numerous ways.
2) “the problem is that these people have to be catered to on any level” – addressed by me, Cassandra, others, re necessary evil.
3) “they have one goal: TO MAKE PEOPLE CHRISTIANS.” Addressed by me re differences as to proselytizing to other groups.
4) BG’s having made a pro-war statement: most politicians voted for the war based on the info available at the time. Obama has stated that had he been in the Senate at the time, he would have as well. That’s not a defense, but an explanation of why this isn’t surprising.
5) BG’s website statement: addressed by me right after you made that argument, re the unclear authorship of the post and the fact that the OP acknowledges the distastefulness of evangelical views on gay rights.
6) And your final argument: “Graham has won awards for public service and for work on behalf of children and race relations. sounds like praise to me.” Nope, it’s actually an unadorned factual statement. Praise would be “isn’t it great that X.” Stating “X” where “X” is factual is simply stating a historical fact.
If it's on BG's website, his website named after him, I'm going to hold him responsible. That's utterly fair.
Ok, got it. Doesn't proselytize to Jews still thinks are damned. Real nice guy. Message of love. LIkes war, but so does everybody else. Obama wasn't raised in a religious enough household, so can't see these subtle differences in Evangelical leaders. Well, I guess I wasn't either, because neither can I.
Amber, Graham has won awards for public service and for work on behalf of children and race relations. sounds like praise to me.
How is that praise? That is stating a fact.
My bad. I found a speech that Obama gave on June 28, 2006
“Call to Renewal' Keynote Address”.
My earlier conclusions about his clumsiness with religion were off the mark. He states, "I was not raised in a particularly religious household, .......... My mother, whose parents were non-practicing Baptists and Methodists, was probably one of the most spiritual and kindest people I've ever known, but grew up with a healthy skepticism of organized religion herself. As a consequence, so did I."
He later worked in south side Chicago, and attended Trinity Baptist. "I submitted myself to his will , and dedicated myself to discovering His truth., and "embrace Christ because you have sins to wash away because you are human and need an ally in this difficult journey."
These comments really reverberate with me, "In other words, if we don't reach out to evangelical Christians and other religious Americans and tell them what we stand for, then the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons and Alan Keyeses will continue to hold sway.
More fundamentally, the discomfort of some progressives with any hint of religion has often prevented us from effectively addressing issues in moral terms. Some of the problem here is rhetorical - if we scrub language of all religious content, we forfeit the imagery and terminology through which millions of Americans understand both their personal morality and social justice."
That last phrase gets a bit close to using-religion-as-a-political-tool, but to his credit, he demonstrates belief in basic Christian theology. I surmise that ,(given Wright, Warren, Phleiger), he's been clumsy, but has, in fact, found his own moral platform.
Post a Comment