Franklin Graham Didn’t Lie About Pete Buttigieg, but…

Franklin Graham Didn’t Lie About Pete Buttigieg, but… April 25, 2019

I haven’t seen eye-to-eye with Franklin Graham on much, these days.

In my opinion, Graham, son of the late Evangelist Billy Graham, has forgotten his first call, which is to pick up where his father left off. He is to seek the lost, be the hands and feet of God to a dark and hurting world. He is to use his name, his platform, and his gifts to bring the Gospel as a light to those who will hear and receive.

In his lifetime, Billy Graham did that very thing in more than 185 nations, preaching to many millions.

Out of that many, how many were saved from their sin, because of some message of redemption brought by Graham?

You have to imagine, there were quite a few.

I took an Evangelism course through the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. Of all the lessons within the course that were taught, there was a single line and thread that was highlighted, throughout:

Preach Jesus. Preach only Jesus. The message of the cross is enough.

Franklin Graham has a record of also being the hands and feet of God in the world, through his organization, Samaritan’s Purse.

I’ve packed tons of those familiar red-and-green shoeboxes through the years, preparing to bring Christmas joy to needy kids in faraway lands.

The organization also deals in disaster relief, as well as meeting other critical needs in the world.

He deserves kudos for the work they’ve done.

With that being said, the age of Trumpism and the lure of being associated with the most powerful seat in the land has twisted Franklin Graham. He no longer preaches Jesus, and only Jesus.

No, the new message of Franklin Graham is filtered through his devotion to a serial adulterer, liar, cheat, and con artist.

Billy Graham met and formed bonds with many presidents, through the years. In fact, the man known as “America’s Pastor” met, and in some cases, counseled every president since Harry Truman, in 1950.

He spent time with Hillary Clinton, lending spiritual guidance when she chose to publicly forgive her husband, President Bill Clinton, for his adultery with Monica Lewinski.

Truly, Billy Graham kept his message nonpartisan and focused. Though we know he preferred more conservative candidates for president, he didn’t let that prevent him from taking the Word of God to either party.

He never met Donald Trump, but his son has more than made up for that, to the point that he’s become a loyal acolyte to the Trumpian way, rather than serving as a godly influence and guide on the life of the president.

To his defense, however, he has a lot of competition from other evangelical “leaders,” all jostling for the first spot in line, in order to kiss the ring.

Franklin Graham has twisted and contorted himself to defend a host of spiritually untenable character flaws and offenses by the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

I mean, I can understand if his point is to extend grace on the path to leading someone to higher ground, but that method can’t be altered to suit your political whims. That’s not what’s happening. Graham goes out of his way to defend Trump’s adulteries, lying, and abusive behavior towards others.

So why not hold his fire when it comes to other leaders, even if he’s right?

On Wednesday, Franklin Graham decided to wade into the upcoming election season by commenting on Democratic presidential hopeful, South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg.

Buttigieg is getting a lot of attention, right now, and even seems to have stolen some of the rock star thunder from Beto O’Rourke.

At a town hall meeting on Monday, Buttigieg chose to offer up his dubious version of Christian faith.

“It can be challenging to be a person of faith who’s also part of the LGBTQ community and yet, to me, the core of faith is regard for one another,” Buttigieg said. “… Part of God’s love is experienced, according to my faith tradition, is in the way that we support one another and, in particular, support the least among us.”

So none of that is technically wrong, and I’ve heard many celebrate Buttigieg for his “faith.”

Well, Franklin Graham has something to point out.

Normally, this would be a “BOOM!” moment for me. Every word spoken here is absolute truth, per God’s Word.

In God’s design for us, he made his intentions for human relationships absolutely clear. Men and women are meant for each other. They’re meant to complement each other.

Can homosexuals be Christian?

I believe they can, but just as heterosexuals cannot live unrepentant, promiscuous lives and still claim to be followers of Christ, neither can homosexuals who have embraced their flesh, rather than lay it down at the cross.

Repentance means to change your mind, or turn back from your sin.

Claiming to be Christian, while openly living a lifestyle God has deemed corrupt and against His design is not repentance. It is rebellion.

Pete Buttigieg is openly homosexual, and “married” to a man.

He may have the right words, as far as his Christianese goes, but his lifestyle is a rejection of God’s standards, and as such, a rejection of the faith he claims to be a part of.

It’s not harsh to tell someone that they are in error in their claimed walk with Christ. In fact, it is the opposite. It is loving to give a gentle, but truthful rebuke, in hopes of turning them back to the path that leads to salvation, rather than the alternative.

Not many want to receive the truth, these days.

With that being said, it is the height of hypocrisy for Graham to point out [rightly] where Buttigieg fails, while celebrating and defending Donald Trump.

I get it. No sin is greater, but sexual sin is more dire, because, as Paul pointed out, it is a sin against your own body.

1 Corinthians 6:18 NLT“Run from sexual sin! No other sin so clearly affects the body as this one does. For sexual immorality is a sin against your own body.”

Still, Donald Trump has committed sexual sin, through multiple adulteries. He has lied. He has cheated. He is brutish and abusive. He is puffed up and full of his own ego.

I’ve heard too many claim that those things are in Trump’s past, he’s a renewed man, doing many good works for Christians and for Israel.

Political calculations.

Meanwhile, if you want to see if his heart has truly changed, just take a casual look at his Twitter feed.

The man continues to openly abuse and insult others. The stories coming out of the Trump White House about his behavior is even worse. His staff and Cabinet walk on eggshells because they fear his outbursts.

In fact, nothing at all seems to have changed in the man. There is no evidence of the fruit of the Holy Spirit.

Not once have I seen Franklin Graham call out Trump’s hateful, abusive behavior. I have, however, seen multiple instances of him making excuses for it.

Graham has made a choice to become political, rather than remain a faithful steward of God’s Word and light in the world. He picks and chooses which sinful behavior to either condemn or endorse, and in doing so, casts a shadow over his father’s good name.

Yes. He was right in what he said about Buttigieg, but how can anyone take him seriously, if he can’t bring himself to be at least as outspoken about Donald Trump’s multiple offenses?


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • chemical

    I’m a fan of Pete Buttigieg, and although I feel it’s too early to make up my mind on who I want to vote for in the Dem primary, he’s definitely one of the front runners for my vote.

    That being said: Buttigieg is running to be a president, not a pastor. I think he’s getting a lot of media coverage because everyone is saying “Gay AND Christian? How does THAT work?! o_O”. It’s funny, because conservatives are weirded out because he’s gay and liberals are weirded out because he’s Christian. Personally, I find it to be a distraction.

    In a pretty good conversation yesterday with the other commenters, Illinois mentioned how people don’t really choose leaders based strong leadership attributes, opting instead for style over substance — which is one of the few things I agree with him on. In the event Buttigieg wins the primary, I want you to take a look at his characteristics and then ask yourself if those characteristics make for a good president or not. I say the whole “gay Christian” thing is a style attribute (and one that people on both sides are weirdly obsessed about), and not a substance attribute. Graham is making the same mistake many other people do, focusing on the style and not the substance of the person.

    I like Mayor Pete because he’s essentially the exact opposite person Donald Trump is, more so than any other candidate. He’s a veteran, as opposed to the draft-dodging president. He speaks 9 languages vs. Trump not even speaking English properly. He’s intelligent, as opposed to Trump being a moron. He treats other people with respect (to the point where he doesn’t even talk down to conservatives), vs. Trump being a petty, vindictive jerk. He turned South Bend around vs. Trump ruining anything he touches.

  • Yep, even though biblically correct on this matter Franklin has shown himself to be a hypocrite.

    Robert Jeffress, who I for the most part align with theologically, is another one. While his arguments as to why people should vote for Trump were nice examples of sophistry, they were embarrassing to both biblical and republican principles. Paul Ryan summed up nicely this erroneous philosophy of the Republican Party when voting for TARP in 2008, “Madam Speaker, this bill offends my principles, but I’m going to vote for this bill in order to preserve my principles.”

    Save your principles by helping your offender to rape your principles? Sounds like some form of Stockholm Syndrome. Apparently to the Republican Party a principle is nothing more than a stated public position which can be violated whenever politically convenient.

    It’s been years now since we were told by the Ministry of the Republican Party that Trump was born again but still a babe-in-Christ (which by all accounts would now make him at least a toddler-in-Christ), yet there is still no outward showing of the Holy Spirit at work. Hmmm…

    “If conversion to Christianity makes no improvement in a man’s outward actions– if he continues to be just as snobbish or spiteful or envious or ambitious as was before– then I think we must suspect that his ‘conversion’ was largely imaginary…” ~C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

  • Stephen

    Exactly the way I see it. The Church needs to repent. Sexual immorality is sin and repentance is needed. And lack of love for your brother is sin and needs repenting. In our country both people who call them self progressive Christians and those who call them self conservative evangelical Christians need repentance. I am about as popular as ants at a picnic to both groups. Never the less God’s standards never change.

  • cindy blandin

    I stated many times during the run-up to the 2016 election, that the greatest damage Trump would do would be to the cause of Christ. While I am glad that it exposed the hypocrisy of so many that we looked to for Christian leadership, I am saddened that non-Christians have some very large examples of, “See….I told you Christians are just a bunch of hypocrites.”

    How many people that might have once been receptive to the message of repentance for ANY sexual sin are now immune to it because we have accepted the sexual sin of an unrepentant “baby” Christian?

  • Annemarie

    As someone who grew up in an atheist family, I find the Bible confusing at times and the history of Christianity even more so, so please forgive me. But it’s clear that homosexuality was considered sinful then. Is it still a sin, or is it, like slavery and polygamy, a piece of the past? Or does that depend on which denomination you belong to? I truly don’t know the answer to that one, and for me, it affects how I would feel about Buttigieg’s candidacy. (For some reason my responses to responses are getting marked as spam, so apologies if I don’t answer.)

  • Hi Chemical

    Re: “I say the whole “gay Christian” thing is a style attribute (and one that people on both sides are weirdly obsessed about), and not a substance attribute.”

    Being that a “gay Christian” is a contradiction of terms, Mayor Pete is pretending to be something he is not. Which speaks directly about the substance of his character. It’s no different than Trump pretending to be a Christian.

    So it come as no surprise, to me anyway, to find Mayor Pete running on a unconstitutional platform. After all, if he as a “Christian” is going to reject God’ laws, then it stands to reason that as an American he will disregard the supreme Law of the Land when it suites his desires. Despite being jovial, Pete has expressed his desire to be a usurper/despot just like Trump. Both represent the left and right wings of the same bird of prey.

    “Though written constitutions may be violated in moments of passion or delusion, yet they furnish a text to which those who are watchful may again rally and recall the people. They fix, too, for the people the principles of their political creed.” ~Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Priestley (1802)

    “Good motives may always be assumed, as bad motives may always be imputed. Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of power; but they cannot justify it, even if we were sure that they existed. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intention, real or pretended. When bad intentions are boldly avowed, the People will promptly take care of themselves. On the other hand, they will always be asked why they should resist or question that exercise of power which is so fair in its object, so plausible and patriotic in appearance, and which has the public good alone confessedly in view? Human beings, we may be assured, will generally exercise power when they can get it; and they will exercise it most undoubtedly in popular Governments, under pretences of public safety or high public interest. It may be very possible that good intentions do really sometimes exist, when Constitutional restraints are disregarded. There are men in all ages who mean to exercise power usefully; but who mean to exercise it. They mean to govern well; but they mean to govern. They promise to be kind masters; but they mean to be masters. They think there need be but little restraint upon themselves. Their notion of the public interest is apt to be quite closely connected with their own exercise of authority. They may not, indeed, always understand their own motives. The love of power may sink too deep in their hearts even for their own scrutiny, and may pass with themselves for mere patriotism and benevolence.” ~Daniel Webster, Speech at Niblo’s Saloon, New York (1837)

  • Michael Weyer

    Once more, The Daily Show nailed the utter hypocrisy of the Evangelical Christians supporting Trump when they talked to a pastor favoring him:

    Pastor: “Trump believes in what we believe in like marriage is between one man and one woman.”

    Reporter: “Well, unless you meet a hotter woman, cheat on your wife, divorce her to marry the mistress then meet an even hotter woman, cheat on your second wife, then divorce her to marry the new mistress.”

    Pastor: Stares blankly.

    Seriously, how these people tie themselves in knots claiming Trump is even a halfway decent man let alone championing their faith is astounding.

  • Michael Weyer

    There are some differences between Christian faiths. For example, many Evangelicals take the Rapture as fact whereas we Catholics don’t believe in it at all. And Catholics are more forgiving on things such as homosexuality (“hate the sin but love the sinner”) and see the Bible more as parables than legit fact. Then there are the extreme Creationists who insist the world is only 6000 years old. It can vary which shows the complications of the faith.

  • chemical

    Re. this:

    After all, if he as a “Christian” is going to reject God’ laws…

    Except you’re not making a decision to vote for America’s best Christian. You’re making a decision to vote for the best President.

    If you think his platform is unconstitutional, then by all means don’t vote for him. Perhaps we can discuss the unconstitutional aspects of his platform, and as a liberal voter if you see something about him that doesn’t jive with the Constitution, by all means let me know so I can vote for someone else during the primary.

    The thing is about “God’s Laws”, they have a remarkable ability to not apply to people who aren’t a member of your church. When you say “Buttigieg has violated God’s Laws”, I hear “Buttigieg couldn’t possibly be a member of my church”. And that’s fine, because I don’t set the rules for your church. The Constitution makes no mention of God’s Laws, Christianity, Jesus, or even religion (except to state that there shall be no religious test for public office, and Congress shall not establish a religion, or prohibit the free exercise of). The Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitution. You choose to apply various religious rules (God’s Laws) to yourself so you can be a member of your church, but since we don’t live in a theocracy your church has no power to impose those rules on non-members. When I left Christianity, it felt like chains coming off, for exactly this reason.

    The point I’m making is that whether or not “gay Christian” is a self-contradiction is irrelevant. I’m an atheist, and as such, leave the ecumenical bickering up to the theologians. I’m asking you to judge Buttigieg based on his character and policy positions. In my opinion, his homosexuality isn’t a factor because sexual orientation is only relevant to who that person chooses for romantic and sexual partners. Besides, he’s married, so it seems to me he’s settled on someone.

  • chemical

    I feel ya. The Bible is confusing because it covers a LOT of topics, and there are messages and stories that are told as parables, leaving the lesson to be learned at the discretion of the reader. It’s also not one book, but a 66-book compilation (72 if you’re a Catholic) written by different authors with different agendas.

    I’d say slavery and polygamy weren’t considered sins, at least in the Old Testament. There are rules laid down in Leviticus that deal with how to treat slaves and who you can enslave, so it seems to me that God didn’t have a problem with it, at least back then. I think that if God had a problem with slavery, he’d tell people “Hey, knock it off with that slavery crap!”

    In my opinion, the flavor of Christian depends on where they focus in the Bible. If the focus a lot on Jesus, being non-judgmental, and loving the poor, they wind up being progressive Christians. If they focus a lot on avoiding God’s wrath, they tend to be the fire and brimstone types.

  • captcrisis

    Your quarrel is not with Buttigieg, but with his Creator.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    “…lack of love for your brother is sin…”

    This could (and often is) easily mi-interpreted by liberals who assume that ‘love’ means ‘cheap grace’ – receiving forgiveness without repentance or remorse on the part of the recipient.

    Such forgiveness is actually against the teachings of Jesus. Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus grant forgiveness without first confirming a sincere desire (demonstrated by some act of faith or repentance) for forgiveness and not accompanied by an admonition to “go forth and sin no more”. Jesus even teaches that there can be no forgiveness without repentance. Since repentance inherently contains a sincere resolve to NOT repeat the actions for which forgiveness is being sought (and forgiveness MUST be both requested and earnestly sought), the cultural idea that ‘love’ means ‘forgiving others (ho remain non-repentant) without first seeing a change in attitude or actions indicating repentance or accepting an apology without also seeing a change in behavior or a commitment to no re-offend is just absurd. Nor can someone reasonably ask for forgiveness in place of someone else that remains non-repentant and continues to sin….. Repentance and forgiveness just do not work that way. They do not work that way with God an sin, nor do they work that way in this world where grifters take advantage of the good faith of people by mouthing the words of apology without any of the substance.

    Graham has fallen from the ways of Christ or has never actually learned from Christ’s example as demonstrated by his continued defense of Trump – an unrepentant individual that continues to sin and has yet to either repent or ask for forgiveness. Perhaps Trump has ‘bought into’ the false notion that ‘an apology is a sign of weakness’, notwithstanding it take far more strength of character to admit to a mistake or to wrongdoing, to accept responsibility and to attempt to make amends than it does to bellow, shout, point fingers, deny, blame others and generally play the victim in order to avoid the consequences of one’s own misdeeds.

  • Ellen Elmore

    Sadly, Franklin Graham has become part of #Cult45. He obviously drank the Kool-Aid. He will die for his cause like so many other well known Christians (Robert Jefffres, Tony Perkins, Jerry Fallwell, Jr.). It is difficult to watch so many Christians defend the indefensible. They would act differently if the person committing the sin had a D next to their name rather than an R. Apparently the R is all it takes to get their support.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    You are making the same argument that Trump’s defenders make and that you criticized elsewhere in this very post.

    We are electing the best President – that means (to most of us here) the man with the best character (remember that character DOES matter). Your attempt to isolate the man from his faith is the same thing the Trump defenders did when they used the exact same phrase you did: “We are electing a president, not a pastor”. Once you have convinced yourself that the two are not not related, you have already taken your first several steps down the slippery slope to becoming a cultist every bit as much as those that started out defending Trump based on that very phrase, then found themselves emotionally invested in that position more and more and have since become acolytes in the Church of Donald Trump. We heard the same from the very “Evangelical Leaders” you have chosen to criticize on this very website.

    Yet you now claim that “we are electing a president, not a pastor”, implying that the morality and ethics of an individual do not matter to you when selecting a leader. If morality is not important to you, and you are willing to accept questionable or dubious ethics in your leader and lawmakers as well well as in your chief enforcement officer, then why do you even bother to criticize Trump ? You should be LOVING Trump and all his “Trumpiness” and all his policies. After all, we did not elect a pastor in 2016 either – we elected a President – but by your (dubious) logic, it appears that electing immoral and demonstrably unethical Democrats is GOOD because electing immoral and unethical REPUBLIcANS is BAD – and both are true based on the same bumper-sticker slogan.

    It does not matter who you vote for, just don’t use the excuse that “we are voting for a president, not a pastor” which is effect saying: “It does not matter how immoral or unethical or despicable, or criminal the person has proven to be in his prior public positions or how he has (mis-)handled responsibility in prior positions of public trust, THIS IS THE MAN THAT BEST DISPLAYS THE LEADERSHIP TRAITS I WANT TO REPRESENT MY COUNTRY AND MYSELF. … and he will have my vote”.

    In other words, you are being hypocritical (and admitting to it) by excusing the man’s moral and Biblical failures by pointing out the ‘(D)’ after his name.

  • Etranger

    9 languages! Wow, next week he’ll be fluent in 12 languages! LOL Just playing though. It is impressive he can speak so many languages – pretty well, too! It is hard to get proficient in several languages!

  • IllinoisPatriot

    Again, we disagree: “God’s laws” apply to everyone.

    Are you immune from the Law of Gravity just because you don’t go to my Church ? Newton’s laws of motion ? Laws of nature that govern the behavior and capabilities of viruses and bacteria ? Do you think that not being Christian makes you immune to STDs and other consequences of commitment-free sex ?

    I don’t think I’ve EVER heard such an absurd comment as the one you just made.

    As to the Constitution not referencing “God’s Laws”, again you could not be more wrong. BOTH the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are rife with references to God and God’s laws. BOTH documents are based on the inalienable rights of the individual – rights bestowed upon each of us by God – not by government, not by some stroke of the Constitutional pen, not by the grace of some king or emperor, but by God and by God alone. The Constitution exists to outline a government structure that was designed explicitly to acknowledge and protect those rights from those that would claim otherwise. The first step of socialists is to claim the government now has all the rights the Constitution has acknowledged are bestowed by God. Anyone that believes the liberal nonsense that the government is the one that bestows rights is treading upon very dangerous ground indeed.

    As an Atheist, that is your religion – it is a difference of opinion. Since you don’t acknowledge God, I guess you don’t know what being a pastor actually involves or what is expected of one, but that does not authorize you to denigrate other faiths by treating the job titles like an insult as you did.

    If you don’t feel that morality and ethics are important to a job in leadership or that it is important to find men of character and principle to lead our country, then you may as well vote for Trump in 2020 – he’s just as corrupt and immoral as any other Atheist on the roster – and nothing would change any more than putting any arbitrary Atheist Democrat in the WH would change anything.

    I had thought better of you – I thought you actually might have had a sense of morality or ethics, but your belief that a man can separate his policies from his character and actually defend the rights of others when his political history is all about campaigning on the destruction of Christian values is just mind-boggling.

  • chemical

    You are making the same argument that Trump’s defenders make and that you criticized elsewhere in this very post.

    I know that. Trump’s defenders were right to ignore his religious views. Where they went wrong is that they also chose to ignore all of his other straight abhorrent characteristics, too. Don’t get me wrong — I am IN NO WAY condoning Trump’s behavior. It’s merely that I and Trump’s supporters agree that religious views aren’t going to make or break a candidate.

    Matter of fact, I am STRONGLY suggesting that you consider morality and ethics when choosing a presidential candidate. That is the difference between me and the Trump supporters. They did not consider morality and ethics when choosing Trump, while I still think it’s very important. Matter of fact, I’m of the opinion it’s more important than policy positions.

    Sorry if I was unclear here. The point I’m trying to make is that there are plenty of decent people out there, that for whatever reason, wouldn’t actually qualify to be your pastor or even members of your church. How is Pete Buttigieg being gay actually going to have any impact on your life? Trust me, the guy isn’t going to gay marry you while you aren’t looking.

  • Michael Weyer

    As a Catholic, I do have to argue that character does matter a lot and his orientation is going to be hard to sell in some parts of the country. Maybe one day we will have a gay President but I don’t see that in my lifetime. And while there may be the slight point of some extreme right Christians pressing too much on the law of the land, I still hold that God is far more supreme than any document created by men, however religious (or in the case of some Founding Fathers, lack of) they may be.

    Let’s face it, character isn’t always a good judge. I didn’t mind Clinton too much as a President but we all know what a horrible husband he was with his cheating and such. I actually think George W. Bush was a good and decent man but his Presidency was a disaster (mostly for listening to the wrong people too much). Trump does show a horrible character makes for a horrible President but maybe you have to be ruthless to be good at the job.

    Right now, I do credit Buttigieg for being a veteran and some good moves but just not sold on him as President until I hear more of his platform. Even then, as you and Illinois actually agreed on the other day, it may be the style more than the substance that the media and voters make their judgements on.

  • Michael Weyer

    Trust me, the guy isn’t going to gay marry you while you aren’t looking

    Sadly, there are indeed factions on the Internet absolutely convinced that “liberals will not stop until straight people are banned from being married to anyone but the same gender.” Oh and how this “logically” leads to “people allowed to marry animals.”

  • Alpha 1

    It depends who you ask. As a whole, the bible is a very contradictory and incoherent book. It can be interpreted in just about any way you want to if you put the effort in. The result is that people’s interpretations of the bible tend to confirm to their pre-existing social and political beliefs. So liberals see it through the lens of support for universalism and tolerance, socialists focus on its support for economic justice, and right wingers come out of it with support for pre-existing social prejudices and economic hierarchies.

  • tyler

    yes yes evangelicals hate gay people must we beat this dead horse every time someone suggests that gay people are not the devil incarnate

  • Alpha 1

    I’m not a Buttigieg fan (I see some big red flags from him on foreign policy), but I find it very interesting how people treat the idea of his politically liberal Christianity as strange. In North America we’ve accepted the existence of left-wing Jews and Muslims for years, but liberal Christians like Buttigieg are treated as an anomaly. Is it because liberal Christians have always existed but ceded the political representation of the religion to the right? Or do we just assume that dominant religions like Christianity play an inherently conservative role in society? I’m not Christian so I don’t have an insider’s perspective, but I think there’s a lot to be explored there.

  • Michael Weyer

    As a Catholic, we’re used to some progressive types (Jesus was the original SJW) so might be a tad more open to him. Still, as chemical noted, folks from both sides seem to be going wild on him for the gay Christian part more than his actual policies which will probably overwhelm his chances.

  • Michael Weyer

    You’re…not really helping your case.

  • Michael Weyer

    As the old saying goes “even the Devil can quote scripture to suit his purposes.”

  • chemical

    Are you immune from the Law of Gravity just because you don’t go to my Church ? Newton’s laws of motion ? Laws of nature that govern the behavior and capabilities of viruses and bacteria ?

    All of those existed long before your church did. Your church did not set those rules.

    I know the DOI references God. The Constitution, which is actually the basis of our government, does not. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say “God defines these rights as inalienable” — rather, it says “We, the people…” Go on, I’ll wait for you to find a reference in the Constitution to God granting any rights to anyone. Or even any mention of God at all. And you don’t get to argue about the parts where it references people’s creator. You don’t even call him the Creator — you call him God. They specifically avoided using God there to account for people of all faiths and those with no faith. And if you mention the dating convention of “In the year of the lord 1787”, I’ll point out that today is Wednesday, named after the Norse god Odin, and therefore we are a Norse pagan nation.

    For the most part I think your morals align closely with mine. I don’t view religion as a discriminating factor when choosing candidates for office, precisely because it’s hard to tell the difference between someone faking religious beliefs and the real deal people. My morals are empathy-based; as in, I try to anticipate how my actions affect other people. If it harms them, then I avoid that behavior. And the Bible, for the most part, says something similar, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. I think that’s a good idea whether or not you’re a Christian.

  • otrotierra

    Here’s the truth that Franklin Graham and his Evangelical followers will never tell you: anal intercourse between men was against Levitical codes of conduct in ancient Israel, as was eating shellfish and wearing mixed fabrics. Anal sex, however, cannot be conflated with homosexual subjectivity.

    There are a total of 613 laws in the bible, but U.S. Evangelicals like Franklin Graham have no interest in this. That’s why you’ll never hear Franklin Graham frothing at the mouth over people eating cheeseburgers (consumption of dairy and meat together is banned, Exodus 23:19).

    Evangelicals will never tell you all this, opting instead to hide behind self-serving dishonesty, obfuscation, and bearing false witness. What Jesus actually taught is deeply upsetting to them.

  • tyler

    i know it’s not super polite but like come on let’s be honest, god himself could descend from the heavens and say he’s good with the gays and evangelicals would still be obliquely calling every monogamous gay man “promiscuous” and calling their faith “dubious” or putting it in scare quotes. it just doesn’t seem like a productive discussion for anyone.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    The Bible is possibly the single best source for historical overview of mankind’s history in existence. To be so short, yet to encompass so many years of events, the story it tells has to be told at extremely high levels and only incredibly major events can be delved into in detail.

    As a prelude, the Bible is divided into two portions divided by the birth of Christ. The birth of Christ marked a new beginning – a new relationship between God and Man based on the teachings of Christ. The divisions are referred to as “testaments” because they represent “testimony” by those that experienced the events and wrote the books or told others that wrote the books.

    The Old Testament (preceding the birth of Christ) was based on prophesy and occasional divine intervention in human affairs. It was somewhat heavy-handed and discipline-centric because (at this point in history), the God of Christ was just one god among many pagan gods – each with idols and temples and believers. Each city-state or region or country had their own set of gods and where gods overlapped, different gods were worshipped as paramount in different regions, cities, countries, states, etc. There would have been nothing special about the God of Christ and Christianity would never have been born if not for the “introduction” and validation of the God of Christ provided by his divine intervention and the proof that he isn control of the forces of nature and had control of the seas, the skies, the land and power over life and death. This demonstration that the God of Christ has power over all things in heaven (the skies) and Earth is a running theme throughout the Old Testament as God chose to demonstrate his power through a series of prophets that he chose and sent to various peoples to try to guide them to his ways.

    As any parent can tell you, very young children cannot make valid or reasonable decisions for themselves because they have no sense of judgment (we now know that the judgement centers of their brains don’t develop until their mid-20s or early 30s). To provide guidance for young children, parents must set down ‘rules’ for the children to live by (don’t touch the stove – “it might be is hot”, “always say ‘please’ and ‘thank you'”, “don’t play in the street”, etc. This is the basic relationship between God and Man in the Old Testament. There are a host of prohibitions in the Old Testament that atheists will latch onto to ‘prove’ Biblical inconsistencies or that God is not a loving God, but consider whether a parent telling their kids not to eat so much candy is cruel or loving: the parent knows the consequences of the act and does not want the child to suffer needlessly.

    I believe that one of the reasons for the prohibition of homosexuality in the Old Testament (and continuing into the New Testament) is very similar. Now that the US Democrat party is discarding the Biblical teachings and (with the help of media and social culture) ignoring the Biblically prescribed behaviors of abstinence, marriage, THEN sex (with prohibitions against ‘sleeping around’ and easy divorce), we are seeing the social and health consequences of promiscuous and commitment-less sex: HIV, rise of STDs (now including resistant strains of STDs), broken homes, fathers abandoning families for mistresses (because the mistress is younger or more pleasing), rise in stress-levels among unmarried mothers, reduction in charitable institutions even as government attempts to mandate more welfare spending, break-down of family values and long-term commitments, even those children raised in early homosexual households are reporting they have an inability to relate to the opposite sex or to have and hold relationships. As the ‘cultural revoluion’ seems to be dying off with women revolting against feminism and the gay agenda now backfiring as they attempt to destroy others such as the Colorado baker, Mozilla CEO, wedding photographers, florists, etc in the name of “homosexual love”. It’s turning out that for all our modern-day ‘science’ and ‘wokeness’, the Biblical family and the Biblical roles of men and women in society appear to be the most stable, providing the most happiness for the largest number of individuals – both men AND women. This is evidenced by the growing evidence that the happiest marriages and the most mentally-healthy kids are those that form and come from traditional (Biblically-guided) marriages.

    Back to topic: When Christ came to Man, he not only fulfilled all the Old Testament prophesies, but also formed a new compact between God and Man. In the Old Testament, “tithing’ – giving 1/10 of all a persons wealth to the poor in the name of God was religious teachings and the ‘law’ as laid out by God. Burnt offerings were common (killing a lamb or other ‘pure’ animal and offering it as sacrifice for forgiveness of sin was also the common 9and only divinely accepted) practice. Christ changed those practices by (as the Son of God) being sacrificed himself for the forgiveness of ALL sin for ALL Mankind for ALL time for whoever chose to believe in him and (importantly) to follow his ways and his teachings. Note that belief in God and Christ remains a CHOICE that each individual must make for themselves. Atheists have chosen to reject God and Christ (and often to mock those that follow Christ (‘Christians’). This is similar in many ways to immature and insecure school bullies mocking the diligent students that are attempting to better themselves and who apply themselves to their studies for getting the good grades that inevitably result from making an effort.

    I view the coming of Christ as sort of a ‘coming of age’ of Mankind. God is not longer treating Mankind as toddlers that must have strict laws and prohibitions defined for them with frequent displays of parental power and authority (ie: spankings when “No” no longer elicits behavioral changes). With the coming of Christ and the new compact of the New Testament God is treating Mankind more as young adults, able to make decisions for ourselves, yet still retaining the ability to make mistakes and to acquire forgiveness when we do if we wish to continue in God’s favor. God lifted most of the Old Testament restrictions (restrictions that our science now tells us acted primarily to preserve the health and welfare of those that followed them – avoid pork [under-cooked pork can contain ringworms and other parsites], prepare meat in a separate area of the kitchen [uncooked chicken or beef or lamb can cause selmanella or other illnesses, avoid STDs by avoiding promiscuous sex], etc). Christ changed the rules of forgiveness from one of sacrificing goods and things to and individual decision on whether to accept Christ and to follow his teachings.

    As we see in so many movies from the 80s & 90s that tried to present a ‘message’ such as ‘environmentalism’ (Avatar) or “global warming’ (Farenheit 911), etc Man’s own ability to predict future events is woefully limited and very often just flat-out wrong. The Bible however remains as true and as applicable today as it ever has – largely because of the method of teaching. By using parables, Christ attempts to illuminate the unchanging aspects of the spirit and while Atheists will point out that superficial details have changed (we no longer wear sandals or go barefoot, but ‘shaking the dust from our feet’ still means the same as it did back then if taken in context of the times). The lessons from the parables are not limited to Biblical times, just as having an automobile instead of a donkey for transportation does not make moving from point A to point B any less valid.

    The fact that Atheists like to claim that the Bible supports slavery but ignores the fact that slavery is only tolerated in the Old Testament (and even then lays out that slaves should be treated almost as part of the family) and that Jesus teaches his followers to free their slaves should also be high-lighted because it is evidence that Atheists do not actually understand what the Bible teaches or (often) have no idea what is really in the Bible other than what they’ve heard from their friends or read in on-line Atheist (Christian-bashing) forums.

    Sorry for the length of this – I’ll stop now.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    Jesus is the heart of and reason for the New Testament. Exodus is part of the Old Testament that was fulfilled (and superseded by) the coming of Christ.

    Your entire post is based on superseded Biblical restrictions that no longer apply and that have not applied for over 2000 years.

  • Alpha 1

    Agreed. Having read the bible myself, I’d say using it to support any modern political views misses the point. It’s a 3000 year old book that describes a culture, society and world that no longer exists. It’s not for us, and trying to fit it onto a modern left-right political spectrum is ultimately futile.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    You clearly have never read the Bible in context or have chosen to nitpick details that obscure the true teachings of the Bible.

    The Bible is NOT contradictory unless it is skimmed and cherry-picked to find passages that can be taken out of context and twidted to mean the opposite of what they say IN context.

    However Atheists will say almost anything to disparage and attempt to discredit that which they fear.

  • Stephen

    I do not think I was clear. Sorry about that. I mean when your brother is hungry feed him, When he is sick care for him. When he is naked cloth him. You are correct Jesus never condones keep sinning. But as He said the Father’s rain falls on the just and the unjust alike.God still is good even to sinners. We are not released from compassion for the worst sinner. Indeed the Lord taught us to love our enemies. Something I have to ask supernatural help to do. I detest Trump’s ways and his sin. But pray that he actually gets saved and repents. We do not want anyone to be damn and go to hell. The White Conservative Evangelical wing of Christianity has lost sight of this truth. They are as the author of the article pointed out traded Christian principles for political power. This has never worked well for the Church throughout history. BTW I am a white older Evangelical Christian. Stereotype types never tell the whole story.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    The Bible is (A) not 3000 years old as it talks of the birth and death of Christ. Christ was born in 0 AD (Anno Domini – which means After the birth of Christ) and died in approximately 33 AD, so the Bible is actually < 2000 years old.

    Nice try at a BS smear on the Bible though. Your lack of even basic literacy calls into question the question the rest of your post.

    I WILL agree that any attempt to take the Bible out of context to justify pre-existing biases is ultimately futile – and actually damaging to society as a whole. That includes your attempts to discredit the Bible as the most successful 'social engineering' textbook in history and to discredit the Biblical teachings as 'outdated' when al the new-found liberal social-engineering ideas are failing left and right.

  • Michael Weyer

    Ah, I misunderstood your words. Sadly, as a Catholic who sees folks of my faith actually claiming to be better Christians than the Pope, people can take faith a tad too far.

  • chemical

    I still hold that God is far more supreme than any document created by men, however religious (or in the case of some Founding Fathers, lack of) they may be.

    The point I’ve been trying to get through is that our government, and the Constitution, has nothing to do with God at all. It’s exactly what it appears to be: A basis for a system of government. You’re right in that the Founders didn’t all share a religion. Some were non-religious, and some we Christians.

    But I’d be very hesitant to say religious law supersedes secular law. After all, we don’t grant permission to Quetzalcoatl worshippers to carry out human sacrifices. If I decide to sacrifice humans to Quetzalcoatl, I’m going to get arrested, and if I cry “Religious persecution!” at the trial, the judge will inform me that my religious rights don’t supersede other people’s right to live, and then I go to prison.

  • Alpha 1

    From the outside, the impression I get of Catholicism is that it’s much more of a big tent than protestant churches, since it’s made up of people who disagreed with the idea of leaving and starting your own church if you don’t like what’s going on. So you’ll see open socialists uncomfortably coexisting in the same organization with guys who want to bring back the Bourbons in France. With that in mind I’d guess that being a gay Christian wouldn’t really hurt or help Buttigieg, because everyone had made up their mind on politics and social issues before he became known.

  • ClanSutherland

    Christians on the right are all about being correct and the black and white infallible. So they shout to the sky about sin and everyone who is excluded because of their particular sin.

    Christians on the left leave confession and forgiveness of sin between each person and God. They don’t have to shout the other side down. God will take care of the others.

    Give me Christians on the left.

  • Principled Conservative

    If Graham hasn’t publicly called on Trump to repent of his many and ongoing sins, he’s a complete hypocrite for calling on someone else to do so. He obviously did it just because Buttigieg has a D behind his name.

    Someone in my family forwarded an email to me recently that claimed to be a message Graham shared at a church in FL. It didn’t mention the gospel once. It decried white people becoming a minority voting block. If that’s really what Graham said I doubt he’s really a christian. A true christian minister would preach the gospel. He would not stir up fear of minorities for political purposes.

    I’m a Bible believing christian, but I no longer want anything to do with so-called Evangelicals. Their actions in the age of Trump have uncovered their utter hypocrisy.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    I did not say my church set those rules. You claim that you are immune from the laws of God because you don’t believe in him.

    That is nonsense. Your attempt to deflect from what you clearly said is also nonsense.

    You have now backpedalled your original post and reduced your argument to ‘quibbling’ status.

    Your attempt to equivocate on whether the Constitution references God – it certainly does in that it implements the concepts and beliefs specified by the DOI. The Oath of Office for every politician as well as our money also reflect a belief in God as the overseer of those elected to public trusteeship. As to your quibbles about Norse gods and the use of ‘God’ vs ‘Creator’, you don’t believe in either so are not qualified to have an opinion on whether or not they are one and the same or in any way different.

    As to your claim to morality, you have none as you have no objective basis for comparison and therefore no way to measure one set of actions against another in any moral sense. Your sense of morality is no different (in essence) from that of Pelosi or Trump or Sanders or either of the Clintons. All are relative to how each individual ‘feels’ and all will claim that ALL their actions are ‘moral and ethical’ as a result – regardless of what anyone else may think about their actions.

    This is where it becomes important to elect people of character to public office – people that have strong moral character – and such people ALWAYS need a strong faith to give them the confidence and strength (without an over-sized ego and arrogance that comes with it) to follow and to adhere to the only objective standard that has been universally recognized throughout history as providing the most good for the most people.

    What gores your goat is that you don’t have the moral courage to admit that the Bible is (and for the past almost 2000 years has been) the best guide to strong moral character and decent behavior for both men and women in existence. But because you feel a need to reject God, you cannot claim adherence to the Biblical (or even Christian) behavior or beliefs and with no other objective standard, neither you nor your actions can be reliably (morally or ethically) distinguished from those of Trump or Hillary Clinton.

  • Etranger

    I just looked up what languages he knows and they are so varied! I am a novice polyglot and was so impressed by that. I can barely master the romance languages and they are related! But what got me was that he actually released a video in sign language too (though I don’t know how proficient he is in it). What a difference from our current oaf….

  • chemical

    Oh, I see.

    I didn’t understand your term “God’s Laws” properly. I’ve been using that phrase meaning the rules your church sets as a condition of being a member. You have been using it as something else, which I’m not entirely sure of. If I had to guess I’d say the rules your church sets as a condition of being a member mixed in with some of the rules by which nature operates. Obviously I’m not immune to nature and can’t violate those laws at will. No one can. I am, however, not subject to your church’s rules. Because I don’t claim to be a member, the church has no power over me. I know you can’t possibly comprehend that, but you wouldn’t believe the freedom it offers me.

    The god part of the oath of office for politicians is completely optional. It’s also optional to swear in on a Bible or other holy book. The “In God we trust” on our money wasn’t originally on it, and was added sometime in the 1950’s due to the Red Scare, due to the laughable belief that it would somehow beat the communists.

    In my original post I mentioned I’m not appointing myself arbiter over who’s the correct Christian and who isn’t, or what constitutes correct Christian belief. I also encouraged the commenters to not take religious belief into consideration when choosing leaders.

    The Bible has been used to justify countless atrocities, too. Slavery being one of them. I find this last statement interesting:

    But because you feel a need to reject God, you cannot claim adherence to the Biblical (or even Christian) behavior or beliefs and with no other objective standard, neither you nor your actions can be reliably (morally or ethically) distinguished from those of Trump or Hillary Clinton.

    So… are you saying you can’t tell if my actions are moral or not because I’ve rejected the idea of God? This would seem to imply that given a hypothetical situation, you wouldn’t be able to tell if the person involved was acting in a moral manner unless you knew the religion of the person. Another logical conclusion I could make based on that is a Christian could take one action and have it be moral, but an atheist could not.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    Once again, you seem to be confusing the man-made ‘constructs’ created to control and limit access to the Word with the Word of God as taught by Christ.

    No church has any divine authority to add or remove (or in any other way) to modify the conditions God has set down (through Jesus) for salvation. No church has any business arbitrarily restricting membership or limiting access to Christ.

    If your church requires baptism as a condition of membership, consider that Christian non-members have already been baptized into Christ, anything else is just a ‘dunking’ that has no impact on salvation other than to give the church elders a sense of power over their membership.

    Even the concept of the congregation voting on whether to let a new member into their membership is against Christ’s teachings because he mentions neither worldly requirements, nor approval of man as requirements to enter Heaven, to follow Him as His disciple or to claim the name of “Christian”. Why should it be easier to enter Heaven than to enter a church ?

    If you are attending a church that is putting additional requirements on you over-and-above what Christ requires, it makes sense to ask why that is so. What gives them the authority to place additional hurdles in the way of your attempt to follow Christ ?

    As to your comment about the Bible being used to justify atrocities, I contend that the Bible has been MIS-used and MIS-quoted, with passages taken out of context, made up out of thin air, or twisted out of shape by the same type of false prophets as Fallwell JR and Joel Olsteen and by Atheist grifters such as Nancy Pelosi who has publicly claimed that abortion is a ‘sacrament’ in ‘her Catholic religion’ or even by the Pope that claims the US should open our borders and embrace socialism because Jesus says to ‘love thy neighbor’ and ‘care for the poor’. (The Bible ALSO says that ‘he who does not work should not eat” and cites numerous instances where God has supported His chosen people in Old Testament wars.

    You again mis-interpret my statements about absolute vs relativistic moral standards. Let me try again. When your only reference to compare your morality against is your own feelings about right and wrong, there is no real difference between your morality and that of Donald Trump or Vlad Putin. All three of you have rejected the only non-subjective standard of morality that can be held up as “the gold standard”. When you reject the morality of Christ, you stand on a slippery slope of relative morality (your morality may be relatively closer to the Bible than Trump’s, but since you reject the Bible’s morality, there is no way to estimate or reason to expect that should events turn against you and temptation present itself as we know to be the case in DC, that you would stand by your morality or your principles and not ‘cave’ into the ‘easy path’ of temptation just as so many formerly-respected conservatives have ‘caved’ into Trumpism. The chances of an Atheist standing by his morality – a morality that is no stronger than his own feelings and that he has already compromised by rejecting any formal, external standard – in the face of adversity is vanishingly small – which is what we’ve been seeing in DC these past few decades as the refrain “we are electing a president, not a pastor” continue to denigrate those with true faith-based principles and solid character founded in faith and Biblical (not church-) teachings.

    In the final analysis, Trump will continue to maintain that he has never done anything immoral or unethical – and HE HAS NOT (by his standards). The problem is that Trump’s standard of morality is the exact same as yours – and of Pelosi and of too many other “non-Pastors” in DC: that standard is one based on his own upbringing, on his own feelings and values and his own life experiences without regard to Biblical teachings or any intentional commitment to following any objective (vs subjective) external standard of morality, ethics, values or principles. Remember that attempts have been made for decades to “legislate morality”. EVERY SUCH ATTEMPT HAS FAILED. Every attempt has been subverted, rejected by Atheists that object to one or another of the requirements for objective morality or non-situational ethics or simply ignored by Atheists that reject the imposition of someone else’s subjective.determination of what morality should be legislated. (An example of his would be Obama declaring that it is both moral and appropriate for Nuns (The Little Sisters of the Poor) to be required to provide contraception to their paid employees). Not that Obama concluded that his contraceptive mandate did NOT violate their religious beliefs and even if their beliefs WERE violated, that the Little Sisters should just “get over it”.

    The same argument applies to the Democrats legislating that abortion is somehow NOT the killing of infants or the gay lobby legislating that following Christian religious teachings (a Constitutionally protected practice) is ‘a hate crime’ and illegal based on THAT basis.

    Just as Atheists fear that allowing Christians or other religions into government service will inevitably result in turning the US into a theocracy, so Christians are watching the Atheists turn our country from a free Republic into either a socialist nation (which is historically quickly converted into a dictatorship) or a fascist dictatorship depending on which Atheist faction is in power in DC at any time and what color their jerseys are.

    The bottom line is that until Atheists can point to one common, external, objective standard that they all agree to live up to and to strive to meet for morality and for ethics, there is not an Atheist existing that can be trusted with hard questions of morality OR ethics OR leadership (since leadership requires BOTH qualities). The keyword is ‘trust’. Some few Atheists may be “good people”, but that does not mean they won’t trade their ethics and morality for power or money given the chance. True Christians will pass up the temptation, knowing that to give into temptation is to abandon the life-path they have chosen to follow Christ.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    No, I reject your attempt to equivocate and quibble over morality when you have rejected any formal, objective standard. There is obviously a disagreement between your ‘morality’ and that of the Trump-defenders. The problem is there is no objective way to settle the issue. BOTH of you depend entirely on your own PERSONAL perception of what is moral and ethical and what is not. Therefore there is no answer other than to say that since you’ve both rejected the only objective standard that has existed for centuries, you are both in the wrong.

    Your suggestion to consider morality is also meaningless (even hypocritical) when you push an openly gay man with the excuse that his lack of morality and conformity to the expectations of the only objective standard of morality does not matter. You are doing the EXACT same thing the Trump defenders were doing in 2016-2018 – defending the color of the jersey rather than the demonstrated character (or lack thereof) and the demonstrated history of poor judgement that man has demonstrated.

    Your defense of Pete Buttigiegs for President is one example of you now attempting to excuse poor character for the sake of your chosen jersey. You don’t like Trump – no one with common sense does. That does not mean that we need to ‘hire’ another man with as radical or oppressive policies as Trump has demonstrated but with with blue jersey on. It is an easy argument to make that virtually all openly-gay public officials have pushed policies such as the open-bathrooms, while forcing churches and Christians throughout the country to either compromise their faith and their religion or be forced into bankruptcy.

    We have seen what happens when openly-gay officials are elected. Obama’s policies of forcing churches to pay for both contraceptives and abortions on demand, the persecution of Chick-fil-A, the Mozilla CEO, the Colorado Baker, the New Mexican Florist, wedding venues throughout the country being forced to open to gay celebrations in conflict with their religious beliefs, etc., etc.

    Many Atheists express a fear of Christians in power while hypocritically ignoring the abuses of Christians and the ways the Atheist lawmakers are preventing Christians from Constitutionally practicing our faith that are occurring today because Atheists have driven so many Christians out of government and installed so many special-interest legislators that the laws being passed no longer represent traditional American Constitutional values, but special-rights for the speical-interest groups.

  • RebeccaSusanWright

    The Creator made His intentions known. I think it is Buttigieg who has a quarrel with his Creator.

  • RebeccaSusanWright

    It’s not about hating gays. That’s where liberals keep messing up.
    Example: Your child is about to touch a hot stove. If you tell him ‘no,’ is it because you hate him, or because you love him and know just letting him do what he wants will hurt him?
    God has a design and a plan. Because of the original fall of man in the Garden of Eden, sin was introduced into the world, and we have sickness and wickedness that was never a part of God’s plan for us.
    Homosexuality is a result of the fall. God made a way of redemption through His son, Jesus, but it requires our faith.
    We all have urges and inclinations to do what is wrong. That’s the seed of Adam, that sin nature we’re all born with. How we react, however, is up to us. God wants us to love Him enough to be obedient and trust him, not run after our own flesh. He’s not going to force us, because that’s not relationship. He wants us to follow after His way, willingly.
    Buttigieg is a prime example of someone who chased his flesh, ignoring God’s Word and thinking he knows better than the One who made him.

  • RebeccaSusanWright

    What was sin was sin, from the Old Testament days, up through the New Covenant of Jesus’ shed blood.
    Our reactions to sin are what changed after Jesus.
    Sin no longer means immediate death. We have a way out.

  • larryamon

    Franklin Graham has done a lot of good through Samaritan’s Purse and he was spot on with his tweets. But it’s hard to preach the truth when you’re an open hypocrite in the same exact area. It’s one problem that comes with sacrificing integrity for a seat at the table. But I also wasn’t a big fan of Billy Graham either. We have to be careful not to equate good works with good character or even good theology.

  • chemical

    Your suggestion to consider morality is also meaningless (even hypocritical) when you push an openly gay man with the excuse that his lack of morality…

    About that. Exactly what about Pete Buttigieg makes him immoral? The man is a true patriot who served his country with honor. In addition, all evidence points to him being an honest, effective mayor who has really helped out South Bend (even the Republicans there like him and he won his last election with around 80% of the vote).

    Is it because he’s *gasp* gay? Buttigieg’s sexual orientation only affects who he is going to choose for romantic and sexual partners. Personally, I don’t see how that is any of my business. But if morality is acting ethically towards someone or a group of people, the Pete Buttigieg certainly seems to act morally when he’s interacting with South Bend as a whole, or with the United States.

    Like I said earlier, Trump’s supporters didn’t care about Trump’s total lack of ethics and morality, because they see him as a way to enact their political agenda. Trump also isn’t particularly religious, but that’s irrelevant, because it’s his lack of ethics and morality make him unfit for office, not his lack of religion.

    Re. Obama’s policies. I see this lie perpetuated among the right frequently. Obama never forced churches to pay for contraceptives or abortions — rather, the churches refused to sign an exemption that would have permitted employees to purchase health insurance that covers abortions and contraception on the free market. The churches wanted to pay their employees with money that had strings attached to it. Had the churches signed the exemption, the employees would have been free to use the church-provided health insurance (which didn’t cover these things) or get their own insurance that did.

    In the other cases you listed, it’s not us that’s persecuting you. You’re persecuting yourself. That’s something I hear out of conservatives all the time — you’re such champions of the free market, right up until the free market’s invisible hand slaps you in the face because you chose to be discriminatory bigots. All we did was tell everyone the truth — that those businesses refused to serve gay folks, or they donate money to LGBT-hating groups, and then they cry persecution when no one supports them anymore. Face it — you chose a hill to die on, lost the fight, and now you’re upset that you’re dying on a hill.

    I’m trying to help you, you know. Extending you, fellow American, a lifeline so that you can crawl out of the crab bucket, knowing that you resent me for doing it.

  • 92JazzQueen .

    Are you kidding? I have seen the Christian Left be on the black and white mentality. They are not about confession and forgiveness of sin, unless it’s the sins they deem irredeemable in their eyes. And they do shout down other people. You really have a rosy tint view of them, and often times people let them get away with it.

  • 92JazzQueen .

    Funny enough Graham was friends with Trump before the 2016 election. Their friendship goes back to 2011. If his father was more mobile, then he could tell his son that Trump was a bad influence.

  • The Dove

    Billy Graham died in 2018.

  • 92JazzQueen .

    His son.

  • Annemarie

    No, explain away, it helps. My dad, for his part, simply ignored religion; my mother prayed in secret.

    I must say, I like the law as practiced in Judaism — you are constantly thinking of God — but can understand why legalism would start to take over. Doing things just because they’re supposed to be done, and lacking the reason behind them.

  • Annemarie

    Thank you! And then there are the Mennonites and the Unitarians and the Quakers…I just read somewhere that for the first century or two after Luther, Lutheran and Anglicans were considered Protestant only in the political sense, not the religious sense.

  • Annemarie

    And despite being born hardwired to commit sin, we have the choice not to, right? Like people who are tempted to kill, but fight the temptation. It’s just that some people have to fight a lot harder than others.

  • Annemarie

    Thank you, everyone! I still have a lot to think about on this, but the range of answers was really helpful.

  • David Mark Greaves

    Most of what you, Susan Wright, say about Donald Trump I can agree with especially about abusive behavior. I am not sure about what you call “lies.” And I would like to know what Adultery that you are talking about. It is true he is married to the third woman after two previous marriages, but that all happened before he became a changed man with sight set on God and not on his flesh. Also, his abusive behavior is something we should pray for him about; it is part of his personality and a shortcoming of the flesh. I find absolutely no fault in Franklin Graham’s statements as they are focused on the present not the past.