What If Billy Graham Had Been Invited To Address Congress?

[NonMetro]

I know: he was never a head of state, and was never officially the leader of all Protestants. However, at the height of his career, he was the most highly visible Protestant, known worldwide, and respected by most Protestants, and even many Catholics!

So, what if a Protestant speaker of the house had invited him to address the congress of the United States, and threw in a triumphal parade for him thought the streets of the Capitol? How would that have looked to people of other religions in this country? Would Catholics just be totally cool with that? No big deal? What would people of other faiths think? Would they not think their government favored Protestants? Would they not suspect a Protestant speaker to have been up to something, that he had no agenda in doing this? What would they think of Billy Graham proselytizing from the podium of the congress, with the Supreme Court sitting in the front row?

Would those who objected to any of this, or to anything Rev. Graham said, be called Protestant haters? Would people protest and say Rev. Graham was just expressing his views, nothing more, nobody is compelled to listen, and let's not make too much of this?

[catnhatnh]

1. Pile of nonsense...

...because he is a head of state and also the spiritual leader of 1.2 billion people. Likewise the exiled Dalai Lama was greeted by the President...

[NonMetro]

4. Well, there are about 800 Million Protestants In The World

Do there have to be more than a billion before they can preach to our congress, and have a triumphal parade in DC? Oh, yeah, the "head of state" thing. The Pope, who rules over 450 Catholic brothers on a 100 acre monastery in Rome is a head of state, just like the Prime Minister of Great Britain!

Now, is it nonsense because I suggested a Protestant be given the lectern in congress for a joint session and a triumphal parade through DC? Or is that something strictly reserved for.....?

[Orrex]

11. I'm not up to date on this: who's the worldwide head of the Protestant church?

Or is Graham one of many examples of more or less self-appointed speakers on behalf of the faith with no real authority other than the ability to pack stadiums and, mysteriously, to make people listen to him?


Hell, Justin Bieber has that power. Let's have him address Congress.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. People are 'world wide heads' and 'the Sultan' and 'King of You' because they and others say so

Not because by saying so they have some actual authority in moral issues. What the hell is any member of any clergy doing addressing the Congress? He's doing politics, that's what. Which means that every single citizen gets to approach that activist as an activist.

He came to the Congress and made arch insinuations about threats to the family. His dogma against the use of condoms and against proper sexual education contributes greatly to the ongoing massive death in Africa from AIDS. Over 100,000 persons a month die in Africa from AIDS. This creates what is literally an uncountable number of orphans and families with just one living parent who is often times also sick.
So I can not help but think of the threats to the family he says. 44% of Uganda are in his Church, 7.2% of Ugandans live with HIV. Just 13% say they have ever used a condom even once, because it is a sin. Uganda is one tenth the population of the US and has ten times the number of deaths from AIDS each year, way over 60,000.
What does the Church and her Bishops do in Uganda? As we know they promote anti gay laws and pogroms when they could be at least attending to all the sick and to the orphans. But they have priorities, and condoms are a sin and I can not help but think about threats to the family, from within and from without. I can not help it.

Does Justin tell kids to not use condoms? If not, he wins.

[Orrex]

18. Please don't misunderstand me.

I think it was idiotic to have Frankie address the Congress in any capacity other than as the head of a tiny state. It was equally absurd to have the Dalai Lama address the Congress except as the exiled head of a besieged state (and fabulously wealthy, pampered elitist, while we're at it).

Frankly, I find it offensive that a chaplain of any faith (or of any non-faith, for that matter) address the Congress on matters of faith or spirituality. If I want that nonsense, there are plenty of churches that won't shut up about it, and enough panderers already in the two houses. The last thing we need is another proof that the church and state are far from separate.

As for the Graham thing, he was nobody except an effective speaker and fund-raiser who happened to gain the ear of too many Whitehouses. It offends me to this day that he was given free, unelected access as a "spiritual adviser." That is flat-out bullshit and should not be tolerated.

Presidents can consult whomever they like, but to appoint a man like Graham as the de facto head of the Church of the United States is vile and inexcusable.

[Bluenorthwest]

21. I understand.

I'm just so depressed about the whole thing. I'm just not religious enough to be a Democrat these days.

[jmowreader]

19. There is no "worldwide head of the Protestant church"...

...because there isn't a unified "Protestant church." There are a lot of creeds that claim Protestantism, and quite a few of them hate each other.

[Orrex]

24. Yeah, that was my point

It would clearly be a mistake to characterize Graham as the leader of the Protestant church, or that the number of Protestants worldwide has any bearing on Graham's authority to address Congress.

My post was in response to Reply #4, which put forth Graham's 800M flock opposite the Pope's 1.2 billion.

[loyalsister]

2. Graham has met with every president since Eisenhower

Probably a few members of congress, as well.

http://billygraham.org/gallery/billy-graham-pastor-to-the-presidents/

[NonMetro]

5. I've never liked that, either.

No matter how we slice and dice it, it shows favoritism. Not good!

[JI7]

12. i don't think he has met with Obama

[loyalsister]

22. There's a photo at that site

I doubt it is something Billy or Franklin Graham would lie about since their followers are not fans.

[JI7]

23. you are right. i just read about it

[NonMetro]

6. Well, Defenders of the Faith in here have not been bashful about quarreling

With me about the Pope.

However, what you just said: you find Billy Graham, the Protestant, 100 times more of offensive than the Pope, the Roman Catholic. Fine. That's your opinion, and it doesn't bother me in the least. However, I'm not so sure most Protestants would not disagree with you, and perhaps even be a little angry, or perhaps a lot, at your opinion.

And suppose you had said the same thing the other way around, that you found the Pope 100 times more offensive than Billy Graham?

[NonMetro]

9. Sure! I'm on board with that!

Look: I don't think any holy man or religious leader should ever be invited to address our congress. It's divisive, it shows favoritism, and is, IMO, in violation of our long established doctrine of separation of church and state. People have sued to the Supreme Court to have crosses removed from city hall, and yet, no one see's how turning our congress into a virtual religious ceremony, and endorsing an establishment of religion, is even far more of a violation of our constitution?

And I believe John Boehner was absolutely up to no good when he invited the Pope to address congress, and we have already seen in these message boards Democrats are at each other's throats over it!

[erpowers]

7. I Doubt Catholics Would Have Been Upset

I think a number of Catholics, especially the conservative Catholics would have been happy to have Bill Graham speak to a joint session of Congress. There is a chance that people like Nancy Pelosi would have had a problem with the event, but there is a chance that not even Nancy Pelosi would have had a problem with the event taking place. It is very possible that Bill Graham has a large number of Catholic fans.

[NonMetro]

10. And the Pope has a large number of Protestant fans!

Organized religion, across the board, has been in decline for a long time, and in those circumstances, all religious people look for alliances with other believers. A Christian would prefer an alliance with a Muslim, vice-a-versa, and both would reject atheists or agnostics. But, sooner or later, it comes down to faith: Protestants don't really agree with Catholics, and vice-a-versa, and neither one really agrees with Islam. This issue hasn't much surfaced, yet. But it will, as soon as Protestants realize that their government just gave a ringing endorsement the the Roman Catholic Faith.

[treestar]

14. Yes, the Protestant/Catholic divide

has subsided, and now they are mostly on the same side. I can recall when a Catholic marrying a Protestant was a big deal - or, if I don't recall it, my parents and grandparents talked about it. Now, not so much.

[Autumn]

13. What if a bowl of spaghetti had been invited to address Congress?

Would the garlic bread have stood and applauded?

[olddots]

15. What about the meatballs ?

[Autumn]

17. The meatballs would have been all like, Ramen! Praise the Romano

Unless it's on the High Holy days then it's, Praise the Rum! Spoken in Ancient Pirate of course

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1282

[Bluenorthwest]

20. That depends. What's his stance on climate change?

nt