Franklin Graham faces a Brit of intolerance - censored

[drjean]

https://christianindex.org/franklin-graham-faces-a-brit-of-intolerance/

The message was simply this: “Time for Hope.”

Franklin, who’s had a front-row seat for the censorship of religion in the U.S., wasn’t surprised. On his Facebook page, he talked about his festival and the obvious need for it around the world.

“I’m sorry that some see hope as offensive, but I can assure you that tens of thousands of people in Blackpool and across the United Kingdom are searching for hope. Sex, drugs, money, even religion – none of these are the answer. I’m coming to share with everyone in Blackpool, Lancashire, and across North West England that there is One who can give you hope. Hope for today, hope for tomorrow, and hope for eternity. His name is Jesus Christ! Will you pray with me for this event in September and for God to work in a mighty way to transform hearts and lives across this region?”

 

[JackRT]

A "Brit of intolerance" ??? Franklin would feel right at home.

 

[creslaw]

Oh yeah, that's really offensive.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Franklin, who’s had a front-row seat for the censorship of religion in the U.S., wasn’t surprised.

Between the Samaritan's Purse and the Billy Graham Evan Assoc., Franklin Graham pulls in around $1mil/yr (Based on the IRS 990s). For someone who has been "censored" it seems that said censorship is a pretty good business.

 

[FenderTL5]

I didn't realize Franklin was still preaching, I thought he'd gone full-time GOP/Trump political apologist.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Only five posts before someone interjected Trump. Personally, I was guessing it'd be seven.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

Between the Samaritan's Purse and the Billy Graham Evan Assoc., Franklin Graham pulls in around $1mil/yr (Based on the IRS 990s). For someone who has been "censored" it seems that said censorship is a pretty good business.

Poor guy, it must be tough for him.

 

[hedrick]

An ad that said simply "It's time for hope" might be a good message. But that's not quite all that was there. It's an ad for an evangelical event. The objection was to the event, on the grounds that Graham has a history of what in the UK some consider "hate speech." In the US, of course, it would be a legitimate exercise of free speech. I'm not one of those who think the American Revolution was unjustified. But in the British context it's understandable.

 

[Arcangl86]

An ad that said simply "It's time for hope" might be a good message. But that's not quite all that was there. It's an ad for an evangelical event. The objection was to the event, on the grounds that Graham has a history of what in the UK some consider "hate speech." In the US, of course, it would be a legitimate exercise of free speech. I'm not one of those who think the American Revolution was unjustified. But in the British context it's understandable.

Yeah considering Franklin Graham has a history of virulent anti-LGBT rhetoric, I'm not surprised that members of the LGBT community complained about the buses advertising one of his events.

 

[ubicaritas]

An ad that said simply "It's time for hope" might be a good message. But that's not quite all that was there. It's an ad for an evangelical event. The objection was to the event, on the grounds that Graham has a history of what in the UK some consider "hate speech." In the US, of course, it would be a legitimate exercise of free speech. I'm not one of those who think the American Revolution was unjustified. But in the British context it's understandable.

Good point. Frankly Graham is dealing in conservative Arminian religion at the end of the day, and that comes with its own baggage. He's not just talking about Jesus as an historical person, after all.

 

[creslaw]

Today the traditional Scriptural perspective of homosexuality is considered hate speech.

 

[JackRT]

Today the traditional Scriptural perspective of homosexuality is considered hate speech.

It is very difficult to see it in any other way.

 

[creslaw]

It is very difficult to see it in any other way.

It is very difficult to see it in any other way for those who cannot distinguish acceptance of a person from acceptance of a behaviour.

 

[creslaw]

What gets forgotten in the clamouring against ministries such as Franklin Graham is that there are a great many people who struggle with unwanted same sex attraction which conflicts with their personal, social & religious goals. For them, a message that promises the possibility of a future that is in harmony with their life goals, through faith in the transforming power of Jesus Christ (Romans 12:1-2, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11), means the difference between despair & hope.

 

[JackRT]

It is very difficult to see it in any other way for those who cannot distinguish acceptance of a person from acceptance of a behaviour.

I can distinguish between the two quite well. But, it is hard to accept a person when you consider their behaviour abominable and are busy putting them to death because of it as the Bible orders.

 

[creslaw]

I can distinguish between the two quite well. But, it is hard to accept a person when you consider their behaviour abominable and are busy putting them to death because of it as the Bible orders.

When a family member had an abortion it did not stop me from loving her as much even though I believed it was wrong.

Where, in the new covenant that Christians are under, is anyone to be put to death?

 

[hedrick]

Today the traditional Scriptural perspective of homosexuality is considered hate speech.

No, it's not. The people typically accused of hate speech go beyond the Scriptural statements. Here's the relevant section of the change.org petition:

"Franklin Graham has said that Russian President Vladimir Putin “is right”vii in his crackdown against LGBT rights in his country where gay people are subject to severe human rights abuses.viii Atrocities and executions of gay people continue to go on in the Russian republic of Chechyna with no intervention from the Russian authorities.

"Franklin Graham has stated that gay children and gay people are dangerous and should not be allowed into churches or Christian homes.ix"

Furthermore, the issue wasn't only or even primarily gays, but his statements on Muslims:

"Franklin Graham supports a ban on all Muslims from entering the United Statesi while advocating that Muslims already in living in the United States should be interned.ii"

Assuming these citations are correct, I would treat him like the KKK. In the US it has to be tolerated, but should always be visibly opposed by Christians. But outside the US it often isn't allowed.

 

[creslaw]

No, it's not. The people typically accused of hate speech go beyond the Scriptural statements. Here's the relevant section of the change.org petition:

"Franklin Graham has said that Russian President Vladimir Putin “is right”vii in his crackdown against LGBT rights in his country where gay people are subject to severe human rights abuses.viii Atrocities and executions of gay people continue to go on in the Russian republic of Chechyna with no intervention from the Russian authorities.

"Franklin Graham has stated that gay children and gay people are dangerous and should not be allowed into churches or Christian homes.ix"

Furthermore, the issue wasn't only or even primarily gays, but his statements on Muslims:

"Franklin Graham supports a ban on all Muslims from entering the United Statesi while advocating that Muslims already in living in the United States should be interned.ii"

Assuming these citations are correct, I would treat him like the KKK. In the US it has to be tolerated, but should always be visibly opposed by Christians. But outside the US it often isn't allowed.

I think you would be wise to find an original source where Franklin Graham has said those things in context.
To repeat things you just assume to be correct, and without context, isn't what I would expect on a Christian forum.

 

[hedrick]

I think you would be wise to find an original source where Franklin Graham has said those things in context.
To repeat things you just assume to be correct, and without context, isn't what I would expect on a Christian forum.

I said "if this is correct." I wasn't accusing Graham myself, but describing the reason the UK government did what it did. I have now checked sources.

Here's what he said (taken directly from his Facebook page):

"Four innocent Marines (United States Marine Corps) killed and three others wounded in #Chattanooga yesterday including a policeman and another Marine--all by a radical Muslim whose family was allowed to immigrate to this country from Kuwait. We are under attack by Muslims at home and abroad. We should stop all immigration of Muslims to the U.S. until this threat with Islam has been settled. Every Muslim that comes into this country has the potential to be radicalized--and they do their killing to honor their religion and Muhammad. During World War 2, we didn't allow Japanese to immigrate to America, nor did we allow Germans. Why are we allowing Muslims now? Do you agree? Let your Congressman know that we've got to put a stop to this and close the flood gates. Pray for the men and women who serve this nation in uniform, that God would protect them."

As far as I can tell he didn't actually suggest internment camps. However his use of the WW2 approach to Japanese could certainly imply it. It was Gen Wesley Clark that specifically suggested it for radicalize Muslims. I think this quotation is bad enough. It treats every Muslim as dangerous. In the current UK political situation, this isn't something they're going to like.

He did say that the campaign for gay rights is Satanic [https://billygraham.org/decision-magazine/february-2014/ducking-the-issue/'
He did, as described in the previous article, praise the Russian handling of gays [https://billygraham.org/decision-ma...-franklin-graham-the-real-story-of-christmas/] However it's worth noting that the worst mistreatment hadn't occurred at the time he made this statement.

I think the accusation is mostly true, though with some exaggeration.

Here's an article from NBC, which is better supported than the change.org petition: https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/billy-graham-leaves-painful-legacy-lgbtq-people-n850031

 

[creslaw]

I said "if this is correct." I wasn't accusing Graham myself, but describing the reason the UK government did what it did. I have now checked sources.

Here's what he said (taken directly from his Facebook page):

"Four innocent Marines (United States Marine Corps) killed and three others wounded in #Chattanooga yesterday including a policeman and another Marine--all by a radical Muslim whose family was allowed to immigrate to this country from Kuwait. We are under attack by Muslims at home and abroad. We should stop all immigration of Muslims to the U.S. until this threat with Islam has been settled. Every Muslim that comes into this country has the potential to be radicalized--and they do their killing to honor their religion and Muhammad. During World War 2, we didn't allow Japanese to immigrate to America, nor did we allow Germans. Why are we allowing Muslims now? Do you agree? Let your Congressman know that we've got to put a stop to this and close the flood gates. Pray for the men and women who serve this nation in uniform, that God would protect them."

As far as I can tell he didn't actually suggest internment camps. However his use of the WW2 approach to Japanese could certainly imply it. It was Gen Wesley Clark that specifically suggested it for radicalize Muslims. I think this quotation is bad enough. It treats every Muslim as dangerous. In the current UK political situation, this isn't something they're going to like.

He did say that the campaign for gay rights is Satanic [https://billygraham.org/decision-magazine/february-2014/ducking-the-issue/'
He did, as described in the previous article, praise the Russian handling of gays [https://billygraham.org/decision-ma...-franklin-graham-the-real-story-of-christmas/] However it's worth noting that the worst mistreatment hadn't occurred at the time he made this statement.

I think the accusation is mostly true, though with some exaggeration.

Here's an article from NBC, which is better supported than the change.org petition: https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/billy-graham-leaves-painful-legacy-lgbtq-people-n850031

Everything that Franklin Graham has actually said is entirely Scriptural ... and supported by millions of Bible believing Christians.