More from the Nixon tapes: Billy Graham blasts Jews in the media

erik_kosberg · #1 03-02-2002, 10:01 AM

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._graham_jews_1

**pluckyduck** · #2 03-02-2002, 10:14 AM

Andrea

**drmomentum**[$] · #3 03-02-2002, 11:20 AM

Nixon was right. "You must not let them know!"

-JP

pisces · #4 03-04-2002, 03:31 PM

You can't really fault someone for saying something stupid 30 years ago.

Anyone who spoke with Nixon always had to say the things Nixon wanted to hear. I wasn't there, but I interpret this conversation as Graham's way of placating the pitiable Nixon.

#5 03-04-2002, 03:45 PM

Let's consider pisces' position that it was Nixon that was the anti-Semite and Graham was only echoing Nixon's views...

Wasn't Billy Graham unofficially listed as a Spiritual Advisor to the Presidents all those years? If so, isn't it his moral obligation as a spiritual advisor to set the President straight and advise him that anti-Semitism... anti-anybody was contrary to the basic civil rights of this country and a violation of his Quaker principles?

Otherwise, he's not much of a spiritual advisor in my book but just another old cracker with a Bible looking for a handout and a television audience.

I believe Graham said these things as his own, the truth has been revealed, and he's begging for mercy and apology despite that his actual views haven't changed. The sad part is that when Graham eventually meets his sponsor... I mean his Maker... to justify his duplicity for the pursuit of earthly rewards, the next wave of televangelists and fundamentalist extremists following the cross and thumping the Bible aren't much better than their counterparts following the oil money thumping the Koran.

pisces · #6 03-04-2002, 08:00 PM

Well, if we are pitting Billy Graham against Richard Nixon, I'd say Nixon is the heavy and more likely to be the Anti-Semite.

Nixon's paranoia extended to everyone and anyone. Every single group was out to "get" him. Nobody could "set Nixon straight" the only thing his advisors (spiritual or otherwise) could do was to just go along with whatever crazy Nixon's notions were at the time, for fear of agitating the volitle and erratic Nixon even more.

Anybody who associated with Nixon became a little crazy after a time. Nixon tended to bring out the worst in otherwise great men.

**mrisch**[$] · #7 03-04-2002, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pisces
You can't really fault someone for saying something stupid 30 years ago.

1. Views like this rarely change
2. If he said it 30 years ago, someone else says it today and it won't come out for another 30 years, if ever, and that's the real problem here.

poseidon · #8 03-04-2002, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mrisch

1. Views like this rarely change
2. If he said it 30 years ago, someone else says it today and it won't come out for another 30 years, if ever, and that's the real problem here.

So does that mean that Sen. Robert Byrd is still a racist and still wants to be Grand Dragon of the KKK, or is he "everyman's friend" now like he's trying to portray himself to be?

**mrisch**[$] · #9 03-04-2002, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by poseidon

So does that mean that Sen. Robert Byrd is still a racist and still wants to be Grand Dragon of the KKK, or is he "everyman's friend" now like he's trying to portray himself to be?

The former (though obviously with different political aspirations). Do you really think his ideas have changed?

poseidon · #10 03-04-2002, 08:51 PM

We're in agreement then on Senator Byrd.

Frankly, I'm worried and appalled at what I've heard regarding Billy Graham. I had the deepest respect for the man until this -- and I can't help but wonder if it's really really true.

Do I believe that people really can change their views? Yes, I do. Do I think that it is commonplace? No, I don't. I think it is a very rare exception indeed -- that's more of a base belief than an ancillary belief (in other words, a "base" belief would be that the world is round, while an "ancillary" belief would be that I think Bush's tax cuts are a good thing).

Which is why I still brand Louis Farakkan, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Russell Means and, yes, Senator Robert Byrd (D-Va) as racists.

**drmomentum**[$] · #11 03-04-2002, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by poseidon
Which is why I still brand Louis Farakkan, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Russell Means and, yes, Senator Robert Byrd (D-Va) as racists.

You should start a RacistWatch website. You could become a self-styled expert on who is a racist. These are rare and valuable observations, indeed.

-JP

pisces · #12 03-05-2002, 07:55 PM

Poseidon Quote----"Frankly, I'm worried and appalled at what I've heard regarding Billy Graham. I had the deepest respect for the man until this -- and I can't help but wonder if it's really really true. "--Poseidon

Why? Because 30 years ago he misspoke while having a conversation with a complete lunatic (Nixon)?

We don't really know all the facts about the conversation, and we haven't heard Billy Graham's side of it. My Grandmother used to say don't believe what you read, believe only half of what you see, and none of what you hear.

Anyway, who among us hasn't said in 30 years something we wished we hadn't? 30 years ago I was talkin trash, in diapers-that is. Anyway, 30 years ago the world was a very different place. We've evolved since then, but in 1972, I would argue that there was a tacit acceptance of certain prejudices in social conversations, and ethnic jokes were told, and there was a certain lack of sensitivity then and less of an awareness than we have now.

I mean, 30 years ago Homosexuality was still in the psychiatric manual of disorders, so it was ok to openly bash homosexuals in polite conversation in 1972!

Is it fair to expect someone, in 30 years time no less, to have not one slip-up, not one flaw and to not be human in those 30 years? Billy Graham is one of the greatest spiritual authorities for me, in addition to Dr. Schuller. Billy Graham is also one of the most prolific Christian spiritual resources we have in this country.

That being said, I do not "worship" Billy Graham. I do not believe Billy Graham is God. Because he is not God and has never presented himself as such, I can accept that the man had a moment of human weakness 30 years ago to where he was not as evolved in his thinking as he is now! This incident, if true, makes him all the more human in my mind, and doesn't take away from all the great things, his crusades and such, that he's done for the world and Christianity in general.

Again, Nixon was a complete lunatic and otherwise great men, Magruder-Liddy...well maybe not Liddy, had a way of being totally corrupted while in the midst of the crazed Nixon. I'd say, when you are talking with someone as crazy and paranoid as a Nixon, you become a little crazy yourself!

poseidon · #13 03-05-2002, 08:12 PM

Well first of all, I said I can't help but wonder if it is true. That means that I'm open for more information.

I'll also disagree with you that Nixon was a lunatic. Was he paranoid? I'd have to guess that he was. Does being paranoid make one a lunatic? I'd disagree with that.

I don't think it has ever been socially acceptable to be anti-Semitic, unless you are in the anti-Israel or anti-Semitic crowd as a whole. Perhaps if you lived in Nazi Germany it would be socially acceptable, too. Maybe if you live in the area around Israel, too.

But here? Nah. I don't think so.

**mrisch**[$] · #14 03-05-2002, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pisces
Why? Because 30 years ago he misspoke while having a conversation with a complete lunatic (Nixon)?

I don't think so. Jessie Jackson calling New York "Hymietown" is a misspeaking. Having an entire conversation with the president of the U.S. about particular hidden feelings is not. Was he lying? I don't know. Did he change his views, whatever they are? I don't know but I doubt it. I assure you that people who bashed homosexuals 30 years ago by and large do so today, even if quietly.

On the other hand, I agree - Robert Schuller is a stud.

mshawpyle · #15 03-05-2002, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by poseidon
Which is why I still brand Louis Farakkan, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Russell Means and, yes, Senator Robert Byrd (D-Va) as racists.

That Senator Byrd is from West by-God Virginia.

The entire Old Dominion shudders at your error.

poseidon · #16 03-05-2002, 08:58 PM

Ya know you're right.

kurt_messick · #17 03-06-2002, 08:56 AM

There is too much conversation in this bit for it to be a mis-speaking. One can say something and let it go; one can say two or even three things, but this was a whole conversation.

If Graham was pandering to Nixon, why? That worries me. To what purpose did he deliberately try to insert himslef into politically influential circles? Often when ministers get involved in politics, it seems like a betrayal of their calling. Yet Graham does the same thing in an 'acceptable' way and gets praised for it.

In the twentieth century, particularly the first two-thirds of it, anti-Semitism was commonplace and had a grudging acceptance in America. Jews could be your doctor or lawyer, but not join your club. But that's okay, people told themselves -- they have their own clubs, right? Anti-Semitism is often given the knee-jerk equation with Nazi/Holocaust things. Anti-Semitism needn't be so blatant. The American variety is much more subtle -- the kind that prompts Jewish movie studio leaders to get their Jewish lead actors to change their names to something less Jewish.

Graham was raised in this culture. No matter how 'enlightened' and 'spiritual' he might be or might have been, anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism (not the same thing) are pervasive in most Christian denominations. That is certainly no excuse, but not at all surprising Graham had (and may continue to have) such feelings.

**pluckyduck** · #18 03-06-2002, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by kurt_messick
There is too much conversation in this bit for it to be a mis-speaking. One can say something and let it go; one can say two or even three things, but this was a whole conversation.

If Graham was pandering to Nixon, why? That worries me. To what purpose did he deliberately try to insert himslef into politically influential circles? Often when ministers get involved in politics, it seems like a betrayal of their calling. Yet Graham does the same thing in an 'acceptable' way and gets praised for it.

In the twentieth century, particularly the first two-thirds of it, anti-Semitism was commonplace and had a grudging acceptance in America. Jews could be your doctor or lawyer, but not join your club. But that's okay, people told themselves -- they have their own clubs, right? Anti-Semitism is often given the knee-jerk equation with Nazi/Holocaust things. Anti-Semitism needn't be so blatant. The American variety is much more subtle -- the kind that prompts Jewish movie studio leaders to get their Jewish lead actors to change their names to something less Jewish.

Graham was raised in this culture. No matter how 'enlightened' and 'spiritual' he might be or might have been, anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism (not the same thing) are pervasive in most Christian denominations. That is certainly no excuse, but not at all surprising Graham had (and may continue to have) such feelings.

Thank you, Father. You hit the nail right on the head.

What saddened me in my first post to the thread, where I could only post:

was that what the secret tapes revealed really isn't surprising. I'm not angry at Billy Graham, I'm just sad.

Behind closed doors.

Andrea

**hadassahchana**[$] · #19 03-06-2002, 10:28 AM

Andrea, you're much nicer than I am. I am angry with Billy Graham.

To me, it is much worse for someone who is a spiritual leader to believe those things. Why? Because he will base his actions on his beliefs, and that one sound pretty deep-rooted to me. Therefore, he has had the opportunity to pass on that very subtle form of prejudice to thousands of people.

If he really believed that about Jews, that is wrong, because it is prejudice. If he was only pandering to Nixon (which I don't believe for a second ) then that is also bad, because it shows that he is a very weak person, not at all G-dly but inclined to be a follower. Neither of these options is particularly appealing.

Cindy

pisces · #20 03-06-2002, 02:27 PM

Wow, this is a tough crowd here. So someone can't make a mistake 30 years ago? Why aren't people allowed to make mistakes? Nobody comes out of the womb perfect, but hopefully you evolve to where you are now.

Quote mrisch: "I assure you that people who bashed homosexuals 30 years ago by and large do so today, even if quietly." ------mrisch

No, because hopefully they've evolved to a point of higher thinking, especially when they discover they've family and friends who are homosexual. Listen, I can't change the history of this country, but isn't it nice that we've gone forward since 1972?

Only God is perfect and without flaws. Billy Graham is not, nor has ever claimed to be God, although he is legendary in church circles. Church is a hospital for sinners; not a Taj Mahal for Saints. Graham is a sinner just like everyone else and has the same temptations, struggles, and human prejudices we all do. Graham is a human being in the world, and therefore subject to the same flaws and struggles in the world that we all face.

I think Billy Graham is fabulous, and when I make the decision to love someone, I accept the good with the bad.

**mrisch**[$] · #21 03-06-2002, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pisces
Why aren't people allowed to make mistakes?

Here is the main disagreement. The tough crowd here believes that the only "mistake" Graham made was being recorded. People don't have whole conversations outlining their viewpoints by mistake.

Quote:

Quote mrisch: "I assure you that people who bashed homosexuals 30 years ago by and large do so today, even if quietly." ------mrisch

No, because hopefully they've evolved to a point of higher thinking, especially when they discover they've family and friends who are homosexual. Listen, I can't change the history of this country, but isn't it nice that we've gone forward since 1972?

I'm not buying it. The reason the country changes is that:
a. People die and new people lead
b. People start practicing the courage of their convictions
c. People from (a) and (b) make it hard for those who have disagreeing yet now unpopular view to make public their prejudices.

Thus, I don't believe Graham changed his ideas - I only think he didn't act on them publicly. Is that a bad thing, maybe not, but it sure isn't growth.

Quote:

Only God is perfect and without flaws. Billy Graham is not, nor has ever claimed to be God, although he is legendary in church circles. . . .I think Billy Graham is fabulous, and when I make the decision to love someone, I accept the good with the bad.

Too true. No one disagrees with your decision, and it is not unreasonable. It is just disheartening to hear that bad you didn't expect would be there.

**pluckyduck** · #22 03-06-2002, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hadassahchana
Andrea, you're much nicer than I am. I am angry with Billy Graham.

To me, it is much worse for someone who is a spiritual leader to believe those things. Why? Because he will base his actions on his beliefs, and that one sound pretty deep-rooted to me. Therefore, he has had the opportunity to pass on that very subtle form of prejudice to thousands of people.

If he really believed that about Jews, that is wrong, because it is prejudice. If he was only pandering to Nixon (which I don't believe for a second ) then that is also bad, because it shows that he is a very weak person, not at all G-dly but inclined to be a follower. Neither of these options is particularly appealing.

Cindy

I absolutely believe he believed it.

I understand anger as a reaction, of course....I'm just sad. I always saw Billy Graham as a unifier, not a divider. When prejudice like that lurks in someone like him, it just breaks my heart, really....and it makes you wonder what everybody else is saying in their living room.

Andrea
the Jewish girl with the frizzy hair