Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position
A few points.
1) Billy Graham is also just doing his job.
2) There is nothing wrong or hypocritical with asking for donations from people and keeping them for yourself, as long as the people know that's where their donations are going. If you are also exhorting these same people to give to the poor, good for you.
3) If you have an actual reason to believe Graham defrauded his donors, you should give it. It would be dishonorable to otherwise make this claim. Your language is ambiguous here, so maybe you aren't actually claiming that.
4) I highly doubt that Billy Graham has ever claimed to represent God. Please provide a reference.
5) You claim that because Graham was wealthy that he is going against his religious values. When I point out, as I have numerous times, that it doesn't go against the values of evangelical Christianity to be wealthy, you ignore it. Why?
6) In your moral accounting, it is a big mistake to have high moral ideals. I disagree. To illustrate, imagine we can rank people's moral actions on a 100 point scale. Someone who strives for 100 and only hits 70 is better than someone who strives for 50 and hits 50. Yet your view seems to be that the one at 50 is better. Why? Even if you want to lower them a few ticks for not achieving their ideals, I don't see good grounds for that always, or even usually making them worse than less moral people who did achieve their ideals.
1) Entirely different context, and it matters.
2) Don't think I've said anything about donations, not wanting to make assumptions about how he made his money, some of it was certainly earnings from books, tapes, talks etc. It's irelevant to the charge of hypocrisy. He kept money he could have used to help poor people whilst believing others should put themselves in harm's way to do that.
3) He spent his life converting people to his religion, he was a ex-sales rep who actually said "
I'm selling the greatest product in the world----why shouldn't it be promoted as well as soap." I'd say that made him a representative, he chose to act and speak on behalf of god.
4) I've made no claim about him defrauding anyone, I said he was a hypocrite, not deliberately deceptive.
5) How he felt about his wealth is a whole other conversation. He was outspoken about money and wealth and god, he criticised the idea of 'propesperity gospel', but seems to have sidestepped potential conflicts caused by his own wealthy status by saying things like "
money will become a curse to us if we worship it and allow it to take over our lives.". Presumably, of course, he didn't allow it to 'take over his life'.... and therefore it was ok for him to be one of the richest Amercian preachers ever.
6) Wrong. The mistake Graham made was to exhort others to follow a high moral ideal that he didn't follow himself. Let's use your example. Tow people, one exhorts others to follow a high moral ideal that he didn't follow himself, the other does more. Which is better? Graham could have done much much more with the hundreds of $millions that he chose to keep, large amounts of which he paid to his son...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position
Even if everything you said was true, Graham wouldn't even be close to most hypocritical among just recent famous American preachers (eg Jimmy Baker, Swaggart, Haggard, etc).
So waht. This conversation is about Graham.
[QUOTE=Original Position;53561960]The way I'm using "hypocrite" tracks pretty closely to these dictionaries. I would compare the meaning you ascribe to "hypocrite" as well, but you've not provided one, so I can't. I will say that nowhere in those definitions does it say that you have to personally face the worst consequences of your moral or religious claims. That is your own made-up criterion.
Here you are also disguising that your understanding of "hypocrite" is controversial by saying it is a "fact," even though no one in this thread has agreed with you, and several people have disagreed with you. That presumption is no longer tenable.[/quote
I don't see anything in those definitions, most of which I've already seen, that would stop me using the term as I am, and whilst a whopping three people ITT might disagree, it's not about numbers. I'm making no 'presumption' and my charge of hypocrisy is tenable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position
But whatever, I have a long-standing policy of not arguing about word usage. I'm granting you a definition of "hypocrite" under which Billy Graham is a hypocrite. What I'm now arguing is that being a "hypocrite" as you define it isn't immoral, eg in the case of a general commanding his troops without facing the same danger as them. I'd also go on to argue that even though it is "hypocritical," it isn't immoral for a wealthy (or middle or lower-income) person to support policies that will have negative consequences that don't fall on them.
This is somewhat disingenious. Graham wasn't simply espousing a 'policy', he was encouraging an absolute moral value system and a lifestyle, things that he could hardly claim he need not also follow.
)