Your complaint is that 60+ years ago Billy Graham encouraged a US president to give food aid to a starving country without himself being a farmer. Well, call me a hypocrite as well then.

?

Firstly, the interview in which he says "“I believed him then. I don’t believe him now." [wrt the conversation with Ike and Dulles ] took place in 1982, only 36 years ago, plus I'm not sure you've correctly understood my accusation. He's a hypocrite because he thought American farmers should risk their livelyhoods because "We are followers of Jesus who commanded that we feed the poor" whilst he himself was sitting on a comfortable multi $million fortune. His actions (or lack of them) belied his stated beliefs.

Graham was a 'farmer's kid' and his 'encouragement' was actually motivated by the fact that he knew the harvest that year had been good enough for the USA to spare the grain, hence Ike's need to give him a lesson in trade economics.

Did you read the article?

Did you? Just because the author of the article met Billy Graham in 1982 does not imply that these events all happened in 1982. Also, are you aware of American history? Eisenhower wasn't president in 1982. He was president in the 1950s.

Ironically, the implication of that story is that he accepted the argument at the time, and shamefully wishes he hadn't because he doesn't believe that "more good" would be done by the stabilization of prices compared to helping people who are starving.

Your analysis gives the impression you merely skimmed the article to look for things you didn't like rather than actually reading the article. This isn't the first time that you've pulled quotes out of context and misrepresented statements. Indeed, you've been guilty of misrepresenting your own words.

And that still doesn't make him a hypocrite in any reasonable interpretation of the word. The thing that was being discussed was not a thing that he had, and the net wealth figure you stated didn't exist at the time that this conversation happened. If you took this to be "hypocritical" then nobody could make any policy decisions about anything that they are not personally vested in from a financial point of view. And that's just a dumb way to use the word.

Yes, I read the article. I just don't agree that Graham did anything particularly bad here, certainly nothing that justifies your vitriol at his death. He visited India and, presumably out of compassion, asked the US President if the US could send it food. The US President said that it was a bad idea because of the economic side-effects. Graham says he accepted this claim at the time, but thirty years later thinks the President was wrong. This seems completely normal. Foreign aid is still popular among many people, and still criticized by many economists as not helping much. Evidently you think this is hypocritical because he had this opinion while also being wealthy. I don't see why, unless you are just making a general statement that wealthy people should only advocate for greedy, self-serving policies unless they first give away all their wealth. I wouldn't agree with that claim.

Incidentally, I find the anachronism of the criticism is quite amusing.

MB is complaining about a conversation in the 1950s that was being recounted in the 1980s because of a wealth figure that existed in the 2010s.

Graham said;

Then he said;

In other words he was happy to recommend to farmers that they risk their livelyhoods, cut their profits or put themselves in harms way, whilst he himself did not do that, did not put himself in harms way, and was very rich. That's hypocrisy. Why are you defending someone who did not practice what he preached? Who was happy to let others suffer for his cause whilst protecting himself from the same suffering?

I don't like hypocrisy, and I particularly dislike pious hypocrites who justify their actions by claiming to be doing the work of a god whose existence they can't prove. If what I feel is 'vitriol' (at his life, not his death), fine, I can live with that, there are times when I thoroughly despise religions and all the ignorance, suffering and problems they cause. Hardly surprising then I'm sometimes vitriolic about it, and about people like Graham who most represent what I despise.

Only in your warped mind.

Someone travels to India, sees a need, and suggests a solution. HYPOCRITE!

What do you imagine Billy Graham's worth was in the 1950s?

http://time.com/money/5168865/billy-...s-money-greed/

You pretend as if this was the one thing that Billy Graham did in his life.

You should try looking in the mirror sometime.

That's... uhhh... a weird standard. But okay. You're free to dislike people for whatever reasons you want.

It's funny how you erect these imaginary figures in your head and make them serve as representatives for all things not having to do with them. Some might call that delusional.

No, you are wrong in your description here. Billy Graham suggested that the US should send India food. This means that the US government would buy food from American farmers and then give it to India. This would be paid for by all US taxpayers, including Billy Graham himself, not just farmers. Then, when the Secretary of State gave him some BS about needing to keep the price of grain high or it would hurt American farmers, he changed his mind. Then thirty years later, he said that he thinks we should have done it anyway. Somehow though, you get the idea that he doesn't care about American farmers from this story. Why? Because 30 years later he decided (correctly imo) that feeding starving people in India is more important than the potential negative effect of an increased demand for grain on American farmers?

Second, you assume, on no basis except your prejudice that I see, that Billy Graham himself didn't also give his own money to pay for food for starving people. Since his son has run a very large charitable organization that does exactly that for 40 years, I'm guessing he probably gave a lot of money to charity himself.

I mean, you are literally criticizing the man for encouraging people to feed the starving. I just find this weird.

Hypocrisy is often the right thing to do if you are a public figure, including especially for political and religious leaders. Democratic and consensus-based systems can encourage leaders to be hypocritical, because the people whose support they rely on often demand that they do evil, foolish, or impossible things. Furthermore, the standard of hypocrisy applied to these leaders is typically not met by those making the accusation themselves (which is, of course, not necessarily a bad thing either, but can't we be a bit more mature here).

Mostly, it seems to me that you don't like Graham because he was an important and influential religious figure, but you want to frame this dislike in more universal terms and so criticize him for a more generally accepted bad failing like hypocrisy. Just be honest about the reasons for your dislike imo.

The fact that you'd choose an honorable man like Billy Graham to spew your hatred and venom, and try and justify it the way you do says a lot about your delusion.

His major flaw is encouraging people to think that what they believe has a greater impact on their afterlife than what they do.

Maybe in the abstract that is a flaw, but since the people he was telling this to were mainly evangelicals and fundamentalists, it isn't implausible that having them focus on their theological beliefs rather than their conception of right action is a net plus. Also, remember that for much of his audience the alternative to belief as an emphasis was racial, ethnic, and class identities rather than actions.

What's the "flaw"?

The Standard Operating Procedure of Mightyboosh is to offer a critique of something without exhibiting any indication whatsoever that he actually understands the position that he is critiquing. This is a typical Mightybooshian example of him commenting on an article that he didn't even read in its entirety.

I was hardly making him out to be a saint, so I don't think the exasperated tone is justified. Some of his views certainly deserve criticism and rightly so, but that's pretty much the case with all leaders and authorities in history. Nobody is on the right side of history all the time. Over-all, as far as religious leaders go, he seemed like a decent man to me.

I'm no fan of religious leaders holding great swaths of influence, mostly because religious leaders tend to appeal to an authority we can't hold responsible. But when they do I'm still able to appreciate the cases that seem to be, for the most part, reasonable men / women.

I don't think we can levy criticism of his son towards the father. That criticism should be more generally aimed at the idea of churches as cultural and political authorities. People that get to say "God tells you to think and do X" hold a very powerful type of authority that tends to stick even when it flies in the face of reason. Still, there aren't really any organizations or systems that can't be turned more nefarious through questionable leaders, so it is criticism that requires a fair bit of nuance and insight.

If you don't think it's hypocritical for someone to publicly, vocally, regulalrly and consistently espouse a message of helping the poor and starving even if that entails exposing yourself to a "potential negative effect", whilst they themselves sit on a $multi-million fortune, and whose organisation owns hundreds of $millions worth of real estate, the headquarters of which is located in a place where thousands of children are homeless and tens of thousands of people live on an income so low that they have to rely on tax payer funded community care, and who pays his son a salary in the high hundreds of thousands of $.... then we employ a very different definition of what it is to be hypocritical.

Whilst keeping hundreds of $millions for himself. His son has a salary close to $million depending on which source you read, the highest salary paid to any member of a charitable association in the USA, so really, bringing him up is really not helping your case at all. Franklyn is an even bigger hypocrite and is also guilty of multiple violations of human rights laws, something I didn't see Billy trying to stop.

Possibly not as weird as I'm finding your innacurate viewpoint and desire to defend this charlatan.

This bit I'm really struggling to process, you're defending hypocrisy in leaders? And what "evil, foolish, or impossible things" were being demanded of Graham such that being a hypocrite would be a justified behaviour?

Why would it 'seem' that way to you when the paragraph you're responding to explicitly says that. Did I fail to make it clear enough when I said "there are times when I thoroughly despise religions and all the ignorance, suffering and problems they cause" and so dislike those, like Graham, who represent that? The hypocrisy is one of many reasons why I didn't like him, it just happened to come up ITT, but if you want we can more throughly dissect his actions and all the other reasons why I didn't like him.

But hey, thanks for (totally unecessarily) accusing me of dishonesty...... Really? Wow OrP... wtf.

Clearly. Just as you have a completely different definition of what it means for something to be science or scientific, what methodological naturalism means, what rational and irrational mean... You do live in your own little world a lot, and it shows.

The bolded is clearly false.

https://www.charitywatch.org/top-charity-salaries

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Media/...onprofit-Execs

I don't like Franklin Graham that much, but you're the one who brought him up in your first diatribe.

Right... An accusation of an "inaccurate" viewpoint from the person who makes up facts as he goes. The facts are on the table. You don't like that people make reasonable policy suggestions.

Except that your accusation of hypocrisy falls flat. Or, rather, it falls stupid. You're clearly not mad at actual hypocrisy. You're just mad at religion.

Well, it's because you are. You're not honest. You're clearly lying.

#VictimCard

OrP is pointing out that, at the time he made the statement, Graham wasnt sitting on millions of dollars. Not that this rules out hypocrisy later on, but in this example, your critisism doesnt stand up


I get the impression that you respect OrP a lot, and you respect him more than you respect anyone else on the board. If someone you respect is telling you something, its worth listening and honestly looking to see if what he says is true.

Your dislike of graham is way over what would be expected. OrP is right, its because of your irrational hatred of religion in general, and your hatred of him as an important religious figure, you should be honest about that.

Maybe Mightyboosh somehow missed this question to him , but if he did read it, it is quite telling that he failed to answer it.

I don't think he'll miss it twice in a row, so I look forward to his answer.

So he was a hypocrite.


My dislike of religion is entirely rational thanks, and i've never used the word 'hate', I've pointed out that there are things I despise... so please don't put words into my mouth.

So much irony...

The bolded does not mean what you said.

Hate... despise... what's the difference in your mind between the two? Some might say that "despise" is even stronger than "hate."

You said he was a hypocrite for recommending that farmers sacrifice themselves, whilst sitting on millions of dollars. When he suggested that the farmers sacrifice themselves, he wasnt sitting on millions of dollars, so this is not evidence that he was a hypocrite.

Its obvious that you hate religion, dont need you to say it explicitly

This is a serious objection? At the end of his life, never having publicly stated that he'd changed his mind back from his 1982 position, but regularly being vocal about helping us having an obligation to help the starving etc, he was sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars and not putting himself and his personal fortune at risk whilst thousands of children children locally to his headquarters were homeless and hungry.

It's really not that simplistic.

While you may think that your reasons for despising (hating) religion are rational, much of what you post on the subject matter is irrational.

Regarding the bolded, correct, I don't think it is hypocritical. For instance, many wealthy people support free trade because (among other reasons) they think it will help the poor and starving. More specifically, they think it will create economic growth in low-income countries (the best way to help the poor and starving). They'll acknowledge that some people will lose their jobs, even though they themselves are not realistically in danger themselves of losing their job from free trade. Why is this hypocritical? My guess is that your view is that advocating for a policy where the costs are borne by someone else is hypocritical. But, why? This is completely coherent on utilitarian grounds - it might lower utility to distribute the harms differently, or to not have that policy at all.

Good on Billy Graham for making millions. Your view seems to be that only poor or middle class people can advocate for the starving without being hypocritical. I definitely disagree. I also don't care about your view of Franklin Graham.

Okay.

Yes, I'm defending hypocrisy in leaders. Since I don't think Graham was being hypocritical here, I can't answer your second question.

Okay. If you say that Billy Graham's advocacy for helping feed starving people in India is why you dislike him, I'll treat it as your view.

Is this a serious analysis? You're going to jump from a comment made in 1982 about a conversation held in the 1950s to criticize his statement about the role of international food aid to India on the basis of an erroneous estimate of his personal wealth in the 2010s because OMG homeless children in Charlotte?

Source: http://time.com/money/5168865/billy-...s-money-greed/

---

I'm sure you can successfully elaborate on the nuances of your beliefs here, just as you've done with many other beliefs you hold.