» OLD MESSAGE ARCHIVES «
The Pop Culture Information Society...
Messageboard Archive Index, In The 00s - The Pop Culture Information Society

Welcome to the archived messages from In The 00s. This archive stretches back to 1998 in some instances, and contains a nearly complete record of all the messages posted to inthe00s.com. You will also find an archive of the messages from inthe70s.com, inthe80s.com, inthe90s.com and amiright.com before they were combined to form the inthe00s.com messageboard.

If you are looking for the active messages, please click here. Otherwise, use the links below or on the right hand side of the page to navigate the archives.

Custom Search



Subject: The Grahams

Written By: Dagwood on 08/02/04 at 8:40 pm

Ok, I was listening to Michael Medved today (conspiracy theories all day the day after a full moon.  Fun stuff...didja guys know that space aliens really control the planet?  ;D)

Anyhoo, someone came up with a bad opinion of Franklin Graham.  I have heard alot of this lately and honestly want to know what the Grahams have done to make people dislike them so?  Can anyone shed some light on this for me, please?

Subject: Re: The Grahams

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 08/02/04 at 8:54 pm

For three generations the Grahams have been pimpint Jesus to the right-wing.  There's a famous photo of Billy Graham kneeling in prayer in the Oval Office with Nixon and Kissinger whilst the two of them were illegally carpet bombing Cambodia.  That sort of thing bugs people about the Grahams.  They tolerate any amount of human rights violations, international law breaking, and politics of greed as long as it's done in the name of capitalism.  Along with Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, they have made Christian fundamentalism a stalking horse for big business.

Remember, right after 9/11, Franklin Graham started shooting his mouth off about how Islam is an evil religion, along with Falwell and Robertson.

Unlike Falwell and Robertson, Billy Graham's connections to the upper levels of government are much stronger and secretive.  This is a legacy he leaves to Franklin in the Graham evangelical empire.

Subject: Re: The Grahams

Written By: chickengurl on 08/02/04 at 11:33 pm

Unlike Falwell and Robertson, Billy Graham's connections to the upper levels of government are much stronger and secretive.  This is a legacy he leaves to Franklin in the Graham evangelical empire.

Wow...fascinating...How did you come upon this secret?  It just sounds  like the typical Christian bashing to me. ???

Subject: Re: The Grahams

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 08/03/04 at 12:00 am




Wow...fascinating...How did you come upon this secret?  It just sounds  like the typical Christian bashing to me. ???

NO!!! I won't have that!
It is not Christian bashing.  Are all men of the cloth beyond reproach?  This isn't about faith, this is about politics and power.  The Grahams, the Falwells, and the Robertsons of this country use the Church as a front to amass political power and influence.  This is not power and influence to further purely ecclesiastical causes, either.  It's about building their own financial empires, and fronting for the kind of crony capitalism that makes the rich richer at the expense of the middle class and poor.  That's what the Christian Right leaders are really after.  The followers may want to see abortion outlawed, prayer returned to schools, and a clean up of our smutty pop culture.  However, the movement's leaders know Roe v. Wade will not be overturned, prayer will never make it back to public schools, and sex sells.  That's right, sex sells, and when sex sells the value of their corporate shares rises.
If you are Christian of integral faith, your gripe is not with me.  It's with the Christian right's leadership who have politicized Jesus for their own gain!

Subject: Re: The Grahams

Written By: chickengurl on 08/03/04 at 12:45 am

oh I dont have a gripe with you at all... :)...I meant the animosity against old Billy Graham... I didn't mean that you were bashing...and I agree that there a lot of "Christians" (anyone can call themselves anything...) that are in for a rude awakening one day...they really hold a great deal of responsibility for the root of the Christian bashing that is so fashionable in todays society...and the devil is known to occupy not just a few pulpits...ticks me off really...it's just that I can't judge...unless I see for myself, and then I just stay away, and leave the judging to the Judge!  But if you do happen to have a link...I would sure be interested...

Subject: Re: The Grahams

Written By: Dagwood on 08/03/04 at 7:22 am

Thanks, Max, for giving me your opinion.  I see things differently, but I have heard so many people voicing their dislike that I was curious to know why.

Subject: Re: The Grahams

Written By: Don Carlos on 08/06/04 at 2:31 pm


Thanks, Max, for giving me your opinion.  I see things differently, but I have heard so many people voicing their dislike that I was curious to know why.


While I agree with Max's analysis let me advance a slightly different take.  It seems  to me that many sincere Christians are looking for the messiah, and are willing to accept these televangalists as possibilities (until, like James and Tammy Bay Faker, they are exposed).  I think this is a dangerous consequence of the meaningless materialism and commercialism of our culture, which advertises that you can buy happiness.  People look for meaning in life, which material posessions can't provide, so they are willing to follow these false messiahs.  The danger, as Max points out, is that people forget that they need to find meaning in their own lives, for themselves, and should let others walk their own roads.  To me, these "christian leaders" (small "c" intended) are no better than the ayatollas who demand conformity to their brand on Islam.  Relgious extremism is always dangerous, and always leads to the persecution of innocents - as in Salem, and Spain....-. 

Subject: Re: The Grahams

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 08/06/04 at 3:09 pm




While I agree with Max's analysis let me advance a slightly different take.  It seems  to me that many sincere Christians are looking for the messiah, and are willing to accept these televangalists as possibilities (until, like James and Tammy Bay Faker, they are exposed).  I think this is a dangerous consequence of the meaningless materialism and commercialism of our culture, which advertises that you can buy happiness.  People look for meaning in life, which material posessions can't provide, so they are willing to follow these false messiahs.  The danger, as Max points out, is that people forget that they need to find meaning in their own lives, for themselves, and should let others walk their own roads.  To me, these "christian leaders" (small "c" intended) are no better than the ayatollas who demand conformity to their brand on Islam.  Relgious extremism is always dangerous, and always leads to the persecution of innocents - as in Salem, and Spain....-. 

Televangelism often encouraged materialism.  "God made the diamonds for His people," as one of them said.  The Televengelism kick really picked up in the '70s, running hand-in-hand with the Human Growth Potential movement.  Along with other HGPM phenomena, such as Scientology and EST, Televangelists made Chrisitanity about YOU and fulfilling YOUR LIFE, and YOUR POTENTIAL with the POWER OF JESUS.  Guys like Oral Roberts really pushed the message that as a TRUE BELIEVER, if it's a new purple Cadillac you want, a new purple Cadillac you shall have!

Evangelical fundamentalism and Ronald Reagan were the perfect combination for Big Business priorities.  Here you had the glory of diamonds and glitz concurrent with the homespun wholesomeness of The Waltons.  The Christian-Right crusaded against socialism, and in turn, against government action on behalf of the little guy.  Don't unionize, don't question authority, and don't resent the rich.  The rich are in God's graces.  Stay in God's graces and you'll be rich, too.  This message has a lot of staying power, and Americans are worse off for it.

One of these neo-con cranks, singing the praises of the "red states," claimed middle America Americans were content to be a little overweight, and a little underpaid.  We face now a crisis of obesity.  We have now an invisible America of tens of millions of ill-housed Americans with no healthcare, living from paycheck to paycheck and never gaining security.  Our own government via the "Help America Vote Act" is in the process of stealing our November elections via crooked voting machines.  A civil rights crisis is brewing in Florida due to more illegal purges of African American voters, and I'll bet it's happening in other states, too.  The time is upon us when penury is breathing down the necks of so many Americans, they have no time to think of Democracy, only survival.  The time is upon us where the fascist Corporate-Republican state shall impose its will next November, no matter how the majority intends to vote.  Our democratic republic is no longer secure.

Can it be true that Red state America, good America, non-uppity, non-highfalutin America is fat and happy because they have Juses, and nothing else matters?

Subject: Re: The Grahams

Written By: Dagwood on 08/06/04 at 4:51 pm

While I am not going into the politics of it, I do agree that there are people that look to the evangelists as a savior.  They are completely wrong. 

I agree that the evangelists that are always preaching that they way to God is to give to them are nothing but con-jobs.  (I have never seen this from the Grahams, BTW.)  I still wonder how Oral Roberts didn't get "called home" because he didn't get his millions of dollars. ::) (It was Roberts, wasn't it?  This will bug me now)

Money can't buy happiness.  If it could, why are so many rich people so miserable.  If I see a preacher talking up money I tend to run the other direction. 

Thanks, guys for your responses to this post.  It is nice to see intelligent, thought out responses.  I know other boards the question would have not gotten such a well thought out response.  I think that is why I like it here. 

Subject: Re: The Grahams

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 08/06/04 at 5:44 pm


While I am not going into the politics of it, I do agree that there are people that look to the evangelists as a savior.  They are completely wrong. 

I agree that the evangelists that are always preaching that they way to God is to give to them are nothing but con-jobs.  (I have never seen this from the Grahams, BTW.)  I still wonder how Oral Roberts didn't get "called home" because he didn't get his millions of dollars. ::) (It was Roberts, wasn't it?  This will bug me now)


It was Roberts, he did get the millions, and he didn't get "called home."  Roberts later claimed he only meant that if he didn't get $50 million (or whatever it was) in his fundraising crusade, it would mean God was telling him his mission on this Earth was over.  People certainly came away with the impression that God was going to evaporate him right then and there.  Perhaps Roberts' detractors used a bit of hyperbole.  Anyway, it was still an obnoxious statement for Roberts to make.

Subject: Re: The Grahams

Written By: CatwomanofV on 08/06/04 at 6:55 pm

My very first visit to Tulsa (home of ORU), I was taken to the campus for a "tour". You can go up into the Prayer Tower and for a quarter, you can dial a prayer (this was in the last 70s so I'm sure with inflation, it is probably up to $2). I also heard that mr. roberts (like many people, small letters intended) forced people out of their homes so he could build his hospital-which has been losing money since it opened. Space has been rented out to help pay the bills.

But, I had to feel so sorry for tammy bay fakker (yes, pun intended) because she had to sell her airconditioned dog house and she was crying that she was down to her last $100,000. I mean, come on. You HAVE to feel sorry for someone THAT poor.  ::)  And you really had to feel sorry for jimmy "braggart" (again, pun intended) when he was crying asking for forgiveness. He was sorry for what he did-he was just sorry that he got caught!

I thought it was very absurd of jerry farwell to blame gays and lebians for 9/11. I think he should have been shot for that.

Those people really bug me. The "holier than thou" crew who are so crooked it is unreal. I am not talking about Christians-who I have respect for. I am talking about people who use religion to make a profit-and a big profit at that. And they usually get it from hard, honest, working folk willing to believe in what they are saying-and not knowing what they are doing.



Cat

Subject: Re: The Grahams

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 08/06/04 at 8:53 pm



But, I had to feel so sorry for tammy bay fakker (yes, pun intended) because she had to sell her airconditioned dog house and she was crying that she was down to her last $100,000. I mean, come on. You HAVE to feel sorry for someone THAT poor.  ::)  And you really had to feel sorry for jimmy "braggart" (again, pun intended) when he was crying asking for forgiveness. He was sorry for what he did-he was just sorry that he got caught!

I'm no Bakker fan, but I thought they were set up as scapegoats by the evil Falwell and Robertson.  They were overselling condo shares.  It was the '80s, who wasn't?  Reminds me of the recent Martha Stewart episode.  Anway, none of the people who were investing in Heritage U.S.A. were complaining.
Compared to the others, the Bakkers were fairly innocuous.  OK, there was Jessica Hahn, but did you really find her credible?
OK, so the Bakkers got burned, and Jimmy Swaggart got done in by his libido, but Robertson and Falwell are still media luminaries spreading bigotry and antinomianism.

I thought it was very absurd of jerry farwell to blame gays and lebians for 9/11. I think he should have been shot for that.

Those people really bug me. The "holier than thou" crew who are so crooked it is unreal. I am not talking about Christians-who I have respect for. I am talking about people who use religion to make a profit-and a big profit at that. And they usually get it from hard, honest, working folk willing to believe in what they are saying-and not knowing what they are doing.



Cat

Subject: Re: The Grahams

Written By: dude on 08/07/04 at 3:28 am

I'm not going to get into the socio-political/religious argument, but getting back to Dag's original point, I have always somehow seperated Billy Graham from the Robertson/Falwell/Swaggart/Baker bunch. He has always came off as much more sincere in his agenda of suggesting Christianity as an answer to problems and keeping religion and politics seperate. Maybe I'm being naive.....it wouldn't be the first time. Now as far as Franklin, I haven't seen, heard, or read enough about him to form a personal opinion.

Subject: Re: The Grahams

Written By: Dagwood on 08/07/04 at 9:28 am


I'm not going to get into the socio-political/religious argument, but getting back to Dag's original point, I have always somehow seperated Billy Graham from the Robertson/Falwell/Swaggart/Baker bunch. He has always came off as much more sincere in his agenda of suggesting Christianity as an answer to problems and keeping religion and politics seperate. Maybe I'm being naive.....it wouldn't be the first time. Now as far as Franklin, I haven't seen, heard, or read enough about him to form a personal opinion.


I am with you on Billy Graham.  What I have heard of Franklin, he seems to be the same as his dad. 

The Falwell/Bakker?Roberts/Swaggart/etc bunch are a bunch of crooks. 

Subject: Re: The Grahams

Written By: CatwomanofV on 08/07/04 at 1:16 pm



Don't forget that it was "Tinky Winky" who made them that way ;) ;D


Oh man. I could I have forgotten about Tinky Winky. We all know how those Teletubbies are very dangerous to society.  ::)



Cat

Subject: Re: The Grahams

Written By: Dagwood on 08/07/04 at 5:34 pm




Oh man. I could I have forgotten about Tinky Winky. We all know how those Teletubbies are very dangerous to society.  ::)



Cat


Well, they are...but there is nothing religious about it.  They are just annoying. ;)

Subject: Re: The Grahams

Written By: CatwomanofV on 08/07/04 at 6:38 pm




Well, they are...but there is nothing religious about it.  They are just annoying. ;)



I agree with you there-100%



Cat

Subject: Re: The Grahams

Written By: danootaandme on 08/07/04 at 6:52 pm




Well, they are...but there is nothing religious about it.  They are just annoying. ;)


I don't know, I kinda had a thing for Po.

Subject: Re: The Grahams

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 08/07/04 at 10:22 pm


Oh, wait, that was Falwell that accused TW, wasn't it? ;)  Doesn't matter, IMO, Teletubbies are the anti-christ(s) ;D

So, logically, the Teletubbies are to blame for 9/11.  At least partially, perhaps?

Subject: Re: The Grahams

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 08/07/04 at 11:00 pm




ehhh, why not?  They'd sure as heck be alot easier to find that Osama ;D ;D ;D  And, it'd probably be almost as satisfying to blow them up (in a parent who has been forced to watch them's mind, at least) ;D ;D ;D

Blowing up the Teletubbies? Did you ever see the cartoon "Duckman"?  You know the characters Fluffy and Uranus?  Duckman is always blowing them up, grinding them up, microwaving them, and otherwise destroying them.

http://www.quandaryland.com/2001/pix2001/duckman1.jpg

http://www.mindspring.com/~mathue/images/uranus3.gif
http://www.mindspring.com/~mathue/images/fluffy3.gif

Subject: Re: The Grahams

Written By: dude on 08/08/04 at 3:17 am




I am with you on Billy Graham.  What I have heard of Franklin, he seems to be the same as his dad. 

The Falwell/Bakker?Roberts/Swaggart/etc bunch are a bunch of crooks. 
I kind of thought that's what you were getting at.

Subject: Re: The Grahams

Written By: CatwomanofV on 08/08/04 at 1:09 pm




ehhh, why not?  They'd sure as heck be alot easier to find that Osama ;D ;D ;D  And, it'd probably be almost as satisfying to blow them up (in a parent who has been forced to watch them's mind, at least) ;D ;D ;D



Can we get rid of Barney in that too? PLLLLEEEEAAAASSSSSEEEEE??




Cat

Subject: Re: The Grahams

Written By: Dagwood on 08/08/04 at 4:35 pm



:o :o :o  You mean though he loves you, you don't love him, and you're not a happy family with a great big hug and a kiss from him to you?  Won't you say you love him too? ;D ;D


If that song gets stuck in my head, I will have to fly my butt to Chicago and give you an atomic wedgie. ;)

Subject: Re: The Grahams

Written By: CatwomanofV on 08/08/04 at 6:48 pm




If that song gets stuck in my head, I will have to fly my butt to Chicago and give you an atomic wedgie. ;)




LMAO!!!!!



Cat

Subject: Re: The Grahams

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 08/08/04 at 7:17 pm





Can we get rid of Barney in that too? PLLLLEEEEAAAASSSSSEEEEE??




Cat


BARNEY?
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/entertainment/0302/gallery.simpsons.characters/gallery.barney.jpg

  ;)

Subject: Re: The Grahams

Written By: CatwomanofV on 08/08/04 at 7:29 pm




BARNEY?
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/entertainment/0302/gallery.simpsons.characters/gallery.barney.jpg

  ;)



For fear of repeating myself-LMAO!!!!




Cat

Subject: Re: The Grahams

Written By: Dagwood on 08/13/04 at 7:25 am



Go ahead...I'll take ya to a Cubbies game ;)


You're on. ;)

Check for new replies or respond here...