(Assuming you mean 4 who were not there because they were military or politicians…)
There are probably many people who would think that Billy Graham is a needed political counterbalance to Rosa Parks, who represented what is to them radical left wing ideas like racial equality and racial integration.
Well, that’s a pretty strong indictment of his brand of “Christianity” if it stands in opposition to equality and inclusion.
Increasingly, moral virtue always boils down to a person’s embrace (or not) of homosexuality. Those who embrace it are the good guys, and those who do not are the bad guys. Even Billy Graham will not be spared from this censure. He was on the wrong side homosexuality, therefore, he was a bad guy. At least, that is how the moral calculus goes nowadays.
“He was on the wrong side homosexuality, therefore, he was a bad guy. At least, that is how the moral calculus goes nowadays.”
Would you make that defense if the issue he was on the wrong side of was slavery, anti-semitism, or communism?
It is not a matter of embracing or not. It is a matter of whether or not one (a) accepts that some people just are, and (b) does not object to what consenting adults do that does not cause negative externalities to others.
The whole idea of people lining up to see a wooden box is pretty stupid.
.
He was a positive force. I’ll take another Billy Graham over a very long list of other people any day.
In any case, you can write your Senators and Congressmen.
He absolutely wasn’t a positive force for the millions of LBGTQ individuals and the families and friends who love them. Or Jewish people.
We don’t need to choose between Billy Graham types and “other people” who are deemed worse. There is a whole lot of ground in between those two extremes. We can choose to admire and praise people who do not have such a narrow view of who is entitled to respect, love, support, and equal treatment in society and under the law. Especially if they are “men of God.”
I wonder who makes the decision on who can lie in honor at the capital?
From what I have read its a congressional resolution approved by congressional leadership. Likely just McConnell and Ryan maybe?
Congress. In this case, House Concurrent Resolution 107 - 115th Congress
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/107
Would you choose to be remembered for the good things you’ve contributed in this life or the bad. Nobody here is perfect and I’m sure things can be grabbed from your past that would put you in a negative light. How about your parents, or your siblings, other relatives or friends. You have the ability to judge someone yet someone else will have the ability to judge you.
I just choose to do the best I can and try to be a respectable person. But I’m not perfect and I have made mistakes in my life. I would hate to think that at the end of my life I will only be judged by my mistakes.
Choose to be outraged or not. I just don’t have the energy to be outraged by our politics. I’d have to be severely medicated or as someone above stated have an ulcer.
Well, sure, we have all done “bad stuff,” and no one is perfect. Are our mistakes “a thing we did” that we regret (or should regret) that was one amongst many acts we committed, both good and bad, throughout our lifetime, or do we have “imperfections” that carry on consistently throughout our lives, with no retreat or introspection into the possibility that they are wrong, are hurtful, are unfair, etc.?
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-soul-crushing-legacy-of-billy-graham-w517067
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/02/billy-graham-backs-nc-anti-gay-marriage-amendment.html
So we’ve established that Billy Graham was a Christian who preached the Bible.
^^^^ If he had campaigned as hard against the eating of shrimp and the use of pigskin in footballs, then he might have claim to consistency in strict adherence to Leviticus.
Jesus, AFAIK, said squat about homosexuality.
Billy Graham didn’t feel that his LGBT views were a mistake or an imperfection. They were part of his core message, part of what he saw as his mission in the world. As such they would fall into what he would see as the “good things he has contributed in life”. Despite his failure to halt the progress of gay rights, he can’t possibly object to any acknowledgements that he tried his damndest.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/stan-duncan/im-a-christian-therefore-_b_7707578.html
Why does any of it matter? Maybe because history does seem to repeat itself, over and over.
And when the US gov’t gives him a place of honor as to lying in state or whatever they call it, it is implicit endorsement of Christianity (as I don’t recall them bestowing this honor on any Jewish rabbis or leaders of any other religion), making it a violation of the principal of separation of Church and State, at least in spirit. Not only that, due to the anti-Semitism BG verbalized when he didn’t think anyone would ever hear it, and how strongly he worked (even in his later years) to “halt the progress of gay rights,” it has the appearance of tacit approval of Graham’s POV by our current government leaders, no matter their party affiliation or actual intentions.
Given all that, I can totally understand why millions upon millions would be loathe to refer to or honor this man as “America’s Pastor.”
^^I agree, except that it seems to me an implicit endorsement of a particular sect of Christianity.