Billy Graham a Democrat!

[David Mauldin]

   During the past 15 years I have had to patiently listen with an open mind whenever I was around Christians talking about politics. It began around the same time Rush hit the airwaves. I would hear things about how "Ungodly" the democratic party was. How immoral they were.  Usually the issue was always centered and summed up around abortion.  Yet as a Christian I couldn't understand why my politics had to be decided over this one issue?  Couldn't I disagree with abortion and still vote democrat?  What if I felt capital punishment was unscriptual?  Thou shalt not kill!  Yet there seemed to be this overextended emphasis by the mainstream church to come down on democrats and come down hard!  Bill Clinton is a murderer!  Hillary is a lesbian!  Blah, blah, blah! Somehow being a democrat has become synonymous with everything that is wrong with America! And yet I honestly tell you in all sincerity the most genuine Christian I can think of today is a democrat!  Jimmy Carter!  Mr. Carter is by far the most respected and honored Christian president of the last 100 years!  He has demonstrated over and over the genuine of his faith and character. Yet he is a democrat!  Recently Mr. Graham has come out of the closet! He stated on the Today Show that he is a democrat!  Well what do you think of that???  Is it possible?  can this be true? Has Satan deceived even-the elected himself???  What do you think???


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8326362/

[outdeep]

   During the past 15 years I have had to patiently listen with an open mind whenever I was around Christians talking about politics. It began around the same time Rush hit the airwaves. I would hear things about how "Ungodly" the democratic party was. How immoral they were.  Usually the issue was always centered and summed up around abortion.  Yet as a Christian I couldn't understand why my politics had to be decided over this one issue?  Couldn't I disagree with abortion and still vote democrat?  What if I felt capital punishment was unscriptual?  Thou shalt not kill!  Yet their seemed to be this overextended emphasis by the mainstream church to come down on democrats and come down hard!  Bill Clinton is a murderer!  Hillary is a lesbian!  Blah, blah, blah! Somehow being a democrat has become synonymous with everything that is wrong with America! And yet I honestly tell you in all sincerity the most genuine Christian I can think of today is a democrat!  Jimmy Carter!  Mr. Carter is by far the most respected and honored Christian president of the last 100 years!  He has demonstrated over and over the genuine of his faith dn. character. Yet he is a democrat!  Recently Mr. Graham has come out of the closet! He stated on the today show that he is a democrat!  Well what do you think of that???  Is it possible?  can this be true? Has Satan deceived even-the elected himself???  What do you think???


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8326362/

I think the burden of proof in on you guys.  When is the Democratic party going to really accept pro-lifers under their tent and allow them places of prominence within the party?  Not just in Howard Dean "I read the Bible too" type of talk, but genuinally caring about what Evangelicals care about.  I think when the Democratic party softens their pro-abortion, pro-teachers union, pro-feminist, pro-homosexual stance and accepts more of a diversity in real, tangable ways, I think there will be more of an even Democratic/Republican mix within the Evangelical church just as there was decades ago when Billy Graham became a Democrat.

Just as a note:  I am not shocked that Mr. Graham is a Democrat.  As mentioned above, the Democratic party was much different 50 years ago (genuinely the party of the little guy, not tied up in special interests as it is today).  Folks of his generation tend to have more of a party loyalty in their affiliation even if they don't necessarity vote for the candidates (as Mr. Graham mentioned in his follow up statement that he does not necessarily vote straight party).

[David Mauldin]

"pro-teachers union"  Why is this a bad thing?  You think teachers are over-paid? Over appreciated?  "pro-feminest" Don't you think a woman who works just as hard or harder than a man should get the same pay?  Isn't Jesus looking out for the oppressed?  It seems to me that Republican's are more for maintaining the status quo rather than Biblical principles!

[outdeep]

"pro-teachers union"  Why is this a bad thing?  You think teachers are over-paid? Over appreciated?  "pro-feminest" Don't you think a woman who works just as hard or harder than a man should get the same pay?  Isn't Jesus looking out for the oppressed?  It seems to me that Republican's are more for maintaining the status quo rather than Biblical principles!

Sorry, I see you are not up on the issues.

The conflict over education is not about teacher's salaries.  The issue is that folks would like to have more choice in education.  For example, in failing inner city schools rich-to middle class folks can either move out of the area or afford to put their children in private schools.  Poorer children are trapped in the substandard schools. This is why it is argued that some form of voucher would benefit the poor in allowing them to have a choice in the matter.  Of course, teacher's unions are against anything like this that would infringe upon their monopoly.

Opening the door to some forms of voucher system has other benefits as well.  For example, since there is a vast range of believe (securlarism vs. religious, vouchers could open the door to allowign parents to have education tailored to their value system.  One could go to a religious school, another could choose a Montessorii school.  Further, business competition does have the power to enforce excellence.  The better teachers can be rewarded with greater wages as oppsed to the current system where the pot of money has to be divide among everyone equally whether the teacher is a good one or a bad one.  Again, this sort of thinking is generally shut down by teacher's union because it would clearly put some of the education spectrum out of their control.

As for feminism, your point is old news speaking of the origins of feminism.  Both sides of the camp believe in equal work for equal pay as far as I know (at least I do).  I don't think that is even a debate anymore.  The reaction is against the current radical form of feminism that is out of touch with mainstream women.  This form of feminism pushes a pro-abortion adjenda as well as forms of sex education upon the young that many parents are not comfortable with.

You may not agree with the views I expressed above and that is fine.  Being a teacher yourself, you probably have insights I don't have.  But, your line of questioning only demonstrates that you are not interested in articulating honestly what the Conservative argument is and evaluating it on its merit.  Rather, you presume that Conservatives merely want to articulate policy that is demeaning to women, oppressive to the poor, and hurtful to teachers.

These are real concerns that many Evangelical Christians have.  Getting back to the main point, as long as these views are demonized (like you are doing) in the Democratic party instead of understood and addressed, I don't see folks from Evangelical churches flocking to your party.  So again, the burden of proof is on you.

[David Mauldin]

Dave, I am up on the issues bro!  Hey if a kid in my district wants to go to Sunny Hills high school all the parents have to do is fill out a form.  Many of my former students go there!  I can easily understand a private school having better test scores!  Hey a kid gets into trouble the principal brings the parents into the office, "If Tommie gets into trouble one more time he is out!"  Given the fact that behavior problems and poverty seem to be correlated what happens to these kids??? I wish our district would follow a policy that required seriousness in the classroom but what happens is more money becomes the issue! (pull-out programs blah, blah, blah) (What is society suppose to do?  Kick the kids out on the streets? Put them into an institution?  If it was left up to the private schools then where would they be?) So it becomes a constant tension between how much do we expect from the student and how much are we willing to pay?  Now lets say we go to the voucher program. What will happen to the kids that can't cut the mustard? The private school will become an exclusive elite organization. It will all just make things more and more divided in our society! (A republican ideal but not what the Fathers had in mind!) Or it will compromise into the public school system. Pro-abortion?  Sex education?  I see these issues as one of who has power. Who has control!  Abortion is a horrible thing yet if a legalized clinic can save a girls life because she will do it illegally instead then its the better thing. (See The Cider House Rules.)  Sex ed???  What is the big deal here?  They openly discuss a girl having her period???  I really don't know what you are talking about??  Condoms on a banana?  How am I demonizing Republicans???  You brought up the issues of education, feminism!  If I hit on Republicans for their attitudes about the war in Iraq O.K. They are demons!  But not really. The demonization started with Rush. Democrats are blah, blah blah, The truth is we are all the same. We all have the same potentials for good and evil. Democrats get caught doing things!  Republicans also! my point in starting this thread was-to show the fact that a very well respected Christian evangelist can also be a democrat!  Which for many people is an oxymoron!  When Billy Graham promoted Hillary as our next president many people got up and left!  Why? Because they have been brainwashed into thinking Democrat=Evil! 

  To be honest with you I would love to teach in a private school. I suscribe to "Green Teacher"  Yet 18 grand a year and no benefits just dont put food on the table! 

[outdeep]

I’ll summarize my view on this and then I am going to bow out of this discussion.

1.   It is not a big surprise or “bombshell” that Dr. Graham remains affiliated with the Democratic Party.  As explained above, the Democratic Party was much different in his day that it is today.  Even Ronald Reagan was a Democrat at one time.

2.   Evangelical Christians have concerns that at least have a hearing in the Republican Party (though not completely addressed) but are mocked in the Democratic Party.  This thread is a good demonstration of that.

For example, Evangelicals are concerned about the growing secularization of the public schools where parents have less choice and control over curriculum.  When I bring up the issue of school choice (and vouchers to allow teachers in alternate schools to make a decent wage), notice how David spins it to way that I am saying that we want to privatize all schools, form elite groups, and exclude the poor.

Evangelicals are concerned about extreme NOW views of sex education where sex education taken out of the parents hand and taught at inappropriately young ages, where the items taught are contrary to the parent’s value system.  Evangelicals would like to teach their children when they feel things are age-appropriate, would like an equal hearing for abstinence, do not see homosexuality as biologically normal, and do not see abortion as part of the package of birth control.

When I bring up these concerns, David spins it that I’m saying that we believe we should never talk openly about a women’s period and that we are against equal pay for women for equal work.

This discussion is much like it was taking about Tim Geftakys about Assembly issues – eveytime you try to bring up a concern, he spins it to be minimal, petty and all about your own selfish interests.

Liberal Democrats see Evangelicals as ignorant, judgmental and self-interested which is why they don’t take the church’s concerns seriously.  They only try to appear interested around election time when they go to the South and misquote verses.

3.   Even if abortion was the only issue that Evangelicals are concerned about, it is a big one.  If one agreed with everything a politician stood for except for the fact that he beat his wife, one would not vote for him.  Similarly, I avoid voting for politicians who actively fight to exterminate the most vulnerable in society.  It doesn’t reflect well on this person’s moral system, in my opinion.  (I personally believe there can be some compromise on the issue which I won't elaborate here, the the Democratic party is too deep in bed with NOW to even consider anything less than abortion for all for any reason at any time).

4.   Groups are starting to ask more and more David’s question – why can’t Christians be more diverse politically?  Can’t a Christian be anti-war, believe in the Democratic redistribution of wealth taxation model and also be pro-life?  Groups in the emerging or “post modern” church are asking that question (see discussions on www.theooze.com).  One speaker at Soularize (a popular postmodern church conference) said that in Europe, unlike America, churches tend to mix and match political issues that are emphasized in their congregation.  America just isn’t there yet as the Democratic party is not at the place where it understands Evangelical concerns.

5.   A recent book called “God is not a Republican or Democrat” attempted to deal with this issue, but did not do a good job.  Basically, it argued that God is indeed concerned about liberal issues (poverty, anti-war, environment) but less concerned about conservative issues (abortion, family values, choice in education).  This is merely switching feet.  Most works of this kind merely want Evangelicals to give up their conservative issues and become liberals.  There is nothing out there that I know of that shows a practical way that a Christian can support a party that is concerned about affordable housing, anti-war, the environment AND be pro-life, pro-family values, and pro-choice in education.

The Republican Party is by no means perfect, but Evangelical feel at least their concerns have a potential to be heard.  I believe that in the next decades, thinks will likely change – the Republican party may get more secular and the Democratic party may open up more.  Or, if both parties get intolerable, Christians may withdrawl from politics all together or attempt at a minority party.  If things change, you will see folks switching around.

[Jem]

Dave S,

The sex ed topic is a bit skewd. My public school kids start sex ed in 5th grade. The girls are instructed about menstral cycles and the boys are told to expect physical changes. It gradually gets to intercourse, AIDS and other STDs, etc. by high school. Parents are free to veiw curriculum and/or remove their children from the classes. I have found that if a child is not homeschooled they will hear about all this stuff before even public school teachers have informed them. We make it a point to be the first to introduce this topic to our children (our youngest being a 4th grader this is my year) and talk them through it as they go. We have pulled our kids from the classes we have kept them in (depending on who is teaching). We have found the curriculum to be a just-the-facts type. One principal told me that most curriculum tends to reflect the area you live in. In Very Republican OC and San Diego Counties it is fairly unthreatening and abstinence based. So when people, like James Dobson, tsk tsk the worst case senarios I find it rather distressing. When you talk to homeschoolers they invarible bring up these nightmarish stories that are so far from public school parents' reality that they look a little kooky. When the Republicans wave it around they look a little right-wing.

Dave M,

You do twist Dave S's posts to imply he said things he never said. You come off as Republicans=stupid and Christian=malicious evil. Dave S is neither. If you really want to have a discussion a few things are required, mutual respect and and back and forth on the topic at hand. You tend to make statements and then when others counter your statement you either twist what they said or you jump over it and bring up something else (a great Jehovah's witness trick by the way.) For example, your Willy and Joe dialogue was offensive in its implication and never really addressed what was trying to be discussed. It came across as Dave talking at people again. And when ask direct questions you often skip over them so it is hard for people to think you really do want a "discussion."

[David Mauldin]

Dave, I apologize if you feel I twisted what you said. Maybe you don't ascribe to the Rush garbage, "Bill Clinton murdered Vince Foster. Hillary is a lesbian." I honestly don't know what you are talking about when it comes to sex ed. It isn't taught in my district. Vouchers are not really fair from my viewpoint because  private schools are not under the same requirements as public schools. We have to give each child an education even if it means 35 grand a year because the kid needs 1 on 1 help. I think Billy Graham is able to look at these issues and still vote democrat.  Why can't other people?  Dave when you emphasized that Billy was democrat because of tradition blah... aren't you putting your twist?  I think he is a democrat in the year 2005 because it is his best reasoned thought out choice.  Anyway I hope we are still friends!

[David Mauldin]

Jem, my statements were not directed at Dave but the Rush attitude that is so very prevalent amongst mainstream Christianity. This is what I am addressing.  My Willy and Joe dialog is just focusing on the issue "Iraq A Good Idea?"  If you look at the thread which I started two years ago, every issue I brought up was "poo" "poo-d" by Tom, Brent, Vern, Joe, etc... yet the facts are right there!  We were lied to by the President! There were no WMD'S, except for the chemicals we gave Saddam to kill the Iranians with but they are gone. over 100,000 Iraq citizens dead because of collateral damage, over 17oo U.S. servicemen dead, over 3000 u.S. servicemen wounded for life. etc.... Insurgency is only increasing in its strength!  Read the post!  I said this would happen over and over. My warnings were met with condescending criticisms about my spelling!  About my leftist liberal hypocrisy!  Yet after all the evidence has supported me and condemned the Bush administration where do you see any apology?  Where do you see any humble admissions "You were right Dave!  We were wrong to criticize you!"  The president was able to do this by manipulating the Christain Right.  He poised himself as God's servant for this generation!  he was given a job to do by God!  Christians/Republicans who identify with the Chhristian right were duped into supporting the president because they believed in him!  But instead of the right openly admitting falt they are looking to blame "liberals!" Instead it is MY FAuLT that we are loosing this stupid war!!!  Thus my Willy and Joe post have nothing to do with reasoned discussion. They are just a damming portrait of the administration and those who defend them.

[al Hartman]

My warnings were met with condescending criticisms about my spelling!

David,

I don't recall the details, but I'm sure I criticized and/or ridiculed your spelling on several occasions.  My remarks in that regard were worse than condescending-- they were made in meanness.  I can't "unsay" those things, but I do apologize and ask your forgiveness.

Sincerely,
al

[David Mauldin]

Thanks Al!  You are forgiven!

[outdeep]

Point conceded:  My example of sex education was based on reading of which I cannot even recall the source rather than personal experience.  So, it was not a legitimate argument on my part.  At least not one that I can back up as fact.

I agree with David M on this point:  Bill and Hillary Clinton are not evil.  There are people with whom I disagree with politically on some points.  (Actually I was rather proud of former President Clinton for not giving in to trashing Catholic abstenance-believing missionaries when being bated by an anchorwoman in an interview on AIDS in Africa I saw a few months ago).  I was felt convicted some time ago of trash-talking the Clintons - it is just as wrong as the shrill abuse that is heaped upon Bush's character today.

[vernecarty]

  If you look at the thread which I started two years ago, every issue I brought up was "poo" "poo-d" by Tom, Brent, Vern, Joe, etc... yet the facts are right there! 

You are right about this. In the beginning, liike most other folk, I hopped merrily on the 9/11 justification bandwagon. The centrifuge tubes and medical treatment for the Al Qaeda operative reported by Colin Powell was I thought, very compelling at the time. Powell was the right man to make a credible case because of his reputation for being a straight shooter and he succeeded admirably. Sadly, I think the man was used and his loyalty abused. I felt particularly foolish as many of my Spanish friends who inquired about what I thought about the invasion, while they still disagreed, were nonetheless influenced by my viewpoint, the latter evidently based on questionable or ambiguous information.
These folk are trapped. There is great power in Babylon...as they are no doubt discovering...
Verne

p.s. The immediate result of Aznar's government trying to employ the same tactic and blame ETA for the train bombing was the summary ejction of the conservatives in Spain, and the installation of one of the most socialist regimes in decades there. I am worried about us in that regard...I happen to be a fairly conservative guy...I did not say Republican...
Verne

[David Mauldin]

Thanks Vern, Dave I don't know if Bush as stupid as some say, "He is a puppet for Rove." but if it does come out that the American public was lied to. will you hold Bush as responsible?     

[outdeep]

Thanks Vern, Dave I don't know if Bush as stupid as some say, "He is a puppet for Rove." but if it does come out that the American public was lied to. will you hold Bush as responsible?     

I guess I would have to - just like the shame of the Nixon cover-up.  At this point, I take the position that there is a distinction to be made between lying and making a decision based upon faulty information; as well as the question of whether one man single-handedly led us to the war or was it a group of people who voted for the war resolution based upon this same faulty information.