Tag: billy graham
Billy Graham’s Granddaughter Calls Out Right-Wing Evangelicals For Excusing Trump

Billy Graham’s Granddaughter Calls Out Right-Wing Evangelicals For Excusing Trump

Jerushah Armfield, granddaughter of famed evangelist Billy Graham, criticized both President Donald Trump and the evangelicals who support him in a Friday CNN appearance.

She began by attacking evangelicals for excusing Trump’s awful behavior under the guise of forgiveness.

“In order to forgive somebody, that individual needs to repent and apologize,” she told host Jim Scuitto. “And I don’t think America has seen that from our president in any scenario, really.”

Scuitto asked whether evangelicals, including her uncle Franklin Graham and grandfather, would be as lenient if former President Barack Obama had an extramarital affair with a porn star. “I think we all know the answer to that,” Armfield responded, dismissing her own relatives as “these evangelicals.”

Armfield later said that she wished evangelicals who support Trump’s policies on subjects like abortion would have the decency to say his behavior “disgusts” them, because they are “sending the wrong message to the world about what Christianity is.”

Watch the clip below.

This Week In Crazy: A Tournament, A Tournament, A Tournament Of Lies!

This Week In Crazy: A Tournament, A Tournament, A Tournament Of Lies!

Are you ready for the American apocalypse? We are on the brink of major cataclysm, folks. It could be the Rapture, it could be Hillary’s Reich, or it could be Two Women Adopting A Child. These are the Last Days, and everyone wants the Last Word. It’s “This Week In Crazy,” The National Memo’s weekly update on the wildest attacks, conspiracy theories, and other loony behavior from the increasingly unhinged right wing. Starting with number five:

5. Nick and Sarah Jensen

JensensLike a toddler who would rather break his toy than share it, an Australian couple say that they plan to divorce if same-sex marriage is legalized in their country.

According to the Sydney Morning Herald Nick and Sarah Jensen believe that expanding the definition of marriage to include gay couples somehow diminishes or threatens “the sacred nature of the union and leaves the door open to polygamy.”

“My wife and I, as a matter of conscience, refuse to recognise the government’s regulation of marriage if its definition includes the solemnisation of same sex couples,” Nick Jensen wrote in an open letter.

Despite the fact they’re willing to end a 10-year marriage to make a point, the Herald reports that their marriage is apparently healthy.

But I suppose that while there are opponents of marriage equality literally threatening to take up arms, the Jensens’ peaceable protest-separation comes off as a comparatively sane response.

ViaRaw Story

Next: Franklin Graham 

4. Franklin Graham

Marriage equality is also compelling Franklin Graham (son of Billy) to pull his toys out of the sandbox.

His “toys,” in this case, being all the assets of the Billy Graham Evangelist Association, which he is removing from Wells Fargo to protest the bank’s (rather lovely) ad featuring a lesbian couple practicing sign language in anticipation of adopting a deaf child. After viewing the ad, and presumably performing the spit take of the century, Graham took to Facebook to announce his decision to boycott the bank rather than do “business with those who promote sin and stand against Almighty God’s laws and His standards.”

BillyGrahamFbook

Despite the fact that the post has nearly 100,000 likes and a glut of positive comments from Christians vowing to do likewise with their funds, Graham recognizes that his staunchly anti-gay stance is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

Graham wrote in an op-ed in USA Today Thursday, “My position is not based upon polls or trends, political winds or Supreme Court wisdom. It is based upon God’s word, the Holy Bible written more than 2 thousand years ago, and that document is not subject to amendment or revision.”

Unfortunately for him, though, the new bank he deemed worthy of receiving his filthy lucre—North Carolina-based BB&T—also happens to be a major champion and sponsor of the LGBT community and its signature events.

Next: Lights Out USA

3.Lights Out USA

Emp survival 2Spend some time wading on the shoals off the lunatic shores of deep Internet, and you might stumble upon this outfit called Lights Out USA that provides products for survivalist patriots — you know, the tinfoil hat wearers who are hep to Hillary Clinton’s nefarious plans to destroy this country.

Their website — which consists mainly of a long, rambling, semi-coherent video screed — touts training modules like “Bulletproof house,” “Conquering the Coming Collapse,” and “Backyard Liberty.”

Their main product on offer at the moment is “The EMP Survival Course,” which offers the secrets to surviving the coming death blast from Hillary Clinton’s eminent EMP attack, as well as all the pro tips for maintaining a comfortable, “ultra-modern” lifestyle in the post-apocalyptic ruins.

The video, narrated by Nick Guarino, a self-proclaimed Clinton whistleblower whose career of dredging up conspiracies is just a bowl of mixed nuts, begins:

Hillary Clinton is getting from Obama much more than the keys to the oval office. She’s inheriting the White House’s biggest darkest secret… one that takes the cake for the betrayal of the century. Forget Benghazi, forget Obamacare. This is so dark, it had to be buried 10,000 feet deep under the Cheyenne Mountain.

As should your DVDs, Nick.

Via Liberals Unite

Next: Glenn Beck 

2. Glenn Beck

GlennBeckGlenn Beck is all about following God’s Law — whether it’s women’s health, LGBT rights, and what to order at Denny’s, Beck has the answers plucked straight from Mount Sinai. (After all, he recently said he was going to become the “Martin Luther King” of fighting same-sex marriage.)

But what truly holds sway over Beck is not God’s Law, but Godwin’s Law, which roughly states that as a debate continues, it becomes inevitable that someone will invoke Hitler and the Nazis.

And it is Godwin’s Law for which Beck is a true apostle. Given any topic, and roughly five minutes of air time, Blubbering Beck will always somehow bring it back to Bergen-Belsen. Because logic.

So it was on his radio show Wednesday when Beck discussed the ways in which liberals intimidate conservatives into silence — calling them bigots and homophobes if they say things that are… bigoted and homophobic.

Conservatives are living in fear, Beck says. And you know who else was afraid? Yeah. Dissidents in Nazi Germany, who were violently intimidated by Hitler’s Brownshirts. Which is exactly what’s happening to us in America today — “mentally” anyway.

“Why don’t you say things anymore?” Beck asks. “Because you might be called a nasty name. You might be destroyed. They are making you afraid. The first thing the goon squads that Hitler had out; do you know how he grabbed control of Germany?”

He went on:

God forbid you say something about Caitlyn Jenner like Clint Eastwood, they’ll hammer the snot out of you. They’ll destroy your job, they’ll destroy you socially, they’ll make your name the worst bigoted name out there. You cannot be afraid. If you’re afraid now, you wait. You stay silent much longer and it will get much, much worse

Right Wing Watch has the video:

ViaRight Wing Watch

Next: Pat Robertson 

1. Pat Robertson

MadPatWhy does a merciful and loving God let terrible things — such as the death of an infant — happen to good people?

It’s a knotty question that has inspired centuries of what I suppose we would now call “think pieces.”

And now we can add Mad Pat Robertson‘s two cents to the theological pile: “Your dead baby could have been Hitler.”

Ah, yes. Saint Pat tells the bereaved mothers of the world that since we know little and God knows much, we must realize that when He snuffs the life out of a blameless infant, it really isn’t such a bad thing:

“As far as God’s concerned,” Robertson said, “He knows the end from the beginning and He sees a little baby and that little baby could grow up to be Adolf Hitler, he could grow up to be Joseph Stalin, he could grow up to be some serial killer, or he could grow up to die of a hideous disease.”

Or he could grow up to be the next Pat Robertson.

Via Daily Kos andRight Wing Watch

Photo above: Glenn Halog via Flickr

This Week In Crazy: Texas Is Nuttier Than We Thought

This Week In Crazy: Texas Is Nuttier Than We Thought

With the Supreme Court hearing oral arguments in a landmark gay rights case, this was a big week for anti-gay nuts. Not to mention the paranoid Texans who defended their state from a federal invasion, or the preacher who took to Facebook to wage holy war against a comic book character. Welcome to “This Week In Crazy,” The National Memo’s weekly update on the wildest attacks, conspiracy theories, and other loony behavior from the increasingly unhinged right wing. 

5. Franklin Graham

Evangelist Franklin Graham, son of Billy and noted homophobe, took to Facebook last week to lament the fall of one of America’s most enduring heroes.

The classic comic-book superhero Iceman, aka Bobby Drake—a member of the original X-Men lineup and occasional buddy of Spider-Man—was outed as gay in a recent edition of All-New X-Men. To Graham, this move from Marvel Comics represents the latest in an insidious effort to poison the youth of today.

“This is another attempt to indoctrinate our young people to accept this destructive lifestyle,” Graham wrote. “God’s Word says homosexuality is a sin, and we are to be on guard against all sin.”

FGrahamFbook

I can understand Graham’s frustration. After all, modern comics are one of the few remaining refuges of proper, morally upright God-fearing characters. So to watch the institution of funny papers fall from grace like this… it’s just heartbreaking.

Actually, when I think about it for an entire second, the logic of this move on Marvel Comics’ part becomes clear. Since the title began in 1963, X-Men — which covers the adventures of a persecuted class of “mutants” — has always been an allegory for discrimination. So in a way, it’s the perfect venue for “indoctrinating” young people into the world of tolerance for others.

What’s more, it’s part of a pattern of high-profile comic titles making the move to becoming more inclusive: Recently, a black man assumed the shield of Captain America, a woman took up the hammer of Thor, a lesbian began patrolling Gotham City as Batwoman, and so on and so forth.

And don’t forget, Neil deGrasse Tyson appeared as himself in a 2012 issue of Superman — “indoctrinating” children into science! Comics are becoming a Born Again’s worst nightmare, aren’t they, Reverend?

ViaHuffington Post

4. Justice Samuel Alito and Laura Ingraham

The gay-marriage-as-slippery-slope argument is a moldy old refrain we keep hearing from opponents of same-sex marriage. (If we start letting “slippery slope” arguments control the discourse… where — oh God, WHERE — will it end?)

Nonetheless, it’s an often effective distraction. You simply posit gay marriage as the catalyst for a satanic chain reaction in sexual politcs that ends with the widespread acceptance of whatever scares you the most — whether it’s polyamory or bestiality or worse — and here conservative pundits usually end up revealing more of their own preoccupations than saying anything remotely useful in the conversation about LGBT rights.

Perhaps it was inevitable, if a tad disappointing, that the slippery slope canard got wheeled out Tuesday morning during the oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark case that could settle the issue of gay marriage in this country once and for all. Justice Samuel Alito asked Mary Bonauto, the attorney arguing on behalf of the petitioners, whether four lawyers, say, could enter into a polyamorous marriage, assuming gay couples are allowed to marry.

Justice Alito: These are 4 people, 2 men and 2 women, it’s not –­­ it’s not the sort of polygamous relationship, polygamous marriages that existed in other societies and still exist in some societies today. And let’s say they’re all consenting adults, highly educated. They’re all lawyers. What would be the ground under — ­­under the logic of the decision you would like us to hand down in this case?  What would be the logic of denying them the same right?

Laura Ingraham went on her show Wednesday to push the non-argument one step further: If four lawyers can marry each other, why not brothers and sisters? I mean, they’re all consenting adults, right?

“I think we’ve moved on beyond gay marriage. That’s transgenderism, and then it’ll be polyamory, maybe some type of — of incestuous relationship will be validated by the state. As long as it’s not consummated… I mean… who… who knows?”

Media Matters has the audio:

3. Pat Robertson

PatRobertsonScreenshotIn terms of pure insanity, Robertson probably deserves to lead the list this week. But (right-wing nuts, take note) I knock off points for repeating yourself. And Mad Pat has certainly been doing that of late, spitting out the same old wild prognostications, apocalyptic ravings, and thick rivers of drool.

On Wednesday’s edition of The 700 Club, St. Patty rattled off the usual suspects bringing our blessed nation to its knees: liberals and deviants keep ramming sodomy, the “murder of unborn children,” and every kind of “heinous practice” down the throats of God-fearing Americans by forcing these sinful into the Constitution. And God is thiiiiiis close to unfriending us, for real this time.

“Sooner or later our holy God is going to say ‘I’ve had enough with you.’ There’s a freedom we have in America no other nation has enjoyed,” he says in apparent ignorance of the many capitalist democracies that aren’t handicapped by Puritanical zealots. America, he claims, is “founded on the word of God. And now people mock the word of God, and those who proclaim it are laughed at as fundamentalists.”

I used to laugh, Pat. Now you just bore and disgust me.

Right Wing Watch has the video:


2. Greg Abbott and the Republic of Texas

Greg AbbottIs Texas governor Greg Abbott spoiling for a civil war? Or has he simply caved in to the more unhinged elements of his constituency?

In order to “address concerns of Texas citizens,” Abbott issued an order to the Texas State Guard on Tuesday to keep an eye on Operation Jade Helm 15, an eight-week military training exercise run by four branches of the U.S. Military. “Jade Helm 15” certainly does have a sinister sound to it — especially if you’re a old white Tejano in thrall to talk-radio paranoia.

At a recent public hearing convened to address the concerns of residents of Bastrop County, Texas, where some of the exercises are scheduled to take place, an exasperated officer for the U.S. Army Special Operations Command tried to explain that Jade Helm 15 was not a preparation for martial law, nor was it a smokescreen to sneak ISIS fighters over the Rio Grande, or even a master plot to seize anyone’s guns. “That’s what you say,” grumbled one man who held up a Webster’s dictionary for reasons that presumably made sense to him. “Dissent is not a conspiracy theory,” proclaimed one sign from another perturbed local. Another read: “Don’t Train On Me / No Gestapo in Bastrop / Keep America Free.”

Alex Jones has got his listeners thinking this exercise is the first step to establishing martial law, and we expect soon Texans will be running down the street shouting “The federales are coming! The federales are coming!” Won’t that be fun?

ViaDallas Morning News

1. Robert Lee

What to say about this piece of human garbage?

RLeeRobert Lee, pastor of the Society of the Ten Commandments “Church” in Milledgeville, Georgia, was the unrepentant subject of a local news item when the sign outside his church caught someone’s eye. And why wouldn’t it? It read in big bold letters, where most churches have something like “Bingo tonight, mass tomorrow” and so forth: “HOMOSEXUALITY IS A DEATH WORTHY CRIME! LEVITICUS 20:13” (N.B.: Not an exact quote.)

The pastor previously had: “GAYS AND LESBIANS ARE DISGRACES TO HUMANITY LEVITICUS 20:13” (N.B.: Also not an exact quote).

“Homosexuality is an abomination. And, uh, the Bible says that homosexuality is a death-worthy crime,” Lee told a news crew, citing the book of Leviticus, forgetting that it also considers among other “death-worthy” crimes adultery, eating cheeseburgers, and saying anything bad about your parents.

“The institution of marriage was instituted by God and it should not be changed by… uh… people who deserve not to live,” he clarified in case anyone missed the big sign outside his ramshackle little guano mound calling itself a church.

Those who oppose same-sex marriage on nominally more principled grounds might want to take a look at some of the specimens on their side — among them Pastor Lee. That’s some loathsome company to be in.

Via Raw Storyand WGXA-TV

Book Review: ‘One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America’

Book Review: ‘One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America’

Just as Mad Men began wrapping up its final season, and Walmart and NASCAR confronted the governors of two red states over anti-gay “religious freedom” bills, I settled in to read Kevin Kruse’s new history, One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America. As one might guess from the subtitle, Kruse argues that the current state of religion’s entanglement in our politics is not the product of piety, but of corporate lobbying, religious pitchmen, and Hollywood stagecraft. We may be living in a moment in which corporate titans fear the impact of anti-gay discrimination on their bottom lines, but the Christian libertarianism Kruse depicts is still alive and well. Witness, for example, Hobby Lobby.

Kruse, a historian at Princeton, traces the rise of Christian nationalism to opposition to New Deal policies — not, as many conventional histories of the movement have pegged it, to abortion, feminism, secularism, or even communism. As I happen to agree with this interpretation, I cracked the binding enthusiastically, and wasn’t disappointed. In these pages, I found a new, meticulous, and vital historical account that should be read by anyone who still scratches their head over whether the Tea Party is a religious movement, or wonders how the idealized conception of America as a “Christian nation” was constructed.

As Kruse chronicles, religious leaders didn’t act alone in orchestrating a decidedly religious opposition to modern welfare state reforms, or in designing American civic religion. Rather, it was a Chamber of Commerce president who called for an antidote to the “virus of collectivism” in a “revival of American patriotism and religious faith.” It was the advertising powerhouse J. Walter Thompson that came up with the “Seven Steps to a Successful Local Religion in Public Life Program.” The same Ad Council officials who came up with a 1955 campaign, “Religion In American Life,” a year later supported Dwight Eisenhower’s presidential campaign with a billboard, “Faith in God and country. That’s Eisenhower! How about you?” Not incidentally, Kruse notes in one of countless fascinating details, J. Walter Thompson at one time employed the future Richard Nixon chief of staff H.R. Haldeman, who went on to be a central figure not only in the Watergate cover-up, but in orchestrating Nixon’s efforts to “romance” religious leaders.

There are four key players in Kruse’s narrative: James Fifield, a California pastor whose role in shaping Christianity’s role in modern politics has been for too long underappreciated; Abraham Vereide, the anti-union crusader who developed the prayer breakfasts and elite cells of politicians and power brokers documented in Jeff Sharlet’s 2008 book, The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power; Billy Graham, the only one of the three who became and remains a household name; and Dwight Eisenhower who, in Kruse’s telling, presided over an “incredible transformation” in how Americans understood the role of religion (read: Christianity) in public and political life.

For close observers of the 20th-century rise of Christian civil religion as well as the religious right and the Tea Party, Kruse’s treatment of Fifield will be the most delicious and eye-opening part of the book. Historian Kim Phillips-Fein chronicled Fifield’s role in shaping laissez-faire economic policy in her 2010 Invisible Hands: The Businessmen’s Crusade Against the New Deal, a crucial contribution to understanding the backlash against a social safety net that endures, for example, in the Republican Party’s unrelenting hostility to Obamacare. Kruse’s deep dive into Fifield’s organizing methods, though, brings to life this “apostle to millionaires” and his role in a corporate-Christian alliance to portray the New Deal as both un-American and un-Christian — that is, if Jesus’ gospel were one of rugged individualism.

Before Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority, there was Fifield’s Spiritual Mobilization, a campaign to upend the Social Gospel, used by liberals, including FDR, to bolster support for Progressive Era reforms and the New Deal. Fifield’s “important innovation,” Kruse writes, “was his insistence that Christianity and capitalism were political soulmates, first and foremost.” For Fifield, the “state cast a long and ominous shadow,” shaping his theologically-based antagonism to government interventions to support the poor and middle class. In a 1938 pamphlet sent to 70,000 pastors, Fifield wrote, “If, with Jesus, we believe in the sacredness of individual personalities, then our leadership responsibility is very plain.”

Notably, Fifield was not from a conservative denomination, but a Congregationalist whom Kruse describes as theologically liberal but politically conservative. (I suppose “liberal” is accurate should one read his interpretation of Jesus as a libertarian dogmatist as taking liberties with the text.) At the height of his career, Fifield pastored the 4,000-member First Congregational Church in Los Angeles, which counted among its members and supporters the director Cecil B. DeMille and the actor Charlton Heston. Emblematic of Kruse’s lively, detailed reporting on Fifield is an anecdote about Heston reciting lines from his role as Moses in DeMille’s Ten Commandments to worshippers at First Congregational, and his recounting of DeMille’s own theo-cultural cri de coeur in the film’s trailer: “we are still fighting the same battle that Moses fought.” (If you’ve ever heard a contemporary Tea Party activist rail against the “slavery” or “tyranny” of “big government,” you’ll realize the “battle” to which DeMille alluded.)

Throughout the late 1940s and early 1950s, Fifield, often with DeMille’s help, staged events like “Independence Sunday,” during which thousands of pastors sermonized on the theme “Freedom Under God.” His Committee to Proclaim Liberty enlisted the aid of Hollywood allies, including Walt Disney and Ronald Reagan, as well as corporate leaders including J. Howard Pew, Conrad Hilton, and executives from Chrysler, Kraft Foods, Marshall Field, Eastern Airlines, General Motors, the United States Chamber of Commerce, and the National Association of Manufacturers. Fifield’s tools for recruiting pastors included distributing free copies of Friedrich Hayek’s libertarian classic, The Road to Serfdom. A 1952 issue of Fifield’s Faith and Freedom magazine denounced the social safety net as “tyrannical” and compared the Social Gospel to socialism, a theology that leads to “socialized covetousness, stealing, and the bearing of false witness.”

Kruse argues convincingly that Fifield’s organizing, and in particular his opposition to the New Deal, helped lay the groundwork for a convergence that came to define religion’s entanglement in national political life in the latter half of the 20th century. First, Billy Graham popularized many of Fifield’s ideas to a mass audience, through his popular crusades and revivals. Second, Vereide’s prayer breakfasts for business elites around the country became “an important political rite of passage” that Vereide, who shared Fifield’s anti-New Deal views, sought to replicate “in every conceivable corner of the federal government,” eventually culminating in the annual National Prayer Breakfast. (Conrad Hilton, Kruse tells us, designed a portrait of a piously kneeling Uncle Sam for the first National Prayer Breakfast, and Graham declared the breakfast “could well be a turning point in the history of Western Civilization.”) And finally, Eisenhower’s campaign and presidency—with Graham’s close orchestration and advice—created the contemporary fusion of religion and politics that still pervades today.

By the height of the Cold War, then, “working lock-step to advance Christian libertarianism, these three movements effectively harnessed Cold War anxieties for an already established campaign against the New Deal,” Kruse writes. Eisenhower, though, eventually soured on the stridency of some of his most libertarian supporters, calling them “stupid” and a “splinter group.” He opted instead for a less combative theme of “Government under God,” and with his support, “One Nation Under God” was added to the Pledge of Allegiance” and “In God We Trust” to currency in 1954, a process Kruse recounts in detail.

Both Graham and Nixon, who served as vice president under Eisenhower, had “front-row seats” for the religion-and-politics revolution over which Eisenhower presided. Disappointed by the failure to harness that religious energy for his 1960 campaign, Nixon, with Graham’s close counsel, revitalized it in 1968. In the charged climate not only of the Vietnam War and the sexual revolution, but of widespread conservative anger over the 1962 and 1963 Supreme Court decisions striking down mandatory school prayer and Bible reading in public schools, Nixon’s first inaugural involved, Kruse writes, “an unprecedented display of public prayer and formal worship.” This religiosity persisted through his presidency, after he instituted worship services in the White House’s East Room. Nixon’s special counsel Charles Colson (who, after his own post-Watergate conversion, went on to found Prison Fellowship) was instructed to carry out the “president’s request that you develop a list of rich people with strong religious interest to be invited to the White House church services.”

If I have a quibble with One Nation, I would have liked to see Kruse explore how, even though rejected by Eisenhower, the strident Christian libertarians (the forerunners, I would argue, of the Tea Party) never went away, instead creating an ongoing tension between Eisenhower’s uber-civil civic religion and the clamorous anti-New Deal, anti-communist hard right. Still, it’s essential reading for anyone who wants to understand that uniquely American alliance between God and mammon.