Opinions on Billy Graham

[Adrift]

The man is basically saying, "Gee, I cannot be around a woman who's not my wife! What would people think?" That makes the other women basically sexual objects that, apparently, the person either cannot control themselves around, or thinks other people will think they cannot control themselves around.

In a business - it means a male boss cannot have a personnel review meeting with female subordinates, for no other reason than "they're female."

IMO, it's a ridiculous, and potentially harmful rule. I don't find it uplifting in the least. I find it degrading to the women is objectifies, and a pretty sad commentary on the people who feel they need to follow it.

This is a very peculiar, very warped take on this rule. This rule is in most churches I'm familiar with to protect both the Pastor and the other party involved, and it's come about for real world reasons involving both claims of sexual misconduct where there wasn't any, and to protect people from those who would make unwanted advances. I'd figure a skeptic would be happy for a rule like this, especially in light of the many public affairs committed by televangelists in past decades.

I think part of your problem is thinking of this as a boss/employee relationship. Pastors are not in that sort of relationship with their congregation. They deal with very personal, very intimate details of people's lives, but are also seen as someone with charisma, influence, wisdom and power. It's a unique relationship you won't find in a workplace environment or with a psychiatrist.

I can tell you from anecdotal experience that the rule was incredibly wise to use for pastors I've known.

[Zymologist]

So you said the same thing - in gentler words. Essentially, the man is either saying, "I can't be with a woman who is not my wife because I may not behave appropriately." or "I cannot be with a woman who is not my wife because others might suspect I am not behaving appropriately." And it's essentially about sex, which means women are being objectified as sexual objects. I find the rule...well...to be honest, I find it more than a little

Ok, so you're just determined to be uncharitable about it.

[Cow Poke]

This is not at all what is says. It says that a man should no go places alone with another woman. And what is wrong with avoiding the appearance of evil?

I bet he hates men who open car doors for their wives!


(being facetious, kinda, but maybe not)

[carpedm9587]

Or the man could be saying, "I cannot be around a woman who's not my wife, because then the barest possibility of temptation/scandal is avoided."

Why view it so uncharitably?

So you said the same thing - in gentler words. Essentially, the man is either saying, "I can't be with a woman who is not my wife because I may not behave appropriately." or "I cannot be with a woman who is not my wife because others might suspect I am not behaving appropriately." And it's essentially about sex, which means women are being objectified as sexual objects. I find the rule...well...to be honest, I find it more than a little

In short, if you need the rule - it might be time to evaluate just how much you have managed to mature as an adult.

[Zymologist]

Then you have not been listening.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/...men/312576002/

http://www.konbini.com/us/lifestyle/...oure-an-idiot/

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/ji...men-from-power

I'll also be happy to put you in touch with my wife, every single one of her friends, every woman friend I have, and every woman in my family. The tally, thus far, is 100% AGAINST the Graham/Pence rule.

Ok, sure I haven't been listening. I was just offering some anecdotal experience (like you just did).

[Jedidiah]

That is not a rule I endorse, or find even mildly acceptable. It is a horrendous statement on male/female relationships, and just another form of objectifying women, IMO

What do you actually see wrong with it?

The man is basically saying, "Gee, I cannot be around a woman who's not my wife! What would people think?" That makes the other women basically sexual objects that, apparently, the person either cannot control themselves around, or thinks other people will think they cannot control themselves around.

This is not at all what is says. It says that a man should no go places alone with another woman. And what is wrong with avoiding the appearance of evil?

[carpedm9587]

Funny enough, the only time I've ever heard the rule condemned is from men....

(anecdotal, certainly, but I find it interesting)

Then you have not been listening.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/...men/312576002/

http://www.konbini.com/us/lifestyle/...oure-an-idiot/

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/ji...men-from-power

I'll also be happy to put you in touch with my wife, every single one of her friends, every woman friend I have, and every woman in my family. The tally, thus far, is 100% AGAINST the Graham/Pence rule.

[Zymologist]

The man is basically saying, "Gee, I cannot be around a woman who's not my wife! What would people think?" That makes the other women basically sexual objects that, apparently, the person either cannot control themselves around, or thinks other people will think they cannot control themselves around.

In a business - it means a male boss cannot have a personnel review meeting with female subordinates, for no other reason than "they're female."

IMO, it's a ridiculous, and potentially harmful rule. I don't find it uplifting in the least. I find it degrading to the women is objectifies, and a pretty sad commentary on the people who feel they need to follow it.

Or the man could be saying, "I cannot be around a woman who's not my wife, because then the barest possibility of temptation/scandal is avoided."

Why view it so uncharitably?

[carpedm9587]

And yet if other men had followed that rule recently there would be a lot fewer scandals in Hollywood and Congress. I think it is actually respectful to one's wife not objectifying. How is is objectifying?

The man is basically saying, "Gee, I cannot be around a woman who's not my wife! What would people think?" That makes the other women basically sexual objects that, apparently, the person either cannot control themselves around, or thinks other people will think they cannot control themselves around.

In a business - it means a male boss cannot have a personnel review meeting with female subordinates, for no other reason than "they're female."

IMO, it's a ridiculous, and potentially harmful rule. I don't find it uplifting in the least. I find it degrading to the women is objectifies, and a pretty sad commentary on the people who feel they need to follow it.

[Zymologist]

And yet if other men had followed that rule recently there would be a lot fewer scandals in Hollywood and Congress. I think it is actually respectful to one's wife not objectifying. How is is objectifying?

Funny enough, the only time I've ever heard the rule condemned is from men....

(anecdotal, certainly, but I find it interesting)

[JimL]

Look here... I'll bold the relative portion.

Yes, I can read. He say's I think it can be phrased respectfully. I think it can be phrased respectively as well, but that's not a request that we necessarily do so. And since when is not following such a request against the rules?

[Sparko]

That is not a rule I endorse, or find even mildly acceptable. It is a horrendous statement on male/female relationships, and just another form of objectifying women, IMO

And yet if other men had followed that rule recently there would be a lot fewer scandals in Hollywood and Congress. I think it is actually respectful to one's wife not objectifying. How is is objectifying?

[Cow Poke]

No, actually the OP does not say that, and neither am I trolling. It's my honest opinion that they are frauds, both Billy and his son. And btw if there were a rule against trolling, you'd have to have banned yourself a long time ago, Sparko.

Look here... I'll bold the relative portion.

A truly great man has moved on.

I am curious, what are your view on Graham? I think that it can be phrased respectfully, even if one does disagree.

[carpedm9587]

Yeah, I get ya. My problem with his success is that his writing and speaking fees is how he dupes the gullible.

There is a huge difference between a person that conveys a message, by book and word, that people want to hear and want to pay for, and a man who tells people that they have to donate because god wants them to have a jet or is threatening to "take them to heaven."

If I reject B.G. for being successful preaching a message I don't happen to agree with, then I have to reject every self-help expert, every motivational speaker, and every post-career politician that ever existed. When someone sets out to dube the gullible, they deserve our disdain. When they are just preaching something they believe in that you do not happen to agree with, IMO, they do not.

I have to admit I am MORE impressed by men who preach this message and maintain a humble lifestyle (e.g., Ghandi, M.L.K., Mandela, etc.). But I do not begrudge someone their success.

[Jedidiah]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderator Notice

You may have read the OP which asked for things to be stated respectfully. You may have disagreements but plain unfounded disrespect is not acceptable

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.