Franklin Graham — Persona Non Grata

graham

Franklin Graham, Idiot of te Week Nov 2016

A little over a year ago, I awarded my coveted Idiot of the Week award to Mr. Franklin Graham, son of evangelist Billy Graham, and a most deserving recipient of my idiot award.  Today, I find that he is trying to spread his brand of idiocy, or narrow-minded “Christianity”, if it can be so-called, to our friends across the pond, and they, frankly do not want him!

US evangelical preacher should be banned from entering UK, critics say – The Guardian, 07 December 2017

MPs call for Franklin Graham to be banned from UK ahead of Blackpool visit – Premier, 08 December 2017

For those who may not know who Franklin Graham is, a quick recap.  He is a televangelist who is controversial for his far-right, bigoted ideology.  He has spoken brutally against Islam referring to it as “a very evil and wicked religion”, and has claimed that Barack Obama was “born a Muslim” (not true, but so what if it was?) and had allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to infiltrate the US government at the highest levels during his presidency. He has taken on the LGBT community, saying that the mythological ‘Satan’ is behind same-sex marriage. In every possible way, he is a bigot extraordinaire.  He is, not surprisingly, a big supporter of Donald Trump. Of Trump’s election, he says …

“While the media scratches their heads and tries to understand how this happened, I believe that God’s hand intervened Tuesday night to stop the godless, atheistic progressive agenda from taking control of our country.”

So, with such outlandishly bigoted views, is it any wonder that the Brits don’t want him in the UK?  I think not, for I don’t want him in the U.S., either, but he seems to play well in the south, so as long as he stays in the south, and off my radar, I can simply ignore him.

Graham is scheduled to speak at the Lancashire Festival of Hope at Blackpool’s Winter Gardens in September 2018, but the protests began nearly a year ahead of the event.

A number of Members of Parliament, including a government minister, have urged the home secretary to consider refusing UK entry to Franklin Graham, with some suggesting his comments contravene British laws on hate speech. An online petition  has, as of this writing, garnered 6,150 signatures.

Blackpool MP, Gorden Marsden has called on the home secretary to consider refusing Graham entry, and said the evangelist may have broken UK legislation on hate speech. “I think frankly the evidence is piling up that his visit to the UK … would not be a good thing and not probably in my view a very Christian thing.”

Afzal Khan, the Labour MP for Manchester Gorton, said, “His views are not welcome, and I will make representation to the home secretary if it looks like he is intent on coming,”

Two opponents of Graham’s visit, the Blackpool vicars Andrew Sage and Tracy Charnock, have written an open letter to the bishop of Blackburn, Julian Henderson, calling on him to distance himself from the US evangelist. They say they are nervous about the damage the proposed visit will do to interfaith relations.

Nina Parker, the pastor of Liberty church in Blackpool and the organizer of the petition, said: “As a Christian and as a leader of a church that particularly welcomes LGBT people, I’m horrified that other local churches are inviting someone with this record of hate speech.”

Just as our friends on the other side of the pond, for the most part do not wish to welcome Donald Trump for a state visit next year, nor do they wish Franklin Graham to visit, bringing his message of hate, fear, and every phobia known to mankind.  Personally, I don’t blame them … I don’t want either of them, either!  And if he were sensible, Franklin Graham would cancel his visit, but … well, I just said if

53 thoughts on “Franklin Graham — Persona Non Grata

  1. Jillybean,
    As much as people on one side of the argument, or another. Start blaming the other side, for every ill. Missing their own part on either side. Was the election of him. All down to what, they did? To “steal” the election. Or maybe the candidate was stronger, in the appeal and promises? Maybe after 20 odd years of Ms. Clinton hanging around Washington, the Clinton crime family was finally wearing out the welcome?

    I would rather see one President and Senate with cojones to say no, to the evil. Does it matter which party? Is Mr. Trump, the coming of the Lord? Hell no! If it mattered so much? There should be a broader spectrum of views, to choose from. Instead the fanning feud of 1861 carries on; Bankers playing both ends to the middle. Democrats with the religious fervour of “we stand for righteousness and our views are liberal” Republicans who blame the Union on their iron mills and selling out of the country. The stench of families like the Grahams and their use of religion for personal gain, is as twisted logic as many others who would follow anything blindly. While everyone is arguing they’re getting away with the goose! Cheers Jamie

    Liked by 1 person

    • The candidate did prove stronger but only just. In UK the Brexiteers proved slightly stronger but the battle goes on as always. What means you use , fair , foul , honest or dishonest will depend on your character and the height of the stakes. As for saying no to evil that’s a tall order for us all it might just mean saying yes to the good that does us no good. We all stand for righteousness yet it seems a long time coming maybe we have all got a different idea of righteousness or could it be we stand for righteousness that leaves our lifestyle in tact? Twisted logic; not me that defect is in all the others.

      Liked by 2 people

    • My dear Jamie … I am confused! This post is about the televangelist, Franklin Graham, planning to go to the UK next year, and the UK wishing to bar him from entering. I’ve had a bit of bronchitis and a really rough week, so perhaps I am still in a brain fog here … did you mean this comment for some other post? One thing I agree with is that we need more than just 2 viable political parties from which to choose, At any rate … Cheers, Jamie!!!

      Like

  2. Well said, Jill, and I admire your restraint when speaking of Graham. It would be mightily entertaining if the Brits allowed him entry and then arrested him for violating their hate laws. Jail him until his hearing and then put him on a slow boat to some southern U.S. port.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. It is too bad that we need to resort to banning, “free speech”? No matter what Mr. Graham, should have his say, it should be allowed and ignored. Maybe that is his whole schtick? Be controversial and the nut bars will come out? Personally? I am on the side of God. Yet we are both talking about a different entity it appears. For my God is loving and forgiving. Evangelical is, an odd term? Cheers Jamie

    Liked by 1 person

    • There is a difference between hate speech and free speech. It is worth remembering what Rabbi Abraham Herschel said “Words create worlds. Never forget that the holocaust began with a pamphlet”.
      And a line from a poem by Steve Taylor- “history repeats itself, it has to, nobody listens”.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Our biggest problem in the U.S. is that our liberal laws regarding free speech and guns are causing mayhem. Free speech is used to kill free speech as is the Second Amendment. Fox News openly spouts lies and Russian propaganda and regularly issues threats of armed uprisings should the People exercise the rule of law and remove a President who is obviously corrupt and incompetent. Europe lived through the horror of fascism in a way that Americans didn’t, and I pray that we don’t have to learn the limits of free speech and the dangers of armed fanatics at the price of another holocaust. No one has the right to incite violence against religious and ethnic minorities or gays. No one.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Exactly! Europe watched Hitler rise to power on the exact same type of hate rhetoric, the stirring of the masses, as Trump, Graham and others are doing in the U.S., and that is why they have laws. To people in the U.S., it was just the stuff they saw in newsreels, but to Europe, it was all too real. Personally, I think our freedoms have allowed us to get out ov control, but I fear that once we begin to curtail free speech, it may get its bloomin’ head chopped off. Now guns … they could ban them altogether and I would be happy. Good to see you, Rob!

      Liked by 1 person

          • Well let’s face it; no one has an ‘inalienable’ right to own assault rifles. It’s absurd. My Father used to say, “Your rights end at my nose.” You have a right to own a weapon but not a weapon designed to kill 30 people in less than a minute. You have a right to speak your mind but not to incite violence against your fellow citizens, and you have the right to own a news outlet but not to use it to subvert our system of government by spreading lies promulgated by our enemies. This is just common sense.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Your father’s views mirror my own. I have said those exact words! The other thing that annoys the hell out of me is when I hear people call the “right” to own firearms a “God-given” right! Seriously??? I think not! I seem to growl a lot these days. Sigh.

              Liked by 1 person

  5. Dear Jill,

    This is my opinion only.

    First of all, UK does not have the same laws that the US has with regards to free speech. Second the UK does not need to welcome anyone who sows the seeds of dissension, divisiveness, hatred, etc. His Dad would be turning over in his grave to see his son spouting his rhetoric and he would have been welcome in the UK. The UK is doing a lot of us in the USA a favor by letting these folks that their form of preaching is not welcome.

    Hugs, Gronda

    Liked by 1 person

  6. I know you are your what ifs……..if you think once you send them over here we might keep them you can forget it. Mind you we could probably detain both of them under hate speech laws but no, you’re getting them back, with knobs on.
    xxx Cwtch xxx

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Hello Jill. This story bothers me some. First I do not care for and really argue against Franklin Graham’s views and statements. I think he is deluded and batshit crazy. However I am very concerned with the de-platforming people simply because they say things that we do not like. OK it may be different in the U.K. with their hate speech laws. But he was invited, so some people want to hear him speak. Just as in the US colleges are facing the problem of speakers invited getting de-platformed ( not allowed to speak ) for their political views, it is a problem. The best way to handle it is to let the speakers give their speeches, then have your own speakers who voice the other view. Let the people make up their minds and see where the wrong side is. I also think it is fair to protest before or after the speakers speak. But not during. How can we evaluate an idea if we won’t let people talk about it? How can we know the evils of somethings if talking about them is banned? Today one subject is banned , say republican speakers, but what happens when it reverses and democrats are the ones prevented from speaking at venues? I just think there are better ways to handle it than simply saying person X has views we don’t agree with so he can not speak at an event he was invited to. Hugs

    Liked by 3 people

    • It doesn’t take many people to issue an invitation of this type. Thanks to the medium of TV News many people can get to see these orators in action before they arrive, Since it’s known in advance what they’re going to say, and what they say is going to contravene our hate speech laws, I see nothing wrong in banning him from coming and assaulting the ears of thousands and maybe getting his message across to some young ‘looking for a cause’ ears.
      Hugs

      Liked by 3 people

      • Hello David, good morning. I have just risen and gotten my coffee. I wanted to respond to you while I had a chance. I understand that your country is in a different situation from mine. You have laws that work for you that we do not have. We do not have much of a hate speech law, we do have a lot of hate action laws. We have a foundation of historically letting people spout off and then countering them. To us it gives some people more status than they deserve to be blocked. For our country the idea is to give the people all the arguments, give all the ideas and all the facts, and hope they have the brains to make the right choices. Doesn’t always work. The reason we do this is because if we ban speech we don’t like, what is to stop others from banning our own speech? Have a great day and wonderful weekend. Hugs

        Liked by 2 people

        • Hi Scottie, I can certainly see your point of view but we feel that inciting to hatred is putting people in fear when someone suggests one section of society tells another to attack the first. If Trump or one of h crazy church groups you have says that all LGBT people should be burned at the stake there are too may n crazies out there for us to want some to pick up on the ideas. It’s like making direct threats to people We could use an argument to counter the idea but who knows who is following up on the threat at that minute. I don’t want Trump to feel imoportant by being refused entry or even just uninvited but for me he’s just too dangerous to be spreading his ideas aboutand finding converts.
          Hugs

          Liked by 2 people

          • Hello David. I agree with you. I also agree that in the UK you have a different set of tools and an different mind set to use against speech that is hateful. However we also have laws against direct incitement to violence. You can say here that gays are evil or what ever, but you can not give a speech saying go kill ten gay people now. You can not create a riot with your speech, you can hot incite others to cause harm.
            My view in the US is we should make laws against actions, not thoughts. The best ideas should win if we argue them correctly. But as you know your country best I would have to agree with what you think is the proper way to handle the issue. Hugs

            Liked by 1 person

    • Well, Scottie, I certainly understand where you are coming from, and i’m sure many feel the same as you do. This one gives me pause, but only for a moment, for I have enough UK and EU friends that my attitudes have shifted somewhat over the years. First, you must understand that our almost unlimited free speech is not the same as it is across the pond, and not only in the UK. While it may be the right thing for the U.S. (and I question even this, but it is a slippery slope that I am unwilling to head down), it is not the way of the EU or the UK, and for good reason. While we fought in WWII, it was not in our front yard, and most citizens here were far removed from Hitler and Mussolini. But every nation in the EU/UK was directly affected … it was in their front yards. And Hitler rose on a tower of hate rhetoric, by stirring the masses, much as people like Trump and Graham do. Every nation from Germany to the Netherlands to the UK has hate laws on their books that might not be in keeping with our view of free speech, but it is with theirs, and it is not our place to tell them what they should do any more than it is theirs to dictate our law and custom. I respect our laws, but also respect theirs and understand the reason for both. As I said, sometimes I believe we have too much freedom of speech, aka Charlottesville last summer. And our gun laws are the most lax in the western world, which I strongly disagree with. But anyway, I digress. This is why they are well within their rights to bar Graham, and though I doubt they will, I really wish they would. He needs to understand that his is only one opinion, and not even the majority opinion. Sigh … sorry for the soapbox … stepping down now 😉

      Liked by 2 people

      • Good morning Jill. Seems a lot of people missed the line I wrote

        OK it may be different in the U.K. with their hate speech laws.

        I agree with most of what you wrote. I really agree that the UK and other countries are different from ours, their history and how they react is different, so they are working in a system they understand and agree with. They clearly have the right to their ways.

        The idea of legislating actions is one that is needed and proper. Banning actions as against the laws is for the good of the people. However restricting thought? Not allowing an idea to be talked about and argued? Those are not progressive ways, but severely regressive. How do you stop thoughts? Why should you? Look there are ideas in this world I disagree with massively, but I support another’s person’s right to express their ideas. Just as I demand the right to express my thoughts and ideas. For example I have a YouTube channel with only 7 followers , yet it gives me pleasure to get on there and express my ideas for and against ideas and actions of others. My blog is another place I express myself, just as you do. I can not see you standing for restrictions on your expressing your ideas, your thoughts, your best arguments here. Do you see yourself agreeing to that? One of the first things dictators do is limit your right to disagree with them. Think of tRump having the power to act on against anyone who insulted him or he disliked more than he does now. What about the woman the justice department tried twice to bring charges against for laughing at Jeff Sessions? If you can not speak out against something how are you going to combat it. I am an atheist and many theist groups have tried to demand that no negative speech against their religions be allowed, at the same time they demand the right to promote negative speech and lies against gay people and others. If freedom of expression is not for everyone, it can not be for anyone.
        So my view is to limit actions which do harm society, and to use as light a touch as possible on limiting speech as necessary to again protect the society at large. I dislike greatly the idea of thought police. I hope the start of your weekend is great, and you have a fun one. Best wishes. Hugs

        Liked by 1 person

        • I did see that line, but since the post was about the UK, I may have been a bit unclear. If so, I apologize. But, I would argue also that our own laws may be a bit too open-ended. The only problem is that I cannot see how to fix it without giving permission to go too far, but there have, I think, to be limits, and the Europeans have, for the most part, found a good way to impose some sensible limits. Too many here are killed by our almost limitless freedoms, especially of the 1st and 2nd amendment freedoms. With rights must come accompanying responsibilities, but people too often forget that. Hugs!!!

          Liked by 1 person

            • No worries, it was an understandable mis-understanding. Personally, I cannot stand Franklin, but for the purposes of this post, I was only concerned with the UK’s rejection of him. That said, they will almost certainly let him in next September, for there are enough right-wing radicals over there, too, to give him a platform.

              Liked by 1 person

          • Unfortunately we are not creatures of steady thoughtful verbal exchange as a few hours in any public bar will show. Violence is one of our ways of settling disputes and when it is used strength prevails. We must also remember many are far more used to fisty-cuffs than discussion.
            The appalling truth is many wives are silenced by domineering husbands and it is how we have reared our children for centuries.
            Violence is not a trait we can educate out of the human race it is part and parcel of our inheritance. There is a popular idea today that we are becoming more peaceful and loving towards our fellow man. Steven Pinker pointed out we are living in the most peaceful period of human history , not because we have changed, but because war does not pay.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Y’know, for many years, I bought into that “becoming more peaceful and loving” theory, but today? B.S. … pure and total bunk! On both sides of the pond, yours and mine, far too many have lost even the pretense of being humanitarian. I guess we keep going down until we hit bottom and then perhaps we can re-build society, if in fact the earth is still able to sustain human life at that point. Yes, I’m becoming far too cynical … too much time watching people from down here in the rabbit hole.

              Like

              • Not cynical realistic is the word. There is an old saying I often read on the internet ‘ The truth shall set you free’ but the truth can also scare you to death or it could make you bury your head in the sand. There are for all of us two truths ; the one we chose to see and the one that really exists.

                Liked by 1 person

                • Yes, that’s a good way of looking at it. I wonder if those who make their own truth, who live in a world where they see only what they want to see, are happier than those of us who see the dirty realities?

                  Like

                  • One good thing Mr Trump has done , not intentionally, he has highlighted the unpleasant side of human nature . We are tested by adversity not by comfort ; it brings out the best in many and makes others aware of their failings. It enabled the human race to survive where comfort and good living would have doomed us to obscurity. When a man goes to prison it may wreck his life but it maybe the making of him. So I say let him come to England let’s see what support he has.

                    Liked by 1 person

      • Then we who believe in inclusion, progressive ways, the do no harm to others , the help others when possible, all of us must rise up and get our thoughts and ideas out there. Get them resonating with the people. If we are to change the country for good it starts with us and our ideas. Be well, have a great weekend

        Liked by 1 person

  8. Reblogged this on It Is What It Is and commented:
    Booyah!! … ‘Just as our friends on the other side of the pond, for the most part do not wish to welcome Donald Trump for a state visit next year, nor do they wish Franklin Graham to visit, bringing his message of hate, fear, and every phobia known to mankind. Personally, I don’t blame them … I don’t want either of them, either!’

    Liked by 3 people

I would like to hear your opinion, so please comment if you feel so inclined.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s