"Obama Gave Islam a Pass", says Franklin Graham

Discussion in 'Politics' started by righteousdude2, May 5, 2010.

  1. righteousdude2

    righteousdude2
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    10,459
    Likes Received:
    136
    After joining his father, Billy Graham, at a first time visit to the WH - since Obama was elected to the office of POTUS - Franklin Graham says that Obama gave Islam a pass when it came to the National Day of Prayer and his being "dis-invited" for his previous criticisms of Islam as an "evil" religion were "not appropriate" to a prayer service for armed services personnel of all faiths.

    Graham went on to say that this dis-invite was a "slap at ALL evangelical Christians."

    He told Newsmax, "I just don't understand why the president would be giving Islam a pass. We certainly love the Muslim people. But that is not the faith of this country. And that is not the religion that built this nation. The people of the Christian faith and the Jewish faith are the ones who built America, and it is not Islam."

    SEE: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/0...eachers-kid-knocks-president-over-islam-stan/

    Is Graham right in being upset with Obama for his name being taken off the list of visiting evangelicals at the National Day of Prayer?

    It sure seems like he is ramping up his personal criticism of Obama and the WH, and I wanted to know how the members of this board feel about his feelings in regard to being dis-invited.

    Is Grahah correct in stating that it was the people of the Christian faith and the Jewish faith that built this nation, not Islamists?

    Finally, is Graham being politically incorrect with such claims as to which faiths are responsible for building America?

    I'm sure that you who know me, know that I would personally back up Graham's views, especially about it being the people of the Christian and Jewish faiths that built this nation. So, I'll not get involved any further than submitting this question as to Grahams rant against the WH and Obama.

    Shalom,

    Pastor Paul :type:
     
  2. ReformedBaptist

    ReformedBaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,894
    Likes Received:
    27
    Graham is correct in what he is doing. But he needs to make this about Jesus, not his dis-invitation to a prayer meeting.

    The White House statement is laughable. "The president is a committed Christian who is proud of his engagement with people of faith."

    A committed Christian? Pallleeeeze.
     
  3. windcatcher

    windcatcher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is an open and public snub both personal to F. Graham (which, if done quietly and without publicity, without political overtones or outcomes, might have been quietly contained between WH and FG in private communications) and to those of the Christian community which identify in doctrine and values with those of Franklin Graham.
    IMO, yes FG is correct. You see...... at that time (the time from conlonization of what is now the US, to the developments which lead to striking forth our independence from Britain, the education and writings of that time and the constitution and establishment of our form of government for several decades thereafter) .... many people, whether agreeded in doctrine or faith or not.... had a respect for and agreed with the general and social tenements of the Bible, and accepted its authority in wisdom and guidance for living and justice in government, whether or not they personally believed its inerrancy, all or only parts of it, or had a personal relationship with the God of the Bible. Books were in scare supply, and the colonist provided that education for their children from those books which they considered to be the most necessary and vital for instruction in the basics of personal responsibility and development of social/civil order...... The Bible, Bradstones (sp?) books of law, and philosophy...ie. Locke, Ciscero, etc., and those of practical application and science. Their writings pertaining to government and their correspondence, whether of political motivation or personal content, were peppered with quotes or expressions of ideas which demonstrated a familiarity with works which would be considered quite rare, even for well educated persons in our current day.
    How can truth be measured by 'politically incorrect' standards? In the founding of our country, most people counted themselves as 'Christian' by philosophy of life or religious practice if not always by personal belief and identification with the savior Jesus Christ. There were some Jews present at the time of the Revolution (and I would not give offense or disrespect their beliefs and practices by calling them 'Christian', but neither were their practices and beliefs incompatible to the developments which followed).... how early they came here, I don't know.... but they also helped to fund some of the expense of the revolutionary war, without which, we might not have won. No doubt, there were some 'renegades' ........Thomas Paine seems to start out with early impact on the thoughts which helped to drive the motivation for revolution but then seems to err in later writings against the faith that independence and personal liberty could be sustained.

    ======================
    The general principals of our founding fathers, regardless of faith, seem to come from a generally accepted belief of the following, much of which is supported by scripture:
    Man is born into this world with certain rights bestowed upon him by his creator, the first of which is life, and those which follow, which allows him the exercise of will and the experience of consequences following his choices.
    Man is sinful and corrupt and selfish if left to his own motivations and without accountability:
    Man is either accountable directly to God or he is (indirectly) accountable (to God via) to law which is enforced by government which is (ultimately) accountable to God (whether or not it acknowledges His authority): Either way, there is no control without law; but not all law is the same or just.
    Governments, which are made of men, have powers, but are themselves made of corruptible men, and will multiply in their corruption by control and rule unless contained and made accountable to those for whom they serve.
    Accountability to law seems to be the central necessity for a people to continue to enjoy and fully realize those God given rights.... and for government to be limited or correctable from its ability to become corrupt.
    For the endurance of both (containment of government's control.... containment of man's rebellious/self-serving tendency) ..... it is necessary to keep and maintain both the individual and collective 'conscience' of a people around a code of law and behavior which is commonly adhered to and taught, from one generation to the next, and by which each generation of society examines and re-examines its own conduct and is willing to realign itself when found out of adjustment: The Bible was considered to be the highest standard of lawful conduct and conscience.
    What our founders considered as 'Natural Law', they also considered as consistent with the Ten Commandments.
    Their studies of government and history brought them to conclude that neither a monarchy nor a true democracy were good forms of government: The former may be tyrannical and selfish without accounting to God or man, the later a rule of majority which can alter or change and oppress a minority of any size or weakness and vulnerability, with the majority imposing its will and its expense or servitude upon a minority without regard to moral or ethical rule.... To eliminate the former, and to prevent the latter, our founders, therefore, formed a constitutional republic in which the citizen participated in lawful obedience and in the making of laws.... and was restrained by representative government from permanently inflicting a policy of oppression upon a what might become a subset or minority class (for by whatever criteria that 'class' was produced).
     
  4. windcatcher

    windcatcher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    The greatest fault I find in this is the censoring of Franklin Graham from the position of representing the Christian community in observance of this 'National' Day of Prayer'....based upon some 'other' statements he's made on other ocassions in which he did not have this role.

    The hyprocrisy in government shows through when a person of immense importance.... such as the appointment for the SCOTUS, is challenged on comments made in previous judgements and briefs.... or more.... the statements made of opinion of other cases which they didn't try or hear evidence or in public speeches are excluded as unimportant.... but a citizen preacher (meaning non-military, nor formal appointment to public position as representative, though publically recognized by face and name) like Franklin Graham, is removed from leading the Christian community in prayer because the content of his own free speech at some other time, not representative to this ocassion, was not 'politically correct'.

    I say....... If the WH will judge Franklin Graham by these standards.... then we should applaud our representatives when they suspect flaws of any reason in the appointments made by the WH and can challenge such appointments on such 'shallow' bases (which are probably much more significant than Brother Graham's prayer would be.... as far as the political course of our country is concerned.)
     
  5. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    If I were Mr. Graham I'd be glad, get on my knees and thank God for preserving my integrity before Him, get on with the job I believe He gave me, which is to preach the gospel to His people, to commune with Him one on one, and look forward to His coming.
     
  6. abcgrad94

    abcgrad94
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Messages:
    5,533
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think it's obvious to everyone but Obama how prejudiced he is against Christianity.
     
  7. righteousdude2

    righteousdude2
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    10,459
    Likes Received:
    136
    Thanks for that Quote...

    ... a committed Christian would never have publically dropped the "F" bomb in an attempt to make a joke out of his VP's slip of the tongue - using that same word - while speaking to a national audience at the WH National Correspondance Dinner. I'd have to agree with your observation, 100%. :thumbs:
     
  8. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    I watched Franklin Graham on Huckabee last Saturday night and he presented the gospel of Christ several times during his interview. In fact, that was his main focus. Gov. Huckabee kept questioning him about being disinvited, but Mr. Graham repeatedly said that it didn't bother him and repeated the gospel over and over. It was great to see him and his boldness on Nat'l tv.

    I'm sure you can watch it on Foxnews.com, Huckabee's website or Hulu. It's worth the time.
     

Share This Page

Loading...