Announcement

Collapse

General Theistics 101 Guidelines

This area is open for nontheists and theists to interact on issues of theism and faith in a civilized manner. We ask that nontheist participation respect the theistic views of others and not seek to undermine theism in general, or advocate for nontheism. Such posts are more suited for and allowable in Apologetics 301 with very little restriction.

The moderators of this area are given great discretion to determine if a particular thread or comment would more appropriately belong in another forum area.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Opinions on Billy Graham

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    I have to stop posting and then going back and editing!

    Your opinion is noted, CP. We clearly disagree.
    No, we don't! YOU disagree!
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
      No, we don't! YOU disagree!



      I disagree - and you are disagreeable!
      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

      Comment


      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
        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.
        No it is saying, "I do not wish to give anyone any reason to gossip about me being alone with a woman who is not my wife"

        It also prevents any attempts by a disreputable woman to set him up. There are always witnesses.

        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.
        So, I guess you also think it is objectifying women when a male police officer has to wait for a female officer to conduct a thorough search of a female suspect?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          No it is saying, "I do not wish to give anyone any reason to gossip about me being alone with a woman who is not my wife"

          It also prevents any attempts by a disreputable woman to set him up. There are always witnesses.
          So, as I said, it is a philosophy rooted in fear that objectifies and demeans women.

          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          So, I guess you also think it is objectifying women when a male police officer has to wait for a female officer to conduct a thorough search of a female suspect?
          Nope. Again - you have narrowed the context. A search of a female suspect by a male involves significant personal touching, and is a volatile situation.

          As I have said several times: adopting the phislophy universally on the basis of gender only is the problem. Adopting the philosophy for specific contexts may or may not be, depending on the context.
          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

          Comment


          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            I cannot possibly see how. It certainly doesn't honor his creation (which I believe you believe in). It assumes the worst of pretty much everyone. It assumes the very people you are counseling need to be protected from - or the very community you serve needs to be protected from. I cannot think of too many policies that would be more disparaging of the people around you.
            Have you not watched the news over the last year? How many scandals could have been prevented by this rule? Both by protecting the woman who were victimized by these men (Weinstein), and the men who have been accused of sexual harassment by women (Judge Moore)

            Comment


            • Originally posted by guacamole View Post
              A variation of the Graham rule is common practice in any kind of social service work, be it education, foster care, etc. For teachers it's, "Don't be alone with a single student in a closed room. Don't drive them anywhere alone in your car. Don't meet them outside of school." Etc. People have been fired for less in my district. It protects teachers, students, and the district from false claims and legitimate ones.

              fwiw,
              guacamole
              exactly. It is a precaution. It isn't saying that you don't trust the teacher or the student.

              We have locks on our doors to our homes. It is a precaution against the few evil people out there. It is not saying we think all of our neighbors are crooks or that we don't trust them. It is just being wise.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                Have you not watched the news over the last year? How many scandals could have been prevented by this rule? Both by protecting the woman who were victimized by these men (Weinstein), and the men who have been accused of sexual harassment by women (Judge Moore)
                Sparko - we can also prevent all instances of gun death by collecting and destroying all guns. We can put a big dent on theft by adopting the policy of cutting of the right hand of every thief. We can end most bank fraud by throwing anyone caught off the top of the highest building in Manhattam. Because a thing solves a problem does not automatically make it right.

                What is happening today is hopefully having a major impact: by exposing the issue, holding those who engaged in it accountable, and getting rid of the "shame" involved in reporting such actions.

                Adopting the general rule: "I will not be alone with a woman who is not my wife," is an extreme position that objectifies and demeans women. I would not adopt it and I do not have a high opinion of those who do (for this specific thing). If CP has adopted this rule (and I'm not sure he has done so generically, throughout his life), I would be disappointed in him. That doesn't mean he's not a good man in other ways. It means I think he's adopted a position (if he has) that objectifies and demeans women. The same is true of Pence, Graham, my brother-in-law, or anyone else who makes this their basic operating principle.

                Perhaps it would be clearer if we simply changed one word in the rule: "I will not be alone with any woman who is not my wife." This is how I am reading the rule. This is a rule based solely on the gender of the other person. It cannot help but be discriminatory. Because it is largely about sex or sex-related behavior, it is also objectifying and demeaning.

                That's my opinion. I've not seen anything yet to suggest that opinion needs to change.
                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                Comment


                • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  So, as I said, it is a philosophy rooted in fear that objectifies and demeans women.
                  no it doesn't. It just recognizes that 1. There are some evil men out there and you don't want to be perceived as one. 2. There are some evil women out there and you don't want to be caught in a scandal. 3. there are many busybody gossips out there who might want to ruin your reputation and start a scandal.

                  99% of the time none of those is true, but it's that one percent that gets you every time. It is a precaution, like locking your door to your house or car.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    exactly. It is a precaution. It isn't saying that you don't trust the teacher or the student.

                    We have locks on our doors to our homes. It is a precaution against the few evil people out there. It is not saying we think all of our neighbors are crooks or that we don't trust them. It is just being wise.
                    And that is perhaps the crux of it. When I lived in Boston - I locked my doors. The rate of theft was significantly higher than where I now live, and the precaution was prudent. Here in Vermont, I do not lock anything. My keys are under the seat of my car and the car is unlocked and in the driveway. The doors to my house are continually unlocked, sometimes even when I am away for a week. I've lived here 26 years and never had an issue. I refuse to adopt a blind, fearful position, and treat the people aroound me distrustfully, because there are a few bad apples in the world. My neighbors know, if they need something and I am not around, they are welcome to help themselves - just leave me a note.

                    I have found, over the years, that treating people respectfully and with trust is almost always rewarded with respect and trust in return.
                    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                    Comment


                    • In our recently redefined #metoo environment, a lot of men are going to feel we have to take extra precautions around women. For the next year or so, I guess, I'm not even going to discuss my extra precautions with women, because on this topic they're just as clueless as most men on their topic.

                      Every gal has endured harassment, and can't figure out why those of us who don't harass can't see it. Most guys don't, and because we don't , we're blissfully unaware of how often the women around us are harassed.

                      Every guy has had a false accusation (once, I can remember, because she was looking to split me off from my girlfriend!), and can't figure why we'd like to avoid seeing that happen again. Most gals don't do this, and because they don't, are blissfully unaware of how often women make false accusations.

                      And carpe ... it's not the ones we can see coming a mile away that we worry about.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        Sparko - we can also prevent all instances of gun death by collecting and destroying all guns. We can put a big dent on theft by adopting the policy of cutting of the right hand of every thief. We can end most bank fraud by throwing anyone caught off the top of the highest building in Manhattam. Because a thing solves a problem does not automatically make it right.
                        Is this some sort of argumentum ridiculum?


                        What is happening today is hopefully having a major impact: by exposing the issue, holding those who engaged in it accountable, and getting rid of the "shame" involved in reporting such actions.

                        Adopting the general rule: "I will not be alone with a woman who is not my wife," is an extreme position that objectifies and demeans women. I would not adopt it and I do not have a high opinion of those who do (for this specific thing). If CP has adopted this rule (and I'm not sure he has done so generically, throughout his life), I would be disappointed in him. That doesn't mean he's not a good man in other ways. It means I think he's adopted a position (if he has) that objectifies and demeans women. The same is true of Pence, Graham, my brother-in-law, or anyone else who makes this their basic operating principle.

                        Perhaps it would be clearer if we simply changed one word in the rule: "I will not be alone with any woman who is not my wife." This is how I am reading the rule. This is a rule based solely on the gender of the other person. It cannot help but be discriminatory. Because it is largely about sex or sex-related behavior, it is also objectifying and demeaning.

                        That's my opinion. I've not seen anything yet to suggest that opinion needs to change.
                        well Pence has not been implicated in any scandals with other women. Trump has, and claims the women are lying. Moore has, and claims the women are lying. Weinstein has and actually DID harm the women. In each of those cases, if there were other people present, there would be no scandal.

                        So regardless of your "disgust" or scoffing of the rule, it works. It protects both parties. It doesn't objectify anyone.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          no it doesn't. It just recognizes that 1. There are some evil men out there and you don't want to be perceived as one. 2. There are some evil women out there and you don't want to be caught in a scandal. 3. there are many busybody gossips out there who might want to ruin your reputation and start a scandal.
                          We will have to agree to disagree. The policy treats ALL people as untrustworkthy because a FEW people are. All of the sentences you wrote are fear-based. I'm afraid the person may be evil. I am afraid of what they may say about me. I am afraid their might be a scandal. If you do not think it is fear-based, then what else is it?

                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          99% of the time none of those is true, but it's that one percent that gets you every time. It is a precaution, like locking your door to your house or car.
                          The 99% is very shy of the reality, Sparko. I deal with people all the time. I have lived 59 years. I have never adopted this policy. I have never been accused of anything. Why? Because I treat people with dignity. If anyone WERE to accuse me, I am 100% confident my reputation would make it clear I would never behave that way. Why? Because there is an ocean of men and women out there who have dealt with me one-on-one who can attest to my integrity. I am not going to live my life in fear of the "maybe" one that might come along and try to make trouble.

                          If there is cause - I am careful. Otherwise, I would not objectify or demean the women I know (and even the ones I am soon to meet) by treating them according to this policy. I am a teacher by profession - and I am regularly on the road. I regularly, and without a second thought, meet with students of either gender in private settings to help them through difficult parts of the courses I teach. It would never cross my mind to treat the women in my class differently than the men justbecause they are women. IMO, that would be objectifying, demeaning, and discriminatory.
                          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            Is this some sort of argumentum ridiculum?
                            Sort of. You point was basically "it works, so it must be good." The point is that not all things that work are good.

                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            well Pence has not been implicated in any scandals with other women. Trump has, and claims the women are lying. Moore has, and claims the women are lying. Weinstein has and actually DID harm the women. In each of those cases, if there were other people present, there would be no scandal.

                            So regardless of your "disgust" or scoffing of the rule, it works. It protects both parties. It doesn't objectify anyone.
                            And, as I said, because a thing "works" does not make it just. Choosing to treat someone differently on the basis of their gender alone is discrimnatory (unless the difference is rooted in their gender - I'm certainly not going to suggest to a women that she shave ).
                            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                              In our recently redefined #metoo environment, a lot of men are going to feel we have to take extra precautions around women. For the next year or so, I guess, I'm not even going to discuss my extra precautions with women, because on this topic they're just as clueless as most men on their topic.

                              Every gal has endured harassment, and can't figure out why those of us who don't harass can't see it. Most guys don't, and because we don't , we're blissfully unaware of how often the women around us are harassed.

                              Every guy has had a false accusation (once, I can remember, because she was looking to split me off from my girlfriend!), and can't figure why we'd like to avoid seeing that happen again. Most gals don't do this, and because they don't, are blissfully unaware of how often women make false accusations.

                              And carpe ... it's not the ones we can see coming a mile away that we worry about.
                              I emphasized the error. I do not personally know a single man (or woman) who has been falsely accused.

                              Look - there is nothing being said here that in any way convinces me that I need to change my mind. Some folks have used specific settings, and I have acknowledged that there are places where prudence is called for. Making choices about having someone else present based on specific context can be reasonable. Making a universal choice based on the gender of the other person is not. It cannot be. It simply cannot be anything other than gender-based discrimination. It is no different than saying, "I will not be alone with a person who is not the same race as I" for fear of being accused of being racist. I'm not seeing anything in the arguments presented here to make me think otherwise.

                              And I think we have gone around on this enough. I will read further posts - but I'm trying to get my disconnect success rate up to 64%, so time to practice again!
                              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                                We will have to agree to disagree. The policy treats ALL people as untrustworkthy because a FEW people are.
                                OK then, why are you for gun control and/or gun banning?

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X