Jump to content
270soft Forum

"Christianity Today Magazine", founded by evangelist Billy Graham, calls for Trump to be removed


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Just now, admin_270 said:

Heh. I'm comfortable with most of Sanders' major policy views. In Canada I would probably fit most easily into the Red Tory category. 

But I don't like nonsense, including misleading nonsense about Trump, such as suggesting Billy Graham's views are similar to CT's. Billy Graham voted for Trump, and Franklin Graham is a big Trump supporter.

Funny thing is, in Canada, Sanders would be an electable member of the NDP in several parts of Canada, but in the U.S., he's viewed as the next Lenin, a "hard Communist/Socialist/Marxist," who wants to create and "American People's Republic," and "bankrupt the nation in a week," and "strip away each and every Constitutional right," and the old Ghost of McCarthy Halloween prop has a good romp. I find it quite strange - even a bit ridiculous.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Herbert Hoover said:

In what way is it left leaning? I've not seen any credence to your claim. You just keep insisting to read the magazine. Maybe you should try that ;)

I've read quite a few CT articles, thanks. Most of CT's articles aren't particularly political, in the American context anyway.

The few that are tend to skew I would say centre-left. See this, for a recent example.

https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2019/december/british-evangelicals-brexit-deadline-boris-johnson-vote.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Heh. I'm comfortable with most of Sanders' major policy views. In Canada I would probably fit most easily into the Red Tory category. 

But I don't like nonsense, including misleading nonsense about Trump, such as suggesting Billy Graham's views are similar to CT's. Billy Graham voted for Trump, and Franklin Graham is a big Trump supporter.

 

5 minutes ago, Herbert Hoover said:

In what way is it left leaning? I've not seen any credence to your claim. You just keep insisting to read the magazine. Maybe you should try that ;)

 

1 minute ago, darkmoon72 said:

😂

The Ministry of Christ is non-political. If "Christian" literature obviously can be seen to fall to one side or the other of the Political Spectrum ideologically, than it has fallen and swayed away from the Message of Christ and has been corrupted and influenced by the machinations of Caesar to serve Caesar.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Patine said:

Funny thing is, in Canada, Sanders would be an electable member of the NDP in several parts of Canada, but in the U.S., he's viewed as the next Lenin, a "hard Communist/Socialist/Marxist," who wants to create and "American People's Republic," and "bankrupt the nation in a week," and "strip away each and every Constitutional right," and the old Ghost of McCarthy Halloween prop has a good romp. I find it quite strange - even a bit ridiculous.

I see Sanders as nothing more than a self-promoting fraud, kind of similar to how you see Donald Trump.  Thought I'd offer a different view, since there are some here who view Sanders the same way I do, and who don't neatly fit into the two categories you provided.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, darkmoon72 said:

I see Sanders as nothing more than a self-promoting fraud, kind of similar to how you see Donald Trump.  Thought I'd offer a different view, since there are some here who view Sanders the same way I do, and who don't neatly fit into the two categories you provided.

I see Sanders as well intentioned but naive.

"Well intentioned but naive" is actually not a terrible thing to be, even for a Presidential candidate in some elections.

But this one is just too important.

If the case for Sanders is that he has the best policy proposals, then there has to be some degree of serious conversation about how in the world he would achieve any of them...even if he did manage to become President.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, admin_270 said:

Christianity Today isn't an evangelical magazine. It leans left.

This was incorrect. From reading CT, my impression was it's a generic, Protestant-focused magazine. That's not right, although for most articles that's probably fair. It does hold to a specifically evangelical worldview, but it seems it's more to the left on the evangelical spectrum.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I see Sanders as well intentioned but naive.

"Well intentioned but naive" is actually not a terrible thing to be, even for a Presidential candidate in some elections.

But this one is just too important.

If the case for Sanders is that he has the best policy proposals, then there has to be some degree of serious conversation about how in the world he would achieve any of them...even if he did manage to become President.

I used to agree 100%, in fact in 2016 I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary.

There were some murmurings I had heard about how the Republicans had a huge oppo file on Bernie, and were dying to run against him in 2016.  I dismissed that at the time as a bunch of nonsense.  Great googly moogly, was I wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, admin_270 said:

Framing it as being founded by Billy Graham and addressed to evangelicals makes it sound like it's a right-leaning magazine. It isn't, even if the editors previously tended to avoid explicit political endorsements.

"Evangelists cannot be closely identified with any particular party or person" - Billy Graham

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

This was incorrect. From reading CT, my impression was it's a generic, Protestant-focused magazine. That's not right, although for most articles that's probably fair. It does hold to a specifically evangelical worldview, but it seems it's more to the left on the evangelical spectrum.

The modern usage of the term "Evangelical," mostly in the Anglo-Sphere and Germanic-speaking countries, when used as either a self-referential or externally-applied label - does not strike me, in word, deed, or belief, as actually Christian, just adopting the trappings and pretenses of such for ulterior social gain. There are exceptions, but they tend not to be vocal or well-known in public circles.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, admin_270 said:

This was incorrect. From reading CT, my impression was it's a generic, Protestant-focused magazine. That's not right, although for most articles that's probably fair. It does hold to a specifically evangelical worldview, but it seems it's more to the left on the evangelical spectrum.

That's okay, it was an easy mistake to make.

After all, Donald Trump said the exact same thing.
 

Funniest part is that he declares he won't be "reading ET again" -- having apparently already forgot just one tweet later that the Magazine is Christianity Today, rather than Evangelical Today, which kind of calls into question whether he was ever reading it to begin with.

Then again -- so does his entire life, so that's not really surprising.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

Trump's not saying the same thing at all. I said it wasn't an evangelical magazine, and that's wrong.

You said it leaned left.  You've since withdrawn that, and I appreciate that.  I'm just pointing out that Trump said the same thing (except he said FAR left, which is insane and also perfectly Trumpian.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

No, I withdrew the comment that it wasn't an evangelical magazine. I thought it was a generic Protestant magazine, but it's a specifically Protestant evangelical magazine.

Wait...you’re not withdrawing that it leans left, when all of the evidence points otherwise?

...can I ask why you’ve chosen this indefensible hill?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I could be persuaded that, as far as there is an editorial view that touches on American political issues as opposed to religious ones, CT is centrist, maybe even right of centre. I have read articles from the magazine, but obviously am not an expert on it. From what I've seen, my reading is that the editors are left of the American centre, though. They are right on certain issues, like pro-life. They hold no previous love of Donald Trump.

What would be earth shaking is if someone like Franklin Graham called for the removal of the President. That would be more in line with the context and inference from the subject line.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

all of the evidence points otherwise

Not sure what evidence you are referring to. The editorial itself is significant evidence that the editors are left of centre. The recent article I linked to is another example.

Are you referring to this link?

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/christianity-today/

Great, now what's their methodology? How do they come to their conclusions? The only concrete detail I see is a link to a pro-life article. It says 'story selection often leans right', but what does that mean? It says 'editorial positions' favour the Christian right, but again, no details on what this means.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Not sure what evidence you are referring to. The editorial itself is significant evidence that the editors are left of centre. The recent article I linked to is another example.

Are you referring to this link?

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/christianity-today/

Great, now what's their methodology? How do they come to their conclusions? The only concrete detail I see is a link to a pro-life article. It says 'story selection often leans right', but what does that mean? It says 'editorial positions' favour the Christian right, but again, no details on what this means.

One article in decades of history should not be how we are determining this.

By your reasoning, the most far right publication imaginable should automatically be defined as “leans left” the moment they post one article questioning Trump — even if the question is whether he is far right enough.

This is madness.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

One article in decades of history should not be how we are determining this.

We are talking about recent editorial views for the magazine, obviously. Not Billy Graham's views (he voted for Trump).

 

7 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

By your reasoning, the most far right publication imaginable should automatically be defined as “leans left” the moment they post one article questioning Trump

🤔I'm happy to be presented with countervailing evidence. I've given one recent example where the editorial bias seems left-leaning, and you've given one where the bias screams left-leaning. Can you find some that are right-leaning and don't involve pro-life issues? Like I said, I can be persuaded.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

We are talking about recent editorial views for the magazine, obviously. Not Billy Graham's views (he voted for Trump).

 

🤔I'm happy to be presented with countervailing evidence. I've given one recent example where the editorial bias seems left-leaning, and you've given one where the bias screams left-leaning. Can you find some that are right-leaning and don't involve pro-life issues? Like I said, I can be persuaded.

I gave three examples, all directly related to the matter at hand.  Trump impeachment (anti Trump), Clinton impeachment (anti Clinton), Nixon impeachment (neutral).

Ive shared before that I do not understand British politics enough to judge your shared article.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Actinguy said:

Trump impeachment (anti Trump), Clinton impeachment (anti Clinton), Nixon impeachment (neutral).

Yes, and the only recent one of those screams left-leaning editorial bias. The Clinton impeachment was over two decades ago!

If I knew someone two decades ago, and they were an atheist, and then bump into them yesterday on the street and they start telling me about how Jesus is their saviour, are they Christian or not? Do I think 'Gosh, two decades ago they thought Christianity was a joke. Therefore, it's pretty clear they are now an atheist, or maybe an agnostic?'

In this case, though, we're not even talking about the same people.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Yes, and the only recent one of those screams left-leaning editorial bias. The Clinton impeachment was over two decades ago!

If I knew someone two decades ago, and they were an atheist, and then bump into them yesterday on the street and they start telling me about how Jesus is their saviour, are they Christian or not? Do I think 'Gosh, two decades ago they thought Christianity was a joke. Therefore, it's pretty clear they are now an atheist, or maybe an agnostic?'

In this case, though, we're not even talking about the same people.

 

Do you have a recent example of them having a left leaning stance on American politics?

Its my understanding that they really only dive in when a President is being impeached, which is blessingly rare, and they have a perfectly balanced take on these rare occasions.

They don’t seem to have any political stance at all, other than supporting morality among leaders — of which Trump can claim to have little of with multiple marriages, affair with a porn star, and bragging on tape about committing multiple sexual assaults.

This is not a mystery that we are trying to solve here.  This is not difficult.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As you said, there aren't many that are explicitly about American politics.

Just looking at the December articles, here's another one that seems to have anti-Trump bias.

https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2019/december/evangelicals-fight-refugee-resettlement-trump-executive-ord.html

Part of this is tricky because Christian motivating impulses often work along a different logic than typical political left-right impulses.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...