Famous religious leaders, not Pastor So-and-so down at First Baptist.
Joel Osteen refusing to help Houston flood victims (and then caving but asking for donations to offset the costs of doing so) made me think about this.
We’ve got Jim Bakker, Mother Theresa, L. Ron Hubbard, Ted Haggard, Peter Popoff, Joseph Smith, Cotton Mather, Mullah Omar, etc. All on the side of “pretty terrible people”. Who is on the “decent people” side?
I haven’t heard much bad said about Billy Graham, but I can’t say I’m very familiar with his life and work. Is he one of the good ones?
There’s always Jesus, but I was hoping more for living or historical people whose life we have records of outside of their religious texts. I’ve heard all sorts of terrible things about Muhammad, for example, but I’m not sure what if any record we have of him outside of the Quran.
He didn’t have the financial scandals like others but he sure kept a lot of the donated money.
He doubtless believed that non-Christians were going to Hell but he was diplomatic enough not to be outspoken about it.
He’s also the source of VP Pence’s insistence on not being seen with other women. (Billy Graham rule)
He also produced Franklin Graham, as big an asshole as Billy wasn’t.
By which I take it that you’re going to be mad at anybody at the head of a traditional religion, regardless of how many babies they personally neglect to kill. Given that, I suppose I should ask who’s currently in charge of those Universal Unitarian guys? I couldn’t stand the place myself (too religious, unsurprisingly), but they clearly hewed to progressive ideals.
Within a Christian tradition, I have a favorable opinion of Archbishop Desmond Tutu. A few of his political stances are arguable, but I would not describe them as indecent.
If Jimmy Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart had stuck to the Billy Graham Rule, they would still be respected today as moral leaders.
Not by me — but by such people as listen to such folk.
I don’t think L. Ron Hubbard counts as a religious leader.
If Joseph Smith counts, why not LRH? Do you dispute the status of Scientology as a religion, or something else? Or is it that you distinguish between “founder of a new religion” versus “recognized leader in an established religion”? I was trying to be inclusive.
I don’t particularly enjoy his preaching style, but there is no doubt that the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, Michael Curry is a very decent man.
No. Mormonism is a new religion, and the Prophet was a veritable religious leader — although I think it bunk and also think that I wouldn’t leave my wallet in his office.
Ignoring the German tendency to consider Dianetics a cult, I just can’t see how it is any more a religion than Calisthenics is. God seems unlikely to require the use of little monitoring machines in His worship, and while Mormonism grants the believer later use of a planet to himself, Scientology has many universes in Space.
when a person dies—or, in Scientology terms,when a thetan abandons its physical body—they go to a “landing station” on the planet Venus, where the thetan is re-implanted and told lies about its past life and its next life. The Venusians take the thetan, “capsule” it, and send it back to Earth to be thrown into the ocean off the coast of California.
Which is cool, because I adore Sea Otters and would gladly float with them in endless bliss.
At most it is an occult philosophy like Freemasonry, and like Freemasonry it does not require a God, which rather puts it out of the way of being a religion.
And the outfits you seem to consider to be “actual religions” proffer everlasting bliss or eternal tortue after death. What difference does their view on an afterlife have on their status, to you, as a religion?
And it’s off the coast of California! If you’re gong to hang out with the cool critters, of course you should hang out in the coolest place.
You’re mistaken in your description of Freemasonry, although you are correct that it’s not a religion,
It’s 1300 years odd younger than that of the other Prophet.
Not a lot, since I don’t believe in them. But they don’t mandate subscriptions for bliss, unlike the late L. Ron.
I’m gonna float away from the run-off points…
It has a great deal of esotericism, and offers a definite path. They do require an initial statement of belief in a creator, but after that God is left to His Own devices.
And again, they require dues, but generously seem to waive them if needed, something alien to Scientology. Which apparently dislikes being owed and likes money in advance for ministrations.
Technically speaking Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is head of the Church of England and she’s widely regarded as a decent person, so I’d say she counts.
Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, appears to be a decent chap with many progressive views as well.
Billy Graham had some controversy concerning his talks with then Presidential Richard Nixon and the antisemitic views that Nixon was spewing on about the Jews owning the media and were of Satan and which the best I recall he seemed to be agreeing with him or he wasn’t trying to tell him differently. When the Nixon tapes were released, it confirmed what Graham had denied for years. Graham then apologized, saying he really didn’t recall such a conversation. Years later, more tapes were released and it was more of the same, and I believe Graham apologizing and not recalling that conversation either.
My best guess, is that Graham probably wasn’t antisemitic, and was actually pro-Israel since he expressed this view in public on numerous occasions. I think he must have found Nixon intimidating as hell, and just wasn’t able to stand up to him.