Bartholomew I, the Patriarch of Constantinople, seems pretty cool, except for his bizarre admiration of Radovan Karadžić.
Regarding some of those suggested as ‘decent’ religious leaders:
Pope Francis, prior to becoming Pope, was criticized for his cooperation with the secret police repression while he was a Cardinal. Families of those dragged away by the secret police and never seen again didn’t consider his actions very Christ-like.
The Dali Lama has a history of making anti-GLBT statements. Though he has moderated this a bit lately, instead of saying they are evil, he just calls them flawed & in need or correction. Hardly ‘equal rights for all’, which is part of my definition of ‘decent people’.
Bishop Tutu was a leader of the African Nation Congress, when they were using terror tactics against the apartheid government of South Africa. Which was using worse terror tactics against them. I’d call this one justified revolution, but I suppose those killed or injured by the attacks wouldn’t agree.
For the Catholic Church, he’s actually pretty progressive. Remember, it’s been less than 30 years since they started letting girls be altar servers. The church doesn’t move all that fast, to put it mildly.
On that note, I’d like to nominate Oscar Romero. Also the current bishop of Washington, Cardinal Donald Wuerl has always been very pro-active when it comes to rooting out pedophiles in the church. Back when he was bishop of Pittsburgh, he once went all the way to the Vatican to defend his refusal to reinstate a priest who had been accused of abuse.
Let me note that Christian leaders on the left tend to get mentioned in the news less than those on the right:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=20454381
The Reverend Martin Luther King.
Fred Rodgers.
Archbishop Desmond Tutu, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and the U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom among other awards.
“The Dali Lama has a history of making anti-GLBT statements. Though he has moderated this a bit lately, instead of saying they are evil, he just calls them flawed & in need or correction. Hardly ‘equal rights for all’, which is part of my definition of ‘decent people’.”
I don’t think this is fair. He has publicly said that the historic Buddhist prohibition against same sex relationships dates to when all male monasteries were viewed to need protection from such. He acknowledges that this is old thinking and needs replacing with a much more inclusive view, in our times.
I’m still going with the Dalai Lama.
I concur - define “decent” as well as the system of ethics on which these moral value judgments are based.
You may call Franklin Graham repugnant while someone else calls him head and shoulders above “decent”.
Define ‘decent’, and then we can try to set about answering the question. You can define ‘decent’ in terms of “someone who agrees with me on moral and political issues X, Y and Z”, but why would you?
I think we can all agree though on certain measures of personal ethics that would make a religious leader a moral failure. (Financial greed, corruption, excessive love of personal wealth and pleasure, contempt for the poor, hypocrisy, unwillingness to prosecute sexual offenders, cruelty, etc.). Whatever your opinion of his beliefs- and I disagree both with many tenets of Catholic beliefs as well as some of Francis’ political views- there’s no doubt in my mind that Francis is a very good man and there’s a lot to admire in his character and personal ethics.
If your standard of decency includes holding progressive opinions on LGBT issues, which some commenters above imply, probably not (the Orthodox Church is at least as conservative as most conservative Protestants on sexual ethics issues, both of them view sexual conduct as only licit within heterosexual marriage).
I’m not sure if you’re saying he wasn’t antisemitic because he was pro-Israel, but someone can definitely be both. There’s a strain of Christians that are pro-Israel because they want the Temple to be re-built which will bring the second coming. I’m not sure if wishing for an event that will cause Jews to be damned for all eternity is textbook antisemitism, but it seems so to me.
Bahá’u’lláh, the founder of Baha’i seemed a decent person.
There are many thousands of religious leaders in the world. So yes, some of them must be decent.
My mom used to watch his show. Franklin Graham teaches that you need to send him “seed money” in order to get a miracle to heal you or give you new money. That’s prosperity gospel, which is heretical.
He’s also an outspoken defender of Trump. Rather than practice what the Bible teaches about morality and selecting moral leaders, he defends a man who embodies pretty much everything the Bible warned us against.
By Christian standards, he is not “more than decent.” He is a false Christian. And that’s even allowing for being wrong on LGBT issues.
That is my point - where are you getting these moral standards for personal ethics? I would agree with you those a bad things, but where did you come by these?
I think you have him confused with someone else. I don’t believe he ever had a TV show. He’s been running Samaritan’s Purse (humanitarian aid organization) since the '70s.
I think outspoken defender of Trump may be too strong. He supported Trump over Clinton, and a case could be made for that from a certain Christian point of view.
I’m not sure how you come to the “false Christian” point of view. His views on LGBTQ issues are in line with a large number of Christians.
So my point stands; from a traditional Evangelical Christian viewpoint he is very “decent”. From an atheist, LGBTQ supporter, etc, he may be horrible. Ethical foundations matter when making a moral judgement.
So far as I can tell, the only thing “pretty horrible” about Mother Theresa is that she didn’t single-handedly eradicate all poverty in Calcutta. She only provided a little bit of help to each person she helped, and she gets criticized for that, but there were a lot of people to help, and she had very limited resources to help them with. Sure, she could have instead given a lot of help each to a small number of people. Would that have been better? I dunno.
I think he — Franklin Graham — could have easily supported Hillary, who’s far more of a sincere Christian than Trump, who at most seems to be a Deist, if not an agnostic.
Hillary is uninterested in LGBFLTQ marriage, for instance, up to the point it gives her votes — same with Obama, also a Christian: to both it was a pointless distraction; but important to the rubes.
And his old Dad, mentioned above lunching with Hillary, would undoubtedly have welcomed her into the presidency — if only because he, by no means from Vicar of Bray reasons, has the innocent hobby of being photographed with every president since [del]Lincoln[/del] Truman.
He even endorsed Romney, for heaven’s sake, not even a Christian.
[ But then Billy believes everyone can go to Heaven regardless of their religion, a doctrine held by many men much greater than he. ]
Yeah, Billy Graham always seemed like a decent sort. During the heyday of the Moral Majority and the rise of Falwell #1 he really seemed to make a point to avoid being a dick, unlike many of the other evangelists and religious leaders of the time.
As for other prominent American religious leaders I would suggest Max Lucado seems to be reasoned and thoughtful in what he has to say, even if I disagree with his theology.