I was in my dentist’s waiting room this morning and read a Newsweek article about Billy Graham. In it, in a part of the article that talked about various life events within the Graham family that might be considered negative, the following two sentences appeared:
My first reaction was to read it the way the reporter apparently intended it to be read, that it means that Billy Graham was such an uncontrollable horn-dog that he didn’t trust himself alone with any woman. Then I thought a little further. Couldn’t his instructions just be the cautiousness of a public figure who fears false accusations of misconduct and possible law-suits?
Whatever it is, it’s gross, and it makes me think much less of him (which is saying something; I didn’t regard him very highly before). I don’t know if he’s a horndog, or a weird super prude or something, but I voted for the first, as it came the closest to describing how I felt.
I think my interpretation depends on when he issued this decree. If it was after the scandels that took down the PTO and such, I could see it as CYA. If it was before all of that, there may be more not trusting himself. Either way, he at least recognized that he needed to protect himself and the women from scandel which puts him head and shoulders above the rest.
I’ve heard a similar comment from someone who is a church elder. It’s a weird narcissistic prudish patronizing thing of not wanting to put women in the awkward position where they’d be tempted to jump his bones since he’s god’s gift to the world and especially women. I’d be inclined to think it’s the same thing here.
It depends on where they got that phrase, “aware of his own human weakness.” If Billy said that himself, then it’s not unfair to repeat it. It also spunds like it would be an odd thing to fabricate.
I think the implication that Billy believes himself to be an uncontrollable horndog is too strong, though. It’s not necessary to interpret his "human weakness’ as anything more than an unwaress that he is subject to temptation and could conceivably succumb to it under the right conditions.
It’s also just a smart thing to do to protect against false accusations, but that doesn’t mean he might not be 100% certain of his ability to always say no. Any rich, famous male, even a televangelist, is going to attract women with a sexual interest, and some of them are going to be hot, and well…how do any of us know how strong wecould really be all the time?
He should probably also avoid being alone with males, though. It’s not like a guy can’t make a false (or a true) accusation.
Ascenray, what I posted in the OP was all that was in the article on this subject. There is no indication of where the information came from, and there is no indication that Graham actually said anything about “his own human weakness” in relation to the alleged order that he not be left alone. It’s written in a somewhat weasely fashion. The sentences I posted are not Graham quotes and the source of the information is not mentioned.
I hadn’t thought of the angle that Implicit came up with. That seems like a possibility.
Some combination of the two - he is aware that is capable (maybe prone, who knows) of unfaithfulness and at the same time, wishes (as a public figure) to avoid any false claims by unbalanced “fans?”
But by itself? Its totally justified on many levels. It protects him (he can’t horndog and also it doesnt LOOK like he might be horndoging). It protects the women that see him(they can’t spread em to get favors and it doesnt LOOK like they might be spreading em to get special favors either).
Like someone said. Not only should impropriety be avoided, its important even the APPEARANCE of impropriety be avoided. I wish more politicians/judges/businessmen/important people/beauracrats would take this to heart.
I agree that it sounds like he is acknowledging that any man could conceivably be tempted under the right circumstances. Doesn’t imply that he is a “horndog” in my book.
I also think he’s smart enough to realize that there are people out there who would jump at the chance to make a false accusation against a famous man for various reasons (money, publicity, mental illness, just to be vindictive) and that the press would go nuts over allegations of sexual misconduct by someone whose public image is one of devout religious faith.
It would be extremely harmful to his reputation if anyone accused him of anything even if there was no proof of the allegation, so I think he is wise to see that it is not worth the risk of inviting trouble. If I were a famous man, I might even come up with a similar policy!
Reading the entire article it would appear the author is suggesting Graham thought himself too weak to always be able to resist temptation. It doesn’t say where they got that from and it’s doubtful Franklin would have offered that possibility as he seems consumed with protecting his father’s legacy.
So I’d think no, the author and article are not being fair in the absence of corroborating evidence or direct quotes.
It avoids any chance of an appearance of impropriety. I, and many others, would love to hear about BG getting caught in some sex scandal, hence his well justified caution. His claim to fame is built, in part, on his morality.
The fun thing is that he also can’t be left alone with a gay man for the same reason. They want Billy’s hot love too.
I’ve known of this policy for many, many years, and thought it was a well-known habit of Graham’s. It’s not that he’s an uncontrollable horndog; however, there is something to be said for eliminating any possible temptation. Also, there is the benefit of avoiding any semblance of impropriety – protecting his own reputation and protecting him from false accusations.
So it’s a little bit of A, and a little bit of B, but I certainly don’t see anything negative about it. Think of the famous/powerful men who would have benefited from the same policy: Bill Clinton, Arnold Schwartzenegger, Jim Bakker…
When I set up the poll, I thought and voted that it was to ward off false accusations. After further thought and reading of your answers I have come to a position pretty much like Skammer’s.
As to the fairness of this part of the article, if the reporter did not have a good source for the “aware of his own human weakness” part, then I think that the information as printed was somewhat unfair. The policy or instructions could easily have been motivated entirely by a desire to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
Regarding not being alone with a gay man: I suspect that Billy is less worried about giving into temptation should that circumstance arise. I suppose it would lead him open to false charges though. But asking every man to declare their orientation before being alone with them would be kind of impractical.