A Statue of Evangelist Billy Graham Will Soon Go Up in the U.S. Capitol

[Miles]

.

" A life-sized statue of the Rev. Billy Graham will be installed in the U.S. Capitols Statuary Hall collection sometime next year, replacing a statue of a white supremacist that both the state of North Carolina and the U.S. House want removed.

Last week, a North Carolina legislative committee approved a 2-foot model of the statue depicting the famous evangelist who died in 2018.


...................................


The U.S. Capitol, Statuary Hall collection consists of 100 statues of prominent people two from each state. Graham, a North Carolina native who was born on a dairy farm in Charlotte, will take the place of Charles Aycock (1859-1912), a former governor.

Aycock was one of the masterminds of the 1898 Wilmington, North Carolina, race riot and coup, in which a local government made up of Black Americans was overthrown and replaced by white officials. North Carolina's other statue is of Zebulon Vance (1830-1894), a former governor and U.S. senator who was also a Confederate military officer.

With statues to white supremacists and Confederate leaders toppling across the nation, North Carolinas reconsideration might seem timely. But in fact, installing a statue of Graham at the U.S. Capitol had widespread support long before the most recent reckoning on race."
source

It certainly seems to be a violation of the First Amendment to me.

[bluegreenearth]

Graham was against homosexuality, that is true. His stand seems to have been against the practice of homosexuality, but I can't find any indication that he favored abusing homosexuals or taking away their rights.

Pretty much what the Catholic Church says.

It is my perspective that any behaviors or attitudes exhibiting unjustified prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular demographic group qualifies as bigotry and need not extend to level of abuse or the withholding of rights.

[The Barbarian]

Graham was against homosexuality, that is true. His stand seems to have been against the practice of homosexuality, but I can't find any indication that he favored abusing homosexuals or taking away their rights.

Pretty much what the Catholic Church says.

It is my perspective that any behaviors or attitudes exhibiting unjustified prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular demographic group qualifies as bigotry and need not extend to level of abuse or the withholding of rights.

The problem, as I see it, is that you could apply that to people who find other things to be sinful, but don't think the state has the right to stop anyone from doing it. Slippery slope, I think. I don't care what someone else thinks is a sin, so long as they don't want to use coercion to stop it.