Current Features

Gouverneur Morris
America: A Christian Nation?
Ya Gotta Have Faith!
Not-Hearing: Two Examples
The Paradox of Public Advertising
Cleave; Sanction
Doomsday Clock: False Authority Fallacy
Politicians and Their Children
Eric Boehlert Knows Inner Motives!
What is the Purpose of Democracy?
One Mess Created, Time to Create Another
Christians Pursuing Happiness

Read the Front Page

Topics

Big Brother
Blogging
Computers and Technology
Crime and Punishment
Education
Entertainment
Europe
Everything You Know is Wrong
Faith and Philosophy
Faith and Politics
Features
France
Fun
General
Happy Stuff
Health
History
Human Rights
Humor
International
Iraq
Left Versus Right
Media Bias
Personal Notes
Politics
Product Reviews
Quick Alerts
Quixtar
Racism
Science
Science Fiction
Sexuality
Sick & Wrong Department
Society
The Arab Street
The Arts
The Church of Gaia
Travel
Words, Words, Words
Your Money

Archives

January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

Search


The Blogosphere

BitsBlog
Beyond the Rim
Common Sense and Wonder
Dissecting Leftism
Drive-Thru Musings
FunMurphys.com
Insignificant Thoughts
Insomnomaniac
Investor Blogger
Iowa Geek
La Shawn Barber
The Littlest Apologist
Mark D. Roberts
Quixtar Blog
Quixtar Sucks
The Right Scale
Sinking in Quixand


Notes on Frontline: The Jesus Factor

Saw "The Jesus Factor" the other night, and, like many others, thought it was a fairly straightforward portrayal. Only a couple negative things have come to light about it.

One is that they presented the quote about "I think God wants me to be president" out of context... where Bush ended it with a disclaimer about not being so certain about that, and it being fine either way. Since it changes the meaning by quite a few shades, it's a bit like putting an elipses over the word "not" when you quote someone.

The other was something which caught my attention: They alleged a discussion between George W. and his mother Barbara, in which George said (as I recall it) that you needed to believe in Jesus to go to heaven. And Barbra said something along the lines of no you don't, and one shouldn't really worry about such things.

According to Frontline, they then called up Billy Graham who -- and this suprised me -- allegedly sided with Barbara. (After all, if Mr. Graham feels people don't need Jesus to go to heaven, then why on earth is he so deeply involved in evangelism?)

The issue came up in comments responding to an Olasky blog entry on the same subject, where "Bill" raises the issue, portraying the conservation a bit differently than I heard it:

I read in the Orlando Sentinel, on April 28, that when Pres. Bush and his mom were talking about salvation, that Mrs. Bush said it was by works, and Pres. Bush said it was by Jesus. From what the article said, they called Billy Graham, and he sided with Barbara Bush re:works! My mom watched the show (I was unable to), and she had read the paper also, and she the show repeated again what Graham said. This really shocks me. No one has brought this up, to my knowlege. And there has been no response, as of May 2, on Graham's website. This really concerns me. Does anyone have comments?

"Chas" responds:

Bill, I just happened to be reading "A Man of Faith" by David Aikman. It's about W's faith experience. I also just happened to be reading p.76 where it tells that Barbara B. was "unimpressed" by the term "born again". W. said, "It's in the Word." Barbara suggested calling B. Graham. Who said indeed it is. I don't know where the Sentinel got it's story. But it doesn't seem right, and the story in the book is more believable.

Based on internal evidence (i.e. that it doesn't make sense for an evangelist to contradict his own actions), and what Chas alleges, it sounds like Frontline got this point wrong as well.

But having only two such mistakes is remarkable, given the topic matter. When Frontline wants to, it can make a very good documentary.

Comments

Add your two cents...

The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.

















« On the American Iraqi Atrocities | Front Page | Page Two | Thoughts on Violence and "The Passion" »