For many years, I thought the lyric to "Winter Wonderland" was "Later on, we'll perspire, as we dream by the fire," instead of conspire. I guess it's because I tend to do the former instead of the latter when I'm next to a roaring blaze. I don't care to tell you how recently I discovered my error.

I mentioned Billy Graham in my last post, and it reminded me that I wanted to blog a bit about him. Via Southern Appeal last week, I saw the sad news that Graham's children are squabbling over the final resting places of the Reverend and his wife, Ruth. The Charlotte paper has more here. It's really heartbreaking, and kind of baffling that son Franklin Graham wants visitors to be led to Graham's grave by an animatronic talking cow.

Seeing this news reminded me of this post from Prof. Althouse. It's a clip of Billy Graham being interviewed by Woody Allen years ago. It's fascinating. And it also reminded me of my small Billy Graham connection. I once saw Graham preach in a football stadium. It wasn't for one of his crusades, and I didn't go up during the "altar call." I'm sure it would be a much more entertaining story if I had attended a crusade. But no, it was the first game played in that stadium, and Graham blessed the facility and said a prayer. They wheeled him out in a golf cart to where they had a little podium set up. He was frail and his voice was weak, but he was still mesmerizing, and the crowd went nuts. The next time I saw a celebrity event like that in a football stadium, it was Kenny Rogers singing at halftime of a Tennessee Volunteers football game. You know, the Gambler's a pretty good treat for a football game, but I don't think he'll be remembered to the same degree Graham will be.

Anyway, I got to wondering why I so instantly take Billy's side over Franklin's. It's not because of some hardline desire to always honor the last wishes of our elders regarding funerals and burials. I think that's a good default, but in the end, I have to agree with undertaker John Lynch, who observed in his lovely book that funerals are for the living. (Remind me to blog about that sometime, especially in regard to the "Jes' put me in a pine box!" types.)

I know Billy Graham isn't perfect. The linked Wikipedia bio (as well as the comments at Althouse) discusses some unfortunate comments Graham said on tape to President Nixon. And that eagerness to be next to people of power hasn't always served him well. But Franklin's comments (see his Wiki bio) about Islam, I think, were worse than Billy's about Jews, and more contemporary (and possibly still felt). Overall, though, I think it's just a sense that Billy is more "my kind of evangelical." That is, to put it bluntly, not too evangelical. Billy has never been as in-your-face as Franklin about things like how vital it is to convert nonbelievers right this minute.** And he's never been as in-your-face about fundraising (although, to be fair, he probably has less trouble getting money).

But mainly, I think I prefer Billy because he seems more, well, harmless compared to Franklin. I'm not sure what that says about my views of evangelicalism. Maybe I have something against evangelicals who work too hard at it. It's sort of interesting to see that feeling crop up in regard to the dispute over the elder Grahams' final resting places. Maybe I just don't want to see Billy Graham's grave turned into the site of Franklin Graham's hard sell.

**--An aside. I know that Billy Graham has converted more people than ten Franklins ever will, but I don't think Billy ever flew into a war-torn Muslim country with an aim to convert the newly liberated. My favorite Billy Graham conversion story involves former Duke football coach Fred Goldsmith. Goldsmith's first season was my freshman year. Early on, the campus Hillel chapter invited the coach to come to a bagel brunch. Goldsmith, who was born Jewish, was happy to show up, but the Hillel folks were a little nonplussed when Goldsmith informed everyone that he had long ago converted to Christianity at a Billy Graham crusade. I don't think they had expected that development. Wow -- it all comes back to football, doesn't it?

Good Lord. Some Polish Parliamentarians want to make Jesus Christ the honorary King of Poland. To its credit, the Catholic Church hasn't supported the measure, which looks likely to fail. This story, though, notes that the Virgin Mary was named the honorary Queen of Poland in the 1600s, so at least there's precedent.

I fully expect this move to hit our shores. They're running out of states where they can put gay marriage bans on the ballots, so the religious right will have to find some other issue to drive turnout. And what better than, say, a law naming Jesus as the honorary Governor of Georgia? It could work at all levels -- Jesus for honorary School Board Chairman, honorary District 3 Water & Sewer Board Representative, etc. Shucks, George Bush would vote for Jesus as honorary Chair of the Philosophy Department.

Okay, so some of that is an exaggeration. But I seriously do expect some legislator somewhere to think this is a humdinger of an idea. Why not? It looks good on campaign literature, makes for easy "My opponent voted against Jesus for Governor" attack ads, and makes a pretty firm statement to one's base. Once some enterprising theocratist has this brainstorm, I expect lots of imitators to follow suit, and I'm sure Roy Moore will be mad he didn't think of it first. (Actually, Moore strikes me as more into the Old Testament God, rather than the New Testamant Jesus, but I suspect he'd still rather have Jesus as Governor of Alabama instead of Bob Riley.)

Here's a thought experiment. Let's assume the following scenario: A state legislature names Jesus the state's honorary Governor. And let's assume that this happens in a state where that kind of declaration isn't specifically prohibited, or is at least a plausible reading of the legislature's powers regarding appointments in the executive branch. (I'll assume a statute could create the position and simultaneously fill it if need be.) The law explicitly says that the position is an honorary one only, and carries no power, salary, budget, veto power, staff, etc. At most, the state makes a few references to the post in official documents and slaps the title on some highway signs. Is it still an unconstitutional establishment of religion?

I think it would be, at least under the "endorsement" test. But that got me wondering about the awarding of the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor or the Presidential Medal of Freedom to religious figures. Why are those okay? What if a state decided to award "Honorary Governorship Medals" to figures it thought were deserving, and named as honorary Co-Governors Jesus Christ and Ronald Reagan (so that it wasn't wholly religious)? What if it gave the awards to Jesus, Mother Teresa, and Billy Graham (the latter two have actually received the Congressional and Presidential awards)? What if it gave them to Jesus, Mohammad, and Abraham?

Hm. This all started as kind of a jokey post about some Polish delegates' misplaced legislative priorities. But now I'm really thinking about the Congressional and Presidential honoraria. If Congress can give a Gold Medal to the Pope, why can't a state save a seat in the Governor's Mansion for Jesus Christ?