US Christian televangelist Jimmy Swaggart dead at 90
US televangelist Jimmy Swaggart, who developed a worldwide following for his fiery Christian sermons before being felled in a prostitution scandal, died on Tuesday at the age of 90.
Swaggart's death from a heart attack at a hospital in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, was announced on the official Facebook page of his Jimmy Swaggart Ministries.
'Brother Swaggart has finished his earthly race and entered into the presence of His Saviour, Jesus Christ,' it said.
'For over seven decades, Brother Swaggart poured out his life preaching the gospel, singing songs of the faith, and pointing millions to the saving power of Jesus Christ,' it added.
ALSO READ: Veteran actress Meme Ditshego has died
Swaggart, whose first cousins were rock and roll legend Jerry Lee Lewis and country singer Mickey Gilley, rose to prominence in the 1980s at the head of his Louisiana-based Pentecostal church the Assemblies of God.
His televised sermons featuring fire-and-brimstone rhetoric and gospel music were watched by millions around the world and raised hundreds of millions of dollars in donations annually.
Swaggart 'will be missed'
US President Donald Trump said on Truth Social that he was saddened to hear of Swaggart's death, describing him as 'an incredible Man of Faith.'
Swaggart, he said, 'inspired millions with his Great Love of God and Country… Jimmy will be deeply missed!'
At his height, Swaggart joined the ranks of other leading Christian televangelists such as Oral Roberts, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Jim Bakker, who was also disgraced in a sex scandal.
Swaggart's downfall came in 1987 after he was photographed at a motel in New Orleans with a prostitute.
ALSO READ: Veteran journalist and editor Andrew Trench has died
He made a tearful televised confession the next year.
'I have sinned against you, my Lord,' Swaggart said, without providing details. 'I beg you, forgive me.'
Swaggart was defrocked by the elders of his church, and while he continued to preach over the next decades, his following and his influence had diminished.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
TimesLIVE
5 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
Israeli military kills 15 in Gaza as US marks Independence Day
At least 15 Palestinians were killed overnight in an Israeli airstrike in Gaza, according to local health officials, as US President Donald Trump said he expected Hamas to respond to his "final proposal" for a ceasefire in Gaza in the next 24 hours. Health officials at the Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis, southern Gaza, said the Israeli military had carried out an airstrike on a tent encampment west of the city around 2am, killing 15 Palestinians displaced by nearly two years of war. The Israeli military had no immediate comment. Later on Friday, Palestinians gathered to perform funeral prayers before burying those killed overnight. "The ceasefire will come, and I have lost my brother? There should have been a ceasefire long ago before I lost my brother," said 13-year-old Mayar Al Farr as she wept. Her brother, Mahmoud, was among those killed.
eNCA
6 hours ago
- eNCA
Inter-American court says states must protect people from climate change
SAN JOSE - The Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled that countries belonging to the Organization of American States (OAS) have an obligation to take "all necessary measures" to protect populations from climate change. The decision means that around 20 countries across Latin America and the Caribbean that recognise the court's jurisdiction must undertake legal reforms that could increase the requirements imposed on businesses, something environmentalists have long advocated. "States must adopt all necessary measures to reduce the risks arising... from the degradation of the global climate system," the Costa Rica-based court said in response to a request submitted by Colombia and Chile. It underlined that "the right to a healthy environment" is included among the rights protected by the American Convention on Human Rights. The court is an autonomous legal institution that interprets and applies the American Convention, which has been ratified by more than 20 countries including Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico and Peru. The court said countries must "adopt legislative and other measures to prevent human rights violations committed by state and private companies." "States must urge all companies domiciled or operating in their territory to adopt effective measures to combat climate change and its impacts on human rights," it said. The first government reaction to the decision came not from one of the OAS member states, but from the small Pacific island of Vanuatu, which hailed it as "groundbreaking." The ruling was also welcomed by environmentalists. The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), which was involved in the case, said such "advisory opinions" were "authoritative statements of binding international law and carry substantial legal weight." "The court has broken new ground and set a powerful precedent," said Nikki Reisch, the organisation's climate and energy program director. "The court's conclusions should put big polluters, like the fossil fuel industry, on notice: climate-destructive conduct violates the law." Viviana Krsticevic, executive director of the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL), said the ruling established "legally binding standards" for the protection of the right to a healthy environment. Marcella Ribeiro, an attorney with the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense, said that it was the first time an international court had "directly addressed climate change as a legal and structural human rights issue."
IOL News
6 hours ago
- IOL News
US Congress proposes sanctions against South Africa over Israel case
US President Donald Trump hands papers to President Cyril Ramaphosa during a meeting in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington. Image: AFP A controversial bill introduced in the United States Congress aims to cut off direct aid to South Africa and impose targeted sanctions on its political leaders, citing the country's legal action against Israel at the International Court of Justice and its growing diplomatic ties with Iran and Hamas. Republican Representative Greg Steube on Friday tabled the Addressing Hostile and Antisemitic Conduct by the Republic of South Africa Act of 2025 in the US House of Representatives. The proposed legislation accuses the South African government of using international institutions to wage 'lawfare' against Israel, advancing what it calls an 'antisemitic narrative under the guise of international law'. 'It is clear as day that the Government of South Africa is unfairly targeting the State of Israel and inciting hostility towards the United States and our allies,' Steube said in a statement dated June 17. 'America has no business engaging with a corrupt government that weaponises its political system against the Jewish people while jeopardising our national security interests by indulging terrorist organisations and their sponsors.' Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading Steube said the bill is a direct response to South Africa's 'genocide' case against Israel at the ICJ, its hosting of Hamas delegations following the October 7 attacks, and the signing of an economic cooperation deal with Iran involving oil refinery projects. Under the bill, the US would suspend all direct assistance to South Africa, excluding humanitarian and public health aid, unless the government ceases all formal support for international legal actions 'that unfairly target the State of Israel', implements institutional reforms to combat corruption, and improves diplomatic cooperation with the United States. It also authorises the US president to impose sanctions, under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, on any South African official deemed to have promoted antisemitic policies or misused international courts to attack Israel. Political analyst Siseko Maposa, director at Surgetower Associates, said while the bill's passage is uncertain, its symbolic and diplomatic weight should not be underestimated. 'This bill exemplifies President Trump and the Republican faction's continued efforts to punish South Africa for its principled positions on international justice – particularly regarding Israel,' said Maposa. 'What distinguishes this initiative from prior attempts, however, is its heavy enforcement mechanisms, which would inflict tangible consequences for South Africa if enacted.' He noted that from 2012 to 2021, South Africa received an estimated $6 billion in direct US foreign direct investment, and a significant portion of development assistance has flowed through US government and affiliated aid programmes. 'While passage remains uncertain, a narrow legislative pathway exists. Republicans hold a slim majority in both chambers, but recent infighting, such as the collapse of the 'Big Beautiful Bill' vote, shows that internal dissent could derail it. South Africa's best chance may lie in lobbying moderate Republicans to oppose this draconian overreach,' he said. Maposa also warned that the bill could face legal challenges in the US if its conflation of criticism of Israel with antisemitism is seen as infringing on constitutional free speech protections. At the time of publication, the South African government had not issued a formal response. However, senior ANC leaders have previously defended the country's application to the ICJ as a legal obligation under the Genocide Convention, following Israel's military campaign in Gaza that has resulted in tens of thousands of Palestinian deaths and widespread humanitarian destruction. Foreign Minister Naledi Pandor has been a vocal advocate for Palestinian rights and last year described the ICJ case as a stand for 'international justice and accountability'. Steube's bill frames these actions differently, alleging that South Africa has 'repeatedly turned a blind eye to the atrocities committed by Hamas and Iran against Israel and the United States,' while 'aligning itself with authoritarian regimes hostile to United States national interests'. The bill further accuses the ANC of giving legitimacy to terrorist actors, pointing to its meetings with Hamas officials and Tehran's diplomatic engagement with Pretoria. The Democratic Alliance, the country's main opposition party, is expected to weigh in on the diplomatic fallout. The DA has previously criticised the ANC government's foreign policy as isolating South Africa from key Western partners. The Department of International Relations and Cooperation will likely be called on to explain whether any formal communication has been received from US officials regarding the bill and what diplomatic channels, if any, are being pursued to address it. Should the bill pass, it could result in South African officials being barred from travelling to the US or having assets frozen under US jurisdiction. It could also signal further deteriorating relations between the two countries, which have clashed in recent years over BRICS alignment, Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and military cooperation exercises with China. For now, Pretoria's best hope appears to rest on political divisions within the US Republican Party. Maposa said: 'This internal Republican division may be its sole reprieve – one Pretoria must seize by urgently lobbying moderate Republican legislators to oppose the bill outright.' Presidential spokesperson Vincent Magwenya said the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) was best suited to respond to the bill. The Department of International Relations and Cooperation confirmed that it is monitoring the proposed legislation through diplomatic channels. Spokesperson Chrispin Phiri said: 'As you may know, an act or bill is proposed and passed by a country's legislative body, such as the Parliament in South Africa or the Congress and Senate in the USA. These bodies operate within their sovereign territories, and their primary function is to create or implement policy through legislation, typically without the need for consultation with other nations. We recognise that this principle underscores the autonomy of states in their legislative processes. Legislative processes by their nature are publicly accessible, as such our Embassy in Washington D.C. will be able to monitor relevant developments.' On political lobbying within the US, Phiri said: 'We have noted the information regarding the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its financial contributions to American politicians. We understand that AIPAC openly ties its contributions to candidates' support for the US-Israel relationship, thereby creating a significant incentive for politicians to align with this stance. There is public information indicating that some House Representatives who have introduced bills may fall within this category of politicians.' Phiri added that South Africa's foreign policy remains non-aligned. 'Minister Lamola consistently asserts that South Africa's foreign policy is independent and non-aligned, rooted in its constitutional principles and national interests, rather than hostility towards any nation.' Regarding Iran, he said: 'South Africa upholds its dedication to international initiatives to curtail the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and supports the right to develop nuclear capability for peaceful purposes. South Africa's engagement with Iran is consistent with its broader foreign policy of engaging with all countries.' He said South Africa's approach to foreign policy was based on constitutional values and international legal principles. 'We reemphasise that our foreign policy is based on principles such as human rights, self-determination, anti-colonialism, multilateralism, peaceful resolution of conflicts, and the pursuit of a just and equitable world order. These are universal values, not ideological preferences. Our non-aligned stance enables us to pursue an independent foreign policy that serves our national interests and contributes to global peace and stability. This means engaging with all countries, regardless of their geopolitical alignment.' Phiri added: 'We wish to reiterate that South Africa's genocide case against Israel in the International Court of Justice is fundamentally driven by our commitment to upholding a rules-based international order anchored in international law, with the aim of protecting vulnerable populations and ensuring that all actors, including powerful states, are bound by these principles. It is not, as you suggest, driven by ideological alignment, but by a consistent pursuit of justice and the reinforcement of international legal frameworks.' Attempts to get comments from the ANC and the DA were unsuccessful at the time of publication.
