Obamas Preacher vs. Bushes Preacher??

[BrownShark]

Those who would like to influence this election over the thoughts and expressions of Reverend Wright appear to have forgotten about the GOP's number 1 Christian fan of the party.

A man who at the time was the head of the largest evangelical church in the country. A man who was behind the movement of prohibiting Gay partners from marriage. A man who staunchly defended marriage as a partnership between a man and a woman.

This preacher met then GW Bush in Texas after a bout with cocaine and alcohol. Worked with Bush to teach him about spirituality and the word of christ.

When then GW Bush became Gov of Texas, this preacher made it a practice to visit the Gov's office on monday mornings to give Gov Bush his weekly prayers and guide him thru his spiritual lessons.

When GW became President, this preacher continued his monday morning routine at the white house. He worked with president Bush on most of his anti homosexual agenda appearing with him on every occasion where president Bush talked about banning gay marriage. This preacher spoke on behalf of the white house trashing homosexuals as the "devils children". This preacher began to sermon weekly about the sins of the queer. He preached hated towards the acts of homosexuality and condemned all homosexuals to hell.

Then one fateful day, Bushes personal savior, his over 20 year relationship with this honest, brave and outspoken preacher came to a dreadful end.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/03/haggard.allegations/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/05/haggard.allegations/index.html

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/special/haggard.html

Ironically, this preacher has disgraced himself and President Bush in more ways than Rev Wright has disgraced Obama.

Why is this preachers relationship with Bush any different than Obamas?

Both had a personal friendship that lasted over 20 years, both stood by thier sides when trouble arose. Both men had learned about the word of god thru these men despite the additions of hate speech.

Those who would like to make this an issue say that Obama is guilty by association and he should have known better, therefore his judgement is in doubt. Well, wouldnt the same case be made about President Bush?

Wouldnt his judgement come into play considering his preacher was found to have been connected to a male prostitute who had exposed the preacher to be a closet homosexual and a drug addict. Yes, the preacher, President Bush's personal preacher was a cocaine and Methanphetamine freak for years.

Why is this any different, this preacher used hate speech to redicule homosexual americans weekly in his sermons and in videos. This closet queer was in most of the photographs with president bush when he spoke about homosexuals.

http://www.horsesass.org/downloads/Haggerd-Bush.jpg

Either way, people forget about these types of things and know that todays politics is about trash talking and distractions.

Its unfortunate, but our system of opinion media has ruined the practical debate of political issues.

If Obama is unfit to lead this nation because of his relationship with Rev Wright, then Bush should step down in light of his relationship with a drug addicted pole smoker.

Next time anyone wants to make an issue out of Rev Wright, remember Reverend Haggard and his relationship to the President of the United States.

Peace.

 

[brett636]

Like diesel it appears you don't get it either.

First off, GW Bush is not running for President, so none of what you posted is relevant to this election. Secondly, to be gay you have to make a choice to be gay. I don't see homosexuals as a minority because they make a conscious choice to be homosexual. They no more deserve to get married than someone into bestiality can marry their dog, or a pedophile can marry a child. Finally, Haggard was not on GW's campaign payroll like Rev. Wright was.

You are trying to compare apples to oranges, and to divert attention away from the issue that Barak Obama's judgment is much to flawed to allow him the highest office in the country.

 

[BrownShark]

Like diesel it appears you don't get it either.

First off, GW Bush is not running for President, so none of what you posted is relevant to this election. Secondly, to be gay you have to make a choice to be gay. I don't see homosexuals as a minority because they make a conscious choice to be homosexual. They no more deserve to get married than someone into bestiality can marry their dog, or a pedophile can marry a child. Finally, Haggard was not on GW's campaign payroll like Rev. Wright was.

You are trying to compare apples to oranges, and to divert attention away from the issue that Barak Obama's judgment is much to flawed to allow him the highest office in the country.

Reverend Haggard was INDEED in GW Bush's campaign when running for President. You are mistaken.

But you missed the point.

Making Reverend Wrights positions an issue are no more an issue than this pole smokers hate speech. A condradiction in belief and a hypocrite doesnt make him better than reverend wright.

This is about a decision to befriend a closet homosexual and allow this closet homosexual to preach hate towards americans who are gay.

Hate is hate my friend.

The point of my post was the A S S O C I A T I O N with this preacher.

Isnt Bush just as guilty for befriending someone like this?? Are haggards positions of being a homosexual and drug addict those of the presidents??

Does the president condone pole smoking and drug use??

If you attempt to associate Obama to wright on positions, then you must attribute those of haggard to Bush.

Its the same.

Time to let the Wright issue go the way of Haggards. Only difference, the christians in this country should be reminded of the disgrace that Haggard brought upon all christians in this country.

This way, those who have not sinned may cast the first stone.

Christians are appearing as hypocrites when they lose sight of Haggards disgusting behavior.

Peace

 

[brett636]

Reverend Haggard was INDEED in GW Bush's campaign when running for President. You are mistaken.

But you missed the point.

Making Reverend Wrights positions an issue are no more an issue than this pole smokers hate speech. A condradiction in belief and a hypocrite doesnt make him better than reverend wright.

This is about a decision to befriend a closet homosexual and allow this closet homosexual to preach hate towards americans who are gay.

Hate is hate my friend.

The point of my post was the A S S O C I A T I O N with this preacher.

Isnt Bush just as guilty for befriending someone like this?? Are haggards positions of being a homosexual and drug addict those of the presidents??

Does the president condone pole smoking and drug use??

If you attempt to associate Obama to wright on positions, then you must attribute those of haggard to Bush.

Its the same.

Time to let the Wright issue go the way of Haggards. Only difference, the christians in this country should be reminded of the disgrace that Haggard brought upon all christians in this country.

This way, those who have not sinned may cast the first stone.

Christians are appearing as hypocrites when they lose sight of Haggards disgusting behavior.

Peace

Again, you missed the point. Bush IS the president, he is not running FOR president. Your point is moot. Haggard's speeches are against certain ideas and choices, not skin color. The video you posted doesn't prove your point, and neither do the photo chopped photos. Rev Wright says because I am white I am holding back the black community. Haggard is a preacher, and the bible does have scriptures denouncing homosexualism, it does not have scriptures denouncing the economic prosperity of black people. You might have a point if Haggard was spewing racist hate speech against minorities opposite to the racist hate speech Rev. Wright spewed against whites, but this is not the case. You should stick to topics you understand, as this is not one of them.

 

[BrownShark]

Brett,

does the bible condone hypocracy?

Peace

 

[brett636]

Brett,

does the bible condone hypocracy?

Peace

First, its spelled "hypocrisy". Secondly, hypocrisy does not exist in this situation. You are making something out of nothing.

 

[Jones]

First, its spelled "hypocrisy". Secondly, hypocrisy does not exist in this situation. You are making something out of nothing.

Pot, meet kettle

 

[brett636]

Pot, meet kettle

I couldn't disagree more. Barak Obama's mentor for the last 20 years is a racist, and he wants me to vote for him as leader of the free world? This is hardly "nothing".

 

[scratch]

George Bush was raised by his parents in the Episcopal Church. He joined the United Methodist Church because of his wife Laura in 1977 (I am Methodist). He was "born again" and gave up drinking in 1985 under the guidance of Billy Graham. He has never been a member of Mark Craig's New Life Christian Church in Colorado Springs. So trying to compare Bush and Craig to Obama and Wright doesn't come close no matter how you look at it. Bush never sat in the pew at Craig's church for twenty years. There is a great amount of false information posted on the net about George Bush and religion, this thread is just another example.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

How about this "NOTHING"......Obama supports stabbing a baby in the head with a needle right after it's born. So, it appears that not only is Obama a racist but an advocate of murdering babies. I guess that explains why he said he doesn't want his daughters punished with a baby. If his daughters get pregnant I guess we know how much of a fighting chance the babies will have if the daughters decide they aren't ready to be mothers yet. The more info I get on Obama the more scared I get at the thought of that loon becoming president. The preacher mess is over as far as I'm concerned. There is no warped justification that liberals can come up with that excuses that mess so let's all just move on to something else.

 

[Bad Gas!]

You guys are leaving out Hillary(Hila-beast!).be fair here.Doesn't she deserve some mention....You will be anything you want her to be..Just ask her..She is the answer to all our prayers!....LOL

 

[BrownShark]

Haggard has stated he believes in what is known as the Third Wave of the Holy Spirit and subscribes to the concept referred to as the Five-fold ministry – beliefs often associated with the charismatic movement. He has stated that he believes that there is one, all-knowing God, and that humans were created to be with him.[12]

[edit] Politics

In 2005, Haggard was listed by Time magazine as one of the top 25 most influential evangelicals in America.[13] Haggard is a firm supporter of President George W. Bush, and is sometimes credited with rallying evangelicals behind Bush during the 2004 election.[14] Author Jeff Sharlet reported in 2005 that Haggard "talks to… Bush or his advisers every Monday" and stated at that time that "no pastor in America holds more sway over the political direction of evangelicalism."[15] In a June 2005 Wall Street Journal article, "Ted Haggard, the head of the 30-million strong National Association of Evangelicals, joked that the only disagreement between himself and the leader of the Western world is automotive: Mr. Bush drives a Ford pickup, whereas he prefers a Chevy."[16]
Haggard has stated that fighting global warming is an important issue, a divisive issue among Evangelical leaders. Though he personally supported the Evangelical Climate Initiative, the NAE did not adopt a position.[17]

 

[brett636]

Haggard has stated he believes in what is known as the Third Wave of the Holy Spirit and subscribes to the concept referred to as the Five-fold ministry – beliefs often associated with the charismatic movement. He has stated that he believes that there is one, all-knowing God, and that humans were created to be with him.[12]

[edit] Politics

In 2005, Haggard was listed by Time magazine as one of the top 25 most influential evangelicals in America.[13] Haggard is a firm supporter of President George W. Bush, and is sometimes credited with rallying evangelicals behind Bush during the 2004 election.[14] Author Jeff Sharlet reported in 2005 that Haggard "talks to… Bush or his advisers every Monday" and stated at that time that "no pastor in America holds more sway over the political direction of evangelicalism."[15] In a June 2005 Wall Street Journal article, "Ted Haggard, the head of the 30-million strong National Association of Evangelicals, joked that the only disagreement between himself and the leader of the Western world is automotive: Mr. Bush drives a Ford pickup, whereas he prefers a Chevy."[16]
Haggard has stated that fighting global warming is an important issue, a divisive issue among Evangelical leaders. Though he personally supported the Evangelical Climate Initiative, the NAE did not adopt a position.[17]

Oh the horror!!!

 

[wkmac]

Oh the horror!!!

Here you go Brett, complaiments of Marlon Brando and Apocalypse Now. Goes perfect with your comment above.

It's Brando's character, Col. Kurtz from Apocalypse Now saying, "The Horror!" and I thought of it when I read your post.

Here's the main page with various wavefiles.

http://www.wavsource.com/movie_stars/brando.htm

As for the preachers, I think AV has this one figured out and is cooking up some popcorn to watch the actions so I'm gonna grab us both a couple of cold longnecks and join him on this one! Have fun!

 

[diesel96]

How about this "NOTHING"......Obama supports stabbing a baby in the head with a needle right after it's born. So, it appears that not only is Obama a racist but an advocate of murdering babies. I guess that explains why he said he doesn't want his daughters punished with a baby. If his daughters get pregnant I guess we know how much of a fighting chance the babies will have if the daughters decide they aren't ready to be mothers yet. The more info I get on Obama the more scared I get at the thought of that loon becoming president. The preacher mess is over as far as I'm concerned. There is no warped justification that liberals can come up with that excuses that mess so let's all just move on to something else.

If you're going to condemn abortion on the grounds that all human life is sacred, even at EMBRYONIC stages, then you should have major problems not only with murder and terrorism but also with state-sanctioned capital punishment, torture, and war. Killing is killing. Thou shalt not kill. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts. Turn the other check if you don't like it.
I respect pro-lifers who are genuine pacifists, though I don't agree with their positions. But I recognize their integrity, a consistency both intellectual and spiritual. They adhere to a sense of the sacred that is unconditional (unconditional means unconditional). They don't start introducing distinctions between "innocent" lives supposedly deserving of blanket protection versus "guilty" lives supposedly deserving of premeditated, humanly inflicted death. They aren't, in other words, hypocrites.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

If you're going to condemn abortion on the grounds that all human life is sacred, even at EMBRYONIC stages, then you should have major problems not only with murder and terrorism but also with state-sanctioned capital punishment, torture, and war. Killing is killing. Thou shalt not kill. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts. Turn the other check if you don't like it.
I respect pro-lifers who are genuine pacifists, though I don't agree with their positions. But I recognize their integrity, a consistency both intellectual and spiritual. They adhere to a sense of the sacred that is unconditional (unconditional means unconditional). They don't start introducing distinctions between "innocent" lives supposedly deserving of blanket protection versus "guilty" lives supposedly deserving of premeditated, humanly inflicted death. They aren't, in other words, hypocrites.

Nice attempt at making me out to be a hypocrite but you have failed miserably. You assumed that I think all life is sacred. NO! I don't think the life of a throat cutting, IED making terrorist is sacred. That feeling goes for murderers on death row, child molesters, rapists, etc. I believe that the lives of the innocent, which a child is most definitely, should have that "blanket of protection." You quoted Exodus 20:13 "though shalt not kill" as if it's just some catch phrase but it doesn't even support your statements. So, it's apparent that your arguement is religion based but on those grounds I must point some things out. First, when it comes to war and killing when they pertain to religion (we'll use Christianity since you quoted Exodus 20:13) you just don't get it. You apparently never learned that in the Hebrew translation the word "kill" literally means to kill with malice. In other words...MURDER. There is a huge difference between murdering and killing. Thou shalt not murder means exactly that. Don't murder with malice or with no justification. Also....in the Bible God often ordered the Israelites to go to war with other nations. God also ordered the death penalty for plenty of crimes such as in Exodus 21:12; 21:15 and also Leviticus 20:11 to name a few. So, much like your murder theory, that completely sends your death penalty theory based on religion down on flames. So, there was obviously no hypocrisy on my part. Killing unborn babies (and partial birth) and killing terrorists is absolutely, in no way, shape, form, or fashion comparable. One is murder. The other is not.

 

[diesel96]

Nice attempt at making me out to be a hypocrite but you have failed miserably. You assumed that I think all life is sacred. NO! I don't think the life of a throat cutting, IED making terrorist is sacred. That feeling goes for murderers on death row, child molesters, rapists, etc. I believe that the lives of the innocent, which a child is most definitely, should have that "blanket of protection." You quoted Exodus 20:13 "though shalt not kill" as if it's just some catch phrase but it doesn't even support your statements. So, it's apparent that your arguement is religion based but on those grounds I must point some things out. First, when it comes to war and killing when they pertain to religion (we'll use Christianity since you quoted Exodus 20:13) you just don't get it. You apparently never learned that in the Hebrew translation the word "kill" literally means to kill with malice. In other words...MURDER. There is a huge difference between murdering and killing. Thou shalt not murder means exactly that. Don't murder with malice or with no justification. Also....in the Bible God often ordered the Israelites to go to war with other nations. God also ordered the death penalty for plenty of crimes such as in Exodus 21:12; 21:15 and also Leviticus 20:11 to name a few. So, much like your murder theory, that completely sends your death penalty theory based on religion down on flames. So, there was obviously no hypocrisy on my part. Killing unborn babies (and partial birth) and killing terrorists is absolutely, in no way, shape, form, or fashion comparable. One is murder. The other is not.

What does scripture say about the beginning of life? God made Adam's body out of the dust of the earth. But, "man became a living soul" only AFTER God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life." (Gen 2:7) Adam's person hood started AFTER the physical creation process was complete and he took his first breath. The "law of first mention" rule for biblical interpretation this truth. Numerous Hebrew scriptures affirm this Jewish interpretation that life begins AFTER birth. "Thou shalt not murder" refers to the murder of a human life. A fetus is not a human life. Hence, today modern Israel provides abortion on-demand.
If the Bible is the guideline than human life begins when a fully formed infant takes its first breath (Gen 2:7). As in present day Israel, the fetus is not a human, thus abortion of a fetus is not murder. Since God designs a woman to miscarry or abort, calling abortion immoral equates to calling God immoral.
The morals question boils down to individual responsibilities and one’s right to control their body. The Pro-Life position is anti-woman and pro-man. This should come as no surprise since the Pro-Life movement is the invention of the Roman Catholic Church, a decidedly patriarchal institution. The Pro-Life pregnant woman has no right to control her body, whereas an irresponsible Pro-Life man is free to continue his "horny" way whenever he feels the urge. The statement, "if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament" says it all. Well, "What’s good for the goose is good for the gander." Any morally honest discussion to forbid a woman’s right to control her body as a consequence for pregnancy must include consequential laws for men's bodies. An appropriate consequence for man’s irresponsible or uninvited sexual activity is castration, particularly for clergymen and politicians who violate the public trust.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

What does scripture say about the beginning of life? God made Adam's body out of the dust of the earth. But, "man became a living soul" only AFTER God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life." (Gen 2:7) Adam's person hood started AFTER the physical creation process was complete and he took his first breath. The "law of first mention" rule for biblical interpretation this truth. Numerous Hebrew scriptures affirm this Jewish interpretation that life begins AFTER birth. "Thou shalt not murder" refers to the murder of a human life. A fetus is not a human life. Hence, today modern Israel provides abortion on-demand.

Jewish? So now you are bouncing back and forth among several religions and misinterpreting what you think are facts to support your warped conclusions? LOL!

If the Bible is the guideline than human life begins when a fully formed infant takes its first breath (Gen 2:7).

OK....much like the Liberal interpretation of the First Amendment your interpretation of Genesis 2:7 is not even close. It doesn't say anything, nor even hints, that an infant is a life after it's fully formed. You apparently aren't aware that babies are breathing while in the womb. That bit of free knowledge is just for the sake of arguement.

As in present day Israel, the fetus is not a human, thus abortion of a fetus is not murder. Since God designs a woman to miscarry or abort, calling abortion immoral equates to calling God immoral.

Again..which religion are you going to stick with here? And to compare an abortion to a miscarriage is about is low as you can go. Of course God designed women to abort babies when something goes terribly wrong during pregnancy. Otherwise the baby goes on to be born. That is unless someone with little, or no morals decides to have an abortion.

The morals question boils down to individual responsibilities and one’s right to control their body. The Pro-Life position is anti-woman and pro-man. This should come as no surprise since the Pro-Life movement is the invention of the Roman Catholic Church, a decidedly patriarchal institution. The Pro-Life pregnant woman has no right to control her body, whereas an irresponsible Pro-Life man is free to continue his "horny" way whenever he feels the urge. The statement, "if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament" says it all. Well, "What’s good for the goose is good for the gander." Any morally honest discussion to forbid a woman’s right to control her body as a consequence for pregnancy must include consequential laws for men's bodies. An appropriate consequence for man’s irresponsible or uninvited sexual activity is castration, particularly for clergymen and politicians who violate the public trust.

Individual responsibility? If someone get's an abortion because they don't want the baby or "aren't ready for a baby" then I'd say they already had a problem with individual responsibility to begin with. The poor baby will never know about personal responsibility will it?

And on a side note....my original statement about Obama referred to his voting record for partial birth abortions. I'd have to say that even you would have to admit that is wrong. I mean besides...the baby was breathing right?

 

[BrownShark]

I have to agree with diesels response, it was well put and directly answered you on all phases of your previous post.

His positions are well stated and argued.

The problem I see is the extreme right winged ideology that prevents debate.

Listen to what diesels says as argument. GIve it some real thought.

Avoid the pat bucannan approach by disecting each line looking for an "AH HA" moment.

This isnt rocket science.

Peace

 

[BrownShark]

Like diesel it appears you don't get it either.

First off, GW Bush is not running for President, so none of what you posted is relevant to this election. Secondly, to be gay you have to make a choice to be gay. I don't see homosexuals as a minority because they make a conscious choice to be homosexual. They no more deserve to get married than someone into bestiality can marry their dog, or a pedophile can marry a child. Finally, Haggard was not on GW's campaign payroll like Rev. Wright was.

You are trying to compare apples to oranges, and to divert attention away from the issue that Barak Obama's judgment is much to flawed to allow him the highest office in the country.

This post cracks me up. The hypocrisy involved is humorous.

First off, GW Bush is not running for President

So in other words, once you have the job, bad judgement is ok even if its with a pole smoking homosexual on drugs?

I am curious, if in 2004 you knew that President Bush was hanging around with Ted Haggard and knowing what you know now about Ted Haggards disgusting life style, would you still have voted for him in light of this bad judgement??

OR

Are you just trying to keep Obama from the highest office in the land using whatever issue you can muster up?

Bad judgement is bad judgement before or after an election.

Just wondering.

Peace