New Life pastor: Church will recover from new sex claims against disgraced Ted Haggard
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (Associated Press) -- New Life Church will recover from new allegations in the 2-year-old sex scandal that brought down founder Ted Haggard, its pastor said Sunday.
Brady Boyd encouraged his Colorado Springs congregation and reminded them of their "holy tenacity," two days after revelations that a male church volunteer reported having a sexual relationship with Haggard.
It's the second such claim against Haggard. In late 2006, a male prostitute in Denver said he had a three-year cash-for-sex relationship with the former New Life pastor.
"I'm sorry that this wound has been reopened for many of you," Boyd told the congregation Sunday. "One day we may have a little scar tissue, but the wounds will not define us."
Haggard had confessed to undisclosed "sexual immorality" after the earlier allegations, left New Life and resigned as president of the National Association of Evangelicals. He has declined to comment on the new claim.
On Friday, Boyd said church officials had learned of the second set of claims against Haggard in late 2006, shortly after the male prostitute made his allegations.
Boyd said an "overwhelming pool of evidence" pointed to an "inappropriate, consensual sexual relationship" between Haggard and the male volunteer for an extended period of time.
Boyd said that under a legal settlement the church reached with the man in 2007, neither side was to discuss the matter publicly. He said he went public only after learning the man had talked to a local television station.
KRDO-TV reported that the man gave the station an audio recording of his conversations with Haggard. In them, Haggard calls the relationship "inappropriate" and asks for forgiveness, the station said.
Boyd said the settlement paid the man for counseling and college. He said the money came from insurance, not member's contributions.
Church officials said Boyd would not comment Sunday beyond his remarks to the congregation.
New Life members and leaders said the latest public disclosures were no surprise.
In early 2007, the church disclosed that an investigation uncovered evidence that Haggard engaged in "sordid conversation" and "improper relationships" _ but didn't go into detail.
"I don't think the people in the church are surprised," said Wanda Moore, who works in pastoral care for women at New Life. "They're disappointed and they're hurt."
But Jessica Sheasby, an associate child pastor for New Life, said church members she has spoken to have been "very upbeat" since the new disclosures.
"I've actually heard a lot of hope, because they know that Pastor Brady is one that protects us and takes care of us," she said.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Monday, April 21, 2008
Is it time for America to elect a Affirmative Action President?
I am getting a bit tired of this election season. I have heard all of the wrangling and have listened to Obama say "ummm" and "uhhhhh" enough that I have realized he and Bush really do have something in common.
I have watched the American public fall in line behind the MSM and promote a black man to become the democrat nominee in spite of the fact that the democrats actually support Clinton over Obama but after you allow all of the cross over and independents to play in the Caucus's and cross over enough to manipulate the outcome of the primary elections it looks like Obama is going to be the one running against John McCain.
Won't they all be surprised when the majority of Democrats don't show up to support him... Naw, they already knew that would happen.
If any one of the other candidates would have referred to anyone as "typical white" or "typical black" there would have been a outcry overwhelming. But because we are practicing our skills at running an affirmative action election process this year the public seems to be able to stomach such comments.
Just for the record... Not all of us are OK with that. Not all of us will fall in line as expected. And not all of us democrats think we need an "affirmative Action President” And just because we choose to not vote for Obama does not make us a racist. It makes us prudent in the selection process rather than falling in line like a bunch of lemmings voting for the latest pop star! Where is Britney these days?
I have watched the American public fall in line behind the MSM and promote a black man to become the democrat nominee in spite of the fact that the democrats actually support Clinton over Obama but after you allow all of the cross over and independents to play in the Caucus's and cross over enough to manipulate the outcome of the primary elections it looks like Obama is going to be the one running against John McCain.
Won't they all be surprised when the majority of Democrats don't show up to support him... Naw, they already knew that would happen.
If any one of the other candidates would have referred to anyone as "typical white" or "typical black" there would have been a outcry overwhelming. But because we are practicing our skills at running an affirmative action election process this year the public seems to be able to stomach such comments.
Just for the record... Not all of us are OK with that. Not all of us will fall in line as expected. And not all of us democrats think we need an "affirmative Action President” And just because we choose to not vote for Obama does not make us a racist. It makes us prudent in the selection process rather than falling in line like a bunch of lemmings voting for the latest pop star! Where is Britney these days?
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Hate from the pulpit
Obama is having a hard time explaining his involvement in a church where the preacher has been notoriously preaching hate against the white community.
These comments are not new to the black community or the white community. Both races have been guilty of preaching such dogma and hate. The difference here is that Obama is running for the highest office in the world, the President of the United States of America. For Obama to claim that he had no knowledge of Reverend Wright’s speaking of such things is ridiculous. He attended this church for over 20 years. His children were taught by this preacher and he and his wife were married by this preacher. To claim now that he had “no knowledge” of this offensive language is obviously misleading.
Does this mean that he can’t be a good president? Americans will have to decide.
But I will tell you this. I don’t approve of those who will sit in a church and listen to hate being preached against other segments of our community such as Gays and Lesbians, Hispanics, ranting about the justification of 9-11 because America is tolerant of Homosexuality and therefore god is punishing our nation with the likes of Katrina, and other natural disaster.
Both are offensive and one is no worse than the other. I won’t vote for someone who believes in either of these views. I resent that they are allowed to influence my government with those beliefs and I resent that they have influence on our courts.
Black anger, Gay anger, Hispanic anger, economic anger, are all real and it is up to us to insure that we don’t put anymore religious zealots from any one of these basis in the Whitehouse.
The “more perfect union” means that we don’t tolerate such hate speech coming from the church pulpit or from the Whitehouse lawn.
These comments are not new to the black community or the white community. Both races have been guilty of preaching such dogma and hate. The difference here is that Obama is running for the highest office in the world, the President of the United States of America. For Obama to claim that he had no knowledge of Reverend Wright’s speaking of such things is ridiculous. He attended this church for over 20 years. His children were taught by this preacher and he and his wife were married by this preacher. To claim now that he had “no knowledge” of this offensive language is obviously misleading.
Does this mean that he can’t be a good president? Americans will have to decide.
But I will tell you this. I don’t approve of those who will sit in a church and listen to hate being preached against other segments of our community such as Gays and Lesbians, Hispanics, ranting about the justification of 9-11 because America is tolerant of Homosexuality and therefore god is punishing our nation with the likes of Katrina, and other natural disaster.
Both are offensive and one is no worse than the other. I won’t vote for someone who believes in either of these views. I resent that they are allowed to influence my government with those beliefs and I resent that they have influence on our courts.
Black anger, Gay anger, Hispanic anger, economic anger, are all real and it is up to us to insure that we don’t put anymore religious zealots from any one of these basis in the Whitehouse.
The “more perfect union” means that we don’t tolerate such hate speech coming from the church pulpit or from the Whitehouse lawn.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Obama and his “Plagiarized speeches”
Obama has deemed it necessary to use someone else’s words to try and win the presidency of the United States of America? Not likely! I don't think any fair minded sole will vote for a man running for office who uses someone else’s work to get there. If he was in a college class he would be suspended for a few weeks for cheating on the test.... Maybe that's something from his past? Maybe that is how he became a senator? Maybe that is how he became a lawyer? Maybe that is what makes him sound like a preacher?
I have to say the preacher thing really bothers me. I really don't like the fact that he can rattle on and on and pretty soon you feel like the crowd is all going to break out in cumbala (sp). It isn't political it's like a religious experience and I don't what anything that looks like religion when it comes to my government. That's a whole other topic!
I will never vote for a republican! That being said, what will the majority of true Democrats do if Obama is the nominee? I suspect there will be a lot of heavy drinking and staying home! Since the majority of Democrats want Hillary and the independents are manipulating the democrat nominee to be Obama knowing full well they will vote for McCain I’d say McCain pretty much as it in the bag…. Iraq, Iran, all look out! We’re going to kick some ass in your region to making you the biggest and baddest ever seen in human history! National debt, no problem, Bankruptcy of a nation – priceless! For everything else there’s Master Card! China I now pronounce you the proud owner of a Dead Elephant!
I have to say the preacher thing really bothers me. I really don't like the fact that he can rattle on and on and pretty soon you feel like the crowd is all going to break out in cumbala (sp). It isn't political it's like a religious experience and I don't what anything that looks like religion when it comes to my government. That's a whole other topic!
I will never vote for a republican! That being said, what will the majority of true Democrats do if Obama is the nominee? I suspect there will be a lot of heavy drinking and staying home! Since the majority of Democrats want Hillary and the independents are manipulating the democrat nominee to be Obama knowing full well they will vote for McCain I’d say McCain pretty much as it in the bag…. Iraq, Iran, all look out! We’re going to kick some ass in your region to making you the biggest and baddest ever seen in human history! National debt, no problem, Bankruptcy of a nation – priceless! For everything else there’s Master Card! China I now pronounce you the proud owner of a Dead Elephant!
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Who you Calling a Racist?
Last nights debate could have been an eye opener for many and may be a turning point in this election. There has been much ado about Race and Racist issues being brought forward in this election. Last night's battle stayed true to that order.
Being a racist does not require that you are white. Several remarks in the last few days reveal that Obama has some serious issues around race. First of all lets remind ourselves that Obama is not 100% black. When asked if Clinton was the "first black president" Obama came back with a half sincere answer of needing to see him dance to determine if he was really a "brother". I find that stereotypical profiling by a "black man" repulsive.
Secondly, When Obama felt it necessary to say that those voting for him needed to vote for what was good for themselves, their children, and this nation and those voting for Hillary needed to vote for what was good for themselves, their children and this nation and well, Those voting for Edwards were .........well??? (Just white Males?) This was so very much a slam against the white male. As if the white male has no place at the democrat table is not only abusive but dangerous. Exactly who does Mr. Obama fell has helped him get to that table? Clue.... Bill Clinton maybe just a little? This assertion of Obama's that if you don't vote for me you are a Racist or if you vote for Clinton you are either a racist or a feminist is ridiculous. This party has always been about supporting the underdog and the downtrodden be it women, black, LGBT, disabled or other wise. Don't play that game at the table that feeds you.
Because Obama is running as the first black candidate there is a “hands off” don’t go there mentality that has overtaken this race. I think that is dangerous and misrepresentative of the party. We need to talk about the true value of race and the true value of bringing all of us together as one party representing the values of the diversity of our party. Not the desperation of one man to achieve the title of the first black president of the USA. Obama seems to have a constant need to play the race card and keep that issue at the top of this election. It's not playing well for the party and it's not getting him any votes from the democrats but rather from the republicans and independents who love this eruption from within the party. Of course they are going to support him being the nominee, but don’t look for those votes in the general. They are working hard to manipulate the democrats to insure their victory in November and we’re doing a pretty good job of allowing that to happen. What better way to secure the republican agenda than to get the opposition in-fighting and destroying the trust within the party? If Obama thinks this has been a bloody battle wait until he becomes the nominee and faces the Republican machine. He hasn't seen blood shed yet.
My point is, we have great candidates and we have much to gain from this election. I fear the point of "it's our election to loose" is very much the case and from what I experienced last night it appears we are well on our way to doing just that.
Being a racist does not require that you are white. Several remarks in the last few days reveal that Obama has some serious issues around race. First of all lets remind ourselves that Obama is not 100% black. When asked if Clinton was the "first black president" Obama came back with a half sincere answer of needing to see him dance to determine if he was really a "brother". I find that stereotypical profiling by a "black man" repulsive.
Secondly, When Obama felt it necessary to say that those voting for him needed to vote for what was good for themselves, their children, and this nation and those voting for Hillary needed to vote for what was good for themselves, their children and this nation and well, Those voting for Edwards were .........well??? (Just white Males?) This was so very much a slam against the white male. As if the white male has no place at the democrat table is not only abusive but dangerous. Exactly who does Mr. Obama fell has helped him get to that table? Clue.... Bill Clinton maybe just a little? This assertion of Obama's that if you don't vote for me you are a Racist or if you vote for Clinton you are either a racist or a feminist is ridiculous. This party has always been about supporting the underdog and the downtrodden be it women, black, LGBT, disabled or other wise. Don't play that game at the table that feeds you.
Because Obama is running as the first black candidate there is a “hands off” don’t go there mentality that has overtaken this race. I think that is dangerous and misrepresentative of the party. We need to talk about the true value of race and the true value of bringing all of us together as one party representing the values of the diversity of our party. Not the desperation of one man to achieve the title of the first black president of the USA. Obama seems to have a constant need to play the race card and keep that issue at the top of this election. It's not playing well for the party and it's not getting him any votes from the democrats but rather from the republicans and independents who love this eruption from within the party. Of course they are going to support him being the nominee, but don’t look for those votes in the general. They are working hard to manipulate the democrats to insure their victory in November and we’re doing a pretty good job of allowing that to happen. What better way to secure the republican agenda than to get the opposition in-fighting and destroying the trust within the party? If Obama thinks this has been a bloody battle wait until he becomes the nominee and faces the Republican machine. He hasn't seen blood shed yet.
My point is, we have great candidates and we have much to gain from this election. I fear the point of "it's our election to loose" is very much the case and from what I experienced last night it appears we are well on our way to doing just that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
