Posted on 07/01/2005 11:09:50 AM PDT by tyw
Friday, July 1, 2005 10:09 a.m. EDT
The Rev. Billy Graham said Friday that he didn't intend to endorse Hillary Clinton for president when he told her husband at a massive New York City revival meeting last weekend that she should "run the country."
His son Franklin Graham, who heads the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, tells the Charlotte Observer:
Story Continues Below
"For a long time, my father has refrained from endorsing political candidates and he certainly did not intend for his comments to be an endorsement for Senator Hillary Clinton." "My father, of course, was joking," the younger Graham said, when he hosted the Clintons onstage and told the crowd of 90,000, "They're a great couple. ... He should be an evangelist because he has all the gifts and he could leave his wife to run the country."
Although Billy Graham has called himself a Democrat, Franklin said that didn't mean he supported the former president, saying, "His political views, as well as mine, are quite different than the Clintons'."
The Clintons, however "remain good friends," he added.
The Rev. Graham felt compelled to issue the clarification after receiving more than 100 e-mails and calls of protest, the Observer said.
The Rev. Graham's words of praise for the former first couple prompted significant consternation among some of his most devoted followers.
National Clergy Council President Rev. Rob Schenck, for instance - who had traveled from Washington, D.C., to Queens, N.Y., just to hear his "role model" preach - walked out of the event after the Clintons were feted onstage.
"I was stunned and appalled," the Rev. Schenck told the Christian Wire Service.
"It was disturbing to watch Billy Graham, a man whom Ive admired for years, being used by evil to mislead countless Christians," complained the Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, head of the Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny [BOND].
Yea, in the Zell Miller mold.
The last time he voted for a democrat for president, was Jimmy Carter, and he voted against him in 1980.
I'm sure you'll tell me that the context was different.
old and feeble , to bad , he got snookered and can't or won't admit it , but , HE MOST CERTAINLY DID ENDORSE Sir Edmund Hillary Clinton
That's because there are three unforgivable sins in the self-righteous, Evangelical church - abortion, homosexuality, and voting for a Democrat.
This is why there is a progressive Evangelical contingent that is beginning to push back against the Christian right. We're proclaim that God is bigger than the Republican platform, and that the Republicans are no more deserving of the Church's imprimatur than the Democrats. (I mean progressive in its classical sense, not the meaning hijacked by college liberals.)
it is called ecumenicalism.
Apparently it includes kissing the a$$ of scum like BC now.
For your listening pleasure....
The Monkey Song/The Ecumenical Movement:
http://www.daveamason.com/april/mp3/CrystalBernard.mp3
Perhaps a Billy & Slick Willy brand of bottle rocket is in order.
John Kerry takes it for a test ride (above).
Happy 4th!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1434594/posts
Anybody think that Hillry is not using religion as her method of operation gaming for the White House??????
Seems many are out there for hire!!!!
I doubt he would say anything different about you, even if you used those terms. You obviously don't have a clue what Christianity is all about.
Sepurayshun uv church-n-state! Sepurayshun uv church-n-state!! Sepurayshun uv church-n-state!!!
As long as freedom of association survives in Heaven, we'll get along just fine.
'Rats in general, and sHrillary in particular, are desperate to look religious, moral, and conservative before the next election. Regardless of what the Grahams say, they endorsed sHrill through the special treatment she was afforded.
> He's dangerous and I wouldn't want to answer for what he's done... I seem to recall Jesus detesting people who wouldn't take a stand<
We are called to take one stand and one stand only.I will put Billy's record against yours on that subject any day.
LBJ was the less competent heir of the ubersocialist FDR.
LBJ did things that FDR could not accomplish. FDR tried to do what LBJ called the Great Society and failed. LBJ succeeded.
It was LBJ that drove the conservative southern Democrats into the Republican party.
From the end of the civil war until 1968 and Nixon's urn for the presidency the South had been the solid Democratic south. And that Solid South was conservative.
AT the same time new England was the Liberal Republican north.
LBJ started an era of realignment. The liberal Republicans became Democrats... the Rockefeller wing of the Republican party moved to the democratic party. The Southern Democratic party was quite conservative and it moved to the Republican party.
Before LBJ there was a lot of cooperation between the parties. Conservative Democrats worked with conservative republicans and liberal Republicans worked with liberal democrats.
Majority and Minority leaders could not play too rough since both parties had liberals and conservatives.
But LBJ caused the conservative Democrats to become Republicans sand the liberal Republicans to become Democrats.
FDR did all he could to keep the Southern Democrats in his camp. Just as Ike worked to keep liberal Republicans in his camp.
LBJ changed everything.
Billy Graham has always tried to be inclusive in order to be able to have some influence into their lives. It has always been good intensions. But it is good intenses that sometimes get us to make poor desicions.
nah.
What qualifies you to comment on the credentials of a Christian and why do you care?
And what part of my statement was inaccurate?
I have never trusted any of the big television, revival preachers. I dont think I will start now. Most of them seem to me, again my opinion to be nothing more than money machines.
I am sure they are very nice men. I just dont take them as my particular preacher.
I have my issues with the Billy Graham of latter years vs the youthful missionary. I had my issues with JPII too.
Right now I am more disgusted at those that demean them for cheap political reasoning. At each end. It's shameful.
The man is what he is. He is responsible for leading many to redemption through Christ. Accept that and have the grace to allow him to live his last days without attempting to tear down all the good he did, because he allowed a Clinton on stage with him.
The part after the first "I" and all before the last "y".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.