See . . . I'm not religious, although I do not deny the possibility of God or some form of deity and I have a somewhat spirtual side . . . but when things like this happen, I think maybe there is a God. With a strong sense of humor and justice. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
Also, I would like to take this opportunity ro offer to sell Colorado Springs to Utah. I realize that you may not want it, though.
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
If he *is* gay, then he had such a deep sense of shame about himself that his self-hate boiled over to the point that he was one of the worst enemies of himself and people like him. And I feel sorry for his family who just found out that Daddy was living a lie.
I hope that he can put together a decent life after this, but there's a lot of pain and heartache for everyone involved.
If he is *not* gay, I still feel sorry that someone would tell such a life-wrenching lie about him. Even if *I* think he's a bad person.
Pix
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'm with Pix. And I don't think that God's sense of humour works this way. (not that I think you are serious about that Samarkand)
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I'm really torn about this. I think this guy was dead wrong, and being that he's actually been trying to harm me, I'm glad that he got screwed over like this.
But I'm 100% against outing people against their will. No matter what he's done, it doesn't justify that. No matter how much someone might have felt he was a hypocrite, two wrongs don't make a right.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I saw a clip of a conversation between Haggard and Richard Dawkins and it made me want to punch Haggard in the face.
Why is it wrong to out him? If his religious beliefs are real, then in taking part in those acts he was breaking the "law". And we "out" people all the time for breaking the law.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: I saw a clip of a conversation between Haggard and Richard Dawkins and it made me want to punch Haggard in the face.
Why is it wrong to out him? If his religious beliefs are real, then in taking part in those acts he was breaking the "law". And we "out" people all the time for breaking the law.
Not for breaking religious laws. Not in this country.
And given the threats posed by people like Mr. Haggard, outing a person can be considered a form of assault.
In any case, you're still going back to two wrongs making a right. If you don't think that being gay is a crime, then you have no right to out someone for being gay. You have no right to do so in any case, but certainly not if you don't think it's wrong.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Haggard is "accused" of soliciting prostitutes and buying methamphetamines. By the person who claims to have been the seller.
Both buying and selling both things are secular crimes.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
About a year and a half ago, I read this article about Haggard's New Life Church.
I'll be interested to see how all this plays out.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Haggard is "accused" of soliciting prostitutes and buying methamphetamines. By the person who claims to have been the seller.
Both buying and selling both things are secular crimes.
He didn't reveal it because it's a crime. He did so, and he says this himself, because of the hypocrisy.
Stop making excuses. It was a reprehensible thing to do. Haggard is scum, and if something wrong is going to be done, he's a good person for it to be done to, but it's still a wrong thing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think selling meth and being a prostitute are "wrong things." I don't think exposing the hypocrisy of someone who would claim to be an ethical authority is a "wrong thing."
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I only hope that this gives Haggard a revelation that allows him to accept himself for who he is and move on to a happier life that's not filled with self-hate.
Since it seems the alligations are true. (He admitted to buying meth and getting a message from the gay prostitute, but didn't admit to sex.)
Pix
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
I dunno, I'm having a hard time seeing Haggard as a gay man who's just been outed. It's way easier for me to believe the guy is just a huge hypocrite who got off on what he saw as perversion.
What really surprises me is how incredibly bad he's being at the whole "spin" thing! He could easily have ignored the accusations until after the elections, the media wasn't going to go nuts over some wild-sounding claims and a couple of voicemails.... but as soon as Haggard resigned, he created exactly the story the press needed to plaster this everywhere.
And then, he denied everything right off the bat, just like you'd expect someone in his position to do.... but then less than a day later admits that he lied about some of the things he'd denied! So naturally everyone figures that, well, he's probably lying about the rest of it, too, cause he's already confirmed the craziest parts of the accusation.
It seems like, from a political standpoint, it would have been obvious to ignore it as much as possible until after the elections, then either lie lie lie, or come clean and then immediately disappear from the public eye.... but instead he's made this into the biggest mess he possibly could, unless he's planning to hold a press conference tomorrow to announce that he's a card-carrying Communist who keeps fresh kitten blood in his freezer... Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
He admitted to the crime, not the sin. I find that interesting.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
He bought a gay prostitute for massages and bought meth to look at it. Any concept that he was sinning are all just simple misunderstanding!
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samarkand: Also, I would like to take this opportunity ro offer to sell Colorado Springs to Utah. I realize that you may not want it, though.
Can Australia buy it? It might be a good place to exile John Howard to, once we get him out of office.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Maybe Haggard can join Foley in rehab.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
You know, he would probably find this whole thing worth it if it would bring Samarkland to Christ.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: Maybe Haggard can join Foley in rehab.
They can swap stories about how the catholics made 'em do it.
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
Wait . . . Rev. Haggard admitting to buying meth but not taking it and getting a massage from a gay prositute is going to bring me to Christ? I am confuzzled. Now, if a straight non-prostitute who liked reading and scuba diving and stuff came and gave a me a massage and told me God sent him . . . well, I'd have to ponder that one . . .
By all means Euripides, Australia can have Colorado Springs.
Here's a very special website advocating the idea that homosexuality is inherent. http://borndifferent.org/
Please observe the mooing dog. Apparently a mooing dog is like a gay person. Now, that's what the gay rights advocates come up with.
Here's how Focus on the Family (may the possibly existent God save us) responded:
Oh, Springs . . .
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samarkand:
See . . . I'm not religious, although I do not deny the possibility of God or some form of deity and I have a somewhat spirtual side . . . but when things like this happen, I think maybe there is a God. With a strong sense of humor and justice.
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
Ahhh, gotcha. I was confused because I thought you were saying I DID believe, not that it seemed like possible evidence.
.:PMSing! Stalks around Hatrack eating chocolate and glaring at people and occasionally getting teary over lame things.:.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
So Haggard resigned from the church he founded, it was reported by the AP and CNN this afternoon. What a long, tragic fall from grace, to build up a church from nothing to 13,000 members, only to resign in disgrace as a gay tweaker john, a national punchline.
edit: According to a letter sent to New Life church members from it's Overseer Board (hmmm, wasn't the Overseer one of the forms the Unmaker took?) they dismissed the Right Reverend Haggard. Resigned, fired, whatever.
Strider mentioned seeing a clip of Haggard vs Richard Dawkins, here it is.
The whole Dawkins documentary The Root of All Evil on YouTube: part 1part 2
[ November 04, 2006, 09:28 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Interesting. I thought Dawkins came off as at least as big a jerk in that clip.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
The letter just talks about sexually immoral conduct. Doesn't mention the meth at all. So either they couldn't find evidence that he used it, or don't think illegal drugs are as big a deal as legal (though adultrous) gay sex. Huh.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Dawkins did come across as arrogant, and he was somewhat rude when Haggard went on about how eyes and ears "appear by accident".
But why did Haggard agree to be filmed for an interview, then threaten to seize the footage and have Dawkins and his crew arrested? What could have happened off-camera to make him snap like that? I mean, besides snorting some crank?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm not sure what evidence you could find for meth use, beyond the assertions of the prostitute who said he used it in his presence. Unless they demanded a drug test...?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
A drug test? Ahh, but those wily fundamentalist hypocrites have an ace-in-the whole there: their righteous buzz-cuts make testing the hair for meth residue difficult, unless he used it recently. Blood tests are only good for recent use too, AFAIK.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
But what evidence could they find for gay sex, either, beyond the assertions of the prostitue who said he had it with him? Unless they demanded a rectal examination, and the sex was quite recent. And receiving. And not oral, or manual. So I'm not seeing what the difference is.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
You're right Icarus. I'm being a bit unfair, Dawkins is no angel in this situation. But not even taking into account where he flies off the handle Haggard just has this way of speaking that infuriates me. It's very cocky and condescending. I doubt i could remain calm while debating with him. Coupled with the fact that he doesn't know what he's talking about, and his defense is to become even more condescending, calling someone arrogant while being incredibely arrogant himself.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
ElJay, I assume if he bought methamphetamine as he admits, he used it. And if he admits paying for a massage(s) from a gay prostitute, there were happy endings.
The Overseers Board either thought similarly, or else the admitted behavior was damning enough alone.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I realize that, Morbo, but he admitted to buying meth and paying for a massage, and the Overseers Board only mentioned one of the two. That's my question -- if the admitted behavior is damning enough alone, buying illegal drugs is a heck of a lot worse than getting a massage. If we're assuming the worst, we're assuming it for both. But the Overseers Board apparently only cares about the sexual immorality, not the illegal drug use.
I'll admit that I consider illegal drug use somewhat of a victimless crime, if you're just looking at the actual use and not the supply chain and what people do to get it. And since he is married, cheating on his wife is, in my mind, more harmful. But the fact remains that the drugs were illegal, and homosexuality and adultary aren't.
So it seems kinda telling that the Overseers Board cares about the adultary and not the drugs. If only one or the other was true, I'd still think he should be with removed or put on sabbatical pending serious, long-term counseling and rehabilitation. But I get the distinct impression that if the gay sex part wasn't there, we'd be hearing about mistakes and addictions and forgiveness.
No way to tell, of course. But it seems awfully odd that the drug use isn't even mentioned.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: I'm really torn about this. I think this guy was dead wrong, and being that he's actually been trying to harm me, I'm glad that he got screwed over like this.
But I'm 100% against outing people against their will. No matter what he's done, it doesn't justify that. No matter how much someone might have felt he was a hypocrite, two wrongs don't make a right.
Lisa, if I can ask, how would you feel if Haggard was a famous white supremacist, and was "outed" for having a black mother?
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
Amused. And a bit sorry for him, as I feel now.
Pretty much the way I felt when it came out that Strom Thurmond had an affair with a black woman, and a daughter from the relationship. Although in Mr. Thurmond's case he actually began working for equal rights later in life and I believe provided for his daughter's education, and knew that it would be revealed posthumously. So a bit different of a situation.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: I'm really torn about this. I think this guy was dead wrong, and being that he's actually been trying to harm me, I'm glad that he got screwed over like this.
But I'm 100% against outing people against their will. No matter what he's done, it doesn't justify that. No matter how much someone might have felt he was a hypocrite, two wrongs don't make a right.
Lisa, if I can ask, how would you feel if Haggard was a famous white supremacist, and was "outed" for having a black mother?
I don't know. I've given a lot of thought to the other issue. I haven't thought much about this one. And there's a context, as well, which differs. But I don't know.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Okay, I realize my stance on this is controversial, but I have a really bad feeling about people involved in building mega churches. Look at this:
quote:A message from Haggard -- most likely via video -- is expected to be aired at services Sunday at New LIfe Church's $18 million, 7,500-seat sanctuary, the largest worship space in Colorado.
(emphasis mine)
I cant express how much this stuff bothers me. I can't help but think how many hungry and hurting people 18 million dollars could help. And, wrong as it may be of me, I'm immediately distrustful of anyone that says they are a man of God and then spends their time building multi-million dollar empires. I just don't like it.
I think churches should be small enough that pretty much everyone there knows everyone else and should spend whatever millions they might raise on people that really need it. But then, I go to a church that is 127 years old and meets in an old drafty fieldstone building that's been there since the 20's. *shrug* I also voted against spending $8000 on a new sound board and video system, saying I believed the money could be put to much better use and I saw nothing wrong with singing out of hymnal books without the words printed on a powerpoint screen for everyone to enjoy. does that make me supremely old-fashioned and out of touch? Some people seem to think so. I just think that if Jesus were to walk into our church today he'd want to know how many hurting people we reached out to and helped, rather than be given a tour of our sweet new sound system.
Now, I have to go to church. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Jerry Falwell has been quoted as saying that the recent outbreak of conservative gay sex scandals won't dissuade evangelicals from voting Republican based on morality alone, because "we lived through Bill Clinton, and in comparison this is miniscule."
While I agree that it probably won't have much of an impact on the evangelical vote -- most of the evangelicals I've heard comment on this have said something along the lines of "Foley and Haggard were good, powerful men, and this makes them more of a target for the devil" -- I do find myself wondering what a Republican would have to do to be worse than Bill Clinton from Falwell's POV.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Belle, I'm with you there. Megachurches are scary. Although as a former member of a youth group worship team who played electric guitar and bass, I'm totally cool with bringing a bit of modern technology to church. Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Maybe if the republicans lose this election because of Foley and Haggard they'll get off the gay bashing and back to the fiscal conservatism and it won't make me nauseous to vote for them anymore...
But I think they're going to win and I think they're going to keep bashing gays and I think I better bring a barf bag to the polls.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
How do you read music if you don't have a hymnal?
:curious:
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I'm immediately distrustful of anyone that says they are a man of God and then spends their time building multi-million dollar empires. I just don't like it.
Ditto. Not just multi-million dollar empires, but themselves owning multi-million dollar homes, expensive cars, jewelry....
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Scott, the (more) old-fashioned way was a slide projector. There would be a pull down screen behind the podium somewhere, and the words would be projected up there. Normally the screen would be raised before the sermon.
The newer way is with a computer projector, just like you have for giving powerpoint presentations in business. Straight from the computer to the audience... tne music director controls the powerpoint presentation. Some are now even doing video clips to "enhance" the service as well.
Either way, the churches normally pay a licensing fee to a company to gain the rights to project the words for public use.
AJ
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Most of these Evangelical Temple builders see themselves in line with David--wishing to build God's ultimate temple, not as a reflection of themselves, but as a call to God.
And we all know David didn't have any sexual controversies (can you say Bathseba?)
I think we should call all such Sex Scandals by Evangelical leaders--The Curse of David.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I love how he bought the meth... but didn't use it.
Right.
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
quote: The fact is, I am guilty of sexual immorality. And I take responsibility for the entire problem. I am a deceiver and a liar. There's a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I have been warring against it for all of my adult life.
God knows I don't like the guy, and I know that I oppose so much of what he preaches, but it hurts my heart to read this. Repulsive and dark. Ouch.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I can't help wondering what this man might have been if he hadn't been taught to hate that part of his life.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
His reasoning aside, I found that within the context of his community, his response/apology was appropriate.
That said, like Belle, having grown up going to a 180-year-old church that houses a congregation about another 50 years older than that, the mega churches do seem to be a whole lot of sizzle, when they could just be giving us the steak.
-Bok
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
kmb: I was thinking the exact same thing and was going to post it before RL interviened.
Someone long ago beat it into his head that being gay was "repulsive and dark". And instead of breaking that, Instead of warring against the abuse done to him, he chose to war against the only thing that could have made his life complete.
He is a deceiver and a liar because he made a promise he never should have made to a woman. Now her life is ruined too. His children are also scarred.
But no amount of blaming society can excuse him. Because like some abused children, he has gone on to abuse the next generation, preaching the same hate that destroyed his life and his families.
Pix
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Understand, not excuse. I think that we (society) need to understand how we are also complicit here as well.
And in the words of one of my new favorite songs:
"Every single one of us could use some mercy now."
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Yeah, I DO still feel sorry for the guy.
But this is an example of how homophobia hurts heterosexuals too. When gay people hide who they are and MARRY STRAIGHT PEOPLE they tend to explode (or get outted) at some point to the shock of their dismayed spouse who.. maybe never knew.. or knew in the back of their head and denied it.
Closet gay people are little marriage landmines out there waiting to marry your son or daughter... or you... because it helps cover up who they are.
And the only way to stop it is to eliminate the stigma of being gay. Everyone benefits.
Pix
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Love the sinner, hate the sin, in a whole different context.
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
Or you can have excellent gaydar . . . neeenooooneeeenoooneeneeneeneenee! (This is the sound of gaydar in my head.) I am strong in the gaydar. I don't think I will accidently marry a gay man. However, bisexual people set it off too, so sometimes I am pleasantly surprised by hot Fosse dancers coming on to me, when I was sure they had a crush on my boyfriend . . . which they actually do . . . yes.
Mmm. Fosse. Jazz hands!
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Keep talking Samarkand-- the more you say, the better I like you. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I'm going to have to take a somewhat contrary position here. The man has set himself up as a leader of a community, and preached a message of intolerance against a lifestyle he was secretly engaged in. While I can feel sympathy for how tough this might have made his life, and how much of an internal struggle he may have suffered with, it is not very impressive to me in the grand scheme of things. It is a problem of his own making, for the most part, and rather than deal with it, he projected it onto other people and actively worked to prolong the misery and suffering of others.
In the process, he actively lied and misled his congregation, and parlayed their good faith into a position of even greater power (the weekly confabs with the President didn't just happen because he had a pretty smile).
I hope something good comes of this, but the likeliest scenario is not so good.
Re: Mega-churches, I just learned that the one in our local area does not serve the poor. When someone comes to that church looking for food, they refer them to our much smaller church. I was told that's fairly typical behavior for Evangelical "Christian" mega-churches.
Yuck.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Bob: LOTS of gay people are VERY homophobic before they learn to accept themselves.
Especially if they've grown up very religious in a red state.
Granted, few take it as far as Mr Haggard.
I would be interested to see what he's made of his life in a couple of years. What he's managed to salvage and how far he's come as far as self acceptance.
He could be a prodigal son for our little Rainbow family. Or he might slip farther into self hatred and be even more venomous toward the people he should be embracing.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)