Ted Haggard
 

I'm not judging this guy and only post this for informative purposes.
I'd be receptive of others' opinions as I haven't yet formed my own.
What do you think of this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/us...rtner=homepage

As is my usual mo in cases like this (or any case where there are accusations of wrongdoing)...I will wait for the evidence and presume nothing until then! Speaking in generalities...I feel that many so-called leaders of the religious right preach an impossible standard that they themselves fall far short of meeting...and that is hypocrisy! The Bakers, Swaggert, Oral Roberts...even Billy Graham have been found wanting when held to the standards they preach! I think that is understandable and when I am perfect, I'll start casting stones BUT...you can't spend your life looking down on the sins of others unless you are without sin yourself!

I think homosexuality is completely, utterly, normal and I think it's a crying shame that some people buy so completely into what their religious leaders think that they spiral into incredible self-hatred and wind up perpetuating the hate they themselves fear.

But it's tough-- Moses and Paul are both pretty clear about homosexuality, unless one is really loose with the translations of those verses, but then, Jesus himself never said anything about it (I don't know the Koran well enough to know how it is addressed in Islam, though fundamentalist Moslems and Christians seem to hold the exact same position on homosexuality-- who says there's no common ground?). If you're religious and also gay-- not an easy place to be.

But hey, I think it's normal. And if this latest scandal exhausts the gay-bashing wing of the fundamentalists for a while, then good. We can all do with a little less hatred.

Somer Frost and Genuine Risk,
Thanks for your input.
I know that Jesus didn't condemn the woman that was brought before Him.
He said, "Let he that is without sin cast the first stone."
So, nor will I cast a stone at Ted Haggard.
In my view, government should have no involvement with determining who one choses to love.
The irony of this situation amazes.
It is written, "All things will be revealed."
And so they continue to be....
DTS

well, after reading the article....i'd hate to have such charges levelled at me, and unless and until there is absolute PROOF, than no way should anyone level any accusations, or condemn this man.
put yourself in his shoes--what if this guy Jones (and his credibility would absolutely be questionable) said this about you? what if it was false, that he is indeed attacking this guy due to his stance about same sex marriage?

of course anyone who puts themself out there as an absolutely moral person, almost a 'saint', they have a very difficult row to hoe, as any mis-step can lead to just this type of situation.

very often you find the truth lies somewhere between one mans accusal, and the other mans rebuttal.

my take personally--any behavior between consenting ADULTS is no one else's business but their's!!!

just read an update (within last hour) that haggard 'fessed up to buying meth, and receiving a massage.
buying meth is between him, his wife and the cops i suppose--altho there is a constitutional right regarding self-incrimination....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061103/...allegations_35

hey, if it worked for bill 'i smoked marijuana but didn't inhale' clinton, than i guess you can buy 'i bought it but threw it away'....

I'm not really sure to make of this.
Is it about Foley's take on "no child's behind left un-tried"?
Or is it that the gays that are opposed to "gay marriage" got caught with their pants down and their drug buy (remember "war on drugs?).
This is just too confusing.
Is Geddbya gay too? Cheney has already shown that he's reckless with his "gun".
Maybe the "right wingers" can explain.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=6430392

If this guy Haggard was a Muslim and a democrat, DTS would say that this story is a desperate attempt by republicans to make a democrat and a muslim look bad.

If there is a bad story about a Christian or a republican, DTS thinks it is newsworthy. But if it's a bad story about a democrat, then DTS attacks the messenger. It's comical.

By the way, I do think this story is newsworthy and I think that Haggard's behavior is an embarassment.

What would you like me to explain? The link you posted talked mostly about how the people in his church were handling the situation. Is this really a politically charged situation, or just another mans' fall from grace?

Ruppert,
I asked for an explanation.
You are very confused.
I don't think Haggard is a Muslim. Post a link if you can substantiate.
Is he a democrat? Post another link. Is it on Drudge report?
Do I create the news? Do you really think so?
Well, if you pm me and mail me a check to the address I'll provide, I'll certainly move any mountain you ask me to, cure all of your diseases, and have food fall out of the sky to feed you.
Just keep believing.
Money orders only, please. Give as big as you ask for. I'll provide the address.
NOW! Everyone raise your hands before you fall to your knees and then start digging for your wallet.
PRAISE to the Pharisees!

Just because a guy is gay, it doesn't mean he has to be in favor of gay marriage. LOL.

this is what happens when someone sets themself up on an incredibly high pedestal, the fall from grace is that much more spectacular.

but as they say, those who are the most homophobic, the most outspoken against gays, many times have homosexual tendencies--and the struggle against their feelings fuels their hatred--and is often times self-hatred.

thing is, when it comes down to it, it's no one's business but his and his wifes. but of course you'd expect a preacher to live up to what he preaches, but the world has its fair share of hypocrites.

he judged others, now i suppose it's his turn.

oh, good point! hell, lots of heterosexuals are very much against marriage!!

i dont see anything political about it at all...

He never said he was against being gay. He only said he was against gay marriage. Where is the hypocrisy? LOL.

This is a murky area..but I'll trudge on in....I believe this man was elected to the pedestal,and I think the second line is a reach...the world is full of people that hate themselves because their looks aren't just so,or life has not been kind....young people(and old)substituting drugs and sex and booze to take the 'edge' off reality as they see it! The mode of destruction is a choice,just look at our friend Kent. Ethics are seen as outdated,and for the simple-minded. I don't know of this mans' personal demons,but the whole thing is a mess for all involved.

D: I was speaking to DTS post actually...he kinda roped everything in there together.

Danzig,
I really have nothing against gay people.
They deserve the same rights as everyone.
The problem that I have with all of this is that if it hypocrites are found by their own admissions, then they deserve their own consequences.
I'll pray for Haggert's wife and five kids.
I'll also include my position on this entire mess, "Judge not lest ye be judged."
Obviously, Rupert didn't read Esther 7:9, 10. The very gallows that he prepared for Mordechai were the ones that he was hanged from.
The irony, whether it was Foley's protecting children from internet porn, or Haggert's position with the 30 million evangelicals he lead in his crusade against gay marriage, or Gdubb's attempt to impose "democracy" on people that he invaded..wasted countless lives, many maimed, and an occupation that is doomed despite all claims of "victory", staying the course, "flexibility"...
on and on...
These times are crazy. Those "straw men" that became compost are only that.
Some continue to believe in them. For sure, they're entitled to that.
Just do me a favor. Spare me the gallows that I didn't construct for others to be hanged from.
DTS

ok, gotcha.
i really feel for this guys wife and kids tho. bad as what he's going thru, he pretty much brought it on himself...and on them too.

i don't have anything against them either, and believe all rights should be for ALL people.

and yeah, live by the sword, die by the sword--fits here...
as for the war in iraq, i don't see the comparison--and if memory serves, congress backed up the original decision. of course a lot of people want us to forget that they voted in favor of that decision, now that things are looking bleak.

Danzig,
I agree with most of what you said.
I don't agree that congress made an "informed decision". They were fed deceptive information about wmd's by a CIA and other "intelligence" agencies to substantiate a decision that had already been made.
Note Powell's presentation to the uN and Bush's "State of the Union Address".
Lies bite back.
As it is written, "All things will be revealed".

The guy is not a muslim. That's not what I said. I said that if he was a Muslim and a democrat, you would probably criticize the story. You would attack the messenger. But since he is Christian and probably a republican, you think it's a newsworthy story.

No, I don't think you create the news and I don't think any of us do. That was my point. I think a news story is a news story. Whereas you and Genuine Risk seem to think that any story that you don't like was created by some right-wing conspiracy.

I never claimed that he was a Christian,
He did.
You did.

Jesus said, "You will know the tree by its fruits".

Correct me if I'm wrong, did Haggart have weekly access to the White House and speak with George W Bush on a frequent basis?
That's newsworthy.

Nice try.

I know you didn't claim he was a Christian but you knew he was. That is why you posted the story. If he was a Muslim, you would have never posted the article.

Hey DTS, What are you going to rant about once a democrat gets back in the White House? I think a democrat will win the White House in either 2008 or 2012. Once that happens, you will have nothing to talk about. What did you complain about in the 1990s?

and yet many still support bush, the war effort. lieberman for one was thrown to the wolves by his party for continuing to support that war--seems to me only those who are now regretful of their vote/support want to lay blame on the cia and others--that way they don't have to take any responsibility for their vote.
and it was funny to me that the same intelligence agencies that were being blamed for the lack of wmd's were suddenly being praised a few weeks back by those same critics when they came out with info that put the war and it's affects in a bad light. i guess NOW the CIA and others are correct, but were wrong before....

Danzig,
I'll have to do a search for the NIE report. It's worth the read.
If authorization for going to war was based on false information, the blame is not on the ones that voted, but on those that provided the "information" on which it was based.

Rupert,
You're really reaching on this one.
How in HELL do you know I would never have posted the article?
Do you speak with Miss Cleo on a frequent basis? Or do you have telepathic powers to read my mind?

I don't think anyone really cares about the stuff that DTS brings up. The only thing that people care about is the fact that the war is not going well right now and Americans are getting killed. That is pretty much the only thing that most Americans care about. I think that the only regret that people have is the fact that things are not working out the way we hoped. People are also starting to question whether this startegy of "stay the course" is working. People are starting to get pretty fed up. If this thing would have ended a year ago, I don't think most Americans would have had any regrets about this war.

dts--i went and found one of the last playboy issues to come out, in which they interviewed arianna huffington...bear with my typing, it will no doubt have typos as i have to peck this out...

huffington:although it goes without saying that we can be legitimately outraged at the administration that took us to war--that i blame the president goes without saying--i'm equally ourtaged at the democratic leadership for allowing the president to take us to war...

playboy:...was there any reason for you to think the opposition would oppose, at least at the time?
huffington: yes, because it was a matter of going to war. and remember, we were actually in the majority in the senate in 2002, if only for a moment. you can forgive politicians for going along on umimortant issues, but to allown an adminstration to take us into an unnecessary war? nothing is more immoral.

playboy: but who in congress knew it was unnecessary? ti took years for accustaion that the administration manipulated and ignored intelligence to surface.

continued...

Price of Gas? An old reliable if there ever was one.

Also, Polytrack!

It's really hard to sort through the junk in the news or what seems to be passing for news these days, especially during election season. I vote based on issues instead of any straight ticket. It's actually very tough work to get a firm understanding of candidate positions.

I thnk it's real unfortunate politicians are getting brought down by what anyone reasonable would term a personal matter. But that's the way it is.

You can count on two things. First, negative campaigning stinks, but works. And the other is that Americans hate wars. I read that in the election following Pearl Harbor, FDR's party lost 45 seats in Congress. That amazed me.

Who does Miss Cleo like tomorrow?

I can't get through to Dionne Warwick!

... congrats on your son's accomplishments! attaboy ... way to go ... keep up the good work ...

huffington: the late democratic senator from minnesota paul wellstone voted against the war in 2002. i've had off the recrod conversations with many democratic leaders who knew better and did not act on that knowledge. i believe the the democrats lacked courageous leadership, lacked a willingness to stand up for what they believed in, for what is right--even if they lost. there is a special blame and a special place in dante's inferno for them.

playboy: so why did they do it?

huffington: democrats are fools and enablers. their spineless leaders went along with the war purely for political reasons: reelectability. they assumed if they opposed the war they would be seen as weak.


---this all supports my belief that congress KNEW exactly what they cia told them at the time of their vote--that only when they felt that things were going poorly in iraq that it was time to trot out the whole 'they lied to us about wmd's' bs excuse. that way they could claim innocence, we voted for a just war, not this--but i think they knew THEN what they claim to have learned much later.

Because I see the stuff that you post. You post stuff that fits your agenda. I don't see you posting stuff that doesn't fit your agenda. Any article that is a negative for republicans or Christians would be something that you would be likely to post. There would be no reason for you to post an article that made a democrat or a Muslim look bad.

Would you have posted the article if it was about a Muslim Imam who was caught in a homosexual relationship? I highly doubt it.

not just americans hate it--churchill lost his first election after winning ww 2.

The price of gas has come way down. In Los Angeles, we were paying as much as $3.70 a gallon. Now the price is down to about $2.30.

This sounds plausible to me,and after 11/7...I'm going to take a long hot shower to wash all the crap off!

1.92 in little rock....what a nasty place. still hovering just above $2 here.

Rupert,
Your words:
"I don't think anyone really cares about the stuff that DTS brings up".
Seems to me that you've spent a bit of time today discussing same.
So, are you creating a lie about me, denying what you've said, or do you have some other excuse for avoiding the truth of which I speak?
I await your response.
DTS