<p>An interesting article, orginally published in May 2005</p>
<p><a href=“Page not found | Harper's Magazine”>Page not found | Harper's Magazine;
<p>To be clear: my post # 82 was sarcasm.
Post #97: well done.</p>
<p>Lealdragon wrote:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is exactly what my thoughts are. I am not judging this guy for using drugs or homosexual sex or even adultery. Everyone has their faults or wrongs or mistakes. On some of these issues, I am not even saying that there is anything “wrong” with doing these things…such as homosexuality for one! The point is that he was very publicly outspoken and as a leader against the very things he did himself. If he merely had done these things, I wouldn’t be commenting. I know many who have used drugs or been adulterous or who are homosexual. I am not one to judge them. But those same people are not getting up in public as a leader and putting down drug use or adultery or homosexuality. He is condemning others, which is the point. He leads a group of people around these agendas. It is one thing to be weak or to have failings but to speak out against others who have these same ones, seems hypocritical. </p>
<p>As far as his wife, yes I feel sorry for her and the revelations that came out about her husband. It involves lying, cheating, finding out he is a homosexual and uses drugs, and so forth. There is a lot of betrayal and I wish her and him much healing and that they can work through it. Earlier, I meant that it must have been difficult to have that mic in her face as shown on the video clip where the reporter is asking her husband if he used drugs and if he had sex with that man. I just felt sorry her in the moment, on top of the ongoing issue. I just think it would be hard to keep a straight face or have others look at you when it was her husband who was the one being questioned publicly. I think she deserved to experience it all in private, that’s all. </p>
<p>There also are the issues of when caught, he first denied it all, saying he didn’t know the guy. Then he admitted some of it. Now, he is saying it was just a massage and no sex and he threw the drugs away. It appears to be lying. Yes, it would be hard to fess up and yes, he likely is trying to shield his wife and kids. The thing is, he is a RELIGIOUS leader and so in that light, to be lying and to still lead others regarding morals, makes it hypocritical. A religious leader should be an example of honesty for his followers.</p>
<p>He has a fixation for Drano. I watched a clip of his interview with Baba Wawa on nightline yesterday. Amongst other things he said…it the difference between drinking water and Drano. Water is good for you, Drano is bad.</p>
<p>One of the ingredient in meth is Drano.</p>
<p>He is kicked out of his church.</p>
<p>Yeah, that was fast. I guess forgiveness and redemption are for wusses.</p>
<p>Nah. He’s forgiven. Just no longer in a position to be hypocritical and condemn others.</p>
<p>Now if someone would just kick out Rush…</p>
<p>before continuing to comment, why not read the article sister marite has pointed out.</p>
<p>if the guy had absconded with money i would gladly throw the first stone. and it may turn out to be so. but for now, the pleasure angle is essential to his fall. I dont believe this sexual revelation should be thought of as an error, somehow extraneous to the life. these are the powerful forces that always were essential to extreme devotion, to a cultish frenzy, a total fear-driven denial of messy many-headed lust (cant say i blame them) —they might as well be islamic fundamentalists. They ARE trying to take over the world, clean it up (sanity/sanitize)</p>
<p>(note the murals described in article for reference to the role of eroticism as prime power driving the flock)</p>
<p>had seen with her own eyes the sex demons that make homosexuals rebel against God, and she said they are gruesome; but she did not name them, for she would not give demons glory. They are all the same, she said. It’s radicalism. She reached across the table and touched my hand. I have to tell you, the spiritual battle is very real. We are surrounded by demons, she explained, reciting the lessons she had learned in her small-group studies at New Life. The demons are cold, they need bodies, they long to come inside. People let them in in two different ways. One is to be sinned against. Molested, suggested Linda. The other is to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. You could walk by sina murder, a homosexual actand a demon will leap onto your bones. Cities, therefore, are especially dangerous.</p>
<p>yes theyre all crazy but so are you</p>
<p>
I dont really think this guy was like Rush. Havent ever heard Rushs show, but from what Ive read, Rush bitterly attacked and made fun of welfare crackheads and crack moms and druggedout thugs and so on. This guy seems to me to have only spoken the beliefs of his religion, namely, that homosexuality is wrong. Well, who hasnt done this, in principle? Ive said that lying is wrong. Ive preached it constantly. But can I really say I have never lied? Were this guy Haggard a hypocrite, he would have scorned and condemned homosexuals. I dont think he has done this. In fact, I think I remember reading in all this that he has preached compassion and not scorn for homosexuals. Maybe he had this response because of his own issues, which response I think is the right response.</p>
<p>I dont think the guy should remain in his position for the simple reason that he is a model for the very thing his religion thinks is wrong. It was a betrayal of all those people for him to stay in his positions. But, cmon, surely we can see why he did it. All that attention, money, and power would have been very hard to just throw away. I wonder how many of us would have had the integrity to just walk into obscurity and take our families into financial difficulty simply because it is the right thing to do. I think I can do it. But, to be honest, I cant know this unless I am faced with it.</p>
<p>“demons”. No wonder devoted Christians who are homosexuals at the same time are so conflicted inside, with a deeply held religious belief pitting against strong emotional desire and needs. My guess is this guy had prayed all his life to become “straight” but it never work. Cases like this show how not accepting yourself and pretending someone you aren’t can be devastating. Gays don’t choose to be gays like those religious franatics say (that’s a lie and aren’t they supposed to be against lying?). On the other hand, if you are a homosexual, there’s nothing you can do to change that; repressing your emotional desire likely leads to depression; dating or marrying someone of opoosite sex may cover it up (which in itself is a sin for a deeply religious person since it involves deception) for a while but is gonna haunt you (and your family) sooner or later. I think it’s kind of an irony that while many seek harmony in religion, it’s a source of discordance for many homosexuals living in the closet.</p>
<p>this man claimed to hve a connection with GOD…and was a leader of a huge chruch, will weekly covernsation with the white house</p>
<p>he used homosexual agenda- his own and his relligions to gain power prestige, and to put down other people, he judged gays, he guided others to judge gays, he talked about how gay marriage would harm straight marriages, while all the time he was doing drugs, having an affair- whether it was a man or a woman would usualy be irrelevant, but when a person with power is dong what he can to hurt others, and denying equal rights is hurting others, and it turns out he has much in common with those very people he wants to hurt, well…</p>
<p>it is sad, and this man of GOD, well, power and money was obviouslly more important than the truth, seems to often be the case</p>
<p>Drosselmeier: citygirlmom just responded with exactly what I would have said.</p>
<p>Sam Lee: well said!</p>
<p>
I dont at all see why this is relevant. There are plenty sinners who claim a connection with God. That still does not make them less sinners and worthy of our scorn. And his leading a big church and speaking with the white house certainly doesnt make him less a sinner. These may have made him even more a sinner, since power has a way of corrupting us. </p>
<p>
I dont see this. Perhaps it happened, but I have not seen him judging gays. I have seen him judging homosexuality, and that is quite a bit of a difference. What he has done is tantamount to claiming lying is wrong. The only difference where homosexuality is concerned is that you disagree with him. Christianity has been claiming this for nearly two thousand years. So, is not like this guy made something up. When the Pope claimed homosexuality is a sin, he wasnt just inventing some new belief. It is something that is far older than any of us. What Haggard did was repeat that belief. We may disagree with him on this, but I dont think his view means he automatically judged gays.</p>
<p>
Okay. I agree that these are incongruent behaviors. But I understand them. Look. These things you are mentioning here are mere philosophical positions, not positions against people. It is not like this guy said Gays are bad people. I think these things are much like my saying to my kids, Never lie, and yet when my daughter asks does this dress look nice? saying to her Uh. <em>ahem</em> Its kinda nice kinda. The guy apparently believed something was wrong, and yet struggled with that very thing. Rather than scorn him, I feel sorry for him.</p>
<p>
It really all depends upon the conditions and philosophies under which one acts. For example, we might claim we all should have equal rights!!! and then responding to this two men might claim a desire to fly planes, one of them blind and the other having no arms. We see that it turns out we all cannot have equal rights because in some contexts we are not all equal. In Haggards philosophy gay unions are not equal to heterosexual unions, and he can make a very valid case here. It really depends on how important the context is. We can disagree with his perspective, but if we accept it, as he and millions of others have, then they have no choice but to go toward their conclusion. This may hurt others, just as the blind and paraplegic would-be pilots would probably be hurt, but if the philosophy leads to this conclusion and the context is deemed important, then there is no available recourse.</p>
<p>
Indeed.</p>
<p>There is only one reason people are riding this guy so hard. Its because he is connected with religion. Most people here are part of that intellectual, secular, liberal mental state and they like to find any flaw in religion, even thougfh here they just found a flaw in a man</p>
<p>This man went on national television and claimed that gays are somehow lesser than staights in the sight of God and supported the idea that gays are not entitled to the same rights of straights when it comes to choosing a mate and entering into a contractual,loving, life-time committment - he deserves every bit of ridicule that he gets. It has nothing to do with religion. Bigots do not have a monopoly on spirituality or religion.</p>
<p>where, when, you can just attack a man like that without showing how he did those things</p>
<p>golani189</p>
<p>The black-and-white world of seculars-against-religion doesn’t fit with many of us hugely critical of the religious right. One of my best friends is a Methodist minister, and my very best friend is a Quaker. A couple of my heroes are MLK and Nelson Mandela–who found their strength through their religion. My son’s probably going to marry a Hindu girl who is very religious. </p>
<p>What ALL of the above have in common is that they use their religion to challenge and enlarge themselves. To shed dislike of others, to examine their own failings. To love others. They do not use it to limit others’ freedoms. I am drawn to people who subscribe to an ideal outside of themselves–be it a religious or humanist belief.</p>
<p>where is he doing this. All i see is him saying homosexuality is wrong. I dont see a problem in saying that</p>
<p>he says it is wrong in a VERY pubic arean, using the bible, his pwoer, his connections to the white house, church’s money, it was not a personal belief, it was a belief he shared to “rally the troops”</p>
<p>to say, well he just said it, not the case, and it wasn’t jsut a blooper, either</p>
<p>and he was connected to the White House… and if you do any research, he was one of the most powerful evangelicals in the nations</p>
<p>no problem saying it, whatever, its america, but he is in a position of leadership and power and a hypocrit and a liar and an adulter…</p>
<p>if he wasn’t using the facade of being a religious leader to gain power and control, it would be easier to let it go, but…</p>