Ted Haggard founded the New Life Church 21 years ago in his basement.

It is now a mega-church located north of Colorado Springs, quite an impressive compound.

However, now Mr. Haggard has been fired due to a homosexual affair that involved methamphetamine. Mr. Haggard is married and has five children. The below article also brings up his political power that has suddenly evaporated, mentioning the White House on the speed dial. This story has made national news, but I'm linking to a local story so everyone can get the up-close feel. FYI, The Gazette is a conservative newspaper.

CS Gazette Local Paper's Story

The irony in this is that the gay masseur who outted Mr. Haggard did this due to Mr. Haggard's opposition of gay marriage. Another irony is that Mr. Haggard wrote about always being honest because secrets will always become public, advice that he gives children.

Questions for debate:

Should Ted Haggard be prosecuted for using a prostitute and an illegal drug?

Is Mr. Haggard's preaching a way of conditioning children to expect heavy citizen surveillance as they grow up?

Did the devil really make him do it? (possible comic relief here)

In the broader sense of things, what does this fall from grace mean in American politics?

I must admit I can´t help feeling an evil pleasure, when this sort of thing happens. When the shiny surface cracks, and reveals the hipocracy underneath. I think this Ted dude is having more than punishment enough, for his "crime". It seems his whole lifework is going down with this case. As to whether or not the devil made him do it, I believe the term devil to be equivalent to our ego, which constantly demands it needs to be fullfilled, and was it not for our spirit (mind), we would all be monsters. There´s a constant conflict going on between the subconcious ego, and our concious mind.
But the guy is most obviously gay, to risk everything for a roll in the hay, and what is this "immoral sexual conduct"? The guy is just human, which can never be immoral. Is it impossible to imagine a gay pastor? If he is a good pastor, being gay doesn´t make him less competent, or does it? So it seems I end up feeling sorry for this guy, but on the other hand, this could also be seen as a message to his congregation; "folks, don´t be too hard on yourselves or your next man, when you are weak and taking a fall, ´cause it happens to all of us".
And in the article it says he has lost his hotline to the president, so GWB has lost his spiritual advisor. Maybe now we won´t have to listen to retorics such as "axis of evil", and other half-religious nonsens coming from the most powerfull man in the world.

Should Ted Haggard be prosecuted for using a prostitute and an illegal drug?

Is his non-preacher neighbor apt to be prosecuted for the same behavior? If so, then yes.

Is Mr. Haggard's preaching a way of conditioning children to expect heavy citizen surveillance as they grow up?

There is a difference between being taught that everything you have done eventually comes out into the open and encouraging your government and fellow citizens to spy on you and report you for breaches of conduct.

Christians believe in a final judgement where God will review the person's life in its entirety. This is not a new concept. This is different from judgement by society in that God is believed to be far more merciful. Let us hope so.

Did the devil really make him do it? (possible comic relief here)

It wouldn't be a temptation if part of you didn't want to do it in the first place. If I, as a diabetic, decide to eat a piece or two of sumptuous chocolate cake, I have no one to blame but myself, the devil notwithstanding. We suffer the consequences of our actions.

In the broader sense of things, what does this fall from grace mean in American politics?

It means more cynicism on the part of those who are already put off by evangelical Christians and their efforts to impose certain moral standards on our society. It is truly a sad thing, and it is a bitter laugh that is shared among those who like to see the perceived "holier than thou's" brought down a peg to join the rest of us in our trough of human misery.

It is however, a clear indication of how ubiquitous non-heterosexual orientation is. I don't know the implications of how that will translate into legislation regarding gays in the future.

Should Ted Haggard be prosecuted for using a prostitute and an illegal drug?

First of all, we must keep in mind that Haggard is innocent until proven guilty. With that in mind, it is obvious that he should be treated by the law in the same way as anybody else.

How should that be? In my opinion, making use of the services of a prostitute should not be a matter for the law at all. This is a matter which should, in my opinion, be between Haggard and his family. (Although there is nothing inherently unethical in making use of a prostitute, it seems likely a betrayal of marital vows is involved. This is a very serious problem, but should not be a matter for the criminal justice system.) As far as the relationship between Haggard and his employers goes, well, I suppose they have the right to make their own rules. As a personal opinion, I would probably allow some leeway for genuine remorse and forgiveness.

Here's something interesting, from the article you linked:



Although most of the attention in this situation has been directed at the question of "sexual immorality," (which Haggard admits, although no details are forthcoming) it seems to me that the alleged use of methamphetamine (which Haggard denies) is a much more serious problem. Because meth is such a dangerous substance, it seems inevitable that the law must become involved in such situations. As with any alleged abuse of very dangerous substances, however, it is much more important for this to be treated as a medical and psychological problem to be treated rather than a criminal problem to be punished.

Is Mr. Haggard's preaching a way of conditioning children to expect heavy citizen surveillance as they grow up?

I'm not quite sure that I understand the question. I suppose you are talking about this (from the same article.)



Although this is somewhat exaggerated -- there are many secrets which will never be revealed to anyone -- it's pretty ordinary moral advice, in general. Keeping personal dishonesty to a minimum is a good thing, usually. The worst I can say is that Haggard failed to follow his own advice. Surely all of us are guilty of that from time to time.

I certainly don't want to live in a world of "heavy citizen surveillance" (which I take to mean "not minding your own business.") Privacy is as important as openness. Some have suggested that those with "nothing to hide" should have no objection to having their lives under constant scrutiny. I cannot speak for others, but I know that I have my own dirty little secrets which I would prefer to keep to myself.

Did the devil really make him do it? (possible comic relief here)

Although this question is intended as a joke, it raises a serious issue in the relationship between politics and religion in the United States. From the same article:



I will not debate theology here. I will merely point out that, to some members of the Religious Right (itself only a part of Christianity in the USA), American politics is not a matter of debate about which policies are best. It is, quite literally, a struggle between pure good and pure evil. In the eyes of such a person, my liberalism is not merely foolish or mistaken. It is, quite literally, damned. It is not merely to be challenged; it is to be destroyed.

There is no force with so powerful an effect for both good and evil as religious faith. People will sacrifice their lives for the good of others in the name of faith; people will torture and kill others in the name of faith. Religion produces saints; religion produces fanatics. Because this force is so powerful, it is vitally important that religion and politics (which is nearly as powerful as religious faith) be kept always and everywhere completely separate.

In the broader sense of things, what does this fall from grace mean in American politics?


Very little, I suspect. Haggard was only one of many leaders of the Religious Right to have (as the article says) "the White House on speed dial." No matter how many scandals come up, the Religious Right remains a powerful voice within American conservatism, and within the Republican Party.

It would be a grotesque error for seculars and liberals to take joy in Haggard's humiliation. In the first place, it would be a better thing -- a more human thing -- to accept remorse when it is offered, and to offer forgiveness in return. In the second place, it is a great mistake to suggest that the reason we oppose the political policies suggested by the Religious Right is because they are bad people and hypocrites. Clearly, the vast majority are not. It must be made clear that we disagree -- often passionately, to be sure -- with their political ideas, and that we will oppose them in all legal, ethical, and peaceful ways.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061105/ap_on_...sex_allegations

As far as the methamphetamine use goes, it is obviously taking a back seat to Haggard's sexual conduct. While evangelicals are known for stating that to God sin is sin, regardless of the degree, in practice there are clearly some sins that are more bothersome to the flock here on earth. Case in point: sexual intercourse with a homosexual versus use of an illegal substance.


I agree with you, Victoria. Seeing a stalwart of a strict religious faith fall from grace is not something to crow about. Might I also suggest as well, though, that it is also a human thing to deride a person after finding out that the teacher hasn't learned the lesson he is trying to teach you? I'm not suggesting that it is a better thing, but it is just as human, and perhaps more natural than proffering forgiveness in such a situation.

I just wonder what kind of a society members of Haggard's church would want, whether they would bring back the stocks and ducking stools for people who deviated from the prescribed code of conduct, public and private, if they could. Whether this kind of enforcement against sexual immorality in particular would actually cause a decline, or whether it would make people sneakier is anybody's guess.

I'm thinking, too, of The Scarlet Letter and how the parties concerned carried on their lives in the face of sexual scandal.

I feel sorry for Haggard's family. They didn't deserve this in any case.

Victoria,

I don't think anyone is taking joy in this situation. I do feel a little satisfaction that my inner senses were right on the money about this guy, being as he is strongly opposed to gay marriage. The denial and projection was written all over him.

It isn't up to me to forgive him. He did me no wrong. I am interested in neither homosexual relationships nor marriage, but I am for equal rights and responsibilities under the law.

However, watching the live Web broadcast of yesterday's reading of the two letters, one from Mr. Haggard and another from Mrs. Haggard, was an impressive experience. My reactions ranged from anger to sadness. I can spot shysters a million miles away. I can also tell when people are in pain.

The shysters are worried about people leaving the church and thus eroding their tithe base, just as politicians worry about tax base erosion. The people themselves have to be going through great upheavals in their world views and spiritual commitments.

Meanwhile, to we who are human secularists (their terms, I prefer free thinker, but not capitalized) the conflicts involved are common. Mr. Haggard is a homosexual who cannot accept who he is, and thus masks his nature and despises it, which means self-hatred, and that's never a healthy way to be. The church leaders are corporate bosses wearing a spiritual mantle, which to me is a serious misuse of power. But hey, I don't do it or join in the ruckus, so what the heck. Misusing power is as old as the hills.

Was at a Dale Carnegie training session with one of these types some years ago where I had to say something nice about him. "Nice tie" was all I could get out. I honestly can't stand these people, yet they fascinate me in ways, from a distance, maybe as a writer looking at something that could be turned into a story. Protagonists need their antagonists.

Anyway, Haggard's fall from grace was attributed to God's Will, which I thought was a neat trick, neat in the sense of the best damage control possible. God allowed the lie to be revealed, which I suppose means that God allowed the homosexuality too, but that's just my natural logic kicking in to find consistency.

So. Can the New Life Church be consistent in its opposition to gay marriage? Maybe it's God's Will that we come to accept homosexuality as something that happens in the natural world. I bet at least some of the church members have considered this idea. And this makes me think that maybe the hold of the evangelicals on politics in this country is weakening.

I was impressed by the internal government of the evangelicals. They are all connected at the hip, which was a revelation. It's as if we have a government forming within a government in this country, with the evangelical government wanting to take over the secular government. The amount of money involved must be astronomical, and although this wasn't anything new to me, the witnessing of the evangelical government in action was.

Tomorrow many of the church members will be voting about gay marriage. Will some of them go against the prescribed anti-gay agenda? They might, and this could be significant in American politics. After all, had Mr. Haggard been comfortable in his own sexuality from the beginning, none of this would have happened. Might God want us to be comfortable in who we truly are?

Can who one is be masked with a nice tie?

BTW, the question about the devil comes from the humor of the 1960s and 70s, either Richard Pryor or Flip Wilson seems to be the meme running around in here. Maybe a composite.

1. I don't know. Should Osama Obama be prosecuted for the highly illegal cocaine and pot use that he documented in his best selling book? How about ex President Clinton? He admitted that he "tried pot but didn't inhale". He, at least, was guilty of possession. Should he be prosecuted? Or, should our normal process be followed, a process that requires physical evidence and credible testimony (I admit that anything Clinton may have said I consider automatically suspect....).

2. I think Haggard's preaching is designed to condition children to expect to DONATE heavy sums of money to "their church" as they grow up. The same was true of Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart who were caught in similar situations.

3. What does it mean to American politics? Well, it will be seized on by the left and the democrat party as more "proof" that those who act all "moral" are the least "moral" among us. It's part of their core strategy to undermine the concept of morality in general (except when they selectively employ it against national defense, the war on terror, driving a SUV, or hunting game animals, etc.) and lead Americans to believe if there is no morality, then why not consider voting for the party that doesn't stand for morality? After all, if "everyone does it", why not just vote for the people that promise you the most in exchange for the least as the democrats do (unless you're "rich", a "corporation", or a stupid uneducated member of the military who is "stuck" in Iraq that is...).

Whoa! Do I detect some bitterness here or something?

I thought this thread was about the Reverend Haggard.

So it is the "core strategy" of the Democrats to "undermine the concept of morality in general"?

Sounds like a Kool-Aid overdose to me.

Yeah, we Democrats introduced the good Reverend to the male prostitute and told him he had to have sexual relations with him, while doing methamphetamine, of course. Yeah, that's the ticket...

Come on, lordhelmet. We Democrats have families of our own, many of us are married and attend church, many of us do not cheat on paying taxes, and we have been known to help people in trouble from time to time. Your characterization of our party is unfair, bordering on ridiculous. No, now that I think about it, it is ridiculous.

Would you like me to characterize the entire Republican party by the behavior of Randy "Duke" Cunningham? Would that be fair?

Haggard's "fall from grace" is nothing new. It's sad for him, it's sad for his family, and it is sad for those who believed in him for what he stood for. But it just might also be another indication that homosexuality is more ubiquitous than any of us figured, and that even the "true believers" struggle with inclinations that should be characterized more as "natural" than sinful. The sin is infidelity in this case, not homosexuality, to my mind. If that makes me a dirtbag to your mind, so be it.

I've noted that no-one from the Republican right has posted a comment on this.
Why is that?

Since there is no evidence, other than heresay, there is no way to prosecute him. I think his very public fall from grace is punishment enough. However, there is still the very American view of innocent until proven guilty. Something we seem to quickly forget. It could very well be that he is being set up (unless I've missed something).. but, I don't think so.

I guess it's true then, the biggest homophobes are most likely gays in denial. It does (or could) explain alot.

Maybe GWB is hiding something in the closet??
Maybe he and KR have a little thing going on during those late night strategy meetings.

Now THAT would be a story!

[quote name='Paladin Elspeth' date='Nov 6 2006, 01:57 PM' post='200450']
[quote=lordhelmet] The sin is infidelity in this case, not homosexuality, to my mind. If that makes me a dirtbag to your mind, so be it.
[/quote]
Exactly my sentiments, PE, and if this guy had dared come out of the closet earlier in his life, not fearing the harsh judgement from the community, he might not have been guilty of infidelity. And a woman and five children wouldn´t have had their lives devastated.
And there´s lately been discussions here on the board on gay rights as well, this case serves as a classic example of how predujice and uneven rights destruck lives in the midst of our society.

Should Ted Haggard be prosecuted for using a prostitute and an illegal drug?

No, this simply illustrates how this stuff should not be illegal, but regulated and taxed, and use that tax money, specifically earmark it, for treatment programs. Making "sins" like this illegal is silly and stupid. It wastes goverment resources and makes criminals of those that simply need help, and not directly physically or financially harm anyone but the perp of the crime in the frist place. What these kinds of 'sins" show is that the libertarians are right again.

Is Mr. Haggard's preaching a way of conditioning children to expect heavy citizen surveillance as they grow up?

I somewhat agree with this- only the evildoer hides when no man pursueth (the bible here again? ) - and, if you are living a truly moral life, not harming anyone, I am not talking the psuedo-morality of the right here, which is horribly inconsitant, anti-freedom and liberty, but the true morality of helping those less fortunate than themselves, doing no harm to others as much as humanely possible, with the exception of self defense, and raising your children to be productive members of society, and not trying to FORCE your values on others through laws, but rather, have poeple WANT to emulate you through the force of your life.

As usual with LH and his rants- he misses the point of the libertarian or social liberal completely- it is not that we condone a behavior- we simply don't think a law is the right way to go about it- it is the force of example that is much stronger, the force of a life well lived, respect earned through example.

This is why folks seize on behavior like this- Mr Haggart, if these ALLEGATIONS are true, would have, technically, broke the law, and with crystal meth- it would mean a very, very long jail sentence. His faction of political hacks would sentence a poor drug addict, not so high profile as himself, nor one of thier flock- but that person, if caught, would go to jail for a very long time, crystal meth possesion has strong penalties in most states,

He, and the rabidly religious right- I have found in my life growing up with them- that, unlike what PE said- that MOST of them have serious issues with the "sins" they decry the loudest. Which is generally true with anyone that really, really goes hard against "sin" type crimes that don't harm anyone but the victim.

Hard core against drugs being legal? Most likely an addictive personality disorder. Hard core anti-gay? Closet gay. Hard core against AA? Racist and on and on. Wouldn't be such a serious deal to them if it didn't hit them so hard personally.

Did the devil really make him do it? (possible comic relief here)

No, according to LH- it was Clinton and liberal dems fault. They called the prostitute and put the crack piple in his mouth, it was all a campaign ploy to make the saint of the century- that towering statesmen among mere mortals, GW, look bad.

In the broader sense of things, what does this fall from grace mean in American politics?

No, religious righties NEVER actually police thier own, rather, start on the "situational ethics" that they apparently despise while employing them. The uneven way they apply thier "morals" to Clinton vs GW is a classic example.

I will go beyond PE, and say, I don't agree with her- the hard core evangelicals ARE MOSTLY hypocrites that can't control thier behavior by anything but external control- this is why they preach basically this issue as fact "I can't do X but through the Lord, not my will, but his"- they simply don't have the moral inner fortitude to NOT do naughty things by thier own ability and willpower.

It is not that they are really outraged by others behavior on this- they are afraid, if illegal, they would not be able to refrain from gay prostitute sex and doing hard drugs.

If you haven't grown up in this incredibly dysfunctional micro-society, you wouldn't know too much about it- the preachers kids are always the ones that are on the edge, due to thier oppressive lifestyle and no teaching of internal controlling of thier more base instincts- instead, a cycle of repenting and giving it up to God's will etc- but no real self discipline can take hold, they have never learned inner strength.

But, religious right has never been consistant, or even reasonable, or even slightly intelligent, about anything.

Ah, I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning…

Should Ted Haggard be prosecuted for using a prostitute and an illegal drug?

He should be treated no differently than any other person caught with a prostitute and an illegal drug, so yes, he should be prosecuted.

Did the devil really make him do it? (possible comic relief here)

Nobody “made” him do anything. Nobody “made” him condemn homosexuality as a sin. Nobody “made” him condemn gay marriage. Nobody “made” him buy crank (which he has admitted doing, but says he “didn’t use it”. Clinton comparisons, anyone?).

Man has free will, judgment and conscience. If a man chooses to have bad judgment and a lack of conscience by buying drugs and enjoying the services of a prostitute, then blaming anything else, be it the devil, God, or the weather that day, is a lame excuse at best.

In the broader sense of things, what does this fall from grace mean in American politics?

I hope it makes people see that the face some self-righteous individuals put out for public consumption isn’t necessary their true face. If enough hypocrites are exposed, maybe others will think twice before trying the same thing…then again, it is politics…


Yeah, Jeff Gannon!

opinion8ed,

I'm also not sure about prosecution. Mr. Haggard has confesed to seeing the male masseur and engaging in sexual misconduct, which might be taken as sex for pay. My unsureness is whether a civilian (not a sitting President) can be prosecuted on the fact of a public confession. If so, he might be prosecuted on the purchase of meth, if not the use of such. It would be a kick in the teeth to someone who's already on the ground, so that might be a consideration too.

The thing about GWB and KR is creepy. Gad, I hope that's not next.

As far as LH and the Demos goes, it's too late to make any political hay of this incident, being as the rest of the voting will happen tomorrow. By the time anyone could use this, it'll be too old.

Nope, this isn't something that a political party can use, but it is something that will stick in the minds of the people who Mr. Haggard has worked with. It'll also be a reason for others to resist recruitment.

Overheard a guy at the gas station this morning bemoaning the trust issue. He doesn't know who to trust anymore when it comes to church. That made me think later about who we could trust, and the conclusion I came to was women. Women ought to run the evangelical churches.

Naw, that'll never happen. But the Episcopals seem to be heading this way. Link

My reasoning was about sexual misconduct. Women seem to be less engaged in this than men. I'm sure there are exceptions and maybe it's just that women don't get church leadership roles, thus none of the PR.

Anyway, I'm drifting off the subjects. Personally, I don't think Mr. Haggard should be prosecuted. That will simply punish his family while bringing him into an environment full of temptations. Besides, the guy's unemployed now. What the heck do you do after being the spirtual leader of thousands for over twenty years?

I guess he could write a book.

I wanted to add a bizarre postscript to the sordid Haggard saga.

THREE WEEKS and they "cured" his homosexuality! Stop the presses! This is major news....no wait, it's not, it's just a bunch of FOF nutjobs making wack claims...again.

Seriously, tho, be afraid, be very afraid. Haggard and his wife are studying to become (drum roll) psychologists. Yikes. Yep, he's leaving Colorado and might be coming to a town or city near you.

This is so tired, trite, and most significantly, wrong. The abolition of slavery in the Anglosphere was led by those motivated by religion, not politics. Nor should we forget the Reverend Martin Luther King, jr.




On to the questions...
Should Ted Haggard be prosecuted for using a prostitute and an illegal drug?
At the time this question was posed, we only had the gay masseur's word regarding the drugs, and as for prosecuting anybody, perhaps we should start with the gay masseur, especially if he's a licensed massage therapist. I realize it would be more invigorating for the Left to prosecute Haggard, but the only one who had admitted to a "crime" here is the masseur. The question is, why isn't anybody pursuing him? Is it because only perceived hypocrites (on the Right at that) deserve to be prosecuted? (More on this later...)

Is Mr. Haggard's preaching a way of conditioning children to expect heavy citizen surveillance as they grow up?

No, its a common sense reminder that you should always behave in private as you do in public. Its called "integrity", and Haggard is an object lesson in why its important, and what happens when your public and private personas don't mesh.

Did the devil really make him do it? (possible comic relief here)
Nothing comic about it. Perhaps, although unlikely. Any further answer I'd give strays into forbidden topics.

In the broader sense of things, what does this fall from grace mean in American politics?
Not much. Both sides have had their worldview's affirmed. The secular Left believes that most Christians, and certainly most on the "Religious Right" are suppressed hypocrites. (Of course, they only arrive at this by misunderstanding the definition of a hypocrite, but what they hey, it works for them.) The Religious Right believes that, as the Apostle Paul put it: "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"

What I wonder is, why isn't there a thread about Gavin Newsome instead? Y'all remember him, the Mayor of San Francisco who decided to arrogate unto himself the power to declare same-sex couples married. The Mayor who was busted for banging his re-election campaign manager's wife. Here we have a public official, not simply a public figure, quite possibly breaking the law (the wife had been his appointment secretary, i.e. sexual harrassment). Are the feminists in a tizzy? No. A public official who attempted to broaden the definition of marriage (which includes fidelity) beyond what his state's citizens had defined, and yet, y'all aren't talking about him? Haggard has fallen afoul of exactly the sort of thing he warns about.... Newsome has behaved exactly contrary to the standard he's upheld. Why does he get a pass from y'all, and Haggard doesn't?



Where is the indignation from the Left here on AD over Newsome? Or is it that you simply expect infidelity?

Should Ted Haggard be prosecuted for using a prostitute and an illegal drug?

No.

I'm not sure a prosecutor would have adequate evidence to proceed. Did hehe get caught in a sting operation and get wrestled to the ground in the TV show "Cops"? Did he fail a urine test? Has he been caught with illegal drugs in his possession?

As much as I dislike Haggard and his ilk, he is still entitled to legal safeguards - due process.

This latest edition of Elmer Gantry should sink quietly, ever so quietly, into oblivion. I would just as soon not have to think about Ted - now and forever, amen.

This makes me wonder too just what went on during the cure. I've read about what others claim to have gone through, including electrical shock therapy (torture) to cast the evil out (exorcism).

Well, I'll keep healthy scepticism about these stories. It still makes me wonder just how homosexuality is cured, as I'm doubtful that such a thing is possible. Seems like I won't be cured of my heterosexuality until I either get old enough to dry up or die. It's probably the same for homosexuality. It's as if we were born to become sexual beings (slaps hand to face). Now who the heck is responsible for that design?

So I see Mr. Haggard in my mind's eye sitting in Psych 101 and learning that, well, we really don't understand why people are the way we are. And then a glimmer of insight: All this stuff he's been swallowing along the way is very old, from a time of ignorance. So what is right?

Here's where the real story begins. It might turn out to be an interesting one.

Jon Stewart had a very funny (and rather apt) analysis of what the "cure" might have been. He said "remember when your dad caught you smoking a cigarette and he made you smoke a whole carton as punishment?"

Seriously, though, I don't believe it is possible to "cure" one's nature. How sad is it that this man hates himself so much that he is willing to live a lie lest he be considered "sinful"? It is rather pathetic.

I think the verdict is still out on what causes homosexuality and heterosexuality as a general rule. It's impossible to tell with 100% assuredness that some people aren't led to or taught to want to explore homosexuality. How do you explain someone that consistently switches "teams"? Someone that's truly "bisexual"? I think that line is grey for some people. Most of us have no desire (and it in fact makes us sick) to think about it, but what if not everyone is "hard wired" that way?

In my opinion, there will be people in all walks of life that "fall from grace". I find it interesting that nearly eveyone on this board is liberal, if not uber liberal, lambasting this guy as if it's a victory for Democrats nationwide. I don't agree. This is one case out of millions of religious people. If a preacher has alcohol issues, or a Priest likes to gamble online, or a deacon smokes a little pot... it's because they're human. The stark contrast lies in the notion that as a whole, Christians attempt to dissuade this behavior, while many liberals nearly show deference to the actions. Consider the difference. If a Republican Congressman gets caught doing something illicit or inappropriate, he's hung out to dry. If a philandering President gets caught doing wrong, lying under oath, and overall being an immoral person- many Democrats stand behind him and act as if it's no big deal. Sure- it's going to happen on both sides, yet it's how we shame those actions that defines the party lines it seems.

One might also wonder if the reaction of being sick is a trained behavior within a society that, for a large part, considers homosexuality to be sinful. I'm thinking now about how Eastern Indian workers who became sick to their stomachs when they saw Americans drinking cow milk. That's a big no-no in Hinduism. I don't have a link to the story; it's very old, but I have heard firsthand of this reaction from an Eastern Indian with whom I worked.

I have no idea why men might be attracted to each other, but I have come across some interesting ideas from the biological point of view, and there's some support of this in other mammalian species. Might have something to do with population control, workload sharing, and stabilizing competitive societies.

Biology gets messy. Some human babies are born with both sexes, and the doctors have to decide which way to go. It happens around once in 200,000 births, and so with a world population of over 6 billion, that comes to 30,000 people whose sexuality depended on the decisions of doctors.

Yep, lots of questions on this issue. I'll let pass the analysis of political parties, as that's not what this thread is about.

Should Ted Haggard be prosecuted for using a prostitute and an illegal drug?

Sure. I mean if he was not Ted Haggard but the bum walking the streets it would not even be a thread, but because he is a more prominent ape he gets different treatment

Is Mr. Haggard's preaching a way of conditioning children to expect heavy citizen surveillance as they grow up?

Yes, I would never move to Kansas, for your freedoms end and you more or less find yourself in Jonestown.

Did the devil really make him do it? (possible comic relief here)

I think Mr. Haggard probably is a homosexual that has serious issues of self rejection, such is probably why his life is so extreme like say a Jeffery Dahmer.

In the broader sense of things, what does this fall from grace mean in American politics?

Not much, its like drug cartels, just because they lose one does not mean another wont take his place.

.
Pardon me if my arms aren’t long enough to stretch around the astoundingly enormous and baffling segue between the actions of Haggard and “Democrats nationwide” (and Clinton, the ever-present whipping boy). My point and the reason I poke fun is because the issue is about HYPOCRISY. Not about Republicans, not about being religious (or not), not about being straight, gay or bisexual, but about being in a position of power and posing as something you are not, and lying about it when caught practically in flagrante delicto. I couldn't care a whit less if Haggard was gay, Republican, and a leader of his church...but this is a guy who lived a secret life while preaching that that life is sinful and ungodly, while helping the GOP pad its coffers with the money of evangelical followers who believed his preaching that that sort of life is sinful and ungodly - and that is wrong and hypocritical and deserving of ridicule.

I would guess that you include me in the category "uber liberal." Thanks for the compliment, really.

If you read my earlier post, I don't think there is reason to prosecute Ted Haggard.

I don't frequent organizations like the one Haggard headed, so I really don't care what they do with him.

I agree with Daffy Girl. Bringing up Bill Clinton by you and lordhelmet is an off-topic smokescreen.



http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr...rd#PRA1-PA20,M1

PDF File (see Page 20)

Weird! Clinton admitted using marijuana at Oxford University in England. Under what U. S. authority would he be tried? How about the statute of limitations? Nice try at an irrelevant sideshow.

Edited to add:

Did the devil really make him do it? (possible comic relief here)

In the spirit in which the question was asked:

If the late Flip Wilson were still alive, he might provide a definitive answer.