Ted Haggard. Look it would be easy to laugh

[stuartj]

So when youve stopped laughing, please pray for him. Myself I havenet stopped laughing yet, but I inted to paray for him as soon as I do.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sacked sex-scandal pastor confesses: I am a liar
Email Print Normal font Large font Mark Coultan, New York
November 7, 2006

FIRST it was: "I never meet this man." Then it was: "I bought drugs off him but I never used them, and I never had sex with him." But by Sunday, it was time for confession.

Ted Haggard, former head of the 30 million-member National Association of Evangelicals — the man with President George Bush's ear — finally told all: he was a hypocrite and a liar. The overseers of the New Life Church in Colorado, which he founded, sacked him for "sexually immoral conduct".

It was the most spectacular downfall of an evangelical leader since the Reverend Jim Bakker was embroiled in a sex and accounting scandal in 1987.

In a letter read out to the Sunday congregation at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Pastor Haggard said: "I am guilty of sexual immorality, and I take responsibility for the entire problem. I am a deceiver and a liar."

He said he wanted to clarify "my heart's condition" after telling reporters a series of stories since male prostitute Mike Jones alleged that the pastor had been paying him for sex every month for the past three years. Mr Jones also alleged that Pastor Haggard used methamphetamine to heighten the sexual experience.

The prostitute said he went public to expose the churchman's hypocrisy because of his support for measures to ban same-sex marriages.

In Pastor Haggard's letter to his parishioners, he said: "There is a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I've been warring against it all of my adult life. For extended periods of time, I would enjoy victory and rejoice in freedom. Then, from time to time, the dirt that I thought was gone would resurface, and I would find myself thinking thoughts and experiencing desires that were contrary to everything I believe and teach."

He said he had sought help, but it had not been effective.

"The public person I was wasn't a lie, it was just incomplete. When I stopped communicating about my problems, the darkness increased and finally dominated me."

Not all the accusations levelled against him were true, he said, "but enough of them are true that I have been appropriately and lovingly removed from ministry".

He asked the congregation to forgive his accuser, saying: "He is revealing the deception and sensuality that was in my life. Those sins, and others, need to be dealt with harshly. So, forgive him and, actually, thank God for him."

He said that he loved his wife.

"What I did should never reflect in a negative way on her relationship with me. The problem was not with her, my (five) children, or any of you. It was created 100 per cent by me."

His wife Gayle also wrote a letter to the women of the congregation, saying: "I know your hearts are broken; mine is as well." She said she still loved her husband

[Jeff Higgins]

I'm glad you can find such humor in another man's troubles. That's mighty big of you, Stu.

[alf]

Lets not forget that in his role as a pastor, he has probably done a lot of good for a lot of people. That counts for something.

[nostatic]

at least he admitted he's a hypocrite and a liar. That's way more than most religious leaders or politicians do.

Did I say that?

[trj911]

The thing that angers me is his continued deception even after he was found out. He slowly confessed instead of coming clean about everyting. It makes me wonder if he is still hiding something. I'm glad I'm not a pastor!

[bt1211]

What he believes is not what I believe.

I can throw a pie at all the pious SOBs but damn that has got to hurt.

He started his church in the basement of his house. On a practical level,what does he do now to feed his family? What kind of teen-aged hell are his kids going to go thru? I cant imagine how much sh#$%@ his boys are going to get.

Yes, I am aware he brought this on himself, but I do feel for this man

On situations like this I just cant go for a coup de grace

[dd74]

Personally, I feel for Haggard. He seems to have done more good for his followers than ill by this single incident.

I'll even take it one step further by adding Haggard should not have resigned and those investigating him should not have released Haggard from his post. So he's gay. So what?

He never condemed homosexuality from what I've read/heard about Haggard. Sure, he somewhat misrepresented himself; at least to his wife, but that's a personal affair.

Who's really despicable in this is Mike Jones, the gay prostitute who brought their relationship to light. The guy is a horrible human for ruining this man's life, and doing so over the political issue of gay marriage.

The press is equally at blame here: they love the downfall of someone of Haggard's position, but are derelict as to the story behind the story. Why don't they dig a little into Jones' past and find, for example:

1) What made him really "out" Haggard? Profit? Notoriety?

2) Did Jones feel sleighted because he himself wanted to be part of a gay marriage, and felt threatened by Haggard?

IMO, Jones did the gay population a huge disservice as Haggard was also an outspoken proponent of gay rights under the Constitution, as well as stem cell research, which is a rare find in the world of evangelical pastors.

[Moses]

Amazing. He doesn't assume the traditional posture of "victim". Refreshing.

So it took him a week of soul searching to tell the truth. It took Clinton about a year and some stray DNA.

I find no joy in this mans torment, but perhaps his new humility will soften his views of other "sinners". This may ultimately be a good thing for him.

[bt1211]

Come on now, no blaming the gay-man-whore for Mr. Haggards problems. What was Mr. Haggard expecting, a whore with a heart of gold? Only in the movies,kids, only in the movies.

[rfuerst911sc]

Typical religous hypocrite, do as I say not as I do. I feel sorry for his wife and family but not for him, he knew exactly what he was doing and decided to do it.

[skipdup]

When my wife and I saw Haggard interviewed by B. Walters several months ago (I think it was a show on Heaven???), we both thought he was creepy. Go figure.

- Skip

[dd74]

Tough crowd.

Like no one here has any indiscretions in their past?

[nostatic]

Originally posted by dd74
Personally, I feel Haggard.

well, good for you to come out on that.

[stuartj]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
I'm glad you can find such humor in another man's troubles. That's mighty big of you, Stu.

This man is former head of the National Association of Evangelicals.

He is exposed as a fraud. A drug taking, vegemite drilling promiscuous, adulturous, lustful, perverted hyprocrite.

In my mind his ability to be sincere in his beliefs is irrelevant to his personal peccadillos.

What I find interesting- and this is purely a speculation- is had the male prostitute not -for whatever reason- outed him- would this confession had been forthcoming? And if not, would Mr Haggard very likely be at his televised pulpit next Sunday handing out gods instruction to the faithful? Probably.

You might be interested in this, Jeff. Good article.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15566391/site/newsweek

By Sam Harris
Newsweek
Nov. 13, 2006 issue -

Despite a full century of scientific insights attesting to the antiquity of life and the greater antiquity of the Earth, more than half the American population believes that the entire cosmos was created 6,000 years ago. This is, incidentally, about a thousand years after the Sumerians invented glue. Those with the power to elect presidents and congressmen—and many who themselves get elected—believe that dinosaurs lived two by two upon Noah's Ark, that light from distant galaxies was created en route to the Earth and that the first members of our species were fashioned out of dirt and divine breath, in a garden with a talking snake, by the hand of an invisible God.

This is embarrassing. But add to this comedy of false certainties the fact that 44 percent of Americans are confident that Jesus will return to Earth sometime in the next 50 years, and you will glimpse the terrible liability of this sort of thinking. Given the most common interpretation of Biblical prophecy, it is not an exaggeration to say that nearly half the American population is eagerly anticipating the end of the world. It should be clear that this faith-based nihilism provides its adherents with absolutely no incentive to build a sustainable civilization—economically, environmentally or geopolitically. Some of these people are lunatics, of course, but they are not the lunatic fringe. We are talking about the explicit views of Christian ministers who have congregations numbering in the tens of thousands. These are some of the most influential, politically connected and well-funded people in our society.

[Jeff Higgins]

Yes, I did find it interesting. I always find it interesting to read an athiest's view of Christianity. Like others, his is almost entirely wrong, and merely serves to support pre-conceived notions about Christians. It would seem as though athiests so very much want to at least deride, if not out and out hate Christians, that the whole lot of them must sit around and nod approvingly when reading material such as this.

This article is very much written from an outsider's perspective. It is factually wrong on almost every point it tries to raise concerning Christianity. And then, to top it off, it provides a zinger of an unsupportable allegation. From the article:

Speaking to a small group of supporters in 1999, Bush reportedly said, "I believe God wants me to be president." Believing that God has delivered you unto the presidency really seems to entail the belief that you cannot make any catastrophic mistakes while in office.

"Reportedly", eh? Who reported it? "...a small group of supporters...", eh? Which small group? Who, if this really did happen, reported it outside this group? Oh wait, I know - athiests just "know" he must have said this to some small group somewhere at sometime.

Ironically, that bold accusation (unsupported in the article as it is) is followed immediately by the following:

Religion is the one area of our discourse in which people are systematically protected from the demand to give good evidence and valid arguments in defense of their strongly held beliefs. And yet these beliefs regularly determine what they live for, what they will die for and—all too often—what they will kill for.

Sounds exactly like what he was doing in his prior statement, now doesn't it? Of course, these are strongly held beliefs among athiests (and Bush-bashers for that matter), so his audience demands no "good evidence" nor "valid arguments". You already believe what you believe; that this man re-afirms those beliefs relieves him of the burden of proving his position to you. Much like a religion, I dare say.

[Hugh R]

Me personally, I don't care one iota. I never heard of the guy until this came to light, I don't give a rip about his evangelical following (sheep) he can screw a sheep for all I care (as long as the sheep is agreeable). If people are so stupid as to give him millions, then I'm the putz, not him.

[bt1211]

I had never seen Mr. Haggard before. When I first saw him, my gaydar went off the chart.

(side-bar)
I worked in the fashion business for 10yrs, almost all of my peers and co-worker were gay. Its not half as bad as you think because all of the straight women were doing whatever it took to get my attention. (I did QUITE well!!)

It could have been worse for Mr. Haggard, the gay-man 'ho could have easily black-mailed him. Remember this had been going on for 3yrs.

[stuartj]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
Yes, I did find it interesting. I always find it interesting to read an athiest's view of Christianity. Like others, his is almost entirely wrong, and merely serves to support pre-conceived notions about Christians. It would seem as though athiests so very much want to at least deride, if not out and out hate Christians, that the whole lot of them must sit around and nod approvingly when reading material such as this.

Interesting criticisms.

I always find it interesting when people of a god bothering persuasion –in this case Christianity- assume that “outsiders” have no or little understanding of the core beliefs or the modern interpretation or application of those beliefs.

In reality, many atheists are very intimate with these beliefs indeed. Thats why in fact they are atheist.

While I agree the author of that article should have supported his claim about what Mr Bush may have said, its hardly the lynch pin of his argument. Those remarks have been widely reported and commented on after all, since 1999. In the name of concision, it may well have been overlooked. After all, fifteen seconds on google yielded these:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/etc/synopsis.html
http://chuckcurrie.blogs.com/chuck_currie/2004/12/god_wants_me_to.html

So, aside form the "who said what" thing, I am not sure you are offering any real decontruction of what he argues. You claim that this writer is wrong about Christianity in many ways. How so?

[Jeff Higgins]

Nov. 13, 2006 issue - Despite a full century of scientific insights attesting to the antiquity of life and the greater antiquity of the Earth, more than half the American population believes that the entire cosmos was created 6,000 years ago. This is, incidentally, about a thousand years after the Sumerians invented glue.

Harris chooses an arbitrary number well on the low end of what even the most serious adherants of the literal translation of the Bible would claim. They argue this number among themselves, in a range of 6,000-10,000 years plus or minus a few. These are in the vast minority; most Christians see this as the metaphor that it is. Harris chooses this absurd number for obviously self-serving reasons, I'm sure knowing most of us discount it entirely right along with him.

Those with the power to elect presidents and congressmen—and many who themselves get elected—believe that dinosaurs lived two by two upon Noah's Ark,...

I'm not sure I have ever met a Christian that believes, nor has ever mentioned, this. The Old Testament does mention a "leviathon" that many assume might have been some sort of dinasaur, but most of us believe the Bible does not even mention them. Certainly not as being on the ark. They are not an important part of God's message to us, so they were left out. As were the vast majority of creatures. Again, Harris probably knows this, but he chooses to take this baseless poke in his efforts to paint Christians as some kind of unreasonable dolts.

...that light from distant galaxies was created en route to the Earth and that the first members of our species were fashioned out of dirt and divine breath, in a garden with a talking snake, by the hand of an invisible God.

I'm not sure where he is going with that first statement. The second is true, and rivals only the "scientific" assertion that we were boiled up in a soupy cauldron. I guess either could work...


This is embarrassing. But add to this comedy of false certainties the fact that 44 percent of Americans are confident that Jesus will return to Earth sometime in the next 50 years, and you will glimpse the terrible liability of this sort of thinking.

Citations? The Bible clearly says that no one knows the hour of His return. He will come "as a thief in the night". I have been attending various churches all of my life and have yet to hear Harris's assertion. I guess it lumps us all in with the whackos on the street corners, though, furthing Harris's desired image of Christians.


Given the most common interpretation of Biblical prophecy, it is not an exaggeration to say that nearly half the American population is eagerly anticipating the end of the world. It should be clear that this faith-based nihilism provides its adherents with absolutely no incentive to build a sustainable civilization—economically, environmentally or geopolitically.

Now he is interjecting his own opinion and making no effort to seperate that from his claimed factual statements. He is attempting to state the views of a population in the worst possible light, again in an effort to reveal just how far "off" they are. I have simply never met a Christian that is "eagerly anticipating the end of the world". And certainly none that would ever just kick back waiting for it, with "absolutely no incentive to build a sustainable civilization—economically, environmentally or geopolitically". That is simply absurd. Christians have demonstratably worked harder than most groups in the furtherance of our civilization. Again, Harris is interjecting his opinion in the most antagonistic way possible, this time in an outright lie. I'm sure he knows better.

Some of these people are lunatics, of course, but they are not the lunatic fringe. We are talking about the explicit views of Christian ministers who have congregations numbering in the tens of thousands. These are some of the most influential, politically connected and well-funded people in our society.

Harris is attempting to connect his opinions and assertions about Christianity to Christian ministers; opinions and assertions that are either very skewed or outright fabrications. Many, I guess, will fall for his presentation of this as fact, because the athiest body already "knows" all of this anyway. Harris is simply "preaching to the choir" and therefore feels no need, nor is he asked, to back this up. And yes, there are politcally influential "ministers"; most Christians that I know see them as the mere tools they are. They seem to have more influence outside of Christianity (with men like Harris) than within.

It is, of course, taboo to criticize a person's religious beliefs. The problem, however, is that much of what people believe in the name of religion is intrinsically divisive, unreasonable and incompatible with genuine morality.

Harris fails to mention that the "genuine morality" is his own; apparently any morality outside of his is not "genuine". This is a strong accusation. There are many, many moral bases from which we operate. To insinuate that the Christian one is immoral, and his is moral, is every bit as pompous and divisive as those he accuses.

One of the worst things about religion is that it tends to separate questions of right and wrong from the living reality of human and animal suffering. Consequently, religious people will devote immense energy to so-called moral problems—such as gay marriage—where no real suffering is at issue, and they will happily contribute to the surplus of human misery if it serves their religious beliefs.

"...and they will happily contribute to the surplus of human misery if it serves their religious beliefs." Yup, Christians just sit back and chuckle to themselves whenever they can make anyone else misserable. Give me a break. Does anyone really believe this? Again, Harris is merely trying to add fuel to his fire. Christians have done more real work to ease human suffering on this planet that probably any other demographic.

A case in point: embryonic-stem-cell research is one of the most promising developments in the last century of medicine. It could offer therapeutic breakthroughs for every human ailment (for the simple reason that stem cells can become any tissue in the human body), including diabetes, Parkinson's disease, severe burns, etc. In July, President George W. Bush used his first veto to deny federal funding to this research. He did this on the basis of his religious faith. Like millions of other Americans, President Bush believes that "human life starts at the moment of conception." Specifically, he believes that there is a soul in every 3-day-old human embryo, and the interests of one soul—the soul of a little girl with burns over 75 percent of her body, for instance—cannot trump the interests of another soul, even if that soul happens to live inside a petri dish. Here, as ever, religious dogmatism impedes genuine wisdom and compassion.

This is a very real issue, agreed. Harris's little one-paragraph sound byte doe it no justice whatsoever. While he uses it as a barb against Christians in this instance, the issues surrounding it go far beyond the faith-based. Again, I'm sure Harris must know that, but he cannot pass up the opportunity to parade out yet another athiest-held "truth" about Christians.

[Jeff Higgins]

A 3-day-old human embryo is a collection of 150 cells called a blastocyst. There are, for the sake of comparison, more than 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly. The embryos that are destroyed in stem-cell research do not have brains, or even neurons. Consequently, there is no reason to believe they can suffer their destruction in any way at all.

Harris is cherry-picking his science. He fails to mention the unique DNA that is adopted by the embryo upon conception. Science maintains that unique DNA = unique life. It is true that these embryos cannot "suffer their destruction in any way at all". If that criteria were to be used to eliminate others that cannot "suffer their destruction", where would that leave us? Thank God that is not the nature of the Christian argument on this one.

The truth is that President Bush's unjustified religious beliefs about the human soul are, at this very moment, prolonging the scarcely endurable misery of tens of millions of human beings.

A vastly over-simplified attempt to connect the dots for his faithful, anti-Bush readers. There is far more to it that that. Bush's religious beliefs were certainly not the only infuence in his decision, and to make the direct connection that his veto = tens of millions suffering needlessly is a bit of a stretch, to say the least. Science marches on; just wihout Federal funding. Why didn't Harris mention that?

Given our status as a superpower, our material wealth and the continuous advancements in our technology, it seems safe to say that the president of the United States has more power and responsibility than any person in history. It is worth noting, therefore, that we have elected a president who seems to imagine that whenever he closes his eyes in the Oval Office—wondering whether to go to war or not to go to war, for instance—his intuitions have been vetted by the Creator of the universe.

Wow. This one does not even deserve a response. Harris is, once again, re-iterating what all of you "know" about Bush. Can I hear an "AMEN!!"?

Speaking to a small group of supporters in 1999, Bush reportedly said, "I believe God wants me to be president." Believing that God has delivered you unto the presidency really seems to entail the belief that you cannot make any catastrophic mistakes while in office. One question we might want to collectively ponder in the future: do we really want to hand the tiller of civilization to a person who thinks this way Religion is the one area of our discourse in which people are systematically protected from the demand to give good evidence and valid arguments in defense of their strongly held beliefs. And yet these beliefs regularly determine what they live for, what they will die for and—all too often—what they will kill for.

Already addressed this one.

Consequently, we are living in a world in which millions of grown men and women can rationalize the violent sacrifice of their own children by recourse to fairy tales. We are living in a world in which millions of Muslims believe that there is nothing better than to be killed in defense of Islam.

Let's not forget to implicitely lump Christians in with Muslim zealots. Not only do these Muslims represent a very minute faction within their own religion, they have nothing to do with Christianity. I guess it is easy enough for athiests to paint all religions with the same broad brush of intolerance, however. We are all the same to them, after all. All zealots; all capable of untold destruction. Just look at the Crusades, right?

We are living in a world in which millions of Christians hope to soon be raptured into the stratosphere by Jesus so that they can safely enjoy a sacred genocide that will inaugurate the end of human history. In a world brimming with increasingly destructive technology, our infatuation with religious myths now poses a tremendous danger. And it is not a danger for which more religious faith is a remedy.

Harris ends with what might be his most wildly inflamatory remark. Might as well finish with a bang, I guess. No one is hoping for any kind of "sacred genocide". The Bible clearly states it is God's will that all men be saved. I don't know a single Christian that would not want the same thing. I don't know a single Christian that is arrogant enough to believe they have any idea what resides in the hearts of their fellow men. To imply that we look forward to the day when most of mankind is wiped out and we get our special little spots in heaven is absurd. Again, however, it feeds the athiest myth of how they perceive Christians.