Ted Haggard, the now disgraced Christian leader, has admitted he had another gay relationship, this time with a 20-year old volunteer at his church:
Evangelical pastor Ted Haggard described Thursday as “fundamentally true” an assertion that he engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a 20-year-old male volunteer in 2006….
The incident occurred when the two men were in bed together…. Haas added, “(Haggard) used to say to me, ‘You know what, Grant, you can become a man of God, and you can have a little bit of fun on the side.”….
Haggard said that, for a time, he lost the ability to read the Scriptures and became suicidal. “I think it was divine intervention that stopped me,” he said.
Yeah, right — divine intervention stopped him. Notice it didn’t stop him from frolicking in bed with young men then preaching against the practice the next day. More likely, love for self and family stopped him from suicide, just like it stops most people.
It ends up the volunteer was paid off to keep silent by Haggard’s church:
The young man said he was to be paid $179,000 through 2009, which was to pay for his college education and counseling, the AP reported today….
The young man also alleged that Haggard sent him thousands of “weird” text messages, sometimes in the middle of the night, describing various sexual experiences he was having. “It was like he had two personalities,” he said. “It was like here is this 50-year-old pastor who is the ultimate man of God and then this 16-year old horny boy who couldn’t keep himself together.”
Another account says:
A megachurch paid a 20-year-old man to keep silent about a sexual relationship he had with disgraced evangelical pastor Ted Haggard, a senior church pastor said.
Haggard, who was fired amid allegations that he used drugs and patronized a male prostitute in 2006, had a sexual relationship with a second man — a 20-year-old volunteer at his megachurch, the Rev. Brady Boyd, a senior pastor at the church, said Monday.
The church agreed to pay the man in exchange for his pledges not to talk publicly about the relationship, Boyd said, referring to a settlement reached by the man’s lawyer and the church’s insurance company. Under the settlement, the church provided the man money to pay his college tuition, moving expenses and counseling, Boyd said.
“This was compassionate assistance. It was to help him move forward, not a settlement to keep him quiet,” said Boyd, senior pastor at New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
Let’s hear it for another product of religion. Seriously, who would be surprised if this happened to James Dobson or Rick Warren? Nobody around here.
Cue the not-a-true-Christian claims.
I think most of the noisy fundamentalists are hiding something. Like Kent Hovind and tax fraud, or that reverend who died from autoerotic asphyxiation. Come to think of it, someone should make a list.
I thought all people of the church were holy and led by god? I guess Haggard was just following his god’s lead.
God tells Christians “do not kill”. But smites them left and right and commands his people to slaughter men, women, children and babies in the Old Testament.
“Do not commit adultery or be put to death”. Unless you’re King David, then it’s okay.
“Forgive your enemies” even if they don’t deserve it. But if you want god’s forgiveness, you have to EARN IT through the sacrifice of an animal or the crucifixion of his own son.
The list continues.
The god of the Bible teaches “do as I say, not as I do”. Why should his church leaders act any differently?
This last Ted outing provoked an interesting conversation with a few people I was having lunch with a couple of days ago regarding gay men coming out after long-term marriages to women and have children during the marriage. All of us knew at least one man that fit the category, and all of them were forced to lead lives that were lies because of there ultra-religious upbringing.
Just another gift religion has to offer.
“True Christian” or not, unfortunately it can happen to each and everyone of us. It’s ugly indeed. According to Haggard he has learned much about this.
His interview on Oprah even made a final remark concerning this latest re-surfacing of the past.
“Ted Haggard on Oprah”
Correction: “…Haggard has learned much through this.”
“It was like he had two personalities,” he said. “It was like here is this 50-year-old pastor who is the ultimate man of God and then this 16-year old horny boy who couldn’t keep himself together.”
Um, DUH!! Of COURSE he had “two personalities.” That’s what fundamentalist religion will do to a person; the adherent will attempt to squash his/her personality in order to fit the dictates of said religion. But there’s only so much repression a person can stand; eventually, that person’s desires will surface–unfortunately, because they’ve been subjected to a lifetime of supernaturalist bullshit and guilt, their desires find expression in usually unhealthy ways. If Haggard had been able to deal with himself and understand his sexuality wasn’t pathological, he might have had a chance at being a well-adjusted homosexual.
There’s been a lot of Haggard chatter lately, so for the most part I’ve just kept my mouth shut and listened to other folks’ views about this terribly confused person. (Larry King: “Have you had homosexual thoughts since?” Haggard: “Yes, but not compelling thoughts.” *shudder* The cognitive dissonance is difficult to even watch.) So I’m just gonna agree with Joe Bible. Dead. On.
I agree with Joe Bible that many, many of the people who are pathalogically comitted to Christianity are redirecting passion that would be most healthfully spent elsewhere, including in a sequined thong at the Mardi Gras parade.
Witness the new word “Saddlebacking,” coined by Dan Savage at reader request in response to Rick Warren being allowed to mumble some words at the Obama inauguration and thus ruining the event for some ten percent of Americans.
It seems like the harder they hate it, the more they themselves want to try it.
I mean, consider Phred Phelps–doesn’t that guy look like what he really needs is a taste o’ the cock? Possibly while wearing some sort of leather gear?
Christ — I need to go bleach my mind’s eye now …
Seriously, who would be surprised if it happened to ANYONE? Don’t you think it’s hypocritical to be judgmental? After all, being judgmental of the judgmental is still… judgmental. ;)
I like Donny’s point, and I think it applies to some atheists as well: “being judgmental of the judgmental is still judgmental.” It’s almost Shakespearean. We should probably avoid making a fetish out of other people’s fetishes, although that’s kind of what the whole of American society is all about…
Donny:
Pointing out that someone’s judgmental isn’t judgmental in itself. No one here is “judging” Haggard of anything.
Martin,
Yes, but something like this is pretty borderline judgmental:
Don’t you think?
Donny:
I’m not going to comment on what he or she meant by that. I just don’t personally get the impression that anyone’s judging Haggard here.
The thing is that, once again, we are being proven right (so to speak). Another anti-gay ultra-christian has been revealed as being gay himself. Hypocrisy, again and again and again. This pattern is what would make me expect more high-profile christians to come out as something they are publicly against. It’s not an act of judgment, directed at them personally, but rather the act of observing an ever repeating pattern of christians being show to be hypocrites. If you want to call that judgment, fine, but I can think of a whole host of things better deserving of that description. Most of them belong solely to religion.
Perhaps we need to begin re-evaluate our opinions on what comprises hypocrisy as applied to Christians…
It’s impossible to live up to God’s standards, but claiming a belief that those standards are the best possible way to live one’s life is not hypocritical, even if one is unable to live their life that way.
If a smoker tells others that smoking is bad for them, the fact that he or she continues to smoke does not take away from the truth of their assertion. Does it make them a hypocrite? Perhaps… but who’s going to scrutinize them in the way non-Christians scrutinize Christians?
I’m sure if someone were to follow you, me, or any other person we know around during our daily routine it would be quite easy to find instances of “hypocrisy” is all of our lives. It’s pretty disingenuous to imply that Christians are any more hypocritical than anyone else.
Donny, judgement is a part of human thought processes. Every idea that crosses our minds is judged. The idea that being judgemental is wrong is a myth perpetuated by those who fear being judged for their actions. When ideas are evaluated, this is a process of judgement. We would not be rational people if we did not use our judgement, for example. Don’t fall into that trap of believing that there is the slightest thing wrong with judgement in any way.
Christians don’t get to use a different definition of hypocrisy than anyone else. Everyone has their minor hypocrisies, but this does not excuse anything.
All ideas should be open to criticism. Often the accusations of being judgemental are just a sneaky trick, a way of saying that there are some ideas that simply should not be criticized. This is simply untrue. Don’t fall for those kind of deceptions.
This isn’t about judging Ted Haggard, it is about the IRONY of what he preached. As a matter of fact, about what some religious folks still preach. 1. They believe that God watches them at ALL times, yet they sin and SIN hard. 2. They teach homosexuality is a choice that can be cured with God’s help. 3. They preach and preach and they seem to have this trail of fallen preachers.
Aor,
What you wrote is a bit amusing to me, because I feel it should be directed at those who dog on Christians for being “judgmental” or “hypocritical”. It seems you missed my point. As you mentioned, all of us are both judgmental and hypocritical. Why is it that those who don’t hold beliefs of “faith” expect those who do to be any different?
“If a smoker tells others that smoking is bad for them, the fact that he or she continues to smoke does not take away from the truth of their assertion. Does it make them a hypocrite? Perhaps… but who’s going to scrutinize them in the way non-Christians scrutinize Christians?”
Telling someone smoking is bad doesn’t need scrutinization, because both sides already know it’s true. It’s not up for debate. Telling someone that God hates gays, however, is, first of all, not something you can prove, and second of all, hypocritical if you live a secret gay life yourself. If he hadn’t kept it a secret, at least he would have been openly hypocritical, but acting as if he were living by the rules he dictated is what it makes it so much worse.
I’m not implying that christians are more hypocritical than other people. I am, however, implying that the willing followers of an organized religion dictating one rule, while at the same time ignoring said rule, are worse hypocrites than any other person.
Regarding judgment:
I can’t speak for anyone else here, but I certainly don’t judge him for being gay. I don’t judge him for hiding that fact either. I don’t even judge him for being a christian. I AM, however, pointing out the fact that he is an enormous hypocrite for being a christian preaching anti-gay philosophies while at the same time being gay, and hiding it because of previously mentioned hypocrisy. I guess you could call that judgment, and if so then yes, I am judging him. Then again, I think you’d have a hard time finding someone who wouldn’t judge him based on this knowledge. Don’t you think he’s a hypocrite? And if you do, aren’t you judging him as well?
Martin,
Why people just to focus on uneducated Christians as a representation of Christianity is something I can’t understand. Any Christian who claims “God hates gays” isn’t a person who should be a representative of any sort. A person of Christian faith with any brain whatsoever would instead say that “God loves sinners, but hates sin”.
I have a son, and may not like it when he breaks my rules, but will always love him no matter what. God is a perfect parent, far better than I could possibly be. The same is true for Him.
To any reasonable person, bad behaving Christians do not invalidate Christianity, but only reflect poorly on themselves.
If you really comprehend the point I’m trying to make, you’d see why the word “christian” is unnecessarily used before the word “preaching” in the sentence fragment I just quoted.
The words “being a christian” should be removed, in other words.
This sentence would should much less bias:
“I AM, however, pointing out the fact that he is an enormous hypocrite for preaching anti-gay philosophies while at the same time being gay”
“Cue the not-a-true-Christian claims.”
- Proto
Donny:
He believes (or says he believes) just as much as any other christian, intelligent or not. Whether you like it or not, he IS a representative of christianity. I’ve had this exact same argument with a colleague of mine, who, in the end, had to concede that yes, even dumb christians are, in fact, christians. I can also add that I was quite drunk while debating this with him, and he was quite sober.
I am not biased for stating that many christians are hypocrites. I can state that many drivers are hypocrites as well, as are many waiters and garbage men. The topic here, however, is christianity and christians, which is why I’m only mentioning them.
I’m going to fix one of your sentences as well:
“To any reasonable person, bad behaving people do not invalidate mankind, but only reflect poorly on themselves.”
There’s no need to put religion in there, as it applies equally well to everyone on earth. Are you biased towards everybody, Donny? No? Well, good then :)
Sure, a Christian is a Christian… but to look at one and create biases that apply to all… is folly.
Donny:
The very point was that we haven’t just looked at one… We see the same thing over and over and over again, making it hard to expect that these people are really the ONLY ones out of all the millions of christians in the world. Logically, then, it begs the question why so many people proclaim to be christians if they won’t follow the rules anyway. It’s one thing to believe in a god, gods or even God. To be a christian, however, is another step beyond, and a step you shouldn’t take if you’re not ready to conform to organized religion.
If these people aren’t really christians, what are they? And what are you? Are you sure someone else doesn’t have higher standards to which you can’t hold yourself? How do you know that they’re not the “real” christians and that you yourself isn’t one of the “untrue” christians you’ve… well, judged.
It’s pretty simple, Martin: the fact that living a perfect life is NOT possible is the very reason Jesus is needed at all. To reconcile with God we have two choices: (1) living a perfect life or (2) accepting Jesus’ perfect life as a substitute for our own imperfect life. Being a Christian simply means accepting Jesus Christ as our substitute.
That’s it.
This is a great discussion–
If this were poker, I’d go ahead and deal my chips to Donny. By whatever means he has argued what he has, and by whatever semantic variations (which can be argued ad infinitum on any board), I think his central point is about bias and judgment. I disagree with Aor that “to be judgmental is to be human” or some such conjunction–that’s a dangerous idea. Making “judgment” a universal is way too permissive and presumptuous. But more important than “judgments” is what precedes those judgments, which is a reflexive exceptionalism, either subjective or collective. Exceptionalism is what’s universal here. Isn’t the most efficient form of ideology that which conceals its own exceptionalist mechanisms from its subscribers, to the point that they can rationalize their actions based on an external entity, whether that agency is “God” or a “reality”?
Donny Pauling,
Yes, except for the fact that if it weren’t for Christianity, he wouldn’t be preaching an anti-gay philosophy. Therefore, it is relevant.
Donny:
Well, that argument won’t fly with me since I don’t believe in Jesus, but basically you’re saying that christians can do whatever the hell they want, since Jesus’ life was perfect. Doesn’t that mean that God doesn’t care what you do? Why should you even try to be good, if Jesus has already provided the “perfect life”? Why even try, when you’ve guaranteed we can’t ever succeed?
Martin,
No matter what my son does, even if he turns out to be a serial killer, he will be my son, and I will love him. Will there be consequences for bad choices? Of course. That’s life. But no matter what, I’m his dad.
The same goes for God… accepting Jesus as the substitute for our imperfect lives reconciles us to Him. Will there be consequences for our actions? Undoubtedly. But acceptance of Christ as our substitute guarantees a reconciliation with God.
Fear of eternal torment should never be a reason to expect good behavior. What so many fail to see is that LOVE is the reason to behave well. What do I mean by that? Well, let’s use an example:
Would you ever want to be married to a person you had to force to love you? Would you want to married to a person who was only faithful to you out of fear? Of course not! God wants us to CHOOSE to love Him. And that LOVE is what changes lives. When a young man meets a new love interest, his life usually changes (especially at the beginning of their relationship) simply because he wants to make her happy. She doesn’t have to ask him to change… he just does. If someone were to fall in love with Jesus, their life is likewise changed. Not because they “can’t do whatever the hell they want”, but simply because they don’t WANT to anymore.
I am a gay man. I am also a former pentecostal minister. Judgementalism is a side alley off the four lane highway of homophobia. Haggard is an example of the craziness that happens when an internally (seeming) consistent morality/belief system smacks up into the wall of reality.
And please, do not tell us how god loves the sinner and hates the sin when it is the gay man who is to be executed as is stated in Leviticus.
Donny Pauling,
Interesting comments.
You said:
“Fear of eternal torment should never be a reason to expect good behavior. What so many fail to see is that LOVE is the reason to behave well. What do I mean by that?”
So by forcing us to accept him or be tortured forever, how is love the reason to behave well? I don’t get it.
So either cooperate or burn? Yeah, it’s a choice, but I don’t think it’s a loving one. It’s a mugger’s choice. Not a father’s choice.
A father would say “do what I say or I’ll punish you” at times, but never “do what I say or I’ll beat you”. That’s just not right. Not even “do what I say or my lackey will beat you”.
I don’t see how “do what I want or you’ll burn forever with my lackey Satan” is loving.
We know that poor choices have consequences. However, we do have a standard of justice, and hell fails our standard of justice.
Now, you may say that your god doesn’t need to adhere to our standards. Yet it repeatedly states in the Bible that its god is just.
If the Biblical god specifically tells us that he is just, then he must be if it is true. If these things are not just, then either the god of the Bible is a liar or the Bible is wrong.
For what good would it be for a god to tell us that he is just and then act injustly? The god of the Bible’s justice must actually be just, or else it is a lie.
The saddest part of all this is that Ted Haggard *could* be a happy man leading a fulfilling life—if not for his religion.
It is 2009, and people are still forced into lives of self-loathing and shame because a few thousand years ago some goat-herds learned to write.
If you’ve ever seen Dawkins’ The Root of All Evil doco, you’ll recall how Haggard is reasonable (well, in the social sense) during the interview — and then goes ballistic on them afterwards in the parking lot. Knowing what we know now, it begins to make sense: there’s a guy with some serious issues, leading to emotional instability.
And of all the prominent evangelists, the only one whom it would surprise me to find out that he has some serious skeletons in the closet re sexual and/or substance abuse issues, would be Billy Graham. He’s wrong about damn near everything, but I think he’s generally an honest man.
@ Question-I-thority:
If, by “Pentecostal”, you are referring to the Pentecostal Church of God or something similar, I’m not surprised you don’t know that much about Levitical law. I was raised in the PC of G, where Ministers were ordained by taking a simplistic correspondence course. No formal education was required, and actually seemed to be frowned upon. How sad.
In Leviticus, “abomination” simply meant “unclean. Other abominations included eating shellfish and charging interest on money lent. Studying context exegetically, it’s apparent that Levitical law as meant for Jews to separate them from all other peoples. The reason is because God planned to bring the savior of the world through them. I’m sure you recall Jesus stating that He didn’t come to abolish the law but to fulfill it, right? His birth fulfilled Levitical law. If Jews believed in Him, they’d be free of all those requirements because the reason for them has been fulfilled.
There is always a reason behind the things we’re asked to do or to abstain from. God doesn’t just make up random rules for his amusement. I’d highly recommend reading this book:
http://www.amazon.com/What-Bible-Really-About-Homosexuality/dp/188636009X
@ Teleprompter:
We’re given free will. We are able to decide if we’d like to form a relationship with God, or not. “Hell” is eternal separation from God, not some burning pit of fire. When Jesus spoke of hell, the root word is Gehenna. Gehenna was a literal place near Jerusalem that had become the town dump by Jesus’ time. Garbage was burned there. People went there when despondent, weeping and wailing and gnashing their teeth. Gehenna was believed to be a cursed place, and murders had been committed there as well. Jesus wanted to save people from a life like those who went to Gehenna in despair. He wasn’t talking about a literal lake of fire.
Again… study. For yourself. Don’t take the word of others on Biblical meanings when they don’t even speak Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic, nor understand the culture of the time.
@Donny
We don’t. The ones that consistently ask to be treated differently are theists. They ask to be immune to criticism, immune to being judged by their words and by their actions. All of us can and must be judged by our words and actions. All of us must strive to overcome our hypocrisies. Nobody gets a free ride. Yet consistently your side asks, demands, a free ride. Theists demand that their religion gets special treatment.
PS. Free will is impossible if god is all knowing. I’m sure you can find a simple demonstration of this concept.
@Question-I-thority
Sorry, no. Its not the concept of judging that is at fault here, it is the particular topic that is being judged and in what manner. We can and should judge child molestors, rapists, murderers. There is nothing inherently wrong with the concept of judgement. The problems come from judging people on the basis of their sexuality when it harms nobody. Judgement is a tool, and any problems with it are due to misapplying it, not with the concept of judgement itself.
Donny:
You mention some interesting things that at least I didn’t know before. However, there’s still the problem of believing that God exists, and that the bible is actually his words, or his will. Even if you can show plenty of examples of mistranslations or misunderstandings, that doesn’t make the bible more true. It makes it more reasonable that men, simple men, wrote the texts that would later make up the bible, with the world views and knowledge that they had at that time. It really doesn’t make any sense for almighty God to write a book that only really applies to one, single era in time, and that has to be translated and transformed to be able to comprehend it in today’s society.
And this free will thing… That bothers me. What is the point of God, or rather the point of God creating man, if we all have free will anyway? Except for our existence being a huge social experiment, I can’t see how creating mankind is anything but a selfish pastime for a lonely God who likes to watch his disciples fight within themselves over who loves him the most. It’s all completely irrational.
Donny-
The explain the lake of fire in revelations…
Then, not the
Donny
Since you raise the question: 1) I was not in the the holiness wing of pentecostalism; and, 2) I have a masters degree in religion. I didn’t raise the issue of ‘abomination’ which is usually used in relation to ritual taboos. I raised the issue of God demanding that gay men be killed. As a good parent would you kill your children (let alone cast them into hell fire) for sinning or engaging in homosexuality? He also tells his followers to kill their rebellious teen agers. The biblical god’s demands are horribly evil. In the Noah narrative he commits humanicide. He blesses slavery. He commands that every living thing in certain city states including babies and animals be slaughtered. Etc., Etc, Etc.
Finally, your view of sin and redemption rests upon a god who needs a human sacrifice and flowing blood to appease his sense of ‘holiness’. Why? What’s wrong with him? And then to top it off each individual must also “accept” the sacrificer as a personal savior or the saving act doesn’t work and he tosses you in a lake of fire.
I know this picture is about something else, but I can’t help but think that this is exactly how I perceive religion. This is exactly how I see religious people. This is the very essence of a person who chooses to believe.
http://fc51.deviantart.com/fs28/f/2008/061/8/9/Reality_1440x900_by_pyxelated.jpg
Now it’s time for bed, before I too end up like this guy… :)
@Donny Pauling
I don’t feel being judgemental is hypocrisy when what you’re judging is the behaviour of someone who claims to be a spiritual leader, claims god will punish fags in his private torture chamber for eternity just for liking the same sex, and spends his Saturday nights doing meth and blowing guys.
I’d say judging that person to be a hypocritical jackass is completely fine.
Wanna know what’d make me change my mind about Ted Haggard? If he manned up and said, “I’m queer/bi, out, Christian and proud.”
Instead he’s saying “I used to be sorta gay but I got over it.”
That’s as may be, but I bet his wife doesn’t let him out at night without an escort–and not the kind he used to like, either.
Donny wrote:
>God is a perfect parent, far better than I could possibly be. The same is true for Him.<
But of course there is no God. You only think there is. And that’s why you don’t want to admit that Ted Haggard is a Christian, one who said he believed that the chief document of Christians, the Bible, claims homosexuality is an abomination. You’d rather call him a hypocrite but leave the "Christian" tag off him.
The truth is that he is a Christian who believes homosexuality is an abomination. Except, of course, he doesn’t believe it – he practices it.
Perhaps we all are hypocrites in one way or another. But Haggard’s way was as the leader of thousands and thousands of Christians, and Haggard claimed to speak on behalf of his god. And he said his god told him it was wrong to have sex with someone of the same sex.
Therefore Haggard, who practiced what he preached against, deserves derision and opprobrium.
The reality, of course, is that there are no gods, including the one you believe in. Your bible is full of contradictions and absurdities, all of which you overlook as you cherry pick what you want to believe from its pages.
By the way, I don’t believe you, Donny, when you say you would love your son even if he were a serial killer. It’s easy to say it, because it dovetails with your absurd claim that your god loves people (even while condemning them to hell).
Unless you have a serial killer for a son, it’s ridiculous to say you’d love him. But you have to say it, otherwise your own ridiculous belief system might not survive the hit.
Donny wrote:
<Would you want to married to a person who was only faithful to you out of fear? Of course not!God wants us to CHOOSE to love Him. And that LOVE is what changes lives.<
Humans exist, some of whom marry. However, as there is no god, the above statement is an absurdity.
Donny wrote:
>it’s apparent that Levitical law as meant for Jews to separate them from all other peoples I’m sure you recall Jesus stating that He didn’t come to abolish the law but to fulfill it, right? <
No, I can’t say I recall that. Just how old ARE you, Donny?
Haggard = theocracy fail
Donny, the hypocrisy is in fact different for Haggard. As a Christian minister, he attempted to force his religious beliefs on others, specifically by actively opposing gay rights in secular society. And while, of course, engaging in those same activities himself.
This if far worse than saying, “You shouldn’t over drink” while over drinking. This is more akin to trying to pass laws keeping anyone from being able to drink, while drinking.
Yes, we are all hypocrites. Everyone has given advice that they didn’t themselves follow. That’s a bit different from working to pass laws prohibiting behavior you yourself engage in.
And the reason that Christians get singled out for this sort of criticism by unbelievers, is because no unbeliever claims to have the perfect rule system everyone else should live by. Christians do.
God as a perfect parent? Are you serious? Even a kid with the worst deadbeat dad ever can at least prove his father exists.
On the topic of judgement, I have to agree with Aor. Judging is a fundamental aspect of intelligence and reason. Without it, it is only possible to make decisions based on either external ‘wisdom’ or by randomly choosing.
There is something wrong with being judgemental however, and I’m assuming that this is what Jesus would have meant if I could ascertain his historicity. Rather, judgement is something that should be reserved for decisions, like whether or not that green thing you found in the wilderness is edible. It’s not for deciding that some groups are just evil, wrong or unnatural – perhaps it’s not for you, but that as far as you should go.
“2. Inclined to make judgments, especially moral or personal ones…”
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/judgemental
Oh yeah, in regards to lists of Christians, the self-proclaimed moral elite, behaving badly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_evangelist_scandals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
There’s also this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_convicted_religious_leaders
@Proto
Yes but they weren’t true Christians were they?
I am so sick of this “God hates the sin loves the sinner” crap. I am truly sorry that Haggard would rather deny who he is than step away from his religion and think for one minute.
I came from a southern baptist family and have begun changing my thoughts about organized religion drastically. I find it sickening how so many “christians” (especially the baptists I have encountered) hate homosexuality so much that they would do anything to promote the hatred of it. To me, sex and sexual orientation is such a small part of who someone is. And why is that almost always considered the ultimate sin in their eyes?
It should not matter that Haggard screwed a man, what should matter is that he cheated on his wife, lied about it, etc etc. But the only focus is that he slept with a man. Would he get the same press if he slept with women?
I know, I know, the fact that he preached against gays is the big issue too – it always is. I have found the ones who are so strongly outspoken against gays are usually in the closet themselves.
And again, as I stated in another discussion thread – if God truly created everyone, then he created gays.
I went to New Life for a while (before my “de-conversion”). I know the Haggard family personally. Yes, the situation has its ironies, but rather than spending time deciding whether to judge or not to judge, I just feel immense sadness about this thing in every direction. I’m sad for his family. I’m sad for all the people who blindly went to New Life for so long, looking for direction and spiritual strength while they were being deceived and all this was going on in the background. I’m sad for this kid Grant, who I’m sure is going to have a lot of complicated things to think through. I’m sad for Ted Haggard, who is clearly conflicted, misguided, desperate, and still entrenched in the gay-condemning Christianity that held him down and apparently made him miserable for so long. How much happier could he be right now if he had dealt with his homosexuality in a positive way? That is such a sad way to live your life.
I want to go to all these Christians who are “struggling” with homosexuality, or more accurately, struggling with the Church’s hatred of homosexuality, and tell them, “It’s okay. We don’t hate you for being gay. It can become a part of your life, and trying to repress it doesn’t have to consume your life any more. Come to the atheist side – you can be gay over here, and you’ll be so much happier and fulfilled and I’ll bake you cookies.” But, doesn’t that sound unnervingly like atheist evangelism? You can probably tell what sort of Christian I used to be. This time I mean it, though. Test me – I really will bake you cookies!
Also, for what it’s worth, local news here has stated that since Grant (the young volunteer) came forward, six or seven other men have also reported encounters with Ted Haggard, and until now, New Life has been able to keep them all under wraps.
Haggard’s problem is that he keeps getting caught in lies. Whether Haggard is a Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, atheist or agnostic, Haggard keeps on lying and bringing onto himself the distrust and social ostracization he is experiencing.
It is sad that Ted Haggard is the example set up for what all Christians are like. It is the same poor excuse that blames all of Christianity for the downfalls of a few who have abandoned their faith and chosen to live sinful lives. True, he has no excuse, especially because of his position of being a church leader—but again, don’t blame all Christians because of the sick ones who use a belief in Christ as a shade to hide their improprieties. These folks make the news because they have abused their status as leaders, deceived others, and are living contradictory lives. Meanwhile, the ordinary everyday Christians who are trying to do the right thing and just live their life the best they can are ignored because Ted Haggard is making the news and has smeared the name of Christ by his actions.
Please don’t judge all Christians as living their lives the way this man has.
I just want to point out the the judgemental meme comes out of Christianity, specifically where Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount supposedly said, ‘judge not lest ye be judged’. The concept is deeply rooted in the theology of sin.
As skeptics we have the right to examine and think freely about anything at all including Haggard’s deeply conflicted, hypocritical life. It’s right for us to discuss such matters and follow the truth. When we do it’s not like we might go out and stone the man to death or throw him in a lake of fire. The worst he’ll get from us is a little ridicule.
I think it’s off point for us to get caught up in christian memes.
goldenrod22,
You said:
“but again, don’t blame all Christians because of the sick ones who use a belief in Christ as a shade to hide their improprieties”
If it wasn’t for Christianity, Ted Haggard wouldn’t have thought that being gay or having homosexual desires was an impropriety!!
He probably would’ve accepted it and moved on with his life. If it wasn’t for his religion, Haggard probably wouldn’t have had to hide this and let it consume him for most of his life.
Why shouldn’t I judge his religion when it obviously prevented him from being at peace? Why should I respect religion if it is a malevolent influence on someone’s life? It didn’t have to be that way.
I think there are two types of people who preach against homosexuality to the apparent exclusion of all other sins.
The first category are those people who see it as an “easy” sin to attack because they’re not tempted by it. If they spoke out against greed, or anger, or lust, they’d have to face the fact that they’re sinners too. But, because they’re not gay, they’re in no danger of committing this particular sin, so they label it as “the most important sin”, and feel righteous in their avoidance of it.
The second category are people like Haggard: They are attracted to men, so they assume everyone else is too, and that this is a sin that their congregation needs to actively guard against. These are the people for whom claiming that “homosexuality is a choice” makes sense; they assume everyone is bi, and people choose to act on that or not.
Actually, there’s probably a third category, too: People who’ve seen homosexuality pushed to such prominence in the national religious discourse that they just assume that’s the way it is, and never stop to think about why homosexuality should be any worse than eating shrimp. This category wouldn’t exist until the first two become large enough to be setting the tone of the dialogue, but after a while it would become self-sustaining.