Evangelical leader quits

User Forum Topic
Submitted by PerryChase on November 2, 2006 - 9:35pm

Evangelical leader quits, denies male escort's allegations

(CNN) -- The president of the National Association of Evangelicals resigned Thursday after denying an accusation by a male prostitute that the pastor paid him for sex over three years.

The Rev. Ted Haggard said he is also temporarily stepping aside from the pulpit of his church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, pending an internal investigation by the church.

The National Association of Evangelicals is an umbrella group for more than 45,000 churches and some 30 million members across the country.


CNN Story

---------------
This is for you guys who think that conservative religious people are morally righteous. They are just hiding their own demons.

BTW, I think there's nothing wrong with being gay. The guy should be man enough to admit it and come to terms with it. And perhaps help others who are struggling with self-acceptance.

In my view, a morally righteous person is one who lives life with compassion and caring rather than going around denouncing others.

Submitted by L_Thek_onomics on November 2, 2006 - 10:44pm.

It's very interesting. The misbehaving on the right resigns, the
misbehaving on the left is defended by screaming militant leftists,
and stays...

L Thek

Submitted by PerryChase on November 2, 2006 - 10:50pm.

..... because it's not misbehaving at all. It's misbehaving only if you say so. Sex is a normal part of life. What's wrong with it?

Submitted by deadzone on November 2, 2006 - 11:16pm.

Someone should re-write the bible so that homosexuality is allowed, then these priest won't have to go to hell.

Submitted by CardiffBaseball on November 3, 2006 - 1:32am.

There No One is Righteous, Not Even One..

I believe if you check Perry (and remember Jehovah's are not Christian), you'll find that the premise of Chrisitanity is that everyone is sinful. Just because someone looks good on the outside doesn't mean they are on the inside.

I say...Yawn. Schadenfreud for haters, extreme disappointment for others, but for most christians, just a big, "Yes so what". Personally I never really believe the holier than thou types and try to avoid churches like that. I'd much rather have a relationship where a friend said to me "I am thinking about going to a male (or female) hooker" but generally people spend less public time on their struggles which is too bad because they might stop bad behaviors otherwise.

Oh, I define any married man going to any hookers (male or female) as bad behavior, so what I mean is it would be nice to talk someone out of that ahead of time. If this guy really did this stuff, then he is a hypocrite, no doubt.

Submitted by lostkitty on November 3, 2006 - 5:18am.

This country has gone nuts. Everyone is all a-twitter over this guy being a fake and hypocritical.

In other countries, the people would snicker at the news, and the guy would have to find a new job. Here... we talk and discuss, and talk some more. It is pathetic.

How many man-years were wasted writing about and analyzing Clinton's famous b.j.?

Submitted by PD on November 3, 2006 - 7:56am.

I dislike religious extremism. I could care less whether someone is homosexual. In fact, I think that many people are just born that way and that it is a natural state of small percentage of our species.
Sometimes those who condemn the loudest are secretly engaged in those activities. If he was a loud condemner, and these allegations are true, then I’m glad he was shown up for hypocrite. If they are untrue (which is very possible – why is everybody so anxious to believe a prostitute?), then I feel a little sorry for him.

Submitted by woodrow on November 3, 2006 - 9:20am.

If they are untrue (which is very possible – why is everybody so anxious to believe a prostitute?), then I feel a little sorry for him.

Haggard has admitted to "indescretions" and the prostitute has letters and voicemails from Haggard.

 

 

Submitted by PD on November 3, 2006 - 9:24am.

The prostitute "claims" to have these things but has yet to produce them. There are only a few days left before a vote on same sex marriage in that state. This prostitute may be trying to influence the vote.

Submitted by woodrow on November 3, 2006 - 9:26am.

It's very interesting. The misbehaving on the right resigns, the misbehaving on the left is defended by screaming militant leftists, and stays... L Thek

The most powerful evangelical in America is exposed as a philandering hypocrit and this guys response is to point fingers at "leftists".

What a joke.

 

Submitted by PD on November 3, 2006 - 9:32am.

Woodrow, I think you are taking these allegations as truth because you WANT them to be true. Maybe they are, maybe are not. There is NO TRUTH yet in this story. Who has heard these tapes? Tested the bills for DNA or fingerprints?

For the record, I do not oppose same sex marriage. I am NOT defending this guy because I share his position on this issue. I am defending him because everyone has decided he is guilty without any real proof.

Submitted by no_such_reality on November 3, 2006 - 10:07am.

This prostitute may be trying to influence the vote.

Yep, it's put up or shut up time for the Pro.

If he doesn't have it, the AG needs to find a way to prosecute him under election tampering laws.

If he has it... let the chips fall.

Submitted by jg on November 3, 2006 - 10:39am.

See zk, PC, PS et al.: PD's on the wrong side of the aisle on the same sex marriage issue, yet we right-wingers are not off to pillory her, and are even happy to accept her in our big Republican tent.

May the good reverend find his way over to the Anglican/Episcopal Church, where this stuff is celebrated, and he's now eligible for a bishopric (pun intended).

Submitted by PD on November 3, 2006 - 11:08am.

JG, sorry to disappoint! I’m glad I’m not going to be tossed out on my ear. :)

Submitted by PD on November 3, 2006 - 11:08am.

duplicate

Submitted by woodrow on November 3, 2006 - 1:00pm.

Woodrow, I think you are taking these allegations as truth because you WANT them to be true. Maybe they are, maybe are not. There is NO TRUTH yet in this story. Who has heard these tapes? Tested the bills for DNA or fingerprints?

You don't know anything about me - yet you're claiming my motives in posting information provided by mainstream news is b/c I "want them to be true"?

From MSNBC:

The Rev. Ted Haggard admitted Friday he bought methamphetamine and received a massage from a gay prostitute who claims he was paid for drug-fueled trysts by the former head of the National Association of Evangelicals. Mike Jones, the 49-year-old Denver man who raised the allegations this week, quickly refuted Haggard’s denial. Shortly after Haggard told reporters outside his home, "I bought it for myself but never used it. I was tempted, but I never used it,” Jones told MSNBC-TV’s Rita Cosby that Haggard snorted meth in front of him about once a month for two years.

 

 

Submitted by North County Jim on November 3, 2006 - 1:59pm.

May the good reverend find his way over to the Anglican/Episcopal Church, where this stuff is celebrated, and he's now eligible for a bishopric (pun intended).

jg, that reminds of a joke I must share.

Q. Why don't Episcopalians play chess?

A. They don't know the difference between a queen and a bishop.

Submitted by PD on November 3, 2006 - 2:04pm.

Woodrow, this is the first I have seen of any admission. This is certainly proof that Haggard used meth (his denial that he was tempted but never used is bull) and increases the likelihood that the rest of the story is true. Clearly, you had read this additional information and I had not. I apologize.

Submitted by jg on November 3, 2006 - 2:07pm.

Ha, ha, NCJ; thanks!

Submitted by no_such_reality on November 3, 2006 - 3:16pm.

The Article Reverend meth

Sounds like the voicemails have been released and the local station has a person comparing them.

Submitted by PerryChase on November 3, 2006 - 8:22pm.

I didn't even know who Haggard was until yesterday.

I grew up a Catholic and I find the evangelical services so not spiritual. It's like going to a sales convention.

Interesting youtube.com video on Haggard. He sounds so arrogant and I'm glad that he got exposed.


http://youtube.com/watch?v=wkUi6dhwWx0&mode=related&search=

 

Submitted by lostkitty on November 4, 2006 - 7:23am.

Shocking tid-bit from the youtube movie (thanks for posting it BTW Perry - my sister in law was showing me photos from a trip to Colorado, and she and her kids went there. they loved the place).

From the movie: "He is a staunch Republican who claims he has a weekly conference call with George Bush."

WEEKLY!!!!!!!

Like, totally gag me with a spoon.

Submitted by LA_Renter on November 4, 2006 - 3:14pm.

This is obviously a big story, this Haggard guy is the president of the National Association of Evangelicals which has about 30 million members, that is 10% of the nation's population. And you are right lostkitty he met on a regular basis with Karl Rove and George Bush. This is a key and critical voting bloc of the GOP. Right now that voting bloc has just been hit in the stomach. If Evangelicals do not come out and vote the GOP is toast, more than it already is on Tuesday.

The history of Evangelicals is that they shied away from politics after the Scopes trial in the 1920's. They decided Government was something to be left to politicians. It wasn't until the late 70's that they became active again in reaction to the social chaos and changes of the 60's. That fueled the rise of Reagan in 1980 and was a major factor in shifting the country's politics to the right. Karl Rove identified that although evangelicals were voting in greater numbers there were still a large number of evangelicals not voting. So the GOP carved out wedge issues to attract these new potential voters such as abortion and especially gay marriage. And they took the bait. IMO the end result is not that desirable given the we are so polarized as a country right now. I'm sick of this red state, blue state crap. The revelation of Mark Foley, this very prominent leader of the evangelical movement along with the other scandals and corruption of the GOP could mark a shift in how evangelicals view the world of power politics. So there is alot more going on here than meets the eye.

Submitted by jg on November 4, 2006 - 7:21pm.

LAR and LK, I wouldn't get too excited, yet. Evangelicals have seen scandal in the leadership before -- Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart -- and they pick up and go on.

I recommend that you lefties keep digging, though. You are performing a useful service, and are helping us clean up the mess in our midst.

Submitted by jg on November 4, 2006 - 7:49pm.

To me, the most sordid affair amongst religious leaders was the one involving the president of Hillsdale College.  It was tragic, and well illustrated the dictum, 'Truth is stranger than fiction':

http://www.nationalreview.com/06dec99/miller120699.html

No, we Christians aren't surprised by sin; we sin all the time.  We just know that if we weren't bound by our precepts, that we would be a lot worse.

Submitted by LA_Renter on November 4, 2006 - 9:42pm.

I'm actually not a leftie, more of a libertarian although I find myself siding with lefties this election cycle. Feels kind of weird actually. I agree with you evangelicals will pick up and move on, I just think many will rethink exactly how involved in politics should they be. Evangelicals are in the business to save souls not win elections. I think their is a rift that is going to play out in that community and this pastor with the gay prostitute thing could be the spark of that debate. There is also a rift in the GOP about the role of evangelicals and libertarians like myself. Dick Army wrote an excellent op ed in the Washington Post about this fissure. Its called "Where We Went Wrong" here is the link, it's an interesting read. There are going to be many heated discussions inside the big tent.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

Submitted by jg on November 4, 2006 - 10:46pm.

LAR, thanks for the link; good article.

I read the article to mean that Republicans need to return to small government/less spending.

"...After that fight (over the '95 Federal government shutdown), too many Republicans apparently concluded that America wanted bigger government...Since the party won the majority in 1994, the GOP Conference had been consistent in requiring offsetting spending cuts for any new spending initiatives....But by the summer of 1997, the appropriators...had begun to pass spending bills with Democrats."

Whoever champions and delivers smaller government will win the libertarians. That could be a Southern Democrat or a traditional Republican (not Arnie or Bloomie).

Submitted by barnaby33 on November 4, 2006 - 10:57pm.

JG the problem that the small govt Republicanism is that its alot like Communism. It only works in theory. Everyone wants THEIR issues addressed. Whether its the potholes in the road outside, or keeping those pesky minorities, gay and otherwise at bay. The only way for EITHER party to address these multiple and mutually exclusive interests is to buy them off.

Lets just say for the sake of argument that it could be done, where would you cut? Military spending ie Iraq? Entitlements perhaps, those are a conservative favorite! Education, who needs it, other than to read the bible of course. Road building, ah you never really wanted to leave Texas anyway. Ooooh ooh I know, the UN! Yeah lets get rid of the UN! See what I mean?

Josh

Submitted by jg on November 4, 2006 - 11:27pm.

Yes, Josh, it is difficult. But it's not that difficult: Social Security and Medicare should be means tested and modest, and be characterized as welfare; government has no role in farm price supports; no more $100K per year prison guards; etc.

Texas and many other states have part-time legislatures. Gives the bums less time to mess things up. And, they have to earn a living and pay taxes. California should go that path.

The good news is that the bums will be FORCED to cut and prioritize during the upcoming recession/depression: lower tax receipts, higher demands from competing interests, and, for the Feds, no more endless loans from the Japanese and Chinese. Can't come soon enough for me.

Submitted by barnaby33 on November 5, 2006 - 9:23am.

I would be willing to put a few dollars on Texas getting a full time legislature before California goes part time.

As to the rest, I haven't seen that recessions have meant a cut in govt spending, quite the contrary. Realize though that I have only been cognizant of such things since Reagan.

The only practical way to go back to a small/limited form of govt is to radically reduce the population. The more rats you have in the maze the more rules you have to govern their interactions. I'd be all for introducing laws to curb population growth effectively. I would say that most conservatives, those who profess a taste for small govt, would not.

Josh

Submitted by L_Thek_onomics on November 5, 2006 - 10:58am.

"I'm actually not a leftie, more of a libertarian although I find myself siding with lefties this election cycle."

The libertarian on the side of lefties is a leftie. You can put lipstick
on the pig, is still a pig. I'm sure you're for legalizing pot, but don't
mind to screw the cigarette smokers (great accomplishment of the LEFT!!!). You're against government intrusion into property rights,
but don't mind to screw the bar and restaurant owners (another great
accomplishment of the LEFT!!!). Let the left get rid of the Patriot Act
(as they indicated before), so some suicide maniacs can freely blow up
Christmas shoppers in malls. The new American Left are a bunch of
neo-bolsheviks with one goal in mind, to destroy the only defender of
Liberty, America. Siding with the left is the ultimate hypocrisy.

L Thek

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.