Talk Elections

A male prostitute alleges that he had a three-year relationship with prominent right-wing evangelical leader Ted Haggard, who is the president of the 30 million + member National Association of Evangelicals. Haggard consults with President Bush and/or his operatives every Monday.

Haggard immediately stepped down as both pastor and head of the NAE. He says he going to seek spiritual guidance. The male prostitute claims to have voice messages, financial transactions, and letters from Haggard.

This is just breaking - so time will tell how it pans out. I doubt the evangelical crowd is going to be thrilled with this.

#1 rule: Always have your hoe sign a confidentiality agreement.

No glove non-disclosure agreement, no love.

This is sweet, sweet, unsurprising irony.

Haggard's tirades against gays are the stuff of legend.

When I saw this story beak on CNN, my jaw dropped.

Wow.

Oh, I also missed a detail of this. The male prositute claims Haggard used methamphetamine around him.

Or, the protestute is lying.

I suppose he could be, but claiming to have voice mails and everything too suggests that he might not be.  We'll see.

He would also have to be mighty dumb to make up such a statement.  Not that people are never dumb, but I don't see how anyone would be able to convince himself that any good would come out of making this up.

Really?  It doesn't surprise me a bit.

Not surprising - lots of hypocrites are in positions of power and leadership. I doubt this is made up since the male prostitute would get sued for slander if it was false. Would be a very stupid move to lie about it. Also if was false I don't know if Ted Haggard would have resigned.

Haha. Wow.


Perhaps he'll take the route that McGreevey did and start cavorting about town with his male escort?

Political motive?

Without proof, any political motive he might be trying to promote is gonna be hurt rather than helped by this, especially in the long term, but also in the short term.

Hah, the religious intolerants must feel like they're well and truly infiltrated - first Foley, and now this. 

I wonder if this Haggard is a top or a bottom?

I love how no one else here is considering this possibility.

Wilt Chamberlain was gay.

Haggard did resign on a dime after the allegations were made, and a group of Evangelical leaders that had called a press conference to defend him did cancel it after they spoke with him. These things don't prove the allegations are true, but they sure do lend a lot of credence to the allegations.

Haggard is Bush's main man in the gay bashing arena. If these allegations prove true, I wonder what effect it will have on the relationship between the Evangelicals and the part of the GOP that they have been close to.

edit - and this just in

Carolyn Haggard, spokeswoman for the New Life Church and the pastor's niece, said a four-member church panel will investigate the allegations. The board has the authority to discipline Haggard, including removing him from ministry work.

The acting senior pastor at New Life, Ross Parsley, told KKTV-TV of Colorado Springs that Haggard admitted that some of the accusations were true.

"I just know that there has been some admission of indiscretion, not admission to all of the material that has been discussed but there is an admission of some guilt," Parsley told the station

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/H/HAGGARD_SEX_ALLEGATIONS?SITE=NCHIC&SECTION=US

You would really need to see the culture in Colorado Springs (his base of operations) and how Haggard has molded it on different levels to get why this is such a shocker.

It's also fairly shocking because Haggard is one the main individuals that Bush consults with about the convergence of politics, policy and values issues. Haggard is as responsible for amping up homophobia and divisive wedge issues as any consultant the President uses.

Also, the irony of the president and leader of by far the largest Evangelical body in the country (over 30 million members) being gay has a shock value all its own.

Ted Haggard...spokeswoman Carolyn Haggard?  That can't be a coincidence?

If this is true, this is funny.

who?

First and foremost, if he did what was claimed, he should admit it and repent and God will restore him.

Second, accusations made by one witness against anyone in the leadership of a church should not be entertained. 

1 Timothy 5:19 Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses.

If the witness has evidence (voice messages, etc), then the evidence can act as a second witness.  But, as a church member, I would demand the evidence be presented before I would entertain this accusation.

Ross Parsley is the person that has taken over for Ted Haggard at his church. Hardly one accusation from one person at this point.

As for who Haggard is - he's the most influential evangelical in the country, he has weekly communications with the white house and leads by far the largest evangelical organization in the country.

I guess you can't read: 

If he is admitting it, then it is a done deal.

---


yet, I have never heard of him

That you know so little about the goings on in the evangelical world, and yet are a part of is, is hardly something I can correct.

correct?  How is it even a problem? 

What does that say? "accusations made by one witness against anyone in the leadership of a church should not be entertained."

Thanks for your concern - I can read just fine.

It's not a problem for me that you don't know the leaders that shape the movement of which you are a part.

Why do you argue and stumble over the simplest of concepts?

So far, there are only two witnesses:  the pastor and the prostitute.

If one witncess (the pastor) has agreed with some of the accusations the other witness (the prostitute) is making, then the case can move forward.  And since the accused is acting as a witness against himself, the case is over.

I am simply saying that if just one witness comes forward and accuses someone of doing something, I don't give it the time of day.  But if there are two witnesses, then I will entertain the accusation.  How is that a problem?

LOL!   Since when did Haggard become my leader?

Not your leader - a leader of the movement of which you are a part. Which he is - perhaps the most important one (from a political stand point).

First, He has admitted it to the pastor that is replacing him, and the pastor has gone public with that info.

Second, being that the he has confirmed the accusation - there is more than one person. So that fits within Timothy 5:19 - right?

Since Haggard has admitted it - why would you need to demand more evidence?

What was the point you were trying to make with this post as it related to the the information in this thread?

I am part of a "movement"?  Gee, I never got that memo.

You don't have to be part of a "movement" to agree with others on an issue.

And these so-called leaders' opinion of Harriet Miers didn't stop people like me from writing the White House and my Senators and demanding that her nomination be withdrawn.

You underestimate the power of the individual.

I didn't.  I am not even involved. 


---


Simply to demonstrate I don't agree with how this has been handled.  I would not have even questioned the pastor unless evidence was presented other than simply the word of a single person.

I would have dismissed the witness' testimony until he produced another witness, either in the form of an eyewitness or physical evidence.

Obviously, I don't have to worry about getting picked for jury duty.  For I would never convict a person based on the testimony of a single witness.  In such cases, I don't believe charges should even be pressed.

So you're not a politically active evangelical? Hmmm.

Haggard came down against Miers as well - I wonder who had more suck with the white house, you or Haggard? I wonder if the info you received about Miers that you found to be disturbing originated from the offices of Pastor Ted.

It not that I underestimate the power of the individual, it's that I understand the danger of mixing politics and religion in an overt manner and how that can effect some individuals.

Ah, but if it wasn't for that one individual and the fact that people were willing to listen to him - unlike you are saying should be done - the full scope of this lunatics hypocricy would never be known. Ignorance may be bliss for some - but it never uncovered a truth or helped to solve a problem.

You seem to be following the same formula used by the Catholics to solve their child sex problems.

would never have been known?  The guy says he has tapes.  I simply would demand he produce the evidence (or another eyewitness) before I listened to him or even questioned the accused.

Why should I believe one person over another?  Why should I take a traffic cop's word over a motorist's?  How do I know that cop wasn't abusing his power?  The cop better produce some evidence that a person did what he is accusing, or else I am going to acquit the accused on the basis of lack of evidence. 

Like I said, I would never be picked for jury duty.

So, you're saying that if someone accuses YOU of rape, I am to listen to them and remove you from power even though no evidence has been produced to back up the claim?

Although this would be pretty funny (actually hilarious) if true, a little voice is reminding me "innocent under proven guilty".  I realize that most of the people on this forum have managed to get rid of that voice, but I find it extremely difficult to do so.

Haggard already admitted it.

No, you had indicated you would dismiss one side of the equation in this case, and take the other at their word. You have clarified that since.

Where?  I don't see any admittance.  Resigning from a position is not admittance, btw.

do you people really care about this?

this 'gay outing' business is getting really out of hand.

i had no fing idea who this guy was before this 'news' hit.  i really dont give a good goddamn what he does in his life, and neither should anyone else.

Look a page or so earlier in the thread - the person that took over his church said he confessed to at least a portion of the accusations, there's a link there as well.

He spends his life talking smack about his fellow gays. He's also a key advisor to the President of the United States on values issues and how to merge politics, policy and those value issues. He's also a mouth piece for Bush on those same issues he helps Bush create.

Given that - I think quite a few folks just might take an interest in this - but I can understand why some might not.

That's hearsay, which is interesting, but not dispositive.  Once again I'm asking, where's the admittance?

so what?

he is a hypocrite.  big news!

we all are hypocrites at some point in life.  human nature.

it is also human nature to kick people when they are down.  and that is all that is going on here.

I don't know if Haggard's opinion evolved on Miers, but this is how it begun:


So, Haggard, this so-called leader, was NOT a leader in demanding Miers withdrawal.  And I very much believe it was millions of conservatives like myself, going ballistic from the very moment she was nominated, who turned the tide and got her nomination withdrawn.

Unlike Haggard, I didn’t want a milquetoast rubber stamping Christian on the SCOTUS.  I wanted someone who had excelled in constitutional law who was willing to adhere to the Constitution.

That is NOT hearsay.  He is an eyewitness to Haggard's statement.

Uh, the classic definition of hearsay is one person saying to you that another person told him X or Y.

but that doesn't make me part of Haggard's "movement", just as agreeing with the Dems on certain issues (like min. wage) doesn't make me a Democrat.

I am an individual who picks and chooses the issues I will support, without affiation to any "movement".  

I am a registered Republican, however.

---


As witnessed by EVERYONE'S expressed opinion on this forum, it is nearly impossible to seperate politics from religion.  People vote according to what they believe.

He didn't commit a crime here Sam - and he is not making any statements, nor will he ever be required to.

The fact that his right hand in his own church has come forward and said he admitted to this is enough for me, and I imagine will be more than enough for most folks. Why do you think that isn't good enough to formulate an educated opinion about this mans hypocrisy?

I disagree.  Hearsay is an indirect witness speaking for a direct witness, "she told me he said xyz".  But if you yourself heard him say that, that is NOT hearsay, for you are a direct witness.

I don't disagree with you, Walter, that this all about hypocrisy. The fact that he is being a hypocrite about such a flamable issue that is also used as a wedge issue to divide our people makes it notable. That he is also an advisor to the President of the United States (the most powerful person in the world) makes it news.

While you and I may be hypocrites to one degree or another - we don't have the ear of the most powerful man in the world regarding the very issue we just got proven to be a hypocrite about.

I guess that's a matter of perspective. You are a politically active evangelical and he is the central leader of politcally active evangelicals. Certainly there are degrees to this - but you are not a Democrat, even if you agree with an issue or two with them. There is a sharp difference between the two.

---

And they should. Overt involvement between religion and state isn't the same thing. I certainly am not pointing a finger at you here. Ted Haggard is a different story completely.

But I think you are assigning WAY too much importance to Haggard.  Most Christians who vote the way I do don't even know who he is.  And his removal from what ever power he held is negligible.  Our votes are not tied to Haggard.  Our numbers are not diminished and Bush isn’t going to start listening to N.O.W.

As the Miers nomination proved:  we social conservatives don't march to the order to so-called Christian leaders.

Some do, some don't. I hope you are who you say you are (one that doesn't) - but to say that none do, that would just be a patently false statement.

You also keep saying "our" while saying you are not a part of a group - please explain.

What puzzles me about this whole thing is the accusation of buying and use of meth

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. - 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.

"I bought it for myself but never used it," Haggard told reporters gathered outside his home. "I was tempted, but I never used it."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15536263/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15536263/)

---

huh?!

"our" as in christian social conservations, be were are not organized any more than beer drinkers are organized. 

I also don't know how this group grew to be 30 million in number.  Does that number mean that 30 million individuals joined their club, or does 30 million simply represent the total congregations of the ministers who subscribe to their newsletter?

He never inhaled! Excellent.

Voting as a block does imply organization - and there is organization, but it varies with each church.

I don't know about the NAE. You're guess may be a good one.

correct me if I am wrong, but isnt methamphetamine one of the strongest and most dangerous drugs?  How, exactly, does one become "tempted" to try meth?

The fact he was even tempted to try it tells me he has a very serious drug problem.  From what I have heard, you've crossed several lines if you're fooling around with meth.  No one his age decides out of the blue that he'd like to try meth.

How did this guy even function in life?

It's strong stuff - and illegal. Possession of it would be a crime. But the meth problem in this country is so large I doubt anybody will go after him for it. It certainly sets a very poor example for youngsters to follow. I've heard that one hit of meth is enough to addict somebody.

you're trying to make people fit your idea of politcal reality.  The fact is we don't need to be politically organized to vote against gay-marriage.  All we have to know is that it is on the ballot, and we're there.

Still with the Uni-mind "we" stuff.

While I don't doubt you - and many others - would do as you say. There are plenty more that only do so because their pastor tells them to.

Well, to me that is more damaging to his image than being caught with a male prostitute.  Everyone understands sexual sin, but not many people can relate to having a desire to use meth at that age.

That is just plain stupidity and makes me think he has been spinning totally out of control for a long, long, time.

You could be right.

Just think, a meth user (but he didn't inhale - right?), as a consultant to the President of the United States - helping him form social policy for this nation. Lucky us!

I am bewildered that you would think that, for there is nothing in my 14 years of Christian experience with other Christians to lead me to think Christians have to be told how to vote on the subject of gay-marriage.

I guess our experiences differ. One would think that if you read this very forum you would have concluded that there are quite a few Christians that have a differing opinion of the subject than you - in fact I've seen them tell you that directly. I guess you weren't paying attention.

Since you fail to lesson to reason and simply believe that Bush is more of a puppet to Haggard than to himself (or to people like me), there is no need to continue this conversation.

That is why people like you were blindsided in 1994 and 2004.  You just don't get it.  You think we have no guiding principles other than to be blindly led by blind leaders.  When the fact is, normal run of the mill Christians are the leaders of social conservatism.  And we will topple any so-called “leader” that does not march to our orders.

We are more likened to drinkers of alcohol.  We are largely unorganized, but if someone advocates prohibition, they will soon find themselves out of office.  The mob will rise up in unison, without having to be prompted, and will restore order according to their terms and definitions.

We are more likened to drinkers of alcohol.  We are largely unorganized, but if someone advocates prohibition, they will soon find themselves out of office.  The mob will rise up in unison, without having to be prompted, and will restore order according to their terms and definitions.

(I repeated the analogy twice so that you wont so easily ignore it)

If you think this majority opinion of this forum represents the social views of the majority of Americans, then you truly are delusional.

Your suggestion was that all would vote as a block - which is patently false. I simply gave the easiest example to show that.

We shall see on the 8th - dude. I think the organizational structure of the Christian is more important to the movement than you do, I think that organizational structure has taken some serious blows. I think Christian Right voters are going to have much less impact this year than in the last few elections because of it.

But again - we'll see on the 8th if there has been a wave election against the GOP or not.

I do think the analogy using drunks and Christians is a good one - but for different reasons than you ;)

I think a far better test to is see what happens in the 7 gay-marriage votes

I don't think the organization has been weakened enough for that measurement just yet. Give it a bit more time, it'll get there.

Those votes are actually an indication of the sheep-like qualities that some evangelicals have with their leaders (at least in the perception of those leaders).  Otherwise, why would this one issue out of all the issues that one could base out of biblical teachings (and not a teaching universally accepted by all self-professed Christians, tho admittedly it is by a solid majority of the evangelical movement) be the one that is being hammered home this year as in 2006.  How about debt cancellation every 7 years (Deut 15:1)  How about propositions to make divination and speaking with the dead illegal in accordance with Deut 18:10-11?  There are plenty of biblically based laws that could be fought for in the political arena, and yet the ones that are based on disputed biblical interpretations are the ones that end up on the agenda of political evangelicals.

Actually, it is a testiment as to how social conservativism crosses party lines.   Which is why pols must hide their agenda and pretend not to support gay-marriage.

---



The ballot measures do not make homosexuality illegal, they merely reject having The People being forced to publicly recognizing gay marriages.

And since you believe that God will force Christians to restart sacrificing animals again, thus making Christ's sacrifice on the cross null and void, you're really not one to comment on what is and what is not proper Christian dogma.  Can you name a single Christian denomination that agrees with you on this issue?

My statement was intended to point out that political evangelicals tend to focus on issues that differentiate themselves from others who consider themselves Christian instead of issues that could attract a broader degree of support within the community of self-professed Christians, not indicate that I have inerrant knowledge of God's intent.  I shall leave such hubris to others.

As to your question, the closest denomination that I have come across that reflects my views actually goes further than I do in condemning Paul and considers itself to be monotheistic Jewish rather than tritheistic Christian.  (Ebionite Community (http://ebionite.org/))  There are a number of organizations in the Ebionite/Nazarene spectrum that exists in the sparsely populated hinterlands between traditional Rabbinic Judaism and Pauline Christianity, some hewing more towards one side or the other.  Given that sparsity of people with similar beliefs, not finding an organization with an exact match to mine is not heavily troubling to me.  Of course, I would need an exact match only if I were a sheep content to be herded by other men.

I am monotheistic

---


Doesn't look like they accept ANY books from the New Testament as canon:
http://ebionite.org/tanak.htm (http://ebionite.org/tanak.htm)


And they deny the divinity of Christ: 

"[Jesus] was not divine....He was not the Messiah but undertook a messianic mission." http://ebionite.org/history.htm (http://ebionite.org/history.htm)

How nice

I should know better by now than to try subtety with you since you always seem to miss it.  Since I was discussing their beliefs I was presenting their viewpoint in thier terms and they see making a trinity out of YHWH as grafting new gods onto the one true god.



Well, it was either quote this group or one of several others that accept even the Pauline portions of the New Testament as inspired, and given my opinion of Paul, that one came closer.  I have come across ither that come closer to my position, but keeping track of religious websites is not my obsession and this was the best a quick search could provide.

I asked you to name a denomination that shares your views on God forcing Christians to reinstate animal sacrifices...and you came up with a group that denies the divinity of Christ along with his resurrection.

quite telling

Wiccans considering themselves Christians does not make them Christians.

Uh - do we have Wiccans that post on this board? Or are you saying that anybody that disagrees with jmfsct is like a Wiccan? Maybe I'm just missing the context of your statement - because it doesn't seem to relate to what has been posted before it.

I love how so many evangelicals are total hypocrites.  We had a conservative representative in the 2nd District in Virginia (a strong proponent of the Federal Marriage Amendment) who had to resign when it was discovered that he had illicit phone conversations with younger men.  We had Ralph Reed and his ethics scandals, and now we have this guy.

Yet another reason why mainline Christianity is the way to go, and not the route of these crazy people with their megachurches.  We also don't go around imposing our extreme views on America through faith-based legislation.  It is possible to be a religious Christian without being totally nuts like Dobson, Falwell, or Robertson.

Even many Republicans don't like them (see Dick Armey), and I think we might see either less of an effort by the GOP to court them in national elections or less of an evangelical tendency to blindly support the Republicans.

Yep, another sanctomonious hypcrite bites the dust. The likes of Haggard give evangelicals a bad name :(

Dave

How funny this sounds now
http://www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=8354