president of the 30 million member National Association of Evangelicals is gay

[nlm]

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.

[nlm]

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

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

Wow.

[nlm]

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

[nlm]

Or, the protestute is lying.

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

[nlm]

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

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

Wow.

Really?  It doesn't surprise me a bit.

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.

[nlm]

Ted Haggard

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.

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

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.

[nlm]

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.

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.

[nlm]

I guess you can't read: 

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

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.

[nlm]

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? 

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

[nlm]

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? 

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

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).

[nlm]

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.

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?

[nlm]

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).

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.

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.

[nlm]

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

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.

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.

[nlm]

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.

[nlm]

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

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?

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.

[nlm]

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.

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

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.

[nlm]

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.

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.

[nlm]

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.

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

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.

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

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?

[nlm]

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.

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.

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 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.

[nlm]

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

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.

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.

---

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.

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.

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.

[nlm]

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.

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.

[nlm]

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/

---

huh?!

He never inhaled! Excellent.

[nlm]

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

"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?

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.

[nlm]

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/

---

huh?!

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.

[nlm]

Voting as a block does imply organization

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.