Hypocrisy looks to be rank...

[dragon wench]

Christian Leader Admits to Some Accusations - New York Times

This...and after the Mark Foley Page Scandal... is thoroughly nauseating in its hypocrisy, if it is indeed true. I don't give a damn what people do in their personal lives as long as it is consensual and nobody is getting hurt, and I don't think a person's private life bears on their ability to lead in the public sphere...But (assuming this story is not a trump up) to stand in the pulpit preaching and pontificating against things like gay marriage after spending the night with a gay male prostitute is disgusting in the extreme.

Here is the story, in case the link does not work for some:

November 3, 2006
Christian Leader Admits to Some Accusations
By NEELA BANERJEE

The Rev. Ted Haggard, the former president of the National Association of Evangelicals and one of the nation’s most influential Christian leaders, has conceded that some of the accusations that led him to resign are true, a church official said today.

In an e-mail message sent to parishioners and obtained by local news media, Ross Parsley, the acting pastor of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colo., said, “It is important for you to know that he confessed to the overseers that some of the accusations against him are true.”

Mr. Haggard, 50, resigned from the national association and stepped aside as head pastor of the 14,000 member New Life Church on Thursday, one day after a former male prostitute in Denver said in television and radio interviews that he had had a three-year sexual relationship with Mr. Haggard.

Mr. Haggard, who is married and has five children, had initially denied the accusation, saying in a television interview: “I am steady with my wife. I’m faithful to my wife.”

He also said he had never met the man making the accusation.

In his message, Mr. Parsley said Mr. Haggard “has willingly and humbly submitted to the board of overseers and will remain on administrative leave during the course of the investigation.”

On Thursday, Mr. Haggard said: “I am voluntarily stepping aside from leadership so that the overseer process can be allowed to proceed with integrity. I hope to be able to discuss this matter in more detail at a later date.”

The Rev. Richard Cizik, vice president for governmental affairs at the evangelical association, said the group’s 15-member executive board would meet today to decide whether to accept the resignation.

The evangelical association states on its Web site that homosexual sex is condemned by Scripture, and Mr. Haggard has advocated passage of an amendment to the United States Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

The accuser, Michael Forest Jones, 49, told television station KUSA in Denver that Mr. Haggard had paid him for sex over the last three years, and that he had methamphetamine several times.

“People may look at me and think what I’ve done is immoral,” Mr. Jones, who said he is no longer a prostitute, told KUSA. “But I think I had to do the moral thing in my mind, and that is expose someone who is preaching one thing and doing the opposite behind everybody’s back.”

Mr. Jones took a polygraph examination in connection with other interviews and partially failed, local broadcasters said. They said the examiner said he would like to do a re-test because Mr. Jones was exhausted at the time of the first test.

Mr. Haggard said in a lengthy interview with KUSA that he had never used drugs of any kind and that he did not smoke or drink alcohol.

Mr. Haggard has been a supporter of an amendment to the state’s Constitution banning same-sex marriage, on which Coloradans will vote next week. He told KUSA that the accusations might have been politically motivated.

Calls to Mr. Haggard and Mr. Jones were not returned. But Mr. Jones told The Associated Press that he had decided to go public with his accusation because of the campaign against the amendment..

“It made me angry that here’s someone preaching about gay marriage and going behind the scenes having gay sex,” Mr. Jones said.

[Dowaco]

Not to be too nitpicky, but he didn't marry the guy, he just had sex.

Also, this does sound like a set-up. But even if it is not...

Although you could assume that opponents of same sex marriage are also homophobic, it is not necessarily the case. Marriage is essentially a religious ceremony/sacrament with civil laws attached. There are solutions to the legal inequities that same sex life partners face that are not religious (ie. civil union).


A smoker can be for banning smoking.
A drug addict can counsel others not to do drugs.
A prisoner can talk to kids about staying on right side of the law.
A gay man can be opposed to gay marriage.

[dragon wench]

From [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Haggard"]Wikipedia[/url]:

Teachings on homosexuality

Haggard has condemned homosexuality, preaching that "we don't have to debate about what we should think about homosexual activity, it's written in the Bible." Haggard opposes same sex marriage, but has suggested that states should be free to enact civil unions for homosexual couples.[10]

Under Haggard's leadership, the NAE released "For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility" in the fall of 2004[11], "a document urging engagement in traditional culture war issues such as abortion and gay marriage but also poverty, education, taxes, welfare and immigration."[11] The NAE has stated, "Homosexual activity, like adulterous relationships, is clearly con*demned in the Scriptures."[12]

Need I say more?

[VonDondu]

Not to be too nitpicky, but he didn't marry the guy, he just had sex.

Not to be too nitpicky, but so far, Haggard has only admitted to buying illegal drugs (which he claims he didn't use) and getting a massage from the gigolo in question.

Hey, live and let live. If that's what the guy wants to do with his life, that's fine with me.

[dragon wench]

Hey, live and let live. If that's what the guy wants to do with his life, that's fine with me.

I agree with this. As I said above, I don't care what people do with their private lives as long as it is consensual and nobody is getting hurt.
But... if any of this is true, what I find galling is the sheer hypocrisy involved. If somebody wants to take drugs, and have gay sex, group orgies, engage in S&M or whatever.. I really couldn't care less. But they shouldn't be simultaneously pontificating against those activities.

Maybe it's a setup, maybe not... It is somewhat hard to say at this point. If Haggard is indeed innocent of those charges then okay... but if they turn out to be true, he has a lot to answer for IMO.

[VonDondu]

Maybe it's a setup, maybe not... It is somewhat hard to say at this point...

I can't think of any scenario in which someone else could have forced Haggard to buy drugs and get a massage from a male prostitute. How could this possibly be a set up? "It was a trap, your Honor!"

In all seriousness, of course I agree with you about the hypocrisy issue, but I'm too old to be shocked by it. The only thing newsworthy about this story is that Haggard got caught.

[dragon wench]

lol @ Von Dondu
I'm inclined to concur.. I'm doubtful Haggard was exactly arm-twisted into any of it. But I'm attempting to allow for benefit of the doubt.
I suppose it is possible the guy casting the allegations is lying though, just in time for some critical elections, so maybe Dowaco means "set up" in that sense?

....I suppose there is indeed nothing here that is terribly new... but ugh... This sort of thing just makes my skin crawl.

[VonDondu]

I'm waiting for Haggard to use an excuse similar to Mark Foley's defense: "The alcohol made me do it. I was abused as a child. The Democrats were out to get me. You have to believe me, it wasn't my fault!"

From what I've been reading, most evangelicals don't like getting involved in politics because politics seems to corrupt everyone who gets involved in it. Haggard is a very important figure in American politics because he has encouraged millions of evangelicals to get involved in voting for moral issues. Haggard himself is deeply involved in American politics. Among other things, he's an unofficial advisor to President Bush. They talk to each other about once a week. Bush has quipped, "The only thing we disagree on is which kind of truck to buy."

So it will be interesting to see how the millions of evangelicals out there will respond to this scandal. Will they claim that Haggard was corrupted because he got involved in politics? Will Haggard's moral failings call the message he was preaching into question? Will it change the way that any of them view homosexuals? "Well, gee, if he is a homosexual, then maybe homosexuality isn't so bad. I didn't know I actually knew a homosexual. Maybe homosexuals won't go to hell, after all." Will it cause them to re-think their position on anything? "Hmm...maybe we were being a little too hard on Gandhi. Maybe he doesn't deserve to go to hell, after all."

[Magrus]

Among other things, he's an unofficial advisor to President Bush. They talk to each other about once a week. Bush has quipped, "The only thing we disagree on is which kind of truck to buy."

*snickers* Maybe that's why the tabloids say Bush has been drinking again and his wife is leaving him. :laugh:

[fable]

I'm waiting for Haggard to use an excuse similar to Mark Foley's defense: "The alcohol made me do it. I was abused as a child. The Democrats were out to get me. You have to believe me, it wasn't my fault!"

No, I figure he'll claim the guy tried to get him into having sex and taking drugs by threatening to tear out pages from a bible.

From what I've been reading, most evangelicals don't like getting involved in politics because politics seems to corrupt everyone who gets involved in it.

If you mean far right evangelicals, they certainly have been getting involved in politics, and have formed the backbone of the Conservative political resurgence since the mid-1980s, and especially the 1990s. The whole "get out the vote to get morality into government" drive began in the local churches in the States, and they've effectively made the rural areas of the US a potent political force where previously there impact was limited to local offices. This is why the Republicans have been so careful to come across as born-again Christians, even when (as in Bush's case) there's no previous record of interest in religion or moral issues, and no history of lengthy church attentdance. They know that the evangelical movement has been heavily politicized, and that certain issues are absolutes for that group.

I've also been given to understand that several powerful far right evangelical consortiums have been advising their counterparts in the Netherlands to help boost their popularity and flex their political muscle, over there. (Don't have the relevant names at the moment, but I'll try to locate that later, tonight.)

Note that black evangelicals are a separate group, and almost invariably vote Democrat in the US. But their numbers are not significant in rural areas, so they generally count to Democratic pluralities in states that were also tending that way, or register as blips in rural areas.

So it will be interesting to see how the millions of evangelicals out there will respond to this scandal. Will they claim that Haggard was corrupted because he got involved in politics? Will Haggard's moral failings call the message he was preaching into question? Will it change the way that any of them view homosexuals?

It will be labeled repeatedly as a Democratic plot, much as the Foley scandal has been over here. But it does represent another chip in the facade of Republican sanctity to the evangelical far right, and if enough of these occur, they might become very uneasy with their political leadership. Those who really research matters now would find, for instance, that there are several dozen Republican members of Congress who either have been convicted recently of felonies, are going to trial, or are under investigation.

[VonDondu]

I just read an interesting interpretation of Haggard's hypocrisy:

The Haggard Story: Not Just Hypocrisy, But Lack of Self-Knowledge

The main thing I would add is that you can't say that hypocrisy is caused by only one thing. Hypocrisy might be partially caused by a failure to live up to one's own moral code, but there's more to it than that. If Haggard railed against homosexual desires because he feared the "sin" in his own heart, he is distinguished by the fact that, unlike many other people who feel the same way about "sin", he actually yielded to "sin". But his biggest failure was that he didn't admit it and seek atonement until he got caught. He kept acting as if he was fit to lead his flock. That's why he lost his moral authority. It's also why I'm tempted to put him in the same category as other people who do exactly what they preach against, as if they're saying, "It's okay for me to do it, but it's not okay for you." The difference in their minds seems to be they think they're perfect and they can't do anything wrong, but everyone else is a lowlife sinner. That's why I find it hard to sympathize with people like Haggard when they get caught.

To me, hyprocrisy isn't about failing to live up to one's own beliefs. People make mistakes, but that doesn't make them hyprocites. Hypocrisy is about double standards and a complete lack of commitment to the principles that the hypocrites preach to others. Take the Bush administration's fondness for preaching abstinence for teens and single adults, for example. Who among them has actually set an example the rest of us can follow? What was President Bush's sex life like when he was single? Did he teach his own children to be abstinent? He obviously doesn't really believe in abstinence and he's obviously just pandering. Can people who really believe in "family values" not see right through those hyprocrites, or do they simply ignore the truth? The whole thing is a big, sick joke.

If a young person who believes that premarital sex is wrong yields to temptation and has sex, that's not hypocrisy. But when people who have no intention of practicing abstinence create government programs based on abstinence, that's hyprocrisy. I'm not sure exactly how to characterize Haggard, but I hope he takes this opportunity to reconsider what he has been preaching for all these years. If he won't change his message, then he's already in a hell of his own making.

[dragon wench]

@Von Dondu,
very interesting link, thank you for posting it.
This part in particular:

Many progressives have never quite understood why the most vehement religious opponents of homosexuality view it as such a threat. I myself have always assumed that it is because religious opponents are devoted to the preservation of traditional gender roles, which sustain a male/female hierarchy. But the Ted Haggard story suggests a different reason-- at least for that segment of religious opponents who, like a significant proportion of the population generally, share same-sex or bisexual orientations and desires.


Viewed from Ted Haggard's perspective-- a man who, despite his shame and guilt, is attracted to other men-- gay marriage and the gay lifestyle really are a threat to heterosexual relationships and heterosexual marriage. That is because they are a threat to his heterosexual identity and his heterosexual marriage. He knows the Devil is always tracking him, waiting for him to slip up. That is because he conceptualizes his sexual desires as sin and as alienation from God, and not as the expressions of something that might actually become valuable to him if accepted them as part of himself. If Haggard accepted that he was bi-sexual or even gay, and that it was morally permissible to be either of these things, he would have to change his understandings of his own desires and what they mean. He would have to view himself and his relationship to God very differently. But he has not been able to accept these things, because he is closeted from himself. That is why he has been a vocal opponent of people he has a great deal in common with.


Here is an update from CNN:
POSTED: 2:13 p.m. EST, November 5, 2006

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colorado (CNN) -- Evangelical pastor Ted Haggard confessed on Sunday to a "lifelong" sexual problem, and said he was "a deceiver and a liar," in a letter read to his New Life Church.

"There is part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I've been warring against it all of my adult life," he said in the letter.

Haggard apologized to his congregation and asked for their forgiveness in the letter read by pastor Larry Stockstill, a member of the board of overseers of New Life Church.

On Saturday, the board ousted Haggard from the 14,000-member church, which he founded more than 20 years ago, citing his "sexually immoral conduct."
Haggard confesses to 'lifelong' sexual problem - CNN.com

I agree with you regarding the double standard...and hypocrisy. To me there are few things more galling than the notion "Do as I say and not as I do." Transfer this to people in positions of public leadership.. and it becomes more nauseating still...

[Rob-hin]

Fully agree about the hypocrisy.
Then again, isn't church full of it?

[Magrus]

Eh, this reminds me of when someone in my personal life a few years ago who was dealing with the conflicts of being gay and it being against his religious beliefs, thinking it was a sin. He ended up taking his life and leaving his family a note explaining why. I have to wonder, will this "holy man" be able to cope with the fact his orientation is in direct conflict with his beliefs and what he has been doing with his life for so long?

[fable]

Fully agree about the hypocrisy.
Then again, isn't church full of it?

No, I don't think so. And I'm not exactly the poster fan for religion. But most clergy are sincere about their beliefs, and I suspect, without any polls to back this up, that it goes for conservative evangelicals, too. Just because I personally loathe the religious far-right doesn't mean I try to tar them with crimes for which I haven't got the slightest evidence. This much can be said: if you proclaim the highest ideals and fall short in your personal behavior, some people are going to complain that you did so with full intent. And that's not necessarily the case, because being human is enough to allow every one of us to fall short of our own particular ideals.

That said, I really, really don't like people who tell me that the Only True God/dess tells us all exactly how to behave, and then proceeds to belabor me for sin. And if Haggard's "revelation" leads some to reflect on the nature of black and white categories, perhaps it will all have happened for the good. But I can't believe in the long run it will make the slightest bit of difference. The next preacher will come along to take up the slack, and the choirs will keep hallelujahing to keep themselves pure until they're raptured, each and every one.

[Rob-hin]

No, I don't think so. And I'm not exactly the poster fan for religion. But most clergy are sincere about their beliefs, and I suspect, without any polls to back this up, that it goes for conservative evangelicals, too. Just because I personally loathe the religious far-right doesn't mean I try to tar them with crimes for which I haven't got the slightest evidence. This much can be said: if you proclaim the highest ideals and fall short in your personal behavior, some people are going to complain that you did so with full intent. And that's not necessarily the case, because being human is enough to allow every one of us to fall short of our own particular ideals.

That said, I really, really don't like people who tell me that the Only True God/dess tells us all exactly how to behave, and then proceeds to belabor me for sin. And if Haggard's "revelation" leads some to reflect on the nature of black and white categories, perhaps it will all have happened for the good. But I can't believe in the long run it will make the slightest bit of difference. The next preacher will come along to take up the slack, and the choirs will keep hallelujahing to keep themselves pure until they're raptured, each and every one.

Hehe, nicely put.
Churches are people.
So no arguement there.

People are hypocris then...
But is the priest a hypocrit?

My thoughts:
But to fall short in your own ideals, or those of others doesn't automatically make you a hypocrit.
To me there are a few different forms:
1- To fall short of your own ideals and come clean about it makes you honoust and human.
2- To fall short of your own ideals and try to lead others in good will to prevent them from falling short makes you a leader/world improver and human.
3- To fall short of your own ideals but to lie about it and condem others for it makes you a hypocrit and human.

There's a subtile difference between 2 and 3 and I hope I wrote it propely to get it across. I found this kind of hard.

I don't know how oppenly opposed the priest was to gay people, except for the gay marriage point. But if he opposed it on more fronts (by example saying it's immoral) then he fits in the 3ed category; a hypocrit.


Gheh... two treads in which I post about hypocracy.:laugh:

[VonDondu]

My thoughts:
But to fall short in your own ideals, or those of others doesn't automatically make you a hypocrit.
To me there are a few different forms:
1- To fall short of your own ideals and come clean about it makes you honoust and human.
2- To fall short of your own ideals and try to lead others in good will to prevent them from falling short makes you a leader/world improver and human.
3- To fall short of your own ideals but to lie about it and condem others for it makes you a hypocrit and human.

There's a subtile difference between 2 and 3 and I hope I wrote it propely to get it across. I found this kind of hard.

I tried to make some similar points in my previous post. I just did some editing to clarify what I was trying to say.

I don't think the difference between 2 and 3 is subtle at all. If you take sin seriously, then you should take atonement seriously. Acting like you don't have to admit your own mistakes is just like saying you're not doing anything wrong. That makes all the difference in the world.