This is TOO much!

[Dave_Schuldt]

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/11/05/haggard-changes-his-story-again/

Gay

Edited November 6, 2006 by Dave_Schuldt

[underworld]

hmmmm...

 

"i will appologize to nobody"

"i'm sorry my words were misunderstood"

 

at least this guy didn't end it by passing the buck... he took resp. and walked away from it all.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 6, 2006 by underworld

[tvashtarkatena]

Looks like Haggard's final statement to his church is up.

 

http://www.newlifechurch.org/TedHaggardStatement.pdf

 

Not renouncing his beliefs - which will probably surprise, dissapoint, and outrage most people - but at least he's not blaming anyone or anything else for his actions.

 

Yeah, he's a pretty stand up guy, all right. After lying to his congregation of 14,000, his association of 30 million, and his wife and five kids, for years, while demonizing and actively working to outlaw egalitarian gay relationships for millions of others.

 

Admirable guy. Really.

[JayB]

I don't think that you have to be a personal admirer of the guy or his message or believe that it amounts to anything terribly significant relative to his catalog of faults - but in the realm of Evangelical Implosion the precedent has been to divert the blame and responsibility onto Satan, Tammy Faye's eyeliner, or whatever - but at least this guy's apology has the minor merit of confining blame and responsibility to himself.

 

One could hope that a consequence of the fact that he put it all on himself rather than Satan et al would be that it might cause the folks in his congregation to re-examine some of their convictions instead of concluding that they need to barricade themselves further away from the society that they've been pointing fingers at and doing their best to isolate themselves from - but that's probably not terribly likely.

[Dechristo]

"Da debbil made me do it!"

[JayB]

I also have a kind of vain hope that this will lead the Republican leadership to rethink or at least substiantially modify the gay fixation and recast their thinking along more libertarian lines on this issue, which I think is both wrongheaded and destined to become an ever greater electoral liability as time goes one. More Von Hayek, less Von Fallwell.

[Doug]

The problem is that the ultra conservatives that the republican party panders to are very passionate about the anti-gay agenda. If they lose interest in this, they lose a major portion of their base. Not that they'd swing liberal, there just wouldn't be busloads of bible belters going to the polling places to keep their agenda alive.

[Dechristo]

The problem is that the ultra conservatives that the republican party panders to are very passionate about the anti-gay agenda. If they lose interest in this, they lose a major portion of their base. Not that they'd swing liberal, there just wouldn't be busloads of bible belters going to the polling places to keep their agenda alive.

 

The pity is the message of the founding documents for both their nation and religion end, literally or in essence, with "liberty and justice for all".

[archenemy]

Gay sex and marriage, for that matter, is fine...unless you're the leader of a 30 MILLION member organization that is actively working to make it illegal for everyone else.

 

Those evangelicals just can't keep their blessed fingers out of the adolescent/cheap prostitute/Chippendale dancer cookie jar. Perhaps if they had wive's that didn't consider 2 hours of makeup removal a form of foreplay, they'd stay home more.

It is obviously the wife's fault.

[JayB]

The problem is that the ultra conservatives that the republican party panders to are very passionate about the anti-gay agenda. If they lose interest in this, they lose a major portion of their base. Not that they'd swing liberal, there just wouldn't be busloads of bible belters going to the polling places to keep their agenda alive.

 

I am not sure that this would actually happen. I recall hearing someone interviewed on NPR who did some research after the '04 election and said that the effect of this issue on Republican turnout was dramatically overstated. And - unless the Democrats veer fairly dramatically to the center, much to the consternation of their own fringe base - anyone who is in charge of setting the agenda for the Republicans can essentially say - "Where you gonna go? To the party of 'The Daily Kos' and Al Sharpton?" and essentially take that portion of the vote for granted, or at least in the cheap seats.

[Dechristo]

Perhaps if they had wive's that didn't consider 2 hours of makeup removal a form of foreplay, they'd stay home more.

 

depends on where from and how the makeup is removed.

[Doug]

I recall hearing someone interviewed on NPR who did some research after the '04 election and said that the effect of this issue on Republican turnout was dramatically overstated.

 

I'm somewhat liberal myself, but I take what I hear on NPR with a grain of salt. I do believe that coming off the "moral values" agenda would significantly decrease the Republican voter base.

[JayB]

I personally think that it's largely a semantic issue that kind of got reframed by an inapt buzzword. If the analysis had been framed in terms of people voting in a manner that's consistent with their "convictions" rather than "moral values" I think this would have been more accurate. I think that the Left considers most of their policy positions to be as grounded in a set of moral values that they are just as passionate about as the folks on the right, so the notion that ones sense of morals should play a major role in determining how one votes is or should be confined to the realm of crazy-ass backwoods irrationality is mistaken, IMO.

[tvashtarkatena]

"Da debbil made me do it!"

That would be THREE hours of makeup removal...

[tvashtarkatena]

hmmmm...

 

"i will appologize to nobody"

"i'm sorry my words were misunderstood"

 

at least this guy didn't end it by passing the buck... he took resp. and walked away from it all.

 

 

 

 

BFD. So did the Green River Killer.

Edited November 6, 2006 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

Tammy Faye's eyeliner

 

Tammy Faye redeemed herself by becoming an advocate for gay equality. I seriously doubt this guy will follow the same path to righteousness.

 

And most people issue the very same kind of sincere apology once they're caught with their pants down after repeated, failed attempts to lie and cover up their way through a scandal.

 

Next headline: Reverend Ted checks into the Betty Ford Center.

 

His long history of self hating, anti-gay politics makes this guy an utter shitbag.

 

If, in fact, he does a St.Paul and reverses the damage he's done to gay Americans, I might change my opinion. I'm not going to hold my breath.

Edited November 6, 2006 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

It is obviously the wife's fault.

 

...because she isn't a man.

[Dechristo]

His long history of self hating... ...makes this guy an utter shitbag.

 

he'll never be in the minority

[foraker]

They're always so sorry....*after* they've been caught.

[Doug]

I think conviction is a better term than moral values in describing the right. I agree that the left believe that their positions are driven by their set of moral values.

 

What pisses me off is about the right is that they try to characterize fundamemtalist christianity as the only true morality. Just ask Ann Coulter. We liberals are godless.

[archenemy]

Ann Coulter is a dumb cunt.

[tvashtarkatena]

I think that the Left considers most of their policy positions to be as grounded in a set of moral values that they are just as passionate about as the folks on the right

 

The difference these days is that the code word "moral values", as used in public political speech, has come to mean the prayer in schools, pro-life, anti-gay agenda embraced by the religious right. It is a philosophy that strongly believes in the government legislating what goes on in the bedroom, how to parent children, and how individuals should behave in private. In essence, it is public policy based on fundamentalist christianity.

 

Needless to say, those of us who are not christian, and who still hold the constitution in high regard, object to this agenda, and to the hijacking of the word "moral" in public discourse.

[archenemy]

I think that the Left considers most of their policy positions to be as grounded in a set of moral values that they are just as passionate about as the folks on the right

 

The difference these days is that the code word "moral values", as used in public political speech, has come to mean the prayer in schools, pro-life, anti-gay agenda embraced by the religious right. It is a philosophy that strongly believes in the government legislating what goes on in the bedroom, how to parent children, and how individuals should behave in private. In essence, it is public policy based on fundamentalist christianity.

 

Needless to say, those of us who are not christian, and who still hold the constitution in high regard, object to this agenda, and to the hijacking of the word "moral" in public discourse.

Hey hey, ever regular old run of the mill Christians don't necessarily appreciate the "Religious Right" BS either. Don't lump together everyone who lables themselves as Christian.

[tvashtarkatena]

If you'll take the time to read a bit more carefully, you'll see that I didn't.

[archenemy]

I'll be sure to devote more time and care to everything you write before I dare post. Forgive my egregarious oversight.