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

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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?

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.

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.

[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.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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.

[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.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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?!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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?

[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.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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?

[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.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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.

[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.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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.

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.

[nlm]

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.

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!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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.

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.

[nlm]

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.

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.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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!

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)

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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.

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

[nlm]

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.

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.

[nlm]

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!

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)

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

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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

[nlm]

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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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

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.