Yeah, Cheri, he is. As am I. 
He may be too busy celebrating Rick’s loss.
I vote for the “damn, let’s get as far away from this mess as possible 'cuz it ain’t going to work out” motive. One thing to preach how to redeem lost souls, and another to work with married guys who have things for gay prostitutes and meth.
If I had a friend or co-combattant in a moral-political cause who fell so egregiously, even if I’d agreed previously to help in his restoration, I think
it would be natural & could be justified to think twice just because of the
problem in maintaining an objective distance. I’d help to the degree that I
could, but I could rightly regard my closeness to the situation as being more of a
hindrance.
I imagine Dobson would have found the time if Haggard was having an affair with a woman and he didn’t have to deal with the gay cooties.
Dobson is more than likely aware that it is nearly impossible to cure ‘the gay’ and doesn’t want to be associated with yet another losing team.
My point, such as it was, is that is not too much to expect Dobson to stand by his own freakin’ principles.
Ted, he agreed to do this after the story came out, then, well, to be charitable, let’s phrase this as “changed his mind.”
Well Polycarp, all I’m getting out of your pitting is that you just don’t like the man. He apparently did something that you found contrary to your understanding of God’s law and you want to nail him for it. I find that so like the Pharisees, which is rather ironic considering your history.
One of the interesting aspects of the parable is that it was a member of an ethnic group that was looked down upon by the society that Jesus preached to that performed the good deed. Presumably the victim was a Jew who normally would have looked down upon the Samaritan as well.
So lets try imagining Polycarp as the Good Samaritan.
And lets try Haggard as the victim who fell on his own sword by the act of infidelity and lying and a member of the fundies who look down on liberal (luke warm) Christians.
Did you ever express any sympathy for Haggard Polycarp ?
I’m not judging. I have no feeling for Haggard at all. I just find this pitting ironic.
Dobson’s suggestion that homosexuals need to be “restored” is pitworthy all by itself and I suspect the reason that Dobson pussed on offering to “cure” the guy is because he knows he can’t cure teh gay and that any effort to do so will end in failure and expose him (Dobson) as a fraud.
Dobson really is a wormy little bigot who is eminently pittable for any number of reasons. I understand Poly’s point about Dobson, in theory, not practicing what he preaches but for all practical purposes this is a case where attempting to practice what he preaches (i.e. faith healing homosexuals) would be even more sleazy than just going away.
Wait, so if I have no mercy on anybody, I don’t have any neighbors? So I don’t have to love them? Only God?
That explains so much.
The point of the parable was that “neighborly” obligations are not defined by tribe or culture. The Samaritans were seen as mortal enemies to the Jews, so the twist of the Samaritan being the good guy was a bit of shock to Jesus’ audience (maybe you could substitute a Palestinian for the Samaritan nowadays, or even better, imagine a Palestinian teacher telling a story where the good guy is a Jew).
I think the more intersting question is what does it mean to love God, and Jesus gives that answer in the parable of the Sheep and the Goats.
25:31But when the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory: 25:32and before him shall be gathered all the nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats; 25:33and he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 25:34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 25:35for I was hungry, and ye gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in; 25:36naked, and ye clothed me; I was sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 25:37Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungry, and fed thee? or athirst, and gave thee drink? 25:38And when saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 25:39And when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 25:40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my brethren, even these least, ye did it unto me. 25:41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels: 25:42for I was hungry, and ye did not give me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink; 25:43I was a stranger, and ye took me not in; naked, and ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 25:44Then shall they also answer, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungry, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 25:45Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not unto one of these least, ye did it not unto me.
(Mt. 25:31-45)
Maybe you’re trying to get across a point that I’m not seeing, but this strikes me as the ultimate in twisted logic. “I would remove myself from helping a fallen friend because helping him would be detrimental to the issue at hand.” Which, it appears to me, is helping the fallen friend. When someone needs your help, I’m not at all sure that objectivity should be foremost in your thoughts.
But what do I know? I’m not a Christian by anyone’s definition.
My point was that I might initially offer to help a fallen friend, then realize that I was not equipped to give adequate help because I was too close to the person/situation. Same reason that physicians & therapists avoid treating those close to them if someone else can do it as well or better.
Not a Christian thing as much as a professional thing.
I see no particular reason to think that James Dobson really believes what he preaches, considering how frequently, willfully, baldly he’s willing to lie in the course of simply stating what he believes. He lies on TV, he lies on the witness stand, and he lies from the pulpit. He is not an honest man by any means. Nothing he says should ever be taken at face value.
That being said, I disagree with Polycarp on this specific pitting of the man. There are no end of people already willing to help Ted Haggard. By bowing out of participating in his “renovation,” he’s not harming the man, or preventing the man from being helped. It would be as if, in the parable Poly quoted, the good Samaritan had seen three that three other Jews had already stopped to help the wounded man, and seeing that he was already being aided, had decided to keep walking. A Christian has a duty to help the helpless. If someone is already being helped… well, they aren’t helpless anymore, and the Christian’s obligation to them is lifted.
However, given Dobson’s absolute lack of honesty and morality, I suspect the real reason is the one cited by Kimstu: he knows damn well that you can’t cure homosexuality, and although he won’t ever admit it for political reasons, he doesn’t want to tie his name to what he knows will be a very visible failure.
If you want to ignore, and it is hard to do, that he is a hypocritical lying gay sexand meth maniac. And his entire life is a lie. Then explain how the other revs got into action mode and decided to help him be cured.
When they say that kind of intervention takes 5 years and has no guantees, are they speaking from experience. How many gay ,druggies have they had to help in the ministry. Seems to be a big problem. They why shoiuld any one take what they say as relevant.
Except that stepping away and distancing yourself makes you something less than a friend. Closeness to the situation? The situation, in this case anyway, seems to be Haggard’s penchant for nailing and/or being nailed by his prostitute/crank dealer boyfriend. Trying to equate this to a physician deferring treatment to a family member/close friend is nonsense. Dobson isn’t a doctor. Hell, as far as I’m concerned he’s not even a human being.
Or, y’know, someone who sees the writing on the wall and desperately wants to put as much distance between his (allegedly) oh-so-pure-and-holy self and the impending trainwreck that he sees unfolding before his eyes.
I tend to think that this is the case, which lowers Dobson in my eyes (he was in the negative numbers already). I wonder if this isn’t Dobson’s first foray into Situation Ethics. He realizes that the absolute principles he lives by, as provided by the absolute Word of God in the Bible, isn’t going to solve any of Haggard’s or the evangelical church’s problems. He’s in a gray area that he refuses to acknowledge exists, so he chooses to honor his immutable view of the Word, rather than love his neighbor as himself.
There is a lot he could do to help his “friend,” but he has defined that help as curing Haggard, and well, whaddya know, he hasn’t got time to do that. Maybe it isn’t quite like the Good Samaritan, but it suggests moral bankruptcy. Dobson, who preaches Jesus like he’s a next door neighbor, hasn’t got the courage to dine with the sinners, even when he can’t “cure” them.
Vlad/Igor
I’m not understanding why Dobson felt the need to announce his lack of involvement. Why not just say, “Haggard will be in my prayers” or something like that. Or better yet, why even release a statement at all? Did someone ask him for it?
As it stands, he’s now committed himself against actively helping Haggard and in quite a public fashion. Don’t know whether it’s un-Christian or not, but it sure seems rude to me.
Apparently you have information concerning the man that I don’t have, so…“shrugs”
I don’t agree with everything he believes, for instance I don’t agree with his stand on gay issues. However, I have never seen him advocating things that make me want to rip him to shreds, either. Which is how I feel about Fred Phelps and his ilk. Maybe I missed something. Certainly a possibility.
I would ask you, if you break it down, how are Dobson’s (or any other christian fundy
bigots) beliefs regarding gays fundamentally (pun intended) different than Phelps?
Sure, Phelps likes to scream “Kill the Fags” but when it comes down to it, they all believe teh gay is eeevill.
Or are there degrees of bigotry, some of which are “acceptable” because those who expouse them are more “mainstream?” Like Dobson and his Focus on The Family pseudo-cult? I am genuinely curious as to how people can feel this way.
All I can tell you is how I feel about it.
I went to a Focus on the Family seminar dealing with the gay issue. They presented it as a sin, sure. But they didn’t present it as being any more of a sin than any OTHER sin. Like, for instance, gossiping. They also never expressed hate toward the gay community. They truly believe that the Bible presents being gay as a sin. I am no longer convinced that the Bible presents being gay as a sin. I have read some interpretations of the Scriptures that are used to support the position that being gay is a sin…with a totally different interpretation. From very Godly and learned Biblical scholars. And I believe that these are the correct interpretations. Especially when I factor in the fact of the “law of love” and the fact that I believe that most of the time*, people are born gay. They don’t choose it, they are BORN gay. I don’t believe that God would allow people to be born gay if it was a “sin.” Anymore than I believe that God would allow people to be born with blue eyes if it was a “sin.”
So anyway.
There is a difference between believing something is a sin and addressing it with love and viewing something as a sin and picketing the funerals of persons who were gay and being a total evil person toward the persons you thought were sinning.
I know a lot of people don’t understand the concept of hating the sin but not the sinner. But I do understand it. And that is the difference between Focus on the Family and Phelps. I don’t believe that FOTF approaches gays with hate. I believe that Phelps has more hate in his heart than anyone I have ever known. I don’t agree with FOTF’s stand on homosexuality…but I also don’t think they approach it with hate toward the gay community. I believe that they are wrong, and misguided. I pray that at some point, they will understand that they are wrong. But in the meantime, I am not worried that they are going to be dancing on the graves of deceased gay persons.
I have never ever cut someone out of my life, or my heart, because I didn’t agree with something they were choosing to do. If I felt it was appropriate, I told them I didn’t agree with what they were doing. But I never stopped loving them, and I always made sure they knew that my love for them wasn’t dependant on my agreement with whatever they were doing that I didn’t agree with.
If that doesn’t explain my position on this issue well enough, I’m sorry. It is clear in my heart, but I don’t know that I can use words well enough to express my feelings.
*I also believe that there are people with issues who “decide” to be gay because it is a statement of rage. Why anyone would do this is beyond me, but I think it happens. Why anyone would choose a lifestyle so difficult? I don’t know. Because it IS difficult, no matter how you see it. Why would you “choose” a lifestyle where there is so much bigotry against you, where there are so many people who don’t understand or accept your lifestyle? But I believe that those people are definitely in the small minority. And just to be clear, I don’t view people who are actually gay as choosing a “lifestyle.” They are not choosing a “lifestyle,” they ARE gay. It was not a “choice”, it is who they are.