As well as the ones who lay down.
Will somebody please buy Der Trihs a narrower brush?
Nah, let the boy rock 'n roll. Makes me look moderate and centrist.
I duuno. Usually Der Trihs drives me up a wall with his tar and featherings, but this one I find myself agreeing with.
-
All those “let’s reserve judgement” people need to jumpstart your critical faculties. As soon as he resigned from two two hugely powerful positions, it was right in front of you. Nobody’s going to do that over a completely fabricated accusation.
-
I’ve listened to this guy’s sermons. He’s charismatic, homophobic, sexist, and completely nuts. That he’s a meth-head rings more true than anything else. Here’s from theHarper’s article last year on him on the early days of his church:
I think we should all let the part about him staking out gay bars sink in. (And why he specifically told a Harper’s reporter that story.)
Also: Harper’s called him the most politically powerful evangelist in the country and says he “talks to President George W. Bush or his advisers every Monday.” The man who sees demons. I mean literally sees them.
-
Destroying families? What destroys families are gays being told they’re unnatural and immoral. And that God wants them to be straight. So they end up creating sham marriages with gullible bible-thumpers as beards while they fuck around on the side and inevitably end up in a situation like this.
-
Oh I enjoy it. You have no idea. If Ted Haggard were some random preacher I wouldn’t so much. But he’s one of the two biggest forces firing up gay-hatred across the country while cynically using homophobia to to rally votes for Republicans every election.
Actually, it’s not the drug use and the gay prostitutes that bother me. I’m okay with both of those. It’s his statements about homosexuality and his efforts to deprive gays of their rights that I’m tarring and feathering him over. The meth and man ho angle is really only important to those who agree with his politics and theology.
Dude, it’s not like we’re disagreeing over steel tariffs. The guy has gone out of his way to attack gays and make sure we suffer as much as possible under our legal system. And now he’s being destroyed by the same prejudices he once fanned. I don’t think it’s possible to enjoy that too much.
And who’s responsible for that? Who has done the most to foster that enviroment? Who has gone out of their way to attack people for just trying to live their lives and be happy? Sorry, but there’s no equivalency in attitude or behavior between the two sides on this issue. Haggard, and those like him, are simply evil people, who do not care who they hurt in their drive for self-aggrandizement. And, as this case shows, that includes their own families.
I don’t know what this means.
Yep. I feel sorry for them because of it. But it’s not because of anything I, or the gay rights movement, or liberals in general, have done. His family is suffering now because Haggard is a liar and a hypocrite. Just one more reason to scorn the man.
The difference is, the gay rights movement hasn’t destroyed anyone’s family. Haggard has. Not just gay families, but his own. I’m not happy about what’s happening to this guy’s family. I am happy that these revelations will stop (or at least hinder) his ability to destroy anyone else’s family.
True, but that doesn’t mean you can’t enjoy a little cotton candy now and then. But that’s besides the point. Haggard is part of a movement that is dedicated to the destruction of gay rights and the dissolution of their families. This movement represents a clear and constant danger to the safety and happiness of every queer in this country. Highlighting the hypocrites like Haggard isn’t just about getting a good hate on for a guy we don’t like. It’s also about sabotaging a movement that is inimical to our very existence. For our own safety and well being, we have to make as many people as we can aware of the absolute lack of character that is the hallmark of the leaders of the anti-gay movement, so as to limit their ability to lead and shape public opinion.
By exposing and publicizing their hypocrisy, by calling them on their hate, and mocking their ideas in public.
In short, we do just what we’re doing in this thread, but we do it louder and to a wider audience.
I do not believe that Gandhi’s philosophy was particularly informed by Christianity.
You can’t have a civil dialogue with someone who’s only interested in screaming “SINNER!” in your face.
I believe that the correct quotation is
“Haw, haw, haw!”
I would love to take the high road on this…but I just can’t.
Mr Holier than thou, family values homophobe is a drug addict fag! HA!
Regarding the OP, it surprises me they haven’t dragged out the old ‘Love the sinner hate the sin’. I mean, that’s one of the reasons why you study the bible - to be able to use those juicy quotes and passages to selectively apply to your agenda, justify your causes, and get you out of tight spots.
:rolleyes:
Well, in this case, loving the sinner brings its own set of issues.
I was going for Nelson Muntz, but I like the specific direct blast you found.
He is a hypocritical bastard from the start. To pretend he has a pipeline to god and is able to tell others how to live is bs from the get go. How can anyone be surprised after the pile of religious leaders continues to accumulate. They are just people. No better no worse than the community. When they become rockstar or Hollywood big they become worse than useless.
Especially if he’s got a good meth connection.
Okay, so how long after he announces he’s going into rehab do we get to hear that he was molested by a member of the clergy as a child?
Gandhi’s philosophy was QUITE informed by Christianity. When he first came to London as a young man he fell in love with the New Testament. He often led services that incorporated Islamic scripture and Christian and Hindu hymns. His favorite Christian hymn was “When I Survey the Wondrous Cross”. He had it sang as he broke his first fast for justice with a glass of orange juice.
My point is that Gandhi, when opposed by people claiming to be Christians, opposed his oppressors with tactics that emulated the true teachings of Jesus. This illustrated the hippocracy rampant in the British policies. Whenever the British took on more aggressive tactics, it illustrated how far they were frmo the actual teachings of Jesus. Eventually oppressing the Indians became unbearable for the Brits, and they stopped.
I know that we live in a society that demands its “pound of flesh” from the guilty. But is there not a kernel of wisdom in how Gandhi approached his oppressors? Somehow he defeated the British Empire in South Africa and in India with his tactics. Certainly they could be employed against the mouth-breathing cretins leading the religious right.
Which brings me to Haggard. I am a follower of Jesus. And I can safely say I don’t know who this guy is. And I don’t care. From what I do know he is everything I loathe about Christians. He seems a bit loony.
That being said, don’t paint all followers of Jesus with the same broad brush. There is a new, emerging, ancient Christianity that is nothing like Swaggert/Haggard/Falwell/Roberts/Robertson. We are following Jesus’ call for justice for the oppressed and food for the hungry. We are visiting people in jail and in the hospital. We are organizing against war and for the poor. We don’t want fancy cars or homes, we want to help our neighbors get medical care. Our neighbors are gay/black/homeless/latino/undocumented/wealthy/orphan/dirty/white/asian/depressed/old people. We realize how wrong the right is, and we also know the left doesn’t get us at all. But we are out there. We don’t want awards or to have the President on speed dial, but we don’t want to be lumped in with what the evangelical right has made out of popular Christianity.
An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. Many have parsed my words in their response, but what would the reaction be if the gay community had released the statement I wrote above? When I said the dialogue has got to become more civil, I meant the greater societal dialogue. We keep tearing at each other, feeling justified because the other is a fudgepacker or a hippocrite. Each swipe we take at each other creates pent up anger and the desire to get even. Eventually you get your chance. Somewhere someone has to say ENOUGH! Even though you have wronged me, I will not hit you back. Even though I now have the opportunity to harm you, I will not. What is the worst thing that can happen? If it doesn’t work, you can always kill each other later… 
And what happens if we direct our ire at Haggard? We destroy him? Expose him for the two-faced jerk he is? Giggling gleefully along the way? Guess what? His evangelical right friends will abandon him too. He will have failed the movement, presented himself unworthy before God and man. He will be reviled by his former friends as the devil in their midst. And guess what. At the end of the day they will still hate fags. The hydra will grow a new head and the Christian right beast will plod on.
The dialogue will not change.
I do not believe it will change overnight. I think it will take years, maybe generations. But that does not mean we should not try. This is a chance for the gay community to pick off the members of the right (to accept them, not join them 
)who are not completely comfortable there. Find common ground with a few. Then a few more.
And guess what? We (call us the religious left?) are picking off a few of them ourselves.
The religious right is a cancer on society. They are a cancer on Christianity. They aim to destroy those who do not agree with them. I believe those tactics will fail when employed by them, and when employed against them. We have to engage the more open minded of them in honest dialogue, seeking to find agreement where we can. They are wrong by an atheistic moral code of right and wrong, and they are wrong by any faithful reading of the teachings of Jesus.
We need to rethink our response to them.
A better world is possible.
Sorry I ranted on here…
It’s not his misery we celebrate, it’s his defeat. Haggard and his ilk declared war on me and mine. His voice has now been neutralized. One of their generals goes down (snerk) and a cheer rises from our lines. It may be a small victory but why would you deny it to us? Suck it up.
Because it isn’t a victory. His millions of followers still hate teh gayz. They will still oppose you at the ballot box.
Change a few of their hearts, and we can call it a victory. The gay community will vilify Haggard. He will quietly slink away from his community. A new general will take his place, and they will rally against you.
Again.
I know the gay community has been hurt time and again by Haggard and his ilk. But it is time to get your vision checked and look to the future and what will move you towards the rights that are yours.
Dancing around Haggard as he burns won’t do that. When the flames die down, you will be left with only this missed opportunity.
The strategy depends on your opponents being, at heart, honorable and decent people.
No, it’s not a victory. As I said, it’s an opposing general being neutralized. A small victory. Far from a complete victory? Absolutely. Worthy of celebration? Absolutely. A lot more work to do? Absolutely? You’re a wet blanket? Absolutetly.