…and this is a 
Haggard goes down in flames, and I'm not happy
Category: Politics • Religion
Posted on: November 3, 2006 8:51 AM, by PZ Myers
Ted Haggard is one of those people I genuinely despise. He's a major leader of a conservative evangelical organization, and as you can see in the clip below, he's a genuinely creepy, hypocritical, arrogant little man.
He's changed now, though. Here's another clip of Haggard, being evasive and humble and making excuses for himself…and now we learn that he has stepped down from his ministry over accusations that he had a gay affair. I suspect, from his demeanor and responses, that he did have that affair, and that he's now political deadweight, destined to be discarded for at least a good long while. (Latest news: Haggard has admitted to some of the indiscretions)
One smarmy preacher down. I ought to be pleased. I'm not.
He's going down for the wrong reasons.
The bottom line in this business is that Haggard did nothing illegal. He may have cheated on his wife, which is deplorable, but it's an entirely personal issue, not one that we should be concerned about, and not one that should cause him to lose his job. Having sex with someone isn't a crime, and shouldn't be the cause of all of this outrage. Being a moralistic hypocrite is also not an actionable business.
I'm also not too thrilled with Democrats pointing fingers and using this and the Mark Foley case to accuse the Republican party of being a hotbed of corruption and iniquity. These are people (creepy, unpleasant people, perhaps) who had consensual sex with other adults. Stop acting as if this is a sin or an evil—that kind of narrow moral certitude is the other party's schtick! By playing that game, you've been coopted to serve the right-wing's social agenda, reinforcing that homosexuality is a damnable offense.
Why don't we instead see Haggard's sanctimonious lies, his authoritarian appropriation of the church for the Republican party, or his ignorance, which he foists off on his congregation as wisdom, as the real crimes here? I really don't care what he does with his penis in his private life, but that seems to be the major concern of everyone right now.
Comments
Not to split hairs, but if the drug allegations are true - he definitely did something illegal.
Posted by: john crayon | November 3, 2006 8:54 AM
It's the hypocrisy factor that makes it piquant. I mean, who would care if a Unitarian minister was outed?
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | November 3, 2006 8:56 AM
That depends on his job. The fundamentalists who employ him surely consider his sexual behavior to be relevant to the position.
Teaching garbage and indoctrinating people with nonsense isn't illegal, either.
Posted by: Caledonian | November 3, 2006 8:56 AM
Can't we have just a little bit of schadenfreude, even if the cause for his fall is for the wrong reasons?
Posted by: NelC | November 3, 2006 8:57 AM
I'm also not too thrilled with Democrats pointing fingers and using this and the Mark Foley case to accuse the Republican party of being a hotbed of corruption and iniquity. These are people (creepy, unpleasant people, perhaps) who had consensual sex with other adults.
Umm - what? Mark Foley didn't have consensual sex with adults, he was molesting children. For all we know, over the decade that he did it, he even had sex with some of them. That's most definitely illegal.
Posted by: Cyde Weys | November 3, 2006 8:57 AM
Dr. Z, in some ways I agree. But hypocrites must be brought low; false prophets must be cast down; mendacious heroes must be crushed in public to show their dupes how they have been manipulated.
If only his followers stop for a minute and think: 'enough of this crap! I'm tired of being jerked around.' then it might be worth it.
Of course, I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by: Occam's Electric Razor | November 3, 2006 8:58 AM
Because those things aren't crimes either?
Are you trying to make yourself look like a fool, PZ? Smashing good job if you are.
Posted by: Caledonian | November 3, 2006 8:58 AM
Caledonian: Something can be a crime and not be illegal. Check your dictionary, Trollio.
Posted by: Occam's Electric Razor | November 3, 2006 9:01 AM
It's not the homosexuality or even the adultery that's driving my glee from this. It's the exposure of the hypocrite and fraud that he is.
When men who hold themselves above others and demonize them constantly while hold great sway and power are exposed to be the very people they are trying to demonize it shines a pretty serious light on the validity of their accusations.
When they're exposed as liars and frauds it causes greater scrutiny on their positions.
There is always the backfire of how the most religious will use this as an example of the "evil" of homosexuality. But honestly, no one being exposed like this is going to change their minds. George Bush could come out as a homosexual and they'd poo-poo and stay the course.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 3, 2006 9:02 AM
I agree with Caledonian. When your job is to persecute homosexuals and preach moral values, which deal with fidelity and the sanctity of marriage; cheating on your wife and having gay sex are both in violation of your job description. So he should lose his job.
Now if you want to debate whether being a "moral" figurehead and preaching hate and prudish values is a valid job that's another story.
Posted by: Ryan Kitchel | November 3, 2006 9:03 AM
It's not as though we're talking the ordinary social hypocrisy that might be mistaken for discretion. Running an organization that condemns man-on-man action in the strongest possible terms while also getting sweaty with the man-love, is about as strong an hypocritical act as you are going to find, and deserves to be condemned itself. From all quarters.
Posted by: NelC | November 3, 2006 9:03 AM
I miss Frank Zappa.
Posted by: CCP | November 3, 2006 9:08 AM
Sit on it, Electric Razor. If you're going to pretend that the metaphoric use of crime can be used interchangeably with its literal use, then Haggard's violation of what he claims to believe is a sacred bond and hypocrisy in endulging in an act he proclaims is profoundly sinful and an affront against God is a crime, and Haggard's followers are perfectly justified in being outraged about them.
If we take the responsible position, then nothing Haggard has been accused of doing (except possibly illegal drugs) are crimes.
PZ wants to have it both ways. Eating and having cake are mutually incompatible, donchaknow.
Posted by: Caledonian | November 3, 2006 9:09 AM
Illegal stuff done by Haggard:
Drug use
Prostitution
Reasons enough to resign even if it wasn't homosexual sex.
Posted by: Miguelito | November 3, 2006 9:14 AM
The fact of the matter is that Haggard is a closet gay gay-basher who deserves to be outted. Hypocrites deserve no consideration whatever. As to the question of Haggards' private life being private, he forfeited the right to privacy when he engaged in gay-bashing publicly while engaging in homosexual activity privately.
Posted by: SLC | November 3, 2006 9:15 AM
Yep - it's not the "crimes" per se, but the hypocrisy that makes this such juicy news.
Enjoy the schadenfreude!
Posted by: DaveMWW | November 3, 2006 9:15 AM
"I miss Frank Zappa."
Me too, the more it changes the more it is exactly the same. He had songs that fit this perfectly, just change the names. How come people cannot wise-up to the hypocritical right wing (apparently often open) arseholes, who want to carry us into a homophobic twilight zone.
Posted by: oldhippie | November 3, 2006 9:15 AM
Caledonian:
PZ said:
"Why don't we instead see Haggard's sanctimonious lies, his authoritarian appropriation of the church for the Republican party, or his ignorance, which he foists off on his congregation as wisdom, as the real crimes here?"
You said:
"Because those things aren't crimes either?
Are you trying to make yourself look like a fool, PZ? Smashing good job if you are."
The conclusion I drew from that was that you approve of people telling sanctimonious lies, appropriating religious beliefs for their political parties and foisting their ignorance as wisdom.
Am I right?
Posted by: Interested Atheist | November 3, 2006 9:19 AM
Because obviously criticizing a person's critique of a thing means that I support that thing.
Whoo boy! I'd recommend that you be given your own blog named "The Idiot Room", but that name has already been taking by some very entertaining young gentlemen. You'd fit right in with their personas, but I don't think they'd deign to work with you.
Posted by: Caledonian | November 3, 2006 9:25 AM
Illegal stuff done by Haggard:
Drug use
Prostitution
Reasons enough to resign even if it wasn't homosexual sex.
Only if you think drug use and prostitution should be illegal (I don't, even though I have no interest in either of them).
I'm torn on this story... on the one hand, I think his personal life is his personal life. On the other, I think when you're a moralizing blowhard of a bigot, it's nice to see it bite you in the ass (or anything else you might have had done back there).
Posted by: andy | November 3, 2006 9:25 AM
No need for me to repeat what has already been stated on this thread. It's the hypocrisy, stupid.
It's one thing to be gay and work for, say, Playboy magazine. Odd, but nothing strange if you're not out persecuting horny straight men for being horny and straight. If you are, then what you do for a living definitely becomes important.
[/tortured metaphor]
Posted by: Ted | November 3, 2006 9:29 AM
I'm a little with you, here, PZ, but not entirely. Yes, he should be perfectly free to have all the gay sex he wants. Hell, he should be perfectly free to have all the methamphetamine he wants. What he did in the strictest sense isn't the cause of my glee over his fall; his blatant hypocrisy is what does it for me. His constant bigoted hatred of homosexuality and opposition of any forward motion of the gay rights movement, while all the while he was paying for an extra-marital gay affair. A man like that being exposed as such a blatant fraud and hypocrite most definitely brings a smile to my face.
Posted by: Akusai | November 3, 2006 9:32 AM
From a local TV station (http://www.kktv.com/news/headlines/4557411.html):
Don't worry folks, drug use and gay sex are mere indiscretions, nothing to see here.
Posted by: Paul | November 3, 2006 9:34 AM
Why don't we instead see Haggard's sanctimonious lies, his authoritarian appropriation of the church for the Republican party, or his ignorance, which he foists off on his congregation as wisdom, as the real crimes here?
We do. But those aren't illegal.
So we use what we can to bring him down. And down is a very good place for him to be.
Just like they got Capone and Hovind on their tax returns and not their other crimes.
And another thing. Picture the smile on Dawkins' face today!
Posted by: Ick of the East | November 3, 2006 9:37 AM
PZ sez: "I really don't care what he does with his penis in his private life, but that seems to be the major concern of everyone right now."
Seems a lot of folks are more pissed off at the hypocrisy. It's the old, and still useful, Micaelangelo Signorile standard: you don't "out" folks EXCEPT when they are repeat-offender public homophobes, such as preachers and politicians who ride the anti-queer train to the top of their particular heaps.
PZ sez: "Why don't we instead see Haggard's sanctimonious lies, his authoritarian appropriation of the church for the Republican party, or his ignorance, which he foists off on his congregation as wisdom, as the real crimes here?"
I did not get the impression that Haggard is being charged, formally, with any crimes. He is being dissed and maybe dismissed by his own churchy group and his own churchy standards.
I agree that the folks who focus exclusively on SEX are missing the larger points, but it is rightwing religiods as much as the center right Democrats who will play that soundbite game. And all of them can play the "he's not a Real Christian (TM)" game.
The party that snowed so many for so long by framing and flogging the "morals" and "family values" horses are reaping their own whirlwind. Arrogance and contempt for their own flock are common to the Bush Gang, the megachurch movement, the leadership of the NRA...
When an edifice built on deception and misdirection has its foundational blocks removed, it is hard to keep the whole thing from collapse; the US evangelical house of cards was employed to support too many rickety policies.
Sadly, when the dust clears, the sub-basement of theism will still be there.
Skeptyk
Posted by: Skeptyk | November 3, 2006 9:47 AM
I had wondered about the tension in that confrontation scene from "Root of All Evil". Was it just boiling antipathy? Or perhaps we can now conclude that it was repressed sexual tension?
Sorry, I couldn't help it.
Posted by: Diego | November 3, 2006 9:47 AM
Why don't we instead see Haggard's sanctimonious lies, his authoritarian appropriation of the church for the Republican party, or his ignorance, which he foists off on his congregation as wisdom, as the real crimes here?
Nothing will further that end more than events like this.
Posted by: Jeff Fecke | November 3, 2006 9:48 AM
"Umm - what? Mark Foley didn't have consensual sex with adults, he was molesting children. For all we know, over the decade that he did it, he even had sex with some of them. That's most definitely illegal."
Given that the age of consent in DC in 16 it is not "most definitely illegal". It could probably be considered harrassment and abusing his position of power.
Posted by: Coathangrrr | November 3, 2006 9:51 AM
Nes channel in Denver hired a nationally recognized voice expert to analyze the voice mails.
Art = Haggard
linky-poo
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 3, 2006 9:52 AM
grrrr
NEWS channel
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 3, 2006 9:53 AM
There is nothing wrong with homosexual sex and I think drug use should be legal. However, Haggard should step down because he is a hypocritcal liar. That in itself is the crux of it. What is really sad, if this is indeed true as I suspect it is, is that he has been living a lie and repressing his true identity for his entire life. I can only guess why and I don't care to speculate here. But that is a real tragedy for him as a person.
Posted by: writerdd | November 3, 2006 9:57 AM
I hve no problem with what he allegedly did. None.
Should people be outed? I don't know. I wouldn't want my private life publicized, and I especially would not want my private life publicized if I were a national figure.
The religious people are all about what people should do in their private lives, so I guess I'm more okay with this if it exposes the hypocrisy of the sanctimonious religious blowhards. Also, this guy is in regular direct contact with the White House. He no doubt makes sure Bush feels right with God so Bush can feel good about his Freedom (and Death) Agenda.
Posted by: George | November 3, 2006 9:58 AM
From the online Los Angeles Times, quoting the Rev. Richard Cizik, vice president for governmental affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals:
"Let's not crucify the man until we've gotten the facts."
Posted by: TomS | November 3, 2006 9:59 AM
Wow, I'd like to think I could be so cool and courteous to Haggard in the face of his smiling insults. Did he get beaten up a lot as a kid?
Posted by: melior | November 3, 2006 10:02 AM
Someone said..."Now if you want to debate whether being a "moral" figurehead and preaching hate and prudish values is a valid job that's another story."
Unless you are the so-called "prophet" Mahmoud, who did just that, and is reputed to have sex with a 9(?) year old (Ayesha).
So it obviously is a valid job.
Oh dear.
Posted by: G. Tingey | November 3, 2006 10:03 AM
Last time I checked, paying for sex, and doing (unprescribed) methamphetamines were both illegal, not that he's been formally charged with such crimes.
What makes this some of the purest, most unadulterated, untainted schadenfreude I've ever come across is the degree to which this guy is being hoisted by his own petard.
Sure, it may be wrong for a guy to get demolished by a mob simply for being gay, etc, but is it so wrong to laugh if the guy being so demolished has made his living building up and inciting his very own personal mob of thousands to do that very thing?
I mean... BWAHAHAHA! What a comeuppance!
Posted by: SteveC | November 3, 2006 10:06 AM
When people build their lives around religious fantasies, these conflict with reality in mundane matters: the inability to pretend about their own nature, the deceit practiced by their fellow believers, the hollowness of relationships based on shared pretense. Jesus isn't going to come down to the fundamentalists and say, "you folks are all crazy," for the simple reason that Jesus is their fantasy. This kind of hypocrisy is where they bump into reality.
Posted by: Russell | November 3, 2006 10:07 AM
I think the gist of the issue is that he's a gay man and he rails against gay marriage.
The reason for his downfall is his own doing. People like him create the fear and intolerance. He's a victim of his own sermons. His possible self loathing was created by his religion and this society.
A persons sexual orientation should not be an issues. But it's people like him and his flock that do.
Maybe it will cause some greater introspection in the evangelical community. But I doubt it. They'll just chalk one up for satan rather than look inward for the greater truths.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 3, 2006 10:09 AM
This is not a question of simple hypocrisy. This is a man who uses his position of immense power and influence (he's the president of the National Association of Evangelicals, which represents millions of people) to work positvely for the oppression of an entire class of people. Although I'm still confused by Barney Franks' recent ascent to "Elder Statesmanhood", I have to agree with him on this issue: When you are part of an organization and/or you yourself are actively working to oppress the people who are like you, your self-hatred are public issues and reason for scorn and derision. I am absolutely in favor of public outing in these cases, as I was in the Foley case, for the same reason.
Where I agree with Dr. Myers, however, is that these are not the rationales given by either the NAE or the DNC. The evangelicals, when/if they accept that Haggard is a self-hating closeted gay, will simply see this as evidence that they are right, that gayness is indeed a moral disease, that gay people are deceitful and untrustworthy, and that they are justified in their campaign of bigotry. Similarly, the Democrats and liberals are using the Foley case to say that the Republicans are corrupt because they have closeted gay men in their ranks. This is a bit more subtle, but in its subtlety, may even be worse than the rather straight-forward homophobia of the NAE. The Democrats in their approach to using the Foley scandal are perpetuating the same association of homosexuality with deceitfulness and untrustworthiness. Mr. Franks has been the only congressman I've heard speak about this who, for obvious reasons, gets it.
There is also a problem with the liberal critique of the outing itself, which is that Haggard's (or Foley's) sexuality is a "private" matter. This is, albeit probably unintentionally, a sublte reinforcing of the Closet, something we've been trying to destroy for years. One's homosexuality is as much a part of oneself as another's heterosexuality. And when one is in a position of public power, one's sexuality may very well be of issue in one's actions in the public sphere.
So I say, let Haggard fall, and start talking about the *real* reasons why it's a good thing that he burn.
Posted by: Todd O. | November 3, 2006 10:17 AM
I'm sorry PZ, but I have to disagree on this one. Yes, he didn't do anything that I'd consider illegal, (well, drugs, if it's true - I don't have a problem with keeping meth illegal, but I wouldn't be upset at all if it were pot.)
It's the hypocrisy that brought Ted down. And Mark Foley. I would love to see hypocrisy be the end of every single right wing fundamentalist - even if none of it legally led to a single day in jail.
This would set the precedent - when a right wing fundamentalist loony advocates gay-hostile laws, I want their fan base to think, "What is he hiding? Why is he so strident?"
Next to "Alcohol Rehab" this is a useful meme for nonbelievers and progressives to point out when they are being battered with the 'morality cudgel of Christianity'.
Posted by: calladus | November 3, 2006 10:21 AM
Todd O.
Agreed - and so much better put that my little blurb.
Perhaps it would be useful to point out that homosexuality appears to be innate, not a "choice" - but really a part of a person physically.
Haggard was trying to deny his core sexuality, and it led him to hypocrisy. We should point out that the world is a place where reality can't be denied or wished away, and shouldn't we all start acting accordingly?
I'm glad he fell, I'm glad that true believers are now looking at their leaders with suspicion, and I'm glad to have the opportunity to say, "Well, I don't think the homosexuality was wrong, but the hypocrisy, most certainly was!"
Posted by: calladus | November 3, 2006 10:29 AM
PZ, intellectually I agree with you. I wish the creepy little toad was busted for being an evil moron instead of being merely a hypocrite.
Emotionally, however, can I be excused if I feel overwhelmed with delicious glee?
Posted by: Aris | November 3, 2006 10:37 AM
Another one bites the dust
And another one gone, and another one gone
Another one bites the dust....
Yes, in a perfect enlightened world we would bring these snake charmers down by rational arguments, but in the meantime..
let him join the "The Jimmy "I-have-sinned" Swaggart Home for Wayward Preachers"....
After all, all's fair in love and war...
Posted by: Umilik | November 3, 2006 10:40 AM
schadenfreude: the word of the day.
With all apologies to Malcolm X, "By any means necessary"... I don't care if it was tax evasion or smoking meth & having sex with other dudes, these people need to be exposed as the raging hypocites whenever humanly possible.
"Pastor" Ted built his life around telling other people what was wrong and right and now EVERYONE can see what a lying, power-hungry bastard he really is. Sad thing? It's always been this way... because folks want to be told what to do and where they fit in the scheme of things (primates. go figure)
Posted by: The Dude | November 3, 2006 10:45 AM
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | November 3, 2006 10:48 AM
I have to admit that I've done more personal thinking about atheism than I ever did reading other people's opinions on it. Only recently have I bothered to take much notice of people like Dawkins, so I was somewhat surprised to see that he acted like a total jerk. I'd expect a bit of edginess from Haggard, in my experience, evangelicals are often genuinely disturbed to closely deal with people outside their comfort zone. But Dawkins? He's supposed to be a well-educated man. And does anyone see him blinking up a storm? He seems less well-spoken, and more repressed than Haggard at that moment in time.
As for PZ's entry, I can see where he's going with it. I'd be much less concerned if people were focusing on the fact that Haggard has shown he is unqualified to be in such as powerful position of trust. Personally, I would hope that the outcome of these revelations is not as much to lambast Haggard (which many commentators in this section seem to delight in doing) but to help show Haggard's flock the value of thinking for one's own self.
Posted by: Daephex | November 3, 2006 11:09 AM
Before all of us good guys on the left get too jubilant about the apparent fall from grace Ted Haggard we might want to remember good old Karl Rove. Mike Jones, Haggard's accuser, just failed a polygraph test. Pay some wannabe (with buckets of unmarked cash?) to make false accusations against a popular and charasmatic leader of an evangelical religious movement with 30,000,000 members nationwide...can you say "mobilize the base?" /dps
Posted by: Dann Siems | November 3, 2006 11:12 AM
Dawkins was blinking because he found it difficult to believe that such a combination of utter stupidity and overweening arrogance as Haggard could actually exist.
But apparently you think such a combination merits the adjective "well-spoken". Whatever.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | November 3, 2006 11:13 AM
As far as Mark Foley goes, even if the age of consent in D.C. is 16, and even if he actually waited to harass any of his pages until they were of that age, he still traded explicitly sexual e-mails on government time, and did so with people directly under his authority (and this is just going off what we know he did). I'd think that's enough to warrant at the least a sexual harassment suit, and at most, rape or attempted rape charges (using a position of power as leverage to obtain sex). Some of that depends on whether or not e-mails were the only thing involved.
With people like Haggard, I think it's absolutely necessary to expose them as terrible hypocrites, so long as we make clear that it's the hypocrisy, and not the homosexuality, we're condemning. Every time one of these ministers is outed as a closet, self-loathing homosexual or an adulterer or something along those lines, it helps to invalidate their message of hate and intolerance and "traditional family values." It adds credence to the "protest too much" motivation for bigotry--that the loudest, most offensive bigots are the ones who are self-loathing. People see this same bombastic hatred in others, and they start to think "why is he really saying this?"
Hypocrisy discredits these "values" positions, and we ought to leap on every opportunity to expose it. But we do need to be careful that we don't do it in a way that plays against our own interests.
Posted by: Tom Foss | November 3, 2006 11:14 AM
Too late, Dann, because Haggard has already admitted- according to his own assistant pastor- to "indiscretions". Evidently there really is some fire behind that smoke. (And whether or not all of Jones's accusations are true, the polygraph is a worthless pile of crap anyway.)
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | November 3, 2006 11:17 AM
Anyone else notice how Haggard had a maniacal gleam in his eye during the interview with Dawkins? He's got that Children-of-the-Corn-thing going on.
I also liked the part where Dawkins calls him on his gross ignorance of evolution. Haggard tries to dodge by saying that Dawkins must not be talking to the same people he is. Show of hands - how many of us believe that Haggard has ever talked to a real evolutionary biologist in his life (before Dawkins)?
Posted by: Jen in Texas | November 3, 2006 11:20 AM
Yeah, I said well-spoken. He may be completely wrong, and hopelessly in need of a decent science education, but Haggard at least presented himself decently.
Aside from this sort of nit-picking, I'm intrigued by the deeper implications of where the "self-loathing" mentioned by Tom Foss comes from. Wouldn't it be amazing to be able to take a guy like Haggard and see if he could turn this all into something good? Instead of letting the evangelicals get him on a "I have sinned, but I found rebirth in Jesus" lecture circuit, why not harness his communication skills to turn some of that anti-gay sentiment around?
Posted by: Daephex | November 3, 2006 11:24 AM
Dawkins was not at all a jerk. He was taken aback by Haggards arrogance... telling Dawkins about biology. Haggard just didn't like being told he was wrong.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 3, 2006 11:28 AM
I've long argued that most forms of extremism harkens back to one's own psychological issues. I'm reminded of the psychological theory that suggests that the psyche is similar to a tube of toothpaste. The gist of the argument is that a tube of toothpaste works well when the cap is removed and pressure is applied in order to push the paste from the container. However, if the cap is placed on the tube and the same pressure is applied, toothpaste will eventually ooze out from numerous newly created and unintended openings. The psyche functions similarly in that if we allow our identity to flow naturally and resist the societal pressure to "cap it" we function normally...but if we attempt to hide our identity...meaning to "cap it" in order to keep it hidden (whether that be from shame, fear, or some other factor)...it will escape and manifest itself in numerous dysfunctional behaviors.
If Jesus was to be our example, then I don't understand this thing we now call Christian values. Pastor Haggard may believe that he speaks for God but his actions suggest that he merely fears his own humanity. Further, if the values he espouses exist to demonstrate his faith in the God he knows, then the God he knows must have already seen this element of his humanity that he cannot personally accept...which would mean that any true God has already accepted that which we humans won't and would also prove that the God Haggard purports to represent is not a real God but a God of his own creation designed to serve his flawed view of the human condition.
Read more here:
www.thoughttheater.com
Posted by: Daniel DiRito | November 3, 2006 11:29 AM
PZ - I usually agree with you but this time I totally disagree. As many others have said, it's NOT the sex or drugs, it's the hypocrisy - the sex just gives the hypocrisy a healthy radioactive glow.
You could almost forgive the stupidity of a character like this - if they really believe the crap they spew, they're more to be pitied than hated, perhaps. But the hypocrisy puts him well beyond redemption or pity. How many gay teenagers has this guy helped to send to the morgue or emergency room, victims of suicide or gay-bashing? And for what? A false "value" he doesn't even believe himself!
Because of this, I'll be glutting on rich, creamy Hypocrisy-brand Schadenfreude - sorry if you don't want some, too, because it's delicious.
Posted by: NickM | November 3, 2006 11:35 AM
As a gay man who was previously a fundamentalist Christian I am following this with special interest. As a former Christian I went through years of "ministry" at the hands of people like Haggard. It was painful, humiliating, psychologically damaging, and completely ineffective. The American Psychological Association has already commented on this too and noted that there is no evidence that this ministry works, and indeed that it is extremely harmful. When the likes of Haggard and his cohorts then declare that homosexuality is "sin" this only compounds the misery and prejudice against gay people. Perhaps one positive outcome from this (and I'm being hopelessly naive here) is that there will be a focus on the total ineffectiveness of churches to 'fix' homosexuality and that such ministries are dangerous (if not criminal). But I'm afraid I know too well how the fundie mind works - I'm sure all the sheep will be bleating something along the lines that even the elite and the chosen can slip and much more diligent they all need to avoid temptation. Nevertheless, I am stil finding the whole affair just completely delicious and as much as I don't wish suffering on others, Haggard has fully brought this on himself.
Posted by: Timcol | November 3, 2006 11:43 AM
Part of the job description of being a pastor and leader of a religious organization is living up to the moral codes that your church professes and that you publicly demand that others live up to. I don't completely agree with the particular moral codes being touted in this case, but he agreed, implicitly and maybe explicitly (I wouldn't be surprised if there were a "morals code" in his contract), to live up to them. Failing to do so is certainly grounds for losing that particular kind of job. Best, Marc
Posted by: Marc | November 3, 2006 11:49 AM
Steve...I listened to the video of the assistant pastor "confirming" some "indiscretions" (did you?). Pretty vague and tepid as an admission of guilt. My main point wasn't about Haggard's alleged behaviors in any case. Rather, I am concerned that by this time tomorrow the other foot will fall and Haggard will be portrayed as a victim of the anti-Christian, pro-gay left. Less than a week before the election, with the evangelical base not feeling particularly motivated to vote...what are you going to do? Construct an attack on one of evangelical Christianity's most telegenic and charismatic leaders? Hmmmm. Still stinks of Karl Rove to me. Unfortunately, the more we on the left revel in this the more energized Haggard's co-believers will become. It is admittedly a risky tactic but rabid Karl is backed into a corner.
Posted by: Dann Siems | November 3, 2006 11:54 AM
By playing that game, you've been coopted to serve the right-wing's social agenda, reinforcing that homosexuality is a damnable offense.
Which tells you something about the contemptible hypocrisy surrounding the Democratic Party you've hitched your draft cephalopod to.
Kudos to you for at least being honest about it.
Posted by: hoody | November 3, 2006 11:56 AM
To me it's more that the guy has no credibility. It's like Ann Coulter et al saying anything for money or publicity-simple media whoredom. Why trust anything he would ever say in public again? I don't care about the gay aspect of it, I'm actually a bit of an activist when it comes to gay issues because I support equal rights for all Americans and don't want a second class citizenry to spring up. There is more money in trying to get that to happen and this guy is just using it as his golden egg.
Posted by: Mena | November 3, 2006 12:01 PM
Dann, do you see Rove in your sleep? Part of the Democratic party's self-inflicted gormlessness has been its obsession with that fat creep's supposed "genius".He's just a garden-variety slimeball, whose only real "talent" is his utter absence of a conscience even by Rethuglican standards.
Meanwhile, you can rest assured that the sublimely arrogant Pastor Ted would not have resigned and admitted to "indiscretions" if there weren't something pretty juicy there. And the rats are already leaving the sinking ship- just saw a quote from Falwell pooh-poohing Haggard's importance to the evangelical movement.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | November 3, 2006 12:08 PM
PZ,
So you basically don't think rank hypocrites should be called out when they publicly oppose what they privately practice?
Posted by: Daniel Morgan | November 3, 2006 12:11 PM
Hmmm. Interesting how most folks want to call this dude gay because he did it with a gay prostitute. So much "this or that" thinking in the world today. Right~wrong. Liberal~Conservative. Gay~Straight. Evil~Good. Blah blah blah.
Sexuality is a continuum. People vary from gay to bi to straight with all kinds of points between these definitions.
Those who can't or don't want to devote brain power to sorting out life's complexity seek to simplify it. Haggard's torturous self-created reality is based on this kind of thinking. Because he believes the world is full of black & white choices yet has desires incompatible with his beliefs, he acts out a secret, deliciously naughty, compulsive lie thickened with substance abuse. Inevitably, such charades are unmasked--especially in the case of high profile people. All the pain and sorrow this will inflict on his family and followers...in the name of maintaining the illusion that there is one simple truth we must all follow.
To quote one of my favorite Minnesota authors, Bill Holm, "Beware the one truth. Hidden inside it, anywhere on earth, is a loaded gun pointed straight at your head."
Posted by: CJ | November 3, 2006 12:22 PM
In the best of all possible worlds, Haggard would have gone down years ago for being the mouthpiece of evil. But this works, too. The best thing about it is that the media's got something to talk about besides John Kerry's botched joke.
Posted by: Troutnut | November 3, 2006 12:31 PM
its kinda hard to talk to someone who has that air of arrogant ignorance ...nothing you say gets thru that barrier of ignorance/aka faith ...im not surprised dawkins was blinking in incredulity (how could anyone be THAT ignorant) ......its like talking to a small child in the midst of one of their fantasy explanations .....we are sorta socialized not to point out their fantasies as nonsence.....so dawkins comes off as being a little spluttery ....and he's british ....that air of unimpressed british reserve doesnt help ....i feel that it looks like arrogance to most americans
having said that im quite sure that dawkins mouth dropped open when he had is back turned to the camera ....because mine did and i see these ignorant creationists all the time
Posted by: brightmoon | November 3, 2006 12:42 PM
I miss Frank Zappa.
Word. Frank Zappa would never write a post as corny as this one that PZ just wrote.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | November 3, 2006 1:04 PM
Which tells you something about the contemptible hypocrisy surrounding the Democratic Party you've hitched your draft cephalopod to.
Let me guess, Hoody. Your mom's a liberal Democrat, and you just can't stand her and having to live in her basement, so you turned into a Republican in order to 'rebel'. Does that about cover it?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield | November 3, 2006 1:05 PM
Sorry you're not happy, PZ. But that's OK--us homo-lovin', hell-destined, incessantly-harassed libruls out here in Colorado are happy enough for everybody.
Now if only James "Ass-Paddlin'" Dobson would get caught somewhere on East Colfax with his pants around his ankles and a crack pipe pressed to his fleshy lips...
Posted by: RedMolly | November 3, 2006 1:12 PM
Dann, do you see Karl Rove in your sleep? Part of the Democratic party's self-inflicted gormlessness has been its obsession with that fat creep's supposed "genius".He's just a garden-variety slimeball, whose only real "talent" is his utter absence of a conscience even by Rethuglican standards.
No -- and I concur with your assessment of his talents...BUT: this story is only a few hours old -- let's see what happens between now and Tuesday (BTW Steve, I hope you are right and that there is not more to this than the untimely fall of a sanctimonious huckster)
Posted by: Dann | November 3, 2006 1:23 PM
Re Mark Foley: I think he deserves some pretty severe repercussions, but that the outrage is focused on all the wrong points. That his paramour is a subordinate is a serious problem. That he's extremely young is damn skeevy but not actually illegal in DC. That he's male should, by all rights, not be an issue. I'm irked by the double standard in Washington (and elsewhere) and I can only hope the high profile of the Foley case maybe makes it click for some folks: we basically assume that our male governmental representatives are sleeping with their young female subordinates and don't much care (yes, Clinton got in terrific trouble for it, but that was more about political leverage than anyone actually being surprised or shocked). But when it's a male subordinate, whoa, that's just not right.
We really shouldn't treat the situations differently -- and both should be taken seriously.
Posted by: Jake | November 3, 2006 1:33 PM
Any Republican or conservative evangelical leader who ever had a same-sex relationship must be seriously spooked now. That's probably a good thing.
Posted by: AndyS | November 3, 2006 1:42 PM
Um, everyone seems to be missing a point here: Colorado has an anti-gay-marriage initiative on its ballot next week that was heavily supported by ... guess who?
Posted by: Mnemosyne | November 3, 2006 2:29 PM
Dann- Haggard now admits he contacted Jones to buy meth and "for a massage". Heh. Feel better now? ;)
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/03/haggard.allegations/index.html
(Sorry, HTML for shortening links never works properly around here.)
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | November 3, 2006 2:32 PM
Well Professor, he's admitted to buying meth, which is a crime. Does that trump your compulsive contrariety?
Posted by: Max Udargo | November 3, 2006 2:49 PM
You may also enjoy this advertisement for Mike Jones' "massage services":
http://pageoneq.com/news/2006/page110207.html
Posted by: dzd | November 3, 2006 2:53 PM
You may also enjoy this advertisement for Mike Jones' "massage services":
I'll bet this Jones guy is just pissed Haggard didn't get him that White House press pass he was promised.
Posted by: Max Udargo | November 3, 2006 2:58 PM
You know, I don't care if he's gay. What's bad for him is he is engaging in prostitution (gay prostitution - which makes it worse in his crowd), and buying and using meth (I imagine many here would not look so askance if it was marijuana, though in his crowd...). So take homosexuality, drugs, prostitution, alone bad, together with one of the highest leaders of trends, voice in the president's ear, and proponent of values voting...the sheer hypocrisy.
With Foley, none of us care he's gay, it was the youth of the people he was pursuing, his intolerance to homosexuality (when speaking in public), and the choice of political leaders to look the other way and do as little as possible to actually insure no ill fell...that's such hypocrisy.
It is about cruel laws proposed, vile garbage spewed, and an abuse of rational discourse. It is also the annoyance, for me, that for so long we have been seeing this and other hypocrisy shrugged off for "the greater good". Even now, among the religious their are a solid core who will go out Tuesday and do their "duty". Are their leaders possibly living a life they feel is perverted? Will they act and condone things they cannot accept (in their little minds)? Will their reps use and misuse them, take their money and votes, and turn it into grander capital? Oh, sure, you betcha.
M.J. Fox shook a lot of presumption on Stem Cells, Bush has done us the favor of shaking many about the fight with Terrorism and Iraq. Delay, Bush, Foley, Cheney, Abrahamov, Hastert, Schiavo, Rumsfeld, Haggard, and Rove will those names stick in people's heads on Tuesday, or will fear and faith drive them?
I can only hope a large enough group is truly, finally, coming out of the fog.
Posted by: Odd jack | November 3, 2006 3:03 PM
Between the Bush administration and evangelicals, I'm learning a lot about the gay subculture...
Posted by: Max Udargo | November 3, 2006 3:06 PM
Talking Points for Dems Re: this scandal:
Haggard only admits to contacting Jones for Meth because the tapes Jones are so crystal-clear that it is impossible for Haggard to deny them.
Haggard will continue to deny the sex part, not because there was no sex, but only because there are no tapes that document it.
It's just a great big coincidence that Haggard's meth dealer was also a gay prostitute. And there is also a thriving underground gay/meth scene. (google it).
Now, the next question: Where o where did you look to find your meth supplier, Mr. Haggard? It wouldn't have been on the gay sex-for-sale classifieds, would it? Why would you look there?
damn, hypocrite.
Posted by: ryogam | November 3, 2006 3:07 PM