Evangelical leader quits after gay sex allegation
 

Ted Haggard, accused of affair with gay man, resigns from national post:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15536263/

Good.

:D Mwahahaha - karma's a bitch...

I'm certainly not passing judgement on the truth or lack of same on the allegation, but the timing has to make it a little suspect with the items on next weeks ballot.

Another case of "He said, he said."

Yeah, the guy accusing him refuses to turn over the evidence he has...a little sketchy. That being said, I hate these pompous "evangelical leaders" who represent very little of American evangelical Christians

Why would he resign if the allegations are false?

Because he probably realizes that despite the truth of the matter, he won't be able to effectively lead the church.

As an update, the accuser turned over some voice mail recordings to KUSA-TV who hired a nationally known voice analysis expert who was supposed to release his findings by this evening, and the early findings seem to support the charges. This guy, although in Denver, has been used in several very high profile cases as an expert.

More as it becomes available.

It does seem like the timing may be part of a personal agenda, though.

Here's the update:

http://www.9news.com/acm_news.aspx?O...181LX9ARbPg%3D

The nationally recognized voice recognition expert believes the Haggard DID contact accusor in the case.

I wouldnt be surprised if it was him. I just hate when people act like these people represent conservatives, or even evangelical Christians. Believe it or not, most Southern Baptists don't like Jerry Falwell, and don't condone bombing abortion clinics. The media and others have done a good job equating "evangelical" with "fundamentalist" (in the radical sense). A more realistic portrayal of a evangelical leader, and one who is more conservative than the average evangelical Christian, is Dr. James Dobson.

The public in general (and many Christians, for that matter), have forgotten what fundamentalism originally meant, I think. It's another word that has become so amorphous, and sometimes coded, that one has to be careful with it.

Of course, a similar observation could be made about "evangelical," which originally simply meant Protestant, especially Lutheran Protestants as opposed to Reformed (Calvinist) Protestants or Anabaptists.
Though I wouldn't be classified as an "evangelical Christian" as that term is usually used (and as I understand you to be using it), I think you're right.

This from AP:

"The acting senior pastor at New Life, Ross Parsley, told KKTV-TV of Colorado Springs that Haggard admitted that some of the accusations were true.

"I just know that there has been some admission of indiscretion, not admission to all of the material that has been discussed but there is an admission of some guilt," Parsley told the station."

Here is a DeltAlum opinion -- for whatever anything may think it's worth.

To coin a phrase, "Power Corrupts."

That's true of some politicians, many chief executives and other high ranking officials, and even powerful religious leaders.

As people become more powerful and influential, they begin to believe that they are not subject to the same standards as we simple mortals -- some even believe they are above the law.

The fact that Haggard is a minister/spiritual leader, and even more, leader of a huge organization certainly makes it more shocking. In reality, misdeeds are not uncommon -- even among people at this level. Look at some of the recent (and past) political scandals.

A final comment on the man who brought the situation to light. It has been said above (by me among others) that he might have a political agenda, given the timing of these charges. To his credit, he admits it. He heard that Rev. Haggard was leading efforts in several states against gay marriage and other gay rights bills/amendments.

Again, this is an opinion, but it seems to me that the difference here is that the guy has little to gain personally, with the exception of what he feels is right for the gay community. He isn't running for office or supporting any candidate.

To me, that seems to make a difference.

I really don't care whether its political or not, if he did it, he did it. However, I don't think this guy who got paid to have sex with him is advancing any noble cause here. He's filth too.

I don't recall commenting on his "cause."

Perhaps, since you don't know either man, you might want to label you "filth" comment as opinion as well.

I suspect there may be some people on these boards who might not choose to use that word.

I would suspect that a gay prostitute fits many people's definitions of "filth".

Well, if you cheat on your wife with a man, in my book, you're a crappy person. If you have sex for money and then go to the press about it, you're probably not of the highest moral level either. Granted, we all have faults, we all fail, but some do it on a larger and more damaging scale.

The biggest problem is, these people (Falwell, Dobson, Haggard, et al.) say that they represent the Christian conservatives. And very few people stand up to them to say "No, you don't." So, when they get caught doing something hypocritical, it ends up making all evangelicals and fundamentalists look bad.

And, not to harp on you, but your earlier comment: "Despite the truth of the matter, he won't be able to effectively lead the church." I believe going back to my Bible studies, the big JC led his group pretty effectively when he was being accused of all kinds of things. I think if I were a preacher, falsely accused of something, I would go to the "WWJD" question and follow his lead.

Don't group those people in with Dobson. He's a little too strong for my tastes sometimes, but he's not a "God hates fags" type of person. I'm an evangelical Christian, and I don't know anybody who respects Falwell on any level.

So, cheating with another woman is okay? And, no, you did not explicitly say that, but it was implied.

So, does that part I've made bold mean that you're stating an opinion -- or are you the moral leader for all of us?

Delt, most everything I said is opinion, I don't see what your deal is.

Lane, no cheating on your wife with a woman is pretty crappy as well, it just happens to be more personally revolting when its with a man...I imagine it wrecks families even worse as well, but you're right, they're both terrible.

Probably even most peoples opinion. Even mine. But not everyone.

And, is a "gay" prostitute morally worse than any other prostitute?

Both are sins. Where in any religious teaching are levels of sin defined?

Or are we talking opinions again?

Catholicism.

See also: Mortal and Venial.

"He's filth too."

That seems pretty declarative to me.

The guy may be filth -- but that's not for me to decide -- but that's an opinion.

This is a damn message board. Do I really need to preface everything with "this is my opinion"?

He's not? In my opinion, Dobson is pretty hateful.

I've always thought Dobson to be one of those, "God loves you, but homosexuality is a sin", type people. If he's said really hateful things, I don't think I've heard them.

I think it's wise to do that when it is one.

Well, you'll get over it.

Oh yeah Dobson is an enlightened preacher alright :rolleyes:

I'm sorry but anyone who preaches the natural role of the woman/wife is subservient to the husband or father; or preaches that homosexuality is "curable"; or can preach all about sexual morality and homosexuality being a sin - then turn around and defend Foley... somes across as either a hyprocrite or a throwback.

Either which way though, he's a fundamentalist; and I don't trust nor like fundamentalists of any stripe or flavour - faith should be approached with an open heart and mind, not closed ones.

Not likely.

Perhaps it's the broadcaster in me, but I try not to make absolute statements without attribution or a disclaimer that it is something I think -- as oppossed to something I know.

On another tangent, the headline in the Rocky Mountain News this morning was pretty dramatic.

One word:

Revelations

Well, the topic is on gay sex......so, does he really have to comment on cheating with another woman?

Catholicism I believe.


And what is your deal with these "opinion" disclaimers. Shut up, its a message board. I'm pretty sure that most people on this forum with half a brain would realize that Shinerbock is posting his opinion when he calls a guy getting hired to have gay sex with a guy....."filth." When he says something and writes "in my book".....that is more than likely an opinion. Being a journalist, I would expect you to know that.

No, the topic is hyprocisy.

Wow. There's a new word. Mind giving us a definition??

LandSig, Well, I don't know what that word means.........but I guess I gathered that the topic was gay sex with an evangelist judging by the title of this thread and the contents of the article.

What, exactly, do you find hypocritical? Knowing that Shinerbock is a Southern gentleman, raised in a good environment.....i'd be willing to bet that he believes that a guy who cheats on his wife is "filth" as well.

My bad - hypocrisy. Misplaced the 'r'.

Never said shinerbock was being hypocritical. I was referring to the topic of Haggard preaching against gay marriage and then turning around and having an affair with a man. And, if you notice, shinerbock already replied back about cheating with a woman, too.

Co-sign

Gentleman is pushing it. Man, yes. Gentle...

No, it was inferred. Nothing about the statement implied that a married man cheating with a woman was okay.

It was an inference that the two examples given by shinerbock, both directly related to the subject matter of the thread, were exclusive rather than illustrative. In light of the context of this thread -- the accusations concerning Haggard -- it was an unwarranted inference.