Evangelical leader quits

[woodrow]

Woodrow, I think you are taking these allegations as truth because you WANT them to be true. Maybe they are, maybe are not. There is NO TRUTH yet in this story. Who has heard these tapes? Tested the bills for DNA or fingerprints?

You don't know anything about me – yet you're claiming my motives in posting information provided by mainstream news is b/c I "want them to be true"?

From MSNBC:

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. Mike Jones, the 49-year-old Denver man who raised the allegations this week, quickly refuted Haggard’s denial. Shortly after Haggard told reporters outside his home, "I bought it for myself but never used it. I was tempted, but I never used it,” Jones told MSNBC-TV’s Rita Cosby that Haggard snorted meth in front of him about once a month for two years.

 

 

[North County Jim]

May the good reverend find his way over to the Anglican/Episcopal Church, where this stuff is celebrated, and he’s now eligible for a bishopric (pun intended).

jg, that reminds of a joke I must share.

Q. Why don’t Episcopalians play chess?

A. They don’t know the difference between a queen and a bishop.

[PD]

Woodrow, this is the first I have seen of any admission. This is certainly proof that Haggard used meth (his denial that he was tempted but never used is bull) and increases the likelihood that the rest of the story is true. Clearly, you had read this additional information and I had not. I apologize.

[Anonymous]

Ha, ha, NCJ; thanks!

[no_such_reality]

The Article Reverend meth

Sounds like the voicemails have been released and the local station has a person comparing them.

[PerryChase]

I didn’t even know who Haggard was until yesterday.

I grew up a Catholic and I find the evangelical services so not spiritual. It’s like going to a sales convention.

Interesting youtube.com video on Haggard. He sounds so arrogant and I’m glad that he got exposed.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=wkUi6dhwWx0&mode=related&search=

 

[lostkitty]

Shocking tid-bit from the youtube movie (thanks for posting it BTW Perry – my sister in law was showing me photos from a trip to Colorado, and she and her kids went there. they loved the place).

From the movie: “He is a staunch Republican who claims he has a weekly conference call with George Bush.”

WEEKLY!!!!!!!

Like, totally gag me with a spoon.

[LA_Renter]

This is obviously a big story, this Haggard guy is the president of the National Association of Evangelicals which has about 30 million members, that is 10% of the nation’s population. And you are right lostkitty he met on a regular basis with Karl Rove and George Bush. This is a key and critical voting bloc of the GOP. Right now that voting bloc has just been hit in the stomach. If Evangelicals do not come out and vote the GOP is toast, more than it already is on Tuesday.

The history of Evangelicals is that they shied away from politics after the Scopes trial in the 1920’s. They decided Government was something to be left to politicians. It wasn’t until the late 70’s that they became active again in reaction to the social chaos and changes of the 60’s. That fueled the rise of Reagan in 1980 and was a major factor in shifting the country’s politics to the right. Karl Rove identified that although evangelicals were voting in greater numbers there were still a large number of evangelicals not voting. So the GOP carved out wedge issues to attract these new potential voters such as abortion and especially gay marriage. And they took the bait. IMO the end result is not that desirable given the we are so polarized as a country right now. I’m sick of this red state, blue state crap. The revelation of Mark Foley, this very prominent leader of the evangelical movement along with the other scandals and corruption of the GOP could mark a shift in how evangelicals view the world of power politics. So there is alot more going on here than meets the eye.

[Anonymous]

LAR and LK, I wouldn’t get too excited, yet. Evangelicals have seen scandal in the leadership before — Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart — and they pick up and go on.

I recommend that you lefties keep digging, though. You are performing a useful service, and are helping us clean up the mess in our midst.

[Anonymous]

To me, the most sordid affair amongst religious leaders was the one involving the president of Hillsdale College.  It was tragic, and well illustrated the dictum, 'Truth is stranger than fiction':

http://www.nationalreview.com/06dec99/miller120699.html

No, we Christians aren't surprised by sin; we sin all the time.  We just know that if we weren't bound by our precepts, that we would be a lot worse.

[LA_Renter]

I’m actually not a leftie, more of a libertarian although I find myself siding with lefties this election cycle. Feels kind of weird actually. I agree with you evangelicals will pick up and move on, I just think many will rethink exactly how involved in politics should they be. Evangelicals are in the business to save souls not win elections. I think their is a rift that is going to play out in that community and this pastor with the gay prostitute thing could be the spark of that debate. There is also a rift in the GOP about the role of evangelicals and libertarians like myself. Dick Army wrote an excellent op ed in the Washington Post about this fissure. Its called “Where We Went Wrong” here is the link, it’s an interesting read. There are going to be many heated discussions inside the big tent.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/27/AR2006102701482.html

[Anonymous]

LAR, thanks for the link; good article.

I read the article to mean that Republicans need to return to small government/less spending.

“…After that fight (over the ’95 Federal government shutdown), too many Republicans apparently concluded that America wanted bigger government…Since the party won the majority in 1994, the GOP Conference had been consistent in requiring offsetting spending cuts for any new spending initiatives….But by the summer of 1997, the appropriators…had begun to pass spending bills with Democrats.”

Whoever champions and delivers smaller government will win the libertarians. That could be a Southern Democrat or a traditional Republican (not Arnie or Bloomie).

[barnaby33]

JG the problem that the small govt Republicanism is that its alot like Communism. It only works in theory. Everyone wants THEIR issues addressed. Whether its the potholes in the road outside, or keeping those pesky minorities, gay and otherwise at bay. The only way for EITHER party to address these multiple and mutually exclusive interests is to buy them off.

Lets just say for the sake of argument that it could be done, where would you cut? Military spending ie Iraq? Entitlements perhaps, those are a conservative favorite! Education, who needs it, other than to read the bible of course. Road building, ah you never really wanted to leave Texas anyway. Ooooh ooh I know, the UN! Yeah lets get rid of the UN! See what I mean?

Josh

[Anonymous]

Yes, Josh, it is difficult. But it’s not that difficult: Social Security and Medicare should be means tested and modest, and be characterized as welfare; government has no role in farm price supports; no more $100K per year prison guards; etc.

Texas and many other states have part-time legislatures. Gives the bums less time to mess things up. And, they have to earn a living and pay taxes. California should go that path.

The good news is that the bums will be FORCED to cut and prioritize during the upcoming recession/depression: lower tax receipts, higher demands from competing interests, and, for the Feds, no more endless loans from the Japanese and Chinese. Can’t come soon enough for me.

[barnaby33]

I would be willing to put a few dollars on Texas getting a full time legislature before California goes part time.

As to the rest, I haven’t seen that recessions have meant a cut in govt spending, quite the contrary. Realize though that I have only been cognizant of such things since Reagan.

The only practical way to go back to a small/limited form of govt is to radically reduce the population. The more rats you have in the maze the more rules you have to govern their interactions. I’d be all for introducing laws to curb population growth effectively. I would say that most conservatives, those who profess a taste for small govt, would not.

Josh

[Author]

Posts