Haggard steps down amid gay affair inquiry
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4588998

Ted Haggard, one of the most prominent evangelical pastors in the nation, resigned today as president of the National Association of Evangelicals amid allegations that he carried on a three-year sexual relationship with a male prostitute.

Haggard, founder of the 14,000-member New Life Church, has denied the accusations but said in a statement released by the church today that he could "not continue to minister under the cloud created by accusations made on Denver talk radio this morning."

He has placed himself on administrative leave pending investigation, spiritual counsel and a decision by the church's board of overseers, the church's legal counsel said. Haggard founded the church in 1985...

yep.....he's gay....

hahaha. mr. rightous not only is gay (which there is nothing wrong with, except when you preach against it and turn out to be the most literal of hypocrites), he paid a male prostitute.

On topic, seems to me this video has been posted before, but i can't seem to find it. I'll vote it up when it clears up.

Haggard's Teachings on homosexuality
Haggard has condemned homosexuality, preaching that "we don't have to debate about what we should think about homosexual activity, it's written in the Bible." Haggard opposes same sex marriage, but has suggested that states should be free to enact civil unions for homosexual couples.[10]

Under Haggard's leadership, the NAE released "For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility" in the fall of 2004[11], "a document urging engagement in traditional culture war issues such as abortion and gay marriage but also poverty, education, taxes, welfare and immigration."[11] The NAE has stated, "Homosexual activity, like adulterous relationships, is clearly con­demned in the Scriptures."[12]

Barney Frank Blasts Hypocrisy of Closet Gay Republicans.

In this, I think that Dawkins sounds too angry from the beginning, and when Pastor Ted mentions his 'air of superiority' and arrogance, it kind of hits home.

The funny thing (to me) about this guy is his relatively well-spoken, reasonable-sounding discourse. It's even more unnerving (again, to me) than some outward crazies. Before this scandal I couldn't figure him out, exactly (he had somewhat of a progressive stance on global warming and was - at one time - against the Iraq war).

Now with his exposed hypocrisy and fall from grace, I guess I won't have to.

That's simply bewildering that anybody could be so arrogant and blind to their own hypocracies.

just because someone pays male prostitutes for massages , you call them gay...

...yeah, I would not be very gay if I was being massaged by a male prostitute, but I did have a homosexual chiropractor that did okay,- nuthin' special.

Can anyone see the utter pointlessness of using one twisted induvidual, mega-fundamentalist emporer or not, as an argument for or against Christians, Gays, or etc. ad infinitum-
The issue is one man's power over others, used to his obvious personal gain, resulting in the disease running its natural course with a person of his calibre, into debauceries, indiscression, and downfall??....all you God haters are whiners...Grow Up. Agnostics wouldn't react so violently or with such editorializing verve nor would anyone who knows themselves, and is satisfied with that knowledge.

We're not talking about just one individual - though if we were, it would not be any less compelling.

There's a whole subculture of the Republican Party - the Log Cabin Republicans - who desperately want to be part of a club that wants nothing to do with them as members.

That is and will always be a compelling story.
But like I said in the other thread, you're not really adding anything very intelligent to this discussion, so I'd quit while you're behind.

Hypocracy is indeed unnerving, and of course is rampant amongst christian circles.

However, Richard Dawkins criticises dogmatism when he himself is utterly "intolerant" of theological world views. If Science are those theories that have passed through the Scientific Method, then Evolution can not be considered science. In fact, one of the fastest growing branch of science are people that challenge the science of evolution.

Here is a brief but somewhat good website for those that would like to see that those that doubt evolution can do so with the use of science itself.

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/

t - "creation science" is a contradiction in terms, and Professor Dawkins is rightly "intolerant" when myth tries creeping its way into hard science and defies ordinary human intelligence and compassion.

see, the difference between religion and science is that science would welcome new information (take the reclassification of Pluto, for instance)

a handful of people who went to school for a long time and can still compartmentalize science and religion have yet to postulate anything very new or meaningful on evolution.

it may not seem that way to novice scientists reading a website on teh intarweb, but it's the truth. sorry.

Hah! I knew I saw him before! I wonder what Dawkins has to say about this turn of events.

How do you argue against a passoionate, bibilically enlightened, self-riteous evangellicals?

You get a passionate, scientifically enlightened, self-riteous Darwinian!!

deathcow, you will have to excuse the giddy schadenfreude all of us "God haters" are going through. Give us our moment. They don't come around very often. We aren't whining. We are gloating. Big difference.

As for Dr. Dawkins appearing to come off as "arrogant", he isn't. This is a scientific debate. It's not for the squimish or the ill-informed. Mr. Haggard opened it up to scientific debate by saying that "American Evangelicals fully embrace the scientific method".

Mr. Haggard (I'm assuming that since he stepped down, he is no longer "Pastor Ted"), made a classic mistake in saying that evolution is accidental. Should Dr. Dawkins have spent the interview tutoring Mr. Haggard in basic evolution theory? No, Mr. Haggard has been "debunking" evolution for decades. If he hasn't learned the basics yet, he is either intellectually lazy or deliberately misleading.

Either is unforgiveable in someone that has a weekly audience with the POTUS. If Dr. Dawkins (or any scientist) had a weekly audience with the POTUS, I'd feel a lot better.

You cannot change the way someone think if that person already 'believes' in something else. The thinking process is different and no reasonable words would go through. Plus there's the whole southern 'we don't trust fancy shmancy arrogant outsiders' thing going on. Just let him be with his sexy masseuse.

Hmm, i just noticed. the word masseuse sounds awfully close to misuse... as in misusing their service .

I've never been a big fan of Dawkin's. I'm glad South Park is busting his balls in a two part episode right now.

Check out Dr. E.O. Wilson if you want a biologist who employs some tact in discussion with religious elements. He was raised a southern baptist and is now an emeritus Harvard professor and prolific author on the subject of animal nature.

another thing I wanted to note, as people above have expressed interest in how situations like the Pastor's come about;

"Persons reporting sexual identity that is discordant with their sexual behavior may engage in riskier sexual behaviors than those with concordant identity and behavior. The former group could play an important role in the spread of sexually transmitted diseases."

This background hypothesis was confirmed in a recent study, the abstract of which can be found on pubmed.com searching for the authors Pathela P and Mostashari F.

hey theo47-Appearantly, your criteria for intellegence is rooted firmly in the rules of , "...only people who agree with me" so to retort to your lack of eloquence, and your obvious dedication to your personal agenda, piss off, guvna! (perhaps your reactionary aversion to my semantics has been all the more solidified for you with the last little insulting remark....)

....hey, regarding these contributions to the post on the anti-fag, fag, preacher, it seemks to me that the response assumed that the writer (me), was somehow affiliated with fundamentalist religions, or that my comments somehow made me a homophobe-neither are true-My opinions regarding gays is based on personal sensibilities with relation to personality disorder and the family, and my opinions of fundamentalist religions are similar to that that the Wise Men of Zion have for the Goyim.

My point: To even pay attention to this fuck, with an attitude of , "see what christian representatives do when they aren't preaching"-is infantile, sophomoric, and serves only to bring members of your own cabal, to yer little pep rally of verbal masturbation.....politics and religion are topics best left to zealots! The more detail that is paid to coloring your banter,
the more insessantly fucking obvious it becomes that masterbating in a public forum is the real issue, not a faggot preacher, or fucking evolution vs. creation-

Now, back to laughing at kitties and watching viddies!

Hand-jobs for Jesus!

FYI america, there is no god.

....gee, thanks for the info dickweed-now run along home to mommie, she has kept your bedroom all just like you had it....oh wait, you still live there....nevermind.

Who you talkin' to choggie?

....beeeeeeep

*dead

The link to this video has been flagged as dead. Fix it within 7 days or it will be discarded (dead called by gold star member benjee)

*undead

The link to this video has been fixed (undead called by original submitter theo47)

*dead again

The link to this video has been flagged as dead. Fix it within 7 days or it will be discarded (dead called by gold star member djsunkid)

Discarding this video. It was flagged as dead but not flagged undead within 7 days.