Haggard Scandal

When was he elected president? I can find reference to his being president in 2004 but all the NAE sites are the same press release regarding Haggards resignation, and the only other reference covers the general history of the group. Wikipedia has an article and list of presidents at the bottom looks like the term is 3 years.National Association of Evangelicals - WikipediaEither this is an amazing coincidence or perhaps they are related?It's like general politicians (and Haggard is a politican) getting caught with their hands in the cookie jar after getting better access to the cookie jar (republicans in congress case in point). ah yes, it isn't really his fault, he was enticed, he had no moral fiber to withstand the enticement out of the blue to have his privates "massaged" and to "gaze" onto some meth ...nemesis_juggernaut in Message 110 talks about atheists having no basis for morals so they are necessarily less moral, and here we have someone who preaches this gospel, and it turns out he has no moral fiber sustained by his faith, and no protection against the ravages of immoral behavior due to the values of his faith.I would say that this one case alone completely refutes nemesis_juggernaut's position, but it doesn't stop with just Haggard, immoral behavior is rampant in high ranking leadership of many christian organizations, from Pat Buchanen to Jim and Tammy Bakker to ... the list just goes on and on.If nemesis_juggernaut's hypothesis were true then there should be fewer top christian leaders and fewer top leaders that are christian being exposed as moral frauds - including clinton and delay - and there isn't: there may even be more.If nemesis_juggernaut's hypothesis were true then there should be fewer christians in jail than in the general population, and there isn't: there may even be more.Having a hand on a book with a handy recipe for moral behavior doesn't mean that the cake is fully baked.I understand that both you and nemesis_juggernaut indulged in past behavior that you now consider to be immoral, and that it is only after adapting christianity that you now have the moral {code\ethics\ability} to refrain from such behavior. You found a handy standard and adapted it.But the real truth is that there are other ways of developing morals and ethics: these are essentially social values of acceptable behavior within the group. Personal values affect how you relate to the overall group (or set of groups you belong to).You can adopt american values of freedom, equality, justice, liberty, respect for basic human rights, etc - and have a set of moral codes and ethics based on those values.You can adopt conservative values of fiscal responsibility, small government control over people, etc - and have a set of moral codes and ethics based on those values.You can adapt christian values of mysoginistic relations, holding slaves, rape, massive warfare, etc (although your specific choices may be different) - and have a set of moral codes and ethics based on those values.You can also choose selfist values of "me first" and "what's in it for me" and "if it feels good do it" and "live for today" and the like - and have a set of moral codes and ethics based on those values.So you can have different sets of moral codes and ethics, and how you personally behave will be based on your personal ranking of those values -- which you put first, selfist, christian, conservative or american.The basic fallacy of almost all christian morality critics is the equation of all their moral values with the ones only - and selectively - derived from their faith. This is the logical fallacy of part for all.Losing part does not make one entirely immoral, nor does changing one part: obviously you can change liberal for conservative values without changing any of the others and still have a socially valid code of moral and ethical behavior.What we know as the "Golden Rule" is universal in human society. The reason for it is that it is beneficial for the society, and humans are social animals. You don't have to be christian to have the golden rule as part of your moral and ethical standards, you don't have to be christian to think that wanton murder and social mayhem are not moral and ethical behavior.You don't have to be christian to have a moral and ethical standard that is easily equal if not superior to one derived solely from one resource.So I am intellectually offended whenever a person claims to have a moral and ethical standard based on a belief structure, and that claims it is superior to non-belief standards, so every time one of these types of people gets hung out to dry by their own immoral behavior I enjoy the delicious irony that it provides: they are living proof that their hypothetical moral and ethical superiority is false.It doesn't matter how long ago it started or how long it has been going on, the assumtion of superior behavior is refuted.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : poytEdited by RAZD, : developed phrasing further

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I agree with your assessment that NJ's commentary was wrong (you can see my reply to it in the spinoff thread for that). Atheism doesn't mean anything about one's morality per se.However, I have to uhhhh... well I wouldn't say stand up... let's say clarify something with regard to morality and use this Haggard situation as an example. Nevermind that it is really quite funny and hopefully he gets his just end.I have never known a Xian to claim that they are all sinless, or morally pure. Their whole point is that EVERYONE is a sinner, they will be tempted, sometimes failing, but then will attempt to change.They want laws against things not because they themselves would never do so, but because their legality makes such things more likely to be engaged in. In the case of Haggard for example if homosexuality were illegal, maybe he wouldn't have tried it, and if he did he'd be facing a lot more problems.Xians can justifiably note that, outside of laughing at hypocrisy, the actual activities Haggard engaged in (got caught for) would largely not be criticized by atheists, or that atheists would have no solid logical ground for condemnation.That would be outside of appealing to current social standards, which would itself be hypocritical given that atheists champion the changing of social standards as well.Xians will do what they usually do these days, which is condemn his activity and to some great extent him, and if he is repentent then forgive him and use him as an example of how people can fail.In essence I think it is a bit of a straw man to argue they claim they are incapable of any such activities. And while Haggard may claim he never had or would want to do such things, when in fact he did, that is just a sign of another human failing. They argue that we do not repent, or even view such things as immoral, have no solid basis for such condemnation, and in some cases even glorify that behavior.Edited by holmes, : they

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Iano judging Jar for hoping a convicted tax evader gets the maximum sentence: iano judging an evangelical pastor for suspected drug use, adultery, solicitation of a homosexual prostitute, and hypocrisy: ____Edited by Archer Opterix, : URL.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Well, this is rubbish.No-one is denying you your right to live your life according to the primitive taboos and ignorant superstitions of a bunch of deluded savages. They are, however, proposing that your taboos should not be imposed on others by law.By the way, how's your campaign to criminalize usury going? What, there isn't one? I guess there's only so much hate to go round.

If nemesis_juggernaut's hypothesis were true the USA, where most people profess Christianity, would exhibit far less violent crime than Taiwan or Japan, where the majority observe Eastern religions or are agnostics and atheists.Bet the house on it: that one isn't true.___

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

I don't really know what the Religious Right means. I assume it to mean those like Falwell who politicize their religion. I would say, who cares what they say. Shraf, give me a break. I don't tell you "turn or burn, you and your homo friends!" All that you and I have ever done is have discussions about our personal beliefs. My beliefs include what Yahweh says. Aside from arguing my points about theology and philosophy, I don't think I've done anything so egregious to where I'm demanding that you believe what I believe. If you don't want to believe that a man named Yeshua came as the Savior, you don't have to. But woe to anyone that didn't share the information just to be 'politically correct.' If you aren't comfortable sharing that much information with almost perfect strangers, that's fine. It does offer a catharsis though. Also, if you think that people are going to use that against you some time down the line, I can assure you that I would never do that to you. I can't speak for everyone else, but that is off-limits for me. I would be too honored that you shared something so personal. Betrayal of that confidence would be unacceptable for me.

---

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2^nd Corinthians 10:4-5

Heading off topic, but I would know by looking at what Jesus did and said and comparing it to the Taoist principles. One of the major influences on my personal beliefs was when introduced to the Eastern religions back in grade school. The almost one for one correspondence between the Taoist principles and Jesus was striking then, and has continued to influence me right through until today.A thread on that might even be worthwhile.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Meth is legal?It seems that your assumption that they want laws as a preventive measure doesn't stand up. Meth is illegal, even in Denver.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I am not really arguing that they claim to be immune, just better protected by their magic shield. That's why I also included other examples.But it is one thing to talk about the general population of christians and say that some amount of errors are admited, and quite another to claim an effect of overall better behavior that is refuted by the data.And it is one thing to talk about the general population of christians and quite another to be a self-appointed spokesperson for higher values based on a faith, and then to have the real personal behavior values exposed that contradict those publically expressed ones.If he said "we are all sinners and we should not judge the sins of others" then that is one thing, and I would agree with you. He did not do that, he specifically targeted specific behavior and people as immoral and reprehensible ...... behavior he engaged in ...... and he claimed to have - and use - a higher standard and values. ... justice in the end? heh.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

You still don't get it... This, like Theater of the Mind, was OT to be talking about moral relativism. I shouldn't have gone down that road. I have no longer engaged in the debate because it was OT. But the point that i made in there still stands. What you and almost everyone is seemingly incapable of understanding is that if you are a moral relativist, then morals don't actually exist-- even the ones you maintain. Yes, I believe even the staunchest of atheists have moral beliefs. I'm merely showing them how their own beliefs are always subject to amendment at their whim in constant exoneration-- in other words, there is a perpetual excuse for why their behavior didn't 'actually' go against their own morals. Haggard is trying to do the same thing. He's trying to lessen the blow. Aside from which, if we all march to our drummer, then none of us have the right to criticize anyone else's moral standard. If there is not a consensus on basic precepts, there is no duality in society. "It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this?" - 1^st Corinthians 5:1-2I can recognize people by their fruit, as most people can. Everyone of those people, to include Haggard, I have sensed that they were misguided at best, and phonies at worst. If you may recall, I was poking a bit of fun at Haggard on the EvC Halloween Thread. I've always sensed there was something amiss with him. And the Bakkers, as well as half of the staff at TBN and CBN, its the same. I don't like it. Its creepy to me and I think they do far more damage to Christ than to offer an actual ministry. Some people may disagree, but I feel strongly about that. Clinton is about as Christian as the Bakkers were. Just saying, "I'm a Christian!" doesn't make it so. That's like me going around claiming that I'm an Asian woman. Just because I profess it doesn't create the reality."Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.
Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?' Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers." -Matthew 7:22-23 People tend to adopt Christian beliefs or finally take it seriously during bad times. That kind of goes without saying. Haggard won't be hung by his own standard, but God's. Its comfortable for those who have no identifiable standard to sit pretty on their high horse in piety. You can never pin accountability to them because they never commit to any set of values to begin. Their actions are always justified, somehow. And they'll just play the semantics game with you in order to absolve themselves from any backsliding from their own standards. And they speak derisively and point out the failures of those who do follow a palpable set of standards while they sit on the judgement seat.However, it shouldn't surprise me that you would relish in Haggards self-defeat. No, that's not a jab at you. Its natural to feel disgust at hypocrisy. I wonder how often we feel that for ourselves when we are hypocritical. The fact that such a powerful, universal inclination exists only solidifies the notion that we are imparted with some moral understanding in our heart.

---

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2^nd Corinthians 10:4-5

How is some guy failing to do something, despite a law, refuting an argument a group wants laws for their deterrent properties?I didn't say their argument had validity, I said that's what they want. They continually claim executions are a deterrent despite the fact that murders (including by Xians) continue.And it is true that for some people, laws can act as a deterrent, even if it may not for all (or statistically meaningful for any specific category of crim) . That's where the other side comes in... punishment. In the very section you quoted from my post I said "maybe he wouldn't..., and if he did he'd be facing a lot more problems."If meth (or whatever he used) was NOT illegal he would not be facing as many problems. If homosexuality were illegal he would be facing more problems.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

We have absolutely no idea what these people would be like without the moral code they live with, backed up by their fear of gods. Given some of their statements of what life must be like without gods or moral codes, I sometimes wonder that perhaps it is a very good thing they have such beliefs.I'm not sure if I am joking or not. Mmmmm, to think about it, in this case perhaps justice deserved, would be justice denied.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Then we are not all that far apart. I read you as saying he would be less likely to do something if it were illegal. If all you mean is that he might claim that as a fact for others while ignoring it for his personal behavior, in other words, normal evangelical and fundamentalist hypocrisy, I would agree.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hypocrisy is the latest Christian virtue.And whited sepulchures are the new black.

I agree that my commentary was OT and inappropriate at that time. Problem is, I don't see anyone condemning the other participant. I agree that moral relativism makes no sense, nor can the relativist have any sense of meaning continuing to ascribe to such cloaked beliefs. You seem to understand it perfectly. I doubt legality had anything to do with it... Meth is illegal and so is soliciting sex. You're right. No one would care if it were an atheist, nor would anyone know about it. The media doesn't care when atheists do that. It wouldn't make headlines. Pretty much. I have no doubt he's tasting how bitter it is. And time heals some wounds, but public scandals like this follow a man the rest of his life. Forgiveness can happen for Haggard, no question about it, but the consequences of sin can remain for the term of our natural lives.

---

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2^nd Corinthians 10:4-5