Haggard Scandal

um ...... exactly what didn't he swallow?

---

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.

For me, what it is about is an elected president of a group of people who supposedly set a moral example ... the sheer hypocrisy of it.It's not because he is christian per se but the fact that he privatly does what he publicly denounces.He chose to run for President of the National Association of Evangelicals(NAE), knowing that he was a hypocrite.You can make assumptions and bad mouth people here all you want, but as soon as one of yours is shown to be a hypocrite and it's all apologetics eh?Doublethink much?Edited by AdminJar, : fix quotebox

---

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.

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 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're suggesting they are like the alcoholics that need an outside standard to stay dry, or a person on a diet that keeps nibbling unless controlled by an overseer.Although this appears to be a fairly pessimistic view of many people, potentially there is a lot of truth.No moral code or law of others is going to prevent socio-paths from acting on their inability to empathize with others or consider the effects of their behavior or think anything other than their values are valid.Between the absolute socio-path and the most compliant social maven lies a full spectrum of people. What we consistently see is that all people are convinced that their personal world view is correct and that their behavior is based on their {values\views\standards\ethics} not on the codes and laws of others.Thus, at no point will you have people that would abide by an external code or law before they would abide by a personal standard. We see this in the private behavior of Haggard and others no matter what they profess as a public code of ethics morality and behavior.This is where the concept of passing laws to control behavior of others fails.Therefore laws are not the answer.Perhaps the answer lies, if anywhere, in behavioral psychology and the medical treatment of {mental\chemical\hormonal} imbalances ...... in understanding what is not operating properly in some people, and in understanding what "proper operation" IS and basing behavioral moral codes and ethics on realistic social patterns, and suiting reactions (as opposed to punishments) to infractions based on those realities.Enjoy.

---

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.

... refuted by the evidence. Haggard was no more able to behave even with the "christian" moral code than without it. There are still as many christians in jail as in the general population. There is NO visible benefit in any form to show that christian morality standards are any better at controling the behavior of people. And this is shown to be equally true of christians who supposedly accept the christian doctrines of moral behavior even as defined by extremist churches. Ted Haggard proves this. His initial denial of charges proves this. He's been forced by the evidence and the opinions of others to publically admit behavior. In his mind is another question. This is absolutely false. The only thing that doesn't exist is "absolutist" morality - and it doesn't exist anyway.The golden rule still applies, enlightened self-interest still applies, the universality of equality, justice, liberty and basic human rights still apply.It is still valid that wanton murder and social mayhem is disruptive of society as a whole and thus society as a whole will restrict it as morally and ethically wrong. Actually the fastest growing faith in prison is Islam.BUT: the data involves the faiths the inmates noted when they were first incarcerated, not after any jail-time revelations.There is also VERY high recidivism in the USof(N)A, and of those repeat offenders the proportion that is christian is still basically the same as in the general population (HIGH) if not slightly more than average.I don't think you are dealing with the data fairly - to yourself.Tellingly the ONE thing that has been shown to reduce recidivism is education - the higher education an inmate receives the less likely they are to be repeat offenders.The conclusion from this is that education promotes higher moral behavior much more effectively than christianity.And from this, that rational consideration of moral behavior and ethics is more realistic than an artificial imposition of archaic codes or any laws based on such codes.And from this, that a relativistic moral code is more realistic than any arbitrary absolutist code.This is what the evidence shows, not assertions, not claims of benefits: data.Enjoy.

---

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 see ... being honest is immoral and lying is moral.got it.

---

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.

Or european countries.Given that the rate of incarceration in the USof(N)A is second highest in the world (only Russia rates higher), ...... one could easily claim that the high proportion of christian morality within the population ...... where various polls say 80% to 90% of american claim to be christian ...... is a contributary factor to the high rate of crime.After all, it absolves people of responsibility for their actions: it's not their fault, they are just another failed sinner.It would be interesting to compare societies based on the rates of violent crimes and see what the correlaries are.I do know that the rates of crime in the USof(N)A is much higher than in Canada and that correlating factors may include:

• higher rate correlates with noise levels in urban areas
• higher fundamentalist christianity in US
• higher proportions of readily available weapons of personal destruction in the US.

The first is from a study that I was involved in running in the '70's, and the correlation between noise levels and violent crime was linear in both populations, but the slope was much steeper for the USof(N)A than for Canada.Enjoy.

---

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.

No one will accept it as valid. Morals are personal values and cannot be imposed from without. Your morality and ethics govern what you do when no one is looking, as demonstrated by Haggard.All it creates is more laws being broken and less respect for laws overall, less compliance with them.Can you shed any light on what is beneficial about that?Enjoy.

---

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.

Because he chooses to make religion into politics. Because it wants to create the american taliban theocracy, because he wants to subvert america, because he is a traitor to the constitution.Do I need any more reason?

---

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.