For all the evangelicals out there reading this -- help me get this right: Crystal meth and gay prostitutes are ok, but gay marriage is not?
And let's not get into the dispute about the difference between "sex" and "massage" in this circumstance -- it veers dangerously close to Bill Clinton territory.
13 comments:
i asked asked the same question some time ago
http://shocking.wordpress.com/2005/12/12/gay-marriages/
Dara, you do realize that Pandora has resigned her box duties w/that question??
=0)
Pegasus: It's a valid question. And apparently, Rev. Ted Haggard (and by association, the National Association of Evangelicals) have their hypocritical answer.
Ryane: Bring 'em on.
You knew I would respond . . . God help us all! :)
I have been debating how to respond for over 24 hours now, and I hope this comes across respectfully even in my disagreements. None of you on this board will ever meet one who grew up as evangelical as I did (I would wager money on it), and though I am still technically an "evangelical," I am glad to say I have seen through the ilks of Ted Haggard, Falwell and RObertson for many years now. Haggard, et. al. are into it for their power, money and prestige alone. Falwell and his minions of morons are the same way. In fact it is my prayer that those who I agree with in the evangelical movement, and we are so apart from Haggard and the NAE on theology, vocational calling, and philosphy, do not gloat over his fall. There are many Christian web sites that have been harshly critical about Haggard for the past several years (even one who alleges a culture of homosexuality in his ministry), and now they appeared to be justified.
The problem for people like me is exactly what you demonstrate in your post. I am a conservative Christian, so is Ted Haggard, so we are all lumped in it together, even though my line of evangelicalism sees Haggard and his ilk as borderline heresy. But, Dara, for some one like you who rightfully hates stereotypes, it seems that in your strange obsession with evangelical Christianity that you have done the very thing you hate: stereotyping. It seems to me that your logic is flawed in favor of your emotions by associating the actions of one man to whole group of people, even if he is the leader. Just because these people weren't smart enough to figure out he was full of shit does not mean they are the same hypocrites that he is. I could associate you with people who have been hypocritical or done some things even agnostics and atheists would consider immoral, even as arbitrary as trying to create a moral code for you all is. And I could do the same for me (where do we begin? haha). If Haggard's supporters continue to support him like blind sheep, then yes, they are open to criticism and I support you and those who are critical thereof. I just petition to your intellect not to think that all of the members of the NAE would go along with something like this. A lot of these folks may be blind in their Left-Behind reading, Darby/Scofield loving, dispensational thinking, but I know a lot of people who would put themselves in a group that would follow Ted Haggard (until now) and they are genuine, hard-working people, who would love you in return even though some times it seems like Bin Laden and his gang are more popular to the liberal bloggers than they are (pardon the hyperbole).
Finally, isn't it ironic that this group you despise so much is one of, if not your biggest, ally over the state of Israel? Strange bedfellows, huh?
Now its going to be hard not to go around to my dispensational evangelical friends and say "Told you so!"
I wrote the above post in freindly, honest debate, so hopefully you will see it as such; plus, I thought I could bring something from my experience to the comments.
PS - The above came from me, not Shae . . . I accidentally put our baby webiste in instead of mine!!
Bo, you've misinterperted my attempt at a pithy comical line as something sinister. Now I know how John Kerry must feel.
I do not mean to attack evangelicals, or stereotype anyone or anything. My only intent was to criticize Haggard and the hypocrisy of his position -- in a (hopefully) somewhat humorous way.
I do not despise evangelical Christianity. On the contrary -- I respect those who actually believe and attempt to live their lives according to those principles. But the truth of the matter is that believing and doing are two different things.
This is exactly why I despise a number of the popular leaders of the evangelical movement -- Falwell, Robertson, Jim Bakker, Dr. Dino, and now this moron. But I think it's for a valid reason: They preach a certain type of lifestyle, thereby convincing millions of people to follow, but then they behave in completely hypocritical ways.
And to be fair, if it were Muslim or Jewish or Wiccan leaders pulling this type of crap, I'd be just as likely to call them out on it. (Like the rabbi caught on Dateline NBC's "To Catch a Predator", who is someone I've met.)
But people keep falling for these charismatic, hypocritical leaders -- and in that regard, they lack judgment.
And yeah, I know they support Israel. But that's the least of my concerns.
The best is that Haggard admited to the buying of the meth, but not to the gay sex. Because in his world, being a meth addict is BETTER. Idiot.
I think is great that everyone is beginning to seriously question false religion. It's about time they were called to justice in the eyes of the public. Good news: the government is going to put them to an end very soon
Dara,
I guess I misinterpreted your post. For that I am sorry - I just wanted to be sure you weren't throwing some innocent folks under the bus because in their own misguidedness they fell for a smooth-talking jackonape.
Actually, I am more emotional about his than maybe you are, because while maybe not despising the man himself, I despise what he has done to Christianity (even before all this) and I just shake my head at the people who follow his "feel good whims" and that pisses me off. OK, I admit, I am probably the one who despises this strain of evangelicalism more than most!
I believe God calls men to preach and to have churches that are reaching out, not get involved in politics. zjI used to like Dobson when he stayed out of politics, but now that he is getting involved . . . ugh.
I always love the TMBG song that clearly explains too many times the situation "I built a little empire out of some crazy [lazy?]garbage called the blood fo the exploited working class . . . now they've overcome their shyness, and they're calling me your highness, and the world screams, 'Kiss me, son of God!"
Bo: Trust me, I understand why you would take this thing personally. Haggard and his ilk insult people like you -- who really believe -- every day.
I understand that most people in religion -- and in a similar vein politics -- genuinely begin with good (or at a minimum, benign) intentions. But you know what they say about the road to hell . . . .
I think it's the power that drives them over the edge. They get a taste, and then they need more -- so they sell out the very principles that got them there in the first place.
Hubris, pure and simple.
On this, my friend, we agree.
Bo: That doesn't surprise me. I think that even as a practicing Christian, you acknowlege the flaws in the system.
Even though I have a lot of unanswerable questions about religion (calling myself agnostic is too simple), I still understand the fundamental concept -- believing in whatever God or greater power you choose, having faith in that power, and living by a code of ethical and/or moral principles. But I keep coming back to the same problem with organized religion: Leaders telling others what those guiding principles should be, condemning things (beliefs, practices, people -- and sometimes even questions) as bad -- when those leaders can't or won't follow their own rules.
So, I keep reaching the same conclusion -- people are too quick to condemn others and their lifestyles, and lack perspective, compassion, and understanding. So, I advocate a simple sort-of laissez-faire approach to religion: Since no one is going to agree on everything 100% of the time, people need to live in a way that is justifiable to them, and everyone else should just let them be.
Post a Comment