Clinton was the President, and like it or not we live in a very Christian country. He should have known better than to do what he did. Should he have been impeached for it? No, but he did committ perjury, so have that be what it is…

In any event, the Haggard scandal is getting the appropriate attention given his stature in the public eye. And hey, at least he admitted it very soon after the accusations came out. Clinton let his accusations drag on forever before he finally admitted his.

In any event, done and done. Let’s move on.

But crystal meth and sex with gay hookers is forgivable for the high priest of the conservative holier-than-thou morality movement.

Nobody is saying that Haggard should have been sin-free. But he is a public figure who used his pulpit to preach against the very things he was doing. Of course he made mistakes, and that’s kind of the point. Judge not lest ye be judged.

Say what you will, but this story deserved the attention it got.

Now Art, I mean Ted, says “Ok, I had sex but I didn’t swallow”.

I know you’re tough enough to stand up to these guys. You don’t need to hide behind false interpretations of the doctrine of separation between church and state.

And, for the record, I do think you have the right to call them demons … although I think “false prophets” is more accurate.

And yes, I believe I DO have the right to be free of their requests, it’s called “separation of church and state”, written in that oft-ignored little document called the Constitution.

All over the news, internet, and blogs this morning. Number one search term at Technorati: Ted Haggard.
The story:
A leading evangelist and outspoken opponent of gay marriage has given up his post as president of the National Association of Evangelica…

Perhaps you misunderstand the posting. I haven’t stated that Mr. Haggard is guilty of the allegations made against him…in fact I make a point to say as much. Notwithstanding, my commentary and the title of my posting are a separate indictment of Mr. Haggard and his teachings as well as the teachings of many others who use religion to divide, judge, and elevate.

Sorry Daniel. I’m not saying that you’re not telling us what you were thinking when you wrote that title, but there’s a disconnect and it makes you appear disingenuous. I’m not saying that you are disingenuous, but you would have done well to pose the title as a question instead of making it a declaration.

Daniel, you seem to want religion to be as passive and quiet as possible. You say you don’t want to have your beliefs invalidated but then go right on the invalidate the beliefs of those you oppose. It just won’t work that way. Just because someone wants to legislate their morality doesn’t make their morality inherrently wrong. Or are you also critical of efforts to punish hate speech, to forbid Army recruiters on college campuses, to harsly restrict gun ownership (like in Washington, DC) not because any statistic shows it prevents violence but just because some are morally opposed to guns?

It gets quite complicated when we start picking and choosing which groups get to request their morals be law and which groups don’t.

Power over sheep like people. And who is more gullible than the average “conservative� churchgoer?

It’s a lot easier to believe people are being brainwashed than it is to believe they actually have good reasons for believing as they do. Disagree with these people all you want, but it’s bad for society when one segment decides the other is not just mistaken but too stupid to even know better.

Daniel,

Religious groups have the right to ask that their beliefs be part of society just as much as secular groups have that right — and you have no right to be free of their requests (although you do have the right to ignore them or offer a retort). Just because a belief comes from a religion does not automatically make it more or less valid. Nor is it right to assume religious believers are anymore prone to brainwashing than believers in any secular ideology. Or that those beliefs, because they are religious, are inherrently more oppressive.

In a democracy, all groups have an equal right to try and influence the majority. There’s something very disquieting about the idea that religious groups have less right to be involved in politics because somehow their views are less valid or more harmful. When abolishionists found their views through their religion and “imposed” those views on the nation, was that wrong–just religious brainwashing? When anti-globalists march and try to impose their views on the U.S., is that better because, hey, at least they aren’t religious (even if they have many of the markings of a cult)?

I think the proper way to combat the less savory elements of the religious right is to challenge their assertions head on. Calling them demons and making condescending remarks about their followers is not going to work. Too many people believe in the tenents for us to pretend their opinions are just the contrivences of the power hungry. We can’t just say “they only believe that because they want control.” We have to actually address their arguments with honest counter-arguments — just as we would with secular groups.

So disingenuous of a writer who entitles his piece:

“Ted Haggard: Another Demon In Deacon’s Clothes”

Yeah, you say he’s not yet proven guilty but you’ve condemned him already.

People, when will you wake up and realize that NOTHING means more to these “leaders” than POWER. Nothing; not compassion, not peace, not fairness to others, NOTHING means as much as POWER.

Power over sheep like people. And who is more gullible than the average “conservative” churchgoer?