What a lovely way to start the week. The Evangelical Church, in its greedy, frightening, un-Christian grandstanding and power-grabbing has become the laughing stock of the American mainstream in the midst of the Reverand Ted Haggard scandal.
Of course the church is saying that one man's moral indiscretions won't change their moral standards, which are based on the Bible. And good for them, I love it when people stay on message.
I hope that this embarassing situation reminds the American public of the fallibility of religious leaders. Evangelicals, W's bff's, have no business advising our President and chiming in on issues of national policy. It's bad enough that politicians are prone to crooked morals, adding in self-hating Bible-thumpers to the mix is just asking for more trouble.
13 comments:
GCL - you're killing me man. In this post, you had me and then you lost me.
I am not fan of the religous right, and Haggard perfectly embodies the problem with it all. Here's a man whose very raison d'etre is to profess a "morality" that involves the complete condemnation of homosexuality. If anyone had the motive to fight their own desires and avoid "the sin" - he would have been the man. But, he couldn't, and ended up getting "massages" from a gay drug-dealing hooker. In a fight between Bible-thumping Church meetings and nature, nature always wins. Not a twinge of second thoughts, I would guess, from those who believe that homosexuality is simply a "behavior" that can be turned on its head. Well, that's the relgious right - which bases what they say and what they do on what they "believe" - REGARDLESS of the reality of the situation. Haggard just the most recent casualty.
So, GCL, we should be in agreement. But there you go again attacking Bush again, calling these idiots his "BFF's" - they are not. MOst of them are very much against this president. Many of the nation's top religous leaders have urged their supporters to abstain from voting. Fahwell, Robertson, Dobson - all of them have at one time or another voiced fundamental disagreements with him. Instead of praising his willingness to part ways with what we both agree is a corrosive, divisive element in our society, you attack Bush for being a politican who doesn't break off completely from them (note: Democrats pander to these assholes as well).
I get the feeling that you believe that no matter what your point, it becomes stronger if you can link it into an attack on Bush. It doesn't. I am not saying he shouldn't be attacked - he certainly deserves it - on a number of issues. But when everything, EVERYTHING, is used in the service of attacked the Bush administration, it chips away at your crediblity and removes any semblance of objectivity. I don't understand why you continue to do it...I could be wrong, but I don't think you did earlier on in your blog.
GCL issues the standard liberal attack on Christians. Once again, you can believe anything you want as long as liberals agree with it. Otherwise, you're a dumbass, ignorant hay-seed hick. It's all part of their arrogance.
Libs can have Buddhist monks and Chi-Comms donate money, but Bush can't even talk to whomever he chooses.
Besides, Christians realize that their leaders aren't perfect. Christians know full well that not a single man is perfect. Not a single one of us is oblivious to that fact. However, arrogant liberals revel in this sort of thing ASSuming that we're all too stupid. The reality is that Christians don't believe they're perfect, just forgiven.
Yet another disgraceful aspect of the libs.
Berdo, if there's one thing Bush and the "Christian" right have in common it's their dangerous belief that they are somehow enlightened by God. Bush thinks he's got the OK from God to forbid gay marriage and to kill off thousands of soldiers and civilians so he can create an American stronghold in Iraq.
My point is that just like the cracks in the Christian right are ever apparent, so too are the cracks in W's policy. Being the cozy bedfellows that they are (homophobes, rich, white) it not only makes sense to talk about the two at the same time, but to celebrate their downfall.
TGC, I am NOT attacking Christians. I'm a Christian myself and need I remind you that when Jesus said "my kingdom is no part of this world." (John 18:36)
Today's Evangelicals have scoffed at this scripture and have launched their own crusade against the freedoms of our country. And unlike Buddist monks and Chi-Comms, Evangelical leaders are a hateful bunch. You're not going to hear a Buddhist monk grandstand on sexual "immorality" and "family values." What ever happened to be nice to your neighbor and God loves everyone?
GCL -
Virtually every politician claims to have some special relationship with God. You know it and I know it. To single Bush out on that as if it somehow makes him incredibly different, instead of remarkably similar, to every politican is off the mark. I don't like all the Jesus talk - for one thing, I'm Jewish - and it speaks division rather than unity to me. But it's not the first time I've felt that. The religious nonsense didn't start with Bush and it won't end there - regardless of which party is represented in the Oval Office.
I don't like the War in Iraq - and I supported it. I don't like the way it is being handled at all. But I do NOT believe we went in there solely for oil - the same way I didn't believe it when everyone (falsely) made the accusation during the Gulf War. Kuwait was saved by us from being wiped out completely by Hussein - and it certainly didn't bring the gas prices down in the US. So that accusation, to me, is at least partly a straw man. Sure, we are protecting oil interests - LIKE EVERY OTHER COUNTRY on Earth. We also went in there because Hussein - and his murderous regime - had been given impunity by the UN and the EU and the rest of the world to conquer, rape and kill at will. As Hitchens pointed out (and I still don't know a bigger deal isn't being made of this) he was meeting with North Korean diplomats in Syria to buy nuclear missiles "off the shelf" (as Hitchens puts it). It would be useful, I think for everyone to take a step back and think about what Iraq, the Middle East and the rest of the world would look like if Hussein was allowed to continue unobstructed for the past three and a half years. Want to talk death and destruction? Think about that one for a moment.
You've heard my diatrible on "rich white homophobes" being ascribed solely to Republicans. It's as true as the "rich white homophobes" in the Democratic party. Only the Dems are a bit less homophobic - a bit MORE rich. You may not want to believe it - but it's true - Blue is no longer the color of the working man's party.
If you take any of this to mean that I support the evangelical contingent (I think much of what they support is repugnant) or that I see no fault in Bush (I could write for days criticizing him) - please don't. But for the Love of (yes I'll say it) God - come on.
and need I remind you that when Jesus said "my kingdom is no part of this world." (John 18:36)
I'm not aware of anyone claiming that it is. Exactly which "freedoms" do you think evangelicals are attacking?
Might one quibble with "fallibility" in this context. You and I might see the fallibility as hypocrisy and shortcomings regarding personal integrity. The literalists would think of his fallibility as succumbing to the "sin" of his sexual orientation.
Or not.
Another example of the difficulty of language. Certainly an interesting post and responses.
It is unfortunate that many of the responses that I am finding to Haggards' moral failure, even from those who would apparently claim to be christians, are more critical and hateful than loving and engendered by a sincere hope for recovery. Perhaps we need to reflect on what our response says of our character. Are we responding the way Christ would? Is this the response that would come out of a kingdom of god participant? When we respond in such a manner, we sink the depths of hate that many times are aimed at homosexuals. It is always easier to criticise when the criticism is aimed "out there" as opposed to ourselves. With that said, there is no doubt that what he did was wrong and hypocritical. And of course, religious leaders are fallible. I don't think that they, even evangelicals, ever claim not to be. It wasn't true that the disciples were fallible, with all but John deserting Christ at his greatest time of need. Even Peter himself was a wreck. Why would it be any different now? But, it seems implicit in your post that sometimes evangelicals put themselves on a moral highground. However, not all do, and it is a straw man argument and thus an oversimplication to say that all do.
By the way, you have totally presented this scripture out of the context of the larger theme of the kingdom of god. I could also cite one single verse, such as Lk 17:21 that says "the kingdom of god is among you." So obviously there is some element of it being active in the here and now. So, when developing a view of what the kingdom is, it will not do to cite one verse as if that gives the totality of the meaning of the kingdom of god. It is this type of hermeneutical practice that leads to fallacious, nonbiblical views.
Further, it is unfortunate that you stereotype all evangelical leaders as "a hateful bunch." I am an evangelical in ministry and I at least in any situation, though I might disagree with you, try to treat you with love and civility. To oversimplify the issues by implying that all evangelical leaders are hateful is just misinformed. Or, by hateful do you mean anyone that disagrees with you on an issue that clearly is very personal to you (gay issues). Can two people not disagree on an issue and still love one another? I insist that regardless of your views I will try to treat you as a person who bears the image of God. So, your point has been disproven, b/c at least one person is not hateful towards you...namely, me. And please do not think my comments are hateful, I am just trying to focus on truth which is very important to me. What are your thoughts? It seems that by stereotyping evangelicals you are falling into the kind of intolerance and intellectual dishonesty that you abhore.
By the way, you have totally presented this scripture out of the context of the larger theme of the kingdom of god.
Quoting scripture out of context is very popular. GCL says he's a Christian and I don't doubt that. However, he's jumped on the liberal bandwagon of fearing Christianity because he knows he has to if he wants to be a good liberal. It's sad, but that's the way it goes. Libs are liberals first and everything else is secondary, tertiary etc.
Of course, as expected, a liberal will excoriate anybody who dares question them or disagrees with their position. That's the way their arrogance goes.
Please. One is cautious, not fearful, of some proponents of Christianity just as one would be cautious, not fearful, of anything which is potentially corrosive and a danger to one's person.
Christianity is not the problem; irresponsible Christians are.
I love that this has become such a hot topic. Sorry for not responding quicker...my laptop contracted a virus (thank you, Limewire) so everything is running super slow. I also switched to Blogger Beta and thus far I think it sux.
Anyway, on to your comments.
Clint: kudos to you on your ministry. However, the reason people's reaction to Haggard's offenses are so critical and hateful are because that's the trade in which he has dealt for his entire career. In an op-ed for the Times last week Dan Savage brilliantly said "you can't have your hustler and disparage him too."
If by wishing for his recovery you mean that we should hope he stops being a liar and a meth-head then fine, I wish that more for his kids and his wife. Much like McGreevey here in NJ, I really have no sympathy for uber-ambitious jerks who are willing to sell themselves and their community out just to achieve status.
People like Haggard and McGreevey now want everyone to embrace them and console them. Well, now is not the time for that. I should be applauded for being super non-partisan on this issue, btw. I equally dislike Haggard and McGreevey and would like nothing more than to kick both of them in the nuts.
But back to rehabilitation: most people are hoping that Haggard will abandon his homosexuality. Most people are also hoping that Haggard's poor wife embrace the fact that she has a gay husband and help him recover. How compassionate is that?
Because the Evangelical Church assumes a collective anti-gay stance I am going to assume that all its members are homophobic. I grew up a Jehovah's Witness and while they were very loving and was made very clear that I could not be gay and a member of the congregation.
And I commend them for that. Now, if the same congregation elder who told me I had to stop being gay was later revealed to be a meth-addict and a closet case, I wouldn't hold it against the JWs. Why? Because unlike Evangelicals they're not out trying to shape policy and collecting millions of dollars to build mega-churches. Instead, JWs dont even vote. They're leaving it all up to God to sort us out. JWs are more concerned with keeping their congregations clean, so I stepped out for the benefit of my congregation and it's been a clean split since. No hard feelings.
But the Evangelicals are a different story -- from Jimmy Swaggert (sp?) to Tammy Faye-- they've proven to be nothing but wolves in sheep's clothes. So they deserve to be our cultural pi~nata. As America assumes a new identity I hope all those zealots are run out of town. Or at least out of the stupor that has them worshipping at the altar of greed, hate and war-mongering.
And TGC, I am not a liberal first and Christian second. I totally agree with GRT, Christianity isn't the problem, it's irresponsible Christians who ruin it for everyone. Kind of like radical Muslims, get it?
GayConLib,
You said:
"But the Evangelicals are a different story -- from Jimmy Swaggert (sp?) to Tammy Faye-- they've proven to be nothing but wolves in sheep's clothes. So they deserve to be our cultural pi~nata."
Anyone that has ever studied logic or philosophy knows that what you have done in this statement is to commit the genetic fallacy. Just b/c it is true that some evangelicals are "wolves in sheeps clothing", it does not follow that it is true of all evangelicals. Thus to paint all evangelicals as Uber-fundamentalists that are homo-phobic, repuablican, and hypocritical is fallacious. It seems that you are doing this over and over again.
I personally do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle. However, I do not go around bashing those who participate in it. Further, every community (including the homosexual community) has their extreme individuals. Thus, to paint all of one community as being of the same stripe if oversimplifying and intellectually dishonest. For instance, there are homosexuals who have preyed on little children. Would I be justified to make the homosexual community my "cultural pinata" as a result? Apparently on your logic I would. But this kind of stereotypoing is just wrong, no matter to whom it is being done.
At some point in the not-too-distant future, we need to address the "homosexual lifestyle."
Briefly, it might be suggested that no such thing exists. What one might have is a single person's lifestyle, or a non-child rearing lifestyle, but certainly doubtful is the "homosexual" lifestyle.
People have lives and they have style and they have sex.
If the discussion is going to focus on the inadvisability of casting a field too large, then certainly "homosexual lifestyle" qualifies as such a casting.
I was born, I was raised, I was educated, I served in the Army, I worked, I retired, I pay taxes, I vote. That's my life, so far. I am not a clothes horse; that's my style.
Someone suggested that "evangelical" is an inappropriate word for the sort of person usually stereotyped with the word; as a replacement, "literalist" has been offered.
Post a Comment