Comments on: Sympathy for the Devil

By: Loughlin Tatem

Loughlin Tatem — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:40:06 +0000

The very nature of evangelicalism is contrary to the nature of humanity. It is not natural to love one’s enemies, or put others before ourselves and forgive those who have severely wronged us.All who think they are following the teachings of the Bible are really not doing so at all.There are thousands of laws in that book that cannot be adhered to by believers because it is impossible to do so,(There are more than ten commandments) and because many of those laws are not clear and must be interpreted by either self,or instutionally imposed religious authority, so count the hyprocrites, they are more than the sands of the ocean since they are not following the rules. according to the same Bible, there is none righteous, no not one.There is really nothing in religion that gives anyone the right to guide another’s moral behaviour (outside of somehow convincing others that although the leader is really not morally better, his God has selected him to lead).The nature of evangelical religion itself is an incubator for hypocrisy.

By: jdac

jdac — Thu, 28 May 2009 22:22:46 +0000

I feel a certain sympathy for Ted Haggard, but only so long as I don’t think about who he is and what he represented and represents.

He’s a moral and ethical train wreck. He’s a liar and a demagogue. Thinking of the world he wants to see realized in his warped religious beliefs enrages me.

Each time I think of this, I find myself amused by Haggard’s suffering, and the chagrin that I hope his followers feel. Not so much by the pain he’s visited on his family, or gays at large, either personally or by proxy through his followers.

By: Ron

Ron — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 00:06:09 +0000

I normally would not wish any ill will to Ted Haggard – but I certainly don’t feel sorry for him – and if the other comments on here are true and he made other peoples lives a living hell or advocated that to advance his ideology (especially when it comes being gay) then he certainly deserves everything he is getting. He is a sad, sad man. His wife to. I do feel sorry for his kids. I couldn’t imagine being one of his kids – or what they are going to have to deal with as they grow up in the shadow of Ted’s transgressions.

I also have more comments on this in my own 8th rate blog http://www.i-skeptic.com.

By: Linda Rosa

Linda Rosa — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 06:15:36 +0000

Michael, I’m glad you wrote about Haggard. I saw the film also, and I was disappointed the filmmaker would shy away from hardball questions about homosexuality.

I couldn’t help thinking that Haggard was using the film to speak to his old congregation, that was shunning him, so that he could show how rock bottom he had sunk, how humble he was. Preachers often brag about how low they had once fallen. “No one was worse than me!” And sure enough, at the end of the film, we are told Haggard was allowed back into his Colorado Springs home.

By: Living Hell

Living Hell — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 09:36:42 +0000

@Max – You’re completely right. Being a paedophile is no more a choice than any other sexual orientation. I believe part of the reason people find this hard to accept is because the media use the term ‘paedophile’ as a synonym for ‘child molester’. It’s not. Many who molest kids are not actually paedophiles but rather predators who take advantage of any situation that presents itself.

I am a person who is unfortunate enough to be born with this despised orientation. It was never a choice for me. After all, why would anyone choose to be hated but nearly all of society? I understand that to act on my attractions is likely to cause harm and have therefore never touched a child in a sexual manner and never will. For those who allow their xenophobia and bigotry to cloud their judgement, I ask you: can you imagine a life where you can never allow yourself to act on your sexual attractions? A life in which you know that most people want you dead or at least locked up purely because of your sexual orientation; regardless of whether you act on it or not? A life in which you have to keep a core part of your being a secret from everyone you know and love? I would venture to guess that no one posting here understands what it is like. Even at the darkest times in their history, homosexuals have never known the depth of hatred directed as such as I.

I’d suggest that those who seek knowledge and truth rather than simply wallowing in ignorance take the time to look into this issue as there are many innocent people who suffer a miserable existence due to the rampant paedophobia in our society.

By: MotherLodeBeth

MotherLodeBeth — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 23:22:23 +0000

I am no expert, but its my understanding that Christianity teaches the idea of ‘free will’. As such Ted Haggart as an adult had the choice to be an adult or lie about who is is. Nowhere in the Christian texts does Christ ever mention gays/lesbians. In the Jewish texts there is no mention of lesbian sex. Unless people actually know the context of what they are quoting, they are misleading themselves and others. And on the issue of marriage, from the get go it was about protecting the estate of men. It wasnt about love and romance. Until the 70′s when Americans married, most ceremonies ended with ‘I now pronounce you Man and wife’. This went back to the whole idea of the wife as property. Read the book History of the Wife. The founding fathers said we had the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As such I think people have the right to choose whom they want as their partner(s) in life with all the legal protections they can have.

By: bj

bj — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 12:14:36 +0000

you people are really wierd

By: Shahar Lubin

Shahar Lubin — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 06:39:13 +0000

Max says “How might same sex marriage dilute the meaning of marriage?
First, marriage has always been about making babies and starting a family. Second, same sex marriage is a slippery slope to “marriage is between any number of consenting adults””
So what if it does. How is that immoral? How is that dangerous enough to society for it to curtail equality? If it’s conesntual, if doesn’t hurt anyone, get the blip out of the way.

Oh also, what history book are you getting “marriage has always been about making babies and starting a family.” from? Marriage is and have been about alot of things. Politics, commerce, control and even love. Even if that assertion was true(if you oversimplify the definition and focus only on judeo-christian societies) that argument smells of the logical fallacy of argument from antiquity. Women lost the right for property in getting married so it must be the way it stays for ever according to your logic.

It’s amazing how skeptics can wrap the same old prejudicisms in a logic web, so they won’t have to change their minds. This isn’t looking at the evidence and seeing where it goes. This is the kind of cherry picking we accuse the creationsts and homeopaths to be doing.

By: Max

Max — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 22:35:32 +0000

GregB, are you saying that homosexuals can’t control their actions? If I were gay, I’d be insulted. Don’t confuse attraction with action.

Did you mean to say, “So what? What if it IS a choice?”
That’s the case with bisexuals, right?

How might same sex marriage dilute the meaning of marriage?
First, marriage has always been about making babies and starting a family. Second, same sex marriage is a slippery slope to “marriage is between any number of consenting adults”.

“Hate the sin love the sinner” is a Gandhi quote. But if the “sinner” can’t control his actions, then it’s not a sin but a mental illness, in which case, “Hate the illness, love the ill.”

By: GregB

GregB — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 16:33:51 +0000

First of all, it is vitally important for the religious right to claim that homosexuality is a choice because if it wasn’t a choice it can’t be a sin. i.e. “If you’re not in control of your actions than how can you be blamed for the sin that results from that action?”

Ted seems to be telling us that being gay is a choice while at the same time denying that his gay exploits were the results of his choice.

But the real argument is : So what? What if it’s not a choice? Does that really change anything? Is being gay morally wrong?

I can make an argument for what murder or theft is morally wrong without invoking God. I am at a loss to explain how the fact that somebody is gay causes harm to anyone in any way. How does allowing my gay friends (who have been a couple for over 25 years) to have the same civil rights that my wife and I have in any way harm my marriage?

And for those Christians who like to use the phrase “Hate the sin love the sinner”, you need to look up the meaning of “passive-aggressive.”