Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Haggard, Foley and GOP Preach Against the Vices They Can't Shake

By Nathaniel Frank, Huffington Post. Posted November 4, 2006.


Are all homophobic Republicans secretly gay? The leaders of the party with a penchant for condemning others would do well to look inward. It's time to call them on their hypocrisy.
Advertisement

Editor's Note: Also on AlterNet, check out Ted Haggard's admission of "some indiscretions."

In the latest sign of rank hypocrisy among social conservatives, the president of the 30-million member National Association of Evangelicals has resigned amidst accusations that he had a relationship with a male prostitute. Ted Haggard, who is married with five children, is a frequent adviser to the White House, and a staunch advocate of banning marriage rights for gays and lesbians.

The news, of course, comes just a month after Florida GOP Congressman, Mark Foley, who had pushed legislation to protect youth from "exploitation by adults using the internet," was revealed to be an internet sexual predator. And it adds to the sense among weary voters that their leaders, especially if they happen to be Republicans, cannot be trusted to do the right thing. Indeed, the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee acknowledged he had been aware of Foley's inappropriate emails for months, but took no steps to protect the children who were in harm's way. Instead, he spearheaded a series of TV ads attacking a Democratic challenger for, yes, being soft on child molesters.

What are we to make of a reigning conservative regime that lists the following inglorious claims to fame: Strom Thurmond, a notoriously racist senator who turned out to have a black lover; a Republican indictment of President Clinton's sexual license headed up by a team of philanderers; a Congress full of divorces passing an anti-gay law known as the "Defense of Marriage Act"?

In the pundit corner, we recently saw three giants of conservative moralizing unmasked as incapable of restraining their own vices: William Bennett turned out to be addicted to gambling, Rush Limbaugh to drugs. Meanwhile, Ralph Reed, the hand-picked youthful leader of the religious right, was quietly helping the corrupt lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, enable everything that religious conservatives oppose: casinos on Indian reservations and compelled abortions and sex slavery in the Northern Mariana Islands, an American territory.

And this is not even to mention the Catholic Church's strident indictment of sexual freedom as it shuffled its own cadre of child-molesting priests from parish to parish.

The cover-ups and power grabs, of course, are simply raw politics. But the pattern here may reveal something more striking than the obvious reality that those in power will sacrifice almost anything to stay there. The Republican Party appears to be chock full of people who make a life of preaching against the very vices they can't shake. Why?

For answers to the puzzles that seem to infest the conservative worldview, we might dust off our old Freud texts. From the father of psychoanalysis, we learn the concept of "reaction formation" which describes how we react to our own unacceptable impulses. Reaction formation is a classic "defense mechanism" -- an unconscious behavior designed to ward off uncomfortable feelings. Sometimes we react to our discomfort with ourselves in harmless ways, such as when a man cheats on his wife and brings her flowers to ease his guilt. Other times, the reactions can be punitive-we judge and condemn others who exhibit the very impulses that we, ourselves, cannot control. This is frequently the case when dealing with lust or greed.

"Sooner or later," writes Michael Warner, a Professor of English at Rutgers and a leading theorist of sexuality and politics, "we all lose control over our sex life. As a result, we try to control someone else's sex life."

Reaction formation is one of the few explanations that help us make sense of all the hypocritical moralizing: the preachers are preaching to themselves!

What is the solution to this misplaced effort to restrict others' behavior? For Freud, it was therapy. But more broadly, it's a dose of introspection, an ability to look inward, and to shift focus from others' behavior to our own. If hypocrisy in American political life is, in part, a symptom of inadequate introspection, if our fear that we can't control ourselves leads to an unconscious effort to control others, we'll continue to reach for a magnifying glass when what we really need is a mirror.

Republicans have no monopoly on hypocrisy. Most of us are guilty, at one time or another, of vocally denouncing something we ourselves have done, of shifting focus away from our own foibles by hoisting them onto others.

But a Party with a peculiar penchant for condemning in others what they can't overcome in themselves is a Party resting on shaky ground, especially if it professes self-control as a cornerstone of its governing philosophy. Social conservatives must be called on their hypocrisy, not simply as a matter of justice, but so that Americans can fully understand the roots and impact of the politics of moral judgment. Virtue, it's true, is necessary to a healthy democracy; but it begins inside.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: foley, gop, scandals, haggard, abramoff

Nathaniel Frank is Senior Research Fellow at the Michael D. Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and teaches history on the adjunct faculty at New York University's Gallatin School. Dr. Frank's publications on gay rights and other topics have appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, The New Republic, Los Angeles Times, Newsday, Philadelphia Inquirer, Lingua Franca and others.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
hypocrisy
Posted by: rsaxto on Nov 4, 2006 1:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's called hypocrisy and it actually predates prostitution as the world's oldest profession, as W knows so well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: hypocrisy Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: hypocrisy Posted by: rsaxto
» RE: hypocrisy Posted by: wisegalah
» RE: hypocrisy Posted by: rsaxto
Those without...throw the first stone
Posted by: Chuck Collins on Nov 4, 2006 3:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I appreciate your probing deeper into the nature of this phenomenon. I'm struck by how many Christians keep throwing stones, instead of reflecting deeper on our complex natures and desires. One interesting thing in defense of Ted Haagard: he has been a leading evangelical in getting Christians engaged in the politics of climate change, what he calls "defending creation."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's classic behavior
Posted by: keefus55 on Nov 4, 2006 4:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rev Haggard's alleged behavior in private and his “holier-than-thou” behavior in public towards gays and illegal drugs is a classic, textbook psychology example of the duality of behaviors exhibited by many of those who actually believe all the "I'm a sinner" garbage they preach to others.

Call it inner guilt, or shame, or compensation…something in the brains of such people quite often makes them go overboard in public in the other direction…to become champions of noble public causes that are diametrically opposed to their own private human urges and behaviors, particularly if those urges aren’t (in their minds) "normal". This also sets them up for charges of hypocrisy when the world eventually learns of their (to them) "sordid" deeds. And, thanks to today’s “all news all the time” world, such “exposures” are happening with an increasing frequently.

From many years of working in the helping profession, I’ve learned to take the public words of such fundamentalist zealots (Christian and otherwise) with a grain of salt, and not be surprised when they "fall from grace". That’s because, as the institutions that seem to attract these people ALSO run on guilt and shame, their followers often turn out to be the biggest “sinners” of all.

Often, it’s the hope that all their good works in public will somehow “make up for” the guilt and shame they feel for what they seemingly can’t keep themselves from doing in private. Or, sometimes the public cause becomes the rationalization that their own shameful behavior in private is somehow “OK” because, “I’m now helping to keep others from giving in to the same "sinful temptations"".

And, sadly, this duality behavior affliction is FAR more prevalent in society as a whole than we might think. We see it in the hundreds of Catholic Priests and Bishops who have sexually molested young children, city firemen who also turn out to be arsonists, policemen who commit serial murders, and fundamentalist Christian preachers who routinely cheat on their spouses while robbing their parishioners blind. And, yes, we even see it in US Congressmen who chair Congressional committees on missing and exploited children who are also sexually harassing their own young Congressional Pages.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It's classic behavior Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: It's classic behavior Posted by: mejsmith
» RE: It's classic behavior Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: It's classic behavior Posted by: mejsmith
Repubs the party of corruption, qeers, and pedophiles
Posted by: mat38 on Nov 4, 2006 4:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think the whole bunch of those holier than though-give me some money now republicans have ben spending too much time in the Log Cabin Lobby disco and bathouse.
I mean, jeez, the Republicans are corrupt across the spectrum of counyt, state, and federal government but their corruption is far worse because they are all Evangelical Christians or Orthodox Jews, (Abramhoff) and always preaching family values.
If they represent God and Jesus I'm converting to Islam. I want nothing to do with their Jesus. Besides, I was born OK the first time. As the bumper sticker says.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

being gay is a 'vice'?
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Nov 4, 2006 6:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow, I never thought I'd see that on Alternet. Anyway, despite the gleeful fun that every sick individual has when another gets into trouble, people are people and they are going to make mistakes, get drunk, get high, screw around, etc. Whether some rabid, crazed rightwing 'Evangelical' or some foaming-at-the-mouth, leftwing "Environmentalist" etc. People are people are you'll find hypocracy everywhere: whether its some anti-gay Priest screwing a homosexual drug-user or some positive leftwinger laughing as a family is torn apart. The funny thing to me is to imagine what his sermons must have been like on Meth: can you say 'fire and brimstone'. Wow. No wonder he was popular.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: being gay is a 'vice'? Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: being gay is a 'vice'? Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: being gay is a 'vice'? Posted by: mejsmith
» RE: being gay is a 'vice'? Posted by: Daniel Shays
actually....
Posted by: xenacat on Nov 4, 2006 6:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the repubs do have a monopoly on hypocrisy. The very concept of "family values" they trotted out years ago smacked of bigotry and smugness at the very least. That no one could possibly attain the "leave it to Beaver" kind of lifestyle these idiots insisted was "typical" should have been blatantly obvious. We as progressives failed to challenge this bigotry of the Republicans and religous right with our scorn of thier hypocrisy. Instead, we caved in with the oft repeated "Oh, they are really good people deep down..." What pure ol' D BS! It was clear years ago that the Repubs were screwing the pooch and thumbing their noses at us as they did so. While it is good that we are finally saying "enough is enough", I hope it isn't to late to undo the damage caused by the far right wingnuts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: actually.... Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: actually.... Posted by: xenacat
» RE: actually.... Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: actually.... Posted by: mat38
» RE: actually.... Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: actually.... Posted by: Daniel Shays
» RE: actually.... Posted by: mat38
» RE: actually.... Posted by: xenacat
» RE: actually.... Posted by: xenacat
» RE: actually.... Posted by: Daniel Shays
Well said!
Posted by: kgs1947 on Nov 4, 2006 6:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, you know the Shakespearian saying: "She doth protest too much!"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Well said!
Posted by: kgs1947 on Nov 4, 2006 6:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, you know the Shakespearian saying: "She doth protest too much!"
Watch out for the fanatics because they are hiding some shadows about what they are so fanatical about.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Well said! Posted by: Sushi
gentlewoman
Posted by: lokicat on Nov 4, 2006 6:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Strom Thurmond did not "have a black lover." He seduced a teenage girl who happened to be black. I think she was 16. What do you call that: statutory rape!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: gentlewoman Posted by: mat38
» RE: gentlewoman Posted by: Astroboy
» RE: gentlewoman Posted by: alternetrose
» RE: gentlewoman Posted by: Astroboy
Look inward? Not on Alternet. That would be "selfish"!
Posted by: Torgo on Nov 4, 2006 7:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is the solution to this misplaced effort to restrict others' behavior? For Freud, it was therapy. But more broadly, it's a dose of introspection, an ability to look inward, and to shift focus from others' behavior to our own.

In the foreign policy realm, this hypocrisy and the "reaction formation" discussed in the article led to 78 days of terrorism (disguised as "stopping a genocide" that did not exist) against Yugoslav civilians in 1999, while NATO member Turkey continued to fight an equally violent counterinsurgency war against Kurds, accompanied by a deafening silence from the vast majority of liberals in the US. And who know who you are, you who cheered for the humanitarian bombs as they fell on Belgrade civilians, while peaceful humanitarian work to be done in the wake of Hurricane Mitch went undone. I call "hypocrisy" on that.

From another Alternet article today

The technology we need most badly is the technology of community -- the knowledge about how to cooperate to get things done. Our sense of community is in disrepair at least in part because the prosperity that flowed from cheap fossil fuel has allowed us all to become extremely individualized, even hyperindividualized, in ways that, as we only now begin to understand, represent a truly Faustian bargain. We Americans haven't needed our neighbors for anything important, and hence neighborliness -- local solidarity -- has disappeared.

Community, solidarity, blah blah blah. Far too many Alternet articles and comments reek of these obscene abstractions that serve to justify a sense of entitlement and put a warm fuzzy gloss on universal enslavement. Sometimes accompanied by Ellsworth Toohey-esque accusations of "selfishness" and other vulgar attempts at guilt-tripping that may work on the psychologically weak but merely turn my stomach.

As another Alternet poster wrote a few weeks ago, "The Community is a lie."

There is nothing dignified about dependence and coerced collectivism, and there are no substitutes for introspection and personal responsibility.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» A little lesson in history Posted by: cold2touch
» RE: a solid argument Posted by: cold2touch
» Exactly right Posted by: cold2touch
How Clear Can It Be?
Posted by: LeaderofMen on Nov 4, 2006 7:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." --Isaiah 45:7, KJV

"And the Lord said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go." -- Exodus 4: 21 (KJV)

The above two quotes proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that bible-god created evil and hardens hearts.

Can it be any more obvious that Christians worship a monster? They don't want you to know these two quotes, despite the fact that they are clear, obvious and have been written down for nearly 1700 years.

Bible god is EVIL because he created evil. That is why there are evil Christians in this world. They're evil because they worship a god that created evil. Thus, since their god created evil, it is PERFECTLY okay for them to be evil as well.

If you simply read the Bible you will walk away from it in a second. You will dust your hands off and your eyes will be opened.

You will come to an exquisite understanding of why we have problems in the US with Christians. You will perfectly understand why Christians use deception to keep you from knowing what it is they're up to.

They worship the creator of EVIL. They do not need 'Satan'. Their god is all they need.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» In a Nutshell Posted by: scajomar
» RE: In a Nutshell Posted by: whyoung
» RE: How Clear Can It Be? Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: How Clear Can It Be? Posted by: whyoung
» RE: How Clear Can It Be? Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: How Clear Can It Be? Posted by: mejsmith
» RE: How Clear Can It Be? Posted by: Ripcord
» RE: How Clear Can It Be? Posted by: LeaderofMen
» Rebuttal Posted by: LeaderofMen
» RE: How Clear Can It Be? Posted by: SuGee
» nice to see all this after the Amish love-fest Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
Maybe he had Attention Deficit / Hyperactivity Disorder
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Nov 4, 2006 7:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After all, you can buy meth legally for that condition. The legal names for amphetamines are methylphenidate (Ritalin), amphetamine (Adderall, Dexedrine), & methamphetamine (Desoxyn). All are commonly prescribed to children from the age of 3 on up.

Are Amphetamine, "meth", Adderall and Ritalin really the same thing?

Desoxyn is the same thing as street meth, aka 'crystal ice' or 'crank'. The pharma industry makes large efforts to keep this connection out of the public consciousness.

The hypocritical behavior of Mr. Haggard is on par with the general hypocritical nature of pharmaceutical companies and regulatory agencies.

While you can buy Desoxyn (meth) and Oxycontin (heroin) at your local pharmacy with a prescription while raving about the evils of illegal drugs (like Rush Limbaugh), you can't purchase cannabis - it's a Schedule I Drug with no recognized medical uses, according to the FDA, the DEA, the Congress and the Court.

As a few commentators have noticed, maybe he took the meth as an aid in whipping up the emotional fervor at evangelist meetings - worked for Hitler; he was on daily injections of amphetamines for years. In fact, a good bit of what went on during WWII had something to do with Hitler's 'amphetamine psychosis' - a documented side-effect of long-term use of amphetamines.

Putting kids on meth is a really bad idea - the fact that it goes on with formal medical approval, while cannabis (less harmful than alcohol or tobacco) is banned, is a truly riveting example of how messed-up the US drug culture has become.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» IT'S THE ORGASM STUPID Posted by: Astroboy
» RE: IT'S THE ORGASM STUPID Posted by: alternetrose
» RE: IT'S THE ORGASM STUPID Posted by: Astroboy
» RE: IT'S THE ORGASM STUPID Posted by: WhatNow?
» RE: IT'S THE ORGASM STUPID Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
» ???!? Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
"Reaction Formation" and "Mystical Spaghetti Monsters"
Posted by: AdamSelene40 on Nov 4, 2006 7:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The world has been through this once before, and you think we'd learn.

Polticians use race, anti-semitism or homophobia as 'levers' with which to manage (and reward) their followers because those bigotries are 'normal', 'popular' and sincerely believed by the politician's constituancies. The only role of the demogogue is to identify the bias his supporters already hold, pander to it, and focus their attention on it.

There's nothing very mystical, symbolic, or even moral about it. "X" excites and attracts "Y" group of people. Offer them lots and lots of "X" they will love you for it and follow you to the ends of the earth.

THERE CANNOT BE **THAT MANY** self-loathing closet cases in the Party Leadership , let alone in the rank-and-file, to explain the central role of homophobia in the Republican/Evangelical program. It is there BECAUSE IT WORKS. That someone who is Jew, Black or Gay would work at being 'more Aryian than the Aryians' is more a matter of practical self-preservation than of neurotic compulsion or psychotic delusion.

(People in general, would prefer to pay attention to the sins and crimes they themselves have little or no temptation to commit, rather than devise punishments that they themselves might some day become subject to. And, that's diametrically opposite to the World According to Freud.)

Sigmund Freud was a mediocre observers, a less than honest reporter, an 'first in his field' ... meaning he had no peers, no mentors and no critics he respected.

So, when he 'diagonosed' Nazi anti-semitism as a mental disorder, demonstrated conclusively the ways in which that belief system deviated from objective reality, and imagined little mini-biographys to explain the childhood traumas and symbolic events which were supposed to have MADE the Big Nazis got the way they were -- he overlooked one thing:
The Nazis found a virluent anti-semitism well intrenched in the culture before young Adolph Hitler joined the German Army.

Jew hating was no longer a 'disease' ... it was a cultural artifact. Germans hated Jews for the same reasons they thought of themselves as Christians, believed in "Racial" identities, spoke German, wore hats, ate with knives and forks.

Similarly, the Americans of the same era had been raised to speak English, wear hats, and hate and dispise "negros." THAT set of irrational, and easily disprovable, set of beliefs was also a cultural norm ... and and much better case, in Freudian terms, could be made for the Anti-Racists, particulary the Communists, being 'out of touch with reality' as it then existed.

Similary; the anti-Gay Pathos, misnamed 'homophobia' isn't a mental disease. It's a set of pre-existing biases, pretty much inherent in Christian scripture ... (St Paul used homosexual desire as a 'marker' to indicate a perosn who would be guilty of all manner of other sins, crimes and vices -- like the Emperor Hadrian, for example).

The Church, we've noticed didn't hunt or purge its gay clerics or its pedophiles. Quite rationally, and practically, it conserved and protected them. These men were expensively trained and not easy to replace. They were recycled rather than discarded because it was more important that they were valuable members of the Establishment than that they violated the rules and taboos laid down to better control the Laiety.

So, with the Repubicans and Evangelicals.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A New Two-Word Talking Point
Posted by: scajomar on Nov 4, 2006 8:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If everyone who reads this article emailed it to one or two other people, by the end of this weekend we might bring the words "reaction formation" into the public consciousness. This old Freudian term needs to be brought into current parlance; the sooner there's a "name" for what motivates fear-mongering, homophobic conservatives, the sooner progressives might encourage people to step out of their fearful enclaves and into the light of understanding. I'm a Bay Area citizen who has just started hearing "San Francisco values" as a new epithet of the right. I'd love to see "reaction formation" used to explain the right's homophobic fear politics, (including their desperate attempt to sway the vote by dissing my home town).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A New Two-Word Talking Point Posted by: VannaLaRoche
Michael Townes Watson
Posted by: michaeltwatson on Nov 4, 2006 8:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The hypocrisy of the controlling animus in the Christian Conservative movement has become all too apparent in recent weeks. That same hypocrisy pervades the positions of many of the Christian Conservatives on healthcare and medical reform. Many of the religious right, and their legislators, resist the call for universal health coverage, despite the christian motto forged by the Second Commandment, which sounds suspiciously like the Golden Rule–“Do Unto Others.”
Most of the right-wing politicians only want the type of healthcare reforms that strip rights from injured victims, not the reforms that increase access to good, affordable healthcare. The insurance companies have used the politicians to accomplish their goal--to save money when you are hurt or killed by the healthcare system. As the insurance lobbyists get their way more and more, healthcare consumers will be left holding the empty bag. They run the system. Funny thing about the whole system is that when people realize that they might become one of the 190,000 people killed each year by hospital errors, or the 1.5 million people injured each year by medication errors, then they start realizing that their positions don’t work when applied to them personally. Beware of the laws you support today, as you may well be the victim of them tomorrow!! Michael Townes Watson, author of America's Tunnel Vision-How Insurance Companies' Propaganda Is Corrupting Medicine and Law. www.StopMedicalError.com
.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

polarized thinking must die
Posted by: Gregor on Nov 4, 2006 9:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There cannot be soap boxes in the future, no "stands", we must accept each other and stop the BLAME. Blame is not the answer. There is no "perfect" or "right" way of humanity. There are just shades of gray. We must learn to teach, heal and accept each other and HELP each other, instead of condemning and hating and marginalizing each other. What else is there? Who is right and who is wrong when we all die?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» A good starting point Posted by: Torgo
Always beware those who speak for god
Posted by: dbsholes on Nov 4, 2006 10:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you look west from Denver at night you cannot help but see a 450 foot tall lighted cross marking Olinger's Mt. Lindo Cemetary - in the foothills of the Rockies near Tiny Town Colorado. The cross was constructed by former Miss America Marilyn Vanderburg's father sometime in the 1950s or '60s, a man who at the time was president of the Olinger mortuary empire. During my childhood, when my family would drive into the foothills at night towards that glowing cross my father would wonder aloud what repentance the erector of that huge cross was seeking - god's forgiveness for crimes proportional to its huge size perhaps?

Then, in the late 1980s the answer to my father's question came. Marilyn Vanderburg went public with the information that her father - now deceased - had had a sexual relationship with her throughout a good share of her pre-teen and teenage years. Ms. Vanderburg's mother made the notorious comment that her husband - the builder of that giant cross - would come back from Marilyn's room saying that "Marylin should sleep well tonight because I just gave her a nice long massage". Indiscretions proportionate to the size of the cross indeed.

I have known many fundamentalist/born again christians in my life and almost without fail they are either seeking relief from a life of abuse at the hands of their caregivers, or they have made a life of bad choices marked by one addiction after another. I have long recognized the fundamentalist manifestation of christian mythology as simply another avenue for those with addictive tendencies, and also a way in which those who need to control and manipulate people are able to do so, which appears to be the case in the person of Ted Haggard. One of the basic guidelines I use when meeting new people is to never ever trust someone who identifies themselves as a "Christian" within the early throes of casual conversation. They believe they are communicating their higher moral standing, but what I hear them clearly saying is "I have a serious mental disorder".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Wow! Posted by: WhatNow?
Overcompensation
Posted by: Morgaine Swann on Nov 4, 2006 10:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These are all classic cases of overcompensation. These guys are self-loathers who can't handle their own "unacceptable" sexual urges, so they run around damning people to hell, drafting legislation and trying to amend the constitution because they think it will deflect attention from them. There's also an irrational belief that these actions will remove the temptation. In their minds, if there were no temptation, they wouldn't have homosexual urges. These are usually the people who think sexual orientation is a choice - they manage to create the illusion that they live straight lives, and they resent those who don't conform in the same way.

The opposite of attraction is not revulsion - it's indifference. A person who isn't gay just won't interested in that kind of sex, or they won't think about it. When people start expressing revulsion, obsessing over what other people do, and trying to control the behavior of others, they're trying to repress their own urges. These guys don't need to be in positions of leadership, they need to be in therapy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Almost true ~92% Posted by: cold2touch
Hypocrisy
Posted by: snarlah on Nov 4, 2006 10:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If they didn't slam gays and lesbians so horribly, I wouldn't care if they were gay themselves. But they do and that's why they're guilty, guilty, guilty.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hypocrisy Posted by: symcokid
» RE: Hypocrisy Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
ahmed
Posted by: xtiml on Nov 4, 2006 10:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
fear not for wonders greater than this shall pass. man in his folly isthegreatest winder and only the controllers of this folly are a wonderment grander.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

GOP homophobes ARE gay! Here's the proof!
Posted by: KevinSchmidtSterlingVA on Nov 4, 2006 11:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In 1996, a controlled study of 64 heterosexual men (half claimed to be homophobic by experience and self-reported orientation) at the University of Georgia found that the allegedly homophobic men (as measured by the Index of Homophobia) were considerably more likely to experience more erectile responses when exposed to homoerotic images than non-homophobic men.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoerotophobia

http://tinyurl.com/9886u

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bruce777
Posted by: Bruce777 on Nov 4, 2006 12:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To say that Ted Haggard is a hypocrite is possibly called for. His credibility has certainly taken a beating recently. However, if we check out what he has been preaching the last few years, we will probably see that he has been saying the same things that many honorable pastors having been saying. The question is then, has he been preaching lies all this time? A similar question might be, if Billy Graham teaches a truth, and Saddam Hussein says the same thing, aren't they both speaking the truth? The speaker's lifestyle should back up what he is talking about, hence we are more likely to believe Billy Graham. Otherwise we have a clear case of hypocrisy.

As a matter of fact, when St. Paul was in prison, some people told him that other people were preaching the same thing as St. Paul was preaching, and being paid for it. From St. Paul's point of view, he was glad the message was getting out, regardless who preaches it. Truth is truth regardless of who speaks it.

Obviously, if a person chooses to be a minister, priest, or rabbi, his behavior should back up what he is preaching. If it doesn't, it doesn't nullify what he is saying, but it does nullify that person as any kind of authority. When all is said and done, regardless of the shame Haggard is suffering now, he still must face the One who has brought His Name into disrepute.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Shouldn't It Be Bruce666? Posted by: Douglas
» RE: Bruce777 Posted by: VannaLaRoche
come out come out
Posted by: hangman on Nov 4, 2006 12:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Teddy Haggard should probably just come out of the closet already. Living a lie and being someone he is not, is not helping him or his family.
Mr. Jones is Out and not afraid to be himself. there is no shame in that regardless if he was a escort. at least he is open about it.

We all know how many married men live in a straight married life because of upbringing or influences of churches teaching fear and hatred of homosexuality.(evangelical etc.). it teaches self hatred that leads to self destructive actions not only to the man himself but to those around him (family and friends).

Teddy should just relax and deal with it , it will take some time but he and his family will be better off living the truth than to be hiding behind a lie. I think his family(regardless of the stress) will come to get passed it all and come to love him just the same for he is family.
When he decides that being more open and honest about his own sexuality as a homosexual or bisexual, it will build bridges and he can turn to the Evangelicals and teach them not to fear or hate homosexuality. And that to learn to accept each other as a human being that can love whomever they love is more important than living a lie according to some religious right wing.
Marriage is human right for all to share Equally. its about celebrating the love together , not seperately. The Evangelicals can deny it to themselves for as long as they want , but denial won't help them one bit. and if it means the evangelical church splits up, then so be it. Love is a blessing for all to share and that includes accepting gay marraige, for it helps to save us from the stress of living a lie and going through such heartache.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Getting into reaction formation
Posted by: theomode on Nov 4, 2006 12:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It follows logically from the psychology of 'reaction formation' behavior that its practitioners would gravitate to a power structure -- religious (in this case the 'religious right') or political (neo-cons) -- that could amplify their message of "But for the grace of God. . ." The Republican party, with its "values" manifesto, would therefor be, and is, a magnet and a haven for just such people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Kaneh bosm !!!
Posted by: garry minor on Nov 4, 2006 1:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is not one lie in the truth of Kaneh bosm! It would seem that these men lack the Holy Spirit, Chrism, Anointing!!! Kaneh bosm!!!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

skin IZ skin . JUNG not freud . ARCHETYPES not god
Posted by: caru on Nov 4, 2006 1:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
dude. ;8)

cant we just all agree that skin is skin not sin.

me and you throughout eternity -- all selves in a unitive state.

and for those of you still tinkering around with freud, a look at jung gives a more accurate view of world conditions. the memes traveling through our collective unconsious creates archetypes that have a will and destiny of their own. the apocolypse/2012 is an archetype we can come to terms with now.

humans are human and the deceit and coverups only reveal that our current mind-body-spirit state cant really deal with the lack one finds in religion or politics ...

PEACE OUT.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» JUNG not freud Posted by: cold2touch
» RE: JUNG not freud Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
THE EVIL CLERGYMAN
Posted by: charlieparisek on Nov 4, 2006 2:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My attempt to contact disgraced pastor Ted Haggard for an interview regarding his unholy and illegal conduct failed. The wicked pastor allegedly committed adultery with a prostitute and bought dangerous and illegal drugs with which to fuel his carnal desires.

Where there is smoke there is fire. His crude and anti-social behavior raises many questions, among them:

* What other beastly sins and crimes has he committed?

* Is the evil pastor a danger to others in the community, including children?

* How many others like him are sitting at top positions in his organisation?

* Is his organisation really a front for a homosexual drug ring?

* Did pastor Ted Haggard engage in sodomy?

* Has the vile pastor been tested for Aids?

I will not be satisfied with merely an interview. I also want the wicked fornicator to undergo a polygraph examination in order to verify his statements, just as the poor and humble Mr Mike Jones has been coerced into doing.

Lastly, isn't it a crime to purchase illegal substances and engage in prostitution? If so, why is this dangerous and cunning man still walking the streets?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

secretly gay, secretly pedophile, secretly substance abusing, ...
Posted by: cold2touch on Nov 4, 2006 2:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
secretly thieving, lying, killing (x655,000+)
AND PUBLICLY INVOKING THE LORD'S NAME IN VAIN,
because they are secretly atheists.
As opposed to honest, public atheists, who are quite able to manage to go through life without breaking any of the Commandments, thank you.

I knew it all along, and it is the very public, intolerant screaming and yelling in the name of the Lord that identifies true atheists.
It's all just so much bling to them, and the sooner people understand very cle