User:Coelacan/Ted Haggard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Discussion moved from Talk:Ted_Haggard

Just want to make a suggestion. If the current allegations turn out to be true, this could be described as the best case study of hypocrisy. Ted Haggard should added along in the definition of the word HYPOCRITE. Sura 11:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

He didn't really choose to be a hypocrite. This is what right-wing fundamentalism does to gay people. Just by trying to fit in with the community they feel they have to be a part of (usually that they've been raised to be a part of), they adopt vicious anti-gay stances to overcompensate for their feelings. This cognitive dissonance erupts in furtive gay escapades, building guilt which manifests in more overcompensation. It's a vicious cycle. I feel very sorry for him. Unfortunately, since he'll be going to right-wing ex-gay counselling, he will probably not come to any kind of self-acceptance, but will instead claim to have been healed back to heterosexuality. Expect more overcompensation. — Coelacan | talk 17:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That's an idiotic pseudo-psychological interpretation. Could it be they actually believe what their faith teaches? That they struggle against temptation, and sometimes fail? Some people have anger-management problems, which equally conflicts with Christianity. Do they also adopt "vicious anti-wrath stances to overcompensate for their feelings"? Does it yield cognitive dissonance, resulting in furtive violent outbreaks? Does the contradiction between inclination and Christian teaching yield a vicious cycle? Gabrielthursday 18:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure he actually does believe what he's been told to believe. I'm not disputing that. In fact that's why the behavior causes him so much guilt. The difference here between gay sex and anger is that these churches expect people to have anger from time to time, and so they address the matter in relatively healthy ways, discussing how to control it and how to reconcile it with the religion. Gay sex, however... they expect and demand that it never occur, and so they do not address it, but only condemn it. A man like Haggard would catch no flak for showing anger. His followers would understand that we all get angry sometimes. So Haggard is allowed to deal with his anger in public (witness how he treats Richard Dawkins). But there's no acceptable outlet, in the world of right-wing fundamentalism, for Haggard to express his desires for other men. (That is not a problem for all Christians, of course [1]) — Coelacan | talk 18:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Gabriel, "Could it be they actually believe what their faith teaches?" Yes they do, but the trouble is that those beliefs are false. God doesn't exist for Haggard any more than he exists for me, or for the Pope, or for you. That simple fact explains so much. Laurence Boyce 19:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Gabriel, I also don't think that Haggard has openly proclaimed his support for anti-anger legislation. By contrast, he and his ilk are frequently open supporters of anti-gay legislation. If anger management is so similar to homosexuality, why aren't politicians trying to create legislation against expression of anger? Drkeithphd 19:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the difference between gay sex and anger is that one is an emotion, and the other is an action. For the orthodox Christian (not merely fundamentalists) anger and homosexual desire are both emotional inclinations not wrong in themselves. To encourage, or revel in them would be wrong. But we are speaking of the actions which issue forth from those emotions. For homosexual attraction; gay sex. For anger, oftentimes violence. Christians aren't supposed to "control" or "reconcile" their wrathful and violent actions- they are not ever to commit them. I hope this clarifies the analogy I made earlier. Dr.Keith, I'm sure you're aware of criminal injunctions against things like assault, uttering threats, etc.

Also, I disapprove of Haggard displaying anger towards Dawkins - as I hope all Christians would do (though I note that we are only told what he said, and why. Let's not forget too, that Haggard displayed a fair amount of equanimity when Dawkins' made his vile comparison of Haggards' church to the Nuremburg rally). It's not as great a sin as homosexual sex, but still sinful. Gabrielthursday 19:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what Christians are supposed to believe or encourage. The fact is that anger is socially acceptable in the far-right churches and being gay (or bisexual, in Haggard's case) is not socially acceptable in those churches. That reality, the reality of how Christians interact socially, is what inhibits and represses Haggard's sexuality but not his anger.

We do, in fact, see Haggard chasing Dawkins off the church property. That's a lot more than being told only what he said. We see him releasing his anger.

"It's not as great a sin as homosexual sex, but still sinful." There are zero passages in the Bible that declare one "sin" to be better or worse than another. You've made that judgment entirely on your own, and you reveal your bigotry and loathing of gays with these words. Anyway, get over yourself; there's no such thing as "sin" and you can't talk about a superstition as though it has real consequences. — Coelacan | talk 19:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm calling BS on this statement: "anger is socially acceptable in the far-right churches". For one thing, you are again purposefully failing to make the distinction between emotion and action. More importantly, I know of no church where actions out of anger are socially accepted. You are displaying your prejudice, not I.

Almost all Christians have viewed some sins as being of graver consequence than others. Murder, for example, is more serious than swearing. Also, you are wrong on your view of what the Bible says.

I have no obligation to accept your assumptions (nor you mine). Of course I am intrigued by your statement that "there's no such thing as "sin"". Sin denotes personal responsibility for wrongful willed thoughts or actions. So, in the case of murder, is it the personal responsibility or the wrongness that you deny? Gabrielthursday 20:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

No, "sin" is specifically giving offence to God. But God doesn't exist, hence there is no such thing as sin. Laurence Boyce 20:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Echoing Laurence's words on sin. I reject superstition, but neither personal responsibility nor morality. If you don't think these churches love and teach anger, please watch the video "Life and Liberty for All Who Believe" found at this link. Screaming as these men do is a physical expression of anger, an action, not an internal emotion. Calling for the execution of homosexuals, as you will see in that video, is an action. A word spoken is an action.

Whatever "almost all Christians" view as worse or better, it's not supported by the Bible. The Bible simply says that "the wages of sin is death," no distinction. For you to make a distinction, and say that gay sex is worse than something else, reveals only your personal loathing of gay people. It is not supported by the Bible. You're welcome to show me that I am wrong about what the Bible says, but just saying "you're wrong" isn't that. — Coelacan | talk 22:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's actually an interesting point, Laurence. It is true that Christians see sin as an offence to God and a breach of our relationship with God, and Christian teaching is that it ought to be (at least) viewed through that prism. But is offending God part of the denotation of sin? And here, I would say not. Sin is a transgression of the moral law, which in orthodox Christianity is not conflated with the will of God (see the Divine command theory and the Euthrypo dilemma). Clearly, the term sin isn't terribly useful for non-believers, as the context and connotations refer largely, in their view to non-existent things- but it's essential meaning nevertheless can be understood and shared. Gabrielthursday 21:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Coelacan, while there are exceptions , my statement was true in general. It should not surprise you that a video made available by a site called theocracywatch.org doesn't reflect the mainstream of even fundamentalist Christianity. You are quite right - Christians teach that the eternal consequences of sin are the same regardless of what king: "the wages of sin are death". And that's the emphasis of the New Testament. It doesn't discuss the relative gravity of different sin- the NT authors enjoin us to avoid every sin: "therefore be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect." Salvation is necessary for every sin. But gradations in the gravity (as opposed to the consequences or the guilt) of sin are evident to us in the different punishments enjoined by the Mosaic law. Even in the NT, one reads of the sin against the Holy Spirit; one sees also in Paul's letters that he, while concerned with all sin in the communities he is writing to, is more worried by some than by others. Gabrielthursday 22:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard anyone suggest that the likes of James Robison and Jerry Falwell are not mainstream of fundamentalism. Your statement was not "made in general" so it cannot be "true in general." You said: "I'm calling BS on this statement ... More importantly, I know of no church where actions out of anger are socially accepted." And I showed you examples.

Oh, the good old sin against the Holy Spirit. Commit it and you cannot ever be forgiven. That one's rich. How does it go again? The work of the Holy Spirit is false, it is a deception! There, I said it. Now you can laugh down from heaven, watching me burning in hell for all eternity. Yikes! Unless... it's made up, it's patently absurd, and there's of course no heaven or hell or spirits. But I guess I'll concede that there is an apparent distinction of gravity in those texts.

Gay sex, however, cannot be a sin at all if you are not using divine command theory. Because consentual gay sex doesn't have a victim. So nobody is doing anything wrong. In any case, I disagree that the essential meaning of "sin" can be shared and discussed and understood by both of us. There simply is no sin unless there is a God. And as I find it vaguely absurd, like I'm walking in a surreal dreamland, to hold up a conversation that posits "oh but if there WERE a God," just as though there might also be unicorns and vampires out there. I'm having a hard time suspending disbelief here. If you can discuss real life consequences, that would be great. — Coelacan | talk 22:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

All right, I was overly broad in my earlier statement. Though it wasn't obvious, I was referring to my personal knowledge (which is fairly diverse, as these things go). By the same standard you too were overly broad, though. I'm not sure exactly what ethical system you're describing- nothing is wrong if it's consensual, I gather. You don't need the divine command theory to avoid that. Utilitarianism, virtue ethics, deontological ethics and I'm sure other ethical theories don't rely on divine command theory, and aren't what you describe. So homosexual activity can be wrong under those systems. "There simply is no sin unless there is a God." Now, that's a statement that demands justification. I think you have to make your case on what sin actually denotes. Gabrielthursday 23:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I was overly broad in any statement I've made here, but point it out specifically if you think I was. Churches that teach that homosexuality is wrong do incredible psychological damage to their gay parishoners. Teaching a person that they are wrong for something they can feel is right will cause trauma. I'm not using any particular ethical system here, I'm just using common sense. I have never seen or heard of any action that caused no harm and involved all consensual participants and that was somehow nevertheless "wrong."

"Sin" is a theological concept. That's a given. If theology is meaningless (because there is no God) then theological concepts like "sin" are meaningless. That seems so obvious, I wonder if we are using totally different vocabularies? — Coelacan | talk 23:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"anger is socially acceptable in the far-right churches"- that's overly broad. I'm familiar with a number of churches, of which it's really impossible to get more conservative, for none of whom this is true.

I'd like to return to what I said earlier: "Some people have anger-management problems, which equally conflicts with Christianity. Do they also adopt "vicious anti-wrath stances to overcompensate for their feelings"? Does it yield cognitive dissonance, resulting in furtive violent outbreaks? Does the contradiction between inclination and Christian teaching yield a vicious cycle?"

You responded earlier with a faulty analogy between the emotion of anger and the act of homosexual activity. Care to take another run at it?

Well, my point was that sin isn't in essence a theological concept. I defined sin without reference to God. The burden, as I see it, is on you to explain why my definition was either inadequate or inaccurate. On the question of ethics, you started off with just consent, and now you've added harm. So, I think the question ought to be can an act include only consenting individuals and still be harmful? And, of course, Christian teaching is that homosexual acts are harmful. Gabrielthursday 00:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

"I'm familiar with a number of churches, of which it's really impossible to get more conservative, for none of whom this is true." Please, give me an example of any place or group in North America where it is socially unacceptable to state "I am angry." While I have pointed out that some right-wing religious groups live for and thrive upon anger, I don't think you can give any example of a group that does not allow its members to express anger.

"You responded earlier with a faulty analogy between the emotion of anger and the act of homosexual activity. Care to take another run at it?" No, I don't, because you brought up anger, so it's your analogy to deal with if you want to, not mine. I won't ask you to, as I think it's an unproductive road to go down, because acting upon feelings of anger may have negative consequences, while acting on gay attraction does not.

"Sin is a transgression of the moral law" was the definition I see above. But you're defining sin in such a way as to weaken its definition to the point of unrecognizability. "A transgression of the moral law" is "immorality," plain and simple. Ask anyone on the street and they will tell you that "sin" is something else on top of immorality. "Sin" carries a metaphysical element.

It is as though you've asked me, "I define a unicorn as a hooved herbivorous mammal that lives in herds. Can you tell me that unicorns do not exist?" Well, no, because it sounds like you're talking about plain old horses. If you want to define sin as plain old immorality, be my guest, and I can be generous enough to use any termniology that makes you comfortable. But I should warn you that you're stripping the word of its distinction, and your fellow Christians would probably not recognize your hornless unicorn.

I have not "added harm." I brought up the notion of a victim at the same time I mentioned consent. A victim is somebody who suffers harm. I'm not developing an ethical system here, I'm calling on common sense, and the common sense notion of "no harm, no foul," will suffice.

"So, I think the question ought to be can an act include only consenting individuals and still be harmful?" Not in my observations. I'm waiting to be shown otherwise. "And, of course, Christian teaching is that homosexual acts are harmful." Well, big deal. Then Christian teaching is wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. You can't simply assert that something is true without evidence, and that is all that "Christian teaching" is doing here. Regardless, as I've already pointed out, your interpretation is by no means the consensus of "Christian teaching" on homosexuality — Coelacan | talk 01:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between acknowledging an emotion and acting on it. There is no moral problem with noting anger in yourself- but when anger is acted out in aggression- well, as I say, no church I've ever known has said that such conduct (shouting, assault, etc) is permissable.

I made the analogy between homosexual conduct caused by homosexual inclination and violence caused by anger. You omitted to notice or address the action part of the analogy.

On the definition of sin, "immorality" too must contain a metaphysical element. But perhaps you meant to say it must contain a divine element. I don't think so. And yes, "sin", while it has plenty of strong connotations which separate it from immorality, is by denotation, a synonym. And, of course, in its specific use, sin is synonymous with "immoral act". Of course, I don't want to strip sin of its connotations, or force you to use the term. But you claimed sin doesn't exist- which I think is inaccurate under your own beliefs, and is only asserted due to a conflation of sins denotation and connotations.

"Then Christian teaching is wrong." Fine, feel free to think so. But since your objection is simple disagreement over ethics, spare me and the general community the condescending pop-psychology. Gabrielthursday 22:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between acknowledging an emotion and acting on it. Good, I'm glad we're over that bump. I have never needed "action" to make this case. Haggard could have stood up before his congregation and declared "I am angry" and no one would have thought less of him. But if he had stood before them and said "I am bisexual" he would have been ostracized and scandalized, regardless of his behavior. That has been my point from the beginning. It is not socially acceptable in these churches to be anything but heterosexual, and that's that. Can you imagine what kind of self-repression and even self-loathing that results from growing up gay or bisexual in this kind of community?

On the definition of sin, "immorality" too must contain a metaphysical element. I'm wondering again if we're using different vocabularies. I have never in my life seen any evidence of anything metaphysical. Every notion of "sin" I've encountered was metaphysically loaded, yet I have seen immorality with my own eyes and it was anything but metaphysical. If you can demonstrate that immorality must be metaphysical, that will be my first encounter with such things.

But since your objection is simple disagreement over ethics ... No, this is a matter that can be empirically investigated. You asked a question, can an act include only consenting individuals and still be harmful? If consensual homosexual sex is harmful, then you should be able to demonstrate this. It's a testable hypothesis. And if you can't show any evidence that supports a testable hypothesis, then that hypothesis is as wrong as a flat Earth. — Coelacan | talk 03:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

"But if he had stood before them and said "I am bisexual" he would have been ostracized and scandalized, regardless of his behavior." Now that he's acknowledged everything, is any of that true? No.

I gather you're an ethical naturalist. Well, I don't give too much credit to the theory, but perhaps you can tell me where G.E. Moore is wrong.

As it happens, it is a testable hypothesis. And homosexuals have higher rates of addiction, domestic violence, depression, suicide and lower rates of domestic stability. It's not that there's a lack of evidence- it's that causation is disputed. Some claim it is all caused by social stigma and rejection. Others think that homosexual conduct might have something to do with it.

But I am curious about the "testable hypothesis" standard. Is pride or selfishness immoral? It's awfully hard for you to measure harm for it. But that's because you're defining harm in a narrower sense than most because your understanding of the human person is at least in one instance (eternal purpose or meaning) narrower than most. Gabrielthursday 05:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Now that he's acknowledged everything, is any of that true? Yes. He's had his congregation taken away from him, permanently. His career is over and he will never again have any credibility in those circles. Show me one gay or bisexual person with credibility among right-wing Christians and I'll rethink this, but you won't find one. Moreover, it is perfectly disingenuous of you to imply that Haggard could ever have felt comfortable in announcing to his congretation that he is bisexual. You know the social status of gays in right-wing Christianity. It is simply impossible for a man in Haggard's position to have felt anything but repression and fear; lying was the only option open to him which held the possibility of safety.
And homosexuals have higher rates ... I don't see your data. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume for the moment that such data exists. Let's see where you're going with this. Others think that homosexual conduct might have something to do with it. One might use this sort of reasoning to conclude that being black leads to being a murderer. But perhaps, just like a person who would make such a conflation of causation in the case of skin color and crime, you're a bigot.
I don't see what all the fuss is about with the Open Question Argument. It appears to me that Moore is saying is that goodness is like color qualia; it is known by experience and not by definition. If that statement is true, it still doesn't mean that goodness is metaphysical. I'm not sure whether it is or is not like qualia, but it doesn't matter either way. The core of what people take away the OQA appears to be this: natural morality remains open to further investigation, and so natural morality cannot be relied upon. But that is a non sequitur. It is parallel to saying that because any given scientific finding is open to further investigation, it cannot be relied upon. If you like, you can take that reasoning to the top of a building with you and jump off. You might not fall. Gravity is always open to further investigation. But there's good reason not to test your new hypothesis with your life or anything else you don't want to lose. Same with morality. Humanity has already done countless explorations of morality and with all the resulting data available to you, you can draw pretty reliable conclusions. Perfectly reliable? Maybe not, but I've never seen a supernatural claim that can be expected to get any closer. In any empirical field, such as science or morality, reliance on empirically tested theory gives more consistent results than reliance on arbitrary guesses, which is all that supernatural claims amount to. The space of possible moral claims is vast, and the chance that any arbitrary choice within this space will be correct is vanishingly small. Morality by claim of supernatural fiat, also known as "guessing" or "making shit up", will almost certainly be not only wrong, but also arbitrarily distant from the target.
Is pride or selfishness immoral? What on Earth is that supposed to mean? Is it immoral to feel proud or to feel selfish? One's internal feelings do not, in and of themselves, have external effects. Once we start to measure actions, those actions will have effects which can be evaluated for morality. But then the internal motivators become irrelevant, as I think you'll agree that even "good intentions" have nothing to do with consequences. Can selfishness lead to immorality? Certainly. Is selfishness itself immoral? I think that's an empty question.
[Y]our understanding of the human person is at least in one instance (eternal purpose or meaning) narrower than most. I doubt that it really is. If you actually believed that you are bound for heaven when you die, then you would live your life without regard for self-preservation. You would act heroically without fear of death, and so you would die pretty quickly. I'm not saying that no one has ever believed in heaven; obviously nuns who died from caring for lepers did believe, for example, and religionist suicide bombers apparently believe as well. I'm just saying that you don't believe in heaven, and the majority of the population doesn't either. I know because you are alive to argue with me right now. There is no shortage of opportunity for a person unconcerned with self-preservation to do great and tremendously helpful things that would benefit humankind. You have not availed yourself of such opportunities, and there are only two explanations for your continuing heartbeat. Either you have only very recently begun to truly believe in an afterlife, and you are now preparing and expecting to die heroically in the very near future, or you don't really have a belief in an afterlife, you merely have idle hopes and wishes, doves and rainbows. — Coelacan | talk 13:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)