Contributors

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Cured!

Hallelujah! Ted Haggard is cured!

For those of you who don't know, this video will catch you up on the saga of Ted Haggard, President of the National Assoication of Evangelicals. After the news came out about his meth amphatimine fueled gay sex escapades last fall, he declared that he would be entering a treatment program, much like AA, that would cure his gayness.

Initial estimates put his detoxifiction at 1-3 years but the Lord works in mysterious ways and Pastor Haggard has been cured in only three weeks! So, no more drugs, cocksucking, anal love, and large buckets of oil for Teddy. I guess he will just have to content himself with missionary position sex with his wife.

What a bore....

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well,Mark, he could always do the doggy sex thing and pretend it's a guy.

Anonymous said...

Praise Jesus!

Anonymous said...

I think evangelicals are a sad and unhappy lot. They place too many restrictions on things that should be unrestricted like love, sex, and passion. I pity someone like Ted Haggard who can't see within himself the power to be himself.

Anonymous said...

"Big Fish, first. Little fish, second" was what Markadelphia told me. Then he proceeds to put up youtube links of 2 people speaking that many people had never heard (like you all gave Ted Haggard much thought before the scandal arose). Nice double standard.

Continuing in the tradition of my new ways of arguing like a liberal, I’m going to take the most extreme, wacked out views of the other side of the political spectrum and define all liberals by their actions.

From http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/04/11/18146371.php

Military recruiters left early from a UCSC job fair today, after being disrupted by noisy protesters. As recruiters drove off, a rock was allegedly thrown at their SUV. An officer began to persue the alleged rock-thrower, and a legal observer with a camera also took chase. Kot Hordinski, the legal observer, was then arrested for "obstruction." He was released after about fifteen minutes.

From the New York Times on 2/21/05

On Jan. 31, authorities said, recruiters at a station near the Flatiron section of Manhattan reported that a door had been cracked, and that anarchist symbols had been scrawled in red paint on the building.

That same day, before dawn, the police arrested a 19-year-old Manhattan College junior who they said threw a burning rag into an Army recruiting station that was closed for the night in the Parkchester section of the Bronx, and jammed the door locks with powerful glue. He was caught carrying a handwritten note declaring that a "wave of violence" would occur throughout the Northeast on Jan. 31.

Since the beginning of 2003, there have also been more than a dozen other often violent incidents aimed at military recruiters or property throughout the country, according to the police, recruiters and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In a few cases, vehicles have been set on fire; in others, blood has been thrown through windows. Spokespeople for the armed services have downplayed the incidents even as some recruiters have increased security at their stations.

Next, from http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/433153.html

Vandals staged attacks early Wednesday on the buildings used by the Reserve Officers' Training Corps at N.C. State University and UNC-Chapel Hill, echoing similar assaults on three Triangle recruiting stations last month.

As before, vandals sprayed anti-war slogans and profanity, splashed red paint and claimed responsibility with a mass e-mail message to area media outlets.

Lt. Col. Carol Ann Redfield of the Army ROTC program at N.C. State was caught off guard. "This is the first time I know of that anything like this has happened here," she said. "I certainly appreciate that people have different opinions, and they should be able to express them, but I have a problem when they damage property."

The e-mail, from someone calling himself "celest ialbeing" said, "Stop these recruitment centers that target poor people and people of color to fight to maintain the power structure that (literally and figuratively) imprisons us daily."

The vandals sprayed slogans at the base of an entrance to Reynolds Coliseum, which holds the Department of Military Science, and tossed paint onto an ROTC sign above the entrance.

All this, even though...(From Reuters 3/6/06)
A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that universities that get federal funds must allow military recruiters on campus.

The high court upheld as constitutional a federal law dating back to 1994 that allows the government to withhold money from universities that deny military recruiters the same access to campuses given to other employers.

Even more recently, Washington Post blogger/Military Analyst William Arkin considers American troops in Iraq who believe in their mission "mercenaries" who are "naive" and should be thankful they haven't been spit upon yet. Also recently in Washington, liberal peace-lovers vandalized another military recruitment office — repeating act of destruction already mentioned above by rock-wielding thugs across college campuses and at ROTC headquarters nationwide.

So why do liberals hate the military? Why do you disregard what the supreme court says? (I’m joking here btw)

I like how you suppress freedom of speech and physically intimidate dissenting point of views. All this time, I thought universities were a place for free and respectful exchange of ideas? So much for conservatives putting "restrictions" on things huh?

Mark Ward said...

Ah, yes, it's the old "No, you are" argument once again dusted off and pulled out of the back of the closet.

"the most extreme, wacked out views" Excuse me? Weren't you just arguing here...in, oh I don't know, EVERY ONE OF YOUR POSTS that Christian conservatives reflect America. Aren't evangelicals the largest minority bloc of voters in the country?

Your views on education are also a little off. I know of several schools, including Hopkins, that regularly bring in conservative speakers to present their point of view. In one case, an evangelical minister was brought into a world religions class and shared his view of the world. This happens all the time...everywhere in the country....so, please stop listening to the sensationalism of right wing radio which would have us all believe that conservatives are under attack in all walks of life. What a crock of shit!

Anonymous said...

I did bring out that old argument because 1. I see a double standard here (big fish, little fish) and 2. The blog was dead for the last few days and 3. Ted Haggard doesn't speak for me (I haven't been to any church in over a decade) and I don't condone his actions and I suspect a majority of evangelicals don't condone it either.

To take this case and sweep all evangelicals under the umbrella of "I think evangelicals are a sad and unhappy lot" is the exact same logic I used when looking at the various instances where liberals (yes, liberals) threw rocks at army recruiters, vandalized ROTC headquarters on college campuses, and shouted down conservative speakers by storming the stage with banners (noticed you're not denying those things happened).

Just like you concluded that Tony Perkins (who I have never heard of) is a "real conservative", I'm going to conclude that those people who throw rocks at our military men are "real liberals". The thought process of arriving at the conclusions we both arrived at is exactly the same.

I've never said that Christian conservatives represent America, still not sure why you keep misrepresenting what I (and PL) have said on this blog. I have said that the men who founded this country were religious men as the words "God" is mentioned many times in their writings and they spoke about their religious beliefs often. Whether they were Christians...Jews...Diests...Atheist...etc. is really a point without relevance to me.

I like the fact that they didn't set a state religion. My argument on here was not that the founding fathers themselves were devout Christians but that this nation was built on and is heavily guided by Christian principles and that the founders envisioned a government and nation with religious freedom. IMO, what was intended was to make sure that people are free to practice which ever religion they desired. What was intended was to make sure that a baptist held the same basic rights as a Catholic.

In a society that is governed by the people...the laws and policy will mirror what the most dominant majority hold as their convictions.

In our case...that is Christianity and we are now a society that is predominantly Christian and being that we are a free democratic society...our laws and policies will reflect that many times.

The beauty of the system is that even though we live in a Christian society...the founders wanted to ensure that the minorities will always be free to practice whatever religion they wanted to. They wanted to make sure that the majority could never prevent the minority from practicing their chosen faith.

For example - because of their religious beliefs, Jewish people do not celebrate Christmas. But because of the nature of the Christian majority in this country, Christmas is recognized as a national holiday. Does this conflict? No it doesn't because the recognition of a holiday is not equal to forceful observance. The recognition of Christmas does not prevent anyone from practicing Judaism in any way shape or form.

Now if the government passed a law that required everyone to, say, attend midnight mass at St. Mary's Catholic church on Christmas eve...well then I would have a date with the Supreme Court right along side you.

Say my local city government wants to put up a manger scene on public property? Does it establish the government as the head of a religion? No it does not. Does is prevent Jews from practicing Judaism? No it does not. Does it force anyone to be Christian? No it does not. So what is it? I believe that it is the religious expression of the majority in that town. That's all. No more, no less.

Anonymous said...

In case any of you didn't read what I wrote in the Tony Perkins section of comments, I will repeat my point.

The biggest mistake Republicans (of which I am a proud memeber) made was letting this group of nutballs into the tent. Last in Line, whether you want to admit or not, bible thumpers represent a majority of the Republican Party and were the main reason why George Bush got elected. They are not some fringe element that gives us a bad name. They give us a bad name because some nincompoop decided it would be a good idea to get into bed with these airheads. They are extremly dangerous people who are basically propelling Hillary Clinton into the White House--the thought of which gives me the dry heaves.

America needs more people like Rudy Gillianni and John McCain, people that are Republicans for all the right reasons, and no more psychos like Sam Brownback and Mitt Romney. They should form their own party and leave us alone.

Anonymous said...

This blog has been dead? I thought it was just getting interesting.

Anonymous said...

Vheights, I guess I meant dead in the sense that there were only 2 or so replies to the last couple postings. Since most people don't ever respond to anything PL says (must be lonely being PL) and others only type 1 or 2 lines, I figgered I'd get some debate going. The only threads that get 12 or 42 responses on this blog are the ones I post in, mostly people calling me stupid (which is OK...I have broad shoulders) without putting up any counterpoints or me and Markkkadelphia going back and forth about whatever.

Mark Ward said...

Iowa,

I would not go too far on the mat for McCain. He is cozying up to Falwell and his ilk as well as holding fast to the failed policy in Iraq. I used to have respect for McCain and have lost some because of both of these actions.

Anonymous said...

So if you haven't lost ALL respect for him can I conclude that you fart in his general direction?

Mark Ward said...

No, just disappointed. Generally speaking he is still a good man, just bizarrely misguided at present.

Anonymous said...

It is lonely being PL. Must be my sparkling personality.

Iowa Kid - I'm on your side re: getting the bible thumpers out of the party. Too much time, money, and energy is spent chasing ghosts and "fixing" things that, from the country's perspective, really don't rate when compared to fixing health care, improving education, etc.

I would add simply this....the more time people spend yelling at the churchies about how wrong they are the harder it is going to be to get anything done. It's not a difficult concept, but it's one with which a lot of people, including some blog moderators near and dear to our hearts, really struggle. It's doesn't really matter if your perception of their views is that they are wrong, sexist, racist, or any other "ist". They have faith in what they believe, and that faith makes it fact from their perspective.

Take the gay marriage debate. There are compromises galore out there that would satisfy what people are asking for - equal rights for gay couples - which is a concept to which almost nobody objects. But the "debate" always immediately degenerates into accusations of bigotry and whatnot. Bottom line - if liberals would be "the bigger man" and compromise, move ever so slightly from their position, the issue would have been resolved years ago. All you churchies could then merrily debate the issue of WWJD where you're supposed to debate it - in church.

To stem what I'm sure would have been the obvious argument....no, I'm not suggesting that every issue should be decided in favor of what the religious people want. I'm simply saying that taking a stand on an issue based solely on principle is more often than not a destructive approach.

Mark Ward said...

Take out the word liberals in this sentence...

if liberals would be "the bigger man" and compromise, move ever so slightly from their position

and insert the word conservatives because that is where the compromise is needed. PL and Crab, it has become quite obvious to me over the last few months that you really don't spend much time around Christian conservatives. Liberals, by the very definition of the word, are open to all sorts of compromise. In fact, one could argue they are doing so right now by essentially doing nothing.

Evangelicals do not want equal rights for gay people. They want them put in prison. This is not an extremist view. It is held by a fairly large group of people.

Anonymous said...

I absolutely, 100% emphatically disagree with everything you just said, and would go so far as to label it incorrect.

Anonymous said...

It pains me to admit this because agreeing with Democrats makes me ill but markadelphia is right(I think I just threw up in mouth a little bit.)

Conservative Christians are the problem when it comes to gay marriage, not the liberals. Every single bible banger I know wants all gays to go to hell. Every no brain type like Falwell etc thinks gays should be sent to concentration camps. The fact that this issue was made the centerpiece of the 2004 campaign for conservatives and it brought people to the polls should make you believe, PL, how what I have said is true.

What should have been the centerpiece of the 2004 campaign or any campaign for that matter is how our government is bleeding its citizens dry of money because they can't control their spending habits and create needless programs that don't help anyone. Liberals are, in fact, the cause of this problem and that is what they should thrown into jail for.

Anonymous said...

The label ‘liberal’ once had positive connotations until it began morphing into the soulless intolerant cesspool it is today.

…can’t say I know any Christians who say they want to “kill” gays but you’re the ones with the ability to read people’s thoughts.

Mark Ward said...

Iowa,

Liberals are not responsible for the poor speding habits of George Bush and his "frat boy with daddy's credit card" attitude. And your attitude about fiscal responsibility is sooooo 1982, dude.

Anonymous said...

Iowa,

Be very clear about what I'm saying....you're starting to read into my statements just like Markadelphia always does. "Gay marriage" and "equal rights for gays" are two very distinct concepts.

The evangelical Christians that I know are all in favor of equal rights for gays. Granted, that's simply anecdotal evidence on my part. But a) that anecdotal evidence is every bit as strong as Markadelphia's anecdotal evidence to the contrary, and b) that anecdotal evidence is supported by the small, but ever-growing, number of evangelical organizations that are coming out (so to speak) in support of equal rights for gays. Yes, they are out there...they are often simply drowned-out by their more rabid brethren.

But even though more and more people are supporting equal rights for gays, evangelicals are almost unanimously opposed to gay marriage.

That's the disconnect. That's the fundamental issue. Liberals are fighting for the wrong thing, and that's why they are wrong on this issue. If you churchies want to slaughter each other over whether or not gays can get married, should go to hell, or whatever, I couldn't care less.
The instrument is yet to be invented that can measure my indifference to that

But aside from the very vocal, yet largely insignificant, rabid christian conservatives, you'll be hard-pressed to find people who would oppose a sensible plan for providing equal rights to gay couples. (By equal rights I'm referring, of course, to issues such as extension of benefits, power of attorney, inheritance, etc.)

That's really the fundamental problem with several issues on the liberal platform. (Liberal according to the actual definition, and not Markadelphia's.) The heart is in the right place...gay rights, improved health care, fight poverty, improve education, etc. Can't argue with any of those, right? It's the implementation that is so tragically flawed.

Anonymous said...

Mark,

Just got back from vacation. This is one of the best ones I've read yet! Great post