I'm a Lutheran, and no fan of anti-gay megachurches. My church is inclusive and welcoming to all. I have been cautiously happy to see Ted Haggard talk over the last couple years about the environment and poverty more than has been the norm for pastors like him, but I have remained unhappy with his acceptance of anti-gay theology.

If this accusation is true, then he has been very hypocritical. Though it seems unproductive for the left to be dancing with glee at the outing of gay men, whatever their level of dishonesty - it could easily transfer into a witch hunt for gays who are out socially, but cautious at work. I don't talk about my sexuality at work, and I don't really see why gays should be required to do so to be seen as honest and forthright, it's a personal thing.

That said, I question the headline here. Why is Ted Haggard "Bush's top evangelical"? Isn't that giving both Haggard and Bush way too much credit? Haggard for influence (he's too moderate in his views on social policy and environmental law to be seen as having much sway in this White House); and Bush for religion (Bush has been sharply criticized by his own denomination and his own home church for his foreign policy and neglect of social needs and poverty).

Alternet, like many other blogs which I find otherwise extremely useful and informative, has a big blind spot when it comes to the nexus of religion and the GOP. The GOP has been very successful in using unscrupulous pastors of big and little socially conservative churches to get out the vote for them. But the socially conservative evangelicals have been curiously ineffective in getting much for their money and their time. There have been some damaging policy changes on UN family planning programs, and a bogus, hollow, unfunded "faith-based services" program, and a LOT of exclusionary and sanctimonious talk. But most of the bad stuff coming out of the far-right Christians is at the state level, and not strictly a GOP operation (there are lots of conservative Dems involved in this crap in the statehouses, if Virginia is any indication).

After 6 years of the most right-wing, and most overtly "religious" Administration in our history: no prayer in the schools, no ban on abortion, no ban on gay marriage, no moves of any kind towards the kind of theocracy envisioned by the far-right evangelists.

I want to suggest that progressives try to do a better job of distinguishing rhetoric from reality, and especially of distinguishing the statements of vocal and ambitious pastors from the actual feelings and social tendencies of the rank and file.

The picture is exceedingly complicated in the American Church. Even if you consider religion your enemy (sad to me if you do, and based on much incomplete information, but understandable considering the many crimes of churches over the years), isn't it generally considered good tactical practice to know your enemy? The last place to look for accurate and useful information about the politics and social views of churches is the Falwells, the Haggards, the Robertsons, the Dobsons. The trend is left, not right. These guys are played out, their style of movement building peaked a while ago. The growth is in medium sized denominational and alternative churches, and there is a huge rethink going on about how to be more engaged in justice and mercy, without becoming political organizations. We just don't have access to (or desire for) a platform on Fox News, MSNBC, or the big newspapers. We're just out here doing it. Come and see.

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

Finally the left "gets it." Playing nice when your opponents are thugs is ridiculous. So if the GOP thugs want to play it this way, I say it's way past time for us to adopt their game rules. Better than losing elections, it is! Who cares whether this story about Haggard is true - it's five days before the election and if there's one thing the Republithugs don't need, it's another bunch of disgusted, disillusioned evangelicals reading this kind of thing about one of their kings. Haggard stepping out with a gay escort?? Shout it from the rooftops, Swift Boat style! We'll worry about whether the accusation holds water or not AFTER the election is over. How does it feel to be on the receiving end of this stuff, right-wingers??? Whatsa matter - you can dish it out, but you can't take it?

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

I have respect for religious leaders that "talk the talk and walk the walk", but so many of them have been proven to be utter hypocrits. They worship money and power.

Does anyone else see a disconnect between hanging out around gay bars ostensibly tryting to get men to attend his church and then leading an anti-gay marriage campaign?

Dude! Come out of the closet, already!

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

in power. Remember the "Franklin Cover-Up"?
Remember the allegations of young male prostitutes visiting the White House?
Remember Barney Frank's boyfriend running a "call boy" ring out of his home in D.C.?
Don't forget Foley and the alledge 'list' of other homosexual paedophiles that exist.

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

Thanks, this is a perspective we seldom get at Alternet (and I'm an agnostic, by the way, no pro-fundamentalist agenda here). It's your perspective, based on your relevant experience, respectfully and thoughtfully presented. We don't have to agree with it, but certainly we should consider it.

Which is more than I can say for the previous poster who resorts to name-calling and put-downs. Whatever.

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

Although I'd LOVE for this to be true...at this point it's an allegation. This sort of thing does fit in with a pattern and I wouldn't be surprised if it's true....It's been shown again and again that the most aggressive homophobic males are self-loathing closet homosexuals.

Let's wait for hard facts before we make an issue out of this...

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

These man made churches that cover for these scoundrels suck big time and so does our government. Still feel like voting some more in? If you do, expect the worse, the devils in the closet are ready to come out and haunt you!

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

It has been life experience that those who say the most often have the most to hide. I was teaching high school in New Mexico and had a principal who was also a fire and brimstone "believer" who condemmed all gays to hell. Well, last year he died in prison (20 year sentence) after admitting guilt to molesting, over several years, a student at the high school. One just needs to check the news for many incidents as mentioned in this video.

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

I don't care if Haggart did it or not.

The fact is that many evangelical followers have forgotten that their leaders are human and prone to make human mistakes. This despite nearly constant reminders of the fact. Swaggart, Baker, Tilton, Bush, Foley, the whole Catholic preisthood. Taking anything that a religious leader says as holy is foolish at best. When they exhort their followers to take actions that negatively affect others, they are clearly out of bounds, and being human. Haggart is one of those, out politicking against gay marriage and against gay rights in general (two different ballot proposals in Co. this election cycle), instead of telling his flock (an aside: why is it that religious people never mind being called the flock, but are offended by being called sheep?) to mind their own affairs and tend to their own hearts.

I don't know if he did it, and while admitting some glee over the possibility, I will not accuse him of being anymore hypocritical than any other religious leader, at least until I hear the voicemails. I will emplore those who follow Haggart or others like him, to ponder the humanity of their leaders, and then ponder their infallibility.

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

The male prostitute in question is 49-years-old. Does anyone believe that a guy with Haggard's money would hire a 49-year-old for sex? Why wouldn't he hire a buff 24-year-old?

I'm not defending or endorsing anything Haggard has done or said regarding any issue. But I doubt these charges have any merit, so I recommend that progressives don't make much of an issue about this until hard proof comes in.

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

this is where your money goes. If it's not Haggard hiring gay escorts, it's Swaggart hiring female prostitutes. Such hypocrisy! And there's a few tidbits I could give you about Ayatollah Jerry and Ayatollah Pat, too.

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

Do the fundies like Robertson and rest really believe the bullshit they peddle? It's all about money and power. Some of the biggest con men in history wore white collars. And the chumps who support them are wasting their money, perpetuating the hoax and helping put in office sleazy and criminal politicians.

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

It' sad that Reverend Haggard was "outed" by the homosexual he bought sexual favors from, it's sad that such a situation becomes news. If a person wants to engage in hetrosexual sex or homosexual sex with a consenting adult, it is strictly a private matter and should be nobody's business.

However, considering Reverend Haggard's activities in leading his church in condemning homosexuals, not only for their attempt to dignify relationships many of them have had for years, but for their own existance, there is a kind of perverse justice that Rev. Haggard is now the butt of many lewd jokes and is seen by the entire world for the hypocrit he is. This leads us to examine the "moral" foundations of Rev. Haggard's movement, and of the Republican party that so willingly exploits the anti-gay campaign that Rev. Haggard so enthusiastically led.

To this atheist, the whole Evangelical movement is exploitative and their sins against humanity are particularly egregious when they go off on one of their campaigns. But my inclination is not to campaign against them, that would be lowering myself to their level. We can only hope that as yet another Rebpublican, Evangelical, Conservative, what-have-you is shown for the hypocrit he is, the voters will finally wise up and vote them out. We can hope, that's all.

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