Joho the Blog
An Entry from the Archives

That is a really arresting comment and it made me think. Its a humane response but not the last word. Suppose he did what they say he did, that you were wrong and that he came right out of the closet.... very unlikely, but if he did, then that would be remarkable. And if he did not do what they said and came out of the closet and affirmed that although he had never etcetc but he had NOW decided in view of the bigotted response to the false accusations against him he was now going to fight and pray for gay rights - rejecting the positions he had previously adopted. OK this is wildly improbably but if he did that then we would have a novel and Christian reaction to consider. Which suggests that the problem with this case is to do with the hypocrisy displayed -- on all sides (even the liberal and dismissive initial reaction that its simple hypocrisy).

Every time a hypocritical fundamentalist is exposed, an angel gets its wings (or, people stop believing in angels, as the case may be).

I don't think the following is true, in the sense of being incomplete: "Otherwise, we see simply demonstration of the temptations ..."

That's one reaction, certainly. Maybe even the most common reaction of uncritical faith. But don't ignore the potential effect on those on the fence, or not strong believers.

"Would He wear a pinky ring, would He drive a fancy car
Would His wife wear furs and diamonds, would His dressing room have a star
If he came back tomorrow there's something I'd like to know
Could ya tell me - Would Jesus wear a rolex
Would Jesus wear a rolex
Would Jesus wear a rolex on His television show
Would Jesus wear a rolex on His television show"

Adam, I'm not sure I'm disagreeing with you, but let's for the moment pretend Haggard came out of the closet. He'd look to liberals either like a reformed hypocrite or a newly-enlightened evangelical (depending on whether he had done the deeds or not), and I would indeed care...but not because of the hypocrisy. Rather, it'd be interesting because there might be political consequences.

Seth, I suppose it might affect some on-the-fencers, if there really are people on the fence about gay rights. But the fencers still have to take it one way or another, which seems to be a pre-critical moment: Either it reinforces the dangers of the homosexual lifestyle (I just so love that phrase) because it pulled even the good reverend down, or it's evidence that gays aren't morally responsible for "choosing" to be gay. Which way it pushes someone off the fence I think has a lot to do with which way she was facing originally.

Anytime we can discredit the religious right we as Amercians benefit. Anytome we can discredit a left wing radical group the American people benefit. Good government comes from the center.

One could engage in no more worthwhile or instructive activity than in rocking the religious Right. That's why this is a theme that will soon be coming to a blog near you.

Religion and politics ... oh yeah. Subjects that are off the table except in heated barroom discussions. And yet it's costing us. Dearly. Take a closer look. It's precisely the combination we abhor in the theocrats who fly airplanes into buildings as a way of taking thousands of innocent lives with them. They like to call it martyrdom -- a word I defy anyone to define in terms that point to anything other than insanity.

Even here among all the existentialist b.s. thrown up by commenters all over the Web it's easy to see where human intelligence loses it. Most will go just to a point -- the gray area between what they think they understand and that which they clearly don't -- and then gleefully keep right on going. Again, precisely what martyrs do ... with drastically greater and further reaching consequences.

The fact that we are even comfortable with the term, "religous Right," is something I find unnerving. Is it because it's a Christian Right? ... as opposed to some other Right? Oh. Sorry. I guess by now you're wondering, "Where's the tie-in? ... what's your point?"

Where it takes us this time, since you ask, is to an area where angels fear to tread. Namely, the very topical subject of homo-sex and the congressional closet case. And with good reason, of course. How many angels have you talked with lately who are openly gay?

You see, I do find the Ted Haggard case instructive, and highly so. Because it's so painfully clear that for most people who tend to comment on such incidents, it's a bridge too far. Their knowledge of the subject material goes right to the edge of the table and then drops verically straight to the floor, unaware as they are of the falling sensation.

Begin by observing how difficult it is for anyone to comment on homosexual behaviour without including the word, "abomination." Who in history is principally responsible for bringing that word to the forefront in the context we're now discussing?

Not exactly sure? Well don't skip ahead to find out. Keep reading and be titillated along the way.

It was a sexually tormented male, and he was, of course, a closet case. He writes, just by way of introduction to a recurring theme of mine, later to become a central figure in an upcoming full-length novel, "With my flesh I serve the law of sin ... I pummel my body and subdue it lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified."

No one could possibly be so coy as to intentionally misconstrue the broader context of "pummel it" in this passage written by one of the holiest of holies -- an Apostle of Christ. Ah, yes. Sin. "Let those who are without sin cast the first stone ... judge not, lest ye yourself be judged."

So in fact, these are not the wages of poor performance on the part of Haggard. These are the wages of sin, levied upon him by other sinners -- the electorate in this case.

We're talking about a fact of human nature that has been written about for two thousand years and will be written about for thousands more. And in all that time it will have made absolutely no difference to anyone -- not even the abominable sinners themselves. They'll lie in their graves while their spirits go to the place where the souls of all abominable sinners go -- into the ether where they will streak past the galaxies forever. Understand that Christ's soul on its way to Heaven has been sailing away from Earth at the speed of light for some two millenia, and has not yet reached the nearest edge of our own galaxy.

Oh, and by the way ... that sexually tormented male? That would be the man from Tarsus -- Paul. A Saint with a self-confessed affliction for the flesh. But what flesh? Can normal human sexuality be characterized as an "affliction?" Maybe we're talking about something other than "normal" human sexuality ... whad'd'ya think? I'll have to keep this in mind the next time the subject of "sexual orientation" comes up.

In polite conversation, of course ... not around a bunch of screaming mimi's at the local bar.