How Haggard is the evangelical vote?

  • News
  • Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date
In summary, Ted Haggard, a staunch opponent of gay marriage and occasional participant in White House conference calls, resigned as president of the National Association of Evangelicals and head of his Colorado church following allegations he met monthly with a gay prostitute for three years. He denies having sex with the man, but admits receiving a massage and buying methamphetamine. Haggard is also reportedly the subject of a phone call that has been recorded. Conservatives say the resignation shows the Republican Party's hypocrisy for campaigning on family values while supporting politicians like Foley. Liberals say it's only going to hurt the GOP's chances of winning in Tuesday's election.
  • #1
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
8,142
1,759
Will Haggard,
Evangelical leader steps down

The leader of America’s influential National Association of Evangelicals, a vocal supporter of George Bush and opponent of same-sex marriage, resigned last night after being accused of paying for sex with a man.[continued]
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2436166,00.html

along with the Foley scandal, and books like "Tempting Faith"
...The Bush administration has denied accusations contained in the book that evangelical Christians were courted for votes but referred to dismissively behind closed doors...
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Books/sto...rtner=google&gclid=CJ2Y1vPnqYgCFQloYAodb1-xeA

suppress the evangelical vote?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I don't think so. Where else will they go?
 
  • #3
Well, they could quit being evangelical, for starters.
 
  • #4
This is the loon featured in Richard Dawkins' new documentary! Here's an excerpt of his egomania:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmNjfpoRZpE&eurl=

(around 4:50, addressing Richard Dawkins):
But you see, you do understand. You do understand that this issue right here, of intellectual arrogance, is the reason why, people like you, have a difficult problem with people of faith. I don't communicate an air of superiority over people because I know so much more. And if you only read the books I know, and if you only knew the scientists I knew, then you would be great like me!

"...great like me!" Ahh, the hubris.
 
  • #5
Dimitri Terryn said:
I don't think so. Where else will they go?

Hopefully they will just stay home on election day.
 
  • #6
Ivan Seeking said:
Hopefully they will just stay home on election day.

True enough. I'm sorry, voting is mandatory over here so that changes the dynamic. However, I still doubt it that these incindents will change the mind of a lot of people since the republican/evanglical christian alliance (which is rather strange historically speaking) is strongly entrenched these days.

If anything, I bet most of those christians will figure that a republic vote at least will keep the godless (I'm sorry, but this is hilarious from a European point of view) Democrats out of power.
 
  • #7
Holy cow! Haggard just admitted to calling to buy meth, which he claims to have thrown away. He also went for a massage "on referral from a hotel".

I think they have at least one phone call on tape...
 
Last edited:
  • #8
Dimitri Terryn said:
If anything, I bet most of those christians will figure that a republic vote at least will keep the godless (I'm sorry, but this is hilarious from a European point of view) Democrats out of power.

Hopefully they are starting to realize that they have been duped.

I too would think it's funny if it hadn't cost our nation so much. And this hasn't even been about being a Christian, it is about being the right kind of Christian. It is about extremists taking over the country, and you know from your history how troubling that can be.
 
Last edited:
  • #9
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061103/ap_on_el_ge/haggard_politics

With the Mark Foley scandal still troubling Republicans, one of the nation's top evangelical leaders is now accused of paying for gay sex. Heading into Tuesday's election, when voters in eight states will decide on gay marriage bans, liberals and some conservatives are saying the party that prides itself on family values has a hypocrisy problem.

Ted Haggard, a staunch foe of gay marriage and occasional participant in White House conference calls, resigned as president of the National Association of Evangelicals and head of his Colorado church following allegations he met monthly with a gay prostitute for three years. Haggard denies having sex with the man, but admits receiving a massage and buying methamphetamine.

Five weeks ago, Foley — a vocal advocate for exploited children — resigned from Congress because of sexually tinged messages to male pages. Rep. Don Sherwood, R-Pa., a married father of three, has been burdened by revelations about his five-year affair with a mistress who says he physically abused her.

"The attention focused on these cases will inescapably lead people to think about these people's hypocrisy," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "They make a career out of defaming gay people and preaching family values, when it's clear that it's just a veneer."
Sad state of affairs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
Just to let you know, this has also become a pretty big news item over here in Belgium. The 13h news reported on the waning evangelical support for the republican party and the Haggard case.
 
  • #11
It kind of baffles me how this guy came to have such close ties to the Whitehouse. Ties that went beyond religion:

WASHINGTON — As president of the National Association of Evangelicals, the Rev. Ted Haggard has advised the White House on issues ranging from judicial appointments to steel tariffs, but he also sought to widen the agenda of Christian evangelicals into areas of the Bush administration
http://www.qctimes.net/articles/2006/11/04/news/local/doc454b91cf1e1b9467359686.txt

This does help explain why the Bush adminstration is sooo screwed up.
 
  • #12
Ivan Seeking said:
Holy cow! Haggard just admitted to calling to buy meth, which he claims to have thrown away. He also went for a massage "on referral from a hotel".

I think they have at least one phone call on tape...
I heard the message he left. He wanted $100 - $200 worth of more meth! He also said he wanted to advance the guy some money to assure that there was a constant supply. Sounds like he went to a lot of trouble just to throw it away. :smile:
 
  • #13
Looks like he has also admitted to sexual misconduct.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227568,00.html

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — The Rev. Ted Haggard agreed to resign as leader of the New Life Church Saturday after its independent investigative board recommended removal, saying he was guilty "of sexually immoral conduct."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
I don't think it will effect the evangelical vote. After all, that sort of voter is voting principals, and tends to vote conservative/Republican because of things like that admission.

There's not much to choose from, with conservatives you get:
Looks like he has also admitted to sexual misconduct.

With liberals you get:
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman...", and "I'm sorry some people may have missinterpretted what I said so that it could be misconstrued as an insult to our troops...".

Both indulge in deplorable behavior, so you vote for the one who at least has the decency to admit that their behavior was deplorable, and retire from the field in humiliation when they get caught! It's a sick choice to have to make, but dangit, ain't that what makes this country great?!
 
  • #15
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman...", and "I'm sorry some people may have missinterpretted what I said so that it could be misconstrued as an insult to our troops...".
I think Clinton finally did apologize for that stupid statement, but it was way too late. Kerry finally clarified and apologized three days later, after going on the offensive during the second day, when he should have simply acknowledged he can't tell a joke and apologized for making what appeared to be a disparaging remark.

Haggard started denying, then slowly as things unfolded confessed to the methamphetamine, but I don't know what else. I don't see that Haggard has confessed to immoral sexual conduct, but the church's investigation has concluded that he did.

Haggard on Friday acknowledged paying Jones for a massage and for methamphetamine, but said he did not have sex with him and did not take the drug.

In a TV interview this week, Haggard said: "Never had a gay relationship with anybody, and I'm steady with my wife, I'm faithful to my wife."
The church is still investigating.
 
  • #16
LURCH said:
Both indulge in deplorable behavior, so you vote for the one who at least has the decency to admit that their behavior was deplorable, and retire from the field in humiliation when they get caught! It's a sick choice to have to make, but dangit, ain't that what makes this country great?!
So you plan to vote for Haggard?
 
  • #17
I guess it all depends on what Haggards definition of a massage by a gay prostitue is.
Yesterday he only admitted to the meth.

Edit:
And today (Sunday)he confessed to the sex acts.
 
Last edited:
  • #18
LURCH said:
Both indulge in deplorable behavior, so you vote for the one who at least has the decency to admit that their behavior was deplorable, and retire from the field in humiliation when they get caught! It's a sick choice to have to make, but dangit, ain't that what makes this country great?!
You've completely missed the point here, so I'll make it clear. The religious conservatives (and Haggard, being their role model) deplore homosexuality, extra/pre-marital sex and use of hallucinogens. So, when you find Rush Limbaugh is a doper, Bill Bennett has a gambling addiction, Bill O'Reilly settles a sexual harrassment suit and now, Reverend Haggard admits to buying dope from a gay prostitute, there's one word that comes to most minds: HYPOCRITES!
 
  • #19
http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2006/11/05/514133.html&cvqh=itn_confesses

"I am so sorry for the circumstances that have caused shame and embarrassment for all of you," he said, adding that he had confused the situation by giving inconsistent remarks to reporters denying the scandal.

"The fact is I am guilty of sexual immorality. And I take responsibility for the entire problem. I am a deceiver and a liar. There's a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I have been warring against it for all of my adult life," he said.


To this day, Clinton behaves as though he did nothing wrong, and Kerry only said he was sorry that people "missunderstood" what he said. If you read or hear his actual words, they most definitely were an insult to anyone in uniform, no room for intepretation. But he only appologised for other people's innability to understand what he meant to say. The appology is a repeat of the original offense. He basicaly said, "I'm sorry that you're so stupid that you thought I was calling you stupid".
 
  • #20
LURCH said:
The appology is a repeat of the original offense. He basicaly said, "I'm sorry that you're so stupid that you thought I was calling you stupid".
Not quite. This statement is misleading.

What Kerry said last Wednesday was
"I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member or American who was offended," Kerry said.

"As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loved ones: My poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and [was] never intended to refer to any troop," he said.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/01/kerry.remarks/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

He apologized for offending the troops and the fact that his words were misinterpreted. He botched a joke that was critical of president Bush, and Bush's apparent lack of education (and lack of knowledge and lack of being educated), but the way it was stated made it appear that he was saying that anyone without a proper education would end up in Iraq, which was not Kerry's intent.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #21
LURCH said:
http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2006/11/05/514133.html&cvqh=itn_confesses

"I am so sorry for the circumstances that have caused shame and embarrassment for all of you," he said, adding that he had confused the situation by giving inconsistent remarks to reporters denying the scandal.

"The fact is I am guilty of sexual immorality. And I take responsibility for the entire problem. I am a deceiver and a liar. There's a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I have been warring against it for all of my adult life," he said.


To this day, Clinton behaves as though he did nothing wrong, and Kerry only said he was sorry that people "missunderstood" what he said. If you read or hear his actual words, they most definitely were an insult to anyone in uniform, no room for intepretation. But he only appologised for other people's innability to understand what he meant to say. The appology is a repeat of the original offense. He basicaly said, "I'm sorry that you're so stupid that you thought I was calling you stupid".

Clinton's fault again?

What did Clinton do that was so wrong that you cannot forgive him?

He is who he is, he did what he did. He has moved on with his life and continues to take an active and positive role in world leadership.

And I suggest you read the script of the speech before you ascertain with certainty that there is no room for interpretation in Kerry's meaning.

What the right-wing wants to hear Kerry say is;

"I'm sorry I called the troops stupid."

But that is not what he said. He was attempting to infer that Bush wasn't very bright, and didn't do his homework before the invasion and now has gotten us stuck in Iraq. A complex joke to try and tell and he botched it.

Now it is the biggest issue of the entire campaign for the Republicans. And he isn't even running for office!


I guess it is a sign of Republican desperation to be attacking a Senator who is not even running for re-election because he can't tell a joke.
 
  • #22
And I suggest you read the script of the speech before you ascertain with certainty that there is no room for interpretation in Kerry's meaning...

But that is not what he said. He was attempting to infer that Bush wasn't very bright, and didn't do his homework before the invasion and now has gotten us stuck in Iraq. A complex joke to try and tell and he botched it.
But that's just it; I am going by what he actually said. There really is no room for interpretation in what he actually said. I never claimed there was no room for interpretation as to what he might have meant, but what he said is perfectly clear and a matter of public record.

...And he isn't even running for office!
And Haggard is?
 
  • #23
The question is: How many evangelicals would otherwise be inspired by Haggard to vote via the gay marriage issue. This speaks generally to support for Republicans since this issue drives many fundametalists.

One must now wonder if Haggard's zeal against gay marriage is really just a manifestation of his inner struggle. I wonder how common this may be.
 
  • #24
And, for the record, what does biblical law have to do with civil law? Churches don't generally recognize civil marriages, and no one is going to force a church to perform gay marriages.

In any case, I sure am sick of this issue driving elections. As a true conservative, I see this as a State issue.
 
Last edited:
  • #25
Ivan Seeking said:
One must now wonder if Haggard's zeal against gay marriage is really just a manifestation of his inner struggle. I wonder how common this may be.
At the very least, it is reasonable to assume it is very common among those homosexuals who happen to be evangelical Christians.
 
  • #26
LURCH said:
But that's just it; I am going by what he actually said. There really is no room for interpretation in what he actually said. I never claimed there was no room for interpretation as to what he might have meant, but what he said is perfectly clear and a matter of public record.

So what is wrong with him apologizing for mis-speaking?

It is not like Bush doesn't mis-speak almost every time he opens his mouth.
 
  • #27
LURCH said:
But that's just it; I am going by what he actually said. There really is no room for interpretation in what he actually said.
I don't agree with you on that point. As it was spoken, the joke could mean stuck physically in Iraq, or it could mean stuck politically in Iraq. Even so, I think Kerry should have apologized for the way the words came out. I don't think his instincts served him well in this matter. As for going by what people actually say and not by what you know they mean, that seems pedantic to me.
 
  • #28
What surprises me is that Kerry didn't immediately realize what he said and correct himself. Then he let it go. On day 2, when he should have apologized as he subsequently did on day 3, he was attacking critics with regard to misinterpration of the mis-spoken words.

Kerry wasn't careful when he first uttered the words, and then he was stupid about not apologizing appropriately until the whole thing blew up.


I wonder if it's his joke or someone else's. I am tired of politicians using the words of others (speechwriters and spokespeople). Why can't they speak for themselves? Is it because they simply don't have any original ideas or thoughts?
 
  • #29
Gokul43201 said:
You've completely missed the point here, so I'll make it clear. The religious conservatives (and Haggard, being their role model) deplore homosexuality, extra/pre-marital sex and use of hallucinogens. So, when you find Rush Limbaugh is a doper, Bill Bennett has a gambling addiction, Bill O'Reilly settles a sexual harrassment suit and now, Reverend Haggard admits to buying dope from a gay prostitute, there's one word that comes to most minds: HYPOCRITES!

The thing is, if you're a social conservative, shouldn't you vote in the person that will back and get passed socially conservative legislation? Even if the guy is a gay vampire, at least he really will try to get an amendment passed banning gay marriage. I'm not personally a social conservative, but whichever way one may lean, on the grand scale of things, I'd rather have a hypocrite passing the legislation I want passed than honest Abe passing the opposite.
 
  • #30
BTW; I would very much like to read the script for the speach. Does anyone have a link? I'm guessing that his publicist would have immediately posted that document on the 'net somewhere, as soon as he started to make the claim that it was a mis-spoken joke about the president. I've heard more than one version of what he meant to say, and I'd like to read it myself.

Astronuke, I totaly agree with you about the prepared speeches. One of the things I have found most admirable about Bush is that he's such a lousy actor, and terrible at reading a prepared speech. You can tell almost instantly when he's reading something that someone else wrote, and when he's speaking his own mind.

I wonder if there would be any way for us, the common citizens, to make it clear to politicians that we dislike the recitation of prepared speeches. It would take a drastic change, and so I don't think it would happen quickly. However, perhaps in a process resembling natural selection, in which the candidate who speaks most frequently from his own mind gets the most votes, perhaps a new campaigning methodology might "evolve".

But I suppose that is a topic for a different thread.
 
  • #31
loseyourname said:
I'd rather have a hypocrite passing the legislation I want passed than honest Abe passing the opposite.
Point taken. I'm not sure I'd always vote in the person who's most likely to pass my agenda if I think he's a complete slimeball...but if he were running against anyone but a relatively honest Abe, I think I'd often do the same.

The way character figures in my decision is through the variabity that sliminess brings with it. If the guy can't be trusted, I'd be nervous about what he'd do 2 months down the road. I believe it (character) plays a more direct and telling role in the decisions of the most others, though.
 
Last edited:
  • #32
loseyourname said:
The thing is, if you're a social conservative, shouldn't you vote in the person that will back and get passed socially conservative legislation?

If you are really a conservative, this is not even an issue at the federal level. I think you mean pseudoconservatives.

Even if the guy is a gay vampire, at least he really will try to get an amendment passed banning gay marriage. I'm not personally a social conservative, but whichever way one may lean, on the grand scale of things, I'd rather have a hypocrite passing the legislation I want passed than honest Abe passing the opposite.

If the person is a hypocrite, then you really have no idea who you are electing, or what he or she will do.
 
  • #33
LURCH said:
BTW; I would very much like to read the script for the speach. Does anyone have a link? I'm guessing that his publicist would have immediately posted that document on the 'net somewhere, as soon as he started to make the claim that it was a mis-spoken joke about the president. I've heard more than one version of what he meant to say, and I'd like to read it myself.

I couldn't find the full transcript, but here is what Kerry said right before the infamous remark. Src:

I (Kerry) has been in Texas the day before. President Bush used to live in that state, but now he lives in the state of denial. The trip has reminded me (Kerry) the value of education. If you make the most of it ...

Did you have the same grudge against Bush for his literal mistakes?

I wonder if there would be any way for us, the common citizens, to make it clear to politicians that we dislike the recitation of prepared speeches. It would take a drastic change, and so I don't think it would happen quickly. However, perhaps in a process resembling natural selection, in which the candidate who speaks most frequently from his own mind gets the most votes, perhaps a new campaigning methodology might "evolve".
You really don't like Bush, don't you?:smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
I don't normally spend so much tiem ni the politics forum, but I think I will start a thread on prepared speeches.
You really don't like Bush, don't you?
*?*
 
  • #35
Well, would you agree that if we take away prepared speech, Bush would be in big trouble? He is already having difficulty formulating complete sentence. It would be a national embarrassment everytime he communicate verbally.
 
<h2>1. How does the evangelical vote impact elections?</h2><p>The evangelical vote can have a significant impact on elections, particularly in the United States where it makes up a large portion of the population. Candidates often cater to the evangelical vote by addressing issues that are important to this group, such as abortion and religious freedom. In close elections, the evangelical vote can sway the outcome.</p><h2>2. What percentage of the population identifies as evangelical?</h2><p>According to a 2019 survey by the Pew Research Center, approximately 25% of Americans identify as evangelical. This number has remained relatively stable over the past decade, but there are variations among different demographic groups and regions of the country.</p><h2>3. How do evangelicals tend to vote?</h2><p>Evangelicals tend to vote for conservative candidates and align with the Republican party. However, there is some diversity within the evangelical community, and not all members vote the same way. Some may prioritize certain issues over others and vote accordingly.</p><h2>4. Are there any factors that can influence the evangelical vote?</h2><p>Yes, there are several factors that can influence the evangelical vote, including the candidate's stance on issues that are important to this group, their religious beliefs and values, and the overall political climate. Evangelicals may also be influenced by endorsements from religious leaders or organizations.</p><h2>5. Has the evangelical vote changed over time?</h2><p>Yes, the evangelical vote has evolved over time. In the past, evangelicals were more likely to vote for Democratic candidates, but in recent decades, there has been a shift towards supporting Republican candidates. Additionally, there has been a growing diversity within the evangelical community, leading to varying voting patterns among different subgroups.</p>

Related to How Haggard is the evangelical vote?

1. How does the evangelical vote impact elections?

The evangelical vote can have a significant impact on elections, particularly in the United States where it makes up a large portion of the population. Candidates often cater to the evangelical vote by addressing issues that are important to this group, such as abortion and religious freedom. In close elections, the evangelical vote can sway the outcome.

2. What percentage of the population identifies as evangelical?

According to a 2019 survey by the Pew Research Center, approximately 25% of Americans identify as evangelical. This number has remained relatively stable over the past decade, but there are variations among different demographic groups and regions of the country.

3. How do evangelicals tend to vote?

Evangelicals tend to vote for conservative candidates and align with the Republican party. However, there is some diversity within the evangelical community, and not all members vote the same way. Some may prioritize certain issues over others and vote accordingly.

4. Are there any factors that can influence the evangelical vote?

Yes, there are several factors that can influence the evangelical vote, including the candidate's stance on issues that are important to this group, their religious beliefs and values, and the overall political climate. Evangelicals may also be influenced by endorsements from religious leaders or organizations.

5. Has the evangelical vote changed over time?

Yes, the evangelical vote has evolved over time. In the past, evangelicals were more likely to vote for Democratic candidates, but in recent decades, there has been a shift towards supporting Republican candidates. Additionally, there has been a growing diversity within the evangelical community, leading to varying voting patterns among different subgroups.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
Back
Top