http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5112770,00.html

 

It's getting to the point where a guy can't relax and enjoy himself ....

 

 

Frances

Of course, it could be that the fellow was looking for some free publicity on the radio station and a chance to smear a minister. Or, it could be true. Two things ARE certain: 1) taking a polygraph and passing it isn't going to convince me this guy is telling the truth; 2) the Church has followed the overseer model out of Acts Chapter 6 and is handling the siutation correctly, as is Haggard.

Of course, it could be that the fellow was looking for some free publicity on the radio station and a chance to smear a minister. Or, it could be true. Two things ARE certain: 1) taking a polygraph and passing it isn't going to convince me this guy is telling the truth; 2) the Church has followed the overseer model out of Acts Chapter 6 and is handling the siutation correctly, as is Haggard.

 

Both good points, Hearsay.

 

If Jones has the tapes that he says he has, it will come to light. If those tapes don't surface, then your hypothetical (guy trying to smear the minister) will be correct.

 

Time will tell.

 

 

Frances

I just read an account of the matter which quoted Haggard. It sounds to me like he is not only a hypocrit but also a liar. His account is much like Clinton's defense that he didn't inhale.

I just read an account of the matter which quoted Haggard. It sounds to me like he is not only a hypocrit but also a liar. His account is much like Clinton's defense that he didn't inhale.

Is that like Bush's claim that he didn't run the 50 yard dash with his nose to the ground???

Probably an apt analogy, gametime.:thumb:

I just read an account of the matter which quoted Haggard. It sounds to me like he is not only a hypocrit but also a liar. His account is much like Clinton's defense that he didn't inhale.

 

I haven't seen that particular account, scooterbob, but on the other hand, I did see where the accuser (Jones) took a lie detector test this morning on a radio show that showed he had been less than truthful on some of the questions posed to him.

 

There is one caveat - the expert that administered the lie detector test said that he might have failed the test due to the pressure that he has been under.

 

At this point, I have to think that the onus of providing proof truly lies more heavily now on Jones, after having failed the lie detector test.

 

I have to agree with Hearsay, and say Haggard has to be given the benefit of the doubt, until and unless some solid evidence starts showing up.

 

 

Frances

I haven't seen that particular account, scooterbob, but on the other hand, I did see where the accuser (Jones) took a lie detector test this morning on a radio show that showed he had been less than truthful on some of the questions posed to him.

 

There is one caveat - the expert that administered the lie detector test said that he might have failed the test due to the pressure that he has been under.

 

At this point, I have to think that the onus of providing proof truly lies more heavily now on Jones, after having failed the lie detector test.

 

I have to agree with Hearsay, and say Haggard has to be given the benefit of the doubt, until and unless some solid evidence starts showing up.

 

 

Frances

 

 

In a more perfect world, the public burden of proof would be on Jones since he made the accusations. However, in this situation, a controversial individual such as Haggard is guilty until proven innocent. Right or wrong, the burden is clearly on him.

 

The report given on MSNBC said that Haggard admits buying drugs from Jones but claims that he threw them away. He also claims that he went to Jones for a massage. He may prevail in a court of law but he appears to me to be a dead duck in the court of public opinion.

 

Haggard seems to be ready to join that fraternity that includes Swaggart, Baker, Tilton, a goodly number of priests, and a few others.

In a more perfect world, the public burden of proof would be on Jones since he made the accusations. However, in this situation, a controversial individual such as Haggard is guilty until proven innocent. Right or wrong, the burden is clearly on him.

 

The report given on MSNBC said that Haggard admits buying drugs from Jones but claims that he threw them away. He also claims that he went to Jones for a massage. He may prevail in a court of law but he appears to me to be a dead duck in the court of public opinion.

 

Haggard seems to be ready to join that fraternity that includes Swaggart, Baker, Tilton, a goodly number of priests, and a few others.

 

Ouch!!

 

That is gonna be pretty hard to shake. You have to wonder why he admitted to buying drugs from Jones?

 

I have to say that the story that he bought the drugs and then threw them away looks pretty weak.

 

Now, that "massage" angle just might fly, if we find out he has a history of cramping up ....

 

 

Frances

Ouch!!

 

That is gonna be pretty hard to shake. You have to wonder why he admitted to buying drugs from Jones?

 

I have to say that the story that he bought the drugs and then threw them away looks pretty weak.

 

Now, that "massage" angle just might fly, if we find out he has a history of cramping up ....

 

 

Frances

 

I'm having a hard time with this one — listening to Haggard's statements on NPR yesterday had my bs filter working overtime.

 

I consider myself to be reasonably enlightened. I have no problems with homosexuals. However, I would cringe at the thought of getting a massage from a man, whether he a licensed therapeutic masseuse or not.

 

And the Rev. is trying to tell the US public that he — a man who most certainly takes a more hard-line (no pun intended) attitude toward homosexuals, and hangs in the company of those who speak proudly about their homophobia — only got a massage, and didn't have sex with this or any other man?

 

Consider me unconvinced and skeptical. About the crank issue as well.

I'm having a hard time with this one — listening to Haggard's statements on NPR yesterday had my bs filter working overtime.

 

I consider myself to be reasonably enlightened. I have no problems with homosexuals. However, I would cringe at the thought of getting a massage from a man, whether he a licensed therapeutic masseuse or not.

 

And the Rev. is trying to tell the US public that he — a man who most certainly takes a more hard-line (no pun intended) attitude toward homosexuals, and hangs in the company of those who speak proudly about their homophobia — only got a massage, and didn't have sex with this or any other man?

 

Consider me unconvinced and skeptical. About the crank issue as well.

 

Hey!

 

A man leading a flock of 10,000 people and speaking with the President once a week can really build up some tension....

 

 

Frances

All leaders, including ministers, should have a system of accountability. Someone that they answer to on a regular basis questions of morality. Power corrupts. Anyone who thinks that it doesn't will be consumed by it should they come into a position of power.

Hey!

 

A man leading a flock of 10,000 people and speaking with the President once a week can really build up some tension....

 

 

Frances

 

Or he and other "holy men" just like to lash out at gays to overcompensate for guilt over their own confusing wants and desires …

All leaders, including ministers, should have a system of accountability. Someone that they answer to on a regular basis questions of morality. Power corrupts. Anyone who thinks that it doesn't will be consumed by it should they come into a position of power.

 

I agree on the matter of accountability. I would have to disagree on the issue of morality, unless it were a case such as this, where the leader in question is actually asked to lead in terms of morality.

 

That said, I also agree that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

Frances

I just heard one of the tapes. I now amend my earlier post. As my 4 year-old would say, this guy is "busted."

 

When they're bringing Al Mohler in for spin doctoring, I think the evidence has been conceded.