First, I hope his family is well. There is tragedy in this story. A lot of it.
Second, via Andrew Sullivan, Do you know what "H" stands for? Want to guess?
There are multiple words begining with H that apply. We could play madlibs with this story.
In a comment about the times in which we live, the story is already on Wikipedia.
What wikiality? Wikiality, What?
Third, who possesses the burden of proof and burden of rejoinder in this debate? Right now, there is very little evidence to suggest that this is true. Further, the evidence is from a close source to the cituation though it may be "tainted" [pun, pun, pun] Does the accuser possess the burden of proof or Pastor Ted?
Fourth, this is a story about ethos, especially good moral character and the presentation of that character. By posting on this topic, do I lower our ethos since I am focusing on the troubles of others?
5 comments:
"Do I lower our ethos?"
Not as long as you say "taint."
It's an interesting situation. Progressives such as Harrogate and myself and other take a special delight in this story but it is important to keep our eyes on the prize. While we are no doubt cheering the exposure of the hypocrisy of the religious right (yet again). I think we should also take another tact. I think we should support Haggard's right to be a pastor AND have gay sex. We should call for his immediate reinstatement.
Southpaw,
That's a loaded response that needs fleshing out. You are of course right to say that "we should support Haggard's right to be a pastor AND have gay sex." But the problem is Haggard, like all the outed Rethugs who have been in the news lately, lend aid and comfort to efforts th throw legislation back to the Wilde trials. These people are lower than scum, they're whatever it is scum feeds upon.
What kills Harrogate the most are these "libertarian" homosexuals, who vote GOP because they want tax cuts or hate the Department of Education or Mexicans or whatever....
In any case there is no quarter in Harrogate's mind for Haggard unless someone can demonstrate that he has spoken on behalf of gay rights. If he is like most of them, cherry-picking Leviticus to rile up a bunch of hate, then it's not anti-progressive to condemn him.
Maybe Haggard ought to have listened to "Can't You Feel The Love Tonight" in Mandarin-Chinese before he started his web of hypocrisy and deception.
Of course, I don't actually support Haggard's reinstatement for many of the reasons you cite Harrogate (first and foremost of which is that although I have no proof I feel confident that he has probably used his position to spew hate rhetorics about homosexuals). But, Megsg-h gets my point exactly. By joining the conservatives in running him down, we are contributing to the perception that there is something wrong with homosexuality.
My point can be most easily seen in the news articles. They are not talking about his resignation as a reaction to his hypocrisy but as a reaction to allegations of homosexuality. We may relish in the hypocrisy of it all but others are relishing in the other "h" word.
If we think of this as a case study in the constitution of ethos, then (1) we may or may suport support his as a homosexual but (2) we should not support his reinstatement. In fact, we are not attacking homosexuality, but attacking his position in his community.
There are three componets to ethos: good will toward audience (best interests of audience in mind), good sense (wisdom), and good moral character (represent virtues of a community). Haggard fails all three tests of ethos.
First, good moral character: he no longer represents the virtues of his community (heterosexual, faithful). He would no longer be able to be a spokesperson for this community.
Second, he lacks good sense since his actions do match his deeds, he had an affair, he did damage to his marriage, he lost credibility with his kids, and he demonstrated poor judgment to his usual audence.
Third, he does not have the best interests of his audience in mind since he constantly lies to them. He is not working for their benefit but for his personal glory.
The focus of this controversy should not be about his homosexuality but upon his actions as a rhetor in his community.
Post a Comment