Schadenfreude
I regard Richard Dawkins as a "a bit drippy" and "not nearly tough enough" in his espousal of Atheism. Therefore I am really enjoying this. (For anyone who saw "Root of All Evil?", mr. Haggard is the preacher whose heavies threw the good Professor out of church, shouting "don't call my people monkeys")
Now your average Joe politician caught engaging in a bit of Grunting man-love is neither here nor there so long as four words "consenting adults in private" can be invoked in his defence. The exception is when you go on about "family values" or have criticized oppositon politicians for extra-marital binky-bonky, then it's not the sordid coprophagy (or whatever) that gets people, its the hypocrisy. Which is why Mark Oaten got away with revolting sexual perversion and John Prescott did not get away with the perfectly normal shagging of a female underling.
When you're the mothpiece for the anti-gay, anti-sex, anti drug Christian Right of America as Ted Haggard, or "Art" as his really good friends are allowed to call him, as head of the National Association of Evangelicals probably is, and you're exposed as taking Crystal Meth and engageing in sodomy because it makes you feel "dirty" and who fantasises about sex with "6 or 8 young college guys" (allegedly) then any sensible human being can cast compasion aside and enjoy that person's self-inflicted misfortune with a clean concience.
Go on. HAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHHHHAHAHAHAHHHHHHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHHA
a deep belly laugh.
Feels good doesn't it?
5 comments:
"I was tempted, but I never used it."
'Tempted' - such a good word. The righteous gravity of it. Turning a squalid little crystal meth deal into some kind of forty-days-in-the-wilderness trial of faith.
As you say, a good day for belly laughs. There must be a way of involving Borat. Is naice!
Hm... Someone who holds to their word is rare and something to be admired and deeply respected. Everyone makes mistakes and also everyone has erotic fantasies of some sort. I quite enjoy mine, but I don't think the practice OR repression of them make me happy in the long term. On a power with hypocrisy, I think judging people is equally wrong (which is as I'm sure you know what the Bible warns against 'as ye judge so will you be judged'). This man, (along with lots of church members) is obviously an annoying hypocrite (perhaps like me I wonder) and should just have been honest and dealt with his tendancies in one way or another from the outset. Why is it though that atheists happily slag and judge Christians (or judge God by supposed Christians) and can't see that judging supposed or fallen Christians is EQUALLY as hypocritical and low?! At least the church preaches (or at least by definition SHOULD preach forgiveness with love being the very first and most important commandment) and SHOULD NOT judge or despise (because that's a waste of time anyway) and by definition should respect people. Which is worse - being judged by an atheist or being judged by a Christian? (now I'm pondering over whether I'm being judgemental or not...)
OMR I see you realise that the forty-days-in-the-wilderness thing was a trial of faith and not some kind of sick penance/indulgence for sin thing (which the Catholic church made up to make money and keep the church going - according to the Bible Jesus didn't sin anyway so wouldn't suffer penance or a trial for that reason). I don't really think this man took the meth to feel 'dirty' as a 40-days-in-the-wilderness Catholic thing but maybe as a release from being repressed! If you've ever been seriously repressed with serious fantasies you would know exactly what I'm talking about...
Hm... maybe he is a self righteous git lying about overcoming temptation when he had taken it... Who knows and who cares? Let's not waste time over it
"I don't really think this man took the meth to feel 'dirty' as a 40-days-in-the-wilderness Catholic thing but maybe as a release from being repressed!"
I was just enjoying the use of language. It's the hysterical dramatics of Evangelism & TV religion that keep me so amused. I have no difficulty with other people's faith and devotion - admiration, even. But this guy isn't exactly St Francis of Assisi, is he?
"If you've ever been seriously repressed with serious fantasies you would know exactly what I'm talking about..."
mmm, how much time have we got?
he was a liberal relatively speaking (wanted to talk more about global warming and less about gay rights) and for your broader point do you think a politican who voted in his finacil interest should be more condemend than one who votes agaisnt it. Surely the problem in a political leader would be conflicts of interest not hypocrsiy.
Post a Comment