I just learned who Haggard was today, but doing some reading I found that his accuser failed a lie detector test.
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4597552
2006-11-03 15:11:58 · 16 answers · asked by Aspurtaime Dog Sneeze 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Yes, all evidence should be considered in any case before making a reasoned judgment. But lie detectors are not 100% accurate, and so we cannot put all our faith in them.
We should also consider that the accuser had a clear motive to accuse the pastor. He admits that he feels wronged by Haggard's preaching against gay marriage. And with the voting coming up, the timing was right for him if he wished to make a statement. He knows that the issue will not be resolved before the elections.
So because of these considerations, we cannot be 100% sure that Haggard is guilty.
But there are of course good reasons to suspicion that he is. He lied about buying meth before admitting to it. The very fact that he bought an illegal drug means he is guilty of a crime and sin. EVEN IF he didn't use the drug, just the fact that he bought it is illegal and wrong. Why did this "man of God" even THINK about using an illegal drug? I know some pastors who are totally genuine, and using an illegal drug would be the furthest thing from their minds.
This shows that the man is struggling with problems of a serious nature. As such, I do not think he was ever fit to pastor a church. If you can not lead a life of integrity of your own, how can you lead other people?
I am anxious to see how this case develops and how Haggard and his followers cope and recover.
2006-11-03 15:42:14 · answer #1 · answered by Heron By The Sea 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, well consider this. Haggard originally denied everything. Now he is admitting that he bought crystal meth (an ILLEGAL DRUG), and that he had a "massage".
Do the math: illegal drug purchase + "massage" by a gay prostitute = ________ ??? Do you need to have it spelled out? I don't think Haggard bought illegal drugs and had a "massage" just so that he would be relaxed for the next Bible Study!
This will all blow up in Haggard's face, and he will have his just desserts, just like Rev. Jim Bakker and Rev. Jimmy Swaggart -- hypocrites! This will be a bitter pill for Haggard to swallow, but he chose to live a lie of hypocrisy -- preaching intolerance and inciting bigotry about the very thing he said he was against, while practicing sexually and hiding in the biggest closet of all: the safety of the church. At least the truth has COME OUT.
2006-11-03 23:17:56 · answer #2 · answered by SB 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Lie detector tests are not reliable, one of the reasons they are not used as evidence in court. If this preacher was innocent then he never would have stepped down, and his lawyers and his followers would be making big points off of charging the gay speed dealer with slander libel etc and painting every gay in the country with the same brush. No, just from the way Teddy Boy Haggard has responded I think that he is likely guilty. Do you think it will ever go to court.
2006-11-03 23:34:39 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Haggard still admitted that he bought meth from the guy TWICE (but he didn't use any, like Clinton didn't inhale) and got a massage from the guy. Sounds guilty to me. I know I haven't bought meth from a guy twice, not used it, and then paid the guy, who's not a licensed massuese, to give me a massage.
2006-11-03 23:15:29 · answer #4 · answered by TrainerMan 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I am with Red Flag on this one. What motivates somebody just out of the blue to buy meth and then not use it? Bizarre. And in an interview he said he was referred to this masseur by the hotel he was staying in.........where was this hotel, The Castro? This guy is just full of it. I love it when hypocrites go up in flames!
2006-11-03 23:24:45 · answer #5 · answered by Charlotte G 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Even if he did fail a lie detector, it doesn't make any sense to buy meth from a gay prostitute with no intention of using it. The minister admitted to buying the meth, what the hell was he going to do with it????
2006-11-03 23:16:46 · answer #6 · answered by Reject187 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
"In America you are GUILTY until proven innocent espically if you
are associated with Christianity. In Christ in Love, TJ57"
The US is supposedly made up of 80% Christians. Then, a jury of your peers should be no problem.
2006-11-03 23:26:36 · answer #7 · answered by Ji K 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
But with Ted making statements and counter-statements, the whole this is getting out of hand
2006-11-03 23:17:05 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
There will be people on both sides, who for their own selfish reasons, will jump to conclusions either way. I'll wait to see what details emerge and reserve my opinion for later.
2006-11-03 23:15:10 · answer #9 · answered by chdoctor 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, that's interesting but not admissiable in a court of law.
Haggard did ADMID to his associates about some things.
2006-11-03 23:49:04 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋