Video: Pelosi’s daughter interviews Ted Haggard about baby-makin’; Update: Science vs. religion traffic bait added!

posted at 12:44 pm on January 31, 2007 by Allahpundit

Admittedly this is crap, but it’s the sort of crap that’s apt to draw a few hundred comments. Plus, it gives me a chance to link back to Bryan’s superb post about l’affaire Haggard, which you must read if you haven’t yet. Quote:

The glee with which many have greeted Haggard’s fall is all too typical of the times. He was a man the vast majority of his new critics had never heard of until a day or two ago. It’s his position as head of a large church and of the National Evangelical Association that stirs up the hate in his critics’ hearts. Their behavior is neither humane nor, unfortunately, shocking anymore. That it comes mostly from people who support the lifestyle Haggard seems to have been leading underground shows that they hate the sinner but may well love the sin, a view that is the inverse of real morality and humanity.

Can’t knock Pelosi too much for putting it in her movie, though. If you were sitting on an irony bomb with this much payload, would you leave it on the cutting room floor?

Technically safe for work but capable of causing embarrassment if overheard, so I’m giving you a mild content warning.

Update: All right, here’s a little actual content for this post. The lovely KP comments on science and religion by invoking a subject for which Bryan’s criticized her several times on this site:

Often when people bring up things like, “How could God allow the Holocaust or genocide in Darfur?” my response is “How can WE allow those things?” We have the ability to deal with the evils of the world, and more often than not, we CHOOSE not to and then try and blame God for not stopping it. The Holocaust is actually a perfect example (and indeed the one most commonly raised by nonbelievers to prove that God cannot exist). We know we had the power to stop Hitler from killing Jews, because we ultimately did stop him. We just didn’t do it for a really really long time, and six million Jews perished while the world sat by and watched. So, the question really should be, what is wrong with us that we can sit by and allow horrible things — things we have the ability to stop — to continue to happen in the world?

An interesting, and staggeringly ironic, question coming from someone who opposed the Iraq war.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Is there any question as to why I am moving further and further away from the moniker “evangelical”?

If this is the definition of evangelical…Well, let’s just say it doesn’t mean what it used to mean.

nailinmyeye on January 31, 2007 at 12:58 PM

It gets better.

amerpundit on January 31, 2007 at 12:59 PM

What happened to the other Pelosi megathread? It’s one thing to close comments, but it’s all just completely gone… and now I feel so empty inside.

Watcher on January 31, 2007 at 1:00 PM

My good Christian wife just watched this clip…..then turned to me and said…..’keep dreaming honey’.

Limerick on January 31, 2007 at 1:01 PM

Why do you care so much about comments, AP? They really don’t mean anything.

You can have an excellent story that no one comments on because they feel they dont have much to add, or you could have total crap but on a controversial subject that ignites comment bickering, inflating the comment count.

kaltes on January 31, 2007 at 1:03 PM

That was just creepy… And by the way, how could anyone not know that Haggard was gay? He was incredibly flaming in that interview. Also, if those guys are having sex twice a day then they are certainly in the “honeymoon” phase of their relationships. That lasts for maybe a few months but after ten years or so they will be lucky to get it once a week.

x95b10 on January 31, 2007 at 1:03 PM

You know, I thought Haggard was a freak before the scandal and this only confirms it. What troubles me more than anything he’s done is that his disgusting demeanor never registered a red flag with those in the upper rooms of Official Evangelicalism. They probably dug it; gave them a little twinge of kinkiness to take home to their wives.

Am I cynical? You betcha!

Drum on January 31, 2007 at 1:06 PM

Given Haggard’s scandal, I don’t blame her for putting it in the movie, but I’m perplexed why she thought that clip was worthy of inclusion before the scandal. Jokes aside, what’s so unusual about married people having sex frequently?

Laura on January 31, 2007 at 1:10 PM

>Also, if those guys are having sex twice a day then they are certainly in the “honeymoon” phase of their relationships.

Either that, or they were lying out of fear that had Haggard known they weren’t getting it every day, he’d be offering to fill in the gaps.

Drum on January 31, 2007 at 1:11 PM

Rick Warren is ruining evangelicalism. Ted Haggard did a pretty good job embarassing evangelicalism. I need a new -ism, soon.

Bryan on January 31, 2007 at 1:11 PM

How did I know that AP would have this part of the pelosi vid on HA today?
You have become predictable allahpundit, with your revenge.
Nice disguise tho , ” Bryan’s superb post”.

Tell me I’m wrong.

shooter on January 31, 2007 at 1:14 PM

Bryan,

Believerism… does that work?

Editor on January 31, 2007 at 1:14 PM

>Jokes aside, what’s so unusual about married people having sex frequently?

Nothing unusual, but you gotta expect a little defensiveness after seeing this freak Haggard with two lapdogs congratulating themselves on their healthy sex lives. Who’s to believe them after the revelations about him?

Drum on January 31, 2007 at 1:15 PM

Rick Warren is ruining evangelicalism. Ted Haggard did a pretty good job embarassing evangelicalism. I need a new -ism, soon.
Bryan on January 31, 2007 at 1:11 PM

I agree, but I’m going to stick with what my heart tells me to do, call it want you want.
But let me know when you come up with the new -ism.

shooter on January 31, 2007 at 1:16 PM

>I need a new -ism, soon.

You can take mine — cynicism — but I don’t recommend it. Suspicious-ism might be healthier, though harder to pronounce.

Drum on January 31, 2007 at 1:17 PM

>I agree, but I’m going to stick with what my heart tells me to do

No intention of being rude, and you don’t know me from Adam, but isn’t that what got Haggard into this trouble in the first place, following his heart?

Drum on January 31, 2007 at 1:20 PM

Rick Warren is ruining evangelicalism. Ted Haggard did a pretty good job embarassing evangelicalism. I need a new -ism, soon.

Bryan on January 31, 2007 at 1:11 PM

I have been toying with a couple of ideas(not too seriously). Following what seems to be popular in the evolution of theological discussion, it seems that a theological group is cooler when they add either “post-” or “neo-” to their title.

So, how about “neo-evangelical” or “post-evangelical.” But then again, those just sound lame.

nailinmyeye on January 31, 2007 at 1:22 PM

>isn’t that what got Haggard into this trouble in the first place, following his heart?

No, wait, it was following his heart-on. (Sorry, couldn’t resist.)

Drum on January 31, 2007 at 1:23 PM

I think AP gets paid by how many comments he stirs up.

frankj on January 31, 2007 at 1:23 PM

C. S. Lewis’s “mere Christian” works for me.

Drum on January 31, 2007 at 1:24 PM

“Cynicism” is accurate, but I just can’t evangelize based on that.

Re KP’s question: There isn’t a Hitler analogue in Darfur (or if there is, name him). There was one in Baghdad until 2003. The US stopped him, against her objections. As Allah noted, her questions and stances on all this are staggeringly ironic.

Bryan on January 31, 2007 at 1:25 PM

Am I the only one who can’t see the comments on the other thread anymore?

Watcher on January 31, 2007 at 1:26 PM

An interesting, and staggeringly ironic, question coming from someone who opposed the Iraq war

Since when do those to the left of the aisle concern themselves with intellectual congruity?

They oppose Iraq because Bush invaded.

They want Darfur to be addressed because Bush hasn’t invaded.

There’s your congruity. If Bush is for it, they’re again’ it; if Bush is again’ it, they’re for it.

At least that’s the only plausible, semi-rational explanation I can come up with.

Citizen Duck on January 31, 2007 at 1:27 PM

Since when do those to the left of the aisle concern themselves with intellectual congruity?

They oppose Iraq because Bush invaded.

Give Powers some credit. She’s not that type of leftist.

Allahpundit on January 31, 2007 at 1:29 PM

I firmly believe the biggest problem is the bucks. What used to be a ranch down the road is now a parking lot for the mega-tron crowd, complete with city police directing traffic on Sunday. Went once, on invitation from a close friend, but will not again. Afterwards my wife and I drove to the lake, sat by the shore, and prayed for the congregation. I know it is condensending of me. I know most there sought enlightenment. But the commercialization of it all made us feel unclean. Sign of the times I guess but the WAL-MARTing of Christianity disgusts me.

Limerick on January 31, 2007 at 1:29 PM

>Sign of the times I guess but the WAL-MARTing of Christianity disgusts me.

You’re not alone. I’ve heard that there’s a pretty big exodus of young Christians moving back into more orthodox denominations that understand the Gospel for what it is (forgiveness of sin once and forever).

In Haggard’s defense, the pressure on pastors to be “pure” and upstanding and successful in modern evangelical churches is staggering and enough to bring anyone to his knees (pun not intended, but appreciated nonetheless).

Drum on January 31, 2007 at 1:36 PM

Rick Warren is ruining evangelicalism.

Bryan on January 31, 2007 at 1:11 PM

Haven’t made up my mind on this yet. I am trying very hard to give Warren the benefit if the doubt. But me thinks I smell a younger, fatter, balding version of Jimmy Carter (when it comes to Warren). Both of them seem to want to “compromise” with evil.

I’d be interested in hearing more from Bryan on why he thinks Warren is SO damaging.

CyberCipher on January 31, 2007 at 1:39 PM

Often when people bring up things like, “How could God allow the Holocaust or genocide in Darfur?” my response is “How can WE allow those things?” We have the ability to deal with the evils of the world, and more often than not, we CHOOSE not to and then try and blame God for not stopping it. The Holocaust is actually a perfect example (and indeed the one most commonly raised by nonbelievers to prove that God cannot exist). We know we had the power to stop Hitler from killing Jews, because we ultimately did stop him. We just didn’t do it for a really really long time, and six million Jews perished while the world sat by and watched. So, the question really should be, what is wrong with us that we can sit by and allow horrible things — things we have the ability to stop — to continue to happen in the world?

Simple, KP, because people always want to take the easy way out – or at least the way that is perceived to be the easy way out. It seems so much easier to avoid the hard questions, to avoid the tough choices, to avoid the hardships that come with making the tough choices, and so forth.

People do this in their personal lives all the time. Smokers continue to smoke because it is easier than the withdrawals of quitting, but in the end they end up with lung cancer, emphysima, or some other illness that is far worse than any withdrawl symptoms.

Nations and civilizations do it as well. The Holocaust example is a perfect illustration. It was allowed to happen because people sought to avoid another war like WWI, and went through great lengths of denial to do so. It was much easier to just ignore the gathering storm than to confront it. And yet the cruel irony is that such denial and avoidance allowed the fermentation of conditons that led to another bloodbath of the type they were seeking to avoid. In the end, the easy way avoided none of the problems they sought to avoid while choosing the hard way would have resulted in far less bloodshed than that which eventually occurred.

We face the same thing today, with Iraq and the larger war against islamofacism of which it is a part, and still people want to deny the problems exist and pretend that whatever problems there are, they are someone elses fault (see: 9/11 Truthers, etc.).

The lesson never seems to be learned.

An interesting, and staggeringly ironic, question coming from someone who opposed the Iraq war.

Indeed.

thirteen28 on January 31, 2007 at 1:41 PM

>I agree, but I’m going to stick with what my heart tells me to do
No intention of being rude, and you don’t know me from Adam, but isn’t that what got Haggard into this trouble in the first place, following his heart?
Drum on January 31, 2007 at 1:20 PM

Absolutely not. He followed his head (his big one on his shoulders), his selfish need to feel better about himself.
He ‘thought’ he could do better than God was doing. He became self-reliant.
It’s when we separate our hearts from our brains that we lose trust, it’s called EGO.

shooter on January 31, 2007 at 1:45 PM

I need a new -ism, soon.

May I suggest atheism? The peace of mind is terrific, and as a bonus you get this spectacularly inflated sense of superiority over others.

Also, you don’t have to explain to anyone again why you revere this person who you never see, who never talks to you, and doesn’t do much else other than judge your sex life.

Enrique on January 31, 2007 at 1:48 PM

I firmly believe the biggest problem is the bucks. What used to be a ranch down the road is now a parking lot for the mega-tron crowd, complete with city police directing traffic on Sunday. Went once, on invitation from a close friend, but will not again. Afterwards my wife and I drove to the lake, sat by the shore, and prayed for the congregation. I know it is condensending of me. I know most there sought enlightenment. But the commercialization of it all made us feel unclean. Sign of the times I guess but the WAL-MARTing of Christianity disgusts me.

Limerick on January 31, 2007 at 1:29 PM

Bingo. Money. And power of course. Shame it tarnishes all evangelicals but that’s how the game is played these days.

honora on January 31, 2007 at 1:50 PM

He ‘thought’ he could do better than God was doing. He became self-reliant.

Ted Haggard’s problem is that he’s too self-reliant?

Allahpundit on January 31, 2007 at 1:51 PM

May I suggest atheism? The peace of mind is terrific, and as a bonus you get this spectacularly inflated sense of superiority over others.

Also, you don’t have to explain to anyone again why you revere this person who you never see, who never talks to you, and doesn’t do much else other than judge your sex life.

Enrique on January 31, 2007 at 1:48 PM

I applaud you sir!! One so rarely sees such blunt honesty! Bravo!!!!

honora on January 31, 2007 at 1:52 PM

Rick Warren is ruining evangelicalism. Ted Haggard did a pretty good job embarassing evangelicalism. I need a new -ism, soon.

Bryan on January 31, 2007 at 1:11 PM

How about Reformed confessionalism?

PRCalDude on January 31, 2007 at 1:53 PM

Often when people bring up things like, “How could God allow the Holocaust or genocide in Darfur?” my response is “How can WE allow those things?” We have the ability to deal with the evils of the world, and more often than not, we CHOOSE not to and then try and blame God for not stopping it.

-KP

I unabashedly exchange e-mails with KP. She is the only Democrat that I can point to and still make that claim.

If ever there was a Democrat the BELONGED in the conservative camp, it is Powers. She is talking about the importance of personal responsibility here. You NEVER hear the liberals talk about that. On the whole, they NEVER talk about anything but their rights. Constantly, perpetually, incessantly whining, bitching, moaning, complaining, protesting, and threatening other people about their rights. What a rare and beautiful soul that is in this Democrat named KP. She is one of the reasons that (at least under most circumstances) I still make an effort to be polite/courteous towards Democrats. (And yes, I AM guilty of flaming the Dems here on HotAir from time-to-time — all in good fun.)

CyberCipher on January 31, 2007 at 1:53 PM

I think AP gets paid by how many comments he stirs up.
frankj on January 31, 2007 at 1:23 PM

-indirectly, yes. The whole of the web world relies on ‘hits’.
Advertisers pay more for busy sites. Look thru the sitemeter links on most of these blog sites, usually on the very bottom of the page but sometimes along the sides.

shooter on January 31, 2007 at 1:53 PM

Enrique,

Yeah, that atheism thing, let me know how that works for you in eternity. A couple of points, God is not a “person”, He does talk to us through His Word, and, as for God just judging your sex life, your statement gives away your ignorance of Scripture.
At least if you are going to mock God, try to use some rational arguments. Then again, I find atheism the most irrational thought process, so never mind.

Centurion68 on January 31, 2007 at 1:54 PM

Give Powers some credit. She’s not that type of leftist.

I’m all for giving credit where credit is due, but like I said, that’s the only plausible, semi-rational explanation I can come up with.

If you’ve got a better one, I’m all ears.

Citizen Duck on January 31, 2007 at 1:54 PM

Bryan,

Why do you assume Romans 7 applies to Ted Haggard’s situation more than Matthew 7? By their fruits, you will know them, right?

PRCalDude on January 31, 2007 at 1:54 PM

Also, you don’t have to explain to anyone again why you revere this person who you never see, who never talks to you,

Enrique on January 31, 2007 at 1:48 PM

Enrique…this ‘clip’ shows that Haggard fell into the trap of ‘what do I say to make this person like me’. Simple as that. As far as your ‘never talks to you’ snipe it is the typical disclaimer of ‘I never saw a burning bush so neither did you’.

Limerick on January 31, 2007 at 1:55 PM

May I suggest atheism? The peace of mind is terrific, and as a bonus you get this spectacularly inflated sense of superiority over others.

Enrique on January 31, 2007 at 1:48 PM

So what now? Evangelicals are pushing atheism? Is that what you want to become Enrique? Just another evangelical? Because that’s where you are headed with that statement.

CyberCipher on January 31, 2007 at 1:57 PM

Either that, or they were lying out of fear that had Haggard known they weren’t getting it every day, he’d be offering to fill in the gaps.

Good point.

That was a nauseatingly strong display of shameless sycophancy with those two yahoos. I got the impression that they were performing for their master and indeed full of proverbial $hit.

x95b10 on January 31, 2007 at 2:02 PM

>It’s when we separate our hearts from our brains that we lose trust, it’s called EGO.

I understand your point. But I guess I just had in mind the line about the heart being deceitful and all that; Proverbs is filled with ideas on how reckless and misguided our hearts can be, hence the urgency of wisdom. Moreover, my mind can recall all the reasons why such and such a thing is sinful, but my heart will say, tough, I’m goin’ for it!

Drum on January 31, 2007 at 2:03 PM

Ted Haggard’s problem is that he’s too self-reliant?
Allahpundit on January 31, 2007 at 1:51 PM

Yes, AP, SELF-RELIANT. Means what it implies. He relied on his very own self for all of his pleasures, desires and wants and needs to some extent. He couldn’t be satisfied when that happened. So he sought out something more. For some it’s booze, drugs, you get the idea.
Christians believe that God is our source of happiness, love, etc. and our futures, including monetary needs etc.
I cant possibly explain this very well in the time I have, but if a person starts to rely on finite self, we will be let down and seek ‘other’ ways for happiness, leading us astray.
BUT, if our faith in our infinite God is strong, we will get everything we need and have no reason to stray or seek selfish ways. Its a truth, and most of us have this faith, yet it’s daily deeds that keep the faith strong.

Faith without deeds is dead.

I’m sure there are others here than have more time, write faster than my finger pecking, and could articulate better than I have, but this is a start.
Hope that helped.
Without ‘evangelizing’, it’s an amazing way to live, truly free.

shooter on January 31, 2007 at 2:10 PM

Concerning KPs question, isn’t this the very reason she is open minded to other ideas from the right. At least she will take them under consideration. So she hears one thing from the left about being for the little guy and sees somethimg else. File that under things that make you go hmm. There is a phenominon happening here among the electorate. Many of the young voters aren’t old to remember what it was like when the Democrats were in power. From the Civil rights movement of the sixties (which produced the welfare state)to the Vietman War (started and ecalated by the Democrats) to the Jimmy Carter ecomony with double digit inflation. I know these are minor as compared to the GREAT DEPRESSION OR WWII, but at least I respect the fragile balance of a free democratic society and am willing to do my part as a citizen to preserve it. That includes self sacrafice and a strong work ethic that produces to contribute to the greatest economy the world has ever had. It is a shame what the left is doing in our school system today. They are rewritting the books. This cannot go on for much longer , The President’s no child left behind Act addresses these issues bluntly. Can’t you see . The left Hates this man cause he has their number he’s kickin their ass. It will be a sad day if the freedoms we enjoy dissapear to satisfy the lust’s of the few.

sonnyspats1 on January 31, 2007 at 2:10 PM

Can’t knock Pelosi too much

Allah are you nuts! THis SIHT is a leftist attempt to divert attention away from the lunatic Muslim fringe and toward the lunatic Christian fringe.

Only difference is, the lunatic Muslim fringe is plotting to kill us

Dread Pirate Roberts VI on January 31, 2007 at 2:10 PM

Huckabee’08′

sonnyspats1 on January 31, 2007 at 2:12 PM

Am I the only one who can’t see the comments on the other thread anymore?

Watcher on January 31, 2007 at 1:26 PM

I don’t know, but I can see them.

Esthier on January 31, 2007 at 2:15 PM

but my heart will say, tough, I’m goin’ for it!
Drum on January 31, 2007 at 2:03 PM

I still think it’s your head that convinces you “why not, it wont hurt” or whatever.
I’m guilty of that too, we are all.

I’m no expert on the bible either, but James is a short book in the new testament, look there. Its about humility, action, harmful things, striving for God in our lives and it’s easy to read ( well , depending on your bible.)

shooter on January 31, 2007 at 2:16 PM

Am I the only one who can’t see the comments on the other thread anymore?

Watcher on January 31, 2007 at 1:26 PM

I don’t know, but I can see them.

Esthier on January 31, 2007 at 2:15 PM

Don’t look now, but I think that a thread that is pushing the 500 comment barrier is most likely bringing AllahPundit’s server to its knees — which is territory that AllahPundit says that he never ventures into (on his knees, that is).

CyberCipher on January 31, 2007 at 2:19 PM

gotta go, Drum. Bang it slowly.

shooter on January 31, 2007 at 2:19 PM

The lovely Allahpundit said:

“The lovely KP comments on science and religion…”

Why don’t you ever call Ms. Malkin the lovely Michelle? Why no lovely Laura Ingraham comments? Aren’t most women on the right ‘lovely’? Even the smart ones on the left, such as KP are lovely, but this has got to stop. I think we were all very friendly when we asked you to stop calling women ‘lovely’. I thought you understood the message, but apparently not. It’s condescending much like it would be if you said the ‘nice-reared (insert woman’s name here)’, and since you single out KP for the phrase, it’s slightly pathetic. If you could keep your infatuations to yourself, I would be forever grateful.

Please stop.

Thanks in advance.

Kevin M on January 31, 2007 at 2:22 PM

The left would love to have all those mega churches. They are trying to crack the evangelical code. If they could gather the masses to such an extent how long would it be before you would see an Great Orator on the scale of Hitler. Thank God for Major Sports Leagues! I bet some of them lust after that kind of power. I bet the think tankers are reviewing the tapes looking for chinks. Abe Lincoln had it right when he made his famous quote’ You can fool some of the people all of the time-All of the people some of the time-BUT YOU CAN’T FOOL ALL OF THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME ! The only problem now I’m afraid the ratio of fooled to not fooled is leaning toward the foled side.

sonnyspats1 on January 31, 2007 at 2:25 PM

We get it. You like KP, but are unable to muster up the guts to ask her out. She gets it too. Repeatedly calling her ‘lovely’ is not increasing your odds of success. Just ask the woman for a date! The worst she can say is no.

Kevin M on January 31, 2007 at 2:26 PM

which is territory that AllahPundit says that he never ventures into (on his knees, that is).

CyberCipher on January 31, 2007 at 2:19 PM

Hallaluah!

sonnyspats1 on January 31, 2007 at 2:27 PM

When I was in high school I got suspended for shooting off my big mouth (someone pick Michelle off the floor)

Being a Lutheran I resented our high school counsler forcing us on a all day tour of Oral Roberts University. After a long and trying day of resisting I was just sitting there looking at my watch when the man who thou art nameth the University of said “Eric what do you think” – I shot back “show’d you what God would do if he had the money”

Got three days off.

EricPWJohnson on January 31, 2007 at 2:29 PM

Why don’t you ever call Ms. Malkin the lovely Michelle?

Because I’m not going to objectify my own boss. As for KP, she’s never objected to it; she takes it in good humor, as it’s intended. Feel free to stop reading if it bothers you that much.

Allahpundit on January 31, 2007 at 2:36 PM

Because I’m not going to objectify my own boss.

Who, for the record, is also quite lovely. Along with smart as hell, and in possession of major gumballs.

There, I said it.

Pablo on January 31, 2007 at 2:38 PM

shooter on January 31, 2007 at 2:10 PM

I think the Pyromaniacs’ blog post on the Haggard scandal is a good read for all evangelicals:

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2006/11/thoughts-on-todays-scandal.html

PRCalDude on January 31, 2007 at 2:40 PM

May I suggest atheism? The peace of mind is terrific, and as a bonus you get this spectacularly inflated sense of superiority over others.

Also, you don’t have to explain to anyone again why you revere this person who you never see, who never talks to you, and doesn’t do much else other than judge your sex life.

Enrique on January 31, 2007 at 1:48 PM

Plus you get to make snarky comments about things you don’t understand or have experienced. Oh, wait a minute…..you covered that with your inflated sense of superiority over others. Sorry……

Mallard T. Drake on January 31, 2007 at 2:42 PM

I grew up in a mainline protestant church and resented the preacher anti-American, pro-Soviet, pro-Sandinista propaganda (this was the 80’s) from the pulpit and church bulletins. As a youth, I sensed there was something really wrong with a church that consistently supported the wrong side of the Cold War. I might have left Christianity if I hadn’t discovered the existence of conservative churches late in my teen years.

That being said, I still don’t think I would have become an atheist. Most people from all cultures for all time have believed in a god in some form – not necessarily Christianity, but someone or something. So, isn’t the burden of proof on atheists?

Coyote D. on January 31, 2007 at 2:42 PM

think we were all very friendly when we asked you to stop calling women ‘lovely’. I thought you understood the message, but apparently not. It’s condescending much like it would be if you said the ‘nice-reared (insert woman’s name here)’, In the words of Jay Leno Shut Up!

sonnyspats1 on January 31, 2007 at 2:49 PM

Often when people bring up things like, “How could God allow the Holocaust or genocide in Darfur?” my response is “How can WE allow those things?”

What about non-manmade stuff like the bubonic plague?

Alex K on January 31, 2007 at 2:50 PM

think we were all very friendly when we asked you to stop calling women ‘lovely’.

I don’t call “women” lovely. It’s specific to Powers and has been for months and months and months.

And if you tell me to shut up again, you’re gone. Got it, sport?

Allahpundit on January 31, 2007 at 2:50 PM

How is calling a woman “lovely” condescending? I back Allah on this one. Lighten up guys.

bert169 on January 31, 2007 at 2:59 PM

And if you tell me to shut up again, you’re gone. Got it, sport?

Allahpundit on January 31, 2007 at 2:50 PM

I think we are seeing the aftermath of the 500 comment Pelosi thread. Posts/threads like that one stir-up a LOT of hostility (on all sides of the issue). Everyone that can, should take a Valium, and go take a nap. No doubt there will be hard feelings for months now. Some of the exchanges that took place on that thread reminded me of an Iraq war protest hosted by liberal moonbats. It’s not exactly something that I think we (the participants at HotAir) should be proud of. Just sayin’. Or are my observations regarding this matter incorrect?

CyberCipher on January 31, 2007 at 3:05 PM

A friend told me this one years ago, and it seems appropriate:

Heavy rains swelled a river, causing a huge flood. A deputy in an SUV drove up to the front porch of a house, and told the resident that he was there to rescue him. “I trust that The LORD will save me!”, the man said.

Later, the deputy returned in a boat. He brought it alongside a second-story window, where he spoke to the man again, but he still insisted that God would save him.

Yet later, the man was on top of his roof, hanging onto the chimney, when a rescue helicopter approached, dropping a rope ladder for him. For the final time, he refused. Shortly afterwards, the flood waters swept the man away to his death.

Just before he went under the water, he prayed: “Lord, I have always had faith in You. Why have You forsaken me?” And God answered him: “I sent an SUV, a boat, and a helicopter. What more do you want?”

The Monster on January 31, 2007 at 3:06 PM

The Monster on January 31, 2007 at 3:06 PM

There is a proverb that sorta’ distills this idea. It goes somethin’ like:
“God gives every bird its food, He just doesn’t throw it the nest, ya’ know.”

CyberCipher on January 31, 2007 at 3:10 PM

Who, for the record, is also quite lovely. Along with smart as hell, and in possession of major gumballs.

Exactly, Pablo. Smart as hell. Though I disagree with some of what KP says (though less and less lately), she’s smart as hell too. I’m all for saying ‘the ever smart as hell KP’. I’m against diminishing her as a lovely object.

AP, it bothers me enough to complain, not to stop reading. I enjoy the vent, all of Bryan’s posts, all of Ian’s snark videos, and about 95% of your posts as well. Even when I disagree with you, I enjoy the read, such as when you suggested that those Border patrol agents were the bad guys. I’m not even against you objectifying women once in a while, since they do it to us as well. It’s the repetition that is so bothered. I don’t want to go into detail in case she reads our comments, but you should know that she gets it. Strike now. The worst outcome is that you will be in the same boat you are in right now.

I’ll stop complaining about this if my account is in jeopardy, but I won’t if it’s not. This isn’t a ‘fun only, not to be taken seriously’ site for us conservative/libertarians, unlike AoS. Not to to denigrate AoS of course. It’s one of my favorite sites.

The difference is, you guys bring powerful information to America, and the rest of the world as well. I spent a few hours defending Michelle/Bryan at Sadly, no yesterday (unrequested of course), because I believe you guys, and I believe IN you guys. You are, or soon will be, the best example of conservative/libertarian thinking on the web. Belittling this shining example of brilliant conservative thought simply because you have a thing for a girl is despicable. It’s too reminiscent of Clinton, but in a strip club style venue.

Kevin M on January 31, 2007 at 3:11 PM

I don’t know, but I can see them.

Well… I see the number of comments and trackbacks continuing to rise on that thread, but I still can’t see them. It’s very frustrating. I never got to see if anyone bothered to respond to my last comment over there.

Watcher on January 31, 2007 at 3:15 PM

‘bothered’ should read ‘bothering’.

Kevin M on January 31, 2007 at 3:17 PM

Please no hard feelings everybody! Grab a hammock!

RushBaby on January 31, 2007 at 3:27 PM

Just ask the woman for a date! The worst she can say is no.

Kevin M on January 31, 2007 at 2:26 PM

No, the worst she can say is, “Ha. Haha. Hahahahaha.”

But returning to the topic du jour: Watching that video of Ted Haggard … How could they not know?

Ali-Bubba on January 31, 2007 at 4:03 PM

‘I never saw a burning bush so neither did you’.

Limerick on January 31, 2007 at 1:55 PM

I like that one, Limerick. Thanks for sharing.

mikeyboss on January 31, 2007 at 4:13 PM

If this is the definition of evangelical…Well, let’s just say it doesn’t mean what it used to mean.

nailinmyeye on January 31, 2007 at 12:58 PM

Me too.

Here’s what Evangelical really means via:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/evan_defn.htm

Evangelical in Europe:

“Evangelical” was derived from the Greek word “euangellismos” which means: gospel or good news.

During the Reformation, Martin Luther referred to his movement as the evangelische kirche (evangelical church). Later, “Evangelical” became a near-synonym for “Protestant” in Europe. It retains this meaning in Germany today.

Evangelical in North America:

In North America, “Evangelical” does not have a unique meaning that is acceptable to all. Various groups and individuals define it as a specific conservative Christian system of beliefs, or a type of religious experience, or a commitment to proselytize the unsaved, or as a style of religious service, or as having a personal “walk with God,” or as a group of denominations, or as a personal acceptance of a “biblical worldview,” or as some combination of the above.

Given these definitions, it might explain some of our uniquely American confusions about Christianity and religion in general.

Lawrence on January 31, 2007 at 4:44 PM

Evangelical in North America:

In North America, “Evangelical” does not have a unique meaning that is acceptable to all. Various groups and individuals define it as a specific conservative Christian system of beliefs, or a type of religious experience, or a commitment to proselytize the unsaved, or as a style of religious service, or as having a personal “walk with God,” or as a group of denominations, or as a personal acceptance of a “biblical worldview,” or as some combination of the above.

In other words, liberalism as J. Gresham Machen defined it.

PRCalDude on January 31, 2007 at 4:54 PM

In other words, liberalism as J. Gresham Machen defined it.

PRCalDude on January 31, 2007 at 4:54 PM

Well, yeah. Actually, and unfortunately.

That’s why a lot of us old-world Evangelicals don’t refer to ourselves as Evangelical anymore. What I often tell people is that I am either confessional, or orthodox confessional. Sometimes I even refer to myself as Catholic, just not Roman Catholic. I think you know what I mean.

Lawrence on January 31, 2007 at 5:20 PM

An interesting, and staggeringly ironic, question coming from someone who opposed the Iraq war.

Before I read AP’s excerpt, I clicked on the ‘lovely’ KP’s thread, read the whole thing and then said to myself “duh, KP you were/are against the war…silly”. Came back here to find AP’s quote from her, with same irony…

Even the brighter leftie minds are confused on the dangers of our time. See today’s Birmingham story…what, oh what will it take?

I applaud you sir!! One so rarely sees such blunt honesty! Bravo!!!!

honora on January 31, 2007 at 1:52 PM

Great honora!

Entelechy on January 31, 2007 at 5:42 PM

Sometimes I even refer to myself as Catholic, just not Roman Catholic. I think you know what I mean.

The reformers used to say that.

I just say I’m more of a Reformed confessionalist, or that I hold to the Westminster Standards.

PRCalDude on January 31, 2007 at 7:19 PM

Can’t knock Pelosi too much
Allah are you nuts! THis SIHT is a leftist attempt to divert attention away from the lunatic Muslim fringe and toward the lunatic Christian fringe.
Only difference is, the lunatic Muslim fringe is plotting to kill us
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on January 31, 2007 at 2:10 PM

This is it in a nutshell.
Why is everyone allowing a hard-core, agenda-driven Leftie define Christianity? This little film was more successful than I had thought it would be, which is really depressing. Everybody is either hastily distancing themselves from what Pelosi identifies as “evangelicals” or vainly trying to defend Christianity boxed in by ridiculous terms of debate – when what she shows is NOT Christianity or evangelicalism. Christian bookstores, wrestling matches, theme parks – whatever! are simply marketing crap, and have no purpose in Christianity.
That’s the bald truth. We have the religious equivalent of harmless, but eccentric cousin Ralph puttering around in some little hobby that keeps him busy, tolerated by his relatives because they all know he means well and he doesn’t want to hurt anyone, and Pelosi’s got him set up as a horrid, power-hungry radical a la Taliban.
The bottom line, if you had to survive three hours locked in a cell with, say, Oral Roberts with an axe in his hand or someone similarly placed of the Taliban also armed with an axe, you know which one you would choose. Roberts might annoy you or bore you or pester you, but he’d never ever dream of harming you.
Remember the technique of the hard Left – slice the salami -identify a narrow target, demonize them, ridicule them until they have no more general support, then crush them. Move on to next slice.

naliaka on January 31, 2007 at 9:09 PM

Man, these religion based threads always get so hostile. Kinda makes you long for the good old days of riding through someones town that didn’t believe like you did..and slaughtering them like the backwards heathens they were. And I’m not talking about this behead the city council and everyone will fall into line namby pamby crap. I’m talking about everyone, in the town square, skulls piled up with a lazy boy…well, at least a soft kitchen chair at the top. That’s religious tolerance baby, Chuck Norris style.
Seriously, AP, you ought to come up with a special graphic for these religion threads. Maybe a derailed train, or a dungeon with people attached to various implements of tor..er..education.

austinnelly on January 31, 2007 at 9:14 PM

For the record, I like being called lovely. What’s wrong with lovely?

Kirsten on January 31, 2007 at 9:27 PM

The lovely KP in the (virtual) flesh!

Allahpundit on January 31, 2007 at 9:28 PM

Lovely is a little dated. Folks my age still use it. However, I believe the term in vogue now is hawt (sic).

austinnelly on January 31, 2007 at 9:30 PM

Given Haggard’s scandal, I don’t blame her for putting it in the movie, but I’m perplexed why she thought that clip was worthy of inclusion before the scandal. Jokes aside, what’s so unusual about married people having sex frequently?

Laura on January 31, 2007 at 1:10 PM

Well, you see people on the left aren’t married, since they are all gay, so are all their friends. Therefore, they don’t think married people have sex, because after all they don’t know anyone married….

Tim Burton on January 31, 2007 at 10:14 PM

For the record, I like being called lovely. What’s wrong with lovely?

Kirsten on January 31, 2007 at 9:27 PM

The lovely KP in the (virtual) flesh!

Allahpundit on January 31, 2007 at 9:28 PM

There goes the neighborhood.

RightWinged on January 31, 2007 at 11:31 PM

Wow, people are starting to nitpick over the dumbest things.

EnochCain on January 31, 2007 at 11:41 PM

“No, the worst she can say is, “Ha. Haha. Hahahahaha.””

Indeed true :). But most of us have been through that and survived.

Kirsten said: “For the record, I like being called lovely. What’s wrong with lovely?”

Ms. Powers, there is no doubt that you are lovely. We need only to see you speak to realize this. Saying that you, MKH, Michelle, Laura Ingraham, that lady who worked for Nixon (Crowley?), most of the FOX ladies, etc., are lovely once in a while is great! You all are. Harping on it is something different entirely. It makes you no more than a pretty body. It disregards your greater beauty, which is your mind. I must say I disagree with a lot of what you say, but I don’t believe you are just another pretty face.

Repeating how pretty any of you are is an insult to your insight. All of you are much more than how you look. Mentioning how beautiful any of you are once in a while is fine, but the repetition belittles you all, and I remain against it. We’ve seen how beautiful all of you are. We want to know more about how smart you are (all of the, uh, lovely, ladies I’ve mentioned have passed the test :))

I’m sad that you read my comment though. He’s never going to hit on you now :(

Calling someone ‘lovely’ is best left for one on one conversations.

Kevin M on February 1, 2007 at 2:33 AM

An interesting, and staggeringly ironic, question coming from someone who opposed the Iraq war.

BUSH LIED KURDS SURVIVED!!!

no wait.

One Angry Christian on February 1, 2007 at 10:47 AM