Reply #21: How does he determine the likelihood

[Alcibiades]

of one scenario versus another? He thinks his description is more likely, but this is based upon no evidence. Furthermore, he is wrong when he says we have no evidence to support a less charitable interpretation of Haggard's actions. It is quite common in some circles to conclude that gay haters are closet cases, and twisted, sick ones at that. Given the Haggard's own record of opposition to equality for gay Americans, this does not qualify him as a person of goodwill--i.e., he would impose moral restrictions on others that he would not comply with himself, and these others would only be people who were honestly gay, not closeted people. Haggard proposed punishing the honest while ignoring the dishonest--that's the very definition of injustice.

There's also a question of degree. An antidrug crusader who has a relapse isn't a hypocrite, if he checks himself into rehab. Yet a homophobe who attacks gays publicly while having sex with men in private, or someone like Rush, who used painkillers for years until they made him deaf, is another thing entirely.

Unseemly according to whom? According to the standards of academic discourse? Well, that would depend upon the journal in question. According to the standards of contemporary political discourse, the tone of which has been set by Haggard and his Republican ilk, your response is moderate. You are, after all an innocent third party, just like folks in Haggard's congregation, because you must bear the brunt of the hatemongering of Haggard and others.