| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Fredric L. Rice" |
| Date: |
03 Nov 2005 04:28:18 AM |
| Object: |
Carter explains Christians aren't Christians |
Carter's Crusade
Jimmy Carter explains how the Christian right isn't Christian at all.
By Ayelish McGarvey
Web Exclusive: 04.05.04
Former President Jimmy Carter, America's first evangelical Christian
president, still teaches Sunday school at his Baptist church in Plains,
Georgia, and he and his wife, Rosalynn, continue their human-rights work in
developing nations through the Carter Center at Emory University. In recent
months, the Carters toured Togo, Ghana, and Mali to raise awareness of the
public-health needs of those nations. In February, Carter spoke about the
role of evangelical Christianity in democratic politics with Prospect
writing fellow Ayelish McGarvey.
Republicans have been extremely successful at connecting religion and
values to issues like the fight against terrorism, abortion, and gay
rights.
Democrats have been far less adept at infusing our issues -- compassion,
help for the poor, social justice -- with any sense of religious commitment
or moral imperative. Why do you think that is?
When I was younger, almost all Baptists were strongly committed on a
theological basis to the separation of church and state. It was only 25
years ago when there began to be a melding of the Republican Party with
fundamentalist Christianity, particularly with the Southern Baptist
Convention. This is a fairly new development, and I think it was brought
about by the abandonment of some of the basic principles of Christianity.
First of all, we worship the prince of peace, not war. And those of us who
have advocated for the resolution of international conflict in a peaceful
fashion are looked upon as being unpatriotic, branded that way by
right-wing religious groups, the Bush administration, and other
Republicans.
Secondly, Christ was committed to compassion for the most destitute, poor,
needy, and forgotten people in our society. Today there is a stark
difference [between conservative ideology and Christian teaching] because
most of the people most strongly committed to the Republican philosophy
have adopted the proposition that help for the rich is the best way to help
even poor people (by letting some of the financial benefits drip down to
those most deeply in need). I would say there has been a schism drawn -- on
theology and practical politics and economics between the two groups.
What has attracted conservative Christians to a party that protects
corporate interests and promotes an aggressive foreign-policy agenda? How
do those square?
There is an element of fundamentalism involved, which involves the belief
on the part of a human being that [his or her] own concept of God is the
proper one. And since [he or she has] the proper concept of God, [he or she
is] particularly blessed and singled out for special consideration above
and beyond those who disagree with [him or her].
Secondly, anyone who does disagree with [him or her], since [he or she is]
harnessed to God in a unique way, then, by definition, must be wrong. And
the second step is if you are in disagreement with [his or her] concept of
the way to worship, even among the Christian community, is that you are
inferior to [him or her]. And then the ultimate progression of that is that
you're not only different and wrong and inferior but in some ways you are
subhuman. So there's a loss of concern even for the death of those who
disagree. And this takes fundamentalism to the extreme. This is an element
of the fundamentalist cause in this country. If you are a wealthy white
man, then you are naturally inclined to think that the poor are inferior
and don't deserve your first consideration. If you are a wealthy white man,
then you also take on the proposition that women are inherently inferior.
This builds up a sense of prejudice and alienation that permeates the
Christian right during these days.
What issues do you see galvanizing moderate evangelicals as they go to the
polls in November?
I've been involved in national politics now for more than 25 years. But
this year we will see the Democratic Party more united than ever before in
my memory, and even the earlier history that I studied before my life
began. I think we're completely united with a determination to replace the
Bush administration and its fundamentalist, right-wing philosophy with the
more moderate qualities that have always exemplified what our nation is: a
nation committed to strength in the military. I served longer in the
military than any other president since the Civil War except Dwight
Eisenhower.
I was a submarine officer. I used the enormous and unmatched strength of
America to promote peace for other people and preserve peace for ourselves.
Now it seems as though it is an attractive thing in Washington to resort to
war in the very early stage of resolving an altercation; a completely
unnecessary war that President Bush decided to launch against the Iraqis is
an example of that. And I think that a reaction against that warlike
attitude on the part of America to the exclusion of almost all other
nations in the world -- and arousing fear in them -- is going to be a
driving issue.
I think that the abandonment of environmental issues even endorsed by
President Nixon when I was governor (as well as virtually all of the
Republicans and Democrats) has been notable under the Bush administration.
One of the things I learned as a young Baptist boy was to be a steward of
the world that God blessed us to enjoy. And I think the abandonment of
basic environmental standards by the Bush administration rallies us.
And I think the third thing is the obvious orientation of the Bush
administration toward Halliburton, Enron, and other major corporations. You
see this in the enormous tax reductions that have been granted to people
that make more than $200,000 a year. That is another issue on which the
Democrats will rally a common goal.
Do you think that Democrats will be able to attract Bible-believing
Christians in a year that gay marriage will be used as a smokescreen to
distract attention from those issues?
I think so. There isn't a major candidate who has endorsed gay marriage;
they are in favor of equal protection through a civil-union arrangement. I
personally, in my Sunday-school lessons, don't favor the religious
endorsement of a gay marriage. But I do favor equal treatment under the law
for people who differ from me in sexual orientation.
What about abortion? How would you speak to moderate evangelicals who
withhold support for Democratic candidates on that single issue?
This was an issue that I had to face when I was campaigning 25 years ago. I
have always been against abortion; it's not possible for me in my own
concept of Christ to believe that Jesus would favor abortion. But at the
same time, I have supported the Supreme Court ruling of our country as the
law of the land. And the present arrangement, whereby a woman is authorized
to have an abortion in the first trimester of the pregnancy, or when the
pregnancy is caused by rape or incest -- these are the things that
moderates who have beliefs like mine can accept as the present
circumstances in our country. The liberality of abortion is anointed by the
laws of our country, including the ultimate ruling of the Supreme Court.
How do you think the fundamentalist Christian right has misrepresented
Christianity, as well as the democratic process?
Well, what do Christians stand for, based exclusively on the words and
actions of Jesus Christ? We worship him as a prince of peace. And I think
almost all Christians would conclude that whenever there is an inevitable
altercation -- say, between a husband and a wife, or a father and a child,
or within a given community, or between two nations (including our own) --
we should make every effort to resolve those differences which arise in
life through peaceful means. Therein, we should not resort to war as a way
to exalt the president as the commander in chief. A commitment to peace is
certainly a Christian principle that even ultraconservatives would endorse,
at least by worshipping the prince of peace.
And Christ reached out almost exclusively to the poor, suffering,
abandoned, deprived -- the scorned, the condemned people -- including
Samaritans and those who were diseased. The alleviation of suffering was a
philosophy that was enhanced and emphasized by the life of Christ. Today
the ultra-right wing, in both religion and politics, has abandoned that
principle of Jesus Christ's ministry.
Those are the two principal things in the practical sense that starkly
separate the ultra-right Christian community from the rest of the Christian
world: Do we endorse and support peace and support the alleviation of
suffering among the poor and the outcast?
You spent so much of your career working toward a reasonable, peaceful
solution to violence and strife in Israel and Palestine. Increasing
attention has been paid to traditionalist evangelicals' strong support for
Israel, based on the New Testament prophecy that the reconstruction of the
ancient kingdom of David will usher in the "end times" and the Second
Coming of Christ. As a believer and a peacemaker, how do you respond to
this?
That's a completely foolish and erroneous interpretation of the Scriptures.
And it has resulted in these last few years with a terrible, very costly,
and bloody deterioration in the relationship between Israel and its
neighbors. Every president except for George W. Bush has taken a relatively
balanced position between the Israelis and their enemies, always strongly
supporting Israel but recognizing that you have to negotiate and work
between Israel and her neighbors in order to bring about a peaceful
resolution.
It's nearly the 25th anniversary of my consummation of a treaty between
Israel and Egypt -- not a word of which has ever been violated. But this
administration, maybe strongly influenced by ill-advised theologians of the
extreme religious right, has pretty well abandoned any real effort that
could lead to a resolution of the problems between Israel and the
Palestinians. And no one can challenge me on my commitment to Israel and
its right to live in peace with all its neighbors. But at the same time,
there has to be a negotiated settlement; you can't just ordain the
destruction of the Palestinian people, and their community and their
political entity, in favor of the Israelis.
And that's what some of the extreme fundamentalist Christians have done,
both to the detriment of the Israelis and the Palestinians.
Ayelish McGarvey, who writes a biweekly online column about religion, is a
Prospect writing fellow.
---
http://www.ElmerFudd.US/ http://www.rightard.org/ http://www.thedarkwind.org/
One doesn't have to be a Republican to hate Canadians. - Rita Refugee
.
|
|
| User: "G-Ride" |
|
| Title: Re: Carter explains Christians aren't Christians |
03 Nov 2005 05:16:30 AM |
|
|
"Fredric L. Rice" <FRice@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote in message
news:11mj4f8sj7pvm16@corp.supernews.com...
Carter's Crusade
Jimmy Carter explains how the Christian right isn't Christian at all.
<article snipped>
I may not agree w/ Jimmy Carter on religion, but I think he is definitely is
one of the "good guys". We could use more like him.
--
Aloha,
G-Ride
"Like a quarrelling group of monkeys on a leaky boat, armed with sticks of
dynamite, we are now embarked on an uncertain journey."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Carter explains Christians aren't Christians |
03 Nov 2005 08:13:17 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 19:16:30 -1000, "G-Ride"
<gride42nospammotherfucker@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <FRice@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote in message
news:11mj4f8sj7pvm16@corp.supernews.com...
Carter's Crusade
Jimmy Carter explains how the Christian right isn't Christian at all.
<article snipped>
I may not agree w/ Jimmy Carter on religion, but I think he is definitely is
one of the "good guys". We could use more like him.
The guy who gave birth to the Mujahadeen and Osama bin Laden?
(Amongst other atrocities** and war crimes***)
A "good" guy?
You must either be joking, or sadly ignorant...
__________________________________________
**Maintaining Somoza's sadistic National Guard and supporting their
atrocities.
*** Flying their Guard commanders out of the country in planes with
Red Cross markings (a war crime).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Carter explains Christians aren't Christians |
03 Nov 2005 03:30:40 PM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:vahjm11q3823bnt0r1f738nlu51f2j1c2h@4ax.com...
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 19:16:30 -1000, "G-Ride"
<gride42nospammotherfucker@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <FRice@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote in message
news:11mj4f8sj7pvm16@corp.supernews.com...
Carter's Crusade
Jimmy Carter explains how the Christian right isn't Christian at all.
<article snipped>
I may not agree w/ Jimmy Carter on religion, but I think he is definitely
is
one of the "good guys". We could use more like him.
The guy who gave birth to the Mujahadeen and Osama bin Laden?
(Amongst other atrocities** and war crimes***)
A "good" guy?
You must either be joking, or sadly ignorant...
So enlighten us ith some actual facts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Carter explains Christians aren't Christians |
03 Nov 2005 10:11:25 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 15:30:40 GMT, "Ike"
<accordiondocxyzxyzxyz@mindspring.com> wrote:
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:vahjm11q3823bnt0r1f738nlu51f2j1c2h@4ax.com...
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 19:16:30 -1000, "G-Ride"
<gride42nospammotherfucker@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <FRice@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote in message
news:11mj4f8sj7pvm16@corp.supernews.com...
Carter's Crusade
Jimmy Carter explains how the Christian right isn't Christian at all.
<article snipped>
I may not agree w/ Jimmy Carter on religion, but I think he is definitely
is
one of the "good guys". We could use more like him.
The guy who gave birth to the Mujahadeen and Osama bin Laden?
(Amongst other atrocities** and war crimes***)
A "good" guy?
You must either be joking, or sadly ignorant...
So enlighten us ith some actual facts.
Is it worth my while?
I will do it if you genuinely wish to be educated though.
Carter's record of support for atrocities is so long and detailed that
I could be typing for hours and not get to the end.
Why don't you do a simple search first?
Or start with:
"Carter's Less-Known Legacy"
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1018-06.htm
===========================
This is a SHORT interview with Zbginiew Brzezinksi, Jimmy Carter's
National Security Advisor, in a French newspaper in 1998. Under
Brzezniski and Carter, the US supported the covert funding of the
mujahadeen, the Taliban's precedessor, and also, to a lesser degree,
Osama bin Laden.
1) Brzezinski now admits that the US started funding the
mujahadeen a full six months before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan
(the previous justification for funding the mujahadeen was that it was
to stop the Soviets AFTER they had invaded Afghanistan);
2) The explicit purpose of funding the mujahadeen was to draw the
Soviets into Afghanistan so that they would get bogged down in a long,
unwinnable war -- "their Vietnam";
3) Brzezinski believes that funding the mujahadeen -- even at the
price of unleashing Islamic fundamentalism ("some stirred-up Moslems")
as a force throughout the Middle East and Central Asia -- was well
worth the price of defeating the Soviet Union. Of course, he said all
this a full three years before the World Trade Center attack.
=======================
Lars Schoultz is probably the leading academic on the subject, as it
applies to Latin America, at least.
Comparative Politics, Jan 1981 is a good issue to read.
"After the Cataclysm" By Chomsky and Herman.
Paul Farmer, Diedre McFadyan and so on also have written some
informative stuff.
You should also check out Carter's support for the East Timor
atrocities, Nicarguan crimes, and support for the corrupt South
African regime.
His admiration and support for the brutally corrupt Shah of Iran is
well known.
On Amnesty International reports of human rights violations, the Shah
was ranked at the top of the list.
Carter admired this "progressive administration", as he put it.
This is just a short list, off the bottom of my head.
Like I said, if you genuinely wish to be educated on the matter, I
will be glad to put more time and effort into such a task.
I suggest that if your pose your response in the form of a polite
request, rather than a terse demand, you will be more likely to obtain
a positive result.
Michael Gray
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: Carter explains Christians aren't Christians |
03 Nov 2005 11:49:54 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
I will do it if you genuinely wish to be educated though.
Carter's record of support for atrocities is so long and detailed that
I could be typing for hours and not get to the end.
Why don't you do a simple search first?
Or start with:
"Carter's Less-Known Legacy"
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1018-06.htm
===========================
This is a SHORT interview with Zbginiew Brzezinksi, Jimmy Carter's
National Security Advisor, in a French newspaper in 1998. Under
Brzezniski and Carter, the US supported the covert funding of the
mujahadeen, the Taliban's precedessor, and also, to a lesser degree,
Osama bin Laden.
1) Brzezinski now admits that the US started funding the
mujahadeen a full six months before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan
(the previous justification for funding the mujahadeen was that it was
to stop the Soviets AFTER they had invaded Afghanistan);
2) The explicit purpose of funding the mujahadeen was to draw the
Soviets into Afghanistan so that they would get bogged down in a long,
unwinnable war -- "their Vietnam";
3) Brzezinski believes that funding the mujahadeen -- even at the
price of unleashing Islamic fundamentalism ("some stirred-up Moslems")
as a force throughout the Middle East and Central Asia -- was well
worth the price of defeating the Soviet Union. Of course, he said all
this a full three years before the World Trade Center attack.
A rap on Carter was that he could not exercise Realpolitik. That might be
unjustified.
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Carter explains Christians aren't Christians |
04 Nov 2005 03:32:01 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 15:30:40 GMT, "Ike"
<accordiondocxyzxyzxyz@mindspring.com> wrote:
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:vahjm11q3823bnt0r1f738nlu51f2j1c2h@4ax.com...
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 19:16:30 -1000, "G-Ride"
<gride42nospammotherfucker@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <FRice@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote in message
news:11mj4f8sj7pvm16@corp.supernews.com...
Carter's Crusade
Jimmy Carter explains how the Christian right isn't Christian at
all.
<article snipped>
I may not agree w/ Jimmy Carter on religion, but I think he is
definitely is
one of the "good guys". We could use more like him.
The guy who gave birth to the Mujahadeen and Osama bin Laden?
(Amongst other atrocities** and war crimes***)
A "good" guy?
You must either be joking, or sadly ignorant...
So enlighten us ith some actual facts.
Is it worth my while?
I will do it if you genuinely wish to be educated though.
Carter's record of support for atrocities is so long and detailed
that I could be typing for hours and not get to the end.
Why don't you do a simple search first?
Or start with:
"Carter's Less-Known Legacy"
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1018-06.htm
===========================
This is a SHORT interview with Zbginiew Brzezinksi, Jimmy Carter's
National Security Advisor, in a French newspaper in 1998. Under
Brzezniski and Carter, the US supported the covert funding of the
mujahadeen, the Taliban's precedessor, and also, to a lesser degree,
Osama bin Laden.
1) Brzezinski now admits that the US started funding the
mujahadeen a full six months before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan
(the previous justification for funding the mujahadeen was that it
was to stop the Soviets AFTER they had invaded Afghanistan);
2) The explicit purpose of funding the mujahadeen was to draw
the Soviets into Afghanistan so that they would get bogged down in a
long, unwinnable war -- "their Vietnam";
3) Brzezinski believes that funding the mujahadeen -- even at
the price of unleashing Islamic fundamentalism ("some stirred-up
Moslems") as a force throughout the Middle East and Central Asia --
was well worth the price of defeating the Soviet Union. Of course,
he said all this a full three years before the World Trade Center
attack. =======================
Lars Schoultz is probably the leading academic on the subject, as it
applies to Latin America, at least.
Comparative Politics, Jan 1981 is a good issue to read.
"After the Cataclysm" By Chomsky and Herman.
Paul Farmer, Diedre McFadyan and so on also have written some
informative stuff.
You should also check out Carter's support for the East Timor
atrocities, Nicarguan crimes, and support for the corrupt South
African regime.
His admiration and support for the brutally corrupt Shah of Iran is
well known.
On Amnesty International reports of human rights violations, the
Shah was ranked at the top of the list.
Carter admired this "progressive administration", as he put it.
This is just a short list, off the bottom of my head.
Like I said, if you genuinely wish to be educated on the matter, I
will be glad to put more time and effort into such a task.
I suggest that if your pose your response in the form of a polite
request, rather than a terse demand, you will be more likely to
obtain a positive result.
Michael Gray
Brezezinski supported the Pol Pot government
against the Vietnamese government to harass
Vietnam because they were seen as Soviet Russian
clients To be sure the real horrors of Pol Pot's
Khmer Rouge had not fully come out but enough
was known that this can only be called cynical
and evil.
Reagan and Bush continued on this path for
ten years. The Vietnamese did go on to invade
Cambodia after a number of military probes
into Vietnam by Pol Pot.
See the book America in the Age of Genocide
- a Problem From Hell - Samantha Powers.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Carter explains Christians aren't Christians |
04 Nov 2005 12:58:51 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 18:43:17 +1030, in alt.atheism , Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> in
<vahjm11q3823bnt0r1f738nlu51f2j1c2h@4ax.com> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 19:16:30 -1000, "G-Ride"
<gride42nospammotherfucker@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <FRice@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote in message
news:11mj4f8sj7pvm16@corp.supernews.com...
Carter's Crusade
Jimmy Carter explains how the Christian right isn't Christian at all.
<article snipped>
I may not agree w/ Jimmy Carter on religion, but I think he is definitely is
one of the "good guys". We could use more like him.
The guy who gave birth to the Mujahadeen and Osama bin Laden?
(Amongst other atrocities** and war crimes***)
A "good" guy?
You must either be joking, or sadly ignorant...
How did Carter do that?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Carter explains Christians aren't Christians |
05 Nov 2005 06:18:17 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 00:58:51 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 18:43:17 +1030, in alt.atheism , Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> in
<vahjm11q3823bnt0r1f738nlu51f2j1c2h@4ax.com> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 19:16:30 -1000, "G-Ride"
<gride42nospammotherfucker@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <FRice@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote in message
news:11mj4f8sj7pvm16@corp.supernews.com...
Carter's Crusade
Jimmy Carter explains how the Christian right isn't Christian at all.
<article snipped>
I may not agree w/ Jimmy Carter on religion, but I think he is definitely is
one of the "good guys". We could use more like him.
The guy who gave birth to the Mujahadeen and Osama bin Laden?
(Amongst other atrocities** and war crimes***)
A "good" guy?
You must either be joking, or sadly ignorant...
How did Carter do that?
Quite effectively, it seems.
Please do some research of your own, or see my other posts on the
matter.
I can support my assertions, in spades, but need an incentive to that
hard slog for you, when it is freely available from other sources.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
