| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
14 Apr 2004 07:38:53 AM |
| Object: |
Carter: Religious right isn't right |
Carter's Crusade
Jimmy Carter explains how the Christian right isn't Christian at all.
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=7572
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.
.
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Carter: Religious right isn't right |
14 Apr 2004 03:55:28 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 08:38:53 -0400, buckeye-ELO@nospam.net, Message ID:
<l6cq70tljeugoqdmp6qk0pokkolc36g52c@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
Carter's Crusade
Jimmy Carter explains how the Christian right isn't Christian at all.
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=7572
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.
Think all evangelicals are right-wingers? Just as many are politically
moderate. Read more about them in Ayelish McGarvey's piece, "Reaching
the Choir", from the print edition.
Copyright © 2004 by The American Prospect, Inc
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Carter: Religious right isn't right |
15 Apr 2004 07:37:25 AM |
|
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------010503080500090200010203
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
stoney wrote:
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 08:38:53 -0400, buckeye-ELO@nospam.net, Message ID:
<l6cq70tljeugoqdmp6qk0pokkolc36g52c@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
Carter's Crusade
Jimmy Carter explains how the Christian right isn't Christian at all.
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=7572
Jimmy Carter's just a CINO ("Christian-In-Name-Only"). You can't be
a TRUE Christian unless you oppress and debase others....
[snip]
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.
Like "doing unto others like you would have them do unto you."
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.
Ted, President Carter is speaking to you ... or certainly, ABOUT you.
--------------010503080500090200010203
Content-Type: text/plain;
name="tedracistnew.txt"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="tedracistnew.txt"
Subject: Re: It Really IS About Ken Smith ...
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 07:44:03 -0500
From: John Hattan <john@thecodezone.com>
Organization: The Code Zone
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.fan.bob-larson
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
I have never expressed malice, online or otherwise.
I have the necessary qualifications to speak on behalf of Jesus.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
What "cute" hindu chick? Sorry, but I think the swarthy dot-heads are
dogs. I wouldn't even f*** her with your d***.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
Hey, they let ragheads and towelheads and slapheads and camel jockeys
in. Why shouldn't they let me in? At least I'm not from a completely
alien culture.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
Darling, you're just wound a little too tight. And I know exactly
what'll loosen you up.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
But no towel-heads, no slap-heads, no rag-heads, no camel jockeys, and
no bloody swarthy wogs!
--Theodore A. Kaldis
What other words are there? "Gook". "Slope". "Slant-eye". The list
continues further downhill from here.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
BTW, you're not ugly, or a fat chick, now are you?
--Theodore A. Kaldis
I do not use the word "*****", nor do I use the word "coon"
--Theodore A. Kaldis
At that rate, assuming there are somewhere between 25 to 50 million
blacks in the U.S. (and I don't know what the exact figure is, but I
would surmise that it falls somewhere within that range), they each get
between US$140 to $280. Chump change. With that they would only be
"***** rich".
--Theodore A. Kaldis
I've already been assaulted a couple of times, but both times by Guido's
rather than by coons.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
Raghead women are too ugly to become flight attendants.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
That's easy. This is yet another example of feminine ``logic'' (truly
an oxymoron if ever there was one).
--Theodore A. Kaldis
Ragheads, towel heads, camel jockeys, and other swarthy types not
allowed.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
The *****-suckin' Chicks are toast.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
I have the Holy Spirit to lead me into all the truth and righteousness.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
--------------010503080500090200010203--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Theodore A. Kaldis" |
|
| Title: Re: Carter: Religious right isn't right |
15 Apr 2004 09:24:53 AM |
|
|
Ken Smith wrote:
Ted, President Carter is speaking to you ... or certainly, ABOUT you.
Carter's a loser. And moreover, he seems to miss completely the point of the
Gospel -- something that you are completely oblivious of. Had Carter been
around when Jesus walked this earth, he would have been with the crowd
demanding, "give us Barabbas".
It is pointless to listen to what Jimmy Carter has to say. It is nothing
more than a rehash of the same leftist diatribe that we've been hearing for
decades -- and that has been proven to be WORTHLESS in alleviating poverty.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chas" |
|
| Title: Re: Carter: Religious right isn't right |
15 Apr 2004 10:47:54 AM |
|
|
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote
.... And moreover, he seems to miss completely the point of the
Gospel -- something that you are completely oblivious of. Had Carter been
around when Jesus walked this earth, he would have been with the crowd
demanding, "give us Barabbas".
Can you not be anything but a constant embarrassment?
Whatever your unfortunate obsessions, kindly refrain from opining about
religion except perhaps in a much more general way; pretty please.
Christianity lets you do things, not prohibits you; it brings joy, not
oppression; generosity, not flinting; hope, not threat.
Give it a fucking break, hoser.
Chas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Carter: Religious right isn't right |
22 Apr 2004 06:36:37 AM |
|
|
Chas wrote:
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote
.... And moreover, he seems to miss completely the point of the
Gospel -- something that you are completely oblivious of. Had Carter been
around when Jesus walked this earth, he would have been with the crowd
demanding, "give us Barabbas".
Can you not be anything but a constant embarrassment?
Asking Ted not to embarrass is like asking you not to breathe. :)
Whatever your unfortunate obsessions, kindly refrain from opining about
religion except perhaps in a much more general way; pretty please.
Christianity lets you do things, not prohibits you; it brings joy, not
oppression; generosity, not flinting; hope, not threat.
That's not the Christianity I've been exposed to; it's more of the
Ted Kaldis strain, that manifests itself most consistently in bigotry,
hate, and intolerance.
Give it a fucking break, hoser.
He's been spewing for well over a decade. Why should he stop now?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Theodore A. Kaldis" |
|
| Title: Re: Carter: Religious right isn't right |
15 Apr 2004 01:41:10 PM |
|
|
Chas wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
... And moreover, he seems to miss completely the point of the Gospel --
something that you are completely oblivious of. Had Carter been around
when Jesus walked this earth, he would have been with the crowd demanding,
"give us Barabbas".
Can you not be anything but a constant embarrassment?
To whom? You are an embarrassment to the Gospel if you assert that Jimmy
Carter represents any sort of model Christian. Sure, Carter does "good
works" -- but those works seem to be devoid of the Salvation message of the
Gospel. As such, those works are NOT an honour to God, but rather a source
of sanctimony and human pride for Jimmy.
Whatever your unfortunate obsessions, kindly refrain from opining about
religion except perhaps in a much more general way; pretty please.
Sorry, no. I am not exempt from expressing my views about religion simply
because you happen to disagree with those views.
Christianity lets you do things, not prohibits you;
So why are you trying to prohibit me from speaking about Christianity?
it brings joy, not oppression; generosity, not flinting; hope, not threat.
Yes -- once its fundamental message is apprehended. But it seems that Jimmy
Carter has essentially failed to apprehend it, and is thus only holding to a
form of Godliness, and even then denying the power thereof. His blather is
rife with the discredited ideas of Marxism. And if there were any merit in
such ideas, the Soviet Union would be the pre-eminent nation on earth today,
not the U.S.
Moreover, why should anyone care what Jimmy Carter has to say about foreign
relations? His foreign policy was, by-and-large, an abomination. And it is
because of his monumental failures in this area that we have the level of
instability in the world today that we do.
Give it a fucking break, hoser.
Hmmmm ... are certain of these words to be found anywhere in the Bible?
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
.
|
|
|
| User: "LisaKay" |
|
| Title: Re: Carter: Religious right isn't right |
15 Apr 2004 11:10:55 PM |
|
|
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<407ED746.7C7AD7BF@worldnet.att.net>...
Chas wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
... And moreover, he seems to miss completely the point of the Gospel --
something that you are completely oblivious of. Had Carter been around
when Jesus walked this earth, he would have been with the crowd demanding,
"give us Barabbas".
Can you not be anything but a constant embarrassment?
To whom? You are an embarrassment to the Gospel if you assert that Jimmy
Carter represents any sort of model Christian. Sure, Carter does "good
works" -- but those works seem to be devoid of the Salvation message of the
Gospel. As such, those works are NOT an honour to God, but rather a source
of sanctimony and human pride for Jimmy.
Whatever your unfortunate obsessions, kindly refrain from opining about
religion except perhaps in a much more general way; pretty please.
Sorry, no. I am not exempt from expressing my views about religion simply
because you happen to disagree with those views.
Christianity lets you do things, not prohibits you;
So why are you trying to prohibit me from speaking about Christianity?
it brings joy, not oppression; generosity, not flinting; hope, not threat.
Yes -- once its fundamental message is apprehended. But it seems that Jimmy
Carter has essentially failed to apprehend it, and is thus only holding to a
form of Godliness, and even then denying the power thereof. His blather is
rife with the discredited ideas of Marxism. And if there were any merit in
such ideas, the Soviet Union would be the pre-eminent nation on earth today,
not the U.S.
Moreover, why should anyone care what Jimmy Carter has to say about foreign
relations? His foreign policy was, by-and-large, an abomination. And it is
because of his monumental failures in this area that we have the level of
instability in the world today that we do.
Give it a fucking break, hoser.
Hmmmm ... are certain of these words to be found anywhere in the Bible?
It's kinda cute, in a way... to see the Christians fighting about
being true Christians and calling each other names. Awww...
-LisaKay
aa #2054
.
|
|
|
| User: "Theodore A. Kaldis" |
|
| Title: Re: Carter: Religious right isn't right |
16 Apr 2004 08:14:59 AM |
|
|
LisaKay wrote:
It's kinda cute, in a way... to see the Christians fighting about being
true Christians and calling each other names. Awww...
But what do you propose to say to God when you stand before Him at the Final
Judgement?
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Carter: Religious right isn't right |
16 Apr 2004 09:11:37 AM |
|
|
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:407FDC53.2AE5BDE3@worldnet.att.net:
LisaKay wrote:
It's kinda cute, in a way... to see the Christians fighting about
being true Christians and calling each other names. Awww...
But what do you propose to say to God when you stand before Him at the
Final Judgement?
"Why didn't you answer when I needed you?"
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Theodore A. Kaldis" |
|
| Title: Re: Carter: Religious right isn't right |
16 Apr 2004 10:45:40 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
LisaKay wrote:
It's kinda cute, in a way ... to see the Christians fighting about being
true Christians and calling each other names. Awww ...
But what do you propose to say to God when you stand before Him at the
Final Judgement?
"Why didn't you answer when I needed you?"
Won't wash. Any answer you seek from Him is as close as the nearest Bible.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Carter: Religious right isn't right |
16 Apr 2004 12:10:43 PM |
|
|
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:407FFFA4.A92FF9D0@worldnet.att.net:
Fred Stone wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
LisaKay wrote:
It's kinda cute, in a way ... to see the Christians fighting about
being true Christians and calling each other names. Awww ...
But what do you propose to say to God when you stand before Him at
the Final Judgement?
"Why didn't you answer when I needed you?"
Won't wash. Any answer you seek from Him is as close as the nearest
Bible.
Nope, I read it, didn't get what I needed. Got a lot of abuse from a
couple of Sunday School teachers instead.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Theodore A. Kaldis" |
|
| Title: Re: Carter: Religious right isn't right |
16 Apr 2004 03:14:00 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
LisaKay wrote:
It's kinda cute, in a way ... to see the Christians fighting about
being true Christians and calling each other names. Awww ...
But what do you propose to say to God when you stand before Him at
the Final Judgement?
"Why didn't you answer when I needed you?"
Won't wash. Any answer you seek from Him is as close as the nearest
Bible.
Nope, I read it, didn't get what I needed.
You must have not looked hard enough, because it's there.
Got a lot of abuse from a couple of Sunday School teachers instead.
It happens. It's entirely possible that those Sunday School teachers might
not know what to say when they stand before God at the Final Judgement.
On the other hand, maybe you were in dire need of an attitude adjustment.
(And perhaps still are.)
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Carter: Religious right isn't right |
16 Apr 2004 03:22:34 PM |
|
|
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:40803E88.25AA0845@worldnet.att.net:
Fred Stone wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
LisaKay wrote:
It's kinda cute, in a way ... to see the Christians fighting
about being true Christians and calling each other names. Awww
...
But what do you propose to say to God when you stand before Him at
the Final Judgement?
"Why didn't you answer when I needed you?"
Won't wash. Any answer you seek from Him is as close as the nearest
Bible.
Nope, I read it, didn't get what I needed.
You must have not looked hard enough, because it's there.
Nope, it's not.
Got a lot of abuse from a couple of Sunday School teachers instead.
It happens. It's entirely possible that those Sunday School teachers
might not know what to say when they stand before God at the Final
Judgement.
On the other hand, maybe you were in dire need of an attitude
adjustment. (And perhaps still are.)
Oh, that must be it, it's my fault that your figment of your imagination
doesn't mean anything to me.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: bible incredibly ignorant---Re: Carter: Religious right isn'tright |
16 Apr 2004 07:32:53 PM |
|
|
From: Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
Organization: Freddybear's Nanobrewery
Newsgroups:
misc.education,misc.legal,law.court.federal,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.atheis
m,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.christianity
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 20:22:34 GMT
Subject: Re: Carter: Religious right isn't right
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:40803E88.25AA0845@worldnet.att.net:
Fred Stone wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
LisaKay wrote:
It's kinda cute, in a way ... to see the Christians fighting
about being true Christians and calling each other names. Awww
...
But what do you propose to say to God when you stand before Him at
the Final Judgement?
"Why didn't you answer when I needed you?"
Won't wash. Any answer you seek from Him is as close as the nearest
Bible.
The men (they were men) who wrote the bible were incredibly ignorant.
They did not know about atoms, enzemes, sperm and egg cells, quasars,
calculus, planets, gravity, electricity, bacteria, viruses and the germ
heory of disease, vitamins, the speed of light, magneticism, evolution,
how hormones affect our behaviour, genes and chromosomes, the hydrologic
cycle, the jet stream and high and low pressure weather systems, neutrons,
how anxiety caused by repressed emotions affect our behaviour, etc etc etc.
Believe it or not, the men who wrote the bible had not the slightest idea
of why there is day and night.
BTW: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs in the form of
replicable under controlled circumstances evidence. Take your nose out of
the bible and you will realize that there is not the slightest shred of
replicable under controlled circumstances evidence that there is a god.
Mombasha (newbie -- I will only see replies posted to: alt.atheism)
Nope, I read it, didn't get what I needed.
You must have not looked hard enough, because it's there.
Nope, it's not.
Got a lot of abuse from a couple of Sunday School teachers instead.
It happens. It's entirely possible that those Sunday School teachers
might not know what to say when they stand before God at the Final
Judgement.
On the other hand, maybe you were in dire need of an attitude
adjustment. (And perhaps still are.)
Oh, that must be it, it's my fault that your figment of your imagination
doesn't mean anything to me.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Carter: Religious right isn't right |
16 Apr 2004 11:11:44 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 13:14:00 -0700, "Theodore A. Kaldis"
<kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Is it REALLY necessary to cross post to:
misc.education,misc.legal,law.court.federal,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.atheism,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.christianity?
Or is that just your megalomania playing up?
Got a lot of abuse from a couple of Sunday School teachers instead.
It happens. It's entirely possible that those Sunday School teachers might
not know what to say when they stand before God at the Final Judgement.
"Those aren't Real Christians®"
Some cinnamon, Theo?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "LisaKay" |
|
| Title: Re: Carter: Religious right isn't right |
17 Apr 2004 03:09:37 PM |
|
|
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<407FDC53.2AE5BDE3@worldnet.att.net>...
LisaKay wrote:
It's kinda cute, in a way... to see the Christians fighting about being
true Christians and calling each other names. Awww...
But what do you propose to say to God when you stand before Him at the Final
Judgement?
Bite me?!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Carter: Religious right isn't right |
16 Apr 2004 11:11:42 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 06:14:59 -0700, "Theodore A. Kaldis"
<kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
LisaKay wrote:
It's kinda cute, in a way... to see the Christians fighting about being
true Christians and calling each other names. Awww...
But what do you propose to say to God when you stand before Him at the Final
Judgement?
Nothing. I won't be able to do that once I'm dead. (Figure out for
yourself why.)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: Carter: Religious right isn't right |
16 Apr 2004 10:37:29 PM |
|
|
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
LisaKay wrote:
It's kinda cute, in a way... to see the Christians fighting about being
true Christians and calling each other names. Awww...
But what do you propose to say to God when you stand before Him at the Final
Judgement?
And if there is neither God nor Final Judgment?
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Carter: Religious right isn't right |
16 Apr 2004 05:55:55 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 11:41:10 -0700, "Theodore A. Kaldis"
<kaldis@worldnet.att.net> cross posted to
misc.education,misc.legal,law.court.federal,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.atheism,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.christianity:
Can you not be anything but a constant embarrassment?
To whom?
The USA, perhaps? For non americans you fundies seem so pathetic.
Especially when you start ranting about liberals, democrats and/or
commies. Those words carry a very different meaning in the real world.
You are an embarrassment to the Gospel if you assert that Jimmy
Carter represents any sort of model Christian.
Carter is not a devout xtian? That is new to me.
Sure, Carter does "good
works" -- but those works seem to be devoid of the Salvation message of the
Gospel.
In your opinion, of course. As there are + 20.000 different cults in
xtianity, most hating the others, that doesn't say much.
As such, those works are NOT an honour to God, but rather a source
of sanctimony and human pride for Jimmy.
In your opinion, of course. GW Scumbag is also xtian. At least, he
pretends to be one.
Whatever your unfortunate obsessions, kindly refrain from opining about
religion except perhaps in a much more general way; pretty please.
Sorry, no. I am not exempt from expressing my views about religion simply
because you happen to disagree with those views.
We (alt.atheism) simply reject one more god than you do.
Christianity lets you do things, not prohibits you;
So why are you trying to prohibit me from speaking about Christianity?
Ah, the universal xtian percecution complex.
it brings joy, not oppression; generosity, not flinting; hope, not threat.
Yes -- once its fundamental message is apprehended. But it seems that Jimmy
Carter has essentially failed to apprehend it, and is thus only holding to a
form of Godliness, and even then denying the power thereof.
Seems to you. Not to him. Let me guess: you are cultmember of that
scumbag ruling the USA right now? Reborn xtian?
His blather is rife with the discredited ideas of Marxism.
Theo, please don't. (Making yourself more pathetic than you already
are.)
And if there were any merit in
such ideas, the Soviet Union would be the pre-eminent nation on earth today,
not the U.S.
Plenty of pre-eminent nations got walsed over by barbarians...
Moreover, why should anyone care what Jimmy Carter has to say about foreign
relations?
Because he disgarees with GW Scumbag?
His foreign policy was, by-and-large, an abomination.
I used to agree. Until GW Scumbag was appointed in the office.
And it is
because of his monumental failures in this area that we have the level of
instability in the world today that we do.
Didn't he get a Nobel prize or something?
Give it a fucking break, hoser.
Hmmmm ... are certain of these words to be found anywhere in the Bible?
Probably not. But that you will enherit a place in heaven is. (The
humble of mind)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: Carter: Religious right isn't right |
15 Apr 2004 06:02:02 PM |
|
|
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<407E9B35.D7C7A51D@worldnet.att.net>...
Ken Smith wrote:
Ted, President Carter is speaking to you ... or certainly, ABOUT you.
Carter's a loser. And moreover, he seems to miss completely the point of the
Gospel -- something that you are completely oblivious of. Had Carter been
around when Jesus walked this earth, he would have been with the crowd
demanding, "give us Barabbas".
It is pointless to listen to what Jimmy Carter has to say. It is nothing
more than a rehash of the same leftist diatribe that we've been hearing for
decades -- and that has been proven to be WORTHLESS in alleviating poverty.
Habitat for Humanity has provided housing for nearly a million people.
Still, Carter didn't get rich off of this. Is that what you mean by
loser?
" Substandard housing is a problem that plagues individuals,
communities and entire nations around the world. Habitat for Humanity
is solving the problem of substandard housing. At work in 89 nations,
the ministry has housed more than 750,000 individuals in 3,000
communities. Each person touched by Habitat for Humanity—whether a
homeowner, volunteer or other supporter—becomes a force of change, a
link in the chain of real solutions to the real problem of inadequate
housing in our world."
...from their web page
http://www.habitat.org/
Building makes more sense than the neocons' slash and burn economics.
We liberals stand for hard work, generosity, emeprical evidence and
reason, and democracy. What was it you stood for, again? I was raised
a Southern Baptist; I left the church before it became a political
tool. I seem to remember the gospel being all about charity... altho
we certainly had our share of uncharitable "souls".
Kermit
.
|
|
|
| User: "Theodore A. Kaldis" |
|
| Title: Re: Carter: Religious right isn't right |
15 Apr 2004 07:12:34 PM |
|
|
Kermit wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
Ted, President Carter is speaking to you ... or certainly, ABOUT you.
Carter's a loser. And moreover, he seems to miss completely the point of
the Gospel -- something that you are completely oblivious of. Had Carter
been around when Jesus walked this earth, he would have been with the
crowd demanding, "give us Barabbas".
It is pointless to listen to what Jimmy Carter has to say. It is nothing
more than a rehash of the same leftist diatribe that we've been hearing
for decades -- and that has been proven to be WORTHLESS in alleviating
poverty.
Habitat for Humanity has provided housing for nearly a million people.
Good on Habitat for Humanity then. What's your point?
Still, Carter didn't get rich off of this.
So what? What is his intention? Charity? If so, that is commendable -- but
it won't buy him entrance into heaven. Self-aggrandisement? He should quit
wasting his time. Demonstrating the alleged superiority of the liberal myth?
Sorry, I'm not convinced.
Is that what you mean by loser?
No. What I mean is that he has destabilised the world and made it a much
more dangerous place for us all -- and to this day he refuses to recognise
his culpability in this, but rather fancies himself a great man.
"Substandard housing is a problem that plagues individuals, communities and
entire nations around the world.
So is personal irresponsibility for individuals, and despotic leadership for
communities and nations. Does Habitat for Humanity address these problems as
well?
Habitat for Humanity is solving the problem of substandard housing.
To what degree?
At work in 89 nations, the ministry has housed more than 750,000
individuals in 3,000 communities.
Fine. But in a world of 6 billion, this is nothing.
Each person touched by Habitat for Humanity—whether a homeowner, volunteer
or other supporter—becomes a force of change,
What kind of "change"? And how is this "change" effected?
a link in the chain of real solutions to the real problem of inadequate
housing in our world."
Yeah, hello. In a world of 6 billion?
..from their web page
http://www.habitat.org/
Building makes more sense than the neocons' slash and burn economics.
Empty rhetoric.
We liberals stand for hard work,
Then why is it that liberals have supported welfare so consistently?
generosity,
With other people's money?
emeprical evidence and reason, and democracy.
[Blah, blah ...] ... and are also so guilt-ridden that they are blind when
irresponsible individuals externalise their own shortcomings and blame them
on others.
What was it you stood for, again?
Personal responsibility. Are you acquainted with the concept?
I was raised a Southern Baptist; I left the church before it became a
political tool.
Why? Were you uncomfortable with the Gospel?
I seem to remember the gospel being all about charity
I'm not so sure that the Gospel is "all" about charity -- certainly without
charity it is nothing -- but there is more to it than just that.
... altho we certainly had our share of uncharitable "souls".
And are you perhaps one of them?
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Root" |
|
| Title: Re: Carter: Religious right isn't right |
15 Apr 2004 11:54:36 PM |
|
|
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
(snip)
So what? What is his intention? Charity? If so, that is commendable -- but
it won't buy him entrance into heaven.
For all you know, his entrance to heaven is already assured. And whether or not
it will "buy him entrance into heaven," to do good makes him a better person
than someone who does not do good, that is why it is called that.
Self-aggrandisement? He should quit
wasting his time.
An ex-president is so little in need of self-aggrandisement, that for you to
even guess that as a motivation for Carter's do-gooding sheds a very poor light
on your judgment
Demonstrating the alleged superiority of the liberal myth?
Sorry, I'm not convinced.
What do you think the so-called "liberal myth" is?
(snip)
No. What I mean is that he has destabilised the world and made it a much
more dangerous place for us all -- and to this day he refuses to recognise
his culpability in this, but rather fancies himself a great man.
How has he destabilised the world, and what makes you think you have any idea
what kind of man he fancies himself?
(snip)
So is personal irresponsibility for individuals, and despotic leadership for
communities and nations. Does Habitat for Humanity address these problems as
well?
Of course not, nor is it under any obligation to do so.
(snip)
Then why is it that liberals have supported welfare so consistently?
There are legitimate purposes to having social safety nets. It is not a flaw
per se in liberalism if some folks learn to game the system. And gaming the
system is not any more morally wrong for poor people than, for instance, for
corporations like Enron to game the system.
emeprical evidence and reason, and democracy.
[Blah, blah ...] ... and are also so guilt-ridden that they are blind when
irresponsible individuals externalise their own shortcomings and blame them
on others.
Well, ya got me there; a lot of the more extreme liberals are that way.
What was it you stood for, again?
Personal responsibility. Are you acquainted with the concept?
Give an example
I was raised a Southern Baptist; I left the church before it became a
political tool.
Why? Were you uncomfortable with the Gospel?
Bad guess. More likely he was uncomfortable with narrow-minded selfishness, or
like he said, it became a political tool.
I seem to remember the gospel being all about charity
I'm not so sure that the Gospel is "all" about charity -- certainly without
charity it is nothing -- but there is more to it than just that.
Which part tells how good it is to be a Pharisee and to kiss up to the rich?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Theodore A. Kaldis" |
|
| Title: Re: Carter: Religious right isn't right |
16 Apr 2004 08:51:19 AM |
|
|
Eric Root wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
So what? What is his intention? Charity? If so, that is commendable --
but it won't buy him entrance into heaven.
For all you know, his entrance to heaven is already assured.
And I hope that it is.
And whether or not it will "buy him entrance into heaven,"
It will NOT! The Bible is clear on this point.
to do good makes him a better person than someone who does not do good,
that is why it is called that.
In fact, it does not. Not by any measure. Or else, we create a class of
people who are held to be superior to others. Nor is he "better" even in
God's eyes, for every man stands equal before God, and also all our good
works are but filthiness before Him.
Self-aggrandisement? He should quit wasting his time.
An ex-president is so little in need of self-aggrandisement,
Not this ex-President. Because he isn't just an ex-President, but a FAILED
ex-President, whose failures are MONUMENTAL.
that for you to even guess that as a motivation for Carter's do-gooding
sheds a very poor light on your judgment
Little boy, I was already a grown man when Carter was President. I remember
the talk of "malaise", the gas lines and the speeches about how we should
adjust to a coming time of scarcity and turn our thermostats down to 50 and
wear sweaters. And I remember the 444 days that our hostages were held in
Iran.
Demonstrating the alleged superiority of the liberal myth? Sorry, I'm not
convinced.
What do you think the so-called "liberal myth" is?
The idea that all of mankind's problems would be solved if only everyone was
nice and kind to one another.
No. What I mean is that he has destabilised the world and made it a much
more dangerous place for us all -- and to this day he refuses to recognise
his culpability in this, but rather fancies himself a great man.
How has he destabilised the world,
What are you, a complete moron? Have you ever heard of a place called
"Iran"? How did it get to be the way that it is now?
and what makes you think you have any idea what kind of man he fancies
himself?
He goes about the world presenting himself as some sort of "elder statesman",
as if he has some expertise in the area of foreign relations. In fact, it is
in this area in which he is most incompetent.
So is personal irresponsibility for individuals, and despotic leadership
for communities and nations. Does Habitat for Humanity address these
problems as well?
Of course not, nor is it under any obligation to do so.
Yeah, uh-huh. And if I didn't have any money, I would be broke.
I hope that Habitat for Humanity qualifies those individuals for whom they
build houses. Because if they are without a house now because of personal
irresponsibility, then it won't be long until they will again be without a
house because of personal irresponsibility -- unless that issue is also dealt
with.
Then why is it that liberals have supported welfare so consistently?
There are legitimate purposes to having social safety nets.
But the government isn't the proper institution to be administering them.
This is properly the province of the churches.
It is not a flaw per se in liberalism if some folks learn to game the
system.
But in fact it is, if the government is administering welfare systems.
And gaming the system is not any more morally wrong for poor people than,
for instance, for corporations like Enron to game the system.
Empty rhetoric. You talk of corporations as if they are somehow inherently
evil.
Moreover, what Enron did isn't all that different from what a fellow named
Bobby Baker did down in Texas 40-some years ago.
emeprical evidence and reason, and democracy.
[Blah, blah ...] ... and are also so guilt-ridden that they are blind
when irresponsible individuals externalise their own shortcomings and
blame them on others.
Well, ya got me there; a lot of the more extreme liberals are that way.
Don't you know what "Liberal Guilt" is?
[...]
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Carter: Religious right isn't right |
16 Apr 2004 12:21:05 PM |
|
|
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Little boy, I was already a grown man when Carter was President. I remember
the talk of "malaise",
There was malaise. We had had several years of stagflation due to
Nixon's policies and Ford's lack of a mandate.
the gas lines
Those were worse under Nixon.
and the speeches about how we should
adjust to a coming time of scarcity and turn our thermostats down to 50 and
wear sweaters.
Certainly a constructive way of dealing with shortages. FDR did
similar things in WW II.
And I remember the 444 days that our hostages were held in Iran.
How many days has bin Ladin been laughing at Bush since 9/11, holding
300 million people hostage, and costing us $tens of billions per year
in anti-terrorist measures that may or may not work in the long term?
Whereas I remember the Camp David accords, and the fact that Israel
actually made peace with one of its Arab neighbors with Carter's help.
And despite all the problems since, that peace has persisted. Sounds
like a success to me.
Demonstrating the alleged superiority of the liberal myth? Sorry, I'm not
convinced.
What do you think the so-called "liberal myth" is?
The idea that all of mankind's problems would be solved if only everyone was
nice and kind to one another.
Well, if indeed everyone was, then a lot of problems would be solved,
so it isn't a myth. But how many liberals think that "everyone will
be nice and kind to one another" is a plausible scenario?
It sounds like a myth about liberals.
No. What I mean is that he has destabilised the world and made it a much
more dangerous place for us all -- and to this day he refuses to recognise
his culpability in this, but rather fancies himself a great man.
How has he destabilised the world,
What are you, a complete moron? Have you ever heard of a place called
"Iran"? How did it get to be the way that it is now?
Do you think that anything we did, or could have done, would have
changed how Iran is now? If so, what?
and what makes you think you have any idea what kind of man he fancies
himself?
He goes about the world presenting himself as some sort of "elder statesman",
as if he has some expertise in the area of foreign relations. In fact, it is
in this area in which he is most incompetent.
The international leaders that he deals with seem to consider his
assistance valuable. So does whoever pays the bills for those
international jaunts.
Then why is it that liberals have supported welfare so consistently?
There are legitimate purposes to having social safety nets.
But the government isn't the proper institution to be administering them.
This is properly the province of the churches.
Not for the areligious.
And gaming the system is not any more morally wrong for poor people than,
for instance, for corporations like Enron to game the system.
Empty rhetoric. You talk of corporations as if they are somehow inherently
evil.
They are at least as inherently evil as welfare bums.
Moreover, what Enron did isn't all that different from what a fellow named
Bobby Baker did down in Texas 40-some years ago.
So? Corporations commit crime regardless of which party is in power.
Well, ya got me there; a lot of the more extreme liberals are that way.
Don't you know what "Liberal Guilt" is?
It is what right wingers want liberals to feel.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Carter: Religious right isn't right |
16 Apr 2004 11:11:47 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 06:51:19 -0700, "Theodore A. Kaldis"
<kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Not this ex-President. Because he isn't just an ex-President, but a FAILED
ex-President, whose failures are MONUMENTAL.
That was before GW Scumbag got appointed in the office.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Root" |
|
| Title: Re: Carter: Religious right isn't right |
17 Apr 2004 09:21:39 AM |
|
|
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Eric Root wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
So what? What is his intention? Charity? If so, that is commendable --
but it won't buy him entrance into heaven.
For all you know, his entrance to heaven is already assured.
And I hope that it is.
And whether or not it will "buy him entrance into heaven,"
It will NOT! The Bible is clear on this point.
to do good makes him a better person than someone who does not do good,
that is why it is called that.
In fact, it does not. Not by any measure. Or else, we create a class of
people who are held to be superior to others.
Let me see if I have this straight. You don't think some people are better than
others, according to how they behave? Decent people aren't any better than
evildoers?
Nor is he "better" even in
God's eyes, for every man stands equal before God, and also all our good
works are but filthiness before Him.
You think God doesn't care what you do, but even if that were the case, it still
doesn't excuse wrongdoing.
Self-aggrandisement? He should quit wasting his time.
An ex-president is so little in need of self-aggrandisement,
Not this ex-President. Because he isn't just an ex-President, but a FAILED
ex-President, whose failures are MONUMENTAL.
Even _if_ your analysis is correct, and Carter should have done differently than
he did, and it doesn't just fall under the rubric of "honest mistakes", that who
could have known to have done differently, it is only honorable to try to make
up for what you have done wrong, by doing better in the future.
that for you to even guess that as a motivation for Carter's do-gooding
sheds a very poor light on your judgment
Little boy, I was already a grown man when Carter was President. I remember
the talk of "malaise", the gas lines and the speeches about how we should
adjust to a coming time of scarcity and turn our thermostats down to 50 and
wear sweaters. And I remember the 444 days that our hostages were held in
Iran.
And your excuse for drawing all the wrong conclusions is what, exactly?
Junior, I was a _Republican_ when Carter was president. Of course, that was
before Lincoln was kicked out of the party <8^)
Demonstrating the alleged superiority of the liberal myth? Sorry, I'm not
convinced.
What do you think the so-called "liberal myth" is?
The idea that all of mankind's problems would be solved if only everyone was
nice and kind to one another.
Sounds real evil to me. So you think the idea that all of mankind's problems
would be solved if only everyone was meaner and more self-serving is better?
No. What I mean is that he has destabilised the world and made it a much
more dangerous place for us all -- and to this day he refuses to recognise
his culpability in this, but rather fancies himself a great man.
How has he destabilised the world,
What are you, a complete moron? Have you ever heard of a place called
"Iran"? How did it get to be the way that it is now?
You couldn't answer my question, so you start foaming at the mouth and calling
names. Wow, I want to go to _your_ church.
and what makes you think you have any idea what kind of man he fancies
himself?
He goes about the world presenting himself as some sort of "elder statesman",
as if he has some expertise in the area of foreign relations. In fact, it is
in this area in which he is most incompetent.
Or does he go around doing good, and people say that about him?
So is personal irresponsibility for individuals, and despotic leadership
for communities and nations. Does Habitat for Humanity address these
problems as well?
Of course not, nor is it under any obligation to do so.
Yeah, uh-huh. And if I didn't have any money, I would be broke.
I hope that Habitat for Humanity qualifies those individuals for whom they
build houses. Because if they are without a house now because of personal
irresponsibility, then it won't be long until they will again be without a
house because of personal irresponsibility -- unless that issue is also dealt
with.
I agree with you here. The question is (it's evidently one of those "burning
questions since time immemorial"), how _do_ you deal with the personal
irresponsibility?
Then why is it that liberals have supported welfare so consistently?
There are legitimate purposes to having social safety nets.
But the government isn't the proper institution to be administering them.
This is properly the province of the churches.
OK, what principle are you basing this opinion on?
It is not a flaw per se in liberalism if some folks learn to game the
system.
But in fact it is, if the government is administering welfare systems.
Empty assertion
And gaming the system is not any more morally wrong for poor people than,
for instance, for corporations like Enron to game the system.
Empty rhetoric. You talk of corporations as if they are somehow inherently
evil.
Nope, you are reading something in I didn't say. But they (or I should say, the
rich and powerful) are not inherently good either, and they deserve no special
privileges, and are not morally entitled to a system that magnifies the
advantages they already have due to wealth. They are not entitled to run
rampant in the direction of anything that lines their pockets no matter how much
it hurts others. A balance has to be achieved.
Moreover, what Enron did isn't all that different from what a fellow named
Bobby Baker did down in Texas 40-some years ago.
So what?
emeprical evidence and reason, and democracy.
[Blah, blah ...] ... and are also so guilt-ridden that they are blind
when irresponsible individuals externalise their own shortcomings and
blame them on others.
Well, ya got me there; a lot of the more extreme liberals are that way.
Don't you know what "Liberal Guilt" is?
Sure I do, but it's morally cleaner than conservative relativistic morality,
where if it makes you rich and hurts people you hate or fear, then it's good, or
where you pretend that God _wants_ you to be a self-serving bigot and the heck
with everyone else.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Carter: Religious right isn't right |
22 Apr 2004 06:27:40 AM |
|
|
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Eric Root wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Self-aggrandisement? He should quit wasting his time.
An ex-president is so little in need of self-aggrandisement,
Not this ex-President. Because he isn't just an ex-President, but a FAILED
ex-President, whose failures are MONUMENTAL.
You mean, like the Camp David accords?
Carter played the hand he was dealt, and not all that badly when he
is compared to Bush the Lesser. The loss of three million jobs, a
deficit which makes Carter's seem like pocket change, and an
extracurricular war that we had no need to involve ourselves in? If
Carter should be blamed for his "hostage crisis," Bush deserves blame
for his failure to prevent 9/11.
that for you to even guess that as a motivation for Carter's do-gooding
sheds a very poor light on your judgment
Little boy, I was already a grown man when Carter was President.
And your only "growth" since then has been around the middle.
I remember
the talk of "malaise", the gas lines and the speeches about how we should
adjust to a coming time of scarcity and turn our thermostats down to 50 and
wear sweaters. And I remember the 444 days that our hostages were held in
Iran.
As if Ted Koppel couldn't stop telling us.... Network news became a
profit center, and the FAUX News virus was germinated. If we had simply
let that incident slide off the front page, it would have taken care of
itself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Carter: Religious right isn't right |
22 Apr 2004 06:42:19 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 11:27:40 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Eric Root wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Self-aggrandisement? He should quit wasting his time.
An ex-president is so little in need of self-aggrandisement,
Not this ex-President. Because he isn't just an ex-President, but a FAILED
ex-President, whose failures are MONUMENTAL.
You mean, like the Camp David accords?
Carter played the hand he was dealt, and not all that badly when he
is compared to Bush the Lesser. The loss of three million jobs, a
deficit which makes Carter's seem like pocket change, and an
extracurricular war that we had no need to involve ourselves in? If
Carter should be blamed for his "hostage crisis," Bush deserves blame
for his failure to prevent 9/11.
Don't forget the Reagan/Bush campaign's treasonous collaboration with
the Iranian authorities to hold the hostages until Reagan's
inauguration as part of the arms for hostages disgrace.
..
.
|
|
|
| User: "jitney" |
|
| Title: Re: Carter: Religious right isn't right |
22 Apr 2004 03:13:51 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<spbf8057nqv0hdn5e2mpgnv124t71e7f5v@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 11:27:40 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Eric Root wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Self-aggrandisement? He should quit wasting his time.
An ex-president is so little in need of self-aggrandisement,
Not this ex-President. Because he isn't just an ex-President, but a FAILED
ex-President, whose failures are MONUMENTAL.
Don't forget the Reagan/Bush campaign's treasonous collaboration with
the Iranian authorities to hold the hostages until Reagan's
inauguration as part of the arms for hostages disgrace.
.
That last post is there to show you that not all tinfoil-hat
conspiracy nuts are right-wingers.-Jitney
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Theodore A. Kaldis" |
|
| Title: Re: Carter: Religious right isn't right |
22 Apr 2004 10:57:56 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
Don't forget the Reagan/Bush campaign's treasonous collaboration with the
Iranian authorities to hold the hostages until Reagan's inauguration as
part of the arms for hostages disgrace.
Ah, yes, the Gary Sick lie. This idiocy has been thoroughly discredited.
And you call ME a kook.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
