Jimmy Carter's Endangered Values



 Sociology > Education > Jimmy Carter's Endangered Values

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 2

1

 

2

 
Topic: Sociology > Education
User: ""
Date: 08 Nov 2005 03:24:37 AM
Object: Jimmy Carter's Endangered Values
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/mohler/?adate=11/07/2005
[excerpt]

Albert Mohler
Author, Speaker, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Monday, November 7, 2005
Jimmy Carter's Endangered Values
Former president Jimmy Carter has written yet another book -- his twentieth
-- and he has hit the media circuit in order to promote his latest project.
Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis represents the former
president's return to familiar themes, even as it will add new layers of
confusion concerning his actual beliefs and values.
Jimmy Carter makes one central argument in this new book, and that is that
America (indeed civilization itself) is under attack by a sinister force.
In effect, he argues that a new specter now haunts civilization -- the
specter of Christian fundamentalism.
After tracing a series of crises faced by the United States and the larger
world, Mr. Carter places the blame squarely upon conservative Christians:
"The most important factor is that fundamentalists have become increasingly
influential in both religion and government, and have managed to change the
nuances and subtleties of historic debate into black-and-white rigidities
and the personal derogation of those who dare to disagree. At the same
time, these religious and political conservatives have melded their
efforts, bridging the formerly respected separation of church and state."
That's quite an argument, but those familiar with Jimmy Carter's mode of
public engagement will understand that this is merely the expansion (and
repetition) of what the former president has been saying ever since the
American people denied him a second term in the Oval Office.
[end excerpt]
*****************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.

User: ""

Title: Re: Jimmy Carter's Endangered Values 08 Nov 2005 08:00:56 AM
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 04:24:37 -0500,
wrote:

Jimmy Carter makes one central argument in this new book, and that is that
America (indeed civilization itself) is under attack by a sinister force.
In effect, he argues that a new specter now haunts civilization -- the
specter of Christian fundamentalism.

And he's right
However, the good news is that it had been "under attack" about 80
years ago by the same forces, albeit not as well funded or
electronically savvy
When those "forces" coupled with government in the teens and twenties,
we got prohibition, William Jennings Bryan, and Scopes.
Happy face though---never fails that when religion dominates politics
it literally beats the ***** out of itself and eventually crawls back
under a rock (where it belongs)
.
User: "Part_Time_Troll"

Title: Re: Jimmy Carter's Endangered Values 09 Nov 2005 01:54:20 AM
in
news:0nb1n198cmsr33hmn0f1fhil6o46i0em0h@4ax.com:

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 04:24:37 -0500,

wrote:

Jimmy Carter makes one central argument in this new book, and that is
that America (indeed civilization itself) is under attack by a
sinister force. In effect, he argues that a new specter now haunts
civilization -- the specter of Christian fundamentalism.

my impression is that carter was one of the first pres candidates to increase pandering to the waks.
perhaps he had no choice? so, tried to co-opt the waks?

And he's right

However, the good news is that it had been "under attack" about 80
years ago by the same forces, albeit not as well funded or
electronically savvy

When those "forces" coupled with government in the teens and twenties,
we got prohibition, William Jennings Bryan, and Scopes.

Happy face though---never fails that when religion dominates politics
it literally beats the ***** out of itself

'Right about now, fuk your soul brothers'
and eventually crawls back

under a rock (where it belongs)

next door to the 'primordial ooze'?
--
...and on the First Day, the roomful of monkeys typed up a "Testament", but The Editor-in-chief sent it back. And the results
became even more afflictive over the course of the Following Days. So The Editor Declared the Testament to be fit for sale. And
so it passed upon all men. And It didn't smell so swell.
http://www.google.com/search?q=on-the-First-Day+god+~screw+|+~jet+|+~wabbit+|+~dung+|+~balls+|+~pasta+|+~weebles
.


User: "The Fool"

Title: Re: Jimmy Carter's Endangered Values 08 Nov 2005 09:14:18 AM
So, let me get this straight. A President is using his official
position to push a point of view concerning faith, and, suddenly, that
is ok with you. Are you the pot or the kettle now?
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/mohler/?adate=3D11/07/2005
[excerpt]

Albert Mohler
Author, Speaker, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Monday, November 7, 2005

Jimmy Carter's Endangered Values

Former president Jimmy Carter has written yet another book -- his twentie=

th

-- and he has hit the media circuit in order to promote his latest projec=

t=2E

Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis represents the former
president's return to familiar themes, even as it will add new layers of
confusion concerning his actual beliefs and values.

Jimmy Carter makes one central argument in this new book, and that is that
America (indeed civilization itself) is under attack by a sinister force.
In effect, he argues that a new specter now haunts civilization -- the
specter of Christian fundamentalism.

After tracing a series of crises faced by the United States and the larger
world, Mr. Carter places the blame squarely upon conservative Christians:
"The most important factor is that fundamentalists have become increasing=

ly

influential in both religion and government, and have managed to change t=

he

nuances and subtleties of historic debate into black-and-white rigidities
and the personal derogation of those who dare to disagree. At the same
time, these religious and political conservatives have melded their
efforts, bridging the formerly respected separation of church and state."
That's quite an argument, but those familiar with Jimmy Carter's mode of
public engagement will understand that this is merely the expansion (and
repetition) of what the former president has been saying ever since the
American people denied him a second term in the Oval Office.
[end excerpt]

*****************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education

You are invited to check out the following:

The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm

American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]

HRSepCnS =B7 Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]

***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why =

"a

page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisne=

r,

256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************

Ken Clifton
http://www.lulu.com/writingken
.
User: ""

Title: Re: Jimmy Carter's Endangered Values 08 Nov 2005 12:20:08 PM
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

:|So, let me get this straight. A President is using his official
:|position to push a point of view concerning faith, and, suddenly, that
:|is ok with you. Are you the pot or the kettle now?

Which part of " Former president Jimmy Carter" didn't you comprehend dumb
dumb?
Contiune replying to my posts and making a comlete ***** of yourself. I love
it .

:|
:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
:|> http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/mohler/?adate=11/07/2005
:|> [excerpt]
:|>
:|> Albert Mohler
:|> Author, Speaker, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
:|>
:|> Monday, November 7, 2005
:|>
:|> Jimmy Carter's Endangered Values
:|>
:|> Former president Jimmy Carter has written yet another book -- his twentieth
:|> -- and he has hit the media circuit in order to promote his latest project.
:|> Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis represents the former
:|> president's return to familiar themes, even as it will add new layers of
:|> confusion concerning his actual beliefs and values.

*****************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
User: "The Fool"

Title: Re: Jimmy Carter's Endangered Values 08 Nov 2005 01:16:47 PM
So, if he is not President, who cares what Jimmy Carter has to say.
After all, he failed an election, and, as you point out, is a common
citizen that apparently cannot create the least bit of peace in any of
the places he goes. You are right. He's a washed up nobody. Why do
you quote the words of nobodies? I can quote nobodies. Do you want me
to?
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:

"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

:|So, let me get this straight. A President is using his official
:|position to push a point of view concerning faith, and, suddenly, that
:|is ok with you. Are you the pot or the kettle now?


Which part of " Former president Jimmy Carter" didn't you comprehend dumb
dumb?

Contiune replying to my posts and making a comlete ***** of yourself. I love
it .

:|
:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
:|> http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/mohler/?adate=3D11/07/2005
:|> [excerpt]
:|>
:|> Albert Mohler
:|> Author, Speaker, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Semin=

ary

:|>
:|> Monday, November 7, 2005
:|>
:|> Jimmy Carter's Endangered Values
:|>
:|> Former president Jimmy Carter has written yet another book -- his tw=

entieth

:|> -- and he has hit the media circuit in order to promote his latest p=

roject.

:|> Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis represents the former
:|> president's return to familiar themes, even as it will add new layer=

s of

:|> confusion concerning his actual beliefs and values.


*****************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education

You are invited to check out the following:

The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm

American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]

HRSepCnS =B7 Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]

***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why =

"a

page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisne=

r,

256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************

Ken Clifton
http://www.lulu.com/writingken
.
User: "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."

Title: Re: Jimmy Carter's Endangered Values 08 Nov 2005 01:37:09 PM
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131477407.930632.233610@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
So, if he is not President, who cares what Jimmy Carter has to say.
After all, he failed an election, and, as you point out, is a common
citizen that apparently cannot create the least bit of peace in any of
the places he goes. You are right. He's a washed up nobody. Why do
you quote the words of nobodies? I can quote nobodies. Do you want me
to?
Wow. What an *****.
Jimmy Carter became a better man AFTER he was president because all of the
ambition was used up--he had time to work on being a Christian rather than a
politician.
Hence, what Jimmy says now is more pertinent than what he said when he was
president. I listened to him on Charley Rose the other night, and he has
finally awaken from the fundamentalist nightmare.
Good for him.
P.S. "The Fool" is a good name for you.
Ike
--
Don't put a period where God put a question mark.
******************************
"The Character Map: An Introduction to the Introductions in Revelation" is
now available in hardcover, softcover, and ebook editions.
For a synopsis, author bio, an explanation of the real "code" in Revelation,
an excerpt, and links to major sales sites, visit
www.eickleberrybooks.com
******************************
Remove X from address to reply
.
User: "Cary Kittrell"

Title: Re: Jimmy Carter's Endangered Values 08 Nov 2005 01:46:21 PM
In article <44SdnVZFsJr-Y-3enZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@comcast.com> "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <Xeickleberrybooks@comcast.net> writes:


"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131477407.930632.233610@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
So, if he is not President, who cares what Jimmy Carter has to say.
After all, he failed an election, and, as you point out, is a common
citizen that apparently cannot create the least bit of peace in any of
the places he goes. You are right. He's a washed up nobody. Why do
you quote the words of nobodies? I can quote nobodies. Do you want me
to?

Wow. What an *****.

Jimmy Carter became a better man AFTER he was president because all of the
ambition was used up--he had time to work on being a Christian rather than a
politician.

Hence, what Jimmy says now is more pertinent than what he said when he was
president. I listened to him on Charley Rose the other night, and he has
finally awaken from the fundamentalist nightmare.

Good for him.

P.S. "The Fool" is a good name for you.

Oh, I don't think Ken is as much ragging on Carter as he is
trying to shore up his contention that Carter is somehow
still a Presidantal Figure, and thus liberals who do not object
to Carter's frequent references to religion -- merely because
Carter does things which liberals approve of, such as trying
to feed the poor, heal the sick, and make peace -- are
acting hypocritically.
-- cary
.
User: ""

Title: Re: Jimmy Carter's Endangered Values 08 Nov 2005 03:29:35 PM
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:

:|
:|Oh, I don't think Ken is as much ragging on Carter as he is
:|trying to shore up his contention that Carter is somehow
:|still a Presidantal Figure, and thus liberals who do not object
:|to Carter's frequent references to religion -- merely because
:|Carter does things which liberals approve of, such as trying
:|to feed the poor, heal the sick, and make peace -- are
:|acting hypocritically.
:|
:|-- cary

Or he is trying to distract from his showing of ignorance in his first
reply
To save some face
*****************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.

User: "The Fool"

Title: Re: Jimmy Carter's Endangered Values 08 Nov 2005 01:54:49 PM
Cary Kittrell wrote:

In article <44SdnVZFsJr-Y-3enZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@comcast.com> "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <Xeickleberrybooks@comcast.net> writes:


"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131477407.930632.233610@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
So, if he is not President, who cares what Jimmy Carter has to say.
After all, he failed an election, and, as you point out, is a common
citizen that apparently cannot create the least bit of peace in any of
the places he goes. You are right. He's a washed up nobody. Why do
you quote the words of nobodies? I can quote nobodies. Do you want me
to?

Wow. What an *****.

Jimmy Carter became a better man AFTER he was president because all of the
ambition was used up--he had time to work on being a Christian rather than a
politician.

Hence, what Jimmy says now is more pertinent than what he said when he was
president. I listened to him on Charley Rose the other night, and he has
finally awaken from the fundamentalist nightmare.

Good for him.

P.S. "The Fool" is a good name for you.



Oh, I don't think Ken is as much ragging on Carter as he is
trying to shore up his contention that Carter is somehow
still a Presidantal Figure, and thus liberals who do not object
to Carter's frequent references to religion -- merely because
Carter does things which liberals approve of, such as trying
to feed the poor, heal the sick, and make peace -- are
acting hypocritically.

-- cary

Of course, no conservative does those things...right? Should I mention
that Carter's foundation is at a conservative bible school or not.
Ken Clifton
http://www.lulu.com/writingken
.
User: "Cary Kittrell"

Title: Re: Jimmy Carter's Endangered Values 08 Nov 2005 02:18:39 PM
In article <1131479689.236960.31270@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> "The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:


Cary Kittrell wrote:

In article <44SdnVZFsJr-Y-3enZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@comcast.com> "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <Xeickleberrybooks@comcast.net> writes:


"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131477407.930632.233610@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
So, if he is not President, who cares what Jimmy Carter has to say.
After all, he failed an election, and, as you point out, is a common
citizen that apparently cannot create the least bit of peace in any of
the places he goes. You are right. He's a washed up nobody. Why do
you quote the words of nobodies? I can quote nobodies. Do you want me
to?

Wow. What an *****.

Jimmy Carter became a better man AFTER he was president because all of the
ambition was used up--he had time to work on being a Christian rather than a
politician.

Hence, what Jimmy says now is more pertinent than what he said when he was
president. I listened to him on Charley Rose the other night, and he has
finally awaken from the fundamentalist nightmare.

Good for him.

P.S. "The Fool" is a good name for you.



Oh, I don't think Ken is as much ragging on Carter as he is
trying to shore up his contention that Carter is somehow
still a Presidantal Figure, and thus liberals who do not object
to Carter's frequent references to religion -- merely because
Carter does things which liberals approve of, such as trying
to feed the poor, heal the sick, and make peace -- are
acting hypocritically.

-- cary


Of course, no conservative does those things...right? Should I mention
that Carter's foundation is at a conservative bible school or not.

Actually what I said is that these activities are why liberals tend to like
Carter -- he tries to put their touchy-feely do-gooder impulses into
practical action. Do you think that this is not the case?
-- cary
.




User: ""

Title: Re: Jimmy Carter's Endangered Values 08 Nov 2005 03:26:40 PM
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

:|So, if he is not President, who cares what Jimmy Carter has to say.

Who cares what you have to say?
He wrote a book.
That was what the post pertained to. Nothing more, nothing less. Someone
was writing a review of his book.
You felt compelled to reply showing how stupid you are
I am beginning to think if it has my nick attached to it, it compels you to
reply without even reading it
I love it.
I love seeing you demonstrate over and over again how well you can stick
you foot into your mouth, your own ignorance.
You just aren't the brightest bulb in the room are you?
Do it again
*****************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.

User: "Bob LeChevalier"

Title: Re: Jimmy Carter's Endangered Values 08 Nov 2005 03:27:52 PM
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

So, if he is not President, who cares what Jimmy Carter has to say.

Probably a lot more people than care what YOU have to say. You were
never elected to anything.
Jimmy Carter is a Nobel peace Prize winner, BTW, and gains
considerable respect and an audience by virtue of that recognition

After all, he failed an election, and, as you point out, is a common
citizen that apparently cannot create the least bit of peace in any of
the places he goes.

The Nobel Committee obviously disagrees with you.

You are right. He's a washed up nobody. Why do
you quote the words of nobodies? I can quote nobodies. Do you want me
to?

Every time you post, you quote a nobody.
lojbab
.
User: "Mickey"

Title: Re: Jimmy Carter's Endangered Values 08 Nov 2005 04:53:53 PM
Bob LeChevalier wrote:

"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

So, if he is not President, who cares what Jimmy Carter has to say.



Probably a lot more people than care what YOU have to say. You were
never elected to anything.

Nor was Albert Einstein nor Mother Teresa etc.. Et tu...


Jimmy Carter is a Nobel peace Prize winner, BTW, and gains
considerable respect and an audience by virtue of that recognition

Maybe he can share some of his audience with Harold Pinter, one of this
year's winners, whose plays have not been all that popular this last
decade or so... His poetry's even less interesting.



After all, he failed an election, and, as you point out, is a common
citizen that apparently cannot create the least bit of peace in any of
the places he goes.



The Nobel Committee obviously disagrees with you.

They have never been elected to anything here, either, now that you
mention it..



You are right. He's a washed up nobody. Why do
you quote the words of nobodies? I can quote nobodies. Do you want me
to?



Every time you post, you quote a nobody.

lojbab

.
User: "Bob LeChevalier"

Title: Re: Jimmy Carter's Endangered Values 08 Nov 2005 09:07:34 PM
Mickey <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> wrote:

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

So, if he is not President, who cares what Jimmy Carter has to say.


Probably a lot more people than care what YOU have to say. You were
never elected to anything.


Nor was Albert Einstein nor Mother Teresa etc..

They also were granted the Peace Prize

Jimmy Carter is a Nobel peace Prize winner, BTW, and gains
considerable respect and an audience by virtue of that recognition


Maybe he can share some of his audience with Harold Pinter, one of this
year's winners,

Harold Pinter did not win the Nobel Peace Prize.

whose plays have not been all that popular this last
decade or so... His poetry's even less interesting.

Obviously some people find them interesting, or he would not have
gotten the prize.

After all, he failed an election, and, as you point out, is a common
citizen that apparently cannot create the least bit of peace in any of
the places he goes.


The Nobel Committee obviously disagrees with you.


They have never been elected to anything here, either, now that you
mention it.

Not "here" (which isn't a relevant claim anyway), but in fact the
Nobel Committee is elected by the Norwegian Parliament, and 4 of the 5
members are currently members of that Parliament (the other has also
held political office).
lojbab
.
User: "Mickey"

Title: Re: Jimmy Carter's Endangered Values 09 Nov 2005 12:08:23 AM
Bob LeChevalier wrote:

Mickey <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> wrote:

Bob LeChevalier wrote:


"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:


So, if he is not President, who cares what Jimmy Carter has to say.


Probably a lot more people than care what YOU have to say. You were
never elected to anything.


Nor was Albert Einstein nor Mother Teresa etc..



They also were granted the Peace Prize

Which, if they were alive, would give them just as much right to shoot
off their mouths in this forum as "The Fool"



Jimmy Carter is a Nobel peace Prize winner, BTW, and gains
considerable respect and an audience by virtue of that recognition


Maybe he can share some of his audience with Harold Pinter, one of this
year's winners,



Harold Pinter did not win the Nobel Peace Prize.

Which to some of us actually gives his prize more legitimacy.



whose plays have not been all that popular this last
decade or so... His poetry's even less interesting.



Obviously some people find them interesting, or he would not have
gotten the prize.

Or it may be that his politics are somewhere east of Chairman Mao's,
which is really ironic when realize how much money his wife has.



After all, he failed an election, and, as you point out, is a common
citizen that apparently cannot create the least bit of peace in any of
the places he goes.


The Nobel Committee obviously disagrees with you.


They have never been elected to anything here, either, now that you
mention it.



Not "here" (which isn't a relevant claim anyway), but in fact the
Nobel Committee is elected by the Norwegian Parliament, and 4 of the 5
members are currently members of that Parliament (the other has also
held political office).

Actually "here" is exactly the relevant claim. The Nobel committee holds
no inherent standing or office here in this forum. No balloting has been
held of our contributors to grant their opinions special importance. On
a personal note, of the two Nobel laureates I've known, only one of them
knew anything that might lend him any special credence in this forum,
and then, of course, only with some of us Here.


lojbab

.
User: "Bob LeChevalier"

Title: Re: Jimmy Carter's Endangered Values 09 Nov 2005 05:00:52 AM
Mickey <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> wrote:

So, if he is not President, who cares what Jimmy Carter has to say.


Probably a lot more people than care what YOU have to say. You were
never elected to anything.


Nor was Albert Einstein nor Mother Teresa etc..


They also were granted the Peace Prize


Which, if they were alive, would give them just as much right to shoot
off their mouths in this forum as "The Fool"

Of course. But the issue is not whether they have the right to shoot
their mouths off, but whether and why people care what they have to
say.
Even those who disagree with them tend to care what they have to say,
because so many others who do agree with them care, and they like to
know what is motivating the opposition.

Jimmy Carter is a Nobel peace Prize winner, BTW, and gains
considerable respect and an audience by virtue of that recognition


Maybe he can share some of his audience with Harold Pinter, one of this
year's winners,


Harold Pinter did not win the Nobel Peace Prize.


Which to some of us actually gives his prize more legitimacy.

If you don't like the Nobel Prizes and their winners, you have every
right to set up your own multimillion dollar fund to award comparable
prizes and promotion to those that you do like. Then maybe in a
hundred years or more your awardees will be seen as having the
prestige of a Nobel winner.

After all, he failed an election, and, as you point out, is a common
citizen that apparently cannot create the least bit of peace in any of
the places he goes.


The Nobel Committee obviously disagrees with you.


They have never been elected to anything here, either, now that you
mention it.


Not "here" (which isn't a relevant claim anyway), but in fact the
Nobel Committee is elected by the Norwegian Parliament, and 4 of the 5
members are currently members of that Parliament (the other has also
held political office).


Actually "here" is exactly the relevant claim.

Where is "here"? If you mean the Internet, this thread is in 5
different, unrelated and somewhat antagonistic groups. If you mean
the United States, why should people outside the US care who was
elected there (the "respect" that Bush gets for being elected was
demonstrated this week in Latin America - nonexistent)

The Nobel committee holds no inherent standing or office here in this forum.

Nor does the United States government. Yet the fool said:
<"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
<>So, if he is not President, who cares what Jimmy Carter has to say.
To which I replied, thereby leading into this side-thread:
<Probably a lot more people than care what YOU have to say. You were
<never elected to anything.
<
<Jimmy Carter is a Nobel peace Prize winner, BTW, and gains
<considerable respect and an audience by virtue of that recognition
The Fool thinks that being elected President is what entitles people
to pontificate and have people care about what they say.
lojbab
.
User: "Mickey"

Title: Re: Jimmy Carter's Endangered Values 09 Nov 2005 10:44:46 AM
Bob LeChevalier wrote:

Mickey <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> wrote:

So, if he is not President, who cares what Jimmy Carter has to say.


Probably a lot more people than care what YOU have to say. You were
never elected to anything.


Nor was Albert Einstein nor Mother Teresa etc..


They also were granted the Peace Prize


Which, if they were alive, would give them just as much right to shoot
off their mouths in this forum as "The Fool"



Of course. But the issue is not whether they have the right to shoot
their mouths off, but whether and why people care what they have to
say.

Even those who disagree with them tend to care what they have to say,
because so many others who do agree with them care, and they like to
know what is motivating the opposition.

You know this on what authority, or is this a gut call?



Jimmy Carter is a Nobel peace Prize winner, BTW, and gains
considerable respect and an audience by virtue of that recognition


Maybe he can share some of his audience with Harold Pinter, one of this
year's winners,


Harold Pinter did not win the Nobel Peace Prize.


Which to some of us actually gives his prize more legitimacy.



If you don't like the Nobel Prizes and their winners, you have every
right to set up your own multimillion dollar fund to award comparable
prizes and promotion to those that you do like. Then maybe in a
hundred years or more your awardees will be seen as having the
prestige of a Nobel winner.

The prestige outside the science and medicine awards is frequent subject
of debate and or derision.



After all, he failed an election, and, as you point out, is a common
citizen that apparently cannot create the least bit of peace in any of
the places he goes.


The Nobel Committee obviously disagrees with you.


They have never been elected to anything here, either, now that you
mention it.


Not "here" (which isn't a relevant claim anyway), but in fact the
Nobel Committee is elected by the Norwegian Parliament, and 4 of the 5
members are currently members of that Parliament (the other has also
held political office).


Actually "here" is exactly the relevant claim.



Where is "here"? If you mean the Internet, this thread is in 5
different, unrelated and somewhat antagonistic groups.
If you mean
the United States, why should people outside the US care who was
elected there (the "respect" that Bush gets for being elected was
demonstrated this week in Latin America - nonexistent)

Okay, we get to the heart of it. Bush bashing. I'm not going to support
him. Frankly, I'm not all that keen on him at the moment. As to the
logic or sensibility of your argument, let me just say I didn't vote for
Putin, I may not respect what he has to say, but I'm sure as shinola
going to pay attention to what he has to say.



The Nobel committee holds no inherent standing or office here in this forum.



Nor does the United States government. Yet the fool said:
<"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
<>So, if he is not President, who cares what Jimmy Carter has to say.

To which I replied, thereby leading into this side-thread:
<Probably a lot more people than care what YOU have to say. You were
<never elected to anything.

Which I thought was right up there with "you said" "no, you said" at the
bicycle rack. Ergo, my polite chide.

<
<Jimmy Carter is a Nobel peace Prize winner, BTW, and gains
<considerable respect and an audience by virtue of that recognition

Right up there with Arafat. The Nobel Committee lost much of it
credibility years ago, when it became clear that the awards were
frequently given as a statement of the Committee's political views and
not as a statement about merit or good works. Personally, I would be
inclined to give Jimmy Carter the prize for his work post presidency,
I'm just not sure he would have had a chance if the committee hadn't
thought it was another good opportunity to stick a finger in America's eye.


The Fool thinks that being elected President is what entitles people
to pontificate and have people care about what they say.

Don't be dense. The Fool is only asserting the obvious. A sitting
president's statements tend to have more significance than a long out of
office president's for the simple reason that his office affords him
more power to act on them.
I would add in support of his assertion, that the only people Carter is
likely to impress with his political acumen already agree with him, (the
same might be said of Bush), so the value in argument of his (Carter's)
statements is nil, because they are predictable, (i.e., if he were ever
to say something surprising, it would be significant.)


lojbab

.
User: "Cary Kittrell"

Title: Re: Jimmy Carter's Endangered Values 09 Nov 2005 11:02:05 AM
Mickey <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net>
{...}


I would add in support of his assertion, that the only people Carter is
likely to impress with his political acumen already agree with him, (the
same might be said of Bush), so the value in argument of his (Carter's)
statements is nil, because they are predictable, (i.e., if he were ever
to say something surprising, it would be significant.)

Um, I'd suggest that even those most likely to agree with Carter aren't
necessarily impressed with his political acumen at all; we're impressed with
his determination to apply Christian principles of charity to the
real world -- even those of us who are not Christians.
In fact I'd go so far as to say that Carter's impulse to try
to apply Christian principles where everybody else in the
game expected Realpolitik is exactly what led so many to
question his political acumen.
-- cary
.


User: "Cary Kittrell"

Title: Re: Jimmy Carter's Endangered Values 09 Nov 2005 10:56:40 AM
In article <ptk3n197doulvv0j6ju2itu8hf090lbjmf@4ax.com> Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> writes:


Mickey <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> wrote:

So, if he is not President, who cares what Jimmy Carter has to say.


Probably a lot more people than care what YOU have to say. You were
never elected to anything.


Nor was Albert Einstein nor Mother Teresa etc..


They also were granted the Peace Prize


Which, if they were alive, would give them just as much right to shoot
off their mouths in this forum as "The Fool"


Of course. But the issue is not whether they have the right to shoot
their mouths off, but whether and why people care what they have to
say.

Even those who disagree with them tend to care what they have to say,
because so many others who do agree with them care, and they like to
know what is motivating the opposition.

Jimmy Carter is a Nobel peace Prize winner, BTW, and gains
considerable respect and an audience by virtue of that recognition


Maybe he can share some of his audience with Harold Pinter, one of this
year's winners,


Harold Pinter did not win the Nobel Peace Prize.


Which to some of us actually gives his prize more legitimacy.


If you don't like the Nobel Prizes and their winners, you have every
right to set up your own multimillion dollar fund to award comparable
prizes and promotion to those that you do like. Then maybe in a
hundred years or more your awardees will be seen as having the
prestige of a Nobel winner.

Well, except you left out the Create Something Which Will Kill Millions
In The Long Run phase.
-- cary
.


User: "Gray Shockley"

Title: Re: Jimmy Carter's Endangered Values 09 Nov 2005 04:38:06 PM
On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 00:08:23 -0600, Mickey wrote:

Actually "here" is exactly the relevant claim. The Nobel committee holds
no inherent standing or office here in this forum. No balloting has been
held of our contributors to grant their opinions special importance. On
a personal note, of the two Nobel laureates I've known, only one of them
knew anything that might lend him any special credence in this forum,
and then, of course, only with some of us Here.

I used ta take girlfriends to William Faulkner's front yard to make
out, does that count?
Gray Shockley
------------------
Some Enchanted Evening
There were a lot of trees in his front yard, btw.
.
User: "Cary Kittrell"

Title: Re: Jimmy Carter's Endangered Values 09 Nov 2005 04:56:35 PM
Gray Shockley <grayshockley@gmail.com>


On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 00:08:23 -0600, Mickey wrote:

Actually "here" is exactly the relevant claim. The Nobel committee holds
no inherent standing or office here in this forum. No balloting has been
held of our contributors to grant their opinions special importance. On
a personal note, of the two Nobel laureates I've known, only one of them
knew anything that might lend him any special credence in this forum,
and then, of course, only with some of us Here.


I used ta take girlfriends to William Faulkner's front yard to make
out, does that count?

Only if you can write us a six-page paragraph comprising one
single sentence about it.
(did this get the lit-girls all moist?)
-- cary
.
User: "Gray Shockley"

Title: Re: Jimmy Carter's Endangered Values 09 Nov 2005 09:25:59 PM
On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 16:56:35 -0600, Cary Kittrell wrote:


Gray Shockley <grayshockley@gmail.com>


On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 00:08:23 -0600, Mickey wrote:

Actually "here" is exactly the relevant claim. The Nobel committee holds
no inherent standing or office here in this forum. No balloting has been
held of our contributors to grant their opinions special importance. On
a personal note, of the two Nobel laureates I've known, only one of them
knew anything that might lend him any special credence in this forum,
and then, of course, only with some of us Here.



I used ta take girlfriends to William Faulkner's front yard to make
out, does that count?


Only if you can write us a six-page paragraph comprising one
single sentence about it.

Not tonight; I've got a headache.


(did this get the lit-girls all moist?)

You're /way/ underestimating my naiveté.


-- cary

++ gray
.







User: "Cary Kittrell"

Title: Re: Jimmy Carter's Endangered Values 08 Nov 2005 01:29:27 PM
In article <1131477407.930632.233610@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:

So, if he is not President, who cares what Jimmy Carter has to say.
After all, he failed an election, and, as you point out, is a common
citizen that apparently cannot create the least bit of peace in any of
the places he goes. You are right. He's a washed up nobody. Why do
you quote the words of nobodies? I can quote nobodies. Do you want me
to?

He's a nobody who in his life as a civilian has probably done more
to promote world peace, democratic elections, and the worldwide
relief of poverty than any sitting president, himself included,
ever did.
I'd say that this alone makes him worthy of some attention. That
he does it all in Christ's name would seem to make it worthy
of your attention.
He's a prominent figure who tries to accomplish the very kinds of thing that
Jesus demanded, decent housing for those who could not otherwise afford it being
the foremost example. Less well known, but probably of greater impact,
are his campaigns to alleviate the ravages of such diseases as shistosomiasis
and Guinea worm disease.
For the life of me, I have trouble understanding why so many fundamentalist
Christians, those who claim to take Jesus most at His word, have such
a distaste for him.
-- cary


buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:

"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

:|So, let me get this straight. A President is using his official
:|position to push a point of view concerning faith, and, suddenly, that
:|is ok with you. Are you the pot or the kettle now?


Which part of " Former president Jimmy Carter" didn't you comprehend dumb
dumb?

Contiune replying to my posts and making a comlete ***** of yourself. I love
it .

:|
:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
:|> http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/mohler/?adate=3D11/07/2005
:|> [excerpt]
:|>
:|> Albert Mohler
:|> Author, Speaker, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Semin=

ary

:|>
:|> Monday, November 7, 2005
:|>
:|> Jimmy Carter's Endangered Values
:|>
:|> Former president Jimmy Carter has written yet another book -- his tw=

entieth

:|> -- and he has hit the media circuit in order to promote his latest p=

roject.

:|> Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis represents the former
:|> president's return to familiar themes, even as it will add new layer=

s of

:|> confusion concerning his actual beliefs and values.


*****************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education

You are invited to check out the following:

The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm

American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]

HRSepCnS =B7 Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]

***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why =

"a

page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisne=

r,

256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************


Ken Clifton
http://www.lulu.com/writingken

.
User: "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."

Title: Re: Jimmy Carter's Endangered Values 08 Nov 2005 01:45:30 PM
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:dkquan$a9d$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...

In article <1131477407.930632.233610@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "The
Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:

So, if he is not President, who cares what Jimmy Carter has to say.
After all, he failed an election, and, as you point out, is a common
citizen that apparently cannot create the least bit of peace in any of
the places he goes. You are right. He's a washed up nobody. Why do
you quote the words of nobodies? I can quote nobodies. Do you want me
to?


He's a nobody who in his life as a civilian has probably done more
to promote world peace, democratic elections, and the worldwide
relief of poverty than any sitting president, himself included,
ever did.

I'd say that this alone makes him worthy of some attention. That
he does it all in Christ's name would seem to make it worthy
of your attention.

He's a prominent figure who tries to accomplish the very kinds of thing
that
Jesus demanded, decent housing for those who could not otherwise afford it
being
the foremost example. Less well known, but probably of greater impact,
are his campaigns to alleviate the ravages of such diseases as
shistosomiasis
and Guinea worm disease.

For the life of me, I have trouble understanding why so many
fundamentalist
Christians, those who claim to take Jesus most at His word, have such
a distaste for him.

-- cary

The problem is Jimmy finally figured out that not everything that the
fundamentalists had to say was true, and they're pissed about getting taken
down a notch.
Ike
.

User: "The Fool"

Title: Re: Jimmy Carter's Endangered Values 08 Nov 2005 01:52:41 PM
Cary Kittrell wrote:

In article <1131477407.930632.233610@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:

So, if he is not President, who cares what Jimmy Carter has to say.
After all, he failed an election, and, as you point out, is a common
citizen that apparently cannot create the least bit of peace in any of
the places he goes. You are right. He's a washed up nobody. Why do
you quote the words of nobodies? I can quote nobodies. Do you want me
to?


He's a nobody who in his life as a civilian has probably done more
to promote world peace, democratic elections, and the worldwide
relief of poverty than any sitting president, himself included,
ever did.

Name one place he's gone on a peace mission that is currently
experiencing peace...just one.

I'd say that this alone makes him worthy of some attention. That
he does it all in Christ's name would seem to make it worthy
of your attention.

I've never heard Carter say once that it was for Christ. Can you give
me a link to where he says it?

He's a prominent figure who tries to accomplish the very kinds of thing that
Jesus demanded, decent housing for those who could not otherwise afford it being
the foremost example. Less well known, but probably of greater impact,
are his campaigns to alleviate the ravages of such diseases as shistosomiasis
and Guinea worm disease.

Jesus demanded decent housing?

For the life of me, I have trouble understanding why so many fundamentalist
Christians, those who claim to take Jesus most at His word, have such
a distaste for him.

Saying you are a Christian doesn't make you one.

Ken Clifton
http://www.lulu.com/writingken
.
User: "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."

Title: Re: Jimmy Carter's Endangered Values 08 Nov 2005 03:43:01 PM
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131479561.418313.147800@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...


Cary Kittrell wrote:

In article <1131477407.930632.233610@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "The
Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:

So, if he is not President, who cares what Jimmy Carter has to say.
After all, he failed an election, and, as you point out, is a common
citizen that apparently cannot create the least bit of peace in any of
the places he goes. You are right. He's a washed up nobody. Why do
you quote the words of nobodies? I can quote nobodies. Do you want me
to?


He's a nobody who in his life as a civilian has probably done more
to promote world peace, democratic elections, and the worldwide
relief of poverty than any sitting president, himself included,
ever did.


Name one place he's gone on a peace mission that is currently
experiencing peace...just one.

Name one place where Jesus went on a "peace mission" that is experiencing
peace...just one.
Jesus never said the Gospel would bring peace to the world: He said the
Gospel would bring peace to the believer, DESPITE the world.

I'd say that this alone makes him worthy of some attention. That
he does it all in Christ's name would seem to make it worthy
of your attention.


I've never heard Carter say once that it was for Christ. Can you give
me a link to where he says it?

Another moronic statement: His entire interview with Charley Rose was about
his faith in Christ and new motivations since leaving the presidency.

He's a prominent figure who tries to accomplish the very kinds of thing
that
Jesus demanded, decent housing for those who could not otherwise afford
it being
the foremost example. Less well known, but probably of greater impact,
are his campaigns to alleviate the ravages of such diseases as
shistosomiasis
and Guinea worm disease.


Jesus demanded decent housing?

Oh, my God, tell me you didn't just say that.
(And Jimmy hasn't just been demanding better housing--he's been building it
himself.)

For the life of me, I have trouble understanding why so many
fundamentalist
Christians, those who claim to take Jesus most at His word, have such
a distaste for him.


Saying you are a Christian doesn't make you one.

Wow, you should know, Ken.
'ole Jimmy has just been using his influence to go out and do what Jesus
said, while you sit on you ***** and criticize.
The man makes me ashamed just thinking about it.
Then there is you and your hypocrisy.

Ken Clifton
http://www.lulu.com/writingken

Ike
--
Don't put a period where God put a question mark.
******************************
"The Character Map: An Introduction to the Introductions in Revelation" is
now available in hardcover, softcover, and ebook editions.
For a synopsis, author bio, an explanation of the real "code" in Revelation,
an excerpt, and links to major sales sites, visit
www.eickleberrybooks.com
******************************
Remove X from address to reply
.

User: "Bob LeChevalier"

Title: Re: Jimmy Carter's Endangered Values 08 Nov 2005 03:53:02 PM
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

He's a nobody who in his life as a civilian has probably done more
to promote world peace, democratic elections, and the worldwide
relief of poverty than any sitting president, himself included,
ever did.


Name one place he's gone on a peace mission that is currently
experiencing peace...just one.

Name one place where Jesus went where people no longer sin. Dope this
mean that Jesus is a failure at fighting sin?
But to answer your question:
Israel and Egypt are no longer at war.
Bosnia is no longer at war
Haiti is no longer in revolt.
Nicaragua has had peaceful elections.
A probably inevitable war with North Korea hasn't happened yet.
In the meantime, a lot of houses have been built for the poor.
But if you still want to criticize, what have YOU done that has
successfully promoted world peace, or housing for the poor.

I'd say that this alone makes him worthy of some attention. That
he does it all in Christ's name would seem to make it worthy
of your attention.


I've never heard Carter say once that it was for Christ. Can you give
me a link to where he says it?

We should live our lives as though Christ were coming this afternoon.
Jimmy Carter, Speech in March 1976
Excerpts from an interview, which you can read in full at:
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/JimmyCarterChristianRightIsntChristian.html
<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.

He's a prominent figure who tries to accomplish the very kinds of thing that
Jesus demanded, decent housing for those who could not otherwise afford it being
the foremost example. Less well known, but probably of greater impact,
are his campaigns to alleviate the ravages of such diseases as shistosomiasis
and Guinea worm disease.


Jesus demanded decent housing?

Mat 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go [and] sell
that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in
heaven: and come [and] follow me.
Luk 14:13 But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the
lame, the blind:

Saying you are a Christian doesn't make you one.

Think about yourself when you say that.
lojbab
.
User: "Cary Kittrell"

Title: Re: Jimmy Carter's Endangered Values 08 Nov 2005 04:07:16 PM
In article <o362n1dfall4hpmdruj9ss7nslri4uhfa7@4ax.com> Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> writes:

s.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 81
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 16:53:02 -0500
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.250.99.39
X-Complaints-To:


X-Trace: dukeread02 1131486776 24.250.99.39 (Tue, 08 Nov 2005 16:52:56 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 16:52:56 EST
Organization: Cox Communications
Xref: news.arizona.edu alt.politics.usa.constitution:35465 alt.education:37148 alt.religion.christian:205002 alt.society.conservatism:28786

"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

He's a nobody who in his life as a civilian has probably done more
to promote world peace, democratic elections, and the worldwide
relief of poverty than any sitting president, himself included,
ever did.


Name one place he's gone on a peace mission that is currently
experiencing peace...just one.


Name one place where Jesus went where people no longer sin. Dope this
mean that Jesus is a failure at fighting sin?

But to answer your question:
Israel and Egypt are no longer at war.
Bosnia is no longer at war
Haiti is no longer in revolt.
Nicaragua has had peaceful elections.
A probably inevitable war with North Korea hasn't happened yet.

In the meantime, a lot of houses have been built for the poor.

But if you still want to criticize, what have YOU done that has
successfully promoted world peace, or housing for the poor.

I'd say that this alone makes him worthy of some attention. That
he does it all in Christ's name would seem to make it worthy
of your attention.


I've never heard Carter say once that it was for Christ. Can you give
me a link to where he says it?


We should live our lives as though Christ were coming this afternoon.
Jimmy Carter, Speech in March 1976

Excerpts from an interview, which you can read in full at:
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/JimmyCarterChristianRightIsntChristian.html
<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.


He's a prominent figure who tries to accomplish the very kinds of thing that
Jesus demanded, decent housing for those who could not otherwise afford it being
the foremost example. Less well known, but probably of greater impact,
are his campaigns to alleviate the ravages of such diseases as shistosomiasis
and Guinea worm disease.


Jesus demanded decent housing?


Mat 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go [and] sell
that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in
heaven: and come [and] follow me.

Luk 14:13 But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the
lame, the blind:

Saying you are a Christian doesn't make you one.


Think about yourself when you say that.

lojbab

Well, you pretty much used up all the examples I was going to use, with
the possible exception of some South American countries (Venezuela,
Ecuador, and Guyana, which is currently getting ready to hold elections).
And of course Carter's mention of Jesus in his 2002 Nobel Peace Prize
award:
The unchanging principles of life predate modern times.
I worship Jesus Christ, whom we Christians consider to be
the Prince of Peace. As a Jew, he taught us to cross religious
boundaries, in service and in love.



-- cary
.


User: "Cary Kittrell"

Title: Re: Jimmy Carter's Endangered Values 08 Nov 2005 04:19:24 PM
In article <1131479561.418313.147800@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> "The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:


{...}


For the life of me, I have trouble understanding why so many fundamentalist
Christians, those who claim to take Jesus most at His word, have such
a distaste for him.


Saying you are a Christian doesn't make you one.

And of course Jesus says that, come judgment day, many who would
not even have regarded themselves as worthy will be invited
into paradise, precisely because they tended to the needs of the
poor (while many self-styled Christians will be rejected
because they did not)
Carter is using the moral authority he wields in the eyes
of many to accomplish precisely that. Why does this appear
to discomfit you so? Is tending to the poor objectionable
if your politics aren't right?
-- cary
.

User: "Gray Shockley"

Title: Re: Jimmy Carter's Endangered Values 13 Nov 2005 10:23:18 PM
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 13:52, The Loon wrote:

Saying you are a Christian doesn't make you one.

Ken Clifton

Ah! A new .sig!
Gray Shockley
------------------
Saying you are a Christian
doesn't make you one.
- Kenneth Clifton
.







  Page 1 of 2

1

 

2

 


Related Articles