Longest State of the Union

Monday, January 9, AD 2017

At just over a thousand words, George Washington delivered the shortest State of the Union address.  The longest was by Jimmy Carter on January 16, 1981 at 33, 667 words.  Mercifully he sent it as a written message rather than delivering it as a speech.  If he had attempted to give it as a speech, he would have been speaking for around six hours.  Here is the text:

To the Congress of the United States:
The State of the Union is sound. Our economy is recovering from a recession. A national energy plan is in place and our dependence on foreign oil is decreasing. We have been at peace for four uninterrupted years.
But, our Nation has serious problems. Inflation and unemployment are unacceptably high. The world oil market is increasingly tight. There are trouble spots throughout the world, and 53 American hostages are being held in Iran against international law and against every precept of human affairs.1
However, I firmly believe that, as a result of the progress made in so many domestic and international areas over the past four years, our Nation is stronger, wealthier, more compassionate and freer than it was four years ago. I am proud of that fact. And I believe the Congress should be proud as well, for so much of what has been accomplished over the past four years has been due to the hard work, insights and cooperation of Congress. I applaud the Congress for its efforts and its achievements.
In this State of the Union Message I want to recount the achievements and progress of the last four years and to offer recommendations to the Congress for this year. While my term as President will end before the 97th Congress begins its work in earnest, I hope that my recommendations will serve as a guide for the direction this country should take so we build on the record of the past four years.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Longest State of the Union

  • Oh good grief, when I first saw the header “longest state of the union” I was thinking California..or Florida?
    ha. Sorry, I have nothing pertinent to say. I never do.

  • Yeech, what a prolix obsessive-compulsive mess. I’d forgotten all about this. It was Milton Cummings (IIRC) who, ca 1981, interviewed a flag-rank officer about some of his superiors. He offered that James Schlesinger was ‘more of a forest man’ while Harold Brown was ‘more of a tree man’. Asked about the President, he said, ‘Carter? He was a leaf man’. The man couldn’t set priorities worth sour apples and would involve himself in trivia like setting the schedule for use of the White House tennis courts. So, he works 16 hour days and flounders while Ronald Reagan worked 9 hour shifts and accomplishes things, because Reagan was a natural administrator who knew how to delegate authority. Reagan and the Bushes are the only post-Eisenhower presidents who really belonged in executive positions.

  • Nancy

    I disagree with you.
    Your honesty and charm is very pertinent.
    🙂

    As far as peanut man goes…Well by the time I read through the; Food. The War on Hunger, I was on my third Billy Beer.

  • Lol, Nancyv, I thought the same thing. “Must be California!”

Jimmy Carter and the Mind of Christ

Wednesday, July 8, AD 2015

15 Responses to Jimmy Carter and the Mind of Christ

  • Would somebody please toss a gooey chunk of peanut butter into this old fool’s mouth to keep him from talking!?

  • Denying the partner’s immortal soul is damaging enough. The homosexual partners abuse themselves and do so outside of religion by embracing atheism. Atheism is unconstitutional because atheism is totalitarianism against everything of freedom especially the conscience of man and his freedom to be free. The will of the people to constitute a free nation is being uprooted by senile old men and a really totalitarian Supreme Court which has embraced international law and has become a laughingstock of the world. No self-respecting Jivero cannibal would consume a practicing homosexual or atheist lesbian.Their fear and the fear of Christian bakers, and florists is that atheism will overtake their freedom and they are justified in their fears.
    The atheist must be tolerated and religious freedom must be protected against the day when the atheist chooses to follow truth. Atheism allows a +-zero scintilla of freedom. Totalitarianism, the grandchild of atheism must be nipped in the bud, before the concentration camps.
    Hillary Clinton has promised to expunge the First Amendment without the three quarters of the states ratifying the change: “Deep seated Cultural Codes, religious beliefs have to be change…to accommodate Women’s Health Care”, read abortion, further read human sacrifice. The person of faith will be totally disenfranchised from his human right to freedom to relate to his Creator in thought, word, deed and peaceable assembly. The man of faith will be disenfranchised of his freedom to direct his life in the wisdom of his conscience. The person who respects human life will not be allowed into the public square which he owns in joint and common tenancy with all other persons. He will be ostracized from social discourse, his possessions seized, his privacy violated and he will be persecuted.
    Hillary Clinton wrote Hillarycare when Bill Clinton swore to represent us as his constituents. Hillary prescribed two years in federal prison for any doctor who dared to heal a sick man without her permission. Hillary criminalized a vocation to heal people. Hillary owns ten healthcare providing corporations. The scene will not change much if Hillary assumes the presidency. “We, the people” will be forced to pay for all abortions, the scraping of the human soul from the womb, human experimentation, transhumanism, the replacing of human body parts with bionic parts, transgenderism, the Caitlin Jenner syndrome and anything the atheist can think of, without having the voice of the people heard. The will of the people will be ignored and the voice of the people will be silenced. Atheism will be completely imposed.

  • None of this is surprising. Carter has always viewed God as being in lockstep with his views, even as those views have changed during his life. For Jimmy Carter Christianity has always been about worshiping a God who, mirable dictum!, always has the same beliefs as James Earl Carter, Jr.

    I don’t know about that. Carter’s vanity generates a certain stubbornness. However, he has in recent years seemed very receptive to the kudos of repellant characters and willing to associate with them in silly enterprises (Mary Robinson, Desmond Tutu). You get the impression that a mess of his vigorous charity work is a means for a man addled by bouts of narcissism to chase accolades. For such a person, antagonism from bien-pensants generates abrasions. What differentiates the young from the old is not what they’ve experienced but what they haven’t, and anyone Carter’s age has lived through several iterations of how homosexuality is treated in law, social relations, and culture (as has anyone your age or mine). You’d think that might generate some resistance to the Latest Thing even if Sacred Scripture did not. Then again, a great many of the old find the vehemently stated opinions of the young a bore; others toady up to them.

    Wendell Berry was a bigger disappointment.

  • Oh, by the way, you’re now seeing these private revelations (with somewhat more trumpery) offered by evangelical hackademics and religio-entrepreneurs. With the older generation shuffling off (think Jerry Falwell or Charles Colson), evangelical pew-sitters are discovering more rot than they ever knew in their intelligentsia.

  • Matt 19:4 ….’Have you not read’ [good Jimmy?] are you that ignorant the Master asks ? or are you so blatantly politically expedient to pretend the Christ Himself would contradict His Father , in order to appear complicit with democrat miscreants? really jimmy, have you no shame?…. you are no fool , but an old grinning georgian democrat who recalls to mind the great hypocritical Byrds of Virginia!! …….. jimmy could probably rationalize slavery too!

  • ” If there is conversion in Carter Christianity, it involves God catching up with the views of Jimmy.”

    This is what happens when narcissism gets religion. It ends in a situation with two gods, and one of them has got to give. When confronted with “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself.” the self-love of narcissism must alter God to be a mirror of the self to accomplish this.

  • Carter was addle-brained almost 40 years ago when he was wrecking the World in the WH. At 90, he’s far-gone. Here, he’s channeling Satan and calling it Jesus’s opinion. Soon enough he’s see death, judgment and (God help him) Hell. Pathetic.
    .
    Seen on Instapundit: Santa Claus is a democrat; God Almighty is a Regan-Republican (not including losers like all the Bushes and cowards like Boehner, McCain and Romney).

  • Have you guys never read the Jimmy Carter Study Bble, second only to the CI Scofield Study Bible?
    .
    http://www.amazon.com/NIV-Lessons-Life-Bible-Reflections/dp/0310950813
    .
    I have no words that can descibe how I feel. T. Shaw says it all.

  • What a peanut head!

  • No evil is ever done (or approved of) without first painting it with a gilded halo. It’s been that way since at least Satan’s quoting God’s scripture to Christ in the desert.
    God can never be on a different page than the liberal, for then God would have to be wrong or in need of re-education.
    God help these arrogant people change before judgment time or they’ll spend a lot of time with a mess of other folks who try to convert God to their sinful ways..

  • It’s a good thing that people are coming out and showing their colors. It clarifies the size and scope of the spiritual and cultural struggle. We begin to see where cultural, media, church, party leaders really stand and what they are made of. Anyone else who wants to step forward— show yourself.

  • I live my life by God’s law not man’s!!! I wish that God would bring an end to his sinful world and have his final judgement. I guess then we will know what God things of Gay’s and gay married.

  • I remember reading a commentator talking about the delight on Carter’s face as he was being praised at the Democratic Convention. No adult should ever look that happy over a compliment. It was unseemly. I think Art’s right on the money: he’s a narcissist chasing accolades.

  • Jimmy Carter is a good example of what happens to people who reject Jesus Christ.

  • Mr Jimmy Carter you are wrong, wrong and wrong.
    And as a christian you need to repent quickly

7 Responses to Not in Our Stars, But in Ourselves

  • I once heard that the US could survive President Obama, but could not survive the people who elected him.

    It has gone through my mind on more than one occasion recently that President Obama will soon say “See? We are trying to get the health care industry/markets open to everyone and look! it doesn’t work. Only Single Payer will work.”

    I believe we may get it sooner rather than later. Why? There may really not be enough people to stop the Low Information Voter. Our State Legislature just adopted Common Core after a long fight; more dumbing down of the children, the creation of more Low Information Voters. Even the Catholic schools in our area have adopted the Core.

  • Sorry to be a bore on this subject but…

    1. Mr. Carter made a number of poor policy decisions. However, this reflected to some degree the mentality in the matrix in which he was working. I doubt there were many issues where Mr. Carter’s preferences were not more sensible than the median of the (northern) Democratic Party of that era. (Northern) Democratic legislators of that era could be decent and collegial in a way that seems foreign today; however, economic illiteracy and functional pacifism were the order of the day.

    2. Electoral politics was Jimmy Carter’s third career. He had prospered adequately as an engineer in the Navy and in agribusiness (though the family’s wealth was largely accumulated under his brother’s management of the family business). He had had experience as a public executive. Compare his accomplishments to BO and it is embarrassing to BO.

    3. Carter had deficient people skills for a working politician. The grossest error he and his camarilla made was assuming the dispositions of the U.S. Congress would be similar to those of the Georgia legislature. Question: are B.O.’s dealings with Congress any more edifying than Mr. Carter’s?

    4. Mr. Carter was the most resistant to public sector borrowing of any American President post 1960; B.O. is the least.

    5. Carter is abrasive and sanctimonious on occasion. It is doubtful that narcissism is one of his problems. Also, Carter’s embarrassing apologies co-exist with a patriotism which is standard equipment for a Southerner born in 1924. B.O. is post-American, like his mama.

    6. Who would you want to share a household with, Rosalyn and Miss Lillian or Mooch, VJ, and Mrs. Robinson? Would you rather go fishing with JC or play basketball with Choom?

    It is unfair to Mr. Carter to compare him to B.O. Carter was and is out of B.O.’s league.

  • “Mr. Carter made a number of poor policy decisions. However, this reflected to some degree the mentality in the matrix in which he was working. I doubt there were many issues where Mr. Carter’s preferences were not more sensible than the median of the (northern) Democratic Party of that era. (Northern) Democratic legislators of that era could be decent and collegial in a way that seems foreign today; however, economic illiteracy and functional pacifism were the order of the day.”

    He fully shared both Art. He began his Presidency by preaching how we had to get over our inordinate fear of Communism and I will never forget how when Afghanistan was invaded by the Soviets he was angered because Brezhnev had lied to him. His disastrous stewardship of the economy speaks for itself.

    “. Electoral politics was Jimmy Carter’s third career. He had prospered adequately as an engineer in the Navy and in agribusiness (though the family’s wealth was largely accumulated under his brother’s management of the family business). He had had experience as a public executive. Compare his accomplishments to BO and it is embarrassing to BO.”

    The Peanut Farmer had a more extensive experience than Obama but that is rather beside the point in judging them as Presidents.

    ” Carter had deficient people skills for a working politician. The grossest error he and his camarilla made was assuming the dispositions of the U.S. Congress would be similar to those of the Georgia legislature. Question: are B.O.’s dealings with Congress any more edifying than Mr. Carter’s?”

    Carter was a disaster in dealing both with Congress and the Georgia legislature. He did not engage with either but rather acted as if he were Moses coming down from Sinai bearing the tablets of the Law. Obama’s problem is that he will not negotiate with Republicans and thus the legislative part of his Presidency came largely to an end after the 2010 election. Considering Obama’s agenda that doubtless is a good thing for the country.

    “. Mr. Carter was the most resistant to public sector borrowing of any American President post 1960; B.O. is the least. ”

    Untrue Art. JFK I believe would hold that title, followed by LBJ and Nixon. Carter had the advantage additionally over LBJ and Nixon that he wasn’t fighting a war.

    ” Carter is abrasive and sanctimonious on occasion. It is doubtful that narcissism is one of his problems. Also, Carter’s embarrassing apologies co-exist with a patriotism which is standard equipment for a Southerner born in 1924. B.O. is post-American, like his mama.”

    I have always found Carter to be a mean-spirited spiteful little man as well as an anti-Catholic bigot. He has gotten worse with age.

    “. Who would you want to share a household with, Rosalyn and Miss Lillian or Mooch, VJ, and Mrs. Robinson? Would you rather go fishing with JC or play basketball with Choom?”

    I would burn the house down and jump out of the fishing boat.

    “It is unfair to Mr. Carter to compare him to B.O. Carter was and is out of B.O.’s league.”

    They were both disasters Art, although Obama has edged Carter for the title of worst President not named James Buchanan.

  • You are correct. Mean public sector borrowing since 1960 has been about 3.0% of domestic product. The median during the following Administrations is as follows:

    kennedy 0.876
    johnson 0.859
    Nixon 3.5
    ford 3.8
    carter 2.6
    reagan 4.6
    bush 4.23
    clinton 0.5
    bush 2.8
    obama 8.0

    Among other variables, who controls Congress the state of the business cycle is important. The figures for Bill Clinton’s first administration differ markedly from his second, after he had to get past the Republican Congress.

  • ad astra per aspera

  • I have always found Carter to be a mean-spirited spiteful little man as well as an anti-Catholic bigot. He has gotten worse with age.
    Donald R. McClarey

    James Earl Carter’s anti-Catholicism and general spitefulness was kept out of the papers and six o’clock news as he strove for national office. Once he was de-elected and no longer president, he let ’em rip. Alas, he’s not unusual among Southern Baptists either.

    When the fashionably secular and atheist among college Democrats feign their fear of theocracy coming to America, I like to respond with, “Theocracy? Oh yeah, Jimmy Carter the fanatic Southern Baptist president from Bomont. “Transform and purify” sure gets Democrats excited.” This spoils their narrative.

  • Katie Sebelius can hire somebody else to make her a web site. Only herself can make her a Catholic. Would that someone had handed Obama’s Secretary of Abortion a copy of Catholicism for Dummies.

Jimmy Carter, Ex-President and Anti-Catholic Bigot, Attacks Pope John Paul II

Monday, June 24, AD 2013

(In light of Carter’s latest tirade against the Catholic Church, I thought TAC readers would like to see this post from March of last year.)

 

Bad enough that James Earl Carter, Jr. is the worst president this country has had not named James Buchanan or Barack Obama, but he is also an anti-Catholic bigot as his latest mind droppings amply demonstrate:

Former US President Jimmy Carter has disclosed that he had angry exchanges with Pope John Paul II about liberation theology and about the ordination of women.  

The former president said that he complained to the Pontiff about the Church’s “perpetuation of the subservience of women” while Blessed John Paul II was visiting the US in 1978, and “there was more harshness when we turned to the subject of ‘liberation theology.” Carter said that he classified the Pope as a “fundamentalist,” placing him in that category along with Iran’s late Ayatollah Khomeini.  

In the same interview Carter said that “it is very fine for gay people to be married in civil ceremonies,” although he suggested—“maybe arbitrarily”—that churches should not be required by law to solemnize same-sex unions.  

Carter made his remarks as he introduced a new edition of the Bible with his own study notes, helping readers to follow his understanding of the Scriptures. 

Jimmy, here is a clue for you.  No one cares a rat’s nether regions about what you think about anything.  You were a completely incompetent president and the American people have tried their best to forget you.  You were such a wretched president that even in your own party you are a non-person, and it difficult to embarrass Democrats over anything.  Pope John Paul II was a magnificent pope.  Here is a list of just a few of his accomplishments, although it will take centuries for historians to fully assess his almost 27 year-long papacy, but here are some of the factors that I think they will note.

1.  He largely stopped the post Vatican II chaos-After Vatican II the impulse to transform the Church into an institution fully reflecting the current views of cultural elites in the West wreaked much havoc.  Paul VI, a good and holy man, drew a line in the sand with Humanae Vitae, but he lacked the stomach and the will to fight it out with those who would have transformed the Catholic Church into what the Anglican Church is now:  a dying institution, adrift from any allegiance to traditional Christianity, and fully in accord with the mores and beliefs of the secular elite of the West.  Many were rubbing their hands with glee after the death of Pope Paul, in confident assurance that a new liberal pope would complete the transformation of the Church into something akin to Unitarianism with fancy dress.  Instead they got John Paul II, a Polish fighter who had stood toe to toe with the atheist rulers of Poland and was not the least frightened or impressed by the forces that sought to neuter Christ’s Church.  The chaos and low morale of the Church could not be completely reversed in one papacy, but John Paul II began the process and made a huge amount of progress.

2.  Presiding at the Funeral of Communism-During World War II, both the Nazis and the Communists slaughtered a huge number of Polish priests, viewing them as deadly enemies.  How very right they were!  The Polish Church, in the midst of one of the worst persecutions sustained by the Catholic Church in the last century, never lost faith that the Church and Poland would both ultimately outlast the totalitarian regimes and emerge triumphant.  John Paul II was the embodiment of this robust confidence that Communism, like Nazism, was merely a brief historical aberration that could and would be defeated.  The rise of Solidarity was completely predictable to him, and his embrace of it made a crackdown by the Polish Communist regime, and its Kremlin puppet masters, impossible.  John Paul II and Ronald Reagan in the Eighties brought about the largely peaceful collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe and laid the groundwork for its collapse in the former Soviet Union.  The heirs of Joseph Stalin learned to their sorrow that the type of power wielded by a skillful and determined pope cannot be counted in divisions but rather in human hearts.

3.  Culture of Life-In the teeth of an overwhelming movement among Western elites to jettison the belief that human life is sacred, John Paul II rededicated the Church to that proposition and waged a long uphill struggle throughout his papacy against abortion and euthanasia.  Like Moses, John Paul II did not live to see the victory in this fight, but ultimately we will win, and his brave stand at a crucial moment in history will be one of the reasons why.

4.  Pope of the people-With modern means of transportation, a vigorous Pope can treat the whole world as his diocese by globe-trotting and that is precisely what John Paul II did.  In the Nineteenth Century, modern means of communication, the telegraph, photography and newspapers, were skillfully used by Pius IX to forge a personal contact between the Pope and average Catholics.  Pope John Paul II took this a step farther by bringing the Pope to the average Catholic.  A masterful stroke and superbly executed.

Continue reading...

13 Responses to Jimmy Carter, Ex-President and Anti-Catholic Bigot, Attacks Pope John Paul II

  • “Carter made his remarks as he introduced a new edition of the Bible with his own study notes, helping readers to follow his understanding of the Scriptures.”

    Anybody want to buy a failed President’s Study Bible?

    http://www.christianbook.com/niv-lessons-personal-reflections-jimmy-carter/9780310950813/pd/950813

    I wrote a nasty letter to Zondervan Publishing about a year or so about this, highlighting Carter’s anti-Semitism and anti-Catholicism. I got a nastier letter back, as expected. I would have been disappointed otherwise. My advice: boycott Zondervan. There are plenty of other good Christian publishing houses, both Roman and otherwise, without giving them your business.

  • How is denying the doctrine of the all-male priesthood anti-Catholic in a way that denying the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is not? We generally don’t call those who do not believe in the Immaculate Conception anti-Catholic.

  • Don’t be obtuse Kurt. Carter isn’t merely saying that this is a Catholic doctrine that he doesn’t accept. He is saying that not ordaining women is wrong and leads to women being treated as second class and mentions some of the most odious elements of the Islamic world in the bargain. He also makes up history by claiming that women were once ordained as priests by the Church. By claiming that not ordaining women is a human rights abuse he is also, not so subtly, implying that some authority like the UN should get those benighted Catholics to stop abusing women.

  • Perhaps Carter is just as “Catholic” as you are, Kurt! 😉

    Not.

  • Pingback: Jimmy Carter, Ex-President and Anti-Catholic Bigot, Attacks Pope … - Christian IBD
  • Why doesn’t he go away?! He is SO irrelevant. Oops! I guess I just answered my own question.

  • “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. Matthew 7:15

  • Kurt:

    What Carter is doing is trying to pave the way for Catholics to be excluded from civil society. Painting Catholics as bigoted and discriminatory is the way they will go about this. Denying the Immaculate Conception isn’t going to do that. If one expresses belief in the Immaculate Conception in public, you might get some puzzled looks, but no one is going to say you shouldn’t participate in public life. It might not be well understood by the rest of society, but it won’t get you lynched. It might prompt a conversation about what Catholic teaching is on the matter.

    On the other hand, if you can misrepresent Catholic teaching and say that Catholics hurt women and discriminate against women and gays, then you get some real leverage. Again, the public won’t understand what Catholic teaching is and they will believe the lie. And once they listen to someone like Carter, they will shut their minds and not listen to a thing you have to say about the matter. In fact, Carter can drum up support for persecution of Catholics on the grounds that we are violating someone’s human rights. It’s sort of like in the days of Nero when they said Catholics were cannibals. It’s a misrepresentation of Catholic teaching designed to shut minds against the Church and lead to persecution. It was back in Nero’s time, and it is the same today. To quote the TV series Galactica, “All of this has happened before, and all of it will happen again.”

  • I meant “Battlestar Galactica”, the more recent version from 2004.

  • Obama says that Catholic schools are a cause of the Irish troubles. Carter piles on with his anti-woman nonsense. Sibelius forces us to provide contraception and abortifacient drugs to employees. Caesar, Henry, Elizabeth, Cromwell, Napoleon, Marx, Bismarck, Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin are all gone. The Church remains.

  • The peanut farmer kissed Brezhnev on the cheek.

    John Paul II, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher kicked Gorbachev in the a**.

  • Pingback: The Human Family and the Family of God - BigPulpit.com
  • Carter’s osculation of the Soviet leader led The Economist to remark that he was “a-wastin’ Christian kisses on a heathen idol’s foot” (cf Kipling). The only political legacy of Jimmy Carter was that he started the fashion among politicians of holding hands with their wives in public (dashed bad form, don’t you know). However, unlike the present incumbent of the White House, he didn’t use Rosalind as a cheer-leader and warm-up act.

    Seriously, Karol Wojtyla was the only undeniable great man of the second half of the 20th century. And the western democracies had the sense to replace Carter and Callaghan with Reagan and Thatcher.

Neville Redux

Wednesday, March 6, AD 2013

Statement From Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter on the Death of Hugo Chavez

Rosalynn and I extend our condolences to the family of Hugo Chávez Frías.  We met Hugo Chávez when he was campaigning for president in 1998 and The Carter Center was invited to observe elections for the first time in Venezuela.  We returned often, for the 2000 elections, and then to facilitate dialogue during the political conflict of 2002-2004.  We came to know a man who expressed a vision to bring profound changes to his country to benefit especially those people who had felt neglected and marginalized.  Although we have not agreed with all of the methods followed by his government, we have never doubted Hugo Chávez’s commitment to improving the lives of millions of his fellow countrymen.

President Chávez will be remembered for his bold assertion of autonomy and independence for Latin American governments and for his formidable communication skills and personal connection with supporters in his country and abroad to whom he gave hope and empowerment.  During his 14-year tenure, Chávez joined other leaders in Latin America and the Caribbean to create new forms of integration.  Venezuelan poverty rates were cut in half, and millions received identification documents for the first time allowing them to participate more effectively in their country’s economic and political life.

At the same time, we recognize the divisions created in the drive towards change in Venezuela and the need for national healing.  We hope that as Venezuelans mourn the passing of President Chávez and recall his positive legacies — especially the gains made for the poor and vulnerable — the political leaders will move the country forward by building a new consensus that ensures equal opportunities for all Venezuelans to participate in every aspect of national life.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Neville Redux

  • “At the same time, we recognize the divisions created in the drive towards change in Venezuela and the need for national healing”

    damn bitter clingers couldn’t get with the program

  • I recall the Carter Center’s seal of approval on a rather dodgy referendum; that’s when I stopped taking the Carter Center seriously.

    One does wish that, given that Mr. Carter has elected to be a purveyor of humbug, he could be more concise in so doing.

Jimmy Carter, Ex-President and Anti-Catholic Bigot, Attacks Pope John Paul II

Saturday, March 24, AD 2012

31 Responses to Jimmy Carter, Ex-President and Anti-Catholic Bigot, Attacks Pope John Paul II

  • Carter – a creep. Pure and simple.

  • A great post, suffused with righteous anger against a self-righteous ex-president.

    -Theo

  • Evangelicals are often accused of being “anti-Catholic”, but the accusation is generally aimed at the more fundamentalist-leaning of the Evangelicals (i.e. the conservative ones, with whom, interestingly enough, Catholics most often find themselves allied on matters of both traditional theology and politics).

    But I can attest that there is no more anti-Catholic Evangelical than the left-leaning Evangelical. They have a disordered view of “liberty” and the so-called “priesthood of the believer” that causes them to have a visceral reaction to ANY authority over individual conscience, be it evangelical fundamentalism or the Catholic Magisterium. They see an ordained priesthood and religious hierarchy, especially that of the Catholic Church, to be fundamentally a threat to liberty of conscience (i.e. their “right” to make up out of whole cloth theological justifications for their personal and political predilictions).

    Jimmy Carter, as a left-leaning Evangelical, has always been a bigot. The only people he despises more than Catholics are Jews.

  • And, indeed, an excellent post, Don!

  • “Carter – a creep. Pure and simple.”

    Unfortunately the future if Democrats continue to win.

  • You just can’t make this stuff up, can you, Don?

    http://www.zondervan.com/Cultures/en-US/Product/ProductDetail.htm?ProdID=com.zondervan.9780310950813&QueryStringSite=Zondervan

    And there’s more!

    Through the Year with Jimmy Carter: 366 Daily Meditations from the 39th President by Jimmy Carter

    Gift of Peace: The Jimmy Carter Story by Elizabeth Raum

    How low Zondervan has sunk for the almighty dollar – they are trying to get liberals to buy their wares, but liberals really don’t believe anyways!

  • Wow, this man sounds seriously deranged. Jimmy Carter certainly came across as a petty and peevish man, but I thought his derangement had more to do with jealousy over R Reagan’s success and his later break with the Baptists over their strong support for Israel. Now it appears that the man was crazy from the beginning. Imagine lecturing JP11 and comparing him to the genocidal maniac Khomeini after having failed to provide succour to the Shah. A man with some decency would have kept his mouth shut after that.

  • Incompetence+senility=Carter

  • Well, this post is going into the home school curriculum school in my household so that my children will be able to appreciate some of the contributions of JPII’s Papacy. It will also serve nicely to have Carter as a backdrop on how far one go astray from the truth when unhinged from Mater et Magistra.

  • Two observations.

    The current occupant of the White House is worse: his corruption and ineptitude are destroying us.

    This is reason 665 that you won’t be going to Heaven if you vote democrat.

  • I see no reason to accept his account of angry exchanges with JP II. The Vatican isn’t that secretive. Much of the substance and almost all of the tenor of discussions between a Pope and other public figures is known within hours. If Carter’s account is to be believed, it was a carefully guarded secret for more than three decades. Not likely says me. Even the timing of the discussions is off… Liberation Theology didn’t get real purchase until the early Eighties. I’m sure the seeds were sown in the Seventies but it hadn’t become an issue while Carter was President. Finally, this is the first time I’ve heard the word “harshness” applied to JP II. We are being asked to believe that a man who actively petitioned to have his would-be assassin released was “harsh” in his assessment of his fellow priest’s misguided but well-intentioned attets to right economic injustice in the Americas.

    Carter is lying. It cannot have happened as he says it did.

  • “Carter is lying. It cannot have happened as he says it did.”

    I suspect you are correct G-Veg. This may well be another example of Carter’s ever active fantasy life.

  • Liberation theology was well underway in the seventies; Carter, who was, if nothing else, an avid reader, would likely have known about it. I’d bet that some such conversation did occur between him and the Pope, though he might be “embellishing” it after all these years.

    I can vouch for the fellow-feeling among loyal Catholics and conservative evangelicals; I witness it all the time. Check out the homeschooling movement, for example. Or the pro-life movement. A loyal Catholic and a loyal Baptist have far more in common with one another than either of them has in common with those among their churches who worship the secular god Belial.

  • A woman priest cannot espouse the Bride of Christ.

  • I particularly like the eight things the author lists as accomplishments of Pope John Paul II, but in terms of Encyclicals, the Pope’s work was much more noteworthy than was mentioned here. I also think that JPII also had a major positive impact on non-Catholics, including non-Catholic Christians, Jews and Muslims. JPII presented a different image of Catholicism to the world. One of his Encyclicals I like the most is Fides et Ratio, although there were many that could be cited.

  • With respect Mr. Esolen, an avid reader he is but I doubt that the narrow subject of Liberation Theology was high on his reading list in 1978. Even if it was, I seriously doubt he confronted JP II on anything. That just isn’t how those conversations “go”… Not with Pelosi, not with the Soviets, and not with Mugabe. Are we to believe that Carter was such a forceful personality as to school the Pope on anything? Carter may be so senile he belives his own tales but I don’t believe them.

  • Carter always was incredibly narcissistic and I while his attempts to project himself as humble, fair, and caring largely failed with most observers, IMO his facade born more out of pathology rather than mere political marketing.

    I agree with those who believe he likely lying or taking great license with many of these statements. However, I can believe he understood the Liberation Theology movement in the 70’s. As president he had to deal with policy matters regarding Latin America and was surely briefed often on happenings there. You simply could not escape any discussion of events and power struggles in Latin America without knowing about the underpinnings behind how some Catholics could justify to themselves being Marxist revolutionaries and why other dictatorial regimes would view those people as enemies.

  • That the poor man wrote his own version of the Bible is a great scandal.

  • I think it’s telling that many people refer to the late Pope as “John Paul the Great”,
    but no one has ever seriously suggested that Jimmy Carter bear such a distinction.

    C-Veg’s take on Carter’s account strikes me as the most reasonable– it’s highly unlikely
    such a remarkable exchange could be buried for decades.

  • G-Veg– I doubt the veracity of this account as well. At the height of the cold war, with Carter essentially surrendering our moral superiority over Marxism, Carter betrayed a strategic ally in the struggle against communism. Carter then saw to the return of Khomeini from his exile in Paris, a move which in a series of tightly related events leading directly to the current state of affairs in Iran. Hundreds of thousands of Iranians, once part of a pluralistic society, have been killed and tortured, and a diaspora ensued.

    In 1978 Carter didn’t see Khomeini as he now claims. He held that judgment for the Shah. As for Catholics, as opposed to leftist who claim the faith, I am sure Carter does and did hold such bigoted views. So, 32 years later, nothing has changed and we once again have another Carter on roids as president.

  • Cthemfly makes an excellent point above, about Iran. I was an undergraduate at Princeton during the years when Britain and the United States were busy betraying Iran into the hands of the mullahs. One of the stupidest moves the Left ever made was to engineer the ouster of the Shah of Iran in favor of Khomeini, who I believe spent much of his time in exile in France. One Richard Falk, a Princeton leftist and professor of political science, was instrumental in the coup. I don’t hold any brief for the Shah as a good man, but will only note that he had personally bankrolled Britain in the early seventies when that country was broke. In this life you don’t often get to deal with allies who are both saintly and powerful. Carter did well with Sadat and Begin, but flubbed badly with the Soviets and with Iran. Ronald Reagan would not make the same mistakes, for which the Left in America never forgave him.

  • Breathtaking. Really beautiful, the post and the comments.

  • I can imagine how his Old Testament introduction begins:

    “Bear with me–this part’s pretty Jew-y.”

  • Professor Esolen,

    Thank you for responding to C-Veg with the facts. Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi went into exile on 16th January 1979, in the middle of the following a series of militantly anti-Shah demonstrations the first of which occurred in October 1977, in the middle of the Carter administration. He did not come to the United States until late October 1979, and was allowed into the country to undergo surgical treatment.

    On a related note, as a former enlisted submariner in the U.S. Navy, subsequently commissioned, I would have to rate Mr. McClarey’s assessment of Mr. Carter as a bit on the generous side. Carter repeatedly demonstrated an inability to think beyond a limited set of fixed policies and procedures.

    Pax et bonum,
    Keith Töpfer, LCDR, USN [ret]

  • Ronald Reagan spoke of the oil off the continental shelf, that is, three miles off the coast, in international waters. Our Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, signed the LOST (Law of the Sea Treaty. See Eagle Forum, Heritage Foundation, Obama has signed an Executive Order giving the U.N. the ocean) the LOST treaty with the U.N. giving the United Nations all mineral rights under the sea and imposing a fee for sailing upon the ocean. Who owns the ocean that it is given away to entities not favorable to America? Certainly, the country does not own the ocean that it can “give it away”. All free public lands and waterways are owned by each and every person, in joint and common tenancy, and held in trust for all future generations, our constitutional posterity, our global posterity, by a free people.
    Congress ratifies treaties at the will of the people. These monsters in office need to be exorcised.

  • One of the stupidest moves the Left ever made was to engineer the ouster of the Shah of Iran in favor of Khomeini, who I believe spent much of his time in exile in France. One Richard Falk, a Princeton leftist and professor of political science, was instrumental in the coup.

    I have to say that is the strangest interpretation of events in Iran over the period running from October 1977 to February 1979 that I have ever heard. The regime suffered a catastrophic loss of confidence in the face of massive public protest. That is not something terribly unprecedented. People in the Shah’s camarilla later accused Mr. Carter’s envoy Gen. Robert Huyser of putting the kibosh on a supposed military coup intended to forestall the fall of the interim ministry the Shah had left in place. Gen. Huyser was career military, not a cat’s paw of ‘the Left’. Richard Falk was producing insipid articles for The Nation and the Institute for Policy Studies. It is difficult to believe he had any influence on anyone but their subscribers.

    —-

    The babble about liberation theology is a clue that Carter retrospectively re-imagined his exchanges with the Holy Father.

    What is pathetic about all this is that an old man long steeped in the milieu of Southern protestantism and in the Bible as it is used in that milieu should

    1. Have a habit of using the same prism to view quite disparate phenomena, in fact the same prism a creature like Ellen Goodman might use; and

    2. Have so little in the way of a critical assessment of the inanities of the age.

    With eighty-seven years of living and a grounding in Sacred Scripture, he should be able to offer the young something better than this.

  • Pingback: Fan Mail | The American Catholic
  • I wrote to Zondervan Publishing about its publishing the Jimmy Carter Study Bible and how I would now boycott their products in the future. I also gave them a link to this blog post. A person at that organization gave me the following response, but did not identify him / herself. I find the lack of personal responsibility very telling. No name. No “Sincerely Yours, XXXXXX Y.” No nothing.

    “As with any public figure, it is to be expected that equally sincere Christians will have different assessments of Jimmy Carter’s presidency and his efforts to promote peace and justice in his post-presidential years. Zondervan respects the fact that, like no other president in recent memory, Jimmy Carter has sought to express in words and live out in deeds his profession of “born-again” Christian faith. It’s for these reasons we are proud to publish these titles. This is fully consistent with our 80-year mission to  publish books by leading voices in the evangelical Christian community, books that glorify Jesus Christ and promote biblical principles.”

  • Pingback: MONDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • Blessed Pope John Paul II or Jimmy Carter, who you gonna call! Bl JP II we love you. If Ford hadn’t pardoned Nixon, a move that history has judged to be the correct decision but which cost him the election, there would have been no Carter presidency. When we’ve been dead ten thousand years the name of Bl, Saint by then, JP II will be praised in litany and prayers of intercession and God will still be granting miracles through his intercession while Jimmy’s only claim to fame will be he is listed as one of the long ago presidents of the late sometimes great United States of America. JP II we love you, JP II we love you.

  • …Khomeini, who I believe spent much of his time in exile in France.Tony Esolen

    Khomeini spent most of his exile from Iran in neighboring Iraq.

Obama Ready for Killer Rabbit Moment

Sunday, August 21, AD 2011

Columnist John Kass, the only good reason to ever read the Chicago Tribune, speculates that Obama is ready for his “Killer Rabbit” moment.

Anyone who thinks Obama is safe from a rabbit attack has forgotten what happened to President Jimmy Carter In 1979. Carter was attacked by a swimming rabbit, and the subsequent “Killer Rabbit” stories helped destroy his presidency. It led to the election of Republican Ronald Reagan in a landslide and an unprecedented economic revival.

There are eerie similarities. Like Obama, Carter was at that point where he was constantly viewed as weak and ineffectual. His fellow Democrats had lost patience with him. Liberal writers who once fawned on him had turned against him.

And like Obama, Carter foolishly left the White House for a “vacation.” Carter went home to Georgia for some fishing. Once his canoe hit the water of a pond, a terrible thing happened. A rabbit swam near with anger in its eyes.

Continue reading...

18 Responses to Obama Ready for Killer Rabbit Moment

  • I’m guessing the opinion polls will never show voters disliking Obama personally. If there is one place that a “Bradley Effect” is going to show itself, it’s in opinion polls asking whether voters have a personal like of the first African-American president. While voters might feel free to express their dissatisfaction with the way Obama is doing his job, I’m guessing they will be loathe to ever express dissatisfaction with him as a person.

  • When I was on the submarine, every one of us – all one hundred and twenty men – cheared when it was announced that Reagan won. Not the least of what made Carter loathsome was the way he handled the Iranian hostage crisis. Yellow-bellied, cowardly, incompetent idiot. I am sure that most of today’s nuclear submariners feel the same way about Obama. I realize that that won’t make any difference. But that’s how we all felt.

    BTW, Donald, you write, “Go here to read the rest.” Yet there is no link. Is my computer messing up?

  • I wonder if there isn’t a symbiotic relationship between how we feel about them and how they feel about us.

    GW was hated or loved by the same people from beginning to end – give or take a million or two.

    I wonder if Carter’s malaise speech wasn’t as much about the loss of faith in America. Perhaps Obama doesn’t like us any more. Maybe the constant vacations reflect his distaste for the job and the people he was supposed to serve.

  • “When I was on the submarine, every one of us – all one hundred and twenty men – cheared when it was announced that Reagan won.”

    My brother was commanding a tank platoon in Germany at the time. He said the exact same thing happened in his unit when the results were announced.

  • Thanks, Jay. The appearance of the word “here” wasn’t in the light blue that usually designates a hyperlink at TAC – at least on my PC.

  • I have added the color blue to the word to correct that Paul.

  • The “First African-American” mayor of NYC also was a superlative dud. He didn’t bust NYC and didn’t need to fight off a cotton-tailed, ninja rabbit.

    The West Side Commies haven’t been able to elect a lefty since David Dinkins.

    I apologize if that was “racist.”

  • Well, T. Shaw, people might just ask what the President has to do with the former Mayor of New York given that the latter has been out of office for 17 years and given that what the two have in common (party registration, skin color, a law license, and a passably durable marriage) a great many politicians have in common. Different ethnicity, different generation, different sensibility, different social origin, different kind of education, different work history, different career progression.

  • Not that it makes any difference, but the so-called “killer rabbit” was actually a swamp rabbit (Sylvilagus aquaticus), a more aggressive creature and better swimmer than the typical Eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus).

    Years later, Carter press secretary Jody Powell described the critter thus:

    “(This was) not one of your cutesy, Easter Bunny-type rabbits, but one of those big splay-footed things that we called swamp rabbits when I was growing up…

    “The animal was clearly in distress, or perhaps berserk. The President confessed to having had limited experience with enraged rabbits. He was unable to reach a definite conclusion about its state of mind. What was obvious, however, was that this large, wet animal, making strange hissing noises and gnashing its teeth, was intent upon climbing into the Presidential boat.”

  • Perhaps Obama might be advised to watch “Night of the Lepus” before going on any boating or fishing excursions (although as far as I know, Martha’s Vineyard isn’t infested by swamp rabbits)

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069005/

  • Art,

    That right! Unlike Dinkins, Obama’s “monumental failure” (see yesterday’s WSJ Letters, Bernard Lang, New Providence, NJ) is unsurprising “given the ridiculous system in which he has to contend.” Obviously, here we have one each clueless ivy League moron. What ridiculous system? Congressionally enacted laws? The US Constitution? The Declaration of Independence? Private Property? The evil, unjust private sector?

    NYC survived Dinkins. The US might not survive Obama.

    Add to your “two have in common”: multiple failures, incompetence, inexperience, liberal ideology, misery for the people, political hackhood, . . .

    You are even more correcter: I should not have insulted Dinkins. He did nothing outside NYC’s Charter. Dinkins is not a gangster.

  • David Dinkins, per published reports attended Howard University and Brooklyn Law School. One is a historically black school and the other a component of one of New York’s two public systems of higher education. He never had anything to do with the Ivy League. He is not a moron. His academic degrees were earned in serious subjects (mathematics and law) during the first decade after the war, when there were no mulligans for black students. He had to pass the same bloody licensing examination as did any other aspirant lawyer in New York.

    Dinkins was born in 1927, which is to say into the cohorts where exhibitionism is least valued and least manifested. He grew up in a milieu that was without qualification northern urban black. His father and his father-in-law were old-style bourgeois, one owning a real estate agency and the other a liquor store. Dinkins was a working lawyer. He was a clubhouse politician and rose within those ranks. In none of these respects does he resemble B.O., quite apart from the obvious differences in personality.

    New York City had the problems northeastern cities commonly do, what John Lindsay called the ‘layers and layers of deals’ with rent seeking constituencies necessary to keep the city running. The formal political architecture is not as dysfunctional as that of the federal government, but it had its curios. Obama has to contend with federal institutions that are quite poorly structured, in addition to whatever errors of judgment he makes.

  • Art,

    Thanks for the History lesson.

    Maybe they could find one of them non-human people to run for Prez; and reduce the size and reach of the federal government.

  • Honestly, if there’s an animal acting out of character, it’s a good idea to try to make sure it doesn’t get close enough to bite– unless you really like a bunch of shots through your gut to cure rabies.
    Kind of like how even though people die from being attacked by deer…it’s funny.

    G-Veg-
    I’d imagine it’s nowhere near as fun to actually be responsible for stuff as it is to give orders when you won’t really be held accountable for it.

    T. Shaw-
    general theory about non-human people is that they’d be fallen, too, so we’d still be vulnerable to the charm of power. ;^p
    Samwise for President!

  • The President confessed to having had limited experience with enraged rabbits. He was unable to reach a definite conclusion about its state of mind.

    Of course, if a crazed rabbit charged Rick Perry while he was out jogging, we all know what would happen…

    (Or if an antlered rabbit attacked Sarah Palin.)

    Still, perhaps all potential chief executives should sit down and watch:

  • By the time the rabbit swam by everybody was sick of poor Jimmy. My dad was a dyed in the wool Dem and even he was relieved when Jimmy lost.

General Petraeus Replaces General McChrystal, Obamas Presidency on the Brink

Thursday, June 24, AD 2010

President Obama has replaced General McChrystal with General Petraeus.

I haven’t really thought too much about General McChrystal’s comments regarding President Obama, but I am of the mind that American generals should have complete respect for the authority and the office of the presidency while in uniform.  We are the United States of America, not a second rate banana republic.

General McChrystal should have been smarter than to express his negative opinions of President Obama, though harmless, it is a small step towards chipping away of the established civilian controlled military.

I am almost feeling sorry for my fellow Hawaiian Barry Obama.  His healthcare push has grinded to halt his legislative agenda and the oil spill is ruining his presidency.  He’s certain to lose one or both houses of congress this November and then General McChrystal’s expresses his private sentiments of an inexperienced presidency which most Americans are coming around to view him as.

Continue reading...

13 Responses to General Petraeus Replaces General McChrystal, Obamas Presidency on the Brink

  • It’s hard to image things getting better for the community organizer.

  • His arrogance and know-it-all attitude will do him in if the GOP takes one or both houses of congress.

    Clinton at least is a pragmatist.

    I see Obama shooting his foot and his mouth off.

    He’ll be like the Arabs, I mean, “Palestinians”, he’ll never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

  • Obama’s presidency on the brink? He just neutralized the greatest potential 2012 threat, David Petraeus, without spending any political capital. Obama is happy.

  • I doubt if Petraeus has any political ambitions. If he had, he wouldn’t have taken the assignment. I assume Petraeus thinks he can turn the tide in Afghanistan as he did in Iraq, and I pray that he can.

  • Our great, presidential genius:

    V.D. Hanson: “It is one of ironies of our present warped climate that Petraeus will face far less criticism from the media and politicians than during 2007–8 (there will be no more “General Betray Us” ads or “suspension of disbelief” ridicule), because his success this time will reflect well on Obama rather than George Bush. It is a further irony that Obama is surging with Petraeus despite not long ago declaring that such a strategy and such a commander were failures in Iraq. And it is an even further irony that he is now rightly calling for “common purpose” when — again not long ago, at a critical juncture in Iraq — Obama himself, for partisan purposes on the campaign trail, had no interest in the common purpose of military success in Iraq.”

  • I predict the following news item in June 2013, “Former President Obama indicted on corruption, fraud and tax charges.”

    That would be in addition to the “war crimes” charges Move-On.org brings in World Court.

    At least then, he’ll be able to wear his “Che” T-shirts.

  • He should have expected this, I know I did. If General McChrystal worked in the private sector, he would have been fired a long time ago.

  • I don’t believe Obama is on the brink as the headline says. In fact, I can think of no obvious reason yet to believe he won’t be re-elected.

  • “I don’t believe Obama is on the brink as the headline says. In fact, I can think of no obvious reason yet to believe he won’t be re-elected.”

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/140810/voters-split-obama-election-2012.aspx

  • “I can think of no obvious reason yet . . . ”

    Some obscure reasons:

    17% Real unemployment

    5,000,000 more home forelosures

    Wars unending

    Assassinations of innocent people by drones

    Gitmo still operating

    Oil spill to end all oil spills

    Inspector General-gate

    Bankrupt union pension funds

    Bankrupt community hospitals closings

    Bankrupt school districts

    Bankrupt cities

    Bankrupt counties

    Bankrupt states

    Rezko

    Blagoyevich

    Does anyone know why the solution to the most urgent, gravest health care crisis, i.e., state control over health is held in abeyance until 2013? Does it have anything to do with November 2012 would have given we the people two years of that mare’s nest?

  • I thought to add my $.02 here. I posted a critical commentary of my own at Vox-Nova:

    http://vox-nova.com/2010/06/24/whatever-is-necessary-obama-defends-war-again/

    Peace,

    Sam

  • There are a lot of scenarios in which President Obama would get elected to a second term. One foreign policy success, a forgotten oil spill, and two years of campaigning against a do-nothing Republican Congress, combined with a lousy Republican presidential candidate who fails to inspire his own party while scaring the frustrated Democrats back in line…tell me that isn’t winnable for him.

  • To those who disagree with what I wrote: none of that matters if the GOP fails to post a good nominee; ie Clinton in ’96 and Bush in ’04. We have not reached an “anyody but Obama” stage yet.

    In fact, I will say that if the GOP takes back even just one house of Congress, his reelection prospects improve.

    Do not underestimate him, the power of incumency or the dedication of his supporters. And, if a new war or big military action occurs the nation might support him into a second term.

    Polls schmoll

6 Responses to Is Barry, Jimmy?

  • Jimmy looks exceptionally good by comparison.

    Jimmy mismanaged inflation and unemployment adding up to horrendous “misery index” measures.

    Barry’s been successful in keeping unemployment so high that no one has cash to feed inflation. This is truly an outcome that had to be striven after. Barry and Ben Bernanke have destroyed the currency with expansionary monetary policy – monetized $1.25 trillion in worthless mortage papaer – and about $800 billion in fiscal stimulus, plus many hundreds of $$$ billions in TARP and bank (seems everything’s a bank excpet saloons and gas stations) debt guaranties. But, the patient expired anyhow. It appears, a dead economy doesn’t have inflation.

    Various coercive federal mortgage modification programs, tax credits, etc. have kept housing prices high and that piper must be paid before the housing construction can recover.

    The take-over of health care (no one knows how bad it will be but it will be bad) and demagoguery about raising taxes on the evil rich don’t foster economic growth and development.

    And, you know Barry’s gonna be at least as successful in saving the Gulf from the oil spill to end all oil spill.

    We’re screwed.

    Oh, I blame Bush.

  • No, Tito, Barry is not Jimmy. Jimmy was a largely good and honorable man who did not get us into any wars and stayed out of the internal affairs of other nations even if they were ruled by despots the US previously propped up in the past.

    Rather, I like the John Stewart segment the other night that showed that Barry is just becomming Bush III.
    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-15-2010/respect-my-authoritah

  • “Jimmy was a largely good and honorable man who did not get us into any wars and stayed out of the internal affairs of other nations even if they were ruled by despots the US previously propped up in the past.”

    Carter was a self-righteous and smug idiot who presided over a bad economy, pulled the rug out from under the Shah and thereby allowed Khomeini and his thugs to seize power, who dithered through the humiliating Iranian hostage crisis, who hollowed out our military to the extent that the failed rescue attempt of the hostages was a symbol of American impotence, and who reacted to the Soviet seizure of Afghanistan by blurting out “Brezhnev lied to me!”

  • I’m tending towards the view he’s Nixon.

    Really, the last half-century or so of Presidents blur into one another, and if anything, they should be compared by policies rather than parties.

    Even in college, I heard the argument that it should really be the Carter-Reagan years and the Bush-Clinton years, since the actual policies of those presidents were very similar.

    If you go back before that (skipping Ford, though an argument could be made for a Ford-Carter comparison), LBJ and Nixon had a lot in common, and Eisenhower and JFK had a lot in common.

    So, if we’re going for historical comparisons, Obama is more like Nixon at this point than any other president (and the Stupak scandal is far worse in principle than Watergate), though Obama as Dubya II has some weight. Indeed, about 8 years ago at this time, Rush Limbaugh was accusing Dubya of being the second coming of Nixon.

  • T. Shaw, inflation is inconsequential. The Federal Reserve responded quite appropriately to a sudden increase in the demand for real balances, which is why prices have been more-or-less stable in the last 21 months (as opposed to declining at a rate of 9% per year over the period running from 1929 to 1933).

    Mr. Carter suffers from a menu of character and personality defects, as do we all. However, he was an experienced public executive, had two serious careers before adopting politics as a profession, was more resistant to public sector borrowing than any other president in the last 50 years, and sponsored a salutary policy innovations (e.g. removal of mercantile regulations in the energy and trucking sectors).

    Recall also that he had poor relations with Congress, not because he was deficient, but because they were. It was Mr. Carter’s position that the federal courts and U.S. Attorneys’ offices were not dumping grounds for patronage; that the watersheds of this country should not be manhandled to produce brochure fodder for members of Congress; that the tax code should not be manipulated to sluice income to the oil sector, the real estate sector, and a hundred other lobbies; and that Congress ought to concern itself with matters that they cannot exploit at the next election, like future energy sources and the condition of the civil service. There is a reason a mess of our federal legislators was attempting in 1979 to draft the U.S. Senate’s chief lecher-cum-lush, and it is not a publicly defensible one.

    To date, BHO has not compared favorably to Jimmy, and I doubt he will 50 years from now.

25 Responses to Why I am Filing for Separation from the Democratic Party

  • Welcome to the world of independent idealism. Good to have you on board. It’s still (maybe especially) possible to be a good citizen being off the party rolls. I encourage the strategy.

  • I know exactly how you feel. I live in Washington DC, where it’s all politics, all the time. For a few years now I’ve answered the question “Are you a Republican (Democrat)?” with “I’m a Catholic.”

  • I simply must repeat what I said when you mentioned this to me privately — this is a great loss for pro-life Democrats, but God as you seem to have discerned may need your gifts and talents elsewhere for the sake of His Kingdom and, temporally speaking, for the common good.

    I need not ask to know whether I still have your support and you need not ask if you have mine. Have faith, there are sincere pro-life Catholics in the trenches my friend. You have simply chosen a new battlefield; there is only one Enemy.

  • Congratulations to you, and welcome aboard, Tim! But one question: am I completely imagining this, or didn’t you announce/decide this a couple of months ago? I thought I remembered reading a post you had written to that effect, but without all of the outlines for an independent party based on Catholic moral teaching and the Natural Law.

  • What’s wrong with the US Constitution Party?

    It’s platform is the closest to Chrcuh teaching:

    http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php

    I understand, however, that it doesn’t fit the false gospel of the common good, social justice and peace at any price.

    It seems like the writer just wants a socialist party that can call itself pro-life and be Christian in name instead of advocating for a return to the truly Christian Constitutional Republic we once were.

    Why not read and study what this country was founded at insteda of trying to invent some socialist utopia. The common good didn’t work for the Church in the time of Ananias and Sapphira. It won’t work now. And I (along with many, many other Constitutionalists) shall never, ever support it.

  • Paul, it is quite arrogant to assert that people whose views are different than yours and do not think that the U.S. Constitution Party is the closest reflection of Catholic social teaching in the U.S. are merely socialists who want a “socialist party.”

    I think it is an unfair judgment of our Catholicism and our commitment to the teachings of the Church, which requires on some issues much prudential judgment that naturally creates a discussion — and not clear-cut policy positions or views we must embrace.

    Moreover the idea that the United States was ever “truly” an explicitly “Christian” constitutional republic is quite arguable. I find it hard to believe that an authentically Christian society had legal slavery rooted in irrational hate of ethnicity; other points could be made, but I think you are romanticizing history and my argument need not be taken as saying the current situation of America is better or superior but simply that the U.S. was never a “truly Christian constitutional republic” in the sense that you seem to suggest.

    Lastly the idea that people who fail to subscribe to what you have suggested have neglected to “read and study what this country” was founded on “instead of trying to invent some socialist utopia” is nonsense.

    I was not even aware that any sort of disagreement (at least it seems that way in the way you frame your argument, there appear to be only two options) with the position you offer logically implies subscription to socialism. Moreover, it is nonsensical for you to appeal to Catholic social teaching — from Leo XIII to Benedict XVI — and say that the “common good” does not work.

    It would be more credible to argue that what the political left, by and large, presents as the common good is (in your view) a pseudo-common good and the actual common good is something much different — and you could detail it with what you think would work better. But to say the common good “did not work” and will not “work now” while appealing to Catholic social teaching where that very concept is integral to the whole body of the Church’s social doctrine is unbelievably dubious. Honestly, I am not saying this to be harsh; it simply is the case.

    I suppose it is a way to look at things but it is a perspective that I would never, ever support. The political left often gets attacked for claiming to have the correct political translation of Christian values in action and I, to a considerably large degree, can concur that in the current political situation criticism is very warranted. But the political right in the GOP and in my view in conservative third parties, at present, in my view, cannot lay claim to Christian values in their entirety. Many questions are again prudential and need not be dogmaticized — perhaps it is time that we Catholics, particularly those of who choose a specific political avenue or entity, whether it be a party or some other organization, stop trying to box the Church’s teaching into acceptable political language and contrived concepts that derive primarily from secular schools of thought. It is telling when what we call “Catholic social teaching” begins to look conveniently like our party’s platform. Indeed, the Gospel easily transcends all these things.

  • Eric- thanks for your eloquent defense and support- Kevin in Texas- I have been hinting at such a move but I retained my position as vp of florida dems for life until this week- my good friend at the organization- a Catholic- had asked me to take some more time before I made a formal decision- out of respect for this great friend, I decided to wait, pray and see if the Spirit would reveal more- at this point, I really feel that being a non-partisan will be advantageous as a Catholic teacher and in trying to open channels of dialogue working on specific issues rather than risk being written off as a Democratic Party operative or Republican mole inside the Dem party. This decision just feels like a spiritual breath of fresh air- something rare in the political trenches:)

  • Tim,
    Blessings… I too left the party of my youth, however, I came from the opposite side and have landed at Independent as well.
    Eric,
    Wonderful defense.
    Peace

  • Tim,

    Interesting post. It reads to me like you are not rejecting the Democratic party so much as you are rejecting politics per se. I think this is OK; not every Catholic is meant to act in the political sphere. But I do not think such a position can be normative. It is part of the lay vocation to transform our politics from within, and to the extent that you did this as a pro-life Democrat it was a good thing.

    I think generally speaking it is good for Catholics to consider themselves unwedded to any political party. Catholics are wedded to the truth and must understand themselves as Catholics first and then Republicans or Democrats. A Catholic can be a Republican or a Democrat, but they must be a Catholic first.

    Although I’m not thrilled that there is yet another good person giving up on American politics, I am happy to hear that someone is leaving the Democratic party, which in my opinion is virtually unsalvagable. The Democratic party is in principle the party of death.

  • Eric,

    “I find it hard to believe that an authentically Christian society had legal slavery rooted in irrational hate of ethnicity;”

    Slavery had nothing to do with “hate” as we think of it today. It was certainly based in an erroneous view of race, but it was no more hateful in 1788 than it was in 300 B.C. or so when Aristotle was justifying slavery. It was seen as a part of the natural order.

    A lot of the founding fathers, like Thomas Jefferson, struggled with the issue. So, avoid blanket condemnations in the other direction. The northern states abolished slavery right from the beginning. The southern states had “rational” economic reasons for wanting to keep it – but “rational” does not = morally right.

  • The democrat and republican parties are not the same.

    If more people voted for McCain, we’d have a chance overturning Roe v Wade with the nomimation of more good supreme court justices like Roberts and Alito, but no, we get Sotomaer and Kagan.

    Thanks alot 54% Catholics who voted for Obama or Indepedants! Like you really care about the unborn…rightttt.

    A Catholic with a well formed conscience can not in any way vote for the party of death.

  • Zach- I don’t think you are reading me correctly- I’m not giving up on American politics- I am just backing out of the Democratic party since I could not find any traction for pro-life Dems in my geographic area- I tried through offering a viable candidacy and having a presence in the local media and making contact attempts- but it didn’t happen. I decided it was best for me to purify my own end of things and come clean as an Independent who will work with partisans on the various issues of importance- but will be a non-partisan about it. In a way I am following the lead of Archbishop Chaput who was once one who identified more closely with the philosophy of governance represented by the Democratic Party, but because of the emergence of social liberalism and hardcore secularism in the heart of Democratic Party activism- he has chosen the Independent political path- and since I am a Catholic teacher myself, I think it is prudent to stake out non-partisan territory myself- not to avoid the political fight over the important issues of our times, but to be taken more seriously and to be seen as more consistent than those who seem to allow their Party loyalties to determine their political consciences. We’ll see if this decision makes sense over the longer haul- I am a Catholic first- that is my core message in all this.

  • I pray a lot and the Holy Spirit reveals a lot to me.

    When he talks to me, he starts with “Shaw, love humility, live the Gospels, obey the Ten Commandments, and adhere to the teachings of Holy Mother Church handed down from The Apostles and today from the Pope.”

    He revealed to me “Shaw, you can’t be both a democrat and be pro-life.” And, “You won’t be getting into Heaven if you vote democratic.”

    Early in 2008, this Pope gave four non-negotiables. Despicable dems are 180 degrees, and violently (47,000,000 exterminated unborn), opposed to each and every one.

  • I agree with Jasper and I’m ashamed of being a (cradle) Catholic these days, when 54% of them voted for Barack Obama, a pro-abortion and pro-infanticide politician. As a matter of fact, the Democratic Party has become the party where the Culture of Death has taken hold, and I’m glad I abandoned them over 10 years ago.

    Jasper is correct in that with the GOP, at least we got two solid, pro life, conservative Supreme Court Justices, but with Obama, we’re getting rabidly pro-abortion ones. Way to go, my brothers and sisters in the Church. Next time, please use the God-give reason you were born with and LEARN the candidates’ record on abortion!

  • Paul – Pope Benedict doesn’t agree with you

    Pope calls for ethics in world economy

    “Benedict said the search for common good must inform globalization and be the goal of progress and development, which would otherwise merely serve to produce material goods.”

    http://tinyurl.com/29d528y

  • Non-partisan? Transpartisan?

    I think there’s room for a Christian-Democratic political and social presence in the United States, and it can grow if it plays by the populist playbook, particularly the experience of the Non-Partisan League.

    Perhaps you can take the whole matter up with Oscar De Rojas? I have a hunch he has an interesting perspective on this whole thing.

  • Putting one’s faith in a political party will inevitably lead a sincere Catholic to a sense of disillusionment with politics in general. However, as a means to an end, parties may be used as an imprecise apparatus and like an imprecise apparatus they more often than not accomplish the task with less success than we would like.

    I have yet to see a practical way out of the 2 party system we have in the US that does not, as a by-product, result in one party dominance, after the other party fractures it’s base.

  • Dear Mr. Shipe,
    I was very touched by, and sympathized with, your declaration. I would like you to know that a group of citizens are forming a new centrist political party: The Christian Democratic Union of the United States (CDUSA). We are in the process of redesigning our webpage, but please use my address for any additional communication or request for information. We invite you to please advise us and be in touch with us.

    Our basic political philosophy is quite straight-forward: we are “center-left” (i.e., agree with many Democratic party positions) on most economic and political issues, while we are “center-right (i.e., agree with many Republican party positions)on most social and cultural issues. We are, essentially, the OPPOSITE of what libertarians and Tea-Party groups stand for. Indeed, we reject the labels of “liberal” or “conservative”, because these can have different meanings, depending on what standpoint you look from.
    We do hope to hear from you and your friends, and, in the meantime, remain, sincerely yours,
    Oscar de Rojas
    Executive Director
    Christian Democratic Union of the United States

  • “We are, essentially, the OPPOSITE of what libertarians and Tea-Party groups stand for.”

    That’s unfortunate. Are you sure you know what they stand for?

  • we are “center-left” (i.e., agree with many Democratic party positions) on most economic and political issues, while we are “center-right (i.e., agree with many Republican party positions)on most social and cultural issues.

    That sounds agreeable as stated. The difficulty is that ‘center-left’ on economic matters (at this time and in this country) means the continuous multiplication of patron-client relations between politicians and lobbies, in which the politician is a broker who supplies constituency groups with the fruits of the state’s extractive capacity in return for the fruits of the constituencies’ fundraising, labor, and brand-loyalty. You could call it crony capitalism, but the beneficiaries are not merely favored business sectors but also the social work industry and the public sector unions and provincial and municipal politicians. Call it crony capitalism, crony philanthropy, crony syndicalism, and patronage.

    That’s unfortunate. Are you sure you know what they stand for?

    Joe, it is somewhat disconcerting that ‘TEA’ is an acronym for ‘Taxed Enough Already’. The focus should be on the ways in which the public sector might be circumscribed. Once you have come to an understanding of the appropriate boundary of the public sector, the tax rate is implicit. Complaints about taxation per se enhance the stupidity of the political culture. One can address complaints about tax rates by reducing them, but without a willingness to circumscribe the public sector, you just get deficits. The federal government’s statement of income was in far more parlous shape when Mr. Obama took office than was the case when Mr. Reagan took office, so we no longer have the margin for an extended game of let’s pretend.

  • Thank you for the interesting comments.

    What I mean by center-left in the economic area is that we do believe in a necessary and appropriate level of government regulation of the “free market” to avoid situations of abuse such, as for example, the financial disaster that we still have not gotten out of. And, yes, we are for more progressive taxation — meaning taxing the really reach -not the middle class, certainly not the poor- to further the common good.

    The fact that there is so much cronyism, lobbying, corruption etc. in the political system is somehting that we clearly have to tackle with, but hopefully, with a more just society, these things might also become more repugnant and begin to change.

  • Art,

    Give the people a break.

    “The focus should be on the ways in which the public sector might be circumscribed.”

    There is plenty of focus on that. If you don’t know it, you haven’t interacted with the people in the movement.

    “Complaints about taxation per se enhance the stupidity of the political culture.”

    No they don’t. Statements like this just reveal the extent to which you aren’t affected by taxes. You realize that over half of the tea party is made up of one of the most unjustly-taxed brackets of income earners in America, right? We’re talking people who make somewhere between 50 and 100 thousand or so a year. They pay through the nose.

    “One can address complaints about tax rates by reducing them, but without a willingness to circumscribe the public sector, you just get deficits.”

    Why would you assume this willingness isn’t there? It is.

    “The federal government’s statement of income was in far more parlous shape when Mr. Obama took office than was the case when Mr. Reagan took office, so we no longer have the margin for an extended game of let’s pretend.”

    Again, if you don’t think the tea party acknowledges and address this, you’re really quite out of the loop. Fiscal responsibility, dealing with the debt, stopping the spending and related issues are probably more important to it than the tax rates, I would say.

  • And, yes, we are for more progressive taxation — meaning taxing the really reach -not the middle class, certainly not the poor- to further the common good.

    Um, if, by ‘the rich’, you mean a class of rentiers or latent rentiers (along with senior corporation executives), I think you will find on inspection that you are speaking of around 2.5% of the population who corral about 15% of the nation’s personal income.

    If, by the poor, you mean individuals whose wage and private pension income (w/ salaries or proprietor’s income or annuities in some few cases) is below the cost of a basket of staple commodities as calculated by federal statistical agencies, that would be perhaps 20-25% of the population who corral about 4% or so of personal income.

    The ‘middle class’ (salaried employees and small proprietors) corral north of 45% of personal income and the more prosperous wage earners corral the balance of roughly 35%. You are not going to tax any of these people? Do you plan to finance the state with lotteries?

  • My comments were not derived from my personal fiscal situation (which does include considerable tax liability, though that is none of your business).

    Federal and state income tax codes are so rococo that it is simply impossible (with any degree of thoroughness) to say from descriptive statistics which strata are being ‘unjustly taxed’ and which are not.

    I did not name the ‘Tea Party’. I am not sure to whom the moniker is attributable. It does make me anxious, however.

    I am pleased if you can find a generous slice from among the miscellany of people who are protesting who are thinking seriously about the ways in which the public sector can and should be circumscribed. Any movement has quite a mix as regards its degree of sophistication and seriousness.

    I was a witness to the political discourse engaged in by Mr. Reagan and his acolytes during the period running from about 1978 to 1989. It is not a happy precedent and is one I hope the Republic can avoid. In general, it has not been my observation that an understanding of the relative size of the public sector and the distribution of expenditures between various categories thereof is (in schematic outline) well understood even among the quarter or so of the population who follow public affairs. If there are many counter-examples in the Tea Party, that is all to the good.

  • Tim –

    I’ve also thought about a party based on Catholic Social Teaching principles that could go by the name “The Common Good Party” – which has the great benefit of being shortened simply to the Good Party, with a membership of Good People.

    I’m not nearly as politically astute or experienced as you (or Oscar) though, and very much look forward to your thoughts on how practically to develop such a political force.

    If you want/need any help from the Pacific Northwest, do let me know, and I’ll do what I can!

3 Responses to Set Me Free (From Ideologies) Part 1

  • Just a word of caution on the authority of the Compendium. Even the Compendium itself recognizes that some of what is in it does not partake of infallibility:

    “In studying this Compendium, it is good to keep in mind that the citations of Magisterial texts are taken from documents of differing authority. Alongside council documents and encyclicals there are also papal addresses and documents drafted by offices of the Holy See. As one knows, but it seems to bear repeating, the reader should be aware that different levels of teaching authority are involved.”

    Also Catholic Social teaching as you point out, does not fit any particular political position. Fortunately, CST also notes that it does not propose any particular political solutions. That is in fact left to the prudential judgment of the laity (yes it is up to the use of prudence – the practical application of moral norm to a specific problems.) Thus CST also notes that Catholics in good faith can disagree on particular solutions. To say otherwise is in fact to act contrary to Catholic Social Teaching itself.
    Now it seems you are not doing so but you do head near the shoals of Ultramontanism (as some other Catholic blogs do) by thinking that by reading the Compendium you will come up with a specific solutions. You won’t. Specific moral principles to apply – yes. Particular solutions that all are called to adhere to as good Catholics – no.
    I agree that one has to avoid ideologies that reduce the truth to sound bites. But there is a distinction between ideologies and ideas. Long, hard, cold thought out ideas that have internal coherence and which can provide specific political solutions. These ideas which form from the understanding of history, politics etc. have internal validity as expressions of human reason and if solidly based are a valid means of approaching problems of the world today. Even you admit to some with your FDR approach. This is okay.
    Its okay to have internally consistent ideas that propose solutions to political problems as long as one is open to new understanding as the study of history, politics, etc. develop. Even the Church (in one of JPII’s social encyclicals which is lost on me now) admits this much. That some of what is in CST is based on current understanding of history, economics etc. and can develop as these disciplines and as human understanding itself develops (see my first admonition above about differing degrees of authority.)
    So the bottom line is, I don’t have a problems with Conservative/Liberal etc. But let all come forth with solid, reasoned arguments and not the raw emotionalism that Charity in Truty decries. Let the best current understanding of social problems be presented with solid economic, historical etc. understanding. Then let Catholic laypersons with solid ideas (and not ideologies) make solid, prudential decisions.

  • Appreciate the insights Phillip- I suppose my goal is not to replace a brother/sister’s ideology with another one- but to get every serious Catholic who makes a big show of being a out and proud “conservative” or “liberal” and so forth- to think again- not to convert to another ideology, but to just leave off the self-labeling when saying you are Catholic- a Christian disciple- should suffice. I recall cringing at Sen. Brownback after receiving Father Pavone’s personal endorsement for President, going around saying that he was the “true Conservative”. Is that a good public witness for Christ, given that Christ is giving us a social doctrine that doesn’t lend itself easily to ideological adherences? Personally, I don’t see how an honest reading of all the social doctrine materials can lead me to voluntarily accept the imprisonment of any merely political ideology. I have tendencies toward the FDR Democratic party mold, but I recognize the fallibility of such to address all issues for all time- I won’t suggest that it wasn’t surprising that so much of the Catholic Church faithful were inclined to the FDR-Dem party – even in the Hierarchy- given the connections people were seeing between the social teachings and the political visions offered at the time. Of course times change, and appeals to FDR are not what I am much concerned with.

    I believe we are living in a bit of a new Barbarian Age- more subtle than before, very high-tech, but also very deadly to bodies and souls- I see the Barbarian movement in the establishment Left and Right- with abortion killing millions and a serious lack of global solidarity leading to unnecessary military conflicts and unjust economic situations. America is part of the problem and part of the solution- I’m focused on getting my nation to get out of the business of being part of the problem.

    As for the Compendium- I realize that differing levels of teaching authority are in play- but the fact that they are now given new circulation in the Compendium which is a concise rendering of the entire corpus of our social doctrine should be cause for new appreciation for all of it’s contents. At minimum what is in there must be taken deeply into our developing consciences- to say that only the most explicit detail of a particular principle of social teaching is worth reading would be a major error in prudential judgment. I figure if the Magisterium or Church leader puts something down on paper for our consumption, we should attempt to take time to consume it, let it work through our minds and imaginations, so that when we set about proposing specifics on major issues, or vision statements- we will have the benefit of all of the Church’s vast wisdom. I think that too many Catholics abuse the notion of prudential judgment to simply short-circuit the papal words that don’t mix well with their chosen ideological adherences- I’m not making a personal accusation to you Phillip or anyone in particular- but I am suspicious of everyone who clings too closely to something like what Brownback said “I am the true Conservative” I’m very suspicious of true believers in political ideologies.

  • Thanks for your reply. Will respond more fully after Easter. Quick reply is that I appreciate and look forward to your insights also.

Jimmy Carter, anti-Catholic Bigot

Saturday, December 12, AD 2009

I’ve never had much use for Jimmy Carter.  I view him as in the running with James Buchanan for the title of worst President of the United States, and he has always struck me as a mean and spiteful little man.  Now he adds the title of bigot to his list of dishonors.  In an address to the World Parliament of Religions (You know that has to give God a good laugh!)  the Solon of Plains is reported to have unloaded on both Southern Baptists and Catholics.

In opposition to the vast majority of authentic scholars and historians, Carter asserted: “It’s clear that during the early Christian era women served as deacons, priests, bishops, apostles, teachers and prophets.”  He added: “It wasn’t until the 4th century or the 3rd at the earliest that dominant Christian leaders, all men, twisted and distorted Holy Scriptures to perpetuate their ascendant position within the religious hierarchy.”

Contrary to the theorizing of Carter, Pope John Paul II taught, “The Lord Jesus chose men to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry.”  He added: “the Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself.  For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church; 1577)

Carter singled out the Southern Baptist Convention and Roman Catholic Church, claiming that they “view that the Almighty considers women to be inferior to men.”  However, both Christian faiths hold to the Scriptural truth that God created men and women equal.

Carter suggests that only in permitting women to become priests and pastors could male religious leaders choose to interpret teachings to exalt rather than subjugate women.  “They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the latter, subjugation,” he said.

“Their continuing choice provides a foundation or justification for much of the pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world,” said Carter. Carter goes on to list horrific violations against women such as rape, genital mutilation, abortion of female embryos and spousal battery.

Continue reading...

37 Responses to Jimmy Carter, anti-Catholic Bigot

  • It is an embarassment to this country that this ignorant bigot ever sat in the oval office.

    As an American I don’t feel quite as embarrassed about that relatively unknown and empty suit[case] of a man having been elected president as those who lend him an ear should.

    And what’s up with this?

    Carter goes on to list horrific violations against women such as rape, genital mutilation, abortion of female embryos and spousal battery.

    I didn’t know the Catholic Church supported such things. But worse is the inclusion of “abortion of female embryos”. I know he wants to mask the reality of what abortion is, and he thinks using the incorrect term of embryo makes a point as much as he intends to conceal, but it’s not indicative of the clearest of thinking, not to mention the inconsistency of his sense of morality. Any abortion is a grave act of injustice for whatever “reason”, but why does Jimmeh only have qualms about the aborting “female embryos”?

  • Age sure isn’t making Mr. Peanut any wiser. Well, Carter doesn’t have much use for Jews either:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/09/jimmy_carter_the_jewhater_who.html

    Personally, I am honored to be part of a group loathed by such a foolish and bitter old man. Back in 1976, Americans fell for the John Boy Walton, “Shucks, Ahm jes’ a humble, sweater-wearin’ peanut farmer” hokeum. Who realized then what a vindictive and bigoted and confused character he was and is?

    Ironically, Carter decries Southern Baptists, while retaining the two of the less savory aspects of traditional southern fundamentalism – prejudice(especially anti-Catholic prejudice) and sanctimony. But since he backed Obama, he can kid himself that he’s an “enlightened” southerner.

  • So is this a sign that Carter is preparing to announce he is leaving the Southern Baptists for the 3rd time while doing no such thing?

    Jimmy C is past ready for a padded cell, how about 1 next to Algore so they can exchange delusions?

  • A man who never was of any significance. His bitterness has never ceased since he was considered to be one of our worse choices and just perhaps the one he endorsed will also be in that same ilk.

  • Jimmy Carter is misinformed, and is of an age where it is difficult to look beyond one’s comfortable, accustomed sources of information to locate truth.

    He’s increasingly like that cranky relative who goes on tirades at family gatherings, to which everybody listens, nodding vaguely, only to huddle up when he leaves the room and ask one another, wide-eyed, “Hey, what the heck are we gonna do about Uncle Jim? Is anybody checking up on him? Is he still taking his meds? Do we need to put him in a home? What?”

    A Little Information About Baptists

    By the way, Jimmy Carter is a Baptist and from the southern United States. But he is not a Southern Baptist (referring to the denominational convention) nor has he been one since 2000. (And prior to that, though his church had been affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, Carter was what Catholics might call a “loud dissenter” from the 1980’s onward.)

    The “New Baptist Covenant” group Carter helped start up along with Bill Clinton and Mercer University president Bill Underwood is in fact intended as a counterweight against the more conservative Southern Baptist Convention.

    To contrast them: The SBC defines social justice in terms of equal protection under law and strong advocacy of charitable assistance for the needy at the individual and church level (some local churches dedicate over half their operating budgets to charitable giving in the community, the nation, and overseas, and conservative Baptists tend to be among the most reliable tithers in the whole Christian sphere).

    Carter’s alternative group, the NBC, adds to this a rejection of traditional gender roles, including a belief in ordination of women for all clergy roles. Local churches which ordain active homosexuals or conduct gay commitment ceremonies can participate in the NBC. The SBC is too theologically and practically traditional to allow for this.

    So, oddly, while Catholics might think SBC Baptists sounded uncomfortably fundamentalist (and therefore liable to harbor those anti-Catholic myths of Mary-worship and salvation-by-works so common among American fundamentalists), they’d find rather more agreement with the SBC on matters of faith and practice than with the kinder-and-gentler-sounding NBC.

    Put another way: SBC are the EWTN Catholics of Baptists, and NBC are the Episcopals of Baptists.

    Finally, please keep in mind that Baptists are Congregationalists; each local congregation is independently governed, owns all its properties, and selects its own leaders. Local churches, if they opt to participate in a larger organization, decide which Conventions, Associations, and Fellowships they wish to participate in on the basis of being doctrinally simpatico. Their membership dues go into cooperative programs for needs ranging from organized support of overseas missionaries to printing of Sunday School lesson booklets.

    My point is that it’s not like the SBC could excommunicate Jimmy Carter or replace the leaders of his local church. Authority among Baptists is bottom-up.

  • Like RC, I think your headline here is bilious and inaccurate. Not every critic of the Catholic Church is anti-. As for the lack of quality of his presidency, I think he has a fair way to go to beat the previous occupant of the White House, who showed a grave lack of concern about terrorism, and after the homeland was supposedly prepared for calamity, revealed himself and his government to be as ill-prepared as ever.

    Mr Carter shows no depth of knowledge of Catholicism, but to refer to him as an “anti-Catholic bigot” seems to reveal more about the author than the target.

  • Todd, it comes as absolutely no surprise to me that you would rise in defense of both an anti-Catholic bigot and someone in the running for being the worst President to ever curse these United States. However, Carter can take comfort in this fact. The pro-abort you voted for last year for President may well save him from the title of worst President by the time he is done.

  • Donald, how charming to lock horns with you on a Sunday morning.

    It is part of the blindness of conservatives such as yourself that you misinterpret as “defense” a mere disagreement with the headline on this thread. I don’t think Mr Carter was the strongest of American presidents, but he certainly isn’t accurately identified as an “anti-Catholic bigot.”

    It isn’t, however, enough to agree than the man is wrong about Catholicism. In your eyes, one must also call names. Probably stick out one’s tongue and go “nyah, nyah, nyah” in the direction of Georgia, too.

    Your objection is noted, counsellor, and overruled.

  • Todd, I didn’t call names. I accurately described Carter, and you reflexively came to his defense, which is only to be expected.

  • A man who is blaming the Church’s position on female ordination for violence against women around the world, or even seeking to relate them in some way, is an anti-Catholic bigot as far as I am concerned.

  • Donald, what is to be expected is that I will tweak the errors and oversights on AC. As Joe profoundly demonstrates, this post is more about a cheerleading session, “Jimmy, bigot, rah, rah rah!” than any serious commentary on how non-Catholics mischaracterize Catholicism.

    Bishop Sheen had more the measure of situations like this than you.

  • I will offer that some of the above is de trop.

    I think Mr. Carter had a mixed record in office, bedeviled by his own misunderstandings of his social world, by the misunderstandings within the subculture that was the elite of the Democratic Party, and by the crooked and refractory character of the Democratic Congressional Caucus. For all his policy failures, his quality was above the median in the matrix in which he was operating.

    Still, you can see a good many of the man’s vices on display.

    1. He is one of the more abrasively sanctimonious characters to have abided in American public life; Anthony Lewis and Ramsey Clark are among the few who have him beat.

    2. He is at best ambivalent when confronted with the choice between the intuitions and arguments of historic protestant confessions and the kultursmog around him.

    3. His conception of the sources of collective behavior is gratuitous and bizarre. It does show who some of his favorite bogeys are. It is sort of surprising that he did not figure out a way to blame female genital mutilation on the Government of Israel, though. I figure that’s coming up.

  • Todd you know as little about Joe as you obviously do about Carter. Joe Hargrave is no man’s cheerleader.

  • Todd,

    I have lost all respect for you as a ‘Catholic’.

    I had no idea you voted for the most pro-abortionist president in the history of the United States of America.

    Pretty sad.

  • bigot: (n) a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

    I think this describes Carter well

  • Todd writes Sunday, December 13, 2009 A.D. at 9:25 am
    “As for the lack of quality of his presidency, I think he has a fair way to go to beat the previous occupant of the White House…”.

    Is there in rhetoric [debating] a term for the use of pointless comparisons? That X was better [or worse] than Y tells us nothing much about X. It is the kind of thing used in high school debates.

  • I have lost all respect for you as a ‘Catholic’.

    Keeping in mind that equal respect is the abolition of respect, we might at least maintain a quantum in reserve. No need to send it all down the drain.

  • Is there in rhetoric [debating] a term for the use of pointless comparisons? That X was better [or worse] than Y tells us nothing much about X. It is the kind of thing used in high school debates.

    Too true. Also, trying to do a generic comparison between different chief executives is difficult because the contexts and challenges can be quite dissimilar, and call for different talents and virtues.

  • AD,

    I respect him as a human being and as a child of Christ.

    Does that count?

  • I would say so, but you shoudn’t pay too much attention to a hoodlum like me.

  • Pingback: Defenders of the Catholic Faith : Hosted by Stephen K. Ray » Jimmy Carter as “Church Historian” (giggle)
  • Really? My short little post was a “profound” demonstration?

  • Art you are never a hoodlum. At worst sometimes a grouchy smart penguin. 🙂

  • Hey – it’s Jimmy Carter. Nothing more need be said

  • Carter was the first president I ever voted for… in an 8th grade mock election that is, though I can’t remember why exactly.

    The one good thing I think Carter did in his presidency was facilitate peace between Egypt and Israel at Camp David. I don’t give him total credit for it, because it was Anwar Sadat’s and Menachem Begin’s idea to begin with, but Carter did at least help their talks along when they bogged down. In some ways I think THAT was the main reason God permitted someone like Jimmy Carter, who was otherwise mediocre if not incompetent, to be elected.

    I also admire Carter for his commitment to Habitat for Humanity; the publicity he gave the organization helped put it on the map.

    Unfortunately, ever since he left office, he has been “coasting” on the reputation for negotiating skills and charitable commitment he seems to have gained from those two things (Camp David and Habitat). As a result he gets a pass on many of his more outrageous claims and statements such as this one.

    As bad as Carter was I still don’t know that I’d place him on the all-time worst list below James Buchanan, Franklin Pierce, or Warren Harding. I suspect, however, that Obama may yet claim the title of worst president in my lifetime.

  • Carter was the first president I voted against Elaine in 1976 at age 19. I had little enthusiasm for Ford, but I suspected that Carter was going to be bad news for the nation. As to the Camp David Accords, that was a solid achievement, and Carter deserves his share of the credit.

  • It seems to me that an important issue is going very much unmentioned. When politicians with some level of influence over public thought begin to discuss matters that are of theological question (such as suggesting the need for the ordination of women), they are overstepping their bounds as politicians. As Catholics, we ought to be doing something to clarify how this is different than a question of social justice, because to those outside the Church this is obviously very misunderstood. It probably stems from an unfortunate cultural belief that equal dignity of men and women necessitates equal opportunities, roles, abilities and so forth to the point of a culture losing the notion of “man and woman He created them.”

    I think a worthwhile question in response to unfortunate public statements such as this must be: How can we as Catholics witness to the world that women are most respected according to their own unique vocation, and that the male nature of the priesthood is and will always be a theological matter?

  • If Carter was truly interested in decrying religious maltreatment of women, he ought to have mentioned honor killings. No one gets killed in upholding the all-male priesthood in Roman Catholicism.

    Oh, wait….that’s Islam. Never mind.

  • The best thing about Carter that I can recall is the SNL skit where he tried to fix Three Mile Island.

  • Michael Medved refers to Carter simply as “T.W.O.” meaning “The Worthless One”. The current occupant of the White House seems to be working toward a similiar title.

  • Pingback: Jimmy Cracked Corn, and No One Cared? | 2SecondsFaster.com
  • I really love Jimmy Carter. He isn’t anti-Catholic he just has a different perspective. This article is what makes Catholics look bad.

  • I despise Carter but nonetheless agree with Bill on both counts. That said, Carter’s “perspective” is grounded in comfortable self-righteous ignorance.

  • Carter’s perspective is that the teaching of the Catholic Church that only males may be priests is misogynistic clap trap dreamed up by power hungry prelates. My perspective is that Carter is an anti-Catholic bigot as well as a fool.

  • Donald, I think we will have to agreeably disagree! Merry Christmas!

  • I’m with Donald.

    Mr. Carter is an anti-Catholic bigot.

  • “Donald, I think we will have to agreeably disagree! Merry Christmas!”

    Mike, any minor disagreements between us will always be agreeable! The Merriest of Christmases and the Happiest of New Years for you and your family!

France Tells Obama To Cowboy Up

Friday, October 2, AD 2009

Obama Sarkozy

Never in a million years would I have expected a Frenchman, any Frenchman living today, to chide an American president to be a man.  Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan are rolling over in their graves as French President Nicolas Sarkozy reminds President Obama, our president,that “we live in a real world, not a virtual world“.

This episode between Sarkozy and Obama occurred prior to President Obama’s I have a dream of a world without nuclear weapons disarmament speech as chair of the United Nations Security Council meeting on September 24.  An American holding the chair of the U.N. Security Council was a first, so the foreign media was out in force attracting global attention.  Unbeknownst to the world at the time President Obama, as well as Sarkozy, had intelligence that Iran had an illegal uranium enrichment facility.

So instead of using the bully pulpit as the leader of the free world and his superior oratory skills to admonish Iran at the United Nations Security Council, Obama chose to give his I have a dream of a world without nuclear weapons disarmament speech. The New York Times reported “White House officials,” did not want to “dilute” his disarmament resolution “by diverting to Iran.”

Continue reading...

27 Responses to France Tells Obama To Cowboy Up

  • The emperor has no clothes. The European leaders recognized this including Mr Putin, etal His constant campaigning for his own edification and ego instead of strong deliberate leadership is obvious to most people. His approach is to go to his constituents when he needs help and to have a deaf ear to those who have experience and do not want to repeat history.

  • This sucks becuase that wuss is our president. I know that Rush said he wanted him to fail and I agree to a point. Nationalize health care, kill more babies, rasie taxes – yes, I want him to fail at that.

    As Commander in Chief and Head of State, no, I DO NOT WANT him to fail, I want him to be a huge success.

    Sadly, as expected, he’s failing.

    The parallels with Carter are striking and Iran knows that BHO is more concerned with how he looks than what he does. They are going to use that to their advantage and our detrmient and he might let them.

    I think BHO just launched his campaign for beloved leader of the world with no nukes, no mean talk show hosts and everyone gets a pony. Awww, how sweet.

    Gimme a break. I want my president with big brass ones.

    “I just signed legislation outlawing Russia (China, Iran, N. Korea), bombing begins in ten minutes”

  • Hmm…I would prefer a President with spine when he needs it…and the brains to know how and when to use it. “Big brass ones” often lead to trouble.

  • *Tosses red meat* http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2009/10/01/our-infamous-iran-policy/

    I’d like to build on what c matt says and question whether “putting Iran in her place” is really in the best interest on either America or Iran. What would such a confrontational approach really accomplish? All this would do is provoke Iran into hardening its position and making things much more difficult for the fledgling opposition movement there.

    Words are important, but supposing that strong words are a substitute for prudent action is ridiculous.

  • NauticalMongoose and C Matt,

    Excellent analysis, but isn’t their position already hardenned? What part of “remove Israel from the map” can Iran do more on?

    I’m not advocating a massive shock and awe campaign, just some tough sanctions, inspections, and timetables.

    There are levels of degrees that are attributed to “confrontation”.

    Not to mention funding the Iranian people to overthrow their Mullah overlords with money, intelligence, and possibly weapons (more so if we are already doing this).

    We can also put the squeeze on them by massing troops both from Afghanistan and Iraq with Pakistan following with their troop deployments. In addition we can arm both the Iraqi’s and Afghans to the teeth (more so the Iraqi’s) and really pressure Iran to give it up.

    Just some thought.

  • Tito,

    You are assuming that the Iranian leadership is rational. I don’t think they are technically insane but I think they are looking for a fight and winning it, as far as they are concerned, is simply causing massive damage and chaos. If they are wiped out in the process, then they are martyrs, whoopi. Their goal is the benfit of Dar al Islam, not Iran.

    You cannot reason with a mentality like that. Sadam was actually a megalomaniac but he could be reasoned with, or bought. We picked the wrong target in 2003 and now the right target is in our sites, yet, we aren’t handling it well. This is where regime change makes sense.

    If Iraq was designed as a flanking manuever to Iran then that is fine, although we could have accomplised with much less loss of life (both our soldiers and Iraqi civilians) and much less cost. Any way, would-ah, could-ah, should-ah. We’re here. Iran needs massive pressure and a regime change – not like 1979.

    Boy don’t you miss the Shah. Friendly, checking Russia, selling us oil – we removed him and look what we got. Who was it that did that? Uhm, ah, o yeah Obama’s big daddy Carter. Here we go again.

    Now were’a my 8-track?

  • Today’s Iran is another disaster that the Peanut Farmer, Carter, was actually responsible for.

    It would be all too easy to blame it on a supposed senility on his part; more likely, it was due to his alarmingly incredible incompetence.

  • The more Jimmah’ speaks, the more Billy Carter looks like a genius.

    Anyone has any Billy Beer to spare?

  • AK,

    The Iranian middle class is rational.

    It’s the Islamic extremists, unfortunately who are in power, that are irrational.

    Malaise in America?

  • The middle-class is always rational, which is why we are always the targets of every ISM ideology.

    All ISMs eventually lead to a master oligarchy (minority) and compliant and fearful slaves (majority) — no middle class.

    Tito we could also say, “The American middle class is rational. It’s the leftist extremeists, unfortunately who are in power, that are irrational.

    Who’s in the White House? Barrack Carter-LBJ-Wilson???

    I don’t know about malaise but you could put on a sweater and lower the thermostat, what with all the global cooling, er, no, global warming, er, no, climate change, yeah, that’s the ticket, climate change going on, huh?

    He was right about one thing, we are a bad country, worse than in the 70s, and it is becuase of people just like him.

  • Looks like a case of ” Big hat, no cattle.”

  • Alright, I’ll show my lack of knowledge here, what’s an “ISM”?

    I’m sure it’ll come to me as soon as I press “Submit Comment”.

  • Tito, think of political ideologies: Liberalism, Conservatism, etc.

  • Thanks Donald, I think waaay too much about some things.

  • Exaclty Donald.

    SocialISM, CommunISM, FascISM, CollectivISM, ObjectivISM, CorpratISM, ObamunISM. . .

    Didn’t you ever see Ferris Bueler’s Day Off?

  • Why Abe Froman, aren’t you the sausage king of Chicago?

  • I was, but then we lost the 2016 Olympics becuase of some incompetent named Barracks, or something like that.

  • Here is instance in which Obama failed to show any backbone.

    http://news.antiwar.com/2009/10/02/obama-reaffirms-he-will-keep-israels-nukes-secret/

    The Uninted States and other Westen nations show such hypocracy and we wonder why Iran and other Islamic nations tell us to go to hell.

  • Awakaman you’d have a point if Israel was threatening moslems with nuclear annihilation as Iranian leaders have repeatedly threatened Israel. Since they haven’t your comment is as pointless as those in the 30s who pointed to French military spending as justification for German rearmament. Iran is the problem, not Israel.

  • Don,

    Why should Israel bother to threaten? They know when push comes to shove, the U.S. will either take actions themselves or support Israeli action. Hasn’t Israel flirted with the idea of bombing facilities? If they did that, wouldn’t THEY then be the real aggressors?

    In all seriousness…what does ‘cowboy’ing up on Iran exactly look like?

    Iran may indeed be led by people who are a bit unhinged, or have bizarre political positions… but that doesn’t necessarily translate to insanely using nuclear weapons.

    Iran is a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty. They have a right to nuclear power. Have they not also alerted the IAEA of their intent to bring a power plant online months prior? We’ve known they’ve been on that track for awhile now.

    Iran is also surrounded by nations that DO indeed nuclear weapons, and not all of them are models of sanity either. Pakistan. India. And Israel herself, who both refuses to sign the non-proliferation treaty and to acknowledge her possession of weapons.

    Of what interest would it be for Iran to actually USE a nuclear weapon? Nuking Israel wouldn’t just kill Jews, it would kill many Muslims as well in Palestine… supposedly the very Muslims they sympathize with. How would it benefit Iran, who are Persian, do wind up killing Arabs? Iran would be isolated from their own neighbors for such an action!

    This is to say nothing of the international response. The world would attack them and their allies would abandon them. Their would be a great temptation to respond with nukes as well… likely those ‘secret’ Israeli ones.

    Does Iran really want to join the United States as only the second nation in history to use nukes against people?

    And how exactly would sanctions help? IIRC, Iran does not even refine its own fuel. The idea that we’d cut off their gas is only going to hurt their middle class… the people most likely sympathetic to the west’s position. It will easily worsen the conflict.

    Obama put himself in this position because it was HE who talked tough on Iran (and Pakistan/Afghanistan) during the election. My guess is he only did that so that he couldn’t be accused of being a weakling.

    It seems to me that Iran’s biggest detractors here in the states will only accept one course of action: the military kind. Its not enough that Iran is surrounded either by either US troops or nuclear powers. The sense I get is diplomacy is as about meaningful to the hawks here as it was in the run up to Gulf War II.

    If I were Iran I’d put my hands up in the air and let all the inspectors they want into my country. Not because I’d feel compelled to prove I was telling the truth, but because Washington DC has proven to be as insane as any other foreign government. Unfortunately my biggest fear is that, like Iraq’s leader appearing weak in front of their people and the Middle East, letting the west have it’s way is not a pill they can swallow— and the world will end up with yet another tragic mess in the region costing unnecessary blood and treasure.

  • Anthony anyone who doesn’t think the Iranian regime is seeking nuclear weapons to use them just has not been paying attention. Ahmadinejad has made his intentions clear:

    1. “Israel must be wiped off the map … The establishment of a Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world . . . The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of the war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land.”
    October 26, 2005
    (In an address to 4,000 students at a program titled, ‘The World Without Zionism’)

    NB The translation of this quote is debated and has also been read as “Israel must disappear from the page of history”

    2. “The Zionist regime is an injustice and by its very nature a permanent threat. Whether you like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation. The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm.”
    April 14, 2006
    (In a speech at the opening of the “Support for the Palestinian Intifada” conference on April 14-16 hosted in Tehran)

    3. “Today, they [Europeans] have created a myth in the name of Holocaust and consider it to be above God, religion and the prophets … This is our proposal: give a part of your own land in Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to them [Jews] so that the Jews can establish their country.”
    December 14, 2005
    (Speaking to thousands of people in the Iranian city of Zahedan)

    4. “The Zionist regime is the flag bearer of violation and occupation and this regime is the flag of Satan. …It is not unlikely that this regime be on the path to dissolution and deterioration when the philosophy behind its creation and survival is invalid.”
    August 18, 2007
    (Address to an international religious conference in Tehran)

    5. “A new Middle East will prevail without the existence of Israel.”
    August 4, 2006
    (as quoted by Malaysian news agency Bernama website)

    6. “In parallel to the official political war there is a hidden war going on and the Islamic states should benefit from their economic potential to cut off the hands of the enemies.”

    7. “Some European countries insist on saying that Hitler killed millions of innocent Jews in furnaces…. Although we don’t accept this claim, if we suppose it is true, our question for the Europeans is: Is the killing of innocent Jewish people by Hitler the reason for their support to the occupiers of Jerusalem? If the Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces in Europe — like in Germany, Austria or other countries — to the Zionists and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe.”
    December 8, 2005
    (While speaking to journalists at an Islamic summit in Mecca)

    8. “The Zionists are the true manifestation of Satan . . . Many Western governments that claim to be pioneers of democracy and standard bearers of human rights close their eyes over crimes committed by the Zionists and by remaining silent support the Zionists due to their hedonistic and materialistic tendencies.”
    February 28, 2007
    (to a meeting of Sudanese Islamic scholars in Khartoum)

    9. “Thanks to people’s wishes and God’s will the trend for the existence of the Zionist regime is downwards and this is what God has promised and what all nations want…Just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out”
    December 12, 2006
    (Comments to Iran’s Holocaust Conference)

    10. “Though the enemy had made preparations for not allowing Iran (president) to make his voice heard, but, they could not succeed and thanks to grace of God the world people heard our voice.”
    September 30, 2007

    11. “Zionists are people without any religion. They are lying about being Jewish because religion means brotherhood, friendship and respecting other divine religions…
    They are an organized minority who have infiltrated the world. They are not even a 10,000-strong organization.”
    August 28, 2007
    (At a news conference in Tehran)

    12. “With God’s help, the countdown button for the destruction of the Zionist regime has been pushed by the hands of the children of Lebanon and Palestine . . . By God’s will, we will witness the destruction of this regime in the near future.”
    June 3, 2007
    (Speech, as quoted by the Fars News Agency)

    13. “Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented.”
    August 2, 2006
    (as quoted by Iranian TV)

    14. “[N]o Muslim nation would put up with this entity [i.e. Israel] in Islamic lands, not for one moment … If it’s true that the [Europeans] committed a big crime in World War II, then they must take responsibility for it themselves, and not ask the Palestinian people to pay the price … Those countries that support this regime [Israel] were terrified at the suggestion that [Israel] should be relocated to their neighborhood. So why should the Palestinians and the countries in our region accept this entity?”
    (In a speech before an audience in the Iranian city of Qom, aired on television)

    15. “They [the United States] think they are the absolute rulers of the world.”
    October 29, 2005
    (Marching in a demonstration alongside a crowd of students in Tehran)

    16. “It is not just for a few states to sit and veto global approvals. Should such a privilege continue to exist, the Muslim world with a population of nearly 1.5 billion should be extended the same privilege.”
    June 19, 2005
    (In an interview with state television shortly before his election)

    17. “Iran’s enemies know your courage, faith and commitment to Islam and the land of Iran has created a powerful army that can powerfully defend the political borders and the integrity of the Iranian nation and cut off the hand of any aggressor and place the sign of disgrace on their forehead.”

    18. “Soon Islam will become the dominating force in the world, occupying first place in the number of followers amongst all other religions.”

    19.”What is important is that they have shown the way to martyrdom which we must follow.”
    [President Ahmadinejad’s comments on an aircraft crash in Tehran that killed 108 people in December 2005].

    20. “Is there a craft more beautiful, more sublime, more divine, than the craft of giving yourself to martyrdom and becoming holy? Do not doubt, Allah will prevail, and Islam will conquer mountain tops of the entire world.”

    21. “Our revolution’s main mission is to pave the way for the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam, the Mahdi.”

    22. “The wave of the Islamist revolution will soon reach the entire world.”

    23. “We don’t shy away from declaring that Islam is ready to rule the world.”
    January 21 2006

    24. “Our enemies should know that they are unable to even slightly hurt our nation and they cannot create the tiniest obstacle on its glorious and progressive way.”
    April 28 2006

    25. “By the grace of Allah, we (will be) a nuclear power.”

    26. “If you have burned the Jews, why don’t you give a piece of Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to Israel. Our question is, if you have committed this huge crime, why should the innocent nation of Palestine pay for this crime?”
    April 19, 2006

    27. “The UN structure is one-sided, stacked against the world of Islam.”
    June 8, 2005
    (In an interview on state television)

    28. “Are they human beings?… They (Zionists) are a group of blood-thirsty savages putting all other criminals to shame.”
    (as quoted by Iranian TV)

    29. “The Zionists and their protectors are the most detested people in all of humanity, and the hatred is increasing every day.”
    July 13, 2006
    (as quoted by Iranian state television)

    30. ”We say that this fake regime (Israel) cannot logically continue to live. Open the doors (of Europe) and let the Jews go back to their own countries.”
    April 24, 2006
    (In a news conference held on April 24, 2006)

  • Additionally Anthony do you seriously believe that a regime which butchers its own people would have any qualms about using a nuke on Tel Aviv as the final solution of their Jewish problem?

  • Don,

    I’m certainly not defending the Iranian regime, its attitude towards Jews or Israel or how they treat their own people. What I am trying to do is get a sense of what the political reality is before the Hitler comparisons start flying. Quickly scanning through your litany of quotes, I only see a reference once to ‘nuclear power’ and no references specifically to using nuclear weapons.

    Yes, every couple of months Ahmadinejad says something ridiculous and racists about Jews and it is plastered on every news service… but how are we to know this is not grand standing for his own people? How can we really understand the context his saying these things, a part from our own biases? He mentions that the Soviet Union was wiped off the map…. indeed it was, without a single shot or nuclear weapon for that matter. So like all things politicians say… their meaning can be rather open ended.

    Would the Iranians use a nuke against Tel Aviv? Perhaps. But like I said, the consequences for them would be incalculable. And I’d be willing to bet that the more the rhetoric or sanctions escalate in the U.S., the more likely the Iranians will indeed lash out with a demonstration of WMD capability. Our policy could end up cornering them into doing the very thing we are trying to prevent!

    Don, there has to be some sobriety on these topics before— once again— we march to the tune of pre-emptive war. Iraq was a bungling of an large and ongoing magnitude, and the U.S. really can’t afford the same deal with Iran.

    There has to be a genuinely moral way we can create a path to peaceful relations that do not involve more slaughter. We should be trying to understand the Iranian’s situation and work towards making their goals and our goals the same— namely a self-sustainable Iran that is peaceful.

    I don’t believe that the only way to prevent Iran from making nuclear weapons is by making war. We aren’t there yet. It deeply bothers me to see such a push in that direction.

  • American Night: Everyone gets a pony?

    Geez, I’d flatten a pony! Obama can’t even get THAT right. We don’t even get a grownup-sized horse!

    **France** is laughing at us.

    I just… wow. That’s so wrong in so many ways. I think I’ll start calling myself a Canadian.

  • Don:

    This guy had nukes – a lot more than Iran and we survived.

    Quit your worrying Chicken Little.

  • Hardly reassuring Awakaman since the world came within inches of a nuclear war in October 1962. Additionally Khrushchev was a rational leader. Ahmadinejad is many things, but I supect that rational is not among his attributes, and, in any case, he and other Iranian leaders have given every indication that they will use nuclear weapons once they have them.

  • I agree that Ahmadinejad having nukes is not as bad as Bin Laden having them, (it is generally acknowledged that nation states are not as irresponsible as terrorist groups) but the risk is certainly greater than Khrushchev, and that was pretty bad. Most experts believe that the use of nukes by a bad actor is only a matter of time, unfortunately.

Carter Tries to Deny He Said Obama Critics Driven By Race

Thursday, October 1, AD 2009

Former President Jimmy Carter was interviewed by CNN’s Candy Crowley who questioned him on why he accused “an Jimmy Carteroverwhelming portion” of tea party protesters and others that oppose current President Obama as racists.  Jimmy Carter responded by denying he ever made such a claim.  Several times Candy Crowley tried to ask President Carter to explain himself and each time President Carter denied he even said any such thing.

Am I hearing this right?  The following video shows the portion of the video where Candy Crowley is interviewing President Carter and then at the end it shows a clip of what President Carter said.  Truly amazing that He would have the audacity to lie on national cable television.

[vodpod id=Groupvideo.3546910&w=425&h=350&fv=]

Matthew Balan of NewsBusters has the complete story on this development here.

Continue reading...

12 Responses to Carter Tries to Deny He Said Obama Critics Driven By Race

  • Jimmy Carter responded by denying he ever made such a claim.

    File this under the same category as: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”.

  • At first I would say under my breath questioning his senility. Now I feel sad for the man.

  • This is the same peanut farmer who, after making a deal way back when with the North Koreans regarding their development of nuclear technology, told CNN: “I think it’s all roses now”.

    Yeah, right.

  • I still can’t get that petulant smile of Madeline Allbright that was showing during her North Korean visit when she was all grins during the Dear Leaders parade for her visit to Pyongyang.

  • File this under the same category as: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”.

    Well, I see what you mean. But Carter’s statement wasn’t made under oath.

    It is obvious from this that Carter realizes his blunder and is back-tracking from the stupid and wrongheaded remark. You can’t gain points from calling everyone on one side of a policy issue “racists”.

  • Carter was senile when he was President, and he’s even more senile now. It’s actually sad. This isn’t a case of his being evil. He’s just senile and should be taken care of in a nice rest home where anything he says no longer gets any publicity or credibility.

  • He wasn’t senile when President. He was book-smart and moral to the point of being Pollyannaish.

    He was so fundamentally ignorant of evil and sneakiness in the world that he was utterly incompetent either to engage in international relations, or to be discerning of the motives of his left-leaning political allies.

    He was, sad to say, as innocent as doves, and as wise as doves.

    So, he did a pretty bad job. But not a uniquely bad job.

    As a former president, his record is also mixed, though generally negative. He does quite well when, through the Carter Center, he does uncomplicated local community “good deeds” — rounding up donations for housing and the like.

    It is when he gets involved with international relations or other politically complicated topics, that he once again exceeds his realm of competence, and elicits groans from those of us who call Georgia home.

    A decent man, in the end…but one who, as described in the Peter Principle, was promoted to (perhaps far past) his threshold of incompetence.

  • R.C.,

    What a very interesting perspective that you’ve shed on President Carter. That’s probably the best examination of the man of heard yet.

    For the record, his state of mind has been a concern for the past two years. Now I don’t question it.

    I only feel sadness for the man.

  • Jimmah does not seem to be aware that a thing called “YouTube” exists and the ordinary peasants out there can access it and see for themselves what he originally said. And it can be done with a few key strokes and a couple of mouse clicks.

    This new-fangled Internet thingy is such a pesky inconvienence to old-time pols. They can’t simply deny the idiotic and offensive things they said the day before yesterday, with the help of soliticious reporters who toss them softballs.

  • True Donna, although it is amusing watching them try. A sympathetic press is only of marginal utility in the days of YouTube and blogs. This is really killing off the “mainstream media”, that is now widely regarded as a mere propaganda organ for the Democrat party. Why read Pravda when the truth is available for free on the internet?

  • Sorry, but I disagree that Carter is a “decent man”. He’s a bitter hypocrite and a grandstander. He is a petty, mean, and vindictive man who, in contrast to the tradition of former Presidents to avoid criticizing their successors in office, has engaged in unseemly, ungracious, and self-aggrandizing sniping from the sidelines. The final straw was accusing anyone who disagrees with President Obama of being “racist”. So-called “decent men” don’t calumniate with such broad strokes.

    I’ll grant him the good he’s done with Habitat for Humanity, but I’m just no longer willing to sit back and listen whenever Carter is described as a “decent man”.

  • Judging by some of the thing his former Secret Service detail have said, I’d say Jimmy Cater is not a nice man at all.

Who Is Irrelevant, Obama or Americans

Wednesday, September 23, AD 2009

Tea Party Protest 9-12

At this point it is almost irrelevant what President Obama thinks, says, or does.

As long as former Presidents Carter and Clinton keep calling Americans racists…

As long as Speaker Pelosi refers to Patriots as violent, swastika wearing, un-Americans…

As long as the extreme left on the Democratic Party insist on ignoring a movement that not only contains conservatives and Republicans, but pretty much everyone else in America…excluding most liberals.

Then it really doesn’t matter what the Obama Administration and their proxies continue calling ordinary American patriots.

Thus the only relevant question that can be asked is how badly will the Democrats continue to shoot themselves in the foot?

…It depends on how radical a health care bill they pass.

In the meantime  an insignificant handful of crazies the rest of America will wait for another round of insults as they continue to turn a deaf ear to the rhetorical platitudes of an ever increasingly irrelevant presidency.

Continue reading...

10 Responses to Who Is Irrelevant, Obama or Americans

  • A lot can happen between now and November 2010. One thing the Dems can count on is Americans’ short attention span. They can keep shooting themselves in the foot until May 2010.

  • That’s what I am anticipating.

    More shoot-in-the-foot comedy from here till next year.

  • The Seniors will remember. There are 9 Million plus who elected to replace normal Medicare with Medical Advantage Plans which have more coverage and very minumunal $10 and $25 dollar deductibles for regular or Specialist vists. O on Hospitalization and any type of lab tests and X Rays including MIRs Cat Scans etc. plus an excellent RX program. All the bills plan to strip the coverages and increase premiums for these plans. The 9 Million plus Seniors will not forget in 2012.

  • You are assuming the new plan will allow those 9 million to still be alive to vote in 2012.

    One year plus is a long time and we, the public, are entertained idiots. But it only takes a few people with strong conviction to keep the pressure on and the blind arrogance of the left to keep over-reaching and upsetting people to change the wind beginning this year in VA and NJ and next year in the House.

    The problem as I see it is that the change will be simply to put Republicans back in charge so they can do the same stupid stuff Democrats do while pandering to the pro-Life movement (while doing nothing to protect life), lowering visible taxes (while inflation is the real tax and it is hidden and increasing dramatically, smaller government (while expanding the strained empire), etc.

    I think thinking Americans are fed up with both parties, but third parties don’t seem to succeed at anything other than peeling votes off to ensure the worse of two options wins.

    Teddy Roosevelt crushed the Republican and gave us Wilson, Perot gave us Clinton, it is a ruse. What we need is to revitalize the Republican party so that they can actually be conservative.

    The Constitution is just a piece of paper if the political class walks all over it and the public sits back and does nothing.

  • You are assuming the new plan will allow those 9 million to still be alive to vote in 2012.

    I don’t know what’s with today, but I’m just cracking up at all the comments!

    Keep bringing them!

  • American Knight…from my Actuary background I would first suggest to you that over 92% will still be with us and able to vote. I would also suggest you might want to look at the “liquidity trap” rather than inflation which can and will cause deflation. Most of money in the stimulus package is still in the Banks and they are keeping it, not lending it or helping other to create jobs. Also if the current administration keeps on its downgrade of our CIA, Military, Homeland Seurity and appeasement toward those who want us to fail and attack us, we may not get to 2012.

  • afl,

    I wasn’t referring to the aged dying naturally, I was implying, toungue in cheek, that the current so-called health care plans may lead to expedited, mercy killings for the useless old people. In other words, a kind way of legalizing more murder.

    As for liquidity and inflation, inflation has already occured tot he tune of trillions on newly fabricated money units and as you said, the banks are still holding on to it but it has occured – the money supply has been inflated. If you are referring to the symptom of inflation, price increases, we will see that. Right now it is offset by low demand, but the supply will clear soon. Also, the losses of the stock and real estate markets have reduced the overall amount of additional money stcked (using fractional-reserve banking). All this accomplishes is delaying the inevitable inflation (money unit devaluation, loss of purchasing power). Qui bono? Government, banks, military-pharma-industrial corporations that are closely allied with government.

    Central banks breed fascism/corpratism and eventually a communist oligarchy. That frigthens me more than any other earthly thing.

  • American Knight Amen and I totaly agree. Point I was making on deflation ( prices go down ) as people do not have the money to spend and unemployed continues to escalate ( Ala 1930’s and it took WWII to change the economy. not FDR ) so we keep printing worthless paper. Maybe we do need to start start a new political party or bring the orthodox thinkers together to keep us from continuing socialism and an oligarchy run by all these new CZARS.

  • afl,

    Ok so we agree, then why do we think we might not. I am not necessarily referring to you and I, just this topic in general.

    It is designed to be confusing. The terms are designed to get us off track.

    What is inflation? No one really knows except the perpetrators of the theft.

    INFLATION is often thought of as prices going up. THIS IS NOT TRUE. Prices will probably go up as a result of inflation but rising prices are NOT inflation.

    INFLATION is the increase in the quantity of money.

    DEFLATION is obviously the decrease.

    Prices do not necessarily rise or fall as a result of inflation. Prices are merely distroted and so is the entire nervous system of the economy — price signals fail and no one knows what to make or not make.

    Prices are determined by SUPPLY and DEMAND, independent of the quantity of money.

    It is a stable quantity of money that allows for a stable measurement and allows the price system to signal properly.

    Inflation/deflation of the supply of money, a change in quantity, distorts those signals.

    Obamunism is designed to destroy the pricing system of whatever it is he and his masters want to control next. Right now it is so-called health care.

    Perhaps they will combine the clunkers program and health care and just pour ‘liquid glass’ into pefectly functional but old engines that are emitting too much CO2 becuase they are upset about losing their medical coverage.

  • Pingback: Carter Tries to Deny He Said Obama Critics Driven By Race « The American Catholic

Are You A Racist?

Monday, September 21, AD 2009

obamaflowchart21

Hattip to Powerline.  Jimmy Carter, incredibly enough one time President of the United States, believes a good portion of the opposition to Obama is racist.  Hmmm.  With Mr. Carter’s record on race, one could suspect that he might have a passing familiarity with racism.  The Obama administration quickly indicated that President Obama does not agree with his predecessor.  However, moogrogue at Missourah.com thoughtfully put together the above chart so that we may determine if we are racists according to the view enunciated by President 39.  Too bad Billy Carter is deceased and can’t be questioned about his elder brother’s statement.  I am sure it would be quotable and colorful as was this observation about his family: 
“My mother went into the Peace Corps when she was sixty-eight. My one sister is a motorcycle freak, my other sister is a Holy Roller evangelist and my brother is running for president. I’m the only sane one in the family.”

Continue reading...

101 Responses to Are You A Racist?

  • Methinks thou doth protest too much.

  • Ithinks thou hast no comprehension.

  • Well, if you have to rant that you aren’t a racist, it probably means you are. It’s like not trusting the guy that has to say trust me. If he has to plead to be trusted that says it all doesn’t it??

    You probably think Fox news is ‘fair and balanced’ too right??

  • Joe,

    Yeah, there’s nothing like declaring innocence that proves guilt, right? Give me a break.

  • You never took a logic course did you Joe? I posted this to hold up ex-pres Jimmuh to public ridicule.

    As to Fox, it is the network, judging from the ratings, that people are watching if they wish to have to have a clue about what is going on in the nation. Most of the rest of the media is too busy playing defense for Obama to have any interest in reporting on something as mundane as the news.

  • Well, if you declare your innocence when directly questioned, then yes, you are right. But if you offer a defense to something WITHOUT being accused, that says something.

    And yes many times declaring innocence is a way to hide the truth.

    “i did not have sexual relations with that women”

    “saddam hussein has a stockpile of WMD.”

  • One million wrong people don’t make it right.

    Does that mean islam is the #1 religion because there are more of them than any other religion??

  • Methinks Joe is entitled to a refund on that “formal education” he was bragging about earlier.

    Did he really get “formally educated”?? I’m starting to think he isn’t “formally educated”, or at least with a “formal education” I wouldn’t pay for.

    /paraphrase

  • Joe,

    You can add to your list “Abortion will not be covered in the Health Care bill.”

  • Unbelievable.

    Are you guys going to let this troll hijack every discussion?

    As for myself, following the chart above, I made it all the way to the very last “RACIST!”

  • Hoe (the troll, not Hargrave):

    When did you stop beating your wife?

  • The troll amuses me for the moment Joe H. When he ceases to amuse me I will show him the ban door.

  • It’s scary that they only reason all of you don’t murder and rape people is because of the spaghetti monster in the sky. Enlightened people don’t need to be threatened to know how to behave morally.

    It’s also deliciously ironic to get you guys to act very unchristian towards me.

    Your jesus must be proud.

    Go ahead and ban me. Censorship. That’s how religion deals with differing opinions so I suspect nothing less.

  • Joe,

    We’ve heard all this trope before. It’s old hat. At least be original if you’re going to come onto someone else’s blog and make an ass of yourself.

  • Well now, there’s an intelligent argument. You must have seen “Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs” this weekend.

  • I knew it was only a matter of time before Joe misapplied our own standards against us. Standards, I might add, to which he refuses to hold himself.

    LOL!

    Only slightly arrogant, I suppose, to think that you get to set such terms of debate for yourself.

  • Christians, like all humans, only have standards when it suits them.

    That’s what ‘sinning’ is. Dropping your standards momentarily for personal gain or survival, and NO ONE on this blog can honestly say they’ve never done that.

  • “It’s scary that they only reason all of you don’t murder and rape people is because of the spaghetti monster in the sky.”

    It’s actually more sad to me, than it is scary to you, that you have absolutely no rational basis for any good thing you do.

    I presume that you typically only believe in things that have evidence to support them.

    There is no scientific evidence for good or evil. You have belief without scientific evidence. You have faith.

    The only difference between us is that we acknowledge it and embrace it within a logically consistent framework, whereas you deny it. You live in a contradiction. One day, if you are honest with yourself, if you are humble enough to admit that you don’t know all there is to know, you will realize that.

    Philosophy 101, my fellow Joe – you can’t derive an “ought” from an “is”. In a random universe, rape and murder are just rape and murder. That we find such an idea appalling and unbearable suggests that we are designed/evolved to strive for moral truth, which cannot exist without God. God is the logical conclusion of all of the striving, hopes, and desires of humanity.

  • Folks,

    Look, I agree our visiting atheist here is just spouting off, but either ignore it or take the time to be substantive on it. Responding at the low level that he’s taking just takes up space and does little to actually answer the objections of unbelievers. (I don’t think you’re required to take up lots of time answering him, because I doubt he’s really inquiring at the moment, but there’s not much point in just sniping back.)

    JoeFromQC,

    Enlightened people don’t need to be threatened to know how to behave morally.

    No one needs to be threatened in order to behave morally, and I think any serious reading of the moral theology of Christianity will show you that this is not what Christian moral thinking consists of. However, it is actually rather difficult to come up with any clear understanding of what is “moral” without admitting the existence of any sort of absolute. Behavioralists come up with various “we instinctually see certain actions as good because they’re good for the species” but these don’t actually provide us with morality in the sense that humans naturally desire it in that they don’t provide absolute guidance. It’s easy to explain biologically why we can’t have people consistently killing and raping their neighbors, but it’s actually advantageous to do so occasionally and in certain circumstances from a biological point of view. However, as humans we have a fairly innate sense that moral laws ought to be absolute — that rape is actually _wrong_, not just a bad idea most of the time.

    And that’s before you even get into where it’s even possible to assert free will from a materialist point of view. If you hold that we are no more than our physical selves, then it’s hard to say whether people actually have any more responsibility for their actions then other animals do. In which case talking about doing “wrong” is rather fuzzy.

    So before lashing out at religious people as if they are fools when it comes to addressing moral questions, it might be a good idea to sit down and consider the internal tensions of your own professed position. They’re certainly not less.

  • >>>It’s actually more sad to me, than it is scary to you, that you have absolutely no rational basis for any good thing you do.

    No, you have it wrong. I do good things FOR rational reasons. I like the people I’m helping, I want my neighborhood to be nice, etc.. Those are RATIONAL reasons to do good.

    Believing you’re going to be eternally punished by an unconditionally loving god for not being good is IRRATIONAL.

    >>>I presume that you typically only believe in things that have evidence to support them.

    Presuming is like ASSuming buddy. That’s the problem. Belief and evidence are contradictory statements. To have faith or believe in something means you hold truth to be counter to the evidence provided.

    >>>There is no scientific evidence for good or evil. You have belief without scientific evidence. You have faith.

    That is just not true. There is no FAITH that convinces me Mr.Garrido is evil. If you need ‘faith’ to tell you that kidnapping an 11 year old and fathering 2 children with her is evil, you have serious problems you should go seek help for.

    >>>One day, if you are honest with yourself, if you are humble enough to admit that you don’t know all there is to know, you will realize that.

    HA!!! Well once you quit playing high and mighty maybe YOU will see the truth. I’ve never stated that I know all there is to know. That’s your team that does that.

    >>>Philosophy 101, my fellow Joe – you can’t derive an “ought” from an “is”. In a random universe, rape and murder are just rape and murder. That we find such an idea appalling and unbearable suggests that we are designed/evolved to strive for moral truth, which cannot exist without God. God is the logical conclusion of all of the striving, hopes, and desires of humanity.

    No, what makes us feel those emotions is OUR EVOLVED BRAIN. There are still tribes of people who have NEVER heard a word of the bible and have all those human qualities. Get over yourselves.

  • This post reminds me of last year’s round of remarkable logic (or, rather, reprehensible fallacy):

    If you don’t vote Obama, you’re racist!

  • Where to begin. Let’s start with faith. Faith is believing in what is revealed to us by another but not seen by myself directly. The Church would certainly agree with you that if there is empirical evidence then faith cannot contradict that.

    What you would seem to be referring to would be faith in God as you yourself have faith in may things – science for one. But belief in God is something that is apparent from reason alone and does not need faith. For example Aristotle held that there was the unmoved mover (God) apart from any religious claims. See his argument here:

    http:[email protected]/ontological/aristotleontological.htm

    Now this argument again is from pure reason. Thus for Aristotle the existence of God was given from reason.

    Now as for the personal God of faith and of Jesus, that becomes an argument from Revelation and the reliability of witnesses to Jesus’ life and resurrection. This does require a level of belief as I did not see him rise personally from the dead. Much as you take as articles of faith a number of scientific propositions as you did not prove them yourself.

  • Not voting for Obama doesn’t make you racist.

    But needing to repeat your non racism ad nauseum makes people wonder.

    If I went to the corner with a sign that said ‘I am not a sexual offender’ every day, pretty soon SOMEONE would rightfully get worried and check my background.

    The more you rail against something the more you are trying to hide something about yourself.

  • “No, what makes us feel those emotions is OUR EVOLVED BRAIN. There are still tribes of people who have NEVER heard a word of the bible and have all those human qualities. Get over yourselves.”

    Actually Joe we had a lab experiment running in the last century in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and Mao’s China as to what would happen when people forsook morality based upon God and embraced morality based upon human precepts. The results were not pretty to say the least. Without God morality is merely a matter of opinon and superior force to impose those opinions.

  • No, you have it wrong. I do good things FOR rational reasons. I like the people I’m helping, I want my neighborhood to be nice, etc.. Those are RATIONAL reasons to do good.

    How is helping people you like, wanting your neighborhood to be “nice”, etc., all “rational” reasons to do good?

    Sorry, but your rather conspicuous petitio principii leaves all wanting.

    Believing you’re going to be eternally punished by an unconditionally loving god for not being good is IRRATIONAL.

    Eternally punished by an unconditionally loving god for not being good is irrational?

    If you’re going to use our religion against us, you might as well get it right: it is not our “GOD” who punishes us; it is we who deliberately choose against Him and, thus, by choice we opt for an eternal life absent of Him.

    No, what makes us feel those emotions is OUR EVOLVED BRAIN.

    I’m certain that its complex neuronal architecture is surely evidence that no such God exists and that everything man does is merely the result of haphazard neuronal firing having no actual teleological end whatsoever.

  • Phillip – Do you see how you have to bend over backwards to defend your position? Science is NOT an absolute belief. Science is adaptable. What is scientific truth today, may turn out to be something more or less depending on what we uncover in the future. Religion is the opposite. You HAVE to believe things AS THEY ARE. No matter how much is discovered you must still believe. Lemmings I tell you. Lemmings.

  • “But needing to repeat your non racism ad nauseum makes people wonder.”

    Joe you completely overlook the fact that this is post is a response to the trope on the left mouthed by the peanut farmer from Plains and others that opposition to Obama is largely based on racism. It is a ridiculous assertion and the chart accompanying this post demonstrates how ridiculous it is.

  • But needing to repeat your non racism ad nauseum makes people wonder.

    Repeating non racism?

    It’s “repeating non racism” to simply point out the logical flaw in the liberal’s libel: “If you don’t vote Obama, you’re racist”?

    Clearly, you are the epitome of illogic; I’ll grant you that.

  • Science is NOT an absolute belief. Science is adaptable. What is scientific truth today, may turn out to be something more or less depending on what we uncover in the future. Religion is the opposite. You HAVE to believe things AS THEY ARE. No matter how much is discovered you must still believe. Lemmings I tell you. Lemmings.

    Are you actually saying that Science does not require the same “belief” and “faith” as does religion?

    Kindly produce for me a quanta so that I need not have simply “belief” or even “faith” in its existence; then, I shall have proof that what you say here is true!

    My, oh my, you are worse than a lemming, as your lurid imbecility in these series of comments demonstrates.

  • >>>Actually Joe we had a lab experiment running in the last century in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and Mao’s China as to what would happen when people forsook morality based upon God and embraced morality based upon human precepts. The results were not pretty to say the least. Without God morality is merely a matter of opinon and superior force to impose those opinions.

    Well, if things like burning heretics at the stake, and the spanish inquisition, and the church allowing the holocaust to happen weren’t in the church’s past, you’d have a point. But…….

    Not to mention you’re wrong about hitler. He fought against the ‘godless communism’ and considered himself religious, and believed ‘god’ was an active deity that supported the Aryan race.

  • Joe,

    No. Again, it is rational to know that God exists. You can read Aristotle’s argument if you wish.

  • Aww, isn’t that precious. E thinks he’s smart… LOL

    No one has said all of it is based on racism. But things like a poster that says Obama 08 with a picture of curious george on it. That is racist. You are fools if you think none of this is based on race.

  • It is never rational to believe in something that there is zero evidence for.

  • Oh Joe.

    “Belief and evidence are contradictory statements. To have faith or believe in something means you hold truth to be counter to the evidence provided.”

    Belief is just another way of saying “hold to be true”. You are splitting hairs.

    Also, why can’t faith or belief be held in the absence of empirical evidence? When you say “contrary to the evidence”, you are asserting that we’ve looked at evidence and rejected it. But the Christian faith has done no such thing; there is no material process or phenomenon that is not fully incorporated into a Christian worldview.

    Rather, it is those aspects of life that materialism and the scientific method alone cannot explain – starting with the conditions for the existence of good and evil as objective categories independent of the human mind – that are completely rejected by the militant atheist.

    But let us get to the very important thing.

    I said:

    “There is no scientific evidence for good or evil. You have belief without scientific evidence. You have faith.”

    You replied:

    “That is just not true. There is no FAITH that convinces me Mr.Garrido is evil.”

    Then, what, I ask, does convince you? Personal feelings? Subjective experience? Why, these sound like the sort of things that believers have used to justify their belief in God for centuries. Not a very rigorous application of the scientific method there, is it? And yet there is a truth there all the same.

    You’re trying to take the hard things in life – evils such as rape and murder, and our response to them as humans – and place them in a box that is “off limits” to rational inquiry and objective analysis. You declare that anyone who wants to explore them is sick and warped.

    That’s not very scientific. It sounds like a nervous evasion.

    “If you need ‘faith’ to tell you that kidnapping an 11 year old and fathering 2 children with her is evil, you have serious problems you should go seek help for.”

    This is the ad homoniem that many atheists resort to when they cannot come up with a rational explanation for their beliefs.

    You believe our default mode of existence is to accept and believe things without any scientific evidence to support them. I would say that that is exactly what religious people have always believed about man. Your faith stops with your morality; ours stops with the only possible condition for the existence of good and evil outside of our minds.

    You declare this act to evil on the basis of no evidence. You have faith that it is evil.

  • The belief in the empirical is an act of faith. That’s part of your Scientism.

  • That should read “the belief in the empirical only…”

  • Apparently, a guy who thinks “If you vote Obama, you’re racist” is logical and possess such eloquence as to employ “LOL” is clearly clever.

    Too bad it speaks more as concerning his incorrigible stupidity than anything else.

  • >>>Then, what, I ask, does convince you? Personal feelings? Subjective experience? Why, these sound like the sort of things that believers have used to justify their belief in God for centuries. Not a very rigorous application of the scientific method there, is it? And yet there is a truth there all the same.

    No there isn’t. You saying something is true does not make it so. What convinces me that it is wrong?

    Morality. You do not need faith to have morality.

    If you need faith to tell you a middle age man kidnapping and fathering children with an underage girl is wrong, you need serious help. Like right now. Call a doctor.. Oh wait, just ask ‘god’ to heal you.. LOL

  • >>>Apparently, a guy who thinks “If you vote Obama, you’re racist” is logical and possess such eloquence as to employ “LOL” is clearly clever.

    I never said those things. Typical. I can’t debate what he’s talking about so I’ll make stuff up.

    >>>Too bad it speaks more as concerning his incorrigible stupidity than anything else.

    Aww, how christian of you. Not really loving your enemy are you??

  • It is never rational to believe in something that there is zero evidence for.

    Really, Joe?

    Then, there goes most of the scientific theories that we simply take for granted.

  • “Morality. You do not need faith to have morality.”

    Please provide proof that ‘morality’ is necessary or that it is even ‘rational’.

    (Not that I deem you capable of even performing such a feat or that you are sufficiently intelligent to detect exactly the point of the inquiry.)

  • No, that’s not true. There is no scientific theory that hasn’t been tested. Newton didn’t just write “there is a law of gravity” He studied it, and found out the rate, and realized it was CONSTANT.

    Religion says take this as truth but don’t question or test it.

  • >>(Not that I deem you capable of even performing such a feat or that you are sufficiently intelligent to detect exactly the point of the inquiry.)

    Spoken like a true christian. Kudos to you sir.

  • JoeQC said: “Well, if things like burning heretics at the stake, and the spanish inquisition, and the church allowing the holocaust to happen weren’t in the church’s past, you’d have a point. But…….”

    This is really, really digging back into the past though, if one is talking about the Inquisition or Salem Witch Trials. To stand back, talking of things 500 years ago really seems to dilute the point.

    JoeQC sadly, must have been let down with his concept of the divine or religion. That is what I think.

  • “I never said those things. Typical. I can’t debate what he’s talking about so I’ll make stuff up.”

    And we never posted up any such Obama poster with Curious George on it. So, perhaps it is you who should quit “making stuff up”.

    “Awww, how Christian of you.”

    I can’t help it if you’re yet another stupid modern-day Galatian incapable of grasping logic.

  • In regard to Hitler here are some of his diatribes against the Church contained in his “Table Talk” compiled following the war from notes taken at the time he spoke:

    ‘The war will be over one day. I shall then consider that my life’s final task will be to solve the religious problem. Only then Will the life of the German native be guaranteed once and for all.”

    “The evil that’s gnawing our vitals is our priests, of both creeds. I can’t at present give them the answer they’ve been asking for, but it will cost them nothing to wait. It’s all written down in my big book. The time will come when I’ll settle my account with them, and I’ll go straight to the point.”

    “I don’t know which should be considered the more dangerous: the minister of religion who play-acts at patriotism, or the man who openly opposes the State. The fact remains that it’s their maneuvers that have led me to my decision. They’ve only got to keep at it, they’ll hear from me, all right. I shan’t let myself be hampered by juridical scruples. Only necessity has legal force. In less than ten years from now, things will have quite another look, I can promise them.”

    “We shan’t be able to go on evading the religious problem much longer. If anyone thinks it’s really essential to build the life of human society on a foundation of lies, well, in my estimation, such a society is not worth preserving. If’ on the other hand, one believes that truth is the indispensable foundation, then conscience bids one intervene in the name of truth, and exterminate the lie.”

    “Once the war is over we will put a swift end to the Concordat. It will give me the greatest personal pleasure to point out to the Church all those occasions on which it has broken the terms of it. One need only recall the close cooperation between the Church and the murderers of Heydrich. Catholic priests not only allowed them to hide in a church on the outskirts of Prague, but even allowed them to entrench themselves in the sanctuary of the altar.”

    “The fact that I remain silent in public over Church affairs is not in the least misunderstood by the sly foxes of the Catholic Church, and I am quite sure that a man like the Bishop von Galen knows full well that after the war I shall extract retribution to the last farthing. And, if he does not succeed in getting himself transferred in the meanwhile to the Collegium Germanium in Rome, he may rest assured that in the balancing of our accounts, no “T” will remain uncrossed, no “I” undotted!”

    At Nuremburg after the war the Prosecution noted the Nazi hostitility to Christianity:

    “We come now to deal with the responsibility of the defendant Bormann with respect to the persecution of the Church. The defendant Bormann authorised, directed and participated in measures involving the persecution of the Christian Church. The Tribunal, of course, has heard much in this proceeding concerning the acts of the conspiracy involving the persecution of the Church. We have no desire now to rehash that evidence. We are interested in one thing alone, and that is nailing on the defendant Bormann his responsibility, his personal, individual responsibility, for that persecution.

    I shall now present the proofs showing the responsibility of Bormann with respect to such persecution of the Christian Churches.

    Bormann was among the most relentless enemies of the Christian Church and Christian Clergy in Germany and in German-occupied Europe. I refer the Tribunal, without quoting therefrom, to Document D-75, previously introduced in evidence as Exhibit USA 348, which contains a copy of the secret Bormann decree of 6th June, 1941, entitled “The Relationship of National Socialism to Christianity.” In this decree, as the Tribunal will well recall, Bormann bluntly declared that National Socialism and Christianity were incompatible, and he indicated that the ultimate aim of the conspirators was to assure the elimination of Christianity itself.

    I next refer the Tribunal, without quotation, to Document 098-PS, previously put in as Exhibit USA 350. This is a letter from the defendant Bormann to the defendant Rosenberg, dated 22nd February, 1940, in which Bormann reaffirms the incompatibility of Christianity and National Socialism.

    Now, in furtherance of the conspirators’ aim to undermine the Christian Churches, Bormann took measures to eliminate the influence of the Christian Church from within the Nazi Party and its formations. I now offer in evidence Document 113-PS, as Exhibit USA 683. This is an order of the defendant Bormann, dated 27th July, 1938, issued as Chief of Staff to the Deputy of the

    [Page 300]

    Fuehrer, Hess, which prohibits clergymen, from holding Party offices. I shall not take the time of the Tribunal to put this quotation upon the, record. The point of it is, as indicated, that Bormann issued an order-forbidding the appointment of clergymen to Party positions.
    THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps this would be a good time to break off for ten minutes.

    (A recess was taken.)

    LIEUTENANT LAMBERT: May it please the Tribunal, we are dealing with the efforts of the defendant Bormann to expel and eliminate from the Party all Church and religious influence.

    I offer in evidence Document 838-PS, as Exhibit USA 684. I shall not burden the record with extensive quotation from this exhibit, but merely point out that this is a copy of a Bormann decree dated 3rd June, 1939, which laid it down that followers of Christian Science should be excluded from the Party.

    The attention of the Tribunal is next invited to Document 840-PS, previously introduced in evidence as Exhibit USA 355. The Tribunal will recall that this, was a Bormann decree of 14th July, 1939, referring with approval to an earlier Bormann decree of 9th February, 1937, in which he had ruled, that in the future all Party members who entered the clergy or who undertook the study of theology were to be expelled from the Party.

    I next offer in evidence Document 107-PS, Exhibit USA 3M. This is a circular directive of the defendant Bormann dated 17th June, 1938, addressed to all Reichsleiters and Gauleiters, top leaders of the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party, transmitting a copy of directions relating. to the non-participation of the Reich Labour Service in religious celebrations. The Reich Labour Service, the Tribunal will recall, compulsorily incorporated all Germans within its organisation.

    DR. BERGOLD (Counsel for defendant Bormann): The member of the prosecution has just submitted a number of documents, in which he proves that, on the suggestion of Bormann, members of the Christian religion were to be excluded from the Party, or from certain organisations. I beg the High Tribunal to allow the member of the prosecution to explain to me how and why Bormann’s activity, that is, the exclusion of Christians from the Party, can be a War Crime. I cannot gather this evidence from the trial brief. The Party is described as a criminal conspiracy. Is it a crime to exclude certain people from membership in a criminal conspiracy? Is that considered a crime? How and why is the exclusion of certain members from the Party a crime?

    THE PRESIDENT: Counsel will answer you.

    LIEUTENANT LAMBERT: If the Tribunal will willingly accommodate argument at this stage, we find that the question –

    THE PRESIDENT: Only short argument.

    LIEUTENANT LAMBERT: Yes, Sir – admits of a short, and, as it seems to us, easy answer.

    The point we are now trying to prove – and evidence is abounding on it – is that Bormann had a hatred and an enmity and took oppositional measures towards the Christian Church. The Party was the repository of political power in Germany. To have power one had to be in the Party or subject to its favour. By his efforts, concerted, continuing and consistent, to exclude clergymen, theological students or any persons sympathetic to the Christian, religion, Bormann could not have chosen a clearer method of showing and demonstrating his, hatred and his distrust of the Christian religion and those who supported it.

    THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for Bormann can present his argument upon this subject at a later stage. The documents appear to the Tribunal to be relevant.

    LIEUTENANT LAMBERT: With the Tribunal’s permission, I had just put in Document 107-PS and pointed out that it transmitted directions relating to the

    [Page 301]

    non-participation of the Reich Labour Service in religious celebrations. I quote merely the fourth and fifth paragraphs of Page 1 of the English translation of Document 107-PS, which reads as follows:
    “Every religious discussion is forbidden in the Reich Labour Service because it disturbs the comrade-like harmony of all working men and women.
    For this reason also, every participation of the Reich Labour Service in Church, i.e., religious, arrangements and celebrations is not possible.”

    The attention of the Tribunal is next invited to Document 070-PS, previously put in as Exhibit USA 349. The Tribunal will recall that this was a letter from Bormann’s office to the defendant Rosenberg, dated 25th April, 1941, in which Bormann declared that he had achieved progressive success in reducing and abolishing religious services in schools, and in replacing Christian prayers with National Socialist mottoes and rituals. In this letter, Bormann also proposed a Nazified morning service in the schools, in place of the existing confession and morning service.
    In his concerted efforts to undermine and subvert the Christian churches, Bormann authorised, directed and participated in measures leading to the closing, reduction and suppression of theological schools, faculties and institutions. The attention of the Tribunal is invited to Document 116-PS, Exhibit USA 685, which I offer in evidence. This is a letter from the defendant Bormann to the defendant Rosenberg, dated 24th January, 1939, enclosing, for Rosenberg’s cognisance, a copy of Bormann’s letter to the Reich Minister for Science, Training and Public Education. In the enclosed letter, Bormann informs the Minister as to the Party’s position in favour of restricting and suppressing theological faculties. Bormann states that, owing to war conditions, it had become necessary to reorganise the German high schools, and in view of this situation, he requested the Minister to restrict and suppress certain theological faculties.

    I now quote from the first paragraph on Page 3 of the English translation of Document 116-PS, which reads as follows:

    “I, therefore, would like to see you put the theological faculties under appreciable limitations in so far as, according to the above statements, they cannot be entirely eliminated. This will concern not only the theological faculties at universities, but also the various State institutions which, as seminaries having no affiliation with any university, still exist in many places. I request you not to give any express explanations to churches or other institutions and to avoid public announcement of these measures. Complaints and the like, if they are to be answered at all, must be countered with this explanation, that these measures are carried out in the course of planned economy, and that the same is being done to other, faculties. I would be glad, if the professorial chairs thus made vacant could then be turned over to the fields of research newly created in recent years, such as racial research and archaeology.
    “Martin Bormann.”

    In our submission, what this document comes to is a request from Bormann to this effect: “Please close down the religious faculties and substitute in their place Nazi faculties and university chairs, with the mission of investigating racialism, cultism, Nazi archaeology.” This sort of thing was done in the Hohe Schule, as was so clearly demonstrated in the prosecution’s case against the plundering activities of the Einsatzstab Rosenberg.
    The attention of the Tribunal is next invited to Document 122-PS, previously put in as Exhibit USA 362. The Tribunal will recall that 122-PS is a letter from the defendant Bormann to the defendant Rosenberg, dated 17th April, 1939, transmitting to Rosenberg a photostatic copy of the plan of the Reich

    [Page 302]

    Minister of Science, Training and Public Education for the combining and dissolving of certain specified theological faculties. In his letter of transmittal, Bormann requested Rosenberg “to take cognizance and prompt action” with respect to the proposed suppression of religious institutions.
    I next offer in evidence Document 123-PS, Exhibit USA 686. This is a confidential letter from the defendant Bormann to the Minister of Education, dated 23rd June, 1939, in which Bormann sets forth the Party’s decision to order the suppression of numerous theological faculties and religious institutions. The Tribunal will note that the letter lists 19 separate religious institutions with respect to which Bormann ordered dissolution or restriction.

    After directing the action to be taken by the Minister in connection with the various theological faculties, Bormann stated as follows, and I quote from the next to last paragraph of Page 3 of the English translation of Document 123-PS:

    “In the above I have informed you of the Party’s wishes, after thorough, investigation of the matter with all Party offices. I would be grateful if you would initiate the necessary measures as quickly as possible. With regard to the great political significance which every single case of such a combination will have for the Gau concerned, I ask you to take these measures, and particularly to fix dates for them always in agreement with me.”
    I next offer in evidence, without quotation, Document 131- PS, as Exhibit USA 687. In summary, without quotation therefrom, this is a letter from the defendant Bormann to the defendant Rosenberg, dated 12th December, 1939, relating to the suppression of seven professorships in the near-by University of Munich.
    Now, I deal briefly with the responsibility of Bormann for the confiscation of religious property and cultural property. Bormann used his paramount power and position to cause the confiscation of religious property and to subject the Christian churches and clergy to a discriminatory legal regime.

    I offer in evidence Document 099-PS, Exhibit USA 688. This is a copy of a letter from Bormann to the Reich Minister for Finance, dated 19th January, 1940, in which Bormann demanded a great increase in the special war tax imposed on the churches. I quote from the first two paragraphs of Page 2 of the English translation of this document, which reads as follows:

    “As it has been reported to me, the war contribution of the churches has been specified from 1st November, 1939 on, at first, for a period of three months, at R.M. 1,800,000 per month, of which R.M. 1,000,000 are to be paid by the Protestant church, and R.M. 800,000 by the Catholic church per month. The establishment of such a low amount has surprised me. I see from numerous reports that the political communities have to raise such a large war contribution, that the execution of their tasks, partially very important – for example, in the field of public welfare – is, endangered. In consideration of that, a larger quota from the churches appears to be absolutely appropriate.”
    The question may arise: Of what criminal effect is it to demand larger taxes from church institutions? As to this demand of Bormann’s taken by itself, the prosecution would not suggest that it had a criminal effect, but when viewed within the larger frame of Bormann’s demonstrated hostility to the Christian Church, and his efforts, not merely to circumscribe but to eliminate it, we suggest that this document has probative value in showing Bormann’s hostility and his concrete measures to effectuate that hostility against the Christian churches and clergy.”

  • >>>I can’t help it if you’re yet another stupid modern-day Galatian incapable of grasping logic.

    You serve your master well.

  • “You serve your master well.”

    Thank you — so did St. Paul who said something similar!

  • >>This is really, really digging back into the past though, if one is talking about the Inquisition or Salem Witch Trials. To stand back, talking of things 500 years ago really seems to dilute the point.

    So let me get this straight. The horrors of the past that secularism caused is list able, but the 1000’s of years of church oppression aren’t. Check.

    >>>JoeQC sadly, must have been let down with his concept of the divine or religion. That is what I think.

    You hit it on the head.. When I developed rational thought I said ‘You mean the people I trust have been feeding me LIES all these years??? It’s pretty disheartening until you realize they’ve been brainwashed and don’t realize they’re lying to you.

  • Oh, and I’m still waiting for you to provide demonstrative proof that ‘Morality’ is indeed *rational”… again, not that you’re actually capable of doing thus but, hey, here’s some charity on my part!

  • So Paul’s word’s are more important than jesus’ who said to love your enemies?

    Typical bible thumper, only heeds what is good for them.

    Onward christian soldier, onwards.

  • Also can you provide a refutaion of Aristotle’s argument for the existence of God.

  • My ‘proof’ that morality is rational is that the code of law predates the 10 commandments.

    All of the civilizations prior to monotheism still believed in right and wrong.

    All mythologies are defined by a battle between good and evil.

  • I am “loving” my enemies but granting you an audience, however hopelessly stupid you have demonstrated yourself to be.

  • 15 Minutes later… no demonstrative proof provided concerning ‘Morality’ as actually being *rational*… nothing but typical evasions by the clearly cognitively deficient.

  • >>Also can you provide a refutaion of Aristotle’s argument for the existence of God.

    You are the one selling a good (religion). The burden of proof is on you. It’s impossible to prove that god doesn’t exist. Just like it’s impossible to prove that Unicorns, leprechauns, and superman don’t exist.

    If I went around say EXACTLY the same things you were, but I said Superman visited me instead of ‘god’. I’d be ridiculed. Just as you should be.

  • So since its impossible to prove that God doesn’t exist you’re taking it on faith?

  • My ‘proof’ that morality is rational is that the code of law predates the 10 commandments.

    All of the civilizations prior to monotheism still believed in right and wrong.

    All mythologies are defined by a battle between good and evil.

    So your ‘proof’ is based on nothing more than that primitive peoples espoused morality?

    If anything, it only proves that morality, as such, is merely the remnant of a primitive and even superstitious culture!

    So much for your *scientific* proof!

    Although, I find it quite telling that rather than provide something *scientifically-based*, you resorted to such flawed (and even self-refuting) reasoning as that (though, no surprise there)!

  • Not at all. Whereas I can’t ‘prove’ there is no god, all evidence points in that direction.

    There is real tangible evidence that the judeo-christian god is a figment of man’s imagination.

  • No, my scientific proof is the evolved human brain.

    I was merely stating that your little religion didn’t ‘invent’ morality.

  • My ‘proof’ that morality is rational is that the code of law predates the 10 commandments.

    All of the civilizations prior to monotheism still believed in right and wrong.

    All mythologies are defined by a battle between good and evil.

    How is that a proof that morality is rational? All cultures also believed in spells, curses, ghosts and gods. Do you believe in all of those and well and consider them to be rational?

    Also, your analysis is a bit off. Not all mythologies are defined by a battle between good and evil. Ancient Sumerian and Egyptian and Greek and Roman mythology were not. Norse mythology was to an extent. Dualism is certainly a common theme in ancient mythologies, but it’s not universal.

    Further, the question is not so much whether various pre-Christian and non-Christian societies believed in right and wrong, but how exactly as an atheist (and I would assume thus materialist?) can achieve a rational explanation of what makes some actions right and others wrong. Do you think that there is some objective standard of “the good” which we all have an innate understanding of? And if so, why?

  • It doesn’t matter. You guys are so afraid of a dissenting opinion I’m finding that my posts are dissappearing. You guys must think your god is pretty impotent if you’re scared of my little words.

  • JoefromQCA, hey! You forgot to mention the Crusades!

  • There are more atrocities committed by the church than I can list.

  • “Scared of [your] little words.”?

    Really?

    You quite foolishly attempted to prove to me that morality is *rational* simply because primitive people believed in it.

    To be intimidated by somebody whose intelligence quotient is no doubt less than that of a reptile is ludicrous.

  • Joe,

    Just answer the question, since you cannot show that God does not exist you take it as an article of faith.

  • It IS rational. Just because you needed to be taught what comes naturally to most doesn’t make it untrue.

    I must have hit a nerve to make you act so christianly towards me. I guess I should be glad it’s this century and all you have is words instead of weapons.

  • Just because you didn’t like the answer doesn’t mean I didn’t answer it… Oh wait, it was one that was deleted.. Hold on…

    It may be impossible to prove god doesn’t exist, but all evidence points in that direction. It’s impossible to prove that unicorns don’t exist. Do you believe in them??

  • Joe: Just answer the question, since you cannot show that God does not exist you take it as an article of faith.

    Well, since Joe argued that morality is indeed *rational* since primitive people happened to believe in it ever since; similarly, based on the same premise that Joe himself provided, believing in a Divine Providence is likewise *rational* since primitive people happened to believe in it ever since as well.

  • I never said ancient people believed in religion because it was rational, I stated that morality and laws were invented before your little invisible best friend was.

  • “It IS rational. Just because you needed to be taught what comes naturally to most doesn’t make it untrue.”

    Primitive people believed in ‘Morality’; therefore, it is *rational*.

    Primitive people believed in ‘Divine Providence’; therefore, it is *rational*.

    Just because you needed to be taught what comes naturally to most doesn’t make it untrue, Joe!

  • I suppose you probably don’t realize how incoherent that is.

    >>>Primitive people believed in ‘Morality’; therefore, it is *rational*.

    Once again, I never SAID that. I stated that morality existed before your jesus myths were invented.

  • Therefore the theory that morality exists because of ‘god’ are false.

  • ‘Morality’ existed before Jesus; therefore, it is *rational*?

    Well, sorry to say, but ‘Divine Providence’ existed even before Jesus; therefore, it too is *rational*!

  • Hearing Mr. Carter’s words, I could not but recall Mr. Reagan’s words: “There you go again”.

    Without God, without the Bible, there would be no science. Read Stanley Jaki’s works.

    “Morality is helping I like, living in a good neighborhood”. What about people you don’t like?

  • That’s the problem. You guys speak as if you hold the copyright to what is true.

    You have no idea what you are talking about. Something predating something doesn’t instantly make it rational.

    Okay let’s go a different route.

    Do you believe that 2 great pillars hold up the earth? Do you believe if you go to the tallest mountain on earth you can see the entire planet?

  • JoeFromQCA,

    Given that Christians assert that God is eternal, and that as the creator of the world God gave humanity a certain natural moral sense (an ability to perceive natural moral law) the fact that morality was envisioned prior to Jewish and Christian revelation is hardly a critique of the Abrahamic religious tradition.

    Seriously, if you’re going to critique a religious understanding of morality, you need to understand what the religious understanding of morality is first, and your antics here don’t really suggest that this is the case.

    If you want to engage in something resembling serious discussion, that’s great. Always up for a good argument when there’s the time. But this kind of hit and run spouting off has already got tired — which is probably why you’re finding yourself in and out of moderation.

  • Joe,

    If it hasn’t dawn on you, the extent of your inherent stupidity is becoming embarrassingly apparent in your rather egregiously flawed syllogisms.

    To the point, if I were you, I’d save myself from further embarrassment.

  • No, I have stated things you don’t want to hear. I’m trying to have a discussion, but all your side can say to anything is “Nuh-uh!! LALALALALA!!! How DARE you question my beliefs!!!! I’m right and you’re wrong and someday you’ll learn!!!”. Real serious open minds you have here.

  • “It may be impossible to prove that God doesn’t exist though all the evidence points in that direction.” Good you changed the wording since the previous wording hangs you. Though since the evidence points in such a direction only and does not “prove” again you are taking it on faith.

    Can I prove that a non-contingent being such as God exists? Yes, again read Aristotle’s argument. It seems you can’t do that. Why?

  • Hey look at that!! E can use big words!! Good boy!! Here’s a biscuit.

    Once again your attitude must make jesus proud. You are a boon to your religion…..

  • >>Good you changed the wording since the previous wording hangs you. Though since the evidence points in such a direction only and does not “prove” again you are taking it on faith.

    WRONG!!! I never changed my wording. I’ve never said that I could prove god doesn’t exist. No wonder you guys can’t debate anything, you make stuff up. No, ‘faith’ means that you accept something as truth although all evidence says it’s not.

    >>Can I prove that a non-contingent being such as God exists? Yes, again read Aristotle’s argument. It seems you can’t do that. Why?

  • But this kind of hit and run spouting off has already got tired —

    What I want to know is why would ‘Morality’ be considered *rational* simply because primitive people (who were actually themselves infamously *irrational*, often given to rampant & vile superstitions, some of whom even made human sacrifices in order to appease the gods) believed in it?

    In like manner, one can argue based on the same premise that ‘Divine Providence’ itself should likewise be considered *rational* since primitive people believe in it, too.

  • >>>>Can I prove that a non-contingent being such as God exists? Yes, again read Aristotle’s argument. It seems you can’t do that. Why?

    No buddy. Aristotle’s argument proves nothing. He also believed the Earth stay still while the stars and sun rotated around us. I wouldn’t be using him as your argument. I’ve noticed that you can’t point to any science that isn’t 2000 years old to prove your points…..

  • I never said that it is rational because ancient peoples believed in it. GET OFF THAT TRACK.

    I said that morality predates the judeo-christian myths, that’s it. I never said it was therefore rational thought that led to that.

  • I’m trying to have a discussion, but all your side can say to anything is “Nuh-uh!! LALALALALA!!! How DARE you question my beliefs!!!! I’m right and you’re wrong and someday you’ll learn!!!”. Real serious open minds you have here.

    Yeah, your compelling argument that *morality* must be accepted as *rational* because primitive people believed in it was quite overwhelming!

    Too bad it was nothing more than a childish troll shouting: “LALALALALA!!! How DARE you question my beliefs!!!! I’m right and you’re wrong and someday you’ll learn!!!”

  • >>Yeah, your compelling argument that *morality* must be accepted as *rational* because primitive people believed in it was quite overwhelming!

    Again, I never said that. Are you dense?? I stated that morality existed before the judeo-christian myths were invented. So the statemnt that you can’t have morality with out religion is patently false.

    >>Too bad it was nothing more than a childish troll shouting: “LALALALALA!!! How DARE you question my beliefs!!!! I’m right and you’re wrong and someday you’ll learn!!!”

    Oh no!?!?!? A troll????? Oh the humanity!! The mean ol’ christian called me a troll.

  • Let’s see. Your 12;53 post is:

    “It is impossible to prove that god doesn’t exist.”

    Your 1:13 post is:

    “It may be impossible to prove that god doesn’t exist…”

    From an unconditional to a conditional statement. Both your words. Your changes. The conclusions you draw from both require faith.

  • One example of JoeFromQCA’s remarkable logic —

    In one instance, the fool says:

    My ‘proof’ that morality is rational is that the code of law predates the 10 commandments.

    All of the civilizations prior to monotheism still believed in right and wrong.

    All mythologies are defined by a battle between good and evil.

    Then, he says in a follow-up post:

    You have no idea what you are talking about. Something predating something doesn’t instantly make it rational.

    Do we really require further evidence on just how hopelessly abysmal this individual’s intelligence happens to be?

  • DO you not understand that since I don’t talk about rationality in the first statement. Therefore my 2nd statement doesn’t contradict my first. No matter how badly you wanna ‘get me’.

    You must think of yourself as a dim bulb to keep attacking my intelligence.

  • Hey, Joe, you said:

    “My ‘proof’ that morality is rational is that the code of law predates the 10 commandments.”

    Well, I say:

    “You have no idea what you are talking about. Something predating something doesn’t instantly make it rational.”!

    Oh, and thank-you for refuting your own faulty logic!

  • ‘It is impossible’ ‘It may be impossible’ are not different statements. Just slightly different wording used in different contexts. By my saying may be, I am doing nothing more than speculating.

    Your lack of debating the issue and instead attack me says a lot about your beliefs.

  • JoeFromQCA pretty clearly has an inability to engage in rational debate. Rather than prolonging this, I for one am going to leave things where they stand and stop releasing his comments from moderation.

    If someone else sees value to doing so, feel free.

  • Poor JoeFromQCA isn’t even capable of grasping how woefully stupid he happens to appear.

    Let me try to explain with “JoeFromQCA for DUMMIES”:

    Joe, you said:

    “My ‘proof’ that morality is rational is that the CODE OF LAW predates the 10 COMMANDMENTS.”

    Then, you said:

    “Something predating something doesn’t instantly make it rational.”

    I happen to agree with the latter statement!

    “Something [CODE OF LAW] predating something [10 COMMANDMENTS] doesn’t instantly make it *rational*.”

  • Joe – you keep saying “faith” means believing in something against all the evidence. I don’t know where you got that definition of faith. Faith means believing in something which you may not be able to observe directly. For example, if you believe the witness when she says Mr. X committed the crime, you are putting faith in certain evidence – her testimony. Likewise, when you “believe” a black hole exists near some particular quadrant of space, you are putting faith in the statement of some scientist who himself is putting faith in his observation that irregular light and orbital patterns of some distant blurr means a gravitational field is acting upon it, and that field is a black hole. He’s never been there, and neither have you. That is a lot of faith.

  • c matt,

    You’ve said it better than I have. I hope Joe gets it.

  • God existed before Christianity existed as a religion, before anything or anyone ever existed.

    Morality is not about “behavior”, which can be explained deterministically. It is about choice, which cannot.

    JoeQC, you have belief without evidence – you have faith. And you insult, belittle, and question the sanity of all those who dare to question your faith.

    Even if it were true that I needed to see a doctor, it is equally true that you need to read a book about philosophy.

    You sound like a Christian fundamentalist. Maybe you should try a Baptist blog next time.

  • Joe

    There are many different definitions (or use) of the word faith, and all you are doing is equivocating, saying they are all the same. Here, you will see only one of many is “belief in which there is no proof.”

    Of course, we must also not confuse “no proof” as being “no evidence.” When people say “there is no proof” they think that means “no evidence.” Yet, faith relies upon evidence.

    1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another’s ability.
    2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
    3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
    4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
    5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
    6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
    7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one’s promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
    8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

  • Joe,

    That is one definition. Another is as c matt notes. As per the definition you cite, your denial of the existence of God is still a matter of faith.

  • This has been an exercise in giving a troll free reign in a thread, and the entirely predictable results that ensue. I also confess that I did this for my own amusement. Joe is obviously here only for purposes of emotional venting rather than to engage in a fruitful discussion. The resulting chaos has a sort of Three Stooges screwball comedy element, but ultimately is a waste of time. I am closing comments on this thread. Joe, you are banned from my threads on this blog. My colleagues have you in moderation, and they can decide whether or not to ban you in regard to their threads.

  • Pingback: Carter Tries to Deny He Said Obama Critics Driven By Race « The American Catholic

3 Responses to Karl Marx on the Election