Jimmy Carter Has

I guess that the downside of living in Georgia is that I live in the state that is home to perhaps our greatest national embarrassment, insofar as politicians are concerned. As long as he’s hammering nails on Habitat projects, Jimmy Carter is just fine. When he does pretty much anything else, he’s a real embarrassment. He’d seem to fit the very definition of “loose cannon”, but hey, the Dems seem to love the man.

UPDATE: Even Barney Frank knows Jimmy Carter has lost his marbles…

8 responses »

  1. Bob Robinson says:

    I know this is a foreign concept to many Christians, but some of us want to love our enemies. It is love, not hate, that disarms.

  2. Byron says:

    Yes, Bob, of course, but don’t you appreciate the significance of hugging a terrorist, how that is seen/interpreted? Jimmy Carter has no business over there in the first place; his visit has been condemned by just about everyone; even Hillary and Obama have significantly distanced themselves from it. The legitimizing effect that this has is terrible; Hamas is an outlaw organization, a terrorist bunch, and when we snuggle up with terrorists, we teach terrible lessons.

    Plus, I think you draw a dichotomy that is harmful. The issue isn’t about love v. hate, but about how we go about dealing with people who are given over to the wanton, random destruction of human life in pursuit of their ends. If Hamas renounces terrorism, and takes concrete steps to put teeth to that renunciation, then we can talk, and go from there. Until then, they are barbarians, outlaws, and not the sort of people that ex-presidents ought to go around hugging, naively playing right into their ends.

  3. Graham says:

    Yes, there are terrible lessons when people snuggle up to terrorists..

    I’m thinking of the Bill & Hillary Clintons of this world, the “Sir” Rudy Giulianis, the Peter Kings, the Edward Kennedys…. everyone who has snuggled up to the IRA.

  4. Bob Robinson says:

    I agree that we must label evil as what it is, evil. But there is the other side of the Christian mandate – love.

    I agree with Miroslav Volf. We need to have both exclusion and embrace. We cannot pretend that terrorists have not done terrible things. But the goal is not merely to condemn them and never ever have relations with them. The goal is forgiveness and reconciliation. It does not help to say that they are simply “Barbarians,” as if they are some inferior form of human being. It is precisely this “Us vs. Them” mentality that cuts off advances in overcoming evil in our world. As long as we label the other as something less than human, we are the ones that are acting less than human.

  5. Graham says:

    The goal is indeed forgiveness and reconciliation, but this happens once they have turned from their ways.

    Ian Paisley had the right approach- refuse to have anything to do with Sinn Fein while the IRA was still active, and once the IRA had ended its activities and Sinn Fein chose the path of peace, he rushed into agreeing an Executive which included a couple of ex-terrorists. The emphasis on being ex-.

  6. Todd says:

    Touched a nerve here for me. As a veteran who has looked terrorists in their beedy little eyeballs I can assure you when we attempt any “reasoning” with these people (a word I use lightly here),they will take that advantage to gain the upper hand on us. In their mind it is them or us. Period. They would love to come into our homes tonite and do terrible things to our children, and enjoy it. All for one reason. We are freedom loving Americans. So you have hit it right on, it is “us or them” but those are not our rules, they are theirs. And I for one am willing to play by their rules utilizing the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive military force. If we find out you are planning on hitting us next Wednesday, we will take you out this Friday. End of discussion. They are not inferior human beings, just human beings who cannot live alongside of others who do not share thier worldview. Sorry about the rambling mess, just some random thoughts on a very personal subject.

  7. Bob Robinson says:


    I feel your hatred and anger and bitterness. I really do. However, even though those feelings are very real, we, as Christians, are called to a higher plane of sacrificial love.

    Consider Jesus’ words: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.” Sons of the Father have that kind of RADICAL love!

    “Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord. On the contrary:
    ‘If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.’
    Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” (Romans 12:17-21)

    “Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice.” (Ephesians 4:30-31)

    I assume that you are a Christian first and an American soldier second. Again, I understand that in some circumstances peace is difficult (if not impossible). We have tried all that we can to attain it (as Paul says in Romans 12:18, “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone”). In those times it is indeed “us vs. them.”

    However, I think that the call is to DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE to bring about peace. Which is what Jimmy Carter is in fact doing.

    And preemptive military action has NEVER been a Christian option. NEVER. Not even in the long history of Just War Theory has there been such a severe break from Christian ethical standards for war. It is shocking that the most egregious break from Just War Theory has been perpetrated by a national leader that has been an outspoken Christian.

  8. Byron says:


    Given the subject of the original post, I will return to it by pointing out my difference with you on the subject. You suggest that Jimmy Carter is doing everything possible to bring about peace. I will happily concede that that may be what is in his heart, if you will concede that it is entirely possible (and in my personal judgment, completely true) that his actions are foolhardy, naïve, and could conceivably have the exact opposite effect, chiefly that of teaching these altogether human BARBARIANS, and others who would imitate their barbarism, that they can achieve their ends by resorting to terrorism. Jimmy Carter has built, IMHO, quite the reputation as one who operates out of the best of intentions, but whose hopeless naivete creates many more problems than it solves. It astounds me that anyone would give approval to his actions, given the near-universal, bipartisan condemnation of them (Barney Frank, for Pete’s sake!). The law of unintended consequences operates at a wider level than just the domestic pain that is caused by well-meaning liberals. It extends to matters of life and death, and just as the brainless banning of DDT has cost millions of lives needlessly, the unintended consequences of Jimmy Carter’s mindless embrace of terrorists may well involve the shedding of more innocent blood.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s