Jimmy Carter, Biblical Scholar and Theologian
Apr 11, 2012
George Weigel
Given the specter of James Buchanan, the question of whether Jimmy Carter was the worst president in the history of the Republic must remain unresolved; yet there is no doubt that Carter is the worst ex-President ever. Having failed to convince his countrymen to re-elect him, he has spent his post-presidency explaining to the world what is wrong with his countrymen, and his country, in a pathetic attempt at self-vindication. In the course of this endless kow-towing to the gods of political correctness, the little engine of self-esteem from Plains has interfered with the nation’s diplomacy, misrepresented the just war tradition, and described Israeli policy in the West Bank as a “system of apartheid.”
Now, in the course of promoting the NIV Lessons for Life Bible: Personal Reflections with Jimmy Carter, the 39th president (who promised a government as good as the American people and delivered an administration as inept as the St. Louis Browns) takes on the mantle of biblical scholar, dipping into such knotty questions as the inerrancy of the Bible and the proper methods of biblical interpretation.
The results are not pretty. In the course of an interview promoting the Carter Bible, the former chief executive allowed as how the Bible was written “by human beings deprived of modern day knowledge,” opined that there is “some fallibility in the writings of the Bible,” and offered his endorsement of same-sex “marriage,” which he implied would be Jesus’s view of things, the Lord having “never said a word about homosexuality.” Such Carterisms are, perhaps, not surprising, given the former president’s previously expressed views that the “mandated subservience of women by Christian fundamentalists” contributes to the practice of female genital mutilation by Islamists, and that pro-lifers “do not extend their concern to the baby who is born.”
Obviously, the Georgian sage has never quite grasped the moral-theological concept of calumny.
But now he has taken to reinventing history.
I was on the north lawn of the White House in October 1979 when a beaming Jimmy Carter welcomed Pope John Paul II to the Executive Mansion, the trademark presidential teeth amply displayed as the Baptist Sunday school teacher gave the 264th Bishop of Rome a two-handed handshake. All seemed sweetness and light. But not so, Carter avers. Now he says he had a harsh exchange over the “Pope’s perpetuation of the subservience of women,” after which the two locked horns on liberation theology. John Paul’s adherence to settled Catholic doctrine, Carter charges, made him a kind of “fundamentalist,” a category of Bad People who, Carter has written, “are often angry and sometimes resort to verbal or even physical abuse against those who interfere with the implementation of their agenda.”
No doubt Carter, mercifully retired from the White House by the time of the Pope’s visit to Nicaragua in 1983, expected the “fundamentalist” John Paul II to punch out Ernesto Cardenal on the tarmac at the Managua airport.
In the hands of a theological illiterate like Jimmy Carter, “fundamentalism” is a “Gotcha!” word that substitutes flatulence for thought. Blessed John Paul II was no more a “fundamentalist” than the mid-20th century Protestant thinker Reinhold Niebuhr, whom Carter once claimed as an influence—an avowal that doubtless had Reinie spinning in his grave, for there were few, if any, modern American political figures less Niebuhrian than Carter. Indeed, Carter’s self-regard is the very inversion of the Niebuhrian ethic, which taught a healthy skepticism about anyone’s righteousness, not least one’s own.
H.L. Mencken, the bad boy of Baltimore journalism in the Roaring Twenties, once suggested, tongue firmly in cheek, that all failed candidates for president should be quietly hanged, so that their further maunderings would not upset the young. One can only imagine what Mencken (who used to deride the sanctimonious President Wilson as “the Archangel Woodrow”) would say about condign punishment for Jimmy Carter. In any case, Mr. Carter would do us all a great favor if he would lay off theology and exegesis. Like foreign policy, these are disciplines manifestly beyond his capabilities.
George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
4.11.2012 | 3:20am
Don Roberto says:
I thought President Carter had already done all the damage he could to his reputation. But despite his leading me into serious temptation, I pass the test: I remain committed to life, from conception until natural death.
†
†
4.11.2012 | 4:12am
Giavanna Maria says:
Thank you Mr. Weigel for this well-written article about past president Carter. You have in a scholarly way put into words what I have always seen in the man; an unbelievably poor president who is still desperately trying to make his mark (in all the wrong ways) in the political world that has long passed him by decades ago.
It is incomprehensible, really beyond belief that this politician in his own eyes is being published/considered as a theological scholar! I am not aware of any theological training, much less advanced theological or apologetic training beyond Jimmy Carter's simple preparation for basic Sunday school class years ago. All I can do is shake my head at Mr. Carter's absurdity and arrogance to dabble and "correct" God's infallible word as if God is just another political figure to be reprimanded by Jimmy the peanut farmer. I am not a sarcastic person but Mr. Carter has become so over the top that it it is my suggestion, quite seriously, that he needs a good mental health evaluation, (not a publisher of his insensible pontificating!). The man is not operating in reality.
It is incomprehensible, really beyond belief that this politician in his own eyes is being published/considered as a theological scholar! I am not aware of any theological training, much less advanced theological or apologetic training beyond Jimmy Carter's simple preparation for basic Sunday school class years ago. All I can do is shake my head at Mr. Carter's absurdity and arrogance to dabble and "correct" God's infallible word as if God is just another political figure to be reprimanded by Jimmy the peanut farmer. I am not a sarcastic person but Mr. Carter has become so over the top that it it is my suggestion, quite seriously, that he needs a good mental health evaluation, (not a publisher of his insensible pontificating!). The man is not operating in reality.
4.11.2012 | 8:15am
Michael Gregorio says:
I was surprised at the direct and strong comments about Mr. Carter in this piece but can't figure a way in which they are not apt and perhaps even a bit sparing. His presidency only looks better in comparison to his ex-presidency, not by any other objective analysis. But we can and do survive these four year cycles of inadvertent voter malpractice (as I hope will be true for the current situation). What is so very vexing about "Jimmy" is his thinly veiled pride which has caused thirty two (and counting) years of some sort of terrible desire to destroy while all the while wanting to say that he is acting for the common good of mankind. Graceless. And sad.
4.11.2012 | 9:36am
Lawrence S. Cunningham says:
In the contest for worst president you would have a real contender in Bush II; he is not bad as an ex-president precisely because he has retreated into well deserved obscurity.
4.11.2012 | 9:45am
Peter Freedman-Doan says:
All that you say may (and probably is) true. I would just add: Camp David ( and we may see how we miss it once it's gone in the all too near future!) and poster volunteer for Habitat for Humanity.
4.11.2012 | 9:47am
maineman says:
It bears mentioning that the now-established ethic of Democratic ex-presidents to continually seek the limelight, in perpetuity, as moths do the flame bodes ill for what will happen after we finally wrestle our current TOTUS off the podium.
4.11.2012 | 9:49am
Leroy Huizenga says:
"his endorsement of same-sex 'marriage,' which he implied would be Jesus’s view of things, the Lord having 'never said a word about homosexuality.'"
As if Jesus came merely to forbid things, and whatever he didn't forbid is licit. Goodness. A moment's thought would produce a near-endless list of horrifying things Jesus never bothered forbidding. Conversely, one could make a near-endless list of good things Jesus never affirmed.
In any event, I deal with this sort of thing in greater detail here.
As if Jesus came merely to forbid things, and whatever he didn't forbid is licit. Goodness. A moment's thought would produce a near-endless list of horrifying things Jesus never bothered forbidding. Conversely, one could make a near-endless list of good things Jesus never affirmed.
In any event, I deal with this sort of thing in greater detail here.
4.11.2012 | 10:26am
bill bannon says:
Irony to the hilt. John Paul II also was weakened by modern hermeneutical methods. John Paul II called the death penalty "cruel and unnecessary" in St. Louis in 1999 despite God commanding it in the first person imperative over thirty times in the Bible...once to both Jews and Gentiles in the Noachic covenant (Gn.9:6) which C.C.C.#71 says perdures til the end of history. And his promoting the mutual spousal submission of Ephesians as the whole story on husband-wife jurisdiction is probably the reason the catechism gives no guidance at all on this topic (see: TOB #89/ Mulieris Dignitatem VI/ 24). Carter has bigger problems but we have sizable ones in hermeneutics. Read Verbum Domini sect. 42 by Pope Benedict. Apparently the massacres of the Canaanites were not from God as Wisdom 12 inter alia maintains; and the wise ruses of the Old Testament were sins...Solomon finding the real mom; Jehu tricking the House of Ahab into defeat; and Judith tricking Holofernes into death and thus preserving the Jews...all were apparently wrong and sinful thanks to modern hermeneutics which has its great moments but these are not some.
4.11.2012 | 11:37am
don roberto says:
Jesus explicitly said he came nott to change the old law by even an iota.
4.11.2012 | 12:19pm
Dean from Ohio says:
So short is this article. I wish it were a full length essay. I guess it's better this way, since a longer article would be a stumbling block to me, in tempting me to give in altogether to judging and reviling the person that James Earl Carter has become.
Another theme that this brings to light is the corruption of the NIV translation and its board of translators/editors. Whatever the reader may think of Biblical inerrancy of the original manuscripts (I hold that they are inerrant), the NIV has dropped its support of inerrancy. In the 1984 preface, inerrancy is listed as a principle of belief and translation; in the 2011 version, the word is nowhere to be found. Instead one sees the influence of at least one woman whose pet project over the last decade has been the feminization of the text. Add to this the silly ads about the NIV having a greater effect (presumably positive) on Christians than other versions, and the rush into gender-inclusive translation, halted for a time after the TNIV but back with a vengeance in the 2011 version. All this, apparently, primarily to preserve market share. What with the NLT forging ahead, the he's and his's of the NIV 1984 seem as out of touch as the thee's and thou's of the KJV.
Jimmy Carter and the NIV deserve each other. Give me the NASB and, on holidays, the KJV.
Another theme that this brings to light is the corruption of the NIV translation and its board of translators/editors. Whatever the reader may think of Biblical inerrancy of the original manuscripts (I hold that they are inerrant), the NIV has dropped its support of inerrancy. In the 1984 preface, inerrancy is listed as a principle of belief and translation; in the 2011 version, the word is nowhere to be found. Instead one sees the influence of at least one woman whose pet project over the last decade has been the feminization of the text. Add to this the silly ads about the NIV having a greater effect (presumably positive) on Christians than other versions, and the rush into gender-inclusive translation, halted for a time after the TNIV but back with a vengeance in the 2011 version. All this, apparently, primarily to preserve market share. What with the NLT forging ahead, the he's and his's of the NIV 1984 seem as out of touch as the thee's and thou's of the KJV.
Jimmy Carter and the NIV deserve each other. Give me the NASB and, on holidays, the KJV.
4.11.2012 | 1:11pm
Benedict says:
Catholics always seem ready to forgive themselves all-too-quickly, among themselves, and through the confessional. But the great failing in their Christianity? Is their failure to 1) really see and face their own sins. And 2) then, out of the humility that comes from that, learn to forgive the apparent shortcomings of others. Others - who are often trying just as hard as Catholics are (and often harder), to be Christians, in spite of their own occasional failures.
4.11.2012 | 1:16pm
nyreader says:
I find it very hard to see any charity in this piece. The tone comes across as one of condescension and loathing.
While I wholeheartedly agree that Mr. Carter's recent forays into theology are not nuanced and are often entirely wrongheaded, they stem principally from his own reaction to some Southern Baptist theologies that are terribly problematic. He finds the wrong solution to those problems, and he wrongly treats the SBC and the Catholic Church as one-in-the-same, but his discomfort with the system in which he was raised and his ample experience with people who "are often angry and sometimes resort to verbal or even physical abuse against those who interfere with the implementation of their agenda" should not be so easily dismissed as stupid. (And as far as I can tell from your quote, Mr. Carter does not even intend that quote to refer specifically to the Holy Father).
But why should we be surprised that Mr. Carter gets it wrong when the Catholic Church in recent years has allied itself so closely with prominent evangelicals and the Republican party line? The Catholic Church has a much richer tradition of thought on social and economic issues than the SBC, which should open the door for deeper conversation about social goods, more nuanced thinking about gender and marriage. But political expediency and alliances have given the public impression that everyone who disapproves of gay marriage does so on the same grounds as the truly hate-filled people who do nothing more than jump up and down and point at Leviticus.
While I wholeheartedly agree that Mr. Carter's recent forays into theology are not nuanced and are often entirely wrongheaded, they stem principally from his own reaction to some Southern Baptist theologies that are terribly problematic. He finds the wrong solution to those problems, and he wrongly treats the SBC and the Catholic Church as one-in-the-same, but his discomfort with the system in which he was raised and his ample experience with people who "are often angry and sometimes resort to verbal or even physical abuse against those who interfere with the implementation of their agenda" should not be so easily dismissed as stupid. (And as far as I can tell from your quote, Mr. Carter does not even intend that quote to refer specifically to the Holy Father).
But why should we be surprised that Mr. Carter gets it wrong when the Catholic Church in recent years has allied itself so closely with prominent evangelicals and the Republican party line? The Catholic Church has a much richer tradition of thought on social and economic issues than the SBC, which should open the door for deeper conversation about social goods, more nuanced thinking about gender and marriage. But political expediency and alliances have given the public impression that everyone who disapproves of gay marriage does so on the same grounds as the truly hate-filled people who do nothing more than jump up and down and point at Leviticus.
4.11.2012 | 1:26pm
Martin Duggan says:
Why the put-down of the St. Louis Browns, who played a memorable World Series against the St. Louis Cardinals in 1944?
4.11.2012 | 1:43pm
Pastor Spomer says:
Dr. Weigel,
Two points: First, you piece is stridently written and inflamitory.
Second, I agree with all of it.
Thank you.
Two points: First, you piece is stridently written and inflamitory.
Second, I agree with all of it.
Thank you.
4.11.2012 | 1:55pm
Michael says:
I always hear from the Right how Carter was the worst president, or in this case ex-president. And yet after listening to the rants, I can never seem to understand what would make him so. So because he doesn't share your exact beliefs, because he's unhappy with the direction the country's going in, and because you love to put scare-quotes "around" "concepts" your "primitive" "mind" can't "comprehend" like the idea that other people who aren't you might want to get married, THAT'S what makes him the worst ex-president, if not worst president as well? I seriously have to wonder if you know any other presidents. You should look up a guy named Richard Nixon or a guy named George W. Bush.
4.11.2012 | 1:56pm
Artaban7 says:
You go too far sir!
Granted, they ceased to be a team before I was born, but as a St. Louisan I'd asked Mr. Weigel not to disparage the Browns by comparing them with the Carter administration.
Granted, they ceased to be a team before I was born, but as a St. Louisan I'd asked Mr. Weigel not to disparage the Browns by comparing them with the Carter administration.
4.11.2012 | 2:50pm
Charlie Collier says:
You can always count on Jimmy Carter to set off allergic reactions in diehard neo-cons like Weigel. For a little perspective, here's what the Miller Center of UVA—"a nonpartisan institute that seeks to expand understanding of the presidency, policy, and political history, providing critical insights for the nation’s governance challenges"—has to say about Carter's life post-presidency:
"To many people, Jimmy Carter has provided Americans with an ideal model of post-presidential life. In fact, some consider him to be the nation's greatest former President. He has emerged as a champion of human rights and worked for several charitable causes. To that end, Carter founded the Carter Presidential Center at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. The center, began in 1982, is devoted to issues relating to democracy and human rights. Additionally, Carter worked with Habitat for Humanity International, an organization that works worldwide to provide housing for underprivileged people. Through such projects, Carter has maintained a high profile; he is often seen on television, helping with Habitat home construction or providing his opinions on the issues of the day.
As a President who was deeply embroiled in foreign crises during his term in office, Carter has taken opportunities to apply his experiences and knowledge on the world stage. Carter has served as a freelance ambassador for a variety of international missions, including soothing disputes between countries, observing elections in nations with histories of fraudulent voting processes, and advising presidents on Middle East issues. He has been involved in mediating disputes between the U.S. State Department and the most volatile of foreign leaders, including Kim Il Sung of North Korea and Muammar Qaddaffi of Libya. In 1994, the former president assisted the U.S. government settle a tension-filled nuclear weapons dispute with North Korea."
It's also interesting to note that Carter's famous "malaise speech" has more recently been recognized as a sort of conservative manifesto by non-neo-con conservatives: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/article/2009/apr/06/00014/
"To many people, Jimmy Carter has provided Americans with an ideal model of post-presidential life. In fact, some consider him to be the nation's greatest former President. He has emerged as a champion of human rights and worked for several charitable causes. To that end, Carter founded the Carter Presidential Center at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. The center, began in 1982, is devoted to issues relating to democracy and human rights. Additionally, Carter worked with Habitat for Humanity International, an organization that works worldwide to provide housing for underprivileged people. Through such projects, Carter has maintained a high profile; he is often seen on television, helping with Habitat home construction or providing his opinions on the issues of the day.
As a President who was deeply embroiled in foreign crises during his term in office, Carter has taken opportunities to apply his experiences and knowledge on the world stage. Carter has served as a freelance ambassador for a variety of international missions, including soothing disputes between countries, observing elections in nations with histories of fraudulent voting processes, and advising presidents on Middle East issues. He has been involved in mediating disputes between the U.S. State Department and the most volatile of foreign leaders, including Kim Il Sung of North Korea and Muammar Qaddaffi of Libya. In 1994, the former president assisted the U.S. government settle a tension-filled nuclear weapons dispute with North Korea."
It's also interesting to note that Carter's famous "malaise speech" has more recently been recognized as a sort of conservative manifesto by non-neo-con conservatives: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/article/2009/apr/06/00014/
4.11.2012 | 3:10pm
Neil D. Cowling says:
While I agree with the theological critique of Mr. Carter, his wrongheaded biblical exegesis and perhaps his foray into commenting on national and international politics, I cannot agree on the overall assessment that he is our worst ex-president. You have ignored entirely and unfairly his unstinting work with Habitat for Humanity over the last 30 years. That, it seems to me, will be his legacy as an former President. Would that more "ex's" follow that path.
4.11.2012 | 3:35pm
JP says:
The President Carter of 1977 is a different person thant the former President Carter of 2012.
Jimmy Carter ran on a conservative agenda in 1976. And before he left office he can be given credit for: a)Appointing Paul Volcker to the head the Federal Reserve Bank; b)beginning the deregulation of vital industries (he deregulated the Airlines in 1979); c)he attempted to lower taxes in 1977.
Carter was pro-life in 1976 (as was ALGORE, Dick Gephardt, and Jessie Jackson). On matters of morality, he was very conservative (however,to the dismay of his party, he did confess that he occaisonally had lust in his heart). Cater's problems (at least as they appeared to me) was pride, hubris, and self righteousness. He was a micro-manager; he rarely trusted his subordinates, and he detested the Beltway and the national Democratic Party. The feeling was mutual; his prudishness was a joke to Hollywood and the Radical Chic who populated the Upper Westside; Tip O'Niel was very offended that the President didn't offer him the chance to grease the wheels of Congress in order to enact the President's agenda (Carter thought O'Niel's methods were unseemly). Carter's agenda stalled; he doubled down on stupid by keeping the lid on energy de-regulation at a time when the supply shocks were totally avoidable. But, the "energy crisis" gave the President a soap-box from which he could preach. The President made several unforced errors -especially concerning appointments. He attempted to be the "Race Healer" by dealing out appointments to minorities who were unqualified and who had thier own agendas (ie Andrew Young). The Camp David Accords was his only achievment (albeit a major one). To make matters worse, his cabinet was very very disfunctional (too many egos, not enough control); and he suffered from not hiring a Chief of Staff.
Events overtook the President. And the stagflation that hit the nation, as well as the disasters of his foreign policy indicated that he was in way over his head. But, it should be noted that Reagan really didn't begin pulling away from Carter until late Sept 1980. After losing to the Gipper, Carter became very bitter. He tried to get back into the good graces of his party by going hard Left. And to some degree he was successfull. But the more Left he went the more ridiculous he appeared. Today he seems like just a bitter old man.
Jimmy Carter ran on a conservative agenda in 1976. And before he left office he can be given credit for: a)Appointing Paul Volcker to the head the Federal Reserve Bank; b)beginning the deregulation of vital industries (he deregulated the Airlines in 1979); c)he attempted to lower taxes in 1977.
Carter was pro-life in 1976 (as was ALGORE, Dick Gephardt, and Jessie Jackson). On matters of morality, he was very conservative (however,to the dismay of his party, he did confess that he occaisonally had lust in his heart). Cater's problems (at least as they appeared to me) was pride, hubris, and self righteousness. He was a micro-manager; he rarely trusted his subordinates, and he detested the Beltway and the national Democratic Party. The feeling was mutual; his prudishness was a joke to Hollywood and the Radical Chic who populated the Upper Westside; Tip O'Niel was very offended that the President didn't offer him the chance to grease the wheels of Congress in order to enact the President's agenda (Carter thought O'Niel's methods were unseemly). Carter's agenda stalled; he doubled down on stupid by keeping the lid on energy de-regulation at a time when the supply shocks were totally avoidable. But, the "energy crisis" gave the President a soap-box from which he could preach. The President made several unforced errors -especially concerning appointments. He attempted to be the "Race Healer" by dealing out appointments to minorities who were unqualified and who had thier own agendas (ie Andrew Young). The Camp David Accords was his only achievment (albeit a major one). To make matters worse, his cabinet was very very disfunctional (too many egos, not enough control); and he suffered from not hiring a Chief of Staff.
Events overtook the President. And the stagflation that hit the nation, as well as the disasters of his foreign policy indicated that he was in way over his head. But, it should be noted that Reagan really didn't begin pulling away from Carter until late Sept 1980. After losing to the Gipper, Carter became very bitter. He tried to get back into the good graces of his party by going hard Left. And to some degree he was successfull. But the more Left he went the more ridiculous he appeared. Today he seems like just a bitter old man.
4.11.2012 | 3:45pm
Mike Melendez says:
@Michael, Hind sight is a terrifying thing. If all Carter had done was push the 1993 North Korean accords post presidency, he would have done more damage than any other ex-president. Kim Jong Il used that time bought to introduce an irrational and close-minded country to nuclear weapons. I don't know if we will lose Tokyo to nuclear fire when North Korea collapses or just Seoul to the thousands of artillery tubes on the DMZ. I pray it collapses inwardly when it goes and it will, probably in all our lifetimes. I say that having voted for the man, twice.
4.11.2012 | 5:04pm
Artaban7 says:
Ultimately, though I'd say Carter was an impotent president in the grand scheme of things, and made several costly mistakes, I do have to concede we've probably had worse presidents. Time will tell, but I much suspect we're living through the presidency of one of them.
Determinations of quality come down to assessments of value, and we of course value different things to varying degrees. I'd assess the economic policies of Bush II and Obama as more catastrophic. Both may also have done more to erode the liberties and opportunities of average Americans than Carter.
As for commending or condemning Carter for his post-presidential actions, his record is decidedly mixed. Is he truly influential? I have doubts as to that.
If he's not influential, but more the doddering grandfather whose crazy natterings are viewed with comedic affection rather than seriousness, then does it make sense to worry too much about the harm of his theological errors?
Determinations of quality come down to assessments of value, and we of course value different things to varying degrees. I'd assess the economic policies of Bush II and Obama as more catastrophic. Both may also have done more to erode the liberties and opportunities of average Americans than Carter.
As for commending or condemning Carter for his post-presidential actions, his record is decidedly mixed. Is he truly influential? I have doubts as to that.
If he's not influential, but more the doddering grandfather whose crazy natterings are viewed with comedic affection rather than seriousness, then does it make sense to worry too much about the harm of his theological errors?
4.11.2012 | 5:37pm
Peter says:
Rick, your comments about Christopher Niebuhr are particularly uncharitable, and on top of that not remotely germane to the topic. If Christopher seemed "locked in a prison of words," that may have had something to do with his dyslexia. According to Ursula Niebuhr, Christopher struggled very hard with the organization of his thoughts, which may explain his "inverted philosophical and theological ruminations." Reinhold Niebuhr had nothing to do with producing the aspect of his son that you found so hard to bear.
4.11.2012 | 7:51pm
Rick says:
Peter--
No, I hadn't heard about Chris's dyslexia, but that also seems not to be germane to the topic. I have never heard that dyslexia impaired a person's ability to organize their thoughts or relate socially to others. I think other factors must be involved there. As for being uncharitable, I was concerned enough about his social problems to, as I said, make a project out of trying to reach him and get him into the habit of listening, rather than leaving him to over-intellectualize in isolation. I think I may have made a little progress with that. And I still find it hard to believe that his excessive preoccupation with philosophical and theological problems was entirely unrelated to the fact that he was raised by two famous theologians and academics. Not many children listen to their parents having theological debates over the dinner table.
No, I hadn't heard about Chris's dyslexia, but that also seems not to be germane to the topic. I have never heard that dyslexia impaired a person's ability to organize their thoughts or relate socially to others. I think other factors must be involved there. As for being uncharitable, I was concerned enough about his social problems to, as I said, make a project out of trying to reach him and get him into the habit of listening, rather than leaving him to over-intellectualize in isolation. I think I may have made a little progress with that. And I still find it hard to believe that his excessive preoccupation with philosophical and theological problems was entirely unrelated to the fact that he was raised by two famous theologians and academics. Not many children listen to their parents having theological debates over the dinner table.
4.11.2012 | 8:53pm
James Gibson says:
The H.L. Mencken reference reminded me of another great presidential loser, William Jennings Bryan. http://www.examiner.com/faith-culture-in-columbia/jimmy-carter-and-the-ironic-legacy-of-william-jennings-bryan
4.12.2012 | 8:15am
patricksarsfield says:
I am surprised no one has remarked on the inappropriateness of the President of the SECULAR US getting involved in theological discussions with a visiting Head of State at a formal meet and greet in the White House. The First Amendment is two sided. Priests can't talk about Politics from the pulpit. Presidents should not be able to talk about Theology from the bully pulpit of the White House while engaged on state business.
MORAL? Dems are exceedingly prissy about the separation of church and state except when it is to their perceived political advantage to ignore that separation.
MORAL? Dems are exceedingly prissy about the separation of church and state except when it is to their perceived political advantage to ignore that separation.
4.12.2012 | 11:03am
Rick says:
@patricksarsfield "Priests can't talk about Politics from the pulpit."
Since when? For decades, I have listened to highly politicized sermons from priests and Protestant ministers alike. The First Amendment puts no restrictions on that whatsoever.
Since when? For decades, I have listened to highly politicized sermons from priests and Protestant ministers alike. The First Amendment puts no restrictions on that whatsoever.
4.12.2012 | 11:28am
Spencer says:
Come on, folks. Misery index (unemployment and inflation). People were buying houses with credit cards because the interest rates were lower than mortgages. Gas lines. Olympic boycott. Iran hostages and failed rescue. Killer rabbits. Not the country's finest hours.
4.12.2012 | 3:17pm
peg says:
I associate the Carter presidency with dreariness, lack of vision and smallness. He was a micro-manager.
One of his most egregious acts was hiring an advertising executive, Gerald Rafshoon, as the first presidential "image maker". We are permanently stuck with the artifice that that brought into the presidency. Rafshoon presumably is the one who came up with the silly wardrobe that we were supposed to admire---those toasty casual cardigans that kept off the chill. The chill was caused by the lack of heat, turned down or off as an energy-saving measure during the Energy crisis that marked his term of office. Remember his typically thoughtless pronouncement that the energy crisis was the "Moral Equivalent of War"? that made quite an exciting acronym, noted immediately by the GOP.
His "Hints from Heloise" approach to energy savings extended to all parts of the executive branch---no hot water in the rest rooms, all escalators and most lights turned off, etc., that saved pennies each year and annoyed countless bureaucrats (I was one). I remember a novel cadre whose only job was to go from office to office, checking the temperature to make sure it was not too warm in the winter (we wore coats indoors) nor too cool in the summer (they confiscated fans because they used electricity). we were never found hot (or cold) enough for relief.
He worried about the quality of family life of federal employees, so he ordered that all work cease at 5 PM, ready or not. Any essential work after that time had to be done by the senior officer alone and at home, which meant super grades working til 2 AM at their dining room tables; they also had sole responsibility for most TDYs (my father was one, although some of his staff secretly volunteered to help him). On the other hand, the employees probably appreciated the chance to get their cars into the gas-line (done on alternating days---odd or even---depending on your license plate number, woe to you if you tried to get gas on the wrong day).
I also remember the gratuitous advice on nuclear weapons that was offered by Amy Carter, aged 9, and delivered to the populace with apparent seriousness by Jimmy. Or maybe it was nuclear power that concerned Amy, what with Three Mile Island getting us all worked up.
Then there were the international fiascos---444 days of the Iranian hostage crisis, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, airplane hijackings, the president's surprising and unexpected expression of "lust" for the people of Poland...
One of his most egregious acts was hiring an advertising executive, Gerald Rafshoon, as the first presidential "image maker". We are permanently stuck with the artifice that that brought into the presidency. Rafshoon presumably is the one who came up with the silly wardrobe that we were supposed to admire---those toasty casual cardigans that kept off the chill. The chill was caused by the lack of heat, turned down or off as an energy-saving measure during the Energy crisis that marked his term of office. Remember his typically thoughtless pronouncement that the energy crisis was the "Moral Equivalent of War"? that made quite an exciting acronym, noted immediately by the GOP.
His "Hints from Heloise" approach to energy savings extended to all parts of the executive branch---no hot water in the rest rooms, all escalators and most lights turned off, etc., that saved pennies each year and annoyed countless bureaucrats (I was one). I remember a novel cadre whose only job was to go from office to office, checking the temperature to make sure it was not too warm in the winter (we wore coats indoors) nor too cool in the summer (they confiscated fans because they used electricity). we were never found hot (or cold) enough for relief.
He worried about the quality of family life of federal employees, so he ordered that all work cease at 5 PM, ready or not. Any essential work after that time had to be done by the senior officer alone and at home, which meant super grades working til 2 AM at their dining room tables; they also had sole responsibility for most TDYs (my father was one, although some of his staff secretly volunteered to help him). On the other hand, the employees probably appreciated the chance to get their cars into the gas-line (done on alternating days---odd or even---depending on your license plate number, woe to you if you tried to get gas on the wrong day).
I also remember the gratuitous advice on nuclear weapons that was offered by Amy Carter, aged 9, and delivered to the populace with apparent seriousness by Jimmy. Or maybe it was nuclear power that concerned Amy, what with Three Mile Island getting us all worked up.
Then there were the international fiascos---444 days of the Iranian hostage crisis, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, airplane hijackings, the president's surprising and unexpected expression of "lust" for the people of Poland...
4.12.2012 | 4:11pm
Artaban7 says:
"Not many children listen to their parents having theological debates over the dinner table." --Rick
I think you might be surprised. As a theology teacher, I hear firsthand from parents about such conversations sparked by class, and I get the questions from students that begin, "My mom/dad says..."
On another note, even though I believe in miracles, I was floored the first year I assigned a paper asking students, "What is a miracle? Do miracles occur today?"
Most of the students reported that they knew miracles occurred because they knew someone personally that benefited/experienced one.
I think you might be surprised. As a theology teacher, I hear firsthand from parents about such conversations sparked by class, and I get the questions from students that begin, "My mom/dad says..."
On another note, even though I believe in miracles, I was floored the first year I assigned a paper asking students, "What is a miracle? Do miracles occur today?"
Most of the students reported that they knew miracles occurred because they knew someone personally that benefited/experienced one.
4.12.2012 | 4:19pm
Artaban7 says:
Peg, paragraph three--detailing the lack of heating and cooling for federal employees--sounds to me like something that ought to be enshrined into Law. Energy savings notwithstanding, it shall encourage an exodus from the bloated ranks of government pencil pushers that could be doing meaningful, productive work in the private sector.
And since Lou Dobbs reported average government pay (at $72,000 per year) a few years ago was nearly twice that of average private sector salaries, it'd ultimately trim the budget.
And since Lou Dobbs reported average government pay (at $72,000 per year) a few years ago was nearly twice that of average private sector salaries, it'd ultimately trim the budget.
4.12.2012 | 10:23pm
patricksarsfield says:
Rick writes:
"Since when? For decades, I have listened to highly politicized sermons from priests and Protestant ministers alike. The First Amendment puts no restrictions on that whatsoever. "
Perhaps you're listening to Episcopalian "priests." Catholic priests do not preach politics from the pulpit at least anywhere I have attended. In all events, moreover, presidents should not be interfering in the theological decisions of the Catholic Church.
"Since when? For decades, I have listened to highly politicized sermons from priests and Protestant ministers alike. The First Amendment puts no restrictions on that whatsoever. "
Perhaps you're listening to Episcopalian "priests." Catholic priests do not preach politics from the pulpit at least anywhere I have attended. In all events, moreover, presidents should not be interfering in the theological decisions of the Catholic Church.
4.13.2012 | 1:10pm
Hen says:
Yes Mr Weigel, but I doubt that Fox News or CNN would agree with HL Mencken. They have a 24 hour news day to fill, so for them (Governor:) Palin Gingrich and Santorum work out just fine.
4.14.2012 | 1:38am
Rick says:
@patricksarsfield:
Yes, priests typically stick to their proper job: talking about morality, religion, people's personal spiritual pilgrimage, and so forth. But I have known highly politicized Catholic priests who railed about atrocities in Central America or some other benighted region. I made my comment, though, because you said, "The First Amendment is two sided. Priests can't talk about Politics from the pulpit." You seemed to be saying that the First Amendment puts limitations on clerics from involving themselves in politics. Of course, that is not the case. But I think we understand each other at this point.
Yes, priests typically stick to their proper job: talking about morality, religion, people's personal spiritual pilgrimage, and so forth. But I have known highly politicized Catholic priests who railed about atrocities in Central America or some other benighted region. I made my comment, though, because you said, "The First Amendment is two sided. Priests can't talk about Politics from the pulpit." You seemed to be saying that the First Amendment puts limitations on clerics from involving themselves in politics. Of course, that is not the case. But I think we understand each other at this point.
4.16.2012 | 4:16pm
Gingko says:
The First Amendment is not supposed to be two-sided. Just as we have the 3-valued words, such as moral, immoral, and amoral, just so we have the 3-valued political limitations : We do not allow this, We insist on this, and -- what you both overlook -- WE come down neither pro nor con.
The First Amendment protects religious speech without encouraging any particular kind or discouraging any particular kind.
The First Amendment protects religious speech without encouraging any particular kind or discouraging any particular kind.
And I would think that he has had a very firm grasp on the concept of calumny.