All Comments (68)

ugfnhirqb srmzgaxk wguh vkdsxnwe alcvjnu kfmwvpuj sagwqcz

Mr. Carter:

You're pathetic and hypocritical. Your words are so typical of you, as a former president of this country. We can scarcely afford to appreciate your words with our hearts, today. As a former politician, you ought to have fully studied Islamic law and reviewed American history long time ago, especially in a post-9/11 world. America's history of over a hundred number of wars and interventions, professions of freedom of speech and democracy and yet violations of human rights. Or else it could be at the peak of one's idiocy and ignorance. America and Indonesia are most certainly not democracies. Now that you have, supposedly, come to the understanding what horrible mistakes you committed during your presidency against Iran and the whole world, why don't you liberally and clearly make a confession to the world? Why don't you urge people to wake up from their illusions and fantasies and bring them to their senses, if you really think that you can still make a difference?

Mr. Carter:

You're pathetic and hypocritical. Your words are so typical of you, as a former president of this country. We can scarcely afford to appreciate your words with our hearts, today. As a former politician, you ought to have fully studied Islamic law and reviewed American history long time ago, especially in a post-9/11 world. America's history of over a hundred number of wars and interventions, professions of freedom of speech and democracy and yet violations of human rights. Or else it could be at the peak of one's idiocy and ignorance. America and Indonesia are most certainly not democracies. Now that you have, supposedly, come to the understanding what horrible mistakes you committed during your presidency against Iran and the whole world, why don't you liberally and clearly make a confession to the world? Why don't you urge people to wake up from their illusions and fantasies and bring them to their senses, if you really think that you can still make a difference?

Mr. Carter:

You're pathetic and hypocritical. Your words are so typical of you, as a former president of this country. We can scarcely afford to appreciate your words with our hearts, today. As a former politician, you ought to have fully studied Islamic law and reviewed American history long time ago, especially in a post-9/11 world. America's history of over a hundred number of wars and interventions, professions of freedom of speech and democracy and yet violations of human rights. Or else it could be at the peak of one's idiocy and ignorance. America and Indonesia are most certainly not democracies. Now that you have, supposedly, come to the understanding what horrible mistakes you committed during your presidency against Iran and the whole world, why don't you liberally and clearly make a confession to the world? Why don't you urge people to wake up from their illusions and fantasies and bring them to their senses, if you really think that you can still make a difference?

It is always well to know more than to live in ignorance. Ignorance of the culture and spirituality of Islam won't serve us well in these times of challenge.

Liked these wise words from an underrated ex-president who personifies the christian witness to peace-making and compassion.

(Please pardon the double post: got an error message that made me think the first hadn't gone.)

Anyway, this is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about, Concerned. Your attachment to literalism, and then screaming or mocking about what you think something you don't understand *must mean* ...is not advancing understanding, or sharing 'the truth' as you say...

You're not without intellect, but you seem to feel you can use one *kind* of intellect to define the whole world, even when you don't have perspective, understanding, or even seem to absorb the information given.

You try and use it like a hammer, and all you see is nails.

You know the phrase, 'The right tool for the right job?'

Your behavior here shows you don't particularly care what you're banging on, never mind if it's even the productive thing to be doing.

I encourage you to try and see people, not just 'nails.'

That's kind of an argument to absurdity, there, Concerned.

Ants don't register 'kindness' in human terms, don't be silly. So happens that I don't go out of my way or thoughtlessly kill them, more because of what that would make of *me* than actual belief they particularly care. :)

If I have to kill a few to stop them from setting up in my house, before things got to the point where noxious chemicals would be involved, I go ahead and do that.

I eat meat, ...have killed my own dinner, with all due respect, no problem: I just won't eat what I wouldn't be willing to kill or do for said dinner. Won't eat caged veal, (too cruel and unnatural) dog, (for the same reasons most Americans won't,) or rabbit, (Yummy, but I just plain have a soft spot for em a mile wide and would have to be faced with me or others being real hungry, or a serious bunny population explosion, before I would kill one: An admitted concession to cute-and-fuzzy, but killing them makes me feel bad.)

You have to remember the Wiccan Rede doesn't really say, 'Never do harm.' It says, *If* it harms none, do what *you* will.*

It doesn't *define* harm, it establishes the value of harmlessness and puts the responsibility for what we will on *us*.

That's kind of an argument to absurdity, there, Concerned.

Ants don't register 'kindness' in human terms, don't be silly. So happens that I don't go out of my way or thoughtlessly kill them, more because of what that would make of *me* than actual belief they particularly care. :)

If I have to kill a few to stop them from setting up in my house, before things got to the point where noxious chemicals would be involved, I go ahead and do that.

I eat meat, ...have killed my own dinner, with all due respect, no problem: I just won't eat what I wouldn't be willing to kill or do for said dinner. Won't eat caged veal, (too cruel and unnatural) dog, (for the same reasons most Americans won't,) or rabbit, (Yummy, but I just plain have a soft spot for em a mile wide and would have to be faced with me or others being real hungry, or a serious bunny population explosion, before I would kill one: An admitted concession to cute-and-fuzzy, but killing them makes me feel bad.)

You have to remember the Wiccan Rede doesn't really say, 'Never do harm.' It says, *If* it harms none, do what *you* will.*

It doesn't *define* harm, it establishes the value of harmlessness and puts the responsibility for what we will on *us*.

Thank you Oh mighty Pagan One for the spelling correction.

I changed the ending of the comments to be more specific in the second offering.

Be kind to ants today and do them no harm!!!!

Interesting couple of not-quite-identical posts, there, 'Concerned Christian.' (If that's the same guy, take a break, otherwise, show some courtesy and get your own name, willya?)

Either way, no, it's not simple as chanting. Certainly nothing to do with those Gospels of yours, and for anyone that wants to be literalist, learn to spell 'Hominids.'

Concerned's posts argue obsessively for the presentation of *nothing but* fear.

In the sense that is used to dismiss people who say 'fear not' as oblivious... No, I'm not saying in context of these nightmares some insist we live out, no, not in that context am I saying, 'fear not.'

I'm saying, 'Be Brave.'

Yes, there are scary things out there we can't control. I think a lot of American outrage has much to do with not being *used* to being the one threatened, the one scared, the one people want to, and, according to fearmongers, might, in fact kill.

People who wave guns and have never been really threatened insist that in the name of their NT, people should see nothing but threat in others...

Ain't used to it.

I am.

'Fear not' is optional.

'Don't chicken out,' that's what I *expect*

Of the land of the free
And the home of the brave.

Paganplace,

Fear not, Fear not!!! Simply walk out your front door chanting "Peace on Earth, Good Will towards all the Surviving Homonids even you good Pagans, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Atheists Et Al."

Paganplace,

Fear not!!! Fear not!!, just walk out your front door with a copy of the four NT gospels which basically says "Peace on Earth, Good Will Towards the Surviving Homonids of any Faith or No Faith."

And, Mr. Barr, I think we could all use a little beautification right now.

Like attracts like, what we send out returns threefold:

That especially goes for *uglification* of others.

Ugly perceptions and ugly words and ugly deeds have a way of snowballing, ...in nasty feedback loops, really. How do you think *you're* perceived when you say that?

Fortunately, the same goes for beauty and respect.

You don't fight terror with fearful talk, you fight it by keeping your head and responding with reason. If it comes to striking to prevent greater harm, well, in the martial arts, do you win by flipping out and attacking everyone who looks like your attacker, or do you *focus?*

Does it help to define the very piecemeal literalism of fundamentalists *as the actual authority on what it means all Christians and/or Muslims must be?*

That's an equation for nightmares right there.

Trying to shout down anyone who can see beyond the fear and look for solutions is *insisting* on a nightmare. And one way or another, that's what you'll get.

Paganplace,

"Worship on!! "Love thy neighbor as thyself" and do no harm"

I think 'loving thy neighbor as thyself' becomes problematic when people don't actually love themselves very much.

The better sentiments there, we have our own words for.

"but remember those famous words: "

*blank look* Not famous enough, apparently.

""Gators vs. Muslims"- Gators definitely will kill. With Muslims, it depends but with the koran as their operating manual can we trust any of them? e.g. the seven Islamic doctors residing "peacefully" in the UK.""

With the Bible as their operating manual, how can I trust any Christian?

People say it means I should be killed brutally.

By your reasoning, I should be afraid to walk out my front door in America. (And, yes, I do have to watch myself about who knows what my religion is in a lot of contexts, these days.)

"How can we trust any of them?"

Meet them. You're not talking about trust, you're talking about *control.*

You can't control life like that.

You *can* however, refuse to demonize all of the people who have a book that says to hate you or convert you or kill you, or whatever.

You say, "This hate is all there is to Muslims," or "This hate is all there is to Christians,"

Well, sooner or later someone's gonna believe you. In a lot of ways, it's your own upbringing that makes those who only want to hear about the terrorists and atrocities think 'These people are compelled to obey their book in this way like Christian fundamentalists are supposed to be.

I'm a Pagan: I can talk about how alarming some of the ways these books portray others and are used for horrors... but when I deal with people I don't accept the premise: "This is Islam/Christianity and must be obeyed, so your book is evil."

I look at people who are doing or advocating harm and say, "You. You chose to do this. You choose to displace the responsibility for your actions onto your God, but *you* must look at *me.*"

Know your neighbors. And look people in the eye.

The world's not safe, but you don't have to accept lame excuses for abuses.

Jimmy Carter is engaged in beautification of Islam. Never were there any demonstrations against the terrible killings and bombings of Shiah by Sunnis and vic versa. These are not crimes of a compationate religion and cannot be compared to Bhudism or Judaism or even Christianity. While massive demonstrations occurred when the Pope made some comments there were no such expressions of outrage when thousands were murderred in cold blood. His last book is anti-Semitic too. Carter hypocritical lip service is well seen in his paper to camoflage his racist attitude to the Jews and Israel.

Jimmy Carter is engaged in beautification of Islam. Never were there any demonstrations against the terrible killings and bombings of Shiah by Sunnis and vic versa. These are not crimes of a compationate religion and cannot be compared to Bhudism or Judaism or even Christianity. While massive demonstrations occurred when the Pope made some comments there were no such expressions of outrage when thousands were murderred in cold blood. His last book is anti-Semitic too. Carter hypocritical lip service is well seen in his paper to camoflage his racist attitude to the Jews and Israel.

Paganplace,

Worship on!! "Love thy neighbor as thyself" and do no harm but remember those famous words:

"Gators vs. Muslims"- Gators definitely will kill. With Muslims, it depends but with the koran as their operating manual can we trust any of them? e.g. the seven Islamic doctors residing "peacefully" in the UK.

Cause, let's not forget, this thread, and the former President's article in the first place is all about *interfaith understanding.*

Your attacks have at their heart an idea that this is not possible, and thus everyone must simply obey Concerned and his mockery.

Cause he thinks Sun worship is bad, 'voodoo' is something everyone'll turn around and do if he doesn't have theological control, and that 'human sacrifice' must be the result of anyone not agreeing with him.

You sound just the same as the Christians and radical Muslims you claim to be rejecting.

This does not make you 'safe' or 'liberated.'

By your obsessive presence here, and your attempts to 'fight' ...not tyrrany, but the perceived influence of 'talky wingie thingies,' I'd say you're still *quite* chained.

Thing about many of the chains that bind us, quite often the way out is to *let go of them,* and let them fall off.

But here you are insisting that your own fears are more 'real' than the real lives of a million other, equally human people.

If you're going to be here, at least *listen* instead of just looking for lousy excuses to cut and paste the same old fearmongering and inflammatory, often ignorant speech you've already done a thousand times.

Cause, I say again, if you can't *read and comprehend* what's being said here, ...never seeing humans, only pawns, .... only trying to drive away 'talky wingie thingies,' or foreign religions and cultures,

I think you're the one who's actually being illiterate, and possibly hallucinating.

I've explained to you a Pagan view of our own ways, and all you can come up with is weak assertions we're a 'cult' or going to do voodoo or human sacrifice.

You sound just like the fundamentalists. Muslim, Christian, ...same thing.

And I know you probably don't care...

You're 'liberated,' now, aren't you? You got all the answers already and don't even have to look, or think, except for 'ammunition' to throw at people you righteously decided to try and defame before you even looked.

Sounds like blind faith in an authoritarian religion to me.

You're just the only one *in* your version. The Church of Master Concerned Christian.

You can let go those chains any time.

*wanting to test your reading comprehension at this point.*

Still, what humanity of your *own* are you sacrificing to obsessively tell people this, even if your stated intention is to attack people you admit you don't understand, for things they don't profess?

You've decided "Religion, except maybe Christianity, is my enemy, and any who refuse to be my enemy, I will define as my enemy and attack anyway, no matter how tortured or fallacious my logic about it might be."

You may not admit to being a Christian, anymore, but you haven't left their worldview, Concerned.

You still think it's about control.

I suggest you reexamine your preconceptions, or at least grow some manners.

Paganplace,

Recognizing the flaws in religions and cults, prevents us from returning to voodoo, Sun worship and/or human sacrifice.

Maybe, Concerned, ...you just don't get it.

Not that you ever let that stop you from trying to insult and defame people, really.

You're still trying to characterize people based on some idea of a unitary authority we don't claim.

You like to condemn religions based on claims from authority and antiquity, ...usually in a rude and spammy way, but fair enough.

But now you're trying to condemn Pagans for something we don't hold to, by saying we don't hold to the very thing you want to attack.

The by-now-tired defamation: 'Oh, you make it-- (BTW, what's this 'it' you speak of? Put a noun to this pronoun. You don't even know what 'it' is) --up as you go, you just believe whatever you want,' you're not a 'real religion,' ('for me to attack,' in your case, Concerned.)

We shape and have shaped our practices and customs via *reality,* ...we don't 'make things up' and insist they are the One Truth, ...this, again, is and has been an *organic* process, not artifice.

"What works" and harms none... stays around. What doesn't work falls away.

Again, this is process, not product.

We don't have an orthodoxy to enforce, (or discredit,) cause this is a religion of greeting the world, not of defining it and then struggling to 'believe' what we 'made.'

In Wicca, particularly, the 'founders' one might cite weren't and aren't the 'one and only authority on Truth,' ...they were people who *started certain forms.* They work, cause they work.

I don't see Gerald Gardner as a perfect founder or inventor... I see him as a flawed individual like the rest of us, who through an act of faith and magic, brought something to renew and restore our relationship to the Gods... and ourselves, into the world.

He cast a spell, if you will, and by the Lord and Lady, did it come off. :) I doubt what's grown from there is what he expected.

I don't see him as a prophet or founder, just a guy, really. A remarkable, flawed, guy who dared, and started a process of, going with what works. He brought a form, and Aunty Doreen brought a lotta soul, among other things... From this conjunction among many others, all manner of things were born, grew and changed.

How very Wiccan of them, when I put it that way. ;)

No, it's not 'make it up as you go,' ...it's 'Go with what works.'

'What works,' in a scheme like that, accrues over time, and experience, and sharing, and brings us to the diverse, yet, really somehow coherent Paganism of today.

What your constant attacks really come down to, Concerned, is, you're seeking some internal sense of power over this thing you call 'religion' and are getting kind of bratty about us refusing to be the kind of 'bad guys' you insist we should be.

That's about control.

You won't really find it here, obsessively saying the things you do about anyone you fleetingly, and apparently addictedly, get a little internal rise out of trying to abuse, here.

If you're so full of 'reason,' look at what you're doing.

Trying to make enemies of people to feel safe.

The world *ain't* safe, cousin.

But it's not all that horrible, either.

Thank you, Mr. President -
That was swell!

Paganplace,

Hmmm, "Pagan speak" is basically "make it up as you go" ???? And are there Latin, American Indian, Aztec, Voodoo, Romanian or Hungarian versions of this "Pagan speak"??

*sitting down.* Ok. Since this thread's died down.

Believe it or not, Concerned, since modern Paganism isn't based on arguments from authority... That's not really going to serve your ad hominem attacks any time a Pagan says something you don't like. Like how rude it is to spam boards with cut and paste.

But:

Even in a serious academic attempt to understand us, the question "Who started it all" is somewhat misguided: coming from an assumption born out of the 'founding myths' of certain other religions: the assumption that religion must be 'revealed' or 'made up' by someone, and thereafter preserved and carried on.

This isn't how Pagan and tribal religions come about. They're organic, not artifice, process, not product.

One can point to people and say, 'Maybe they founded this...' Gerald Gardner and Doreen Valiente are credited with 'founding' Wicca, but, they didn't pull it out of *nowhere.*

You start looking for where *they* got it, and you end up going further and further back into European literature, scholarship, folk tradition, culture... ancient traditions, cultural cross-pollenations, ....then forward into the history since then...

And you end up asking people like me.

I was Pagan before I knew there were any others. Yes, I had my own (perhaps extraordinary, but harly unique) experiences of the Gods, and found, eventually, that others had had them, too, and put something together around it. It was called 'Wicca,' (which name I'd been disinformed in Catholic school to mean something to do with Hare Krishnas) and 'Paganism.' And if I've been hallucinating, lots of folks seem to have had the exact same dream. We don't describe it in terms of conversions or revelations.

Just coming home.

And then when I looked at some of what the ancients left us, was like, 'Holy Mother, this was there.'

I really tend to doubt 'Uncle Jerry' ever expected what Neopaganism would become. He was... an interesting character, by some accounts. :)

No one founded it.

Just found it. Or it found us. :)

We're still finding it. The systems are still growing, even.

This is quite different from what you assume it is. And I think that's why you can't get your head around it. You're scrabbling for purchase with the same tired arguments you like to use to attack any spirituality at all... Before you even have the slightest idea what you're talking about, as your own words have said.

Perhaps unaware that as 'we' grew this, we were quite aware of those problems of 'religion,' too.

Pagan religion isn't about 'revealed authorities,' ... it's *not* the 'cult' you seem to insist it is, ...cause the authority structure you're looking to discredit doesn't exist. There's not even a Book To Be (Interpreted And) Obeyed.

The premises are that people can come to their own understandings of the Gods, and that we can see many truths and celebrate together. You don't see us telling people what Gods to believe in, cause, well, that would be telling. (joke) :)

Ok, really, there's a faith that people can figure it out, ...if we had to rely on a book or someone telling us, for what we can experience for ourselves, ..one would have to question if there's anything *but* the books and authorities.

In keeping with our beliefs, ...about change and regeneration and rebirth, ...well, if Paganism *depended* on the authorities and absolutes you're looking to find and attack, well, then we'd have 'stayed killed' and wouldn't have sprung back up like John Barleycorn when the weather turned right. :)

In other ways, we've always been here.

This is very new. And very old. :) Peace, willya? No one said you had to join in.

It's not our way.

Paganplace,

Hmmm, there must be at least some "history" concerning your paganism. Where, when, what, and who started it all?????

Anyway. Apologies for the length, there.

Call it another gesture toward this *interfaith understanding.*

Many people come to these discussions, not really with the interest of *actually understanding,* but trying to *prove* something, be it proselytizing for one's own religion or attacking others'.

Let me tell you, I'm quite aware what it's like for my religion to be subject to others' ignorance, whether it's insidious and unintentional, casually-dismissive, dogmatically-willful, purposefully-defamatory, virulently hateful, or even actually violent or oppressive.

It's not just 'a couple of bad apples not being Christian enough, here, buy *my* sales pitch."

It's systemic.

You guys got blind spots. Everyone does.

(heck, even the header of this page presumes that 'All Equals Under God' is the key qualifier for interfaith understanding: you hear it in a lot of the talk, sometimes unconsciously: when talking about the positives in religion, monotheists tend to refer to 'Whether you're Christian, Muslim, or Jew,' or, 'However you worship God...' when talking about the negatives is when they start going out of their way to include non-Abrahamic faiths, sometimes making big stretches to do so: the underlying message here can be not a real acceptance of diversity, but an idea that on the basis of where there is *sameness* should we be good to each other.)

Blind spots.

"One True Way" forms of religion are in some ways *built* upon having certain really big ones, and put two or three together, you can get an equation for impasse and conflict.

That's part of why in a world as connected, not to mention politically-and-ecologically imperiled, as this one, an embracing of diversity and a will to *cooperation* is no longer optional.

Different views are not only "tolerable," in this situation, they are *necessary.*

We all need each other, everyone we can get, in the right here and right now, not trying to magically make all this trouble and damage go away through pushing particular piety...

The question at hand, Mennonite, Concerned, and others, is not telling people what to believe or not to believe. But discussing how to get along in this world together, as neighbors, Americans, citizens of the world, ...as humans.

In this, we can all help each other.

Understanding is good. Respect is necessary.

The goal... is peace. And passing on a future at least as good as the one we were given coming *into* these times.

We can do better.

From A Mennonite Perspective:

"PaganPlace:

"I see what you mean about the problems that could be caused if some "Moslems" assume that some "Christians" live their lives around denying Islam. Yes, that certainly could lead to talking beyond each other."

*facepalming*

Actually, I was trying to point out that it was narcissistic of you and your co-religionists to *presume* that some Muslims perform terrorist acts cause they didn't feel up to being Christian and thus decided to try and martyr you, basically, not just give you another opportunity to say it's cause Mulsims aren't Christian and need to be converted.

I go into mentioning how Christian proselytizers end up demeaning and offending people by presuming your religious ideas have more importance than their own lives and beliefs, and you go ahead and do the same thing with your little parable:

"I'm reminded of Jesus' response to the man who asked him what to do in order to have eternal life (I notice that the man expressed an interest in the issue): Jesus told him what to do and loved him, even as the man walked away because he didn't want to do what Jesus told him to do"

Dude, I'm a Pagan. We don't have this consuming fear of death and damnation in the first place, never mind to be patronizingly 'told what to do' to avoid it.

In your world of belief, perhaps we and everyone else in the world have 'no real religion,' but *that's* self-centered of you.

It's also self-centered of that Christian-centric worldview, of those who are taught that those who find it rude to come talk down to people that way, (or even to have someone come try and deceive them about what they're selling to get a foot in the door,) and who have to be sharp when people won't take no for an answer look at it as 'Christ-hating oppression' for people not to drop everything and follow them.

A fairly trivial, but routine manifestation of why you have such difficulty finding peace with others, in the world: whether it's passive-agression or frothing at the mouth, it's still a fundamental lack of respect or recognition of others as equals who might just have their own ways.

In this society, Pagans and others are often treated by Christians as Christians teach each other about us: that people who don't obey Christians are by definition lazy, immoral, or, in fact, selfish.

Actually, most Christians might find Wiccan ethics much more demanding than any simple avoidance of written tabooes ever could be. A lot of our paths are pretty openly not-for-everyone, to be honest.

You see, Mennonite, a lot of these ideas Christians have lead to the notion that everyone else is morally-and-spiritually-inferior, and it leads to conflict, as well as more minor discourtesies.

You have a challenge in that *your* world of a singular God, a singular path, a singular truth, even a singular duality of possible fates for a human soul, simply isn't everyone's reality. ...doesn't really exist outside your self-referential worldview.

(If you'll indulge a bit of expansion on this:)

You have to step outside it, in some ways, to see other humans clearly. As something *besides* either a follower or infidel, even.

You've apparently demonstrated an inability to see when I was referring to your *own* self-centeredness, since you immediately leapt to 'agree' I was only talking about 'Moslems' and, apparently, myself as one who wasn't sucessfully 'converted.' (or in this case sold cookbooks, then religious books by a publisher with links to people trying to abridge my civil rights and serve Dominionist causes...)

The whole world just isn't about you and your belief. There's other people here.

That's OK. You wanna get together and materially help some people, well, that's good. Might even make some of *my* Gods happy with you. Don't worry, they don't have to have bended knees and the like for that.

Just, enough about my soul and all. I happen to be one of those lucky, lucky (said with some irony) folks who was born with some pretty vivid memories of other lives, so, I'm not freaked out about eternal punishments or particularly desirous of 'eternal life' for the contents of my present brain. (I suppose to any extent I am, that's a vanity that'll pass soon enough. Got a lot of help with future navigations of karma and reality, it seems. ;) ) Personally, I resent the implications of immorality or evil, I mean, darn it, I not only recognize the effects of my actions in the here and now, but I expect to be *back* to live among the long-term consequences.

Folks who believe their religion and their God is the sole source of all good in the world have a tendency not to really see others as fully human. Talk past them, if not actually vilify them, ...often thinking they're speaking 'the simple truth' (of others' inferiority, the minute a card-carrying Christian walks in off the street.)

To many of *us,* many Christians and others use a combination of promises of simple 'pie in the sky,' as well as their existential fear of death and threats of Hell to try and enlist compliance with things that make no sense. We tend to see people so wrapped up in 'justifying' their actions and trying to be 'saved' that they *just aren't paying attention to what they're really doing.*

Ever say to someone 'Ow, that hurts!' and have em repeat the action with assurances, 'No, it doesn't, it's Ultimately Right?'

This is, again, a big part of how you guys talk past each other.

There's a fundamental, underlying, lack of respect there you gotta watch out for. There's some good wisdom in your religion, stuff that seems to only get played as PR for people who tend to be doing the opposite of what they are ostensibly about.

And, Concerned, as far as your stated plans to try and 'discredit' Pagan paths with your literalist mind and foundational arguments, that endeavor is doomed by its own premises.

We're not based on these kinds of arguments from authority in the first place.

Dan,

We await your books especially the ones showing that there are no flaws in the foundations of contemporary religions.

PaganPlace:

I see what you mean about the problems that could be caused if some "Moslems" assume that some "Christians" live their lives around denying Islam. Yes, that certainly could lead to talking beyond each other.

That points to an aspect of Mr. Carter's premise that could be made,and has been made, operational to a limited extent. Greater understanding through exchange visits might lead to less defensiveness if it revealed that Christians don't "sit around" reacting to Islam rather than "go about" Kingdom Business (telling of the good news about God wanting covenant relationship with humans, and demonstrating this by healing the sick, casting out demons, etc.). Of course, if the exchange visits were with nominal Christians who had a different agenda (conservatism, liberalism, or even centralism, for example) then it wouldn't really lead to greater understanding between Moslems and Christians.

The Christians that I know don't obsess about Islam. They go about their business, including the boiling of pots on the stove (and the avoiding of bombing and exploiting of each other -- the subject of last Sunday's sermon at my church).

I'm sorry that you've encountered people who have treated you as if you were "an evil oppressive baddie" because you didn't respond positively to their conversion/enforcement attempts. That wasn't very Christian of them.

I'm reminded of Jesus' response to the man who asked him what to do in order to have eternal life (I notice that the man expressed an interest in the issue): Jesus told him what to do and loved him, even as the man walked away because he didn't want to do what Jesus told him to do (I notice that Jesus didn't attempt to coerce him or make him feel bad, but let him walk away). I am sorry that your encounters with "Christians" have been different than that man's encounter with the Chief Christian.

Finding moral equivalency between the treatment of women in the Catholic or Baptist church and the subjugation of women by Islam is not only intellectually indefensible, but it is also morally indefensible. Unfortunately, it is not surprising coming from Jimmy Carter.

For President Carter to attempt to find moral equivalency between the treatment of women in the Catholic Church and their subjugation by radical Islam is intellectually indefensible. For 2,000 years the Catholic Church has taught us that men and women, though different, are both equal (i.e. not the "same," but "of the same worth") in the eyes of God. The reason why women serve the Church in roles different than those in which men serve is because priests are the modern day Apostles, and Jesus chose only 12 men to be His Apostles. But I believe if you look at the structure of the Church today with unbigoted, intelligent eyes, you see millions of women running abbeys, directing religious education programs, helming gigantic charitable endeavors, and administrating parishes. I don't think any rational person could feel that courageous achievers like Dorothy Day and Mother Theresa (or St. Hildegard von Bingen a thousand years earlier) were in any way "oppressed" or discriminated against. Quite the contrary: these women felt LIBERATED by the Church, which was the only structure in the whole world which was willing to let them be who they really were.

As for "Concerned the Christian Now Liberated" (and what in the world does that mean?), well, I could write a series of books on what's wrong with those postings. This person thinks that because he or she uses big words like "Odinism" and "Reconstructionist" that it's okay to post bigoted hate speech. Memo to this misguided individual: don't believe every anti-Christian screed you come across on the Internet, okay? You quote several marginal writers with absolutely zero intellectual gravitas or credibility amongst serious scholars. Now I'm going to quote one for you. It was Socrates who admonished us to "question everything." You need to be a much more discerning reader (and writer), or you will continue to embrace irrational and embarrassing positions.

For President Carter to attempt to find moral equivalency between the treatment of women in the Catholic Church and their subjugation by radical Islam is intellectually indefensible. For 2,000 years the Catholic Church has taught us that men and women, though different, are both equal (i.e. not the "same," but "of the same worth") in the eyes of God. The reason why women serve the Church in roles different than those in which men serve is because priests are the modern day Apostles, and Jesus chose only 12 men to be His Apostles. But I believe if you look at the structure of the Church today with unbigoted, intelligent eyes, you see millions of women running abbeys, directing religious education programs, helming gigantic charitable endeavors, and administrating parishes. I don't think any rational person could feel that courageous achievers like Dorothy Day and Mother Theresa (or St. Hildegard von Bingen a thousand years earlier) were in any way "oppressed" or discriminated against. Quite the contrary: these women felt LIBERATED by the Church, which was the only structure in the whole world which was willing to let them be who they really were.

As for "Concerned the Christian Now Liberated" (and what in the world does that mean?), well, I could write a series of books on what's wrong with those postings. This person thinks that because he or she uses big words like "Odinism" and "Reconstructionist" that it's okay to post bigoted hate speech. Memo to this misguided individual: don't believe every anti-Christian screed you come across on the Internet, okay? You quote several marginal writers with absolutely zero intellectual gravitas or credibility amongst serious scholars. Now I'm going to quote one for you. It was Socrates who admonished us to "question everything." You need to be a much more discerning reader (and writer), or you will continue to embrace irrational and embarrassing positions.

For President Carter to attempt to find moral equivalency between the treatment of women in the Catholic Church and their subjugation by radical Islam is intellectually indefensible. For 2,000 years the Catholic Church has taught us that men and women, though different, are both equal (i.e. not the "same," but "of the same worth") in the eyes of God. The reason why women serve the Church in roles different than those in which men serve is because priests are the modern day Apostles, and Jesus chose only 12 men to be His Apostles. But I believe if you look at the structure of the Church today with unbigoted, intelligent eyes, you see millions of women running abbeys, directing religious education programs, helming gigantic charitable endeavors, and administrating parishes. I don't think any rational person could feel that courageous achievers like Dorothy Day and Mother Theresa (or St. Hildegard von Bingen a thousand years earlier) were in any way "oppressed" or discriminated against. Quite the contrary: these women felt LIBERATED by the Church, which was the only structure in the whole world which was willing to let them be who they really were.

As for "Concerned the Christian Now Liberated" (and what in the world does that mean?), well, I could write a series of books on what's wrong with those postings. This person thinks that because he or she uses big words like "Odinism" and "Reconstructionist" that it's okay to post bigoted hate speech. Memo to this misguided individual: don't believe every anti-Christian screed you come across on the Internet, okay? You quote several marginal writers with absolutely zero intellectual gravitas or credibility amongst serious scholars. Now I'm going to quote one for you. It was Socrates who admonished us to "question everything." You need to be a much more discerning reader (and writer), or you will continue to embrace irrational and embarrassing positions.

Historian has it right. I am a graduate of Emory University where Jimmy Carter's library is affiliated. Eleven Emory faculty resigned from his library recently due to Carter's most recent book Palestine Not Apartheid. The book has been discredited by Kenneth Stein, Dennis Ross and others who worked closely with him during his administration. No one in the country, with the exception of the uninformed liberal elite and the uneducated pay any attention to him anymore. The Democratic base won't have anything to do with him. I do not know any informed person who doesn't think this man is a joke at best, dangerous at worst because people overseas still listen to what he says. Even his son had to distance himself when he was running for office in Nevada (he lost). Carter never forgave the American public for their resounding rejection of him in 1980 and so since then, he has tried desperately to court favor outside of the US, even when it means coddling and making excuses for terrorists.
And Historian is right. He does receive funding from the Zayad foundation which is an anti-semitic organization which believes Jews are the enemies of all nations and the 9/11 attacks are a fable. Harvard University turned down money from the same foundation; however, Jimmy Carter did not.

Religions did exist for centuries, as they do now. What makes it different today is that they are being examined perhaps more scrupulously than before. At the same time, this microscopic, modern or post-modern, onslaught or re-examination of religions is obviously more biased than ever. Some religions or religious beliefs are not questioned at all, while some others are put to litmus test more often than not. While some of the teachings of some of the religions are taken as granted, some of the teachings of some other religions are either degraded into barbaric practices or placed under magnified glasses.

If one considers religion as an instrument to identify enemies or allies, or if a religion is condemned for an individual’s actions, perhaps it would demonstrate a mindset which has not been enlightened or emancipated enough for the twenty first century. The issue is not reconciling religions, or religious beliefs, across religions or nations, but to relegate the baggage of religions to back burner—to the domain of individual lives—strictly separating it from public domain.

After all, no religion is based on scientific truth—and therefore, all of these are subject to criticisms or subjective/individualistic interpretations. Isn’t it better to place it where it belongs, rightfully, and grant the world a well-deserved break?

Unfortunately there are many Christians whose bigoted views are very much part of the mainstream in this country, as well as bigots of various other stripes whose comments one might notice above.

One can be Orthodox and hold an opinion which in no manner denigrates women. Or do you inherently believe that the priesthood is some kind of elevated status? I can assure you that the remuneration and respect I've received throughout my priesthood, as well as the years of study and 24/7 nature of the job description in no wise would support that viewpoint. John Paul II's views on the sanctity of human life definitely hold no currency with our present administration in Washington, for all of George Bush's pious show against stem cell research and public meddling in the Terri Schiavvo case. Capital punishment and war are major violations of the Commandment against killing. Mutuality in the three Abrahamic Faiths does need to be addressed. There is but one God,the Source of all life, goodness, and mercy. Torah, Prophets, Writings, Kabbala, Talmud, New Testament, Koran,and Hadith all teach this, as well as other Scriptures of other Faiths.

One can be Orthodox and hold an opinion which in no manner denigrates women. Or do you inherently believe that the priesthood is some kind of elevated status? I can assure you that the remuneration and respect I've received throughout my priesthood, as well as the years of study and 24/7 nature of the job description in no wise would support that viewpoint. John Paul II's views on the sanctity of human life definitely hold no currency with our present administration in Washington, for all of George Bush's pious show against stem cell research and public meddling in the Terri Schiavvo case. Capital punishment and war are major violations of the Commandment against killing. Mutuality in the three Abrahamic Faiths does need to be addressed. There is but one God,the Source of all life, goodness, and mercy. Torah, Prophets, Writings, Kabbala, Talmud, New Testament, Koran,and Hadith all teach this, as well as other Scriptures of other Faiths.

Jimmy Carter is at the top of his game. Age has simply enhanced his understanding and courage....
That this administration doesn't listen to him, to me, is a great sin against all of America and its future.....and detrimental to world peace. Carter is a man who has it right......a prophet in his time.

ONCE AGAIN A MOST GRACIOUS STATEMENT RECALLING THE CAMP DAVID PEACE TALKS.

I UNDERSTAND THAT JIMMY CARTER SCORED THE SECOND HIGHEST IQ TEST FROM ALL THE PRESIDENTS EVER TESTED!!!

PEACE

PS HE DOES NEGOTIATE BECAUSE HE HAS THE INTELLECT AND SKILLS TO DO SO BECAUSE HE VALUES LIFE.

To the Washington Post Editors:

I understand why you are posting this series of attempted excuses for the actions taken in the name of Islam. There is certainly a valid reason for attempting to provide a view of this much misunderstood religion.

Unfortunately, what I don't understand is your lack of presentation of those who are familiar with Islam and who might well be able to provide both context and questions for those who are provided a forum to both excuse and dismiss the unacceptable views and actions of a significant part of both the adherents and theological leaders of Islam. Unlike both Judaism and Christianity, where these violent, bigoted, perverse, and backwards views are marginalized, Islam has made them part of their mainstream.

Then, to top it off, you present, as some sort of respected religious commentator, Jimmy Carter. You should remind yourselves that Mr. Carter has been totally discredited as a national leader. Has been put at arms length by the anti-poverty group that is generally considered to be a key part of his resume. Finally, he has been proven to be a paid agent of the Zayed Foundation. Quite frankly, it is inexcusable that you did not present this fact as you presented Mr. Carter's bona fides

Repetitive Paganplace, and also Anon, and Et Al,

One of the most important aspects of educating is the tool of repetition. And even though I specifically noted, "For President Carter" only, I see you received some added education today.

And Paganplace, I must add another section to the flawed religious foundations' summary that would address Pagan religions. Considering the large number of Pagan cults/practices, it will be a lengthly summary.

I believe you belong to The Coven of the Wiccan Spirit? If not, which of the following might you belong to? :

Reconstructionist Pagan religions
Modern religions seeking to recreate indigenous, usually pre-Christian, beliefs and practices

Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism
Dievturiba
Finnish neopaganism
Germanic neopaganism
Ásatrú
Heathenry
Odinism
Theodism
Wotanism
Hellenic polytheism (modern revivalist forms)
Judeo-Paganism
Kemetic polytheism (modern revivalist forms)
Romuva
Stregheria

Syncretic and eclectic Pagan religions
Church of All Worlds
Discordianism
Neo-druidism (Some Neo-druids are eclectic, some are Reconstructionist)
Wicca
Alexandrian Wicca
Dianic Wicca (Feminist Wicca)
Faery Wicca
Feri Tradition
Gardnerian Wicca
Reclaiming (Starhawk is one of the founders)
Seax-Wica (Founded by Raymond Buckland

Mr.Carter,
I have a great deal of respect for you-your decency and courage.But there is truly nothing intrinsically militant about or in Islam:It is political grievances of the Arab and Muslim people from within and from without-an alliance between Arab/Muslim dictatorship and Western Imperialism-US and UK in Iraq for example.
Who is more militant the occupied Palestinians or their jewish tormentors with their state of Apartheid and brutal military occupation for the past 60 years?
Who is more militant the occupied Iraqis with a destroyed country or the Americans who came from the other end of the world to destroy and occupy Iraq on false pretenses?
Oppression and injustice are sure to create political militancy and revolution:British oppression and colonialism provoked the great American Revolution that evicted the British from America. The same is happening in Iraq and Palestine untill the occupiers are evicted-evry action has a reaction and oppression will always generate militancy to throw out the occupiers:British, Naziz,Israelis or Americans.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:

Here u go again:repeating the very same BS on every thread regardless of the subject being discussed-u just posted-cut/paste-the same on Tony Blair's piece. Don't u have any self-esteem?

Thank you, Mr. Carter.

And, Anonymous: Institutionalized denial and dissociation doesn't mean it *doesn't happen.*

Doesn't mean it's not in effect supported by religions who preach about 'keeping women (and others) in their place' in whatever terms, and support people politically who do nothing about it.

Sure, plenty of conservative Christians try to *justify* abuse using their Scripture, and plenty more are in denial of it happening, or having any connection to their senses of entitlement or how the world 'should be ordered.'

Now, yes, we find a lot of these practices in Muslim countries *horrible,* (no denying that) but at the same time, the 'moral high ground' for many conservative Christians seems to not have a good view of the backyard.

When in America, they push for more theocratic control and fewer civil protections and resources, based on xenophobic fear of everything Muslim, well, it doesn't make *our* society safer or more just.

Just blinder.

Well, Mennonite:

"Deeper beneath this, as PAGANPLACE suggested, is the "thinking everything is really about you.""

Much of the meaning of this was about some people's assumptions, that say, Muslims live their livee around denying your Jesus, that Christians live your lives around denying their Islam, that Pagans live our lives around denying the lot of you, etc, etc.

It's a self-centered idea that the whole world revolves around its relationship to certain peoples' God that tends to cause 'mere human concerns' like peace, fairness, justice, kindness, and goodwill fall by the wayside in an atmosphere of, well, narcissistic religious paranoia.

I see it all the time: people treating me like i'm an evil oppressive baddie cause I greet conversion attempts and moves to enforce religious tabooes on me through state power with an answer of, 'No, I'm doing something else right now. I can say no.'

Got pseudo-stealth Christian booksellers running their job on my doorstep, and treating *me* like I'm doing something terrible to them by saying, 'Umm, not interested, and I got two pots boiling on the stove, here.'

And got people convinced I'm a character from their Bible saying I shall not be suffered to live, and acting oppressed cause they aren't allowed to have government buildings *Command* everyone to worship only their God.

In their own worlds, this apparently makes sense.

You might consider that between the worlds of Muslim and Christian radicals both, you're dealing with *two* views like that in competition with each other, thinking it's all about the fate of their souls instead of how not to exploit and/or bomb each other.

*That's* where thinking everything's about your own religion leads to conflict.

Selfish, perhaps. But if you're wondering how you talk past each other....

Pagan,
Obviously, one difference is that spousal abuse and murder are not sanctioned by the US government or the governments of any western civilization that I know of. While you could possibly come up with some small Christian religious cults that promote these acts (I can't though), they would certainly not be widely accepted by Christians and they would be prosecuted under the law.

Hasan,
While your sentiments are lovely, unfortunately, we all need to worry about the "big stuff." Because the little things don't really matter if the "big stuff" happens. I simply can't imagine being "less concerned" about bloodthirsty acts than you are about planting fruitbearing trees for birds. Sorry, just don't get that.
I certainly agree that these kind acts you mention are extremely important. Actually, they sound like the tenets of Christianity. But simply ignoring the "big stuff" and telling Christians and Jews and Buddhists to simply mind their own business is not going to solve the problem.

Have to say, for those who cite 'honor killings' and don't look at the spousal abuse and murder statistics here in America, (particularly among those whose Christian religion seems to demand submissiveness from women) ...Well, you tell me.

President Carter's observations are sane and succinct.

As a Muslim, I have enough self-assurance to acknowledge the heinous crimes of Muslim extremists in killing innocents and in engaging in sectarian strifes. More Muslims have been killed by Muslim extremists than by others. The problem is that these extremists are not swayed by reason and moderation but by their own nihilistic agenda. The real issue concerns those Muslims who sit on the fences, only reacting and rarely acting. Let Christians and Jews and Hindus and Buddhists do their own soul-searching; I tell my fellow-Muslims, let's search our own souls, become better Muslims and strive to make the world a better place in any way we can. On the road to peace, no act is too small, no friendship too frail.

As to "violent" verses in sacred texts, I am less concerned about extremists who use Quranic verses to justify their bloodthirsty agenda and more concerned about Muslims who fail to reflect in their lives verses that exhort believers to be kind, merciful, generous and forgiving. Belief is easy but action is difficult. Taking care of aged parents, helping strangers in distress, planting fruit-bearing trees for birds, giving mothers the highest status in our lives, these and more are all in the Quran, yet how many of us consciously practice them?

Instead of obsessing about jihad and apostasy and Shariah, let's just do the small, simple things first. The "big stuff" will then quietly and naturally fall in place.