Does anyone really care that History’s greatest monster, the man who laid hands on, endorsed, and applauded many of the most heinous regimes of the last part of the twentieth century, has left the Southern Baptist Church?
And he did so now because of, among other things, the role of women in the church?
That, like most of what Jimmy Carter says, is simply attention getting pablum by an senile old leftist.*
The man is an unrepentant anti-semite and leftist. About the only part of the Bible he likes to take literally is the part about the Jews killing Christ. That gives him his anti-semetic justification.
Other than that, Carter wants to be free to live as he wants, not as God wants him to.
Good riddance.
* I did delete the part about the pearly gates as that can offend some peoples sensibilities and I really shouldn’t speculate on what St. Peter will do when Jimmy approaches the gates.
{ 114 comments }
“I want my human rights, just like you president, Jimmy Carter says.” — Al Pacino is Tony Montana in Scarface
As a Southern Baptist is has had the pleasure of being mentored by some of the best in the movement – we’ll hardly know he’s gone.
I’m glad.
Hmmm…not exactly sure you actually bothered to read the story link you provided, Erick.
This is what is in there: In his press release, Carter said he and his wife, Rosalynn, want to associate with “other traditional Baptists who continue to share such beliefs as separation of church and state, servanthood and not domination of pastors, local church autonomy, a free religious press and equality of women.”
SO…based on your comment above, Erick, where you say “And he did [leave the church] now because of, among other things, the role of women in the church?”…that implies that you are of the belief that women should not be equal in the church.
Carter left the church because the church decided to revert back to the old way of requiring women to be 2nd class citizens.
Carter also left the church because he believes in the separation of church and state. You apparently DO believe that church should rule over state, I take it?
BUT…yes, Erick. Jimmy Carter was/is an evil SOB who is likely anti-semetic (like MOST people in South Georgia, by the way) and he has commited other atrocities on the lay of the land.
However, your reasoning in bidding him goodbye makes you look like one of the flaming whackjob religious nuts who preaches on Sunday and beats his wife and kids the rest of the week.
What is it about Carter’s reasons for leaving the church do you actually find abhorrent?
Um… he’s a Democrat.
Exactly.
BS… I was thinking the same thing, but decided since I belong to neither faction of the SBC, I would abstain…. However, you are aware that Eric, like the neo-Baptist, like the neo-GOP, can be, somewhat, sometimes, exclusionary control freaks. I’m just saying
Bill, I know it’s tough but the Bible is clear that women are not to be pastors. We can’t pick and chose what parts of the Bible we accept. Women may serve as teachers and other offices in the church if doing so under the headship of her husband. Men and women are different… God made us that way and he understand the strengths and weaknesses of each.
Ah…didn’t get that inference from the article. Thank you.
But…what about the separation of church and state concept? Am I missing that interpretation as well?
Bill, I think this may have something to do with the misunderstandings prevalent about the “separation of church and state” concept. The phrase, of course, is found nowhere in our Constitution, but is found instead in a letter penned by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association (them Baptists!) in Connecticut, who were concerned that the inclusion of protection for the “free exercise of religion” in the constitution might suggest that the right of religious expression was government-given (thus alienable) rather than God-given (hence inalienable), and that therefore the government might someday attempt to regulate religious expression. This was a possibility to which they strenuously objected — unless, as they had explained, someone’s religious practice caused him to “work ill to his neighbor.”
Jefferson agreed with them, and had in fact already written and spoken many times about the constitutional inability of the federal government to regulate, restrict, or interfere with religious expression. He wrote them a short letter, wanting to assure the Baptists that he had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination (see Thomas Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor [Washington D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904], Vol. III, p. 441, to Benjamin Rush on September 23, 1800).
So when Jefferson replied to the Danbury Baptist Association, he wanted to assure them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the federal government. The “wall” of the Danbury letter was not to limit religious activities in public, or the active and involved participation of religious citizens in government; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions and activities.
In other words, the “separation” phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson’s explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the manner in which courts apply it today. “Separation of church and state” currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant. Jefferson penned that phrase to reassure the Danbury Baptist Association that because of separation of church and state, the government would never interfere with their public religious expressions. For the next 150 years, federal courts followed Jefferson’s intent and attached his separation metaphor to the Free Expression Clause of the First Amendment, thus consistently upholding public religious expressions. However, in 1947, the Supreme Court reversed itself and began applying the phrase to the Establishment Clause instead, thus causing federal courts to remove rather than preserve public religious expressions.
http://wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=123 covers this issue well.
Daniel:
Without the legalism (‘exclusionary control freaks’) in the SBC, I would still be a hard-core neoCon. It was the unholy marriage between the SBC and the GOP that finally led to me leaving the GOP and, by and large, the SBC. As much as I admire and respect several of its members – James Merritt, Johnny Hunt, and Charles Stanley among them – I CANNOT be a part of a group that chooses the route of theocracy.
That said, I actually tend to be MORE conservative than many of my brothers and sisters in the SBC – I just don’t see it as my right to dictate to others what THEY do.
As to the’fundamentalist’ vs ‘moderate’ war within the SBC, theologically the fundamentalists are correct. Where they screwed up was in deciding that the separation of church and state that Baptists had long been known for shouldn’t exist.
I can’t disagree here. It’s one of the reasons that I keep being labeled “moderate” these days. If rejecting theocracy makes me moderate, then so be it.
Obviously, too, as you can see on the other thread regarding this topic, I choose not to ignore the meaning of the verses in Ephesians that our former President does not like, but there are other issues of theology with which I do not agree with my church. Also unlike President Carter, I don’t think I could leave the SBC over those disagreements because I still agree with the majority of beliefs. One of the great things about being a Baptist is that even though all of our churches in the association are affiliated, each congregation is independent, and indeed, each of us is independent within the congregation. (i.e., I will not be tossed out of my church for believing – quite strongly – that our six days doesn’t have to equal God’s six days, and that His first six days were longer than our current 24-hour days. However, if I were doing something morally reprehensible, the church could ask me to leave. So far, they haven’t come with pitchforks, so I think I’m okay!)
But I suppose I just don’t give up easily. I haven’t left the GOP. Just got classified as a moderate because I disagree with some issues that the far right has deemed to be the way, the truth, and the light. Perhaps I’ll turn into a liberal when y’all read about my creation beliefs?
Bill, looks like Andre’s got your back in another post above. Excellent response!
Where? I don’t see it.
anti-Semitic (like MOST people in South Georgia
That is beneath you. I am from rural south Georgia – born and raised. Except for the few oddballs, I never ran into anyone who was anti-Semitic. In fact, I never ran into that mindset until I lived in Oxford, Ohio and stumbled into a barbershop downtown that catered to mostly John Birchers and their useless ilk. And for the record, I never knew anyone who was a Ku Kluxer. Those folks were, even then, considered white trash, ignorant, and unsaved. I know there were and are anti-Semites, but that was something one found everywhere in America to a small degree, and in a lot of other nations, it was far worse.
In fact, as child in a Southern Baptist Church in Cairo, I clearly remember being taught in Sunday School that it was improper for us to tell the Jewish folks who lived in our town that they needed Jesus. It was explained to us that if they followed the Jewish faith, they believed in the same God, that He would draw them to Christ in His own way, at a time of His own choosing. We were taught to live more like Christ, and let that be our testimony. And, if we lived like the little hellions most of us were at times, that was not a testimony useful to winning anyone – Jew or Gentile – to Christ. We respected their faith in the one God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the Great I AM, as we also believed in that same one God.
So, Bill Simon, try working on the log of bigotry against Southerners that is in your eye before casting aspersions on the splinter in others.
Couple of things, MBass:
1) I iz a Southerner
2) I used to travel the state back in the late 1980s working on residential energy audits, and met ALL kinds of folks. Lots of those folks reacted in the same typical ignorant Southern way when they would take the social conversation to the subject of religion, and ask me what church I attended. When I told folks I was Jewish, a lot of them responded with “Bless your heart.”
Little did I know at that time that THAT particular expression meant, in Christian-speak, “You can go to Hell!”
1) “Southerner” is also a matter of heart, not just region of birth. Not a few people born and raised in the South eagerly look for ways to disparage their homeland to appease others.
2) “Bless your heart” is in no way “You can go to hell”. I don’t know who told you that garbage, but that isn’t what it means. It is a polite way of changing the topic so as not to offend the other person by arguing with them, and express at least some level of friendliness.
I have had a few Jewish acquaintances ask me whether I think they should believe in Christ (usually not as a genuine inquiry). What I tell them is that I am not the right person to ask. I then tell them that if they sincerely want to know the answer to that question, they should ask the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob themselves, and do what He tells them to do.
MBass,
2) “Bless your heart” is in no way “You can go to hell”. I don’t know who told you that garbage, but that isn’t what it means. It is a polite way of changing the topic so as not to offend the other person by arguing with them, and express at least some level of friendliness.
You appear to be a very good-hearted and honest soul. I believe that you truly believe that this is what it means.
However, I have heard from people from entirely different sects of Christianity…and…all of them have relayed to me that…well…in actuality, the phrase is more along the lines of a MUCH rougher statement, and I softened it in my above answer to you.
And…let me make myself perfectly clear: I have absolutely no distaste or dislike of Christianity, or, for that matter, of any other religion. My best friends in this life ARE Christian.
What I DO have a serious issue with is people who engage in the following acts with regards to their religious faith:
1) They espouse self-righteous crappola regarding their attempts at ramming their brand of religion down the throats of everyone else via trying to use GOVERNMENT (e.g., George W. Bush, Chrisitian Coalition, et al.) to do so.
2) They violate their religion’s very own principles in the name of running for political office (e.g., Ralph Reed, et al.)
Any questions?
Absolutely amazing that Mr. Simon, who won’t let anyone else discuss racism without being a beligerant ass about how much it doesn’t exist anymore, wants us now to believe everyone in the south is an anti-semite.
Wait, you mean to tell me a point from Bill Simon would be inconsistent, either logically or with previously espoused statements?
The Bill Simon I know only posts well reasoned, sound thoughtful points that are grounded only in fact. Except when he satirizes and then we have to be told that he is practicing satire.
But until YOU can have THE BALLS to post UNDER YOUR OWN NAME, your opinions are just as CHICKENSH*T as YOU ARE! And GUESS WHAT? You know how much credibility you have when you do that? NONE, ZERO, ZILCH, NADA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Your stupidity is SO GREAT it could fill the ENTIRE PACIFIC OCEAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That was satire, right?
Icarus #1, the statement was “most people in South Georgia.” NOT “everyone in the South”.
#2: “Mr. Simon won’t let anyone else discuss racism”………… Do WHAT?
HEY, ICARUS!!!!
Why don’t you get your tail on here and respond to my rebuttal to your accusations?
I’m just guessing because A) He seems to have a life outside of PP but chiefly B ) half of your rebuttals were about stuff where you just stopped reading his post or chose to ignore part of it.
Yo Simon,
Mostly A, some of B, and there’s quite a few C,D, and E answers that would work.
In case you haven’t noticed, I haven’t exactly been around the few days. I’m so sorry your need to be instantly validated and/or gratified wasn’t fulfilled.
I’ll try to work a post up for you in the next couple of days.
In the mean time, feel free to “go eff yourself”.
Ah, good for YOU, Icka-roo. Too busy to post.
OH! I almost forgot: Bless your heart, Icka-roo.
Sir, a woman’s preaching is like a dog’s walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all.
Bill, you seriously going to try to school me about the New Testament?
You’re more credible on Oxendine stuff.
Oh, I’m sorry, Your Highness. A poor slave boy like me is clearly no match for You.
Look at what you freaking wrote, Erick! This is not a “schooling lesson” on the New Testament. You scoffed at Carter’s statment that he thought women should be treated as equals, and the new SBC doesn’t think so.
Carter stated he believed in the separation of church and state, and you bid him good riddance.
This has ZERO to do with whatever your interpretation (I’m assuming it is KJV, but maybe it is the EWE version) is of the NT.
Or
Maybe Erick was hoping we wouldn’t actually read the link he provided. Sort of reminds me of the old friendly joke between the Baptist and Methodist Sunday school attendees; What’s the difference… the Methodist can, and actually do, read the Bible.
I thought that joke had to deal with smiling at each other at the liquor store?
That’s a good one too… there’s a lot of them, like the one about Fundamental Baptist, unlike Methodist, never having sex while standing… just not relevant to either Erick not reading his own links or hoping no ones else does before commenting.
However, to the joke you mentioned, let hope we get to add “… on a Sunday afternoon.” to it one day.
unless it is a Sunday, Shep
“Leftist” and “Anti-Semite” do not go as hand-in-hand as you would wish they would.
Especially considering he put way more effort into pacifying Israelites than any other US Presidents in recent memory…
Oh, Erick.
Excuse me, Slope…but…since you’ve now introduced yourself (and your blog by inference, which I briefly checked out), could you please enlighten me as to the value to society of a subject called “queer theory” that is apparently part of a new curriculum at GSU that I missed reading in my alumni newsletters.
C’mon, Bill – “queer theory” is just the latest college slang for “evolution”.
BA-DA-BING, BA-DA-BOOM!
Erick doesn’t think, he just hurls idiotic insults at people who are ten times the man he is.
Maybe we should refer to the co-existence, rather than separation, of church and state. Each should live with and be reliant on the other. Can there be true separation if theocratic believers are involved in each?
Well, no, not “theocratic believers,” because those folks are just plain bat-guana crazy.
BUT…believers in their own religion can rely on their own religion to help guide them in the carrying out of their duties in government without requiring everyone else involved in government to believe in the same religion.
Carter is a Christian liberal by Baptist standards and the SBC is better off without him, and Carter should be more comfortable elsewhere, the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship I presume. But Bill the Bible clearly and unequivocally endorses gender rolls in the Church and in society. This is not really debatable. The Christian gender egalitarians simply make the case that the gender roles that are clearly in the Bible are no longer applicable to the Church and society today, but the honest ones don’t try to pretend they are not in there. You act as if it would be some sort of scandal if Erick, a self-proclaimed conservative, endorsed a traditional Christian understanding of gender roles. If Erick considers himself a conservative Christian, which I have no idea if he does, then the scandal would be if he didn’t endorse plain Biblical teachings on gender.
But whatever Carter may be, he is not “History’s Greatest Monster.” That is ridiculous hyperbole. Nor is he an anti-Semite for supporting the Palestinians. He is a reflexive liberal, and as liberals are prone to do, he romanticizes and automatically embraces official oppressed victims groups, hence his support for the Palestinians.
But Bill the Bible clearly and unequivocally endorses gender rolls in the Church and in society
The ignorance and double/triple standards in what folks like you espouse to “follow” to the letter in the Bible (but really DON’T) is becoming like an old song.
Which of the following is adhered to (by the letter of Biblical law) in your household, Red:
Leviticus 23:“There are six days when you may work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, a day of sacred assembly. You are not to do any work; wherever you live, it is a Sabbath to the LORD.”
Red…do you work a FULL 6 days out of every week? And, do you NEVER participate in any activity on the Sabbath except to congregate with others in a “sacred assembly” for all waking hours of that day?
Deuteronomy 22-5: A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this.
Red…does your wife or daughter(s) wear pants/jeans, etc.?
Red…if you (and your household) adhere to these examples to the letter of God’s stated laws, then I applaud you for not being a hypocrite.
IF, however, you violate any of these, or any of God’s other stated laws in the Bible (both New and Old), then don’t preach to me about the separation of gender roles in the Bible, okay?
“Deuteronomy 22-5: A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this.”
i believe that was part of what they were able to convict joan of arc on…not relevant to the discussion–but an interesting little piece of trivia stuck in my head
Erick dresses in women’s clothing? Who knew?
so, Bill, ewe’re saying that ewe lie with goats instead of sheep?
Buddha,
Not sure you got the gist of the “EWE” reference, but that had to do with the initials of Erick’s name.
Are pants now considered exclusively men’s clothing? I don’t think God ever designated what is men’s or women’s clothing so the actual definition can change over time. Of course, some sects do layout specific gender roles for things like pants and dresses.
There is nothing hotter than a woman wearing a man’s dress shirt and nothing else. Preferably mine.
“Well, no, not “theocratic believers,” because those folks are just plain bat-guana crazy.”…
Are you saying believers in God are bat-guana crazy?
Harry…READ what you wrote. You defined them as theocratic believers.
A theocrat is one who believes the country should be run under their religious doctrines.
You might not be familiar with one of the reasons why the American Revolution occured, but one had to do with telling the KING of England to stick his religious doctrine up his rear when it comes to governing the lives of the folks who lived in those United States.
Bill, a theocratic believer is one who believes in God’s governance of the universe. Theocratic believers believe that earthly countries are governed by human laws, and human laws are imperfect as humans exist in a state of sin. A modern theocratic believer accepts that everyone has free will to believe or not, and it is the purpose of the christian subset of theocratic believers to carry out Christ’s Great Commission, but not to force proselytize nonbelievers.
Theocratic believers are a lobby for the implementation of God’s rules (ie, Ten Commandments) into public laws to the extent possible, representing as they do good and humanistic standards for all to follow, and also because they would naturally prefer to be governed by laws that emulate God’s rules, again realizing that all efforts to force-proselytize are doomed to failure given humanity’s fallen nature. Thus, you are certainly free to lobby for whatever alternatives you may prefer, and I for one may admonish you but will nonetheless defend your right to self-determination. Admonish you, but I will not castigate nor pass judgment as to motivation or outcome. I trust that you will reciprocate.
Admonish you, but I will not castigate nor pass judgment as to motivation or outcome. I trust that you will reciprocate.
I trust you will do the same to the members of Islam when the Muslims stand on your doorstep and declare their belief in God to be one in which their brand of devotion is followed in this country.
I used to take Sunday School classes with Jimmy Carter when I lived off Lake Blackshear growing up. This “story” about Carter withdrawing from the Southern Baptist Convention is not “news”. This happened around 1999 or 2000. He had been having problems for awhile because he was one of very few families at his church open to welcoming blacks, and ultimately left the SBC altogether because he saw its second-class citizen treatment of females as unchristian.
Carter initially affiliated with the North American Baptist Fellowship, a more moderate version of the SBC. Carter, along with the president of Mercer University, later helped join this organization and others under the New Baptist Covenant umbrella.
If Erick had actually read the story, before posting this series of bumpersticker slogans about it, he might have noticed that the very first sentence describes Carter “reiterating” the reasons for the separation. The separation that occurred a decade ago. In Erick’s own denomination. Involving the president of Erick’s own alma mater.
I’m not going to defend everything that happened during the Carter administration, and I don’t agree with all his books written since then. But he’s still a Georgian, and compared to the current crop running the Gold Dome and Governor’s mansion he’s still one of the best leaders we’ve produced yet. Jimmy Carter’s pinkie fingernail is a better man than Erick Erickson, and has accomplished more than he ever will.
I’m always glad when you throw out one of these hideous rants, Erick.
It’s always good to be reminded how a modern Pharisee acts.
trust me dude, if you think THIS is bad, you should see what happens INSIDE most SBC churches I’ve ever been to.
Jeff,
I also used to be a member of an SBC church But you’re right. This is nothing new.
I think Carter and Bush 2 are the two worse Presidents in my lifetime. Yet the tone of your post sounds like something you would read from a Middle East tribe attacking another tribe.
Finally to attack Carter as an anti-Semite because you disagree with him on Israel is similar to calling someone racist who disagrees about affirmative action. Debates like this demonstrate usually the inability to defend ones position and leads to a fight not a solution.
PSSST! John? Erick is only copying his hero Sean Hannity.
The only thing missing from this thread is the audio of an annoying New Yawker screaming about this subject.
Well, Eric, you certainly make an excellent example of your Belief System™
You be representin’ perfectly the typical Southern Baptist.
Sure makes me want to go out and sign up for the SBC! Where’s that pool?
Yup. Christians. They love that Jeebus soooo much, and they emulate his very existence. And love each other, too!
wait…..
There is absolutely no hyperbole contained in any bit of this thread. In fact you could find less than no hyperbole.
I want to get irratated w/ Carter but then remember he’s a nuisance on his best day, and irrelevant on most. The only people who take anything he says serious are left of left and mostly unsalvageable anyway.
So I guess to answer Eric’s question…no.
So he left the SBC because of their treatment of women as second class citizens, but supports Hamas, Iran, Saudia Arabia, etc despite their treatment of women as less than human?
FAIL
cookie monster was a southern baptist?
To Southern Baptists, you are either SB or a heathen. Cookie took the only route he could take to survive.
“To Southern Baptists, you are either SB or a heathen.”
Bill, I really hope that was tounge-in-cheek. Otherwise, your mind numbing ignorance has shown through yet again.
BC, the TOPIC is the Cookie Monster here. You even think to take it seriously that I make a statement like THAT one?
You flunk Satire 101.
I put you on par w/ Al Franken for “satire”. In case you’re unfamiliar, his satire consist of using a joke as a means to spew invectives at a group or person you disagree with.
I never took “satire 101″ from Al Franken. I did take Mark Twain’s “Satire 101″. Good course. Even for UGA….(countdown to your “satire” about the University of Georgia 3, 2, 1…)
I am as satirical as Rush Limbaugh is. And, yes, Rush Limbaugh is as satirical as Al Franken.
We say things to deliberately obtain a rise out of our political adversaries. Why? Because it throws you off. It paralyzes you because you start to focus on the comment rather than learn to laugh it off and focus on YOUR duties.
Man! How long have you actually been “active” in politics, BC? You must have spent most of your time on the brandy-sipping, cigar-smoking, contributing $25,000 to candidates without batting an eye circuit as your “political activism” and NEVER learned how to fight in the trenches.
Bill Simon–quite the expert on being able to laugh things off. Never gets offended about things posted on the internet nor remains angry about it one year later.
Nope. Not Bill Simon.
Yes, Bill. Don’t forget about slapping a campaign bumper sticker on my 6series. Back windsheild, not the body. Don’t want to hurt the paint, ya know?
BC,
Sorry…but you are talking to someone who is happy enough sipping $5.99-per-bottle wine from TJ’s. So, I don’t get the reference to the “6series” ‘ole Chap.
(drinking tea from my demitasse cup with my pinkie finger pointed outwards)
Rugby,
Hey…I will freely admit I am not a perfect human being.
But…along with my ability to laugh most things off, I also have the ability to store significant…impressions of interactions I have had with people.
So…YOU are just POed that I was able to recall an act perpetrated by you at some time in the past that I was able to bring forward and expose to the light to show you not to be too consistent in your belief structures.
BUT…don’t worry, Rugby…all you got to do is wait around for a couple of more years until I hit 50 years old. From what I understand, the brain just melts-down at that point.
And THEN, you can frolic around the blogosphere pastures and talk hypocritical nonsense and not have to worry about some overbearing SOB hanging around waiting to zap you with a truth from your past.
Pretty much all wrong but you get a C+ for effort.
Well…since I graduated with a pretty high GPA in grad school about 16 years ago, and you just gave me a C+, we can safely assume that in about 2 more years, my brain WILL be completely melted down right around the 50 year-old mark.
Erick:
Exactly how does calling another person “History’s Greatest Monster” square with Jesus’ command that we love others, including our enemies, as much as we love ourselves? I believe that you and I share a similar theology yet your words here are completely at odds with that theology.
Translation: Erick Be Full of Sin from Lying Down With Fellow Man Sean Hannity.
Erick,
I posted another question for you along with Andre’s. Why don’t you take a minute and answer them.
http://galiberal.com/?p=964
Bill,
Most Muslims are nice folks. They are not going to “show up at your front door” and try to make you a Muslim. I encourage you to get to know some.
Harry,
The comment referred to the Islamic fundamentalists…you know the ones who will declare that if it is okay to use the public square to hang-up Christmas wreaths, then it should be okay to hang-up in the Anytown, USA’s public square whatever decorations Muslims like to hang during their special holidays.
My bet is you will be the one leading the protests against that in Gwinnett County.
I agree with Harry.
Bill, I did a little research, and found that Erick was a Deacon of the Vineville Presbyterian Church. (A church which now unfortunately no longer exists.) Vineville was a Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) congregation. The PCA is the largest conservative branch of Presbyterianism in America, as opposed to the more liberal mainline Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA). The PCA believes in Biblical inerrancy and unless I am mistaken does not allow women to be deacons or elders. Apparently (according to wiki) some congregations allow women to teach gender integrated classes but other restrict women to just teaching other women and children. The liberal PCUSA on the other hand does allow female pastors. Since Erick was a deacon I assume he was generally on board with PCA teaching. Otherwise, he probably should have let them know otherwise and stepped down. So Bill, is your oh so sensitive PC conscience scandalized by Erick’s membership and leadership role in such a retrograde throwback denomination?
One thing that is interesting to note, since Erick is a Presbyterian he is most likely not a pre-mil dispensationalist. Therefore he doesn’t have that theological excuse for being so shamelessly in the tank for Israel.
Red,
See my comment HERE to realize I haven’t a clue as to what you are talking about as far as the minutia of deadon/PCA/Presbytarian/, etc.:
http://www.peachpundit.com/2009/07/21/does-anyone-really-care-that-historys-greatest-monster-is-no-longer-a-southern-baptist/comment-page-1/#comment-181145
I, for one, cannot WAIT to hear what comes out of your mouth next, Red.
Bill, you asked: “SO…based on your comment above, Erick, where you say “And he did [leave the church] now because of, among other things, the role of women in the church?”…that implies that you are of the belief that women should not be equal in the church.”
As if it would be some sort of scandal if he did. Based on what I presented I suspect the answer is in fact that yes he does support the idea that women should not be “equal” in the Church. If he had reservations about this teaching of the PCA then he probably shouldn’t have accepted the position of deacon.
So, are you scandalized by this?
Of course all this is educated speculation. Erick is more than welcome to state what he believes on his own thread.
Errr…I mean minutia of Deacon/PCA/Presbytarian, etc.
But what does all of this have to do with the OX or the Fairtax?
History’s greatest monster has to be the cookie monster.
Bill,
Gwinnett still has a lot more Christians than Muslims, so I doubt you’ll be distracted. While I’m not against tasteful religious displays in the public square and passing out tracts, it seems adherents are more focused on their own properties anyway. On the other hand, if you show up they won’t turn you away.
Harry….You just DON’T get anything that exists outside of your little world, do you? You cannot fathom beyond the world as it exists now.
History’s Greatest Monster is from GA, John Oxendine takes his nickname from a beast, is from Georgia, and is Georgia’s biggest panderer. Also, the FairTax is a gimmick for unserious pandering politicans like John Oxendine…..I dunno, trying to help you out here, GOPGA
You know that John Oxendine spelled backwards is “666″, right?
Did not know that, but doesn’t suprise me. I heard he was really Jimmy Hoffa, making a return under an alias.
Erick:
There is a long tradition in Western Christianity of individuals leaving the one true church to follow the word of G-d another way.
Its called the Reformation. Its hardly news anymore.
I’d be more concerned about Carter using his credentials as a former President to give credibility to despots and terrorists.
Alan
Please do not confuse Erick with facts. He likes to tell us what he feels.
Oh, and has Paul Broun been sworn in yet?
At least you’re paying attention!
My first vote was AGAINST Jimmy Carter when he ran against Hal Suit. I NEVER voted for that man.
However misguided he might be, calling him the worst monster, ahead of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Vlad the Impaler and Idi Amin, is ridiculous.
Simon is correct. Hannitywannabeitis has struck.
Erick cast his lot with the now-irrelevant, despite my pleading, and now is adrift trying to cast a grappling hook onto any passing salient issue, even to the extent of throwing hook, line, and sinker at phantoms.
“Hannitywannabeitis has struck.”
Speaking for at least one conservative, Sean Hannity is no conservative. He is a (take your choice of equal terms) Republican’t/Rockefeller Republican/Neo-Whig. He supported Giuliani at the 2008 campaign, then when he dropped out, he threw his support to Romney. I listen to his program on the way home from Atlanta once a week, and he makes me cringe at times. He misses the point on many questions, and sometimes takes the stupidest positions. He is rude to callers when he doesn’t need to be, and sometimes totally misunderstands what they are saying – even when they are conservative.
I may disagree with liberals on a lot, but an intelligent talk show host can find a way to discuss something with them and be entertaining without being rude and condescending.
I can see Hannity saying something like this about Carter, but it is my hope Erick was just using absurdity to illustrate absurdity.
Well put, MSBS, Hannity and a cadre of others were never conservatives, just opportunistic, juvenile egotists.
Eric,
You gutless wonder. You deleted some part of your post? Ya did a Charlie Brown and caved to the opinions of others?
Stand for something or you stand for nothing. Didn’t ya learn anything from conservative boot camp?
MD
He thought the thought. God already knows what to do with Erick. (averts eyes)
“So…YOU are just POed that I was able to recall an act perpetrated by you at some time in the past that I was able to bring forward and expose to the light to show you not to be too consistent in your belief structures.
Mr. Simon, I too have a pretty good memory. When I exposed to the light that a certain talk show host was a pathological liar (with facts and examples), you implied that I was a stalker. Yet when another poster implied the same thing about you, you took offense and replied that the poster was “full of himself. Remember that?
KCordell,
No, actually, I do not. Can you locate said incident on Peach Pundit so as to refresh my memory?
I don’t know if a) I really made such a statement, or b) I was actually being serious, or c) I was actually just being my normal SmartAWB self.
How does one search for previous post by poster? It was in the thread where Kellie falsley accused me of taking notes. Since I don’t take notes I can’t remember exactly which thread we exchanged replies. Maybe Kellie can help me out or Mr Konop. It was the thread where I spelled his name wrong.
Why, oh why, do you force me to reveal my mad skills?
He said he was being sarcastic. You must not have read that reply.
http://www.peachpundit.com/2009/05/10/your-georgia-gang-open-thread/#comment-171035
Perhaps you’ll find what you’re looking for here:
http://www.peachpundit.com/2009/05/10/your-georgia-gang-open-thread/
:::SIGHhhhhhhhh!:::
Those old posts were truly the good ‘ole days on Peach Pundit. When we didn’t have to contend with a freaking limit of 3 levels of outcropping of REPLY threads…
Dash, I did read his reply. I just didn’t catch the “smiley face.” I thank you and Icarus for the help. I’m quite impressed and I mean that sincerely.
Just don’t ask me how long I waited in order to reply just before the second place finisher did.
You know how it is when you have wax wings…………….
Bill Simon wrote:
1) They espouse self-righteous crappola regarding their attempts at ramming their brand of religion down the throats of everyone else via trying to use GOVERNMENT (e.g., George W. Bush, Christian Coalition, et al.) to do so.
2) They violate their religion’s very own principles in the name of running for political office (e.g., Ralph Reed, et al.)
I agree on both. Government has a responsibility to enforce the level of morality that is in natural law (which descends from and coincides with much of JudeoChristian morality) and which also, if not legislated against, has a demonstrable negative effect on others.
Thanks for your kind words, and if you knew me, you’d know I have little respect for those who misuse the name of Christ for their own political or personal gain. If a person is truly a believer, how they live their life now will say so, and only then will their words carry weight. I have no problem with those whose past is anywhere from “less than perfect” to “despicable” – it is what their life is now and for the recent past.
It turns out Erick was not the only one to interpret this as new news. Read this.
http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=4140
Let’s not give Erick such a hard time. I don’t think Erick thought the fact that Carter isn’t in the SBC is “new news”. It’s the senile Jimmy Carter who brought this back up in the media recently, not Erick.
It looks like to me that Erick used absurdity to illustrate the absurdity of this embarrassing, incompetent ex-President when Carter unjustly attacks a portion of the Christian Church he hasn’t been a member of for years for Carter’s own gain (publicity). I guess that makes Carter one of those folks who violates Bill Simon’s issues 1 and 2 above.
Another thing that amuses me about this Post (with update) is that Erick deleted the part that he thought might “offend some peoples sensibilities” when it came to his prejudgement of President Carter’s arrival at the “pearly gates,” but had no problem with offending women that ‘don’t know their place’…, I guess it’s one step to the left and one step to the rear, head down and speak only when spoken to…we’ll have to let Erick clarify to know for sure, since he lead us to believe his position is opposite to that of the ex-President’s.
I hate for religious discussions to crop up on political blogs, mainly because I think it diminishes religion to put it on the same plane as politics. That being said, this entire thread really “chaps my cheeks.” I am not, and have never been a Southern Baptist or a Baptist of any kind. However, being a Southerner, I have to deal with way too many of them because they have a disportionate level of influence in this region. While Eric may not be a Baptist, his sentiments here could well have been written by one. And it is so against the spirit of Christ that it infuriates me.
I am a member of a congregation and a denomination that does not set limits of gender on leadership. While we believe the Bible is the true, inspired word of God, we are not literalists. In our opinion, literalists are like the Pharisees and miss the ultimate truth because they are so busy searching for the rules. Ultimately, to each his or her own, I say.
Personally, I have seen and met many incredibly gifted female pastors and leaders. I would have a hard time believing that God granted them these great gifts if he didn’t intend on them using them.
Finally, I find it highly ironic that some of these (Erick included) fundamentalists are so enthralled with Sarah Palin.
Welcome to Peach Pundit!
“Finally, I find it highly ironic that some of these (Erick included) fundamentalists are so enthralled with Sarah Palin.”
Why?
Who among this group’s strongest supporters would object to snow machine riding Todd Palin running the country?
Especially if Todd were to brew his own brand of beer…
Comments on this entry are closed.