Bookmark and Share
My Photo

FROM the EDITORS:

  • IMPORTANT INFORMATION:
    Opinions expressed on the Insight Scoop weblog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Ignatius Press. Links on this weblog to articles do not necessarily imply agreement by the author or by Ignatius Press with the contents of the articles. Links are provided to foster discussion of important issues. Readers should make their own evaluations of the contents of such articles.

NEW & UPCOMING, available from IGNATIUS PRESS

















































































« Benedict XVI: "We must bring the truth of God back into the world, make Him known" | Main | Excellent! But don't hold your breath »

Monday, July 27, 2009

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b7c369e20115714a113b970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Putting the Carter before the horse:

Comments

Rich Leonardi

There is absolutely no evidence that women served as priests and bishops in the early Church. Some served under the name of "deacon," but this was to accommodate the baptism of adult females and in any event these "deaconesses" did not receive holy orders. But there is ample evidence of priestesses in other religions of the ancient world. So if Jesus had wanted to ordain women, he would have had many precedents to support His decision (aside from His divinity).

Gordon

Thanks for the wise post. Your restraint is admirable.

When you get to those conversations about the “population of hell,” obvious names come up: Hitler, Pol Pot, Judas, etc. While I hope for a hell undermanned, I can’t escape the image of a solitary figure preening against a lifeless landscape, imagining he’s waiting for another Nobel Prize, a prissy former President and eternal Sunday School teacher who swoons over butchers and scolds men of honor. He is evil without madness, evil unexcused.

Stephen  Sparrow

From this part of the world (NZ) I always saw the election of Carter as a backlash to the Nixon era. It would hardly have mattered who the Dems put up as a candidate. As it was a fundamentalist "Christian" who farmed peanuts in Georgia was plucked off the land and plonked in the White House. Fortunately Americans being sensible folk realized their mistake and got shot of him after enduring four years of embarrassment. I remember when he was elected he announced that US Foreign Policy would be moral. The NZ Prime Minister an abrasive character named Muldoon was asked by local media for a comment. Muldoon said "If the USA adopts a moral foreign policy, the world will be at war within a year." Of course Carter couldn't institute his moral Foreign Policy but it's easy to see he's still running true to form - spouting out idiocies.

Monica

While Carter's motives appear questionable (is he REALLY concerned for the status of women in the Church?) and his argumentation is certainly lacking, it would be more constructive to address, thoughtfully, a point that his vapid criticism nonetheless raises; why it is that women are not permitted to preach as men are in the Church (the question of ordination aside...)? This article doesn't really seem to accomplish anything beyond pointing out the OBVIOUS flaws in Carter's criticisms of Christianity . . . who cares? And what prompted this sudden apology?

Monica

*That is, priestly ordination

Gregorio

Yet another thing to admire Carl Olson for:

The fact that he is so dedicated to his work that he actually *reads* the lifeless, stultifying, plaster-of-paris prose of Jimmy Carter.

I have no idea what you earn, Mr. Olson, but I can say for sure it ain't close to enough.

If I didn't know you were so passionate about exposing the lie, sir, I'd suspect you of attempting to harm yourself.

Prose of such unalloyed awfulness ought to be illegal, for it could pose a significant danger to unsuspecting people who think.

Nicholas Jagneaux

To support Stephen Sparrow: Even though Americans were disgusted with Republicans (Nixon, and then Ford, who pardoned Nixon), the election was VERY close. From Wikipedia, Carter defeated Ford by two percentage points in the national popular vote. The electoral vote was the closest since 1916; Carter took 23 states with 297 electoral votes, while Ford won 27 states and 240 electoral votes (one elector from Washington state, pledged to Ford, voted for Reagan). Carter's victory came primarily from his near-sweep of the South (he lost only Virginia), and his narrow victories in large Northern states such as New York, and Pennsylvania. Ford did well in the West, carrying every state except Hawaii. The states that ultimatley decided the election were Wisconsin (1.68% margin) and Ohio (.27% margin), both won by Carter. Had Ford won these states and all other states he carried, he would have won the presidency.

Given the mood of the American people, Carter should have easily won the election. That it was so close is very telling about how voters viewed Carter. Had it not been for Watergate, Carter would not have won.

Ed Peters

Jimmy Carter, I thought, was going to go down in history as our worst President. (Though a couple of 19th close-calls could be named.)

But now, I fear, Carter will also take first prize for being the worst ex-President in history. His track record in both settings is pathetic.

Good points, Gregorio.

Subvet

Would somebody please sic a pack of rabbits on this man the next time he goes fishing?

Rich Livingston

Thank God for Jimmy Carter. He speaks truth to power, especially regarding the injustices committed by our "friends" in the Middle East. He alone has had the courage to confront the one-sided, hypocritical support the US provides to war criminals in the region, as we encourage with tax deductions for settlement building, unfettered $3Billion in annual foreign aid, and the humiliation and suppression of an entire people by a "democracy". It's apartheid at best, ethnic cleansing at worst, all done with our help and overt support for decades. No wonder 9/11 happened.

Anonymous

Jimmy Carter ? Truthful ? He seems to be simply left-leaning, politically correct, secularist with a veneer of Christianity (which drives his 'social' concerns)

In Venezuela, he shone with his true colors, blessing His Highness Hugo Chavez in the recall referendum

He turned his eye to the other side, and declared the victory of "El Comandante", although the referendum was a non-auditable scam

Indeed, his judgment over other governments seems as unbiased as Noam Chomsky's

The comments to this entry are closed.

Ignatius Insight

Twitter


Ignatius Press


Catholic World Report


WORTHY OF ATTENTION:




















Blogs & Sites We Like

October 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  
Blog powered by Typepad