Former President Carter says President Bush's administration is "the worst in history" in international relations, taking aim at the White House's policy of pre-emptive war and its Middle East diplomacy.The criticism from Carter, which a biographer says is unprecedented for the 39th president, also took aim at Bush's environmental policies and the administration's "quite disturbing" faith-based initiative funding. "I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history," Carter told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in a story that appeared in the newspaper's Saturday editions. "The overt reversal of America's basic values as expressed by previous administrations, including those of George H.W. Bush and Richard Nixon and others, has been the most disturbing to me."
"We now have endorsed the concept of pre-emptive war where we go to war with another nation militarily, even though our own security is not directly threatened, if we want to change the regime there or if we fear that some time in the future our security might be endangered," he said. "But that's been a radical departure from all previous administration policies." Carter, who won a Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, criticized Bush for having "zero peace talks" in Israel. Carter also said the administration "abandoned or directly refuted" every negotiated nuclear arms agreement, as well as environmental efforts by other presidents.
Carter also offered a harsh assessment for the White House's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, which helped religious charities receive $2.15 billion in federal grants in fiscal year 2005 alone. "The policy from the White House has been to allocate funds to religious institutions, even those that channel those funds exclusively to their own particular group of believers in a particular religion," Carter said. "As a traditional Baptist, I've always believed in separation of church and state and honored that premise when I was president, and so have all other presidents, I might say, except this one."
Carter also lashed out Saturday at British prime minister Tony Blair. Asked how he would judge Blair's support of Bush, the former president said: "Abominable. Loyal. Blind. Apparently subservient." "And I think the almost undeviating support by Great Britain for the ill-advised policies of President Bush in Iraq have been a major tragedy for the world," Carter told British Broadcasting Corp. radio.
3 comments:
Monies to "Religion", This is Historical Excerpt from a paper found at:
http://religiopoliticaltalk.blogspot.com/2007/03/separation-of-church-and-state_2805.html
Federally Funded Missionaries Supported By Jefferson
In fact, Jefferson thought Christianity so important that he personally authored a work for the Indians entitled (which today would be labeled as a politically incorrect thing to do… how dare Jefferson push his morality on another culture!) The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, which set forth the teachings of Jesus, as delivered in the Gospels (the Bible). While President of the United States, Jefferson even approved several measure appropriating federal funds to pay for Christian missionaries to the Indians (boy, he is getting more politically incorrect as we go on). Of one of these, Justice Rehnquist explained:
“Jefferson’s treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians… provided annual cash support for the Tribe’s Roman Catholic priest and church…. The treaty stated in part: “And whereas, the greater part of the Tribe have been baptized and received into the Catholic church, to which they are much attached, the United States will give annually for seven years one hundred dollars towards the support of a priest of that religion [denomination]… and… three hundred dollars to assist the said Tribe in the erection of a church.”
Jefferson supported these provisions in other Indian treaties as well:
Two similar treaties were enacted during Jefferson’s administration – one with the Wyandotte Indians and other tribes in 1806, and one with the Cherokees in 1807. In 1787, another act of Congress ordained special lands for the Moravian Brethren “for civilizing the Indians and promoting Christianity.…” Congress extended this act three times during Jefferson’s administration and each time [Jefferson] signed the extension into law.
Madison is harder to pin down, but I will use just a few examples from many that will reveal his beliefs. He was a member of the committee which authored the 1776 Virginia Bill of Rights and approved of its clauses declaring that: “It is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.”
Madison’s proposed wording for the First Amendment demonstrate that he opposed only the establishment of a federal denomination, not public religious activities. His proposal declared:
“The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion [denomination] be established.”
In 1789, Madison served on the Congressional committee which authorized, approved, and selected paid congressional chaplains. In 1812, President Madison signed a federal bill which economically aided a Bible Society in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible (federal funds to pass out Bibles).
Madison, later in his life, changed his positions on many of these items just mentioned (known as the Detached Memoranda). However, the point is that his views in understanding these themes were of one conviction when appropriating legal matters, wording, and definitions of the Constitution and First Amendment. He later changed his thoughts on these things.
Religion In Schools?
~ Which has everything to do with this topic stated at the very beginning of the original post, mainly, the separation of church and state ~ During and immediately following the Revolution, the nation governed itself under the Articles of Confederation. In 1787, while still under the Articles of Confederation, the Founding Fathers passed the “Northwest Ordinance,” setting forth the provisions whereby territories could become states in the new Union. When the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, the Founding Fathers re-passed the “Northwest Ordinance” to ensure its continued effectiveness under the new Constitution.
The time in which Congress re-passed the Ordinance is important: the House approved it on July 21, 1789; the Senate on August 4, 1789; and President George Washington signed it into federal law on August 7, 1789. Significantly, this was the identical time in which those identical Founding Fathers were drafting the First Amendment. (Of course, it is the First Amendment, which has been interpreted by the Courts over recent decades as prohibiting religious activities and teachings from public education.)
Interestingly, Article III of the “Northwest Ordinance” – which, again, was passed by the Founders at the same time that they were working on the First Amendment – linked education and religion together, declaring:
“Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”
The Framers of the Ordinance – and thus the Framers of the First Amendment – believed that schools and education systems were a proper means to encourage the “religion, morality, and knowledge” which they deemed so “necessary to good government and to the happiness of mankind.”
This Question is very important:
Is it likely that the Founding Fathers required something by law that they thought violated the First Amendment, which they also passed?
Certainly not! Clearly, the Founding Fathers did not feel that encouraging religion [see definition at the beginning of the paper] in schools (that received federal monies) was unconstitutional; rather, just the opposite!
The continuing influence of Atical III of the Ordinance, and its lasting impact on American education, is demonstrated in the documents accompanying the admission of new states into the Union for generations following the passage of the Ordinance and the First Amendment. When a new territory would apply for statehood, Congress frequently granted an enabling act allowing that territory to form a state constitution with express stipulation that their constitution be “not repugnant to the principles of the ‘Northwest Ordinance.’”
For example, on April 30, 1802, Congress passed an enabling act for the Ohio territory which permitted citizens to meet on November 1, 1802, to form their state constitution. Since the enabling act required that their new state constitution be “not repugnant to the principles of the ‘Northwest Ordinance,’” the Ohio state constitution stated:
“Religion, morality, and knowledge, being essentially necessary to the good government, and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of instruction shall forever be encouraged by legislative provision.”
The same provision was present when Mississippi was admitted in 1817, its state constitution declared:
“Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government, the preservation of liberty and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged in this state.”
When Nebraska was admitted in 1875, its constitution stated:
“Religion, morality, and knowledge, however, being essential to good government, it shall be the duty of the legislature to pass suitable laws… to encourage schools and the means of instruction.”
This provision was found for decade after decade (e.g., Kansas, 1858) and still appears in current constitutions (e.g., North Carolina). Again, the reason that this provision appeared so often is that the Founding Fathers – through a federal law – included it as a component of statehood in the United States.
Isn’t it ironic that the Founding Fathers of the Constitution would be ruled unconstitutional by it!
Fisher Ames – the Founding Father who offered the final wording for the House version of the First Amendment – authored an article wherein he expressed concern that the Bible might become under-emphasized as the primary textbook in public schools. He warned that the Bible should never lose its place of prominence in the classroom, as newer and newer textbooks became available.
“Why then, if these [new] books for children must be retained – as they will be – should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book?”
Fisher Ames concluded his article by stressing that the fact that the Bible was the source of sound morals in America was a further reason that it must never be separated from the classroom (Ames, Works, pp. 134-135). Clearly, the use of the Bible in public schools did not violate Fisher Ames’ view of the First Amendment – and he was one of the key Founders who provided its wording!
Dr, Benjamin Rush provides further evidence of the Founders’ views of the propriety of religion in public arenas. Dr. Rush was a signer of the Declaration of Independence and later served in the administrations of Presidents John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. Additionally, Dr. Rush was one of America’s leading educators (helping found five schools and universities, of which three still exist today); and he was the first Founding Father to call for free public schools under the Constitution, thus properly earning the title of “The Father of the Public Schools under the Constitution.”
In an educational policy paper he authored in 1791, Dr. Rush offered compelling reasons why the Bible should never be taken from the American schools, even predicting that if the Bible were removed from the classroom, there would be an explosion of crime. He explained:
“In contemplating the political institutions of the United States, (if we removed the Bible from schools), I lament that we waste so much time and money in punishing crimes and take so little pains to prevent them.”
How prophetic!
Alan Dershowitz also points out all the blatant lies and twisting of history Carter used in his latest book. As do others. Love those anti-Semites.
I am confident (?) the money went to good causes, and it would be wrong to discriminate because the organizations are faith based, but it will probably take a quart of hair gel to get the hairs on the back of my neck to go down when I hear about the government supporting faith based groups.
Has Carter gone over the edge? He is a former President and Nobel prize winner after all, so he should command some respect after all.
On the other hand, he has fueled the fires and lent creditability to similar opinions of an ever increasing number of citizens in this country. He is well aware of the "thin blue line" that dictates that former chief executives do not criticize current Presidents, so he must feel strongly as to his viewpoints. Of course he is not the first former President to do so, Hoover ripped into FDR, Clinton has taken a shot or two (or three)at King George II, and on and on. Most of the previous criticisms have been softer and less vocal. Carter seems to want to make a huge splash in the media, then back down from his high horse a day or two later (which he has done again recently).
As for his views on the Middle East,however repugnant the majority of Americans found them to be, in this country if you say anything against Israel, you are an anti-semite, period. No discussions allowed. You are either with Israel, or against us (U.S.) and are a blatant anti-semite.
Post a Comment