...former president Jimmy Carter is planning on meeting Hamas's exiled political leader, Khaled Meshal, in Syria next week. Last week, Meshal reiterated his previous statement that Hamas would accept a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders with Israel. Carter's plans immediately came under criticism from all three leading presidential candidates. Senator John McCain called on Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton to condemn the meeting. In statements, both Clinton and Obama said they disagree with Carter's plans. The meeting comes as Israeli public support is growing for talks with Hamas. A poll in February found that 64 percent of Israelis support Hamas's call for a ceasefire.
I don't agree with everything former president Carter does or says, but I agree with much of it. One thing is for sure, Jimmy Carter did more than any other president in the history of the United States to put human rights on the map.
Franklin D. Roosevelt did a lot by pushing for the U.N. with its Declaration of Human Rights. However, FDR died early. His wife, Eleanor (1884-1962), deserves a great deal of the credit, maybe more. They weren't perfect though, far from it. FDR was the consummate compromiser. He pushed socialism as far as he could to save capitalism. The capitalists never really see it that way though.
Jimmy Carter worked to be a peacemaker. The Israelis have short memories. Carter's deal making between Egypt and Israel was the most progress any president ever made in the area, as flawed as the deal was.
Many people had been saying that Carter is the best former president the country has ever had. That change when the lying neocons gained power by way of George W. Bush. Now when Carter speaks pretty much as he always did, he's savagely attacked as if he's some kind of racist or ethnic bigot, which he most certainly is not.
Being president of the U.S. and being a Christian are incompatible. I don't know whether or not president Carter has come to realize that yet. Perhaps he never will. God the Father alone knows at this point.
Many have been saying for years and decades that one ought never to talk with so-called terrorists. The idea is that talking with them encourages terrorism, since terrorism is the vehicle whereby attention was sought and gained if dialogue ensues. That of course has always been a wrong-headed position. All grievances ought to be addressed even long before people are driven (tempted) to acts others may label terrorist acts. Even the founders of Israel, who used many acts of terror, should have been listened to long before. Their ancestors should have been listened to. Their ancestors should have listened to others.
Blessed are the peace makers. That's a fact. Jimmy Carter is trying very hard to promote peace. He's taking a lot of abuse and frankly guff about it from many people who aren't fit to tie his shoes and certainly couldn't fill them, as small as Mr. Carter might be in the mundane flesh sense. His stature is much greater than the vast majority of his critics who clamor for war without even trying to hear grievances let alone address them in earnest and righteousness.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)