Be Careful What You Wish For - You Just Might Get It

[robertpaulsen]

http://americanjudas.blogspot.com/2011/02/be-careful-what-you-wish-for-you-just.html">Be Careful What You Wish For - You Just Might Get It

Watching the events unfolding in Tunisia, Yemen and Egypt, I'm reminded of a moment in Denial Stops Here, the DVD compilation of Michael Ruppert's speaking engagements from 2004-2005. The movie is a fantastic document of his political and economic predictions for the future, many of which came true with startling accuracy. At one point as he is describing the layout of the coming economic collapse (he believed it would occur in 2005, he was off by three years), he predicts that General Motors will have to file for bankruptcy. The crowd bursts out with applause. Ruppert then cautions them, "Hold on! Before you cheer, think about what that means". After then explaining what the worldwide economic ramifications of such an event would mean (General Motors eventually did file for bankruptcy on June 8, 2009), Ruppert concludes saying, "So be careful what you wish for. You just might get it".

We are witnessing a revolution in the Middle East, probably the largest such revolt in a region since the Eastern bloc revolution of 1989. With each passing day, the phenomenon seems to grow. The president of Tunisia http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/01/20111153616298850.html">flees the country to live in exile in Saudi Arabia. Yemen's president has said he will http://www.npr.org/2011/02/02/133443197/Yemens-President-Vows-Not-To-Seek-Re-Election">not run for re-election in the wake of protests there. But of course the largest and bloodiest revolt is happening in Egypt, where the course of history is http://blogs.aljazeera.net/middle-east/2011/02/02/live-blog-feb-3-egypt-protests">changing radically on a daily basis.

But this may only be the beginning. This recent article from The Guardian highlights some new developments:

Spirit of Egypt protest spreads to Yemen, Algeria and Syria

Demonstrators gather on streets of Sana'a as Algeria aims to defuse tensions by lifting 19-year state of emergency

* Tom Finn in Sana'a and Mark Tran
* guardian.co.uk, Thursday 3 February 2011 19.33 GMT
* Article history

Protesters in Yemen Opposition demonstrators wave Yemeni flags as they take part in a ‘day of rage’ in Sana’a. Photograph: Hani Mohammed/AP

Reverberations from the mass protests in Tunisia and Egypt continued to be felt around the Arab world as demonstrators gathered on the streets of Yemen for a "day of rage" and Algeria became the latest country to try to defuse tensions by lifting its 19-year state of emergency.

More protests are expected across the region following Friday prayers, including in Syria, where activists have used Facebook to organise demonstrations in front of parliament in the capital, Damascus, and at Syrian embassies across the world.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/03/yemen-syria-algeria-arab-protests

But hey, this is all good isn't it? These are all non-democratic, mostly military dictatorships that are the focus of the protests by their respective citizens, so what's wrong with them rising up against their oppressors? You would think the neo-cons of all people would be rejoicing the rise of freedom and democracy in the Middle East! Especially when their pResident George W. Bush had this to say in the aftermath of another "regime change":

"Yet there's a great challenge today in the Middle East. In the words of a recent report by Arab scholars, the global wave of democracy has -- and I quote -- "barely reached the Arab states." They continue: "This freedom deficit undermines human development and is one of the most painful manifestations of lagging political development." The freedom deficit they describe has terrible consequences, of the people of the Middle East and for the world. In many Middle Eastern countries, poverty is deep and it is spreading, women lack rights and are denied schooling. Whole societies remain stagnant while the world moves ahead. These are not the failures of a culture or a religion. These are the failures of political and economic doctrines."

snip

"The great and proud nation of Egypt has shown the way toward peace in the Middle East, and now should show the way toward democracy in the Middle East. (Applause.) Champions of democracy in the region understand that democracy is not perfect, it is not the path to utopia, but it's the only path to national success and dignity.

As we watch and encourage reforms in the region, we are mindful that modernization is not the same as Westernization. Representative governments in the Middle East will reflect their own cultures. They will not, and should not, look like us. Democratic nations may be constitutional monarchies, federal republics, or parliamentary systems. And working democracies always need time to develop -- as did our own. We've taken a 200-year journey toward inclusion and justice -- and this makes us patient and understanding as other nations are at different stages of this journey."

http://www.ned.org/george-w-bush/remarks-by-president-george-w-bush-at-the-20th-anniversary

These words are from November 6, 2003. Eight years later, Egyptians are doing exactly what the fearless neo-con leader asked for. Yet instead of neo-con ecstasy, the mood from the talking heads around Fox News is one of sheer horror. One of the biggest fraidy-cats is former State Department stooge John Bolton, who came up with this thoughtless strategy:

Bolton: If Mubarak falls in Egypt, Israel should bomb Iran
By Eric W. Dolan
Tuesday, February 1st, 2011 -- 11:24 am

Former US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said the ouster of embattled Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak would speed the timetable for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

"Do you think that the Israelis are going to have to strike — they are going to have to take action?" Fox News Republican opinion host Sean Hannity asked the former ambassador on his radio program Monday.

"As you pointed out, ElBaradei ran cover for the Iranians for all those years that he was with the IAEA. And, I just don’t think the Israelis have much longer to wait… they're going to have to act in fairly short order."

"I think that's right," Bolton responded. "I don't think there’s much time to act. And I think the fall of a Egyptian government committed to the peace agreement will almost certainly speed that timetable up."

Bolton chided the protests in Egypt last week, saying that "the real alternative is not Jefferson democracy versus the Mubarak regime, but that it’s the Muslim Brotherhood versus the Mubarak regime, and that has enormous implications for the US, for Israel, and our other friends in the region."

more...

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/bolton-israel-bomb-iran-mubarak-falls/

Why all the fear tactics in regards to the Muslim Brotherhood? True, these are not good guys by any stretch of the imagination. They have documented http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood">historical ties with the Nazis and questionable ties with al-Qaeda. But in proportion to the population of Egypt in the event of a democratic government actually occurring, they really are what Chris Matthews described them as: the Tea Party of the Middle East. In a democratic society, both have a right to exist, but as columnist Bob Norman said, http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2011/02/tea_party_and_muslim_brotherhood.php">"and then be put on the fringes where they belong". Perhaps the real reason for all the commotion in the reich-wing echo chamber is that this is what they want: an Armageddon slugfest between these counterpoint crackpots. It certainly wouldn't be the first time there was an association for their mutual benefit:

Michael Hughes

Foreign Policy Strategist
Posted: September 3, 2010 08:15 AM

When Right-Wing Christians and Neocons Loved Islamic Jihadists
snip

In the mid-1950s, the C.I.A. and the British MI6 had developed a close relationship with an Islamic extremist group called the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and forged a partnership with Saudi Arabia to defeat the secular and nationalist policies of Egyptian President Gamal Abddul Nasser. The C.I.A. enabled the Muslim Brotherhood to return from banishment and infect Afghan society with a radical version of Islam that began to supplant the traditional and more moderate indigenous form. According to Gould and Fitzgerald:

The radical Islam of the Muslim Brothers returning to Afghanistan from exile in the late 1960s and early 1970s shared none of the "celebratory, personalized and ecstatic" traits of Afghan Islam -- nor did it offer itself as a political or economic reform movement. Instead, what reentered Afghanistan following its exile was a violent, antimodernist hybrid (described by French expert Olivier Roy as more akin to the extremist Catholic sect Opus Dei than anything native in Afghanistan) which at first challenged the weakened boundaries of the old patriarchy, then in triumph broke free from traditional limits on violence and clan rivalries.

While Afghanistan's progressive King, Zahir Shah, tried to institute modern reform, how mind-boggling is it that the U.S. backed antimodernist fundamentalist Muslims whose goal was to overthrow the constitutional monarchy and establish an Islamic Caliphate?

Fast forward to the late 1970s when a Pentecostal inhabited the White House while neoconservatives, led by hawkish National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, preyed on Carter's ingrained end times theology. Brzezinski pushed forward the agenda of what became known as "Team B" -- a cabal of neocons such as Paul Wolfowitz, Paul Nitze, Seymour Weiss, Richard Pipes, Richard Perle, Daniel O. Graham and Leo Cherne, who exaggerated Soviet nuclear and military capabilities to force U.S. leaders to take a hard line against communism.

more...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-hughes/when-right-wing-christian_b_704589.html

So does this alliance put President Obama between a rock and a hard place? Not quite. As my good friend http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x330933">Octafish pointed out, he's got http://counterpunch.org/prashad02022011.html">Frank Wisner from inside the bowels of Washington's power elite. Whether Muburak stays until summer or leaves office today, Wisner is the man with the connections to smooth things over. Whether it's power to the people or sustaining the status quo, we can rest assured http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/egypt-crisis-omar-suleiman-cia-rendition/story?id=12812445">American interests will be protected.

I'm sorry, do I sound cynical? Well, in light of this recent find by http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30865&start=150">vanlose kid at Rigorous Intution, I most certainly am. As you read this, think about it in the context of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Doctrine">Carter Doctrine, which I am quite certain President Obama would uphold if push came to shove:

Saudi Hiccup?

As riots raged in Cairo on Friday and dominated the news wires around the globe, Saudi Arabia, it appears, may be getting ready to join the list of Arab nations protesting their governments.

In the port of Jeddah relatively heavy rainfall combined with a non-existent drainage system to wreak havoc on the city and its 4 million inhabitants. The city is literally flooded and the torrential, and very rare, rains have caused around $ 1 Billion USD worth of damages.

So far there are http://arabnews.com/saudiarabia/article245263.ece?comments=all">11 dead and over 100 injured as a result. Incredibly, over 11,000 cars were stranded in floodwaters as water levels were reported to be 4 meters (13.2 feet) deep in some areas. Rescue helicopters have ferried almost 500 people to safety!

Oddly enough, and unfortunately for the government, the same scenario happened in 2009!

Back then it was dubbed Saudi's "Katrina Moment". Over http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/03/jeddah-floods-sewage-al-saud">122 people were killed (some estimate it was more like 500) and hundreds injured as the government fell on its face during the response effort.

That led to widespread http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2009/1130/p06s13-wome.html">discontent and a fury of criticism of the local government mainly via, you guessed it...Facebook. The main theme was "Where are the billions in oil revenue going?".

Back in 2009 and according to the CS Monitor:

Mr. Khair, the lawyer, says he intends to file a class action suit against Jeddah's municipality. He does not think any official will be forced to resign, he adds. "In Saudi Arabia, we didn't hear about someone leaving his office."
The attorney says that the Facebook page was a useful alternative because street protests are illegal in the kingdom. The Internet "is the only way. We don't have another way," he says.

The episode has demonstrated "how technology allows people to shout out loud. I have never seen this before in Saudi," says Asaad, the lecturer. Even if people commenting on Facebook "use pseudonyms, it's a start," she adds. "But nowadays, people are using their real names."

Which brings us to today.

A mass http://arabia2day.com/featured/activists-call-rare-protest-in-flooded-saudi-city/">blackberry messenger message has gone out in Jeddah calling for a demonstration on Saturday, the 29th. It says:

“On Saturday there will be a demonstration in front of the municipality for Jeddah … gather as many people as you can,” the message ran. “We need brave men and women. We don’t want any more lies … We have to do something.”

Another message also sent via Blackberry urged all government and private sector employees to hold a general strike next week in protest at the authorities’ neglect of the city’s infrastructure.


This is very serious news if it happens. The ruling Saud family's main areas of support are centered around the capitol city, Riyadh. There are long standing historical tensions with the people of the western provice, Hijaz, of which Jeddah is the largest city. Jeddah is also the second largest city in Saudi Arabia overall and is the port of arrival to the more than 2 million Muslims who make the pilgrimage to Mecca every year.


Also, in the eastern province of Saudi Arabia are most of the shunned Shia Muslims of the country. They are regarded as infidels by some hardline Wahhabists and face a glass ceiling when working in public bureaucracies. There have been tensions there also and several protests.


http://arabia2day.com/reports/divided-we-survive-a-landscape-of-fragmentation-in-saudi-arabia/">Here is an excellent paper about the ethnic and religious background of Saudi Arabia.


In addition to the religious and social tensions in Saudi, perhaps the economic tensions are the greatest of all. According to a recent report by Booz & Co., unemployment in Saudi Arabia is estimated to be 13-14% in 2008. Additionally, 48% of Saudis between the age of 20-24 are unemployed as well as 31% of Saudis between 25-29.


70% of the population is under the age of 34 and the Median age is 24.9.


In other words, the powder is dry...


Here is a video of the clashes between police and Saudi Shia's (keep in mind the source is Iran's Press TV)

(see link below)


Here is a video of the catastrophic floods in Jeddah this week:

(see link below)

http://fedupmontrealer.blogspot.com/2011/01/saudi-hiccup.html

Sometime in the future, there will come a real day of reckoning for the USA. It may happen in the wake of revolution spreading across the Middle East this year or it may not happen until the 20's. But sometime in this generation we will face the day when we face the reality that maintaining an empire of friendly regimes protecting a http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2010-11-11/iea-acknowledges-peak-oil">permanently decreasing supply of non-renewable resources is economically unsustainable. As a result of this, governments in the future will have to focus on relocalization, regardless of whether they are 1st world or 3rd world countries, if they want to serve the interests of their citizens and alleviate the risk of a revolt.

Oh sure, we could get lucky where Saudi Arabia is concerned. Maybe the House of Saud can continue their stranglehold on power like the House of Kim in North Korea, just starve 'em into submission. Or perhaps a democratic uprising will result in a representative government that wants to remain allies with the US. But what if they don't want to? http://www.iags.org/futureofoil.html">Over 60% of all proven oil supplies in the world are in the Middle East. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_oil_politics#Saudi_Arabia">25 percent is in Saudi Arabia alone. 100% is currently priced in dollars. What if they decided to price it in another currency? Where is it carved in stone that the indigenous people of countries halfway across the globe must have our best interests at heart, even at the expense of their own? Are we prepared to use the same armed forces currently stretched to the breaking point in Afghanistan and Iraq to enforce our interests at the expense of a population trying to express the freedom for self-determination?

Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. The strategic implications are deep

and we will see things that many of us will not understand either.

As to Israel, better make peace quick, that train is leaving the station, if not already left

[robertpaulsen]

2. I'm not sure which situation is more potentially volatile: Israel or Saudi Arabia.

Probably Israel, now that I think about. The difference? About http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel">75-400 nuclear warheads.

Another possibility I didn't think about in my OP: Pakistan. What would a representative democracy look like there?

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. Pakistan right now would scare me more

see those nukes.

Israel is still a democratic state, one that will have to start spending more money in the army, so they tell me. They are scared, to be honest.

[robertpaulsen]

11. Just a cursory wikipedia glance is sobering.

Estimates of Pakistan's stockpile of nuclear warheads vary. The most recent analysis, published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in 2010, estimates that Pakistan has 70-90 nuclear warheads.<37> In 2001, the U.S.-based Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) estimated that Pakistan had built 24–48 HEU-based nuclear warheads with HEU reserves for 30-52 additional warheads.<38><39> In 2003, the U.S. Navy Center for Contemporary Conflict estimated that Pakistan possessed between 35 and 95 nuclear warheads, with a median of 60.<40> In 2003, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace estimated a stockpile of approximately 50 weapons. By contrast, in 2000, U.S. Military intelligence estimated that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal may be as large as 100 warheads.<41>

The actual size of Pakistan's nuclear stockpile is hard for experts to gauge owing to the extreme secrecy which surrounds the program in Pakistan. However, in 2007, retired Brig. General Feroz Khan, previously second in command at the Strategic Arms Division of Pakistans' Military told a Pakistani newspaper that Pakistan had "about 80 to 120 genuine warheads."<42><43>

snip

Second strike capability

According to a US congressional report, Pakistan has addressed issues of survivability in a possible nuclear conflict through second strike capability. Pakistan has been dealing with efforts to develop new weapons and at the same time, have a strategy for surviving a nuclear war. Pakistan has built hard and deeply buried storage and launch facilities to retain a second strike capability in a nuclear war.<45>

It was confirmed that Pakistan has built Soviet-style road-mobile missiles, state-of-the-art air defences around strategic sites, and other concealment measures. In 1998, Pakistan had 'at least six secret locations' and since then it is believed Pakistan may have many more such secret sites. In 2008, the United States admitted that it did not know where all of Pakistan’s nuclear sites are located. Pakistani defence officials have continued to rebuff and deflect American requests for more details about the location and security of the country’s nuclear sites.<46>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Development_of_nuclear_weapons

I'm sure I don't have to tell you about all the help http://americanjudas.blogspot.com/2007/01/american-judas-1st-edition.html">A.Q. Khan got from Dick Cheney that made this situation possible!

[chimpymustgo]

15. Israel is a democratic state for Jews - NOT PALESTINIANS - where APARTHEID rules. Democracy - NOT.

[KoKo]

7. Isreal is too close tied in! ISREAL WILL REIGN! It's "What is Written."

Because the Ties are TOO DEEP.

[JDPriestly]

4. President Bush was a fool.

Democracy is great, but it has its risks. The American experience is not typical of revolutionary countries. Think France in the late 18th century. Think Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. Those revolutions lead eventually to dictatorships. In France -- Napoleon for one. In the USSR -- Lenin and Stalin.

Instead of invading Iraq, Bush should have encouraged Mubarak and others to gradually encourage freer participation by their people in the government at all levels.

[robertpaulsen]

6. Exactly. Bush's illegal war is a Pandora's Box.

Decades from now, there will still be severe geopolitical ramifications as a result. And not one person from that misadministration will spend a day in jail.

[KoKo]

9. I think he did his best to protect Israel...and for that he will get REAGAN approval.....

I thing that this is WRONG and SAD and it makes me HYSTERICAL...but, I know that ...I need to ACCEPT that BUSH II was what will be remembered for STABILITY!

[Poboy]

5. Recommend

[gratuitous]

8. Dictators are like coaches in sports

Hired to be fired, the only suspense is when. There are a few coaches who quit on their own terms and in their own time, but for the most part, it's just part of the territory.

Dictators sooner or later run afoul of a critical mass of their people. The suspense is in the "when". It constantly pisses me off when the U.S. in the name of "stability" or some other such specious argument, supports a dictator without delving too deeply into what the opposition might be planning. If a country's leader could depend on popular support, he wouldn't be a dictator, but being a dictator by definition means that person can't win a free and fair election. Knowing that, our country still supports folks like Mubarak, and when the inevitable happens, we see just how bankrupt our foreign policy is.

[KoKo]

10. "Thinking "Out of the Box" is always interesting...for what you say.

[Octafish]

12. "We don’t want any more lies … We have to do something."

Unfortunately for the good people of Saudi Arabia, the tyrannical royals, unlike Egypt's army, will turn the "Made in the USA" machine guns on the people asking for accountability for how the oil money is spent, let alone democracy.

The Internet has made possible the transmission of ideas from one person and group to another faster than government can interfere. The Chinese are doing all they can to keep the lid on. Imagine the changes there, once the masses there learn what the Party bosses do to keep them in the basement, let alone the "Three T's: Tibet, Tiananmen, and Taiwan."

The War Party -- neocon, neoliberal, warmongering banksters, etc. -- don't like the idea of democracy in the Middle East or China or anyplace where the masses, the Mob, the People have power. They can't stand democracy at home, either.

War and concentration of wealth may be just the thing that morphs from their harness of the peoples of the world and into their golden noose that ends the rule of despots, tyrants and -- in our nation's example -- traitors.

K&R for an outstanding post, remarkable in its implications, robertpaulsen.

[DemReadingDU]

13. The American empire is crumbling

Many people don't see it yet because their lifestyle has not been impacted. Yet economically, it is unsustainable. Just look around. Good jobs have been outsourced and not coming back. Many businesses are gone. People have been unemployed so long, they are no longer counted in 'official reports'. Millions are on food stamps. Our resources are being used up. We are not a nation in recovery, but in decline. Whether the final black swan event comes out of the Middle East, or Mother Nature, or the crash of the stock market, or something else, an event will occur that will wake up the rest of Americans that our empire has indeed crumbled.
:cry:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. I've lived too long and read too much to take all the MSM reporting at face value

My automatic reaction to any assertion about foreign policy in the MSM is "Cui bono?" "Who benefits?"

I'm all for the Egyptians, but yes, the results may be different from what we would like and we need to accept that.

In general, we need to stop interfering in other countries, because such interference almost never turns out well.

[riderinthestorm]

16. Bookmarking for a more thorough read thru later. K & R for a lot of fantastic info. nt

[bobthedrummer]

17. I know I'm not alone as I speak openly about the past decade that began with a stolen election (aka

a coup) in an unnamed corporate fascist ruled nationstate heavily invested in projecting its power worldwide for an international elite above all else. When stated openly like that it becomes easy to connect with what is happening elsewhere.

K&R

[riderinthestorm]

18. Really interesting OP with a lot of info. Too important to drop. Evening K&R nt

[scarletwoman]

19. Very sorry I'm too late to rec. But here's my kick -- excellent work, rp. Thank you. (nt)

[RainDog]

20. huffpo article has something wrong - Carter is not and was not a pentacostal

Pentecostals are not Baptists - and, in fact, Baptists long denigrated Pentecostals because of their beliefs in speaking in tongues and present-day prophecy, etc.

Pentecostals are a distinct sect of Protestantism - Pentecostal churches are not in any way associated with Southern or American Baptist churches. Assemblies of God share beliefs with Pentecostals. Ashcroft was from the Assemblies of God church and Palin was annointed in one.

Southern Baptists believe that the things that occurred immediately after the resurrection, that are recounted in Acts, were specific to the time and place - were things that happened to the Apostles, not things that happen in this day and age - things like prophecy, speaking in tongues, faith healing, being "slain in the spirit" (a pentacostal term, not Southern Baptist one) - anything that would be considered outside the boundaries of our current concept of reality -

- except for these things; they believe god answers prayers and, in this day and age and intercedes in people's lives, but works through currently accepted reality... i.e. god could, say, heal someone of a disease but another person would not be the conduit for that healing, beyond prayer... it would just happen and doctors would discover this healing when they examined someone.

they believe in a literal creation story, and other miraculous bible stories - but do not believe those same things happen now - except when god "mysteriously" makes them happen in ways that are unobservable - i.e. they don't believe a physical angel will appear to someone and, say, make food magically appear - they do believe god can "speak to someone else's heart" and make them take food to someone in need.

they believe that Jesus will return to earth in physical form and that people will be raptured from this earth - but these "miraculous" things will only happen when the end of time arrives - iow, they believe we live in a time in which reality as we know it is the only reality, beyond "secret" supernatural intervention directly by god - and, as part of this, they may believe that god "speaks" to them via prayer but would not agree that god "appears" to people - god, at this time, is spirit and invisible.

this is consistent with their belief that god was able to create the earth in 7 days but now medicine functions according to laws of science - it doesn't make sense, but it demonstrates a consistency in a belief in supernatural things long ago that no longer apply - this is how they are able to sustain a belief in literal interpretations of the bible while accepting current reality functions based upon established principles of biology, physics, geology, etc. etc.

Falwell was a Southern Baptist. Pat Robertson is a Pentecostal - the two had very different belief systems but could form an alliance based upon a mutual hatred for anyone who discounted the logical fallacies of their beliefs and a mutual hatred for "multi-cultie," anti-authoritarian, anti-patriarchal, questioning views of their ideas of god. Falwell never appeared on tv with a wife with massive amts of make up on - that's Pentecostal show biz while Southern Baptists think they are more "intellectual" than the emotion-driven Pentecostal belief system (yeah, it's ironic, but the differences matter to those inside these belief systems.)

beliefs that deviate from the closed SB system are considered outside the boundaries of southern baptist theology - and the southern baptists have traditionally been very judgmental about the value of pentecostal beliefs that anyone may receive prophecy or speak in tongues or heal someone by putting their arms around the tv screen, etc.

Carter's sister had some ideas that strayed far from Baptist theology - but he and his sister, as with he and his brother, Billy, are not the same people and do not hold the same ideas about various things. American Baptists hold diff. beliefs than Southern Baptists - for instance, they allow that evolution was not a 7 day event but that the story is a metaphor - they say that the bible's version of time, or days, is not necessarily the same as our conception (this fits that wiggle room of previous supernatural events but extends it to the realm of metaphor for stories in the bible that are obviously in no way literally true because, to claim otherwise forces someone to deny reality as we know it has existed since time began to be time.)

Jimmy Carter was a Southern Baptist until recently - he left the Southern Baptist denomination because he disagrees with its position on women as second-class citizens.

He also now expresses concern that America is threatened by theocracy. Falwell also did not support the idea of theocracy and he distanced himself from Rushdooney (Coral Ridge Prez and the dominionists) because of this. Presbyterians have various sects, as well, and Coral Ridge would be considered heretical or apostasy to more mainstream Prez churches, btw.

anyway - it annoys me when people are given a platform on something like HuffPo and don't even to the most basic research before saying things that are easily and demonstrably shown to be false. It undermines their arguments when they can't bother to understand the concepts they're claiming as evidence of this or that.

[riderinthestorm]

21. Weekday kick for those who missed it with Super Bowl fever... nt