BOOK CLUB FEBRUARY: "Our Endangered Values"

[CrispyQ]

Let's kick off our February discussion. The book is:
"Our Endangered Values" by Jimmy Carter

Terrya nominated this book & has agreed to lead the discussion, but please, feel free to comment whenever you want.


Here is the link to the book at Amazon -- via DU.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743284577/qid=1136137756/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-5792740-7358366?n=507846&s=books&v=glance


===
Book Club Guidelines:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=209x3044


DON'T FORGET TO HELP OUT DU!
Part of your Amazon.com purchase will go to DU if you buy through this link:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/subst/home/home.html/104-3444144-6171150

[Viva_La_Revolution]

1. An excellent read!

I'm looking forward to the discussion. :)

[terrya]

2. This is such a good book

I really enjoyed this book. Basically, former President Carter talks about various issues, domestically and internationally, that the United States is facing today...terrorism, our dealings with other nations and our obligations to international law, nuclear proliferation, the environment, the breakdown of the separation of church and state, abortion, same-sex marriage, the loss of civil liberties in this country, affirmative action and race relations in general, the rise of the religious right in this country....

And Carter uses the Bible and his religious faith to talk about those issues. It sounded very...preachy to me at first. I'm an agnostic, and I sort of get leery getting into that kind of thing. But...it's all about morality. It's all about...what is the moral implications of what we are doing today...internationally and domestically. And it just reaffirmed with me what a genuinely moral, decent man President Carter is. He's quite fair...he doesn't necessarily embrace certain issues (he's genuinely conflicted about abortion and doesn't support same-sex marriage, but is for civil unions). But...it saddens me to know how immoral this current regime is...and that we could be a moral nation...a nation that believes in decency and respect for other nations...if we had leadership that Carter talks about in his excellent book.

I highly, highly, recommend "Our Endangered Values". This is a book every DU'er should read. And I'm pleased that it was chosen the February Book Club selection.

[sinkingfeeling]

3. I'm trying to get all my Southern Baptist friends to read it. I think

it spelled out why I'm a liberal Democratic more than anything I've read.

[Coexist]

4. I think its amazing how directly at odds his version

of being an evangelical is with the rights.

How Jimmy Carter describes a life of unshakable and quiet faith is much more in sync with what comes to mind, for me, when I think of a deeply religious person.

When did encouraging people's greed and intolerance become a Christian value?

Now - keep in mind, this is coming from a Catholic-raised-Agnostic.

[ramapo]

5. He was the last truly religious President

Well maybe Clinton had some honest religion in him, I'm not sure... I have this book on the shelf and will start on it tonight.

I have such respect for Carter. He is devoutly religious but I don't believe that he has ever used his religion in a political way nor did he politicize religion. To do so is, in my opinion, so unreligious. But the Republicans somehow made it a virtue.

I still can't figure how Reagan, who was far from a religious person, got the support of the religious groups over Carter. Sure Reagan talked a great game but that's about it. The idea that Bush II is a born-again Christian seems like a bad joke to me. The Bushes, like Reagan, talk the talk but their moralfoundations are skin deep.

I am not a religious person but I have great respect for the truly religious. I have an aunt for whom religion permeates her being. She was always deeply religious but never, ever used her religion as a basis for questioning or judging another person.

Anyway, I look forward to reading President Carter's book.

[Jim__]

6. Chekhov's Gun

I like Jimmy Carter. I liked him when he was president, and I probably like him even more after his presidency. He's such a class act.

But, I am finding his writing style somewhat frustrating. Chekhov once said something to the effect that if you introduce a gun in the first act, you have to fire it before the end of the 3rd act. I think Carter keeps introducing and discarding guns.

For instance, from pp 21-22:

I was soon involved in what Baptists called "pioneer mission" work. My first assignment was in Lock Haven, Pennsylvania, where a hundred families had been identified who had no religious faith of any kind. ... We had some challenging adventures with burly laborers, business executives, avowed atheists, and even the madam of a small whorehouse, but the overall results of our efforts was a series of extraordinary successes.

One of my other, similar missions was to Springfield ...

I've read on for about another 30 pages and he has not yet told one story about any of these adventures. Burly laborers, the madam of a small whore house - you've piqued my interest - now how about firing the goddam gun!

This was about the 3rd or 4th instance I saw of this by page 21. Has anyone else noticed this?

[Coexist]

7. I have - Clinton's memoirs did this a lot too

but it isn't that hard to get past.

[Jim__]

8. I agree - it's easy to get past.

After the first few chapters where he goes through his religious background, he seems to stop these little teases about interesting stories he's not telling - at least up to about page 100 - I haven't read past that yet.

I am still a little disappointed in some of his arguments. But, I want to re-read the chapters to be sure I'm not missing something.

[Coexist]

9. Do you want to know something funny -

I have been pondering re-reading it when I am through, also. It comes across as such a "quiet" book - humble through most of it - that I am missing something due to its "whispery" feel.

[havocmom]

26. To be fair, the book is about values not about Carter himself.

Seems to me he interjects a bit of thumbnail personal history in order to illustrate his credentials with some topics.

His mentioning of things in his past without expounding on them, in what is not an autobiography, seems in keeping with the sort of man he has always appeared to be. I found it charming and comforting that he left out the 'juicy details' when they were not essential to the effort in this book.

Lost values is the subject. I thought he was bringing in just a bit of personal history to show this is not a new concern for him and to give clarity to his position as an observer of the changes in the direction of a religious group he had been affiliated with his whole life.

As one who had great hopes for a Carter Presidency, and seeing the man suffer so much while in the glare of Washington politics, I figured being President wasn't something he actually wanted. Later, it became clear it was a credential he needed on his resume. Looked like it was just a rung on his personally defined career ladder. That former job must have been a big help when he went on with his real work of making the world a better place for more people. That "President Carter" thing must have worked wonders when he needed to get some leader's ear re food crops, housing fair, just economic policies. Great little door opener.

So far, this book has me thinking that was fairly correct. The man uses personal information just as a means to an end. From what I have read in this book, the end is to get us to wake up, look closely at the de-evolution of American greatness and roll up our sleeves to work to turn it back.

As he approaches the end of his days, he offers more than all the flashy, media savvy pols together. A man of substance and value, pointing out how far we have fallen as a way of shining a light on how much better we can do.

I was afraid it would get too preachy for my tastes as it started out. Pressing on with the book, I saw he was making the point that his values have remained the same. It is the institutions which Americans have traditionally looked to for moral guidance which have moved. And that movement has been extremely damaging to our nation. He has observed the Far Right ('religious' right and political right) tends to attack the messenger rather than address the message. His inclusion of a little personal experience is probably a good foil to gently wield against their S.O.P. He has walked the walk all his life. He almost dares them to call him out on his fidelity to his Christian values and his American values.

It is a book about values, not a kiss and tell. I commend him for keeping his focus.

[CrispyQ]

10. Courtesy -- pg 8

I relate to President Carter's regrets that the current DC scene is strictly partisan & that loyalty to the party is the prime concern, not integrity, not the needs of the people who you have been elected to represent. He says how personal courtesies are no longer considered -- that there is "deterioration in harmony, cooperation & collegiality in Congress." He believes this lack of harmony is a result of the rise in fundamentalist tendencies & their religious & political power.

He may be right on that point (lack of manners/tolerance due to fundamentalisim), I'm not sure. But where I disagree with President Carter is where he states, "Fortunately, this degree of rigidity & confrontation has not yet taken hold among the general public."

I think it started there (in the general public) & that it has permeated throughout our society from that starting point.

[Jim__]

11. Do you find that people are rude when talking to them?

I can usually talk politics civilly, even with people I disagree with. Talking face-to-face that is, I find people tend to be rude on the Internet.

Whenever I try to think back to where this rudeness began, I think of 3 things:

- Newt Gingrich who was always smug, arrogant and rude,
- RW talk radio which reduced political discussion to the level of name-calling, and
- the attacks on Bill Clinton.

It was watching the attacks on Bill Clinton that I realized this rudeness was orchestrated. Talk-radio and all the RW talking-heads had the same points to make, using almost the exact same language. Also, I noticed that all the RW talking-heads would talk right over the top of their opponent on the talk shows, usually being supported by the "host" in their rudenenss.

All of this led me to believe that this rudeness is a deliberate tactic being used by the right. Most Dems when they are on a talk-show opposite a RWer will try to be polite, and in being polite, never get a word in edgewise. As soon as they start to talk, the RWer cuts them off and talks over them.

I've never connected it to fundamentalism, per se, but I've always thought that the fundamentalist were just following a standard RW tactic.

Is it your experience that in day-to-day political discussions, people are rude? I don't think I've seen that too much.

[CrispyQ]

14. I couldn't agree more on your comments about rw radio.

They are masters at encouraging vulnerable people & those who are not happy in their life that there is someone else to blame for their problems or dissatisfaction -- usually liberals. They spew hate & vitriol & fact checking & truth are left at the door. I can not stand to watch 'news' shows where 'conservatives' are debating an issue with someone else. Like you said, there is no debate, there is just bullying & interrupting & 'it's my way or the highway' type of attitude. I wonder how half of America is so blind to this childish, rude behavior?

My comment about rudeness was more general than specifically speaking to people of opposing views. I can usually discuss issues politely, albeit heatedly at times! What I meant was the sad state of common courtesy in our society. Please, thank-you & you're welcome have practically disappeared in our day to day routines. Drivers cut off other drives to get one car length ahead; people rush into doorways to get into an establishment pushing those who are trying to exit to the side; people talking on their cell phones during a movie, & the list goes on. There is a general lack of awareness that anyone else exists or matters in our daily routines. People are so focused on what they are doing & proceed with an attitude that they are more important than anyone else who is also just trying to get through the day. I'm not sure this is a product of rw radio as much as it is people busy with their lives who are caught up in their own self-importance & disconnected to their local community.

When I re-read the above I think I sound like an old fart! ;-)

[Jim__]

15. Disconnected may be the key.

Your point that people are disconnected from their local community may be the source of this lack of common courtesy. If you don't feel any connection to other people, why would you be polite to them?

You may be right about sounding like and old fart too.

We all remember what it was like when we were young and think that is the right way. I'm curious as to whether this lack of common courtesy bothers young people as much as it does me. I seem to remember when I was young that old people made the same types of observations. I'm sure they were right. We didn't observe all the same courtesies that they were raised on. We also didn't miss them. I'm not sure if this is really a deterioration of life-style, or just a change. :shrug:

[CrispyQ]

18. ~~smile . . .

Your point that people are disconnected from their local community may be the source of this lack of common courtesy. If you don't feel any connection to other people, why would you be polite to them?

;) Ahhhhhhh, if only we would all 'fart around' more -- involve ourselves in our real community, our real neighbors, the real people we interact with on a daily basis, instead of focusing so much of our attention on our virtual (online) communities.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

20. I agree with you completely!

I still insist my boys say please, thank you, help old ladies with their bags, the things I was taught as a child.

We were on the train the other day, and some kid bumped into a senior... didn't say a thing. My boy says... 'Weren't you taught to say 'Excuse Me?!' " He was amazed at the kid's rudeness... the lady looked at me with gratitude, and I glowed with pride! That's MY boy! :)

[CrispyQ]

22. What surprises me is the number of people my age

who I'm sure were raised to say please, thank-you, etc, but no longer do. You can't just tell your kids to use these words, they need to hear their parents saying them too.

Viva, your boys sound wonderful! We need more parents like you, who recognize the value of common courtesy in our daily interactions. It seems like such a small & inconsequential thing, but those little courtesies make a big difference. It indicates to others that you are aware of them & the impact your actions have on them. It's a mindset, really. Are you someone who cares about others or are you so wrapped up in your own life that no one else matters.

[cmd]

12. Rigidity, domination, exclusion

I have several passages marked for my book discussion group that meets tomorrow. Carter's definition of a fundimentalist is right on. (Pages 34-35)
Fundies are obsessed with the authoritarian male, want women "in their place", see themselves as the only "true believers", are militant when challenged and don't believe in negotiation. Carter's definition rounds out Lakoff's authoritarian father description.

The book has been a very quick read for me. I go from topic to topic and am more outraged with every page. Jimmy and Rosalynn are a team that models Christian values. I am so glad that he is speaking out against the Bush administration.

edit: I'll check in again after our discussion tomorrow.

[CrispyQ]

16. For those who haven't read Lakoff's "Don't Think of an Elephant"

here is an excellent discussion of the 'strict father' family model vs. the 'nurturant parent' family model. This was posted by freeplessinseattle in Nov '04.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=209&topic_id=83

[ramapo]

13. Quick and pointed

I finished the book last night. It was a quick and easy read. Carter spends a lot of the book pointing out how corrupted the "religious" have become. As I stated in an earlier post, I consider Carter a genuine religious person...basically non-judgmental and centered around helping people as best he can. I'd say he's done a pretty remarkable job.

If Carter wanted to entertain, he could've expounded on some of his experiences. Like the one, cited in another post, in a whorehouse. But he wasn't out to entertain, rather to document how the past quarter-century in America has been marked by a erosion of the values that had exemplified our country. My term for the decades since Carter left office is "negative progress".

For those of you who weren't around or paying attention during his administration, I hope you took notice of his brief referral early on to the complete lack of support that Democrats gave him while president. Democrats, led by Kennedy, beat the crap out of Carter. He was really between a rock and a hard place. He was viewed as too conservative and moralistic. Although Reagan portrayed him as a fiscal liberal. Funny how Reagan turned out to be the fiscal "liberal" as he took Carter's "huge" deficit and used it to make deficit spending the foundation of Republican economic policy.

Carter has written a fairly terse and pointed expose of how the country has been led down the wrong path. I hope that he succeeds in educating some of those who have been misled.

[Coexist]

17. I loved how he was introduced at CSK's funeral

as a "real man of God".

I guess some people get it.

[CrispyQ]

19. In his book "Man Without a Country"

KV said that so much of what Christ said was so beautiful, so prolific, what did it matter if Christ was God or not.


I really liked that. The message was more important than the messenger.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

21. As a non-christian, I completely agree!

Just because I don't believe that the bible is "the word of God" does NOT mean that I don't have morals, and that I don't believe there is a good message to be gleaned from those Man-written tomes. :)

[Coexist]

23. Absolutely - every major religion is, at its core,

some version of "treat others the way you would like to be treated"
http://www.teachingvalues.com/goldenrule.html
<snip>
The Universality of the Golden Rule in the World Religions

Christianity All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.
Matthew 7:1
Confucianism Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state.
Analects 12:2
Buddhism Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.
Udana-Varga 5,1
Hinduism This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you.
Mahabharata 5,1517
Islam No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.
Sunnah
Judaism What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.
Talmud, Shabbat 3id
Taoism Regard your neighbor’s gain as your gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.
Tai Shang Kan Yin P’ien
Zoroastrianism That nature alone is good which refrains from doing another whatsoever is not good for itself.
Dadisten-I-dinik, 94,5



Every religion has it right at some point. Twisting it to encourage intolerance and hate for personal power is whats wrong with religion.

[CrispyQ]

24. The Whole is Greater Than the Sum of It's Parts

Is it?

pg 59
Carter discusses Reinhold Niebuhr, "Moral Man & Immoral Society" who said that expectations from individuals are higher than those of society. A person should have as his goal, complete 'agape,' self sacrificial love. The most we can expect from society, however, is to institute simple justice.

What are your observations of individuals vs society? Since society is made up of individuals, if there is excellence in the majority of individuals, why isn't that reflected in society? Or could it be that we, as individuals, hold other individuals that we know to higher standards than we do our society, because we realize society is made up of many individuals that we don't know?

Does society simply reflect the level of integrity of the majority of its members? Or is there something else going on in this equation of the whole vs the parts?


===

My take: I am a misanthrope & a cynic. My experience is that I seek out & have found individuals of extremely high standards & integrity. Sadly, I do not see that level of excellence in the collective - humanity. I have come to the conclusion that the whole simply reflects the majority of it's parts.

[Jim__]

25. In a social setting, I think the whole is usually greater than the sum of

its parts.

Take termites. If you have a few termites, they will just stand around and do nothing. But, if you keep adding termites until you reach critical mass, then the termites that were previously doing nothing, all begin to work together to build things like arches.

I believe people function somewhat similarly. Two people working together can accomplish much more than twice what either of them can accomplish working alone.

When you ask about observations of individuals vs society, I think you have to define what level of society you are talking about. Let's call a community a group of individuals, each of whom knows everyone else in the community, a relatively small society. In such a society, I think excellence in the majority of individuals is reflected in society. In a community, if you are assigned a responsibility, you will take care of it. To fail to live up to a responsibility is a personal and a public failure. As the society grows, failing to fulfill a responsibility becomes less and less of a personal failure - most of the people effected won't know you, and you don't really care what they think. A community is a grouping that our minds can comprehend. A larger society, e.g. a nation, is really an abstraction. I'm not sure our minds really comprehend abstractions.

I think the "something else" that is going on is that human beings are social by nature. It is part of what we are. We are driven to strive for acceptance. But, this "social nature" may be limited to our community. I don't think it applies to abstract constructs, like a nation.

[CrispyQ]

27. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

When you ask about observations of individuals vs society, I think you have to define what level of society you are talking about. Let's call a community a group of individuals, each of whom knows everyone else in the community, a relatively small society. In such a society, I think excellence in the majority of individuals is reflected in society. In a community, if you are assigned a responsibility, you will take care of it. To fail to live up to a responsibility is a personal and a public failure. As the society grows, failing to fulfill a responsibility becomes less and less of a personal failure - most of the people effected won't know you, and you don't really care what they think. A community is a grouping that our minds can comprehend. A larger society, e.g. a nation, is really an abstraction. I'm not sure our minds really comprehend abstractions.

I think the "something else" that is going on is that human beings are social by nature. It is part of what we are. We are driven to strive for acceptance. But, this "social nature" may be limited to our community. I don't think it applies to abstract constructs, like a nation.

You hit the nail on the head with that observation, Jim!

Years ago after reading some sci fi books about group mind, I looked into articles on collectives vs. individuals. As a totally individualist species, our bond with each other is through our communities. One great article I came across, (wish I’d bookmarked it), the author asserted that the bigger a community (the collective) the less accountability there is at an individual level because the individuals become more & more anonymous. He said that even with good people, when their community reaches a size where they have more anonymity, it becomes easier to behave in a way that serves the personal good more than the collective good.

You are right that beyond a certain size, the community is simply an abstraction.

Early in the book Carter talks about his mission work with Reverend Cruz. He has great admiration for the reverend & took away some meaningful lessons. One of the things the reverend said was “You only need two loves in your life: for G-d, and for the person in front of you at any particular time.” As a non-believer, I would translate G-d as ‘the whole’ but I thought that it was such a great reflection, one worthy of keeping in mind as we deal with our fellow humans.

The bush christians have perverted the message of Christ, which is about compassion for those less fortunate, respect & consideration for all, the golden rule. They are all about me, me, me. What’s in it for me & screw everyone else. They have no appreciation for the community, the very fabric that supports the individual. Their worldview will harm millions & millions of individuals before they feel the effect of their ‘me, me, me’ policies, but it will come back to haunt them, of that I am sure.

[Odin2005]

28. Carter's an Old School evangelical

A decendant of the moralist progressives of 100 years ago.