Former President Jimmy Carter, who in 2000 officially severed ties with the Southern Baptist Convention after the SBC declared its opposition to female pastors and reiterated its calls “for wives to be submissive to their husbands,” condemned the mistreatment of women by religious leaders, writing that “the words of God do not justify cruelty to women.” In an opinion piece published last weekend, entitled “Losing my Religion for Equality,” Carter said that a “twisted interpretation of the word of God” taught by male religious leaders has been used to justify the oppression of women:

The truth is that male religious leaders have had – and still have – an option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate women. They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the latter. Their continuing choice provides the foundation or justification for much of the pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world. This is in clear violation not just of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but also the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, Moses and the prophets, Muhammad, and founders of other great religions – all of whom have called for proper and equitable treatment of all the children of God. It is time we had the courage to challenge these views.

Although Carter severed ties with the SBC in a 2000 letter mailed to 75,000 Baptists, the former president “continued to serve as a deacon and Sunday school teacher at his local church” in Plains, GA, an SBC affiliate that in 2006 ordained former first lady Rosalynn Carter as a deacon. President Carter, a member of a group of retired statesmen formed by Nelson Mandela called “The Elders,” said last month that the group had concluded that religion has been “a basic cause of the foundational excuse” for “other dominant males to persecute or abuse or deprive women of their justifiable rights.”

- Ben Bergmann

This afternoon, President Obama held a 23-minute conference call with progressive bloggers to discuss the state of the health care debate. ThinkProgress participated in the call. Igor Volsky highlights Obama’s rhetoric in support of the public plan — and in opposition to a co-op — as the key takeaway:

OBAMA: I’m still working out the details of a co-op approach. I will tell you that there are some instances of co-ops being set up and just having a very difficult time getting off the ground because they don’t have the scale and the resources to be able to compete effectively. What I’ve asked my health care team to do is to look at what evidence we have that this could provide the kind of competition that drives or helps to promote insurance reform and helps to include quality and drive down cost. If I can see some some evidence that this could work, then I’d be happy to consider it. But I will tell you that, as I’ve been very clear about before, I continue to believe that a robust public option would be the best way to go.

Listen here:

John Amato, Sam Stein, mcjoan, and dday have their own analyses of the call.

On his Fox News show this afternoon, Glenn Beck tried to stir fear and terror about the President of the United States among his right-wing followers. Beck’s guest John Bolton suggested now is the time to “stand up” to Obama because if he loses on health care, he’ll “begin to lose on other issues.” To which, Beck replied:

I’m telling you – this guy is dangerous. He’s never lost before. He won’t understand it. He won’t understand – look how – he, uh, is like, who are you to question me? I mean, this guy is practically an imperial president now. When he starts to lose and people start to question him and push him back against the wall, he’s not gonna know how to react.

Bolton said he found Beck’s warnings “optimistic” because the America people “will react even more strongly against” Obama. Watch it:

Beck’s dire prediction is of course similar to that of Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), who said, “If we’re able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.” Beck, whose show is quite popular, is feeding the sentiment of his right-wing base who are now urging each other to “to throw off and alter the abusive government by peacefully recalling and removing from office the President of the United States.”

Today marks the 40th anniversary of one of America’s finest hours, the Apollo moon landing. Many remember the landing as a testament to a nation’s ability to rise up and meet the challenge set forth by President Kennedy. Indeed, through sound public investments that unleashed the innovation of America’s scientists and engineers, we succeeded in the “greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked.”

But forgotten in this story of American achievement is the fact that not all were united behind the Apollo effort. Many conservative cynics, chief among them Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), opposed the Kennedy’s proposal altogether. Goldwater denounced what he called the “extravagant spending for the man on the moon program.”

In this century, President Obama similarly issued a bold challenge for our generation. Obama has called for “affordable, renewable sources of energy” to soon end our dependence on fossil fuels — the leading cause of climate change — and oil from the Middle East.

But just as Kennedy had detractors in the form of legislators like Goldwater, Obama faces a chorus of entrenched special interests and conservative naysayers who hope to derail a clean energy economy by proclaiming America cannot accomplish it:

SEN. GEORGE VOINOVICH (R-OH): “Unfortunately, many proponents of a cap-and-trade scheme, such as Lieberman-Warner or Waxman-Markey, seem to be stuck on fantasies [...] Unfortunately, many of the supporters of green energy never mention that it is unrealistic.” [Senate Floor, 6/4/09]

REP. ROB BISHOP (R-UT) has smeared clean energy reform, calling the notion of green jobs “as real as the Jolly Green giant.” [ThinkProgress, 6/3/09]

SEN. JIM INHOFE (R-OK) has slammed clean energy reform as “unrealistic” and “expensive.” [Senate Floor, 1/8/09]

Today, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) declared, “As with the space program, this new mission will revitalize our economy, create jobs, and spur research, development, and innovation.” ThinkProgress’ Victor Zapanta has produced a video highlighting our generation’s “man on the moon” challenge. Watch it:

Speaking on the House floor last week, Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS) was greeted with audible boos after arguing that had the government been willing to pay for abortions, the mothers of President Barack Obama and Justice Clarence Thomas might have aborted their children. Earlier today, the House GOP’s official website posted video of Tiahrt’s offensive comment. The entirety of the floor speech is found under the title, “Tiahrt’s Opposition to Taxpayer Funded Abortions.” But the House GOP has flagged for its readers the most inflammatory part of the speech, by pulling out Tiahrt’s quote claiming that Obama’s mother might have terminated her pregnancy:

…if you think of it in human terms, there is a financial incentive that will be put in place, paid for by tax dollars, that will encourage women who are single parents, living below the poverty level, to have the opportunity for a free abortion. If you take that scenario and apply it to many of the great minds we have today, who would we have been deprived of? Our president grew up in those similar circumstances. If that financial incentive was in place, is it possible that his mother may have taken advantage of it?

Media Matters Action Network asks, “All of this raises the question for every Republican in the House: do they endorse Rep. Tiahrt’s comments, or not?”

During a call with right-wing activists on Friday, Sen. Jim DeMint claimed that if Republicans “able to stop” President Obama’s push for health care reform “it will be his Waterloo.” “It will break him,” declared DeMint. At the National Press Club today, RNC Chairman Michael Steele agreed with DeMint, saying, “I think that’s a good way to put it.” On Laura Ingraham’s radio show today, former House speaker Newt Gingrich agreed that it “could be” as well:

GINGRICH: If I were the Obama people, I’d be a little worried. This morning’s Washington Post reported that on health care he’s dropped below 50 percent approval. So, it may be that the more he talks, the more people pay attention, the weaker this bill is going to get. And then he has a profound problem for the rest of his presidency. This could be the bill that drags his whole presidency down and they look back on it and suddenly the whole thing is unraveled.

ARROYO: Yeah, the Waterloo as some in Congress are calling it now.

GINGRICH: Could be.

Listen here:

According to OpenSecrets, DeMint has received $2,917,870 from the health care industry since 2004. During his 2004 re-election campaign, DeMint was the second highest recipient of money from health professionals, trailing only Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC).