From a review of Carter's new book, Our Endangered Values, posted over at World Mag blog:

While President Carter believes it is “perfectly legitimate, even admirable, for us Americans to promote our personal beliefs through either religious or political processes,” he does not extend this freedom to those he labels the “Christian Right” or to those whose views differ from his own. When he applies his faith perspective it’s an appropriate mix of religion and politics. When people who disagree with his views apply their faith perspective, it’s a violation of the separation of church and state.

Carter's views seem to have taken a rather un-democratic turn: It's okay to promote my values in the public square, but not yours.

Carter also seems comfortable using the language of lies, at one moment, apparently claiming his outlook represents "traditional" Christianity...

In this book he shares his own “traditional Christian faith” as an “evangelical Christian and a Baptist” who affirms the truth of Holy Scripture “as interpreted by the words and actions of Jesus Christ.”

... and the next, trying to pretend authentic "traditional" Christianity has no exclusive aspects to it, in opposition to something he defines as "fundamentalism":

For Carter, fundamentalism is about rigidity, domination and exclusion...

From another, very positive, review:

Fundamentalists view themselves as true believers and being right, and anyone who contradicts them as ignorant and possibly evil.... "To summarize, there are three words that characterize this brand of fundamentalism," Carter says: "rigidity, domination and exclusion."

Of course, one only need to crack open a New Testament to find both inclusive and exclusive aspects of Jesus's ministry. On one hand, Jesus ministered to both men and women, and he crossed important cultural boundaries by ministering among the much-hated Samaritans. On the other hand, he was extremely exclusive and rigid regarding sin...

"If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell." (Matt 5:29)

[Speaking of God:] "I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him." (Luke 12:5)

"Go now and leave your life of sin." (John 8:11)

... and his own status:

"No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him." (Matt 11:27)

"You do not know me or my Father," Jesus replied. "If you knew me, you would know my Father also." (John 8:20)

Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." (John 3:3)

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)

These are not minor points of Christian doctrine.

I am not writing these things to teach you or convince you of Christian theology. (Instead, I rather expect most will be rather offended at these claims Jesus made, even as it was his own time.) Rather, my goal here is to simply demonstrate that anyone persuaded to follow the biblical Jesus seriously is going to end echoing some of his more important "exclusive" and "rigid" teachings. Even if that earns you the wrath of popular culture (and former President Carter).

It's also rather sad that Carter would decry the 'wrong' churches as being deeply "authoritarian" or about "domination", while cozying up to the likes of Tito, Castro, and the PLO -- and while giving further credence to the worst possible the caricatures the anti-religious left generates about his fellow believers:

One of the most bizarre mixtures of religion and politics, he says, is influence by fundamentalists on U.S. policy in the Middle East. Based on theology made popular in the "Left Behind" novels, these believers desire to hasten the coming "Rapture" to fulfill biblical prophecy. Their agenda, he says, includes a war in the Middle East and Jews taking over the entire Holy Land. This is to lead up to a Rapture, when all Jews will either be converted to Christianity or burned.

Based on these premises, Carter says, some Christian leaders have been at the forefront of promoting the war in Iraq and Israeli occupation of the West Bank.

I run in some fairly conservative Christians circles, and, while you always have your lunatic fringe, what Carter is saying here is, in my experience, simply false. Most Christians I know supported the war in Iraq not to bring back the messiah (how would that work anyway?) but because they tended to believe Saddam was a credible threat to the region, had committed atrocities against his own people, and had supported terrorism.

Likewise, most tend to side with Israel not because they want Jews burned alive (again, I'm not sure how that even makes sense) but rather because they simply hold both Israel (and Palestine) to the same standards as other nations. (For example, Spain is building a wall, and Israel is building a wall, as is Poland. Why condemn one while ignoring the others? It makes no sense.)

But Carter seems to be in a mood to believe the worst about his enemies, even while he clearly believes the best about his many totalitarian friends:

The fundamentalist characteristic of viewing negotiation or discussion to resolve differences as weakness, he says, also fueled a move away from the time-tested principle of using aggression only as a last resort. In a chapter titled, "Worshiping the Prince of Peace, or Pre-emptive War?" Carter contends, "The most telltale distinction between Republicans and Democrats is their preference between ways of resolving controversial international issues -- reliance on force, or diplomacy."

Once again, Carter turns what is simply a matter of policy preference into a slam against his (alleged) fellow co-religionists.

As a Christian I believe that Carter's negotiations have been weak simply because they have failed over and over. As president, Carter's talks with the Soviets happened while they gained control of country after country, culminating in Afghanistan. Carter utterly failed to secure the release of the Iranian hostages. Daniel Ortega's promises of Soviet non-alignment were shown to be nothing but a farce. Kim Jong Il used Carter's naivete -- and US taxpayer dollars Carter helped provide -- to develop nuclear weapons with which to threaten his neighbors. The list goes on and on -- all of these failures having resulted in real threats to and loss of life, well beyond the "last resort" to life Carter implies we had not yet reached.

Apparently unable to see or perhaps confront evidence of the ineffectiveness of his policies (so resistance to them cannot be based on simple practical concerns) or even respect a mere difference of opinion, Carter instead implies most or all Christian disagreement with him must be due to wild-eyed "fundamentalism", bad motives, and religious impiety (apparently implying you can't truly be worshipping his God if you don't agree with his political views!).

Regarding the bad motives Carter assigns here, I'm reminded of C.S. Lewis's warnings regarding the "Dangers of National Repentance":

A group of young penitents will say, 'Let us repent our national sins'; what they really mean is, 'Let us attribute to our neighbor (even our Christian neighbor) in the Cabinet, whenver we disagree with him, every abominable motive that Satan can suggest to our fancy.' ....

All Christians know that they must forgive their enemies. But 'my enemy' primarily means the man whom I am really tempted to hate and traduce [shame or blame by means of falsehood and misrepresentation]. If you listen to young Christian intellectuals talking, you will soon find out who the real enemy is. He seems to have two names -- Colonel Blimp [the pro-military citizens among us] and "the business-man" .... If a man cannot forgive the Colonel Blimp next door who he has seen, how shall he forgive the Dictators who he has not seen?

There are some variances here, of course. Carter has indeed seen -- and wined and dined and schmoozed endlessly with -- the Dictators. Undoubtedly, he has forgiven them quite thoroughly, and seems ready to see the best in every possible overture they make.

Yet it seems a shame he can't extend the same charity to his fellow Christians on the other side of the political aisle, who are apparently a much graver threat to the future of the world.

Update: FrontPage does an absolutely brutal takedown of the record of Mr. Carter's presidency. Brutal in the sense that they simply recount the facts, facts which, if they applied to me, would lead me to beg abjectly for the nation's forgiveness, and seriously reconsider my vocation and approach.