Saturday, April 09, 2011

Flexible Jimmy

I'd say Jimmy Carter is the most religious President we've had at least since WWII.  He claims everything he's done in his political career wouldn't be possible without his religious beliefs, and I'll take him at his word.

He just spoke at a conference of human rights activists and religious leaders, where he said much discrimination against women is due to the religious beliefs that teach women are inferior.  He claimed "leaders in Christianity, Islam and other religions" help create this basic denial of rights.

Certainly he's got a good argument.  The causation is pretty direct--many practices around the world that oppress women (not that they believe they're oppressing women) are done by people proudly proclaiming the religious basis for their actions.  Yet, Carter claims he's not blaming religion:

Carter said he doesn't fault religions for oppressing women, but blames men who selectively interpret the Bible and other scriptures. He suggested there are other, more flexible interpretations.

Interesting distinction.  So it's not religion causing the problem, it's the misinterpretation of religion.  (This isn't a new argument for Carter--a couple years ago: "Carter singled out the Southern Baptist Convention and Roman Catholic Church, claiming that they 'view that the Almighty considers women to be inferior to men.' ) Perhaps, but it seems to me the oppressors, who have been at it for a long time, have at the very least some pretty compelling arguments based on the text of the scriptures themselves.

So does Carter simply start with the belief that religion is a positive force and when it isn't it's because it's misunderstood?  I know there are arguments that interpret major religions to be against sexual discrimination (regardless of what the particular discrimination is or isn't thought to be)--does this suggest the scriptures were right all along and all those oppressors are simply mistaken, or that people are ingenious enough to come up with arguments that can make the words fit modern sensibilites?

After all, Carter objects to "selective" interpretation.  In other words, look at the whole document.  At this level of abstraction, I suppose you can claim you're told to be good, and that's flexible enough to fit any concept of morality.

There's a long history of oppression of women, and it happened and happens for many reasons--you certainly don't need to be religious to do it.  But those who don't base their morality on ancient scriptures can admit they were wrong in the past.  Is someone like Carter, who does believe, forced to say the scriptures (he believes in) aren't wrong, just the interpretation?  What would it take to make him say the documents were wrong in the first place?

PS  I saw some comments on Carter's speech from religious people who seemed more concerned that Carter was making a false equation between Christianity and Islam.

4 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Carter is yet another example of a politician exploiting religion to further his politics. I don't trust him on either subject.

10:03 AM, April 09, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is yet another example of the ridiculousness of religion exploiting those who were raised in it. I wouldn't trust a religious expalnation for anything

2:48 PM, April 09, 2011  
Anonymous Lawrence King said...

I'm not sure that "Jimmy Carter is the most religious President we've had at least since WWII". It depends how you measure such things. If your criteria is how much the person talks publicly about his faith, and about the links between his faith and his policies, then Carter and Bush II are the only possible candidates. I think we'd need some serious research to award the trophy to one over the other: both men made their own religious conversions central to their autobiographical speeches during their first presidential campaign.

And a cynic could be skeptical about both of their claims. Carter was the last attempt by the Democratic Party to hold on to the Southern bloc that had been loyal voters for a long time, and it was in his interest to play up his religion publicly. Bush was appealing to a GOP that had a very powerful "religious right" a.k.a. "values voters" wing which began with a high level of suspicion towards anyone in the Bush family. However, I personally tend to think that both men were being genuine about their faith.

1:34 PM, April 11, 2011  
Blogger LAGuy said...

Both Carter and Bush talked about their faith. I suppose I made my judgment based on Carter making the most explicit connection (as far as I could tell) in his statements between what he does politically and what he believes. Bush certainly talks about his religion, and how it guides him in general, but I don't know if he's gone as far as Carter. (I've never heard any President in my lifetime explicitly support a policy for specific religious reasons, though I've got plenty of friends who believe Bush did.)

1:59 PM, April 11, 2011  

Post a Comment

<< Home

web page hit counter