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.