Words, Women, and Jimmy Carter

Suzanne gives the fuller quotations of President Carter from his VOA interview this week and, with that context, provides a good analysis of what he did and did not say.  This is important.  For example, President "Carter is explicitly saying that it is the selection of [Bible] passages which discrminates against women."  What he is not saying is that the whole Bible discriminates against women by any stretch or that religious leaders can say that.  Suzanne explains the issue:

It is not the Bible per se, or relgion itself, but it is the way the Bible is used. It is the choice that people make to focus on two verses at the expense of other verses, verses which state that both men and women will prophecy, that say both men and women proclaim the good news.

Reading in context and interpreting openly and richly and fully is most important!

Speaking of reading...

Jay, at Suzanne's blogpost, reads what President Carter says about Catholics and women.  Jay interprets that this way and credits Carter for helping him see things differently:  "That is good. I have never thought of it in this way."  The quote, as Jay excerpts it directly, is this one:

"in] the Catholic Church, they practically worship the Virgin Mary, but won’t let a woman be a priest,”

Rod has read these very same words in a much different way.  So he writes an entire post to complain.  Now, to be sure, he praises President Carter first.  But then he presumes a peculiar logic and sets about to dismantle and deconstruct it.  Let me quote Rod quoting the President and, with that, let me provide Rod's initial premise to his own logic; finally, let's come back to what President Carter might be saying and not saying here.  Here's Rod:

“But, as you know, [in] the Catholic Church, they practically worship the Virgin Mary, but won’t let a woman be a priest”

This logic is so flawed and feels like an appeal to emotion and theological ignorance. No where in the Cathecism is Mary “worshipped.”

The major premise in Rod's logic is the faulty one, perhaps. It's a fallacy of begging the question. The question is whether Carter is claiming here that "Mary is 'worshipped' by Catholics" or is referring to "Catholic Cathecism" or is referencing in any way any documented practice of all Catholics or any official dogma of the Roman Catholic Church today. Rod's syllogism jumps the gun, gets off on the wrong foot, and runs on with a couple of other premises before breaking the finish line tape of its would-be conclusion.

We might go with Rod's argument, nonetheless, and just say,

"Come on, we all know the rhetoric of politicians. Look, Carter is slick. His phrase 'practically worship' is just hedging and cloaking what he really means. And he really means to be mean to Catholics. I mean, isn't he still sore from their opposition to the ERA? Wasn't he disappointed with The National Council of Catholic Women when they announced that the proposed Equal Rights Ammendment was, 'a threat to the nature of woman which individuates her from man in God's plan for His creation'?  His "practically" word is just his cover-up of his presumption 'Mariology' and his distaste for that.  Clearly, Carter must have 'a problem with Mary the Theoktos' and probably hates 'the Gospel of Luke'"

Or, maybe we could back up again, get in our lanes, and be patient here without jumpstarting anything. 

Maybe Carter himself loves the Bible; likes the gospels including Luke; appreciates Mary himself; and especially finds himself grateful to Catholics for their general and Catholic admiration of this woman.  Nonetheless, maybe the politician really is disappointed with how the Catholic church in America opposed the ERA.  Likewise, maybe this same man is disappointed that the Roman Catholic church forbids women from being priests.  Therefore, is it much of a stretch for him to conclude there is a contradition here that needs to be overcome?  If one can practically worship the woman Mary, then why can't one respect the equal rights of women in America and why can't one allow women also to be priests?

Let's read the Bible, the President, Suzanne, and Rod in context.  Let's make our inevitable interpretations.  Let's do it with good logic if we must; or if we're not so keen on air-tight logic all the time, then let's give women and men equally the benefit of the doubt too.

2 Stories: 1 Carter on Women; 2 Headlines

Here are two different stories.

First, Jimmy Carter earlier this week made several statements in praise of and in defense of women in "an interview with VOA." Voice of America's own Peter Clottey reported on this on Tuesday, April 5, 2011, and the report was posted here at voanews.com. President Carter said the following specifically to the VOA interviewer:

“The discrimination against women on a global basis is almost attributable to the declaration by religious leaders in Christianity, Islam and other religions that women are inferior in the eyes of God, and this gives men a right to abuse women, whether it’s the husband beating up his wife or depriving a woman of her basic rights.”

President Carter said a number of other things in praise of women. Here's the original headline out of VOA Africa:

Former US President Says Women 'Pivotal' in Uprisings

Please read the entire interview and news report for yourself here at voanews.com.

Second, some unnamed somebody at wnct.com picks up this story from somebody else somewhere else. It gets featured as an Associated Press article (but a search of www.ap.org shows that to be just bogus). The dateline is today, April 7, 2011, AP ATLANTA. And the full little article reads:

ATLANTA (AP) - Former President Jimmy Carter says much of the discrimination and abuse suffered by women around the world is attributable to a belief "that women are inferior in the eyes of God."

Carter said such teachings by "leaders in Christianity, Islam and other religions" allow men to beat their wives and deny women their fundamental rights as human beings.

The former president made the remarks Wednesday at a gathering of human rights activists and religious leaders from more than 20 countries at the Carter Center in Atlanta.

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.

Carter called mistreatment of women "the most serious and all pervasive and damaging human rights abuse on Earth."

So Fox news online reposts it as a legit source. Some editor re-writes the headline as follows:

Jimmy Carter: Religion Makes Men Beat Their Wives

And now the Internet, the blogosphere, is just aflame with flamatory headlines and blogpost openers that disparage the former Presidents for these statements. When you google this ("Former President Jimmy Carter says much of the discrimination and abuse suffered by women around the world is attributable to a belief"), then just see what you get. Notice how many sexist bloggers are making disparaging comments as they post. Some are women bashing the former President in the name of conservatism. For example, here's a headline from the Diary of a Mad Conservative:

You handcuff your wife to a stove? New defense: It’s the Bible’s fault.

And commentary in red letters from the same:

Is this guy for real? Oh Lord, unfortunately he is.
Sorry to inform the former Dork-in-Chief, but Islam is the religion that abuses and denigrates women. There aren’t a lot of stories of Christians killing their daughters to preserve family honor. Or Christian men cutting the noses off their wives to make them “too ugly for anyone else.”

Another blogger who calls himself Noman (and who identifies as a Christian reading Ephesians 5), ridicules President Carter and concludes:

Should Noman ever slip up and turn into an abuser, he assures Jimmy that it will precisely be because he quit listening to his religious leaders, lost his faith, and left his religion, not because he misinterpreted it.

---

So we get two stories today. The real one from Tuesday and the inflamed fake, remake of that one from Thursday.