Jimmy Carter leaves his church

[Rusty Edge]

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/losing-my-religion-for-equality-20090714-dk0v.html?stb=fb

I thought this was about race and the existence of two Baptist church conferences in the southern USA. Instead, it's about equal rights for women.

Jimmy Carter. Possibly the greatest ex-president ever.

[Buster's Uncle]

POSSIBLY?  You possibly ought to walk that back, sir.

[Buster's Uncle]

The article:

Losing my religion for equality
Jimmy Carter  Date July 15, 2009



Illustration: Dyson
 



Women and girls have been discriminated against for too long in a twisted interpretation of the word of God.

I HAVE been a practicing Christian all my life and a deacon and Bible teacher for many years. My faith is a source of strength and comfort to me, as religious beliefs are to hundreds of millions of people around the world. So my decision to sever my ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, after six decades, was painful and difficult. It was, however, an unavoidable decision when the convention's leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be "subservient" to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service.

This view that women are somehow inferior to men is not restricted to one religion or belief. Women are prevented from playing a full and equal role in many faiths. Nor, tragically, does its influence stop at the walls of the church, mosque, synagogue or temple. This discrimination, unjustifiably attributed to a Higher Authority, has provided a reason or excuse for the deprivation of women's equal rights across the world for centuries.

At its most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities.

The impact of these religious beliefs touches every aspect of our lives. They help explain why in many countries boys are educated before girls; why girls are told when and whom they must marry; and why many face enormous and unacceptable risks in pregnancy and childbirth because their basic health needs are not met.

In some Islamic nations, women are restricted in their movements, punished for permitting the exposure of an arm or ankle, deprived of education, prohibited from driving a car or competing with men for a job. If a woman is raped, she is often most severely punished as the guilty party in the crime.

The same discriminatory thinking lies behind the continuing gender gap in pay and why there are still so few women in office in the West. The root of this prejudice lies deep in our histories, but its impact is felt every day. It is not women and girls alone who suffer. It damages all of us. The evidence shows that investing in women and girls delivers major benefits for society. An educated woman has healthier children. She is more likely to send them to school. She earns more and invests what she earns in her family.

It is simply self-defeating for any community to discriminate against half its population. We need to challenge these self-serving and outdated attitudes and practices - as we are seeing in Iran where women are at the forefront of the battle for democracy and freedom.

I understand, however, why many political leaders can be reluctant about stepping into this minefield. Religion, and tradition, are powerful and sensitive areas to challenge. But my fellow Elders and I, who come from many faiths and backgrounds, no longer need to worry about winning votes or avoiding controversy - and we are deeply committed to challenging injustice wherever we see it.

The Elders are an independent group of eminent global leaders, brought together by former South African president Nelson Mandela, who offer their influence and experience to support peace building, help address major causes of human suffering and promote the shared interests of humanity. We have decided to draw particular attention to the responsibility of religious and traditional leaders in ensuring equality and human rights and have recently published a statement that declares: "The justification of discrimination against women and girls on grounds of religion or tradition, as if it were prescribed by a Higher Authority, is unacceptable."

We are calling on all leaders to challenge and change the harmful teachings and practices, no matter how ingrained, which justify discrimination against women. We ask, in particular, that leaders of all religions have the courage to acknowledge and emphasise the positive messages of dignity and equality that all the world's major faiths share.

The carefully selected verses found in the Holy Scriptures to justify the superiority of men owe more to time and place - and the determination of male leaders to hold onto their influence - than eternal truths. Similar biblical excerpts could be found to support the approval of slavery and the timid acquiescence to oppressive rulers.

I am also familiar with vivid descriptions in the same Scriptures in which women are revered as pre-eminent leaders. During the years of the early Christian church women served as deacons, priests, bishops, apostles, teachers and prophets. It wasn't until the fourth century that dominant Christian leaders, all men, twisted and distorted Holy Scriptures to perpetuate their ascendant positions within the religious hierarchy.

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.


OBSERVER

Jimmy Carter was president of the United States from 1977 to 1981.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/losing-my-religion-for-equality-20090714-dk0v.html#ixzz3g0tLJSD7

I was talking up women Deacons back in the day.  Why?  I looked at who did all the work and wasn't a loudmouth idiot.  It's that simple; it was women who mostly ran that church.

Then Reagan came in and turned the place into a wing of the Republican Party - and that had everything with the attitude that resulted in me not going there anymore.

Like Dr. Carter, I'm a former Southern Baptist.

[Yitzi]

Women were cursed with being subservient to men, and with painful childbirth.  Humanity as a whole was likewise cursed with mortality and having to work for a living.

I find the apparent lifting of the former set of curses a promising sign that the latter set might be close to its end as well...

[Rusty Edge]

POSSIBLY?  You possibly ought to walk that back, sir.

Yeah. I think he was the Greatest ex-president ever. Better than Justice Taft, or Congressman John Quincy Adams. Even if he was trying too hard for the Nobel Peace Prize, he earned it.

But that opinion is not without controversy-
http://observer.com/2014/08/the-moral-disintegration-of-jimmy-carter/

So I tried to be more oblique and deferential.

[Rusty Edge]

Speaking of former presidents, my wife just read to me that George the Elder broke his neck, but is hospitalized and in stable condition.

[Buster's Uncle]

I had seen a headline.

[Geo]

Women were cursed with being subservient to men, and with painful childbirth.  Humanity as a whole was likewise cursed with mortality and having to work for a living.

I find the apparent lifting of the former set of curses a promising sign that the latter set might be close to its end as well...

Are you turning commie on us, Yitzi?
(Disclaimer: this comes from somebody born, raised, and earning his pay in a social wellfare democrazy.)

[Yitzi]

Women were cursed with being subservient to men, and with painful childbirth.  Humanity as a whole was likewise cursed with mortality and having to work for a living.

I find the apparent lifting of the former set of curses a promising sign that the latter set might be close to its end as well...

Are you turning commie on us, Yitzi?
(Disclaimer: this comes from somebody born, raised, and earning his pay in a social wellfare democrazy.)

Of course not; true commies wouldn't support their arguments from the Bible, and what commie-ness I have, I've had since before I joined you.   

[Elok]

I'm a bit puzzled; the article says 2009, but you guys talk about it like a recent development.

I am also familiar with vivid descriptions in the same Scriptures in which women are revered as pre-eminent leaders. During the years of the early Christian church women served as deacons, priests, bishops, apostles, teachers and prophets. It wasn't until the fourth century that dominant Christian leaders, all men, twisted and distorted Holy Scriptures to perpetuate their ascendant positions within the religious hierarchy.

Can anybody find a source for this?  Women were prominent among the early followers of Christ, though not in the Twelve.  There were also deaconesses, and Paul mentions one by name and title IIRC (there's talk in Orthodoxy of reviving deaconesses, but there's always talk--we move glacially, things are confused, and the pace of social change in general has everyone a little spooked).  Beyond that, I'm unaware of any scriptural support for female clergy, especially in the upper ranks.  Is he going on some sort of archaeological or deuterocanonical/literary evidence?

[Buster's Uncle]

The crux, as I understand, is Paul's assertion that a Deacon should be "a man of one wife" (which has also been interpreted to mean un-divorced, without, I think, accuracy).

[Rusty Edge]

I'm a bit puzzled; the article says 2009, but you guys talk about it like a recent development.

That's because you are more perceptive than I am.

A relative-in-law called my attention to it on facebook  yesterday. I thought it was news. They probably did, too.

Regardless, I find it interesting, as did Buncle, which is why I shared it.

*******************

Buncle, I thought you were Baptist, but I didn't know that the Fallwell/Reaganites drove you off. 

I can relate. I was an active worker for the GOP in 1980. PA purged people from the rolls if they failed to vote in any election for a two year period. It makes sense in a college town. Anyway, the thrust was to encourage everybody to participate in the process. We never pressured anybody to register Republican, it was a matter of getting masses registered, then getting the Republicans to the polls. Call it a numbers game. It worked.
We had faith in the quality and integrity of our candidates on a local and state level, and the ability of open-minded people to see that.

Reagan ( at the time I thought of him as an empty suit ) brought in a new breed of volunteers. They came from the churches and were new to politics. I'd call them zealots. Or wackjobs. Or Theocrats. They had an agenda, rather than a love for the state and federal constitutions and a respect for the democratic process.

Yeah. I can imagine being in a congregation intent upon Caesar's work, or using him to make everybody be good. No wonder we went to war on drugs.

[Buster's Uncle]

It flowed both ways - that S.O.B. REAGAN SHOULD HAVE STAYED THE HECK OUTTA MY CHURCH!

I will never forgive him for that, ever.

-And I'm engaging in considerably restrained expression in allow that much passion on the subject to show.



I did notice the 2009 on the article when I copy/pasted - it was probably in the news six years ago -Dr. Carter seems to do that with some faintly controversial political act or statement about once a year- and I simply forgot in the interim.  It was news to me, yesterday.

[Elok]

The crux, as I understand, is Paul's assertion that a Deacon should be "a man of one wife" (which has also been interpreted to mean un-divorced, without, I think, accuracy).

Sorry, I'm not following you; what do bans on polygamy have to do with the role of women in the Church?

(thanks for the item, BTW  )

I was mostly interested in ThunderCats and Voltron during the Reagan era, so I never really understood how the whole Religious Right phenomenon took off.  I read that Roe v. Wade was the initial impetus for the whole thing, but however much damage it's done to the American political process, I'm sure it's done worse to American Christianity.  Now we've got this gross militarism/Ayn Rand/Christianity hybrid standing in as the default American Christian identity; I think recent court rulings are going to cause a surprisingly abrupt volte-face on at least part of that, but the damage is done.

[Rusty Edge]

I was mostly interested in ThunderCats and Voltron during the Reagan era, so I never really understood how the whole Religious Right phenomenon took off.  I read that Roe v. Wade was the initial impetus for the whole thing, but however much damage it's done to the American political process, I'm sure it's done worse to American Christianity. 

Hmm. There's always a dead zone. That time period between where you usually ended the year in the history books, and the time when you remember events as they happened.

Roe v. Wade was important, but it took time . Meanwhile, you had the civil rights movement. After the blacks got recognition, the Democrats wanted to extend that to women with the Equal Rights Amendment, and to gays as well.

Well, that didn't square with the bible a lot of people were reading. They thought they were being pushed too far, too fast, and they pushed back. Televangelists like Jerry Fallwell, noted gay-basher, supported Reagan.

A lot of Catholic Kennedy Democrats decided that Reagan had the same views as them- anti-communist, anti-gay, anti- abortion, and that the Democrats had left them in the years between 1960 and 1980.