Putting the Carter before the horse

Let's say that you were once President of the United States, and during your presidency you had, at best, a checkered record when it came to denouncing inhumane dictatorships and standing up to tyrannical regimes.

Let's say that in the years following your exit from the White House, you built a dubious—nay, embarrassing—resumé filled with steady, overt pandering to the same or similar dictatorships and regimes. A list of leaders courted and countries defended include Castro and Cuba, China ("It's Wrong to Demonize China"), Tito ("a man who believes in human rights"), Kim Il Sung, Yasser Arafat and the PLO, Mengistu, Cédras, Assad, and, most recently, Hamas. The naivety you display about such men and regimes is so breathtaking that Casto's own daughter, Alina Fernandez, offers a public smack down.

Let's say that in addition to this troubling track record, you also offer a steady stream of criticism—much of it outlandish, unsubstantiated, and self-serving—aimed at your own country, a rather unprecedented and sorry thing to do as a former President.

And, finally, let's say you, after spending most of your public career describing yourself as a "born again Christian" and making much of your love of Jesus and the Bible, decide to write a pompous, self-righteous, historically-illiterate, theologically-ignorant piece, "The words of God do not justify cruelty to women," which states, in part:

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 [sic] the positive messages of dignity and equality that all the world's major faiths share.

Although not having training in religion or theology, I understand that 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.

At the same time, 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.

I know, too, that Billy Graham, one of the most widely respected and revered Christians during my lifetime, did not understand why women were prevented from being priests and preachers. He said: "Women preach all over the world. It doesn't bother me from my study of the scriptures."

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.

If you did all of these things, and never blinked an eye about your incredibly obvious hypocrisy—praising and supporting murderous dictators and tyrants while condemning traditional Christian theology as the basis for "much of the pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world"—your name is Jimmy Carter.

In all honesty, I wouldn't bother with all of the political stuff (as important as it is), except there is something deeply disturbing about a man of such importance and influence being so willing to verbally aid and abet thugs while trashing the motives and character of those who believe, as Catholics do, that only certain men are chosen by God to be priests. It's truly repulsive, intimating that women not being able to be Catholic (or Orthodox) priests is the same as beating, raping, torturing, and even killing women. I have long found Carter to hold views and say things that are deeply revolting (both morally and intellectually), but this tops it all. And since when did Billy Graham—a nice man but hardly a theological heavyweight—become the in-house theologian for the Magisterium of Jimmy Carter? The level of sheer arrogance in Carter's statement is mind-boggling.

An irony, of course, is that Carter is simply engaging in a crude form of sola scriptura, albeit one that is not  fundamentalist Protestant in nature, but openly fundamentalist secularist. But Carter also resorts to the sort of unsubstantiated falsehoods (well, of course, since falsehoods cannot be substantiated!) that make both theologians and historians tear at their hair, as there were no female priests, bishops, or apostles in the early Church. But this form of argumentation is hardly new for Carter, who seems to enjoy misrepresenting the beliefs, motives, and actions of "conservative" Christians. One more quick example is found in part of a post I wrote in December of last year:

On a related note, something that keeps coming to mind is this statement, which I've heard and read in many forms over the years: "If right-wing Christians would care as much about babies after they are born as before they are born, they'd be taken much more seriously." A few years ago I read a variation of this nonsense in Jimmy Carter's Our Endangered Species, where he states, without providing the least bit of evidence, "Many pro-life activists do not extend their concern to the baby who is born ..." Really? Then why are there so many Christian adoption agencies? Why do so many Christians pursue adoption, even while the costs skyrocket and red tape nearly chokes many agencies and programs to death? And why is it that abortion businesses such as Planned Parenthood show little or no interest in adoptions? Hmmmm, that's a tough one...

Given Carter's record of coddling the Castros and Kim Il Sungs of the world—men who treat their fellow humans like dirt, or worse—its hard to take the man seriously when he starts pontificating on the morality or immorality of Church doctrine, especially when it is obvious the man is incapable of addressing the actual doctrine in question. Carter would do well to speak with such righteous indignation against his tryannical buddies and despotic pals. After all, I don't think Billy Graham, one of the most widely respected and revered Christians during my lifetime, is much of a supporter of communist killers and suicide bombers.

• UPDATE: A related story, "Evangelical Leaders Rebuke Carter for 'Reckless' Discrimination Claims", from The Christian Post (July 26, 2009).

Comments

[Rich Leonardi]

There is absolutely no evidence that women served as priests and bishops in the early Church. Some served under the name of "deacon," but this was to accommodate the baptism of adult females and in any event these "deaconesses" did not receive holy orders. But there is ample evidence of priestesses in other religions of the ancient world. So if Jesus had wanted to ordain women, he would have had many precedents to support His decision (aside from His divinity).

[Gordon]

Thanks for the wise post. Your restraint is admirable.

When you get to those conversations about the “population of hell,” obvious names come up: Hitler, Pol Pot, Judas, etc. While I hope for a hell undermanned, I can’t escape the image of a solitary figure preening against a lifeless landscape, imagining he’s waiting for another Nobel Prize, a prissy former President and eternal Sunday School teacher who swoons over butchers and scolds men of honor. He is evil without madness, evil unexcused.

[Stephen Sparrow]

From this part of the world (NZ) I always saw the election of Carter as a backlash to the Nixon era. It would hardly have mattered who the Dems put up as a candidate. As it was a fundamentalist "Christian" who farmed peanuts in Georgia was plucked off the land and plonked in the White House. Fortunately Americans being sensible folk realized their mistake and got shot of him after enduring four years of embarrassment. I remember when he was elected he announced that US Foreign Policy would be moral. The NZ Prime Minister an abrasive character named Muldoon was asked by local media for a comment. Muldoon said "If the USA adopts a moral foreign policy, the world will be at war within a year." Of course Carter couldn't institute his moral Foreign Policy but it's easy to see he's still running true to form - spouting out idiocies.

[Monica]

While Carter's motives appear questionable (is he REALLY concerned for the status of women in the Church?) and his argumentation is certainly lacking, it would be more constructive to address, thoughtfully, a point that his vapid criticism nonetheless raises; why it is that women are not permitted to preach as men are in the Church (the question of ordination aside...)? This article doesn't really seem to accomplish anything beyond pointing out the OBVIOUS flaws in Carter's criticisms of Christianity . . . who cares? And what prompted this sudden apology?

[Monica]

*That is, priestly ordination

[Gregorio]

Yet another thing to admire Carl Olson for:

The fact that he is so dedicated to his work that he actually *reads* the lifeless, stultifying, plaster-of-paris prose of Jimmy Carter.

I have no idea what you earn, Mr. Olson, but I can say for sure it ain't close to enough.

If I didn't know you were so passionate about exposing the lie, sir, I'd suspect you of attempting to harm yourself.

Prose of such unalloyed awfulness ought to be illegal, for it could pose a significant danger to unsuspecting people who think.

[Nicholas Jagneaux]

To support Stephen Sparrow: Even though Americans were disgusted with Republicans (Nixon, and then Ford, who pardoned Nixon), the election was VERY close. From Wikipedia, Carter defeated Ford by two percentage points in the national popular vote. The electoral vote was the closest since 1916; Carter took 23 states with 297 electoral votes, while Ford won 27 states and 240 electoral votes (one elector from Washington state, pledged to Ford, voted for Reagan). Carter's victory came primarily from his near-sweep of the South (he lost only Virginia), and his narrow victories in large Northern states such as New York, and Pennsylvania. Ford did well in the West, carrying every state except Hawaii. The states that ultimatley decided the election were Wisconsin (1.68% margin) and Ohio (.27% margin), both won by Carter. Had Ford won these states and all other states he carried, he would have won the presidency.

Given the mood of the American people, Carter should have easily won the election. That it was so close is very telling about how voters viewed Carter. Had it not been for Watergate, Carter would not have won.

[Ed Peters]

Jimmy Carter, I thought, was going to go down in history as our worst President. (Though a couple of 19th close-calls could be named.)

But now, I fear, Carter will also take first prize for being the worst ex-President in history. His track record in both settings is pathetic.

Good points, Gregorio.

[Subvet]

Would somebody please sic a pack of rabbits on this man the next time he goes fishing?

[Rich Livingston]

Thank God for Jimmy Carter. He speaks truth to power, especially regarding the injustices committed by our "friends" in the Middle East. He alone has had the courage to confront the one-sided, hypocritical support the US provides to war criminals in the region, as we encourage with tax deductions for settlement building, unfettered $3Billion in annual foreign aid, and the humiliation and suppression of an entire people by a "democracy". It's apartheid at best, ethnic cleansing at worst, all done with our help and overt support for decades. No wonder 9/11 happened.

[Anonymous]

Jimmy Carter ? Truthful ? He seems to be simply left-leaning, politically correct, secularist with a veneer of Christianity (which drives his 'social' concerns)

In Venezuela, he shone with his true colors, blessing His Highness Hugo Chavez in the recall referendum

He turned his eye to the other side, and declared the victory of "El Comandante", although the referendum was a non-auditable scam

Indeed, his judgment over other governments seems as unbiased as Noam Chomsky's