This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← The words of God do not justify cruelty to women

The words of God do not justify cruelty to women - Comments

Stafford Gordon's Avatar Comment 1 by Stafford Gordon

Some find religion comforting; for my part I find it most discomforting; indeed, it alarms me.

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 06:07:00 UTC | #381298

flying goose's Avatar Comment 2 by flying goose

Tradition is the living culture of the dead, traditionalism is the dead culture of the living.

Religion must be allowed to evolve either out of existence or into something better.

Given that it is probably a by product of biological adaptations, it is likely to be around for long time yet. Reformation is a process not an event.

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 06:13:00 UTC | #381304

Ygern's Avatar Comment 3 by Ygern

The title of this article contradicts the body of it where Carter concedes that you can use scriptures and Church history either to treat women as second class citizens or champion their rights as equal citizens.

But he is confused or misinformed when he argues that "Paul, Moses and the prophets, Muhammad...." all called for "proper and equitable treatment of all ". No they didn't, how ever much benevolent old politicians might like to think that they did.

Much as I appreciate the intentions of this group addressing the issue of cruelty & subjugation of women; I think that trying to co-opt religious scriptures to justify and bolster their argument is somewhat akin to shooting yourself in the foot.

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 06:15:00 UTC | #381308

bachfiend's Avatar Comment 4 by bachfiend

If you're deluded enough to believe that Genesis is literally true, then you have the choice between Adam and Eve being created simultaneously from dust, or Adam first from mud, followed by Eve from one of Adam's ribs. What Paul actually believed is a bit problematic; Romans has a different view on women to Corinthians, and it is almost certain that copying scribes modified and added to Paul to fit their own agenda.

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 06:30:00 UTC | #381320

hungarianelephant's Avatar Comment 5 by hungarianelephant

Paul was indeed a great believer in the equality of the sexes. It was he who first introduced biblical condemnation of lesbianism. Hitherto the prohibition on gay sex had been confined to men. A true progressive, eh?

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 06:34:00 UTC | #381323

Tadzio's Avatar Comment 6 by Tadzio

"The truth is that male religious leaders have had - and still have - an option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate women."
Funny kind of teaching, which allows for two contradictory "lessons".

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 06:35:00 UTC | #381324

mattincinci's Avatar Comment 7 by mattincinci

hmm someone finally coming to grips with reality.... what will they do next? keep reading the bible Jimmy

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 06:35:00 UTC | #381325

GandalfGrey's Avatar Comment 8 by GandalfGrey

In the words of Christopher Hitchens:
"He might be on to something..."

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 06:50:00 UTC | #381336

Mrs Gregory's Avatar Comment 9 by Mrs Gregory

I nearly fell off the office chair when I read the article. It seems to me that Jimmy is doing a good job of twisting the bible himself. Fool!

Read the bible Jimmy!!! Oh that's right the devote religious don't; what was I thinking!

To think this idiot used to be the most powerful man in the world; Frightening!

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 06:52:00 UTC | #381340

Vaal's Avatar Comment 10 by Vaal

Poor Jimmy is in a conundrum. He is cherry-picking the Bible to find the bits that suit him and his particular zeitgeist, and ignoring the foul doctrines that don't suit his personal sensibilities. What is it to be, Jimmy? Are the fundamentalists incorrect or you? Are they right to be baying that women are inferior and responsible for "sin".

After all, there are plenty of texts in the Bible inciting murder for the sins of working on a Sunday, to insulting bald preachers. It is either the word of God, or it isn't. Who are you to choose? Puzzling, isn't it?

This view that women are somehow inferior to men is not restricted to one religion or belief. It is widespread. Women are prevented from playing a full and equal role in many faiths

Yep, hit the nail on the head. Women's supposed inferiority to men is widespread in nearly all "faiths", but is particularly virulent in the patriarchal Abrahamic religions.

Strangely enough, no humanist would ever regard women as inferior, just the opposite. Perhaps you should drop your supernatural despot Jimmy, and embrace humanity.

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 06:53:00 UTC | #381341

JIBJABBER's Avatar Comment 11 by JIBJABBER

This is my personal favourite with some excellent advice:

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment."
(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 06:54:00 UTC | #381343

kaiserkriss's Avatar Comment 12 by kaiserkriss

Jim-bo has never been one of my favorite people, however in this instance, I give him full credit for standing up for his beliefs against the indoctrination of his particular "brand" of beliefs. He has recognized the contradictions of the various scriptures and consciously chosen the correct path, but also come out against the narrow minded paternalistic belief systems by going public with his views; quite remarkable for an 85 year old gentleman.

Who knows, with a bit more rational thinking on his part, he just might take the next step and become one of us.. a reverse death bed conversion, not that we'd ever hear of it. jcw

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 07:06:00 UTC | #381345

flying goose's Avatar Comment 13 by flying goose

Mrs Gregory, he is no fool, that he was considered such when he was ditched in preference to Reagan, is part of the reason why we are today in the situation we are in. Economic and ecological melt down. I think he once said ' If we live in a dream world today we will wake up in a nightmare tomorrow.'

How right he was.

We need more fools like him, people who are brave enough to say what others do not want to hear. People who can change their minds even at the age of 85, and leave behind a community they have spent most of their lives in. Do not underestimate how costly that will have been.

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 07:22:00 UTC | #381349

Jos Gibbons's Avatar Comment 14 by Jos Gibbons

How typical of a moderate to condemn those who carefully choose several verses for their extremist ends, while he carefully chooses one verse (his preferred Galatians excerpt). At least they're better at it! How does he know which verses are OK to use? He doesn't even try to say. At best he argues "Hey, we're right because we got there first!" I'd hate to think of the consequences of taking that to its logical conclusion.

Why can't moderates prove themselves to be true liberals by saying not that their text proves something different, but rather that it proves nothing whatsoever? This is the same as when Muslim liberals give excuses for seeing teh Koran as anti-terrorism. Why not just say, "Whatever any book says, deliberately causing suffering is bad"? This is why I dislike moderates: they like to think morality from scripture is a legitimate game to play, but say to fundamentalists "You're doing it wrong!" They're no more likely to buy that than liberals are to return the favour - or, for that matter, than members of one congregation or sect are to concede the superiority of rivals.

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 07:34:00 UTC | #381350

comet tail's Avatar Comment 15 by comet tail

Wow, this is a hard club to join.
Some one who has worked for peace and justice world wide, makes a comment against a church, and the crowd here still goes off on him.

Jimmy Carter is very brave to make this statement against religious treatment of women. I applaud his comments. Most likely he will receive much hate mail for this- from both sides from the looks of it.

I wish my fellow commentators here showed more charity and good will. Some people will always believe- why is that the only point that matters for this crowd?

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 07:39:00 UTC | #381352

Gregg Townsend's Avatar Comment 17 by Gregg Townsend

The evidence shows that investing in women and girls delivers major benefits for everyone in 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.
Go Jimmy.

See, being devout doesn't shut down one's mind completely. Hopefully, Jimmy will take the next step and question other dogmas. Yeah, right

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 07:41:00 UTC | #381355

glenister_m's Avatar Comment 16 by glenister_m

Although I don't agree with his reasoning, I certainly support his cause for equality of the sexes/stopping the subjugation of women. (I've never understood the gender gap for pay - equal pay for equal work seems logical, rational, and reasonable.)

However I found this statement very telling:

"no longer need to worry about winning votes or avoiding controversy "

Translation: We can make great speeches, and write great articles; but few of your politicians will listen to us because they are worried about winning votes and avoiding controversy.

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 07:41:00 UTC | #381354

SteveN's Avatar Comment 18 by SteveN

As much as I applaud Jimmy Carter, both as an ex-president and as a prominant and respected christian, for standing up for women's rights in this way, it is disingenuous of him to claim that others have cherry-picked passages from the bible to justify their sexism and to say that "This was in conflict with my belief - confirmed in the holy scriptures - that we are all equal in the eyes of God." The bible is clearly misogynistic through and through. It is Jimmy who is guilty of cherry-picking, I'm afraid.


Wed, 22 Jul 2009 07:42:00 UTC | #381356

Mrs Gregory's Avatar Comment 19 by Mrs Gregory

Flying Goose, He is cherry picking the bible to justify his decision, his arguments don't stand up and he is contradicting himself to justify his dogma. A lot of people that read the said article will go along with what he says as they have probably never read the bible either.

As Vaal as already pointed out, the Abrahamic religion he follows and his good book quite clearly states throughout, that women are below men and should be treated as such. It doesn't matter how Jimmy tries to spin it, that's the way it is, he can’t have it both ways.

Jimmy believes in the sky fairy based on nothing more than ramblings of nasty Bronze Age myths; sorry I still think he is a deluded fool.

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 07:44:00 UTC | #381357

flying goose's Avatar Comment 20 by flying goose

Jos Gibbons, 14 You call Carter moderate, I think this is the wrong term. Carter is no more moderate in his religion than an alchoholic is with their drinking. He chooses to interprete his tradition and scripture in a way that is influenced by secular morality. In doing so he subjects his religion to a liberal and secular morality rather than a conservative and traditional one.

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 07:46:00 UTC | #381358

Lifer's Avatar Comment 21 by Lifer

"prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service."

These should not be positions in the military service.

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 07:49:00 UTC | #381359

Squigit's Avatar Comment 22 by Squigit

15. Comment #398760 by comet tail
I think everyone would agree that Mr. Carter has taken a great leap forward, and I think we all applaud his conclusions AND his brave stance to cut ties with the Southern Baptist Convention not because gender equality is the popular thing to support, but because he actually believes it. I think what everyone is criticizing is his method for coming to that conclusion, primarily for cherry-picking scripture to support his view all the while scolding the SBC for doing the same. THAT is what we don't like--and I think we are entitled to that opinion and we should voice it as welll. That's one thing I hate about moderates: they cherry-pick while scolding the fundies who do the same thing (and they scold them because they do it).

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 07:49:00 UTC | #381360

Gregg Townsend's Avatar Comment 23 by Gregg Townsend

20. Comment #398766 by flying goose

In doing so he subjects his religion to a liberal and secular morality rather than a conservative and traditional one.
Which is a good thing and one that I think should be pointed out. I think I'll write to him.

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 07:51:00 UTC | #381361

squinky's Avatar Comment 24 by squinky

Carter breaks with the Church because his passage is better than their passage. *sigh*

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status ... (Article 2, Universal Declaration of Human Rights)

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:28

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. Southern Baptist Convention Leaders

If anyone dares to disagree with Paul on religious matters, "let him be accursed." Galatians 1:8-9

Uh-oh Carter--looks like the Southern Baptist Convention Leaders trumped you with Galatians!

Carter, your own moral compass can point north towards equality without quoting the Bible. I applaud you, sir, for having the balls to tell your church leaders that they are sexist and immoral. They are and you are a good man for letting your innate humanism burn through the religious veil of female oppression.

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 07:54:00 UTC | #381362

sunbeamforjesus's Avatar Comment 25 by sunbeamforjesus

9. Comment #398747 by Mrs Gregory on July 22, 2009 at 7:52 am
avatarI nearly fell off the office chair when I read the article. It seems to me that Jimmy is doing a good job of twisting the bible himself. Fool!

Read the bible Jimmy!!! Oh that's right the devote religious don't; what was I thinking!

To think this idiot used to be the most powerful man in the world; Frightening!

Johnson,Nixon,Carter,'PotatoE Quayle,Bush Snr,W,Palin.....I've been frightened for DECADES!

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 07:56:00 UTC | #381364

sunbeamforjesus's Avatar Comment 26 by sunbeamforjesus

Sorry I forgot 'the great communicator' Reagan-be very afraid!

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 08:02:00 UTC | #381365

beanson's Avatar Comment 27 by beanson

God it's so weird isn't it, it's like someone saying: "Some people have a distorted view of Fascism, that it is bigoted and evil, but that's just their misguided interpretation!
I will remain a Fascist but I will no longer kowtow to the nasty bits of fascist doctrine that I previously tacitly accepted"

Religion (organised) is akin to fascism

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 08:03:00 UTC | #381366

hungarianelephant's Avatar Comment 29 by hungarianelephant

The same discriminatory thinking lies behind the continuing gender gap in pay and why there are still so few women in office in Britain and the United States. The root of this prejudice lies deep in our histories, but its impact is felt every day.

I am going to have to call bollocks on this.

There is a substantial gender gap in pay in the sense that women are on average paid less than men. This is not of itself evidence of a gender gap in pay for doing the same job - most often this is simply assumed. As to it being the result of "discriminatory thinking" and/or "prejudice ... deep in our histories", or having anything to do with the number of women in office, this is just unsupported assertion. Show us the evidence, please.

Self-flagellating about a problem which is yet to be satisfactorily demonstrated is no way to address the very real and specific oppression of women in other parts of the world, whether that is rooted in religion or not.

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 08:07:00 UTC | #381368

flying goose's Avatar Comment 28 by flying goose

Everybody cherry picks, everybody always has. So whats new or so bad about that?

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 08:07:00 UTC | #381367

VanYoungman's Avatar Comment 30 by VanYoungman

Bravo Jimmy. Once again you have shown yourself to be the most moral of all our past presidents.

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 08:10:00 UTC | #381369