Former President Jimmy Carter condemned “the male interpretations of religious texts” that have “provided a reason or excuse for the deprivation of women’s equal rights . . . 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.”
By making statements equating his own understanding of religion with the will of “Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, Moses and the prophets, Muhammad, and founders of other great religions”, Jimmy Carter continues his well-established tradition of making outrageous statements to justify legitimate concerns. The sad part is that his approach reflects precisely the kind of spiritual arrogance which nurtures the ability of any group to oppress others in the name of that which they believe.
No differently than the very people he most opposes, Carter arrogantly assumes that he can isolate those portions of a tradition which reflect the “proper” understanding of its teachings. He cherry picks his way through not only the faith he follows, but presumes to do so for others as well. I guess he just knows best.
Of course that attitude of knowing best is the basis of all oppression committed by people in the name of religion.

So once again the battle lines are drawn between two sides that are identical in almost every way except with respect to the conclusion they reach about a specific issue – in this case the treatment of women.
Don’t misunderstand me. In matters of policy on these questions, I am more in agreement with Mr. Carter than not. But I also know that we might label oppressive or demeaning what other believers, often including women, label as liberating and uplifting.
While his self-righteous approach must make him and his co-signers feel good, it’s simply too easy to write, as Carter did, that “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.” It’s also misguided.
This debate, if it is to have any real impact, must be shifted from one in which we argue about who understands God best, to one about the sacredness of choice, the independence of the spirit and modesty to admit that none of us has the only true understanding of God’s will. This needs to be about the creation of spiritual options so that as many people as possible can find a place within whatever faith they choose, not about taking away the options of others to practice in ways we make not like.