A Call to Action: Women, Religion, Violence, and Power Read online

  I was caught up in an even more generic misinterpretation of the Holy Scriptures concerning racial inequality, which has affected my entire life. I came to realize that rationalization is a human trait, of which we are all guilty at times. I certainly do not like to admit that any of my deeply held beliefs are in error, and when any are challenged I seek every source of evidence to prove that I am right. The ultimate source of authenticity for my fellow religious believers was the Holy Bible, which provided the foundation for our Christian faith. The Hebrew text of the Bible, the New Testament, and the Koran, plus ancient interpretations, are complex combinations of history, biography, and the teachings and actions of those we revere. Many devout people consider these texts to be inerrant—incapable of containing error—despite the fact that some verses directly contradict others in the same holy book, and some ancient statements, such as descriptions of stars falling from the sky to the earth, are contrary to scientific knowledge. The overall messages or themes of the scriptures can be discerned, however, and they almost invariably espouse the moral and ethical values of peace, justice, compassion, forgiveness, and care for the destitute and those in need.

  We can forget or ignore these principles if their violation is to our social, economic, or political benefit. I experienced this for almost three decades of my life, when I was part of an American society that espoused the “separate but equal” ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court. Although it was apparent to everyone that the practical application emphasized separate rather than equal, the legal system of racial segregation prevailed until the civil rights laws were adopted in the mid-1960s.

  The segregation laws were observed throughout Georgia, the rest of the Deep South, and to some degree in all other states, and in my early years I never knew them to be questioned. It is difficult now for me to believe that no serious objections were raised when my only friends and playmates and their families went to a different church than ours, attended inferior schools, and could not vote or serve on a jury. When one of my black friends and I went to a movie in the county seat we rode in separate cars on the passenger train and sat at separate levels in the theater. These were practices in which I was complicit. Distinguished religious leaders visited our Plains Baptist Church on occasion to preach sermons based on selected scriptures about how it was God’s will that the races be separated, and they even mentioned with pride how far we had progressed since slavery had ended in the United States—although forced servitude was obviously condoned by the biblical texts they quoted.

  I have a hazy memory of the first time I was conscious of segregation in my own life, when I was about fourteen, and later I wrote a poem about it called “The Pasture Gate.” I was returning with two friends from working in the field, and when we got to the gate between our barn lot and the pasture they stood back to let me go through first. I thought there might be a wire to trip me—we frequently played such pranks on each other—but later I surmised that their parents had told them that, as we were now older, we were no longer to treat each other as equals.

  Not yet seriously questioned or rejected by many secular and religious leaders is a parallel dependence on selected verses of scripture to justify a belief that, even or especially in the eyes of God, women and girls are inferior to their husbands and brothers.

  If women are equal in the eyes of God, why are we not equal in the eyes of men?

  ZAINAH ANWAR,

  FOUNDER OF SISTERS IN ISLAM, MALAYSIA

  There has long been a distinction in societal attitudes toward men and women who engage in extramarital sex. In the summer 2013 issue of Christian Ethics Today is an article by a young Canadian woman who, at nineteen, was a devout unmarried Christian, stigmatized by her pastor when he learned she had participated in a sexual act. Before an assembly of young people, this spiritual leader decided to teach her a lesson by analogy; he passed around a glass of water and had each person spit in it, then asked, “Now who wants to drink this?” Now happily married and with three children, her declaration that she is not “damaged goods” and unworthy of a decent husband is intended to reassure the four out of five evangelical Christian women who have had sex before marriage that they are acceptable in the eyes of God and should not be defamed.

  I read her statement with some discomfort, but with a realization that it was both true and helpful. My hometown was and still is deeply religious. We have eleven churches to serve a total population of fewer than eight hundred, and they are still the centers of our social life. When I was a teenager it was rare for boys and girls to sleep together unless it was assumed by them and their families that they were soon to be married. There were just two or three girls who were known to be willing to depart from these standards, but it was considered normal among boys to take advantage of any sexual opportunity. Rosalynn and I were deeply in love, and we decided to wait until after our wedding to consummate our marriage. It would have been completely out of character for her to do otherwise, but I was always reluctant to let other young men know that I was a virgin, feeling that it was somehow a reflection on my manhood.

  I have come to realize that societal standards—at least in the Western world—are much different from what I knew as a youth, but there is still a sharp difference between those that apply to boys and those that apply to girls. I still believe that abstinence is the best choice for both, but condemnation and disgrace are not appropriate, and there should not be any distinctions in rules of behavior for males and females.

  2 | COMMITMENT TO PEACE AND WOMEN’S RIGHTS

  I was serving as an officer in the U.S. Navy during the latter days of World War II and the first years of peace and was fascinated, even then, with political affairs. I followed closely the formation of the United Nations and kept a copy of its Charter and by-laws on the ship with me. There was a consensus among political leaders and the general public of all nations that the time had come for an end to devastating wars and a common commitment to seek peaceful alternatives to inevitable disputes. The dominant players and permanent members of the United Nations Security Council were the five major nations that had been victorious and were determined to establish insurmountable impediments to armed conflict and to ensure that Germany, Japan, and Italy, the defeated aggressors, would be pacified. The stated purpose of the United Nations was “to promote cooperation in security, economic development, social progress, human rights, civil liberties, political freedom, democracy, and lasting world peace.” Leaders also considered it imperative to take common action to prevent a repetition of horrible human rights crimes, most notably the Holocaust and the deaths of millions of others who could not escape the consequences of ethnic or racial hatred.

  During those halcyon days these same leaders moved to provide a permanent international foundation of justice and equality for all people. The United Nations Charter committed all member states to promote “universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.” The next step was more specific, and, with special leadership in the American delegation from former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt, the organization produced the thirty simple and clear articles that fulfilled the bold and challenging expectations of the Charter.

  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was ratified in 1948 by a vote of 48 to 0. There were eight abstentions, including from the Soviet bloc, which objected to the right of citizens (especially Jews) to emigrate from their home country, and South Africa, whose all-white apartheid government did not consider black people deserving of equal status. It is significant that there were no objections raised to the guarantee of equal rights for women and girls, except that Saudi Arabia, which also abstained, opposed the provision guaranteeing equality within marriage. Eight Islamic governments voted in favor of the Declaration. There is no possibility that these same commitments could be made today, as memories of the devastation of world war have faded, the five permanent members are often at odds and no longer as
dominant, and there is more polarization within regions and individual countries.

  It is helpful to examine the document in some detail to understand the universal commitment to equal status between men and women in all walks of life. The full text can be found on the Internet. Every word applies to women as well as men, but I have excerpted and emphasized phrases that apply directly to the subject of this book. Some of them are surprising in their specificity and relevance now.

  PREAMBLE. Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, . . .

  Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom . . .

  Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

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

  Article 4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

  Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

  Article 16. (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

  (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

  Article 21. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

  Article 23. (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

  Article 25. (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

  Article 26. (1) Everyone has the right to education. (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

  These were clear and unequivocal commitments made by the world’s leaders to be binding in perpetuity. It is shameful that these solemn international agreements, later ratified by national legislative bodies, are being violated so blatantly. Some people may even find them outdated and naïve. It must be presumed that even the authors of the Declaration realized at the time that many of the world’s religious leaders, who remained remarkably silent, did then and always would exempt themselves and their compliant followers from the granting of these guaranteed equal rights to women and girls.

  War and violence against women not only have similar social, cultural, and religious supports, they are mutually reinforcing. These supports allow societies to tolerate conditions in which a third of women and girls can be treated violently, without mass outcry and rebellion. When we challenge the attitudes and norms that enable violence against women, we also are helping to confront the conditions that support war.

  REV. DR. SUSAN BROOKS THISTLETHWAITE, PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY AND FORMER PRESIDENT, CHICAGO THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

  It is a tragedy that this declaration of guaranteed equal rights for all people has not been realized and that there has also been a general and growing acceptance of warfare and violence instead of peace. The concept of the United Nations Security Council as the primary arbiter of disputes and of individual nations resorting to armed combat only as a last resort and to protect themselves has been subverted by divisions among the five permanent members, each of whom has strong regional alliances and interests and a veto over any final decision.

  More than any other nation, the United States has been almost constantly involved in armed conflict and, through military alliances, has used war as a means of resolving international and local disputes. Since the birth of the United Nations, we have seen American forces involved in combat in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Cambodia, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Greece, Grenada, Haiti, Iraq, Korea, Kosovo, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Libya, Nicaragua, Panama, Serbia, Somalia, and Vietnam, and more recently with lethal attacks in Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and other sovereign nations. There were no “boots on the ground” in some of these countries; instead we have used high-altitude bombers or remote-control drones. In these cases we rarely acknowledge the tremendous loss of life and prolonged suffering among people in the combat zones, even after our involvement in the conflict is ended.

  Some of these military actions may have been justified in the defense of our nation or its vital interests, but the tragedy is that their easy adoption, sometimes without the consent or knowledge of the public or most members of Congress, has made the resort to violence a natural and even popular facet of foreign policy. Some devout Christians have been in the forefront of advocating warfare even when the choice was hotly debated among the general public. “An eye for an eye” has become more important to them than the teachings of Jesus as the Prince of Peace.

  When America is questioned about its military involvement throughout the world, the increasingly natural and common answer is, “We need to show our strength and resolve and to take military action when necessary to achieve our goals.” Without debating the political need, peaceful alternatives, or the ultimate success or failure of these military adventures, the previously firm commitment to peace and human rights by the United Nations and its strongest member has been largely abandoned. Our neglect of these obligations increases the suffering of the innocent and defenseless.

  I am grateful to see our withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, but we are negotiating now to retain between eight thousand and twelve thousand NATO troops in Afghanistan until 2024. The primary impediment to an agreement is our insistence that these troops be immune from prosecution under Afghan law for any crimes they may commit. If the troops remain, their peacekeeping role should be combined with a concerted effort by the United Nations and others to negotiate amicable settlement of disputes.

  3 | THE BIBLE AND GENDER EQUALITY

  The relegation of women to an inferior or circumscribed status by many religious leaders is one of the primary reasons for the promotion and perpetuation of sexual abuse. If potential male exploiters of women are led to believe that their victim is considered inferior or “different” even by God, they can presume that it must be permissible to take advantage of their superior male status. It is crucial that devout believers abandon the premise that their faith mandates sexual discrimination. Islamic scholars assure me that there is no justification for this discrimination in the Koran, but there are specific verses in the Holy Bible that can be interpreted on either side of the issue, and some ascendant male leaders in all faiths take advantage of the interpretation most beneficial to them. There are now about 7 billion people in the world, and more than 2 billion are Christians. Since many fundamental beliefs about human relationships are common to all major religions, I will assess this issue at some length, from a Christian’s point of view.

  I have been quite active in my local church and in the Southern Baptist Convention, both before and after I held public office. Like my father before me, I am a deacon and a Bible teacher and have volunteered as a layman to work as a missionary in several states to explain my Christian faith and invite people to become followers of Jesus Christ as their personal savior. These have been some of the most gratifying experiences of my life. I began teaching Bible lessons when I was eighteen years old, as a midshipman at Annapolis. I continued to do so as a farmer, governor, and president, and still fulfill this pleasant du
ty in my church in Plains whenever I am home on Sundays, about thirty-five times a year. There are usually several hundred visitors who come to hear me teach, representing most of the states and often ten or twenty foreign countries. About a fifth are Baptists; the others are mostly Protestants and Catholics, but there are also some Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and others who do not profess a religious affiliation or belief. I try to apply the lesson texts, about equally divided between the New Testament and the Hebrew text, to modern-day circumstances and events, and encourage open discussion between me and the audience. At times there are disagreements, and I learn a lot about different points of view concerning issues that divide believers.

  These points of contention are not between Muslim and Christian, Catholic and Protestant, or Baptist and Episcopal, but are almost always within our own individual faiths or denominations. The schism among Baptists is one example. There have always been theological disputes, but now the most contentious are those that involve everyday life. In the time of the early Christian Church followers questioned whether it was acceptable to eat meat that had been offered to idols, if one had to become a circumcised Jew first before accepting Christ as savior, which apostle spoke with the most authority, and whether Jesus could be both human and divine. Now the debates are more about the status of homosexuals, the use of contraceptives, when it is permissible to resort to abortion, and if some verses in the Bible can be in error or applicable only to the time when they were written. One of the most prevalent and divisive issues is whether or not women are equal to men in the eyes of God.

  After intense debates leading up to the annual Southern Baptist assembly in 2000, the newly chosen leaders and a majority of voting delegates made several decisions that caused me concern, relating to the interpretation of the scriptures. I had no doubt about the sincerity and good intentions of the participants, but my wife and I began to question whether our beliefs were compatible with those adopted and later mandated by the Convention. The change that was most troubling to us was an emphasis on a few specific Bible verses about the status of women and how they would be applied in practical terms, including one that called for wives to be “submissive” to their husbands. Let me quote the passage: