Hub of Reason

1:21 PM

I'm a little surprised that the two answers (both good-faith) both try to provide context for the Deuteronomy marriage question.

Jon Ericson

8:07 PM

@Sklivvz: Re:

I very much don't like the absolute tone and the pretty hefty bias of your answer. Who cares whether the originator likes Obama or Romney? Does it alter the facts in any way? No. Also, it's not really an answer at all, but more of a subjective and thus irrelevant interpretation of the Bible. How is that acceptable on this site? Finally - whatever the intentions of the authors and how progressive the book was millennia ago, nobody is claiming anything about the historical origins of this rule. The question is whether a victim must marry his rapist. You carefully avoid answering it. — Sklivvz 4 mins ago

I would submit that I did answer the question: "Later Jewish interpretation did not require the girl to marry the rapist. We can only speculate if that was the original intention of the text, however."

As for the tone, I'm sorry you feel that way and I can certainly edit again, but the chart and the article are substantially more biased (and absolute) than my answer.

Finally, as I commented:

@Oddthinking: I've updated my answer to address your comment. I should note that all legal systems require at least two elements: 1. rules and 2. enforcement. The rules give authorities the power to enforce society's morals in certain ways, but they rarely compel enforcement. In fact, most legal systems have several layers of human judgement between the law and the consequences of the law. Likely the rule was used, but we can expect it was used to produce justice, not injustice. I think you are underselling the actual claim being made by the chart. — Jon Ericson 3 hours ago

I can move that portion (or a variation) into the answer, if you think it would help.

Sklivvz

Hi

I think that you can't really answer "in the context, it was not the intention".

And regarding the tone, we answer the most outrageous bs questions, pretty much constantly. We can never answer to bias with bias.

If the question is "Has man ever walked on the moon?", it's not really ok to answer "that's preposterous" - even if it is, of course.

So, even if the original image is deeply biased, it must be challenged on facts

Jon Ericson

@Sklivvz That's fair and I can get on board with that.

Sklivvz

Thanks. I'll remove my comment :-)

Jon Ericson

The third section was intended, not to answer the question, but to establish that the question made a moral claim.

I would be happy to remove the entire section that I added to address the comments.

@Sklivvz Do you have any objections to the first two sections?

(I will try to make my answer more clear there.)

Sklivvz

Let's see

> First things first: Philosophically, skepticism inevitably leads to moral relativism in some form. That means that any question about morality on Skeptics.SE, must be answered from a moral framework relative to the parties involved. Modern Western culture sees rape as a crime in which the woman is the victim. But many cultures, including the ancient Hebrew culture that produced Deuteronomy 22:28-29, view rape as an insult against the woman's family and her father in particular

That is not very relevant or sustained by references.

Also, in the first section you are re-framing the question as "what did the authors' mean?" which is irrelevant really as many people who read the bible will not make that distinction at all, no?

The second section:

> However, in a legal culture, such as what we see represented in the Talmud and Mi Yodeya, the injustice and harm done to the woman would be primary. Most likely, the questioner is thinking in those terms as well

Jon Ericson

8:20 PM

@Sklivvz The first claim (skepticism leads to moral relativism) is substantiated by my question on Philosophy.SE.

Sklivvz

Not really authoritative

And frankly I disagree. it's an opinion

Jon Ericson

The second claim (about Hebrew culture) I addressed later on by noting the culture was in transition from an honor society to a legal one. I can, of course, find more references.

@Sklivvz Are questions of morality even considered on Skeptics.SE?

Sklivvz

No they are not

they are off-topic

motivation, beliefs etc. are all off-topic

Jon Ericson

The factual claim in the question is, of course, trivial: if the law has a provision, it might have been enforced. We have no evidence that it was (or was not), however.

Jon Ericson

8:40 PM

@Sklivvz Ok. I refocused a bit and removed some junk I don't need. I think the crux of the question remains: "Does the Bible define marriage this way?" It's kinda up to y'all if you think the question itself is topical for your site.

Sklivvz

9:14 PM

It seems to me that your answer somehow dismisses that the victim was forced to marry her rapist (and, basically, sold) as something irrelevant in the context. I disagree with that. It would have been a very callous treatment of a victim even in those times, and a gross aberration of the golden rule.

Women were quite likely deeply mistreated and considered, literally, less human than men. I don't think it's specific to the Bible, though. However, the Bible is no exception.

I don't think you can simply say, "the focus is repaying the family". I completely, utterly disagree that the focus is, or would have ever been, the family from the point of view of the victim.

Jon Ericson

@Sklivvz This is what makes the question so complicated to answer. What moral system are you applying to say that it's "a gross aberration of the golden rule"?

Sklivvz

Surely nobody wants to marry their aggressor. So how can you ask someone else to do it?

Jon Ericson

@Sklivvz Well, the Talmud seems to have interpreted the law as allowing the victim to force the man into the marriage. I don't know if that was what the law itself intended.

Sklivvz

Does it make any sense at all?

Jon Ericson

In many societies, that would be a huge advantage for the woman as it would allow her to "marry up".

Sklivvz

9:25 PM

It Italy we would call this "climbing mirrors"

You know what rape is...

are you serious?

Effects and aftermath of rape

Effects and aftermath of rape can include both physical trauma and psychological trauma. However, physical force is not necessarily used in rape, and physical injuries are not always a consequence. Deaths associated with rape are known to occur, though the prevalence of fatalities varies considerably across the world. For rape victims the more common consequences of sexual violence are those related to reproductive health, mental health, and social wellbeing. Physical and psychological response to rape Gynecological Common consequences experienced by rape victims include: *vaginal or ana...

Most of this is surely not culture related

In other words, it has nothing to do with current vs. previous moral standards

Jon Ericson

@Sklivvz Yes. Rape is a serious crime, wrong and carries serious consequences.

I don't at all advocate for this particular rule to be used in modern society.

Sklivvz

I meant it deeply damages people. I don't see how it could have ever been acceptable to the victim to live and, presumably, be further raped by their aggressor!?

Such a law would always have been deeply unjust and damaging for the victim. But hey. presto, it protects the family, so it's not what it seems? gulp

Jon Ericson

@Sklivvz In the context of the system in place before Deuteronomy, the punishment for rape was death. Which very likely meant that men were rarely prosecuted for rape.

At least, I would imagine a higher ranking man raping a lower ranking woman would not be prosecuted.

@Sklivvz Wow. That's a lot of eisegesis.

Sklivvz

> You may find that petty and trivial compared to the weight of the crime, but in the culture that produced the text, it would have signaled a return of honor to the father from the perpetrator who had shamed him.

Whereas I would say

Jon Ericson

@Sklivvz "that" = "fifty [shekels of] silver"

Sklivvz

9:38 PM

Since the original society was deeply patriarchal, the victim didn't count as much as her father, thus the law protected him and not her.

Which is, imho, a well know fact.

known*

Jon Ericson

@Sklivvz That's a fair reading.

Sklivvz

Of course it is, but that's not what you say. You say that, actually, if you put it in context, it's somehow not petty and trivial.

"You may find that petty and trivial" ... "but in the culture that produced the text, it would have signaled a return of honor"

I think it would have been very petty and trivial, even then, for the victim

Jon Ericson

@Sklivvz For most, if not all, you could very well be correct. Personally, I think that no compensation would suffice for the victim of violent rape.

Society can't compensate such a woman. :-(

By the way, the Hebrew model of morality changed the ground so that sin in the community shamed the entire nation. We tend to push the Torah into a personal framework, which severely distorts things. (It's a habit I'm trying to break in myself.)

Transcript for