Since you just reposted what I had already posted, where is the denial? The woman is without a husband, and therefore without resources. Elaborate on my "subtle denial".

This is partially true. Yet your examples of the Congress and Courts is an even bigger non-sequitor, and that brought up additional questions on my part. The people in Congress (who enact the laws) and Courts (that interpret those laws) are specifically set up to create and judge those laws. I also believe that these people are expected to have some training and expertise in those laws (or at least access to such expertise). Quite frankly I do not see how you could compare the rights of Congress and the Courts to judge laws good or bad to that of the members of these discussion boards judging ancient Jewish laws when they are non Jewish, nor do they study or understand these laws or how they were enforced.

This was never your point. Where on this thread did anyone talk about cramming a law down anyone's throat? (At least until you just did now that is).

I have made no argument for a divine law. I have specifically said that these laws came from the Jewish people, and that those laws serve as the foundation of our own legal system.

Are they on this thread, or the ones throwing stones? I know of no practicing orthodox Jews on these discussion boards, but if he or she would like to comment here, then I would welcome it.

Hmm... so you equate the making of laws to medical practice. I am glad you are neither my lawyer nor my doctor.

Is a woman that is raped a widow, or an orphan, or a prostitute? Since we both agree that her not being married is likely to lead to death or slavery (or at best, abject poverty, and here I am assuming that you know the condition of widows in ancient Palestine), I think having the rapist pay for her well being is a just settlement.

Still practicing emotive argumentation eh?

Perhaps that was done, I do not know. Clearly the law is trying to make the best of a disasterous situation, and given the lack of enforcement mechanisms in place in even modern societies (ever seen what it is like to track down a dead beat spouse?), how would you expect to enforce your theoretical law?

Deuteronomy 17:16 The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the LORD has told you, "You are not to go back that way again."

There are more of course. Now please stop implying or stating that I make assertions that I cannot support.

American laws, like Canadian, and most Europeon legal systems, are built on Judeo-Christian principles (like the king is subject to the law).

Nomad


[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited April 10, 2001).]

I want you to support the assertion that:
I did not deny that they may have put this in their books at one point, just that they were the first. And if English law was based on this, why did they not add that bit until 1215?

I will get to the rest later, if you want. I really don't care, and would be happy to sit back and watch the conversation progress without me. Your call.

OK, infies and fundies, I'll tell you about the context of rape in Orthodox Judaism today. The Haredim (Ultra-Orthodox) follow the rules of the Talmud punctiliously, so it'll serve:

If a woman gets rape, the Orthobozos regard here as "tme'a", that is, an impure woman. She is afterwards illegible for marriage and is doomed to lonely servitude in her father's home. Such was also in Biblical times. If a woman was raped she was doomed. To fix that, the Bible, a human product of its time, decrees that the rapist should marry her, the impure woman, so that she would not be doomed to solitude. In the context of a patriarchal(sp?), ritualistic society the law of the Bible makes perfect sense. Not for an immutable Word of God, though...

If you have any questions about the meaning of the Hebrew text, ask away and I'll give the accurate translation.


Shlomi Tal aka devnet.
http://www.geocities.com/stmetanat/home.html

Originally posted by Nomad:
See this article by Richard Carrier.

I have to admit that I didn't read the entire thing, but I missed where Richard Carrier quoted all those Founding Fathers' references to Solon the Athenian. Perhaps you could provide such quotations?

Nomad, I don't think you are reading the right part of the Bible here. In the situation I referred to (sexual enslavement of captured virgins), Deuteronomy clearly states "If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her". No mention of a lifelong duty to support the woman.
According to whose custom? She isn't a Jew, right? And the text specifically states that her new owner has to have her do this. At no point in this process is the woman given any choice to comply or refuse.
No, it says the man is not permitted to sell the woman to another. From the context, it seems rather obvious that she IS a slave/wife until he decides to get rid of her. Unless you're seriously suggesting that we should assume the woman willingly married one of those who had just genocidally slaughtered her people?

And I'd like to pick upon this:
Your reason for believing the Bible is not misogynist is...?

You are still trying to interpret these passages in the most favorable way you can, but surely you can see that the Bible certainly appears misogynist when taken at face value? So, given that any reader is expected to derive a clear moral code from it, why is this? And how do you explain Leviticus 12, where the birth of a boy makes the mother "unclean" for one week, but the birth of a girl makes her unclean for two weeks?

The idea that Judeo-Xtian law is the source of US law is basically unsupportable (find me some examples of a democratic Constitution with separation of powers in the Bible).

The Founding Fathers drew on an immense array of sources, but the most important were classical (pagan), with their emphasis on Constitutions, a mix of powers, etc. The Greco-Roman world was far more important than the Christian.

For example, here's an article on Polybius, Montesquieu, and the FFs:

http://www.sms.org/mdl-indx/polybius/polybius.htm

with a quote from a quote from it:

"It is no accident, then, that so many who gathered at Philadelphia to declare independence and a decade later to draft a constitution were men who had apprenticed themselves to Thucydides, Plato, Aristotle, Polybius, and Cicero, and who could debate at length on the various constitutional forms of the classical world before they chose one for the new American nation. We owe our very existence as a people in great part to classical learning."

From the Encyclopedia Americana from Grolier:

http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/ea/side/congus.html

The decisions of the Constitutional Convention to establish a bicameral Congress and to separate it from the executive illustrate a major theme of 18th century American political thought. The Founding Fathers emphasized checks and balances as means of assuring individual freedom and avoiding governmental tyranny. Similar principles had been stressed by classical political philosophers, including Solon, Plato, and Aristotle, in whom the Founding Fathers were well read, and also by contemporary theorists, among them Blackstone, Hume, and Voltaire, who were impressed by Newtonian analogies to the physical and natural order of the universe. Montesquieu thought he observed a nicely honed balance among English political institutions, especially in the separation of powers among legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Although Montesquieu's description was found inaccurate for the British system, his De l'esprit des lois (The Spirit of the Laws) nevertheless served the Founding Fathers as a model in writing the Constitution of their new nation.

The Constitution was written largely by men who feared, despised and hated Christianity, and who were Deists, which was, as Vidal once eloquently put it, what atheists of the time called themselves. How much do you think Jefferson or Madison, who laughed at Christ-inanity, drew on Judeo-Xtian tradition as the source for their writing and thinking?

American laws, like Canadian, and most Europeon legal systems, are built on Judeo-Christian principles (like the king is subject to the law).

For one thing, Continental Europe has a very different historical basis than the Anglo-Sxon common law system.

Here is the Britannica article on the evolution of European law:

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=84945&tocid=0

Didn't see much about Judeo-Xtian there. Note the opening paragraph:

Romano-germanic Law, the law of continental Europe, based on an admixture of Roman, Germanic, ecclesiastical, feudal, commercial, and customary law. European civil law has been adopted in much of Latin America as well as in parts of Asia and Africa and is to be distinguished from the common law of the Anglo-American countries.

Now for common law:

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=25376&tocid=0

Common law is the law that was developed in England after the Norman Conquest (1066), by judges who ruled in individual cases in the light of precedent or custom, with minimal recourse to statutes or enactments. This body of customary law continued to evolve through the end of the 18th century in England and its overseas colonies. Common law continues to undergo considerable modernization.

In other words, Civil (continental) law is a fusion of Germanic, Roman and other sources.
Common law is a continuation of non-Christian Anglo-Saxon laws (as the paragraph following the quote says).

Where is the great influence of the Judeo-Xtian tradition?

Nowhere!

Luckily. I wouldn't want to have to kill my wife because she wasn't a virgin when I married her.

In fact, can you find any great number of laws from the Bible still on the books, whose source IS the Bible and nothing else? I'd be interested to hear about those.

Michael

[This message has been edited by turtonm (edited April 11, 2001).]

The Magna Carta specifically dealt with taxation of the Barons by the King without their own agreement. How does this have any bearing on the idea that the King was subject to God's laws?

Remember that Henry II was excommunicated (twice I believe) for violating Canonical law, and he certainly was not the first secular European King to face this penalty.

On the other hand, if you have an example of a culture or civilization that predates Judaism and made the King subject to the law, please show us. So far as I am aware, the Western concept of all are subject to the law came from the Judeo-Christian traditions.

Nomad

Direct mention that she is not the man's slave either Jack. Further, you did not address my point that the woman may or may not be able to consent to the marriage. The passage is silent here, and you cannot draw a conclusion from silence.

Both Jews and non-Jews were subject to the same Jewish laws in Israel and Judah. BTW, in America, all Americans and non-Americans are subject to the same laws (subject to diplomatic immunity of course, but that is a fairly modern invention and is extremely limited in its scope).

...or to treat her as a slave. Why did you leave this bit out?

On what basis do you equate slavery with being a wife? Which law are you referring to here?

Don't ask people to prove negatives Jack. If you think the Bible is misogynist, you need to demonstrate why.

No I do not see this. It was written in the context of a patriachal social structure, but being male dominated, or even preferring males to females does not make one a woman hater by definition. Even the relative equality of the sexes in Western countries is still a late 20th Century innovation, and I'm sure you would not call all of human history prior to c. 1970 or so misogynist.

Probably the best way to look at this issue is to not get so carried away in condemning past cultures and their values, and try to look at them in a more even handed manner.

For example, you did know that according to God, there is neither male nor female right? That all are equal before the Lord?

No Jack. The Jews were very specifically given a unique moral and legal code that applied only to them. Christians, and Judeo-Christian based legal systems draw from this code, but we have never applied all of these laws to ourselves (nor are we expected to do this by God).

What's to explain? This does not promote hatred towards women. That is what misogyny is, and this is not a misogynist rule or law.

Nomad

Unless the description of the law specifically excludes the king, I'd say he is subject to it by default. Therefore any culture with a framework of laws would have this unless otherwise specified. And universal laws were a feature of the Athenian and Roman republics.

Of course, whether the laws were actually enforced upon the king is a separate issue. And one in which Christianity doesn't score particularly highly, especially as the Bible itself gives examples of kings flouting Biblical laws (e.g. all those concubines: how is this not adultery?).