Law of Moses Says Girls Must Marry Their Rapist, So Can Devout Jews Uphold US Laws?

[James_Madison_Lives]

https://steemit.com/omar/@munkle/law...on-and-us-laws


Law of Moses Says Girls Must Marry Their Rapist, So Can Devout Jews Uphold Constitution and US Laws?


The question has been asked, can an elected US Representative who happens to be Muslim be faithful to an oath to uphold the US Constitution? That is because some insist that Sharia Law and the Constitution are incompatible. The kerfuffle arose most recently when Fox News commentator Jeanine Pirro was taken to task for suggesting that because Rep. Ilhan Omar was Muslim, she could not be faithful to her oath to uphold the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land.


Pirro said:


"Is her adherence to this Islamic doctrine indicative of her adherence to Sharia law, which is in itself antithetical to the U.S. Constitution?"


The simple answer to this would be to merely point at the many Muslim majority countries which have long histories of secular government and law. If being a Muslim and secular law were incompatible, these types of countries would not exist.


Turkey, Indonesia, Kosovo, and Albania are a few examples of Muslim majority states that do not practice Sharia Law. Indonesia, although it has the world's largest Muslim population, recognizes six official religions.


Thus, the contention that a devout, practicing Muslim is fundamentally at odds with the US system of Constitutional law is false, and it equates all Muslims with the extremist elements which push for theocratic states whom, ironically, been funded and supported by the US and Israel as opponents to secular regimes such as that of Bashar al Assad's in Syria.


But to delve into the question further, how many other religions could be interpreted to be fundamentally at odds with our familiar system of Constitutional and common law? Is a devout Jew who adheres to the Torah, in which the Law of Moses is described at great length as the supreme law of the "One God," in the same predicament?


For example, among the 613 Commandments commonly accepted as emanating from the Hebrew Bible, the Torah, are the strictures:

• The rapist must marry his victim if she is unwed — Deut. 22:29
• Men must not shave the hair off the sides of their head — Lev. 19:27
• Men must not shave their beards with a razor — Lev. 19:27
• The courts must carry out the death penalty of stoning — Deut. 22:24
• Not to tattoo the skin — Lev. 19:28

With respect to the stoning of an unmarried couple which have had sex, the book is very clear, at Deut. 22:23 and Deut. 22:24:


"If there be a damsel that is a virgin betrothed unto a man, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die"
Of course it would be ridiculous to say that all devout Jews favor the stoning of unmarried couples who have had sex. The fact is that all religions are subject to the interpretation of their adherents, more literal or less, more severe or less severe. If Sharia Law were the inevitable outcome of a Muslim majority or even a determined Muslim minority, then countries like Turkey would not exist. No one is getting stoned in Turkey or being forced to grow their beards.


Where we do find such extremist interpretations, they are more often than not propagated by extremist radical factions which have their origins in US foreign meddling for the purpose of toppling legitimate secular governments, such as the Taliban in Afghanistan, an outgrowth of the Mujihadeen supported by the Carter administration, or ISIS in Syria.


https://steemit.com/omar/@munkle/law-of-moses-says-girls-must-marry-their-rapists-so-can-devout-jews-uphold-constitution-and-us-laws

[Superfluous Man]

Notice how the thread title reverses what the Law of Moses actually says. It doesn't require the woman who is raped to marry her rapist. It requires the rapist to marry her. The obligation is put on the criminal, not the victim. The assumption is that the woman and/or her father, who is responsible for her, agrees to it. In the ancient near eastern context, this is not as strange as it may sound to you, since it would generally be preferable to her remaining unmarried.

And how does this have anything to do with being able to uphold US laws? Is there a law that prohibits marriage between a rapist and his victim?

[James_Madison_Lives]

Notice how the thread title reverses what the Law of Moses actually says. It doesn't require the woman who is raped to marry her rapist. It requires the rapist to marry her. The obligation is put on the criminal, not the victim. The assumption is that the woman and/or her father, who is responsible for her, agrees to it. In the ancient near eastern context, this is not as strange as it may sound to you, since it would generally be preferable to her remaining unmarried.

And how does this have anything to do with being able to uphold US laws? Is there a law that prohibits marriage between a rapist and his victim?

You seem to know a bit about this.

As for your point, it is a distinction without a difference. If the man must marry the girl then obviously the girl must marry him too. How about no one marrying anyone and the rapist going to jail?

[acptulsa]

You seem to know a bit about this.

As for your point, it is a distinction without a difference. How about no one marrying anyone and the rapist going to jail?

It is in the context of the current culture. When the "Law of Moses" came about, there was no child support. There was marriage. Married men were expected to support their families, and that was the only way to get a man on the hook. That makes a distinct difference.

Whether or not a politician can rectify the letter of ancient laws with modern realities depends, I suppose, on how fundamentalist they are. And determining that is a job for the voters, in this country. I probably wouldn't endorse an evangelist for dog catcher.

[RJB]

You seem to know a bit about this.

As for your point, it is a distinction without a difference. If the man must marry the girl then obviously the girl must marry him too. How about no one marrying anyone and the rapist going to jail?

The penitentiary system is pretty modern. In the old days it was the lash or a similarly quick punishment or execution. When something like this happened in a small village not many people had the heart to execute someone. No one except a psychopath wants that job.

[Superfluous Man]

If the man must marry the girl then obviously the girl must marry him too.

That is not obvious to me. The text doesn't say that she has to if she doesn't want to, or if her father doesn't want her to. But if she and/or her father do want the rapist to take on the duty of caring for her and her children for the rest of his life as her husband, then the rapist is obligated to do so.

[Brian4Liberty]

With respect to the stoning of an unmarried couple which have had sex, the book is very clear

So the obvious workaround is to call it “rape”, and then the punishment is reduced to marriage.

[Superfluous Man]

So the obvious workaround is to call it “rape”, and then the punishment is reduced to marriage.

Reduced?


I kid.

[idiom]

Parents are also required to stone their fat kids to death in public.

No way would that work in America. There wold be no one left.

[Christian Liberty]

You seem to know a bit about this.

As for your point, it is a distinction without a difference. If the man must marry the girl then obviously the girl must marry him too. How about no one marrying anyone and the rapist going to jail?

Even assuming this passage is about rape (I'm not sure, some people think its about consensual fornication instead), its not a distinction without a difference. The presumption is that the girl and her father consider it preferable to be married to this man than to remain unmarried. The man is on the hook. Note that the girl's father can refuse the marriage.

[Christian Liberty]

Parents are also required to stone their fat kids to death in public.

No way would that work in America. There wold be no one left.

What that law had in mind was not merely "fat kids", but essentially irrepairable rebellion. The parents (who presumably wouldn't actually want to have their kids killed casually) AND the elders of the town would have to agree that execution was justified. ANd if you look at that text, the parents are accusing the (presumably adult) child of DRUNKENNESS, not just gluttony. Essentially its an adult child who's rebellious and refuses to stop getting drunk and stuffed on their parent's resources.

Yes, its harsh, but its not as harsh as you think it is.

[jmdrake]

You seem to know a bit about this.

As for your point, it is a distinction without a difference. If the man must marry the girl then obviously the girl must marry him too. How about no one marrying anyone and the rapist going to jail?

You seem to know a bit about this.

As for your point, it is a distinction without a difference. If the man must marry the girl then obviously the girl must marry him too. How about no one marrying anyone and the rapist going to jail?

Did you read the entire verse?

Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Does the father have to take the fifty shekels of silver even if he doesn't want it? If someone injures you and the court orders restitution do you have to take it?

There is an example of this story from the life of King David. One of his sons, Amon, raped his half sister, Tamar. After raping Tamar he got mad at her and put her out even though she begged him not to do that because that would bring shame on her. Her full brother Absolom later arranged to have Amon killed, not because of the rape, but because of the later shame.

See: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...13&version=NIV

Another story of rape in the Bible is the rape of Dinah.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...34&version=GNT

In that story, Dinah was hanging out with the women of Shechem. She was raped, but after the rape the rapist decided he loved her and wanted to marry her. Jacob was okay with the idea. Her brothers were not. They tricked the men of the city into getting circumcised, reasoning that then they would be able to intermarry, and while the men were still sore they killed all of them and took away the women and children. (Presumably to be part of their harems and/or slaves). Jacob was furious with his sons over this.

So...why would Jacob be okay with his daughter marrying her rapist? Back then women didn't have the same rights and opportunities that they have now. Social security for a woman was being married to a well to do man. Remember that Jacob's uncle/father-in-law (gross by today's standards I know), tricked Jacob into marrying Leah when Jacob really wanted Rachel. Why? Because Leah was crosseyed and Laban was afraid he'd never be able to marry her off and he'd be stuck having to care for her until he or she died. The "if you raped her you have to marry her" command was a "you break it....you bought it." rule.

Now, as to the main point of "Would I want to live under Mosaic law and more than I would want to live under Shariah law?" Absolutely not! There are some aspects of Mosaic law, and by extension Shariah law (Mohammed plagiarized Moses), that are good. Being against usury for example. And I love that whole "Year of jubilee" thing. But stoning people over adultery? Seriously? And that whole "kill off all the Caananites" (infidels under Shariah) thing ain't my cup of tea. (Again, Mohammed plagiarizing Moses...or maybe this was Joshua.)

But guess what? As a Christian I am not bound by the harshness of the law.

Romans 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

So...no stoning for adultery or breaking the Sabbath or fill in the blank. It's still wrong to worship idols, take God's name in vain, murder, steal, bear false witness etc. But the idea that man should put people to death for breaking the law goes against the Christian idea that Jesus fulfilled the law.

Matthew 5:17 King James Version (KJV)

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Islam, and I know I will offend Muslims by saying this, is a "backwards" religion in that it takes goes "backwards" from the Christian message that obedience to the law is based on love and not force to the "kill the infidels and stone the adulterers" idea found in the Old Testament. And to be fair to Islam, large swaths of Christianity has at times gone "backwards" with the whole burning heretics at the stake thing. There is no justification for that anywhere in the New Testament. Some people misinterpret Romans 13 to think it supports the state committing murder on behalf of the church, but remember that when Romans 13 was written Rome was a pagan empire and they were putting people to death for being Christians. So Paul couldn't be giving an endorsement of religious persecution, unless he was having a flashback to his pre-Christian zealous persecutor of the church days.

Anyway, that's my 5 cents adjusted for inflation.