Monday, June 04, 2007
Northern Rebels: Green Mountain Independence?
Read about the Vermont secession movement.
"The U.S. Government has lost its moral authority. It is owned, operated, and controlled by Corporate America. It has no soul." -- from Secession: A Radical Act of Rebellion Against the Empire.
"Radical Nonviolence and the Power of Powerlessness"
By Thomas H. Naylor
1. Human killing is an act of nihilism.
2. Violence begets more violence, not the other way around.
3. By whose authority other than the law of the jungle do those who kill or sanction killing set themselves up as prosecutor, judge, and executioner?
4. War is the ultimate form of having—owning, possessing, controlling, manipulating, and killing.
5. Just as active participation in the death of a human being is an expression of life’s meaninglessness, so too is the passive approval of state-sponsored executions, wars, and military combat.
(Continued in the first comment.)
Discuss.
--ER
"The U.S. Government has lost its moral authority. It is owned, operated, and controlled by Corporate America. It has no soul." -- from Secession: A Radical Act of Rebellion Against the Empire.
"Radical Nonviolence and the Power of Powerlessness"
By Thomas H. Naylor
1. Human killing is an act of nihilism.
2. Violence begets more violence, not the other way around.
3. By whose authority other than the law of the jungle do those who kill or sanction killing set themselves up as prosecutor, judge, and executioner?
4. War is the ultimate form of having—owning, possessing, controlling, manipulating, and killing.
5. Just as active participation in the death of a human being is an expression of life’s meaninglessness, so too is the passive approval of state-sponsored executions, wars, and military combat.
(Continued in the first comment.)
Discuss.
--ER
Comments:
<< Home
Wars and executions in the name of the state occur when our sense of community gives way to our pagan lust for revenge—a lust firmly grounded in nihilism.
Might doesn’t make right.
There is no such thing as a just war.
Wars are about money, power, wealth, size, and greed.
Wars are fought not to achieve social justice, but to serve the interests of political elites pretending to be patriots, who demonize their alleged enemies so as to manipulate their minions into sacrificing their lives for false ideals.
Those who fight in wars are either conscripted to do so or duped into doing so by people of the lie.
Nations which amass military might always find a way to use it.
The risk of war increases in direct proportion to the military power of the state.
Wars cover up a plethora of political and economic problems by deflecting public attention away from the real issues.
Make love, not war—share power and reduce tension.
Nonviolence is a proactive approach to conflict resolution that goes straight to the heart and soul of power relationships and demands strength, courage, and discipline, not just idle pacifism.
Radical nonviolence can undermine power and authority by withdrawing the approval, moral support, and cooperation of those who have been dealt an injustice. It derives its strength from the energy buildup and very real power of powerlessness.
Effective nonviolence must be thoroughly grounded in the will to win. It involves repeated confrontation, bobbing and weaving, engagement, and eventually complex negotiations.
Nonviolent rebellion involves denunciation, disengagement, demystification, and defiance.
Rebellion provides us with the faith to create meaning out of meaninglessness, the energy to connect with those from whom we are separated, the power to surmount powerlessness, and the courage to confront death.
Might doesn’t make right.
There is no such thing as a just war.
Wars are about money, power, wealth, size, and greed.
Wars are fought not to achieve social justice, but to serve the interests of political elites pretending to be patriots, who demonize their alleged enemies so as to manipulate their minions into sacrificing their lives for false ideals.
Those who fight in wars are either conscripted to do so or duped into doing so by people of the lie.
Nations which amass military might always find a way to use it.
The risk of war increases in direct proportion to the military power of the state.
Wars cover up a plethora of political and economic problems by deflecting public attention away from the real issues.
Make love, not war—share power and reduce tension.
Nonviolence is a proactive approach to conflict resolution that goes straight to the heart and soul of power relationships and demands strength, courage, and discipline, not just idle pacifism.
Radical nonviolence can undermine power and authority by withdrawing the approval, moral support, and cooperation of those who have been dealt an injustice. It derives its strength from the energy buildup and very real power of powerlessness.
Effective nonviolence must be thoroughly grounded in the will to win. It involves repeated confrontation, bobbing and weaving, engagement, and eventually complex negotiations.
Nonviolent rebellion involves denunciation, disengagement, demystification, and defiance.
Rebellion provides us with the faith to create meaning out of meaninglessness, the energy to connect with those from whom we are separated, the power to surmount powerlessness, and the courage to confront death.
Interesting stuff. I'm not sure about #2, though..."Violence begets more violence, not the other way around"...?
Wouldn't the other way around still be "more violence begets violence"?
Wouldn't the other way around still be "more violence begets violence"?
Ha. Poor wording. I'm sure he means "violence begets more violence," as opposed to "violence begets peace."
I'm reminded of a blustery general as depicted in a Jack Chick tract. He says:
"We're going to have peace even if means going to war to get it!"
In Chick's defense, I recall that he was holding up that thinking up as an example of the madness of worldly thinking.
Even a blind hog ...
I'm reminded of a blustery general as depicted in a Jack Chick tract. He says:
"We're going to have peace even if means going to war to get it!"
In Chick's defense, I recall that he was holding up that thinking up as an example of the madness of worldly thinking.
Even a blind hog ...
A liberal secessionist movement. Veddy interesting.
Reminds me of this historical fact: In the late 1860s and 1870s, Brazil's monarch was more liberal -- as in liberty-leaning -- than the supposedly democratic American South was, which Os Confederados (Confederate expats who fled to South America) learned to their chagrin just about the minute they got off the boat, when black and "colored" Brazilians walked right up to 'em, shook their hands and welcomed them.
Reminds me of this historical fact: In the late 1860s and 1870s, Brazil's monarch was more liberal -- as in liberty-leaning -- than the supposedly democratic American South was, which Os Confederados (Confederate expats who fled to South America) learned to their chagrin just about the minute they got off the boat, when black and "colored" Brazilians walked right up to 'em, shook their hands and welcomed them.
Well at least this proves that Texas wasn't the only independent country to join the United State voluntarily.
But his guy's rhetoric about the Second Vermont Republic has some underlying flaws. Such as he says they should be able to rebel because they are not like other States. Re: the others have lots of different ethnic groups etc.
http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2007/02/thomas-h-naylor-writings-on-race.html
I would also note that he is a Carpetbagger, coming from Richmond as he does.
The same source as above says he has 125 card carrying members. That's fewer than David Koresh had.
Interesting subject.
But his guy's rhetoric about the Second Vermont Republic has some underlying flaws. Such as he says they should be able to rebel because they are not like other States. Re: the others have lots of different ethnic groups etc.
http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2007/02/thomas-h-naylor-writings-on-race.html
I would also note that he is a Carpetbagger, coming from Richmond as he does.
The same source as above says he has 125 card carrying members. That's fewer than David Koresh had.
Interesting subject.
Sounds real purddy until evil comes knockin' at HIS door. I'm still waiting to hear how these non-violent types would have talked the 19 out of crashin' them planes. Nothing but touchy-feely nonsense spoken to those who pose no threat. Radical non-violence is a request to die. Fine. They think they're willing to confront death. Wonderful. Don't force others to do the same. These people are NOT noble, forward thinking, peace-loving, or honorable. They are fools with no understanding or appreciation for the existence of evil.
Are they ignoble then? Are they dishonorable?
How 'bout MLK Jr.? Ghandi?
Jesus his own self?
I think they're probably wack. And naive. But I wouldn't call them dishonorable or ignoble.
On the other hand, I think this country will balkanize, to sdome extent, someday.
These people are just getting their philosophical framework ready, just like the League of the South neo-secessionists.
How 'bout MLK Jr.? Ghandi?
Jesus his own self?
I think they're probably wack. And naive. But I wouldn't call them dishonorable or ignoble.
On the other hand, I think this country will balkanize, to sdome extent, someday.
These people are just getting their philosophical framework ready, just like the League of the South neo-secessionists.
BTW, Marshall, I'm learning not to mistake your bluntness for anger. My own bluntness gets mistaken for hubris a lot.
These people are talking about peace at any cost, even the loss of life of those who don't believe as they do. And to what end? What is served by mass extinction?
But look at the statements given:
#3--What kind of killing is being referred to here? If they're talking about capital punishment, then it is by the authority of the people (in this country) and supported by Scripture in Genesis. Two compelling sources of authority for a country's government despite the possibility some may not agree.
#4--War is also a means of defense of the nation. A government is charged with the protection of it's people. War is sometimes necessary to accomplish this task.
#5--Feeling that nothing is worth fighting for, that there is nothing worth risking life and limb for is an expression of a meaningless life. Indeed risking all PUTS meaning into life. In the case of capital punishment, it is a manifestation of cherishing life, that life is so precious it will cost you yours if take another's. This is not vengence, except to the shallow. It is punishment, the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime. Once established, it is what is demanded by the perpetrator of a capital crime.
From your comments:
That a given war may have been waged for revenge, not all wars are. Self-defense, or the defense of an oppressed people, or the eradication of a faction of radicals for whom death is held as glorious, particularly when it comes while murdering innocents in the name of their false god, these are just reasons for war. No such thing as a just war? I'd wager 6 million dead Jews might disagree. Wars not fought for social justice? Colonial Americans felt differently after repeated pleas for justice from the throne failed. And are you saying that anyone in this country needed to demonize the enemy we now face? Incredible! They ARE demons. They prove it with every opportunity.
The risk of war increases with the size of the military. Not so. For years it prevented war with the Soviet Union and Red China due to the threat it posed to them.
You may disagree with the reasons for a given war. That's a legitimate debate. Saying we must never go to war is another thing. Of course we must do all that we can to avoid war and we must never war for pure profit. But to say that there is no time at which war is required is the worst bleeding heart, naive and dangerous to one's loved ones attitude a citizen can have. It ignores and/or denies serious realities about human nature and the existence of evil. Maybe might does not make right, but it keeps wrong at a distance. When such notions of non-violence turns around the street gangs in this country, you might convince enough people to give it a try with those in the world for whom their own death is not a deterent.
But look at the statements given:
#3--What kind of killing is being referred to here? If they're talking about capital punishment, then it is by the authority of the people (in this country) and supported by Scripture in Genesis. Two compelling sources of authority for a country's government despite the possibility some may not agree.
#4--War is also a means of defense of the nation. A government is charged with the protection of it's people. War is sometimes necessary to accomplish this task.
#5--Feeling that nothing is worth fighting for, that there is nothing worth risking life and limb for is an expression of a meaningless life. Indeed risking all PUTS meaning into life. In the case of capital punishment, it is a manifestation of cherishing life, that life is so precious it will cost you yours if take another's. This is not vengence, except to the shallow. It is punishment, the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime. Once established, it is what is demanded by the perpetrator of a capital crime.
From your comments:
That a given war may have been waged for revenge, not all wars are. Self-defense, or the defense of an oppressed people, or the eradication of a faction of radicals for whom death is held as glorious, particularly when it comes while murdering innocents in the name of their false god, these are just reasons for war. No such thing as a just war? I'd wager 6 million dead Jews might disagree. Wars not fought for social justice? Colonial Americans felt differently after repeated pleas for justice from the throne failed. And are you saying that anyone in this country needed to demonize the enemy we now face? Incredible! They ARE demons. They prove it with every opportunity.
The risk of war increases with the size of the military. Not so. For years it prevented war with the Soviet Union and Red China due to the threat it posed to them.
You may disagree with the reasons for a given war. That's a legitimate debate. Saying we must never go to war is another thing. Of course we must do all that we can to avoid war and we must never war for pure profit. But to say that there is no time at which war is required is the worst bleeding heart, naive and dangerous to one's loved ones attitude a citizen can have. It ignores and/or denies serious realities about human nature and the existence of evil. Maybe might does not make right, but it keeps wrong at a distance. When such notions of non-violence turns around the street gangs in this country, you might convince enough people to give it a try with those in the world for whom their own death is not a deterent.
"BTW, Marshall, I'm learning not to mistake your bluntness for anger. My own bluntness gets mistaken for hubris a lot."
Cool. But for those rare occasions when I AM pissed, don't take it personally.
Cool. But for those rare occasions when I AM pissed, don't take it personally.
ER says; "On the other hand, I think this country will balkanize, to some extent, someday."
Before you go on to the next graduate levels of history take some undergraduate political and economic geography course to leven your tendencies.
Marshall Art, you must be relatively young. Of course they expect death. All of their role models that eventually succeeded were killed by their opposition. Non-violence is always only a one way street. If you aren't willing to die for it, you don't do it.
Me personally, I admire them, but I tend towards killing my enemies.
Before you go on to the next graduate levels of history take some undergraduate political and economic geography course to leven your tendencies.
Marshall Art, you must be relatively young. Of course they expect death. All of their role models that eventually succeeded were killed by their opposition. Non-violence is always only a one way street. If you aren't willing to die for it, you don't do it.
Me personally, I admire them, but I tend towards killing my enemies.
I'm sorry, I need clarification. Are you saying you admire Islamic head-choppers because they look forward to dying while taking out as many "non-believers" as possible? Say it ain't so.
Yes. In my opinion I'm relatively young. In the opinion of others, young stops long before 50. I'm old enough to recognize nonsense when I see it.
Yes. In my opinion I'm relatively young. In the opinion of others, young stops long before 50. I'm old enough to recognize nonsense when I see it.
Marshall, the first comment is an extension of the Green Mountain man's writing.
GENOCIDE is "supported by Scripture in Genesis." Maybe Exodus. Genesis is a legitimate basis for nothing.
Won't surprise you to leanr I'm against capital punishment in all cases. For one reason: The state should not have the power to kills it's own citizens. It's a slippery power that could be used against anyone who doesn't fit the majority's concept of morality, decency or politics.
Drlobo: I do, actually, have a bachelor's degree in political science. Are you saying you can't imagine the US of A coming apart. No one ever sees such coming.
GENOCIDE is "supported by Scripture in Genesis." Maybe Exodus. Genesis is a legitimate basis for nothing.
Won't surprise you to leanr I'm against capital punishment in all cases. For one reason: The state should not have the power to kills it's own citizens. It's a slippery power that could be used against anyone who doesn't fit the majority's concept of morality, decency or politics.
Drlobo: I do, actually, have a bachelor's degree in political science. Are you saying you can't imagine the US of A coming apart. No one ever sees such coming.
MA said: "I'm sorry, I need clarification. Are you saying you admire Islamic head-choppers because they look forward to dying while taking out as many "non-believers" as possible? Say it ain't so."
How in the shit do you get that out of statements about people in NON-VIOLENT movements? You don't need clarification you need some reading comprehension courses. Your stimulus and response systems seem to be intact but the integration structure needs some training.
ER said: "Are you saying you can't imagine the US of A coming apart. No one ever sees such coming."
Of course it will come apart, no Nation or Empire has yet existed that hasn't. But, like the second coming, that time is not at hand. It takes a lot of things to disassemble a structure and culture. The trend for America leans more towards expansion rather reduction. After the U.S. expansion into Canada, Mexico, Central America , and the Carribean then the reverse pressure to disassemble will be probable. Things work faster now than in the past, so it won't be hundreds of years. But we should last another century or so.
I do note that Thomas Naylor books do denote his tendency towards anti-status quo and reductionism:
1.Affluenza: The All-Consuming Epidemic
2.The Search for Meaning
3.The Abandoned Generation: Rethinking Higher Education
4. Downsizing the U.S.A
5. The Vermont Manifesto
and others as well. From what I can read of Naylor he is kinda like Ghandi in that he seems to want to pull out his spinning wheel and retreat to the village, and take us all with him. No thanks.
I am serious about recomending some geography courses. It is another way of seeing the world that could be useful to what you want to do. "Geography is to life, as the stage is to the play."
How in the shit do you get that out of statements about people in NON-VIOLENT movements? You don't need clarification you need some reading comprehension courses. Your stimulus and response systems seem to be intact but the integration structure needs some training.
ER said: "Are you saying you can't imagine the US of A coming apart. No one ever sees such coming."
Of course it will come apart, no Nation or Empire has yet existed that hasn't. But, like the second coming, that time is not at hand. It takes a lot of things to disassemble a structure and culture. The trend for America leans more towards expansion rather reduction. After the U.S. expansion into Canada, Mexico, Central America , and the Carribean then the reverse pressure to disassemble will be probable. Things work faster now than in the past, so it won't be hundreds of years. But we should last another century or so.
I do note that Thomas Naylor books do denote his tendency towards anti-status quo and reductionism:
1.Affluenza: The All-Consuming Epidemic
2.The Search for Meaning
3.The Abandoned Generation: Rethinking Higher Education
4. Downsizing the U.S.A
5. The Vermont Manifesto
and others as well. From what I can read of Naylor he is kinda like Ghandi in that he seems to want to pull out his spinning wheel and retreat to the village, and take us all with him. No thanks.
I am serious about recomending some geography courses. It is another way of seeing the world that could be useful to what you want to do. "Geography is to life, as the stage is to the play."
Drio,
Keep it in your pants, pal. It's pretty obvious that your meaning in your comments is not obvious. That is how I got what I got from your post. At this point, I have no idea to what you were responding. But I will declare this: I will take greater care to state to whom it is I'm responding, I will request clarification for the least bit of confusion, and I will not assume you're the pig's ass you seem to be.
Keep it in your pants, pal. It's pretty obvious that your meaning in your comments is not obvious. That is how I got what I got from your post. At this point, I have no idea to what you were responding. But I will declare this: I will take greater care to state to whom it is I'm responding, I will request clarification for the least bit of confusion, and I will not assume you're the pig's ass you seem to be.
ER,
No. Your position on CP doesn't surprise me. I don't like that it's necessary, but like I said, or implied, justice isn't served without it for capital crimes. I do have reservations, that being that it's difficult to repent, but then there's the fact that it's unlikely that one wouldn't assume conviction comes with that price. And of course, mistakes can be made, but diligence can be inproved and there's decades of appeals for the average case to sort that out. It should be used sparingly for only the most grievous offenses, but it should be used. Finally, though it's not a primary purpose, or even on the official list of purposes as it were, there is a deterent factor, no matter how slight it might seem.
No. Your position on CP doesn't surprise me. I don't like that it's necessary, but like I said, or implied, justice isn't served without it for capital crimes. I do have reservations, that being that it's difficult to repent, but then there's the fact that it's unlikely that one wouldn't assume conviction comes with that price. And of course, mistakes can be made, but diligence can be inproved and there's decades of appeals for the average case to sort that out. It should be used sparingly for only the most grievous offenses, but it should be used. Finally, though it's not a primary purpose, or even on the official list of purposes as it were, there is a deterent factor, no matter how slight it might seem.
Oh, I agreee there is a slight deterrent effect. And I agree that it metes out "justice" when used ethically. What I doubt is the ability of any nation-state to use it ethically -- and I doubt any nation-state's ability to not put it in the hands of a madman, democratically elected republics being a little messy that way sometimes. In short, I don't want people like me to be able to decide that people like you should be killed in the name of justice. Or vice versa.
Not that I have much problem with the "family avenger" concept talked about in Numbers. I mean, I can see it. Not that I believe it's the way we should do things now. Much. See the movie "Next of Kin." It does speak to me.
Not that I have much problem with the "family avenger" concept talked about in Numbers. I mean, I can see it. Not that I believe it's the way we should do things now. Much. See the movie "Next of Kin." It does speak to me.
MA, said to Drio: "I will not assume you're the pig's ass you seem to be."
Hum, pig's ass. Marshall Art your beginning to get me interested in you. I'm beginning to have fantasies about us interacting together. I hope you've read my postings carefully. There are things there that you may want to remember.
You do still have handcuffs don't you?
I've got to go on a little trip later tonight. Be sure to hang around ER's blog till I get back and don't let him treat you like the others have. Hang well my little Snooz Dude until the Dr. returns.
Hum, pig's ass. Marshall Art your beginning to get me interested in you. I'm beginning to have fantasies about us interacting together. I hope you've read my postings carefully. There are things there that you may want to remember.
You do still have handcuffs don't you?
I've got to go on a little trip later tonight. Be sure to hang around ER's blog till I get back and don't let him treat you like the others have. Hang well my little Snooz Dude until the Dr. returns.
(snicker)
I advise ya not to stick yer toe in the gutter, MA, less'n yer ready to get took way down by a real pro. There are a few 'round here for whom "Deliverance" was seen for the cautionary tale it actually was: Don't eff with the barely civilized, in other words, less'n yer really ready to fight dirty. DrLobo has done seen the elephant.
I advise ya not to stick yer toe in the gutter, MA, less'n yer ready to get took way down by a real pro. There are a few 'round here for whom "Deliverance" was seen for the cautionary tale it actually was: Don't eff with the barely civilized, in other words, less'n yer really ready to fight dirty. DrLobo has done seen the elephant.
OH! That's an "L"!!! Man oh Man for all seasons, my eyes be failin'. DR LOBO JO. Now I get it.
And if my eyes aren't further deceived, someone's panties are in a twist. Is there such a thing as fightin' clean? Ah, intimidation. It excites me so much I need a nap.
And if my eyes aren't further deceived, someone's panties are in a twist. Is there such a thing as fightin' clean? Ah, intimidation. It excites me so much I need a nap.
So tell me, ER, what am I to make of this type of response? As you can see, I've made my contact info available, and your bud feels it's his place to lay it out in the open. Though I have been known to talk trash on particular blogs, I've tried to be respectful here with only the slightest bit of snarkiness for fun. Is this what I'm getting from the good Dr.? Your follow up suggests something more. I've checked out his profile and he offers no contact info, but I notice that half his movie faves would make my list, particularly Zulu and Red River and some on his book list. Take that The Crow Killer. Could that be the real story of Jeremiah Johnson? What am I to make of this fellow? Is he one who can give but not take? Is he taking fun to a new level, or is he looking to see how dense my dark side be? Enlighten me. Either of you are welcome to contact me directly to enlighten me.
Drlobojo has a dark side. I think what pushed him over was your basic lack of knowledge about the legal status of women and children under the Law of Moses -- chattel, that is, property, which has nothing to say about how they were TREATED -- and your petulant demand that he prove it when it is as well-known and plain as "Texas is a geographically expansive state." Seriously. That kind of ignorance in a discussion that asusumes one has basic historical facts at hand is disturbing, but to so emotionally defend it is infuriating. Hard to respect someone in such a situation.
As for mentioning your moniker, he couldn't have gotten it unless you had already put it out there somehow.
But he can speak for himself.
As for mentioning your moniker, he couldn't have gotten it unless you had already put it out there somehow.
But he can speak for himself.
Oh, and "pig's ass." That probably pissed him off. You acknowledged it being over the top, but you left it there. That was asking for real shit. So he gave you some.
I beg your pardon? He did not state his position in a manner that suggests anything less than a specific point that women were horribly abused, which is a far cry from being held in lower regard, which I believe is more accurate. Hence, this would indicate he's talking about something far more specific than a "general knowledge" which is as far as I've gone with my comments. I think I have tried, though perhaps not to complete satisfaction, to support MY position, but on this point he just threw it out there. Requesting support was totally appropriate and if THAT pisses you off, Dr, then you need to stay on your meds.
As to the "pig's ass" comment, I take it you rank that as a harsher term than "white trash", which is the first comment I've read of yours, or the overall insulting tone of your responses. If you then can't handle a little blowback, you might want to consider a more civil approach. Secondly, my use of the term is in deference to my daughter for whom the term "horse's ass" is completely unacceptable and a slight toward horses, which she can't abide. But regarding your overall tone, "jerk" is the more common appellation and entirely appropriate. You don't expect me to think you're NOT trying to get a dig in, do you? So if snarky is your game, set the parameters sharply so I don't cross whatever line is in your head and hurt your obviously sensitive feelings. Or, we can just converse like men who can handle a little mockery.
As to the "pig's ass" comment, I take it you rank that as a harsher term than "white trash", which is the first comment I've read of yours, or the overall insulting tone of your responses. If you then can't handle a little blowback, you might want to consider a more civil approach. Secondly, my use of the term is in deference to my daughter for whom the term "horse's ass" is completely unacceptable and a slight toward horses, which she can't abide. But regarding your overall tone, "jerk" is the more common appellation and entirely appropriate. You don't expect me to think you're NOT trying to get a dig in, do you? So if snarky is your game, set the parameters sharply so I don't cross whatever line is in your head and hurt your obviously sensitive feelings. Or, we can just converse like men who can handle a little mockery.
As I said, DrLobo can speak for himself. I don't know exactly what sent him over. He coulda got off his meds.
Old testament: The Value of Women in the Law
In Numbers, chapter 5, we find this god giving Moses commands about what to do with jealous husbands. The first thing to note is that this god apparently doesn’t care about jealous wives — if they suspect their husband of infidelity, their god offers them no recourse.
The second thing to note is that the husband requires no evidence that his wife has been unfaithful. The whole passage is about a husband who is jealous, nothing more.
And what’s the test? The priest is to gather up dirt from the tabernacle floor, mix it with water, and force the woman to drink the concoction. With the state of sanitation at the time, I’m not sure I want to know what might have lived in that dirt — but any woman with a jealous husband had to consume it. If she was guiltless, nothing would happen as a result of the cursed water. If she was guilty, she would become ill.
Such “trials by fire” were not uncommon in primitive cultures - but should we expect an all-loving god of all humanity to encourage them, much less promote their use on only half his creation? The above is certainly not the only case where women are treated as being inferior to men:
Suppose a man enters into marriage with a woman, but she does not please him because he finds something objectionable about her, and so he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house; she then leaves his house and goes off to become another man’s wife.
(Deut. 24:1-2)
If [the city] accepts your terms of peace and surrenders to you, then all the people in it shall serve you at forced labor. If it does not submit to you peacefully, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; and when the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword. You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, livestock, and everything else in the town, all its spoil. You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the LORD your God has given you.
(Deut. 20:11-14)
Speak to the people of Israel, saying: If a woman conceives and bears a male child, she shall be ceremonially unclean seven days; as at the time of her menstruation, she shall be unclean. Her time of blood purification shall be thirty-three days; she shall not touch any holy thing, or come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purification are completed. If she bears a female child, she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her menstruation; her time of blood purification shall be sixty-six days.
(Lev. 12:2-5)
A man can divorce a woman merely because he finds something, anything, objectionable about her. A woman, however, appears to be stuck no matter how objectionable the husband is. Women are treated like war booty — if they are virgins, that is. Although this may be preferable to being killed like all the men, it does indicate that virgin women are regarded as little more then property. Bearing a female child renders a mother unclean for twice as long as bearing a male child — apparently, this god views women as being inherently unclean and less worthy. It is not to be wondered at, then, that only men could be priests.
It should not be surprising to find such laws among those written by humans from other cultures — in particular, men. Humans are prejudiced against those who are different, and men have long harbored prejudices against women. Some prejudices have continued to this day. But would a god worthy of even a modicum of our respect really promote laws which treated half of humanity as property and less worthy than the other half.
How the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) generally viewed women:
Women's behavior was extremely limited in ancient times, much as the women of Afghanistan during the recent Taliban oppression. They were:
Unmarried women were not allowed to leave the home of their father.
Married women were not allowed to leave the home of their husband.
They were normally restricted to roles of little or no authority.
They could not testify in court.
They could not appear in public venues.
They were not allowed to talk to strangers.
They had to be doubly veiled when they left their homes. 1
In the Hebrew Scriptures, women were generally viewed in a negative light:
Women were considered inferior to men:
Genesis 1:27 to 3:24:
In the first creation story (Genesis 1:27) God is described as creating man, both male and female at the same time: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." 2 This might be interpreted as implying equality between the two genders.
But in the second creation story, (Genesis 2:7) God formed only a man: "...the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Realizing that he needed a helper (Genesis 2:18), God marched all of the animals past Adam (Genesis 2:19-20) looking for a suitable animal. Finding none suitable, God created Eve out of one of Adam's ribs. The term "helper" has historically been interpreted as implying an inferior role for Eve, although some modern interpreters believe that the word can mean a companion of equal status. "...the Hebrew word translated "helper" is used twenty-one times in the Old Testament: twenty of these cases refer to help from a superior." (3) In Genesis 2:27, Adam later asserts his authority over Eve by naming her: "...she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." In ancient times, one was believed to have authority over a person or thing by naming it.
Genesis 3:16: Adam's role is to be Eve's master. The King James Version (KJV), New International Version (NIV), and Revised Standard Version (RSV) use the term "rule" to describe Adam's role over Eve: "...thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." The Living Bible uses the term "master". The Modern Language Bible uses "dominate". By implication, all of their descendents are would have the same power imbalance between spouses.
A man could marry (literally "become the master of the woman") as often as he desired. In Genesis 4:19, Lamech became the first known polygamist when he took two wives. Subsequent men who took multiple wives included: Esau with 3 wives; Jacob: 2; Ashur: 2; Gideon: many; Elkanah: 2; David: many; Solomon: 700 wives of royal birth; Rehaboam: 3; Abijah: 14. Jehoram, Joash, Ahab, Jeholachin and Belshazzar also had multiple wives.
Genesis 16:2 : Sarah gave permission to her husband Abraham to engage in sexual intercourse with her maid, Hagar: "Sarai said unto Abram...I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her." Presumably this was done without the consent of Hagar, who had such a low status in the society of the day that she was required to submit to multiple rapes at her owner's command.
Genesis 19:8: The men of Sodom gathered around Lot's house, and asked that he bring his two guests out so that the men can "know" them. This is frequently interpreted as a desire to gang rape the visitors, although other interpretations are possible. Lot offers his two virgin daughters to be raped instead: He is recorded as saying: "I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes." Yet, even after this despicable act, Lot is still regarded as an honorable man, worth saving from the destruction of the city. Allowing one's daughters to be sexually assaulted by multiple rapists appears to be treated as a minor transgression, because of the low status of the young women.
Genesis 21:10: A man could simultaneously keep numerous concubines. These were sexual partners of an even lower status than a wife was. As implied in this verse she could be dismissed when no longer needed: Sarah is recorded as saying: "...Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac." Abraham had two concubines; Gideon: at least 1; David: many; Nahor: 1; Jacob: 1; Eliphaz: 1; Gideon: 1; Caleb: 2; Manassah: 1; Saul: 1; David: at least 10; Rehoboam: 60; Solomon: 300; an unidentified Levite: 1; Belshazzar: more than 1.
In Exodus 1:15-16, the Pharaoh ordered the midwives to kill all Jewish boys at birth, because of the threat that they might pose to the kingdom. "And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live." The girls, being considered less important, were not seen as a threat; they were allowed to live.
Exodus 20 & 21: This is perhaps the most misogynistic pair of chapters in the Bible. A number of verses describe a woman as the property of her father. At marriage, her ownership was transferred to her new husband:
Exodus 20:17 lists the last of the Ten Commandments: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." It is important to realize that a manservent and a maidservant were male and female slaves. They were not a hired butler and maid. The tenth commandment forbids coveting your neighbor's house, wife, male slave female slave, animals or anything else that the neighbor owns. The wife is clearly regarded as equivalent to a piece of property.
Exodus 21:2-4: "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing....If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself." A slaveowner was permitted to give a woman to his male slave as a wife. There is no indication that women were consulted during this type of transaction. After serving six years, he would leave, but his wife and children would remain slaves of the slaveowner. Again, there is no indication that the woman was consulted on this arrangement,
Exodus 21:7: "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do." A father could sell his daughter as a slave. Even though a male slave is automatically given his freedom after 6 years, a female slave remained a slave forever.
Exodus 22:16-17: The first seventeen verses of Exodus 22 deal with restitution in case of stealing, or damage to, a person's property. Verses 16 and 17 deal with the case of a man who seduces a virgin. This was viewed as a property offense against the woman's father. The woman was expected to marry the seducer. If her father refused to transfer ownership of his daughter to the seducer, the latter was required to required to pay money to her father. The money would be in compensation for the damage to the father's property - his daughter. It would be difficult for a non-virgin to marry.
Exodus 21:22-25 describes a situation in which two men are fighting and one hits a pregnant woman. If the woman has a miscarriage because of the blow, the man is punished as the husband decides and must pay a fine for their act - not to the woman, but to her husband, presumably because he has been deprived of a child. The woman had no involvement. Exodus 21:22: "...he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine."
Exodus 23:17 states that only men are required to take part in the feasts of unleavened bread, of harvest and of ingathering: "Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord GOD."
Leviticus: This book deals mainly with the duties of the priesthood, the Levites. Women were not allowed to become priests.
Leviticus 12:1-5 Quotes God as stating that a woman who has given birth to a boy is ritually unclean for 7 days. If the baby is a girl, the mother is unclean for 14 days. "If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days...But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks..." It would appear that the act of having a baby is a highly polluting act. To give birth to a girl is twice as polluting as is giving birth to a boy.
In Leviticus 18:20 adultery was defined as a man having sexual intercourse with his neighbor's wife. "Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her." Leviticus 20:10 "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." Deuteronomy 22:23 extends this prohibition to a man sleeping with a woman who is engaged to be married. If a man has an affair with an unmarried woman, the act is not considered adultery. Married men were free to visit prostitutes. A man who committed adultery did not commit a wrongful act against his own wife, but rather against his male neighbor.
Leviticus 27:6 A child aged 1 month to five years of age was worth 5 shekels if a boy and 3 shekels if a girl. "And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver."
Numbers 3:15 shows that a census counted only male infants over the age of one month, boys and men. "Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them." Females were not considered worthy of being included.
Numbers 5:11-31 describes a lengthy magical ritual that women were forced to perform if their husbands suspected them of having had an affair. A priest prepared a potion composed of holy water mixed with sweepings from the floor of the tabernacle. He proclaimed a curse over the potion and required the woman to drink it. If she were guilty, she would suffer greatly: her abdomen would swell and her thighs waste away. There is no similar magical test for husbands suspecting of having an affair with another woman.
In Numbers 27:8-11, Moses describes the rules of inheritance that God has stated. If a man dies, his son inherits the estate; his daughter gets nothing. Only if there is no son, will his daughter inherit. If there are no children, then the estate is given to the man's brothers; his sister(s) get nothing. If he had no brother, the estate goes to his nearest male relative. "...If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter. And if he have no daughter, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his brethren. And if he have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his father's brethren. And if his father have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his kinsman that is next to him of his family...."
Numbers 30 describes that a vow taken by a man is binding. But a vow taken by a woman can be nullified by her father, if she is still living in her family of origin, or by her husband, if she is married.
Deuteronomy 21:10-13 describes how a soldier can force a woman captive to marry him without regard for her wishes. "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife."
Deuteronomy 22:13-21 requires that a woman be a virgin when she is married. If she has had sexual relations while single in her father's house, then she would be stoned to death. There were no similar virginity requirements for men. "If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid....if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you."
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 requires that a virgin woman who has been raped must marry her attacker, no matter what her feelings are towards the rapist. "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife...."
Deuteronomy 24:1 describes the procedure for obtaining a divorce. This can only be initiated by the husband, not by the wife: "When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house."
Deuteronomy 25:5-10: states that if a woman is widowed, she would be required to marry her former brother-in-law. This was called a "levirate" marriage. Their first-born son will later be considered to be the son of the deceased husband. The man could refuse to marry her. Women were not given a choice in the matter. " If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her."
Deuteronomy 25:11: If two men are fighting, and the wife of one of them grabs the other man's testicles, her hand is to be chopped off. There is no penalty if a male relative were to grab the other man. "When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets. Then thou shalt cut off her hand..."
Judges 19:16-30 describes an event similar to Genesis 19. Some men in the city wanted to "know" a visiting Levite. The owner of the house offered his virgin daughter and the Levite's concubine so that the men could rape them. Verse 24 states: "Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing." The man sent his own concubine outside to the gang, who proceeded to serially rape her. She died of the attacks. The man only learned of her death when he was leaving the house in the morning and stumbled across her body. The woman was clearly considered expendable and of little value.
2 Chronicles 36:23 mentions the Second Temple which was constructed after some Jews returned from exile in Babylon. It was rebuilt by Herod late in the 1st century BCE. One of its features was women's court, considered the least sacred area. Next was the court of the Israelites (reserved for males), then the court of the Priests, and finally the Temple itself. The courts were laid out in this order to separate the women as far as possible from the Temple.
During the Second Temple period, women were not allowed to testify in court trials. They could not go out in public, or talk to strangers. When outside of their homes, they were to be doubly veiled. "They had become second-class Jews, excluded from the worship and teaching of God, with status scarcely above that of slaves." 3
Women viewed as sexual predators, deceitfully and worthy of special punishment:
Women as sexual predators:
Genesis 19:30-36: This passage describes how Lot's two daughters made their father drunk with wine on two successive nights. Each daughter committed incest with her father, and became pregnant. Their two sons, Moab and Ben-Ammi became the patriarchs of the Moabite and Ammonite people, who were two of Israel's most serious foes.
In Judges 16, Delilah seduced Samson in order to find out the secret of his great strength. This ultimately led to Samson's death.
1 Kings 11 describes how Solomon's many foreign wives and concubines convinced him to worship other Gods and build Pagan temples. This was believed to have led to his downfall.
Women as deceitful and untrustworthy:
Genesis 39:7-20: Potiphar was an official in the court of the Pharaoh. His wife unsuccessfully attempted to seduce Joseph. She later falsely accused him of attempting to rape her, and had him arrested.
Women singled out for special punishment:
Deuteronomy 22:13-21: A bride who had been presented as a virgin, and who could not be proven to be one, was to be stoned to death by the men of her village. Verse 21 says: "Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you." The woman would be allowed to live if her previous owner --her husband -- could produce evidence in the form of blood caused by her hymen breaking when her husband first engaged in sexual intercourse with her. Of course, this would not be much of a defense if she happened to have been born without a hymen or if it broken broken because of heavy exercise. There appears to have been no similar penalty for men who had engaged in consensual pre-marital sexual activity.
Numbers 5:17-31 "Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water....." This passage describes the action that a husband could take if he suspected that his wife had engaged in an adulterous relationship. He would take her to the tabernacle, where the priest would make a magical drink consisting of holy water and sweepings from the tabernacle floor. He would have the woman drink the water while he recited a curse on her. The curse would state that her abdomen would swell and her thigh waste away if she had committed adultery. In that era when medical treatment was almost unknown, the treatment would probably have resulted in her death. If she were pregnant at this time, the curse would certainly induce an abortion. There was no similar magical test that a woman could require her husband to take if she suspected him of adultery.
In Numbers, chapter 5, we find this god giving Moses commands about what to do with jealous husbands. The first thing to note is that this god apparently doesn’t care about jealous wives — if they suspect their husband of infidelity, their god offers them no recourse.
The second thing to note is that the husband requires no evidence that his wife has been unfaithful. The whole passage is about a husband who is jealous, nothing more.
And what’s the test? The priest is to gather up dirt from the tabernacle floor, mix it with water, and force the woman to drink the concoction. With the state of sanitation at the time, I’m not sure I want to know what might have lived in that dirt — but any woman with a jealous husband had to consume it. If she was guiltless, nothing would happen as a result of the cursed water. If she was guilty, she would become ill.
Such “trials by fire” were not uncommon in primitive cultures - but should we expect an all-loving god of all humanity to encourage them, much less promote their use on only half his creation? The above is certainly not the only case where women are treated as being inferior to men:
Suppose a man enters into marriage with a woman, but she does not please him because he finds something objectionable about her, and so he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house; she then leaves his house and goes off to become another man’s wife.
(Deut. 24:1-2)
If [the city] accepts your terms of peace and surrenders to you, then all the people in it shall serve you at forced labor. If it does not submit to you peacefully, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; and when the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword. You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, livestock, and everything else in the town, all its spoil. You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the LORD your God has given you.
(Deut. 20:11-14)
Speak to the people of Israel, saying: If a woman conceives and bears a male child, she shall be ceremonially unclean seven days; as at the time of her menstruation, she shall be unclean. Her time of blood purification shall be thirty-three days; she shall not touch any holy thing, or come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purification are completed. If she bears a female child, she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her menstruation; her time of blood purification shall be sixty-six days.
(Lev. 12:2-5)
A man can divorce a woman merely because he finds something, anything, objectionable about her. A woman, however, appears to be stuck no matter how objectionable the husband is. Women are treated like war booty — if they are virgins, that is. Although this may be preferable to being killed like all the men, it does indicate that virgin women are regarded as little more then property. Bearing a female child renders a mother unclean for twice as long as bearing a male child — apparently, this god views women as being inherently unclean and less worthy. It is not to be wondered at, then, that only men could be priests.
It should not be surprising to find such laws among those written by humans from other cultures — in particular, men. Humans are prejudiced against those who are different, and men have long harbored prejudices against women. Some prejudices have continued to this day. But would a god worthy of even a modicum of our respect really promote laws which treated half of humanity as property and less worthy than the other half.
How the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) generally viewed women:
Women's behavior was extremely limited in ancient times, much as the women of Afghanistan during the recent Taliban oppression. They were:
Unmarried women were not allowed to leave the home of their father.
Married women were not allowed to leave the home of their husband.
They were normally restricted to roles of little or no authority.
They could not testify in court.
They could not appear in public venues.
They were not allowed to talk to strangers.
They had to be doubly veiled when they left their homes. 1
In the Hebrew Scriptures, women were generally viewed in a negative light:
Women were considered inferior to men:
Genesis 1:27 to 3:24:
In the first creation story (Genesis 1:27) God is described as creating man, both male and female at the same time: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." 2 This might be interpreted as implying equality between the two genders.
But in the second creation story, (Genesis 2:7) God formed only a man: "...the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Realizing that he needed a helper (Genesis 2:18), God marched all of the animals past Adam (Genesis 2:19-20) looking for a suitable animal. Finding none suitable, God created Eve out of one of Adam's ribs. The term "helper" has historically been interpreted as implying an inferior role for Eve, although some modern interpreters believe that the word can mean a companion of equal status. "...the Hebrew word translated "helper" is used twenty-one times in the Old Testament: twenty of these cases refer to help from a superior." (3) In Genesis 2:27, Adam later asserts his authority over Eve by naming her: "...she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." In ancient times, one was believed to have authority over a person or thing by naming it.
Genesis 3:16: Adam's role is to be Eve's master. The King James Version (KJV), New International Version (NIV), and Revised Standard Version (RSV) use the term "rule" to describe Adam's role over Eve: "...thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." The Living Bible uses the term "master". The Modern Language Bible uses "dominate". By implication, all of their descendents are would have the same power imbalance between spouses.
A man could marry (literally "become the master of the woman") as often as he desired. In Genesis 4:19, Lamech became the first known polygamist when he took two wives. Subsequent men who took multiple wives included: Esau with 3 wives; Jacob: 2; Ashur: 2; Gideon: many; Elkanah: 2; David: many; Solomon: 700 wives of royal birth; Rehaboam: 3; Abijah: 14. Jehoram, Joash, Ahab, Jeholachin and Belshazzar also had multiple wives.
Genesis 16:2 : Sarah gave permission to her husband Abraham to engage in sexual intercourse with her maid, Hagar: "Sarai said unto Abram...I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her." Presumably this was done without the consent of Hagar, who had such a low status in the society of the day that she was required to submit to multiple rapes at her owner's command.
Genesis 19:8: The men of Sodom gathered around Lot's house, and asked that he bring his two guests out so that the men can "know" them. This is frequently interpreted as a desire to gang rape the visitors, although other interpretations are possible. Lot offers his two virgin daughters to be raped instead: He is recorded as saying: "I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes." Yet, even after this despicable act, Lot is still regarded as an honorable man, worth saving from the destruction of the city. Allowing one's daughters to be sexually assaulted by multiple rapists appears to be treated as a minor transgression, because of the low status of the young women.
Genesis 21:10: A man could simultaneously keep numerous concubines. These were sexual partners of an even lower status than a wife was. As implied in this verse she could be dismissed when no longer needed: Sarah is recorded as saying: "...Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac." Abraham had two concubines; Gideon: at least 1; David: many; Nahor: 1; Jacob: 1; Eliphaz: 1; Gideon: 1; Caleb: 2; Manassah: 1; Saul: 1; David: at least 10; Rehoboam: 60; Solomon: 300; an unidentified Levite: 1; Belshazzar: more than 1.
In Exodus 1:15-16, the Pharaoh ordered the midwives to kill all Jewish boys at birth, because of the threat that they might pose to the kingdom. "And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live." The girls, being considered less important, were not seen as a threat; they were allowed to live.
Exodus 20 & 21: This is perhaps the most misogynistic pair of chapters in the Bible. A number of verses describe a woman as the property of her father. At marriage, her ownership was transferred to her new husband:
Exodus 20:17 lists the last of the Ten Commandments: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." It is important to realize that a manservent and a maidservant were male and female slaves. They were not a hired butler and maid. The tenth commandment forbids coveting your neighbor's house, wife, male slave female slave, animals or anything else that the neighbor owns. The wife is clearly regarded as equivalent to a piece of property.
Exodus 21:2-4: "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing....If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself." A slaveowner was permitted to give a woman to his male slave as a wife. There is no indication that women were consulted during this type of transaction. After serving six years, he would leave, but his wife and children would remain slaves of the slaveowner. Again, there is no indication that the woman was consulted on this arrangement,
Exodus 21:7: "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do." A father could sell his daughter as a slave. Even though a male slave is automatically given his freedom after 6 years, a female slave remained a slave forever.
Exodus 22:16-17: The first seventeen verses of Exodus 22 deal with restitution in case of stealing, or damage to, a person's property. Verses 16 and 17 deal with the case of a man who seduces a virgin. This was viewed as a property offense against the woman's father. The woman was expected to marry the seducer. If her father refused to transfer ownership of his daughter to the seducer, the latter was required to required to pay money to her father. The money would be in compensation for the damage to the father's property - his daughter. It would be difficult for a non-virgin to marry.
Exodus 21:22-25 describes a situation in which two men are fighting and one hits a pregnant woman. If the woman has a miscarriage because of the blow, the man is punished as the husband decides and must pay a fine for their act - not to the woman, but to her husband, presumably because he has been deprived of a child. The woman had no involvement. Exodus 21:22: "...he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine."
Exodus 23:17 states that only men are required to take part in the feasts of unleavened bread, of harvest and of ingathering: "Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord GOD."
Leviticus: This book deals mainly with the duties of the priesthood, the Levites. Women were not allowed to become priests.
Leviticus 12:1-5 Quotes God as stating that a woman who has given birth to a boy is ritually unclean for 7 days. If the baby is a girl, the mother is unclean for 14 days. "If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days...But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks..." It would appear that the act of having a baby is a highly polluting act. To give birth to a girl is twice as polluting as is giving birth to a boy.
In Leviticus 18:20 adultery was defined as a man having sexual intercourse with his neighbor's wife. "Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her." Leviticus 20:10 "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." Deuteronomy 22:23 extends this prohibition to a man sleeping with a woman who is engaged to be married. If a man has an affair with an unmarried woman, the act is not considered adultery. Married men were free to visit prostitutes. A man who committed adultery did not commit a wrongful act against his own wife, but rather against his male neighbor.
Leviticus 27:6 A child aged 1 month to five years of age was worth 5 shekels if a boy and 3 shekels if a girl. "And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver."
Numbers 3:15 shows that a census counted only male infants over the age of one month, boys and men. "Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them." Females were not considered worthy of being included.
Numbers 5:11-31 describes a lengthy magical ritual that women were forced to perform if their husbands suspected them of having had an affair. A priest prepared a potion composed of holy water mixed with sweepings from the floor of the tabernacle. He proclaimed a curse over the potion and required the woman to drink it. If she were guilty, she would suffer greatly: her abdomen would swell and her thighs waste away. There is no similar magical test for husbands suspecting of having an affair with another woman.
In Numbers 27:8-11, Moses describes the rules of inheritance that God has stated. If a man dies, his son inherits the estate; his daughter gets nothing. Only if there is no son, will his daughter inherit. If there are no children, then the estate is given to the man's brothers; his sister(s) get nothing. If he had no brother, the estate goes to his nearest male relative. "...If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter. And if he have no daughter, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his brethren. And if he have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his father's brethren. And if his father have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his kinsman that is next to him of his family...."
Numbers 30 describes that a vow taken by a man is binding. But a vow taken by a woman can be nullified by her father, if she is still living in her family of origin, or by her husband, if she is married.
Deuteronomy 21:10-13 describes how a soldier can force a woman captive to marry him without regard for her wishes. "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife."
Deuteronomy 22:13-21 requires that a woman be a virgin when she is married. If she has had sexual relations while single in her father's house, then she would be stoned to death. There were no similar virginity requirements for men. "If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid....if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you."
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 requires that a virgin woman who has been raped must marry her attacker, no matter what her feelings are towards the rapist. "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife...."
Deuteronomy 24:1 describes the procedure for obtaining a divorce. This can only be initiated by the husband, not by the wife: "When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house."
Deuteronomy 25:5-10: states that if a woman is widowed, she would be required to marry her former brother-in-law. This was called a "levirate" marriage. Their first-born son will later be considered to be the son of the deceased husband. The man could refuse to marry her. Women were not given a choice in the matter. " If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her."
Deuteronomy 25:11: If two men are fighting, and the wife of one of them grabs the other man's testicles, her hand is to be chopped off. There is no penalty if a male relative were to grab the other man. "When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets. Then thou shalt cut off her hand..."
Judges 19:16-30 describes an event similar to Genesis 19. Some men in the city wanted to "know" a visiting Levite. The owner of the house offered his virgin daughter and the Levite's concubine so that the men could rape them. Verse 24 states: "Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing." The man sent his own concubine outside to the gang, who proceeded to serially rape her. She died of the attacks. The man only learned of her death when he was leaving the house in the morning and stumbled across her body. The woman was clearly considered expendable and of little value.
2 Chronicles 36:23 mentions the Second Temple which was constructed after some Jews returned from exile in Babylon. It was rebuilt by Herod late in the 1st century BCE. One of its features was women's court, considered the least sacred area. Next was the court of the Israelites (reserved for males), then the court of the Priests, and finally the Temple itself. The courts were laid out in this order to separate the women as far as possible from the Temple.
During the Second Temple period, women were not allowed to testify in court trials. They could not go out in public, or talk to strangers. When outside of their homes, they were to be doubly veiled. "They had become second-class Jews, excluded from the worship and teaching of God, with status scarcely above that of slaves." 3
Women viewed as sexual predators, deceitfully and worthy of special punishment:
Women as sexual predators:
Genesis 19:30-36: This passage describes how Lot's two daughters made their father drunk with wine on two successive nights. Each daughter committed incest with her father, and became pregnant. Their two sons, Moab and Ben-Ammi became the patriarchs of the Moabite and Ammonite people, who were two of Israel's most serious foes.
In Judges 16, Delilah seduced Samson in order to find out the secret of his great strength. This ultimately led to Samson's death.
1 Kings 11 describes how Solomon's many foreign wives and concubines convinced him to worship other Gods and build Pagan temples. This was believed to have led to his downfall.
Women as deceitful and untrustworthy:
Genesis 39:7-20: Potiphar was an official in the court of the Pharaoh. His wife unsuccessfully attempted to seduce Joseph. She later falsely accused him of attempting to rape her, and had him arrested.
Women singled out for special punishment:
Deuteronomy 22:13-21: A bride who had been presented as a virgin, and who could not be proven to be one, was to be stoned to death by the men of her village. Verse 21 says: "Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you." The woman would be allowed to live if her previous owner --her husband -- could produce evidence in the form of blood caused by her hymen breaking when her husband first engaged in sexual intercourse with her. Of course, this would not be much of a defense if she happened to have been born without a hymen or if it broken broken because of heavy exercise. There appears to have been no similar penalty for men who had engaged in consensual pre-marital sexual activity.
Numbers 5:17-31 "Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water....." This passage describes the action that a husband could take if he suspected that his wife had engaged in an adulterous relationship. He would take her to the tabernacle, where the priest would make a magical drink consisting of holy water and sweepings from the tabernacle floor. He would have the woman drink the water while he recited a curse on her. The curse would state that her abdomen would swell and her thigh waste away if she had committed adultery. In that era when medical treatment was almost unknown, the treatment would probably have resulted in her death. If she were pregnant at this time, the curse would certainly induce an abortion. There was no similar magical test that a woman could require her husband to take if she suspected him of adultery.
# posted by 
: 3:00 PM
: 3:00 PM
What I got was a long unnecessary printing of that to which I had already conceded.
What I didn't get was proof that women were brutalized in the manner suggested by Doc, which was "for any reason". The nastiness described was all part of punishment for sins as prescribed by God. So they were indeed property or less than males, but my point was that it was unnecessary to state that what was prohibited for a man was therefor also prohibited for a woman and that's because they were less than a man. How would it be that man was not allowed to steal, but women could? So obviuosly, if a man was prohibited from same-sex behavior, so would be a woman. She didn't need her own prohibition. Doesn't this seem logical?
What I didn't get was proof that women were brutalized in the manner suggested by Doc, which was "for any reason". The nastiness described was all part of punishment for sins as prescribed by God. So they were indeed property or less than males, but my point was that it was unnecessary to state that what was prohibited for a man was therefor also prohibited for a woman and that's because they were less than a man. How would it be that man was not allowed to steal, but women could? So obviuosly, if a man was prohibited from same-sex behavior, so would be a woman. She didn't need her own prohibition. Doesn't this seem logical?
I have to correct a portion of my last. I misquoted the Dr. and I regret that, though that's how I construed(?) his actual statement. But no matter, what lead to it was my point regarding the reduncancy of also having to state a prohibition for the women of what was already prohibited for the men.
I could post a similarly long list of things from the Bible that are not logical, so I'll set that aside.
I think you've tweaked your objection to cover your heiny because you so energetically objected from the get-go. And you were wrong.
But hey, I'm wrong and embarassed about it, too, sometimes.
I think you've tweaked your objection to cover your heiny because you so energetically objected from the get-go. And you were wrong.
But hey, I'm wrong and embarassed about it, too, sometimes.
"If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife...."
I am aware of this sorta stuff in the Bible, but I am always taken a bit aback when I actually re-read it.
Let me state clearly: I do NOT think this sort of imagery represents God's will for us. At all.
You can call that a wrong interpretation of God's word, or just a rule that people made up that didn't represent God's will, or whatever, but don't suggest that God wants women to marry their rapists.
That would just be an offense to God and humanity, seems to me. Literal interpretation, indeed.
I am aware of this sorta stuff in the Bible, but I am always taken a bit aback when I actually re-read it.
Let me state clearly: I do NOT think this sort of imagery represents God's will for us. At all.
You can call that a wrong interpretation of God's word, or just a rule that people made up that didn't represent God's will, or whatever, but don't suggest that God wants women to marry their rapists.
That would just be an offense to God and humanity, seems to me. Literal interpretation, indeed.
That's one of a thousand reasons I've coem to see the Bible as sacred because of its place in Judeo-Christian history -- and authoritative as the sole canonical founding documents of the faiths -- and not because of its supposed origins; and best seen as humans' inspired, yet HUMAN response to encounters with the divine, rather than something as tidy as "God's revelation to humankind."
I didn't "tweak" my objection, I came right up to, but stopped short of, an actual apology. But go back and check and you'll see I restated my original point just fine.
ER, when you gonna learn, for some people it ain't about being correct, it is all about being right.
Post a Comment
<< Home
