Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Off Topic Rape victim is sentenced to 200 lashes

Thanks, Terry for the clarification on Mosaic Law. But I do want to add that my first comments were specific to the 10 Commandments.

carol

First a disclaimer: Please don't misread my arguments as a defense of clear human rights violations.


But was this "higher universal moral" code was always in place? This seems to be implied by stating the historical precedent for the UN Declaration, for instance. But this evidence can easily go the other way. The UN Declaration's history also makes it an object of imperialism. As someone said (forgot who, sorry ), reflects the experiences of the Europeans that first sat down to write it, not necessarily the experiences of most of the world.

So the document's history itself makes it not-so-universal, what draws me to it, personally is its openness (again the opportunity for critique and revision) and the wide participation in it, and of course we still have a ways to go.

What this indicates to me however, is that there's been some development over what we consider "right" and "wrong" over time--I think Ann said something along these lines. Was it simply that the world at large lived in complete ignorance of this higher code? I don't think so, the people living in those times where atrocities where commited and sanctioned by the law probably wouldn't think so either.

I am not arguing that witch hunts are "right" (before someone jumps the gun and disregards my disclaimer). My point here is that I'm not sure we have any solid basis to make such a universal argument of what is "right" and "wrong." Again, don't get me wrong I personally agree with what Terry names as "right" and "wrong" , but I know it's easy to say that here and in most of the West. If this morality standard truly "transcends anything man can assemble or enforce," then what do we do with it other than say it exists in a crowd of likeminded people?

More concretely, if the argument is pushed forward to enforcement, the problem then lies in the instances such as as the article Ann reacted to. In this article, we see what Saudi law dictates as "wrong." Period. Clearly, they do not--at least in the law. On what basis do we persuade them to change their minds?

Of course I do--but you don't have to convince me or anyone else on the thread about that, for that matter. If this argument crosses over to enforcement however (and I think it does for several people on this thread), then I strongly believe all of these horrible things will still continue. You just can't walk up to people and say, "X is wrong." They'll inevitably ask, "Why?" The universal morality argument says, "It just is." I'm not sure that's helpful.

Ultimately, it's easy to argue for a particular absolute in an audience that subscribes and supports a certain worldview, but how do we reach those who do not?

That, to me, is the most important question and I don't think the answer lies in universals.

alcyone

This , I hope, shows the thinking I'm coming from.

Yes, Terry, I can agree with what you said in your last post.

As I have read through this thread, however, I can see that Hasini and Alcyone have made important points when they say that it is altogether too easy to condemn an entire society because of one shortcoming of the society in question. It is also too easy to assume a position of superiority just because you have been born in a country that fortune and circumstances have smiled on. That's true... that's absolutely true. And yet, and yet... I'm not backing down from my position that a society does not deserve the same respect as any other if it is severely misogynist. It also does not deserve the same respect as any other if it is extremely racist, or if it openly accepts a system of slavery, or if it allows people to be executed for criticizing the government, etcetera.

Let me try to explain what I mean by offering yet another example from the Old Testament (which is an incredibly fascinating document, by the way). Anyway, my example is from the book of Judges, which according to many scholars contains the oldest descriptions of the life and society of the people whose land would eventually be known as Israel. What sort of life did these people live? It is very interesting to look at the terms on which God and the children of Israel entered into their Covenant, when the Israelites were given the law of Moses. The Israelites had to keep this law, but what would they receive from God in return?

Sorry about the long quote, but I think it is important. What God promises Moses and the Israelites if they keep his law is not that they will get to spend eternity in heaven. No, instead God promises the Israelites that they will be successful here on earth. Specifically, God promises that the Israelites will be able to defeat their enemies, they will control the land, they will have enough to eat, they will not suffer from sicknesses, and people, livestock and the land will all be fertile.

To me, this suggests that the people who get such a promise from God know all too much about being harassed by enemies, about not having enough to eat, about suffering from diseases, and about barely being able to make new life survive on the hard and barren soil that they hoped to claim as their own.

In short: This was a people that was literally fighting for its very existence. The people were fighting to succeed as a nation, and they were fighting to survive as individuals in spite of diseases and starvation.

When life is very hard, it is probable that the people become hard, too, in order to survive. One thing that the people in the Old Testament do all the time is sacrifice animals to God. By ritually killing and burning animals the Israelites were hoping to please and appease God, so that he would bless the Israelites in return. Because in this barren land, they so desperately needed God's blessing.

In a nation where it is absolutely natural, indeed mandatory, to sacrifice animals, it must become tempting to give God an even grander gift - by sacrificing humans, too. The custom of sacrificing people to the gods is one that has existed in huge parts of the world.



This is the so-called man from Tollund, a man who was ritually sacrificed in Denmark about 2,400 years ago.

What does the Bible say about sacrificing people to God? It forbids it. This, for example, is what Deuteronomy 18 says:

Here the Bible says that other nations in that area practised child sacrifice (that is almost certainly what is implied by the words about making one's son or daughter "pass through the fire). So killing one's child and sacrificing him or her to God was not acceptable according to the law of Moses. Even so, the custom of child sacrifice existed and was apparently practised among many nations and peoples of that area and at that time.

Now for the story from Judges. In chapter eleven of that book, we are told the story of Jephthah from Gilead, a great warrior. He is going to lead an attack on a people called the Ammonites. But to ensure God's help in the battle against the Ammonites, Jephthah promised God that he would sacrifice "whoever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites" (Judges 11:31). In other words: Jephthah promised God that he would kill the first member of his household who came out to meet him when he returned home victorious from his battle.

So who was it who came to meet Jephthah, then? It was his daughter. His only child. Jephthah is stricken when he sees his daughter, because he really didn't want to kill her. But she was the first person who came to meet him, and he had promised God that he would kill that person.

How does his daughter react? She knows that a vow that a man makes when speaking to God is unbreakable. Her father made a vow which, due to extremely unfortunate circumstances, means that he must kill her. He must kill her and sacrifice her to God. Should she try to talk him out of it?

No. The daughter knows how extremely important her father's faith in God is, and she knows what the law of Moses says about vows. The daughter concludes that neither she nor her father has a choice. He must kill her, and they must both accept it.

All she asks for is a reprieve of two months.

But after two months, her time was up.

He did with her according to his vow what he had vowed; in other words, he killed her.

Can I respect this society, where a father can ritually kill and sacrifice his circa fourteen-year-old daughter because of a vow he has made? I can give no short and simple answer. I feel an incredible sympathy for the daughter, and for her maturity and unbelievable courage. I sympathize with the father's anguish, when he realizes that his religious belief forces him kill his daughter according to the vow he has made.

I also feel a general sense of sympathy and respect for the fight for survival that this people, the Israelites of ancient Israel, had to fight all the time. And I can understand that they would sacrifice animals to make the mighty God help them, and I can understand that they were tempted to sacrifice people, too.

But, bottom line: I can't respect Jephthah's decision to promise God that he would kill the first member of his household that came out to meet him when he returned victorious from his battle. Bottom line, I can't respect a society that gives the head of a household the right to kill any other member of that household and sacrifice him or her to God.

And just picturing a father taking a knife in one hand, and grabbing his daughter with his other hand, and then plunging the knife into his daughter's heart... no, I can't respect it. I can't respect a society or a father that allows such a thing to happen. Or at the very, very least, I can't respect that society the way I would respect a society that wouldn't allow such a thing. And Jephthah's society apparently did allow it. Because even though the law of Moses forbids child sacrifices, there is no condemnation of Jephthah's behaviour in the book of Judges.

There are reasons for why it happened. And that kind of thing happened in Scandinavia, too.

We should try to understand. There are always reasons for why things are the way they are. And being lucky yourself doesn't give you the right to condemn others who are less fortunate.

But that doesn't mean we should have to say that one society is always just as good and just as worthy of respect as any other.

Let me just say that in the case of Jephthah's daughter, some people did remember, and mourn. They remembered and mourned year after year. The people who mourned were young women:

The daughters of Israel mourned Jephthah's daughter. They did not not allow her death to be forgotten. And thereby, they did not allow other young women to be sacrificed so easily because their fathers had uttered a hasty vow to God.

The young women of Israel did not allow themselves to be that victimized any more. Now that is something I can so fully and completely respect.

Ann

I realize this is an old topic, and it kind of got diverted a little, but here's a new one! A 16 year old girl is strangled to death by her dad for not wearing a hajib. This one happened in Canada, so I guess the US shouldn't be allied with Canada anymore if they can't stop this kind of stuff from happening. Gotta wonder why there's no human's rights groups, or women's rights groups voicing their outrage on this yet

Canada is not responsible for the fact that this man murdered his daughter. Canada is only responsible for the punishment it metes out when it puts this man on trial. Will the Canadian court rule that this man's Muslim faith gives him the right to kill his daughter? No, we can be sure that the court will not come to such a decision. Will it rule that the man's Muslim faith should be seen as extenuating circumstances, so that he should be given a lighter sentence than if he had been a Christian, a Jew, a Buddhist, a Hindu or an atheist? No, the court will reject any such claims. The court will find the man guilty of murder, and the fact that he killed his daughter in order to protect his family's honour will, if anything, be seen as aggravating circumstances.

So there is no need to blame or boycott Canada!

Ann

Ann, I wish I could be as confident about the judicial system as you undoubtedly are. Speaking from the experience of several cases in Germany about honor killings, it's quite possible that the perpetrator (the father in this case) can get a lower sentence because he believed e was doing the right thing or had acted according to tradition. I know it has happened in Germany, and it caused quite a scandal for a few weeks. But then, everybody seemed to have forgotten about it again.

Well, we Canadians still have crimes happening here, sadly.

This Toronto story is tragic, as are all murders. We do not, however, have the death penalty - the maximum sentence for first degree and second degree murder is life imprisonment which is 25 years. In some cases, in second degree murder, the convicted killer is eligible for parole much sooner.

Very recently a man convicted of 2nd degree murder for the euthanasia killing of his severely disabled daughter who was in a great deal of pain that could not be alleviated was refused parole.

In the Missassauga case cited above, I doubt our courts will treat the killer more leniently. In fact, I suspect that Moslem-Canadians are horrified by the crime this man committed.

carol

Then they need to stand up and say so, because right now it's guys like this that are representing their ideals.

Hope this links works. This article is from one of our leading newspapers this morning

National Post

carol

About twenty-five years ago, we had a case in Sweden where a Muslim man beat up his girlfriend, not hurting her seriously, but according to Swedish law he was not allowed to beat her at all. His lawyer argued that because this man was a Muslim, he was used to thinking that he had a right to beat up his girlfriends, and Swedish courts should take this into account and not give the man any punishment. The court bought this argument and ruled that the man had committed a crime, but he would not be punished for it because he couldn't know that he was not allowed to do what he had done.

Understandably, this caused an uproar among feminists. "Do we have to accept that a man can beat us up and get away with it because he is a Muslim?" they asked. The case was appealed to a higher court, and the higher court overturned the earlier sentence. It ruled that anyone who is within the borders of Sweden has to obey Swedish law, regardless of what preferences or beliefs this person may have. What is forbidden in Sweden is forbidden, and not knowing or approving of the law is not an excuse for breaking it.

Ever since then, it has not been seen as extenuating circumstances to have a different religious or cultural background when you commit a crime in Sweden. Or at least, not when you use violence against another person.

Ann

What right does any man have to deat up his wife or girlfriend or any woman for that matter? We hear this thing time and time again across all culture. The only difference is in western countries we all take a stand against it. In fact in Australia, the government has been running an ad campaign stating that 'To violence against women Australia says NO.' Not only that the government has established a confidential helpline for those in need of it.

At the end of the day though it is US who have make the choice whether to seek help or not. In cases such as honour killings I have heard that most people don't get away with it and personally if they do somehow evade a prison term or have a reduced sentence because of their religion we should close that loop hole because at the end of the day it is still murder and well don't one of the Ten Commandments say 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'?

The problem with honor killings in Germany is that they're usually well-planned. Quite often, they're executed by a younger, obviously male member of the family, making use of the fact that young people between 14 and 18 years can't get more than 10 years of prison for any sort of murder. And when such a young boy is put to trial, the lawyer makes sure to tell the jury how deluded the poor fellow is, that he was badly influenced by his father's strict Muslim beliefs. Often, the killer doesn't get even the full 10 years, and the sentence even gets reduced afterwards for good conduct in prison. It's one of the terrible loopholes in our judicial system, I'm afraid.

As a matter of fact, it's rather misogynic. In Germany, tax fraud and theft are often punished harsher than rape, even when the victim is still a child! And, what adds insult to injury, it's usually the rapist that gets paid a therapy, not the victim. Here in Germany, the top priority seems to be to re-integrate prisoners into "normal" society, even if they have been sentenced for rape on more than one occasion. After all, what is another ruined life of a woman compared to the life of an acknowledged rapist?

There were several cases of repeat offenders, mostly child molesters which made one change to our system possible: By now, dangerous individuals can be kept in prison for safe-keeping even after their sentence expired. Unfortunately, there are too many psychiatrists around that attest that these monsters are "completely healed" and "unlikely to repeat their crime".

It's one of the reasons my daughter will start learning karate as soon as she turns five.