Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Off Topic Chechnya's President Ramzan Kadyrov defends honor killings of women

Today, on what Sweden regards as the International Day of Women (March 8), Sweden's biggest daily Dagens Nyheter reports that the President of Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov, defends honor killings of women.

On November 26, six women were found murdered outside Grozny, the capital of Chechnya, and three days later the body of a seventh woman was found. Ramzan Kadyrov's initial reaction was to condemn the murders. Now, according to the Swedish newspaper, Kadyrov has made a moral and political U-turn in an effort to strengthen islamist values in Chechnya. The newspaper reports that Kadyrov now says that the slaughtered women deserved their fate, because they were immoral. The Chechnyan President now wants to give men the right to kill wives and daughters whose morals they disapprove of. Such killings, far from being crimes, should be seen as acts of honor, like the word honor killings suggests they are.

You may have heard that the Pakistani government has reached a truce with militant Talibans in the Swat Valley in Pakistan. One price the government may have to pay for this truce is that girls in the Swat Valley will not be allowed to go to school at all.

Yesterday I wrote about an archbishop in Brazil who excommunicated doctors who performed an abortion on a raped 9-year-old pregnant with twins, but as far as can be gleaned from articles reporting the case, the Archbishop said little if anything about the man who had impregnated the child.

Clearly the last case, the one about the girl in Brazil, is by far the least serious. That is also the only case that involves Christianity. The other two cases are about Islam.

All three cases show, in my opinion, that religions that claim the right to pass moral and religious judgements on others find it easy to pass judgement on girls and women. However, it is so much more unusual that the same religions pass judgement on men for treating women badly.

I remember a documentary I saw about fifteen years ago about two German priests who had come to live and work in a village in some part of South America. The priests, who were as kindly as they were devout, were worried about the fact that so many of the villagers were living in sin. Almost all of the adults were into sexual relationships, and they had children, but they were not married to their sex partners. The priests talked a lot with the villagers, particularly with the women, and tried to persuade them to get married.

Finally a woman explained to the priests why she herself would never get married. In her village, she said, men routinely beat up women, but when a woman has been beaten up badly enough by a man, she will leave him. Alternatively, if she knows that he is going to beat her half to death, she may be able to stop him by telling him that she will leave him if he keeps beating her. The men take such a threat seriously, she explained, because they know that the woman will stick by her word.

But, the woman said, what could she do if she was married? The Catholic Church forbids divorce. The men in her village knew very well that the Church forbids divorce. If a woman gets married, then she can do nothing to stop her husband from beating her. She can't defend herself at all, because the Church says she belongs to her husband.

And, I might add, the Catholic Church so rarely tells men not to beat up their wives. Men's violence against women has rarely been seen as a serious problem by the Church.

The two priests in the documentary told the reporters about the conversation they had had with the woman who explained why she would not get married. The priests looked quite shaken. Why, they said, had the Church never done anything to protect women from the violence of men? Why did the Church force women to live in sin because it would say or do nothing to stop men from terrorizing women? Why did the Church force women to choose between saving their mortal bodies, by staying unmarried, and saving their immortal souls, by getting married and thereby getting beaten up and maybe killed?

Too often religions which claim the right to pass judgement on other people condemn and punish women, but they will not condemn or punish men who terrorize or kill women.

By far the worst crimes against women committed in the name of religion happen in the Muslim world, because fundamentalist Islam will go so very much further than Christianity when it comes to men's right to brutalize, terrorize and murder women. That, however, doesn't make it all right for churches here in the west to condemn women's sexual sins and say nothing about rapists and wife-beaters.

Ann

IN MY OPINION the reason this is so is because in all cases the head of the religions are men. Although in the Catholic Church I do believe that if the mother's life as well as the child's life are in danger an abortion can be done without danger of excommunication.

In a number of non-Christian religions the women have no rights, the men have all the rights. He can divorce the wife and take the children etc. So why would men be interested in changing women's rights. They get everything now, they aren't going to give that up. Again JUST MY OPINION and a generalization of what I've heard.

Y'know, when Jesus was on earth, he actually treated women a lot better than most of his contemporaries. He claimed them as his friends, and accepted women as his disciples; most (if not all) other rabbis/teachers at the time would never allow that, because (to them) women were clearly inferior and not worth teaching.

The New Testament specifically talks about women having equal worth with men -- "there is neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek, but all are one in Christ Jesus."

In practice, of course, this doesn't always work. In fact a lot of the time it gets really twisted. Get human beings involved in anything and they'll screw it up. People are selfish, and power corrupts.

<tangent>The Bible does seem to talk about different *roles* for men and women, and there's plenty of controversy about how to interpret that, but that doesn't contradict the equal worth part. I like the way my pastor puts it. "Wife, you must respect your husband. Husband, you must *love* your wife, treat her better than you treat yourself and, if necessary, die for her." I think that's in Ephesians 6. </tangent>

(For the record, there are many more Christian churchs than just Catholic, and the differences in doctrine and culture can be quite stark, so "Catholic" does not mean "every Christian everywhere". I'm just saying.)

I think my point is, when Christians mis-treat women, they're going *against* the example of Jesus. Mohammed, on the other hand, specifically said that women were inferior to men. He was known to beat his wives, and in the Koran he endorses that (though some translations have it that men should beat their wives "lightly" and only if they were disobedient -- isn't that much better?) There's sexism and abuse built into Islam.

There is a difference between a good Muslim and a bad Christian. For one thing, which would you rather be -- excommunicated or beheaded?

PJ

This is just the type of generalizing discussion that I hate, where someone takes an example of bad behavior and uses it to say "see, I told you. That entire religion of XXXBillion People really is corrupt, or even worse..All of **THOSE** people really are evil."

pam's quote: **Mohammed, on the other hand, specifically said that women were inferior to men. He was known to beat his wives, and in the Koran he endorses that (though some translations have it that men should beat their wives "lightly" and only if they were disobedient -- isn't that much better?) There's sexism and abuse built into Islam.**

Yes, the Koran is very sexist. I have studied it along with many other religious texts and it is irritating when people who haven't done so then use their limited knowledge to make blanket statements about other religions. FYI, the *standard* English translation says "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband’s) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all)."

Minus the beating lightly, it is not much worse than anything St. Paul said about submitting to their husbands, being silent, not usurping authority or speaking in public. The Old Testament is rife with rape, incest, polygamy, etc. Which is no excuse to go making blanket statements about all of judeo-christianity

Mohammad was known to beat his wives? Who said? An eyewitness from 1500 years ago? That doesn't help your point. The ridiculousness of hearsay helps mine.

I believe that all major religions are sexist. I have read the Old and the New Testament very carefully, and I have read the Koran enough to say something intelligent about it. To me there is no doubt that the Bible and the Koran are primarily sexist, even if they certainly contain non-sexist passages and parts. As for Hinduism, I have only read a few passages of the Bhagadvad Gita, but enough to come across an extreme case of sexism. I have not read any Buddhist, Taoist or Confucian texts, but judging from those societies which have been shaped by those religions, I'd say those religions are sexist, too.

Why do all major religons seem to be sexist? I can think of a few possible explanations. First, it is possible that God himself really created man to be superior to woman, and woman to be the helper of man. If that is the case, then it is absolutely right that all religions should be sexist, because then God himself decided that woman should be less than man. And then God probably also wanted woman to subject herself to man, and man to rule over woman.

That is one possible reason for the sexism of all major religions. But when we discuss the will of God, I myself find it incredibly interesting that God himself never interferes in the lives of humans and never makes his will really known. In particular, God never reaches down to the Earth to stop ongoing brutalities. You may say that I'm completely wrong here, and that God most certainly makes his will known and that he works miracles here and now. I'm not going to argue with those of you who feel that God has personally helped you or your family. I will say, however, that God doesn't stop major ongoing brutalities. If God is almighty, he could stop such things. He could have stopped the Holocaust before it even got started. He could have stopped the men who flew the airplanes into World Trade Center. He could stop the ongoing atrocities in Darfur. But God doesn't do such things.

Some people are in a position to harm other people. If God is almighty, he could rob them of their ability to harm others. But God doesn't interfere like that.

Yes, I know. Christianity teaches that God doesn't interefere because he respects humanity's free will too much. That is why he will never use his incredible power to stop anyone from doing anything that he or she wants to do.

However, the weaker you are compared with other people, the more limited is your free will, and the less you are able to do with it. The stronger you are compared with other people, the more boundless is your free will, and the more you can do with it. It is the really powerful people who are in a position to do what they want with other people. And when God doesn't interfere here on Earth, he turns the Earth over to the powerful people here, who are left to run the world as they please.

Now consider an average adult man and an average adult woman. Who is the strongest? You know the answer. Now suppose that the man wishes to rape the woman. Who is to stop him? Well, in a few cases the woman will be resourceful enough to stop the would-be rapist herself, or to get away from him. In a few other cases, there will be other people around who will stop the rapist. But in many cases the woman will be on her own, and she will be defenceless. And then God will not save her from the rapist.

God has allowed the strong people to rule the world. Who are the strong people? Well, imagine that you were to line up all the men in the world on one side and all the women in the world on the other side, and then tell them to fight it out between them. Who will win? You know who will win. Only a fool could be in doubt as to who would win.

So the men rules. God has allowed them to rule. Who has written the holy books of the world's major religions? Maybe God has written them. But then again, maybe men of this world have written them themselves. And if men have written the holy texts of religions, then God is not likely to interfere and correct things that are written there. Because God doesn't do that. He doesn't interfere.

If the holy texts are written by men, then it is quite natural that men would give themselves the right to rule over women. Why shouldn't they give themselves that right? Who is to stop them?

And it is also quite natural that men won't punish themselves for oppressing and brutalizing women. Why should they punish themselves for the suffering they have inflicted on women, when no one else is going to punish them for this? Punishment is optional for them. And are you really going to punish yourself when punishment is optional? When you are going to suffer no ill consequences at all for not punishing yourself?

But it isn't nice to tell women that you are going to be mean to them because you are a man. So why not write a holy book and tell women that God has given you the right to punish and subjugate and oppress women here on Earth, and if the women bear their lot without complaining God will reward them in Heaven for it?

So why are all major religions sexist? The way I see it, God either created humans in such a way that sexism is the only proper behaviour, or else God is unwilling or unable to stop men from terrorizing women.

I think, too, that the more we revere those sexist holy books, and the more we try to organize society according to the rules of those holy books, the more sexist our societies will be. Or at least, the more holy and inviolable the sexist practices of those societies will seem to be.

Ann

Oh, boy. I almost didn't write anything here, because I don't want to be accused of flaming anyone. And I don't want to be called "irrational" again, either. Nor do I wish to offend anyone.

But I am moved to defend Christianity against some common false assertions. Here's one.

This is a common philosophical objection to the problem of evil in the world. And it's a valid question. Why doesn't God stop man from doing evil?

This is a question I've been asked more than once, and I don't think there is an answer that will satisfy everyone. But I can give you my response.

The question is built on the premise that the Lord wants everyone to be happy and comfortable in this life. "Why doesn't God send rain to Ethiopia?" "Why didn't God stop the 2005 tsunamis in Southeast Asia?" "Why doesn't God just get rid of all the evil in the world?"

Rabbi Kushner, in his book "When Bad Things Happen to Good People," eventually concludes that bad things happen to good people because God is unable to do anything about it. Not unwilling - unable. And it's a conclusion many people come to.

But I don't accept it. Why? Because I find no evidence in either the Old Testament or the New Testament that the Lord's main purpose in existing is to make us comfortable. If bad things happen to us, it's easy to reject the concept of a God Who cares more for us than for any other being He created. Because we care primarily for our own comfort and that of our loved ones, we find it difficult - if not impossible - to understand how death, sickness, pain, and loss could possibly be within God's eternal plan. Doesn't He love us? Doesn't He care about us?

Yes, He does.

But His highest purpose in this world is not to make us comfortable. His goal for our individual lives is not to remove the pain or loss from our lives. If that were true, then we wouldn't have the story of Adam and Eve in the book of Genesis. If God's ultimate purpose was to make us comfortable, He would not have told Adam that he would earn his living by the sweat of his brow. Eve would not have been told that giving birth would be a painful experience. And they would never have been turned out of the Garden of Eden.

But all that did happen.

The Lord gives us all a choice to do good or to do evil. If there were no evildoers, we would have no need for heroes or lawgivers or rulers or enforcers of the law. There would be no condemnation necessary for those who cheat the poor out of their meager belongings and grow rich by the doing of it because it wouldn't happen. There would be no need for lawyers or courts where our grievances may be heard and justice done.

If we had no choice between good and evil - if we were forced to do good in all things - there would be no honor to accrue to us for doing right. We would not be people, we would be puppets on heavenly strings, dancing to a tune which we did not write. We would be robots, performing the acts predicated by our programming. And we would have no opportunity to fight for the right and for the good.

Ann is correct that God does not stop such heinous acts. That's why the righteous are here, to do such work in His place. When the Empire of Japan invaded China in 1931 and put the world on course for World War II, no one stepped in and stopped it. When Krystallnacht happened in Austria and Germany in 1938 and triggered the beginning of the Holocaust, no one stepped in and stopped it. When the Nazis began murdering "untermenschen" by the hundreds, and then the thousands, then the tens of thousands, no one stepped in to stop it.

It was the task of the righteous to stop the evil ones in the world from harming the helpless. It was the job of the good to stop the bad. And that responsibility was eventually fulfilled, but not until fifty million or more had died, nations had been laid waste, uncounted amounts of money spent on war, and the world changed forever.

It is not God's responsibility to stop evil deeds in this world. It is ours. He has given this earth over to us, humankind, to do with as we choose. Do we choose to allow the slaughter of innocents to continue? Do we choose to allow thieves to keep on stealing from the poor? Do we choose to allow terrorists of any background or persuasion to take by violence that which does not belong to them?

It's our choice. If we want to sit back and blame the world's trials on God, we can, but if we do so we deny our responsibility to do right, we allow the innocent to suffer needlessly, and we abrogate the right to make a difference in this life.

My point, Terry, is that we don't all have the same choice. The weak ones have little choice, and because of that they will often be treated very badly. The strong ones have the choice to treat others badly if they want to, and they often make that choice.

When God doesn't interfere, he allows the strong ones to treat the weak ones badly.



This is a picture of a slave ship carrying slaves to America. Many of the American slave owners were good Christian men who had read in the Bible that God permits the keeping of slaves.

America then made a choice. It would no longer permit slavery. That was a noble, honorable decision, which almost 150 years later culminated in giving America its first President whose skin color is more or less the same as the skin color of the slaves. America has indeed made a noble journey.

That doesn't change the fact that thousands and thousands of slaves were treated brutally by men who felt comfortable and justified in doing so, because they felt their Bible allowed them to keep and punish slaves.

My point, Terry, is that 'we' don't always have a choice. The strong ones have a choice. The weak ones often don't. And the weaker you are, the less of a choice you usually have.

Alfred, Lord Tennyson wrote:
That is the fate of weak people almost everywhere. Theirs is not to reason why. Theirs is but to do and die. And the strong people, who have been given the luxury of a choice, can choose whether the weak people are going to live or die. And in making that choice, the strong people can choose whether or not they themselves are going to heaven. Except it is not so clear that those who abuse weak people are going to hell. The ideas of what sins are unforgivable and will send you to hell have varied wildly during the almost 2000 years that Christianity has existed. And God offers no opinion on the matter.

A very good friend of mine recently read two books about people living in Afghanistan, The Kite Runner, which is about two boys, and A Thousand Splendid Suns, which is about two women. Afterwards, my friend said that she had really, really enjoyed reading The Kite Runner, because the main character in that novel has a choice, and therefore it is so interesting to see what he makes of that choice. A Thousand Splendid Suns, however, is about two women who don't have a choice, and whose lives will necessarily end in catastrophe. My friend thought it was boring and crushing and depressing to read that book. Yes, people who don't have a choice are not much fun, are they?

When God doesn't interfere, he allows the strong ones to brutalize the weak ones. When God gives 'us' a chance to choose between good and evil, he allows weak people to be brutalized by strong people.

Ann

I think I see what you mean, Ann. You're saying, then, that it is God's responsibility to combat evil, not ours. You're saying that if God does not choose to stop people from doing evil, we are absolved of all responsibility.

That's crap. You're right when you say that the weak often do not have the freedom of choice that the strong do. But that's why the strong must choose to do right. In fact, you are also taking the position that the strong are automatically evil because they are strong. The weak cannot dominate the strong, but the strong do not automatically dominate the weak.

If you don't want to stand up against evil, you don't have to. But if you don't - and if I don't - maybe no one will and evil will win. But if you do stand up against evil - and if I stand up against evil - then maybe the weak will be protected. If I use my strength to protect those weaker than myself against those who would do evil against them, I am doing the work of God.

And that goes for you, too, Ann. Don't blame God for the evil which evil people do. Blame the people who have the strength to make the choice to do good or do evil. Just being strong doesn't make one evil, yet that seems to be the position you are taking.

And if we're criticizing other nations now, let me throw a bucket of mud on Sweden, who remained neutral during World War II even when the horrors of the Nazi regime were made public. Sweden allowed Germany to transport troops and war materiel across its borders to combat areas. Sweden even produced weapons for Germany. I don't think you have the higher moral ground here.

It's easy to throw darts at other people when you think they're doing something wrong, but when you know that evil is taking place and you do nothing - nothing! - to stop it, you become party to it.

You are of course absolutely right that those who are able to do something to stop brutalities from taking place are morally obliged to try to do so.

An important point I've tried to make, however, is that all of us are going to find it easier to judge others than to judge ourselves. Those who are strong and in power are in a postion to really judge and punish others for their shortcomings, and at the same time they can allow themselves to get away scot-free. And that is, in my opinion, why all major religions are sexist. They are sexist because men are always in a position to punish women if they claim that God gives the same rights to women as he does to men.

But of course, another main point that can be made is that we are all morally obliged to hold ourselves to the same standards as we do others. In a society where that was the case, there could never be any slaves.

Ann

Joy Mooney wrote:
I can't help but wonder if you misspoke here. Or if I am misunderstanding what you wrote. Eyewitness accounts are considered Primary Sources - the most sought after in historical research. From a secular historian's point of view, your statement, as I understand it, is (searching for a word here...) counterproductive.

The Hadith consists of carefully documented eyewitness accounts of Mohammad's deeds and sayings. Muslims do not consider the Hadith "ridiculous hearsay", if that is indeed what you were referring to.

Let me give one example of what I mean when I say that religions are sexist. I will have to discuss an example from the Bible, not because I think that the Bible is more sexist than any other holy book, but because the Bible is the holy book that I know by far the best.

Let us talk about Joseph Fritzl, the Austrian man who held his daughter captive in his cellar for twenty-four years, raped her repeatedly and conceived seven children with her. (One of those children died, by the way, but it might have been saved if Fritzl had allowed his daughter to give birth in a hospital.) Did Fritzl sin when he treated his daughter and the children he conceived by her like this? That is not certain, not if you judge by what the Bible says.

In Leviticus 18, the Bible defines what incest is. In Leviticus 18:6, it says:

Well, that certainly sounds as if what Joseph Fritzl did to his daughter was a sin. But let's not jump to conclusions. The Bible then details exactly what sexual relations are forbidden:

All right. A son is not allowed to have sex with his mother. Well, Joseph Fritzl didn't do that.

And not with his stepmother, either. Joseph Fritzl didn't do that.

And a brother can't have sex with his sister. Joseph Fritzl didn't do it.

And a grandfather can't have sex with his granddaughter. Jospeh Fritzl probably didn't do it, although we can't be sure.

A man may not have sex with his stepsister. Joseph Fritzl didn't do it.

And he may not have sex with his aunts on his father's side. Jospeh Fritzl didn't do it.

And not with his aunts on his mother's side. Jospeh Fritzl didn't do it.

And he may not have sex with his uncle's wife. Jospeh Fritzl didn't do it.

And not with his daughter-in-law. Joseph Fritzl didn't do it.

And not with his sister-in-law. Jospeh Fritzl didn't do it.

All right! Finally we come across something. A man is not allowed to be in a sexual relationship with a woman and her daughter at the same time. All that really means, however, is that Joseph Fritzl committed a sin if he was sleeping with his wife Rose-Marie during the same period as he was sleeping with Rose-Marie's daughter Elizabeth. If he no longer had sex with Rose-Marie while he was sleeping with Elizabeth, he probably didn't commit a sin.

Here's the thing: The Bible does not specifically forbid a man to have sex with his daughter. All other close relatives are forbidden as sex partners, but nothing specific is said to forbid a man to have sex with his daughter. And therefore, according to the Bible, it is in fact possible that Joseph Fritzl didn't commit incest when he had sex with his daughter Elizabeth.

Why would the Bible not specifically forbid a man to have sex with his daughter? Well, the Bible makes it clear that a daughter is her father's property, and he can treat her pretty much as he pleases. For example, the Bible shows us that Lot negotiates with rapists by promising to hand over his daughters to them, so that the rapists can rape his daughters, if only they will leave his male guests in peace. Another man, Jephthah, kills his own daughter and gives her to God as a burnt offering to thank God for his victory in war. Fathers are also allowed to sell their daughters as slaves, but the rules are different for male and female slaves:

To me this means that if a father sells his daughter as a slave, he sells her into eternal captivity. So what about the fact that Jospeh Fritzl kept his daughter in captivity for twenty-four years? Nowhere in the Bible does it say that a father is not allowed to keep his daughter in captivity. So, according to the Bible, did Jospeh Fritzl really do anything wrong? Would he have been judged by the men of the Old Testament? Quite possibly not. If those men judged Jospeh Fritzl for anything, it would probably be for being in a sexual relationship with his wife at the same time as he was sleeping with his wife's daughter, and for keeping three of his sons in captivity for more than six years.

Anyway, is there a particular reason for why the Bible does not specifically forbid men to have sex with their daughters? In my opinion, this is a crystal clear case of sexism. Men who lived at the time when the Old Testament was written may have thought it was a good idea to be allowed to have sex with their own daughters if they wanted to. By not forbidding other men to sleep with their daughters, these men gave themselves the right to rape their own daughters, too.

And that is one piece of evidence that the Bible is often very sexist.

Ann

P.S. I've said it before, but it bears repeating. Even though the overall message of the Bible is sexist, not everything in the Bible is sexist. Jesus is quite remarkably non-sexist. It's too bad that Christianity has chosen to listen more to Paul, who was a realiable sexist, than to Jesus, who treated men and women amazingly equally.

Ann,

Just as, in pre-Politically-Correct days, English ministers said, "I now pronounce you man and wife," the Bible is "sexist", if you will, in addressing this list of forbidden partners from the point of view of the man. Thus, it tells men not to sleep with their mothers, while the reader is left to mentally fill in the corresponding part about women not sleeping with their fathers. Prohibiting people from sleeping with their parents precludes the need to tell parents not to sleep with their children, since the one implies the other.

I don't know why you think religious people approve of incest, but here you claim the Israelites approved of father-daughter incest, and in another thread you made the (in my opinion, outrageous) claim that the rapist step-father in Brazil would be welcomed back into the congregation of his church as if nothing had happened. :rolleyes:

I also disagree with your interpretation of the story of Jephthah. His vow was to dedicate to the Lord "whatsoever" came out of the house doors first. Not "whosoever", but "whatsoever". He clearly anticipated the first thing to come out of the house would be an animal, which, as was the custom when one dedicated animals to the Lord, would then be killed as a burnt offering.

When his daughter came through the house doors, he realized he would have to dedicate *her* to the Lord. This does NOT imply he would kill her, as human sacrifice was an act the Lord specifically forbade, saying he abhorred the practice. Rather, dedicating a child to the Lord meant separating them for service in the temple. An excellent example of this is the story of Samuel.

Normally, dedicating a child to the Lord was not a cause for sorrow, but in this case the Bible tells us the man had no other sons or daughters. Since dedicating his daughter to temple service meant she would never marry, Jephthah's vow meant he would never have an heir and his line would be cut off forever. The daughter asks for two months to "bewail her virginity." She then returns and her father does as he has vowed (that is, he dedicates her to temple service), after which, the Bible concludes, "she knew no man."

On one thing I do agree with you, and that is Jesus' treatment of women.

No, Vicki. I don't think that religious people approve of incest, certainly not generally. And there is a very clear reason why most religious people, certainly here in the west, think that incest is dead wrong. That reason is that our western societies strongly condemn incest. It is very, very hard to stand up for yourself and say, 'I don't think it is wrong for a man to have sex with his daughter, because the Bible doesn't forbid it'. Well, maybe the Bible doesn't forbid it, but our societies certainly do, and the vast majority of people really, really want to fit into society.

Personally I'm convinced that most people generally share the values and beliefs of the societies they live in. That is precisely why most Christians will assume that the Bible shares the 'best' values of their societies, so that the Bible therefore, obviously, indeed forbids men to have sex with their daughters. Because we all 'know' that this kind of incest is a horrible thing, so of course then the Bible must know it too, right?

Personally I'm not going to regard it as an oversight that the Bible doesn't mention the father-daughter relationship when it lists incestuous and forbidden relationships. I take the Bible at face value and conclude that a father-daughter relationship was, at the very least, far less forbidden than, say, a mother-son or a brother-sister relationship. In a society where women are generally the property of men, no woman is so certainly the property of a man as an unmarried daughter is the property of her father. No other man can claim to so fully own her. Interestingly, by the way: God makes a covenant with Israel's men, which means that fathers don't fully own their sons. God owns them, too. That is why the sons have to carry an indelible mark on their bodies to show that they belong to God, and that is why some of the big festivals are to be celebrated by the men alone, as they gather before the face of God. But God makes no similar claim on the daughters, who belong to their fathers alone, to be disposed of by the fathers as the fathers please. No wonder God doesn't grumble too much if a father has sex with his daughter.

But, Vicki, now I'm talking about biblical times. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that Christian people tend to allow men to have sex with their daughters. Of course they don't! I will say, however, that Christian people sometimes don't really know what the Bible really says, even though many Christians claim that they believe and approve of every word in the Bible. And when they are confronted with what the Bible really says, then they will sometimes deny what is there to read, plain as day. Like I think you just did when you wouldn't admit that the Bible doesn't condemn a father's rape of his daughter in the same way as it condemns, say, a mother's rape of her son.

Ann

Sorry, Vicki, but Jephthah killed his daughter. He had promised to sacrifice the first member of his household who came to meet him when he returned victorious from his battle, and since he didn't have a son, he didn't risk having to kill a son. God didn't allow the killing of sons, and there are several examples in the Bible where God either interferes to stop the sacrificing of a son, or severely punishes the father who sacrificed his son. Like I said, sons belonged to God as well as to their fathers, and a father simply had no right to kill his son since God had forbidden this practice.

But, like I said, daughters belonged to their fathers alone, not to God, so the fathers could dispose of them as they pleased.

This is the vow that Jephthah makes to God in Judges 11:31:

Jephthah talks of offering a member from his household as a 'burnt offering'. A burnt offering means that you kill something or someone and burns it, him or her. Jephthah's daughter was the one who came to meet her father, so she became the burnt offering that Jephthah gave to God. Sorry.

And in Judges 11:39, it says:

Jephthah did with his daughter what he had vowed to do; that is, he killed her and burnt her. Sorry. And God, it might be noted, made no objection.

I will admit that the attitude to the sacrificing of daughters slowly change during the course of the Old Testament, so that the later books clearly seem to condemn it. Judges is one of the earlier books, however, and while the death of the girl is described as regrettable, the sacrificing of her is not described as a sin.

As for Hannah, yes, she dedicated her son to God, but she most certainly didn't promise to give him to God as a burnt offering. That would have been a horribly forbidden thing to do - imagine, a lowly woman murdering her son, the property of God! Unthinkable!

Ann

You say this as though it were a bad thing.

I disagree that Jephthah intended to offer a member of his household as a burnt offering. As I say, he did NOT say whosoever, he said whatsoever". He meant to consecrate an animal to the Lord, and consecrating an animal to the Lord meant offering it up as a burnt offering.

If he were offering a member of his household, why would he act surprised and dismayed when his daughter came out of the house? He had no other sons or daughters, so who was he expecting to come out, his wife?

God had already EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED human sacrifice. There is no way Jephthah's "vow unto the Lord" could possibly be construed as a vow to offer up a member of his household as a burnt offering.

You are forgetting one of the recurring themes in the book of Judges, Ann. Judges 21:25 tells us:

This looks to me to be a blanket condemnation of the unrighteous actions of the Hebrew people after the time Joshua died and before Saul became king, including Jephthah's unrighteous actions. This little hobby horse of yours is getting a bit tired, since you have pulled it out and ridden it so often.

I would also point out that patronizing prostitutes was forbidden for Jewish men, and that Solomon spent quite a bit of time advising his son to be wise and avoid them, yet when Samson began his relationship with Delilah in the book of Judges, he was never specifically condemned for it. Just because you don't see the stick smacking the bad guy doesn't mean the bad guy doesn't get smacked.

post deleted and I'm shutting my mouth, but I wouldn't go around telling Christians that they don't know what the Bible really says. It tends to tick people off like me, who aren't fundamentalists and who don't believe that the Bible is a Webster's dictionary, free to pluck out quotes as you please to explain anything as you wish.

Grace and peace,
JD

Terry and Jen, I will not argue with your positions. You may be right, Terry, that the Bible makes a blanket condemnation of most of what went on during the time described in the Book of Judges. I don't think there is such a blanket condemnation, but maybe there is, and arguing about it will bring us nowhere.

Jen, I have talked to Christians many times, and when I want to discuss a particular episode from the Bible with them, they are often unaware of its existence. When I show them the episode, their reaction is usually denial and anger. But one thing is clear: The number of Christians I have talked to about these things is a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of a fraction of the number of Christians I haven't talked to. So obviously I can't say anything about all those hundreds of millions of Christians that I haven't talked to.

Vicki, however, I think you are dead wrong about your defence of Jephthah. There is no doubt that he killed his daughter. You said:

Sorry, but this is nonsense. There is nothing in the text to suggest that Jephthah 'dedicated' his daughter to serve God in the temple. First of all, there was no temple at this time. Second, there is nothing - nothing - in the Bible to suggest that God generally welcomed young girls to serve in the temple after it was built. All priests were men, and later all rabbis were men, and when the temple was built, women were only allowed to enter into its outer parts. Nothing is said anywhere to suggest that God would be interested in having a young girl dedicated to him as his servant. There is not a single example in the Bible of a young girl who is explicitly dedicated to be the servant of God. Yes, there are a few women who definitely look like servants of God, particularly Deborah and Huldah, but nothing is said to suggest that their fathers had dedicated them to God or to the temple (and there was no temple at Deborah's time). And finally, there is nothing in the story of Jephthah to suggest that he decides to make his daughter the (living) servant of God rather than give her to God by killing her.

Jephthah had vowed to give God a burnt offering, and the burnt offering had to be whatever first came out of his household to meet him when he came home from battle. That is what he had vowed. He had not vowed to dedicate his daughter to God.

Compare the story about Jephthah and his daughter with the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham has been commanded by God to give him Isaac as a burnt offering. But just when Abraham is about to slay his son, God interferes:

God stops the slaying of Isaac. But God must nevertheless have his burnt offering. So he gives Abraham the chance to sacrifice a ram instead of his son:

In the story of Jephthah, however, there is nothing to suggest that God got something else as a burnt offering instead of Jephthah's daughter. And the reason why he didn't get anything else instead of the daughter is precisely because the necessary burnt offering was indeed the girl herself.

I have a book, Texts of Terror, where scholar and professor Phyllis Trible analyses some biblical texts of terror. One of those texts is the story of Jephthah and his daughter. Professor Trible analyses the text carefully, scrutinizes the Hebrew wording, and compares the text with other biblical narratives to glean more meaning from them.

Professor Trible underscores the importance of Jephthah's vow. A vow made by a man to God was unbreakable and had to be fulfilled. Therefore, if Jephthah had vowed that whatever came out from his house to meet him would be turned into a burnt offering, then he had to turn whatever came out to meet him into a burnt offering. There was no getting out of it.

Professor Trible does not discuss the possibility of Jephthah 'dedicating' his daughter to serve God in the temple. There was no temple at the time, and in any case, absolutely nothing is said in the text about turning Jephthah's daughter into a living servant of God. That possibility is not there in the text at all.

Professor Trible points out, however, that there are several examples in the Old Testament where victorious kings or generals return home and are met by women playing music and dancing for them. When Jephthah's daughter came to meet her father, she played music and danced for him. Seeing that this manner of greeting a victorious warrior seemed to be common, it should have come as no surprise to Jephthah that his daughter might be the one who would come to meet him with music and dancing. He must indeed have made that vow to God knowing that it might mean that he would have to sacrifice his daughter.

There is no doubt that the daughter was killed by her father. Professor Trible shows that the same Hebrew word is used when the daughter acknowledges her father's duty to fulfill his vow to God. 'Do to me according to what goes forth from your mouth,' the daughter tells her father. Later, the text says: 'He did to her his vow which he had vowed'. The same Hebrew word is used in both cases. And in both cases they refer to the fact that the father has vowed to turn something or someone, which turned out to be his daughter, into a burnt offering.

Sorry, Vicki. In this case you are acting exactly like the Christians I described, those who deny the words of the Bible when they are confronted with something they don't like. The Bible tells us that Jephthah killed his daughter. And the only condemnation of the father's act, if there is one at all, is the one that Terry referred to:

I have to point out that Jephthah did not exactly do what he wanted to. Rather he did what he felt obliged to do, because he had made a vow to God. God could have released him from that vow, in the same way as he stopped Abraham from killing his son. Ah, but in the Old Testament there is a yawning chasm of a difference between a son and a daughter, and, presumably, a yawning chasm of a difference between killing a son and killing a daughter.

Ann

Ann,

I had never heard of Trible or her book, but from the title alone I had a pretty good idea of where the good professor was coming from. I took a quick hop over to Amazon.com and the product description proved me right:

In highlighting the silence, absence, and oppostition of God, as well as human cruelty, Trible shows how these neglected stories-interpreted in memoriam-challenge both the misogyny of Scripture and its use in church, synagogue, and academy.

She does this by combining literary criticism with "the hermeneutics of feminism". OK, whatever.

My goal was not so much to convince you as to show that there is, in fact, an alternate reading of the text. Your reading, of course, better fits your, and Ms. Trible's, view of a silent God in a misogynist world.