I mythomoralized your wife by the way

December 6, 2005 8:35 AM

4 out of 5 non-Christians agree:rape rocks the box! "There may be a genuine moral argument against rape to be made outside of the Judeo-Christian ethic, but I have yet to hear it." Well? Let's hear it.
posted by If I Had An Anus (94 comments total)

Sadly, the link to a PDF of Answer Me! #4 by Jim Goad seems to have vanished. It tackles this issue better than most, although religion isn't involved much.
posted by jonmc at 8:43 AM on December 6, 2005

To put it more clearly, if a woman consents to extramarital sex, she is committing a moral offense which is equal to that committed by the man who engages in consensual sex with her, or by the man who, in the absence of such consent, rapes her. Christianity knows no hierarchy of sins.

Premarital sex is as bad as rape, eh? Also by this we can conclude that Vox is either a) a virgin or b) as moral as a rapist.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:50 AM on December 6, 2005

Vox has ears, yet he will not hear.
posted by PsychoKick at 8:50 AM on December 6, 2005

Wow! The fourth anti-Christian thread of the day. It's a new mefi record!
posted by unreason at 8:52 AM on December 6, 2005

I found it hard to concentrate on the article. I just kept returning to the top of the page to stare at his haircut.

Regardless, any position based around the thesis of "there is no morality save that which God has decreed" is nonsense.
posted by NinjaPirate at 8:53 AM on December 6, 2005

Christianity knows no hierarchy of sins.

That's not what the priests and nuns taught me back in CCD. Remember that whole "venial sin/mortal sin," thing?
posted by jonmc at 8:53 AM on December 6, 2005

I'm sorry, but that Vox character looks like a Weeble Wobble.
posted by Gator at 8:55 AM on December 6, 2005

Wow! The fourth anti-Christian thread of the day. It's a new mefi record!
Are you for Rape?
posted by Rubbstone at 8:55 AM on December 6, 2005

Trying to tell fundamentalists like this Southern Baptist that morality is possible without religion is like wandering into Chinatown with a Swahili phrasebook.

He also fails to account for the fact that one of the primary reasons the Bible regards rape as morally wrong is that it is a violation of the Father's or the Husband's property rights. It has little to do with the woman.
posted by MasonDixon at 8:56 AM on December 6, 2005

Ummm... wtf? "Hi, I'm a nutball"

But I kinda agree with NinjaPirate re: his haircut.
posted by antifuse at 8:57 AM on December 6, 2005

Let me clear it up for all of you:

Rape is bad; Don't rape.

(because I say so)
posted by ba at 8:57 AM on December 6, 2005

Are you for Rape?
posted by Rubbstone at 11:55 AM EST on December 6 [!]

No, and you know I am not.
Come now, Rubbstone. This post wasn't intended to be a dialogue against rape. If is had been, there would have been lots of links on Rape crisis, intervention, and different religious proscriptions on the subject from the major faiths. This is a "lets look at teh evil Xtians" post, and you and I both know it.
posted by unreason at 8:59 AM on December 6, 2005

How is posting a Christian view on non-Christian morality anti-Christian, unreason?
posted by If I Had An Anus at 8:59 AM on December 6, 2005

How is posting a Christian view on non-Christian morality anti-Christian, unreason?
posted by If I Had An Anus at 11:59 AM EST on December 6 [!]

Because you didn't post a mainstream Christian view. You found the biggest fundie Christian crackpot you could find, then generalized his views to Christians as a whole.
posted by unreason at 9:01 AM on December 6, 2005

Won't anyone speak up in support of rape?
posted by xmutex at 9:02 AM on December 6, 2005

Uhh this is just some nutjob whose barber slipped with the shears. Why give inflammatory dickheads* air time on Mefi?

*in before "but we post Bush-related comments all the time!"
posted by plexiwatt at 9:03 AM on December 6, 2005

Won't anyone speak up in support of rape?

Ladies, you're welcome to rape me if you like.
posted by jonmc at 9:07 AM on December 6, 2005

The Judeo-Christian moral ethic is clear – rape is a sin, a willful pollution of a temple that rightly belongs to God.

This is simply untrue.

Numbers 31:

31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?

31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.

31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.



Deuteronomy 20:

20:10 When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.

20:11 And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, [that] all the people [that is] found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.

20:12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:

20:13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:

20:14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, [even] all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.



The very next chapter:

21:11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;

21:12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;

21:13 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.
posted by callmejay at 9:09 AM on December 6, 2005

I can't even follow his so-called argument. Can somebody give me the powerpoint version, in easy-to-mock format?

And here's me all along thinking rape was wrong because it was a violation against one's right as an individual to be free from bodily harm.
posted by jokeefe at 9:11 AM on December 6, 2005

C'mon people, he's a member of Mensa. MENSA!

Vox Day is a novelist and Christian libertarian. He is a member of the SFWA, Mensa and the Southern Baptist church, and has been down with Madden since 1992.

posted by OmieWise at 9:12 AM on December 6, 2005

Won't anyone speak up in support of rape?

Ladies, you're welcome to rape me if you like.

Jon, I know you're joking, but trust me, the last thing you want is somebody bonking you without your consent and by force.

(But I do know that you're joking. I just wanted to say it. )
posted by jokeefe at 9:12 AM on December 6, 2005

He is a member of the SFWA

that his rap group: Stupid Fucks With Attitudes.
posted by jonmc at 9:13 AM on December 6, 2005

the last thing you want is somebody bonking you without your consent and by force.

I know. Several people close to me have been victims of rape. I take it very seriously.

I was just using the irony of the phrase "welcome to rape me," to play off xmutex's absurdist question.
posted by jonmc at 9:14 AM on December 6, 2005

You found the biggest fundie Christian crackpot you could find, then generalized his views to Christians as a whole.

I must have missed the latter part.
posted by brain_drain at 9:17 AM on December 6, 2005

I was just using the irony of the phrase "welcome to rape me," to play off xmutex's absurdist question.

"Absurdist" is a good way to characterize this entire thread, I think....
posted by jokeefe at 9:21 AM on December 6, 2005

...or Vox's haircut, at the very least.
posted by RakDaddy at 9:30 AM on December 6, 2005

Mr. Day has some rather alarming views about women:

In fact, I very much like women and wish them well, which is precisely why I consider women's rights to be a disease that should be eradicated.

He also offers dating advice for the ladies and the gents.
posted by justkevin at 9:32 AM on December 6, 2005

Aside from a random rant about how he doesn't believe in the concept of date rape and that women should be 'held responsible for their actions' in those cases, I think Vox's (weird) theory is that only Judaism & Christianity condemn rape. He wraps it up by saying:

Regardless of whether one believes in God or celebrates Christmas as the birth of one's Risen Lord and Savior, one would do well to seriously consider the likely implications of a world that rejects both.

So... he's saying that if you reject Christmas you're not against rape. I'm at a loss for where to begin describe how stupid of a claim that is.
posted by raedyn at 9:34 AM on December 6, 2005

I am not sure what the point of his article was, other than some cheap (and vaguely insulting) proselytizing.
posted by wakko at 9:35 AM on December 6, 2005

Rape is how "it" is done, in many corners of the world. When girls are "given" in marriage, under the age of 16, to strangers, especially as second, third, and fourth wives, well, this is rape, and this is how you get hellholes like Bangladesh. Sub Saharan African village life is apparently a culture based on rape, with 11 year old girls given to 70 year old men in marriage. Girls die with rotten babies stuck in their little birth canals, the only medicine that could have prevented this is condom use, and rights for women and girls.

You didn't enjoy your date? Try living in a nation built entirely on rape, where our foreign aid, does not include condoms, but does include celibacy lectures. I bet a lot of your 11 year olds are celibate before "marriage".

I just can't believe supposedly intelligent people that hold their bibles out in front of their faces, as they discuss no-brainer issues of human rights. What the hell does "Moses" have to do with how women are treated in intimate situations?

Moses by all accounts was a delusional dickwad, oh my burning bush, look at that Mensan haircut!
posted by Oyéah at 9:35 AM on December 6, 2005

Vox has ears, yet he will not hear.

It certainly can't be the haircut that's getting in the way. The poor guy claims to be a member of Mensa, yet he still can't figure out how to get a decent mullet.

Here's a clue, Vox: it's short in the sides, but not that short.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 9:36 AM on December 6, 2005

Funny that sex is the only way Christians can entice people to agree to their ceremony.

I know another major religion that lures the zeaolus with vast pastures of beautiful sex.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 9:38 AM on December 6, 2005

My point, of course, is that marriage is like a suicide.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 9:38 AM on December 6, 2005

Christian bashing or no [and I would tend to say no in this case], I found Michael Martin's essay worthy of the FPP purely for the philosophical discussion therein. I'm still uneasy with a link to WND on the front page, but that's probably because my mother's most recent husband continues to send me articles from that rag on a near-weekly basis in hopes of disabusing me of my worldview.
posted by Suck Poppet at 9:41 AM on December 6, 2005

I did not post this to ridicule Vox. Rape is biologically valid so all arguments against it are neccessarily morally based, so I think Vox has a point in regarding the strength the Judeo-Christian tradition has lent to arguments against rape. Unfortunately he makes his point by denigrating other traditions. I think this flaw is actually very mainstream in modern Christianity.

I am interested in chicken and egg issues of moral history generally, and the Vox article and Wildhunt blog reponse were timely. I thought MetaFilter would help me think through the topics raised. I guess I was wrong.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 9:42 AM on December 6, 2005

On post, I see we are back on track and my faith in MeFi is renewed. Thanks everyone.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 9:43 AM on December 6, 2005

I just can't believe supposedly intelligent people that hold their bibles out in front of their faces, as they discuss no-brainer issues of human rights.

What's even more peculiar is that he actually refers to the sensible atheist's reason for opposing rape/supporting human rights/etc. when he tells us that atheists generally make reference to Kant and the Categorical Imperative.

However, he fails to actually address the point, eliding it by going on to say how such people generally tell him that if he mentions moral relativism one more time, they're going to knock his teeth out.

While knocking his teeth out would also be a breach of the Categorical Imperative, I do have a profound empathy with those suffering this particular moral lapse.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 9:46 AM on December 6, 2005

Rape spelled backwards is epar. God spelled backwards is dog. Power spelled backwards is rewop. Combine the three and you get dogrewopepar. Think about it.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 9:50 AM on December 6, 2005

This thread isn't anti-Christian but anti-Vox Day. As all threads should be. Max Blumenthal leads us to ConWebWatch's clasic entry on this "pseudo-cyberpunk" rich kid, whose real name is the much less cyberpunk Theodore Beale, and appears to be enthralled with Italian facism.
posted by johngoren at 9:51 AM on December 6, 2005

I think he misread his bible. It's RAPture.
posted by muppetboy at 9:51 AM on December 6, 2005

Wow! The fourth anti-Christian thread of the day. It's a new mefi record!

If Vox is a Christian, I'm Bill Gates. There's very little Christian and almost nothing Christlike about his writings.

He's earlier been seen trying to advocate the idea that every human being is property, and a property-based morality system. Maybe the inevitable failure regarding this is why he's gone back to Judeo-Christianity.

But he's probably barking up the wrong tree. His particular brand of shock-jock libertarianism that apparently longs for the time when the only law was a man's will and his guns and when those he knew were those he owned would find much more resonance in Satanism's "Do as thou wilt -- that is the law."
posted by weston at 9:53 AM on December 6, 2005

"The fourth anti-Christian thread of the day"

This is the latest conservative crybaby tactic. By citing or linking to someone's actual words, you have slimed them!
posted by 2sheets at 9:55 AM on December 6, 2005

I did not post this to ridicule Vox.

I'm sorry to hear that, because that seems to me the only valid reason to post a childish rant about how evil non-Christians are.

I found Michael Martin's essay worthy of the FPP purely for the philosophical discussion therein.

Yeah, that was a decent read. What does that have to do with the asininity of the WND link?
posted by languagehat at 9:57 AM on December 6, 2005

Rape is biologically valid

...as are other forms of violence.

We're social animals. We live in societies that develop rules for behavior that will be stabilizing for the society as a whole. These rules then become encoded in religious mumbo jumbo to make them stick. Religion is more than that, but that's one if its functions.

Is Judeo-Christianity leading the way against rape and other kinds of violation of the individual? I don't think so.

I think that some societies have come to the general agreement that rape and other forms of violence are destabilizing--particularly in societies where women have come to be regarded (woohoo!) as equal to men and full participants in social life.
posted by apis mellifera at 10:01 AM on December 6, 2005

Oh, come on. Mensa, Southern Baptist, Libertarian. Three strikes, you're out.
posted by QuietDesperation at 10:02 AM on December 6, 2005

gosh, languagehat, the whole point of my post was to weigh in on the appropriateness of it. WND == BAD, but FPP redeemed by useful essay in subsequent links. Is that clearer?
posted by Suck Poppet at 10:15 AM on December 6, 2005

Christians like Vox - and there are many more with equally scary ideas - make me want to seriously support the whole Christian secession idea. Peaceful reduction of the fundie population could only do the U.S. good, and IMHO is well worth giving up a state.
posted by jam_pony at 10:23 AM on December 6, 2005

The question that the initial posts seem to be addressing is "Can you have morals without a belief in God?" Rape is being used as a particularly heinous example of amorality.

How would a religious person respond to the charge that they don't have any morals, that they are only interested in the promise of eternal happiness (or avoidance of eternal suffering) and will do whatever it takes to get it? If God asked them to kill an innocent person without reason, would they do it?

And the Lord said, "It proves that some men will follow any order no matter how asinine as long as it comes from a resonant, well modulated voice."
posted by justkevin at 10:27 AM on December 6, 2005

Rape is biologically valid so all arguments against it are neccessarily morally based

Rape is biologically valid only in a certain type of society - one where abortion is banned and women are forced to bear rapists' babies.

In societies where decent medical care, including abortion, is available to women, rape victims will abort the rapists' babies. Furthermore, a percentage of rapists can expect to be caught, and locked in jail for many years, where they will be unable to reproduce.

There is, therefore, a valid biological argument against rape - but only in societies where anti-abortionist Christian nutjobs are not in control.

Interestingly, the scriptural Judaeo-Christian tradition doesn't make moral arguments at all. Rather than appealing to morality, it simply appeals to an imaginary rulebook handed down by "God" to various prophets.

Morality is something quite different - the shared sense of decency and compassion that means emotionally healthy adults, of all cultures, find acts such as rape to be unacceptable and abhorrent.

Judaism and Christianity were explicity created to justify immoral acts - particularly genocide, slavery and mass rape - as Callmejay demonstrated above. And they have been very successful, biologically speaking, in doing that.

Human morality existed before Moses, and continues to exist wherever his lies are ignored.
posted by cleardawn at 10:27 AM on December 6, 2005

OmieWise is right. The Mensan b.s. is the b.s here.

This athiest stuff is just a red herring. On the whole secular humanists (and sundry) have more robust arguments for human rights - not superior to spiritual arguments, but more cogent.
I don’t see “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” as an exclusively religious position either. (It’s been cybernetically tested in fact).


“Satanism's "Do as thou wilt -- that is the law." “ -posted by weston
It’s nitpicking, but “Satanism” got that from Aleister Crowley who sawed it off St. Augustine (“Love, then do as you will”) who seems to have popularized it, but really it’s an ancient concept.

Nifty post title.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:30 AM on December 6, 2005

incidentally “Vox Day” - ooh latin alliterative puns (Voice of God) oooh Mensa! Oooh. I guess he’s the smartest fucker on the planet. None of us here even know who Scudder Klyce is. Oh, waitaminute...

In addition, I have to disagree with your take If I Had An Anus. (Sorry if that sounds snarky. I don’t mean to occlude your argument with the subject in your post. My dislike for Vox doesn’t extend to you. I’m just countering your assertion.)
Arguments against rape are base cultural. That is - once we could reason and learn and pair bond to better rear children it became an other than biological issue. Do animals rape? Certainly they attempt to mate with each other when partners aren’t willing. But species propagation is only valid for species other than ours. Rape is biologically wrong for humans because human infants require close ties and support to raise them that rape is antithetical too.
The only strength the Judeo-Christian tradition lends the argument beyond codifying various redundant concepts is recognizing that man is not like other animals.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:42 AM on December 6, 2005

antithetical to

my "oooh" key is overworked.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:44 AM on December 6, 2005

Rape is a cutting edge social, philosophical, ethical, and moral issue.

Rape poses problems related to:
1. Consent (did he/she verbally agree? Was he/she capable of consenting at the time? What constitutes consent?)
2. Cultural values of orientation and gender (Male v/s female rape, same sex rape, homosexual rape)

Basically, we should be governed by the perspective that people have a right to be secure in their persons and property.

Rape is a sexual crime. The neo-feminist nonsense about rape being about power is misleading and unhelpful. When confused remember that 1) all crime is about power; 2) everything else is about power too.

Ethically, people have a right to be secure in their persons and property by law, and that one should ethically avoid the appearance of impropriety here more than ever. Morally, who cares? Let people who go to church and practice cognitive dissonance sort it out for themselves.
posted by ewkpates at 10:54 AM on December 6, 2005

Morality is just fiction, so it's useless to argue about it.

Those that argue that different cultures get to say who gets to rape, rob, murder, torture, disfigure who are not only not American, they aren't rational or ethical.

The fundamental philosophical premise of American society is that people have basic rights. Not Americans, people. There is no way to strip them of these rights. There is no "cultural value" that supercedes these rights.
posted by ewkpates at 11:01 AM on December 6, 2005

And the Bible is so nice to those who have been raped. Chapters and verses from Judges:

"Bring out your guest. We want to know him," they demanded. (19:20-22)

The old man refused. He told them not to think wickedly because this man was his guest. He grabbed a hold of his daughter.

"Look, this is my daughter, a maid, and he has a concubine. Take them. We'll bring them out now. Humble them. Do to them what seems right to you, but to this man, do nothing so vile." (19:23-24)

But the men would not listen. They continued demanding the Levite be brought forth. So, the man grabbed his concubine and thrust her out the door.

The crowd of men seized her, pushed her to the ground and took turns raping her. They abused her all night long, until morning. As the first rays of light began to peek over the horizon, they let her go. (19:25)

Slowly, she rose up from the dirt and made her way towards the old man's door where her husband was. She fell at the doorstep unable to knock. She lay there, bloodied and abused.

Later that morning, her husband rose. He opened the front door to find her lying there with her arms stretched forward, her fingertips touching the threshold to the door.

"Get up," he said to her, but she did not move or answer. He picked her up, and lay her body across one of the asses.

When he arrived home, he took a knife*** and firmly gripped the concubine. Then, cutting into her, he divided her, including her bones, into twelve pieces. He sent a piece of her to each coast of Israel. (19:26-29)
posted by ontic at 11:11 AM on December 6, 2005

It’s nitpicking, but “Satanism” got that from Aleister Crowley who sawed it off St. Augustine (“Love, then do as you will”) who seems to have popularized it, but really it’s an ancient concept.

Smedleyman -- thanks. I knew Crowley had a hand, but wasn't aware of the Augustine connection.

I do think the addition of "Love" makes a pretty significant difference to the phrase, especially if he's talking about the Christian virtue of Charity or the edict "Love the Lord thy God with all they heart, and love thy neighbor as thyself." That level of esteem and compassion for other human beings rules out a good number of moral sins.

Interestingly, the scriptural Judaeo-Christian tradition doesn't make moral arguments at all. Rather than appealing to morality, it simply appeals to an imaginary rulebook handed down by "God" to various prophets.

I mostly agree with this, and do so as a person who accepts the idea of God. A jew or christian might say "I believe God is real and moral. X is moral/immoral because God is moral, and God's commandments are moral. Furthermore, God commands us to love him and love our neighbors as ourselves. Doing x would support/violate both his direct commandments and the spirit of love towards neighbors." A secularist might say "I believe it's important to love our neighbors, to be compasionate towards them, to esteem their interests as on par with our own. Doing x would support/violate the spirit of that ethic." In both cases, you arrive at a similar place, the difference is really in where you start from.

I do have a few beefs with a secularist worldview that can accept the concept of charity but rejects/mocks notions of "holiness." But charity as the spirit of the law is clearly given a certain amount of primacy in Christianity, and whether you accept it as a starting place, or come to believe its divine importance as a result of spiritual experiences, it works as a basis for interpersonal ethics.

I think it's telling that Vox doesn't spend a lot of time on the charity/compassion/empathy point of view. Perhaps he doesn't see it as an important part of Christianity, but I think it's more likely he realizes that it could destroy his argument.

I also think it's telling that Vox can't resist spending time commenting on the emotional reactions of others. I agree that some of the reactions he gets are histrionic, and certainly my initial internal reactions were. But the fact that he seems to savor them and almost depends on them as evidence that he's saying something important marks him as something between a troll and a shock-jock.
posted by weston at 11:13 AM on December 6, 2005

"You all hate christians" is the new "You all hate conservatives."
posted by lodurr at 11:14 AM on December 6, 2005

You found the biggest fundie Christian crackpot you could find, then generalized his views to Christians as a whole.

That would indeed be a bad thing, but I do not see this generalization of which you speak. Can you point it out?

The SFWA "Vox Day" belongs to is probably the Science Fiction (and fantasy) Writers of America, seeing as how he stands accused of writing fantasy novels under his real name. SFWA seems to attract more than it's fair share of nutjobs.
posted by Western Infidels at 11:26 AM on December 6, 2005

All you Christians worried about the anti-Xtian bias on mefi should spend more time worried about the fundies like Vox who, whether you approve or not, speak for your religion on a daily basis. Take it the fuck back if it's so special to you.
posted by bardic at 11:37 AM on December 6, 2005

All of the examples of morality-creating religion he cited as tacitly or directly approving of rape were created by men. While that may be a moot point, as the number of religions created by women is quite small, I find it difficult to believe that even women who subscribe to those religions Vox cites would approve of the morality of being raped themselves. Indeed, any woman who would approve would not be experiencing rape, but consensual sex brought on their own religious beliefs.

Vox has merely provided a way by which idiots may enter a circular logic fallacy about their own morality.
posted by Revvy at 11:45 AM on December 6, 2005

More about Vox and the SFWA.
posted by jefbla at 11:47 AM on December 6, 2005

Won't anyone speak up in support of rape?

Rape, you say?
Why, we come from the Land of Rape (and Honey)!
posted by CynicalKnight at 11:50 AM on December 6, 2005

The other worrisome thing about creating a moral system out of the judaeo-christian tales, is that "Jehovah" broke his own rules, all the time. He killed, he told his followers that it was okay to plunder, and steal from enemies, and then he cuckolded Joseph, to produce a son. What, no wonder I don't like the ten commandments posted in courthouses. Even the entity that supposedly wrote the rules, didn't follow them.
posted by Oyéah at 12:00 PM on December 6, 2005

I don't hate Christians or conservatives - just those parts of their belief systems that cause unnecessary suffering, to themselves and others. Offering honest criticisms of people's beliefs is an act of love, not hate. (I'm sure that's exactly what Lodurr meant, but I just want to make it explicit.)

If liberals were to start shipping conservatives off to Guantanamo Bay, and burning Christians at the stake, then their accusations of "hatred" would indeed be justified. Merely discussing the flaws in their reasoning, however, hardly constitutes an act of hatred.

I do have a few beefs with a secularist worldview that can accept the concept of charity but rejects/mocks notions of "holiness."

I agree with that, too. Holiness, sacredness, sensitivity, compassion, wisdom, and even happiness, seem to me to be very closely related, if not the same thing.

If someone has a real sense of the sacredness of Reality, it's hard to imagine such a person committing rape, for example.

On the other hand, an obsessive belief in the importance of half-nonsensical antique written works seems likely to obscure such a sense of holiness and compassion. Rather than seeing a real woman as a unique part of this holy and sacred reality, a fundamentalist might be inclined to view her through a lens of scriptural references, effectively dehumanizing her, and making various unholy acts - such as "honor killings", for example - seem acceptable.

And as for ex-Christian atheists - and Satanists - with their "fuck you, I can do what I want because there is no God" attitude... again, a little gentle, critical examination of those beliefs is definitely in order, before they hurt someone, most likely themselves. Morality exists whether or not God does. Our actions still have consequences.

Furthermore, various forms of God and Goddess may well exist, irrespective of whether or not Moses was a misogynist warmongering liar.

Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are easy to debunk. Any teenager of average intelligence can manage that. On the other hand, there are many streams of Animism, Buddhism, Taoism and Hinduism that have yet to be effectively debunked by anyone, and ex-Christians would be well advised to take a good look at what those cultures have to offer before deciding there is nothing better to worship than the forces of darkness.
posted by cleardawn at 12:05 PM on December 6, 2005

Vox Day = Moon Unit. That explains a lot. The Moonies are kinky to the max. You should read up on their nuptual ceremonies: spanking, specified positions, etc. The Rev. is one sick dude.
posted by warbaby at 12:12 PM on December 6, 2005

So at least 50% of non-christian women support being raped? Intresting theory.
posted by delmoi at 12:15 PM on December 6, 2005

What does it mean for something to be "biologically valid?"
posted by ph00dz at 12:23 PM on December 6, 2005

cleardawn -- oh please -- if one doesn't worship the "god of the holy scriptures" then one must worship "the force of darkness"? WTF? Please think before you write.
posted by mooncrow at 12:42 PM on December 6, 2005

I'm somewhat amazed that someone as apparently (or, rather, allegedly) intelligent as (what the hell was his name again? Vox? ... Seriously?) Vox is unable to discern the homogeneous roles of religion and law in primitive societies. Religion codifies law in primitive society, and provides imperative authority based on superstitious belief. Eg, "This is the way you will behave" (the law) "because the God(s) demand it" (the imperative authority).

In Western culture we make the mistake of thinking that laws (and, consequently, concepts of morality) are derived from religion, but in practice the exact opposite is true. Religion serves to implement codes of law and morality (not to mention political authority, etc) where societal development has yet to achieve a level of sophistication in which rights and obligations (the laws) are acknowledged as fundamental to the societal model.

To claim that rape can only be apprehended as wrong in terms of a religious doctrine is, to say the least, absurd. It's a crime before it's a sin, and it's only a sin because that is the method by which a primitive society defines a crime.

The counter-argument to Vox's idiocy is to explore the compromised morality of only being able to perceive an act as wrong when motivated by a superstitious / divine authority.

Consider the relative moral development of the person who says, "Rape is wrong because God tells me so," versus "Rape is wrong because I acknowledge that it is a violation of the inherent rights of another individual".
posted by planetthoughtful at 12:45 PM on December 6, 2005

Won't anyone speak up in support of rape?

I will! In fact, because I think you should never waste the opportunity to learn something no matter what the source, I will speak out specifically in support of the Rape of the Sabine Women, a magnificent work of art (huge photo here). Carved from a single bloc of marble, it was finished in 1583 and the Grand Duke of Florence, Francesco de' Medici, decreed it should be put on display in the Loggia dei Tanzi in the Piazza della Signoria, next to other sculptures such as the Perseus by Benvenuto Cellini.

--the above is to be read in a posh British tourist guide voice--

And, on behalf of the Florence tourist board, I'd like to thank Mr Vox Day for mentioning this classic Renaissance masterpiece.
posted by funambulist at 12:55 PM on December 6, 2005

/tourist guide mode off

Wasn't this Vox Day the same bloke who had a weblog where he (ok I'm getting there I promise) posted something about Jews and the Holocaust that was rather interesting?

Ah yes, here it is:
The merits of antisemitism
posted by funambulist at 1:04 PM on December 6, 2005

What does it mean for something to be "biologically valid?"

I took it to mean "something that allows your genetic line to continue." Biologically speaking, impregnating a woman through rape is just as good as impregnating her with her consent. Infanticide, too, is a "valid" practice if one accepts that the ultimate goal of an organism is to reproduce and to provide it's offspring/genetic material with the best chance of survival.

Of course, rape and murder and infanticide, etc. cause enormous grief and suffering and are antithetical to a stable social environment. It's absurd to think that Christians invented prohibitions against these things.
posted by apis mellifera at 1:12 PM on December 6, 2005

ontic, worst. translation. ever. Generally speaking, I'm not a big fan of this extensive messing with the Bible (specifically, here, "she fell at the doorstep unable to knock. She lay there, bloodied and abused" substituted for the KJV "fell down at the door"). If you're going to go to the Bible, let's at least go to a translation that tries to be faithful.

Also, the consensus is that she wasn't so great herself (19:2), and that sinning brings consequences. I'm not saying I buy all of the interpretation I linked to, but you may want to check out 19:30, which can support that interpretation. You may also bear in mind that this is a person doing this awful thing, not God -- and do you think people are incapable of doing this and worse things, either then or now? Sometimes free will doesn't seem so great.

And bardic, we're trying. Understandably, part of that is reminding other people that not all Christians fit the stereotype.
posted by booksandlibretti at 1:22 PM on December 6, 2005

You found the biggest fundie Christian crackpot you could find, then generalized his views to Christians as a whole.

Of course, standard operating procedure. But then, it's done with every topic no? It would rather boring to discuss normal behavior or thought patterns wouldn't it? I don't think I'd logon to MeFi to read posts about what 99% of people do with their time such as going to work, making spaghetti for dinner, washing their dishes, and watching Seinfeld re-runs.

On the other hand, what fundie crackpots have to do with 'best of the web' remains a mystery, popular though.
posted by scheptech at 1:22 PM on December 6, 2005

funambulist, while Gianbologna's depiction is impressive, don't forget the long and glorious artistic
history of abducting and raping Sabine women!
posted by agent at 1:24 PM on December 6, 2005

Bring out your guest. We want to know him," they demanded. "Also....did you order a pizza?" (19:20-22)
*cheezy 70s bass riff*

“if one doesn't worship the "god of the holy scriptures" then one must worship "the force of darkness"?” - posted by mooncrow

I really don’t think that’s what cleardawn was saying mooncrow.

“I do think the addition of "Love" makes a pretty significant difference to the phrase,” -posted by weston

I agree. There’s several schools of thinking on it though. One of which is that it’s implicit in will. That it is the medium. That is - if you’re acting from that place you don’t notice love anymore than you typically notice air.
There are a variety of other interpretations in other traditions, but one of them is a sort of release of will. That is - “do what thou will shall be the whole of the law” is sort of self-referential. Sort of Godelian (Kurt Godel - to paraphrase/juxtapose - will transcends principles used to justify acts).
Dante did a good job of explicating the Christian handle on this with Satan incapable of action because he was utterly mired in self (and depicted as frozen in ice). Allow wilfull acts to be free of ego and it becomes pure (quite different from the “fuck you I do what I want” set that seems to not get it)
Lotsa ways of saying it. I don’t understand most of it. Many people who smoke clove cigarettes have it as a bumper sticker.

Augustine goes into rape a bit in fact. And I agree with him as far as I typically do (but how can you not like a guy who says “Lord make me pure from lust....but not yet!”)
You are free to rape and beat your wife, provided that you love her.
The catch-22 here is, if you do love your wife, you won’t do that. But it goes further. Given that perfect love your wife would allow you to beat and rape her without changing that fact. The love that doesn’t change because of acts or words, etc. - sort of like grandmotherly kindness in the Zen tradition. Metanoia probably works well in the old school sense (not ‘repentance’ but revision).

Anyway, rape is in some sense produced by culture rather than abjured by it (abjured in the strict sense, given that animals aren’t said to ‘rape’).
I would say this kind of metanoia, (”gut blowout” in Buddhist terms) this re-visioning, relieves the urge to rape, which is after all an act of power not sexuality, by erasing those formerly held classifications.

I think for anyone who has a desire to rape someone it is not the structure of society which is preventing them, but rather, driving them. I suspect they would need to eliminate the illusion that they are somehow powerless and must relieve that position through raping someone - rather than adopt a new structure however benevolent.

I suppose I’m arguing those urges are externally derived rather than internally. That self-perception and identity is the issue not ethos or values.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:41 PM on December 6, 2005

Morality exists whether or not God does. Our actions still have consequences.
cleardawn
Would you mind elaborating on this? You keep saying it, and I'm wondering what you mean by it. I agree that ethical systems can exist without religion, but actions having consequences does not seem to constitute morality to me. You seem to be arguing that there exists some sort of universal concept of morality, that "Morality is something quite different - the shared sense of decency and compassion that means emotionally healthy adults, of all cultures, find acts such as rape to be unacceptable and abhorrent." But different cultures and peoples across the world do indeed have vastly differing ideas of what is acceptable and what is not. What is the universal rule system that you allude to? In cultures that have different ideas about sexual relations, like those mentioned in posts above, would the adults who support their system be emotionally unhealthy? Is an emotionally healthy adult by definition one who shares your values and only your values? That seems a bit presumptuous. From your statements, it seems like you advocate some kind of consequentialist moral system (utilitarianism perhaps?), because "actions still have consequences." But there are problems with such systems too. It seems somewhat wrong that the reason I shouldn't rape a woman is that there would be consequences for me, like prison. It should be wrong in and of itself.
I'm not trying to hassle you, it just seems like you have some very strong views about morality and I'd like to know what sort of system you're in favor of.
posted by Sangermaine at 1:55 PM on December 6, 2005

agent, yes indeed! you have to admit the sacrifice of the Sabine women was worth it. Even if it was only a myth. But, despite the glorious history of rape in art, it hasn't yielded as many inspired works as massacre, murder, and killing. Though my personal favourite crime elevated into art is beheading. A classic.
posted by funambulist at 2:03 PM on December 6, 2005

But different cultures and peoples across the world do indeed have vastly differing ideas of what is acceptable and what is not.

As do different individuals. In my more snarkier moments I imagine those who don't have an actual religion haven't really thought about it too hard and so are left believing at some level in The Federation of Planets. They have some amorphous sort of notion that somewhere out there will exist an organization of 'reasonable' and 'logical' entities who will naturally come together and form the one true society, which of course most certainly won't be a 'religion'.
posted by scheptech at 2:08 PM on December 6, 2005

Consider the relative moral development of the person who says, "Rape is wrong because God tells me so," versus "Rape is wrong because I acknowledge that it is a violation of the inherent rights of another individual".
planetthoughtful
Several people have mentioned this. While it does seem more morally mature to look at an act in terms of violations of one's rights, where do these rights come from? You say that they are "inherent". Why? Do people just naturally have them? If so, how?
The rest of your post, like this part: "Religion serves to implement codes of law and morality (not to mention political authority, etc) where societal development has yet to achieve a level of sophistication in which rights and obligations (the laws) are acknowledged as fundamental to the societal model." seems to say that rights are granted and agreed upon by society. By if society gives them, then they're not inherent. If society decides, for example, that Jews have no rights, why shouldn't they kill the Jews? You could say that concept of rights is universal for all man and that individual societies can't break them, but you still get the problem of what rights are, and the problem of the oppression by majority on a larger scale.

Similarly, "crime" is defined by the government. It's not just some abstract thing that is Wrong. A crime is a violation of a law created by the government. It seems shaky to say that rape is wrong purely because the government says so. You might say that, at least in some place, the government is the will of the people, so laws are what the people want, but it gets back to the problem yet again of the tyranny of the majority.

Sorry for all the questions, I was just reading something about the Nuremberg Trials earlier, and this discussion reminded me of that. I should note that I am an atheist and certainly not arguing that God is aboslutely needed, I'm just asking some questions that interest me.
posted by Sangermaine at 2:11 PM on December 6, 2005

books: I don't care what translation you use. Any theory of justice that makes being abused, gang-raped, chopped up and shipped out punishment for sleeping around is not in any way an acceptable theory of justice. In fact it makes a mockery of the word.

As I understand it a) the traveler's punishment is never mentioned for this act, and b) God could have intervened at any point in this debacle (as he often does in the Old Testament). Call it a mystery, call it whatever, but it's certainly evidence against a moral high ground for the Bible on rape.
posted by ontic at 3:14 PM on December 6, 2005

Rape is a sexual crime. The neo-feminist nonsense about rape being about power is misleading and unhelpful. When confused remember that 1) all crime is about power; 2) everything else is about power too.

Ewkpates-- I'll buy that more-or-less everything is about power. ( I think you were snarking, but I'll go ahead and agree with you anyway.) We are hierarchical animals, after all. But I think that there really is an important distinction between copulative activity done for purposes of domination and copulative activity done for sexual purposes.

I mean, when my corgi goes to the dog park and tries to clamber on top of another dog and go a-humpin', it's not because she's managed to go into some weird, uterusless heat, or because we've been playing too much Barry White in the house. She's doing it to assert her superiority over the dog clambered-upon.

The power/sex distinction, as I understand it, was first enunciated as a way of explaining that women don't get raped for being "too desireable," and to help rape survivors to understand that they didn't somehow cause their own rape by being pretty, and to place the blame where it really belongs. There is no direct correlation between a person's relative attractiveness and his or her likeliness to be sexually assaulted. If there were, we wouldn't see nearly as many assaults on the elderly and the disabled as we do. (Not that I'm saying that elderly and disabled folks can't be attractive, but y'know.)

That said, I think that some rapes may have sexual elements. Acts by certain pedophiles (-not- as a general rule, those who prefer to prey on their own family members) may well have something to do with sexuality. In cases where the offender's entire erotic life and imagination centers on some form of criminal contact, I agree with you that it's disingenous to leave that out of the analysis. But when I read about something like the Lucas Salmon case, I can't help but think it has to have been about power and about ensuring position in the pack, first and foremost.

RE: the whole from-whence-does-the-law-spring-if-not-G_d debate:

Lord, did I ever read a lot about that in law school. Check out Ronald Dworkin and H.L.A. Hart if you're interested in getting into the question further. (Vox obviously hasn't, but no suprise there.)
posted by palmcorder_yajna at 3:33 PM on December 6, 2005

ontic, did you read the links? In at least some interpretations, that God didn't interfere seems to be the point -- a kind of cosmic "See what happens when I don't step in? This is what free will can do." I'm not getting the sense of God watching and gloating that you seem to see.

As for your (a), well, how about continuing to Judges 20?
posted by booksandlibretti at 3:41 PM on December 6, 2005

So long as the Radical Right debates the morality of rape, the more clear the underpinnings of their ethical philosophy become. Property and conquest as birthright supercedes all else. How fucking lovely.
posted by moonbird at 6:39 PM on December 6, 2005

Of course I read the links. Even on those interpretations the point is positively ghastly: God will allow gang-rape and abuse in order to ... prove a point about free will? And nowhere in chapter 20 does it say that the Levite traveler was ever punished for sacrificing his concubine (wife!) to the rape and abuse of crazed mad men (leaving alone the idea that it's not entirely clear who killed her).
posted by ontic at 7:30 PM on December 6, 2005

I had trouble following his argument. (The photo was only part of it.) I kept being distracted by a simple question: I'm sort of wondering if this jerk is getting any.

I mean, really, now: what sort of woman would go on a date with an idiot who tells the entire world that there's no such thing as date rape?
posted by AsYouKnow Bob at 7:33 PM on December 6, 2005

This conversation has taken a bit of a literalist turn, hasn't it?

I mean, unless you're arguing for a literalist reading, I don't see how it makes sense to take just any biblical incident and say "God allowed this to happen." It's a story; the story proves the point, not the incident. It's a metaphor, not a literal thing.

It would be like getting on Stephen King's case because he lets 99.99% of the world die in The Stand 'just to prove a point.'

(Not that there aren't christians who think of it in biblical-literalist terms; however, I think they're fewer in number than even they think. Scratch a literalist and he bleeds metaphors.)
posted by lodurr at 7:39 PM on December 6, 2005

ontic, that free-will thing is kind of popular. Or do you believe in predestination? And I wouldn't say that gang rape and abuse is the worst act ever committed.

The pwnage of all of Gibeah isn't enough punishment for a gang rape? Because I would call that a punishment, albeit an indirect one.

Judges 20:5 -- "And the men of Gib'e-ah rose against me, and beset the house round about upon me by night, and thought to have slain me: and my concubine have they forced, that she is dead." [The Levite is speaking.]

Judges 20:35 -- "And the LORD smote Benjamin before Israel: and the children of Israel destroyed of the Benjamites that day twenty and five thousand and a hundred men: all these drew the sword."

Judges 20:48 -- "And the men of Israel turned again upon the children of Benjamin, and smote them with the edge of the sword, as well the men of every city, as the beast, and all that came to hand: also they set on fire all the cities that they came to."
posted by booksandlibretti at 8:15 PM on December 6, 2005

I'm not talking about punishing Gibeah, I'm talking about punishing the Levite. I find three people who do wrong in the story: God, the Levite, and the Gibeahans. One allows the rape, one gives the woman up to the rapers, and a bunch do the raping. Based on the story as it is written, I'm only supposed to be against the Gibeahans.

I should clarify that I don't believe that Christians support rape or anything of the sort. But I don't think they enjoy some kind of special reason for prohibition against violence against women based totally on the Bible.
posted by ontic at 9:04 PM on December 6, 2005

If you believe in God (and I'm assuming at this point that you don't), God's watched way worse than a gang rape and murder. As I see it, He's not watching it to gloat. I know it's uncool and super-sappy, but He's crying.

The old man is, I agree, what I have the most trouble with, and what most people would today. The interpretation that I've heard and that I suppose I believe the most is that then, violating guest-trust was just Not Done, period -- worse than anything. And of course, the old man didn't want the mob to rape/beat/kill (select as you see fit) the concubine: "Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly . . . But the men would not hearken to him." He just chucked her out there; the gang could've played patty-cake with her, but noooo.

Of course, his refusal to act is no excuse. Pilate, pretty famously, washed his hands. I do see the old man's sin as secondary to the mob's, though; his was an act of omission (failing to protect) while theirs was an act of commission (rape, possibly/probably murder).
posted by booksandlibretti at 9:36 PM on December 6, 2005

Actually, I tend to believe in something that is in some sense beyond the natural -- and I think that large parts of the Bible don't represent it very well at all.
posted by ontic at 10:18 PM on December 6, 2005

actions having consequences does not seem to constitute morality to me. You seem to be arguing that there exists some sort of universal concept of morality

I'm arguing for the classical Hindu concept of dharma, in Patanjali's sense of the word. Which is closely related to the idea of karma, that is, actions and their consequences.

Dharma is all about the wisest way to act, in order to produce pleasing consequences. It isn't arbitrary or based on local cultural norms - except to the extent that it's rude, and therefore foolish, to ignore other people's cultural norms of course!

If you act in foolish ways (and raping someone, or otherwise causing harm, is about as foolish as you can get, according to Patanjali's reasoning) there are bad consequences, not just for you, but for the world as a whole, and you will eventually suffer these consequences along with everyone else.

There are two simple tautologies at the root of this, which many people don't realise are tautologies.

Doing good things is good for you, and for the world.

Doing bad things is bad for you, and for the world.

Some scriptures tend to obscure that with layers of complex legalistic reasoning and nonsense about divinities and original sin. Others highlight it. I'm suggesting that the latter type of scripture is preferable.
posted by cleardawn at 9:03 AM on December 10, 2005

As a counterpoint to that, consider the number of Rightwing, Satanist, Christian, Muslim, and Jewish arguments which claim that Good is Bad and Bad is Good. Many of these have now been widely discredited, but some are still very popular:

Parents should be cruel in order to be kind.

Spare the rod and spoil the child.

Infidels/Sinners should be punished, stoned, beaten, killed, raped, etc - in other words, it's Good to be Bad to infidels.

Criminals should be locked up for their whole lives, or executed - it's Good to be Bad to criminals.

Paying workers a living wage is bad for the economy - it's Good to be Bad to workers.

Greed is good.

Health and safety and environmental standards are too expensive to be sustainable - it's Good to be Bad to
workers and to the environment.

And then there's the Satanist claim that
it's fun to hurt people.

I'm proposing that, in general, all arguments of the type "Bad is Good" are fraudulent. There may be some exceptions, but I can't think of any off-hand.
posted by cleardawn at 9:55 AM on December 10, 2005

I'll counter-propose that all arguments of the type "Bad is Good" suffer from confused terminology -- they may well make perfect sense, if read from the context of the person making the argument. OTOH, the fact that the terminology is bad means that they could also end up making perfect nonsense.

I think "spare the rod & spoil the child" falls into the former category: In its own terms, it makes sense. (I don't happen to agree with it, but that's another matter.) Satanist and radical-individualist arguments (a la de Sade) fall into the latter category: Their confusion over their own terms leads them into errors.
posted by lodurr at 12:33 PM on December 10, 2005