Rape not in the Ten Commandments

[Stravo]

In light of the redneck religious yahoos that always love to point to the 10 commandments as the foundation of morality - as if there were no other systems of morality in place before or after, but hey when you only read one book what do you expect - I gave it some thought and something struck me. There is no clear admonition against rape in the Ten Commandments. Huh. It never really hit me until I rewatched Boondock Saints just this past week and there is the line "Do not kill, do not rape, do not steal, these are principles which every man of every faith can embrace."

Yeah...unless you're JudeaoChristian and follow the 10 Commandments. Here are the 10 Commandments in case you need a refresher:

1 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.

2 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My Commandments.

3 “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.

4 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

5 “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.

6 “You shall not murder.

7 “You shall not commit adultery.

8 “You shall not steal.

9 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

10 “You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.”


OK. Now if we look it over closely there is no clear admonition against rape. Maybe some Vatican lawyer or learned Rabbi can try to finagle one out of these rules but I don't see it. Hell, apparently you can covet your neighbor's husband ladies since that is not clearly defined either but I digress. Does anyone see a way to shoehorn in rape or is the Lord basically winking and nudging us to say "hey guys, I know sometimes you like to go and have some fun. Knock yourself out. Morally you're in the clear."

Has this been addressed anywhere in some of the teachings of these 10 commandment yahoos or is the patriarchal streak so strong that they don't even notice (or care)?

[Shroom Man 777]

#7 and #10 could be construed as prohibitions against rape. Judging by the shit way they treated women of that era, not much different from Saudi Arabia, for all we know women were the ones who get punished when rape happens.

By the way, don't Catholic Bibles edit #2 and change the 'graven image' thing to something else?

[Edi]

A prohibition against rape can be inferred from the tenth commandment, but it requires some pretty torturous extensions of logic and is contradicted by lots of other evidence from the era, where for example rapists could get off the hook by marrying their victims (if they raped a virgin).

so yeah, it's not there explicitly and could only be shoehorned in on the basis of universal moral rules found in all human societies.

[Broomstick]

Well, #7 is often interpreted to mean no sex outside of marriage, which would include rape in the prohibition. And #10 would bar raping any women belonging to your neighbor (leaving aside that we now finding owning humans objectionable). That would cover quite a bit of potential rapes.

It might still leave a loophole for unmarried men raping unmarried/unowned women. Also would permit a man to rape his wife.

[The Spartan]

The only way I've ever came across during my religious years that would include rape within the Commandments was a pastor defining adultery to mean 'any sex outside of marriage'. Since raping someone who you're not married to is sex outside of marriage, by their definition, it's adultery.

Later rules about forcing marriage upon rape victims didn't come up. Neither did forcing a spouse to have sex.

[Spoonist]

Uhm. Why do you limit yourself to the second ten commandments? They are clearly not the whole of the judean law.

You see, it gets worse if you inlude the whole law. This is what is mentioned you see:
http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch ... ersion=NIV

A prohibition against rape can be inferred from the tenth commandment, but it requires some pretty torturous extensions of logic and is contradicted by lots of other evidence from the era, where for example rapists could get off the hook by marrying their victims (if they raped a virgin).

Usually if we look at the morals of the old testament its really inferred from #8. While modern apologists would never claim such a thing.

[The Spartan]

Uhm. Why do you limit yourself to the second ten commandments? They are clearly not the whole of the judean law.

Because few, if any, people in American society know much about the rest of the Biblical laws and tout these ten commandments as being super important to our culture and try to get the damn things posted in courthouses and legislatures.

[Jaevric]

Generally, aren't these the same sort of idiots who tend to believe if a woman gets raped it's her fault for wearing too short a skirt/too low-cut a blouse/being drunk/leading the guy on/etc?

Anyway, since a woman was considered the property of her father until she got married and became the property of her husband, "rape" may fall under the "shall not covet your...nor anything that is your neighbor's" rule. That also explains (using the term explains very loosely here) why having sex before marriage is bad, because guys aren't supposed to want something that belongs to "their neighbor," and having sex with a someone's daughter before she becomes your property is "coveting."

The real question is, how far does "neighbor" extend? One or two houses over? Same city block? Same city? Probably same city, otherwise all those ancient Jews who went out to plunder and rape in the next (non-Jewish) town over might be in trouble. Or maybe if you're not Jewish/Christian you aren't protected by the 10 Commandments.

[Darth Wong]

It's worth noting that Moses actually ordered his men to rape all of the virgins of a conquered tribe at one point.

[Spoonist]

Uhm. Why do you limit yourself to the second ten commandments? They are clearly not the whole of the judean law.

Because few, if any, people in American society know much about the rest of the Biblical laws and tout these ten commandments as being super important to our culture and try to get the damn things posted in courthouses and legislatures.

Uhm most "people in American society" can't even name the second ten commandments so...


If you are going to use the info in a debate then you'd better considered the rest of the law otherwise they'll get away by claiming "its in there somewhere", which is false.
There is the infamous judges passage, for instance which clearly show the value of women.

22 While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, "Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him."

23 The owner of the house went outside and said to them, "No, my friends, don't be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don't do this disgraceful thing. 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don't do such a disgraceful thing."

25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. 26 At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight.

27 When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. 28 He said to her, "Get up; let's go." But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.

29 When he reached home, he took a knife and cut up his concubine, limb by limb, into twelve parts and sent them into all the areas of Israel. 30 Everyone who saw it said, "Such a thing has never been seen or done, not since the day the Israelites came up out of Egypt. Think about it! Consider it! Tell us what to do!"

or the war/slavery laws. etc

[The Spartan]

Uhm most "people in American society" can't even name the second ten commandments so...

What's your point?

As Stravo noted, this is, in part, about the fact that people in America try to get the Ten Commandments posted in and around court houses and legislatures because of they're looked upon as the foundation of morality, if I may borrow his phrase.

[Stravo]

Uhm most "people in American society" can't even name the second ten commandments so...

What's your point?

As Stravo noted, this is, in part, about the fact that people in America try to get the Ten Commandments posted in and around court houses and legislatures because of they're looked upon as the foundation of morality, if I may borrow his phrase.

There is a video of a man who all but had a nervous breakdown as they were carting a stone monument of the ten commandments away from a courthouse somewhere down south a few years back. I don't know if people here remember that one, and for every slacker/lazy person who doesn't bother to learn or know anything you have a growing segment of right wing religious zealots who know damn well what the 10 commandments are and view it as the foundation of morality for this country. This is directed at those fucknuts and not the ones who could care less. They want them posted in government buildings and courthouses and could care less about separation of church and state.

[Spoonist]

Uhm most "people in American society" can't even name the second ten commandments so...

What's your point?

Uh, I thought that I stated that in the very same post you quote here?

If you are going to use the info in a debate then you'd better considered the rest of the law otherwise they'll get away by claiming "its in there somewhere", which is false.

If I was not clear enough then I'll elaborate:
Most christians do not know the biblical laws, not even the second ten commandments. So if one is going to use this line of reasoning against them then one better have read up on the topic. Otherwise the christians will usually argue from ignorance and believe that even though its not in the "ten" its in there somewhere. Which it is not.

As Stravo noted, this is, in part, about the fact that people in America try to get the Ten Commandments posted in and around court houses and legislatures because of they're looked upon as the foundation of morality, if I may borrow his phrase.

Which is laughable in light of pre-christian roman laws, or, chinese dynasty laws, etc.

This is directed at those fucknuts and not the ones who could care less. They want them posted in government buildings and courthouses and could care less about separation of church and state.

If that was directed at me then the vid linked above was of one of the people driving that type of legislation being interviewed by Stephen Colbert and not being able to name the "ten".
There is not a separation between "those who could care less" and those who want them in the governement buildings etc. Most fundies, even though highly religious have not read the bible on their own. They don't know the biblical laws. Sometimes not even the "ten". Even if they try to push for legislation to make it a criteria in schools and governement. They simply don't see that as hypocritical.


So I was curious why you would want to limit this line of reasoning to only the second ten when its even more damning for their cause if you know the context of the rest? If you feel that this was not your intent with this topic then I'll leave it be.

[The Spartan]

Look, the problem is that you're trying to bring extra baggage to the point. Stravo is saying that Christians (many if not most) point to the Ten Commandments as the basis of all morality, which Stravo finds curious since there is not an explicit condemnation of rape within those rules. Kind of a big omission. So he's wondering how they rationalize it being wrong using those commandments. That's it.

Now, yes, the rest of the laws in Leviticus, Deuteronomy, etc. have additional laws and what not dealing with rape and other crimes and sins, but, and this is my point, Christians in America are either wholly ignorant of those laws or outright ignore them, even reject them. I've had people tell me to my face that all those old laws don't apply anymore, oh, but the ten commandments still should be every where. They don't care what Jesus said about all the laws still applying, either. Rather, they act like they're going to consider it and then go right back to howling about the Ten Commandments needing to be everywhere because they're the basis of morality and how dare they be removed from the court house and we'd all be better if we just followed them, etc., etc. ad nauseam.

[AMX]

Well, #7 is often interpreted to mean no sex outside of marriage, which would include rape in the prohibition. And #10 would bar raping any women belonging to your neighbor (leaving aside that we now finding owning humans objectionable). That would cover quite a bit of potential rapes.

It might still leave a loophole for unmarried men raping unmarried/unowned women. Also would permit a man to rape his wife.

Are you aware that spousal rape has only very recently been recognized as a crime?
Before that, it was simply assumed that "she consented when she married him, therefore it can't be rape".

I would not be surprised to find that many people still follow that "logic".

[Marcus Aurelius]

I've had people tell me to my face that all those old laws don't apply anymore, oh, but the ten commandments still should be every where. They don't care what Jesus said about all the laws still applying, either.

That's because they don't apply to gentile Christians according to a theological interpretation that goes back to the first century C.E and is even included in the Bible; hell it's the oldest part of the New Testament even. Reading the epistles of Saint Paul goes a long way of explaining what Christianity really is and how its traditions came to be. Without Paul of Tarsus and his theology there is no Christianity in the sense we know it.

[phred]

#7 and #10 could be construed as prohibitions against rape. Judging by the shit way they treated women of that era, not much different from Saudi Arabia, for all we know women were the ones who get punished when rape happens.

By the way, don't Catholic Bibles edit #2 and change the 'graven image' thing to something else?

#7 is the closest thing to a prohibition against rape, but the application of that rule would really depend on whoever was judging the case.

IIRC a lot of churches split the 10th commandment up somehow into two different commandments, and then sort of lump the second one in with the first so they can get away with hanging crosses everywhere.

[Lonestar]

There is a video of a man who all but had a nervous breakdown as they were carting a stone monument of the ten commandments away from a courthouse somewhere down south a few years back. I don't know if people here remember that one, and for every slacker/lazy person who doesn't bother to learn or know anything you have a growing segment of right wing religious zealots who know damn well what the 10 commandments are and view it as the foundation of morality for this country. This is directed at those fucknuts and not the ones who could care less. They want them posted in government buildings and courthouses and could care less about separation of church and state.

Last summer myself and a coworker were on business travel in Alabama and my coworker had the car and had it turned to some news talk radio. Some (local) radio personality, who otherwise was extremely conservative, mentioned in passing that he considered that Alabama State Supreme Court Justice who refused to remove the 10 Commandments "at least as much" as an activist judge as some liberal judges. Holy hell. The board lit up for that, mostly from people just baffled that someone with "good conservative viewpoints" could call that judge an "activist judge" because he refused a higher court order to remove the damn commandments. I guess the law is the law...unless it doesn't agree with your world view?

I knew I was in woo-woo land when the radio personality explained the reasoning("By having the 10 Commandments in a courthouse they are elevating certain religious laws over others. The courthouse needs to put every conceivable religious rule up, or have no religious rules up") and was promptly called un-American and a traitor to conservative values by most of the callers. It's kind of telling, really, about the very conservative movement in this country.


(or at least in Alabama)

[Spoonist]

Look, the problem is that you're trying to bring extra baggage to the point. Stravo is saying that Christians (many if not most) point to the Ten Commandments as the basis of all morality, which Stravo finds curious since there is not an explicit condemnation of rape within those rules. Kind of a big omission. So he's wondering how they rationalize it being wrong using those commandments. That's it..

To me its not bringing extra baggage if it helps arguing against that kind of bigotry. But to each his own.

Now, yes, the rest of the laws in Leviticus, Deuteronomy, etc. have additional laws and what not dealing with rape and other crimes and sins, but, and this is my point, Christians in America are either wholly ignorant of those laws or outright ignore them, even reject them. I've had people tell me to my face that all those old laws don't apply anymore, oh, but the ten commandments still should be every where. They don't care what Jesus said about all the laws still applying, either. Rather, they act like they're going to consider it and then go right back to howling about the Ten Commandments needing to be everywhere because they're the basis of morality and how dare they be removed from the court house and we'd all be better if we just followed them, etc., etc. ad nauseam.

Yupp, I've met and discussed with people like that. What works for me in those situations is to argue with them from within their religious context. Pointing out that rape is not in the decalogue would never work with that kind of people, because they think its covered. Which again, what we define as rape today is not covered in the bible. At all. Rather the opposite.

I would not be surprised to find that many people still follow that "logic".

Unfortunately you are correct. There are countless of cases like that every year. Lots of sectarian fundies use this as a doctrinal issue, especially those practicing polygamy and child marriages. Its also in some sharia interpretations.

That's because they don't apply to gentile Christians according to a theological interpretation that goes back to the first century C.E and is even included in the Bible; hell it's the oldest part of the New Testament even. Reading the epistles of Saint Paul goes a long way of explaining what Christianity really is and how its traditions came to be. Without Paul of Tarsus and his theology there is no Christianity in the sense we know it.

Agreed. They also don't consider it a double standard to say that they don't apply anymore but still quote them against things they consider "mortal sins". Thus cherrypicking whatever their denomination thinks is OK/not OK.

IIRC a lot of churches split the 10th commandment up somehow into two different commandments, and then sort of lump the second one in with the first so they can get away with hanging crosses everywhere.

Right. But you are showing an anglican bias in your wording. The 10th part would be the catholics and the lutherans that sets 9 as covet neighbor's wife and 10 as covet neighbor's stuff. While bunching together no other gods and no idolatry into one is done by them as well as the jews.
Its part of the west/east rome thingie.

[The Spartan]

To me its not bringing extra baggage if it helps arguing against that kind of bigotry. But to each his own.

That's not what he's asking though. He's only asking how they rationalize it when they ignore the other bits of Biblical law that govern rape. Which is why I'm saying it's extra baggage in this case.

[Serafina]

Actually, both #7 and 10 do NOT prohibit rape.

See:
#10 only applies if the woman in question is already married, since it only applies to wives.
#7 only applies if it is adultery - therefore, if you marry her or if you are already married, it is not against that commandment.

And it looks like that's just how it's interpretated - according to the bible, you can rape any unmarried girl you want as long as you marry her afterwards - no sin in sight.

[Themightytom]

In light of the redneck religious yahoos that always love to point to the 10 commandments as the foundation of morality - as if there were no other systems of morality in place before or after,

Well "foundation" is highly debatable, as Jesus retconned the ten commandments in the New testament, unless your talking about Jewish rednecks, which I suppose must exist somewhere.

36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[a] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Jesus as much as says that the 10 commandments themselves are founded on love of God first, and then love of self and thy neighbor second. unfortunately the attempt to reboot a convoluted system of self serving rationalizations ended up as a minor footnote because it is a little too abstract and little too demanding. You can't point at the laws and say "well THEY didn't say it was wrong" if the laws pretty much say "Don't do anything wrong." Suddenly we're taking responsibility for our own actions and suddenly our actions reflect on our personal jdugement, i mean that's just downright unsettling...

There are variable definitions of "love" and "neighbor" but the intent seems to be treat everyone as you would have yourself be treated. Its a little harder to argue an all inclusive conceptualization, and to rationalize a blanket instruction not to be an asshole to people, when one in fact really wants to be an asshole.

Also Charlton Heston brought the 10 commandments and he was a gun owner, so they are much more credible than the the law brought by That Guy Who Was The First Captain On Star Trek, or worse, those crazy hppies from that musical in the 70's.

[Broomstick]

Well, #7 is often interpreted to mean no sex outside of marriage, which would include rape in the prohibition. And #10 would bar raping any women belonging to your neighbor (leaving aside that we now finding owning humans objectionable). That would cover quite a bit of potential rapes.

It might still leave a loophole for unmarried men raping unmarried/unowned women. Also would permit a man to rape his wife.

Are you aware that spousal rape has only very recently been recognized as a crime?
Before that, it was simply assumed that "she consented when she married him, therefore it can't be rape".

I would not be surprised to find that many people still follow that "logic".

Oh, yes, I'm well aware that that idea is alive and well out there, and that the concept of spousal rate is relatively new. Doesn't mean I agree with it, though.

[Liberty]

Guys, guys, guys. Stop bickering over semantics. Of course rape is prohibited by the ten commandments! It's commandment #8, thou shalt not steal. Because at the time, women were the property of men, and having sex with another man's woman was stealing his property.

Notice, of course, that having sex with your slave or your captive you got on military campaigns is fine, whether they want it or not. After all, they belong to you. Now, some other man's wife, sister, or daughter, those are off limits.

[Serafina]

Guys, guys, guys. Stop bickering over semantics. Of course rape is prohibited by the ten commandments! It's commandment #8, thou shalt not steal. Because at the time, women were the property of men, and having sex with another man's woman was stealing his property.

Notice, of course, that having sex with your slave or your captive you got on military campaigns is fine, whether they want it or not. After all, they belong to you. Now, some other man's wife, sister, or daughter, those are off limits.

So rape is still not prohibited, only limited. It's like saying "you can murder people, but only if they belong to you".

Oh, wait, the bible does that -after all, you can beat a slave to death as long as it takes more than 24 hours for him to die.