Penn Jillete and Rape

I recently came across this "meme" while perusing through Facebook. I've seen this kind of argument made by several of the "new atheists." Not only does it completely miss the point, but it simply is not honest. I've never seen this meme before, but I found it a little ironic in light of recent revelations about skeptic Michael Shermer's behavior towards women, which I covered here. As I said, I do not think these kind of arguments are honest about human nature. For example, multiple times a week I have the unfortunate privilege of hearing men check out women and talk out loud about all the things they would like to do to them. In their external dialogue about their internal desires, there is not one care for the woman's soul, or "romance" or whatever. All one finds is an aggressive considerations of how their bodies could gratify them. Indeed, with most men in the "dating" culture, most of the time, all outward demonstrations of care for a woman's personality, or romantic appreciations of them, is simply a means to get the gratification they think they deserve. THAT is the heart of a rapist. In my experience, most women in the dating culture are keenly aware of this. However, the reason why most of those men will not engage in rape, and will even condemn it consciously/publicly, is because they have been conditioned by a civilization with broadly Christian roots to find rape aesthetically displeasing. The desire's of their hearts say otherwise. So what happens when the worldview that framed rape as bad disintegrates? When we are pictured as mere biological robots, who evolved from pond scum, that then progressed up the evolutionary chain in many species through rape; how can one still call rape "wrong" in the true sense of the word? Can anything be considered "wrong" in such a world? On top of that, Mr. Jillette is a supporter of the prostitution industry in Nevada, which feeds into the very instincts that he apparently denies the majority of men even have. So I do not find that Penn is honest with himself in how he frames this objection.

On top of that, even if he was "sinless" in this regard, never having had a desire to exploit women; in his universe that is absolutely meaningless. Rape and consensual sex are nothing but atoms banging into one another. Nothing is "wrong" or "right," for that matter, in such a world. Saying rape is wrong is just an opinion, like saying that blue is a better color than red. Even if one wants to go the existentialist route and say that it is up to the individual to create morality, one cannot argue that their self-generated moral system extends beyond their 3 pound brain. Much less can they claim that it corroborates with abstract concepts like "truth," "goodness," or "beauty." They certainly cannot congratulate themselves for their tastes above others who go a different route, as Mr. Jillette seemingly does here. "I don't need God, because I know how to live a 'good life' without Him," isn't an argument in the atheist's own world. It is just brain fizz. These kind of arguments only appeal to people in a post-Christian society where they still enjoy some of the fruit left over from the Biblical worldview. You don't have to look very far to see what happens when that foundation is officially abolished.

The thing is, the Christian worldview can account for why even an atheist knows that rape is wrong. The Christian will claim that even the rapist knows that rape is wrong. That is because the law is written on everyone's heart, as they are made in the image of God (See Romans 2:1-16). Even apart from the influence of the Christian church, one sees a recognition of deity, accountability, and the law of God in all cultures. However, time and time again, when a culture consciously rejects the light of biblical religion, they condescend to depths worse than pre-Christian pagans. So not only can the Christian worldview give a better account of Mr. Jilette's claims here, it can also give a better account of why man is prone to such evil. Scripture informs us that simple lust of the heart is directly related to sins such as adultery, rape, and much worse things as well. Apart from God's restraining grace we would all descend into such debauchery. But even further, Scripture ends up giving us not just a better picture of the moral law, and man's sin, but it also gives us the solution as well. Christ crucified, buried, resurrected and ascended.

The Law is Just (Pt. 6): Exodus 22:1-15 - The Restoration of Property

As we begin chapter 22, we find that God provides more laws as it pertains to property. This is where the "general equity" of the Law truly stands out as a strong example and basis for common law. I can't think of any statement in the following passage that one could object to, once it is correctly understood. In fact, I think one can argue that our current justice system would be greatly improved if we stood under the wisdom of this passage. How so? Moses writes:

“If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and slaughters it or sells it, he shall restore five oxen for an ox and four sheep for a sheep. If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. If the theft is certainly found alive in his hand, whether it is an ox or donkey or sheep, he shall restore double.

“If a man causes a field or vineyard to be grazed, and lets loose his animal, and it feeds in another man’s field, he shall make restitution from the best of his own field and the best of his own vineyard.

“If fire breaks out and catches in thorns, so that stacked grain, standing grain, or the field is consumed, he who kindled the fire shall surely make restitution.

“If a man delivers to his neighbor money or articles to keep, and it is stolen out of the man’s house, if the thief is found, he shall pay double. If the thief is not found, then the master of the house shall be brought to the judges to see whether he has put his hand into his neighbor’s goods.

“For any kind of trespass, whether it concerns an ox, a donkey, a sheep, or clothing, or for any kind of lost thing which another claims to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whomever the judges condemn shall pay double to his neighbor. If a man delivers to his neighbor a donkey, an ox, a sheep, or any animal to keep, and it dies, is hurt, or driven away, no one seeing it, then an oath of the Lord shall be between them both, that he has not put his hand into his neighbor’s goods; and the owner of it shall accept that, and he shall not make it good. But if, in fact, it is stolen from him, he shall make restitution to the owner of it. If it is torn to pieces by a beast, then he shall bring it as evidence, and he shall not make good what was torn.

“And if a man borrows anything from his neighbor, and it becomes injured or dies, the owner of it not being with it, he shall surely make it good. If its owner was with it, he shall not make it good; if it was hired, it came for its hire.

The general "gist" of this passage is that thieves are to punished by being forced to make restitution, paying back at least a double portion. As verse 1 says, if he steals in order to make a profit, the thief is to pay four or five times the amount that the animal was worth. If the guilty party is unable to pay, then he was to be sold into slavery, where an arrangement would be made, such that the injured party was repaid through his labors. There is NOTHING in this text about locking the thief up, or mutilating his body, such as is common place in Middle Eastern nations. Even slavery is a last resort, to be enforced only when the individual is unable to pay. Because property was stolen, it is property that must be restored. That is the principle of justice when it comes to property. To deter criminals, the punishment is not only to make restitution, but at least a double restitution (which also grants peace of mind to the affected party). However, in this case the criminal's life is not to be "dissolved" with either death, mutilation, or the purgatory of being "locked up." He is still respected as an image bearer of God with certain rights. In fact, verse 3 limits the term in which a "self-defense" killing can be argued for taking the life of a thief. If the thief is still alive the next day (most theft would happen at night, like today), and presumably off one's property, then one had no right to take his life. How much of the current disdain for our "justice" system could be eliminated if we would listen to the wisdom here? Many libertarians, liberals, and even some conservatives, have expressed disgust at the amount of people who are currently locked up for non-violent offenses, to the detriment of the tax-payer. Indeed, Scripture tells us that murderers and sex-criminals are to be punished with death, but all others are to charged with repayment and/or slavery. In fact, even our 13th amendment still says that slavery is appropriate for criminals. But nowhere does Scripture recommend locking someone up for years on end, where they essentially sit around with other criminals all day, while not engaging in the cultural mandate. Nor does the Bible have a concept of one owing a "debt" to society. That concept, in-and-of-itself is almost socialistic, as it views one's responsibility as being to "the collective" and not to God and one's neighbor. Thieves owe a debt to the one whom they have stolen from, and the God who created both of them. In our day of cheap labor and the ability to electronically "dock pay," this is completely reasonable, and courts could order it. It would save the tax payers a lot of money too...

The rest of the text deals with hypotheticals where property is lost, but not due to theft. In the case of an animal that is torn apart by a beast, the accused party is given the option to bring evidence to plead his case. It appears that restitution as it applies to accidental damage is on a 1 to 1 basis, and not the double restitution commanded with theft. In the case of someone who buys stolen goods, verses 7 and 8 order a judge to be brought in to deliberate whether or not it was out of ignorance or intentional.

Again, the Law is perfectly Just.

Can Michael Shermer Be Good without God?

Fellow atheist/skeptic PZ Myers drops this hand grenade on Michael Shermer's credibility, who wrote a book along the lines of the title of this post.

I’ve got to do what I’ve got to do, I can do no other. I will again emphasize, though, that I have no personal, direct evidence that the event occurred as described; all I can say is that the author is known to me, and she has also been vouched for by one other person I trust. The author is not threatening her putative assailant with any action, but is solely concerned that other women be aware of his behavior. The only reason she has given me this information is that she has no other way to act.

What do you do when someone pulls the pin and hands you a grenade? by PZ Myers

The Law is Just (pt. 5): Exodus 21:28-36 - Animals, Manslaughter and Slaves

In our previous post I alluded to the fact that our attention would turn towards property rights as we approach the end of chapter 21 going into 22. Specifically, the end of chapter 21 contains some interesting case laws pertaining to property, manslaughter, and the question of justice as it relates to slaves. The passage reads:

“If an ox gores a man or a woman to death, then the ox shall surely be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be acquitted. But if the ox tended to thrust with its horn in times past, and it has been made known to his owner, and he has not kept it confined, so that it has killed a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned and its owner also shall be put to death. If there is imposed on him a sum of money, then he shall pay to redeem his life, whatever is imposed on him. Whether it has gored a son or gored a daughter, according to this judgment it shall be done to him. If the ox gores a male or female servant, he shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.

“And if a man opens a pit, or if a man digs a pit and does not cover it, and an ox or a donkey falls in it, 34 the owner of the pit shall make it good; he shall give money to their owner, but the dead animal shall be his.

“If one man’s ox hurts another’s, so that it dies, then they shall sell the live ox and divide the money from it; and the dead ox they shall also divide Or if it was known that the ox tended to thrust in time past, and its owner has not kept it confined, he shall surely pay ox for ox, and the dead animal shall be his own." (Ex. 21:28-36 NKJV)

The first observation to be made about this text is that it exemplifies both a high view of property rights, as well as responsibilities, as it pertains to human life. In keeping with the sanctity that is placed on human life throughout the Torah, even an animal is required to suffer the death penalty if it kills a human being. This is keeping in line with the theology of common grace that appears in the Noahic covenant. Recall that God said to Noah:

"But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man." (Gen. 9:4,5 NKJV)

Some may argue that this is cruel to the animal, in that animals often kill human beings without intent, and certainly aren't aware of the concept of "murder." However, it must be recognized that in the Biblical worldview animals are subordinate to man, yet still valuable as creatures of God (as we will see later in the law). The law is primarily about our duty to God and man, and underneath our duty to man is the assumption that man is God's unique image bearer, who is the crown of his creation. Therefore, it is appropriate in the Scriptural worldview for the life of man to be placed over the life of animals in virtually all circumstances. Therefore, a rampaging animal was made a subject of capital punishment in light of the life that was taken and other lives which could be spared by putting the creature down. The latter point (the protection of other lives) is implied by verse 29 where the owner becomes responsible if this is a known behavior that he has failed to prevent. In that case, the owner of the animal is legible for the death penalty. In other words, the Bible here upholds what we commonly refer to as laws against manslaughter. That is, the reckless taking of human life, without evidence of premeditation or evil intent. This is consistent with the doctrine of the Imago Dei as introduced in Genesis 9. In a modern context, texts such as these legitimize consumer advocacy which seeks to regulate the sale of goods and services to the end that they be safe for human use/consumption. Unfortunately, in our day, in the name of "libertarianism" many Christians have opposed such activism and laws, even though their concern can be perfectly in line with the general equity of the Law. So the law has a very high standard to protect all of human life. But what about when the text says, "If the ox gores a male or female servant, he shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned"? Are slaves not as valuable as non-slaves?

As I pointed out in the first post of the series, and have repeatedly reiterated, Old Testament slavery must be viewed in its ancient near-eastern context. Biblical slavery is non-Chattel, debt-bondage slavery, which was limited by term and basic rights given to the slaves (ie freedom and payment if they were physically abused). However, while they were given basic rights and a limit of term, God did not ordain slavery as an institution that was to be made attractive. After all, God had redeemed his people from slavery in Egypt. They were not to be lifelong slaves to debt, as most people are today. So while the Torah places sanctity on human life, along with that it also upholds a high view of justice in human relationships. Debtors were to be slaves to their masters, until the debt was paid. And until that debt was paid, their identity and life revolved around the fact that they were indebted. Hence why they were to participate in the institution of slavery. Therefore, the number one thing hanging over their heads was the property which was to be restored to its rightful owner (who presumably had loaned it to them with no interest). Of course the creditor could always forgive the debt, but in unstable agrarian economies of the ancient near-east, this was unlikely. The whole economy would be effected by mismanaged debt, as our own was recently, but in a much more dramatic fashion. So while slaves were protected, and still viewed as human, the debt hanging over their head was of number one concern. This can be observed in the text, where the animal is stoned for killing a human (the slave is still above animals), but the punishment for the anima'ls careless owner is 30 pieces of silver rather than his life. That was a hefty sum which would easily compensate for the lost of labor/wealth from the slave who is no longer able to replace it. But what is interesting in the text is the juxtaposition that is made between sons/daughters and slaves. The text says, "Whether it has gored a son or gored a daughter, according to this judgment it shall be done to him. If the ox gores a male or female servant, he shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned." The loss of a child required a loss of life from the animals owner, but the loss of life of a slave required 30 shekels of silver. Now observe what Paul says in Galatians 4:1-7:

"Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born[a] of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of[b] God through Christ."

As Paul tells us in Philippians 2, Christ took on the form of a servant (slave), even though he was the eternal Son of God. And he took on the form of a servant to pay the debt that we all owe as fallen image bearers of God. Christ fulfilled the positive righteousness that we owed to God, as well as taking the covenant sanctions of the eternal wrath of God upon Himself, on the cross. When Christ was handed over the price was thirty pieces of silver.

"Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests and said, “What are you willing to give me if I deliver Him to you?” And they counted out to him thirty pieces of silver. So from that time he sought opportunity to betray Him." (Mt. 26:14-16 NKJV)

The chief priests paid the price of a slave to Judas, as they were about to hand Jesus over to the Roman beast, to be trampled under foot. Because of that, Christ has paid our debt, so that we receive the adoption as sons of the Most High. So again, we see the context for the Gospel being formed through the stipulations of that "archaic" Old Testament law. God's law prepares the way for His grace in Christ.

The rest of the text deals with the issue of animals and property and expands upon the notion of justice as it applies to animals killing each other, or facing accidental death on property of someone else. Again, the principle here appears to be "eye for an eye," or a strong "equivocal" view of justice. However, nothing here contradicts the notions of justice common to most societies, or the precepts of the rest of God's Word. In our next installment we will look closely at some more examples of property rights out of the book of Exodus and how it applies to our contemporary justice system.