Bob Debates Keeping the Sabbath

[Granite]

"It only gives an example of a woman. I would apply it to both genders. Tell me, why do you think this mutilation is not mentioned for men?"

YOU might, but the TEXT sure doesn't. I think it singles women out because ancient Israel was a patriarchial society. And women were treated as chattel (especially those married women who the Israelites were commanded to kill, and the virgins they were allowed to seize as fruits of conquest). An attack on the male privy was an attack on the cultural and social fabric of the Hebrews and was judged harshly--by that culture.

Why are the only modern--or at least most vocal--advocates of hand chopping Muslims?

I asked: "Humiliating somebody doesn't really require you to mangle the person doing the humiliation, does it?"

To which you said:

"It does if it's sexual humiliation."

So ANY kind of sexual humiliation, no matter what gender is doing the humiliating, should be punishable by mutilation?

 

[jeremiah]

I was thinking that the case of Lindsay England, the little American soldier girl applies here. She was placed in a situation where she could sexually humiliate the men who had lost the fight with other men. She took full advantage of their plight and her "orders" to sexually humiliate them with a leash, her feet, and a camera.
What would be the appropriate biblical punishment for her? Or are there special rules in war?

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by jeremiah

I was thinking that the case of Lindsay England, the little American soldier girl applies here. She was placed in a situation where she could sexually humiliate the men who had lost the fight with other men. She took full advantage of their plight and her "orders" to sexually humiliate them with a leash, her feet, and a camera.
What would be the appropriate biblical punishment for her? Or are there special rules in war?

Hmmm. Very interesting. Wish I'd thought of this question!:doh:

Even if war has "special rules" I can't think of any good reason to excuse what these soldiers did to the Iraqis in their charge. I guess people know "abuse" when they see it; clearly what happened in the prisons wasn't GOOD but on the other hand, what exactly was it?

Sexual humiliation, yes. Torture, possibly (depends on who you talk to). Does anyone know of anything in scripture describing punishments for torturers? I can't think of any off the top of my head. It would seem that the "eye for an eye" policy doesn't quite fit Miss England's situation. What are we gonna do, make a Penthouse centerfold out of her? Leashes, feet, cameras...

I guess I don't know WHAT the punishment would be. :think:

 

[jeremiah]

Originally posted by granite1010

Hmmm. Very interesting. Wish I'd thought of this question!:doh:

Even if war has "special rules" I can't think of any good reason to excuse what these soldiers did to the Iraqis in their charge. I guess people know "abuse" when they see it; clearly what happened in the prisons wasn't GOOD but on the other hand, what exactly was it?

Sexual humiliation, yes. Torture, possibly (depends on who you talk to). Does anyone know of anything in scripture describing punishments for torturers? I can't think of any off the top of my head. It would seem that the "eye for an eye" policy doesn't quite fit Miss England's situation. What are we gonna do, make a Penthouse centerfold out of her? Leashes, feet, cameras...

I guess I don't know WHAT the punishment would be. :think:

Well I think if were up to me, and the ancient rabbis that i quoted back in post #66, this might be the proper punishment. "Cut off her hand", which means to cut off her financial income that she gains through the work of her hands; then you would give her either a dishonorable discharge, or a general discharge? deduct her pay for the time she sexually embarressed male prisoners, and she would receive no future military benefits for her service; thus "showing no mercy."
Is that too harsh, or is that too lenient? I think her superiors that gave the orders, should suffer a larger loss.

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by jeremiah

Well I think if were up to me, and the ancient rabbis that i quoted back in post #66, this might be the proper punishment. "Cut off her hand", which means to cut off her financial income that she gains through the work of her hands; then you would give her either a dishonorable discharge, or a general discharge? deduct her pay for the time she sexually embarressed male prisoners, and she would receive no future military benefits for her service; thus "showing no mercy."
Is that too harsh, or is that too lenient? I think her superiors that gave the orders, should suffer a larger loss.

Sounds reasonable. I'd go with the "dishonorable" discharge myself. And you're right--those officers who either ordered or tolerated the abuse should definitely have to answer for what they did.