Anne’s story was the real life face of an intellectual journey and struggle I had faced some years earlier during my theology studies. How should I understand the bibles teaching on divorce? When I was at Bible College I remember two approaches vividly.

The first was from a marriage counsellor who, when I asked him if we should counsel battered spouses to leave their marriages, responded “no, until death do we part”. He refused to take with any seriousness my suggestion that in some cases the death of one spouse might be a realistic outcome if the battered spouse does not leave.

The second was a lecturer who argued that the New Testament did not speak unequivocally on this topic. While Matthew’s gospel allowed an exception for adultery, Mark’s gospel seemed to condemn divorce outright with no exceptions. On the other hand Paul, in his epistle to the Corinthians, contended that a person abandoned by their spouse “is not bound”. The Greek in this epistle alluded to the wording of a Jewish divorce certificate, which stated that the person in question had a right to remarry. The lecturer, quite correctly, concluded that Paul allowed divorce and remarriage for abandonment. The lecturer then suggested that because Paul added to Jesus’ teaching so could we.

Both approaches seemed to me to be evidently problematic. My questions remained equally unsolved by the Pastor who told me that he accepted Jesus’ teaching as correct but did not follow it because it was “impractical” in the real world and in his experience. I was underwhelmed by the author who suggested that because Mark, Paul and Matthew disagreed, we should just choose the one we find the most congenial.

Then I discovered a study, which to my mind answered my questions and addressed Anne’s concerns. The book was Divorce and Re-Marriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context by David Instone-Brewer. Brewer is a scholar of first century rabbinical writings. In his book he places Christ’s teaching within the cultural context of first century Judaism; the results are interesting and enlightening.

The passage Anne cited comes from Matthew 19. This passage begins with a question from the Pharisees – the Jewish religious scholars at that time – which asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?” In the dialogue the Pharisees appeal to Deuteronomy 24 and ask, “Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” The passage Anne cited is part of Christ’s response to this argument.

Brewer’s study documents the background of this debate. In the Judaism of Christ’s day there was a consensus that people could divorce on grounds of abuse or serious neglect. This was based on a passage in Exodus 21, which regulated a man’s relationship with a concubine; although I would argue that the bible does not condone this practice, its existence meant the Old Testament law (The Torah) did tolerate and regulate it. The Torah stated that if a concubine was deprived of “food,” “clothing” or “conjugal rights” then she was free to leave.  The Rabbis argued, quite sensibly, that if this was true of a concubine then how much more true is it for a wife?

The requirements to provide food, clothing and conjugal rights became the basis of Jewish marriage vows. Hence, by the time of Christ the consensus was that divorce was allowed for the gross violation of these vows through abuse or neglect. This position was assumed both by the conservative school of Shammai and the liberal school of Hillel; the two dominant schools of thought in Christ’s day.

Where these schools differed was over Deuteronomy 24 – the very passage cited by the Pharisees in Matthew’s Gospel. This passage refers to a man divorcing his wife for “a reason of sexual immorality”. The liberal Hillel Rabbis split this phrase into two separate clauses and argued it allowed a person to divorce for “immorality”, which they understood as adultery, and also for “a reason”, which they understood as any reason at all. Some liberal Rabbis were quite candid, the reference to “a reason” meant a man could divorce his wife if she cooked him a bad meal or if he thought she was too ugly or if perhaps he saw someone more attractive and he wanted to ‘trade her in’. However, the conservative Shammai Rabbis argued that it should be read as a single phrase, “a reason of sexual immorality” so that the passage only allows divorce for adultery.

Despite their differences, both schools recognised divorces granted by the other schools courts as valid. Hence, a person who had a Hillelite “any reason” divorce would have their divorce recognised as valid by a Shammaite court.

Brewer also documents how records of rabbinical debates tended to not spell out all the background details and qualifications, which everyone at the time knew about.  An example from contemporary moral debates might illustrate this. In New Zealand society today there is an ongoing debate over the drinking age. Now suppose I hear someone on the radio saying “the drinking age should be 18.” I would not interpret this to mean that the person supports a ban on drinking per se, that they were arguing for young people to consume no fluids – no water, milk, Coca Cola, orange juice or anything – until age 18. That would be a ridiculous interpretation. Rather, I assume they mean to limit their use of the term ‘drinking’, in that context, to refer only to alcoholic drinks. I make this assumption despite the fact that the phrase “drinking age” is commonly used without any explicit qualifications because everyone knows what it means when they hear it. In a similar way, when a conservative Rabbi stated that it was “not lawful to divorce” or it is “not lawful to divorce except for adultery,” people knew the Rabbi was saying that it was wrong to divorce on grounds of “any reason”, a reference to the practice advocated by the liberal school.

This background sheds an interesting light on Christ’s teaching in Matthew 19. When the passage begins with the question “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?” it seems that Christ is being asked to comment on the specific proposal of the liberal school. Is it lawful to divorce for not just material and physical neglect and infidelity but does The Torah, in fact, allow a fourth category of “any reason”? The appeal to Deuteronomy 24 to back this up by the Pharisees then fits quite nicely in this context as this was the standard liberal argument.

Christ’s response, in this context, is a rejection of the liberal reading in favour of the conservative one. In fact, Brewer notes the very phraseology and wording Christ used was the same as that used by the Shammaites; however, his claim “whoever divorces his wife, except for adultery, and marries another woman commits adultery” took the conservative reading one step further. Not only are liberal “any reason” divorces wrong but they are invalid. People who have divorced on the “any reason” ground did not gain a legitimate divorce.

Brewer’s analysis is the best I have come across to date; it makes sense of the text without requiring the reader to turn a blind eye to the bits that don’t seem to sit right. His argument further explains the apparent differences between Mark, Matthew and Paul. Mark’s gospel is significantly more summarised than Matthew’s, hence his unqualified claim that divorce is forbidden is simply a summary without qualification. Similarly, Paul’s application in 1 Corinthians is not in any real conflict with Jesus’. Taken in its context, Jesus was not condemning a person who, after being abandoned, walked away from the marriage and remarried. Material and physical neglect as a ground of divorce was not in question. In Jesus’ teaching he was simply rejecting the “any reason” approach of the liberal school.

This background to Paul’s writing is strongly suggested by the fact that in the same passage he refers to sexual activity between spouses as a ‘debt’ mutually owed to each other. Brewer notes that Paul’s language and teaching here reflects rabbinical understandings of Exodus 21, which allowed divorce for failure to provide “conjugal rights”. Paul is therefore not adding to Christ’s teaching, he is simply applying it to a different situation.

Brewer’s analysis addresses the concern that we need to adjust Christ’s teaching to the “practical realities of life today”. Brewer shows that Christ’s teaching is immensely practical; it avoids the extreme permissiveness of our modern no-fault culture, where women are abandoned to single parenthood at the whim of a man’s lust (and sometimes vice versa). It also avoids the harsh heartlessness of the counsellor I questioned as a student which condemns abuse victims to a life of brutality and sometimes death.

It also directly addresses the concerns Anne raised. Christ is not saying that a woman who flees a violent spouse is an adulterer if she re-marries; he was addressing a situation where men believed they could divorce their wives for any reason, including frivolous and poor reasons. Beating one’s spouse is a fairly obvious case of serious mistreatment and divorce for reasons like this were taken for granted in Christ’s discussion (it is why dowry’s were paid for brides – so they had financial means if their husbands mistreated them).

As I have met with the Anne’s of this world, I have discovered this information is profoundly important to them. They don’t want to disobey God and yet have often taken years to gain the courage needed to escape an abusive relationship. The Church has not always appropriately responded to their plight; it has felt torn between the harrowing situations their congregants are sometimes living with and what they perceived to be Christ’s teaching on divorce. Brewer’s study helps us see there is no dilemma, people like Anne are free to leave and remarry.

I write a monthly column for Investigate Magazine entitled “Contra Mundum.” This blog post was published in the Feb 2011 issue and is reproduced here with permission. Contra Mundum is Latin for ‘against the world;’ the phrase is usually attributed to Athanasius who was exiled for defending Christian orthodoxy.

Letters to the editor should be sent to:
editorial@investigatemagazine.DELETE.com

RELATED POSTS:
Contra Mundum: Is God a 21st Century Western Liberal?
Contra Mundum: In Defence of Santa
Contra Mundum: The Number of the Beast
Contra Mundum: Pluralism and Being Right
Contra Mundum: Abraham and Isaac and the Killing of Innocents
Contra Mundum: Selling Atheism
Contra Mundum: Did God Command Genocide in the Old Testament?
Contra Mundum: Fairies, Leprechauns, Golden Tea Cups & Spaghetti Monsters
Contra Mundum: Secularism and Public Life
Contra Mundum: Richard Dawkins and Open Mindedness
Contra Mundum: Slavery and the Old Testament
Contra Mundum: Secular Smoke Screens and Plato’s Euthyphro
Contra Mundum: What’s Wrong with Imposing your Beliefs onto Others?
Contra Mundum: God, Proof and Faith
Contra Mundum: “Bigoted Fundamentalist” as Orwellian Double-Speak
Contra Mundum: The Flat-Earth Myth
Contra Mundum: Confessions of an Anti-Choice Fanatic
Contra Mundum: The Judgmental Jesus

Children can give consent, by themselves or by proxy, to casual recreational activities.

Therefore, sex is not merely a casual recreational activity.

Now in no way do I think I was treated unfairly, it was afterall a Catholic School and this was something that was  obvious both from the name on the advertisement in the education gazette and from the website linked to from the same ad. The function of this school was not simply to impart information; it was to imbibe a particular religious way of life, some of it involving what Nicholas Wolterstorff calls “educating for responsible action,”

The ultimate goal of all education, as Christians see it, is that those who are taught shall live in such a way as to carry out their responsibilities to God and find joy and delight in so doing. … But if responsible action is to ensue, more is necessary than for the students to have knowledge of the relevant matters and the ability to perform the relevant actions. Knowledge and ability are not yet performance. It is also necessary that the students’ tendencies, ranging all the way from their unreflective habits to highly self-conscious commitments, be those of acting in accord with the normative laws for right action. Education, accordingly, must have among its goals to secure–always in morally defensible ways–the formation of right tendencies.[1] [Emphasis original]

Wolterstorff argues that modelling plays an important role in cultivating tendencies. He notes that a series of studies show that students who view other people resisting the temptation to act in an immoral or inappropriate way fortify their own resistance to temptation.[2] Wolterstorff states, “The evidence seems to be that not only do a model’s low standards influence the student to lower the standards which otherwise he or she would adopt, but also a model’s high standards influence the child to raise his or hers.”[3] [Emphasis original]. An important caveat of this is that studies show “the self-denial induced by a stringent model gives way rather readily when the subject is confronted by another model with lower standards.”[4] Because the school was seeking to train students to internalise a Catholic ethos, and an important part of the pedagogy of internalising such an ethos is modelling, it follows that leaders within communities committed to this goal must themselves follow and be committed to the basic moral teachings of the community. I was not. I am a protestant and so would buck (internally) against many of the tendencies the RE department were trying to teach.

This does not seem terribly controversial to me. Schools dedicated to inculculating a religious way of life into their students have the right to demand that the leaders in their schools be committed to and reflect this way of life. It is perfectly reasonable for Jewish schools to expect people in positions of leadership to be faithful followers of the Torah. It is perfectly reasonable for Muslim schools to expect leaders in their community to be faithful Muslims; for atheist schools devoted to promoting atheism to expect their leaders to be atheists.

I reflect on this because of the recent outcry in response to a Campbell Live story that a Christian school in Rangiora, Rangiora New Life School, expelled a student for getting pregnant and subsequently revoked the deputy head-boy status given to her fiancé, the father of her child. Now, in light of what the media has reported, I will say I am not in agreement with everything the school did (I should qualify this by stating that I have very little faith that the media to report events like this terribly accurately – so take that concession with a grain of salt).

For example, Ollie Sterrit the deputy head-boy and his fiancé Sara Etherington stated that “if we decided not to keep her [abort their daughter] they didn’t support it, and they still didn’t support us if we did keep it. So we were stuck in the middle and couldn’t do anything to please them.” The media reports that the teen couple “are engaged and determined to stay together.” Now, I am inclined to think that if a teenage couple respond to getting pregnant unmarried by taking their responsibilities seriously by refusing to kill their child, getting engaged, making a commitment to stay together and to continue their education they should be supported and commended for doing the right thing. They are of course not yet “legally married” but given their age, in this country, that is impossible; hence it is not clear cut to me that this couple’s choice should not be supported. In fact, I think that a scriptural case could be made that people in this situation can, in certain circumstances, be viewed as being in a constituted kind of common law marriage and that, in fact, it is the duty of the father to marry the woman he has impregnated and to take his responsibilities to her and the child seriously (which is what appears to be happening in this situation).  However, Sara’s parents tell a different story (see the second comment on the Campbell Live link) “We have consistently tried to encourage Ollie and Sara to see the bigger picture (others affected by there decisions) all along, their choice of course. Sara has had every love and support from RNLS  [the school] and her family.“

Whatever the truth is on the matter of the school supporting the couple, stripping someone of a position of leadership is not the same thing as not supporting them -  though not permitting Sara to finish her education (she was apparently asked to leave the school) might be. Also giving someone a position of leadership, knowing about the pregnancy and then removing it from them, perhaps demonstrated a lack of wisdom in the first place on the part of the school or some dud processes (or bad media reporting).

However, these issues are not the focus of my concern in this blog post. First, Dave Crampton at Big News seems to suggest that the school had no policy on sex outside of marriage and as such they could not claim that this was part of the ethos they were trying to impart, meaning the school had no right to suddenly make an issue of the sexual conduct of its students, “The schools handbook has no mention of policies on sex, although swearing and alcohol are forbidden in school grounds, as are piercings for males.” If you visit Rangiora New Life’s website a very different picture emerges. First of all, the name of the school  “New Life” immediately suggests it is evangelical or pentecostal. On the front page the school mission states “Providing quality Christian education that equips and inspires all students to reach their life’s potential in order to serve God’s purposes.” There is a clear indication by the use of words such as “their life’s potential” and “serve God’s purpose” that the type of education they are seeking to inculculate is holistic, they hope that it will impact all aspects of the students’ lives. Click through to their Mission, Vision and Values page and you’ll find under the heading “Vision,”

GODLINESS – Building character in the students that will enable them to lead by example.

LIFE SKILLS – Equipping students with skills in relationships, home-life and vocation.

EVANGELISM – Taking every opportunity to share the life changing message of the gospel.

SERVICE – Impacting our region and beyond through sacrificial service and giving. [Emphasis added]

Here we see concern with character, leading by example, reference to relationship skills, home-life and vocation tell us they mean more than relationships with their school peers and teachers. Evangelism and reference impacting the region and beyond show, again, the broader ethos of the school. The “guiding values” on this page continue these motifs and among these we find “Ensuring school relationships, procedures and policies reflect Biblical principles and the highest Christian conduct” and “Promoting personal responsibility in learning and conduct, and community responsibility by way of service and leadership skill.” Does anyone really think, on reading these, that banging your fellow teenage school peer and knocking her up is compatible with Rangiora New Life’s understanding of these terms and is the sort of example in leadership or high biblical standard that the school is seeking to promote by example and that this sort of conduct is what the other parents with kids in the school want modelled to their kids?

Now, as Madeleine points out, when contracts are formed (I’m getting at here Dave Crampton’s contractual suggestion) all aspects of the communication between the parties, the information freely offered about the parties states of mind, intent, etc as well as the surrounding documentation speak to how the minutae of the handbooks and policies should be read and interpreted. The school is clearly a conservative, pentecostal/evangelical bible believing Christian school. Did anyone miss the memo that people with such beliefs tend to frown on pre-marital sex and that such people have high expectations of the example of their leaders – that’s why church leaders being hypocrites is such a big deal.

Second, what is my concern is the widespread belief of some commentators that a religious school cannot demand that leaders in their community abide by the moral teachings of the religious ethos the school seeks to inculculate. Idiot/Savant of No Right Turn’s comments are typical,

This is clearly unlawful discrimination on the basis of marital status and family status, in violation of sections 21(1)(b) and s21(1)(l) of the Human Rights Act 1993. It may also constitute discrimination on the basis of religious belief in violation of s21(1)(c). Rangiora New Life School is a religious school, so it has an exemption for the latter – but not for the former. It can not legally exclude or punish students who have children or are in de facto relationships, any more than it can exclude or punish them for being divorced (or the children of people who are divorced).

Regardless of the merits (or lack thereof as Madeleine insists) of Idiot/Savant’s legal analysis here there is a moral point here worth addressing. Idiot/Savant seems to think that religious schools can discriminate on the grounds of religious belief but not on grounds of sexual behaviour. It is hard to see the sense in this because in many circumstances, and certainly in this case, a person’s religious beliefs include a set of beliefs about sexual morality. If we are to take this line of argument seriously a religious school can discriminate against people who believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong but they cannot discriminate against people who refuse to practice this belief. It is hard to see how such a view could be taken seriously; surely the whole point of these teachings is that they be followed.

Idiot/Savant continues,

But there’s another aspect to this: Rangiora New Life School is a state integrated school, and therefore effectively part of the state education system. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act therefore clearly applies. By discriminating against its students and denying them any involvement in the decisions about them, the school has violated the right to be free from discrimination and the right to justice. And that is something we should not be tolerating from any part of our government. Rangiora New Life School’s board must be told to obey the law, cease its discrimination, and reinstate the student it has excluded. And if they do not, they should be replaced.

Idiot/Savant here makes heavy weather over the fact that Rangiora New Life is an integrated school. While this is true, it is also a religious school which aims to inculculate a particular religious way of life. Integrated religious schools, with special characters allowing them to promote a particular religion, are extremely common. If Idiot/Savant’s, position is correct none of these schools should be allowed to require leaders in the school or students who attend the schools to uphold a certain religious ethos. This would of course make a mockery out of their mission to promote such a way of life.

Lurking behind this complaint is, I think, a mindset that schools that promote a particular religious ethos (or at least take the ethos seriously) should not get public funds; only secular schools should get such funds. In practice this means that a school that promotes a secular perspective antithetical to a particular religion will get state funds whereas a school that inculculates certain religious beliefs will not. It’s odd that people like Idiot/Savant who maintain the right to be free from discrimination on the part of the state would support such a policy that clearly discriminates against tax paying parents with religious views.

Wolterstorff notes a deeper problem,

there are parents within society for whom it is a matter of religious conviction that their children receive a religiously integrated education. … If those parents are forbidden by law to establish and patronize schools that teach in accord with their religious convictions, then the discrimination is embodied in law. If they not legally forbidden to establish and patronize such schools then the discrimination is embodied in economics. Were those parents to establish and patronize schools that teach in accord with their convictions, they would have to pay for those schools out of their own pockets, while still contributing to the general tax fund for the other schools, obviously there free exercise of religion is thereby infringed upon in a way in which that of others is not. They do not enjoy equal freedom to live their lives as they see fit.[5]

To insist that schools either forgo public funds or compromise the religious ethos they seek to inculculate is itself discrimination. Wolterstorff notes the only escape from this dilemma apart from privatising education entirely is to “fund equitably all schools that meet minimum educational requirements” and this means allowing schools to take public funding that will require strict standards of sexual morality from student leaders. Of course one could always admit that one does not actually support the right of all to be free from religious discrimination…

[1] Nicholas Wolterstorff Educating for Responsible Action (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co) 14-15.
[2] Ibid 51-55.
[3] Ibid 55.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Nicholas Wolterstorff “The Role of Religion in Political Issues” Religion in the Public Square

RECOMMENDED READING:
Religious Restraint and Public Policy

While it is not central to my point I cannot ignore the fact that in two places now (see the second comment on the Campbell Live link for one) I have seen the parents express anger at Campbell Live’s intrusion into their home without their consent. They had apparently categorically told the producers that they did not give permission for their property to be used for the interview but Campbell Live ignored their wishes and waited til they were not home to film the piece. Appalling.

Last week I finished my studies for 2009 with my Legal Ethics exam and enrolled to complete the final two papers of my LLB (bachelor of law) in 2010. This week Matt handed in his final piece of assessment for his post graduate diploma in teaching and I re-entered the workforce! … Kinda.

My pre-car-accident (neck injury) employer phoned me out of the blue last week to offer me a small job. They have a project that needs doing, they don’t have anyone spare who can do it and so they thought of me.

So cool!

They have set it up so there is no need for me to do the drive into work (which can be a good hour or more at the wrong time of the day) I can work from home. They have supplied me with a lap-top so I can work in my bean bag. Its all flexi-hours to get around the bad pain days/parts of the day. It basically works that as long as I finish the project by the specified date I can break the hours down into manageable chunks.

So I have been thoroughly enjoying myself this week working! The whole thing will be over by Dec 10 but hey it beats sitting around being unproductive!

In other news I am apparently appearing on a TV panel tonight to discuss parental notification/consent on abortion with Dr Paul Hutchison – MP for Hunua, Bev Adair – Spoke person for Family First, the Principal of either Tangaroa College or Kelston High and the Rev. Tavale Mataia. The show will apparently air on Triangle TV on Tuesday night at 7.30pm also on Wednesday nights at 8pm on Sky Digital channel 89 and on Freeview channel 21.

Then of course tomorrow Matt will give his paper “Abortion, Harm and Eschatology” to the STAANZ conference. On Sunday I am not only attending Filia Day‘s wedding but I am doing the makeup for her 4 bridesmaids and then the weekend after that Matt and I are flying to wellington to attend the Wellington Bloggers Drinks and to speak at the All for Life Conference.

Here the victim of rape is as treated the property of the father. Since the rapist has despoiled the father’s property he must pay a bridal fee. The woman apparently has no say in the matter and is forced to marry the person who raped her. Notice also if they are not discovered, no negative judgment is forthcoming. The implicit message seems to be that if you rape an unbetrothed virgin, be sure not to get caught.[1]

In the post I noted that the word translated rape is tapas which simply means “to grab” or “hold;” the term itself is neutral as to whether this involves force. It can be used in a context where it is clear that force is involved but it also can be used in a context where no force is involved. All the text states then is that a virgin is grabbed by a man. I went on to argue that the context provided reasons for thinking that what was envisaged was actually a seduction.

In discussing this I noted that a few verses prior to this one the text does envisage a rape. In the immediately preceding passage in Deuteronomy 22:23-27, the word chazak is used instead of tapas in reference to a bethrothed woman who screamed for help when a man attempted to have sex with her; chazak suggests a violent seizure.

In regards to this text, Martin contends that “when rape is condemned in the Old Testament the woman’s rights and her psychological welfare are ignored.”[2] Martin argues

In the case of the rape of a betrothed virgin in a city, the Bible says that both the rapist and victim should be stoned to death: the rapist because he violated his neighbor’s wife and the victim because she did not cry for help (Deut. 22: 23-25). Again the assumption is that the rapist despoiled the property of another man and so must pay with his life. Concern for the welfare of the victim does not seem to matter. Moreover, it is assumed that in all cases that a rape victim could cry for help and if she did, she would be heard and rescued. Both of these assumptions are very dubious and sensitive to the contextual aspects of rape.

On the other hand, according to the Bible, the situation is completely different if the rape occurs in “open country.” Here the rapist should be killed, not the victim. The reason given is that if a woman cried for help in open country, she would not be heard. Consequently, she could not be blamed for allowing the rape to occur. No mention is made about the psychological harm to victim. No condemnation is made of a rapist in open country, let alone in a city, who does not get caught.[3]

There are several points packed in here. First Martin contends that these passages teach that rape is an offence against a man’s property and do not condemn it out of concern for the woman’s welfare. Second, Martin suggests that the text does not condemn rapists who do not get caught. Third and perhaps most significantly, Martin suggests that the passage makes “dubious” assumptions about rape; it assumes, for example, “that in all cases that a rape victim could cry for help and if she did, she would be heard and rescued.” [Emphasis added] Martin states that this is something that fails to be sensitive to contextual factors of rape.

This last point in particular is often emphasised by sceptics. To take a common example, suppose a rapist puts a knife to a woman’s throat and commands her not to scream. If this happens in the city she will not cry out and the passage, so the sceptics allege, will hold the woman unjustly responsible for her own rape.

I think each of these points are mistaken.

Turning to the first point, Martin contends that the passage teaches that rape is merely a property offence against the husband and is not concerned with the welfare of the woman. To asses the claim it is worth looking at the passage he refers to,

If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her,24  you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death–the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.25  But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die.26  Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbour, for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her. (Deuteronomy 22:24-27 NIV)

Two points need to be noted here. First, the text states that people who rape should be executed (I have argued that capital sanctions like this were not always intended to be taken literally in Capital Punishment in the Old Testament). Martin suggests that the fact that adultery is a capital crime means that this is merely a property offence. He states the “assumption is that the rapist despoiled the property of another man and so must pay with this life.” Actually the converse is true; Christopher Wright notes this point,

The fact that the legal penalty for the wife who commits adultery is execution weighs strongly against the idea that wives in OT Israel are legally no more than the property of their husbands. If adultery is merely an offence against another man’s “property” why destroy the property as well as punishing the guilty man? Furthermore, it would be quite exceptional, in as much as no other property offence in the OT is punishable by death.[4]

The second point to note is that Martin’s contention seems to be explicitly contradicted by the text in v 26. In this passage it states that rape is, “This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbour.” The text compares rape to a violent assault, a murder, not theft.

Martin’s second point fares no better. Martin seems to argue that the text ignores the “woman’s rights and her psychological welfare” because “no condemnation is made of a rapist in open country, let alone in a city, who does not get caught.” It is hard, however, to see the force of this; all legal codes will only punish people who commit crimes once they are caught. Current New Zealand law on rape, for example, does not punish or condemn people who are not caught, tried and proven guilty of rape. No one thinks that this practice of observing due process is contrary to the rights of rape victims and correctly so, the fact that a woman is the victim of a heinous crime does not automatically cancel out the due process rights of anyone accused of a crime. The same is true here, the law punishes only those caught; if a person has not been caught committing a crime then the state does not know who committed the crime. To call the failure to punish the perpetrator of an unsolved crime a violation of a woman’s rights is hard to take seriously.

Moreover even if one were to take this line of argument seriously, it proves too much. In Deuteronomy, for example, The Torah refers to a situation where a man has been murdered and the authorities, after careful investigation, cannot determine who committed the crime. The result is that the unknown perpetrator is not punished. Are we to infer from this that The Torah victimises men and treats them as property and expresses a sexist anti-male sentiment?

This brings us to the final and perhaps most significant point. Martin notes that the law assumes “that in all cases that a rape victim could cry for help and if she did, she would be heard and rescued. Both of these assumptions are very dubious and sensitive to the contextual aspects of rape.” A rhetorical question will more vividly express this point; what if a women could not cry out, what if the rapist in a city put a knife to a woman’s throat and ordered her not to scream, what if a woman was set upon suddenly and was unable to scream? In these situations the rape occurs in a city and the woman does not scream for help. The above law then seems to teach that she is should be treated as guilty of a serious crime. If this is the case then surely this is insensitive to the rape victim? To have a law that condemns a woman in this situation is to have a law that ignores the specifics of the situation; it, in Martin’s words, ignores the “contextual aspects of rape.”

I am inclined to agree that if the law condemned a woman in these kinds of contexts it would indeed be unjust. The question needs to be asked, however, is does it? Is it plausible to assume that the law is intended to be applied in such a rigid, a-contextual, fashion?  I think the answer is no.

Deuteronomy is an Ancient Near Eastern Legal text; it therefore is part of a literary genre from that period of time. We are aware of other texts from the same genre such as the ancient Hittite Laws, Middle Assyrian Laws and Code of Hammurabi, and its important to note that legal codes written in this Genre differ significantly from modern legal codes.  Hiller notes,

[T]here is no evidence that any collection of Near Eastern laws functioned as a written code that was applied by a strict method of exegesis to individual cases. As far as we can tell, these bodies of laws served educational purposes and gave expression to what was regarded as just in typical cases, but they left considerable latitude to local courts for determining the right in individual suits. They aided local courts without controlling them.[5]

The same point is made by Raymond Westbrook in his comparative study of Ancient Near Eastern Legal Codes. He notes that such laws “reflect the scribal compilers’ concern for perfect symmetry and delicious irony rather than the pragmatic experience of the law courts.”[6] The method used in legal texts was “to set out principles by the use of often extreme examples.” Christopher Wright calls this “paradigmatic law,” which he explains as “the detailing of specific circumstances with the view to giving judges basic principles and precedents on which to evaluate the great variety of individual cases that may come before them.”[7]

Once the genre is understood it is not hard to see the flaw in Martin’s argument. Martin assumes that the law is a rigidly literal rule that inflexibly applies to all cases. In fact, the law probably did not function this way nor was it intended to. Instead it functioned as kind of paradigm illustrating a principle. The principle was this; women who have sex with a man are not to be considered adulterers or immoral if they do not consent. If it cannot be established whether a woman consented to a sexual act then she should be presumed innocent. Rape is not adultery, it is rather a serious assault or an attempted murder. At a more general level the case law vividly illustrates the principle that culpability entails consent.

[1] Michael Martin “Atheism, Christian Theism, and Rape” accessed 27 September 2009.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Christopher Wright International Biblical Commentary: Deuteronomy, (Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996 ) 254.
[5] Delbert R Hillers Covenant: the History of a Biblical Idea (Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press, 1969).
[6] Raymond Westbrook “The Character of Ancient Near Eastern Law” in The History of Ancient Near Eastern Law Vol 1 ed Raymond Westbrook (Boston: Brill Academic Publishers, 2003) 74.
[7] Christopher Wright Deuteronomy 244.

As Matt once commented, “Christians should be very concerned with people who will sell out their commitment to liberty before they would side with a Christian [or a moral viewpoint typically ascribed to a Christian]. Such people cannot be relied upon to defend my rights at all.”

Matt was alluding to the so called principled liberals whose principles dissipate the minute they encounter someone who shares most of their views but whose moral code differs from the narrow point of view they define their liberality by.

If you ask them to defend their views and offer a critique they cannot. I doubt they know why they hold their views they just know they are supposed to so they just repeat their mantra.

Their blind adherence to the “correct” moral views are not based on principle or reason, if you point out a flaw in an argument for one of their sacred cows they intolerantly froth and deem you to not be a member of the club. They will jump on the “correct” side regardless of whether the arguments used are sound.

This bigoted intolerance from the right is not completely reserved for Christians; anyone secular daring to voice a flaw in an argument advanced by the sacred cows of the-state-must-endorse-gays-movement is also slammed as illiberal.

Look at all the fuss and bother over David Garrett’s comments on paedophilia [note the comments were NOT on homosexuality, learn the difference between an analogy and an identity claim]. In Real Bigotry Versus Mere Opinion Blair Mulholland notes:

Today’s Herald has two separate stories dealing, in a roundabout way, with the issue of homosexuality.

In one, we have an elected official actively condoning violence because some of his constituents regard having their town labeled a “gay capital” as an insult.

In the other, we have a barrister, who was not an elected official at the time, pointing out that, in his view, both homosexuality and paedophilia are unchangeable psychological phenomena.

Guess which elected official has had their head called for?

Seriously, this is bullsh*t. The blogosphere, and I am looking at you too David Farrar, needs to get their priorities straight… so to speak. A small town Mayor says it’s allright to give Jeremy Wells the bash for a comedy piece he did ten years ago and we shrug our shoulders. A new MP makes a crude observation about human behaviour and the crowd demands crucifixion.

It’s not acceptable.

Consider Lucyna’s argument in Finding Socialists in the Darndest Places, she cites Lindsay Mitchell‘s argument that one spots a socialist by their walk, not their talk or the ribbons they wave.

Want proof of how support for homosexuality turns liberals into lefties?

Compare Blair Mulholland, who says he is “more attuned with the Libertarianz” than ACT’s, endorsement for Wellington Central with Cactus Kate’s, one of the last, self-proclaimed, bastions of complete right-wing bias, hero worshipper of ACT’s Rodney Hide.

Blair’s endorsement:

Stephen Franks was worth about ten regular National MPs when he was last in parliament, so if you put him in their caucus he will kick some arse. My wholehearted endorsement for the National candidate here.

Cactus Kate’s are here, here and here:

Grant, You are the only Labour candidate I am endorsing at this election

and:

With great humour I see all the National Party candidates are now MP’s and yet none of the Labour candidates made it through. Oh dear. Crying a river. With
such a vicious swing Nationwide to National that result was a fait accompli.

Well done Sam, Aaron, Simon and Nikki. I hope all your dreams come true. And Grant Robertson who managed despite this massive swing to Toryism, to upset
Stephen Franks in Wellington Central. Brought a wee glow to the cheeks.

For the benefit of our overseas readers, Grant Robertson was the Labour (left-wing) candidate and Stephen Franks was the National (right-wing) candidate in the Wellington Central electorate in the recent NZ election.

Robertson is a unionist and state services flunky from way back; a hard-core left wing activist. As an example of what I mean, when he was National President of NZUSA he organised an activist training conference and invited and sponsored a speaker who advocated vigilante assaults on the private property of those they disagreed with.

Franks is a former ACT Party MP (more right-wing than National), is a Classical Liberal, has years of experience as a lawyer working in NZ’s top law firms, is considered across the political spectrum as being one of the sharpest, most competent and most ethical MP’s in recent times. Franks is secular and, from conversations I have had with him, does not share my view that homosexual conduct is immoral or that abortion, far from being liberal, is homicide.

So, I ask you, why would the uber-right wing Cactus Kate be pleased to see Robertson trump Franks? I asked her that and as yet she has not answered. As she moderates her comments, she has seen my questions, so I must assume the silence is deliberate.

I speculate, with good reason, that the answer is Robertson is gay and that to the socialist-liberal being gay forgives every other flaw; especially when Franks, during the NZ debate to have the state endorse gay relationships through the passage of the Civil Unions Act, made some critical observations on some of the reasons advanced by the defenders of the Bill.

This of course renders Franks a homophobic hate-filled conservative (liberals by definition are pro-everything gay, no matter how inconsistent it renders them and will turn and blacklist their own in heartbeat at the first sign of a betrayal) and elevates the statist Robertson to the position of the better candidate. [I am reminded here of Matt’s blog: Bigotry as Tolerance: Homophobia as Orwellian Double Speak.]

Right-wing socialists loudly claim to be principled yet to avoid being associated with a perceived affront to their moral values they would sell their freedom on the basis of knee-jerk ignorance, straw-men and stereotypes.

So now I turn to Glenn’s latest offering where he suggests that the state has no role to play in endorsing any relationships. Something liberals have always claimed on every other, non-homosexual, issue. This is a concept I endorse accross the board. Marriage existed for centuries without the help of the state. State endorsed marriage is a fairly recent phenomena.

Extract from: Homosexuality and Socialism?

It might seem like a very odd connection until you consider… well, actually no matter what you consider it still seems like an odd connection, but in the recent song and dance about Proposition 8 in California, that very odd connect has been reinforced yet again. I’m sure that there are plenty of homosexual people who don’t choose to identify as socialist, so don’t take me to be saying that they all do. But when it comes to the public scrap about marriage, for some of them the red comes to the surface quicker than you can drop a hat.

As evidenced here, here, here, here and in many many other places, some outspoken homosexuals actually believe the following slogan:

Marriage is a civil right.

Now let me very clear what’s being said here. They’re not saying that they have the right to live together as a couple. They already have that right in California, and it was not under threat. They mean legal marriage, and I don’t mean a relationship that is legally permitted (again, they already have this, which is why Keith Olbermann is lying in the second link above when he says that all homosexuals in California who opposed proposition 8 want is the ability to be “a little less alone in the world” by having a relationship”), I mean a relationship that is created by law. What they are actually saying is this:

I have a basic right for the government to create a type of legal relationship and to confer upon my relationship the status of being one of those relationships.

Excuse me? There exists no such civil right, for anyone – homosexual, heterosexual…. or otherwise! What kind of nannyish rubbish is this? The government does currently create such a relationship and confer upon many heterosexual relationships the status of being one of those relationships (and it refuses to do so for others – e.g. close relatives, relationships with more than two people etc, which is why Representative Anthony D. Weiner is lying in the third link above when he says “We are not going to rest at night until every citizen in every state in this country can say, ‘This is the person I love,’ and take their hand in marriage”). It’s like thinking that the right to bear arms means that you have the right to arms, that is, the government has the duty to buy you a gun!

If I stood up in public and said that my wife and I had a civil right to a free house from the government, what would you say? And how crazy do you think I would look if I went further and said that if the government did not provide one then it was somehow displaying hatred or contempt for me or for my relationship?

I’m a conservative Christian, and I take very seriously the teaching of the Bible. So if you tell me that I have no choice and I must accept the fact that all marriages must be state-endorsed, then obviously I’m going to think in terms of my traditional understanding of marriage, since I don’t want the government creating and then endorsing things that are immoral. We’re going to clash and war over that. But here’s a radical thought: If you want to get married then get married, and let’s not let the government have a part of it at all!

But what about incest, polygamy etc? Well firstly, people in the USA are already legally permitted to have sexual relations with multiple people and commit adultery. If you think that’s so horrific, then support a law banning it. And incest is already illegal, so the question of incestuous marriage isn’t an issue. The act is banned. Let’s just say that anyone can get married, as long as they don’t commit any acts that are themselves illegal (like incest or marrying a minor or any other illegal sexual practices). Enter into whatever property contracts you like, regardless of sexuality.

Issues of sexual practices are determined on their own (e.g. the notorious “anti-sodomy law” issue in Texas). But the suggestion that you have a civil right for the government to come into your bedroom and give you a nice certificate and pat your relationship on the back (so to speak)…. Please don’t do that to my language. “Rights” are important things, and you’re dragging that word through the mud when you use it like that.

(This is to say nothing of the misleading claim that currently, different individuals have different rights based on their sexuality. They don’t. No individual is excluded from getting married in California based on gender, race, or sexual orientation. That’s why emotive comparisons to interracial marriage being banned just have no substance.)

Key states he voted against civil unions because the majority in his electorate were opposed it. This is clearly an inadequate stance, suppose that same-sex sex is wrong, contrary to the laws of God. If this is the case, Key is suggesting that he would follow the beliefs and will of the majority over the beliefs of an omniscient, all knowing, perfectly-good God. This is irrational to say the least. The mistaken views that are popular are more authoritative than the decree of God.

On the other hand, suppose there is nothing wrong with same-sex sex. Suppose that discriminating against such unions is on par with discriminating against inter-racial unions. Then Key is suggesting he would follow the racial prejudices of the majority even though he abhors this prejudice himself.

Such a position is bizarre. For my part I expect legislators to be people of integrity and have the courage of their convictions to stand against evil and injustice even when it is unpopular to do so.

Key dismisses the argument that “civil unions undermine marriage” in a far too cavalier manner. Though I myself do not endorse this argument, I believe a critique of it should be based on an accurate and fair interpretation which must also be a valid argument. Key’s is neither. Key responds by saying, “I have been married for 22 years and the fact that a gay couple may choose to have a Civil Union would have absolutely no impact on my marriage to my wife”. But that is not the issue. Opponents of civil unions claimed it would undermine the institution of marriage not that it would under mine one particular person’s marriage.

Of course Key is not alone in dismissing the arguments of others simply by a cavalier caricature, but this fact does not alter the spuriousness of doing so.

Key states “I don’t care what people’s sexual preferences are” and states that a persons sexual preference “is their business and their business alone.” Several things can be said here; first whether Key cares about an issue is irrelevant. The issue is whether certain actions are right or wrong and this is not determined by Key’s personal feelings.

Second, if a person’s “sexual preferences” are “their business alone” why does he have no problem with the State solemnising and legally recognising a person’s sexual union. If it is no one else’s business then why is it the states business?

Thirdly, contrary to what Key says, a person’s “sexual preference” is relevant. Some people prefer little children; by definition this is a sexual preference. If Keys’ trite sounding slogan were correct, this is their business alone and no one else’s.

Similarly Key notes that “We have friends who are gay and lesbian, just as we have dozens of friends who are heterosexual.” This may be true but it is beside the point. The fact that you know people who do something does not mean the State should endorse their activity through recognising and solemnising it. I have had friends who sleep around and regularly get intoxicated. Does that mean that the government should set up state funded clinics for those who want casual sex or provide tax payer funded alcohol?

In discussing the origins of same-sex attraction Key states “I believe it is innate. I am not an expert in these areas but I have had all these religious groups in my electoral office trying to argue that this is learned behaviour, personally I believe that is crap.” It is not just religious people who make that claim (and not all religious people do anyway). Socially liberal New York University Sociologist, Dr David Greenberg, in his book “The Construction of Homosexuality” concluded that homosexual conduct is socially learned. He based this on a huge survey of cross-cultural studies. This work may be mistaken, but I think Key is reaching if he thinks his credentials warrant writing off such research as “crap” because of what his consciousness tells him.

Key goes on to note: “I think we largely live in a secular society, I think there are many religions operating in NZ and it is in the best interests of the state to make decisions that are on a secular basis so they don’t discriminate. I’m no supporter of these hard right religions. [For instance,] I was never offered, I would never have accepted any financial support from the Exclusive Brethren. I met them as a constituency MP, as I would meet anyone as a constituency MP on constituency issues as I believe it’s wrong to discriminate.”

There is so much here it is hard to know where to begin.

Key states “we live in a secular society”. This mantra is trotted out by politicians of the left and right continually, but it is spurious. The fact that society currently displays a trait does not mean it ought to display that trait, we currently live in a Labour led society, does Key think that means Labour ought to continue to lead?

Key goes on to state he does not believe in discrimination. However, he then immediately notes that he does not “support hard right religions.” His position is contradictory; unless Key does not support any groups at all (which is clearly false he supports National) he is discriminating against these groups as he is supporting some but not others.

Moreover, legislation by its nature discriminates. A law regulates human conduct, it states that people who engage in certain actions will be censured (incarcerated or fined) while people who do not engage in those actions will not. This is discrimination. Contrary to what Key states discrimination in and of itself is a morally neutral concept. Some types of discrimination are wrong i.e. depriving people of their life on the basis of their race, and others are not, depriving people of liberty because they have committed murder. The fact that such an elementary and obvious point is lost on someone who seeks to lead the country speaks volumes for the intellectual and moral acumen of today’s politicians.

However, Key’s core argument is “I think there are many religions operating in NZ and it is in the best interests of the state to make decisions that are on a secular basis so they don’t discriminate.” The argument here seems to be that because there are many differing religious groups in NZ, it would be discriminatory to base the laws on moral principles taught by only some of these groups. Hence legislation should be based on secular (i.e non-religious) values and ideals.

The problem is that if this argument is not sound. If it were, there is an equally sound argument for the claim that we should not base laws on secular values and ideals.

Consider, there are many secular philosophies operating in NZ. They disagree on all sorts of matters. Compare the Socialist Workers Party with the Objectivist Society, or both with the New Zealand Association of Rationalists and Humanists. Hence, if we follow Key’s logic, to avoid discrimination we need to base laws on “non-secular aims”.

In fact one can push this silly argument further, there are numerous different political parties in NZ, hence to avoid discrimination we should not base laws on the aims or values of any political party. Which means that if elected Prime Minister, Key will not support any National Party policies being implemented.

Does any of the above mean that people should not vote for National? Not necessarily. While Key is clearly mistaken on these issues, it does not follow that he is mistaken on every other issues. Moreover, it could be (lets face it, it is probably the case…) that the alternative to National will contain people who are more mistaken on more issues. John Key has a lot of faults but he has one big tick in his favour, he is not Helen Clark.

Over the weekend my family was over and my brother in law was hassling me about my call to the radio. He and my sister are somewhat left of centre (as in, Labour are too right wing) so we often good naturedly disagree on things and sure enough he was not happy with aspects of my call. He went on to offer a critique and I offered a defence, we went back and forward and then he finished with “well anyway I was most peeved to have to listen to your call twice, the first time when you rang in was bad enough but when you won caller of the week and the announcer thought you were so onto it I got really mad because you were wrong!” He then asked where the wine from Landmark Estate was anyway and hassled me for serving substandard wine. It then dawned on me that perhaps I had been caller of the week after all.

Despite having a blog and being rather into political debates I do not frequent talk back shows. We were driving home from Mt Albert pools and I heard the announcer say that the government were considering adding a question on sexual preference to the census form and listeners were invited to call in with their thoughts. On a whim I phoned the station, Matt was driving so what the hey!

I commented on the methodological flaws of the government gathering this data, citing Kinsey’s report which utilised analogous methodology. The gist went basically that you are unlikely to obtain reliable results as the sort of people who volunteer to answer questions on their sexual preferences tend to be the sort of people whose sexual preferences are more ‘out there,’ those who are very private about their sexual preferences tend to be more conservative and are less likely to volunteer that sort of info. Kinsey’s study invited people to participate and as such he found there to be a much higher number of more ‘out there’ sexual practices than other studies using better methodology which led to random samples. I concluded by asking why the government felt they had a place in our bedrooms anyway? I speculated that the purpose behind the proposed move was so they could rubber stamp their social agenda and stated that they should stick to law, order and defence.

My brother in law’s issue was that on the radio I stated that Kinsey invited people to call in and in actual fact Kinsey’s study was not a phone survey, the interviews were done face to face. My brother in law was quite right to pull me up on this factual error but he was wrong to suggest that my criticisms failed because of it. Kinsey interviewed a disproportionately high number of criminals, particularly sex offenders, Laumann writes in The Social Organisation of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States (Chicago University Press, 1994):

Kinsey roamed far and wide in selecting his subjects … Kinsey also purposefully recruited subjects for his research from homosexual friendship and acquaintance networks in big cities.

Anyway, this led me to email Newstalk ZB and ask if indeed I was the caller of the week. I will update with their reply.

UPDATE: Newstalk ZB have confirmed I was caller of the week. Still waiting to hear if I get the Landmark Estate wine prize given I did not call in when it was announced.

UPDATE: A knock at the door yesterday saw the arrival of my prize along with this letter:

Dear Madeleine,
Congratulations
Newstalk ZB – Caller of the Week
2 Bottles of wine – just for you.

One bottle of Chardonnay one bottle of Sauvignon Blanc from Landmark Estate Wines. Matt and I polished off the Chardonnay last night, very nice – not remotely vinegary like some chardonnays. The Sauv is on hold til Sunday night – I must see if the promised repairs to my cupboard doors eventuates – otherwise my brother in law just gets a toast!

Kay writes: “The M & M blog is scarier because their posts almost make sense … over the top hatred like www.godhatesfags.com is so extreme that its hard to take it seriously. M&M sound plausible & reasonable …”

Kaiwai agrees: “… some of the things I agree with … don’t dismiss everything he [Matt] says.”

Kind Kit adds: “Yes, Matt and Mads are certainly cogent, and even logical after a fashion. Dr Flannagan wears his philosophical training rather well. They are not frothing lunatics by any means… “

Cale concludes: “I do know what you mean though about them being persuasive, they managed to gather enough people together to block the Otago campus support for the CUB bill and Madeleine spoke dangerously well.”

We would like to clear up a couple of things though:

1. The MandM blog is NOT “sponsored by the Elusive Brethren & Right Wing American Fundamentalists” but if either of the afore mentioned wish to sponsor us please send cheques to Private Bag 93119, Henderson, Waitakere City….

2. Kaiwai wrote of us: “I don’t set out to impose my views by way of legislation – if I want to ‘change the world’, I’d sooner set an example by living the life I preach, then hope that it’ll rub off on others.”

Holding to classical liberal and libertarian political views respectively and being evangelical Christians means we believe in less State and in changing the world in precisely the manner Kaiwai expressed. For example we don’t just oppose the Civil Unions Act but also the Marriage Act because both are outside the legitimate functions of the State.

3. Depraved claimed: “The problem with Matt – they’re pro-life and yet, anti-sex education and anti-condom. They’re against the very things which would drastically reduce unwanted pregnancies. An example, someone is in an accident, they’re killed – the autopsy says that the individual could have survived had they worn a seat belt. Matt’s solution is ‘ban the car’ when the common sense approach would be to make safety belts compulsory and improve driver training.”

We are not Catholic, we have no problem with condoms beyond the fact that using them is like having a shower wearing a raincoat (we use other forms of contraception). Our children’s knowledge of sex education is more than thorough and they could give a family planning sex educator a run for their money. But I suspect what Depraved is alluding to is our opposition to the State teaching sex education at all, and, in the amoral, relativistic manner they do.

Further, I am not in favour of banning cars but I do believe that it should be illegal for people to use cars to kill other people with. Nothing strikes me as more absurd as a pro-choice social policy that says let’s legalise dangerous driving and allow people to freely and deliberately smash their cars into pedestrians on demand and when the body count for this practice (suprisingly) gets rather high, respond to this by increasing education on seatbelt use in schools.

Matt

What was interesting was the reaction by some that this study as somehow validated permissive sexual mores. To cite one typical example, at the recent family first forum a question was asked from the floor about what would be taught in sex education courses at public schools. The response, from at least one politician, was that this study showed that encouraging people outside of a monogamous sexual relationship to practise abstinence was unrealistic.

Now this morning we see another study has come out this study suggests that sexual molestation of children is prevalent in NZ it suggests that one in four women have been sexually molested. I note the almost universal response from our politicians and media and quite rightly so, is to condemn these practises and exhort NZers to change any actions and attitudes that lead to such behaviour.

I am confused: I thought that when a significant number of people engaged in a sexual practise, then it was unrealistic to condemn it? I thought the state was supposed to simply accept contemporary practise and alter their values to fit it. Can the politicians who make the aforementioned argument about sex ed answer me this: When are you going to advocate that the state to teach safe child molestation techniques in public schools?

The reality is that we do not look to contemporary practise to determine what’s right and wrong. Rather we use principles of right and wrong to critique contemporary practise. Despite their trendy sloganising, our politicians know this, or at least they do when it suits them, but conveniently forget when it doesn’t. If contemporary liberals want to justify their values to others, they need to provide arguments for them. Not assurances that these practises are fashionable or trendy or that “all the cool people are doing it” or that “Kinsey showed 10% of people do this” etc. Unlike some people in parliament and the media many of us grew out of our teens sometime ago.