But people should just leave Sarah Palin alone. She was only trying to faithfully apply the Bible's laws on rape. And that's not easy to do in a small town like Wasilla.
You see, the Bible has two laws on rape: one for city rape
If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. -- Deuteronomy 22:23-24
and one for country rape.
But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die. ... For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her. -- Deuteronomy 22:25-27
But which law applies in Wasilla, which is neither city nor country? What do you do with a rape victim in a small town with small town values? Stone her to death for not crying out loudly enough or force her to marry her rapist?
In either case, Sarah Palin's Bible-based rape kit is more likely to include stones or wedding certificates than free medical examinations.
5 comments:
I think this is a little misdirected... That stupidity was probably fiscal in nature - more a case of 'cheap-arse government' than inspiration from the good old misogynistic Bible.
"Whaa! We're too cheap to cover rape kits, so if they want justice they've got to pay for it!"
The police don't charge a murder victim's estate for the costs of investigating the murder case. They don't drop off a bill at the house of a man who was mugged for the costs of investigating the thief. Why, then, should they charge a rape victim for the costs of discovering who the rapist was? The state should cover rape kits unless there's a conviction... whereupon the offender should pay for it, if they really need to recoup the money.
This issue does underline Sarah Palin's leadership qualities, though. Did she agree with charging for rape kits? Did she not care whether they charged or not at the time? Was she unaware that the police were charging for those rape kits? Being exploitive, apathetic, or ignorant... none of those qualities seem especially good for a high office candidate, imho.
I think mostly agree with you here, gorunnova.
Still, I think Palin's attitude toward rape victims is influenced by the Bible. Did the victim encourage the rapist by dressing immodestly? Did she resist her attacker and cry out loudly enough? And if an examination showed the victim to be pregnant, might she decide to have an abortion?
If it wasn't for the story in John 8:3-7, I suspect that Sarah Palin would favor stoning to death rape victims who didn't cry out loudly enough. As it it, she just charged rape victims for rape kits.
I have heard that this was a policy of the chief of police and that Palin denies knowledge - although many find that hard to believe. In any case the state rejects the policy (although they downloaded the costs to the cities).
...well, that's what happens when democracy is reduced to a popularity contest. When candidates can select running-mates to appeal to the lowest common denominator of the populace...
I'm glad the Queen is still nominally our head-of-state... [sigh]
You know, that first law from Deuteronomy isn't about rape, it's about burning the sheets with a foreign soldier - willingly. It doesn't actually addresses forced copulation. At any rate, stoning a girl to death simply because she got naughty with a foreign soldier is still barbaric and disgusting.
Post a Comment