In practice this was rarely the case. Men were generally not stoned for rape or adultery.
My point is there is often a stark difference between the law and the application of the law. This is how conservatives hid behind the law, saying things like “There’s no systemic racism, look at the law!” while ignore the unequal application/enforcement of law.
In practice this was rarely the case. Men were generally not stoned for rape or adultery.
Everywhere, in every place that used that verse as a way to condemn adultery? Because that is a very broad statement to make about thousands of years and dozens of cultures. I’m sure it wasn’t consistently applied everywhere all the time, but to look at this as a legal code strictly analogous to modern law only and not a religious/moral code is a mistake IMO. You might be able to fool a judge or bribe a good ol’ boy, but you can’t fool God (which is what that would amount to for believers, who constituted the majority of people throughout history). The way that American conservatives use religion without really believing anything in it is an aberration throughout most of human history.
The way that American conservatives use religion without really believing anything in it is an aberration throughout most of human history.
I’m not convinced that’s true. The powerful have always used moral codes and laws selectively and misogyny has been dominant throughout history(there are exceptions, of course). Also, I don’t think the American conservatives “don’t really believe in anything”. I think they are held together by beliefs and feelings, regardless of whether their beliefs have an actual foundation in their religion. I think they they believe it does.
But that’s the fundamental problem with belief systems, it’s whatever the believer believes it to be. If someone hears something on Fox and thinks it comes from the bible, it’s a religious belief and is now a part of their religion, even if it contradicts their stated religious belief from 5 minutes ago.
In practice this was rarely the case. Men were generally not stoned for rape or adultery.
My point is there is often a stark difference between the law and the application of the law. This is how conservatives hid behind the law, saying things like “There’s no systemic racism, look at the law!” while ignore the unequal application/enforcement of law.
Everywhere, in every place that used that verse as a way to condemn adultery? Because that is a very broad statement to make about thousands of years and dozens of cultures. I’m sure it wasn’t consistently applied everywhere all the time, but to look at this as a legal code strictly analogous to modern law only and not a religious/moral code is a mistake IMO. You might be able to fool a judge or bribe a good ol’ boy, but you can’t fool God (which is what that would amount to for believers, who constituted the majority of people throughout history). The way that American conservatives use religion without really believing anything in it is an aberration throughout most of human history.
I’m not convinced that’s true. The powerful have always used moral codes and laws selectively and misogyny has been dominant throughout history(there are exceptions, of course). Also, I don’t think the American conservatives “don’t really believe in anything”. I think they are held together by beliefs and feelings, regardless of whether their beliefs have an actual foundation in their religion. I think they they believe it does.
But that’s the fundamental problem with belief systems, it’s whatever the believer believes it to be. If someone hears something on Fox and thinks it comes from the bible, it’s a religious belief and is now a part of their religion, even if it contradicts their stated religious belief from 5 minutes ago.