Atheists Who Love Biblical Rape

Over at Hemant's "Friendly Atheist" blog, there is ranting about another Old Testament verse over which they can cackle and sneer. It fits right in with the rape culture that the Left is promoting in its "war on women" mantra. Taken alone, the verse is rather perverse sounding, as much of the OT is. Here it is:

Deuteronomy 22:28-29New International Version (NIV)

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
Footnotes:

Deuteronomy 22:29 That is, about 1 1/4 pounds or about 575 grams

Reading the prior verses for context - never ever done by Atheists, of course - there is severe punishment for rape. And for promiscuity.

22 If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.

23 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 young woman 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 young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[b] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

At first this appears to differentiate only between virgins who are betrothed and not betrothed. But it also differentiates between one who screams and cannot be helped, and one who is not screaming. If she had screamed, she would have been saved. Even if not, there is still another verse which takes it into account:

Exodus 22:
16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.

17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

Hemant makes the following statement:

"I’m generally irritated by how Jews and Christians cherry-pick from scripture, but since 20 percent of women in the United States experience rape or attempted rape, I consider Judeo-Christian hypocrisy a blessing in this case."

Hemant does exactly that, and does it twice, cherry-picking a reference to a completely unrelated verse regarding the stoning of a man for violating the sabbath, calling it "killing for gathering wood", a purposeful lie.

And he invokes a Moroccan case which is based on Moroccan Law, not the OT, but is compared to the OT in an attempt to use the fallacy of False Association, even in the article Mehta invokes. The case is hideous, of course, but not proof of anything other than that women have been considered property clear up until the 20th century. And that was changed by a nation which was culturally Christian, certainly not values-free Atheist.

As I have pointed out before, Hemant is not friendly: that claim is a lie right there in the title. Hemant is a liar by conventional standards, who, under his worldview, cannot lie because Atheists have no guidance from any common Atheist Principles Of Morality, hence, no truth: no falseness; no honesty: no lies - only expedience in furthering the worldview. Hemant may, under the Atheist void of principles, be incensed at the principles of ancient cultures while have no actual principles of his own, other than what he makes up for himself and others. His self-righteousness is based on his own personal concept of self-superiority, not on any set of general Atheist Ethical Laws (including intellectual integrity); those laws do not exist, and that's why the Atheist and his own rules are his direct path to elitist, arrogant, self-righteous indignation at those he deems inferior.

It's the Atheist way to Leftist Totalitarian superior rules for everyone else.