pop morality

[TheRocketSurgeon]

What?!  Why would the prisoners assume the warden is a bad person?  What are you talking about?  Analogy FAIL.

So simple...

Is it the will of the prisoners to be in prison? who keeps them in who signs the release who sets the menus, who over see the facilities, who makes the sleeping arrangements too hot or too cold, who has final say on every aspect of their detainment?

Is your simple mind telling you that is someone had complete control over every aspect of your daily life (even who you will most likely be raped by) that no one see fit to complain, that no one would see the treatment unfair or one sided? That no one would judge a man with such complete power of thousands to be immoral?

If you really think no one in a prison has ever thought the warden to be immoral, then I will let you have this win. Go on, take it do your victory lap.

As the resident "person who has been in prison", I can answer this one:

No, prisoners do not assume the Warden is immoral. Indeed, a good vs a bad Warden can make all the difference in the world in how the inmates are treated, and all they expect from the Warden is that (s)he do the job with equanimity and be fair when enforcing rules that A) make sense and B) are enforced equally.

It's not a question of whether no one will judge that Warden, but whether or not prisoners will assume the Warden to be immoral simply because he is in control of them. It's an easy assumption to make, if you don't know jack about the prison environment, but the only way prisoners give a crap about the Warden is if he is known for having vague rules that are arbitrarily and/or unfairly enforced. If the Warden is indeed immoral (and many are!), then the prisoners will judge on that basis, based upon the actions and stated policies of that individual.

In other words, your argument is moot. We're pointing out that per the Warden's own stated policies, per your analogy here, Warden God is a deeply immoral being who is unfit to hold the position, and certainly unfit to be respected.

As for your citation of the Judaism website, it's clear that the person who wrote that summary is glossing over what was actually stated in the verses. Being a Rabbi does not make one invulnerable to whitewashing via apologetics. The literal translation of the verse, despite the phrase "of a dog", is very clear in its reference to not allowing prostitutes (male or female), or the money earned by same, into the Temple. It has nothing to do with marriage contracts, and to claim it is would be dishonesty-- smoke-and-mirrors.

The point people are making with the "50 sheckels" isn't whether or not there's a penalty at all for rape, but that the money (we'll take your figure of a year's salary as accurate, for the sake of this argument) goes to the father of the victim. In other words, it's a civil penalty in a country that gives out the Death Penalty for free speech crimes (blasphemy, talking back to parents, etc.), making it obvious that the only value of a woman in that culture--which you claim is based on the Eternal Morality of Gawd--is her financial value to the man who "owns" her. We, using our modern (or "pop") moral system which actually values women as equal to men, find this morally abhorrent.

Your ability to justify a law which treats rape as a civil action rather than a criminal one is why we find YOU morally abhorrent.