Earlier this week I had a conversation with an old friend of mine who doesn’t believe in Christianity. The discussion was over the French government possibly banning the burkha, which my friend found to be a gross violation of civil rights, most notably the choice of what to wear, as well as the separation of church and state (kind of an American thing, eh?). His friends–since I must note that this took place on Facebook–all joined the band-wagon, suggesting that the French government was taking an immoral stance against individual liberty, and that France should stay out of religious matters.

But most importantly, we came to a point in which I quoted the Qur’an, which stated that a man could beat his wife if she were acting out of line, and I asked both Eric and his friends if they thought the French government should have any say in practically ritual wife-beating.  His response?  A quote from Deuteronomy, which stated that a woman’s hand should be chopped off if she intervenes in a fight and grabs a man by his genitals.

So really, why don’t Christians follow the laws set forth in the book of Deuteronomy?  My friend may be surprised to know that it took some prayer and honest investigation to get the answer before I replied, but the answer is laid out in the following conversation, which I believe to be the most solid answer on the topic I’ve ever heard.

Thus, here is the conversation, with added commentary at the end.

————————————————————-

My Friend: What women choose to wear is their business, not the French government’s.

*numerous responses in agreement, showing support for his comment*

Me: You guys DO realize that some people have values that aren’t Islamic, right? Do you guys think Islamic males should be allowed to beat their wives, too?

Read the [1] Qur’an, 4:34

“Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.”

My Friend: Well Jeremy, how about [2] this little gem from Deuteronomy?

“11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.”

Awesome.

Me:  Although that verse is hilarious when taken out of context, have you ever wondered why neither Christians nor Jews follow the codes laid forth in Deuteronomy?

I know you’re not the Bible guy, so I’ll spell it out for ya, buddy :) Basically, the code contained within the book of Deuteronomy has specific purposes, for a specific time, for a specific people. It was basically given to allow Israelite occupation of Canaan, and contained laws to promote strong male-led families, promote fertility within the family, fight disease, win battles, sustain agricultural development, and most importantly: to separate the Israelite culture from the other idolatrous occupying forces in the region.

When you read about strange things like “you shall not boil a young goat in its mothers’ milk,” it’s being said to ensure that the Israelite culture completely contrasts the other occupiers, so that they wouldn’t stray from the Hebrew faith or become a cultural hodgepodge and assimilate into the region, instead of dominating (editor’s note: this would have made God’s promise to Abraham impossible to recognize).  For this very reason, Judaism exists to this day, and nobody hears about Amalekites and their balls-grabbing women.  As far as that particular law goes, it is strange, but nobody follows it today because we’re not Israelites in Caanan, and we have the New Covenant under Jesus Christ.

Also worth noting, these laws contrast in applicability with the Ten Commandments, which are universal and restricted to no particular time and/or place.  Read from [3] Deuteronomy 4:44 onward to get a sense of what’s going on.

As far as the Qur’an and Hadith are concerned, they are “universally applicable” and timeless laws, with no new covenants nor revelations that have been given to Islamic majority cultures, making them applicable throughout the Islamic world.  Last, but not least, the Islamic reason for wife-beating was dependent upon the husband’s flexible interpretation of what “disobedient” means.  In Deuteronomic and Canaanite Israel, a woman had to actually do something specific to warrant punishment.  It wasn’t a code to chop women’s heads off upon arbitrary whim.

—————————————

And thus ended the conversation.  My friend did well to point out what appeared to be an inconsistency in approach to religious codes, but ultimately the difference in applicability between Christian and Islamic codes is chasmic enough to warrant a difference in legal problems.  Simply put, there hasn’t been a Christian or a Jew who chopped off his wife’s hand in the last, oh, millenium, for grabbing someone else’s genitals.  Muslims are responsible for the murders and ritual rapes of women all across the globe, and finding examples of such behavior can prove to be an easy task for anyone with a functioning brain and the internet.  For an extensive list of legitimate news links proving this, click [4] here and look at the news section.

In the end, when people recognize that there really are religious stances that “modern” states cannot tolerate, the question of the separation of church and state will arise.  This is an excellent time to show people that yes–we do take moral stances, and we need to have a moral code to operate by, because Western existence–especially Christian Western existence–simply doesn’t mesh well with Islam. It is not the Islamic people who are the problem, as they are eternal beings loved by our creator: it is the teachings of Islam itself.

We simply cannot live in a moral void, regardless of what those professing “tolerance” may claim (especially since the claim to tolerance implies that the user maintains a moral code which promotes the eradication of religious differences, cultural belonging, and nationalism).  My personal stance is that our laws must be based upon God’s eternal truths, but in the absence of that, at least force those arguing with you to admit that they actually do embrace some sort of moral code, that it’s not Islamic, and that they choose to enforce their moral code just like everyone else.

So should the French ban the burkha? I say it’s France: if they’re not interested in doing God’s will according to God’s word in His New Testament, let the French carry out the will of the French.  After all, that’s the point of democracy, isn’t it?