Okay so Rape is okay but Abortion is a no no...

[thegayhare]

I know I normaly don't post political things here but this one's been driving me batty since I heard about is

story

Basically in Brazil a 9 year old girl was pregnant with twins,  he step dad had been molesting her since the age of 6

So the mother took the girl to the doctor, and the doctor preformed an abortion.  So the arch bishop of Brazil Excommunicated the mother, the doctor, the nurses, and everyone else involved in the operation except the girl (he wanted to but couldn't).  But he didn't do anything to the step dad because 3 years of raping a child isn't nearly as bad as an abortion.

Argggh!

[Jigsaw Forte]

And people wonder why I consider pro-life folk inherently sexist... 

Yes, even if they're women, because nothing says "I respect your rights as a fellow human being" like forcing you to give birth and then punishing you for being a whore even after you supposedly do the "right" thing.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

But, you know, the dad is real sorry, and penitence is the important part... /sarcasm


I share your horror, TGH. People are stupid. Especially when they use religion as an excuse to avoid rational thought.

[Tipod]

Wow, people can still get excommunicated?

[Sofox]

Technically speaking, Christianity prohibits you from punishing or condemning anyone for their sins. Protecting or helping people affected by a sinner is something expected out of true Christians, but actually going against and attacking the person performing the sin (whatever your definition of "sin") is not on. "'Let judgment be mine' says the Lord".

Excommunication is also a symptom of church arrogance, it only excludes people from the church, not the religion the church is meant to be a part of. God loves us all and accepts anyone who decides to return to him, according to Christian teaching.

You could make an argument that abortion is worse then rape, it's not in good taste to, but it's possible. The problem with the argument is that it all comes back to the same question: What is life? At what stage does it begin? Practically everyone agrees that killing a newborn baby fresh out of the womb is murder under any circumstance; pretty much everyone agrees that killing sperm or female eggs before they fuse together as a zygote is not immoral. So at what point between the two events is destroying what exist stop being immoral and start being moral. Is there even such a point? Is destroying any piece of life no matter how small immoral? Does morality even exist? Or are there varying degrees of morality depending on the stage of development?
It's a big issue with many questions seemingly impossible to answer, you can see why they're so much debate about it.

Oh and yeah, the rape of the daughter should definitely have been stopped beforehand. By who I'm not sure, but the girl had a mother and there were police, but obviously the archbishop probably only heard about this after the fact.

You know, for all the outrage, controversy and human rights issues the article appears to conjure up, it fails to answer the simple question, "Is the girl still being raped by her stepfather?"

[Alondro]

Now this is one of the reasons all Christians get a bad rap.

Abortion is MEANT for cases just like this!

I am utterly against 'convenience abortions', in which young girls fool around wantonly and then dump the results of their filandering.  I have a very old-fashioned view that one must live with the consequences of ones' actions.  But for valid medical reasons and rape, those things are not the results of a woman's choices.   A fetus with a severe birth defect likely to be fatal is not something one normally desires (though the issue gets iffy with anomalies such as Down Syndrome... personal choice is very much the only standard to go by there, though I could not personally abort such a child).  

And a woman who is raped has NO CHOICE AT ALL!  The resulting pregnancy is in fact (if one wishes to adhere to strict orthodoxy) an abomination as it results from a sinful act.  Thus, the child will obviously have the spirit of a demon in it.  

And add also the fact that this was an incestual rape, thus another sin!  And incest is a REALLY BIG SIN!!!  (= lots more demons = Legion?)  In fact, if one really wanted to go all out, one could ponder the notion that the child might have become the Antichrist!!   D:

So, the abortion would prevent demons from entering our world, and possibly prevent the Apocalypse.  Therefore, I have demonstrated a religious reason in favor of the abortion in this case!  

As for secular morality:  again, there was no choice by the girl/woman to have the sexual acts, it was forced upon her, it was incestual (higher probability of deformity), and it was criminal.  

So, abortion here is AOK all around.

[Sunblink]

TGH, I was actually thinking about posting this a while back, so this came as a bit of a surprise.

Trying to comprehend this really, really makes my brain hurt. I would have gotten into an angry rant, but I don't even feel energetic enough to wholly articulate how stupid this is. It's just as stupid as something that's really, really stupid.

[ShadesFox]

But surely the man is a hero of the church, upholding the Pope's views on never ever using contraception.

[Lisky]

yea... i gotta agree with Keaton and Alondro on this... the fact of the matter is, is that this is an extreme case where the views of the church need to be looked out and reviewed... if the church is supposed to be a symbol of morality and good, how can they do something like this?!... quite honestly, it's instances like this where Norse Paganism starts looking real good for a faith...

[Sofox]

Alondro: Yeah, I see your points.

If the birth of a child is likely to kill the mother (whether conceived by choice or not), then that's definitely a strong reason and justification for having an abortion.
I'm not so sure as to whether or not the mother was raped should have much bearing on the decision to abort. I know that for the mother and the future of the child it can make the world of a difference, but a fetus is still a fetus, no matter how it was conceived.

By the way, if a fetus is aborted because a of a birth defect that was likely to be fatal, that's euthanasia.
If a fetus is aborted because it is diagnosed with Down Syndrom or similar condition, that's eugenics.
Of course, both terms require that a fetus is considered to be as much alive as any other person, but that leads us back into uncertain waters.

As for your "religious reason in favor of the abortion", I think we both agree that your stretching it there.

[Corgatha Taldorthar]

If you take a look at either the Poetic or Prose edda, it seems that the Norse had no real problem with incestual sexual affairs resulting in children........ At least if you're a God anyway. Humans might have been expected to be a little more straitlaced.


What is the prescribed penalty for rape in Catholic dogma anyway? I know Judiasm treats it as a subset of assault, and punishes accordingly, but I'm not 100% certain that they're the same, even if there are some similarities.

[TheDXM]

Saw this a little while ago. Don't have much to say about it other than that I have a very difficult time not wishing great amounts of harm on the father and those who are just using the poor girl's plight as a means to gain publicity (albeit, the wrong kind) over the abortion issue.

Human beings do terrible, ignorant things. It kind of just rolls off me at this point.

I only hope that there is some form of divine justice to sort these people out, because no amount of what I or anyone else could dole out would be enough.

[Cogidubnus]

Instead of debating abortion, which in light of the events surrounding the poor girl I feel would be in poor taste, I shall instead say that my heart goes to her, and her family. There are no words to express circumstances like this - I can say they're terrible, and fall far short of what needs to be said.

I hope sincerely that she is able to recover from this event, and that she and her family will be able to move on, in peace.

[radarnocturn]

Keep in mind guys, the Pope himself said that abortions are bad.  This from the same bunch of people that like to continually move around their pedophile priests who like to rape little boys.

Of course, christianity doesn't always deserve the bad rap it gets, it just has some of the loudest and most fanatical followers who somehow get access to the media.

As for the abortion and being excommunicated, the excommunications just a lame old scare tactic that they pull.  Basically to try and scare others from doing anything similar and try to keep others obeying their petty little rules.  Personally, getting excommunicated wouldn't change my life one bit.

As for the stepfather, he should be thrown in prison and experience rape first hand.  I feel sorry for the girl for what happened to her, especially since she was only 9 years old, which is something the church doesn't seem to care about.

It's sad that the Catholic church is still stuck in the dark ages in so many ways.

[Brunhidden]

crap like this is what turned me away from the clergy when i was younger- while studying to be a monk i noticed how much tripe like this exists because, like sofox stated before, the organization of the church now exists separately of the religion it represents. if you study the scriptures it is actually stated that a church is 'any two people who come together to discuss god', and thus completely invalidates the ability of the church to throw its weight around as an organization. also, congratulations, were a church.

i will refrain from bringing up my personal abortion story/history unless requested

[Sofox]

What is the prescribed penalty for rape in Catholic dogma anyway? I know Judiasm treats it as a subset of assault, and punishes accordingly, but I'm not 100% certain that they're the same, even if there are some similarities.

You know, that's the thing, I'm not sure that there are punishments for anything in Catholic dogma. Except of course the punishment of going to hell for not following God's teachings, but I don't recall any teaching of how one man is meant to punish another man. Remember, Jesus himself prevented the stoning of an adulterer, and he regularly sat down with sinners saying that they were the ones who needed his teaching the most, and even went against the old testament teaching of "an eye for an eye".

Radar: I know where you are coming from, but please don't make such a general attack against the church. There's a priest who is a very close friend of my family, who's a great guy and devotes a lot of himself to God and spreading God's love. (He's also a generator of truly awful puns but that's another thing). During the time the whole controversy broke out, he received a hell of a time. He wasn't the only one. There are so many priests out there who generally were focused on helping their congregation and supporting people when they needed, and suddenly, through no action of their own, they are instantly being perceived as one of the worst sort of criminals.
All it took was a single child with a grudge, or misunderstanding, or something to prove, or whatever to accuse a priest of molestation and suddenly someone who may have been faithfully helping the community for 20-30 years would have his name dragged through the mud.

Brun: I find church very helpful. I think there are many ways that God's word can help us in life, and having a priest talk about one aspect or another can be really helpful. Many times times I had an issue of some sort, and hearing a reading or a priests thoughs on something really helped clear my thoughts.

[Brunhidden]

You know, that's the thing, I'm not sure that there are punishments for anything in Catholic dogma. Except of course the punishment of going to hell for not following God's teachings

the idea of hell did not even exist until the third century AD, and to be honest the christian view of hell was borrowed from several earlier religions and remixed a bit, even the name hell was borrowed from other cultures as the concept did not have any basis in christian lore. technically the official view of the church on hell is that it is the state of a soul who is no longer in contact with god, demons are not even mentioned at all and seems to be mostly just popular imagery to scare people into "think like us or burn for eternity" mentality.

related is the notion that anyone who uses the term 'god fearing' is too ignorant of christianity or any of its derivatives to claim superiority to anyone. seriously, i have the urge to hit people who describe themselves as 'god fearing', if only because i doubt they would listen to an educational rant and im not really of any authority to enlighten them

[Vidar]

The catholic church has acted in a profoundly retarded and disgraceful manner. None of the church leaders had the best interest of the victim at heart, but instead blindly followed their dogmas and religious convictions, no matter what kind of harm they do.

I hope that the bastard that hasa been raping his daughter for the past 3 years gets his due in prison, by his new bunk-mate Bubba.

I agree that the abortion was the right thing to do in this situation, considering the circumstances of the infants conception.
Abortion is not, and never should be simply out of 'conveniance'. In my opinion, everyone who wants to abort their unborn child should first get a session or two of counseling in order to determine why they want the pregnancy aborted.

Abortion remains a controversial topic, and no easy answers exist. Each case should be aproached with caution and wisdom, and not with overly rigid rules and dogma.

What is the prescribed penalty for rape in Catholic dogma anyway? I know Judiasm treats it as a subset of assault, and punishes accordingly, but I'm not 100% certain that they're the same, even if there are some similarities.

The old testament punishes rape like this: if the woman was not a virgin, or was betrothed to someone, and it happened in the city, and nobody heard it happen, the rapist and the woman get stoned to death.
If it was outside the city, then only the man gets stoned to death.
If the woman was a virgin, and not about to be married, then the man has to pay 50 shekels of silver, and the woman must marry her rapist, and she can't file for divorce. (so much for gender equality in the bible).
The new testament doesn't seem to say anything about rape.

(souce: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/rape.html )

I don't think these rules count as 'punishing accordingly' under modern laws and ethics. Making a woman marry her rapist is not quite considered justice these days.

Incest is punishable by death, in the following situations: if a man has sex with his father's wife, the both are killed.
If a man has sex with his daughter in-law , they both die. If a man has sex with his wife and her mother, all three die. The only instance of a man having sex with his daughter that I could find is in Lot's case after Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. He impregnated both his daughters while drunk, and apparently that was just peachy.

So, according to the bible, the 9 year old girl would be forced to marry her father, and the father would have to pay himself 50 shekels of silver. This, to put it mildly, is fucked up.

[Rakala]

*sighs* There is no Christianity anymore. There is Biblicism. Christians are supposed to believe specifically in the teachings of Christ where I've seen most just tossing things from the bible and very few things are from the New Testament. I think we have something like that, believing in the Old but not the New Testament? Oh, wait, Judaism isn't that bad. Nevermind.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

The old testament punishes rape like this: if the woman was not a virgin, or was betrothed to someone, and it happened in the city, and nobody heard it happen, the rapist and the woman get stoned to death.
If it was outside the city, then only the man gets stoned to death.
If the woman was a virgin, and not about to be married, then the man has to pay 50 shekels of silver, and the woman must marry her rapist, and she can't file for divorce. (so much for gender equality in the bible).
The new testament doesn't seem to say anything about rape.

(souce: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/rape.html )

So... what if it happened in the city, and someone heard it?

They get off scot free?

[Angel]

First off, this is sickening. I'm not ashamed of my faith, but I am losing more and more respect for the people who propagate it in ways like this.

I'm relieved to see that the President of Brazil is disgusted by this, and a Catholic too. It shows that the breed of Catholics I relate to are still out there and hopefully spreading. I also agree with the doctor that his excommunication will hopefully get people to realize that the abortion laws in the country need to be changed.

At first, the fact that the girl was in her fourth month bothered me a little. I'm pro-choice, but I think partial-birth abortions could almost be called murder; I'm glad it wasn't her third trimester when they did this. But I also know that a 9-year-old would probably die in childbirth, and what they did was the right thing, even if it was past the first trimester. So for this kind of thing, I'm willing to put my faith aside when judging their decision.

*sighs* There is no Christianity anymore. There is Biblicism. Christians are supposed to believe specifically in the teachings of Christ where I've seen most just tossing things from the bible and very few things are from the New Testament. I think we have something like that, believing in the Old but not the New Testament? Oh, wait, Judaism isn't that bad. Nevermind.

So...the ones who really should be ranting about homosexuality are Jewish people? And the New Testament has nothing against it? Add this to the whole "first commandment = not taking the Bible as a step-by-step manual" and the argument might be taken down at least a little bit. ...

I think I'll bring that up the next time I see a fundie on the street.

[Vidar]

The old testament punishes rape like this: if the woman was not a virgin, or was betrothed to someone, and it happened in the city, and nobody heard it happen, the rapist and the woman get stoned to death.
If it was outside the city, then only the man gets stoned to death.
If the woman was a virgin, and not about to be married, then the man has to pay 50 shekels of silver, and the woman must marry her rapist, and she can't file for divorce. (so much for gender equality in the bible).
The new testament doesn't seem to say anything about rape.

(souce: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/rape.html )

So... what if it happened in the city, and someone heard it?

They get off scot free?

The laws seem to assume that is someone hears he woman cry out, then someone will save her from getting raped. What happens to the would-be rapist is not mentioned.

[Cogidubnus]

Yet again, I'm put into the position where I can either ignore egregious slanders against my faith from people who don't understand it - who do not wish to understand it - and move on with my day, hopefully without offending anyone, and living as best I can in peace with all of you. Or, I can defend my faith, and possibly make myself seem like an ass, and piss people off.

Every day, I hear something about how Christians are destroying the world, about how they support rape, about how they support racism or misogyny or the offense of the day - about how Christianity, full of ignorant and hateful people, are the worst thing to befall this world. And I'm getting tired - not angry or short of patience - just tired, from defending myself, even in my own mind.

So I will respond. And, attempt to explain those passages you mentioned, Vidar, as they were explained to me.

The old testament punishes rape like this: if the woman was not a virgin, or was betrothed to someone, and it happened in the city, and nobody heard it happen, the rapist and the woman get stoned to death.

That isn't what the passage says, firstly. Be intellectually honest.

If the woman was a virgin, and not about to be married, then the man has to pay 50 shekels of silver, and the woman must marry her rapist, and she can't file for divorce. (so much for gender equality in the bible).

I think you mean, 'So much for gender equality before the Greeks figured out how to make togas'.

This passage did seem odd to me. So, I spoke to someone knowledgeable and asked them about it. They explained, again, that this wasn't written in 2009, when a woman could go out and get a job as a doctor or lawyer, or find herself on equal footing with men as far as means to support herself. Woman did not have the same rights then that they enjoyed today, not because this was the way God intended it, but because this was the ancient world. I'll revisit this in a moment - but suffice it to say that the Law written in the Old Testament was written for the Israelites as they were - Galatians compares it to the way a Child acts, as compared in the New Testament to the way that a mature son of God acts. If I recall correctly, there's that story in the New Testament about how they drag a woman who'd been found in bed with another man before Christ, and ask him what should be done with her. And how he responds with that oft-repeated quote, "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone".

So, as it was explained to me, in the ancient world such as this, women did not have the same opportunities that they enjoy today. They had three options - marriage, begging, or prostitution. If the woman was raped, she was no longer a virgin, and would not be able to find a husband, which left her with begging or becoming a prostitute. So the law states that they will be married, so that the person who put her in this position will have to become the person to support her. It wasn't because the woman should love him, or because they had sex and -must- be married because of it.

[Alondro]

Yep, Cog, that's how it was.  In fact, the only ancient civilization in which women had very close to full equal rights with men was ancient Egypt. 

There's a reason there were so many 'poor widows' in the Bible.  Because when the husband died, they were screwed if there was little or no money saved up.   

[Corgatha Taldorthar]

What is the prescribed penalty for rape in Catholic dogma anyway? I know Judaism treats it as a subset of assault, and punishes accordingly, but I'm not 100% certain that they're the same, even if there are some similarities.

The old testament punishes rape like this: if the woman was not a virgin, or was betrothed to someone, and it happened in the city, and nobody heard it happen, the rapist and the woman get stoned to death.
If it was outside the city, then only the man gets stoned to death.
If the woman was a virgin, and not about to be married, then the man has to pay 50 shekels of silver, and the woman must marry her rapist, and she can't file for divorce. (so much for gender equality in the bible).
The new testament doesn't seem to say anything about rape.

*sighs* Ok, I feel obligated, since I opened this can of worms, to close it, at least where Judaism is concerned.


Firstly, for practical, day to day living, the five books of Moshe aren't the only sources, indeed not really the primary source of direction. You can open up to some divorce law, but there is no mention of marriage law anywhere. On two occasions I can think of off the top of my head, (proper slaughtering of animals for food and tefellin), there is a mention of "Do it, like I told you", with no mention of how the law is meant to be carried out, just that it should be carried out.

Rather, for a lot of practical, day to day law, most information is contained in the Mishnah and the Gemara, originally oral bodies of work that were written down roughly 100 and 500 C.E. respectively.

Now, right off the bat, on a practical level, abduction carries the death penalty. If the rapist the victim out of the room without his/her permission, and they can prove that in court, it's a beheading.


Now, in Gemara Nazikin (damages) Fourth chapter, it goes into all sorts of direct damage from one human being to another. (The previous three chapters more deal with animals, or out of control fires, or if you create a public hazard and someone gets hurt in it. etc.) Now, you'll notice right off the bat that nobody involved is taking the injunction of "eye for an eye" literally. Every instance of physical damage is settled monetarily.

For a direct assault, there are five (possibly six, if the court adds a punitive payment) Those are compensation for, physical damage, pain, embarrassment, lost wages, and medical bills. Doctor's bills and lost wages should be self explanatory, physical damage is calculated by the difference in value should the victim be sold as a slave before and after the assault, pain and embarrassment are somewhat involuted, being essentially what the court determines the "average" person would pay not to go through with the experience. In the case of a rape, those fees are likely to be extremely high.

In fact, later on in the chapter, it deals with the hypothetical case where a guy accidentally harms his wife while having consentual sex, and comes to the conclusion that if she presses charges, he would have to pay up. (although proving this can be somewhat problematic.)

Now, as for forced marriage, except in one case, they don't exist, at least not according to Jewish law. True, the family or whomever might put backdoor pressure on someone to say "I do" at the proverbial altar (there isn't a literal altar at a Jewish ceremony), but a coerced marriage isn't any good. In thecase of a rapist, s/he is forced to offer to marry the victim, (if of opposite gender. Halachic Judiasm doesn't recognize homosexual marriage.) The offended party is under no obligation to accept it.

As for divorce filing, yes, there you do have a chink in the armor. Technically, the man must file for divorce, and the woman if she wants to, can accept it. (You cannot just decide to universally ditch your wife if you're a guy.) However, in the past where Judaic courts had some authority (and in some Hasidic communities now) the courts do all sorts of things to persuade recalcitrant husbands into filing for a divorce if they're perceived to be holdouts, such as exclusion from community functions, seizing of assets, and possibly hiring goons to break the guys legs. (I kid you not.)

[Jigsaw Forte]

As for divorce filing, yes, there you do have a chink in the armor. Technically, the man must file for divorce, and the woman if she wants to, can accept it. (You cannot just decide to universally ditch your wife if you're a guy.) However, in the past where Judaic courts had some authority (and in some Hasidic communities now) the courts do all sorts of things to persuade recalcitrant husbands into filing for a divorce if they're perceived to be holdouts, such as exclusion from community functions, seizing of assets, and possibly hiring goons to break the guys legs. (I kid you not.)

Getting a Get ain't always that easy.

"I only want Shalom Bayit!"

[Brunhidden]

I don't think these rules count as 'punishing accordingly' under modern laws and ethics. Making a woman marry her rapist is not quite considered justice these days.

actually in Mexico and parts of south america it IS the law that a rape victim must marry their rapist. i doubt i am alone in thinking this does not set a good foundation for a healthy relationship

[Tapewolf]

actually in Mexico and parts of south america it IS the law that a rape victim must marry their rapist. i doubt i am alone in thinking this does not set a good foundation for a healthy relationship

Now I'm reminded of 'The Royal Forester'.  Specifically:

She went up to the King's high door
She knocked and she went in
Said "One of your chancellor's rob'bed me
And he's robbed me right and clean"

"Has he robbed you of your mantle,
Has he robbed you of your ring?"
"No, he'd robbed me of my maidenhead
And another I cannot find"

"Then if he be a married man
Then hang'ed he shall be
And if he be a single man
He shall marry thee"

This couple they got married
They live in Huntley town
She's the earl of Airlie's daughter
And he's the blacksmith's son

--The Royal Forester, Steeleye Span (from an earlier work, first published c.1293)

Since I'm probably the only person who's even heard of Steeleye Span, they were a British band from about 1968-1976 who performed electric arrangements of traditional folk songs.

EDIT:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeQ6m9shBb8

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

The Ups and Downs is another version, by the same band, with more or less the same plot. On the Parcel of Rogues album, if that helps.

So, no. You're not the only one to know of Steeleye Span. ;-]

[Vidar]

Yet again, I'm put into the position where I can either ignore egregious slanders against my faith from people who don't understand it - who do not wish to understand it - and move on with my day, hopefully without offending anyone, and living as best I can in peace with all of you. Or, I can defend my faith, and possibly make myself seem like an ass, and piss people off.

It was not my intention to attack your faith, so my apologies if it seems like it. I was meant as an explanation of what the bible says about rape as I understand it.

As long as you don't start calling people dirty little hussies or something, there's little chance that you'll piss off too many people here, so go ahead, please.

Every day, I hear something about how fundamentalist Christians are destroying the world, about how they support rape, about how they support racism or misogyny or the offense of the day - about how Christianity, full of ignorant and hateful people, are the worst thing to befall this world. And I'm getting tired - not angry or short of patience - just tired, from defending myself, even in my own mind.

Most of those are at the fringe of christianity, I freely admit, but that's where the dangerous people are. The KKK is one example, and the leaders of catholic church aren't really in any well-thinking man's good book right now either, though for different reasons.
It's things like the reaction of the church leaders to the plight of this Brazilian girl that piss me off.

Notice that I am not including the followers of the catholic church. Most of them seem like reasonable people who can decide for themselves what is right and wrong without looking to the pope for guidance.
I can't imagine there being many catholics who aren't ashamed of the conduct of the vatican right now.

So I will respond. And, attempt to explain those passages you mentioned, Vidar, as they were explained to me.

The old testament punishes rape like this: if the woman was not a virgin, or was betrothed to someone, and it happened in the city, and nobody heard it happen, the rapist and the woman get stoned to death.

That isn't what the passage says, firstly. Be intellectually honest.

The actual passage from deuteronomy is like this:
22:23  If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
22:24 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; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

If the woman was a virgin, and not about to be married, then the man has to pay 50 shekels of silver, and the woman must marry her rapist, and she can't file for divorce. (so much for gender equality in the bible).

I think you mean, 'So much for gender equality before the Greeks figured out how to make togas'.

The quote for this passage is this also in deuteronomy:
22:28  If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her,  and they be found;
22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

I hear a lot about how the bible is the inerrant and revealed word of god, and how it contains no errors, and is perfect in every way.
If it was, then it would have a clear message of gender equality, and not shamelessly promote sexual discrimination the way it does. If it was indeed from god, we could expect nothing less. Yet these passages reveal that at least this chapter is written by men, and therefore these laws are the product of their time, and do contain errors, and in this instance, something that would be considered a disgrace before human rights.

This passage did seem odd to me. So, I spoke to someone knowledgeable and asked them about it. They explained, again, that this wasn't written in 2009, when a woman could go out and get a job as a doctor or lawyer, or find herself on equal footing with men as far as means to support herself. Woman did not have the same rights then that they enjoyed today, not because this was the way God intended it, but because this was the ancient world. I'll revisit this in a moment - but suffice it to say that the Law written in the Old Testament was written for the Israelites as they were - Galatians compares it to the way a Child acts, as compared in the New Testament to the way that a mature son of God acts. If I recall correctly, there's that story in the New Testament about how they drag a woman who'd been found in bed with another man before Christ, and ask him what should be done with her. And how he responds with that oft-repeated quote, "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone".

So I take it we agree that at least this part of the bible was written by men in a comparatively primitive patriarchal society, and that this merely reflects the Israelite society at the time.
Unfortunately, many churches still teach that all of the bible must be revered as the inspired word of god. Some go so far as to say that all of it must be taken literally.

Pretty much all churches base their dogma on the bible, or their interpretation of it. (Exceptions include mormonism, which has it's own holy book for the most part).
In this instance the inhumane nature of the catholic dogma as revealed by the clergy has been revealed: the clergy of the catholic church deems the life of a 9 year old rape victim less then important then the 2 fetuses in her womb, and the clergy has yet to condemn the rape itself as well, AFAIK.

Not that I exclude faith of the followers of the catholic church again, and focus only on the clergy and their dogma.

So, as it was explained to me, in the ancient world such as this, women did not have the same opportunities that they enjoyed today. They had three options - marriage, begging, or prostitution. If the woman was raped, she was no longer a virgin, and would not be able to find a husband, which left her with begging or becoming a prostitute. So the law states that they will be married, so that the person who put her in this position will have to become the person to support her. It wasn't because the woman should love him, or because they had sex and -must- be married because of it.

I find that this line of reasoning does not take the feelings of the woman into account. Who would want to have anything to do with someone who violated them in such a manner, let alone be made to live under the same roof?
Also, who is going to protect the woman should the man decide to take her against her will again? Under biblical law he can do this without penalty, as this woman is now his wife, and the wife must be subservient to her husband.

The rape laws of the bible are hopelessly inadequate in even the most basic situations, and where obviously not made with any female input.

Yep, Cog, that's how it was.  In fact, the only ancient civilization in which women had very close to full equal rights with men was ancient Egypt.

If I remember correctly, the Celts also had rather better women's rights than the ancient Israelites or the Romans.
For instance, if a woman's husband was more into boys than his wife she could divorce him, and she would get half of all the assets involved in the marriage, and would be free to marry whomever she pleased again. The Celts also had much less of a fascination with virginity then the Romans or the middle-eastern cultures.

<snip> large piece of text by someone better versed in Judaic law than I </snip>

As for divorce filing, yes, there you do have a chink in the armor. Technically, the man must file for divorce, and the woman if she wants to, can accept it. (You cannot just decide to universally ditch your wife if you're a guy.) However, in the past where Judaic courts had some authority (and in some Hasidic communities now) the courts do all sorts of things to persuade recalcitrant husbands into filing for a divorce if they're perceived to be holdouts, such as exclusion from community functions, seizing of assets, and possibly hiring goons to break the guys legs. (I kid you not.)

Except in the case of the rape of a virgin. Deuteronomy 22:29 says that the man ' may not put her away all his days.'
He can't file for divorce either, and so the woman is forced to be married to someone she hates for as long as they both shall live, with all the consequences of being his wife.