Jefferson's population dropped from 4,600 in 2000 to an estimated 4,000 in 2010. Anyone visiting recently may question even that number. Is there any way that trend can be reversed?
The issue of actual Jefferson population has arisen many, many times on this site over the past couple years. The US census bureau is now estimating approximately 4,000 residents live here.
The debate centers around the rapid decline of students in the area over the last 30 years, while the overall population remained stationary.
The US census bureau has stated that overcounting students is an ongoing issue in general. They calculate that about 4 million students were counted twice in the 2000 census. Students in college should not be counted as residents of their college community unless they live there year-round, but census documents are sent to students and filled out on a regular basis.
By the same token, students who live away from home most of the year can hardly be claimed as residents of Jefferson, especially when they plan on living elsewhere upon graduation.
The population of Jefferson simply cannot remain the same while local schools continue to close and consolidate, and deaths greatly surpass births. For this to happen, there would have to be an influx of people from other locales. On the contrary, local businesses and manufacturing plants continue to dwindle in number.
Jefferson Iowa News estimates the current population of Jefferson to be approximately 3,740. Any debate on this number?
How 'bout we count folks on June 1 so the snow birds are back?
Then since we can't count college kids who are on summer jobs,(bcz they are there for only 3 months) they are counted on Jefferson's rolls and get us back to around 4000.
And for fun, we could select the worst snow day to check retail sales. The government will see us as little Detroit economically. Oh, if only we could get our foreclosure rate up, we'd really be in the chips.
I believe there are 50 or 60 foreclosed homes currently in Jefferson. I doubt these were sub-prime loans, either. That is already an extremely high rate.
What about the population of Grand Junction? It is currently listed at 964 people - all stuffed into 1 square mile! 1000 people per square mile! This in a town where you find entire city blocks with no residents. By contrast, Des Moines has a population density of about 7,000 people per square mile.
Bagley people are very small. They hide in old root cellars and dark bars and boats stored for the winter inside Morton Buildings. They start up the combines late at night and crawl inside for heat. In daylight they space themselves out in the ditches searching for cans, then return them to Super Walmarts located in Carroll and hide for days in the plus size women's section. They are clever and suspicious people.
In a recent study conducted by researchers at Iowa State University, 11,000 new residents (having recently moved to their present home) in small towns within Iowa were asked what motivated them to relocate to their new address.
The number one reason the Iowa newcomers gave was affordable housing. Interestingly, only 1 in 4 of the newcomers actually worked in the town where they resided.
This data suggests that people are willing to commute, within reason, to their jobs in other towns. It also appears that if they can get a good enough deal, they will move to a small town and drive (on average 14 miles) to a larger one for their jobs.
Small towns like Jefferson who have perennially shown us their resistance to welcoming new, large businesses into their community need to look really hard at offering some relocation incentives for people working in Perry, Carroll, or other nearby places.
14 miles?! How can these people put up with a commute like that day in and day out? That is 28 miles a day! That is just too much. Think of the insane Central Iowa traffic they would have to put up with for 30 minutes a day! How do they do it!!
It's that frontiering pioneer spirit rearing it's ugly head as they fearlessly endure the travails of mind-numbing bumper-to-bumper two lane traffic, ignoring the constant flashing of brake lights in front of them.
All for a better life for those depending on them at home...
Affordability is a selling point for families and the elderly. Jefferson needs to put its best face forward to differentiate itself from other towns.
Schools, entertainment, a broad mix of activities and groups that can appeal to families, couples and singles to where they can connect or reconnect with friends. Bringing home people who grew up here, lived here or come to visit family or friends could be a springboard for growth. What other non-governmental incentives or benefits can/do we offer?
The work ethic and skills of Jeffersonians can easily compete.
Entertainment and activities would not cause Diamond Dave or anyone else to uproot and move tomorrow. The only things that might would be financial incentives or job opportunities. Since Jefferson has no job opportunities, they need to come up with some serious financial incentives.
And people should quit bringing up the local schools as a selling point. Local schools are similar throughout the state; belive it or not, Jefferson's are not special.
The answer to Jefferson's declining population woes lies in the repeal of our archaic marijuana laws. There are already enough established strains of pot growing in Greene County to make it the virtual dope capital of Iowa.
This is just the kind of economic "lucky break" that Jefferson needs. It won't happen all by itself - residents need to get it started.
Your website has an obsession with this matter. You are constantly underestimating Jefferson's population by 25-30%. US Census Bureau numbers are for the most part very accurate. Move on to something else.
According to the US Census Bureau, which you feel is inerrant, the population of Jefferson was 4660 in 1960. The population of Jefferson in 2000 was 4626. During that period, Jefferson had seen its grocery stores reduced in number from 5 to 1, its hardware stores reduced from 5 to 1, its public school enrollment fall from 1,560 to 1,025, six major industries either fail or leave town, stop lights removed from the downtown area, and rural mail routes reduced from 4 to 2. You figure it out.
I will be interested in seeing the 2010 census. However, most all of rural Iowa is having the same issue Rick. The exceptions I found were Carroll, and bedroom communities to a metro community. Jefferson has really headed downhill since 2000. Iowa State Extension has a bunch of info on businesses and spending. Since 2000 we lost a grocery store, several industrial employers,a couple clothing outlets, and the counties only new car dealership. As I previously have stated there is also no decent bar/restaurant. Probably because it wouldn't be supported anyway.
To anon on the obsession thing - Did you even bother to read the title of this thread? Do you know what the term "beating a dead horse" means? Do you think quoting the accuracy of US census numbers changes the fact that everyone and his dog has left Jefferson and moved here to Carroll? We see them every day at our Super WalMart and drive past your town once a year when we vacation up by Decorah.
Unfortunately, we have been unable to attract any real businesses that employ many people. The one exception is Power Lift. I'm happy to have them, but we need people back in the Chicago Rivet and Electrolux buildings. I think AAI is running a skeleton crew now too. Face it we dont have any real incentive for a business to be here. Sadly, we are the Farlin of tomorrow.
The city should just take the Electrolux building off of the owners' hands, and donate it along with the land it sits on to the first legitimate industry that comes along. Offer them a tax abatement, too.
It has to be too good an offer to turn down. You might need to offer the employees some free housing along with it. Maybe you'll need to guarantee their wives jobs. I don't know. That still might not be enough.
Tell me how the City of Jefferson can afford to just "take the Electrolux building off the owners' hands and give it to someone else. Don't you think that someone would want some dollars somewhere in there? Where is that money going to come from? Can redemption money from those Bagley guys that Big Nasty was talking about? I doubt it. Think anyone in Jefferson would pony up to invest? Wait a second, till I get back on my chair. I fell over laughing at you guys and your half baked ideas. First, where is the money to buy it? Next, give it away. Then they don't have to pay any taxes. You should have been on Jefferson's city council in the '70's. Maybe you were.
Anon & Stonehead - You guys don't know jack you posers. You go to Henderson and stoke it, man. When it gets light out you go to school. After school, you go to Henderson and stoke it, man. What's up with that?
Set U Strayt...lemme set you straight about something. Daubendiek and some others just formed a new entity to revamp the Last Draw at 350K...just to keep the building standing, so someone is willing to "pony" up.I heard the upstairs will be apartments and the main level is up for a new business. My guess is that they did it to keep from tearing down that entire half block that contains 3 other businesses, since the construction of one is connected to the next. The city invested up to 50k of the total 350K projected to keep it up. GCDC corp helped Conner get his start. People are willing to spend money to get it in return, but it may be a little too late to save things.
The city is ponying up 50K for the project, which will be a major upgrade on that side of the square. The corner building will end up every bit as attractive as the Hy-Vee Drug building on the SW corner, or Lincoln Square.
On top of the 50K grant, state and federal funding is available for the project in the amount of about 160K. That will reduce the overall cost of the project from 350K to 190K. The second floor will be remodeled as apartments and I'm sure they hope to recoup some of their investment there.
It is not a venture that has profit written all over it, but it should be viewed more as an investment in Jefferson. Other downtown property owners should follow suit and invest a little bit in the future of the town.
Perhaps the number of farm kids is down dramatically from the 70s and 80s. That would explain the drop in school population but not necessarily the drop in the city's population.
I believe the U.S. is about 25 years behind Jefferson in it's decline. America's decline is bcz of decay morally, fiscally and in leadership. I'd equate Jefferson's1983 farm crisis with the U.S. 2008financial meltdown.
Jefferson 1974-1979 was reputed to have the 2nd largest drug distribution network(after Iowa City)in Iowa. A 10pm curfew was put in place for teens for a year around 1977. The 8th grade cheerleaders of 1973 supposedly beat up junior high Principal Darold Mohr. I would mention this to friends out of J-town much like a nerdy, naive guy seeking the assumed "sophistication" of people he brushed shoulders with.
The city fathers may have have turned down some opportunities bcz of this commotion. Us baby-boomers can share some of the heat for Jefferson's decline.
I agree with Diamond Dave's comments about Jefferson. I need to say, though, that Jefferson's decline is hardly related to the drug activity which occurred in the 70's. The reasons for Jefferson's continued decline are far more numerous. As a member of that generation, I can tell you that we bought a large number of our drugs in Carroll, which experienced the same problems at that time. It apparently did not affect that town permanently.
It should be pointed out that major industries and schools not requiring consolidation still were in place in Jefferson into the 90s. Nearly every one of us who went through those times in Jtown as kids have gone on to lead productive, successful lives. Much more so than many of those who came along later and watched with their hands in their pockets as Jefferson collapsed.
The "city fathers" in Jefferson did not turn down growth opportunities because of problems with some kids. They turned down what later became the Lake Panorama project long before that. They passed on Pella Windows long before that. They lost an opportunity to place a community college in town earlier than that. They refused to offer Wal-Mart or other similar businesses footholds in the community not because of uncontrollable youths, but because they preferred the insular retail cocoon which they had spun. When civic leaders conspire to keep competition out, customers will quickly adapt and make their purchases elsewhere.
Once your customers become used to the less expensive goods and larger selection these retailers offer, you won't get them back. Instead of enforcing the status quo, the "city fathers" should have been responsible and had the foresight to encourage these larger ventures to locate outlets in Jefferson. If that would have happened, some of these customers would not be travelling out of town to spend their money today.
You simply cannot lay the blame for Jefferson's problems at the foot of some kids spending their youth having fun during high school. That strikes me as something you might hear from some one who is looking to somehow blame "moral decay" instead of admitting that the "city fathers" were greedy, irresponsible, short-sighted, and dead wrong. The so-called leaders in Jefferson have made many mistakes and hopefully the new generation can begin to correct them.
As far as the US being 25 years behind Jefferson, I find this notion absurd. Jefferson is experiencing a rapidly declining population, with job opportunities at an absolute zero. If one leaves the midwest, you'll find many areas of the country growing rapidly with jobs and business opportunities abounding. America is the land of opportunity. It is what you make it and what you are willing to put into it.
The "opportunity" I was thinking of that Jefferson may have passed on, was the DMACC community college that is in Carroll. It was started in 1970 with a nursing program and grew from there. I was wrong thinking it may have come along later than that. This Monday morning quarterback obviously needs bifocals!
I agree that other areas of America offer better opportunities. Business opportunities dive or thrive with interest rates, the money supply and general economic conditions of the nation. Perhaps we can revisit this discussion in 2020 or 2035, if I'm around.
Agreed. Unfortunately, it is probably wishful thinking that you will still be around at that time, with you being so much older than I. To say nothing of your unhealthy, out-of-control lifestyle.
In 25 years, Jefferson's population will be lucky to be 2500 - although I'm sure it will still be listed at over 4,000. The United States, on the other hand, will continue to grow, as diverse ethnic groups will keep coming in from other countries.
Rick is right. The United States still offers all of these people their best hope, and best opportunities. That is why they keep coming here and doing well for themselves, while pessimists here at home claim our future is destroyed. On the other hand, you don't see ANYONE moving to Jefferson. That is not a good analogy at all.
It is easier to simply chalk it all up to some type of "irreversible trend" that affects all small towns through out Iowa, rather than roll up your sleeves, dig down deep and look for answers. People who just write it off that way are lazy, and there is too much of that around Jefferson today.
I agree with anon. Laziness is a HUGE problem in small towns like Jefferson. Remember watching "Mayberry, RFD"? Lots of hard-workers hanging out in that show, huh? And just how hard do you think those county and city employees are working in an area with such a tiny population? GET REAL.
The problem with you people is that you all think something has changed in Jefferson. Let me tell you, Jefferson really didn't amount to much to begin with, and I personally can't see any differences in it over time. However, I do agree that many Jefferson residents are lazy.
I think Jefferson would be a super place if all you people had not left town as soon as you graduated. Blame the lazy government workers or the founding fathers all you want. Problem is you all saw greener grass on the other side of the fence and go out. I will at least give credit to those that have stayed here and are making some effort. Right or wrong, at least they aren't back seat driving the bus.
You make good points. There is plenty of Monday A.M. quarterbacking on the site and blog. It takes plenty of guts to start a business, especially in a town that is getting older and shrinking.
I like Jefferson. I moved bcz I needed to get a job.
I appreciate the fact that you feel some of us would make Jefferson a super place. Some of us, believe it or not, still live in Jefferson. It is too bad more folks won't jump on this site and stick up for their town. They certainly would receive an equal platform.
We seem to attract an unusually large percentage of negativity. But, then again, we are a part of a satirical web site, and a great deal of the content is aimed at humor (often at Jefferson's expense). Yes, we get hate mail. But no car bombs yet.
Those of us who left Jefferson were presented with opportunities that could not be found locally. I'm sure this happens in all small towns. The difference is that while Boone, Carroll, etc. also lose young people, their size has reached a point allowing them to attract some as well. Some place along the line, Jefferson lost its ability to do that.
To those of you still there - without you this web site would not be possible. In the meantime, hang in there, have a good sense of humor, and buy some paint.
I disagree with the posters that Jeffersonians are lazy. I believe when ambitious people are in areas they aren't comfortable with they dig in, change and learn. A lot of the rest of us ignore it and do something they know or enjoy instead. The problem is a lack of ambition or determination. I see it daily in the mirror. Disliking change and grumbling changes nothing.
Numbers 31:7-18 "They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.
Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.
If interested google-"Slaughter of Midianites-Numbers 31" then go to the "spear of Phineas" blogspot post.
Summation-Numbers 25:1-3 talks of the "sin of Peor" where the Israelites, God's people, had sex with the Moabite women as they worshipped their gods. God hates idolatry, the 1st Commandment (Exodus 20:2)is "You shall have no other gods before me."
Christopher Wright tells us how to read this difficult story:
"I have to read the conquest in the light of the cross...when I do set it in the light of the cross, I see one more perspective. For the cross too involved the most horrific and evil human violence, which, at the same time, also constitututed the outpouring of God's judgment on human sin. The crucial difference, of course, is that, whereas at the conquest, God poured out his judgment on a wicked society who deserved it, at the cross God bore on himself the judgment of God on human wickedness, through the person of his own sinless Son--who deserved it not one bit." The God I Do Not Understand, 107.
It also stated that we are no better than the Midianites. I know that is true of myself. d Christ's crucifixion was prophesied in Psalm 22 1000 years before it happened. Psalm 22 preceded the "invention" of crucifixion by hundreds of years. The word exCRUCiating derived from an inability to describe the overwhelming pain that was inflicted on the crucified. The "CRUC" speaks of the cross.
The way to read that story is that a bunch of people raided nearby villages, plundered them, burned them to the ground, massacred everyone, and saved the virgins as sex slaves. They did it in the name of their god. Christians and Muslims both did this all the time.
You may well be right. Christians have done many reprehensible deeds. In Numbers 31 God is talking about the Israelites or Jews.
"They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses" The Israelites did attack and killed all the men..
"But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."
I was horrified by what I thought happened to the young girls who are virgins. This explanation from the "bibleoutpost.com/forum" on "Does the Bible allow the rape of women" alleviated my fears.
"But why does Moses allow the virgin girls to live? It has nothing to do with rape since rape is outlawed in Deuteronomy 22:23-29. To suggest Moses would have knowingly violated this law has no merit. Rather, the virgins were allowed to live because 1) they were not responsible for the events of Numbers 25 2) posed no future threat to the nation of Israel 3) would have been suitable for servant girls. They also might have been suitable for wives, but I'm still looking for a verse that prohibits them from marrying Midianite women."
There is nothing difficult to understand about these passages. No offense to Diamond Dave; he is merely parroting the church, which has a great deal of difficulty explaining things like this.
You see, in the first place, rape is not outlawed in Corinthians. This is the closest that biblical scholars can get, but anyone who reads the passages in question will find that rape is only outlawed when it is with a betrothed virgin. If a virgin is otherwised raped, the penalty is that you have to marry her. That's right - you rape her, and as punishment you are married and can legally rape her as often as you want! The bible really isn't concerned with the woman's feelings.
Similarly, in the story told in Numbers 31, the reprisals were necessary due to the fact that there was a "whoredom" (Numbers 25). The bible states that the women are the cause of this - not the men.
It is obvious to any reader of this text that the virgins captured were more than likely raped. Soldiers were commanded to "keep them for yourselves". It doesn't say "set them free". Diamond Dave has trouble with this passage; so does the church. We are told they were allowed to live because "they were not responsible and posed no threat". But you see, even infant boys were slaughtered, who also "were not responsible and posed no threat". We are told they may have been kept as wives or servants. Think about that. If they were kept against their will as wives, that is the definition of rape. If kept as slaves, it was slavery, and possibly rape as well.
A reader of the bible will find that these passages are not unique; this book is chock full of references to the pillage of towns, killing of innocent children, and the rape of women.
Infant boys were killed bcz they could reproduce with the virgins, carrying on the Midian line. Infant boys can turn into warring men. Israel needed to be preserved morally bcz through it would come the Savior.
War was a constant evil. God warned Israel in 1 Samuel 8(after Numbers 31) about the dangers of following a king, and his tendencies toward war. War is a hellish undertaking with massive, unintentioned, collateral damage. If you lost the battle and lived, you were likely a slave. Slaves comprised one third of the populace of the Roman empire.
Women did not hold the rights or position they hold currently in the U.S. The Midianite women were without support or protection. Life does go on after terrible circumstances occur. Israel took them in, probably as servants, slaves or wives. Would you prefer that they too have been slaughtered?
Racism has always been alive and well in the bible. These infants were killed because they were Medianites. People are not worried about infants becoming warriors. That is the equivalent of saying that little muslim infant boys should not be adopted. Maybe some people actually think that way. How can you choose to knowingly kill an infant?? It is no better than killing an unborn fetus. Let alone the fact that there were many infants killed during this incident. Infants can just as easily become warriors on your side. This is all about prejudice against Medianites.
As far as the virgins go, you apparently feel that they were being done a favor by taking them as wives. The bible is anti-women, I agree, and back then women were treated as cattle. The point I was making had to do not with the fact that women were allowed to live - but that VIRGINS were allowed to live. Anyone who has studied ancient texts or even more modern middle-eastern activities knows that virgins are prized for one quality only. And no matter how uncomfortable it makes fundamentalists feel, it has to do with sex. These virgins were allowed to live for sexual and reproductive reasons. Do you suppose any of them were asked if they would prefer to go elsewhere? Do you suppose they were given free passage if they requested it? Life goes on, as you say. I guess you feel that "keeping the virgins for yourselves" is just a part of life.
Moses in Numbers 31:15-16 "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people.
The reason God's representative Moses wanted them wiped out was because of idol worship and Israel's rebellion that stemmed from it.
Blame the women and every last one of them. Lovely, just lovely.
Here's a really cool loophole for married men. You've heard "Thou shall not commit adultery!" By definition (in the bible), a man can only commit adultery with another man's wife/fiance. It is not adultery for a married man to have sexual relations with a single woman (or in Tiger's case, single women by the dozens). That would be an indiscretion (harlotry). However, if a married woman strays, that is, by fact that she is a "married woman", adultery. John Edwards (presidential candidate) did not commit adultery because his girlfriend was not married or betrothed. Mark Sanford, Governor of South Carolina, did not commit adultery because his Argentinian soul mate was not married or betrothed. Both committed indiscretions but not adultery.
Take it another step. A woman is not allowed to divorce her husband. She may leave her husband. She may ask her husband to divorce her. That's it. Jenny Sanford isn't being a good Christian woman by divorcing her husband, Governor of South Carolina Mark Sanford.
I'm doing a little extra research to see if either should be stoned to death. I don't think God has much use for non-virginal women like Jenny Sanford and Elizabeth Edwards. I'm sure both of them have done something do deserve God's wrath. I think a baseball-sized rock would be just right.
Thank you. This is exactly my point. In Diamond Dave's last post he tells us why God wanted the women wiped out. But we already knew that. I have already touched on that. The point I am trying to expound on that. The city in question was a "whoredom" (there are lots of these in the old testament). The women were blamed - kill them all! Oh, let the virgins live - "you can keep them for yourselves". Tell me with a straight face that you don't know what that means (these are virgins). They were not kept as an act of kindness. They were kept as a reward for the soldiers.
Dave also tells us why God wiped out the town. But again, we already know all of that, too. What I am focusing on is the fact that little infant babies are being blamed and/or considered a threat. Christians like to gloss over the details when this happens. "Infant boys were killed because they could reproduce with the virgins". Get real. Maybe in twelve years or so. If they are really getting lucky.
Sorry for my delay in posting, I could not re-find this web-site for well over a day. This is in response to the claim that biblically there is a double standard for men. I googled "Biblical punishment for fornication". Definition of fornication- consenting sex involving someone unmarried.
The bride's virginity coming into marriage "The emphasis is on the woman’s virginity, simply because there is no corresponding way to determine physically (and hence legally) that a man is a virgin... The biblical principle that premarital sex is wrong, applies equally to both sexes. (For confirmation of this fact, click here.)"
"The penalty for adultery applied because any unmarried woman who kept quiet about her lost virginity, can be presumed to have voluntarily had sex with a married man. This presumption is reasonable because under God’s law if an unmarried man had sex with an unmarried woman she could have safely blown the whistle on him. If she wanted to marry him, he would be forced to do so regardless of his wishes and he could never, ever divorce her. This applied regardless of whether pregnancy was involved. The man’s only escape from life-long marital commitment was if the woman refused to marry him, in which case the man still had to pay her full dowry and suffer public shame. What he did was wrong – so wrong that it exposed him to life-long obligations."
"Moreover, under Old Testament law, what applies to one gender can be assumed to apply with equal force to the other gender. For an example in the opposite direction, the Ten Commandments says “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife” and makes no mention of it being wrong for a woman to covet her neighbor’s husband (Exodus 20:17). On the surface, this might seem a double standard favoring women. In reality, the opposite gender equivalent must be assumed to be equally wrong."
This last paragraph corresponded to: "(For confirmation of this fact, click here.)" at the end of the 3nd paragraph.
There is no obvious way of rebutting any of Diamond Dave's latest points, because even though he continually tells us to "click here for confirmation", He neglects to tell us what web site he is on. I googled the same phrase he did and was shown several options - none of which seemed to be the site he was on.
Sorry. Technology is trickier for me than for others.
Google "Bibical punishment for fornication". The second listing is "When is sex before marriage acceptable?" at http://net-burst.net/singles/premarital.htm
What I posted was at the bottom of the section "Background". That's where the "click here" is also. Have a good weekend.
I understand the difference between adultery and fornication.
What I am talking about is rape. Back in biblical times, rape occurred. When it did, the woman could keep quiet about it, or speak up. When she came forward with accusations, the man was forced to marry her. Keep in mind that she has just been raped by this guy - marrying him is the LAST thing she wants. If the man she is accusing is already married, it will be her word against his. Whom do you suppose will be believed?
It is incorrect to assume that under Old Testament law what applied to one gender would apply equally to the other. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Keep in mind that the bible was written by men for men about men. There is a reason that the commandments state, "thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife."
It is because in biblical times women were not important. Their viewpoints were not considered. The scribes back then knew that women would not be reading these texts. Why? Because women couldn't read. That is also why Moses says, "you can keep the virgins for yourselves." To state that Old Testament law treats the sexes evenly is to promote some sort of latter-day "feel good" definition more acceptable to our modern era.
How do you suppose the soldiers determined who were virgins and who were not? If you were young and attractive, you were a virgin. Old or ugly - not a virgin.
The bible is full of examples of women being stoned to death for the crime of adultery. This almost never happens to the men. "Blowing the whistle" on a man back then may even get you killed.
I believe in the bible, but emphatically wish people would just read what is there and not try to intricately interpret it in a way that they will find less offensive. It is a unique, accurate depiction of life in that era.
You make sense until you say "I believe in the bible...". But to each their own.
In the old testament, women are nothing but property of men. Daughters are so worthless that dowries are needed to rid a man of his worthless offspring. A man only commits adultery if he has relations with another man's wife/betrothed because at that point, he's messing with another man's property. The penalty for most of the 10 commandments is death, usually reserved for women, but in many cases, for entire cities or future generations of the sinner.
The religious right have and are cheering the death of the abortionist (Dr. Tiller) in Kansas, usually arguing that he violates the "Thou shall not murder (kill)" commandment and that the punishment for violating that commandment is death. What's the punishment when one doesn't "Honor your father and mother"? Death. What's the punishment for when one does not "Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy"? Death. Why doesn't the religious right execute people that work on Sunday (or is it Saturday)? Perhaps they are not true believers/followers of God.
On rape's punishment in the Bible- Exodus 22:16-17 JPS-And if a man entice a virgin that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely pay a dowry for her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, HE SHALL PAY MONEY ACCORDING TO THE DOWRY OF VIRGIN.
The enticer/seducer must pay the dowry price. It is at the option of the virgin's father whether she marry or not. The money would be paid in either event. The seducer does not force her into marriage.
I did a little research. It turns out that Mark Sanford's soul mate in Argentina was married with two children. He, in fact, did commit adultery since he had sex with another man's wife. Tsk, Tsk!. I believe the penalty for that is stoning to death. Time find a big 'ol rock pile.
President Obama's beating a dead horse, spending whatever spare political change he has left on his health care plan. I am astounded by his intransigence and lack of Clintonian political savvy. He IS a true leftst believer. The ironic thing is, if he loses, Democrats win (relatively speaking, in the off-year elections)and vice-versa. If Obamacare passes, the elderly (who turn out heaviest in off-year elections) will lead this charge to overturn his big Democratic edge in both houses.
He can withstand this rising tide if health care loses. Republicans, no geniuses either, could easily shoot themself in the foot and brassly overplay their hand.
67 comments:
The issue of actual Jefferson population has arisen many, many times on this site over the past couple years. The US census bureau is now estimating approximately 4,000 residents live here.
The debate centers around the rapid decline of students in the area over the last 30 years, while the overall population remained stationary.
The US census bureau has stated that overcounting students is an ongoing issue in general. They calculate that about 4 million students were counted twice in the 2000 census. Students in college should not be counted as residents of their college community unless they live there year-round, but census documents are sent to students and filled out on a regular basis.
By the same token, students who live away from home most of the year can hardly be claimed as residents of Jefferson, especially when they plan on living elsewhere upon graduation.
The population of Jefferson simply cannot remain the same while local schools continue to close and consolidate, and deaths greatly surpass births. For this to happen, there would have to be an influx of people from other locales. On the contrary, local businesses and manufacturing plants continue to dwindle in number.
Jefferson Iowa News estimates the current population of Jefferson to be approximately 3,740. Any debate on this number?
How 'bout we count folks on June 1 so the snow birds are back?
Then since we can't count college kids who are on summer jobs,(bcz they are there for only 3 months) they are counted on Jefferson's rolls and get us back to around 4000.
And for fun, we could select the worst snow day to check retail sales. The government will see us as little Detroit economically.
Oh, if only we could get our foreclosure rate up, we'd really be in the chips.
I believe there are 50 or 60 foreclosed homes currently in Jefferson. I doubt these were sub-prime loans, either. That is already an extremely high rate.
I wonder how many Jefferson homeowners with a mortgage of $30,000 or less are actually "underwater" with their loans?
What about the population of Grand Junction? It is currently listed at 964 people - all stuffed into 1 square mile! 1000 people per square mile! This in a town where you find entire city blocks with no residents. By contrast, Des Moines has a population density of about 7,000 people per square mile.
U need a reason to move to Jtown. Aside from small town attributes (which are the same throughout all of IA), NAME ONE.
Here's the skinny on how Jefferson rates in population per sq. mile:
1. Perry .... 2,063
2. Carroll .... 1,837
3. Ogden .... 1,445
4. Boone .... 1,439
5. Glidden .... 1,253
6. Bagley .... 1,180
7. Grand Junction .... 964
8. Jefferson .... 784
Do you honestly think that there are that many people in Bagley??
Bagley people are very small. They hide in old root cellars and dark bars and boats stored for the winter inside Morton Buildings. They start up the combines late at night and crawl inside for heat. In daylight they space themselves out in the ditches searching for cans, then return them to Super Walmarts located in Carroll and hide for days in the plus size women's section. They are clever and suspicious people.
In a recent study conducted by researchers at Iowa State University, 11,000 new residents (having recently moved to their present home) in small towns within Iowa were asked what motivated them to relocate to their new address.
The number one reason the Iowa newcomers gave was affordable housing. Interestingly, only 1 in 4 of the newcomers actually worked in the town where they resided.
This data suggests that people are willing to commute, within reason, to their jobs in other towns. It also appears that if they can get a good enough deal, they will move to a small town and drive (on average 14 miles) to a larger one for their jobs.
Small towns like Jefferson who have perennially shown us their resistance to welcoming new, large businesses into their community need to look really hard at offering some relocation incentives for people working in Perry, Carroll, or other nearby places.
14 miles?! How can these people put up with a commute like that day in and day out? That is 28 miles a day! That is just too much. Think of the insane Central Iowa traffic they would have to put up with for 30 minutes a day! How do they do it!!
It's that frontiering pioneer spirit rearing it's ugly head as they fearlessly endure the travails of mind-numbing bumper-to-bumper two lane traffic, ignoring the constant flashing of brake lights in front of them.
All for a better life for those depending on them at home...
About the ISU study Rick cites
Affordability is a selling point for families and the elderly.
Jefferson needs to put its best face forward to differentiate itself from other towns.
Schools, entertainment, a broad mix of activities and groups that can appeal to families, couples and singles to where they can connect or reconnect with friends.
Bringing home people who grew up here, lived here or come to visit family or friends could be a springboard for growth. What other non-governmental incentives or benefits can/do we offer?
The work ethic and skills of Jeffersonians can easily compete.
"Affordability is a selling point for families and the elderly."
Change that to: "Affordability is a selling point for families and the newly retired."
More Politically Correct sometimes does sound better.
Entertainment and activities would not cause Diamond Dave or anyone else to uproot and move tomorrow. The only things that might would be financial incentives or job opportunities. Since Jefferson has no job opportunities, they need to come up with some serious financial incentives.
And people should quit bringing up the local schools as a selling point. Local schools are similar throughout the state; belive it or not, Jefferson's are not special.
The answer to Jefferson's declining population woes lies in the repeal of our archaic marijuana laws. There are already enough established strains of pot growing in Greene County to make it the virtual dope capital of Iowa.
This is just the kind of economic "lucky break" that Jefferson needs. It won't happen all by itself - residents need to get it started.
Most Iowans are really frugal, I think. It is hard to get them to spend money on anything, let alone entertainment. It's all about $$$$.
Tax abatements or city-subsidized lots are needed. Houses in Jefferson are already dirt cheap and no one wants to live in them.
Your website has an obsession with this matter. You are constantly underestimating Jefferson's population by 25-30%. US Census Bureau numbers are for the most part very accurate. Move on to something else.
According to the US Census Bureau, which you feel is inerrant, the population of Jefferson was 4660 in 1960. The population of Jefferson in 2000 was 4626. During that period, Jefferson had seen its grocery stores reduced in number from 5 to 1, its hardware stores reduced from 5 to 1, its public school enrollment fall from 1,560 to 1,025, six major industries either fail or leave town, stop lights removed from the downtown area, and rural mail routes reduced from 4 to 2. You figure it out.
I will be interested in seeing the 2010 census. However, most all of rural Iowa is having the same issue Rick. The exceptions I found were Carroll, and bedroom communities to a metro community. Jefferson has really headed downhill since 2000. Iowa State Extension has a bunch of info on businesses and spending. Since 2000 we lost a grocery store, several industrial employers,a couple clothing outlets, and the counties only new car dealership. As I previously have stated there is also no decent bar/restaurant. Probably because it wouldn't be supported anyway.
To anon on the obsession thing - Did you even bother to read the title of this thread? Do you know what the term "beating a dead horse" means? Do you think quoting the accuracy of US census numbers changes the fact that everyone and his dog has left Jefferson and moved here to Carroll? We see them every day at our Super WalMart and drive past your town once a year when we vacation up by Decorah.
What do you think, lawman, is Jefferson gone for good or can we fix it?
Unfortunately, we have been unable to attract any real businesses that employ many people. The one exception is Power Lift. I'm happy to have them, but we need people back in the Chicago Rivet and Electrolux buildings. I think AAI is running a skeleton crew now too. Face it we dont have any real incentive for a business to be here. Sadly, we are the Farlin of tomorrow.
Stonehead are you lost in the 60's or what? Can you come up with a post that doesn't involve smoking pot? Do you still hang out at Henderson Park?
You don't "hang out" at Henderson Park. You "hang" at Henderson Park.
The city should just take the Electrolux building off of the owners' hands, and donate it along with the land it sits on to the first legitimate industry that comes along. Offer them a tax abatement, too.
It has to be too good an offer to turn down. You might need to offer the employees some free housing along with it. Maybe you'll need to guarantee their wives jobs. I don't know. That still might not be enough.
Tell me how the City of Jefferson can afford to just "take the Electrolux building off the owners' hands and give it to someone else. Don't you think that someone would want some dollars somewhere in there? Where is that money going to come from? Can redemption money from those Bagley guys that Big Nasty was talking about? I doubt it. Think anyone in Jefferson would pony up to invest? Wait a second, till I get back on my chair. I fell over laughing at you guys and your half baked ideas. First, where is the money to buy it? Next, give it away. Then they don't have to pay any taxes. You should have been on Jefferson's city council in the '70's. Maybe you were.
Anon & Stonehead - You guys don't know jack you posers. You go to Henderson and stoke it, man. When it gets light out you go to school. After school, you go to Henderson and stoke it, man. What's up with that?
Set U Strayt...lemme set you straight about something. Daubendiek and some others just formed a new entity to revamp the Last Draw at 350K...just to keep the building standing, so someone is willing to "pony" up.I heard the upstairs will be apartments and the main level is up for a new business. My guess is that they did it to keep from tearing down that entire half block that contains 3 other businesses, since the construction of one is connected to the next. The city invested up to 50k of the total 350K projected to keep it up. GCDC corp helped Conner get his start. People are willing to spend money to get it in return, but it may be a little too late to save things.
That is how you crack balls like Willie Mosconi. It is good to see the lawman is back from perusing the census records.
The city is ponying up 50K for the project, which will be a major upgrade on that side of the square. The corner building will end up every bit as attractive as the Hy-Vee Drug building on the SW corner, or Lincoln Square.
On top of the 50K grant, state and federal funding is available for the project in the amount of about 160K. That will reduce the overall cost of the project from 350K to 190K. The second floor will be remodeled as apartments and I'm sure they hope to recoup some of their investment there.
It is not a venture that has profit written all over it, but it should be viewed more as an investment in Jefferson. Other downtown property owners should follow suit and invest a little bit in the future of the town.
The actual overall cost of this project after federal, state, and municipal grants will be only about $140G.
Perhaps the number of farm kids is down dramatically from the 70s and 80s. That would explain the drop in school population but not necessarily the drop in the city's population.
I believe the U.S. is about 25 years behind Jefferson in it's decline. America's decline is bcz of decay morally, fiscally and in leadership. I'd equate Jefferson's1983 farm crisis with the U.S. 2008financial meltdown.
Jefferson 1974-1979 was reputed to have the 2nd largest drug distribution network(after Iowa City)in Iowa. A 10pm curfew was put in place for teens for a year around 1977. The 8th grade cheerleaders of 1973 supposedly beat up junior high Principal Darold Mohr. I would mention this to friends out of J-town much like a nerdy, naive guy seeking the assumed "sophistication" of people he brushed shoulders with.
The city fathers may have have turned down some opportunities bcz of this commotion. Us baby-boomers can share some of the heat for Jefferson's decline.
I agree with Diamond Dave's comments about Jefferson. I need to say, though, that Jefferson's decline is hardly related to the drug activity which occurred in the 70's. The reasons for Jefferson's continued decline are far more numerous. As a member of that generation, I can tell you that we bought a large number of our drugs in Carroll, which experienced the same problems at that time. It apparently did not affect that town permanently.
It should be pointed out that major industries and schools not requiring consolidation still were in place in Jefferson into the 90s. Nearly every one of us who went through those times in Jtown as kids have gone on to lead productive, successful lives. Much more so than many of those who came along later and watched with their hands in their pockets as Jefferson collapsed.
The "city fathers" in Jefferson did not turn down growth opportunities because of problems with some kids. They turned down what later became the Lake Panorama project long before that. They passed on Pella Windows long before that. They lost an opportunity to place a community college in town earlier than that. They refused to offer Wal-Mart or other similar businesses footholds in the community not because of uncontrollable youths, but because they preferred the insular retail cocoon which they had spun. When civic leaders conspire to keep competition out, customers will quickly adapt and make their purchases elsewhere.
Once your customers become used to the less expensive goods and larger selection these retailers offer, you won't get them back. Instead of enforcing the status quo, the "city fathers" should have been responsible and had the foresight to encourage these larger ventures to locate outlets in Jefferson. If that would have happened, some of these customers would not be travelling out of town to spend their money today.
You simply cannot lay the blame for Jefferson's problems at the foot of some kids spending their youth having fun during high school. That strikes me as something you might hear from some one who is looking to somehow blame "moral decay" instead of admitting that the "city fathers" were greedy, irresponsible, short-sighted, and dead wrong. The so-called leaders in Jefferson have made many mistakes and hopefully the new generation can begin to correct them.
As far as the US being 25 years behind Jefferson, I find this notion absurd. Jefferson is experiencing a rapidly declining population, with job opportunities at an absolute zero. If one leaves the midwest, you'll find many areas of the country growing rapidly with jobs and business opportunities abounding. America is the land of opportunity. It is what you make it and what you are willing to put into it.
Nice post, Dave.
Thanks for the timeline Rick.
The "opportunity" I was thinking of that Jefferson may have passed on, was the DMACC community college that is in Carroll. It was started in 1970 with a nursing program and grew from there. I was wrong thinking it may have come along later than that. This Monday morning quarterback obviously needs bifocals!
I agree that other areas of America offer better opportunities. Business opportunities dive or thrive with interest rates, the money supply and general economic conditions of the nation. Perhaps we can revisit this discussion in 2020 or 2035, if I'm around.
Agreed. Unfortunately, it is probably wishful thinking that you will still be around at that time, with you being so much older than I. To say nothing of your unhealthy, out-of-control lifestyle.
Understood. And thanks for sharing that.
In 25 years, Jefferson's population will be lucky to be 2500 - although I'm sure it will still be listed at over 4,000. The United States, on the other hand, will continue to grow, as diverse ethnic groups will keep coming in from other countries.
Rick is right. The United States still offers all of these people their best hope, and best opportunities. That is why they keep coming here and doing well for themselves, while pessimists here at home claim our future is destroyed. On the other hand, you don't see ANYONE moving to Jefferson. That is not a good analogy at all.
Here is a short list of communities that have grown in population over the last ten years.
Boone
Carroll
Perry
Panora
Madrid
Ogden
Bagley
Dana
Some towns are able to buck the trend. Others are not. Why do you suppose that is?
It is easier to simply chalk it all up to some type of "irreversible trend" that affects all small towns through out Iowa, rather than roll up your sleeves, dig down deep and look for answers. People who just write it off that way are lazy, and there is too much of that around Jefferson today.
I agree with anon. Laziness is a HUGE problem in small towns like Jefferson. Remember watching "Mayberry, RFD"? Lots of hard-workers hanging out in that show, huh? And just how hard do you think those county and city employees are working in an area with such a tiny population? GET REAL.
The problem with you people is that you all think something has changed in Jefferson. Let me tell you, Jefferson really didn't amount to much to begin with, and I personally can't see any differences in it over time. However, I do agree that many Jefferson residents are lazy.
I think Jefferson would be a super place if all you people had not left town as soon as you graduated. Blame the lazy government workers or the founding fathers all you want. Problem is you all saw greener grass on the other side of the fence and go out. I will at least give credit to those that have stayed here and are making some effort. Right or wrong, at least they aren't back seat driving the bus.
You make good points. There is plenty of Monday A.M. quarterbacking on the site and blog. It takes plenty of guts to start a business, especially in a town that is getting older and shrinking.
I like Jefferson. I moved bcz I needed to get a job.
Anon. -
I appreciate the fact that you feel some of us would make Jefferson a super place. Some of us, believe it or not, still live in Jefferson. It is too bad more folks won't jump on this site and stick up for their town. They certainly would receive an equal platform.
We seem to attract an unusually large percentage of negativity. But, then again, we are a part of a satirical web site, and a great deal of the content is aimed at humor (often at Jefferson's expense). Yes, we get hate mail. But no car bombs yet.
Those of us who left Jefferson were presented with opportunities that could not be found locally. I'm sure this happens in all small towns. The difference is that while Boone, Carroll, etc. also lose young people, their size has reached a point allowing them to attract some as well. Some place along the line, Jefferson lost its ability to do that.
To those of you still there - without you this web site would not be possible. In the meantime, hang in there, have a good sense of humor, and buy some paint.
I disagree with the posters that Jeffersonians are lazy. I believe when ambitious people are in areas they aren't comfortable with they dig in, change and learn. A lot of the rest of us ignore it and do something they know or enjoy instead. The problem is a lack of ambition or determination. I see it daily in the mirror.
Disliking change and grumbling changes nothing.
Numbers 31:7-18
"They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.
Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.
Looks like another anonymous "agent provocateur" came to get the fur flying with the Numbers 31 passage. I'll probably comment later.
Sounds like Moses saw some value in keeping some "young virgins" around. Wonder why?
Numbers 31
If interested google-"Slaughter of Midianites-Numbers 31" then go to the "spear of Phineas" blogspot post.
Summation-Numbers 25:1-3 talks of the "sin of Peor" where the Israelites, God's people, had sex with the Moabite women as they worshipped their gods.
God hates idolatry, the 1st Commandment (Exodus 20:2)is "You shall have no other gods before me."
Christopher Wright tells us how to read this difficult story:
"I have to read the conquest in the light of the cross...when I do set it in the light of the cross, I see one more perspective. For the cross too involved the most horrific and evil human violence, which, at the same time, also constitututed the outpouring of God's judgment on human sin. The crucial difference, of course, is that, whereas at the conquest, God poured out his judgment on a wicked society who deserved it, at the cross God bore on himself the judgment of God on human wickedness, through the person of his own sinless Son--who deserved it not one bit." The God I Do Not Understand, 107.
It also stated that we are no better than the Midianites. I know that is true of myself.
d
Christ's crucifixion was prophesied in Psalm 22 1000 years before it happened. Psalm 22 preceded the "invention" of crucifixion by hundreds of years. The word exCRUCiating derived from an inability to describe the overwhelming pain that was inflicted on the crucified. The "CRUC" speaks of the cross.
The way to read that story is that a bunch of people raided nearby villages, plundered them, burned them to the ground, massacred everyone, and saved the virgins as sex slaves. They did it in the name of their god. Christians and Muslims both did this all the time.
I would appreciate a thank you for the assist.
You may well be right. Christians have done many reprehensible deeds. In Numbers 31 God is talking about the Israelites or Jews.
"They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses" The Israelites did attack and killed all the men..
"But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."
I was horrified by what I thought happened to the young girls who are virgins. This explanation from the "bibleoutpost.com/forum" on "Does the Bible allow the rape of women" alleviated my fears.
"But why does Moses allow the virgin girls to live? It has nothing to do with rape since rape is outlawed in Deuteronomy 22:23-29. To suggest Moses would have knowingly violated this law has no merit. Rather, the virgins were allowed to live because 1) they were not responsible for the events of Numbers 25 2) posed no future threat to the nation of Israel 3) would have been suitable for servant girls. They also might have been suitable for wives, but I'm still looking for a verse that prohibits them from marrying Midianite women."
There is nothing difficult to understand about these passages. No offense to Diamond Dave; he is merely parroting the church, which has a great deal of difficulty explaining things like this.
You see, in the first place, rape is not outlawed in Corinthians. This is the closest that biblical scholars can get, but anyone who reads the passages in question will find that rape is only outlawed when it is with a betrothed virgin. If a virgin is otherwised raped, the penalty is that you have to marry her. That's right - you rape her, and as punishment you are married and can legally rape her as often as you want! The bible really isn't concerned with the woman's feelings.
Similarly, in the story told in Numbers 31, the reprisals were necessary due to the fact that there was a "whoredom" (Numbers 25). The bible states that the women are the cause of this - not the men.
It is obvious to any reader of this text that the virgins captured were more than likely raped. Soldiers were commanded to "keep them for yourselves". It doesn't say "set them free". Diamond Dave has trouble with this passage; so does the church. We are told they were allowed to live because "they were not responsible and posed no threat". But you see, even infant boys were slaughtered, who also "were not responsible and posed no threat". We are told they may have been kept as wives or servants. Think about that. If they were kept against their will as wives, that is the definition of rape. If kept as slaves, it was slavery, and possibly rape as well.
A reader of the bible will find that these passages are not unique; this book is chock full of references to the pillage of towns, killing of innocent children, and the rape of women.
Infant boys were killed bcz they could reproduce with the virgins, carrying on the Midian line. Infant boys can turn into warring men. Israel needed to be preserved morally bcz through it would come the Savior.
War was a constant evil. God warned Israel in 1 Samuel 8(after Numbers 31) about the dangers of following a king, and his tendencies toward war. War is a hellish undertaking with massive, unintentioned, collateral damage. If you lost the battle and lived, you were likely a slave. Slaves comprised one third of the populace of the Roman empire.
Women did not hold the rights or position they hold currently in the U.S. The Midianite women were without support or protection. Life does go on after terrible circumstances occur. Israel took them in, probably as servants, slaves or wives. Would you prefer that they too have been slaughtered?
Racism has always been alive and well in the bible. These infants were killed because they were Medianites. People are not worried about infants becoming warriors. That is the equivalent of saying that little muslim infant boys should not be adopted. Maybe some people actually think that way. How can you choose to knowingly kill an infant?? It is no better than killing an unborn fetus. Let alone the fact that there were many infants killed during this incident. Infants can just as easily become warriors on your side. This is all about prejudice against Medianites.
As far as the virgins go, you apparently feel that they were being done a favor by taking them as wives. The bible is anti-women, I agree, and back then women were treated as cattle. The point I was making had to do not with the fact that women were allowed to live - but that VIRGINS were allowed to live. Anyone who has studied ancient texts or even more modern middle-eastern activities knows that virgins are prized for one quality only. And no matter how uncomfortable it makes fundamentalists feel, it has to do with sex. These virgins were allowed to live for sexual and reproductive reasons. Do you suppose any of them were asked if they would prefer to go elsewhere? Do you suppose they were given free passage if they requested it? Life goes on, as you say. I guess you feel that "keeping the virgins for yourselves" is just a part of life.
Moses in Numbers 31:15-16
"Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people.
The reason God's representative Moses wanted them wiped out was because of idol worship and Israel's rebellion that stemmed from it.
Blame the women and every last one of them. Lovely, just lovely.
Here's a really cool loophole for married men. You've heard "Thou shall not commit adultery!" By definition (in the bible), a man can only commit adultery with another man's wife/fiance. It is not adultery for a married man to have sexual relations with a single woman (or in Tiger's case, single women by the dozens). That would be an indiscretion (harlotry). However, if a married woman strays, that is, by fact that she is a "married woman", adultery. John Edwards (presidential candidate) did not commit adultery because his girlfriend was not married or betrothed. Mark Sanford, Governor of South Carolina, did not commit adultery because his Argentinian soul mate was not married or betrothed. Both committed indiscretions but not adultery.
Take it another step. A woman is not allowed to divorce her husband. She may leave her husband. She may ask her husband to divorce her. That's it. Jenny Sanford isn't being a good Christian woman by divorcing her husband, Governor of South Carolina Mark Sanford.
I'm doing a little extra research to see if either should be stoned to death. I don't think God has much use for non-virginal women like Jenny Sanford and Elizabeth Edwards. I'm sure both of them have done something do deserve God's wrath. I think a baseball-sized rock would be just right.
Thank you. This is exactly my point. In Diamond Dave's last post he tells us why God wanted the women wiped out. But we already knew that. I have already touched on that. The point I am trying to expound on that. The city in question was a "whoredom" (there are lots of these in the old testament). The women were blamed - kill them all! Oh, let the virgins live - "you can keep them for yourselves". Tell me with a straight face that you don't know what that means (these are virgins). They were not kept as an act of kindness. They were kept as a reward for the soldiers.
Dave also tells us why God wiped out the town. But again, we already know all of that, too. What I am focusing on is the fact that little infant babies are being blamed and/or considered a threat. Christians like to gloss over the details when this happens. "Infant boys were killed because they could reproduce with the virgins". Get real. Maybe in twelve years or so. If they are really getting lucky.
Sorry for my delay in posting, I could not re-find this web-site for well over a day. This is in response to the claim that biblically there is a double standard for men. I googled "Biblical punishment for fornication". Definition of fornication- consenting sex involving someone unmarried.
The bride's virginity coming into marriage
"The emphasis is on the woman’s virginity, simply because there is no corresponding way to determine physically (and hence legally) that a man is a virgin... The biblical principle that premarital sex is wrong, applies equally to both sexes. (For confirmation of this fact, click here.)"
"The penalty for adultery applied because any unmarried woman who kept quiet about her lost virginity, can be presumed to have voluntarily had sex with a married man. This presumption is reasonable because under God’s law if an unmarried man had sex with an unmarried woman she could have safely blown the whistle on him. If she wanted to marry him, he would be forced to do so regardless of his wishes and he could never, ever divorce her. This applied regardless of whether pregnancy was involved. The man’s only escape from life-long marital commitment was if the woman refused to marry him, in which case the man still had to pay her full dowry and suffer public shame. What he did was wrong – so wrong that it exposed him to life-long obligations."
"Moreover, under Old Testament law, what applies to one gender can be assumed to apply with equal force to the other gender. For an example in the opposite direction, the Ten Commandments says “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife” and makes no mention of it being wrong for a woman to covet her neighbor’s husband (Exodus 20:17). On the surface, this might seem a double standard favoring women. In reality, the opposite gender equivalent must be assumed to be equally wrong."
This last paragraph corresponded to: "(For confirmation of this fact, click here.)" at the end of the 3nd paragraph.
There is no obvious way of rebutting any of Diamond Dave's latest points, because even though he continually tells us to "click here for confirmation", He neglects to tell us what web site he is on. I googled the same phrase he did and was shown several options - none of which seemed to be the site he was on.
Sorry. Technology is trickier for me than for others.
Google "Bibical punishment for fornication". The second listing is "When is sex before marriage acceptable?" at http://net-burst.net/singles/premarital.htm
What I posted was at the bottom of the section "Background". That's where the "click here" is also.
Have a good weekend.
I understand the difference between adultery and fornication.
What I am talking about is rape. Back in biblical times, rape occurred. When it did, the woman could keep quiet about it, or speak up. When she came forward with accusations, the man was forced to marry her. Keep in mind that she has just been raped by this guy - marrying him is the LAST thing she wants. If the man she is accusing is already married, it will be her word against his. Whom do you suppose will be believed?
It is incorrect to assume that under Old Testament law what applied to one gender would apply equally to the other. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Keep in mind that the bible was written by men for men about men. There is a reason that the commandments state, "thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife."
It is because in biblical times women were not important. Their viewpoints were not considered. The scribes back then knew that women would not be reading these texts. Why? Because women couldn't read. That is also why Moses says, "you can keep the virgins for yourselves." To state that Old Testament law treats the sexes evenly is to promote some sort of latter-day "feel good" definition more acceptable to our modern era.
How do you suppose the soldiers determined who were virgins and who were not? If you were young and attractive, you were a virgin. Old or ugly - not a virgin.
The bible is full of examples of women being stoned to death for the crime of adultery. This almost never happens to the men. "Blowing the whistle" on a man back then may even get you killed.
I believe in the bible, but emphatically wish people would just read what is there and not try to intricately interpret it in a way that they will find less offensive. It is a unique, accurate depiction of life in that era.
You make sense until you say "I believe in the bible...". But to each their own.
In the old testament, women are nothing but property of men. Daughters are so worthless that dowries are needed to rid a man of his worthless offspring. A man only commits adultery if he has relations with another man's wife/betrothed because at that point, he's messing with another man's property. The penalty for most of the 10 commandments is death, usually reserved for women, but in many cases, for entire cities or future generations of the sinner.
The religious right have and are cheering the death of the abortionist (Dr. Tiller) in Kansas, usually arguing that he violates the "Thou shall not murder (kill)" commandment and that the punishment for violating that commandment is death. What's the punishment when one doesn't "Honor your father and mother"? Death. What's the punishment for when one does not "Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy"? Death. Why doesn't the religious right execute people that work on Sunday (or is it Saturday)? Perhaps they are not true believers/followers of God.
On rape's punishment in the Bible-
Exodus 22:16-17 JPS-And if a man entice a virgin that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely pay a dowry for her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, HE SHALL PAY MONEY ACCORDING TO THE DOWRY OF VIRGIN.
The enticer/seducer must pay the dowry price. It is at the option of the virgin's father whether she marry or not. The money would be paid in either event. The seducer does not force her into marriage.
I did a little research. It turns out that Mark Sanford's soul mate in Argentina was married with two children. He, in fact, did commit adultery since he had sex with another man's wife. Tsk, Tsk!. I believe the penalty for that is stoning to death. Time find a big 'ol rock pile.
President Obama's beating a dead horse, spending whatever spare political change he has left on his health care plan. I am astounded by his intransigence and lack of Clintonian political savvy. He IS a true leftst believer. The ironic thing is, if he loses, Democrats win (relatively speaking, in the off-year elections)and vice-versa. If Obamacare passes, the elderly (who turn out heaviest in off-year elections) will lead this charge to overturn his big Democratic edge in both houses.
He can withstand this rising tide if health care loses. Republicans, no geniuses either, could easily shoot themself in the foot and brassly overplay their hand.
D.Dave loves the word "intransigence". It is obvious. The thesaurus he is using is most likely from 1910. Or an older version he has found online.
Post a Comment