Jumpstarter 6 of 10

Direct Answer Bercot’s mirrored list is meant to shock the conscience: if the logic sounds monstrous when applied to sexual assault, it should also sound monstrous when applied to killing. He argues Christians rationalize violence more easily because the hybrid removes moral stigma from “authorized” violence while strongly condemning sexual sin.

Support from Transcript:

• After listing the “Just War” conditions, Bercot says, “If you are a Christian, these conditions should sound absurd to you. Yet, they may not.”
• He then applies the same criteria to violating women: “righteous and just…if the Christian loves the woman he has violated,” etc.
• He notes the emotional result: “You probably have no trouble seeing the ridiculousness…when applied to assaulting women.”
• He asks the moral question: “Why is it so hard to see when we’re talking about killing men…? It’s because nearly all of us have been conditioned by the hybrid.”
• Explanation of conditioning: under the hybrid, “no condemnation was attached to sins of violence…so long as these acts were done under the authority of the rulers,” while it “nearly always condemns sexual sins of any kind.”