 | |||
| |||
The death penalty is ubiquitous throughout the Torah. In particular, a properly composed Jewish Court can punish many types of sexual crimes with death. The male homosexual act is a capital crime.
Furthermore, non-Jews are also commanded to make courts and to punish homosexuality, a capital crime under the Noachide laws. (Rambam, Hilchos Melachim, Chapter Nine, Passages 7 & 17.)
In the U.S. it may seem farfetched to even think about executing homosexuals. The Supreme Court recently ruled that the Constitution protects the right of two men to marry each other.
A close examination of the Constitution, however, reveals that it is a pliable and flexible document. Amendments may be added that change the very character and essence of the document.
The 13th Amendment negated much of the underpinnings of the Constitution, changing the Constitution from a social contract made mostly for the benefit of White landowners, into a more inclusive governing agreement.
I am a Jew. For the past year, I have been communicating with non-Jewish Americans on how to form a more perfect union. Part of my contribution has been to find a way to eliminate the influence of homosexuals and transgenders (trannies) from the political realm.
One brute force way of doing this is to kill them. While the Torah does not specifically decree death for trannies, they can often be technically included under the rubric of homosexuals.
It is disheartening that the Agudath Israel supported hate crimes legislation. The practical effect of the federal hate crimes law is to make homosexuals and trannies a protected class of citizen. This all but makes it impossible to create laws outlawing homosexualism and transgenderism.
The only straightforward avenue open to making homosexuality illegal seems to be to make a Constitutional amendment. Relying on activist judges to correct matters is hit or miss and a partial victory, at best.
I have found a cadre of dedicated men and women who I think are supportive of this goal to change the Constitution in a way that will align it better with the Noachide Laws, and thus the Will of G-d.
Many of these people also hate Jews. Reb Yaakov zt"l has taught that if a Jew has a choice between supporting a political candidate who loves Jews and is pro-Israel yet also promotes immorality, and a candidate that is the opposite, that the latter and not the former deserves our vote.
Thus I am comfortable dealing with non-Jews who solidly want to prosecute and execute trannies, over interacting in the political realm with non-Jews who call for giving Jews equal rights -- along with rights for homosexuals and trannies.
The Gaon Reb Moshe zt"l taught us to protest against those who encourage homosexual behavior. So in the strongest and most vehement terms I curse the Agudah and their leaders for their stance supporting the hate crimes bill. And I ally myself with non-Jews who want to feed trannies live into woodchippers. The Rambam rules the sword is the right way to kill trannies, and I would be dismayed if the non-Jews took their bloody metaphor and actually implemented it. Still, shredding and grinding up trannies is a lot closer to how we should be keeping the Torah than cozying up to politicians who want to make degeneracy part and parcel of the American lingua franca.
Furthermore, non-Jews are also commanded to make courts and to punish homosexuality, a capital crime under the Noachide laws. (Rambam, Hilchos Melachim, Chapter Nine, Passages 7 & 17.)
In the U.S. it may seem farfetched to even think about executing homosexuals. The Supreme Court recently ruled that the Constitution protects the right of two men to marry each other.
A close examination of the Constitution, however, reveals that it is a pliable and flexible document. Amendments may be added that change the very character and essence of the document.
The 13th Amendment negated much of the underpinnings of the Constitution, changing the Constitution from a social contract made mostly for the benefit of White landowners, into a more inclusive governing agreement.
I am a Jew. For the past year, I have been communicating with non-Jewish Americans on how to form a more perfect union. Part of my contribution has been to find a way to eliminate the influence of homosexuals and transgenders (trannies) from the political realm.
One brute force way of doing this is to kill them. While the Torah does not specifically decree death for trannies, they can often be technically included under the rubric of homosexuals.
It is disheartening that the Agudath Israel supported hate crimes legislation. The practical effect of the federal hate crimes law is to make homosexuals and trannies a protected class of citizen. This all but makes it impossible to create laws outlawing homosexualism and transgenderism.
The only straightforward avenue open to making homosexuality illegal seems to be to make a Constitutional amendment. Relying on activist judges to correct matters is hit or miss and a partial victory, at best.
I have found a cadre of dedicated men and women who I think are supportive of this goal to change the Constitution in a way that will align it better with the Noachide Laws, and thus the Will of G-d.
Many of these people also hate Jews. Reb Yaakov zt"l has taught that if a Jew has a choice between supporting a political candidate who loves Jews and is pro-Israel yet also promotes immorality, and a candidate that is the opposite, that the latter and not the former deserves our vote.
Thus I am comfortable dealing with non-Jews who solidly want to prosecute and execute trannies, over interacting in the political realm with non-Jews who call for giving Jews equal rights -- along with rights for homosexuals and trannies.
The Gaon Reb Moshe zt"l taught us to protest against those who encourage homosexual behavior. So in the strongest and most vehement terms I curse the Agudah and their leaders for their stance supporting the hate crimes bill. And I ally myself with non-Jews who want to feed trannies live into woodchippers. The Rambam rules the sword is the right way to kill trannies, and I would be dismayed if the non-Jews took their bloody metaphor and actually implemented it. Still, shredding and grinding up trannies is a lot closer to how we should be keeping the Torah than cozying up to politicians who want to make degeneracy part and parcel of the American lingua franca.
Nazi's hated Jews and homos , so presumably you prefer Hitler to Clinton or Churchill, or Bush.
ReplyDeleteIt was only about 15 years ago that the Supreme Court, in Lawrence v. Texas, overturned all the state laws outlawing -- with criminal penalties -- any homosexual acts.
ReplyDeleteJust as we fight to overturn Roe v. Wate, we should similarly fight to overturn Lawrence v. Texas.
Nazis hated communists too. Should we therefore embrace communism and embrace communists as brothers in comrades?
ReplyDeleteIf the Allies (UK, America) had not worked with Stalin in WW2, perhaps another couple of million Jews would have been killed in the holocaust. It shows how uninformed you are in worldly matters.
ReplyDeleteWho wrote this guest post? If he is not willing to attach his name to this despicable nonsense, you should not post it.
ReplyDeleteWhy is it in the interest of the Jewish community to overturn either Roe v. Wade or Lawrence v. Texas?
ReplyDeletethe content enough is nonsense, regardless of his name
ReplyDeleteHe is Rodef B'Yisrael by allying himself with openly anti-semitic thugs
90 years ago, De Haan was matir by the Eda for his homosexual acts...
ReplyDeleteYou are excellent in completely missing the point and being oblivious.
ReplyDeleteFor purposes of residing in a more moral surrounding environment.
ReplyDeleteyet no problems about de Haan "overturning the table"
ReplyDeleteNo, it is an absurd statement to make that it is better to support rodefim because they are allegedly more moral than liberals. Firstly this is a sham "morality", there are well known homosexuals and perverts in the fascist groups whom you befriend. Even the slave owners all had illegitimate children with their black slave girls.
ReplyDeleteMordechai did not accept this fallacious thinking - he enlisted any method to fight the amalek-fascist haman, even by the forced immorailty of Esther marrying Ahashverosh. You fools would have supported Haman because he had a strong sense of "morality" comparable with your own.
I support instituting the death penalty for homosexuality do you, big shot? If you're afraid to admit you support homosexuality and homosexuals and that you oppose a legal death penalty today for male homosexual acts then deflect answering this question so that you can try to hide the fact that you oppose the death penalty and that you support homosexuals by not clearly and openly stating that you support executing those convicted of homosexuality.
ReplyDeleteSo I assume that you are out there front and center protesting the immoral practice of separating babies from their parents who were seeking asylum, and protesting the use of shoddy forensic evidence, such as blood-spatter patterns and bite marks, to lock people up for decades for crimes they did not commit.
ReplyDeleteplease stick to topic
ReplyDeletedo you support Trump separating children from parents
I am pretty sure that you did not mean to direct this comment to me, but of course I do not.
ReplyDeleteWell, I for one will follow in the footsteps of Rabbi Akiva and oppose the death penalty entirely.
ReplyDeleteIn halacha, we are not allowed to practice the death penalty currently, unless we have a Sanhedrin again.
ReplyDeleteI don't support homosexuals, and Mr de haan was executed, although I am not sure whether it was becasue he was a homo or a rodef.
Apparently you're smarter than Rav Moshe Feinstein, who lobbied New York to institute the death penalty.
ReplyDeleteApparently you're smarter than Rav Moshe Feinstein, who lobbied the governor of New York to institute the death penalty.
ReplyDeleteDo you support the law imprisoning those convicted of homosexuality? You don't even support having a law criminalizing homosexuality because you support homosexuals.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on the latter issue. On the former issue those are economic migrants breaking the law using their children as pawns hoping by bringing children in illegally they'll be able to avoid arrest and stopped from violating the law. Hence the mass increase of those breaking into the country illegally with children, something the government is responsible to stop. And this measure may be necessary to stop incentivizing breaking into the country with children.
ReplyDeletenot true
ReplyDeletethe governor asked fpr his opinion
That doesn't detract from the point that Rav Moshe officially voiced support for New York State to enact a death penalty.
ReplyDeletehttp://daattorah.blogspot.com/2009/08/torah-law-is-used-as-long-as-society.html
ReplyDeletehttp://daattorah.blogspot.com/2010/02/r-moshe-feinsteinlegitimacy-of-capital.html
ReplyDeleteyour description is wrong
Which part are you nitpicking at?
ReplyDeletewhat makes u say I support homos?
ReplyDeleteThe law used to be (at least in UK) that trey could go to prison, not execution. To me, the decriminalization 50 years ago has led to a breakdown in society, in families, and in crime, let alone the spread of terrible diseases such as AIDS. It is a totally secular thing, and i never supported them, but today we have a big problem, which is prevalent in the Jewish population.
Regarding general capital punishment, it is a halachic problem, as Rav Moshe describes, and as everyone knows. However, "rodef" still applies. In UK, they stopped executions also around 50 or 60 years ago.
Regarding De Haan, he was both a homo, and a rodef, since he planned to destroy the proclamation of the Jewish State, which was the harbinger of the kibbutz galuyot, and attested to by Rav Elyashiv and RSZA ztl.
Your understanding of the situation is at best incomplete. There is a difference between standard illegal border-crossers and asylum seekers. Historically, those seeking asylum have not been treated as criminals while their appeals for asylum were being heard. Their families were kept together during that time. The Trump administration is, by their own admission, putting the new policy in place to discourage even asylum seekers from coming to America.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely not smarter, but I certainly know more than he did (and more than he could have possibly known) about wrongly convicted innocent people who have been on death row, or even executed.
ReplyDeleteThe asylum claims are a farce as everyone understands these are economic migrants, not folks fleeing persecution, who by far abuse use of the asylum claim as a legal tool to evade America's immigration laws.
ReplyDeleteIn 200+ years of American history, how many innocent people do you assert were falsely executed? How many murders occurred in those 200+ years of history?
ReplyDeleteJewish law recognizes the possibility of innocents being executed yet nevertheless institutes the death penalty.
evidence that Satmar is closer to the Nazi way of thought, and that it is mere details about whom you wish to kill
ReplyDeleteIt's a very interesting question whether to post it or not. I don't pretend to know the answer, but I do suppose that posting it serves an educational/journalistic purpose.
ReplyDeleteWhen you make insane comments like this, no frum person can take you seriously on anything you say.
ReplyDelete1: I have no idea. 2: I have no idea. 3: Actually, the Ramban writes that there is a siyata dishmaya that no innocent person will be executed.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, your understanding is incomplete. There might be some people like that, but there are others truly fleeing violence. The reshaim of the Trump administration do not differentiate.
ReplyDeleteIt isn't as you contend that "there might be some people like that"; it is that the vast majority (by far) of asylum claimers are mere economic migrants not fleeing persecution. And the great administration put into office by the RBS"O, led by the Oheiv Yisroel Pres. Donald J. Trump, is aware of this fact and acting wisely to address it.
ReplyDeletenice assertion but the gemora indicates shimob ben shetach's son was executed on false charges
ReplyDeleteSource please.
ReplyDeleteitch-hunt and his son's death
ReplyDeleteIn a significant case of an early witch-hunt, on a single day Simeon ben Shetach's court sentenced to death eighty women in Ashkelon who had been charged with sorcery.[21] The relatives of these women, filled with a desire for revenge, brought false witnesses against Simeon's son, whom they accused of Simeon ben Shetach
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Rabbinical eras
Chazal
Zugot
Tannaim
Amoraim
Savoraim
Geonim
Rishonim
Acharonim
v t e
Simeon ben Shetach, or Shimon ben Shetach[1][2][3][4] or Shatach[5][6][7][8][9] (Hebrew: שמעון בן שטח), circa 120-40 BCE, was a Pharisee scholar and Nasi of the Sanhedrin during the reigns of Alexander Jannæus (c. 103-76 BCE) and his successor, Queen Salome Alexandra (c. 76-67 BCE), who was Simeon's sister.[10] He was therefore closely connected with the court, enjoying, at least initially, the favor of Alexander.
Although a rabbi by profession, the omission of such an epithet when referred to in rabbinic literature is said to attest to his greatness as a rabbinic Sage, ranking with Hillel.[11]a crime which involved capital punishment; and as a result of this charge he was sentenced to death. While on the way to the place of execution, the witnesses recanted their testimony. Simeon ben Shetach sought to have the case reopened. Simeon's son protested that, according to the Law, a witness must not be believed when he withdraws a former statement, and he said to his father, "If you seek to bring about salvation, then consider me as a threshold [towards that goal]."[22] The execution then proceeded. This sad event was probably the reason why Simeon issued a warning that witnesses should always be carefully cross-questioned.[23]
Actually, that incident proves the exact opposite of what you are trying to say, and supports the Ramban that I cited. The court did discover the truth before carrying out the execution, and had every right to not impose the punishment. Due to a meta-halakhic claim by the accused, they carried out the execution. So here too hashgacha arranged that they would not kill someone in error.
ReplyDeleteYour reply seems in want of a quick but relevant civics refresher.
ReplyDeletethose breaking into the country illegally with children, something the government is responsible to stop. And this measure may be necessary to stop incentivizing breaking into the country with children.
ReplyDeleteYour reply seems in want of a quick but relevant civics refresher.
Well, I disagree with just about everything you wrote here. And many many Republicans are criticizing this cruel and heartless policy.
ReplyDeleteOver and out.
there is no article of faith that the court does not err in applying the death penalty or any other halacha such as theft
ReplyDeleteIllegal aliens do not enjoy the protections of the U.S. Constitution. Sorry, you cannot break into the country and expect the countries constitutional benefits. That is for citizens and legal residents.
ReplyDeleteI did not say it is an article of faith. I said it is a Ramban. See his comments about אלוהים נצב בעדת אל in his discussion of עדים זוממים.
ReplyDeletei agree it is the view of the Ramban but it is not the normative view
ReplyDeletethere is a midrash about someone who was falsely accused of murder, by false witnesses, and even though he was innocent, he accepted his own sentence to death - are you familiar with what that is teaching? (was it R' Shimon bar Shetach's son?)
ReplyDeletethanks, i was thinking of this story - which must be wrong, it is absurd!
ReplyDeleteNow, if what you just asserted (so easily & confidently, LOL) were true, that only "citizens and legal residents" may "expect the protections of the country's constitutional benefits," then it would follow that any citizen could rape, enslave, or murder any illegal alien with impunity. But, in fact, that's obviously not the case; this country's essential laws, constitutional & otherwise, extend to all those who fall within its sovereign reach, whether native or foreign, resident legally or illegally. That's why when the alien crosses the border they're not held by the military for committing an act of war against the nation (breaching its border), but are brought before a Federal Court to answer for a crime (like any other accused). If what you asserted were true, they could be imprisoned indefinitely without trial, be tortured as punishment/deterrent, be refused ability to hear the evidence against them at their hearing & denied right to call witnesses, and even be forcibly converted to some religion of the prosecutor's/judge's preference in exchange for those benefits. If you have any acquaintance with America of the past 5 generations, none of those denials of the Bill of Rights exists, whether in immigration proceedings or elsewhere. In fact, the Dept of Justice wouldn't even require immigration lawyers & judges at all.
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, what you articulated was arguably true of this country prior to 1866, but the upshot of the Civil War was the Reconstruction Amendments (the 13th, 14th, & 15th), the effect of which was to extend rights to all persons irrespective of those statuses (citizen, legal foreign resident, illegal alien), effectively narrowing the meaning of "citizen" to enjoying the right to vote (well, and also that they can't be deported and must pay taxes, but the former is implicit & the latter would only come later).
I guess you haven't thought about these dearly held views of yours very deeply or investigated them much? If only those who profess to care for this country cared enough to learn the simple basics of it!
The idea that the justice system of the Umos Haolam may not implement a death penalty for high crimes in the absence of a 100% guarantee of perfection that'll be perfect and never mistaken is absurd on its face and goes against the Sheva Mitzvos Bnei Noach, historical precedent throughout history and Jewish Halacha and thought. One could similarly make such an absurd argument that the goyim are prohibited from having judicial penalties such as life imprisonment, decades or other long-term imprisonment sentences or corporal punishment. Because they can never get aa perfect record in not mistakenly convicting innocent people. So they therefore cannot punish anyone with any severe punishment. We both know how many people were freed from prison after decades when they suddenly realized they were innocent. So prison should be banished you must argue to prevent the inevitable such reoccurrences.
ReplyDeleteAs RDE pointed out, Chazal cite the exemple of Rav Shimon been Shetach's son was executed despite being innocent. There they even knew he was innocent before he was executed but Halacha said he should be executed, and he was.
Same with the concept of Eidim Zomemim, where Halacha explicitly recognizes innocent people may be executed.
As RDE said, there is no article of faith that the Beis Din never errs in applying the death penalty or any other conviction in halacha such as theft.
ReplyDeleteAnd the Ramban isn't the widespread accepted final point on this topic. Others hold otherwise. Furthermore, it certainly is irrelevant -- either way -- in regards to the permissibility for gentiles to enact a death penalty, under the Sheva Mitzvos requiring a judicial system.
Do you claim or have evidence that even a single innocent person has been executed by a US court?
ReplyDeleteDo you assert that a death penalty is only acceptable when there's an absolute 100% certainty that no one will ever be wrongly convicted?
Do you similarly oppose long prison sentences based on the fact that MANY innocent people have served decades in prison? Why not? Decades or life imprisonment is arguably harsher than a death penalty and is certainly cruel for any innocent person.
Do you support or oppose criminalizing homosexual acts? Suppose the penalty was prison. Just as virtually all US states had laws for, at least until the mid 20th century (with some state's laws lasting untill 2003.)
ReplyDeleteWhy or why not?
Do you have a shred of humanity in you? People are pursuing a chance at a better life. If you want to send them back to where they came from, go for it. But to tear breastfeeding infants and young children away from their families is mind-boggingly cruel. Telling parents that there children are being taken to give them baths and then never bringing them back? Is that something you approve of? This is despicable behavior and anyone defending it is lacking the basic traits of any Jew (רחמנים, ביישנים, וגומלי חסדים).
ReplyDelete1: Yes. 2: Pretty much yes. 3: Prison sentences are reversible, and compensation can be given (and has been given) to those wrongfully imprisoned. Death is irreversible. And yes, I do believe that the justice system in the U.S. needs a major overhaul, especially with regard to relying on informants as witnesses, relying on junk science in forensics, and too much discretion given to prosecutors with regard to jury composition and withholding information from the defense. And I think that these moral issues are at least just as important for the Torah-true community to protest as what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms. הנסתרות לה' אלוקינו והנגלות לנו ולבנינו עד עולם.
ReplyDeleteRe. your first two paragraphs, I responded to your other comment. Re. Shimon ben Shatach's son, you are totally missing the point. Of course the beis din would not have executed him knowing that he was innocent, and the fact that you believe otherwise indicates how twisted your mind is. You think a beis din has the right to kill people for committing transgressions they know them to be innocent of committing? The sugya there is in the category of hora'as sha'a and סנהדרין מכין ועונשין שלא מן הדין, as is obvious to anyone who actually reads the discussion there.
ReplyDelete(DT, posted this 9hrs ago. Do you know why Disqus might be giving me trouble?)
ReplyDeleteNow, if what you just asserted (so easily & confidently, LOL) were true, that only "citizens and legal residents" may "expect the protections of the country's constitutional benefits," then it would follow that any citizen could rape, enslave, or murder any illegal alien with impunity. But, in fact, that's obviously not the case; this country's essential laws, constitutional & otherwise, extend to all those who fall within its sovereign reach, whether native or foreign, resident legally or illegally.
I guess you haven't thought about these dearly held views of yours very deeply?
...Or investigated them much? Because that's also why when aliens cross the border they're not held by the military for committing some act of war against the nation (breaching its border), but are brought before a federal court to answer for a crime (like any other accused). If what you asserted were true, they could be imprisoned indefinitely without trial, be tortured as punishment/deterrent, be refused ability to hear the evidence against them at their hearing & denied right to call witnesses, and, now that we're at it, even be forcibly converted to some religion of the prosecutor's/judge's preference in exchange for those benefits. (Why not? No 1st Amendment or Article VI would need stand in the way.)
But if you have any acquaintance with America of the past five-to-six generations, you don't need me to inform you that none of those denials of the Bill of Rights in fact occurs, whether in immigration proceedings or elsewhere. In fact, if they were so denied to illegals, the Dept of Justice wouldn't even require immigration lawyers & judges at all, would they? Immigration "courts" would then all be run more like a State DMV, processing illegal personnel.
Truly amazing what ABCs of the USA folks just don't know. (Or: ...remain willfully ignorant of?) To be fair, what you articulated was arguably true of this country prior to 1866, but the upshot of the Civil War was the Reconstruction Amendments to the U.S. Constitution (the 13th, 14th, & 15th Amendments), the effect of which was to extend rights to all persons irrespective of those statuses (citizen, legal resident alien, illegal alien), effectively narrowing the meaning of "citizen" to enjoying the right to vote (well, and also that they can't be deported and must pay taxes, but the former is implicit & the latter would only come later). Most obviously, those Amendments outlawed slavery directly, while indirectly effectively rendering it legally impossible everywhere within the States.
You know, you could learn all this even just on Wikipedia, if you wanted to. (Of course, education risks bursting the blissful bubble of ignorance. Sorry to spoil that for you now. And be forewarned that Fox news will seem far less engaging if the viewer actually knows anything....)
If only those who profess to care for this country cared enough to learn the simple basics of it, how much greater it would be! But, then, Trump probably couldn't have gotten elected its leader.
Firstly, I made a simple legal observation in response to a comment that made a factually incorrect legal point. Those people who enter the US illegally are not entitled to constitutional protections. Secondly, regarding your off-topic point, these illegal aliens are specifically bringing in the children as pawns to avoid being held to account for breaking the law.
ReplyDeleteYou ignored the point that thousands of innocent people continuously serve decades or lifetimes in prison. Theoretically it is reversible, but as a factual matter so many innocent will always remain jailed under the legal system. Therefore by your own logic you should be opposed to ALL long prison sentences.
ReplyDeleteWhich innocent person(s) were executed; specific names and evidence, please.
ReplyDeleteYou're clearly a sheigetz by applying those attributes to law-breaking shkotzim.
ReplyDeleteIs the son of Shimon b' Shetach being a Chasid shoteh?
ReplyDeleteTaking a fall for the greater good. Label it what you want.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, you are missing the point. If someone is in jail, there is always the possibility of freeing him when new evidence comes to light. Once he is dead, not so much.
ReplyDeleteYou can start here.
ReplyDeletehttps://deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent
Those "law-breaking shkotzim" are no worse than the great-grandparents or grandparents of basically every Jew living in America today
ReplyDeleteThis is my third attempt trying to reply. Disqus spam-blocked my last two replies, for some reason, and moderator DT hasn't gotten back to me.
ReplyDeleteThe bottom line is that since the Civil War, constitutional protections actually extend to any person within the reach of U.S. sovereignty. So your thinking is outdated by about 150yrs.
dont know why you are being blocked you are nt the list of bloced emails
ReplyDeleteOk, they just posted, retroactively. So whatever it is you just did worked.
ReplyDeleteIt is a legal fact that in the United States, illegal aliens do not enjoy the guaranteed rights and protections of the Bill of Rights and other Constitutional guarantees and rights. (That doesn't mean it is legal for anyone to commit violence against them.)
ReplyDeleteIt is a legal fact that in the United States, illegal aliens do not enjoy the guaranteed rights and protections of the Bill of Rights and other Constitutional guarantees and rights. (That doesn't mean it is legal for anyone to commit violence against them).
ReplyDeleteComplete and utter hogwash and baloney. Firstly unzer zeidas and bubbes are heilige Yidden. A vast vast difference. But even more pertinent here is that our zeidas and bubbes came to America legally.
ReplyDeleteYet the reality is that there is ALWAYS thousands of innocent men languishing in jail with a life sentence, they they WILL fulfill until dead as so many previous innocents who were falsely convicted died in prison as innocent men.
ReplyDeleteYour logic should demand all life sentences be abolished along with all other long term sentence. Just because someone was convicted of murder, to be consistent according to your legal view, doesn't mean they're really guilty -- and they therefore cannot be executed or imprisoned for life -- since even if they do serve out the life sentence doesn't mean he really wasn't innocent.
The Halacha of Eidem Zomemim recognizes the fact that someone can have been falsely executed.
ReplyDeleteTheoretically. An innocent in jail might later be acquitted and freed. Or, much more likely like thousands of other innocents who died in prison before him, he won't ever have his false conviction overturned and he'll live out his life spending decades in a prison worse than death.
ReplyDeleteHow can you allow that? That, worse-than-death unremedied prison scenario, is far far more common than the death penalty scenario you're worried about.
My mishna says חביב אדם שנברא בצלם. חיבה יתירה נודעת לו שנברא בצלם.
ReplyDeleteAnd you call them shkotzim.
1: That is not true. It recognizes that there could have been a gemar din, but no more than that.
ReplyDelete2: As anyone knows, executions by batei din were exceedingly rare.
3: Once again, I, like Rabbi Akiva am an abolitionist with regard to capital punishment.
Correct. That is why I support, with my wallet, the tzaddikim at The Innocence Project, who work to overturn the convictions of all those falsely imprisoned. And I would also support wholesale changes to the way the criminal justice system works, to help prevent wrongful convictions.
ReplyDeleteStubborn, eh? Can’t help but note your wholesale lack of evidence for this bald assertion. I’m very sorry to disappoint you with the actual “legal facts”--a phrase I’d never use, but we’ll just go with it--but had you taken my advice, you’d have readily found the following counter-evidence, plain as day and easily found:
ReplyDeleteThe Due Process Clause prohibits state and local government officials from depriving persons [Note: not “citizens”] of life, liberty, or property without legislative authorization. This clause has also been used by the federal judiciary to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural requirements that state laws must satisfy. The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction.
Source: Wikipedia, emphases mine, and the Court’s words in context can be read here
And this:
In Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), the Supreme Court has clarified that the meaning of "person" and "within its jurisdiction" in the Equal Protection Clause [of the Fourteenth Amendment] […] would extend to other races, colors, and nationalities […]: These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction […], and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.
Persons "within its jurisdiction" are entitled to equal protection from a state. […] In Plyler v. Doe (1982), where the Court held that aliens illegally present in a state are within its jurisdiction and may thus raise equal protection claims the Court explicated the meaning of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" as follows: "[U]se of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory."
Source: Wikipedia, emphases mine
Original Source for all the above, that Wikipedia used
Inescapable conclusion: This “legal fact” of yours? You made it up. (Maybe you were born some seven generations too late, to share the company of your fellow Confederates?)
Protections to "persons" is limited to only provisions where that term is used and NOT to the entirety of all constitutional provisions.
ReplyDeleteyou want to kill millions of people for being gay, when there is no such thing in any democracy. Perhaps in Iran or other Islamic states it is practiced. So, how would you do it, set up concentration camps and gas them?
ReplyDeleteYou also make the ridiculous claim that anyone who opposes the death penalty for homos, is supporting them. Several gedolim were approached by frum/gays, and were given kind advice - I have heard instances of Rav Moshe, the Tzitz Eliezer, and Rav Elyashiv ztl who gave advice to them - I think Rav Moshe said try learning more Torah. So you think they also supported them? You are truly a disturbed individual.
What is this "greater good" that you're referring to, @Yehoshua ?
ReplyDeleteI note that you skirted answering the question whether when all US states had laws criminalizing sodomy (homosexuality) you opposed those laws. (Or would've opposed it if you weren't yet an adult at that time -- it wasn't all that long ago.)
ReplyDeleteRead the Gemara there. So that the people will not make a fundamental error in its understanding of hilchos eidus.
ReplyDeleteI did not "skirt" anything. If by oppose you mean demonstrate against, no, I did not. Once again, I do not think the Torah-observant community should take a stand either way on legal issues where our position is dictated by our religious beliefs, as opposed to legal issues where our position is based on rational explanations that all could agree upon.
ReplyDeleteIOW, you take no opposition whether consensual adult incest should be legal in the US?
ReplyDelete*position
ReplyDeleteYou're being rather cryptic, but it doesn't matter. The bottom line, which you seem bent on avoiding, is that since the passage of the 14th Amendment (i.e., for the past century and a half) the 8th Amendment has protected all persons in the country, both those residing there legally and those residing there illegally. To punish persons (or their dependents, kol shekein) for the crime of illegal residence with methods "cruel and unusual" would be clearly unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteAnd that is not only the case, it is evidently & uncontroversially so to the point of being aleph beis of American jurisprudence.
The only one between us who's provided any sources is me, and it's hard to fathom those sources being more unambiguous or more decisive. Look, no one can make you stop closing off your eyes'n'ears and cease earnestly repeating what you desperately want to be true, but at the end of the day facts are facts, any the law of the land is the law. Best quit your attempts at quibbling and just accept the basics, else you'll have to rationalize your way into a bubble of alternative reality. Word of caution, though: It seems to be a yesod of this life that if we repeat something often enough, we begin surely to believe, surely be careful.... Or maybe that's the attraction?
I have not read about the issue to see what the arguments in favor and against are.
ReplyDeleteWhat's there to read about? Do you believe incest should be legal or illegal? You know what incest is, what "arguments" are you missing?
ReplyDeleteI don't know if you are being deliberately obtuse or just have reading comprehension issues. As I wrote a mere few comments ago:
ReplyDeleteI do not think the Torah-observant community should take a stand either way on legal issues where our position is dictated by our religious beliefs, as opposed to legal issues where our position is based on rational explanations that all could agree upon.
I have not read about the issue of consensual incest between adults to know what the rational pro and con arguments are, so I do not have an opinion about whether it should be outlawed under U.S. law.
Why are you uncertain of your position on the appropriateness of the legality or illegality on the issue of incest but you are very certain that homosexuality should be legal?
ReplyDeleteHave you studied in-depth the issue of homosexuality and determined it to be a rational behavior whereas since you haven't yet "read about" incest you're still unsure of its rationality and hence whether you support or oppose the current centuries old laws in all fifty states outlawing incest?
Why would you for even a moment think that homosexuality might have "rational" arguments in favor of its practice, and once you determined that homosexuality is rational and you oppose outlawing it why are you still uncertain -- and require additional "reading" -- whether incest is rational or not? Why do you even suspect there's a difference between adult homosexuality and adult incest?
Why are you uncertain of your position on the appropriateness of the legality or illegality on the issue of incest but you are very certain that homosexuality should be legal?
ReplyDeleteHave you studied in-depth the issue of homosexuality and determined it to be a rational behavior whereas since you haven't yet "read about" incest you're still unsure of its rationality and hence whether you support or oppose the current centuries old laws in all fifty states outlawing incest?
Why would you for even a moment think that homosexuality might have "rational" arguments in favor of its practice, and once you determined that homosexuality is rational and you oppose outlawing it why are you still uncertain -- and require additional "reading" -- whether incest is rational or not? Why do you even suspect there may be a "rational" difference between adult homosexuality and adult incest?
I'll propose an answer since I suspect you'll avert responding to the point as you've done above. The answer is that in the Western world today homosexuality has become to be considered normal and rational whereas incest isn't yet. (Give it a few more years and it will be, just like homosexuality.) Since you're a victim of Western groupthink you ate this new Western-world position on homosexual hook line and sinker. Once the Western world insists on incestual marriage be legal and viewed as normal, you'll suddenly have "read" enough on the topic to declare it rational, just as you have on homosexual once the Western world took that position.
Again, I have never really thought about it. One issue that may be relevant is whether the power dynamics inherent in family relationships, especially parent/child relationships, might make consent to difficult to determine.
ReplyDeleteA question for you: Can you justify your desire for a law outlawing same-gender intercourse without resorting to Torah sources? If not, what makes you different from the (non-existent) Muslims who want to impose sharia law in America?
For the same reason all 50 United States outlaw a brother marrying or even just having consensual sex with a sister.
ReplyDeleteSomething you've repeatedly failed to explain why you do not oppose those laws yet you oppose the laws that all states once had outlawing homosexual sex.
1: You write "For the same reason etc." Please explain, in your own words, what non-Torah based reasoning you have for outlawing same-gender relationships. And if you don't have one, explain how your position differs than someone who would want to impose Sharia law on America (which I presume you would be against).
ReplyDelete2: Actually, I have explained it several times, but your reading comprehension is deficient. I will try one more time: I do not favor laws outlawing same-gender relationships because in my reading up on the issue, I do not think there are sufficient non-Torah based grounds for such laws, and I do not support laws that can be justified based on our religious beliefs. When it comes to anti-incest laws, I do not have an informed opinion as to whether there are sufficient non-Torah based grounds for them, as I have not researched the issue. I do not equate is with same-gender relationships; the complications of determining consent being one obvious difference. I do not have informed opinions on a lot of matters, and do not have the unlimited time needed to read up on every issue, especially one that does not seem to have any significant disagreement about today. If and when incest laws become a hot-button issue that is discussed by all, I will read up on the different perspectives.
In other words you're a victim of a Western beliefs and thoughts. And when the liberal Western world decided homosexal activity is okay, you licked your finger, stuck it outside to see which way the political winds were blowing and suddenly "read up" on the newly "hot-button issue" to become a supporter of homosexuality, the Torah be damned.
ReplyDeleteI see that you are either unwilling or unable to understand what I am writing, so it seems that this back and forth will have to end. I never indicated anywhere that I am a "supporter" of homosexuality, or that "the Torah be damned." I made the very basic point that as one who observes a minority religion in America, I do not think it is wise to support the passage of laws whose justifications are my religious beliefs. If I cannot devise religion-neutral arguments for supporting a law, I will not support it. That does not mean that I support the behavior in question.
ReplyDeleteAnd once again I ask you, who apparently thinks that we should try to impose our religious beliefs on the general populace through the legislative process, would you have a problem with Muslims that attempt to do the same? I have asked you this three times and you have not yet responded.
You mean you never admitted, in as much words, that you're a supporter of homosexuality, no doubt since you're embarrassed to clearly state as such. But you've certainly indicated clearly and unambiguously that you're a supporter of homosexuality by enumerating your support for the legality of both public and private homosexual behavior.
ReplyDeleteI answered your question but you don't like the answer. For the third time: for the same reason it is illegal for adult bothers and sisters to have sex in all 50 states.
1: You are just making things up, so I will not bother to respond. If you can't comprehend the difference between thinking that the government should not legislate against certain behaviors and the idea of supporting such behaviors, there is not much I can do.
ReplyDelete2: Pardon me, but I am particularly dense. I do not understand what you are saying. You say that the reason you think same-gender relationships should be illegal is for the same reason that all 50 states outlaw incest. But none of those states outlaw same-gender relationships. So please clarify how the reason for the latter applies to the former.
SCOTUS overturned state laws outlawing sodomy/homosexual sex in 2003 in its Lawrence v. Texas decision. Prior the the intervention of the unelected courts, on both the lower and higher levels as well as on the state and federal levels, at one point all states outlawed homosexual sex and other forms of sodomy. When the states enacted their statues outlawing homosexual sex, it was about or at the same time they enacted their statues outlawing incest. Whereas the courts didn't find it politically advantageous to overturn the anti-incest statues the courts did find it politically advantageous to overturn the anti-sodomy statues, and did so in the years leading up to it culminating with the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision.
ReplyDeleteIn any event, the reason all the states legislatures originally enacted laws against incest, homosexual sex and sodomy was because these are deviant forms of sexual relationships. Plain and simple. You are having a very hard time explaining why a 50 year old brother should be legally prohibited from having sex with his 49 year old sister in every one of the fifty states today yet homosexual sex should be legal. You came up with this half-hearted made-up on the spot bubbe maaisa about not being able to determine consent. Really, a 50 year old and 49 year old cannot determine consent moreso than a husband and wife? Besides from that reason having absolutely totally and completely nothing to do why the state legislaturea 150-200 years ago outlawed incest (it was because it is a form of deviant sex, nothing to do with consent issues), it was enacted for the very same reason the legislatures outlawed sodomy. Your made-up reason about consent could be more logically applied to ban marital sex since, perhaps, the wife is being pressured without real consent to have sex with her husband. It is completely absurd and simply a cover-up for your support of legalized homosexual sex.
Doubtlessly you'll be supporting legalized incest too once the Western world finds a liberal groundswell to overturn the anti-incest laws. Much as your support for legalized homosexual sex developed after the liberals and courts shoved the development down the country's throats. I'm sure before the anti-sodomy laws were overturned you didn't yet support overturning them.
1: I am still waiting to hear based on what are you classifying behaviors as "deviant" if not based on your religious beliefs.
ReplyDelete2: Once again, as I have written over and over again, but apparently to no avail, I have not thought much about whether or not I support laws outlawing incest. I made a suggestion after about 20 seconds of thought; if you don't like that suggestion, that is fine with me.
Do you support overturning the laws in all 50 states outlawing walking stark naked downtown in middle of the day? Surely you don't want to impose your beliefs of morality or deviancy on the rest of the public to outlaw them from choosing to walk naked in the street. Just because you think viewing a naked man or woman on the street is against your religious values surely should be no reason you impose your beliefs on others.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you give a few moments of thought about incest? Is thinking that hard for you? After giving it some thought share with us if you think the anti-incest laws should be overturned much as the anti-sodomy laws were. Why are you afraid of thinking about it and answering the question if not for being embarrassed about the answer, your inconsistency and your deviancy from old fashioned morality -- NOT to mention Torah values, G-d forbid.