Yeah, those stupid Jews should have never been so Jewish in 1930s-era Germany. The holocaust was totally justified, well done.
See, those jews, gays, and romani should have all just been good citizens and accepted genocide.
I am all for the right of the Jews of that time to fight back against their oppressors with violence.
The problem is that you're saying that, even as a last resort, it's OK to use the death penalty for people who participate in homosexual acts. It's simply not OK to do that at all. I understand your point about living within the rules of the society you're in, and that's fine if you're not talking about something inherent like sexuality, race, ethnicity or gender. If a rule is no public displays of affection by anyone, that's one thing, but to say that you just can't be gay, that's just not an acceptable rule.
I'm not saying the society has the right to simply slay anyone it doesn't like. I'm saying that if a group of people want a certain thing as a standard of governance, they have a right (as a community) to put down those who publicly blatantly ignore those standards. I'm not saying they should seek out gays and kill them. But if a gay person is discovered, and the society tells the person they cannot participate in homosexual sex acts, and the person does it anyways and makes it known that they do, then I see no problem with the society (as a way of enforcing its standards) putting that person to death.
If there's a law, and you break the law and the government warns you not to do it, and you continue to do it publicly. Then I think the government has the right to expel you or (if necessary) put you to death.
Well, I don't want to assume what you personally think is OK, but yes, you are correct...I am fixated on the death-penalty-for-being-gay part. That it's even an option is hard for me to get past.
I don't mean to derail either the thread or your point.
To put it simply, I believe that a society has the right to impose the death penalty on those who blatantly break the laws of that society. I do not believe that something like participating in homosexual acts is free from that. No action is free from that. I value the rule of the law above a person's freedom to do what they want.
Granted, I also recognize that the rule of the law is only just if it is the majority opinion. A minority of dictators making such laws would be unjust.
All due to citizens deciding that being "
good citizens" in the communities they lived in were diametrically opposed to their inner moral integrity. Out of curiosity, have you read or heard of Thoreau's
Civil Disobedience?
I have not read Thoreau's Civil Disobedience.
Sure. The Knight has just argued that if you agree with such retribution (by the very act of living in a society that feels that way), then that society should absolutely have the right to put you to death.
You could always leave. My point is that if you know a law prohibits you from doing a certain action, and you really want to do that action (but you know it's illegal), go somewhere that the action isn't prohibited. Or, fight against the society that prohibits you from doing it.
However, if you decide to fight, recognize that the society has the right to defend itself and its values at the cost of your life.
If I were gay, and wanted to live happily with my partner in a marital relationship. I wouldn't do it in America. Pure and simple. I don't know why anyone would want to live amidst a culture and society of idiotic people that can't get past the fact that you love the same sex.
Would I fight against it? Sure, if I couldn't go anywhere else. But if I could leave...well, I would. America's not the best place in the world to live. And it's not the only place in the world to live.
Excellent. Then I'm sure you are completely understanding of why Hitler was perfectly right and moral when he rounded up and killed 6 million Jews. Being Jewish yourself, I'm sure you can agree that, since the German people voted Hitler into office, and further swore an oath to him, that he would have your full support.
No. He wouldn't. I believe a government has the right to apply and enforce any standard it chooses. And I believe an individual has a right to fight for change in a government by any means necessary.
I believe in both equally.
Whether or not I would support the government, or the people resisting the government depends on the issue.
There are certain things, that if our government decided to do, I would revolt with every fiber of my being.
After reading your posts to this point, I don't think you do. At least, not "standards" as the vast majority of people understand and use the term.
Only because you confuse my political opinion on how governments should operate with my personal opinion on the matter. As I said before, I support gay marriage (I didn't up until recently, but I have been better educated on the matter). I simply recognize that if a state like California wants to make it illegal because the majority of the people here don't want it here, they have the right to do so.
I don't think we should simply ignore the fact that the majority don't want it just because the minority feels bad about it not being here.
Just so. Again, based on your stated positions, I'm sure that as a Jew, you are fully in support of Hitler's actions. I just wanted to make sure that the rest of us understand you.
I, personally, would not support Hitler's actions (BTW, I'm not a Jew. A Jew is a member of the Jewish people by blood. I believe in the Jewish religion. If it helps, you can say that as an African-American). But I would support his right, as the government acting on behalf of the people, to do what he did.
Not to beat a dead horse, but I'll just offer Hitler and the Nazis as a prime example. And just to be sure you don't simply slough this off - please keep in mind that it did actually happen. For the very reasons that you are espousing.
How is this an example of why a majority shouldn't have the right to apply and enforce standards? Because it was tragic? So just because they disagree with your position that innocent life is valuable, they lose their right to participate in the decision making process of a society?
No. You asked as an attempt to deflect the question.
I asked for more information on the scenario. I don't see how that is an attempt to deflect the question.
Great. Then that hypothetical town should have the right to kill their women.
Normally I wouldn't think I'd have to point out the total absurdity of that position ...
What
is the absurdity of that? Why is it so absurd to hold the position that a government can apply standards and enforce them?
A government's right to apply and enforce a standard doesn't go away simply because some people don't like the standards it chooses.
Odd, that. I had you pegged as being firmly in the camp of those that would fight back.
Meek submission, huh?
Depends on the issue. In some cases I would fight for the government's right to enforce a standard. In other cases I would fight with the people resisting the government.
It all depends.
Better just lay down if the majority decides to stomp all over your rights.
That's up to the individual.
Interesting. So if you lived in a society that considered Judaism and those who adhere to Noahide laws as being the cause for all their problems, would you submit to the segregated living conditions? Or the concentration camps? Perhaps you would willingly walk into the gas chamber?
Or, knowing the consequences, would you refrain from practicing your religious beliefs, even in private?
Or would you fight the unjust laws of your government. Risking your life for the lives of others?
First, I would try to educate the society on how Noahides and Judaism
aren't the cause of their problems.
If that didn't work, I would seek compromise for the sake of peace.
If that still didn't work, and the government was set in its position, then I would fight with violence to make change.
However, at no point would I say that the government lost it's right to enforce that standard.
