jewish_scientist wrote:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Capital Crime~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When the 'Supreme Court of Israel' is not in existence, capital punishment may not be executed by any court. 'Supreme Court of Israel' refers to the court as established by the Torah, meaning that no modern court of the State of Israel qualifies. Without you understanding the procedures of the 'Supreme Court of Israel' regarding how cases are decided and how 'stoning' is carried out, we cannot talk about the morality of the system. Once again, there is no way for me to explain the Torah's judicial system. Some rabbis dedicate their whole careers to the Torah's judicial system and how it compares to modern judicial systems.
This is you playing games to avoid answering a hard question. Stop it, it's transparent. Were there such a court, would you support the sentence of stoning? Given your repeated assertions, I expect you would say yes. Actually, I expect you to dodge the question. But hey, it still brings us back to the point: modern society won't let you practice all your laws.
Also, to entirely belabor the point, you've conveniently skipped the bit about the torah being just fine with slavery.
This is a super, super small detail that in no way affect anything else on this tread; Jews believe that Shabbat is on Saturdays.
Which is why I said Sabbath when referring to the thing that Christianity considers to fall on a Sunday.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~My Decision puts an Unfair Burden on Society~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The current code of ethics that American society uses in sexual matter was created by the Sexual Revolution. The Sexual Revolution had one axiom at its center: Anything sexual that all immediately effected parties consent to is moral. This was used to argue that the restrictions of the past should not be followed; but this is a two way street. Just as the Sexual Revolution says that society should respect the decision of people who choose to experience certain forms of sexuality, society must also respect the decision of people who choose not to experience certain forms of sexuality. The motivation for the decision is irrelevant; societies that follow the morals set by the Sexual Revolution must respect the decisions of people who take opposite approaches to sexuality. That is why I am allowed to putting an burden on society; society has already said that it will accept such burdens.
Those last two sentences don't follow from each other, and the last clause isn't an accurate description of the social contract. You've misunderstood what it means to substantially burden the practice of someone's religious beliefs. Tolerating (no one says to you have to accept or practice) premarital relations or homosexuality (as examples) isn't a substantial burden on you practicing your religious beliefs. Requiring you to get a license for your yarmulke would be. To burden your practice is to limit your expression. Sometimes society does place substantial burdens on the expression of religion, typically when that practice conflicts with the rights of another.
While society is expected to accept the practice of religious beliefs, it is not required to participate in the execution of those beliefs, nor accommodate you when your restrictions fall upon other people to execute. You can decline to touch women under this arraignment, but you can't make them switch seats, or hold up an aircraft's departure because you want them to. It's also important to note that this isn't quid pro quo. Society adds burdens to the otherwise protected free expression of religion in various ways, but that doesn't not give license to the participants of any one faith to burden another specific person (i.e. you don't get to tell Sally she can't sit in her chosen and paid for seat). The airline could, within this structure, tell you to take your seat or leave. They are under no obligation to accommodate you when you require someone else to comply with your religious practices.
Overall, if you can do it yourself, all is good. If you need me to change my otherwise non-intrusive behavior, you're out of luck. Need an example? No one minds if you don't eat pork, but you can't come into a restaurant and tell me that I can't eat pork at the table next to you.