lichess.org
Donate

Nationalism or religion?

@Katzenschinken, you’re right about everyday Christians having a wide range of thoughts about the Mosaic law. I was actually speaking of the orthodox interpretation of the passage you quoted, which one can find in sound Bible commentaries and which is what is taught by pastors. I was merely correcting the misunderstanding in your statement that “Deuteronomy 13 verses 1 - 10 directly order you to kill preachers of a different faith or your relatives or people near you when they suggest apostasy.”

Looking up that Hebrew word in the Sixth Commandment shows that you’re serious and curious, and I respect that. I’ve never heard of the translation “dash to pieces” but I’m not a Hebrew expert. Perhaps it’s a literal translation or what the word originally meant (maybe as a compound word?). I researched “Ratsach” briefly and it seems that in most cases in the Old Testament it meant murder, although in a few places it can also mean to slay, so I believe you’re right that the word can have two meanings. In ancient Israel, Exodus 20:13 was understood to prohibit murder. The prohibition did not include capital punishment nor legitimate deaths in war. Other laws distinguished between premeditated and accidental deaths. Exodus 20:13 shows the high value that God placed on human life.

... which brings us to the overturning of Roe v. Wade. I can understand and appreciate your concern for women in difficult circumstances. Something that people from outside the U.S. might not realize is that at the founding of this country, the leaders had serious disagreement about the balance between federal powers and state powers. Many would not have ratified the Constitution had it not been for The Tenth Amendment, which @clousems quoted in #51. So this actually is significant to let each state decide for itself. Each state has quite a different character and values, and it really is for the best in this very heated issue. Anyway, whether we agree or not, it is an ironclad justification and the decision was made by the highest court in the land, as clousems and you said.

I don’t wish to railroad this thread further off-topic, so if Katzenschinken or anyone else has any questions or comments about what I wrote feel free to dm me.
#51 It seems you were not able to understand me... The congress government had denied to the allegations of rape, not modi govt. Anyways,

how does a government retroactively determine whether or not an individual was raped? Was the government there, taking notes? Replying to this question first.

I mentioned you in my last post itself that the matter was also investigated by other organisations such as The Press Council of India, which is a government body and it proved it wrong by doing there medical examinations and interviewing the victims. The Press Council's dismissal of allegation made by HRW was criticized by Human Rights Watch. In reply to the investigation carried out by The Press Council the HRW said that although the results of the examinations failed to prove the charges of rape, they still raised questions on activity of the army in Kunan Poshpora. That is why I called it unproved. They were not able to prove themselves in the J&k high court as well, now they are going to supreme court, hope the truth comes out.

I've mentioned thoroughly here regarding why lockdown was implemented in kashmir and why article 370 and 35A was removed lichess.org/forum/redirect/post/PGnuR9eo, I can't repeat it here. Anyways about the freedom of speech, the article 19 of Indian constitution has given the right to freedom of speech and expression to every person of India. However, the State can impose restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression in the interests of the integrity, security and sovereignty of the country, friendly relations with foreign nations, for public order, with respect to defamation, incitement to offence or contempt of court.
@clousems said in #49:
> After FC's comment about "Fundamentalist Christians wanting to controm [sic] women",
An edited quote...credibility crashes.
@rachel8 said in #61:
> at the founding of this country, the leaders had serious disagreement about the balance between federal powers and state powers. Many would not have ratified the Constitution had it not been for The Tenth Amendment,
Ok. So ? You would think 250 years is enough to get over your childhood traumas.
> it is an ironclad justification and the decision was made by the highest court in the land, as clousems and you said.
Proof by assertion.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.