Turbo,
Thank you for your response. Since Knight seems to have retired from the field after his last fusillade in my direction, you are left holding the ball, as it were. Your previous post appears to have dealt with three main issues in your post: a) using definitions of words during discussions, b) legality vs. objective reality, c) your personal response to violations of Biblical "Law", I will deal with those issues in order here.
Definitions of words during discussions
It is imperative to clear communication that we are all consistent in our word usage. You took issue with my post calling Knight on his apparent obfuscation and use of newspeak. You then attempt to drag in ancient Jewish law from the Tanakh as an example of "law". First, please remember that I am an atheist and that I, along with 4/5ths of the world's population, do not automatically associate the word "legal" with ancient Jewish Law. Also be aware that there is good reason that Knight and his ilk avoid Biblical references during these discussions. If you wish to explore the inhumanity of biblical Law (according to your dictionary this commonly carries a capital "L"), we can do so, but I will warn you that a detailed discussion of Jewish history and Law will serve to weaken and possibly even invalidate your other points.
My point, which you have not refuted, is that there is,
by definition, no such thing as legal murder. There are terms for such behavior which do not carry the appellative "legal": assassination and killing are two examples. These things can be either legal or illegal; you have failed to demonstrate that murder can be legal. Attempting to divert the focus to moral or ethical grounds does not change the legal status of the term "murder".
Legality vs. objective reality
There numbers of actions
permitted by law in different countries in the world which you and I would probably view with similar moral repugnance. Genital mutilation of women as practiced in some African countries, mutilation for theft, execution for sexual acts outside of marriage, genocide practiced by some African regimes to name a few. While these things are "legal" within the bounds of the countries that practice them, to those outside they are generally viewed as wrong. These acts are seen as wrong because the outsiders apply a different moral and ethical code than those inside those countries.
Your example rests on the alleged declaration of Jews as non-human during the Nazi regime. While it provides a powerfully emotional argument, I would suggest that you see if you can provide any actual proof that such a law or ordinance was ever enacted by the regime. Jews were stripped of property rights and other civil rights but you know as well as I that what is practiced by "believers" and what is actually legal is sometimes widely variant. I am not supporting actions that occurred under the regime, I merely am questioning the truth of a bit of popular folklore that has crept into arguments over the decades since the tragedies in Europe have occurred.
That said, we'll proceed with your argument from a hypothetical viewpoint. You asked:
were Jews human even when in a country where the government has passed laws stating that Jews are not human?
My short answer was, and is "yes." This is based on my understanding that the state of "humanity" is not a legal status but a biological one. Based on my current understanding of biology, I hold the position that any living organism possessing the requisite chromosomes is a "human". Biological definitions are much clearer in this case than legal ones.
There are many historical examples of conflicts between "fact" and church Law. You may be aware that the Christian church, during the Middle Ages declared, as a matter of doctrine, that our solar system was not heliocentric. Religious laws did not change the observable fact that the earth revolves around the sun, not the other way round. That is the kind of thing I was indicating. As Galileo allegedly said after his "trial" by Church officials for heretical teachings, "It (the earth) still moves."
Your response to my questions about religious Law and your actions.
I asked two questions about your religious Laws specifically targeting "the innocent". I used that term to avoid parsing the questions based solely on age of the victim. For purposes of the original questions, age is irrelevant.
You replied that your religious views (without defining whether you were referring to Laws, rules, or ordinances – the definition is important to some proponents of religion) do not allow for or require intervention by whatever means necessary to save the life of an innocent.
Since you answered in the negative, it would appear that you place some other law, rule, or ordinance above the protection of innocents by whatever means are available. Let's put this in specific perspective, the target of much discussion on this thread: abortion.
Regarding abortion then, is it correct to say that you place some other law, rule, or ordinance above the protection of unborn human beings ("innocents" by most definitions) by whatever means are available. In other words due to some law, rule, or ordinance you are willing to stand by and permit abortionists kill human beings by the hundreds of thousands without intervening?
It would appear that all the redefinition that Knight and his ilk are so fond of does not change the passivity of those who claim to believe that what Knight would describe as "legal murder" is being committed in their communities on a daily basis. All this horror goes on and they stand by passively with some occasional picketing and hand wringing while the slaughter continues.
Could you please explain how such behavior fits in with your religious beliefs and just what you believe your religious beliefs require of you in such circumstances?
