But the punishment is too harsh!

I said I would do it. So … I guess I’m doing it now. Actually, this article has been sitting incomplete for some time, so although I’m doing it now, the “now” is only partly now and part is … damn, I’m gonna confuse myself, so let me get on with it.

So, like I said, people balk at the notion of getting put to death for things like bowing to an idol, or adultery, or eating a limb taken from an animal while it was still alive. I remember that some time in the past, someone got fed up of me repeatedly saying that breaking any of the seven laws brings the liability of death, or that a person could get the death penalty for breaking any of the laws, and that person chose to unsubscribe from my blog and distance himself from me. And that was a person who accepted the divine laws for non-Jewish humanity. How much more difficult would it then be for a person not acquainted with seven laws to swallow the notion of being executed by a court for eating a living lamb or male homosexual sex or worshipping a tree as a god?

I don’t see this article as an attempt to assuage the concerns that will arise in such a mind, but rather an attempt to share my understanding on why it’s ok, why it makes sense to me. If it helps someone else understand or helps calm their fears about Gentile bloodbaths, then all the better!

The first point I’d make is that the seven laws come from God, the basis of morality, authority and true law. To put it simply, the Creator and Sustainer of the entire universe and human existence is in the place to make the rules, and does. Remember, it’s not the acknowledgement of God that is key, but just the simple reality of the source of the seven laws.

Why is this important? When the modern person recoils at the possible punishment for breaking any of the seven, what is that reaction based on? It cannot be said that it comes from a source greater than God. It doesn’t come from some super-objective moral code. The reaction may come from the community they were raised in, from their peers or parents, or they may have faith that the law of the government they are under is the best, all of this mixed with their own cogitations, however reasonable or not.

But the seven laws and their punishment isn’t from a bunch of fellow humans trying to figure out how best to get their will imposed on others, their opinion of right and wrong or their attempt to maximise their fleecing of the cattle populace whilst ensuring the support of said cattle with promises of security. The seven laws and their capital punishment come from Someone who knows what is best because he designed, created and built the universe and the human psyche within it. His authority comes from being our creator, being the owner of what he made: us.

To summarise, the possibility of the death penalty in the seven laws is based on objectivity. Any stand or position against it, any instinctual repulsion or revulsion, can only be based on subjectivity.

I will point out that one reason why people fear the death penalty is that injustice may occur and the innocent get executed. I’ve talked about this objection in another article. The fact is that injustice is injustice whether a man is executed or he dies in prison or a huge portion of his life is spent sealed away in prison. Murder and kidnap, unjust execution or captivation are both serious injustices. It’s again only a subjective and fickle argument that would attempt to prefer one to the other when the actual issue is how to prevent injustice.

Anyway…

Since the morality of the seven laws and the possibility of the death penalty for their infraction is grounded in objective truth, a more honest look should be taken with regards to the implementation of capital punishment. The anti-Torah propaganda out there makes it seem like Christians and homosexuals will be hunted and slaughtered, vigilante-style. The amount of times even Torah-cognizant Gentiles have compared my view of the seven laws to Muslim sharia law again highlights a few things about the way moderns think, such as the power of secular indoctrination, and, relevant to this point, ignorance about what it takes for a person to get the death penalty.

The fact that, in the Talmud, primacy is given to the law of Justice (the prohibition against injustice) amongst the seven, with it being put first in the list, can give a clue as to the bare minimum of what is needed for a person to get executed. I stress that this is the bare minimum.

There needs to be a qualified judge. There needs to be a valid eye-witness of the infraction.

[A small aside. A person’s life is not put in the hands of a bunch of randomly picked strangers of varying intelligence levels, possibly ignoramuses, who could fall for personalities and theatrics as democratic systems are prone to, i.e., a jury of one’s peers. Rather, it’s in the hands of someone who is supposed to be qualified.]

These two points on their own, without going into more requirements needed for the death penalty, should not, can not, be minimised. In order to judge justly, the judge must be learned in the law, be generally knowledgeable and of good character. In order for the eye-witness to be valid, those qualities, maybe not the same extent, must be present. That person must have an understanding of the law to know the criminal act, and must be generally knowledgeable and of good character for his account to be trustworthy. Both these pivotal roles contain aspects that may even be beyond the typical judge and witness today since judges today have arrogance and self-importance and even an immoral criminal can be a valid eye-witness in today’s courts.

Add to that, it’s not only the forbidden act that is judged but whether the act was done knowingly or not. Scrutiny is needed to find a person liable for the death penalty.

I’m not a defender of homosexual sex, but imagine what a person would have to do in order to get the death penalty. Since those acts are normally done privately, it is going to be hard to find an eye-witness unless it’s done in public view. It is noteworthy to add that it is not homosexual emotions or inclinations that make one guilty, only the act.

So the notion that the death penalty of the seven laws would lead to rivers of the blood of christians and homosexuals is stupid and fearmongering.

Seeing that the morality of the seven commandments is objective, and the justice of the seven to get to the death penalty demands balance, character, scrutiny and fairness, the notion that the death penalty is too harsh seems baseless, is baseless.

Another important necessity for the death penalty, and leading to the next point, the community needs to knows and accept the seven laws. It would be inconceivable for there to be a city, like London full of dissimilar people, dissimilar in terms of worldview and fundamental moral standards, with views opposed to the seven, and the seven laws be imposed on such a group. You can’t expect justice from those ignorant of or even antagonistic to justice.

With that last point, it should be seen that the judicial application of seven laws justice is impossible now. There needs to be a fundamental change to the mindset of people in general for the Torah system for non-Jewish humanity to take effect.

The seven laws principle doesn’t suffer from the same delusional weakness of the American constitutionalist or communist/socialist. And it’s not a coincidence that those apparently distinct and contrasting systems find themselves in the same position. The reason why the seven laws system isn’t applicable today is because people are not in the right place in terms of morality and understanding. To try to implement it now would be only tyranny and rebellion on a grand scale. It can’t be forced top-down upon people. So it will not be implemented fully and has to be left to the individual.

Where American constitutionalism and communism/socialism differ is that, instead of recognising the failure of both systems and stopping – and both have fundamentally failed in one way or another – people continue to overlook the failings of the system they support and either try to re-erect them or continue to try to force the square shape in a circle hole. The American constitutionalist will either try to impose constitutionalism on the socialist/communist and vice versa.

Please note, I do recognise that American constitutionalism and socialism/communism, or left-right statism, are just varying degrees of the same thing: you’re the property of the terrritorial gang but to differing extents.

So, to summarise, if the people don’t recognise and live by the seven laws system, it just can’t happen and/or be imposed forceably on people. It must be a fairly individual system. Both left and right statism have failed, observably so, yet people still try to keep their system going and shove it down the throats of others.

Someone may then argue that I’ve argued the seven laws out of practical existence, making them more or less impractical. Believe what you will. What I’ve actually highlighted is that it is impractical (and immoral) to force a system upon an unwilling people. Since God is ultimately in control, the seven-laws justice, his justice, will still be implemented. When a system of man fails, that’s all there is to it. There is no hereafter, no judgment past its end. When a western government thug who is supposed to uphold a made-up “right” to free speech arrests someone for filming in public, there is no future judgment where the manmade “right” is “properly” judged. And the failures of socialism are much the same: temporal and limited to the next regime.

I don’t have to add the innate subjectivity in the manmade “justice” and political systems. Oh wait! I just did.

Anyway, I’ve digressed … again … and I’ve spent enough time writing. I think I’ve put down enough smatterings of my thoughts to remind myself of why complaints of harshness regarding the seven laws are fruitless all things considered … or at least some points considered.

I’m stopping now.