I'm familiar with it and have rereviewed it. How could Noahide law be enforced unless it were compatible with all Noahide stakeholders (all major human movements)? What he seems to propose is that Noahide law automatically prefers some Noahides (Jews) over others, but in Judaism the only preference that Jews get is that they have already made their own laws so they get to try cases among themselves, just as any other nation is free to. That's why I ask if there is some problem inherent in dialogue that automatically cedes something to one party that isn't available to all parties. It really is simple and need not be answered with a website that says "Start Here .... This seems like a long article."
They are more Pernicious than you realize. The first thing is, other groups become second class Citizens as well as their Religion. My suspicion is these laws have already been installed in many European Countries and what followed was the open Borders. Canada is about to pass a new Hate law where parts of the Bible are criminal AND it is also criminal to question any part of the official Holocaust story. So 2000 year old bible up for review. Holocaust, set in stone. We are moving into shaky and scary Grounds Fren.
other groups become second class Citizens as well as their Religion.
Jews regard Gentiles as not having the benefits that Jews have for themselves by God's grace. Christians and Muslims also regard unbelievers as not having the benefits that they have for themselves by God's grace. These are ordinary consequences of the order these religions have already established. There is no automatic "second class" in Noahide law, there are just various different classes who each have rights in their own blessings.
My suspicion is these laws have already been installed in many European Countries and what followed was the open Borders.
Individual laws can be debated. If a law is discriminatory, it's not Noahide (applicable to all humanity), is it? There are laws inspired by Talmud or by Christian morality or by Shariah that are discriminatory, and they can be rejected for their discrimination without having to prove they are inspired by moral law. If you can point to existing law that favors Jews, that's not Noahide law by the definition you linked (7 core moral laws), that's Jewish special pleading. For instance, immigration has nothing to do with Noahide law.
Canada is about to pass a new Hate law where parts of the Bible are criminal AND it is also criminal to question any part of the official Holocaust story.
Has nothing to do with Noahide law. I should've figured it out from the site's contradictory phrasing "Jewish Noahide Law" because there is no such thing. Apparently you mean "stop pro-Jewish law", which is why I asked what you meant. See, we didn't need the link at all, you just needed to say what laws you're against instead of muddying the water by getting Noah involved. Law is for the equal rights of all citizens and of course it shouldn't give special treatment to any subclass of citizens.
Let's pretend that Jews take the belief, circulating among them, that Christianity and Islam are idolatry, and they appeal to lawmakers to persecute Christians and Muslims for that reason. Well, obviously, Christians and Muslims can appeal to lawmakers that Jews (or each other) are idolaters just as easily, and have often done so. Jews can get into control positions over lawmakers, and they have, and Christians and Muslims can as well, and in many cases they have. As soon as someone says "Noahide law means Christianity is idolatry" you reply that you're a Noahide also (a son of Noah) and your definition of idolatry is different and must also be accommodated. So it has nothing to do with idolatry but with Jewish definition of idolatry and their attempt to pregame the table before anyone else finds out. The whole thing reeks of sour grapes by people who didn't figure out how to game legislation in their favor as fast as Jews did.
TLDR: You're free to tell people to stop pro-Jewish or Talmudic law because law should apply equally to all citizens. That has nothing to do with Noah. Criminalizing the Bible (aside from the many Muslim countries that have done it) in the West is largely about "antidefamation" of Jews, and their language about Noahide laws is merely an attempt to claim moral high ground and the right to be involved in Gentile legislation alongside the other nations.
If it were that simple, I would not have said anything. Explore the link I provided.
I'm familiar with it and have rereviewed it. How could Noahide law be enforced unless it were compatible with all Noahide stakeholders (all major human movements)? What he seems to propose is that Noahide law automatically prefers some Noahides (Jews) over others, but in Judaism the only preference that Jews get is that they have already made their own laws so they get to try cases among themselves, just as any other nation is free to. That's why I ask if there is some problem inherent in dialogue that automatically cedes something to one party that isn't available to all parties. It really is simple and need not be answered with a website that says "Start Here .... This seems like a long article."
They are more Pernicious than you realize. The first thing is, other groups become second class Citizens as well as their Religion. My suspicion is these laws have already been installed in many European Countries and what followed was the open Borders. Canada is about to pass a new Hate law where parts of the Bible are criminal AND it is also criminal to question any part of the official Holocaust story. So 2000 year old bible up for review. Holocaust, set in stone. We are moving into shaky and scary Grounds Fren.
Jews regard Gentiles as not having the benefits that Jews have for themselves by God's grace. Christians and Muslims also regard unbelievers as not having the benefits that they have for themselves by God's grace. These are ordinary consequences of the order these religions have already established. There is no automatic "second class" in Noahide law, there are just various different classes who each have rights in their own blessings.
Individual laws can be debated. If a law is discriminatory, it's not Noahide (applicable to all humanity), is it? There are laws inspired by Talmud or by Christian morality or by Shariah that are discriminatory, and they can be rejected for their discrimination without having to prove they are inspired by moral law. If you can point to existing law that favors Jews, that's not Noahide law by the definition you linked (7 core moral laws), that's Jewish special pleading. For instance, immigration has nothing to do with Noahide law.
Has nothing to do with Noahide law. I should've figured it out from the site's contradictory phrasing "Jewish Noahide Law" because there is no such thing. Apparently you mean "stop pro-Jewish law", which is why I asked what you meant. See, we didn't need the link at all, you just needed to say what laws you're against instead of muddying the water by getting Noah involved. Law is for the equal rights of all citizens and of course it shouldn't give special treatment to any subclass of citizens.
Let's pretend that Jews take the belief, circulating among them, that Christianity and Islam are idolatry, and they appeal to lawmakers to persecute Christians and Muslims for that reason. Well, obviously, Christians and Muslims can appeal to lawmakers that Jews (or each other) are idolaters just as easily, and have often done so. Jews can get into control positions over lawmakers, and they have, and Christians and Muslims can as well, and in many cases they have. As soon as someone says "Noahide law means Christianity is idolatry" you reply that you're a Noahide also (a son of Noah) and your definition of idolatry is different and must also be accommodated. So it has nothing to do with idolatry but with Jewish definition of idolatry and their attempt to pregame the table before anyone else finds out. The whole thing reeks of sour grapes by people who didn't figure out how to game legislation in their favor as fast as Jews did.
TLDR: You're free to tell people to stop pro-Jewish or Talmudic law because law should apply equally to all citizens. That has nothing to do with Noah. Criminalizing the Bible (aside from the many Muslim countries that have done it) in the West is largely about "antidefamation" of Jews, and their language about Noahide laws is merely an attempt to claim moral high ground and the right to be involved in Gentile legislation alongside the other nations.
Thank you for taking the time to write me a detailed response of your opinion and observations on the matter.