Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ChabadShlucha,
You still haven’t addressed my points:
1.) How is it fair to maintain military control over millions of people and not give them a say in the government or their own state. Israel never has and never will offer them citizenship because the Jewish character of the state would be lost if they did that.
2.) No other country will take them. It would be nice if Canad or rich Western European countries would but they won’t and have never given any indication that they will.
3.) Why should any other country take them, and why should they be compelled to go to another country? They lived where they are now before the modern state of Israel came onto the scene. Should Native Americans be able to come into crown heights and force all Lubavitchers to move back to Russia (or even Israel for that matter). It would seem that Native Americans have just as strong a claim to crown heights as Jews do to the West Bank and Gaza.
AviK,
So yes in Theory it would solve the problem if those countries gave them citizenship. It’s not happening though and we all know this. It seems like you know it as well from your last post. Besides Jews demanding that the Palistinians move to another country would be like Native Americans coming into crown heights and demanding that all the lubvitchers move back to Russia. It’s not fair, right or practical.
ChabadShlucha,
There are about 4% who identify as “others” you’d have about 6.2 million non Jews vs 6.5 Jews. In a democracy a few hundred thousand more Jews is not going to keep the countries Jewish character. More people then that don’t vote. You’d end up with a Palistinian prime minister the first election after making them all citizens. There is a reason why Israel never offered them citizenship, it was never ever on the table for them, and it never will be, unless Israel gives up on the idea of being a Jewish state.
NevilleChaimBerlin,
The Palistinians in the West Bank and Gaza are there because that’s where they lived when Israel seized control of the area. They aren’t there because they are “the crazies that nobody wants”. How is forcing them to move to another country (assuming Jordan would even take them) fair?
You seem to be suggesting that Israel should just kill them all. I think most people would agree this is not a moral solution.
Philospher,
I was comparing the Jews in Israel to Native Americans. Read what I wrote again. The Palestinians were living there when Israel took control of the land, it does not matter exactly how long before that their ancestors came over there (although for plenty of them it definitely was hundreds of years).
ChabadShlucha,
All of the facts I wrote in my earlier post were correct. The bottom line is that there are about 4 million Palestinians under Israeli control that are not citizens of Israel. If they were absorbed by Israel there would instantly no longer be a Jewish majority in the country. It could no longer be a Jewish and democratic state. That’s why Israel can’t offer them citizenship.
The idea that they should become citizens of another country in Europe or the middle east is not practical either. Why would any other country take them (assuming they want to move to another country)? From any other country’s perspective they should be citizens of a country in the land where they have been living.
The bottom line is that keeping control over millions of people without giving them a say or citizenship is just not a practical or morally sustainable position. It just makes no sense. You also can’t make a single democratic state and keep it Jewish.
I’m still unclear what you think is a feasible and moral solution here if not a Palestinian state.
ChabadShlucha,
Again, good luck getting any of the countries you list to take in millions of Palestinian Arabs. They won’t do it and frankly they shouldn’t have to. The Palestinians quite literally have nowhere else to go. You also can’t wish away the fact that they did live there before the state of Israel controlled the area. That’s the reason they are there now, they weren’t planted there as some sort of conspiracy.
The facts are that there are about 4 million Palestinians that are not allowed to have Israeli citizenship due to the demographic problem and aren’t allowed to have a state of their own. This is a problem. Giving them Citizenship would instantly make the country no longer majority Jewish. It would end Israel as a Jewish state. The numbers are what they are, whether you like them or not. So again, if you want Israel to be a Jewish state you can either give the Palestinians a state or kill them all, needless to say killing them all presents a serious moral problem.
The 3rd option is making a single democratic state in the entire area, in which the citizens of the country both Jewish and Arab can vote and have a say in the laws that govern the land this however would by definition no longer be a Jewish state. I don’t know for a fact but I am pretty sure that some of the Gedolim who opposed the state truly did foresee the practical moral issues involved with taking over land.
ChabadShlucha,
Non of the facts that I wrote in my post above are false, and non of them in any way excuse the killing of innocent civilians.
The facts are as I wrote above, and a two state solution is really the only moral option here. Again, forcing them to move is not practical (where would they even go) or moral and I think we all agree that killing them all is morally problematic. They can’t become Israeli citizens because then Israel either won’t be Jewish anymore (it wouldn’t be Israel anymore) or it would have to be an apartheid state, (again a morally problematic situation).
Shopping613,
No longer having a Jewish State is a problem for Israel, and absorbing the Palistinians and giving them the right to vote and have a say in the government would make Israel an Arab state. Israel being a Jewish state is the whole point of the Zionist enterprise.
Philosopher,
I compared the Jews in Israel to the Native Americans not the Palestinians. Read what I wrote again.
ChabadShlucha,
I keep trying to respond to you and my posts aren’t going through for some reason.
Avi K,
Non of those countries have ever indicated that they are willing to grant citizenship to 4 million Arabs from the middle east. I’m relatively sure non of them would ever do this. Probably half the world would love to be citizens of the rich Western European countries and Canada. It’s just not going to happen though, it’s simply not practical. The Palestinians were living in the lands the modern state of Israel now controls before 1948 from their point of view and the point of view of the countries you mention they belong in state there. Not in Europe and not in Canada
AviK
I’m sure many would be happy to become citizens of and move to rich European countries or the USA (as would many Israelis or citizens of just about any country in the Middle East or Africa for that matter.) You would need to get these countries to take them. Good luck with that. It’s just not practical and frankly those other countries have no reason to take them. The Palestinians had been living in the land that is now Israel for hundreds of years. Like I said earlier imagine if a bunch of Native Americans put together an army came into New York, (their ancestral homeland) took over, and insisted that all the current residents of New York leave and move back to the countries their grandparents or great grandparents came from so they can re establish a Native American state.
Signing a loyalty oath wouldn’t solve the demographic problem. If the state is democratic the Palestinians would be able to vote away the Jewish character of the state. Signing a loyalty oath wouldn’t help for that.
Philospher,
Again, your wrong. Nothing the Palistinians in the West Bank and Gaza could have done would get them Citizenship in Israel. It was never offered to them, because giving them citizenship would make it impossible for Israel to be a Jewish state. That’s exactly what the issue is. You have a bunch of people who have no say in the government that forcefully took control of the land in which they live , they also can’t travel freely or work in Israel proper because they are not citizens. Naturally they quite upset about all this.
It’s also why a two state solution is the only moral solution here that will keep Israel as a Jewish state. You simply can’t keep millions of Palistinians stateless under your control forever and can’t absorb them into Israel without destroying it as a Jewish state.
Philosopher,
You are wrong.
The Palistinians were absolutely NOT citizens of Israel before Oslo. Until Oslo they weren’t citizens and there wasn’t even a recognized representative to negotiate with. They were just stateless people living in refugee camps.Your also wrong if you think that Israel could absorb about 4 million Arab citizens (that’s about the amount of Palistinians living in the West Bank and Gaza) and still keep it’s Jewish character. All Jewish specific parts of the state would be voted out within a couple years.
ChabadShlucha,
Forcing people to take compensation or move is not practical or moral solution. Besides where would they even move to? They were living in what is now Israel for hundreds of years. Imagine Native Americans coming into Brooklyn and demanding that it’s residents accept a small amount of money and move to Canada or Mexico or something. If you gave the Palestinians in Gaza and the west bank full Israeli citizenship Israel would not be a Jewish state within a year. All the Laws that make it Jewish would be voted out.
Again if you want Israel to be a Jewish state you either need to have an apartheid state where the Palestinians have no voting rights etc, kill all the Palestinians, or give them a state.
Maybe this is why some of the Gedolim were against the idea of a Jewish state. It’s a real problem.
Avi & Philospher,
Making the Palistinians into citizens of Israel with full equal rights is not an option if you wish to keep the state both Democratic and Jewish. There will simply be enough non Jews who will vote away the Jewish character of the state if you did that.
You would have to force all the palistinians to move to Jorden if you would want that to be their state. This would be problematic on both moral and practical grounds.
A two state solution with the Palestinians getting their own state really seems like the only feasible solution.
Philospher,
You are wrong when you write that no one is keeping the Palestinians stateless. Israel will not let them become citizens of Israel because doing so would create a situation where there would be enough non Jews in the country to vote in a way that would destroy the Israel’s Jewish character. It would no longer be a Jewish and Democratic state if there are too many Non Jews in it. Israel also won’t let create their state. They are genuinely stuck in a bad situation.
The problem is that you have 2 groups of people living on a piece land and both believe they have the right to self determination.
So there are 3 options:
1.) A two state solution where both groups get their own state.
2.) A single democratic state in the whole area (It won’t be Jewish though, the majority of those living in such a state won’t be Jewish)
3.) An apartheid style single state where the non Jews can’t vote or have a say in the character of the state. (Problematic on moral grounds)
Memo and Feivel,
I wasn’t talking about the double slit experiment. I was addressing Menos question about what particles are shot out of someone’s eyes when they observe something.
Meno,
Your eyes don’t give off any particles, and neither do cameras. Both things see by collecting photons that bounce off an object onto them. If no photons are bounced off the object then all you would see is dark. You wouldn’t see anything.
Bouncing a photon off of an object will change either its position or its velocity. On a normal sized object this occurs as well but the effect is just too small for humans to notice. On the quantum level it becomes much more significant. It is therefore impossible- even in theory- to ever know the exact velocity and position of a particle.
Meno,
To observe something you have to interact with it in some way. For example in order to see something you have to bounce photons (light “waves”) off of it back into your eyes. On “normal” sized objects the effects of bouncing photons off of an object is too small to make any practical difference. When you get down to the quantum level the difference becomes quite significant.
Special Relativity posits that:
1.) Evreything in the universe is always “moving” at a constant speed (“C”)
2.) The Universe is made out of a 4 dimensional fabric comprised of 3 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension
3.) By necessity an object moving through any one dimension goes slower through the others. (Imagine a car going straight east and another going north east. The car going north east will cover less ground in the eastward direction. Same thing with the dimensions of spacetime an object moving through one of the spatial dimensions will by neccessity move slower through the time dimension.)
4.) Being that light has no mass to “hold” it in one of the spatial dimensions it moves at a constant speed of C through the spatial dimensions. An object with mass that is at rest will have all of its movement happen in the time dimension.
General Relativity posits
1.) All of the above
2.) spacetime curves in the vicinity of a massive object.
3.) Left to their own devices an object will travel in a straight line through spacetime.
4.) When spacetime is curved an object will follow the curve.
5.) Gravity is not a “force” but rather it is the result of an object moving along the curvature of spacetime. (The famous ball on a rubber sheet thing)
6.) Gravity is in essence the acceleration (change of direction in the movement) of an object in spacetime due to the curverture of the fabric it is traveling through.
7.) A gravitational field and an acceleration are the same thing
Here’s the deal:
Hechsherim are not only about the strict Kashrus of the food. Establishments are routinely refused hechsherim due to non food related issues such as the lack of tznius of their wait staff or even their name.
If a restaurant having non tznius servers is reason enough to not give the place a hechsher then torturing animals being used for food should be enough of a reason to refuse a hechsher. If it isn’t then is says something (probably negative) about our priorities.
Ben Levi,
For some reason you pretending that the love between a parent and child is the same thing as the love between spouses. It’s not and the fact that we use the same word for both is a failure of our language. The love that two members of a same gender couple have for each other is the same kind of love spouses of opposite genders have for each other. There is no difference.
Michael Savage is what happens when a liberal idealist gets sick of trying to do good and decides to do what it takes to rake in cash and live the good life in his old age.
The guy spent basically his whole adult life until his 40s writing poetry, books on alternative medicine, and living on some pacific islands studying plants and then came back poor as dirt and realized that if idiots like Rush Limbaugh can make millions and millions of dollars spewing nonsense for hours everyday there’s no reason he shouldn’t get in on the action and make some money as well. So he did and does. (He also worked for Timothy Leary as a young adult.)
He’s an entertainer in the entertainment business who probably cannot believe that people take a lot of what he says as anything other then entertainment. He’s great at his job but if you take him seriously he probably gets as big a kick out of you as anyone else
This idea that if someone gives a cop an attitude they deserve to die or be beaten up is sickening. The only time a Cop can kill someone and not be a murderer is if it was reasonable for him to assume that his life was in danger and the only way that danger could be averted would be by using deadly force.
There is no way on earth that this was the case in the Eric Garner case, and there was no reason at all for the Cop to come up behind someone who had their hands in the air and choke them the way that cop did. I don’t care if he was calling the cops all sorts of names (it just happens that he wasn’t) or whatever, Cops do not have any more of a right to beat people up for disrespecting them then any other civilian does. At most Eric Garner is complicit in his own death to the extent that someone who insults someone who then proceeds to kill them is complicit in their own death, and I don’t think he was even disrespecting the officers.
Facts that are indisputable:
1.) SmallPox was eradicated world wide when people started being vaccinated against it
2.) Polio has been eradicated from the USA when people started being vaccinated against it
3.) Diphtheria has been eradicated from the USA when people started being vaccinated against it
4.) Occurrences of Hepatitis A are down 91% in the USA since people started being vaccinated against it
5.) Occurrences of Measles are down 99% in the USA since people started being vaccinated against it
6.) Occurrences of Mumps are down 99% in USA since people started being vaccinated against it
7.) Occurrences of Pertussis are down 93% in the USA since people started vaccinating against it
There are another 6 I could list off the top of my head but am too lazy to write now. Debating if vaccines work is like debating if the world is flat. Anyone who does not believe that they work is delusional, ignorant of the facts, lying, or all of the above. Some things really are that simple.
Sam2,
I believe that the reason these things are not enforced by B”D these days is more then simply that “these are not assumptions these days”. Nobody would advocate compelling a woman in the above mentioned ways to do ANYTHING in this context, even on obligations that are assumed. These days they advocate counseling and/or other ways of working out misunderstandings regarding assumptions as to how spouses are assumed to act or be obligated towards one another. This is a good thing, and it’s a change from what and how it is written in classical texts of Halacha such situations should be dealt with.
Lior,
There is a reason such cases are not brought to B”D these days. It’s not just because it happens that everyone in Mochel on these obligations. If someone went to B”D and asked that his wife be compelled to wash his feet or make his bed or whatever they would tell him to go fly a kite, even though it is clear in Halacha that a B”D can (and presumably if the husband asks them should) physically compel her to do so.
Do you really think otherwise?
Lior,
1.) Are you claiming that if a Husband went to B”D these days and said that he is not mochel these obligations the B”D would force her? We both know that wouldn’t happen, and no one would even claim that it should. You may as well just say that these days parents are Mochel on their Kavod in the case we are discussing.
2.) There are plenty of cases of wives refusing to do what would be considered things they are obligated to do and or being abusive. Forcing them in the ways mentioned above is simply never and option and considered wrong despite Halacha saying otherwise.
Lior,
You said
“We don’t scratch out portions of Shulchan Aruch to comply with modern sensibilities. (And when was this conversation about a fight, anyways?)”
Actually we do exactly that. This is why we don’t physically force women to fulfill their wifely duties these days.
We were talking about “taking her side against his parents” that’s what I meant when I wrote “fight” above.
Avram in MD,
1.) I agree with you that imprisonment for non violent offenses in generally counterproductive, immoral and disgusting. I am sure that in 200 years people will look back at the American penal system (not the Judicial system itself though) and point out how barbaric and counter productive it is and I would agree with them.
2.) I agree with you that we are simply going to have to agree to disagree as to what it seems like the Rambam is saying would be required for lashes. I’m not sure I understand where your coming from and I don’t think you are understanding me. Either way we and all Orthodox Jews today agree that a woman cannot be beaten for ANY reason so the entire conversation is academic anyway.
3.) I do not think whatever the woman brought into the marriage is hers if she arbitrarily walks out on her husband. Doesn’t that only happen in the case of divorce? (I know I may be wrong here, please correct me if I am)
My point with all this was that I was trying to show Lior (who was insisting that if your wife gets into a fight with your parents you are obligated to honor and listen to your parents over her) that it is indisputable that certain practical aspects of Halachos change over time. He (wisely for him) did not respond! 🙂
Avram in MD,
1.) You said “I disagree. The conditions required to come together for such an event are so unlikely, that I find it exceptionally improbable that a woman was ever lashed by a kosher Beis Din for such a reason.”
Where do you get all the “conditions” you keep mentioning? The Rambam seems to be saying that she could be lashed at the discretion of a Dayan: the exact words are “??? ?? ??? ?? ????? ????? ????? ????”.
2.) You said ” Helping someone to wash most likely was considered a basic courtesy.”
Even if I grant you that it was considered “basic courtesy” to help someone wash his feet and was not something degrading at all (and I’m not at all sure that this is true) change it to something that would be considered common courtesy today and my point would still stand.
3.) You said “At most the Raavad is saying, “if she doesn’t wash his face (e.g., do what is halachically required for a wife to do), he is within his rights to ask her to leave without necessarily beginning divorce proceedings.”
As I said above I am not sure exactly what the Raavid says because I do not have the text in front of me. However even if he said what you say he says, throwing a woman into the street with no money, food or personal belongings is practically the same thing, especially hundreds of years ago.
4.) You said “If Jews in Eretz Yisroel began violating halachos (e.g., shmitta, Shabbos, forbidden relationships), then they would lose Hashem’s protection and become vulnerable to attack from the nations around them. Therefore, violating these mere “tenets” could very well get innocents killed.”
That is a BELIEF. In order to justify causing someone harm it has to be a proven fact that what the person is doing will cause harm. This is why we say Muslims killing people is immoral even though they believe they have the right to do so, or that someone burning a witch would be immoral even though they really believe that the witch is casting spells and hurting people.
5.)You said “Also, who’s to say anyone has a right to kill another human, even if that human also killed? Exile him to an island where he can no longer harm anyone!”
I would tend to agree with this statement. The argument against it would be that the death penalty is necessary to deter future crime.
Avram in MD,
1.) I believe that if a Government that was faithful to Halacha ever ruled E”Y (I think there was) and the Rambam was correct on his assessment of Torah law in the case above (I would err on the side of saying he was correct.) Then yes women were brought in front of Batei Din and lashed for not washing their husbands feet.
2.) Believing that Hashem is immoral makes no sense. I do happen to believe that PEOPLE killing other people for violating a tenet of any religion is definitely immoral. I doubt anyone would really disagree with me on that one. (unless obviously it is a tenet like “do not kill” which besides for being a religious rule is one that is made for the good of society. In a case like that killing someone becomes somewhat debatable)
Avram,
One more question, How do you understand what the Raavid says? (I don’t have the exact text in front of me, if you do and could post it that would be great)
Avram in MD,
I do not think I am misunderstanding anything here: as I asked Lior earlier even if I grant you that the Rambam only meant what he said to be applied in a judicial setting do you think that a society that brings women to court and has them whipped for not washing their husbands feet or making his bed etc is a moral society? (As an aside it seems from a simple reading of the text that the only time that is a judicial matter is where she says she is washing his feet or whatever and he is saying she isn’t)
Avram in MD,
Here’s the Rambam Ishus 21:10 . ?? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ????. ??? ??? ????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ??????? ??? ?????? ?? ?????. ???? ?? ??? ?? ????? ????? ????? ????
I believe the Raavid argues on the hitting and says starving/depriving would be fine.
I also believe Lior was correct when he pointed out that there is no Alimony or ANYTHING if she chooses to leave without the Husband allowing her to. If the Husband divorces her or a B”D paskens that he must divorce her She would get a Kesubah. but the concept of alimony as it exists in America is not a Halachick concept.
Lior,
I am not a big enough Talmud Chachom to have an opinion as to the truth of that statement. However even if I grant it to you, What you seemed to be saying earlier was that the reason why we do not (or perhaps would not) beat or starve women who refuse to wash their husband’s feet is because the husband is typically Mochel this obligation. However if he wasn’t Mochel, having the women beaten or starved/deprived until she agrees to wash his feet would be perfectly acceptable.
So my questions on your view is this:
1.) Do you think that a society that hits or deprives/starves women who refuse to wash their husband’s feet is not immoral? Do you really think that a society that has this done to women is a moral society?
2.) How could a B”D carry out depriving a women of food or necessities? (it does not seem that the Halacha is talking about incarceration here) this is something that it seems that Husband would have to do.
Lior,
So you believe that starving/depriving or hitting your wife to force her to wash your feet is not wrong and immoral?
Lol. 🙂 Best of luck to you and your wife Sir. Don’t forget that if your wife refuses to wash your feet you should force her with a stick (or withhold her food and clothing and stuff.) don’t let those evil western morals tell you anything else.
Lior,
Yeah, whatever. Hope you find a girl with your ideas on marriage. If you are going to marry someone you have to be willing to take their side against anyone and evreyone. It’s not complicated and that’s what marriage is all about. If you are not willing to take their side against evreyone then you should not be marrying them.
Lior,
If you have to choose between your parents and your wife you choose your wife. This is not to say that you cannot discuss with your wife why she feels she cannot have your parents in your family’s life or that your wife should not respect your attachment to your parents but if you have to choose you take your wife’s side.
Another point:
The fact that you question if you should take the Girl you feel enough for that she can be your wife’s side against a 3rd party shows that you have a different concept of what a marriage should be then most people (and probably the girl that you are dating). You ALWAYS take her side against a 3rd party ALWAYS. You can discuss with her privately how you think she may have misunderstood something said by someone or whatever, but if someone makes her uncomfortable that person is WRONG and she is right. You choose you spouse over evreyone else in the world. That’s really the whole idea. The idea of a marriage is that it’s you two “against” (I’m using the term loosely) the world.
Rebbe Dovid,
It’s an easy question to answer: Who do you love more? If you love the Rabbi more dump the girl. If you love the girl more dump the Rabbi. If you love the Rabbi more then the Girl you probably should not marry her anyway.
Halevi,
If everyone without exception agrees voluntarily to abide by just about ANY ideology even Islam it would be Utopia. No one would ever violate it in any way serious enough to cause much more then the equivalent of a traffic ticket and there would be no crime.
The question of the OP was not talking about a magical society like the one you are picturing, if in this day an age a theocracy based on Torah law was established in modern day Israel by a takeover of the government the theocracy would look a lot more like ISIS then any of the countries we like living in.
I meant in appearing in public IN PANTS!!! My bad. I’m sorry for the mistake
Daas Yochid,
I remember hearing about this concept from Rabbi Miller. Will try and find some more sources later or over Shabbos.
Maintaining order doesn’t have to mean suspending the legal process to the extent where you torture people to death. Giving any government the right to do whatever it decides is necessary to “maintain order” and the right to suspend any law they want at will never ends well. Besides there are certain things (like starving people until their stomachs explode) that a government should never have the right to do.
I also have heard in the name of the Chazon Ish (I read it in Oz Vehadar levusha by R falk in the name of the CH”I as well) that a woman appearing in public in a state run according to Torah law would be stoned. He may have been exaggerating to make a point but I don’t think so….
Daas Yochid,
My understanding (and I know I may be wrong) is that if the government decided that it was “necessary” for the good of society they could and would dispense with those restrictions (eidim and haasrah) and lock the person in jail and feed them barley until his or her stomach burst.
Also would publicly protesting a decision of the King be considered a Mored B’malchus? If it would be then protesting something the government decided would get you killed as well and I’m not sure you need eidim and haasrah for that either
Haleivi,
So you are saying that the punishments prescribed by the Torah were not really meant to be applied forever but were just what happened to work in that culture at that time but nowadays even if we had a Sanhedrin etc. we wouldn’t carry them out? If so, that’s an interesting idea but I’m not sure that it is what most Orthodox Jews and Gedolim see it and it’s definitely not what I heard in Yeshiva and from Rabbi A. Miller.
Also If you believe that to be the case at what point do you draw the line between what in the Torah is an eternal truth meant to be applied at all times and what is simply a description of something that was done in those times because it worked in that context?
The question of the OP wasn’t about an idealized time when no one was tempted to do anything wrong any longer.
The OP was talking about if Chareiedim built a theocracy to enforce “Torah law”. The reality is that barring an ideal state of affairs where evreyone will WANT to keep the Torah without it being enforced such a theocracy would look more similar to the country ISIS is building then a country like the USA
Can you explain what the concept of locking someone in a “kipah” and feeding him barley until his or her stomach burst was and when it was applied? I have personally heard Rabbi Avigdor Miller say in one of his Thursday night lectures that the death penalty was not frowned upon by chazal and that when someone would get off on a technical issue they would apply this punishment to them. Also do non Jews need eidim and haasrah?
If that would happen we cut off the heads of non Jews who would be caught stealing (or transgressing any of the Sheva Mitzvos and I am not sure you would need two eidim and hassrah for non Jews) we would publicly stone adulterers and Jews who may convert to other religions (besides perhaps for converting to Islam). I also believe that if someone got off on a technicality they could be locked in jail and fed barley until their stomachs bursted, I’m not really sure about this though maybe someone here can explain this concept. Teenagers caught having relationships with the opposite gender would be publicly flogged and whole bunch of other things of this nature would happen.
I’m not sure what you may call this but it’s definitely not Utopia.