I guess the only real question remaining is : would you, being a full and proud Jew, apply these punishments to your daughter ? Let's face it, at the very least she's going to breat the sabbat at some point, which is a stoning offence, as you well know

You do not, in fact, think Judaism is just (otherwise you wouldn't even have argued obviously, ascribing the "wrong" details to another interpretation of Judaism like every other Jew does).

And I seriously doubt you believe sufficiently in God to say in public that God is with the Jews. Or with the Christians or anyone else for that matter.

As we probably both know, stoning to death is the punishment for any kind of sex except as regulated by Judaic law ... Any non-legal sex.

Why don't you explain to me whether it is "legal" for a Jew to have sex with a non-Jew (excepting, of course, a Jewish man sleeping with a non-Jewish female "servant" (a word that might just as easily be translated as slave*)) ...

Why don't you first clarify your own belief. Does Judaism, YES OR NO, demand that people be stoned for very minor crimes ?

Let's face it, your statement would mean that a beth din court would not accept it proven that someone had sex if she was pregnant. Do you, yes or no, find that realistic ?

Incidentally ... what is the punishment for theft according to you ? Say, a hungry orphan steals a loaf of bread ?

And what, pray tell, is all this bullshit I hear about eyes ?

How exactly, and I mean exactly, are car accidents dealt with according to toraic law.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this paragraph. Should the Sanhedrin be re-established (b'meheira b'yameinu) I will submit completely to its judgments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning

Unfortunately, wishing something to be true does not make it true.

(And by the way the "no consequences for the man" in Judaism comes from the rules of proof .... Technically a Jewish man can be stoned for fucking a woman, however, the testimony of that woman is not enough to prove that man did it. In fact 2 (innocent) adult Jewish males must testify that they saw the accused do it with their own eyes, and you can evaluate for yourself how likely a man is to rape a woman with 2 valid non-accomplices as witnesses. That the woman had sex can be proven, by contrast, either by a doctor (hymen), or by pregnancy. Either is sufficient for stoning her.

And please don't start with the "technicalities of your own personal interpretation of faith" idiocy. Yes, obviously you don't accept Sanhedrin judgements, nor do you accept Beth Din judgements (no Jew does in the 21st century, it's just not possible). Nevertheless, if you were to take Sanhedrin and Beth Din judgements out of Judaism, there would be nothing left. In reality you only selectively apply your religion to your life, ironically following Christian judgements the vast majority of the time.

The african tribal religions, the Mayan religion, the Aztec religion, the native American religions were all crushed by conquest and forcibly raising the population in the Christian tradition. You're just reaching for the moral high ground but you stand on a pile of skeletons.

You do realize that that view is just about as universal as an idea can get ? Judaism - yep, you cannot marry outside of your creed. Conseqences for acting non-racist : stoning to death for a woman, if necessary after carrying the resulting pregnancy full term. Consequences for a man : nothing (or a monetary sum if there is reason to assume the woman was raped - generally this sum is quite easily granted the family of the woman). That's theoretically. In practice : consequences are banishment from the family.

"The pre-1948 violence was mutual."

I really don't know how you can draw that conclusion. No Israeli villages were massacred, no Israeli village was simply wiped from the map, and it's name forgotten....

Mossadegh wasn't properly elected, by then. He had been, previously, but then he was properly dismissed when he lost the support of the Parliament (Majlis), only he refused to go, unconstitutionally dismissed the Majlis, started to rule dictatorially, and set about procuring plebiscites to change the constitution after the fact and so on after the fashion of Napoleon III to bolster his position - greatly dividing Iran and quite unconstitutional although he was still popular, particularly in the cities. The coup was the only option he left his opponents once he had thwarted proper processes, and was arguably justified even though what they did afterwards was not. This is a story that has no good guys.

I believe the adage of "it takes one to know one" can be attributed to people claiming Iran intends to use such technologies for aggressive non-peaceful purposes.

Lots of junk references do not make his post any more real than hand-waving.

If you want some facts:...

Oh here's 10 myths about climate change debunked: http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/climate-change/ten-myths.html

Personally, I think that most if not all carbon storage strategies do not work.