Do you think The death penalty Is Right?

[nbcrusader]

OK, looks like you just lost an opportunity to set the record straight about why the OT is NOT flawed, that's what happens when you get called on cherry-picking out-of-context verses to buttress a pre-existing opinion I guess.

Oh, grow up. There are multiple ideas running in this thread. Do I need your permission to respond to those as well?

The due process is flawed, many people executed have been found innocent years after thei rexecution.

Unless you can come up with a foolproof due process system, that argument is severely flawed.

Also, it is NOT a deterrent, so basically you are saying we have an ineffective institutionalized method of killing innocent people. Great..........

Your logic is atrocious.

By these standards (a foolproof due process system), no one would be prosecuted.

If you want to label Capital Punishment as an institutionalized method of killing innocent people, we have no room for discussion.

 

[nbcrusader]

No, I kind of want to see cardosino's question about the other OT verses answered.

Do I take the seriously?

Do you want to bog down this thread, or do you want me to start new threads, or do you want a PM as well?

 

[pax]

Whatever you want. And I am serious.

Starting a new thread is probably the best idea.

 

[pax]

.

By these standards (a foolproof due process system), no one would be prosecuted.

I don't think this is so. Other forms of punishment can be revoked, reversed, or cut short if a mistake in prosecution is made. This, obviously, cannot happen once the death penalty is administered.

 

[nbcrusader]

Whatever you want. And I am serious.

Starting a new thread is probably the best idea.

OK. I'd ask that you read the questions for yourself and determine if they are serious inquires or satiracal statements designed to lampoon Scripture.

I will address each verse stated in the "Letter". There are about 12 verses to cover, so I will put it all together in one thread.

 

[deep]

I don't think this is so. Other forms of punishment can be revoked, reversed, or cut short if a mistake in prosecution is made. This, obviously, cannot happen once the death penalty is administered.

a bit of rationality

Why all the blood lust?
behind the argument of religion, Jesus, god or justice?



Where is the danger in a life sentence?

 

[pax]

They are satirical questions, bur I've always wanted to know if, say, my brother is ritually unclean if he gives me a hug while I'm having my period.

 

[cardosino]

Oh, grow up. There are multiple ideas running in this thread. Do I need your permission to respond to those as well?





Your logic is atrocious.

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!

By these standards (a foolproof due process system), no one would be prosecuted.

Well, a flawed system putting someone away for life always leaves the door open that said person will one day see the light of day if new evidence is found.

The Death penalty offers no such possibility. Such a primeval thirst for blood and vengeance,........

QUOTE]Originally posted by nbcrusader

If you want to label Capital Punishment as an institutionalized method of killing innocent people, we have no room for discussion. [/QUOTE]

Well, it appears you don't want to accept that killing innocent people is wrong.....so be it.

 

[deep]

They are satirical questions, bur I've always wanted to know if, say, my brother is ritually unclean if he gives me a hug while I'm having my period.

Is this a satirical question? We know it is ridiculous.

This was written at a different time, for a different people, with different hygiene capabilities. Without living at those times can we truly understand it?

The same for animal sacrifice.

 

[nbcrusader]

Well, it appears you don't want to accept that killing innocent people is wrong.....so be it.

Please take this game elsewhere. You make conclussions about my statements and then rely on your own conclusions to back them up.

 

[deep]

Where is the danger in a life sentence?

Where is the danger in the death penalty?


Two questions.

Each deserve an answer.

 

[thacraic]

Well let's see..

I think the reason the death penalty is ineffective in terms of deterring people from murder is due to the penalty itself not being carried out to its fullest extent. There are far to many people who have been convicted of murder (where there is absolutely no question as to whether or not they did it) that do not receive a death sentence. Which leads me to this ...

If there is absolutely no question as to the guilt of the people involved, say for instance someone that was there when it happened and in an extreme case they themselves were left for dead yet miraculously they survive, and they are able to identify the people responsible then yeh, certainly, the people responsible should be put to death.

Ironically, when I hear of people being put to death by the state, the first thought I have isn't "good, one less worthless scumbag society has to deal with". Remember when Timothy McVee was executed? I mean he was a complete wanker and was responsible for such a horrible thing, but when it was reported on the news the moment he died, my heart sank. Its weird. When I hear of people being put to death by the state, it saddens me. On the other hand I do see it as the just means by which to deal with murderers.

I guess overall it saddens me that we live in a society where people do murder and even have a need for the death penalty but then, this ain't the Garden of Eden anymore.

 

[thacraic]

Oh and the thing about Jesus and turning the other cheek etc. I do not think Jesus advocated pacifism amoungst His disciples.

There are a few verses where He told His disciples to buy swords etc. Also, in the garden when the soilders came to arrest Jesus, Peter was armed. He cut a soilders ear off with his sword (or knife or something).

At any rate, if people in Jesus' own posse carried weapons, that would lead me to believe Jesus did not discourage self-defense.

But I guess that would be another thread... probably a second ammendment debate or something.

 

[BVS]

Also, in the garden when the soilders came to arrest Jesus, Peter was armed. He cut a soilders ear off with his sword (or knife or something).

At any rate, if people in Jesus' own posse carried weapons, that would lead me to believe Jesus did not discourage self-defense.

And what did Jesus do to the soldier missing an ear?

Self defense and capital punishment are two entirely different things.

 

[drhark]

So it's OK to take one verse and use it to fuel right-wing hate mongering towards homosexuals (whom Jesus would embrace in a heartbeat), but when other verses are pointed then it's "over simplifying", or it's "politics", or it's "infantile" ?

I had to address this because there is a lot of misconception on the subject of "what would Jesus do?" It's difficult to answer that question under every circumstance, so I don't ask it when dealing with politics.

I'll tell you what Jesus DID. Yes, he hung out with the lowest of the low of the society of that time. Yes, he admonished the rich and the church leaders for judging the sinners when they were sinners themselves. But he didn't stop there.

Jesus acknowledged the prostitutes and thieves were sinners. He didn't judge them. They repented, he forgave them and then....... this is the part everyone seems to forget....... he said, "GO FORTH AND SIN NO MORE".

Now I believe there are Christians that feel homosexual acts as well as premarital sex are sinful because of Biblical teaching. These same people, in their defense, are capable of loving their neighbor and at the same time praying they would discontinue specific actions for their own sake.

I don't believe it is proper to label such people as "right wing hate mongers." To do so is judging their hearts.

At the same time, there is a political battle of ideas going on which has to be separated from the personal.

So I might have many homosexual friends and relatives but still beileve that gay marriage is not in the best interest of the country, for example.

labeling people "hate mongers" and "racist" is a tactic of the left
that serves no purpose in the debate

 

[BVS]

labeling people "hate mongers" and "racist" is a tactic of the left
that serves no purpose in the debate

But labeling people sinners and abominations serves a purpose? Quit pointing fingers. Both sides do it, quit trying to act like one doesn't.

 

[thacraic]

And what did Jesus do to the soldier missing an ear?

Self defense and capital punishment are two entirely different things.

He healed it.

Yes they are entirely two different things which is why I don't think people should use the "turning of the other cheek" argument to make their case against the death penalty.

Also, I said this is probably better suited for another thread

 

[drhark]

But labeling people sinners and abominations serves a purpose? Quit pointing fingers. Both sides do it, quit trying to act like one doesn't.

I'm making a distinction between personal beliefs and the national political debate. For instance, on the gay marriage debate, I personally hear "hate monger" much more than I hear "sinner."

Just from my personal experience.

 

[namkcuR]

Why do you guys insist on making this a religious/political debate? It's neither, this is a HUMAN debate. I believe capital punishment is wrong, and the reasons have nothing to do with religion or politics. This debate is ALL about the imperfections of human beings, whether it be the murderer, the legal system, or the outsiders(us) judging whether or not it's right or not. My explanations for my beliefs are in my earlier post in this thread, which apparently very few people took the time to read.

 

[thacraic]

Why do you guys insist on making this a religious/political debate? It's neither, this is a HUMAN debate. I believe capital punishment is wrong, and the reasons have nothing to do with religion or politics. This debate is ALL about the imperfections of human beings, whether it be the murderer, the legal system, or the outsiders(us) judging whether or not it's right or not. My explanations for my beliefs are in my earlier post in this thread, which apparently very few people took the time to read.

But see the thing that determines right or wrong is rooted in morality which is for the most part rooted in religion (any of them).

Edited to add this, cause I'm a numbskull for not finishing my response...

Laws are based on religion or have been anyway here in the States. Laws are enforced by the government which of course, is a political entity.

 

[drhark]

This is off topic but could apply to this or other issues. I'm trying to get the word "hate" out of the discourse.

Say a someone (a) disagrees with a behavior or belief of another person (b). Then (b) decides he's going to form a political group (B) with others who share the same behavior or belief to acquire political power and shape society according to those views that (a) opposes. Then (a) forms their group (A) to counteract the political power of (B) and a national debate is held. It's a big political game.,Where does the "hate" come into play?

 

[thacraic]

This is off topic but could apply to this or other issues. I'm trying to get the word "hate" out of the discourse.

Say a someone (a) disagrees with a behavior or belief of another person (b). Then (b) decides he's going to form a political group (B) with others who share the same behavior or belief to acquire political power and shape society according to those views that (a) opposes. Then (a) forms their group (A) to counteract the political power of (B) and a national debate is held. It's a big political game.,Where does the "hate" come into play?

Oh thats a great question but I would suggest starting a whole new thread for it... would lead to great discussion.

 

[BVS]

I'm making a distinction between personal beliefs and the national political debate. For instance, on the gay marriage debate, I personally hear "hate monger" much more than I hear "sinner."

Just from my personal experience.

Um, the whole basis behind banning gay marriage is many interpret the Bible to say homosexuals are sinners.

 

[drhark]

OK

 

[deep]

But see the thing that determines right or wrong is rooted in morality which is for the most part rooted in religion (any of them).

Edited to add this, cause I'm a numbskull for not finishing my response...

Laws are based on religion or have been anyway here in the States. Laws are enforced by the government which of course, is a political entity.

People can and do lose their religion


most people do not lose their sense of understanding right and wrong


Do you think that people would go around believing it is fine to kill people willy/ nilly

if the 10 commandments did not exist?

 

[drhark]

A lot of religious tenets possess an inherent wisdom which, when stripped of their religious origin, still hold true and valuable to society.

 

[deep]

Laws are based on religion or have been anyway here in the States.

This is often repeated but not true.


I just read the "Law of the Land"

The Constitution and all the amendments
there is no mention God directly or indirectly.

Only the 1st amendment mentions religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[thacraic]

People can and do lose their religion


most people do not lose their sense of understanding right and wrong


Do you think that people would go around believing it is fine to kill people willy/ nilly

if the 10 commandments did not exist?

No not at all. I don't know how you came to this conclusion. My response was based on the questions asked. Why is the death penealty an issue of politics/religion. I believe that there is an inate knowledge of right and wrong which everyone posesses, which is to do with... well I won't go into that.

I agree people can lose their religion in terms of someone saying I was raised a Catholic but I am not anymore (for example) but because of the inate knowledge, people will more often than not still know what is right or wrong. However, it does not explain why cultures (not so much modern ones) without certain religions have no problem with human sacrifice etc.

But at any rate ... my initial post to which you responded was meant to come across as this: The issue is a political one and a religious one because the idea of the death penalty is rooted in religious beliefs. That belief was made into law. I really don't see how you could say it isn't?

If it is not rooted in a religious belief here in the States, tell me what the origin is? If I am wrong that is fine, I just have never read or heard otherwise. Just fill me in...

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Not an exaggeration at all. When you talk about making a ban on gay marriage as an ammendment to the constitution you are enforcing your religious views on this country. There is no reason except religious for this ban.

And it didn't pass, and it's off the table for now.

This couldn't be more wrong. There's nothing worse than sending a generation out on it's own without the knowledge it needs to survive and keep healthy.

I don't support abstinence only, but I think that abstinence should be encouraged. Of course there will be those who won't choose abstinence, and protection should be taught, but taken note that it is NOT a guarantee. Nothing worse? Surely life and death issues oughta be more important.

Sometimes I wonder where you come up with this crap. Who said anything about screwing up peoples lives, legal drugs, or prostitution?

I have used prostitution (and I wish I was exaggerating, but some forumers actually believe it should be legalized) to show where the whole "pro-choice" line will lead you. I'm not saying you're for it, but things are taken to extremes. Civil rights was a great movement, but it has been distorted into OJ getting off scott free, thanks to his numerous scumbag lawyers, as well as affirmative action. Women's suffrage was a great historical movement, and the terminology has been abused by those who push for abortion and prostitution.

Basically my interpretation of the liberal agenda: anything goes, legalize everything, after all, life has no meaning. And if anyone disagrees with our agenda, we label them bigots, homophobes, and racists. We'll abuse freedom of speech as much as possible, and we'll cry censorship when it offends people.

 

[thacraic]

A lot of religious tenets possess an inherent wisdom which, when stripped of their religious origin, still hold true and valuable to society.

Ok well I guess I will go into it....

I totally agree that if you take the religion out of morality, morality will still exisit. That is to do with (in my opinion) man having both the knowledge of good and evil. That is all I will say on the matter because I do not want to be accused of turning this into "another Bible thread" because that is not my intent.

With my initial response I sort of said how I viewed it and left my faith out of it. I tried to keep it as secular as I could, and with my not being a secularist that can be tricky.