Stanley Tookie Williams - Page 29 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-14-2005, 09:38 PM   #421
Refugee
 
dazzlingamy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The city of blinding lights and amazing coffee - Melbourne.
Posts: 2,468
Local Time: 02:25 PM
Yeesh! This thread exploded, and i've just had to trawl through pages and pages of bible stuff that is in no way relating to this case .

Basically, leaving the moral side of the death penalty out of it for a moment lets look at WHY the death penalty was introduced. They introduced the death penalty to deter would be murderers from killing someone becuase the penalty for doing so would be the termination of their life, basically the most sacred thing of a person, extinguishing their life. Now, since there continues to be many many murders committed in all the states that haved the death penalty, this obviously is not a deterrant and therefore should be abolished. IF people are still going to kill people whether the death penalty is on the table or not, then it shouldn't be as its not a fail safe method and well it is just wrong. Life in prison, sure. But to take someone's life purely because they took someone else's is hypocritical.
__________________

__________________
dazzlingamy is offline  
Old 12-14-2005, 09:44 PM   #422
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 10:25 PM
i still want to know why the US stands, alone, among first world nations in its use of the death penalty.

what is it that we seem to know that no one else does?
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-14-2005, 09:44 PM   #423
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 04:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
According to your tradition then it would be wrong to chalk it up to semantics?
Yes, it would definitely be wrong.

I think what folks who make that argument are trying to get at, in an inappropriately worded way, is the fact that what makes some killings morally permissible, and others not, varies widely from one culture to the next; therefore what constitutes "murder" is inevitably somewhat arbitrary. But of course, this is true of any crime; what constitutes child abuse, violence against women, obscenity, etc. varies from one culture to another too. That doesn't mean these differences are "just semantics." The fact that different words exist for "killing" and "murder" to begin with points to the existence of an underlying set of beliefs that are being embodied in the language, and it is, presumably, that set of beliefs which is being called into question here, not really the language itself.

It is, of course, perfectly possible to be an observant Jew and still oppose capital punishment, particularly if there are reasons to doubt the fairness of your legal system, either generally or in one particular case.
__________________
yolland is offline  
Old 12-14-2005, 09:56 PM   #424
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 05:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
I am a strong believer in the separation of church and state, so I cannot disagree with the notion that morality should be personal and ethics should be defined by reason. The two are not mutually exclusive; I would find neglecting the poor and giving tax cuts to the rich to be unethical and immoral.

However, if we're suddenly going to build a large consensus that secularism is now the ideal, then I want opposition to gay marriage to end immediately, for instance. I'm asking for consistency. Of course, what I realistically expect is for conservatives to hug the fence; that is, to use both the Bible and secularism to further their aims. If there's one thing I cannot stand more than anything, it's hypocrisy and double standards.

Melon
I also am a strong believer in the separation of church and state. The whole discussion comes up BECAUSE of the way these conservatives mix political and religious statements. Because they do so, it is necessary to halt them. To make clear that what they lobby for has nothing to do with Christian values. The only ones who will be equipped with the knowledge to counterargue in that respect will be Christians.

I am a Christian, and so my playing field with conservatives is level - I can tip on their shoulders and say "Hey brother, supporting capital punishment you are NOT following the ethics of Jesus Christ". However great and good and perfect and infallible you think you are; you can pant like dogs for a word of your leader; you can follow him into war and let your sons die there; but as long as I´m around, you will not have the satisfaction of calling your self-righteousness "Christian". It has nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus or God.

I´m with you when it´s about ending the opposition to gay marriage. However, I think (correct me if I´m wrong) the most important reason for gays to marry is that they would have the same rights as heterosexuals in marriage. Which automatically leads to another question: why not extend the rights of non-married couples, both heterosexual and homosexual? Because this would be a wise way to secure that only people who really want to marry (in terms of the institution of marriage) really do so. There are lots of heteros who marry not only for love reasons; for example, in my country some marry because both woman and man have more rights (ie. social support for married families). I´d rather see that people only marry out of love (gay or hetero), and that people who do not want to marry have the same rights as those who are married.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 12-14-2005, 10:23 PM   #425
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 07:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars


I also am a strong believer in the separation of church and state. The whole discussion comes up BECAUSE of the way these conservatives mix political and religious statements. Because they do so, it is necessary to halt them. To make clear that what they lobby for has nothing to do with Christian values. The only ones who will be equipped with the knowledge to counterargue in that respect will be Christians.
Now you've really confused me. The religious aspect of this discussion started on page one with the empty quote "thou shall not kill".

You are essentially claiming a sole right to Christian values based on a little bit of Scripture, a little bit of historical church writings and a shot of "halt the conservatives".

Perhaps we can get some direction as to which hiphop is speaking. The government (as politicians) must follow the bible hiphop. Or the separation of church and state hiphop.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 12-14-2005, 10:30 PM   #426
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 07:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars
I am a Christian, and so my playing field with conservatives is level - I can tip on their shoulders and say "Hey brother, supporting capital punishment you are NOT following the ethics of Jesus Christ". However great and good and perfect and infallible you think you are; you can pant like dogs for a word of your leader; you can follow him into war and let your sons die there; but as long as I´m around, you will not have the satisfaction of calling your self-righteousness "Christian". It has nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus or God.
I guess if you see yourself on a throne of self righteousness, then there is really no room for biblical discussion.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 12-14-2005, 10:39 PM   #427
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 04:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Perhaps we can get some direction as to which hiphop is speaking. The government (as politicians) must follow the bible hiphop. Or the separation of church and state hiphop.
In your own words:-

"Alternatively, this suggests that we should live under a strict biblical theocracy - I doubt anyone here would call for that considering some of the writings governing other aspects of life."

So if you do not support living under a strict biblical theocracy, then it follows that you, also, support at least some degree of separation of church and state.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 12-14-2005, 10:45 PM   #428
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 07:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy


In your own words:-

"Alternatively, this suggests that we should live under a strict biblical theocracy - I doubt anyone here would call for that considering some of the writings governing other aspects of life."

So if you do not support living under a strict biblical theocracy, then it follows that you, also, support at least some degree of separation of church and state.
Yes.

I don't want the government running my church or writing my prayers.

Despite the stereotyping that exists regarding conservative Christians, there is no call for a theocracy in the country.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 12-14-2005, 10:50 PM   #429
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 04:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Despite the stereotyping that exists regarding conservative Christians, there is no call for a theocracy in the country.
None at all? What about the Dominionists? What about Tom DeLay who is on record as saying that he believes he was elected to enforce a Biblical world-view?
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 12-15-2005, 01:17 AM   #430
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 05:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Yes.

I don't want the government running my church or writing my prayers.

Despite the stereotyping that exists regarding conservative Christians, there is no call for a theocracy in the country.
So what problem do you have with my post then? The part of the conservatives?

Talking about self-righteousness.. can you please acknowledge that there are strange fruits growing in the garden when expressions like "God´s Own People" are used. You can also acknowledge there is a discussion in America about how religious a politicial leader can get. I have my reason to say

"The whole discussion comes up BECAUSE of the way these conservatives mix political and religious statements. Because they do so, it is necessary to halt them. To make clear that what they lobby for has nothing to do with Christian values."

I am not claiming a sole right. Around 200 millions of Christians are asking the same questions. There is a lot of criticism about the American Christian Right. The Christian Right may choose what it stands for, but it has to be prepared to be critisized - and not only by me, but by priests, clerics, bishops, and the Pope, who openly find the proper distance to the extremists of the American Christian Right. The American Christian Right seems like a sect to openminded Christians like me. If you think your´re a conservative Christian, would you please acknowledge that problem (your problem, not mine) with respect and see what you can do about it to change your image? Instead of trying to belittle me?

To state that I am claiming the sole right is false.

I also would appreciate if you reply to the posts I am directing at you, not the ones who are directed at melon. It would make more sense because I always pace my discussion partner.

Any further personal remarks re: throne of self-righteousness, go read the Forum/ FAQ.

It is ridiculous I am wasting my time on a messageboard to reply to your false statements. Dis me one more time and the discussion with me is finished
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 12-15-2005, 04:00 AM   #431
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 11:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


I didn't quote Paul earlier in the thread because he is one of my least favorite people!

I can't help it...I have a hard time quoting him when I do not agree with him on other issues.

Thank you. Paul was never the standard on which I based the teachings of Christianity. I found some of his writings interesting, but on the whole too many human initiated rules that we are supposed to take as gospel (pun intended) But to be fair, I'll reread him. You awake my curiosity, even though it seems we fundamentally agree on Paul. To my way of thinking, his writings are the church according to Paul not Jesus. Fallible.

Interesting passage you cited, though, Dread. Sounds like it's making a case for Divine Right. Am I misinterpreting it? This seems to go a lot further than "Render unto Caesar".

And yes, Crusader, I know I am travelling down a slippery slope
regarding fallibility and infallibility. I like to live dangerously.
I'm not calling in your credentials. I admire your faith. I just often disagree.

I always interpreted Live by the sword die by the sword, as an admonition that living by violence means you will often die by violence. Soldiers lived by the sword, didn't they, more than criminals died by it at that time? Could have been as much a commentary on war. Ironic quote from one who would be crucified though living a righteous life to another who would be cruficifed for carrying on his message. I guess you could carry it further. Live by the cross, die by the cross. Both were put to death by legal means.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 12-15-2005, 07:45 AM   #432
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 10:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Despite the stereotyping that exists regarding conservative Christians, there is no call for a theocracy in the country.
I'm glad you feel that way, but being on the recipient end of theocratic tyranny, you'll have to forgive me if I doubt this.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 12-15-2005, 08:51 AM   #433
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 07:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars
I am not claiming a sole right. Around 200 millions of Christians are asking the same questions. There is a lot of criticism about the American Christian Right. The Christian Right may choose what it stands for, but it has to be prepared to be critisized - and not only by me, but by priests, clerics, bishops, and the Pope, who openly find the proper distance to the extremists of the American Christian Right. The American Christian Right seems like a sect to openminded Christians like me. If you think your´re a conservative Christian, would you please acknowledge that problem (your problem, not mine) with respect and see what you can do about it to change your image? Instead of trying to belittle me?
You have been claiming a sole right to proper Christian ethics - a loose summary of Christianity. You've consistently avoided the examination of Scripture and seem ready to discount passages as inconsistent (thus, should be ignored) if they do not meet your summary level beliefs. I prefer the open mindedness of looking at all of Scripture and have asked you to join me in doing so. Thus far, that has been avoided.

Capital punishment has broad based support in the US - well beyond the group you've labeled as the Christian Right.

Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars
I also would appreciate if you reply to the posts I am directing at you, not the ones who are directed at melon. It would make more sense because I always pace my discussion partner.
I believe I am free to respond to anyone who quotes my prior posts. If this discussion were to be just the two of us, then we should take it to PMs.

Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars
Any further personal remarks re: throne of self-righteousness, go read the Forum/ FAQ.

It is ridiculous I am wasting my time on a messageboard to reply to your false statements. Dis me one more time and the discussion with me is finished
Take a long look in the mirror before you even THINK of suggesting a personal attack. And give me the courtesy of a response to my questions instead of dismissing them all as false statements.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 12-15-2005, 08:58 AM   #434
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 10:25 PM
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 12-15-2005, 09:49 AM   #435
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 05:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
You have been claiming a sole right to proper Christian ethics - a loose summary of Christianity. You've consistently avoided the examination of Scripture and seem ready to discount passages as inconsistent (thus, should be ignored) if they do not meet your summary level beliefs. I prefer the open mindedness of looking at all of Scripture and have asked you to join me in doing so. Thus far, that has been avoided.
No, I have not been claiming a sole right to proper Christian ethics. Please quote the passage where I say that I´m above everyone else. If you really think so, that makes me sad because you have totally misunderstood me. I never said I´m better than you. You are entitled to your opinion like I am. What I want to express is serious criticism. That would not work without critisizing.

However, like I said, I like to pace my discussion partner. I have not attacked anyone personally in this thread, I was just criticizing the American Christian Right. If my wording is still too offensive for you, consider that I´m not throwing you in the cart of the extremists of the Christian Right on TV.

Sure, capital punishment wasn´t invented by the Christian Right. But whereas I have little ground to critisize someone who is not Christian because this is just his opinion, I have reason to critisize a Christian, because we´re in the same group. Say, poster XYZ who is not religious is all for capital punishment, there will be a lot of counter arguments by other people that I can repeat.

The point I want to make is that according to my Christian values capital punishment is morally wrong (with the exception of tyrannicide that I quoted). This includes criticism for other Christian views, but I never said was above everyone else. Also when say "This doesn´t make you a good Christian in my eyes", it does not mean that I am better than you - it just means that I hold a different view and that I think your moral is flawed.

You, on the other hand, keep insisting that I sit on a throne of self-righteousness.

I am not giving a loose summary of Christianity. I hold the opinion that some passages of the Bible are contradicting other passages of the Bible. I am just as openminded as you when I am looking at all the Scripture, but there are things I do not agree with and never will.

I think I can understand where you´re coming from; for someone who believes in every word of the OT my arguments must sound like heresy.

Who destroyed the temple?


Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
I believe I am free to respond to anyone who quotes my prior posts. If this discussion were to be just the two of us, then we should take it to PMs.
emails, I don´t use PMs. Would be an alternative because maybe one can be more natural instead of "trying to save his face". Also, we would not be bound to the Forum/ FAQ rules.

Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Take a long look in the mirror before you even THINK of suggesting a personal attack.
That sounds like a warning. Do you want to scare me?

I have the same right to point out a personal attack like everyone else in this forum. If your above post, in which you accuse me of being self-righteous, is not a personal attack, I don´t know what is. I never said you were self-righteous, but pointed out the hypocrisy of certain conservative Christians. I stand by my opinion (but it is nothing more than an opinion, and you need to understand that) that the ongoing discussions about gay marriage or capital punishment have been instrumentalized by conservative Christians, but have nothing to do with (my) Christian values. The only exception I make is the abortion issue - while I think every woman has the ultimate personal right to decide on that issue (and I will not elaborate further in order to not derail) I find it to be a Christian value to be positive and encouraging towards new life, and to have a certain respect for creation.

Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
And give me the courtesy of a response to my questions instead of dismissing them all as false statements.
I do. In return, I´m asking you to give up your claim that I am self-righteous. Don´t put me into that box, that´s just a cop-out. I´m not putting you into the box of the extreme Christian Right either.
I am just reflecting the views of many Christians.
__________________

__________________
hiphop is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com