Lesbian Unitarian ministers wept, Alec Baldwin called those who disagree with him “blood-thirsty right wing trash” and Michael Moore declared Georgia a “murderous
state”, adding:
“I encourage everyone I know to never travel to Georgia, never buy anything made in Georgia, to never do business in Georgia,”
Which is odd, since he has just made plans to travel to Iran which, in 1988, executed 30,000 people without any trial at all – and Iran continues to administer its version of justice with undiminished vigour.
That must be OK because, like Michael Moore, Iran hates America.
So go the arguments against the death penalty.
So the totalitarian Mr. Moore speaks, and we must all fall in abject obedience, is that it? Wouldn’t you love to have a peak at the man’s bank account? Probably more fulsome than he claims the state of Georgia is. Being a left-wing totalitarian type with film world connections seems to pay big dividends.
See my previous comment under “Tony Bennett”, on entertainers.
David, if you really want to make an argument for the death penalty, then write a blog post and make your argument. Picking the weakest arguments (or the proponents of them) and shooting them down is really not much of a post.
I’ve heard reports on the news that are saying that many of the witnesses against Davis have recanted. That’s why this case drew so much attention.
I might be wrong but I think the point (or at least one of the points) that David was making is the hypocrisy of people like Alec Baldwin and Michael Moore.
Some other interesting thoughts on this case here and here.
Goldberg’s argument is a lot better than Coulter’s. My argument against the death penalty is the same as my argument against abortion – it’s murder.
We’ve been around this mulberry bush before, but – once more with feeling: the problem with the argument that a state execution is murder is similar to the problem of arguing that state imprisonment is kidnapping and forcible confinement.
You can’t make a convincing argument against capital punishment by deliberately muddling the meaning of words.
Murder: The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
Execution: (Law) the carrying out or undergoing of a sentence of death.
It is similar, but it is not the same. I believe that any taking of life outside of warfare is in fact murder, and I don’t think the state should have the power to do it. Like it or not, the lives of Clifford Olsen and Paul Bernado are just as precious in God’s sight as yours or mine. The state should not have the right to play God and shorten their lives. Lock them up and throw away the key, heck yes. Their crimes were so henious that they ought not to ever see the light of day again, but taking their lives would be wrong.
I’m with Kate on this one.
Do we regularly get such displays of concern for the victims?
Kate
With respect, you are drawing a dichotomy between war and capital punishment that I don’t believe exists.
In my mind, war is the defence of the state from outside forces, whereas capital punishment is the defence of society from inside forces.
I have profound respect for the simple consistency of pacifists.
Thing is, though – sometimes, war is inevitable. WWII had to happen. Capital punishment is not inevitable – there are ways to protect society and punish the murderer without killing him. That’s where I see the dichotomy.
Jane’s point is a red herring. Killing the murderer doesn’t bring the victim back. Yes, I am concerned for the victims, but I am also concerned for the criminals, and if you are a Christian, so should you be. If they are beyond the scope of the healing power of Jesus, then so are you and so am I. Capital punishment shortens the time they have to repent and turn to Jesus.
As an aside, if you think that life in prison is somehow letting the murderer “get away with it” …. I think spending the rest of your life in jail in a cell not much bigger than a walk in closet, segregated from everyone else in the prison, with a half hour out of your cell a day (which is how Paul Bernado will live for the rest of his life), is a worse punishment than a quick death.
Kate, no one is ever guaranteed any length of time on this earth, so far it be it from any of us to try to guarantee this to confirmed murderers.
My point is not a red herring (interestingly, “red herring” is a term and concept I myself introduced on this site). I have indeed been long concerned over the great wailing and gnashing of teeth (theatrics, even) from the predictable hordes who show up to protest these executions. The executions are most regretable — of course they are (who in their right mind would choose to have to carry this out?) — but I wonder where your stance is on the murdering types who have escaped, or been parolled from prison, only to murder again? Do we keep owing them sacrificial victims, too?
Sorry, but if they expect my sympathy, I need only re-read the accounts of what they meted out to their own vicitms, and the victims’ families, for life, to recall what is right and what is wrong.
There are some such human beings who seem to be very far beyond their fellow human beings’ understanding and control. They choose to do what they do, out of the moral free will that they were given. Should the rest of us be denied a choice (here is that “choice” issue again)in how we are to respond? Would we not be remiss if we simply turned a blind eye and let them keep on offending against others? Perhaps God himself can deal better with them in the afterlife. As you are convinced they still have a good crack at Heaven, perhaps that is better than their prison cell.
Honestly…..
And by the way, Kate, according to you, sympathy and concern for the victims is so inconsequential in this argument that a mere mention of it gets the writer accused of throwing in a red herring. Pardon me? The VICTIMS are the main point, not the aside.
I’m a proponent of “lock ’em up and throw away the key”, actually. I just don’t think we should murder them because they murdered.
In an ideal world, perhaps (even then, I am not absolutely convinced). But this is not an ideal world. There are only a very limited number of ways to handle this. Many of these perpetrators show no remorse, and would never attempt to make any kind of amends even if that were possible. Sometimes they even seem to enjoy winding-up the types whom they know are most keen on getting involved in this issue on their behalf. They seem to love being viewed as poster boys for a “righteous” cause. It sickens.
Isn’t there a requirement included in the Christian notion of forgiveness that the sinner must be truly sorry and attempt in every sense to make amends? So many people seem to forget this idea, and they put all of the onus on the wronged to do the forgiving, while none is put on the sinner to live up to their part of the bargain. I do not agree that we were exhorted by God to be patsies. Tell me, do you really believe that most of those found guilty of murder have shown this kind of remorse, and the attempt to make amends? So why do all of the supposed Christians out there rush to offer them forgiveness anyway? They have overlooked a big part of that formula.
No, we are called to forgive, period. There is no requirement for the person to make amends. (That doesn’t mean that I have to put myself in a position to be harmed again, though.) If I don’t forgive the person who wronged me, my unforgiveness hurts me, not the person who harmed me.
Well, not all Christian teaching is the same on that count, I assure you. I don’t know what source yours comes from; I can’t count on Anglican teachings any longer, myself.
What you are saying here, Kate, is essentially that anyone can commit a sin against an innocent individual, and that the onus is then on that innocent individual — now a victim of wrongdoing, remember — to work up forgiveness for a perpetrator who shows no remorse, or that wronged individual will be the guilty party? So if Bernardo’s victims did not forgive him before they died at his hand, they went to Hell and he heads to Heaven? No, I am sorry; that is not Christianity.
I can try to forgive you for some of the cutting remarks you have posted here over time, though.
No, no no that’s not what I said at all, it has nothing to do with who gets to go to heaven or not. If Bernado truly repents and turns to Jesus he will be with Jesus in heaven. That’s Christianity.
If Bernado’s victims didn’t forgive him before they died, (and it seems to me that it is a pretty silly thing to be talking about at all – they died horrific deaths and were probably too frightened to be thinking of much past the next five minutes) it has zero bearing on whether or not they spend eternity with Jesus – that depends upon their personal relationship with Jesus.
I will rephrase what I said. If someone harms me, and I hang on to the hurt, and don’t let it go (unforgiveness), it will eat away at me and harm my emotional health. If I try to let it go and forgive (and it has nothing to do with working up a feeling, forgiveness isn’t a feeling), it will be easier to regain a solid emotional health. It is a process though. There have been many times that I thought I had forgiven someone and let the hurt go, only to discover that I needed to forgive the same hurt again at a deeper level.
I was being facetious in suugesting that Bernardo’s vicitims think about forgiving him in their final moments, — of course!! — but if you follow the logicv of what you had stated, this is axactly what it would have come to.
Another major point here is that you are saying the vicitim is to forgive in order to keep any semblance of emothional health. Well, that would be doing it for your own well-being, supposedly, and not out of any sense of what is morally right or wrong. Reminds me of the scenario I have argued about an individual who has sinned agianst someone all of their life, asking that someone on the
I was being facetious in suggesting that Bernardo’s victims think about forgiving him in their final moments, — of course!! — but if you follow the logic of what you had stated, this is exactly what it would have come to.
Another major point here is that you are saying the victim is to forgive in order to keep any semblance of emotional health themselves. Well, that would be doing it for your own well-being, supposedly, and not out of any sense of what is morally right or wrong. Reminds me of the scenario I have argued over the years about a hypothetical individual who has sinned against someone all of their life, with grave damage, asking that someone, while on their deathbed, to forgive them. Now, imagine that the perpetrator’s wrongdoings had caused long and grievous harm to the person they are asking forgiveness of, and that had they asked forgiveness earlier, much of this harm to the other person could have been alleviated. However, the wrongdoer leaves it until the eleventh hour, after the greatest amount of harm ensues to the victim, but said victim feels they must grant this supposed forgiveness or society would come back with, “you wouldn’t grant forgiveness to a deathbed request?!”. Well, in my books, the wrongdoer is simply hoping to make sure they enter eternal glory with no hitches, and they realize that time has run out. They were never concerned, in other words, about their victim, only about themselves.
What is so noble and righteous, therefore, about looking out for your own welfare in the forgiveness game? Isn’t the Christian version of morality supposed to take other things entirely into account? Is God only looking out for his own emotional health in forgiving us?
Kate, I still haven’t heard where you got your version of the Christian forgiveness doctrine. There are many versions of “feel-good spirituality” out there these days that have zero to do with with what have long been considered the accurate Christian interpretations.
At an Anglican parish I once belonged to, whenever I stepped into the ladies’ washrooms, there was a sign affixed to the mirror saying, “Jesus wouldn’t mind that you come in like this….” It showed someone who looked as if they had not put any care into washing, shaving, combing their hair, dressing, or standing up straight for most of their God-given years. Had the photo been taken by the public relations firm several years later, there probably would have been several tattoos for effect as well. If no one was in the stalls, I would always answer, “Oh yes he would…..do you think that Jesus of Nazareth attended Jewish Temple — his Father’s House — 2000 years ago with as little care and show of respect as that?!!”.
Oh I know, I know….this was all part of the liberalizing, “let it all hang out because God loves you anyway fixation”. Only, it wasn’t accurate and it wasn’t true. I think this whole idea you have of Christian forgiveness, Kate, is rather like that.
I got the idea from Jesus.
Matthew 18:21-35
Sounds like a cute answer, Kate, but you will notice that the servant was offering to make amends……
Depends, too, on the accuracy of the translation, so I wouldn’t bet my life on this.
Are you not aware that legitimate Christian branches such as Roman Catholics have worked through this issue too, and their theology and cathechism tell adherents that remorse and the attempt to right the wrong must be present in order to have true forgiveness? My own moral compass tells me the same thing. How can you forgive someone who does not value the forgiveness? It’s meaningless, and you have been duped. Puts me in mind of that legion of rather silly women out there who marry the supposedly rehabilitated criminals, mouthing all kinds of platitudes about how they deserve a second chance, and then these women inevitably become their next victims. Big surprise.
My issue is not forgiveness as such, Kate, but the supposed obligation to forgive a perpetrator who shows no believable remorse, or willingness to right the wrong in any way possible. Even our courts take that into consideration.
You’ve completely missed the point. The servant wasn’t truly remorseful or he would have extended mercy to the person who owed him the small debt, as he was forgiven the huge, unpayable debt:
CrosswayDonate
About
But Kate, the point would have been whether or not the Master had an obligation to forgive or not. YOU keep harping about the obligation to forgive (only for your own emotional health though, remember), in every and any circumstance. This does not illustrate that.
You are becoming very mixed-up here….time for you to concede, and move on. You forgive if and when you want to — for your emotional health — and I will forgive if and when I want to. Seems fair. I am just not going to have the likes of those mentioned earlier dictating their private versions of morality to me. Enough said.
You are an expert at putting up straw men. The emotional health argument was merely an example of why forgiveness is a good thing. What my bible quotes illustrate is that we are commanded by God to forgive those who have hurt us or He will not forgive us. It is not a private version of morality, it is a command from God.
Go ahead and have the last word if you wish, Jane, I’ve had enough too.
David gives the following:
Murder: The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
Which I see at:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/murder
I would like to raise two points for consideration:
1. “unlawful” according to whos law? The laws of our secular governments, or the law of God?
2. When a crowd of people brought a prostitute to Jesus and said that the law says she was to be stoned, Jesus replied “to let the one who is without sin cast the first stone.” Perhaps this means that a punishment as severe as death is to be metered out by only God?
Both sides raise valid points. By executing a person we reduce the time available for them to repent. But there does seem to be passages in the Bible which do allow for secular governments to impose capital punishment.
Indeed, this is a very complicated issue that cannot be resolved in an online blog. More indepth and serious consideration is needed.
I agree, Kate, that this needs to end. I will fight for what I consider the truth long and hard, but sometimes it falls on ears that wish to hear other things, and I can see when to draw the line.
Oddly, my views coincide pretty closely with the whole spirit of this blog, but yours very often do not. Are you here so regularly to drive yourself crazy, or do you feel you’re playing the devil’s advocate, maybe? As long as this website is up and running, and welcoming comments, you have as much right as any to post yours, but I just wonder what a person’s motivation would be, in your sense. It is interesting that you appear to consider yourself traditional Anglican, and I consider myself a life-long orthodox Christian, but we are far apart on many issues. Even Christianity does not present one united front to the world.
Jane, have you read David’s about section:
If your views coincide with the “whole spirit of this blog”, does this mean you drop by to poke fun and annoy? I must admit that I usually do – so I’m in the spirit of the blog.
No, Warren. I drop by to appreciate the fact that David, with his terrific wry humour, describes the nonsense of the politically correct and relativist world inside the current Anglican Church of Canada — which mirrors the similarly silly world outside — in the same way that I see it. So nice to find evidence that there are some sane individuals left in Canada.
I thought that everyone was taking it in that spirit, or why come here? Then, I got a knife between the shoulder blades from Kate early on, and forever after, I really could not understand whether she was having me on or not about her being a Christian. As I usually get blasted for “walking away” from an argument, I now stick around to see these through. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t, I guess.
Are all of you just looking for light entertainment but nothing more here? I kind of wanted a solid mixture. After all, the topics raised might begin with light and funny froth, but then quickly move into the stuff that nightmares are made of — abortion and capital punishment and the like. A couple of glib comments doesn’t always suffice.
Anyway, I am moving on. Kate my dear, the floor is yours — finger-wag away. And I will forgive you, even though you are not sorry.
David, I asked you something earlier, and I know you will get back to me. Thanks.
It’s definitely light entertainment for me. I tend to get banned from the blogs where people take themselves seriously.
Very slick, a commenter just has to “request deletion” and, all of a sudden, the preceding comment doesn’t make sense. This could lead to all kinds of mischief; but in spirit with the blog I think.
it’s a limited time option to minimise that problem. It was 10 minutes, then I changed it to 60 – I think I’ll make it 20.
Jane – I did send you a couple of emails, but some of them bounced, so I’m not sure that what I have for your email address is correct.
David, in the spirit of being able to control our own contributions here, would it not make sense to have a continual delete option? Then again, I am posting this final time just to say thank you for your wonderful take on life, and for sharing it (a latter-day Gary Larson, with people instead of dogs!), as well as thanking you for attempting to contact me. Don’t know what went wrong there. Anyway, I don’t have any more to add to my initial request. Is it possible?
Thanks Jane.
There are two problems with making the ability to delete indefinite:
The first is technical. Since I don’t make people logon with a userid and password, the only way to identify someone – and ensure he deleting only his own comment – is by his IP address. Unfortunately, IP addresses for individuals usually change periodically; by limiting the delete and edit functions to a relatively short time after the comment is first entered, the chances of an IP change are reasonably small.
The second is a matter of fairness to other people. If one half of an exchange vanishes, it makes those who had responded to the deleted comments appear as if they are talking to air or themselves – it is also confusing to readers. Again, by limiting the time something can be deleted minmises this problem.
Finally, Google has a habit of saving everything that appears on the Internet into a cache which it keeps on its servers. Even if a comment (or article) is deleted, it is likely to live on in Google cache and can be inspected by anyone who chooses to look for it – so nothing is completely erased.