Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Phoenix wrote:In the US, having guns is a right. In Switzerland, having a gun is a requirement (mostly). However, even when you adjust for population, Switzerland's murder rate is 1/5th of that in the US. So obviously there is something else going on here other than just a lot of people with guns. The question is, what is it?

An armed society is a polite society

Agreed. However, I'd posit that one event is not a repeat offender. Now I'm all for sentences that would insure one offense puts him away for a long long time in this circumstance (actually I support execution in this instance).

Phoenix wrote:
In the US, having guns is a right. In Switzerland, having a gun is a requirement (mostly). However, even when you adjust for population, Switzerland's murder rate is 1/5th of that in the US. So obviously there is something else going on here other than just a lot of people with guns. The question is, what is it?

The US is an inherently violent society with extremely mixed up priorities. Movies depicting fairly extreme violence are pushed through the rating system, often getting no more than a 'PG' rating, whereas showing a nipple is automatic grounds for an 'R'. The human body is to be shunned, but blowing it apart is ok, and even fun. Violence is glorified in video games as well.

Even the sports in the US tend towards the glorification of violence. American Football (while I'm a big fan of the game) emphasizes violent collisions. Boxing wasn't violent enough, so MMA fills that niche. We even get it though the mindless TV drivel of 'American Gladiators'.

Combine this with disparities in income far greater than in Europe, and you can see why those who are among the 'have nots' often seek to lash out with what they've seen glorified throughout the society.

Other mixed up priorities: The US drinking age is considerably higher than most of Europe, while the driving age is much lower. Rather than treat alcohol as something to be enjoyed in moderation from a young age, it's this forbidden thing that's suddenly available. Rather than treating driving as a privilledge to be earned, it's considered a right. The consequence of this is that the US also has the highest drunk driving rates. You're allowed to (again with the violence) join the military and train to kill other human beings before you're allowed to have a glass of wine with your dinner.

Da Boss wrote:
The brits are all crazy PC anyway, you're not even allowed to smack children over there

err.... wrong

oh this might be of interest

Prior to 1998, British parents were afforded the right to use “reasonable chastisement” to discipline their children but the subjective term “reasonable” was never well explained. In September of that year, the European Court of Human Rights decided that this law did not adequately protect children’s rights and so the Children’s Act of 2004 sought to clarify the laws surrounding smacking. Under Section 58 of the Act, smacking remains legal as long as it does not cause visible bruises, grazes, scratches, swelling or cuts. As of June 2007, these conditions provoked a Ministerial review of Section 58 of the Children’s Act with some Ministers again calling for an outright ban on smacking children. Scotland operates some smacking bans, and strict definitions of “reasonable” punishments. The Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People is seeking a full and outright ban on smacking children.

Again this is one of those cases which is pretty much blown out of all proportion by both sides of the media. It's another one of those laws that will get dragged up every now and again when someone somewhere.

That said...

· Since Sweden banned smacking a decade ago child deaths at the hands of parents have fallen to zero. In Britain they run at one a week. Smacking has been banned in 12 European countries in the past 30 years.

· The British government has refused to move from its position that parents should be allowed to use "reasonable chastisement".

· Children's charities point out that hitting someone over the age of 18 could put the assailant in court. Hitting a child is perfectly lega

So.. eventually it will in all likelihood become illegal.. throughout the whole of Europe anyway.

....... When it happens I guess it would be a good time to buy shares in manufacturers of green card perhaps ?


[/hijack]

JohnHwangDD wrote:I'm surprised that you have 30,000 firearms fatalities per year. That is a huge discrepancy, and I am wondering what your source is.

It was from the Center for Disease Control. I'm having trouble finding the article I used before, but here is one with data from the 90's. Death rates haven't changed all that much.

http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/194/Guns-Injuries-Fatalities.html

Redbeard wrote:I believe in the death penalty for a far more practical reason. As a taxpayer, the idea of putting someone in jail "for life" at a cost of $50k/year strikes me as absurd. The jails are overcrowded, and people are paroled well before they've actually "paid their debt" to society, and the prevalance of repeat offenders seems to show that not everyone is being rehabilitated.

I think that we could learn a good lession from south east Asia. I'd like to see caining introduced as a form of punishment. Not only does a good horse whipping seem to straighten out people (particularly the ones guilty of soft crimes like embezelment) but its a whole heck of a lot cheaper than maintaining prisons. If we put in a system like that, all the petty crime that gets people less than a year in prision can just go to caining and be done in a day. No fus, no mus, and a heck of a lot cheeper. In the end though, we'll still need some prisions to keep the really nasty ones off the streets. The problem with all of this is that a huge political road block will be put up and the ones who are going to be spear heading it are going to be construction companies and the prison guard union (both of which have huge loby power).

So, I believe the death penalty should automatically apply in two cases:
1) You were sentenced to life in prison. Well, your life just got a lot shorter, and we saved a lot of money and reduced overcrowding the jails for everyone else.

2) You are convicted of anything after having already served one term in jail. Some people never learn, we should cut our losses and spend our time, energy, and money on those who aren't habitual offenders.

While 1 sounds great, 2 sounds like a problem. In California, we had what was called the 3 strikes law. What it did was that if you were ever convicted 3 times for anything, you went to jail for life. The problem was that without further clarification, people would get life for 3 counts of shop lifting, or counts of not paying their parking tickets or other very petty things like that. So while I'm down for getting rid of the people that can't function in society and don't have the sense to leave it, I'm also not interested in executing teenagers that show up in court with one count of J-walking and 1 for truancy.

Grignard wrote:One can also argue that you should have a right to do with your life what you will, and if you choose to end it, then a firearm is generally regarded as one of the better methods, and people should have access to that.

Again in my pro-death stance, I'm all for doctor assisted suicide. Dr. Kevorkian is now out of jail and still preaching for the cause. And while I'm certain that most doctors are not going to be interested in doing that sort of "procedure", there are obviously some that will, so I think it would be a good thing. They'll just need to standardize the procedure and put in appropriate paperwork.

Of course, I guess the negative side effect is that Hot Topic will go out of business once all their clientele are gone, but it’s a small price to pay.

Phoenix wrote:I think that we could learn a good lession from south east Asia. I'd like to see caining introduced as a form of punishment. Not only does a good horse whipping seem to straighten out people (particularly the ones guilty of soft crimes like embezelment)

Um, SEA isn't the only place where they do this.

Sharia-based places penalize with strokes of the lash. And they aren't afraid to give hundreds of strokes as penalty.
____

Now if you could order a few thousand strokes for a child molestation, that would be OK. I think a group of strong guys could easily whip and cane a man to death.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Phoenix wrote:I think that we could learn a good lession from south east Asia. I'd like to see caining introduced as a form of punishment. Not only does a good horse whipping seem to straighten out people (particularly the ones guilty of soft crimes like embezelment)

Um, SEA isn't the only place where they do this.

Sharia-based places penalize with strokes of the lash. And they aren't afraid to give hundreds of strokes as penalty.
____

Now if you could order a few thousand strokes for a child molestation, that would be OK. I think a group of strong guys could easily whip and cane a man to death.

The whole idea (or at least my version) is that it can be used as a way to get though lesser offences where fines are not enough but jail time is too expensive. Its sort of a middle ground. From the research I've done on the subject, the wet bamboo method is very effective. So much so that they limit the number of strokes a prisioner can be given to something like 10. More that that and you risk killing them. Using whips tends to be about as painful from what I understand, but the damage is shoter lasting and people can take more at once (hence people being given hundreds...or perhaps that's their death penalty). All in all, the plan wouldn't really apply to child molestation cases since most of those would end up being long term prison sentences anyway.

Phoenix wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Sharia-based places penalize with strokes of the lash. And they aren't afraid to give hundreds of strokes as penalty.

Now if you could order a few thousand strokes for a child molestation, that would be OK. I think a group of strong guys could easily whip and cane a man to death.

The whole idea (or at least my version) is that it can be used as a way to get though lesser offences where fines are not enough but jail time is too expensive. Its sort of a middle ground. From the research I've done on the subject, the wet bamboo method is very effective. So much so that they limit the number of strokes a prisioner can be given to something like 10. More that that and you risk killing them. Using whips tends to be about as painful from what I understand, but the damage is shoter lasting and people can take more at once (hence people being given hundreds...or perhaps that's their death penalty). All in all, the plan wouldn't really apply to child molestation cases since most of those would end up being long term prison sentences anyway.

Just penalties can be fines and imprisonment, adding corporal punishment would allow for fines, lashes, strokes, and imprisonment.
____

If a child molester is subject to long term imprisonment, then 10 strokes and 100 lashes each day for the rest of his life isn't a bad thing to tack on.

Phoenix wrote:

Grignard wrote:One can also argue that you should have a right to do with your life what you will, and if you choose to end it, then a firearm is generally regarded as one of the better methods, and people should have access to that.

Of course, I guess the negative side effect is that Hot Topic will go out of business once all their clientele are gone, but it’s a small price to pay.

Zing! Ouch.

Polonius wrote:

There are actually no legal grounds for the family of the victims to sue the state. There's a certain myth that families of victims of violent crime have legal rights. They actually don't, at least not in the criminal sphere. You can sue the guy in civil court for wrongful death (like happened to OJ), but a criminal trial is between the State and the Defendant. The reason for this is to eliminate revenge killings and honor duels and all that nonsense. Killing anybody, regardless of station, is a crime and the state will prosecute.

I'm pretty ambivalent about the death penalty. I think the state has the right to kill those that are dangerous, and I think modern courts are getting better (although still pretty bad) at convicting the right people. I'm not sure that it's necessary any more, what with modern prisons and the like, but I understand that the option belongs on the table. What bugs me is, as Hordini pointed out, is the casual or even eager way people seem to advocate it. Crime or no crime, I think a state sanctioned termination should be treated solemnly. I also think that far too much of the support for the death penalty comes from the desire to have vengeance. What do you hear after every execution? "Well, now the victims family can have closure." I don't want to minimize the human need for vengeance, or denigrate the grief of the families, but the legal system does not exist for revenge.

You know Polonius, I bet you were on the debate team in high school, because I'm not sure I've seen a post on the internet or listened to a conversation that made me think more about the issue being discussed. I mean you've brought up both sides of the capital punishment issue, one which makes me want to be the executioner, the other the one that absolutely freaks me out about it. I tried to respond at work, actually, but something bugged with I.E. ( I'm trying to get the State of Tennessee to go to Firefox, good luck with that).

First off, I disagree with you on the concept of dueling. What is more barbaric, two gentlemen settling an argument privately, or a modern state that marches unwilling conscripts into the mouths of cannon and machineguns. Not all encounters of this sort are lethal, it all depends on the nature of the offense. I think you'd find that historically, many things like this were resolved by the seconds, and never came to an encounter, unlike what the movies say. Would the world not be a better place if nations at war elected champions to fight their battles? Perhaps the United States should have taken that Iraqi dude up on his offer, is what I think. Regardless, I'm not going to say what exactly would happen, but someone who does something like that to those I care about had best look for the lowest and hardest of cover.

That said, it spooks me the way people advocate the state ending lives. The way capital punishment is done in this country frankly spooks me, I dont know a better word for it. I find the concept of creating machines to facilitate the seperation of the killer from killing to be simply weird. I can't in good conscience advocate the use of a dehumanizing device, the real purpose of which is to separate the killer from the victim and has nothing to do with the welfare of the prisoner being executed. I believe that if you're going to kill someone, you need to use a weapon, and look them in the face while you do it. In the US we often criticize certain middle eastern governments for the "crude" punishments, particularly capital punishments, used on criminals. I honestly think a man willing to behead a criminal is more civilized than someone willing to push a button and end a life.

Polonius wrote:

Lormax wrote:For those of you against it, would you all be singing the same tune if that was your daughter, or wife, that was raped and murdered by this guy?

First off, I'm not sure very many people have spoken against the death penalty per se, only it's application. In fact, my argument was essentially that your hypo above should NOT be the factor used to determine who gets executed. Of course if somebody killed my fiance I'd want them to suffer. I'd want it to be cruel, I'd want it to be unusual, and I wouldn't give a crap about their rights. I would want revenge, and I'd want to take it out on somebody.

And then I'd stop, and I'd realize it wouldn't make me happier, or more content. She'd still be dead, and I'd have seen an ugly side to myself. God willing, I don't have to encounter that, but I would like to think that I wouldn't want to kill the murder. This isn't a legal or political argument that I'm going into, just a personal bit of, I dunno, philosophy. I'm a big believer in the concept of redemption (similar but distinct from salvation). I was raised Catholic, and while I don't practice much any more, I'm still a believer in the idea that belief in the divine must be combined with good works. It's not really a recognized part of it, but I'm firmly of the belief that no matter how awful you are, no matter what you've done, it is always possible to redeem yourself through actions. Because of this belief, on a personal level, I would have a hard time advocating for somebody to die. If they've confessed to the crime and have sought forgiveness, I believe I should accept it. If they refuse, I think they should be given the time to redeem themselves. Please understand, I'm not trying to sell anybody on my ideas here. I'm just trying to explain what it'd do in that situation.

You may not practice, but you definitely follow Judeo-Christian morality. I respect your beliefs, and honestly I think you have the right idea, but its not going to work for me. I'm not a believer, and if someone did something like that to my family or friends, well, I would make sure my smiling face is the last thing they would see, and the state would have nothing to do with it. That is why I can never understand why so many people who profess Christian faith in this country are pro-death penalty, while from what I understand ( while not a particularly religious person, I have a decent knowledge of scripture ) Jesus pretty much says that sort of thinking is wrong-headed. Somewhat related, I find it entertaining when I hear atheists who are against the death penalty on a moral basis.

Polonius wrote:

jfrazell wrote:Why not? if the State were thinking rationally most criminals would be neutered and "put down" due to high recidivism rates. If not put down the whole "penal regiment" rears its ugly head. if the State is corporate then these would be the cancer cells rampagig and harming noncancerous productive cells. Those cells are dealt with for the survival of the corporate body, not rehabilitated.

Why not? Well, simply because that's the opposite of how the US was founded, I guess. The power of the state over the individual should be tempered. All that stuff about 10 guilty men going free before 1 innocent is punished. Criminals aren't cancer cells, they're not rabid dogs, and they're not monsters. They're people that have made bad choices, and should be punished for those choices, but they are still humans.

I want to steer clear of Goodwin's law, but what you advocate is a central tenant of most totalitarian, and yes, fascist regimes. The elimination of those that offend the state sounds great as long as everybody agrees on what is offensive. Slippery slope arguments are weak, but governments almost always gain power, not lose it over time.

I see Jfraz's argument, and I'm absolutely shocked to hear that from him. I am also completely aware that various totalitarian systems on both the left and right political axis have expressed that. What can I do *shrug*?

Redbeard wrote:Yes. This hypothetical criminal obviously didn't learn from his time in jail. Within a year of release he's out terrorizing innocent people again. On what basis do you believe that this hypothetical person deserves to live in a civilized society? And, if we can't trust him to live among us, why should we pay $50k/year for the rest of his life to support his ass while he's in jail?


It's not psychotic, it's practical. There are some people who simply cannot function according to societies rules. What do you do with them? Keep them locked up forever? Ship them to Austrailia? Is it really any worse to condemn someone to a quick death than it is to lock them in a 4"x8" cell for 30 years?

You're declaring people are incapable of following society's rules after two offences. I personally know three people who would be dead under your plan, all of whom are currently productive members of society.

I don't know, maybe you're taking the piss here, maybe you haven't really thought it through, or maybe you haven't met a lot of the people who've been locked up a few times, or maybe you really want to kill more people. But what you're talking about is beyond Stalinism, maybe a small step behind Pol Pot.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Um, guns don't cause suicide. If anything, suicidal tendencies spur gun purchases that are realized later.

That's speculation stated as fact. There may be some truth in it, it may be one of the causes of the correlation, just as there being more guns in the country is. But it's completely wrongheaded to assume it's the definitive (and only) cause).

There's a high correlation between the two because guns are merely an efficient tool for killing people. Whether you point it at yourself (suicide) or someone else (homicide), makes little difference.

In the suicide case, when someone gets past the show-off / grab attention stage of cutting across their wrists, it's simply a question of finding a the "right" method. Whether they choose DBC, single-vehicle fatality, jumping, poisoning, or firearm makes little difference - these are all very effective approaches. Having no guns means that they just choose another method. Aside from the amount of pain they suffer and the amount of cleanup they impose on others.

IMO, if one wanted to break the correlation between the guns and suicide, it might be enough to show some documentaries on *failed* suicides.

I'm not sure there's much value in focusing on gun suicide and trying to stop that, compared to trying to stop suicide at large. But this is all getting a long way from the point, earlier you said there were around 1,000 gun fatalites in the US each year, when there's actually around 40,000.

Grignard wrote:

I see Jfraz's argument, and I'm absolutely shocked to hear that from him. I am also completely aware that various totalitarian systems on both the left and right political axis have expressed that. What can I do *shrug*?

As I said I was taking someone else's argument to its logical extreme. Its not what I'm advocating.

Grignard wrote:You may not practice, but you definitely follow Judeo-Christian morality. I respect your beliefs, and honestly I think you have the right idea, but its not going to work for me. I'm not a believer, and if someone did something like that to my family or friends, well, I would make sure my smiling face is the last thing they would see, and the state would have nothing to do with it. That is why I can never understand why so many people who profess Christian faith in this country are pro-death penalty, while from what I understand ( while not a particularly religious person, I have a decent knowledge of scripture ) Jesus pretty much says that sort of thinking is wrong-headed. Somewhat related, I find it entertaining when I hear atheists who are against the death penalty on a moral basis.

The frequent crossover between hard right Christians and pro-death penalty is a frequent source of wonderment this side of the pond. I guess as a society we're much less religious than the majority of the states-- if pushed most people profess some vague form of faith that they seem to half remember from school and have combined with various bits of new age and "alternative" thinking it seems-- if you go to a church regularly you are, being honest here, generally either A: elderly or B: viewed as a bit of a weirdo. NO sledging attempt there I assure you. I live in a cathedral city, one could argue the most important cathedral for the CoE, and I don't know anyone who goes to church on anything like a regular basis. Amongst my peer group none of us are baptised or christened.

I know it might seem weird with our House of Lords etc, but frankly the amount of power, even it is based on $s alone the church seems to wield stateside seems most peculiar and outright alien to me/us.

Oh... just to clarify : You're not claiming that atheists can't make or claim decisions on a moral basis are you ? Surely you're not saying that morality is pointless/needless without god/gods ?

The argument is that life is sacred. Therefore capital punishment is our ultimate statement that life is sacred, and the only appropriate punishment possible.


Red8N: Can atheists be moral? This is whole other and interesting thread (again posting opportunity). I'm not saying they can't - its a philosophy and real life question.
The only avowed atheists I've met personally have been clinical level narcissists that didn't care a wit for anyone except themselves, including their own children (I mean clinical as in determined by psychiatrists). The only big ones I've seen were Hitler (who can be argued might have been an occultist) and the great communist killers who were highly adapt at being amoral (Stalin, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, Lenin).

jfrazell wrote:The argument is that life is sacred. Therefore capital punishment is our ultimate statement that life is sacred, and the only appropriate punishment possible.

Indeed, but surely then one should leave such a monumental decision to God and.. well... turn the other cheek etc etc yes ? I guess it's really no different than the way that anyone "cherry picks" parts of their own morality to try and interpret the world in which we live. Guess it makes more sense than the Catholic church's stance on contrcaeption anyway.

*takes hint about second point* Sorry, my bad.

I don't think its cherry picking. The new testament doesn't say don't judge, it says (basically) you have to be without sin yourself if you are going to do so. It also says, do not murder. Capital punishment is not murder and is thus kosher I can understand the more "peacenicky" view you're espousing that Christians should have as well as it also has strong roots and interpretations.

Actually the C church's stance is pretty straightforward in the theory. All human life is sacred. human life begins at conception (but does not exist in exigent parts akak organs or fingers). Therefore all babies/zygotes/fetuses are human life and therefore sacred. You can agree or disagree but its pretty straightforward.

Grignard wrote:

You know Polonius, I bet you were on the debate team in high school, because I'm not sure I've seen a post on the internet or listened to a conversation that made me think more about the issue being discussed. I mean you've brought up both sides of the capital punishment issue, one which makes me want to be the executioner, the other the one that absolutely freaks me out about it. I tried to respond at work, actually, but something bugged with I.E. ( I'm trying to get the State of Tennessee to go to Firefox, good luck with that).

First off, I disagree with you on the concept of dueling. What is more barbaric, two gentlemen settling an argument privately, or a modern state that marches unwilling conscripts into the mouths of cannon and machineguns. Not all encounters of this sort are lethal, it all depends on the nature of the offense. I think you'd find that historically, many things like this were resolved by the seconds, and never came to an encounter, unlike what the movies say. Would the world not be a better place if nations at war elected champions to fight their battles? Perhaps the United States should have taken that Iraqi dude up on his offer, is what I think. Regardless, I'm not going to say what exactly would happen, but someone who does something like that to those I care about had best look for the lowest and hardest of cover.

That said, it spooks me the way people advocate the state ending lives. The way capital punishment is done in this country frankly spooks me, I dont know a better word for it. I find the concept of creating machines to facilitate the seperation of the killer from killing to be simply weird. I can't in good conscience advocate the use of a dehumanizing device, the real purpose of which is to separate the killer from the victim and has nothing to do with the welfare of the prisoner being executed. I believe that if you're going to kill someone, you need to use a weapon, and look them in the face while you do it. In the US we often criticize certain middle eastern governments for the "crude" punishments, particularly capital punishments, used on criminals. I honestly think a man willing to behead a criminal is more civilized than someone willing to push a button and end a life.

I actually wasn't on the debating team, although I earned my BA in philosophy and I'm in my third year of law school, so I've had some training in analyzing an issue and stating an assertion. I had a professor who once taught us, "The more certain you are in your stand on a complex issue, the less you know about it." It's very true, the more you think about the Death Penalty, Abortion, Affirmative Action, etc. the more the issues become exceedingly murky. In a bit of a tangent, I'd read somewhere that explained that this phenomenon is the reason for the weakening of the American Liberal/Progressive movement in the late 70s. The war in Vietnam was bad, racism was bad, basic environmentalism was good. These were simple ideas. Gun Control, Global Warming, Free Trade: these are incredibly complicated. Just a note.

I'm really not sure where you got dueling from, but it's an interesting point. I'm libertarian enough to say that Dueling laws might be unnecessary. I know that historically, a duel had to be canceled if the offending party apologized or made suitable restitution, and actual duels to the death were very rare in this country. I'd disagree with the assertion that duels were ever a proxy for war. Possibly in ancient Greece, but it's hard to imagine any country under economic and internal pressure conceding because of a duel, but YMMV.

I guess I'd also point out that duels are not honor killings. Duels were a means for resolving points of honor between gentlemen, a category to which very few murders and rapists would belong. I realize that people want personal vengeance, and I see why the want the state to get it for them (if the state stops you from killing them, they should do it themselves, right?). It's a transference that the state doesn't want: its' job is to exact justice on the perp, up to and including protecting him from you. The rule of law can be a bitch at times, but it prevents every suburb from turning into Tikrit.

Polonius wrote:

Lormax wrote:For those of you against it, would you all be singing the same tune if that was your daughter, or wife, that was raped and murdered by this guy?

First off, I'm not sure very many people have spoken against the death penalty per se, only it's application. In fact, my argument was essentially that your hypo above should NOT be the factor used to determine who gets executed. Of course if somebody killed my fiance I'd want them to suffer. I'd want it to be cruel, I'd want it to be unusual, and I wouldn't give a crap about their rights. I would want revenge, and I'd want to take it out on somebody.

And then I'd stop, and I'd realize it wouldn't make me happier, or more content. She'd still be dead, and I'd have seen an ugly side to myself. God willing, I don't have to encounter that, but I would like to think that I wouldn't want to kill the murder. This isn't a legal or political argument that I'm going into, just a personal bit of, I dunno, philosophy. I'm a big believer in the concept of redemption (similar but distinct from salvation). I was raised Catholic, and while I don't practice much any more, I'm still a believer in the idea that belief in the divine must be combined with good works. It's not really a recognized part of it, but I'm firmly of the belief that no matter how awful you are, no matter what you've done, it is always possible to redeem yourself through actions. Because of this belief, on a personal level, I would have a hard time advocating for somebody to die. If they've confessed to the crime and have sought forgiveness, I believe I should accept it. If they refuse, I think they should be given the time to redeem themselves. Please understand, I'm not trying to sell anybody on my ideas here. I'm just trying to explain what it'd do in that situation.

You may not practice, but you definitely follow Judeo-Christian morality. I respect your beliefs, and honestly I think you have the right idea, but its not going to work for me. I'm not a believer, and if someone did something like that to my family or friends, well, I would make sure my smiling face is the last thing they would see, and the state would have nothing to do with it. That is why I can never understand why so many people who profess Christian faith in this country are pro-death penalty, while from what I understand ( while not a particularly religious person, I have a decent knowledge of scripture ) Jesus pretty much says that sort of thinking is wrong-headed. Somewhat related, I find it entertaining when I hear atheists who are against the death penalty on a moral basis.

jfrazell wrote:I don't think its cherry picking. The new testament doesn't say don't judge, it says (basically) you have to be without sin yourself if you are going to do so. It also says, do not murder. Capital punishment is not murder and is thus kosher I can understand the more "peacenicky" view you're espousing that Christians should have as well as it also has strong roots and interpretations.

Respectfully, I do think that's cherry picking, although given the somewhat contradictory nature of the the bible in parts that is understandable. I'll admit Paul is the one who pretty much waters down/integrates ( take your pick) Christianity and made it much more acceptable to the powers that were. However to my mind the new testament, at least the bits with Jesus in, seem quite clear with regards to this sot of thing. That said they were pretty much expecting the return and the apocalypse pretty much any second then so I suppose we have to take that into account.

Actually the C church's stance is pretty straightforward in the theory. All human life is sacred. human life begins at conception (but does not exist in exigent parts akak organs or fingers). Therefore all babies/zygotes/fetuses are human life and therefore sacred. You can agree or disagree but its pretty straightforward.

I don't disagree with that, but seeing as the purpose of contraception is to prevent the "divine spark" from rooting in the first place, I see contraception at least-- abortion is clearer I'll grant you-- as being no more "wrong" than celibacy.Seeing as, at least as far as I understand it, the celibacy aspect of the priesthood was only really added years, if not centuries later, and given what we now know about the spread of things like STDs, and given the recent welcome and special rules they extended to defecting married CoE priests, I find their lack of movement on this stance quite baffling. They changed the papal infallibility and the world didn't shatter.

Oh sorry, didn't see you were discussing contraception.

Again, this is my understanding of C policy (not C myself so don't hold against me). I thinnnkkkk...that the position is that most types actually mess with the fertilized egg-which under doctrine is now life-hence bad. But again I don't really understand the structure of the argument on this aspect very well, and know some of it can be a bit convoluted.

jfrazz - the reason the argument is difficult is because non-expert religious people are trying to impose religion upon science.

This nearly always fails in the same way as decreeing the Earth to be flat, or at the center of the universe.

JohnHwangDD wrote:jfrazz - the reason the argument is difficult is because non-expert religious people are trying to impose religion upon science.

This nearly always fails in the same way as decreeing the Earth to be flat, or at the center of the universe.

Zing! John, I know we've disagreed before (probably unnecessarily on my part), but that's bang on. The single biggest wrong the catholic church does is telling people in AIDs ridden countries not to use condoms.

jfrazell wrote:The argument is that life is sacred. Therefore capital punishment is our ultimate statement that life is sacred, and the only appropriate punishment possible.


Red8N: Can atheists be moral? This is whole other and interesting thread (again posting opportunity). I'm not saying they can't - its a philosophy and real life question.
The only avowed atheists I've met personally have been clinical level narcissists that didn't care a wit for anyone except themselves, including their own children (I mean clinical as in determined by psychiatrists). The only big ones I've seen were Hitler (who can be argued might have been an occultist) and the great communist killers who were highly adapt at being amoral (Stalin, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, Lenin).

If you've met no more than few atheists in your life you're either nine years old or you really need to get out more. There's quite a lot of us out there.

Yes, but we tend not to broadcast it. We aren't so insecure that we need to wear our religion (or lack thereof) on our shirtsleeves. Or around our necks. So it makes it difficult for a lot of people.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Yes, but we tend not to broadcast it. We aren't so insecure that we need to wear our religion (or lack thereof) on our shirtsleeves. Or around our necks. So it makes it difficult for a lot of people.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was getting at, albeit in a pretty obtuse way.

We also tend not to advertise it because so many folk feel its an invitation to debate our beliefs, and that can get really tiring after a while. This is something we share in common with Christians, funnily enough.

JohnHwangDD wrote:jfrazz - the reason the argument is difficult is because non-expert religious people are trying to impose religion upon science.

This nearly always fails in the same way as decreeing the Earth to be flat, or at the center of the universe.

1. According to my boy you're right. HE's the center of the universe and coolest kid in (soon to be) 8th grade. Yep, no self esteem issues there

2. The earth isn't flat? Oh ...

Greebynog wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:jfrazz - the reason the argument is difficult is because non-expert religious people are trying to impose religion upon science.

This nearly always fails in the same way as decreeing the Earth to be flat, or at the center of the universe.

Zing! John, I know we've disagreed before (probably unnecessarily on my part), but that's bang on. The single biggest wrong the catholic church does is telling people in AIDs ridden countries not to use condoms.

Wo the horsey there Jonesy. I was trying to describe what I think is the reasoning behind the C Church's stance on birth control. I'm not Catholic. I don't care. Just trying to bring enlightenment to you great unwashed masses


To the other topic-ayah I'm only describing the self avowed atheists I've met. On the flip side I don't go around wearing "Jesus freak" on my arm either.

jfrazell wrote:To the other topic-ayah I'm only describing the self avowed atheists I've met. On the flip side I don't go around wearing "Jesus freak" on my arm either.

From a driving standpoint, there are very few in-your-face atheists. But there are a lot more in-your-face Christians.

At least if you count Darwin animals vs. Jesus fishes and NotW stickers (where the did *that* come from?)