Death penalty comment
Florida executed a serial killer tonight.
It saddens me that we still haven't gotten over this barbaric concept that killing is a just punishment. I know we do it all the time, but I can't say I support it. I don't have all the answers, but I do value all life. Even that of a serial killer, or a terrorist. I cannot bring myself to desire their death... for to do so sullies my own life and lessens our culture.
Oh well, I'm just a single voice. But it feels better to speak than be silent.
It saddens me that we still haven't gotten over this barbaric concept that killing is a just punishment. I know we do it all the time, but I can't say I support it. I don't have all the answers, but I do value all life. Even that of a serial killer, or a terrorist. I cannot bring myself to desire their death... for to do so sullies my own life and lessens our culture.
Oh well, I'm just a single voice. But it feels better to speak than be silent.
posted by Voodoo at 4:28 PM
11 Comments:
So...you're pro-life, then?
Yes, are you? Anyone who supports the death penalty isn't frankly.
However you seem to make the assumption that I have to be EITHER pro-life OR pro-choice.
I do not like abortion (which is your obvious insinuation), however, unlike those who would force their morality and beliefs on others, I do not require others to act according to my moral constucts.
I would counsel any woman in a difficult situation to seriously consider NOT terminating a pregnancy. I would suggest adoption (even if there are not enough people ACTUALLY adopting). But I would NOT take that option away from her. Her moral thought may be different than mine.
But that implies that morality is subjective and open to individual opinion. Can some actions be wrong regardless of how a person feels about it? And society forces morality on others all the time. That's exactly the purpose of having laws and enforcing them.
Morality is subjective. If you ask BC if consentual premarital sex is immoral, the answer would be yes. My answer is emphatically no.
I am polytheistic. A Muslim would view that as EXTREMELY immoral. Yet it fits within my morality easily.
Frankly, you understand our laws wrong if you believe their intention is to enforce morality. They are to protect individual freedom. Sharia law enforces morality. But not the laws of the United States. If they are to enforce morality, why isn't the fact that I've had openly many sexual partners... one of whom was married... illegal? I think your argument is flawed there.
I didn't want to get into this. Ah well.
Many laws do enforce morality. Why are liquor stores closed on sunday? And what is the current debate in almost every state in the nation over same-sex marraiges if not a question of differing moralities? At least to some, if not a large, extent, it is a moral question.
I believe that most of our laws are not black and white in terms of a morality versus freedom basis. Aren't many laws based on both? Murder, for example, infringes on individual freedom, but is also considered morally wrong. Who is to say what the basis of the law is?
I may be stretching things a little bit here, but who is to say that if I believe I have a right to kill you for whatever reason....maybe because you perform abortions, for example, that my individual freedom doesn't give me the right to do so? Morality has to come into play somewhere along the line. It is morally wrong for me to take that into my own hands and kill you just because my faith, or my morality, or my...whatever...is different than yours.
I think a more basic question is, do you believe there is absolute truth in the universe? Because if there is, (and I believe there is), then morality is not subjective. You can't define morality according to what you think is right for you at the time. And just because you think it is right does not make it so. If you believe in absolute truth.
If you don't, then everything in the universe is subjective, not just morality. Truth, justice, God, everything. And I don't believe any one individual has the power to make the universe be what he wants it to be. Or even his little corner of it.
No matter how much he might want it to be true.
Peace.
You ask whay prevents someone who thinks killing is moral from killing. That's simple from a legal standpoint. It has nothing to do with morality, rather the taking of someone elses freedom (and life away from them). The Law of this great nation cannot enforce morality. And I agree with you that the Same Sex marriage laws that are going into place are trying to do just that. which is why I oppose all of them.
Without going into christian dogma, which I do not even remotely espouse to belive, can you tell me WHY two loving people should NOT be allowed to wed? I'm interested in the arguments.
And I wholly espouse to the thought that there is NO absolute MORALITY to the universe. That is in no way connected to TRUTH. (another term that is more accurate than truth is FACT). You are correct in your ascertation that I cannot make the sky red no matter how hard I believe in it. It is blue... that is scientific fact. But that in no way proves an absoulte MORALITY, which is what your argument is trying to do. The connection just isn't there.
If god is absolute, then who's god? Yours? The Muslims, The Jews? Thor, Odin, Freyr, Loki, and Helm? It would be incredibly arrogant of one person to say unequivicobaly that THEY are right and anyone else is wrong on such an unproveable point. Why? Because YOU believe more strongly than they do. I would never deing to say that your god is wrong. Just that he is no more mine than mine are yours.
Please understand, the above is not intended as an attack, rather the questions have to be asked of the respondant for them to make sense. it is meant in a very genral way.
You are correct that not all immoral acts are illegal (Slavery was legal in this country for years), but that does not imply that the laws that are in place are not enforcing morality.
All laws are rooted in some value system, from a belief that some things are right and others wrong, good or bad, better or worse. When forming and enforcing laws, the question is never whether or not morality will be legislated, but which one.
Even traffic laws are based in morality. When we pass laws that require drivers to drive their vehicles at 20 mph or less in school zones, we do so because we have a value system that rightly puts greater worth in human life than in vehicular speed. That valuation is a moral judgment. Because almost all people would agree with this moral judgment, no one complains that it is morals-based. People tend to complain that laws are morals-based only when the law in question is based upon a moral valuation with which they disagree.
You are also correct that people disagree on what is morally right and wrong, but just because someone sincerely believes something does not make it true or false. And the question of which morality to legislate is important because not all systems of morality are equal.
For your point that moral truth is different from scientific truth, that's a fun one to discuss. I'll have to come back to that when I've got some more free time.
Um...just to add more fuel to the fire...
Adultry (sex with an individual who is not your spouse) IS illegal in this state.
So you know.
I am pro-justice. I am for the ultimate punishment for those criminals that have performed heinous acts; that are tried and found guilty by a jury of their peers; and who the legal system decides merit the death penalty.
I am against terminating an innocent life simply out of convenience.
First, I had a long conversation with a friend this afternoon that convinced me that our legal system is based on the morals that are generally accepted. The apparent ideal of our governmental system is to make that as limited in scope as possible to allow the most latitute to the individual to make their own choices.
Second, don't mislead on the definition of Adultery. It's when a MARRIED person has sexual relations with someone other than there spouse. And YES it IS on the books... and has never been enforced. I'd LOVE to see someone try. That law would be tossed in less than 30 seconds in court and you know it.
Third, Laurie, I never claimed a MORAL truth. That's putting words in my mouth. In fact, I claimed exactly the opposite. That there is no moral absolute, merely the morals you hold.
Last, on the "justice" argument. two points. How do you justify this position as a christian who espouses to follow the teachings of christ. I seem to recall in my readings that christ didn't really preach such behaviour. Secondly on this point... how would you justify the work of the Innocence Project, that has exonerated 40% of the cases they examine for death row inmates based on DNA testing? I personally am agaist killing someone based on arrogance that mistakes weren't made.
And I agree with you on not killing for convenience, but in doing so you are making a value judgement other people do not hold to. I just can't make that choice for someone.
As I said I'm not FOR abortion... but I can't force someone to NOT do that. We will never see eye to eye on this point because you seem to continually assume that because I support a womans choice to control her own body that I WANT to kill babies. I'm not going to continue going around this logical circle.
First, Black Cross was answering your question. You said "Why isn't the fact that I've had many sexual partners....one of whom was married....illegal." He was pointing out that it is illegal. Not that it isn't prosecuted. And the act was, in fact, illegal, since the woman involved was married and was having sex with you. He was not misleading on the definition at all. The act is illegal, for those engaged in it. Not just the married person. And if it is such a flimsy law, why do you suppose it is a perfectly sound grounds for divorce?
There is no moral absolute? Then where do the concepts of right and wrong come from?
You can't make the choice for someone that killing for conveniece is wrong? Wow. Are you sure about that? That you can't tell someone that killing just out of convenience is wrong? Or is this just in the case of abortion? When is killing for conveniece okay and when is it not? And who gets to make that judgement call? Isn't killing someone infringing on their freedoms? And isn't that where we started?
As for what Christ preached and stood for.....as He was on the cross, the thief on one side told Him to save Himself, to save them all. The thief on the other side said, "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."
It seems to me that this man was talking about dying for his crimes and that it is what he deserved. Christ offered no contradiction to that.
Paul completely believed in the death penalty and was expecting it. He was ready for it if he were proven guilty And I think it is safe to say he knew Christ fairly well. He mentions death as a punishment for wrong-doing more than once.
Post a Comment
<< Home