Americans Back Death Penalty by Gas or Electrocution If No Needle: Poll

[Ender]

It’s rather splitting hairs - you quote church sources then, and they in turn have interpreted scripture.

It makes no sense whatever to cite scripture as a source of truth and then reject the interpretation of the church that created it. Scripture apart from the church carries no significance whatever. If the church that created it doesn’t understand it then why would anyone believe it in the first place?

If you think they were somehow divinely inspired then our argument is over because I do not!

If scripture was not divinely inspired then why would you care what it says, but if its creation was divinely inspired what is the basis for arguing that it is not also divinely interpreted?

If you cannot see the cruelty of condemning a man to death and carrying it out then I will just have to think that you have limited imagination.

I think it is not imagination that is lacking here but reason. What argument do you have that cruelty itself is wrong? Because you believe it to be so?

My comparison to jihadists etc is because of this; you appear to have no desire to form your own opinion. You depend entirely on the teachings of people in the past who in turn have interpreted other teachings/ scriptures. Extremists also have to be unquestioning about someone’s take on their religion so it can be a dangerous thing! It’s the acceptance of another person’s word that I compare…not you as an individual!

What is the alternative? To think that right is whatever I believe it to be? If I get to decide right and wrong for myself then surely everyone else has that same right, but in such a world the concept of right and wrong becomes meaningless. Either right and wrong exist irrespective of my personal opinion or they do not exist at all.

Ender

 

[Kelt]

It makes no sense whatever to cite scripture as a source of truth and then reject the interpretation of the church that created it. Scripture apart from the church carries no significance whatever. If the church that created it doesn’t understand it then why would anyone believe it in the first place?
If scripture was not divinely inspired then why would you care what it says, but if its creation was divinely inspired what is the basis for arguing that it is not also divinely interpreted?
I think it is not imagination that is lacking here but reason. What argument do you have that cruelty itself is wrong? Because you believe it to be so?
What is the alternative? To think that right is whatever I believe it to be? If I get to decide right and wrong for myself then surely everyone else has that same right, but in such a world the concept of right and wrong becomes meaningless. Either right and wrong exist irrespective of my personal opinion or they do not exist at all.

Ender

Even in the army, there are times when an individual has to think for himself. There comes a time and set of circumstances when ‘I was just following orders’ is not acceptable.
And my reasoning, my ‘belief’ that cruelty is wrong is mistaken? Almost unbelievable…

So everything that happen to be thrashed out and settled between theologians (only in YOUR church?) is because of divine intervention? So what was going on with intervention when individuals in the church were making (in your humble opinion) WRONG decisions? Crusades/ treatment of Jews/Galileo for example? How do YOU tell the right, presumably divinely inspired decisions, from the wrong ( presumably not divinely inspired) ones? What would you have done if you’d been living through a time when the hierarchy in the church were making a wrong decision? Or do you perhaps think that is happening now?? Would you just ‘follow orders’ because then YOU’LL be OK and responsibility will be taken by someone else? Pass the buck.

Basically, what you also seem to be saying is that the particular ‘truth’ you have chosen out of all the ‘truths’ on offer, is right. Everyone in the whole world who disagrees with you is wrong.
Well, I suppose it’s a great comfort to you to be so supremely and arrogantly confident, as you can sit back and relax knowing you’re on the path to heaven. No don’t tell me it’s hard work to keep on the straight and narrow…with convictions like yours you have no decisions to take - you just get out your rule-book.

 

[LongingSoul]

States make laws they believe will be good. If lawmakers do something contrary to that good are they necessarily cruel or perhaps just mistaken? We can look at any number of decisions that have had negative consequences. Does a bad outcome alone make those decisions cruel? Why would you assume that someone who reaches a conclusion contrary to yours is either cruel or “usurping the word of God” to satisfy his own ends?

You sound like those abusers who go to great lengths to absolve themselves of responsibility for their own actions.

How do you feel about some of the laws that dehumanised the black populations of our countries? Were they just silly mistakes? If we were to reintroduce some of those based on a specific agenda, would that just be a god given right of the state that we should consider outside of moral examination?

The state is made up of people who are bound to work for the common good of all the citizens. The Church plays a very important role in addressing those issues publically, so the people can be as roundly informed as possible concerning human rights and mans inalieanable dignity. If the Church views capital punishment as ‘cruel and unnecessary’ and urges abolition that bears no relation to whether capital punishment is inherently evil or not. What it addressed is those who falsely attempt to claim that it is inherently necessary. They are the heretics of our age.

That would be an apology for a particular application of capital punishment, not for capital punishment itself. Since it is God himself who permits it perhaps we should wait for God to apologize before we object to its use.

Do you not believe in the coming among us of the Holy Spirit and man’s free will? Do you not believe in the authority of the Church in these matters? These are basic Catholic understandings. Perhaps you also believe man has no business dispensing with slavery and the whipping post and stocks?

We cannot put ourselves above others and be God. We are reminded by Christ that we honour God by honouring our fellow man. This is where the whole concept of the common good comes from. We are mortal and ignorant beings who have to live the commandments within the relationships with each other and make laws that serve charity towards man. We don’t have any business pretending to be the voice of God or thinking we have that voice directly in our ear like the prophets.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

You make light of what are in fact significant differences. Your comparison is akin to equating murder with killing in self defense, as in If A kills B we call it unjustified while if B kills A we call it justified. It glosses over that which makes the difference.

Any time you want to explain what it is that “makes the difference,” please do so. Because below you seem to disagree with me on the element that is making the difference:

Again, you trivialize the distinction between “groups”.

How so?

If you have a justification for why one man may punish another I should be interested in hearing it.

I do not. I thought you were the one claiming to have the justification.

How can I point you to rules for a “special” class when that classification is yours alone?

Is it permissible for anyone to dole out violent punishment or is that only acceptable from the special people?

This might go better if you made your points with a little less hyperbole.

Ender

No hyperbole.

 

[anthony022071]

These rights that ‘descend’ from God given natural rights and freedoms are whats called ‘auxilliary’ rights. They do not stand alone like the rights they are serving.

I did not suggest that they did. But my point was that the right to own guns falls under the natural right to own property in general and to defense,so that it is a natural right. The right to own a particular thing is included in the natural right to own things in general. If you do not respect people’s right to own guns,which are legitimate items of property,then you do not really respect their right to property in general.

In the example of my favourite analogy of the moment, food is necessary for life but it doesn’t follow that chocolate is food and therefore chocolate is necessary for life.

Chocolate is food. That it is not necessary for life does not mean you do not have a right to eat it. There is no particular kind of food that is necessary for all people.

Our natural right to own or have access to things does not always depend upon whether those things are necessary for life. God and right reason permits us to own and have access to things that are not necessary for life. Otherwise,there would be nothing wrong with the government confiscating most of our possessions. Think of all the things that you have which are not really necessary for you to live. Your computer,stereo system,refrigerator,bed,car,plates,cups,forks,knives,spoons,old pictures and letters and souvenirs,various wires and cords and other stuff you never use. Even your bank account,your house or apartment and most of your clothes. Homeless people and saints can live without these things,so does that mean you don’t have a right to own them?

No constitution has the authority or power to re-define the natural law. It can only refer to it in formulating it’s principles for a unified, healthy, free and inclusive society. If its end goal was to ultimately esteem each man individually as the highest authority in society… it is essentially voiding itself as having any real authority.

I did not suggest that a constitution has the authority to re-define the natural law or that each man’s individuality is the highest authority in society. But a constitution should safeguard people’s natural rights.

Natural law *allows for *a penalty of death in the pursuit of justice like it *allows for *war in the pursuit of justice. It is a recourse and a remedy to treat disorders fatal to the common good. It is like the diet *allows for *chocolate and dessert as a recourse and a remedy for dietary concupiscience. It can never qualify as a dietary staple like carbs, proteins and fats that are essential for good health. It is just a recourse invoked to treat a weakness of humanity.

The death penalty is mainly a punishment for persons who have committed grave crimes. Even apart from the idea that it deters other people from committing crimes,it is still considered a fitting punishment for those who are guilty of grave crimes. I am against the death penalty because it is killing someone who is already under restraint,and it stains the conscience of the executioner and the government official who gave the order.

 

[Ender]

Even in the army, there are times when an individual has to think for himself. There comes a time and set of circumstances when ‘I was just following orders’ is not acceptable.

You need to recognize the difference between doctrine and the application of doctrine in specific circumstances. The latter is always debatable, the former is not.

And my reasoning, my ‘belief’ that cruelty is wrong is mistaken? Almost unbelievable…

I didn’t say you were mistaken. I challenged you to prove the assertion.

So everything that happen to be thrashed out and settled between theologians (only in YOUR church?) is because of divine intervention? So what was going on with intervention when individuals in the church were making (in your humble opinion) WRONG decisions? Crusades/ treatment of Jews/Galileo for example? How do YOU tell the right, presumably divinely inspired decisions, from the wrong ( presumably not divinely inspired) ones?

See: doctrine versus the application of doctrine.

Ender

 

[Ender]

You sound like those abusers who go to great lengths to absolve themselves of responsibility for their own actions.

I am not responsible for the way you have misunderstood what has been said.

How do you feel about some of the laws that dehumanised the black populations of our countries? Were they just silly mistakes? If we were to reintroduce some of those based on a specific agenda, would that just be a god given right of the state that we should consider outside of moral examination?

Case in point: it is irrational to suggest this has any relation to my comments.

If the Church views capital punishment as ‘cruel and unnecessary’ and urges abolition that bears no relation to whether capital punishment is inherently evil or not.

The position you present here is that the church views capital punishment as cruel but doesn’t see it as evil. How is it that something can be cruel but not evil? This position is incoherent.

What it addressed is those who falsely attempt to claim that it is inherently necessary.

Since no one has suggested it is inherently necessary it is unlikely that the church set out to address that point.

Do you not believe in the authority of the Church in these matters? These are basic Catholic understandings.

Do you still not understand that our disagreement is not over church authority but over what she has actually said?

Ender

 

[Ender]

Any time you want to explain what it is that “makes the difference,” please do so.

The rationale for why one group can do something that is forbidden to another group is so fundamental to society it seems strange to question it. I can tell you what to do and you cannot tell me what to do if I am in the group “parent” and you are in the group “child.” If we are shooting at one another my shooting at you is justified while your shooting at me is not if I am in the group “policeman” and you are in the group “bank robber.” Relevant to the topic here, I may avenge crimes and you may not if I am in the group “minister of the state” and you are not.

I do not. I thought you were the one claiming to have the justification.

I do (have an explanation for who may administer punishment), or rather, the church does.It must be remembered that power was granted by God [to the magistrates], and to avenge crime by the sword was permitted. He who carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (Rm 13:1-4). (Innocent I)

Is it permissible for anyone to dole out violent punishment or is that only acceptable from the special people?

Only the special people (aka the magistrates).Notwithstanding we see that Princes and Governors put thieves and other malefactors to death, who nevertheless are men, and it is not holden that they do evil herein, but well. Princes and Governors that have public authority, put malefactors to death, not as masters of men’s lives, but as ministers of God, as St. Paul saith. Because God willeth and commandeth that malefactors be punished and killed, when they deserve it, that good men may be safe, and live in peace. And for this purpose God hath given the sword into the hands of Princes and Rulers to do justice, in defending the good, and chastising the bad. And so, when by public authority a malefactor is put to death, it is not called murder, but an act of justice: and whereas the commandment of God saith: Thou shalt not kill, it is understood, by thy private authority. (Catechism of St. Bellarmine)
Ender

 

[JennyAnne]

“An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” - Ghandi

 

[Ender]

The death penalty is mainly a punishment for persons who have committed grave crimes. Even apart from the idea that it deters other people from committing crimes,it is still considered a fitting punishment for those who are guilty of grave crimes. I am against the death penalty because it is killing someone who is already under restraint,and it stains the conscience of the executioner and the government official who gave the order.

This is a very reasoned position. It recognizes capital punishment as appropriate for grave crimes yet opposes its use as a matter of prudence. I think this is exactly the position the church has taken.

Ender

 

[dudleysharp]

I have thought this a valid possibility too.

However, I’m concerned about the innocent convicted. Talk about Christ-like. Sentencing an innocent person to the death-penalty won’t save any innocent lives, unless there’s some kind of spiritual heavy-lifting going on we may not see. (Say this innocent person joins their death-sentence to Christ’s Passion.)

Obviously, an innocent man executed is not, remotely, Christ like.

We all die because of our sins, no matter what that death might be - an eternal truth.

Execution of an innocent is a human tragedy based within error.\

As detailed in my other posts, innocents are more at risk without the death penalty.

 

[dudleysharp]

“An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” - Ghandi

“An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind”:
Zero evidence that Gandhi said it
Dudley Sharp

The quote should be attributed to Graham (below), with a correction against Gandhi’s use

Fischer (below) suggested it as a philosophical principle of Gandhi, with zero attribution to Gandhi, which is where, I believe, this error started.

In the movie Gandhi, Briley, a screenwriter, put those words in Gandhi’s mouth, for the fictional history.

Gandhi wouldn’t have said it, because he wouldn’t so pervert Christian text and its meaning.

With zero evidence provided, Gandhi’s family says (2006) that he did use it, confirming their belief that Gandhi misunderstood Christian scripture, something I think, highly, unlikely.

The actual meaning of the biblical text is that sanctions for crimes/sins shall be just and proportional to the wrongful act, as opposed to the wildly disproportionate and harsh sanctions of the past.

It was a call for more merciful and proportional sanctions.

There seems no chance that Gandhi would so misinterpret or pervert Christian scripture.

It’s a unfortunate reflection on Gandhi that many believe that he could make such an error and that, even worse, they do so with no evidence that Gandhi said it and, furthermore, to take it from the rightful author, George Graham, a politician, much more likely to make that error.

This, below, giving a timeline and attribution. from Wikileaks, all of which I have confirmed.

1914: “If…we were to go back to…‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,’ there would be very few [Honourable] Gentlemen in this House who would not…be blind and toothless.” — George Perry Graham, during a debate on capital punishment before the Canadian House of Commons. Official Report of the Debates of the House of Commons of the Dominion of Canada, Third Session-Twelfth Parliament, Vol CXIII, p. 496, February 5, 1914.

1950: “An-eye-for-an-eye-for-an-eye-for-an-eye … ends in making everybody blind” in The Life of Mahatma Gandhi by Louis Fischer (1950), though Fischer did not attribute it to Gandhi and seemed to be giving, inaccurately, his own description of Gandhi’s philosophy.

Sharp note: I think this is were the error started.

1958: “The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind” in Stride Toward Freedom: The Montgomery Story by Martin Luther King, Jr., 1958.

1982: “An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind” in the 1982 film, Gandhi. In a 1993 biographical article about screenwriter John Briley, Jon Krampner wrote, “…Gandhi never said it. Michigan graduate John Briley put those pithy words in his mouth.” From “John Briley '51 - Epic Screenwriter”, Michigan Today, March 1993, p. 12.

Sharp note: And that is where the error became more well distributed.

2006: There is a quaternary source in Yale Book of Quotations (2006), in which editor Fred R. Shapiro states that the Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence stated that Gandhi’s family believes it authentic, but did not provide any further reference and provided no year, place or body of work.

2006: Discussed in The Quote Verifier: Who Said What, Where, and When, by Ralph Keyes (2006), 1st ed., p. 74.

2010: Research detailed by Garson O’Toole in “An Eye for an Eye Will Make the Whole World Blind” in Quote Investigator.