The only one “ranting” here is you. Are you trying to say that a 30 year sentence for rape is driven completely and ultimately by “revenge.” How about 5 year sentences for grand theft? How about a 100 dollar ticket for speeding? What about a 50 dollar ticket for jaywalking? Are these are “revenge” motivated sentences?
They are still alive. No one here is saying murderers should not be punished. Life in prison with no chance of parole is also a suitable punishment. I would be careful about using OT law as your justification for the death penalty. You will also be required to expand executions for idolatry, disobedience to authority, and sexual immorality.
The basis for the Church’s position on capital punishment is Gen 9:6: “Whoever sheds the blood of man by man shall his blood be shed, because man is made in the image of God.” CWBetts stated that a literal interpretation of this verse (which is what he claimed I was making) would mean that we would have to execute those who killed someone accidentally. My response was that this was never how the Church interpreted it; she applied the sanction to murder alone.
Do not confuse Mosaic Law with God’s covenant with Noah. Mosaic Law was temporary and applicable to its time; God’s covenant is eternal. As the current Catechism states (2260) about Gen 9:6: *“This teaching is necessary for all time.”
The Church teaching NOW discourages the death penalty. Why do you refuse to accept this?
You’re not staying on track to the point. You claimed that a sentence of death was driven by a desire for revenge. Whether or not someone is put to death or not is a moot point. The question is NOT “Is a sentence of death a humane treatment of a criminal?” The question I put to you is: “Is a sentence of death driven by a desire for revenge?”
It doesn’t matter, because you’re saying that there is only one sentencing option for a murderer, and that is life in prison. You’re basing that on the ASSUMPTION that the death penalty is nothing more than an option that is driven entirely by revenge seekers. But you aren’t being consistent, because you refused to answer the question about whether or not other punishments for other crimes are driven by a desire for revenge.
I disagree. There is absolutely no benefit to society to keep the man alive, other than to make liberals feel better.
Well, it’s a good thing that I didn’t.
There is determent to society by killing him. As long as society deems that some are not worthy of life, true respect for the utter sanctity of life will never be achieved. I find it comical that you label me a liberal. If actually caring about social justice is liberalism, then I guess I am. But on the other hand, I am pro-life, which would make me a conservative. Justice nust be tempered with mercy. If it is not the result is tyranny. But then, you seem to want a police state with police who are above the law.I disagree. There is absolutely no benefit to society to keep the man alive, other than to make liberals feel better.
That’s a convoluted manner in logic. Respect for the sanctity of life comes about by society making judgments about what it values. If it values the life of the murderer equal to that of the innocent, then it MUST execute the murderer to maintain that value. There is absolutely no other option.
You are.
There are homosexuals who are pro-life, but that doesn’t really mean much to me. I’m speaking GENERALLY. As a general rule, you can label atheists, homosexuals, gun-control nuts, abortionists, etc, as liberal. But there is a new breed of politics whereby people adopt certain positions in an attempt to align themselves closer to the middle, thereby giving the appearance of being “conservative.” Newt Gingrich is an excellent example of this.
Peace be with you.
Justice does not require the death penalty.
The basis for Catholic teaching on the death penalty is not Genesis 9:6, but the Catechism and Evangelium Vitae.
Yes, I am aware that YOUR justice does not. However, several of the States do include the death penalty in their criminal justice codes.
Since when should any Christian let the state dictate to them what is right and wrong. To speak out against what is perceived as injustice is not only a right, but the duty of a good citizen.
Neo-con is no badge of honor. As a Catholic, I am faithful to the Church established by Jesus Christ, which transcends political parties. It puts me in good company. Jesus was all for social justice, so by your definition, Jesus was a liberal too.That’s a convoluted manner in logic. Respect for the sanctity of life comes about by society making judgments about what it values. If it values the life of the murderer equal to that of the innocent, then it MUST execute the murderer to maintain that value. There is absolutely no other option.
You are.
There are homosexuals who are pro-life, but that doesn’t really mean much to me. I’m speaking GENERALLY. As a general rule, you can label atheists, homosexuals, gun-control nuts, abortionists, etc, as liberal. But there is a new breed of politics whereby people adopt certain positions in an attempt to align themselves closer to the middle, thereby giving the appearance of being “conservative.” Newt Gingrich is an excellent example of this.
So, No, being pro-life does not make you a conservative. Leiberman is a former liberal Democrat turned Libertarian from Conn. who is pro-life. But he is a liberal. You probably are confused.
I would say that if we took a political test, you’d probably end up in the Libertarian court with Leiberman.
I wasn’t talking about MY justice.
It’s God’s command. Romans 13: " 1Let every person be subject to their government. For there is no authority except from God, and those governments that exist have been instituted by God. 2Therefore whoever resists the government resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience."
“Neocon” is nothing more than a synonym for RINO (Republican In Name Only). I consider it a badge of dishonor.
Only a liberal would accuse Jesus of being a liberal. Jesus was neither a liberal nor a conservative. He simply is. Jesus didn’t promote a social gospel, but the exact opposite.
Nonsense.