Re: Death penalty

> It was directed at Thurman's rather blithe statement about prison guards, to 
>the
> effect that "they knew wha they were getting into".  To me it demonstrated a
> rather cavalier attitude about a guards safety in juxtaposition to his
> overwhelming concern about the safety of a convicted and unequivocally guilty
> murderer.  Accordingly I don't think my inference is unreasonable at all.

>I disagree. Voluntarily taking a job with known risk factors has no
analogy to being executed.<

Now you're just being obtuse.  I'm not analogizing those and you should know 
that.  I said that execution of unequivocally guilty murders deters them from 
harming or killing prison guards.  Thurman, and apparently you, don't like that 
deterrent.  If you have another reason besides the fact that you value the 
safety of an unequivocally guilty murderer, (can I stop qualifying that for the 
purpose of this argument?), higher than the safety of a prison guard who is put 
at risk by keeping that prisoner alive by all means let me know what it is.  


Now if you advocate putting murderers in a cage, apart from any human contact, 
with food and the necessary supplies to live being provided without exposing 
another human being to contact with the murderers you should say so.  But you 
should also know that that scenario has, or in short order, would be prohibited 
as cruel and unusual punishment.  And yes there are quite a few punishments that 
are more cruel and unusual than death.  



> And I reject your explanation.  You saying it is vengeance doesn't make it so.
> I think the difference between our positions is that I acknowledge that my
> saying something doesn't make it so, whereas you seem to keep insisting that
> your saying it does.

>I don't know how to respond to this. I'm not "just saying it." I've
laid out my position very clearly, several times over. You *still*
haven't answered the question that is fundamental to my position.
Until you do that, I don't know what else I can do.<

All you have done is tell me that you think it is vengeance.  I can't fathom on 
what basis you can ascertain the entirety of society/culture/government's 
motives in employing capital punishment.  I support capital punishment in 
principle and it isn't for vengeance, yet I get the feeling you think you are 
perfectly qualified to ascribe that motive to me.   That really isn't something 
worth debating from my perspective since there is no external data I can point 
to to convince you otherwise.   


> C'mon.  If I don't get to determine when God's grace is finished neither do 
>you,
> yet your position is obviously that it doesn't end until someone's life is
> over.  Are you so enlightened on the metaphysical realities of God, time,
> eternity, etc. that you can say that with any certainty?  That you are willing
> to seems to indicate that you are comfortable, if not speaking for him, then 
at
> least pronouncing upon things that are within His purview.

>You're really, *really* grasping at straws, here. By allowing someone
to live out their natural life, I am somehow imposing on God?
*Seriously?*<

Can you point to where you think I said that.  


>>You're leaping to all *sorts* of conclusions today. At what point did
> I say I would force my choice on you?<
>
> If you aren't then please choose your words more carefully.  What else are you
> doing but judging my position on an issue when you include me in your question
> of what constitutes obedience to God.

>Yes, I am judging your position. Of course I am. But I'm not going to
force my own conscience on you.<

Potato, potahto....


> If you only mean it to apply to yourself then make that clear.
> As it was you used the word "our", and I'm assuming that
> includes me.

>No, I believe Christ's instructions apply to all of us. Whether we
obey them, or how we interpret them, is obviously up to each of us.<

Tomato, tomahto..  


> As to the verse: Jesus also told his disciples to carry a sword

>Yeah, he also told them to take a purse and cloak or whatever --
essentially all the things they didn't need before. Why was he saying
this to them, do you think?<

The common sense reading was that they would need them.  


> In short, I don't believe
> that verse can be used to make the point that self defense, deadly or no, is
> unequivocally, disobedience to God

Neither can it be dismissed. How do you square it with your position?

> and I believe there is a fair amount of
> historical context which defies a simplistic approach to the passage.

>On this point, I certainly agree, though I suspect we have different
ideas about that context.<

I believe the passage was more about insults and *personal* revenge as opposed 
to self defense or the defense of others.  



>>If a burgler breaks into my house and the cops come and *kill*
> him, I'd be rather upset, and so would lots of other people<
>
> Yet, knowing that is a possibility

>I would *not* expect this to be a possibility. It's not the cops' job
to shoot people, it's their job to apprehend them. I realize there's
more that could be said about this, but I'm going to end my response
here, as it's tangiential to the topic at hand, and I don't want to
get too far off track.<

You've constructed quite an artifice to justify your moral cowardice.  Whether 
you *expect* it or not it is a possibility that you have to accept when you make 
that call.  


Mike F.

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot