Re: [Bulk] Re: Death penalty

In a sense, we can never "keep religion out of government" in a
representative republic. The government's made up of people who vote
according to their values, and their values are often informed by
their religion. (But we can sure as hell keep government out of
religion.)

**I agree.  Unfortunately too many people do not, on all sides of that debate.


>>I know, I know, it's not the *exactly* the same, you're not advocating
> putting people on death row for the sole purpose of saving their
> souls, but my point is that a threat of execution probably isn't the
> most morally sound way to get people thinking about repentence -- and
> it's certainly not a justification for "immoral homicide," if that is
> indeed what the death penalty is.<
>
> Um.... what do you call it when someone takes something you said and uses,
> (misuses), it to argue against a point you weren't making?

LOL! Hey, I girded myself on this one! I acknowledged it's not exactly
the same kind of argument. It just sounded a wee bit creepy. (And yes,
I know you weren't using it as a justification for the death penalty,
I was merely expanding on my argument, musing aloud, etc. And what's
going on with you and Karl? Are we not allowed to do that around here
anymore? Did I miss a memo?)

**hey how did I get dragged in here?


> I was merely pointing out a flaw, or counter argument, to the
> religious argument.

Not a very good one, I might add. Someone who objects to execution on
the grounds that it cuts short a person's time to find redemption
isn't likely to be persuaded by the counter (sincere or otherwise)
that you're merely speeding up the process.

**I am with Mike, I find both arguments to be equally flawed.

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