Funny how the LDS Church took tremendous heat for the whole Prop 8. thing with many saying that a church had no business in politics, and here we have a world leader of the 1st or 2nd largest religion in the world, Catholicism, making a very bold position against the Death Penalty.
It would seem that I am either obsessed over the death penalty, or that my previous post is somewhat prophetic in its topic. Either way, the death penalty has found its way into the discussion once more. The main theme of his declaration was that there is no "justice without life." I am not entirely sure how to agree with this statement as Justice would absolutely call for such a punishment. Perhaps his position would have more merit had he argued that there is no mercy without life. Even that would be called into question. What about the justice of the dead, the mercy that isn't possible anymore because of a capital offense? Why does a murderer or serial rapist deserve mercy more than the families and friends of the victim?
Many in the media tend to look at the death penalty as so unfair, some even say cruel and unusual. Throw punishment out, most of the people convicted of capital crimes have done something cruel and unusual to another, without it even being in the punishment category. If someone is to commit a capital offense, then their own death is not so "unusual" but rather a common thing. Death is something they must be comfortable with if they are to bring that on another.
Let me give an example to illustrate further: How is it justice if someone steals 10 dollars from someone that they only have to repay 5, or 6? In most cases, people would call it justice if someone stole 10 dollars that they not only had to repay the 10 dollars, but have punitive damages as well to dissuade them from doing the act in the first place. If the punishment for stealing 10 dollars is only having to repay 5 or 6 dollars, then I just made 4 or 5 dollars for doing something illegal and offensive to another.
In comparison to death penalty cases, if someone consciously murders another (takes 10 dollars to connect with the metaphor for those following along) how is it somehow justice to say that they don't have to loose their life in return? In someways justice is not served fully as there is no way to make the offense whole with additional punitive damages on top. The most that can be repaid, the offenders life, still falls short of complete justice. The real injustice is that the innocent life was initially taken, not that the offender suffers a similar fate only compounded with guilt.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Monday, November 28, 2011
Is the Death Penalty a sign of God's Love?
The following quote presents an unique perspective on the death penalty as a sign of God's love, not a denial of mercy. I post it as a point of discussion to garner opinion on the perspective as a case for the death penalty as not only justice, but mercy as well. Please keep in mind the context of this commentary is on biblical law, but in response to someone questioning the validity of the death penalty of someone who has committed a capital offense.
“To deny the death penalty is to insist on life for the evil; it means that evil men are given the right to kill, kidnap, rape, and violate law and order, and their life is guaranteed against death in the process. The murderer is given the right to kill without losing his life, and the victim and potential victims are denied their right to live. Men may speak ofunconditional love, and unconditional mercy, but every act of love and mercy is conditional, because, in granting it to one man, I am affirming the conditions of his life and denying others in the process. If I am loving and merciful to a murderer, I am unloving and merciless to his present and future victims. Moreover, I am then in open contempt of God and His law, which requires no mercy to a man guilty of death.” (Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law, p. 78.)"
“To deny the death penalty is to insist on life for the evil; it means that evil men are given the right to kill, kidnap, rape, and violate law and order, and their life is guaranteed against death in the process. The murderer is given the right to kill without losing his life, and the victim and potential victims are denied their right to live. Men may speak ofunconditional love, and unconditional mercy, but every act of love and mercy is conditional, because, in granting it to one man, I am affirming the conditions of his life and denying others in the process. If I am loving and merciful to a murderer, I am unloving and merciless to his present and future victims. Moreover, I am then in open contempt of God and His law, which requires no mercy to a man guilty of death.” (Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law, p. 78.)"
Monday, November 21, 2011
Occupy ______ ? Are protests a dead form of speech?
I have stayed pretty silent with the whole Occupy Wall Street thing that has swept the news media for sometime now simply because I don't wish to bring any attention to the protest. I don't agree with their message, or at least how they are going about it. I think protesting worked when people had no way of avoiding protests. Now days, I have an internet filled with distractions, television, books, you name it, I don't have to listen or care about that protest. It doesn't really effect me because I don't invest in stocks, I don't live near wall street, and I don't think that any financial problems that have come my way over the last few years came because some jerk got selfish in downtown New York City. The problem is much more complicated than that.
What I question are all the Occupy ___________ (enter a city here) protests that have been organized throughout the rest of the United States. I realize that the goal here is to bring the message to everyone and the only way they felt to do that was to occupy and disrupt several city operations regardless of how much they were involved in the financial situation we are in now. However, what people are seeing now are whinny, lazy, dirty people who are protesting because they are either bored, or need attention. While that may not be accurate, that is how they are coming across to many.
What is the end result going to be of these protests? So far, people have been arrested, and nothing has changed in the financial system as a result. Now what?? Well, finally I heard one partially decent idea recently to come of this, but it had nothing to do with a "hit the streets with signs" kind of protest. It was a calculated attack that would hit the banks hard (if the strategy was big enough.) It was that people were supposed to pull their money from the banks that they were protesting or the investment accounts held in the companies they felt were at fault for the financial problem. The goal was that if they were able to deplete enough of their bank reserves that the banks would both recognize their power as consumers, and that they might understand a bit of the sense of loss the people were feeling as a result. I like this idea better than being lazy and stinky for months. At least there is a clear quantifiable message to their efforts.
Then again, if these people really had no money, then I am not sure that flexing that kind of "muscle" will have any effect at all. Wether it was successful or not, I don't know. I just think that the day of the protest on the street with a sign in the air was great for hippies and anti-war protests of the 1970's is gone. I don't think it should be outlawed, and I don't think that people should stop if they feel that is the best way to get their message across. However, I feel as a society, that street protesting is a dead form of speech and most people have evolved in such a way to be able to tune out the message.
What I question are all the Occupy ___________ (enter a city here) protests that have been organized throughout the rest of the United States. I realize that the goal here is to bring the message to everyone and the only way they felt to do that was to occupy and disrupt several city operations regardless of how much they were involved in the financial situation we are in now. However, what people are seeing now are whinny, lazy, dirty people who are protesting because they are either bored, or need attention. While that may not be accurate, that is how they are coming across to many.
What is the end result going to be of these protests? So far, people have been arrested, and nothing has changed in the financial system as a result. Now what?? Well, finally I heard one partially decent idea recently to come of this, but it had nothing to do with a "hit the streets with signs" kind of protest. It was a calculated attack that would hit the banks hard (if the strategy was big enough.) It was that people were supposed to pull their money from the banks that they were protesting or the investment accounts held in the companies they felt were at fault for the financial problem. The goal was that if they were able to deplete enough of their bank reserves that the banks would both recognize their power as consumers, and that they might understand a bit of the sense of loss the people were feeling as a result. I like this idea better than being lazy and stinky for months. At least there is a clear quantifiable message to their efforts.
Then again, if these people really had no money, then I am not sure that flexing that kind of "muscle" will have any effect at all. Wether it was successful or not, I don't know. I just think that the day of the protest on the street with a sign in the air was great for hippies and anti-war protests of the 1970's is gone. I don't think it should be outlawed, and I don't think that people should stop if they feel that is the best way to get their message across. However, I feel as a society, that street protesting is a dead form of speech and most people have evolved in such a way to be able to tune out the message.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Merry Christmas is not verbal poison
I was recently sent a forwarded email from my parents sharing Ben Stein's comments on the whole "Christmas culture." His comments, from the perspective of a Jewish person, encourage religious tolerance, and calls for people to understand that America is not inherently an atheist country.
For the video of his comments, watch this here. Here is the important text as verified by Snopes (as the email I got had some added content - also good, but not written by Stein)
For the video of his comments, watch this here. Here is the important text as verified by Snopes (as the email I got had some added content - also good, but not written by Stein)
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
See, following the law of chastity has benefits
In case you were curious or if there was some debate out in the world, it would seem that bestiality is a bad idea, that is if you don't want penis cancer. According to a study from the Journal of Sexual Medicine and reported by the Huffington Post, men who have sex with animals are twice as likely to get penis cancer in having sex with animals than if they stick to their own kind. While the article doesn't mention it, I am sure there are several other diseases you are likely to avoid contracting as well.
So many questions that I am not sure if I want it answered:
Who volunteered for the study?
Why were men the only ones tested? (Women can have sex with animals too you know.)
Is this the most effective use of research dollars? I mean if people are having sex with animals and getting penis cancer, perhaps that is a risk they take engaging in that behavior.
Did the study focus on one animal?
Okay, I got it out of my system... I think. But it just goes to show the society we live in. We need scientific support for what morals have been teaching for years.
So many questions that I am not sure if I want it answered:
Who volunteered for the study?
Why were men the only ones tested? (Women can have sex with animals too you know.)
Is this the most effective use of research dollars? I mean if people are having sex with animals and getting penis cancer, perhaps that is a risk they take engaging in that behavior.
Did the study focus on one animal?
Okay, I got it out of my system... I think. But it just goes to show the society we live in. We need scientific support for what morals have been teaching for years.
Saturday, November 5, 2011
Julia Sweeney on letting go of God | Video on TED.com
I have been watching Ted Talks on my iPhone occasionally as I find the different perspectives interesting. I came across this humorous yet thought provoking presentation from Julia Sweeney. I have no idea how the talk ends, but the presentation should be of interest to Mormons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)