Thou Shalt Not Kill

[Thunder]

For a nation that was bulit upon a belief, One Nation Under God, is pretty much a country of hypocrites.

In the bible or the 10 commendants, it clears say... Thou Shalt Not Kill.

Still, the government in many states murder thousands of convicted felons that were given the death penalty with many more to come.

Why would our country be One Nation Under God and continues to disobey the one rule, Thou Shalt Not Kill.

I know it is wrong for the felons to kill, rape, and all the stuff that warrants the death penalty, but it is not our place to take a life.

Thou Shalt Not Kill

The best humane punishment is life in prison with no special access, except for 3 basic meals (no snacks). The most I think they could be given is pencils (or pens) and paper.

I don't see how the followers of Jesus Christ is in favor of supporting the murders of human life. Not only the convicted felons be judged, the supporters of such death penalty will be judged by God.

People will be judged for standing by, allowing the murders to continue by the government that proclaimed this country to be One Nation Under God.

[MadMonk]

Our laws aren't constrained to one religion's moral restrictions. It's one of the many benefits of the separation of church and state.

[Thunder]

Separation of Church and State.

Okay, so the country still feel the need to be proclaimed... One Nation Under God which is official belief by the government, which will be the State. I don't see the separation in that.

[Easy180]

I think most of the devastated family members who have had love ones murdered could care less about this particular bible passage

If the family members want the life spared I'm fine with that but if anyone murdered someone close to me I would be more than happy with them getting judged by God much sooner than later

[Martin]

actually, thunder's premise is flawed. the commandment is better translated from the hebrew language, "thou shalt not murder"... big difference.

-M

[NativeOkie]

Seperation of Church and state is not in our constitution.
I t was in the fail Soviet Union.
Go figure.

[Midtowner]

It's debatable whether the Commandment says "kill" or "murder." Murder carries with it an entirely different meaning and virtually all churches give us situations where killing is not sin.

Murder means that the killing had to be unlawful.

Killing is just the taking of a human life.

But how does all of that square with, say, the Roman Catholic Church's "Just War" doctrine?

And how does this really have anything to do with a secular nation of secular laws? This is not a Christian theocracy. People who think it is scare me. Were we ruled by these religious people we'd look more like a backward Middle East state ruled by bearded old men in funny hats. To hell with that.... pun intended.

[Midtowner]

actually, thunder's premise is flawed. the commandment is better translated from the hebrew language, "thou shalt not murder"... big difference.

-M

There's debate with valid points on both sides. The Roman Catholic Church translates it as "kill," while most Protestants go with "murder."

-- I read it on wikipedia.

[Martin]

there's debate with valid points on both sides.

i guess i fail to see how the other inerpretation is logically possible. if the hebrew word was intended to be translated as the english 'kill' then that implies that all killing is wrong. however, hebrew scripture itself (numbers 35:21 for instance) calls for killers to be put to death. that would be an obvious contradiction.

furthermore, from a linguistic standpoint the words themselves are different. the word used in the commandment and in other similar instances is an entirely different word than the one used where such a killer is 'put to death.'

-M

[Martin]

seperation of church and state is not in our constitution.

i can't seem to remember... what is the opening line of the first amendment, again? : )

-M

[Midtowner]

I never said we Catholics were a logical bunch

[Midtowner]

Seperation of Church and state is not in our constitution.
I t was in the fail Soviet Union.
Go figure.

It's called the establishment clause. It's in there, I promise

The clause's meaning is clarified in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists. The letter was incorporated into our Conlaw lexicon in a case (the name escapes me) occurring sometime in the late 19th century.

[Martin]

i never said we catholics were a logical bunch

then again, faith itself really isn't a logical thing.

-M

[GWB]

For a nation that was bulit upon a belief, One Nation Under God, is pretty much a country of hypocrites.

In the bible or the 10 commendants, it clears say... Thou Shalt Not Kill.

Still, the government in many states murder thousands of convicted felons that were given the death penalty with many more to come.

Why would our country be One Nation Under God and continues to disobey the one rule, Thou Shalt Not Kill.

I know it is wrong for the felons to kill, rape, and all the stuff that warrants the death penalty, but it is not our place to take a life.

Thou Shalt Not Kill

The best humane punishment is life in prison with no special access, except for 3 basic meals (no snacks). The most I think they could be given is pencils (or pens) and paper.

I don't see how the followers of Jesus Christ is in favor of supporting the murders of human life. Not only the convicted felons be judged, the supporters of such death penalty will be judged by God.

People will be judged for standing by, allowing the murders to continue by the government that proclaimed this country to be One Nation Under God.

Obviously you haven't read the whole Bible. There is more in there than just that one scripture that you are quoting.

The Old Testament law commanded the death penalty for various acts: murder (Exodus 21:12), kidnapping (Exodus 21:16), bestiality (Exodus 22:19); adultery (Leviticus 20:10); homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13), being a false prophet (Deuteronomy 13:5), prostitution (Leviticus 21:9) and rape (Deuteronomy 22:24-25), and several other crimes.

The Apostle Paul recognized the power of the government to institute capital punishment where appropriate (see Romans 13:1-5). And no where in the New Testament does Jesus condemn the death penalty.

You may not like this reality, but to call our country a nation of hypocrites just because you disagree with it, doesn't make it so.

[solitude]

Whatever the Bible says - I support the death penalty for murder. Period.

[Midtowner]

Solitude, I'm surprised to hear you say that. You seem to be a constant advocate for social justice. I was once in favor of capital punishment. Then Terry Nichols happened.

Here's a guy who did some very bad things, was a co-conspirator in the at-the-time largest terrorist attack on American soil. He killed children for chrissakes.

The full weight and force of the federal government was brought to bear on him -- and he got life.

Then the state decided it'd have a go at it. We thought it was a sure thing. Our death penalty laws were liberalized just for him! Yet still, one juror lied during voire dire and had moral problems with sentencing him to death. So Terry Nichols, one of the most prolific killers in American history gets to live while we, in that same time period sentenced a woman to death for killing her husband for money.

When I think of justice, I think of equal justice for all and that there should be a somewhat predictable penalty for any given crime. If we can't do that with something as powerful as the death penalty, then IMHO, we ought not have it. It needs to be administered with justice and fairly to all or not at all.

If what Nichols did doesn't deserve the needle (or for that matter, a much more brutal end), then I don't know what does.

[solitude]

Solitude, I'm surprised to hear you say that. You seem to be a constant advocate for social justice. I was once in favor of capital punishment. Then Terry Nichols happened.

Here's a guy who did some very bad things, was a co-conspirator in the at-the-time largest terrorist attack on American soil. He killed children for chrissakes.

The full weight and force of the federal government was brought to bear on him -- and he got life.

Then the state decided it'd have a go at it. We thought it was a sure thing. Our death penalty laws were liberalized just for him! Yet still, one juror lied during voire dire and had moral problems with sentencing him to death. So Terry Nichols, one of the most prolific killers in American history gets to live while we, in that same time period sentenced a woman to death for killing her husband for money.

When I think of justice, I think of equal justice for all and that there should be a somewhat predictable penalty for any given crime. If we can't do that with something as powerful as the death penalty, then IMHO, we ought not have it. It needs to be administered with justice and fairly to all or not at all.

If what Nichols did doesn't deserve the needle (or for that matter, a much more brutal end), then I don't know what does.

That's a very good point. Punishments are not dealt out with any kind of equality and, you picked a perfect example, if Terry Nichols doesn't deserve the death penalty nobody does.

I'm hard to pin down on social and cultural issues. I'm one of these liberals who thinks that our cause has been hijacked by the culture warriors. The Democratic Party used to be a party of economic populists; now, to be "liberal" means to support gay rights, oppose the death penalty, affirmative action, be pro-choice, cry racism at every turn, embrace diversity, feminism, go easy-on-illegals, you name it. I agree with some of those things - others I don't. The point being that all of these cultural issues get all the attention and passion at the expense of any discussion about economic justice, which is what made Democrats different in the first place! To me, economic democracy is at the heart of being a liberal. These other social and cultural issues? They're distractions from the real fight for America's future.

[Midtowner]

haha.. when I said social justice before, I threw up in my mouth a little.

Gotcha though.

But really, I am for "justice" and that means equal punishment for all. The death penalty is dealt out more frequently to minorities and poor people for the same sorts of crimes (that's all verifiable stuff, not just my opinion).

[Toadrax]

Separation of Church and State.

Okay, so the country still feel the need to be proclaimed... One Nation Under God which is official belief by the government, which will be the State. I don't see the separation in that.

What does God have to do with the church?

God is a pretty vague term and most people believe in some sort of God. There is no separation of God and state, just separation of church and state. It means that the pope or some person does not tell our government what to do "in the name of God".

We figured out a long time ago that people who claimed to know the will of God were full of crap and shouldn't be put in any authority over free people.

That doesn't mean that our country doesn't believe in some sort of God.

[Toadrax]

then again, faith itself really isn't a logical thing.

-M

Faith can still be rational.

[lonestarstatesux]

Another important thing to consider is that these laws were for guidance and judgment of the people of the Old Testament, a national truly under God. Now, America is not a nation under God and any semblance of a 'new covenant' should apply to Christian people. God's chosen people were the Jewish nation and Christian converts, one governed as a nation, one spreading across the Earth without consequence of national boundaries.

Also, if you're looking for true and equal justice, we'll all be waiting quite awhile until God has His hand at it. The fairness of the death penalty is hard to evaluate and I feel that most people who "demand justice" will deal with attitudes of bitterness and unforgiveness for a long time. A great example to counteract that is Stephen - while being killed he asked God to not hold the sin of killing him against his killers. There may be no small coincidence that he also saw heaven open and saw the son of Man seated at the right hand of God and asked for Jesus to receive his spirit.

[Martin]

faith can still be rational.

i don't debate that. rational and logical are two entirely different concepts.

-M

[Pete]

I'm not in favor of the death penalty on principle, as it seems a very barbaric thing in many ways.

However, it does have it's purpose when it comes time to try murder victims. Otherwise, pleading not guilty then being found so pretty much gets you the same sentence -- life in prison -- than if you just own up to it.

Also, when there are multiple people involved in a crime, the death penalty is an effective bargaining chip to get cooperation. "Tell us the truth and at least you can save your own life."


Still, the capital punishment comes across too much like vengeance, and our government shouldn't be in that business.

[bretthexum]

We all say that I'd give em the chair or whatever - but if I was actually in that position on the jury deciding if someone was going to die or not... that would be tough. Who am I to to decide someone's life? Just because I got "lucky" and picked for the jury? I go back and forth on this one. Then you hear the horror stories of innocent people being executed. I don't know about this one.

[JBuzz7373]

I could understand the arguement a little better if it was said that Christians are hyprocritical for wanting to end someones life short who they believe does not know Christ. Doing so ends the possiblility of the conversion in prison for the rest of their natural life.