Brian Deegan is dead wrong.

My view is that the death penalty should be used only in cases where the evidence is overwhelming and the crime deserves death.  Its ironic that you would use the DC killer Allen Muhammad as your example because he is exactly the type of human being that deserves the death penalty!  Would any other type of punishment be justice?  And tell me how it  is justice for society to bear the burden of the $20,000-$70,000 a year cost to keep a prisoner in prison for life?  

--Tragically, it was deemed necessary for another death to be added to this story-and I am unable to see how that makes anything better: "The death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights. It is the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state in the name of justice. It is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. . . . " (Amnesty International). I am also saddened that there are not more voices-and particularly Christian voices-raised against the use of the death penalty--

 I too lived in that area at the time these killings were happening and I think that justice was served.  this man received  far greater mercy than he gave all of his victims.  This was not a case where the punishment was disproportionate to the crime committed. John Allen Muhammad, chose this end for himself when he chose to commit those murders.  Doesn't the Bible condone capital punishment?  Isn't death considered mercy for the lost when God brings down final judgement on the wicked? As for amnesty internationals comments, they made me want to vomit.  The death penalty is the ULTIMATE denial of human rights!? Seriously!? How about the murdering of INNOCENT people!?  I personally see that as a far greater denial of human rights.  The DEATH PENALTY is the ULTIMATE cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. . . .!?  Tell that to the victims of the BTK killer or their families!  Micah 6:8 calls justice and mercy not one or the other.  Justice would have been served by shooting this man and letting him bleed out in pain, before dying hours later.  Mercy, politely strapped him to a table, and then put him to sleep before stopping his heart. Mercy gave this man a roof over his head and three meals a day while giving him a fair trial, and allowing him to explain himself. Mercy gave him time to make peace with himself and any family he might have had. Mercy gave his family time to say goodbye.  John Allen Muhammad WAS shown mercy.

It is unfortunate that so many Christians play fast and loose with Scripture in order to mold it to their own political sentiments. Trying to make Biblical exhortations to practice mercy and forgiveness serve as public policy is fatuous and irresponsible. If we are going to conscript those concepts to do away with the death penalty, why not do away with criminal justice altogether?  And while we're at it, why not do away with all adverse consequences of bad behavior in the name of mercy and forgiveness.

"Social justice" conflates justice and charity.  Michael Medved has pointed out that the Pentateuch understands well the vital distinction between the obligations of justice and the obligations of charity.  "Do not pervert justice; do not favor the poor over the rich or show partiality toward the great.  Judge your neighbor fairly." (Leviticus 19:15; c.f. Ex 21:2&3) Three verses later we find the great command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Justice is blind, not empathic.  It does not bend to emotion or sentiment.  It is law-based.  Charity, on the other hand - loving your neighbor as yourself - is personal and empathic.  It is love based.  Both are imperatives.  But they belong to different spheres, like tithes and freewill offerings.  The Orwellian "social justice" puts justice at odds with charity. But Christ rejected such a bifurcation. He said "Not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law ( the moral law of justice) till all be fulfilled." And then He went on to articulate a higher law - the law of love, a law that transcends, but does not nullify, the moral code of justice.  When we try to make the righteous, holy life of love to which the Kingdom of Heaven calls us into a moral code, it ceases to be charity or mercy.  When mercy is systematized, it ceases to be mercy, and becomes injustice.   When justice is personalized it ceases to be justice, and becomes revenge. 

Nathan Brown's "analysis" is sentimental nonsense, advanced with puerile platitudes and tropes which I won't bother to address in this post.  But the fundamental problem with his selective use of Scripture is the failure to understand or acknowledge the distinction between justice and charity that permeates both the Old and New Testaments. 

I wish we could get clear, once and for all, that a crime is not a "tragedy." Crime is crime, and tragedy is tragedy. An horrendous enough crime, like the 9/11 or the Ft. Hood mass murders, is an "enormity" but still not a tragedy. A tragedy is what ensues when two goods are in conflict, and only one of them can be served.

What happened to the Native Americans was a tragedy. It would have been nice for them if they could have continued their simple, nomadic lifestyle unmolested, but Europeans had the idea of bringing civilization, with cities, towns, houses, private property, fences, roads, highways, factories, hospitals, universities, and golf courses, etc., to North America, and that, too, was a good thing.  And these two goods were in conflict, and only one could be realized, and it turned out to be bringing European-style civilization to North America.  The Native Americans, TRAGICALLY, lost out.  That's a tragedy. 

John Allen Muhammad's (f/k/a John Allen Williams) killing spree was not tragedy; it was crime--probably also jihadism and terrorism, but basically crime.  Neither was his execution "tragic" but the thoroughly salutary reaction of a just society to his unprovoked, premeditated murder spree.  When he was exectued, the world became a little bit better place for the rest of us to live in, and that's the farthest thing from a tragedy I can imagine. 

For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. - Romans 13:3,4

Too often I am appalled by the inhumanity of supposedly "Christian" conversation. Reading this string of comments is one such occasion.

As Jim Coffin pointed out, to rely on the Old Testament as grounds of capital punishment for selected crimes today is hermeneutic nonsense—unless, of course, you wish to start putting people to death for crimes such as Sabbath-breaking. That's the kind of religion that is downright frightening and exactly why so many people consider becoming Christian a morally backward step.

And then there's the patent absurdity that socially sanctioned killing, such as the use of the death penalty, actually reinforces the notion that there are some circumstances in which killing another human being is acceptable. As soon as we open up that possibility, then it's just a matter of degree as to whether anyone is justified—whether by "noble" cause or being sufficiently aggrieved, even if only in their sometimes unbalanced mental processes—in considering their circumstances as warranting such violence.

And the screamingly obvious question in this present example: Who of the thousands of people directly affected by these crimes are better off because of the addition of one more death? No one. And the twisted suggestion that somehow the world is a better place because of one more killing is hideous.

When Jesus got mad after the death of John and went on a rampage, it was a rampage of healing and feeding (see the story in Matthew 14). Jesus responded to that murder and the threat that was implied in it with an excess of goodness, which is exactly how Paul described it in Romans 12:21—"Don’t let evil get the best of you, conquer evil by doing good."

If we actually believe any of this stuff we talk about, we must believe that these are not just nice ideas or slogans. We must find ways to make these practical realities in how we live and how we dream a society should be ordered. Until we can dare to really believe this and stop hiding behind "the way things are," are we really following God or the Bible at all?

And perhaps this is what is most disappointing: a lack of practical faith and an absence of holy, inspired imagination.

Nathan, I'm all for following God and the Bible, but I wonder what god and what bible you are following, because I am unfamiliar with them. The Bible with which I am familiar tells of a God who, when the thoughts of men became only evil continually, brought a flood and wiped out that world, destroying every man, woman, and child--presumably millions of people--sparing only eight.  And when the wickedness of Sodom exceeded all bounds, He destroyed that city and all her inhabitants.  And He is coming again to judge the living and the dead, and the unsaved--presumably millions of people--will be destroyed by the brightness of His appearing.  And then a thousand years later, He will raised the unsaved dead--again millions of people--only to execute judgment upon them in the form of burning--not lethal injection--and the world will be made clean with fire. 

My God does not want us to live in world full of monsters like John Allen Muhammad.  Someday soon, He is coming to execute judgment Himself, but in the meantime, as Sean and the Apostle Paul have pointed out, the State of Virginia does not bear the sword in vain, thank God. 

(Now, obviously, this Bible with which I am familiar may be nonsense, and this God it describes may not exist.  But if that is so, there is certainly no reason for the SDA church, nor this website, nor this thread, to exist.) 

And by the way, of course "there are some circumstances in which killing another human being is acceptable."  What would you have had the policewoman who responded to the scene of Maj. Hasan's massacre do, if not shoot him four times? Pray with him, maybe?  Of course it is the right thing to do to kill in defense of the lives of the innocent. Killing in self-defense and in defense of others, if it has to be done in order to save innocent life, has always been viewed as perfectly right and proper. 

All killing is not murder, especially the execution of the wicked. The same God who said to do no murder required those who do murder to be killed. The avenger motif, found in the OT, makes certain things clear. Among them is that the society or group which countenances murder by not exacting a life for a life assumes the guilt of murders that take place in its environs.

All things in the OT do not move across the table to modern society. Many people in OT times did not observe the Sabbath and performed other offenses which would have been capital crimes in Israel. True, some were judged. Others were not.

Scripture outlined laws to  which Israel was subject.

Societies are responsible for establishing their own systems of justice. Obviously, the system in America has failed miserably. Readily available firearms have significantly contributed to the violence which curses America. To allow firearms to be easily available and have no adequate system to deal with those who abuse them is an invitation to disaster, which the USA is experiencing right now.

A major problem with the current system in the States is the medicalization of corrections. Inmates are now being treated rather than rehabilitated, educated, or punished.

In the area of capital punishment, medicalizing it has led to numerous problems. Execution should be by firing squad, along military lines, not through IV medication in a medical milieu. The very practical problem of establishing intravenous lines in inmates scheduled for execution has complicated what should be a relatively simple job.

 A bullet to the heart or back of the head is painless, quick, inexpensive,and requires little medical involvement.

Hospitals have IV teams of specially qualified technicians who specialize in  establishing venous access. Correctional facilities should simply eliminate the problem and use a bullet, or several.

I questions Hansen's assertion that the "avenger" motif prevails in the Old Testament.  Simply because a tenet of justice seems harsh by contemporary standards does not mean it is vengeful.  Vengeance is personal.  Leviticus 19:17 admonishes the Israelites, on a personal level, not to seek revenge, but to "love your neighbor as yourself."  Many liberals today think the entire notion of punishment flows from an avenger motif.

You need to read a book entitled "More guns, Less Crime" by John Lott. Personally, I don't care for firearms, but states that have the most liberal firearm laws tend to have fewer murders and lower rates of other violent crime.  Lott makes an extremely compelling case to refute Hansen's gut assertion.

By what standard has America's justice system failed miserably?  Do you think the purpose of a justice system is to make people good, or to affirm and enforce it's values?  I think it is the latter.  If so, it is the guardians and teachers of values (namely, parents and communities) that have failed, not the justice system.  I would argue that our justice system has historically been a remarkable success, for seldom in the history of mankind, if ever, has there been a system where all men are subject to the law.  It is belief in the rule of law and equal justice under the law that has contributed enormously to making our nation great.

I fail to see how a firing squad is more humane or just than lethal injection. Lethal injection is far less expensive, and placing an IV line is a piece of cake.  Believe me, if our courts permitted firing squads, there would be at least a 10,000 page manual prescribing and proscribing procedures, violations of which would give relatives and heirs of the criminal a cause of action for damages.  Hansen's argument, in this respect, sounds a bit tongue-in-cheek. 

Thank you Nathan for this thoughtful reflection.  I agree with your sentiments and share your frustration at some of the replies.

I wonder if there is more than differing biblical interpretations at stake in this conversation.  I am Australian and find the death penalty abhorrent.  It seems to me that US citizens do not share this view.  Is my casual observation correct or have I generalised too far?

I would be intrigued to see the results of a study that compared attitudes to capital punishment by religious affiliation and also by country.  Does anybody know of such a study?

Nathan,

Nowhere did  I assert that the avenger motif "prevails" in the OT. I said that corporate responsibility is a dimension of the avenger motif.  I happen to believe that God is a God of mercy. Not only is your remark incorrect, it doesn't actually reflect my true opinion.  

Any idea how many people are killed  each year by gunfire in a city of several million people where I live? ~ 0. How does that compare with the rates in any city in the USA?  

By what standard has the US justice system failed? Well, for example, again in the city in which I live, there are normally fewer bank robberies in a decade than in a single year in California.

What's the recidivism rate for  a typical child molester in, say, California. What % of individuals perform what % of crimes?

Do you really think it is a piece of cake placing an IV in a death row inmate, whose   peripheral veins are constricted as he faces the most stressful event of his life?  Very possibly an individual who destroyed his surface veins through drug abuse? Type "IV access execution" into Google and see what comes up. Talk to some members of the IV team at a local hospital. 

You nicely make my point with the  hypothetical execution squad. The slightest transgression, of a 10,000 page manual, would be a cause for legal action, even if it resulted in a successful execution. 

That, my friend, demonstrates an absolutely failed system.

Hansen - I find it interesting that you elevate the justice system where you live (I'm guessing you are crowing about the "success" of communist China's judicial system?) above the US justice system. We'll see how long your attitude lasts when you are accused of a crime in your peaceful city, falsely or not, perhaps even convicted of preaching about Jesus. I'm guessing your adoration of that system will last until the impact of the government-issued bullet enters [edited by moderator].

It seems that you have either forgotten or failed to discover that an estimated 50 million baby girls have been killed in China in an effort to comply with the One-Child policy - far more victims than will ever be claimed by firearms or violent criminals here in the US.  You may want to re-select a country with an actually defensible social system before you compare it with the American system you refer to as a "failure."

Steve, I'm not sure why your posts include the personal attacks which they do. Whatever I said to you which elicits such a response, I apologize. In the future, if you are unable to respond without the personal invective, I would appreciate it if you would not respond to me, personally, at all. 

The internet is a great place to exchange ideas. Unfortunately, it can also be used to abuse others without the type of restraint  that would be normal in face to face discussions. I'd be happy to exchange ideas with you upon subjects which you know about. I'm not interested in displays of unkindness or denigration of  other posters. Admittedly, that has not always been the case.

Hansen - I don't consider my response to your post to be a "personal attack."  I may disagree with your personal feelings on many particular subjects, but voicing my own viewpoint could hardly be considered an attack on you.  You've called me "naive," suggested that my viewpoints were "simple", and I've not cried in my pillow at night over such comments. 

Nathan B has been called puerile, which is a fancy way of being called infantile, and I haven't heard him weep.

The fact is that here, we post deeply personal ideas and thoughts for all to read.  Any disagreement is bound to feel like a personal attack, although in reality it's not the case.

I refuse to feel badly that my opinion of your thoughts regarding tying someone to a pole, blindfolding them, and shooting them in the head or heart comes across as cold-blooded, heartless murder.  The thoughts that lead to such recommendations, in today's modern world, are surely jumbled and ill-conceived - in my opinion.

If you're looking for me to write something cheerful and nice after you suggest putting a bullet in the brain or heart of another human being, you're looking in vain.  If you think you should be able to post stuff like that, and not elicit a response from someone like me who disagrees with you, you're sticking your ideas up on the wrong forum.  Start your own blog or website that doesn't allow responses to your ideas, if you seek protection from those that disagree with you. 

My response isn't directed at you - just your ideas.  If you don't like it, rather than ask me to not respond - simply refrain from participating in the discussion.  You'll be safe enough that way from my cheerful, kind words. 

Steve, If I referred to you as "simple" or naive" I apologize. If you have been offended by any remark I directed to you personally, I apologize. Going forward, I'm going to make every effort to be respectful of other posters. Whatever merit my ideas may or may not have, if I can't express myself in a  good way, then I need to change that. 

As for executions, the method  is one of the things preventing people from being executed in the USA.

Due to the medicalization of execution and corrections in general, execution has now become a medical proceedure. It is either illegal or unethical for physicians to participate in executions. How can there be executions in a medical context when physicians can not participate? 

Nathan has suggested that IV placement in death row inmates is a "piece of cake" That is not the case at all. It's a real problem, one that has prevented executions from taking place.

The California Department of Corrections employs  MTAs, medical technical assistants. Usually those who work that job are licensed vocational nurses, former military medics,  or RNs. It is likely that someone of that nature is responsible for establishing IV access for lethal injections.

They may or may not have the necessary technical skill to establish IV access in a highly stressed inmate with a possible history of substance abuse. Hospitals employ highly skilled individuals on IV teams to perform venous cannulazation on difficult patients. Most inmates, severely stressed with peripheral vein constriction, would probably be described as "hard sticks." A "hard stick" is a patient who often requires the service of a highly skilled technician, not a general   practitioner, as most prison employees usually are.

Frankly, there are few physicians with the skills necessary to set up an IV line on a patient like that. From a pharmacalogic delivery viewpoint, the delivery of a concentrated dose of potassium through a peripheral vein is a  questionable practice, if not an outright foolhardy method.  

A firing squad would avoid that. It would avoid the problems associated with electrocution. It is the least cruel method, considering the options currently available. Physicians are usually not interested in participating in executions, except to pronounce a patient deceased.

There are numerous prison employees, with military or law enforcement backgrounds, who would likely respond to the opportunity to put a bullet in the head/heart of a murderer, rapist, or child molester. Qualified individuals from society as large might also participate in executions, should the law allow it

Murder is forbidden in the Decalogue. The torah, however,  directs that certain individuals be killed, through warfare or execution. I do believe that God is fairly consistent as well as merciful; therefore, I don't consider execution to be murder. 

The Levites killed numerous people shortly after the Decalogue was given. They were rewarded by God.

Elijah, a man who was translated, hacked numerous baal worshippers to death with a sword. Obviously, executions have a place in God fearing societies.Other societies,  primarily interested in maintaining civil order, also do well to eliminate evil doers from their midst.

Well, Nathan S, so much for the tounge in cheek possibility.

Hansen, the most intriguing part of your suggestion was that individuals from society at large could participate in executions by firing squad.  Perhaps firing squads should be like jury duty, where we all have a responsibility to the justice system.  Every year or so, every adult man and woman could be called upon to grab our rifle, head on down to the courthouse steps, aim, and fire in the name of justice.  At least I could assure you that Capital Punishment would last for less than one election cycle in America if this were the case. 

As a template for the laws of modern American society, the Old Testament stories of the Patriarchs and Prophets are irrelevant.  There is a books worth of reasons why, but I'd think most are plain to see.  America is not a society of near ethnic or religious homogeneity.  We are not a theocracy.    Bits and pieces of the Bible will always conflict, and I mean this not as a knock on the Bible, but as an acknowedgement of our human limitations and inability to truly comprehend, record, and absorb the nature and intent of God. 

As Christians, I would think we would, as closely as possible, follow the examples and exortations of Jesus Christ, rather than spend our time trying to extrapolate the intentions of the Old Testament God, the pillar of fire, the God who struck down a guy for trying to keep the Ark of the Covenant from falling, the God who killed every first born child in Egypt, the God who killed millions in the flood.  Frankly, if the torah paints the most accurate picture of God, I don't want anything to do with Him.  If this is the record of God we embrace as a culture and as a denomination, I wouldn't want anything to do with it, either.  As a whole, I don't believe that's where we stand. 

" And what do we see Jesus telling Moses to do in the case of murder and homosexuality for example?  The death penalty."

 First, where do you find Jesus ever mentioned in the Torah?

 Second, the death penalty was also ordered for breaking the Sabbath, adultery, and other offenses.  Are those penalties to be enacted today?  We are not under a theocracy, and have many more freedoms.  If anyone wishes to have a theocracy, there are countries in the world where those are practiced, thankfully not in first world countries where there is separation between church and state; not the form of government in Israelite society.

Indeed, Elaine.  The Moses-led Children of Israel would probably be subject to a George Bush-style pre-emptive war if they existed today.  Among the reasons listed in the presidential address to congress would be a myriad of human rights violations, including mass executions for things like sabbath breakers, adulterers, etc. 

Amazing that a even a novice translator of the Torah would insert Jesus Christ into the narrative.  Last I checked, the members of the Jewish faith were not big fans of Jesus Christ. 

I think it is unfortunate when Christians try to use Scripture as a justification or mandate for earthly kingdoms to employ the death penalty.  It is equally wrong-headed for Christians to urge the selective theocratizing of earthly kingdoms by opposing the death penalty on scriptural grounds. 

While I'm on that point, will someone please help me understand why it is an act of piety to advance pacifism, gay marriage, socialized medicine, wealth redistribution, an end to the death penalty, etc., in the name of Christ? But grounding values such as human freedom, personal responsibility, industriousness, temporal and eternal consequences for sin, sanctity of innocent human life, the religious basis of morality, etc., in the teachings of Scripture, is deemed by the Christian Left an intolerable first step down the slippery slope toward a theocratic dark ages?

The conceit that modern humanity has acheived a heighth and breadth of moral knowledge superior to our forebears is seductive.  Most students of history and philosophy know it is not true.  The postmodern temptation to extract fragments of reality and weave them into a fabric of sentiment that serves as a substitute for reality is, however, unparalleled in human history.  By such a process, compassion and "righteous" indignation have become the engines of public policy, driving delusions of moral significance, which generate pollutants of grievance, group identity warfare, and previously unknown "basic" rights.  

While Jesus paid lip service to the legitimacy of earthly kingdoms, He left us no blueprint for the perfection of earthly kingdoms.  "Turning-the-other-cheek" morality, as a formula for earthly kingdom justice, is a recipe for anarchy and trampling of the oppressed.  Christ not only said, "Render to Caesar...", but He also said, "If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would fight."  These were not condemnations of earthly kingdoms as such, so much as they were a stark contrast between the personal holy life demanded by Kingdom principles and the political, practical, policy-based realities that govern earthly kingdoms.  Interestingly, Jesus reserved his harshest criticism for the religious leaders of His day, who claimed authority over mens' souls, not the political leaders who maintained political, social and economic structures that perpetuated poverty, slavery and injustice. 

I do not dispute that one's Christian convictions, along with life experiences and, hopefully, common sense, will influence how we think and act when Caesar is "we the people".  But the notion that Scriptural authority should dictate a particular canon of beliefs or values for earthly kingdoms is a dangerous deceit.  Nathan Brown's resort to high-pitched, hyperbolic condemnation of those who disagree with his views on the death penalty is not argument, but feeling.  His feelings should not be normative, any more than the feelings of extremists who believe in the inviolable sacredness of plant and animal life should be normative.  There are fine arguments both for and against the death penalty.  Let's not make our arguments a test of Christian integrity.  Let's resist the temptation to make God and Scripture mirror our 21st Century moral priorities. 

It is fascinating to see that those who have been the most vociferous in opposing the Church's use of fundamental beliefs as tests of fellowship, have become neolegalists, substituting "rationalist" secular moral priorities and the universal claims of political correctness for "revealed" truth of religious authority as the new test of one's Christianity and faith. 

I agree, Statefarmsteve.  I think the answer is pretty simple.  What Jesus would do is to say the same thing He said back then:  "My Kingdom is not of this world;" "Take up your cross;" "To live is to die;" "Turn the other cheek;"  "Why worry about tomorrow; the Son of Man hath not where to lay His head;" "The poor you will always have with you;" "You must eat my body and drink my blood."  If Jesus was so keen on universal healthcare, why did He only heal one guy at the pool of Bethesda? Exactly what did He do to relieve the grip of poverty that makes the poorest in America kings by comparison? Why did He do so little to impact the unjust political, social, and economic structures of His time?  Wouldn't it be awfully hypocritical of Him to use His vote to take money earned by other people to alleviate conditions that He personally has the power to rectify?

I do know one thing for certain.  When acts of charity and love and Christian forbearance become the law of the land, they are transformed from virtues to legal duties. Can you name me a single act of charity or loving restraint which retains its virtuous quality when it is mandated or prohibited by law?

Would you be so kind, Statefarmsteve, as to humor me with a distinction between your Biblical foundation for earthly justice and what I think you perceive to be the theocratic aspirations of the Religious Right? Or are you perfectly fine with both sides in the culture wars waving the banner of Christ?

And by the way, I have little doubt that if Jesus was concerned about making earthly kingdoms the best that they can be (which He wasn't), he would point to the failed laboratories of leftist politics in places like Detroit, Washington D.C., El Paso, St. Louis, Cincinnati, etc., etc., and decry the corrupted politics of covetousness and class warfare that has decimated wealth and debauched the moral fiber of their inhabitants.  But fortunately for our salvation and welfare, Jesus has something much better in mind for us than improvement of the present order.  In the meantime, He merely asks us to follow him and feed His sheep - not to drag Him into political battles of our choosing.

Hi, Nathan.  The question that Christians should pose to themselves is not "What Would Jesus Say?" but "What Would Jesus Do?"  How would he actually vote? 

Do you really think he'd walk out of the booth having voted for capital punishment and low taxes and say, "Too bad for the falsely convicted or under-represented death row guy, and too bad for the sick and uninsured!  But it ain't my responsibility, because my kingdom is Heavenly, not worldy! 

Do you think it's possible that Jesus wasn't keen on Universal Healthcare because there was absolutely no such thing back then?  It's not like Judea was holding out on Universal Healthcare, and the rest of the Roman Empire was on board.  Do you think he blessed us with the minds to discover things like proton therapy and microsurgery because he only wanted such things delivered to responsible middle-class individuals and those wealthy enough to be irresponsible?  As for his lack of impact on the socio-economic woes of the Roman Empire, any reasoning would be mere speculation on my part.  Factually, I can tell you with absolute certainty that his vote meant very little to Caesar Augustus or Tiberius Julius Caesar Augustus. 

I'd like to answer your question as well regarding the difference between my Biblical foundation for earthly justice and the theocratic aspirations of the Religious Right.  My faith dictates the expansion of things like access to healthcare for the poor - the Religious Right says that if Jesus wanted everyone healthy, he'd heal them Himself.  My faith says that I should happily see everyone else worship as they please, since freedom to choose is the very basis of my own religion - the Religious Right says that Christians "founded" this country (by that I guess they mean Christians committed thievery and genocide) and therefore get to impose their rules regarding homosexuality, abortion, and marriage, perhaps even what day to worship, on everyone else.  While I'm okay with everyone waving the banner of Christ (I'm pro religious freedom, remember?),  I've come to grips with the idea that their picture of Christ - and therefore their picture of Christianity - starkly contrasts with mine.  It's a fundamental difference that creates the unavoidable conflict, and I'm okay with that. 

You exibit a more deistic belief system with your theory that God doesn't care about the plight of humans who are negatively affected by our economic, social, and political woes.  I happen to believe that he deeply, deeply cares about each person, that when we suffer, when we hurt, he hurts on a level and at a depth that we, within the limits of our humanity, can't even comprehend.  I consider it my gift back to my Creator that I can use what little power and influence I have to alleviate a little suffering here on earth. 

So yes, Jesus merely asks us to follow him.  I don't define "follow" as plod along behind him like lemmings.  As I define "follow", it means I should ask, "What Would Jesus Do?" and do my best to emulate.  WWJD became a popular question, not because it fits on a wristband or bumper sticker, but because it is the essense of Christianity.  It supersedes theology and doctrine, and it relegates our 28 fundamental beliefs to the scrap heap. 

This comment has been edited by AT Moderator

hlfnlsn - During the period in which Christ walked the earth, the Romans controlled the known civilizations.  Since I graduated with a degree in history from our distinguised Southern Adventist University, I can confidently declare that Jesus of Nazareth had extremely limited access to a voting booth.  Utilizing this hard-earned knowledge, I further deduced that this may explain his limited voting history, as well as why he never supported a particular candidate or ran for office himself.  I happen to believe that voting is a part of being a responsible citizen, and that if Jesus were here in America today, he'd be a responsible citizen and cast his vote.  I have no concrete basis for this, other than my unfounded assumption that Jesus would not be an irresponsible person or shirk his duties as a citizen of this country. 

Nathan - I haven't until now seen such a reactionary post from you.  I honestly gave my best effort to directly answer the questions you posed.  You dropped a thesaurus' worth of big words on me, and I think they were meant to be insulting and derogatory, but I'm unsure (I'm still frantically leafing through my copy of Roget's.) 

Also, I did my best to convey the idea that I don't disbelieve in the God of the Old Testament, but rather question the accuracy with which the human-penned record depicts Him.  I believe the New Testament (perhaps partly due to the closer proximity of time, among other reasons) gives us a clearer picture of God.  I believe that part of Jesus' purpose here on earth, part of his mission to provide a means to salvation, was to further reveal Himself to us.  That's why I place an emphasis on Christ's teachings and examples over the Old Testament laws.  I believe the OT God and the NT God are one and the same - I just believe that the man-made records read differently. 

I wholeheartedly agree, Steve, that the New Testament, especially the life of Christ, gives us a much clearer picture of God.  But I think it is a mistake to write off the Old Testament, especially its calls for a religion of the heart.  Many progressives are attracted to what I call excisional exegesis - a process which highlights the O.T. calls to charity, mercy, and righteousness as authoritative, but rejects most of the Old Testament as primitive myth, cynically employing it only to reinforce progressive values. I think both the Old and New Testaments clearly articulate a distinction between the obligations of charity and the obligations of the law, and I'm not sure why or how progressives ignore this distinction.  Like hlfnlsn, whose affirmation warms my heart, I see no basis in Christ's life or teachings for the notion that the road to the Kingdom is paved by political activism of any kind, much less wealth redistribution. 

I apologize for any impression left that my deleted post was a personal attack.  I confess to feeling frustration when my expressed views are twisted to conform to the reader's presupposition that they are motivated by greed and callousness toward those in need, rather than honest differences of opinion regarding the best way to follow Christ, build a better world for all, and prioritize conflicting values.  

It frightens me that those who disagree with my political values and priorities portray (impersonally of course) those views as emanating from an evil, malicious heart.  Such politicized demonization, when harbored by those in power, is a penultimate marker on the road to tyranny, intolerance, and persecution.

I consider that particularly the first entry by Schilt regarding Nathan's observations is essentially correct. I cannot subscribe to Nathan's obvious indulgent policy; I see no value is allowing killers to continue living. In the use of the death penalty there should be not the slightest doubt as to guilt.

Justice requires consequences for actions. I cannot run in front of a speeding auto and expect to be free of consequences. One cannot deliberately take the life of another human being and expect to live on at the expense of the public under the false guise of justice and empathy.

Truth Seeker

Terrence M. Finney

I am a little late in joining in this conversation and do not profess the expertise or certainty that some have offered but do think that I may have a unique perspective.

As a District Attorney and as a Superior Court Trial Judge I have tried numerous murder cases. Five of those cases were death penalty cases and all were upheld by the California Supreme Court.

It was my experience that most people that have strong opinions on the death penalty do not know how they really feel about the issue. In death qualifying a jury you ask a prospective juror questions that force the juror to come face to face with the issue and many confess that they really did not know what the believed. As an example the last death penalty trial (I am now retired) I did we voir dired 940 jurors in order to get a jury of 12 plus 6 alternates.

One comment alluded to the fact that it would be much cheaper to put a defendant to death than house him or her in prison for life. That is not true for a whole host of reasons. In the last trial that I mentioned the State of California gave the county three million dollars for the the trial. I imagine that the appeal could well have cost as much.

On the other hand if the trial had been handled as an LWOP (life without possibility of parole ) the trial would have cost a fraction of what it did cost. The appeal would not automatically go to the Supreme Court and would cost a fraction of the death penalty appeal. The defendant would be housed in a general prison population and not on death row. 

I personally do not believe there is any biblical basis forbidding the death penalty in appropriate cases and I am not personally opposed on a religious or ethical basis but I believe that in todays society it makes little or no sense. 

In the State of California we have close to 700 on death row. In the last 30 years I can count on one hand the number of executions that have actually taken place. Just suppose that the State said we are going to execute them all and scheduled 2 executions a week and took off two weeks at Christmas time. We would execute 100 a year. That would mean that it would take 7 years to execute all on death row now and during that time we might well accumulate another hundred or more. The political reality is that the people the State of California would never allow two executions a week for 8 years. 

From a practical standpoint we ought to abolish the death penalty and make the ultimate punishment life without possibility of parole. It would be cheaper. Further it would help ease the obvious problem of the the death penalty being impose disproportionately on our minority and poorer citizens. 

Imposing and enforcing the death penalty to me is not an ennobling endeavor for the state to engage in. For example the first death penalty case I handled the State of California kept the prisoner on dialysis for years to keep him alive so it could execute him. Another case I handled was on appeal for 16 years before being affirmed by our Supreme Court. 

I know all the arguments that say we should not allow endless appeals etc., but which of you would want to execute and innocent person?

I am sure that many of the contributors to this conversation are certain of their positions and I must admit I was also until I had to pronounce the death sentence on a poor Mexican defendant that had been tortured for years by a sadistic aunt. I was comforted by the fact that he had excellent counsel and that there was an exhaustive appeal process that would examine every ruling that I had made before society would take his life.

I want to thank Judge Finney for his contribution and insight.  He brings an important perspective.  I spent several years as Chief Deputy Districtrict Attorney for San Bernardino County in the latter half of the '80's, where we spent many hours wrestling over what cases warranted the death penalty. 

I agree with Judge Finney, that the most persuasive argument against the death penalty is not the moral one, but the pragmatic ones of cost and practical enforceability.  Having built inviolable shrines to  the concept of justice as process and equality, we have rendered the possibility of achieving justice through imposition of the death penalty - at least in California - all but impossible.  The illusion of perfect justice has resulted in the wheels of justice grinding to a virtual halt in many respects.

But the problem with yielding to the vacuous moral arguments against the death penalty on pragmatic grounds is that the death penalty is but one battlefront in the progressive war on Judeo-Christian values. Most of the same objections to the death penalty apply as easily to LWOP, and would surely be used against life without possibility of parole when that is the next frontier. The religion of philosophical materialism, in which most "progressive" values are grounded, generally rejects free will as an explanation for human behavior, a conclusion which has little support in Scripture, and therefore it views imposition of personal responsibility and accountability as tools of oppression - unless of course the tools are used against conservatives.  Puerile progressives equate justice with equality and fairness, putting justice itself on trial whenever justice threatens their sacred cows. Just as the "exclusionary rule" has allowed thousands of guilty defendants to go free, so progressives seek to use equality and fairness to disqualify society from seeking justice which does not meet their criteria for fairness and equality.

It is difficult, I think, for anti-death penalty folks to argue with the principle that one who deliberately, without provocation, takes the life of another should forfeit his own life.  It would also be difficult for those of us who favor the death penalty to guarantee that it will be perfectly administered against only the deserving guilty.  So I would frame the question as one of whether we as a society have the moral courage to carry out imperfect justice - to decisively confront evil with fear and trembling, despite the reality that society may have failed its own who would murder and destroy.  If we do not administer the death penalty with tears - if we dance and celebrate outside the execution chambers - we risk absorbing the very evil we seek to eradicate; if, on the other hand, we shrink from executing justice because we cannot be as God, we will be overwhelmed by the evil we refuse to judge.  There is, I have heard, a Talmudic saying: "Those who are kind to the cruel will end up being cruel to the kind."  God's justice is not equivalent to His mercy.  Nor does He ask that our justice abdicate to mercy.