click on image to enlarge
Dear John Blake:
Read your question. Enclosed with this short letter is my answer.
Of course, the reason is even more simple: One is guilty. One is innocent. I’ll leave it to the inferentially challenged to decipher which is which.
And let it be known that this writer takes no pleasure in the death of anyone for any reason. However laws are written to emphasize the behaviors that society deems acceptable and punishment is to deter people from following the dictates of a sin-stricken heart, a temporary yet necessary tool since the gentle whisper of the human conscience is too weak for some.
Thanks!
NoApologiesAllowed
Enc.
I prefer a redemptive view of justice, to be consistently pro-life must surely include all human life, especially since killing someone rids the person of the opportunity of reform and ultimately being made right with their creator and saviour.
Jesus’ ethic of forgiveness and redemption (Luke 6:27) seems somewhat inconsistent with capital punishment; since it cannot bring the victim back and calls for such action could be more to do with the desire for‘vengeance’ rather than for ‘justice’ to be achieved especially in the case of close relatives.
Just a few thoughts
Read more: http://martyro.blogspot.com/search/label/Capital%20Punishment#ixzz1aTjK0LNk
Thanks for your kind thoughts, Dan.
It’s a difficult issue. And I’m not so sure that capital punishment doesn’t count as justice, if not “redemptive” justice (Is that a biblical phrase?). Isn’t it a kind of justice? I have a relative that works at a prison. He may have a slightly clearer view of the need for capital punishment (and more informed than my own). I’ll have to see if he’s willing to post a thread here. Or maybe I can contact him and get a quote from him. (He’s pro-life and pro-capital punishment, too.)
I think in a couple of your articles you say some very powerful things that I completely agree with:
That’s the entire point of the cartoon — it’s main focus is on the abortion issue and the innocence of its victims. That’s the difference. And there’s a difference between intentional killing (murder) and unintentional (manslaughter). Even in the Old Testament law, which did center on fairness and love (contrary to popular misconception), there are provisions made for distinguishing manslaughter and murder.
It was strange to me that in cases where capital punishment was to be performed, groups would try to cast doubt on the verdict (not necessarily a bad thing). They were working towards avoiding the taking of the person’s life, that is they were uncertain, so they were going to refrain from killing. Regarding the abortion issue, groups still argue about whether or not the unborn child is a human. There’s uncertainty. “Yet why is it OK to go ahead with killing in this instance?” I would ask them.
One last thing:
Should we consider Paul’s inspired commentary on the purpose of the authorities and their ability to punish here?
What if the punishment given by the authorities is capital punishment for certain offenses?
Appreciate your interaction.
Yeah its a touchy subject, redemptive justice is something I kinda made up but I take it from the principles of scripture I suppose. One of the major issues I have with capital punishment is the potential to get it wrong, for the same reasons we ‘should’ show restraint in abortion, life is valuable whether small or large, I think its always better to practice restraint when-ever a human life is involved.
There have been 273 DNA post-conviction exonerations –
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Facts_on_PostConviction_DNA_Exonerations.php
Have you watched the 180 movie? http://180movie.com
Anyway I appreciate your pictures, its a great way to spark debate and conversation!
I hadn’t seen this evidence, Dan. Thank you so much, brother!
And I appreciate the kind words there are the end. Actually, that’s the main reason I do the cartoons — get people talking!
Be blessed!
if life is sacred, then the guilt or innocent of the alive person isn’t relevant to the sacredness of their life.
so why do so called pro-lifers only care about life when it’s 1) unborn or 2) comatose/vegetative neomorts?
Hi! Thanks for your comment. Your comment seems to indicate you are pro-choice, so let me ask:
1) Are you against the death penalty?
2) Who says the guilt or innocence of the person isn’t relevant to the sacredness of their life?
3) If a person is going kill another person, shouldn’t there be a some reason to do so and is guilt of a crime such as murder or rape reason enough? Or would you say “being unwanted” is good enough?
4) And if anyone is going to support the killing of innocent people (unborn babies), what right do they have to object to the killing of people who actually committed crimes?
5) Why is it that you claim “pro-lifers” only care about unborn children and people in comas? Is that a fair claim? (History shows that people who adhere to the teachings of Jesus have contributed many things — literacy, sanitation, education — to the advancement of all sorts of people from all walks of life.)
Yes, I am for unrestricted pro-choice family planning.
1. We don’t have the death penalty in Canada, but I would vote to reinstate it under the right conditions:
- beyond a shadow of a doubt (ie convicted was in possession of trophies)
- depraved/callous indifference to victims
2 either life as a generality is sacred or it’s not – the idea of life being sacred depending on what a person has done with their life then becomes a subjective value judgement and then the fight is about who’s values get to decide – so either life as a rule is to be preserved or it’s a case by case, in which event, you can’t say unborn are blanket to be preserved – it weakens your argument then when it can be said that babies born to high risk environments for antisocial behaviour are less valuable than babies born to other circumstances. If you consider actual harm done, then you have to consider the potential harm as well. Which I think is what you were driving at with your question 3.
4 unborn babies aren’t people – they are only potential people – this being the case, the rights of people (the woman) are protected under law – so she gets to decide whether to terminate or give birth to a child, she can then choose to keep or not.
I don’t object to abortion, which is a private medical matter, nor do I object to state execution of murderers.
But, the case can be made for abortion and against the death penalty.
Again, the legal rights and self determination of the mother is protected under Canada and US law – the unborn have no legal standing, and frankly, it is the job of the parent to decide for offspring under the age of majority – so even if there was a legal standing for the unborn, the decider remains the mother.
(which I think is the real reason men are opposed to abortion, it’s not about babies, it;s about who gets to control women’s bodies – worse, usually white women are the bigger concern for anti-abortionists, it stems from their fear of being outnumbered by non-whites)
5 People who are religious have contributed to society in a number of ways, but whether that’s attributable to their religious belief is another matter.
I state that pro-lifers only care about the unborn or the comatose because those are the situations that they make the big deal over – they aren’t out there raising awareness about homelessness, mental illness, addition or poverty – situations which desperately need attention and resolution and which would have a real world impact on people who are in a position to benefit from the attention.
Seriously, how many levels of government got involved in the Terry Schiavo case – which was highly inappropriate and inconsistent – after all, if the married couple is the family unit of consequence – then Gov and Pres Bushes had no business interfering with the medical decision of the HUSBAND and siding with the wife’s parents.
Imagine if that group had gotten congress to specially convene to deal with homelessness
Abortion is a private matter and it’s not anyone’s concern who is not directly involved – this belief that you should be able to impose your morals on someone else’s life and take away their ability to make serious decisions – America was founded on the idea that the individual is in control of their own life, to be able to pursuit happiness and be free from religious persecution
yet, you would take that away and impose your religious views on people who don’t share them
I don’t know how you reconcile that but I would really like to.
are you aware that most fertilized eggs never implant and spontaneously abort
so even nature is against babies
Is that supposed to be an argument for your side?
How about answering my questions…
I thought I did – I put numbers and everything.
but no, spontaneous abortion is just a note of a data point, not an argument.
that babies get spit and poo on everything is it’s own argument against babies.
Oh! I overlooked your answers this morning because I was in a rush when I wrote that last one. Sorry about that!
The point about men being scared of a woman’s right to choose because they want control over a woman’s body is pretty amusing. Do you “know” that or do you just “believe” it? :) What’s your evidence?
There are elderly people who spit and poo on everything. If society followed your logic, we’d have to get rid of them too, no?
I’d tend to agree with your distaste for government involvement in private lives and matters. I wouldn’t argue with you there. Most of the time, politicians get involved with private matters for political gain. Then again, to be fair, that they are politicians makes it hard for them to do anything without being accused of doing it for that.
Well, there are plenty of homeless shelters maintained by Christians. I’d be curious about a naturalist / atheists view of homeless shelters. Now, I’m not saying atheists can’t be at one, start one, or build one. It’s just that an atheist biology major who tried hard to convince me of the “truth” of evolution told me plainly that services which keep handicapped or “abnormal / undesirable” people alive are actually detrimental to society (paraphrased); they taint the gene pool.
Well, in most places in the world, people are innocent until proven guilty, aren’t they? So, your idea about killing people based on “potential crimes” reeks of Philip K. Dick-esque notions of “pre-crime”. That’s pretty dangerous territory, no matter how fantastic a science fiction writer he was. ;)
But what it all boils down to is simple: guilty or innocent.
I disgree that it’s as simple as guilt versus innocent
because it’s just innocent at a point in time and not for all the time of the potential life
just as it may be guilty at a point in time, with education and rehabiliation, that criminal could really turn their life around and potentially be a positive impact in other lives
but the criminal justice system has too many flaws to punish a person permanently
I never said kill people on spec, that is you taking the concept several steps too far.
given original sin
there are no innocent people, born or unborn
Thanks for the replies. You mentioned “original sin”, not me. I don’t use it. You won’t find the phrase in the Old or New Testament, but you will find the word “sin” often. And for “sin” to exist and be manifest, there must be a standard. But you don’t have that option, do you? Doesn’t your naturalism exclude you from making moral judgments? You can make claims that one behavior is preferable to another, but none are legitimately “bad” or “evil”. The difference is merely a preference, no? How would a naturalist show approval or disapproval of different behaviors (behavior set A is preferred; behavior set B is not socially acceptable)?
I appreciate you bringing the fact that criminals can be reformed. They can. But I have a relative that works at a prison. I’d like to get his take on these things…
By the way, tell me about the concept of “justice” from a naturalist / atheist’s point of view. Does it exist?
Your casual, friendly interaction is really appreciated. Seems like we’re actually hearing each other. :)