Death Penalty

Originally posted by docb77
Urizen, I think you are actually showing more bias than I am. Yes, the sites I directed you to were religious sites, makes sense when you consider that it's the bible we were talking about. But there are some things that it really doesn't matter what the background of someone is as long as they've done their studies. One of those sites even gave the hebrew words that would be kill and murder. pretty easy to verify. Go find a hebrew-english dictionary if you doubt them.

So it's not the Bible I'm saying is wrong, but rather the KJV translation.

The NIV says "You shall not murder", and you're right their are places where the translators got things wrong. There are also places where the Hebrew could have multiple meanings and the translators had to pick one. This case is neither there are definite words for kill and murder. The Hebrew word used was the one meaning murder.

Bad Liberal, Bad 😛 right back at ya.

Your Religion still encourages the killing of a large number of people. Can you deny that, or somehow justify it ? 😉

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
\

Your Religion still encourages the killing of a large number of people. Can you deny that, or somehow justify it ? 😉

Justifying is easy. God said to. There you go, you don't like it take it up with the Big Guy.

I don't deny that the bible has situations in which God says to kill certain people. I would deny that God would say to kill indiscriminately at any time in history, let alone after Christ basically said "let him who is without sin cast the first stone".

docb77, people dislike it when information conflicts with their views. If it's religious they'll whine about that, if it's wikipedia they'll brush it off because anyone can edit it.

In which case, both complaints are legitimate, or can be.

Originally posted by docb77
Justifying is easy. God said to. There you go, you don't like it take it up with the Big Guy.

I don't deny that the bible has situations in which God says to kill certain people. I would deny that God would say to kill indiscriminately at any time in history, let alone after Christ basically said "let him who is without sin cast the first stone".

Now, I'm an agnostic, but let's suppose I'm not. I'll now play the role of an athiest, someone with no belief in God, since belief is all it is from both ends (You have no proof that he or it exists).

So, you say this: "Justifying is easy. God said to. There you go, you don't like it take it up with the Big Guy.".

I say: "What God?".

In two words I've equalled your entire argument. The fact of the matter is, religion has no place in law, because religion in subjective. Murder happens indiscriminately, it doesn't avoid certain religions.

You can't be pro-death penalty because of God, because why should someone die for going against what you chose to believe? Bin Laden does the same thing.

I think a pro-death penalty Christian is funny anyway.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The fact of the matter is, religion has no place in law

Go to Saudi Arabia and tell that to the Mutaween....

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Go to Saudi Arabia and tell that to the Mutaween....

That's an irrelevant reply.

Like saying "Go and tell Ted Bundy that murdering is wrong.".

I know that he will disagree, but it doesn't mean he's right. Religion has no place in law, fact. I don't see why I should be restricted because you CHOSE to believe what an ancient text says. Conversely, allowing say...abortions...isn't affecting anybody of any religion, no matter what they say. They just get bruised morals, that's all.

The same with the death penalty. Regardless of why I disagree with it, someone CERTAINLY shouldn't be put to death for paedophilia just because you believe it's wrong by God. He or she hasn't even killed anyone.

To suggest that the death penalty be applied for anything other than death is more stupid that suggesting it's good anyway.

-AC

Religion is and has dominated the laws of many countries for a long time, carnal. Why does it have no say in law? By opting to live in a given country, you are surrending to their laws, whether you like it or not.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
That's an irrelevant reply.

It is relevenat, because we're talking about law and religion.

It's not applicable, because you're saying that I should tell my stance to someone who disagrees, as if this would therefore make my statement untrue.

It wouldn't, as proven by my Ted Bundy comment.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Religion is and has dominated the laws of many countries for a long time, carnal. Why does it have no say in law? By opting to live in a given country, you are surrending to their laws, whether you like it or not.

I just told you why it shouldn't have any say in the law. Because laws apply to everyone, and not everyone is religious.

-AC

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Go to Saudi Arabia and tell that to the Mutaween....

But laws being exercised were meant to be for everyone also, even the non-religioius. So a religious argument would be considered void in the court of law, ( if a serious law is broken in particular).

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It wouldn't, as proven by my Ted Bundy comment.

Your Ted Bundy statement had nothing to do with law & religion.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
I think what you're trying to say is that Religion has had a significant effect on laws, and how they were made, correct? In that case I agree.

Straight up!

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
In which case, both complaints are legitimate, or can be.

Now, I'm an agnostic, but let's suppose I'm not. I'll now play the role of an athiest, someone with no belief in God, since belief is all it is from both ends (You have no proof that he or it exists).

So, you say this: "Justifying is easy. God said to. There you go, you don't like it take it up with the Big Guy.".

I say: "What God?".

In two words I've equalled your entire argument. The fact of the matter is, religion has no place in law, because religion in subjective. Murder happens indiscriminately, it doesn't avoid certain religions.

You can't be pro-death penalty because of God, because why should someone die for going against what you chose to believe? Bin Laden does the same thing.

I think a pro-death penalty Christian is funny anyway.

-AC

If you've been following my arguments you'll notice that I never even mentioned the Bible or religion until Urizen brought it up. Assuming that every thought I have comes directly from religion was a faulty assumption on his part, but when my religious beliefs are maligned I feel justified in clarifying them.

"What God?" doesn't actually nullify a religious argument, it only changes the argument to whether or not God exists. God either exists or not. If He exists, he either made certain commandments for man to follow or He didn't.

As far as religion being subjective, well, again that depends on whether or not God is at the head of it. But let's assume that you are right and that it is. Isn't the US legal code subjective as well? The only real difference is that while religion claims to come from God, the law only comes from a consensus of people. 70% of people think that murder is bad enough to justify the death penalty. While I admit that probably fewer than that would agree with the other crimes that I think deserve death, that doesn't nullify the opinion, it just makes it less likely to become law.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Your Ted Bundy statement had nothing to do with law & religion.

Straight up!

Do you specialise in ignoring parts of posts? You implied that my statement was faulty because if I said it to someone of a disagreeing disposition, it would come back on me. Not necessarily the case, because I could tell a rapist that rape is bad and they would disagree, but not be right.

Religion has no place in law because, as I just said, laws apply to everyone and not everyone is religious. Got it? Good.

Originally posted by docb77
"What God?" doesn't actually nullify a religious argument, it only changes the argument to whether or not God exists. God either exists or not. If He exists, he either made certain commandments for man to follow or He didn't.

As far as religion being subjective, well, again that depends on whether or not God is at the head of it. But let's assume that you are right and that it is. Isn't the US legal code subjective as well? The only real difference is that while religion claims to come from God, the law only comes from a consensus of people. 70% of people think that murder is bad enough to justify the death penalty. While I admit that probably fewer than that would agree with the other crimes that I think deserve death, that doesn't nullify the opinion, it just makes it less likely to become law.

So you're assuming that he does, right? That's fine, but then you also have no choice but to accept that it's not the default, and others believe differently. In saying this I ask you what right you have to force chosen beliefs on everyone else? (No right, to save you time.).

Secondly, I don't agree with the death penalty for murder anyway. However, main arguments being the following:

1) Religion should have no place in judging someone for a universal crime. It clouds the way you judge things, and I think it's a tragedy that non-religious would likely be imprisoned and/or put to death because you believe God would look down upon it. Don't judge the non-religious with religion.

2) Let's get back to the main point; You believe paedophilia and rape deserve the death penalty purely because you find them disgusting. Whether you find the act disgusting or not, the results of the acts are nowhere near as heavy as murder. The result of murder being death, the result of rape and paedophilia being trauma which is proven every day to be an obstacle not incapable of being conquered. Concerning the latter, some may not even be old enough to remember.

So it's purely revenge, for you.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Religion has no place in law because, as I just said, laws apply to everyone and not everyone is religious. Got it? Good.

I could say that's your opinion because you can't prove religion has no place in law. Saudi Arabia (or any other country for that matter) isn't going to change its laws just because you think they should.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You believe paedophilia and rape deserve the death penalty purely because you find them disgusting.

In some states those crimes are a capital offense.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
So you're assuming that he does, right? That's fine, but then you also have no choice but to accept that it's not the default, and others believe differently. In saying this I ask you what right you have to force chosen beliefs on everyone else? (No right, to save you time.).

Secondly, I don't agree with the death penalty for murder anyway. However, main arguments being the following:

1) Religion should have no place in judging someone for a universal crime. It clouds the way you judge things, and I think it's a tragedy that non-religious would likely be imprisoned and/or put to death because you believe God would look down upon it. Don't judge the non-religious with religion.

2) Let's get back to the main point; You believe paedophilia and rape deserve the death penalty purely because you find them disgusting. Whether you find the act disgusting or not, the results of the acts are nowhere near as heavy as murder. The result of murder being death, the result of rape and paedophilia being trauma which is proven every day to be an obstacle not incapable of being conquered. Concerning the latter, some may not even be old enough to remember.

So it's purely revenge, for you.

-AC

Not the default?? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that there are plenty more people who believe God does exist than that He doesn't. They may not agree on his nature, but his existence at least would appear to be the default position.

1- Explain to me how to take societal beliefs out of punishment for "universal" crimes. (You did know that different cultures had different views on punishment for different crimes, right?)

2- That trauma can be overcome, but not erased. No matter what they do those victims have to live with what happened. Do I want a harsh punishment because I find the crime disgusting? Yes. What's wrong with that? How does society decide on the punishment for any crime?

Like I said before, the only real difference between revenge and justice is who does the punishing. If it is the person wronged, it's revenge, if society does it, it's justice.

Rehabilitation of criminals doesn't work. It isn't a business the government should be in.

From the preamble to the constitution:

"We the people of the United States...establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare..."

Punishment falls under establish justice, Prevention of crime the other 3.

It is the right of society to determine the punishments of the guilty.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I could say that's your opinion because you can't prove religion has no place in law. Saudi Arabia (or any other country for that matter) isn't going to change its laws just because you think they should.

Ok, I'll try to say it even clearer, so you can grasp it. You are missing the point here, Quiero. THEY think religion has a place in law because they are religious, correct? How fair is that to everyone who isn't religious? "You're being put to death for crimes against Allah.", "But I'm not religious.". Exactly.

Before you say "But you think religion has no place because you're NOT religious!", I'll say this: Murder, regardless of religion or not, is frowned upon and considered wrong, so it DOES apply to everyone. Gay marriage? Who says that is bad besides those who CHOOSE (remember, it is a choice) to believe in God? Whether you like it or not, love and affection is, weirdly, what religion's true purpose is. So why should there be laws, created due to a personal religious belief, be applied to EVERYONE? I might not believe in God, who are you to say "You can't do that because God doesn't like it."? If I don't believe in God, then what he does and doesn't like do not apply to me.

Do you understand? Whether the Saudi's agree with me or not, the fact is, religion is a chosen personal life path, and creating laws because of it is stupid, because then we all vicariously have to slightly follow that, regardless of wanting to or not.

It's probably some insecure Christian thing: "We can't prove God, so we'll just get laws passed.".

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
In some states those crimes are a capital offense.

What's your point? Just because they are doesn't mean they should be.

Leave my posts to someone who understands them please, Quiero.

-AC

Originally posted by docb77
Not the default?? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that there are plenty more people who believe God does exist than that He doesn't. They may not agree on his nature, but his existence at least would appear to be the default position.

This is easy:

1) Prove this statistic.

2) You were not born a Christian, you became one because you chose to, because it is a belief system that appeals to you, makes sense and agrees with your morals and lifestyle, correct? Something along those lines. You chose that path, humans aren't born Christians.

So therefore, as it is a choice, how can it be a default? That would mean we're all born Christians, and we're not. In the event that there are more believers than non-believers, that would only make it the more common, not the default.

Originally posted by docb77
1- Explain to me how to take societal beliefs out of punishment for "universal" crimes. (You did know that different cultures had different views on punishment for different crimes, right?)

Societal beliefs are different from religious ones. Murder being wrong is a universally common belief, right? Regardless of religion or not, most people agree murder is wrong. That's a societal or universal belief.

Gay marriage being wrong, abortion being wrong, stem-cell research being wrong? These are not "societal" beliefs. They are typically beliefs of religious followers, due to these positions and acts being frowned upon by their religion.

Originally posted by docb77
2- That trauma can be overcome, but not erased. No matter what they do those victims have to live with what happened. Do I want a harsh punishment because I find the crime disgusting? Yes. What's wrong with that? How does society decide on the punishment for any crime?

That's utter nonsense. If it can be overcome, therefore bearing no further weight or significance on someone's life, no pain or anything, it needn't be erased. What's your point? "Ok so you're over it, it doesn't matter, it still factually happened. So whether you lead a good life, free from the trauma of that or not, is irrelevant."? That's extremely illogical.

Originally posted by docb77
Like I said before, the only real difference between revenge and justice is who does the punishing. If it is the person wronged, it's revenge, if society does it, it's justice.

I don't believe that with issues such as the death penalty, society should be left to make the decisions. They can barely make decisions for themselves, let alone with the life of a human. Moreover, they act how they are told to act by the government anyway, mostly. The government use the media to arouse the kneejerkers, who form lynch mods, who abuse gays, lesbians and others. Who call for death.

If the death penalty simply has to exist, saying that it should be for anything other than death is pathetic.

Originally posted by docb77
Rehabilitation of criminals doesn't work. It isn't a business the government should be in.

I know people who have done jail time and come through it changed people.

To say that rehabilitation DOESN'T work, at all, is...well. Not much I can even say on such a comment.

Originally posted by docb77
From the preamble to the constitution:

"We the people of the United States...establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare..."

Punishment falls under establish justice, Prevention of crime the other 3.

It is the right of society to determine the punishments of the guilty.

You are missing the point, I'm not talking about who has the right, I'm talking about are they making the right decisions and the correct USE of their rights?

If by using your rights you would condemn a man to death for paedophilia, then the answer is that you are using them irresponsibly.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Ok, I'll try to say it even clearer, so you can grasp it. You are missing the point here, Quiero. THEY think religion has a place in law because they are religious, correct? How fair is that to everyone who isn't religious? "You're being put to death for crimes against Allah.", "But I'm not religious.". Exactly.

Before you say "But you think religion has no place because you're NOT religious!", I'll say this: Murder, regardless of religion or not, is frowned upon and considered wrong, so it DOES apply to everyone. Gay marriage? Who says that is bad besides those who CHOOSE (remember, it is a choice) to believe in God? Whether you like it or not, love and affection is, weirdly, what religion's true purpose is. So why should there be laws, created due to a personal religious belief, be applied to EVERYONE? I might not believe in God, who are you to say "You can't do that because God doesn't like it."? If I don't believe in God, then what he does and doesn't like do not apply to me.

Do you understand? Whether the Saudi's agree with me or not, the fact is, religion is a chosen personal life path, and creating laws because of it is stupid, because then we all vicariously have to slightly follow that, regardless of wanting to or not.

It's probably some insecure Christian thing: "We can't prove God, so we'll just get laws passed.".

I'm not saying you're wrong or right. I made a true statement that religion IS the constitution in many countries. And they're not gonna change just because one kid thinks they should.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
What's your point? Just because they are doesn't mean they should be.

Leave my posts to someone who understands them please, Quiero.

-AC

That was my point. And yes, of course I understand your posts; what are you implying??

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I'm not saying you're wrong or right. I made a true statement that religion IS the constitution in many countries. And they're not gonna change just because one kid thinks they should.

Why would you make this point? No need for it, it has no bearing on or connection to, the point at hand. I'm not out to change them, or make them change, I'm proving that using religious belief to pass laws applicable to everyone is stupid.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
what are you implying??

That you don't understand my posts, as said.

-AC