Yet many U.S. Catholics are firmly in favor of the death penalty. It was John Paul's position that countries with modern penal faculties did not have to resort to execution in order to protect the safety of the general population.

Your own text excerpt makes that explicit.

have no excuse according to the statements of these 3 to have capital punishment. We are fully capable of protecting society at large with our massive penal system.

that life is sacred, so capital punishment is wrong. This is a modern teaching, and does not approve of past practices of things like burning heretics at the stake.

Unfortunately, it also teaches that life begins at conception, so abortion is also wrong. But, I have never understood why they take more time railing over abortion than over capital punishment.

Quaker teachings condemn violence, but add that having committed a crime does not automatically reduce the worth of a person. Killing the killer eliminates any possibility of redemption, and is in that way possibly a greater crime than the original one.

just because of the numbers.

Catholics, including leaders, still protest executions.

Yes he would support it, a god who will cast you in the lake of fire for all eternity for not accepting him as your savior would have little tolerance for murderers.

I also recall, (it's been a while my apologies if I am off a bit in the quote) that before his crucifixion Jesus told his supporters that they had lacked for nothing even when they nothing while they were with him, but since he was leaving they would need money and they would need a weapon, he encouraged them to sell their cloaks if they didn't have a sword and to buy a sword.

At that time a sword was a weapon that allowed for lethal force in defense, it's clear to me that Jesus meant to tell his disciples they should be prepared to defend themselves with deadly weapons once Jesus was no longer there to protect them.

That's a god who understands the world is a dangerous place and a wise man arms himself and uses deadly force to protect himself when his god is not present to protect him.

That god doesn't seem like one opposed to killing when appropriate.

When I read the new testament I don't see a kumbaya singing peaceful Jesus. I see a strong willed radical attacking the power systems of his day, trying to bring down those institutions of corruption and sin. That's not work suited to a mild mannered milquetoast of a savior, it's work more suited to a fiery tempered agitator....

Just my view of course and probably incorrect.

You know, the turn the other cheek thing. And the "he who is without sin should cast the first stone".

There are many ways to interpret the story about buying a sword. The consensus seems to be that this was more symbolic and not an instruction to kill anyone.

A pacifist is not necessarily a "milquetoast". One can be fiery tempered, but not violent.

I think MLK took his position of non-violent resistance from what he understood about Jesus.

Some folks think that Matthew 5:17-5:18 --"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished." mean that he was not retracting the Old Testament for the purpose of repealing the death penalty but that this passage was an affirmation of the death penalty.

Also this passage, "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword." is an affirmation of the death penalty as used against those who commit violence with a sword...

MLK, Ghandi, Mandela all understood that non-violence was the appropriate tool for their time periods and their particular circumstances. None of those men were in any way shape or form milquetoats. Nor would I ever attempt to state they were, some of MLKs writing suggest his thought process on non-violence was to hate the action but not those perpetrating the action. That's a powerful tool but only effective when your opponent is respectful, to some degree, of the negative publicity caused by perpetrating violence against peaceful resistance.

I would suggest that non-violent resistance in the middle east has not been successful, nor will it be and that means that resistance has to take another form. The choices are acquiescence or armed resistance, acquiescence usually means the same in the middle east as it did in many South American countries. Lots of bodies.

Violence is appropriate as a response to violence when the alternative will only lead to the deaths of those practicing non-violence resistance without advancing theirr cause. I realize not everyone believes that, and that's a good thing. Violence is difficult to perpetrate long term, and the resulting damage to your humanity never leaves you.

I don't necessarily read those passages as affirming the death penalty.

And those that you cite who have taken position of non-violent resistance don't seem to read it that way either.

There is a difference between taking the position that violence is sometimes necessary and the position that the death penalty is just.

The death penalty being just is the big concern. I think we are all aware of the shortcomings of the so-called justice system in the United States, for far too long you get the justice you can afford.

Having said that, there are some people who you can't control even with a 24 hour a day lockdown, because at some point you have to let them shower. I've said it in other posts as well, the Aryan Brotherhood made a point of killing 3 guards on the same day at roughly the same time in 3 maximum security prisons. These were facilities where inmates are shackled at the feet and the waist before being allowed out of their cells and the Aryans still found a way to get these guards killed. The killers were all men serving life without chance of parole. They run their gangs from prison and order hits all across the nation's prisons.

What is your plan for controlling these men if not the death penalty? If 24 hour a day lockdown in a maximum security facility doesn't prevent attacks what will prevent these attacks?

I don't advocate this lightly and I am sorry if it seems I am coming across that way, I see no benefit to our society or our nation in the use of resources for these violent prison gang members. If resources are infinite perhaps a case could be made for considering keeping these monsters alive, with finite resources it means we are not spending the money on rehabilitating those prisoners who will be returned to society at some point. That means we are condemning those we fail to rehabilitate to another prison sentence when we fail to prepare them for release. That seems truly unjust to me, denying a fair second chance to those who might deserve that second chance a realistic opportunity for redemption.

I understand you believe in redemption, I am glad you do our world needs more people like you and far less like me.

For me a violent, rabid human has no more value than a violent, rabid animal.

While it brings me no joy to destroy that animal the task must be done and done quickly.

I have personally dealt with those that are truly sociopathic and those who suffer from serious psychiatric disorders that make them extremely dangerous.

I'm not sure either of these groups are "redemptive".

Still, I do not think I have the right to determine their worth or whether they should live or die.

They are humans, and while humans are animals, they are not "animals" in the way that you use the term.

A violent dog is not the same as a violent human.

Perhaps I misunderstood your position, I am not long posting on this site. Mostly I read and consider and only recently discovered this aspect of the web site. It seemed from some of your links that you have some belief in a higher power, whether god or not.

As you mentioned Jesus I assumed you would believe that redemption is possible for all sinners. I should not have inferred such without asking you if that were so.

No offense meant.

For me humans are animals, and some of the worse animals to ever occupy this planet.

Being the apex predators grants no special privilege, if I am comfortable killing a dog that won't stop biting the neighbors I am equally comfortable with the idea there is nothing inherently wrong with killing a human that won't stop victimizing other humans.

I do not hold personal beliefs in a god, but I am an advocate for those that do.

No offense taken. It is often assumed that I am personally religious.

Agree that being top of the food chain grants no special privilege, but it does grant very special powers.

I, unlike you, must draw the line at killing other humans.

Were I a believer, I would be more concerned for the souls of those that perform executions than those executed.

what did that mean?

It seems a total disconnect to me. My take on the historical Jesus is that he would oppose the deliberate taking of a life as punishment.

That said, there are many standouts in a lot of faiths who are or were adamantly opposed.

You know he came not to bring peace but a sword, fulfilled the Law and the Prophets (both of which supported capital punishment).

It is true he save the woman taken in adultery by asking only one without sin to cast the first stone (good thing Mary wasn't nearby) but never condemned executions that will have occurred for other crimes.

or maybe you don't-- that the gospels are the Reader's Digest Condensed version? Even modern writers let one incident stand for many unstated ones in the interest of maintaining interest or keeping page count down.

Jesus's comment on deadly violence is shown silently but vividly when he heals the soldier whose ear Peter lops off.

Let's first deal with the soldier whose ear was lopped off - that is very late addition, only appears in one Gospel and bears close similarity to the legends of Dionysius. There is also the minor point that Jesus supposedly told his disciples to buy the weapons in the first place!

On to your attempt to excuse the Gospels ...

The only evidences of the existence of Christ are in the Gospels. There is nothing outside the Gospels that supports the existence of the Christ. Similarly the only record of his teachings are the New Testament and those include some incredibly dubious and much later material. Many of Jesus' supposedly unique teachings were common currency at or before his time; most, if not all, the parables seem to have been used by Rabbis before Jesus.

The early epistles (all Pauline) do not identify the Christ as being a real person tending to emphasize him as a Platonic ideal and even the Crucifixion is not identified as actually happening. As far as I recall there are 6 passing references to crucifixion in the earliest Pauline epistles and none of them treat it as any more as a metaphor or a description of the suffering this world inflicts upon believers. The later Pauline Epistles all show signs of heavier later editing - where they are not (as the polite scholarly phrase has it) pseudepigraphic (forgeries).

Given your confession that the Gospels cannot be trusted, on what are Christians supposed to base their faith? Is it the traditional teachings of a Church? If so which Church?

Perhaps believers should submit to the guidance of those in authority? In which case how do you know they are guiding you truly?

Or perhaps personal revelation is the key, if so remember your revelation is not mine and no-one has any duty to accept your revelation as a guide.

There is also a problem that if these last 3 instances are your guide to faith, why cannot the bible be discarded in its entirety?

any position they choose and proclaim it to be the true revealed truth. At least the fundies take an honest stand, although one that cannot stand up to examination as it is full of hopeless contradictions and absurd impossibilities and indefensible moral edicts.

I don't get into it with creationists or folk spouting mythicist woo. No rational basis for discussion.

How am I putting forward mythicist (???) woo. All I say is that Jesus as described in the Gospels did not exist. There was no miracle worker, no Virgin birth, no massacre of the innocents, no child amazing the scholars at the temple, no walking on the water, no feeding of the x-thousand and so on.

What I do think is that:
1) there was a man whose name came to be transliterated as Jesus;
2) he gathered some followers one of whom was James (who might have been his literal brother);
3) he taught a standard apocalyptic message although whether it was in relation to Pharisaical or Roman governance is unknown;
4) he raised some ruckus in Jerusalem possibly in the Temple which attracted the attention of the Roman Governor;
5) he was executed as a insurrectionist.

No non-literalist biblical scholar I have met or read has ever said the Jesus of the Gospels is an accurate account of the actual man. Ehrman, who insists that a Jesus must have actually founded the Jewish movement that became the Christian faith, admits that the Gospel and Epistolatory descriptions of Jesus owe much to:
1) pre-existing legends;
2) Kabalist mysticism;
3) Greek and Roman philosophy;
4) pre-existing Rabbinic teachings;
5) pre-existing Rabbinic parables;
6) accretion of biographical details from other Jewish sectaries.

My comment about the early epistles of Paul are well attested and (if you actually bother reading them) at no point indicate that the Saviour is the same as the man. Paul also makes no bones about his conflicts with the Jewish followers of Jesus - who, unlike Paul, were the ones who actually met with the man.

At least, Christians in America don't.

"A survey conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that white evangelical Christians are more likely to support torture than people who rarely or never attend religious services.

The survey said that 62 percent of white evangelical Protestants say that the use of torture against suspected terrorists can be often or sometimes justified in order to gain important information.
"
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/22/torture.christian/

Though, I was surprised the non-affiliated number was as high as 40%. In this case, I assume the problem is perhaps influenced by religion, but largely cultural.

I am against it.

You can never make right, or get justice for an innocent person killed by the state.

And I have it on good authority (my wife) that Jesus ain't too cool with it, either.

Probably because he didn't think to write any of this really important stuff down himself, and neither did anyone who knew him personally.

With all the good, objective reasons we have to oppose the death penalty, I can't help but think I couldn't give a flying fuck in a hurricane what Jesus had to say about it.

I think there is an argument to be made as to why this may be important.

If evangelical or fundamentalists sometimes base their political positions on the teachings of Jesus, and if you are invested in outlawing the death penalty in this country, there may be very good reasons to present a position that Jesus would have opposed it.

Basing policy on a religious belief is always wrong, no matter if we progressives agree with it or not.

The bigger argument that we all need to be making is that the use of religion to drive legislation is always wrong. ALWAYS. Keep religion out of government. It's what Jefferson and Madison made clear when they created this republic. That has been lost.

So, I suggest that if you are interested in building the voting bloc on this issue, you speak to them in a language they understand.

BTW, this really isn't about secularism as you define it at all. It is about people's individual beliefs and how it might affect their personal voting decisions. I would suggest that everyone's personal voting decision is based on their personal beliefs.

Because liberal Christians have been doing such a bangup job of that so far.

Not sure what you mean.

Presenting the argument that a policy position is consistent with their individual beliefs could be very effective.

Why the slam on liberal christians? They are on the fore front of some major movements for civil liberties and social justice in this country, as well as some of the primary activists in the area of the death penalty.

Maybe it is dismissing and attacking of them that is really doing the bang-up job?

You're telling them their reading of scripture is incorrect, that they should change their political position because that's what Jesus wants. Sounds like proselytizing to me.

I don't think that most people in favor of the death penalty base it on scripture at all.

Hell, they don't even base it on the positions of their churches in most instances (see: Catholic church stance on death penalty).

I am merely stating that making the case their Jesus would have most likely opposed it is a good case to make.

I guess you can go on attacking the liberal/progressive activist religious people and groups if it suits some agenda of yours.

But it sure doesn't suit mine. I'm going to support them every chance I get.

I'm not holding you and your ilk personally responsible for the lack of the religious left's effectiveness of the last four decades. That is multifactorial and includes their own complacency.

But lack of support and outward hostility towards them by people on the left, such as seen here on a daily basis, certainly hasn't helped.

Well, it hasn't helped our (liberal/progressive) side at any rate.

And I don't have an ax to grind with the Christian Left. Generally speaking, they support the same things I do, and I'm glad for that. It should go without saying that I wasn't brought up an atheist, and that a great many of my extended family members are themselves liberal Christians. I don't dislike them as individuals, nor do I want to exclude them from the progressive movement.

I support a secular system, one in which public policy matters are decided by public utility, not religious preference. I contend the problem with the religious right isn't so much that they're practicing Christianity "incorrectly" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean), but that they are attempting to legislate their inane religion, or trying to justify their inane legislation with religion. Religious arguments are bad arguments, regardless of the policy being proposed. I don't know where Christian liberals get off criticizing the religious right for legislating their religious morality if they're going to turn around and do the same goddamn thing. Do you think the religious right won't see the hypocrisy in that?

Lastly, I'm not necessarily slamming the Christian Left for failing to counter the Christian Right. Rather, I take issue with the notion that the Christian Left is capable of such a feat in the first place. If they were, I think they would have done it by now. But they haven't. Christianity has had two thousand years to get its shit together, and, frankly, I'm starting to get tired of people saying, "just give it a few years and everything will be better."

We've given it more than a few years. It's time we tried something else.

If we can't take the goofy religion out of people, then at the very least we can keep the religion out of politics. To implement such a thing justly and fairly means, ipso facto, liberal believers are going to have to live by the same rules. It doesn't mean they have to stop believing Jesus would have opposed the death penalty, it merely means that in the public discourse, those beliefs will have to play second fiddle to real, measurable, objective reasons to oppose the death penalty.

that people's individual beliefs, be they religious or not, will influence their political positions.

I don't see any problem with that and to insist that people should leave their beliefs at the door when engaging in politics, is, well, ridiculous. I doubt that you do that.

But that is different than trying to legislate one's religion and on that I suspect we completely agree.

There is room in the public arena for both religious and on-religious people to engage and work together on issues that they share. There were religious people and groups that played important roles in the OWS movement across the country.

To insist that religious people drop the things that motivate them or to exclude them because of their beliefs is non-sensical. It's like asking people to be closeted or something.