This marks the 33rd anniversary of a death sentence that has now consumed the lives of over 40,000,000 unborn American children.
If you read this story, you will see how the entire effort to legalize abortion "infantcide" in our country was a carefully orchestrated event.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42462
In {Lk 13:25-27} we are reminded that many believe they will enter the gates of heaven and enjoy the company of the Saints and Prophets who share a place at the table with the Lord. But hardly will be the case-- as we know already how much Jesus loves the children and despises those who would harm a single hair on ones head. Or stand as witness but do little or nothing to prevent such harm.
"After the master of the house has arisen and locked the door, then will you stand outside knocking and saying "Lord, open the door for us." He will say to you in reply, "I do not know where you are from ". And you will say , "We ate and drank in your company and you taught in our streets." Then he will say to you, "I do not know where [you] are from. Depart from me, all you evildoers!"
Over 40,000,000 unborn childrens heads have not only had a hair harmed--but they have been wracked with pain as their tiny bodies were torn apart, and discarded as so much garbage.
I come to you through this blog begging that you take up the cross of these children's cause and do all you can to save as many of their precious lives as possible. Offer up different solutions to the women who feel that they must kill their babies because of no other choice. Not only may you save the babies life--but also the eternal lives of the women and yourself. Sitting on the sideline and watching the train wreck without lifting a finger or tongue to help will not get anyone through that narrow needle.
Our Savior spent his mission on earth saving our lives. The least we can do is save the lives he holds most precious in return. Think real hard on this one. Read the linked article several times. And I pray that you will do something to help end all celebrations of this evil anniversary. Find a black arm band and wear it this week. If someone asks you you mourn--speak up.
Yodi will be joining you --wearing a black band around his neck.
Saturday, January 21, 2006
Friday, January 20, 2006
The Catholic Church And the Death Penalty
My recent posts on this subject were intended to be the beginning of a series of posts concerning the sancity and dignity of life--itself. But my posts have brought some response to me in the form of e-mails and comments here, which evolved to the church and its interference with the publics right to execute people under their sovereign secular laws. Or at least that appears to me to be a valid question posed to me.
What does the church {Catholic Church} say about the death penalty? Well actually the thought process has evolved over time as society has evolved. Morality evolves as we humans become more capable of grasping "GOD'S" desire on these subjects.
Concerning capital punishment--the Church has asked whether society may take the life of the guilty? In answering-- the Church has always turned first to what "GOD" reveals to us in Sacred Scripture and Tradition. Yet Scripture alone is not conclusive on the matter. In the Old Testament-- the first murderer's punishment is not death. "GOD" cursed and banished Cain for slaying Abel-- but also threatened a sevenfold vengeance on anyone who harmed him (Gen 4:15). However, when Noah leaves the Ark-- the Lord blesses him and says to him: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for "GOD" made man in his own image."(Gen 9:6).
When "GOD" gives Moses the Ten Commandments, the prohibition against killing is not absolute. The ordinances given to Moses in conjunction with the commandments prescribe death for murderers and others. Despite this-- "GOD" occasionally calls for restraint and mercy. As He says to Ezekiel: "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn back from his ways and live"(Ez 33:11).
Like the Old Testament, the New Testament is not conclusive about capital punishment. On one hand-- Jesus certainly stresses the need to be merciful. Consider the parable of the wheat and the tares (Mt 13:24-30). In this parable, the wheat and the tares represent the righteous and the evildoers. Both are allowed to coexist. Unrepentant evildoers will be punished only at the end of time. The point is that ultimately "GOD" alone punishes grave offenders.
On the other hand-- Jesus seems to tolerate the practice of capital punishment. When Pilate tells Jesus he has the power to release him or have him crucified, Jesus answers: "You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above."(Jn 19:11) Jesus refers only to the divine basis of civil power, and does not judge the morality of capital punishment. Nor does he contradict the good thief crucified next to him: "We are receiving the due reward of our deeds---"(Lk 23:41)
St. Paul addresses the issue of capital punishment in his Letter to the Romans. He writes: "Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer." (Rom 13:3-4, emphasis added) Here St. Paul simply tolerates a ruler's authority to carry out capital punishment, without commenting on its morality. Certainly his toleration need not imply his approval.
Neither does the Church in the post-apostolic age establish a clear consensus regarding capital punishment. The views of this period range from accommodation to limited acceptance to outright prohibition of the practice. St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215) was the first Christian teacher to attempt to devise a theory accommodating capital punishment. He justified his position from the standpoint of self-defense. He suggested that one could become evil beyond any expectation for reform or "cure." In this case the evildoer may be removed by death to prevent further evildoing. He was the first to argue that an evildoer is like an infected limb that plagues the body. If it cannot be cured, the physician (the judge and executioner) must remove it to prevent the infection from harming the rest of the body (society). Others like Tertullian (c.160-220) and Origen (c.185-220) accepted capital punishment as a civil reality-- but condemned Christian participation in it. St. John Chrysostom (349-407) and St. Augustine (354-430) recognized the Christian emperor's "power of the sword," even while they thought its application severe on occasion. Still others like Lactantius (d.317) believed that the Fifth Commandment's prohibition against killing allowed no exceptions, even civil.
By the Middle Ages, Christians widely accepted the civil power's right to put evildoers to death. Even so-- the Church was quick to condition this right. St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), for example-- points out that only a public authority may judge and execute a serious offender where the society's defense is at stake, and where the offender's reform is not expected. St. Thomas leaves no room for private vigilantism.
Following St. Thomas, Catholic moral theologians down to our own day continued to qualify the situations where the death penalty may be applied. Eventually, they formulated three general prerequisites:
For the defense of society, only a public authority may impose capital punishment. This condition excludes both individual and mob acts of vengeance.
Capital punishment may be imposed only if it corresponds to the gravity of the crime. In peacetime, capital punishment is chiefly reserved for the crime of murder.
Capital punishment may be imposed only if the accused person's guilt is morally certain. In normal circumstances this means the accused has the right to a fair trial and a reasonable defense.
The Church Asks: Should We?
Up to this point, we have only examined whether-- according to Catholic teaching-- society has the right to impose capital punishment. There is another pertinent question Catholic teaching considers, namely-- "Should society exercise that right?" Those answering in the affirmative traditionally appeal to three arguments:
Capital punishment as retribution. It restores the balance of justice by inflicting punishment in exchange for the harm done to an individual and society. Opponents of this argument criticize it for being vindictive. They argue capital punishment cannot be applied in degrees. Yet a convict's culpability for a capital crime often does admit of degrees.
Capital punishment as deterrence. The threat of death discourages someone from committing heinous acts against individuals and society. Critics dispute the deterrent capability of capital punishment. They say capital punishment may even harden a criminal, who-- to avoid arrest and the prospect of execution-- is driven to further acts of desperation. Nor will capital punishment effectively deter murders committed "in the heat of passion"--or by the mentally ill or those under the influence of drugs. Finally, critics wonder how executions performed in the presence of just a few witnesses can publicly deter potential wrongdoers.
Capital punishment as reform. The threat of imminent death can spur the conversion and repentance of the convicted-- aptly preparing him or her for the next life. Yet, execution poignantly eliminates a converted criminal's period of earthly grace and penitence-- since one's lifetime is the only period of "probation" one can enjoy.
Authoritative Catholic teaching draws upon all that has been discussed thus far. It distinguishes between society's right to inflict capital punishment-- and the need to do so. While the Church does not deny the death penalty's proper legitimacy under certain conditions, she does oppose its modern application, given the particular circumstances of our culture.
Various national conferences of Catholic bishops have defended this teaching. The U.S. bishops have observed how the abolition of capital punishment would reaffirm the Church's teaching on "the unique worth and dignity of each human person from the moment of conception, a creature made in the image and likeness of God" (U.S. Bishops Statement on Capital Punishment, Nov. 1980). Along this line, the Filipino bishops have rejected the classic notion comparing a criminal execution to the removal of a diseased organ. They note that a "human being is not only a member of society as an organ is a member of a living body---". A human being has a value in himself/herself and is not---.a limb or organ---." ("Restoring the Death Penalty: 'A Backward Step,'" Catholic International, 15-31 Oct. 1992, Vol. 3 No. 18, pp. 886-887).
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, published during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II-- remains a definitive source of recent authoritative Catholic teaching on capital punishment. It states that the "defense of the common good requires that the unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm"(CCC 2266). The Catechism is clear about what this implies: "Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor" (CCC 2267).
Thus-- the right of civil society to inflict the death penalty is affirmed. In explaining the right, however-- the Catechism adds an important caveat: "If...non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person" (CCC 2267).
Papal teaching also plays a most instructive role in elaborating Catholic teaching on capital punishment. In Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul writes:
The nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: In other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare if not practically nonexistent (Evangelium Vitae, 56, emphasis added).
According to the Holy Father, a society's inability to protect itself by any other means is the determining factor in the decision to execute a criminal. Since our society can remove those guilty of serious offenses by means of life imprisonment, the Holy Father judges as negligible society's need to use the death penalty. Inflicting capital punishment when it is not necessary would transgress Catholic teaching. The pope's opposition to the use of the death penalty is therefore a legitimate exercise of his pastoral leadership as the Vicar of Christ on earth.
Finally-- Catholic teaching on capital punishment is an opportunity to examine our own attitudes. While we must show compassion for the victims of crime and support society's legitimate and just self-defense-- in Christ we are not free to direct revenge or hate toward anyone. This includes those guilty of criminal wrongdoing. To aid the new evangelization in the new millennium-- we must take the words of the American bishops' 1999 Good Friday Appeal to End the Death Penalty to heart:
Increasing reliance on the death penalty diminishes all of us and is a sign of growing disrespect for human life. We cannot overcome crime by simply executing criminals, nor can we restore the lives of the innocent by ending the lives of those convicted of their murders. The death penalty offers the tragic illusion that we can defend life by taking life--. Through education, through advocacy, and through prayer and contemplation on the life of Jesus-- we must commit ourselves to a persistent and principled witness against the death penalty-- against a culture of death, and for the Gospel of Life.
In my orginal post on this subject which did not include nor consider my church's position, I gave my own thoughts on this subject, as I do on all matters of life. I--after decades of thought and study have determined that it is best to always defer to life. That "GOD" is the ultimate judge and keeper of life and death. but i felt it is important to include this post from my soapbox --so that the subject can be contemplated from not only my point of view--but my church's point of view as well.
And it is now time for me to stumble off to bed and see if Yodi has left me any room for my weary body. He decided to take advantage of my late night musings to grab as much covers as possible.
Blessings my friends--
What does the church {Catholic Church} say about the death penalty? Well actually the thought process has evolved over time as society has evolved. Morality evolves as we humans become more capable of grasping "GOD'S" desire on these subjects.
Concerning capital punishment--the Church has asked whether society may take the life of the guilty? In answering-- the Church has always turned first to what "GOD" reveals to us in Sacred Scripture and Tradition. Yet Scripture alone is not conclusive on the matter. In the Old Testament-- the first murderer's punishment is not death. "GOD" cursed and banished Cain for slaying Abel-- but also threatened a sevenfold vengeance on anyone who harmed him (Gen 4:15). However, when Noah leaves the Ark-- the Lord blesses him and says to him: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for "GOD" made man in his own image."(Gen 9:6).
When "GOD" gives Moses the Ten Commandments, the prohibition against killing is not absolute. The ordinances given to Moses in conjunction with the commandments prescribe death for murderers and others. Despite this-- "GOD" occasionally calls for restraint and mercy. As He says to Ezekiel: "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn back from his ways and live"(Ez 33:11).
Like the Old Testament, the New Testament is not conclusive about capital punishment. On one hand-- Jesus certainly stresses the need to be merciful. Consider the parable of the wheat and the tares (Mt 13:24-30). In this parable, the wheat and the tares represent the righteous and the evildoers. Both are allowed to coexist. Unrepentant evildoers will be punished only at the end of time. The point is that ultimately "GOD" alone punishes grave offenders.
On the other hand-- Jesus seems to tolerate the practice of capital punishment. When Pilate tells Jesus he has the power to release him or have him crucified, Jesus answers: "You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above."(Jn 19:11) Jesus refers only to the divine basis of civil power, and does not judge the morality of capital punishment. Nor does he contradict the good thief crucified next to him: "We are receiving the due reward of our deeds---"(Lk 23:41)
St. Paul addresses the issue of capital punishment in his Letter to the Romans. He writes: "Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer." (Rom 13:3-4, emphasis added) Here St. Paul simply tolerates a ruler's authority to carry out capital punishment, without commenting on its morality. Certainly his toleration need not imply his approval.
Neither does the Church in the post-apostolic age establish a clear consensus regarding capital punishment. The views of this period range from accommodation to limited acceptance to outright prohibition of the practice. St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215) was the first Christian teacher to attempt to devise a theory accommodating capital punishment. He justified his position from the standpoint of self-defense. He suggested that one could become evil beyond any expectation for reform or "cure." In this case the evildoer may be removed by death to prevent further evildoing. He was the first to argue that an evildoer is like an infected limb that plagues the body. If it cannot be cured, the physician (the judge and executioner) must remove it to prevent the infection from harming the rest of the body (society). Others like Tertullian (c.160-220) and Origen (c.185-220) accepted capital punishment as a civil reality-- but condemned Christian participation in it. St. John Chrysostom (349-407) and St. Augustine (354-430) recognized the Christian emperor's "power of the sword," even while they thought its application severe on occasion. Still others like Lactantius (d.317) believed that the Fifth Commandment's prohibition against killing allowed no exceptions, even civil.
By the Middle Ages, Christians widely accepted the civil power's right to put evildoers to death. Even so-- the Church was quick to condition this right. St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), for example-- points out that only a public authority may judge and execute a serious offender where the society's defense is at stake, and where the offender's reform is not expected. St. Thomas leaves no room for private vigilantism.
Following St. Thomas, Catholic moral theologians down to our own day continued to qualify the situations where the death penalty may be applied. Eventually, they formulated three general prerequisites:
For the defense of society, only a public authority may impose capital punishment. This condition excludes both individual and mob acts of vengeance.
Capital punishment may be imposed only if it corresponds to the gravity of the crime. In peacetime, capital punishment is chiefly reserved for the crime of murder.
Capital punishment may be imposed only if the accused person's guilt is morally certain. In normal circumstances this means the accused has the right to a fair trial and a reasonable defense.
The Church Asks: Should We?
Up to this point, we have only examined whether-- according to Catholic teaching-- society has the right to impose capital punishment. There is another pertinent question Catholic teaching considers, namely-- "Should society exercise that right?" Those answering in the affirmative traditionally appeal to three arguments:
Capital punishment as retribution. It restores the balance of justice by inflicting punishment in exchange for the harm done to an individual and society. Opponents of this argument criticize it for being vindictive. They argue capital punishment cannot be applied in degrees. Yet a convict's culpability for a capital crime often does admit of degrees.
Capital punishment as deterrence. The threat of death discourages someone from committing heinous acts against individuals and society. Critics dispute the deterrent capability of capital punishment. They say capital punishment may even harden a criminal, who-- to avoid arrest and the prospect of execution-- is driven to further acts of desperation. Nor will capital punishment effectively deter murders committed "in the heat of passion"--or by the mentally ill or those under the influence of drugs. Finally, critics wonder how executions performed in the presence of just a few witnesses can publicly deter potential wrongdoers.
Capital punishment as reform. The threat of imminent death can spur the conversion and repentance of the convicted-- aptly preparing him or her for the next life. Yet, execution poignantly eliminates a converted criminal's period of earthly grace and penitence-- since one's lifetime is the only period of "probation" one can enjoy.
Authoritative Catholic teaching draws upon all that has been discussed thus far. It distinguishes between society's right to inflict capital punishment-- and the need to do so. While the Church does not deny the death penalty's proper legitimacy under certain conditions, she does oppose its modern application, given the particular circumstances of our culture.
Various national conferences of Catholic bishops have defended this teaching. The U.S. bishops have observed how the abolition of capital punishment would reaffirm the Church's teaching on "the unique worth and dignity of each human person from the moment of conception, a creature made in the image and likeness of God" (U.S. Bishops Statement on Capital Punishment, Nov. 1980). Along this line, the Filipino bishops have rejected the classic notion comparing a criminal execution to the removal of a diseased organ. They note that a "human being is not only a member of society as an organ is a member of a living body---". A human being has a value in himself/herself and is not---.a limb or organ---." ("Restoring the Death Penalty: 'A Backward Step,'" Catholic International, 15-31 Oct. 1992, Vol. 3 No. 18, pp. 886-887).
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, published during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II-- remains a definitive source of recent authoritative Catholic teaching on capital punishment. It states that the "defense of the common good requires that the unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm"(CCC 2266). The Catechism is clear about what this implies: "Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor" (CCC 2267).
Thus-- the right of civil society to inflict the death penalty is affirmed. In explaining the right, however-- the Catechism adds an important caveat: "If...non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person" (CCC 2267).
Papal teaching also plays a most instructive role in elaborating Catholic teaching on capital punishment. In Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul writes:
The nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: In other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare if not practically nonexistent (Evangelium Vitae, 56, emphasis added).
According to the Holy Father, a society's inability to protect itself by any other means is the determining factor in the decision to execute a criminal. Since our society can remove those guilty of serious offenses by means of life imprisonment, the Holy Father judges as negligible society's need to use the death penalty. Inflicting capital punishment when it is not necessary would transgress Catholic teaching. The pope's opposition to the use of the death penalty is therefore a legitimate exercise of his pastoral leadership as the Vicar of Christ on earth.
Finally-- Catholic teaching on capital punishment is an opportunity to examine our own attitudes. While we must show compassion for the victims of crime and support society's legitimate and just self-defense-- in Christ we are not free to direct revenge or hate toward anyone. This includes those guilty of criminal wrongdoing. To aid the new evangelization in the new millennium-- we must take the words of the American bishops' 1999 Good Friday Appeal to End the Death Penalty to heart:
Increasing reliance on the death penalty diminishes all of us and is a sign of growing disrespect for human life. We cannot overcome crime by simply executing criminals, nor can we restore the lives of the innocent by ending the lives of those convicted of their murders. The death penalty offers the tragic illusion that we can defend life by taking life--. Through education, through advocacy, and through prayer and contemplation on the life of Jesus-- we must commit ourselves to a persistent and principled witness against the death penalty-- against a culture of death, and for the Gospel of Life.
In my orginal post on this subject which did not include nor consider my church's position, I gave my own thoughts on this subject, as I do on all matters of life. I--after decades of thought and study have determined that it is best to always defer to life. That "GOD" is the ultimate judge and keeper of life and death. but i felt it is important to include this post from my soapbox --so that the subject can be contemplated from not only my point of view--but my church's point of view as well.
And it is now time for me to stumble off to bed and see if Yodi has left me any room for my weary body. He decided to take advantage of my late night musings to grab as much covers as possible.
Blessings my friends--
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
The Death Penalty ---Some Answers To The Readers Comments
I have had some e-mails and PM's regarding yesterdays blog concerning captital punishment. The one comment left here brings up the arena of the Holy bible and questions whether i believe "GOD" is a sinner or whether Paul covered this topic in detail.
So the question at hand would be--how can the Bible enlighten this profound dilemma?
Often we hear the Bible quoted as a justification for capital punishment: "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth" (from Leviticus 24:20; also Exodus 21:24). This follows a more direct passage: "Whoever takes the life of any human being shall be put to death" (Leviticus 24:17).
Numerous problems, however, arise from such an appeal to Scripture. Those who emphasize these passages conveniently ignore other similar passages in which death is decreed for one who works on the sabbath (Exodus 31:15) or for one who curses one's parent (Exodus 21:17) or even for a rebellious teenager (Deuteronomy 21:18-21).
More significant problems exist, including the proper understanding and interpretation of both texts and contexts. The well-known "eye for eye" passage was originally intended to limit violence by reducing the escalation of violence. In {Matthew 5:38-42}, Jesus disallows even that limited violence. This example reminds us that culture and historical setting influenced the biblical texts and that some biblical passages reflect an earlier moral perspective no longer acceptable.
Let us take another biblical passage that all of us are intimately familiar with. It is commonly referred to as "The Lords Prayer". It is found in Matthew 6 and let us dwell on verse 12--"and forgive us our depts as we forgive our deptors". what was our Lord thinking when he said that? To forgive! Yes--our Lord Jesus christ taught forgiveness throughout his life. Turn now to {Mark 10:45}. Jesus himself states that he has not come to be served but to give his life for the ransom of many. Once again his teaching concerns forgiveness.
My church has spoken out repeatedly against the death penalty--but in actuality nobody can speak for you or me when it comes to our personal values and application of faith in our daily lives. I personally believe in the dignity and value of the human life. It is why I so object to wars between nations and why I object to socities war against the individual who commits crimes and end up executed at the hands of society. I have chosen to emulate my Lord Jesus Christ in my life to the best of my ability. This requires that I respect the sancity of life--not because my church or others insist--but because I follow the example of my Savior. I must drop everything of human nature and take on the aspects of divine traits if I am to follow him as he commanded. Love, forgiveness, turning my cheek, humility, compassion, wisdom, and understanding are all traits that lead to divine justice here on earth.
I know that I can find passages within scripture to justify evil as well as good. Evil in the sense of taking anothers life for revenge sake cloaked however I may to resemble punishment. I will leave the punishment of death to "GOD" while living and teaching my Saviors Beatitudes found in Matthew 5 and remembering the parable of the weeds in {Matthew 13:24-30}. I recognize that evil exists and I'm content in removing those expressing it to prison and allowing "GOD" to separate the weeds at harvest time.
This is an emotional topic Yodi, but I do believe that Love and Forgiveness will win in the end. By the wagging tail it appears you agree.
So the question at hand would be--how can the Bible enlighten this profound dilemma?
Often we hear the Bible quoted as a justification for capital punishment: "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth" (from Leviticus 24:20; also Exodus 21:24). This follows a more direct passage: "Whoever takes the life of any human being shall be put to death" (Leviticus 24:17).
Numerous problems, however, arise from such an appeal to Scripture. Those who emphasize these passages conveniently ignore other similar passages in which death is decreed for one who works on the sabbath (Exodus 31:15) or for one who curses one's parent (Exodus 21:17) or even for a rebellious teenager (Deuteronomy 21:18-21).
More significant problems exist, including the proper understanding and interpretation of both texts and contexts. The well-known "eye for eye" passage was originally intended to limit violence by reducing the escalation of violence. In {Matthew 5:38-42}, Jesus disallows even that limited violence. This example reminds us that culture and historical setting influenced the biblical texts and that some biblical passages reflect an earlier moral perspective no longer acceptable.
Let us take another biblical passage that all of us are intimately familiar with. It is commonly referred to as "The Lords Prayer". It is found in Matthew 6 and let us dwell on verse 12--"and forgive us our depts as we forgive our deptors". what was our Lord thinking when he said that? To forgive! Yes--our Lord Jesus christ taught forgiveness throughout his life. Turn now to {Mark 10:45}. Jesus himself states that he has not come to be served but to give his life for the ransom of many. Once again his teaching concerns forgiveness.
My church has spoken out repeatedly against the death penalty--but in actuality nobody can speak for you or me when it comes to our personal values and application of faith in our daily lives. I personally believe in the dignity and value of the human life. It is why I so object to wars between nations and why I object to socities war against the individual who commits crimes and end up executed at the hands of society. I have chosen to emulate my Lord Jesus Christ in my life to the best of my ability. This requires that I respect the sancity of life--not because my church or others insist--but because I follow the example of my Savior. I must drop everything of human nature and take on the aspects of divine traits if I am to follow him as he commanded. Love, forgiveness, turning my cheek, humility, compassion, wisdom, and understanding are all traits that lead to divine justice here on earth.
I know that I can find passages within scripture to justify evil as well as good. Evil in the sense of taking anothers life for revenge sake cloaked however I may to resemble punishment. I will leave the punishment of death to "GOD" while living and teaching my Saviors Beatitudes found in Matthew 5 and remembering the parable of the weeds in {Matthew 13:24-30}. I recognize that evil exists and I'm content in removing those expressing it to prison and allowing "GOD" to separate the weeds at harvest time.
This is an emotional topic Yodi, but I do believe that Love and Forgiveness will win in the end. By the wagging tail it appears you agree.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Death Penalty---Justice Or Revenge?
California coreection authorities executed a blind, deaf, wheelchair bound prisoner by the name of Clarence Ray Allen. If anything proves that the death penalty is a monumental error on the part of our society it is this case.
Yes--He was convicted of horrible crimes. Yes--be was not a model example of human behavior. Yes--anytime a person is murdered it causes a hole in the victims family along with much grief and sorrow. Is grief and sorrow a reason for revenge? I don't believe they are.
As a society we need penal institutions to protect us from those who would prey on us and harm us. We need to have the ability to separate out those incapable of conforming to just laws of human behavior. Sometimes a stint in the pokey will be enough for a person to re-habilitate themselves. Nobody and no system can do this for a person. All behavior changes come from within.
There are some like Mr. Allen who commit savage and brutal attacks which require special attention. We have the modern means to remove them forever from society and eliminate their ability forever to afflict others with more harm.
Taking their lives however is not a just or moral action. Many probably feel like wringing the neck of a person who causes so much grief. This anger however-- if reduced to legal action through legislative laws can morph into the same type of activity with which Mr. Allen stands guilty of. Murder. The willfull taking of anothers life.
Life belongs to "GOD". He breathes us each into life and he takes this life back at in his own time. We live this life and all its laughter and sorrow from beginning to end. We must deal with grief as well as we do with happiness. They are both parts of the human experience--lifes mystery. Suffering and murder are a part of this fallen state we live in. We must learn to deal with it. And in the case of people like Mr. Allen--putting him permanently away where he can ponder his crimes, rehabilitate or not his own being, and await his final judgement is moral and just. Certainly Mr. allen was not a threat to human life yesterday while confined to his wheelchair unable to see or hear.
Executing Mr. Allen did not remove a threat nor fill the hole created by his actions. Instead it now made us all agents of revenge. Revenge itself is a grievious sin. So now we get to deal the sin society has visited us each with. The sin of taking anothers life. I don't know what "GOD" will say to me over Mr. Allens death. Or the death of so many more executed prisoners. But I feel he will view it as a failure on my part and yours to deal with lifes mystery of grief and angerby intruding into his domain of life and death.
Justice is taking legal action to prevent a person from continuing illegal activity through fines and incarceration. Revenge accomplishes none of this. Revenge is a sin.
OK Yodi, help me pull in the soapbox and we can now go for a walk.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calif. Executes Oldest Death Row Inmate
SAN QUENTIN, Calif. (AP) - California executed its oldest death row inmate early Tuesday, minutes after his 76th birthday, despite arguments that putting to death an elderly, blind and wheelchair-bound man was cruel and unusual punishment.
Clarence Ray Allen was pronounced dead at 12:38 a.m. at San Quentin State Prison. He became the second-oldest inmate put to death nationally since the Supreme Court allowed capital punishment to resume in 1976.
Allen, who was blind and mostly deaf, suffered from diabetes and had a nearly fatal heart attack in September only to be revived and returned to death row, was assisted into the death chamber by four large correctional officers and lifted out of his wheelchair.
His lawyers had raised two claims never before endorsed by the high court: that executing a frail old man would violate the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment, and that the 23 years he spent on death row were unconstitutionally cruel as well.
(AP) Death penalty opponent Linda Avalos gives the peace sign as she holds a sign in front of San...
Full Image
The high court rejected his requests for a stay of execution about 10 hours before he was to be put to death. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger denied Allen clemency Friday.
Allen went to prison for having his teenage son's 17-year-old girlfriend murdered for fear she would tell police about a grocery-store burglary. While behind bars, he tried to have witnesses in the case wiped out, prosecutors said. He was sentenced to death in 1982 for hiring a hit man who killed a witness and two bystanders.
"Allen deserves capital punishment because he was already serving a life sentence for murder when he masterminded the murders of three innocent young people and conspired to attack the heart of our criminal justice system," state prosecutor Ward Campbell said.
Allen expressed his love for family, friends and the other death-row inmates in a final statement read by Warden Steve Ornoski. Allen ended his statement by saying, "It's a good day to die. Thank you very much. I love you all. Goodbye."
The family of one of Allen's victims, Josephine Rocha, issued a statement saying that "justice has prevailed today."
"Mr. Allen abused the justice system with endless appeals until he lived longer in prison than the short 17 years of Josephine's life," the statement said.
Last month in Mississippi, John B. Nixon, 77, became the oldest person executed in the United States since capital punishment resumed. He did not pursue an appeal based on his age.
Allen's case generated less attention than last month's execution of Crips gang co-founder Stanley Tookie Williams, whose case set off a nationwide debate over the possibility of redemption on death row, with Hollywood stars and capital punishment foes arguing that Williams had made amends by writing children's books about the dangers of gangs.
There were only about 200 people gathered outside the prison gates before Allen's execution, about one-tenth of the crowd that came out last month.
Yes--He was convicted of horrible crimes. Yes--be was not a model example of human behavior. Yes--anytime a person is murdered it causes a hole in the victims family along with much grief and sorrow. Is grief and sorrow a reason for revenge? I don't believe they are.
As a society we need penal institutions to protect us from those who would prey on us and harm us. We need to have the ability to separate out those incapable of conforming to just laws of human behavior. Sometimes a stint in the pokey will be enough for a person to re-habilitate themselves. Nobody and no system can do this for a person. All behavior changes come from within.
There are some like Mr. Allen who commit savage and brutal attacks which require special attention. We have the modern means to remove them forever from society and eliminate their ability forever to afflict others with more harm.
Taking their lives however is not a just or moral action. Many probably feel like wringing the neck of a person who causes so much grief. This anger however-- if reduced to legal action through legislative laws can morph into the same type of activity with which Mr. Allen stands guilty of. Murder. The willfull taking of anothers life.
Life belongs to "GOD". He breathes us each into life and he takes this life back at in his own time. We live this life and all its laughter and sorrow from beginning to end. We must deal with grief as well as we do with happiness. They are both parts of the human experience--lifes mystery. Suffering and murder are a part of this fallen state we live in. We must learn to deal with it. And in the case of people like Mr. Allen--putting him permanently away where he can ponder his crimes, rehabilitate or not his own being, and await his final judgement is moral and just. Certainly Mr. allen was not a threat to human life yesterday while confined to his wheelchair unable to see or hear.
Executing Mr. Allen did not remove a threat nor fill the hole created by his actions. Instead it now made us all agents of revenge. Revenge itself is a grievious sin. So now we get to deal the sin society has visited us each with. The sin of taking anothers life. I don't know what "GOD" will say to me over Mr. Allens death. Or the death of so many more executed prisoners. But I feel he will view it as a failure on my part and yours to deal with lifes mystery of grief and angerby intruding into his domain of life and death.
Justice is taking legal action to prevent a person from continuing illegal activity through fines and incarceration. Revenge accomplishes none of this. Revenge is a sin.
OK Yodi, help me pull in the soapbox and we can now go for a walk.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calif. Executes Oldest Death Row Inmate
SAN QUENTIN, Calif. (AP) - California executed its oldest death row inmate early Tuesday, minutes after his 76th birthday, despite arguments that putting to death an elderly, blind and wheelchair-bound man was cruel and unusual punishment.
Clarence Ray Allen was pronounced dead at 12:38 a.m. at San Quentin State Prison. He became the second-oldest inmate put to death nationally since the Supreme Court allowed capital punishment to resume in 1976.
Allen, who was blind and mostly deaf, suffered from diabetes and had a nearly fatal heart attack in September only to be revived and returned to death row, was assisted into the death chamber by four large correctional officers and lifted out of his wheelchair.
His lawyers had raised two claims never before endorsed by the high court: that executing a frail old man would violate the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment, and that the 23 years he spent on death row were unconstitutionally cruel as well.
(AP) Death penalty opponent Linda Avalos gives the peace sign as she holds a sign in front of San...
Full Image
The high court rejected his requests for a stay of execution about 10 hours before he was to be put to death. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger denied Allen clemency Friday.
Allen went to prison for having his teenage son's 17-year-old girlfriend murdered for fear she would tell police about a grocery-store burglary. While behind bars, he tried to have witnesses in the case wiped out, prosecutors said. He was sentenced to death in 1982 for hiring a hit man who killed a witness and two bystanders.
"Allen deserves capital punishment because he was already serving a life sentence for murder when he masterminded the murders of three innocent young people and conspired to attack the heart of our criminal justice system," state prosecutor Ward Campbell said.
Allen expressed his love for family, friends and the other death-row inmates in a final statement read by Warden Steve Ornoski. Allen ended his statement by saying, "It's a good day to die. Thank you very much. I love you all. Goodbye."
The family of one of Allen's victims, Josephine Rocha, issued a statement saying that "justice has prevailed today."
"Mr. Allen abused the justice system with endless appeals until he lived longer in prison than the short 17 years of Josephine's life," the statement said.
Last month in Mississippi, John B. Nixon, 77, became the oldest person executed in the United States since capital punishment resumed. He did not pursue an appeal based on his age.
Allen's case generated less attention than last month's execution of Crips gang co-founder Stanley Tookie Williams, whose case set off a nationwide debate over the possibility of redemption on death row, with Hollywood stars and capital punishment foes arguing that Williams had made amends by writing children's books about the dangers of gangs.
There were only about 200 people gathered outside the prison gates before Allen's execution, about one-tenth of the crowd that came out last month.
Monday, January 09, 2006
------"so help me God"
Finally something happened to inspire me to add a few words to this blog.
Today I spent time listening too and watching the beginning Senate confirmation hearings for Sam Alito to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court
Just after the Senators had given their opening remarks and as Mr. alito was about to sit down and begin his opening remarks--he was stopped in his tracks by the Senator in charge of the proceedings. Why? Well because the oath of truth had not been given to Mr. Alito.
With all the warnings I had just been given by some Senate Democrats concerning seperation of church and state, not a peep of protest did I hear when these words were given while Sam Alito stood with his right hand raised.
"DO YOU PROMISE TO TELL THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH SO HELP YOU---"GOD"
Yes, before Sam Alito could testify at all he had to swear to tell the truth with the assistance of "GOD"
How is that Yodi for a twist to todays events?
Today I spent time listening too and watching the beginning Senate confirmation hearings for Sam Alito to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court
Just after the Senators had given their opening remarks and as Mr. alito was about to sit down and begin his opening remarks--he was stopped in his tracks by the Senator in charge of the proceedings. Why? Well because the oath of truth had not been given to Mr. Alito.
With all the warnings I had just been given by some Senate Democrats concerning seperation of church and state, not a peep of protest did I hear when these words were given while Sam Alito stood with his right hand raised.
"DO YOU PROMISE TO TELL THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH SO HELP YOU---"GOD"
Yes, before Sam Alito could testify at all he had to swear to tell the truth with the assistance of "GOD"
How is that Yodi for a twist to todays events?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)